Perhaps so, but there's still a big difference between stabbing someone square in the chest with a sword, and clicking a button to annihilate him from 30,000 feet above. Modern war is impersonal, and it makes the dehumanization of our enemies that much worse, since we tend to be able to do far more damage, far more easily, than we ever have before.
That's the problem I see with MMOs, and why I refuse to play them. If the game is so mind-numbingly boring that you would want to pay someone to reach your "goal", then what's the point of playing? I thought games were supposed to be a fun *experience*?
I know what you're getting at, though I still believe it's more trouble than it's worth. If Apple gives its official blessing to OS X on standard x86 hardware, you're going to get a lot of issues. Firstly, the vast majority of the hardware out there simply don't have OS X drivers. Secondly (and this is the approach many OSx76'ers take) you can build hardware with specs extremely close to Apple machines (which kind of defeats the purpose, but anyways...) but invariably there will be driver incompatibilities. In the end it means it will be a painful experience that rivals installing Gentoo:P
Which leads to my argument that something like that will damage Apple's image more than the few OS sales it might pick up. Enough people bitching on public forums about how much OS X sucks because their ATI X1600 external card using Apple drivers doesn't work right, with incompatibilities between it and the original card it was MEANT to run, and Apple will have a big PR problem.
They're solid and stable, from what I've seen in the past couple of years of using Macs. That's more than can be said for much of the generic market. On my old Toshiba I would constantly bluescreen after taking my laptop on the road, because the OS constantly is looking for that external monitor I didn't take with me. I suspect a driver issue, but it's a bug that happened so much it became a ridiculous joke.
My current machine is a MacBook Pro, which unfortunately hasn't been a bump-free ride since I got it a year ago. But unlike my Toshiba (which was an even bumpier ride... many magnitudes more so...) I've gotten the repairs I needed without yelling at anyone over the phone who barely understood my English (and vice versa). Every time I've had a problem it's always been a short, polite phone call with someone who immediately worked to resolve my problem (as opposed to running me in circles with checklist questions). For that alone I'm going to be a repeat customer. It's next to impossible to find good hardware customer support without going corporate these days.
Sure it would. This is the same thing Apple ran into when they *did* authorize Mac clones way back in the day. Apple sells hardware on the image that things will always work out of the box, service is top notch, and post-sales support is generally excellent all around. Opening it to generic hardware will lead to a lot of the same resentment that surrounds Windows. Joe Schmo will buy an el-cheapo video card, slap it in, made by a piss poor company with equally poor drivers, and then proceed to lay all the blame on Apple when his machine starts going wonky.
Nobody said users were rational. Much of the hate Windows gets is undeserved, especially the stability concerns, which in my experience are more often the result of shoddy, lazy drivers and not MS's problem. But guess who takes the blame and suffers the PR hit?
Opening up the hardware would cannibalize existing Mac sales to a large degree as customers hunt for bargain-basement hardware, and the effect will be worsened by the ridiculous amount of problems users will begin facing, and suddenly this shiny OS that's seemingly light years ahead of Windows will suffer from the same problems.
I know people who bought Apple hardware specifically because they wanted the OS X experience and couldn't do it on their existing hardware. For the paltry number of sales Apple would gain in additional OS sales, they would lose many of these customers. And as you said, Apple makes more money on hardware.
The OS X "experience" is also more closely tied to Apple hardware than you might imagine. For example, iChat allows you to video chat with just about anyone with a Mac, why? Because any relatively recent Mac has a webcam built-in, across the entire line from low to high end. This is the kind of no-brainer thinking that Apple users have grown to love - the fact that they don't have to worry about what kind of hardware is under the hood, nor do they have to worry about what hardware the OTHER end has under their hood.
I'm an Apple customer, as are many of my colleagues and friends. None of us want Mac OS X to run on generic hardware. We like the stability that limited hardware brings, and are willing to give up some versatility to get it.
Apple is in the business of selling packages that "just work". Running on generic hardware (which in its nature can be EXTREMELY low-end and of shoddy quality, both driver-wise and hardware-wise) destroys that image they've spent years building.
Agreed with parent. I enjoyed the Halo games, and thought the stories were decent enough that they kept things interesting, with enough style and mystique to draw me into the game. But a standalone story it is not - it certainly isn't very creative, it's basically a mashup of every major sci-fi novel ever written.
