Penn and Teller did a Bullshit episode on Mt. Rushmore and patriotism that was quite interesting. The 4 faces chosen where supposedly chosen because they were responsible for extending the frontier of the country, but also because they hated Native Americans. There are those who suggest that carving the faces of these 4 particular men into native land was a galactic fuck you.
AlienWare markets to the rich enthusiast community who enjoy gaming, but who aren't geeky enough to build their own rigs. Perhaps the same holds true for the home theater PC market. The knowledgable, geeky crowd can build their own LinuxMCE box on the cheap with MythTV. The crowd that doesn't feel comfortable with such things wants to just buy it and have it work. If CableCard requires extensive knowledge, then perhaps they've placed themselves outside of any real niche market.
Intel committed anti-trust violations and is trying to force a monopoly. They broke the law, and they are trying to make the market bad for consumers. Why would anyone in their right mind accuse them of being evil?
You insist that every company tries to damage the market. Do you have any proof for that claim, or is it a convenient excuse so you feel better about financially supporting an evil company?
Funny then that a bunch of manufactures produced evidence and agreed to testify against Intel then. And the evidence was so overwhelming that the EU launched their own anti-trust suit, unprovoked by AMD. But clearly according to you, Intel is doing anything wrong.
And you're suggesting it is a good thing for the market to go down to one company so prices can rise, and hopefully a new competitor emerges? Quite frankly, AMD has had decades to try and establish themselves. If they go belly-up, then how is someone new going to fix that? Once every major maker is only carrying one chip, it will be near impossible for the market to become competitive again.
Someone who defends an evil company and roots for a monopoly sure seems like a troll to me.
Intel demanded that people not carry or display AMD products, or they'd refuse to ship product they already purchased. That is pretty clearly evil.
Intel doesn't have to buy AMD's IP. If AMD goes belly up, then Intel will have an unchallenged monopoly, and no one has suggested trying to compete with them.
Barcelona is late, and Intel does have a better manufacturing process. No one is contesting either of these points, but cheap AMD processors are reaching the 3 GHz barrier, so only trolls insist that AMD will never hit that mark. And when a product produces similiar results for HALF the price, that seems to be a good reason to buy that product. Given that both processors run under-clocked most of the time, there may be no real-world performance difference between the two.
Oddly enough, the same code can often be compiled cross-architecture and cross-platform quite easily on GCC that provides a nice, fast executable native to each platform and architecture and it uses a fraction of the start-up speed and resources of Java.
I'm a crappy programmer, and even that is transparent to me.
It is pretty simple. On the same fab, the AMD architecture was proving superior for a couple years. However, Intel has a superior manufacturing process right now. A 45nm process certainly beats the 90nm AMD was doing for a while, and the 65nm process they are using now.
The question I used to have is when both were using the same manufacturing process, why AMD was kicking the teeth in on the P4 line and why it took so long for Intel to catch up. It goes back and forth.
Funny. I've seen a $59 Brisbane core (1.9 out of the box) overclocked to 2.9 GHz with just air cooling, so I'm not sure why everyone insists AMD can't hit the 3GHz barrier, especially when AMD keeps displaying 3GHz Barecelonas.
There are three reasons to buy AMD right now.
1. Price, price and price. AMD knows Intel has the better fab, but AMD is selling super cheap. You can get a dual-core processor for half what Intel charges, and for the average user, it is more than enough. I'm running Oblivion at 30 FPS with a $59 processor, and I've barely overclocked it. The cheapest Intel dual-core proc was $120 when I bought my $59 proc. Most people have no idea that their proc these days often underclocks itself, and you rarely touch the full potential of your proc. Intel is faster, and no one doubts that today, but if you never see the speed benefit, why spend the extra dollars? On a performance per dollar basis, AMD wins hands down.
2. There is a mountain of evidence against Intel for anti-trust violations, and I try not to financially support evil. The EU is also coming down on Intel for anti-trust violations.
3. Even if the anti-trust suits both come through, AMD is near bankruptcy, and I prefer choice in the marketplace. I am terrified of the day when Intel has no competition pushing them and they can just sell what they want and whatever price they want.
Actually most people are buying these powerful, speedy processors that underclock themselves to cut down on power and heat. Both AMD and Intel have been very mindful of power and heat consumption lately. Literally processors have more power than what we're throwing at them. Clock-speed has not been racing upwards significantly the past few years, but power consumption has been going down and efficiency going up.
