#1 - The Time Capsule. Haven't we had wireless NAS's since 802.11 became a standard? I've got a USB-2 external drive that does my backups now. This announcement does absolutely nothing for me.
Iomega vs. Time Capsule See any differences? Price, size? Not revolutionary, but a fine product. I have an AE with a USB harddrive, it does almost nothing for me either. So what? Wow, that is really interesting, thanks mods.
#2 - The iPhone/iPod touch updates. I was really hoping to hear an announcement regarding the hardware. More memory. Smaller form factor. Lower price. Open network. Instead we see a few lousy software upgrades (woo, quasi-GPS that's been in the system for a week now). And, a nice F-U to the early adopters in a 20$ upgrade for the Touch. Glad noone bought me one of those for xmas. Anyone who did get one in the last 30 days should immediately return it and get one of the "new" ones with the additional features for free. And take a crap in the box, before they do.
Why the F-U? You knew the touch didn't have those functions originally, now it's a measly $20 add-on. So? Sure, free is better, but it's not like you got a raw deal. Care to explain? Thanks again mods.
#3 - The AppleTV/Movie Rental Service. Exciting, if the XBox360 hasn't been serving this capacity for over TWO YEARS. Wow, all the major labels, eh? Are they suddenly going to cut ties with all their other distribution partners? I didn't think so. And the price cut on the AppleTV was okay, but they *really* couldn't go just a bit further to put it below the $200 mark? Really, they must want this device to fail.
Apple is poised to leapfrog Microsoft's rental attempts in the blink of an eye. It's not INSIGNIFICANT that they've managed to get every major studio on board! Does Microsoft? The Apple TV is now cheaper than the cheapest XBox 360. It also looks, sounds, and fits good next to a TV. There's also the additional incentives to rent videos through iTunes due to the transferability to iPod/iPhone/computer. There will still be an appeal for 360's, but that doesn't mean this device will fail. Interesting? Please mods...
#4 - The MacBook Air. It's really just a masturbation toy for the rich gadget hound -- it does nothing new besides be smaller, and it does it slower and more expensively to boot. Wow, it fits in an envelope. Unless you're mailing me one, I'm not interested. Multitouch pad? Give it a month, they'll be on all the MacBooks. The size factor will very quickly be copied by Sony/Dell/et al, so Windows fanbois can rest easy. What would have made it revolutionary? If it were JUST a screen, no Keyboard, no fancy touchpad. Or, if it were under a thousand dollars. THAT would have been impressive. Made of Aluminum? And you thought the last generation MacBooks broke easily! Remote Disk? I've been sharing my CD-ROM drive via windows networking since 1996. It even works over wireless!
We get it, you're not in the market for a sub-notebook, and/or poor. Waaaaaaah! Move on, others are in the market. "The size factor will very quickly be copied by" Well, which is it? It's a flying piece of shit on one hand, but Sony and Dell will attempt to quickly copy it on the other. Well? You sound more like the "Windows fanboi that wants to rest easy" yourself. Poop on multitouch, poop on form factor, poop on Apple, poop on price, poop on aluminum (seriously?), poop on MacBooks, poop on EFI-level wireless Remote Disc (excellent display of ignorance). Poop on us all because you wont buy one. Very interesting indeed mods.
Firewire is still present on every other device they sell, AFAIK. They just figured it wasn't essential in a sub-notebook PC.
Why are so many people here considering this a direct MacBook replacement? Why does it need everything the MacBook has? If you need those features, spend less, get a MacBook. If you need the small size, get MacBook Air. It doesn't seem all that difficult...
Does anyone out there NEED the smaller size of this AND Firewire built in?
What ARE you looking for in a sub-notebook then? A smaller laptop that costs less? MacBook Mini? Lol. MacBooks are already tiny, so they went as far as they could to minimize size for their new product category.
From the sound of a lot of these posts, people must be chomping at the bit for a smaller, cheaper MacBook, and lost sight of what "sub-notebook" means.
Probably runs hotter than hell Why?
I like how the headline here is "Sony Starts Standards War Over Wireless USB" with a link to "Sony's "TransferJet" to take on Bluetooth 3.0"
The real gem is over at MSNBC/MSN.
Sony mum on WUSB Which raises a familiar question: Are we now faced with another war of competing standards delaying the widespread adoption of a highly attractive new technology? Is this HD-DVD-vs.-Blu-ray all over again? It raises familiar questions: Does Microsoft manipulate the media? Is Steve Balmer the Devil? Would Microsoft give you a reacharound?
/palmface
--- Time destroys the speculation of men, but it confirms the judgment of nature. - Cicero
A device powerful enough to power one of these sony devices, as well as communicate with it, would be very noticeable (especially when all the lights dim when it's turned on). Just to clarify, you mean an "An eavesdropping device..." right?
I kind of wonder what the max theoretical range really is though.
3cm is hardly a distance. The distance is insignificant, you're placing something on a pad. Do I have to draw pictures?
All things being equal, I fail to see any rationalization for the power usage requisite in broadcasting something wirelessly from a distance 3 fingerwidths away from a computer, versus simply plugging it into a USB slot. Can you 'plug' a camera into a USB slot? No. Instead, you have to keep USB cables handy, and often they have a proprietary connector on one end. You could also use a fugly card reader to transfer the flash card, but don't forget to put the card back. You really don't see the advantage of simply placing the whole camera on a pad on your desk? If you REALLY prefer plugging everything in, I have a whole box of old ethernet cables, wired mice, card readers, dongles, adaptors and other crap for sale.
I'd rather they spent their efforts in having a higher-capacity wired transfer rate. What the hell for? Is speed at issue here? DV cameras have Firewire, digital cameras have USB and removable storage, external harddrives can be connected many different ways, whole computers can be connected via Firewire. Then there's ethernet, the fastest of the bunch. But yes, F' wireless, let's invent MORE cables.
Where were all you monkeys when induction based power chargers were announced on Slashdot? Same thing, but data not power. Did you all suddenly fall in love with cables and power bricks?
I think somebody compared TransferJet to "_w_ireless USB" as in, no physical connector, then some asshats spun it into "TransferJet taking on _W_ireless USB"
Jesus tap dancing Christ, _MS_NBC/MSN... Go f'ing figure, huh? Now smack yourselves for taking the bait please.
It wouldn't only be useful for "Alice and Bob" you know.
It's almost a wireless USB hub, except you place things on a pad instead of plugging them in. Obviously not useful for every device already connected via USB or Bluetooth, but is is useful for some widely popular devices such as cameras, DV cameras (ones with harddrives at least), or PMPs. It would also be useful in almost every single application that currently uses card readers, like printers, TVs, media centers, PCs, etc.
Maybe you're confusing the "Alice and Bob"/"computer-less printing" association, ONE capability of TransferJet with all the OTHER things you could do with it.
There's a rather large gap between the need to plug a device into a physical dock, and the need to wirelessly transmit data quickly from a distance. One is quick and secure, the other is broadcast to your whole neighborhood and needs setup in advance (pairing, WLAN config, encryption, etc).
This technology is a universal docking system that complements existing wireless standards. One step closer to being free of wires, gimmick my foot.
