If Microsoft wanted to do that, that's perfectly within their rights. Apple can't be troubled to support every damn type of hardware or architecture out there, and no one can force them to. It's the same as Texas Instruments not letting Casio license their (arguably) superior calculator software, or Kodak not licensing the operating system of their cameras to other companies.
Irix only runs on SGI hardware. Boo hoo. It's hardly anticompetetive. It's just far easier to support, not to mention that Apple is a hardware company and selling machines is how they make money.
You do realise that practically nowhere offers gigabit ethernet plugin at the wall, not even at work? It's mostly for wiring up server farms etc. I seriously doubt your computer can consistantly give a gigabit of throughput anyway...
Even if you could only do 2x the throughput of standard 100Mbit, it's still 2x faster. For those of us that have enough machines with gigabit ethernet to warrant having a 10/100/1000 switch, well... that extra speed is pretty fucking sweet.
Choice of hardware:
Dell: everything
Apple: little
Put your money where your mouth is and back that up. I doubt you can find many external devices (scanner, USB/FW hard drive, camera, etc) that don't work on a Mac, and the internal stuff (video cards, etc) are negligible since we're talking about laptops.
Comparing a decidedly middle of the road Intel processor with the high-end Mac CPU is hardly fair is it.
Fastest G4 CPU: 1.42 GHz
Fastest P4 CPU: 3.06 GHz
for a ratio of ~2.16
Referenced G4 CPU: 1 GHz
Referenced P4 CPU: 2 GHz
for a ratio of ~2.00
(In other words, his comparison was relatively fair and accurate with regards to CPU.)
I'mma agree with the other person responding to this. I have a DP 800 with a GF3 (at 1600x1200 @ 75hz) and I suffer pretty much no slowdown (that's noticeable) with a minimized terminal. I can even make it transparent and drag it around the screen and it's not too bad. I think most of your other points are pretty valid, but I just don't see the problem with this one.
The company was distributing a patched version of Apple's proprietary software. iDVD is not free; it is included with the price of a SuperDrive from Apple. The license agreement states that it may not be redistributed, and Apple was not receiving royalties for the patched distribution. So yes, that was illegal.
Furthermore, how would you feel if someone was taking your work, modifying it and then selling it? You don't receive any royalties, sure, but more importantly, they are modifying your software. Who knows what kind of problems that could cause? Now something minor gets broken and Apple has to spend thousands of dollars supporting a problem that wasn't introduced by their engineers. Not only that, but now their software looks like a shoddy hack job.
You can't spin it so that Apple was in the wrong - it's just not happening. They were in the right, period, and that's the way it is.
I heard of a company called "Netscape". And I remember them becoming the "Netscape Division of America Online". So now I guess they're actually the "Netscape Division of AOL Time Warner".
Point being that there is no company called Netscape. It's just a brand name now.
10.1 is a free upgrade. I walked into the Apple store and got it, and you could probably pick it up from one of your Apple resellers. If you don't want to do so, I'm sure you can download it.
I don't use Classic, so I can't comment much about it. But MacOS X 10.1.x has been rock solid for me.
BTW, 10.1 isn't just "bug fixes", so you might want to consider buying it anyway. And 10.2 will include even more, so the same applies.
Well, since MacOS X doesn't crash "more oftehn than Windows 95 on a machine with apple juice all over the motherboard", that point of your argument is totally irrelevant. I have had my iBook for 13 months and the PowerMac for 10. They are on 24/7, rebooted only for software updates that require reboot. They have crashed exactly zero times.
I had to add a hotplug script to set the permissions for it, which took a little poking around to figure out the masks and such, but it works perfectly. I'll grant the documentation for these hotplug scripts needs to be improved, though...
Exactly. See, that's a solved problem. The solution? MacOS X. I don't need to spend my time re-solving problems that have already been done. I'm sorry to hear that you do.
That's why I love Linux but hate it at the same time. It's always a struggle. Sure, it works great most of the time... and then my keyboard just stops working in X11 all of a sudden. Why? Who the hell knows. But I've been using Linux every day since 1996 (and make my living as a UNIX expert) and I sure as shit couldn't fix it without rebuilding the box. You don't have that shit in MacOS X. You don't need to fuck with permissions. It just works.
- Apple doesn't sell individual pieces of hardware to consumers, meaning it's a real PITA (and costly) to get your Mac fixed if the mobo dies and it's out of warranty.
- OS X isn't very customizable (yet). One look fits all, apparently.
- You can get pretty much anything you want done in OS X, but it doesn't possess the staggering number of applications that Windows does. There are far fewer games available.
Buy a $4,000 computer from Dell. Spend the same amount of money on a computer from Apple.
I'll now bet you money that the Apple has, at the very least, higher quality memory, motherboard and power supply. Higher quality meaning the MTBF is higher. Why? Dell uses cheap components where they can get away with it most of the time. Apple knows that their users expect a box to last for four or five years, so they are built to a higher standard of quality.
