VicenteCartas

[quote who="Zoomba" reply="44" id="2623307"]I find it interesting how people will reach as far as they do to rationalize and defend their platform when it's threatened by something new. "Just use msconfig!" "Who turns their PC off anyway?" "Linux will rule the market!" These and their related arguments are, in my opinion, completely missing the original points Brad makes in his article. All of them basically talk about working to alter us

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="39" id="2622993"] I run msconfig all the time. I also have Startup Cop and TweakVista. When I say "instant" on I mean just that. Instantaneous. With a typical laptop, it has to "sleep" unless it's plugged in and bringing it out of sleep can take several seconds. [/quote] Then the startup time only makes a difference when it's a short time using the iPad. As soon as it is a longer period the "instant boot time" comes to a second p

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="24" id="2622728"] It's a zillion little things like this that slow down the Windows experience. If I just want to quickly check the weather for this weekend on my laptop, I'm going to lose a couple minutes waiting to get it up and going (assuming it reconnects to my WiFi without having to mess with something). By contrast the iPad (and presumably any of these light-OSs like Android and WebOS) I'd just pop it up in seconds. [/quote] You

[quote who="Island Dog" reply="16" id="2622659"] 3rd party apps are what drives the iPhone and iPad, they are a huge part of it and Apple isn't eliminating them. [/quote] They are the whole reason behind the 3.3.1 iPhone OS license chance... Apple knows it's the most important thing to beat Android and WP7, and they want to keep that advantage if they can.

I agree it's good for some of the cases you talk about: consuming data for 30 seconds. Longer periods, or consuming and producing data (reading and answering emails or things like that) and the thing becomes a pain. Also, it clashes with most modern smartphones which are pretty good too for consuming data for a short time (but they have a much better mobility). I'm curious if following your argument, the ones that should be really worried are Macs and not PCs...

[quote who="ZehDon" reply="28" id="2619486"] Cloud Computing, however, is the natural progression of the technology we employ today, such as Client/Server, that provides a much more complete, secure and contained environment. With Governments and Corporations negotiatings things like the ACTA, which places near complete control of properties in the hands of copyright holders, it's clear that this is where the world is headed.[/quote] Things do not work exactly lik

Also, talking about "theorycraft", given that something like OnLive would probably lower the sales of ATI and nVidia in general, but taking into account that OnLive depends on ATI and nVidia to render things, nothing stops them from sinking the performance of OnLive with crappy hardware and even more crappy drivers to try to stop this becoming the next big thing. We have seen far more dirty things happening in the computer industry :p

[quote who="Raven X" reply="19" id="2619025"]@VicenteC Thought I would add, from a financial standpoint, these companies may see it with these two options: 1) Make a new Console that costs a LOT and Hope people buy it... 2) Make a OnLive Type service for our own games and reap endless income... Assuming the people are mostly buying up the "no hardware needed idea" the companies will adapt to the new system, or get left out and risk going under compl

[quote who="Raven X" reply="9" id="2618924"] I don't see why, Nintendo specially given that they profit with every piece of hardware they sell (and that they are pretty bad when it comes to online things). This kind of cloud gaming would mean investing a lot of money in infrastructure, and not selling their own hardware, for not any good gain. While this is true, I just read an interview with Miyamoto (yesterday in fact) where he said he's been aware Nintendo has been lagging

[quote who="Raven X" reply="7" id="2618872"]lol Yeah right. You know as well as the rest of us that if this takes off all those companies you mentioned will have Their Own cloud gaming systems set up or they'll jump on another companies band wagon. Honestly though, I see Nintendo at least, having their own set-up.[/quote] I don't see why, Nintendo specially given that they profit with every piece of hardware they sell (and that they are pretty bad when it comes to online things). This

I'm sure Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo won't allow that to happen :p

[quote who="Tridus" reply="47" id="2618652"]No game made ever has enough capacity for every single box to be put on the servers at the same time. Even MMOs don't work like that.[/quote] Internet doesn't work like that either (which is kind of funny) :p

[quote who="Awac A" reply="30" id="2618247"]VicenteC sometimes we dont control everything around us. I get assigned to a project some other guy worked on. That guy decided to use extremly long names for everything he did. Brancheing multiple times then starts giving problems. Reworking everything he did would take a crap load of time. So no not my shortcommings but someone elses. [/quote] Of course we can't control everything around us (a pity), but the right sol

[quote who="Awac A" reply="27" id="2618025"]Oh the clever people with all there wisdome. VicenteC... try harder. What do UAC have to do with anything. And i said i specificly couldnt use the app data folder or my documents etc. because i needed to minimize path length. Come on... [/quote] The expected answer: let's blame W7 for our own shortcomings. Whatever reason you have to need to write in C: or in a short path is the thing you should be blaming, not W7.

You can disable UAC to avoid those security prompts. But seriously, what you shouldn't do is copy things in C: If you want to copy data use the places for that, the AppData and UserData folders. You can even use My Documents that so many games and apps like to fill with crap lately. But C:? Come on...

"Guilders"

[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="34" id="2615911"] Auto-resolve is the AI playing both sides? I would think usually it's just an algorithm run the data between the two armies and some dice rolls. [/quote] Btw, auto-resolve can be both things, but in an old developer journal I think Brad posted the summaries of an auto-resolve, telling you what happened turn after turn more or less, so it seems auto-resolve was the battle run without graphics. But in general it doesn't ma

Let's see if I can explain the same with another example: chess. Imagine you have to write an AI that bets money on white or black wins. First, you calculate which side has a bigger % of winning the game, running an algorithm over the chess board. For example, you can add the pieces values (queen 9, rook 5, bishop 3,...), and the color with a bigger value has more possibilities of winning. Your AI can bet based on that information. But when the AI bet, even if you didn't reali

You really don't have any idea how AI works. If you are a human, you see two armies, you process a lot of information before deciding if fighting or retreating: you see the forces balance, how the units counter each other, the spells you know the other guy has or likes to use, how past matches resulted, the global vision taking into account economy,... Humans are very good at processing parallel information like that, while computers aren't. The AI is the same, it needs to get some in

How they can be auto-resolves a good measure of anything if they don't represent what happens in reality more or less??? About a better solution, no idea, if I had it I would be rich :)

[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="24" id="2613555"]Why should the AI make perfect decisions in the gray areas? Do humans make perfect decisions when it would be close? Don't you see how ridiculously flawlessly you're asking it to be?[/quote] I have never said it should make perfect decisions, I have said that with for your method to work, auto-resolve has to give realistic results. That's it, if you have two sets: 1) The results produced by auto-resolve 2) The

[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="20" id="2612743"] It doesn't need to, when you make the decision to withdraw you don't do it with perfect knowledge of exactly how things are going to play out, you do it on your assessment of comparative troop strengths. Auto resolves are a perfect way to measure that. Again you're demanding a level of accuracy for a simple system to be way higher than necessary.[/quote] Except when combat falls on the gray zone where AI think

And an AI using that calculation will only be good if the auto-resolve gives good results, but all auto-resolves I remember give results that aren't very similar to the real result if the player is involved.

I'm not saying it has to be flawless, I'm saying it is a very hard problem to solve well.

Very nice yes :)