 | Zero Punctuation Takes on GTA IV May 14, 2008 at 1:36pm in gaming |
As predicted, Zero Punctuation reviewed GTA IV. The game that I've been hooked on for 2 weeks actually seemed to survive with only some minor scathes compared to other games that he tore to bits. |
| 0 Comments |
 | IE8: Initial Impressions March 11, 2008 at 12:43am in tech |
First off, I want to preface this with the fact that the current build of Microsoft Internet Explorer is still in beta, so any issues I have found could very well be caused by the instabilities inherent with beta software. Okay, now that that's done with, on to the good (or bad) parts. When I first heard that IE8 was going to be standards compliant I was impressed with Microsoft for actually doing something that myself, and I'm sure many others have wanted for some time now. Am I right? When the first beta was released, I decided to give it a try figuring I had nothing to lose by trying it out. The first thing I was curious about, and rightfully so, is how does my website look under IE8 in "standards compliant" mode? I figured, "hey, my website looks fine in Safari, Firefox, Opera, even IE7, so this should be fine." Yeah, easier thought than to believe. In the default setting in IE8, the title looks like this:
Now this could very well me making a mistake in my HTML/CSS coding, I'm not the most experienced HTML/CSS coder out there and I know that, but then why does my site look normal, or should I say, like it's supposed to, how I want it to in every other browser I tested it in (IE7, Safari, Firefox, Opera, & Konquerer). It's just a table aligned to have both my picture and title text below the upper blue line. If anyone has any idea as to why its doing that and wants to give me a hint, please let me know, I'll be thankful. One nice feature that IE8 has is particularly nice for developers. IE8 has the ability to emulate IE7 rendering. So for those wanting to see how the page would look like in IE7 need only press a button to go into IE7 emulation mode.
When you click this, IE is going to prompt you to restart Internet Explorer for the changes to go into effect.
This kind of surprised me as I was figuring that all it would really require to make the switch to IE7 emulation mode would be a page refresh. It's kind of annoying to have to restart IE to switch display modes (you do have to restart again to switch back). But I will say that I'm probably just nitpicking right now. I did notice that the switch often times did cause IE8 to crash, but I can attribute that to it only being a beta so I won't hold it against IE8...yet. So now I'm in IE7 emulation mode, so I navigate back to my page to see how it looks with this mode. What do you know, just like in IE7, it shows up the way its supposed to.
Again, I could very well be doing something wrong so I can't hold this too much against IE8, but it just strikes me as odd that everything renders fine in the other browsers. And again, if you have any ideas, please let me know. I have noticed other minor oddities in other websites in terms of alignment, but nothing too major. Another thing I was curious about was how Internet Explorer 8 did with system resources. With 1 tab open and at my site, resources did seem a bit heavy for what my site is, but not too out of the ordinary:
With 4 tabs open (my site, Digg, Mixx, and Space.com), the memory and VM usage went up considerably:
From what I remember checking before with IE7, it does seem a bit better, but with Firefox 2 clocking in with 65MB of memory usage with 47MB in virtual memory, IE7 and 8 are both considerably higher. But I will say its a step in the right direction and who knows, maybe the final release will be even better. One can only hope. One thing Microsoft seems to be getting more into is social networking. The What's New in Internet Explorer 8 page lists Facebook, StumbleUpon, and Windows Live as "cool" places to get started at. There's a page menu that will even allow you to translate a page, send a page to a friend, and blog, all of course with Windows Live tools.