I saw a homemade hack someone did to do this very thing with an "ionic breeze" from Sharper Image to cool a case. It was a near silent cooling system, which makes me wonder how different that hack was from what the Purdue students discovered.
HCFCs still burn a hole into the ozone layer, and the full damage from released CFCs and HCFCs can take up to 50 years as it is a chain reaction. I worked on air conditioners in the military and had to become EPA certified on the stuff. I got the "Universal" license from the EPA. The biggest offender in this area is still the US government. While most civilian vehicles have newer HCFC-based air conditioners, the military does not. And not everyone has banned CFCs fully yet.
From the Wikipedia:
"By the year 2010 CFCs should be completely eliminated from developing countries as well."
That is a piss-poor analogy. The Razr launched for $50 with new 2-year accounts. The Razr marketed itself as a phone for everyone, and was feature rich. The Razr keeps updating to push the envelope of features for your dollar, and has remained affordable. Most carriers offer the Razr for free. The Razr made no promises of interface changes, or a new way to use your phone.
The iPhone is priced at $600, isn't pushing the envelope of features, isn't marketing itself as a low-price phone for everyone, and is marketed primarily based on interface. It hasn't marketed itself seriously to the IT/business crowd as a smart phone, because it lacks the features necessary to replace smart phones. This month's Computer World ranked 5 popular smart phones, and even though those guys love Apple and the iPhone, it ranked 5th out of 5 phones. Price wasn't a factor. The #1 phone came it at a whopping $200 and killed the iPhone.
Interesting notes from that comparison were that while the iPhone was rated an excellent MP3 player for good stereo sound without the channels bleeding, it ranked rather poor as a video player. For one, the battery didn't last nearly as long as advertised when displaying video, and also put out a comparatively poor picture despite being the most expensive device by far.
I can understand how this phone appeals to some people in the same way I understand how the Lexus RX320 outsells the Toyota Highlander by a gross margin, despite the two cars being near identical from the same company, from the same planet. The Lexus only costs $6000 more, but you would be amazed how many people insist that after driving both (same driveshaft, etc) that the Lexus just drives "better" and can't wait to pay the extra $6,000.
In marketing, it is called prestige pricing. You pay extra money to buy what is considered chic. It makes them feel better. They are in the know as to what is popular, but they are pretty much the exact opposite of an informed buyer.
You've established blind fanaticism and a lack of any reason. You insist a brand new product is revolutionary in how dependable, stable and durable it is, despite the fact that it has already been hacked, exploits are expected to surface soon, and many people couldn't even get the thing to activate. Brand new products can not by their nature be considered revolutionary for the durability and stability. Furthermore you insisted that Safari is revolutionary compared to Opera, despite the fact that Safari can't render CSS as well, and it has no Flash support. If it fails to even reach the standards long established by the actual stable, dependable, tested product leader, then it is plain BS to push this agenda of how revolutionary it is.
You keep insisting that an inferior product at double the price is not only a worthy purchase, but mind-blowingly superior to everything out there. That puts you as well in the group exactly opposite of educated buyers.
Funny, it has no noticeable impact on system performance on my two laptops. I've never seen it go above single digits. Are you sure there isn't something else holding it up and that is causing it to hog CPU cycles, like slow disk speed?
That's probably true. However, if you didn't own Quake, then you could purchase it through Steam. The engine was open-sourced, but I do believe the game data files for the Quake series still need to be purchased. Frankly, I think it is a good thing that companies are providing a means to run old games rather than hand them to end-users and assume they can get the game to work under Windows.
id was wrong not to include the license, but I don't think they should be criticized for using DOSBox in the first place.
The original complaint was merely that the license wasn't included. If you distribute GPL material I do believe you are required to distribute a copy of the license with it.
id and the DOSBox crew are apparently all happy now, and all they had to do was include the license with the distribution, as noted in the article.
For the record, Yahoo volunteered information to China that led to a political blogger being imprisoned for writing about Tianamin Square. Microsoft has also volunteered from day 1 to cooperate with Chinese censorship.
Google was the only major company to fight China on the issue. Eventually they caved and I believe the statement was "we can't make in-roads for growth and progress if we're not in the country at all." They stated that they don't support censorship, but you can't influence China in a positive light if you're completely removed from China.
Yahoo and MSN also both volunteered their user's surfing habits to the US Government in ANTICIPATION that the government might request said info. Google said they believe in maintaining their privacy policy, and wouldn't hand over private data unless made to do so by a court order.
