JasonGW

<removed> Jason

In terms of hardware, XBox 360 pretty much *couldn't* be more different than XBox in the current generation. In terms of the interface being like an XBox/XBMC, I suppose that's fair enough. Also in terms of hardware, PS3's graphics processor is MUCH more alike to a desktop PC than XBox 360's is, and in fact nVidia has already stated that they will have faster, more powerful GPU's on the market before PS3 even launches. ATI, meantime, has said that the XBox 360's GPU has features that will not make it into the desktop market until the end of 2006 and in some cases, 2007. Jason

Yes, I'm sure you "know so much". You certainly aren't showing it in this thread. Instead you continue to show what an ignorant, arrogant little fop you truly are. For the record I doubt that you've accomplished anything more than mental masturbation, and I really don't care whether you wish to "prove it" or not. The fact is that it is NOT "all about the numbers", the numbers are only a small piece of the puzzle. Further, the fact is also that Sony has managed to DUPE you with numbers that you clearly don't understand and haven't read. According to Sony themselves, the Cell at 3.8Ghz can theoretically push 2.18 TFlops. Is PS3 announced at 3.8Ghz? No, it's announced at 3.2Ghz. That translates to roughly 1.8TFlops. Yes, that's still a fair margin above the XBox 360's stated main CPU's numbers, but again, it's only part of the tale, and a part which doesn't even *consider* polygon pushing performance of the GPU's. ATI's GPU specifications are already significantly greater than the announced nVidia specs for PS3, delivering 48 pixel/vertex pipelines that can be programmed for either function at the developer's discretion. The nVidia chip is rumored to have 24 pixel and 6 vertex pipes, statically configured. This factor *alone* ensures greater flexibility and capability for game designers. Further, the 10MB of *embedded* DRAM, the fastest memory you can get, gives the ATI chip more than TEN TIMES the available bandwidth of the nVidia chip as announced, which has NO eDRAM and has to rely on the slower GDDR3 memory access (which is OFF CHIP, hence the massive speed difference). There are plenty of additional facts I could bombard you with, and if you were one TENTH Of the man you claim to be you would understand these already. However, you've managed very successfully to demonstrate your ignorance of computer hardware engineering and your own inability to critically analyze raw numbers in a meaningful way. You, sir, are a FANBOY, nothing more, and your foaming, raving imbicilic declarations will not make you appear otherwise. The final, total fact that is clear right now is simply this: The next generation "Console War" is *anything* but firmly decided. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a drooling brand-name @ss kisser without a lick of sense (and yes, that includes YOU). Jason

What are you smoking, man? Sony has and always will be the dominant company in gaming consoles? You're out of your **** mind! Sony didn't even *enter* the market until what, 1996? They got in at a fortunate time when both Sega and Nintendo, who'd been the market leaders for over a decade, both screwed up at the same time and missed a big opportunity. To say that ANYONE, I don't care what company it is, will "Always" be the dominant *anything*, is just stupid. Jason

