To be honest, it has little to do with what you or the original poster is talking about. The real reason they're going forward with this is Microsoft is sick and tired of flaky drivers crashing Windows and them getting blamed for it. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a video card manufacturer release a new shiny drivers that gives 10% better FPS while crashing to a blue screen every other game session. A couple months later they release the WHQL version (the one actually tested and signed off on by MS) and everything works fine.
There's a lot of things wrong with Windows code, but one of the best ways to crash the system is flaky drivers. MS is trying to remove that as a factor.
Edit: crap. As I was posting this they already started. Like white blood cells rushing to the defense of the host!:) (Don't mark this as flamebait guys, com'on! People are allowed to disagree and point out crazy fanboyism.:) )
The only thing I said is I expected it to get closer to the laptop score for 3DMark. Given that it uses mostly laptop components, it should've at least been in the 1500 range (and finishing that one batch of tests would not have put it much over 1000). Most likely the graphics drivers need a little more optimization.
I've started benchmarking this morning on a Mac Mini. Now, granted, I don't expect it to blow me away in performance, but in 3DMark05 it scored around 600 and didn't complete all the tests. My Dell laptop (nVidia Go 6800) scores around 3000 and my desktop (nVidia 7800 GTX) around 8000. Nearly all of that is due to POS integrated graphics, but I was at least hoping it'd get around half the laptop's score.
In PCMark05 it compared more favorably. This is a comparison between my rig, a Mac Mini and a blade server we have at work. The blade server didn't totally complete the test because of its graphics card. In some cases the Mac beat my rig (stuff like media encoding/decoding), which is surprising.
And I understand I'm comparing Apples and oranges (literally). I've heard Macbook Pro users are floored by the performance in Windows of popular games, and I'm looking to get my hands on one.
I will say, without a doubt, Apple has the easiest to use dualboot installer I've ever seen. Getting Grub et all to work without frying partitions in Linux has always been a pain. With Apple's, couple clicks and I'm done.
Ok, I've read the page and saw Apple's stock shoot up. I'm psyched. But now the next question on my mind: with the Apple-provided drivers, how good will these boxes run games? Someone get a 3DMark running on one of these things.
We've already seen that World of Warcraft as a Universal binary runs extremely well (in some cases up to 50% fps improvement). With properly-tuned drivers, I could only assume it'd run as well.
And keep in mind, I'm primarily a Windows user, even though I like MacOS (and recommend it to my family). Today's announcement encourages me to use a Mac fulltime for myself.
As has been pointed out, Bethesda is the one you should blame for this, not MS (or, probably more accurately, Take 2). They're also charging for the PC mod.
"Unless I'm missing something here, this action on Microsoft's part is reminiscent of their "response" to Netscape when Microsoft finally recognized they had fallen way behind in an important market."
Actually, it's more of an act out of desperation. VMWare started this was a few months back by releasing one of their server products for free. Arguably VMWare is the monopoly -- Microsoft is nowhere near the company in terms of marketing penetration or mindshare.
"And, unless I'm missing something again, I think Microsoft still qualifies as a legally defined "monopoly", and this looks like leveraging their monopoly to unfairly skew market forces and competition."
Microsoft's monopoly is with Windows, which is installed on 90%+ of the world's machines. What got them in trouble in the browser wars (and again with media players) wasn't the fact they were giving software away but they bundling it with Windows.
Microsoft isn't bundling Virtual Server with Windows. In fact, it would make little sense, as very few Windows users would have a need for this software. If any when they release it with Longhorn Server (which is their plan) then it could be seen as unfair competition.
"And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal."
You're mistaken. Again, dumping software doesn't get these companies in trouble -- bundling it does. If you applied your logic to every company, Apple should be in trouble for iTunes, Sun for Java and Macromedia for Flash.
"(As an aside, interestingly enough, I was surprised to find Microsoft's virtual server technology STILL does not offer hypervisor services... to give some perspective as to how far behind that puts them in "getting it", I worked on virtualized VM boxes on IBM 360 mainframes in school back in the mid-70s! These systems were implemented with hypervisor. Wow!)"
At this point "hypervisor" is a more a marketing term than anything. You don't need a hypervisor to have a successful VM. 360 mainframes were able to do it because their CPUs were designed to. The x86 architecture hasn't lent itself very well to hypervisors, which is why most companies that do VMs (including VMWare) don't use one on the platform. Intel is finally releasing a desktop chip that will support virtualization. Don't blame the software companies for lackluster hardware support.
"(Caveat: For those of you with home systems with XP Home Edition, this virtual server doesn't come free -- you'll need to flip for the $100 XP Professional upgrade.)"
Considering it's called "Virtual Server", why would anyone running Home edition try to use it? It's clear that the product is intended for administrators and developers, hence the OS requirement.
"(Caveat II: I don't always completely trust stories from the Register as I find them a little over-the-top in their anti-Microsoft rhetoric. However I was able to verify the Microsoft Virtual Server IS available for free download.)"