They can invent all the backstory they want, but at the base of it the story is maybe interesting enough to make a glorious Starship Troopers style summer blockbuster, but don't expect even an Asimov-ian level of intricacy to it...
And as the designer of this system I'm sure you're privy to all of its operational specs. Seriously now, can we at least give this a chance instead of following the standard Slashdot cynicism, where breakthrough engineering is *clearly* impossible?
I agree with the Ars review. Stacks are very useful and I like the feature a lot, but instead of showing me a useless icon of whatever file is "first" in the stack, show me the icon of the folder. I keep my Downloads and Documents folder in there like it does by default, and if I hadn't memorized the order I'd never be able to tell them apart. Throw in some (better) folder icons and let us work with that! Otherwise I think the fanning works fine.
Why was this post modded flamebait? It seemed a reasonable enough post to me, even though I don't agree with the contents at all. Can we exercise some judgment here mods? Moderation isn't a tool for you to pimp your opinion of the day, y'knokw.
The dock isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than any other competing equivalent on any common OS. Here are but a few things that are oh-so-right with it:
- Dynamically redrawable icons. Many apps communicate events with their users by redrawing icons. XCode during a compile will draw a little progress bar on the icon, a quick way to check progress so you can go work on something else. If a build fails it will pop a red circle up with the number of errors printed in it (I suppose so you can steel yourself before you dive into that 800-error-long log;) ). Even many 3rd party apps such as Adium will print the names of unread IM senders, so you know whose messages are waiting for your attention. A huge number will print the little red circle-with-number dealie to inform you of any missed events (Skype with calls, etc.).
- Consolidating notifications by app. Windows XP tried this, it was a miserable failure. Instead of giving users absolute control by flooding the taskbar with every window (not a good solution, but better than this), they decided to put all windows of the same app into the same "group", except Windows windows tend to be hard to identify, relying on huge lines of truncated text to differentiate each other. This sucked. The Dock does this same thing in a much more elegant and usable way.
- It's like the start menu and task bar all at once. All open apps sit on it so you can switch easily, and all your favourites sit on it also. Most users have a handful of apps they use every day, there's no need to make them dig through a Start Menu for it, or even a tiny "drawer" of quick-launch icons like in Windows. Obscure apps? No need to make 'em dig through a Programs menu that inevitably becomes the size of Mt. Olympus, Spotlight will ALWAYS get you the app you need with only a few keystrokes.
The Finder was a pain in Tiger, but you will find it's been improved leaps and bounds in Leopard. It's not quite perfect, but it's a least competitive with all the other file managers out there.
forbidden from maximizing windows without wasting large amounts of time
This is deliberate, and when I first switched I hated it, but now I love it. The Apple UI does not encourage MDIs like it does in Windows, instead it's clearly designed for a huge amount of inter-application interaction (drag-dropping between apps and windows, etc). This is most probably born through Apple's media-centric roots where interacting between several apps very quickly is an absolute must. This is why the UI encourages users to keep windows to whatever size they need, and maintains a very "multitasking" feel by removing a simple way to shove a window over all available pixels. I find it only is annoying on poorly ported apps that maintain their Windows design cues - apps that demand a vast amount of screen space to do their job, and thus require constant maximization and takeover of my desktop.
the number of mouse buttons on their laptop
Clearly a preference matter. I've used Toshiba, IBM, and Apple laptops personally before, and I greatly prefer the fact that I have two-finger click on the Mac. It's a must simpler gesture than reaching for the other button, I find, but again, this is purely personal preference.
I gotta agree about Finder and menuing. The finder has been, IMHO, largely fixed in Leopard, something that has been LONG overdue. Menuing over multiple monitors is a huge gripe. Why can they not simply clone the menu across all screens? It's not perfect, but it gets the job done dammit.
Why not? They're talking about storing braking power and then using that to power the train. Without a battery any such energy is simply lost to the environment. Seems like a good idea a first glance - if their technology is efficient enough.
That's my point though, with a computer system it is often possible to run a "full on" test that very, very closely approximates the real thing. Grab a few boxes, set up your software, and crunch it through a gauntlet of tests, and see where it fails. The same approach exists in hardware engineering, but with more limitations. You can test an engine by itself, since destroying a single prototype sucks, but is practical for most intents and purposes. What you can't do is integrate all those systems into the full spacecraft and afford to launch 100 unmanned prototypes into space just so you can trial-and-error out how successful your integration was, and where the bugs lie.
