Wish there was a way to edit your comments.. Oh-well..
One thing I didn't add is that, in addition to the copy-cats, you'll also have those who will see an invention, use it as a base, improve it in some way(s), then release a new product.
I could be wrong, but as I understand things as they currently stand, this is not possible (see Vonage, who took (knowingly or not) a method of connecting internet originated calls to the POTS network, adding in the ability to take the phone with you wherever you go, just as if you had never left. I don't have their service, but I'm sure they've added more to the "phone" service than just what I've mentioned)..
Frankly, I don't see how the other Vonage-like services exist without *also* "stealing" Verizon's patent (unless they licensed it/them).
But the whole point of patents is to encourage innovation, by providing protection for unique ideas. Why would anybody bother coming up with new ideas if anybody else could just copy them the next day? (That's especially true for startups, which don't have the money to compete head to head with larger, more established companies.)
This is what I hate about the entire argument.
Without patents, people would come up with new ideas to "One up" the guys that copied them.
Would this help the original person? Depends on how often he comes up with new ideas and how long it takes the copy-cats to do their thing. So long as the original inventor doesn't price himself out of the market, more people would buy his products because they see him as the place to go "for the future". Yes, people will buy from copy-cats (people like my father, who are quite cheap, and don't mind being a generation (or three) behind).
Is this situation perfect? I'm sure it's not, but it's *got* to be better than what we have now.
Just imagine what types of services we might have now if we didn't have this patent bull-shit to deal with.
I've looked around on newegg a bit and didn't find anything, but are there any ATX boards with a socket AM2 that have NO PATA ports? The only thing I have that uses them is a CD-ROM, which I can quite easily convert/replace with an SATA. I'd really like to find a board that lacks any PATA ports to simplify my cabling.:)
Yes, they have!:) It's called DirecWay or now Hughes Net. Those satellites transmit IP data streams from the ground, to a satellite, and then back to you. These guys have been doing since the 1990s.
I don't think this is the same as what is mentioned in the article. I think the article is talking about routing IP traffic between sat's in space, not from a customer on the ground, to the satellite, to the endpoint company, to the internet. Hell, that was spelled out in the damned summary.
Now, what this could allow, would be for Hughes (or whomever owns the DirecPC system) or Starband (if it is still called that) to offer service in another country not served by the satellites they are currently using. It would allow them to throw up another satellite (or buy space on an already launched device as Starband was (and probably still is) doing) and have the traffic routed from that bird to one closer to their transmission site. This lets them avoid having to build out transmission sites in each country (which can be pretty costly).
You are indeed entitled to do whatever you wish on your site. The point is that the internet's default function is to facilitate the flow of information. Trying to implement a policy that is contrary to that function is a waste of effort, at best. The whole *point* of an internet connection is to allow the clients to access "the web" (mostly -- certainly for the purposes of this discussion).
Trust your users to do the right thing. If they abuse it, toss the users out or unplug the internet connection. I don't think wrestling with the in-between options is worth the hassle, if possible at all. Clearly, nobody else has any obligation to make those other options easier.
I'll ask it again. Who are you to tell me how I should provide access to people who aren't paying for my connection? They use it under my rules, or they don't use it. Period.
I agree with his point on principle. If we're setting up proxies across the 'net so political dissidents in China can access Western news sources, can we simultaneously feel good about ourselves by restricting our own youth (or adults, for that matter) in our own country from accessing certain sites? In fact, if filtering were pretty much rendered pointless by his (and other's) efforts, I would breath a sigh of relief and not have to worry about even trying any more when an employer would ask.
I won't even get into the public-funded sites vs private companies side of the issue. I think responsibility should be granted for all end users, regardless of the site. If it truly becomes too much of an issue, suspend/fire the offending students/workers or cut off all web access if you feel that strongly about it.
This is what I don't agree with.
If I purchase an internet connection (in any form), and I decide that I want to let people use it, should I not be allowed to dictate HOW it is used, or more closely related to this topic, what is viewed on it?
To keep this on the topic, the parents, via taxes, pay for the internet connections at schools. In many instances, they did request filters to be put in place. In other instances, they did not, but by not going to school board meetings (or otherwise letting their desires known) to *oppose* the filters, they are giving permission *for* them.
Whitelists are so so easy to set up and maintain. Every page a kid wants to view at school gets filtered by a responsible adult first. Problem solved.
Says the person who has, obviously, never had to maintain one in a K-12 situation.
Do you really want to spend most of your day, dealing with angry students, because when they looked up something for a science class (as an example), they had to ask for special permission to view a page just because it had a drawing of genitals on it?
