sierra oscar
Sep 19, 09:39 AM
I don't know how many times we have to go round and round with this here. I've been on MacRumors since '01 and it's always the same-old, same-old. It's not legitimate. It's "I-wantism." You have no basis to believe that a Rev B would be more "stabled and refined." That's a hope, backed by nothing -- and nothing Apple ever comments on, either. The bottom line is that you can hope if you want, and you can wait if you want, but to bash Apple for being slow on the trigger, and to make the argument that Meroms are amazing and Yonahs are crap is, frankly, horse manure. Like I said, 64 bit is pretty irrelevant for most users, and the speed and battery differences are quite negligible. And the argument that Apple is losing tons of sales to PC manufactuers is, frankly, laughable too.
Sure... I have no basis to believe a revB will be more stable and refined. But I'm participating in 'discussion' - so no real proof - but I wasn't seeking any.
I did state - I was hoping a revB would 'maximise' my chances though. Ironically just as I have no 'proof' neither do you that this won't be the case.
I find your tone very condescending and doesn't encourage open and accepting dialogue between ppl here. I don't understand why you would participate then... If you need to be the oldest forum member (you win) or 100% right (you can win that too).... but I want to engage with ppl here in a friendly and warm atmosphere.
Sure... I have no basis to believe a revB will be more stable and refined. But I'm participating in 'discussion' - so no real proof - but I wasn't seeking any.
I did state - I was hoping a revB would 'maximise' my chances though. Ironically just as I have no 'proof' neither do you that this won't be the case.
I find your tone very condescending and doesn't encourage open and accepting dialogue between ppl here. I don't understand why you would participate then... If you need to be the oldest forum member (you win) or 100% right (you can win that too).... but I want to engage with ppl here in a friendly and warm atmosphere.
Max on Macs
Aug 5, 05:27 PM
Well iSight or no, there needs to be an update anyway. The Mac Pro will have Front Row, and how will you control it by remote if you're meant to keep it under your desk? The new Cinema Displays need an IR "extender".
Besides, I still think Apple WOULD love to include an iSight in their displays.
Are you "meant" to keep it under your desk? Who says? I had my PowerMac on the desk until I sold it (I will be getting a Mac Pro and I hate to put it on my desk if it's meant to go under it!)
Besides, I still think Apple WOULD love to include an iSight in their displays.
Are you "meant" to keep it under your desk? Who says? I had my PowerMac on the desk until I sold it (I will be getting a Mac Pro and I hate to put it on my desk if it's meant to go under it!)
mylios101
Apr 6, 11:11 AM
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=54619&processor=i5-2537M&spec-codes=SR03W
Hope this is useful.
Hope this is useful.
benthewraith
Nov 28, 07:54 PM
i agree with this on one condition:
Universal agrees to give up its right to prosecute anyone who owns an iPod for piracy.
i.e. if I buy an iPod, then I can pirate Universal's catalogue all I want because I have effectively already paid for their content.
a few bucks is a small price to pay to get access to everything they got
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law. :p Stress that the same law that applies to cassette tape players and the record function should be the same as downloading music to use on cds (to which they paid for, and to which money is added to CD/DVD sales to make up for pirated music).
Universal agrees to give up its right to prosecute anyone who owns an iPod for piracy.
i.e. if I buy an iPod, then I can pirate Universal's catalogue all I want because I have effectively already paid for their content.
a few bucks is a small price to pay to get access to everything they got
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law. :p Stress that the same law that applies to cassette tape players and the record function should be the same as downloading music to use on cds (to which they paid for, and to which money is added to CD/DVD sales to make up for pirated music).
Stella
Mar 31, 04:01 PM
Android is a good OS, and even better when the phone it comes in is offered for free.
Free phones are usually hard to beat. I'm sure the iOS would win if the iPhone came free with contract.
In come countries it is possible to get an iPhone free on contract... for example, Vodaphone in UK.
http://www.vodafone.co.uk/brands/iphone/pay-monthly-iphone/index.htm
Free phones are usually hard to beat. I'm sure the iOS would win if the iPhone came free with contract.
