Battlefied 2 Modern Combat 360 Screenshots [Archive]

Brevity

01-11-2006, 07:25 PM

For the lazy:

Battlefield:MC for X360 with PICS!

Battlefield 2: Modern Combat™ explodes onto Xbox 360™, bringing the field of battle to life like never before. Bullets whiz by and score the environments around you, spent minigun shells rain down from hovering helicopters, and explosions shatter your field of vision. Delivering the over-the-top action of the award-winning Battlefield™ franchise, Battlefield 2: Modern Combat lets you wage modern war your way.

With new maps taking you to Wake Island, the wilds of the Middle East and the snowy landscape of northern China, Battlefield 2: Modern Combat escalates the battles to a new level of excitement. Battlefield 2: Modern Combat also features all-new vehicles including snowmobiles and min-gun equipped vans that offer new ways to eliminate your enemies.

Battlefield 2: Modern Combat delivers the Battlefield franchise’s trademark multiplayer action on Xbox Live®, delivering ferocious 24 player online* battles. Fighting for one of 4 sides – the US, the European Union, the Chinese, or the newly formed Middle East Coalition - and armed with the latest modern weaponry, you are given full control over the 30+ vehicles in the game.

Battlefield 2: Modern Combat on Xbox 360 also boasts class-leading online community features, including full in-game clan support, friends lists, voice over IP, and ultra-deep rankings and stat tracking both in-game and on the net.

Battlefield 2: Modern Combat also features an adrenaline-soaked single player campaign where you see both sides of a conflict in one of the most treacherous regions in the world – Kazakhstan. The revolutionary “HotSwapping” feature allows you to always be right in the heart of the non-stop action. Plunge headlong into the fog of war and ultimately choose sides in a furious showdown where nothing is as it seems

• Next-generation graphics deliver eye-bursting visuals, hurling you into the heart of the best-looking Battlefield ever.
• 16 maps including the 3 Xbox Live maps previously only available via download.
• Four new vehicles not previously available in the original Xbox version, including snowmobiles and vans loaded with mini-guns.
• Enhanced HotSwapping takes the revolutionary HotSwap feature even further.
• Ultra-deep online* features, including in-game Clan support, VoIP and a deep stat tracking system that allows you to replay battles to perfect your Battlefield strategy.
• All-new re-designed soldier classes lets you spot each kit at a glance.
• Take control of more than 30 land, sea, and air vehicles, including tanks, helicopters, amphibious craft and fast attack vehicles.
• Own the battlefield with more than 50 state-of-the-art weapons.
• Battle as US, EU, Chinese, or Middle East Coalition troops, each with their own unique arsenals.
• Multiple solider classes including Assault, Sniper, Special Ops, Combat Engineer and Combat Support units.
• Power up your soldier by executing multiple kills quickly. Increase health, take more hits, do more damage and become an unstoppable force on the battlefield.
• Upgrade your unit with new equipment, including thermal vision for the sniper rifle and extra destructive mortar strikes.
• Get promoted through the ranks, from a Private to 5 Star General, as you lead your army to victory.
http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/bf_moderncombat/us/newsletters/360_01_large.jpg
http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/bf_moderncombat/us/newsletters/360_02_large.jpg
http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/bf_moderncombat/us/newsletters/360_03_large.jpg
http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/bf_moderncombat/us/newsletters/360_04_large.jpg
http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/bf_moderncombat/us/newsletters/360_05_large.jpg

DD-KGann

01-11-2006, 07:46 PM

yall

01-11-2006, 07:59 PM

I have the PC (BF2) and Xbox (BF2:MC) versions. I think they are both great games. Yeah, Xbox doesn't have jets or the commander position, but at least the 360 version of MC will have the upgrades based upon rank.

Also, you need at least a $1500 rig to run the PC version at playable framerates.

DD-KGann

01-11-2006, 09:39 PM

Ya'll is right. To get GOOD framerates, it's going to involve some money. Playable framerates varry for different people. Some people can play with 20FPS. Heck, I used to.

SPARTAN VI

01-12-2006, 02:50 PM

The PC version is WAY better... and with the graphics up ALL the way (resolution AT LEAST 1024x768, everything maxed out) it looks better than those screens.

My Rig
P4 Prescott 2.4 OC'd to 2.8
Nvidia 6800GT OC'd
1G of PC3200 RAM

Runs everything maxed out at 1280x1024 : )

Heh, your 6800GT + Prescott can't hold a candle to the Xbox360. If this was a straight port from PC, it would wipe the floor with your rig in both graphics and performance.

And, this one looks kinda weak. Looks like the Xbox version, just with better graphics, and a heaftier price tag.

It's probably just that. People will still buy it, of course. Not everyone's into PC gaming.

This is coming from SLI 7800GTs, Athlon64 3700+ SanDiego OC'ed to 2.7GHz (from 2.2GHz), Abit AN8 SLI, and 1GB of OCZ PC4000 RAM. :cool:

Also, you need at least a $1500 rig to run the PC version at playable framerates.

Not really.
$200 graphics card (6800GS)
$60 motherboard (Chaintech VNF4)
$130 CPU (A64 3000+ or 3200+)
$70 1GB PC3200 RAM (Corsair, Kingston, OCZ, Mushkin, generic)
$20-$30 keyboard/mouse
$110 monitor (Viewsonic flat panel)
$25 speakers (Logitech Z-230)

I forget anything? That's around $500, more or less after tax and shipping.

This will run BF2 at an average of 50+FPS at 1280x1024 4xFSAA and 8xAF.

DD-KGann

01-12-2006, 04:09 PM

Deleted post.

DD-KGann

01-12-2006, 04:14 PM

Heh, your 6800GT + Prescott can't hold a candle to the Xbox360. If this was a straight port from PC, it would wipe the floor with your rig in both graphics and performance.

It's probably just that. People will still buy it, of course. Not everyone's into PC gaming.

This is coming from SLI 7800GTs, Athlon64 3700+ SanDiego OC'ed to 2.7GHz (from 2.2GHz), Abit AN8 SLI, and 1GB of OCZ PC4000 RAM. :cool:

Not really.
$200 graphics card (6800GS)
$60 motherboard (Chaintech VNF4)
$130 CPU (A64 3000+ or 3200+)
$70 1GB PC3200 RAM (Corsair, Kingston, OCZ, Mushkin, generic)
$20-$30 keyboard/mouse
$110 monitor (Viewsonic flat panel)
$25 speakers (Logitech Z-230)

I forget anything? That's around $500, more or less after tax and shipping.

This will run BF2 at an average of 50+FPS at 1280x1024 4xFSAA and 8xAF.

HAHA! You must not know very much, huh? 1G of GOOD RAM usually runs around $100; that graphic card is not $200, and if it is, it must be the budget version of the GT.

By the way, if you have the 7800's and such, why don't you post some screenies. I would love to check them out:hump:

mattgame

01-12-2006, 04:28 PM

Called out!! What's really good?

FB-Gollum

01-12-2006, 05:00 PM

Not really.
$200 graphics card (6800GS)
$60 motherboard (Chaintech VNF4)
$130 CPU (A64 3000+ or 3200+)
$70 1GB PC3200 RAM (Corsair, Kingston, OCZ, Mushkin, generic)
$20-$30 keyboard/mouse
$110 monitor (Viewsonic flat panel)
$25 speakers (Logitech Z-230)

I forget anything? That's around $500, more or less after tax and shipping.

This will run BF2 at an average of 50+FPS at 1280x1024 4xFSAA and 8xAF.

Nice, that's 625 before tax. Don't forget the tower. What media are we going to load the game into the PC with? Better get a drive there. So tack on another 100$ for the Tower/Drive (and we're being nuy conservative) so we're at 725 before tax...OH WAIT...YOU NEED A HDD AS WELL...LOL... and it still won't hold a candle to a 360 that costs half as much and won't require you to tweak the **** out of it to get it running well (like the above mentioned rig, which due to the cheap ass ram, cheap ass motherboard and horrendous refresh rate of the monitor will likely run like **** regardless of what you do).

Oh yeah, OS's aren't free either.

I think that sums it up. Get a 360, don't be a PC fanboy.

PS. If the above mentioned rig holds a steady 50fps on BF2 I'll resign from XBA permanently. But it won't, as soon as the action picks up it'll crap out hardcore.

SPARTAN VI

01-12-2006, 05:11 PM

HAHA! You must not know very much, huh? 1G of GOOD RAM usually runs around $100; that graphic card is not $200, and if it is, it must be the budget version of the GT.

By the way, if you have the 7800's and such, why don't you post some screenies. I would love to check them out:hump:

HAHA! You must be pretty dumb, huh? Judging by your genius post, you know squat about computers. I don't even know everything, but do some goddamn research before you call someone out.

1GB of "good" RAM? What do you call "good" ram? You know, "good" RAM does almost nothing in gaming? Rather, I'd buy "good" RAM for overclocking and stability. :rolleyes:

RAM benchmarks (http://www.guru3d.com/article/memory/301/8/)

Don't mistaken the 512mb of OCZ vs. the 2GB of Corsair memory as a significant reason... the OCZ is running in single channel, and the Corsair is in dual channel- effectively opening up TWICE the bandwidth, therefore doubling the score.

Here's some "good" RAM for $80: GeIL 1GB (2x512) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820144310)

Then there's Corsair Valueselect and some pretty good Mushkin RAM you can grab for $70 or less.

A GeForce 6800GS isn't $200?! I must know nothing...

eVGA 6800GS PCI-Express $195.99 (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=322744)

A 6800GS is a budget version of a 6800GT? God. You straight out called me out and you know shyt about computer gaming... do your homework, kid. :rolleyes:

Battlefield2 benchmarks of midrange graphics cards (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/games-2005_7.html)

F.E.A.R. benchmaks of midrange graphics cards (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/games-2005_13.html)

And you realize the 6800GS has incredible overclocking potential, edging on that of the 6800Ultra. For $200.00... $30-$50 less than a 6800GT, there's no contest. At stock speeds, the 6800GS barely falls short by 1 or 2 frames per second. Ask any hardware enthusiast, the 6800GS flat-out replaces the 6800GT. You do know 6800GT's are no longer in production, right?