I already had to deal with such a situation. The school was so pissed off at the previous computer company (who set up this whitelist and sung the praises of how easy it was to maintain), that they booted them and had me setup a server similar to another that I mentioned in another post.
It is far easier on the school staff to just keep an eye on what the kids are looking at, then report pages they want blocked, than it is to report *EVERY* page they want UNBLOCKED.
These kids, or their parents, did pay for these connections through taxes. That is his point, censorship on public networks is wrong, and is barely better than China. Period.
The kids did not. The parents did. The parents were the ones who voiced that they wanted the filter setup in the first place (at least, when talking about the specific school I mentioned later -- I'm sure there are MANY more schools in the same boat).
To another point in your message. I never said Bennett didn't have the right to put up the proxies. What I did say is that he has no right to set them up in such a way that kids, who are in schools that put the filters in place, can bypass those proxies. He is not their parents. He is not on the school board(s). He is not the legal guardian (in any sense of the phrase) of any children other than his own. He should be taking precautions to prevent those who are in a school with a filter from using his proxies so that those, who have more legitimate reasons, can still use them (like, say, people in China who can't get an unfiltered connection no matter what they do).
Whether you are for censorship for kids, or against, there are just certain things they don't need to be looking at while they are SUPPOSED to be doing school work. If a school wanted to filter their computers, then set up a special section (or whatever) that isn't filtered just for kids who are caught up, have good grades, an exemption from their parents, etc, more power to them. Until such happens, Bennett has just as much right providing a proxy to those kids as I have passing out drugs to them.
So basically my point is a $400 beige box wont cut it for the situation we're in here. Sure you can try and do it, but it wont be pleasent. More so when the teachers and pupils complain that the internet is 'slow'.
I dunno. One particular school district I was doing work for made out just fine with a PIII at 500mhz and about 768mb of RAM. That box did Samba, Apache, Squid+SquidGuard, iptables, postfix, courier-imap, spamassassin/amavis/clamav/fprot. There were somewhere around 150-200 PC's in the high school and another 100-ish in the elementary (the two buildings were connected via a dedicated 10mbit wireless link). When the 20gb drive array on the server filled up, rather than adding more space, they replaced the machine. This machine stayed in use for about 2 years before this happened, however. Before I set up all the linux services, it was a Novell server that did simple NAT and file storage -- and that was it. No one really used it.
I doubt very much that adding a 1Gbps connection (instead of the 1.5mbit they were provided via MORE.net) would have changed much.
I even taught the schools "IT" guy how to add/remove sites in squidGuard, add/remove users, give them access to the various samba shares, etc. Once I did that, I had hardly any calls to that school (they were extremely happy, but I started to make less and less money on them.:( ). Gave me time to find new clients.:)
Anyway, don't be so quick to dismiss older machines. They are more powerful than you think (especially if you use a box like the one I described ONLY for proxy use).
Um, what about the millions of web proxies open on the net?
This is what I was just sitting here thinking. You have jackasses like Bennett Haselton setting up proxies all over the place, with stupid names like www.yellowcream.com, www.volleyballwizard.com, etc. What's worse, he aims them DIRECTLY at those in k-12 schools. I've had an email exchange with him one day. He came across (to me) to have the mentality of a teenager (one who had to sit behind a filter of some sort) in high school. He even removed the email address I was using from the circumventor list (good thing I'm signed up with multiple email addresses!).
About a year (or so) ago, he even started providing the needed files for people to set one up in their home, so they could use their DSL/Cable/etc connections, making the job even MORE difficult. I guess an admin could block all the IP ranges of the local "broadband" providers...
Yes, I understand the message Bennett is trying to get out there: Censorship is bad. But when you are using someone Else's internet connection, who the hell are you to demand that certain web pages work? If you are not paying for the connection (and the kids in the K-12, the people Bennett seems to be targeting), you have no right to make any demands. Period.
Maybe one day Bennett will understand that. Even if he doesn't, I still point out his list to anyone that asks me about filtering so they can filter out his crap (and learn what to look for on their networks when the kids/whoever set up their own proxies).
Again, with IPTV, there's a realistic limit on how much you're going to watch in a given month. In other words, there is a clear definition of what "unlimited" means in that context. And there's also no way in hell that someone can possibly watch TV 24/7 for an entire month, so that alone is evidence enough to justify that someone is abusing their connection. And let's not forget that the cable company can easily throttle back your general Internet bandwidth in the case that you're using excessive IPTV bandwidth.
