Cartiges were no where near $1000 each, even adjusted for inflation. The most expensive were around $300 or so, but most were in the $150 range. I bought my Neo-Geo new for less than $400 in 1992 (from an ad in the back of an old EGM) and it came with two games. Those were the only games I ever owned. There was an independently owned rental shop that I rented them from for about $5/3 nights. That, invariably, was as long as I needed. You could usually beat a Neo Geo game in an hour or two (with 1 oe 2 notable exceptions). The game play was fun, but they were meant to be arcade games, so they couldn't be very challenging. (Imagine how successful Zelda would have been if you had to pay a quarter every time you died.)
So it was fun while it lasted, but I consider it a failure as a platform. Almost every game (maybe all of them) were developed by SNK. I dont think more thaan a total of maybe 50 games were released for the system during its lifespan, and there were only a few really good ones.
However, I would have to say it faired better than the 3DO.
Umm, what the f*ck am I supposed to do with a 20GB hard drive? My 3 year old iPod has more space than that. And unless that $100 upgrade comes with a 15k RPM drive, sony can suck my...
Actually, you're wrong, and further more, you don't even know what you're talking about.
Walmart can, and does, give cities money. That may not be legal in some circumstances, but they can afford good lawyers.
People could ignore Walmart, but they don't, because they don't know any better. Educating the general public on subtle economic forces, and getting them to believe IT REALLY DOES AFFECT THEM, is both difficult and expensive.
And lastly, Walmart builds a lot of its stores knowing full well that they wont survive in the long term, even if consumers don't boycott them. Their business model is driven by proliferation and short term profits. Its not like a franchise, where they take a cut from the owner's revenue, and its in the owner/manager's interest to keep the business going. Obviously its better for them if it does survive, but theyre cost analysis boils down to "How much does it cost to build this store, and how much will we make before it starts losing money?" If they can make back the startup cost and operate with a profit for a few years, they open the store. When the store starts to lose money, they relocate (maybe) the upper management to a newly opened store, fire everyone else, close the store, and sell the property to some sucker that thinks he can make money opening a supermarket, thrift store, or whatever in a town full of unemployed people.
Seriously, take a tour through semi-rural America some time, and see how many empty walmart buildings in the middle of desolate towns you can find.
You can't take an analogy to an extreme and then expect it to still hold true.
Ok, well let me strip my comment of the sarcasm so you can follow it.
Your metric sucks.
If an average consumer uses a laptop for 3 years, and the performance hit due to a low end HD is on the order of 10 minutes of productivity per day on 300 days out of the year, thats a loss of 150 productive hours. Assuming the consumer's time is worth more than $1.35/hour, they are better off with a faster hard drive.
Thats before we consider the cost of storage limitations. Having to purchase an external drive to be able to store all your files, besides eating up most of the cost savings, is generally less convenient than having all your data in one location.
And don't even get me started on quality of user experience.
What is your time worth? What if I sold you a laptop, and I gave you the hard drive for free, but it only held 8 kilobytes, and had a read/write speed of, say, 12 bits per hour.
The performance to cost ratio is INFINITELY better than any other laptop on the market! Would you take it?
I've had my powerbook for almost 30 months. It came with an 80 GB hard drive, which at the time, was the largest laptop drive available, and had been for quite a while...at least a few months.
The largest laptop drive currently available is 160 GB, and that has only been available for a few weeks.
So, in roughly 3 years, the capacity of 2.5" hard drives has doubled. (A far cry from Moore's law.) Processor speeds haven't kept up with Moore's law either, but they have certainly more than doubled in the past 3 years.
walmart wreaks havoc on the local economies in small towns. consider the following scenario:
you are a mayor or city council member of a town with a population of 5000 or so. WalMart wants to build a store in your town, and offers to give the city (or maybe you personally) half a million dollars in return for approval to do so.
Pros:
1) Half a million dollars is a lot of money for a town your size. It would go a long way toward building a new school, or improving an existing one.
Cons:
1)MANY small businesses in the town will go bankrupt because they cant compete, either in selection of goods, or in price.
2) The loss of jobs, as a result, will exceed the number of jobs created by the new Walmart, and the new jobs created will pay much less than the jobs lost.
3) Lower average income generally results in an increase in crime.
4) Much of the money that used to circulate in the local economy via locally owned businesses will now be directed to Walmart central HQ, further adding to the drain on the local economy.
5) The chances are high that the Walmart store will not remain profitable in the long run. A very high percentage of walmart stores close less than 10 years after opening. This would drastically increase unemployment in an already fragile economy. It would take decades for the town to recover, if it recovers at all.
