"Because with a simple Firewire break-out box, that's exactly what a lot of people are using their minis for. Next question."
Except it doesn't work. At all.
I was a proponent of the new Intel minis (look at my previous comments) until I got one this week. First headache was hooking it up to the TV. No computer does completely well with overscan, but at least the Windows rig I built had nVidia drivers where I could tweak the exact resolution I wanted. On Mac I got a single checkbox that said "Overscan" (didn't do the trick) and I couldn't get DisplayX, ResX, etc to properly change the resolution.
Then came Front Row. Pretty, but clearly a 1.0 product. Several times it would freeze entirely for no reason (until you zoomed back out to the desktop and realized some dialog wanted your attention). It refused to play VIDEO_TS folders (my Media Center box does). I won't fault it for that, but I will fault it for having no kind of zoom feature for 4:3/16:9. Basically I had an underscanned resolution playing 4:3 videos in a 16:9 mode. It was like cutting 4 inches off all sides of my TV screen. I mean, come on, why would the DVD player app have video zoom but not Front Row.
And don't get me started with the 3rd-party TV recording app. Having to use 2 remotes defeats the purpose of Apple's "simple" design. Yes, they love to compare their remote with the Media Center one. I admit the Media Center one isn't the greatest design in the world, but at least 10 extra buttons are there because you need to change channels!
Don't get me wrong. It's really an excellent desktop OS, and I bought another Mini for my family so I don't have to deal with removing spyware from their machines. But as a media center, it absolutely sucks. I ended up returning it.
That's actually an identical design to what's used in Picasa (owned by Google). It works well with photos. Although Picasa does give some indication as to where you are in the list.
You mentioned using Jabber as an end-to-end business solution. I'm stating that no one in the business world uses Jabber. Go to any company and try to get them to change from AIM. When you explain to them that all their external contacts will also need to be running Jabber, you'll pretty much lose the argument.
"The downside to on-site IM you describe is only manifested when you use a centralised system like MSN Messenger rather than a decentralised system like Jabber."
You mentioned installing a Jabber server within a company. Again, it doesn't mean anything if all the other businesses you need to contact don't use Jabber. Jabber is a niche system used primarily be geeks. It's a solid messaging protocol, but it's not going to upend AIM anytime soon.
"The assumption is that servers will be managed by those with a clue, whereas desktops will not usually be."
*Cough* You don't know many Mac server admins, do you?:P Most of the ones I know are not in any kind of environment where servers are routinely hardened. They assume, from all the marketing, that the box will be secure from the get go. If you mentioned the word "headless" to them, they'd have no idea what you're talking about.
Not to say Windows server admins are any better (most of the boxes I administer are Windows). But people (stupidly) expect in this day and age that the product they are given is what it's advertised to be. Blame Apple for not making it clearer in their marketing.
"Why would a company choose AIM over the IETF-ratified XMPP standard, Jabber? There are open-source Jabber servers and clients that do that job just as well, and you don't have to rely on another business to make them work."
Because everyone uses AIM and (comparitively) no one uses Jabber.
"Do businesses even have the option of installing an AIM server locally?"
As Microsoft has discovered, having an on-site instant messaging server is useless in the business world, because you're talking to others outside of the company, more often than not.
People use what works (iTunes, AIM, IE, etc). The longer it works, the less likely people are to change.
Ok, now here's where your ignorance is REALLY starting to show. The All-in-Wonder cards share the same model numbers but are significantly slower, both in speed of the core and memory. Do a search on All-in-Wonder X1900 benchmarks and compare them to regular X1900 (in fact, I think Tom's Hardware actually has charts for that comparison). You'll see the reason why it's less expensive.
It's like finding a price for a 7800 and telling me it's as fast as a regular 7800 GTX. No contest.
I think you need to take a good, long look at the various video card architectures out there, specs, etc. before making comments.
An X1900 is actually about 50-60% faster than an 2 SLI'd 6800s. Not to mention, both the X1900 and dual 6800s solutions cost in the $300-600 range. Factor in that you need a motherboard, 3 cores, etc. to match the Xbox 360, and the price comparison is shot full of holes.
