No, I think only Apple and IBM had a chance to do it. There were lots of other companies in the game. I just didn't see them as real contenders come the time when computers really started to get into everyone's home and office/desk, and it really forced one to win out.
My first computer was a TRS-80 at school, and an Colecovision Adam at home. Dude across the street from me had a 64 that we messed around with. Another friend had a 2e. Another friend had a Vic. I know there were plenty home options in the 80's. But by the late 80's early 90's we were seeing computers crop up on desks at work, and having experience with the software and OS was becoming a requirement for the workplace. Basically one had to win. For that reason, and for 3rd parties to focus on. IBM dropped the ball with OS/2. Apple kept everything locked up too tight. And Wintel was really the best, and most open, option at the time. That's all I was saying.
I don't need a new reason to vilify Apple. Their shitty history is more then enough reason. I so long for the days when I can buy an Apple for 2x what it should cost so that I can run 4 pieces of software all provided by Apple while smiling about what a great experience it is to live in the Apple womb.
And as other have pointed out he wasn't writing In Character so even if I was familiar with the blog, I'd have been fooled.
I expect fake stories to make it through on April fools day. While an occasional few get through, and this could be one of them, it doesn't put the blame on the reader for falling for it.
Hey dipshit. The crap software from MS was mostly crap because it actually supported a gazillion different fucking pieces of hardware and shitty drivers occasionally crash things, and a large part of the software we're always using ontop of the OS wasn't even written by them.
A good portion of the world is running their shit software and amazingly, it just fucking works.
They got caught with their pants down with 95 that wasn't ready for the internet boom. Yeah, sucks for them.
You can remain a cynical shitwad all you want. Complain all you want. Their OS on someone elses hardware is far better then one company to rule them all. Especially when their software sucked so bad is was the software that actually worked well enough that it became the defacto software in everyone's home during the internet boom. Go get your grandma set up with 2.6 kernel jackass so she can check her email.
Their energy source isn't the sun, and they're able to thrive in water that's very hot, in very high pressure, and with a lot of sulfur. But they're still carbon based life, they still take oxygen from the water. They're extreme, but still fall into line with "looking for us".
So you follow every single possible aspect of "tech news"?
No, of course not. So stop being a dick. I don't read apple blogs in general. No reason for me to since I'm not fascinated by shiny objects.
Actually it's not. Because time didn't stop in 1991. Though Wintel was established, IBM had already lost with OS/2 and started to change gears. Apple still had a chance to change mindset and compete. And they wouldn't. And they still won't to this day. When no one else was left controlling the entire experience, Apple was. Apple does now. And I'm glad they lost out. Because it was that and price that lost it for them. It wasn't the crappier machines that's for sure. Because for the most part their stuff was better.
Call bullshit all you want, doesn't mean you have a clue. And your post is nothing but a whiny inaccurate rant.
Let me take you back a little while. A few decades. You have a lot of different computer options for the home. But they were all complete options. If you bought an Apple it was their hardware (or picked hardware), it was their software that ran it. It was very similar to buying a console game system today.
That changed when Wintel broke out. Two companies (one supplying hardware to vendors, the other supplying the OS) is far more open then one controlling both. Intel was and is x86. But even in the 80's there were at least a few other options. But the early 90's another viable option. And by the late 90's the Athlons were out as truly viable options. MS has controlled the OS market since then, but because the hardware wasn't locked by them, it gave room for Linux and others to grow.
There's nothing noble in Apple wanting to control the *entire* PC experience. And that's what they want to do. MS and Intel slept together, sure. But they had squabbles (Windows 95 wasn't an Intel favorite) and even cheated on each other. MS with AMD and Intel with Apple.
It's a much better scenario then Apple or IBM controlling the hardware and the software.
No, but apparently you like playing square peg - round hole though.
I don't have a problem with anything in your second paragraph, and it doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Only your initial claim does.
I never claimed IBM didn't have control issues. In fact, I mentioned them next to Apple as companies I am happy did not win. It's when systems became available that weren't locked down (the clone wars and wintel) that the battle was settled.
No, actually. Because I didn't read it on his blog. I have no history reading his blog. I read it on/.