Why do we need five different wireless data transfer standards when wireless USB will cover the same issues this technology Why do we need to replace everything with Wireless USB when we can keep all the wireless data transfer standards we already have and use TransferJet for local data transfer?
Bluetooth works great for wireless peripherals, I already have wireless storage on my Airport Extreme and similar devices, and TransferJet would be pretty damned cool for stuff I normally have to plug in like cameras.
Get it straight! This isn't about Wireless USB vs. TransferJet. It's about Wireless USB vs. "five different wireless data transfer standards" PLUS TransferJet. WTF do we need everything unified into W-USB for? Our existing standards all work VERY well for what they're intended for. My camera doesn't need to speak the same lingo as my mouse. Some things I want to pair, others I don't. Some things I want to "plug in" even if it means placing on a pad, other things I want to use from the other side of the room. Fast data transfer from other side of room is already available, but if W-USB manages to do exceptionally well there, I might look at it for only that.
Everything has different range, power, security requirements, so where is the argument that Wireless USB is the be-all-end-all wireless technology???
A techno;ogu for 3cm and onw for 3m do not compete. The first cannot replace the second in allmost all situations. It used to be thet Sony made good technology. With their entry into the computer business, they have an increasing record of not only abysmally bad technology, but also very unwise marketing decisions. I hope they die soon, so the rest of the world can move on. Right, it's not a replacement. It's not even aimed at replacing Bluetooth, which Wireless USB is. So where is this "competition" thing coming from? Also, why is a 3cm wireless transfer technology a bad idea? A contact pad is better than squeezing little universal connectors and cable adaptors into everything, and it's easier to set up than Bluetooth is for data transfer.
Speaking of Bluetooth, WTF is so wrong with it that we need Wireless USB to begin with? Bulk data transfer? OK, now we'll have a contact pad with no pairing for that. Where would Wireless USB be left, wireless harddrives? HAH.
Maybe that's why the "news" is reporting Sony's tech "competes" with Wireless USB; as a Bluetooth complement, it makes W-USB a pointless Bluetooth replacement. If that's the case, f' you all, I like Bluetooth plus Sony's idea better than just a faster Bluetooth clone.
Also, move on from what to what? Got beef with Bluetooth? Let's hear it.
How is Blu-ray more crippled, or incomplete?
OTOH, HD DVD, while inferior, is ready NOW and with good transfers looks FANTASTIC. And before you scoff, I've seen it on larger sets, and it does indeed look fantastic. I couldn't help but notice that my local Best Buy FINALLY put an HD DVD display up, and the content they're playing on both...no contest, whoever authored the Blu content was a monkey, as it looks like ass, and the HD DVD content looks fantastic. Hm...$200 to get in on HD that looks nice, or $400 for theoretically superior but looks like ass...hm... That has nothing to do with either format. There is nothing in either spec that will give one an advantage, visually. "and with good transfers looks FANTASTIC" What I don't get, is that you seem to understand how a good DVD could be encoded as a bad HD-DVD, but you watch ONE HD-DVD/Blu-ray comparison, and conclude that Blu-ray has inferior video quality.
Hm...$200 to get in on HD that looks nice, or $400 for theoretically superior but looks like ass...hm... ... and one only plays movies while the other is really a PS3?
Were you intentionally trying to mislead everyone with that whole paragraph?
Here's to you, Blu-Ray fanboys who said 'you knew what you were getting into' when some of us bought HD-DVD players... You knew what you were getting into when you bought a HD-DVD player... now you're just pissed off it's not winning.
Looks like, as I predicted, we're all getting burned, and as usual, the real winners are the hardware manufacturers, who'll be able to sell you yet another player, So, the customers would somehow "win" if HD-DVD were to succeed? *cough* BS *cough* Oh, you meant HD-DVD customers are getting burned because it went the other way.
It's a win for hardware manufacturers in general, and nothing is stopping Toshiba from selling BD players when they're ready. There is ALWAYS another device to buy. DVD players got better, cheaper, disc changers, component output, ability to play non-DVDs, upscaling, integrated, standalone, and every combination of the above. How many people bought more than one device capable of playing DVDs in the last five years?
and the studios, who get even harsher DRM than HD DVD had. The losers are the people who actually believed in a. the future-proof nature of Blu-Ray and b. the people who believed in HD DVD being standardized and cheaper, thus "better." Explain how one DRM is really "better" than the other please. Losers? LOSERS? We WIN the format war, and we're LOSERS? Newer profile movies will PLAY in old players, they just won't have PiP, or internet enabled special features. Those who bought standalone BD players knew they didn't have those features when they bought them. Are they going to cry and upgrade already to get the PiP director's commentary? Wow, cheaper==better for you, huh? Sorry, not everyone feels that way.
Maybe the real losers will be the studios, when people decide that they're still confused and see Blu constantly trashed... ... by a bunch of angry teenagers that bought Xbox HD-DVD add-ons? Sorry, blogs and Slashdot aren't the "press".
It's a great format, don't get me wrong, but hearing stuff like this really does kill consumer confidence, Sure, if all the other consumers are idiots too. When they can't access the director's blog from the special features on their older players, I'm sure they will be very peeved, and demand a refund. When THAT happens, I'll invite you to my home to tell me "I told you so" in person.
and coming out with the format early just to fight off HD DVD, What's wrong with that? I don't think you understand what exactly is different between the Blu-ray profiles. Why don't you look those up before even bothering to reply to this, please and thanks.
then having studios cut support for the finalized, cheaper format right as the price gets into interesting range, is, I predict, going to have the effect which Warner was seeking to avoid by dropping HD DVD. Um... what would that be?
Or maybe none of this will matter at all when the global economic depression hits. Sure.... ok.
There are only 3 for Blu-ray, and the US one includes North America, Central America, South America, Japan, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia. It's not nearly the same problem DVD region encoding was.
If an application comes with KDE (KWrite for example), I can see adding the K. I think it's tacky.;)
If most GUI apps are not started by typing in the actual program filename, then why would you need to rename the shortcuts the GUI launches? Just set the icon name to the longer name. That's what I mean by shortcut, the icon name, not stuff like symlinks or launch scripts.
With Gnome and KDE both giving sensible names to most applications, the actual command names are getting more and more irrelevant. My point is that the prefixes don't serve a purpose anymore, other than some brand association, and in the case of the 'G', you're right, it's confusing. As far as the 'K' branding, I think it's already been overdone.
I'm glad it's being fixed in the GUI, but that brand association is still prevalent in project websites, about screens, package names, etc. It's just tacky!
My system has iCal, iChat, iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, iSync, and iTunes. I don't type notes in iTextEdit, or keep contacts in iAddress Book. Well, I do keep track of events with iCal, and that is a stupid name for it. I type this on an iMac though...
Linux applications have taken the whole single letter prefix thing a bit too far. Let's see a package listing of all the KDE apps on your system, then compare =) It was a way to differentiate GNU software from the native software it replaced, but then continued on to crap that only runs on Linux anyway. Also, X Windows programs mostly had x's so you knew an X environment was required. This continued on to modern Gnome/KDE systems where X is almost always running, X apps rarely need to be in your path anymore, and most GUI apps are not started by typing in the actually program filename. Gnome and KDE are even largely compatible with each other now.
