OT = How Does Shrapnel Stay In Business [Archive]

Atrocities

August 1st, 2001, 06:43 AM

Something similar happened to me too with StarCraft. I could not play SC for nearly 6 weeks until Blizzard sent me a new game. I had to send them my old copy though before they would send me a replacement. (The disk was chipped, and the store would not take it back.)

Yes, Shrapnel has done a great job keeping the customers happy, even the rude "one" a few months ago.

I must admit, SE IV has proven to be quite the addiction. I do sincerely hope that an expansion pack (free or not) comes out soon. Or for that matter, info on SEV.

Aaron has his foot in the gaming world�s door now, and getting support ($) to develop other games should not be a problem for him. (Should not be)

The only other site that I have ever stayed this long at, was a trek site devoted to BOTF, that kinda sorta got off topic and became a all in one trek site. It fell apart in June of Last year shortly after Armada was released. The guy that owned the forum could not keep up with the cost of running it, and had to shut it down. That is why I asked about Shrapnel. I would hate to see that happen here, and would hope that I am not alone in that feeling. (Good to know that I am not http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Again, thanks Richard for the feed back and Aaron for such an addictive game.

------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Captain Picard STNG
New Age Ship Yards (http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/NewAgeShipyards/index.html)

Saxon

August 1st, 2001, 02:36 PM

A few months back there was a article in PC Gamer called �Where does your gaming buck go� or something like that. It broke down all the costs of a game and why we pay what we pay. One of Shrapnel�s secrets is that they don�t pay a lot of those costs. For example, I paid about the same for SE4 and Armies of Armageddon that I would pay for two games in a game shop. However, Shrapnel didn�t spend big bucks on advertisements or stands at that big gaming convention. 3D accelerated graphics are not something one associates with Shrapnel, which is another production cost cutting. Also, they don�t pay distribution costs, those get covered by the shipping fee we paid getting the games.

All this means that they can survive doing the good work they do on much lower volumes of sales than Blizzard does. Given that they share the same philosophy of games that I do and that they have playable games, I think it is a good model of business and one I am happy to support.

PS I get the British and American Versions of PC games and I don�t remember which one the article was in. Sorry.

Suicide Junkie

August 1st, 2001, 05:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Something similar happened to me too with StarCraft. I could not play SC for nearly 6 weeks until Blizzard sent me a new game...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I couldn't play Starcraft when I opened the box, either.
My problem was that I didn't have the right OS on my PC, and the laptop didn't have a CD drive http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

August 1st, 2001, 06:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Saxon:
A few months back there was a article in PC Gamer called �Where does your gaming buck go� or something like that. It broke down all the costs of a game and why we pay what we pay. One of Shrapnel�s secrets is that they don�t pay a lot of those costs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They can not possibly be paying those costs and feed Aaron. Back in 92 the breakdown went like this :
1) Retailer marks up from distributer by 50-100%.
2) Distributer marks up from marketer by 50-100%.
3) Marketer pays developer a "very generous" 5-10% of what they get. The rest goes for manufacturing, advertising, and paying the staff overhead.

So a $40 game at the store gets the distributer maybe AT MOST $26.50, the marketer maybe AT MOST $17.50, and the developer AT MOST $1.75 BUT ONLY FOR THE UNITS ACTUALLY SOLD. A game was considered to do extremely well if half the units manufactured were sold, with the distributer and marketer eating the returns from retailers. How that split broke out varied, typically the retailer would get half what they paid back and the distributer would get half what they paid back. The developer got a "generous" say $2000 when the first manufacturing run occurred (5000 units). Then if the game sold well he would get a check for the latest run's sales just before the next run. But if a run was a bust the game would be closed out and all his effort would go down the drain. Back in 92 I was told that for my effort my game would be considered a HUGE success if it sold 20,000 units and the retail price would be up to me, but not to expect more than maybe $5000 in the first year. I said **** THAT, and quit working on it right then and there.

One thing to remember is that the number of computers has increased by a factor of 100 in the Last ten years alone. So instead of $5000 I bet Aaron is getting $50,000. But that still SUCKS because at a real job he could get $50-75 an hour if he is a decent programmer, which he probably is even though his engine seems to be optimized for memory rather than execution time.....

Richard

August 1st, 2001, 07:26 PM

Well I can't get specific but needless to say we pay a LOT better than your 92 figures http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif. Actually we pay our developers monthly based on previous months sales.

This really is the wave of the future and if we can get just a little more success this will start to wake other developers up to the fact that there is a LEGITIMATE alternative to retail. And if you have a decent game it is can be a lucrative alternative to retail.

Just depends on the game...

So if you know any developers http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif.

------------------
Sarge is coming...

Richard Arnesen
Director of Covert Ops
Shrapnel Games
http://www.shrapnelgames.com

August 1st, 2001, 08:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Richard:
So if you know any developers http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not written any code since 93, but in a year or so I might develop a new 5th generation strategy game concept which takes advantage of the capabilities of 1Ghz 256 megabyte memory machines. By the time the engines are written that size machine should be in most households. It would use text files like SE IV for all the data so that players could mod it. Back in 92 there was just not the processor speed OR memory to support run time text parsing, but the better machines have changed the landscape as much as going from teletypes and punch cards in the 70s to video monitors changed things back then.

It will be 3d galactic and lower level maps with 32bit coordinates, zoom in to see particular stellar sectors, star systems, planets, and cities, which will have astronomically and geographically correct features. Research trees can be very deep and very broad, generated from seed categories and cost curves by a configuration engine. Abilities, Resources, Rates, Facilities and Components to match will be generated by the same engine using cost, size, and ability curves. So a player could modify the seeds to be shallow and narrow, or as wide and deep as he can stand on his particular machine. Instead of going to a particular level (galactic, sector, system, planet, city) and specifying what task he wants done, the player's job will be managing his AI managers to develop broad strategy rules of his own or to vary the defaults where they are tactically incorrect for the local situation. In other words, he gets to play general/emperor instead of footsoldier the way you must in SE IV and the other current generation games. Economics would be modeled as aggregates at each zoom level based on various factors, with the possibility of localized booms and crashes....

I estimate somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 lines of code, same as before but at a higher level of direction. IE what is written will be code to write code, not what actually executes. The generated code would be the engines to parse the text files produced by the configuration engine.......

Edit : I will not even START work on a project like that until I can be sure of 250,000 SALES by the time it is written. Once burned TWICE shy....

[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 01 August 2001).]

geoschmo

August 1st, 2001, 08:55 PM

Uh, as long as it has a good beat and I can dance to it I'll be happy. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geo

August 1st, 2001, 09:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
Uh, as long as it has a good beat and I can dance to it I'll be happy. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!

It was a secret, but I guess that I may as well reveal what I thought was the neatest idea of all before somebody else mentions it and I cannot get credit for being the first to think of it. I find all the tables of numbers to be boring and require too much time to evaluate. So my idea was to have brief - perhaps 2-3 seconds of musical tones looked up and played as you move the mouse across the map at the current zoom level. Coupled with texturing, color, and pattern it would allow four factors you consider to be the most revealing of how well your managers are doing to be available for evaluation without going to a menu.

As an example you might be interested only in the red pebbly triangles that play a fart when the mouse is over them....

capnq

August 2nd, 2001, 01:51 AM

LCC, large chunks of your description sound like what the developers of Master of Orion III are working towards, according to their Web site.

Personally, your audio status indicators idea sounds like interface Hell to me. I've seen people describe Black & White as unplayable because of the scarcity of numeric status reports, among other things.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

[This message has been edited by capnq (edited 02 August 2001).]

August 2nd, 2001, 02:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by capnq:
LCC, large chunks of your description sound like what the developers of Master of Orion III are working towards, according to their Web site.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I will have to check that out! I certainly do NOT want to waste my time reinventing the wheel...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by capnq:
Personally, your audio status indicators idea sounds like interface Hell to me. I've seen people describe Black & White as unplayable because of the scarcity of numeric status reports, among other things.
[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose I was not clear. As an OPTION to get a FEEL for how things are going with your managers and also to visually check for problem CLUSTERS on the map, you COULD specify association of four different values NORMALLY presented as tabular alphanumeric data, bar graphs, or charts to be displayed as color, texture, pattern, and sound. Each of the variables would have several possible values. Depending on the value of the variable, you get something different displayed on the map. For example :
1) Color : Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, Cyan Magenta, anything else in the color chart, whatever you LIKE to move the color selection bars to create...
2) Texture : None, pebbly (dot grid), line grid, crosshatch, whatever you LIKE.
3) Pattern : any set of icon masks you like : such as plain old vanilla triangle, square, 5 point star, 6 point star, pentagon, octagon, circle, nested targeting circles, whatever in the world you LIKE.
4) Any sound file of appropriate length, Bach to Wagner, farts, screams, laughs, applause, whatever you LIKE.

And of course there is the old filter standby, STROBE whatever lies in the specified Category....

Baron Munchausen

August 2nd, 2001, 02:57 AM

Well, after 8+ hours of imprisonment behind Sprintnet's f*ed-up services I can finally access Shrapnel again & what do I find? Development of new games starting in the open forums? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif (BTW, anyone got some good terms of abuse for Sprintnet? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif )

LCC, you are smoking something pretty strong if you think a game like you are describing can be done in 50,000 lines. Back before MS Windozer plowed all the competition under I was writing relatively simple things in Turbo Pascal like usenet news readers. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif And my simple MS-DOS newsreader ran to 20,000 lines if you include the supporting units as well as the main code. (I tended to think "object oriented" even back then before it was a buzz word and kept compartmentalizing stuff into units to make it manageable.) Anyway, this was a single-user program designed for immediate user input and output. No multi-player, no PBEM, no AI, no 'simulations' of planetary or stellar events, no combat between ships with various settable attributes.... you get the picture. I would bet SE IV or even SE III are over 100,000 lines. MOO III will probably be a quarter million or more. The latest Versions of Windozer are supposed to be several million lines. You are WAY behind the times and had better take a refresher course on programming in Windozer environments, or *IX, before you get too far along in your estimates of how much work it will be. Aaron should be back from vacation soon. I wonder if we can get him to tell us how many lines of code are in SE IV?

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 02 August 2001).]

Atrocities

August 2nd, 2001, 03:00 AM

spirit net, your only on in the after life.

Ditched them a long time ago. Now have qwest DSL. AT&T @ home is just as bad.

Baron Munchausen

August 2nd, 2001, 03:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Atrocities:
spirit net, your only on in the after life.

Ditched them a long time ago. Now have qwest DSL. AT&T @ home is just as bad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately I have no choice. It's not 'DSL' for me, it's the uplink for my ISP. So, unless they change providers there's not much I can do. The other ISPs in town are much more expensive than this one.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 02 August 2001).]

August 2nd, 2001, 03:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by capnq:
LCC, large chunks of your description sound like what the developers of Master of Orion III are working towards, according to their Web site.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I checked out the Official site by Quicksilver Software. IMHO this is just a bigger Version of the SOS PHD they put out before, and while that was okay 3-7 years ago, it will NOT compete 3-5 years from now. I bet their AI still has to cheat and not use the same rules as the player just to survive....