Hence it demands a much more careful approach when it comes to system integration - and that means a LOT more documentation and understanding with regards to how the parts interact, a LOT more testing of individual pieces of the system, since brute force quantity of testing is simply not possible when it comes to billion-dollar hardware.
It's true that a digital recording can never contain the amount of data in a vinyl groove
I beg to differ. Yes, analog values have an infinite amount of precision, but after a certain point the "precision" you have is nothing more than background vibrations and noise, and not part of the signal you're trying to capture.
If digital storage can store up to that point, then it is for all intents and purposes as good as an analog recording, and by that virtue contains "all the data". Because, you know, we want to record music, and not the miniscule shift caused by the guy beside the recorder tapping his feet.
ER... Sandbox games like this have been done to death - not only in GTA but in Saints Row, and a bunch of other less notable ones. If EA was using the GTA name purely to cash in on GTA's fame, then sure, Rockstar should object, but this smells like a clear parody to me. For one thing, the marketing around the game isn't centred about "look! we're just like GTA!", and neither does the GTA-parodying part make up a huge chunk of the work.
Hardware (especially aerospace hardware) tends to be a bit different than software. Like you said, with a software package I can discover an unknown just by trying. What's the worst I can do? Crash? Blue screen? Oooh, maybe if I was *really* bad I could fry the motherboard. Big deal.
Imagine if we tried that mentality on the shuttle. Er, we don't know what this thing will do in space, well, let's launch it and hope we don't just send 9 astronauts to their doom!
Different tools for different jobs eh? Space flight or any sort of cutting edge aerospace tech will always carry with it some risks, but there's a balance to be achieved between what is acceptable given the nature of the act, and what is a reasonable amount of effort taken to reduce the risk.
Sort of, kind of, not really? Schools are supposed to teach children skills that they can apply in the real world. One of these skills is keyboarding, and honestly, how many typing training packages have you seen on 'nix? Or even Mac?
Kids' software needs are significantly different from that of adults, with the possible except of a good Office suite, which everybody needs. Where's the equivalent of your doodling software, trivia games, and all that stuff you would find in a primary school computer lab?
While I agree MS's tactics here are pretty low, it doesn't immediately lead us to "switch to Linux", because honestly it's not a viable alternative.
On the other hand, Apple has traditionally had the support of children's software publishers. Maybe they can leverage this situation to their advantage...
That makes no sense whatsoever. If you copy a game and don't play it, what kind of "damage" does that do to Valve exactly. If you *actually* cause any damage to them via copyright infringement, that makes you in the wrong also. So really you are quite powerless in this situation except not to buy/play Valve products, in which case copying it would be rather moot.
Beyond the obvious safety and power issues mentioned by other posters, may I mention that, as a general rule of thumb in engineering, the more complex your device/system, the more likely it is to break? And my own corollary to that: and the worse it will be when it DOES break.
They do complain, but the difference is that it's made plenty clear (generally anyway) that imported games will not play on your domestic console. This is in stark contrast to the Thai copies of Orange Box, which worked JUST FINE, but were LATER deactivated by Valve. So there's the anger that something that was reasonably legitimate has been banned, and owners were affected *retroactively*
Hah, this is rich, coming from Will Wright of all people, the man behind Spore. Seriously, have you guys taken a look at the underlying technology behind Spore? We're talking about real-time animation and gait construction, procedural generation for EVERYTHING, from geometry to textures to AI behaviour, all the way down to your animations.
If anything, Spore is a prime example of all that "next-gen" power being harnessed to do great things for gameplay, instead of putting on just more shiny.
This also makes Spore the prime justification for having beefier CPUs, RAM, video cards, and a whole lot more bus bandwidth than we had before. I highly doubt Spore will run on a Wii, but it will for sure run on PS3 and 360. All that processing power is being put to good use, and he's complaining about MS/Sony making consoles that will actually be able to execute his idea, and pledging his allegiance to a piece of hardware that WON'T?
We are a LONG way from the day where our computers are so fast that nothing more can be done on the gameplay side with more performance. The fact that few developers are pushing their games in this direction is no reason to stop making our machines faster.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps so, but there's still a big difference between stabbing someone square in the chest with a sword, and clicking a button to annihilate him from 30,000 feet above. Modern war is impersonal, and it makes the dehumanization of our enemies that much worse, since we tend to be able to do far more damage, far more easily, than we ever have before.