I'm not suggesting renaming gcc to cc. Going forward though, remember (or FIND OUT) what the conventions actually mean before putting another f'ing k... or g... titled application in a GUI shell. In some places it may actually be appropriate, like a gfoobar/kfoobar that perform the same function. If you don't need both though, drop the damned prefix in the GUI. The NEED for the prefixes in modern Linux GUIs is long gone. It's just a branding now, and it's extremely overdone.
It gdoes make it a bit geasier to Kfigure out gwhich iApps go to Kwhich iDesktop Kenvironment. Apple software isn't branded with an i to tell us it runs on iMacs.
How about this. If it's in the KDE menu, it's a KDE APPLICATION! If it's in the Gnome menu, it's a GNOME APPLICATION!
What if you want KDE apps in your Gnome menu or Gnome apps in your KDE menu? THEN WHY THE F*** DO THEY STILL NEED TO BE DIFFERENTIATED?
I really think this is one case where user education should be considered more important.
There's nothing wrong with your suggestions, and those should still be goals. However, it's a bit like suggesting the solution to 95% of automobiles not receiving regular oil changes is to build engines that only require a change every 20,000 miles. The problem will probably never go away, but that's a nice goal. Now it's going to be forgotten about more often, put off longer, thought to be less important, ignored, and less understood. There will be a bigger gap between the frequency required for driving under "normal" conditions and "severe".
There are similar conditions with software updates. Sometimes patches should be applied immediatley, sometimes they can be put off longer. One thing is for sure, they will always be necessary, at least in the foreseeable future. In both cases, higher frequency is always better. Wouldn't an optimal solution be that both processes are as cheap, fast, and painless as possible, enabling them to be done very frequently? Imagine if an oil change was as painless as getting your car washed at the gas station is, or just an extra button to press at the pump. Now, given price of oil, that might not be feasible in the absence of some kind of cheap oil recondition/reuse process. Still, it's a better solution than merely lengthening the frequency.
I'd say your "Smaller updates", and "Less user intervention" should be among the highest priorities, along with anything else that can make patching both as trivial and frequent as possible. Not only that, but if user intervention is required at all, the importance of the patches needs to be made clear. Patches fixing remotely exploitable bugs should be made VERY clear, in bright red colors or something, not mixed in casually with other patches like it's no big deal. Part of the problem now is that most users don't know WTF the severity of "Windows Updates" or "Software Updates" is. Neither of those sound very important do they? Maybe somewhere in the details of WU patch installation, the word "security" or "critical" is mentioned (can't remember, staying on the safe side), and Apple's Software Updates sometimes lists "Security Update" items. Those are not enough to convey the importance of applying patches promptly as possible.
Microsoft don't, unfortunately, have the luxury of doing things right from the beginning; just look at how many people complain about bits and pieces of Vista not working exactly like XP. Hehe, Vista _was_ Microsoft's chance to do things right from the beginning. I'll let other people debate whether they did or not.;)
However, even if it did, gut feeling tells me that i.e. Norton would happily integrate with that AND I get that same feeling. I really don't know how to solve that problem. There seems to be a high percentage of 3rd party Mac software that behaves pretty well, but I can't think of any direct cause of it. Maybe just a culture thing? Apple has to be doing SOMETHING right.
Perhaps that, too, is Microsoft's fault - seeing as they don't have a centralized location/etc., developers sought out locations on their own and hey-presto. But at some point those developers have to realize that they're perpetuating a complexity that is at the heart of many users' complaints.. and that it's not (solely) up to Microsoft to change this.. and that might have to start with the users not pointing at Microsoft foremost. I thought about their problems a little more, and any time I find something I dislike about the whole Windows experience, OEM software and all, I ask "WWMMD?" That's "my Mac." For many things, it does boil down to how OS X does something differently/better. After installing something on a Mac, does it prompt you to create BOTH dock and desktop icons? Do most installers even offer to do either one for you? Usually no, things are installed in one or two steps or dragged into the Applications folder, and users create dock shortcuts themselves. If they don't, everyone knows where to find their applications later.
Even though Windows does have a standard application folder at "Program Files", it's not quickly accessible via the shell, or explorer. Instead they implemented the task menu, and allowed application shortcuts on user desktops. Then they later added a location on the task bar for MORE application shortcuts. I think it's clear in this case how Microsoft set themselves up for it, and at there's least one proven way they could fix it. I'm really not suggesting they outright copy Apple, but they should copy the ease of use and implement it in their own way.
I think Microsoft stands to lose more by not doing anything than from a careful redesign. The absolute worst thing they could do is to keep all their old crusty ways, while tacking on even MORE bad ideas. *cough* UAC *cough* Well, at least they dropped Active Desktop.
In contrast, the HD formats, basically ONLY have higher quality. As a result, people don't want to buy HD discs because they don't care enough, but they realize they will in the future be buying HD versions of every DVD they own, so they're also holding off buying original DVDs. There's more to the issues in the current market than the format war. Why would they be pressured into re-buying the same movie in HD if they thought the DVD looked good enough? Maybe with tapes, a lot of people did re-buy, for the reasons you gave for DVD adoption. With HD, you're right, basically only the quality is better, so why would the pressure to re-buy be any greater than the VHS-DVD transition?
I only buy new, as in new to me, movies on Blu-ray, because I DON'T care to see the same movie again with slightly better quality. However, the difference in quality on a 1080p native HDTV, is great enough that I will not buy DVDs anymore unless it's from the bargain bin, and I sure as hell wouldn't buy a newly released movie on DVD. I'd imagine most other switchers would do the same. If anything, this will be a much more casual, easier transition process than with VHS-DVD. I clearly remember, once I started renting/buying DVDs, I was NOT going back to tape, for anything. That transition must have sucked for people with large tape collections. Now, I could go either way on most new purchases, but still with strong reasons to go up if I can. I'm perfectly happy with my old DVD collection also. It's not really worth it to re-buy remastered movies all over again this time around, and I doubt HD movie backers are heavily counting on re-buys to be successful.
Upconverted DVDs just DON'T look as good as newer HD movies on 1080 HDTVs, and it's easy to tell the difference. I think all this upconversion vs. HD crap keeps coming from 720p HDTV owners, which probably accounts for most of the current HDTVs out there. I'm predicting that HD movie adoption will basically track with 1080p HDTV adoption. Yes, that is an entirely different reason than for the VHS-DVD transition, but is it really a BIG problem? I mean, with resolution being big attraction, was anybody REALLY expecting them to fly off the shelves before TVs supporting that resolution did?
OK, I can see how heavy 720p HDTV adoption might have really mucked things up, I guess... Hopefully they'll be able to push 1080 soon enough to support the DVD-HD transition better.
Can you buy a new Windows PC without the crappy 3rd party software he talks about? He's suggesting that there's a big enough difference in quality that switching is easier than ever. What would by far, the majority of people be switching from? Exactly, crap laden PCs. If you're the type that buys a new PC and does a fresh Windows install right away, then you'll probably tolerate it longer, but you're a minority. You also wouldn't be the type buying Windows "by default".
