Eraserhead
Mar 1, 04:52 PM
^^ Well maybe, but the Obama administration doesn't believe that law is constitutional.
Multimedia
Aug 21, 05:43 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
DakotaGuy
Aug 11, 02:39 PM
It is more like 81% of the world market.
MS Windows has about 95% of the world market...doesn't mean the technology is better.:)
MS Windows has about 95% of the world market...doesn't mean the technology is better.:)
Machead III
Sep 19, 07:14 AM
kan I hav Mormon MacBook plz?!
fivepoint
Apr 27, 03:04 PM
Oh boy. Fivepoint, you wouldn't have happened to visit any such site, now would you?
As stated earlier, which you conveniently ignored, I found the article on the Drudge Report. Am I not allowed to read the Drudge Report? Should I keep it exclusively to HuffPo in the future? I read them both, but you tell me how I should do it.
So typical, focus on the messenger and not on the message. Your guys posts are so littered with red herrings and strawmen its almost beyond imagination.
As stated earlier, which you conveniently ignored, I found the article on the Drudge Report. Am I not allowed to read the Drudge Report? Should I keep it exclusively to HuffPo in the future? I read them both, but you tell me how I should do it.
So typical, focus on the messenger and not on the message. Your guys posts are so littered with red herrings and strawmen its almost beyond imagination.
IscariotJ
Mar 26, 09:21 AM
OS X is still based on UNIX, dating back to '69.
Part of what makes OSX great......
Part of what makes OSX great......
kevin.rivers
Jul 20, 04:19 PM
With all these great technological feats you would think they could get a Mighty Mouse BT on my desk...
deputy_doofy
Mar 31, 04:06 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Honestly... this just needs repeating to drive the point home. Well said and 100000% accurate.
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Honestly... this just needs repeating to drive the point home. Well said and 100000% accurate.
Huntn
Aug 17, 01:17 PM
Shift was good, but i thought it was really easy. Its also very forgiving, you dont need to have a lot of driving skill to finish the top races because drifting is really easy to control, you can enter turns quite a bit faster than you should, and you'll have more money than you know what to do with.
What you scale the difficulty up? On NFS:Shift, I started on easy A.I, quickly moved to normal, and am now doing most of my races on hard A.I. My car settings for traction and control and such is normal.
What you scale the difficulty up? On NFS:Shift, I started on easy A.I, quickly moved to normal, and am now doing most of my races on hard A.I. My car settings for traction and control and such is normal.
amin
Aug 18, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
Menopause
Mar 22, 12:58 PM
"The first iteration of Galaxy Tab 10.1 measured in at 246.2 x 170.4 x 10.9 mm and weighed 599g; this new, slimmer version is 256.6 x 172.9 x 8.6 mm and 595g."
We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !
We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !
Blue Velvet
Apr 27, 03:06 PM
Amazing that anyone ever wonders why conservatives never stay around these parts, your level of debate is at rock bottom.
I'm quite sure that my rare posts in this forum have little to do with what you and your army think of this forum...besides, my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
I saw it on Drudge
Now there's a reliable source. Instead of me taking more time to explain it to someone who hasn't got the slightest idea of what he's talking about, I'll go one better. I'll let a conservative explain it:
We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That�s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they�re being called, aren�t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They�re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
What�s plausible is that somewhere along the way � from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) � these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What�s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama�s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It�s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let�s leave it at that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
Now are we done with this useless nonsense?
I'm quite sure that my rare posts in this forum have little to do with what you and your army think of this forum...besides, my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
I saw it on Drudge
Now there's a reliable source. Instead of me taking more time to explain it to someone who hasn't got the slightest idea of what he's talking about, I'll go one better. I'll let a conservative explain it:
We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That�s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they�re being called, aren�t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They�re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
What�s plausible is that somewhere along the way � from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) � these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What�s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama�s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It�s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let�s leave it at that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
Now are we done with this useless nonsense?
jaxstate
Jul 27, 11:15 AM
Once again, I read it and read it well. The big deal about the G5 being in Mac was that the entire system was redesigned for better performance. Go read about the G5 system architecture if apple still has it up.
