![PlayStation (Games) PlayStation (Games)](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/playstation_64.png)
![OS X OS X](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/macosx_64.png)
![Operating Systems Operating Systems](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/os_64.png)
PlayStation 3 Could Support Mac OS X 150
ucahg writes "Sony's website has a press release stating that they will release the PS3 in 2006. The most interesting part about the page, though, is the last sentence which reads: 'The integrated Cell processor will be able to support a variety of operating systems (such as Linux or Apple's Tiger).' Is this what Steve Jobs was talking about when he said Apple and Sony looked forward to cooperating more in the future?"
Oh goodie (Score:1)
Thank u god (Score:1)
Re:Thank u god (Score:2)
the dev kits for the Xbox 360 was.......
Drumroll
A PowerMac!
No .. No .. it should run .. (Score:2, Funny)
None of these newcomers. (Score:2)
The funny thing about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Sony, in my estimation, is the the new Packard Bell or Gateway. Where quality is job 3, maybe 5. Well, I'm sure they will get around to it sometime.
Seriously, Sony is a company that is renowned for its lax quality control. Why the hell Apple would want to associate themselves with Sony is beyond me.
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:2)
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:1)
But yeah, I agree as far as their laptops.
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:4, Funny)
Apple licensing it's OS is about as likely as Apple switching to x86, or releasing a multi-button mouse.
Oh, wait...
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:2)
Probably paid by some apple marketer.
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:3, Interesting)
1) This could replace the Mac mini (or be an even lower level entry machine).
2) This would explain (partially at least) why Apple bailed to Intel (because the Apple/PPC market was about to have its lunch eaten)
3) iTunes/iTMS/iPod on PlayStation (yet another way to push music sales)
The plus side to this 'rumor' is that Teh Steve had Sony President Kunitake Ando onstage for the SF 2005 SteveNote.
On the minus side, there appears to be some friction between Apple
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:1)
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:1)
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:2)
Re:The funny thing about this (Score:3, Insightful)
Sloppy writing in the article, no plans by Apple.
nice thing (Score:1)
Re:nice thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming they did in fact manage to get a version of their OS to run on the Xbox 360, they'd run into the problem that eventually someone will get Linux running on the console. Considering Microsoft can't afford to sink too much money into the console in building a solid OS that runs fast, whatever they manage to port will likely be just as flawed as their regular operating systems are. Given a choice between Linux or Windows, I think that a lot of people would tend to choose Linux. Not all of them, but more than in the computer market considering there are more tech savvy people purchasing consoles.
In short, Microsoft even trying to get Windows onto their new console is most likely going to be the biggest flop they've had in a long while.
there is a sony-apple partnership (Score:4, Informative)
Re:there is a sony-apple partnership (Score:4, Interesting)
Along these same lines, wasn't there a story/rumor a few months ago about possibly having a copy of the iTunes Music/Movie Store on the PS3?
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2005/5/http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000020043386/ [engadget.com]
That looks like it goes back to May 2005. Stranger thing have happened.
Web copy is never that useful. (Score:4, Insightful)
If that IS a little revelation, it's awfully quiet and fanfare-free.
Yes, it could. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, it could. (Score:2)
May be only Darwin (Score:2, Insightful)
If on the other hand, the rumor is true: this would be a great leap forward for the PS3 as well as for Apple / OSX
less and less anti-mac fuel (Score:4, Interesting)
1: No games. not if sony releases PS games for mac
2: No multi-button mouse. weak reason but now with "mighty mouse a non-issue. Not that you couldn't go third party anyway
3: Macs are too expensive. With the mac mini and potential price drops with soon to be intel CPUs - a shrill cry
Looks like all the reasons to not go with mac are evaporating. I won't even mention the traditional windows problems...
Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:1, Troll)
Why do you think going to Intel is going to make Macs cheaper? The G4 is not a horribly expensive chip - you can't buy it retail but quantity prices are under $100, and comparable Intel chips aren't any cheaper than that.