Man.. it never hurts to bite into a noob every once in a while. :rofl:

DD-KGann

01-12-2006, 05:12 PM

Well, you made since on all the prices and such. But my rig gets around 75-100FPS, and it's not AMAZING. Just pretty nice. I run 1280-1024, all high except AA, it's only 2x.

DD-KGann

01-12-2006, 05:17 PM

HAHA! You must be pretty dumb, huh? Judging by your genius post, you know squat about computers. I don't even know anything, but do some goddamn research before you call someone out.

1GB of "good" RAM? What do you call "good" ram? You know, "good" RAM does almost nothing in gaming? Rather, I'd buy "good" RAM for overclocking and stability. :rolleyes:

RAM benchmarks (http://www.guru3d.com/article/memory/301/8/)

Don't mistaken the 512mb of OCZ vs. the 2GB of Corsair memory as a significant reason... the OCZ is running in single channel, and the Corsair is in dual channel- effectively opening up TWICE the bandwidth, therefore doubling the score.

Here's some "good" RAM for $80: GeIL 1GB (2x512) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820144310)

Then there's Corsair Valueselect and some pretty good Mushkin RAM you can grab for $70 or less.

A GeForce 6800GS isn't $200?! I must know nothing...

eVGA 6800GS PCI-Express $195.99 (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=322744)

A 6800GS is a budget version of a 6800GT? God. You straight out called me out and you know shyt about computer gaming... do your homework, kid. :rolleyes:

Battlefield2 benchmarks of midrange graphics cards (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/games-2005_7.html)

F.E.A.R. benchmaks of midrange graphics cards (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/games-2005_13.html)

And you realize the 6800GS has incredible overclocking potential, edging on that of the 6800Ultra. For $200.00... $30-$50 less than a 6800GT, there's no contest. At stock speeds, the 6800GS barely falls short by 1 or 2 frames per second. Ask any hardware enthusiast, the 6800GS flat-out replaces the 6800GT. You do know 6800GT's are no longer in production, right?

Man.. it never hurts to bite into a noob every once in a while. :rofl:

Hey dumb****, I'm not a noob. I will admit to my previous ignorance, and admit, I AM WRONG. Something your dumb*** can't do.

You're the dumb**** who said you could build a computer for $500... sounds just as noobish as my post, huh?

And I'd watch it before you go bashing other people, and EXPECIALLY calling them a kid. I am no kid. I would rather not disclose my age on a forum, but I will assure, I am no kid.

And again I ask, let's see these pics of your "super" rig. (7800's, etc)

And once more, I WAS WRONG. My computer gets great framerates and great graphics, but obviously I was wrong about the GS and such. Now, let's see you admit you were wrong about a $500 computer. Oh, I predict it now... you will probably further your ignorance, by making up excusses about your stupid computer pricing.

And yes, if you want to OC, GOOD RAM is needed. (Corsair X's, etc.)

Oh yes, and don't forget, gotta have a PSU to run the machine, huh?

SPARTAN VI

01-12-2006, 05:18 PM

Nice, that's 625 before tax. Don't forget the tower. What media are we going to load the game into the PC with? Better get a drive there. So tack on another 100$ for the Tower/Drive (and we're being nuy conservative) so we're at 725 before tax...OH WAIT...YOU NEED A HDD AS WELL...LOL... and it still won't hold a candle to a 360 that costs half as much and won't require you to tweak the **** out of it to get it running well (like the above mentioned rig, which due to the cheap ass ram, cheap ass motherboard and horrendous refresh rate of the monitor will likely run like **** regardless of what you do).

Oh yeah, OS's aren't free either.

I think that sums it up. Get a 360, don't be a PC fanboy.

PS. If the above mentioned rig holds a steady 50fps on BF2 I'll resign from XBA permanently. But it won't, as soon as the action picks up it'll crap out hardcore.

That's right I forgot about a harddrive, 40gb/80gb should suffice ($40-$60). OS will set you back another $100 or so, and a case, maybe $20-$30.

Cheapass motherboard? You know the Chaintech VNF4 is one of the best s939 motherboard available? Right? .... right?

Cheapass RAM? 1GB (2x512mb) would of the above mentioned RAM is prefectly fine.. where are you pulling these "facts" from?

Don't be a PC fanboy? Are you stupid? Did you come across me defending the PC once and immediate classify me as a PC fanboy? You realize, since I've bought the Xbox360 I've been gaming exclusively on it? You haven't seen me running around trying to do get-togethers for DOA4 and PGR3?
I'm at a Xbox fansite for godsakes... I've been on staff here for over a year and half! PC fanboy? What is the world coming to...

I even said, in that exact post, that his PC (6800GT) wont hold a candle to the Xbox360.. then you use that exact line and feed it back to me? What the hell... :confused:

PS. If the above mentioned rig holds a steady 50fps on BF2 I'll resign from XBA permanently. But it won't, as soon as the action picks up it'll crap out hardcore.

As per the benchmarks I clearly provided, It holds an average of 50fps. You want "steady" readings, I can show you framerate distribution charts for FEAR as FEAR is the only game that provides that.

Oh.. and for the screenshot for my rig. I don't have BF2, but I do have CoD2, Quake4, FEAR, B&W2 that I'll happily share.

SPARTAN VI

01-12-2006, 05:21 PM

Hey dumb****, I'm not a noob. I will admit to my previous ignorance, and admit, I AM WRONG. Something your dumb*** can't do.

You're the dumb**** who said you could build a computer for $500... sounds just as noobish as my post, huh?

And I'd watch it before you go bashing other people, and EXPECIALLY calling them a kid. I am no kid. I would rather not disclose my age on a forum, but I will assure, I am no kid.

And again I ask, let's see these pics of your "super" rig. (7800's, etc)

And once more, I WAS WRONG. My computer gets great framerates and great graphics, but obviously I was wrong about the GS and such. Now, let's see you admit you were wrong about a $500 computer. Oh, I predict it now... you will probably further your ignorance, by making up excusses about your stupid computer pricing.

And yes, if you want to OC, GOOD RAM is needed. (Corsair X's, etc.)

Oh yes, and don't forget, gotta have a PSU to run the machine, huh?

'tard. If you had given yourself a second to breathe you'd see that I just admitted my $500 error.

swivel

01-12-2006, 05:23 PM

There's no need to fight. If you have money, build a great PC, and buy every console that comes out on a whim.

If your parents are getting annoyed at you for constantly asking them to buy toys for you, stick with the single console that you attach yourself to.

My neighbor recently bought himself a Ferrari. I drove my Civic over there and told him he was an idiot for spending all of that money. I told him how cheap my Civic was, and that it would also drive me into town.

I'm pretty sure I won that argument with him, and that he feels stupid racing around town in a car that costs WAY too much for me (which means it MUST be too expensive for everyone else, because isn't the rest of the world JUST LIKE ME?)

DD-KGann

01-12-2006, 05:24 PM

SPARTAN VI

01-12-2006, 05:31 PM

Yes, I didn't see that. Obviously you DO know quite a bit about computers. Well, good luck, I am no PC fanboy either, but I love it.

Sorry about the continuos bashing... I apalogize. No need to talk **** when you are hiding behind a monitor, eh?

Here are pictures of my computer:

http://home.graffiti.net/spartanvi:graffiti.net/desk.jpg

http://home.graffiti.net/spartanvi:graffiti.net/deskleft.jpg

http://home.graffiti.net/spartanvi:graffiti.net/deskright.jpg

http://home.graffiti.net/spartanvi:graffiti.net/rigcpu.jpg

http://home.graffiti.net/spartanvi:graffiti.net/rigsli.jpg

Athlon64 3700+ SanDiego @ 2.7GHz (245x11 + 1.55v) w/ Zalman Cu7700
Abit AN8 SLI
2x3DFuzion 7800GT SLI
Dell 2005FPW 20.1" Wide Aspect
1GB OCZ PC4000 (one stick, buying the second stick later)
Antec NeoPower 480w PSU (dual 12v rails, 36amps)
Logitech Z5300e 5.1 surround
Some crappity X-Dreamer II case... I hate it..

SPARTAN VI

01-12-2006, 05:33 PM

Yes, I didn't see that. Obviously you DO know quite a bit about computers. Well, good luck, I am no PC fanboy either, but I love it.

Sorry about the continuos bashing... I apalogize. No need to talk **** when you are hiding behind a monitor, eh?

Ditto man. I'm sure you'd understand if someone calls you out on something so blatantly obvious.

Apology accepted, and I apologize, too.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/s/y/syy106/hug.JPG

Here are some more yummy piczors:

http://home.graffiti.net/spartanvi:graffiti.net/7800GTcard.jpg

http://home.graffiti.net/spartanvi:graffiti.net/7800GT2.jpg

I used to have 4 7800GTs. :D

DD-KGann

01-12-2006, 05:40 PM

Point proven. Sorry for calling you out.

SPARTAN VI

01-12-2006, 05:57 PM

Point proven. Sorry for calling you out.

No problem.

What about Gollum, hit and run. Throws my own post back in my face, acts like he's figured me out, and takes off.

Fact is, the $800 or so PC that was "virtually" built in our imagination is still significantly less than the $1500 claim. That was the point. Second, I wish I had, but I didn't clearly state that the rig wasn't completely built, the question "am I forgetting anything?" indicates that I knew I forgot something(/s).

To come in here and flatout say I forgot something is telling me what I already know. And I think I was being pretty generous with those prices, I'm sure had I actually did some price checks or looked up a barebones system, it'd cost less.

Then he passes me as a fanboy when I've obviously been defending the Xbox360's integrity in the first place. In fact, take one glance at my posts over at [H]ardForum or Anandtech and you'll think I'm an Xbox fanboy. Take another look at my posts at the same forums under "Video" discussion and you'd think I'm a PC fanboy.

swivel

01-12-2006, 06:04 PM

Nice rig Spartan, thanks for the lovely pics.

That is like porn for me.

If you want, I'll try and find the link to a detail of a system I just built. My first water-cooled rig. Lots of fun.

SPARTAN VI

01-12-2006, 06:09 PM

Nice rig Spartan, thanks for the lovely pics.

That is like porn for me.

If you want, I'll try and find the link to a detail of a system I just built. My first water-cooled rig. Lots of fun.

Thanks!

Feel free to post pictures here... or not because this thread is about BF2. There's a thread in the Tech discussion here (http://www.xboxaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68406&highlight=XBA) where you can post your pictures.

