I actually know some people that are quite proficient with fps games using a gamepad...I'm not one of them. Another thing to remember is that there's nothing really preventing a kb/mouse combo on the XBox. The controller ports are really just USB ports.
What I'd be more interested in would be issues related to previous games like this. For instance, Quake3 for Dreamcast could play against PC or Mac versions of the game...provided they downloaded the simplified up-to-4-player maps used in the DC version. With custom maps obviously possible with the XBox and its HDD, will there be special limitations for that version or will it simply try to run them anyway? That sort of thing.
I remember when I got my TiBook 400, it had a CD worth of MP3s (as in, a CD full of MP3s) on the hard drive ready to play in iTunes. Newer Macs don't have it to my knowledge. I definitely would not be suprised to see some freed up music...
Here's what I'd put in a Mac version of the tools.
OS CDs
Any Mac with a CD-ROM should boot from CD...
System 7.5.3 + 7.5.5 update disk images on CD (good for booting up 128k through many PPCs and free from Apple)
System 8.1 & 9.1 CDs 8.1 is the last for pre-PPC, 9.1 the last pre-G3 8.6 is solid, but possibly unneeded...maybe take.
System 9.2.2 and OSX 10.2 CDs For my system or G3 and above
Arguably one could just have a CD or two with working system folders for each version...but I like to be able to install for the machine.
Utilities Diskwarrior - Fix filesystem problems Techtool Pro - Diagnose and fix problems Stuffit installers Apple disk tools floppy images on CD (in case no CD drive) Mac general software (browsers, clients, etc)
A serial cable (can do Appletalk networking with one) A firewire cable (target disk mode for newer models) Pack o' floppies and a USB floppy drive (so I could use the antiquidated media) Ethernet crossover cable AUUI->Ethernet adapter if there's room... a SCSI external Apple CD-ROM external SCSI HDD and/or SCSI ZIP 2.5" firewire HDD a 1/2 AA battery Mac->VGA and VGA->Mac adapters (you never know...)
There is SparkME that's free for OSX
http://www.tcworks.de/home/content/en/PRODUCTS/App lication/SparkME_X/render_top
Dunno how it compares since I'm no audio pro or anything, but it exists...
Well, seeing how the movie came out in Japan well after the series, I'd say it's not a disservice to the U.S. audience. While any "good" ending to Bebop would have satisfied me too, I find the ending as-is to be one of the best in all the anime I've seen.
The movie is well worth price of admission (though nobody near me is playing it:( )
I'll just have to wait for the DVD to replace my fansub...
I plan to buy the DVD, but will go see it in the theater if it comes. First to show that people will go see anime in the theater, and two, to see it on the big screen. I downloaded a fansub to see it because I couldn't catch it in the theater the first time around. I'm more than happy to shell over the cash to see it legitmately ^_^
Maybe it'll be useful for putting obscene amounts of RAM in Shake workstations, or to make spiffy next gen XServes. Perhaps they simply want to factor in time to adapt. Remember how long it took to finally switch the OS over to PPC-native entirely? Or perhaps it's a "why not" when looking at a new CPU. "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it". The 970 at least has lots more bandwidth on the bus too, which is perhaps the greater advantage to the media-centric Macintosh. That and bragging rights ^_^
I agree with what you said in principle...however, couple o' details. 1.) Motorola makes the G4, IBM does not. The only current Mac using an IBM chip therefore is the iBook. 2.) The Apple ROMs are in software now, and have been since the original iMac (Powermac change came later, with the B&Ws). Macs with the ROMs set up like that are referred to as "New World" Macs. 3.) OSX doesn't need the ROMs anymore anyway. Darwin can be downloaded and installed on an x86 PC. The big thing that's missing is of course the GUI (and support for a wide variety of hardware), but the core OS can boot on an x86 already.
I do agree that Apple doesn't have anything to gain by making the OS run on generic PCs. Sure, they'd have a larger potential market...but they'd also have to deal with trying to support the wide range of hardware that could potentially be put in the machine. One of the good/bad things about them now *is* the limited choice of hardware. They can test a new OS version on every potential base machine that it will be run on.
You can, however, pick up a beige G3 for $150. Not candy colored (or 400Mhz), but you can upgrade most parts on it with old PC parts and run OSX on it.
Resale value of Macs tends to reflect their longer useful life. Perhaps it's simply because there are fewer gamers using them, or maybe because the parts are high quality throughout (you do get something for the price). I've seen professional artists still happily using 7-8 year old machines, 5-6 year old G3s pushing OSX or chugging away with OS9 in business situations...even a couple of 11 year old Quadras being used as RIPs. Not to say that old Wintel boxes aren't in use too, but I've just seen more old Macs in use. OSX is changing this of course, as XP is probably getting many Win95/98 users to pick up a new machine.
Hmm...seems to me that either way, time would be needed to fix it. *Someone* knows about it earlier than the patch (unless somehow Linux is magic and codes up a patch as soon as some lonely hacker recognizes an exploit). Perhaps it's a matter of "hey, there's a bug here" vs. "hey, there WAS a bug here, but I fixed it" type news. Either way, there are unpatched systems worldwide that may never get patched, and whole lot of patching to be done for those that will be.
Those wanting to exploit such a problem are obviously going to stay quiet about it.
I'm well aware of that too ^_^ I was simply saying that just because this isn't controlled doesn't make it true either. At least traditional news sources can be contacted so that corrections and apologies can be made, and have credibility to uphold (to a degree). CNN might have a liberal slant and brush over some facts, but they're still interested in being mostly right...as opposed to the Enquirer (just a thrown together, unbased example, I don't know or care to know your opinions of CNN or the Enquirer). To that end, "serious" news sources want to be at least mostly right. If they're not, they lose respect. With anonymous reporting, we could have one source writing conflicting reports with no penalty (Ender's Game anyone?).