That's like saying OS X sucks because after you bought QuickTime 6 Pro and upgraded to OS X Tiger (which has QuickTime 7), QuickTime will once again nag you to upgrade to Pro every first time you run it - and while it's running, taunt you with greyed-out options that were once available to you but are no longer so... until you purchase the Pro upgrade -again-. Compare any off the shelf Mac with any off the shelf Windows PC. Again, blame who you want, I don't care, it doesn't change the experience that the bulk of PC users have. Nobody said Apple software was perfect, just generally much better in terms of UI. Yes, grayed out Quicktime options are bad. I wouldn't mind seeing the Quicktime UI disappear, and have video playback rolled into Preview, using Quicktime as a back-end. They really need to differentiate QuickTime Pro from the simple video player most people want.
if we can blame third party solutions for XP 'sucking' then we can certainly blame same-party solutions for OS X 'sucking', no? ) Who said you couldn't? You forgot iLife '08 nags as well. Still don't change much in a side-by-side comparison.
Windows, in general, has plenty of attack vectors available to you to point out how crappy it is; there's really no need to drag third party stuff into the discussion. Why not? If you can't by a Windows PC off the shelf without it, isn't it fairly relevant? Macs do fine without half a dozen different 3rd party bolt on software components running at startup to offer you redundant methods of changing the volume, changing your display, wireless settings, mouse settings, etc, all with minor device/vendor specific settings. Have you ever wondered why more of that garbage isn't centralized someplace, like, I don't know.. the Control Panel?? How did Apple manage to put "System Preferences" on every single user's dock by default? Could it be that the Control Panel is too confusing, or hard to find? Microsoft can fix a LOT of problems caused by 3rd party software by fixing their own UI, or at least designing it with 3rd party developer's needs in mind. Microsoft is at fault for more than you realize. Again, Apple isn't perfect either. A average Mac user might think the Gimp is just terrible, but some fault might lie with Apple's X11 implementation. They can't fix everything. Both Apple and MS have 3rd party software that suck in ways neither can effect.
I get your point, but there's little sense in comparing a new, out-the-box Mac with a Windows machine you had to wipe and reinstall. Whether it's Microsoft's fault or not, the OP is more or less correct. Compare an average PC to nearly ANY Mac, (let's keep the discussion to SW for now) and the PC gets spanked. Needless to say, there are a LOT of "average" PCs out there, and a good measure of them bought a Windows machine "by default". A 70/30 split with windows/mac would be enough to see quite a few more Macs at retail, with less pressure to pick Windows "because that's what everyone else uses."
I also remember rampant cheating, accusations of cheat, terribly stacked teams, asshole administrators, taking like 15 minutes to get 5 friends into a good server and another 20 to get all onto one team. I remembering only about 2 good servers I would play on to avoid those things.
Haven't experienced any of that since the horrible horrible horrible days of GRAW when the 360 first launched (and was later patched out of existance.) What is fundamentally different about Live that it prevents cheating any more than the methods currently employed by PC games? You're confusing other aspects of the console with the Live service. Are there any reasons to credit Live for this?
Accusations of cheating... are you serious? Either cheating is a problem or it's not, there's nothing you can do to stem accusations of cheating aside from preventing/detecting cheating or lying. See above. PS, most falsely accused cheaters were LPBs, *ahem* broadband users that spent too much time in some sort of sniper class on a server full of modem users. I have/had absolutely no sympathy for them.
Dude... really? Stacked teams? What the **** is Live needed for to prevent stacked teams? Jesus, didn't the first UT have team-balancing built in?
Asshole administrators? With public dedicated servers, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Besides, nothing is more fun than the host turning his machine off in the middle of a game. That's more infuriating than even the worst, unholy asshole of server admins.
The ability to join a server as a group is one of those good features I like about services like Live. Although uncommon in practice, you don't NEED a "single sign on" system to do this. In fact, even the server topology has nothing to do with keep groups together. Warhawk and Resistance have different methods of allowing group joins. So, it's a neat feature of live, but hardly exclusive, and nothing that couldn't have been done, even for Quake.
Yes, things have changed since QuakeWorld, some for the better, some not. Live is a mix with some horribly bad things, and it's mandatory. THAT'S WHY IT SUCKS. Sorry... Gamers would be better served by making Live optional, and allowing public, dedicated servers. I sincerely hope those aren't lost when Live comes to the PC.
If I could implement my own "Live" for the PC, it would not dictate the server topology, and be a whole lot more open, with at least plugin feature. Ah well, hopefully MS figures it out. It's sad to see the mostly open nature of PC games slowly disappear.
The Xbox 360 and PS3 both do look nice, no doubt but I don't think the leap was that great. The graphical capabilities of both new HD consoles is obviously better but is it leaps and bounds better? We're not just upping the ante with texture detail, polygons, quantity of multi-textures per surface, we're also increasing the resolution which impacts us 4x slower (well approximately) I'll let someone else chime in for the 360, but the PS3 is quite a gigantic leap from a PS2, as far as features are concerned anyway. It's really a beast if you compare the two. Hard drive, PS2 built in, bluetooth controllers standard, BT headset available, ethernet & wireless built in, plays one of the contending DVD replacements.
Graphically, I don't know what you're looking for, but at least compare the first year of PS2 titles to the current PS3 titles to be somewhat fair. The earlier games are rarely all that special. Even first party ones tend to get drastically better in later years of the console's life, look at the Zeldas. There's no reason I can think of that this wouldn't apply to the Xbox line also.
Hell, some of the early PS2 games were cross-platform titles with N64 ports, not even GC! Compare Madden NFL 2001 to Madden NFL 07 for example. I'm just speculating, but by the time NFL 2012 comes around, if it's still available for the PS3, it ought to be quite a bit better looking. The years between being incrementally better each time, hopefully. We shouldn't have really scratched the surface of what these consoles can do already, but by any chance we already have for a certain console... well, suck it up, you all knew what you were buying into, and plenty of us warned you.
I think I understand your complaints. It was nice back when the big difference between major consoles was which letters were on the gamepads, or Sonic vs. Mario. Still, this is probably the most varied console lineup EVER, and it's neat how easily it is to justify having two out of three of these consoles, using them for two entirely different things.
True, the mac mini is small. But as I said, macs are good for high end systems, but not so good for lower prices. If you want a cheap computer, size is probably low on the priorities. And Dells really aren't that loud. I've got one in the other room. Only one fan in the whole system, and I think it's running below full speed.
Why are Macs not so good for lower prices? Just because I want a cheap computer (or anything else) doesn't mean I'm willing to compromise on everything. Just like I'd still want a cheap car to have lots of cup-holders. I'm trying to get you to understand that the mini is a very good value, and $600 is not overblown. If you want to spend less money than that, fine, but you'll get less value. If you think you can find a Dell at $600 with much greater value, show it to me. There will be many differences between a $600 Dell and a $600 Apple, but in both cases, you get what you pay for.
As for the sound, it's relative, but imagine your PC being as quiet as a laptop. That's basically what an iMac & mini sound like. Take into consideration that iMacs and laptops are very close to your ears. In a quiet room, you can generally hear a low hum while using them, but not from more than a few feet away. Only a few desktop PC's can claim that, and extremely few DIY boxes.
I also find it funny that you had to list gig ethernet and DVI as your 'extra features' that the mac has. Personally, I think it'd be harder to find a computer _without_ those than with. Wireless G is pretty much standard too anymore, and all three are in fact on the Dell from what I can see. No bluetooth...but then again, I don't really know how useful that is. I've never seen a device in person that actually has bluetooth capability. I can see potential uses for that though, and the remote and firewire, but I don't think they're worth $600.