Not really. I happen to know of at least one IPTV software that will just continue to play show after show, with there being no STOP button (Just a pause, but it seems to unpause by itself after a set period). One could simply walk away from their computer, and it would just play all night. If you didn't turn your monitor on after you woke up, you'd go to work/school/whatever and it would still be playing.
Hell, I've used it at work during my lunch, and when I go to shut down my computer, the thing is just happily playing along in the background even though I told the software to go to standby.
Before you ask, "Wouldn't you hear it start again?", in my case, no. I turn my speakers off when I go to bed and I often don't turn the monitor on until after I get home.
So if having the hottest game while it's hot is important to you, don't get a Mac. If having a wide selection of games is important to you, don't get a Mac.
This right here is one of several reasons why MS has nothing to fear (yet) from Apple, which was the entire point to the thread I started.
My biggest complaint with gaming on the Mac is that there is no Steam client for OS X, as there are several Steam games that run on the Unreal engine (such as Red Orchestra) that would work just fine on the Mac.
This, right here, is why MS has nothing to fear (yet). So long as they (MS) can manipulate things behind the scenes in their favor, they have nothing to worry about.
Yawn. If you want to play games, get a console. PC gaming is the past and console gaming is the future. Seriously dude, if you spent over a thousand dollars on a "gaming rig" and you are an adult, then I have to say that it really sad.
Greetings, jackass.
If I want to play Age of Empires (any of the three, with expansions), DDO, Rise of Nations, Rise of Legends, etc, which console should I get?
Oooh.. That's right, NONE OF THOSE ARE AVAILABLE ON A CONSOLE.
Ok, so lets say I wish to play WoW. Oh... Not available either? Well, then, surely SWG is a... no? Ummm.. Asheron's Call (I hear they recently released antoher expansion for it).. Not available either?
Well, damn.
I guess PC Gaming isn't as dead as you thought it was.
Do me a favor. Grow up, graduate High School, get some sort of job and get out of your parents house/basement, buy a car, get into a house/apartment (rent or buy, I don't care), THEN come talk to me about things, let alone gaming.
Just to pour some more salt into your already gaping wound, I paid $667 for the power supply, mainboard, processor, memory, and video card. The rest of the components were recycled from my previous computer (case included). My PC, as I previously stated, is used for more than "gaming", though it does sit idle quite abit (I do have a life away from my PC, especially now that I own my own home.).
They're ported under license from the original publisher all titles on the Mac that didn't come from the original PC/Console publisher are licensed.
If they were actually ported, then good on MacSoft. That is great and I hope they can continue their efforts. If, however, they are using the "Cider" emulation layer you later mention, then it is still emulation and, hence, does not count.
Most of the parts you listed, aren't really required for 99% of people using computers. You need these things because of the GAMES you run. Which is and was my point.
No, most of the parts I listed allow me to do interesting things with my computer, with the SIDE EFFECT of allowing me to run the games I run.
Each game I listed, before I gave my old parts I'm about to list to my Brother (who had a dead PC and couldn't afford to fix it), ran perfectly fine on an AMD64 3400+ with an AGP ATI Radeon 9600 and a gig of DDR ram. Yes, that is still a fairly good machine, but I figured if I was going to be purchasing parts to help my brother out, I'd rather have the new parts and give him my (8 month old) "old" parts.
Of all the games I listed, only Age of Empires 3 really took advantage of the updated parts I listed. The rest all run the same as they did on the old parts (at least, I don't notice any speed improvements anyway).
Now, when you can get off your soap box/high-horse/pedistal/whatever it is you are standing on, and quit assuming you know why I purchased the parts I did, we might be able to have a resonably intelligent conversation.
Emulation does count. It's rather the point of the article: now that you can run Windows in emulation, you can have the best of both worlds. And then, just perhaps, you'll stop using Windows over time, gradually.
You, and many like you, just don't get it.
The only way MS loses is if you DON'T NEED THEIR PRODUCTS ANY LONGER. With emulation (specifically as mentioned in the article -- dual booting OSX and Windows), you STILL give MS money. The whole POINT of switching, and thusly killing MS, is to NOT NEED THEIR SOFTWARE.
I didn't even bother with the rest of your message because you just don't get it, and as such, the rest of your arguement is moot. While people are still using Windows, even on an Apple computer, there is little to no incentive for the software studios to switch/port.
See my post I just typed (it's a couple above yours). It isn't clear, from MacSoft's web site, if they are using some sort of wrappers (emulation) or if they worked with MS, got the code, and ported it (unlikely). If it is the former, then what I said still stands. If it's the latter, well, that is good, but they need to keep up.
