And that's not likely to happen until HD discs sell for less than regular DVDs. The brats don't care about the increased quality, and the parents care more about spending as little as possible.
Uh, it's $9 for "1 movie at a time," which equals at least 1 movie every weekend, and possibly as many as 8 if you watch them as they arrive.
In other words, it's either about $2 a movie or $1 a movie, depending on how much you watch. Don't need to go to the grocery store to pick one up, don't have to watch it within 24 hours, and the selection is incredible. "Astronomical?"
On the plus side, format wars that make people afraid to buy DVDs are good for Netflix's business. I know I started using them when i got sick of the idea of buying an "obsolete" format.
(Especially when DVDs I had already bought started coming out in "super criterion extended bonus editions" 4-5 years later)
They do have a use, just not the typical Windows use. Minimize is great if you want something open (as in, you want it where you can get to it without getting to it again using file>open or the Finder) but out of the way. The Zoom button I generally use with PDFs and moving between multiple monitors.
I will agree that they are used significantly less frequently than on Windows. However, I find it's more due to the fact that OS X is pretty good about remembering window layouts, and almost no apps default to opening "full screen." They open to what's needed, and the rest of the desktop GUI is based around navigating between those open windows. In some ways, I get the impression that they remain so that people who don't really "get" OS X aren't forced to use an OS in a completely foreign way. Kind of like throwing a parent in front of fluxbox.
It's fully-functional, most importantly. You can pick up a document (or a bit of text) in one spot, activate expose, and drag it somewhere else. If you want to use it entirely using your keyboard, that's cool too. It gives the appearance of being just a funky way of navigating a desktop GUI, but it keeps all of the functionality one expects of a desktop GUI.
Similarly, due to how Mac OS has historically separated windows from applications, it's exceedingly common for the bits of other windows to be visible, and most users get used to figuring out "oh, these other apps are what's poking out." Since Expose "spreads" everything out, it makes picking up on those nuances much easier -- you don't have to think about how your desktop is spatially represented, it happens more subconsciously. You know your mail window is smaller, your terminal window is smaller still and on a black background, and that's all represented in Expose -- no need to read text or try to remember which order your apps were in when you alt-tab.
On desktop GUIs that push a "everything is full-screen" approach, it's very easy to lose where you really are when working. What's behind your current window? More importantly, you're forced to rely on reading text on the screen, which is subtly time consuming, in order to figure out where things are. I know all the tricks -- I was used to keeping track of which order I accessed IE windows in, so I could hit them more quickly without having to read things. With Expose, you just need to have a vague idea of what color the window was, and bam.
The really neat thing about it is how it proves useful even outside of basic navigation. I've used it to sort photographs, by using the "application windows" option, and I use the Desktop option to scoot various bits around without worrying about minimizing windows to get them out of the way. I just leave stuff where it is.
It's kind of sad, actually, because whenever a major upgrade comes out for the Mac line, I typically take a look, drool a bit.. and then end up on my computer and home and realize that the machine I already own still kicks ass, and does everything I need.
Sure, a new one would do some things faster, but things like video encoding take a long time no matter what, and I always set them up to go overnight. Whether it finishes at 2am or 5am doesn't really affect me.
Agreed -- the only parts that really easily move from one home-built system to the next are the cheap parts: network cards, sound cards, USB cards. And those are, more and more, simply becoming elements of the mainboard. Heck, they've *been* part of the mainboard for years. When I built my last computer, in 2002, the only thing I plugged into the PCI slots was a FireWire card. Everything else was on the mainboard.
I mean, home built computers are, essentially, "mainboard, cpu, video card, ram." And, as you point out, those are the things that everyone wants to upgrade at the same time anyway.
It's funny that your post gives the impression that the ability to hack a mac requires actual hacking skills. Almost makes you think that the majority of people who put together their own "PC" computers are just trying to save money, and don't actually know what the parts they're putting in there are doing, or if there are any compatibility/power/configuration issues...
(after all, that's why I gave up on building my own machines)
I think that's really key -- people get in the habit of minimizing things from Windows, and have a hard time breaking the habit. It's so ingrained as a legitimate form of actual navigation, that the idea behind it is lost. Minimizing means "put this away so I don't have to look at it, but I probably want it back in the future without hunting for the file." If it's put away, that means you don't want it as part of your regular workflow. Makes sense to me. Although, I do agree that there should be an easier way of getting things out, instead of hoping "apple+1 (through 9)" happens to be bound to that window.