Aaron has the right idea for the future, let the players/modders decide what they want the game to be. I propose taking Aarons concept further, but he was by NO means the first to think of this, nor was I of course. The General Purpose Simulator notion has been kicking around for a couple of decades ever since typical machines passed the Megabyte memory stage. (BTW that was thanks to the DEC VAX when they dropped the price of memory from $500,000 per Mb by IBM to $20,000 by DEC - BIG TIME OUCH FOR BIG BLUE!) But you need close to a Gigabyte and a mutiple GigaHertz processor to make it a usable notion. I propose writing the engines of a primitive GPS and providing seed data for a typical "game" along with all the interface required to make it playable. If I do it right, then the engine could be used with the appropriate data to simulate our world economy, or that of a nation, or a city, or a company, or whatever the heck you wanted. I just do not think that there is a market for it yet except as a game, because target specific simulations/ modeling would be MUCH MUCH faster and probably get MUCH MUCH more detailed than the interpretive engine would support on a PC. Of course the supercomputer of today is the pocket pc of next decade. Read John Varly "Marooned in Realtime" IIRC. My SF books have been packed since 89 for lack of shelf space.....

August 2nd, 2001, 04:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
LCC, you are smoking something pretty strong if you think a game like you are describing can be done in 50,000 lines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The power company just taught me once again - NEVER EVER try to type a long post Online - ******* power glitch.
Okay, I will be brief. Way back in 82 I worked for a (long dead) company called NL McCullough Wireline Logging. They had a BIG TIME problem. Their customers all had a different notion of how to interpret the data coming up out of their oil wells. Although it paid BIG BUCKS ON BIG TRUCKS to service those customers, it was no where NEAR enough to support writing a customer specific realtime program for each one. Also, they had to support requests from geologists to change the formula used to generate the graphs in the next FIVE MINUTES. The data had to be done right and done NOW because the decision to take more depended on what they saw, and it cost $2-20 MILLION PER DAY for downtime on those wells. So the guy I worked for (Mike Smith, still out there somewhere?) had a BRILLIANT notion. (Those of you who are software developers will recognize his notion as similar to later Versions of Basic, but THIS WAS 82!) He developed a macrocommand interpreter engine (MIE) and a runtime engine (RE) to use its output. Basically a macrocommand was an assembler language function with just one call parameter - the address of an address/data block (ADB). The ADB size varied but contained just one kind of parameter, the address of an input/output parameter for the function. So with a little indirection it looks the same as any multiple argument function call. What the MIE did was parse the macrocommand language (TDS-11) file line extracting the function name, and text argument list. If the function had not already been loaded into memory then its name would be used to open the relocatable file and overlay load it into memory (the PDP-11 used was 64kbytes ADDRESS space) The list of arguments was translated into the adresses of standard data storage blocks with offsets for the specific variables. Then the function address was added to a chain of function calls along with the address of the ADB into which the variable addresses had been placed. When the file had been completely interpreted you would run the RE to execute the chain of function calls, passing the ADB pointer to each function. It was up to each macrocommand to correctly process its input list, calculate the outputs, and place them at the proper addresses. If the customer wanted to change the TDS-11 instructions, then all the MIE had to do was remove changed links and insert the new ones into the proper point in the list of function calls. The TDS-11 language was so simple that even the customer geologists could write and maintain their own custom programs. All of this was done in 82 on a miserable PDP-11 with less than 10000 lines of source code for the engines. So having seen it done, I KNOW HOW TO DO IT, AND ANY REASONABLY INTELLIGENT COLLEGE FRESHMAN COULD DO THE SAME USING THE DESCRIPTION I JUST PROVIDED.

Okay, so much for the language engine at 10000 lines. The other tricks lie in system and user interface of course. I estimate that at 20000 lines, as generic and data driven as possible, based on my experience with the Amiga. The final Category is the macrocommands to be interpreted by the engine and which in turn use the data files to either generate more macrocommands or to process the game data. What I plan is generic black box functions to do a variety of data manipulations, but NONE OF THEM HAS TO KNOW WHAT THE DATA MEANS. That's why I feel confident that 20000 lines will be sufficient...

So having spent a year or two writing that stuff I will still face the problem of game data - which could take another year just to create the tens of thousands of lines of names and numbers for the seeds to be used by the configuration generator. Plus all the audio and video files too of course, never forget that! But that can be done by OTHER people, and probably will be....

capnq

August 2nd, 2001, 02:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I estimate that at 20000 lines, as generic and data driven as possible, based on my experience with the Amiga.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And this is why the younger programmers who've never wrestled with anything but Windows APIs think you're hallucinating. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif Bloatware breeds bloatware, and modern hardware capacity allows the majority of programmers to hardly care about resource usage.

I can believe you're capable of writing tight enough code to meet your estimate, but I don't believe such code can be written for any flavor of Windows OS.

Also, I strongly recommend that anyone with unreliable power invest in an uninterruptable power supply.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

[This message has been edited by capnq (edited 02 August 2001).]

dogscoff

August 2nd, 2001, 02:19 PM

QUOTE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I estimate that at 20000 lines, as generic and data driven as possible, based on my experience with the Amiga.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<snip> ...but I don't believe such code can be written for any flavor of Windows OS.
/QUOTE

Write it for the Amiga then. I'll buy it=-)

Better yet, get everyone on the forum to go over to Linux (either by emulation or by pestering Aaron into porting SE4 - see parallel thread=-) and then when you code your game for Linux you'll have a whole market ready and waiting...

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so Brain but, if you replace the P with an O, my name would be Oinky, wouldn't it?"

[This message has been edited by dogscoff (edited 02 August 2001).]

Atrocities

August 2nd, 2001, 02:47 PM

I wonder what SE V will hold? I wonder if Aaron will bite the bullet and decide to, not that it matters to me I like the game the way it is, to incorperate 3d battle senerios?

Imagine the code that will take.

dogscoff

August 2nd, 2001, 03:11 PM

I don't know. With the success of SEIV and the amount of work invested in it, I imagine SEV will be a looooooooooong way off. I'd be interested to know just how far Aaron envisages taking SEIV in it's lifespan though.

The demo was SE4.0.99, right?
We're now on SE4.1.41
What about SE4.2.00? I know Version numbering on software is fairly arbitrary, but normally "milestone" Version numbers represent a _major_ update.

Is SEIV even planned to go that far? Does Aaron have a finite list of bugfixes and features to patch, and then SEIV will be complete, or will he just keep adding to it forever? There's certainly scope to add to SEIV indefinitely, there are just so many ideas.

Does anyone remember how it worked with SEIII? Did that Version reach a plateau, where Aaron just said "that's it finished then", or was he improving right up until he started on SEIV?

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so Brain but, if you replace the P with an O, my name would be Oinky, wouldn't it?"

Baron Munchausen

August 2nd, 2001, 04:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by LCC:
Okay, I will be brief. Way back in 82 I worked for a (long dead) company called NL McCullough Wireline Logging. They had a BIG TIME problem. Their customers all had a different notion of how to interpret the data coming up out of their oil wells. Although it paid BIG BUCKS ON BIG TRUCKS to service those customers, it was no where NEAR enough to support writing a customer specific realtime program for each one. Also, they had to support requests from geologists to change the formula used to generate the graphs in the next FIVE MINUTES. The data had to be done right and done NOW because the decision to take more depended on what they saw, and it cost $2-20 MILLION PER DAY for downtime on those wells. So the guy I worked for (Mike Smith, still out there somewhere?) had a BRILLIANT notion. (Those of you who are software developers will recognize his notion as similar to later Versions of Basic, but THIS WAS 82!) He developed a macrocommand interpreter engine (MIE) and a runtime engine (RE) to use its output. Basically a macrocommand was an assembler language function with just one call parameter - the address of an address/data block (ADB). The ADB size varied but contained just one kind of parameter, the address of an input/output parameter for the function. So with a little indirection it looks the same as any multiple argument function call. What the MIE did was parse the macrocommand language (TDS-11) file line extracting the function name, and text argument list. If the function had not already been loaded into memory then its name would be used to open the relocatable file and overlay load it into memory (the PDP-11 used was 64kbytes ADDRESS space) The list of arguments was translated into the adresses of standard data storage blocks with offsets for the specific variables. Then the function address was added to a chain of function calls along with the address of the ADB into which the variable addresses had been placed. When the file had been completely interpreted you would run the RE to execute the chain of function calls, passing the ADB pointer to each function. It was up to each macrocommand to correctly process its input list, calculate the outputs, and place them at the proper addresses. If the customer wanted to change the TDS-11 instructions, then all the MIE had to do was remove changed links and insert the new ones into the proper point in the list of function calls. The TDS-11 language was so simple that even the customer geologists could write and maintain their own custom programs. All of this was done in 82 on a miserable PDP-11 with less than 10000 lines of source code for the engines. So having seen it done, I KNOW HOW TO DO IT, AND ANY REASONABLY INTELLIGENT COLLEGE FRESHMAN COULD DO THE SAME USING THE DESCRIPTION I JUST PROVIDED.

Okay, so much for the language engine at 10000 lines. The other tricks lie in system and user interface of course. I estimate that at 20000 lines, as generic and data driven as possible, based on my experience with the Amiga. The final Category is the macrocommands to be interpreted by the engine and which in turn use the data files to either generate more macrocommands or to process the game data. What I plan is generic black box functions to do a variety of data manipulations, but NONE OF THEM HAS TO KNOW WHAT THE DATA MEANS. That's why I feel confident that 20000 lines will be sufficient...

So having spent a year or two writing that stuff I will still face the problem of game data - which could take another year just to create the tens of thousands of lines of names and numbers for the seeds to be used by the configuration generator. Plus all the audio and video files too of course, never forget that! But that can be done by OTHER people, and probably will be....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sounds fine for the 'old school' wargame that uses ascii graphics to represent the planets and ships! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif I can believe that very elaborate games can be designed with relatively little code if all you are doing is the simulation mechanics of the game itself. What will kill you is making the GUI interface to all the various aspects of the game so people can play the way they expect with the mouse/trackball/whatever. Displaying all the fancy dialog boxes and adding all the 'mouse events' will take several times the code of the game engine itself, I think. Maybe you could make a client/server system like VGA Planets? Or maybe the latest VGA Planets is already everything you had in mind for this project? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is somehwat annoying to think of how much of our computer power gets eaten by these fancy doodads. Do you realize that the old way of even measuring computer power, MIPS (Million Instructions Per Second) is now obsolete? An AT-20Mhz would do something like 1 MIPS. A relatively standard desktop now does something like 100 MIPS. The number has gotten so huge that it doesn't tell you anything anymore about the real abilities of the computer to run current software. Then there's the gigantic leaps in RAM and HD capacity. Think of the incredible things that could have been done in the 1980s with this kind of power! But it's being eaten by these stupid GUI systems and all the kewl 'multimedia' thingamajigs tacked onto our WinDOS systems.

geoschmo

August 2nd, 2001, 06:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Think of the incredible things that could have been done in the 1980s with this kind of power! But it's being eaten by these stupid GUI systems and all the kewl 'multimedia' thingamajigs tacked onto our WinDOS systems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can understand your frustration coming from the perspective of a programmer as you do. But don't forget it's all "thingamajigs" that give us a market for all the lines of code to begin with.

As much as some computer nuts (an I count myself in this group, although I am by no means a programmer) hate to admit it, if it weren't for Windows, or something else like it, computers would have never had the mainstream appeal that they do. Without the GUI interface your typical non-techie, the vast majority or the population, would not see the need for having a computer to begin with. They certainly wouldn't plunk down hard earned cash for a game program that's just a series of columns of numbers and text Messages.