What several people don't seem to be getting is that I said *native*, not emulated. I even specified such, but when they saw me type out "Not on mac", they stopped and didn't even bother to read anything else I typed. You might have done the same. Now, if you have proof that the games you and I both listed are NATIVE, and not wrapped in a wrapper or other sort of emulation, then I'll bow out and be happy in the knowledge that, should I decide to throw away a bunch of cash on an Apple branded machine and switch to OSX, I'll at least have a small subset of the games I play waiting for me.
The issue as I see it, even these things which you claim you run, and probably most of the things you don't mention, are all "driving" performance issues within the PC market. I just picked up a PC GAMER type mag the other day and the entire Magazine was about increasing FPS and other performance issues (cooling, cases etc).
Actually, ever game I listed, I do (or have) run. The ones I play the most are Dungeons and Dragons Online (which I didn't even list, and is not available for the Apple platform), Age of Empires 3, and Rise of Legends.
To touch on what ended up being the rest of your baseless rant, I have an ATI Radeon x1600 PCIe video card, 1 GB of DDR2 ram, and an AMD x2 5000+ (came as a combo deal with mainboard, with a far better price than buying the two separate). I don't overclock, underclock, etc. I don't have a PC case that might as well be a tornado or jet from an aircraft. I don't have anything more than stock fans in my case (which uses 1 120mm fan in the front, 1 in the rear, then the PS has one -- all thermally controlled so you don't hear them when they aren't needed and barely hear them when they are). Not every "gamer" is like that, but you go right on ahead thinking such just becase ONE magazine you picked up was full of such articles.
To answer another person that replied -- MS Game Studios own system requirements page for Rise of Legends, Age of Empires 1, Age of Empires 2, and Age of Empires 3 do not list *anything* Apple related. Not even one mention. Doing some google searching shows that MS Game Studios (or whatever other arm of MS is responsible for the games listed) didn't even make them! Someone else did. I couldn't find much info, but I have a feeling they are *not* native, unless MacSoft (the company behind at least AOE3) worked out some sort of deal with MS. In my quick peek around MacSoft's web site, there was 0 information about how they accomplished it. NONE.
Until I see more proof, I stil stand by what I said in my original post. There aren't enough NON-EMULATED games available for the Apple platform.
I would love to see more games for the Mac since I think it would benefit everyone. So you know, Age of Empires II and III (and Age of Mythology) are available for the Mac. I'm not sure about the others you mentioned.
Admittedly, I was in a hurry and did not immediately see Apple versions listed for AOE on their web page (I looked at each games web page).
At least my main point/argument was still strong enough to stand as it was, though.:)
I (and quite a few others) have said it before, and I'll say it again. I have Age of Empires (the first, through AOE3), Rise of Nations (the base game and the add-ons), Rise of Legends, City of Heroes/Villains, etc. Not one of these games (and hundres of others) works in OSX (without emulation -- that doesn't count).
Yes, this is changing, but not fast enough for me or thousands (millions?) of others. Yes, WoW is available, but most games aren't. Until game studios start porting their software to the Apple platform, MS really has little to worry about.
Add to games, the fact that everyone and their sister seems to be glued firmly to MS Office, and MS is sitting in a pretty good position.
As a side note, I'd happily purchase a copy of OSX so I could poke around, try things, run it as a main desktop for a while to see how I like it. But I'm not going to purchase *another* PC (I have too many in my house as it is) just for the "privilage". I'm not the only one. Until such is possible, I'll just have to deal with the limited amount of exposure to OSX that I receive while at work (we have a few iMac "workstations" students can use, but mostly they sit empty (the original ones, before the silly white rounded base with "floating" LCD)).
Man, I'm tired of seeing these "MS should be worried about Apple!" articles. Do everyone a favor. Write one up when MS's quarterly/yearly profits are FLAT or NEGATIVE. Untill then, I won't even read your articles (so that you don't get paid for the ad views).
Given the notorious ambigue prompts Windows is best known for, shouldn't that be 'Missile launch interrupted. Press Y to aquire next target, N to fire next missile or ESC to abort and re-aquire?'
No. No. I'm pretty sure that the way I made fun of Vista was much more hilarious.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Wish there was a way to edit your comments.. Oh-well..
One thing I didn't add is that, in addition to the copy-cats, you'll also have those who will see an invention, use it as a base, improve it in some way(s), then release a new product.
