KoolAidMan

#5 - DM - As the owner of a PS3 I have two major problems with it. The big one is that it lacks an internal scaler, which means that games made for 720p will not scale up to 1080i on HDTVs that don't do 720p. My 40" Sony WEGA HD CRT doesn't do 720p, just 1080i. The majority of PS3 games run 720p, meaning I get to play them all in 480p. This is a problem the XBox 360 does not have since it has scaler built in.

Nice.

The other problem is PS2 emulation. PS2 games look significantly worse on the PS3. It is pretty like going back to playing on the PS1. I also can't play Guitar Hero on the PS3 (that's very bad). I was hoping to get rid of my PS2 and consolidate my systems, now I can't.

It blows me away that for all the technology Sony crammed into that box, that they completely blew it on such basic, fundamental features (one of which Microsoft nailed down a year in advance). I can't believe these things are even issues, but they are.

I can let the library thing slide; launch libraries are always weak. These hardware problems are inexcusable.

Bitch bitch bitch.

If they changed the graphics then people would be complaining that they altered these classics.

16. "The what makes you want to play this game? Not being mean or anything but you can do so so so so so much more with a real one. I have a jasmine acoustic and a jackson electric."

Do you own any firearms? If so, why don't you go outside and shoot some real people? If not, go buy one, it's way better than doing it in some silly videogame.

Stop now. Your explanation makes your original post look rational.

#65 - It is hardly a higher clocked version of the Gecko and Flipper. The Wii has realtime lighting a la Doom 3, specular highlighting, bloom, a bunch of effects that didn't even exist in PC gaming back when the Gamecube is released.

The new Metroid Prime 3 and XMen Alliance videos I saw today really surprised me as far as how strong they looked. They blew the E3 footage away (which incidentally were running on refitted Gamecubes). The only place it is significantly lagging is the lack of HD. I will miss it, but the fact that it has to draw fewer lines is the main area where the Wii will save money as far as the cost of hardware.

The Wii has more power under the hood than you think.

#28 - iTV does stream HD. They streamed HD footage from The Incredibles at the presentation yesterday.

#87 - Pixelator

I have had the same Dual 1ghz G4 for an editing/DVD authoring workstation for four years now, and have no plans to upgrade to a new machine until Leopard ships on systems next year. This is the longest I have ever had a computer and I couldn't be happier. It is by far the greatest value I have gotten out of a system.

On top of that, I haven't had to reformat and reinstall the operating system ONCE in that entire period I've had it, even when installing major OS updates. I don't have to do that often with WinXP compared with every few months on Windows 98, but I know there is no way I could keep a WinXP installation for four years and have it as snappy and responsive as the day I first installed it.

Apple makes some really good stuff, all I'm saying.

The last thing I will say is that games are the ONLY reason I still keep a WinXP desktop. I've only used Macs alongside my PC for four years, built my own PCs for almost ten years, but I can safely say that if it wasn't for gaming I would be 100% OS X at this point. 10.2 was my first real exposure to it and there really is no comparison at this point. Plus it just gets even better with every revision.

xenikos -

I own a year old gaming PC (A64 4400, 7800GT) that I upgrade roughly every 18 months as well as a Powerbook and an old G4 editing workstation that I'm going to buy a new machine for one Leopard comes out next year.

There is PLENTY of software available on OS X, contrary to what you say. Hell, a lot of it I prefer on the OS X platform than its WinXP counterpart (Transmit for instance is imo much much better than WS_FTP or the many other FTP programs I have used on Windows). And the OS X is just better than WinXP. It is like the dream Linux desktop distro that just won't happen in our lifetime, it doesn't seem (yeah, I've installed various LInux desktop distros over the years, and it was in the end a waste of time due to no real support or utility).

I have to sleep, but the bottom line is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You have nothing like a real argument based on any real longterm experience, just blind fanboy rantings. Wow. You use a Windows machine just like 99% of the other people out there which makes you a computer expert.

Sad.

Either way, at this moment I consider my WinXP machine the toy I play games on (damn you Valve for not porting your games to OS X), while my OS X machines help me make the money to build my toys with. Works out ok I guess.

Macs are more secure for the same reason Linux and any *nix variant is more secure. Because you are not logged in as the administrator or root by default. This is one basic out of many security holes that Windows has. Compare that with the holes in an *nix system (OS X included).

People bring up quantity as an argument, which is ridiculous considering how many Linux servers are out there in the wild constantly networked with other machines. If Windows was a more secure platform then it wouldn't be nearly as easy to vulnerable to malware and takeovers as it is now.