It'll take a GeekSquad (or similar) repair bill the first time, but after that they might start following recommendations.

I totally agree when it comes to having to meet strangers to play a game online, that can take relaxation time and make it feel like work. Especially in WOW where raiding and dungeons can quickly turn into babysitting.

But for people you already know, I don't see think there's a huge chasm between going out bowling versus getting on Xbox Live and playing Halo Reach.

Agreed on the problem with single and multiplayer being "bundled" these days. I generally view those games as multiplayer-only and avoid them. Not necessarily because the game is bad either, but because I'm not going to get much out of it when I already have 2-3 multiplayer games on my plate for my social/online time.

Or to put it another way, who wants to pay $60 for a game and not be able to get past 1/3rd of the content? That's stupid for everyone involved - the player (who got $20 of content for $60), the content creators (whose work is never even experienced), and (when it sells poorly) the publisher.

This is why games have difficulty levels. If you want it harder, make it harder. If you chose to play on easy, why complain the game is easy?

Right - people who play longer will already have more experience, and as a result, more skill. Do they really need to give those already-better players uber gear and weapons to boot? What are they thinking when they design these games?

I had a friend who thought Counter-strike was stupid because winners are rewarded with money that can be used to buy better weapons, which of course leads to more winning. But at least that was reset every time you change maps, these new FPS games make that rich-get-richer mechanic permanent. Buying into one of those games much after the initial launch is the equivalent of paying to get bullied.

One more that IMO is the most ubiquitous:

C) Silently vote kick or leave group to get away from the "baddie"

The problem with C is it shuffles a clueless "baddie" between groups even faster, aggravating even more players.

If you stick to A instead, at least give the baddie a *chance* at learning what they're doing wrong and improving. If worse comes to worst and you're in a hurry or they're not improving, at least they'll know WHY they got booted, and have the chance to do some research or ask around in chat for help.

Indeed, as you said, it's sad how rarely people choose A.

How is socializing online inferior to socializing in a golf cart or softball game or restaurant?

I think there's a rather strong argument that being in Vent with 20 people for several hours is more social than standing out in left field by yourself. It's also "free", whereas going to a coffee shop or restaurant or bar or club inevitably means spending money, often on things you already have at home for much cheaper. Is it really worth spending $30 on $5 worth of drinks to sit with the same handful of buddies over hanging out in Vent?

So....don't play multiplayer games? Why not complain that softball and the gym are "forcing" you to socialize with others too?

You just described every major game in the market. Sorry if I'm struggling to muster the anger to raise my pitchfork for business that became standard 5-10 years ago.

No they weren't. Wolfenstein and Warcraft 2 were two of my first map editing experiences, quite a while before Q2. There was map editing before those games too.

But if you're going to call SC2 map editing "just map editing" you may as well call WOW "just D&D" or call Halo Reach "just an fps". Such a broad generalization is pointless and ignores vast progress and improvements in the genre, or in this case, RTS map editing functionality.

It looks like the Air is meant to be a long battery life machine, not a racehorse. It's an "open" ipad with a built in keyboard. Seems like a reasonable niche to take a shot at, even if it's not something I'm interested in.

What were you saying about hyperbole again?

Microsoft has locked down systems in the field, ever heard of an XBOX? Where are all your posts about how they're going to kill Windows next?

It's their store, of course it's "locked down".

Microsoft also has a store: http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/office/category/213
It's locked down too, and doesn't have a single one of my homebrew apps for sale.

How is this any different?

Wow, thats backwards from what I'm used to. Most of us want OS X and would prefer cheaper hardware. I'd buy an Apple barebones desktop (ie: no monitor) in a heartbeat if they would sell one. Basically a mac mini in a case big enough for a PCI-E card for under $1000.

If your business runs Windows-only software, of course, not much choice but to use bootcamp or vmware. I've always been in the opposite boat trying to get away from Windows to use Unix tools.

I honestly can't remember what OS it was, but I'm pretty sure it was Windows Vista or 7, that a fellow dev showed me excitedly how he could hit some shortcut key and start typing an application name to bring it up and execute it. A hell of a lot faster than trying to click-hover through the start menu.

I'm pretty sure thats what the OP is talking about doing with Spotlight, although I've never used that myself either.

Oh, and 'which'/'whereis', and 'find'/'locate' all exist for good reason.

The OS is the only part of the computer you actually interface with, and has as much to do with perceived speed and reliability as the hardware. Why is it any stranger to pay for software than for hardware?

Your casual suggestion that Mac OS X and "Linux you can get for free" are the same is downright silly.

You don't see his point, but then you reiterate it - that a computer is only as good as the software it runs. Maybe that broken sentence was supposed to say something else?

Yep. Best example of this I can think of is how Microsoft "hid" the file menus in Windows Vista and the rest of their Vista-era apps. I can only assume this was an attempt to be "flashy" and make Windows "look pretty" the way they do on a Mac.

Apple achieves this "look" by having a single menu bar on your main screen. They do this for (debatable) usability reasons to begin with, not for looks. But it does mean the app can be as flashy (and usable) as it needs to be without having a visible file menu tacked to it.

The way Microsoft did this was to completely hide the file bar, have no GUI representation to unhide it, and make you magically know to press ALT on the keyboard to get to the menu. Core functionality is still buried in those menus, inaccessible by mouse or by anyone who doesn't know the press-alt secret. The change is all looks and totally unintuitive. When I "upgraded" to Vista this particular change was extremely frustrating. I only found out the bar was still hidden in there by accident.

I do actually like Dell's case design, I'm not sure if you were referring to their hardware or software though.

If you're seriously curious, I can tell you this much:

Every nerd I know with a Mac uses Linux for playing around, and a Mac as a stable, reliable computing platform for getting work done. Especially interfacing with Linux servers while still having cross-platform Windows apps like MS Office and Photoshop.

I've never heard "ooh, shiny!" play into it except with iphones and ipads - and even for those, it's more about a functional UI than about flashy graphics.

Most nerds have gone the same route with gaming too. Despite also being Microsoft, the 360 is a very popular locked-down alternative to Windows PC gaming. I'd argue the failures of Microsoft Windows is the driving force behind sales of both Apple computers and Xbox360 consoles.

Most people already have a Windows computer that can technically do everything either of those do, but people are still willing to pay hundreds of dollars to have a second machine that can do it less painfully.