I should clarify that I'm using dual left and right side by side monitors.

I use the mouse a lot to switch between applications. Having the launcher locked at the left side of the screen means it's either inconveniently far away from my mouse pointer when it's on the opposite screen or I have to waste space duplicating it on both monitors. It also wouldn't work well with auto-hiding in a vertical orientation cause there's no left screen edge on the right monitor for me to brush the mouse up against to show the menu. Allowing the launcher to be on the bottom solves all of these problems and it doesn't take up any of that precious vertical real-estate. I use OSX the exact same way (at the bottom and with auto-hide). If you want to argue that no sane person should be primarily using the mouse to switch applications and state that I should be using the keyboard to overcome any issues this causes me, you are clearly alienating the "linux anyone can use" vibe that ubuntu has going for it.

E3 2009 - Shigeru Miyamoto Roundtable Liveblog. Also listed on wikipedia

"7:22 p.m.: Unfortunately, no online mode in New Super Mario Bros. Wii, by the way. Miyamoto just confirmed. Wii is already being overpowered by what's happening on screen in New Super Mario Bros Wii. So no power left for online."

Why would the man himself say this if there wasn't a problem?

Well, Playstation 2 is still going strong and it's 9 years into it's lifespan, so why is it so far-fetched to think the PS3 will won't last 10 years?

Hardware improvements have significantly slowed in recent years (hey, why did processors all of a sudden hit that 3GHz brick wall?). The days of a leap like SNES to N64 are over so if another console generation starts in 2011, I'd expect that Sony or Microsoft would have to bring something huge to the table that would require a console upgrade, and that very thing seems like it would be their motion controllers. There's just one problem with that. Both companies have already stated that their motion controllers will be for their current generation consoles.

On the other hand, Wii is already showing it's limitations (as I've already named) and I think that's why they will need to release a new console in 2011. I don't see any limitations in sight for PS3 and Xbox 360 in the coming years, and why it would be infeasible for them to last as long as 2016, so if you can name some, please feel free to do so.

True, but Sony and Microsoft will not require me to upgrade my console in 2 years to stay current with technology. Nintendo most likely will in 2011, and whatever they release then will likely last until the the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation ends anyway.

Gamers have gotten used to console generations lasting longer. For Nintendo to not think about the Wii lasting throughout this generation is negligent on their part. I think they could have had just as much success with the mainstream with the Wii if it was a little more expensive and a little more powerful, and they wouldn't be in the predicament they're in now.

Also, Nintendo being open to the idea of HDTV isn't the only problem. It's them not being open to up and coming technologies in general. When Nintendo openly admits that their console can't handle a modern feature like online play without a hardware upgrade, people tend to look elsewhere for something that does.

Say what you will about the general populous, but as both a hardcore gamer and someone who hates it when content is not optimized for his HDTV, (when HDTV has been around for over 10 years), I'd say that Nintendo has definitely pissed off a good chunk of it's hardcore fan base of the past 20 years (or more) by taking what is essentially the gamecube hardware and re-releasing it with motion controllers.

I agree that graphics shouldn't matter a lot, but when they say they can't put online play, (something most modern multiplayer games take for granted), into a certain 2d mario game coming out this holiday season, then it's time for them to consider upgrading their hardware, (especially when they've already claimed success with this on a Mario Kart game released over a year ago).

I cannot honestly say that I will be satisfied with Nintendo until they give us a console that feels like it isn't 10 years old by today's technology standards. It's one thing to not place an emphasis on graphics, but when the best you can do is release a console where the majority of games have a whole bunch of idiots waving their arms around in what can only be considered casual exercise/party experiences that's when I turn to PS3 or Xbox 360.

Actually, from what I understand, there are 2 major reasons why the Dreamcast failed.

The first is that during the Playstation / Saturn era, Sega pissed off a lot of developers by making a lot of bad decisions, from the Saturn's complicated hardware, to an earlier than expected release date, and just about every other mistake they could have possibly made. This alone was probably enough to doom the Dreamcast from the start, however, it came through with plenty of great games in the first year or so.

However, their next problem was trying to compete with Sony's Playstation 2 for attention, which was a battle they simply did not have the money to win.

This of course, almost drove them completely bankrupt, and now we have the Sega of today, no longer with the funds to compete in the console race, somehow staying alive, releasing mediocre games. Say what you will, but what is the last Sega game that came out that really "WOWed" you?

It's all there in the Saturn and Dreamcast wikipedia pages.

Glad to hear my machine still has options for gaming in the future.

Does this mean they're done making core i7, socket LGA 1366 cpus? Oh well, so much for my hopes of someday upgrading mine. LGA 1366 was a nice 9-10 month run while it lasted.

I think we're starting to get there. Call it a fluke but I recently found a certain 3 disc set on amazon cheaper on Blu-Ray than it is on DVD. Call me crazy, but this might be a sign of things to come.

Free digital copies are also becoming common place now, as both of the above sets include a digital copy.

Well, this is slashdot, so I imagine that any price higher than free is gonna be too much for all the linux fanboys. I would think about it this way...When's the last time you had to plunk down money for a windows os? (and no, I don't count vista, as I do not believe that any sane slashdot reader would've actually purchased that) Once or twice in the last, what is it, 8 years now? (depending on how many computers you have). And how often does apple ask for money so you can get the newest upgrade to their os?