It might be the perfect way to get information out, but it does nothing to make that information true or at best unbiased. Anonymity means that you don't have to take responsibility for your actions. You *could* have the "truth" (99% subjective anyway), or you could have a work of fiction from an angry 16 year old.
First, I dunno if this was a driver limitation or what, but I seem to remember decent restrictions on multiple sound streams. As in, I would be playing an MP3 and so ICQ couldn't make sounds. This was with a ISA AWE64 Value in NT 4 anyway. Once I went to a PCI sound card ($17 OEM Yamaha card) I could have plenty of simultaneous audio. I think this was a restriction of the drivers and/or ISA bus more than the chip though.
The Live and the Audigy that I've had after that have, in my opinion, sounded progressively better. The signal is cleaner (at least according to specs and cranking my reciever up), sound is richer, and they have digital outputs. Not to mention positional audio, which is pretty cool. Needed for basic sound? No. Sound is practically a given nowdays though (and should be). A decent PCI card can be had for $20-50 though. I think the only people paying $200 or more are those buying Audigy Platinums or professional audio cards.
USB audio is a pretty bad idea in my opinion. Sure, theoretically it works great. However, in practice, not always so. I've seen problems with Macs using them. Macs...machines on which audio has just simply "been there" on for years, now have strange volume drops or muting (with some USB speakers). I can't imagine how bad it can get with PCs with more variety in the hardware.
Besides, I've been using my old reciever and a pair of Polk Audio bookshelf speakers for 5 years now, and I've yet to hear a pair of computer speakers match them full range (especially at under $200, which is about what I paid). Those of us with more than a dinky sub/satellite combo will always want a real audio output anyway (though a digital optical would probably do).
As far as the audio chip is concerned, true, most people probably don't use much more than the functionality of an AWE32...or a Sound Blaster PCI/Ensonique AudioPCI as the case may be, since the AWE32 (to my knowledge) was an ISA only card. But newer cards have cleaner sound and more output options...for those of us that want them.
My problem isn't so much of one with Nintendo or the Gamecube. I think that it was engineered with some strange restrictions when considering what else is out there, etc. My problem is more when people act as though they are the "enlightened ones" because they own a *video game system*. I've been on too many boards that aren't video game specific where Gamecube owners are practically militant about their system of choice. As if it's some big secret that Nintendo *still* makes good games. Yes, I like *some* of the Gamecube games. Just like I like *some* PS2 games and *some* XBox games. The Gamecube is far from perfect, as are the PS2 and XBox. Nintendo is far from a player oriented perfect company, as are Sony and MS. Those are my points. They're all businesses motivated by sales and money alone. History and technology are indicators of that, which is why I brought them up. They've all made strange decisions, but Nintendo has some of the worst (Virtual Boy? Memory card 51?), probably just because they've been at it the longest (not counting Sega, 3DO or Atari, seeing as how they're out now ^_^)
The real thing is...
Just because *you* have a favorite doesn't make it the de-facto *true* choice. I personally don't think there is one for the exact reason that you said. "True gamers" play what they find fun regardless (which is why I pointed out obscure games and less popular systems). Regardless of gimmick, popularity, or _system_. I can say with certainty that my brother, who is quite happy with his XBox, would not get much enjoyment out of the exclusive Gamecube library. Yet according to you it has the most fun games. Your original post, which is what I started in on, was written in such a way as to indicate that. Not taking into account personal preferences in games. Not taking into account that technology *can* allow for innovation in games. Simply implying that the Gamecube was the hidden gold of the gaming world. Check out the ratings on IGN or Gamespot. There are plenty of highly rated XBox and PS2 games, even lately. Do you care about them? I know I don't care about the majority of them...but that doesn't make them bad or nonexistent.
I agree, Nintendo pushes content over technology. I agree, Nintendo has solid, fun games. I concede, I'll probably be getting a GC again for Metroid and Zelda (this doesn't change that Nintendo failed to release I game I cared about for a year). If that's what you want to hear, put on a big smug grin.
What I don't agree with is that the PS2 and XBox libraries are therefore void or somehow lacking. In my opinion, I simply don't care about most games out now, Gamecube included. All the systems have a few games that interest me...and that's it.
They really do have several hits a month. Take the Gamecube library. Throw out anything released on another console. Tends to be that the XBox has the best release if it's multi-console (there are exceptions, MGS2: Substance for example), but it's mostly true. This leaves you with what, 10-15 solid titles? Okay, toss out anything not a remake of an N64 game (or practically a remake). No more Rogue Leader, Wave Race, Mario, etc.
So you're left with primarily Nintendo franchise games, which are continuations of older game in some way regardless (with only a few exceptions). SNES is probably my all time favorite system, so I more than recognize that.
Nintendo games are Nintendo games. No friggin' DUH!. It doesn't change that Mario Kart has not changed much from when I played it on SNES. Is it any less a solid game? No...but it's also not worth rebuying just to get it slightly prettified from the N64 version. I had a Gamecube (got it launch day, actually). I wound up trading it in because I looked down the release list and couldn't see games that I cared about for at least another year. Why? Because it's just that. Waiting for Nintendo remakes of games you liked before.
