The user doesn't care what the real problem is, all the user sees is that it is a problem and they do not have the technical expertise to fix it. They also don't want to know the technical expertise to fix it, they just want it to work. This is true for any machine and any platform including windows. It's been the same issue all the time. Back in the day when VCRs were popular, most people never bothered to configure the clock because it required following or reading the instruction manual. After all, they didn't buy the VCR to have a clock, they bought it so they could just plug it in and play a tape. And when the VCR breaks, they don't think about unscrewing the cover only to find that a rubber band broke, they only understand that the VCR no longer works and their only choices for fixing it are to see a repair shop/tech or buy a new one.
Well I do agree with the poster that suggested the ability to allow the player to specify a particular number of units to build. It wouldn't be too hard to implement either. You could just select the command center hit a special quantity key (like say Q) followed by the unit hot key (say S for SCV) and then type a number up to some maximum (like 99). So if you wanted exactly 20 SCVs mining ore, then you'd click your command center and push the key sequence QS20. And about the needing resources before a unit trains, all that needs to happen is if the resources weren't available then the unit doesn't train--instead the command center just sits there with 20scvs in queue until resources become available.
Now, I'm sure there has been legitimate reasons for limiting the maximum units in a group (probably something to do with the unit icons), however, this is Blizzard's 5th iteration (WC1, WC2, SC1, WC3) at putting out an RTS game and I seriously hope we don't see a ridiculously low group size limitation. I'm certain that there exists some UI concept to combine an unlimited number units per a group (or a really high number of units per a group) as well as the benefit of showing each unit's status regardless of if they're in the field of view or not.
I don't think the group size limitation increased from SC to WC3. But it was much more manageable in WC3 because the game was designed around smaller groups of units. SC is/was notorious for having large unit skirmishes and from the looks of the previews it seems that they're still heading in that direction. I don't mind that, but I do mind it when you expect me to consistently command armies in the sizes of 40s and beyond with a group size of 12.
I also don't think having a really high group size limitation would stop "pro" players from moving the skill level elsewhere. If the skirmishes between armies are easier to manage it will just force the best players to master multitasking even better since now there would be more time to manage other things (like buildings and training new units) or even force simultaneous battle strategies to be the norm. I see that as more useful (and potentially more fun) than seeing how good each person is at clicking and dealing with the 12 unit size limitation.
Unfortunately, Blizzard isn't one for steep or sharp innovations. They're very incremental and would rather choose the safe bet than to jump off into the deep end and see if it sticks, but I can hope.
So how about some details about any improvements to non-blizzard custom maps and scenarios. There were a bunch of significant improvements from SC1 to WC3 but people still had to use modified tools to get at more customization. For example will they finally open up the unit spec and make it as simple as picking a skin, attack type, and so forth and make the existing units just predefined templates? Will they finally dump the lame trigger interface and just give a simple scripting interface instead? Basically a custom map/scenario is nothing more than a bunch of terrain, map, unit, item, ally/neutral/enemy, and win/lose definitions and a bunch of event scripting. Strangely enough, that's much like a webpage. Why not just make all of the definition part of some xml schema and have some scripting file (in another language other than markup) along with it.
It will fail because people like you and half of the posts here will never be satisfied. Dell is installing a Linux distribution and is guaranteeing that all hardware works with drivers. That's the product, buy it or don't buy it. But chances are, if not enough people purchase these systems, Dell will scrap the entire project.
What surprises me is why AMD is not putting in more efforts in making better mobile chips and platforms, when this is the one segment that is truly growing at a compounded rate.
I'm not sure that it's because they don't want to compete in the mobile platform, but that in the past they simply didn't have the resources and enough industry influence to put out something like Centrino. Remember, the CPU is only one factor in the entire power scheme for a computer. Intel had/has the resources to build its own CPUs, chipsets, and even wireless cards and GPUs (I own a Centrino laptop with Intel everything except graphics card) so they could ensure low power and a good performing laptop platform. AMD only had good resources to make good cpus and relied on other companies to develop the rest. With the acquisition of ATI, I can only guess that is the direction they are heading though it may be another year or two before you see an entire AMD platform comparable to Intel Centrino/Santa Rosa.
