Explain this to me: how come they say "Pingus is a free Lemmings clone for GNU/Linux and Windows covered under the GNU GPL" but don't have any Windows binaries? They *do* have a Windows version that explicitly states "DO NOT USE," however. I'm confused.
Y'know, this is an excellent point. I love all three Castlevania games for the GBA, and would welcome the chance to play them on the Cube and the new one on my GBA as well. Guess they figure they'll sell more copies on the XBox, I suppose.
...but have you asked them to resupply your original serial(s)? Surely they'd keep track of the serial numbers they've given out in the past, right? How much money are we talking about if you have to repurchase the software?
...from the press release: "Game Boy Micro represents the latest evolution in the image of the Game Boy Advance line, but it is not a successor to any current system."
All I have to say is THANK GOODNESS. I love my SP, and have no problems if other people want to buy this Micro, but I'm extremely glad that this isn't the GBA's successor. The entire reason I love my GBA SP is because of the clamshell design - my GB, GBC, and GBA all had their screens scratched to hell because of the open design.
Having said that, now that they're milking the GBA design for all it's worth & expanding the line with GBA v3, it's going to be a very long time before we get the GBA's successor, innit?
Typical DSL connexion (1500) can download 1GB in 1.5 hours, and a typical gamecube game is what, around 1.5 GBs, so I wouldn't call this completely out of reach.
Should have mentioned that I'm in Canada. My last player broke in January and I replaced it with a Pioneer that was $100 CAD which will hopefully last for a while. My point was that I'd rather pay $xxx for a Revolution a 3 or 4 year extended warranty rather than a warranty on two separate products.
But then again, I've never had a console that uses DVDs - does it really lessen the life of the product by that much by playing DVDs on it too?
Speaking from somebody who's had to buy three "extremely affordable" DVD players in as many years (I apparently have terrible luck, even tho I buy first tier players), Revolution with DVD capability is extremely attractive to me. Extremely. As in, buying one from Best Buy and buying an extended warranty on it.
Right now, I've got a DVD player and a Gamecube. I've also got a receiver to amplify sound b/c the sound on my TV absolutely sucks (but that's another story). I've got to use a KVM switch (dunno what they're called to switch between DVD and gamecube, but you get the idea) to manually switch between the two systems when I want to go from one to the other.
Also, when my current DVD player breaks down, I can pay a bit (???) more and get a Revolution. In other words, I'm saving about $100 off the purchase price. There is absolutely no downside that I can see, especially since mini-DVDs can currently be used in conjunction with a mod chip to play burned Gamecube games right now anyway (so risk of piracy is the same).
I think that this is the greatest notebook to ever hit the market. Not only would you be able to get crystal-clear viewing of any movie you'd care to watch on the road, but your eyes wouldn't be damaged and you would get quite the workout! I, for one, am all for it.
Sincerely, the American Association of Chiropractors.
"But to get back to you comment - we certainly don't need images to focus on worshipping God. If I am driving or I don't have any icons around, I surely can pray and worship God. But I also find it much easier probably to pray and focus on Christ if I have his icon in front of me instead of a bare white wall. You can look at this another way. If you are a Christian (I assume you are) you know that the human person consists of a body and a soul. So when the person is worshipping it only makes sense to fully engage a person's body and soul. The icons engage the visual senses, the incense engages the sense of smell, the hymns (songs) the auditory senses, the venerating of the icons - the tactile. Thus when I walk into an Orthodox Church I can easier focus on worship, as my whole body is worshipping not just my soul and mind. I will say again though that it is certainly possible to pray without having an icon."
I can go along with this. Many Catholic and Protestant churches use an "icon" of the cross or crucifix, and you're right: at times it *would* be easier to pray with a visual representation sitting in front of me. About a year ago I got a tattoo of the burning bush (a visual incarnation, if you will, of God on earth, with the tattoo being an "icon" depicting this) on my left wrist precisely for this reason.