I don't state that they use the same hardware - you're not reading very carefully. I state that they both use standard components. One could take the memory from a Pentium III system and put it in my PowerMac or vice versa. That's my point. Personally, I build all my own systems, so they're top quality (Tyan mobo, 3com ethernet, etc).
As for the Apache example, take it like this: stick someone who's never run Apache before in front of a Mac running OS X. Let them start Apache. Then put the same person in front of a Linux box and let them figure it out. From the time they sit down until the time the default Apache page is being served from their computer, which system gets it done quicker? My dollar would be on the Mac box.
- As one of my fellow ACs pointed out, Apple's back-end is just a pimped-out unix. At least Micro$oft can write its own OS and doesn't go converting to *nix when they realize it sucks.
So? We're talking about UNIX here. Not Windows. The original question was why UNIX has to be such a pain in the ass on a workstation. Nothing about Windows.
- Hardware: Remember back when apple supported BeOS? Ever wonder why they dropped it? Because they realized that if people could run a MacOS on IBM hardware, they'd abandon Apple's hardware like investors from Arthur Anderson.
Huh? Apple never "supported" BeOS. Apple was in talks to buy BeOS and make it the new MacOS, but Be held out for more and Apple called their bluff.
Of course MacOS X won't be available for x86. No Mac operating system ever will. Why? Because Apple derives a large majority of its profits from hardware. If you don't give them the hardware sales, they'll die. That's what they do. They sell computers.
- Price: I don't really feel like getting my ass reamed out every time i want to upgrade my system. Getting raped on IBM hardware doens't make me gay, but pushing back by willingly getting more expensive apple hardware does.
The only thing you can't really upgrade is your motherboard. Processor upgrades, memory, video cards, hard drives, sound cards... all of these are readily available for Macs, most of them the same pieces of hardware you'd put in your PC. I have two main desktop computers at home - a dual Athlon box running RedHat Linux 7.3 and a dual 800MHz PowerMac running MacOS X 10.1.5. Both of them use standard memory, standard video cards, standard hard drives. The price you pay for the "PC" version is the exact same price you would pay for a "Mac" version. Why? They're the same hardware.
Is the initial cost of the computer a bit more than that of a similarly configured computer from Dell? Probably. I haven't checked. I don't want a computer that maybe works most of the time. I don't want a computer where I have to fuss with drivers to make my video card work right. I don't want a computer made of cheap components. I want something that works just right, every time, with no fuss, that I don't have to worry about. I get that from my PowerMac and iBook. I wish I could say the same of my other computers.
He wants to be able to do work on it. He doesnt' want to have to pick out a computer to match his drapes. I will give Apple credit for a better UI, but as for everything else....
This is absurd. First of all, I would submit to you that it's far easier to get work done on a Mac because you can focus on the work instead of the computer. It's out of your way, letting you do your thing. The same thing can hardly be said of Windows or even Linux. Go ahead, plug in your USB scanner to your Linux box and watch it automagically set everything up and work first time. Ha! Plug in your digital camera and watch Linux automatically download the pictures to your hard drive. Not happening. And there's always something going on with Windows to keep you less productive - it needs to reboot, your 512MB of RAM is all in use even though you only have IE open...
Secondly, the Mac line is standardized now - you don't need to pick a color. Maybe you should make some effort to have an idea about that which you are writing?
And finally, if you're only giving Apple credit for a better UI, you haven't spent any significant time using MacOS X. Forget the UI. Look at how everything just works. Set up an Airport base station on MacOS X and then go to a Windows box and set up a WAP. Tell me which platform offered the more direct and simple approach. Or set up Apache on Linux or Windows and then do it on MacOS X. Tell me which one was quicker (hint - it's just a single button click on MacOS X).
There are valid arguments against Apple and MacOS X. You managed to hit exactly none of them.
Eh, I have one of the first ones made (June 2001 baby) and it runs OS X great. CD-ROM model, 320 megs of RAM... 66MHz bus and doing fine. And Airport is OSO sexy.
I don't see what the damn problem is. OS X runs great for me, on my iBook and on my DP 800MHz PowerMac with 1.152 gigs of ram and a GeForce3..:P
Anyway, don't be thinking those first models uniformly sucked. I've had mine for nearly a year now and it's pretty damn zippy and has given me *no* problems since I bought it. He must have gotten a lemon.:)
No. Being an electronics geek and having an electrical engineer for a father, I could probably fix it myself. Being a fanboy would have nothing to do with it, but that's sort of irrelevant when you consider that I'm not a fanboy of any particular console. I just find it irritating when persons argue out of complete ignorance.
Now... he still can't, because he was complaining of lockups, not hardware failure. Xbox != Windows. Sure, some games will probably cause the console to freeze - that's the game, not the console. I personally have never had that problem, and I haven't read of anything online either. Google didn't have anything immediately obvious.
As for this being a "well documented problem" - maybe you should have bought the extended warranty? If it was so well documented, why are you caught with your pants around your ankles with a dead Xbox? I'm sorry that it happened to you, and it sucks for sure, and I agree that it shouldn't happen... but that doesn't change the fact that it did. If it's so well documented, I would think you would have been proactive in ensuring that you were covered should the problem happen with yours.
