Sometimes, people get caught up in their own little world, and reply to business emails with their strong words to impress everyone else on the massive email string without realizing that they sound like a complete idiot because they never bothered to read any of the replies to their previous inquiries. They use acronyms like crazy, especially ETA, which in most cases, also makes them sound like an idiot since they clearly have no idea what it actually stands for (Estimated Time of Arrival, just in case you're one of them, but don't want to admit it).
One individual in particular replied to an email string stating that the formatting was incorrect in a couple of fields due to the existence of decimals and commas. That is all he said about it. I didn't know which fields were affected or what sort of output he needed beyond removing those characters. Add to this that the other people were actively running the files anyway, which would mean that once they get them all done, none of them will work since they're formatted incorrectly. To date, no one has so much as noticed this little plot hole.
Anyway, on Mr. Decimal-Comma, I replied to his email string (it was a double reply since I had to address both his issue and the other one where someone was having trouble running one of the files, see plot hole) asking which fields were affected and what sort of output he wanted. Later that day, he replied again asking if the formatting was complete and for an "eta on when that will be complete". Besides the egregious misuse of the acronym, I had to wonder if he even read what I wrote before since that was literally the next reply. You may note that it does not contain the answer to my question of "which fields are affected."
I cut and pasted my previous question noting that the eta is dependent on his answer to my question. (Note the proper usage of the acronym; if you broke that out and read it in full, the statement would still make sense). I just have to wonder how some of these end up in positions of power when they clearly don't read the communication they receive.
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
A Case For Backward Compatibility
So with the announcements for the Playstation 4 and Xbox One out of the way, they both have something very critical in common: neither are backwards compatible. Backwards compatibility allows one to use the previous generation's stuff on the new generation, and in terms of video game systems, this would mean that PS3 and Xbox 360 games would be compatible on their successors. However, this is not the case.
Now, the reasoning behind not doing this is two fold. First, they want to upgrade the systems and their graphics and hardware, etc, so they tell us that the old software is simply not compatible with the new. Seems a tad unlikely, really, the it is impossible for the old stuff to work on the new, since the new is more powerful in terms of processing, etc, and they have access to the proprietary coding for both. They'd have us believe that playing the old games on the new system is like trying to play VHS tapes on a DVD player, yet a Bluray player will run not only DVDs but VCDs as well.
Their other public reasoning is that people don't buy a new system to play old games on it. This is true, of course, but they miss the circumstances under which someone would buy a new system when they own the old one. Follow me on this line of reasoning.
I own a Wii. The WiiU is backwards compatible just as the Wii was backwards compatible with the GameCube, which I also owned. I love my video games and played the heck out of those systems. They still work, but when the new stuff comes out, I start looking to see what's new. With the WiiU, I know I can continue to play all of my existing games and use my existing Wii remotes, so I can simply consider the system an upgrade and replacement to what I have and then explore the new games at my leisure.
However, for me to purchase an Xbox One or PS4, I would need to see what new games are being released and have a gaming need to buy one system or the other along with the motivation to replace all hardware and make sure I had yet more space around my TV and in my receiver to accommodate the extra system alongside my existing system, since I would have to keep it hooked up for some time to finish out whichever games I still had to get through. After all, old systems don't die because I new one comes out.
I feel like neglecting backwards compatibility because you don't buy new systems to play old games misses the market that owns the existing systems and simply want to upgrade. For me, I would probably grab an Xbox One sooner if I could consider it an upgrade for the hundred games I now have. I will need considerable motivation to plunk down $600 to play a $60 game. "Must have" only goes so far.
Now, the reasoning behind not doing this is two fold. First, they want to upgrade the systems and their graphics and hardware, etc, so they tell us that the old software is simply not compatible with the new. Seems a tad unlikely, really, the it is impossible for the old stuff to work on the new, since the new is more powerful in terms of processing, etc, and they have access to the proprietary coding for both. They'd have us believe that playing the old games on the new system is like trying to play VHS tapes on a DVD player, yet a Bluray player will run not only DVDs but VCDs as well.
Their other public reasoning is that people don't buy a new system to play old games on it. This is true, of course, but they miss the circumstances under which someone would buy a new system when they own the old one. Follow me on this line of reasoning.
I own a Wii. The WiiU is backwards compatible just as the Wii was backwards compatible with the GameCube, which I also owned. I love my video games and played the heck out of those systems. They still work, but when the new stuff comes out, I start looking to see what's new. With the WiiU, I know I can continue to play all of my existing games and use my existing Wii remotes, so I can simply consider the system an upgrade and replacement to what I have and then explore the new games at my leisure.
However, for me to purchase an Xbox One or PS4, I would need to see what new games are being released and have a gaming need to buy one system or the other along with the motivation to replace all hardware and make sure I had yet more space around my TV and in my receiver to accommodate the extra system alongside my existing system, since I would have to keep it hooked up for some time to finish out whichever games I still had to get through. After all, old systems don't die because I new one comes out.
