We're going to need a bigger meme.

Yeah but why did it take five days to actually get on here?

Maybe try that again without the patronising hyperbole and somewhat hypocritical assault on assumptions with your own wild assumptions.

Why login when you can be an Anonymous Coward?

The 360 is in its 6th year now and the PS3 it's 5th and as yet I don't think I've seen much in the way of fanfares about the next gen coming along. Older consoles aren't really the thing we're talking about. When you're at school 'old' is rubbish, you have to have the current thing. No one was cool for own a C64 or Spectrum when the Amiga/ST were out. And it's key that I *am* talking about what makes kids tick here, not about how great the games are/were etc.

When I was at school in the 80s few kids had 8-bit computers because they were comparatively very very expensive. And again, the games can be rented from Lovefilm or similar for a small amount each week or borrowed from others...

When you talk about govt. intervention in the market can you explain what you're specifically thinking of? Yeah there's google but it's a vague comment and I could spend two hours I don't have and still not find what you're thinking of.

Consumer hostile features? You don't HAVE to buy a console. You can play games on a PC or a Mac if you wish. I feel there's a degree of people claiming 'entitlement' here to something they have opted into.

There has to be a balance between someone's hard work being paid for and people's rights being infringed. Where do you feel this model, the idea of having games that are copy-protected is eroding people's property rights in a real sense rather than toys-out-of-the-pram sense?

Equally, everyone who plays games may pay the full rate but they are also free to borrow games still, are they not, from Lovefilm, libraries, etc? Or to buy them, play them and sell them one?

Because the technology / processing automation has got so cheap over the years, I presume? Still, it will be their model for the next generation, I'd imagine.

It's a perfectly reasonable business model. The main issue I have is when the pass down ludicrous fines to those caught pirating, but this model at least means that most people can afford such a console, which is a better situation for children at school than when only an elite have access to such things. Sorry, I'm really explaining my point well, but essentially I think there's a levelling quality about it and an aspect that makes the web and technology very much in the grasp of areas of society that would otherwise never get it.

Isn't the difference here that in the days of 8-bit and then 16-bit home computers, the machines weren't a loss-leader for the games? I understood that the PS3 and the xbox are sold at either no profit or a loss but this is because the games manufacturers have to pay a huge amount back to the manufacturer in licence fees for being able to make their games run on those machines. A friend used to work for Eidos and she could get PC games at a huge discount but no PS/Xbox because of this mandatory cost back to Sony/Microsoft. So, the pirates making the machine would only work if the machines were profitable enough for Sony/Microsoft that buying them alone covered their costs.

You live in a strange world.

Apologies, it was a serious question. I should have read what you wrote again. Not that this response in any way impacts on the point I was questioning, as to whether 'Windows' was used as a general term to describe a GUI or WIMP system.

Is Smalltalk-76 a person or a company? If the former then I'm sorry my post sounded so specific. Let me re-write it: "thegarbz is saying that nothing before was widely-termed 'windows' in any serious sense of being a generally used name, though naturally it's very possible the term was used in passing, just as infinite monkeys could write Shakespeare". Right, I'm off to clean my nit-comb with alcohol. :)

Again, I don't think people shortened this to just 'Windows'. The W could be termed to stand for only 'window'. I refer you to the second half of my original post. :D

thegarbz is saying that nothing before was termed 'windows', rather it was a GUI. The history of x windows at Wikipedia implies strongly that it has only gained that term subsequent to everyone calling such an interface 'Windows', which is precisely the point being made in the parent. Anyway, this is a ridiculous argument to have. The claim that Microsoft is just being hypocritical is a bit of a straw man to whether Apple should be able to trademark App Store: clearly they shouldn't; and I think we're all agreed that Microsoft have also trademarked terms they shouldn't have been able to, but that doesn't make Apple right.

Don't bury your head in the sand...