"Only downside (and maybe this is good for the reason mentioned just now) is that most apps don't take advantage of multiple cpus yet."
It's still useful even when you don't have SMP software. If you have an app that's burnin all of one CPU up, you still have the other CPU available to do just about anything else. For example, I have a plugin for Lightwave that is a 3D renderer. It's not multi-threaded yet, so I couldn't make it go faster with both processors. So while that was rendering, I played a game of Quake. Q3 ran great, and the rendering still happened on time. Pretty slick.
"The point is that if Rockstar is going to include multiplayer in GTA then it will be in the PS2 release."
I agree with this point, but...
" If it is not in the PS2 release, Rockstar is not going to have multiplayer in the PC release."... I only half agree with this one. There's no reason to preclude the possiblity of multiplayer on the PC version. Likely? Probably not, but not precluded.
" You then said that gamers have more powerful machines than a PS2 in reply. Obviously, you don't respond to statements but instead like to shift arguments. "
Shifted the argument? Oooookay. I don't know what crawled up your ass, but you need to chill. Either agree to disagree or provide some proof of the average PC statstic back then. Getting mad at me and telling me I can't admit I'm wrong about anything is childlish at best.
"I will not be reading any more comments from NanoGator."
Grow up. If you can't play nice, don't tell other people to.
I>"I was not saying that GTA looks better on a PS2 [I don't know how you could have gotten that out of what I said] but rather, I was saying that, percentage wise, most PCs in operation right now are using outdated hardware."
I was talking about the current state of machines most gamers have right now. You're right, though, that I didn't clarify that enough. Most gaming machines out there have >=1 gig processors, >=512 meg of RAM, and a suitable video card to out do the PS2. Your statement is just plain untrue, it has been for a couple of years now.
"Why would Rockstar have to put up a server? There's no reason that the PS2 owners cannot host their own games."
For the same reason that Quake users cannot reasonably host their own games. Broadband connections don't typically have a high enough upload rate to be all that effective for FPS games.
"The reason is that PC online gaming is a much more mature medium. The market has been in development for a lot longer than the Dreamcast made the first real serious push for console online gaming. There's no reason why console games cannot play just the same online as a PC counterpart. Honestly, don't be so closeminded."
Close minded? This isn't about accepting people for who they are, it's about a market that nobody's been able to make any significant money on. The PC multiplayer market isn't there because it's mature, it's there because it exists on a different level from consoles. Setting up a PC as a game server is easy. Setting up a console isn't so easy. For starters, you don't even have a very effective input device to set everything up. This alone makes the PS2 or Dreamcast or any other console out there a difficult machine to use on the net without needing a custom service.
To put it more simply, the time for internet play on a console isn't here yet. It's in the early adopter phase, and with good reason. This isn't pessimism on my part, it's reflected by things Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo have discussed.
" This is a sensible, evenhanded consderation of the facts."
Switching over to a browser that's still in beta that doesn't have as many users to flush out problems is 'sensible and even handed'? Heh. Please. You're not insuring anything, you're just spinning a different roulette wheel.
"Let's assume that we're all talking about networked multiplayer [because if we're talking about two people playing the game while sitting next to each other, the PC is the worst option]. "
Yes I was talking about networked multiplayer, but you are wrong about two people sitting next to each other. Split screen == The suck. Even 1vs1 would be much better on the net.
"While the PS2 hardware is beginning to show its age, most of the PCs out there today still have less powerful hardware than the PS2."
This is ridiculously untrue. Go play Vice City on the PS2, then play it on a year old PC. HUGE difference on multiple levels.
"If Rockstar wants to spend extra time and cash on adding multiplayer to GTA, it would make the most sense to add it to the version of GTA that is going to sell the most copies - the PC version of GTA is not the one. This is simple ROI here."
I agree that the PS2 would draw a bigger audience. However, few PS2 owners are on-line. Rockstar would have to put up a server and demand people pay them for it. Wouldn't work. No way. The ROI is exactly why they WOULDN'T make it work on the PS2. At least with the PC, people will set up their own servers and get it going just like Quake or UR.
