Surely you jest. The N64 was a serious piece of kit. Remember when Ocarina first came out? How incredibly, spectacularly gorgeous it was Well, it honeslty looked pretty naff at the time to me.
The Playstation had about a two year headstart IIRC, and was far better, the Atai Jaugar was also superior (though it was far less sucessful of course) even the 3D stuff on the Saturn (like Saturn Wipeout) while it didn't rival the PS was far more impressive than what the N64 was doing. That it didn't seem to offer a huge leap over some 'previous generation' SNES and Mega CD games might have been a factor (while better for sure, I mean in that wasn't enough to be revolutionary the way the PS was, for example).
e.g. Wipeout was mind blowing. Mario Kart on the N64 was VERY basic looking, with sparse 3D levels (with a mixture of untextured and simply textured surfaces) but only 2D sprites. Personally I enjoyed SNES Mario Kart a lot better (I think it's aged better too).
I think the real kicker for me as that PC games at the time looked pretty shit hot (Dark Forces, Rise of the Triad, Quake and Duke Nukem 3D had arrived or were just about upon us - at least for us here in the UK). There were even 3D games on the Mac by then that outshone anything released on the N64.
I am sorry Sony stole their thunder and ran off with the plans to make the PS. Sony still to this day do not understand software (something I see in the PSP in-house software (UI and lack of bundled PC integration software), the PS3 'dashboard' software and it's lack of unified online play and in the way the run their MMO's properties like EQ, SWG and PS). Nintendo's fall from dominance was harmful to the industry, as they used to make some great games (and still do today, just much less often).
I feel sorry for what the Sony and PS2 did to the Dreamcast, ultimately shafting the superior platform with hype and lies, but Sega had fucked up too many times already for people to take them seriously by that stage.
Wrong. Pure wrong. That's a convincing argument you have there!
Except it's not one the rest of the planet would recognise, or we wouldn't have progress so quickly in the last 20 years as far as graphics go.
Meanwhile, I'll be playing Space Invaders. Well have fun with that, if you find that stimulating enough to satisfy you. Personally I got bored with that years ago (ditto Pac-Man and most other trivially liner games I played at home in the mid 80's) and playing it for long doesn't really provide me with enough stimulation, or amusment for more than a couple of minutes.
Memory games, and basic gameplay where all you do is reverse engineer the AI behaviour of other spirtes on screen (because the behaivour is simple, because the platform was very limited) detracts from the experience for me, not enhances it. I want to feel like I've outsmarted an enemy, not just reverse engineered how it's AI was written (if it's that transparent, it's rarely as much fun to play against).
And so far as it being the only improvement over the last 20 years? Soo... Are you saying that innovation is worth nothing and, to keep making "better" consoles, we just need to keep doing the same thing over and over and over? Because that's pretty much EXACTLY wrong. Developers are not simply making 'the same games over and over". That's something people who like spouting platitudes say, typically people who don't even play games any more, but talk about how good they were on their Amiga.
Sure EA like making the same game over and over, and a lot of developers hang on to successful francises, but if you don't think there has been a HUGE amount of innovation in gameplay over the last 20 years, you have not been paying attention and are being selective in choosing examples that only fit your existing pre-determined theory. Games are way more sophiscated than they were even 10 years ago. Sure they are not much more sophicated than they were 2 or 3 years ago, but games in 1983 wern't exactly leaps and bounds of games released in 1980 either, it's an incrimental process.
More CPU power, the ability to deliver more sophiscated graphics and high speed internet access have been key to allowing innovation to happen. When it's harder to innovate (because the platform doesn't make it easy), you get less innovation, not more - as we saw when the pase of mainstream console hardware change slowed for a period in the late 80's and early 90's (just as I think it's doing today as it happens, reaching a bit of a plateau for a while - it took the step change to 3D to change that and get games really being innovative again).
There is collective amnesia with some people who forget the huge piles of tedious shovelware that was released decade and more ago. There is STILL a fair bit of formulaic stuff today for sure (the latest Sim City / Civ / Battlefield / EA sports title) but at least they are GOOD these days (because the are often built on solid previous titles) - when games were less sophiscated 'average' formulaic games were always unmitigated pap.
I think the Halo and Ghost Recon series and GoW have great controller interfaces for 'FPS' games.
I hear a few guys at work say 'oh you can't play FPS games on a console' and they are always the ones who don't have an X-Box, who've never even tried to play an FPS on a console, it's just "common knowlege" (urban legened).
I play bucket loads of FPS games on the PC, and the level of control you can have with a mouse is of course superior, but it's just a case of tweaking the mechanics appropriately on the console version (e.g. implimenting a CoF system, and optionally very subtle aiming aids - some games do it so subtley players don't even notice!). Some tactical games, like GR, RS I enjoy far more on the big screen on a big comfy chair with surround (despite having a room set up as a dedicated home office, SLI graphics, a 24" Dell TFT and surround on my PC - i.e. not too shabby a PC setup, it's just even better played in the same way I like to watch say a movie or TV show).
The only major difficulty is FPS games is essentially in turning very quickly to aim at enemies right in your face, which is where the melee option in Halo becomes key (without it, it would suck hugely on a console). I take a dim view of any FPS game (console or PC) that doesn't have a melee option these days (I can't see any good reason NOT to have it).
The point about sound is I think a really good one. I only got an amp with multiple inputs in January/Febuary or so, so I'd not had my console hooked up to surround, but wow did my 360 sound better hooked up to 5.1 surround! GRAW 2 in particular made excellent use of it.
Even though I've got a fairly cheap sound sytem (a decent Denon amp - last years model or so, but does up to 6.1 - with some Pioneer brand floor standing speakers, that came as part of a Pinoneer home cinema kit (read: DVD / DIVX player that I re-cabled), having surround was a big leap for me in GRAW and Crackdown. I live in London, and I couldn't tell the difference between police cars and street noise outside (birds, people, etc) and in GRAW/Crackdown. It's just eerie!
Oddly, I've got surround speakers on my PC (and an excellent set of very cheap multi-speaker surround headphones - that outshine some really expensive virtual surround ones I've got not in terms of quality, but in terms of really being able to hear where sounds are coming from - totally feels like cheating in online FPS games!) but I didn't think of how good it might be on the console.
I like the way Wii Sports uses the speaker on the Wii remote, it's like a poor mans surround in a way. I hope developers make note.
Yeah, to be fair 'Red Steel' doesn't suck horribly (like FC does), I think it's just disappointing as I can think of what it could have been like. Like Zelda, it doesn't really let you use the sword in the way it *could* have, but I too find it enjoyable enough to provide entertainment as is (though in Zelda I'm most just using buttons now, as like a few lesser Wii games it turns out to be better to button mash than wave the stick).
The upcoming Resident Evil shooter is on my must-purchase list though. The Wii's IR mode is specifically great, because it brings back the possiblity of light gun games! Something I feared we'd lost when moving to flat panel displays.
I think your right, in that when some one does crack the FPS interface on the Wii, it will be superb (and like everyone else, I hope it's a SW game!). I loved Rayman's on-the-rails shoot-em-up sections as it happens. Add some really solid movement controls (e.g. using the nunchuck) to something of that quality and we have a winner.