I feel like neglecting backwards compatibility because you don't buy new systems to play old games misses the market that owns the existing systems and simply want to upgrade. For me, I would probably grab an Xbox One sooner if I could consider it an upgrade for the hundred games I now have. I will need considerable motivation to plunk down $600 to play a $60 game. "Must have" only goes so far.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Audiophile
So as you may well know, I'm all into music. It makes me happy. I speak the language. I can't get enough of it. A guy at work (who I noticed I had referred to as The Mixer at one point) called me a media mutt when it comes to what I listen to and watch because there are no limits with me. I will listen to and evaluate anything. New or old makes no difference. There is nothing before or after my time.
Right now, for example, I'm listening to Richard Wagner's Das Rheingold, the first part of Der Ring des Nibelungen, his 15-16 hour epic opera cycle. Yeah, it's in German. Anyway...
I have the Amazon Cloud Player and for the first time since the iPod, I am able to organize a large amount of music, but unlike the iPod's 80Gb limitation, the Cloud has a limit of 250,000 songs, regardless of size. This is staggering. They do this by having space available for upload along with linking songs with their own download library so that some of the dongs are your own while others are those they've matched to theirs. Anyway, my count after all the burning and uploading that was to be done over a 3 week period tranferring everything from iPods, hard drives, and CDs came out to a little over 32K tracks. I cannot say songs because not everything is a song or even music, but tracks accurately describes it.
I believe the oldest pieces date back to the 1600's while I have stuff from 2012 as well. Haven't grabbed any 2013 stuff, cause the year is too new to know what's worth getting. That may seem like a lot and even raise an eyebrow, but I've been buying CDs and downloading from a variety of (legitimate) services since high school. I would blow hundreds of dollars when I was in the military buying entire artist catalogs on a whim (I specifically recall doing this with Billy Joel, Oingo Boingo, Andrew Lloyd Webber, and Stephen Sondheim to name a few). If someone said "listen to this," I'd have the CD before going to bed. I went through hundreds of CDs in my garage determining what I had on my iPod and what I hadn't. And I was not alone either. The Queen listens to different genres of music than I frequent, so she had her own catalog of CDs to review and upload.
Now, I'm going through music I've not listened to in years simply because I never had room on my iPod for it. It was stored on CD, so that was enough. Now, it's accessible. In addition, because of how the cloud player works, anyone (in my family) can get what they want from the library and place it on their iPods to listen to. Whenever and wherever without waiting for me to plug in and find it for them.
Rock Girl was excited anyway.
For me, it means I can delete some things off my iPod that I've kept on there for storage and free up some space for music to actually listen to. This thing is going to completely change my iPod's purpose. It's very cool.
Right now, for example, I'm listening to Richard Wagner's Das Rheingold, the first part of Der Ring des Nibelungen, his 15-16 hour epic opera cycle. Yeah, it's in German. Anyway...
I have the Amazon Cloud Player and for the first time since the iPod, I am able to organize a large amount of music, but unlike the iPod's 80Gb limitation, the Cloud has a limit of 250,000 songs, regardless of size. This is staggering. They do this by having space available for upload along with linking songs with their own download library so that some of the dongs are your own while others are those they've matched to theirs. Anyway, my count after all the burning and uploading that was to be done over a 3 week period tranferring everything from iPods, hard drives, and CDs came out to a little over 32K tracks. I cannot say songs because not everything is a song or even music, but tracks accurately describes it.
I believe the oldest pieces date back to the 1600's while I have stuff from 2012 as well. Haven't grabbed any 2013 stuff, cause the year is too new to know what's worth getting. That may seem like a lot and even raise an eyebrow, but I've been buying CDs and downloading from a variety of (legitimate) services since high school. I would blow hundreds of dollars when I was in the military buying entire artist catalogs on a whim (I specifically recall doing this with Billy Joel, Oingo Boingo, Andrew Lloyd Webber, and Stephen Sondheim to name a few). If someone said "listen to this," I'd have the CD before going to bed. I went through hundreds of CDs in my garage determining what I had on my iPod and what I hadn't. And I was not alone either. The Queen listens to different genres of music than I frequent, so she had her own catalog of CDs to review and upload.
Now, I'm going through music I've not listened to in years simply because I never had room on my iPod for it. It was stored on CD, so that was enough. Now, it's accessible. In addition, because of how the cloud player works, anyone (in my family) can get what they want from the library and place it on their iPods to listen to. Whenever and wherever without waiting for me to plug in and find it for them.
Rock Girl was excited anyway.
For me, it means I can delete some things off my iPod that I've kept on there for storage and free up some space for music to actually listen to. This thing is going to completely change my iPod's purpose. It's very cool.