Here's a more valid comparison: find me either a dual 6800 or X1900 system, a complete system, for $300. Take your time.
"Why, because somebody said that Oblivion looks the same on an X1900 as on a 360?"
Uh, no, unlike you I don't go by "what I hear". I read about both architectures and Ars.Technica took a very good looks at the diffferences. The Xbox 360 card is essentially the same.
"It doesn't matter what's in it. Within a year it'll be slower than a bargain PC card."
Unlikely. Consoles have a long shelf-life. Look at Halo 2 on the original Xbox: most people can't get even those kinds of graphics with today's bargain cards. Considering a bargain card that's actually usable (6800) costs $150, and the Xbox costs $150, it's still very competitive.
"If the console succeeds, 99% of them will be sold after that anyway. That means most people who buy them will be buying overpriced video hardware."
As I said, today I can buy an original Xbox for $150. Going *just barebones*, the minimum I would need to spend to build a comparable PC is about $300. The hardware in the Xbox 360 is easily worth $1000-1200, but you can buy it for $300. Consoles are never "overpriced" in comparison to PCs -- it'd blow the wind out of the whole console business model.
Well I have enough room on my NAS box that I can store them uncompressed. I basically ripped them and left the VIDEO_TSes in a central locations. Windows Media Center didn't really care and played the VIDEO_TS right off the NAS. Apparently Front Row requires videos to be actual files, hence needing to go to MPEG4.
Actually, as I mentioned in my comment above, it's closer to a X1900, which is a $600 card (if you can find it that cheap). If you take a look at the architecture they're almost identical.
"My video card cost less than a 360, and is faster than the 360's video."
I'd like to know what this magical video card is. The ATI card in the 360 is on par with the X1900s that just came out. That's a $600-700 card, twice as much as the core 360.
A crap $250 card won't cut it for much longer anyway. I love when these people buy nVidia 6800s and last year's ATIs and think they're on top of the world. They're not.
Mark me troll if you want (I carry my DS during every morning and evening commute) but I'm not "upgrading" to a system that will have GBA cartridges sticking out one centimeter from the case. One of the best things about the DS was that you had 2 games ready to go, and the GBA library for classic ports is huge. Here you have an attempt by Nintendo to get people to play more DS titles (the same way GB titles stuck out of the GBA), but how much work would it have been to find the extra CM of space for the cartridge? I mean come on, Nintendo.
Pass. My silver DS works just fine, thank you, and I'll continue to enjoy it for quite a while.
Ever since the Mac Mini came out, I considered using it as a media PC in my living room. I currently have a stylish Shuttle box I built myself for $800 that, while not the quietest thing in the world, looks good amongst the receiver and other electronics equipment. I use it to dish out ripped DVDs to a 40" HDTV with Windows Media Center 2005 (not a bad OS, although lately I've had a few issues with crashing).
Once I saw Front Row, I always said, if Apple were to release a version for Mac Mini, I'd buy the little box immediately. Just did.
To me, this fits perfectly with what I want: quiet, small, cheap, able to play a large DVD collection. I'll have to save them as MPEG4s, but that's no big deal. The fact that it can play videos across the network from both Mac and PCs pretty much seals the deal.
With a wireless keyboard and 1 GB of RAM my box came out to $750 (employee discount). The video card is pretty crappy, but otherwise it fits perfectly with what I want. I'm not a Apple fanboy by any stretch of the imagination (I like all machines, and run a ton of different boxes/OSes in my home), but this is a very nice product for what I need to do.
"Also, the original Xbox was received very poorly in Japan partly because of the butt-ugliness of the machine and the huge space it took up, keeping in mind the size of housing there."
Actually, it's more because the Japanese have a history of hating American products. The Xbox 360 looks fine, is relatively space-conservative but still failed. How many Fords, Dodge and Jeeps are sold over there?
I think you're kind of missing the point, on a whole bunch of levels.