You really need to read about this...these chips are just a little higher clock speed. But they have a 20%+ boost at the same clock speed. They ARE making better chip designs instead of just bumping clock speed. Intel/Apple is actually doing pretty much the opposite of what you accuse them of doing.
You really need to read about this...these chips are just a little higher clock speed. But they have a 20%+ boost at the same clock speed. They ARE making better chip designs instead of just bumping clock speed. Intel/Apple is actually doing pretty much the opposite of what you accuse them of doing.
Brandon Sharitt
Sep 13, 07:25 AM
While Clovertown and Kenstfield ar interesting as probably going to be the first consumer quad core CPUs, they are currently much like Intels initial stabs at Dual Core, which were largely two Pentium chips jammed together. What will be interesting to see is the second generation Intel quad cores and (probably) first generation AMD quad core CPUs, which should be to Kenstfield and Clovertown as the Core Duo family is to the dual core Pentium 4s, though maybe not quite the same performance jump.
4God
Jul 14, 02:32 PM
If true, these definitely would be powerful machines, however for people like myself, the power and resulting price tag will be simply too much to justify. Leave the Xeons for the PowerMacs, but introduce some mini-tower machines with Conroe chips - they would fit nicely between the iMac and PowerMac. For me, the Mac mini isn't enough, the iMac is great, however non-upgradeable. I'd like something upgradeable, where I could replace/upgrade HDDs, optical drives, and most importantly the display - yet a PowerMac is overkill for my needs. It sure would be nice to see, but I doubt Apple will do it... :cool:
Well said, I agree with you. Apple, IMHO, needs an "inbetween" machine for upgradablity. This would shorten the gap between consmumer and prosumer.
Well said, I agree with you. Apple, IMHO, needs an "inbetween" machine for upgradablity. This would shorten the gap between consmumer and prosumer.
rtdunham
Aug 27, 09:15 AM
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
good information, logical thought.
do you think apple's $100M payoff to Creative*, and possible need to restate financial information for recent quarters/years because of questionable executive compensation, make the company more reluctant than might otherwise have been the case to intro new chips that are, in the beginning more costly and thus will reduce profits?
*--i know, i know, it's only 1% of apple's cash reserves. But that's not meaningless money: trust me, companies make plenty of strategic decisions that affect their products' features, support quality, whatever, over amounts far less than $100M.
good information, logical thought.
do you think apple's $100M payoff to Creative*, and possible need to restate financial information for recent quarters/years because of questionable executive compensation, make the company more reluctant than might otherwise have been the case to intro new chips that are, in the beginning more costly and thus will reduce profits?
*--i know, i know, it's only 1% of apple's cash reserves. But that's not meaningless money: trust me, companies make plenty of strategic decisions that affect their products' features, support quality, whatever, over amounts far less than $100M.
PCClone
Apr 25, 02:22 PM
Look out Apple...the chattel are beginning to rise. I hope these power-hungry thugs (Apple) get taken to the cleaners. Sad that Apple now views our location as a resource to be exploited.
Why do you do nothing but troll here? You goo fans are lame.
Why do you do nothing but troll here? You goo fans are lame.
dougny
Nov 29, 03:50 PM
I only registered to respond to this idiot "dougny". I usually just lurk and read what everyone else has to say on here.
You have no clue what your talking about, all your statistics are wrong and I feel really sorry for whatever artists you represent.
Your a f_ck_ng moran.
Anyway, to everyone else....
Here is the deal. The money Universal got Microsoft never EVER touched the hands of any artists.. it went straight into some very deep pockets. This is exactly what is going to happen with Apple's loot if this little deal goes through.
Total revenues in the MI (music industry) have actually been UP, and consistently so. More people are going to concerts than ever before, download sales are so large that they are numbing, and BEST OF ALL indie labels are thriving. Yes, people do still buy CD's, and DVD's.