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Wii is not a Kid System
Sure, the Wii has lots of games that are family friendly and kid friendly, and I'm sure it is safe to say that it has more family games than the Xbox360 and PS3. however, that does not make it a kid system. You know what I played on the Wii last night? Call of Duty: Black Ops. It's rated M, if you're keeping score, which is not the rating you drop on a kid's game. It's actually a fairly difficult game too. Know why? Has to do with how you aim the gun.
If I were playing this game on the Xbox, I would be using the dual stick controller to both look around and move and aim. I've played Xbox games. In fact, after playing Halo on the original Xbox, I reconfigured Metroid Prime (which I still believe is the best first person shooter there is) on the GameCube to mimic those controls. Perfect FPS setup. Come to think of it, Metroid Prime on the GameCube was easier than it is on the Wii. Oh, yeah, they redid the game for the Wii to incorporate that pesky Wii remote. You know, the device that set the Wii apart from it's competitors and catapulted it to the top of everyone's game? Now you have to aim with your hand and arm instead of a couple of control sticks.
The Xbox and especially the PS3 both have exceptional graphics. I'm not going to pull any punches there. The visuals on those systems are a sight to behold and without argument, they both possess superior system hardware. Thing is that while Microsoft and Sony upgraded their graphics (and that's it, by the way - their controllers were pretty much identical to their predecessors), Nintendo kept the same engine that the GameCube had (that's right, the Wii has the GameCube's guts), but revolutionized HOW you play the games instead. That little aiming deal you can do with the Wii remote makes the Wii the ultimate first person shooter game system. What better way to aim a gun than to hold the gun in your hand and aim it? They actually have Wii remote holders that resemble REAL guns, complete with the trigger in the right place and they're black with no silly orange barrel.
In fact, the Wii has a type of shooter game that the other systems don't (or don't have many of considering how silly the game would be). It's called a rail shooter. Think of it this way: pretend that haunted house ride at the fair where a cart takes you through the horrors of the phantasmagorical has lots of enemies popping up all over the place and you have a gun to blow them all away. But the cart keeps moving. That's a rail shooter. The game controls your movements and you control the gun, freeing you up to just blow stuff up. Some of the better rail shooters on the Wii are based on the Resident Evil and Dead Space series, all of which are M rated games complete with the blood and carnage you might expect. Still not kid's games.
I have a box full of Wii games that are not for the children or the faint of heart. Some of them are easy. Some are hard. Some require a great deal of problem solving. But I wouldn't let my kids play half of them, which is a far cry from the system that started it all for some of us, the 8-bit NES. You'd be hard pressed to find a NES or SNES game that kids shouldn't play, and those systems defined the home video game landscape.
My father-in-law thinks that if I got an Xbox, I would leave the Wii and never return. I disagree. If I had an Xbox, I would still get any FPS games on the Wii, if a Wii version exists (I'm looking at you, Modern Warfare 3), for the fun of playing the game as opposed to the superior graphics. Visuals are paramount in movies, but with video games, you have to enjoy the game first. Those beautiful visuals don't make any difference at all if the game isn't fun to play, and if I'm holding a gun on screen, it is far more immersive to hold it in my hand than to move an auto-locking reticule around the screen with a control stick.
If I were playing this game on the Xbox, I would be using the dual stick controller to both look around and move and aim. I've played Xbox games. In fact, after playing Halo on the original Xbox, I reconfigured Metroid Prime (which I still believe is the best first person shooter there is) on the GameCube to mimic those controls. Perfect FPS setup. Come to think of it, Metroid Prime on the GameCube was easier than it is on the Wii. Oh, yeah, they redid the game for the Wii to incorporate that pesky Wii remote. You know, the device that set the Wii apart from it's competitors and catapulted it to the top of everyone's game? Now you have to aim with your hand and arm instead of a couple of control sticks.
The Xbox and especially the PS3 both have exceptional graphics. I'm not going to pull any punches there. The visuals on those systems are a sight to behold and without argument, they both possess superior system hardware. Thing is that while Microsoft and Sony upgraded their graphics (and that's it, by the way - their controllers were pretty much identical to their predecessors), Nintendo kept the same engine that the GameCube had (that's right, the Wii has the GameCube's guts), but revolutionized HOW you play the games instead. That little aiming deal you can do with the Wii remote makes the Wii the ultimate first person shooter game system. What better way to aim a gun than to hold the gun in your hand and aim it? They actually have Wii remote holders that resemble REAL guns, complete with the trigger in the right place and they're black with no silly orange barrel.
