They're good "enough", but the problem is that their numbers are adjusted to NPD... without NPD, they'll be progressively farther until their data is meaningless.
As a sidenote (and I did have that problem with my Wii too), it is mostly limited to the first few batches of Wiis, so that problem technically "doesn't exist" anymore. Its also, on a susceptible Wii, predictable, as the way to make it happen is basically always the same.
Makes sense, pretty different in that case. Since you simply said "probably on a larger screen!", which is simply not the case.
That being said, I rather have a LAN party so everyone plays on their own monitor, no splitting crap, than playing multi on a single screen, which I simply can't stand (too small, even on a 60 inch 1080P, unless you're way too close to the TV for your own good), but thats another story altogether. My point simply was that the screen isn't larger. Your latest post does bring valid (though completly different) arguments, however, and I can see where you're coming from.
Another thing that sucks with split screen too, is for games where you don't want the opponents to see what you're doing (FPS, RTS, strategy games, etc). Anyway, im straying:)
"Probably on a larger screen", err? Just about any decent gaming videocard can hook up on an HDTV and do 1080p easily. My current card is total garbage and still can do it. (Besides, a 24 inch monitor in your face, or a 40 inch HDTV a couple of feet away... same deal unless you have friends around).
Oh, I totally agree with you. For my use of a cellphone, it would be perfect. I just specified to avoid the 50 posts pointing out "Lolz that wouldn't work when I go on a trip to hong kong lolz!".
Perfect for things like TV remote, electric shavers, screwdrivers (as you mentionned), computer mice, wireless phones (not cells), console controllers and just about anything that would benifit from being wireless, but is always close to a power outlet. Looking around right now, thats the majority of things that use batteries that I have. Aside cellphones, lap-tops and pocket PCs... most things could do with a lower capacity and faster charge time, definately.
Wow, who would have thought, 640x480 existed, really?
No DUH. Whats your point? I haven't seen a mainstream web site that looked adequate in 640x480 in years, thus my comment. Don't worrie, I was around loooooooooong before the internet. I don't do porn because I outgrew it. I did too when I was your age, but it was a while ago. You'll outgrow it too when you try the real thing (probably when YOU are older).
Now all I'd need is a good "Back in my days..." come back...
I don't have a PS3, but considering 1080P = 1920*1080, which is more than most monitors people have, if its cumbersome, its not because of the resolution, thats for sure...
480p (720*480) is a bit on the low side, I'll agree, but aside when fonts are very tiny on some web sites, zooming out you can do a bit. It worked for me, for about 30% of things I'd do on the net (no, I don't do porn, even on PC).
There's also one (probably unpopular) thing to consider... Piracy. on PC, I'd be guessing piracy is relatively extreme, at least for games where the main appeal is NOT online (thus why PC gaming is becoming all MMOs, with a touch of FPSs and RTSs). Single player games seem to be suicide, except for the select few "star" AAA games like Oblivion and such.
If you look at the patterns of the industry, it has a bit of that tendency, even on consoles, unless the console is several times more popular than the alternatives (PS2, Wii)
Its interesting to look at the evolution of PSP and DS gaming for example... PSP had a lot of piracy and DS little, early on. Now the DS probably has even more, so games tend to be slightly more evenly distributed... CEOs of game development companies most definately watch that go. Making games for the PC has to be justified.
Now, again aside a couple of exceptions here and there, non-FPS games that come out on PC only do so because its so easy to dual develop for 360 and PC at the same time...
my thought exactly. Also, note that this is true wether the article is right or not, since many Vista articles that were completly 100% false got tagged that way.
Thats the thing. When Microsoft takes some tech and "extends" it, its really a different tech (not meaning its anything new, but that its often not backward compatible, at least not fully, and vice versa).
Mono has a bunch of stuff that.NET doesn't have (more than a bunch actually). Mono (even if its one of their goal) shouldn't be considered a.NET compatible implementation. Its really just something that took a very similar core, and extended it with a bunch more stuff, and is missing others. So while yes, if a program thats in.NET happens to work in Mono, its a bonus... but its very possible for Mono programs not to work in.NET either... they're two different things, same core. If tomorrow.NET changes upside down and isn't compatible with Mono at all, does it really matter?
I mean yeah, it will suck that programs wont work on both platforms anymore...but the programs developed in Mono will still work, and the implementation is still valid. Think of it as a "fork" (without the original source), not as a clone.