Power supply manufacturers typically pick a number close to the maximum possible consumption the unit can provide utilizing the maximum across all the different voltages it provides. So when you look at the sticker on the PSU, it will show you the maximum amps per each voltage. You take all of these numbers, multiply the voltage by the amps to get the watts (watts = volts * amps). Then add all of those numbers together to get the total maximum power the PSU can provide. That number should be fairly close to what the manufacturer advertises their PSU as.
The problem with the components in the computer is that they utilize different voltages. So what eventually happens is components require more current on a certain voltage than the PSU can offer at that voltage, however, the other voltages aren't maxed out. That's why people typically have problems with PSUs because they didn't read the sticker and compare the maximum current per each voltage compared to their actual needs. That's also why if you're smart, you can actually get by on a PSU rated at a lower total maximum wattage than a higher rated one (that may just load up on the lower voltages but leave the +12V line crappy to inflate the total maximum power number).
The final bit of information is that many reviewers are reviewing systems by total system power draw at the plug. The biggest factor that is altering this number is the PSU's efficiency rating. There are some really cheap PSUs that advertise high numbers but come with really bad efficiencies (in the 60% to 50% efficiency range). The efficiency of the PSU typically isn't given by many manufacturers. So what all this means is while the total system power consumption is 430watts at the plug, the components may only be eating 300 watts and the PSU is only 70% efficient. If you were to buy a PSU that was 80% efficient while providing 300watts, then your total system power at the plug would be about 376watts. But since many manufacturers don't provide the efficiency rating, you have to rely on data from the internet and more knowledgeable reviewers.
Trivial and meaningless statement. There is good code and bad code. Good code is code with fewer bugs. Bad code is code with many bugs. A good developer is one who designs the code to avoid bugs, and who, more importantly, fixes the bugs they find. A bad developer uses the above truism as an excuse to avoid fixing their shitty code.
1. Define "many bugs."
1 per 1000 lines? Then I'll say what about whitespace and what about different languages.
1 per a class? Then I'll just insert/remove classes into/from my design.
2. A good developer is one that can prioritize time to best satisfy the business and promote ideas that will ultimately help the business. I can sit around and whine and scream about how one of our modules sucks but when they ask me how long it will take to "change it and do it the right way" and I say "half a year" they will laugh.
3. A good developer doesn't just fix the bug he finds. Instead it is documented and if the system/software is in production use, the changes are held off until they are reviewed with a larger group to ensure that the changes the developer needs to make do not introduce additional defects.
4. I have never heard anyone call themselves "a bad developer." Everyone I've come across in the engineering discipline inherently thinks they're good at what they do. Otherwise, they move on to another profession because they find that engineering isn't for them. Because of that, there are rarely developers that are purposely trying to write "bad code." Instead there are companies trying to satisfy impossible requirements. The companies that ultimately succeed are the ones that can either develop a clever solution before anyone else does and take it to market before anyone else does, or develop a solution that is competitive or better than the existing solution. Bite off too much, and you fail, bite off too little, and you may never sell a thing. That's the dilemma, not that there are bad developers and bad code.
We've been through this over and over again: see Intel Itanium and AMD x86-64.
The problem with revolutionary architectures is that it breaks compatibility. Nobody wants to sit around rewriting their software for a completely new platform. They want something that can run enough of the last iterations of software and offers enough new features to move forward with. Even now, nearly all machines being sold have 64bit capability but are still using 32bit operating systems for compatibility reasons.
Also, I actually don't want to see AMD completely beat Intel and I don't want Intel to completely beat AMD. I want both companies to struggle and fight each other so that I, as the consumer, benefit the most.
Does multi-cores really help things like video rendering that much?
Yes, in fact it helps a big deal. Anything applications that are processor intensive like video rendering and encoding are being developed to utilize multiple processing units when available. For example x264, a new H.264 encoder, will run considerably faster with multiple threads than with just a single thread on a multi-cpu or multi-core machine. How cpu intensive is x264? Very especially with the deblocking filter and extra high quality settings turned on. On the same video sample, I can encode at 4-6fps with x264 while on xvid I can easily break 30+fps even with all of xvid's best settings turned on. And this is an Athlon X2 3800 with both cores utilized for the encode. If I really want the optimum quality x264 will provide, I can bump the reference frames to some insane number (like 30) and lose a few precious fps during the encode. When you're only encoding at the 5-6fps range for a half hour video with 30 frames per a second of video, that is painful. The gain by adding more cores and more threads diminishes however. For example encoding using one core vs encoding using two isn't a 2:1 ratio. Usually the gain by adding the second core is somewhere between 70 to 90% performance gain. So there'd still be significant gains when going to four cores, but beyond that it maybe not be worth it. That may just be due to how x264 is written/designed, not necessarily the implementation of the multi-core hardware.