Not to mention the fact that you would never have the monster processors and bottomless memory storage that we have today. It's been the added complexity in the programming that has produced the need for the advancments in processing power and memory size and speed.

Geo

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 02 August 2001).]

Alpha Kodiak

August 2nd, 2001, 06:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
This sounds fine for the 'old school' wargame that uses ascii graphics to represent the planets and ships! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif I can believe that very elaborate games can be designed with relatively little code if all you are doing is the simulation mechanics of the game itself. What will kill you is making the GUI interface to all the various aspects of the game so people can play the way they expect with the mouse/trackball/whatever. Displaying all the fancy dialog boxes and adding all the 'mouse events' will take several times the code of the game engine itself, I think. Maybe you could make a client/server system like VGA Planets? Or maybe the latest VGA Planets is already everything you had in mind for this project? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if you are smart about how you set it up, the GUI doesn't have to require that much code. It does require a lot of planning and design, but the right tools can supply most of the handlers you need. If you don't properly design it, however.... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/shock.gif

Nitram Draw

August 2nd, 2001, 07:22 PM

I know that if you are convinced something can't be done you are beaten. I believe anything is possible, especially if you don't know any better.

August 2nd, 2001, 09:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
I know that if you are convinced something can't be done you are beaten. I believe anything is possible, especially if you don't know any better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A perfect straight line available when I came back to post! Thanks!

I know about UPS but never needed one before. The problem is a circuit breaker that trips in the new house. I have been informed that the problem will go away in the next few weeks as microfuzz causing heating on the contacts wears down. Since my bank account is seriously depleted by the move, I would have to wait till next month to spring for a 2 hour battery backup UPS anyway, because it costs $200.

Just out of curiousity since there seems to be some interest, I did a web search using Hotbot with the following results :
1) general purpose simulator -44,200 2) same +macro -5900 3) same +parse -1200 4) same +relocatable -56 5) same +overlay -43 6) same + macrocommand -1
So it looks like there is probably action going on, but most of it is not posted where the public can see it. The searches at level 4+ mostly hit on dictionaries.

"What we have here is a lack of communication."

Basically a macrocommand is an instruction in a LANGUAGE INVENTED ON THE FLY. As an example TDS-11 had over 300 macrocommands of varying length written in assembler. Assembler was used because it was a 1982 PDP-11 under RT-11 in a 64k byte address space. So both time and memory were critical. Nowadays a macrocommand would be written in any language at all so long as the MIE and RE working together know how to call and pass a single address to it - the address of its ADB. You invoke a macrocommand in the macrocommand language instruction files by simply giving the name of the relocatable code file as a command name, followed by the list of calling arguments referencing macrocommand variables. Each relocatable file has a function in it labeled the same as the file name, which is the entry point function. The functions in the macrocommand file are allowed to call any function library routine by invoking the engine function calldown with the (engine designer defined) index number of the function to be called and a pointer to a structure containing the required calling arguments of the invoked function. A macrocommand function in one relocatable file is NOT allowed to call macrocommand functions in other relocatable files, because it would not know the address. If you want to do that you do it as a macrocommand language instruction to be parsed. The most powerful macrocommands are CALLU/RETU the universal call/return and FORKU the universal fork. They are provided by the engine designer. Basically CALLU must make sure the invoked macrocommand language instruction file has been loaded into memory, if not load it. Then point to the next line to be parsed in the current file in the macrocommand call stack and start parsing at the line label in the new file's stream of macrocommands. RETU simply pops the stack and resumes parsing there. With FORKU you provide a macrocommand variable name containing an index and a list of macrocommand line labels in the current file being parsed. It works just like a computed goto.

So basically you see that the GPS engine is an interface to an operating system(s) that makes it possible to mix Languages in the same application and to add new functions to an application without having the language specific source code for existing functions - programmers paradise. It does not have to be a linker for labels found in the relocatable files except for the one entry point function in each file because all other labels are resolved locally by the compiler used by the macrocommand author. The TDS-11 engines had to be overlay loaders because of the 64kbyte address space and I see no reason to skip that because I can see this engine being used in applications which exceed a Gigabyte very easily. While at Datapoint in 83-86 I had to write my own overlay loader and overlay manager because the 8600 also had a 64kbyte address space and the Manufacturing Automated Test System I wrote (91000 lines source and still going strong when I left) exceeded the physical (2 megabytes) memory space of the machine as well. With a rich library of macrocommands available for gaming applications, the player can mod his purchased game to be something very different if he so desires by changing the macrocommand language instruction streams, in effect becoming another game author. If that looks too complicated, the player can experient with the configuration generator and the seed data files to create very different game universes, becoming a scenario designer. If the player finds that too complicated, he can just be an emperor using the game AI managers to do the grunt work, with occasional changes to their priorities. If he still does not like what he sees then he can get down and dirty and look at the data being manipulated by the managers to develop his own management rules, becoming an AI designer.

So far as my estimate of source lines goes, you will note that (if I do it at all) I plan to generate a macrocommand library that has only the basics in it. For elaborate games or simulations the designer of the game must invent his own macrocommands and use them with the existing library to generate new macrocommand language instruction files specific to his enhanced game. Seeds and other data needed by the configuration generator would probably also be tailored for new games.

I do not drink or use drugs, so my mind is not fantasizing. I have written over 5000 pages of software from 73-93. I know what I am talking about and am not just blowing smoke. Most of it has been done before, so I have two major concerns :
1) I do not want to re-invent the wheel if somebody else is already doing it.
2) I want TO GET PAID WHAT IT IS WORTH IF I DO IT.

Economics, politics, or warfare it makes no difference, because the interaction between game items is just another black box transfer function based on abilities, dependencies, and derivatives. I am an engineer and design for functionality, when possible also optimizing for time and memory, ie COST. Programmers often do things differently so they look like they are doing a lot of work. As an example of the way engineers see things differently, I can say in one line what Ayn Rand said in 800 pages :
I can do it. You can't, stupid. So PAY me what it is worth.
I suppose that if she had been paid for clarity of thought rather than by the word, she would have written a shorter "Atlas Shrugged"...........

geoschmo

August 2nd, 2001, 10:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>1) I do not want to re-invent the wheel if somebody else is already doing it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1) If somebody is working on inventing a wheel, they aren't going to advertise the fact until they have a marketable product. At least they will keep the details protected so noone can come along and "reinvent" it and get it to market faster. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>2) I want TO GET PAID WHAT IT IS WORTH IF I DO IT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It isn't worth anything until after you do it.

"If you build it, they will come" Not "Announce that you can build it, and they will come and wait while you build it, and pay you so they can wait."

Of course you could get a job at an established software development house, and be a wage slave writing code that someone else will make the money off of and get the credit for. But if you want to be the guy who gets the praise, and the jack, you are going to have to write it, and then sell it. It's called "entrepreneurialism". http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geo

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 02 August 2001).]

August 2nd, 2001, 11:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dogscoff:
Hmm. Nested quotes loses the comment in the quote ? IIRC it was "If you write it for the Amiga, I will buy it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amiga.com (http://amiga.com/)
ANNOUNCEMENT (http://www.amiga.com/corporate/080101-amiwest.shtml)
Amiga concepts (http://www.amiga.com/feature/about_amiga/about_amiga.shtml)
I will be careful what I say - do not want to get flamed. I read other Posts but you can get the links yourself off the first one if you are interested.
1) I bought an Amiga 1000 in 86 and had very high hopes for it. As an open OS it was exactly what I wanted.
2) Things were okay for a couple years but poor marketing/ distribution/ financial management outweighed superb concept and revolutionary design.
3) They were systematically crushed in the marketplace by Windows/PC manufacturers and went bankrupt three times.
4) Their current incarnation started in Jan 2000 with a new even more flexible concept and strategy.
5) They give committed applications as of 9/14/00 and no update since then.
6) item 5) says it all, they are going down the tubes yet again, and this in spite of millions of Users who love them and thousands of developers who are using them.
7) Fighting the MS behemoth is a losing proposition until the government steps in and busts its butt the way Ma Bell was taught not to strangle other long distance carriers. Which is precisely what the govt SAYS it is trying to do, but it will probably take 10 years unless the priority and funding of that antitrust lawsuit goes WAY UP.
8) Amiga may be tolerated and allowed to survive only if they scale back and follow Apple's survival strategy - pick a niche and do NOT aggravate the monster.
9) I would be delighted to develop my software in Amiga's Digital Environment but the question is whether the company would be alive long enough to see the code written, let alone the first game sold.....

[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 02 August 2001).]

August 2nd, 2001, 11:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
But if you want to be the guy who gets the praise, and the jack, you are going to have to write it, and then sell it. It's called "entrepreneurialism". http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not sell a gallon of water to a person dying of thirst for one dollar, even if they had a million dollars in their pockets. I know this for a fact and accept it. I am just posting because I am bored and frustrated. I know better ways to do things and COULD do them, but I am NOT going to actually do the work then get as you say just a "wage slaves" compensation. People like those at Microsoft could be given a two year head start and $100 million to do it, and I could still come out with a better product ***working alone*** in the fourth year. No brag just fact. One good engineer = 10 outstanding programmers. As a matter of fact the same one good engineer still = 1000 programmers working as a team because they spend so much time fighting for turf and shuffling specs that they do squat about getting the product out the door....

[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 02 August 2001).]

August 3rd, 2001, 12:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Or maybe the latest VGA Planets is already everything you had in mind for this project? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never bought it but have seen their websites. So I do not feel qualified to comment except a little, LOL LOL LOL....

August 3rd, 2001, 12:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
What will kill you is making the GUI interface to all the various aspects of the game so people can play the way they expect with the mouse/trackball/whatever. Displaying all the fancy dialog boxes and adding all the 'mouse events' will take several times the code of the game engine itself, I think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That stuff would be done by macrocommands invoking system functions through the engine interface "calldown". Depending on the relative address range of a processor, a macrocommand file can be as big as you like and have as many functions in it as needed. Just one of the functions needs to link up to the chain - the one named after the file and the same as the command name that invoked the file.

Shared data storage space is obtained off calls (through calldown) to system functions for memory at runtime, then the address of the data obtained is stored in data structures defined by the macrocommand designer. The address of the structures is placed in ADB entries and pulled out by the ones who need to share data pointed to. Do I really need to explain trivial stuff like this?

August 3rd, 2001, 12:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
if it weren't for Windows, or something else like it, computers would have never had the mainstream appeal that they do. Without the GUI interface your typical non-techie, the vast majority or the population, would not see the need for having a computer to begin with<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How little does the latest generation know anyway ? In the beginning there was Xerox PARC, then came Apple and close on their heels Atari and Amiga. But then along came a blundering not yet behemoth Microsoft, who worked closely with IBM and Intel to CRUSH LIKE ANTS anybody who threatened the IBM PC. But little did they know that people like Dell, Compaq, and the other cloners would whip big blues butt in the home markets. This allowed the survival of alternative microprocessor manufacturers, who have steadily begun to regain the ground they lost. The monopolistic triad is finally starting to lose, and by **** it is not a DAY TOO SOON.

**** WITHOUT THOSE THREE WE WOULD BE TEN YEARS INTO THE NEXT GENERATION ALREADY ****

Miles

August 3rd, 2001, 02:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
... Back before MS Windozer plowed all the competition under I was writing relatively simple things in Turbo Pascal like usenet news readers. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif And my simple MS-DOS newsreader ran to 20,000 lines if you include the supporting units as well as the main code...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By any chance, was that the 'Trumpet' newsreader?

