I game anywhere from 3 - 10 hours per week (was much more before my daughter was born).
Been gaming for roughly 26 years.
My wife LOVES watching me play games. Not because she's into gaming (she's not...), but because I gyrate wildly and jump up and down and wave my controller all over the place while playing my XBox. She thinks this is hilarious.
Granted, I'm usually drunk when playing games, but still... I'm not alone here. Right? Guys? Guys?
That's the fault of the MacBook Pro in my experience. Have a MBP and a Dell Inspiron E1505 with the same Core Duo CPU. The Dell works on my lap, the MacBook works on the desk ONLY.
Shared RAM, which was why I doubled the Dell to 2 GB RAM vs. the MacBook Pro's 1 GB (see above, agreed that I forgot about the video card in my original post). I can indeed play games (not WoW, which I don't play) and edit video on the Dell at the same time, as I can on the Mac.
Inspiron E1505. I bumped the RAM to 2 GB to compensate for the on-board graphics (another check I forgot for the Mac, which has a separate, albeit outdated, video card), upped the HD to 100 GB, added the enahnced screen doohicky coating, 8X CD/DVD dual-layer burner (DVD+/-RW), 85 WHr 9-cell lithium ion battery, 15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA Display with TrueLife (whatever that is), and Windows Media Center to cover the iTunes/iMovie/iDVD functionality that came with the Mac. Had a coupon for $250 that got it to $1,400.
An important note here is that I'm not on either side. I bought both machines for different purposes. But there's no denying the MacBook Pro was significantly more expensive. I bought these machines a week apart.
I just bought a Dell and a MacBook Pro within a week of each other. Both have 100 GB hard drives, 2 GHz core duo CPU's, wireless, 15+" widescreens, etc. The Dell has 2 GB ram. The MacBook Pro has 1 GB, but it does have a camera (iSight) that the Dell does not, so we can consider that a wash I suppose.
The Dell was $1,400.
The MacBook Pro was $2,500.
I use both, but that's a very big price difference.
My crystal ball tells me all these things are possible:
- Linus Torvalds decides to chuck this whole tech thing and get a job at Chik-Fil-A.
- Pat Robertson converts to Islam.
- George Bush single-handedly solves the Iraq quagmire and acheives the highest approvral rating of a sitting U.S. President ever (98%, Mac users still hate him because he uses Windows) in the next two weeks.
- Sandra Bullock gives me a blowjob in the alley behind the Chik-Fil-A Linus is working at.
Aren't ALL OS X purchases by default upgrade purchases? OS X only runs on Mac hardware. If you have Mac hardware, it came with OS X. If you're buying OS X by itself, you must be upgrading a machine that already has an older version of OS X on it.
They will certainly try, but again, you're still not forced to. For example, RIM essentially had the choice of being put out of business, or taking the licensing deal. In this particular case I'd be willing to bet that Lucent knows damn well not every 360 that was sold can be recovered, and they also know damn well that MS isn't going to just bail out of the console market. They're essentially going to try to force a licensing agreement on MS.
Not only that, but the MacBook Pro is very competitively priced compared to other high-end Core Duo laptops.
The MacBook Pro is a very nice machine. There's one sitting on my desk right now. Right next to it is a Dell Inspiron E1505 with the exact same Core Duo CPU. They were purchased two weeks apart. The differences:
- MacBook Pro has 1 GB RAM, Dell has 2 GB RAM
- MacBook Pro has 80 GB HDD, Dell has 100 GB
- MacBook Pro has built-in camera, Dell has none
- MacBook Pro has a real graphics card, Dell has Intel integrated crap
- Dell came with separate TV tuner, MacBook Pro did not
Prices:
MacBookPro: $2,499
Dell: $1,604
I like them both. I use them both. The Dell is ridiculously cheaper, and honestly, doesn't have the problems the MacBook Pro does (buckled plastic, gets so hot you can't hold it, screen flickers). The only real advantage I give the MacBook Pro is the use of a dedicated graphics card. That's not worth $900 to most people though.
