As a new owner of a ReplayTV (SonicBlue's attempt at a Tivo), I can honestly say that this article definitely has some merit.
They mentioned laziness getting in the way of the introduction of a new and useful technology. Getting used to a Tivo or any PVR device and/adapting/ to the way it wants you to watch TV can be unsettling and outright difficult at first. After about two weeks, I/almost/ have it down. You have to let go of old ways and habits to properly use the device and it isn't easy.
For example, last Saturday morning, I realized after a while that I was waiting on starting the day (signified by the morning shower) because I was waiting for something on TV. Then I realized the Replay was there and knew I could take the shower. And even with that adjustment I didn't even think about pause. I treated it like a VCR.
Other things have happened over the two weeks so far, from poor picture quality and artifacting at first, to the painful realization that schedules are brought down from local cable, so when I wanted to tape "Firefly", my local station hadn't updated their listings and instead I got "John Doe". I was annoyed, but dealt with it. The less nerdy user though would probably be pretty peeved.
Anyway, while the Slate painted a poor picture of Tivo, I think they'll do well. Yes, it's an innovation that might not be completely ironed out yet, but it's got such a cult following already that it'll be hard to completely unseat. Besides, last I checked, Amiga users were some of the most rabid and devoted to their platform users this side of Linux.
"Apathy is the spice of life."
> High school kids coming out with MCSE's, places
> you can get a CCNA quick, or A+ certification
> that just seems like a joke to any old-school
> type. These people are the "new geek chic" and
> they're anything but.
Funny.
I remember a few months ago when a geek friend of mine and I were hanging out and we were talking about work and about how we got our jobs and he mentioned in a kidding tone, "Yeah, but I'm A+ certified."
And we both started cracking up.
That's a geek thing to do. Certifications and computer knowledge have nothing to do with being a geek.
After reading that page, I'd come to the opposite conclusion that they come to:
1) Microsoft is now actively pursuing modchip makers. That's not a valid argument anyway. Just because someone doesn't crack down, doesn't make it not illegal.
2) Modchips are used primarily for homebrew applications. While XBox Linux is popular, I think this web page (which sells mod-chips BTW), is deluding itself. The games are the reason for modding. Most people could care less about XBox Linux. Free games is a horse of a different color.
3) Fair use is valid, but against M$ lawyers... I wouldn't lean to hard on that.
It all comes down to the important part. Tools are not illegal. A hammer, a computer, a gun, all can be used to commit an illegal act. Why are modchips somehow illegal then?
I like the idea. I'd say I want it. The truth is, you're using sales figures to prove your point when all they're able to prove are sales figures.
Example: I have a television that I've had since High School. By now, it's old, beaten up, and I'm ready to move up. That means I'm in the marker for a new TV. Now I go to Circuit City and I say I want a television and tell them that it has to be HDTV ready. Suddenly the price I was looking to spend goes up $500. I could buy another TV for that much.
End result? I either go home with a TV more within my price range or I go home and wait until the year 2007 for prices to drop. Neither is particularly encouraging.
There's certainly interest in HDTVs. It's just that the price is too outrageous to justify one right now for anyone but the truly hardcore.
I have no problem with the XBox controller. I can adapt to any controller in time.
However if I'm playing Jet Set Radio or Buffy the Vampire Slayer on my XBox and then I go to a friend's house, and he, in his distaste for the monstrously huge controller, has the smaller version of the controller which has the control scheme completely altered (four letter buttons rotated one position and the black and white buttons moved to the bottom of the controller, not to mention the start and select buttons moving to a different part of the controller), I'm bound to get a little annoyed. Or frustrated. Or whatnot.
I like the XBox, but so much of it feels thrown together for the wrong reasons (the monstrous logo on the controller that looks like a button being the primary).
Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 1
Wasn't it a "Sony Pictures" production though?
Not hard to figure out.
They help produce the movie and Square (who's game were exclusive to Sony's system) is grateful if it's successful and Square gets advertising.
If it fails, Square goes into financial straights and it's easier for Sony to buy up a big piece of it.
Either way, they win.
Re:THE TALENTalready just quit and started quittin
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 1
Ummm... they got plenty of trademarks. And that's what Microsoft has been missing. The XBox has no mascot (neither does PS2 admittedly, but they've tried soooo hard to change that). That's what they want. Recognizable names. The programmers and game designers aren't important to them.
Right on most accounts. They have Perfect Dark and Banjo (I believe that's correct), but those older ones I don't believe are accurate. I'm sure I remember that Battletoads is in licensing hell (owned by now defunct Tradewest) and there's no way that'll ever see the light of day again and I have a feeling Snake Rattle and Roll is in a similar situation.
