"I always wonder when people take apart these toys if they ever manage to put them back together in anything like working order."
I do, but there's always exactly 2 screws extra. No more, no less. Oh, and maybe an extra gear (like when I took apart my Perfection game when I was a child).
They always still work afterwards, though. I wonder if engineers add a few extra screw just so people like me can remove them.;)
I'm not sure I agree with him getting the most "votes" at this point (scroll down the page). Excellent coder, good "top-level" thinker, but would I really put him in front of the guys who made Unix, Java, and even the web? Definitely not.
When you're working on a major motion picture that has several dozen artists, a full team of probably close to a hundred people, and a budget of millions, you need accountability if someone makes a change.
I would think an artist would welcome being able to look back at certain versions of scenes, call them up at any point, and derive how the drawing got to where it is currently. This isn't some starving artist creating basic 3D renders in his garage; this a multi-million dollar business.
Did TVPaint let you doodle on something already animated and save the changes automatically when you put the pen down? Did it upload the changes to the server so other artists could get a full transaction history of the suggestions being made? Did it have thoughtful design features, like turning the pen over to erase (obvious) and not allowing someone to delete the whole screen accidentally (not as obvious)? Didn't think so.
"It took the first one two years because it sucked."
Uh, I don't know about you, but I don't think Halo sucked at all. It added ton of features that influenced FPSes for years to come:
* First game to incorporate lifelike, accurate AI in open battle scenes. Half-Life accomplished this in tight spaces, but most routines involved paths with very tight corners. They've evolved it even further in Halo 2: watch as AI takes cover under the boxes you just blasted. * First game to include a bevy of pixel shaders correctly. Yes, the corridors were repetitive, but they sure looked purty. * First game to get console FPS controls perfectly. Goldeneye came in a close second, and would've worked if you weren't using button for moving the sight up and down. Every console FPS I've seen since Halo (besides Metroid) has its controls.
What's sad is the point the article makes: nearly "cost-free" internet calling is now a possibility. Imagine receiving hundreds of phone calls a day, in a spam-style blitz. International casinos, viagra ads. I can picture us going through the same motions we use for spam (install "voice filters", find they don't work, block calls from Grandma, etc).
The only way to solve this, and the spam problem is to have full accountability. Don't allow a telephone/computer onto the internet unless its idenity is known and there's no technical way to fake it. If the device's identity is hidden or nebulous, it's not allowed to connect. Have devices be physically tracable. Privacy advocates may shudder, but if something like this was in place we wouldn't have problems.
Really? All I'VE read is their touting of TCO on servers. Ballmer is spouting off about patents on Linux in general, but I don't see them attacking Linux on the desktop. They are much, MUCH more concerned about losing marketshare to Linux on servers than the desktop -- which has nothing to do with IE.
*Shrug* It's all about how much value you think an entertainment source has. Personally, I'd gladly pay a few extra bucks for some rich gameplay drawn by professional artists than play another cheap Tetris clone on Gnome.
Considering, also, that Blizzard tends to support their games for a long, LONG time (you can still play WarCraft II on Battle.net) I think it's a fair price.
"Why can MSFT pull off XBox Live for 50 bucks a year, but the MMOG guys can't do it for much less than 20 bucks a month?
XBL no doubt sucks more bandwidth and does a shitload of backend work."
Xbox Live has very few dedicated servers. Most of what Live does is matchmaking (the Xboxes themselves host the games).
MMORPGs need to have a ton of dedicated servers, run by a full-time networking team, on ALL the time. When servers are down on an MMORPG, there's no game, period.
"The upshot of this is that if Internet Explorer is required to be used, then Windows is required to be used, and therefore no matter who is providing the web-based services, at least microsoft will be getting some money"
I think you're missing the point. Microsoft no longer cares about increasing desktop market share. Let's say they lose 5 percent, maybe 10 percent, of overall marketshare. They have 80% of the world's machines running Windows. That's not a big enough dent to worry about.