First, yes, you can buy a PC that plays some of these games. It will, however, set you back much more than an Xbox 360 (even the cheapest PCs run the $600 range). You'll have to play with a keyboard and mouse in front of a computer screen, not in your living room. You won't be able to track your accomplishments, or play with your son halfway across the country while talking on voice chat like I do. At least not easily (yes, you can probably set up an instant messaging program and screw around with a headset to get it to work on PC -- it could be done I suppose). That $600 box won't really be good for any games besides that shareware -- you certainly won't be able to run anything like Morrowind on it and have it play decently. If you want to play the game on another computer, you'll first have to check the specs to make sure it matches, then install again (with Xbox 360 you just log into the other box and it downloads the game). From a gameplay standpoint, playing on PC would be a crappy version of what can be done easily, more cheaper, and arguably more fun on Xbox 360.
But let's look beyond that. Up until now, shareware was the domain of a few key players (iD, for example), but it never really took off. Most companies produce demos of PC games, but the idea that you can download a game, play to a certain point and unlock the full game afterwards only had a few real successes. The vast majority of people still buy games in little cardboard boxes.
Microsoft has an opportunity here, they're taking advantage of it and it's frankly shaking the industry. Sales of Xbox Live arcade titles are in the hundreds of thousands, easily matching regular game sales. Why is it such a success? Because with one button press you have a game downloaded, installed, and ready to go. You KNOW it works because it was built for the platform, and most games are only about $5. They have begun work on bringing full DVD-sized games to the Arcade. They're taking the long predicted download-distribution model for selling games and making it a reality.
And it isn't just Microsoft. Sony and Nintendo are also bringing the download-distribution model to the masses. This is the way the future is going to be said.
There's a lot to be said about a system that easily lets consumers buy games, without thinking about platform specs, "Will it work?" etc. iTunes and iPod uses a similar model, and look how far they got (1 billion songs sold). *Can* it be done the old PC way? Yes. But if there's a better way, why not go for it?
They honestly don't care about people running taking the OS and running it wherever they feel like it. If you read about the issue on OSX86, you'd see it has nothing really to do with that.
The issue is that some people are posting full versions of the OS hacked to try to get around the DRM. In other words, you can download these copies (for free) instead of buying the software and THEN hacking it. They're upset about the posting, not the hacking.
And if you really think about it, they have every right to be upset. Tons of people are downloading the OS and Apple's not making a dime. That *IS* stealing in the most basic sense of the word.
Memory is the easiest thing to service in the world. It's usually one of the only usable service parts on laptops. Mac laptops require all of 1 screw removal to reseat memory. My mother can install memory, for crying out loud.
If you needed to go to a technician for a process that involves reading 1 page in the online help section and less than 30 seconds of your time physically moving the memory, you probably don't deserve a $2500 laptop in the first place. I shudder to think what would happen if the battery wasn't in all the way. "My laptop is broken! Curse you Apple!"
Nintendo doesn't want to blow anyone out of the water. They want to survive. It's in their best interest not to rile up either Sony or Microsoft (and considering neither take Nintendo to be a direct competitor, they're doing a pretty good job of staying out of the spotlight).
The fact that you think the controller will draw in women gamers is pretty silly. The Sims drew women in because it was a non-violent "dollhouse" (Will Wright's own description). Keep in mind it used a keyboard and mouse, "controllers" that have been around for over 40 years.
Also, note that Nintendo has a long history of failing with "risky" new endeavors. Off the top of my head I can think of Virtual Boy, Rob the Robot, the Power Pad (which should've been successful given today Dance Dance craze), the SuperScope 6, the SNES Mouse, the N64 microphone, e-Reader cards, etc. All of these were intended to light flames under the industry and spawn new genres. Instead, each ran with only a couple of games and faded into obscurity.
And for those about to mention the DS as an "innovative success", keep in mind that the dual screens and touchpad have nothing to do with the system's success. Being able to run the existing GBA library and having more games than PSP is why the system is successful.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because with a simple Firewire break-out box, that's exactly what a lot of people are using their minis for. Next question."
Except it doesn't work. At all.
I was a proponent of the new Intel minis (look at my previous comments) until I got one this week. First headache was hooking it up to the TV. No computer does completely well with overscan, but at least the Windows rig I built had nVidia drivers where I could tweak the exact resolution I wanted. On Mac I got a single checkbox that said "Overscan" (didn't do the trick) and I couldn't get DisplayX, ResX, etc to properly change the resolution.
