community archive

1531 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Probably not the place...

There are alot of people who have been disappointed with the decisions Bungie has made over the last year or so (I'm one of them). However, the individuals that frequent this "community" forum are generally HALO fans who really aren't interested in your opinion. I'm sure they've heard the arguments you've made many times in the past - you aren't going to change how they feel about the matter.

- Pyth

Rauko wrote on Friday, 10/26/2001 - 06:12:

: Hello.
:
: I would like to clear some things out, and if you consider
: this a flame.......well....you might re-read it . If after
: re-reading it you still consider it a flame its ok, your IQ
: is to low or you have been indoctrinated so well that you
: cant see reality other than the pattern implanted in your
: brain, in either case it doesn't matter much, your case is
: lost.
:
: First, my opinion on Microsoft. I don't like Microsoft
: much and I sure don't like Windows but I don't have any
: political agenda against them and as a matter of fact I do
: own a couple of their products. I think Office:Mac is a
: great product and my browser of choice is Explorer. So I
: didn't like the fact that Microsoft acquired Bungie but that
: alone didn't make me an ex-fan. Although Id like to make a
: point here. I don't care much about Microsoft owning Bungie,
: but some people do , some people consider it a matter of
: principles and they consider their principles to be more
: valuable than a game. Many here have said that its only a
: game and made fun of the people that are against Microsoft
: products so Id like to ask them to respect others opinions.
: For you it might be just a game, for others its a Microsoft
: product. And if someone believes buying Microsoft products
: is against their principles, you should respect their
: opinions and believes.
:
: But going back to HALO and Bungie. In my very humble
: opinion Bungie was a great company, but what make it great
: was not Marathon or even Myth I or II per se, it was the
: community they built around the Myth series. Think about it,
: how much of the time you were connected to bungie,net were
: you actually playing?? I would say no more than 30% of the
: time. And you also enjoyed making maps and sharing them with
: your friends, you enjoyed downloading maps others did, you
: enjoyed tournaments, you enjoyed clan wars , etc,etc,etc.
: And of course you enjoyed getting to know and interacting
: with people from all over the world. I personally got to
: know 3 or 4 guys I now consider my friends and I met with
: them when I traveled to their country. And I bet many here
: can share this type of experience. This is what made Bungie
: great and this is why the Myth series is 4 years old and
: still going. And yes, the games were great also, specially
: Myth and all the strategy and team gameplay it involves.
:
: So when Bungie announced Halo I was very exited it was
: going to be the best FPS out there with all the community
: and internet play Myth had. And the game features were
: amazing, a huge wold, massive internet play , stunning AI,
: etc,etc,etc. But none of that will happen. Halo was trimmed
: down to a console game. And don't get me wrong , I have
: nothing against consoles , they are great and they have
: great and fun games, but they simply cant handle (at least
: not now) the kind of game Halo was intended to be. And
: please , don't try to say its the same cause its not, for
: example dont try to convince me that its the same experience
: and the same precision and speed to look and aim using your
: hand with a mouse than using your thumb. Its anatomically
: impossible to have the same degree of control with your
: thumb than with your hand. And the strategy is gone , its
: just a nice FPS now. Not to mention coop play that has been
: reduced to 2 players and one of them wont be able to shoot
: most of the time cause the AI cant control the jeep. And if
: you want to archive any kind of multiplayer games you'll
: have to be stuck with a split screen that will reduce your
: visual experience a lot and you can forget about ambushing
: or concealed maneuvers. That or you will have to take 4
: Xboxes along with cables , monitors and controls to
: someone's house and even then you'll be stuck with split
: screen is you want to play with more than 4 players. And
: this are only some examples , you all know what Halo could
: have been and what it is now.
:
: I know most of you will say its still a great game and all
: that, but for me it was a good idea for a game, I liked a
: lot of things about it, but its a different game now, and it
: lost almost all of the features that make me like the idea.
:
: So if you are a Bungie hardcore fan, just like others are
: hardcore anti-microsoft militants, or if you still like Halo
: in its final version , its ok buy it, but don't try to say
: Halo is what it is not.
:
: Of course people will tell me to wait for the Mac/PC
: version, that it will live to its promises (at least some of
: them) but I seriously doubt a Mac/PC version will be much
: different. And I don't know if it will see the light in a
: decent time frame to make it a choice among all the great
: multiplayer FPS that are in production. If Halo does show in
: the Mac/PC platforms in the next months and it lives to some
: of its promises (at least internet play , customizable
: controls and some sort of server structure to interact with
: others) I will be the first to go buy it. But until any of
: that happens I will be absolutly disappointed at Bungie and
: Halo and I wont buy it.
:
: Bests, Rauko
:

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
That, and some of his assumptions abt Bungie/us are just falseNT

n/t

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
the phrase "your IQ is to low " says it all (NT)

NO!
TEXT!!!

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Note: (vlt)

English isn't Rauko's first language, so the 'to' is forgiveable. The sentiment, of course, remains self indicting.

RII

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Halo & Bungie (long rant)

Myth..community! Go on back a few years..then blow the dust off all us that are STILL around. That community was the foundation base that the Mythers exploded on.

just my 2 cents
:
: But going back to HALO and Bungie. In my very humble
: opinion Bungie was a great company, but what make it great
: was not Marathon or even Myth I or II per se, it was the
: community they built around the Myth series.

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Halo & Bungie (long rant)

I for one totally agree with you.

Consoles are great ideas, but I have yet to see a console have 1/10th the ability to run the kind of amazingly intricate and deep games that the PC's can run.

Some of the most amazing entertaining games have been PC games.

Black and White (console version much much worse)
Counterstrike (impossible without mouse/keyboard and multiplayer)
EQ,DAOC, (massively multiplayer, a revolution in gaming that is impossible with consoles)

These are just a few of my favorite games, there are some games I play through for story (max payne) but I usually don't touch them again ever, mods keep them alive for pc's but the only games that really have longelvity are the online games.

When I first saw halo at E3, I was blown away, I was imagining multiplayer gaming goodness with up to 60 people all using vechiles, working together, with those awesome physics and graphics, with some great netcode (counterstrike) Honestly I though Halo was going to be the ultimate game for me.

Since they decided to go console, I totally lost hope, I hardly even followed the last year of development for this game, because lets face is first person shooters and gamepads is a dumb, dumb dumb idea.

Now I look forward to mods for Tribes 2, or patches that will improve the netcode on operation flashpoint, I look forward to battlefield 1942 or Medal of Honor and return to castle wolfenstien or unreal 2.

I was just really upset to see halo go this way, I was expecting a ground braking first person PC multiplayer experience. Heck I actually wouldn't mind the lack of any single player story, just multiplay would have been fine for me, let us make up our own stories, like in CS.

It's all about fun people, and Halo could have been truckloads of it, now that's it's a console game, It has lost about 80% of it's fun value and 100% of it's replayability for me.

Nothing more to say about this, a game that could have been one of the best PC games of all time, but it was not meant to be :(. Though I am certain one day someone will develop the ultimate team based vechile centric online multiplayer game. perhaps verant with PLanetside? or Team fortress 2?
we shall see.

vector40
vector40's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/11/2001 - 21:07
Re: Halo & Bungie (long rant)

Your argument? Brilliant. Your connections? Flawless. Your intelligence? Unassailable. There's only one problem.
Where's the logic?
I mean, everything you're saying is based on that fact that Halo is not what it once was, correct? So, uh, have you played Halo recently? More importantly, did you play it in its first, PC/Mac build?

