Wow, and I thought it was just me! I had a SB Live card whose 'support' was definitely limited at best. After having issues with my VIA-based chipset, I threw up my hands and finally went with the onboard sound.
The only big issues I've found with that are expected ones - don't try and use it for any serious audio work involving analog input and synthesis as the signal to noise ratio is not so good. For gaming and movie playback it works fine - and hassle free.
I've been waiting for this thread to confirm what I've suspected for a while now - Creative just doesn't care anymore.
I don't know about you guys, but wasn't it AMD not too long ago who released a '9600/9800'? I think it might be time to come up with a new numbering schema - maybe a whole new marketing plan. It reminds me of how pinball manufacturers jacked up scores to make their pinballs look more impressive. They started out with targets and bumpers worth 1-5 points, and towards the end, a ball would hit a mumber and BOOM! 10,000 points was scored. Stupid.
Please don't tell me we're going to have the Nvidia 10,000 or the AMD/ATI 1,000,000+...
Damn, you never know how good you have it until you look back at the old days. Let's see how this comment would've played out almost 20 years ago or so.
'Have you even tried to play Castle Wolfenstein? It takes far more PC than most people have. and that same problem plagued ID on it's last 2 releases for almost 2 years. Hell I know people that STILL dont have a pc capable of running Wolfenstein at any playable speeds. Gaming companies are killing themselves. They are selling games that require a 40MHz 386, 4 MB RAM, and a $500.00 co-processor chip. While the world is happy as hell with their 3 year old 286 6 MHz running that $45.00 ISA CGA card.
you cant sell a crapload of games that runs on hardware that most people dont have.'
Ah, you see, this argument is not new my friend, I've been through the upgrade wringer again and again, and like most dedicated PC gamers, I don't bitch about it. Why? Because we like what we like. I want state of the art. A console is locked into what it comes with - which is usually pretty advanced at first, but becomes stale quickly. I find myself upgrading every year or two without fail and that's ok for me. The games that are making it to the PC (Orange Box, Sins of a Solar Empire, Bioshock), are terrific to play - and yes, I still want my mouse.
Since these packages are all separate programs, how does this affect the performance of the computer it runs on? One of our students wanted to get on our wireless connection. She had a, just-out-of-the-box, brand new HP laptop with 1 GB of RAM running Vista and the full Norton suite.
It took almost 3 minutes just to get to network prefs. The process should have taken less than 30 seconds but ended up being closer to 7 minutes!
We tend to measure computer speed in GHz, but there needs to be a new standard set here - I call it: DRAGWARE. How much more drag will a bot-net detector put on an already bogged down system? If every program or DLL has to go through a torture test before it can even be executed, does that effectively make a 3 GHz Dual-Core processor run like it's 900 MHz?
Go ahead and see for yourself like I have. Take an Intel processor running Vista and dragwar and put it up against Linux on the same machine or even the Mac. The difference will astound you.
...has infuriated me for some time. This idea that some things are 'viruses' and others, 'spyware'. Last year, I tried to nail down Sophos on this very thing. If I'm protected against viruses, shouldn't I also, by default, be protected against spyware since that's how it usually gets on there in the first place?
'Oh no', they tell me. 'That's different...' Yeah. I see that. Now we got this going on.
People want their computers to be protected against any form of intrusion - from within or without - regardless of how it's classified. The reality is, that there are now forms of malware out there that are either undetectable or incurable once you have them. I use a gateway to help protect our computers, but every once in a while it still happens.
You and me both man! We've been using Zimbra here for almost two years now and I've had ZERO problems compared to the mess that was Exchange. The thought of having to go back to Exchange now makes me want to huddle into myself in the farthest corner of the room.
On the other hand, Zimbra IS open source. It is possible for the project to go on under different leadership. It's just that the Outlook connector and mobile stuff would need rewriting as this is not OSS.
Isn't that funny? And I thought I was the only one who introduced his young child to 2600-type games early on. And for precisely the reasons you gave. Game rules were so much easier back then!