I believe this is already the case. Holders of patents are required to license the use of their patent for "a reasonable fee." I don't believe they are allowed to simply refuse to allow other parties to use their technology. It's part of the condition of being allowed to hold the patent.
You are not required to license a patent you hold to anyone. You can keep it all to yourself if you'd like. But you'll probably make more easy money if you license it.
Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too!
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
I absolutely agree that given the choice, the user will choose the OS X version. My concern is that users won't be given this choice, especially by smaller development houses, who will see relatively fast virtualization as an excuse to only ship a Windows version of their software.
As I said, I work in such an environment, and rumblings along these lines have already begun.
Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too!
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
I've heard some people comment on how dual-booting could be the death-knell for many OS X applications, with the rationalization being that developers will assume Mac users can run the Windows version, so why bother with the Windows version at all? I don't really agree with this.
Near-full-speed virtualization, on the other hand, could lead to exactly this. If I as a developer of both Windows and Mac software know that Mac users can run my Windows software, and near-full-speed (since the CPU is known to Windows), and they don't have to do a cumbersome boot process to do it, why bother writing an OS X version at all? (Previous virtualization software was nowhere near full-speed due to CPU differences.) This is a question I'm struggling with myself, as I do develop a cross-platform application. The OS X version accounts for about 5% of sales, but about 30% of development costs. It'll be tough to justify continuing with it if virtualization is up to the task.
Why would they compain at all? They're a software company. If you buy a copy of XP Pro why would they care if you install it on Apple hardware? MS doesn't make hardware (aside from peripherals).
I bought a 2GHz/1 GB Core Duo MacBook Pro for work. A week before, I bought a 1.83 GHz/2 GB Core Duo Inspiron E1505 (this model was released about 3 weeks before I bought it, so it's brand-new tech as well).
I am not an Apple fanboy, nor am I a Windows fanboy. I'll use anything. I was stunned that the Dell appears to be much more solidly built. The Mac has lots of problems (display flicker EVEN at full brightness, runs very hot, etc.). The Dell has worked flawlessly, even after being used at least three times as much as the Mac I've had zero issues with it.
Oh yeah. The Dell? $1,600. The Mac? $2,500. The Dell came with a separate USB TV tuner for that price and the Mac didn't. The Mac has a built-in camera at that price and the Dell didn't. The Mac has a slightly faster CPU (2 GHz vs. 1.83). The Dell has double the ram (2 GB vs 1 GB). All in all, I'd say they're comparable machines hardware-wise.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that the Dell is a much more usable machine for my needs and appears better built, all at a greatly reduced price. I'm really surprised by the problems with the Mac as they're usually built pretty well. I know it's first-gen tech, but so is the Dell model, and that is flawless so far. I'd be pretty pissed if it was my own $2,500 I'd spent on it.
"Eon" and "Eternity" were undoubtedly two of the greatest sci-fi books I've ever read. I liked them so much I ordered copies from Amazon to send to several friends without even telling them. Everyone raved about them.
Then there was "Legacy". What the hell happened there? Tried repeatedly, and just couldn't get through it. Horrible, horrible book.
The two I remember the most, and that I certainly lost the most hours to:
1) "Gunship" for the C64. You were the pilot of an Apache helicopter and got sent on missions. Very realistic for it's time, and came with this nifty keyboard overlay that showed where all the controls were.
2) "Wasteland" on my old 286. You whippersnappers with your Fallout don't know your history (Fallout is a great game, no doubt).
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think we should all still be writing C++ to-the-metal in Visual Studio 6.0 on Windows 98?
Gasp! Most certainly not!
We should all be writing C++ to-the-metal in Visual Studio 6.0 on Windows XP. At least that's what I do.
Interesting that this only applies to commercial websites. Last time I checked (accidentally), goatse.cx was not a commercial website.
Mistakenly? Sounds like a good place to take a leak to me.
I am 36 years old.
I game anywhere from 3 - 10 hours per week (was much more before my daughter was born).
Been gaming for roughly 26 years.