It also includes the standard options you'd see in other browsers as well. Wait, what the hell is Windows Live? It's still around? Does anyone actually use it? Okay, I apologize for that, I just never really saw that much potential in Windows Live, and with Google's Blogger, guess I'm just surprised people don't used Blogger, which I personally feel is a pretty decent platform for those who just want to blog and not have to worry so much about maintaining their own site. But at the same time I guess, setting it as the default option will get plenty of basic users to join as they may not know about other options, anyway, I digress. In short, while except for my issue with my website and HTML/CSS rendering, I did see some slight improvements over IE7, overall, there's really not much that has changed. The UI is basically the same minus a few extra buttons:
And it really just doesn't bring anything to the table to make it stand out over my preferred browsers, Safari and Firefox. Personally, I'd say that if you're a Firefox, Opera, or Safari user, you're fine where you are now. What I see so far brings me no closer to switching back to Internet Explorer as my primary browser, and not to sound too much like a Microsoft hater, IE8 beta 1 does not impress me at all really, and I don't see anything that the final release could possibly bring to make me change my mind on that. So would you even consider going back to IE, or are you now enjoying the web with one of the other browsers? Tags: reviews, thoughts, microsoft, internetexplorer, web |
| 0 Comments |
 | My Thoughts on OS X 10.5 Leopard October 31, 2007 at 10:59pm in tech |
Friday night, I had the pleasure of installing Apple's new operating system, OS X 10.5 Leopard on my MacBook Pro. Leopard is Apple's answer to the ill-fated Microsoft Windows Vista, and boy does it blow Vista away. It runs smoothly, and like Tiger, has a much cleaner feel to me that does Vista or even XP. Until shortly before I got my iBook in April 2006, I was a pretty big Mac basher. I got my iBook and that all changed. I now use my MacBook Pro as my primary machine despite the fact that I have a pretty powerful Desktop. But enough background, here are my thoughts on Leopard so far. My first taste of Leopard left me with somewhat of a sour note. There apparently is an issue with doing a direct upgrade from Tiger to Leopard where after restarting post-install users get a "blue screen of death". This isn't quite the same as Windows' BSOD; all you see is a blue screen with a mouse cursor and it hangs there what seems like infinitely. Not exactly the best experience, but it made me do what I wanted to do but felt too lazy to do initially...reformat and start from scratch. Fortunately I was smart and backed up my files that I needed. *****Let that be a warning to everyone. When you are performing an upgrade of an operating system (be it OS X, Windows, Linux, etc) back up your files FIRST.****** I'm not quite sure what the issue is/was behind the blue screen, but, while seemingly major, it was to me, only a minor hiccup. I ended up starting from scratch and the remainder of the setup went very smoothly. Initial Impressions 
The first thing I noticed was that the default wallpaper was not the blue waves (I don't know how else to describe them) that were seen with OS X 10.3 & 10.4. Something else that changed is also the dock. I've heard some people call Leopard's dock "ugly". Personally I kind of like it but I guess to each their own. Something new in Leopard are the stacks. 
These stacks allow you to put a folder in the dock and when clicked on, brings up a "stack" that shows any files or folders located in that folder. What I did was simply create a folder for my games (yes OS X has games) and you can see what it does when I click on it. It may not seem like much, but it can be used for convenience and make things easier to access. A New Look for Finder 
Anyone who's used a mac before knows what Finder is. It is Mac's file explorer. Generally, Finder looks about the same. What it does now feature is actually pretty cool. If anyone has used iTunes 7, they probably can recognize what the screenshot above shows. Finder now adds a cover flow view that will allow you to page through folders, text files, and like above, images. It's nothing incredibly revolutionary, but it does provide another way of previewing images without completely opening them. 
