Honestly, I hope they don't follow Nintendo's lead.
I *like* my 360. I *like* the graphics, the sound, the HDness.
I *don't* want a Wii.
I would much rather have diversity in the market. Some people like the Wii, some people don't. If all of the companies followed the leader we would have a homogenous marketplace and I don't think we want that.
I have returned 3 of them, and my current box is making strange fan noises.
I think the 360 is an awesome game system, but the hardware failures are killing me. The fact that the Elite wasn't the die-shrink was a little disappointing. And the failure rate must be killing Microsoft. I figure they have spent at least $50 just on the shipping of my boxes alone.
I will say that the last experience I had with their support was fantastic. They have a very quick and easy self-help phone tree...no, it is not crappy or frustrating.
When I got to a human (quickly) the guy basically went through the return process with me right away- no hassles at all.
The shipping to and from was quick.
I just wish I didn't have to ship it out at all. Their service is great, but it would have been better if they hadn't boned the hardware in the first place.
Just like I mentioned up above- PageMaker was KING before Quark Xpress. Adobe bought Aldus/PageMaker when it still had a large share of the market.
PageMaker started the business and owned the market before Quark came along.
I was a heavy PageMaker user from version 2 through 6.5. I also used Quark starting with 3.2.
For a shop needing to create 4 color separations, PageMaker was the best way to go for a long time (Until Quark 3.2) and it wasn't like I was going to give up thousands of files to jump over to the newest thing in town.
Aldus/Adobe OWNED the world of desktop publishing for quite a while before, and after, Quark.
Aldus Pagemaker was the first big design/layout program.
Adobe bought Aldus, hence PageMaker.
Quark started to steal marketshare, until it nearly owned the business. But Adobe had it first. If you think InDesign was Adobe's entry into the design market you are sadly misinformed.
Thank you for a well-thought reply. I agree with you that putting all of your eggs in one basket, no matter WHAT that basket is, is a bad idea.
My initial point was that many people say that Microsoft is a BAD basket to be in. I personally think this is ridiculous. For a very large percentage of the industry it is a GREAT basket to have your eggs in.
Sure Microsoft's market-share has declined slighly in the recent past. And other OSs have increased slightly. This is not a surprise.
Because people hated my first analogy, I figure I should use another one.
Let's say you have 10 basketball players. One player on the team scores like 90% of all of the points. The other 9 scramble for the rest.
Let's say the guy who makes 90% of the baskets dips down to making 88%.
Well some people would have you believe that one of the other players, who has managed to move from 2% to 3% is the ONLY way to go. Heck, he increased his share of the points by 50%! And the super-star? Obviously his days are numbered, and the time to cut him from the team is now!
I have no problem with the rest of the team. But when it comes to betting, I'm still putting my money on the 88%.
QuarkXpress was competing with the overwhelming market leader in the design/layout space- Adobe.
Quark is all but forgotten, while Adobe used its position as a market leader to continue to grow and expand. The people on the Quark bandwagon whithered, while those on the Adobe bandwagon continued to thrive.
But every other OS that manages to bump up its marketshare more than 3% is the wave of the future, and the only bandwagon you should be on!
A lot of people seem to think it is harmful to your career to ally oneself with the technology that is still the overwhelming leader in the market. Personally I don't understand that.
It's kind of like being the the transportation industry, and choosing to specialize in bicycles...economically, it is not a very good plan.
But I didn't claim that MySQL admin was better than SQL Server admin- I just said it was damn good.
I have had much better success with backup and restore on MySQL than I have had on SQL Server. I find the interface and functionality much easier to understand and much more obvious. The damn DTS in SQL Server is a black hole to me...admittedly I had a database replicate in the wrong direction about 4 years ago and I am still gun-shy when using it. Yes, it was my fault, but MySQL lays things out a little more clearly.
I'm a recent convert from SQL Server, and I love MySQL now.
The fact that I can download a copy and get it running in about 20 minutes is the best part. The fact that the admin is pretty damn good, and easy, is the part that keeps me using it.
Maybe there IS something to this whole open-source thing.
I don't understand the big deal behind backward compatibility.
I bought tons of games on the original Xbox. I played them, and then I am essentially done- never to play it again.
Same with the 360. I play a game to death, then I am tired of it. Unless new DLC comes out, I'll never put the game back in.
The ONLY exception has been Halo 2- because they are still the best multiplayer multi xbox split screen, not split screen, Live/System-link, WHATEVER the combo is, game.