That's the problem I see with MMOs, and why I refuse to play them. If the game is so mind-numbingly boring that you would want to pay someone to reach your "goal", then what's the point of playing? I thought games were supposed to be a fun *experience*?
I know what you're getting at, though I still believe it's more trouble than it's worth. If Apple gives its official blessing to OS X on standard x86 hardware, you're going to get a lot of issues. Firstly, the vast majority of the hardware out there simply don't have OS X drivers. Secondly (and this is the approach many OSx76'ers take) you can build hardware with specs extremely close to Apple machines (which kind of defeats the purpose, but anyways...) but invariably there will be driver incompatibilities. In the end it means it will be a painful experience that rivals installing Gentoo :P
Which leads to my argument that something like that will damage Apple's image more than the few OS sales it might pick up. Enough people bitching on public forums about how much OS X sucks because their ATI X1600 external card using Apple drivers doesn't work right, with incompatibilities between it and the original card it was MEANT to run, and Apple will have a big PR problem.
They're solid and stable, from what I've seen in the past couple of years of using Macs. That's more than can be said for much of the generic market. On my old Toshiba I would constantly bluescreen after taking my laptop on the road, because the OS constantly is looking for that external monitor I didn't take with me. I suspect a driver issue, but it's a bug that happened so much it became a ridiculous joke.
My current machine is a MacBook Pro, which unfortunately hasn't been a bump-free ride since I got it a year ago. But unlike my Toshiba (which was an even bumpier ride... many magnitudes more so...) I've gotten the repairs I needed without yelling at anyone over the phone who barely understood my English (and vice versa). Every time I've had a problem it's always been a short, polite phone call with someone who immediately worked to resolve my problem (as opposed to running me in circles with checklist questions). For that alone I'm going to be a repeat customer. It's next to impossible to find good hardware customer support without going corporate these days.
Sure it would. This is the same thing Apple ran into when they *did* authorize Mac clones way back in the day. Apple sells hardware on the image that things will always work out of the box, service is top notch, and post-sales support is generally excellent all around. Opening it to generic hardware will lead to a lot of the same resentment that surrounds Windows. Joe Schmo will buy an el-cheapo video card, slap it in, made by a piss poor company with equally poor drivers, and then proceed to lay all the blame on Apple when his machine starts going wonky.
Nobody said users were rational. Much of the hate Windows gets is undeserved, especially the stability concerns, which in my experience are more often the result of shoddy, lazy drivers and not MS's problem. But guess who takes the blame and suffers the PR hit?
Opening up the hardware would cannibalize existing Mac sales to a large degree as customers hunt for bargain-basement hardware, and the effect will be worsened by the ridiculous amount of problems users will begin facing, and suddenly this shiny OS that's seemingly light years ahead of Windows will suffer from the same problems.
I know people who bought Apple hardware specifically because they wanted the OS X experience and couldn't do it on their existing hardware. For the paltry number of sales Apple would gain in additional OS sales, they would lose many of these customers. And as you said, Apple makes more money on hardware.
The OS X "experience" is also more closely tied to Apple hardware than you might imagine. For example, iChat allows you to video chat with just about anyone with a Mac, why? Because any relatively recent Mac has a webcam built-in, across the entire line from low to high end. This is the kind of no-brainer thinking that Apple users have grown to love - the fact that they don't have to worry about what kind of hardware is under the hood, nor do they have to worry about what hardware the OTHER end has under their hood.
I'm an Apple customer, as are many of my colleagues and friends. None of us want Mac OS X to run on generic hardware. We like the stability that limited hardware brings, and are willing to give up some versatility to get it.
Apple is in the business of selling packages that "just work". Running on generic hardware (which in its nature can be EXTREMELY low-end and of shoddy quality, both driver-wise and hardware-wise) destroys that image they've spent years building.
Agreed with parent. I enjoyed the Halo games, and thought the stories were decent enough that they kept things interesting, with enough style and mystique to draw me into the game. But a standalone story it is not - it certainly isn't very creative, it's basically a mashup of every major sci-fi novel ever written.
