#1 in quality doesn't equate directly to success. His point was that someone who is #1 doesn't have to change to match other people. Market share is more important than quality in terms of flexibility to do your own thing. Using his car analogy, the Toyota Supra was hailed as perhaps the best sports car of its time, but it wasn't as popular, or cheap, or successful as the competition, so it died out. It no longer exists, where as the Camaro, Corvette, Mustang, etc. still exist today. Again, if his point is that being #1 means having the freedom to do your own thing, he is either wrong about Facebook being #1, or he is wrong about not having to worry about what everyone else is doing.
And who would even argue that Facebook is #1 in quality? There are certainly other sites that more technology centric, with more AJAX features that allow you do so much more. There are better looking sites, better designed sites, sites with more members, and certainly sites with more traffic, and more revenue. So in what regard is Facebook #1?
It isn't. My 60 year old mother has a Myspace page, because everyone does, sad but true. My coworkers in the IT department hadn't heard of Facebook when I mentioned it the other day, so if knowledgeable IT folks haven't even heard of it, you certainly aren't the king.
These guys continually try to convince the world that they're assholes. They will tell you repeatedly what mean, horrible people they are, while at the same time donating $10,000 in Jack Thompson's name, creating a scholarship out of their pockets, and organizing this great charity where they pocket absolutely nothing.
Man, they suck at proving what horrible people they are.
Goldeneye's multiplayer was imbalanced in the characters you could use, and it was a decent console shooter, but I don't think it compares favorably with PC shooters. I know everyone raved about Goldeneye, and I bought it, but I just didn't love it. I don't think I even bothered playing past the jungle level.
...this is the game that might force me to buy a Wii. Mario 64 convinced me to buy a N64, sadly I'm not sure a better N64 title came out after that, save for Zelda: OoT.
I also pay very little attention to what people say we can do technology wise ten years from now, because it is hard to prognosticate what advances might alter said time-table, or whether or not another solution might even make your solution obsolete in those ten years.
When Toyota and Honda were giving a 10-year estimate on fuel cell cars, at the very least they had full scale, working prototypes that you could drive. When you have a full-scale prototype of this hard, let me know. In the mean time, typical hard drives keep increasing in space, while decreasing in size and price, even years after people keep insisting they've hit a wall and can't go any further. We just got a server in, with a full bank of 500 gig HDDs, each were the tiny laptop size. I can recall when they were struggling to produce 10 and 15 meg HDDs. And then we have flash storage, and solid-state technology, both which have working retail solutions today.
So please don't tell me what you might sell me 10 years from now, when you don't even have a prototype.
Whether or not aliens even exist is up to conjecture, and even if aliens exist, it may be very unlikely we're going to pick up signals from them. Our own radio signals have become more ever-present, but also much more local. We're not broadcasting at the strengths we were even 50 years ago, nor the distances we once were. It has been suggested as technology increases, we'll become more radio-silent.
Folding however has a much better chance of providing tangible benefits to the people on this planet. If and when I pick up a PS3, I look forward to installing Folding.
What you say may be the truth, but it is misleading.
Windows isn't a hardware label, nor does Microsoft sell PC hardware (save for peripherals like mice and such).
Furthermore, Apple buys their hardware from the same vendors as the other guys. They get their CPUs from Intel, their video cards from Nvidia and ATI, their HDDs from Seagate, etc. People insist their hardware is superior, when often it is the EXACT same hardware I'm buying from Newegg, but the Mac version is more expensive.
Obsidian devs had nothing to do with any of those titles save for NWN:2, and many are calling NWN:2 and its expansion pack the best RPG since Baldur's Gate 2.
Clearly, you have zero clue what you're talking about.
There are two major manufacturers of x86 CPUs, and no one else on the planet has problem getting binaries to run on both.
If Apple can seamlessly (not quite seamlessly) switch architectures completely, then the CPU isn't that crucial to the Apple experience.
Apple hardware is no different (largely) from the hardware I'd purchase for a home-built PC. Furthermore, Apple can't be held liable for third-party hardware, so don't sell me the spin that people would blame Apple for third-party hardware giving people a poor Apple experience. We judge the OS by the OS. If the OS is good, then let it stand on its own, and you may find it gain market share.
Commercial Linux distros don't require activation either.
A more correct statement is that Microsoft assumes their users are crooks, and they are right to an extent, that Windows is perhaps the single most pirated piece of software on the planet.
Because OS X only runs on Mac hardware, and Mac hardware purchases include OS X, they've effectively guaranteed that their customers aren't crooks, and have no need for activation.