As an aside, you may want to try taking it back to the store where you bought it and demanding an exchange. I don't care what the store policies are - they should exchange that for you. Be polite but firm - you purchased a defective Xbox from them and you need it replaced.
Good luck, and I hope that, in the end, you aren't stuck with a dead Xbox.
It applies because all these companies try to gouge you anywhere they can.
Suppose, for a moment, that you wanted to buy a game console, use it for a DVD player, do modest game playing.
Now, the price of the PS2 was, until today, $300, same as Xbox. Assume that new games are the same price - $50.
Extra controllers are (were) $35 for each system. So this is relatively negligible.
You need to buy a memory card for a PS2, which is (was) $35 extra.
The DVD remote for Xbox is $30. It's $20 for the PS2.
So right there, you're out an extra $25 if you go the PS2 route.
Suppose you want to play some 4 player games. On Xbox, this is no problem - buy the extra controllers.
On PS2, you need to buy the multitap connector - hey, that's another $35 there. So now you're down $60.
Suppose you want to play some games online. Xbox has broadband built in - so no extra cost there. PS2 will need an adaptor which isn't available yet - and is likely to retail between $35 and $50. We'll assume $35 to give the benefit of the doubt to Sony. So now you've spent $95 more on a PS2 and its accessories than you have the Xbox. I won't get into the benefits of having a hard drive, but if you want to buy one for PS2 (for game upgrades, like I just did for DOA3 on Xbox), you're going to spend even more cash.
If you forego the DVD playing aspect and the 4 player, you still lose on the PS2 because you NEED to buy a memory card to make effective use of the console. This hasn't kept me from buying a PS2 (obviously), and I don't at all regret that I've spent a ton of money on my consoles, but saying that the Xbox's price is outrageous is absurd, simply because when you look at it from all angles, it's cheaper than PS2 (or was, before Sony's price cuts, which Microsoft will have to answer).
It may seem silly, but for the money-conscious gamer, it's important to examine these aspects. Xbox isn't really that expensive when everything is considered.
Dead or Alive 3, Project Gotham Racing, Rallisport Challenge, Halo, Amped: Freestyle Snowboarding, SSX Tricky, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, Spider-Man, Silent Hill 2.
Dead or Alive 3 is obviously the fighting game to have on Xbox - are there even any others out?
PGR is pretty good, but it feels a lot like MSR re-hashed for Xbox.
Rallisport Challenge is awesome. It looks amazing and it plays great as well. It's seriously very fun.
Halo is the game to have, though I haven't really gotten far in it - playing it on the hardest level was kinda killing me, and then I got really hooked on...
Amped, which is one of the more addictive titles I've played for the Xbox. Career mode owns me. But I've always really loved snowboarding games.
SSX Tricky is great fun, but the controls can be somewhat awkward (hold A + Y + right trigger + left on the D-pad == cool trick but contorted hand). Amped is the more realistic snowboarding game; SSX Tricky is off the wall with big tricks. Either is a worthy addition to a game library.
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is very very good. This from a long time Hawk fan, though. It combines Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 with 2. It looks good on the Xbox (better than on Dreamcast), plays well... lots of fun. It's my least favorite in the Tony Hawk series though, and if you're going to get a Hawk game (you should - they're highly addictive and provide TONS of replay value), go with
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 - the addition of the revert is awesome, but that's not what makes this a better game. Everything is different here (except the controls, obviously), and it's a change for the better. Pretty easily my favorite game on Xbox and just about my favorite game ever (shared with GTA3 for PS2). So much to this game (unlocking Darth Maul was good fun)... it's very complete. If you buy one more game, make it this one. Rent it first if you're not a Hawk fan.
Spider-Man is definitely fun. It's got some control issues (mainly that you will spend more time controlling the camera then you ever thought), but other than that, it's cool. The graphics are great (obviously) and it's fun. The first level (warehouse) is infinitely frustrating, however. Don't feel discouraged. Definitely worthy of a rental.
Silent Hill 2 for Xbox improves over the PS2 version (you can now play as Maria as well), and the graphics are better, but only real fans of the series should buy it if they already have it for PS2. This is a Resident Evil-type game - if you like those, it's good. If you don't, it's dumb. It's hardly as wide-appeal as Tony Hawk is.
For reference, I always read reviews of games at http://xbox.ign.com before I buy - I find their reviews to be pretty much spot-on. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Though I never rent video games (I always know that I'm going to want the game and I trust IGN enough to go on their reviews), I would recommend renting before you buy anyway. I simply hate renting games - I like to have them whenever I want to play them, and I hate rushing through a game.
Anyway, if you're going to buy one more game for Xbox, make it THPS3 - even the woman likes playing this game. Everything about it screams "perfection". I don't know how they're going to make Tony Hawk 4 better. It's seriously the most fun I've had on Xbox - you'll want to 100% the game with all the characters (of which there are some two dozen).
Anyway, that's a quick run down of what I've got and what I think of 'em.