My wife LOVES watching me play games. Not because she's into gaming (she's not...), but because I gyrate wildly and jump up and down and wave my controller all over the place while playing my XBox. She thinks this is hilarious.
Granted, I'm usually drunk when playing games, but still... I'm not alone here. Right? Guys? Guys?
That's the fault of the MacBook Pro in my experience. Have a MBP and a Dell Inspiron E1505 with the same Core Duo CPU. The Dell works on my lap, the MacBook works on the desk ONLY.
Why the fuck does everyone around here make fun of my security?
Shared RAM, which was why I doubled the Dell to 2 GB RAM vs. the MacBook Pro's 1 GB (see above, agreed that I forgot about the video card in my original post). I can indeed play games (not WoW, which I don't play) and edit video on the Dell at the same time, as I can on the Mac.
Inspiron E1505. I bumped the RAM to 2 GB to compensate for the on-board graphics (another check I forgot for the Mac, which has a separate, albeit outdated, video card), upped the HD to 100 GB, added the enahnced screen doohicky coating, 8X CD/DVD dual-layer burner (DVD+/-RW), 85 WHr 9-cell lithium ion battery, 15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA Display with TrueLife (whatever that is), and Windows Media Center to cover the iTunes/iMovie/iDVD functionality that came with the Mac. Had a coupon for $250 that got it to $1,400.
An important note here is that I'm not on either side. I bought both machines for different purposes. But there's no denying the MacBook Pro was significantly more expensive. I bought these machines a week apart.
I just bought a Dell and a MacBook Pro within a week of each other. Both have 100 GB hard drives, 2 GHz core duo CPU's, wireless, 15+" widescreens, etc. The Dell has 2 GB ram. The MacBook Pro has 1 GB, but it does have a camera (iSight) that the Dell does not, so we can consider that a wash I suppose.
The Dell was $1,400.
The MacBook Pro was $2,500.
I use both, but that's a very big price difference.
Please, try to keep up. It's now referred to as "Windows Vista Forever".
My crystal ball tells me all these things are possible:
- Linus Torvalds decides to chuck this whole tech thing and get a job at Chik-Fil-A.
- Pat Robertson converts to Islam.
- George Bush single-handedly solves the Iraq quagmire and acheives the highest approvral rating of a sitting U.S. President ever (98%, Mac users still hate him because he uses Windows) in the next two weeks.
- Sandra Bullock gives me a blowjob in the alley behind the Chik-Fil-A Linus is working at.
Hey, this is a fun game!
Photos can easily be misplaced or stolen. A cell phone camera with photos in it can also be misplaced or stolen.
Aren't ALL OS X purchases by default upgrade purchases? OS X only runs on Mac hardware. If you have Mac hardware, it came with OS X. If you're buying OS X by itself, you must be upgrading a machine that already has an older version of OS X on it.
Or am I missing something here?
They will certainly try, but again, you're still not forced to. For example, RIM essentially had the choice of being put out of business, or taking the licensing deal. In this particular case I'd be willing to bet that Lucent knows damn well not every 360 that was sold can be recovered, and they also know damn well that MS isn't going to just bail out of the console market. They're essentially going to try to force a licensing agreement on MS.
Not only that, but the MacBook Pro is very competitively priced compared to other high-end Core Duo laptops.
The MacBook Pro is a very nice machine. There's one sitting on my desk right now. Right next to it is a Dell Inspiron E1505 with the exact same Core Duo CPU. They were purchased two weeks apart. The differences:
- MacBook Pro has 1 GB RAM, Dell has 2 GB RAM
- MacBook Pro has 80 GB HDD, Dell has 100 GB
- MacBook Pro has built-in camera, Dell has none
- MacBook Pro has a real graphics card, Dell has Intel integrated crap
- Dell came with separate TV tuner, MacBook Pro did not
Prices:
MacBookPro: $2,499
Dell: $1,604
I like them both. I use them both. The Dell is ridiculously cheaper, and honestly, doesn't have the problems the MacBook Pro does (buckled plastic, gets so hot you can't hold it, screen flickers). The only real advantage I give the MacBook Pro is the use of a dedicated graphics card. That's not worth $900 to most people though.