"What the original poster wanted to say, I believe, is that the core doctrine and key practices (such as communion) has stayed unchanged since Pentacost, such as the meeting and the breaking of the bread, the common prayer, along with a certain Tradition that has been passed over the generations. The Church as the Orthodox see it is a living organism, it grows and evolves through the ages while keeping its main doctrinal beliefs. Some practices such as meeting in private homes are not necessary because there is no persecution of Christian in US and everyone can worship together at a Church if they wish, the washing of the feet is not performed today because it was just a local tradition in the East and it is not part of today's culture. At the same time such beliefs that "God is Trinity" has not changed and remained the same. Well, I hope this helps and it is not too much information all at once."
See, this makes sense to me. I must have been confused, as I thought he was claiming that the Orthodox church is exactly the same as the early church in Acts 2. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain all of this to me! It's not very often that I'm able to listen to the perspectives of other Christians, Orthodox no less, on Slashdot! Thanks!
Just as the Church believes the Holy Spirit came up the apostles at Pentacost, it believes that the Holy Spirit now remains in the bishops.
Well, I can't really argue against that, but what about the spirit of socialism that is extremely obvious in Acts? How is this reflected in the Orthodox church today? Just curious, not an attack.
Iconography was defended at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicaea) in 787. I would recommend reading a history of the icon controversy. In short, if one follows reason, denying the veneration of icons is denying the Incarnation.
Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. There was one Incarnation, not many; when Jesus left, God's physical incarnation on earth left. In my opinion, iconography has nothing to do with God at all. HOWEVER, if it is truly *veneration* and not worship (i.e. not proscribed by "You shall not have any idols before you"), then I don't have a problem with it, except for the fact that iconography seems counter to the spirit of the Pentecost, where people were more important than physical possessions. In my little Protestant mind, I find it difficult to understand why people need to use images in order to focus on worshipping God.
The high church tradition was there from the start. Read the Revelation to St John or the collection of the Apostolic Fathers. The apologies of Justin Martyr also show how the earliest communities had a "high church" liturgical tradition.
The Apocalypse/Revelation is the most disputed book in the Bible; one interpretation of it (a vision, no less, that is extremely unclear as to what it is referring to) is not good enough to justify an emphasis on high church worship. As for the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr: you're using non-canonical books (i.e. books that are not accepted as canonical by all denominations of Christianity) to prove your point, which means that I simply cannot accept your premise. If we were both Orthodox I might be able to argue the point further, but as it is these books *to me* mean nothing, whether they support the high church tradition or not.
I find it odd you think that Orthodox liturgy is somehow dry ritual instead of experience of God. Many have converted to Orthodoxy because of their experience of beauty and profound spirituality in the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Sure, liturgy can be performed lifelessly, but I don't think that's the norm in Orthodoxy.
This is probably because of my relative inexperience with the Orthodox church. I've attended a few Orthodox services and funerals, but i simply don't know the ritual or the background behind it well enough to be able to "relax" and "enjoy" it (don't know how else to put it). The repetition really bugs me;) Most of the orthodox churches I've been to have been ukrainian, and since I don't understand the language, it makes it even more difficult. Understand that this is a matter of preference for me, and nothing more. Sorry if I came across badly!
It is the affirmation of the Orthodox Church that it is the One Holy and Apostolic Church of Christ and have been since Pentacost. This statement is found in many apologetic materials as well as on the websites of many Orthodox parishes. How can I be trolling simply by showing what the Church considers itself to be?
You misunderstand me. All three (four?) strands of Christianity believe that they're the one true Church. What I meant was that I find nothing in the Orthodox church that resembles the Pentecost as described in Acts. After your thoughtful reply, I don't believe that you were trolling at all, and I'm sorry for the accusation. But look at what happens in Acts 2: people speak in tongues, Peter says that people will have visions and dreams from God, people repented and were baptised, and people sold what t
To risk showing off my ignorance, I do know a few Messianic Jews and they absolutely consider themselves to be Jewish, except for the fact that they believe that the Messianic prophecies in the Prophets were fulfilled by Christ. From a strictly Jewish viewpoint, I suppose, they would be considered a "cult" (not in the David Caresh manner, but as Mormonism is considered to be a "cult" in regards to mainstream Christianity), and so might not be considered Jewish by everybody. My point still stands: Messianic Jews and Christians might believe the same thing, but their practices differ. Whether mainstream Jews consider Messianic Jews to be Jews is another matter; Mormons, for example, consider themselves Christians, which I would vehemently oppose. Sorry for not making myself clearer in my original post.