My son was diagnosed with Autism when he was only 2 1/2 years old. While it was devastating news, we were determined to make life as normal as possible for him. When my boy was three, I let him try my Dreamcast copy of RUSH: 2049. He could steer the car, or make it go forward - but not both.:) Poor kid. But he was insistent on playing that game - I think he liked how the car went 'boom!', and that happens a lot when all you can do is go forward.
A few months later and he completed it, finding all the 'bonus' areas - stuff I'd never found myself!
It was a huge accomplishment for him - and maybe one of the first times he could point to something and say that he had done it on his own. But playing WITH him was key. Helping him hold the controller correctly and teaching him how to manipulate the controls was a real bonding experience for both of us.
Now, a few years later, I upgraded him to a Linux box running Mint Linux. After discovering how to use Synaptic to install new apps, a few months ago he told me, "My computer's too SLOW dad!" and that was just music to my ears!;)/Yes I upgraded him...
You know, Atari's basic wasn't exactly great either. You usually ended up resorting to peeks and pokes just to get some semblance of speed out of it - but then, that was part and parcel interpretive basic in general. And for the record, the C64's character graphics were terrific and easy to program. Player/Missile graphics.. Uhhh, not so much. BUT, all you'd need is a look at 'Rescue on Fractalus' or 'Blue Max' on both machines to realize that there are advantages to both architectures.
I actually purchased a compiled basic called, 'Action Basic' which was just awesome. Came on a cartridge and was fast, fast, FAST. I actually coded an antialias routine for graphics modes 9 & 11 using pseudo-code I found in a Byte magazine article. It took me a few hours to debug my creation and then all of about 3 seconds to execute. Then my friend showed me up with his Mindset computer (look it up), and his performed that code in about.1 seconds. That was in 1984, and it was about then that I realized MHz might just matter.
Let's just say that comparing graphics was not an easy thing to do back then or now. True, Ultima III didn't look so hot on the Atari (I believe it used psudo colors in the 'hires' mode like the Apple II did), BUT I could give you a number of other examples of games that completely redefined quality gaming.
Throughout the early 80's, the top selling computer game was Atari's Star Raiders - and for good reason. Unbelievable graphics for 1979, great gameplay and sound. In fact, I don't believe anything approaching the quality of that game appeared for years afterward (I'm thinking Wing Commander here). I remember that it was still on the top 10 games list well into 1984. Do you know of any other game that could claim almost FOUR years of shelf life and still be a top seller?
Take a look at the first four Lucasfilm games - in particular - Rescue on Fractalus and Ballblazer. What GAMES! Because of the different graphics modes you had the best gaming experience on the Ataris. But again, you could give me Impossible Mission or Blue Max on the C=64 with their impeccible sprite-based graphics and they were sharp as well.
It was harder to program that sort of thing on the Atari computers. You had to worry about different memory specs, a changing ROM (that really threw off compatibility and disgusted a number of developers), and numbers (Commodore's advertising back then was just amazing!) You also didn't have a lot of help from the hardware. If you wanted good sound generation, you'd have to dev that yourself as the hardware didn't support any sort of ADSR or multiple wave selection. If you wanted sprite-based stuff, again, you'd have to develop that from scratch. There were those who did a great job with it though. Examples that come to mind are, 'Alley Cat' and the 'Shamus' series by Synapse, and Bounty Bob Strikes Back by Big Five. Some of the best gaming ever on the Ataris, or anywhere for that matter!
Here it is, breaking it down:
Atari's Strengths:
- Multiple display types available on the same screen. You could mix different resolutions and color palettes on the same screen. - Display lists could include 128 colors at once. - Faster 6502 processor (1.83 MHz as opposed to the C='s 1.0) - Disk drives that didn't make you hang your head in shame.
