I understand what you say, and still disagree about freedom to some degree. But we'll stop there. Its slow here, too -- and I knew what I was getting into before I made my opinion known, but I can only throw so many posts up trying to respond to everyone before I get tired of it;)
Well, to sum all this up 'cause I am tired of arguing it, here's how I feel about it:
Tho it may have been unethical, MS beat everyone else to the top of the mountain. All the power still lies in the people. But the people (ie the businesses) could crush MS if they were to do it right. And I am speaking of a simply boycott, if nothing else.
Its far-fetched, I know. I never expected anything else to happen. This is why we have the laws we have today.
Yes, MS is taking advantage of their position, in an unethical manner. But again, 'we' let MS do it.
You want things to be right with MS? Don't call the gov't to take care of it. They are in charge of too much as it is.
MS earned what they have, tho it may not be right how they did it. As to how they treat us now, that's still up to us. Its irrelevant how shitty (and non-existant) linux installers were in the mid 90's. This could be fixed now by Linux's current technology, and even made better, without the need for gov't intervention.
We don't need more laws and precedences ironing out every possible nook. Let MS run their business how they want, and let them be responsible for what happens by the market for running their businesses that way.
No, I don't think it would be fair to take away my advantage because it IS "i do somethign well here and this makes it better" -- my marketing tactics worked better than the competition's. That's the very definition OF competition!
On the use of MS's power, so be it! They are the king of the mountain, and so they have an advantage. Why must people continue to want THAT mountain? There are others. And they perform they same services. They may not be aesthetically pleasing, but that could be ironed out very quickly (I would wager 2-3 years at most) if you had the market's backing.
The ONLY reason MS has a monopoly, the ONLY reason the playing field isn't level, is because of people's interest in MS' products. Without their products, they have no income.
And MS' income is guaranteed by those very same people who agree to those contracts. If they said no, MS would not do as well and the playing field would be more level.
I understand what you are saying, and I won't repost what I've mentioned earlier in another thread, but your analogy to physical products (almost non-replenishing ones, at that) aren't exactly the same situation here.
Every aspect and function that windows and all its software serve have been replicated in one form or another. In almost ALL of those, there even exists a free version.
This means people *aren't* being screwed. In fact, it would be a great service for them to adopt the competition and make it stronger. It would even level the playing field.
I believe that having gov'ts do it FOR us is NOT the way it should be handled.
I've read my history, and I know all about how the Sherman Act came to be.
I think its arguable that MS has a monopoly. The only definition I've seen thus far is "concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few". Well, I hate to say it, but 90% of all wealth in the WORLD resides in 5% of the population. Those numbers are generalized from my wife's business economics textbook from college. I'll look up the name and edition if you really want it.
My point to all of this, so its made clear, isn't that MS is doing right or wrong, or that its ethical, its that I believe the gov't should NOT interfere. Its up to the businesses to deal with it. Let MS run their business the way they want to and let the rest of the business world deal with it.
Explain to me how Microsoft has a monopoly. A quick reference to the sherman act says a 'restraint on trade'. but this is by the buyer's *choice*.
It seems to me that if everyone told microsoft to sod off now, the problem would be solved because the use of windows would almost cease for new computers. While the contracts (granted, a form of trust) say that the buyer cannot sell anything else, why would you infringe on the freedom of the buyer to choose to do so? Or the company to offer it?
If the gov't steps in, and tells ms that they cannot do that, then they force Ms to sacrifice its advantage for all the little guys. While it may be noble, it doesn't seem fair.
I am beginning to argue parts of the Sherman act at this point, and I realize that I am gonna get slammed, but I am huge believe in ultimate freedom.
Business should be left to businesses. Keep the government out. MS can (and should) be handled by the businesses.
Funny, your sig says "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither." but I don't think you fully understand it.
Dell did not have to sign any contract with Microsoft, even now. They CHOSE to -- and by choosing to they grant Microsoft even more market share.
I think many have forgotten just what a 'monopoly' is. Per Webster's:
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3.
1. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
2. A commodity or service so controlled.>
4.
1. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
2. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
Well how about that? It seems to me that in order for a monopoly to exist, there can be no competition.
Again, I don't agree with MS's business practices AT ALL. However, I believe that all the claims you have made would take away the priveleges of the way MS does their business. It is their right to put whatever clauses in their contracts they want, and it is Dell's right to refuse it and find another OS.
Am I suggesting that they go with something like Linux? Sure! Why not?
High learning curve? Maybe... but don't you think that if the pc makers were backing it, things would improve quickly? I mean, Mandrake and SuSE are almost there!
but see, the problem with that scenario is that it relies on an 'illegal' contract. As far as I know, and IANAL, the only 'illegal' contract is one that breaks a law.
Telling someone that they can't sell competing products if they want to use yours is not against the law, that's the buyer's choice.
If I came to you and told you that you couldn't sell any of your flea powder (and lets say it sells well) if you want to sell my cat-washing machines, you would likely tell me to sod off.
complaining about the zealotry of linux and the OSS community? I don't even OWN an ms product!
I've just yet to be given a clear example (an I will freely admit that this could be to bad reporting) of how MS has bullied a corporation into something that they could not find another way around.