"Did I miss something? Your argument was rather brief. A statement without any supporting details. Please expand on that."
I hope I've clarified. There's a reason why the PC is mopping the floor with consoles in the on-line arena.
I would also suggest, though, that you'll never ever have a secure reliable system. Your computer can always be stolen or struck by lightning. A hard drive can fail. Etc. If you take the approach of "My computer could spotaneously combust" and deal with it that way, then you're in a far better world. Even the worst virus wouldn't cause you to lose your data.
You know that scene in the Matrix where Ted flails his arms about dodging bullets in slo-mo? Ever recreate that feeling by strategically going to the bathroom because you overheard something in the next cubicle suggesting your services might be volunteered?
"Because it's the media's job to disseminate important information, not ours."
Actually, the media's job is to take money to get your views out there.
"Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a commercial on network TV?"
Don't give me that crap. If you guys are really that passionate about making Mozilla into a competitor, open your wallet. There's enough of you that it wouldn't be a huge expenditure. If anything, it'd be a great way to reward the authors' hard work. Heck, making the commercial would be easy. I'm sitting on all the software and hardware I need to make a broadcast quality commercial right now.
" I actually wa being playful with the word Microsofties."
Liar. You wanted to get a shot in.
" Part of growing up is seeking clarifications as opposed to jumping to conclusions... Is the best that they can do to tell people to grow up or is that just your problem?"
Ah yes, the old "Actually you're at fault for my defect" rebuttal. Sorry bud, I'm not responsible for your behaviour. You know damn well what you meant. You didn't choose the words apologist or microsoftie because you're Captain Tact.
"Unless you give yourself an extra 6 months to a year of slack time, you are always going to have suicide hours near deadlines because shit always happens."
If it takes another 6 months, they should schedule another 6 months. That ain't slack time. If those dates are so important, they shouldn't be cutting it so close that Murphy's Law can derail the project.
"Everytime a new virus is in the wild or a new exploit is discovered, there are many lots of "comercials" and they get more and more with every time."
You mean the nauseating and tired "Just another reason to use Mozilla" comments that brew from them? No, these aren't effective Mozilla commercials for two reasons: 1.) You're preaching to the choir, 2.) you're drawing a line in the sand and sounding condescending at the same time.
If the perception that Mozilla is behind IE (and that perception is there, it wouldn't be helpful to treat it like it's not) then no security feature in the world is going to make it interesting. Tell people about pop-up blocking and tabbed browsing. Say it like "You should try this, I think you might like it" not "you're stupid for not using it", which is how the typical pro Mozilla propoganda here typically flows.
In short, some of you Mozilla zealots need to rethink your approach.
Slashdot Mirror
"How else will they know if their schoolchildren are being attacked by this month's Tentacle Monster?"
Boy am I relieved that the first +5 funny in this comment didn't have anything to do with the "they all look alike" stereotype.
"Looks a heck of a lot like Outlook to me. I didn't know Slashdot posters were in a habit of flattering Microsoft developers."
Yeah, they really should bash MS, even if they did something right.
"Only downside (and maybe this is good for the reason mentioned just now) is that most apps don't take advantage of multiple cpus yet."
It's still useful even when you don't have SMP software. If you have an app that's burnin all of one CPU up, you still have the other CPU available to do just about anything else. For example, I have a plugin for Lightwave that is a 3D renderer. It's not multi-threaded yet, so I couldn't make it go faster with both processors. So while that was rendering, I played a game of Quake. Q3 ran great, and the rendering still happened on time. Pretty slick.
" It's a pyramid scheme for geeks."
Actually, no, it is a game, and yes you are asked to pay for it.
"Of course, you can "pay" by recruiting other people who pay instead of you, which is why the above poster is advertising on Slashdot."
Actually, I'm an artist for the game. It's in my sig because I'm proud of it. You'll notice there's no referral info in my sig.