Commodore's Strengths:
- Sprites! With color even. Atari's limited player/missile gfx left much to be desired comparatively. - Only three voice sound but GOOD sound, not just basic tone generation like on the Ataris. - Memory - with 64K as a standard, programmers didn't have to futz with trying to cater to different computer specs. - ROM that stayed the same, even through the C128 years. Compatibility was never an issue with the C=64 line. It was on the Atari.
In all, I'd have to say that both computers were very competitive on spec. But look at how OLD the Atari was before the C=64 came along! With very few changes, that computer system was still competitive until the ST/Amigas arrived. Atari got stomped on by C='s marketing, Jack Tramiel's price war, and the fact that even Atari was buying directly from MOS Technology for the ROM's and 6502. MOS Tech - you remember, right? That wholly owned subsidary of Commodore, International?:)
No, he purposely says, FAH-Ker. A blending of Father and Fucker. Intentional. Brilliant, as was Hauer's 'tears in rain' comment - also made on the spot.
Or A.I. for that matter, I'll bet. Tell me, did you think the creatures at the end of A.I. were aliens too? Before it was excusable if you didn't get a movie, these days there are forums and reviews all over the Internet that can clear that sort of thing up for you BEFORE you post!
That's funny, I was just thinking how much this thing's specs reminded me of my two year old Fujitsu Lifebook. Same screen size, processor, chipset, wireless, etc. Except when I bought it, it was over $1700!
That 900 MHz Pentium M is a goer compared to most VIA's and Geodes. I think this could be a terrific tool for a student.
If batteries/caps are that good and cheap as to allow for a totally electric car, than putting one in a solar powered home would be a no-brainer.
Re:Attention! It's all about the ATTENTION!
on
Project Arcade
·
· Score: 1
They sure were. Didn't know about the Hyperspace scoring trick - I always wondered how they did that!!! Dang. Just goes to show you - you'll never know it all.:)
The other thing you had to be careful of - and I did not know this until it happened to me that day at the mall - it was like the 4th or 5th million rollover and I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention when all of a sudden, I noticed I was down a ship. Well of course it only showed the first five so that meant that I only had FOUR ships left! In a panic, I wondered how that was possible and it was only many years later I found out that the max ships also rollover at 256! You really have to keep a close count throughout the game. Dang, again!:)
$50 is CHEAP! At least I think so. Look, before any of that cheat code / mod stuff they were charging in upwards of $50 a game. In fact, I remember visiting my local Magnavox dealer back in 1978 as a kid (I owned an Magnavox Odyssey 2 console and often, the Mag dealers were the only place you could obtain the games). No game ever came out under $49.99 (in specific I remember 'Thunderball' - a 3K game - cost $49.99) and when the Challenging Series was released, some of those games were $79.99!
Now last year, I GLADLY paid $70 for Half Life 2 and did not regret it. It was certainly worth that to me. But the price will always come down over time - it was true in the 70's, it's true now - and HL2 can be obtained for about half that now. A year after 'Thunderball' was released, it was down to $29.99 too.
Maybe it's the cost of the media against the cost of the actual creation of the game. Back in the day it was ONE GUY who did it all, but the media costs were very high. Now there are programming teams - sometimes numbering in the 100's of people. Games will go for whatever the market can bear. Apparently, it can bear around $60 for a game on average.
Attention! It's all about the ATTENTION!
on
Project Arcade
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Oh yes, I was one of those 14/15 year old kids that could totally wipe the floor with you on Defender, Stargate, or Blaster - and I relished the crowd. Back then, Williams Electronics was the shit - the single best game company in the world (next to Atari, IMHO), and Eugene Jarvis (programmer of the Defender/Robotron series) was my personal hero. My best friend's poison was Robotron - NO ONE ever beat him. I once monopolized a cocktail Defender machine in a mall arcade for over 8 hours drawing a HUGE crowd. After the 6th hour, I had enough ships to simply stand up and use the restroom, get a drink, watch other people try and play the 300th+ wave (whatever it was rolled over to at the time), and then after a 1/2 hour or so, took control again.
