The author wants users to abide by a particular format simply to augment the "argument" that he *thinks* MS Word is preventing widespread Linux/GNU use. Never mind the widespread obstacles to mainstream use like synchronizing the various Linux distributions codebases, producing truely user-friendly apps (not what some Unix developer *thinks* his mom wants to use, but in reality is just simpler for him), allowing better hardware driver consumption (ahem, a digital signature program as is in use with Microsoft wouldn't hurt) not to mention porting hundreds of software titles (and don't tell me it can't be done).
What angers me the most is that some guy thinks going against a format is better than forcing people to use a particular one. It's the same thing. Also, no one argued when text lost its carriage return and line return in most documents. Why? Because there was a widespread and suitable alternative that was already in place.
Sometimes I think that Microsoft was meant to come up with "monopolistic" procedures in the same way other standards were set, like the 8-valve engine and VHS. It just happened. It became widespread, people learned to use it, most learned to like it (besides the descenting few on Slashdot) and now it's being used. Those who argue against it, as far as I'm concerned, are saying the same thing as "I won't accept VHS tapes. Please send BetaMax, a better, high-quality format".
Or Tony Hawk 2. That game really impressed me, and was just about the only reason I bought the system (I swore to myself I'd give up Nintendo systems after the N64).
I wouldn't mind an XBox handheld, but they've got to do what they're doing with the XBox (sort of): get some high-powered developers to port some great titles, and try to keep costs relatively even (around Nintendo's $100).
What a wonderful way for Microsoft to show the power of.NET -- by using it to script a repeated poll voter. Then again, considering some of the information ZDNet reveals in the web logs (200+ votes from the same person), maybe they did try it.
I can just imagine a programmer sitting in his chair, stroking his chin after reading the "Please vote for us at ZDNet" poll and thinking "Yes, yes..... I can prove myself to Bill Gates with this."
Then again, I'm sure most major corporations, seeing their name up at a poll on a major site, will give a heads up to their employees to visit the URL. I mean, obviously companies like Apple, Sun, and HP do it. Someone must be voting for HP-UNIX on those sites.;)
A big reason why the original iMac was a success was, besides the innovations, it was a relatively bulky machine that was built tough and could stand abuse. The thing was built for the kid-set: even the dual headphone jacks reeked "elementary classroom".
The new iMac looks like a table lamp that belongs in a museum of modern art. The whole metal arm just looks fragile, and a kid with a backpack is a lot more likely to knock it over than a 15" CRT. Overall, I'm pretty unimpressed.
Forgive me for being brash, but this is it? A flat-panel machine that looks like a table lamp? Has the reality-distortion field set in so deeply? And what about the price?
Earth to Mac: you want to regain some of the lost marketshare? Stop creating products that belong in museums but have little inherent functionality. Build machines the people want: cheap internet terminals, inexpensive wireless networks for audio, true-to-TV video compression. You definitely have the budget. If half the money spent developing the new iMac over the last 2 years was spent on developing a low-cost internet appliance (say, around $300-500), Apple would be making a KILLING right now. Instead, I'm left with something that makes me glad I left the Apple world a long time ago.
Part of the problem is that the newer systems use a mechanical device to get the media going. The older solid state systems only needed to send some energy through the ROM chips. And make sure the connections are solid.
CD-ROM and DVD-ROM systems have to physically spin a disc, keep it at a reasonable speed, and shine a laser off it. They would probably be better luck if they could keep the media steady and somehow figure a way to send a laser bouncing over the whole disc.
The systems are probably going to be changed to all-broadband download systems eventually. Just download from a really wide pipe somewhere.
My personal experience with the XBox has been pretty favorable. The controllers and system are designed to take a beating, something I worry about with any first-time console manufacturer. The system also took a pretty big electrical shock without frying (surge... may have been a lightning strike some distance away).
My only complaint is the ridiculous sensitivity of the DVD drive. If you have some dust on the disc or on the tray the system can spew "disc not found" errors after hours of playing. If you have a scratch on a disc you can practically forget it.
It's not enough to seriously detract my enjoyment of the system (it's "crashed" due to "not finding the disc" 2-3 times... it puts you out to the Dashboard and explains the reason), but it's still a bit more than my PS2 has blanked out. Overall I'm actually pretty impressed with the construction and design, with a few "extra" points given since this is MS's first console (I did the same for the original Playstation -- my system overheated regularly). But it's nothing a CD lens cleaner won't fix, and as long as the games are playable -- and fun -- I don't complain.
"Very cool"? "Groundbreaking"? Not EA.
on
Goodbye, "Majestic"
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I tried the Majestic pilot, then read numerous reviews trashing it and the whole concept. I agree. Majestic is a "game" in the same way Metal Gear Solid 2 is an "interactive movie" -- a misnomer. Much of Majestic involved reading a few web pages, listening to prerecorded messages, and engaging conversations with pathetic chatbots. In the process, I had to install a variety of commercialware (AIM, RealPlayer) and wait days between contacts.