So please, educate me. I'm not saying that Microsoft is innocent, and I could care less if they get it stuck to them. I'm thinking about the freedom for a company to do whatever it wants with its product. If that means 'bully-ish' contracts, then fine. There is nothing against the law about that. Yes, they hold most of the market, but they are by no means the sole solution -- and that means that Corporation A is not *forced* to use them. They *choose*.
If you wrote a piece of software, and it became wildly popular and everyone was paying you money for it, and no other product compared to it, and say you had a suite of tools to go with it, do you think it would be fair to be forced to allow interoperability of other people's tools and take away your advantage?
Sorry, but I have yet to see a real reason why doing one thing with your product when it is popular is different from doing it when its not popular.
Aherm, but so what? Microsoft can choose to sell their product at whatever price they want to whomever they want. If there are rules to get a certain price, so be it. Dell does not have to buy from Microsoft. Neither does anyone else.
Do you think that if the entire computer industry just had the balls to refuse Microsoft, that Microsoft would cease this kind of action?
To me, this is hardly the work for the government or even the courts.
MS plays hardball, to be sure, but they're not necessarily holding a gun to anyone's head.
Windows is only popular because of corps like Dell and HP. if Dell and HP started seriously pushing linux, and maybe even threw a few dollars towards the community, you'd notice a hell of a change.
It might take time (maybe a few years), but things would change. Radically.
I have to agree. I'm not biased towards one OS over another, they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
Maybe I am missing something, but what is so wrong with Windows coming with whatever amount of software that Microsoft wrote? So what if MS decided to block all versions of Windows from running anything but an MS product? So what if they give it away for free trying to gain all the market share? We can all refuse to use Windows at any time.
I think we can all agree that *nix, *BSD, and even MacOS are more than capable of filling the gaps.
I've GOT to be missing the real reasoning behind this... I just don't see how Microsoft doing whatever it wants with its product is a bad thing.
Monopoly? How? There is an alternative to every aspect of every Microsoft product out there (thanks mostly the free software / open source community).
If *I* can be MS free, what the hell is the rest of the world's problem? I mean, should MS be responsible for the world's ignorance or stupidity?
I think I've read so many bad reports on all of the MS antitrust saga that I am just baffled as to what is really being put into question. What am I missing here, folks?
Personally, I would rather see all this time, effort, and money (TEM!) spent on the more greasy companies/organizations - like The Canopy Group to start with!
Like all of you other fellow dorks, I getting excited everytime something robotic is announced. But I still keep wondering when the hell any of this R&D is gonna be put to use...
But you know, here's an idea:
Why not use them in place of astronauts to places like the moon and Mars? Build these things *en masse* and ship them (cheaper than cryo) wherever, and put their ass to work!
They don't even need to be autonomous. Have a bunch of people at Mission Control acting as gamers, only instead of building an a base to detroy a small empire on the screen, they will be building a base to destroy many empires in REAL LIFE!!
Honestly, tho, how freaking difficult would it be to send a bunch of robots (some specifically suited to one or two tasks, while others taking the more 'versatile' approach of the humanoid) to take on the role of exploration and construction?
If the thing can play a trumpet, surely they can produce a small fleet capable of exploring Mars for a few months? Or building a small colony on the moon? Why not send one or two up to the ISS to have them go outside and work? Hell, why bother with the ISS at all?
Japan is building mechs (Gundam's in 10 years, you watch;) and all we have is a fuckin Tyco that can't even wipe its own ass^H^H^H solar panels....
Perhaps its a need to defend my love of gaming, but that article was mostly bullshit. Most of time I was reading it, I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not. I hope it was.
I won't waste time arguing about how games are repeating their formulas, which you've all mentioned already that Hollywood does the same; that like Hollywood, games will simply refine and re-tell. I won't waste a good rant on how fucked up an argument could be that gaming, indeed technology, has reached a graphical plateau.
There is one good point, however: the aging First Generation and the New Generation.
Someone earlier mentioned that most of the First Generation, defined by me as anyone who *remembers* when the NES was rolled out (or any earlier console), are getting on with their lives, getting married, having children, and basically getting weighed down with other responsiblities. I'm 25, consider myself a First Gen Gamer (my first 'console' was a TI-99/4A, with speech synth!!), married, have a baby boy, a house, a career, and the other crap. Gaming these days isn't like it used to be. Along with that, I find myself drawn to only the best of the best of games. I don't have time or money to buy and sift through the crap games from the greats.
Personally, I think its the switch to the New Generation of gamers thats gonna be the problem, not the industry itself. Most of us First Gens gaming will slow to a crawl, and the New Gens will be the ones screaming to the developers as to what they want. Most of the New Gens aren't as wowed by ever-increasing technology as us First Gens are. For us, the novelty is still there while the New Gens mostly expect it.
The industry isn't going to know how to deal with the New Gens at first. They're a completely different breed. And us First Gens are only gonna slow in our gaming (tho we may not necessarily slow down in the purchasing of them:).
Then again, the switch could be seamless. Who knows.
Just watch Japan. If it happens in the game industry, it will happen there first.
I understand where this guy is coming from... Its getting harder and harder to find a game that leaves me completely satisfied that however much money I spent on the game was well worth it.