I'd love to try watercooling some day, but that's 2[H]4 Me. Something about water in my PC feels wrong... I'm sure that'll change once I try it, though. :D

That was a nice story about your Civic vs. friend's Ferrari. I'd do the same, but instead of getting a Civic, I went somewhere in between. I bought a 2005 Mustang about 6 months ago, fast, gorgeous, and not too expensive. :hump:

FB-Gollum

01-12-2006, 06:57 PM

That's right I forgot about a harddrive, 40gb/80gb should suffice ($40-$60). OS will set you back another $100 or so, and a case, maybe $20-$30.

Cheapass motherboard? You know the Chaintech VNF4 is one of the best s939 motherboard available? Right? .... right?

Cheapass RAM? 1GB (2x512mb) would of the above mentioned RAM is prefectly fine.. where are you pulling these "facts" from?

Don't be a PC fanboy? Are you stupid? Did you come across me defending the PC once and immediate classify me as a PC fanboy? You realize, since I've bought the Xbox360 I've been gaming exclusively on it? You haven't seen me running around trying to do get-togethers for DOA4 and PGR3?
I'm at a Xbox fansite for godsakes... I've been on staff here for over a year and half! PC fanboy? What is the world coming to...

I even said, in that exact post, that his PC (6800GT) wont hold a candle to the Xbox360.. then you use that exact line and feed it back to me? What the hell... :confused:

As per the benchmarks I clearly provided, It holds an average of 50fps. You want "steady" readings, I can show you framerate distribution charts for FEAR as FEAR is the only game that provides that.

Oh.. and for the screenshot for my rig. I don't have BF2, but I do have CoD2, Quake4, FEAR, B&W2 that I'll happily share.

Am I stupid? You're the one that can't do basic math (sorry, allow me one cheap shot, but you were off by 125$, you know there's a calculator in your start menu). You wanna talk about PC knowledge? I'm no expert, but I know you need a ROM drive and I know you need a case to keep it all in and an OS to operate it. I am also aware that your numbers are unrealistically low to begin with. I also know that the system you are talking about is actually over twice as expensive as you originally quoted it and still won't perform anywhere near a 360. So no, I guess I'm not that stupid. Oh I also know that a PC will only run as fast as the weakest link in the processing chain, so you can put in all the great parts you'd like, as soon as you start to cut corners you will severely effect performance.

I don't care about averages. I care about my FPS holding up when the **** hits the fan.

As for the fanboy comment, it was meant more as a joke. I sincerely apologize for offending you with that. It was a little out of context and didn't really make a lot of sense.

Let's face it, the PC is dying as a platform. It's too expensive, too complicated and will soon be replaced by some newer emergent platform.

yall

01-12-2006, 06:59 PM

Well, the 1500 wasn't meant to be a specific price point for decent BF2 framerates, just a serving suggestion. The point behind the comment was that for someone to claim the PC version as ultimately superior must take into account the cost of the platform.

My rig ran about $1500, but mostly because of more expensive features like XP Pro, lit case, flash readers, etc. It's your typical PC Gamer "mid-range" setup.

At any rate true BF addicts, like me will be picking it up. I just wish I could play BF2 now. The DVD version had the cd key printed on the manual. Since I have lost it, EA wants me to send my game DVD, $10.00, and a f'n explanation as to why I need a new key, to obtain a replacement. Frikin EA :mad: :mad: :mad:

swivel

01-12-2006, 07:24 PM

.

Let's face it, the PC is dying as a platform. It's too expensive, too complicated and will soon be replaced by some newer emergent platform.

I don't even know where to begin.

PC's today are cheap, cheap, cheap. The first PC I owned was over $3,000 and was painfully slow, even for the software of the day. It had limited functionality, and a monochrome screen. There was no hard drive, and no way of getting 'online'.

Now I can get a system that does my taxes, plays DVD's, creates presentations, helps with homework, provides unlimited research and learning, has great free porn, stores/alters/develops my photos, and keeps my music organized and handy... all for $400 if I want.

Also... your beloved Microsoft is pimping its next OS (Vista) as a GAMING platform. They are getting ready to devote more money advertising the PC as a gaming system than they did for the original XBox. It is a major initiative with them. They want to standardize the control schemes for the PC (namely using the XBox2 controller), and they are going to push for more and more games to be devoloped for both consoles and the PC. This is Bill Gates, the same guy that makes our favorite console.

So... if you think the PC is dying, you are going against the smartest guy in the industry. If you thinks PC's are too cheap, you are choosing to ignore history, if you think they are too complex, you have never used DOS, Windows ME, Windows 95, Windows 3.11, Unix, Linux, etc... Computers are getting cheaper, more powerful, and dominate.

Oh, and there wouldn't be an XBox, or an XBox2 if it wasn't for the technology that is developed and designed for PC users. We finance the creation of the top-shelf technology, and then you guys get to use yesterday's tech for a few stagnant years.

Your ignorance on these matters is simply astounding. And I use the word 'ignorance' in its purest sense of not knowing anything about these matters. Please don't misunderstand and assume that I am calling you an idiot, or dumb, because I'm not. You may be a genius in many areas, but about PC's, and gaming in general, you are displaying a level of ignorance that makes me dizzy.

With all respect intended.

SPARTAN VI

01-12-2006, 07:55 PM

Am I stupid? You're the one that can't do basic math (sorry, allow me one cheap shot, but you were off by 125$, you know there's a calculator in your start menu).

Holy hell. Cheap shot taken. Doesn't even matter.

You wanna talk about PC knowledge? I'm no expert, but I know you need a ROM drive and I know you need a case to keep it all in and an OS to operate it. I am also aware that your numbers are unrealistically low to begin with. I also know that the system you are talking about is actually over twice as expensive as you originally quoted it and still won't perform anywhere near a 360. So no, I guess I'm not that stupid. Oh I also know that a PC will only run as fast as the weakest link in the processing chain, so you can put in all the great parts you'd like, as soon as you start to cut corners you will severely effect performance.

You know what you think you know. Like swivel said, PC's are cheap as hell now. You *think* it's twice as expensive as it really is, you really want me to go online and find exactly how much each part will cost? My estimates on every item are spot on, within $10 difference.

PC will only run as fast as the "weakest link?" Wow, you really need to do some research. Games nowadays are almost completely GPU limited, any CPU bottleneck you might remember from years ago is no more. :sleeping:

A lowly Sempron 2500+ or what not will play FEAR just as well as a AMD FX60.. but about... 1 frame less. The difference? Over $1000.00.

I don't care about averages. I care about my FPS holding up when the **** hits the fan.

Um... ok. You keep your framerate "holding up" by getting the proper hardware (videocard usually). You get the proper hardware by knowing what it is. How do you know if it's proper or not? Reviews. Benchmarks. Average frames-per-second just happen to be the most pracitcal way of measuring performance.

Let's face it, the PC is dying as a platform. It's too expensive, too complicated and will soon be replaced by some newer emergent platform.

:rofl:

As far as I know, all platforms are "dying." I hypothesize that all gaming platforms will merge. PC and consoles alike will become one "media center." It's already happening. Media Centers.. the Xbox360. Before a console used to play games. Now they've taken on PC characteristics. PC's now come in "Media Center" versions to play games and watch movies on. They're both converging on the same path. This is fact.

Don't be such a console fanboy. :p

DD-KGann

01-12-2006, 08:16 PM

Spartan, now that there is no heat between us, I sit back and read your posts, and they make perfect sense. I was making the VERY same point to an EBGames worker, about how consoles and PC's are merging, and it is coming fast!

By the way, VERY nice pictures. I will post mine soon, although it is not water cooled.

Seagate 7,200RPM 80G HDD
Maxtor 7,200RPM 100G HDD
RaidMax Black Phantom case w/ blue LED fan and Blade Fan plate
Leadtek A400TDH GT (6800GT GPU)
P4 Prescott 2.4GHz OC'd to 2.8GHz
PatriotX Lifetime 1024M of PC3200 RAM
Atrix 480W PSU
Sony DVD/RW
Sony CDR-W
Logitech MX1000 mouse
Logitech Elite Keyboard
And I kick it old school... CRT monitor : P (Response times are great with a CRT. My wife has an Alienware Area51 5500, and my CRT monitor has faster response times than her Alienware LCD :D)

Will post picks soon!

FB-Gollum

01-12-2006, 08:29 PM

I don't even know where to begin.

PC's today are cheap, cheap, cheap. The first PC I owned was over $3,000 and was painfully slow, even for the software of the day. It had limited functionality, and a monochrome screen. There was no hard drive, and no way of getting 'online'.

Now I can get a system that does my taxes, plays DVD's, creates presentations, helps with homework, provides unlimited research and learning, has great free porn, stores/alters/develops my photos, and keeps my music organized and handy... all for $400 if I want.

Also... your beloved Microsoft is pimping its next OS (Vista) as a GAMING platform. They are getting ready to devote more money advertising the PC as a gaming system than they did for the original XBox. It is a major initiative with them. They want to standardize the control schemes for the PC (namely using the XBox2 controller), and they are going to push for more and more games to be devoloped for both consoles and the PC. This is Bill Gates, the same guy that makes our favorite console.

So... if you think the PC is dying, you are going against the smartest guy in the industry. If you thinks PC's are too cheap, you are choosing to ignore history, if you think they are too complex, you have never used DOS, Windows ME, Windows 95, Windows 3.11, Unix, Linux, etc... Computers are getting cheaper, more powerful, and dominate.

Oh, and there wouldn't be an XBox, or an XBox2 if it wasn't for the technology that is developed and designed for PC users. We finance the creation of the top-shelf technology, and then you guys get to use yesterday's tech for a few stagnant years.

Your ignorance on these matters is simply astounding. And I use the word 'ignorance' in its purest sense of not knowing anything about these matters. Please don't misunderstand and assume that I am calling you an idiot, or dumb, because I'm not. You may be a genius in many areas, but about PC's, and gaming in general, you are displaying a level of ignorance that makes me dizzy.

With all respect intended.