I could be wrong, but as I understand things as they currently stand, this is not possible (see Vonage, who took (knowingly or not) a method of connecting internet originated calls to the POTS network, adding in the ability to take the phone with you wherever you go, just as if you had never left. I don't have their service, but I'm sure they've added more to the "phone" service than just what I've mentioned)..
Frankly, I don't see how the other Vonage-like services exist without *also* "stealing" Verizon's patent (unless they licensed it/them).
But the whole point of patents is to encourage innovation, by providing protection for unique ideas. Why would anybody bother coming up with new ideas if anybody else could just copy them the next day? (That's especially true for startups, which don't have the money to compete head to head with larger, more established companies.)
This is what I hate about the entire argument.
Without patents, people would come up with new ideas to "One up" the guys that copied them.
Would this help the original person? Depends on how often he comes up with new ideas and how long it takes the copy-cats to do their thing. So long as the original inventor doesn't price himself out of the market, more people would buy his products because they see him as the place to go "for the future". Yes, people will buy from copy-cats (people like my father, who are quite cheap, and don't mind being a generation (or three) behind).
Is this situation perfect? I'm sure it's not, but it's *got* to be better than what we have now.
Just imagine what types of services we might have now if we didn't have this patent bull-shit to deal with.
I've looked around on newegg a bit and didn't find anything, but are there any ATX boards with a socket AM2 that have NO PATA ports? The only thing I have that uses them is a CD-ROM, which I can quite easily convert/replace with an SATA. I'd really like to find a board that lacks any PATA ports to simplify my cabling. :)
Someone beat him to this "news". Hell, it was even discussed on Slashdot before. You can read the *first* article about this here.
Yes, they have! :) It's called DirecWay or now Hughes Net. Those satellites transmit IP data streams from the ground, to a satellite, and then back to you. These guys have been doing since the 1990s.
I don't think this is the same as what is mentioned in the article. I think the article is talking about routing IP traffic between sat's in space, not from a customer on the ground, to the satellite, to the endpoint company, to the internet. Hell, that was spelled out in the damned summary.
Now, what this could allow, would be for Hughes (or whomever owns the DirecPC system) or Starband (if it is still called that) to offer service in another country not served by the satellites they are currently using. It would allow them to throw up another satellite (or buy space on an already launched device as Starband was (and probably still is) doing) and have the traffic routed from that bird to one closer to their transmission site. This lets them avoid having to build out transmission sites in each country (which can be pretty costly).
Sure, but you're just one guy, and the school is a govrnment entity, so the rules are different.
Why? In most areas, the voters are not rejecting the fact that filtering is used. Who are you (or me, or Bennett) to tell them how they should use it?
I've yet to see a valid reason proposed.
You are indeed entitled to do whatever you wish on your site. The point is that the internet's default function is to facilitate the flow of information. Trying to implement a policy that is contrary to that function is a waste of effort, at best. The whole *point* of an internet connection is to allow the clients to access "the web" (mostly -- certainly for the purposes of this discussion).
Trust your users to do the right thing. If they abuse it, toss the users out or unplug the internet connection. I don't think wrestling with the in-between options is worth the hassle, if possible at all. Clearly, nobody else has any obligation to make those other options easier.
I'll ask it again. Who are you to tell me how I should provide access to people who aren't paying for my connection? They use it under my rules, or they don't use it. Period.
I agree with his point on principle. If we're setting up proxies across the 'net so political dissidents in China can access Western news sources, can we simultaneously feel good about ourselves by restricting our own youth (or adults, for that matter) in our own country from accessing certain sites? In fact, if filtering were pretty much rendered pointless by his (and other's) efforts, I would breath a sigh of relief and not have to worry about even trying any more when an employer would ask.
I won't even get into the public-funded sites vs private companies side of the issue. I think responsibility should be granted for all end users, regardless of the site. If it truly becomes too much of an issue, suspend/fire the offending students/workers or cut off all web access if you feel that strongly about it.
This is what I don't agree with.
If I purchase an internet connection (in any form), and I decide that I want to let people use it, should I not be allowed to dictate HOW it is used, or more closely related to this topic, what is viewed on it?
To keep this on the topic, the parents, via taxes, pay for the internet connections at schools. In many instances, they did request filters to be put in place. In other instances, they did not, but by not going to school board meetings (or otherwise letting their desires known) to *oppose* the filters, they are giving permission *for* them.
Whitelists are so so easy to set up and maintain. Every page a kid wants to view at school gets filtered by a responsible adult first. Problem solved.
Says the person who has, obviously, never had to maintain one in a K-12 situation.