Speaking of propaganda... I have a hard time believing that the Orthodox church operates in exactly the same manner as Peter and the other apostles during the Pentecost. Please explain how the Orthodox church maintains the spirit of the Pentecost, and explain the focus on iconography and High Church tendencies (i.e. ritual over experience). Oh, and incense, how does that fit in? I'm not meaning to be harsh, but your statement is just so blatantly untrue that either you're trolling, or you honestly have no idea about what you're saying. Technically, yes, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic church split (the orthodox didn't really break off from the RC church any more than the RC church broke off from the orthodox church), but I think the spirit of ym original point remains.
Back off-topic: aside from a few denominations within Protestantism (the Vineyard movement, for one), I can't think of any modern church or church-like group that operates in exactly the same manner as those during Pentecost. The Friends (Quakers) are pretty close, as far as I know, given their predilections for social agitation and equality for all, but they're not quite socialist enough. Mennonites & the like who live on communes have the socialist aspect down, but they don't evangelise, which was *the* fundamental principle of the early church.
I'm going to have to agree with this. There are a lot of things that authors can do unintentionally, and lit crit can definitely disagree with even what an author herself says about their work, but it can't be an allegory if the author didn't create it as an allegory. If such a work resembles an allegory, it's either a coincidence or the result of some sort of unconscious influence that the author is not aware of.
Uh, yeah, but there's a huge difference between Protestantism and the Orthodox church. Huge. They're on two different ends of the spectrum, and there's no direct link between the two (Orthodox broke off from "Christianity"/Roman Catholicism first, around 1000 CE I believe, and Protestantism broke off from Roman Catholicism what, five hundred years later?)
Not exactly. Christians believe that Jesus came to free us from the legalism of the Torah; no more sacrifices, no more strict adherence to Levitical dietary laws, etc. Messianic Judaism (which is what you're describing, I believe) is Judaism that believes that Jesus was the Messiah prophesised in the Hebrew Scriptures. Obviously there's still no more sacrifice (as the temple's the only place where it can happen, and the temple hasn't been in Jerusalem for two thousand years), but Messianic Judaism and Christianity are still two different... sects? Religions?
I am stating that MS makes their products future incompatabile, and this creates an obstacle for broad-based OOo usage. The question is when and if compatability with.doc format 20xx is no longer an obstacle because enough people use.doc format [OOo supported version]. Have I made myself clear now?
No, actually, you're not making yourself clear. Microsoft is free to do what they want to do with their products. People have a choice - they can buy MS, or they can use OOo for free. You ask whether we as users should put up with this constant revision of the.doc format, but the only real choice we have is to either use Microsoft or not use it and hope that an alternative is good enough to save/load *real* MS Word documents. How can one "put up" with Microsoft without making any decision as to which product they will use? You're not being very clear here.
In fact, it seems to me that all you're doing is wringing your hands and saying "Microsoft isn't playing fair!" Well, of course they're not. This isn't Neowin, this is Slashdot, where we know that MS uses monopolistic tactics to undermine the competition. Will consumers put up with it? Yes, because MS Office, for example, is the best office suite on the market right now. This is strictly in terms of quality and not price, mind you.
Honestly, there's no way out. Competitors need to be able to read/write MS.doc files, but they also need to prove that they can exist independently of MS. Since MS is so prevalent on the market today, the.doc format is standard. The only way that OOo, for example, could break this stranglehold is by establishing a superior product for less money while not only providing perfect translation between OOo and MS Office files, but giving users a compelling reason to use OOo and not MS Office itself. This requires that they get out ahead of MS and stay there, which in my opinion requires a totally different approach. It also requires that Microsoft "plays fair," which is simply never going to happen.
OOo is a fairly good product (I know you'll laugh, but I find OOo to be more bloated than MS Office), but there's simply in an untenable position, given the current state of the market. MS knows that if they create a transparent format, then they will lose to free alternatives such as OOo, so unless I'm missing something, there's absolutely no inspiration for them to do so.
As for benefits to users: Honestly, the gradual evolution from Office 97 to 2003 isn't as pronounced as it was from Office 6 to 95, but 2003 is a solid product, bar none. I know, I know, we all hate M$ here, but you sometimes gotta give credit where credit's due. For OOo to be almost as good as MS Office itself is, in a way, a huge compliment, though slightly back-handed.
