Posted 05/03/2009 at 06:00:34pm

What if you go out and buy a new PC game each month? $50 a month times 12 months equals $600 a year. Only a savings of $180. If we want to talk console games then it is the same as the cost you propose.

Posted 05/03/2009 at 05:57:10pm

A while back I read an article either in Xbox magazine or MaximumPC or even /. I forget which, that talked about a single console replacing everything. I applauded this idea and actually had thought about the concept when I was looking into "enhancing" my first original Xbox. When I saw all the tools avaiable and the applications avaiable I imagined a single box capable of playing any game, movie or other media you through at it. Throw in a streaming capability and you have living room domination. This service along with Hulu and the like seems to be the first step towards this goal. The biggest limitation I see at this time is the ISP's. The infrastructure in this country needs to be improved drastically. Hey I know! Let's start a public works project like FDR did in the Great Depression to rebuild the electrical and telecommunications grid. We would get a better infrastructure and solve some of our economic woes as well.

Posted 05/03/2009 at 05:49:48pm

Can we please stop the argument over whether the PC or console has better graphics? What matters is how well the graphics are designed in the first place. It is all on the artists. Sure the hardware can render more or less but when it comes down to how good something looks it is all in how much time the designers want to put into making the textures, etc. Conciveably a game can look just as amazing on a console (assuming HD) as on PC So enough of this debate already.

Posted 05/03/2009 at 05:35:35pm

As I read the posts associated with this article I got the feeling that many of you did not read the article closely enough. You seemed to miss and important statement: "According to Babcock, sales and licenses for applications like Microsoft Office are the real cash cow for Microsoft." To me Windows is really much more like a gaming console rather than a piece of software. Gaming consoles are known to loose money from the very begining. No console manufacture actually makes money selling the hardware. What they do make money on is the licensing fees from programmers and developers who want to make games for that console. The same can be said for an OS. MS is loosing money on Windows but making tons of money on its applications. Personally, I think every OS should be open source as long as there are standards to adhere to. I am sure MS could hold onto the licensing rights and still make Windows open source allowing them to continue to make money and thus improving the OS. I also think that CarmonaEnterprises makes a good point about MS keeping an enterprise client locked. The business sector is where MS is making its money. Businesses can, or at least used to be able to, afford the fees for on OS. The consumer can't anymore. A mass consumable Windows OS would be the best thing to happen to Windows since XP.