Linux-Advocacy Digest #555, Volume #25 Wed, 8 Mar 00 03:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Joseph)
Re: Giving up on NT (Joseph)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Very good news for Linux... ("Nathan S. Grey")
Backup Options (was: VIRUS ALERT! (W32/Shoerec) (Mark S. Bilk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 22:03:46 -0500
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Mike Timbol wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Mike Timbol wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> There's another, more realistic explanation for the lack of console ports
> >> to the PC: the PC is technologically superior, which requires higher
> >> resolution graphics and a more sophisticated user interface than their
> >> contemporary consoles. It also has a different demographic, so many console
> >> games do not appeal to PC game players.
> >
> >No Mike. TODAY the Dreamcast requires PC ports to IMPROVE their 3D models.
>
> TODAY, the latest version of Final Fantasy has graphics that suck on a PC.
> Some games will need better models. Some games won't. Depends on the game,
> depends on the platform. TODAY, perhaps the Dreamcast needs better models,
> because the Dreamcast was just released. The same thing was probably
> true when the first Playstation came out, yet PCs are still around, and
> have easily surpassed the PSX.
Final fantasy's graphics suck on a PC but the game is a unquestionably popular, fun
exciting and a profitable game. PCs easily surpass the 1994 PSX console but failed to
unseat it as the most popoular a game device.
According to this article, PC gaming is a maker comprised of only ~2 million people.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000307S0008
I think SEGA DC has more than 2 million units sold and probably a large fraction of
those DC consoles are in use. BTW that article also slams WinCE as a "nightmare"
development platform for games on the DC. MS has no edge with that OS.
> >Final Fantasy's next release is a PSX II title so Square Soft is capable
> >- not willing to service the PC market being there are huge OPPORTUNITY
> >costs. Money spent on a PC title could have generated MORE money on a
> >Console title.
>
> No. Depends on the game. You, again, treat the markets as if the
> demographics were identical. They are not. Games which do well on the
> PC would usually not generate more money on a console. That's why there
> are so many best-selling PC games which are never ported to the console
> platform.
>
> Your assumption is wrong.
Opportunity costs Mike. Lost income due to chasing a smaller market. The
demographics are irrelevant to the fact titles on consoles make more money.
Publishers know what that means. If you say the two markets produce different games
then the conclusion is simple and horrible for PCs: The PC market is very small and
therefore the rewards for success are very small and the effort LESS likely to produce
revenue on the console market. So the more you separat ethem, the worse off the PC
devleoper is since they are creating product less likely to run on the more profitbale
device.
My assumption is that the markets are similar enough and that assumption is shared by
Newsweek, game publishers and the general gameing community which has shifted a
majority of its purchasing to consoles. At least in that case the PC has the
opportunity to coast along with the consoles since the markets are similar enough.
> >One also questions the need for a complicated user interface - the
> >Homeworld game was singled out and praised for NOT being complicated.
> >May strategy games are too realistic and detract from the fun.
>
> There is no objective definition of "fun", just as there is no
> objective definition of what makes a good game. Simply because you
> feel a particular game is "too realistic" does not mean it isn't a good
> game. In fact, many of the games which do well on the PC are probably
> games which you would categorize as "too realistic". Yet they still
> sell well.
Then one should not pan consoles titles for being "simpler" or not as "realistic"
since there are subjective in that they need to bebalanced with the user experience.
The objective criteria are the consumers and the data say PCs are a small marketof ~2
million consumers with a lot of dewveloper, media and consumer interest in the
consoles.
> That's yet another indicator of the demographic differences.
>
> Tell me, Joseph, what are your three favorite PC games and your three
> favorite console games? I'm wondering if we can spot a trend.
I don't play PC games but the PC game mag I get listed a 5 top innovative,
revolutionary games and of them I think Homeworld was the most interesting for what
they listed. Baluder's Gate and that engine seemed interesting so I am following the
SEGA port of the engine. For PC games I used to play, I had a lot of fun with DOOM
but more in the exploration of the world and was deeply disappointed at the direction
ID went with QUAKE. MYST was another I enjoyed and Tie-Figher.
I'm looking for (of all things) Tetras for the DC, and my next purchase will be SEGA
BASS Fishing.
> >
> >Gosh - a review that is in total contradiciton to the consumer's response.
> >A game that is a huge success is ripped by by someone. This reviewer
> >isn't in sync with other reviews of the game which are stellar but this
> >reviewer is also not representative of the consumer. So what is this
> >reviewer worth? An opinion that doesn't reflect the consumer and does
> >not reflect many of his peers.
