Steve

Uh, guys, you might want to read the release from iSuppli with regards to the 360 numbers. They state that the 360 is actually costing $75.70 LESS than the retail price of $399, so MS looks like they should be pretty close to breaking even, possibly even making a profit, on materials at least. Regradless of the accuracy of the figures presented here, if they used the same methods for calculating both costs, then MS do seem to have taken full advantage of the extra year and are in a MUCH better cost position than Sony right now.

@#9 - "I'm tired of this. These OS's, unless you do some screwy crap, work just fine out of the box.

If there's issues, blame your hardware manufacturers for not releasing good drivers."

If there's issues it doesn't matter if they are the fault of the OS, drivers, software or the green fairy, there's still issues. For that matter, try installing an older version of XP (pre SP2) from a genuine MS CD, connect to the internet and play the grand old game of 'can I upgrade with all these security patches before the virus brigade find my machine' and then tell me these OS's work fine out of the box.

As a couple of people have pointed out, the business world gets Vista first so that we can evaluate the new software, find out how badly it breaks existing software, work out the realistic minimum spec for what we do as a business, have a brief moment to sob over the reallocation of our budget from the beer fund to the upgrade fund and, most importantly, find out where the major bugs are. This way, by the time most home users start to get their hands on it, there should be at least a basic set of fixes available through Windows update.

In the case of my company, I see no reason at all to even consider Vista for at least a year. We're currently on 2k and that works just fine, has a nice low overhead in terms of hardware and is still on the supported list. Vista really doesn't bring anything to the party that interests me, at least from reading the spec sheet, especially as we're transitioning to web-based applications from our current .NET apps.

Now virtualisation software, THERE is something that interests me as an IT manager...

To a point this argument used to be true (though you'll have problems translating documents from one application to another in most products in one way or another) but in the last six months or so it's become almost totally invalid.

First let me give you a bit of background. I'm an IT Manager (and developer and support officer and, well, you get the idea) at an international company responsible for around 250 users. Not a great many in the grand scheme of things but enough to be a pain in the backside when things go wrong. I've been using windows since the days of 3.11 and Linux since 1999. And yet a few weeks ago I replaced my work-issued Dell with a mid-range Macbook.

Why? For one thing, after a little negotiating with my local Apple store, the price came in at about £20 more than the Dell and that includes international warranty support and the iSight camera which is surprisingly useful in my line of work. Far more important however, it isn't a Windows machine. In the event of something nasty happening to our windows network (all it takes is one zero-day exploit after all) we have at least one machine in the building which can happily carry on working. That allows us to access the web and that in turn gives us access to whatever research and tools we need to correct the problem.

Most importantly though, it's a testbed for a piece of software called Parallels. I'm sure most people on here have heard of this but breifly: it creates a virtual machine which can be used to run more-or-less any flavour of Windows you care to mention along with several other OS's. Crucially this VM runs at almost full speed, and that makes it trully useable for the first time.

Why is this important to us? Because we have over a hundred laptops spread throughout the UK which regularly run into trouble with their Windows 2000 installations, usually because of user error. Currently we have to recall the machines to head office to carry out repair / reinstallation work. However, if a Parallels VM installation croaks all we'd have to do is send the user a DVD containing their VM from the last backup we have (a grand total of two files) and a simple installation program. They get the DVD the next day, put it in the drive, run the program and they're back up and running. All their files are saved on the (shared) Mac partition, their Windows OS and apps are on the VM.

We're still trialing this approach and Parallels still has a few issues they need to sort out before we would consider deploying it but it's very, very close right now. Certainly for head office users, or the more technically minded, it's fine and offers real benefits in a business situation.

As for OSX itself, I've found it to be a breath of fresh air after XP. You do need to spend some time learning it and getting used to the Apple aproach but so much of it makes sense you wonder why MS hasn't copied some of it for Windows. Example: stick a blank DVD in the drive and a DVD icon appears on the desktop. Drag files to this icon and it'll append them to the queue for burning, once you're happy just confirm the burn process and off it goes. Or the little things like holding Contorl-Apple-D to give you a dictionary definition of the word your mouse pointer is over. Or hitting one key to bring up the Dashboard, something I thought would just be a novelty but in a business environment becomes very, very useful indeed especially with translation widgets available.

Umm, I'm sure I'm missing something here but looking at those pictures a couple of things jumped out at me. If you have it setup so that the PS3 logo is facing into the room (which would make sense owing to the shiny shiny surface) aren't all the cables going to be visible on the left side of the console? If you have it setup so that the unit is horizontal and facing you there should also be just enough of that very reflective top facing you to reflect the lights and be really bloody annoying.

