No, the GCN is better. The Xbox is PC hardware thrown together in an atrocity of a device jerry-rigged to play video games. The Gamecube is designed from a chip level up as a strictly game playing machine. That's right, no DVD's, no external apps, just games, and it does it damn well.
Trust me. Go to cube.ign.com and check out the upcoming games. They have Tony Hawk 3, it's in stores now. The have a dark gloomy game, can't remember the name.. maybe resident evil? Perfect Dark is the best first person shooter type game I've ever played, and they're coming out with a gamecube version. The new Zelda will be like you're playing a cartoon... call it kiddy if you want to follow the pop culture, but if you think about it, it's damn cool.
Good point. I don't know the answer but I hope someone who does replies to your post. I wouldn't be suprised if the study was funded by Microsoft, and that's why the fuzzy math is there. Just like the fuzzy law they've been practicing lately.
I didn't even think about that but you're exactly right. I think the PS2 was hurt when it first came out because it couldn't live up to demand. So like in the first 3 weeks they may have sold only 500,000 consoles (WILD guess, completely a shot in the dark) but they were gone as soon as the store got them, so if you look at the totals say 6 months after the release, it probably sold a huge number of consoles (especially since it was the only next gen console out there.) Basically these stats are all hot air and don't really matter. If you want crap games that have a lot of blood and guts, go Sony. If you want decent games that will crash every 45 minutes (per the users manual) go Xbox. If you want reliable games that have great graphics, extremely good game play, heritage (Zelda, Metroid, etc) then go with the GCN.
Well, I'm not going to say much aside from this: I'm a GCN owner. I bought it because of Nintendo's reputation for games. You sound to me like the type of person to say "oh but Nintendo only sells kiddie games." I say, kids need games too, GCN makes both. I bought a GCN the day it came out, and I got Star Wars and Madden 2002. The games are amazing, and adult. Star Wars is innovative in masking the load times and has amazing game play/graphics. Madden 2002 plays smoothly and responds gracefully, and looks basically like a souped up version of what was on the PS2. When I played Madden 2002 on a PS2, I was frustrated out of my mind because of the slow reaction by the console.
Technically Xbox is better? Guess you've not seen the green screen of death or the Xboxes hung at the malls... Xbox is a computer used for gaming, PS2 and moreso GCN are game consoles used for gaming. You can't compare the specs straight up, the entire design, ESPECIALLY in the GCN, is completely different.
Anyway, you're right about the games, but sheer numbers don't make an argument. I could type until I'm blue in the face but I probably won't change your opinion. The only thing I know is that I've played PS2 a lot, and the games look spiffy but the graphics while you're actually playing aren't that good, and the fluidity of the input vs. response is terrible. I'm an old time Nintendo fan so I'll love the new Metroid, Zelda, Mario Kart, and even some of the newer legends like Perfect Dark. But you're right, those don't come out until next year, so GCN will have like 1/100 the amount of games as PS2... OK, big deal, I go for Quality, not quantity.
Well I guess I just didn't elaborate enough because I didn't want to write a 400 line article, but about the "scientific" nature of my personal research... it's not very scientific, I was just trying to illustrate my lack of trust for this report. This also ties into the second thing you pointed out, I know what you're saying about the number of people who own the console, but the article itself goes on to ream Nintendo for claiming 800,000+ in sales and claims they only sold 600 something thousand. My point is that I know personally from my own digging and following of Nintendo that they claimed to have shipped 800+ thousand, meaning vendors have bought that many, but I've not seen a release by Nintendo saying 800+thousand people have bought a GCN. I probably should have added that quote in from the article too...
Sony sold 962,000 PlayStation 2 consoles between Nov. 11 and Dec. 8, according to CSFB estimates based on figures compiled by research firm NPDFunworld. Microsoft, which launched Xbox on Nov. 15, sold 934,000 consoles. The GameCube, introduced Nov. 18, sold 602,000.