These days, most of those good games I find are on consoles.
I agree with a lot of you that there seems to be a cascade of good games every few years, followed by a bad aftertaste of trite titles. Right now, the pc is badly sufferring from something truly exciting. If you asked my opinion, I'd say the most exciting things to happen in the pc gaming world have been MMO's and graphics enhancements to games all around (but that will always be exciting, so it doesn't count). And the mmo's suck, too! (speaking from someone who spent a little over a year - not cumulatively - playing them)
I think the pc game market is gonna hit another milestone soon, if for no other reason that its just due. Seeing games like Half-life 2, while still an fps, gets me really pumped at the level of realism and detail being poured in -- not just in graphics, but in physics, sound, AI, animation, and an extreme level of attention to the psychology of the player.
Take a look at some of the better console games lately. My picks would be those that really suck you into the environment, like a good movie. At least, that's how I judge whether a game is good or not (excusing more old-school-esque games whre its not about environment or story). Think about something like Silent Hill 3 -- do you have any idea how much time went into little details that made that game so creepy feeling? What about Metal Gear Solid / 2 ? Those games really took you into their world. Metroid? These games were all immensely popular for a reason.
I could go on and on, but you begin to get the point. Its hard to put your finger on it, but there's something very cinematic and involving in those games -- not just in storyline, gameplay, or graphics -- but something that really makes you forget to do things like eat and sleep.
When the new consoles hit the markets in the next year or two, I expect we'll see the lull with those games -- as developers will be spending most of their time just fucking with them.
PC games will hit their mark again. Just look for the ones with amazing sales. That's usually a good way to judge a game before buying it;)
In comparison with every place I've work pre- or post- Mindspring, Mindspring is _still_ the best place I've ever worked...
I understand how it might have changed with the IPO. I came on in 98. Seeing things change with Earthlink taking over had the same effect.
Btw, as far as my introduction to the Mindspring Dress Code, it went like this:
Me: So I was told to dress casually?
Interviewer: Its like this: We once had a guy challenge the dress code wearing nothing but a towel. Well, we allowed it, but turned the ACs on full blast.
I knew I was going to enjoy working there then:)
Right before the dreaded Earthlink somehow convinced/forced Charles to sell Mindspring, we had our top story AC go out.
For those that 'served' in Atlanta, it was the tech support floor -- all 140 of us. Yeah, I should mention that this was in July... in Georgia... where the humidity hovers around 90% during that time of the year. Imagine 140 people talking at once. Imagine 140 computers (struggling) and the hot air THEY put out. Now imagine a lot of people-types whom don't always wear deodorant, and many whom don't even shower but when it rains. Stupid people on the phone. Over 8 hours of this.
The only reason I, as a gamer in his 20's, don't watch much TV these days is because the majority of the tv and especially its primetime (I assume that's the time tv execs want us watching the most) lineup are geared toward mindless comedy, trite drama, and the much over-played shock-value.
It seems to me that all of the tv that I find interesting has some aspect of it that hasn't been ran through the politically-correct/marketing machine. Things like reality tv are only intriguing (and sometimes funny) because they hint at showing everyday life, filled with obsceneties, moodiness, and everyone's unique perspective/opinions on life. Sitcoms and drama's just don't have that, even a fictional state. They try so desparately to keep their hands clean that its no wonder people tuned in everywhere when Southpark uttered "Shit" almost 200 times in 30 minutes.
Its not that people want filthy tv filled with sex, violence, and cursing... rather, perhaps they want something that doesn't make them feel like they're children and have to cover their eyes all of the time.
Besides the movie channels, I really only watch Cartoon Network (honestly, only Adult Swim/Toonami and a few others like Samurai Jack, occasionally Justice League, etc), Discovery/TLC, and SciFi. I'm sure I'm not alone, either. And if you think about the programming you watch on those channels, I would bet that they all just don't pay much attention to what the other channels are doing, and instead just focus on what they do best: anime, documentaries, and science fiction with lots of cheesy effects.
If you want me to watch your station, don't hold my hand like I'm a freakin' 2 year old. Just spit out the real truth behind what you're trying to tell (if there is some), and for God's sake quit trying to market to every demographic possible!
Oh, and it might help to come up with something original instead of just repackaging the leading channel's ideas. Just a hint.
The fact that it uses 2.4ghz instead of 900 mhz makes a HELL of a difference in lag
Ummm... what? 2.4 ghz signals travel at the same speed as 900 mhz signals. And even if they didn't, you're talking about a distance so short that it wouldn't make a difference in overall performance. The 'lag' has everything to do with the quality of the transmitter/receiver, and nothing to do with the frequency.
There's a lot more interference experienced by 900mhz devices than 2.4. Or perhaps its a throughput issue? I don't how much information is exchanged for the ps2 controllers vs the gamecube's. But there is a difference between all the ps2's popular 900mhz controllers and the 2.4gigs. That's not to say that it isn't simply a better transceiver. I just associated the performance with less interference.
Wow. Using my Wavebird (which, admittedly, doesn't have rumble), I've changed batteries twice in the ~20 months I've owned it (and once was last week). And that's certainly not because I don't play it very often... Judging from some of the games I went through on a single set of batteries, I'd guess I put at least 250 hours on my last set of AA's.