But I am a web developer. I recently worked on a web project that was created by 'software engineers'. My client called them that..the 'engineers' called themselves that.
They created the biggest steaming pile of crap web app I have ever seen in my life.
Yes, the back-end worked fine. Not mind-blowingly-great, but fine.
The front end (and the admin area) were both absolute crap. Their knowledge of HTML/CSS obviously came from some book that was at least 5 years old. Yes, they used valid XHTML...but man, it was atrocious. And NO we DON'T need to create our own XML schema..there is this cool 'RSS' thing they had never heard of. (Not high-tech enough I guess)
I was hired because the original engineers could not longer give their time to the project. At first I was intimidated by the whole thing.
A few days later I realized that the entire project could have easily been done in (insert your scripting language here) and it would have been better, stronger, faster. Now I'm stuck compiling changes to a freakin' web site.
It was just a case of engineers thinking that they knew the best way to handle ANY project...and that was over-engineering the damn thing.
It's dynamic, it changes frequently. They give you a short-term lease (24 hours in many cases). With many ISPs you can request a new IP address at will.
Blocking IP addresses is sooooooo much less effective than blocking user accounts that cost $50.
You've had quite a few excited exchanges on the subject of Xbox Live. But you've admitted to not using the service yourself.
Then you come up with absolute garbage information about blocking IP addresses being an effective way to keep people out of your servers....
I think you are in this discussion because you like to argue about things you don't understand.
You are now fully integrated into Slashdot. Now go buy a Wii.
Free online gaming is like swimming at the public park. Playing on Xbox Live is like swimming at the gym you pay for.
There's a lot more riff-raff pissing in the pool at the park. The gym pool may not be perfect; but it's a whole lot better, simply because you are forced to pay to use it.
For that reason alone I am willing to pay for Live, and the pool at the gym.
My experience with the jerks on Xbox Live has been mixed, but there are ways to reduce the number of idiots in a game.
First- get good at the game. Call of Duty 2 or Halo are good examples. If you rank low, you will play against other people who rank low. These people are not very serious about playing the game, and therefore spend more time screwing around and causing people problems.
I encouraged my friends to play COD2...and they initially told me that everyone they played against was a freakin' idiot. I played on their accounts a few times, and I would agree...75% of the players were morons, and would prove thier stupidity very enthusastically.
But, after playing for a bit, and ranking up (takes a few days/week) you can move above the cesspool and into an area where people WANT to play the game, and they are serious enough to use tactics. AND, because you have ranked up through your own skill, you can be an asset to the team, therefore they won't give you a hard time.
On the other hand, some people don't want to spend the time, or they don't have the skillz to rank up. In that case, I would recommend only playing player matches where one of their friends is the host...and therefore can boot jackasses.
I've played a LOT of games that way, and it doesn't take long to get a good room with people who are interested in playing. And once they know you'll boot out the assholes, the good players are more likely to stay.
So all of Xbox live is crappy...yet the TRIAL of City of Heroes leads you to believe that it is the 'best example of a good online community'.
Xbox Live is what you make of it. Personally, I'm pretty liberal with the player mute, and I don't have any complaints at all.
To the people who say that the only reason to play online is to 'play with friends':
Personally, I disagree. While I do like playing with friends, and I LOVE playing co-op with friends...the main reason I play online is competition. Because I don't care how good you think you are, you aren't any good at all until you've played online. Because human intelligence is so much better than artificial intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, I hope they don't follow Nintendo's lead.
I *like* my 360. I *like* the graphics, the sound, the HDness.
I *don't* want a Wii.
I would much rather have diversity in the market. Some people like the Wii, some people don't. If all of the companies followed the leader we would have a homogenous marketplace and I don't think we want that.
1-800-4MyXbox
I have returned 3 of them, and my current box is making strange fan noises.
I think the 360 is an awesome game system, but the hardware failures are killing me. The fact that the Elite wasn't the die-shrink was a little disappointing. And the failure rate must be killing Microsoft. I figure they have spent at least $50 just on the shipping of my boxes alone.
I will say that the last experience I had with their support was fantastic. They have a very quick and easy self-help phone tree...no, it is not crappy or frustrating.
When I got to a human (quickly) the guy basically went through the return process with me right away- no hassles at all.
The shipping to and from was quick.
I just wish I didn't have to ship it out at all. Their service is great, but it would have been better if they hadn't boned the hardware in the first place.