Um, congrats? You're able to use Google. Very nice. Not sure why this statement should be considered a caveat.
My father died from cancer when I was fairly young. I've never been particularly religious, but at the time the beliefs instilled in me (by my father, I might add) insisted that I pray some. Obviously it didn't work, and to this day (particularly after other events like 9/11) I don't put much faith in god.
That's one of the biggest problems with praying. It may "help the mental state of the patient and their family" for the duration of the event, but if the event turns sour it can lead to great anger and mental anguish. After all is said and done, the truely perceptive end up questioning the whole act of faith, while those who ignore the results go back to being religious.
I've had a lot of people try to argue me "back into faith". I went to a catholic college and my girlfriend tried to get me to go to church. The teachers there tried to justify god in an honors class. The longer they talked, the more logic that I applied, the less and less I respected what they were saying.
Today I'm just sort of agnostic. I don't really care what people think or feel about god, as long as they don't shove it down my throats. Your statement that praying obviously helps, even just the mental state of those involved, kind of bothers me, though. It's simply not true.
It's not her fault (she didn't say she was gorgeous, some random guy did), but IMO people can be held accountable for their beauty.
For example, people say I'm articulate, have a solid sense of humor and am pretty good with computers. If anyone said I'm "handsome" I'd immediately shoot them down because I'm not. I wouldn't want people to even remotely consider that part of my attribute list, because people meeting me would inevitably be disappointed.
Considering beauty is a measurable, sellable quality in business (Think how much models make -- and for what? Moving around and staring at a camera?), being "meat" has some value in our society. As one shouldn't say "I can fix computers" on a resume when they can't, one shouldn't be known for beauty when they're not.
What does the Revolution have to do with either Halo or Final Fantasy?
There are articles about Revolution all over Slashdot. Lots and lots of articles. And there is going to be lots of news at E3 about lots of different companies. Don't let Nintendo fanboyism creep where it doesn't belong. Keep posts about Revolution to the proper articles.
I've had a few problems with Oblivion. The worst is a "design feature". In my case, I wanted to create a new character, so I just went to Memory in the Dashboard and removed all the files under Oblivion. Go back into the game to create a new character and adjust my brightness settings, and the options were already set. Even though I deleted every file related to Oblivion, there was no way to get rid of the settings file. Turns out on the Xbox 360 version, settings are saved within the user profile, instead of with the rest of the save game files. Meaning there's no way to delete the settings (in other words, if the file gets corrupted you're screwed). I talked to Take 2, and the only recourse if that happens is to delete your profile/Xbox Live account. I'm hoping it'll never come to that.
As for the game, it runs pretty well. I've seen some strange slowdown on horseback and occasionally the framerate takes a nosedive in seemingly random environments. Most of that is fixed by holding down the A button while starting up the game (it clears the HD cache).
The biggest problem, though, is that the game is just sort of... boring. The characters seem to have been purposely lifted directly from a Generic Fantasy (tm) mold. I'm sure there's an underlying story in there unique to the genre, but I can't get past the character design. When you start up a "lesser" RPG, like Final Fantasy, you're at least given some character personalities to hook into. Here you get a bunch of blank slates -- not just for you but everyone in the game.
I'm going to give it time, but I do yawn on occasion while playing it, which is a bad sign.
"But you should do a little research into Jobs' many public statements"
Personally, I don't trust what the guy says, ever. In private, from books I've read, he's an absolute ass. In public he's a marketer, first and foremost. He would've made a fine politician. First rule of politics: get people to like you. If you do that, all the crap you throw their way (and I can think of a LOT of Apple bullshit over the years) becomes acceptable.
"I've been using Apple products for 20 years now, and while I'm not blind to the megalomania of Jobs and the many boneheaded moves he and the company have made, that same megalomania and driven quality is behind a long-term obsession with user experience."
So you drank the Koolaid. What's the point, here? People can be convinced of anything if you give them enough time.
Fact of the matter: Apple is ok. It doesn't suck, and it doesn't rock either. For all the talk of "industrial design" and "user experience", I think of jet-engine-sounding G4 towers and inconsistent Finder dialogs.
Apple is a company with the same faults as any other company. Steve Jobs is a guy with the same faults of every other guy. Not a savior, not a religious experience, but a guy. It's been 20 years -- sooner you learn to be skeptical, the better off you'll be.
Not to belittle your experience, but a lot of companies do this. When I call Dell, the Indian guy asks me for my current phone number. If we get disconnected he calls right back.
Not to mention, it sounds awfully like this guy's experience: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=181779&c id=15033002 In that case, he had to return a product on the 15th day from a 14 day return period and was amazed Apple would let it slide. In your case, you put up with 15 minutes on hold. No one seems to be noticing that the original company response was pretty crappy (15 minutes is excessive, and 14-days is just about the worst return policy in the industry). I mean yeah, they eventually fixed the problem, but when you purposely lower the bar with the customer it's pretty easy to clear it.