In come countries it is possible to get an iPhone free on contract... for example, Vodaphone in UK.
http://www.vodafone.co.uk/brands/iphone/pay-monthly-iphone/index.htm
zero2dash
Sep 13, 12:11 PM
How is this Apple "innovating"? Anandtech just put pre-release quad-core Intel-processor in to an Apple-computer. Apple itself had nothing to do with it. They could have used quad-core Dell-machine just as well.
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
Multimedia
Jul 15, 05:02 AM
Here's Link To NTI Dragon Burn for Mac OS X (http://www.ntius.com/default.asp?p=dragonburn/dburn4_main).
Dragon Burn enables Mac desktop and PowerBook notebook computer users to quickly and easily begin producing audio, data, mixed-mode CDs, and DVDs. Dragon Burn's Multi-Burning engine allows users to simultaneously write multiple CDs or DVDs. It also fully supports the newest internal and external drives, including 16x DVD-R drives.Thanks ksz. I checked it out and the multi burning capability is great. But Dragon Burn will not let you write Images which I find incredibly lame. I use Toast 7 a lot and I use it most of the time to write images not to physically burn discs. I would love to be able to write multiple Images with something. But, alas, Dragon Burn is not it. :(http://www.creativemac.com/2001/04_apr/news/toast53.htm
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.Wow. I had no idea I could have multiple copies of Toast 7 open. Just made a dupe and it works! Thanks Eldorian. I can really push my Quad to further limits now that I know this. Mucho Gracias.
Dragon Burn enables Mac desktop and PowerBook notebook computer users to quickly and easily begin producing audio, data, mixed-mode CDs, and DVDs. Dragon Burn's Multi-Burning engine allows users to simultaneously write multiple CDs or DVDs. It also fully supports the newest internal and external drives, including 16x DVD-R drives.Thanks ksz. I checked it out and the multi burning capability is great. But Dragon Burn will not let you write Images which I find incredibly lame. I use Toast 7 a lot and I use it most of the time to write images not to physically burn discs. I would love to be able to write multiple Images with something. But, alas, Dragon Burn is not it. :(http://www.creativemac.com/2001/04_apr/news/toast53.htm
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.Wow. I had no idea I could have multiple copies of Toast 7 open. Just made a dupe and it works! Thanks Eldorian. I can really push my Quad to further limits now that I know this. Mucho Gracias.
bigpics
Apr 11, 02:13 PM
If it is going to be a 4g/LTE iPhone then this works for me. I have no complaints with my iPhone 4 so waiting another 4-6 months is fine with me.I don't follow components closely, but I've read the current LTE chipset is none too svelte and power-hungry to boot.
If a delay's about LTE (and giving more time for tower rollout), it could be because Apple's sourcing next gen LTE radio (if one is near), keeping the device "thinner, faster, longer-running," consistent with current evolution and marketing points.
And for the record, neither Sprint's WiMax, T-mob's HSPA+ nor either Verizon's or ATT's LTE 1 come close to meeting the evolving, but existing spec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G)for "4G"
If a delay's about LTE (and giving more time for tower rollout), it could be because Apple's sourcing next gen LTE radio (if one is near), keeping the device "thinner, faster, longer-running," consistent with current evolution and marketing points.
And for the record, neither Sprint's WiMax, T-mob's HSPA+ nor either Verizon's or ATT's LTE 1 come close to meeting the evolving, but existing spec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G)for "4G"
DoFoT9
Aug 11, 07:42 PM
I mean, if we don't get to compare GT to NFS because of that, then surely you shouldn't compare GT to Forza for the same reason.
goes GT allow dragging/drifting ? :p
its kind of like comparing two different beasts imo.
goes GT allow dragging/drifting ? :p
its kind of like comparing two different beasts imo.