>
> On the contrary, this review was written by a PC reviewer, not a console
> reviewer. His expectations are different. I'd say that his opinion reflects
> that of many PC game players.
He can hold any opinion he wants but the opinion does not reflect what is popular,
respected and profitable.
> Here are quotes from four separate player reviews:
>
> "What can I say? Final Fantasy VIII for the PC is probably the worst
> translation from the console that I have ever seen. The backgrounds
> are all pixellated, the midi can't compare to the sound that all games
> on the PC have, and the style of play is the most bizarre thing that
> the PC gaming world has ever seen."
>
> "The graphics are disappointing for a PC game, especially on a PC
> screen with far higher resolution than a TV. What you get in the
> transition is pixelated and jagged graphics."
>
> "Final Fantasy VIII is nothing more than a carelessly ported, poorly
> translated version of the PlayStation 'masterpiece.'"
>
> "Is Final Fantasy VIII for the PC any worse than the PlayStation
> version? No, and that's where the problems lie."
>
> Why so negative? Different demographics, different preferences, different
> expectations, different reactions.
And the fact Square soft doesn't seem to care much for the PC being the port was
crummy and not well done. Think about that. We know Square's BOXER preview for the
PSX II is an awsome example of a moive like game. So what's the real problem? A small
market.
> >Consol developers hesitiate to port because of economics - Opportunity costs.
> >The ENTIRE heterogenous PC market is smaller than the uniform PSX market.
> >Time spent on a PC port is money lost not doing a new console game or
> >porting to the other console or LEARNING and doing developement on the
> >next platform: DC, PSX or Dolphin.
>
> No. Your argument ignores half of the available facts. Based on your
> argument, it stands to reason that money spent developing (instead of
> simply porting) a PC game is money lost not doing a new console game
> instead. Yet there are dozens and dozens of great PC games that never
> make it to consoles. And, even with the Dreamcast available, there
> are still dozens of great PC games being produced.
Economics are unquestionable. Doing a PC game is indeed a opportunity forfitted on a
console. If someone has a personal opinion that the two are different or one is
inferior that opinion is irrelevant to the economics of the decision a game publisher
faces. Economics Mike. If the TECHWEB article is right then there are 2 million
active PC gamers.
> Don't those developers also have opportunity costs? Of course they do.
> Yet, they usually don't port their games to the console. Why?
>
> Perhaps there's some reason why they *don't* concentrate on console games
> which you refuse to recognize. The market demographics are different.
No Mike, Adults play console games. PCs are a limited in their appeal but that
limited appeal doesn't stop a console from appealing to an adult. Adding a DVD player
to the PSX II or a Modem and Browser to the DC not just for children. PCs are not
specailized to suit adults, they are limited to large disposable incomes and a
tinkering mentality.
...
> That's not the question -- you can't compare Planescape to Super Mario
> Brothers. The question is, do they make less than an *equivalent* console
> title. That is, if Planescape were released on a console, would it make
> more money than it makes on the PC.
Yes I think Planetscape would make more money on a console.
> There are two scenarios:
>
> A. There's some reason (e.g. demographics) why a good PC game won't
> make more money on a console.
>
> B. The PC game *would* make a lot more money on a console, but the PC
> game developers are just stupid and develop for the PC anyway.
>
> Gee, I think A. is far more likely.
The world is full of TYPE B thinkers. We have the free market to correct these poor
SOBs who think they know more than the customer. Most companies have to be run out of
business and some hobble along doing the same thing as the world passes them by.
We've seen console development rewarded for several years with large growth in
revenue. If you don't think the next generation of consoles will reduce PC games,
then you have not been reading what game publishers are saying and doing about DC and
PSX II.
> >Opportunity costs Mike
>
> No. Demographics have much more of an effect. If the answer were your
> simplistic "opportunity costs", you'd see no PC development at all. Yet
> PC development continues. Explain why.
No Mike, Opportunity costs are not going to kill every title in one year since the
measurement and computation of that cost varies with each company. Some companies
have to go bankrupt or change management before they'll change. Still PC Titles are
decreasing, EA and EDIOS are shifting to consoles. 2 million active gamers are enough
to support some developement and there are PC game technologies already in place that
can be milked for new titles. Others might not know how to build console titles or
fear they are so far behind that they cannot be competitive so they'll sit out and try
to be a big fish in the PC pond.
> >There are also more money losing games on the PC. There are more copy cat
> >games on the PC - rehashed engines.
>
> Irrelevent. The fact that there may be 200 games that look like Quake does
> not detract from the fact that there are more *types* of games available.
It matters. There is a lot of crap and copy cat crap for PCs. New titles are lost in
the copy cat crap noise.