I've found that most people run into problems with OS X when they act like it's "windows, but different." A lot of linux desktops mimic Windows in many aspects, which is why some people don't run into those same issues.
For instance, I never minimize anything but PDFs, and that's only as "storage." Otherwise, there's no reason to minimize anything -- all the desktop clutter is perfectly normal, thanks to expose and the separation between "applications" and "windows." Windows users, at least the plain jane ones, are in the habit of opening up a window full-screen, and when they want to use something else, they minimize it to the doc and switch to the next window, also in full-screen. So the taskbar (since they're generally not using tab to switch between windows) is their main navigation.
That approach is completely unneeded on OS X, where there's no "gray background" for an app and you don't end up with windows inside other windows, but rather the overall "application" that spawns actual windows.
I know you're speaking for your fiance having those problems, but whenever I've had to help someone with a new mac, I spend some time giving them some pointers, and explicitly stating that "it's not windows, and here are some things I KNOW you do in Windows that you don't have to do anymore." Thinks like use their pinky for hotkeys -- I tell them to use their thumb instead, and they usually go "oooohhhhh... that is easier!" And they start actually using hotkeys. I also teach them about expose, and after I give them some pointers about it they realize it's more than just flashy crap.
I have to train people how to use macs at my job, since we typically hire people based on technical skills, not on OS allegiance, so I end up seeing a lot of odd habits that Windows users pick up. Your fiance's experiences aren't at all surprising to me; you really need to sit down with someone and tell them that what they're doing is wrong, which is never fun when dealing with computers:D
While I agree with you, I believe the larger issue (and why it's actually getting news) is that Comcast is intentionally killing Bittorrent traffic -- not just blocking ports, not just monitoring certain illegal sites, but killing the way the protocol works. And it's doing so indiscriminately.
So even though the majority of Bittorrent traffic is based on infringing copyright, it's also used for the majority portion of Linux ISO distribution. It's also used by a few game companies and other, very legitimate, purposes. If Comcast simply put out a press release saying "Due to our infrastructure, we are blocking all Bittorrent usage," there would likely be no problem. Instead, they're claiming they're not doing anything, or perhaps they're doing something, or they are definitely doing something but not really, or it's just like a "busy signal" on a telephone, and they're allowing people to download but not upload (which kills Bittorrent).
Instead they're lying, and trying to kill even legitimate torrents (without saying they're killing them). I'm not at all surprised that they're doing it -- the upload speeds on Comcast's network are laughable. But it's the avoidance and lying that gets me. Come out and say "We are actively blocking Bittorrent activity on our network." Otherwise, you're just misleading your customers.
Technically, wouldn't BioWare and Pandemic fall under the "EA-churned out crap" now?
I'm all for rallying against sequelitis and license cash-ins, but I've been getting the distinct impression that EA has been trying hard to create unique games, rather than churning out crap. I mean, any company is going to be focused on growth, and they've made numerous mention that growth is through new and innovative games.
After all, there's no reason to buy BioWare if you're interested in churning out same-old crap. It's a waste of money if that's the case.
I think the worst part is how difficult it is for consumers to rediscover some of these people's work after the studio disbands. For instance, someone falling in love with Planescape:Torment will soon discover that BlackIsle hasn't existed for quite some time. But the people who spearheaded the game are still making video games.
It seems like it's often a perverted treasure hunt to track down what old, disbanded studios have reformed themselves as, and if their more current products are similar to their old stuff. And, perhaps more importantly, if it maintains the same level of quality.
It's a good point, especially to back up the fact that just because something is named "3D" doesn't make it actually 3d. If anything, they added it to the name to give the impression that the visuals had "depth" to them.
Real 3d games (like Doom) didn't need to add 3d to the title.
Re:Why haven't you fired Kdawson yet?
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think the bigger question is why these (and other) editors love to link to blogs aggregating other blogs posting about articles talking about news, rather than just the original news reports.
Most of these companies bank on the fact that many consumers don't really understand digital. They know that their clocks at home are digital because the numbers are made with straight lines that light up.