Now, given all of this, do you have any suggestions as to how OOo can dig itself out from under the thumb of Microsoft and gain its own market share while remaining independent of the.doc format? Honestly, I'd really like to hear it, no sarcasm!
So let me get this straight: you're complaining that MS changes the.doc format so that competitors can't use it? Heaven forbid they change the format without first consulting with companies competing for market share!
I don't know if you actually use Word, but I can open.doc files from as far back as 95 in Word 2003 without a hitch. In fact, I can even *save* them in Word 95 format, though some extra-fancy formatting gets lost (I've never experienced it, so I can't really comment on what's lost in the translation). So when you say the "current, working versions of the.doc format," what you really mean is a.doc format written by Word *97* or newer. Are you really complaining because they're not making their product completely backwards compatible with products released over nine years ago?
I used OOo for about a year, and I found it to be more bloated than MS Office ever was. It's close enough to Word XP/2003 that it's comparable (esp. if you take into consideration the price points), but there's no way I'd ditch my legal copy of Office 2003 for OOo. What I'd *really* like to see is a lightweight edition of Office 2003, programs that have just the basics (including stuff like track changes, I suppose) and addons as necessary in order to get features that you absolutely need, a la Firefox. OOo is simply emulating MS Office, which is doomed to failure because there's no way that they can ever meet or exceed Microsoft, except by price.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I install an operating system just to play games ;)
Explain this to me: how come they say "Pingus is a free Lemmings clone for GNU/Linux and Windows covered under the GNU GPL" but don't have any Windows binaries? They *do* have a Windows version that explicitly states "DO NOT USE," however. I'm confused.
Y'know, this is an excellent point. I love all three Castlevania games for the GBA, and would welcome the chance to play them on the Cube and the new one on my GBA as well. Guess they figure they'll sell more copies on the XBox, I suppose.
I just typed in random user/email passwords until I hit one that worked. Like penny/penny, slashdot/slashdot, or whatnot. Works pretty well.
...but have you asked them to resupply your original serial(s)? Surely they'd keep track of the serial numbers they've given out in the past, right? How much money are we talking about if you have to repurchase the software?
Do you have a linkie for this? Sad if it's true...
All I have to say is THANK GOODNESS. I love my SP, and have no problems if other people want to buy this Micro, but I'm extremely glad that this isn't the GBA's successor. The entire reason I love my GBA SP is because of the clamshell design - my GB, GBC, and GBA all had their screens scratched to hell because of the open design.
Having said that, now that they're milking the GBA design for all it's worth & expanding the line with GBA v3, it's going to be a very long time before we get the GBA's successor, innit?
Typical DSL connexion (1500) can download 1GB in 1.5 hours, and a typical gamecube game is what, around 1.5 GBs, so I wouldn't call this completely out of reach.
But then again, I've never had a console that uses DVDs - does it really lessen the life of the product by that much by playing DVDs on it too?
Right now, I've got a DVD player and a Gamecube. I've also got a receiver to amplify sound b/c the sound on my TV absolutely sucks (but that's another story). I've got to use a KVM switch (dunno what they're called to switch between DVD and gamecube, but you get the idea) to manually switch between the two systems when I want to go from one to the other.
Also, when my current DVD player breaks down, I can pay a bit (???) more and get a Revolution. In other words, I'm saving about $100 off the purchase price. There is absolutely no downside that I can see, especially since mini-DVDs can currently be used in conjunction with a mod chip to play burned Gamecube games right now anyway (so risk of piracy is the same).
Considering it's one of the most widely taught novels in *Canada*, let alone the UK, I'd say yes.
You know it was a joke, right? An homage to spurous product endorsements by various non-related groups?
Sincerely, the American Association of Chiropractors.
I can go along with this. Many Catholic and Protestant churches use an "icon" of the cross or crucifix, and you're right: at times it *would* be easier to pray with a visual representation sitting in front of me. About a year ago I got a tattoo of the burning bush (a visual incarnation, if you will, of God on earth, with the tattoo being an "icon" depicting this) on my left wrist precisely for this reason.