Only the mid range XPS at $1000 ($900 with limited time offer) and up offers built-in 10/100/1000 and DVI, and wireless is an optional add-on card for any conventional box-like PC, just remember to factor in the added cost. From the Inspiron specs... Video: 1 DVI, VGA and 1 S-Video (with add-in PCI-Express video card) Followed by... Network: Integrated 10/100 network interface What $600-ish model are you looking at? With that wireless card, and add-in video card, what does that bring the price to?
If you bought a phone in the last year it most likely has bluetooth. Sending pictures/videos to a Mac from a BT phone is as trivial as an IM file transfer. I'm also pretty sure you've seen someone on a phone with a wireless headset by now. When teenagers can be seen wearing then at Walmart it has to be fairly common. Those are bluetooth. BT is also used for wireless mice, keyboards, some printers, digital cameras, and more! It's integrated, so you wont have a little dongle hanging off your computer for your wireless K/M. Now you know.
As for the remote, you'd have to play with FrontRow yourself to see the value in it. If you're honestly interested in what software features Macs have to offer, you could go to an Apple store, or find a buddy with one I guess. I think it's nice, and use it mostly for movie previews and music control. Maybe there are youtube clips floating around, you should at least check it out.
Firewire probably wont be useful to you unless you own or plan on getting a digital video camera. It also can be used to hook one Mac to another in "target disk mode". Basically, one Mac turns into a big external disk using only firmware, like your PC's BIOS, for the other to transfer data, repair, etc. If you've ever attempted to repair a corrupted laptop hard drive, that might interest you. Of course, it works on desktop systems too.
But then again, I'm a budget buyer. I don't even consider mac products unless they're broken and I can fix them (How I got all three of my iPods for under $100), and I like being able to build my own system and customize every
Before everyone gets all heated over me dissing Live, hear me out.
I think parts of Live are nice. However... you should have a choice. Forcing gamers into Live is HORRIBLE, that's why I think Live sucks donkey balls.
There is no _good_ reason to stop the common PC game practice of distributing free dedicated server software. Look at what it did for Quake, or Savage for example. It benefits gamers tremendously, and adds heaps of value to the game I think this concept should be EXTENDED to console games in some manner, not replaced by a lame, mandatory, player hosted system.
There is no reason to disallow/discourage 3rd party server browsing, or communication software. I realize that for consoles, 3rd party is not technically an option, but allowing the game developer (second party?) to provide free built-in support for such is.
All you Xbox gamers have no choice right now, and many of you line up to defend Live because of that. Many of you are too young to have experienced early internet games, and I feel sorry for you. It's this feeling that Live will eventually be pushed for PC games that gives me chills. Don't let Microsoft "consolify" PCs, PLEASE. You deserve better after putting all that hard work into building your own gaming rigs.
XBox Live does a bit more than just find an IP Address for you. It also does a superb job of navigating the treacherous waters of NATs to make sure people find each other and make p2p game hosting possible at all.. I remember playing Quake(World) very fondly. It is the only game I can relate to WoW-aholics with. I'm trying to picture PAYING for the ability to play on NON-DEDICATED servers back then... or even now...
It blows my mind that so many people think that's a great deal.
The original poster is right. We had a better system about ten years ago with GameSpy, Quake, and ICQ. It was also free with IIRC, one banner ad in GameSpy.
Slashdot Mirror
#1 - The Time Capsule. Haven't we had wireless NAS's since 802.11 became a standard? I've got a USB-2 external drive that does my backups now. This announcement does absolutely nothing for me.
Iomega vs. Time Capsule
See any differences? Price, size? Not revolutionary, but a fine product.
I have an AE with a USB harddrive, it does almost nothing for me either.
So what?
Wow, that is really interesting, thanks mods.
#2 - The iPhone/iPod touch updates. I was really hoping to hear an announcement regarding the hardware. More memory. Smaller form factor. Lower price. Open network. Instead we see a few lousy software upgrades (woo, quasi-GPS that's been in the system for a week now). And, a nice F-U to the early adopters in a 20$ upgrade for the Touch. Glad noone bought me one of those for xmas. Anyone who did get one in the last 30 days should immediately return it and get one of the "new" ones with the additional features for free. And take a crap in the box, before they do.
Why the F-U? You knew the touch didn't have those functions originally, now it's a measly $20 add-on. So?
Sure, free is better, but it's not like you got a raw deal. Care to explain?
Thanks again mods.
#3 - The AppleTV/Movie Rental Service. Exciting, if the XBox360 hasn't been serving this capacity for over TWO YEARS. Wow, all the major labels, eh? Are they suddenly going to cut ties with all their other distribution partners? I didn't think so. And the price cut on the AppleTV was okay, but they *really* couldn't go just a bit further to put it below the $200 mark? Really, they must want this device to fail.
Apple is poised to leapfrog Microsoft's rental attempts in the blink of an eye. It's not INSIGNIFICANT that they've managed to get every major studio on board! Does Microsoft?
The Apple TV is now cheaper than the cheapest XBox 360. It also looks, sounds, and fits good next to a TV. There's also the additional incentives to rent videos through iTunes due to the transferability to iPod/iPhone/computer. There will still be an appeal for 360's, but that doesn't mean this device will fail.
Interesting? Please mods...
#4 - The MacBook Air. It's really just a masturbation toy for the rich gadget hound -- it does nothing new besides be smaller, and it does it slower and more expensively to boot. Wow, it fits in an envelope. Unless you're mailing me one, I'm not interested. Multitouch pad? Give it a month, they'll be on all the MacBooks. The size factor will very quickly be copied by Sony/Dell/et al, so Windows fanbois can rest easy. What would have made it revolutionary? If it were JUST a screen, no Keyboard, no fancy touchpad. Or, if it were under a thousand dollars. THAT would have been impressive. Made of Aluminum? And you thought the last generation MacBooks broke easily! Remote Disk? I've been sharing my CD-ROM drive via windows networking since 1996. It even works over wireless!
We get it, you're not in the market for a sub-notebook, and/or poor. Waaaaaaah! Move on, others are in the market.
"The size factor will very quickly be copied by" Well, which is it? It's a flying piece of shit on one hand, but Sony and Dell will attempt to quickly copy it on the other. Well? You sound more like the "Windows fanboi that wants to rest easy" yourself.
Poop on multitouch, poop on form factor, poop on Apple, poop on price, poop on aluminum (seriously?), poop on MacBooks, poop on EFI-level wireless Remote Disc (excellent display of ignorance). Poop on us all because you wont buy one.
Very interesting indeed mods.
Since you were so kind, I'm going to poop AL
Firewire is still present on every other device they sell, AFAIK. They just figured it wasn't essential in a sub-notebook PC.
Why are so many people here considering this a direct MacBook replacement? Why does it need everything the MacBook has?
If you need those features, spend less, get a MacBook. If you need the small size, get MacBook Air. It doesn't seem all that difficult...
Does anyone out there NEED the smaller size of this AND Firewire built in?
MacBooks are already tiny, so they went as far as they could to minimize size for their new product category.
