"have you ever used windows 2000 for more than 5 minutes on a 128 meg system? I have and even running more than one app at once is PAINFUL"
I have. The reason it's 'painful' is because I have it better today.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you'd be surprised how relative 'long' is to a computer user, especially one who hasn't spent hours or something spiffier. Don't forget what the BBS days were like.
Okay, sorry about the dumb ass question here, but I can't seem to find an answer:
Are AMD's and/or Intel's processors supposed to work in existing motherboards (err at least with SOME benefit...) or does upgrading to a dual core machine mean getting a new mobo?
So they're only going to release fee-based on-line games? Sony isn't going to charge fees for on-line play?
" no hard disk"...that hasn't been a huge hit with the XBOX to begin with.
"no chipping (for a while)"
Yeah, because millions of people have been chipping the original XBOX. Nobody gives a flying fuck, PS3 won't be any different.
" probably no decent games for the first year,"
If you think Sony isn't immune to this, then I suggest you look at the PS2 and PSP's launch lineup.
"Wait a few months"
Uh yeah, anywhere up to 12 months. Then you'll have to pre-order or it'll be closer to 15 before you get it.
" more powerful,"
Heh. Yeah, assuming
a.) Sony delivers on their promises. They don't have a good track record, here.
b.) The developers get 'more poweful' out of their dev kits. (Remember the Dreamcast games looking better than PS2 games?)
c.) There isn't a painful bottleneck created by an arrogant design. (i.e. too little video ram.)
"cheaper,"
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
" vastly better-supported"
You can have 'better supported', but 'vastly better' is subjective. If the PS3 has 50 more crap games that developers pooped out of their asses, then 'vastly-better' is hard to justify.
Somehow I doubt you've thought about this objectively.
"I'm not sure that the current generation of consoles is played-out."
There's a difference between "played out" and "I wanna see something new". Assuming the XBOX 2 is visually better than the XBOX (given the serious upgrade in texture RAM, I'd say this is likely) there'll be demand for it. Since the XBOX does have a decent following right now, they've already got their early adopter base.
"My main concern is that developers will not be ready to properly take advantage of the technology at launch."
The extra RAM alone will be more than enough. Textures will come in at higher res and in multiple passes. It's not like they'll have to turn the dev kit upside down to make this happen.
"This is all speculation and conjecture but my gut tells me that XBox 2 will be about as big a hit as the PSP. That is, some hardcore gamers will rush out and pick it up, but most will have a wait-and-see-PS3 mentality."
Eh. I don't think it's that clear. Part of the PSP's problem is that it's too expensive. Another part of the PSP's problem is that it's a portable PS2... so what? The XBOX 2, however, is (or at least should be) considerably more powerful. It shouldn't be any more than $299, which is a fairly standard price. And it's likely MS will show some compelling demos to say "Yep, this thing is cooll!" I've seen a few screengrabs of next-gen samples, and yeah, the difference will be noticable.
I can't say you're wrong, but you definitely will not be right until the event has happened.
"But no, you decided to criticise people when you are utterly ignorant of the facts at hand."
That's funny considering you're ignoring the facts at hand in order to criticize me.
"EVERYTHING to do with Internet Explorer being a shitty, shitty browser."
Though I'm not denying that IE is a piece of shit (I tossed it years ago.), you're full of shit when it comes to Slashdot's reasons to publish what they did.
If this had nothing to do with MS bashing, you wouldn't have gone this far. You're far too passionate for somebody who thinks it was an innocent comment.
"Are you a native English speaker? There is a big difference between "headline" and "summary"."
Yeah yeah, I said 'headline' when I should have said summary. Sorry I missed the difference and gave you shit about it.
However, you still could have used a little common sense about it. The only reason you were being that literal was to try to discredit me. To that I say, grow up. (And, yes, I should take my own advice.)
"The headline reads "Firefox and Opera Fail the Acid2 Test", when all browsers fail the test, and you are claiming that this is some kind of biased attack on Microsoft?"
Selective reading?
" Obviously though, they're no where near as lousy as Internet Explorer."