Yeah, well obviously its an engineering difference. I mean, the wavebird requires 2 AA batteries where this logitech requires 4! 900mhz devices DO consume less power, as well. As you know, power consumption is more about how much work the controller is doing. Playing 250 hours of RPG's is not like playing 250 hours of a platformer, and certainly not a fighter or most racers. And besides, I never said "my wavebird eats 5 sets of batteries a year". Just that this particular Logitech controller eats them -- and realdpk said himself he's had to recharge at ~15 times in the last year and a half. Believe me, I wish it was as miserly. I'll be the first to get in line and claim that the wavebird is practically perfect in every way (Poppins!). But this thread was talking about controller's other than wavebirds, right?
I would prefer Sony to put out its own wireless controller, much like the wavebird. I would bet on it consuming less power, having a charger, and there being far less latency. I think Sony announced that the PS3's controllers *would* be wireless...
Forgetting any problems from half-lifing, how well do they perform?
Maybe its me, but I've noticed that they just don't perform as consistently as alkaline.
I'd still like my Li-Ion:)
I must first admit that I haven't paid much attention to any wireless controllers for the PS2 that have come out since.
But check out Logitech's Wireless PS2Controller. Its uses the 2.4ghz spectrum, not infra-red. My receiver for the unit is always behind the 1/2" oak doors of my entertainment center. The reach is more than sufficient.
In fact, here's a quick little review:
It comes with all the features of your standard ps2 controller -- same button config, vibrations, and analog/digital controls. The controller itself is slightly larger than the normal ps2 controllers, and once in your hands feels horribly large and heavy (due to the 4 AA batteries in it). But you get accustomed to it pretty quick. In fact, because its wireless, its more or less all I use now. Its shape is slightly more open than the ps2, as well.. it kinda feels more comfortable to me now.
The fact that it uses 2.4ghz instead of 900 mhz makes a HELL of a difference in lag (push button, a second later something happens). I refused to buy a wireless controller (such as the Mad Catz controller) until something came out running at least at 2.4g. That said, there is still some lag. Nothing as bad as the 900mhz controllers I've tried, but laying fighters like DoA, Guilty Gear, etc will bring notice to the slight lapse immediately. Rythym games, some racers, and anythign else requiring spot-on reflexes are also subject to the occasional problems. It really depends on the game. I can play Robotech: Battlecry with no noticeable lag, but I have issues in REZ. Fresh batteries can sometimes help.
For all other games, it works great. Your typical platformer's are fine. I've used mine all the way through half of the Legacy of Kain games, Jak and Daxter, Devil May Cry, etc without a hitch. RPG's, of course, are fine as well.
Don't let the advertised battery life (50 hours, for the lazy) fool you. That's with EVERYTHING turned off. Analog, and vibration, and assumes you are playing a lengthy-dialogued RPG. I've change my batteries at least 5 times this past year, with RPG's accounting for about half of the game time. Playing something that involves a lot of button mashing will obviously suck the life from the controller.
In fact, that's my biggest gripe. Why oh why Logitech couldn't put Lithiom Ion batteries in this thing, and give it a cradle to recharge in every day is beyond me. Wouldn't that be perfect? Just like your modern day cordless phones. Again, playing with a fresh set of batteries makes all the difference. I know switching them out 5 or so times a year doesn't seem like much, but that's only because I am cheap and sacrifice some lag on the controller response for extra battery life. I also NEVER have the vibration turned on (I don't miss it much, but if it were fully charged every day via a cradle, it would definitely be on). Its really just a nuisance.
Mind you, keeping an eye on your battery life is no where near as annoying as cables everywhere.
I just wish I could find something as good for my beloved Dreamcast, whose controllers cables are the shortest in the world.
Take the original Star Wars trilogy. The first movie was something no one had ever seen before, with effects and an 'epic' feel that had rarely been done (at least in the sci-fi world). Was that the best? Not in my opinion. It just got better and better (tho Empire is truly my favorite). The plot came together at the end beautifully and seamlessly, and I honestly felt content with where it ended.
I love all of the Matrix movies just for what they are. But other than the first, those movies are no better than any other sci-fi flick coming out these days.
I love Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within the same way I love the later 2 matrix movies: They're simply beautiful if you accept it for the way it comes packaged. But if you really look at it from an objective point of view, the movies are horrible. Face it: any movie that feels pointless at the end is not exactly the stuff legends are made of.
After watching something like the LotR trilogy (yes, its based on amazing books -- but there was more than enough room to screw it up), there's no way you can put the Matrix trilogy on the same level.
I think somewhere at my brother's house he's still got our Tandy 1000, still complete with the original CGA monitor (was hot shit until I saw EGA) and keyboard...
I learned all the meat and potatoes of today on that thing... I'll never forget the countless hours playing a Sierra game or surfing BBS through PeachNet....