Do you really want to spend most of your day, dealing with angry students, because when they looked up something for a science class (as an example), they had to ask for special permission to view a page just because it had a drawing of genitals on it?
I already had to deal with such a situation. The school was so pissed off at the previous computer company (who set up this whitelist and sung the praises of how easy it was to maintain), that they booted them and had me setup a server similar to another that I mentioned in another post.
It is far easier on the school staff to just keep an eye on what the kids are looking at, then report pages they want blocked, than it is to report *EVERY* page they want UNBLOCKED.
These kids, or their parents, did pay for these connections through taxes. That is his point, censorship on public networks is wrong, and is barely better than China. Period.
The kids did not. The parents did. The parents were the ones who voiced that they wanted the filter setup in the first place (at least, when talking about the specific school I mentioned later -- I'm sure there are MANY more schools in the same boat).
To another point in your message. I never said Bennett didn't have the right to put up the proxies. What I did say is that he has no right to set them up in such a way that kids, who are in schools that put the filters in place, can bypass those proxies. He is not their parents. He is not on the school board(s). He is not the legal guardian (in any sense of the phrase) of any children other than his own. He should be taking precautions to prevent those who are in a school with a filter from using his proxies so that those, who have more legitimate reasons, can still use them (like, say, people in China who can't get an unfiltered connection no matter what they do).
Whether you are for censorship for kids, or against, there are just certain things they don't need to be looking at while they are SUPPOSED to be doing school work. If a school wanted to filter their computers, then set up a special section (or whatever) that isn't filtered just for kids who are caught up, have good grades, an exemption from their parents, etc, more power to them. Until such happens, Bennett has just as much right providing a proxy to those kids as I have passing out drugs to them.
So basically my point is a $400 beige box wont cut it for the situation we're in here. Sure you can try and do it, but it wont be pleasent. More so when the teachers and pupils complain that the internet is 'slow'.
:( ). Gave me time to find new clients. :)
I dunno. One particular school district I was doing work for made out just fine with a PIII at 500mhz and about 768mb of RAM. That box did Samba, Apache, Squid+SquidGuard, iptables, postfix, courier-imap, spamassassin/amavis/clamav/fprot. There were somewhere around 150-200 PC's in the high school and another 100-ish in the elementary (the two buildings were connected via a dedicated 10mbit wireless link). When the 20gb drive array on the server filled up, rather than adding more space, they replaced the machine. This machine stayed in use for about 2 years before this happened, however. Before I set up all the linux services, it was a Novell server that did simple NAT and file storage -- and that was it. No one really used it.
I doubt very much that adding a 1Gbps connection (instead of the 1.5mbit they were provided via MORE.net) would have changed much.
I even taught the schools "IT" guy how to add/remove sites in squidGuard, add/remove users, give them access to the various samba shares, etc. Once I did that, I had hardly any calls to that school (they were extremely happy, but I started to make less and less money on them.
Anyway, don't be so quick to dismiss older machines. They are more powerful than you think (especially if you use a box like the one I described ONLY for proxy use).
Um, what about the millions of web proxies open on the net?
This is what I was just sitting here thinking. You have jackasses like Bennett Haselton setting up proxies all over the place, with stupid names like www.yellowcream.com, www.volleyballwizard.com, etc. What's worse, he aims them DIRECTLY at those in k-12 schools. I've had an email exchange with him one day. He came across (to me) to have the mentality of a teenager (one who had to sit behind a filter of some sort) in high school. He even removed the email address I was using from the circumventor list (good thing I'm signed up with multiple email addresses!).
About a year (or so) ago, he even started providing the needed files for people to set one up in their home, so they could use their DSL/Cable/etc connections, making the job even MORE difficult. I guess an admin could block all the IP ranges of the local "broadband" providers...
Yes, I understand the message Bennett is trying to get out there: Censorship is bad. But when you are using someone Else's internet connection, who the hell are you to demand that certain web pages work? If you are not paying for the connection (and the kids in the K-12, the people Bennett seems to be targeting), you have no right to make any demands. Period.
Maybe one day Bennett will understand that. Even if he doesn't, I still point out his list to anyone that asks me about filtering so they can filter out his crap (and learn what to look for on their networks when the kids/whoever set up their own proxies).
Again, with IPTV, there's a realistic limit on how much you're going to watch in a given month. In other words, there is a clear definition of what "unlimited" means in that context. And there's also no way in hell that someone can possibly watch TV 24/7 for an entire month, so that alone is evidence enough to justify that someone is abusing their connection. And let's not forget that the cable company can easily throttle back your general Internet bandwidth in the case that you're using excessive IPTV bandwidth.