On the othe rhand, they're looking around and seeing all these handheld devices (Blackberries, cell phones, etc). Sure, they have "Windows Mobile Smartphone Edition", but it'll be a while before that takes off. Why not go after the real growth market: backend application servers? If they target standards (like.NET does) then it doesn't matter what the client is running. Microsoft STILL makes money, just in a different way.
Basically, what MS is doing is patently ingenious. They're shifting their attention away from their dominant market to growth markets. Even if they lose share in the dominant market, they're still in a comfortable position. This gets antitrust off their back, caters to the geeks (I'm actually fairly impressed with.NET, although I'm hesitant to say it), and still makes money. It's freaking brilliant.
Actually, it's more along the lines that the browser isn't an important business model anymore (or ever was, for that matter); see my comment from yesterday. All this talk about percentage signs and "market share" are foolish, because there is no "market".
Personally, I use whatever I happen to have at hand. If I'm at home I use Safari on my Mac, Firefox on my PC. If at work, I use IE. If I'm telneting somewhere, Lynx (if it's available). In the car, my phone's browser. The point is the browser is just a window to the real business models, and anyone still comparing browser numbers is either an MS IE developer (the 3 that are left) or Mozilla diehards.
At this point, everything targets standards. Even ASP.NET, like I mentioned yesterday no longer pushes ActiveX crap onto the client. Ditto on Apache, of course. It doesn't matter what you use to view the content. What matters now, from a business standpoint, is what's running on the backend to deliver that content.
To plumb a buzzword ("application services") I really don't think we're even going to recognize a "browser" in 10 years. We'll be too busy running our word processors, financial software and games straight over the internet. The "browser's" border will become transparent, and you won't need to know (or care) what you're using.
Application providers will realize (they've already begun to) that it makes no point targetting IE if your clients suddenly move to Blackberry, for example. They're targetting standards now (the most basic HTML that'll run on anything) and the browser is being relegated to a window environment.
"that will lead in turn to less people using Windows"
I agree with everything except that point. I don't see anyone moving away from Windows while using Firefox. I think it's a solid browser -- probably the most usable thing Open Source has ever borne (outside of, say, Tivo) -- but there's nothing in it that says to Joey User "Hey, move with me to Linux."
In fact, I'd think it MORE possible that now that Windows users have a decent browser (a critical problem) they'll stick around with Windows. People don't change things unless they need change. The browser needed change. Windows, now with a fairly stable NT underbelly and automatic patching, doesn't necessarily.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have you seen ASP.NET stuff? It's moved entirely away from client-side ActiveX-pushing. You can pretty much load it up in Firefox, Safari and Lynx, etc. and expect results.
It'd be different if MS was still pushing client-side controls, but they're not. What they're pushing is a proprietary backend with a standards-based frontend. Again, they could care less about the browser wars.
Nervous about what? The web browser was the battle from 1997. Today it's web services, connecting new front-ends with really old databases, and the like. The web browser is simply a window on money-making backends, and the money is what Microsoft worries about.
I think you're missing the point. Businesses determine success on sales. If you complain about a product, but buy it anyway, they really don't care. They have your $50, so anything you say afterwards is moot.
"And you don't think that this is an unnecessary hassle? Why should you have to wait a few days (or any amount of time at all excluding the few minutes of installation) to play a $50 game offline?"
Then DON'T BUY THE FUCKING GAME. Why do people complain about stuff they know they're going to hate, then hand the makers $50 anyhow?
Slashdot Mirror
"I always wonder when people take apart these toys if they ever manage to put them back together in anything like working order."
;)
I do, but there's always exactly 2 screws extra. No more, no less. Oh, and maybe an extra gear (like when I took apart my Perfection game when I was a child).
They always still work afterwards, though. I wonder if engineers add a few extra screw just so people like me can remove them.
I'm not sure I agree with him getting the most "votes" at this point (scroll down the page). Excellent coder, good "top-level" thinker, but would I really put him in front of the guys who made Unix, Java, and even the web? Definitely not.