So please, I'm sick of hearing how Google is evil because of China, when they are the one company out of the three that is at all interested in fighting the good fight. Stop spreading BS and check your facts.
There is no Beryl team anymore. They merged back into Compiz, and the new project is called Compiz-Fusion, or just Compiz again.
I know the project is still changing, however, that hasn't stopped old plugins from working, nor has it stopped outside developers from making plugins or Emerald themes. It is pretty simple.
For kwin version 4.x, you base it off what plugin api is available at that moment, and only plugins written for that are supported. When you update kwin for new releases, you update the plugin api if necessary.
When the question was posted on "the dot" the kwin developers said they thought it was just better to start from scratch. They made no mention of even attempting to work with the compiz team. So I'm not basing this off assumptions, but rather the statements of the devs. If there is no plugin api, then why is that plenty of people are able to write plugins?
And frankly, an api must exist, it just is a matter of how well it is documented. If the KDE team wanted to better understand it, and they felt the code wasn't documented well enough, that is when you ask questions. However I am willing to bet that if I ask the compiz team right now, they'd say the KDE devs never contacted them.
Why not approach the compiz/beryl team however to ensure compatibility and use their plug-ins within kwin?
Honestly, this seems like a win-win. The compiz team should be focused on the effects/plugins and not on replacing the window managers. The Gnome and KDE teams should have been focused on how to plug these effects into their existing window managers.
It replaces SuperKaramba, which is a widget app. Calling a widget a widget or an applet is a matter of semantics.
I love KDE and I'm excited for KDE 4.x however let's be clear here. The Plasma website talked about revolutionizing how we use our computers and rethinking the entire concept of the desktop. Widgets have been around for ages. So far none of the widgets are means to increase work-flow or productivity. They are means to clutter up my desktop.
They aren't reshaping how I might work, and so far all the widgets I've seen replicate information or tasks that I pretty much do in my web browser.
I'm glad simply for the sake of history and preservation they're making these articles. I read the LKML frequently even if I don't fully understand the mechanics for the how and why the kernel operate, but I like to pretend that I do. I find this stuff rather fascinating. It is also interesting to wonder how Linux became what it is today considering its roots.
Linux today is a child of countless contributers, but it is still tied in name and perception very much to one man. I wonder if people think this is a good thing. I've often maintained that Linus is terse, but I've enjoyed that about him. If he rips into someone, I chuckle. But after this latest fiasco with Con and the schedulers, I'm wondering if this is a bad thing.
Sony is very much desperate, but Sony also has Metal Gear Solid, Dragon Warrior, Devil May Cry, and Final Fantasy. I guess Devil May Cry is also getting a 360 release, and there are rumors Metal Gear might do the same, but I doubt it. Sony will do anything to placate those guys and keep Metal Gear as a PS3 exclusive, even if initially. Just as Metal Gear EVENTUALLY made it to the XBox, I'm sure MGS4 will be on the PS3 first, and get an XBox 360 port a year later.
Final Fantasy XIII is a ways off, but isn't it going to be like three separate games at once?
I'm probably going to buy a PS3 for Christmas and I certainly understand there aren't a whole lot of must-own exclusives on the PS3, but I'm not sweating it. The PS3 will be my BluRay player, I'll install Linux on it for fun, I can't wait until it gets hacked so it can be my emulator machine and replace my XBox. And, I'll be very content to play all the multi-platform titles on it. That is part of the reason I caved in and got the XBox. I wasn't interested in the XBox exclusives. The PS2 had all the best exclusives in my opinion, but the multiplatform titles (of which there are plenty) looked the best on the XBox due to superior hardware.
I'm still hoping that next year (hopefully) we'll finally get a proper next-gen upgrade to the Madden/NCAA games that really push the limits of the systems. Anyone remember the demo images they created with the crisp blades of grass/turf and snowflakes? EA said they believed the next-gen systems were capable of that, but we're basically using the same graphical engine largely that they've been using for over 10 years. From the PS1 to the PS2 there was this MAMMOTH jump up, and I keep assuming we might get another one.
Slashdot Mirror
Penn and Teller did a Bullshit episode on Mt. Rushmore and patriotism that was quite interesting. The 4 faces chosen where supposedly chosen because they were responsible for extending the frontier of the country, but also because they hated Native Americans. There are those who suggest that carving the faces of these 4 particular men into native land was a galactic fuck you.