Sorry yeah, I get it through Sky (a News Corp company). It's a UK company but a lot of people in Europe also get it via some slightly nefarious means (even though they do not live in the UK). They are very good for HD content.
Although most of the good major shows are made in the US, oddly we've started getting them aired first here for some time (just by a couple of weeks). Things like SG-1, Atlantis and BSG I think fit into that category. I think it's to do with US scheduling times. I think I've heard people moan about not being able to get BSG in HD in the US before (and it would piss me off for sure, especially given they are US shows in the first place).
Sadly, we have can't download TV shows via the UK Apple Store or via the 360, yet (though the 360 content is confirmed for September or so, and the Apple store stuff cannot be far behind). Don't really have anything like the movie download services here either (same with sites like direct2drive for video games too - all rights & distribution issues, bah).
You can download a fair selection of movies, sports and shows from Sky on your Windows PC though, and watch them on your 360 (as it's Microsoft DRM'd), that's avalible freely, but only for content on channels you are subscribed to.
No, they don't. Gameplay is what you do in the game, not what special effects are drawn to the screen. You can't do certain games if you can't render the environments (and in enough fidelity to do them justice) and there are concepts in gameplay you just can't do without enough CPU power (e.g. worlds with lots of realistically physics modeled objects).
If you can't render it, you can't do it (unless you are playing Zork...).
You are not going to see a title like Crackdown on the Wii, for example, nor Oblivion, nor a shooter that has as rich an environment as GRAW (with it's massive and richly detailed urban multiplayer maps that make for some outstanding scenarios you couldn't do without the level of detail the environments provide).
Rainbow Six style closed-off indoor environments with modest detail in the rooms and few intractable objects in the world is the best than can be hoped for on the Wii (which is sad, given the promise of the input mechanism).
It's weird how the gaming press hasn't caught on that it's the 360/PS3 that is played by sugar-charged kiddies while Nintendo systems are played by adults who grew up with the NES and SNES. That would be because it's not true. Never mind the SNES, I grew up with the Intellivison (in the 80's). (But also a BBC Micro, THEN got a NES/Mega Drive/SNES when I was a bit older, but still a teenager).
I would point out there was nothing crappy about the SNES's 3D graphics when Starfox was new or about the BBC's when Elite was released.If Frontier had had the same quality graphics as Elite, people would have totally ignored it. Better graphics made the new gameplay in it feasible.
I think the last major console to be as underpowered as the Wii was the N64, until then Nindendo were making graphically superior kit and it was really making a difference to the games we were seeing (not that people wern't doing some great stuff on the Mega Drive/Genisis).
The only reason Nintendo went down the GC and Wii route is because they ballsed up when dealing with Sony, who took the IP they'd both developed and ran off to make the PS One with it, leaving Nintendo with the - pretty crappy - N64. After that fuckup, they haven't been able to compete at the same level as players like Microsoft and Sony (and the same was true of Sega, after they fucked up for different reasons - they couldn't afford to stay in the high end hardware game, so now Sammy have them making low end arcade kit).
I can't believe you listed tourchwood and left out dr. who:( Sadly it's not HD:-(
The BBC said recently (on Points Of View) when someone asked why, that it's because there are so many more CGI effects in Dr Who and it would just be too expensive, which I guess makes sense (given some of the episodes do have loads of CGI in them).
The BBC stuff is very nice quality though (e.g. on satillte, they spend more than other companies when it comes to bandwith-per channel - even companies like Sky skip on the non-HD versions of Sky One so they look much rougher in comparison than Beeb stuff).
I normally ignore anonymous posts of this unbridled daftness / troll capacity, but couldn't resist:
Would you rather play a first-person shooter game on the Wii, which means less amazing graphics but more precise controls (Wiimote+nunchuck = almost as good as keyboard+mouse) or on the Xbox360/PS3, which means better graphics but useless controls (screw those stupid little analog sticks). It doesn't matter if a game looks better if you can't play it. GRAW and GRAW2 on the 360 are excellent (and, like the Halo series, prove that analog sticks are fine if you get the interface right).
The only two 'FPS' games on the Wii, Far Cry Vengenace and Red Steel suck horribly, which you'd know, if you owned them and played them and also the other 4 titles I'd just mentioned.
The FPS Resident Evil adaptation will hopefully change that, but as it stands I don't think you could have picked a WORSE genre to compare.
Not everyone can afford a 800$-2000$CAD+ television either. Wow, you can't afford 360 UKP TV? The first new TV I bought when I was 18 cost me 1,500 GBP, on my first proper job (and I was literally on minimum wage then and could afford it no bother), and that was a decade ago. I won't tell you how much my *current* TV cost, I think it it would make your head explode.
Do you not actually work for a living like the rest of us?
The wii's motion sensing capability is so novel, it really makes the graphics not matter.
I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion. I love the Wii remote for games like Wii Sports, Rayman and Tiger Woods. It still pisses me off that it's so blurry and indisticint in some games and it makes them much less pleasant, though I realise the impact is less significant of those not used to HD games on large displays.
Graphics certainly matter to gameplay and IMO with 3D games it's that much more important to have the fidelity than in 2D games. Compare Super Mario World (2D) which has aged very well (and still looks great on a large Plasma), with Mario 64.
On the Wii, Rayman has good, crisp, well styled graphics that are suited to the Wii's abilitles. I have nothing bad to say about the graphics on that title, great job guys. It's fair to say Tiger Woods doesn't really try push the Wii, but if it had been easier to get more out of the console, it would look a heck of a lot better. It's disappointing, but the line up of *good* Wii titles is anemic at the moment. as for any newly launched console, so it will do (until EA release a new version in time for xmas). Zelda has graphically been a big disappointment and is very murky and instinct in places, it's murky color pallet doesn't help. The gameplay is okay, but it's not always easy to navigate the world or identify potential points of interest because of the low fidelity (I don't find that aspect 'challenging' anymore than I find it fun when I lose my glasses, it's just annoying).
I'm not even going to talk about Far Cry. Just think of that JavaScript +canvas FPS demo, scalled from a 150x150 box to a 50" screen, except imagine looking at it through the bottom of a pint glass. Except the gameplay isn't as good (but that's going OT).
Most of my TV is in HD these days (from movies, to series (shows like SG-1, Atlantis, Battlestar Galatica, Torchwood), a number of new BBC shows (Planet Earth) and the Discovery/History channels) even the stuff that I watch that isn't (e.g. regular BBC TV shows, News 24) is of far higher fidelity than the content on the Wii (which is typically upscaled from 3D from a very low resolution). Of course all the games on the 360 are miles better graphically (I wouldn't never get titles like Sports, Rayman or Tiger Woods on the 360 though, as the only appeal to me because of the controller). So, my point is, I'm use to considerably better quality (and have been for over a year now) when it comes to entertainment.
I will say that if you have a smaller TV, the much lower quality is not as noticeable. If you are not used to better quality images, it's not as noticeable. That applies to a lot of people (just look at how well the PS2 is still doing, and it's STILL crappier than the ~ '98 Dreamcast!). Personally I'd rather pay market rate and have a better product, than a cheaper product where corners have been cut, and that's the truth of it.