The palattes aren't really an aesthetic matter. If they aren't right the screen can become completely garbled to the point that the game is unplayable. To this day many emulators have difficulty with games like Castlevania III because of this (although a few have gotten the majority of the palattes right).
The main reason why companies don't put the older hardware in is cost. If there's 2 versions of a console, one that has software emulation and one that has hardware emulation for $50 more, I'll take the software version. Not only am I saving $50, but I'm also ensuring if any updates need to be made I can do so.
People seem to forget that there was some major problems with PS2 emulation (which, like you said, used a combination of the PS1 hardware and software). Any time you go the hardware route, you run the risk of some consoles being permenantly gimped. You also, like I said, have to charge the consumer more.
To date, I can think of only one series of systems that have done hardware emulation consistently, and that's Game Boy. Even there, Nintendo quietly phases out older generations as they release new ones (both the DS and Game Boy Micro won't play original Game Boy games). They were going to go the hardware route with the SNES but bowed out.
MS decided to go with emulation because the hardware alternative (sticking an Intel chipset and nVidia graphics core) was unpalatable. It's the exact same technique Revolution is going to use to emulate 20-year old consoles, and Sony will likely do the same thing.
There's no way to get an emulator completely right the first try. Period. End of story. There's always going to be an instruction here or a game there that doesn't work the way it should. Emulators need updates. Why do you think the NES emulation scene, for example, still releases updates for palattes?
Software emulation is the best solution to get older games to play without spending the extra money to include older hardware. Software updates are the best way to keep those emulators up to snuff.
In the case of the Xbox 360, the updates are completely seamless. You start the machine up, it says it needs an update, it installs it, you get back to gaming. Nintendo will likely do the same thing.
If the choice is between that and having a buggy emulator (remember, no such thing as a perfect emulator when it's released) or driving up the price of the console, I'll take the seamless updates, thanks.
Preface: I buy all the systems, every generation. I have that kind of disposable income. People are going to post that it's moronic. I'm a gamer, this is my hobby, I love my hobby. Now that that's out of the way...
People are entirely missing the real issue. Sony and Microsoft can spin it however they like ("look at all the polys"), Nintendo can spin it however it likes ("we focus on games, not hardware"). The bottom line reason why Nintendo is going with cheaper hardware has nothing to do with gaming philosophies, it has to do with money.
In short: cheaper hardware costs less to manufacture, meaning they can get a bigger profit, faster, on the systems. Every other console is going to be in the "sell for less than it costs to manufacture" phase for much longer. Nintendo thinks they can start at $150-200 and instantly make cash back on this thing. They also save money by relying on emulated titles and spending less on new game creation.
Nintendo is a great gaming company. Their business side is less than stellar. People will argue "they have a lot of cash on hand", but that's just the point -- having cash on hand is the only thing they really focus on. They don't focus on the core business model of consoles, which is to drive market penetration numbers up so they can make more on license fees.
The Revolution model will continue the practice of having more cash on hand while potentially alienating 3rd-party developers (the cornerstone of the license fees model). For all this talk by developers that "the Revolution controller will revolutionize how we create games", it's largely irrelevant. The publishers are the ones that sign the checks, and a majority of them got seriously burned with the N64 and GameCube. Publishers also don't like to take risks.
The business model Nintendo follows (cash on hand, neglect market penetration) is fundamentally flawed. What Nintendo should do, and I know people don't like to hear this, is get out of the console market entirely, focus on the handhelds and publish games for the other consoles. Their strength is first-party titles, not how they handle hardware. If they let Sony and Microsoft duke it out, they can focus on their core competency of making great games.
"But, what happens if your job is crappy, you're not particularly excited about your fiance, and life is still very unpleasant?"
Then you change all the above.
I get sick of hearing this all the time from people. "I hate my job," for example. Well, life ain't static, friend. Fortunately (in our society anyway) you're not a slave to your occupation. There are many, many different jobs out there. Be like that guy in Office Space: try a contruction job to get outdoors, for example. Jaime from Mythbusters made a fairly observant point in a recent Discovery channel chat. Paraphrasing, "I'm a firm believer in having a job that you love."
As for life in general, not all of it is roses. In fact, most of it is crappy. Part of surviving is understanding the crappy parts and dealing with them. I personally use humor -- got me through some tough challenges after a parent dying young, for example. If can't handle this kind of stuff internally, instead of relying on an external stimulus, you're going to end up exploding.
So let me understand this correctly... your complaint has to do with the original Xbox, a 5-year old interface on a console that (at the time) was the first one to introduce custom soundtracks for gaming (and to this day is the only one to do this). That console ripped to 128 WMA which, like Apple's AAC, provides better sound quality at lower bitrates and worked in hundreds of games. Your complaint is that you should have been able to waste more space on the 8 GB hard drive.
Kind of boneheaded, in my opinion.
All things considered, the original Xbox did an admirable job. I think it's ludicrous to think they didn't have "enough brains" the first time, considering the feature worked more or less flawlessly and provided good sound quality. Think about the original iPod: easily broken physical clickwheel, constantly crashed, only 5 GB -- but enough about it worked right to spawn new hardware. No company gets a product completely perfect the first try.