I believe he means non-iPod, and a player that actually has good features. Showing up as a mass storage device is nice, but if the only thing it lets you do is simply copy files back & forth, that means that *all* of the organization is handled by the player. Thus, the interface and features are of the utmost importance.
Or they need to support some music library tool that's available for Linux. Or the user has to have very basic portable music needs.
I'm pretty certain they anticipated it, and figured "people are OK with changing disks in the middle of a huge, multi-day game." Jade Empire, one of the RPGs for the original Xbox that actually sold pretty well, was on 2 discs -- and the content on disc 2 was about 10% of the game, so it was truly just "overflow" that didn't fit.
And no one complained. They were happy that Microsoft didn't force the developer to cut that 10% out of the rest of the game. It's not like these games require disc changing every 60 minutes -- it's more like every 15 hours. That's an entire waking day of playing a game.
Agreed. Halo (and Marathon) may not be divinely inspired, and it may not be The Best Sci-Fi ever. In fact, I don't think anyone would seriously argue that it is. But it has a huge leg-up that many stories that extend into series (or franchises) lack -- consistency. Bungie has a "Halo Bible" and it sticks with it. It presents the sci-fi and then does a pretty good job of avoiding the deus-ex-machina that's exceedingly easy in sci-fi works. You fight against bad guys and, using strategy, tactics, and the things at hand, you win.
Most games can't even stay consistent from start to finish. Halo can be accused of copy-paste level design in spots, but at least the story and actions follow an arc and are internally consistent.
I think it's more that it's a game that is at least good on the PS3. When you've only had crappy games for the past year, a game that is great but short seems that much greater. A truly great game has staying power, and remains fun long after it's beaten. Ask your friends again in January how often they've played Heavenly Sword.
Or, even better, in January ask them if they feel they got their $60 worth out of the title. You can also point out that if you spend $60 on DVDs you'd get more entertainment time from the movies than the video game.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's not likely to happen until HD discs sell for less than regular DVDs. The brats don't care about the increased quality, and the parents care more about spending as little as possible.
Uh, it's $9 for "1 movie at a time," which equals at least 1 movie every weekend, and possibly as many as 8 if you watch them as they arrive.
In other words, it's either about $2 a movie or $1 a movie, depending on how much you watch. Don't need to go to the grocery store to pick one up, don't have to watch it within 24 hours, and the selection is incredible. "Astronomical?"
On the plus side, format wars that make people afraid to buy DVDs are good for Netflix's business. I know I started using them when i got sick of the idea of buying an "obsolete" format.
(Especially when DVDs I had already bought started coming out in "super criterion extended bonus editions" 4-5 years later)
They do have a use, just not the typical Windows use. Minimize is great if you want something open (as in, you want it where you can get to it without getting to it again using file>open or the Finder) but out of the way. The Zoom button I generally use with PDFs and moving between multiple monitors.
I will agree that they are used significantly less frequently than on Windows. However, I find it's more due to the fact that OS X is pretty good about remembering window layouts, and almost no apps default to opening "full screen." They open to what's needed, and the rest of the desktop GUI is based around navigating between those open windows. In some ways, I get the impression that they remain so that people who don't really "get" OS X aren't forced to use an OS in a completely foreign way. Kind of like throwing a parent in front of fluxbox.
It's fully-functional, most importantly. You can pick up a document (or a bit of text) in one spot, activate expose, and drag it somewhere else. If you want to use it entirely using your keyboard, that's cool too. It gives the appearance of being just a funky way of navigating a desktop GUI, but it keeps all of the functionality one expects of a desktop GUI.
Similarly, due to how Mac OS has historically separated windows from applications, it's exceedingly common for the bits of other windows to be visible, and most users get used to figuring out "oh, these other apps are what's poking out." Since Expose "spreads" everything out, it makes picking up on those nuances much easier -- you don't have to think about how your desktop is spatially represented, it happens more subconsciously. You know your mail window is smaller, your terminal window is smaller still and on a black background, and that's all represented in Expose -- no need to read text or try to remember which order your apps were in when you alt-tab.