So let me get this straight, in this random, particular time period, Sony outsold GameCube and Xbox. Hmmm. First of all, it seems like the article is referring to actual sales to individuals, not sales to vendors. I'm not 100% sure but I've always thought the companies make their statements by how many items they have sold to vendors, because once the vendor buys it from Nintendo, or Microsoft, or Sony, then they've made their money.
Secondly, the most unfair thing about this article is the time period. I hate both Microsoft and their inferior Xbox, but I have to come to it's defense here, the study says Sony outsold Microsoft when in fact, according to their own results, Microsoft sold 28,000 less consoles, yet had 4 less days than Sony to do so. So basically, the Xbox was selling for 6/7 of the time the PS2 was, yet it sold at a rate of 38,917 boxes per day as compared to 34,357 PS2s per day.
Lastly, as for Nintendo's case, I just flat out don't believe those numbers. I talked to the local Best Buy and also to a few electronics stores in the mall just out of curiosity, and they say they've sold more Gamecubes than anything, but they've also had more shipments of Gamecubes, so they haven't sold out. This really all is just nitt-picking though because the fact of the matter is that PS2 is crap. They put together a pile of crap as fast as possible and released it first, and it's earned a lot of money, but it's still crap. The Xbox is made by Microsoft, that's all I have to say to know that it's a big pile of horse dung. So, we're left with GameCube, and despite it's "kiddy" reputation, I find it to be the best game console. In time, that's what consumers will see, and the numbers will show it. Right now articles like this are just acting as tools of the establishment.
Just go to your local elementary school and ask any fifth grader what the Civil War was about.
"It's when the North saved the country and freed the slaves from the evil South." - and that's the mild version that you might hear somewhere in Mississippi.
When the truth of the matter is, when Lincoln said "United we stand, divided we fall" the "we" was referring strictly to those states which were on the North's side, as their federal government definitely would have fallen if they lost all of the revenue (something like 75%) from the Southern agriculture (89% of which was from poor white tenant farmers.)
Ok, I could talk about that all day, but the point is that kids get brainwashed in school at all levels to learn the particular ways of thinking that each education system wants them to learn. If you're in a class where the prof says something you don't beleive, but you want to get a good grade, then you don't stick your neck out because rarely do they encourage debate amongst what they profess to be facts. This is even more scary with younger kids though because when they're in school they want to do what's "right," and for them making the teacher happy is right, so if she says that Clinton ended the cold war and Reagan created the National Debt, the kids beleive her, and it trickles down into later life...
The vague space of the hard disk should not exist for you. Ideally, your machine should be a collection of desktops that you have created and named, that are easy to track via a menu or toggle button, and are each understandable because they follow the same rules and offer the same limitations.
The hard disk icon was an error that should disappear from mainstream computer systems. Multiple desktops should be implemented across the board to simplify the life of casual users everywhere.
What? I don't think this person has ever done anything useful with a computer. I have so much I want to say to rip this apart but I just can't organize it all in my head. I'll just say a few quick things:
He's right about one thing: Most OS's don't implement the desktop idea correctly. What he's wrong about is his idea of a desktop. The whole concept, started by Mac OS, was that you have a desk, and the desk has drawers. You go into the folders within the drawers (directories within the hard drives) to get the files you want to use, and then you take them out and they are on your desktop. Macintosh still is the best at this. Their entire OS is extremely easy to grasp, even in OSX, only now it's much more powerful to the advanced user. Windows is just a cheap immitation. Linux is... well it's great, but it's desktop idea was meant for functionality and power, not casual use (at least in early distros.)
Now we come to the suggested desktop idea. This is ridiculous. Having multiple desktops that you toggle to, having no directory structure at all? Do you all realize how ridiculously point and click that would be? No longer could you go in a directory tree browsing program and efficiently move things, you would have to slect them with the mouse on one desktop, do the copy command, tab over to the desktop you want, then do the paste command. That's right, no more "cp" for you linux people, it's all point and click... That's just not going to fly. It's not powerful enough. The other thing is, think about this metaphorically. Multiple layered desktops... what in the hell can you compare that to? Having like 10 desks in a circle and you spin around to see which one you'll use? Stacking 10 desks on top of each other? I just don't see how that's easier.
