That's all fine and dandy that they make a lot of money but to demand the salary equivalent to a small country's GNP is absurd. It's one thing to negotiate a raise, it's another to extort it.
Got news for you...all console makers sell their product below cost, and have for many years
That's not true at all. Nintendo has stated that they have always made a profit on their hardware. SEGA made a profit on all their hardware until the Saturn. Sony eventually makes a profit on their hardware because they are manufacturing it instead of having it manufactured for them.
As stated earlier, Microsofts biggest problem with making a profit on the XBox is that they used components that do not go down in price but go up in functionality, i.e. hard drives.
that's hardly an excuse for fascist moderation tactics in a free discussion forum.
The moderation system and the discussion forum are completely unrelated unless you choose to use the moderation system as a way to filter.
As far as being fascist, the point of the moderation system is to let those involved police themselves. Letting the community moderate your posts is hardly fascist. The fun of karma whoring went out with the demise of points.
Apple never did anything but create a reference platform. At the time everyone was trying to make a set-top box for everything. Internet, multimedia, you name it. It was the era of CDi, 3DO Interactive multiplayer, Commodore's CDTV, WebTV...
Apple played the whole thing very smart, they just altered a version of Mac OS 7.5.5 to work on a read-only disc. The basic problem was for the things they were pushing, there needed to be some sort of storage, and they tried too hard to tie it with the development of the Macintosh by confusing developers with 68k and PowerPC abilites.
In the end it was Bandai (who made the thing) who blew the whole concept by poor promotion and no third-party support. Surprisingly they have done very well with the WonderSwan (which is a GameBoy killer if I ever saw one).
games like Battlefield, UT 2004, CS and upcoming titles like Doom3 and HL2 require a keyboard, mouse, a desk to prop it all on
That's such a bunch of crap that any game does/should require a keyboard. It's poor game development to require a device that is not, has not, nor will ever be designed around anything other than typing.
Playstation is Sony's most successful product today, surpassing the walkman. PC gaming is a sad state, there's been nothing original since Wolfenstein 3D, Sim City, and Little Computer People.
I think there needs to be the addition of an atmosphere to be considered a planet. Really it's just a round rock without one. It pretty much classifies moons as planets without that qualifier.
News flash, most people who have enough money to shop at Prada on a regular basis are not like wannabe middle-class 20-somethings that dress flashy with logos blinging like mad.
I work for a luxury department store and the people that spend the most wear labels you've probably never heard of. They also dress more conservatively (i.e. like bums) when they shop because they are not out to impress sales staff.
In all that time, the only game console that was backwards compatible before the release of the PS2 was the Atari 2600/5200/7800
In America. All versions of the PC Engine have been backwards compatible. Until recently the American market was only seen as a nice addition to the Japanese market (all the Japanese-only games illustrate this point, while there's practically no American-only games).
If you already own a Playstation, what possible benefit is there (aside from a marginal space savings) to having the PS2 be backwards compatible?
I have a Sony Wega TV with 3 RCA ports (one can be used as either RCA or S-Video) and one Component Input. If I wanted to play all of my current systems on the same TV, despite the fact they'd take up a buttload of space, I'd have to buy MORE cables as well as an input swithcher. The fact that I can elliminate a console is a big factor on whether to buy one next-gen console or another when they debut.
I bought my PS2 because it played PS1 games and was a DVD player. At the time it was the same price as buying the two. I'd had a PS1 before and had a bad unit that Sony wouldn't replace (it was 3 years old). PS2 games at the time didn't interest me (I didn't need another realistic driving game or fighter). For about a year all I bought were PS1 games. I think this strategy works better when you have a library of good games.
Sony is the first vendor to create a next-gen console that played previous games without extra hardware and I think going forward it's going to be the de-facto standard of operation.
My understanding is that your software (as well as RedHat and SuSE) is worth paying for because of the support. Yet your clients have peace of mind when you go out of business because of the source.
How does the source benefit your clients when it's your support that they are paying for and why they decided to go with your product?
If they cared that much about the source, wouldn't they be rolling their own product?
in a dialog from the motion picture "Superstar" starring Miss Molly Shannon as a girl chasing her dreams of a Hollywood kiss.
"Mrs. Gallagher, I called you here today to discuss your granddaughter's problem. Now, upon reflection, I think a combination of prayer and Ritalin could eliminate her excess energy."