On desktop GUIs that push a "everything is full-screen" approach, it's very easy to lose where you really are when working. What's behind your current window? More importantly, you're forced to rely on reading text on the screen, which is subtly time consuming, in order to figure out where things are. I know all the tricks -- I was used to keeping track of which order I accessed IE windows in, so I could hit them more quickly without having to read things. With Expose, you just need to have a vague idea of what color the window was, and bam.
The really neat thing about it is how it proves useful even outside of basic navigation. I've used it to sort photographs, by using the "application windows" option, and I use the Desktop option to scoot various bits around without worrying about minimizing windows to get them out of the way. I just leave stuff where it is.
It's kind of sad, actually, because whenever a major upgrade comes out for the Mac line, I typically take a look, drool a bit.. and then end up on my computer and home and realize that the machine I already own still kicks ass, and does everything I need.
Sure, a new one would do some things faster, but things like video encoding take a long time no matter what, and I always set them up to go overnight. Whether it finishes at 2am or 5am doesn't really affect me.
Agreed -- the only parts that really easily move from one home-built system to the next are the cheap parts: network cards, sound cards, USB cards. And those are, more and more, simply becoming elements of the mainboard. Heck, they've *been* part of the mainboard for years. When I built my last computer, in 2002, the only thing I plugged into the PCI slots was a FireWire card. Everything else was on the mainboard.
I mean, home built computers are, essentially, "mainboard, cpu, video card, ram." And, as you point out, those are the things that everyone wants to upgrade at the same time anyway.
It's funny that your post gives the impression that the ability to hack a mac requires actual hacking skills. Almost makes you think that the majority of people who put together their own "PC" computers are just trying to save money, and don't actually know what the parts they're putting in there are doing, or if there are any compatibility/power/configuration issues... (after all, that's why I gave up on building my own machines)
I think that's really key -- people get in the habit of minimizing things from Windows, and have a hard time breaking the habit. It's so ingrained as a legitimate form of actual navigation, that the idea behind it is lost. Minimizing means "put this away so I don't have to look at it, but I probably want it back in the future without hunting for the file." If it's put away, that means you don't want it as part of your regular workflow. Makes sense to me. Although, I do agree that there should be an easier way of getting things out, instead of hoping "apple+1 (through 9)" happens to be bound to that window.
I've found that most people run into problems with OS X when they act like it's "windows, but different." A lot of linux desktops mimic Windows in many aspects, which is why some people don't run into those same issues.
:D
For instance, I never minimize anything but PDFs, and that's only as "storage." Otherwise, there's no reason to minimize anything -- all the desktop clutter is perfectly normal, thanks to expose and the separation between "applications" and "windows." Windows users, at least the plain jane ones, are in the habit of opening up a window full-screen, and when they want to use something else, they minimize it to the doc and switch to the next window, also in full-screen. So the taskbar (since they're generally not using tab to switch between windows) is their main navigation.
That approach is completely unneeded on OS X, where there's no "gray background" for an app and you don't end up with windows inside other windows, but rather the overall "application" that spawns actual windows.
I know you're speaking for your fiance having those problems, but whenever I've had to help someone with a new mac, I spend some time giving them some pointers, and explicitly stating that "it's not windows, and here are some things I KNOW you do in Windows that you don't have to do anymore." Thinks like use their pinky for hotkeys -- I tell them to use their thumb instead, and they usually go "oooohhhhh... that is easier!" And they start actually using hotkeys. I also teach them about expose, and after I give them some pointers about it they realize it's more than just flashy crap.
I have to train people how to use macs at my job, since we typically hire people based on technical skills, not on OS allegiance, so I end up seeing a lot of odd habits that Windows users pick up. Your fiance's experiences aren't at all surprising to me; you really need to sit down with someone and tell them that what they're doing is wrong, which is never fun when dealing with computers
And since only 5% of those are worth playing...
While I agree with you, I believe the larger issue (and why it's actually getting news) is that Comcast is intentionally killing Bittorrent traffic -- not just blocking ports, not just monitoring certain illegal sites, but killing the way the protocol works. And it's doing so indiscriminately.