Granted, I like the multiple desktops in Linux. I use them to have multiple full screen applications running at the same time. They have many other uses. On the other hand, I use the file tree browser, or the command line, to do all of my file management. It simply is the most convenient and powerful way, and if a user can't learn to browse a file tree... well... they need to pick up a new hobby/occupation.
You use a bunch of big words and a tone that conveys absolute knowledge, but you're completely wrong. Amazing.
I'm not absolutely sure of which war you speak, but I'm assuming you're referring to the war for Southern Independance (commonly referred to, and incorrectly so, as the "Civil War".) In that case, you are all wrong. As you may or may not know, owning a slave back in the 17 and 18 hundreds was the equivalent to owning a mansion or a luxury boat today. Therefore, and this is an educated estimation, about 1 to 3 percent of Southerners actually owned slaves. The war was fought by poor tenant farmers for their freedom from economic oppresion of the Union. Additionally, given the plain numbers of soldiers in each army, it was the Union who's asses were kicked, as the only way they won the war was by presenting the confederate army with more bodies than they had ammunition (which interestingly was caused by lack of support from an ungrateful nation of France in penetrating the Union's blockade.)
As a final thought, I take back what I said about the Union not kicking the CSA's ass because in reality they did, only it wasn't on the battlfield. See, in the "war to free the slaves" the Union army burnt the major Southern cities to the ground in a terrorist act that rivals anything we've ever seen out of the Middle East, more commonly referred to as "Sherman's March." The Confederate army was very civilized and proper in thier way of waging war, in fact they neglected to use their secret submarine weapon until the war was almost over because they thought it was an unfair instrument. Therefore, I recant, the Union did kick the CSA's ass, only rather than soldier deaths, these were the deaths of hundreds of thousands of completely innocent women, children, slaves, men... normal civilians. United we stand, divided we fall... the "we" referred only to the North. My great grandparents used to tell me the story of how their parents were killed in Atlanta by the fires. Call me ignorant, call me a redneck, call me close-minded, but I think I'll stay right here South of that line, thank you very much.
I mean isn't Australia just a big island full of convicts? Funny how now they seem to be so strict. I wonder if someone gets arrested for having that game, are they going to ship them to the UK?
I mean all the time he posts completely irrelevant horse dung about his personal game playing fetishes while good, honest articles get rejected.
For example, yesterday I submitted a story from Yahoo! news about talking ATM technology in Mississsippi. I thought it was pretty funny, I mean can't you imagine "Here's dat money, fixin to print your receipt!"
Anyway, who gives a flying Fu** what video games you've beaten? Get a life!
The Predictive software creates a "Digital Silhouette" that is described as being able "to tell them that Joe watches a lot of baseball, likes Situation Comedies, and responds favorably to commercials that use humor/
How in the hell does it know how he responds to the humorous commercials? Hopefully they just know that he doesn't change the channel away from them, and that they don't actually know his response somehow....
OK, so it was a good idea. It would be fun to have a portable SNES, I admit. This guy's humor is just not funny though, and he didn't even show any action photos of what the games actually look like on that tiny screen. This guy has too much time on his hands.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the GCN is better. The Xbox is PC hardware thrown together in an atrocity of a device jerry-rigged to play video games. The Gamecube is designed from a chip level up as a strictly game playing machine. That's right, no DVD's, no external apps, just games, and it does it damn well.
Charge the man $15,000 for your Linux support (still saving him at least $85,000) and donate $10,000 of that.