I haven't bought any racing games for the Wii, and I don't currently plan do (unless someone brings out something that actually looks half decent AND uses the controller in an interesting way). If I want a better controller input for racing, I'll use a steering wheel (there are plenty to choose from for the 360. I think I've seen at least 3 - including a wireless one). Given the option of spending more money to play the 360 version of a game than save money and play a lower quality version on the Wii, I would currently choose to spend more and have the better experience.
I think the Wii is a good console, especially if gaming is something you like doing, but don't want to spent heaps of money on (although the decent games still cost about the same as decent 360 titles, I would note). This business of people pretending (and trying to convince everyone else - in addition to themselves) that graphics are somehow unreleated to good gameplay is a nonsense though.
Graphics are not the only thing that makes a game console new a
Well, no. Being against nuclear power implies you're for pollution, as all other means of producing energy on that scale are far more polluting. Absolutely, I quite agree. Aiming for alternatives is all well and good and so is trying to cut down our power usage when it's not harmfully intrusive, but that alone is not a viable solution every region of the world (typically because of terrain), certainly not in the short to medium term.
Things like wind, solar, wave and hydro power generation systems take a lot of development and investment (because of their relative inefficency). Nuclear power is really the most environmentally friendly, practical option in the short to medium term, and it's likely some regions of the world will always need a comparible system of powergeneration to meet their needs, because of the local environment or due to their population level.
Greenpeace seem to be living in cloud cookoo land, and in doing so are doing more harm than good (because what's that's happening as a result of opposition to Nuclear power is that we continue to rely on fossile fuels - maintaining the status quo). Their inability to be pragmatic only keeps them on the fringes (when once they had more widespread public appeal).
Although, Greenpeace have got it spectacularly wrong in the past too (e.g. the Brent Spar case) and as a result they don't have any credibility left for me, and I think their global standing was diminished as a result of that case too. I remember reading some of the inaccuracies / misleading statements in their publicity seeking 'attack' on Apple when it first came out (which, even as a layman, I can tell when things are being skewed and couched in ambigious language) and thinking "here we go again".
In what way are other browsers, like Firefox, Safari, and Opera 'ignoring' another standard by implimenting canvas support? Canvas support is a widely support standard, Firefox, Safari and Opera both impliment it, Microsoft have something *similar* but of course it's not the same.
This is pretty typical, and a situation that arises a lot even when it's with a W3C standard - things like the ECMA script standard leave specifics untermined, and the other major browser developers have implimented complimentary systems, but Microsoft almost always does it's own thing.
Usually their implimentation has ultimately the same functionality, but it's typically more verbose to impliment and requires special if (browserIs.IE) { } kludges (and in the case of more complex apps, libraries to abstract the functions).
Believe it or not, Mac users, even the most fanatical among us, don't believe that no one likes Windows. Yeah, but it's that guy in the tweed suit, and who wants to hang around with him?! [1]
[1] That was supposed to be a joke, but I no-so-secretly believe it.[2]:) [2] And yes, I'm a big fat nerd with man boobs sitting in an home study full of posters from the Science museum, with not one but two Darth Vaders models, surrounded by a multi processor Sparc system, a server running debian, two Macs (one G4 PPC, one Intel Laptop) and a Windows XP gaming system but in the presence of other nerds I'm positively dynamic:)
Sorry, but it's hard to see that as anything but snooty.
So to take that, and get back to my example, do you think American Idol MIGHT actually be better TV than Planet Earth, just because some people (uncultured trailor trash) think so?
I don't, no matter what they think, and I don't care to pander to the idea that we should seek to avoid offending the tasteless. I don't think it's being snooty to say that, I think it's being a realist.
Even the people that make crap TV invariably know exactly what they are doing (they typically arn't idiots), the same is true of so many other crap products (e.g. The Sun might be the UK's favourite newspaper, but I'm sure Rupert Murdoch doesn't read it except to check up on how the current editor is doing - he knows full well it's crap and so does she). At least that's mostly the case...;-)
Some things can reasonably be called subjective, sometimes its approproate not mince words and say what you mean - some things are just crap, even if lots of people are too stupid to realise they are crap (e.g. virtually all MySpace homepages, much of daytime TV, Fox News, supermarket white bread).
All three of IE7, FireFox and Safari have their share of problems, it's really 'pick your bugs'.
Well, I've got to say no it's not.
I think a primary reason why people think crap things are good is that they just don't know any better - and I would add I'm sure there are plenty of things that are crap but that I think are good because I'm ignorant about them.
IE7 has some pretty big flaws that are immediately apparently when trying to create websites with even a modest degree of sophistication. Firefox has a small number, and things like far better perfomance in it's ECMA script engine, Safari has the least issues and an excellent JS implimentation - something that you'd have to use to appreciate), though it does lack XSLT support, which is a shame.
IE7 is significantly inferior not only technically - with regard to it's rendering engine's core features and performance - but from a user perspective too. You can't even customise the interface! It has totally retarded button positioning, and the MENUBAR only goes *BELOW* the toolbar. I mean WTF? And the Home button being where it is (and stop and refersh being where they are) - who's idea was that?
I think you can say, objectively, it's badly designed, as is Vista itself (as pretty as the widgets are, it behaves dementedly). Sure parts of Mac OS are currently badly designed too (the Finder specifically) but Vista is in a world of it's own when it comes to sucking.
Windows XP's *default* UI was pretty lousy (hid icons from users, replace it with a large and invariably confusing Start menu users didn't know what to do with), Windows 2000 was decent, if boring and shows they can *nearly* get it right (or at least, get it right when it's mundane - which is good - just not when they trying to do an 'innovative' design).
The enduring popularity of Media Player Classic is another testiment to this (a boring interface, but otherwise a very well designed piece of software). People can't seem to wait to get away from horrible new fangled Microsoft UI's (even if they are on the surface of it pretty looking in an attempt by MS to stay competitive when it comes to initial visual impact).
Comparing MacOS 6 and 7 to Windows 3.1... All of those options are from the last century. I am talking about Windows 2000/XP vs. MacOs 9 and X.
I only said that as you said "I've used plenty of OSes, and prior to FreeBSD, for me and my uses, Windows was the best OS." and prior to FreeBSD, that's all there was, I guess I just misunderstood your meaning there.
Of course, that you apparently like FreeBSD over Debian or Ubuntu proves you are deviant! 8) [1]
[1] Joke!
As far as usability goes - MacOS is the only one that I find has severly hindered usability in the UI
That's interesting, and goes against what I might have thought too.
Personally, I still suspect they are more 'productive' (that is to say, in terms of the end result - thinking of say, the number of people who worked on Vista and the number who worked on Tiger, and comparing the two OS's, and of respective achievements (the only thing Microsoft has done recently that really stands out is build a decent on-line games console, which no one else was doing - at least not since the Dreamcast).
I suspect that's down to Apple primarily making money through hardware, rather than through software (with the margins on hardware being a lot smaller than they are form selling the same old OS millions of times over).