You're barking up the wrong tree. I expect stories posted here to be accurate for the most part. I'm not expected to be an expert on the stories, enough to call "BS" on them. You're post is utter crap. If this is a fake, the onus is on this site, not us that read this site.
The younger geeks don't remember why Apple lost out the 1st time around. They're the King of Control. The champion of "our way or the highway". The locked it down when no one else did, and their prices were insane.
As I've been accused of being a MS tool in the past, I will always maintain they are the lesser of three evils when compared to the other contenders that could have won out. Apple and IBM.
So while it's currently "cool" to think of Apple as the hippy-happy company. Realize they are anything but. Job's paints a pretty picture. Just realize he's going to tell you which room and which wall to hang it on. Or he won't let you buy it.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html
I haven't completely read what you linked yet, though I will at some point to give this a more proper reply. But was that article just drawing the bubble around the Earth in light years and commenting on the reach our radio signals? Or coming up with a cherry picked scenario to show how it could work? If you read what you quoted of me it says "typical radio transmissions virtually disappear well short of a single light year". And that is 100% accurate.
If you look at the bottom of the link I just posted you'll see that even using Arecibo AM signals vanish at less then 1 AU. FM at a few AU. To get into lightyears you're getting into much higher frequencies and the signals have a lot more power behind them. Which aren't "typical". "I love Lucy" isn't going to make it to our nearest stellar neighbors, nor is 100.9 KISS FM. Unless they have a dish the size of a small moon powered by a star.
So yes, what I wrote was true. The most logical frequencies for local communication do not lend themselves to be pick up from far away. Now, if our goal was to send signals far away, and someone at the other end knew it was coming and listened for it, yeah, we could send signals no problem. That's basically SETI on our end looking for it. But now you're into a needle in a haystack unless the other end is doing nothing but spamming the galaxy with high frequency "here we are" signals. Which we aren't doing, so I don't believe we should assume anyone else is either.
"Like it or not, if there was a civilization coexisting in our neck of our galaxy, we'd have some inkling of it already. Unnatural radio transmissions would stand out against the background radiation"
That part is not true. Typical radio transmissions virtually disappear well short of a single light year. And by "virtually" I mean our own giant radio antennas wouldn't hear them.
We would really have a very hard time detecting ourselves just a light year away. Other transmissions that have a longer range are so infrequent from us, we'd miss them with our own scans, and they'd be nothing but noise that gives no reason to take notice.
So it's possible there's "something" in our neck of the woods and we don't know it.
Now, how to go about building a giant concrete ear. Hmmm.....
OK, honestly. Me thinks that anything that would produce sound waves that made it through interstellar space and was able to be detected on Earth would most likely be easier to detect looking for photons. Whether that be radio waves, visible, gamma, etc...
Sound is just the movement of energy through matter in waves. While I have no doubt it's possible that in some alien world hearing would be more important then eyesight (think of bats and sonar for example), that type of sense does not lend itself to being spotted from across vast differences. The medium to carry it is horrible, it absorbs the energy on it's way, and it distorts it. It would be like shoving the hubble behind a gazzilion miles of concrete then trying to take pictures.
There's a lot to that discussion. We tend to assume that the laws of physics will work pretty much all over the galaxy. And in places where our current understandings break down, life isn't likely to exist (black holes, Planck scales, etc...).
Given this assumption, there aren't a lot of options for different types of life. The chemistry just doesn't work. Biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, and physics is mathematics. It basically puts in some ground rules for life. There's a decent little wiki on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_biochemistry
As you can see in that wiki (there are pro's and con's for each of the alternates), based on our understanding life either does need most of the same things we do, or at least our biochemistry should be the most common in the universe. The math just makes it that way. There are some variables sure. And some alternatives. But for the most part, looking for stuff life us seems to most likely scenario.
Now, given this, #1 and #2 should fall somewhat in line with what they're thinking. Sure, the minutia of evolution could lead to exotic live from our perspective. Something other then DNA based life even. But they (the aliens) should still come up with e=mc And their biochemistry should, at least, be something comparable to ours.
No, probably not. But then, I didn't write that as a tirade against iTunes. I was giving examples of what we should be fighting against when it comes to the MPAA/RIAA.
Yes, and the decline are pirates are responsible for global warming.
You really believe piracy is the reason PC games are cheaper then console games? I'd like to see the case made for that.