AlienWare markets to the rich enthusiast community who enjoy gaming, but who aren't geeky enough to build their own rigs. Perhaps the same holds true for the home theater PC market. The knowledgable, geeky crowd can build their own LinuxMCE box on the cheap with MythTV. The crowd that doesn't feel comfortable with such things wants to just buy it and have it work. If CableCard requires extensive knowledge, then perhaps they've placed themselves outside of any real niche market.
Clearly I have weird definitions.
Intel committed anti-trust violations and is trying to force a monopoly. They broke the law, and they are trying to make the market bad for consumers. Why would anyone in their right mind accuse them of being evil?
You insist that every company tries to damage the market. Do you have any proof for that claim, or is it a convenient excuse so you feel better about financially supporting an evil company?
Funny then that a bunch of manufactures produced evidence and agreed to testify against Intel then. And the evidence was so overwhelming that the EU launched their own anti-trust suit, unprovoked by AMD. But clearly according to you, Intel is doing anything wrong.
And you're suggesting it is a good thing for the market to go down to one company so prices can rise, and hopefully a new competitor emerges? Quite frankly, AMD has had decades to try and establish themselves. If they go belly-up, then how is someone new going to fix that? Once every major maker is only carrying one chip, it will be near impossible for the market to become competitive again.
Someone who defends an evil company and roots for a monopoly sure seems like a troll to me.
When I bought my last processor, it was a few months back before all the AMD price cuts by the 3600+ was $59 and the cheapest Core 2 Duo was $120.
Are you trolling? Sure seems like it to me.
Intel demanded that people not carry or display AMD products, or they'd refuse to ship product they already purchased. That is pretty clearly evil.
Intel doesn't have to buy AMD's IP. If AMD goes belly up, then Intel will have an unchallenged monopoly, and no one has suggested trying to compete with them.
Barcelona is late, and Intel does have a better manufacturing process. No one is contesting either of these points, but cheap AMD processors are reaching the 3 GHz barrier, so only trolls insist that AMD will never hit that mark. And when a product produces similiar results for HALF the price, that seems to be a good reason to buy that product. Given that both processors run under-clocked most of the time, there may be no real-world performance difference between the two.
However, you can keep trolling if you want.
Java is a great concept with piss-poor execution.
Oddly enough, the same code can often be compiled cross-architecture and cross-platform quite easily on GCC that provides a nice, fast executable native to each platform and architecture and it uses a fraction of the start-up speed and resources of Java.
I'm a crappy programmer, and even that is transparent to me.
It is pretty simple. On the same fab, the AMD architecture was proving superior for a couple years. However, Intel has a superior manufacturing process right now. A 45nm process certainly beats the 90nm AMD was doing for a while, and the 65nm process they are using now.
The question I used to have is when both were using the same manufacturing process, why AMD was kicking the teeth in on the P4 line and why it took so long for Intel to catch up. It goes back and forth.
Funny. I've seen a $59 Brisbane core (1.9 out of the box) overclocked to 2.9 GHz with just air cooling, so I'm not sure why everyone insists AMD can't hit the 3GHz barrier, especially when AMD keeps displaying 3GHz Barecelonas.
There are three reasons to buy AMD right now.
1. Price, price and price. AMD knows Intel has the better fab, but AMD is selling super cheap. You can get a dual-core processor for half what Intel charges, and for the average user, it is more than enough. I'm running Oblivion at 30 FPS with a $59 processor, and I've barely overclocked it. The cheapest Intel dual-core proc was $120 when I bought my $59 proc. Most people have no idea that their proc these days often underclocks itself, and you rarely touch the full potential of your proc. Intel is faster, and no one doubts that today, but if you never see the speed benefit, why spend the extra dollars? On a performance per dollar basis, AMD wins hands down.
2. There is a mountain of evidence against Intel for anti-trust violations, and I try not to financially support evil. The EU is also coming down on Intel for anti-trust violations.
3. Even if the anti-trust suits both come through, AMD is near bankruptcy, and I prefer choice in the marketplace. I am terrified of the day when Intel has no competition pushing them and they can just sell what they want and whatever price they want.
Actually most people are buying these powerful, speedy processors that underclock themselves to cut down on power and heat. Both AMD and Intel have been very mindful of power and heat consumption lately. Literally processors have more power than what we're throwing at them. Clock-speed has not been racing upwards significantly the past few years, but power consumption has been going down and efficiency going up.