Not really. I happen to know of at least one IPTV software that will just continue to play show after show, with there being no STOP button (Just a pause, but it seems to unpause by itself after a set period). One could simply walk away from their computer, and it would just play all night. If you didn't turn your monitor on after you woke up, you'd go to work/school/whatever and it would still be playing.
Hell, I've used it at work during my lunch, and when I go to shut down my computer, the thing is just happily playing along in the background even though I told the software to go to standby.
Before you ask, "Wouldn't you hear it start again?", in my case, no. I turn my speakers off when I go to bed and I often don't turn the monitor on until after I get home.
So if having the hottest game while it's hot is important to you, don't get a Mac. If having a wide selection of games is important to you, don't get a Mac.
This right here is one of several reasons why MS has nothing to fear (yet) from Apple, which was the entire point to the thread I started.
My biggest complaint with gaming on the Mac is that there is no Steam client for OS X, as there are several Steam games that run on the Unreal engine (such as Red Orchestra) that would work just fine on the Mac.
This, right here, is why MS has nothing to fear (yet). So long as they (MS) can manipulate things behind the scenes in their favor, they have nothing to worry about.
Yawn. If you want to play games, get a console. PC gaming is the past and console gaming is the future. Seriously dude, if you spent over a thousand dollars on a "gaming rig" and you are an adult, then I have to say that it really sad.
Greetings, jackass.
If I want to play Age of Empires (any of the three, with expansions), DDO, Rise of Nations, Rise of Legends, etc, which console should I get?
Oooh.. That's right, NONE OF THOSE ARE AVAILABLE ON A CONSOLE.
Ok, so lets say I wish to play WoW. Oh... Not available either? Well, then, surely SWG is a... no? Ummm.. Asheron's Call (I hear they recently released antoher expansion for it).. Not available either?
Well, damn.
I guess PC Gaming isn't as dead as you thought it was.
Do me a favor. Grow up, graduate High School, get some sort of job and get out of your parents house/basement, buy a car, get into a house/apartment (rent or buy, I don't care), THEN come talk to me about things, let alone gaming.
Just to pour some more salt into your already gaping wound, I paid $667 for the power supply, mainboard, processor, memory, and video card. The rest of the components were recycled from my previous computer (case included). My PC, as I previously stated, is used for more than "gaming", though it does sit idle quite abit (I do have a life away from my PC, especially now that I own my own home.).
Jackass.
They're ported under license from the original publisher all titles on the Mac that didn't come from the original PC/Console publisher are licensed.
If they were actually ported, then good on MacSoft. That is great and I hope they can continue their efforts. If, however, they are using the "Cider" emulation layer you later mention, then it is still emulation and, hence, does not count.
Most of the parts you listed, aren't really required for 99% of people using computers. You need these things because of the GAMES you run. Which is and was my point.
No, most of the parts I listed allow me to do interesting things with my computer, with the SIDE EFFECT of allowing me to run the games I run.
Each game I listed, before I gave my old parts I'm about to list to my Brother (who had a dead PC and couldn't afford to fix it), ran perfectly fine on an AMD64 3400+ with an AGP ATI Radeon 9600 and a gig of DDR ram. Yes, that is still a fairly good machine, but I figured if I was going to be purchasing parts to help my brother out, I'd rather have the new parts and give him my (8 month old) "old" parts.
Of all the games I listed, only Age of Empires 3 really took advantage of the updated parts I listed. The rest all run the same as they did on the old parts (at least, I don't notice any speed improvements anyway).
Now, when you can get off your soap box/high-horse/pedistal/whatever it is you are standing on, and quit assuming you know why I purchased the parts I did, we might be able to have a resonably intelligent conversation.
Emulation does count. It's rather the point of the article: now that you can run Windows in emulation, you can have the best of both worlds. And then, just perhaps, you'll stop using Windows over time, gradually.
You, and many like you, just don't get it.
The only way MS loses is if you DON'T NEED THEIR PRODUCTS ANY LONGER. With emulation (specifically as mentioned in the article -- dual booting OSX and Windows), you STILL give MS money. The whole POINT of switching, and thusly killing MS, is to NOT NEED THEIR SOFTWARE.
I didn't even bother with the rest of your message because you just don't get it, and as such, the rest of your arguement is moot. While people are still using Windows, even on an Apple computer, there is little to no incentive for the software studios to switch/port.