I understand your intended respect and I will respond in kind. *******! Just kidding. I think you've taken too broad of a definition to what I've said. I said the PC is dying as a platform. This is true. Now, I'm not saying PC's won't exist entirely, they certainly aren't going extinct. However, I do believe they will be soon be replaced with more consumer friendly technology in the mass market to hanle the duties not suited to other devices (like the 360) soon. First off, they are expensive. They are cheap only relative to what they once were, but against an average disposable income they are a considerable expense. Furthermore, most people hate them. They are prone to issues and the average person does not have the wherewithal to fix them and therefore incurs a maintenance bill and stress. It's not a good product.

Microsoft is working towards building the true "digital lifestyle". The aspects to the success of this project are going to be affordability (meaning that virtually every household will be able to "upgrade") and ease of use (if the technology doesn't make life easier and or better what's the point?) and standardization (for it to be truly connective and heavily profitable, we've all gotta be using the same thing). Remember, most people are not PC experts or even intermediates. Most people do not know how to close the pop ups in Internet Explorer. Most families are not equipped with the know how to feel in control od their PC. If you want to reach the unwashed masses you need to make it easy and transparent. This equates to a utility based equivalent to a 360. A counterpart that handle functions the 360 and other emerging devices aren't isn't suited for. It will do all your email, accounting, act as a hub for various devices in the home with an extreme and intuitive level of connectivity so that the end user doesn't have to think about it. They also only have to upgrade every 5 years, as this is a contained package. (This is a good thing because as we know software makes more money than hardware). The vast majority of end users I believe would gladly adopt a technology of this sort. Resultant to this, the PC as we know it, would be replaced as the primary tech device in consumer households.

To be frank, there is so much more to it than this. I'd really have to write a paper covering all the bases and slowly building the argument to make it palatable in this arena. Suffice it to say, Swivel, I encourage you to view a 20 year picture, and consider the average consumer uses of a PC. If you think about what I've said, you'll see that your arguments of Bill Gates actions actually support my idea.

Tony_Macaroni

01-12-2006, 09:06 PM

SPARTAN VI

01-13-2006, 12:27 AM

Some of us dont have NASA computers.... (this goes out to all the "Just get it for PC" posts :nightmare

If his rig is a NASA machine... what does that make mine? :watchout:

To the topic: I wont be getting BF2:MC for Xbox360. If I want the game, I'll simply buy it for my monstrous gaming rig... where it truly belongs. Not that I'm a PC fanboy, I mean... I only bought my Xbox360 at the Zero Hour event. :hardcore:

DD-KGann

01-13-2006, 01:18 AM

True. His computer does have the upper-hand.

swivel

01-13-2006, 06:24 AM

First off, they are expensive. They are cheap only relative to what they once were, but against an average disposable income they are a considerable expense. Furthermore, most people hate them. They are prone to issues and the average person does not have the wherewithal to fix them and therefore incurs a maintenance bill and stress. It's not a good product.

I'm going to assume you are playing with me. Over a BILLION PC's have been sold. That is 1,000 million. That is more than all gaming devices ever made.

Solitaire is the most-played game in the history of gaming. More hours have been spent playing this PC game, than any other game ever made on any platform. Why? Because, unlike what you are saying, anyone can do it... and they have... and they do. Aunts and grandmas spend more time onlime playing Cribbage and Bridge on Pogo.com than everyone in this forum has spent online playing Halo. Again, I do not expect you to know this, because you obviously do not like computers, and you know absolutely nothing about them. Which is fine, but at least embrace the knowledge that others are offering you. Don't be resistant to learning something.

Right now PC gaming is going gangbusters. The last two years have had more A+ titles than any other time in my lifetime (which completely covers the history of all electronic gaming).

I love my consoles, and I love my PC. There is room for both. You would be better served (and people would respect your opinion more) if you were to replace all of your hatred towards something you don't understand with a simple admission that you do not know much about them, and therefore do not like them.

Oh... and BF2 looks great. Can't wait.

FB-Gollum

01-13-2006, 08:45 AM

You know, I bet more cows than that have been sold and traded. And not too long ago it was pretty common to find one in every home. Get a sense of history.

swivel

01-13-2006, 02:39 PM

You know, I bet more cows than that have been sold and traded. And not too long ago it was pretty common to find one in every home. Get a sense of history.

You can't play electronic games on a cow. So.... bad analogy.

Should we contine this discussion, or are you playing with me? I have a very hard time believing anyone is filled with as much of one of two things as you would seem to be... either hate, or ignorance. Neither one makes sense, which makes me think that this is some sort of joke that I fail to see the humor in.

Please PM me if this is a gag of some sort.

FB-Gollum

01-13-2006, 04:00 PM

You can't play electronic games on a cow. So.... bad analogy.

Should we contine this discussion, or are you playing with me? I have a very hard time believing anyone is filled with as much of one of two things as you would seem to be... either hate, or ignorance. Neither one makes sense, which makes me think that this is some sort of joke that I fail to see the humor in.

Please PM me if this is a gag of some sort.

There is no hatred or ignorance. Please refrain from those terms.

It's not a bad analogy, you're missing the point. Think big. Everyone had a cow because they needed the cow for what it did, provide milk. But no one really wanted a cow, they wanted milk.

Cows were expensive, they required regular maintenance, got sick and had to be replaced regularly. They were quite a headache. Nevermind the milking. That's another story.

Things evolved though. We created pasteurization and refrigeration. These technologies proved to be far easier to use than a cow. Everyone bought a refrigerator, stored their milk in it, sold their cows and was very happy. Of course, there are still cows. Farmers have them and they will tell you that milk from the cow is much better than what you get at the store. But people don't care, the milk they are getting is good enough, does the job and it's much more simple and cost effective than keeping the cow.

People (and I mean regular people, not gamers who know every in and out of building a gaming rig, as in the vast majority) don't like PC's, much like they wouldn't like cows if one of them were silly enough to try and have one anymore. They want their email, their business apps, they want to surf the web and play some games, that's it. They don't want to upgrade their OS, back up their hardrive all the time and do regular maintenance when their computer crashes/gets a virus/gets loaded with spyware etc. It's a headache.
So much like cows, as soon as a "better" (meaning easier, less costly and less time consuming) platform becomes accepted, the PC will slowly find itself marginalized, perhaps left to reside only in the homes of farmers along with their cows. This new technology may be based on the PC, (much like we still need cows if we want milk), but it will differ in that it will strip down to core user friendly functionality with little maintenance or upgrading required. It will also be heavily secured, exceedingly difficult to hack or infect with viruses or spyware. Of course, there will be plentiful software bundles that will easily download and install themeslves so that people may customize for the uses that suit their lives.

If you think this is filled with ignorance and "hate" (a really poor choice of word, highly melodramatic for what should be a very good and civil debate). I would encourage you to pick up some history books and do a little reading. It is the natural course of things. The PC "as we know it" is doomed because all things are doomed to be replaced by something better.

PS. When was the last time you watched a VHS tape? Not all that long I go I bet. What dominates the shelves at Blockbuster? It was only a few years ago we'd never heard of a DVD.

DD-KGann

01-13-2006, 04:26 PM

Gollum, you make a good point about the cows and such... but Swivel makes a good point about PC's.

I don't know... it's gonna be a good fight... $20 ON SWIVEL!

swivel

01-13-2006, 07:53 PM

There is no hatred or ignorance. Please refrain from those terms.

If you think this is filled with ignorance and "hate"

I would encourage you to pick up some history books and do a little reading.

PS. When was the last time you watched a VHS tape? Not all that long I go I bet. What dominates the shelves at Blockbuster? It was only a few years ago we'd never heard of a DVD.

Ignorance is not knowing whether or not I have a grasp of history.

Hate is what you must feel towards me to be demeaning, instead of simply asking me if I enjoy history, and whether or not I even read.

Asking me would have been a sign that you want to satisfy your ignorance regarding my knowledge of history, and your freedom from hate for taking such a civil step.

You did neither, and proved my point. I urge you to look over your responses to me again and see if they were devoid of hatred, in this case towards PC's (and me, as a PC supporter). You may come to a different conclusion than I did, which is to be expected, but I find that my viewpoint was verified by a recent perusal of our debate.

I am somewhat relieved to find out that you are being serious about your death of the PC theory, and it wasn't a gag. I am shocked that you really believe this, and can only assume that you have little experience with computers, and do not know many people that use them. I'm quite shocked that there are that many people who have not, but I have neglected to inquire what country you are from, so I assume it is possible. Forgive my ignorance on such matters.

Still, I'm glad that we can have this discussion.

Oh, and your cow analogy is still horrible, in my opinion. According to your analogy, we are going to have more and more PC's in the future, but they will be kept away from people, but we will still be able to employ them through some home appliance. Perhaps the world will use supercomputers, kept by large technology firms, and we will rent CPU cycles, and have the results sent to us through a set-top box? Interesting, but I think people want to own their own hardware, and would not trust sensitive information to be sent over the net like that. Still, since we have more cows now, with refridgeration, than ever before, I do not see the death of the PC in your analogy. Perhaps you can explain it some more.

Here's what I think. And I could be wrong. You hate PC gaming because you don't have much experience with them, and it is a common trait to hate the things which are mysterious to us. Perhaps you resent the computer that you use to get on this forum, and wish you could upgrade, but lack the funds. The particulars are not important... here is what is:

You make the fallacy of assuming that what you feel is what everyone else feels. This is a fatal conceit that plagues most people. They think that their viewpoint is the correct one, and that anyone who disagrees is on the fringe. Just because you hate PC gaming, doesn't mean that everyone does. Just because you want the PC to die, doesn't mean everyone does. I've recieved PM's today regarding your hatred for PC's, and the fact that it pops up now and then. I would love to explore that with you further.

Here's the coup de grace:

The PC is what has made Bill Gates the richest man in the world. He, and his company, have done nothing but lose money on the XBox. The PC supports your entire console universe. It is economics, my friend. Microsoft is not going to abandon its cash cow to continue losing money on its consoles. I personally think that Microsoft got into the console business to push home computers. Bill Gates said 10 years ago that he wanted the computer to move into the living room. The XBox 2 is part of that move, along with Media Center Edition. Vista will be a culmination of many of these efforts, and they are all tied together.

The Xbox is built out of PC components. You are going to see many games cross-platformed for both the XBox2 and the PC, just like last generation. Please start thinking of PC users as your brothers-in-arms. We are rooting for the same company. Do not wish ill will (hate) what you have little experience with (ignorance).