Then came Front Row. Pretty, but clearly a 1.0 product. Several times it would freeze entirely for no reason (until you zoomed back out to the desktop and realized some dialog wanted your attention). It refused to play VIDEO_TS folders (my Media Center box does). I won't fault it for that, but I will fault it for having no kind of zoom feature for 4:3/16:9. Basically I had an underscanned resolution playing 4:3 videos in a 16:9 mode. It was like cutting 4 inches off all sides of my TV screen. I mean, come on, why would the DVD player app have video zoom but not Front Row.
And don't get me started with the 3rd-party TV recording app. Having to use 2 remotes defeats the purpose of Apple's "simple" design. Yes, they love to compare their remote with the Media Center one. I admit the Media Center one isn't the greatest design in the world, but at least 10 extra buttons are there because you need to change channels!
Don't get me wrong. It's really an excellent desktop OS, and I bought another Mini for my family so I don't have to deal with removing spyware from their machines. But as a media center, it absolutely sucks. I ended up returning it.
That's actually an identical design to what's used in Picasa (owned by Google). It works well with photos. Although Picasa does give some indication as to where you are in the list.
Don't forget Unreal Tournament.
"Why does that matter in this specific use case?"
You mentioned using Jabber as an end-to-end business solution. I'm stating that no one in the business world uses Jabber. Go to any company and try to get them to change from AIM. When you explain to them that all their external contacts will also need to be running Jabber, you'll pretty much lose the argument.
"The downside to on-site IM you describe is only manifested when you use a centralised system like MSN Messenger rather than a decentralised system like Jabber."
You mentioned installing a Jabber server within a company. Again, it doesn't mean anything if all the other businesses you need to contact don't use Jabber. Jabber is a niche system used primarily be geeks. It's a solid messaging protocol, but it's not going to upend AIM anytime soon.
"The assumption is that servers will be managed by those with a clue, whereas desktops will not usually be."
:P Most of the ones I know are not in any kind of environment where servers are routinely hardened. They assume, from all the marketing, that the box will be secure from the get go. If you mentioned the word "headless" to them, they'd have no idea what you're talking about.
*Cough* You don't know many Mac server admins, do you?
Not to say Windows server admins are any better (most of the boxes I administer are Windows). But people (stupidly) expect in this day and age that the product they are given is what it's advertised to be. Blame Apple for not making it clearer in their marketing.
"Why would a company choose AIM over the IETF-ratified XMPP standard, Jabber? There are open-source Jabber servers and clients that do that job just as well, and you don't have to rely on another business to make them work."
Because everyone uses AIM and (comparitively) no one uses Jabber.
"Do businesses even have the option of installing an AIM server locally?"
As Microsoft has discovered, having an on-site instant messaging server is useless in the business world, because you're talking to others outside of the company, more often than not.
People use what works (iTunes, AIM, IE, etc). The longer it works, the less likely people are to change.
Ok, now here's where your ignorance is REALLY starting to show. The All-in-Wonder cards share the same model numbers but are significantly slower, both in speed of the core and memory. Do a search on All-in-Wonder X1900 benchmarks and compare them to regular X1900 (in fact, I think Tom's Hardware actually has charts for that comparison). You'll see the reason why it's less expensive.
It's like finding a price for a 7800 and telling me it's as fast as a regular 7800 GTX. No contest.
I think you need to take a good, long look at the various video card architectures out there, specs, etc. before making comments.
An X1900 is actually about 50-60% faster than an 2 SLI'd 6800s. Not to mention, both the X1900 and dual 6800s solutions cost in the $300-600 range. Factor in that you need a motherboard, 3 cores, etc. to match the Xbox 360, and the price comparison is shot full of holes.
Here's a more valid comparison: find me either a dual 6800 or X1900 system, a complete system, for $300. Take your time.
"Why, because somebody said that Oblivion looks the same on an X1900 as on a 360?"
Uh, no, unlike you I don't go by "what I hear". I read about both architectures and Ars.Technica took a very good looks at the diffferences. The Xbox 360 card is essentially the same.