He's also got our TI 99/4a, complete with speech synthesizer, but I believe it finally died a year or two ago. that was sad:(
Slashdot Mirror
I understand what you say, and still disagree about freedom to some degree. But we'll stop there. Its slow here, too -- and I knew what I was getting into before I made my opinion known, but I can only throw so many posts up trying to respond to everyone before I get tired of it ;)
Well, to sum all this up 'cause I am tired of arguing it, here's how I feel about it:
Tho it may have been unethical, MS beat everyone else to the top of the mountain. All the power still lies in the people. But the people (ie the businesses) could crush MS if they were to do it right. And I am speaking of a simply boycott, if nothing else.
Its far-fetched, I know. I never expected anything else to happen. This is why we have the laws we have today.
Yes, MS is taking advantage of their position, in an unethical manner. But again, 'we' let MS do it.
You want things to be right with MS? Don't call the gov't to take care of it. They are in charge of too much as it is.
MS earned what they have, tho it may not be right how they did it. As to how they treat us now, that's still up to us. Its irrelevant how shitty (and non-existant) linux installers were in the mid 90's. This could be fixed now by Linux's current technology, and even made better, without the need for gov't intervention.
We don't need more laws and precedences ironing out every possible nook. Let MS run their business how they want, and let them be responsible for what happens by the market for running their businesses that way.
I should also add that, of course, software distribution does not suffer from a limited supply like oil or ore does.
No, I don't think it would be fair to take away my advantage because it IS "i do somethign well here and this makes it better" -- my marketing tactics worked better than the competition's. That's the very definition OF competition!
On the use of MS's power, so be it! They are the king of the mountain, and so they have an advantage. Why must people continue to want THAT mountain? There are others. And they perform they same services. They may not be aesthetically pleasing, but that could be ironed out very quickly (I would wager 2-3 years at most) if you had the market's backing.
The ONLY reason MS has a monopoly, the ONLY reason the playing field isn't level, is because of people's interest in MS' products. Without their products, they have no income.
And MS' income is guaranteed by those very same people who agree to those contracts. If they said no, MS would not do as well and the playing field would be more level.
I understand what you are saying, and I won't repost what I've mentioned earlier in another thread, but your analogy to physical products (almost non-replenishing ones, at that) aren't exactly the same situation here.
Every aspect and function that windows and all its software serve have been replicated in one form or another. In almost ALL of those, there even exists a free version.
This means people *aren't* being screwed. In fact, it would be a great service for them to adopt the competition and make it stronger. It would even level the playing field.
I believe that having gov'ts do it FOR us is NOT the way it should be handled.
I've read my history, and I know all about how the Sherman Act came to be.
I think its arguable that MS has a monopoly. The only definition I've seen thus far is "concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few". Well, I hate to say it, but 90% of all wealth in the WORLD resides in 5% of the population. Those numbers are generalized from my wife's business economics textbook from college. I'll look up the name and edition if you really want it.
My point to all of this, so its made clear, isn't that MS is doing right or wrong, or that its ethical, its that I believe the gov't should NOT interfere. Its up to the businesses to deal with it. Let MS run their business the way they want to and let the rest of the business world deal with it.
I agree.
Explain to me how Microsoft has a monopoly. A quick reference to the sherman act says a 'restraint on trade'. but this is by the buyer's *choice*.
It seems to me that if everyone told microsoft to sod off now, the problem would be solved because the use of windows would almost cease for new computers. While the contracts (granted, a form of trust) say that the buyer cannot sell anything else, why would you infringe on the freedom of the buyer to choose to do so? Or the company to offer it?
If the gov't steps in, and tells ms that they cannot do that, then they force Ms to sacrifice its advantage for all the little guys. While it may be noble, it doesn't seem fair.
I am beginning to argue parts of the Sherman act at this point, and I realize that I am gonna get slammed, but I am huge believe in ultimate freedom.
Business should be left to businesses. Keep the government out. MS can (and should) be handled by the businesses.
Dell did not have to sign any contract with Microsoft, even now. They CHOSE to -- and by choosing to they grant Microsoft even more market share.
I think many have forgotten just what a 'monopoly' is. Per Webster's:
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3.
4.
Well how about that? It seems to me that in order for a monopoly to exist, there can be no competition.
Again, I don't agree with MS's business practices AT ALL. However, I believe that all the claims you have made would take away the priveleges of the way MS does their business. It is their right to put whatever clauses in their contracts they want, and it is Dell's right to refuse it and find another OS.
Am I suggesting that they go with something like Linux? Sure! Why not?
High learning curve? Maybe... but don't you think that if the pc makers were backing it, things would improve quickly? I mean, Mandrake and SuSE are almost there!
but see, the problem with that scenario is that it relies on an 'illegal' contract. As far as I know, and IANAL, the only 'illegal' contract is one that breaks a law.
Telling someone that they can't sell competing products if they want to use yours is not against the law, that's the buyer's choice.
If I came to you and told you that you couldn't sell any of your flea powder (and lets say it sells well) if you want to sell my cat-washing machines, you would likely tell me to sod off.
complaining about the zealotry of linux and the OSS community? I don't even OWN an ms product!
I've just yet to be given a clear example (an I will freely admit that this could be to bad reporting) of how MS has bullied a corporation into something that they could not find another way around.