6) (This is the important one!!) If you don't accept Walmarts offer, they will go to one of the other towns within a 20 mile radius. Your town's local economy will still get raped in the long run, though the effects may not be as immediate, and you don't even get the benefit of the half million dollars being offered.
There you have it. Thats how you force building plans on a town that doeesn't want them.
I think they suck in different ways. Aperture has a really good UI, but a significant portion of the Files that are being processed get fucked up. Adobe already had the RAW processing part done, as it was already implemented in the Photoshop plugins, but their UI is shitty.
So with lightroom, you can get stuff done, but its a huge pain in the ass. With Aperture, your files might get fucked up, but its a pleasant and intuitive process of getting there.
No, its for batch processing large numbers of RAW pictures. There is a freee plugin for Photoshop to do that same sort of thing, but you cant compare the two in terms of feature sets. One is hack to add some basic RAW processing features to Photoshop. With some issues worked out, Aperture would be a god-send to photographers that work with RAW format pics. Adobe has since released a beta of a piece of software to compete with aperture, but i forget its name.
Perhaps the greatest hope for Aperture's future is that the application's problems are said to be so extensive that any version 2.0 would require major portions of code to be entirely rewritten. With that in mind, the bell may not yet be tolling for Aperture; an entirely new engineering team could salvage the software and bring it up to Apple's usual standards.
ThinkSecret normally doesn't have such inane punditry... We're saying here that a good strategy for a piece of softwares survival is to make it so bad that someone will be compelled to rewrite it? Only if you have politicians on your development team!
The guys from the Shake and Motion teams have jobs already--working on important software that has an installed userbase. I don't think Apple is going to relocate them to a new Copeland and hire a bunch of new engineers to fuck up currently functional products.
It would have been nice if they had included the Bose Soundock in the lineup, and possibly other iPod speaker systems, like the Klipsch iGroove. Its much more interesting to see side-by-side comparisons than read seperate reviews performed by different people.
...almost every program available for mac is also available for windows, usually about 3 months earlier and 10 bucks cheaper.
that was true 10 years ago, maybe even 5 years ago. Just of the programs I use regularly, I can think of a dozen or so that are not avaible for the PC. In some cases there may be a similar but inferior program for windows (e.g. TeXShop, Adium X, iLife, Transmit, Keynote, Pith Helmet, Bits on Wheels), or in some cases, none at all (Delicious Library, Quicksilver).
The point, though, is that it would give developers a motivation to develop OS X native apps using Cocoa/Xcode, since the resulting software would run on both platforms without any additional development.
For the same reason as Linux and BSD. Its part of the OSS design philosophy. Everyone has their own idea of how things should be implemented, so the OS is developed to please as many of those interests as reasonably possible. The apple user experience is consistent and intuitive because Apple maintains a facist level of control over how software behaves (e.g. the appearance of icons, windows, etc, the use of a consistent set of keyboard shortcuts throughout all applications, and so forth). Linux only has the pitiful level of consistency it does because Linus spends most of his time telling people what they can't implement.
I suspect this was an important but largely unnoticed motivation for the Intel transition. It makes it unreasonably difficult to develop software that will work on all Macs unless you use their APIs and development framework, and thus furthering the consistency of user experience. Not that software developed with Code Warrior or emacs and gcc can't be consistent with Apple UI, but Xcode makes it difficult to be inconsistent.
"Now we will have to work on the newly discovered pizzini, which contain several coded names."
With a highly trained detective working round the clock, that should take oh, 45 minutes or so.
As someone who has run proprietary software for most of my life (since the Mac 512 we got when I was 7 years old) and liked it, I think this is largely bullshit. Not that Linux hasn't been a positive force in the computing world, and that the values behind it are great and all, but that the impact being touted is way overblown. Sit and think for maybe 3 minutes, and you can probably come up with a dozen other factors that make the computing landscape what it is (e.g. better, faster, mostly bug-free drivers). Key examples: improved development methods, and increased consumer demand. And anyone that claims Linux has had a bigger impact on usability than Apple is either a troll or a politician.
I use Fink and install a lot of GNU software, and I like it. But I DONT like using Linux for anything that can't be dome from the command line. I am truly glad OS X isn't open source. While I like a certain amount of customization, I really don't feel like spending 6 months fine tuning an OS installation, let alone a decade figuring out how to do such fine tuning.
