Y2HH

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 06:30 PM) The entire Steam catalogue is not coming to the Mac. Are you thick? Do you know how many copyright infringements that is? If they tried that, it might be the biggest copyright infringment in history - there would be thousands upon thousands of them. Steam is a distrubutor, they don't make games and they never will. Steam is owned by Valve, a developer that does make games. Therefore, the amount of games that are listed to be ported, as of now, is incredibly small because the only listed games are made by Valve. About the only up to date title Mac gamers will get is Left 4 Dead 2, and that's by Valve. But games like Modern Warfare 2? Mass Effect 2 and 3? Ghost Recon: Future Soldiers? Crysis 2? Fallout 3? Fat f***ing chance those will ever play on OSX. You're right that Mac hardware can play Windows games (for anyone who doesn't know, the Mac software cannot). I'm not disputing that and I never was. I'm picking at you because you made a claim that the Mac catalogue is, or is going to be on par with the Windows catalogue soon. It's not going to be. That's bad information and if anyone believed it, you owe them an apology, especially so since you prefaced it with your IT background. Go plug in your Amiga 500 and leave the rest of us alone. You don't game anymore, therefore you aren't a gamer just the same way as if you quit IT in 1999 and were trying to tell another IT guy that started working 5 years ago 'how it is.' Just shut the f*** up. No no no no no... You've misunderstood me. I don't mean the entire steam catalog of games -- I mean the entire catalog of games that the makers of steam itself owns. Ok, I get this now -- I can admit when I'm wrong, and I led you to believe I was saying something I wasn't. I shouldn't have been saying the steam catalog -- I meant Valves games. Sorry about that. I f***ed that up and I admit I f***ed that up. And I sure as hell do game still...I'm just taking time off playing many different games because I'm playing WoW still. And hey, I'm all about personal, but you're taking it a little far even for me. As much as I'd like to respond and keep it personal, I won't, this over the boundary of unnecessary now.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 06:09 PM) Ban me. I don't care. I'm going to keep taking shots at him as long as he keeps coming back. He's an arse that's just trying to defer the topic and hide behind random and pointless computer facts. The funny thing is, I don't care what he says. His argument is wrong, but even that's beside what I'm saying here. I just feel like being an asshole to him because, frankly, he deserves it. So, ban me. I could not care less. Hahaha, it's about time someone around here isn't a p****. At least I can respect that. I feel the same way. We're both big boys and don't need someone interfering. I'm not taking this personally. We have a difference of opinion and are arguing about it...I don't see what's wrong with that.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 05:38 PM) No, no. I pulled you off your high horse when you pulled the IT card to gain credibility when you said that Mac's are right in line with PC's in gaming (you claimed that Mac's are getting all the new releases). I told you that just isn't true, and then you came back with false information about Steam. I again told you that you were incorrect and then where you should have said, "Oh, I guess I was wrong," you went back on your high horse and listed your gaming resume, as if anyone here cared. I'll write it as simply as I can. I'm not comparing Mac hardware to PC hardware. I'm not comparing Windows software to Mac software. I'm comparing the Windows gaming library to the Mac gaming library, and that's what I've been doing from the start. If you want to call me an idiot because I assumed you were talking about boot camp, but weren't, fine, I don't care. That doesn't hide the fact that you're a pathetic fanboy giving people false information about Mac gaming and hiding behind your resume because you were flat out WRONG when I called you out on this here topic. I'll say it again. Get the f*** outta my house, your too old for next generation gaming, grandpa. Ahh, the young, inconsiderate useless generation that think they're all that. What I said about Steam IS correct...the entire Steam catalog is coming to the Mac. That doesn't mean every company that sells games on Steam is coming to the Mac, but it does in fact mean that every game Steam owns WILL be...to say that's false information means you are once again, misinformed, or assuming I meant something I never meant. The Windows games library *is* bigger than the Mac's, I never disputed that...EVER. Hell, it's not what we were arguing about. I was arguing about the viability of the OSX platform for gaming, and today, it's just as viable as that of the Windows PC...that's not a point of contention, it's a fact based purely on hardware (both the same). That "house" you live in is tiny...maybe you need to get out more.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 03:11 PM) Who cares? Get of your high horse and quit throwing around your IT cards and such and lets get back to the point. Mac gaming isn't half as good as it is on the PC. It won't be for years, if ever. Just admit it and stop spewing garbage about how Mac gets all the big releases when the fact is that it doesn't. Enjoy your Mac, I don't give a rats ass. But put your fanboy cap aside for a second and quit telling people to buy Boot Camp for gaming because, frankly, it's a ridiculously expensive option to buy a Mac and the software. If it truly were the sliced bread you're making it out to be, you'd see more PC gamers do it. But 99% of them don't, and it goes beyond the operating system why they don't. Oh, and Quake 3 is from 1999. Give me a f***ing break. Buy bootcamp for gaming? Bootcamp is for Apple noobs that don't know dick about PC's and how they work. It's nothing more than a collection of drivers and an assistant to help people load Windows on a separate partition. You need no such thing to boot windows on a Mac. And I'm not on a high horse -- you tried to compare your "gaming prowess" to mine, not knowing how long I've gamed, or anything about how much I game. That