I've always understood patches as things that fix something that's broken. The nice part about consoles is that you usually don't see consoles start with busted software. I've never seen a console come to a crashing halt (except the orignal NES which tended towards that if the game had too much dust on the connectors).
As for the example of Morrowind, the argument is slightly flawed if I have me facts straight. If the PC was a testing bed, then those fixes would've been included in the XBox version which was released over a month later.
The reason why PCs will survive is because people will always have PCs laying around for other purposes. Simple as that. They may not enjoy the same prosperity as consoles because not everyone is at the same standard, but they'll last.
After reading this topic, I have to confess to feeling a little uncomfortable. Most likely it's because of the sudden urge to defend Microsoft here when all rational thought say not to, but here goes anyway.
1. As far as the changes go, all systems evolve and change as time goes on. Video game systems are no exception. When I was deciding on what videogame systems to get last year, I decided to get Gamecube and PS2. PS2 was established already and wasn't a real decision on how to go about purchasing it. I would go to the local video game store and make the purchase. Easy.
The Gamecube though was different. I didn't know how availability would be in the US and the big consideration was "hey, maybe I should import". Was it because I'd be able to get the games earlier? Yes and no. It factored in, but the real reason was that console hackers will all tell you one thing: get the system's first release. The original PS2 in Japan had region lockouts easily disabled. I believe that the early Saturns were the easy to Mod ones.
This isn't really shocking. Console modding is 50% staying one step ahead of the console maker.
2. Doesn't Microsoft have a generally good track record hardware-wise? Say what you will about the XBox, but it's certainly a pretty system when played (huge and strangely designed, but pretty). I've generally enjoyed a reasonable amount of reliability from Microsoft mice and joysticks. I don't know how it's been for anyone else.
Why does travel = caring? Does presenting one's self to the family of the deceased make things any more pleasant? The idea of a funeral is to 1) remember the deceased and 2) comfort the family. In this case, there was no interaction with the family before this, so why should they try to comfort? If they want to remember the person where they live, that's the important part. That they remember.
I don't particularly care for the few funerals I've been to, dissatisfied with how ritualistic they were. To let them honor and remember the deceased and bring about a piece of closure. But that's not important. I know I'd rather remember those who meant a lot to me, than sit in church and be forced to remember.
People grieve in their own ways. I'm not suprised by the virtual funeral, but it makes me smile a little. Whatever some people might say, there are really people behind these electronic characters and the people here obviously cared for the person who's passed on? So why are they being dumped on?
Caring is rare. Don't push it away.
Slashdot Mirror
They mentioned laziness getting in the way of the introduction of a new and useful technology. Getting used to a Tivo or any PVR device and /adapting/ to the way it wants you to watch TV can be unsettling and outright difficult at first. After about two weeks, I /almost/ have it down. You have to let go of old ways and habits to properly use the device and it isn't easy.
For example, last Saturday morning, I realized after a while that I was waiting on starting the day (signified by the morning shower) because I was waiting for something on TV. Then I realized the Replay was there and knew I could take the shower. And even with that adjustment I didn't even think about pause. I treated it like a VCR.
Other things have happened over the two weeks so far, from poor picture quality and artifacting at first, to the painful realization that schedules are brought down from local cable, so when I wanted to tape "Firefly", my local station hadn't updated their listings and instead I got "John Doe". I was annoyed, but dealt with it. The less nerdy user though would probably be pretty peeved.
Anyway, while the Slate painted a poor picture of Tivo, I think they'll do well. Yes, it's an innovation that might not be completely ironed out yet, but it's got such a cult following already that it'll be hard to completely unseat. Besides, last I checked, Amiga users were some of the most rabid and devoted to their platform users this side of Linux. "Apathy is the spice of life."
Isn't having to sit through it punishment enough? :P
Linux users love Tux.
Clippy is a target of complete and utter universal hatred.
Just pointing that out.
Funny.
I remember a few months ago when a geek friend of mine and I were hanging out and we were talking about work and about how we got our jobs and he mentioned in a kidding tone, "Yeah, but I'm A+ certified."
And we both started cracking up.
That's a geek thing to do. Certifications and computer knowledge have nothing to do with being a geek.
1) Microsoft is now actively pursuing modchip makers. That's not a valid argument anyway. Just because someone doesn't crack down, doesn't make it not illegal.
2) Modchips are used primarily for homebrew applications. While XBox Linux is popular, I think this web page (which sells mod-chips BTW), is deluding itself. The games are the reason for modding. Most people could care less about XBox Linux. Free games is a horse of a different color.
3) Fair use is valid, but against M$ lawyers... I wouldn't lean to hard on that.