In fact, the Wii has a type of shooter game that the other systems don't (or don't have many of considering how silly the game would be). It's called a rail shooter. Think of it this way: pretend that haunted house ride at the fair where a cart takes you through the horrors of the phantasmagorical has lots of enemies popping up all over the place and you have a gun to blow them all away. But the cart keeps moving. That's a rail shooter. The game controls your movements and you control the gun, freeing you up to just blow stuff up. Some of the better rail shooters on the Wii are based on the Resident Evil and Dead Space series, all of which are M rated games complete with the blood and carnage you might expect. Still not kid's games.
I have a box full of Wii games that are not for the children or the faint of heart. Some of them are easy. Some are hard. Some require a great deal of problem solving. But I wouldn't let my kids play half of them, which is a far cry from the system that started it all for some of us, the 8-bit NES. You'd be hard pressed to find a NES or SNES game that kids shouldn't play, and those systems defined the home video game landscape.
My father-in-law thinks that if I got an Xbox, I would leave the Wii and never return. I disagree. If I had an Xbox, I would still get any FPS games on the Wii, if a Wii version exists (I'm looking at you, Modern Warfare 3), for the fun of playing the game as opposed to the superior graphics. Visuals are paramount in movies, but with video games, you have to enjoy the game first. Those beautiful visuals don't make any difference at all if the game isn't fun to play, and if I'm holding a gun on screen, it is far more immersive to hold it in my hand than to move an auto-locking reticule around the screen with a control stick.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Woes of an Android Phone
I used to take note of posting ideas and save them up to post one thing a day. Now? I think I'll just roll things out as they come to me.
So what's the answer for people who aren't with a company that does the iPhone? Well, Android, of course. Android would be what happened when Apple went with that exclusive, AT&T only contract for their iPhone and as a result, they have serious competition. Well, sort of.
I have a early Samsung version of the Android phone, and I made a dreadful mistake with it. I upgraded the operating system from 2.1 to 2.2. Normally, an OS upgrade is a good thing. It keeps you on the cutting edge and able to run everything that comes out. Yeah, this is true unless your phone's hardware isn't capable of handling the new software.
My first impression of the new OS was that it was cool, but little by little, I found the cutting edge was just too much for my phone. Of course, once you're updated, you can't really go back. How do I know it isn't working for my phone? The time it takes to do...anything.
I unlock the screen...yes, just unlock the screen, and it takes no less than 30 seconds for the home screen to come up. I stare at my background and nothing else unless that first screen of apps shows up. If I want to make a call, I press the phone icon, wait, press the contact (I rarely dial a new number), wait (I stare at the screen until it connects to ensure it actually does), tap the screen once to stop the screen from blacking out and autolocking through inactivity, finally engage the call. Angry Birds plays on my phone, but I'm missing a lot of the background elements, and I have no level info
I have a Bible app so I can have a Bible always on me, and I am one of those freaks that pulls out his phone in church when the pastor says "Turn with me to..." However, it takes so long to unlock the phone, access the app, and then get to the book, chapter, and verse that by the time I have it pulled up, the pastor has not only read it, but he's moved on.
I don't hate my phone. It's just that the manufacturers didn't think about the hardware requirements when they made it. The Queen's, on the other hand, is a newer model with the cool Galaxy S system and it works great.
I'm jealous.
So what's the answer for people who aren't with a company that does the iPhone? Well, Android, of course. Android would be what happened when Apple went with that exclusive, AT&T only contract for their iPhone and as a result, they have serious competition. Well, sort of.
I have a early Samsung version of the Android phone, and I made a dreadful mistake with it. I upgraded the operating system from 2.1 to 2.2. Normally, an OS upgrade is a good thing. It keeps you on the cutting edge and able to run everything that comes out. Yeah, this is true unless your phone's hardware isn't capable of handling the new software.
My first impression of the new OS was that it was cool, but little by little, I found the cutting edge was just too much for my phone. Of course, once you're updated, you can't really go back. How do I know it isn't working for my phone? The time it takes to do...anything.
I unlock the screen...yes, just unlock the screen, and it takes no less than 30 seconds for the home screen to come up. I stare at my background and nothing else unless that first screen of apps shows up. If I want to make a call, I press the phone icon, wait, press the contact (I rarely dial a new number), wait (I stare at the screen until it connects to ensure it actually does), tap the screen once to stop the screen from blacking out and autolocking through inactivity, finally engage the call. Angry Birds plays on my phone, but I'm missing a lot of the background elements, and I have no level info
I have a Bible app so I can have a Bible always on me, and I am one of those freaks that pulls out his phone in church when the pastor says "Turn with me to..." However, it takes so long to unlock the phone, access the app, and then get to the book, chapter, and verse that by the time I have it pulled up, the pastor has not only read it, but he's moved on.
I don't hate my phone. It's just that the manufacturers didn't think about the hardware requirements when they made it. The Queen's, on the other hand, is a newer model with the cool Galaxy S system and it works great.
I'm jealous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