"It doesn't matter what's in it. Within a year it'll be slower than a bargain PC card."
Unlikely. Consoles have a long shelf-life. Look at Halo 2 on the original Xbox: most people can't get even those kinds of graphics with today's bargain cards. Considering a bargain card that's actually usable (6800) costs $150, and the Xbox costs $150, it's still very competitive.
"If the console succeeds, 99% of them will be sold after that anyway. That means most people who buy them will be buying overpriced video hardware."
As I said, today I can buy an original Xbox for $150. Going *just barebones*, the minimum I would need to spend to build a comparable PC is about $300. The hardware in the Xbox 360 is easily worth $1000-1200, but you can buy it for $300. Consoles are never "overpriced" in comparison to PCs -- it'd blow the wind out of the whole console business model.
Well I have enough room on my NAS box that I can store them uncompressed. I basically ripped them and left the VIDEO_TSes in a central locations. Windows Media Center didn't really care and played the VIDEO_TS right off the NAS. Apparently Front Row requires videos to be actual files, hence needing to go to MPEG4.
Actually, as I mentioned in my comment above, it's closer to a X1900, which is a $600 card (if you can find it that cheap). If you take a look at the architecture they're almost identical.
"My video card cost less than a 360, and is faster than the 360's video."
I'd like to know what this magical video card is. The ATI card in the 360 is on par with the X1900s that just came out. That's a $600-700 card, twice as much as the core 360.
A crap $250 card won't cut it for much longer anyway. I love when these people buy nVidia 6800s and last year's ATIs and think they're on top of the world. They're not.
It would not have been difficult to spend the extra 2 weeks engineering and make the board smaller. It can be done.
"Insightful"? Ha. More idiotic dribble out of this kid.
Mark me troll if you want (I carry my DS during every morning and evening commute) but I'm not "upgrading" to a system that will have GBA cartridges sticking out one centimeter from the case. One of the best things about the DS was that you had 2 games ready to go, and the GBA library for classic ports is huge. Here you have an attempt by Nintendo to get people to play more DS titles (the same way GB titles stuck out of the GBA), but how much work would it have been to find the extra CM of space for the cartridge? I mean come on, Nintendo.
Pass. My silver DS works just fine, thank you, and I'll continue to enjoy it for quite a while.
Ever since the Mac Mini came out, I considered using it as a media PC in my living room. I currently have a stylish Shuttle box I built myself for $800 that, while not the quietest thing in the world, looks good amongst the receiver and other electronics equipment. I use it to dish out ripped DVDs to a 40" HDTV with Windows Media Center 2005 (not a bad OS, although lately I've had a few issues with crashing).
Once I saw Front Row, I always said, if Apple were to release a version for Mac Mini, I'd buy the little box immediately. Just did.
To me, this fits perfectly with what I want: quiet, small, cheap, able to play a large DVD collection. I'll have to save them as MPEG4s, but that's no big deal. The fact that it can play videos across the network from both Mac and PCs pretty much seals the deal.
With a wireless keyboard and 1 GB of RAM my box came out to $750 (employee discount). The video card is pretty crappy, but otherwise it fits perfectly with what I want. I'm not a Apple fanboy by any stretch of the imagination (I like all machines, and run a ton of different boxes/OSes in my home), but this is a very nice product for what I need to do.
"Hi doofus, I think you are missing the point."
Um, yeah... I stopped reading right here. Step away from the angry teenager/college dude, kids. He hasn't quite grown up yet.
Are you ever NOT going to post anti-MS drivel?
"Also, the original Xbox was received very poorly in Japan partly because of the butt-ugliness of the machine and the huge space it took up, keeping in mind the size of housing there."
Actually, it's more because the Japanese have a history of hating American products. The Xbox 360 looks fine, is relatively space-conservative but still failed. How many Fords, Dodge and Jeeps are sold over there?
I think you're kind of missing the point, on a whole bunch of levels.