It all comes down to the important part. Tools are not illegal. A hammer, a computer, a gun, all can be used to commit an illegal act. Why are modchips somehow illegal then?
Example: I have a television that I've had since High School. By now, it's old, beaten up, and I'm ready to move up. That means I'm in the marker for a new TV. Now I go to Circuit City and I say I want a television and tell them that it has to be HDTV ready. Suddenly the price I was looking to spend goes up $500. I could buy another TV for that much.
End result? I either go home with a TV more within my price range or I go home and wait until the year 2007 for prices to drop. Neither is particularly encouraging.
There's certainly interest in HDTVs. It's just that the price is too outrageous to justify one right now for anyone but the truly hardcore.
However if I'm playing Jet Set Radio or Buffy the Vampire Slayer on my XBox and then I go to a friend's house, and he, in his distaste for the monstrously huge controller, has the smaller version of the controller which has the control scheme completely altered (four letter buttons rotated one position and the black and white buttons moved to the bottom of the controller, not to mention the start and select buttons moving to a different part of the controller), I'm bound to get a little annoyed. Or frustrated. Or whatnot.
I like the XBox, but so much of it feels thrown together for the wrong reasons (the monstrous logo on the controller that looks like a button being the primary).
Not hard to figure out. They help produce the movie and Square (who's game were exclusive to Sony's system) is grateful if it's successful and Square gets advertising.
If it fails, Square goes into financial straights and it's easier for Sony to buy up a big piece of it.
Either way, they win.
Ummm... they got plenty of trademarks. And that's what Microsoft has been missing. The XBox has no mascot (neither does PS2 admittedly, but they've tried soooo hard to change that). That's what they want. Recognizable names. The programmers and game designers aren't important to them.
Right on most accounts. They have Perfect Dark and Banjo (I believe that's correct), but those older ones I don't believe are accurate. I'm sure I remember that Battletoads is in licensing hell (owned by now defunct Tradewest) and there's no way that'll ever see the light of day again and I have a feeling Snake Rattle and Roll is in a similar situation.
Is patching good or bad?
I've always understood patches as things that fix something that's broken. The nice part about consoles is that you usually don't see consoles start with busted software. I've never seen a console come to a crashing halt (except the orignal NES which tended towards that if the game had too much dust on the connectors).
As for the example of Morrowind, the argument is slightly flawed if I have me facts straight. If the PC was a testing bed, then those fixes would've been included in the XBox version which was released over a month later.
The reason why PCs will survive is because people will always have PCs laying around for other purposes. Simple as that. They may not enjoy the same prosperity as consoles because not everyone is at the same standard, but they'll last.
After reading this topic, I have to confess to feeling a little uncomfortable. Most likely it's because of the sudden urge to defend Microsoft here when all rational thought say not to, but here goes anyway.
1. As far as the changes go, all systems evolve and change as time goes on. Video game systems are no exception. When I was deciding on what videogame systems to get last year, I decided to get Gamecube and PS2. PS2 was established already and wasn't a real decision on how to go about purchasing it. I would go to the local video game store and make the purchase. Easy.
The Gamecube though was different. I didn't know how availability would be in the US and the big consideration was "hey, maybe I should import". Was it because I'd be able to get the games earlier? Yes and no. It factored in, but the real reason was that console hackers will all tell you one thing: get the system's first release. The original PS2 in Japan had region lockouts easily disabled. I believe that the early Saturns were the easy to Mod ones.
This isn't really shocking. Console modding is 50% staying one step ahead of the console maker.
2. Doesn't Microsoft have a generally good track record hardware-wise? Say what you will about the XBox, but it's certainly a pretty system when played (huge and strangely designed, but pretty). I've generally enjoyed a reasonable amount of reliability from Microsoft mice and joysticks. I don't know how it's been for anyone else.
Sorry. Just needed to get that out.
Why does travel = caring? Does presenting one's self to the family of the deceased make things any more pleasant? The idea of a funeral is to 1) remember the deceased and 2) comfort the family. In this case, there was no interaction with the family before this, so why should they try to comfort? If they want to remember the person where they live, that's the important part. That they remember. I don't particularly care for the few funerals I've been to, dissatisfied with how ritualistic they were. To let them honor and remember the deceased and bring about a piece of closure. But that's not important. I know I'd rather remember those who meant a lot to me, than sit in church and be forced to remember. People grieve in their own ways. I'm not suprised by the virtual funeral, but it makes me smile a little. Whatever some people might say, there are really people behind these electronic characters and the people here obviously cared for the person who's passed on? So why are they being dumped on? Caring is rare. Don't push it away.