Hey smartguy, I've got all three next gen consoles and let me tell you something: there is a big difference in graphics power, and it affects gameplay.
Take, for example, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, which is ubiquitous. I have played it on GC, PS2 and Xbox, and guess which one plays more smoothly. Xbox, period. It doesn't have the slowdown, it doesn't have the pop-up - both of which are a problem on PS2 and GC. Let's not even make a big deal out of the fact that the Xbox version comes with an extra playable character and an extra level.
Let's look at Spider-Man, which is also out on every damn platform save Dreamcast. It, too, has extra levels that are exclusive to the Xbox version. And guess what? It plays much better on the Xbox, due largely to the fact that the Xbox hardware blows PS2 and GameCube away. No slow-down, no pop-up... guess what consoles have a problem with that?
I like my GameCube too, but you being a Nintendo fanboy doesn't change the fact that the hardware is inferior to the Xbox.
I won't even begin to talk about Xbox (lockups, price, games, controller,...)
Yeah, smartguy. Because you know that you can't win that battle. I've had my Xbox since the week after they were first released. I have played it more than any other console I currently own, save Dreamcast. It has been on 24/7 since I got it. It has never locked up (or, for that matter, given me any problem whatsoever).
The price is in line with PS2 and considering the fact that it does much more than a GameCube or PS2, it's really not so bad. I don't need to buy memory cards for my Xbox, but I sure as shit had to dump out some cash for PS2 and GameCube cards so I could save some games. Total cost of ownership for the Xbox is lower than PS2 and is barely higher than GameCube. And like I said, you're getting more with Xbox.
The games that are coming out for Xbox are just fine. You can bitch and moan all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Xbox had the strongest console launch since consoles were first deployed. Its games were all pretty much top-notch, which is more than can be said for GameCube or PS2. Xbox currently has over 60 games. I own exactly 10 of them, and all of them are pretty great. This includes a number of games that are available for PS2, GameCube or both, but are much better on Xbox (see above). There may be no "killer app" games for Xbox... but there weren't for PS2 after its launch and there sure as shit aren't any for GameCube. Super Monkey Ball is pretty fun, Rogue Squadron is great and Super Smash Brothers Melee will definitely always have a place in my living room, but other than that, nothing great is out now. Saying that Nintendo's 2002 lineup will be fantastic is mostly hypocritical - look at all the good games that will be coming out for Xbox and PS2 as well.
The only part of your argument that has a shred of logic to it is a complaint about the Xbox controller. I personally like the Xbox Controller and the Xbox Controller-S (of which I own 2 of the former and 1 of the latter), but I have large hands. Buy the S if you don't, and if that doesn't suit your fancy, check out of some of the third party controllers. It's important to have something that you'll be comfortable with.
To sum it up: you're a Nintendo fanboy, deluded to forever see their greatness, and that's okay - but it doesn't negate the fact that the other consoles are pretty fucking good as well.
I have both a PlayStation 2 and an Xbox, both of which I have purchased the DVD playback kits for. Though it's not necessary for the PlayStation, the remote certainly is more useful for DVD playback than the controller is.
Anyway - the remote for the PlayStation 2 is $20 at Wal Mart or Best Buy. The DVD Playback Kit for Xbox is $30 and contains a remote and a piece of hardware that fits into one of the controller ports (same as on PS2). Whereas on PS2 you can play DVDs without the remote, it is necessary for the Xbox. That means that the cost is nowhere near £80 - more like £20 or USD $30.
While it may just be a matter of personal preference, I do feel that the Xbox remote is better all-around. I don't like the ergonomic look of it, but its function far surpasses the PS2's. The PS2 basically made their remote a "wireless controller" complete with Triangle, Circle, Square and X buttons. I shit you not. Why they couldn't have omitted these and made something a little more normal looking, I'm not sure. But they're there.
The Xbox remote, on the other hand, is just a perfectly normal DVD remote. No silly buttons - it's all about playing back DVDs. It works. That's the most important thing.
To use the newer DVD software, one must buy a $35 memory card for their PS2 and install the software to that. The Xbox, of course, has the software on the hard drive, which isn't getting filled up any time soon. But an 8MB memory card can go relatively quickly if you play a lot of games and have the DVD software installed.
As for actual DVD playback quality, hands-down Xbox. The PS2 has several display problems that have already been noted in replies here. The Xbox just looks like a normal DVD player. I consider this a good thing.
You may want to purchase the "Advanced AV Pack" for the Xbox if you plan to use it as a DVD player - it comes with S-Video cables, which I personally consider necessary to viewing DVDs. YMMV.
To break it down: The Xbox will cost you $330 with a DVD playback kit and will put out some great looking images. The PS2 will cost you $300 to play DVDs and will look okay most of the time but will really irritate the living hell out of you at others. To make it an actual home-theater DVD watching component, you'll want to spend another $35 for the memory card and $20 for the remote, for a total of $355.
To break it down even further: useful DVD playback will cost you an extra $30 for the Xbox or $55 for the PS2. And the Xbox looks better. Don't be stupid. Use the Xbox.