I was kicked out of almost every local arcade and pizza place. The smart asses at one Italian-owned pizza place in Philly invited me back in a few days after they had kicked me out. 'Hey! Youa, COME IN! COME IN! You cana play, that's a nice boy...' I soon found out why they were all smiles - they had jacked up the difficulty settings on their Stargate machine - almost no Inviso, extra lives at 40,000, not 25,000, etc. Still, I lasted about an hour and a half on a single quarter and they weren't as smiley when I left that night.
For a 14 year old boy, there's no better ego booster than doing something very few people could and being recognized for it. Later, I entered (and won) a regional contest on Stargate - I still have the cheesy t-shirt.
Yeah, it was all about the attention I got. To this day I love to perform - I run a small school network and always try to be the 'answer man' when it comes to anything remotely related to computers and on the weekends, I play with my classic rock band, 'Dizzy Lizyrd'. ROCK ON!
Actually, I thought a better idea would be to have these people form separate hate groups that kill each other indiscriminately... Oh.. They're already doing that?
Can you give me a reason why hardware manufacturers will continue to support a dead OS? Economically, it makes no sense and history has shown that it won't take long before XP is officially 'forgotten'.
And yes, I just ran into this recently. Already some new HP's have no 'offical' XP driver support. In other words, if you want XP drivers, you'll need to go to the OEM sites individually to get them. So yeah, they're out there for now, but it's going to increasingly be a pain in the ass to get at them.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, and I thought it was just me! I had a SB Live card whose 'support' was definitely limited at best. After having issues with my VIA-based chipset, I threw up my hands and finally went with the onboard sound.
The only big issues I've found with that are expected ones - don't try and use it for any serious audio work involving analog input and synthesis as the signal to noise ratio is not so good. For gaming and movie playback it works fine - and hassle free.
I've been waiting for this thread to confirm what I've suspected for a while now - Creative just doesn't care anymore.
I don't know about you guys, but wasn't it AMD not too long ago who released a '9600/9800'? I think it might be time to come up with a new numbering schema - maybe a whole new marketing plan. It reminds me of how pinball manufacturers jacked up scores to make their pinballs look more impressive. They started out with targets and bumpers worth 1-5 points, and towards the end, a ball would hit a mumber and BOOM! 10,000 points was scored. Stupid.
Please don't tell me we're going to have the Nvidia 10,000 or the AMD/ATI 1,000,000+...
Damn, you never know how good you have it until you look back at the old days. Let's see how this comment would've played out almost 20 years ago or so.
'Have you even tried to play Castle Wolfenstein? It takes far more PC than most people have. and that same problem plagued ID on it's last 2 releases for almost 2 years. Hell I know people that STILL dont have a pc capable of running Wolfenstein at any playable speeds. Gaming companies are killing themselves. They are selling games that require a 40MHz 386, 4 MB RAM, and a $500.00 co-processor chip. While the world is happy as hell with their 3 year old 286 6 MHz running that $45.00 ISA CGA card.
you cant sell a crapload of games that runs on hardware that most people dont have.'
Ah, you see, this argument is not new my friend, I've been through the upgrade wringer again and again, and like most dedicated PC gamers, I don't bitch about it. Why? Because we like what we like. I want state of the art. A console is locked into what it comes with - which is usually pretty advanced at first, but becomes stale quickly. I find myself upgrading every year or two without fail and that's ok for me. The games that are making it to the PC (Orange Box, Sins of a Solar Empire, Bioshock), are terrific to play - and yes, I still want my mouse.
Since these packages are all separate programs, how does this affect the performance of the computer it runs on? One of our students wanted to get on our wireless connection. She had a, just-out-of-the-box, brand new HP laptop with 1 GB of RAM running Vista and the full Norton suite.
It took almost 3 minutes just to get to network prefs. The process should have taken less than 30 seconds but ended up being closer to 7 minutes!