That's just a theory, but seems to backed up by looking at the revenue (Apple's being a bit under 20M USD a year, with MS's a bit over 44M USD). Maybe the picture will change as online music, TV and film sales take off. Will be interesting to see.
One thing that really irks me is the cost of Vista compared to say a new copy of the Mac OS. I mean, they are roughly comparible in terms of features (as much as I think the balance is in the Mac's favour, there is of course a hell of a lot more off the shelf software for Windows), so I can't see any justification for the crazy pricetag on something like Vista. Even the cheapest OEM version of Vista Ultimate is about twice the price of a new version of Mac OS!
-- Ooops I went off topic here, but I'm going to leave it in! --
AND you are 'licenced' to run one copy of Mac OS on up 5 Mac's in your house, not that Mac OS tracks your hardware, requires online activation, or a serial number (and if it goes in for serving and needs reinstalling, they just install the latest version for you, no questions asked). It makes things soo much easier when you have to 'help' with friends computers when you can be laissez faire about the OS.
As happened recently with a Windows computer I was reparing for a friend of my folks (while on holiday! boo!), "Oh, you can't find the OS CD anymore, sorry I can't install one for you - I've only got one Key and it's already registered to me - I can put in a new HD to replace the broken one, but you'll have to go and buy another copy OS and install it yourself").
Totally retarded. At least they are selling Vista online now (from what I gather - you can get a legit key and download the ISO from MS). The idea of a 'free trial' of the final Release Candidate was a good idea too (valid until June/July, and can be registered as 'final release' by putting in a retail activation key).
Given the price, you'd think Microsoft would at least grant to licence to use a single copy on as many machines on your house as you might reasonably want to (rather than the perverse option of technically refusing to let you install more 'basic' versions of the product on more than one machine, ever).
Well, it's true that some people think ITV's Pop Idol (aka American Idol) is better TV than the BBC's Planet Earth.
I bring that up because, personally, I really do think it has a lot to do being able to appreciate a classy product when you see one, a question of taste (for want of a better way of describing it).
I'm quite serious and I'm really not trying to be snooty (and I know how this sounds and that it could be mistaken for flamebait) - simply not everyone can do that (they can look at something hideous and think it looks 'fine', they can eat terrible food and notice it's awful, can write terrible documentation and think it's "really clear" (or for that matter, write terrible code and have no idea how hideous and nasty it is).
I'm with Steve Job's on this one, Microsoft just make crass software. They don't even TRY to get it write until they are embarrsed into doing so, and even when they do the result is half assed (compare the IE7 to Firefox or Safari's - it's not only technically worse than either of those two, but the UI is worse).
I've used plenty of OSes, and prior to FreeBSD, for me and my uses, Windows was the best OS I do kind of wonder about that TBH, Mac OS 6 & 7 where so far ahead of Windows 3.1 from everything from CAD, to software development to even word processing.
Despite the email address, I'm not a fanboy. There are plenty of technical reasons why I also like Gnome desktop (it's really nice, very flexible, and Nautilus has evolved into a better file manager than the Mac OS's current Finder). I think Windows is a terrible choice though (technically, and artistically) - and only worth using when the software you want to use is only avalible on windows, or if your writing software on it (but then, you are getting what you deserve:-).
I have a Windows system, but it's purely for games (Apple hardware *still* doesn't support SLI, nor Mac OS a wide range of cards - specifically it doesn't support many high end cards, which is totally put be off getting a mac desktop). Windows is actually pretty good at games though, largely due to optimised drivers from vendors, but DirectX itself is certainly to Microsoft's credit (even if it does mean many developers are less likely to use Open GL).
"Illegal" is a decision for a judge to make, after examining all the facts - we are neither qualified nor in possession of those facts, so we cannot say it was definitely illegal. If the software was copied, the only 'qualification' needed for the observation that it was almost certainly illegally done is common sense - or at least any knowlege of the sort of contracts companies like NC Soft require employees to sign.
Do you imagine companies like NC Software allow software developers to own the IP and retain distribution rights for any software they write as employees of the company?
The previous poster wasn't making a 'prejudiced' statement, no matter what agenda you are pushing.
I think everyone agrees that the free QuickTime player on Windows is just annoying. It's wrong to suggest that 'QuickTime Pro' is a waste of money though, it's very cheap and works well at converting a range of media formats and it doesn't just work with QT video as you imply. I never save anything as a QT.mov (yuck).
It's only 30 USD and the wide range of formats and options it supports (including thing like creating hinted videos for streaming) combined with it's no-brainier ease of use, the ability to chop and splice things together simply, and it's scriptability (which could do with being extended) make it worth while for anyone who has to work with videos intended for digital distribution from multiple sources. Media/Design agencies in particular, but it's also handy as a regular user if you want to convert video you have to work on other devices you have.
There are indeed free tools that offer the same features as Pro, but I've yet to see any BETTER free tools, from a holistic point of view. It's more like there are a bunch of other free tools that when used together give similar functionality, but in almost all instances require more faffing about than the saving of 30 USD really justifies.
The (Helix DNA Server) is an open source server for Real media files. It only streams video in a proprietary format (requiring use of their player) and it can't convert between formats on the fly. It's great if you have lots of data around in.rv format (like that's useful). It's just a way to try and get people to buy the overpriced commercial Helix Server - which is comparable with other vendor solutions.
I've had plenty of problems getting Helix software too, just getting source and/or binaries for evaluation - several of the download links for software on the site do not work, and have not worked for over a year. If you ask them about it, you get punted to Real.com and 'would you like to get a commercial trial version of our Helix software?' After a couple of months of this and the web site being largely broken for weeks (due to some unending 'migration'), I'd had enough.
Windows Media streaming costs (if you buy a server with Windows Server) are less than the cost of buying a "server with Mac OS X server." In fact, there are many more existing Windows servers out there than OS X servers, so Windows Media streaming cost are less for a heck of a lot more people if they want support from MS or Apple. Companies doesn't just run solutions on whatever old Windows box they have lying around - unless you work for a very small privately owned company things are ordered on a per-project basis. As explained in another post, technical support with a product like this is meaningless. Your 'bedroom sysadmin' speculation is amusing though (particularly the part where you imagine the sort of companies (telco's/broadcaster's) who run commercial streaming services typically run their systems on Windows of all things, and that they'd have servers 'lying around' they'd just use).
Know why proprietary stuff is better sometimes? It's called technical support. Good technical support doesn't make a worse product better.
It's only better if it is actually better at what it's supposed to do, otherwise it's still worse.
I already have a pretty good idea of what I'm doing, and it's pretty simple to determine the cause of any problem with software I mind find. I know how to debug third party software on Unix and Windows, identifying the fault usually isn't that hard. It's fair to say I'm probably better at diagnosing odd problems (the sort that actually prompt someone competent to contact the vendor) than some random joe technical support.
The technical support center will almost certainly make me want to jump through a large number of time wasting hoops to be sure I'm not a moron. Sometimes that process can take days, or even weeks - even when it's obviously their crummy software.
Past that, the problem is getting bugs fixed once you've found them and technical support can't help you with that (typically vendors don't really care about bugs unless they are easy to fix or effecting a large number of customers - otherwise it goes on to the bottom of the 'to do' list).
Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. Darwin Streaming Server was the reason why I didn't mention Apple - there streaming costs (even if you buy a server with Mac OS X server) are tiny fraction of the cost of buying comparable hardware / software from other vendors.
If you want to create hinted files, a mere 30 USD for QuickTime Pro is obviously pocket change. Even setting up hinted videos on a regular HTTP server works just fine for most short videos (things like video game trailers) - many sites would have a much better service if they just did that (rather than having some proprietary service that doesn't work at all for some users, and that often can't hack it even when you are using compatible software).
A lot of people assume that the streaming software tools from Apple can only be viewed in Quick Time, even though it can also stream MPEG videos which work just fine over broadband in native clients (WMP on Windows, QT on Mac, and say VLC on Linux). Apple have shot themselves in the foot in that respect I think, by not making the distinction clear.
I think silly decisions like not providing full screen playback in the client unless your purchase the 'pro' edition have also soured the 'QuickTime' brand. I'm sure that gets them a few extra sales of Pro from some frustrated customers, but at a greater cost overall I would have thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for sharing - now I can mod your relative post score so I don't sumble across any of your 'stunning insights' on other threads!
Man, I wish all bozo's were as considerate as you!
The Playstation had about a two year headstart IIRC, and was far better, the Atai Jaugar was also superior (though it was far less sucessful of course) even the 3D stuff on the Saturn (like Saturn Wipeout) while it didn't rival the PS was far more impressive than what the N64 was doing. That it didn't seem to offer a huge leap over some 'previous generation' SNES and Mega CD games might have been a factor (while better for sure, I mean in that wasn't enough to be revolutionary the way the PS was, for example).
e.g. Wipeout was mind blowing. Mario Kart on the N64 was VERY basic looking, with sparse 3D levels (with a mixture of untextured and simply textured surfaces) but only 2D sprites. Personally I enjoyed SNES Mario Kart a lot better (I think it's aged better too).
I think the real kicker for me as that PC games at the time looked pretty shit hot (Dark Forces, Rise of the Triad, Quake and Duke Nukem 3D had arrived or were just about upon us - at least for us here in the UK). There were even 3D games on the Mac by then that outshone anything released on the N64.
I am sorry Sony stole their thunder and ran off with the plans to make the PS. Sony still to this day do not understand software (something I see in the PSP in-house software (UI and lack of bundled PC integration software), the PS3 'dashboard' software and it's lack of unified online play and in the way the run their MMO's properties like EQ, SWG and PS). Nintendo's fall from dominance was harmful to the industry, as they used to make some great games (and still do today, just much less often).
I feel sorry for what the Sony and PS2 did to the Dreamcast, ultimately shafting the superior platform with hype and lies, but Sega had fucked up too many times already for people to take them seriously by that stage.
Except it's not one the rest of the planet would recognise, or we wouldn't have progress so quickly in the last 20 years as far as graphics go. Meanwhile, I'll be playing Space Invaders. Well have fun with that, if you find that stimulating enough to satisfy you. Personally I got bored with that years ago (ditto Pac-Man and most other trivially liner games I played at home in the mid 80's) and playing it for long doesn't really provide me with enough stimulation, or amusment for more than a couple of minutes.
Memory games, and basic gameplay where all you do is reverse engineer the AI behaviour of other spirtes on screen (because the behaivour is simple, because the platform was very limited) detracts from the experience for me, not enhances it. I want to feel like I've outsmarted an enemy, not just reverse engineered how it's AI was written (if it's that transparent, it's rarely as much fun to play against). And so far as it being the only improvement over the last 20 years? Soo... Are you saying that innovation is worth nothing and, to keep making "better" consoles, we just need to keep doing the same thing over and over and over? Because that's pretty much EXACTLY wrong. Developers are not simply making 'the same games over and over". That's something people who like spouting platitudes say, typically people who don't even play games any more, but talk about how good they were on their Amiga.
Sure EA like making the same game over and over, and a lot of developers hang on to successful francises, but if you don't think there has been a HUGE amount of innovation in gameplay over the last 20 years, you have not been paying attention and are being selective in choosing examples that only fit your existing pre-determined theory. Games are way more sophiscated than they were even 10 years ago. Sure they are not much more sophicated than they were 2 or 3 years ago, but games in 1983 wern't exactly leaps and bounds of games released in 1980 either, it's an incrimental process.
More CPU power, the ability to deliver more sophiscated graphics and high speed internet access have been key to allowing innovation to happen. When it's harder to innovate (because the platform doesn't make it easy), you get less innovation, not more - as we saw when the pase of mainstream console hardware change slowed for a period in the late 80's and early 90's (just as I think it's doing today as it happens, reaching a bit of a plateau for a while - it took the step change to 3D to change that and get games really being innovative again).
There is collective amnesia with some people who forget the huge piles of tedious shovelware that was released decade and more ago. There is STILL a fair bit of formulaic stuff today for sure (the latest Sim City / Civ / Battlefield / EA sports title) but at least they are GOOD these days (because the are often built on solid previous titles) - when games were less sophiscated 'average' formulaic games were always unmitigated pap.
I think the Halo and Ghost Recon series and GoW have great controller interfaces for 'FPS' games.
I hear a few guys at work say 'oh you can't play FPS games on a console' and they are always the ones who don't have an X-Box, who've never even tried to play an FPS on a console, it's just "common knowlege" (urban legened).
I play bucket loads of FPS games on the PC, and the level of control you can have with a mouse is of course superior, but it's just a case of tweaking the mechanics appropriately on the console version (e.g. implimenting a CoF system, and optionally very subtle aiming aids - some games do it so subtley players don't even notice!). Some tactical games, like GR, RS I enjoy far more on the big screen on a big comfy chair with surround (despite having a room set up as a dedicated home office, SLI graphics, a 24" Dell TFT and surround on my PC - i.e. not too shabby a PC setup, it's just even better played in the same way I like to watch say a movie or TV show).
The only major difficulty is FPS games is essentially in turning very quickly to aim at enemies right in your face, which is where the melee option in Halo becomes key (without it, it would suck hugely on a console). I take a dim view of any FPS game (console or PC) that doesn't have a melee option these days (I can't see any good reason NOT to have it).
The point about sound is I think a really good one. I only got an amp with multiple inputs in January/Febuary or so, so I'd not had my console hooked up to surround, but wow did my 360 sound better hooked up to 5.1 surround! GRAW 2 in particular made excellent use of it.
Even though I've got a fairly cheap sound sytem (a decent Denon amp - last years model or so, but does up to 6.1 - with some Pioneer brand floor standing speakers, that came as part of a Pinoneer home cinema kit (read: DVD / DIVX player that I re-cabled), having surround was a big leap for me in GRAW and Crackdown. I live in London, and I couldn't tell the difference between police cars and street noise outside (birds, people, etc) and in GRAW/Crackdown. It's just eerie!
Oddly, I've got surround speakers on my PC (and an excellent set of very cheap multi-speaker surround headphones - that outshine some really expensive virtual surround ones I've got not in terms of quality, but in terms of really being able to hear where sounds are coming from - totally feels like cheating in online FPS games!) but I didn't think of how good it might be on the console.