You're seriously arguing that DRM prevents theft, or that DRM-less software is guaranteed to be stolen? That argument is weak sauce, and we both know it. Software pirates often circumvent DRM with little to no problem, while the average consumer suffers from DRM restrictions. OS X isn't pirated that much, because the people who are Mac advocates enjoy paying for the product. In reality, iTunes proved to the world that people will pay for stuff they like, even if it is easy to pirate.
I can't believe a Slashdot reader is attempting to defend DRM and overpriced, proprietary hardware. This is why I am hesitant to trust the opinion that OS X is so great, when the people who tell me such things often simultaneously spew such weak logic.
Microsoft was found guilty of anti-trust for bundling a media player, and Apple for a while was forcing you to install iTunes to have a Quicktime plugin.
Apple was pushing proprietary hardware, DRM, stealing BSD code, and committing many of the same offenses that the Evil Microsoft Empire was committing, except people love Apple for it.
I saw a press conference in which Steve Jobs claimed to have invented the virtual desktop (ignoring that they've been around near a decade) and he was universally praised for this brilliant innovation.
In much the same light, Sony and Microsoft are completely evil in the console area, but Nintendo supposedly isn't.
What I haven't heard explained is why then I can't just purchase a box of OS X and install it on my PC. Why then do people need to patch and hack OS X to install on standard x86 PCs? If Apple wasn't active in preventing it, it wouldn't require additional steps.
Lord knows Apple would never actually push or advocate DRM, or attempt to lock people into proprietary hardware. They're not evil like that.
The initial cost of a Mac PC is often considerably more expensive as well. And don't get me started on their monitors. I was in Best Buy to get a new monitor (ended up getting a 19" Widescreen LCD with 2ms response time for $190 brand new, and it wasn't an open box or anything) and I looked at the Apple True Cinema displays I keep hearing so much about. The 20" model was selling for near $600. Even the best looking monitors in the store didn't go over $300 for a 20 inch.
There is very, very much, a Mac tax on hardware. This isn't something subjective like preferring or not liking the UI or appearance. We're talking about cold hard facts.
Obsidian was given a year to make a full title, and then LucasArts went out of business and shipped KOTOR:2 even 3 months earlier than planned. Most people don't seem to know this, but LucasArts completley closed their offices and fired most of their staff. The new LucasArts works out of the ILM offices. LucasArts also just lopped the ending off the game at the last minute. Many files from the ending were still on the disc, and Team Gizka is "fixing" the game to restore the lost portions of the game, which include various quests, dialoges, etc. from the whole game. There was also a full planet cut from the game, which is still heavily hinted at in the shipped version of the game.
The Obsidian devs have a great track record of past titles, many of which used Bioware engines, and greatly improved on them. Some argue that Planescape: Torment is the single greatest PC title of any genre, ever. So don't go insulting arguably the greatest PC RPG devs on the planet.
After you've worked on titles like Planescape and Fallout, then you can critique.
We're not talking football here. The difference between Tackle and Wide Receiver is huge. You can't just switch between the two.
The difference between 1B and 3B isn't huge. And you're talking about asking a guy who has great athletic talent, and who is a good defensive player to shift from the in-field to the in-field.
By your logic, they should have benched A-Rod when they traded for him, because they already had Jeter, and A-Rod was also a SS. Except A-Rod was hands down the MVP of the league, but again in your world, he'd be riding the bench. I'm not sure if you don't know anything about baseball, or you're trolling. But I feel confident in saying this would feeling like I'm flaming or being a prick, but no one in the right mind suggests benching your best offensive player, especially when they're hot. Lugo is the worst guy they've got starting right now. You bench your worst guy, and you play your best guy. This isn't rocket science.
Moving from one position to another in the infield isn't that huge of a move. In fact when people put in defensive adjustments late in a game, or pinch runners, or whatever, people shift defensive positions all the time. Outfielders when traded from one team to another often jump from one outfield position to another. To an extent, all outfielders are just outfielders.
I'm pretty sure you can take a great defensive outfielder, place them in any of those three positions, and they wouldn't miss a beat. On the infield, playing 2B and playing SS are fairly closely related, and playing 1B and 3B are closely related.
Slashdot Mirror
#1 in quality doesn't equate directly to success. His point was that someone who is #1 doesn't have to change to match other people. Market share is more important than quality in terms of flexibility to do your own thing. Using his car analogy, the Toyota Supra was hailed as perhaps the best sports car of its time, but it wasn't as popular, or cheap, or successful as the competition, so it died out. It no longer exists, where as the Camaro, Corvette, Mustang, etc. still exist today. Again, if his point is that being #1 means having the freedom to do your own thing, he is either wrong about Facebook being #1, or he is wrong about not having to worry about what everyone else is doing.