Their right in one respect: the game definitely does "play you", not the other way around. Actually EA is playing you. Charging money and then forcing you to sit through ads on the game's main homepage -- kind of takes the suspense out of things, huh?
Ever since EA started partnerning with companies like AOL their quality has shot to hell. Yes, "let's make a game identical to a previous one, provide even more unrealistic action, beef up the graphics (because that's the only thing we do anyway) and advertise a song by calling it SSX Tricky. People will love it!"
They sorta mention it briefly with voice portals (which, personally, will die a quick dot-com death in my opinion), but I think we may really see a resurgance of voice recognition within the OS itself. MS has already started building up the Control Panel and Office for voice recognition, and I think if their XBox Voice Commander is successful (Think Mainstream) we could really start to see a push for computers that actually interface with us naturally.
Personally, I'm hoping for a holodeck-like experience. "Computer, give me Victorian-era England. And don't skimp out on the bustiers".
I don't know, man. Some of us think the turkey and mashed potatoes, during holidays, keeps us sane at work a few days later. If I had to administer a server at work right now, I'd be missing out on family, friends, social interactivity... the stuff that keeps me going.
But if you're talking about remotely keeping tracks of things from home, and checking email a few times a day, even on Christmas... guilty as charged.:)
The problem is, as an academic exercise, it goes against nearly all the "rules" of having others learn about your code. It was once a lovely 3D engine, now it's akin to releasing the hardware schematics for the TI-99/4A.
If you're going to release the source, why not go whole hog? They already have copyrights stemming back many years.
I think that if he really should deserve reverance, he should release the source *as it happens*. There is such a small percentage of the population that would actually download and compile the source for Quake 3 Arena. If the copyright laws stand, he could release the code under a heavily-modified GPL (say, the idPL) and basically state you can use the engine, just not the artwork. Those who would argue that they make significant money off licensing the engine are fooling themselves. They are a multimillion dollar company, and every new Quake or Doom game nets them more millions. They're percentages for licensing revenue must be paltry.
I get a little angry when people villify certain members of the technological community for SKIRTING the finer aspects of it. It's like revering Steve Jobs more than Woz (which does happen).
Carmack drives expensive cars that very few people can afford -- he could stand to give away the full source code at the time the game is released so that the academic world can study his graphic routines. As such for now, he only seems like the snob I once read about in an interview. Asked if he felt he learned anything from his teachers, he said, "Not much, because I was smarter than they were". Being a decent technological coder doesn't exempt you from hubris.
"The problem is that Microsoft keeps forgetting that the users own their computers."
So do Linux developers.
I'm not trying to trash Linux, because I use it and Windows XP/2000 regularly. The problem is in having a zealot nature, you tend to dismiss the small problems Linux definitely has. And Joe Sixpack is in no better condition to fix its problems than Windows.
"as well as using a bunch of spaces to disguise the true extension of the executable"
You mean the same way some trolls are now hiding Goatsex links by putting a popular site in the front of the url (like Yahoo), having it show [yahoo.com] on Slashdot, then redirecting the user to Goatsex?
But that's more a sys admin's problem then anything else. You purchase a piece of software, it has bugs or faulty "features" (they all do) and you deal with them.
There haven't been many viruses and Linux, but you mean you never have had a mail reader hose your home directory while setting it up (particularly KMail)? The shit happens.
As an "ease of use" thing, I think Outlook (and more Outlook Express), are pretty competent.
Slashdot Mirror
What angers me the most is that some guy thinks going against a format is better than forcing people to use a particular one. It's the same thing. Also, no one argued when text lost its carriage return and line return in most documents. Why? Because there was a widespread and suitable alternative that was already in place.
Sometimes I think that Microsoft was meant to come up with "monopolistic" procedures in the same way other standards were set, like the 8-valve engine and VHS. It just happened. It became widespread, people learned to use it, most learned to like it (besides the descenting few on Slashdot) and now it's being used. Those who argue against it, as far as I'm concerned, are saying the same thing as "I won't accept VHS tapes. Please send BetaMax, a better, high-quality format".
I wouldn't mind an XBox handheld, but they've got to do what they're doing with the XBox (sort of): get some high-powered developers to port some great titles, and try to keep costs relatively even (around Nintendo's $100).
I can just imagine a programmer sitting in his chair, stroking his chin after reading the "Please vote for us at ZDNet" poll and thinking "Yes, yes..... I can prove myself to Bill Gates with this."
Then again, I'm sure most major corporations, seeing their name up at a poll on a major site, will give a heads up to their employees to visit the URL. I mean, obviously companies like Apple, Sun, and HP do it. Someone must be voting for HP-UNIX on those sites. ;)
More like "surprise!" your broadband provider goes out of business.
It's vaporware if it was promised last year.
The new iMac looks like a table lamp that belongs in a museum of modern art. The whole metal arm just looks fragile, and a kid with a backpack is a lot more likely to knock it over than a 15" CRT. Overall, I'm pretty unimpressed.