But I agree that most desktop users probably don't need the multi-cores except maybe 2. Two cores are perfect for desktop users since it will allow them to run anti-virus in the background as well as all their other junk they don't understand. At the same time that might be bad for them because if the get malware, they may not be aware that it is running and consuming resources since they have plenty to begin with.
For you that's realistic. For me that's not. I do very little highway driving and mostly city. I'm only on the freeway for about 1 mile. Even so, I don't idle much because I have several options to tailor my 10-15 minute route to work. I usually pick the one where I have the best possibility of not stopping. That means avoiding long signal lights, especially busy left turn ones. Even when I do wait on a light, I only sit for a few seconds to maybe 10 to 15 seconds max. There's no parking lot traffic in my route either. Given that, these new ratings match my actual mpg I've seen with my Honda Civic. Previously the ratings were far too high for me and I had a lot of trouble even coming close on a normal drive around town.
Now, I suppose I could alter my route to include lots of long idles, but then it'd take 5 to 10 more minutes to get to and from work.
After reading the first four pages of the article (as posted in the parent's comment) I somehow feel more inclined to buy a Samsung black LCD monitor than the video card.
You're a little confused. "Enablement" doesn't refer to the consumer's rights to purchase a copy, "enablement" refers to HBO's ability to take the consumer's money by selling the consumer essentially nothing.
Frankly, I'm now getting tired of the number of posts with the same tone as yours. You lament losing Karma in a sea of angry "Linux-zealot" mods, but I would guess you will be modded up, not down.
But that's the problem. Had he not posted in that type of tone, he might not have gotten modded up. I've seen many good posts defending Microsoft products without flaming the opposition yet when they hit the 4 or 5 moderation marks, people keep trying to mod them down.
I'm sure even if you removed all of the modded up Funny posts (which often are stabs at MS but cloaked with humor) I'm sure you'd see a clear anti-MS bias in moderation. That is, you're more likely to get modded up if you choose to post anti-MS comments.
People here are also quick to mod up any frustration with MS products even when they're just flames, yet when you see the comments about frustrations for Apple or Linux, you often get responses to the person having frustrations showing good light for Apple/Linux/etc modded up, not the parent frustration.
For people that don't understand, Tetris DS is quite a different game than Tetris for old school gameboy. The reason being due to several small changes:
1. Shadow block - A shadow of where the block will fall is always shown. Sounds cheesy, but helps a lot given some of the other changes... 2. Hard drop - The block will instantly drop to the shadow if you press the up button. 3. Limited / Infinite spin - In certain modes (Wifi) there is limited spin which allows you to rotate the block for a short amount of time to keep it from sticking in place even though it touches other blocks. In other modes (non-multiplayer) there's infinite spin which has no time limit. 4. Hold block - You can place the current block into the hold queue by pushing the L or R buttons, the block that was previously in the queue will be swapped out--you can't swap out a block from the hold queue if you just placed it there. This is highly useful and allows you to do some pretty nasty things. 5. Shows next 6 blocks - You can see the next 6 blocks (in order) that you will receive. 6. T-spins - The game recognizes t-block spinning which can be used to put garbage blocks on your opponent similar or worse than a tetris. 7. Back-to-back tetris or t-spin - A bonus garbage row is sent to your opponent if you perform multiple tetris or t-spins with no other line clears in between.
Because of this, Tetris DS plays nothing like the original. The concept is the same - stack blocks and when a line completes it clears, but because of all the changes, the game is much more flexible and has a greater depth to it that doesn't involve just blocks falling faster and faster. For example, try mastering setups to perform double and triple T-spins, it's pretty tough and forces you to read your 6-piece queue ahead of time to determine how to construct the setup.
IMO grinding means killing monsters for no reason except experience and money.
Any experienced MMO player will consider any form of PvE whether it be quests, raids, or plain kill N monsters for next level as a "grind." The bottom line is there is always the next level, there is always the next piece of loot, there is always some other stupid ability you need to get--all of it is a grind, just shaped in different forms.
So I laugh at you WoW players for not having recognized this and later complaining. The game design is in such a way to keep you entertained and paying monthly.