Slashdot Mirror
Cartiges were no where near $1000 each, even adjusted for inflation. The most expensive were around $300 or so, but most were in the $150 range. I bought my Neo-Geo new for less than $400 in 1992 (from an ad in the back of an old EGM) and it came with two games. Those were the only games I ever owned. There was an independently owned rental shop that I rented them from for about $5/3 nights. That, invariably, was as long as I needed. You could usually beat a Neo Geo game in an hour or two (with 1 oe 2 notable exceptions). The game play was fun, but they were meant to be arcade games, so they couldn't be very challenging. (Imagine how successful Zelda would have been if you had to pay a quarter every time you died.) So it was fun while it lasted, but I consider it a failure as a platform. Almost every game (maybe all of them) were developed by SNK. I dont think more thaan a total of maybe 50 games were released for the system during its lifespan, and there were only a few really good ones. However, I would have to say it faired better than the 3DO.
I'm glad I'll finally be able to play solitaire at 800 FPS.
Umm, what the f*ck am I supposed to do with a 20GB hard drive? My 3 year old iPod has more space than that. And unless that $100 upgrade comes with a 15k RPM drive, sony can suck my...
go to crucial or new egg and buy some low latency ram. you'll be fine.
People said the same thing about CD burners.
Hell no! Thats where I go to pick my ass.
the difference: people like picking their ass and jerking off in the employee kitchen. they don't like staring at hour-glass cursors.
Instead, why don't you look at the town reportss for towns with an old walmart. The outlook isn't so cheery.
Actually, you're wrong, and further more, you don't even know what you're talking about.
Walmart can, and does, give cities money. That may not be legal in some circumstances, but they can afford good lawyers.
People could ignore Walmart, but they don't, because they don't know any better. Educating the general public on subtle economic forces, and getting them to believe IT REALLY DOES AFFECT THEM, is both difficult and expensive.
And lastly, Walmart builds a lot of its stores knowing full well that they wont survive in the long term, even if consumers don't boycott them. Their business model is driven by proliferation and short term profits. Its not like a franchise, where they take a cut from the owner's revenue, and its in the owner/manager's interest to keep the business going. Obviously its better for them if it does survive, but theyre cost analysis boils down to "How much does it cost to build this store, and how much will we make before it starts losing money?" If they can make back the startup cost and operate with a profit for a few years, they open the store. When the store starts to lose money, they relocate (maybe) the upper management to a newly opened store, fire everyone else, close the store, and sell the property to some sucker that thinks he can make money opening a supermarket, thrift store, or whatever in a town full of unemployed people.
Seriously, take a tour through semi-rural America some time, and see how many empty walmart buildings in the middle of desolate towns you can find.
You can't take an analogy to an extreme and then expect it to still hold true.
Ok, well let me strip my comment of the sarcasm so you can follow it.
Your metric sucks.
If an average consumer uses a laptop for 3 years, and the performance hit due to a low end HD is on the order of 10 minutes of productivity per day on 300 days out of the year, thats a loss of 150 productive hours. Assuming the consumer's time is worth more than $1.35/hour, they are better off with a faster hard drive. Thats before we consider the cost of storage limitations. Having to purchase an external drive to be able to store all your files, besides eating up most of the cost savings, is generally less convenient than having all your data in one location. And don't even get me started on quality of user experience.
What is your time worth? What if I sold you a laptop, and I gave you the hard drive for free, but it only held 8 kilobytes, and had a read/write speed of, say, 12 bits per hour. The performance to cost ratio is INFINITELY better than any other laptop on the market! Would you take it?
I've had my powerbook for almost 30 months. It came with an 80 GB hard drive, which at the time, was the largest laptop drive available, and had been for quite a while...at least a few months.
The largest laptop drive currently available is 160 GB, and that has only been available for a few weeks.
So, in roughly 3 years, the capacity of 2.5" hard drives has doubled. (A far cry from Moore's law.) Processor speeds haven't kept up with Moore's law either, but they have certainly more than doubled in the past 3 years.
walmart wreaks havoc on the local economies in small towns. consider the following scenario:
you are a mayor or city council member of a town with a population of 5000 or so. WalMart wants to build a store in your town, and offers to give the city (or maybe you personally) half a million dollars in return for approval to do so.
Pros:
1) Half a million dollars is a lot of money for a town your size. It would go a long way toward building a new school, or improving an existing one.
Cons:
1)MANY small businesses in the town will go bankrupt because they cant compete, either in selection of goods, or in price.
2) The loss of jobs, as a result, will exceed the number of jobs created by the new Walmart, and the new jobs created will pay much less than the jobs lost.
3) Lower average income generally results in an increase in crime.
4) Much of the money that used to circulate in the local economy via locally owned businesses will now be directed to Walmart central HQ, further adding to the drain on the local economy.
5) The chances are high that the Walmart store will not remain profitable in the long run. A very high percentage of walmart stores close less than 10 years after opening. This would drastically increase unemployment in an already fragile economy. It would take decades for the town to recover, if it recovers at all.
