E3 2013

[Howard_Casto]

Ok I'm starting to take a look at the xbox conference results. 

All the stuff you'd expect really.  The price point for the Xbox One STARTS are 500 dollars.  I'm guessing that the PS4 will be equally expensive because, historically sony consoles always are, so yup, the Wii U will win this gen probably.  If there's that much of a difference in price, the cheapest console usually wins.  What's infuriating about that is that you just know 200 dollars worth of that price is the Kinect 2, which absolutely nobody wants. 

Killer Instinct is back.....as an Xbone exclusive.  The demo of it didn't look that great... looked like a bad sf4 clone....all of the classic charm was missing. 

New forza, new halo (eventually), sequels to tired franchises nobody cares about anymore, nothing too exciting. 

A new Star Wars battlefront, which IS notable will be coming out.  EA basically said they weren't going to focus on the Wii U, so that's one thing the Xbone has going for it. 


If anybody finds some cool info, post it here please. 

[wp34]

I'm a big Nintendo fan and get your price argument. But what about the WiiU will get the masses to buy it?  We've owned every Nintendo console except the Virtual Boy but have no plans to buy the WiiU. To be honest I'm disappointed in all three next gen consoles at this point.


Sent from my Atari 800 mobile device using Tapatalk

[Howard_Casto]

I didn't say it would be a runaway hit, I just said it would probably win.  The masses, as you put it, aren't into spending a lot on consoles.  Every console in the history of gaming priced over ~400 dollars (in today's money) has always been a flop.  Neo-Geo, Turbo Grafx, ect.....  The ps3 would have been a flop if they hadn't started a series of drastic price cuts.  Even with that it placed dead last.  If it were around 400 for the deluxe model then I would say they are ok, but 500 for the basic package, that's just insane.  Also the new white deluxe model that Nintendo is working on is rumored to have a version that doesn't come with a game for only 300 bucks, so that makes it a full 200 dollars cheaper than the competition.  So price alone.  Well that and the fact that you can buy Wii U games and you own them.. you know, little differences like that.     

The Wii U is the best console Nintendo has released in quite some time, I suggest you give it another look.  You look at the specs and features and on paper it seems ridiculous, until you actually try one.  The fact that you can ask for help on a game in real time, on the console, or check gamefaqs or all these other things make "hardcore" gaming that much more streamlined.  Of course that doesn't make any mention of the touch screen usage in game, which ranges from ok, to fantastic.  There aren't a ton of games atm, but they are coming.  Unlike the competition, there are certain titles you are guaranteed to get on a Nintendo console.... Metroid, Mario, Zelda, ect...  For me, that's more than enough to justify the purchase.

[SNAAKE]

cheapest console wins?

like how wii totally won this generation.........

[DarthMarino]

cheapest console wins?

like how wii totally won this generation.........

If you go by consoles sold:

Wii: 99.88 million
Playstation 3: 77.58 million
Xbox 360: 77.48 million

[ark_ader]

I didn't say it would be a runaway hit, I just said it would probably win.  The masses, as you put it, aren't into spending a lot on consoles.  Every console in the history of gaming priced over ~400 dollars (in today's money) has always been a flop.  Neo-Geo, Turbo Grafx, ect.....  The ps3 would have been a flop if they hadn't started a series of drastic price cuts.  Even with that it placed dead last.  If it were around 400 for the deluxe model then I would say they are ok, but 500 for the basic package, that's just insane.  Also the new white deluxe model that Nintendo is working on is rumored to have a version that doesn't come with a game for only 300 bucks, so that makes it a full 200 dollars cheaper than the competition.  So price alone.  Well that and the fact that you can buy Wii U games and you own them.. you know, little differences like that.     

The Wii U is the best console Nintendo has released in quite some time, I suggest you give it another look.  You look at the specs and features and on paper it seems ridiculous, until you actually try one.  The fact that you can ask for help on a game in real time, on the console, or check gamefaqs or all these other things make "hardcore" gaming that much more streamlined.  Of course that doesn't make any mention of the touch screen usage in game, which ranges from ok, to fantastic.  There aren't a ton of games atm, but they are coming.  Unlike the competition, there are certain titles you are guaranteed to get on a Nintendo console.... Metroid, Mario, Zelda, ect...  For me, that's more than enough to justify the purchase.

If you are a 10 year old or knocking 70+ and want to play with the grand kids.  Not for professional gamers or those with disposable incomes that can justify a purchase of not only one capable platform but both Sony and Microsoft offerings since Xbox or PSX.  Our spending power generates top notch games, considering how many 18/Rated R games have come out and the COD/BF3 adult markets.  I haven't seen many teens run to the wii for safety.  Getting into the thick of it is our nature and those consoles provide the means.

Something that the poor pew pew Wii cannot do with it's off the shelf processor and parts and bland aesthetics, nor its close cousins that have seen some poor press as of late.  Putting lipstick on a pig....

Nintendoh has its market, and its following.  Perfect for the above demographic and, as parents tell me, the choice they feel comfortable with little billy, sally, and gramps playing together.  Not sure if that includes geriatric adventures that result in back injuries and slipped discs.  Sit my parents (they are getting on) down in front of the Kinect and they can control the 360 dashboard experience.  It just works.  The PS3 and my tech illiterate brother after some prodding with a sharp stick -  (finally) "just works" and he is happy as Larry. 

Put them all in front of the wii and the unsteady hands throws the experience in the trash.  Try playing Wii Scrabble with the dithers.... 

The wii now sits next to the TV in the spare bedroom (for netflix) gathering dust. 

Times have moved on and Nintendoh is experiencing what Apple has had of late:



That is the reality of the wii. Not the mystical instrument Howard paints, but a device that suits a specific demographic that is moving on.  And really - that should be enough to bury its existence.  Mind you there are the handhelds that are keeping Nintendoh afloat, but we won't go there, this time around. But it echoes my point.

Yes they sold a few units, but that is why I can pick up an used  Wii for £30 with a few games and I have to fork out £90 for a 360 and £130 for a PS3 without a game.  Go figure.

[Necroticart]

If Sony puts the PS4 at the $400 to $450 range I can see them doing really well. That is of course if Sony has no major DRM schemes. Especially, given all the bad press MS has given themselves lately. Which surprisingly was not addressed in their press conference. As for the Wii U I was not that impressed It feels like a console from this gen. Which most developers seem to be skipping due to the outdated hardware. That is not to say that i'm not a fan of Nintendo first party titles but they need 3rd party support given how much it was missing last gen on the Wii and I feel the huge touch screen controller was a mistake given how kids drop everything.   

[Howard_Casto]

Ark's ridiculous non-sensical rant aside, I didn't post this to argue the merits of one console over the other, just to discuss the announcements and their impact on the industry. 

The ps4 was finally revealed... it looks like somebody took a hammer to a Xbone.  That being said, it retails for 400 dollars and there's no DRM, so it'll probably outsell the xbox so long as they don't screw something up.  They are in contention for winning this thing now with such a reasonable price point.  Then again it's Sony, they are really good at screwing things up.    Sony's looking really good though and understand the weight of that statement when it comes from me. 

Something that actually interests me and probably many of you is that Mirror's Edge is finally confirmed to get a sequel.  The was a highly underrated game and I'm excited to see the franchise get another shot. 

[Necroticart]

Wow i'm glad Sony went with the $399 price point it's very reasonable for what you get I was not to thrilled with the required Plus membership for online play even though i'm a plus member but getting a PS4 game (Drive Club) as part of the service was a nice touch by Sony. As for games i'm going to get Infamous Second Son, Killzone Shadow Fall and Destiny

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah, hell might freeze over and I might buy a Sony product.  We'll have to see though. 

[Dizzle]

I was surprised at the PS4's $399 price point ($100 cheaper the Xbox) and was even more surprised that Sony chose not to pull any of DRM shenanigans that Microsoft did.  I was almost positive they would do something similar.  I for one, have always leaned towards Microsoft, but it looks like I'll be skipping their console this time around.  I'm looking forward to the PS4 release though.

Not sure how all of this will play out in the future though.  Will publishers favor the Xbox over the PS4 because of the DRM, or will they favor the PS4 because they suspect it will have a larger install base?  It'll be interesting to watch.

[Howard_Casto]

It was a shock to me as well.  When you think giant company that's totally out of sync with what their fan base wants, you usually look straight as Sony.  I expected their DRM would have been far worse than Microsoft's.  It is extremely rare that I'm surprised by the industry in a positive sense anymore, so I'm all for a turn-around by their company.

In terms of publishers I don't think it really matters.  Nintendo with-standing 90% of your games these days get a dual released on both consoles.  Typically you release it on both to cover your bases unless the console turns out to be a colossal flop or something.  EA is definitely in bed with Microsoft which isn't surprising because they are one of the greediest companies out there.  I think that their huge investment in the Xbone is going to come back to bite them which is a good thing imho... maybe they'd scale down a bit and quit releasing the same damn sports games every single year. 

[wp34]

The Wii U is the best console Nintendo has released in quite some time, I suggest you give it another look.  You look at the specs and features and on paper it seems ridiculous, until you actually try one.  The fact that you can ask for help on a game in real time, on the console, or check gamefaqs or all these other things make "hardcore" gaming that much more streamlined.  Of course that doesn't make any mention of the touch screen usage in game, which ranges from ok, to fantastic.  There aren't a ton of games atm, but they are coming.  Unlike the competition, there are certain titles you are guaranteed to get on a Nintendo console.... Metroid, Mario, Zelda, ect...  For me, that's more than enough to justify the purchase.

I will revisit the Wii U after those titles start to come out---Zelda in particular.  I've always bought Nintendo consoles for those exclusives.  I've just not seen anything compelling enough about the Wii U yet to make me want to purchase it.  My kids are the same way--although if Animal Crossing comes out for the Wii U my daughter will have to have it.

[wp34]

Well that was quick.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-21539_7-57588657-10391702/super-mario-3d-world-mariokart-8-new-donkey-kong-country-coming-to-wii-u/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

[Howard_Casto]

Well Nintendo's stuff is out now... no super surprises, but A 3d Mario that looks dangerously like SMB2 (one of the most underrated titles imho) is coming this year, so there's your big game to go along with pikmin 3. 

All the other stuff was expected, except that Retro's "super secret project" is another stupid donkey kong country game?  Wtf?  Let's face it, DKC wasn't that good when it was released on a Snes.  It was a poor man's Mario World.  The Wii version was good....that's about as high a praise as I can give it.  This new version looks exactly the same as the Wii version and the 3ds version.  Retro made the Metriod Prime series, their talents shouldn't be wasted on yet another platformer. 


Don't get me wrong, as per usual all the Nintendo games look fun and justify the purchase of the console, but no Metroid and yet another Zelda remake means that we are stuck decidedly in platformer-ville for the rest of the year at least. 

[wp34]

SMB2 was probably my favorite Wii game.  Mario 64 is my favorite game on any console.  To see attributes of the two combined is exciting.

I tend to agree with you on DK Country.  With the exception of the "battle mode" in Donkey Kong 64 I've not liked any incarnation of DK.  Poor man's Mario World is right.

Well Nintendo's stuff is out now... no super surprises, but A 3d Mario that looks dangerously like SMB2 (one of the most underrated titles imho) is coming this year, so there's your big game to go along with pikmin 3. 

All the other stuff was expected, except that Retro's "super secret project" is another stupid donkey kong country game?  Wtf?  Let's face it, DKC wasn't that good when it was released on a Snes.  It was a poor man's Mario World.  The Wii version was good....that's about as high a praise as I can give it.  This new version looks exactly the same as the Wii version and the 3ds version.  Retro made the Metriod Prime series, their talents shouldn't be wasted on yet another platformer. 


Don't get me wrong, as per usual all the Nintendo games look fun and justify the purchase of the console, but no Metroid and yet another Zelda remake means that we are stuck decidedly in platformer-ville for the rest of the year at least. 

[spoot]

   bhwahahaha

[dgame]

Awesome!

[Malenko]

Killer Instinct is back.....as an Xbone exclusive.  The demo of it didn't look that great... looked like a bad sf4 clone....all of the classic charm was missing.

MEH.
KI isnt back. Rare had nothing to do with this KI, so to me its just some fighting game using the KI license. Did you hear the fantastic news about it the game is totally free on launch day. Oh , but it only comes with Jago and you have to buy every other character you want separately. I'd rather drop a specified amount for the whole game.

http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/11/killer-instinct-reboot-is-free-to-play-only-one-%20character-is-free/

[g_block247]

http://nintendoeverything.com/124781/namco-bandai-announces-pac-man-museum-coming-to-wii-u-and-3ds/

Pac Man Battle Royale coming to home consoles and PC!!!!!

[Howard_Casto]

That is ---smurfin--- awesome news! Let's hope when they say "pc" they don't mean windows 8 marketplace and mean an actual pc release. 

Malenko:  It wouldn't matter if Rare did have something to do with the new KI.... most of the employees that made Rare great are long gone.  I wonder why seeing as how M$ has pretty much made the company it's ---smurfette--- since purchase, making them do mind-numbingly boring tasks like create the 360 avatars and such.   

I loved the Sony video, and keep in mind I HATE Sony.  It was like a big FU to Microsoft. 


Also there is a new RPG coming to the Wii U called "X" .... looks interesting and this is from a guy that hates rpgs.  Seems to have some Zelda-like elements mixed in.   

Man Mega Man fans must hate Capcom.  Mega Man is back.... as a special character for SSB.  As is the female Wii Fit Trainer, if that gives you any idea of how "exclusive" that club is.    Honestly though, I'm not sure how they pulled that off.  I was pretty sure Capcom couldn't lend any of it's characters out to fighters due to the Marvel vs Capcom license. 

[ark_ader]

Ark's ridiculous non-sensical rant aside, I didn't post this to argue the merits of one console over the other, just to discuss the announcements and their impact on the industry.

Howard, try telling that to the thousands of Wii users who enjoy the PG content that Nintendoh provides, but the other two consoles provide adult content which is more mainstream.

Sorry that you do not share the wii demise scenario, but try playing Wii Scrabble Howard, and you will see where I am coming from.  The control is plain ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.  It would be the same if I played Scrabble with the Kinect or the PS3 Wand.  Some games do not always work on a given HCI device.  The problem is that everyone else knows this too and is feeding the sales of the Xbox 360 and the PS3 as they are finding the flaws of the Wii.

Non nonsensical rant?

 

[Howard_Casto]

Quit trolling man, we are trying to have a nice conversation here. 

[hypernova]

The PS4 "playroom" commercial looked downright ridiculous.  Good thing I understand it's for demonstration purposes, because I'm thinking most people are going to laugh their asses off at the acting and production of the thing and forget what the intention was.  And when the guy swiped across the pad to scroll the wheel, I thought "If only there was a way to do that without a touch pad..."

I'm seeing these systems, and like most of you, I have zero desire to get anything.  It's nice to see the N start developing their big games, but most are still another year away, if not longer, depending on delays and such.  The need to get one is further minimized since most big name multi-console games near the end of the year will be cross-gen (both gens-basically CoD and Battlefield 4).

Looking forward to the next Smash, but I won't be into it like I was years ago when I was into local tourneys and such, unless the online is really good and lag is minimized greatly.

[Malenko]

Malenko:  It wouldn't matter if Rare did have something to do with the new KI.... most of the employees that made Rare great are long gone.  I wonder why seeing as how M$ has pretty much made the company it's ---smurfette--- since purchase, making them do mind-numbingly boring tasks like create the 360 avatars and such.   

I should clarify, none of the people who worked on KI 1 or KI2 working on this abomination. I said rare meaning original devs, but what you said is what I meant. The fremium model kinda works on certain games, but releasing a fighting game with one playable character seems batty at best.

[SNAAKE]

cheapest console wins?

like how wii totally won this generation.........

If you go by consoles sold:

Wii: 99.88 million
Playstation 3: 77.58 million
Xbox 360: 77.48 million

doesn't mean they won the war. everyone and their mom bought a wii and played wii sports for like a week.

[Howard_Casto]

I hate to disagree with you SNAAKE, but yes, yes it does.  It doesn't matter if she played it for a week, she purchased one, which means Nintendo sold a console. 

You can prefer another console certainly but that doesn't change the sales figures.  Don't feel bad, I was similarly frustrated back in the day when the PSX outsold the N64, even though it was the "better" console.  And likewise when the PS2 outsold the Xbox even though it had a superior feature set and a ground-breaking online system.  What we like personally isn't always what the the majority likes.     

Malenko: 

Yeah I think we can all agree that the new KI is gonna be KI in name only and a free-to-play fighter has got to be the stupidest idea I've ever seen.  Then again Capcom and NRS have been inching towards that with their past couple releases, with DLC characters that cost waaay more than they should.  Remember guys, the only way to fight this sort of thing is to refuse to buy dlc items. 

[SNAAKE]

majority didn't like wii tho...

this is different story than psx butt-raping n64 with inferior hardware. ps1 won because it had a HUGE library of amazing games while n64 had nothing. ps2 also had LOT more/better games than the xbox.

wii sold so much because of the motion control gimmicks that attracted casual non-gamers/moms/grandpa/whoever  and they were able to sell it cheap because the hardware is last generation. but it didnt really have better games/hardware/service. I couldn't even play wii games because standard definition looked terrible on my giant plasma hdtv. AND the games lagged. 

I didn't care about the wii at all. guess my definitions of winning console war is different.

[Howard_Casto]

You don't buy a product you don't like, much less you don't sell 22 million more of a product that people don't like.  So no, the majority probably did like the wii, thus the purchase.  Unless you can find an impartial survey by a reputable source we have to assume this, because it is impossible to know why people bought a console or if they enjoyed it.. at least not outside of people you personally ask.