I like the way Wii Sports uses the speaker on the Wii remote, it's like a poor mans surround in a way. I hope developers make note.
Alright Saul, that's enough - get back to your Frakin quarters!
Yeah, to be fair 'Red Steel' doesn't suck horribly (like FC does), I think it's just disappointing as I can think of what it could have been like. Like Zelda, it doesn't really let you use the sword in the way it *could* have, but I too find it enjoyable enough to provide entertainment as is (though in Zelda I'm most just using buttons now, as like a few lesser Wii games it turns out to be better to button mash than wave the stick).
The upcoming Resident Evil shooter is on my must-purchase list though. The Wii's IR mode is specifically great, because it brings back the possiblity of light gun games! Something I feared we'd lost when moving to flat panel displays.
I think your right, in that when some one does crack the FPS interface on the Wii, it will be superb (and like everyone else, I hope it's a SW game!). I loved Rayman's on-the-rails shoot-em-up sections as it happens. Add some really solid movement controls (e.g. using the nunchuck) to something of that quality and we have a winner.
Europe for the win. 8)
Sorry yeah, I get it through Sky (a News Corp company). It's a UK company but a lot of people in Europe also get it via some slightly nefarious means (even though they do not live in the UK). They are very good for HD content.
Although most of the good major shows are made in the US, oddly we've started getting them aired first here for some time (just by a couple of weeks). Things like SG-1, Atlantis and BSG I think fit into that category. I think it's to do with US scheduling times. I think I've heard people moan about not being able to get BSG in HD in the US before (and it would piss me off for sure, especially given they are US shows in the first place).
Sadly, we have can't download TV shows via the UK Apple Store or via the 360, yet (though the 360 content is confirmed for September or so, and the Apple store stuff cannot be far behind). Don't really have anything like the movie download services here either (same with sites like direct2drive for video games too - all rights & distribution issues, bah).
You can download a fair selection of movies, sports and shows from Sky on your Windows PC though, and watch them on your 360 (as it's Microsoft DRM'd), that's avalible freely, but only for content on channels you are subscribed to.
If you can't render it, you can't do it (unless you are playing Zork...).
You are not going to see a title like Crackdown on the Wii, for example, nor Oblivion, nor a shooter that has as rich an environment as GRAW (with it's massive and richly detailed urban multiplayer maps that make for some outstanding scenarios you couldn't do without the level of detail the environments provide).
Rainbow Six style closed-off indoor environments with modest detail in the rooms and few intractable objects in the world is the best than can be hoped for on the Wii (which is sad, given the promise of the input mechanism). It's weird how the gaming press hasn't caught on that it's the 360/PS3 that is played by sugar-charged kiddies while Nintendo systems are played by adults who grew up with the NES and SNES. That would be because it's not true. Never mind the SNES, I grew up with the Intellivison (in the 80's). (But also a BBC Micro, THEN got a NES/Mega Drive/SNES when I was a bit older, but still a teenager).
I would point out there was nothing crappy about the SNES's 3D graphics when Starfox was new or about the BBC's when Elite was released.If Frontier had had the same quality graphics as Elite, people would have totally ignored it. Better graphics made the new gameplay in it feasible.
I think the last major console to be as underpowered as the Wii was the N64, until then Nindendo were making graphically superior kit and it was really making a difference to the games we were seeing (not that people wern't doing some great stuff on the Mega Drive/Genisis).
The only reason Nintendo went down the GC and Wii route is because they ballsed up when dealing with Sony, who took the IP they'd both developed and ran off to make the PS One with it, leaving Nintendo with the - pretty crappy - N64. After that fuckup, they haven't been able to compete at the same level as players like Microsoft and Sony (and the same was true of Sega, after they fucked up for different reasons - they couldn't afford to stay in the high end hardware game, so now Sammy have them making low end arcade kit).
The BBC said recently (on Points Of View) when someone asked why, that it's because there are so many more CGI effects in Dr Who and it would just be too expensive, which I guess makes sense (given some of the episodes do have loads of CGI in them).
The BBC stuff is very nice quality though (e.g. on satillte, they spend more than other companies when it comes to bandwith-per channel - even companies like Sky skip on the non-HD versions of Sky One so they look much rougher in comparison than Beeb stuff).
The only two 'FPS' games on the Wii, Far Cry Vengenace and Red Steel suck horribly, which you'd know, if you owned them and played them and also the other 4 titles I'd just mentioned.
The FPS Resident Evil adaptation will hopefully change that, but as it stands I don't think you could have picked a WORSE genre to compare. Not everyone can afford a 800$-2000$CAD+ television either. Wow, you can't afford 360 UKP TV? The first new TV I bought when I was 18 cost me 1,500 GBP, on my first proper job (and I was literally on minimum wage then and could afford it no bother), and that was a decade ago. I won't tell you how much my *current* TV cost, I think it it would make your head explode.
Do you not actually work for a living like the rest of us?
The wii's motion sensing capability is so novel, it really makes the graphics not matter.
I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion. I love the Wii remote for games like Wii Sports, Rayman and Tiger Woods. It still pisses me off that it's so blurry and indisticint in some games and it makes them much less pleasant, though I realise the impact is less significant of those not used to HD games on large displays.
Graphics certainly matter to gameplay and IMO with 3D games it's that much more important to have the fidelity than in 2D games. Compare Super Mario World (2D) which has aged very well (and still looks great on a large Plasma), with Mario 64.
On the Wii, Rayman has good, crisp, well styled graphics that are suited to the Wii's abilitles. I have nothing bad to say about the graphics on that title, great job guys. It's fair to say Tiger Woods doesn't really try push the Wii, but if it had been easier to get more out of the console, it would look a heck of a lot better. It's disappointing, but the line up of *good* Wii titles is anemic at the moment. as for any newly launched console, so it will do (until EA release a new version in time for xmas). Zelda has graphically been a big disappointment and is very murky and instinct in places, it's murky color pallet doesn't help. The gameplay is okay, but it's not always easy to navigate the world or identify potential points of interest because of the low fidelity (I don't find that aspect 'challenging' anymore than I find it fun when I lose my glasses, it's just annoying).
I'm not even going to talk about Far Cry. Just think of that JavaScript +canvas FPS demo, scalled from a 150x150 box to a 50" screen, except imagine looking at it through the bottom of a pint glass. Except the gameplay isn't as good (but that's going OT).
Most of my TV is in HD these days (from movies, to series (shows like SG-1, Atlantis, Battlestar Galatica, Torchwood), a number of new BBC shows (Planet Earth) and the Discovery/History channels) even the stuff that I watch that isn't (e.g. regular BBC TV shows, News 24) is of far higher fidelity than the content on the Wii (which is typically upscaled from 3D from a very low resolution). Of course all the games on the 360 are miles better graphically (I wouldn't never get titles like Sports, Rayman or Tiger Woods on the 360 though, as the only appeal to me because of the controller). So, my point is, I'm use to considerably better quality (and have been for over a year now) when it comes to entertainment.