Sure, they're insane. But the insane part is not that you can go onto a website and download a copy of every song ever made for free.
The insane part is how when they try and protect copyright they go overboard and hinder our everyday lives and legal uses.
Examples: iTunes and Zune marketplace not letting me transfer files I paid for to another device I legally own (this one is getting fixed at least partly).
Or when I legally by a copy of software it's a PITA activating it. Or how they sue anonymously based on some crappy internet logs. Or push people around since the Average Joe can't afford legal fees like they can.
Places like SpyTorrent are a reason why they've gone draconian. I don't believe it at all justifies their actions. But let's not make them out to be a victim here. What they were doing is wrong and they're a part of the blame for this whole mess.
Hey, look. We all know that the MPAA/RIAA are pricks. But the good fight isn't sticking up for people that are violating copyright in bulk on purpose. If a university were to block all of bit torrent, that's a cause worth fighting against. The right fight is to not allow the bad (or potential bad) to prevent the good. But let's not bury our heads in the sand and pretend places like TorrentSpy weren't doing anything but providing a way for people to share copyrighted material.
Like it or not, people are downloading and sharing against copyright all over. And there's no reason to support that.
"The market seems to be splitting as well. There seems to be a much more distinct break up of whats games ends up on which system. The wii is getting novel party games (doing well everywhere). The PS3 still has a lock on the traditional Japanese franchise (given the world wide sales distribution this will continue to be true, doing well in Japan, poor in the US), while the 360 is getting many more of the American titles (and also doing poorly outside the US, well in the US)."
Not sure what you meant by "while the 360 is getting many more of the American titles (and also doing poorly outside the US, well in the US)."
The 360 has done very well in Europe. And controls the US market.
The 360 is the best selling (most units sold total) of the three in the US by a wide margin. It's also the best selling of the 3 in Europe (though not by the margin they have in the US).
The Wii is the hottest of the 3 of three in all markets.
The PS3 is selling better then the 360 in Japan but the sales there aren't even great and they have no where near the sales there that the Wii has.
Something to note is that out of the 3 major target markets, Japan is by far the smallest.
The interweb is global and people often complain about American-centric viewpoints dominating it. But the console markets were the exact opposite till the Xbox came along, and being an American, that's the main reason I hope it continues to perform well. The American market is by far the biggest for any and all consoles. Yet for years we watched Japan get the super famicon almost a full year before we got the SNES, and similar situation. The major console makers were Japanese and treated the larger American market as second fiddle and we got new tech and games many many months after Japan. Now with MS in the game they cater to my market. And for that I am thankful.
Damn McDonalds. Burgers want to be free!!!!
I'm all for free stuff, but come on, people have a right to charge for their product if they want to. And the OS costs aren't out of this world.
Seriously. My post even got modded as a troll. A troll is someone looking to just get a rise out of people. What I wrote was my honest experience using the OS. I don't see a speed issue with Vista. I'm not so naive to see the RAM utilization and freak out thinking that's the OS footprint. And I couldn't care less about a Word benchmark. As if the speed of "using" it is somehow slower. DRM I don't see it all through the product. I think they went overboard with activation, the XP model was just fine IMO. I don't see any DRM issues when I throw in a CD, burn it, and share it over the internet.
Someone responded quoting me and saying it sounded like OSX. Hmmm, well it kinda is. Yet Vista takes all sorts of crap for it and OSX doesn't.
The hardware constraints (somewhat beefy hardware, drivers issues, etc...) make it nearly impossible to considering implementing in the enterprise in the near future.
But for a home OS I fail to see the problem. It's stable. It has a lot of nice little features (great indexing and file management (probably best I've seen by default in any OS to date), finally something that nicely uses previously wasted RAM and CPU cycles, improved user management and security, nice built in backup features, much better multi-media management (this one sorts goes with indexing and file management I supposed) etc..).
I know, there's ton of issues out there even for those where it should work. But there are for any OS. And for every "my network slows down when I play music" on Vista there's a "if you lose your network drive in the middle of a file move, your file goes *poof*" on another OS.