There is also the quick look feature which allows you to pop open files without actually opening them. This is an example of quick look on a picture I have, almost like some websites do nowadays. This might not be anything extraordinary, but definitely a nice feature that Leopard supports. Also noted is that like pictures, some video files can be viewed the same way in quick look. Tabbed Terminals 
While this may not seem like much, for those of you who do work with terminals like myself, the tabbed feature of terminal is definitely a good thing to have. Notes in Mail 
Again, this is not that big of a feature, but it still helps you keep organized within Mail.app. Final Conclusions I know I didn't touch on MANY of the things that Leopard brings to the table. Spaces (multiple desktops), Time Machine (automated backup), & some of iChat's new features are some to be mentioned. While Leopard may not bring loads of revolutionary new features to an OS, what it does bring is stability, an amazing user interface, and many nuances to help make certain tasks easier. I really do wonder if Leopard will help bring people over to Macs from Windows machines. Mac computers are very good machines, and OS X only makes them even better. Vista is bloated and the chances of really getting it to run well on older machines is a joke. Leopard on the opposite side of the fence, is said just fine on most of the older G4 and G5 Macs. Plus the cost is notably cheaper than Vista. There is only one version of OS X Leopard and it comes with all of the features. None of this 4 versions of Vista that Microsoft keeps trying to push. It's an amazing OS and in mine, and I'm sure many other people's opinion, significantly ahead of Vista. |
| 0 Comments |
| My Halo 3 Review October 04, 2007 at 11:35am in gaming |
 I have defied gods and demons I am your shield, I am your sword I know you, your past, your future This is the way the world ends Those words excited many Halo fans in July 2006 when they all got to see their first taste of Halo 3 at E3. Now, a little over a year since the first teaser, and almost 3 years since Halo 2, Halo 3 has come home to the excitement of many. So how does it stack up compared to the hype and expectations? SINGLE PLAYER **BEWARE SPOILERS*** I'll start with the single player campaign. New to the campaign is the ability to do online co-op. Now not only with 2 players, but with 4. This feature seemed to run very smoothly for me. The mic is always on so you can always talk and coordinate with your teammates. The biggest difference is that only one of the 4 players plays the only spartan...Master Chief of course. The other 3 play Elites, including the Arbiter. The campaign starts off almost where Halo 2 left off, although there is somewhat of a gap. You start off meeting the very familiar characters of Master Chief, the Arbiter, and of course Seargent Johnson. The Master Chief almost ends up killing the arbiter not realizing that the two of them are fighting for the same cause now. Like in Halo and Halo 2, you get right into the fight pushing through Grunts, Brutes, and the occasional Hunter. The enemy AI has overall gotten better. The Brutes fight in a dynamic group mentality, and the Grunts are still stupid, but do seem to surprise you with the occasional flank. Your allies AI I often see as being hit or miss, but still primarily good. When they miss, they look like idiots, but more often, they're on fire. I remember driving around on a Mongoose with a marine on the back with a rocket launcher. He was nailing ghost after ghost and was doing a great job against the Wraith tanks. The music in the campaign follows the quality of the music from Halo and Halo 2. The mood of the music ties in directly with what is going on in the game. The right music at the right times. The story is done well as I feel that it was in the previous 2 Halo games. It does a good job at finalizing the storyline. I still was disappointed at it. The game ends with the Master Chief and the Arbiter running for their life to escape the activated Halo ring. In a manner very similar to the ending in the original Halo by racing a warthog to the landed Earth ship Dawn. The playable part ends with you jumping the ship into Dawn's cargo bay. During your escape, Cortana says something like "I hope we make it". The Master Chief says "We will" and the screen goes black. The story continues with Lord Hood, the Arbiter, and several marines at a memorial in Africa honoring those who were lost. Before the Arbiter departs he has a conversation with Lord Hood. Lord Hood: "I can't believe he's gone" Arbiter: "Were it so easy" On that memorial is the number 117 scratched in. (For those that do not get the reference, the Master Chief is Spartan 117) If you were smart enough to watch the credits, you would find out that the Master Chief and Cortana are indeed alive. Part of the hull of Dawn broke off