The psx had games that cost 20-30 dollars, the n64 had games that cost 70 dollars... that's why they won.  The psx certainly had some nice titles, it also had a ton of shovelware and a sub-par 3d processor.  The N64 had inferior textures due to smaller storage space and that hurt it a lot, but it had some of the best selling and most critically acclaimed games in video game history along with smoother, better 3d rendering.  This is subjective though, I guess you didn't understand why "better" was in quotes.   

Again, you seen to be pulling your opinions into the conversation and throwing them around as facts.

Yes my definition of who won the war is different from yours, it's who actually won via a quantifiable measurment as opposed to which console I preferred, which is just an opinion. 

Just a fyi... I played my Wii on a giant lcd... looked just great and no major lag that I'm aware of since I could play guitar hero on it....maybe you should switch to another tv. 

[edekoning]

Yes my definition of who won the war is different from yours, it's who actually won via a quantifiable measurment as opposed to which console I preferred, which is just an opinion. 

No all you are doing is taking one, somewhat arbitrary, statistic and slapping everybody else in the face with it.

[Rigby]

PS4 virtually has this one in the bag.  $399, and you can play used games on the device.  And you can loan games to friends.  And you can buy and sell used games all you want.  The XB1 restricts all this terribly.

The Wii U I have has gotten about as much play as I expect it to get, unless some great new games come out soon.  My kids play skylanders on it and I'll probably play the Wind Waker remake whenever it finally sees the light of day but I'm truly looking forward to the PS4.  The Division looks like an amazing game.

[Malenko]

Yes my definition of who won the war is different from yours, it's who actually won via a quantifiable measurement as opposed to which console I preferred, which is just an opinion. 

(fixed your spelling too)
I guess the number of consoles sold isn't the bench mark, its a combination of that and software sales. I would actually like to see the numbers for the US exclusively and not the world. Japanese tend to be very brand and country loyal. Please don't try to skew software numbers by including Wii sports as the best selling console title ever, it was a pack in with the system.


I determined who won the "console war" based on which one I played the most, considering I have all 3.So xbox360 won, Dreamcast a close second, and my SNES in a distant 3rd. I logged more hours on my Sega Saturn than my PS3, though I'm "The Last of Us" so I expect the numbers to change. Truth be told I dont really care who won what , I care which system is going to have games I want to play. Other than House of the Dead, some smash brothers, and xeno blade chronicles.......I didnt play the Wii much at all. Fiancee wanted it for Wii fit, but that didnt last. Sorry for the Xuicebox-length reply :/

[wp34]

Yes my definition of who won the war is different from yours, it's who actually won via a quantifiable measurement as opposed to which console I preferred, which is just an opinion. 

(fixed your spelling too)
I guess the number of consoles sold isn't the bench mark, its a combination of that and software sales. I would actually like to see the numbers for the US exclusively and not the world. Japanese tend to be very brand and country loyal. Please don't try to skew software numbers by including Wii sports as the best selling console title ever, it was a pack in with the system.


I determined who won the "console war" based on which one I played the most, considering I have all 3.So xbox360 won, Dreamcast a close second, and my SNES in a distant 3rd. I logged more hours on my Sega Saturn than my PS3, though I'm "The Last of Us" so I expect the numbers to change. Truth be told I dont really care who won what , I care which system is going to have games I want to play. Other than House of the Dead, some smash brothers, and xeno blade chronicles.......I didnt play the Wii much at all. Fiancee wanted it for Wii fit, but that didnt last. Sorry for the Xuicebox-length reply :/

Based on that logic I can say the Atari 800 won the "computer war" over Commodore 64 back in the day.  I and a lot of my friends had Atari's 800 or variants.  The rest of the world bought Commodore.    I agree with you that this discussion should include some statistic that involves game sales.  I suspect there are more people now actively purchasing PS3 and XBOX games than Wii even though the Wii has sold more overall consoles.

[knave]

Can't we all just get along...?

LOL, we are all going to have our own take. I own all three systems too and the Wii gets the most play.

The Wii outsold x360 and PS3 because it had a lower price point AND because it was able to capitalize on its new control scheme, casual gamers and Nintendo's exclusives.

While I think the stats are interesting, it's not a clear indication of a "winner" I will say its a good start though. X360 is the winner from the online standpoint. I hate the xbox live model yet I have to accept that Microsoft is doing something right to convince all these gamers to throw them cash just to play online.

The PS3 has done really well too considering those numbers...it caught up to the 360 despite a year lead. A lot of my friends who only want to have one system prefer it. I like it because I can use Netflix with no extra fees. I've played a total of two bluerays on it  too.

[Rigby]

ugh, the term "war" here really rustles my jimmies.  we throw that word around too much, imho.

No single statistic will determine who won, because there is never an overall winner.  There might be a winner within a particular circle of friends, or country or whatever, but overall the sales are going to be homogenous enough that no clear "winner" will ever be agreed upon by everyone.

For example, I owned an N64 and have never owned a PS1.  In my circle of friends, the PS1 was a flippin' joke; none of us kept any we had because the load times were so awful.  In my world, the N64 was the clear winner, and anyone that claimed differently was bogarting whatever they were smoking.  Most folks agree that the PS1 was the "winner" but I definitely did not see the PS1 as anything other than a child's plaything when it was in production.

I'm all for speculating, but we need to understand that we each have a different point of view, which necessarily determines our opinions on things. 

[wp34]

ugh, the term "war" here really rustles my jimmies.  we throw that word around too much, imho.

No single statistic will determine who won, because there is never an overall winner.  There might be a winner within a particular circle of friends, or country or whatever, but overall the sales are going to be homogenous enough that no clear "winner" will ever be agreed upon by everyone.

For example, I owned an N64 and have never owned a PS1.  In my circle of friends, the PS1 was a flippin' joke; none of us kept any we had because the load times were so awful.  In my world, the N64 was the clear winner, and anyone that claimed differently was bogarting whatever they were smoking.  Most folks agree that the PS1 was the "winner" but I definitely did not see the PS1 as anything other than a child's plaything when it was in production.

I'm all for speculating, but we need to understand that we each have a different point of view, which necessarily determines our opinions on things.

I agree.  I'm a huge N64 fan and did not like the PS1 but wouldn't think of trying to convince anyone that the N64 "beat" the PS1.  Even though it was clearly the superior system. 

[Rigby]

I'm a huge N64 fan and did not like the PS1 but wouldn't think of trying to convince anyone that the N64 "beat" the PS1.  Even though it was clearly the superior system. 

Clearly the superior system.  N64 BFFs unite!

[knave]

No way man, in my circle of friends the PS1 was the winner...um...er well until we had to start to flip them upside-down to run (in all honesty it was only one console that had this problem but it definitely stuck in my mind. We dealt with the load times because the graphics were better and the huge amount of storage the CD offered at the time. Metal Gear Solid Blew my mind, Castlevania Symphony of the night too. Resident Evil, street fighter, syphon filter, need for speed. all better.

Not many people had the N64, and even then we just played Mario cart.

I actually had to go to my friends houses to play Playstation, Which I did...A lot. All I had at home was a genesis. I picked up my PS1 years later secondhand. Still have and play it.

I had a N64 for a while too (also years later)...I just didn't grow attached to it...even though Mario cart is fun.

[Vigo]

The way I always viewed it was that the N64 was much better for those with friends or siblings to play with. PSX was the loner machine. Both the PSX and the N64 had massive benefits and pitfalls that were the opposite of each other, making each great in completely different ways.

PSX sucked donkey balls on load times and anything multiplayer. Not to mention the controller on the early models was completely lacking. N64 had perfect load times, the controllers were great in the day and native 4 players made it the ultimate party console.

If you are looking for an in depth single player experience, the PSX was awesome and the N64 sucked. The N64 couldn't hold the levels of data on its carts to house games like Metal Gear, FF7-9, Resident Evils. PSX also had a lot more going for it with the mere fact that its games had many varying perspectives, rendering styles and plenty of 2D games as well. A lot of that had to do with the mere fact that a CD was cheaper media, and the PSX had hardware restrictions that forced developers to get more creative. When you compere libraries, the PSX had a much more diverse series of games. Not much of it attained the "legendary game" status of some of those N64 games though (Zelda, Goldeneye, Mario Kart, etc.)

[edekoning]

What no love for the Sega Saturn? I really loved that console, except for the price (€500 back in 1995), and the fact almost no shops sold games for it.

But back ontopic: I really hate what I am seeing/reading about the Xbox One. Al this nonsense about having to be online, restrictions on resell, renting, borrowing from friends The most exiting news from Microsoft for me has been the redesigned 360, which isn't really exiting at all ... Haven't really followed the PS4 news close enough, so can't comment on that.

[Malenko]

What no love for the Sega Saturn? I really loved that console, except for the price (€500 back in 1995), and the fact almost no shops sold games for it.

I logged more hours on my Sega Saturn than my PS3, though I'm "The Last of Us" so I expect the numbers to change.

I find it ironic my first system was a nintendo system (NES) and odds are, my last system will have been a nintendo system (3DS)

[Howard_Casto]

I think there has been a misunderstanding here based upon some of the replies.  Winning the war has nothing to do with making the best console, it's an industry thing... it's whoever made the most money.  Seeing as how Nintendo made a modest profit on each wii console sold, even on launch day, they sold 22 million more consoles and all of their top selling games were first party games, which make them a lot more money than a simple license fee from a third party, it's clear that they won in terms of dollars... it isn't even up for debate.  I mean you can look at COD sales and say how much more they sold, but Microsoft barely sees any of that money.. Activision and the various developers do.   

Now was it the better console, you can certainly debate that (although please don't that wasn't the purpose of this thread) but it won. 

That's what I was getting at with my reply to SNAAAKE... the psx won it's generation there's no debating it (although I'm sure I tried to in my youth), even though the n64 was the better console. 

I took the time to take a look at the Nintendo stuff a little closer as well as the other two companies.  Mario Kart 8 looks frikkin amazing graphically... runs at 1080p, 60fps apparently.  Also they've added up-side down roads and new boost ramps/pads that makes it look more like a hybrid of F-zero and Mario Kart, which is awesome imho.  A lot of those games that people kept ragging weren't going to be released on the Wii U actually are, apparently.  Not the EA stuff, but I don't care about their games myself.

I think the PS4 looks the most impressive in terms of feature set and price but with both it and the XB1  the games don't look terribly "next gen."  They look like high-end ps3 games to be honest. 

I think they are starting to hit that mythical wall I sometimes talk about.  You can stuff the rigs full of processing power and ram and add more storage to the media all you want, but the developers have to actually make the games.  It takes a butt-load of cash and a huge staff to make the games we are getting currently so aside from better draw distances and rendering techniques, I'm wondering how much added detail we are actually going to get in real games.  Yeah the old man head was cool, but that was just a tech demo... you can spend a lot of time on those and use all of the consoles resources to render it.   Hopefully I'm wrong on that and they just look bad because they are launch titles. 

There isn't a lot to be excited about this E3, but there are certainly hidden gems.... like the pacman announcement.  So keep those coming as you find them, that's what I was hoping we could post here.

[hypernova]

I've never heard anyone dispute the Wii winning the last generation...weird.

I think the PS4 looks the most impressive in terms of feature set and price but with both it and the XB1  the games don't look terribly "next gen."  They look like high-end ps3 games to be honest.

Graphically, we're getting close to that wall.  We've already got FMVs that basically look like a reasonably budgeted movie.  The only thing they can really improve upon is the ability to handle better graphics through the rest of the game, and even that's already really good looking in some instances, though it can be subjective.

[SithMaster]

I just found out microsoft points are being converted into local currency and then expire after a year and that's bad.   And I guess N64 wins the console wars because it doesn't have points that expire.  Congrats microsoft you figured out a way to annoy people without them having to buy a Xboxone.

Ouya's stunt at one of the surrounding parking lots was pretty funny.

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah I'm actually starting to feel sorry for those guys at this point.  That console just doesn't have a chance now that I can get a quad core android on a stick with air mouse for 60-80 dollars.  They are going to have to really make up with it via interface if they want to be successful.  Their booth looked like a lemonade stand. 

That sucks about the points... I've got some, but not enough to buy anything, so somehow M$ is screwing me out of about $3.25  How about a refund there guys?

[Rigby]

Yeah I'm actually starting to feel sorry for those guys at this point.  That console just doesn't have a chance now that I can get a quad core android on a stick with air mouse for 60-80 dollars.  They are going to have to really make up with it via interface if they want to be successful.  Their booth looked like a lemonade stand. 

Ouya is an entirely different market; I'm not sure they're trying to compete with any other console, really. 

That sucks about the points... I've got some, but not enough to buy anything, so somehow M$ is screwing me out of about $3.25  How about a refund there guys?

Hah, you know the answer to that.  How many millions of people are going to leave behind unspendable amounts of money to expire?  Enough to impact their budget numbers, I'm sure, and I'm sure that's no accident.

[Howard_Casto]

Well people wonder why I get so grouchy in regards to the Ouya and that's the main reason why.  Everybody and their brother knows it's just one of those cute little throw-away devices (a slightly over-priced one, imho, but I won't start up again) but the Ouya makers they seem to think they are going to be the next Wii or something. 

Don't get me wrong, they could end up selling a ton of units, but it isn't really a console, it's a android on a stick, which at this point are as generic as a usb thumb drive. 

As much as I love their products, sometimes I forget how massive of a dick Microsoft can be.  They screwed me out of a $350 student refund for Visual Studio 6 when I was in college.  I would complain, but seeing as how I'm still writing software for the community with it, I'd say I got my money's worth. 

[Malenko]

driving on walls and ceilings is neat, are they going to continue to punish the player for being in first place?

[Howard_Casto]

I've never heard anyone dispute the Wii winning the last generation...weird.

I think the PS4 looks the most impressive in terms of feature set and price but with both it and the XB1  the games don't look terribly "next gen."  They look like high-end ps3 games to be honest.

Graphically, we're getting close to that wall.  We've already got FMVs that basically look like a reasonably budgeted movie.  The only thing they can really improve upon is the ability to handle better graphics through the rest of the game, and even that's already really good looking in some instances, though it can be subjective.

Well this is BYOAC. 

Yeah I guess what I was getting at was, just for example, the inevitable Assassin's Creed Sequel or something like that.  The current engine has some crappy shadow rendering, but other than that, how much better could they possibly make it look in terms of the actual game?  I mean the streets are crowded, the levels are detailed ect...  Sometimes non-player models are a little blocky.. I guess they could smooth them out?  But I doubt that the levels are going to get any bigger or the AI is going to improve or anything like that because they would have to pay extra guys to code all of that, and game companies don't like to spend money if they can help it. 

Malenko:  I dunno, but the damn blue shell came up too much in the Wii Mario Kart so I hope not.  The n64 version had the perfect balance.... I wonder why they keep changing it.

[Rigby]

driving on walls and ceilings is neat, are they going to continue to punish the player for being in first place?

Of course they are, that's the whole Mario Kart mechanic summed up.  No matter how good or bad you're doing, you're given ample opportunity to join the middle of the herd.  It's like video game welfare.

[Malenko]

Malenko:  I dunno, but the damn blue shell came up too much in the Wii Mario Kart so I hope not.  The n64 version had the perfect balance.... I wonder why they keep changing it.

Its really killing the fun of 7 on the 3DS. you can hold and earn up to 10 coins per race, collecting coins unlocks cart customization. So Im zippin along in first place with 10 coins, then right before the finish I get lighting zapped then blue shelled twice. The result? first place and 1 coin. The only thing more frustrating is the AI in Mini Motor Racing EVO, when lapped traffic will nitro boost into your ass end in a hairpin turn for no reason.

[ark_ader]

Yes my definition of who won the war is different from yours, it's who actually won via a quantifiable measurment as opposed to which console I preferred, which is just an opinion. 

No all you are doing is taking one, somewhat arbitrary, statistic and slapping everybody else in the face with it.

Gee and I thought I was the only one thinking that.    It's a Howard thread so obviously Howard will get the last word.  Wii was good at it's time in the console arena, but it has waned, and poor Nintendoh hasn't come out with anything better, which smells of what Sega decided to do and go back to making software instead of consoles.  Again I do not count the handheld market ( I am sure it is keeping Nintendoh afloat) as the PS Vita has such a dire offering and well.. Zune...

[Howard_Casto]

Ark what you aren't getting and I'm trying to be nice here is this is NOT one of those "which one is better" threads.  It's a "what is going to happen to the industry and what kind of cool things were announced at E3" thread.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but your responses are peppered with hatred and the fact that you type little sound effects and stuff like "Nintendoh" makes you come off as a 8 year old fanboy having a temper tantrum.  You might have something to add to the conversation but until you learn to respond like an adult I'm just going to ignore anything you say. 

You might take a lesson from me actually.  (I know, weird right?)  Have I been critical of, let's say... Sony in the past?  Your damn right I have been. Do I resort to such child-like antics as calling the company "Phony" or Hi-jacking a thread about Sony stuff just to annoy people.  No, I do not.  If it's something I adamantly disagree with I'll make a comment, sometimes two, maybe three and then I move on.  To be fair you've only responded three times, but it's annoying rants directed towards me personally, not towards the question at hand.  Also I keep an open mind in regards to the industry.  I'm sure you are just filled with rage and have ignored the entire thread by now, but if you'll go back and read it you'll notice that when I started it only Microsoft had done their conference.  Since then Sony did their part and I've admitted and embraced the fact that a company I don't care for at all has a really good shot of winning this thing.  Your utter hate for Nintendo, literally the most un-offensive company ever, is just unhealthy.   

Calm down and take a breath, nobody is your enemy here but you are typing like you want to fight. 

I honestly don't understand how some of you guys can be utterly devoid of logic.  I said this was in terms of dollars.  Do you honestly think that Microsoft or Sony made a larger profit on consoles/games last gen when all is said and done?  Like I said, it's not really up for debate the sales figures don't lie. (Yes, I only mentioned one nit-pick army, but that's merely because it was the most important one.... the others such as first-party game sales also support this.)   