See my post I just typed (it's a couple above yours). It isn't clear, from MacSoft's web site, if they are using some sort of wrappers (emulation) or if they worked with MS, got the code, and ported it (unlikely). If it is the former, then what I said still stands. If it's the latter, well, that is good, but they need to keep up.
What several people don't seem to be getting is that I said *native*, not emulated. I even specified such, but when they saw me type out "Not on mac", they stopped and didn't even bother to read anything else I typed. You might have done the same. Now, if you have proof that the games you and I both listed are NATIVE, and not wrapped in a wrapper or other sort of emulation, then I'll bow out and be happy in the knowledge that, should I decide to throw away a bunch of cash on an Apple branded machine and switch to OSX, I'll at least have a small subset of the games I play waiting for me.
The issue as I see it, even these things which you claim you run, and probably most of the things you don't mention, are all "driving" performance issues within the PC market. I just picked up a PC GAMER type mag the other day and the entire Magazine was about increasing FPS and other performance issues (cooling, cases etc).
Actually, ever game I listed, I do (or have) run. The ones I play the most are Dungeons and Dragons Online (which I didn't even list, and is not available for the Apple platform), Age of Empires 3, and Rise of Legends.
To touch on what ended up being the rest of your baseless rant, I have an ATI Radeon x1600 PCIe video card, 1 GB of DDR2 ram, and an AMD x2 5000+ (came as a combo deal with mainboard, with a far better price than buying the two separate). I don't overclock, underclock, etc. I don't have a PC case that might as well be a tornado or jet from an aircraft. I don't have anything more than stock fans in my case (which uses 1 120mm fan in the front, 1 in the rear, then the PS has one -- all thermally controlled so you don't hear them when they aren't needed and barely hear them when they are). Not every "gamer" is like that, but you go right on ahead thinking such just becase ONE magazine you picked up was full of such articles.
To answer another person that replied -- MS Game Studios own system requirements page for Rise of Legends, Age of Empires 1, Age of Empires 2, and Age of Empires 3 do not list *anything* Apple related. Not even one mention. Doing some google searching shows that MS Game Studios (or whatever other arm of MS is responsible for the games listed) didn't even make them! Someone else did. I couldn't find much info, but I have a feeling they are *not* native, unless MacSoft (the company behind at least AOE3) worked out some sort of deal with MS. In my quick peek around MacSoft's web site, there was 0 information about how they accomplished it. NONE.
Until I see more proof, I stil stand by what I said in my original post. There aren't enough NON-EMULATED games available for the Apple platform.
I would love to see more games for the Mac since I think it would benefit everyone. So you know, Age of Empires II and III (and Age of Mythology) are available for the Mac. I'm not sure about the others you mentioned.
:)
Admittedly, I was in a hurry and did not immediately see Apple versions listed for AOE on their web page (I looked at each games web page).
At least my main point/argument was still strong enough to stand as it was, though.
I (and quite a few others) have said it before, and I'll say it again. I have Age of Empires (the first, through AOE3), Rise of Nations (the base game and the add-ons), Rise of Legends, City of Heroes/Villains, etc. Not one of these games (and hundres of others) works in OSX (without emulation -- that doesn't count).
Yes, this is changing, but not fast enough for me or thousands (millions?) of others. Yes, WoW is available, but most games aren't. Until game studios start porting their software to the Apple platform, MS really has little to worry about.
Add to games, the fact that everyone and their sister seems to be glued firmly to MS Office, and MS is sitting in a pretty good position.
As a side note, I'd happily purchase a copy of OSX so I could poke around, try things, run it as a main desktop for a while to see how I like it. But I'm not going to purchase *another* PC (I have too many in my house as it is) just for the "privilage". I'm not the only one. Until such is possible, I'll just have to deal with the limited amount of exposure to OSX that I receive while at work (we have a few iMac "workstations" students can use, but mostly they sit empty (the original ones, before the silly white rounded base with "floating" LCD)).
Man, I'm tired of seeing these "MS should be worried about Apple!" articles. Do everyone a favor. Write one up when MS's quarterly/yearly profits are FLAT or NEGATIVE. Untill then, I won't even read your articles (so that you don't get paid for the ad views).
Bleh.
Given the notorious ambigue prompts Windows is best known for, shouldn't that be
;)
'Missile launch interrupted. Press Y to aquire next target, N to fire next missile or ESC to abort and re-aquire?'
No. No. I'm pretty sure that the way I made fun of Vista was much more hilarious.
"You are about to launch a missile at your enemy. Cancel or Allow"