I don't see a problem with signing his letters that way. He might just be a very enlightened person.
I really wish there were more people like this in our industry. That would attract women.
And women have boobies.
No, no, no!
Just like I mentioned up above- PageMaker was KING before Quark Xpress. Adobe bought Aldus/PageMaker when it still had a large share of the market.
PageMaker started the business and owned the market before Quark came along.
I was a heavy PageMaker user from version 2 through 6.5. I also used Quark starting with 3.2.
For a shop needing to create 4 color separations, PageMaker was the best way to go for a long time (Until Quark 3.2) and it wasn't like I was going to give up thousands of files to jump over to the newest thing in town.
Aldus/Adobe OWNED the world of desktop publishing for quite a while before, and after, Quark.
Aldus Pagemaker was the first big design/layout program.
Adobe bought Aldus, hence PageMaker.
Quark started to steal marketshare, until it nearly owned the business. But Adobe had it first. If you think InDesign was Adobe's entry into the design market you are sadly misinformed.
That is the reason I mentioned 'the design/layout space'. It should be seen as an industry where things are tied together.
Quark had one product.
Adobe had a much larger focus, with PhotoShop, Illustrator AND PageMaker/InDesign, as well as fonts, printing, etc.
Eventually their herd of elephants ran right over Quark, and they did it with their muscle in the field.
A single product cannot survive, but dominating an entire field can last much longer.
Thank you for a well-thought reply. I agree with you that putting all of your eggs in one basket, no matter WHAT that basket is, is a bad idea.
My initial point was that many people say that Microsoft is a BAD basket to be in. I personally think this is ridiculous. For a very large percentage of the industry it is a GREAT basket to have your eggs in.
Sure Microsoft's market-share has declined slighly in the recent past. And other OSs have increased slightly. This is not a surprise.
Because people hated my first analogy, I figure I should use another one.
Let's say you have 10 basketball players. One player on the team scores like 90% of all of the points. The other 9 scramble for the rest.
Let's say the guy who makes 90% of the baskets dips down to making 88%.
Well some people would have you believe that one of the other players, who has managed to move from 2% to 3% is the ONLY way to go. Heck, he increased his share of the points by 50%! And the super-star? Obviously his days are numbered, and the time to cut him from the team is now!
I have no problem with the rest of the team. But when it comes to betting, I'm still putting my money on the 88%.
Thank god there are financial analysts here on Slashdot to point out Microsoft's accounting shenanigans.
Microsoft had the entire financial industry bamboozled, but nothing gets past the wiz-kids here!
Good point...
QuarkXpress was competing with the overwhelming market leader in the design/layout space- Adobe.
Quark is all but forgotten, while Adobe used its position as a market leader to continue to grow and expand. The people on the Quark bandwagon whithered, while those on the Adobe bandwagon continued to thrive.
Not only is Microsoft dying..
But every other OS that manages to bump up its marketshare more than 3% is the wave of the future, and the only bandwagon you should be on!
A lot of people seem to think it is harmful to your career to ally oneself with the technology that is still the overwhelming leader in the market. Personally I don't understand that.
It's kind of like being the the transportation industry, and choosing to specialize in bicycles...economically, it is not a very good plan.
Sorry, I was not referring to the CLI interface at all. The only thing I have used that for is to import some databases from a PHPMyAdmin dump.
I'm using the GUI tools from the MySQL site:
http://mysql.org/downloads/gui-tools/5.0.html
I just assumed that most people- especially those familiar with SQL Server would be using the GUI.
I don't want to get all niggly...
But I didn't claim that MySQL admin was better than SQL Server admin- I just said it was damn good.
I have had much better success with backup and restore on MySQL than I have had on SQL Server. I find the interface and functionality much easier to understand and much more obvious. The damn DTS in SQL Server is a black hole to me...admittedly I had a database replicate in the wrong direction about 4 years ago and I am still gun-shy when using it. Yes, it was my fault, but MySQL lays things out a little more clearly.
No, all hail MySQL.
I'm a recent convert from SQL Server, and I love MySQL now.
The fact that I can download a copy and get it running in about 20 minutes is the best part. The fact that the admin is pretty damn good, and easy, is the part that keeps me using it.
Maybe there IS something to this whole open-source thing.
I don't understand the big deal behind backward compatibility.
I bought tons of games on the original Xbox. I played them, and then I am essentially done- never to play it again.