I know for whatever inexplicable reason you guys don't believe me, but check these out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Xbox_360_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PlayStation_3

Even ignoring the Wii Sports figures (which I actually do myself... some sites include the bundled version which is a bit sketchy... I think the real number is around 15-25 million) it's astounding how many copies of some of the titles the Wii sold with a lot of them non-casual games and the bulk of them first party games. 

They sold more games, they sold more first party games, they sold more consoles and the first party games that they sold typically got better reivews.  I'm not sure what you guys want... blood?

Get it now?


Anyway, I wasn't trying to start a fight I just wanted to explain why I treated your responses the way I did.  If I offended you I'm sorry.   And I'm sincere about this, I just wanted to start a fun little thread.


Since you are trying to behave this time I'll respond. 

It's not exactly the same as when Sega went software only... at the time Sega was bleeding money.  Nintendo is still ok financially and the games they announced, while decidedly safe, will undoubtedly sell and make a huge profit.  Mario Kart always sells, Zelda always sells, Mario really sells and Smash Bros. for whatever inexplicable reason, is always a smash (pun intended) hit.  Don't believe me?  Again, go back and look at those figures I posted.... you can check back as far as the n64 and beyond and it holds true.  I mean even Mario Sunshine, which was kind of a turd, sold around 5 million.  If you go back and look at Sega's sales, in their entire hardware history the only games they ever had that were mega hits were the genesis Sonic games and in the Saturn era, even those didn't sell like they should have and it hurt them bad.   By the time the DC came out, they just didn't have any money left to bother.

Now are the new Wii U titles enough?  It's certainly enough to keep the console afloat, the gamecube had maybe 5 or 6 "killer" first party titles and those pretty much single-handedly kept that console alive.  Will it be enough to place second or first?  Probably too soon to tell.

[Drnick]

I would say Microsoft won,  all those millions of customers paying microsoft for the pleasure of playing games online.  46Million People on live with at least 18Million paying $5 a month or so.

I don't care how many 1st party games Nintendo sold,  and I love my nintendo. But I gotta say that Microsoft won the most in cash stakes.

[Rigby]

I would say Microsoft won,  all those millions of customers paying microsoft for the pleasure of playing games online.  46Million People on live with at least 18Million paying $5 a month or so.

I don't care how many 1st party games Nintendo sold,  and I love my nintendo. But I gotta say that Microsoft won the most in cash stakes.

that's a huge win for them on the money grubber front, surely, but how many consoles have they replaced for free or under warranty?  MS loses money on every console it sells, and it loses BIG on replacements.  income is not as simple as XBL gold sub numbers.

one's opinion on who wins is determined entirely by what they consider an important statistic and the sample size for that statistic.

I would say that the 360 lost hands down because of all the people i know who have them, not one 360 owner i've spoken with bought the console of their own volition, they all bought the 360 because a friend already had a 360 and they wanted to play online with that person.  That may not be true for anyone else on the planet, so my own perspective weighs heavily on who i feel one.

None of us can say with any certainty at all that our own perspective is representative, or that our own valuation of a particular console is even a normal one.

All three of them suck bigtime in their own ways, and all three of them are incredibly awesome in their own ways. 

I'll tell ya who won, the gaming community as a whole won.

[ark_ader]

I would say Microsoft won,  all those millions of customers paying microsoft for the pleasure of playing games online.  46Million People on live with at least 18Million paying $5 a month or so.

I don't care how many 1st party games Nintendo sold,  and I love my nintendo. But I gotta say that Microsoft won the most in cash stakes.

Microsoft can afford to make mistakes, but what it will not do again is keep getting smacked over the head with regards to piracy.  It is a big bugbear since the days of Altair and it runs deep to closed environments like the console.  PCs are a different strategy but can be resembled to a console of sorts.  That is why Microsoft is enforcing all these requirements on the users, and maybe this time it will work until somebody jail breaks it.  PS4 well they still stick on the same strategy as does Nintendoh and concentrate on game revenue, availability, with some hidden agenda thrown in for good measure.

There is too many consoles in operation for any one company to go belly up, especially with the Android competition.  I can only hope that existing consoles (PS3/360/wii) keep in operation for another three more years, and by then Nintendoh will come out with a new game changer.  I agree the win is for the gamer, for now.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but your responses are peppered with hatred and the fact that you type little sound effects and stuff like "Nintendoh" makes you come off as a 8 year old fanboy having a temper tantrum.  You might have something to add to the conversation but until you learn to respond like an adult I'm just going to ignore anything you say. 

Oh Howard, sometimes you really go too far.   You need to spend some time away from the boards and revise your VP wrapper (its broke) or something else helpful like going outside and becoming part of the human race. 

[Rigby]

Oh Howard, sometimes you really go too far.   You need to spend some time away from the boards and revise your VP wrapper (its broke) or something else helpful like going outside and becoming part of the human race. 

Don't chastise someone for taking the low road in a discussion, then take the low road yourself.

[knave]

I would say Microsoft won,  all those millions of customers paying microsoft for the pleasure of playing games online.  46Million People on live with at least 18Million paying $5 a month or so.

I don't care how many 1st party games Nintendo sold,  and I love my nintendo. But I gotta say that Microsoft won the most in cash stakes.

I agree, even if you account for money MS lost due to warrantee claims...the Live payments make up for that and then some. And it's still going, That is huge.

I'm trying to come to terms with why I like Steam, where I buy a title once and can't share it or resell it yet I really don't like the idea that the XB1 cant either. What's the difference?

Howard - The Ouya is awesome...so there!  (No really I have one in my living room and it is shaping up to be all I wanted it to be and more. And it's not even released yet.)

[Rigby]

I'm trying to come to terms with why I like Steam, where I buy a title once and can't share it or resell it yet I really don't like the idea that the XB1 cant either. What's the difference?

The games are often very cheap on Steam, that's part of it, for me.  Who cares if I can't resell a $9.99 game?

[Vigo]

I'm trying to come to terms with why I like Steam, where I buy a title once and can't share it or resell it yet I really don't like the idea that the XB1 cant either. What's the difference?

I can list a few reasons why they I hate XB1 but like steam.

1) At least with Steam, it is a gaming option. Nothing is preventing you from getting physical disc games for your computer. It sounds like the disc games for the Xbox one act as more of a validation key. It gets tied to your account, all of the data is downloaded to your system anyway, and the disc is worthless in other systems.

2) Steam allows you to use your games on multiple computers. Not at the same time, but at least it doesn't do anything from keeping you from moving your stuff to another machine. It sound like there is going to be some sort of sharing to other systems, but there is gonna be some wacky limitations, you most likely can't just have your games on two systems and use either.

3) Steam is PC games, which means you are 99% likely to only be playing single player or online. If you wanted to meet up with a friend and play a game at his place, it sounds like it will be a PITA. You will most likely need to download the entire game to his system and go through a number of authentications.

4) You wont be able to buy used games for a cheap price. Selling a digital game sounds like a scam. I'm sure it is just there to line Microsoft's pockets with the money that gamestop or whatever was making. In reality, you probably won't be able to make as much money selling the game, and buying the game "used" probably just means you can take $5 off the list price 6 months after the game is released.

5) Microsoft will assume pirate, Steam at least tries to not do so. If you can get the offline mode working in steam, you don't need to log in for a month. the xb1 will require you log in daily or else it will shut down all your games. Yeah, you could argue offline mode blows in steam, but at least they made an attempt.

6) Steam will not "big-brother" you with the forced kinect functions. The notion that Microsoft will detect your age from the kinect2 to see if you are old enough to play a game, or see if there are too many people in the room and charge you more for that movie you rented based on viewers is just unnerving to me. No thanks to my console recording my biometrics at all times. Who knows what will be sent to MS. They will probably have every users age, race, family structure, estimate of income based on room size, etc. No thanks.

[Howard_Casto]

Exactly... while I'm not fond of steam myself, at least it's restrictions are reasonable. 

I was rooting for Microsoft.... It would have been nice to have an American company again to tailor to uniquely American tastes.  It's why when the first xbox came out I bought it instead of a gamecube (at least at first). I wanted them to do well and for a time I thought they were on the right track as the 360 is an excellent system, hardware problems not withstanding.  I've gotta be honest though, their last few E3's seemed to be more about television and sports than games and gaming.  We should have seen the writing on the wall I suppose.  They want to somehow trick you into paying a monthly fee for a cable box on top of the fee you already pay on your real cable/sat box.   

It's why I didn't mention them in the Wii comparison btw, or any online sales.  Do you really want to include people watching Netflix or Hulu into the equations?  Don't get me wrong Netflix is great, but it's free on the PS3 and Wii... you have to use a gold subscription to play it on the 360, or do anything useful online so you've got to wonder how much of that xbl money goes to actual gaming. 

But hey I'll do the math we can at least try to estimate. 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/xbox-statistics/

This is the most current data I could find in regards to online stuff.  They say there are roughly 30 million xbl accounts.   A 12 month subscription is 60 dollars aka one game.  30x7 years (from what I've read before the 360 stays at around 30 million, some people leave, some people join ect) = 210 million.  So we'll add that to their games total.  353.8+210 = 563.8
The Wii still sold 869.6 million games and 22 million more consoles.  I mean we could add another 100 million to assume that some people bought the 1 month cards and paid more ect... the Wii sales would still be higher.  I can only go by the data we have and even taking into account micro-transactions and dlc and what-not the best the other two could hope to do is tie the Wii.  Even then, we'd have to add in the Wii's online sales which are over 10 million, just for vc. And the problem with that is digital stuff has different pricing models... physical games we can compare, they cost roughly the same, but online content varies.   

That's why I kept the online stuff out of the equation... it gets a little murky. 

(sorry about the edits... auto-correct is wearing me out today)

[SithMaster]

I feel like the 360 started out strong then it hits you with the hardware issues and a dashboard update that forces ads on you.  I'm paying for live and now to have ads on a gaming console.  Sure there are ways to block them but I'm not going to leave my pc on just to do that.  I'll be waiting for microsoft to triple dip (charge for live, collect ads revenue, charge people to block ads) since they seem intent on dicking people over.

I'd forgive all steam restrictions if they didn't have the ability to lock people out of their own game library.

[Howard_Casto]

I wasn't aware that steam could do that.  Then again I don't really buy that many pc games and when I do, I try to find a physical copy.  I like being able to revisit stuff which is why I am leery of the XB1.

You would think that would be the sentiment of nearly everyone around here for that reason alone.  Imagine if there was a chip in all your snes/genesis carts that made them unplayable after the companies stopped selling the consoles.  Afaict that's essentially what's going to happen after the XB1 goes out of production. 

 I was re-organizing my game collection yesterday and found a trunk full of win 3.1 to win 98 era pc games.  I might have to pull out the Star Trek Episode guide just for kicks considering it is so old that TNG wasn't off the air yet.  I couldn't do that with steam... or at least I doubt all games will be supported 10+ years from now. 

At least we've got one big developer on our side:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-13-miyamoto-nintendos-game-ownership-policy-should-operate-like-a-toy-company

[ark_ader]

I have been locked out of my game library on steam many times when the internet has been flakey. I would hate to think that the xbox one is capable of doing something like that.  Besides I decided yesterday that the ps4 will grace the living room.

I wonder how many gamers microsoft have alienated this week.  It doesn't take much in this economy.

[Rigby]

I have been locked out of my game library on steam many times when the internet has been flakey. I would hate to think that the xbox one is capable of doing something like that.  Besides I decided yesterday that the ps4 will grace the living room.

I wonder how many gamers microsoft have alienated this week.  It doesn't take much in this economy.

Reddit's words are very much against the XB1.  We'll see what their actions are later this year.

[wp34]

My Xbox-loving son decided this week to switch to PS4 next round.  He buys almost all his games used.  He also mentioned being tired of paying for Xbox Live. 

I have been locked out of my game library on steam many times when the internet has been flakey. I would hate to think that the xbox one is capable of doing something like that.  Besides I decided yesterday that the ps4 will grace the living room.

I wonder how many gamers microsoft have alienated this week.  It doesn't take much in this economy.

[Howard_Casto]

I stopped XBL on the original xbox.  It's 60 bucks a month... not a lot BUT that's one extra game a year and I started thinking back and I hardly used the thing.  I'm not one of these Halo/COD guys so I hardly ever played multiplayer with those sorts of games.  Fast forward to the 360 and I never really signed up.  I figured that I would just sign up if I ever bought a game that had good multiplayer and that time never came around.  The whole thing about having to pay for stuff I already pay for (hbogo, Netflix,ect) kind of turned me sour to the whole thing. 

Like I said assuming some third party games come out that I want bad enough, I'll be buying a ps4 and somewhere in hell a snowstorm is brewing. 

[Rigby]

My Xbox-loving son decided this week to switch to PS4 next round.  He buys almost all his games used.  He also mentioned being tired of paying for Xbox Live. 

Well, the same pay-to-online-multiplay system will exist for the PS4, since clearly so many are willing to pay for it, but PlayStation Plus gives you a heck of a lot more than just the ability to play multiplayer games online.  Subscription gives you lots of free games and lots more discounted games:

This is a value-add service, not just a reaming, as it is on the 360.

http://us.playstation.com/psn/playstation-plus/

[shmokes]

Winning the war has nothing to do with making the best console, it's an industry thing... it's whoever made the most money.  Seeing as how Nintendo made a modest profit on each wii console sold, even on launch day, they sold 22 million more consoles and all of their top selling games were first party games, which make them a lot more money than a simple license fee from a third party, it's clear that they won in terms of dollars... it isn't even up for debate.  I mean you can look at COD sales and say how much more they sold, but Microsoft barely sees any of that money.. Activision and the various developers do.   

I think you're missing some of the picture. Nintendo is a publicly traded company. The Wii made money hand over fist early on. But when hardware and software sales dried up, followed by the disastrous unveiling of the Wii U, and their stock price plummeted, the company lost a great deal of value. At the very least they lost perceived value, but this has real-world impacts, not the least of which making cash more difficult and expensive to borrow. And third party developers have been driven from the platform. I suspect the Wii U will be their least successful console ever (unless you consider the Virtual Boy a console rather than a portable--which is probably a not an entirely unreasonable position). So if you look at the Wii as a company direction, rather than just a product, its success is possibly a bit more questionable.

Also, Activision may take the bulk of every COD unit sold, but those royalties aren't peanuts. The royalties paid are between $3-$10 per unit. That's huge. HUGE. Microsoft had $0 in development costs for that title. In most cases it had $0 in marketing costs. And while Activision gets the bulk of COD games, they get nothing for Assassin's Creed or Madden or GTA or Uncharted or Metal Gear or Final Fantasy. Microsoft, on the other hand, gets its royalty for every single unit sold by every single publisher. That adds up to an enormous pile of money.

[Howard_Casto]

All valid points, but again, I just made an innocent and irrefutable comment about the Wii winning last generation, which it did.  The Wii U is this generation so that's a different discussion. 

They've already sold more than the gamecube afaik which was their least successful console by a huge margin even though for some reason everybody thinks it did well.  You are right about the stock value hurting the worth of the company, but the Wii U sales aren't nearly as bad as it looks... they just sold them all at once, during the launch, and no games have come out since so there haven't been many new sales.   Things seem to be turning around.  Microsoft's screw up certainly hasn't hurt them.. their sales went up a rumored 800% after the M$ press conference.   And for whatever reason people seem super excited about Mario Kart 8.  Granted it looks amazing, but I would have thought people would have been more interested in the first multiplayer 3d Mario. 

[Vigo]

And for whatever reason people seem super excited about Mario Kart 8.  Granted it looks amazing, but I would have thought people would have been more interested in the first multiplayer 3d Mario.

My guess would be simply because there has been a steady stream of awesome Mario games with only a few weak links. Most of us have been waiting for a Mario Kart to top the level that the N64 one achieved. Mario Kart Wii came pretty close....

[SNAAKE]

It's 60 bucks a month...

whatever you are smoking I want some

you can get 12 month xbox live subscription codes/card from ebay for like  $37. it was never 60/month. pretty sure it was like $50/year.

[Rigby]

It's 60 bucks a month...

whatever you are smoking I want some

you can get 12 month xbox live subscription codes/card from ebay for like  $37. it was never 60/month. pretty sure it was like $50/year.

I think it was a typo and I think he was talking retail pricing.  If you're thinking a sentence ahead it is easy to put a word from that sentence into the one you're typing now.

[Howard_Casto]

It was indeed a typo.  I think some people around here need to switch to decaf. 

You know something that I didn't pay much attention to during the press conferences was the release dates.  To anyone worried about Nintendo they have a major first party release every month until Christmas, with some major third party stuff as well mixed in like Splinter cell, Batman, Assasin's Creed ect....  I guess for some reason I was thinking most of this stuff doesn't come out until winter but a lot of it is on it's way.  I need to go ahead and pick up RE: Revelations before the flood starts.

On the Microsoft front they appear to be even more confused then before.  They can't even tell reporters if the new console is region free or not.  Of course it won't be, that'd be less money for M$ but the fact that they can't even decide on an answer to give the press is a little disturbing.   

Sony seems to be keeping quiet and that seems to be working for them.  Let poor old Microsoft sell their console for them.   

[ark_ader]

Actually in the UK the cost for Xbox Live in the UK in US dollars is $53.00, and if you are not careful M$ will take it on your card if it is registered without your permission.

I get the annual cards off Amazon for £28, but it was sure a shock to see that Xbox Hack last year take £90 out of my card account for those family packs.  That incident alone will stop my on-line purchases with a credit card, and again lean me over to the PS4.  The thought of an always on Xbox recording my movements freaks me out too much.  I hear you cannot disconnect the Kinect from the unit either.  Hmmm....