AppliedVisual
Oct 14, 04:02 PM
Intel is supposed to start shipping Clovertown CPUs into the retail channel by mid-november. We should see systems based on them by then too -- HP is claiming to have their first Clovertown workstations available on the 15th, so only a month away. I bet we'll see the 8-core Mac Pro systems by the end of November.
brewno
Mar 26, 12:53 AM
I tested Lion, and removed it after a month. Not buying it. I'll use Snow Leopard, it's the best OS so far. I'll see the one after Lion, maybe there will be something interesting.
gnasher729
Apr 27, 08:59 AM
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
You can think what you want. I develop software for a living. This file is not a "feature", and it isn't and never was present intentionally to store your location data. It is a very, very useful collection of data that in some situations makes your phone work faster and save power. Location Services are disabled when you disable them, and enabled when you enable them. Whoever tested this was testing exactly that: That Location Services does its best to find your location when it is enabled, and that it absolutely refuses to look for your location when it is disabled. That's what enabling/disabling location services means. Nobody at Apple ever cared about this file. It wasn't on anyone's radar before people had their paranoia attack.
This file recorded locations of WiFi and cell towers, but only the last time that you have been at each place. Exactly what is needed to improve Location Services. All your history, which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. Your actual location, which is known to your phone, and which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. All because it didn't serve the purpose of this file, which isn't and never was to track you.
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
You can think what you want. I develop software for a living. This file is not a "feature", and it isn't and never was present intentionally to store your location data. It is a very, very useful collection of data that in some situations makes your phone work faster and save power. Location Services are disabled when you disable them, and enabled when you enable them. Whoever tested this was testing exactly that: That Location Services does its best to find your location when it is enabled, and that it absolutely refuses to look for your location when it is disabled. That's what enabling/disabling location services means. Nobody at Apple ever cared about this file. It wasn't on anyone's radar before people had their paranoia attack.
This file recorded locations of WiFi and cell towers, but only the last time that you have been at each place. Exactly what is needed to improve Location Services. All your history, which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. Your actual location, which is known to your phone, and which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. All because it didn't serve the purpose of this file, which isn't and never was to track you.
AidenShaw
Sep 14, 08:23 PM
Too far out to tell although it is casually mentioned in the roadmap.
The next versions of the roadmaps will be discussed at the Intel Developer's Forum (http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/index.htm) a week from Tuesday in the City By The Bay.
I've heard that as attendees we'll find a Kentsfield and a pair of Clovertowns taped under our seats at the keynote :cool: :cool: .
The next versions of the roadmaps will be discussed at the Intel Developer's Forum (http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/index.htm) a week from Tuesday in the City By The Bay.
I've heard that as attendees we'll find a Kentsfield and a pair of Clovertowns taped under our seats at the keynote :cool: :cool: .
bigpics
Apr 11, 02:13 PM
If it is going to be a 4g/LTE iPhone then this works for me. I have no complaints with my iPhone 4 so waiting another 4-6 months is fine with me.I don't follow components closely, but I've read the current LTE chipset is none too svelte and power-hungry to boot.
If a delay's about LTE (and giving more time for tower rollout), it could be because Apple's sourcing next gen LTE radio (if one is near), keeping the device "thinner, faster, longer-running," consistent with current evolution and marketing points.
And for the record, neither Sprint's WiMax, T-mob's HSPA+ nor either Verizon's or ATT's LTE 1 come close to meeting the evolving, but existing spec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G)for "4G"
If a delay's about LTE (and giving more time for tower rollout), it could be because Apple's sourcing next gen LTE radio (if one is near), keeping the device "thinner, faster, longer-running," consistent with current evolution and marketing points.
And for the record, neither Sprint's WiMax, T-mob's HSPA+ nor either Verizon's or ATT's LTE 1 come close to meeting the evolving, but existing spec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G)for "4G"
Denarius
Mar 22, 07:24 PM
No he hasn't, the stage management has been quite subtle, actually, for once.
I had considered that theory, but when Cameron first broached a no-fly zone in parliament, Clinton's reaction seemed to be very put out when she initially put the dampers on the no-fly zone suggestion. If what you suggest is the case then, frankly, it's been done beautifully.
I think there's an argument for letting one of the partaking Arab nations run the show.
I had considered that theory, but when Cameron first broached a no-fly zone in parliament, Clinton's reaction seemed to be very put out when she initially put the dampers on the no-fly zone suggestion. If what you suggest is the case then, frankly, it's been done beautifully.