That's all, thank you. Move along.

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Halo wasn't that great, he's right(nt) [NT]
acrappa
acrappa's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
RHL Is Up

The DNS is messed up, so you'll have to connect with the IP: 65.35.18.253

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Good call (NT)

acrappa wrote on Friday, 10/26/2001 - 19:06:

: The DNS is messed up, so you'll have to connect with the
: IP: 65.35.18.253

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: RHL Is Up Actually!

acrappa wrote on Friday, 10/26/2001 - 19:06:

: The DNS is messed up, so you'll have to connect with the
: IP: 65.35.18.253

text file

hotline.rampancy.net A 65.35.18.253

Good game.
-Iso

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
some info...

Well It's been a while since I've posted here (like over a year:P), so hello again anyway.

Just wanted to ask what exactly is going on with the pc/mac version of Halo? (this may have been answered somewhere else but im tired and these pages are loading *very* slowly)

I mean over the past months all I've seen is talk about the x-box, all the weekly updates have been about the x-box etc etc.
Soooo... whats the wack? coop on the x-box is munted.. 2 player split screen only? sad.. ok so what about the pc/mac ? a jeep can fit 3 people so they *should* allow at least 3 preferably more.. 6 players.. supply 2 jeeps.. not hard..

Actually coop is my only concern, DM, TDM, CTF.. couldnt care less every FPS has 'em. No-one bothers with good co-op anymore to busy rushing shit out the door to make a buck (my first post here was a rant on co-op and the modern gaming industries lack thereof, so i wont go into that again) 'cept croteam, kudos to you guys.. couldnt ask for more then dedicated online coop :)
And when i say coop i mean *real* coop, campain/storyline with more than one player, unlike a few sad ass companies trying to pitch team DM as coop (screw u tossers).

But yeah I'm ranting, actually I'd just like to know what any known differances will be between pc/mac and the console.. I mean if they are gonna pull off a straight console clone It's not going to be as good as it could be. Halo has gone gold? is that for pc/mac as well? (if yes then that would indicate a clone *crosses fingers*)

Cheers in advance for any info :)
Acid

kalis
kalis's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: some info...

PC/Mac halo should have co-op play, and will prolly be out in 6 months to a year from now, depending on the porting process. Details will be forthcoming shortly, I'm sure; a month or two after the Xbox, I'd expect. The gold version is just the Xbox one.

PC/Mac Halo is also expected to contain internet multiplayer.


The media machine knows what to do
It knows how to feed the poison to you
Useless information for your useless little lives
The tv lies and pacifies

-Nevermore
narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: some info...

Kalis wrote on Saturday, 10/27/2001 - 01:20:

: PC/Mac halo should have co-op play, and will prolly be out
: in 6 months to a year from now, depending on the porting
: process. Details will be forthcoming shortly, I'm sure; a
: month or two after the Xbox, I'd expect. The gold version
: is just the Xbox one.
:
: PC/Mac Halo is also expected to contain internet
: multiplayer.

I'd just like to add that this is all speculation-- there's never been any indication at all from anyone at Bungie or MS about when PC/Mac Halo would come out, or what, if any, differences will exist between it and the Xbox version.

And yes, only the Xbox version is gold-- the PC/Mac version, at least as far as we know, hasn't even been started.

While the inclusion of Internet play in the PC version seems a reasonable assumption, that's all it is at this point. While the fact that MS' online gaming service won't be ready until next summer is probably part of the reason why Halo doesn't have online play, it might not be the only one.

Xbox Halo has some interesting limitations even as a LAN game-- in particular, the fact that coop can only be played by two players, and on the same machine. Other network modes can be played with up to 16 players on 4 interconnected Xboxes; but not coop.

:
:


:
The media machine knows what to do
: It knows how to feed the poison to you
: Useless information for your useless little lives
: The tv lies and pacifies

: -Nevermore



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



acrappa
acrappa's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
You Like Nevermore?

Hey Kalis,

Didn't know you were a Nevermore fan. What other metal stuff do you like? Ever listen to Iced Earth or Falconer?

kalis
kalis's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: You Like Nevermore?

Haven't heard much Falconer stuff, but I do like Iced Earth... the Schaffer/Kursch "Demons and Wizards" projects was pretty cool too; makes the Lord of the Rings soundtrack worth looking forward to, imho :D

I'm pretty much into a wide range of metal, going from Darkthrone/Arch Enemy/In Flames through Slayer, pre-1988 Metallica, Testament, to Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, and even some Manowar, as well as Dream Theater, Steve Vai, and Rush.

One band you might like is Katatonia; they're not as heavy as Nevermore, but very good. Spiritual Beggars and the Mushroom River Band are some of the best Stoner rock I've heard.

What kind of other bands are you into?


The media machine knows what to do
It knows how to feed the poison to you
Useless information for your useless little lives
The tv lies and pacifies

-Nevermore
acrappa
acrappa's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: You Like Nevermore?

Kalis wrote on Saturday, 10/27/2001 - 07:50:

: Haven't heard much Falconer stuff, but I do like Iced
: Earth... the Schaffer/Kursch "Demons and Wizards" projects
: was pretty cool too; makes the Lord of the Rings soundtrack
: worth looking forward to, imho :D

Yeah, Demons and Wizards turned out very well.

: I'm pretty much into a wide range of metal, going from
: Darkthrone/Arch Enemy/In Flames through Slayer, pre-1988
: Metallica, Testament, to Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, and even
: some Manowar, as well as Dream Theater, Steve Vai, and
: Rush.

I've got tickets to see Judas Priest and Anthrax in January. Iced Earth was on the bill, but they couldn't reschedule to attend the tour (it was originally scheduled for September 15, but got postponed due to the attacks in New York). I've only heard Clayman by In Flames, but I liked it. I should check out some more of their stuff.

:
: One band you might like is Katatonia; they're not as heavy
: as Nevermore, but very good. Spiritual Beggars and the
: Mushroom River Band are some of the best Stoner rock I've
: heard.

Haven't heard of either of those bands. Do they have any song samples up anywhere?

: What kind of other bands are you into?

Iced Earth, Megadeth, and Metallica are my absolute favorites, but I also really dig: Dream Theater, Falconer, Blind Guardian, Tool, Iron Maiden, Slayer, and Primus.

I recently purchased Queensyrche's Operation: Mindcrime. Man, what an awesome album.

kalis
kalis's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: You Like Nevermore?

Judas Priest and Anthrax would be awesome. Although personally, I like the new stuff from Rob Halford better than that of his previous bandmates. In Flames' Colony album is a wonderful thing.

As for sound samples, HardRadio is a good site to check, as is this site and this other bwbk site.

One thing you should check out is Testaments "The Gathering" album, if you haven't already; it was described by some as the spiritual sequel to Master of Puppets, and I think it lives up to it pretty damn well. The latest Slayer album is damn fine too.

vector40
vector40's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/11/2001 - 21:07
Re: some info...

Kalis wrote on Friday, 10/26/2001 - 22:20:

: PC/Mac halo should have co-op play, and will prolly be out
: in 6 months to a year from now

(although it should be noted that this is entirely speculation)

kalis
kalis's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: some info...

vector40 wrote on Saturday, 10/27/2001 - 14:51:

: Kalis wrote on Friday, 10/26/2001 - 22:20:
:
: : PC/Mac halo should have co-op play, and will prolly be
: out
: : in 6 months to a year from now
:
: (although it should be noted that this is entirely
: speculation)

Hence the probably... If I knew something noone else did, I would have said "Halo will be out... whenever."