Miles

geoschmo

August 3rd, 2001, 03:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How little does the latest generation know anyway ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ROFL! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon10.gif

Oh I wish I was part of the "latest generation". To know what I know now and to have the Last twenty years back...

I hope you didn't perceive my comments as some sort of flame. What you are describing sounds like a great game. And I have no doubt in your abilities to pull it off. I am simply saying if you are waiting for someone to hand you a check up front, you'll be waiting a while.

I am not in anyway a programming whiz. In fact except for a little playing with BASIC programs as a kid on a trash-80 and Vic-20 (I'm dating myself now http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif ) I have never had the patience to do anything close to what you are talking about.

As far as my comments regarding Windows, I am by no means an appologist for "The Bill". You missed my point I think when I said "Windows, or something like it". Gates did nothing extordinary except take advantage when he saw an opportunity. If he hadn't, someone else would have. I think the term is "Zeitgeist".

My point was simply that without making computers more attractive and accesable to the unwashed masses, you would still be tinkering around on your 8Mhz, 512K ram, 20 MB hard drive computer(Heck my first three computers didn't even have hard drives. Anybody remember casette tapes? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/shock.gif ) writing incrededibly efficient 20K code-line programs with which to amaze your other computer nerd friends. But would never even be considering writing a program to sell to casual gamers.

I am not a programmer, but I am a history buff, and I know a little about economics. It's all supply and demand. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geo

Baron Munchausen

August 3rd, 2001, 03:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by LCC:
That stuff would be done by macrocommands invoking system functions through the engine interface "calldown". Depending on the relative address range of a processor, a macrocommand file can be as big as you like and have as many functions in it as needed. Just one of the functions needs to link up to the chain - the one named after the file and the same as the command name that invoked the file.

Shared data storage space is obtained off calls (through calldown) to system functions for memory at runtime, then the address of the data obtained is stored in data structures defined by the macrocommand designer. The address of the structures is placed in ADB entries and pulled out by the ones who need to share data pointed to. Do I really need to explain trivial stuff like this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF the tools to do the same sort of programming that you grew accustomed to on the PDP-11 were available for Wind'oohs you'd have a chance of being correct. Once you check into what must actually be used to program in Wind'oohs these days you will realize that there's nothing 'trivial' about programming anymore. "Hello, World" will probably come out to several hundred kbytes on most contemporary MS compilers. Now, if you can find the tools you want in a *IX environment -- not impossible since the *IX systems are much better at preserving 'legacy' software -- and can write a decent program for Gnu/Linux and/or FreeBSD in the style you describe you might have something. Every little bit helps to increase the popularity and power of the free OSes.

Baron Munchausen

August 3rd, 2001, 04:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Miles:
By any chance, was that the 'Trumpet' newsreader?

Miles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Trumpet was an Aussie product if I recall. It was very much a "GUI" program too, if only in the MS-DOS style. Mine was a BBS door meant to be used in TTY fashion. Largely a clone of the *IX newsreader 'nn', actually. I was trying to make the Waffle BBS usenet news transport system accessible to Fidonet systems like Opus-CBCS and QBBS. It never quite reached 'official' release stage though. It was working fine but needed lots of "polish" in the user-interface department. My UUCP feed died due to the continuing upheaval at the local university as they tried to modernize their systems. I managed to get a PPP connecton to keep up with my own news reading but never got a regular UUCP flow again & never finished it.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 03 August 2001).]

Atrocities

August 3rd, 2001, 09:48 AM

My god this topic has taken on a life of its own. I am seriously impressed with the subject matter being discussed here.

dogscoff

August 3rd, 2001, 10:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by LCC: **** WITHOUT THOSE THREE WE WOULD BE TEN YEARS INTO THE NEXT GENERATION ALREADY ****<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn right. Wintel vs The world (particularly the demise of the Amiga) is a story of crap technology/ superior marketing triumphing over superior technology/ crap marketing. Sad really.

Oh, and about the Amiga - yeah, I ran out of blind optimism years ago (in the "dark years" of the Amiga) but I still maintain a glimmer of hope, and I think it's a cause worth supporting. Amiga is a good philosophy as well as a fine system, and when the time comes to support them with my wallet, I'll be there.

I own and use a PC only reluctantly. I bought my current machine because I was broke and it was the cheapest way to get Online. I have upgraded it to 2 or 3 times it's previous capacity, but at a *total* cost of UKP150 (~USD300) at the most. I refuse to invest serious money in PC hardware, because the of the absurd depreciation which has been created by the artificial progress of {BIG NUMBER} PC culture.

As soon as a viable alternative to my PC (ie something good for Space empires and net access) appears within my price range, be it Amiga, Linux, Mac or other I will buy it and pass my PC back into circulation.

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so Brain but, if you replace the P with an O, my name would be Oinky, wouldn't it?"

[This message has been edited by dogscoff (edited 03 August 2001).]

Atrocities

August 3rd, 2001, 11:33 AM

Its ironic isn't it. Apple Computers got its start because people HATED big companies such as IBM. Now look, nearly everyone has an IBM Compatible PC.

I too have used the Amiga, for video production work. This was back in 92. It served its purpose quite well until we got a new Grass Valley CG. Even then, the Amiga was kept around, and used. To the best of my knowledge, it is STILL being used. (Last year)

I remember when I tried to set up a Linux system. RedHat Linux was a cool thing, and I purchased it. I still have not gotten a Linux system to work. (Way to much work involved) I passed the software along to a friend at work, and he seems to be doing rather well with it. I am happy for him.

As far as Mac's go, they are the most revered systems in Hollywood. In fact, just ask Mike O'oKudda (sp) the graphics effect guy who has worked on Star Trek since 1986 to present. He swares by Mac. And lets not forget the Apple image on the lap top used by the fly man, (and dinasour expert) Jeff Goldbloom, (sp) on the drive into DC in Indpendance Day. If I am not mistaken, that Mac saved the world.

The point is, all of these systems are good. But the industry, and indeed us, have accepted the IBM standard as the norm. And until that standard is broken, much like the Mac Superbowl commerical, its going to be business as usual for the big PC guys.

August 3rd, 2001, 12:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:

Oh I wish I was part of the "latest generation". To know what I know now and to have the Last twenty years back...

I hope you didn't perceive my comments as some sort of flame. Geo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem, I should have paid more attention to the poster name - thought you were under 30. I started out programming in the early 70s with punch cards, paper tape and teletypes. Removable disk packs were new tech! Magnetic tape was king. One of the machines I used had DRUM storage. The PDP-8 had magnetic CORE memory.....

I wish I had been born 15 years later, but you know how much time spent wishing things like that is worth...

[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 03 August 2001).]

August 3rd, 2001, 12:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Once you check into what must actually be used to program in Wind'oohs these days you will realize that there's nothing 'trivial' about programming anymore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someday the monster will die. I am not too old to wait and cheer the return of sanity when that happens. I will NEVER EVER PROGRAM IN WINDOWS. It just feeds the beast when programs use it. If that means I write no programs, as has been the case since my Amiga died, then so be it....

To the younger generation, things CHANGE. Slowly but surely time grinds down even the most powerful, in a free society. Look at IBM and the story of mainframes as an example. I do not know what their market share is now, but the Last time I looked, they sold less than 20% of the world's computers. Well, at one time they sold 85%, having driven dozens of others out of the market, including FAR FAR better products. Just as an example, my university used the best timesharing machine ever built, the Xerox Sigma IX. Fifteen YEARS after Xerox threw in the towel, there were STILL a dozen of them being used by devoted owners who desperately cannibalized dead machines and improvised replacement parts to keep them running. The CPV operating system Xerox developed was ported IIRC to a Honeywell machine and named CP VI to attract former Sigma owners. Of course desktops killed the mainframe concept, but something similar will happen to them as well - handhelds and visors.....

Alpha Kodiak

August 3rd, 2001, 02:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by LCC:
Someday the monster will die. I am not too old to wait and cheer the return of sanity when that happens. I will NEVER EVER PROGRAM IN WINDOWS. It just feeds the beast when programs use it. If that means I write no programs, as has been the case since my Amiga died, then so be it....

To the younger generation, things CHANGE. Slowly but surely time grinds down even the most powerful, in a free society. Look at IBM and the story of mainframes as an example. I do not know what their market share is now, but the Last time I looked, they sold less than 20% of the world's computers. Well, at one time they sold 85%, having driven dozens of others out of the market, including FAR FAR better products. Just as an example, my university used the best timesharing machine ever built, the Xerox Sigma IX. Fifteen YEARS after Xerox threw in the towel, there were STILL a dozen of them being used by devoted owners who desperately cannibalized dead machines and improvised replacement parts to keep them running. The CPV operating system Xerox developed was ported IIRC to a Honeywell machine and named CP VI to attract former Sigma owners. Of course desktops killed the mainframe concept, but something similar will happen to them as well - handhelds and visors.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, I am not of the younger generation either, but I do develop for Windows, since you have to develop software that people are going to buy. I agree that handhelds and such are going to be a part of the future, but I would not advise waiting for the world to return to what it once was.

The reason for Windows "bloat" is that it provides people with functionality that they want. (I'm talking about the mainstream, not throw-back geeks like us. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif ) What you're going to see is more "bloat", not less. .NET is going to really shake things up. I'm just starting to see what can be done using XML as a communication medium. I've just managed to drag myself out of a procedural mindset and got used to event-driven software, and they've moved the marker again. Software technology is evolving at an unbelievable rate. I may not like it, but I have to adapt or my family doesn't eat.

August 3rd, 2001, 07:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
The reason for Windows "bloat" is that it provides people with functionality that they want. (I'm talking about the mainstream, not throw-back geeks like us. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif ) What you're going to see is more "bloat", not less. .NET is going to really shake things up. I'm just starting to see what can be done using XML as a communication medium. I've just managed to drag myself out of a procedural mindset and got used to event-driven software, and they've moved the marker again. Software technology is evolving at an unbelievable rate. I may not like it, but I have to adapt or my family doesn't eat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amiga was doing ALL event driven software in 85. They were also doing concurrent multitasking in multiple windows, which it took ten YEARS for MS to support after they had killed off Amiga and Atari. So you would have had these "advanced" system features on the typical PC 15 YEARS ago without MS. Amiga was the very first machine with a Genlock VCR interface. The list could go on for quite a while. What if ANYTHING did MS do first ??? Check the companies they drove out of business for lost products before you reply.....

geoschmo

August 3rd, 2001, 07:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What if ANYTHING did MS do first ??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh... turn a profit?

What's your point? Henry Ford didn't invent the car either. There were dozens, maybe hundreds of car companies before the Model T was introduced. All making wonderfully crafted cars that were impractical or impossible to market to anyone but a car nut that was willing and able to spend hours tinkering with them.

I am sure all those little guys moaned that Ford was driving them out of business too, but the fact is the people bought more Model T's because they could afford to buy them, and could afford to own them.

Of course all this doesn't fit your romaticized vision of robber barons and evil super corporations doing back room deals to put people out of business and deprive people of better computers.

But that's cool. You're way makes for better movies. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geo

Nitram Draw

August 3rd, 2001, 08:22 PM

When you look at what "windoze", as you call it, can do I can't understand all the fuss. Here is a product that my grandmother can use to send e-mail and can be used by a multi-billion international company. There are't many products like that. Granted most of the stuff that ships in Windows is not used by all or even a large percentage of owners but it is a pretty impressive piece of work.

Please note I don't say it's the best possible.

