235 replies to this topic

[DeathDude]

Indeed and if ya really want to run microsoft products through a mac, be prepared to be paying a lot more than ya would normally if ya just bought a normal pc with windows.

[Potatoe]

Yeah. I'd say, just get a PC without internet if you are so afraid of viruses.
No internet, no danger. Problem solved.

[DeathDude]

Well that's a bit too far I think and your just avoiding the issue if you do that, especially with the internet being so key in today's society.

The main thing is people just have to be educated on the dangers of viruses, don't open attachments, don't visit questionable sites and so on, through education and learning is a better tactic than just avoiding the problem.

[Potatoe]

DeathDude, on Aug 19 2006, 08:04 PM, said:

Well that's a bit too far I think and your just avoiding the issue if you do that, especially with the internet being so key in today's society.

The main thing is people just have to be educated on the dangers of viruses, don't open attachments, don't visit questionable sites and so on, through education and learning is a better tactic than just avoiding the problem.

A good anti virus helps. It doesn't actually have to be that good. Just be able to delete viruses and such. And of course detect them.

[DeathDude]

Also true, but at the rate viruses, worms, trojans are being made that's not always enough, a certain amount of knowledge on what to do if you do get hit by a virus and solutions and steps you can take also essential in case your virus scanner may not pick up the threat, main thing is by learning more and more about the threats will better aid a person if a threat does arise.

[Sinke]

I have Norton Internet Security which was able to detect most trash, however it couldn't delete it. But then you search the web, there is always somebody there making specific-virus-killer program.

[DeathDude]

While Norton is indeed one of the tops for virus scanning and such, it's no longer the best, it takes up wayyyy too many resources and really is falling behind compared to others. Some of the best are probably NOD 32 and Kraparansky (Spelt it wrong I know)

[Sinke]

Oh yeah, Russians are making great software. I use Norton and couple of others freeware programs. I still don't go to suspicious sites.

Except this one   .

[DeathDude]

There's nothing suspicious here though, all good, clean and legal.

[Potatoe]

DeathDude, on Aug 19 2006, 11:55 PM, said:

There's nothing suspicious here though, all good, clean and legal.

But suspicious folk and such.

Panda Platinum is the best virus scanner I've had. It scans for any mal-ware, viruses, worms, trojans and more. But it costs a lot though. Better off just downloading the trials off the net.

[DeathDude]

Nah not really, with freeware not really much risk.

Panda is a good anti virus scanner, Trend Micro is too, but actually you don't have to download trials, I use the online scanners the two makers provide at their site, if I'm unsure about anything in my scans, free of charge and both have helped me out way long ago.

Anyways we are drifting further off topic, so let's move it back to the wii vs ps3 stuff now.

[Potatoe]

DeathDude, on Aug 20 2006, 04:00 PM, said:

Nah not really, with freeware not really much risk.

Panda is a good anti virus scanner, Trend Micro is too, but actually you don't have to download trials, I use the online scanners the two makers provide at their site, if I'm unsure about anything in my scans, free of charge and both have helped me out way long ago.

Anyways we are drifting further off topic, so let's move it back to the wii vs ps3 stuff now.

Just was about to say that. Well anyway. I'm going to say that Wii will be better than PS3. For Wii offers fresh game play and it's cheap.

[DeathDude]

I think so too. Plus the wii might beat the ps3 to launch hard to say at this point but whoever launches first will get the advantage I think between the two, ps3 while has some good ideas, just the high price point may cause some gamers to think twice about it, and really there whole attitude has been a little underestimating of the competition, similar to what nintendo had when the ps1 first launched so this could hurt them.

Check out this article from the president of Sony Computer Entertainment saying how the ps3 will be the top seller by 2011 http://www.gamespot....ws/6156046.html

[Sinke]

I'm beginning to like this Wii afterall.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Personally I think the reason the PS3 isn't going to do so well this time around is for the same reason the PSP didn't do as well.

When the original Playstation was released, its major competition was the Saturn (afterwards the N64) the Playstation One was cheaper in regards to both, and more people bought it as such, it was also cheaper to develop for, thanks to CDs and the fact that it didn't have such a hardware intensive system such as the Saturn did (cartridges also cost a lot to make, which is why N64 games were so expensive)

The Playstation 2 was the same, it had a decent price, and it had a large selection of games to choose from in the launch window, it wasn't exactly the most powerful (in fact, it was the least powerful if you don't count the Dreamcast) and it did well because of that.
Yet when the PSP came out, Sony slapped a $300 price tag on it, and boasted that it would "win" against Nintendo's DS simply because it had more features, better technology, a sleeker design, and a larger screen, unlike their other systems, they placed technology above price, and effective gaming. The Playstation One and Two both weren't so powerful, but they were good because they were accesible to everyone, there was a nice price tag, and plenty of games.

Unfortunatly for them, the PSP had lackluster sales because for one thing, the extra features were totally useless, if you want music, you could get an MP3 player, and browsing the internet on the PSP was as annoying as ever, not only that, but the multiplayer features had terrible netcode on most games, and the PSP had trouble connecting properly.
Not only that, but Sony relied TOO much on the technology of the system, although there was a influx of third party games being released on the PSP, due to interest from developers trying to cash in on Sony's previous successes. Sony was so conceited and over confident that their system would do well, that they neglected to bring over many big name or interesting titles like the DS did. The UMD movies failed, and only games such as Metal Gear AC!D and Twisted Metal actually managed to pull off fantastic sales.

Sony is repeating this mistake, I don't know how they can't see it, but they're falling into a rut that they dug out themselves.
I don't understand why they don't just follow through with their old business strategy, make a reasonable system, that focuses on a large variety of games thanks to low development costs and warm third party reception.

No, instead they have to slap a $20,000 price tag on the developer's kit, issue only a small amount of launch games, and decide to beef up the PS3's already large price tag by adding Blu-ray technology (which is actually losing to HD-TV right now) and a choppy control. They're once again placing technology and multimedia features over games.
Not only that, but people are starting to get tired of their obnoxious attitude, they were quite humble and accepting during the PS1 and PS2 era, but now they've become cocky and over-confident.

Just read one of their press releases, and Sony fan or not, I challenge you not to feel just a little offended and annoyed, at how clearly disregardful and disrespecting they are of their competition, unlike Microsoft or Nintendo's PR, they do not bring a humble and cautious approach. They have to be totally up front and idiotic.

Combined with the fact that they can't see their own mistakes because the higher ups have some sort of superiority complex, or an inability to admit their wrong, and along with their crappy PR, they fell a long way from their Playstation One days, and for the worse.