I also REALLY can't understand why Sony didn't at least change the colour of the controller. It is after all the main contact point with a console and this just looks identical to the same old PS2 pad we've all come to know and love/hate (delete as appropriate).

"Vista is still gonna kick XP's ass, if you haven't looked at it yet."

*sigh*

Pray tell, exactly what technical benefits is Vista bringing to the table? A new interface? Sorry, but no, the tricks Aero uses have been available to Windows users for quite some time thanks to Windowblinds (and frankly some of the better WB themes look much, much better than Vista). Improved security? Maybe, god I hope so, but past history (and the comments of people much more experienced than I am in the security industry) suggest otherwise. New file system based on SQL Server? Postponed until such time as it actually works. Virtual folders? Moved from new harvard graduate to red-headed stepchild status. Big-ass sidebars for common components to allow users to access them via remote ala media centre? Uh, no. User Account Protection, requiring the user to stick in the admin password for modifying system settings and parts beyond? YES! Uh, but the last report I heard was that it turned out to be more annoying than an office assistant without an off switch owing to the VAST number of dialogue boxes that ensue.

Don't get me wrong here, I was really hoping that MS would put out a trully great OS this time. XP and 2000 were big jumps forward, even with all their security issues, and I wanted something new and interesting to loose my inner geek upon. I still hope they manage it, the last thing I want is another Windows ME as I know who'll be supporting my friends and family when they install it. But right now I see no reason to consider it for home use until at LEAST a year from now and as for business use... Well let me put it this way, by a strange quirk of fate my evaluation MacBook turned up today and, if all goes well, we're considering slowly phasing out 2k from the business in favour of OSX. Why? Because we'd have to upgrade 90% of our hardware anyway to run Vista if performance doesn't improve between now and release and for the money involved we'd be fools not to at least consider the competition.

The fact is Vista SHOULD kick XP's arse, it's been in development for well over five years after all. Unfortunatley a) it's not looking like a huge jump forward, b) there's enough new functionality in security critical areas to make people nervous and c) Vista must also compete with Linux and OSX, especially now that virtualisation software is available and actually working which removes one of the major hurdles to migrating organisations to new platforms. As for the home user, I would say, hand-on-heart, I could have given my mum the Macbook and she'd have had it up and running within the hour WITHOUT MY HELP. And twenty minutes of that hour would have been staring in wonder at the packaging and comparing it to the brown box her friend got from Dell a week ago.

There's a couple of interesting (well, to me anyway) things in these figures:

1) DS sells 400,000 units, DS games manage to capture 3 of the top ten slots with a total of 556,000 units sold. PSP sells 153,000 units and doesn't get a single title, not even GTA which you'd assume would be pretty high on everyone's must-have list, into the top ten. IMO that tends to highlight the big problem with the PSP system: people seem to be buying it as a media player and homebrew system rather than to play PSP games, thus Sony aren't seeing much in the way of licence revenue at the moment. That's potentialy a big problem, especially if they're still loosing money on the hardware (anyone know if they are?).

2) 360 seems to be doing pretty well all things considered. For Madden to sell just under half (okay, 43%) of the number of copies it did on the PS2 on a system that has a much smaller install base is surely a positive sign for Microsoft. It would also explain why developers are more eager to ink cross-platform deals if the 360 is delivering a strong customer base. Regardless of what happens with the PS3 there simply won't be the number of units in the marketplace to match the 360 for at least a year (and that assumes that the PS3 obliterates 360 sales). For that matter, 260,000 sales isn't exactly shabby for the 360 considering it's not yet christmas. Just wondering, if the PS3 really is only getting 500,000 units for launch (and only small numbers of units after that), could we potentialy see the 360 running it close or even beating it in the sales figures for that month?

3) As for Sony, their good news is the PS2 is still selling bucketloads and is probably considered the budget offering of choice right now with a very good catalogue of titles available and more on the way. Of course it remains to be seen what Wii will do to that when it comes out as once you work out the cost of a slim PS2 ($130) + memory card ($20) + game ($40) is only $60 cheaper than the newcomer.

Don't know if this will link properly, but Clarkson wrote a great article on the blame game that's being played around this accident, well worth a read:

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-2372412,00.html

Uh, I have to agree with a couple of previus posters, the linked articles really don't support the headline. Why? Well, for a start only one of the two articles reports actual bugs, and as the bugs reported would be pretty damn obvious to anyone playing the game and we've had no other reports of them I'd say it was a one off.

