Betrayal at Krondor/Return to Krondor, the old floppy disk D&D games like Eye of the Beholder and so on, Journeyman Project, Oregon Trail (this could be an epic game), Messiah, Black & White, Final Fantasy TOTAL AND COMPLETE REBOOT FROM THE BEGINNING, Baldur's Gate series, and many more. If I had the money and resources (and time), I'd love to create a game so massive, open, dynamic, and interactive that just the written dialogue for on-screen captions would take a full DVD. I'm talking Crysis meets GTA (all of them) meets Freelancer meets Red Faction meets Star Wars KOTOR meets Fallout (all of them) meets The Sims meets Warcraft meets Fable. A single player game that makes World of Warcraft, EVE, Everquest et al look like a short javascript game. A seemless world. I mean that literally. A fully fleshed out WORLD to play through. Full conitinents, oceans, cities, roads, everything. All populated with like a billion inhabitants. Neverending supply of random quests, and a main quest that would take like 2000 hours of play to complete. It'd have functional politics, functional economy, you could buy houses, cars, bikes, furniture, etc. It would literally be the most ambitious MMO incorporating every gameplay mechanic and feature of the best games, but it would be single player. It would have online capabilities, like other inhabitants would be other players, and you could do some MMO stuff like race, rob a bank together, be partners in a business venture, own a store to sell stuff to other players and what not, but the core gameplay would be single player. Unfortunately, I've envisioned that this game would be so huge and complex, it would require its own multi-terabyte hard drive to run from (and to be packaged on) and would cost upwards of 300 million or more to make properly. By the time it went to market it would cost like $300.00 to buy it, and thus would not sell well enough to be worth it (at this time). I can always dream, though.

It doesn't really work. You can't really sit there and do a direct compare between the price of the Apple OS vs. Win7. Here's why :

A Mac Pro configured to the tits on the Apple Store site costs $18,075.00 and includes the following : 2.93Ghz Intel Xeon Quad-core processors X2, 32Gb (8x4Gb) of DDR3 1066 RAM, Mac Pro RAID card, 1TB 7200RPM SATA drive X4, Nvidia Geforce GT 120 512Mb video card X4, 18X superdrive (optical drive) X2, Apple Cinema HD 30" LCD display X2, Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse, Apple Wireless Keyboard, Airport Extreme Wifi card, Apple Mini Display Port to DVI Adapter. Also obviously includes the standard case/powersupply/motherboard/sound card that you aren't allowed to change/choose during purchase. All this for a fucking HUGE $18,075.00!

A PC configured on NewEgg, with equivalent or better parts (except the optical superdrive, of which I didn't find any @ 18X), including the following : Antec 1200 Black Steel Case, ASUS Z8PE-D12X Mobo, XFX GX295NHHFF Geforce GTX 295 1795Mb 896-bit GDDR3 viedo card X4, ABS Tagan BX1300 1300W Modular Active PFC power supply, Intel Xeon W5580 Nehalem 3.2Ghz Quad Core processor X2, Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB 7200RPM SATA 32Mb cache SATA drive X4, Logitech MX 5500 Revolution Wireless Keyboard/Mouse Combo, HP LP3065 30" LCD monitor X2, LG Super Multi-drive X2, Creative Sound-Blaster XFi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro sound card PCI-X, Encore ENLWI-N Wifi N adapter, Noctua NH-U12P CPU cooler. All that for $10,017.79. Add another $200.00 or so for shipping, another $299.00 for Win7, and another maybe $30.00 for thermal paste/a cable here or there/whatever, and your topping out at less than $10,600.00 for a BETTER system.

The way I see it, I'd rather pay %100 for my computer and $120.00 to upgrade to Win7 than pay %180 for a computer AND $30.00 to upgrade my OS.

Now, to be fair, I only made the comparison on the extreme high end. At the average consumer level, the Apple premium is closer to %170.

First let me say the I'm not anti-Linux. Any competition to MS is good, as it (you'd think) makes them strive to make better software with better features and reliability. And I have no animosity towards Linux supporters/users.