One caveat: the Xbox doesn't support progressive scan. This probably won't be an issue, unless you have a progressive scan TV. If you do, you probably have enough money to buy a separate DVD player that supports progressive scan. So just do that.:)
Only if you use the Solaris 8 Installation CD. Try booting from the Software CD 1 sometime - nice, efficient, quick "hold-the-bells-and-whistles" install. Good if you need to get an installation done 15 minutes faster.
The game with the "stupid bi-plane" that you're talking about is called "Barnstorming". It was definitely a classic, and fun too - many fine hours were spent nailing birds in the ass to make that "BZZZZZT!" sound.:) I dunno if your cartridges got switched or you're mis-remembering, but that certainly wasn't Airwolf (which did have a helicoptor).
Could you point me to legislation that deals with the fines? I know it's illegal to call someone's cell phone to try and sell something, and it just happened to me today. Would love to collect.
Slashdot Mirror
If Microsoft wanted to do that, that's perfectly within their rights. Apple can't be troubled to support every damn type of hardware or architecture out there, and no one can force them to. It's the same as Texas Instruments not letting Casio license their (arguably) superior calculator software, or Kodak not licensing the operating system of their cameras to other companies.
Irix only runs on SGI hardware. Boo hoo. It's hardly anticompetetive. It's just far easier to support, not to mention that Apple is a hardware company and selling machines is how they make money.
I'mma agree with the other person responding to this. I have a DP 800 with a GF3 (at 1600x1200 @ 75hz) and I suffer pretty much no slowdown (that's noticeable) with a minimized terminal. I can even make it transparent and drag it around the screen and it's not too bad. I think most of your other points are pretty valid, but I just don't see the problem with this one.
The company was distributing a patched version of Apple's proprietary software. iDVD is not free; it is included with the price of a SuperDrive from Apple. The license agreement states that it may not be redistributed, and Apple was not receiving royalties for the patched distribution. So yes, that was illegal.
Furthermore, how would you feel if someone was taking your work, modifying it and then selling it? You don't receive any royalties, sure, but more importantly, they are modifying your software. Who knows what kind of problems that could cause? Now something minor gets broken and Apple has to spend thousands of dollars supporting a problem that wasn't introduced by their engineers. Not only that, but now their software looks like a shoddy hack job.
You can't spin it so that Apple was in the wrong - it's just not happening. They were in the right, period, and that's the way it is.
I heard of a company called "Netscape". And I remember them becoming the "Netscape Division of America Online". So now I guess they're actually the "Netscape Division of AOL Time Warner".
Point being that there is no company called Netscape. It's just a brand name now.
10.1 is a free upgrade. I walked into the Apple store and got it, and you could probably pick it up from one of your Apple resellers. If you don't want to do so, I'm sure you can download it.
I don't use Classic, so I can't comment much about it. But MacOS X 10.1.x has been rock solid for me.
BTW, 10.1 isn't just "bug fixes", so you might want to consider buying it anyway. And 10.2 will include even more, so the same applies.
That's why I love Linux but hate it at the same time. It's always a struggle. Sure, it works great most of the time... and then my keyboard just stops working in X11 all of a sudden. Why? Who the hell knows. But I've been using Linux every day since 1996 (and make my living as a UNIX expert) and I sure as shit couldn't fix it without rebuilding the box. You don't have that shit in MacOS X. You don't need to fuck with permissions. It just works.
- Apple doesn't sell individual pieces of hardware to consumers, meaning it's a real PITA (and costly) to get your Mac fixed if the mobo dies and it's out of warranty.
- OS X isn't very customizable (yet). One look fits all, apparently.
- You can get pretty much anything you want done in OS X, but it doesn't possess the staggering number of applications that Windows does. There are far fewer games available.
- The PowerBook is still damn expensive.
Buy a $4,000 computer from Dell. Spend the same amount of money on a computer from Apple.
I'll now bet you money that the Apple has, at the very least, higher quality memory, motherboard and power supply. Higher quality meaning the MTBF is higher. Why? Dell uses cheap components where they can get away with it most of the time. Apple knows that their users expect a box to last for four or five years, so they are built to a higher standard of quality.
I don't state that they use the same hardware - you're not reading very carefully. I state that they both use standard components. One could take the memory from a Pentium III system and put it in my PowerMac or vice versa. That's my point. Personally, I build all my own systems, so they're top quality (Tyan mobo, 3com ethernet, etc).
As for the Apache example, take it like this: stick someone who's never run Apache before in front of a Mac running OS X. Let them start Apache. Then put the same person in front of a Linux box and let them figure it out. From the time they sit down until the time the default Apache page is being served from their computer, which system gets it done quicker? My dollar would be on the Mac box.