The media machine knows what to do
It knows how to feed the poison to you
Useless information for your useless little lives
The tv lies and pacifies

-Nevermore
Earendil
Earendil's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/16/2001 - 13:22
Halo: The Fall Of Reach

Has anyone heard much about this book? don't shoot me for this question but, is it good? I happen to be a very avid reader, and enjoy a good book, if it's written well :-)

also, I'd rather not read it if it gives away any part of the plot. I am still undecided about the XBox, so I may be one of the people waiting for the comp version. a good book would do me some good :-)

yes I know the book isn't out yet, just toss me the rumors(and when it does hit the shelves, maybe some opinions).

Earendil

Oh! They have the internet on computers now! - Homer J Simpson

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Yes

: also, I'd rather not read it if it gives away any part of
: the plot. I am still undecided about the XBox, so I may be
: one of the people waiting for the comp version. a good book
: would do me some good :-)
:
: yes I know the book isn't out yet, just toss me the
: rumors(and when it does hit the shelves, maybe some
: opinions).

http://www.subnova.com/forum/?pid=20011028.012422

Yes it is out.

acrappa
acrappa's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Yes

: Anonymous B.orger (Why am I a B.orger?)

You left "Name to display" blank.

vector40
vector40's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/11/2001 - 21:07
Re: Yes

acrappa wrote on Sunday, 10/28/2001 - 17:44:

: : Anonymous B.orger (Why am I a B.orger?)
:
: You left "Name to display" blank.

Taste the Glory

P'raps intentionally? I can invision a brigade of "Anonymous B.org-ers" swamping the forums, reveling in their eccentricity...
:) Never mind.

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Yes

acrappa wrote on Sunday, 10/28/2001 - 20:44:

: : Anonymous B.orger (Why am I a B.orger?)
:
: You left "Name to display" blank.

Actually, it fills the field with "Anonymous B.orger"-- to which he added "Why am I a B.orger" instead of changing it :)



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Yes

: Actually, it fills the field with "Anonymous B.orger"-- to
: which he added "Why am I a B.orger" instead of changing it
: :)

Exactly. Now the other thing... What exactly IS a "B.orger" - as for the why, I am still waiting for an answer - heh :D

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Yes

Anonymous B.orger (the same) wrote on Monday, 10/29/2001 - 06:47:

: : Actually, it fills the field with "Anonymous B.orger"--
: to
: : which he added "Why am I a B.orger" instead of changing
: it
: : :)
:
: Exactly. Now the other thing... What exactly IS a
: "B.orger" - as for the why, I am still waiting for an answer
: - heh :D

Oh-- heh. The "other major Bungie/Halo site" is Bungie.org (and its Halo portion, halo.bungie.org).

Just a bit of friendly inter-site rivalry :)



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Halo: The Fall Of Reach

Earendil wrote on Sunday, 10/28/2001 - 01:18:

: Has anyone heard much about this book? don't shoot me for
: this question but, is it good?

Very. If you liked Ender's Game or Starship Troopers, then HALO: The Fall of Reach will probably be your kind of book.

: I happen to be a very avid
: reader, and enjoy a good book, if it's written well :-)

Eric Nylund is a World Fantasy Award nominee -- he's no hack. He's done a wonderful piece of military sci-fi, with enough humanity to make it really hurt when you realize the bad position the characters are getting into.

: also, I'd rather not read it if it gives away any part of
: the plot.

H:TFoR is a prequel novel that sets up the background of the main character and explains the conflict that leads to the Pillar of Autumn's predicament at the beginning of the Xbox game. Bungie has created a terrific game storyline that's packed with cool mysteries and exciting discoveries--there was no way we were going to blow that! None of the secrets of the game's story are exposed in this prequel novel.

Hope you enjoy it!

Brannon Boren

--
Brannon Boren, Content Developer, Xbox Games
Franchise Development Group, Microsoft Corp.

Earendil
Earendil's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/16/2001 - 13:22
Thanks! [nt]

Brannon Boren wrote on Tuesday, 10/30/2001 - 15:38:

: Earendil wrote on Sunday, 10/28/2001 - 01:18:
:
: : Has anyone heard much about this book? don't shoot me
: for
: : this question but, is it good?
:
: Very. If you liked Ender's Game or Starship Troopers, then
: HALO: The Fall of Reach will probably be your kind of
: book.
:
: : I happen to be a very avid
: : reader, and enjoy a good book, if it's written well
: :-)
:
: Eric Nylund is a World Fantasy Award nominee -- he's no
: hack. He's done a wonderful piece of military sci-fi, with
: enough humanity to make it really hurt when you realize the
: bad position the characters are getting into.
:
: : also, I'd rather not read it if it gives away any part
: of
: : the plot.
:
: H:TFoR is a prequel novel that sets up the background of
: the main character and explains the conflict that leads to
: the Pillar of Autumn's predicament at the beginning of the
: Xbox game. Bungie has created a terrific game storyline
: that's packed with cool mysteries and exciting
: discoveries--there was no way we were going to blow that!
: None of the secrets of the game's story are exposed in this
: prequel novel.
:
: Hope you enjoy it!
:
: Brannon Boren
:
: --
: Brannon Boren, Content Developer, Xbox Games
: Franchise Development Group, Microsoft Corp.

Oh! They have the internet on computers now! - Homer J Simpson

Oh! They have the internet on computers now! - Homer J Simpson

acrappa
acrappa's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Ultimate Fighting Championship

You guys ever watch these? Man, it's awesome.

I used to watch these with my brother inlaw a few years ago, but I recently became interested with UFC again after I got the Dreamcast game (great reviews and surprisingly good). I've heard the latest UFC's are more organized and are more "show" than they used to be, but I haven't seen one in awhile so I couldn't say. But the old ones, man...

The UFC is a tournament in which eight fighters of different fighting styles get together in the Octagon (chosen because it gives no advantage to any particular fighting style, like the ring to the boxer or wrestler, or a circle(?) to the sumo wrestler) and there are no rules other than no biting or eye gouging. Anything goes and it gets extremely brutal. Watch a 600 pound sumo wrestler get slapped in the head, fall backwards and then get punched in the head repeatedly for 30 seconds. Watch a kickboxer get another kickboxer on the ground and kick him in the face, and watch the teeth fly out of his mouth. Watch a jiu jitsu expert get a shootfighter to submit after choking him for 15 seconds.

It's just awesome. :-)

If you've never seen UFC, Blockbuster probably has them for rental (they used to five years ago). If you don't like watching fights, then this will probably disgust you, but if you like boxing and such, you've been missing out.

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Ultimate Fighting Championship

The one that was on last month sucked compared to the old ones you're talking about. Each match seemed like it had one fight who really didnt want to fight...or atleast didnt want to take a hard hit....and the title fight had a sub fighting so that was even crappier. Too bad Belfort was injured or whatever cause I wanted to see him fight again.

no7orious
no7orious's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
error report-

Stone age wouldn't let me reply to a post in the spam forum. I didn't try it out with anything else or even look all that hard for a reply column. But there it is.

