I daresay that many people who would happen upon MSNBC Newsbot have not heard of Google News. After all, people still actually use MSN Search...
I get the distinct impression that they're not really trying to compete straight-up, they're trying to bring in the rather large group of people who don't know such a service already exists.
As such, the fact that MSNBC is the top result is not a terribly big deal, since a lot of these people would end up on it anyway. The article makes it seem like this is a big MS conspiracy (just like everything, right guys?).
Contrary to... well, it certainly seems to be popular here... opinion, if you already have Windows, and you have five working brain cells in your head, it does your web surfing and email just fine. It also does gaming. The latter happens to be a big plus for grandparent and for me. Is that so difficult to understand?
And here I thought I was the only person on/. who didn't recoil at the mere thought that Linux is not the ultimate solution for every computing use that currently exists.
Most people don't care which TV has the absolute best picture quality, or the biggest screen. They buy a TV which has good enough picture quality, a large enough size, and fits in their budget.
In the case of IE vs. Firefox, cost is a non-issue. Something like 95% of computers come with Windows. Firefox is a free download. So the decision really comes down to "is it good enough". IE, being the majority browser by a huge margin, displays pretty much every site that people want to visit. (The only site I've ever come across which is essentially unusable in IE is the Mozilla extensions page.)
This notion of "good enough" versus "best" seems to be a huge problem for some of the OSS zealots roaming around Slashdot. And as far as the average Joe User is concerned, Firefox is NOT the best browser, for reasons that the parent stated.
The AC has a point, although I wouldn't go as far as "they're flat-out wrong" in this case... last I heard, paper encyclopedia sales weren't doing all that well.
That's not a game, that's an addiction. The idea behind the treadmill isn't so much to artificially lengthen the amount of play time as to artificially lengthen the amount of money you give the publisher. (Granted, that made no sense, but hopefully someone got it.)
Straight-up clockspeed is a marketing tool, for which more appears better. Total play time seems to be heading that direction. There's one significant difference: you can't measure play time. No game in history has ever made one play-through of the minimum take 150 hours, for good reason... no matter how good the game is, within 150 hours it WILL get boring. So that's not what they're measuring.
What are they measuring? One playthrough with everything? I doubt it, for the same reason as above. I get the impression that there are enough side paths that it will take you multiple passes through the game, and that will total 150 hours. Compare to the average MMORPG, if you go all the way to endgame content. Compare to, actually, most games with multiple paths.
And the most important point... play time varies by player.
My favorite X cup track was fairly short, and the only feature to it was a curve with a jump in the middle of it. As a result, all 29 computer cars flew off the track, and I won easily.
Allow me to correct what I said: very few people are developing exclusives for the Xbox. Those that exist tend to be ported to PC. And Microsoft encourages it... after all, they own most of the PC market. End result: why should I get an Xbox, when there's little advantage over the PC and other consoles which I already have?
In other words: if there are three consoles of comparable power, I'll buy the one with the best games that I can't get on any of the others. (Example: a number of RPGs on Playstation, and Nintendo's first party series on Gamecube.) Multiplayer isn't a big deal because I can get that on PC. In my estimation, that puts Xbox a distant third... your mileage may vary.
You also misunderstand what I said about the console/PC distinction. The games that come out for each are different. They've evolved to that point. Even if, say, tomorrow, all PCs magically used the exact same hardware configuration (like a console), I'm not convinced the two portions of the gaming industry would combine as much as you seem to think.
There are two rather large assumptions here. 1) The console gaming market wants to be like the PC gaming market, or vice versa. 2) Someone will actually develop for the Xbox.
The former is only obvious if you've actually followed the two realms. What makes a good PC game does not necessarily make a good console game, and what makes a popular PC game does not necessarily make a popular console game. It's not just the difference in how you control them, but also a difference in what sorts of games you tend to see. Console RPGs and PC RPGs have diverged quite a bit, for example. So the idea of having a single API for PC and console isn't as huge of an advantage as you'd think, simply because the two groups aren't all that alike, and I daresay won't be all that alike for awhile.
The second is probably a non-issue. Even if Microsoft can't get a dead monkey to develop for Xbox, they have enough cash to keep cranking out new generations for quite some time, or to buy out developers as exclusives (see: Rare).
Well, actually, being able to use the play button to skip things in a Flash game is evidence of a design flaw in your Flash game, but we'll ignore that.