No, its not, because the schools explicitely pick this deal, and do so willingly. Why? Well, it is simply MUCH, MUCH easier for everyone (including the school).
The whole "paying for all computers, even those not using Windows" is simply a metric to gauge an "unlimited license" pricing, so to speak. The school pays a number that scales depending on the amount of computers they have (and its MUCH -MUCH- less than normal educational pricing. I repeat, MUCH less, so the computers that won't be using Windows ARE factored in the quote!), they pay up, and they never have to manage those licenses ever again.
Much, MUCH easier. Its not very different from how most serious Windows development shops will take MSDN licenses over development licenses separately. They end up "Paying for ALL the softwares in MSDN", even though they will only use a TINY FRACTION (5% at most usually!) of the softwares there, but its MUCH easier to manage for everyone, and overall its often cheaper.
Again: the idea is that they pay by the size of the computer infrastructure, not "for all computers" (even if it ends up being the same, the idea is very different), and the price considers that Windows won't be install on all of it. I'm nowhere CLOSE to rich, and I could probably pay -CASH- for the price most schools pay for THE ENTIRE SCHOOL. So you're not "REALLY" paying for every computers. Its just a way to keep the agreement simple.
One cool thing about mono is that they're using MS' strategy right back at em: Embrace and Extend. In some ways, Mono has more features than.NET, and in some cases (Silverlight 1.1) is ahead of Microsoft. That should make quite a few open source lovers cackle with glee more than anything:)
Indeed. The thing is Vista's a self fullfiling prophecy. People, especially in the geek world, did NOT want it to do well, and have a short memory. They claimed it would fail before it would even come out, and when it came out (and while it wasn't MacOSX quality, it was better than most other Microsoft's OS at launch), they found everything they could and went "SEE?!! TOLD YOU SO!!", including things that were not true whatsoever, or things that were no different in the XP days. In other words, "FUD".
Now, in "geek" circles, and people those geeks can reach (family, etc), it really doesn't do well at all. But what many fail to see, is that even if you include grandma that has a geek grandson telling her that Vista sucks, its still a minority... So in the end, Vista doesn't do as well as it could, but it does just fine... people who aren't TOLD it sucks often (not always, so don't bring back anecdotal stories, I've heard em!) don't mind it, aside for the fact that they're lost because of the UI changes...
So yup, even if we take those numbers (88m) with a grain of salt (because a lot of these probably aren't used, are sold to people who didn't want it, etc), there's still a whole lot of Vista being sold.
point 1) also has a twist to it. When XP came out, a lot of businesses (and even some home users) were still -considering- or planning switching to Windows 2000. XP came quite early, so people were not ready to switch.
Thus, even though XP was uther garbage when it came out, no one noticed, no one really cared, and by the time anyone was really considering switching, SP1 was out, and -then- XP was good.
With Vista, people were ready a LONG time ago and were WAITING. So the usual trick that Microsoft pulls off (come out with crap, and patch it LONG before anyone even was ready to upgrade) didn't work. People WERE ready to upgrade the day Vista came out... they didn't want to wait for SP1 like they did for XP. Things will be a bit more interesting when SP1 come out (I mean come on, Windows NT was garbage until at LEAST SP5...and didn't stop bluescreening all over until SP6...)
While still fairly far from Windows' market share, Mac OSX is now a solid competitor in the home market, so there definately is a choice, and people are now well aware of Macs and that they are alternatives. In business, MacOSX is harder to get through, but in home market, there's no issues. People are just afraid of change, or (more rarely) don't want it.
I'm in the later, I really dislike Apple, so its not like I'm a fanboy trying to push his favored OS... but this isn't 10 years ago... There IS a choice, and a lot of customers know it (well, Apple stores ARE hard to miss).
1) Humanity has always been the same, and is only kindda getting better. But historically, there was always a few people in an elite cast, and a bunch of ignorant peasants, just about everywhere. So yes, I really think humanity has (and to some extent, still is) just a bunch of collective morons. Ever seen one of these shows that make fun of people not being able to answer 5th graders level questions? Thats the norm, not the exception. Most people don't know the very basics of science (like the obvious stuff). How can they make statements on super complex stuff like the origin of the universe or the possibility of evolution?
Remember that for the longest time most kids even in the most favored parts of the world didn't even go to the equivalent of elementary school. Thats where most supertitions (not even talking about the existance of god here, but really retarded stuff, like "tomato are extremely poisonous") come from. People mere -decades- ago would beleive ANYTHING. They still do, too.