BTW, stoneage is nice without any pictures. Would load nice and fast.

*NM* *NM*

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: error report-

no7orious wrote on Sunday, 10/28/2001 - 23:07:

: Stone age wouldn't let me reply to a post in the spam
: forum. I didn't try it out with anything else or even look
: all that hard for a reply column. But there it is.
:
: BTW, stoneage is nice without any pictures. Would load
: nice and fast.

Hmm. This is me, replying to a post in the spam forum using Stone Age.

What browser are you on again?

When I clicked on this message in the index, I got the body of your message and a big "post" form right beneath that takes up a whole screen.

Got a screenshot?



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



madmax
madmax's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/11/2001 - 07:09
X-Box does Europe

The subject says it all. WHEN is the X-Box going to do Europe? The last I heard, it'll be March until I can get my hands on one. While ranting on SubHL about this, someone suggested the following course of action if I wanted to get Halo before it comes out on the Mac and PC (speculatively speaking, of course)...

  1. Import an XBox from the US, probably paying around £50 (that's about $80) on shipping and import tax (this is assuming I'm even allowed to import it)
  2. Pray that it doesn't get damaged, lost, impounded or stolen.
  3. Buy a dongle so that it'll work on my TV
  4. Get it cracked so that I can play DVDs from my own region
  5. Import all my games from the US (incurring import tax and shipping fees on each one) until they become available here

If MS is wanting to dominate the console market, why the HELL are they making it so damn hard for me to GET ONE? I *was* seriously considering making the X-Box my first ever console, going against my anti-console and anti-Microsoft tendancies, but there's no way I'll be getting one for a long time now. I might consider waiting until Project EGO is available and getting one (at a cut-price) then, or I might hope that The Grinch emulation project is successful.

A brief comment on Halo specifically - you guys in the US think you've got it hard, when MS bought Bungie and made Halo X-Box first, but bear in mind that it has added at least another 6 months onto my wait time.

So, can anyone tell me exactly WHY it takes such a damn long time for a console to come to the UK?

mad.max =PN=

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: X-Box does Europe

mad.max =PN= wrote on Monday, 10/29/2001 - 12:43:

: The subject says it all. WHEN is the X-Box going to do
: Europe? The last I heard, it'll be March until I can get my
: hands on one. While ranting on SubHL about this, someone
: suggested the following course of action if I wanted to get
: Halo before it comes out on the Mac and PC (speculatively
: speaking, of course)...
:

    :
  1. Import an XBox from the US, probably paying around £50
    : (that's about $80) on shipping and import tax (this is
    : assuming I'm even allowed to import it)
    :
  2. Pray that it doesn't get damaged, lost, impounded or
    : stolen.
    :
  3. Buy a dongle so that it'll work on my TV
    :
  4. Get it cracked so that I can play DVDs from my own
    : region
    :
  5. Import all my games from the US (incurring import tax
    : and shipping fees on each one) until they become available
    : here
    :

: If MS is wanting to dominate the console market, why the
: HELL are they making it so damn hard for me to GET ONE? I
: *was* seriously considering making the X-Box my first ever
: console, going against my anti-console and anti-Microsoft
: tendancies, but there's no way I'll be getting one for a
: long time now. I might consider waiting until Project EGO is
: available and getting one (at a cut-price) then, or I might
: hope that The Grinch emulation project is successful.
:
: A brief comment on Halo specifically - you guys in the US
: think you've got it hard, when MS bought Bungie and made
: Halo X-Box first, but bear in mind that it has added at
: least another 6 months onto my wait time.
:
: So, can anyone tell me exactly WHY it takes such a damn
: long time for a console to come to the UK?

Any device like this needs be passed through government regulations, for one.

Secondly, selling a product isn't as simple as just saying it's available. Different marketing plans need to be prepared for different regions, as well as the media buying plans that go with them and the agreements for where it will be distributed.

Lastly, manufacturing capacity has to be lined up to make sure that there is enough supply so that demand doesn't so far outstrip the available units that the consumer reactions turn negative; a little bit of scarcity can stimulate demand; too much can create bad impressions.

So given that you probably can't simultaneously launch such a product in areas as large as North America, Japan, and Europe, they have to decide what the proper sequence is.

I think what you're REALLY asking is why it is that Japan and the US are always considered the two important markets for a console, and the UK and Europe come after that-- to which I have to say I don't have enough specific information to answer. I just know that whenever I read stories in the business press about how a console will do upon launch, they always talk about Japan and the US markets and never about Europe. Perhaps the market penetration is low; it's certainly not the overall size of the market.

:
: mad.max =PN=



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



no7orious
no7orious's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Oni For Mac OS X!!!

Three cheers for the omni group!

They finally released their port of a cocoa version of Oni. Let's hope it gets some openGL speedups from the port.

I was getting nastolgic for this game after watching some DOA3 videos. Everything looks so canned in those fighting games. Oh well, Konoko still kicks MY ass around the room.

*NM* *NM*

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
rhl down! subnova down! get your hl fix here!

Go to the old 'orleans' hl. The address is:

eve.rare-form.com
login: orleans

no pw... cya there

Grumpy

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
RHL's been up for days man... (?)

... If you want the direct IP address for RHL, it's 65.35.18.253

(use this in the address slot, instead of "hl.rampancy.net")

- Noc

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Subnova HL back up at hl.subnova.com -nt-

Anonymous wrote on Monday, 10/29/2001 - 13:19:

: Go to the old 'orleans' hl. The address is:
:
: eve.rare-form.com
: login: orleans
:
: no pw... cya there
:
: Grumpy

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Official Subnova Backup Hotline Server

Just for future reference, the official backup Subnova hotline server is:

hotline://gawyn.subnova.com:7776

Gawyn

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
iPod discussion

Here's a collection of posts transplanted from RHL; it started to choke our news area, so we moved it here:

_________________________________________________________
From Jester (Tue Oct 30 00:45:46 2001):

I usually don't throw my chips in during discussions here, but I feel compelled to correct a few things.

First off, an issue that hasn't been addressed here is the size of the screen and battery life. I own a 64 meg Rio player, and the thing eats batteries like that's its job. It's tough to browse songs or create playlists with the device. Navigation on it is mediocre at best... I can't imagine how annoying it must be on a 5 GB Nomad.

Whoever is talking about how "USB 1 is sufficient" obviously does not own a USB MP3 player. Transferring songs takes what seems to be an eternity, especially when you have to transfer 64 megs of them every few days to keep the listening rotation fresh. Sure, I could get a nomad, but that thing would eat even more batteries, take forever to "warm up" after I turn it on, and be an even bigger bitch about transferring files. The way I see it, Apple's self-powered, 5 gig, firewire, cig pack sized, harddrive that plays MP3s and syncs with iTunes automatically is worth every dime of that price tag. If you're still dead set on getting something cheaper, send me some email and I'll give you a great deal on my 64 meg rio.
_________________________________________________________
From Narcogen (Tue Oct 30 00:26:06 2001):

Noc, what's "amusing" about any of it?