Questioning my knowledge of computer hardware? I live in a Microsoft world... "PowerPC" to me means Macintosh's attempt to create a PC that would dual boot their OS and Microsoft's. I will be honest and tell you that I know NOTHING about Macintrash. I don't need to know anything about them. I do however know that the "cell" processor technology that Playstation is using is completely different than anything else out there. While Macintosh may have something similar it's not the same. The world of computers is much more complex than "Microsoft/Macintosh". PowerPC has NOTHING to do with Macintosh nor any kind of "hybrid" Macintosh/Windows system. PowerPC is the processor architecture that *IBM* developed and Apple buys as the basis of its computers. Whether you like it or not, the Cell architecture is NOT "completely different than anything else out there", nor would you want it to be. It is DESIGNED on the BASIS of the PowerPC architecture, period. Its coding mechanisms will be similar to PowerPC, though with extensions for its specific design, of course. Like it or not, Cell is a VERY close cousin to the processor found in the Macintosh Computer. So is the CPU used in XBox 360, so is the CPU used in Revolution. There is no reason to be so averse to it, it's an efficient and intelligent CPU design. The important part of this... BlueTooth.Yes? And both systems use BlueTooth. Point? And my PS2 has a wireless controller... big deal. This is built in. No add on plug in parts that have to sit on your TV stand.What are you babbling about now? I'm sorry, but guess what? A headset is *necessarily* going to be something that "sits on your TV stand" when not in use. What would it be built into, your head? And incidentally, a bluetooth receiver would plug into the *controller*, it wouldn't sit on the TV stand. Now you're just being silly. You think that Nintendo's technology can be played on anything else? Who cares... It gives Sony the ability to place multiple DVD games onto one DVD.Oh, that's going to be the deciding factor, isn't it? Now they can put multiple DVD games on one disk. Woot! That sort of thing is a nicety and a rarity at best. Look at how many games are out for PS3 and XBox on DVD. How many of those come with more than one disk? Do you know? And as for Nintendo, what do they have to do with this? Can you stay on topic? While it might offer the ability to use flash USB sticks, I see no information showing you can use SD, MemoryStick(Sony) or FlashCard like the PS3 will.As far as I know it doesn't use SD, MemoryStick(Thank God) or CF. So what? You can plug any standard USB memory stick into it, and if you've got a USB adapter for your memory card (CF, SD, whatever), then poof! You're in business. Again, this is FAR from being a selling point. It's a "bragging rights" addition, pure and simple. Moreover, it won't do a lick of good for better *gaming*. It may not... but we will see...It won't, and 99.9% of end users don't even know what memory speed even *means*. Based off of? Maybe... Different... Definately! You must have read something wrong... I never said any of that.Never said any of what? That the Cell isn't PowerPC based? That it's "completely different"? Go read your own words again. You claim it's different than anything else out there. The fact is that it ISN'T. It's a variant of PowerPC architecture, plain and simple. Not for me, it won't, I think they're silly, but a painfully large number of people go for that kind of nonsense. Observe the mutlibillion dollar market for people who swap their *cell phone* faces for Chrissakes. You can speculate until the cows come home, it doesn't mean that anything is decided yet. If you went by specs alone, PS2 would have fallen off the face of the eart 4 years ago when XBox and Gamecube hit the market and b1tch-slapped its "emotion engine" performance. Well that's very cute, and I certainly appreciate the little tirade, but you'll understand if I don't believe you at all. I've been a Systems Engineer for over 15 years. I've worked for some of the world's largest firms including Siemens, Nestle, Boeing and several others. I've designed network architecture for thousands of users and today I'm responsible for the entirety of a multi-tiered active directory architecture serving the needs of thousands of users. I'll tell you what I don't find often in my position: IT directors with a snot-nosed punk attitude and foaming fanboi discussions about hardware that won't hit the market for 6-12 months. If there is one of us sitting and waiting for a "insert-console-here 1337" magazine, it's YOU. Perhaps you've managed to blow smoke up the asses of others, but I don't buy you for a second. No one as ignorant, flippant or just flat-out mouthy as you are would ever be an "IT Director" for anything but a tiny flim-flam operation of a company. Peddle your ignorance and arrogance elsewhere, I'm not buying, boi. Jason

Yeah, they definitely should have, the XBox would have made a better show of it. However, I DO have to say that the Metal Gear series is, IMHO, the single best storytelling going on on ANY of the major consoles. Kojima is awesome, and Microsoft definitely needs to dump a load of cash into Konami's lap to make games for 360. Jason <{POST_SNAPBACK}> reason is similar to why halo is not ported to ps2... i also doubt MGS is the only PS2 game that worths the cash, think about tekken, gran turismo, soul calibur 3 (yes it is said it will only be released for ps2), and many many other titles. PS2 had my vote, not for being more powerful or for having better hardware, most (if not all) of my favorite games are exclusive for that console. with a PS2 you can also do the same than with the box. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, Metal Gear Solid 2 was ported to XBox just fine and ran great, but there is simply no possible way you could get Halo2 to run on PS2. Point is, if it had been *natively* coded for XBox it would have been *greatly* superior (in terms of graphics. Not much could have improved the stories of the MGS games. Part 2 was an exception (too freaking weird at the end) but Part 3 answered those questions (well, most of them) pretty well. SC3 I expect will come to other consoles later, so I am not worried about that. Out of the 3 versions of SC2, the PS2 version was the *worst*, so I can only assume that it's exclusive solely due to a Sony payoff. As for Tekken and GT, I think they both suck a**. Tekken's controls have sucked since version 1 and they never got better. GT3 and 4 were OK, but the sole high-poly item in the entire game was the car you drove, everything else was low poly with nice textures. Sad, really. Anyway, you're right that there are more good games for PS2, such as Final Fantasy X and a few others. As a *percentage* of total games I'd have to say that Playstation has the lowest ratio of good games to crap games, though, with Nintendo having the highest (almost all the gamecube games I've played have been very well designed and lots of fun) while the XBox sat in the middle. Jason