Of course MacOS X won't be available for x86. No Mac operating system ever will. Why? Because Apple derives a large majority of its profits from hardware. If you don't give them the hardware sales, they'll die. That's what they do. They sell computers. The only thing you can't really upgrade is your motherboard. Processor upgrades, memory, video cards, hard drives, sound cards... all of these are readily available for Macs, most of them the same pieces of hardware you'd put in your PC. I have two main desktop computers at home - a dual Athlon box running RedHat Linux 7.3 and a dual 800MHz PowerMac running MacOS X 10.1.5. Both of them use standard memory, standard video cards, standard hard drives. The price you pay for the "PC" version is the exact same price you would pay for a "Mac" version. Why? They're the same hardware.
Is the initial cost of the computer a bit more than that of a similarly configured computer from Dell? Probably. I haven't checked. I don't want a computer that maybe works most of the time. I don't want a computer where I have to fuss with drivers to make my video card work right. I don't want a computer made of cheap components. I want something that works just right, every time, with no fuss, that I don't have to worry about. I get that from my PowerMac and iBook. I wish I could say the same of my other computers. This is absurd. First of all, I would submit to you that it's far easier to get work done on a Mac because you can focus on the work instead of the computer. It's out of your way, letting you do your thing. The same thing can hardly be said of Windows or even Linux. Go ahead, plug in your USB scanner to your Linux box and watch it automagically set everything up and work first time. Ha! Plug in your digital camera and watch Linux automatically download the pictures to your hard drive. Not happening. And there's always something going on with Windows to keep you less productive - it needs to reboot, your 512MB of RAM is all in use even though you only have IE open...
Secondly, the Mac line is standardized now - you don't need to pick a color. Maybe you should make some effort to have an idea about that which you are writing?
And finally, if you're only giving Apple credit for a better UI, you haven't spent any significant time using MacOS X. Forget the UI. Look at how everything just works. Set up an Airport base station on MacOS X and then go to a Windows box and set up a WAP. Tell me which platform offered the more direct and simple approach. Or set up Apache on Linux or Windows and then do it on MacOS X. Tell me which one was quicker (hint - it's just a single button click on MacOS X).
There are valid arguments against Apple and MacOS X. You managed to hit exactly none of them.
Eh, I have one of the first ones made (June 2001 baby) and it runs OS X great. CD-ROM model, 320 megs of RAM... 66MHz bus and doing fine. And Airport is OSO sexy.
:P
:)
I don't see what the damn problem is. OS X runs great for me, on my iBook and on my DP 800MHz PowerMac with 1.152 gigs of ram and a GeForce3..
Anyway, don't be thinking those first models uniformly sucked. I've had mine for nearly a year now and it's pretty damn zippy and has given me *no* problems since I bought it. He must have gotten a lemon.
No. Being an electronics geek and having an electrical engineer for a father, I could probably fix it myself. Being a fanboy would have nothing to do with it, but that's sort of irrelevant when you consider that I'm not a fanboy of any particular console. I just find it irritating when persons argue out of complete ignorance.
Now... he still can't, because he was complaining of lockups, not hardware failure. Xbox != Windows. Sure, some games will probably cause the console to freeze - that's the game, not the console. I personally have never had that problem, and I haven't read of anything online either. Google didn't have anything immediately obvious.
As for this being a "well documented problem" - maybe you should have bought the extended warranty? If it was so well documented, why are you caught with your pants around your ankles with a dead Xbox? I'm sorry that it happened to you, and it sucks for sure, and I agree that it shouldn't happen... but that doesn't change the fact that it did. If it's so well documented, I would think you would have been proactive in ensuring that you were covered should the problem happen with yours.
As an aside, you may want to try taking it back to the store where you bought it and demanding an exchange. I don't care what the store policies are - they should exchange that for you. Be polite but firm - you purchased a defective Xbox from them and you need it replaced.
Good luck, and I hope that, in the end, you aren't stuck with a dead Xbox.
It applies because all these companies try to gouge you anywhere they can.
Suppose, for a moment, that you wanted to buy a game console, use it for a DVD player, do modest game playing.
Now, the price of the PS2 was, until today, $300, same as Xbox. Assume that new games are the same price - $50.
Extra controllers are (were) $35 for each system. So this is relatively negligible.
You need to buy a memory card for a PS2, which is (was) $35 extra.
The DVD remote for Xbox is $30. It's $20 for the PS2.
So right there, you're out an extra $25 if you go the PS2 route.
Suppose you want to play some 4 player games. On Xbox, this is no problem - buy the extra controllers.
On PS2, you need to buy the multitap connector - hey, that's another $35 there. So now you're down $60.
Suppose you want to play some games online. Xbox has broadband built in - so no extra cost there. PS2 will need an adaptor which isn't available yet - and is likely to retail between $35 and $50. We'll assume $35 to give the benefit of the doubt to Sony. So now you've spent $95 more on a PS2 and its accessories than you have the Xbox. I won't get into the benefits of having a hard drive, but if you want to buy one for PS2 (for game upgrades, like I just did for DOA3 on Xbox), you're going to spend even more cash.
If you forego the DVD playing aspect and the 4 player, you still lose on the PS2 because you NEED to buy a memory card to make effective use of the console. This hasn't kept me from buying a PS2 (obviously), and I don't at all regret that I've spent a ton of money on my consoles, but saying that the Xbox's price is outrageous is absurd, simply because when you look at it from all angles, it's cheaper than PS2 (or was, before Sony's price cuts, which Microsoft will have to answer).