entering the portal. Cortana sets a distress beacon and the Master Chief enters Cryogenic Stasis after being warned that it could take "years" before they're found. The story finally ends with the Master Chief telling Cortana "Wake me if you need me". The story finalizes the Halo and Halo 2 stories quite well. While the ending was almost depressing, the storyline is pretty much complete. The Covenant was defeated, the Flood was contained and defeated, and Earth is saved. Unfortunately its not without its casualties. Sergeant Johnson is dead, Commander Keys is dead, and the Master Chief is believed dead. While somewhat disappointing, the campaign did a good job in finishing the story. There were two things that disappointed me. One was that the campaign was notably shorter than it was in Halo or Halo 2. Not a deal breaker, but I still wish there was more. The other thing was that the levels while large, seemed a lot more constrained than they were in the original Halo. Again, not a deal-breaker, but somewhat of a disappointment. All in all, the campaign was pretty solid. MULTIPLAYER  Despite being almost 3 years old, I still played Halo 2 on XBOX Live a fair amount of time, only surpassed by Rainbow Six Vegas of late. Halo 2 multiplayer was fun and fast-paced. Halo 3 lives up to expectations by far. I believe there are 10+ maps, new weapons, and of course, vehicles. The first thing I noticed is that the weapons have been rebalanced overall. The biggest notable is the energy sword. Yes, it's still there. But, here's the good news, its not quite as cheap as it used to be. The sword is no longer infinite. This means that after so many strikes, it runs out and acts more as a paperweight than a weapon. Also, the range for the lunge seems to be lessened, meaning you need to get closer to your target before the reticule turns red and you can lunge and strike. Something else that's interesting is that if two people have it and lunge at each other, the swords will collide and both parties will survive. I've done it like 6 times in a row with someone, our swords just kept interlocking and we kept surviving. Another notable is the Needler. The Needler is more powerful than it was in Halo 2, but no longer can you carry 2. It is now just a single wield weapon. The Battle Rifle I feel has also become a little more powerful per shot. To balance this, the firing rate seems to be a tad bit lower. The pistol is now back to half its former glory. It seems to be about as powerful as it was in the origingal Halo, but still no scope (sadly). A few new weapons have made it into the game, both in single player and multiplayer. The Spiker (standard Brute weapon, can be dual wielded), The gravity hammer (much like the sword), and a small shotgun like weapon (can be dual wielded, but seemingly not as powerful as the normal shotty) The vehicles are still there in some levels, and remain as fun as they always have been. They remain destructable as they were in Halo 2. The maps are done for the most part very well. Val Halla is the new Blood Gulch/Coagulation, the big fan favorite. And you have several recognizeable maps remembered from Halo 2. Overall I am very pleased with what Bungie has done with Halo 3. The matchmaking works very well with pairing you up with appropriate players. Servers are running notably smoother than those for Halo 2 thus far. And the veto feature is definitely a plus. If matchmaking sets you up with a gametype/map you don't like, press 'x' and veto the game. If over half the group vetoes, a new map/gametype is chosen. It's incredibly easy to start parties up to go into custom games or matchmaking, or even the single player co-op. There's even a shortcut button that brings up the XBOX sidebar for friends for easy access. In the end I was quite pleased with what Halo 3 brought to the multiplayer aspect. It's what I expected and more. They even listened to fans and made some custom gametypes that were popular in custom games, but previously unavailable in matchmaking. GRAPHICS The graphics are better than they were in Halo 2 and better than the Halo 3 multiplayer beta. They're actually pretty amazing. The best the XBOX 360 can offer? No, not at all, but they're still pretty good. the lighting is done pretty well and the world's look amazing. But again, not the best the 360 has to offer but still pretty damn good, and by no means a deal-breaker. WRAP-UP So, did Halo 3 live up to the hype? I would have to say the the multiplayer by all means did. In terms of the campaign? I don't think it lived up to they hype, although it did live up to what I expected of it. Overall, if you're a fan of the Halo series or just want a fun FPS, Halo 3 would be a good pick-up. Halo 3 doesn't revolutionize the FPS, it's fun and fast-paced, and what it does, it does well. Definitely a game that will get plenty of playing time and not get old, at least for me. |
| 1 Comments |