6) (This is the important one!!) If you don't accept Walmarts offer, they will go to one of the other towns within a 20 mile radius. Your town's local economy will still get raped in the long run, though the effects may not be as immediate, and you don't even get the benefit of the half million dollars being offered.
There you have it. Thats how you force building plans on a town that doeesn't want them.
I think they suck in different ways. Aperture has a really good UI, but a significant portion of the Files that are being processed get fucked up. Adobe already had the RAW processing part done, as it was already implemented in the Photoshop plugins, but their UI is shitty. So with lightroom, you can get stuff done, but its a huge pain in the ass. With Aperture, your files might get fucked up, but its a pleasant and intuitive process of getting there.
No, its for batch processing large numbers of RAW pictures. There is a freee plugin for Photoshop to do that same sort of thing, but you cant compare the two in terms of feature sets. One is hack to add some basic RAW processing features to Photoshop. With some issues worked out, Aperture would be a god-send to photographers that work with RAW format pics. Adobe has since released a beta of a piece of software to compete with aperture, but i forget its name.
Perhaps the greatest hope for Aperture's future is that the application's problems are said to be so extensive that any version 2.0 would require major portions of code to be entirely rewritten. With that in mind, the bell may not yet be tolling for Aperture; an entirely new engineering team could salvage the software and bring it up to Apple's usual standards.
ThinkSecret normally doesn't have such inane punditry... We're saying here that a good strategy for a piece of softwares survival is to make it so bad that someone will be compelled to rewrite it? Only if you have politicians on your development team!
The guys from the Shake and Motion teams have jobs already--working on important software that has an installed userbase. I don't think Apple is going to relocate them to a new Copeland and hire a bunch of new engineers to fuck up currently functional products.
Ha! i think maybe you mean highly affective. which, for better or worse, works against effectiveness.
It would have been nice if they had included the Bose Soundock in the lineup, and possibly other iPod speaker systems, like the Klipsch iGroove. Its much more interesting to see side-by-side comparisons than read seperate reviews performed by different people.
...almost every program available for mac is also available for windows, usually about 3 months earlier and 10 bucks cheaper. that was true 10 years ago, maybe even 5 years ago. Just of the programs I use regularly, I can think of a dozen or so that are not avaible for the PC. In some cases there may be a similar but inferior program for windows (e.g. TeXShop, Adium X, iLife, Transmit, Keynote, Pith Helmet, Bits on Wheels), or in some cases, none at all (Delicious Library, Quicksilver). The point, though, is that it would give developers a motivation to develop OS X native apps using Cocoa/Xcode, since the resulting software would run on both platforms without any additional development.
i think contempt breeds familiarity, and ignorance.
...would be Apple releasing an Cocoa implementation that could be installed on Windoze so universal binaries would run on a PeeCee.
For the same reason as Linux and BSD. Its part of the OSS design philosophy. Everyone has their own idea of how things should be implemented, so the OS is developed to please as many of those interests as reasonably possible. The apple user experience is consistent and intuitive because Apple maintains a facist level of control over how software behaves (e.g. the appearance of icons, windows, etc, the use of a consistent set of keyboard shortcuts throughout all applications, and so forth). Linux only has the pitiful level of consistency it does because Linus spends most of his time telling people what they can't implement. I suspect this was an important but largely unnoticed motivation for the Intel transition. It makes it unreasonably difficult to develop software that will work on all Macs unless you use their APIs and development framework, and thus furthering the consistency of user experience. Not that software developed with Code Warrior or emacs and gcc can't be consistent with Apple UI, but Xcode makes it difficult to be inconsistent.
dammit. stupid html tags.
"Now we will have to work on the newly discovered pizzini, which contain several coded names." With a highly trained detective working round the clock, that should take oh, 45 minutes or so.
As someone who has run proprietary software for most of my life (since the Mac 512 we got when I was 7 years old) and liked it, I think this is largely bullshit. Not that Linux hasn't been a positive force in the computing world, and that the values behind it are great and all, but that the impact being touted is way overblown. Sit and think for maybe 3 minutes, and you can probably come up with a dozen other factors that make the computing landscape what it is (e.g. better, faster, mostly bug-free drivers). Key examples: improved development methods, and increased consumer demand. And anyone that claims Linux has had a bigger impact on usability than Apple is either a troll or a politician. I use Fink and install a lot of GNU software, and I like it. But I DONT like using Linux for anything that can't be dome from the command line. I am truly glad OS X isn't open source. While I like a certain amount of customization, I really don't feel like spending 6 months fine tuning an OS installation, let alone a decade figuring out how to do such fine tuning.