"How dare you! My Mary has no problem. My granddaughter is a star! Look at that face, she looks like a young Elizabeth Taylor. You may call her hyperactive but if the Good Lord gave her excess energy then, by God, no one's taking it from her! If you don't appreciate that, maybe the problem is not my granddaughter, maybe the problem is this school."
The argument was not about whether HCI research is needed, the argument was about whether or not HCI is about preference. The article being about what a UI designer thinks about the Human-Computer Interaction of Mac OS X, it seems completely relevant to point out competing statements from two published HCI authors and UI designers.
Once again someone who says, "I won't waste my time telling you why you're wrong, just that you're wrong."
The Platinum window controls were ridiculously close to one another which made it easy to be sloppy and close a window without meaning to.
The close control on Mac OS 9 and below was the only control on that side. How you were accidentally moving your mouse to the opposite side of the title bar and hitting it is beyond my comprehension.
I think most of the problem is centered around "But the Dock is stupid because OS 9 did this instead." We have a natural tendency to resist change, and Finder and the Dock are huge changes to the Mac interface.
I agree totally. I switched from Windows because of the Mac OS interface (7.6 on a IIsi was my first Mac). OS X's stability and commandline interface is the reason for a long time I lived with the annoyances of OS X (like the fact that when you open a Finder window, you never know what state it is going to be in). Panther has mostly eliminated my gripes by either adding functionality or retooling it (I never used the Jaguar Toolbar but I use Panther's sidebar constantly).
The point of HCI with regards to an OS is to make very complex tasks as simple and consistent as possible. Stating it's "just a matter of preference" is coming at it from the wrong angle. When it's gotten that high-level, it's beyond the HCI people.
The problem is that HCI people consistently say competing statements. They say something produces clutter (Bruce Tognazzi), then say that people work in clutter and the concept of clutter (piles) should be in the interface (Jef Raskin). So, sounds like it's a matter of preference. The only way to make something simple is to eliminate choice.
Mac OS Classic had a good interface because there was only one way to do almost everything, it was also usually efficient at doing it as well as predictable.
I've always been extremely irritated that Apple didn't just preserve the Mac OS 9 interface like they did in the very early Rhapsody builds (in case you don't remember) rather than drop this whole new mess on us.
After having a diminishing miniscule marketshare, Apple finally decided to go after the other 98%. To get Windows users to buy a Mac you cannot dump them in a foreign land. This is why Apple made the changes they made, it was to make Windows users feel more comfortable and it worked and is working. They are now at 5% market share.
Nonsense. The internet is for government and educational institutions. Government and educational institutions can get access to it. If you don't work for the government or an educational institution you don't need to be on the internet and it's not made for you anyway. Get AOL or work for the government.
There's no mention of Compaq machines in the article, and HP still segregates the HP and Compaq lines. You cannot buy an HPQ computer, only an HP or a Compaq. It also states HP customers, not HPQ customers.
Slashdot Mirror
That's all fine and dandy that they make a lot of money but to demand the salary equivalent to a small country's GNP is absurd. It's one thing to negotiate a raise, it's another to extort it.
That's not true at all. Nintendo has stated that they have always made a profit on their hardware. SEGA made a profit on all their hardware until the Saturn. Sony eventually makes a profit on their hardware because they are manufacturing it instead of having it manufactured for them.
As stated earlier, Microsofts biggest problem with making a profit on the XBox is that they used components that do not go down in price but go up in functionality, i.e. hard drives.
There's no such thing as a "near" loss, there's break even and slight profit. Talk about marketing pills...
As far as being fascist, the point of the moderation system is to let those involved police themselves. Letting the community moderate your posts is hardly fascist. The fun of karma whoring went out with the demise of points.
A text-based interface is still graphical. Remember the card punch computers? You are describing a WIMP interface (Windows Icons Menus Pointer).
Apple played the whole thing very smart, they just altered a version of Mac OS 7.5.5 to work on a read-only disc. The basic problem was for the things they were pushing, there needed to be some sort of storage, and they tried too hard to tie it with the development of the Macintosh by confusing developers with 68k and PowerPC abilites.
In the end it was Bandai (who made the thing) who blew the whole concept by poor promotion and no third-party support. Surprisingly they have done very well with the WonderSwan (which is a GameBoy killer if I ever saw one).