Trust me. Go to cube.ign.com and check out the upcoming games. They have Tony Hawk 3, it's in stores now. The have a dark gloomy game, can't remember the name.. maybe resident evil? Perfect Dark is the best first person shooter type game I've ever played, and they're coming out with a gamecube version. The new Zelda will be like you're playing a cartoon... call it kiddy if you want to follow the pop culture, but if you think about it, it's damn cool.
Good point. I don't know the answer but I hope someone who does replies to your post. I wouldn't be suprised if the study was funded by Microsoft, and that's why the fuzzy math is there. Just like the fuzzy law they've been practicing lately.
I didn't even think about that but you're exactly right. I think the PS2 was hurt when it first came out because it couldn't live up to demand. So like in the first 3 weeks they may have sold only 500,000 consoles (WILD guess, completely a shot in the dark) but they were gone as soon as the store got them, so if you look at the totals say 6 months after the release, it probably sold a huge number of consoles (especially since it was the only next gen console out there.) Basically these stats are all hot air and don't really matter. If you want crap games that have a lot of blood and guts, go Sony. If you want decent games that will crash every 45 minutes (per the users manual) go Xbox. If you want reliable games that have great graphics, extremely good game play, heritage (Zelda, Metroid, etc) then go with the GCN.
Well, I'm not going to say much aside from this: I'm a GCN owner. I bought it because of Nintendo's reputation for games. You sound to me like the type of person to say "oh but Nintendo only sells kiddie games." I say, kids need games too, GCN makes both. I bought a GCN the day it came out, and I got Star Wars and Madden 2002. The games are amazing, and adult. Star Wars is innovative in masking the load times and has amazing game play/graphics. Madden 2002 plays smoothly and responds gracefully, and looks basically like a souped up version of what was on the PS2. When I played Madden 2002 on a PS2, I was frustrated out of my mind because of the slow reaction by the console.
Technically Xbox is better? Guess you've not seen the green screen of death or the Xboxes hung at the malls... Xbox is a computer used for gaming, PS2 and moreso GCN are game consoles used for gaming. You can't compare the specs straight up, the entire design, ESPECIALLY in the GCN, is completely different.
Anyway, you're right about the games, but sheer numbers don't make an argument. I could type until I'm blue in the face but I probably won't change your opinion. The only thing I know is that I've played PS2 a lot, and the games look spiffy but the graphics while you're actually playing aren't that good, and the fluidity of the input vs. response is terrible. I'm an old time Nintendo fan so I'll love the new Metroid, Zelda, Mario Kart, and even some of the newer legends like Perfect Dark. But you're right, those don't come out until next year, so GCN will have like 1/100 the amount of games as PS2... OK, big deal, I go for Quality, not quantity.
Well I guess I just didn't elaborate enough because I didn't want to write a 400 line article, but about the "scientific" nature of my personal research... it's not very scientific, I was just trying to illustrate my lack of trust for this report. This also ties into the second thing you pointed out, I know what you're saying about the number of people who own the console, but the article itself goes on to ream Nintendo for claiming 800,000+ in sales and claims they only sold 600 something thousand. My point is that I know personally from my own digging and following of Nintendo that they claimed to have shipped 800+ thousand, meaning vendors have bought that many, but I've not seen a release by Nintendo saying 800+thousand people have bought a GCN. I probably should have added that quote in from the article too...
Sony sold 962,000 PlayStation 2 consoles between Nov. 11 and Dec. 8, according to CSFB estimates based on figures compiled by research firm NPDFunworld. Microsoft, which launched Xbox on Nov. 15, sold 934,000 consoles. The GameCube, introduced Nov. 18, sold 602,000.
So let me get this straight, in this random, particular time period, Sony outsold GameCube and Xbox. Hmmm. First of all, it seems like the article is referring to actual sales to individuals, not sales to vendors. I'm not 100% sure but I've always thought the companies make their statements by how many items they have sold to vendors, because once the vendor buys it from Nintendo, or Microsoft, or Sony, then they've made their money.