1) Actual formatted capacity of ANY hard drive is always less than advertised.
2) The people who ALWAYS insist on 320 Kbps MP3 encoding are the same people who said they could hear the difference between vinyl and CDs. I've run into crappy rips at that bitrate, and plenty of 160 Kbps rips that are fine. YMMV. If you've got a huge HD on your comp, sure, rip away. But whether the device fits 1000 songs or 500 at a higher quality is nothing odd. Go look at how many shots they say digital cameras hold; they always quote medium or low quality rates.
3) Battery life varies? OMG! Apple chetz!
4) Standard disclaimer. What do you want them to say? 'Rip all you want, they'll make more'?
5) Uh... rates of what?
6) Firewire is powered; this is great because you can charge the unit from the sync cable without an extra adapter.
_________________________________________________________
From Astro (Tue Oct 30 00:23:13 2001):

I dunno where you're getting the $150 thing. That's absurd, and completely untrue. Firewire doesn't add $150. Maybe $15, max. Prolly only $5 even.
_________________________________________________________
From ax (Mon Oct 29 23:26:32 2001):

"dont steal music"

It's not stealing, it's "sharing"! :D
_________________________________________________________
From Noc@PC (Mon Oct 29 22:36:05 2001):

Oh... and I found this amusing from the iPod tech stats:

(1) 1GB = 1 billion bytes; actual formatted capacity less.
(2) Capacity based on an average song length of 4 minutes and 160-Kbps encoding.
(3) Battery life may vary according to use.
(4) iPod and iTunes are for legal or rightholder-authorized copying only. Don't steal music.
(5) Actual rates will vary.
(6) iPod automatically charges whenever youíre connected and your Mac is on.

(#4 in particular)
_________________________________________________________
From Noc@PC (Mon Oct 29 22:25:17 2001):

But while we're on the topic (yes, I'm being a hypocrite ;-): I've got to criticize the idea that adding Firewire (and $150) to the iPod really makes it /that/ much better.

Firewire maxes out at 400Mbps (50 megabytes/sec) . If you're transporting a full 5 gigs across to the iPod (which you may do ONCE) then you're talking about a minimum time of around 103 seconds. If it's running at a slower FW speed, then you're talking about something like three minutes or more. That's damn impressive, but we're not finished.

Now... USB. USB1 runs at 12Mbits/s (1.5 megabytes/sec). USB2 is 40x as fast as USB1, bringing it into competition with Firewire for pure data-pushing power. And it may not be as expensive.

If you talk about transferring 5 gigabytes of data then you're talking about a minimum time of 56.8 minutes with USB1 or 1.7 minutes on Firewire. Still sounds awfully sexy. However:

- You'll likely only transfer a five-gig block ONCE. Otherwise, you're normally talking about much smaller packages on a day-to-day basis, like perhaps 50-100 megabytes at a time. (which would literally only take only a minute or two in USB1. YAY! So why pay $150 more for something you may not really need?)

- As far as data transfer, you are limited by two things: the hard drives on both ends of the cable. So the maximum data throughput of the cable being used isn't necessarily the final say on the matter, and you are not going to necessarily get a data rate as pretty as Firewire (or even USB2) may initially may it appear.

- Ultimately, you /do/ have to compare prices vs. performance. And for price/performance ratio, you're talking about some MUCH better deals here: http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/electronics/mp3.shtml (pay special attention to the Archos devices - note that one has 4x the storage for roughly the same or less money)

Something to think about.
_________________________________________________________
From Jessikai (Mon Oct 29 20:56:43 2001):

My Rant of the Day, since we CAN use the news as a forum, here at RHL, unlike some other *coughannoyingcough* servers:
Alot of people have been complaining about the iPod's relitave high cost... True, it is high, too high for me, but it's not overpriced, at all. It's a 5 gig firewire HD, that's 1.8 inches wide (or something like that.) That alone retails for $350. Erm, it WILL retail for $350, when it goes on the market. That small and fast of a drive isn't even out yet. Since it's firewire, you can transfer 5 gigs of data in like 5 min or something. All other mp3 players would take like 15 hours to transfer that over USB. And they're all like 32, 64, or maybe 128 MB anyway, unless you get one of physically huge ones, which still isn't 5 gigs. Apple should be marketing it as a tiny 5 gig firewire HD, with the added bonus of an mp3 player. And it's all Quicktime-readable sound files, not just mp3s, anyway. So there.

Thnax,
~Jessikai
_________________________________________________________
From Matt (Mon Oct 29 02:58:16 2001):

Apple and music artists talk about the iPod:

http://www.apple.com/hardware/video/ipod_intro.html
_________________________________________________________
From Tobin [GameCube] (Wed Oct 24 17:49:00 2001):

Apple Store for Education has the iPod for $369...The Apple Store for Developers has it for $319 ...
_________________________________________________________


Rampant for over se7en years.



ferrex
ferrex's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Worthy Alternative

Allow me to butt into this conversation with an unasked for advertisement!

http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/electronics/3774.shtml

I purchased one of these Personal Jukeboxes back in late May, and pricey as it may be, it's hands down the best portable audio device I've ever owned.

The iPod is very nice, but the way I see it, it only has three significant advantages over the Jukebox:

  1. Transfer speed: FireWire vs. USB is no contest, but over the 5 months that I've been using this MP3 player, I've only once had to transfer a large amount of music (when I first loaded my MP3s onto it). Subsequent loads have all been relatively small, finished in a few minutes. I think this would be typical of most users, too--once you load music on, you don't have to load it again, and the only time you're likely to transfer a huge amount of music is the first time you load it (and leaving it connected overnight is no big deal).
  2. Size: The iPod is marvellously small, true, but the Jukebox doesn't seem unweildly by any stretch of the imagination. And an MP3 player doesn't need to be ubersmall for typical use, unless you walk around listening to music a lot (which some people do, of course).
  3. Interface: The iPod's interface is very nice--I love the scroll wheel and the speed with which you can navigate. But that said, the Jukebox's interface is no slouch either--your MP3's are organized into Sets, which contain CDs, which contain the songs. The three level hierarchy is easy to skim through. Additionally, some other features are immediately available, like play mode (Shuffle, Shuffle CDs, Repeat, etc), play selections (Everything, This Set, This CD, etc.) and some other options like bass boost. A firmware update also added browse-while-playing support (in response to user feedback, no less), and the developers have even hidden a version of Minesweeper and Sokoban in the firmware. ;)

It's more expensive, aye, but for that you get 4x more space (and you can even upgrade the hard drive to a 30 or 40 gig hard drive if you have sack... I've found tutorial pages on the net that show you how to do it), the same play time, and a few nice included accessories (headphones, car stereo kit, faux leather carrying case which doesn't suck, etc.).

A possible downside is the software used to sync to a Mac. It's a bit rough around the edges, and I've had it crash once or twice, but it's otherwise perfectly useable.

The Archos player is a bit cheaper, but I haven't seen or used one yet. Doesn't look like the screen is as large, though, which makes me wonder about the interface. And don't bother with the 20gig Nomad--I've heard horrible things about their battery life (the Jukebox gets 10 hours easy with an included lithium ion battery) and software loading time (the Jukebox goes from asleep to playing music in a few seconds). The people who make the Jukebox (HanGo manufactures it, but some people in Compaq's R&D do the hardware and firmware) are also actively updating the firmware and synch software too, which means new features creep in every now and then.

If you can scrooge and save a bit more, I'd highly recommend one of these over an iPod. Not quite as stylish, but a better deal for the price, IMHO.

Cheers,
rex

--
Ferrex (Dead)
Coffee Engineer, Vehicle Logistics
Bungie Studios

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
More expensive, bigger, heavier, less Mac-like?