It may seem silly, but for the money-conscious gamer, it's important to examine these aspects. Xbox isn't really that expensive when everything is considered.
Dead or Alive 3, Project Gotham Racing, Rallisport Challenge, Halo, Amped: Freestyle Snowboarding, SSX Tricky, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, Spider-Man, Silent Hill 2.
Dead or Alive 3 is obviously the fighting game to have on Xbox - are there even any others out?
PGR is pretty good, but it feels a lot like MSR re-hashed for Xbox.
Rallisport Challenge is awesome. It looks amazing and it plays great as well. It's seriously very fun.
Halo is the game to have, though I haven't really gotten far in it - playing it on the hardest level was kinda killing me, and then I got really hooked on...
Amped, which is one of the more addictive titles I've played for the Xbox. Career mode owns me. But I've always really loved snowboarding games.
SSX Tricky is great fun, but the controls can be somewhat awkward (hold A + Y + right trigger + left on the D-pad == cool trick but contorted hand). Amped is the more realistic snowboarding game; SSX Tricky is off the wall with big tricks. Either is a worthy addition to a game library.
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is very very good. This from a long time Hawk fan, though. It combines Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 with 2. It looks good on the Xbox (better than on Dreamcast), plays well... lots of fun. It's my least favorite in the Tony Hawk series though, and if you're going to get a Hawk game (you should - they're highly addictive and provide TONS of replay value), go with
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 - the addition of the revert is awesome, but that's not what makes this a better game. Everything is different here (except the controls, obviously), and it's a change for the better. Pretty easily my favorite game on Xbox and just about my favorite game ever (shared with GTA3 for PS2). So much to this game (unlocking Darth Maul was good fun)... it's very complete. If you buy one more game, make it this one. Rent it first if you're not a Hawk fan.
Spider-Man is definitely fun. It's got some control issues (mainly that you will spend more time controlling the camera then you ever thought), but other than that, it's cool. The graphics are great (obviously) and it's fun. The first level (warehouse) is infinitely frustrating, however. Don't feel discouraged. Definitely worthy of a rental.
Silent Hill 2 for Xbox improves over the PS2 version (you can now play as Maria as well), and the graphics are better, but only real fans of the series should buy it if they already have it for PS2. This is a Resident Evil-type game - if you like those, it's good. If you don't, it's dumb. It's hardly as wide-appeal as Tony Hawk is.
For reference, I always read reviews of games at http://xbox.ign.com before I buy - I find their reviews to be pretty much spot-on. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Though I never rent video games (I always know that I'm going to want the game and I trust IGN enough to go on their reviews), I would recommend renting before you buy anyway. I simply hate renting games - I like to have them whenever I want to play them, and I hate rushing through a game.
Anyway, if you're going to buy one more game for Xbox, make it THPS3 - even the woman likes playing this game. Everything about it screams "perfection". I don't know how they're going to make Tony Hawk 4 better. It's seriously the most fun I've had on Xbox - you'll want to 100% the game with all the characters (of which there are some two dozen).
Anyway, that's a quick run down of what I've got and what I think of 'em.
Hey smartguy, I've got all three next gen consoles and let me tell you something: there is a big difference in graphics power, and it affects gameplay.
Take, for example, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, which is ubiquitous. I have played it on GC, PS2 and Xbox, and guess which one plays more smoothly. Xbox, period. It doesn't have the slowdown, it doesn't have the pop-up - both of which are a problem on PS2 and GC. Let's not even make a big deal out of the fact that the Xbox version comes with an extra playable character and an extra level.
Let's look at Spider-Man, which is also out on every damn platform save Dreamcast. It, too, has extra levels that are exclusive to the Xbox version. And guess what? It plays much better on the Xbox, due largely to the fact that the Xbox hardware blows PS2 and GameCube away. No slow-down, no pop-up... guess what consoles have a problem with that?
I like my GameCube too, but you being a Nintendo fanboy doesn't change the fact that the hardware is inferior to the Xbox.
I won't even begin to talk about Xbox (lockups, price, games, controller,...)
Yeah, smartguy. Because you know that you can't win that battle. I've had my Xbox since the week after they were first released. I have played it more than any other console I currently own, save Dreamcast. It has been on 24/7 since I got it. It has never locked up (or, for that matter, given me any problem whatsoever).
The price is in line with PS2 and considering the fact that it does much more than a GameCube or PS2, it's really not so bad. I don't need to buy memory cards for my Xbox, but I sure as shit had to dump out some cash for PS2 and GameCube cards so I could save some games. Total cost of ownership for the Xbox is lower than PS2 and is barely higher than GameCube. And like I said, you're getting more with Xbox.