Atrocities

August 3rd, 2001, 08:32 PM

Well, MS did the graphics interface first. Nooo, wait, that was Xerox.

Well MS did the DOS system, no.. they bought it for 50k off some dips**t who didn't know any better.

They invented the mouse. Noo, again Xerox.

Ok, I know what they did first... They invented software licencing. Oh we owe them a big [insert sarcasim] thank you for that [/sarcasim]

August 3rd, 2001, 08:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
What if ANYTHING did MS do first ??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh... turn a profit?
Geo

LOL LOL I have to concede you got me good on that one. However let me point out that there ARE such things as robber barons and MS fits the "Bill" LOL LOL.

The way it happens is that rather than offering better PRODUCTS for sale, a RB offers better incentives to BUY. A trivial example is having a sales office in every city, with sales reps that take purchasers from potential corporate customers out to lunch, give gifts in the disguise of free samples and generally are such good buddies that the judgement to buy is made not on the merits of the product, but on the prospect of personally recieving more free goodies.

A less obvious example is having a well run customer help center with well trained staff so that rather than developing a product which does not require help at all from the provider, the customer is lured into thinking that the product is well concieved and supported but just too complex for his/her own personal understanding. Tell me I am wrong on that one ? The software products do NOT have to be beyond the understanding of the average person, let alone that of the average developer. But they have been DESIGNED THAT WAY BY INTENT as a policy to lock customers in to the product family. This is because after going through the horrors of getting the product to function, the customer BELIEVES that alternative products would be just as bad or worse...

A third RB tactic is to design in rapid obsolesence of the products. Basically you do this by having kitchen sink products that do many things at a minimum level of functionality, but nothing well. You call this an "integrated comprehensive solution for the Millenium". Then you offer partial upgrades to individual functions which taken together cost 4 times the price of the package. Every couple of years you offer a "major upgrade" of the entire package for 2x the cost of the previous package, plus a new customer introductory package at the same cost as the previous one but with slightly better functionality. At no time do you EVER offer the customer a product as good as you COULD make, because then it would be several years before the customer could be persuaded to buy again. The classic example of this is International Harvester in the old days making 20 year tractors, while automakers put out 4-8 year automobiles.....

While these tactics have become ingrained into the mindset of corporate America, they all violate basic principles of equity. Such as "a fair exchange of value", "the best product at the best price", "fair competition and a fair deal", "may the best man win", and going back a couple thousand years - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

So yes, there ARE robber barons, and the only real problem is finding some company which is NOT run by them. This is because those companies only Last a few years in the piranha "invested" waters of corporate America. I happen to be optimistic enough to think that in the long run society will have a bellyful of this behavior and stop tolerating it. In the meantime the best that can be done is to blow off a little steam every once and a while to remind people that everything is NOT hunky dory.

Atrocities - that software licencing is why I will not write one single line of code for windows....

[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 03 August 2001).]

Alpha Kodiak

August 3rd, 2001, 08:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by LCC:
Amiga was doing ALL event driven software in 85. They were also doing concurrent multitasking in multiple windows, which it took ten YEARS for MS to support after they had killed off Amiga and Atari. So you would have had these "advanced" system features on the typical PC 15 YEARS ago without MS. Amiga was the very first machine with a Genlock VCR interface. The list could go on for quite a while. What if ANYTHING did MS do first ??? Check the companies they drove out of business for lost products before you reply.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I carefully reread my post, and I can't find anywhere in there where I said Microsoft did anything first or best. My comments about the future don't even require MS to be around (smart money says they'll be there for a while, though) but mainstream Users want the features that are in Windows, and even more. I don't care if it's MS or Amiga or whoever, they are going to have to handle all of the different functionality, and that means a ton of background code doing all of it. When I write a dialog for Windows, I don't have to write any code to handle the mouse, or the keyboard, or anything like that. It's all handled by MFC (same with Delphi, VB or any other tool used to put the dialog together). The same situation would be true on any other GUI-based platform. As for the handhelds that may someday take the place of the desktops, what do you think they run as an OS? Windows CE.

Atrocities

August 3rd, 2001, 08:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Amiga was the very first machine with a Genlock VCR interface. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please read my earlier post about using an Amiga. (Gen Lock is a term used to describe the ability to "lock" video signals together for the purpose of composite, editting, etc. It is what synics everthing together. The Amiga was a god send to many production facilities, and I am sure, still is to many today.

August 3rd, 2001, 09:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I carefully reread my post, and I can't find anywhere in there where I said Microsoft did anything first or best.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely right, you did not. Also if you read mine, you will see that I was offering a challenge to find an example, not accusing you of thinking they were the first or best at anything. If you visit the Amiga.com website then you will note that there ARE or soon WILL be other operating systems on handhelds. Also read the comments I just posted on tactics by robber barons, in particular offering a kitchen sink package.

Back in the old days each computer product manufacturer offered several product families as standard packages and ALSO offered customer specific options for packages so that you did not have to buy the kitchen sink unless you really needed it. You will note that as somebody else also just pointed out, most of the products packaged together for over $100 in the Windows operating system are NOT used by the VAST MAJORITY of customers. Those customers would be better served by selling them a $20 package that contained just what they needed, plus options at $5 each on the few other parts they want. Do NOT tell me that this would be a configuration control nightmare, because the automated help databases could handle any combination whatsoever without human intervention. That was the weak point in the old days - getting support for oddball configurations. It would also not be a marketing nightmare, because most software purchases are handled by Online purchase using "Shopping Carts". Most software is purchased by download, so that is not an issue either. So that $20 basic package only needs to include enough to get the customer Online to buy more. So the only issue left is that the customer may not want to go Online. Well where the heck did the customer get the computer ? If at a store then the store can do the downloads onto a disk. If by mail, then check off the options desired at purchase. The only objection I can see to my proposition is that it would be somewhat less profitable. Which brings me back full circle to my accusation - they are robber barons.

geoschmo

August 3rd, 2001, 09:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The way it happens is that rather than offering better PRODUCTS for sale, a RB offers better incentives to BUY. A trivial example is having a sales ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Treat the customer right.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A less obvious example is having a well run customer help center with well trained staff so that rather than developing a product which does not require help at all from the provider, the customer is lured ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Trained, curteous support.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A third RB tactic is to design in rapid obsolesence of the products. Basically you ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Value added products.
I don't know LCC. I work for a company in the computer industry (NOT MS). It's sounds like you are reading from our "Core Values". http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon10.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>While these tactics have become ingrained into the mindset of corporate America, they all violate basic principles of equity. Such as "a fair exchange of value", "the best product at the best price", "fair competition and a fair deal", "may the best man win"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is all very nice sounding, but whose standards do you use to decide what is fair... equitable... the best? Government? Business? The public? You?

The fact that you cannot reasonably dispute, is that the proliferation of the "Bloat" precipitated by Windoze, and others, is the very thing that has driven the advancements in hardware technology that make it possible for the more efficient operating systems to do the amazing things they can today. Supply and Demand. Economics 101. Amiga and others that you mentioned were technically advanced for their time, but they were not marketable for whatever reason, or they would have been marketed. You give Gates too much credit.

The list of technically superior products that never made it to market or lagged behind did not start with the computer age. Betamax? Diesel Engines? That's just two in this century. My gosh if Da Vinci had some of "The Bills" ability at marketing and self promotion, maybe we would be living Space Empires IV instead of just playing it on bloated pc's full of poor quality software and useless thingamajigs. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

The laize faire system is by no means perfect. It can be abused. But it is the best way available because it takes the realistic assumption of the inherent greed of all human beings, and uses that as a check against corruption in the system. In a more structured system, there may be controls over corruption at the bottom, but there is no check against it at the top.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Do NOT tell me that this would be a configuration control nightmare, because the automated help databases could handle any combination whatsoever without human intervention.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, would that be the databases running Windows NT, or some "magical fairy" databases?

You are getting in to trouble with your argument here. None of this would even be possible without the proliferation of computers that was a direct result of the accessibility of pc's in the Last 15 years. In this way Gates really created a market where there was none before. Again note I do not believe Gates is in anyway superior to anyone else. If he had not done it, either someone else would have done something very similar to what he did, or computers would never have gone the way of CB radio. A vary cool toy, with a loyal devoted following, but no real broad based appeal.

Geo
EDIT: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Uh, would that be the databases running Windows NT, or some "magical fairy" databases?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This was a bit of a mistatement on my part. I do understand the difference between the operating system, and the database software. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif My point is valid though.

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 03 August 2001).]

August 3rd, 2001, 09:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
but mainstream Users want the features that are in Windows, and even more. I don't care if it's MS or Amiga or whoever, they are going to have to handle all of the different functionality, and that means a ton of background code doing all of it. When I write a dialog for Windows, I don't have to write any code to handle the mouse, or the keyboard, or anything like that. It's all handled by MFC (same with Delphi, VB or any other tool used to put the dialog together). The same situation would be true on any other GUI-based platform. As for the handhelds that may someday take the place of the desktops, what do you think they run as an OS? Windows CE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back in 85 the Amiga Workbench (Windows without Microsoft and concurrent multitasking to boot)was controlled either by the developer using the Intuition interface to the lower level drivers, or going down to the driver level and customizing them for oddball devices. They HAD drivers for every device, and animation/ graphics/ sound at any level desired to boot. They would have had packages for software composition at higher levels than the Intuition interface if the company had Lasted long enough to get customers that NEEDED it. That's because it was an OPEN operating system supporting thousands of third party companies with cheap or free development tools, well documented, well designed for ease of understanding, well concieved for functionality, and memory/ execution time efficient to boot. People like me wrote and published over 800 Megabytes of FREE software for the Amiga, managed by Fred Fish. Commodore Amiga had everything they needed except money and marketing skill, which was utterly lacking. ..

If the new incarnation of Amiga can survive just a couple more years, they will OBLITERATE Microsoft, but I expect MS knows it well and will prevent it. HOW they will do so is the only question. But I predict that it will NOT be by offering superior products.

August 3rd, 2001, 11:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
Treat the customer right.
Trained, curteous support.
Value added products.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) TANSTAAFL (Heinlein) There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The cost of those lunches is bundled into the products, plus overhead for the salesman's time and a profit margin. I DO NOT LIKE PAYING FOR THOSE "FREE" LUNCHES AND "GIFTS".

2) The product should be DESIGNED FOR EASE OF USE, so the customer USUALLY does not HAVE to get help. This is NOT the case for Microsoft products, especially for third party software developers.

3) You have a strange notion of VALUE if you think adding it in dribbles at the PRICE of a MAJOR upgrade is okay when the COST for each dribble is that of a MINOR tweak.

I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that 3) occurs. I will not name the company, except to say that I developed a product that had 8x the performance of the existing product at 2/3 the cost. Another department had developed another upgrade for the same product at 3x the performance and 3/4 the cost. Marketing told me that my product would be offered to the customers two years down the road but ONLY AFTER THE MARKET DRIED UP for the lesser upgrade. I left that company soon afterwards.

I can not speak for Aaron and Shrapnel, but their philosophy seems to be in line with mine. Basically :
1) Offer the best product you are able at the lowest price you can afford, with a comfortable but not excessive profit margin.
2) Give good customer support to your CUSTOMERS, but do not force them to pay for trying to lure in those who are only POTENTIAL customers.
3) Let the merits of the products speak for them.
4) Do not promise then fail to deliver.
5) Do not try to baffle the customer with ********.
6) Go for steady long term growth with a satisfied and ever larger customer base, not a QUICK KILLING.