Same with the 360. I play a game to death, then I am tired of it. Unless new DLC comes out, I'll never put the game back in.
The ONLY exception has been Halo 2- because they are still the best multiplayer multi xbox split screen, not split screen, Live/System-link, WHATEVER the combo is, game.
Will this still be used as an example in 2009?
Seriously, Epic did themselves a huge PR favor by releasing UT 2004 on Linux, but was it a commercial success?
I have no idea of the quality of your work...
But I am a web developer. I recently worked on a web project that was created by 'software engineers'. My client called them that..the 'engineers' called themselves that.
They created the biggest steaming pile of crap web app I have ever seen in my life.
Yes, the back-end worked fine. Not mind-blowingly-great, but fine.
The front end (and the admin area) were both absolute crap. Their knowledge of HTML/CSS obviously came from some book that was at least 5 years old. Yes, they used valid XHTML...but man, it was atrocious. And NO we DON'T need to create our own XML schema..there is this cool 'RSS' thing they had never heard of. (Not high-tech enough I guess)
I was hired because the original engineers could not longer give their time to the project. At first I was intimidated by the whole thing.
A few days later I realized that the entire project could have easily been done in (insert your scripting language here) and it would have been better, stronger, faster. Now I'm stuck compiling changes to a freakin' web site.
It was just a case of engineers thinking that they knew the best way to handle ANY project...and that was over-engineering the damn thing.
Do you know how most ISPs hand out IP addresses?
It's dynamic, it changes frequently. They give you a short-term lease (24 hours in many cases). With many ISPs you can request a new IP address at will.
Blocking IP addresses is sooooooo much less effective than blocking user accounts that cost $50.
You've had quite a few excited exchanges on the subject of Xbox Live. But you've admitted to not using the service yourself.
Then you come up with absolute garbage information about blocking IP addresses being an effective way to keep people out of your servers....
I think you are in this discussion because you like to argue about things you don't understand.
You are now fully integrated into Slashdot. Now go buy a Wii.
No problem, Live isn't for everyone.
But when you spread mis-information about not being able to create private games I think it is important that somebody post a correction.
Spoken like someone who has never played on Live, and set up a 'Player Match'.
No passwords required, because you already know who your friends are.
The analogy that always come to my mind is this:
Free online gaming is like swimming at the public park. Playing on Xbox Live is like swimming at the gym you pay for.
There's a lot more riff-raff pissing in the pool at the park. The gym pool may not be perfect; but it's a whole lot better, simply because you are forced to pay to use it.
For that reason alone I am willing to pay for Live, and the pool at the gym.
If either case is true...he probably shouldn't have a 360.
Really.
Live is the 360..and the 360 is Live.
I used to think that too-
But the publishers WANT you to hang onto the game for a while, just so you don't sell it back...creating lost sales from the used market.
That's why multiplay is so important- longevity.
My experience with the jerks on Xbox Live has been mixed, but there are ways to reduce the number of idiots in a game. First- get good at the game. Call of Duty 2 or Halo are good examples. If you rank low, you will play against other people who rank low. These people are not very serious about playing the game, and therefore spend more time screwing around and causing people problems. I encouraged my friends to play COD2...and they initially told me that everyone they played against was a freakin' idiot. I played on their accounts a few times, and I would agree...75% of the players were morons, and would prove thier stupidity very enthusastically. But, after playing for a bit, and ranking up (takes a few days/week) you can move above the cesspool and into an area where people WANT to play the game, and they are serious enough to use tactics. AND, because you have ranked up through your own skill, you can be an asset to the team, therefore they won't give you a hard time. On the other hand, some people don't want to spend the time, or they don't have the skillz to rank up. In that case, I would recommend only playing player matches where one of their friends is the host...and therefore can boot jackasses. I've played a LOT of games that way, and it doesn't take long to get a good room with people who are interested in playing. And once they know you'll boot out the assholes, the good players are more likely to stay.
So all of Xbox live is crappy...yet the TRIAL of City of Heroes leads you to believe that it is the 'best example of a good online community'.
Xbox Live is what you make of it. Personally, I'm pretty liberal with the player mute, and I don't have any complaints at all.
To the people who say that the only reason to play online is to 'play with friends':
Personally, I disagree. While I do like playing with friends, and I LOVE playing co-op with friends...the main reason I play online is competition. Because I don't care how good you think you are, you aren't any good at all until you've played online. Because human intelligence is so much better than artificial intelligence.
And with a funny accent.