I think there's an argument for letting one of the partaking Arab nations run the show.
baryon
Mar 26, 08:31 AM
Unless I'm missing something, Mission Control is added in addition to Expos� as it is now. The old functionality will still be there. As for it being "ruined," a couple of days before the Lion preview the graphic artist I work with most was describing changes he wished they'd make to Expos� and we were laughing together a few days later when we watched the preview and boom, there it was. Incidentally, he makes his living off what he does with his "real" computer.
Unfortunately Expos� as you have it today is gone in Lion, and is replaced by Mission Control. What you still have in Lion is Expos� for the current app, which sort of defeats its purpose as most apps only have a single or not many windows open (thanks to tabs in Safari, etc...).
You no longer have expos� for all windows, which annoys me! You can also no longer see ALL your open windows in one glance, as you could zoom out of Spaces and do an Expos� before. Now you have to flick through all of your spaces one by one in Mission Control to see all your windows. And the icons for each space are tiny, making it very difficult to figure out what's on that space. I have no idea what was wrong with Spaces and Expos� in Leopard, why they needed to change Expos� in Snow Leopard, and why they needed to remove these features altogether in Lion. They were probably the best things in OS X.
Unfortunately Expos� as you have it today is gone in Lion, and is replaced by Mission Control. What you still have in Lion is Expos� for the current app, which sort of defeats its purpose as most apps only have a single or not many windows open (thanks to tabs in Safari, etc...).
You no longer have expos� for all windows, which annoys me! You can also no longer see ALL your open windows in one glance, as you could zoom out of Spaces and do an Expos� before. Now you have to flick through all of your spaces one by one in Mission Control to see all your windows. And the icons for each space are tiny, making it very difficult to figure out what's on that space. I have no idea what was wrong with Spaces and Expos� in Leopard, why they needed to change Expos� in Snow Leopard, and why they needed to remove these features altogether in Lion. They were probably the best things in OS X.
VanNess
Aug 5, 05:52 PM
As far as I'm concerned, my interest in WWDC rumor mongering is closed. Now that we're in the final weekend, there's too much potential for bogus, wild info from anonymous but suddenly "in the know" sources that will get a kick out seeing false info entertained in sites like this.
Insofar as all of the present rumors/claims combined, there just isn't enough there to justify the amount of "to be announced" sessions for developers that are on the WWDC event schedule, and it isn't likely they are Intel/Universal Binary-related (that particular cat is obviously already out of the bag), so at this point I have no idea what Leopard will bring. All bets are still off.
And what's this nonsense from Thinksecret?
A release date for Leopard is not expected at WWDC and it appears unlikely that the operating system will ship by the close of based on its current development status, sources say.
Well, they certainly aren't going to give an exact day and time of release, but you don't have to be "in the know" to understand that they are going to give a time frame for it's release (i.e., first quarter 07 or first half 07), as they typically do. Common sense tells you that. What's Jobs supposed to say? "Oh, I don't know. Not sure when we are going to release it. But we'll definitely get around to it one of these days."
My guess is that it won't happen until 07, about the same time frame Tiger was released. Although Apple may finish it's hardware transition for the present generation of machines come Monday, Universal Binaries are still very much in progress. Throwing in major new OS changes, new API's etc., courtesy of Leopard on top of the existing Universal Binary transition efforts isn't likely to sit well with developers if the release date for Leopard is too soon - as in by the end of the year. Risks developers either throttling back on UB support or support for whatever goodies that are new in Leopard. And by the looks of the number of yet to be announced sessions at WWDC, there may quite a number of new goodies.
With Microsoft's Vista constantly trying to steer it's way out of oblivion, in this case time is on Apple's side.
Insofar as all of the present rumors/claims combined, there just isn't enough there to justify the amount of "to be announced" sessions for developers that are on the WWDC event schedule, and it isn't likely they are Intel/Universal Binary-related (that particular cat is obviously already out of the bag), so at this point I have no idea what Leopard will bring. All bets are still off.
And what's this nonsense from Thinksecret?
A release date for Leopard is not expected at WWDC and it appears unlikely that the operating system will ship by the close of based on its current development status, sources say.