And who would even argue that Facebook is #1 in quality? There are certainly other sites that more technology centric, with more AJAX features that allow you do so much more. There are better looking sites, better designed sites, sites with more members, and certainly sites with more traffic, and more revenue. So in what regard is Facebook #1?
It isn't. My 60 year old mother has a Myspace page, because everyone does, sad but true. My coworkers in the IT department hadn't heard of Facebook when I mentioned it the other day, so if knowledgeable IT folks haven't even heard of it, you certainly aren't the king.
We aren't talking about the "best". We're talking about a market leader not having to pander to those trying to catch up to it.
Myspace is the #1 website on the planet, and has more hits than either Yahoo or Google.
So I don't see how Facebook is supposedly the #1 social networking site in your book.
Either way, I don't really care for any of them.
These guys continually try to convince the world that they're assholes. They will tell you repeatedly what mean, horrible people they are, while at the same time donating $10,000 in Jack Thompson's name, creating a scholarship out of their pockets, and organizing this great charity where they pocket absolutely nothing.
Man, they suck at proving what horrible people they are.
Goldeneye's multiplayer was imbalanced in the characters you could use, and it was a decent console shooter, but I don't think it compares favorably with PC shooters. I know everyone raved about Goldeneye, and I bought it, but I just didn't love it. I don't think I even bothered playing past the jungle level.
That was only like 1984 or so, so about 23 years ago.
...this is the game that might force me to buy a Wii. Mario 64 convinced me to buy a N64, sadly I'm not sure a better N64 title came out after that, save for Zelda: OoT.
Exactly what I was thinking.
I have trouble drawing stick figures.
Where is the full-scale prototype?
I also pay very little attention to what people say we can do technology wise ten years from now, because it is hard to prognosticate what advances might alter said time-table, or whether or not another solution might even make your solution obsolete in those ten years.
When Toyota and Honda were giving a 10-year estimate on fuel cell cars, at the very least they had full scale, working prototypes that you could drive. When you have a full-scale prototype of this hard, let me know. In the mean time, typical hard drives keep increasing in space, while decreasing in size and price, even years after people keep insisting they've hit a wall and can't go any further. We just got a server in, with a full bank of 500 gig HDDs, each were the tiny laptop size. I can recall when they were struggling to produce 10 and 15 meg HDDs. And then we have flash storage, and solid-state technology, both which have working retail solutions today.
So please don't tell me what you might sell me 10 years from now, when you don't even have a prototype.
How could I forget?
In Soviet Russian, printer fabs you!
Yeah, but does it run Linux?
...
Make machine that can fab other products.
Make fab that can fab other fab machines.
Profit!!!
I for one, welcome our new fab overlords.
I think I got them all out of my system. Those jokes never get old, in fact I think they are quite fab!
Whether or not aliens even exist is up to conjecture, and even if aliens exist, it may be very unlikely we're going to pick up signals from them. Our own radio signals have become more ever-present, but also much more local. We're not broadcasting at the strengths we were even 50 years ago, nor the distances we once were. It has been suggested as technology increases, we'll become more radio-silent.
Folding however has a much better chance of providing tangible benefits to the people on this planet. If and when I pick up a PS3, I look forward to installing Folding.
What you say may be the truth, but it is misleading.
Windows isn't a hardware label, nor does Microsoft sell PC hardware (save for peripherals like mice and such).
Furthermore, Apple buys their hardware from the same vendors as the other guys. They get their CPUs from Intel, their video cards from Nvidia and ATI, their HDDs from Seagate, etc. People insist their hardware is superior, when often it is the EXACT same hardware I'm buying from Newegg, but the Mac version is more expensive.
Obsidian devs had nothing to do with any of those titles save for NWN:2, and many are calling NWN:2 and its expansion pack the best RPG since Baldur's Gate 2.
Clearly, you have zero clue what you're talking about.
There are two major manufacturers of x86 CPUs, and no one else on the planet has problem getting binaries to run on both.
If Apple can seamlessly (not quite seamlessly) switch architectures completely, then the CPU isn't that crucial to the Apple experience.
Apple hardware is no different (largely) from the hardware I'd purchase for a home-built PC. Furthermore, Apple can't be held liable for third-party hardware, so don't sell me the spin that people would blame Apple for third-party hardware giving people a poor Apple experience. We judge the OS by the OS. If the OS is good, then let it stand on its own, and you may find it gain market share.
Commercial Linux distros don't require activation either.
A more correct statement is that Microsoft assumes their users are crooks, and they are right to an extent, that Windows is perhaps the single most pirated piece of software on the planet.