Sure, your old sound card might not work with Vista. So don't upgrade to it. I don't see that as a knock on the OS. Legacy support is always a give and take when upgrading. The "beefy" requirements to run it are always overstated around here. Turn off aero and your middle of the pack 4 year old CPU will run it just fine with a gig of ram. I don't know if there's enough of a reason to want to upgrade over XP for the cost. But surely after using both a lot I'd much rather have Vista, it's sandbox, and it's interface (even without aero, window thumbnails, and transparent windows) then XP.
Generally I think Vista just gets railed because no real "geek" should run windows, and because for some reason it's not OK for MS to release *new* software only meant for *new* hardware. The negativity isn't based on the actual product because the actual produce isn't that bad.
Then how about my actual post dumb ass. You know the one titled "The 360 has always had good sales" and then starts off:
"At least in the US and Europe. And it's enough, even with bad sales in Japan, to say it has good sales. So this is no surprise.
And it's clearly the best mover of games (please spare me Sport and Play since the opportunity for 3rd parties to have their games inlcuded with the console or a second remote is slim to none) based on sales"
So save your "you couldn't fucking understand I was talking about sales in the 1st part" jackass.
And it wasn't your opinion I had a problem with.
You writing "No it doesn't." in response to "good sales" isn't your opinion. It's you being wrong. The facts are the 360 cleans up compared to the other two new consoles in sales of games available on all systems.
And you can bitch about them all you want. Your right. But don't act like everyone agrees with you, because the "sales" show they don't.
No jackass. I covered a few things. I talked about sales first, which is what the story was about. And that was based on facts.
Then I put forth my opinion on the originality of the fall lineup. I ever clarified that when I noted that people aren't talking about the originality much. Learn to read dumbass. I even went so far as to briefly explain the parts of the game I thought were original.
Is two things in a reply too much for you to follow or something? Everyone else seemed to grasp it OK. Maybe instead of just being a pissy know-nothing you should try reading and not having some presupposed bias forcing you to retort with nothing but ignorance and insults. In conlcusion, you're an asshat.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think only Apple and IBM had a chance to do it. There were lots of other companies in the game. I just didn't see them as real contenders come the time when computers really started to get into everyone's home and office/desk, and it really forced one to win out.
My first computer was a TRS-80 at school, and an Colecovision Adam at home. Dude across the street from me had a 64 that we messed around with. Another friend had a 2e. Another friend had a Vic. I know there were plenty home options in the 80's. But by the late 80's early 90's we were seeing computers crop up on desks at work, and having experience with the software and OS was becoming a requirement for the workplace. Basically one had to win. For that reason, and for 3rd parties to focus on. IBM dropped the ball with OS/2. Apple kept everything locked up too tight. And Wintel was really the best, and most open, option at the time. That's all I was saying.
I don't need a new reason to vilify Apple. Their shitty history is more then enough reason. I so long for the days when I can buy an Apple for 2x what it should cost so that I can run 4 pieces of software all provided by Apple while smiling about what a great experience it is to live in the Apple womb.
And as other have pointed out he wasn't writing In Character so even if I was familiar with the blog, I'd have been fooled.
I expect fake stories to make it through on April fools day. While an occasional few get through, and this could be one of them, it doesn't put the blame on the reader for falling for it.
Hey dipshit. The crap software from MS was mostly crap because it actually supported a gazillion different fucking pieces of hardware and shitty drivers occasionally crash things, and a large part of the software we're always using ontop of the OS wasn't even written by them.
A good portion of the world is running their shit software and amazingly, it just fucking works.
They got caught with their pants down with 95 that wasn't ready for the internet boom. Yeah, sucks for them.
You can remain a cynical shitwad all you want. Complain all you want. Their OS on someone elses hardware is far better then one company to rule them all. Especially when their software sucked so bad is was the software that actually worked well enough that it became the defacto software in everyone's home during the internet boom. Go get your grandma set up with 2.6 kernel jackass so she can check her email.
Those aren't actually a different biochemistry.
Their energy source isn't the sun, and they're able to thrive in water that's very hot, in very high pressure, and with a lot of sulfur. But they're still carbon based life, they still take oxygen from the water. They're extreme, but still fall into line with "looking for us".
So you follow every single possible aspect of "tech news"?
No, of course not. So stop being a dick. I don't read apple blogs in general. No reason for me to since I'm not fascinated by shiny objects.
So sorry.