We tend to measure computer speed in GHz, but there needs to be a new standard set here - I call it: DRAGWARE. How much more drag will a bot-net detector put on an already bogged down system? If every program or DLL has to go through a torture test before it can even be executed, does that effectively make a 3 GHz Dual-Core processor run like it's 900 MHz?
Go ahead and see for yourself like I have. Take an Intel processor running Vista and dragwar and put it up against Linux on the same machine or even the Mac. The difference will astound you.
...has infuriated me for some time. This idea that some things are 'viruses' and others, 'spyware'. Last year, I tried to nail down Sophos on this very thing. If I'm protected against viruses, shouldn't I also, by default, be protected against spyware since that's how it usually gets on there in the first place?
'Oh no', they tell me. 'That's different...' Yeah. I see that. Now we got this going on.
People want their computers to be protected against any form of intrusion - from within or without - regardless of how it's classified. The reality is, that there are now forms of malware out there that are either undetectable or incurable once you have them. I use a gateway to help protect our computers, but every once in a while it still happens.
You and me both man! We've been using Zimbra here for almost two years now and I've had ZERO problems compared to the mess that was Exchange. The thought of having to go back to Exchange now makes me want to huddle into myself in the farthest corner of the room.
On the other hand, Zimbra IS open source. It is possible for the project to go on under different leadership. It's just that the Outlook connector and mobile stuff would need rewriting as this is not OSS.
Isn't that funny? And I thought I was the only one who introduced his young child to 2600-type games early on. And for precisely the reasons you gave. Game rules were so much easier back then!
:) Poor kid. But he was insistent on playing that game - I think he liked how the car went 'boom!', and that happens a lot when all you can do is go forward.
;) /Yes I upgraded him...
My son was diagnosed with Autism when he was only 2 1/2 years old. While it was devastating news, we were determined to make life as normal as possible for him. When my boy was three, I let him try my Dreamcast copy of RUSH: 2049. He could steer the car, or make it go forward - but not both.
A few months later and he completed it, finding all the 'bonus' areas - stuff I'd never found myself!
It was a huge accomplishment for him - and maybe one of the first times he could point to something and say that he had done it on his own. But playing WITH him was key. Helping him hold the controller correctly and teaching him how to manipulate the controls was a real bonding experience for both of us.
Now, a few years later, I upgraded him to a Linux box running Mint Linux. After discovering how to use Synaptic to install new apps, a few months ago he told me, "My computer's too SLOW dad!" and that was just music to my ears!
Sounds like:
"He's a menace to himself and everything else in the air... Yes, birds too."
You know, Atari's basic wasn't exactly great either. You usually ended up resorting to peeks and pokes just to get some semblance of speed out of it - but then, that was part and parcel interpretive basic in general. And for the record, the C64's character graphics were terrific and easy to program. Player/Missile graphics.. Uhhh, not so much. BUT, all you'd need is a look at 'Rescue on Fractalus' or 'Blue Max' on both machines to realize that there are advantages to both architectures.
.1 seconds. That was in 1984, and it was about then that I realized MHz might just matter.
I actually purchased a compiled basic called, 'Action Basic' which was just awesome. Came on a cartridge and was fast, fast, FAST. I actually coded an antialias routine for graphics modes 9 & 11 using pseudo-code I found in a Byte magazine article. It took me a few hours to debug my creation and then all of about 3 seconds to execute. Then my friend showed me up with his Mindset computer (look it up), and his performed that code in about
I dunno, given that the real competitors to the C=64 was the Atari 400 and the T.I. 99/4, I think it wasn't so bad.
Believe me, having owned the Atari 400 (my first computer), at that time; I would've given my right arm for a keyboard that good!
Also, at what point does price enter into this? C=64 was around $199 at the time the PC came out at, oh 7 or 8 times the price...
Just be glad I didn't upgrade to the X4 yet! :)
II hhaavvee aann XX22 pprrocceessssoor? Ii ccaann ggooeess TTWWIICCEE aass ffaasstt nnooww?