From the sound of a lot of these posts, people must be chomping at the bit for a smaller, cheaper MacBook, and lost sight of what "sub-notebook" means. Probably runs hotter than hell Why?
The real gem is over at MSNBC/MSN. Sony mum on WUSB
Which raises a familiar question: Are we now faced with another war of competing standards delaying the widespread adoption of a highly attractive new technology? Is this HD-DVD-vs.-Blu-ray all over again? It raises familiar questions: Does Microsoft manipulate the media? Is Steve Balmer the Devil? Would Microsoft give you a reacharound?
/palmface
---
Time destroys the speculation of men, but it confirms the judgment of nature. - Cicero
I kind of wonder what the max theoretical range really is though.
Where were all you monkeys when induction based power chargers were announced on Slashdot? Same thing, but data not power. Did you all suddenly fall in love with cables and power bricks?
I think somebody compared TransferJet to "_w_ireless USB" as in, no physical connector, then some asshats spun it into "TransferJet taking on _W_ireless USB"
Jesus tap dancing Christ, _MS_NBC/MSN... Go f'ing figure, huh? Now smack yourselves for taking the bait please.
It wouldn't only be useful for "Alice and Bob" you know.
It's almost a wireless USB hub, except you place things on a pad instead of plugging them in. Obviously not useful for every device already connected via USB or Bluetooth, but is is useful for some widely popular devices such as cameras, DV cameras (ones with harddrives at least), or PMPs. It would also be useful in almost every single application that currently uses card readers, like printers, TVs, media centers, PCs, etc.
Maybe you're confusing the "Alice and Bob"/"computer-less printing" association, ONE capability of TransferJet with all the OTHER things you could do with it.
There's a rather large gap between the need to plug a device into a physical dock, and the need to wirelessly transmit data quickly from a distance.
One is quick and secure, the other is broadcast to your whole neighborhood and needs setup in advance (pairing, WLAN config, encryption, etc).
This technology is a universal docking system that complements existing wireless standards. One step closer to being free of wires, gimmick my foot.
Bluetooth works great for wireless peripherals, I already have wireless storage on my Airport Extreme and similar devices, and TransferJet would be pretty damned cool for stuff I normally have to plug in like cameras.
Get it straight!
This isn't about Wireless USB vs. TransferJet. It's about Wireless USB vs. "five different wireless data transfer standards" PLUS TransferJet.
WTF do we need everything unified into W-USB for? Our existing standards all work VERY well for what they're intended for. My camera doesn't need to speak the same lingo as my mouse. Some things I want to pair, others I don't. Some things I want to "plug in" even if it means placing on a pad, other things I want to use from the other side of the room. Fast data transfer from other side of room is already available, but if W-USB manages to do exceptionally well there, I might look at it for only that.
Everything has different range, power, security requirements, so where is the argument that Wireless USB is the be-all-end-all wireless technology???
Speaking of Bluetooth, WTF is so wrong with it that we need Wireless USB to begin with? Bulk data transfer? OK, now we'll have a contact pad with no pairing for that. Where would Wireless USB be left, wireless harddrives? HAH.
Maybe that's why the "news" is reporting Sony's tech "competes" with Wireless USB; as a Bluetooth complement, it makes W-USB a pointless Bluetooth replacement.
If that's the case, f' you all, I like Bluetooth plus Sony's idea better than just a faster Bluetooth clone.
Also, move on from what to what? Got beef with Bluetooth? Let's hear it.
"and with good transfers looks FANTASTIC" What I don't get, is that you seem to understand how a good DVD could be encoded as a bad HD-DVD, but you watch ONE HD-DVD/Blu-ray comparison, and conclude that Blu-ray has inferior video quality. Hm...$200 to get in on HD that looks nice, or $400 for theoretically superior but looks like ass...hm... ... and one only plays movies while the other is really a PS3?
Were you intentionally trying to mislead everyone with that whole paragraph?
Oh, you meant HD-DVD customers are getting burned because it went the other way.
It's a win for hardware manufacturers in general, and nothing is stopping Toshiba from selling BD players when they're ready. There is ALWAYS another device to buy. DVD players got better, cheaper, disc changers, component output, ability to play non-DVDs, upscaling, integrated, standalone, and every combination of the above. How many people bought more than one device capable of playing DVDs in the last five years? and the studios, who get even harsher DRM than HD DVD had. The losers are the people who actually believed in a. the future-proof nature of Blu-Ray and b. the people who believed in HD DVD being standardized and cheaper, thus "better." Explain how one DRM is really "better" than the other please.
Losers? LOSERS? We WIN the format war, and we're LOSERS? Newer profile movies will PLAY in old players, they just won't have PiP, or internet enabled special features. Those who bought standalone BD players knew they didn't have those features when they bought them. Are they going to cry and upgrade already to get the PiP director's commentary?
Wow, cheaper==better for you, huh? Sorry, not everyone feels that way. Maybe the real losers will be the studios, when people decide that they're still confused and see Blu constantly trashed... ... by a bunch of angry teenagers that bought Xbox HD-DVD add-ons? Sorry, blogs and Slashdot aren't the "press". It's a great format, don't get me wrong, but hearing stuff like this really does kill consumer confidence, Sure, if all the other consumers are idiots too. When they can't access the director's blog from the special features on their older players, I'm sure they will be very peeved, and demand a refund. When THAT happens, I'll invite you to my home to tell me "I told you so" in person. and coming out with the format early just to fight off HD DVD, What's wrong with that? I don't think you understand what exactly is different between the Blu-ray profiles. Why don't you look those up before even bothering to reply to this, please and thanks. then having studios cut support for the finalized, cheaper format right as the price gets into interesting range, is, I predict, going to have the effect which Warner was seeking to avoid by dropping HD DVD. Um... what would that be? Or maybe none of this will matter at all when the global economic depression hits. Sure.... ok.
There are only 3 for Blu-ray, and the US one includes North America, Central America, South America, Japan, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia.
It's not nearly the same problem DVD region encoding was.
About 2/3's are region free anyway.
With Gnome and KDE both giving sensible names to most applications, the actual command names are getting more and more irrelevant. My point is that the prefixes don't serve a purpose anymore, other than some brand association, and in the case of the 'G', you're right, it's confusing. As far as the 'K' branding, I think it's already been overdone.
I'm glad it's being fixed in the GUI, but that brand association is still prevalent in project websites, about screens, package names, etc. It's just tacky!
Linux applications have taken the whole single letter prefix thing a bit too far. Let's see a package listing of all the KDE apps on your system, then compare =)
It was a way to differentiate GNU software from the native software it replaced, but then continued on to crap that only runs on Linux anyway. Also, X Windows programs mostly had x's so you knew an X environment was required. This continued on to modern Gnome/KDE systems where X is almost always running, X apps rarely need to be in your path anymore, and most GUI apps are not started by typing in the actually program filename. Gnome and KDE are even largely compatible with each other now.
I'm not suggesting renaming gcc to cc. Going forward though, remember (or FIND OUT) what the conventions actually mean before putting another f'ing k... or g... titled application in a GUI shell. In some places it may actually be appropriate, like a gfoobar/kfoobar that perform the same function. If you don't need both though, drop the damned prefix in the GUI. The NEED for the prefixes in modern Linux GUIs is long gone. It's just a branding now, and it's extremely overdone. It gdoes make it a bit geasier to Kfigure out gwhich iApps go to Kwhich iDesktop Kenvironment. Apple software isn't branded with an i to tell us it runs on iMacs.