What you get with other consoles is variety and more releases. Hence while Nintendo might release *one* A-plus title for their console this month (Zelda this month), PS2 or XBox get several. That's not to say that the Nintendo games aren't any good, just that they're few and far between. So in the same time period that the Gamecube gets, say, Metroid...the XBox gets Panzer Dragoon, Splinter Cell, Mechassault, and more. The PS2 gets Wild Arms 3, GTA3: Vice City, Kingdom Hearts, etc. You get multiple great games in different genres. Like you mentioned for your PS2's RPG wave. Will any of those games get to the GC? Didn't think so. Yet you have *four* in the span of a couple months. That's why I can't see why people insist on classifying the Gamecube as the "gamers system". I can see why you'd classify the Dreamcast as such, or the XBox even. Why? Because of the exact things you brought up. Can you name the top 10 XBox games? No. Why? Not because none of them are any good, but because 1.) Variety and 2.) Hardcore games. Stuff like Jet Set Radio on Dreamcast or Panzer Dragoon on the XBox. Not ones that everyone lines up for, but excellent titles nonetheless. The Dreamcast's fighter lineup also would dictate that too. To me, being a hardcore gamer (or movie watcher, anime watcher, etc) usually involves games, movies, etc that not everyone knows about. Nintendo's big titles haven't changed much from the days of the SNES. Everyone knows them. The fact that they're predominantly All Ages doesn't make them obscure. Playing them despite that doesn't make one a "true gamer" in my eyes either. Nintendo games sell like hotcakes, because they *are* good. They're also no less mainstream than Tony Hawk or Metal Gear games. Perhaps more recognized. To me a "true gamer" wouldn't need to rely on previous games in a series to recognize a good game. Or would perhaps be more interested in playing Guilty Gear XX than Smash Brother's Melee (after having played Super Smath Bros.).
Perhaps saying that Nintendo's games shouldn't be ignored as "kids stuff" or that the GC shouldn't be ignored as a platform would be more accurate. There are solid games on it. To ignore them because they're cartoony would be foolish.
As for piracy, well, again. No friggin' DUH! But there have always been ways around things like that. Excepting the first series of PSXs (and even then it was a trick) people have needed mod chips. With the Dreamcast you had to be able to remove content. Yeah, Nintendo is the hardest to copy still...but at what cost? Are they now allowing companies like EA to have their own manufacturing plants like Sony does? Are game prices down now that it costs them pennies to make them? Yay Nintendo for stopping the pirates (or so we think...could be that if one has a DVD press, a modchip isn't needed). Last I checked the GC was coming in third in most places around the globe. Perhap
Well, the "truly new" architecture can be good or bad. Sony is really the first to fully pull it off.
It's not only that the CPU is different or whatever. The PSX had that and was supposed to be reasonably easy. The PS2 has a multiprocessor system that (to my knowledge) had not previously been successful. The Atari Jaguar and Sega Saturn both had a similar problem. Powerful when you took the time to write for it...but in the end, hard to write for. The difference is that neither of those systems had Sony's clout.
Otherwise there were many systems that were not entirely new. SNES was pretty much the same as an Apple IIgs (I think that was the one, they used them to debug the code even). The Genesis used the Z80 and 68000 processors...same as early arcade machines and Macs. The Game Gear is a Sega Master system.
The advantage I'd say that MS has with the common interface is that all they need is to slap together a faster x86 system. Since games should already be using DirectX, any future system using DirectX should play all the old games. The only reason the PS2 plays the PSX games is because the old CPU is used on the board (I/O controller I think). Even then, the new abilities were crippled because Sony wanted to sell more PS2 games to pay for the hardware losses at the time. Take a look at Bleem! emulation and see how good the old games could have looked if they rendered them with the new video hardware.
Sure, a dedicated system is more efficient in the long run. However, you also have to consider that people have to make games for the thing. The faster they can be working with fully optimized code, the faster you can have excellent titles to show off. Or the faster you can have games that innovate rather than have the developers always simply trying to get the graphics at 30+ fps.
It's not all about the system being technically capable. It's also politics and marketing. Look at the Dreamcast. It was very well designed, and at the time of the PS2's release looked in many cases just as good (or close anyway). However, it was Sega. They didn't have the sequels from the PSX games, or the Sony name. People didn't buy them because they were waiting on the PS2. GT3 and MGS2 didn't show up for almost another year after the PS2's launch, FFX for even longer. However, despite the Dreamcast having a pretty solid library at the time, it was largely ignored. It's names and branding that sells these things most of the time. If MS gets some legacy type series on the XBox, they'll succeed anyway, regardless of tech specs. The PSX had the worst specs in general for its generation, but the fact that it was well balanced and easy to program allowed it to win the day. The PS2 could have been practically anything after the success of that.
Besides, PS3 might be awesome, but MS (and Nintendo) will simply step up a year later and introduce something better. It's how this industry has gone for, well, ever since it was an industry. Hopefully we'll see some good games as a result...which is the point of it all.
Also remember that when the PS2 was released, developers everywhere raised an uproar about the pathetic libraries and documentation provided, hard to optimize architecture, etc. Contrasted to the Xbox using DirectX, and MS helping developers optimize games or the Gamecube using standard OpenGL stuff.
Plus that the PS2 scratched games (especially when upright) and has had problems with either the CD or DVD laser burning out. If you don't think it's true, go talk to all the people I talked to when working at Software Etc about how their PS2 problems are just in their head. Or go make my PS2 play the second layer of DVD videos.
PS2s also overheat if you let dust clog the vents. The system was redesigned several times in it's first year. The U.S. version differs from the original Japanese version (hard drive is external for that one). The original U.S. release was also tweaked. You can observe that the USB and firewire ports were rearranged (in the first few months).
I've also seen things that theorize that Sony simply makes the PS2 profitable with fuzzy math or whatever. Not taking into account development costs like MS does (but this could be only true of the first couple years too).