"What the original poster wanted to say, I believe, is that the core doctrine and key practices (such as communion) has stayed unchanged since Pentacost, such as the meeting and the breaking of the bread, the common prayer, along with a certain Tradition that has been passed over the generations. The Church as the Orthodox see it is a living organism, it grows and evolves through the ages while keeping its main doctrinal beliefs. Some practices such as meeting in private homes are not necessary because there is no persecution of Christian in US and everyone can worship together at a Church if they wish, the washing of the feet is not performed today because it was just a local tradition in the East and it is not part of today's culture. At the same time such beliefs that "God is Trinity" has not changed and remained the same. Well, I hope this helps and it is not too much information all at once."
See, this makes sense to me. I must have been confused, as I thought he was claiming that the Orthodox church is exactly the same as the early church in Acts 2. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain all of this to me! It's not very often that I'm able to listen to the perspectives of other Christians, Orthodox no less, on Slashdot! Thanks!
You might be right... I've only heard of Messianic Jews, not Jews for Christ, so there ya go ;)
Well, I can't really argue against that, but what about the spirit of socialism that is extremely obvious in Acts? How is this reflected in the Orthodox church today? Just curious, not an attack.
Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. There was one Incarnation, not many; when Jesus left, God's physical incarnation on earth left. In my opinion, iconography has nothing to do with God at all. HOWEVER, if it is truly *veneration* and not worship (i.e. not proscribed by "You shall not have any idols before you"), then I don't have a problem with it, except for the fact that iconography seems counter to the spirit of the Pentecost, where people were more important than physical possessions. In my little Protestant mind, I find it difficult to understand why people need to use images in order to focus on worshipping God.
The Apocalypse/Revelation is the most disputed book in the Bible; one interpretation of it (a vision, no less, that is extremely unclear as to what it is referring to) is not good enough to justify an emphasis on high church worship. As for the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr: you're using non-canonical books (i.e. books that are not accepted as canonical by all denominations of Christianity) to prove your point, which means that I simply cannot accept your premise. If we were both Orthodox I might be able to argue the point further, but as it is these books *to me* mean nothing, whether they support the high church tradition or not.
This is probably because of my relative inexperience with the Orthodox church. I've attended a few Orthodox services and funerals, but i simply don't know the ritual or the background behind it well enough to be able to "relax" and "enjoy" it (don't know how else to put it). The repetition really bugs me ;) Most of the orthodox churches I've been to have been ukrainian, and since I don't understand the language, it makes it even more difficult. Understand that this is a matter of preference for me, and nothing more. Sorry if I came across badly!
You misunderstand me. All three (four?) strands of Christianity believe that they're the one true Church. What I meant was that I find nothing in the Orthodox church that resembles the Pentecost as described in Acts. After your thoughtful reply, I don't believe that you were trolling at all, and I'm sorry for the accusation. But look at what happens in Acts 2: people speak in tongues, Peter says that people will have visions and dreams from God, people repented and were baptised, and people sold what t
To risk showing off my ignorance, I do know a few Messianic Jews and they absolutely consider themselves to be Jewish, except for the fact that they believe that the Messianic prophecies in the Prophets were fulfilled by Christ. From a strictly Jewish viewpoint, I suppose, they would be considered a "cult" (not in the David Caresh manner, but as Mormonism is considered to be a "cult" in regards to mainstream Christianity), and so might not be considered Jewish by everybody. My point still stands: Messianic Jews and Christians might believe the same thing, but their practices differ. Whether mainstream Jews consider Messianic Jews to be Jews is another matter; Mormons, for example, consider themselves Christians, which I would vehemently oppose. Sorry for not making myself clearer in my original post.
Back off-topic: aside from a few denominations within Protestantism (the Vineyard movement, for one), I can't think of any modern church or church-like group that operates in exactly the same manner as those during Pentecost. The Friends (Quakers) are pretty close, as far as I know, given their predilections for social agitation and equality for all, but they're not quite socialist enough. Mennonites & the like who live on communes have the socialist aspect down, but they don't evangelise, which was *the* fundamental principle of the early church.
I'm going to have to agree with this. There are a lot of things that authors can do unintentionally, and lit crit can definitely disagree with even what an author herself says about their work, but it can't be an allegory if the author didn't create it as an allegory. If such a work resembles an allegory, it's either a coincidence or the result of some sort of unconscious influence that the author is not aware of.