2) Heck yes, else we still wouldn't know that by going west or east you end up at the same place eventualy.
3) Its not even CLOSE to "everyone else". Not only is there a very significant portion of the world that does not beleive in any god, a lot of those who do beleive in things relatively incompatible with each other. Also if you take out uneducated people (because sorry, but their opinion isn't worth much, in the same way MY opinion is worth absolutely nothing in things I know little of), the ratio shifts even more.
Just look around you on a day to day basis. People who are supposed to be very educated not being able to fill up a silly tax return. People barely knowing how to spell (me included), a stupidly large portion of people quitting highschool, people who don't understand how the difference in risk between going at 100 and 110 km/hour is NOT 10%, people without the knowledge to take care of their own kids... humans are nowhere as smart as they we'd like to think we are...
I'd be surprised if humanity did NOT get fooled like it did. Especially since religion is often forced on people at a very young age, by authority figure. It is simply human psychology. If EVERYONE, including teachers and parents, told you since you were 2 years old that a cat is called a dog, and a dog is called a cat, and it was on TV and stuff constantly, it wouldn't matter if ALL dictionary in the world said otherwise, most people would think that way... I'm sure you can think of MANY occurances of this in the world, its quite common and is the reason behind a large amount of the misinformation out there, on ANY subject. Religion is just the most extreme kind (I mean, once upon a time, these things were FORCED on people... STILL is in MANY countries...).
You seriously can't tell me that in countries where your life is on the LINE if you say you don't beleive in god, that you'd openly claim to be atheist... Take out all these factors, and you'll find the amount of educated, willing people beleiving in a religion or another, while VERY significant, is nowhere close to what your questions assert.
We are all competent adults and must be assumed to know how to drive
ROFL. Funniest thing I've read in a long time. A freakishly large portion of the population never grow out of their teen years, and when my freagin life depends on them not being retards, I'm quite happy that there are LAWS to protect ME from OTHER people's stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
They're good "enough", but the problem is that their numbers are adjusted to NPD... without NPD, they'll be progressively farther until their data is meaningless.
Ouf, I was like "WTF?!" until I read the last line.
As a sidenote (and I did have that problem with my Wii too), it is mostly limited to the first few batches of Wiis, so that problem technically "doesn't exist" anymore. Its also, on a susceptible Wii, predictable, as the way to make it happen is basically always the same.
Makes sense, pretty different in that case. Since you simply said "probably on a larger screen!", which is simply not the case.
:)
That being said, I rather have a LAN party so everyone plays on their own monitor, no splitting crap, than playing multi on a single screen, which I simply can't stand (too small, even on a 60 inch 1080P, unless you're way too close to the TV for your own good), but thats another story altogether. My point simply was that the screen isn't larger. Your latest post does bring valid (though completly different) arguments, however, and I can see where you're coming from.
Another thing that sucks with split screen too, is for games where you don't want the opponents to see what you're doing (FPS, RTS, strategy games, etc). Anyway, im straying
"Probably on a larger screen", err? Just about any decent gaming videocard can hook up on an HDTV and do 1080p easily. My current card is total garbage and still can do it. (Besides, a 24 inch monitor in your face, or a 40 inch HDTV a couple of feet away... same deal unless you have friends around).
Oh, I totally agree with you. For my use of a cellphone, it would be perfect. I just specified to avoid the 50 posts pointing out "Lolz that wouldn't work when I go on a trip to hong kong lolz!".
Perfect for things like TV remote, electric shavers, screwdrivers (as you mentionned), computer mice, wireless phones (not cells), console controllers and just about anything that would benifit from being wireless, but is always close to a power outlet. Looking around right now, thats the majority of things that use batteries that I have. Aside cellphones, lap-tops and pocket PCs... most things could do with a lower capacity and faster charge time, definately.
Wow, who would have thought, 640x480 existed, really?
No DUH. Whats your point? I haven't seen a mainstream web site that looked adequate in 640x480 in years, thus my comment. Don't worrie, I was around loooooooooong before the internet. I don't do porn because I outgrew it. I did too when I was your age, but it was a while ago. You'll outgrow it too when you try the real thing (probably when YOU are older).
Now all I'd need is a good "Back in my days..." come back...
I don't have a PS3, but considering 1080P = 1920*1080, which is more than most monitors people have, if its cumbersome, its not because of the resolution, thats for sure...