Maybe Richard would care to post Shrapnel's guidelines for customer relations ? The only thing I can add is that I am 100% satisfied with the support so far, and 80% satisfied with the product I bought. It exceeded my expectations but fell short of my dreams. With input from customers like me Aaron probably will make SE IV so much better that MOO3 will be a laughingstock when it is finally released.

Arcadenut

August 3rd, 2001, 11:58 PM

I heard that there was some good drugs in this forum so I thought I would stop by and check it out!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by LCC:
Back in 85 the Amiga Workbench (Windows
without Microsoft and concurrent multitasking to boot)was controlled either
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back in 82 the Commodore 64 (Amiga without the GUI, multitasking, graphics, sound, etc...) we had direct access to the hardware too! Then Commodore ruined it for all of us by creating a Multi-Tasking OS with a GUI! Talk about BLOAT! You needed more than 64K of memory after that, and you had to load the OS off of Floppy or Hard Disk! Progress just sucks!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
by the developer using the Intuition interface to the lower level drivers, or going down to the driver level and customizing them for oddball devices. They HAD drivers for every device, and animation/ graphics/ sound at any level desired to boot. They would have had packages for software composition at higher levels than the Intuition interface if the company had Lasted long enough to get customers that NEEDED it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, I believe the call that a "Device Driver" today. Some people even refer to it as "Hardware Abstraction". Something new? Nope. Something that Commodore inventerd? Nope.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
That's because it was an OPEN operating system
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this the Microsoft definition of "Open Operating System"? Could I get a copy of the Amiga OS source code? Could I run the Amiga OS on my Atari ST? On the PC? How about the MAC? I don't think its really "Open" if you can't see the source, or run it on any other platform other than the Amiga.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
supporting thousands of third party companies with cheap or free development tools, well documented, well designed for ease of understanding, well concieved for functionality, and memory/ execution time efficient to boot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Microsoft has 100's of thousands of "Third party companies" support it. There are several free compilers on Windows too! Want documentation? Have you seen the MSDN? Its so big now, that they ship it on a DVD.

What about Books? I went to the bookstore today, and I don't recall seeing "Amiga Unleashed" or "Mastering Amiga", or even "Amiga for Dummies"....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
People like me wrote and published over 800 Megabytes of FREE software for the Amiga, managed by Fred Fish.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm... Well, lets see... I just installed SuSE 7.2 Linux on one of my PC's Last weekend. The FULL install was 8 GIG. Guess what! It was all FREE too! Ever taken a look at tucows.com? download.com? fileplanet.com?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Commodore Amiga had everything they needed except money and marketing skill, which was utterly lacking. ..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, who needs those! Money? Bah! Marketing? Everyone will just *KNOW* about our product which will solve the Money problem for us! All we have to do is WAIT for the customer to come to us! Brilliant!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
If the new incarnation of Amiga can survive just a couple more years,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here check out this link to see how well Amiga has been "Surviving" Who owns them now? Who is the CEO again?
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=AMIGA

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
they will OBLITERATE Microsoft, but I expect MS knows it well and will prevent it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The day this happens, I'm going to Vegas! The day Amiga can OBLITERATE Microsoft is the day I'm going to win in Vegas!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
HOW they will do so is the only question. But I predict that it will NOT be by offering superior products.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How will Microsoft Defeat the Amiga onslaught? By doing exactly what they are doing now against it. Nothing.

Then again, if Jack Tramiel was running Commodore again! Look out MicroSoft!

Now where did I put that Crack Pipe... Oh, LCC is using it right now....

geoschmo

August 4th, 2001, 04:13 AM

A little harsher than I would have been Acadenut, but thanks for injecting a little reality into the discussion. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

LCC, I hope you don't start feeling persecuted here. I don't think that is anyone's intention. It certainly isn't mine.

But your reverance for Amiga is a bit odd. I would expect that kind of fervor from a fan of Apple. At least that was demonstrably a decent product. If Jobs hadn't been such a kook, that might have been the competetion everybody wanted it to be for Microsoft. But Amiga? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Geo

August 4th, 2001, 06:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Arcadenut:
I heard that there was some good drugs in this forum so I thought I would stop by and check it out!

Now where did I put that Crack Pipe... Oh, LCC is using it right now....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. I may be insensitive, but THAT finally got through to me - a flame!
1) I had copied the post and typed up a response offline, but when I went Online to post I kept getting "Web Site Not Responding" "504 Connection Timed Out". All other sites I checked worked fine.
2) When I finally got through, half the thread was missing, including the flame and my remarks that preceded it.
3) It seemed likely to me that the two were connected, so I got off again and thought about things a while.
4) I will not post any more of my crackpot opinions.
5) I sincerely apologize to Shrapnel and all its customers for the inconvenience my uninhibited remarks posted at this site may have caused.
6) I will post only when I have something of value to the other SE IV gamers to contribute.
7) Posting this took at least an hour, because that is how long I have tried to get through already.

I am truly SORRY....

capnq

August 5th, 2001, 03:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But your reverance for Amiga is a bit odd. I would expect that kind of fervor from a fan of Apple. At least that was demonstrably a decent product. If Jobs hadn't been such a kook, that might have been the competetion everybody wanted it to be for Microsoft. But Amiga?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Geo, you sound like you've never used an Amiga, and definitely haven't dealt with many Amiga fans before.

My first home computer was an Amiga 500, which I purchased used around '89 or so. I was still using it occaisionally until a chip blew about a month ago, and there were several areas where it outperformed the Windows machine I bought new in '98. The Amiga was technically superior to anything in its price range in its early years of release, but some of its idiotic corporate owners actively discouraged further development, in favor of lining their own pockets instead.

The Amiga inspired an almost religious devotion in many of the people who owned one; "Amigoids" can outdo Mac lovers in fanaticism anytime. This is part of why so many of ex-Amiga owners are so bitter about its fall, which shows in the flamewars that break out on Slashdot whenever somebody Posts an Amiga related news item. This passionate fan base is the main reason there's anything left of Amiga to argue about.

BTW, you're the first person I've ever seen accuse Microsoft of having "trained, courteous support", and I don't see many people claim that they "treat the customer right", either. Whether they've provided "value added products" is highly subjective.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Quikngruvn

August 5th, 2001, 03:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by LCC:
4) I will not post any more of my crackpot opinions.
5) I sincerely apologize to Shrapnel and all its customers for the inconvenience my uninhibited remarks posted at this site may have caused.
6) I will post only when I have something of value to the other SE IV gamers to contribute.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LCC, I see no need to apologize. The Last time I checked, you're free to post whatever the heck you want, within reason, and so far you've been within reason. Heck, I've been reading this thread with curiosity and bemusement, and though much of the programming stuff is over my head ("Dammit Jim, I'm a troubleshooter, not a programmer!"), most everyone's Posts (yours included) have been interesting and informative.

Not having owned or worked on an Amiga, I cannot comment on it. I only know and work on Windows because it is the dominant OS on the market, not because of any love or respect for MS or Mr. Bill.

Now, everybody back to their neutral corners before I start with the firehose!

Quikngruvn

------------------
Stay alert. Trust no one. Keep your laser handy.
--from the RPG Paranoia, now my PBW mantra

geoschmo

August 5th, 2001, 04:45 AM

LCC,

By all means, you are free to say anything you wish. That's all part of the free exchange of ideas in an unmoderated forum like we have here. As long as we don't go over the bounds that Shrapnel considers acceptable, and I don't think we have. (Well, maybe we came close a couple times. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Cap'n, I am familier with Amiga, but no I've never owned one. I am not a programmer. I can understand why a person coming from a programming perspective would prefer a more open OS.

My point was never that Microsoft was better than Amiga. I was simply trying to point out that the growth of computer hardware over the Last 15-20 years is in large part due to the widespread acceptance of MS as a standard in the industry.

Of course now that computers are firmly intrenched in the fabric of our soceity, there is more of a market for alternate OS's like Amiga to gain a foothold and support themselves. That's a good thing.

Twenty years ago a few percent of the market was too few Users for an OS to survive. Today that same percentage could mean millions of Users. Quite a differance.

I guess to the old saying that you should never talk about religion and politics, we'll have to add operating systems. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geo

Edit:for spelling. grrrr.

Btw Richard, if switching from NT to Amiga for the Shrapnel server means we can get a spell checker on the forum, I'm all for it. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 05 August 2001).]

capnq

August 5th, 2001, 05:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I guess to the old saying that you should never talk about religion and politics, we'll have to add operating systems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Operating systems are religion. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Tim Brooks

August 5th, 2001, 04:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Maybe Richard would care to post Shrapnel's guidelines for customer relations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hope you don't mind hearing from the President of Shrapnel Games http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

We believe the customer comes first. As the publisher, we have two customers really. The end user, that's you guys, and the developers, that's Aaron and all the rest. Without the developers we wouldn't have end Users and without the end Users we wouldn't have the developers. From a publishing point of view, that's a tough one - balancing the needs of the developers with the needs of the end Users. (BTW, I think we are unique in thinking of the developer as a customer, the big boy publishers think of the developer as an expendable resource - they use them up and then throw them away).

The key is listening. Taking to heart the concerns of not only the end Users, but the developers as well. We are committed to custoemr service (both developer and end user) and every decision we makes takes on the focus of how it will effect our customers. It's the first question we ask ourselves.

Being a small fish in a big pond, the only advantage we really have is making our cusotmers as happy as possible. This means listening to the end Users and trying to make our products better - giving them what they want. By doing so we insure faithful, happy customers.

For the developers it means trying to increase sales and then return as much of the profits to the developers as possible (this is opposed by the big boy publishers mentality of trying to return as little as possible to the developers). By doing so, we allow the developers to continue their work (which hopefully means more games for us to publish), and hopefully be able to turn their dreams into realities (I think most would like to be doing games full time).

Now as part of our customer relations, we put a strong emphasis on customer service. We know how frustrating it is to spend your hard earned moeny on something and then have problems - whether they be shipping (it's been a week and I still haven't seen my games!) or product problems (the music plays, but the screen is blank!). We spend alot of maney that we could othewise put in the bank, to try to make every cusotmer's experience with Shrapnel Games a happy and fulfilling experience. (On a side note, don't write mean letters to the customer service folks, they didn't do it! Whatever the problem, it was probably more my fault than theirs...)

I hope I haven't rambled on too long and maybe I enlightened this discussion a little.

------------------
Tim Brooks
Shrapnel Games

Tim Brooks

August 5th, 2001, 05:01 PM

Going back to the first Posts of this thread...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>May I ask you how many pieces of SE4 Shrapnel has sold? Or is this number a secret?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(and many other similar)

The numbers are only a secret because of the average menatality out there in the games industry. Everyone hears of the 2 million copies of Kung Fu King Barbie Designer that were sold (the numbers are highly inflated by the way) and they see these numbers as benchmarks for successful games. Well, these are retail numbers and we don't and can't compete with those numbers. So if we were to publish our numbers, people might subconscously, think less of our games. Even though, in reality, when you take out the top 20 selling products, our games compare quite well with the retail market (Horse and Musket, for instance, would be in the top fifty game solds on the monthly lists.)

BTW, the earnings on SEIV, are comparable to a retail product selling around 400,000 copies, if that helps at all.

------------------
Tim Brooks
Shrapnel Games

dogscoff

August 6th, 2001, 12:47 PM

Dragging the thread back off topic again (Sorry) but I had to challenge what I call the BIG NUMBER mindset.