Wow, you logged on just to show everyone you are an idiot. You actually think because paid downloads are on the rise that record companies are making more money? You are flat out wrong. Also, record companies don't share in concert ticket sales (which are also down BTW).
Dumbass
You have no clue what your talking about, all your statistics are wrong and I feel really sorry for whatever artists you represent.
Your a f_ck_ng moran.
Anyway, to everyone else....
Here is the deal. The money Universal got Microsoft never EVER touched the hands of any artists.. it went straight into some very deep pockets. This is exactly what is going to happen with Apple's loot if this little deal goes through.
Total revenues in the MI (music industry) have actually been UP, and consistently so. More people are going to concerts than ever before, download sales are so large that they are numbing, and BEST OF ALL indie labels are thriving. Yes, people do still buy CD's, and DVD's.
Wow, you logged on just to show everyone you are an idiot. You actually think because paid downloads are on the rise that record companies are making more money? You are flat out wrong. Also, record companies don't share in concert ticket sales (which are also down BTW).
Dumbass
dougny
Nov 28, 06:44 PM
(Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope)
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
AppleKrate
Sep 19, 10:49 AM
The MacBookPro is still too new a release to have the major type of changes you and others are hoping for. All you're going to get for the next year or two is speed bumps and maybe an upgrade in HD capacity, Graphics card, or Optical Drive (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD)
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
Please tell me what is majorly new about the current MacBook Pro besides an intel chip :confused: (and the name of course :rolleyes: )
PS how about an amateur professional? If not, maybe a professional amateur?
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
Please tell me what is majorly new about the current MacBook Pro besides an intel chip :confused: (and the name of course :rolleyes: )
PS how about an amateur professional? If not, maybe a professional amateur?
ifjake
Nov 29, 12:25 AM
here's my 2� without reading the rest of the thread:
maybe if they set aside the funds for cultivating new, compellingly good music from upandcoming artists. kinda like how the big movie studios own independent-esque branches. something nice. something a little more risky than your usual cookie-cutter pop-hit. i dunno maybe that's already there sort of. maybe.
maybe if they set aside the funds for cultivating new, compellingly good music from upandcoming artists. kinda like how the big movie studios own independent-esque branches. something nice. something a little more risky than your usual cookie-cutter pop-hit. i dunno maybe that's already there sort of. maybe.
twoodcc
Aug 13, 10:36 PM
You originally said...
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
well i did have demos just before that quote. but yes, what i meant to say, and what i actually typed, was two different things. but i think you can see what i was trying to say, and is clear: NFS has sold more, but has more games out there.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
math is fun, and yes, per year, NFS has sold more. but they released more games to do it. and on more consoles, to break it down even further
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
did you buy GT5: prologue?
for someone who at one point really liked the games/series, i don't see why you wouldn't give this game a shot, at least after reading reviews first. i find it very frustrating to see people make judgements before the game is even out
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
no matter what anyone says, it is a fact that they intended to build a car specifically for Gran Turismo. that in itself is very impressive to me.
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
i never said that the most sold game is the greatest. but i do think sales is one aspect to consider.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
i understand this, but i don't think you understand what i am trying to point out. you are correct in that what makes something great is personal preference, and when many people have that same personal preference, it turns into many sales.
let's try this analogy. take tennis for example. who is a "greater" player - Roger Federer or Andy Roddick? Roddick has played some great games, and has a great serve, but Federer has many more championships. almost everyone would say Federer is greater (if there is such a term).
think of championships as sales in this case. i know it's not the best analogy, but the first thing i could think of.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
you do make a very good point here, but again, i think you are taking my point out of context.
my whole point in all of this, is not that i think GT is the greatest series of all time or whatever, or that they have sold the most, blah blah. all i'm trying to say is that they have a very respectable racing series, one of the best, and i think this next game will continue their success. and i pointed out that past sales show that they have had much success. that's all i'm really saying here
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
it seems we are arguing just to argue. i hope you at least read some reviews once the game is out before making a choice like that. and i also hope that this thread hasn't led you to that decision
It's refreshing that I don't have to go to gamespot forums to see a pointless immature fanboy pissing match :rolleyes:
sorry for the inconvenience. you don't have to read this you know.