But we always have this discussion between myself and my friends, "why do people love PvE so much?" And the answer is always simple: people love something that they feel they can always win at. That is, until they realize that their win is meaningless and the true fun is the interaction between people or competition between people. Only until one realizes that the game is to be played for fun, not to win or lose, will that person truly enjoy other experiences other than pure PvE.
And the market has proven this too. Any MMO or fantasy like game catered towards PvP doesn't succeed. The games that do succeed in this genre are the PvE games. I hope gamers change for this genre. I would truly like to see a new and good PvP MMO, not another new type of "grind" hidden in some new PvE concept. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that will happen anytime soon.
I have a 600m I purchased more than 2 years ago and I don't think I'll be replacing it until I can find another laptop with equivalent features in the same package size and for a pretty darn cheap price. I actually paid less than $800 for it and I still haven't seen anything come close to the specs I have on it even from dell.
Sure, the thing doesn't look at clean or sleek as other laptops but it's not a piece of jewelry, it's a tool.
Also, one thing Dell has gotten right about how to build computers is making the computers easy to take apart. For example I bought a cheap slimline DVD burner and taking out the old drive was surprisingly easy and fast after you figured it out. You'd simply push the little button/lever thing, then it'd popout and then you pull on it and the entire drive comes out with no pain or tools! Had my new slimline drive came in the same packaging, I could swap the two in the drive bay in seconds without any extra tools. In fact, often times I thought about buying the modular bay secondary battery and using it instead of a DVD/CD drive. But I always thought it would be a pain to swap out. Well apparently not! Changing the main battery on the thing is also tool-less. The ram cover, mini-pci cover, and hard drive container(?) are all one screw away from being removed but that's ok. I don't think I'll be swapping those components on the fly. The only component I'm not sure about is the hard drive but given how easy everything else on the thing was easy to manage I have no doubt it'd be just as easy.
So I don't care about looks as long as I'm getting something equally useful out of my computer. For others they can't be bothered with it, but I for one would like to see Dell start selling PC computer cases compatible with many PC parts standards like ATX sized motherboards. I'm tired of seeing all of these case manufacturers get it wrong over and over again while Dell manages to make a laptop way easier to upgrade than my own PC.
Slashdot Mirror
The user doesn't care what the real problem is, all the user sees is that it is a problem and they do not have the technical expertise to fix it. They also don't want to know the technical expertise to fix it, they just want it to work. This is true for any machine and any platform including windows. It's been the same issue all the time. Back in the day when VCRs were popular, most people never bothered to configure the clock because it required following or reading the instruction manual. After all, they didn't buy the VCR to have a clock, they bought it so they could just plug it in and play a tape. And when the VCR breaks, they don't think about unscrewing the cover only to find that a rubber band broke, they only understand that the VCR no longer works and their only choices for fixing it are to see a repair shop/tech or buy a new one.
Well I do agree with the poster that suggested the ability to allow the player to specify a particular number of units to build. It wouldn't be too hard to implement either. You could just select the command center hit a special quantity key (like say Q) followed by the unit hot key (say S for SCV) and then type a number up to some maximum (like 99). So if you wanted exactly 20 SCVs mining ore, then you'd click your command center and push the key sequence QS20. And about the needing resources before a unit trains, all that needs to happen is if the resources weren't available then the unit doesn't train--instead the command center just sits there with 20scvs in queue until resources become available.
And I believe in Warcraft 2 it was 9.
Now, I'm sure there has been legitimate reasons for limiting the maximum units in a group (probably something to do with the unit icons), however, this is Blizzard's 5th iteration (WC1, WC2, SC1, WC3) at putting out an RTS game and I seriously hope we don't see a ridiculously low group size limitation. I'm certain that there exists some UI concept to combine an unlimited number units per a group (or a really high number of units per a group) as well as the benefit of showing each unit's status regardless of if they're in the field of view or not.
I don't think the group size limitation increased from SC to WC3. But it was much more manageable in WC3 because the game was designed around smaller groups of units. SC is/was notorious for having large unit skirmishes and from the looks of the previews it seems that they're still heading in that direction. I don't mind that, but I do mind it when you expect me to consistently command armies in the sizes of 40s and beyond with a group size of 12.
I also don't think having a really high group size limitation would stop "pro" players from moving the skill level elsewhere. If the skirmishes between armies are easier to manage it will just force the best players to master multitasking even better since now there would be more time to manage other things (like buildings and training new units) or even force simultaneous battle strategies to be the norm. I see that as more useful (and potentially more fun) than seeing how good each person is at clicking and dealing with the 12 unit size limitation.