your kidding, right? Maybe you didn't check out the specs side by side... Playstation has Bluetooth wireless controllers, allowing up to 7, XBox allows for 4 and they aren't Bluetooth. Playstation has a Bluetooth wireless headset, Xbox does not. Playstation uses Blu-Ray DVD technology, XBox is Dual Layer DVD. Playstation has Flash Memory Card support, XBox does not. Playstation has 256MB RAM running at 3.2Ghz and another 256 running at 700Hhz, XBox has 512MB at 700Mhz. Playstation uses the much hyped Cell processor which is 7 processors in one, XBox appears to have "Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each " Also, by PowerPC, do you mean Mac? I can't imagine you do because Microsoft (hello!?!) would not use a Mac OS to run their box. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, as a matter of fact I DID look at them side by side. PS3 Wireless bluetooth, 7 controllers. Cool feature, I like it. 4, still, is plenty. When was the last time you had more than 4 people playing all on teh same console? It's overkill and it's intention is simple: Just to say they've got it. PS3 Wireless bluetooth headset. Oh come on, the existing Xbox *already* has one available, you can bet your butt there will be one available for 360 as well. Silly point! PS3 Blue Ray *might* be a good idea, but maybe not. It's FAR from clear whether Blue Ray or HD-DVD will ultimately win out. While I'd have liked to see one of the possible standards in the new system, it's hardly a requirement. And really, what if HD-DVD wins the format war? There's Sony with egg on their face and a shiny PS3 with the word "BETA tape" on the side. PS3 flash memory card support. What? The X360 has flash memory units, what the hell are you talking about? PS3 Memory: Yeah, 256MB of 3.2Ghz memory is pretty slick. You notice, though, that the throughput numbers posted are almost exactly the same as on the X360? Why do you suppose that is? Either way, both systems have a total of 512MB memory. This isn't going to be a defining differentiator. PS3 Cell Processor. What's it based off of? PowerPC architecture, JUST LIKE the XBox 360. The difference is that it's got the 7 simple-purpose SPU's and ONE primary core instead of 3 primary multi-threading cores. BOTH are based off of PowerPC (yes, the same chips used in Macintosh PC's) architecture. That's a FACT, look it up. And what does the Macintosh OS have to do with it? Just because they use the same CHIP doesn't mean they have to use the same OS! I suppose you assume that a PC *MUST* use Windows, eh? Or didn't you know that you can use Linux, Unix, BeOS or any of a dozen other OS's on the same processor that runs Windows? The only thing you've managed to show here is your ignorance about computer hardware. It's FAR too early to claim a victory for either system at this point and it's absurd for you to claim otherwise. Jason

Whatever registry entries are required are added automatically by WoW at initialization. I've used the copy on the portable drive to play WoW on three different systems, none of which had a problem doing so. Jason

Yeah, they definitely should have, the XBox would have made a better show of it. However, I DO have to say that the Metal Gear series is, IMHO, the single best storytelling going on on ANY of the major consoles. Kojima is awesome, and Microsoft definitely needs to dump a load of cash into Konami's lap to make games for 360. Jason

I wouldn't really say "goodbye" to anyone or anything, actually. On the whole, the two systems are very comparable in specs, even being based upon the same PowerPC architecture. What this next generation is going to come down to (and to be fair, they ALL come down to this) is the *games*. One thing I *will* say conclusively is that the PS3 is a LOT more attractive than the XBox 360. Jason

Yeah, why bother? WoW doesn't even *need* to be installed, you know! You can just stick it on a portable or secondary hard drive, then all you need to do is launch WoW.exe. IMHO, with all the frickin' huge, slow patches out for WoW at this point, a silent install would be stupid. Just IMHO Jason

Oh I agree, there were a good number of AAA titles on PS2 (all 3rd party, of course, LOL), including the Metal Gear series, Final Fantasy X (Didn't try X-2) and a number of other RPG's. Pretty much anything that had a PS2 version and an XBox version though, the XBox version was better, hands down. I can't think of any exceptions to this rule. As for the Cell, I'm not trusting Sony this time around. Last time they swore the same crap about their so-called "Emotion engine" was "three times more powerful than a Pentium III processor", which of course turned out to be totally bogus as we all saw when XBox hit the scene *with* a Pentium III processor, and smacked the PS2's graphics around like the little b***h they are. I'm reluctant to buy into *any* of the hype right now, *especially* from Sony. They've got a track record of lying about their hardware (observe how they lied about the PS2 being so far beyond Dreamcast, and in fact it was *precisely* in the same league of capability). We'll just have to wait and see. Jason