was you, and you got owned in the process. I believe it was you that said stick to IT, because when it comes to gaming, to stay outta your house? Of course, you then got mad when you found out I already live in that kinda house, only it's quite a bit bigger, at which point you told me I was the one riding a high horse. Ironic. I'm not arguing that OSX is on par with Windows as a pure gaming platform in terms of sheer availably, but I am arguing it's just as viable now, and making/porting games is no issue anymore since the hardware is the same, the graphics cards are the same, one is simply GL vs DX, and porting DX to GL isn't very hard anymore, aside from the games that use PHYSX, which is like...one or two? A Mac without OSX is just a PC, plain and simple. It's akin to a PC running Ubuntu instead of Windows. Just because Ubuntu is installed on it doesn't mean you can't install Windows or dual boot to Windows. I installed Win7x64 on my Mac a few weeks ago...booting up and selecting boot from CD to install was really hard. And fanbois don't own multiple PC's, they own nothing but one companies products, something I would never do. But since you started slinging the fanboi mantra, it's you that's the PC Windows fanboi, since it's all you use/know.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) 2 games? I'm impressed. People who do play games care about cost, by the way. Most of the gamers I know and play with are poor as s***. The PC I game on, it's custom built by myself and cost $400 with a gaming keyboard and mouse. The monitor was an extra $250. And yes, I'm fully aware that console gaming is taking turf away from PC gaming. I game on both. But PC gaming is far from dead, nor is it dying. People have been saying that for years and years now. MMO's and RTS games just don't work on the console as of now. Go with your IT talk all you want, you'll run circles around me. But when it comes to video games, stay outta my house! I don't think so. I've been gaming since the 80's, I still game now. The only console I don't own is a PS3, but I keep thinking of getting one, just don't cuz I dislike sony. Hell, I have a mass collection of Mame roms. You are no more of a gamer than I am. Consider my hiatus temporary due to playing WoW. I have 3 PC's, a Commodore Amiga 500, an Amiga 1200, a Commodore 64 and 2 Macs, plus my consoles. I've been on Xbox live since Beta. Been to Quakecon. Been to Blizzcon. Competed at cons, even. Still have my Quake 3 jersey. Trust me, I'm a gamer.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) A more viable option than buying a cheaper PC, not having to put down a few extra bucks for an "on-top" OS, and an already robust gaming catalogue? This is incorrect. A Mac does not run windows as an "on top" os, it runs it native. You don't even need to have OSX installed on a Mac, you can wipe it and install any flavor of Windows and run it as a PC on Mac hardware. Some people aren't interested in a "cheaper" PC...they want what they want.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) Link me, because everything I've read says that Valve games will be ported, not the entire catalog. How many ports have you played? Especially recently, as in the past 5 years. They're generally a lesser product than the original. A more viable option than buying a cheaper PC, not having to put down a few extra bucks for an "on-top" OS, and an already robust gaming catalogue? What I said still stands. Gaming on the Mac isn't on the same planet as on Windows. Whatever major releases Mac gets, they're two-three years after release, if even ever, and the number of those releases are so few to begin with. To top it off, you can forget about any 360/Windows developed games ever coming to the Mac. Steam support for Mac is a huge step forward as far as gaming goes on that platform, but this isn't some 'overnight challenge' that puts them right in the game. Valve only makes so many games. The question is whether or not they'll get the other games made by other developers. But hell, at least they're starting somewhere. First and foremost, PC gaming is slowing -- more and more game makers are going straight to console and skipping PC's altogether. So while the number of games coming out for the PC is diminishing, it's still far greater than the Mac. I never said everything that comes out of the PC comes out for the Mac in an OSX native client. But as of late, it's becoming more common for the Mac to have a native client available. Diablo 3 is coming out for the Mac at the same time as the PC. World of Warcraft did also. My point is and was, more games are coming out for the Mac now than ever before...and in the case you really insist on playing a game that is Windows only, you can boot Windows and play it. Gaming on a Mac is possible one way or another. And people who play a lot of games probably don't care about the cost of a computer...since gaming is pretty damn expensive considering the cost of most new games is 50+$. You said the Mac isnt a viable platform, you are wrong. Because it can run OSX and Windows. A Mac can be either kind of computer, a PC...or a Mac. Therefore, there are NO games your PC can play that my Mac cannot.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 12:33 PM) The first part isn't true. The second part... just not worth it. Um, yes it is true. Steam for the MAC is coming in May, it's almost out of beta now, and the entire Steam catalog is being ported. More and more games are coming out all the time, since porting games is easy now, since it uses the same hardware. And dual booting for windows only games is a completely viable option.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 11:49 AM) Actually, I've been hesitating because I thought there had probably been enough venom spewed in this forum this week. Don't stop now!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 12:22 PM) And it was all the Republicans fault! Personally, I blame Tex.

Oil prices spiked in 08 because of speculation and how they were buying contracts and making inventories look short, despite them not being short. They used the method in which inventory counts worked against itself. Well, that's not the ONLY reason, it was one of many reasons, but it was a bigger reason than people tend to believe.