[ChadTower]

Guaranteed Kinect will be the very first hack.  The ability to fake the camera.

[SNAAKE]

I will  be offering my services.............

[Bender]

All valid points, but again, I just made an innocent and irrefutable comment about the Wii winning last generation, which it did.  The Wii U is this generation so that's a different discussion. 

Fool me once shame on you. Fool Me twice shame on me.
I don't know of a single person who's wii isn't collecting dust or has any plans to buy a wii U.

They may have one the last generation sales, but man they burnt the bridge the came across for this generation

[Rigby]

I don't know of a single person who's wii isn't collecting dust or has any plans to buy a wii U.

I have a Wii U, and it sees playtime daily, but not from me.  My kids play the ever-lovin' out of that thing, apparently.  I've just been working and not witnessing it.

[wp34]

Our Wii goes through stretches of neglect but is on an uptick currently.  The kids easily have 20 hours of Smash Brothers this past week.   

Sent from my Atari 800 mobile device using Tapatalk

[ChadTower]

I don't know of a single person who's wii isn't collecting dust or has any plans to buy a wii U.

I have a Wii U, and it sees playtime daily, but not from me.  My kids play the ever-lovin' out of that thing, apparently.  I've just been working and not witnessing it.

Same here and it used to be played to death.  It has seen a decline this year mostly because we stopped buying Wii games and the kids went back to the N64 and NES.

[knave]

My wii does ok. All my consoles have periods of idle time but my kids seem to go 50/50 wii/360. Last weekend when I had a housefull of kids the wii was favoed due to all the party games, wario smooth moves in particular.

In some cases its just a matter of which game I bought foe which system. I prefer the lego games on the 360 so since the kids love those they switch back and fourth. Epic micky is a wii fav as is anything mario and EA playground. Only the ps3 collects dust at my house mainly because I dont buy kid friendly games for it and I dont have time for long play sessions.

At least the wii being the lowest cost console can double as a no-extra-charge netflix box. I still think the wii is the best value system I purchased. I believe most are satisfied with it.

[Malenko]

There is no way Im gonna have kids just so my Wii gets played.

[DaveMMR]

While it is currently collecting dust, I have no plans for getting rid of the Wii. There are some great, highly-replayable games in my collection. And the dust pile sits on my other games and consoles as well. Common complaint: lack of time.

On to the console announcements: I personally never liked the Xbox. Any of them. Yes, I had the original Xbox but I never was compelled to invest in a 360 nor was I even considering an Xbox One, even before the disastrous game policies they put into place. Don't know - the system just never seemed to have a personality. I'm sure there's more to the console than shooters and sports but I had a hard time convincing myself of that when I was console shopping. PS3, while hosting those same genres, at least had some variety (e.g. "Little Big Planet" with a image-friendly mascot.)

I just find it completely baffling that Microsoft (1) doesn't listen to its customers and (2) hasn't learned anything from its competitors. They're mirroring 2006 Sony with over-pricing, focusing more on television/movie watching than games and their "well, you can just deal with it" response to concerns. Throw in restrictive DRM and you can bet they'll have limited support from their fans. I expect some "backpedaling" will take place before, or shortly after, it hits shelves with regards to its controversial 'feature-set.'

[Rigby]

Microsoft is approaching it from the point of view of a software company.  tighter restrictions, more control, service subscription, and strict licensing rules, just like the software they produce. 

Sony has always been a hardware company and software restrictions don't make a lot of sense to a hardware company.  A hardware company that makes desk fans doesn't give a damn if you sell a fan you buy to a friend.  Software people are absolutely insane and somehow view that as a lost sale, or piracy, and restrict the heck out of used sales to prevent loss.

Nintendo is a toy company and views their console as a toy.  they have never aimed to be the best performing hardware or the most functional software; they make games that are supposed to be fun for everyone.

in most respects, each company is producing the console that makes the most sense for them.

[ChadTower]

There is no way Im gonna have kids just so my Wii gets played.

I think you have your cause and effect reversed.  At least I hope you do. 

[ChadTower]

I just find it completely baffling that Microsoft (1) doesn't listen to its customers and (2) hasn't learned anything from its competitors.

Erm... hi.  Have you ever owned a computer?   


Forget the game console industry.  We're talking about Microsoft.

[DaveMMR]

I just find it completely baffling that Microsoft (1) doesn't listen to its customers and (2) hasn't learned anything from its competitors.

Erm... hi.  Have you ever owned a computer?   


Forget the game console industry.  We're talking about Microsoft.

Heh - you're correct. Even as I typed that on a Windows 8 computer where I had to pay some third party a couple of dollars to bring back my start button and menu because MS said "too bad, you can just like it" in not so many words to those complaints.

But somehow, I separated MS the console maker from MS the Windows company - the one that finally released a regular-sized controller for the original Xbox after complaints.

[Rigby]

I had to pay some third party a couple of dollars to bring back my start button and menu because MS said "too bad, you can just like it" in not so many words to those complaints.

Why did you get Windows 8, then?  I don't know how the rest of you are using the start button, but I press the windows key and type the name of the app I want to launch.  It works exactly the same on Win7 as Win8.

Windows 8.1, a free upgrade from vanilla 8, is coming later this year and will bring back the start menu & availability to boot to the desktop.

[Malenko]

Why did you get Windows 8, then?  I don't know how the rest of you are using the start button, but I press the windows key and type the name of the app I want to launch.  It works exactly the same on Win7 as Win8.

Computer probably came with it?  Here's how I hit the start button, I click it, then pick the program I want to launch, typically in under 2 seconds. How fast can you launch the command prompt as an administrator using the windows key?

I think you have your cause and effect reversed.  At least I hope you do.

Hence the ironic statement. I have a Wii and its unplayed, apparently due to the lack of offspring. Lets be honest though, 1 Malenko is way more than enough.

[DaveMMR]

I had to pay some third party a couple of dollars to bring back my start button and menu because MS said "too bad, you can just like it" in not so many words to those complaints.

Why did you get Windows 8, then?  I don't know how the rest of you are using the start button, but I press the windows key and type the name of the app I want to launch.  It works exactly the same on Win7 as Win8.

Windows 8.1, a free upgrade from vanilla 8, is coming later this year and will bring back the start menu & availability to boot to the desktop.

I wish Malenko. The answer: I'm an idiot. Seriously. I'm kicking myself. The better answer: It was $35 and my copy of Windows 7 was not legit so, for the first time, I'd actually have a properly licensed copy of Windows. I just built a new computer so I figured "why not?" That's what you get for doing the right thing, huh?

I used the Windows Key approach but I hate wading through the tiles for a simple program. Especially since none of my programs are "apps."

From what I've heard, 8.1 is bringing back the start button but not the menu (??) but don't quote me on that. And most of the changes are still focused on "touch-screen" interfaces. But whatever. The program is called "Start is Back" or something and it was $2 or 3 and you can modify the menu to however you want it so it's not a bad trade-off. 8 is almost like 7 now and my hardware is now playing nicely, surprisingly. It's really not that bad once you correct that "little problem."

(EDIT: No, I couldn't reinstall 7 as the key I had no longer worked. Wasn't in the mood to wade through a sea of questionable websites or paying more money to Microsoft.)

[Malenko]

Im forced to use Win8 at work, I use http://www.classicshell.net/ for my start menu. Its free, tons of options XP, Fista, and Win7 style start button/menu.

[edekoning]

I don't think I have used the start button/menu since I discovered Launchy (www.launchy.net) way back in 2006.

[hypernova]

Microsoft has reversed course on used games.

Summary:  You can now buy used games without a specialized retailer, and internet connectivity is not required save for the initial time you load the game.

[Malenko]

Microsoft has reversed course on used games.

Summary:  You can now buy used games without a specialized retailer, and internet connectivity is not required save for the initial time you load the game.

no word on mandatory Kinect yet though

[Howard_Casto]

Kinect is still mandatory afaik (It wouldn't matter anyway, it comes pre-packaged so you'll pay for it) and if you read their statement very carefully, there are some loopholes in their that worry me. 

1. You still have to install games.  Wtf?  It's a console.  This translates to me in that big brother is still watching. 

2.  All the policy reversals are only confirmed for offline games and they word things very carefully to make that known.  I mean yeah many games require online to play I get that... but they don't mention that the used games/drm/ect policies have been removed for online games.  And you have tons of titles like Assassin's Creed that technically have multiplayer even though they are really single player games.  How does this effect them?

3.  Microsoft states that they won't do drm personally, but they will NOT prevent other companies from using drm and the old system is still in place to help third parties monitor game licenses.  I hope you don't like EA titles. 

It's a great step in the right direction, but I can't really trust them at this point.  Plus the ps4 is 100 bucks cheaper and this go around each machine seems equally powerful....if anything the ps4 is slightly more powerful. 

[edekoning]

Lets also not forger that these 'new' policies can be changed any time in the future.

[Malenko]

Kinect is still mandatory afaik (It wouldn't matter anyway, it comes pre-packaged so you'll pay for it) and if you read their statement very carefully, there are some loopholes in their that worry me. 

I was too vague. Is the Kinect being on all the time mandatory. I actually unplugged my kinect from my 360 when I dont use it, it adds a good 30 seconds to the 360 boot up time. That being said I finally wiped the dust off my PS3 and Ive been having a blast with Tales of Graces f and Last of Us.

[rpgposer]

Microsoft has reversed course on used games.

Summary:  You can now buy used games without a specialized retailer, and internet connectivity is not required save for the initial time you load the game.

Of course they did.  They will say anything in order not to lose possible sales.  A partnership with EA?  They are made for each other.
This generation of consoles is making me feel old.  Care for some Wii bowling after oatmeal?  Time for the rocking chair!
Consoles I own in order of most play time:

Gamecube (Untold hours of PSO).
PS2
Wii (HBC and all that entails).
Xbox360
SNES

Anyway, I am in Howard's corner regarding the Wii U.  Slap metroid, zelda or mario on a game and I will play it.  I can't stand the transaction type of business model that EA has been trying to go to.  I realize they are trying to make the most money they can, which is their business, but I find it offensive.

[rpgposer]

Im forced to use Win8 at work, I use http://www.classicshell.net/ for my start menu. Its free, tons of options XP, Fista, and Win7 style start button/menu.

I just use the start screen.  You can choose whatever you want on it.  I unpinned everything but the weather and photos active tiles and pinned my stuff on it.
The start screen IS the start button, M$ just tried to cash in on their "Apps" store right out of the gate and pissed everyone off.  Remove that crap and pin your own.

[Vigo]

Im forced to use Win8 at work, I use http://www.classicshell.net/ for my start menu. Its free, tons of options XP, Fista, and Win7 style start button/menu.

I just use the start screen.  You can choose whatever you want on it.  I unpinned everything but the weather and photos active tiles and pinned my stuff on it.
The start screen IS the start button, M$ just tried to cash in on their "Apps" store right out of the gate and pissed everyone off.  Remove that crap and pin your own.

I've only used about 10 minutes of win 8 (before installing classic shell) but don't you completely lose the view of your screen when using the windows 8 start screen? That would probably annoy the crap out of me.  So like if I got an email from my boss that says "Please forward me the Revision 3 P5FY2013 Sales report for District A34RG21." I would have to commit that big pile o' crap to memory before I can go to my Excel drop down of recent documents.

[rpgposer]

Trying to not sound like an M$ shill:  I don't use my PC that way.  I usually have xcel and word open.  If I need a recent file, I go to the file tab and look at the recent files.  YMMV.  I can see how it would be annoying if you use the recent documents function.

[Howard_Casto]

I don't think that's what he means.  If he's got the email up that has the giant string of data telling him which file to pull up and presses the start button... that email is now hidden, so how in the world is he gonna track it down?

I'm the biggest fan of windows you are ever gonna find and I'm still using 7, so what does that tell you? 

[Rigby]

I'm the biggest fan of windows you are ever gonna find and I'm still using 7, so what does that tell you?

Well, you want it to tell us that your hate for Win8 is valid, and you're right, it is, for you.  If you're wanting to tell us that your hate for Win8 is valid for everyone, well... not so much.

I quite like Win8, and I recently got a WinPhone8, along with my wife and eldest daughter, and we all like them a lot.

[rpgposer]

I'm the biggest fan of windows you are ever gonna find and I'm still using 7, so what does that tell you?

Well, you want it to tell us that your hate for Win8 is valid, and you're right, it is, for you.  If you're wanting to tell us that your hate for Win8 is valid for everyone, well... not so much.

I quite like Win8, and I recently got a WinPhone8, along with my wife and eldest daughter, and we all like them a lot.

I think we can agree that the win8 start screen is designed for touchscreens.  Perhaps I have been polishing a turd by developing workarounds for the way I used to use windows.  Just didn't seem that hard for me.  I know I'm not the only one here who has been working with PC's since the old AT days and has used multiple OS's including *nix.
Anyway, I didn't want to start a fight, and this is wayyyy OT.
What were we discussing?  E3? 

[Howard_Casto]

I'm the biggest fan of windows you are ever gonna find and I'm still using 7, so what does that tell you?

Well, you want it to tell us that your hate for Win8 is valid, and you're right, it is, for you.  If you're wanting to tell us that your hate for Win8 is valid for everyone, well... not so much.

I quite like Win8, and I recently got a WinPhone8, along with my wife and eldest daughter, and we all like them a lot.

I think we can agree that the win8 start screen is designed for touchscreens.  Perhaps I have been polishing a turd by developing workarounds for the way I used to use windows.  Just didn't seem that hard for me.  I know I'm not the only one here who has been working with PC's since the old AT days and has used multiple OS's including *nix.
Anyway, I didn't want to start a fight, and this is wayyyy OT.
What were we discussing?  E3?

Well that's what I was getting at.  You can make any os good via a bunch of tweaks, but if the previous os is essentially the same only you don't have to do those tweaks why in the world would you upgrade?  I have no issue with win8's backend.  Optimize it for the desktop and I'm sold.  I just don't see why desktop users have to suffer with an inferior interface to have cross-compatibility with tablets and phones. 

Eh... E3 is over... that's sooo 20 minutes ago. 

[Malenko]

Eh... E3 is over... that's sooo 20 minutes ago. 

I love the very idea of staying on topic for 3 pages.

[Howard_Casto]

I don't think it's ever happened before. 

[shmokes]

Back off topic, I'm pretty fond of Win 8 (though it'd have been nice if they'd finished it before release), but I'm so frustrated with manufacturers. How is it that Macbooks have remained essentially unchanged save for a few innards for years and still nobody can touch them? And not just in quality. Nobody touches Apple in quality or price. All I want is an exceptional 11" notebook, and I'd even settle for a 13". I want a Windows 8 device, but nothing can compete with a Macbook Air. Not in specs. Not in price. Not in battery life. Not in keyboard. And god knows not in trackpad. In fact, the only advantage a few competitors have is screen resolution (against the Air only), and it's the one advantage that's hardly an advantage because Win 8 can't handle the ultra high resolutions very well.

[SNAAKE]

NO ONE touches apple?

[Howard_Casto]

The only reason apple devices appear "better" is because they use the most restrictive hardware and software in the entire industry, right down to the "you'll buy it from apple and you'll like it" marketplace. 

It's like saying the speak-n-spell is better than your pc because it crashes less.  Yup... it crashes less, too bad you can't actually do anything with it. 

I've tried iphones/ipads extensively and to me they are just adequate at best.  Despite it's flaws I'd MUCH rather use android or to a much lesser degree win phones because you can actually do stuff on them beyond what the apple overlords allow you to do. 

[Vigo]

Nobody touches Apple in quality or price.

yeah...you could say that nobody touches Apples in price....      Those laptops are so worth the $600 price markup for that extra 30 minutes of battery life and the wonderful ability to look like a d-bag yuppie at starbucks. 

I used to be an apple guy, like in the 90's. Then I learned to stop worrying and love Windows. Every time I try an apple product, it always ends in tears. I have a list if you don't believe me.

[yotsuya]

What cracks me up is that most people are under some assumption that Macs use special hardware as well. They freak when their HDs fail.

[rpgposer]

Nobody touches Apple in quality or price.

yeah...you could say that nobody touches Apples in price....      Those laptops are so worth the $600 price markup for that extra 30 minutes of battery life and the wonderful ability to look like a d-bag yuppie at starbucks. 

I used to be an apple guy, like in the 90's. Then I learned to stop worrying and love Windows. Every time I try an apple product, it always ends in tears. I have a list if you don't believe me.

I recommend Apple products to my less technologically inclined friends who have money. 

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah overpricing is a HUGE issue with apple stuff.  Somebody is going to explain to me one day why I can buy a pc product with the exact specs for 1/3rd less.  Yeah those are really shiny custom boards/cases but are they really so custom that they up the price by hundreds of dollars?

[knave]

Apple gear is more expensive mainly because folks will Pay for it. The streamlined UI that is easy for everyone to use gives them huge brand loyalty. And while their hardware isn't magically better than standard PC hardware they seem to stay at the upper end of the quality curve.

Personally I can't stand the interface, But users love their macs...I also know of several people who bought the warranty and when their mac broke after two years got a whole new computer.

[DaveMMR]

The only reason apple devices appear "better" is because they use the most restrictive hardware and software in the entire industry, right down to the "you'll buy it from apple and you'll like it" marketplace. 

Yup. The whole "It Just Works" mentality stems from the fact you can't install any hardware/software that will make it not just work. Which is why I do actually recommend Apple products to people whose computer I just cleared of tons of crapware for the umpteenth time. Those people, nice as they are, can't wrap their head around "free software" and "running a scan" so they need to be restricted. And, full disclosure, I even went with the iPhone and iPad. I actually wanted to be limited to the walled-garden instead of inevitably downloading poorly-programmed Android apps that choke my device and leaves me scrambling to delete things at the worst possible time.  (I'm basing that experience on the original Droid, by the way. I'm sure it's gotten better by now.)