So please, educate me. I'm not saying that Microsoft is innocent, and I could care less if they get it stuck to them. I'm thinking about the freedom for a company to do whatever it wants with its product. If that means 'bully-ish' contracts, then fine. There is nothing against the law about that. Yes, they hold most of the market, but they are by no means the sole solution -- and that means that Corporation A is not *forced* to use them. They *choose*.
If you wrote a piece of software, and it became wildly popular and everyone was paying you money for it, and no other product compared to it, and say you had a suite of tools to go with it, do you think it would be fair to be forced to allow interoperability of other people's tools and take away your advantage?
Sorry, but I have yet to see a real reason why doing one thing with your product when it is popular is different from doing it when its not popular.
Aherm, but so what? Microsoft can choose to sell their product at whatever price they want to whomever they want. If there are rules to get a certain price, so be it. Dell does not have to buy from Microsoft. Neither does anyone else.
Do you think that if the entire computer industry just had the balls to refuse Microsoft, that Microsoft would cease this kind of action?
To me, this is hardly the work for the government or even the courts.
MS plays hardball, to be sure, but they're not necessarily holding a gun to anyone's head.
Windows is only popular because of corps like Dell and HP. if Dell and HP started seriously pushing linux, and maybe even threw a few dollars towards the community, you'd notice a hell of a change.
It might take time (maybe a few years), but things would change. Radically.
I have to agree. I'm not biased towards one OS over another, they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
Maybe I am missing something, but what is so wrong with Windows coming with whatever amount of software that Microsoft wrote? So what if MS decided to block all versions of Windows from running anything but an MS product? So what if they give it away for free trying to gain all the market share? We can all refuse to use Windows at any time.
I think we can all agree that *nix, *BSD, and even MacOS are more than capable of filling the gaps.
I've GOT to be missing the real reasoning behind this... I just don't see how Microsoft doing whatever it wants with its product is a bad thing.
Monopoly? How? There is an alternative to every aspect of every Microsoft product out there (thanks mostly the free software / open source community).
If *I* can be MS free, what the hell is the rest of the world's problem? I mean, should MS be responsible for the world's ignorance or stupidity?
I think I've read so many bad reports on all of the MS antitrust saga that I am just baffled as to what is really being put into question. What am I missing here, folks?
Personally, I would rather see all this time, effort, and money (TEM!) spent on the more greasy companies/organizations - like The Canopy Group to start with!
Like all of you other fellow dorks, I getting excited everytime something robotic is announced. But I still keep wondering when the hell any of this R&D is gonna be put to use...
;) and all we have is a fuckin Tyco that can't even wipe its own ass^H^H^H solar panels....
But you know, here's an idea:
Why not use them in place of astronauts to places like the moon and Mars? Build these things *en masse* and ship them (cheaper than cryo) wherever, and put their ass to work!
They don't even need to be autonomous. Have a bunch of people at Mission Control acting as gamers, only instead of building an a base to detroy a small empire on the screen, they will be building a base to destroy many empires in REAL LIFE!!
Honestly, tho, how freaking difficult would it be to send a bunch of robots (some specifically suited to one or two tasks, while others taking the more 'versatile' approach of the humanoid) to take on the role of exploration and construction?
If the thing can play a trumpet, surely they can produce a small fleet capable of exploring Mars for a few months? Or building a small colony on the moon? Why not send one or two up to the ISS to have them go outside and work? Hell, why bother with the ISS at all?
Japan is building mechs (Gundam's in 10 years, you watch
Perhaps its a need to defend my love of gaming, but that article was mostly bullshit. Most of time I was reading it, I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not. I hope it was.
:).
I won't waste time arguing about how games are repeating their formulas, which you've all mentioned already that Hollywood does the same; that like Hollywood, games will simply refine and re-tell. I won't waste a good rant on how fucked up an argument could be that gaming, indeed technology, has reached a graphical plateau.
There is one good point, however: the aging First Generation and the New Generation.
Someone earlier mentioned that most of the First Generation, defined by me as anyone who *remembers* when the NES was rolled out (or any earlier console), are getting on with their lives, getting married, having children, and basically getting weighed down with other responsiblities. I'm 25, consider myself a First Gen Gamer (my first 'console' was a TI-99/4A, with speech synth!!), married, have a baby boy, a house, a career, and the other crap. Gaming these days isn't like it used to be. Along with that, I find myself drawn to only the best of the best of games. I don't have time or money to buy and sift through the crap games from the greats.
Personally, I think its the switch to the New Generation of gamers thats gonna be the problem, not the industry itself. Most of us First Gens gaming will slow to a crawl, and the New Gens will be the ones screaming to the developers as to what they want. Most of the New Gens aren't as wowed by ever-increasing technology as us First Gens are. For us, the novelty is still there while the New Gens mostly expect it.
The industry isn't going to know how to deal with the New Gens at first. They're a completely different breed. And us First Gens are only gonna slow in our gaming (tho we may not necessarily slow down in the purchasing of them
Then again, the switch could be seamless. Who knows.
Just watch Japan. If it happens in the game industry, it will happen there first.
I understand where this guy is coming from... Its getting harder and harder to find a game that leaves me completely satisfied that however much money I spent on the game was well worth it.
;)
These days, most of those good games I find are on consoles.