480p (720*480) is a bit on the low side, I'll agree, but aside when fonts are very tiny on some web sites, zooming out you can do a bit. It worked for me, for about 30% of things I'd do on the net (no, I don't do porn, even on PC).
Well, actually, exactly ONE, no more, not less:
:) But I couldn't resist.
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=348167&cid=21216827
Which happens to be for very similar reasons than Vista (except this person is smarter about Leopard than most people are about Vista, but still).
I know it doesn't change your point one bit
There's also one (probably unpopular) thing to consider... Piracy. on PC, I'd be guessing piracy is relatively extreme, at least for games where the main appeal is NOT online (thus why PC gaming is becoming all MMOs, with a touch of FPSs and RTSs). Single player games seem to be suicide, except for the select few "star" AAA games like Oblivion and such.
If you look at the patterns of the industry, it has a bit of that tendency, even on consoles, unless the console is several times more popular than the alternatives (PS2, Wii)
Its interesting to look at the evolution of PSP and DS gaming for example... PSP had a lot of piracy and DS little, early on. Now the DS probably has even more, so games tend to be slightly more evenly distributed... CEOs of game development companies most definately watch that go. Making games for the PC has to be justified.
Now, again aside a couple of exceptions here and there, non-FPS games that come out on PC only do so because its so easy to dual develop for 360 and PC at the same time...
Neither are the vast majority of malwares, even on Windows.
Nah. if you count patchsets as a version it works just fine :)
my thought exactly. Also, note that this is true wether the article is right or not, since many Vista articles that were completly 100% false got tagged that way.
For that though, its something they actually advertise, powerboost. Hardly a huge conspiracy when they -advertise- they do that loud and clear =P
Thats the main new "better" thing in Vista, and no one cared, though Im sure Leopard will do just fine even without that.
Thats the thing. When Microsoft takes some tech and "extends" it, its really a different tech (not meaning its anything new, but that its often not backward compatible, at least not fully, and vice versa).
.NET doesn't have (more than a bunch actually). Mono (even if its one of their goal) shouldn't be considered a .NET compatible implementation. Its really just something that took a very similar core, and extended it with a bunch more stuff, and is missing others. So while yes, if a program thats in .NET happens to work in Mono, its a bonus... but its very possible for Mono programs not to work in .NET either... they're two different things, same core. If tomorrow .NET changes upside down and isn't compatible with Mono at all, does it really matter?
Mono has a bunch of stuff that
I mean yeah, it will suck that programs wont work on both platforms anymore...but the programs developed in Mono will still work, and the implementation is still valid. Think of it as a "fork" (without the original source), not as a clone.
No, its not, because the schools explicitely pick this deal, and do so willingly. Why? Well, it is simply MUCH, MUCH easier for everyone (including the school).
The whole "paying for all computers, even those not using Windows" is simply a metric to gauge an "unlimited license" pricing, so to speak. The school pays a number that scales depending on the amount of computers they have (and its MUCH -MUCH- less than normal educational pricing. I repeat, MUCH less, so the computers that won't be using Windows ARE factored in the quote!), they pay up, and they never have to manage those licenses ever again.
Much, MUCH easier. Its not very different from how most serious Windows development shops will take MSDN licenses over development licenses separately. They end up "Paying for ALL the softwares in MSDN", even though they will only use a TINY FRACTION (5% at most usually!) of the softwares there, but its MUCH easier to manage for everyone, and overall its often cheaper.
Again: the idea is that they pay by the size of the computer infrastructure, not "for all computers" (even if it ends up being the same, the idea is very different), and the price considers that Windows won't be install on all of it. I'm nowhere CLOSE to rich, and I could probably pay -CASH- for the price most schools pay for THE ENTIRE SCHOOL. So you're not "REALLY" paying for every computers. Its just a way to keep the agreement simple.
One cool thing about mono is that they're using MS' strategy right back at em: Embrace and Extend. In some ways, Mono has more features than .NET, and in some cases (Silverlight 1.1) is ahead of Microsoft. That should make quite a few open source lovers cackle with glee more than anything :)
Indeed. The thing is Vista's a self fullfiling prophecy. People, especially in the geek world, did NOT want it to do well, and have a short memory. They claimed it would fail before it would even come out, and when it came out (and while it wasn't MacOSX quality, it was better than most other Microsoft's OS at launch), they found everything they could and went "SEE?!! TOLD YOU SO!!", including things that were not true whatsoever, or things that were no different in the XP days. In other words, "FUD".