[shmokes]

I'm not talking about phones and tablets. Anyway, my phone is a Nokia Lumia 920 (Windows Phone) and if I were buying one today it would most likely be an HTC One (Android). I thought my emphasis on notebooks was fairly clear from the line: All I want is an exceptional 11" notebook, and I'd even settle for a 13". I want a Windows 8 device, but nothing can compete with a Macbook Air. Not in specs. Not in price. Not in battery life. Not in keyboard. And god knows not in trackpad.

If someone has something more than blanket Apple insults and Microsoft defenses to offer (e.g., examples), I'm all ears. Remember the part about, "I want a Windows 8 device . . . ." Any Windows laptop that comes close to the specs and build-quality of a Macbook Air has a higher starting price, and at best it only comes close to the build and performance of the Apple notebook. You guys are just flat-wrong.

[Vigo]

They are blanket insults because they are blanket truths.

I thought my emphasis on notebooks was fairly clear from the line: All I want is an ultra-expense minature laptop that I have to squint to see what is on the low rez baby sized screen, and yet expect the fastest processor on the market placed in it for all the things I can't really do because I have a restrictive POS operating system. I want a Windows 8 device, but I will ignore the fact that a $1000+ laptop should at least include a touchscreen. So I will pretend that awesome battery life is important, cuz I really always end up sitting on a subway car for 12 hours a day with the sound muted, the wifi off, and the screen faded to the lowest brightness setting, and don't bother backing an external battery pack.

Fixt it for you 

[shmokes]

Right . . . cos running low on laptop batteries is uncommon.

[Vigo]

I haven't had the problem in recent history. Everywhere I go has an outlet, even standard below plane seats. I never had a day where I needed more than 5 hours of computer use away from any power source, and even so, it is not a big deal to simply pack an extra battery. Viola! you get 12 hours battery life out of a $400 laptop.

[knave]

shmokes - for PC notebooks in the 13" category I would suggest the Dell XPS 13. While some of the lesser models have questionable reputations I have had great success with the XPS line.

For what its worth I would pick up a Dell XPS before a Mac any day...its a no brainer for me.

http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-13-l321x-mlk/pd?~ck=mn

They have a 12" model but it's a bit tablet-y for my tastes.

I have received pretty good support overall from the company and it's nice to know I can go get drivers anytime.

[shmokes]

shmokes - for PC notebooks in the 13" category I would suggest the Dell XPS 13. While some of the lesser models have questionable reputations I have had great success with the XPS line.

For what its worth I would pick up a Dell XPS before a Mac any day...its a no brainer for me.

http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-13-l321x-mlk/pd?~ck=mn

They have a 12" model but it's a bit tablet-y for my tastes.

I have received pretty good support overall from the company and it's nice to know I can go get drivers anytime.

I appreciate the recommendation. This is a good example, though, of exactly what I'm talking about. That laptop looks pretty nice, but it's starting price is exactly $100 less than the Mac. For that $100 the Mac has a battery that lasts literally more than twice as long (5 hours vs. 12 hours), a processor that is a full generation ahead, 802.11ac versus 802.11n, thunderbolt vs. display port, an SD card slot, the phenomenal mag-safe power connector, by far the best trackpad in the business . . .

I mean, that Dell looks like a very good computer (strangely, it doesn't have a touch screen which is a total non-starter for Win 8, IMO). But compare the specs b/w the two and it's the Dell machine, not the Apple, that appears to be overpriced. How can Dell justify $1000 for an Ivy Bridge PC when Apple will sell you a lighter Haswell that meets or beats nearly every spec (in some cases substantially) starting at $1100? The Dell should be at least $300 less than the Macbook Air.

Apple notebooks are not overpriced.

BTW, I seriously considered the XPS 12, but in the end I decided that it's just a bit too big/heavy for a tablet. I'd buy the Asus Taichi 21 in a heartbeat if not for two fatal flaws. First, only the external screen is touch (this crazy laptop has a screen on both sides of the lid). And second, the thing gets, like, between 2 and 3 hours battery life. If Asus refreshes it soon and does nothing but enable touch on both sides and replace the Ivy Bridge CPU with a Haswell part (which would double the battery life), I'll order one tomorrow.

[Malenko]

Apple notebooks are not overpriced.

They have a 15" Macbook pro that starts at $2,800 , no Ethernet port built in, you need to pay $29 for one of those. No DVI or VGA adapter either, those are $29 as well..... on a $2800 base model laptop.

You may have meant "The 13" notebook I was looking at doesnt seem that over priced to me"

[Vigo]

Shmokes, sorry man, but I just don't understand the mentality. You are talking about cost savings, then delving into $1000 to $3000 laptops, and saying that battery life justifies the price. A 12 hour battery life is really not a fair justification to spend an extra 800 to a 2000 dollars more when you can get a laptop with two 6 hour batteries, or an external battery pack.

Talking about the price merit of this thing is kinda lame. If you were just saying that you want a sweet top of the line brand-spankin' new gadget, and were happy that apple didn't mark up the price to something lame like their desktops, that sentiment I can understand. For what it is, apple could charge $500 more. I get that. But is it cost saving? ehhhh.......no. I just don't see it. I would never recommend this to anyone on a budget.

Macs are, and have been for many years, computers for people who are willing to shovel out tons of cash for the newest toy. This laptop came out only 2 weeks ago, and apple spent millions in R&D to just push out the haswell processor before any competitors could release a similar elite ranking laptop with it. Wait a couple months if you can, and there will be a number of options out there that compete with the new macbook air. Do you really think that nobody but the mac is gonna use a haswell? Oh, and FYI. The haswell is the main reason why the battery life is so superior. So just wait a titch and you will see that precious battery life spec creep into other laptops of all price points.

But, waiting is exactly what apple doesn't want anyone to do. That is how they profit. Bait people that simply cannot wait a single moment to have the newest and shinest new toy on the market. It is a sales pitch for impulse buyers. Anyone who has ever stood outside the mac store in a line for a new gadget, and thought they we doing so to "save money" is a world class idiot.

I think I should also point out that, very very few people ever just get the base level laptop. People almost always at least get the apple plan, which I  checked and it is $250. $250 dollars for just the service warranty. You could buy a same size netbook for the cost of the service warranty on this thing. And for all the stuff you need a this thing for, a netbook can do 99% of it just as well. Why not just buy 5 Acer aspire ones? Same screen size, faster processor speed (1.6 dual core vs mac 1.3dc), bigger hard drive (320 gb hard drive vs macs 128gb). The battery life will still last you a day of travel with 8 hours life. This little $250 laptop is beating macs specs left and right. You can get one for each of your family members, as well as your parents or whomever you wish for the price of the base macbook air with its warranty.

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-AOD270-1375-Netbook-Processor-Espresso/dp/B007582KGM

[shmokes]

Shmokes, sorry man, but I just don't understand the mentality. You are talking about cost savings, then delving into $1000 to $3000 laptops, and saying that battery life justifies the price. A 12 hour battery life is really not a fair justification to spend an extra 800 to a 2000 dollars more when you can get a laptop with two 6 hour batteries, or an external battery pack.

What are you talking about? Apple's direct competitor to this laptop is $1100. Not $2000 or $3000. And Dell's laptop can be upgraded beyond the base price same as Apple's with extended warranties and accident insurance and everything.

Btw, Windows laptops already have Haswell too. For example, see discussion of Sony Vaio Pro (below). And if you want anyone to be take you seriously don't say silly things like a $350 netbook has a faster processor than a Macbook Air based on clock speed (hint, more than clock speed separates the Celeron from the Core family of processors) or that a 320 GB 5400 rpm hard drive is an upgrade over a 128 GB solid state drive.

[shmokes]

Apple notebooks are not overpriced.

They have a 15" Macbook pro that starts at $2,800 , no Ethernet port built in, you need to pay $29 for one of those. No DVI or VGA adapter either, those are $29 as well..... on a $2800 base model laptop.

You may have meant "The 13" notebook I was looking at doesnt seem that over priced to me"

You can't just look at a number without context. That's their loaded high-end laptop. They also have a 15" Macbook Pro starting at $1000 less than that. Look at the Dell Precision M6600. It's starting price is $4041. The M6700 starts at $5878. Would you be inclined to conclude that Dell, in general, sells overpriced laptops? Lenovo's Thinkpad W530 starts at $2449. Razer's high end laptop starts at $2500. Alienware's 14" laptop, when spec'd similarly to that model of Macbook Pro is $2700 (and they have substantially more expensive models than that).

Toshiba's direct competitor to the Macbook Air--as in they compare their product to the Macbook Air on the product page, starts at $1599 for the 13" version. Apple's 13" starts at $1099--$500 less! Sony's brand-spanking new VAIO Pro 11 and 13, which Sony has publicly said are aimed directly at the Macbook Air, start at $1149 and $1249 respectively, compared to Apple's $999 and $1099.

Anyway, it's neither here nor there. I didn't say that Apple has never and would never overprice any product. I said Apple laptops are not overpriced. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that I'm speaking in generalities. If you are unwilling to make that assumption, I amend my position: Apple laptops, in general, with an exception for Apple fanboys with way too much money, tend to not be overpriced in comparison to similarly equipped Windows laptops.

[Vigo]

What are you talking about? Apple's direct competitor to this laptop is $1100. Not $2000 or $3000. And Dell's laptop can be upgraded beyond the base price same as Apple's with extended warranties and accident insurance and everything.

What are you talking about? Just because there are competitors who offer latoptops for $1000+, doesn't mean that is your only other option.

The $1000 to $3000 number I mentioned is the price for macs. Competition can come in FAAAAR cheaper. Like, in the $250-$500 range.

The minute you start putting in hardware upgrades,  software (that should be standard) warranty and cables (that should come free) You can easily put this mac netbook into the 4-5k range.

I am comparing this bugger to machines that people regular people buy to do their work on....reread my previous post. You can purcahse 5, yes 5 Acer Aspire ones for the cost of the base model macbook air with warranty. They are one example of the kind of "competition" I'm referring to. That little bugger has faster processor, same size screen, much larger hard drive, and a great battery life. There isn't a whole lot that you can do on the Air that you cant do on a $250 laptop.

[Vigo]

Btw, Windows laptops already have Haswell too. For example, see discussion of Sony Vaio Pro (below). And if you want anyone to be take you seriously don't say silly things like a $350 netbook has a faster processor than a Macbook Air based on clock speed (hint, more than clock speed separates the Celeron from the Core family of processors) or that a 320 GB 5400 rpm hard drive is an upgrade over a 128 GB solid state drive.

You after this after I posted....didn't see right away...True, you are right about clock speed not being the only factor, but keep in mind we are talking about a laptop. For everyday computing, a 1.6 dual core is gonna stand up just fine with a 1.3 dual core, even if the 1.3 has a bigger cache. Yeah, the haswell will be cutting back on calculations and power consumption, but the atom is very power saving already and I already pointed out how a spare battery addresses the power issue completely.

As far as the solid state drive goes, again, it's a laptop. You should always have your valuable data on a home computer or external HHD anyway. I'd be willing to take double storage any day, because I have music and video on my laptop and care about having the space more than anything. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot that $1000 I get to stuff in my pocket for making the trade up to a bigger, traditional drive.


Listen, maybe you should stop beating around the bush and pretending you want this because it is a cost effective choice. Just admit you want a fancy toy and are completely willing to pay a premium price for a toy with all the bells and whistles, and are not willing to wait for a cheaper alternative to come along.  I am only debating the one thing you asked me to be debating, that nothing can beat the macbook air when it come to specs and price. I shoveled out a $250 laptop that does go toe to toe with it on most everything that matters on a laptop. If you want me to start pointing out $500 and $750 laptops, I would be happy to show you how much they can thwomp a macbook air.

[shmokes]

I don't think I'm beating around the bush at all. I've made it pretty clear what class of computer I am looking for (hint: the class that includes a Macbook air). Your responses are like proving that a steak house has bad prices by pointing out how inexpensive a peanut butter/jelly sandwich is.

And, let's be clear. We're talking about a steak, not caviar. The Macbook Air costs a grand, which is not expensive for a laptop in that class. In fact, it is probably the least expensive laptop in its class, in spite of a compelling argument that it is the best laptop in its class.

[ark_ader]

I don't think I'm beating around the bush at all. I've made it pretty clear what class of computer I am looking for (hint: the class that includes a Macbook air). Your responses are like proving that a steak house has bad prices by pointing out how inexpensive a peanut butter/jelly sandwich is.

And, let's be clear. We're talking about a steak, not caviar. The Macbook Air costs a grand, which is not expensive for a laptop in that class. In fact, it is probably the least expensive laptop in its class, in spite of a compelling argument that it is the best laptop in its class.

Sounds like you are flush.

I wish I could gamble $1K on a Macbook.  Wait... I did already! 

[shmokes]

I just need a laptop. I actually have no current intention of getting a Macbook Air. If it had a touch screen I'd get it in a heartbeat and install Win 8 via bootcamp. But for now I'm waiting and hoping something comes along soon from another manufacturer. If nothing comes out in the next couple months I'll probably bite the bullet and switch to Mac. Which is a fine OS. Claims to the contrary are just stupidity. I prefer Win 8, but OSx is a perfectly good OS (in fact most of what made Win 7 awesome was copped from OSx).

[Howard_Casto]

I just need a laptop. I actually have no current intention of getting a Macbook Air. If it had a touch screen I'd get it in a heartbeat and install Win 8 via bootcamp. But for now I'm waiting and hoping something comes along soon from another manufacturer. If nothing comes out in the next couple months I'll probably bite the bullet and switch to Mac. Which is a fine OS. Claims to the contrary are just stupidity. I prefer Win 8, but OSx is a perfectly good OS (in fact most of what made Win 7 awesome was copped from OSx).

There's nothing wrong with the OS, nothing at all.  It's just if you want some actual software to run on it and a few choices in terms of what kinds of software you want to run... you are probably going to want to stick to a windows pc.  What made windows 7 awesome is the fact that it had a ton of cool mac-like features... only it was windows, so you could run your programs on it. 

I mean yeah, if you are just going to use it for browsing the net and some minor stuff none of that matters, but then again, if that is all you are going to use it for, why wouldn't you just do what Vigo suggested and get one of these 250-500 dollar laptops that are currently flooding the market?  They are plenty powerful enough for everyday tasks. 

I've read article after article saying that due to win 8's less than stellar launch and the fact that tablets have caught on so well, laptop sales are at an all time low and the price is only going to go down...for pc-based laptops that is.  Apple kind of regulates it's prices. 

[shmokes]

This isn't just for browsing the web. But even if it were, I have a netbook now and using it for anything at all, web browsing and word processing included, is unpleasant.

As for software availability on Mac . . . I dunno. I think that's becoming less and less an issue. I have no interest in gaming on a laptop. At all. Obviously someone who wanted to game on their laptop would be mad to get a Mac. But that doesn't even factor for me. Also, this trend will continue. Walk into any college classroom and have a look from the lecturer's point of view. It's a sea of glowing apples. If an alien came to earth and walked into a college classroom, he would come to the perfectly justified conclusion that Apple has a near-monopoly on the personal computer market. These are future professionals and developers. They know and will develop more and more for Mac. Businesses will accommodate them more and more too (my work is struggling with this very thing right now--introducing Macs to our infrastructure because that's what their employees know and want to work on).

And hey, I have a Windows phone, so I'm obviously not scared of a platform lacking in apps. 

[Vigo]

Well, to be fair, Apple cuts some serious sweet deals for educational institutions. In itself it is an excellent strategy to get kids hooked. Many schools, starting at middle school now issue ipads to students as well.

There is honestly not much incentive, other than what you mentioned, to have businesses utilize macs. It is not a serious business machine outside of the graphic design / media arts arenas. Business developers just won't touch it as a platform. The ones that do seem to just seem to squeeze it all in a web based platform to avoid dealing with the mac issue altogether.

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah what he said.  You must be going to different colleges than me because around here at least, you won't even see a mac laptop unless you go up to the art/design dept. 

Now ipads... that's another story, but that is an entirely different discussion involving Android vs iOS instead of Windows vs OSx


I think you really need to look shmokes.  These 250 dollar laptops are not netbooks, they are typically 2-3 ghz dual core rigs.  For a couple hundred more, you are in the quad core and beyond territory.  I think Asus just released a new laptop that's superior or on par with the air in just about every way, only it's just 700 bucks.  I'll agree with you that the dell laptop mentioned was a bit over-priced, but then again when I think of price-gouging, I first think of Apple and then Sony and Dell tie for second place, so it's a bad example. 

Here are some recent laptop deals... check it out:

http://dealnews.com/features/best-laptop-deals/

[Malenko]

I guess I need to find a comparable Asus laptop or something. Dells are overpriced and Lenovo is their business line which I feel is even more expensive.

[knave]

The Dell should be at least $300 less than the Macbook Air.

The XPS line goes on sale all the time. I am invited to buy any one I want for 35% off frequently. I looked and right now the XPS 12 would cost me $629.85 after the discount.

Does Apple offer deals like that?

I don't know wht you want a laptop with a touch screen. I've thought about it on many occasions and always come to the conclusions that the ergonomics of it would be a pain for day to day use...I like a mouse.

I also think that any it is hard to get any real use out of a computer with a smaller than 13 or 14 inch screen.

[ark_ader]

What's wrong with a hackintosh?  Asus laptops seems to be the best at getting sound and wifi to work.

Or are all past that?

[shmokes]

What's wrong with a hackintosh?  Asus laptops seems to be the best at getting sound and wifi to work.

Or are all past that?

My entire complaint is that I want to run Windows 8, but Windows 8 hardware sucks compared to Apple hardware. And your suggestion is that I run MacOS on Windows hardware?

[shmokes]

The XPS line goes on sale all the time. I am invited to buy any one I want for 35% off frequently. I looked and right now the XPS 12 would cost me $629.85 after the discount.