That's such a bunch of crap that any game does/should require a keyboard. It's poor game development to require a device that is not, has not, nor will ever be designed around anything other than typing.
Playstation is Sony's most successful product today, surpassing the walkman. PC gaming is a sad state, there's been nothing original since Wolfenstein 3D, Sim City, and Little Computer People.
In any case, I'm not ready for "My Very Extravagant Mother Just Served Us Nine Polish Sausages"
I think there needs to be the addition of an atmosphere to be considered a planet. Really it's just a round rock without one. It pretty much classifies moons as planets without that qualifier.
I have beleived for a long time that I would be a perfect candidate for mental telepathy where the communication is with concepts and not language.
I'm pretty sure this supports the notion that abstract thought is possible without language.
I work for a luxury department store and the people that spend the most wear labels you've probably never heard of. They also dress more conservatively (i.e. like bums) when they shop because they are not out to impress sales staff.
In America. All versions of the PC Engine have been backwards compatible. Until recently the American market was only seen as a nice addition to the Japanese market (all the Japanese-only games illustrate this point, while there's practically no American-only games).
I have a Sony Wega TV with 3 RCA ports (one can be used as either RCA or S-Video) and one Component Input. If I wanted to play all of my current systems on the same TV, despite the fact they'd take up a buttload of space, I'd have to buy MORE cables as well as an input swithcher. The fact that I can elliminate a console is a big factor on whether to buy one next-gen console or another when they debut.
Sony is the first vendor to create a next-gen console that played previous games without extra hardware and I think going forward it's going to be the de-facto standard of operation.
How does the source benefit your clients when it's your support that they are paying for and why they decided to go with your product?
If they cared that much about the source, wouldn't they be rolling their own product?
"Mrs. Gallagher, I called you here today to discuss your granddaughter's problem. Now, upon reflection, I think a combination of prayer and Ritalin could eliminate her excess energy."
"How dare you! My Mary has no problem. My granddaughter is a star! Look at that face, she looks like a young Elizabeth Taylor. You may call her hyperactive but if the Good Lord gave her excess energy then, by God, no one's taking it from her! If you don't appreciate that, maybe the problem is not my granddaughter, maybe the problem is this school."
The argument was not about whether HCI research is needed, the argument was about whether or not HCI is about preference. The article being about what a UI designer thinks about the Human-Computer Interaction of Mac OS X, it seems completely relevant to point out competing statements from two published HCI authors and UI designers.
Once again someone who says, "I won't waste my time telling you why you're wrong, just that you're wrong."
The close control on Mac OS 9 and below was the only control on that side. How you were accidentally moving your mouse to the opposite side of the title bar and hitting it is beyond my comprehension.
I agree totally. I switched from Windows because of the Mac OS interface (7.6 on a IIsi was my first Mac). OS X's stability and commandline interface is the reason for a long time I lived with the annoyances of OS X (like the fact that when you open a Finder window, you never know what state it is going to be in). Panther has mostly eliminated my gripes by either adding functionality or retooling it (I never used the Jaguar Toolbar but I use Panther's sidebar constantly).
The problem is that HCI people consistently say competing statements. They say something produces clutter (Bruce Tognazzi), then say that people work in clutter and the concept of clutter (piles) should be in the interface (Jef Raskin). So, sounds like it's a matter of preference. The only way to make something simple is to eliminate choice.
Mac OS Classic had a good interface because there was only one way to do almost everything, it was also usually efficient at doing it as well as predictable.
After having a diminishing miniscule marketshare, Apple finally decided to go after the other 98%. To get Windows users to buy a Mac you cannot dump them in a foreign land. This is why Apple made the changes they made, it was to make Windows users feel more comfortable and it worked and is working. They are now at 5% market share.
Nonsense. The internet is for government and educational institutions. Government and educational institutions can get access to it. If you don't work for the government or an educational institution you don't need to be on the internet and it's not made for you anyway. Get AOL or work for the government.
There's no mention of Compaq machines in the article, and HP still segregates the HP and Compaq lines. You cannot buy an HPQ computer, only an HP or a Compaq. It also states HP customers, not HPQ customers.
Actually they don't. Only Compaq and Dell ship more, sometimes only Dell. It just means Apple can sell more iPods that they don't have to support.
Oh, so you mean become Apple.