I saw a homemade hack someone did to do this very thing with an "ionic breeze" from Sharper Image to cool a case. It was a near silent cooling system, which makes me wonder how different that hack was from what the Purdue students discovered.
HCFCs still burn a hole into the ozone layer, and the full damage from released CFCs and HCFCs can take up to 50 years as it is a chain reaction. I worked on air conditioners in the military and had to become EPA certified on the stuff. I got the "Universal" license from the EPA. The biggest offender in this area is still the US government. While most civilian vehicles have newer HCFC-based air conditioners, the military does not. And not everyone has banned CFCs fully yet.
From the Wikipedia:
"By the year 2010 CFCs should be completely eliminated from developing countries as well."
That is a piss-poor analogy. The Razr launched for $50 with new 2-year accounts. The Razr marketed itself as a phone for everyone, and was feature rich. The Razr keeps updating to push the envelope of features for your dollar, and has remained affordable. Most carriers offer the Razr for free. The Razr made no promises of interface changes, or a new way to use your phone.
The iPhone is priced at $600, isn't pushing the envelope of features, isn't marketing itself as a low-price phone for everyone, and is marketed primarily based on interface. It hasn't marketed itself seriously to the IT/business crowd as a smart phone, because it lacks the features necessary to replace smart phones. This month's Computer World ranked 5 popular smart phones, and even though those guys love Apple and the iPhone, it ranked 5th out of 5 phones. Price wasn't a factor. The #1 phone came it at a whopping $200 and killed the iPhone.
Interesting notes from that comparison were that while the iPhone was rated an excellent MP3 player for good stereo sound without the channels bleeding, it ranked rather poor as a video player. For one, the battery didn't last nearly as long as advertised when displaying video, and also put out a comparatively poor picture despite being the most expensive device by far.
I can understand how this phone appeals to some people in the same way I understand how the Lexus RX320 outsells the Toyota Highlander by a gross margin, despite the two cars being near identical from the same company, from the same planet. The Lexus only costs $6000 more, but you would be amazed how many people insist that after driving both (same driveshaft, etc) that the Lexus just drives "better" and can't wait to pay the extra $6,000.
In marketing, it is called prestige pricing. You pay extra money to buy what is considered chic. It makes them feel better. They are in the know as to what is popular, but they are pretty much the exact opposite of an informed buyer.
You've established blind fanaticism and a lack of any reason. You insist a brand new product is revolutionary in how dependable, stable and durable it is, despite the fact that it has already been hacked, exploits are expected to surface soon, and many people couldn't even get the thing to activate. Brand new products can not by their nature be considered revolutionary for the durability and stability. Furthermore you insisted that Safari is revolutionary compared to Opera, despite the fact that Safari can't render CSS as well, and it has no Flash support. If it fails to even reach the standards long established by the actual stable, dependable, tested product leader, then it is plain BS to push this agenda of how revolutionary it is.
You keep insisting that an inferior product at double the price is not only a worthy purchase, but mind-blowingly superior to everything out there. That puts you as well in the group exactly opposite of educated buyers.
Funny, it has no noticeable impact on system performance on my two laptops. I've never seen it go above single digits. Are you sure there isn't something else holding it up and that is causing it to hog CPU cycles, like slow disk speed?
KTorrent is my favorite pure torrent app on any platform, with utorrent running a close second. Both are very fast, light-weight clients.
I've also dabbled with mldonkey and shareaza as more multi-purpose p2p apps that also support torrents.
That's probably true. However, if you didn't own Quake, then you could purchase it through Steam. The engine was open-sourced, but I do believe the game data files for the Quake series still need to be purchased. Frankly, I think it is a good thing that companies are providing a means to run old games rather than hand them to end-users and assume they can get the game to work under Windows.
id was wrong not to include the license, but I don't think they should be criticized for using DOSBox in the first place.
The original complaint was merely that the license wasn't included. If you distribute GPL material I do believe you are required to distribute a copy of the license with it.
id and the DOSBox crew are apparently all happy now, and all they had to do was include the license with the distribution, as noted in the article.
For the record, Yahoo volunteered information to China that led to a political blogger being imprisoned for writing about Tianamin Square. Microsoft has also volunteered from day 1 to cooperate with Chinese censorship.
Google was the only major company to fight China on the issue. Eventually they caved and I believe the statement was "we can't make in-roads for growth and progress if we're not in the country at all." They stated that they don't support censorship, but you can't influence China in a positive light if you're completely removed from China.