Actually it's not. Because time didn't stop in 1991. Though Wintel was established, IBM had already lost with OS/2 and started to change gears. Apple still had a chance to change mindset and compete. And they wouldn't. And they still won't to this day. When no one else was left controlling the entire experience, Apple was. Apple does now. And I'm glad they lost out. Because it was that and price that lost it for them. It wasn't the crappier machines that's for sure. Because for the most part their stuff was better.
Call bullshit all you want, doesn't mean you have a clue. And your post is nothing but a whiny inaccurate rant.
Let me take you back a little while. A few decades. You have a lot of different computer options for the home. But they were all complete options. If you bought an Apple it was their hardware (or picked hardware), it was their software that ran it. It was very similar to buying a console game system today.
That changed when Wintel broke out. Two companies (one supplying hardware to vendors, the other supplying the OS) is far more open then one controlling both. Intel was and is x86. But even in the 80's there were at least a few other options. But the early 90's another viable option. And by the late 90's the Athlons were out as truly viable options. MS has controlled the OS market since then, but because the hardware wasn't locked by them, it gave room for Linux and others to grow.
There's nothing noble in Apple wanting to control the *entire* PC experience. And that's what they want to do. MS and Intel slept together, sure. But they had squabbles (Windows 95 wasn't an Intel favorite) and even cheated on each other. MS with AMD and Intel with Apple.
It's a much better scenario then Apple or IBM controlling the hardware and the software.
No, but apparently you like playing square peg - round hole though.
I don't have a problem with anything in your second paragraph, and it doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Only your initial claim does.
I never claimed IBM didn't have control issues. In fact, I mentioned them next to Apple as companies I am happy did not win. It's when systems became available that weren't locked down (the clone wars and wintel) that the battle was settled.
No, actually. Because I didn't read it on his blog. I have no history reading his blog. I read it on /.
You're barking up the wrong tree. I expect stories posted here to be accurate for the most part. I'm not expected to be an expert on the stories, enough to call "BS" on them. You're post is utter crap. If this is a fake, the onus is on this site, not us that read this site.
The younger geeks don't remember why Apple lost out the 1st time around. They're the King of Control. The champion of "our way or the highway". The locked it down when no one else did, and their prices were insane.
As I've been accused of being a MS tool in the past, I will always maintain they are the lesser of three evils when compared to the other contenders that could have won out. Apple and IBM.
So while it's currently "cool" to think of Apple as the hippy-happy company. Realize they are anything but. Job's paints a pretty picture. Just realize he's going to tell you which room and which wall to hang it on. Or he won't let you buy it.
No, what I wrote was true.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html
I haven't completely read what you linked yet, though I will at some point to give this a more proper reply. But was that article just drawing the bubble around the Earth in light years and commenting on the reach our radio signals? Or coming up with a cherry picked scenario to show how it could work? If you read what you quoted of me it says "typical radio transmissions virtually disappear well short of a single light year". And that is 100% accurate.
If you look at the bottom of the link I just posted you'll see that even using Arecibo AM signals vanish at less then 1 AU. FM at a few AU. To get into lightyears you're getting into much higher frequencies and the signals have a lot more power behind them. Which aren't "typical". "I love Lucy" isn't going to make it to our nearest stellar neighbors, nor is 100.9 KISS FM. Unless they have a dish the size of a small moon powered by a star.
So yes, what I wrote was true. The most logical frequencies for local communication do not lend themselves to be pick up from far away. Now, if our goal was to send signals far away, and someone at the other end knew it was coming and listened for it, yeah, we could send signals no problem. That's basically SETI on our end looking for it. But now you're into a needle in a haystack unless the other end is doing nothing but spamming the galaxy with high frequency "here we are" signals. Which we aren't doing, so I don't believe we should assume anyone else is either.
"Like it or not, if there was a civilization coexisting in our neck of our galaxy, we'd have some inkling of it already. Unnatural radio transmissions would stand out against the background radiation"
That part is not true. Typical radio transmissions virtually disappear well short of a single light year. And by "virtually" I mean our own giant radio antennas wouldn't hear them.
We would really have a very hard time detecting ourselves just a light year away. Other transmissions that have a longer range are so infrequent from us, we'd miss them with our own scans, and they'd be nothing but noise that gives no reason to take notice.