Not to mention, in between its launch and Xbox 360, they released the Music Mixer software which lets you play alternative sound formats at whatever bitrate you like off a nearby computer -- the same functionality that's offered in the 360. With the Xbox 360 they included that functionality and the ability to play music off just about any portable device you throw at it. Your complaint may have had some loose support back in 2001, but not in 2006.
To be honest, looking at your signature, I think you just have a beef with Microsoft. Not surprising (this is Slashdot, after all), but I would be a little more open to the idea that a few people in every company know what they're doing. I have some coworkers that are diehard Mac freaks, hate Windows with a vengenance but bought Xbox 360s. When I asked why, they said "That's MS, this is Xbox. The Xbox team knows what they're doing." Given that you've only had a "limited time" with the 360, you might want to give it more of a chance. The design is really impressive.
I think I've been duped by a phishing scam. I mean, clearly it says "slashdot.org" on the top address bar, but that can't be right. Damn it, they said if I upgraded to Firefox I'd be safe from this crap!
I'm not really sure I understand your complaint. Or that you even understand your complaint.
You can rip music to the Xbox 360 hard drive, yes. It would be incredibly dumb given the limited space, and that's why you find that option near the bottom of the list.
Near the top of the list are options far more palatable. You can connect an iPod (or another MP3 player, or a PSP, or just a regular USB drive with music) right to the front of the Xbox. It'll play MP3, unprotected AACs, etc., whatever bitrate you want. It'll even decipher the iPod built-in database format (which Apple was ungracious enough not to license to anyone). You can also play this music in-games, just like music off the hard drive.
If you don't like that approach, another option near the top is that you can play music off of any Windows PC in your house using the Media Connect software. That music can be housed on a NAS somewhere -- as long as you have some Windows box as the front-end it'll work. Again, any bitrate you want, play in-game/out-of-game/etc. There are also some 3rd-party apps for other OSes -- notably Mac has Connect360 (http://www.nullriver.com/index/products/connect36 0). And if you really want to go crazy, you can pick up a WLAN adapter and carry the Xbox 360 to any room in the house. As long as it can hit the network, you can play your godzilla music collection of 250GB+.
So, what's the complaint here? The Xbox team provided a bunch of different ways to access huge libraries of music, in different formats, at different bitrates. Given the complexity of stuff like deciphering the iPod database and having a UI properly recognize all the ID3 tags of MP3s on a random USB drive (try it -- it does it really elegantly) it doesn't sound like a "half-baked" solution at all. They did their homework -- it's a solid solution.
"It could be that it's because hiberation actually does exist in Mac OS X. It's just not a well known fact. OS X 10.4's "Safe Sleep" (Google cache) saves the active memory to disk when a Mac [laptop] goes to sleep...lest the power get interrupted."
Ah, see, there's the issue. I've noticed the lack of a hibernation feature most on my iBook G4, where I never saw the option (and somehow I missed it on my Powerbook). I'll enable it on my Powerbook and try this hack for the iBook.
"However, if you're not a Mac user, you may not appreciate how good the normal "Sleep" mode is. Unlike Windows, a Mac which has been put to sleep will resume almost immediately, and be instantly usable. My iBook can stay 'asleep' in my briefcase for ages, with very little battery consumption, and as soon as I open the lid, I am good to go. This impresses me more than words can say."
I am a Mac user (I'm also a Windows user, a Linux user, etc -- I use all OSes because different ones have different strengths and weaknesses). In my daily work, I've found both my Dell Inspiron and final-generation Powerbook G4 come out of sleep at about the same speed (in fact, the Dell sometimes edges out the Powerbook G4). However, when I go on business trips, the Mac in sleep mode simply doesn't save much juice. Comparing the two, I have about 40% battery life left after 8 hours in sleep-mode, as opposed to 100% or so for the Dell in hibernation. The fact that I put my Dell in its case, leave it in the hotel room for a couple of days, bring it to a client and have full battery life when I'm ready to start my presentation "impresses me more than words can say", as you put it.
I'll have to test and compare using "Safe Sleep". In my experience, getting hibernation "right" takes a couple of tries (Windows and the Linux kernel first had it years ago, but only in recent revisions does it truely save the state of every device perfectly). Hopefully my Mighty Mouse will power up as soon as the Mac comes out of Safe Sleep (it doesn't for regular sleep > ).
"I wouldn't count on it. From the looks of things, the Intel-based Macs boot plenty fast."
It doesn't recall the apps and windows that were open, their exact state, etc. 20-30 seconds is just the initial boot, not the amount of time needed to get back to where I was working.
I don't know why people try to defend Apple on this particular design decision. There's absolutely no reason why hibernation shouldn't be included in OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, it has little to do with what you or the original poster is talking about. The real reason they're going forward with this is Microsoft is sick and tired of flaky drivers crashing Windows and them getting blamed for it. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a video card manufacturer release a new shiny drivers that gives 10% better FPS while crashing to a blue screen every other game session. A couple months later they release the WHQL version (the one actually tested and signed off on by MS) and everything works fine.