It's right there in the summary. Don't call me a troll if you're not even going to try listening to me. I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but being willfully ignorant isn't 'cool'.
"It was posted because it's news for nerds. It certainly wasn't posted because "it has a nice pretty number of how FireFox is better than IE", because it doesn't have a nice pretty number."
Right, that's why they snide comment about how lousy IE is was in the headline, right? You're deluding yourself.
" Which If the only commonality you can find between two things is lack of perfection, you need to look harder."
When I have to use IE because something didn't render right in Opera, then I have every right to demand perfection. Not only do the standards need to be supported, but thanks to the de-facto market share of IE, the mutations to the standard that Microsoft caused.
"So when Firefox applies the display: table-cell rule correctly, that's utterly meaningless and should be filed as a bug because Firefox applies other rules on the same page wrongly? You aren't making sense."
Fair enough. I was talking about standards compliance. Never mind, you win.
"What does open-source have to do with this?"
Obviously not what you claim it is. Let me ask you a question: Was this story posted to light a fire under the FireFox dev team to make it better, or was it posted because it has a nice pretty number of how FireFox is better than IE?
If your answer is the former, are you saying that because you want to 'win', or because you can honestly look at Slashdot's track record and tell me that it's fair and unbiased when it comes to Microsoft?
"Yes, there is. If Firefox gets, say, 90% of the CSS rules correct, and Internet Explorer gets, say, 40% of the CSS rules correct, that's significant."
At the end of the day, no it's not. Broken is broken.
"Huh? Firefox made the headline as failing the test. Internet Explorer didn't. And you consider that to be FUD against Microsoft?"
Let's see: "Obviously though, they're no where near as lousy as Internet Explorer."
"id you look at the FF rendering and the IE rendering? Neither is perfect, but the IE rendering is absolutely horrid."
When dealing with stuff like this, broken is broken. There's no degree of broken. It's not like Opera and FireFox can claim "well, when we break, there's only 25% degradation." In other words, just because the face was a little more legible in Opera or FireFox than IE, doesn't mean that in the real world, they'll at least be readable where IE absolutely will not.
Parent poster was right, that was anti-MS FUD. If FireFox was more disappointing, it wouldn't ahve been mentioned at all.
"Why would MS have to make the specific claim that the Xbox could do 66 million polygons per second in order to back up the foul-mouthed poster's case?"
That was more of a poke at Sony than it was a literal challenge. I'm not saying it never happened, but I don't recall MS claiming the XBOX was 6 times more powerful than it really was.
"And you look like a fucking moron to the console world after the lies the dumbfucks at MS told about how many millions of polygons the piece of shit xbox could pump out."
Bullshit. Show me where Microsoft claimed 66 million polygons a second.
"Keep your dimwitted mouth shut you pussy. Got that dweeb?"
Translation: I love Sony so don't be digging up dirt on them!
Tee hee giggle snort. If it's funny 300 times, it's sure to be funny 301 times!
Frankly, I'll take a crash on Live TV over blatant lying about how many millions of polygons can be rendered per second. *Glares accusingly in Sony's direction.*
Slashdot Mirror
"have you ever used windows 2000 for more than 5 minutes on a 128 meg system? I have and even running more than one app at once is PAINFUL"
I have. The reason it's 'painful' is because I have it better today.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you'd be surprised how relative 'long' is to a computer user, especially one who hasn't spent hours or something spiffier. Don't forget what the BBS days were like.
"The P-PEE?"
I prefered the original code name: Pentium Object Oriented Processor.
" But, seriously, how many CPU intensive applications outside of the server arena take advantage of SMP?"
I'd find your post interesting if not for a couple of factors:
1.) Your video card does more for gaming than your processor does.
2.) Do you really really really really really really think that game developers aren't going to take dual-core into mind if it makes a splash?
Okay, sorry about the dumb ass question here, but I can't seem to find an answer:
Are AMD's and/or Intel's processors supposed to work in existing motherboards (err at least with SOME benefit...) or does upgrading to a dual core machine mean getting a new mobo?
"Too bad most people don't have that chance."
Oh please. It doesn't need to be installed on their machines, it just needs to be known about.