1) Create a simple way to turn off that annoying clicking sound everytime a tab is launched!
And no, you don't go into Control Panel / Sound. There's really no option this time!
Let's just say that comparing graphics was not an easy thing to do back then or now. True, Ultima III didn't look so hot on the Atari (I believe it used psudo colors in the 'hires' mode like the Apple II did), BUT I could give you a number of other examples of games that completely redefined quality gaming.
:)
Throughout the early 80's, the top selling computer game was Atari's Star Raiders - and for good reason. Unbelievable graphics for 1979, great gameplay and sound. In fact, I don't believe anything approaching the quality of that game appeared for years afterward (I'm thinking Wing Commander here). I remember that it was still on the top 10 games list well into 1984. Do you know of any other game that could claim almost FOUR years of shelf life and still be a top seller?
Take a look at the first four Lucasfilm games - in particular - Rescue on Fractalus and Ballblazer. What GAMES! Because of the different graphics modes you had the best gaming experience on the Ataris. But again, you could give me Impossible Mission or Blue Max on the C=64 with their impeccible sprite-based graphics and they were sharp as well.
It was harder to program that sort of thing on the Atari computers. You had to worry about different memory specs, a changing ROM (that really threw off compatibility and disgusted a number of developers), and numbers (Commodore's advertising back then was just amazing!) You also didn't have a lot of help from the hardware. If you wanted good sound generation, you'd have to dev that yourself as the hardware didn't support any sort of ADSR or multiple wave selection. If you wanted sprite-based stuff, again, you'd have to develop that from scratch. There were those who did a great job with it though. Examples that come to mind are, 'Alley Cat' and the 'Shamus' series by Synapse, and Bounty Bob Strikes Back by Big Five. Some of the best gaming ever on the Ataris, or anywhere for that matter!
Here it is, breaking it down:
Atari's Strengths:
- Multiple display types available on the same screen. You could mix different resolutions and color palettes on the same screen.
- Display lists could include 128 colors at once.
- Faster 6502 processor (1.83 MHz as opposed to the C='s 1.0)
- Disk drives that didn't make you hang your head in shame.
Commodore's Strengths:
- Sprites! With color even. Atari's limited player/missile gfx left much to be desired comparatively.
- Only three voice sound but GOOD sound, not just basic tone generation like on the Ataris.
- Memory - with 64K as a standard, programmers didn't have to futz with trying to cater to different computer specs.
- ROM that stayed the same, even through the C128 years. Compatibility was never an issue with the C=64 line. It was on the Atari.
In all, I'd have to say that both computers were very competitive on spec. But look at how OLD the Atari was before the C=64 came along! With very few changes, that computer system was still competitive until the ST/Amigas arrived. Atari got stomped on by C='s marketing, Jack Tramiel's price war, and the fact that even Atari was buying directly from MOS Technology for the ROM's and 6502. MOS Tech - you remember, right? That wholly owned subsidary of Commodore, International?
No, he purposely says, FAH-Ker. A blending of Father and Fucker. Intentional. Brilliant, as was Hauer's 'tears in rain' comment - also made on the spot.
Or A.I. for that matter, I'll bet. Tell me, did you think the creatures at the end of A.I. were aliens too? Before it was excusable if you didn't get a movie, these days there are forums and reviews all over the Internet that can clear that sort of thing up for you BEFORE you post!
That's funny, I was just thinking how much this thing's specs reminded me of my two year old Fujitsu Lifebook. Same screen size, processor, chipset, wireless, etc. Except when I bought it, it was over $1700!
That 900 MHz Pentium M is a goer compared to most VIA's and Geodes. I think this could be a terrific tool for a student.
If batteries/caps are that good and cheap as to allow for a totally electric car, than putting one in a solar powered home would be a no-brainer.