Ferrex (Dead) wrote on Tuesday, 10/30/2001 - 03:13:

: Allow me to butt into this conversation with an unasked
: for advertisement!
:
: : href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/electronics/3774.shtml">http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/electronics/3774.shtml
:
: I purchased one of these Personal Jukeboxes back in late
: May, and pricey as it may be, it's hands down the best
: portable audio device I've ever owned.
:
: The iPod is very nice, but the way I see it, it only has
: three significant advantages over the Jukebox:
:

    :
  1. Transfer speed: FireWire vs. USB is no contest, but
    : over the 5 months that I've been using this MP3 player, I've
    : only once had to transfer a large amount of music (when I
    : first loaded my MP3s onto it). Subsequent loads have all
    : been relatively small, finished in a few minutes.

    Yes, this is true for my Rio 500 as well. Although it's capacity is so small the transfer speed was never really an issue. However, first impressions are lasting. To a non-techie, claim that you can hold 5 GB of music on a device, and then tell them it takes an hour or more to copy, they'll start saying "phooey". Even if it is just the first time.

    But beyond that... as this is really a Mac peripheral masquerading as a consumer electronic device... why use USB? Every shipping Mac has firewire. Why not use it? Then you get to claim the speed advantage.

    [snip]

    :

  2. Size: The iPod is marvellously small, true, but the
    : Jukebox doesn't seem unweildly by any stretch of the
    : imagination. And an MP3 player doesn't need to be ubersmall
    : for typical use, unless you walk around listening to music a
    : lot (which some people do, of course).

    What's the purpose of a portable MP3 player if it isn't walking, running, etc? Otherwise, just use a laptop.

    :

  3. Interface: The iPod's interface is very nice--I love
    : the scroll wheel and the speed with which you can navigate.
    : But that said, the Jukebox's interface is no slouch
    : either--your MP3's are organized into Sets, which contain
    : CDs, which contain the songs. The three level hierarchy is
    : easy to skim through. Additionally, some other features are
    : immediately available, like play mode (Shuffle, Shuffle CDs,
    : Repeat, etc), play selections (Everything, This Set, This
    : CD, etc.) and some other options like bass boost. A firmware
    : update also added browse-while-playing support (in response
    : to user feedback, no less), and the developers have even
    : hidden a version of Minesweeper and Sokoban in the firmware.
    : ;)
    :

: It's more expensive, aye, but for that you get 4x more
: space (and you can even upgrade the hard drive to a 30 or 40
: gig hard drive if you have sack... I've found tutorial pages
: on the net that show you how to do it), the same play time,
: and a few nice included accessories (headphones, car stereo
: kit, faux leather carrying case which doesn't suck, etc.).

But what you're basically saying is, that for $100 MORE than the iPod, you can have 4x the storage. Which is true.

Except the biggest criticism of the iPod right now isn't that 5GB isn't enough-- but that $399 is too high a price. So I'm not sure how that makes $499 a worthy alternative.

I'm no MP3 freak, but the vast majority of the music I listen to on a regular basis is on my laptop, and it consumes only 3GB. And transferring it over in bits and sets to my Rio 500 is a bitch, and even though the transfers are small I hate waiting for USB. And the thing uses regular batteries, not rechargeable ones, so there's that to deal with.

: A possible downside is the software used to sync to a Mac.
: It's a bit rough around the edges, and I've had it crash
: once or twice, but it's otherwise perfectly useable.

Software-hardware integration is what Apple does best.

[snip]

: If you can scrooge and save a bit more, I'd highly
: recommend one of these over an iPod. Not quite as stylish,
: but a better deal for the price, IMHO.

Only if storage is such an important factor that it outweighs all the others-- potential software problems, higher weight (50% higher), slower sync speed and higher cost.

Doesn't strike me that this is a worthy alternative at all-- certainly not for a Mac user already using iTunes on a firewire-capable Mac and a reasonably sized MP3 collection.

And as for the storage-- to my mind, the speed of firewire almost completely negates this advantage, unless you're going to be away from your Mac for really long stretches.

If you can fill the iPod in a few minutes, then swapping out one of four 5GB playlists from iTunes to the iPod should also only take a few minutes. So having 20GB capacity in the Jukebox is basically just a way of compensating for the slow transfer speed of USB, that makes it inconvenient to have anything less than your entire collection on the HD at once.

And to me, the size and weight, interface, Mac integration, and even the style of the device are all more important than sheer storage size-- and that's going to be true for the vast majority of potential buyers-- even if this WAS a consumer electronics device and not a Macintosh peripheral.



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



ferrex
ferrex's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: More expensive, bigger, heavier, less Mac-like?

: Yes, this is true for my Rio 500 as well. Although it's
: capacity is so small the transfer speed was never really an
: issue. However, first impressions are lasting. To a
: non-techie, claim that you can hold 5 GB of music on a
: device, and then tell them it takes an hour or more to copy,
: they'll start saying "phooey". Even if it is just the first
: time.

Right, but have you never broken in a speaker? Or installed a beast like Codewarrior? This is the same sort of thing--you make a one time payment, and never have to do it again. It's simple maintenance, like plugging the thing in overnight to let the battery charge.

: What's the purpose of a portable MP3 player if it isn't
: walking, running, etc? Otherwise, just use a laptop.

Using a laptop for playing music is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer. But more to the point, clipping a Jukebox to your belt is no problem, neither is running with it or doing anything you please. Personally, I hook it to my car stereo and bring it to work with me, and in both capacities it's more convenient than a laptop. But in neither place would cutting it's size in half make a whit of difference to me.

The only drawback I was suggesting was that it's too large to fit into your front pocket and not be obtrusive. But put it in the included case, and it clips very nicely to one's belt.

: Except the biggest criticism of the iPod right now isn't
: that 5GB isn't enough-- but that $399 is too high a price.
: So I'm not sure how that makes $499 a worthy alternative.

Sure, but the way I've heard that criticism phrased isn't "$399 is too much", it's been "$399 is too much for 5 gigs." Which is true given the prices of competing MP3 players.

Yes, you're paying $100 more for 15gigs more storage.

: I'm no MP3 freak, but the vast majority of the music I
: listen to on a regular basis is on my laptop, and it
: consumes only 3GB.

Well of course, if you don't need the space then you shouldn't pay for it. I've long since used 5gigs, though, and its nice to have so much free space available for expanding my CD collection, which presently resides in it's entirety on the MP3 player.

: And transferring it over in bits and sets
: to my Rio 500 is a bitch, and even though the transfers are
: small I hate waiting for USB. And the thing uses regular
: batteries, not rechargeable ones, so there's that to deal
: with.

Right, but you're constantly transferring files over to your Rio because you constantly have to delete them to free up room for the next round of files. You don't need to do that when you have 20 gigs of space. You copy it over once, and then maybe much later on you delete it after you've finished listening to the music and really need that space.

As for the batteries, are you referring to your Rio? The Jukebox uses a single internal battery which you pretty much never have to worry about (whereas some of the other players on Thinkgeek require constant battery sacrifices...)

You make good points though, so I'll qualify my recommendation: If you have a large MP3 collection and think you'll be adding more in the future, then I recommend the Jukebox. For me, 4x the capacity and the freedom to copy entire high-bitrate CDs to the player and leave them there indefinitely more than makes up for the slower transfer speed and few ounces of weight.