Well, they certainly aren't going to give an exact day and time of release, but you don't have to be "in the know" to understand that they are going to give a time frame for it's release (i.e., first quarter 07 or first half 07), as they typically do. Common sense tells you that. What's Jobs supposed to say? "Oh, I don't know. Not sure when we are going to release it. But we'll definitely get around to it one of these days."
My guess is that it won't happen until 07, about the same time frame Tiger was released. Although Apple may finish it's hardware transition for the present generation of machines come Monday, Universal Binaries are still very much in progress. Throwing in major new OS changes, new API's etc., courtesy of Leopard on top of the existing Universal Binary transition efforts isn't likely to sit well with developers if the release date for Leopard is too soon - as in by the end of the year. Risks developers either throttling back on UB support or support for whatever goodies that are new in Leopard. And by the looks of the number of yet to be announced sessions at WWDC, there may quite a number of new goodies.
With Microsoft's Vista constantly trying to steer it's way out of oblivion, in this case time is on Apple's side.
jaxstate
Jul 27, 10:29 AM
Sorry if i missed it, but at what speeds do these run? Don't they know just because they keep bumping and bumping the chip speed don't really mean they have a faster system. Seem just like yesterday when a better design was more important than a super fast chip. Oh well, everyone is buying into the Mhz myth now. Funny that just a year or so ago, Apple was trying to shoot down the Mhz myth, now they have people cheering for it. I guess power consumption is good though.
kwyn
Jun 8, 06:49 PM
How bout Best Buy?
blahblah100
Apr 27, 09:46 AM
There aren't any concerns, but since the media hyped this up so much, they had to address it. Now they have. Should be the end of the story. But it won't be since there are anti-Apple folks who will push to keep this story alive as long as they can until the next Apple-gate story gets created.
And I'm sure when the next Apple-gate story gets created, the blind fanbois will jump to their defense. :rolleyes:
And I'm sure when the next Apple-gate story gets created, the blind fanbois will jump to their defense. :rolleyes:
greenstork
Jul 31, 12:49 PM
With the possible introduction of the iPhone, movie downloads, Leopard preview, and true video iPods, in addition to new Mac Pros and possibly other updated Macs with the Core 2 Duos, I'm putting my money on a product announcement tomorrow.
Steve's going to spend the keynote telling developers about what they'll be able to do with Leopard, it is a developers conference after all. I'll go out on a limb and say Mac Pros tomorrow or perhaps at the very least, new Xserves. There is every reason to just wait until August 7, but I'll chance my prediction for an update tomorrow. Who's with me!
Steve's going to spend the keynote telling developers about what they'll be able to do with Leopard, it is a developers conference after all. I'll go out on a limb and say Mac Pros tomorrow or perhaps at the very least, new Xserves. There is every reason to just wait until August 7, but I'll chance my prediction for an update tomorrow. Who's with me!
twoodcc
Aug 11, 09:35 PM
My point is, earlier you were saying that they only have 4 games and they sold 57M copies. If you look at that link, which is right from Polyphony themselves, you will see that if you only count the 4 main games, as you were eluding to, that only totals 46M.
let's see, my original post:
yes it has been out for awhile, but they still haven't released the 5th game yet (not including demos). so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold, i'd say they sold a fair few...
noticed i said, "not including demos". which all other versions are, except for the psp game. granted, the last demo, or prologue, is a PS3 greatest hits.
So, you don't count NFS? Ok then. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are really only comparing GT to 1 other console game; Forza. It is the only other console game of any similar type. But, using your own logic, is it fair to compare GT to Forza, since GT has been out much longer and has many more games in the series? I mean, if we don't get to compare GT to NFS because of that, then surely you shouldn't compare GT to Forza for the same reason.
well let's compare it to NFS then, shall we? NFS debuted in 1994, and has their 16th release scheduled for release about the same time as GT5. so almost double the amount of games, if you include the prologues, or demos. and on top of that, NFS isn't just PS3. and it's available on a pc as well.
is it still a fair comparison? even though they are different games, they are both racing games. but if we go off number of sales (since you seem to think b/c i mentioned it, it's the only thing i take into consideration) NFS: 15 games, available on some 10 platforms, if not more. and over 100 millon.