Secondly, the most unfair thing about this article is the time period. I hate both Microsoft and their inferior Xbox, but I have to come to it's defense here, the study says Sony outsold Microsoft when in fact, according to their own results, Microsoft sold 28,000 less consoles, yet had 4 less days than Sony to do so. So basically, the Xbox was selling for 6/7 of the time the PS2 was, yet it sold at a rate of 38,917 boxes per day as compared to 34,357 PS2s per day.
Lastly, as for Nintendo's case, I just flat out don't believe those numbers. I talked to the local Best Buy and also to a few electronics stores in the mall just out of curiosity, and they say they've sold more Gamecubes than anything, but they've also had more shipments of Gamecubes, so they haven't sold out. This really all is just nitt-picking though because the fact of the matter is that PS2 is crap. They put together a pile of crap as fast as possible and released it first, and it's earned a lot of money, but it's still crap. The Xbox is made by Microsoft, that's all I have to say to know that it's a big pile of horse dung. So, we're left with GameCube, and despite it's "kiddy" reputation, I find it to be the best game console. In time, that's what consumers will see, and the numbers will show it. Right now articles like this are just acting as tools of the establishment.
Just go to your local elementary school and ask any fifth grader what the Civil War was about.
"It's when the North saved the country and freed the slaves from the evil South." - and that's the mild version that you might hear somewhere in Mississippi.
When the truth of the matter is, when Lincoln said "United we stand, divided we fall" the "we" was referring strictly to those states which were on the North's side, as their federal government definitely would have fallen if they lost all of the revenue (something like 75%) from the Southern agriculture (89% of which was from poor white tenant farmers.)
Ok, I could talk about that all day, but the point is that kids get brainwashed in school at all levels to learn the particular ways of thinking that each education system wants them to learn. If you're in a class where the prof says something you don't beleive, but you want to get a good grade, then you don't stick your neck out because rarely do they encourage debate amongst what they profess to be facts. This is even more scary with younger kids though because when they're in school they want to do what's "right," and for them making the teacher happy is right, so if she says that Clinton ended the cold war and Reagan created the National Debt, the kids beleive her, and it trickles down into later life...
So someone explain to me how this driverless thing works... how could you mount it in Linux? Windows?...
But I don't understand how people thought it was Off Topic, I mean OBL is the ring leader of Al Quieda (sp?)
The vague space of the hard disk should not exist for you. Ideally, your machine should be a collection of desktops that you have created and named, that are easy to track via a menu or toggle button, and are each understandable because they follow the same rules and offer the same limitations.
The hard disk icon was an error that should disappear from mainstream computer systems. Multiple desktops should be implemented across the board to simplify the life of casual users everywhere.
What? I don't think this person has ever done anything useful with a computer. I have so much I want to say to rip this apart but I just can't organize it all in my head. I'll just say a few quick things:
He's right about one thing: Most OS's don't implement the desktop idea correctly. What he's wrong about is his idea of a desktop. The whole concept, started by Mac OS, was that you have a desk, and the desk has drawers. You go into the folders within the drawers (directories within the hard drives) to get the files you want to use, and then you take them out and they are on your desktop. Macintosh still is the best at this. Their entire OS is extremely easy to grasp, even in OSX, only now it's much more powerful to the advanced user. Windows is just a cheap immitation. Linux is... well it's great, but it's desktop idea was meant for functionality and power, not casual use (at least in early distros.)
Now we come to the suggested desktop idea. This is ridiculous. Having multiple desktops that you toggle to, having no directory structure at all? Do you all realize how ridiculously point and click that would be? No longer could you go in a directory tree browsing program and efficiently move things, you would have to slect them with the mouse on one desktop, do the copy command, tab over to the desktop you want, then do the paste command. That's right, no more "cp" for you linux people, it's all point and click... That's just not going to fly. It's not powerful enough. The other thing is, think about this metaphorically. Multiple layered desktops... what in the hell can you compare that to? Having like 10 desks in a circle and you spin around to see which one you'll use? Stacking 10 desks on top of each other? I just don't see how that's easier.