They can invent all the backstory they want, but at the base of it the story is maybe interesting enough to make a glorious Starship Troopers style summer blockbuster, but don't expect even an Asimov-ian level of intricacy to it...
And as the designer of this system I'm sure you're privy to all of its operational specs. Seriously now, can we at least give this a chance instead of following the standard Slashdot cynicism, where breakthrough engineering is *clearly* impossible?
I agree with the Ars review. Stacks are very useful and I like the feature a lot, but instead of showing me a useless icon of whatever file is "first" in the stack, show me the icon of the folder. I keep my Downloads and Documents folder in there like it does by default, and if I hadn't memorized the order I'd never be able to tell them apart. Throw in some (better) folder icons and let us work with that! Otherwise I think the fanning works fine.
Why was this post modded flamebait? It seemed a reasonable enough post to me, even though I don't agree with the contents at all. Can we exercise some judgment here mods? Moderation isn't a tool for you to pimp your opinion of the day, y'knokw.
The dock isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than any other competing equivalent on any common OS. Here are but a few things that are oh-so-right with it:
- Dynamically redrawable icons. Many apps communicate events with their users by redrawing icons. XCode during a compile will draw a little progress bar on the icon, a quick way to check progress so you can go work on something else. If a build fails it will pop a red circle up with the number of errors printed in it (I suppose so you can steel yourself before you dive into that 800-error-long log ;) ). Even many 3rd party apps such as Adium will print the names of unread IM senders, so you know whose messages are waiting for your attention. A huge number will print the little red circle-with-number dealie to inform you of any missed events (Skype with calls, etc.).
- Consolidating notifications by app. Windows XP tried this, it was a miserable failure. Instead of giving users absolute control by flooding the taskbar with every window (not a good solution, but better than this), they decided to put all windows of the same app into the same "group", except Windows windows tend to be hard to identify, relying on huge lines of truncated text to differentiate each other. This sucked. The Dock does this same thing in a much more elegant and usable way.
- It's like the start menu and task bar all at once. All open apps sit on it so you can switch easily, and all your favourites sit on it also. Most users have a handful of apps they use every day, there's no need to make them dig through a Start Menu for it, or even a tiny "drawer" of quick-launch icons like in Windows. Obscure apps? No need to make 'em dig through a Programs menu that inevitably becomes the size of Mt. Olympus, Spotlight will ALWAYS get you the app you need with only a few keystrokes.
The Finder was a pain in Tiger, but you will find it's been improved leaps and bounds in Leopard. It's not quite perfect, but it's a least competitive with all the other file managers out there.
This is deliberate, and when I first switched I hated it, but now I love it. The Apple UI does not encourage MDIs like it does in Windows, instead it's clearly designed for a huge amount of inter-application interaction (drag-dropping between apps and windows, etc). This is most probably born through Apple's media-centric roots where interacting between several apps very quickly is an absolute must. This is why the UI encourages users to keep windows to whatever size they need, and maintains a very "multitasking" feel by removing a simple way to shove a window over all available pixels. I find it only is annoying on poorly ported apps that maintain their Windows design cues - apps that demand a vast amount of screen space to do their job, and thus require constant maximization and takeover of my desktop.
the number of mouse buttons on their laptopClearly a preference matter. I've used Toshiba, IBM, and Apple laptops personally before, and I greatly prefer the fact that I have two-finger click on the Mac. It's a must simpler gesture than reaching for the other button, I find, but again, this is purely personal preference.
I gotta agree about Finder and menuing. The finder has been, IMHO, largely fixed in Leopard, something that has been LONG overdue. Menuing over multiple monitors is a huge gripe. Why can they not simply clone the menu across all screens? It's not perfect, but it gets the job done dammit.
Why not? They're talking about storing braking power and then using that to power the train. Without a battery any such energy is simply lost to the environment. Seems like a good idea a first glance - if their technology is efficient enough.
That's my point though, with a computer system it is often possible to run a "full on" test that very, very closely approximates the real thing. Grab a few boxes, set up your software, and crunch it through a gauntlet of tests, and see where it fails. The same approach exists in hardware engineering, but with more limitations. You can test an engine by itself, since destroying a single prototype sucks, but is practical for most intents and purposes. What you can't do is integrate all those systems into the full spacecraft and afford to launch 100 unmanned prototypes into space just so you can trial-and-error out how successful your integration was, and where the bugs lie.