Peace.

DD-KGann

01-14-2006, 12:04 AM

By the way, for the record, go ahead and check how many people play Battlefield 2 for the Xbox, versus how many for the PC. PC dominates by a HUGE margin, which kinda kills your "PC is dying" theory.

Heck, why don't you check how many people play online PC games, versus Xbox Live. Won't even be a competition! That's not including how many just play the single player on PC.

FB-Gollum

01-14-2006, 12:14 AM

Ignorance is not knowing whether or not I have a grasp of history.

Hate is what you must feel towards me to be demeaning, instead of simply asking me if I enjoy history, and whether or not I even read.

Asking me would have been a sign that you want to satisfy your ignorance regarding my knowledge of history, and your freedom from hate for taking such a civil step.

You did neither, and proved my point. I urge you to look over your responses to me again and see if they were devoid of hatred, in this case towards PC's (and me, as a PC supporter). You may come to a different conclusion than I did, which is to be expected, but I find that my viewpoint was verified by a recent perusal of our debate.

I am somewhat relieved to find out that you are being serious about your death of the PC theory, and it wasn't a gag. I am shocked that you really believe this, and can only assume that you have little experience with computers, and do not know many people that use them. I'm quite shocked that there are that many people who have not, but I have neglected to inquire what country you are from, so I assume it is possible. Forgive my ignorance on such matters.

Still, I'm glad that we can have this discussion.

Oh, and your cow analogy is still horrible, in my opinion. According to your analogy, we are going to have more and more PC's in the future, but they will be kept away from people, but we will still be able to employ them through some home appliance. Perhaps the world will use supercomputers, kept by large technology firms, and we will rent CPU cycles, and have the results sent to us through a set-top box? Interesting, but I think people want to own their own hardware, and would not trust sensitive information to be sent over the net like that. Still, since we have more cows now, with refridgeration, than ever before, I do not see the death of the PC in your analogy. Perhaps you can explain it some more.

Here's what I think. And I could be wrong. You hate PC gaming because you don't have much experience with them, and it is a common trait to hate the things which are mysterious to us. Perhaps you resent the computer that you use to get on this forum, and wish you could upgrade, but lack the funds. The particulars are not important... here is what is:

You make the fallacy of assuming that what you feel is what everyone else feels. This is a fatal conceit that plagues most people. They think that their viewpoint is the correct one, and that anyone who disagrees is on the fringe. Just because you hate PC gaming, doesn't mean that everyone does. Just because you want the PC to die, doesn't mean everyone does. I've recieved PM's today regarding your hatred for PC's, and the fact that it pops up now and then. I would love to explore that with you further.

Here's the coup de grace:

The PC is what has made Bill Gates the richest man in the world. He, and his company, have done nothing but lose money on the XBox. The PC supports your entire console universe. It is economics, my friend. Microsoft is not going to abandon its cash cow to continue losing money on its consoles. I personally think that Microsoft got into the console business to push home computers. Bill Gates said 10 years ago that he wanted the computer to move into the living room. The XBox 2 is part of that move, along with Media Center Edition. Vista will be a culmination of many of these efforts, and they are all tied together.

The Xbox is built out of PC components. You are going to see many games cross-platformed for both the XBox2 and the PC, just like last generation. Please start thinking of PC users as your brothers-in-arms. We are rooting for the same company. Do not wish ill will (hate) what you have little experience with (ignorance).

Peace.

Ok, I could have inquired as to your grasp of history. You are correct. Please share with me your thoughts on the historical cycles of technological development. There is no sarcasm here.

In my defense. Your fallacy is you assumed my position on PC's without asking me. So touche. I like PC's. So one of the basic pillars of your argumet is wrong. I don't "want" the PC to die. I don't hate it. That's ridiculous. It piece of hardware that has given me much pleasure in my life and it's historical significance will be studies centuries after it's full extinction). I am simply hypothesizing based on what I know of the current trends, the plans I see unveiled by major corporations, and the general trend of the consumer public.

To answer your assumptions about me:

1. I have been using computers for a very long time. I was a co-sysop of various bullentin boards back in the pre net days (yes I know being a co-sysop was akin to a forum moderator these days) but it's just for historical perspective on who I am. I'm not a pro, but I've been around a while. I watched DOS rise and fall. 286, 386, 486...whatever. It was evolving. Of course, I couldn't help but notice how people around me floundered. I was a "computer person" surrounded by people who weren't. I played all the online games. I raped at Quake 2. I was such a ***** camper I admit it. Anyhoo, computers have been a big part of my life. I rather enjoy my PC. I built it and it runs great and it was pretty cheap too.

2. I have no hatred for you. None at all. I'm actually rather shocked you would think I feel that way. If I didn't resect your thoughts I wouldn't bother responding. I'm kind of a jerk like that. I told you to get a sense of history rather harshly. I again apologize for that. I would like you to look at this from a historical perspective more closely though, and make less assumptions about the actual physical nature of the device. I do not recall mentioning super computers anywhere. The only things I have said are the philosophies which it would be founded on, and the focus of it's function. Neither of these have I covered in full clarity, like I said, it would be a 20 page paper. If you want to get into nitty gritty stuff, yeah it would probably be based on PC technology, but it will be distinct enough that you have to call it as something new. But I'm sure we'll get into that yet. Not a PC, not a MAC. Maybe like a desktop size blackberry on roids. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Here's my hypothesis,

The PC is "dying" because historically it is shown that devices will always move to be more reliable, more simple, more cost effective more whatever. Every now and then, a guy has an idea, a company makes a move and a new emergent technology overthrows the previous standard. I believe history supports that.

The PC "as we know it" and by this I mean a device that bears enough similarity to our current desktop, to be considered the same thing, both in terms of software and hardware, will be replaced sooner than later. By this I mean the PC is well over 50% of the way through it's cycle. It dominates so heavily the levy is going to break. Do not consider physical design in this argument.

The PC did not make Bill Gates the richest man in the world. Software did. The PC is the current vehicle for this software. The consumer base will dictate the vehicle in future. The PC can chage. Why build two devices that do the same thing when you can build 2 that maximize standarized and purpose driven design for opposing purposes? Bill Gates doesn't build PC's. His concern is to dominate the software and service market. The hardware is a vehicle. That hardware can and will change and most likely someone like Gates will not wait to react to a trend, he will enact one through some action (because yes I consider Microsoft to be the number one contender to make that move).

Here's what I consider the other essential irony of your counter argument. You say that I need to look beyond what I see and see what other see. Let go of my bias. However I believe that you are a far more dedicated PC enthusiast than I. I think you are much further beyond the average consumer. So who do you think of us carries the greater bias from the consumer average? Maybe you need to think about what I am saying. So i'll say it one mroe time. Little ignorance, no hate and lots of experience. So please, stop trying to sell me on the fact that I'm a hate filled inexperienced ignoramus. It somewhat paints me as a baboon and I don't feel that's necessarily the best primate to represent me.

To answer the claim of Vista as a gaming platform. Don't you feel it offers an incentive for PC developers to develop for 360 as well? Don't you think that their admitted strategy of integration would be a core principle in all their design decisions? I fell the 360 will benefit immensely from this only further cementing the move towards the console as preferred platform for gaming. We're a mouse attacment away from Civ IV on your 360. That I think would do it for me, and for a lot of people.

Furthermore, the 360 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Affordable purpose driven, supremely intutive and standardized. If this happened for the home computing market software developers everywhere would rejoice. Perhaps only a handful of hardware configs to code for. Bliss, profitable bliss. Bill Gates is a software developer.

Answer my argument, or perhaps adapt it. What do you see happening and why? Give me your 20 year projection.

TheCovenant

01-14-2006, 01:26 AM

....That's ridiculous. It piece of hardware that has given me much pleasure in my life (PORN) and it's historical significance will be studies centuries after it's full extinction). I am simply hypothesizing based on what I know of the current trends, the plans I see unveiled by major corporations.......

This was avery enjoyable thread, until every argument ended in hugs and tears. AH well, good read fellas. Spartan, you own my soul at forum debates :)

Ninjermy

01-14-2006, 01:36 AM

This thread made my day. Thank you all for arguing!

SPARTAN VI

01-14-2006, 02:19 AM

This was avery enjoyable thread, until every argument ended in hugs and tears. AH well, good read fellas. Spartan, you own my soul at forum debates :)

Joo no it brova.

Nothing like cold hard facts wash to wash down all that truth. :hump:

DD-KGann

01-14-2006, 02:47 AM

Well, this thread went from a simple "WOW COOL, LOOK BF2 PICS!"; to me and Spartan butting heads; to Gollum and Swivel having a civil, and quite respectible debate.

Wow, thank the heavens for forums.

swivel

01-14-2006, 07:29 AM

FB-Gollum

01-15-2006, 12:35 AM

Much, much better points Gollum, we are getting somewhere now.

So, you think that the PC will be replaced by something else, do you have any idea what that might be?

I have a guess. It will have to be something that is capable of doing all that a PC does, and yet more. That is how consumer products progress. There are exceptions, when a function is no longer required by consumers, like tallow at the turn of the century, or horses, soon after. Lightbulbs and cars did similar things, but not all things. But the main functions of both, extending the day, and providing travel, they did better and cheaper, so they won out.

Since PC's are so cheap now (this has been part of your argument since the beginning), I wonder what will come along to replace these functions? I do not think it will be a device that a company makes at a loss. Again, the PC subsidizes the XBox. If Gates were to use a device like the XBox to phase out the PC, he would put himself out of business.

(Oh, and your argument that he didn't make his money from PC's is pedantic. Let's have a serious debate of ideas, and not try and win points from an unseen audience by pointing out punctuation errors.)

PC's are not too expensive, as you claim. You can buy a PC for less than the premium XBox 2. And with it, you can engage in what is currently the most popular and lucrative form of electronic gaming. Do you know what that would be? What more people are playing with each other online than any other game? Yes, even more than Pogo and Hearts...

Well, before I tell you, I want to make sure our brains are in the right spot. You see, when I think of gaming, I tend to think of the kinds of games that I like to play. I don't think about crosswords and soduku, I think about RPG's and turn-based strategy games. I think about shooters, and bolting my steering wheel to my desk. I think about dragging out my dance pad for some frantic foot-pounding fun. This is egocentrism at its best. The world revolves around me.