> If your simple argument of "opportunity costs" were true, then you'd see
> the same types of games available on both platforms. You don't.
No Mike. Opportunity costs don't have a boolean effect. Some folk totally ignore them
and are swatted by the big bat of the free market as they cannot compete for talent
and satisify investors with their poorer performance due to picking poor
opportunities.
> >At some point the opportunity costs for makeing UNIQUE titles that the PC
> >can support become so great that the PC market suffers even in those areas
> >where it has done well.
>
> Well, "at some point", that may happen. It hasn't happened yet.
Is happening right now.
> >> As I said, I already read the articles. It talks about production costs of
> >> *CONSOLE* games. *NOT* PC games.
> >
> >Mike - they talk about the increased costs for developing games.
>
> Sigh. Then take a look at the article, and tell me how much it cost to
> develop a PC game last year. Or this year. Or next year. You can't.
> The article was about costs for console games. You could conclude that
> costs for PC games are increasing because of increased production costs,
> but you could do that just as well without the article.
I must conclude that the costs for producing more movie like games is greater than it
was for simple graphical games. The platform is a 2nd or 3rd order effect. For the
DC, WinCE is worse (more costly to use) than SEGA's own OS.
> >Trouble happens when titles diminish in number
>
> Not really. As the Newsweek articles mention, there will be a consolidation
> of console developers due to the extreme production costs of console games.
> When publishers diminish in number, titles will also diminish in number.
> Are consoles in trouble? No. Instead of 100 racing games, maybe there
> will only be 10. Instead of 50 fighting games, maybe there will only be 6.
> So what?
Mike - the Newsweek article was gloomy about PC devlopement and not consoles. They
say SEGA had a game writer edge, Nintendo has its franchises.
...
> Again, if consoles advance to the point where they can support the types
> of games unique to the PC, then a console becomes a vialble alternative,
> with regard to games alone. Until that happens, it isn't.
Mike there are ~2 million active PC gamers today, BEFORE the PSX II ships. Factor in
these folk need to move to W2K/Whistler to keep PC gaming and add distractions like
X-BOX and PSX II.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 22:07:44 -0500
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Darren Winsper wrote:
>
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:47:45 -0500, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please fix your line wrapping.
>
> > You left out something real important such as MS's X-BOX console: Here's my full
>post:
>
> So, MS decides to release a console, and the PC market is suddenly
> gone? Get real.
You go tell Bill Gates.
> > ----begin
> > Not in the context of entertainment. PCs are really limited.
>
> Oh really?
> > Microsoft is going to announce a Game Console based on Win9x/DirectX.
> > The fat lady is singing and PC gaming is emulate/copy the titles in
> > the more profitable console market.
>
> The PC market is more profitable than the Mac market, but I don't see
> the Mac disappearing anytime soon.
MS makes more per unit sale of MS office Mac then for Windows.
> > PC game developers are NOT going to ignore Bill Gate's endorsement of consoles this
> > Wednesday and they have already seen (in private) this MS console.
>
> They're not going to suddenly drop the PC market because of it. In
> fact, because it uses DirectX, it'll be easier to produce games for
> both platforms, so the PC market stands to gain from this, not lose.
Easier to produce games that must run on a MS console and then are ported to the PC.
> > The Fat Lady is
> > singing because Bill Gates is standing behind console development.
>
> That means nothing. As long as companies can profit from the PC, it'll
> be around.
Sure, My argument is that time is limited.
X-BOX, DC, PSX II are better alternatives. Offering Whistler/W2K as the next consumer
OS is a huge liability for the PC Gamer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 8 Mar 2000 06:37:04 GMT
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:53:27 GMT, Christopher Wong wrote:
>On 8 Mar 2000 02:22:57 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And if I set up my system correctly, I need never be "outside the
>special webfonts".
Well that's fine if you never do anything besides browse the web.
Personally, I don't want to use those same fonts in every document
I create. Especially since I usually care more how my documents look
on paper than on screen.
>I said I would get excellent fonts most of the time. It's not like I
>write my letters with a gazillion fonts at once.
It's not like the web fonts are always the best for writing letters,
either.
>>Like I said, an apples to apples comparison, where you convert TrueType
>>to Type1 shows that there is very little difference. Perhaps I can post
>>some screenshots.
>
>Please do. I am genuinely interested. Are you saying that if I convert
>one of MS' hinted TTF fonts (say, Georgia) to Type 1, I would hardly see
>the difference?
Two points:
(1)
You'll only get visible degradation at small point sizes. The URL you post --
uses point sizes between 10 and 20, *at 72 DPI*. If you have a 100dpi
display, this is analagous to adjusting the range to 7-14 points.