Granted, I like the multiple desktops in Linux. I use them to have multiple full screen applications running at the same time. They have many other uses. On the other hand, I use the file tree browser, or the command line, to do all of my file management. It simply is the most convenient and powerful way, and if a user can't learn to browse a file tree... well... they need to pick up a new hobby/occupation.
You use a bunch of big words and a tone that conveys absolute knowledge, but you're completely wrong. Amazing.
I'm not absolutely sure of which war you speak, but I'm assuming you're referring to the war for Southern Independance (commonly referred to, and incorrectly so, as the "Civil War".) In that case, you are all wrong. As you may or may not know, owning a slave back in the 17 and 18 hundreds was the equivalent to owning a mansion or a luxury boat today. Therefore, and this is an educated estimation, about 1 to 3 percent of Southerners actually owned slaves. The war was fought by poor tenant farmers for their freedom from economic oppresion of the Union. Additionally, given the plain numbers of soldiers in each army, it was the Union who's asses were kicked, as the only way they won the war was by presenting the confederate army with more bodies than they had ammunition (which interestingly was caused by lack of support from an ungrateful nation of France in penetrating the Union's blockade.)
As a final thought, I take back what I said about the Union not kicking the CSA's ass because in reality they did, only it wasn't on the battlfield. See, in the "war to free the slaves" the Union army burnt the major Southern cities to the ground in a terrorist act that rivals anything we've ever seen out of the Middle East, more commonly referred to as "Sherman's March." The Confederate army was very civilized and proper in thier way of waging war, in fact they neglected to use their secret submarine weapon until the war was almost over because they thought it was an unfair instrument. Therefore, I recant, the Union did kick the CSA's ass, only rather than soldier deaths, these were the deaths of hundreds of thousands of completely innocent women, children, slaves, men... normal civilians. United we stand, divided we fall... the "we" referred only to the North. My great grandparents used to tell me the story of how their parents were killed in Atlanta by the fires. Call me ignorant, call me a redneck, call me close-minded, but I think I'll stay right here South of that line, thank you very much.
You're right. I made a joke about it too. The moderater was wrong.
On the other hand, I was just making a joke lightheartedly, your post seemed sort of millitant...
and we are a bunch of convicts. I love it. It's fun. That's why I'm sad to see Australia take this stance.
Seeing as half of the story revolved around what games Taco has played recently, I think my post was exactly on topic.
I'm not on my knees polishing CmdrTacos knob so instantly I lose moderation points... who would have guessed?
I mean isn't Australia just a big island full of convicts? Funny how now they seem to be so strict. I wonder if someone gets arrested for having that game, are they going to ship them to the UK?
I mean all the time he posts completely irrelevant horse dung about his personal game playing fetishes while good, honest articles get rejected.
For example, yesterday I submitted a story from Yahoo! news about talking ATM technology in Mississsippi. I thought it was pretty funny, I mean can't you imagine "Here's dat money, fixin to print your receipt!"
Anyway, who gives a flying Fu** what video games you've beaten? Get a life!
You should go back and watch the Buddy Lee and Miller High Life commercials too... maybe I'm just crazy but they really crack me up
Is leveraging a monopoly to create other monopolies legal?
(expected answer: NO)
If not, how will you stop Microsoft from doing so?
Like I said, scary. I don't like people tracking me like that...
The Predictive software creates a "Digital Silhouette" that is described as being able "to tell them that Joe watches a lot of baseball, likes Situation Comedies, and responds favorably to commercials that use humor/
How in the hell does it know how he responds to the humorous commercials? Hopefully they just know that he doesn't change the channel away from them, and that they don't actually know his response somehow....
PICTURES
Some of us don't have a media player at work...
OK, so it was a good idea. It would be fun to have a portable SNES, I admit. This guy's humor is just not funny though, and he didn't even show any action photos of what the games actually look like on that tiny screen. This guy has too much time on his hands.