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
well i did have demos just before that quote. but yes, what i meant to say, and what i actually typed, was two different things. but i think you can see what i was trying to say, and is clear: NFS has sold more, but has more games out there.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
math is fun, and yes, per year, NFS has sold more. but they released more games to do it. and on more consoles, to break it down even further
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
did you buy GT5: prologue?
for someone who at one point really liked the games/series, i don't see why you wouldn't give this game a shot, at least after reading reviews first. i find it very frustrating to see people make judgements before the game is even out
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
no matter what anyone says, it is a fact that they intended to build a car specifically for Gran Turismo. that in itself is very impressive to me.
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
i never said that the most sold game is the greatest. but i do think sales is one aspect to consider.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
i understand this, but i don't think you understand what i am trying to point out. you are correct in that what makes something great is personal preference, and when many people have that same personal preference, it turns into many sales.
let's try this analogy. take tennis for example. who is a "greater" player - Roger Federer or Andy Roddick? Roddick has played some great games, and has a great serve, but Federer has many more championships. almost everyone would say Federer is greater (if there is such a term).
think of championships as sales in this case. i know it's not the best analogy, but the first thing i could think of.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
you do make a very good point here, but again, i think you are taking my point out of context.
my whole point in all of this, is not that i think GT is the greatest series of all time or whatever, or that they have sold the most, blah blah. all i'm trying to say is that they have a very respectable racing series, one of the best, and i think this next game will continue their success. and i pointed out that past sales show that they have had much success. that's all i'm really saying here
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
it seems we are arguing just to argue. i hope you at least read some reviews once the game is out before making a choice like that. and i also hope that this thread hasn't led you to that decision
It's refreshing that I don't have to go to gamespot forums to see a pointless immature fanboy pissing match :rolleyes:
sorry for the inconvenience. you don't have to read this you know.
takao
Dec 7, 05:04 PM
Keep that Lotus, you can use it for the British Lightweight race.
ah the british lightweight .. i remembered it much much harder from gt4 .. since this time around lightweight just means being under 1200 kg and british ;) so my 300 kW TVR was qualified which of course smoked the competition
that said i find it stil ldissapointing that opposed to gt4 you can't difference between imperial and metric measurements more seperate
which means either mp/h and HP or km/h and kW
which is unfortunate since nobody really uses kW except for taxes ;)
ah the british lightweight .. i remembered it much much harder from gt4 .. since this time around lightweight just means being under 1200 kg and british ;) so my 300 kW TVR was qualified which of course smoked the competition
that said i find it stil ldissapointing that opposed to gt4 you can't difference between imperial and metric measurements more seperate
which means either mp/h and HP or km/h and kW
which is unfortunate since nobody really uses kW except for taxes ;)
SuperCachetes
Feb 28, 09:45 PM
Correct I have no idea what causes homosexuality, neither do scientists.
And yet you seem quite certain how the human brain works and what is normal/ not normal. :rolleyes:
My original point was that you made an assertive, sweeping generalization without any backup. Just a very matter-of-fact "Hey, all you humans, here is how your body was designed. All you gays, you are not the default. Trust me, I'm from teh internetz."
It's clumsy and insensitive at best, and just more religion-based trolling at worst.
And yet you seem quite certain how the human brain works and what is normal/ not normal. :rolleyes:
My original point was that you made an assertive, sweeping generalization without any backup. Just a very matter-of-fact "Hey, all you humans, here is how your body was designed. All you gays, you are not the default. Trust me, I'm from teh internetz."
It's clumsy and insensitive at best, and just more religion-based trolling at worst.