I agree with a lot of you that there seems to be a cascade of good games every few years, followed by a bad aftertaste of trite titles. Right now, the pc is badly sufferring from something truly exciting. If you asked my opinion, I'd say the most exciting things to happen in the pc gaming world have been MMO's and graphics enhancements to games all around (but that will always be exciting, so it doesn't count). And the mmo's suck, too! (speaking from someone who spent a little over a year - not cumulatively - playing them)
I think the pc game market is gonna hit another milestone soon, if for no other reason that its just due. Seeing games like Half-life 2, while still an fps, gets me really pumped at the level of realism and detail being poured in -- not just in graphics, but in physics, sound, AI, animation, and an extreme level of attention to the psychology of the player.
Take a look at some of the better console games lately. My picks would be those that really suck you into the environment, like a good movie. At least, that's how I judge whether a game is good or not (excusing more old-school-esque games whre its not about environment or story). Think about something like Silent Hill 3 -- do you have any idea how much time went into little details that made that game so creepy feeling? What about Metal Gear Solid / 2 ? Those games really took you into their world. Metroid? These games were all immensely popular for a reason.
I could go on and on, but you begin to get the point. Its hard to put your finger on it, but there's something very cinematic and involving in those games -- not just in storyline, gameplay, or graphics -- but something that really makes you forget to do things like eat and sleep.
When the new consoles hit the markets in the next year or two, I expect we'll see the lull with those games -- as developers will be spending most of their time just fucking with them.
PC games will hit their mark again. Just look for the ones with amazing sales. That's usually a good way to judge a game before buying it
In comparison with every place I've work pre- or post- Mindspring, Mindspring is _still_ the best place I've ever worked... I understand how it might have changed with the IPO. I came on in 98. Seeing things change with Earthlink taking over had the same effect. Btw, as far as my introduction to the Mindspring Dress Code, it went like this: Me: So I was told to dress casually? Interviewer: Its like this: We once had a guy challenge the dress code wearing nothing but a towel. Well, we allowed it, but turned the ACs on full blast. I knew I was going to enjoy working there then :)
Right before the dreaded Earthlink somehow convinced/forced Charles to sell Mindspring, we had our top story AC go out.
For those that 'served' in Atlanta, it was the tech support floor -- all 140 of us. Yeah, I should mention that this was in July... in Georgia... where the humidity hovers around 90% during that time of the year. Imagine 140 people talking at once. Imagine 140 computers (struggling) and the hot air THEY put out. Now imagine a lot of people-types whom don't always wear deodorant, and many whom don't even shower but when it rains. Stupid people on the phone. Over 8 hours of this.
Fun times.
True, true. That didn't really occur to me.
The only reason I, as a gamer in his 20's, don't watch much TV these days is because the majority of the tv and especially its primetime (I assume that's the time tv execs want us watching the most) lineup are geared toward mindless comedy, trite drama, and the much over-played shock-value.
It seems to me that all of the tv that I find interesting has some aspect of it that hasn't been ran through the politically-correct/marketing machine. Things like reality tv are only intriguing (and sometimes funny) because they hint at showing everyday life, filled with obsceneties, moodiness, and everyone's unique perspective/opinions on life. Sitcoms and drama's just don't have that, even a fictional state. They try so desparately to keep their hands clean that its no wonder people tuned in everywhere when Southpark uttered "Shit" almost 200 times in 30 minutes.
Its not that people want filthy tv filled with sex, violence, and cursing... rather, perhaps they want something that doesn't make them feel like they're children and have to cover their eyes all of the time.
Besides the movie channels, I really only watch Cartoon Network (honestly, only Adult Swim/Toonami and a few others like Samurai Jack, occasionally Justice League, etc), Discovery/TLC, and SciFi. I'm sure I'm not alone, either. And if you think about the programming you watch on those channels, I would bet that they all just don't pay much attention to what the other channels are doing, and instead just focus on what they do best: anime, documentaries, and science fiction with lots of cheesy effects.
If you want me to watch your station, don't hold my hand like I'm a freakin' 2 year old. Just spit out the real truth behind what you're trying to tell (if there is some), and for God's sake quit trying to market to every demographic possible!
Oh, and it might help to come up with something original instead of just repackaging the leading channel's ideas. Just a hint.
Sorry for the rant.
The fact that it uses 2.4ghz instead of 900 mhz makes a HELL of a difference in lag
... what? 2.4 ghz signals travel at the same speed as 900 mhz signals. And even if they didn't, you're talking about a distance so short that it wouldn't make a difference in overall performance. The 'lag' has everything to do with the quality of the transmitter/receiver, and nothing to do with the frequency.
... Judging from some of the games I went through on a single set of batteries, I'd guess I put at least 250 hours on my last set of AA's.
Ummm
There's a lot more interference experienced by 900mhz devices than 2.4. Or perhaps its a throughput issue? I don't how much information is exchanged for the ps2 controllers vs the gamecube's. But there is a difference between all the ps2's popular 900mhz controllers and the 2.4gigs. That's not to say that it isn't simply a better transceiver. I just associated the performance with less interference.