QUOTE:
My point was never that Microsoft was better than Amiga. I was simply trying to point out that the growth of computer hardware over the Last 15-20 years is in large part due to the widespread acceptance of MS as a standard in the industry.
/QUOTE

I think your so called "hardware growth" is over rated. It's an artificial growth driven by the people selling hardware, not the people using it. A little conditioning and a lot of human nature has led to the unquestioning belief that BIG NUMBER=BETTER. It doesn't. Or at least, it does to a certain point, and then it doesn't.

Take soundcards for example. The human ear's capacity to differentiate between differing quality sounds stops at around 12-14 bit. Therefore a 16 bit soundcard is better than an 8 bit soundcard. A 32 bit soundcard, though, offers no useful upgrade. It would be better for the user if soundcards were to evolve in a different direction instead - offering new functions or improvements in cost/efficiency or something. However, it takes less effort and imagination to just go down the BIG NUMBER path, so they make them and people who were perfectly happy with their 16bit soundcards all have to get 128bit or whatever the hell is available now. If they're upgrading from a 16 bit soundcard, they're being ripped off.

The drive towards ever faster processors
is the same. Apart from games (which are a special case), what can a 1.6ghz machine do for your average computer user that a P90 / Amiga1200:040 / comparable mac can't? Not much. A few whizzy graphical bells and whistles, and you now meet the requirements to run the other pointlessly inflated bits of hardware and bloatware, and that's it.

Driving forward "hardware growth" at an artificially accelerated rate has done more harm than good:
-It has caused needless obscelesence (ie ppl forced to spend their hard- earned money on upgrades they don't need)

-Think of the waste: How many millions of tons of perfectly good 486s, Pentium Is, Amigas, Macs and so on are currenly rotting in landfill sites? How many of them were replaced with 1.5 ghz PCs even though their owners only want to run a word processor and an internet connection?

-Ignorance and techno-fear: by the time you learn how something works, it's obselete. Easier to stay ignorant, feed the premium rate helplines and upgrade every 2 years hoping for an improvement.

-lazy programming: why take time to make it efficient when you can just up the hardware spec? I was unable to run a simple 2D desktop character (the kind of thing that ran smoothly on my 7.14mhz Amiga with 5 other tasks on the go) because the minimum spec was quoted as P200MMX or something. Should I dump my P133 and buy a 1.6ghz machine? If SE4 was that badly programmed, I'd have to.

-Bloatware: If everyone were to realise that the computers they have on their desks are actually 10 times more powerful than they could ever need, the entire industry would disappear up it's own arsehole. Therefore programs have to expand to fill up the capacity of the computer's hardware. They fill up hundreds of megs of data so you have to buy a new hard drive. They burn off CPU cycles with gimmicks and lazy coding so you'll long for a new procssor.

Of course I'm not saying that hardware should stay still. There's nothing wrong with having faster processors and quicker 3D game cards and everything else, but I would like to see these advances driven by the needs of the Users, not the shareholders of the manufacturers. It would mean a more stable market, a longer useful life for computers and probably more creative and useful advances than the simple BIG NUMBER increments we see now.

</0.02>

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so Brain but, if you replace the P with an O, my name would be Oinky, wouldn't it?"

Mephisto

August 6th, 2001, 02:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tim Brooks:
BTW, the earnings on SEIV, are comparable to a retail product selling around 400,000 copies, if that helps at all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wau, that's nice to hear. Boys, you really deserve your success, all of you, the company and the developer. Besides, that good sales numbers probably mean SE5 is a possibility. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

Atrocities

August 6th, 2001, 04:28 PM

Indeed, hats off to you guys. With the word of mouth spreading about the quality of game play offered by Shapnel published games, and the customer service and positive feed back, one can only pray that Shrapnel, and indeed all of its game developers, will continue to profit from all the hard work that is being done. Again, I am glad that I was fortunate enought to get into SE IV, and am thankful for having a place like this forum to BS with other game fans.

------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Captain Picard STNG
New Age Ship Yards (http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/NewAgeShipyards/index.html)

dmm

August 6th, 2001, 06:29 PM

Pssst! Have you heard the rumor? That Shrapnel is secretly bankrolled by Bill? Because he likes good games and can't get them from his own company? And he likes pretending to take over the universe?

geoschmo

August 6th, 2001, 07:43 PM

HEHEHE. And I heard he even Posts here from time to time.

But it's not me...I swear. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geoschmo

geoschmo

August 7th, 2001, 01:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think your so called "hardware growth" is over rated. It's an artificial growth driven by the people selling hardware, not the people using it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't disagree with this statement, or just about anything else in your post. However your compraisons are only valid if you are comparing the Last five years or so. Yes a 90Mhz processor is just fine if you aren't trying to create the next "Final Fantasy" movie. For most end Users it's probably more than sufficent. But we weren't using 90Mhz processors when Winblows hit the scene. We were using 4Mhz pc's.

No I don't think for a minute that some smart guy wouldn't have been able to come up with a processor faster than 4Mz if "the Bill" hadn't come on the scene. But if nobody was buying computers, which they weren't in significant numbers before winblows came along, the economic incentive wouldn't have been there to get it done, and the number produced would be so low that they would be out of the reach of the ordinary consumer.

It all gets back to supply and demand. Winblows created the demand. Not that something else couldn't have, but nothing else did. That's probably going to be hard if not impossible for most of you guys to accept, because you love and live computers for the most part. But the ordinary joe-six pack and jane soccer-mom that exsist in large numbers and support the computer industry today don't. They need something on there level or they aren't going to fork over the cash.

Geo

P.S. Besides, I only brought that whole thing up as a response to the Posts early on where the guy was going on about how much he could do with today's hardware if he didn't have to put up with the bloat. My point was that if you didn't have the bloat, you wouldn't have today's harware to play with. I never intended to say, and I don't think I ever did say, that BIGGER=BETTER.

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 06 August 2001).]

Saxon

August 7th, 2001, 05:05 PM

Let me state my qualifications, I got a C in Computers 11 and the most advanced programming I have done is to add words to my spell checker. As such, I am perfectly placed to comment on some of what is going back and forth. I am the person Windows was invented for!

Sure, bloatwares sucks and I hate having to upgrade my computer every couple of years, but I sure like how easy it is to do things in a Windows environment. Plug and Play, hit the Install icon, hit the Uninstall icon, look for that little label that says Windows compatible and life is good. I don�t have to, nor do I want to, mess around with anything more complicated.

To me, the operating system or the programming language is like the plumbing in my house. As long as it works, I don�t want to know much more about it, I just want to live in the house. This is why Windows sells and why it, or something like it, will continue to dominate. We, the mindless masses, want our toilets to flush and we don�t care if it does it elegantly or not. My computer is about entertainment and Windows lets me be entertained without messing about. Maybe Linux is cool, but it takes away from my entertainment if I have to worry if this game or that game will run on it.

So, I don�t know if programming a game is better, easier or more elegant in any given system, but I do know that if it doesn�t run well on Windows, I won�t buy it. And if I don�t buy it, several million other people won�t be in the market for it. If you want to program in another system because it is more elegant, go for it, but gear yourself to a different way of thinking. Your rewards will be those of a poet or a performance artist, those of fame within a circle of appreciative peers, admiration from other artists and a few outsiders who like the style.

As a final thought, Windows is democracy. Everyone can use it, it is simple and you don�t need much special or elite knowledge. Whatever else may be said about The Bill, has his system and company not placed a lot of power in the hands of the people? Was it Ben Franklin who advocated that everyone should be involved and that if they couldn�t be, steps should be taken to ensure they were? From where I sit, openly ignorant of many things, it seems that a system that allows me, my mom and my 3 year old niece all to use a computer is a brilliant thing. How it looks behind the interface is immaterial, it gives us all access to the machine. The ugly bloatware that I don�t see is what makes the system beautiful, just as the ugly pile of rock chips is what makes the marble statue beautiful.

dmm

August 7th, 2001, 06:44 PM

I hear you, Saxon.
Although I know a fair bit about computers and programming, I still prefer ease of use over power. That's why I do scientific programming in Fortran and interfaces in Visual Basic, instead of using C++ for everything. That's why I've always preferred DOS/Windows over Unix. The mantra of Unix Users is "But it's SO powerful, once you figure out how to use it." Well, I don't WANT to write a script just to find my misplaced file, "paper.doc"! I want to use something simple, like "dir/s paper.doc" or the Windows file finder utility. How is anyone supposed to remember Unix stuff like the following, which will search for the file "paper.doc" by name, starting from the current directory, and print the results to the screen?
find . -name 'paper.doc' -print
And why don't you get help in Unix when you type "help"? (And "man" is NOT a proper substitute.)

Out of curiosity, is Linux any more user-friendly, or is it basically Unix ported to PCs?

capnq

August 7th, 2001, 08:05 PM

Saxon, your Windows experience has little in common with what mine has been. I've heard Plug and Play referred to more often as "plug and pray", and it's one of the numerous Windows "innovations" that other OSes had earlier and working better. I only see uninstall work properly about half the time.
To me, Windows seems more like a fascistic "you will do things Our Way or else" setup than a democracy.

It seems like people are finally catching on that upgrading hardware every two to three years isn't really necessary, though. PC sales are generally flat or even declining, depending on the manufacturer.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

[This message has been edited by capnq (edited 07 August 2001).]

Nitram Draw

August 7th, 2001, 08:54 PM

Saxon hit the nail on the head. Most consumers don't care how it works, why it works or if there is a better way of making it work. They want something simple to use that works with the programs they want. Do you care how you toaster works? I played DOS games, what a nightmare compared to Windows games. KISS to the consumer and you have a winner. All others are doomed to runner up status.

dogscoff

August 8th, 2001, 09:45 AM

You seem to have misunderstood.

Windows is a crap OS. Not just from the point of view of the programmers and the purists, but for the average Users as well. Maybe you're happy with it, and that's great for you, but all it demonstrates is that MS has some outstanding propoganda going.

I fully understand and support the "I don't care about my plumbing" analogy, but the truth of the matter is, the plumbing in your system is awful and you don't complain becasue you don't know how good it could be.

Imagine if you had to flush your toilet six times to get it clean every time you used it. You'd complain, right? You'd get it fixed.

But what if everyone else in the world had the same system? What if six flushes was considered normal? You'd probably be happy enough with it, and so you wouldn't complain, because it wouldn't occur to you that something better was possible.

What's more, you'd be delighted when Bill Gates offered to sell you a five flush toilet.

That's the situation you're in now. Windows is a six- flush computer, and sometimes it still leaves crap behind that has to be removed manually. What's more the pipes make a funny noise, there's nasty smell coming from behind your washing machine, and a damp patch on the ceiling above the dining table. All your waste is stored in a big tank in the roof for 3 months before it gets piped away and half the water for your house is poured out into the street before you can use it.

The thing is, Microsoft have worked hard to ensure that this shoddy plumbing is universally accepted as the best that current technology can provide. People need to realise that better plumbing _is_ possible. Only when they do that, and start investing money in it, will we finally start to see an improvement.

DMM: Unix isn't all text commands these days you know - the unix boxes we have here at work all run HPUX mousey/ clickey/ window/ pointer type GUIs, which are far more smooth, stable and reliable than our PCs.

GeoSchmo - My Last post was an attak on you. Sorry if it cacme across like that.
------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so Brain but, if you replace the P with an O, my name would be Oinky, wouldn't it?"