There's a lot of things wrong with Windows code, but one of the best ways to crash the system is flaky drivers. MS is trying to remove that as a factor.
in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1... :)
:) (Don't mark this as flamebait guys, com'on! People are allowed to disagree and point out crazy fanboyism. :) )
Edit: crap. As I was posting this they already started. Like white blood cells rushing to the defense of the host!
Did I ever say it was?
The only thing I said is I expected it to get closer to the laptop score for 3DMark. Given that it uses mostly laptop components, it should've at least been in the 1500 range (and finishing that one batch of tests would not have put it much over 1000). Most likely the graphics drivers need a little more optimization.
I've started benchmarking this morning on a Mac Mini. Now, granted, I don't expect it to blow me away in performance, but in 3DMark05 it scored around 600 and didn't complete all the tests. My Dell laptop (nVidia Go 6800) scores around 3000 and my desktop (nVidia 7800 GTX) around 8000. Nearly all of that is due to POS integrated graphics, but I was at least hoping it'd get around half the laptop's score.
Here's a link:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?c=1569427_1
In PCMark05 it compared more favorably. This is a comparison between my rig, a Mac Mini and a blade server we have at work. The blade server didn't totally complete the test because of its graphics card. In some cases the Mac beat my rig (stuff like media encoding/decoding), which is surprising.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?c=1569427_2
And I understand I'm comparing Apples and oranges (literally). I've heard Macbook Pro users are floored by the performance in Windows of popular games, and I'm looking to get my hands on one.
I will say, without a doubt, Apple has the easiest to use dualboot installer I've ever seen. Getting Grub et all to work without frying partitions in Linux has always been a pain. With Apple's, couple clicks and I'm done.
Ok, I've read the page and saw Apple's stock shoot up. I'm psyched. But now the next question on my mind: with the Apple-provided drivers, how good will these boxes run games? Someone get a 3DMark running on one of these things.
We've already seen that World of Warcraft as a Universal binary runs extremely well (in some cases up to 50% fps improvement). With properly-tuned drivers, I could only assume it'd run as well.
And keep in mind, I'm primarily a Windows user, even though I like MacOS (and recommend it to my family). Today's announcement encourages me to use a Mac fulltime for myself.
As has been pointed out, Bethesda is the one you should blame for this, not MS (or, probably more accurately, Take 2). They're also charging for the PC mod.
"My winblows machine".
The 80s called. It wants its insult back.
"Unless I'm missing something here, this action on Microsoft's part is reminiscent of their "response" to Netscape when Microsoft finally recognized they had fallen way behind in an important market."
Actually, it's more of an act out of desperation. VMWare started this was a few months back by releasing one of their server products for free. Arguably VMWare is the monopoly -- Microsoft is nowhere near the company in terms of marketing penetration or mindshare.
"And, unless I'm missing something again, I think Microsoft still qualifies as a legally defined "monopoly", and this looks like leveraging their monopoly to unfairly skew market forces and competition."
Microsoft's monopoly is with Windows, which is installed on 90%+ of the world's machines. What got them in trouble in the browser wars (and again with media players) wasn't the fact they were giving software away but they bundling it with Windows.
Microsoft isn't bundling Virtual Server with Windows. In fact, it would make little sense, as very few Windows users would have a need for this software. If any when they release it with Longhorn Server (which is their plan) then it could be seen as unfair competition.
"And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal."
You're mistaken. Again, dumping software doesn't get these companies in trouble -- bundling it does. If you applied your logic to every company, Apple should be in trouble for iTunes, Sun for Java and Macromedia for Flash.
"(As an aside, interestingly enough, I was surprised to find Microsoft's virtual server technology STILL does not offer hypervisor services... to give some perspective as to how far behind that puts them in "getting it", I worked on virtualized VM boxes on IBM 360 mainframes in school back in the mid-70s! These systems were implemented with hypervisor. Wow!)"
At this point "hypervisor" is a more a marketing term than anything. You don't need a hypervisor to have a successful VM. 360 mainframes were able to do it because their CPUs were designed to. The x86 architecture hasn't lent itself very well to hypervisors, which is why most companies that do VMs (including VMWare) don't use one on the platform. Intel is finally releasing a desktop chip that will support virtualization. Don't blame the software companies for lackluster hardware support.
"(Caveat: For those of you with home systems with XP Home Edition, this virtual server doesn't come free -- you'll need to flip for the $100 XP Professional upgrade.)"
Considering it's called "Virtual Server", why would anyone running Home edition try to use it? It's clear that the product is intended for administrators and developers, hence the OS requirement.
"(Caveat II: I don't always completely trust stories from the Register as I find them a little over-the-top in their anti-Microsoft rhetoric. However I was able to verify the Microsoft Virtual Server IS available for free download.)"