I will say that if you have a smaller TV, the much lower quality is not as noticeable. If you are not used to better quality images, it's not as noticeable. That applies to a lot of people (just look at how well the PS2 is still doing, and it's STILL crappier than the ~ '98 Dreamcast!). Personally I'd rather pay market rate and have a better product, than a cheaper product where corners have been cut, and that's the truth of it.
I haven't bought any racing games for the Wii, and I don't currently plan do (unless someone brings out something that actually looks half decent AND uses the controller in an interesting way). If I want a better controller input for racing, I'll use a steering wheel (there are plenty to choose from for the 360. I think I've seen at least 3 - including a wireless one). Given the option of spending more money to play the 360 version of a game than save money and play a lower quality version on the Wii, I would currently choose to spend more and have the better experience.
I think the Wii is a good console, especially if gaming is something you like doing, but don't want to spent heaps of money on (although the decent games still cost about the same as decent 360 titles, I would note). This business of people pretending (and trying to convince everyone else - in addition to themselves) that graphics are somehow unreleated to good gameplay is a nonsense though.
Graphics are not the only thing that makes a game console new a
Things like wind, solar, wave and hydro power generation systems take a lot of development and investment (because of their relative inefficency). Nuclear power is really the most environmentally friendly, practical option in the short to medium term, and it's likely some regions of the world will always need a comparible system of powergeneration to meet their needs, because of the local environment or due to their population level.
Greenpeace seem to be living in cloud cookoo land, and in doing so are doing more harm than good (because what's that's happening as a result of opposition to Nuclear power is that we continue to rely on fossile fuels - maintaining the status quo). Their inability to be pragmatic only keeps them on the fringes (when once they had more widespread public appeal).
Although, Greenpeace have got it spectacularly wrong in the past too (e.g. the Brent Spar case) and as a result they don't have any credibility left for me, and I think their global standing was diminished as a result of that case too. I remember reading some of the inaccuracies / misleading statements in their publicity seeking 'attack' on Apple when it first came out (which, even as a layman, I can tell when things are being skewed and couched in ambigious language) and thinking "here we go again".
In what way are other browsers, like Firefox, Safari, and Opera 'ignoring' another standard by implimenting canvas support? Canvas support is a widely support standard, Firefox, Safari and Opera both impliment it, Microsoft have something *similar* but of course it's not the same.
This is pretty typical, and a situation that arises a lot even when it's with a W3C standard - things like the ECMA script standard leave specifics untermined, and the other major browser developers have implimented complimentary systems, but Microsoft almost always does it's own thing.
Usually their implimentation has ultimately the same functionality, but it's typically more verbose to impliment and requires special if (browserIs.IE) { } kludges (and in the case of more complex apps, libraries to abstract the functions).
[1] That was supposed to be a joke, but I no-so-secretly believe it.[2]
[2] And yes, I'm a big fat nerd with man boobs sitting in an home study full of posters from the Science museum, with not one but two Darth Vaders models, surrounded by a multi processor Sparc system, a server running debian, two Macs (one G4 PPC, one Intel Laptop) and a Windows XP gaming system but in the presence of other nerds I'm positively dynamic
Sorry, but it's hard to see that as anything but snooty.
So to take that, and get back to my example, do you think American Idol MIGHT actually be better TV than Planet Earth, just because some people (uncultured trailor trash) think so?
;-)
I don't, no matter what they think, and I don't care to pander to the idea that we should seek to avoid offending the tasteless. I don't think it's being snooty to say that, I think it's being a realist.
Even the people that make crap TV invariably know exactly what they are doing (they typically arn't idiots), the same is true of so many other crap products (e.g. The Sun might be the UK's favourite newspaper, but I'm sure Rupert Murdoch doesn't read it except to check up on how the current editor is doing - he knows full well it's crap and so does she). At least that's mostly the case...
Some things can reasonably be called subjective, sometimes its approproate not mince words and say what you mean - some things are just crap, even if lots of people are too stupid to realise they are crap (e.g. virtually all MySpace homepages, much of daytime TV, Fox News, supermarket white bread).
All three of IE7, FireFox and Safari have their share of problems, it's really 'pick your bugs'.
Well, I've got to say no it's not.
I think a primary reason why people think crap things are good is that they just don't know any better - and I would add I'm sure there are plenty of things that are crap but that I think are good because I'm ignorant about them.
IE7 has some pretty big flaws that are immediately apparently when trying to create websites with even a modest degree of sophistication. Firefox has a small number, and things like far better perfomance in it's ECMA script engine, Safari has the least issues and an excellent JS implimentation - something that you'd have to use to appreciate), though it does lack XSLT support, which is a shame.
IE7 is significantly inferior not only technically - with regard to it's rendering engine's core features and performance - but from a user perspective too. You can't even customise the interface! It has totally retarded button positioning, and the MENUBAR only goes *BELOW* the toolbar. I mean WTF? And the Home button being where it is (and stop and refersh being where they are) - who's idea was that?
I think you can say, objectively, it's badly designed, as is Vista itself (as pretty as the widgets are, it behaves dementedly). Sure parts of Mac OS are currently badly designed too (the Finder specifically) but Vista is in a world of it's own when it comes to sucking.
Windows XP's *default* UI was pretty lousy (hid icons from users, replace it with a large and invariably confusing Start menu users didn't know what to do with), Windows 2000 was decent, if boring and shows they can *nearly* get it right (or at least, get it right when it's mundane - which is good - just not when they trying to do an 'innovative' design).
The enduring popularity of Media Player Classic is another testiment to this (a boring interface, but otherwise a very well designed piece of software). People can't seem to wait to get away from horrible new fangled Microsoft UI's (even if they are on the surface of it pretty looking in an attempt by MS to stay competitive when it comes to initial visual impact).
Comparing MacOS 6 and 7 to Windows 3.1... All of those options are from the last century. I am talking about Windows 2000/XP vs. MacOs 9 and X.
I only said that as you said "I've used plenty of OSes, and prior to FreeBSD, for me and my uses, Windows was the best OS." and prior to FreeBSD, that's all there was, I guess I just misunderstood your meaning there.
Of course, that you apparently like FreeBSD over Debian or Ubuntu proves you are deviant! 8) [1]
[1] Joke!
As far as usability goes - MacOS is the only one that I find has severly hindered usability in the UI
That's interesting, and goes against what I might have thought too.
Personally, I still suspect they are more 'productive' (that is to say, in terms of the end result - thinking of say, the number of people who worked on Vista and the number who worked on Tiger, and comparing the two OS's, and of respective achievements (the only thing Microsoft has done recently that really stands out is build a decent on-line games console, which no one else was doing - at least not since the Dreamcast).
I suspect that's down to Apple primarily making money through hardware, rather than through software (with the margins on hardware being a lot smaller than they are form selling the same old OS millions of times over).
That's just a theory, but seems to backed up by looking at the revenue (Apple's being a bit under 20M USD a year, with MS's a bit over 44M USD). Maybe the picture will change as online music, TV and film sales take off. Will be interesting to see.