I always found it more interesting to watch the people trying to complete Metroid Prime with the lowest possible percentage by skipping certain key items (not just the upgrades). Granted, they do speed runs on that too, but it's more interesting than just rushing through the game (although some of the former techniques have been applied to the latter).
Don't be surprised when I, as a fairly avid gamer, don't switch over to Linux any time in the near future. With Windows, you put in the CD, and it works. No fooling with emulation or anything. With Linux, in order for it to work, you have to tweak WineX, and maybe even then it won't work.
Fun story: A friend tried to run my copy of SkiFree through Wine. If he tried to use the keyboard (or maybe it was the mouse, can't remember), it would crash.
I understand that as the emulation gets better, or perhaps as Linux gains a critical mass of people and game developers start making their games such that they'll run on Linux natively, this will stop being an issue. That time is not now.
[Pre-emptive "but, but, but, dual boot" response: why bother? I have WinXP running, it's stable (I don't think I've *crashed* my system in about 6 months, and those were hardware problems), why should I reboot repeatedly to do things that I can do with Windows already?]
Wrong again. The article makes it fairly clear that DDR was not in any way at fault, it was simply a coincidence that the girl had a heart attack (due to a preexisting condition) while playing DDR. So... you can't really say DDR hastened the heart attack.
"You could be asleep, walking running, sitting down to eat. It can hit ya," said Eddie Wilson, Kimber's father.
Ferion is neither single-player nor (for the most part) free. (I played it a little back before it became pay to play... don't even try to convince me you don't need to either buy or beg for a key to get anywhere.)
There's a warning about instaling 0.6 and 0.7 in the same directory. (My 0.7 install didn't even default to that directory, anyway.) In other words, RTFA.
For maximal effect, put said button in the room where you fight the final boss. 95% of gamers will assume that by pressing the button, you beat the boss.
I think the generations themselves are blurring together, thanks to backwards compatibility. Console makers just want to have the shiniest widget on the market for penis-envy reasons... not just theirs, their customers'.
Slashdot Mirror
I daresay that many people who would happen upon MSNBC Newsbot have not heard of Google News. After all, people still actually use MSN Search...
I get the distinct impression that they're not really trying to compete straight-up, they're trying to bring in the rather large group of people who don't know such a service already exists.
As such, the fact that MSNBC is the top result is not a terribly big deal, since a lot of these people would end up on it anyway. The article makes it seem like this is a big MS conspiracy (just like everything, right guys?).
Contrary to... well, it certainly seems to be popular here... opinion, if you already have Windows, and you have five working brain cells in your head, it does your web surfing and email just fine. It also does gaming. The latter happens to be a big plus for grandparent and for me. Is that so difficult to understand?
And here I thought I was the only person on /. who didn't recoil at the mere thought that Linux is not the ultimate solution for every computing use that currently exists.
I'll put it this way:
Most people don't care which TV has the absolute best picture quality, or the biggest screen. They buy a TV which has good enough picture quality, a large enough size, and fits in their budget.
In the case of IE vs. Firefox, cost is a non-issue. Something like 95% of computers come with Windows. Firefox is a free download. So the decision really comes down to "is it good enough". IE, being the majority browser by a huge margin, displays pretty much every site that people want to visit. (The only site I've ever come across which is essentially unusable in IE is the Mozilla extensions page.)
This notion of "good enough" versus "best" seems to be a huge problem for some of the OSS zealots roaming around Slashdot. And as far as the average Joe User is concerned, Firefox is NOT the best browser, for reasons that the parent stated.
The AC has a point, although I wouldn't go as far as "they're flat-out wrong" in this case... last I heard, paper encyclopedia sales weren't doing all that well.
That's not a game, that's an addiction. The idea behind the treadmill isn't so much to artificially lengthen the amount of play time as to artificially lengthen the amount of money you give the publisher. (Granted, that made no sense, but hopefully someone got it.)
Straight-up clockspeed is a marketing tool, for which more appears better. Total play time seems to be heading that direction. There's one significant difference: you can't measure play time. No game in history has ever made one play-through of the minimum take 150 hours, for good reason... no matter how good the game is, within 150 hours it WILL get boring. So that's not what they're measuring.
What are they measuring? One playthrough with everything? I doubt it, for the same reason as above. I get the impression that there are enough side paths that it will take you multiple passes through the game, and that will total 150 hours. Compare to the average MMORPG, if you go all the way to endgame content. Compare to, actually, most games with multiple paths.