Earth to Mac: you want to regain some of the lost marketshare? Stop creating products that belong in museums but have little inherent functionality. Build machines the people want: cheap internet terminals, inexpensive wireless networks for audio, true-to-TV video compression. You definitely have the budget. If half the money spent developing the new iMac over the last 2 years was spent on developing a low-cost internet appliance (say, around $300-500), Apple would be making a KILLING right now. Instead, I'm left with something that makes me glad I left the Apple world a long time ago.
I think the keyword in the original post was "like".
CD-ROM and DVD-ROM systems have to physically spin a disc, keep it at a reasonable speed, and shine a laser off it. They would probably be better luck if they could keep the media steady and somehow figure a way to send a laser bouncing over the whole disc.
The systems are probably going to be changed to all-broadband download systems eventually. Just download from a really wide pipe somewhere.
Touche, my friend. :) Dreamcast rocked.
1. Halo
2. Project Gotham Racing
3. Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee
4. Amped
5. Tony Hawk 2x
By the way, you might want to try Project Gotham. I've played GT3 and it pales in comparison to the depth of the other game.
My only complaint is the ridiculous sensitivity of the DVD drive. If you have some dust on the disc or on the tray the system can spew "disc not found" errors after hours of playing. If you have a scratch on a disc you can practically forget it.
It's not enough to seriously detract my enjoyment of the system (it's "crashed" due to "not finding the disc" 2-3 times... it puts you out to the Dashboard and explains the reason), but it's still a bit more than my PS2 has blanked out. Overall I'm actually pretty impressed with the construction and design, with a few "extra" points given since this is MS's first console (I did the same for the original Playstation -- my system overheated regularly). But it's nothing a CD lens cleaner won't fix, and as long as the games are playable -- and fun -- I don't complain.
Their right in one respect: the game definitely does "play you", not the other way around. Actually EA is playing you. Charging money and then forcing you to sit through ads on the game's main homepage -- kind of takes the suspense out of things, huh?
Ever since EA started partnerning with companies like AOL their quality has shot to hell. Yes, "let's make a game identical to a previous one, provide even more unrealistic action, beef up the graphics (because that's the only thing we do anyway) and advertise a song by calling it SSX Tricky. People will love it!"
Personally, I'm hoping for a holodeck-like experience. "Computer, give me Victorian-era England. And don't skimp out on the bustiers".
But if you're talking about remotely keeping tracks of things from home, and checking email a few times a day, even on Christmas... guilty as charged. :)
My friend works at a Home Depot, and she had to be in until 6:00 yesterday. Christmas Eve. Who the hell buys bathroom tiles on Christmas Eve?
If it was at Dunkin Donuts, probably not.
Does anyone know if XP's built-in firewall protects these ports?
The problem is, as an academic exercise, it goes against nearly all the "rules" of having others learn about your code. It was once a lovely 3D engine, now it's akin to releasing the hardware schematics for the TI-99/4A.
If you're going to release the source, why not go whole hog? They already have copyrights stemming back many years.
I think that if he really should deserve reverance, he should release the source *as it happens*. There is such a small percentage of the population that would actually download and compile the source for Quake 3 Arena. If the copyright laws stand, he could release the code under a heavily-modified GPL (say, the idPL) and basically state you can use the engine, just not the artwork. Those who would argue that they make significant money off licensing the engine are fooling themselves. They are a multimillion dollar company, and every new Quake or Doom game nets them more millions. They're percentages for licensing revenue must be paltry.
I get a little angry when people villify certain members of the technological community for SKIRTING the finer aspects of it. It's like revering Steve Jobs more than Woz (which does happen).
Carmack drives expensive cars that very few people can afford -- he could stand to give away the full source code at the time the game is released so that the academic world can study his graphic routines. As such for now, he only seems like the snob I once read about in an interview. Asked if he felt he learned anything from his teachers, he said, "Not much, because I was smarter than they were". Being a decent technological coder doesn't exempt you from hubris.
So do Linux developers.
I'm not trying to trash Linux, because I use it and Windows XP/2000 regularly. The problem is in having a zealot nature, you tend to dismiss the small problems Linux definitely has. And Joe Sixpack is in no better condition to fix its problems than Windows.
Give me an XBox with Halo and Amped and I'll be happy. Just slip the coffee intravenously for those (many) midnight runs.
You mean the same way some trolls are now hiding Goatsex links by putting a popular site in the front of the url (like Yahoo), having it show [yahoo.com] on Slashdot, then redirecting the user to Goatsex?
Windows isn't the only one with flaws...
But that's more a sys admin's problem then anything else. You purchase a piece of software, it has bugs or faulty "features" (they all do) and you deal with them.
There haven't been many viruses and Linux, but you mean you never have had a mail reader hose your home directory while setting it up (particularly KMail)? The shit happens.
As an "ease of use" thing, I think Outlook (and more Outlook Express), are pretty competent.
About your sig: what's so bad about Outlook?
eh? um...
So this isn't Jon Katz?
*walking away* You mean I wasted my witty Slashdot banter for nothing?