-rex

--
Ferrex (Dead)
Coffee Engineer, Vehicle Logistics
Bungie Studios

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: More expensive, bigger, heavier, less Mac-like?

ferrex wrote on Tuesday, 10/30/2001 - 04:14:

: Right, but have you never broken in a speaker? Or
: installed a beast like Codewarrior? This is the same sort of
: thing--you make a one time payment, and never have to do it
: again. It's simple maintenance, like plugging the thing in
: overnight to let the battery charge.

The vast majority of people don't own speakers good enough to "break in" and have never installed CodeWarrior.
:
: : What's the purpose of a portable MP3 player if it
: isn't
: : walking, running, etc? Otherwise, just use a laptop.
:
: Using a laptop for playing music is like swatting flies
: with a sledgehammer. But more to the point, clipping a
: Jukebox to your belt is no problem, neither is running with
: it or doing anything you please. Personally, I hook it to my
: car stereo and bring it to work with me, and in both
: capacities it's more convenient than a laptop. But in
: neither place would cutting it's size in half make a whit of
: difference to me.

It does to me. The Rio 500 is about the biggest thing I want to carry for this purpose-- it fits in the all kinds of pockets, and isn't terribly heavy. I'd never dream of going to anything CD-sized. True, this unit seems like an OK compromise, size-wise-- but we weren't considering that one factor in isolation, but the combination-- whether going for something heavier, bigger, more expensive, slower, and potentially slightly less easy to use and less integrated into a Macintosh environment is all justified by an extra 15GB. I really don't think it is.
:
: The only drawback I was suggesting was that it's too large
: to fit into your front pocket and not be obtrusive. But put
: it in the included case, and it clips very nicely to one's
: belt.

Right. But a lot of the time, my front pocket is right where the Rio is. Especially when, say, on a plane-- where getting at something clipped to your belt is uncomfortable, and you need your tray table for something else, like food.
:
: : Except the biggest criticism of the iPod right now
: isn't
: : that 5GB isn't enough-- but that $399 is too high a
: price.
: : So I'm not sure how that makes $499 a worthy
: alternative.
:
: Sure, but the way I've heard that criticism phrased isn't
: "$399 is too much", it's been "$399 is too much for 5 gigs."
: Which is true given the prices of competing MP3 players.

That's the geek criticism, not a mainstream one-- and actually I haven't seen it phrased that way. I'm seeing it phrased that it's too much for an MP3 player, period, given that models are available for $200-$250.

Forget about the Linux-running, geek toy players and look at the ones that sell well-- like the Rio.

My Rio stores a maximum of 128MB. It cost $250 when I bought it, plus the extra memory card, which was about $100 at that time.

So for $350, I got 128MB. All in all, about $2.73 per megabyte of storage for the privilege of the Rio's small size, low weight, good interface, and integration with SoundJam.

For $399, the iPod has nearly exactly the same dimensions, and stores 5GB. That's less than $.07 per megabyte; and it transfers faster, to boot.

The Jukebox you cite that stores 20GB for $499 costs less than $.02 per megabyte, but loses marginally on size, weight, iTunes integration, transfer speed, etc.

The difference is just too slight to trade away those other elements; especially when the size of immediately available capacity is diminished by the ease and speed at which playlists may be changed, which isn't true for the Rio, the Jukebox, or any other player.

In short, to be convenient, the Jukebox *must* have a massive capacity, because if you had to switch out large playlists using USB it would annoy everybody.
:
:
: Yes, you're paying $100 more for 15gigs more storage.

Right. But storage isn't everything, that's my point-- especially to an ordinary Mac user, or even an ordinary consumer. If it was everything, we'd all be watching movies on Betamax players and listening to music on minidiscs.

[snip]
:
: Well of course, if you don't need the space then you
: shouldn't pay for it. I've long since used 5gigs, though,
: and its nice to have so much free space available for
: expanding my CD collection, which presently resides in it's
: entirety on the MP3 player.

There's a certain neat and organized logic to having everything in one place. But let's look at what is really meant by "needing" the space.

To add even one song you've got to hook the player up. And you've got to wait for the slow USB transfer for it. Add an album, and it's longer. Add a couple, and it's longer.

Now, imagine a player with less capacity, but much faster transfer time. Since you've got to connect the player to add even a single song, we'll assume this is done on a regular basis. And now you can change the iTunes playlist for the device, adding the new material and removing (or "moving" in this case) other material as needed to fit the capacity of the device.

So, yes, there's planning involved here-- for the pleasure of the smaller, more elegant device, perhaps I make a broad, sweeping generalization about what collection of stuff I might want to listen to between now and when I next sync the iPod.

Perhaps this sounds like a burden.

But if 5GB, for argument's sake, is 1,000 songs, then 20GB is 4,000. Picking a block of 1,000 songs out of 4,000 until the next time you're at your computer probably isn't that difficult.

With an average of, say, 10 tracks on a CD, 1,000 songs is 100 CDs. How many people carried that many CDs around with them if they had a portable player?

In short, I think the listening habits of most people probably don't range that far within, say, the course of a day.

In fact, if a song averages only 3 minutes long, those 1,000 songs represent 3,000 minutes of continuous play-- FAR longer than any of these devices' battery life, and longer than two complete days.

If you had the full 20GB, that'd be 12,000 minutes! Like a lot of people, I'm betting there's a small segment of your collection that gets played on a fairly regular basis over the course of days, weeks, and even months-- and a fairly good-sized portion that gets played much less often, and possibly not at all.

I'm guessing that most people can, probably in a few seconds, organize lists in such a way to predict with great reliability what they'll be listening to in the short term.

Fundamentally, the ability to have an entire music collection (and a much larger than average one, at that) has a certain "coolness" factor, but isn't really a solution to a problem being demanded by the real-world requirements of most listeners, especially those used to previous portable devices.

:
: : And transferring it over in bits and sets
: : to my Rio 500 is a bitch, and even though the transfers
: are
: : small I hate waiting for USB. And the thing uses
: regular
: : batteries, not rechargeable ones, so there's that to
: deal
: : with.
:
: Right, but you're constantly transferring files over to
: your Rio because you constantly have to delete them to free
: up room for the next round of files. You don't need to do
: that when you have 20 gigs of space. You copy it over once,
: and then maybe much later on you delete it after you've
: finished listening to the music and really need that space.

Right, but as I mentioned above, you're going to have to do it anyway at some point. Maybe a single song is no big deal, but I tend to rip whole CDs when I buy them, and I tend to buy more than CD at once.. don't you?

If, for argument's sake, I just organize my playlists by albums, trading a new album for a old one in the iPod takes me only a few seconds, and the iPod a few more.

: As for the batteries, are you referring to your Rio? The
: Jukebox uses a single internal battery which you pretty much
: never have to worry about (whereas some of the other players
: on Thinkgeek require constant battery sacrifices...)

Yeah, I meant the Rio-- I know the Jukebox has an integrated rechargeable like the iPod. Of course, the iPod's can be charged off a firewire device, which for a Mac user is a big boon.

:
: You make good points though, so I'll qualify my
: recommendation: If you have a large MP3 collection and think
: you'll be adding more in the future, then I recommend the
: Jukebox. For me, 4x the capacity and the freedom to copy
: entire high-bitrate CDs to the player and leave them there
: indefinitely more than makes up for the slower transfer
: speed and few ounces of weight.

