Besides, even if it's not as good as the best standalone devices, what choice do I have? Most people can't go around carrying three or four single-function devices, so if it comes down to having a less-than-perfect MP3 player, a good DVD player, a good game machine, and a passable PDA and cell phone, vs just having a PDA and cell phone, I'd choose the former.
First, if the GC's library is anything to judge the DS by, the PSP will be a better gaming machine than the DS, because I haven't played a Nintendo game in years that I considered worth the $50 (yes, even Wind Waker). Second, the PSP's headphone output seems quite decent --- not as clean as an iPod's, but then again, you don't pump the output of a portable through audiophile speakers:) Third, I presume the cell-phone adaptor will be like those wired earpiece things that seem so popular these days.
As for battery life, a cell phone doesn't draw a lot of power in standby mode, and the PSP can clock down quite a bit. IGN got 10.5 hours playing MP3s, so it should at least match your cellphone. My current cell phone as a 4 hour talk-time (it was the longest of the ones the Sprint store had at the time), so if the PSP can pull off even 3 hours, I'd be happy.
Hmm. I've got a GC and a PS2, and I can think of only two games worth buying a GC for: Metroid Prime and Wind Waker. I can think of easily a dozen PS2 games: Xenosaga, Star Ocean, Metal Gear Solid 3, Devil May Cry (1 and 3), GTA (3, Vice City, and SA), and recently God of War. I think it comes down to taste, but most people I know are very dissapointed with the GC's library.
In what alternate reality? An iPod mini lasts about 6 hours (if you drain it completely), and my 4G iPod lasts about 10 hours. In IGN's MP3 test, the PSP lasted 10 hours and 39 minutes.
Re:I just wrote my local paper about this
on
PSP Launch Coverage
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention the fact that the data (not game) portion of UMD is already being made an open spec.
It fits quite easily in my khakis. It doesn't look like it should, but it's all about the proportions. Like the iPod, the PSP's narrow and long design matchs the shape of most pants pockets.
That's not really true in the portable world. Most adults don't wear cargo pants (or utility belts). Hence space is a factor. The PSP fits gaming, multimedia, and (with a confirmed future update), PDA functions into one device. The PSP means I can go from carrying an iPod, a Palm PDA and Gameboy to carrying just one device that fits comfortably in the pocket of my khakis, and I get video capability as a bonus. If the cell-phone adaptor rumor is true, I'm down to a single device! That's a *huge* win.
It ownz. The screen is huge and beautiful. The unit looks nice and feels sturdy (not cheap like the DS), and the controls are all in the right place. The interface is very nice, and quite well-suited for navigating with a d-pad. So far, I'm very impressed.
I can't wait for the web-browser update. If writable data UMDs ever come out, I can replace my PDA and my iPod:)
1) The icons are still tiny (unlike KDE, you can't adjust the toolbar size). 2) I paid $400 for a piece of software* and you expect me to make it usable?
* Actually, I didn't. I refuse to spend good money on software that makes my documents look like utter crap.
The problem with overloading the toolbars is that it makes them useless. Let's go back to first principles. Why do we have toolbars? We have toolbars because it's faster to access an item out of a small linear set than a large hierharchical set. The idea is that the items you use 80% of the time should be in the toolbar, so you have to go to the menu less often. However, when you put too much crap in the toolbar, that advantage goes away. It's faster to access an item from a large hierarchical set than a large linear set. Thus, you've eliminated the very trait that made the toolbar useful in the first place!
C -- Most important functions in toolbars, with easy-to-recognize pictures, and less important functions in menus, with quick-to-recognize text.
Like in all multiple-choice tests, C is the right answer.
It's idiotic to reduce this to a "newbie" vs. "elite MS Office user (chuckle)" thing. It's a matter of efficiency --- once you put too much crap in a toolbar, recognizing a given item goes from being requiring a single-glance to requiring a linear scan. It's a matter of O(1) vs O(n).
That's really no different than Firefox drawing it's own chrome onto blank GTK+ widgets. If you consider Firefox to be using a different toolkit, then you also have to consider Office to be using a different toolkit. Further, Office, at least as of 2000, used it's own file dialog too, among other things.
In any case, Visual Studio and.NET still use their own toolkits, so your "visual themes" analogy doesn't stand.
Re:Magnification does nothing
on
The Solar Death Ray
·
· Score: 2, Informative
What caused the ignition was that about 250watts of light was concentrated on a small spot on the paper. You would have gotten the same effect with a 10.5" parabolic mirror. Actually, if it had been a reflecting telescope, it would have used a 10.5" parabolic mirror:)
This isn't really any different from, say, Microsoft. If you're running Visual Studio, MS Office, and Visio, that's four widget sets right there (counting the regular WinXP one). Throw in Firefox, and that's five. That application set isn't even contrived --- I ran exactly that combo while working on a Windows app. The only big OS that is really free of having a plethora of widget sets is MacOS X, and even then some apps (like Adobe's), include a lot of their own widgets.