So even though the majority of Bittorrent traffic is based on infringing copyright, it's also used for the majority portion of Linux ISO distribution. It's also used by a few game companies and other, very legitimate, purposes. If Comcast simply put out a press release saying "Due to our infrastructure, we are blocking all Bittorrent usage," there would likely be no problem. Instead, they're claiming they're not doing anything, or perhaps they're doing something, or they are definitely doing something but not really, or it's just like a "busy signal" on a telephone, and they're allowing people to download but not upload (which kills Bittorrent).
Instead they're lying, and trying to kill even legitimate torrents (without saying they're killing them). I'm not at all surprised that they're doing it -- the upload speeds on Comcast's network are laughable. But it's the avoidance and lying that gets me. Come out and say "We are actively blocking Bittorrent activity on our network." Otherwise, you're just misleading your customers.
Technically, wouldn't BioWare and Pandemic fall under the "EA-churned out crap" now?
I'm all for rallying against sequelitis and license cash-ins, but I've been getting the distinct impression that EA has been trying hard to create unique games, rather than churning out crap. I mean, any company is going to be focused on growth, and they've made numerous mention that growth is through new and innovative games.
After all, there's no reason to buy BioWare if you're interested in churning out same-old crap. It's a waste of money if that's the case.
I think the worst part is how difficult it is for consumers to rediscover some of these people's work after the studio disbands. For instance, someone falling in love with Planescape:Torment will soon discover that BlackIsle hasn't existed for quite some time. But the people who spearheaded the game are still making video games.
It seems like it's often a perverted treasure hunt to track down what old, disbanded studios have reformed themselves as, and if their more current products are similar to their old stuff. And, perhaps more importantly, if it maintains the same level of quality.
It's a good point, especially to back up the fact that just because something is named "3D" doesn't make it actually 3d. If anything, they added it to the name to give the impression that the visuals had "depth" to them. Real 3d games (like Doom) didn't need to add 3d to the title.
Me too. They've got good burgers.
I think the bigger question is why these (and other) editors love to link to blogs aggregating other blogs posting about articles talking about news, rather than just the original news reports.
Most of these companies bank on the fact that many consumers don't really understand digital. They know that their clocks at home are digital because the numbers are made with straight lines that light up.
And it was replaced by XP in less than a year.
Thinking back, it may explain why XP was picked up pretty quickly -- everyone was anxious to get away from "Millenium."
I believe he means non-iPod, and a player that actually has good features. Showing up as a mass storage device is nice, but if the only thing it lets you do is simply copy files back & forth, that means that *all* of the organization is handled by the player. Thus, the interface and features are of the utmost importance. Or they need to support some music library tool that's available for Linux. Or the user has to have very basic portable music needs.
I'm pretty certain they anticipated it, and figured "people are OK with changing disks in the middle of a huge, multi-day game." Jade Empire, one of the RPGs for the original Xbox that actually sold pretty well, was on 2 discs -- and the content on disc 2 was about 10% of the game, so it was truly just "overflow" that didn't fit.
And no one complained. They were happy that Microsoft didn't force the developer to cut that 10% out of the rest of the game. It's not like these games require disc changing every 60 minutes -- it's more like every 15 hours. That's an entire waking day of playing a game.
Agreed. Halo (and Marathon) may not be divinely inspired, and it may not be The Best Sci-Fi ever. In fact, I don't think anyone would seriously argue that it is. But it has a huge leg-up that many stories that extend into series (or franchises) lack -- consistency. Bungie has a "Halo Bible" and it sticks with it. It presents the sci-fi and then does a pretty good job of avoiding the deus-ex-machina that's exceedingly easy in sci-fi works. You fight against bad guys and, using strategy, tactics, and the things at hand, you win.
Most games can't even stay consistent from start to finish. Halo can be accused of copy-paste level design in spots, but at least the story and actions follow an arc and are internally consistent.
So did cups -- you can get your collectible official Halo 3 Big Gulp at 7-11.
I think it's more that it's a game that is at least good on the PS3. When you've only had crappy games for the past year, a game that is great but short seems that much greater. A truly great game has staying power, and remains fun long after it's beaten. Ask your friends again in January how often they've played Heavenly Sword.
Or, even better, in January ask them if they feel they got their $60 worth out of the title. You can also point out that if you spend $60 on DVDs you'd get more entertainment time from the movies than the video game.
Companies create and sell products in order to make money!
It is neat to see that the Nano has the same guts as the "classic" now, though.