I'm not saying the Xbox is perfect or that the PS2 isn't any good. I own both. I just think that many people are looking at the PS2 in a skewed light becaus they want to put down Microsoft. Sony isn't some nice fluffy company either. They're big, mean, and most of their products are pretty low in quality for the price class. Why doesn't the PS2 have 4 controller ports? $30 multitap anyone? Who deliberately created shortages? Sony and Nintendo have...MS never did. It's all friggin' business and business is war. Including your perception of the other guy.
Gamers happily playing MGS2, GT3, GTA3, GGXX, VF4, Tekken, Halo, FFX, XenoSaga, Dark Cloud, Splinter Cell, or any of the other hit games for PS2 and Xbox would probably be inclined to disagree with you. Having worked in the software retail field, I can say that PS2 and XBox tend to have at least one hit a month. Usually several. Sure, there's crap too, but so is most of the Gamecube library (that or ports from other systems). Most of what the GC gets that's good are remakes of older games, or solid ports from PS2/Xbox. That's not to say they're not good...but seriously, A+ original titles for that system have been somewhat few and far between.
Nintendo has always chosen paths that give it ironclad control over software distribution. They hand you that "good for gamers" line so you don't suspect them.
You know where the Playstation even came from? SNES CD. Sony worked with Nintendo on it, but when Nintendo realized that their business deal (which gave Sony profits from CD games) wasn't well though out, they cancelled it. Sony took the work they'd done and came up with the PSX. Even then, Nintendo knew gamers would buy CDs over carts. However that didn't stop them...
N64...long lived, but really lost the battle. There's what, a PSX in 2 outta 3 homes in America? Why? Cost. Wanna play FFIX? $39.99. Wanna play Majora's Mask? $69.99 plus a $29.99 memory pack if you don't have it. Oh, and there's no movies or CD sound. Forget about $15-20 greatest hits games.
Why use carts? Because nobody but Nintendo can (legally) make them. They're expensive and limited. But they could hand consumers the line that they're "faster access". Right. Don't get me wrong, there were some great games on the system. But Nintendo screwed up royally when they decided not to go with CDs.
Gamecube? Sure, elegantly designed CPU (IBM Gekko PowerPC), efficient GPU (albiet with only 3MB of texture memory, less than the N64 wound up having), and...MiniDVDs? Um, why? Ports from other systems have to get things dropped (DVD extras from SSX tricky for example). Anything that fills a typical DVD-9 would take 6 GC discs to port (in theory). So it won't see things like FFX with video intact. Ever. While multi-disc games are somewhat rare on Xbox and PS2, there are already several for GC. The controller, while nice, is not very versatile. Why did Capcom Vs SNK 2 on that platform have "simplified" controls? Because Nintendo apparently didn't consider the 10 year old fighting game genre worth taking into account. True, they kept the controls on the Xbox version, but it was made for the GC.
So yeah, the GC is nicely designed for standard OpenGL and PowerPC programming (after the royal programming pain that was the N64). However, it's still using a controlled, limited format to release primarily remakes of Nintendo franchises. But of course, it's the true gamers system, right?
You dissin' the Media Access Control addresses? We need those to keep packets goin' where they ought.
Or perhaps you don't realize that Mac is short for Macintosh, and so isn't all caps? ^_^
There are Mac emulators for PC. Basilisk for one. They actually work pretty well, however, the biggest things are that 1.) You can't emulate a PPC and 2.) You need a Mac ROM file (which to legally have means you probably need to go buy a used Mac for $5 anyway).
This pretty much limits you to 8.x MacOS levels, however, if you want to run some older Mac games or whatnot, it should be good enough. System 7.5.5 is available for free from Apple though, which makes it a solid choice for such a task.
Not entirely accurate, as most PCs bought will probably be in the $1500 range (especially with a monitor) and so be similar to an eMac or whatever in cost. At least, our average cost for a new PC bought is about $1700, less than a new Mac, but not by as much as your example. I'd also agree that hardware problems are rarer and support in general simpler for Macs.
However, the point still stands that buying all new computers would be foolish if they aren't needed. Plus all the whining that would ensue, since most college faculty can't seem to grasp how to use the computer they have, much less a new OS. Sorry if I sound bitter, but I do computer support at a college...
Licensing for Macs is actually cheaper though. There are more "infinite" licenses with Mac servers. Though the hardware is more expensive, the software isn't. Windows server licenses are obscenely priced in comparison.
Personally I think mixed computing environments are the best. You're never entirely tied to any specific vendor, and students learn computing in general, not simply how to use a specific version of Windows and Word.
I wasn't being judgemental on anyone, as you don't seem to be. I was simply stating fact, in response to a question of why people I knew would try to quit looking at porn.
To me, this filter is a tool in a similar vein to what I've already known people to do. It creates accountability. You volunteer information with this tool to help keep yourself in check. It's not imposing someone elses moral values. It's saying to someone, "I want to live this way, please help me". No different from hiring a personal trainer to help get you out to the gym and eat right. If you're already fit, or if you don't care, then you don't need one. If you have no qualms about porn, or don't look at it anyway, you don't need to worry about this. That simple.
Some people have issues for one reason or another with looking at this stuff. It doesn't mean that they're a bad person now or whatever. However, this is a decent idea. I've known people that moved their computers into the living room or stopped having a net connection in their room in an attempt to stop looking at pr0n.
Except this is voluntary, and actually a pay service.
It's not for people that are okay with porn. It's for people that are addicted and want to stop.