Um, congrats? You're able to use Google. Very nice. Not sure why this statement should be considered a caveat.
My father died from cancer when I was fairly young. I've never been particularly religious, but at the time the beliefs instilled in me (by my father, I might add) insisted that I pray some. Obviously it didn't work, and to this day (particularly after other events like 9/11) I don't put much faith in god.
That's one of the biggest problems with praying. It may "help the mental state of the patient and their family" for the duration of the event, but if the event turns sour it can lead to great anger and mental anguish. After all is said and done, the truely perceptive end up questioning the whole act of faith, while those who ignore the results go back to being religious.
I've had a lot of people try to argue me "back into faith". I went to a catholic college and my girlfriend tried to get me to go to church. The teachers there tried to justify god in an honors class. The longer they talked, the more logic that I applied, the less and less I respected what they were saying.
Today I'm just sort of agnostic. I don't really care what people think or feel about god, as long as they don't shove it down my throats. Your statement that praying obviously helps, even just the mental state of those involved, kind of bothers me, though. It's simply not true.
It's not her fault (she didn't say she was gorgeous, some random guy did), but IMO people can be held accountable for their beauty.
For example, people say I'm articulate, have a solid sense of humor and am pretty good with computers. If anyone said I'm "handsome" I'd immediately shoot them down because I'm not. I wouldn't want people to even remotely consider that part of my attribute list, because people meeting me would inevitably be disappointed.
Considering beauty is a measurable, sellable quality in business (Think how much models make -- and for what? Moving around and staring at a camera?), being "meat" has some value in our society. As one shouldn't say "I can fix computers" on a resume when they can't, one shouldn't be known for beauty when they're not.
"That's a man, baby!" - Austin Powers
What does the Revolution have to do with either Halo or Final Fantasy?
There are articles about Revolution all over Slashdot. Lots and lots of articles. And there is going to be lots of news at E3 about lots of different companies. Don't let Nintendo fanboyism creep where it doesn't belong. Keep posts about Revolution to the proper articles.
I've had a few problems with Oblivion. The worst is a "design feature". In my case, I wanted to create a new character, so I just went to Memory in the Dashboard and removed all the files under Oblivion. Go back into the game to create a new character and adjust my brightness settings, and the options were already set. Even though I deleted every file related to Oblivion, there was no way to get rid of the settings file. Turns out on the Xbox 360 version, settings are saved within the user profile, instead of with the rest of the save game files. Meaning there's no way to delete the settings (in other words, if the file gets corrupted you're screwed). I talked to Take 2, and the only recourse if that happens is to delete your profile/Xbox Live account. I'm hoping it'll never come to that.
As for the game, it runs pretty well. I've seen some strange slowdown on horseback and occasionally the framerate takes a nosedive in seemingly random environments. Most of that is fixed by holding down the A button while starting up the game (it clears the HD cache).
The biggest problem, though, is that the game is just sort of... boring. The characters seem to have been purposely lifted directly from a Generic Fantasy (tm) mold. I'm sure there's an underlying story in there unique to the genre, but I can't get past the character design. When you start up a "lesser" RPG, like Final Fantasy, you're at least given some character personalities to hook into. Here you get a bunch of blank slates -- not just for you but everyone in the game.
I'm going to give it time, but I do yawn on occasion while playing it, which is a bad sign.
"But you should do a little research into Jobs' many public statements"
Personally, I don't trust what the guy says, ever. In private, from books I've read, he's an absolute ass. In public he's a marketer, first and foremost. He would've made a fine politician. First rule of politics: get people to like you. If you do that, all the crap you throw their way (and I can think of a LOT of Apple bullshit over the years) becomes acceptable.
"I've been using Apple products for 20 years now, and while I'm not blind to the megalomania of Jobs and the many boneheaded moves he and the company have made, that same megalomania and driven quality is behind a long-term obsession with user experience."
So you drank the Koolaid. What's the point, here? People can be convinced of anything if you give them enough time.
Fact of the matter: Apple is ok. It doesn't suck, and it doesn't rock either. For all the talk of "industrial design" and "user experience", I think of jet-engine-sounding G4 towers and inconsistent Finder dialogs.
Apple is a company with the same faults as any other company. Steve Jobs is a guy with the same faults of every other guy. Not a savior, not a religious experience, but a guy. It's been 20 years -- sooner you learn to be skeptical, the better off you'll be.
Not to belittle your experience, but a lot of companies do this. When I call Dell, the Indian guy asks me for my current phone number. If we get disconnected he calls right back.
c id=15033002 In that case, he had to return a product on the 15th day from a 14 day return period and was amazed Apple would let it slide. In your case, you put up with 15 minutes on hold. No one seems to be noticing that the original company response was pretty crappy (15 minutes is excessive, and 14-days is just about the worst return policy in the industry). I mean yeah, they eventually fixed the problem, but when you purposely lower the bar with the customer it's pretty easy to clear it.