However, I do have a hard time understanding why many Linux Lovers have such a hatred of Windows, and why they continually claim that Linux is better and can do EVERYTHING that Windows can do and more.

I'm sorry to say this, and I'm really not trying to be a troll (even though I'll most likely be modded as such), but Linux is worthless to a LARGE amount of end users for simple reasons (whether or not the end user is simple themselves doesn't really matter) :

A) Installation IS a pain in the ass for anyone who isn't a geek with a decent amount of experience. Hell its a pain in the ass for those who DO have a decent amount of experience, especially when trying a new distro for the first time that has a wholly different install experience.

B) Driver support sucks. Oh, sure, a lot of the big hw companies have usable drivers for Linux. But does that driver work well with your distro? Do all the features work with your distro? And what about the non-juggernaut hw companies. A vast majority of them don't have native Linux drivers, making it a super-headache to get the item to work in Linux.

C) Software selection leaves a lot to be desired. As pointed out in TFA, Open Office vs MS Office is just one of many instances where FOSS really takes a back seat. And most of the industry-standard software either doesn't run on Linux at all or works partially and only in a VM (which kind of defeats the purpose of using Linux).

D) Games. I don't think I really need to expound upon this one. We all know (even if some of you can't seem to admit it) that gaming on Linux SUCKS ASS because most games don't work on Linux.

Ok. Now I know that some of what I touched upon can be band-aided by using Wine and such, but come on. That's cheating. If the OS can't natively run the software, and has to do so in a virtual-Windows environment, why not just use Windows?

Oh, I already know what a lot of the answers to that question will be. "Windows has viruses and isn't secure!" or "Windows doesn't have good driver support either!" or even "Because MS is EEEEVVIILLLLLLLLL!!!!" Well, guess what. Windows SHIPS insecure, but once installed by any competent person who knows how to tweak the system, Windows can be as secure as any other OS out there. I've used almost every iteration of Windows, and starting with XP have never had a virus infection or security breach (and I download a LOT of crap from unreliable sources). That's not to say that a virus has never actually physically been on my system. Just that I've never had to format, reinstall, repair, or anything. Just delete the offending file, and maybe a registry entry or two. And I've had some virii show up that could have screwed me over royally. But because I tune my system the way I do, not much damage can be done, even if I intentionally download a virus (which I have tested several times). Now, I'm not saying I'm invulnerable. I know my system can get FUBAR'd by this or that virus or breach. But it's a safe bet that I'm more secure than any Linux distro out there (which I've proven via a friend who runs Debian, by betting his system would get FUBAR'd before mine after 3 consecutive days of surfing and downloading from some very disreputable sites. His system was tanked in two days, mine never got touched.)

Now, that whole paragraph above leads to the main point I'm trying to make. An average end user will not understand/like/want to go through the massive learning curve of Linux. Nor will they be happy with the horrible compatability. At the same time, they will not be happy with the virus-fest and crash-athon of Windows. But they will put up with Windows because 95% (I'm guessing) of software works with Windows, as well as 99.99% of games (not taking into consideration that many games don't work when shipped due to crappy coding and rush-rush-rush mentallity). And it is much easier to tweak and tune Windows to be more secure than it is to tweak and tune Linux to run everything and to be able to use all of your hardware. Not only that, but if its made for Windows then it works with Windows. With Linux, if its made for Linux then it works with Distribution B/C/E but not A/D/F or only with G. And only certain kernel revisions. And woe be to he who has a custom compiled kernel.

Now, having said all of the above, I'd like to point out that I would LOVE to see Linux suddenly start kicking ass and taking names. I'd love to see full interopability and compatability, ability to play all the games natively, driver support at least on par with Windows, etc. etc. I'm not looking forward to shelling out 200 bucks or more for Win7. I'd much rather have the same features and usability for 30 bucks for a distro package or for free even.

Ok. I'm done. And I have a suspicion that my karma is done too.

That seems like a pretty good improvement in earthquake prediction. If this guy can consistantly predict earthquakes with a +/- of one week, I'd say he's doing something right, and should be listened to. But he has to do it consistantly. One out of one is a good start.