Wow. Using my Wavebird (which, admittedly, doesn't have rumble), I've changed batteries twice in the ~20 months I've owned it (and once was last week). And that's certainly not because I don't play it very often
Yeah, well obviously its an engineering difference. I mean, the wavebird requires 2 AA batteries where this logitech requires 4! 900mhz devices DO consume less power, as well. As you know, power consumption is more about how much work the controller is doing. Playing 250 hours of RPG's is not like playing 250 hours of a platformer, and certainly not a fighter or most racers. And besides, I never said "my wavebird eats 5 sets of batteries a year". Just that this particular Logitech controller eats them -- and realdpk said himself he's had to recharge at ~15 times in the last year and a half. Believe me, I wish it was as miserly. I'll be the first to get in line and claim that the wavebird is practically perfect in every way (Poppins!). But this thread was talking about controller's other than wavebirds, right?
I would prefer Sony to put out its own wireless controller, much like the wavebird. I would bet on it consuming less power, having a charger, and there being far less latency. I think Sony announced that the PS3's controllers *would* be wireless...
Forgetting any problems from half-lifing, how well do they perform? Maybe its me, but I've noticed that they just don't perform as consistently as alkaline. I'd still like my Li-Ion :)
I must first admit that I haven't paid much attention to any wireless controllers for the PS2 that have come out since.
But check out Logitech's Wireless PS2 Controller. Its uses the 2.4ghz spectrum, not infra-red. My receiver for the unit is always behind the 1/2" oak doors of my entertainment center. The reach is more than sufficient.
In fact, here's a quick little review:
It comes with all the features of your standard ps2 controller -- same button config, vibrations, and analog/digital controls. The controller itself is slightly larger than the normal ps2 controllers, and once in your hands feels horribly large and heavy (due to the 4 AA batteries in it). But you get accustomed to it pretty quick. In fact, because its wireless, its more or less all I use now. Its shape is slightly more open than the ps2, as well.. it kinda feels more comfortable to me now.
The fact that it uses 2.4ghz instead of 900 mhz makes a HELL of a difference in lag (push button, a second later something happens). I refused to buy a wireless controller (such as the Mad Catz controller) until something came out running at least at 2.4g. That said, there is still some lag. Nothing as bad as the 900mhz controllers I've tried, but laying fighters like DoA, Guilty Gear, etc will bring notice to the slight lapse immediately. Rythym games, some racers, and anythign else requiring spot-on reflexes are also subject to the occasional problems. It really depends on the game. I can play Robotech: Battlecry with no noticeable lag, but I have issues in REZ. Fresh batteries can sometimes help.
For all other games, it works great. Your typical platformer's are fine. I've used mine all the way through half of the Legacy of Kain games, Jak and Daxter, Devil May Cry, etc without a hitch. RPG's, of course, are fine as well.
Don't let the advertised battery life (50 hours, for the lazy) fool you. That's with EVERYTHING turned off. Analog, and vibration, and assumes you are playing a lengthy-dialogued RPG. I've change my batteries at least 5 times this past year, with RPG's accounting for about half of the game time. Playing something that involves a lot of button mashing will obviously suck the life from the controller.
In fact, that's my biggest gripe. Why oh why Logitech couldn't put Lithiom Ion batteries in this thing, and give it a cradle to recharge in every day is beyond me. Wouldn't that be perfect? Just like your modern day cordless phones. Again, playing with a fresh set of batteries makes all the difference. I know switching them out 5 or so times a year doesn't seem like much, but that's only because I am cheap and sacrifice some lag on the controller response for extra battery life. I also NEVER have the vibration turned on (I don't miss it much, but if it were fully charged every day via a cradle, it would definitely be on). Its really just a nuisance.
Mind you, keeping an eye on your battery life is no where near as annoying as cables everywhere.
I just wish I could find something as good for my beloved Dreamcast, whose controllers cables are the shortest in the world.
Well, ROTJ was at least pretty good up until Endor came into the picture. I'll submit to that..
;)
But you got my point
Oh, and let's not get started on Lucas and Star Wars. Let's just all agree that every decision past Empire has been getting worse and worse...
No way. I disagree.
Take the original Star Wars trilogy. The first movie was something no one had ever seen before, with effects and an 'epic' feel that had rarely been done (at least in the sci-fi world). Was that the best? Not in my opinion. It just got better and better (tho Empire is truly my favorite). The plot came together at the end beautifully and seamlessly, and I honestly felt content with where it ended.
I love all of the Matrix movies just for what they are. But other than the first, those movies are no better than any other sci-fi flick coming out these days.
I love Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within the same way I love the later 2 matrix movies: They're simply beautiful if you accept it for the way it comes packaged. But if you really look at it from an objective point of view, the movies are horrible. Face it: any movie that feels pointless at the end is not exactly the stuff legends are made of.
After watching something like the LotR trilogy (yes, its based on amazing books -- but there was more than enough room to screw it up), there's no way you can put the Matrix trilogy on the same level.
I think somewhere at my brother's house he's still got our Tandy 1000, still complete with the original CGA monitor (was hot shit until I saw EGA) and keyboard...
:(
I learned all the meat and potatoes of today on that thing... I'll never forget the countless hours playing a Sierra game or surfing BBS through PeachNet....
He's also got our TI 99/4a, complete with speech synthesizer, but I believe it finally died a year or two ago. that was sad