Note further that the degradation doesn't kick in until the second or
third font down -- so you won't really see degradation until you're
looking at 10 point fonts or so. Personally, I magnify everything to
at least 14 point on screen ( even if I write a word processor document
in 10 point font, I magnify the screen view 150% )
(2)
Like I said before, *most TrueType fonts are not hinted* Not a little bit.
in fact, not at all. So with the exceptions of special "web fonts", you
will not see any difference.
> This is hard for me to imagine without seeing, unless
>you regularly set your browser font to 32points.
Completely misleading.
>I also stand by my assertion that X's Type 1 rasterizer is crap. That
I'd agree that this is a big part of the problem.
>URL I posted was not just a comparison between Type 1 and TTF. It also
>compared Type 1 rasterizers, and the one in X11R6 was pretty bad
I'd agree ... but also I'd add that unless you're using fairly small fonts,
it doesn't matter that much.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: 8 Mar 2000 07:21:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:17:02 +0100, Davorin Mestric wrote:
>>you did not understand his comment.
>>
>>Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Linux is posix compatible. You can write mails from and to
>>>linux systems, you can access linux-based web-servers
>>>(running apache using a standard). You can read and write
>>>all graphic formats, all audio formats, burn cds in the cdda
>>>and the iso9660 format, install networks based on the tcp/ip
>>>standard, watch tv with pal/ntsc standards, etc. (how much
>>>do you wanna hear :-)
>
>I guess you're not so kind to tell me why.
ISO 9000 is a set of standards for quality control used in
a variety of industries. Here are two URLs for it, found by
asking the excellent weighted search engine www.google.com
to look for "ISO 9000":
ISO 9000 Translated into Plain English
http://www.connect.ab.ca/~praxiom/
ISO 9000-3 Software Standard Translated into Plain English
http://www.connect.ab.ca/~praxiom/9000-3.htm
Does ISO 9000 make the difference between high and low
quality products? Well, Microsoft uses it:
http://www.microsoft.com/Industry/man/developers/whitepapers/word-iso.stm
and (I assume) most (non-commercial) Open Source Software
developers don't. So the fact that Microsoft software is
buggy, bloated, unreliable, expensive, fraudulently marketed,
usable only on Intel machines, and often nonconforming to
standards, so it renders applications non-portable and locks
the user forever to Microsoft, whereas OSS, e.g., GNU/Linux,
has none of these drawbacks, provides some indication of the
usefulness and reliability of ISO 9000 compliance and certi-
fication in determining product quality. However, other
things being equal, informal, partial compliance, or at least
familiarity, with the standards, can be beneficial. Of
course, full certified compliance is good for selling the
product, regardless of its actual quality, to customers who
don't know how to evaluate it accurately, or are simply
gullible.
(Note to Drestin Black: go get fscked in advance.)
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Very good news for Linux...
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:30:39 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>http://www.metrowestnews.com/metrowest/news/business/news/0-9692_0_linux_030700_5604615a14.html
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Looks like the world conquest plan is well under way
-NateGrey
"Here it is BILL!!!! Right in the stacks!!!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Backup Options (was: VIRUS ALERT! (W32/Shoerec)
Date: 8 Mar 2000 07:39:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You can run all the fancy
>virus checking software out there, but the bottom line is that there's
>no substitute for making periodic backups. I guess one of those
>Iomega Jaz drives would be good for this, or maybe even an LS-120
>drive. I guess you could replace your floppy drive with an LS-120.
>An LS-120 these days is what a standard 1.44M floppy drive was in
>1993. I'm surprised all floppy drives today aren't the LS-120
>variety. Well, those LS-120 disks sure are expensive, though.
>
>Or, last but not least, floppies are extremely cheap nowadays. What's
>the deal now - 500 for $10? I would have shit myself to see floppies
>that cheap when I started computing back in 1993. You can always
>spend $20 and get 1,000 floppies, or whatever. Of course, it would
>take a while, and it would grind your floppy drive down to a pile of
>iron filings. But, I suppose it would be better than losing data.
>Tar can do a multi-volume floppy archive.
>
>I think a tape drive would be a worthwhile investment, although I
>think something akin to a 2GB Jaz drive would be a better all-around
>storage medium. This is because you can use it for many things, not
>just backups, and the backups are liable to be much faster. I guess
>tape drives, while slow as hell, would be more cost effective if you
>do many large-volume backups.
A CD-R (recordable) drive for $2-300 might be a good method
for backup -- the media cost less than a dollar for 650 MB,
and they probably last a lot longer than magnetic disks or
tapes (and can't get wiped by a magnetic field).
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