I'm surprised it's shrunk as much as 15% but the Hair Pie was never my strong point :)

There. Fixed that for ya!

It certainly would be an interesting feature, if it actually stays after today.

I'm kind of surprised at how everyone latched onto the video games, and completely ignored the rest of my post. I don't play video games all day everyday. And when I do play them, I get as much enjoyment from them as I do when I read a good book, watch a good movie, go to a car show, or go to the park. The point of my post is that price versus compatability/versatility is my biggest deciding factor when building a system. As it is for a lot of people.

I would buy Apple if their prices matched what I can build myself for less money and more versatility. No where did I say that I hate Apple or that Microsoft is god. Nor did I say that I am a troglodyte who lives in his moms basement and subsists on Hot Pockets and WOW. When it comes down to it, a lot of people prefer to have the ability to play 99% of the games on the market, use 90% of the software available, and have better control over what hardware they are using for considerably less money, versus 40% of the games, 75% of the software, and limited control over what hardware they are using for more money and a logo. A lot of people prefer to buy Apple or use Linux/etc. for their own reasons, not the least of which is percieved security (meaning that Apple has its own share of security issues, just not enough user base for the exploiters to care) and/or open source. (The preceding numbers are a quick estimation after browsing NewEgg, Amazon, and a couple of gaming sites)

Neither group is wrong and neither is right. Both have their ups and downs, pros and cons, wins and losses. In todays economy, I would not be surprised at all if Apples prices become a major loss for them. But I'm not an oracle, and I don't play the market, so I have no real idea how the whole thing will play out. I was simply stating my personal feelings and opinions. But, I forgot that this is Slashdot, where opinions are treated as heresy, and the way one person feels about something is immediately set upon by everyone whose view differs in the slightest. My bad. If you are offended by any of what I just said, sorry. Theres no reason to BE offended, but if you ARE offended, then I think the problem lies not with what I've put on the table, but rather with your inability to accept that other people don't see things the same way you do

Well, I'd rather pay $100.00 for the Microsoft logo and whatever I choose to spend on hardware that I put together and be able to play every game I want to play than pay $500 dollars for a logo and be limited to canned hardware configurations and nominal game and software titles. Not trying to be anti-Apple or pro-Microsoft here. He just has a bit of a point. In today's economy Apple has to be feeling the sting. It's there own fault for being overpriced on pretty much every level. That said, I'd love to have a Macbook. But I can't afford even a Netbook right now.

I don't have much problem with memory on my Vista system. I run idle with 150 MB of total Kernel Memory, and 645 MB of total physical memory used. This includes 44 processes. Also includes background tasks of Incredimail, Truecrypt, Logitech drivers, Spybot-SD Resident, Nvidia driver stuff, and a couple of other small things. That's not really a big deal with 2GB of DDR2 800 running @ 4-4-4-10.

What a lot of people on here don't seem to realize is that while Vista is bloated by default, you can unbloat it quite a lot. Turning off services, disabling or un-installing unneeded features, and general tweaking make a huge difference with Vista.

I suppose that if I was doing a lot of heavy video/audio/photo editing/creation, it would be a noticeable issue. But then, if I were doing all that, I wouldn't be using Vista either.

I was one of the people who said "I'll never install Vista on my machine." until I got it as a gift from someone. It sat on a shelf for about 2 months, and I finally decided to try it just for the heck of it. Well, it's been almost a year, and I can readily say I'll never go back to XP. Sure, XP was slimmer and a slight bit faster (compared to the way I install and configure Vista), but Vista is much cooler to use and has more features that I like, and is actually more stable in my experience. I've never had a blue screen with Vista, and only one reboot-requiring crash. And that crash was because of a motherboard problem, not a Vista problem.

In fact, the only complaint I have about Vista is because of the version I have. Home Premium. You can't access/use gpedit.msc in Vista Home Premium. This miffed me a bit. But, other than that, no problems at all. And no, I don't work for Microsoft or spread FUD for them. I just haven't had a problem with Vista, and thought I'd share that with everyone.