Because OS X only runs on Mac hardware, and Mac hardware purchases include OS X, they've effectively guaranteed that their customers aren't crooks, and have no need for activation.
You're seriously arguing that DRM prevents theft, or that DRM-less software is guaranteed to be stolen? That argument is weak sauce, and we both know it. Software pirates often circumvent DRM with little to no problem, while the average consumer suffers from DRM restrictions. OS X isn't pirated that much, because the people who are Mac advocates enjoy paying for the product. In reality, iTunes proved to the world that people will pay for stuff they like, even if it is easy to pirate.
I can't believe a Slashdot reader is attempting to defend DRM and overpriced, proprietary hardware. This is why I am hesitant to trust the opinion that OS X is so great, when the people who tell me such things often simultaneously spew such weak logic.
If Apple's argument comes from the "It Just Works" platform, then perhaps it should just work out of the box.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306857
Having a stable Unix base certainly helps, but their products are far from flawless.
Microsoft was found guilty of anti-trust for bundling a media player, and Apple for a while was forcing you to install iTunes to have a Quicktime plugin.
Apple was pushing proprietary hardware, DRM, stealing BSD code, and committing many of the same offenses that the Evil Microsoft Empire was committing, except people love Apple for it.
I saw a press conference in which Steve Jobs claimed to have invented the virtual desktop (ignoring that they've been around near a decade) and he was universally praised for this brilliant innovation.
In much the same light, Sony and Microsoft are completely evil in the console area, but Nintendo supposedly isn't.
What I haven't heard explained is why then I can't just purchase a box of OS X and install it on my PC. Why then do people need to patch and hack OS X to install on standard x86 PCs? If Apple wasn't active in preventing it, it wouldn't require additional steps.
Lord knows Apple would never actually push or advocate DRM, or attempt to lock people into proprietary hardware. They're not evil like that.
Because the Mac version "just works", and looks better. Duh.
The initial cost of a Mac PC is often considerably more expensive as well. And don't get me started on their monitors. I was in Best Buy to get a new monitor (ended up getting a 19" Widescreen LCD with 2ms response time for $190 brand new, and it wasn't an open box or anything) and I looked at the Apple True Cinema displays I keep hearing so much about. The 20" model was selling for near $600. Even the best looking monitors in the store didn't go over $300 for a 20 inch.
There is very, very much, a Mac tax on hardware. This isn't something subjective like preferring or not liking the UI or appearance. We're talking about cold hard facts.
Gripping? Epic? NWN?
Bioware has made some good games, and created great worlds. But NWN's campaign was awful.
Obsidian was given a year to make a full title, and then LucasArts went out of business and shipped KOTOR:2 even 3 months earlier than planned. Most people don't seem to know this, but LucasArts completley closed their offices and fired most of their staff. The new LucasArts works out of the ILM offices. LucasArts also just lopped the ending off the game at the last minute. Many files from the ending were still on the disc, and Team Gizka is "fixing" the game to restore the lost portions of the game, which include various quests, dialoges, etc. from the whole game. There was also a full planet cut from the game, which is still heavily hinted at in the shipped version of the game.
The Obsidian devs have a great track record of past titles, many of which used Bioware engines, and greatly improved on them. Some argue that Planescape: Torment is the single greatest PC title of any genre, ever. So don't go insulting arguably the greatest PC RPG devs on the planet.
After you've worked on titles like Planescape and Fallout, then you can critique.
Someone please mod parent up.
We're not talking football here. The difference between Tackle and Wide Receiver is huge. You can't just switch between the two.
The difference between 1B and 3B isn't huge. And you're talking about asking a guy who has great athletic talent, and who is a good defensive player to shift from the in-field to the in-field.
By your logic, they should have benched A-Rod when they traded for him, because they already had Jeter, and A-Rod was also a SS. Except A-Rod was hands down the MVP of the league, but again in your world, he'd be riding the bench. I'm not sure if you don't know anything about baseball, or you're trolling. But I feel confident in saying this would feeling like I'm flaming or being a prick, but no one in the right mind suggests benching your best offensive player, especially when they're hot. Lugo is the worst guy they've got starting right now. You bench your worst guy, and you play your best guy. This isn't rocket science.
Moving from one position to another in the infield isn't that huge of a move. In fact when people put in defensive adjustments late in a game, or pinch runners, or whatever, people shift defensive positions all the time. Outfielders when traded from one team to another often jump from one outfield position to another. To an extent, all outfielders are just outfielders.
I'm pretty sure you can take a great defensive outfielder, place them in any of those three positions, and they wouldn't miss a beat. On the infield, playing 2B and playing SS are fairly closely related, and playing 1B and 3B are closely related.