So it's possible there's "something" in our neck of the woods and we don't know it.
Interstellar sound waves...Brilliant!
Now, how to go about building a giant concrete ear. Hmmm.....
OK, honestly. Me thinks that anything that would produce sound waves that made it through interstellar space and was able to be detected on Earth would most likely be easier to detect looking for photons. Whether that be radio waves, visible, gamma, etc...
Sound is just the movement of energy through matter in waves. While I have no doubt it's possible that in some alien world hearing would be more important then eyesight (think of bats and sonar for example), that type of sense does not lend itself to being spotted from across vast differences. The medium to carry it is horrible, it absorbs the energy on it's way, and it distorts it. It would be like shoving the hubble behind a gazzilion miles of concrete then trying to take pictures.
There's a lot to that discussion. We tend to assume that the laws of physics will work pretty much all over the galaxy. And in places where our current understandings break down, life isn't likely to exist (black holes, Planck scales, etc...).
Given this assumption, there aren't a lot of options for different types of life. The chemistry just doesn't work. Biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, and physics is mathematics. It basically puts in some ground rules for life. There's a decent little wiki on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_biochemistry
As you can see in that wiki (there are pro's and con's for each of the alternates), based on our understanding life either does need most of the same things we do, or at least our biochemistry should be the most common in the universe. The math just makes it that way. There are some variables sure. And some alternatives. But for the most part, looking for stuff life us seems to most likely scenario.
Now, given this, #1 and #2 should fall somewhat in line with what they're thinking. Sure, the minutia of evolution could lead to exotic live from our perspective. Something other then DNA based life even. But they (the aliens) should still come up with e=mc And their biochemistry should, at least, be something comparable to ours.
No, it's "your". As in "it's your right to have an opinion". Not, "you are right". Because you're not.
/. in a newer story devoted to nothing but sales.
Hell, you want a link. Sure. How about in the games section of
No, probably not. But then, I didn't write that as a tirade against iTunes. I was giving examples of what we should be fighting against when it comes to the MPAA/RIAA.
Yes, and the decline are pirates are responsible for global warming.
You really believe piracy is the reason PC games are cheaper then console games? I'd like to see the case made for that.
Sure, they're insane. But the insane part is not that you can go onto a website and download a copy of every song ever made for free.
The insane part is how when they try and protect copyright they go overboard and hinder our everyday lives and legal uses.
Examples: iTunes and Zune marketplace not letting me transfer files I paid for to another device I legally own (this one is getting fixed at least partly).
Or when I legally by a copy of software it's a PITA activating it. Or how they sue anonymously based on some crappy internet logs. Or push people around since the Average Joe can't afford legal fees like they can.
Places like SpyTorrent are a reason why they've gone draconian. I don't believe it at all justifies their actions. But let's not make them out to be a victim here. What they were doing is wrong and they're a part of the blame for this whole mess.
This has nothing to do with the CIA case.
Hey, look. We all know that the MPAA/RIAA are pricks. But the good fight isn't sticking up for people that are violating copyright in bulk on purpose. If a university were to block all of bit torrent, that's a cause worth fighting against. The right fight is to not allow the bad (or potential bad) to prevent the good. But let's not bury our heads in the sand and pretend places like TorrentSpy weren't doing anything but providing a way for people to share copyrighted material.
Like it or not, people are downloading and sharing against copyright all over. And there's no reason to support that.
Where are you getting those numbers? Because vgcharts has it as I said and so does the actual article in this story.
"The market seems to be splitting as well. There seems to be a much more distinct break up of whats games ends up on which system. The wii is getting novel party games (doing well everywhere). The PS3 still has a lock on the traditional Japanese franchise (given the world wide sales distribution this will continue to be true, doing well in Japan, poor in the US), while the 360 is getting many more of the American titles (and also doing poorly outside the US, well in the US)."
Not sure what you meant by "while the 360 is getting many more of the American titles (and also doing poorly outside the US, well in the US)."
The 360 has done very well in Europe. And controls the US market.
The 360 is the best selling (most units sold total) of the three in the US by a wide margin. It's also the best selling of the 3 in Europe (though not by the margin they have in the US).
The Wii is the hottest of the 3 of three in all markets.
The PS3 is selling better then the 360 in Japan but the sales there aren't even great and they have no where near the sales there that the Wii has.