Uh, yeah, but there's a huge difference between Protestantism and the Orthodox church. Huge. They're on two different ends of the spectrum, and there's no direct link between the two (Orthodox broke off from "Christianity"/Roman Catholicism first, around 1000 CE I believe, and Protestantism broke off from Roman Catholicism what, five hundred years later?)
Not exactly. Christians believe that Jesus came to free us from the legalism of the Torah; no more sacrifices, no more strict adherence to Levitical dietary laws, etc. Messianic Judaism (which is what you're describing, I believe) is Judaism that believes that Jesus was the Messiah prophesised in the Hebrew Scriptures. Obviously there's still no more sacrifice (as the temple's the only place where it can happen, and the temple hasn't been in Jerusalem for two thousand years), but Messianic Judaism and Christianity are still two different... sects? Religions?
MSI RS480M2-IL mATX mobo has an ATI X300-equivalent video card, and it's about $100 USD. There ya go!
MSI RS480M2-IL mATX motherboard is about $100 USD and has an onboard video card equivalent to an ATI X300. It's DX9 compatible as well.
No, actually, you're not making yourself clear. Microsoft is free to do what they want to do with their products. People have a choice - they can buy MS, or they can use OOo for free. You ask whether we as users should put up with this constant revision of the .doc format, but the only real choice we have is to either use Microsoft or not use it and hope that an alternative is good enough to save/load *real* MS Word documents. How can one "put up" with Microsoft without making any decision as to which product they will use? You're not being very clear here.
In fact, it seems to me that all you're doing is wringing your hands and saying "Microsoft isn't playing fair!" Well, of course they're not. This isn't Neowin, this is Slashdot, where we know that MS uses monopolistic tactics to undermine the competition. Will consumers put up with it? Yes, because MS Office, for example, is the best office suite on the market right now. This is strictly in terms of quality and not price, mind you.
Honestly, there's no way out. Competitors need to be able to read/write MS .doc files, but they also need to prove that they can exist independently of MS. Since MS is so prevalent on the market today, the .doc format is standard. The only way that OOo, for example, could break this stranglehold is by establishing a superior product for less money while not only providing perfect translation between OOo and MS Office files, but giving users a compelling reason to use OOo and not MS Office itself. This requires that they get out ahead of MS and stay there, which in my opinion requires a totally different approach. It also requires that Microsoft "plays fair," which is simply never going to happen.
OOo is a fairly good product (I know you'll laugh, but I find OOo to be more bloated than MS Office), but there's simply in an untenable position, given the current state of the market. MS knows that if they create a transparent format, then they will lose to free alternatives such as OOo, so unless I'm missing something, there's absolutely no inspiration for them to do so.
As for benefits to users: Honestly, the gradual evolution from Office 97 to 2003 isn't as pronounced as it was from Office 6 to 95, but 2003 is a solid product, bar none. I know, I know, we all hate M$ here, but you sometimes gotta give credit where credit's due. For OOo to be almost as good as MS Office itself is, in a way, a huge compliment, though slightly back-handed.
Now, given all of this, do you have any suggestions as to how OOo can dig itself out from under the thumb of Microsoft and gain its own market share while remaining independent of the .doc format? Honestly, I'd really like to hear it, no sarcasm!
I don't know if you actually use Word, but I can open .doc files from as far back as 95 in Word 2003 without a hitch. In fact, I can even *save* them in Word 95 format, though some extra-fancy formatting gets lost (I've never experienced it, so I can't really comment on what's lost in the translation). So when you say the "current, working versions of the .doc format," what you really mean is a .doc format written by Word *97* or newer. Are you really complaining because they're not making their product completely backwards compatible with products released over nine years ago?
I used OOo for about a year, and I found it to be more bloated than MS Office ever was. It's close enough to Word XP/2003 that it's comparable (esp. if you take into consideration the price points), but there's no way I'd ditch my legal copy of Office 2003 for OOo. What I'd *really* like to see is a lightweight edition of Office 2003, programs that have just the basics (including stuff like track changes, I suppose) and addons as necessary in order to get features that you absolutely need, a la Firefox. OOo is simply emulating MS Office, which is doomed to failure because there's no way that they can ever meet or exceed Microsoft, except by price.