"playing Nintendo" is still synonymous with "playing video games.
In what alternate reality? Maybe for old-timers like us, but kids these days don't know what a Nintendo is. By far the most common thing I hear is "do you wanna play XBox?" or "do you wanna play Playstation?"
What the hell? Sony never said that. They did say that Cell could be put in things like TVs (which is true). That's different from saying that you could put a PS3 in a TV!
You miss the point. Apple's interfaces are not like Microsoft's interfaces. It's not the use of icons that's the problem, but the overuse of cryptic ones. MS Word is the most egregious offender. There are several toolbars full of tiny icons that don't really mean anything to you unless you've used the program before. Most Apple apps, however, have one or two toolbars of big, clear icons for the most important functionality. The rest is left to text labels in the menus.
But what you're saying in #1 above is that in "production," speed-sensitive code, no one is using lists... this would mean that no one is using map, filter, or any other pieces of reusable primitive code.
Only to the extent that all of your production code is speed-sensitive. The hot-spots are generally only 10% of the code. A lot of very complex code (eg: configuration stuff), only gets run very rarely. Using high-level languages has a certain design procedure. You write everything at the high-level, and verify that it works. Then, you look at the optimizer and see what to fix. If your compiler is good, you'll only have to write a fraction of the code at a low-level, and you'll have a net time benefit.
Heh. You don't see marxist liberals in America. The "fringe" is people like Nader, who don't advocate getting rid of corporations, just regulating them. There is an enormous leap from that to "dictatorship of the proletariat". The thing that pisses me off most about American politics is that certain people have managed to replace the rich and varied sphere of political ideologies with a few token carictitures, and have engaged in such a war on names that we are left without any vocabulary with which to intelligently discuss politics.
"Liberal" in the US means someone that most other countries would in this day and age consider a moderate. Your right about the historical definition of liberal, but US liberals are quite a ways away from being even remotely socialist. Nader (someone too extreme for most American liberals), could be rightly called a "moderate socialist".
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, even if it's not as good as the best standalone devices, what choice do I have? Most people can't go around carrying three or four single-function devices, so if it comes down to having a less-than-perfect MP3 player, a good DVD player, a good game machine, and a passable PDA and cell phone, vs just having a PDA and cell phone, I'd choose the former.
First, if the GC's library is anything to judge the DS by, the PSP will be a better gaming machine than the DS, because I haven't played a Nintendo game in years that I considered worth the $50 (yes, even Wind Waker). Second, the PSP's headphone output seems quite decent --- not as clean as an iPod's, but then again, you don't pump the output of a portable through audiophile speakers :) Third, I presume the cell-phone adaptor will be like those wired earpiece things that seem so popular these days.
As for battery life, a cell phone doesn't draw a lot of power in standby mode, and the PSP can clock down quite a bit. IGN got 10.5 hours playing MP3s, so it should at least match your cellphone. My current cell phone as a 4 hour talk-time (it was the longest of the ones the Sprint store had at the time), so if the PSP can pull off even 3 hours, I'd be happy.
Hmm. I've got a GC and a PS2, and I can think of only two games worth buying a GC for: Metroid Prime and Wind Waker. I can think of easily a dozen PS2 games: Xenosaga, Star Ocean, Metal Gear Solid 3, Devil May Cry (1 and 3), GTA (3, Vice City, and SA), and recently God of War. I think it comes down to taste, but most people I know are very dissapointed with the GC's library.
Hmm. Mine doesn't have any. So two data points, 48 more to go :)
I can also use an iPod for days before it dies
In what alternate reality? An iPod mini lasts about 6 hours (if you drain it completely), and my 4G iPod lasts about 10 hours. In IGN's MP3 test, the PSP lasted 10 hours and 39 minutes.
Not to mention the fact that the data (not game) portion of UMD is already being made an open spec.
Actually, it's launch lineup is getting quite good reviews. Yeah, there are a lot of remakes, but they're still good games.
Um, do you have one? It's about half a pound, or a little bit heavier than an iPod Photo. And what's wrong with the controls?
It won't fit in your pocket.
It fits quite easily in my khakis. It doesn't look like it should, but it's all about the proportions. Like the iPod, the PSP's narrow and long design matchs the shape of most pants pockets.
That's not really true in the portable world. Most adults don't wear cargo pants (or utility belts). Hence space is a factor. The PSP fits gaming, multimedia, and (with a confirmed future update), PDA functions into one device. The PSP means I can go from carrying an iPod, a Palm PDA and Gameboy to carrying just one device that fits comfortably in the pocket of my khakis, and I get video capability as a bonus. If the cell-phone adaptor rumor is true, I'm down to a single device! That's a *huge* win.