Something to note is that out of the 3 major target markets, Japan is by far the smallest.
The interweb is global and people often complain about American-centric viewpoints dominating it. But the console markets were the exact opposite till the Xbox came along, and being an American, that's the main reason I hope it continues to perform well. The American market is by far the biggest for any and all consoles. Yet for years we watched Japan get the super famicon almost a full year before we got the SNES, and similar situation.
The major console makers were Japanese and treated the larger American market as second fiddle and we got new tech and games many many months after Japan.
Now with MS in the game they cater to my market. And for that I am thankful.
Paying for a product? OMG the evils?
Damn McDonalds. Burgers want to be free!!!!
I'm all for free stuff, but come on, people have a right to charge for their product if they want to. And the OS costs aren't out of this world.
Seriously. My post even got modded as a troll. A troll is someone looking to just get a rise out of people. What I wrote was my honest experience using the OS. I don't see a speed issue with Vista. I'm not so naive to see the RAM utilization and freak out thinking that's the OS footprint. And I couldn't care less about a Word benchmark. As if the speed of "using" it is somehow slower. DRM I don't see it all through the product. I think they went overboard with activation, the XP model was just fine IMO. I don't see any DRM issues when I throw in a CD, burn it, and share it over the internet.
Someone responded quoting me and saying it sounded like OSX. Hmmm, well it kinda is. Yet Vista takes all sorts of crap for it and OSX doesn't.
In real world use I see it as:
1. An excellent home OS where applicable
2. An OS that has no place in the enterprise
The hardware constraints (somewhat beefy hardware, drivers issues, etc...) make it nearly impossible to considering implementing in the enterprise in the near future.
But for a home OS I fail to see the problem. It's stable. It has a lot of nice little features (great indexing and file management (probably best I've seen by default in any OS to date), finally something that nicely uses previously wasted RAM and CPU cycles, improved user management and security, nice built in backup features, much better multi-media management (this one sorts goes with indexing and file management I supposed) etc..).
I know, there's ton of issues out there even for those where it should work. But there are for any OS. And for every "my network slows down when I play music" on Vista there's a "if you lose your network drive in the middle of a file move, your file goes *poof*" on another OS.
Sure, your old sound card might not work with Vista. So don't upgrade to it. I don't see that as a knock on the OS. Legacy support is always a give and take when upgrading. The "beefy" requirements to run it are always overstated around here. Turn off aero and your middle of the pack 4 year old CPU will run it just fine with a gig of ram. I don't know if there's enough of a reason to want to upgrade over XP for the cost. But surely after using both a lot I'd much rather have Vista, it's sandbox, and it's interface (even without aero, window thumbnails, and transparent windows) then XP.
Generally I think Vista just gets railed because no real "geek" should run windows, and because for some reason it's not OK for MS to release *new* software only meant for *new* hardware. The negativity isn't based on the actual product because the actual produce isn't that bad.
Then how about my actual post dumb ass. You know the one titled "The 360 has always had good sales" and then starts off:
"At least in the US and Europe. And it's enough, even with bad sales in Japan, to say it has good sales. So this is no surprise.
And it's clearly the best mover of games (please spare me Sport and Play since the opportunity for 3rd parties to have their games inlcuded with the console or a second remote is slim to none) based on sales"
So save your "you couldn't fucking understand I was talking about sales in the 1st part" jackass.
And it wasn't your opinion I had a problem with. You writing "No it doesn't." in response to "good sales" isn't your opinion. It's you being wrong. The facts are the 360 cleans up compared to the other two new consoles in sales of games available on all systems.
And you can bitch about them all you want. Your right. But don't act like everyone agrees with you, because the "sales" show they don't.
No jackass. I covered a few things. I talked about sales first, which is what the story was about. And that was based on facts.
Then I put forth my opinion on the originality of the fall lineup. I ever clarified that when I noted that people aren't talking about the originality much. Learn to read dumbass. I even went so far as to briefly explain the parts of the game I thought were original.
Is two things in a reply too much for you to follow or something? Everyone else seemed to grasp it OK. Maybe instead of just being a pissy know-nothing you should try reading and not having some presupposed bias forcing you to retort with nothing but ignorance and insults. In conlcusion, you're an asshat.