Keep up the advertising, sheesh.
"HD functions they can't use,"
...that hasn't been a huge hit with the XBOX to begin with.
Whoop-de-fuck.
" fee-based online play"
So they're only going to release fee-based on-line games? Sony isn't going to charge fees for on-line play?
" no hard disk"
"no chipping (for a while)"
Yeah, because millions of people have been chipping the original XBOX. Nobody gives a flying fuck, PS3 won't be any different.
" probably no decent games for the first year,"
If you think Sony isn't immune to this, then I suggest you look at the PS2 and PSP's launch lineup.
"Wait a few months"
Uh yeah, anywhere up to 12 months. Then you'll have to pre-order or it'll be closer to 15 before you get it.
" more powerful,"
Heh. Yeah, assuming
a.) Sony delivers on their promises. They don't have a good track record, here.
b.) The developers get 'more poweful' out of their dev kits. (Remember the Dreamcast games looking better than PS2 games?)
c.) There isn't a painful bottleneck created by an arrogant design. (i.e. too little video ram.)
"cheaper,"
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
" vastly better-supported"
You can have 'better supported', but 'vastly better' is subjective. If the PS3 has 50 more crap games that developers pooped out of their asses, then 'vastly-better' is hard to justify.
Somehow I doubt you've thought about this objectively.
"I'm not sure that the current generation of consoles is played-out."
There's a difference between "played out" and "I wanna see something new". Assuming the XBOX 2 is visually better than the XBOX (given the serious upgrade in texture RAM, I'd say this is likely) there'll be demand for it. Since the XBOX does have a decent following right now, they've already got their early adopter base.
"My main concern is that developers will not be ready to properly take advantage of the technology at launch."
The extra RAM alone will be more than enough. Textures will come in at higher res and in multiple passes. It's not like they'll have to turn the dev kit upside down to make this happen.
"This is all speculation and conjecture but my gut tells me that XBox 2 will be about as big a hit as the PSP. That is, some hardcore gamers will rush out and pick it up, but most will have a wait-and-see-PS3 mentality."
Eh. I don't think it's that clear. Part of the PSP's problem is that it's too expensive. Another part of the PSP's problem is that it's a portable PS2... so what? The XBOX 2, however, is (or at least should be) considerably more powerful. It shouldn't be any more than $299, which is a fairly standard price. And it's likely MS will show some compelling demos to say "Yep, this thing is cooll!" I've seen a few screengrabs of next-gen samples, and yeah, the difference will be noticable.
I can't say you're wrong, but you definitely will not be right until the event has happened.
Pff, screw that! I'm gonna get bitten by a spider!!
(Yeah yeah, I know it's not very funny. I just wish my secretions were a little more useful.)
"Ever notice how there is never a clock visable in a department store?"
Heh. To be fair, they'd have to go out of their way to install clocks.
" As far as I know, he's got no connection to Slashdot."
So? Slashdot got to make fun of IE and praise FireFox in one blow. Gee, I wonder why they posted it?
" I'm emphatic, because I don't like to see people criticised by people who are ignorant of the issues,"
Whatever.
"How can a license for Windows 98 be $5?"
Send me $5 and I'll happily give you my copy. Heck, I'll pay YOU $5 to take it. Hurry up!!
"But no, you decided to criticise people when you are utterly ignorant of the facts at hand."
That's funny considering you're ignoring the facts at hand in order to criticize me.
"EVERYTHING to do with Internet Explorer being a shitty, shitty browser."
Though I'm not denying that IE is a piece of shit (I tossed it years ago.), you're full of shit when it comes to Slashdot's reasons to publish what they did.
If this had nothing to do with MS bashing, you wouldn't have gone this far. You're far too passionate for somebody who thinks it was an innocent comment.
"Are you a native English speaker? There is a big difference between "headline" and "summary"."
Yeah yeah, I said 'headline' when I should have said summary. Sorry I missed the difference and gave you shit about it.
However, you still could have used a little common sense about it. The only reason you were being that literal was to try to discredit me. To that I say, grow up. (And, yes, I should take my own advice.)