Of course, if used by a boss or a parent, then it's a little different. However, that's still just helping to enforce rules created by someone other than this company.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually know some people that are quite proficient with fps games using a gamepad...I'm not one of them. Another thing to remember is that there's nothing really preventing a kb/mouse combo on the XBox. The controller ports are really just USB ports. What I'd be more interested in would be issues related to previous games like this. For instance, Quake3 for Dreamcast could play against PC or Mac versions of the game...provided they downloaded the simplified up-to-4-player maps used in the DC version. With custom maps obviously possible with the XBox and its HDD, will there be special limitations for that version or will it simply try to run them anyway? That sort of thing.
I remember when I got my TiBook 400, it had a CD worth of MP3s (as in, a CD full of MP3s) on the hard drive ready to play in iTunes. Newer Macs don't have it to my knowledge. I definitely would not be suprised to see some freed up music...
Here's what I'd put in a Mac version of the tools.
OS CDs
Any Mac with a CD-ROM should boot from CD...
System 7.5.3 + 7.5.5 update disk images on CD
(good for booting up 128k through many PPCs and free from Apple)
System 8.1 & 9.1 CDs
8.1 is the last for pre-PPC, 9.1 the last pre-G3
8.6 is solid, but possibly unneeded...maybe take.
System 9.2.2 and OSX 10.2 CDs
For my system or G3 and above
Arguably one could just have a CD or two with working system folders for each version...but I like to be able to install for the machine.
Utilities
Diskwarrior - Fix filesystem problems
Techtool Pro - Diagnose and fix problems
Stuffit installers
Apple disk tools floppy images on CD (in case no CD drive)
Mac general software (browsers, clients, etc)
A serial cable (can do Appletalk networking with one)
A firewire cable (target disk mode for newer models)
Pack o' floppies and a USB floppy drive (so I could use the antiquidated media)
Ethernet crossover cable
AUUI->Ethernet adapter
if there's room...
a SCSI external Apple CD-ROM
external SCSI HDD and/or SCSI ZIP
2.5" firewire HDD
a 1/2 AA battery
Mac->VGA and VGA->Mac adapters (you never know...)
that's all I can think of offhand....
There is SparkME that's free for OSX http://www.tcworks.de/home/content/en/PRODUCTS/App lication/SparkME_X/render_top
Dunno how it compares since I'm no audio pro or anything, but it exists...
Well, seeing how the movie came out in Japan well after the series, I'd say it's not a disservice to the U.S. audience. While any "good" ending to Bebop would have satisfied me too, I find the ending as-is to be one of the best in all the anime I've seen. The movie is well worth price of admission (though nobody near me is playing it :( )
I'll just have to wait for the DVD to replace my fansub...
I plan to buy the DVD, but will go see it in the theater if it comes. First to show that people will go see anime in the theater, and two, to see it on the big screen. I downloaded a fansub to see it because I couldn't catch it in the theater the first time around. I'm more than happy to shell over the cash to see it legitmately ^_^
Maybe it'll be useful for putting obscene amounts of RAM in Shake workstations, or to make spiffy next gen XServes.
Perhaps they simply want to factor in time to adapt. Remember how long it took to finally switch the OS over to PPC-native entirely?
Or perhaps it's a "why not" when looking at a new CPU. "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it". The 970 at least has lots more bandwidth on the bus too, which is perhaps the greater advantage to the media-centric Macintosh.
That and bragging rights ^_^
I agree with what you said in principle...however, couple o' details.
1.) Motorola makes the G4, IBM does not. The only current Mac using an IBM chip therefore is the iBook.
2.) The Apple ROMs are in software now, and have been since the original iMac (Powermac change came later, with the B&Ws). Macs with the ROMs set up like that are referred to as "New World" Macs.
3.) OSX doesn't need the ROMs anymore anyway. Darwin can be downloaded and installed on an x86 PC. The big thing that's missing is of course the GUI (and support for a wide variety of hardware), but the core OS can boot on an x86 already.
I do agree that Apple doesn't have anything to gain by making the OS run on generic PCs. Sure, they'd have a larger potential market...but they'd also have to deal with trying to support the wide range of hardware that could potentially be put in the machine. One of the good/bad things about them now *is* the limited choice of hardware. They can test a new OS version on every potential base machine that it will be run on.
You can, however, pick up a beige G3 for $150. Not candy colored (or 400Mhz), but you can upgrade most parts on it with old PC parts and run OSX on it. Resale value of Macs tends to reflect their longer useful life. Perhaps it's simply because there are fewer gamers using them, or maybe because the parts are high quality throughout (you do get something for the price). I've seen professional artists still happily using 7-8 year old machines, 5-6 year old G3s pushing OSX or chugging away with OS9 in business situations...even a couple of 11 year old Quadras being used as RIPs. Not to say that old Wintel boxes aren't in use too, but I've just seen more old Macs in use. OSX is changing this of course, as XP is probably getting many Win95/98 users to pick up a new machine.
Hmm...seems to me that either way, time would be needed to fix it. *Someone* knows about it earlier than the patch (unless somehow Linux is magic and codes up a patch as soon as some lonely hacker recognizes an exploit). Perhaps it's a matter of "hey, there's a bug here" vs. "hey, there WAS a bug here, but I fixed it" type news. Either way, there are unpatched systems worldwide that may never get patched, and whole lot of patching to be done for those that will be.
Those wanting to exploit such a problem are obviously going to stay quiet about it.
I'm well aware of that too ^_^
I was simply saying that just because this isn't controlled doesn't make it true either. At least traditional news sources can be contacted so that corrections and apologies can be made, and have credibility to uphold (to a degree). CNN might have a liberal slant and brush over some facts, but they're still interested in being mostly right...as opposed to the Enquirer (just a thrown together, unbased example, I don't know or care to know your opinions of CNN or the Enquirer). To that end, "serious" news sources want to be at least mostly right. If they're not, they lose respect. With anonymous reporting, we could have one source writing conflicting reports with no penalty (Ender's Game anyone?).