"Server? Who needs a stinkin server?"
When you're working on a major motion picture that has several dozen artists, a full team of probably close to a hundred people, and a budget of millions, you need accountability if someone makes a change.
I would think an artist would welcome being able to look back at certain versions of scenes, call them up at any point, and derive how the drawing got to where it is currently. This isn't some starving artist creating basic 3D renders in his garage; this a multi-million dollar business.
Maybe if Apple released the SDK hackers have been BEGGING them for years...
Did TVPaint let you doodle on something already animated and save the changes automatically when you put the pen down? Did it upload the changes to the server so other artists could get a full transaction history of the suggestions being made? Did it have thoughtful design features, like turning the pen over to erase (obvious) and not allowing someone to delete the whole screen accidentally (not as obvious)? Didn't think so.
"It took the first one two years because it sucked."
Uh, I don't know about you, but I don't think Halo sucked at all. It added ton of features that influenced FPSes for years to come:
* First game to incorporate lifelike, accurate AI in open battle scenes. Half-Life accomplished this in tight spaces, but most routines involved paths with very tight corners. They've evolved it even further in Halo 2: watch as AI takes cover under the boxes you just blasted.
* First game to include a bevy of pixel shaders correctly. Yes, the corridors were repetitive, but they sure looked purty.
* First game to get console FPS controls perfectly. Goldeneye came in a close second, and would've worked if you weren't using button for moving the sight up and down. Every console FPS I've seen since Halo (besides Metroid) has its controls.
"How long do you reckon before Google launches such a thing, potentially pushing MSN Messenger out the market?"
Because we all know how Gmail completely knocked out Hotmail...
What's sad is the point the article makes: nearly "cost-free" internet calling is now a possibility. Imagine receiving hundreds of phone calls a day, in a spam-style blitz. International casinos, viagra ads. I can picture us going through the same motions we use for spam (install "voice filters", find they don't work, block calls from Grandma, etc).
The only way to solve this, and the spam problem is to have full accountability. Don't allow a telephone/computer onto the internet unless its idenity is known and there's no technical way to fake it. If the device's identity is hidden or nebulous, it's not allowed to connect. Have devices be physically tracable. Privacy advocates may shudder, but if something like this was in place we wouldn't have problems.
"If that happens, your PC's warranty won't be worth the paper that it's written on."
If you bought your PC from a company that was pirating the OS, chances are your "warranty" wasn't worth anything to begin with.
I can one up you. Someone out there with a wicked sense of humor is running a system out of a toaster.
Really? All I'VE read is their touting of TCO on servers. Ballmer is spouting off about patents on Linux in general, but I don't see them attacking Linux on the desktop. They are much, MUCH more concerned about losing marketshare to Linux on servers than the desktop -- which has nothing to do with IE.
Uh, no. What kind of match is that? If you play for one month a couple of years from now, you'll pay $15. They have to pay for the servers somehow.
*Shrug* It's all about how much value you think an entertainment source has. Personally, I'd gladly pay a few extra bucks for some rich gameplay drawn by professional artists than play another cheap Tetris clone on Gnome.
Considering, also, that Blizzard tends to support their games for a long, LONG time (you can still play WarCraft II on Battle.net) I think it's a fair price.
Wow. You've got some low standards. :) Personally, I'd pay the $15 for some quality gameplay and graphics.
"Why can MSFT pull off XBox Live for 50 bucks a year, but the MMOG guys can't do it for much less than 20 bucks a month?
XBL no doubt sucks more bandwidth and does a shitload of backend work."
Xbox Live has very few dedicated servers. Most of what Live does is matchmaking (the Xboxes themselves host the games).
MMORPGs need to have a ton of dedicated servers, run by a full-time networking team, on ALL the time. When servers are down on an MMORPG, there's no game, period.
And here I was thinking that I could actually cause Godzilla to run through the city as New York's urban planner. *rolls eyes*
This is sort of like saying "Mario has taught children to hate the environment as they now stomp on turtles." Patently absurd.