One thing that really irks me is the cost of Vista compared to say a new copy of the Mac OS. I mean, they are roughly comparible in terms of features (as much as I think the balance is in the Mac's favour, there is of course a hell of a lot more off the shelf software for Windows), so I can't see any justification for the crazy pricetag on something like Vista. Even the cheapest OEM version of Vista Ultimate is about twice the price of a new version of Mac OS!
-- Ooops I went off topic here, but I'm going to leave it in! --
AND you are 'licenced' to run one copy of Mac OS on up 5 Mac's in your house, not that Mac OS tracks your hardware, requires online activation, or a serial number (and if it goes in for serving and needs reinstalling, they just install the latest version for you, no questions asked). It makes things soo much easier when you have to 'help' with friends computers when you can be laissez faire about the OS.
As happened recently with a Windows computer I was reparing for a friend of my folks (while on holiday! boo!), "Oh, you can't find the OS CD anymore, sorry I can't install one for you - I've only got one Key and it's already registered to me - I can put in a new HD to replace the broken one, but you'll have to go and buy another copy OS and install it yourself").
Totally retarded. At least they are selling Vista online now (from what I gather - you can get a legit key and download the ISO from MS). The idea of a 'free trial' of the final Release Candidate was a good idea too (valid until June/July, and can be registered as 'final release' by putting in a retail activation key).
Given the price, you'd think Microsoft would at least grant to licence to use a single copy on as many machines on your house as you might reasonably want to (rather than the perverse option of technically refusing to let you install more 'basic' versions of the product on more than one machine, ever).
I bring that up because, personally, I really do think it has a lot to do being able to appreciate a classy product when you see one, a question of taste (for want of a better way of describing it).
I'm quite serious and I'm really not trying to be snooty (and I know how this sounds and that it could be mistaken for flamebait) - simply not everyone can do that (they can look at something hideous and think it looks 'fine', they can eat terrible food and notice it's awful, can write terrible documentation and think it's "really clear" (or for that matter, write terrible code and have no idea how hideous and nasty it is).
I'm with Steve Job's on this one, Microsoft just make crass software. They don't even TRY to get it write until they are embarrsed into doing so, and even when they do the result is half assed (compare the IE7 to Firefox or Safari's - it's not only technically worse than either of those two, but the UI is worse). I've used plenty of OSes, and prior to FreeBSD, for me and my uses, Windows was the best OS I do kind of wonder about that TBH, Mac OS 6 & 7 where so far ahead of Windows 3.1 from everything from CAD, to software development to even word processing.
Despite the email address, I'm not a fanboy. There are plenty of technical reasons why I also like Gnome desktop (it's really nice, very flexible, and Nautilus has evolved into a better file manager than the Mac OS's current Finder). I think Windows is a terrible choice though (technically, and artistically) - and only worth using when the software you want to use is only avalible on windows, or if your writing software on it (but then, you are getting what you deserve
I have a Windows system, but it's purely for games (Apple hardware *still* doesn't support SLI, nor Mac OS a wide range of cards - specifically it doesn't support many high end cards, which is totally put be off getting a mac desktop). Windows is actually pretty good at games though, largely due to optimised drivers from vendors, but DirectX itself is certainly to Microsoft's credit (even if it does mean many developers are less likely to use Open GL).
Do you imagine companies like NC Software allow software developers to own the IP and retain distribution rights for any software they write as employees of the company?
The previous poster wasn't making a 'prejudiced' statement, no matter what agenda you are pushing.
Now that is disturbing.
I think everyone agrees that the free QuickTime player on Windows is just annoying. It's wrong to suggest that 'QuickTime Pro' is a waste of money though, it's very cheap and works well at converting a range of media formats and it doesn't just work with QT video as you imply. I never save anything as a QT .mov (yuck).
It's only 30 USD and the wide range of formats and options it supports (including thing like creating hinted videos for streaming) combined with it's no-brainier ease of use, the ability to chop and splice things together simply, and it's scriptability (which could do with being extended) make it worth while for anyone who has to work with videos intended for digital distribution from multiple sources. Media/Design agencies in particular, but it's also handy as a regular user if you want to convert video you have to work on other devices you have.
There are indeed free tools that offer the same features as Pro, but I've yet to see any BETTER free tools, from a holistic point of view. It's more like there are a bunch of other free tools that when used together give similar functionality, but in almost all instances require more faffing about than the saving of 30 USD really justifies.
I've had plenty of problems getting Helix software too, just getting source and/or binaries for evaluation - several of the download links for software on the site do not work, and have not worked for over a year. If you ask them about it, you get punted to Real.com and 'would you like to get a commercial trial version of our Helix software?' After a couple of months of this and the web site being largely broken for weeks (due to some unending 'migration'), I'd had enough. Windows Media streaming costs (if you buy a server with Windows Server) are less than the cost of buying a "server with Mac OS X server." In fact, there are many more existing Windows servers out there than OS X servers, so Windows Media streaming cost are less for a heck of a lot more people if they want support from MS or Apple. Companies doesn't just run solutions on whatever old Windows box they have lying around - unless you work for a very small privately owned company things are ordered on a per-project basis. As explained in another post, technical support with a product like this is meaningless. Your 'bedroom sysadmin' speculation is amusing though (particularly the part where you imagine the sort of companies (telco's/broadcaster's) who run commercial streaming services typically run their systems on Windows of all things, and that they'd have servers 'lying around' they'd just use).
It's only better if it is actually better at what it's supposed to do, otherwise it's still worse.
I already have a pretty good idea of what I'm doing, and it's pretty simple to determine the cause of any problem with software I mind find. I know how to debug third party software on Unix and Windows, identifying the fault usually isn't that hard. It's fair to say I'm probably better at diagnosing odd problems (the sort that actually prompt someone competent to contact the vendor) than some random joe technical support.
The technical support center will almost certainly make me want to jump through a large number of time wasting hoops to be sure I'm not a moron. Sometimes that process can take days, or even weeks - even when it's obviously their crummy software.
Past that, the problem is getting bugs fixed once you've found them and technical support can't help you with that (typically vendors don't really care about bugs unless they are easy to fix or effecting a large number of customers - otherwise it goes on to the bottom of the 'to do' list).
Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. Darwin Streaming Server was the reason why I didn't mention Apple - there streaming costs (even if you buy a server with Mac OS X server) are tiny fraction of the cost of buying comparable hardware / software from other vendors.
If you want to create hinted files, a mere 30 USD for QuickTime Pro is obviously pocket change. Even setting up hinted videos on a regular HTTP server works just fine for most short videos (things like video game trailers) - many sites would have a much better service if they just did that (rather than having some proprietary service that doesn't work at all for some users, and that often can't hack it even when you are using compatible software).
A lot of people assume that the streaming software tools from Apple can only be viewed in Quick Time, even though it can also stream MPEG videos which work just fine over broadband in native clients (WMP on Windows, QT on Mac, and say VLC on Linux). Apple have shot themselves in the foot in that respect I think, by not making the distinction clear.
I think silly decisions like not providing full screen playback in the client unless your purchase the 'pro' edition have also soured the 'QuickTime' brand. I'm sure that gets them a few extra sales of Pro from some frustrated customers, but at a greater cost overall I would have thought.