I don't care if you don't like the game or not. I don't care if you tell people you don't like the game. But to spread FUD? C'mon, man.
"None are any good, so why bother even looking?"
Because you cannot prove that something doesn't exist. Therefore, you cannot use that rational to explain why you won't look.
Half-Life!
"The point is that if Rockstar is going to include multiplayer in GTA then it will be in the PS2 release."
... I only half agree with this one. There's no reason to preclude the possiblity of multiplayer on the PC version. Likely? Probably not, but not precluded.
I agree with this point, but...
" If it is not in the PS2 release, Rockstar is not going to have multiplayer in the PC release."
" You then said that gamers have more powerful machines than a PS2 in reply. Obviously, you don't respond to statements but instead like to shift arguments. "
Shifted the argument? Oooookay. I don't know what crawled up your ass, but you need to chill. Either agree to disagree or provide some proof of the average PC statstic back then. Getting mad at me and telling me I can't admit I'm wrong about anything is childlish at best.
"I will not be reading any more comments from NanoGator."
Grow up. If you can't play nice, don't tell other people to.
I>"I was not saying that GTA looks better on a PS2 [I don't know how you could have gotten that out of what I said] but rather, I was saying that, percentage wise, most PCs in operation right now are using outdated hardware."
I was talking about the current state of machines most gamers have right now. You're right, though, that I didn't clarify that enough. Most gaming machines out there have >=1 gig processors, >=512 meg of RAM, and a suitable video card to out do the PS2. Your statement is just plain untrue, it has been for a couple of years now.
"Why would Rockstar have to put up a server? There's no reason that the PS2 owners cannot host their own games."
For the same reason that Quake users cannot reasonably host their own games. Broadband connections don't typically have a high enough upload rate to be all that effective for FPS games.
"The reason is that PC online gaming is a much more mature medium. The market has been in development for a lot longer than the Dreamcast made the first real serious push for console online gaming. There's no reason why console games cannot play just the same online as a PC counterpart. Honestly, don't be so closeminded."
Close minded? This isn't about accepting people for who they are, it's about a market that nobody's been able to make any significant money on. The PC multiplayer market isn't there because it's mature, it's there because it exists on a different level from consoles. Setting up a PC as a game server is easy. Setting up a console isn't so easy. For starters, you don't even have a very effective input device to set everything up. This alone makes the PS2 or Dreamcast or any other console out there a difficult machine to use on the net without needing a custom service.
To put it more simply, the time for internet play on a console isn't here yet. It's in the early adopter phase, and with good reason. This isn't pessimism on my part, it's reflected by things Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo have discussed.
" This is a sensible, evenhanded consderation of the facts."
Switching over to a browser that's still in beta that doesn't have as many users to flush out problems is 'sensible and even handed'? Heh. Please. You're not insuring anything, you're just spinning a different roulette wheel.
"Let's assume that we're all talking about networked multiplayer [because if we're talking about two people playing the game while sitting next to each other, the PC is the worst option]. "
Yes I was talking about networked multiplayer, but you are wrong about two people sitting next to each other. Split screen == The suck. Even 1vs1 would be much better on the net.
"While the PS2 hardware is beginning to show its age, most of the PCs out there today still have less powerful hardware than the PS2."
This is ridiculously untrue. Go play Vice City on the PS2, then play it on a year old PC. HUGE difference on multiple levels.
"If Rockstar wants to spend extra time and cash on adding multiplayer to GTA, it would make the most sense to add it to the version of GTA that is going to sell the most copies - the PC version of GTA is not the one. This is simple ROI here."
I agree that the PS2 would draw a bigger audience. However, few PS2 owners are on-line. Rockstar would have to put up a server and demand people pay them for it. Wouldn't work. No way. The ROI is exactly why they WOULDN'T make it work on the PS2. At least with the PC, people will set up their own servers and get it going just like Quake or UR.