"The upshot of this is that if Internet Explorer is required to be used, then Windows is required to be used, and therefore no matter who is providing the web-based services, at least microsoft will be getting some money"
.NET does) then it doesn't matter what the client is running. Microsoft STILL makes money, just in a different way.
.NET, although I'm hesitant to say it), and still makes money. It's freaking brilliant.
I think you're missing the point. Microsoft no longer cares about increasing desktop market share. Let's say they lose 5 percent, maybe 10 percent, of overall marketshare. They have 80% of the world's machines running Windows. That's not a big enough dent to worry about.
On the othe rhand, they're looking around and seeing all these handheld devices (Blackberries, cell phones, etc). Sure, they have "Windows Mobile Smartphone Edition", but it'll be a while before that takes off. Why not go after the real growth market: backend application servers? If they target standards (like
Basically, what MS is doing is patently ingenious. They're shifting their attention away from their dominant market to growth markets. Even if they lose share in the dominant market, they're still in a comfortable position. This gets antitrust off their back, caters to the geeks (I'm actually fairly impressed with
Personally, I use whatever I happen to have at hand. If I'm at home I use Safari on my Mac, Firefox on my PC. If at work, I use IE. If I'm telneting somewhere, Lynx (if it's available). In the car, my phone's browser. The point is the browser is just a window to the real business models, and anyone still comparing browser numbers is either an MS IE developer (the 3 that are left) or Mozilla diehards.
At this point, everything targets standards. Even ASP .NET, like I mentioned yesterday no longer pushes ActiveX crap onto the client. Ditto on Apache, of course. It doesn't matter what you use to view the content. What matters now, from a business standpoint, is what's running on the backend to deliver that content.
To plumb a buzzword ("application services") I really don't think we're even going to recognize a "browser" in 10 years. We'll be too busy running our word processors, financial software and games straight over the internet. The "browser's" border will become transparent, and you won't need to know (or care) what you're using.
Application providers will realize (they've already begun to) that it makes no point targetting IE if your clients suddenly move to Blackberry, for example. They're targetting standards now (the most basic HTML that'll run on anything) and the browser is being relegated to a window environment.
I don't suppose you leave flaked off skin cells with your DNA like the rest of the population?
"that will lead in turn to less people using Windows"
I agree with everything except that point. I don't see anyone moving away from Windows while using Firefox. I think it's a solid browser -- probably the most usable thing Open Source has ever borne (outside of, say, Tivo) -- but there's nothing in it that says to Joey User "Hey, move with me to Linux."
In fact, I'd think it MORE possible that now that Windows users have a decent browser (a critical problem) they'll stick around with Windows. People don't change things unless they need change. The browser needed change. Windows, now with a fairly stable NT underbelly and automatic patching, doesn't necessarily.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have you seen ASP.NET stuff? It's moved entirely away from client-side ActiveX-pushing. You can pretty much load it up in Firefox, Safari and Lynx, etc. and expect results.
It'd be different if MS was still pushing client-side controls, but they're not. What they're pushing is a proprietary backend with a standards-based frontend. Again, they could care less about the browser wars.
"Microsoft is probably getting nervous"
Nervous about what? The web browser was the battle from 1997. Today it's web services, connecting new front-ends with really old databases, and the like. The web browser is simply a window on money-making backends, and the money is what Microsoft worries about.
I agree. For Slashdot it should really change "soon" to "tomorrow; MS will surely rot in hell!"
I think you're missing the point. Businesses determine success on sales. If you complain about a product, but buy it anyway, they really don't care. They have your $50, so anything you say afterwards is moot.
"And you don't think that this is an unnecessary hassle? Why should you have to wait a few days (or any amount of time at all excluding the few minutes of installation) to play a $50 game offline?"
Then DON'T BUY THE FUCKING GAME. Why do people complain about stuff they know they're going to hate, then hand the makers $50 anyhow?