"The headline reads "Firefox and Opera Fail the Acid2 Test", when all browsers fail the test, and you are claiming that this is some kind of biased attack on Microsoft?"
Selective reading?
" Obviously though, they're no where near as lousy as Internet Explorer."
It's right there in the summary. Don't call me a troll if you're not even going to try listening to me. I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but being willfully ignorant isn't 'cool'.
"It was posted because it's news for nerds. It certainly wasn't posted because "it has a nice pretty number of how FireFox is better than IE", because it doesn't have a nice pretty number."
Right, that's why they snide comment about how lousy IE is was in the headline, right? You're deluding yourself.
"According to whom? And on what basis?"
Ask anybody who has to hop to IE to visit certain sites.
"How about "number of features correctly implemented" / "total number of features in spec"?"
Yeah, I retracted that bit. I was seeing things a little differently than others.
"FUD is a fairly specific charge to lay against someone, and in this case seems hard to justify. Editorial bias perhaps?"
I agree that Editorial bias is a stronger term than FUD in this case.
"And you know this how?"
4 years of experience reading Slashdot articles?
" Which If the only commonality you can find between two things is lack of perfection, you need to look harder."
When I have to use IE because something didn't render right in Opera, then I have every right to demand perfection. Not only do the standards need to be supported, but thanks to the de-facto market share of IE, the mutations to the standard that Microsoft caused.
"So when Firefox applies the display: table-cell rule correctly, that's utterly meaningless and should be filed as a bug because Firefox applies other rules on the same page wrongly? You aren't making sense."
Fair enough. I was talking about standards compliance. Never mind, you win.
"What does open-source have to do with this?"
Obviously not what you claim it is. Let me ask you a question: Was this story posted to light a fire under the FireFox dev team to make it better, or was it posted because it has a nice pretty number of how FireFox is better than IE?
If your answer is the former, are you saying that because you want to 'win', or because you can honestly look at Slashdot's track record and tell me that it's fair and unbiased when it comes to Microsoft?
"Yes, there is. If Firefox gets, say, 90% of the CSS rules correct, and Internet Explorer gets, say, 40% of the CSS rules correct, that's significant."
At the end of the day, no it's not. Broken is broken.
"Huh? Firefox made the headline as failing the test. Internet Explorer didn't. And you consider that to be FUD against Microsoft?"
Let's see: "Obviously though, they're no where near as lousy as Internet Explorer."
Let's all pat the OSS Community on the back!
"On the contrary - it would have made the first page."
Not without a snide comparison to MS.
"id you look at the FF rendering and the IE rendering? Neither is perfect, but the IE rendering is absolutely horrid."
When dealing with stuff like this, broken is broken. There's no degree of broken. It's not like Opera and FireFox can claim "well, when we break, there's only 25% degradation." In other words, just because the face was a little more legible in Opera or FireFox than IE, doesn't mean that in the real world, they'll at least be readable where IE absolutely will not.
Parent poster was right, that was anti-MS FUD. If FireFox was more disappointing, it wouldn't ahve been mentioned at all.
"Sure...it's fast now, but just wait until it goes into its depressive phase..."
That joke was two-thirds pun. P.U.
"Why would MS have to make the specific claim that the Xbox could do 66 million polygons per second in order to back up the foul-mouthed poster's case?"
That was more of a poke at Sony than it was a literal challenge. I'm not saying it never happened, but I don't recall MS claiming the XBOX was 6 times more powerful than it really was.
"And you look like a fucking moron to the console world after the lies the dumbfucks at MS told about how many millions of polygons the piece of shit xbox could pump out."
Bullshit. Show me where Microsoft claimed 66 million polygons a second.
"Keep your dimwitted mouth shut you pussy. Got that dweeb?"
Translation: I love Sony so don't be digging up dirt on them!
"3 to 1 it gets a BSOD while on live TV."
Tee hee giggle snort. If it's funny 300 times, it's sure to be funny 301 times!
Frankly, I'll take a crash on Live TV over blatant lying about how many millions of polygons can be rendered per second. *Glares accusingly in Sony's direction.*