That's actually pretty tempting . . . I've already seriously considered the XPS 12. I just decided that it was a bit thicker and heavier than I'd like, especially in tablet form. But at that price . . .

[Malenko]

My entire complaint is that I want to run Windows 8, but Windows 8 hardware sucks compared to Apple hardware. And your suggestion is that I run MacOS on Windows hardware?

Bad news, you cant run windows 8 on apple hardware

[ark_ader]

My entire complaint is that I want to run Windows 8, but Windows 8 hardware sucks compared to Apple hardware. And your suggestion is that I run MacOS on Windows hardware?

Bad news, you cant run windows 8 on apple hardware

You can with Mountain Lion, that is the problem.  Only installs of Windows 7 and 8, but if you use Fusion or VirtualBox you can.  I do on my mac[book] mini and it runs OK.

What's wrong with a hackintosh?  Asus laptops seems to be the best at getting sound and wifi to work.

Or are all past that?

My entire complaint is that I want to run Windows 8, but Windows 8 hardware sucks compared to Apple hardware. And your suggestion is that I run MacOS on Windows hardware?

No I thought you was one of those freaks that likes to buy expensive Mac products so they can run Mac OSX.  If I was wanting to run Windows 8, I would (and will BTW) buy a Samsung Windows 8 Slate Ativ Pro.  With an i5 it is no slouch.  Well better than the lighter version with the crappy Atom.



 

[shmokes]

one of those freaks that likes to buy expensive Mac products so they can run Mac OSX.

No, I'm not one of those. On the other hand, I refer you again to the links I provided above. Show me a Windows laptop that competes directly against a Macbook Air (size, weight, internal specs, etc.) and I will show you a laptop that costs more than the "expensive" Mac product. Macbooks are very competitive in every category, including price.

[Malenko]

Bad news, you cant run windows 8 on apple hardware

You can with Mountain Lion, that is the problem.  Only installs of Windows 7 and 8, but if you use Fusion or VirtualBox you can.

I should be more clear, you cant install Windows as the host OS (AFAIK). If you're using fusion or VirtualBox you are running Windows in a shell or VM on the MacOS, which isn't quite the same, unless times have changed and you can go right into Windows without first going into OSX

No, I'm not one of those. On the other hand, I refer you again to the links I provided above. Show me a Windows laptop that competes directly against a Macbook Air (size, weight, internal specs, etc.) and I will show you a laptop that costs more than the "expensive" Mac product. Macbooks are very competitive in every category, including price.

http://www.amazon.com/VivoBook-S400CA-DH51T-14-1-Inch-Touch-Ultrabook/dp/B009F1JL5A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353272562&sr=8-1&keywords=S400CA-DH51T
14" touch LCD , Free 1 yr warranty that INCLUDES accidental damage protection, free 3yr 32GB webstorage,  VGA port, HDMI port, Ethernet jack, no backlit keyboard and 5 hours of battery under use. Im sure Macbook airs are lighter, this one is 4lbs.  Also, its ASUS.

Im going to sort of digress,  I am jaded when it comes to macs, in my line of work, they give the MACs to the idiots to use, so all I deal with in terms of macs, are idiots.

[Vigo]

No, I'm not one of those. On the other hand, I refer you again to the links I provided above. Show me a Windows laptop that competes directly against a Macbook Air (size, weight, internal specs, etc.) and I will show you a laptop that costs more than the "expensive" Mac product. Macbooks are very competitive in every category, including price.

http://www.amazon.com/VivoBook-S400CA-DH51T-14-1-Inch-Touch-Ultrabook/dp/B009F1JL5A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353272562&sr=8-1&keywords=S400CA-DH51T
14" touch LCD , Free 1 yr warranty that INCLUDES accidental damage protection, free 3yr 32GB webstorage,  VGA port, HDMI port, Ethernet jack, no backlit keyboard and 5 hours of battery under use. Im sure Macbook airs are lighter, this one is 4lbs.  Also, its ASUS.

Im going to sort of digress,  I am jaded when it comes to macs, in my line of work, they give the MACs to the idiots to use, so all I deal with in terms of macs, are idiots.

Mmmm. I love me some Asus. I was gonna post this guy below, because it aligns itself with the with the $1100 macbook's specs very well, but Malenko's lappy post is a bit more enticing considering the price and larger screen size. This guy is 2.9lbs, so it is actually lighter than the macbook air. Same size SSD HD, free 1 year dmg protection. Has an HDMI which the macbook doesn't. Same speed and class processor. Higher resolution screen (1920 x 1080 vs macs 1440 by 900). and Ahem...Touchscreen.

Oh, the SSD is 6gb per second. There are reports coming in that the macbook air SSD drives have spotty speeds and are roughly around 700mb per sec.

Top that off with a touchscreen, and that $800 price tag is smelling awfully good. Yeah, it is 7 hour battery life, but I would be willing to get a second battery for the $300 in savings. Really, the battery is the only thing I see the mac as winning on, and 7 hours battery life a really a whole day of computer use unplugged.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230671&name=Laptops-Notebooks

[ark_ader]

I think slates are the way to go.  Laptops are great, but what is really in need is a device that is light, portable and has a good battery life.

Like I said many times before, I get so much work done on a slate now then ever on a laptop.

On a laptop I need a desk to operate it, the slate is cradled in my arm and with swipe I can work the input with one finger or via the S pen as I do on my Note.

It is a boon for when I work on PCs, or when my boss surprises me with a request for data.  The other guys have to run to their desk while I log into my PC and send the report right there and then.  I know this is not what you are wanting to hear Shmokes but the paradigm is very strong and hard to ignore unless you are chained to your desk or couch.

So the Samsung Windows 8 Slate Ativ Pro covers all that and it has a keyboard cover if you need it.

It is the future, and I do not see any iPads coming even close to this product let alone a Macbook.

Also I would test drive it before you buy it, and with those limited options you are right to plum for an Apple product due to its availability for trial. 

But it will be a waste of money, as the macbook is just a reorientation of a slate with inferior graphics to boot.

[shmokes]

Mmmm. I love me some Asus. I was gonna post this guy below, because it aligns itself with the with the $1100 macbook's specs very well, but Malenko's lappy post is a bit more enticing considering the price and larger screen size. This guy is 2.9lbs, so it is actually lighter than the macbook air. Same size SSD HD, free 1 year dmg protection. Has an HDMI which the macbook doesn't. Same speed and class processor. Higher resolution screen (1920 x 1080 vs macs 1440 by 900). and Ahem...Touchscreen.

I don't mean to sound like an ---uvula---. Seriously. But while both of those look like good machines at relatively good prices (at least the first one on price), they are not what I'm looking for. The first one is disqualified right out of the gate based on size. My initial requirements were something like, ". . . 11 inch, but I would settle for a 13 inch." 4 lbs plus another half-pound at least for the power adapter is too heavy for my needs.

The second one actually appears to not have a touchscreen. Which is an automatic nonstarter. That may sound like unfair quibbling coming from someone seemingly extolling the virtues of Apple, but the lack of a touchscreen doesn't hobble MacOS. MacOS's lack of a touch-based OS factors pretty heavily into my desire for Windows 8 over MacOS, though. Hence . . . touchscreen is a must. Also, they aren't the same processor . . . the Asus is a 3rd Gen Core, the Mac is a 4th Gen. Also, although I would consider a laptop with an HDMI port, that's a huge downgrade from a Thunderbolt port. The Thunderbolt port can drive multiple independent external monitors, which would be nice for someone like me who wants to be able to dock this thing at a desk and use it as my primary machine. The port can, additionally, drive all manner of other devices like external drives and stuff with pretty insane throughput. And, of course, it can connect to any HDMI input via a cheap Thunderbolt/Mini-DisplayPort to HDMI cable. In short, the HDMI port on that laptop is a con, not a pro--I'm pretty sure objectively, but definitely for me. And then . . . it's $1100. In what world can you recommend that machine in one breath and say that the Mac is overpriced in the next?

[Vigo]

I have no idea how this went from objective views of the what laptop offers the best specs with the best price, into a personal view of what you like, but whatever...I get you are shoppin'.

I guess the only part that sounds a bit dooshy is simply when you are trying to say that the mac air is the best laptop at the best price, period. In reality you have an extremely specific set of wants, from exact screen size to exact weight and keyboard style and focus on battery life, but are willing to overlook things like lack of touchscreen, or smaller HD capacity and slower HD speed (for being a SSD). It makes no sense how you push the exact laptop you want as a universal truth of what is best.

I know at the same time I come off as a sarcastic ass about everything apple. The truth is that I have fallen for the promises of apple one too many times and I am jaded over the way they operate. It gets annoying the way they dictate and tell me what I want and don't want. I mean, just look how apple still today wants to tell me there is no need for a right mouse button. After years of ass-backwardsry, they finally caved a few years ago, but only will have it as an optional side feature that has to be specially configured. 

As far as the touchscreen bit on the Asus goes. I must have links the regular model instead of the touch model. My bad. They were both on sale on Newegg yesterday, but now I see that sale is over. I wish I knew what the touch model was going for. You point about touchsceen being important for a window machine but not a mac kinda makes sense, but if I had a windows 8 with no touchscreen, I would just get the classic shell start button added and call it a day. Meaning, I think it can be equally as unimportant on a windows 8 machine.

As far as processor goes, no there really is no significant processing difference between the 3rd and 4th gen. Really. The only notable upgrade the haswell introduces is less power consumption. I think there is some caching improvements, but not really impressive enough to worry about. So it helps the battery, but that is viewed as a different spec anyway.

And you can argue that the thunderbolt is an improvement over HDMI, but there are are a number major flaws with that logic. First, you say the reason you would want it is to hook up dual monitors for a home station. Lets forget completely that the zenbook I linked has both an HDMI and Mini-dvi port for such a purpose. Even if this wasn't the case, a standard laptop docking station generally offers dual monitor support. And you are still gonna need a docking port for your thunderbolt. There is only one port for many functions, why plug it up with your monitors?

The other flaw is that you are praising the mac for money savings, but if you really want to use the thunderbolt dual monitor feature, then you are gonna need to get thunderbolt monitors. Those are far more expensive than regular monitors. Like $1000 for a 27 inch as compared to $300 for non thunderbolt. Buying two would leave you spending $2000 on top of your $1000 laptop. Are you really gonna tell me it is an improvement to have a thunderbolt for dual monitors, and tell me how you would be saving money with the mac at the same time?

I think it is also worth saying that there is simply not as much support all around for thunderbolt. Having anything thunderbolt right now is gonna add a hefty premium. Also, who knows if it will really take off at this point. Firewire was a huge pain for me with my past macs. Just simply finding and buying a firewire devices sucked, and to top it off, I couldn't use them on my PCs. For what its worth though, I really do think thunderbolt is a step in the right direction, I am just not super optimistic about its future and won't early adopt on anything that will cause me to spend more on its peripherals.

[Howard_Casto]

I won't get into an argument over which laptop is best, but I will go on record in saying that thunderbolt is stupid just like every other proprietary video connector apple has pushed on it's consumers in the past was stupid.  It's this kind of crap that ensures that apple computers will never be on a competitive level with pcs.  Apple always makes their connectors and data protocols just different enough to where it's difficult to impossible to use regular pc stuff.. it's a self imposed hardware monopoly.

Hdmi/Dvi is the standard, deal with it.  There is no real distinction between tvs and computer monitors at this point and this is decidedly a good thing.  Since tvs are far more popular than computers and the same manufacturers are making both, it lowers the cost and gives you a ton more options.  Any time there is a set standard that works well and a company comes out with their own proprietary connector that essentially does the same thing you'd be a fool to willingly use the less popular version. 

[Malenko]

". . . 11 inch, but I would settle for a 13 inch." 4 lbs plus another half-pound at least for the power adapter is too heavy for my needs.

Well the 11.6" tablets come with an i3 , but only weigh 3lbs, and cost $430  VGA, HDMI, Ethernet,etc etc etc also come standard along with the 1 year complete warranty (which includes 2 way free shipping for RMAs)

http://www.amazon.com/VivoBook-X202E-DH31T-11-6-Inch-Touch-Laptop/dp/B009F1I1C4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350915880&sr=8-1&keywords=x202e

Are macbook Airs touch screens? because you said you would run windows 8 on it, but said you wanted touch for windows 8.

[shmokes]

I think it can be equally as unimportant on a windows 8 machine.

And you are still gonna need a docking port for your thunderbolt. There is only one port for many functions, why plug it up with your monitors?

To these two points, the touchscreen could never be as unimportant on a Windows machine as it is on a Mac (to me). If it were, my problem would be instantly solved. If I wanted a laptop built like a Macbook Air, but with a non-touch OS, I would have done with it and buy a Macbook Air. If you take away touch, you take away a Windows 8's advantage over Mac OS.

My understanding of Thunderbolt (which could be wrong . . . I've never, for example, used a Thunderbolt port) is that nothing ever "plugs" it up. Rather each device has an input and output so you can daisy chain many devices to a single port. I mean . . . I'm sure there's some limited number that can be connected, but I don't think it would cap out at just a couple of typical monitors. Also, it would be able to drive newer ultra high-res monitors that have none or limited support over HDMI. The cost of monitors doesn't concern me. If the standard is successful, it'll be commodity. Every monitor will have one.

[shmokes]

I won't get into an argument over which laptop is best, but I will go on record in saying that thunderbolt is stupid just like every other proprietary video connector apple has pushed on it's consumers in the past was stupid.  It's this kind of crap that ensures that apple computers will never be on a competitive level with pcs.  Apple always makes their connectors and data protocols just different enough to where it's difficult to impossible to use regular pc stuff.. it's a self imposed hardware monopoly.

Hdmi/Dvi is the standard, deal with it.  There is no real distinction between tvs and computer monitors at this point and this is decidedly a good thing.  Since tvs are far more popular than computers and the same manufacturers are making both, it lowers the cost and gives you a ton more options.  Any time there is a set standard that works well and a company comes out with their own proprietary connector that essentially does the same thing you'd be a fool to willingly use the less popular version.

There's a lot of wrongness here. Most important is probably the (pretty common) misconception that Thunderbolt is Apple. It's not. It's Intel. And it's pretty awesome. It's basically DisplayPort (itself substantially better than HDMI) and PCI Express smashed together into a single, tiny port. That makes for some extraordinary power and versatility. Also, it's totally backward compatible. A Thunderbolt port can plug right into any HDMI input. Anyway, the thing about it being Intel and not Apple, is that Intel is building it into its own chipsets, and pushing it as a standard to PC makers too, many of whom are beginning to put it in their computers. Apple was the first-adopter, though, and they really played up its specialness. Your misconception is justified.

DVI sucks. The female connectors are huge and thus de facto incompatible with Ultrabooks and the cable can't carry sound. And the male connectors practically double the size of a laptop . And they have those obnoxious thumbscrew relics of the VGA d-sub connectors. Also both HDMI and DVI are limited in max resolution (I think some 30" monitors needed to be driven by two separate DVI signals), not to mention that most laptops with only an HDMI or DVI can't drive multiple external monitors.

[Rigby]

There's a lot of wrongness here. Most important is probably the (pretty common) misconception that Thunderbolt is Apple. It's not. It's Intel. And it's pretty awesome. It's basically DisplayPort (itself substantially better than HDMI) and PCI Express smashed together into a single, tiny port. That makes for some extraordinary power and versatility. Also, it's totally backward compatible. A Thunderbolt port can plug right into any HDMI input. Anyway, the thing about it being Intel and not Apple, is that Intel is building it into its own chipsets, and pushing it as a standard to PC makers too, many of whom are beginning to put it in their computers. Apple was the first-adopter, though, and they really played up its specialness. Your misconception is justified.

DVI sucks. The female connectors are huge and thus de facto incompatible with Ultrabooks and the cable can't carry sound. And the male connectors practically double the size of a laptop . And they have those obnoxious thumbscrew relics of the VGA d-sub connectors. Also both HDMI and DVI are limited in max resolution (I think some 30" monitors needed to be driven by two separate DVI signals), not to mention that most laptops with only an HDMI or DVI can't drive multiple external monitors.

I'll summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong:  "DisplayPort and Thunderbold are superior.  It is known," said Jiqui.  "It is known," said Irri.

[Rigby]

I won't get into an argument over which laptop is best, but I will go on record in saying that thunderbolt is stupid just like every other proprietary video connector apple has pushed on it's consumers in the past was stupid.  It's this kind of crap that ensures that apple computers will never be on a competitive level with pcs.  Apple always makes their connectors and data protocols just different enough to where it's difficult to impossible to use regular pc stuff.. it's a self imposed hardware monopoly.

Hdmi/Dvi is the standard, deal with it.  There is no real distinction between tvs and computer monitors at this point and this is decidedly a good thing.  Since tvs are far more popular than computers and the same manufacturers are making both, it lowers the cost and gives you a ton more options.  Any time there is a set standard that works well and a company comes out with their own proprietary connector that essentially does the same thing you'd be a fool to willingly use the less popular version.

The merger of TV & PC monitor has served only to nearly completely eliminate development of resolutions beyond "Full HD" because to a bonehead consumer, "Full HD" sounds like "this monitor goes to eleven" when in fact it's a middling resolution.

1920x1080 monitors have been around since 1995.  Think about that.  Where are the 4k PC monitors for $400?  They would be here were it not for "Full HD" and the connotation that "this is as high as it goes."

DisplayPort is greater HDMI in every way except in the number of televisions that support it.  Thunderbolt is greater than DisplayPort in nearly every way.

HDMI is very useful, but old & busted tech.

[edekoning]

Lets also not forget that all that HD Ready / Full HD nonsense practically killed of the 1920x1200 displays!