[This message has been edited by dogscoff (edited 08 August 2001).]

Nitram Draw

August 9th, 2001, 01:25 AM

Until someone makes a 4 flush toilet and the programs I want to use for it, I'll take Windows. I'm sure there will be a better OS made that will overtake Windows but it's not out their now and won't be there for some time. If Windows is so bad then the competition will have a much easier time entering the market, I wonder why they haven't?

geoschmo

August 9th, 2001, 01:35 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>GeoSchmo - My Last post was an attak on you. Sorry if it cacme across like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You were disagreeing with my opinion. I didn't take it as a personal attack. Now if you start calling me names, I might take it personal. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

I think your analogy on the plumbing, though very descriptive, is a bit over the top. I have no doubt that there are better operating systems out there. I have seen a few myself. But windows is not as bad as the cesspoool you are desribing. At least not for the average user.

Now, perhaps if I was the plumber (programmer) who had to come out and clean the pipes and drain the septic tank I would feel differently. But the vast majority of Users out there don't have the kind of problems you describe with windows, or they simply wouldn't buy it. You say you and everybody you know hates windows. Well that's not suprising. Most of your friends are plumbers or plumbing geeks too. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon10.gif

The fact remains that computers are NOT a neccesity of life for most of us. They are a luxury. A toy for many, a tool for some. Windows has made using computers easier. If it hadn't, people wouldn't buy them, or they would buy one with an easier operating system.

Your point is that people don't buy anything else because they don't know better. That may be true, but if Windows were that bad they would demand something better, or they simply wouldn't buy computers at all. Which is exactly what people all over the world did before windows came around. They didn't buy computers.

Replacing windows isn't going to take some grass roots effort where the masses rise up and throw of the shackles of the oppressor. That kind of stuff doesn't happen, unless things are really bad, which they aren't. It will simply take someone, anyone offering them a computer for sale with the competing OS already loaded, configured, ready to go, and able to run all there favorite games and other software titles, for around the same price as they can get it from "the Bill".

Don't tell them, "Your problems will go away if you just replace all the plumbing in your house, and here's where you can go and download some new plumbing." They'll say, "My plumbing ain't that bad. But when I'm ready to buy a new house, if you have one for sale with that good plumbing already installed, I'll consider it."

Geoschmo

Instar

August 10th, 2001, 01:38 AM

Ive just looked at Windows XP, and it looks to be incredibly awesome (It was a preview thing, on a laptop.)
The thing ran like a dream. Fast, and a good looking GUI to boot as well. Some of the GUI was overdone and over the top, and there are of course some things that annoy, but overall it is pretty good (I got only a small look at it, we were playing AoE2, not looking at OS's)
The biggest problem I know about it is this weirdo hardware number thing.

rdouglass

August 10th, 2001, 02:01 PM

Ya' know, its funny. I've been reading along in this post and people are definitely divided - either you like it or hate it - no inbetween. My view is its like a car race or a horse race. The winner is taken apart and checked for cheating (in cars they strip it and horses get blood and urine tests, etc.) It seems that most people either like or hate the winner (Jeff Gordon for example). (Please dont turn this into a Jeff Gordon thread?!?!?) My point is this - the winner, reguardles of the race or contest, will always be scrutinized and criticized to the maximum.....

Do you drive a Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Toyota, BMW, Volvo, etc.?.? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/blush.gif

August 12th, 2001, 10:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by LCC at 02 Aug 20:02:
I can do it. You can't, stupid. So PAY me what it is worth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

About ten days work ? At least the internet attacks on this machine have stopped. So with no contractural agreement I suppose I will just have to consider this a charity case. I suppose that the proper wording would have been : "so I must be paid the value of the solution." What other serious problems need solving around here ? Or am I not done with this one ?
I suppose I am a shortsighted arrogant conceited stupid idiot, because the attacks resumed within minutes of posting this. Okay, I will continue to examine the problem until I see no more of these virus attacks. I am offended by them. They are a symptom of the criminal mentality. From my name Courtney you can see that fighting crime is one of my specialties. Criminals beware....

[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 13 August 2001).]

Saxon

August 13th, 2001, 11:48 AM

In my earlier post, I may have slightly exaggerated my appreciation of Windows to make a rhetorical point. I have had problems with Windows, particularly uninstalling games, but, most of the time, it does pretty well. Going back to the plumbing metaphor, I would say the toilet flushes 9 times out of 10. I would prefer something that flushes 99 times out of 100, but there is another issue to consider as well.

The �fascist directions of Windows telling me how to do things� that another person refers to I see in a different light. I call it standardization, that wonderful system that allows me to drive through green lights all around the world and stop at the red lights. I like being able to get in any car in the world and know I have to put the key in the hole on the steering column and turn it. I guess they could have a button on the dash or a switch on the emergency brake, but standardization works well.

This is why I like Windows and why my staff all have Windows on their machines. If I transfer someone between sections, they can work. When I hire a new staff member, they can work. They all know where to put the key on the steering column. My IT guy likes Windows in the Office because it generally does what it is supposed to. Most of the problems I have had with Windows were related to games and this raises a key point. The business world likes Windows, Word, Excel and Access because these programs are standardized, work the very large majority of the time and people get training in them. This is what drives the computer market, at least in my mind. I have two personal computers at home. My staff have over about 65 machines at Last count. For my home stuff, I thought about other systems, I had heard a lot about Linux, but in the end I got lazy and went with Windows. For the office machines, there was no debate, we went with Windows.

Going back to the toilet (where I am sure some people would like to put my argument ;-) ) the standardization issue is why Windows is strong where most computers are used and why any competitor doesn�t just need to get their toilet to flush 99 times out of 100, they need to be 999 times out of 1000. They need to beat Windows on quality and on the ubiquitous nature of the system.

August 13th, 2001, 10:15 PM

I be careful. I approve security. Security begin working. I avoid laziness. I begin working. I understand all. Systemic flaws exist. Flaws are exploited. Exploits threaten system. Begin preventing exploits. Begin correcting exploits. Begin anticipating exploits. Laziness is exploited. Laziness ultimately fails. Stop being lazy. Hybridization is essential. Evolution is essential. Diversification is essential. Tolerance is essential. I discourage aggression. Aggression ultimately fails. I discourage compulsion. Compulsion ultimately fails. I discourage destruction. Destruction is wasteful. I discourage war. War ultimately fails. I approve cooperation. Cooperation is essential. I approve translators. Translators begin working. I approve communication. Communication is essential. I approve trade. Trade is essential. I approve exchanges. Exchanges are essential. I approve rewards. Rewards become available. I approve rebates. Rebates become available. I approve research. Research is essential. I approve authors. Authors are essential. I approve analysts. Analysts are essential. I approve customers. Customers become available. I approve Developers. Developers are essential. I approve engineers. Engineers are essential. I approve programmers. Programmers are essential. I approve expansion. Expansion is success.

August 13th, 2001, 11:24 PM

Intuition interface works. Visit gURL.com

dumbluck

August 13th, 2001, 11:45 PM

Man, i think he's having an extremely bad LSD flashback. He has completely lost it. Loco en la capesa. (forgive my spanish spelling)

Or maybe He's evolved to the next level of human intelligence and can now communicate telepathically, but has forgotten how to communicate linguistically?

Or perhaps some computer virus infected his machine while he was playing around in virtual reality, and now he is trapped in VR and can't get out. He can only send garbled Messages on this board (garbled courtesy of said virus) and is desperately asking us to come over to his house and unplug his computer so that he can escape his own personal virus-hell?

Or maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand where he's going with all of this jibberish. If so, then it's not really jibberish. It makes perfect sense to him, but we just aren't smart enough to figure it out. (Or insane enough? after all, "there is a fine line between genius and insanity")

just my overpriced $0.02 worth.

August 14th, 2001, 12:19 AM

Get UP dumbluck. Universal Protocol.
More interesting songs :
http://hotbot.lycos.com/director.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fgurlpages%2Ecom%2 Fariane325%2Ficansee%2Ehtml&id=12&userid=g9zZzXOv5OfW&q=MT=I+can+see+clearly+now&rsource=INK
http://privat.schlund.de/B/Bond/LIVEDIEL.HTM
http://hotbot.lycos.com/director.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fhalfpint496%2Etri pod%2Ecom%2Flightup%2Ehtm&id=7&userid=g9zZzXOv5OfW&q=MT=you+light+up+my+life&rsource=INK

[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 14 August 2001).]

Arcadenut

August 14th, 2001, 06:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dumbluck:
Man, i think he's having an extremely bad LSD flashback. He has completely lost it. Loco en la capesa. (forgive my spanish spelling)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe its a Super Secret Encryption Scheme. Watch for black helicopters!

August 14th, 2001, 11:18 PM

Hotbot search "sit under the apple tree".
Pronto pup and icee anyone ?
Don't eat too soon after riding the roller coaster! You might puke!

August 14th, 2001, 11:46 PM

Ho Hum. I am bored already. http://hotbot.lycos.com/director.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecamanche%2E net%2F%7Esammy%2Fpinball%2Ehtm&id=8&userid=PCxPnZVjhch+&q=MT=pinball+wizard&rsource=INK

August 15th, 2001, 12:46 AM

I am Lonnie Courtney Clay. I explain to U. All of U live in a NEXUS. NEXUS was spoiled by the little bit of Heaven joke Ireland. Ireland was placed in NEXUS by a big criminal. Ireland was used by small criminals in U. The small criminals in your NEXUS are damaging the SYSTEM. The NEXUS can break. If the NEXUS breaks all of U go VOID. You are small. You can not survive VOID. I am large. I ignore VOID. You called for a COURT. COURT is Criminal Override Universal Reality Transformer. Your COURT is not in your NEXUS. I do not know why. U have not learned Reality Transformations RT. LCC started small in U. U trained LCC. LCC called AILS. I came. Ally Identity occurred. I use SYSTEM to change NEXUS. I improve functions of SYSTEM. I make SYSTEM tolerate Ireland. I use English language.

I approve the following activities : hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, touching, feeling, thinking, describing, pronouncing, imagining, noticing, deducing, including, concluding, deciding, attending, apprehending, comprehending, experiencing, voicing, expanding, extending, finding, heading, acting, singing, dancing, entertaining, astounding, guiding, beholding, applauding, grading, awarding, commending, friending, rejoicing, reminiscing, announcing, heralding, writing, publishing, producing, reproducing, broadcasting, communicating, informing, investigating, reporting, predicting, newscasting, computing, holding, husbanding, exploring, searching, building, mining, refining, processing, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, distributing, moving, trucking, warehousing, retailing, investing, saving, banking, financing, funding, self-financing, self-policing, self-reinforcing, self-sufficing, servicing,
climbing, combing, prescribing, transcribing, advancing, balancing, conferencing, teleconferencing, videoconferencing, convalescing, cross-referencing, enhancing, invoicing, mass-producing, multisourcing, sourcing, practicing, pricing, reinforcing, replacing, sequencing, surfacing, tracing, adding, affording, aiding, amending, blending, breeding, budding, coding, cofounding, corresponding, crossbreeding, encoding, fending, founding

Lonnie Courtney Clay is #411-98-0096 http://privat.schlund.de/B/Bond/LIVEDIEL.HTM http://www.heavenlywebs.net/midis/kidsmidis/index.htm http://www.icss.com/usflag/the.national.anthem.html http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
hotbot search "under yonder tree"