The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
It's only illogical if you purposely limit your projections to 2005. MS is planning on making all the money on the Xbox 2. If MS achieves a large market percentage in the console market by then, it'll be a cash cow for years. Try again...
KH FOR OWNER! ASHER FOR CEO!! GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Protect your brand with Netcraft's digital risk protection platform. We detect, disrupt and remove phishing, scams and cyber attacks with unmatched scale and effectiveness.
When you use BSD it's like using a commercial UNIX, but when you use Linux it's like you're using this thing that's been hacked together. Oh wait, that's what you are doing.
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's only illogical if you purposely limit your projections to 2005. MS is planning on making all the money on the Xbox 2. If MS achieves a monopoly in the console market by then, it'll be a cash cow for years. Try again...
That's not how the console industry works.
Monopolies do not carry over from generation to generation of consoles.
MS will once again need to take losses on the hardware in 2005 like they did in 2001, it's a given, particularly when an Xbox2 is an Xbox2 + UltimateTV all in one...
Have to agree with Drake here, Asher. If any market is worthwhile to block, it would be MS's OS market. But you've got to think you'll make a good profit doing it, in the context of your whole product line, in order to do it.
Again, this may make sense to most companies, but that's not how it works in this case.
The majority of games made do NOT even make money. They lose money. A minority of games make money, some of them astronomical amounts of money, but it's a very risky market with anything-but guaranteed revenue streams and a huge barrier of entry.
Does it sound like MS would get into that for the profit?
MS got into it to protect marketshare, as quoted by about a half-dozen execs in the book I cited and is very consistent with MS' previous behavior...
Take IE: Internet Browsers can effectively become computer operating systems themselves, they're quickly becoming very critical. To combat Netscape, MS made IE free and lost money on it, still loses money on it to this day, but considers it an expense...
An Xboy might not complement their other products like the XBox does. Remember, a PC and an XBox are nearly identical.
And an Xboy and a MS SmartPhone are nearly identical, what's that prove?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
How about UNIX? Where does that fit in with Linux and BSD and all?
GP,
BSD is UNIX. Most of the commerical UNIX (like IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlitt-Packard) are based on the original BSD code, they just run on special, proprietary hardware.
BSD is free UNIX for 386(Intel) commodity hardware. (Like you can install BSD onto the computer you are using right now).
Linux is a clone that was written to act like UNIX, while BSD is the original UNIX. That's why it's better because it's been hammered on for many years and is more standardized.
Alot of Linux users will initially use Linux but switch to BSD if they come from a commercial UNIX background.
Linux is used alot more than BSD in the workplace because it supports more applications (Oracle, SAP) that don't run on BSD. That's a shame.
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln
Monopolies do not carry over from generation to generation of consoles
Playstation ---> Playstation 2
The name brand very much did carry over in that case, sweetheart.
NES and SNES worked in the same way. It took a collosal blunder by Nintendo on the N64 to allow Sony in the door.
Don't patronize me, Drake...
Atari gave way to Nintendo, Nintendo gave way to Sony.
Monopolies aren't even close to being consistent from generation to generation.
The only reason the Playstation 2 continued is because it effectively had no competition for a year and a half in most regions. It did help that many people simply upgraded, but once it got a huge headstart it kept momentum. Using that as an example in this case is completely stupid...
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I just gave you two examples to the contrary, yet you insist on saying this. Why?
Because it's TRUE!
Jesus Drake.
The examples you gave are special circumstances where 1.5 year headstarts were given and the like...it doesn't prove a damn thing for the next cycle.
Here's the problem. It's very simple...
You're stating it like it's a law: That once MS would get a monopoly it would hold that monopoly.
The only real problems with that are, well:
The Xbox won't even close to being a monopoly in 2005, which totally trashes your theory to beginwith
Nobody expected the Xbox to be close to a monopoly in 2005 to beginwith
There are many cases in the history of consoles that show that brand loyalty doesn't mean much in terms of monopoly, over a short period of time the monopoly has changed hands several times...
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
I suspect Glonkie is right. MS has been pouring money down a rathole for a while with the X-box. They are not doing it as an investment. There are lots of other things where they could get a better return. They are doing it to protect the core.
"Does it sound like MS would get into that for the profit?"
Sure. The barriers to entry they can handle. Games OS licensing is where the money is at. And you can make a good profit on this.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
BSD is UNIX. Most of the commerical UNIX (like IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlitt-Packard) are based on the original BSD code, they just run on special, proprietary hardware.
BSD is free UNIX for 386(Intel) commodity hardware. (Like you can install BSD onto the computer you are using right now).
Linux is a clone that was written to act like UNIX, while BSD is the original UNIX. That's why it's better because it's been hammered on for many years and is more standardized.
Alot of Linux users will initially use Linux but switch to BSD if they come from a commercial UNIX background.
Linux is used alot more than BSD in the workplace because it supports more applications (Oracle, SAP) that don't run on BSD. That's a shame.
Originally posted by DanS
Sure. The barriers to entry they can handle. Games OS licensing is where the money is at. And you can make a good profit on this.
You can if you make cheap consoles, like Nintendo and Sony do, you can't if you throw in all kinds of cool hardware to ensure you've got good marketshare.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Originally posted by GP
Why do they run on 386? They're not on Pentiums?
Any code that will run on a 386 also would run on a Pentium, it just means the code doesn't have any MMX or SSE instructions in it that the Pentium/Pentium III added.
Most Unix stuff is 386 because it's safe to distribute, some stuff is recompiled to be 586 or 686 stuff afterwards...
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
When I say "386," bascially I mean any chip that is manufactured by Intel or AMD. So that includes the latest Pentiums.
One of the reasons Linux is so popular is because you can go to Best Buy and buy a cheap piece of hardware and make a server out of it. In the past, you had to buy UNIX hardware that ran into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some of the Sun UNIX machines, for example are 1 million dollars and UP.
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln
Tweet
Comment