It is difficult to break away from that to see the truth in matters. To think about anything other than Halo as the mover and shaker of the gaming industry. But, we must if we are to be enlightened.

And there is a growth in one area of electronic gaming that is an unrelenting force. I do not think it will ever wane. It has taken over the internet, the television, people's homes. It isn't talked about much, for many are embarassed by it. But it makes more money than any console does, and it is played on the PC. The reason the PC is the vehicle for this is because of the false sense of productivity it provides. The contained money transaction systems. And the fact that the 'net link for the PC is not controlled, or controllable by any august body.

Of course, I'm talking about internet poker.

If we laughed, then we were not successful in centering our brains, and dropping our egotistical notions of what gaming is. If we dismiss this argument, we blind ourselves to the amount of money involved, and the number of people involved.

And we can't forget that this is just another of a dozen arguments that I have presented for the thriving of the PC in years to come.

I would love to hear more from you regarding what you see as an eventual replacement for the PC. So far we have heard that:

1. They are too expensive (which is wrong, they are cheaper than an XBox2 a huge price is the OS, which can be free. Look into the $100 laptop initiative being undertaken by Google)

2. They are hard to use (again, wrong. We are currently in a generational shift, where the aged have a hard time adopting new technology. My friend's 4-year-old gets online and plays Wiggles games all by herself. My dad surfs the internet while he's driving, using a cell-card and a laptop. This increases with every OS upgrade.)

3. Less people are playing them (My last two arguments handled this one)

I look forward to your next response. Please make it something we haven't already covered.

Peace.

Hello again. Well, first things first. I'm glad we're on the constructive path here. I'm glad that we're having clear thought out arguments. I'd certainly like to get into the physical design of the the item in question. I have a lot of new things to say. Before I launch into physical specifications, and my supporting argument thereof, I'd like to respond to couple of points of yours and clear up one thing I consider crucial.

One of the major things you have claimed throughout this is my ignorance to PC's. I gave you a little history in me to clear this up. So the question is, given my actual experience with PC's is unilaterally opposite of your notion, do you still consider me ignorant? I understand if you consider me misguided, but the vast majority of the information you have shared with me about PC's I already knew. I was there, I understand you were too.

On to some quick counter points...

Internet Poker...? So? Why does this exclude the new platform? I said it could surf the web didn't I? I said it also offered better security on transactions. This would inspire a greater amount of trust and promote things like gambling inadvertently. I don't think we have gotten deep enough into the specifics of "what does it exactly do" and "what does it not do?".

What do I consider gaming? Civilization is my favourite all-time series. I loved playing old turn based D&D games on my Amiga. Centurion was a killer RTS. RS:Raven Shield would be my favourite shooter. I'm also a poker fiend (and for my "rep" I was long before it was chic).

The generational shift...easier doesn't mean easy. Because you can check your email doesn't mean you can maintian a PC. How many people can do a wipe and reinstall properly? And really think about it, It's not about functionality only. It's about maintaining.

On to something new...

One of the essential problems with the current systems is the business model is all wrong. Companies competeing with eachother for shares of the public market on individual components with varying levels of compatability is ludicrous. The hardware matters very little to the end user. It's the software that counts. To use an example that's suitable for this forum, look at SC:Chaos Theory. It's graphically incredible and it's only years after the Xbox released that developers were able to truly maximize it's potential. This I believe holds true for most hardware. The next best thing is coming along before we've maxed out what we have.

If you limit the number of possible harware configurations you lower production cost for the developer. If you purpose build components to specifically function with eachother, and by this I mean to a much greater degree than just being compatible, then you will get a more efficient result.

If you changed the business model so that component manufacture (a company like ATI)went primarily to the OEM (being the manufacturer of the actual retail system) rather than to the public, this would increase profit for the OEM because they would have clear and easy targets and they'd get much better efficiency out of their runs. They would also save greatly on R&D costs due to the negated competition for "pushing the envelope" as they would be building to a set standard. This would change also change the nature of the competiton to a price and build quality focus as they compete for contracts from OEM rather than for public favour. I do not believe this would limit their market. This also does not exclude some public sector for truly specialized applications.

Another thing this does not exclude is multiple OEM's. This is not a machine in my opinion which is marketed by a single company. I feel many companies would offer a version of it but once again they all run off the same standard. They would compete on price and build quality. Daewoo makes a cheap one, Toshiba makes one that comes with a big monitor and lots of ports for an arm and a leg. Their hardware standard will be fuctionally identitcal. Their reliabilty, overall build quality, maybe not. This sort of targeted manufacturing would drive costs down through the floor. It would be stupidly cheap.

Developers would win huge. Utterly minimized configurations to account for, lots of power to spare. They can really focus and push things. It won't make a difference to the consumer. It's still gonna take them 5-6 years to pull all the juice out of the current standard.

The consumer is also a winner. With the costs of development driven down software comes fast and furious, is less buggy and costs less. He also doesn't have to upgrade his system and he knows everything will work.

Resultant to this new business model is a hailstorm of other new developments and changes. I'll leave it at this for now because it would just get too long for one post. I'll conclude this portion by saying that I believe a drastic move towards standardization of components along with a new marketing model as well would qualify this new entity as something unique from what we traditionally consider to be a "PC".

Next post we can pick up on hardware, the generational model and some other stuff.

DD-KGann

01-15-2006, 12:35 AM

My dad surfs the internet while he's driving, using a cell-card and a laptop. This increases with every OS upgrade.

That just SOUNDS dangerous:p

swivel

01-15-2006, 06:23 AM

That just SOUNDS dangerous:p

We keep telling him that.

Gollum. What you detail sounds very nice. But it doesn't sound like the death of the PC. It sounds like you want the PC standardized and given a simpler OS. I don't get how that wouldn't still be a PC.

It also sounds utopian to me. What you describe would be great if we had a great standards company involved, but it would be too stagnant. It would also take the power of the consumer out of the equation, leaving it up to the producer.

Competition is what makes technology progress, keeps it cheap, and keeps it improving. You remove that with a standard box that everyone has to comply with and you choke off innovation. Would we have to wait 5 years for a new box? Would the grandmother who uses hers to get online for recipees buy something with the same horsepower as the serious gamer? The number of flaws in this scenario just keep rattling around in my brain. It would never work.

I still haven't heard a good argument redarding the death of the PC. I now understand that you have some knowledge of PCs, but I'm still not convinced that you are agruing out of distaste for them. Or perhaps you put that last line in your post, about them dying, being expensive, and hard to use on a whim, and now you are enjoying the challege of maintaining that stance. ?

Technology and economics just doesn't work the way that you would need them to for your idea to come to fruition. And it still ignores my argument that anything in the future would have to do everything that PC's today do plus more. Which means that they contain the functionality of PC's. Which means that PC's are a subset of this new thing. Which means that PC's are, as a set, contained by the new thing. Which means that PC's still exist.

Perhaps someone from the 80's would look at what I have today, compare it to their Apple IIe, and say that what I have is not a PC, it is something far more than that. Easier to use (pointing and clicking, no disk loading, colorful, plug and play, etc...) and cheaper. They would say, "That isn't a PC... that is some kind of home organizing electrozoidal device!". Then I would open the command prompt, or open notepad to type a letter. "Ohhhh", they would say, "It works like a PC, as well!!".

Here's the thing, Gollum: Consumers find that the PC is so overpoweringfully useful that they are willing to shell out the bucks and learn how to use them. They have been doing this in big numbers (and growing) for 15 years. And over those years they have been having to save up less, and learn less. Schools are making them mandatory in increasing numbers. Laptop sales are exploding (as PDA's die). All signs point to "Go".

Finally, another point to think about: The human eye is not good at picking up minute details at distance. We see speed at distance, and detail up close. This is why the 10-foot interface has been a notorious problem for developers. And they still haven't figured out what to do with text. It sounds to me like you would want your universal device to hook up to the TV (many people make this argument with similar mistakes in logic), but they never imagine writing a research paper from the sofa. Or typing e-mail.

I do a lot of computer on two of my TV's at home, and I can tell you from experience that typing and reading for a long period of time on a TV is killer. And these are 1080 HDTV's, on a SDTV, it is murder.

Edit: I just read your post for a third time, and have to ask: Do you believe that socialism works? Communism even? Because I believe that Hayek would say you are guilty of the "Fatal Conceit".

FB-Gollum

01-15-2006, 02:31 PM

We keep telling him that.

Gollum. What you detail sounds very nice. But it doesn't sound like the death of the PC. It sounds like you want the PC standardized and given a simpler OS. I don't get how that wouldn't still be a PC.

It also sounds utopian to me. What you describe would be great if we had a great standards company involved, but it would be too stagnant. It would also take the power of the consumer out of the equation, leaving it up to the producer.

Competition is what makes technology progress, keeps it cheap, and keeps it improving. You remove that with a standard box that everyone has to comply with and you choke off innovation. Would we have to wait 5 years for a new box? Would the grandmother who uses hers to get online for recipees buy something with the same horsepower as the serious gamer? The number of flaws in this scenario just keep rattling around in my brain. It would never work.

I still haven't heard a good argument redarding the death of the PC. I now understand that you have some knowledge of PCs, but I'm still not convinced that you are agruing out of distaste for them. Or perhaps you put that last line in your post, about them dying, being expensive, and hard to use on a whim, and now you are enjoying the challege of maintaining that stance. ?

Technology and economics just doesn't work the way that you would need them to for your idea to come to fruition. And it still ignores my argument that anything in the future would have to do everything that PC's today do plus more. Which means that they contain the functionality of PC's. Which means that PC's are a subset of this new thing. Which means that PC's are, as a set, contained by the new thing. Which means that PC's still exist.

Perhaps someone from the 80's would look at what I have today, compare it to their Apple IIe, and say that what I have is not a PC, it is something far more than that. Easier to use (pointing and clicking, no disk loading, colorful, plug and play, etc...) and cheaper. They would say, "That isn't a PC... that is some kind of home organizing electrozoidal device!". Then I would open the command prompt, or open notepad to type a letter. "Ohhhh", they would say, "It works like a PC, as well!!".