Yeah, you're a fanboi alright. What a load of crap that link is. Does anyone here believe for ONE second that the PS2 is actually MORE powerful than the XBox? All you have to do is look at a game like Splinter Cell, compare the XBox to the PS2 and you'll see plain as day what a LIE that is! Sorry, but PS2, while it DOES have a few good games (IMHO, the Metal Gear Solid series has one of the most well told stories of any console game to date) the system CANNOT be said to be more powerful than XBox. It's just idiocy to even make the claim. Jason

Nope, it's $50 US for the *year*. When XBox360 comes out your XBL account becomes a "Gold" account (same price, full 24/7 access to play your games online and everything else), while everyone who even *buys* an XBox 360 will get a FREE silver account allowing free play on weekends and some other goodies, as well as access to all the other neat features. Should be **** slick! Jason

You're kidding, right? Granted, PS2 has more games, but it also has more CRAP games than every other console *combined*. XBox has recently gotten great RPG's like Fable (which is superb in spite of not quite pegging the hype) and the new Jade Empire. I'll tell you what, though: JE *alone* is worth the system purchase. In addition, the Live service is *far* beyond anything Sony offers or is even *rumored* to offer anytime soon. Sorry, but PS2 over XBox? You gotta be smoking crack.

Hard to say at this point. I've got a buddy who codes for one of the game companies in Irvine, and what he's told me about their PS3 alpha dev kit is that it's "disgustingly complex" to code for, "worse than PS2". He describes PS2 coding as "a miserable experience where nothing works as easy and clean as it should and takes 3-4 times the work that either XBox or Gamecube do". I'm suspecting that "Cell" will be very much like the "Emotion Engine", which is to say lots of hype and bluster with not nearly the promised power delivery. Jason

REG ADD %KEY%\085 /VE /D "Microsoft AntiSpyware" /f REG ADD %KEY%\085 /V 1 /D "%systemdrive%\install\MSAS\MSASInstall.exe /S /v/qn" /f REG ADD %KEY%\085 /V 2 /D "%systemdrive%\Progra~1\Micros~1\gcasDtServ.exe /regserver" /f Put that in your RunOnceEx.cmd file Jason

Looks like it's been cobbled together in Photoshop from some of the leaked pics and the top of the current XBox. Decent enough job, but not really convincing. Jason

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/us...s_cmd_mstsc.asp Yeah, just tried it with great hopes, but all it does is force the logoff of the current user Mondo suckage. Jason

I use remote desktop all the time to manage servers or connect to my home servers and workstations, but it can't be used to connect to an existing session, which is what I need. I know Remote Assistance can connect to an existing session, but what I can't seem to do is get it set up where it DOESN'T require the user's permission. Hell, I've even unchecked the box in ADU&C for "Require user's permission", but no dice! Jason

We use netmeeting at work to remote control PC's and help users. We used to use RealVNC, but it was DOG slow and hardly worth the effort. In the time since we've upgraded the network speed (100Mbit up from 10 when I started) and moved about 50% of the clients to XP SP2 (the rest are coming along as we have time to do them). Anyway, so I'm looking for something good and free to replace these with, preferably distributed in a form I can either deploy the server portion through GPO without modification or worst case scenario, create an MSI package for Thanks! Jason

Thanks, this should be helpful. What we're doing is building a web-based system to track our network assets and the status of those assets. We've got a few scripts that run throughout the day and dump their results to a MySQL table via ODBC, and then we query both the table and then AD to compare results and figure out where trouble might be lurking, etc. This new piece will help to find out who might have issues based on the version of my unattended installation setup, if a bug or something were to go unchecked into the environment. Thanks!!! Jason

I'm hoping to be able to collect this from the registry or something, preferably using WMI, VBS, or worst case scenario, KIX. I thought I had read about a key that holds the info, but I must be googling mindlessly because I can't find a **** thing about it. Thanks!!! Jason

To be fair though, most SP2 problems are had by morons who do the *upgrade* install instead of the *integrated* install. Just as with OS's, I'd say with service packs you should NEVER upgrade but always install from a slipstreamed source. The only notable exception is if you are talking about Enterprise Servers where you can't afford the downtime (and those usually go OK because you tend to have less extraneous crap installed on a server than on a workstation). Jason

One thing that comes to mind is the damned desktop animation settings. No matter what I do I can *never* get those to stick for all users. I wish I knew where it was *originally* set in the Windows installation so I could adjust it even *before* install. **** thing Jason