I'm just here because I like to argue, I don't care if you're democrat or republican...I'll find something to argue about.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 09:21 AM) I get what you are saying here, but I think you are exaggerating a bit. Their margin for output change on the high side is significant, but its not as if they could make it $10bbl or something. Also important to note, that as demand continues to rise, and as mature fields peak and dimish (as they are just beginning to do in a lot of OPEC countries), that high side flexibility will decrease over time, giving them less power to do that. Over time, I agree...but right now they do have some degree of supply control and will for the near term future.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 09:12 AM) What would be really surprising if you knew the oil markets is how little of a change 1 million barrels per day actually is for the global market overall, in terms of where things will go over the next 10 years. I understand that completely, but I also understand that they can do way more than 1 million per day. Way...way more. If they felt like flooding the market with oil and driving the price through the floor, they could...but where is the incentive in that?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) Every company I've worked for relied primarily on "short-termism". And I've worked for several Fortune 500 companies. And I'm not just making educated guesses. I work in Internal Audit and look at corporate plans and strategies and often attend board meetings. So have I, and the ones that did failed, and the ones that did not, are still here. So again, it doesn't apply to all capitalism, just stupid capitalism. Name the several Fortune 500's you've worked for, because I find it hard to believe they are on the 500 list with nothing but short term thinking. As a matter of fact, they aren't. I could possibly see ONE slipping through the cracks and getting onto that list, but not several.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 08:55 AM) LINK And that's just one example. I've been going to business seminars for 10 years now and have been provided with many similar results from studies. But what do I know. Like I said, that's not blanket to all capitalism. Some may do it, but its not smart, and it's not viable for long term growth or health of a company. There are a lot of companies born and raised in this capitalist society that have been and remain viable after decades and decades of slow growth.

http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm Wow look at that, artificial supply control... In 2008, some of the numbers are over 1000+ higher than they are right now. Gee...who'd have thunk it...OPEC can actually lower supplies when they want...or increase them, too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) If you did, you'd realize what I said about OPEC was true. Obviously you do not.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 08:49 AM) Study after study of CFOs and CEOs have shown that the next quarterly report trumps any potential investment that pays off in huge dividends in the mid to long term. That's not blanket to all capitalism. A lot of stupid CEO's and CFO's were probably interviewed there, because others do have future vision to keeping their company viable for a long time, rather than just the next quarter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 08:49 AM) Ditto what you said about OPEC. Um, what I said about OPEC is 100% true. Why you think otherwise is beyond me. You need to go learn about oil production, because you obviously don't know much about it. I repeat one last time, and you should read it this time... OPEC sets production levels to keep demand and supply in line. They CAN increase production if they want, by a LOT...by millions upon millions of barrels. That would simply decrease the value of the oil...so they don't do that. However, if the worlds demand was to rise, and it will, they WILL increase production to keep the market satisfied. Now, you don't have to believe me, but what I said there is fact. 100%, whether you like it or not.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 08:47 AM) And that's another reason why I hate capitalism. It's all about the short term. Just because you say or think something doesn't make it reality. What you said right there is simply not true.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 08:43 AM) On that I fundamentally disagree...because there's no real way to increase global oil production. The only way China's consumption goes up is if the rest of the world's goes down. No, it simply means the prices rise. Oil production can and will increase -- OPEC artificially keeps the supply lower than they need too, believe me, they can pump out WAYYYYY more than they are now. And they will when the demand is there to do so.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 08:41 AM) It is most certainly ready now, and is being implemented now, both here and there. There isn't some magic "ready" moment on these technologies. There is increasing efficiency and/or decreasing costs, which are on a constant change curve. But its pretty basic business principle that if they are funding more now, and they have a looser regulatory environment and more government power to act without recourse... they are likely to get ahead of us on this in the future. No one is saying that means that China, India, or the US are going to suddenly have 60% of their energy from renewable sources... that will take a long time. I doubt any of those three countries reaches more than 30% in 10 years. But that's still a huge increase, greater than their population increases, which means the oil use will go down. I don't believe China's oil use will go down at all in the next 10 years. It will, despite your prediction, boom to levels never before seen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 08:38 AM) The money spent on fossil fuel subsidies and on corn-ethanol in this country (basically just a handout to corn farmers) dwarfs the amount spent on renewables or research into those subjects. There is plenty of private funding going into these ventures, believe me. The person who can find something viable, that's cheaper than what we have, and more efficient will be richer than Bill Gates. Believe me when I say American companies are quite aware of the money that can be made off of a patentable invention to do this...they're trying to find it first.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 08:34 AM) Except China and India are already ahead of the US in alt energy funding. Funding means dick unless you create and fund a technology that is more efficient/cheaper than the one you have. That tech doesn't exist yet. Wind farms and solar are not it, either. And they just surpassed the US this year...ignoring the fact that the US has been spending billions on these alternative techs for years and years. Look where all that money got us. Nowhere. They both are still on oil, and their oil consumption is growing faster than ours once did. The tech to replace oil isn't ready yet, despite all that money spent.