Unfortunately, Blizzard isn't one for steep or sharp innovations. They're very incremental and would rather choose the safe bet than to jump off into the deep end and see if it sticks, but I can hope.
And WC1 was pretty fun. Good old trusty towers.
So how about some details about any improvements to non-blizzard custom maps and scenarios. There were a bunch of significant improvements from SC1 to WC3 but people still had to use modified tools to get at more customization. For example will they finally open up the unit spec and make it as simple as picking a skin, attack type, and so forth and make the existing units just predefined templates? Will they finally dump the lame trigger interface and just give a simple scripting interface instead? Basically a custom map/scenario is nothing more than a bunch of terrain, map, unit, item, ally/neutral/enemy, and win/lose definitions and a bunch of event scripting. Strangely enough, that's much like a webpage. Why not just make all of the definition part of some xml schema and have some scripting file (in another language other than markup) along with it.
The group limit is not really a hindrance to professional players.
Then let's make the group size limit 2! Hah! Now let's see who can click faster.
Are you trying to say that you can compress the big bang?
It will fail because people like you and half of the posts here will never be satisfied. Dell is installing a Linux distribution and is guaranteeing that all hardware works with drivers. That's the product, buy it or don't buy it. But chances are, if not enough people purchase these systems, Dell will scrap the entire project.
I'm not sure that it's because they don't want to compete in the mobile platform, but that in the past they simply didn't have the resources and enough industry influence to put out something like Centrino. Remember, the CPU is only one factor in the entire power scheme for a computer. Intel had/has the resources to build its own CPUs, chipsets, and even wireless cards and GPUs (I own a Centrino laptop with Intel everything except graphics card) so they could ensure low power and a good performing laptop platform. AMD only had good resources to make good cpus and relied on other companies to develop the rest. With the acquisition of ATI, I can only guess that is the direction they are heading though it may be another year or two before you see an entire AMD platform comparable to Intel Centrino/Santa Rosa.
just respond, "My name is NEO!"
Power supply manufacturers typically pick a number close to the maximum possible consumption the unit can provide utilizing the maximum across all the different voltages it provides. So when you look at the sticker on the PSU, it will show you the maximum amps per each voltage. You take all of these numbers, multiply the voltage by the amps to get the watts (watts = volts * amps). Then add all of those numbers together to get the total maximum power the PSU can provide. That number should be fairly close to what the manufacturer advertises their PSU as.
The problem with the components in the computer is that they utilize different voltages. So what eventually happens is components require more current on a certain voltage than the PSU can offer at that voltage, however, the other voltages aren't maxed out. That's why people typically have problems with PSUs because they didn't read the sticker and compare the maximum current per each voltage compared to their actual needs. That's also why if you're smart, you can actually get by on a PSU rated at a lower total maximum wattage than a higher rated one (that may just load up on the lower voltages but leave the +12V line crappy to inflate the total maximum power number).
The final bit of information is that many reviewers are reviewing systems by total system power draw at the plug. The biggest factor that is altering this number is the PSU's efficiency rating. There are some really cheap PSUs that advertise high numbers but come with really bad efficiencies (in the 60% to 50% efficiency range). The efficiency of the PSU typically isn't given by many manufacturers. So what all this means is while the total system power consumption is 430watts at the plug, the components may only be eating 300 watts and the PSU is only 70% efficient. If you were to buy a PSU that was 80% efficient while providing 300watts, then your total system power at the plug would be about 376watts. But since many manufacturers don't provide the efficiency rating, you have to rely on data from the internet and more knowledgeable reviewers.
1. Define "many bugs."
1 per 1000 lines? Then I'll say what about whitespace and what about different languages.
1 per a class? Then I'll just insert/remove classes into/from my design.
2. A good developer is one that can prioritize time to best satisfy the business and promote ideas that will ultimately help the business. I can sit around and whine and scream about how one of our modules sucks but when they ask me how long it will take to "change it and do it the right way" and I say "half a year" they will laugh.
3. A good developer doesn't just fix the bug he finds. Instead it is documented and if the system/software is in production use, the changes are held off until they are reviewed with a larger group to ensure that the changes the developer needs to make do not introduce additional defects.