It might be the perfect way to get information out, but it does nothing to make that information true or at best unbiased. Anonymity means that you don't have to take responsibility for your actions. You *could* have the "truth" (99% subjective anyway), or you could have a work of fiction from an angry 16 year old.
Well, a few things occur to me.
First, I dunno if this was a driver limitation or what, but I seem to remember decent restrictions on multiple sound streams. As in, I would be playing an MP3 and so ICQ couldn't make sounds. This was with a ISA AWE64 Value in NT 4 anyway. Once I went to a PCI sound card ($17 OEM Yamaha card) I could have plenty of simultaneous audio. I think this was a restriction of the drivers and/or ISA bus more than the chip though.
The Live and the Audigy that I've had after that have, in my opinion, sounded progressively better. The signal is cleaner (at least according to specs and cranking my reciever up), sound is richer, and they have digital outputs. Not to mention positional audio, which is pretty cool. Needed for basic sound? No. Sound is practically a given nowdays though (and should be). A decent PCI card can be had for $20-50 though. I think the only people paying $200 or more are those buying Audigy Platinums or professional audio cards.
USB audio is a pretty bad idea in my opinion. Sure, theoretically it works great. However, in practice, not always so. I've seen problems with Macs using them. Macs...machines on which audio has just simply "been there" on for years, now have strange volume drops or muting (with some USB speakers). I can't imagine how bad it can get with PCs with more variety in the hardware.
Besides, I've been using my old reciever and a pair of Polk Audio bookshelf speakers for 5 years now, and I've yet to hear a pair of computer speakers match them full range (especially at under $200, which is about what I paid). Those of us with more than a dinky sub/satellite combo will always want a real audio output anyway (though a digital optical would probably do).
As far as the audio chip is concerned, true, most people probably don't use much more than the functionality of an AWE32...or a Sound Blaster PCI/Ensonique AudioPCI as the case may be, since the AWE32 (to my knowledge) was an ISA only card. But newer cards have cleaner sound and more output options...for those of us that want them.
My problem isn't so much of one with Nintendo or the Gamecube. I think that it was engineered with some strange restrictions when considering what else is out there, etc. My problem is more when people act as though they are the "enlightened ones" because they own a *video game system*. I've been on too many boards that aren't video game specific where Gamecube owners are practically militant about their system of choice. As if it's some big secret that Nintendo *still* makes good games. Yes, I like *some* of the Gamecube games. Just like I like *some* PS2 games and *some* XBox games. The Gamecube is far from perfect, as are the PS2 and XBox. Nintendo is far from a player oriented perfect company, as are Sony and MS. Those are my points. They're all businesses motivated by sales and money alone. History and technology are indicators of that, which is why I brought them up. They've all made strange decisions, but Nintendo has some of the worst (Virtual Boy? Memory card 51?), probably just because they've been at it the longest (not counting Sega, 3DO or Atari, seeing as how they're out now ^_^) The real thing is... Just because *you* have a favorite doesn't make it the de-facto *true* choice. I personally don't think there is one for the exact reason that you said. "True gamers" play what they find fun regardless (which is why I pointed out obscure games and less popular systems). Regardless of gimmick, popularity, or _system_. I can say with certainty that my brother, who is quite happy with his XBox, would not get much enjoyment out of the exclusive Gamecube library. Yet according to you it has the most fun games. Your original post, which is what I started in on, was written in such a way as to indicate that. Not taking into account personal preferences in games. Not taking into account that technology *can* allow for innovation in games. Simply implying that the Gamecube was the hidden gold of the gaming world. Check out the ratings on IGN or Gamespot. There are plenty of highly rated XBox and PS2 games, even lately. Do you care about them? I know I don't care about the majority of them...but that doesn't make them bad or nonexistent. I agree, Nintendo pushes content over technology. I agree, Nintendo has solid, fun games. I concede, I'll probably be getting a GC again for Metroid and Zelda (this doesn't change that Nintendo failed to release I game I cared about for a year). If that's what you want to hear, put on a big smug grin. What I don't agree with is that the PS2 and XBox libraries are therefore void or somehow lacking. In my opinion, I simply don't care about most games out now, Gamecube included. All the systems have a few games that interest me...and that's it.