GT5: 8 titles, 3 of which are prologues (demos). debuted in 1997. only playstation. over 57 million.
i'd say GT5 stacks up very well with NFS, considering everything. again, just looking at sales here
I really like you're choice of quoting.
hey, nothing wrong with wikipedia. they have links there for reference. i mean, all anyone else is gonna do is google stuff. how is that better?
...of which about 1/3 of them are various Civics, Skylines and Imprezas.
that's still not the point. having that many cars adds to the game, and adds up in data on that one disk. i'm sure many players drive those same cars in real life
...ok, that one is good. That says something.
yes it does. GT5 is only on playstation. it has been on every version now, including the psp.
...that no one ever drove, because it couldn't even get up the hilly parts of some tracks. Total waste.
again, that's your opinion. there might be some that liked those things. i personally didn't see much use either though
...really? Oldest car and Largest guide?? REALLY?? Yikes.
with so many cars, and so many races, some need a guide. some races are very difficult.
Um, according to your OWN link, the car was cancelled. And really, that isn't surprising. It is a concept car, plain and simple. So again I ask, what REAL cars have ever ACTUALLY been made just to be in this game??
nice catch. i'd say that's a pretty recent cancellation. but i did see a video of one somewhere, so i believe they made one somewhere.
but again, it still is a real car. and the intention of producing 6 of these cars was for this game. that is clear.
let's see, my original post:
yes it has been out for awhile, but they still haven't released the 5th game yet (not including demos). so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold, i'd say they sold a fair few...
noticed i said, "not including demos". which all other versions are, except for the psp game. granted, the last demo, or prologue, is a PS3 greatest hits.
So, you don't count NFS? Ok then. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are really only comparing GT to 1 other console game; Forza. It is the only other console game of any similar type. But, using your own logic, is it fair to compare GT to Forza, since GT has been out much longer and has many more games in the series? I mean, if we don't get to compare GT to NFS because of that, then surely you shouldn't compare GT to Forza for the same reason.
well let's compare it to NFS then, shall we? NFS debuted in 1994, and has their 16th release scheduled for release about the same time as GT5. so almost double the amount of games, if you include the prologues, or demos. and on top of that, NFS isn't just PS3. and it's available on a pc as well.
is it still a fair comparison? even though they are different games, they are both racing games. but if we go off number of sales (since you seem to think b/c i mentioned it, it's the only thing i take into consideration) NFS: 15 games, available on some 10 platforms, if not more. and over 100 millon.
GT5: 8 titles, 3 of which are prologues (demos). debuted in 1997. only playstation. over 57 million.
i'd say GT5 stacks up very well with NFS, considering everything. again, just looking at sales here
I really like you're choice of quoting.
hey, nothing wrong with wikipedia. they have links there for reference. i mean, all anyone else is gonna do is google stuff. how is that better?
...of which about 1/3 of them are various Civics, Skylines and Imprezas.
that's still not the point. having that many cars adds to the game, and adds up in data on that one disk. i'm sure many players drive those same cars in real life
...ok, that one is good. That says something.
yes it does. GT5 is only on playstation. it has been on every version now, including the psp.
...that no one ever drove, because it couldn't even get up the hilly parts of some tracks. Total waste.
again, that's your opinion. there might be some that liked those things. i personally didn't see much use either though
...really? Oldest car and Largest guide?? REALLY?? Yikes.
with so many cars, and so many races, some need a guide. some races are very difficult.
Um, according to your OWN link, the car was cancelled. And really, that isn't surprising. It is a concept car, plain and simple. So again I ask, what REAL cars have ever ACTUALLY been made just to be in this game??
nice catch. i'd say that's a pretty recent cancellation. but i did see a video of one somewhere, so i believe they made one somewhere.
but again, it still is a real car. and the intention of producing 6 of these cars was for this game. that is clear.
SeaFox
Nov 28, 08:37 PM
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music. They wouldn't be able to sue people for having stolen music on their iPods if this fee is supposed to cover losses from piracy.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music. They wouldn't be able to sue people for having stolen music on their iPods if this fee is supposed to cover losses from piracy.
sunfast
Aug 17, 02:07 AM
Awesome machine. Just awesome. I can't believe that photoshop test!
No comments:
Post a Comment