The games that are coming out for Xbox are just fine. You can bitch and moan all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Xbox had the strongest console launch since consoles were first deployed. Its games were all pretty much top-notch, which is more than can be said for GameCube or PS2. Xbox currently has over 60 games. I own exactly 10 of them, and all of them are pretty great. This includes a number of games that are available for PS2, GameCube or both, but are much better on Xbox (see above). There may be no "killer app" games for Xbox... but there weren't for PS2 after its launch and there sure as shit aren't any for GameCube. Super Monkey Ball is pretty fun, Rogue Squadron is great and Super Smash Brothers Melee will definitely always have a place in my living room, but other than that, nothing great is out now. Saying that Nintendo's 2002 lineup will be fantastic is mostly hypocritical - look at all the good games that will be coming out for Xbox and PS2 as well.
The only part of your argument that has a shred of logic to it is a complaint about the Xbox controller. I personally like the Xbox Controller and the Xbox Controller-S (of which I own 2 of the former and 1 of the latter), but I have large hands. Buy the S if you don't, and if that doesn't suit your fancy, check out of some of the third party controllers. It's important to have something that you'll be comfortable with.
To sum it up: you're a Nintendo fanboy, deluded to forever see their greatness, and that's okay - but it doesn't negate the fact that the other consoles are pretty fucking good as well.
I have both a PlayStation 2 and an Xbox, both of which I have purchased the DVD playback kits for. Though it's not necessary for the PlayStation, the remote certainly is more useful for DVD playback than the controller is.
:)
Anyway - the remote for the PlayStation 2 is $20 at Wal Mart or Best Buy. The DVD Playback Kit for Xbox is $30 and contains a remote and a piece of hardware that fits into one of the controller ports (same as on PS2). Whereas on PS2 you can play DVDs without the remote, it is necessary for the Xbox. That means that the cost is nowhere near £80 - more like £20 or USD $30.
While it may just be a matter of personal preference, I do feel that the Xbox remote is better all-around. I don't like the ergonomic look of it, but its function far surpasses the PS2's. The PS2 basically made their remote a "wireless controller" complete with Triangle, Circle, Square and X buttons. I shit you not. Why they couldn't have omitted these and made something a little more normal looking, I'm not sure. But they're there.
The Xbox remote, on the other hand, is just a perfectly normal DVD remote. No silly buttons - it's all about playing back DVDs. It works. That's the most important thing.
To use the newer DVD software, one must buy a $35 memory card for their PS2 and install the software to that. The Xbox, of course, has the software on the hard drive, which isn't getting filled up any time soon. But an 8MB memory card can go relatively quickly if you play a lot of games and have the DVD software installed.
As for actual DVD playback quality, hands-down Xbox. The PS2 has several display problems that have already been noted in replies here. The Xbox just looks like a normal DVD player. I consider this a good thing.
You may want to purchase the "Advanced AV Pack" for the Xbox if you plan to use it as a DVD player - it comes with S-Video cables, which I personally consider necessary to viewing DVDs. YMMV.
To break it down: The Xbox will cost you $330 with a DVD playback kit and will put out some great looking images. The PS2 will cost you $300 to play DVDs and will look okay most of the time but will really irritate the living hell out of you at others. To make it an actual home-theater DVD watching component, you'll want to spend another $35 for the memory card and $20 for the remote, for a total of $355.
To break it down even further: useful DVD playback will cost you an extra $30 for the Xbox or $55 for the PS2. And the Xbox looks better. Don't be stupid. Use the Xbox.
One caveat: the Xbox doesn't support progressive scan. This probably won't be an issue, unless you have a progressive scan TV. If you do, you probably have enough money to buy a separate DVD player that supports progressive scan. So just do that.
If you had spent any time with the new iMacs you would know that there's no way in hell a 3 year old could break that "neck". It's just not happening.
That having been said, the eMac is nice because it boasts a larger screen, which is good for the kiddies.
That having been said, it's harder to adjust the eMac's viewing angle than it is the iMac's, so you may need to purchase some booster seats.
All in all, I think the iMac is better for kids, but that's my personal opinion. I think it suits them better. YMMV, of course.
Good luck with picking out the right one (I'd recommend going to an Apple store or another Apple reseller to play with them first).
Only if you use the Solaris 8 Installation CD. Try booting from the Software CD 1 sometime - nice, efficient, quick "hold-the-bells-and-whistles" install. Good if you need to get an installation done 15 minutes faster.
The game with the "stupid bi-plane" that you're talking about is called "Barnstorming". It was definitely a classic, and fun too - many fine hours were spent nailing birds in the ass to make that "BZZZZZT!" sound. :) I dunno if your cartridges got switched or you're mis-remembering, but that certainly wasn't Airwolf (which did have a helicoptor).
Could you point me to legislation that deals with the fines? I know it's illegal to call someone's cell phone to try and sell something, and it just happened to me today. Would love to collect.
I think you need to go read the webpage that I linked to, and more specifically, the link that details why it's unbreakable.
HardEncrypt is (let me say this again) unbreakable. Click the above link and read to find out why.
Eh, except that some encryption is unbreakable. See HardEncrypt, for example.
Best selling video game ever. Solitaire isn't a stand-alone video game. It comes included with Windows, which is what people are buying.