Not to mention, it sounds awfully like this guy's experience: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=181779&
The palattes aren't really an aesthetic matter. If they aren't right the screen can become completely garbled to the point that the game is unplayable. To this day many emulators have difficulty with games like Castlevania III because of this (although a few have gotten the majority of the palattes right).
The main reason why companies don't put the older hardware in is cost. If there's 2 versions of a console, one that has software emulation and one that has hardware emulation for $50 more, I'll take the software version. Not only am I saving $50, but I'm also ensuring if any updates need to be made I can do so.
People seem to forget that there was some major problems with PS2 emulation (which, like you said, used a combination of the PS1 hardware and software). Any time you go the hardware route, you run the risk of some consoles being permenantly gimped. You also, like I said, have to charge the consumer more.
To date, I can think of only one series of systems that have done hardware emulation consistently, and that's Game Boy. Even there, Nintendo quietly phases out older generations as they release new ones (both the DS and Game Boy Micro won't play original Game Boy games). They were going to go the hardware route with the SNES but bowed out.
I'm going to put this nicely. You're an idiot.
MS decided to go with emulation because the hardware alternative (sticking an Intel chipset and nVidia graphics core) was unpalatable. It's the exact same technique Revolution is going to use to emulate 20-year old consoles, and Sony will likely do the same thing.
There's no way to get an emulator completely right the first try. Period. End of story. There's always going to be an instruction here or a game there that doesn't work the way it should. Emulators need updates. Why do you think the NES emulation scene, for example, still releases updates for palattes?
Software emulation is the best solution to get older games to play without spending the extra money to include older hardware. Software updates are the best way to keep those emulators up to snuff.
In the case of the Xbox 360, the updates are completely seamless. You start the machine up, it says it needs an update, it installs it, you get back to gaming. Nintendo will likely do the same thing.
If the choice is between that and having a buggy emulator (remember, no such thing as a perfect emulator when it's released) or driving up the price of the console, I'll take the seamless updates, thanks.
Preface: I buy all the systems, every generation. I have that kind of disposable income. People are going to post that it's moronic. I'm a gamer, this is my hobby, I love my hobby. Now that that's out of the way...
People are entirely missing the real issue. Sony and Microsoft can spin it however they like ("look at all the polys"), Nintendo can spin it however it likes ("we focus on games, not hardware"). The bottom line reason why Nintendo is going with cheaper hardware has nothing to do with gaming philosophies, it has to do with money.
In short: cheaper hardware costs less to manufacture, meaning they can get a bigger profit, faster, on the systems. Every other console is going to be in the "sell for less than it costs to manufacture" phase for much longer. Nintendo thinks they can start at $150-200 and instantly make cash back on this thing. They also save money by relying on emulated titles and spending less on new game creation.
Nintendo is a great gaming company. Their business side is less than stellar. People will argue "they have a lot of cash on hand", but that's just the point -- having cash on hand is the only thing they really focus on. They don't focus on the core business model of consoles, which is to drive market penetration numbers up so they can make more on license fees.
The Revolution model will continue the practice of having more cash on hand while potentially alienating 3rd-party developers (the cornerstone of the license fees model). For all this talk by developers that "the Revolution controller will revolutionize how we create games", it's largely irrelevant. The publishers are the ones that sign the checks, and a majority of them got seriously burned with the N64 and GameCube. Publishers also don't like to take risks.
The business model Nintendo follows (cash on hand, neglect market penetration) is fundamentally flawed. What Nintendo should do, and I know people don't like to hear this, is get out of the console market entirely, focus on the handhelds and publish games for the other consoles. Their strength is first-party titles, not how they handle hardware. If they let Sony and Microsoft duke it out, they can focus on their core competency of making great games.
"But, what happens if your job is crappy, you're not particularly excited about your fiance, and life is still very unpleasant?"
Then you change all the above.
I get sick of hearing this all the time from people. "I hate my job," for example. Well, life ain't static, friend. Fortunately (in our society anyway) you're not a slave to your occupation. There are many, many different jobs out there. Be like that guy in Office Space: try a contruction job to get outdoors, for example. Jaime from Mythbusters made a fairly observant point in a recent Discovery channel chat. Paraphrasing, "I'm a firm believer in having a job that you love."
As for life in general, not all of it is roses. In fact, most of it is crappy. Part of surviving is understanding the crappy parts and dealing with them. I personally use humor -- got me through some tough challenges after a parent dying young, for example. If can't handle this kind of stuff internally, instead of relying on an external stimulus, you're going to end up exploding.
So let me understand this correctly... your complaint has to do with the original Xbox, a 5-year old interface on a console that (at the time) was the first one to introduce custom soundtracks for gaming (and to this day is the only one to do this). That console ripped to 128 WMA which, like Apple's AAC, provides better sound quality at lower bitrates and worked in hundreds of games. Your complaint is that you should have been able to waste more space on the 8 GB hard drive.
Kind of boneheaded, in my opinion.