It ownz. The screen is huge and beautiful. The unit looks nice and feels sturdy (not cheap like the DS), and the controls are all in the right place. The interface is very nice, and quite well-suited for navigating with a d-pad. So far, I'm very impressed.
:)
I can't wait for the web-browser update. If writable data UMDs ever come out, I can replace my PDA and my iPod
1) The icons are still tiny (unlike KDE, you can't adjust the toolbar size).
2) I paid $400 for a piece of software* and you expect me to make it usable?
* Actually, I didn't. I refuse to spend good money on software that makes my documents look like utter crap.
The problem with overloading the toolbars is that it makes them useless. Let's go back to first principles. Why do we have toolbars? We have toolbars because it's faster to access an item out of a small linear set than a large hierharchical set. The idea is that the items you use 80% of the time should be in the toolbar, so you have to go to the menu less often. However, when you put too much crap in the toolbar, that advantage goes away. It's faster to access an item from a large hierarchical set than a large linear set. Thus, you've eliminated the very trait that made the toolbar useful in the first place!
C -- Most important functions in toolbars, with easy-to-recognize pictures, and less important functions in menus, with quick-to-recognize text.
Like in all multiple-choice tests, C is the right answer.
It's idiotic to reduce this to a "newbie" vs. "elite MS Office user (chuckle)" thing. It's a matter of efficiency --- once you put too much crap in a toolbar, recognizing a given item goes from being requiring a single-glance to requiring a linear scan. It's a matter of O(1) vs O(n).
That's really no different than Firefox drawing it's own chrome onto blank GTK+ widgets. If you consider Firefox to be using a different toolkit, then you also have to consider Office to be using a different toolkit. Further, Office, at least as of 2000, used it's own file dialog too, among other things.
.NET still use their own toolkits, so your "visual themes" analogy doesn't stand.
In any case, Visual Studio and
What caused the ignition was that about 250watts of light was concentrated on a small spot on the paper. You would have gotten the same effect with a 10.5" parabolic mirror. Actually, if it had been a reflecting telescope, it would have used a 10.5" parabolic mirror :)
This isn't really any different from, say, Microsoft. If you're running Visual Studio, MS Office, and Visio, that's four widget sets right there (counting the regular WinXP one). Throw in Firefox, and that's five. That application set isn't even contrived --- I ran exactly that combo while working on a Windows app. The only big OS that is really free of having a plethora of widget sets is MacOS X, and even then some apps (like Adobe's), include a lot of their own widgets.
"playing Nintendo" is still synonymous with "playing video games.
In what alternate reality? Maybe for old-timers like us, but kids these days don't know what a Nintendo is. By far the most common thing I hear is "do you wanna play XBox?" or "do you wanna play Playstation?"
What the hell? Sony never said that. They did say that Cell could be put in things like TVs (which is true). That's different from saying that you could put a PS3 in a TV!
As I recall, Son never made "rendering toy store in real time" claims. Some damned journalists said that, based on the performance specs of the EE.
You miss the point. Apple's interfaces are not like Microsoft's interfaces. It's not the use of icons that's the problem, but the overuse of cryptic ones. MS Word is the most egregious offender. There are several toolbars full of tiny icons that don't really mean anything to you unless you've used the program before. Most Apple apps, however, have one or two toolbars of big, clear icons for the most important functionality. The rest is left to text labels in the menus.
They seem to be typos. I'm sure the first one is a typo, and the second one actually means 10^-23, not 10-23 seconds :)
But what you're saying in #1 above is that in "production," speed-sensitive code, no one is using lists... this would mean that no one is using map, filter, or any other pieces of reusable primitive code.
Only to the extent that all of your production code is speed-sensitive. The hot-spots are generally only 10% of the code. A lot of very complex code (eg: configuration stuff), only gets run very rarely. Using high-level languages has a certain design procedure. You write everything at the high-level, and verify that it works. Then, you look at the optimizer and see what to fix. If your compiler is good, you'll only have to write a fraction of the code at a low-level, and you'll have a net time benefit.
Heh. You don't see marxist liberals in America. The "fringe" is people like Nader, who don't advocate getting rid of corporations, just regulating them. There is an enormous leap from that to "dictatorship of the proletariat". The thing that pisses me off most about American politics is that certain people have managed to replace the rich and varied sphere of political ideologies with a few token carictitures, and have engaged in such a war on names that we are left without any vocabulary with which to intelligently discuss politics.
"Liberal" in the US means someone that most other countries would in this day and age consider a moderate. Your right about the historical definition of liberal, but US liberals are quite a ways away from being even remotely socialist. Nader (someone too extreme for most American liberals), could be rightly called a "moderate socialist".