How about this.
If it's in the KDE menu, it's a KDE APPLICATION!
If it's in the Gnome menu, it's a GNOME APPLICATION!
What if you want KDE apps in your Gnome menu or Gnome apps in your KDE menu?
THEN WHY THE F*** DO THEY STILL NEED TO BE DIFFERENTIATED?
At least rename the shortcuts the GUI launches.
I really think this is one case where user education should be considered more important.
There's nothing wrong with your suggestions, and those should still be goals. However, it's a bit like suggesting the solution to 95% of automobiles not receiving regular oil changes is to build engines that only require a change every 20,000 miles. The problem will probably never go away, but that's a nice goal. Now it's going to be forgotten about more often, put off longer, thought to be less important, ignored, and less understood. There will be a bigger gap between the frequency required for driving under "normal" conditions and "severe".
There are similar conditions with software updates. Sometimes patches should be applied immediatley, sometimes they can be put off longer. One thing is for sure, they will always be necessary, at least in the foreseeable future. In both cases, higher frequency is always better. Wouldn't an optimal solution be that both processes are as cheap, fast, and painless as possible, enabling them to be done very frequently? Imagine if an oil change was as painless as getting your car washed at the gas station is, or just an extra button to press at the pump. Now, given price of oil, that might not be feasible in the absence of some kind of cheap oil recondition/reuse process. Still, it's a better solution than merely lengthening the frequency.
I'd say your "Smaller updates", and "Less user intervention" should be among the highest priorities, along with anything else that can make patching both as trivial and frequent as possible. Not only that, but if user intervention is required at all, the importance of the patches needs to be made clear. Patches fixing remotely exploitable bugs should be made VERY clear, in bright red colors or something, not mixed in casually with other patches like it's no big deal. Part of the problem now is that most users don't know WTF the severity of "Windows Updates" or "Software Updates" is. Neither of those sound very important do they? Maybe somewhere in the details of WU patch installation, the word "security" or "critical" is mentioned (can't remember, staying on the safe side), and Apple's Software Updates sometimes lists "Security Update" items. Those are not enough to convey the importance of applying patches promptly as possible.
Even though Windows does have a standard application folder at "Program Files", it's not quickly accessible via the shell, or explorer. Instead they implemented the task menu, and allowed application shortcuts on user desktops. Then they later added a location on the task bar for MORE application shortcuts. I think it's clear in this case how Microsoft set themselves up for it, and at there's least one proven way they could fix it. I'm really not suggesting they outright copy Apple, but they should copy the ease of use and implement it in their own way.
I think Microsoft stands to lose more by not doing anything than from a careful redesign. The absolute worst thing they could do is to keep all their old crusty ways, while tacking on even MORE bad ideas. *cough* UAC *cough* Well, at least they dropped Active Desktop.
I only buy new, as in new to me, movies on Blu-ray, because I DON'T care to see the same movie again with slightly better quality. However, the difference in quality on a 1080p native HDTV, is great enough that I will not buy DVDs anymore unless it's from the bargain bin, and I sure as hell wouldn't buy a newly released movie on DVD. I'd imagine most other switchers would do the same. If anything, this will be a much more casual, easier transition process than with VHS-DVD. I clearly remember, once I started renting/buying DVDs, I was NOT going back to tape, for anything. That transition must have sucked for people with large tape collections. Now, I could go either way on most new purchases, but still with strong reasons to go up if I can. I'm perfectly happy with my old DVD collection also. It's not really worth it to re-buy remastered movies all over again this time around, and I doubt HD movie backers are heavily counting on re-buys to be successful.
Upconverted DVDs just DON'T look as good as newer HD movies on 1080 HDTVs, and it's easy to tell the difference. I think all this upconversion vs. HD crap keeps coming from 720p HDTV owners, which probably accounts for most of the current HDTVs out there. I'm predicting that HD movie adoption will basically track with 1080p HDTV adoption.
Yes, that is an entirely different reason than for the VHS-DVD transition, but is it really a BIG problem? I mean, with resolution being big attraction, was anybody REALLY expecting them to fly off the shelves before TVs supporting that resolution did?
OK, I can see how heavy 720p HDTV adoption might have really mucked things up, I guess... Hopefully they'll be able to push 1080 soon enough to support the DVD-HD transition better.
Nobody said Apple software was perfect, just generally much better in terms of UI. Yes, grayed out Quicktime options are bad. I wouldn't mind seeing the Quicktime UI disappear, and have video playback rolled into Preview, using Quicktime as a back-end. They really need to differentiate QuickTime Pro from the simple video player most people want. if we can blame third party solutions for XP 'sucking' then we can certainly blame same-party solutions for OS X 'sucking', no? ) Who said you couldn't? You forgot iLife '08 nags as well. Still don't change much in a side-by-side comparison. Windows, in general, has plenty of attack vectors available to you to point out how crappy it is; there's really no need to drag third party stuff into the discussion. Why not? If you can't by a Windows PC off the shelf without it, isn't it fairly relevant? Macs do fine without half a dozen different 3rd party bolt on software components running at startup to offer you redundant methods of changing the volume, changing your display, wireless settings, mouse settings, etc, all with minor device/vendor specific settings.
Have you ever wondered why more of that garbage isn't centralized someplace, like, I don't know.. the Control Panel?? How did Apple manage to put "System Preferences" on every single user's dock by default?
Could it be that the Control Panel is too confusing, or hard to find? Microsoft can fix a LOT of problems caused by 3rd party software by fixing their own UI, or at least designing it with 3rd party developer's needs in mind. Microsoft is at fault for more than you realize. Again, Apple isn't perfect either. A average Mac user might think the Gimp is just terrible, but some fault might lie with Apple's X11 implementation.
They can't fix everything. Both Apple and MS have 3rd party software that suck in ways neither can effect.
I get your point, but there's little sense in comparing a new, out-the-box Mac with a Windows machine you had to wipe and reinstall. Whether it's Microsoft's fault or not, the OP is more or less correct. Compare an average PC to nearly ANY Mac, (let's keep the discussion to SW for now) and the PC gets spanked. Needless to say, there are a LOT of "average" PCs out there, and a good measure of them bought a Windows machine "by default". A 70/30 split with windows/mac would be enough to see quite a few more Macs at retail, with less pressure to pick Windows "because that's what everyone else uses."
Haven't experienced any of that since the horrible horrible horrible days of GRAW when the 360 first launched (and was later patched out of existance.) What is fundamentally different about Live that it prevents cheating any more than the methods currently employed by PC games?
You're confusing other aspects of the console with the Live service. Are there any reasons to credit Live for this?
Accusations of cheating... are you serious? Either cheating is a problem or it's not, there's nothing you can do to stem accusations of cheating aside from preventing/detecting cheating or lying. See above.
PS, most falsely accused cheaters were LPBs, *ahem* broadband users that spent too much time in some sort of sniper class on a server full of modem users. I have/had absolutely no sympathy for them.