Here's the thing, Gollum: Consumers find that the PC is so overpoweringfully useful that they are willing to shell out the bucks and learn how to use them. They have been doing this in big numbers (and growing) for 15 years. And over those years they have been having to save up less, and learn less. Schools are making them mandatory in increasing numbers. Laptop sales are exploding (as PDA's die). All signs point to "Go".

Finally, another point to think about: The human eye is not good at picking up minute details at distance. We see speed at distance, and detail up close. This is why the 10-foot interface has been a notorious problem for developers. And they still haven't figured out what to do with text. It sounds to me like you would want your universal device to hook up to the TV (many people make this argument with similar mistakes in logic), but they never imagine writing a research paper from the sofa. Or typing e-mail.

I do a lot of computer on two of my TV's at home, and I can tell you from experience that typing and reading for a long period of time on a TV is killer. And these are 1080 HDTV's, on a SDTV, it is murder.

Edit: I just read your post for a third time, and have to ask: Do you believe that socialism works? Communism even? Because I believe that Hayek would say you are guilty of the "Fatal Conceit".

I have to go out right now but I'll respond later. Really good post, lots of meat there. It seems that there are a few definitions we need to hammer out. I couldn't wait to say though that your last line made me bust out laughing because I was thinking the exact same thing while I was writing my arguments. However, I don't think it applies exactly because my premise is that software is more important to a consumer than hardware (who cares what it's running on as long as it does what you need it to extremely well) and that progress is driven by human nature more so than profit and competition.

PS. I really do love my PC. Seriously. My arguments are devoid of emotion, they are purely intellectually based.

PPS. Yes I believe Socialism works. I also believe true socialism has never existed in practice. Communism not so much.

swivel

01-15-2006, 02:53 PM

I have to go out right now but I'll respond later. Really good post, lots of meat there. It seems that there are a few definitions we need to hammer out. I couldn't wait to say though that your last line made me bust out laughing because I was thinking the exact same thing while I was writing my arguments. However, I don't think it applies exactly because my premise is that software is more important to a consumer than hardware (who cares what it's running on as long as it does what you need it to extremely well) and that progress is driven by human nature more so than profit and competition.

PS. I really do love my PC. Seriously. My arguments are devoid of emotion, they are purely intellectually based.

PPS. Yes I believe Socialism works. I also believe true socialism has never existed in practice. Communism not so much.

If your ideas rest on the fact that only software matters, not hardware, then we will never get anywhere. You are basing your pognostications on a falacious axiom.

Hardware and software co-evolve. There was no way that http, ftp, email, tcp/ip would ever have been developed without modems, NIC's, cat5 etc. You wouldn't have VOIP without broadband development, and lots of money invested in infrastructure. People can't even foresee what software will be needed, because the hardware doesn't exist yet. Again, you are urging for stagnation, and consumers will never have any of this.

Let's say the government shuts down all current private companies (which would be required to create a standardized product like you envision). Consumers will be stuck with only one choice in hardware. Consumers that want extra function, more power, more storage, extra displays, better sound, would have to look elsewhere. They would have to illegally import new hardware developed overseas, and satiate themselves on a black market.

Anytime in history that innovation has been stiffled by government, you have had the creation of a black market. Russia is the best example, but I have been in the black markets of Cuba myself, and can tell you how horrific these fallacies are for economies and people.

I think your heart is in the right place, but you are being led by a naive notion that you know what is best for consumers, and if you could just force it on them, they would be happy. It will never happen without force of violence.

Consumers want freedom of choice. They want the most selection, best product, and best price. Only free market capitalism provides this by rewarding the producers that strive most efficiently to meet these demands.

Also, if you pick up any PC magazine, especially the best-selling Maximum PC, or its rival CPU, you will see that PC's are ALL ABOUT THE HARDWARE (stressing, not yelling). Very few software reviews there. The people that push the boundaries are the ones that further hardware, and so software, development. We are the ones that they make 24 pipeline gfx cards for. That tech makes its way down to mainstream as it gains market penetration. This is the way of all consumer goods. New things are at one time for the rich, which creates class tension. Since profits are up, demand increases, so more people enter that market. This increases supply, which drops prices through competition. Soon, that luxury item is an everyman item. A new object is now around to maintain class tension, so the middle and lower classes never see how they benefit from this process.

The poor today have 2 TV's, a cellphone, and a car. Not to mention the penetration of such luxuries as air condition, refrigeration, central heat. This is all due to the technology creep and competition that you see as bad for the end product.

What you are suggesting is not only wrong, I think it is also harmful.

FB-Gollum

01-16-2006, 03:23 PM

We're starting to miss key points so I'm going to respond paragraph by paragrapgh even though I know you hate that, but it seems the only way in this medium to effectively address all the different points being made.

If your ideas rest on the fact that only software matters, not hardware, then we will never get anywhere. You are basing your pognostications on a falacious axiom.

My ideas do not rest on the fact that only software matters. I stated at the end of my last full post that I would get into hardware in my next post. So your objection is premature and frankly at this stage invalid. I never made any such claim.

Hardware and software co-evolve. There was no way that http, ftp, email, tcp/ip would ever have been developed without modems, NIC's, cat5 etc. You wouldn't have VOIP without broadband development, and lots of money invested in infrastructure. People can't even foresee what software will be needed, because the hardware doesn't exist yet. Again, you are urging for stagnation, and consumers will never have any of this.

This is true. But in my model Hardware still evolves. I have not gotten into a generational model of hardware yet as I said I would. You keep making these assumptions about where I am going with this argument and fighting against points I haven't said yet.

Let's say the government shuts down all current private companies (which would be required to create a standardized product like you envision). Consumers will be stuck with only one choice in hardware. Consumers that want extra function, more power, more storage, extra displays, better sound, would have to look elsewhere. They would have to illegally import new hardware developed overseas, and satiate themselves on a black market.

Bullcrap. We didn't need to shut down all the private companies to get everyone to make DVD players. All you need is a really good effective design that the consumer will naturally gravitate towards and the rest will follow. You've also conveniently ignored where I stated that they would compete on price and build quality (where I said Daewoo makes a cheap and Toshiba makes an expensive one with a big monitor, I'm talking about standardization of internal components). So no, there is still variety.

Anytime in history that innovation has been stiffled by government, you have had the creation of a black market. Russia is the best example, but I have been in the black markets of Cuba myself, and can tell you how horrific these fallacies are for economies and people.

That's dandy. I never said government was a part of this.

I think your heart is in the right place, but you are being led by a naive notion that you know what is best for consumers, and if you could just force it on them, they would be happy. It will never happen without force of violence.

Well, I wouldn't want to kill anyone over a PC.

Consumers want freedom of choice. They want the most selection, best product, and best price. Only free market capitalism provides this by rewarding the producers that strive most efficiently to meet these demands.

Only free market capitalism provides this? Good, because I'm still supporting free market capitalism. I said PRIVATE MANUFACTURERS didn't I?

Also, if you pick up any PC magazine, especially the best-selling Maximum PC, or its rival CPU, you will see that PC's are ALL ABOUT THE HARDWARE (stressing, not yelling). Very few software reviews there. The people that push the boundaries are the ones that further hardware, and so software, development. We are the ones that they make 24 pipeline gfx cards for. That tech makes its way down to mainstream as it gains market penetration. This is the way of all consumer goods. New things are at one time for the rich, which creates class tension. Since profits are up, demand increases, so more people enter that market. This increases supply, which drops prices through competition. Soon, that luxury item is an everyman item. A new object is now around to maintain class tension, so the middle and lower classes never see how they benefit from this process.

Yes and it works. You don't think there could be a better way? I think greater co-operation between hardware and software developers aided by a longer hardware lifecycle could lead to more directed innovation and help identify key areas where innovation is required. It would also allow new technology to come to the market cheaper thereby penetrating a greater number of households faster and thereby increasing profitability.

The poor today have 2 TV's, a cellphone, and a car. Not to mention the penetration of such luxuries as air condition, refrigeration, central heat. This is all due to the technology creep and competition that you see as bad for the end product.

You don't know **** about poor people. Sorry. I've devoted hundreds of hours to working with the bottom third of wage earners. Your statement above is arguably the most ignorant and dangerous statement made in this thread. If you think driving around in an uninsured 89 civic yapping on a pay as you go phone on your way home to watch your 19" Walmart fuzzbox is any form of luxury you are out to lunch. Technology for the poor is more often a liability than an asset. Simply possesing technology does not make it current or particularly beneficial.

What you are suggesting is not only wrong, I think it is also harmful.

Great, I didn't suggest anything. All I said is I think socialism works. I didn't say that this discussion was based on a socialist government and I didn't actually bring the government into this conversation anywhere. You asked me a pointed question and I answered it. You then chose to take my answer and work it into my previous arguments. Why? Because someone said "socialism" and the free market forces sound the alarm and need to rally the troops. This is not a socialist model. I believe socialism works. I also believe it'll be a number of generations and perhaps a few more world wars before we mature enough as a species to appreciate it. I'm also starting to believe you are far too arrogant to have a conversation as you have been utterly unable to contain yourself and respond to what I say rather than what you assume as you obviously fancy yourself the superior intellect. I've made no such assumptions, responded to what you said directly, showed you the respect you've requested. In turn you've tried to pigeon hole me into some ignorant anti-capitalist who wants to lead the world because I know what's best.

All I'm talking about is a re-evaluation of how hardware is marketed in the HOME ELECTRONIC market because for the vast majority of end users the hardware is the least important thing.

FB-Gollum

01-16-2006, 03:58 PM

To get back to the original argument before we all got scared that the commies were invading XBA...

Gollum. What you detail sounds very nice. But it doesn't sound like the death of the PC. It sounds like you want the PC standardized and given a simpler OS. I don't get how that wouldn't still be a PC.

I guess it would be a PC in the way that a Mac is a PC.

It also sounds utopian to me. What you describe would be great if we had a great standards company involved, but it would be too stagnant. It would also take the power of the consumer out of the equation, leaving it up to the producer.

I don't think that's entirely true. But it's possible. I think the assumption of removing consumer choice is slightly misleading because that would suggest we are running an absolute clone across the market, with zero variance, which is contrary to what I've stated. I already said customization is very do-able. In terms of power and performance they would be identical out of the box. Once again, aesthetically not so much. There would be varying monitor sizes available ports and drives but it would make for more stremlined choices and easier compatibility.