4. I have never heard anyone call themselves "a bad developer." Everyone I've come across in the engineering discipline inherently thinks they're good at what they do. Otherwise, they move on to another profession because they find that engineering isn't for them. Because of that, there are rarely developers that are purposely trying to write "bad code." Instead there are companies trying to satisfy impossible requirements. The companies that ultimately succeed are the ones that can either develop a clever solution before anyone else does and take it to market before anyone else does, or develop a solution that is competitive or better than the existing solution. Bite off too much, and you fail, bite off too little, and you may never sell a thing. That's the dilemma, not that there are bad developers and bad code.
So you want to start up your own special glasses business now hmm?
We've been through this over and over again: see Intel Itanium and AMD x86-64.
The problem with revolutionary architectures is that it breaks compatibility. Nobody wants to sit around rewriting their software for a completely new platform. They want something that can run enough of the last iterations of software and offers enough new features to move forward with. Even now, nearly all machines being sold have 64bit capability but are still using 32bit operating systems for compatibility reasons.
Also, I actually don't want to see AMD completely beat Intel and I don't want Intel to completely beat AMD. I want both companies to struggle and fight each other so that I, as the consumer, benefit the most.
Don't forget, AMD is also adding a shared L3 cache so we don't know if Intel will still have that advantage.
Does multi-cores really help things like video rendering that much?
Yes, in fact it helps a big deal. Anything applications that are processor intensive like video rendering and encoding are being developed to utilize multiple processing units when available. For example x264, a new H.264 encoder, will run considerably faster with multiple threads than with just a single thread on a multi-cpu or multi-core machine. How cpu intensive is x264? Very especially with the deblocking filter and extra high quality settings turned on. On the same video sample, I can encode at 4-6fps with x264 while on xvid I can easily break 30+fps even with all of xvid's best settings turned on. And this is an Athlon X2 3800 with both cores utilized for the encode. If I really want the optimum quality x264 will provide, I can bump the reference frames to some insane number (like 30) and lose a few precious fps during the encode. When you're only encoding at the 5-6fps range for a half hour video with 30 frames per a second of video, that is painful. The gain by adding more cores and more threads diminishes however. For example encoding using one core vs encoding using two isn't a 2:1 ratio. Usually the gain by adding the second core is somewhere between 70 to 90% performance gain. So there'd still be significant gains when going to four cores, but beyond that it maybe not be worth it. That may just be due to how x264 is written/designed, not necessarily the implementation of the multi-core hardware.
But I agree that most desktop users probably don't need the multi-cores except maybe 2. Two cores are perfect for desktop users since it will allow them to run anti-virus in the background as well as all their other junk they don't understand. At the same time that might be bad for them because if the get malware, they may not be aware that it is running and consuming resources since they have plenty to begin with.
For you that's realistic. For me that's not. I do very little highway driving and mostly city. I'm only on the freeway for about 1 mile. Even so, I don't idle much because I have several options to tailor my 10-15 minute route to work. I usually pick the one where I have the best possibility of not stopping. That means avoiding long signal lights, especially busy left turn ones. Even when I do wait on a light, I only sit for a few seconds to maybe 10 to 15 seconds max. There's no parking lot traffic in my route either. Given that, these new ratings match my actual mpg I've seen with my Honda Civic. Previously the ratings were far too high for me and I had a lot of trouble even coming close on a normal drive around town.
Now, I suppose I could alter my route to include lots of long idles, but then it'd take 5 to 10 more minutes to get to and from work.
After reading the first four pages of the article (as posted in the parent's comment) I somehow feel more inclined to buy a Samsung black LCD monitor than the video card.
Women do not have penises therefore justifying the need for the SUV!
You're a little confused. "Enablement" doesn't refer to the consumer's rights to purchase a copy, "enablement" refers to HBO's ability to take the consumer's money by selling the consumer essentially nothing.
But that's the problem. Had he not posted in that type of tone, he might not have gotten modded up. I've seen many good posts defending Microsoft products without flaming the opposition yet when they hit the 4 or 5 moderation marks, people keep trying to mod them down.
I'm sure even if you removed all of the modded up Funny posts (which often are stabs at MS but cloaked with humor) I'm sure you'd see a clear anti-MS bias in moderation. That is, you're more likely to get modded up if you choose to post anti-MS comments.
People here are also quick to mod up any frustration with MS products even when they're just flames, yet when you see the comments about frustrations for Apple or Linux, you often get responses to the person having frustrations showing good light for Apple/Linux/etc modded up, not the parent frustration.