And the most important point... play time varies by player.
My favorite X cup track was fairly short, and the only feature to it was a curve with a jump in the middle of it. As a result, all 29 computer cars flew off the track, and I won easily.
I haven't had a BSOD on this box since I built it. So... I wouldn't call it complete bullshit.
Allow me to correct what I said: very few people are developing exclusives for the Xbox. Those that exist tend to be ported to PC. And Microsoft encourages it... after all, they own most of the PC market. End result: why should I get an Xbox, when there's little advantage over the PC and other consoles which I already have?
In other words: if there are three consoles of comparable power, I'll buy the one with the best games that I can't get on any of the others. (Example: a number of RPGs on Playstation, and Nintendo's first party series on Gamecube.) Multiplayer isn't a big deal because I can get that on PC. In my estimation, that puts Xbox a distant third... your mileage may vary.
You also misunderstand what I said about the console/PC distinction. The games that come out for each are different. They've evolved to that point. Even if, say, tomorrow, all PCs magically used the exact same hardware configuration (like a console), I'm not convinced the two portions of the gaming industry would combine as much as you seem to think.
There are two rather large assumptions here.
1) The console gaming market wants to be like the PC gaming market, or vice versa.
2) Someone will actually develop for the Xbox.
The former is only obvious if you've actually followed the two realms. What makes a good PC game does not necessarily make a good console game, and what makes a popular PC game does not necessarily make a popular console game. It's not just the difference in how you control them, but also a difference in what sorts of games you tend to see. Console RPGs and PC RPGs have diverged quite a bit, for example. So the idea of having a single API for PC and console isn't as huge of an advantage as you'd think, simply because the two groups aren't all that alike, and I daresay won't be all that alike for awhile.
The second is probably a non-issue. Even if Microsoft can't get a dead monkey to develop for Xbox, they have enough cash to keep cranking out new generations for quite some time, or to buy out developers as exclusives (see: Rare).
There are ways around it, so I wouldn't necessarily call it a flaw in Flash.
And it's not relevant to your point at all, just thought I'd mention it.
Well, actually, being able to use the play button to skip things in a Flash game is evidence of a design flaw in your Flash game, but we'll ignore that.
I always found it more interesting to watch the people trying to complete Metroid Prime with the lowest possible percentage by skipping certain key items (not just the upgrades). Granted, they do speed runs on that too, but it's more interesting than just rushing through the game (although some of the former techniques have been applied to the latter).
Blizzard has decided to reset the Diablo 2 ladder. Guess what I'll be playing for the next week?
Don't be surprised when I, as a fairly avid gamer, don't switch over to Linux any time in the near future. With Windows, you put in the CD, and it works. No fooling with emulation or anything. With Linux, in order for it to work, you have to tweak WineX, and maybe even then it won't work.
Fun story: A friend tried to run my copy of SkiFree through Wine. If he tried to use the keyboard (or maybe it was the mouse, can't remember), it would crash.
I understand that as the emulation gets better, or perhaps as Linux gains a critical mass of people and game developers start making their games such that they'll run on Linux natively, this will stop being an issue. That time is not now.
[Pre-emptive "but, but, but, dual boot" response: why bother? I have WinXP running, it's stable (I don't think I've *crashed* my system in about 6 months, and those were hardware problems), why should I reboot repeatedly to do things that I can do with Windows already?]
20/20 hindsight brigade reporting for duty, I see. Besides, making your hardware (read: VIN stamper) modular is a bit harder.
was this article.
Like shooting fish in a barrel, it is.
Ferion is neither single-player nor (for the most part) free. (I played it a little back before it became pay to play... don't even try to convince me you don't need to either buy or beg for a key to get anywhere.)
There's a warning about instaling 0.6 and 0.7 in the same directory. (My 0.7 install didn't even default to that directory, anyway.) In other words, RTFA.
For maximal effect, put said button in the room where you fight the final boss. 95% of gamers will assume that by pressing the button, you beat the boss.
I think the generations themselves are blurring together, thanks to backwards compatibility. Console makers just want to have the shiniest widget on the market for penis-envy reasons... not just theirs, their customers'.
That's the trick... all of the hoopla about Gmail's ads, and they're no different from the ads you see when you search Google normally.
California Legislature: "OMG Google knows I'm searching for pr0n, I'd better pass a law against it!"