Secondly, the controller issues just sound like a learning curve attached to the game which, considering everyone there was playing something that was new to them, didn't seem to stop them from having a good time playing. Not exactly what I'd call a bug.

My own opinion after reading these articles is actually the opposite of Joystiq. A control scheme that needs a bit of learning is not necessarily a bad thing and having to actually think about when to zoom in and shoot versus staying in cover is far more my sort of game than a more simple run and gun. From what's been said I'd consider Gears is well on course to be a cracking game. Graphics and the gameplay experience seem to be well up to spec and the complaints are very minor (and may still be changed before launch, there is still time after all).

@Rohit:

1) Or, alternativley, if you don't attach much or any value to the features the Zune brings to the table versus the iPod. For instance, I never ever listen to the radio and don't see the point of the bigger screen on a device that I would use almost exclusivley for music. There's also the small point that the iPod line is tried and tested technology that (by and large) just works. Whereas with Zune you're paying for first generation hardware with no track record whatsoever and no userbase to provide honest feedback upon which to base a purchase decision.

2) Great, so you're going to pay the same money as an iPod for something that is by your logic a beta product? Seriously, why should we as consumers put up with that attitude from ANY company, let alone one with the resources of Microsoft? For that matter look at Microsoft and their general attitude towards updating functionality on Windows Mobile, it hasn't exactly been great. We're still waiting on A2DP to be implemented on the first gen of Windows Mobile 5 devices.

3) You're basing this prediction on.... what exactly? Yes, you'd think it'd be a common sense decision to allow such a thing but in that case why not have it ready for the launch? They've had more than enough time after all and as someone else pointed out MS actually removed wireless sync for PDA's from Activesync in the recent past.

Here's my biggest problem with the "that functionality will be along shortly" approach - even if the statement is true you'd be a mug to buy one at launch. Hold on to your cash for a little bit longer, wait until the functionality is in and tested before buying. That way you get actual reviews of the units from real users, some indication of reliablity and robustness, and of course the competition might have rolled out something better in the meantime. Imagine if you bought a Zune now and then, in a few months time when wireless downloads are turned on, Apple has launched a widescreen iPod with wireless and bluetooth that can sync and connect to the iTunes store for the same sort of money as your Zune. You'd surely feel a bit annoyed about that?

@Lekko - I'd love to see that, but I can (just about) remember the great CD revolution of the 90's and have heard the same arguments before. What we got was the same old games dressed up with lashings of FMV and, for PC's, a far more convenient distribution method than a bundle of floppy disks. I honestly don't think things have changed that much either, most games aren't much larger really than mid 90's titles in terms of playing time, just things look far better these days and have a lot more variety.

If a developer did go down the route of more content they have to pay for the creation of that content somehow. Now realisticly there's three ways of doing that: 1) Sell millions of copies. 2) Increase the cost of the game and hope it's good enough for people to pay the extra. 3) Go the micro payments route that Gran Turismo HD seems to be exploring.

I think the biggest argument against developers actually using all that space to create larger game worlds and other mind-blowing stuff is, again, the PC world. Here we have a platform that is virtualy unlimited in what it can do, has MUCH faster local storage than the consoles, has in some cases a gig or more of graphics memory (I'm thinking of SLI rigs here) and we have yet to see anything really push the boundries. Yes, a first party title might do so at some point but that'll probably be about it, especially as the public has become so demanding these days. Can you imagine the outcry at a game that mapped an area the size of the UK but had to repeat its textures every few miles? Far easier to create an area the size of London where everything's unique. Plus it cuts down on development and, most importantly, testing time.

One other thing, for a game to trully take advantage of bluray it would need to be of a size that cannot be compressed into less than 9Gb. Assuming for a moment a 4:1 compression ratio as being somewhat realistic, that would mean a developer creating at least 36.1Gb of material. I just don't see that happening on this generation. Maybe, just maybe, in five years time when the next set of HD standards hits and the next-next-gen of consoles comes along specificaly designed around that sort of game size (with content creation tools suitable for the job) then we'll see it. But this time round? No, everything I've seen points to the PS3 being bottlenecked in too many places to ever really take advantage of using all that space for actual game play in 99% of titles. Not saying it's not possible, and there are probably some advantages for developers in not having to worry quite so much about space, but if more than a handful of titles use it (out of necessity) I'll be amazed. Also, and this is a bit random, can you imagine being a gamer sat in front of a console that was constantly spinning the disc at high speed to read in game assets? If a bluray drive is anything like every other optical drive I'd imagine it wouldn't exactly be whisper quiet and ultra-cool while doing such a thing.