Hmm-- I'd qualify more. If you have a large collection, will increase that collection, and feel that the need to have the entire collection portable 100% of the time is worth paying more money for, and trading off design, some portability, some Macintosh integration, and MUCH slower transfer speed for, then perhaps it is worth considering.

The primary jist of what I was saying was that given the historical limitations of portable music devices, this doesn't represent an average consumer or even an average Mac owner, and I think the tradeoffs Apple made are good and clever ones.

That, and the ability to use it as a HD is a big factor for me as well. I loved the LaCie PocketDrive; to me, this is like a FireWire PocketDrive that also plays music.

Oh.. and the workarounds I mentioned?

Already done. Macfixit has an item on transferring songs back down from an iPod to another computer, something I don't think any other player will allow. (Whether Apple will be able to ship the device if this isn't fixed somehow is another story).

And for the games?

There's a breakout game in the iPod's firmware :)

:
: -rex



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: More expensive, bigger, heavier, less Mac-like?

: The vast majority of people don't own speakers good enough
: to "break in" and have never installed CodeWarrior.

I was asking if you had, Narc. Trying to draw an analogy. ;p

: Right. But a lot of the time, my front pocket is right
: where the Rio is. Especially when, say, on a plane-- where
: getting at something clipped to your belt is uncomfortable,
: and you need your tray table for something else, like
: food.

Believe me, you'd have more trouble getting one of these onto a plane than you would finding a place for it in the seat with you. It's not that big. ;)

But if a Rio500 is about your upper limit in terms of size, then fair enough--this would probably be too big for you. I'm thinking that we're placing different priorities on characteristics, though--to me, storage is a bigger plus than size.

: That's the geek criticism, not a mainstream one

Bah, but I'm a geek, and hence you get geek criticisms from me. ;p

: For $399, the iPod has nearly exactly the same dimensions,
: and stores 5GB. That's less than $.07 per megabyte; and it
: transfers faster, to boot.
:
: The Jukebox you cite that stores 20GB for $499 costs less
: than $.02 per megabyte, but loses marginally on size,
: weight, iTunes integration, transfer speed, etc.

Again, that difference in priority. I'm not concerned with transfer speed, because you only need to transfer once. Size and weight are concerns, but the Jukebox hasn't hit the upper bound. And since I don't use iTunes anyway (or rather, haven't been until very recently), that was never a major concern for me either.

I'm not discarding the improvements of the iPod that you cite, they simply mean less to me (and other people, I'm sure) than the capacity of the player.

: To add even one song you've got to hook the player up. And
: you've got to wait for the slow USB transfer for it. Add an
: album, and it's longer. Add a couple, and it's longer.

Yes, but I have to rip those CDs to begin with. So I start ripping the CD, and while it's doing that, I transfer it to the Jukebox. The transfer goes faster than the ripping, so I'm not losing any time than I've already lost. That's why this isn't a problem for me after the first big load.

: Now, imagine a player with less capacity, but much faster
: transfer time. Since you've got to connect the player to add
: even a single song, we'll assume this is done on a regular
: basis. And now you can change the iTunes playlist for the
: device, adding the new material and removing (or "moving" in
: this case) other material as needed to fit the capacity of
: the device.

This strikes me as being more of a hassle than a convenience, though. I want to copy all of my music over and not worry about it again. I don't want to have to organize playlists or manage space--if I want to listen to a particular set of music, I just select that music and narrow the playlist using the Jukebox's interface options.

If I really, really need to have a playlist which spans between sets and CDs, then the Jukebox allows me to create aliases within itself--I create a new set, and make a few CD or song aliases in that set. But that said, I've never yet seen the need for this and haven't done it more than once (to see how it worked).

: Perhaps this sounds like a burden.
:
: But if 5GB, for argument's sake, is 1,000 songs, then 20GB
: is 4,000. Picking a block of 1,000 songs out of 4,000 until
: the next time you're at your computer probably isn't that
: difficult.

A very good point.

: Maybe a single song is no big
: deal, but I tend to rip whole CDs when I buy them, and I
: tend to buy more than CD at once.. don't you?

Right, but as I mentioned above, I transfer as I rip, so regardless of the number of songs or CDs I'm going to have to spend the time anyway.

: The primary jist of what I was saying was that given the
: historical limitations of portable music devices, this
: doesn't represent an average consumer or even an average Mac
: owner, and I think the tradeoffs Apple made are good and
: clever ones.

I'm forced to concede the point--a 20gig capacity is probably overcompensation for the days of 64mb capacity, and having the FireWire transfer is indeed a clever compensation for what would seemingly be too little space. All in all, it's probably a good buy for a Mac using consumer with relatively common music habits.

But having conceded that point, I would still recommend the Jukebox to anyone more like myself, who use USB equipped systems more often than FireWire ones, who want to transfer music once and then not worry about it again, and who like the gimmick of being able to access any song they own at any given time without plugging into their system.

I'm hurting for that Breakout game, though... ;)

Cheers,
rex

kalis
kalis's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: More expensive, bigger, heavier, less Mac-like?

If I could get the iPod to interface with my PC, I'd prolly get one. And not just for the music.

The workarounds you mentioned, Narc, have actually been on the net since shortly after the iPod was announced... over at /., like most other geek news.

Also, I have little to no doubt that before long Linux will be running on the iPod.

The problem with transferring music from computer to computer was just iTunes specific, btw; if you treat the iPod as a firewire drive, you can put anything you want on it. It was iTunes that overwrote all the mp3s you had on it.

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Actually, you can get 4x the storage for LESS money (NT) [NT]
Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Grrr, damn cut-off title

I was saying that you can get 4x the storage (20G) for less money than the iPod, or even at around the same price. That's pretty awesome.

Who cares if your battery life can't last long enough to play EVERYTHING through once when running around remotely? Shoot, when you're not being mobile, you can just jack the thing into a wall and start charging up again. They still have a pretty good battery life.

- Noc

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Grrr, damn cut-off title

Anonymous wrote on Tuesday, 10/30/2001 - 21:30:

: I was saying that you can get 4x the storage (20G) for
: less money than the iPod, or even at around the same price.
: That's pretty awesome.

Actually, I only saw it for $100 more, not around the same price or less.

:
: Who cares if your battery life can't last long enough to
: play EVERYTHING through once when running around remotely?
: Shoot, when you're not being mobile, you can just jack the
: thing into a wall and start charging up again. They still
: have a pretty good battery life.

Umm.. the point wasn't that the battery life was too short. The point was that really, desiring to have the ENTIRE library available at once sounds like a selling point, but is really kind of irrational. As I pointed out, most people in a music collection that large have stuff that nearly never gets played. So the portion of a reasonable collection that can be held in 5GB is so ridiculously high that you'll STILL not ever play the majority of what's in there. Who plays 1,000 songs in the course of a month, let alone a week? I've been managing (although not always pleasurably) with 128MB. 5GB would mean I'd probably only spend a couple of minutes in any week having to make any decisions about what to load or not load on the portable. I can make the list changes in iTunes even when the iPod isn't present-- say, if someone else is using it-- and then have those changes made instantly without my intervention while the unit charges, to boot.

Basically, it's so you can say "yep, my ENTIRE music collection is in there." It's a coolness factor for anal-retentive organization freaks, kind of like the smooth, classic look of the iPod is for aesthetic industrial design freaks.

To each his own. But in short, I'll be buying one soon after stepping foot in the US.



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



Pages

Topic locked