They sure were. Didn't know about the Hyperspace scoring trick - I always wondered how they did that!!! Dang. Just goes to show you - you'll never know it all. :)
:)
The other thing you had to be careful of - and I did not know this until it happened to me that day at the mall - it was like the 4th or 5th million rollover and I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention when all of a sudden, I noticed I was down a ship. Well of course it only showed the first five so that meant that I only had FOUR ships left! In a panic, I wondered how that was possible and it was only many years later I found out that the max ships also rollover at 256! You really have to keep a close count throughout the game. Dang, again!
$50 is CHEAP! At least I think so. Look, before any of that cheat code / mod stuff they were charging in upwards of $50 a game. In fact, I remember visiting my local Magnavox dealer back in 1978 as a kid (I owned an Magnavox Odyssey 2 console and often, the Mag dealers were the only place you could obtain the games). No game ever came out under $49.99 (in specific I remember 'Thunderball' - a 3K game - cost $49.99) and when the Challenging Series was released, some of those games were $79.99!
Now last year, I GLADLY paid $70 for Half Life 2 and did not regret it. It was certainly worth that to me. But the price will always come down over time - it was true in the 70's, it's true now - and HL2 can be obtained for about half that now. A year after 'Thunderball' was released, it was down to $29.99 too.
Maybe it's the cost of the media against the cost of the actual creation of the game. Back in the day it was ONE GUY who did it all, but the media costs were very high. Now there are programming teams - sometimes numbering in the 100's of people. Games will go for whatever the market can bear. Apparently, it can bear around $60 for a game on average.
Oh yes, I was one of those 14/15 year old kids that could totally wipe the floor with you on Defender, Stargate, or Blaster - and I relished the crowd. Back then, Williams Electronics was the shit - the single best game company in the world (next to Atari, IMHO), and Eugene Jarvis (programmer of the Defender/Robotron series) was my personal hero. My best friend's poison was Robotron - NO ONE ever beat him. I once monopolized a cocktail Defender machine in a mall arcade for over 8 hours drawing a HUGE crowd. After the 6th hour, I had enough ships to simply stand up and use the restroom, get a drink, watch other people try and play the 300th+ wave (whatever it was rolled over to at the time), and then after a 1/2 hour or so, took control again.
I was kicked out of almost every local arcade and pizza place. The smart asses at one Italian-owned pizza place in Philly invited me back in a few days after they had kicked me out. 'Hey! Youa, COME IN! COME IN! You cana play, that's a nice boy...' I soon found out why they were all smiles - they had jacked up the difficulty settings on their Stargate machine - almost no Inviso, extra lives at 40,000, not 25,000, etc. Still, I lasted about an hour and a half on a single quarter and they weren't as smiley when I left that night.
For a 14 year old boy, there's no better ego booster than doing something very few people could and being recognized for it. Later, I entered (and won) a regional contest on Stargate - I still have the cheesy t-shirt.
Yeah, it was all about the attention I got. To this day I love to perform - I run a small school network and always try to be the 'answer man' when it comes to anything remotely related to computers and on the weekends, I play with my classic rock band, 'Dizzy Lizyrd'. ROCK ON!
From the Home Economics short:
:)
"Who would her friends be?"
Who would be her blood enemies? Would she smoke thin black cigarettes and reject the triune god?
Damn, I miss MST3K!
Actually, I thought a better idea would be to have these people form separate hate groups that kill each other indiscriminately... Oh.. They're already doing that?
Can you give me a reason why hardware manufacturers will continue to support a dead OS? Economically, it makes no sense and history has shown that it won't take long before XP is officially 'forgotten'.
And yes, I just ran into this recently. Already some new HP's have no 'offical' XP driver support. In other words, if you want XP drivers, you'll need to go to the OEM sites individually to get them. So yeah, they're out there for now, but it's going to increasingly be a pain in the ass to get at them.
Because as the new hardware arrives, drivers for XP will be scarce. This only matters on older corporate computers, not new ones.