Competition is what makes technology progress, keeps it cheap, and keeps it improving. You remove that with a standard box that everyone has to comply with and you choke off innovation. Would we have to wait 5 years for a new box? Would the grandmother who uses hers to get online for recipees buy something with the same horsepower as the serious gamer? The number of flaws in this scenario just keep rattling around in my brain. It would never work.

This once again goes into the whole "what does it do" what does it not do" and this is why this isn't the right forum for this discussion. Theres too much to what I'm talking about to summate in a series of posts on a message board. Let me ask you this. What if your game console, could do everything your gaming rig could do? What if there was little to no palpable difference between them, would you still spend the money on a crazy gaming rig? No, you'd be stupid to when you could have the same service at a fraction of the cost. Now what do you use your "PC" for? I use mine to record music. I'd like one that will run my DAW and it's plug-ins, have some type of port for me to plug in my amp and my mixer etc. I'm a minority. Most people don't do what I do and I already said my model there would be some public consumer market for the component manufacturers in specialized applications.

I still haven't heard a good argument redarding the death of the PC. I now understand that you have some knowledge of PCs, but I'm still not convinced that you are agruing out of distaste for them. Or perhaps you put that last line in your post, about them dying, being expensive, and hard to use on a whim, and now you are enjoying the challege of maintaining that stance. ?

I'll admit, it's looking less and less like death and more and more like re-birth in a more efficient format.

Technology and economics just doesn't work the way that you would need them to for your idea to come to fruition. And it still ignores my argument that anything in the future would have to do everything that PC's today do plus more. Which means that they contain the functionality of PC's. Which means that PC's are a subset of this new thing. Which means that PC's are, as a set, contained by the new thing. Which means that PC's still exist.

Things work the way we choose to make them work. The most damaging words in the english language are "That's just the way things are". I refuse to be dictated to by past experiences. I will learn from them, but to subscribe to them full is to stifle evolution. Things don't work that way yet. No one's tried it yet.

Perhaps someone from the 80's would look at what I have today, compare it to their Apple IIe, and say that what I have is not a PC, it is something far more than that. Easier to use (pointing and clicking, no disk loading, colorful, plug and play, etc...) and cheaper. They would say, "That isn't a PC... that is some kind of home organizing electrozoidal device!". Then I would open the command prompt, or open notepad to type a letter. "Ohhhh", they would say, "It works like a PC, as well!!".

I like that point. It does speak to the whole issue of definitions.

Here's the thing, Gollum: Consumers find that the PC is so overpoweringfully useful that they are willing to shell out the bucks and learn how to use them. They have been doing this in big numbers (and growing) for 15 years. And over those years they have been having to save up less, and learn less. Schools are making them mandatory in increasing numbers. Laptop sales are exploding (as PDA's die). All signs point to "Go".

People find the applications on a PC overpoweringly useful. Once again let's not confuse what they are reacting to. The guts of the machine matter little. The fact that they have email means loads.

Finally, another point to think about: The human eye is not good at picking up minute details at distance. We see speed at distance, and detail up close. This is why the 10-foot interface has been a notorious problem for developers. And they still haven't figured out what to do with text. It sounds to me like you would want your universal device to hook up to the TV (many people make this argument with similar mistakes in logic), but they never imagine writing a research paper from the sofa. Or typing e-mail.

No I want it to have a monitor of it's own. Save my TV for games and media.

I do a lot of computer on two of my TV's at home, and I can tell you from experience that typing and reading for a long period of time on a TV is killer. And these are 1080 HDTV's, on a SDTV, it is murder.

No doubt.

Edit: I just read your post for a third time, and have to ask: Do you believe that socialism works? Communism even? Because I believe that Hayek would say you are guilty of the "Fatal Conceit".

That's assuming I agree with Hayek. I may be proud to be guilty.

swivel

01-16-2006, 04:04 PM

You don't know **** about poor people. Sorry. I've devoted hundreds of hours to working with the bottom third of wage earners. Your statement above is arguably the most ignorant and dangerous statement made in this thread. If you think driving around in an uninsured 89 civic yapping on a pay as you go phone on your way home to watch your 19" Walmart fuzzbox is any form of luxury you are out to lunch. Technology for the poor is more often a liability than an asset. Simply possesing technology does not make it current or particularly beneficial.

Allright. I'm done talking to you.

I grew up with the power being turned off on us, and shopping at Goodwill. My dad was a farmer, and my mother a school teacher. I have been working since I can remember, and my mother worked three jobs to help keep us going.

I know what it feels like to go 10 days without eating. It hurts. Your skin gets sensitive around your bones, wounds heal more slowly, and eventually eating hurts just as bad as not eating. The last time I had a bowel movement with my pants on was at age 22, when I had been a week without anything other than water. A friend realized what was going on and bought me a cheeseburger in the college cafeteria. 15 minutes later, it came right out. This sort of thing has happened often during my life.

I lived on a 27' sailboat that I bought for very little money for 7 years, while I worked two jobs to put myself through college. I took a minimum of 21 hours each semester, did Maymester and 12 hours of summer courses every year. While I was working 40 hour weeks.

I've only been drunk twice in my life, and went from the age of 23 - 26 in complete sexual abstinance, for moral reasons (even though I am an atheist and completely devoid of superstition), and because of time and financial constraints. Mind you, even though I try to be humble, I have made money as a model, so it wasn't due to physical defects.

So guess what, you rude person? I haven't had to WORK with poor people. I have, for the vast majority of my life, been POOR AS DIRT. I am the American dream. I busted my butt my entire life. Averaged 5 hours of sleep. Read at least 100 books a year since I was little (I used to read under my desk in class, and to this day I still read while walking, even driving... though audiobooks have made this safer than it once was).

I have devoted my life to self-betterment. I have decided not to have kids of my own, because I fear that I would raise them in such want as I was raised.

How dare you make such stupid assumptions about me?

This is another example of what I have been assuming about you. You live with your head in the cloud. You understand nothing of the real world, because you are blinded by THINKING that you understand. You think that by working with some poor people you know anything about what it feels like. I can assume from your casual accusation towards me, that you do not. You think you know economics because you have an idealized, utopian, view of it. You think you understand technology, because you can dream something better up as you lay in bed at night.

The world does not work that way. It is messy, it is complex, but that brilliant interplay of push and pull has a way of making things take care of themself. You central-planners have created more poverty and woe than you could ever realize. You probably don't understand that FDR made the depression far greater than it would have been. That he was the second great fascist president, right after Lincoln. And both were victim of the same arrogance and ignorance that you have portrayed to me again and again.

I enjoyed the conversation during the middle two posts, but I have never wasted time in my life with people who look down on me, and I do not wish to attempt that now.

I wish you the best.

FB-Gollum

01-16-2006, 05:08 PM

Allright. I'm done talking to you.

I grew up with the power being turned off on us, and shopping at Goodwill. My dad was a farmer, and my mother a school teacher. I have been working since I can remember, and my mother worked three jobs to help keep us going.

I know what it feels like to go 10 days without eating. It hurts. Your skin gets sensitive around your bones, wounds heal more slowly, and eventually eating hurts just as bad as not eating. The last time I had a bowel movement with my pants on was at age 22, when I had been a week without anything other than water. A friend realized what was going on and bought me a cheeseburger in the college cafeteria. 15 minutes later, it came right out. This sort of thing has happened often during my life.

I lived on a 27' sailboat that I bought for very little money for 7 years, while I worked two jobs to put myself through college. I took a minimum of 21 hours each semester, did Maymester and 12 hours of summer courses every year. While I was working 40 hour weeks.

I've only been drunk twice in my life, and went from the age of 23 - 26 in complete sexual abstinance, for moral reasons (even though I am an atheist and completely devoid of superstition), and because of time and financial constraints. Mind you, even though I try to be humble, I have made money as a model, so it wasn't due to physical defects.

So guess what, you rude person? I haven't had to WORK with poor people. I have, for the vast majority of my life, been POOR AS DIRT. I am the American dream. I busted my butt my entire life. Averaged 5 hours of sleep. Read at least 100 books a year since I was little (I used to read under my desk in class, and to this day I still read while walking, even driving... though audiobooks have made this safer than it once was).

I have devoted my life to self-betterment. I have decided not to have kids of my own, because I fear that I would raise them in such want as I was raised.

How dare you make such stupid assumptions about me?

This is another example of what I have been assuming about you. You live with your head in the cloud. You understand nothing of the real world, because you are blinded by THINKING that you understand. You think that by working with some poor people you know anything about what it feels like. I can assume from your casual accusation towards me, that you do not. You think you know economics because you have an idealized, utopian, view of it. You think you understand technology, because you can dream something better up as you lay in bed at night.

The world does not work that way. It is messy, it is complex, but that brilliant interplay of push and pull has a way of making things take care of themself. You central-planners have created more poverty and woe than you could ever realize. You probably don't understand that FDR made the depression far greater than it would have been. That he was the second great fascist president, right after Lincoln. And both were victim of the same arrogance and ignorance that you have portrayed to me again and again.

I enjoyed the conversation during the middle two posts, but I have never wasted time in my life with people who look down on me, and I do not wish to attempt that now.

I wish you the best.

That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read in my life. So you're a millionaire model that symbolizes the american dream who suffered through loads of hardship and came out on top. Damnit man, you're better than the classic greek hero. I challenge you to provide and ounce of proof of your claim. Oh yeah, I grew up in a single parent household with a mom earning minimum wage working at sears, so yeah food stamps were my friend too there chuckles.

I look down on you? You're the jackass that was calling me ignorant and hatefilled remember? I tried to appease you by showing you more respect which you requested only to be met with a hypocritical and arrogant rash of assumptions about me. All I've been doing is defending myself from your idiotic assumptions. All of this only lends itself further to my suspicions above.

I know a million jokers just like you so dissatisfied with who they are that they construct an identity for themselves. People who supposedly lived fantastical lives. The internet not surprisingly has made this all the more prevalent. They're always the same, you dissatisfied white guys so pissed off at their own priviledge they've got to find a way to feel legitimate. They're always like you, intelligent and well read. I questioned who you really were before, gave you the benefit of the doubt, but now I know it's all bogus.

This was almost a good debate, but I should've known better than to start up with a net narcissist.