[Vigo]

My understanding of Thunderbolt (which could be wrong . . . I've never, for example, used a Thunderbolt port) is that nothing ever "plugs" it up. Rather each device has an input and output so you can daisy chain many devices to a single port.

I think that one is only true in theory at this time. My understanding of it is that it has the capability to be daisy chained, but a the devices and cables you purchase, even if from apple direct, do not have an output to daisy chain from. I took a look over at apple, and I don't see any of their thunderbolt cables or devices having an output. They do sell a thunderbolt dock though.

Also, it would be able to drive newer ultra high-res monitors that have none or limited support over HDMI. The cost of monitors doesn't concern me. If the standard is successful, it'll be commodity. Every monitor will have one.

Wow. Your argument has just taken one giant turn for the stupid. I assume you are talking about those 4k ultras that are just coming out.  Are you still trying to argue about the money saving merits of a macbook air, or just trolling at this point? Now you are talking about buying 2 ultra 4ks to run on your macbook air? WTF?  This is what every mac arguement eventually turns to. The mac guy trying to point out how their device is an investment in future technology.  Well, good thing that you have this macbook ahead of time, because after you invest 10 thousand (minimum) on dual 4ks ultras, you will have your little macbook to utilize all that Ultra HD with. What can you do with it? Pop in a blu-ray? No, it doesn't come with a drive. Play an ultra HD game? Do video editing? No, no It wouldn't be fast enough to handle the processing needs. Youtube? Yes, you can watch youtube on your dual ultra 4k HDs.... 

[Rigby]

DisplayPort monitors are just now getting the necessary output ports to actually do daisy chaining.  Thunderbolt chipsets won't bother implementing if DisplayPort daisy chaining doesn't take off, likely.

The daisy chain functionality is implemented by the chipset, and early chipsets won't have it.  In the lab at my employer, though, we have a single laptop driving 4 DisplayPort monitors running at 1980x1080@60Hz, which is a neat thing to see.

[shmokes]

Sheesh, Vigo, such drama. The point is simply that it makes little sense to list HDMI as superior to Thunderbolt, as you did. Thus, I listed several capabilities unique to Thunderbolt, some immediately useful, some more niche or hypothetical (for now, at least). The point is simply that HDMI is inferior and has literally nothing to recommend it technologically over Thunderbolt. I didn't say I will only buy Thunderbolt. I pointed out the fairly incontrovertible fact that it's superior (and backward compatible anyway), so given a choice between the two, all else being equal, I would obviously choose Thunderbolt.

[Vigo]

Oh Pardon me.



I thought you were trying to trying to explain a sensible reason why a person would want a thundercat port on their mac netbook when trying to save money.

I had no idea you were just spewing garbage for the sake proving to yourself of "being right". I know what a thunderdome port is well enough to know it is not for the average consumer on their little laptop. The fact that you need an adaptor to run almost anything on through this port right now is more than enough to merit needed to prove my point. The other fact that anything compatible with it costs a hefty premium, and offers little to no advantage to the consumer in terms of capibility.

If you were gonna buy a mac tower, then I see the merit in a thunderbird port. On a netbook? Its an annoyance that pushes you to toss cash down the shitter.

[ChadTower]

"That's a valid point, shmokes...


....FOR ME TO POUPON!"

 

[ark_ader]

Hey Smokes they are hiring.  Maybe you can get your macbook instead of a retainer!

[Rigby]

If you were gonna buy a mac tower, then I see the merit in a thunderbird port. On a netbook? Its an annoyance that pushes you to toss cash down the shitter.

Ah, the old "if I don't need it, no one else does" argument.  I see your point, but it doesn't hold water.  General purpose PCs are called "general purpose" for a reason.  There are valid uses for a Macbook Air, just as there are for a Mac Pro, and the overwhelming majority of those valid uses will overlap.  The presence of a thunderbolt port is definitely among the common things which are fully valid on just about any computing platform.

[ChadTower]

What bugs me most, perhaps, is the stupid naming conventions Apple often gives stuff. 

Does that have USB?  Hell no!  It has Firewire!

How about HDMI?  Why would we want that when we can have Thunderbolt?!

 

[Vigo]

If you were gonna buy a mac tower, then I see the merit in a thunderbird port. On a netbook? Its an annoyance that pushes you to toss cash down the shitter.

Ah, the old "if I don't need it, no one else does" argument.  I see your point, but it doesn't hold water.  General purpose PCs are called "general purpose" for a reason.  There are valid uses for a Macbook Air, just as there are for a Mac Pro, and the overwhelming majority of those valid uses will overlap.  The presence of a thunderbolt port is definitely among the common things which are fully valid on just about any computing platform.

Well, I am actually directly addressing shmokes' case there. Although he seems to be just rifiling out random stuff he doesn't really want for arguments sake. I personally really look forward to ports becoming much more universal. I doubt the thunderstruck port will take off. Macs have bad juju when it comes to introducing new technology. I am guessing we will all be usb 4 (or whatever they are gonna name it) and hdmi 2.

What bugs me most, perhaps, is the stupid naming conventions Apple often gives stuff. 

Does that have USB?  Hell no!  It has Firewire!

How about HDMI?  Why would we want that when we can have Thunderbolt?!

 

Lets not forget when apple pushed to be the computer that would natively work with a Jaz drive.

[Howard_Casto]

Man I think we've backed poor Shmokes into a corner on this one because his replies aren't making any sense. 

thunderbolt vs hdmi+usb 3...... they both do EXACTLY the same thing, only thunderbolt adds several hundred dollars to the price with the benefit of less cabling. 

It's not a matter of "if I don't need it, no one else does"  it's a matter of "nobody needs it unless they were conned into buying ridiculously over-priced tb monitors". 

Mac ports rarely take off because they rarely make any sense design wise.  Firewire didn't catch on because you were sending 12v along a line normally connected to devices that run on 5v, which is rather dangerous considering how tiny and fiddly the connector was.  Not only that, but the 12v made hubs really expensive due to the fact that they all needed some kind of power management.  Usb2 comes along... just as fast as firewire, only it can run unpowered hubs that cost next to nothing.  Boom firewire is virtually dead.  Thunderbolt has a similar issue.  I do realize that at this point most data signals are full on digital, but tb supports vga and other various analog outputs.  Imagine trying to get a clean video signal with a hub holding a harddrive, a printer, and some weird chineese gadget you bought off the internet.  You wouldn't put your video cable on the same hub as your garbage devices you say?  So then you'd have two cables... one for video an another for devices... EXACTLY like you are doing now.     Video signals, even digital ones, need s fair amount of shielding and isolation.  Taking the data and dumping it into a hub that's handling a hdd or any number of devices not only creates a bottleneck, but it just doesn't make much sense.  I won't even get into the fact that it's an extension of the pci bus, which is a serious no-no. 

And there's the price of cables.  tb Ethernet.... 30 dollar minimum, ditto for video, ditto for general data.  So go ahead and add an extra 100 bucks for bare minimum connectivity. 

And I'll also remind you that if you insist on going the "one port to rule them all" route, usb 3.0 can handle video, ethernet, hdds and all your other stuff if you so desire.  You might have to buy an adaptor or two, but considering you'd be paying 30 bucks a cable the other way, it would even out.   

[shmokes]

And there's the price of cables.  tb Ethernet.... 30 dollar minimum, ditto for video, ditto for general data.  So go ahead and add an extra 100 bucks for bare minimum connectivity. 

And I'll also remind you that if you insist on going the "one port to rule them all" route, usb 3.0 can handle video, ethernet, hdds and all your other stuff if you so desire.  You might have to buy an adaptor or two, but considering you'd be paying 30 bucks a cable the other way, it would even out.

Where are you buying your cables, Best Buy? And USB 3.0 cannot handle video. Don't be absurd. It has half the bandwidth of HDMI. I mean . . . I get that it can handle video. So can USB 2.0. But you wouldn't use it as a port for driving serious monitors. It's got 1/2 the bandwidth of HDMI. And thunderbolt isn't meant to replace USB 3.0 anymore than eSATA is. It's meant to compliment it. Which it does rather well.

[shmokes]

I thought you were trying to trying to explain a sensible reason why a person would want a thundercat port on their mac netbook when trying to save money.

You continue to miss the point. You put HDMI on a list of things that were better about that laptop. Regardless of your personal port preference, Thunderbolt is indisputably the more premium part. Like, you may prefer fabric to leather car upholstery. But when you're writing a generally applicable list of the features that make one car objectively superior to another, it would be senseless to put fabric upholstery on the winning side. I get it. There are good reasons to have fabric, even if you prefer leather. It's cheaper, for example. But it, like HDMI, doesn't belong on that sort of list.

[Malenko]

You continue to miss the point. You put HDMI on a list of things that were better about that laptop. Regardless of your personal port preference, Thunderbolt is indisputably the more premium part.

Lets say thunderbolt is the cat's meow. Why cant the Macbook air have a thunderbolt port AND a VGA or HDMI port? I used to think an HDMI port on a laptop was pointless, till I started plugging it into my TV to watch movies. If I want to plug a macbook air into my TV I'd need to buy a $30 adapter (either VGA or HDMI), and that's just silly. Silliest part being those adapters probably cost about 30 cents to make, including labor. Worst case, Apple should toss an adapter or 2 in for free, they do have like 100 billion dollars in the bank.

[Rigby]

Lets say thunderbolt is the cat's meow. Why cant the Macbook air have a thunderbolt port AND a VGA or HDMI port? I used to think an HDMI port on a laptop was pointless, till I started plugging it into my TV to watch movies. If I want to plug a macbook air into my TV I'd need to buy a $30 adapter (either VGA or HDMI), and that's just silly. Silliest part being those adapters probably cost about 30 cents to make, including labor. Worst case, Apple should toss an adapter or 2 in for free, they do have like 100 billion dollars in the bank.

If your TV is so awesome that you must watch all movies on it, then you can afford the adapter.  Few people who own laptops connect them to a television.  Each adapter would indeed be cheap if they were provided by Apple, but the number of wasted adapters would be astronomical.

You're evaluating Apple's decision making as if it were based on your own.  It isn't.  Apple has its own motivations, and one of them is to push Thunderbolt.  Don't like it?  Don't buy one. 

Additionally, including a VGA adapter adds a lot of analog circuitry and physical thickness, and HDMI and DisplayPort require per-port royalties that Thunderbolt does not.

[Malenko]

If your TV is so awesome that you must watch all movies on it, then you can afford the adapter.  Few people who own laptops connect them to a television.  Each adapter would indeed be cheap if they were provided by Apple, but the number of wasted adapters would be astronomical.

You're evaluating Apple's decision making as if it were based on your own.  It isn't.  Apple has its own motivations, and one of them is to push Thunderbolt.  Don't like it?  Don't buy one. 

Additionally, including a VGA adapter adds a lot of analog circuitry and physical thickness, and HDMI and DisplayPort require per-port royalties that Thunderbolt does not.

Who wouldn't rather watch a movie on a big TV over a 13 to 19 screen? Affording an adapter isnt the point, the fact you have to buy one IS the point. As for royalties, the mark up on their hardware can MORE than cover that, as for physical thickness, an HDMI port wouldnt add any thickness to the macbook air. So both of your points are moot at best.

For the record, its an annual $10,000 fee and the cost per port is 15 cents, its 5 cents if you use the HDMI logo on the product and literature. its another penny off if you use HDCP protection, for a total of 4 cents per port.

[SNAAKE]

What bugs me most, perhaps, is the stupid naming conventions Apple often gives stuff. 

Does that have USB?  Hell no!  It has Firewire!

How about HDMI?  Why would we want that when we can have Thunderbolt?!

 

I didn't know about these names.....

[shmokes]

Seriously . . . I'll ask again, are you people buying your cables from Best Buy? Plugging a Macbook Air into an HDMI input does not cost $30.

[shmokes]

Frankly, with HDMI cable prices what they are, I'm surprised you guys would even consider a laptop with an HDMI port.

[Rigby]

Frankly, with HDMI cable prices what they are, I'm surprised you guys would even consider a laptop with an HDMI port.

i could kind of see your point until you said this.  i know you're being facetious but come on.  the cheapest TB cable vs. the most expensive HDMI cable, and ... ugh whatever.  keep fighting your silly internet fight and keep egging people on if you're going to do that, but be more clever about it.  make us wonder if you're ---smurfing--- with us, rather than making it obvious.

[shmokes]

I actually thought my post re: HDMI cable prices was obvious, but it was apparently more subtle than I thought.

[ark_ader]

Frankly, with HDMI cable prices what they are, I'm surprised you guys would even consider a laptop with an HDMI port.

i could kind of see your point until you said this.  i know you're being facetious but come on.  the cheapest TB cable vs. the most expensive HDMI cable, and ... ugh whatever.  keep fighting your silly internet fight and keep egging people on if you're going to do that, but be more clever about it.  make us wonder if you're ---smurfing--- with us, rather than making it obvious.

Please do not give Shmokes too much credit.

We will never hear the end of it.

 

[Malenko]

Seriously . . . I'll ask again, are you people buying your cables from Best Buy? Plugging a Macbook Air into an HDMI input does not cost $30.

I was actually going by Apple's website:


Then I realized they dont even list an HDMI adapter, but if they did it'd probably be $29 like everything else.

[ChadTower]

Few people who own laptops connect them to a television.

I do all the time.  There is lots of stuff that only streams from the internet that my family sits and watches on the TV.  My laptop is also the only DVD player left in the house other than the ones in desktops.  We moved almost exclusively to streaming two years ago.  Still need a DVD now and then and the laptop is it.

Of course, I still usa VGA, because it's easier than all of this other BS.

[knave]

Few people who own laptops connect them to a television.

I do all the time.  There is lots of stuff that only streams from the internet that my family sits and watches on the TV.  My laptop is also the only DVD player left in the house other than the ones in desktops.  We moved almost exclusively to streaming two years ago.  Still need a DVD now and then and the laptop is it.

Of course, I still usa VGA, because it's easier than all of this other BS.

Me too...I have a spare HDMI cable connected to my entertainment system. It takes me all of two seconds to plug in the Laptop via HDMI and have whatever I want on the big screen with surround sound. I would never buy a laptop without HDMI until there's a new standard.

[Vigo]

I do too. I keep randome HDMI cables shoved all over my house, because I am horrible when it comes to misplacing cables. It is nice pretty much keeping it all to HDMI vs component or anything else just for the mere fact that HDMI splitters are very intelligent and I like to plug in a million and one things into my tv.

As far as the Tropic ThunderPort goes, I know I would be misplacing my adapter all the time, or at the very least not bother taking it with me and happen to need it during travel. An HDMI port and cables can be found everywhere. A thunderclease cable? Just not gonna happen.

Just wait until you have that work presentation and need to connect to a projector, but then you realize you left your Thunderstick adaptor behind. "OK everyone, gather around my 11 inch monitor!"

Frankly, with HDMI cable prices what they are, I'm surprised you guys would even consider a laptop with an HDMI port.

i could kind of see your point until you said this.  i know you're being facetious but come on.  the cheapest TB cable vs. the most expensive HDMI cable, and ... ugh whatever.  keep fighting your silly internet fight and keep egging people on if you're going to do that, but be more clever about it.  make us wonder if you're ---smurfing--- with us, rather than making it obvious.

Please do not give Shmokes too much credit.

We will never hear the end of it.

 

 

[ark_ader]

I bought two ATI  cards one 5750 and a 7750 (they run cool) and both came with a display port.

Now I like my eye infinity setup with three monitors, but if I bought an active DP to VGA the cost was nearly the price of a Dell with a DP.

Having the Startech passive DP to VGA (I'm going to sound like a commercial) for $25 it works pretty darn well. 

Display ports are coming into their own right now, why confuse the market with another similar device (which may or may not be compatible with similar passive adapters)?

Is Apple intentionally trying to distance itself from PC customers that have expensive displays that re incompatible?  It reminds me of the old PowerMac days.

I use a spare laptop to fire a dual projector using VGA (I like 5 screens really) but soon I will have to convert to HDMI  and that scenario will be pretty expensive.

If I attempted to replaced my mac book with a newer model it would be too cost prohibitive from the outset.  And those USB to VGA adapters plain suck.

I haven't heard on the news that the economy has recovered  to afford the price of the latest Apple kit for the average American.   

[shmokes]

What cracks me up is that you guys aren't just bustin' my balls. In spite of my links to directly competing PCs from multiple manufacturers, in spite of Vigo's own suggestion costing $1100 with no touch screen and a generation-old processor (hence fully half as good battery-life and slightly lower performance), you will insist that the Apple product is, simply must be, somehow overpriced.

[Howard_Casto]

Well if you go by that single example instead of the multiple ones the rest of us posted.  I showed you one in the same class for only 700, and that wasn't even that good of a deal.

Also you insist that the windows version be a touch screen, which adds a LOT to the price, but the equivalent mac version... oh you don't need a touch screen on that one. 

Just for the record, I bought a 5 dollar, 10 FOOT hdmi cable for hooking my desktop to the tv across the room.  I've routinely bought more reasonably sides ones for 1-2 dollars.  Thunderbolt(s are go!  )  cables start at 30 bucks and as the others suggested the adaptors are 30 bucks, because, again it's a proprietary connector that apple almost exclusively sells from their own store.  Even in the cheap knock-off dept, the cheapest I could find was 11 and that doesn't include the cables you have to provide... so again, 30 bucks. 

It's OK if you want to buy a mac, but considering all the hidden costs, and the lack of cross-compatibility (unless you are running a mac desktop, in which case never mind), the lack of features and the fact that despite what you are saying about the only benefit is a slightly faster processor, yeah they are overpriced. 

[ark_ader]

According to Shmokes, buying an Apple computer is like buying a new truck.

If you can afford to purchase it, then the little expensive extras like tax and insurance is a non issue.

I just hope the new truck I will be buying when I am rich (one day) will not need additional wires to connect to an amp that are at least $100. 