Hence it demands a much more careful approach when it comes to system integration - and that means a LOT more documentation and understanding with regards to how the parts interact, a LOT more testing of individual pieces of the system, since brute force quantity of testing is simply not possible when it comes to billion-dollar hardware.
I beg to differ. Yes, analog values have an infinite amount of precision, but after a certain point the "precision" you have is nothing more than background vibrations and noise, and not part of the signal you're trying to capture.
If digital storage can store up to that point, then it is for all intents and purposes as good as an analog recording, and by that virtue contains "all the data". Because, you know, we want to record music, and not the miniscule shift caused by the guy beside the recorder tapping his feet.
Yes... Because a constantly powered tram car needs to go 300 miles on a "single charge" ;)
ER... Sandbox games like this have been done to death - not only in GTA but in Saints Row, and a bunch of other less notable ones. If EA was using the GTA name purely to cash in on GTA's fame, then sure, Rockstar should object, but this smells like a clear parody to me. For one thing, the marketing around the game isn't centred about "look! we're just like GTA!", and neither does the GTA-parodying part make up a huge chunk of the work.
I always thought the Q3 sound for killing someone within inches of capture is "DENIED!"... But my memory is hazy.
Hardware (especially aerospace hardware) tends to be a bit different than software. Like you said, with a software package I can discover an unknown just by trying. What's the worst I can do? Crash? Blue screen? Oooh, maybe if I was *really* bad I could fry the motherboard. Big deal.
Imagine if we tried that mentality on the shuttle. Er, we don't know what this thing will do in space, well, let's launch it and hope we don't just send 9 astronauts to their doom!
Different tools for different jobs eh? Space flight or any sort of cutting edge aerospace tech will always carry with it some risks, but there's a balance to be achieved between what is acceptable given the nature of the act, and what is a reasonable amount of effort taken to reduce the risk.
Sort of, kind of, not really? Schools are supposed to teach children skills that they can apply in the real world. One of these skills is keyboarding, and honestly, how many typing training packages have you seen on 'nix? Or even Mac?
Kids' software needs are significantly different from that of adults, with the possible except of a good Office suite, which everybody needs. Where's the equivalent of your doodling software, trivia games, and all that stuff you would find in a primary school computer lab?
While I agree MS's tactics here are pretty low, it doesn't immediately lead us to "switch to Linux", because honestly it's not a viable alternative.
On the other hand, Apple has traditionally had the support of children's software publishers. Maybe they can leverage this situation to their advantage...
That makes no sense whatsoever. If you copy a game and don't play it, what kind of "damage" does that do to Valve exactly. If you *actually* cause any damage to them via copyright infringement, that makes you in the wrong also. So really you are quite powerless in this situation except not to buy/play Valve products, in which case copying it would be rather moot.
Beyond the obvious safety and power issues mentioned by other posters, may I mention that, as a general rule of thumb in engineering, the more complex your device/system, the more likely it is to break? And my own corollary to that: and the worse it will be when it DOES break.
They do complain, but the difference is that it's made plenty clear (generally anyway) that imported games will not play on your domestic console. This is in stark contrast to the Thai copies of Orange Box, which worked JUST FINE, but were LATER deactivated by Valve. So there's the anger that something that was reasonably legitimate has been banned, and owners were affected *retroactively*
The same name doesn't mean the same game, unfortunately. You can bet that the DS "version" will be an entirely different beast altogether.
Hah, this is rich, coming from Will Wright of all people, the man behind Spore. Seriously, have you guys taken a look at the underlying technology behind Spore? We're talking about real-time animation and gait construction, procedural generation for EVERYTHING, from geometry to textures to AI behaviour, all the way down to your animations.
If anything, Spore is a prime example of all that "next-gen" power being harnessed to do great things for gameplay, instead of putting on just more shiny.
This also makes Spore the prime justification for having beefier CPUs, RAM, video cards, and a whole lot more bus bandwidth than we had before. I highly doubt Spore will run on a Wii, but it will for sure run on PS3 and 360. All that processing power is being put to good use, and he's complaining about MS/Sony making consoles that will actually be able to execute his idea, and pledging his allegiance to a piece of hardware that WON'T?
We are a LONG way from the day where our computers are so fast that nothing more can be done on the gameplay side with more performance. The fact that few developers are pushing their games in this direction is no reason to stop making our machines faster.