First, yes, you can buy a PC that plays some of these games. It will, however, set you back much more than an Xbox 360 (even the cheapest PCs run the $600 range). You'll have to play with a keyboard and mouse in front of a computer screen, not in your living room. You won't be able to track your accomplishments, or play with your son halfway across the country while talking on voice chat like I do. At least not easily (yes, you can probably set up an instant messaging program and screw around with a headset to get it to work on PC -- it could be done I suppose). That $600 box won't really be good for any games besides that shareware -- you certainly won't be able to run anything like Morrowind on it and have it play decently. If you want to play the game on another computer, you'll first have to check the specs to make sure it matches, then install again (with Xbox 360 you just log into the other box and it downloads the game). From a gameplay standpoint, playing on PC would be a crappy version of what can be done easily, more cheaper, and arguably more fun on Xbox 360.
But let's look beyond that. Up until now, shareware was the domain of a few key players (iD, for example), but it never really took off. Most companies produce demos of PC games, but the idea that you can download a game, play to a certain point and unlock the full game afterwards only had a few real successes. The vast majority of people still buy games in little cardboard boxes.
Microsoft has an opportunity here, they're taking advantage of it and it's frankly shaking the industry. Sales of Xbox Live arcade titles are in the hundreds of thousands, easily matching regular game sales. Why is it such a success? Because with one button press you have a game downloaded, installed, and ready to go. You KNOW it works because it was built for the platform, and most games are only about $5. They have begun work on bringing full DVD-sized games to the Arcade. They're taking the long predicted download-distribution model for selling games and making it a reality.
And it isn't just Microsoft. Sony and Nintendo are also bringing the download-distribution model to the masses. This is the way the future is going to be said.
There's a lot to be said about a system that easily lets consumers buy games, without thinking about platform specs, "Will it work?" etc. iTunes and iPod uses a similar model, and look how far they got (1 billion songs sold). *Can* it be done the old PC way? Yes. But if there's a better way, why not go for it?
They honestly don't care about people running taking the OS and running it wherever they feel like it. If you read about the issue on OSX86, you'd see it has nothing really to do with that.
The issue is that some people are posting full versions of the OS hacked to try to get around the DRM. In other words, you can download these copies (for free) instead of buying the software and THEN hacking it. They're upset about the posting, not the hacking.
And if you really think about it, they have every right to be upset. Tons of people are downloading the OS and Apple's not making a dime. That *IS* stealing in the most basic sense of the word.
Next he's going to write a long rant saying how upset, emotionally disturbed, and just plain pissed he is that they changed the Powerbook's name.
Memory is the easiest thing to service in the world. It's usually one of the only usable service parts on laptops. Mac laptops require all of 1 screw removal to reseat memory. My mother can install memory, for crying out loud.
If you needed to go to a technician for a process that involves reading 1 page in the online help section and less than 30 seconds of your time physically moving the memory, you probably don't deserve a $2500 laptop in the first place. I shudder to think what would happen if the battery wasn't in all the way. "My laptop is broken! Curse you Apple!"
Nintendo doesn't want to blow anyone out of the water. They want to survive. It's in their best interest not to rile up either Sony or Microsoft (and considering neither take Nintendo to be a direct competitor, they're doing a pretty good job of staying out of the spotlight).
The fact that you think the controller will draw in women gamers is pretty silly. The Sims drew women in because it was a non-violent "dollhouse" (Will Wright's own description). Keep in mind it used a keyboard and mouse, "controllers" that have been around for over 40 years.
Also, note that Nintendo has a long history of failing with "risky" new endeavors. Off the top of my head I can think of Virtual Boy, Rob the Robot, the Power Pad (which should've been successful given today Dance Dance craze), the SuperScope 6, the SNES Mouse, the N64 microphone, e-Reader cards, etc. All of these were intended to light flames under the industry and spawn new genres. Instead, each ran with only a couple of games and faded into obscurity.
And for those about to mention the DS as an "innovative success", keep in mind that the dual screens and touchpad have nothing to do with the system's success. Being able to run the existing GBA library and having more games than PSP is why the system is successful.
"The day I got it, the RAM wasn't seated correctly. Took it to my local Apple Store."
If you don't know how to seat RAM properly you really don't belong on Slashdot.