 

[SithMaster]

For what its worth newegg has had free after rebates deals on various length redmere hdmi cables for the past two months.

Hey apple products are great.  So great that so many people have their products that one has to schedule an appointment and wait four days to talk to someone to get a charging cable replaced.  Somehow the next closest store had an opening tomorrow somehow.

[shmokes]

Thunderbolt(s are go!  )  cables start at 30 bucks and as the others suggested the adaptors are 30 bucks, because, again it's a proprietary connector that apple almost exclusively sells from their own store.  Even in the cheap knock-off dept, the cheapest I could find was 11 and that doesn't include the cables you have to provide... so again, 30 bucks. 
 

Howard, I swear you were either laughing your ass off as you typed that or you have brain damage. I responded to you the last time you said this. And since then I reiterated it for someone else's benefit. For the third time: no they don't.

And, again, Thunderbolt doesn't belong to Apple. It belongs to Intel. Apple was just the first manufacturer to use it. Just like some company was the first to put an HDMI port on a product. Also, Thunderbolt is no more proprietary than HDMI. It's owned, like HDMI, and to use it in your product you have to pay the owners a royalty, like HDMI.

[Howard_Casto]

And.... the only company to decide to use it was apple.  Doesn't matter who thought it up. 

[ark_ader]

And.... the only company to decide to use it was apple.  Doesn't matter who thought it up.

Don't get too carried away Howard   

[shmokes]

And.... the only company to decide to use it was apple.  Doesn't matter who thought it up.

It very much appears to matter to a number of people in this thread . . . but I can at least agree that, generally speaking, it shouldn't matter. Fanboys will be fanboys, though . . .

[Vigo]

in spite of Vigo's own suggestion costing $1100 with no touch screen and a generation-old processor

Hey man, that was listed for $800 when I posted it, and it will be $800 on off again. I only posted it because the specs mirrored the macbook completely. It's funny how all you can get on that laptop is that it also doesn't have a touchscreen, and that it has a previous gen processor. (I will talk about that later). You complain like a troll about computers with different specs and features and when I mention specs and features that are better than your precious macbook air, you say that it doesn't matter to you. Just another piece of horse crap argument like you saying you wanted to get dual ultra 4k monitors for your laptop, and then after I call you out, you say "Oh yeah, that was just hypothetical."

Whatever man, I'm not gonna get irked about it. You can sit and be the apple troll.

You lot all credibility regarding wanting to save money when you were talking about getting thunderpants monitors with a 700 dollar markup each monitor for being able to plug in your laptop without a converter. Yet at the same time you keep talking about how it is no big deal to get a cable converter for anything you need to plug in that port. You lost more credibility when I pointed out how a $250 laptop offers the same ability for a fraction of the cost. But you poopoo'ed it because it didn't have that ultra cool processor you like. (I will get to the processor you have a hard on for in just a second.)

You lost all credibility about what features are important when you said that its ok to have a mac without touchscreen support, because macOS is does not to take advantage of a touchscreen, but somehow on windows, it is uber important. You readily say your would rather have windows 8 in a heartbeat, but won't touch them because you would have to wait a few months for some haswell options to pop up. You lost further credibility when you failed to mention what you could be doing with this macbook that you couldn't do with a $250 netbook. You just voiced displeasure because they were not in the same "class" Just like any modern apple shill, you care about how you look holding the device more than what you can do with the device.

You lost all credibility on specs when you talk about a 4th gen i5 being faster and less power consuming than a 3rd gen i5. You seem to think that newer always equals better, but there is quite a bit out there showing how dead wrong you are.  The haswell overheats, doesn't offer a real speed increase, can't be overclocked without serious heat issues, and only consumes less power than a 3rd gen while idle. When actually processing, it drains battery life more that a previous generation cpu. Laptop manufacturers, apple included, are actually underclocking them to fit them into the battery life specs they want to achieve.

So if you really want a laptop that you need to be and idle to get those decent battery specs, that needs a converter cable to plug it into anything, does not offer a touchscreen, oh yeah, and is the size of an ant's pecker, then I guess you got me. That crappletop is definitely the way to go. All you need are some skinny jeans and lensless glasses and you are all set to look cool all day at the organic coffee hut. But in the meantime, quite making crap up, you don't have much credibility left.

[ark_ader]

in spite of Vigo's own suggestion costing $1100 with no touch screen and a generation-old processor

Hey man, that was listed for $800 when I posted it, and it will be $800 on off again. I only posted it because the specs mirrored the macbook completely. It's funny how all you can get on that laptop is that it also doesn't have a touchscreen, and that it has a previous gen processor. (I will talk about that later). You complain like a troll about computers with different specs and features and when I mention specs and features that are better than your precious macbook air, you say that it doesn't matter to you. Just another piece of horse crap argument like you saying you wanted to get dual ultra 4k monitors for your laptop, and then after I call you out, you say "Oh yeah, that was just hypothetical."

Whatever man, I'm not gonna get irked about it. You can sit and be the apple troll.

You lot all credibility regarding wanting to save money when you were talking about getting thunderpants monitors with a 700 dollar markup each monitor for being able to plug in your laptop without a converter. Yet at the same time you keep talking about how it is no big deal to get a cable converter for anything you need to plug in that port. You lost more credibility when I pointed out how a $250 laptop offers the same ability for a fraction of the cost. But you poopoo'ed it because it didn't have that ultra cool processor you like. (I will get to the processor you have a hard on for in just a second.)

You lost all credibility about what features are important when you said that its ok to have a mac without touchscreen support, because macOS is does not to take advantage of a touchscreen, but somehow on windows, it is uber important. You readily say your would rather have windows 8 in a heartbeat, but won't touch them because you would have to wait a few months for some haswell options to pop up. You lost further credibility when you failed to mention what you could be doing with this macbook that you couldn't do with a $250 netbook. You just voiced displeasure because they were not in the same "class" Just like any modern apple shill, you care about how you look holding the device more than what you can do with the device.

You lost all credibility on specs when you talk about a 4th gen i5 being faster and less power consuming than a 3rd gen i5. You seem to think that newer always equals better, but there is quite a bit out there showing how dead wrong you are.  The haswell overheats, doesn't offer a real speed increase, can't be overclocked without serious heat issues, and only consumes less power than a 3rd gen while idle. When actually processing, it drains battery life more that a previous generation cpu. Laptop manufacturers, apple included, are actually underclocking them to fit them into the battery life specs they want to achieve.

So if you really want a laptop that you need to be and idle to get those decent battery specs, that needs a converter cable to plug it into anything, does not offer a touchscreen, oh yeah, and is the size of an ant's pecker, then I guess you got me. That crappletop is definitely the way to go. All you need are some skinny jeans and lensless glasses and you are all set to look cool all day at the organic coffee hut. But in the meantime, quite making crap up, you don't have much credibility left.

 

 

That was best part of the day.  Thanks!

[shmokes]

You lost all credibility about what features are important when you said that its ok to have a mac without touchscreen support, because macOS is does not to take advantage of a touchscreen, but somehow on windows, it is uber important . . . . You just voiced displeasure because they were not in the same "class" Just like any modern apple shill, you care about how you look holding the device more than what you can do with the device.

Christ . . . lmao. Vigo, this can't be that hard for you to understand. The touchscreen matters in Windows 8 because it is one of the, if not THE, main reasons that I prefer Windows 8 to Windows 7 or MacOS. Mother of god, exactly what I said about not caring about a Mac not having a Touchscreen applies to a Windows 7 laptop. You see that. It DOESN'T MATTER if those computers have touch screens. But the reason it matters with Windows 8 is that Windows 8 is no longer more desirable than those other OSes when you nullify that feature. Does this honestly not make sense to you? Like . . . I think my position here is super reasonable and I think that you are either being obstinate are actually aren't fully understanding me.

Not to mention that I'm having a slightly hard time buying your charge of me being an Apple shill when my entire complaint resolves around me preferring Windows 8. Shrug.

As for your article . . . I didn't read the whole thing. I skimmed. I got that it's apparently not for overclockers (doesn't affect me) and, like, the conclusion:

It’s also very important to remember that Haswell is a much more advanced chip than Ivy Bridge. In terms of transistor counts, disregarding any changes to the GPU, a quad-core Haswell CPU has roughly 200 million more transistors than a quad-core Ivy Bridge CPU (1.4 billion vs. 1.2 billion). A lot of these transistors were spent on increasing the chip’s IPC (instructions-per-clock) by adding more execution resources and beefing up out-of-order execution (OoOE) capabilities, but most of them are dedicated to brand new features such as AVX2, FMA3, and TSX. These are very powerful features, but for the most part they only boost performance when software  has been specifically written/compiled to take advantage of them. Today, we are merely seeing the ~10% speed-up provided by Haswell’s reworked execution core; tomorrow, when software uses AVX2, FMA3, and TSX, the speed-up could be 25% or more.

In this light, Haswell is a monster of a chip. Intel has produced a chip that decimates power usage on the low end — which, let’s be honest, is the market that Intel is really interested in — and yet will also provide a huge speed-up for power users once software and compilers are updated. It’s easy to be disappointed by Haswell’s performance on paper, but remember: There really is no other chip out there, especially from AMD, that comes anywhere close. Still, between the death of overclocking, Intel’s focus on mobile, and the shift to soldered-on chips, it’s clear that the writing is on the wall for desktop PC power users. [edit: emphasis mine]

So . . . yeah . . . pretty sure your article says Haswell is ---smurfing--- awesome.

[Vigo]

Sorry, credibility is already ruined when you said you only skimmed a 5 paragraph article, but put forth the effort to post the "pity paragraph" and spent all the time bolding and itialicizing the sentances you liked saying that things might get better in the future for the haswell if software authors design specifically to accommodate the chip. It is quite obvious you cover your eyes and plug your ears in front of anything negative.

And if the touchscreen win 8 is such a huge advantage over mac os for you, then why the hell do you shrug off a touchscreen win8 machine that malenko posted that was HALF THE PRICE simply because it was 1 pound heavier? Better specs, a nice touchscreen and over $500 savings is always worth adding 1 pound of weight. I smell complete BS from an apple toadie. And I honestly don't care if you are an apple toadie. Really, whatever. I used to shamelessly love them as well. It is just lame that you are an apple toadie in denial. You are far more of an apple toadie than you admit...heck, you probably even have an apple blog. Oh wait... 

Well, it is obvious you only hear what you want to hear. Have fun telling your yuppie friends how through your unbiased research, you found that your $1200 laptop was a huge, unparalleled money savings. Don't forget to wear a Steve Jobs turtleneck for that hint of sophistication.   

[edekoning]

These are very powerful features, but for the most part they only boost performance when software  has been specifically written/compiled to take advantage of them. Today, we are merely seeing the ~10% speed-up provided by Haswell’s reworked execution core; tomorrow, when software uses AVX2, FMA3, and TSX, the speed-up could be 25% or more.

Not to get into the way of your 'discussion', but that I just had to comment on that statement. The likeliness of this happening is really really small. I'd say only big budget applications (photoshop, maya, etc), or applications build for speed (encoder/de-encoders, etc) will invest in this maybe. The vast majority of the software world just does not give a you know what. How many of today's applications are writing to target multi-core CPUs, how many target the vast power of GPUs, how many actually use one of the existing instructions sets (SSE3, etc)?
The speed of most of today's applications can easily be speed-up by 25% just by using a profiler and optimizing for speed/memory/latency/whatever. The reality is that this usually never happens, as it takes time, costs money, and frankly nobody cares. CPUs are mostly idling all the time! Games are an exception of course, but we are talking about Macbook, so they don't apply

[ark_ader]

No it is obvious Shmokes got himself a job at Best Buy as a Geek Squad Cadet and he tells this tripe to all his nerdy customers, but that shyster part of him comes when a "PC Fanboy" comes along and starts making some sensible corrections to his diatribe and hilarity ensues.

So how many Macs did you sell last week Shmokes?   

[shmokes]

Are you retarded? Geek Squad? I work at the Genius Bar.

[Vigo]

[ark_ader]

Are you retarded? Geek Squad? I work at the Genius Bar.

That makes perfect non(sense).

 

[ChadTower]

I'm going to fix this thread.  Because it really, really sucks.

[ark_ader]

A proper Apple fan girl.

[shmokes]

I wouldn't have thought such a thing was possible. And yet . . .

[marioxb]

Soo... about those other things at E3 that don't say Apple.. Last I checked, E3 was about video games and hot chicks (mostly). I've been there like 3 or 4 times and (last time in 2000) I only drool over the booth babes and new console games/ systems.

[Le Chuck]

You lost all credibility about what features are important when you said that its ok to have a mac without touchscreen support, because macOS is does not to take advantage of a touchscreen, but somehow on windows, it is uber important . . . . You just voiced displeasure because they were not in the same "class" Just like any modern apple shill, you care about how you look holding the device more than what you can do with the device.

Christ . . . lmao. Vigo, this can't be that hard for you to understand. The touchscreen matters in Windows 8 because it is one of the, if not THE, main reasons that I prefer Windows 8 to Windows 7 or MacOS. Mother of god, exactly what I said about not caring about a Mac not having a Touchscreen applies to a Windows 7 laptop. You see that. It DOESN'T MATTER if those computers have touch screens. But the reason it matters with Windows 8 is that Windows 8 is no longer more desirable than those other OSes when you nullify that feature. Does this honestly not make sense to you? Like . . . I think my position here is super reasonable and I think that you are either being obstinate are actually aren't fully understanding me.

Not to mention that I'm having a slightly hard time buying your charge of me being an Apple shill when my entire complaint resolves around me preferring Windows 8. Shrug.

As for your article . . . I didn't read the whole thing. I skimmed. I got that it's apparently not for overclockers (doesn't affect me) and, like, the conclusion:

It’s also very important to remember that Haswell is a much more advanced chip than Ivy Bridge. In terms of transistor counts, disregarding any changes to the GPU, a quad-core Haswell CPU has roughly 200 million more transistors than a quad-core Ivy Bridge CPU (1.4 billion vs. 1.2 billion). A lot of these transistors were spent on increasing the chip’s IPC (instructions-per-clock) by adding more execution resources and beefing up out-of-order execution (OoOE) capabilities, but most of them are dedicated to brand new features such as AVX2, FMA3, and TSX. These are very powerful features, but for the most part they only boost performance when software  has been specifically written/compiled to take advantage of them. Today, we are merely seeing the ~10% speed-up provided by Haswell’s reworked execution core; tomorrow, when software uses AVX2, FMA3, and TSX, the speed-up could be 25% or more.

In this light, Haswell is a monster of a chip. Intel has produced a chip that decimates power usage on the low end — which, let’s be honest, is the market that Intel is really interested in — and yet will also provide a huge speed-up for power users once software and compilers are updated. It’s easy to be disappointed by Haswell’s performance on paper, but remember: There really is no other chip out there, especially from AMD, that comes anywhere close. Still, between the death of overclocking, Intel’s focus on mobile, and the shift to soldered-on chips, it’s clear that the writing is on the wall for desktop PC power users. [edit: emphasis mine]

So . . . yeah . . . pretty sure your article says Haswell is ---smurfing--- awesome.

Repped for using the word obstinate

[ark_ader]

You lost all credibility about what features are important when you said that its ok to have a mac without touchscreen support, because macOS is does not to take advantage of a touchscreen, but somehow on windows, it is uber important . . . . You just voiced displeasure because they were not in the same "class" Just like any modern apple shill, you care about how you look holding the device more than what you can do with the device.

Christ . . . lmao. Vigo, this can't be that hard for you to understand. The touchscreen matters in Windows 8 because it is one of the, if not THE, main reasons that I prefer Windows 8 to Windows 7 or MacOS. Mother of god, exactly what I said about not caring about a Mac not having a Touchscreen applies to a Windows 7 laptop. You see that. It DOESN'T MATTER if those computers have touch screens. But the reason it matters with Windows 8 is that Windows 8 is no longer more desirable than those other OSes when you nullify that feature. Does this honestly not make sense to you? Like . . . I think my position here is super reasonable and I think that you are either being obstinate are actually aren't fully understanding me.

Not to mention that I'm having a slightly hard time buying your charge of me being an Apple shill when my entire complaint resolves around me preferring Windows 8. Shrug.

As for your article . . . I didn't read the whole thing. I skimmed. I got that it's apparently not for overclockers (doesn't affect me) and, like, the conclusion:

It’s also very important to remember that Haswell is a much more advanced chip than Ivy Bridge. In terms of transistor counts, disregarding any changes to the GPU, a quad-core Haswell CPU has roughly 200 million more transistors than a quad-core Ivy Bridge CPU (1.4 billion vs. 1.2 billion). A lot of these transistors were spent on increasing the chip’s IPC (instructions-per-clock) by adding more execution resources and beefing up out-of-order execution (OoOE) capabilities, but most of them are dedicated to brand new features such as AVX2, FMA3, and TSX. These are very powerful features, but for the most part they only boost performance when software  has been specifically written/compiled to take advantage of them. Today, we are merely seeing the ~10% speed-up provided by Haswell’s reworked execution core; tomorrow, when software uses AVX2, FMA3, and TSX, the speed-up could be 25% or more.

In this light, Haswell is a monster of a chip. Intel has produced a chip that decimates power usage on the low end — which, let’s be honest, is the market that Intel is really interested in — and yet will also provide a huge speed-up for power users once software and compilers are updated. It’s easy to be disappointed by Haswell’s performance on paper, but remember: There really is no other chip out there, especially from AMD, that comes anywhere close. Still, between the death of overclocking, Intel’s focus on mobile, and the shift to soldered-on chips, it’s clear that the writing is on the wall for desktop PC power users. [edit: emphasis mine]

So . . . yeah . . . pretty sure your article says Haswell is ---smurfing--- awesome.

Repped for using the word obstinate

What about my pic?  It's worth at least two reps!