They really do have several hits a month. Take the Gamecube library. Throw out anything released on another console. Tends to be that the XBox has the best release if it's multi-console (there are exceptions, MGS2: Substance for example), but it's mostly true. This leaves you with what, 10-15 solid titles? Okay, toss out anything not a remake of an N64 game (or practically a remake). No more Rogue Leader, Wave Race, Mario, etc. So you're left with primarily Nintendo franchise games, which are continuations of older game in some way regardless (with only a few exceptions). SNES is probably my all time favorite system, so I more than recognize that. Nintendo games are Nintendo games. No friggin' DUH!. It doesn't change that Mario Kart has not changed much from when I played it on SNES. Is it any less a solid game? No...but it's also not worth rebuying just to get it slightly prettified from the N64 version. I had a Gamecube (got it launch day, actually). I wound up trading it in because I looked down the release list and couldn't see games that I cared about for at least another year. Why? Because it's just that. Waiting for Nintendo remakes of games you liked before. What you get with other consoles is variety and more releases. Hence while Nintendo might release *one* A-plus title for their console this month (Zelda this month), PS2 or XBox get several. That's not to say that the Nintendo games aren't any good, just that they're few and far between. So in the same time period that the Gamecube gets, say, Metroid...the XBox gets Panzer Dragoon, Splinter Cell, Mechassault, and more. The PS2 gets Wild Arms 3, GTA3: Vice City, Kingdom Hearts, etc. You get multiple great games in different genres. Like you mentioned for your PS2's RPG wave. Will any of those games get to the GC? Didn't think so. Yet you have *four* in the span of a couple months. That's why I can't see why people insist on classifying the Gamecube as the "gamers system". I can see why you'd classify the Dreamcast as such, or the XBox even. Why? Because of the exact things you brought up. Can you name the top 10 XBox games? No. Why? Not because none of them are any good, but because 1.) Variety and 2.) Hardcore games. Stuff like Jet Set Radio on Dreamcast or Panzer Dragoon on the XBox. Not ones that everyone lines up for, but excellent titles nonetheless. The Dreamcast's fighter lineup also would dictate that too. To me, being a hardcore gamer (or movie watcher, anime watcher, etc) usually involves games, movies, etc that not everyone knows about. Nintendo's big titles haven't changed much from the days of the SNES. Everyone knows them. The fact that they're predominantly All Ages doesn't make them obscure. Playing them despite that doesn't make one a "true gamer" in my eyes either. Nintendo games sell like hotcakes, because they *are* good. They're also no less mainstream than Tony Hawk or Metal Gear games. Perhaps more recognized. To me a "true gamer" wouldn't need to rely on previous games in a series to recognize a good game. Or would perhaps be more interested in playing Guilty Gear XX than Smash Brother's Melee (after having played Super Smath Bros.). Perhaps saying that Nintendo's games shouldn't be ignored as "kids stuff" or that the GC shouldn't be ignored as a platform would be more accurate. There are solid games on it. To ignore them because they're cartoony would be foolish. As for piracy, well, again. No friggin' DUH! But there have always been ways around things like that. Excepting the first series of PSXs (and even then it was a trick) people have needed mod chips. With the Dreamcast you had to be able to remove content. Yeah, Nintendo is the hardest to copy still...but at what cost? Are they now allowing companies like EA to have their own manufacturing plants like Sony does? Are game prices down now that it costs them pennies to make them? Yay Nintendo for stopping the pirates (or so we think...could be that if one has a DVD press, a modchip isn't needed). Last I checked the GC was coming in third in most places around the globe. Perhap
Well, the "truly new" architecture can be good or bad. Sony is really the first to fully pull it off. It's not only that the CPU is different or whatever. The PSX had that and was supposed to be reasonably easy. The PS2 has a multiprocessor system that (to my knowledge) had not previously been successful. The Atari Jaguar and Sega Saturn both had a similar problem. Powerful when you took the time to write for it...but in the end, hard to write for. The difference is that neither of those systems had Sony's clout. Otherwise there were many systems that were not entirely new. SNES was pretty much the same as an Apple IIgs (I think that was the one, they used them to debug the code even). The Genesis used the Z80 and 68000 processors...same as early arcade machines and Macs. The Game Gear is a Sega Master system. The advantage I'd say that MS has with the common interface is that all they need is to slap together a faster x86 system. Since games should already be using DirectX, any future system using DirectX should play all the old games. The only reason the PS2 plays the PSX games is because the old CPU is used on the board (I/O controller I think). Even then, the new abilities were crippled because Sony wanted to sell more PS2 games to pay for the hardware losses at the time. Take a look at Bleem! emulation and see how good the old games could have looked if they rendered them with the new video hardware. Sure, a dedicated system is more efficient in the long run. However, you also have to consider that people have to make games for the thing. The faster they can be working with fully optimized code, the faster you can have excellent titles to show off. Or the faster you can have games that innovate rather than have the developers always simply trying to get the graphics at 30+ fps. It's not all about the system being technically capable. It's also politics and marketing. Look at the Dreamcast. It was very well designed, and at the time of the PS2's release looked in many cases just as good (or close anyway). However, it was Sega. They didn't have the sequels from the PSX games, or the Sony name. People didn't buy them because they were waiting on the PS2. GT3 and MGS2 didn't show up for almost another year after the PS2's launch, FFX for even longer. However, despite the Dreamcast having a pretty solid library at the time, it was largely ignored. It's names and branding that sells these things most of the time. If MS gets some legacy type series on the XBox, they'll succeed anyway, regardless of tech specs. The PSX had the worst specs in general for its generation, but the fact that it was well balanced and easy to program allowed it to win the day. The PS2 could have been practically anything after the success of that. Besides, PS3 might be awesome, but MS (and Nintendo) will simply step up a year later and introduce something better. It's how this industry has gone for, well, ever since it was an industry. Hopefully we'll see some good games as a result...which is the point of it all.
Also remember that when the PS2 was released, developers everywhere raised an uproar about the pathetic libraries and documentation provided, hard to optimize architecture, etc. Contrasted to the Xbox using DirectX, and MS helping developers optimize games or the Gamecube using standard OpenGL stuff. Plus that the PS2 scratched games (especially when upright) and has had problems with either the CD or DVD laser burning out. If you don't think it's true, go talk to all the people I talked to when working at Software Etc about how their PS2 problems are just in their head. Or go make my PS2 play the second layer of DVD videos. PS2s also overheat if you let dust clog the vents. The system was redesigned several times in it's first year. The U.S. version differs from the original Japanese version (hard drive is external for that one). The original U.S. release was also tweaked. You can observe that the USB and firewire ports were rearranged (in the first few months). I've also seen things that theorize that Sony simply makes the PS2 profitable with fuzzy math or whatever. Not taking into account development costs like MS does (but this could be only true of the first couple years too). I'm not saying the Xbox is perfect or that the PS2 isn't any good. I own both. I just think that many people are looking at the PS2 in a skewed light becaus they want to put down Microsoft. Sony isn't some nice fluffy company either. They're big, mean, and most of their products are pretty low in quality for the price class. Why doesn't the PS2 have 4 controller ports? $30 multitap anyone? Who deliberately created shortages? Sony and Nintendo have...MS never did. It's all friggin' business and business is war. Including your perception of the other guy.