If I had mod points.
For people that don't understand, Tetris DS is quite a different game than Tetris for old school gameboy. The reason being due to several small changes:
1. Shadow block - A shadow of where the block will fall is always shown. Sounds cheesy, but helps a lot given some of the other changes...
2. Hard drop - The block will instantly drop to the shadow if you press the up button.
3. Limited / Infinite spin - In certain modes (Wifi) there is limited spin which allows you to rotate the block for a short amount of time to keep it from sticking in place even though it touches other blocks. In other modes (non-multiplayer) there's infinite spin which has no time limit.
4. Hold block - You can place the current block into the hold queue by pushing the L or R buttons, the block that was previously in the queue will be swapped out--you can't swap out a block from the hold queue if you just placed it there. This is highly useful and allows you to do some pretty nasty things.
5. Shows next 6 blocks - You can see the next 6 blocks (in order) that you will receive.
6. T-spins - The game recognizes t-block spinning which can be used to put garbage blocks on your opponent similar or worse than a tetris.
7. Back-to-back tetris or t-spin - A bonus garbage row is sent to your opponent if you perform multiple tetris or t-spins with no other line clears in between.
Because of this, Tetris DS plays nothing like the original. The concept is the same - stack blocks and when a line completes it clears, but because of all the changes, the game is much more flexible and has a greater depth to it that doesn't involve just blocks falling faster and faster. For example, try mastering setups to perform double and triple T-spins, it's pretty tough and forces you to read your 6-piece queue ahead of time to determine how to construct the setup.
Any experienced MMO player will consider any form of PvE whether it be quests, raids, or plain kill N monsters for next level as a "grind." The bottom line is there is always the next level, there is always the next piece of loot, there is always some other stupid ability you need to get--all of it is a grind, just shaped in different forms.
So I laugh at you WoW players for not having recognized this and later complaining. The game design is in such a way to keep you entertained and paying monthly.
But we always have this discussion between myself and my friends, "why do people love PvE so much?" And the answer is always simple: people love something that they feel they can always win at. That is, until they realize that their win is meaningless and the true fun is the interaction between people or competition between people. Only until one realizes that the game is to be played for fun, not to win or lose, will that person truly enjoy other experiences other than pure PvE.
And the market has proven this too. Any MMO or fantasy like game catered towards PvP doesn't succeed. The games that do succeed in this genre are the PvE games. I hope gamers change for this genre. I would truly like to see a new and good PvP MMO, not another new type of "grind" hidden in some new PvE concept. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that will happen anytime soon.
Dear Microsoft,
Instead of a blue screen with random text, please show me a big yellow smiley face before rebooting my computer.
Thanks.
Why not just buy two computers? Laptop = desktop stuff. Desktop = games. Problem solved.
I have a 600m I purchased more than 2 years ago and I don't think I'll be replacing it until I can find another laptop with equivalent features in the same package size and for a pretty darn cheap price. I actually paid less than $800 for it and I still haven't seen anything come close to the specs I have on it even from dell.
Sure, the thing doesn't look at clean or sleek as other laptops but it's not a piece of jewelry, it's a tool.
Also, one thing Dell has gotten right about how to build computers is making the computers easy to take apart. For example I bought a cheap slimline DVD burner and taking out the old drive was surprisingly easy and fast after you figured it out. You'd simply push the little button/lever thing, then it'd popout and then you pull on it and the entire drive comes out with no pain or tools! Had my new slimline drive came in the same packaging, I could swap the two in the drive bay in seconds without any extra tools. In fact, often times I thought about buying the modular bay secondary battery and using it instead of a DVD/CD drive. But I always thought it would be a pain to swap out. Well apparently not! Changing the main battery on the thing is also tool-less. The ram cover, mini-pci cover, and hard drive container(?) are all one screw away from being removed but that's ok. I don't think I'll be swapping those components on the fly. The only component I'm not sure about is the hard drive but given how easy everything else on the thing was easy to manage I have no doubt it'd be just as easy.
So I don't care about looks as long as I'm getting something equally useful out of my computer. For others they can't be bothered with it, but I for one would like to see Dell start selling PC computer cases compatible with many PC parts standards like ATX sized motherboards. I'm tired of seeing all of these case manufacturers get it wrong over and over again while Dell manages to make a laptop way easier to upgrade than my own PC.