Dude... really? Stacked teams? What the **** is Live needed for to prevent stacked teams? Jesus, didn't the first UT have team-balancing built in?
Asshole administrators? With public dedicated servers, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Besides, nothing is more fun than the host turning his machine off in the middle of a game. That's more infuriating than even the worst, unholy asshole of server admins.
The ability to join a server as a group is one of those good features I like about services like Live. Although uncommon in practice, you don't NEED a "single sign on" system to do this. In fact, even the server topology has nothing to do with keep groups together. Warhawk and Resistance have different methods of allowing group joins. So, it's a neat feature of live, but hardly exclusive, and nothing that couldn't have been done, even for Quake.
Yes, things have changed since QuakeWorld, some for the better, some not. Live is a mix with some horribly bad things, and it's mandatory. THAT'S WHY IT SUCKS. Sorry...
Gamers would be better served by making Live optional, and allowing public, dedicated servers. I sincerely hope those aren't lost when Live comes to the PC.
If I could implement my own "Live" for the PC, it would not dictate the server topology, and be a whole lot more open, with at least plugin feature. Ah well, hopefully MS figures it out. It's sad to see the mostly open nature of PC games slowly disappear.
The graphical capabilities of both new HD consoles is obviously better but is it leaps and bounds better?
We're not just upping the ante with texture detail, polygons, quantity of multi-textures per surface, we're also increasing the resolution which impacts us 4x slower (well approximately) I'll let someone else chime in for the 360, but the PS3 is quite a gigantic leap from a PS2, as far as features are concerned anyway.
It's really a beast if you compare the two. Hard drive, PS2 built in, bluetooth controllers standard, BT headset available, ethernet & wireless built in, plays one of the contending DVD replacements.
Graphically, I don't know what you're looking for, but at least compare the first year of PS2 titles to the current PS3 titles to be somewhat fair. The earlier games are rarely all that special. Even first party ones tend to get drastically better in later years of the console's life, look at the Zeldas. There's no reason I can think of that this wouldn't apply to the Xbox line also.
Hell, some of the early PS2 games were cross-platform titles with N64 ports, not even GC! Compare Madden NFL 2001 to Madden NFL 07 for example. I'm just speculating, but by the time NFL 2012 comes around, if it's still available for the PS3, it ought to be quite a bit better looking. The years between being incrementally better each time, hopefully.
We shouldn't have really scratched the surface of what these consoles can do already, but by any chance we already have for a certain console... well, suck it up, you all knew what you were buying into, and plenty of us warned you.
I think I understand your complaints. It was nice back when the big difference between major consoles was which letters were on the gamepads, or Sonic vs. Mario. Still, this is probably the most varied console lineup EVER, and it's neat how easily it is to justify having two out of three of these consoles, using them for two entirely different things.
True, the mac mini is small. But as I said, macs are good for high end systems, but not so good for lower prices. If you want a cheap computer, size is probably low on the priorities. And Dells really aren't that loud. I've got one in the other room. Only one fan in the whole system, and I think it's running below full speed.
Why are Macs not so good for lower prices? Just because I want a cheap computer (or anything else) doesn't mean I'm willing to compromise on everything. Just like I'd still want a cheap car to have lots of cup-holders. I'm trying to get you to understand that the mini is a very good value, and $600 is not overblown. If you want to spend less money than that, fine, but you'll get less value. If you think you can find a Dell at $600 with much greater value, show it to me. There will be many differences between a $600 Dell and a $600 Apple, but in both cases, you get what you pay for.
As for the sound, it's relative, but imagine your PC being as quiet as a laptop. That's basically what an iMac & mini sound like. Take into consideration that iMacs and laptops are very close to your ears. In a quiet room, you can generally hear a low hum while using them, but not from more than a few feet away. Only a few desktop PC's can claim that, and extremely few DIY boxes.
I also find it funny that you had to list gig ethernet and DVI as your 'extra features' that the mac has. Personally, I think it'd be harder to find a computer _without_ those than with. Wireless G is pretty much standard too anymore, and all three are in fact on the Dell from what I can see. No bluetooth...but then again, I don't really know how useful that is. I've never seen a device in person that actually has bluetooth capability. I can see potential uses for that though, and the remote and firewire, but I don't think they're worth $600.
Only the mid range XPS at $1000 ($900 with limited time offer) and up offers built-in 10/100/1000 and DVI, and wireless is an optional add-on card for any conventional box-like PC, just remember to factor in the added cost.
From the Inspiron specs... Video: 1 DVI, VGA and 1 S-Video (with add-in PCI-Express video card)
Followed by... Network: Integrated 10/100 network interface
What $600-ish model are you looking at?
With that wireless card, and add-in video card, what does that bring the price to?
If you bought a phone in the last year it most likely has bluetooth. Sending pictures/videos to a Mac from a BT phone is as trivial as an IM file transfer.
I'm also pretty sure you've seen someone on a phone with a wireless headset by now. When teenagers can be seen wearing then at Walmart it has to be fairly common. Those are bluetooth. BT is also used for wireless mice, keyboards, some printers, digital cameras, and more! It's integrated, so you wont have a little dongle hanging off your computer for your wireless K/M. Now you know.
As for the remote, you'd have to play with FrontRow yourself to see the value in it. If you're honestly interested in what software features Macs have to offer, you could go to an Apple store, or find a buddy with one I guess. I think it's nice, and use it mostly for movie previews and music control. Maybe there are youtube clips floating around, you should at least check it out.
Firewire probably wont be useful to you unless you own or plan on getting a digital video camera. It also can be used to hook one Mac to another in "target disk mode". Basically, one Mac turns into a big external disk using only firmware, like your PC's BIOS, for the other to transfer data, repair, etc. If you've ever attempted to repair a corrupted laptop hard drive, that might interest you. Of course, it works on desktop systems too.
But then again, I'm a budget buyer. I don't even consider mac products unless they're broken and I can fix them (How I got all three of my iPods for under $100), and I like being able to build my own system and customize every
Before everyone gets all heated over me dissing Live, hear me out.
I think parts of Live are nice. However... you should have a choice. Forcing gamers into Live is HORRIBLE, that's why I think Live sucks donkey balls.
There is no _good_ reason to stop the common PC game practice of distributing free dedicated server software.
Look at what it did for Quake, or Savage for example. It benefits gamers tremendously, and adds heaps of value to the game
I think this concept should be EXTENDED to console games in some manner, not replaced by a lame, mandatory, player hosted system.
There is no reason to disallow/discourage 3rd party server browsing, or communication software.
I realize that for consoles, 3rd party is not technically an option, but allowing the game developer (second party?) to provide free built-in support for such is.
All you Xbox gamers have no choice right now, and many of you line up to defend Live because of that. Many of you are too young to have experienced early internet games, and I feel sorry for you. It's this feeling that Live will eventually be pushed for PC games that gives me chills. Don't let Microsoft "consolify" PCs, PLEASE. You deserve better after putting all that hard work into building your own gaming rigs.
It blows my mind that so many people think that's a great deal.
The original poster is right. We had a better system about ten years ago with GameSpy, Quake, and ICQ. It was also free with IIRC, one banner ad in GameSpy.
Isn't solid state storage still quite a bit more expensive to manufacture than hunks of plastic?