Gamers happily playing MGS2, GT3, GTA3, GGXX, VF4, Tekken, Halo, FFX, XenoSaga, Dark Cloud, Splinter Cell, or any of the other hit games for PS2 and Xbox would probably be inclined to disagree with you. Having worked in the software retail field, I can say that PS2 and XBox tend to have at least one hit a month. Usually several. Sure, there's crap too, but so is most of the Gamecube library (that or ports from other systems). Most of what the GC gets that's good are remakes of older games, or solid ports from PS2/Xbox. That's not to say they're not good...but seriously, A+ original titles for that system have been somewhat few and far between. Nintendo has always chosen paths that give it ironclad control over software distribution. They hand you that "good for gamers" line so you don't suspect them. You know where the Playstation even came from? SNES CD. Sony worked with Nintendo on it, but when Nintendo realized that their business deal (which gave Sony profits from CD games) wasn't well though out, they cancelled it. Sony took the work they'd done and came up with the PSX. Even then, Nintendo knew gamers would buy CDs over carts. However that didn't stop them... N64...long lived, but really lost the battle. There's what, a PSX in 2 outta 3 homes in America? Why? Cost. Wanna play FFIX? $39.99. Wanna play Majora's Mask? $69.99 plus a $29.99 memory pack if you don't have it. Oh, and there's no movies or CD sound. Forget about $15-20 greatest hits games. Why use carts? Because nobody but Nintendo can (legally) make them. They're expensive and limited. But they could hand consumers the line that they're "faster access". Right. Don't get me wrong, there were some great games on the system. But Nintendo screwed up royally when they decided not to go with CDs. Gamecube? Sure, elegantly designed CPU (IBM Gekko PowerPC), efficient GPU (albiet with only 3MB of texture memory, less than the N64 wound up having), and...MiniDVDs? Um, why? Ports from other systems have to get things dropped (DVD extras from SSX tricky for example). Anything that fills a typical DVD-9 would take 6 GC discs to port (in theory). So it won't see things like FFX with video intact. Ever. While multi-disc games are somewhat rare on Xbox and PS2, there are already several for GC. The controller, while nice, is not very versatile. Why did Capcom Vs SNK 2 on that platform have "simplified" controls? Because Nintendo apparently didn't consider the 10 year old fighting game genre worth taking into account. True, they kept the controls on the Xbox version, but it was made for the GC. So yeah, the GC is nicely designed for standard OpenGL and PowerPC programming (after the royal programming pain that was the N64). However, it's still using a controlled, limited format to release primarily remakes of Nintendo franchises. But of course, it's the true gamers system, right?
You dissin' the Media Access Control addresses? We need those to keep packets goin' where they ought. Or perhaps you don't realize that Mac is short for Macintosh, and so isn't all caps? ^_^
There are Mac emulators for PC. Basilisk for one. They actually work pretty well, however, the biggest things are that 1.) You can't emulate a PPC and 2.) You need a Mac ROM file (which to legally have means you probably need to go buy a used Mac for $5 anyway).
This pretty much limits you to 8.x MacOS levels, however, if you want to run some older Mac games or whatnot, it should be good enough. System 7.5.5 is available for free from Apple though, which makes it a solid choice for such a task.
Not entirely accurate, as most PCs bought will probably be in the $1500 range (especially with a monitor) and so be similar to an eMac or whatever in cost. At least, our average cost for a new PC bought is about $1700, less than a new Mac, but not by as much as your example. I'd also agree that hardware problems are rarer and support in general simpler for Macs. However, the point still stands that buying all new computers would be foolish if they aren't needed. Plus all the whining that would ensue, since most college faculty can't seem to grasp how to use the computer they have, much less a new OS. Sorry if I sound bitter, but I do computer support at a college... Licensing for Macs is actually cheaper though. There are more "infinite" licenses with Mac servers. Though the hardware is more expensive, the software isn't. Windows server licenses are obscenely priced in comparison. Personally I think mixed computing environments are the best. You're never entirely tied to any specific vendor, and students learn computing in general, not simply how to use a specific version of Windows and Word.
I wasn't being judgemental on anyone, as you don't seem to be. I was simply stating fact, in response to a question of why people I knew would try to quit looking at porn. To me, this filter is a tool in a similar vein to what I've already known people to do. It creates accountability. You volunteer information with this tool to help keep yourself in check. It's not imposing someone elses moral values. It's saying to someone, "I want to live this way, please help me". No different from hiring a personal trainer to help get you out to the gym and eat right. If you're already fit, or if you don't care, then you don't need one. If you have no qualms about porn, or don't look at it anyway, you don't need to worry about this. That simple.
I'm a Christian and have Christian friends. Perhaps to you porn isn't a problem, but for some people (myself included) it's a moral issue.
Some people have issues for one reason or another with looking at this stuff. It doesn't mean that they're a bad person now or whatever. However, this is a decent idea. I've known people that moved their computers into the living room or stopped having a net connection in their room in an attempt to stop looking at pr0n.
Except this is voluntary, and actually a pay service. It's not for people that are okay with porn. It's for people that are addicted and want to stop. Of course, if used by a boss or a parent, then it's a little different. However, that's still just helping to enforce rules created by someone other than this company.