All things considered, the original Xbox did an admirable job. I think it's ludicrous to think they didn't have "enough brains" the first time, considering the feature worked more or less flawlessly and provided good sound quality. Think about the original iPod: easily broken physical clickwheel, constantly crashed, only 5 GB -- but enough about it worked right to spawn new hardware. No company gets a product completely perfect the first try.
Not to mention, in between its launch and Xbox 360, they released the Music Mixer software which lets you play alternative sound formats at whatever bitrate you like off a nearby computer -- the same functionality that's offered in the 360. With the Xbox 360 they included that functionality and the ability to play music off just about any portable device you throw at it. Your complaint may have had some loose support back in 2001, but not in 2006.
To be honest, looking at your signature, I think you just have a beef with Microsoft. Not surprising (this is Slashdot, after all), but I would be a little more open to the idea that a few people in every company know what they're doing. I have some coworkers that are diehard Mac freaks, hate Windows with a vengenance but bought Xbox 360s. When I asked why, they said "That's MS, this is Xbox. The Xbox team knows what they're doing." Given that you've only had a "limited time" with the 360, you might want to give it more of a chance. The design is really impressive.
"It's an excellent book (Yes, I've read it)"
I think I've been duped by a phishing scam. I mean, clearly it says "slashdot.org" on the top address bar, but that can't be right. Damn it, they said if I upgraded to Firefox I'd be safe from this crap!
I'm not really sure I understand your complaint. Or that you even understand your complaint.
6 0). And if you really want to go crazy, you can pick up a WLAN adapter and carry the Xbox 360 to any room in the house. As long as it can hit the network, you can play your godzilla music collection of 250GB+.
You can rip music to the Xbox 360 hard drive, yes. It would be incredibly dumb given the limited space, and that's why you find that option near the bottom of the list.
Near the top of the list are options far more palatable. You can connect an iPod (or another MP3 player, or a PSP, or just a regular USB drive with music) right to the front of the Xbox. It'll play MP3, unprotected AACs, etc., whatever bitrate you want. It'll even decipher the iPod built-in database format (which Apple was ungracious enough not to license to anyone). You can also play this music in-games, just like music off the hard drive.
If you don't like that approach, another option near the top is that you can play music off of any Windows PC in your house using the Media Connect software. That music can be housed on a NAS somewhere -- as long as you have some Windows box as the front-end it'll work. Again, any bitrate you want, play in-game/out-of-game/etc. There are also some 3rd-party apps for other OSes -- notably Mac has Connect360 (http://www.nullriver.com/index/products/connect3
So, what's the complaint here? The Xbox team provided a bunch of different ways to access huge libraries of music, in different formats, at different bitrates. Given the complexity of stuff like deciphering the iPod database and having a UI properly recognize all the ID3 tags of MP3s on a random USB drive (try it -- it does it really elegantly) it doesn't sound like a "half-baked" solution at all. They did their homework -- it's a solid solution.
"It could be that it's because hiberation actually does exist in Mac OS X. It's just not a well known fact. OS X 10.4's "Safe Sleep" (Google cache) saves the active memory to disk when a Mac [laptop] goes to sleep...lest the power get interrupted."
Ah, see, there's the issue. I've noticed the lack of a hibernation feature most on my iBook G4, where I never saw the option (and somehow I missed it on my Powerbook). I'll enable it on my Powerbook and try this hack for the iBook.
"However, if you're not a Mac user, you may not appreciate how good the normal "Sleep" mode is. Unlike Windows, a Mac which has been put to sleep will resume almost immediately, and be instantly usable. My iBook can stay 'asleep' in my briefcase for ages, with very little battery consumption, and as soon as I open the lid, I am good to go. This impresses me more than words can say."
I am a Mac user (I'm also a Windows user, a Linux user, etc -- I use all OSes because different ones have different strengths and weaknesses). In my daily work, I've found both my Dell Inspiron and final-generation Powerbook G4 come out of sleep at about the same speed (in fact, the Dell sometimes edges out the Powerbook G4). However, when I go on business trips, the Mac in sleep mode simply doesn't save much juice. Comparing the two, I have about 40% battery life left after 8 hours in sleep-mode, as opposed to 100% or so for the Dell in hibernation. The fact that I put my Dell in its case, leave it in the hotel room for a couple of days, bring it to a client and have full battery life when I'm ready to start my presentation "impresses me more than words can say", as you put it.
I'll have to test and compare using "Safe Sleep". In my experience, getting hibernation "right" takes a couple of tries (Windows and the Linux kernel first had it years ago, but only in recent revisions does it truely save the state of every device perfectly). Hopefully my Mighty Mouse will power up as soon as the Mac comes out of Safe Sleep (it doesn't for regular sleep > ).
"I wouldn't count on it. From the looks of things, the Intel-based Macs boot plenty fast."
It doesn't recall the apps and windows that were open, their exact state, etc. 20-30 seconds is just the initial boot, not the amount of time needed to get back to where I was working.
I don't know why people try to defend Apple on this particular design decision. There's absolutely no reason why hibernation shouldn't be included in OS X.