"Did I miss something? Your argument was rather brief. A statement without any supporting details. Please expand on that."
I hope I've clarified. There's a reason why the PC is mopping the floor with consoles in the on-line arena.
...and keep in mind that shit happens.
I would also suggest, though, that you'll never ever have a secure reliable system. Your computer can always be stolen or struck by lightning. A hard drive can fail. Etc. If you take the approach of "My computer could spotaneously combust" and deal with it that way, then you're in a far better world. Even the worst virus wouldn't cause you to lose your data.
"A Beowulf-ski cluster of these"
What would that do besides tell time?
"Cool, but lame, i cant speak for others but who really cares about a Jurassic nintendo?"
Why'd you even post a comment?
"I wonder what you have to do to win at Crap Booth..."
Make a BSOD joke on Slashdot and get it to +5, Funny?
"Huh? You went to the bathroom to volunteer your services?"
No. I went to the bathrom because my services were volunteered.
You know that scene in the Matrix where Ted flails his arms about dodging bullets in slo-mo? Ever recreate that feeling by strategically going to the bathroom because you overheard something in the next cubicle suggesting your services might be volunteered?
"People throwing stuff out when I could use something besides the 1994 era Pentium I have right now."
For $100, I'll send you a P-P-P-Powerbook.
"I don't follow your point. Are only christians allowed to comment on scientific abuse? Or are Wiccans assumed to be anti-science?"
You Wiccans think you got it bad? It's assumed us Jedi never reproduce!
"well, stop using said software and hardware as an ass warmer and get to work :P"
Start taking donations. I ain't working my ass off only to have everybody suddenly become a cheapskate.
"Because it's the media's job to disseminate important information, not ours."
Actually, the media's job is to take money to get your views out there.
"Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a commercial on network TV?"
Don't give me that crap. If you guys are really that passionate about making Mozilla into a competitor, open your wallet. There's enough of you that it wouldn't be a huge expenditure. If anything, it'd be a great way to reward the authors' hard work. Heck, making the commercial would be easy. I'm sitting on all the software and hardware I need to make a broadcast quality commercial right now.
" I actually wa being playful with the word Microsofties."
Liar. You wanted to get a shot in.
" Part of growing up is seeking clarifications as opposed to jumping to conclusions... Is the best that they can do to tell people to grow up or is that just your problem?"
Ah yes, the old "Actually you're at fault for my defect" rebuttal. Sorry bud, I'm not responsible for your behaviour. You know damn well what you meant. You didn't choose the words apologist or microsoftie because you're Captain Tact.
"Unless you give yourself an extra 6 months to a year of slack time, you are always going to have suicide hours near deadlines because shit always happens."
If it takes another 6 months, they should schedule another 6 months. That ain't slack time. If those dates are so important, they shouldn't be cutting it so close that Murphy's Law can derail the project.
"Everytime a new virus is in the wild or a new exploit is discovered, there are many lots of "comercials" and they get more and more with every time."
You mean the nauseating and tired "Just another reason to use Mozilla" comments that brew from them? No, these aren't effective Mozilla commercials for two reasons: 1.) You're preaching to the choir, 2.) you're drawing a line in the sand and sounding condescending at the same time.
If the perception that Mozilla is behind IE (and that perception is there, it wouldn't be helpful to treat it like it's not) then no security feature in the world is going to make it interesting. Tell people about pop-up blocking and tabbed browsing. Say it like "You should try this, I think you might like it" not "you're stupid for not using it", which is how the typical pro Mozilla propoganda here typically flows.
In short, some of you Mozilla zealots need to rethink your approach.
"I stand by my comment."
You're using it in a derogatory manner, just like the subject title 'microsofties'.
I stand by my comment,you need to grow up.
"As soon as the IE apologists had a reason - a fleeting one, but a reason still - to act like IE wasn't so bad... the floodgates open."
The tactic of calling people who disagree with you 'apologists' is getting really old. "You don't knee-jerk hate Microsoft, you're an apologist!"
Grow up.