Person/s cannot refuse usage of patent.
I believe this is already the case. Holders of patents are required to license the use of their patent for "a reasonable fee." I don't believe they are allowed to simply refuse to allow other parties to use their technology. It's part of the condition of being allowed to hold the patent.
You are not required to license a patent you hold to anyone. You can keep it all to yourself if you'd like. But you'll probably make more easy money if you license it.
I absolutely agree that given the choice, the user will choose the OS X version. My concern is that users won't be given this choice, especially by smaller development houses, who will see relatively fast virtualization as an excuse to only ship a Windows version of their software.
As I said, I work in such an environment, and rumblings along these lines have already begun.
I've heard some people comment on how dual-booting could be the death-knell for many OS X applications, with the rationalization being that developers will assume Mac users can run the Windows version, so why bother with the Windows version at all? I don't really agree with this.
Near-full-speed virtualization, on the other hand, could lead to exactly this. If I as a developer of both Windows and Mac software know that Mac users can run my Windows software, and near-full-speed (since the CPU is known to Windows), and they don't have to do a cumbersome boot process to do it, why bother writing an OS X version at all? (Previous virtualization software was nowhere near full-speed due to CPU differences.) This is a question I'm struggling with myself, as I do develop a cross-platform application. The OS X version accounts for about 5% of sales, but about 30% of development costs. It'll be tough to justify continuing with it if virtualization is up to the task.
Microsoft is left with no grounds to complain.
Why would they compain at all? They're a software company. If you buy a copy of XP Pro why would they care if you install it on Apple hardware? MS doesn't make hardware (aside from peripherals).
I bought a 2GHz/1 GB Core Duo MacBook Pro for work. A week before, I bought a 1.83 GHz/2 GB Core Duo Inspiron E1505 (this model was released about 3 weeks before I bought it, so it's brand-new tech as well). I am not an Apple fanboy, nor am I a Windows fanboy. I'll use anything. I was stunned that the Dell appears to be much more solidly built. The Mac has lots of problems (display flicker EVEN at full brightness, runs very hot, etc.). The Dell has worked flawlessly, even after being used at least three times as much as the Mac I've had zero issues with it. Oh yeah. The Dell? $1,600. The Mac? $2,500. The Dell came with a separate USB TV tuner for that price and the Mac didn't. The Mac has a built-in camera at that price and the Dell didn't. The Mac has a slightly faster CPU (2 GHz vs. 1.83). The Dell has double the ram (2 GB vs 1 GB). All in all, I'd say they're comparable machines hardware-wise. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that the Dell is a much more usable machine for my needs and appears better built, all at a greatly reduced price. I'm really surprised by the problems with the Mac as they're usually built pretty well. I know it's first-gen tech, but so is the Dell model, and that is flawless so far. I'd be pretty pissed if it was my own $2,500 I'd spent on it.
I knew Alienware was over when I saw their boxes for sale in Best Buy a couple years ago.
I wonder what kind of shitstorm could be sparked by Bush running in 2008, under the claim that he was only actually elected to the office once.
No, I'm not serious. I don't think.
Wow, I'd never seen his page before. He sounds like quite the... what is the word I'm looking for... prick! That's it! A self-important prick!
"Eon" and "Eternity" were undoubtedly two of the greatest sci-fi books I've ever read. I liked them so much I ordered copies from Amazon to send to several friends without even telling them. Everyone raved about them. Then there was "Legacy". What the hell happened there? Tried repeatedly, and just couldn't get through it. Horrible, horrible book.
The two I remember the most, and that I certainly lost the most hours to:
1) "Gunship" for the C64. You were the pilot of an Apache helicopter and got sent on missions. Very realistic for it's time, and came with this nifty keyboard overlay that showed where all the controls were.
2) "Wasteland" on my old 286. You whippersnappers with your Fallout don't know your history (Fallout is a great game, no doubt).