Yahoo and MSN also both volunteered their user's surfing habits to the US Government in ANTICIPATION that the government might request said info. Google said they believe in maintaining their privacy policy, and wouldn't hand over private data unless made to do so by a court order.
So please, I'm sick of hearing how Google is evil because of China, when they are the one company out of the three that is at all interested in fighting the good fight. Stop spreading BS and check your facts.
There is no Beryl team anymore. They merged back into Compiz, and the new project is called Compiz-Fusion, or just Compiz again.
I know the project is still changing, however, that hasn't stopped old plugins from working, nor has it stopped outside developers from making plugins or Emerald themes. It is pretty simple.
For kwin version 4.x, you base it off what plugin api is available at that moment, and only plugins written for that are supported. When you update kwin for new releases, you update the plugin api if necessary.
When the question was posted on "the dot" the kwin developers said they thought it was just better to start from scratch. They made no mention of even attempting to work with the compiz team. So I'm not basing this off assumptions, but rather the statements of the devs. If there is no plugin api, then why is that plenty of people are able to write plugins?
And frankly, an api must exist, it just is a matter of how well it is documented. If the KDE team wanted to better understand it, and they felt the code wasn't documented well enough, that is when you ask questions. However I am willing to bet that if I ask the compiz team right now, they'd say the KDE devs never contacted them.
Why not approach the compiz/beryl team however to ensure compatibility and use their plug-ins within kwin?
Honestly, this seems like a win-win. The compiz team should be focused on the effects/plugins and not on replacing the window managers. The Gnome and KDE teams should have been focused on how to plug these effects into their existing window managers.
It replaces SuperKaramba, which is a widget app. Calling a widget a widget or an applet is a matter of semantics.
I love KDE and I'm excited for KDE 4.x however let's be clear here. The Plasma website talked about revolutionizing how we use our computers and rethinking the entire concept of the desktop. Widgets have been around for ages. So far none of the widgets are means to increase work-flow or productivity. They are means to clutter up my desktop.
They aren't reshaping how I might work, and so far all the widgets I've seen replicate information or tasks that I pretty much do in my web browser.
A great quote is a great quote, regardless of the person who said it. Admiring a great quote doesn't make you a brown-noser.
Why you gotta be a hater?
I'm glad simply for the sake of history and preservation they're making these articles. I read the LKML frequently even if I don't fully understand the mechanics for the how and why the kernel operate, but I like to pretend that I do. I find this stuff rather fascinating. It is also interesting to wonder how Linux became what it is today considering its roots.
Linux today is a child of countless contributers, but it is still tied in name and perception very much to one man. I wonder if people think this is a good thing. I've often maintained that Linus is terse, but I've enjoyed that about him. If he rips into someone, I chuckle. But after this latest fiasco with Con and the schedulers, I'm wondering if this is a bad thing.
Sony is very much desperate, but Sony also has Metal Gear Solid, Dragon Warrior, Devil May Cry, and Final Fantasy. I guess Devil May Cry is also getting a 360 release, and there are rumors Metal Gear might do the same, but I doubt it. Sony will do anything to placate those guys and keep Metal Gear as a PS3 exclusive, even if initially. Just as Metal Gear EVENTUALLY made it to the XBox, I'm sure MGS4 will be on the PS3 first, and get an XBox 360 port a year later.
Final Fantasy XIII is a ways off, but isn't it going to be like three separate games at once?
I'm probably going to buy a PS3 for Christmas and I certainly understand there aren't a whole lot of must-own exclusives on the PS3, but I'm not sweating it. The PS3 will be my BluRay player, I'll install Linux on it for fun, I can't wait until it gets hacked so it can be my emulator machine and replace my XBox. And, I'll be very content to play all the multi-platform titles on it. That is part of the reason I caved in and got the XBox. I wasn't interested in the XBox exclusives. The PS2 had all the best exclusives in my opinion, but the multiplatform titles (of which there are plenty) looked the best on the XBox due to superior hardware.
I'm still hoping that next year (hopefully) we'll finally get a proper next-gen upgrade to the Madden/NCAA games that really push the limits of the systems. Anyone remember the demo images they created with the crisp blades of grass/turf and snowflakes? EA said they believed the next-gen systems were capable of that, but we're basically using the same graphical engine largely that they've been using for over 10 years. From the PS1 to the PS2 there was this MAMMOTH jump up, and I keep assuming we might get another one.