Now, in "geek" circles, and people those geeks can reach (family, etc), it really doesn't do well at all. But what many fail to see, is that even if you include grandma that has a geek grandson telling her that Vista sucks, its still a minority... So in the end, Vista doesn't do as well as it could, but it does just fine... people who aren't TOLD it sucks often (not always, so don't bring back anecdotal stories, I've heard em!) don't mind it, aside for the fact that they're lost because of the UI changes...
So yup, even if we take those numbers (88m) with a grain of salt (because a lot of these probably aren't used, are sold to people who didn't want it, etc), there's still a whole lot of Vista being sold.
point 1) also has a twist to it. When XP came out, a lot of businesses (and even some home users) were still -considering- or planning switching to Windows 2000. XP came quite early, so people were not ready to switch.
Thus, even though XP was uther garbage when it came out, no one noticed, no one really cared, and by the time anyone was really considering switching, SP1 was out, and -then- XP was good.
With Vista, people were ready a LONG time ago and were WAITING. So the usual trick that Microsoft pulls off (come out with crap, and patch it LONG before anyone even was ready to upgrade) didn't work. People WERE ready to upgrade the day Vista came out... they didn't want to wait for SP1 like they did for XP. Things will be a bit more interesting when SP1 come out (I mean come on, Windows NT was garbage until at LEAST SP5...and didn't stop bluescreening all over until SP6...)
While still fairly far from Windows' market share, Mac OSX is now a solid competitor in the home market, so there definately is a choice, and people are now well aware of Macs and that they are alternatives. In business, MacOSX is harder to get through, but in home market, there's no issues. People are just afraid of change, or (more rarely) don't want it.
I'm in the later, I really dislike Apple, so its not like I'm a fanboy trying to push his favored OS... but this isn't 10 years ago... There IS a choice, and a lot of customers know it (well, Apple stores ARE hard to miss).
Oh, did I hit a nerve?
1) Humanity has always been the same, and is only kindda getting better. But historically, there was always a few people in an elite cast, and a bunch of ignorant peasants, just about everywhere. So yes, I really think humanity has (and to some extent, still is) just a bunch of collective morons. Ever seen one of these shows that make fun of people not being able to answer 5th graders level questions? Thats the norm, not the exception. Most people don't know the very basics of science (like the obvious stuff). How can they make statements on super complex stuff like the origin of the universe or the possibility of evolution?
Remember that for the longest time most kids even in the most favored parts of the world didn't even go to the equivalent of elementary school. Thats where most supertitions (not even talking about the existance of god here, but really retarded stuff, like "tomato are extremely poisonous") come from. People mere -decades- ago would beleive ANYTHING. They still do, too.
2) Heck yes, else we still wouldn't know that by going west or east you end up at the same place eventualy.
3) Its not even CLOSE to "everyone else". Not only is there a very significant portion of the world that does not beleive in any god, a lot of those who do beleive in things relatively incompatible with each other. Also if you take out uneducated people (because sorry, but their opinion isn't worth much, in the same way MY opinion is worth absolutely nothing in things I know little of), the ratio shifts even more.
Just look around you on a day to day basis. People who are supposed to be very educated not being able to fill up a silly tax return. People barely knowing how to spell (me included), a stupidly large portion of people quitting highschool, people who don't understand how the difference in risk between going at 100 and 110 km/hour is NOT 10%, people without the knowledge to take care of their own kids... humans are nowhere as smart as they we'd like to think we are...
I'd be surprised if humanity did NOT get fooled like it did. Especially since religion is often forced on people at a very young age, by authority figure. It is simply human psychology. If EVERYONE, including teachers and parents, told you since you were 2 years old that a cat is called a dog, and a dog is called a cat, and it was on TV and stuff constantly, it wouldn't matter if ALL dictionary in the world said otherwise, most people would think that way... I'm sure you can think of MANY occurances of this in the world, its quite common and is the reason behind a large amount of the misinformation out there, on ANY subject. Religion is just the most extreme kind (I mean, once upon a time, these things were FORCED on people... STILL is in MANY countries...).
You seriously can't tell me that in countries where your life is on the LINE if you say you don't beleive in god, that you'd openly claim to be atheist... Take out all these factors, and you'll find the amount of educated, willing people beleiving in a religion or another, while VERY significant, is nowhere close to what your questions assert.