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:3, Interesting)
Does that include the OS? Because OS X costs almost all of that $150 dollar difference, and Windows costs more.
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:1)
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
Mac mini, including OSX - $500
Cheap PC with Windows Home Edition and monitor included - $400 (they have stacks of boxes like this at Walmart)
Subtract cost of cheap monitor - $300
Add Radeon 9200 - $330 (since they usually have some generic Intel graphics)
Add firewire - $335
Difference - $165
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
Time isn't cheap. Playing with computers is fun, but then so is playing with cars. If someone bought a fiat panda and tried to upgrade it to a Mercades A-Class they're going to bill you for time.
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
You forgot to factor in your time to fabricate a larger case for the Mac mini so you can install a 3.5" 7200 RPM hard drive instead of the low-power laptop drive it's using.
Besides, someone else already beat you to the goalpost [slashdot.org].
I really like my Mac mini, but I'd rather have it in a bit more expandible form factor.
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
I've already been more than generous there. I upgraded the video and added firewire and didn't add a USB floppy drive and an iMic so you could get the audio in that's missing from the Mac mini.
But if you're going to play the "but the PC doesn't
Exactly... (Score:2)
I needed dual displays and a few other things, and I wasn't prepared to pay for a PowerMac to get them. OS X isn't worth CDN$1500 to me.
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
Or, depending on the performance you need, a used G4 might cut it.
But one way or another you'll have to compromise. I switched from a 1.7 GHz P4 motherboard clone I'd put together to an unsupported Mac with a G3/400 upgrade, and it was worth it to me. You can now get a used G4/500, maybe a dual, for what I ended up putting into it.
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
However, you're right. A dual-G4 is probably the closest Apple computer to what I wanted that I could have gotten. Had I
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
I don't do eBay either, I've had enough problems with personal sales when I've known the guy who I'm dealing with.
I'm talking about places like Powermax [powermax.com].
a dual-G4 would be significantly slower than the Athlon64 I got
You think my G3/400 wasn't?
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
I'd probably tolerate Windows for a factor of two on the money side, but I'm glad I don't have to.
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
Linux has a pretty high negative value, too.
FreeBSD is pretty good, but there's less commercial software than there is for Linux.
I do that shit for a living. I want a computer that just works, even if I have to work pretty hard to get it... once I got it, it's pretty good. Well, except for Applescript. Applescript is kind of like what Larry Wall would come up with if he had to reinvent COBOL.
BeOS was pre-doomed.
AmigaOS is just resting, honest.
VMS... no, no more DCL for me,
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
I'd use OS X up to about a 50% premium. Right now for some of the stuff, you're lucky if a 100% premium will get get you a comparable computer at all. Unless they shape up, they're just not going to be a consideration for me
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
That's because you haven't been using BSD for a quarter of a century.
The difference between a complete operating system and a kernel is immense, and the way Linux bridges the gap by abandoning the very idea of a core and leaving it up to the distros has led to the same kind of fragmentation that almost destroyed UNIX in far less time.
I'd use OS X up to about a 50% premium.
With the Mac mini, it about hit that point.
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
I do prefer BSD. It's just that too much software (like up to date Java) isn't available. I've got the iBook (they didn't suck so much when I bought it), and an OpenBSD firewall.
"The difference between a complete operating system and a kernel is immense, and the way Linux bridges the gap by abandoning the very idea of a core and leaving it up to the distros has led to the same kind of fragmentation that almost destroyed UNIX in far less
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
After a quarter of a century waiting for and working for an operating system that didn't suck that actually had quality polished applications, well, I'm not so pragmatic about going backwards as I used to be.
If there was something really nifty about Linux, to counter the things that aren't, like a genuinely interesting design, that'd be one thing. But it's no AmigaDOS, it's not even an NT kernel (whcih is an interesting system, and it's
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
I'm a youngin', so from my perspective the things that distinguish BSD and Linux are based entirely on what you want to do with them. Linux is better for my development workstation, OpenBSD is better for my firewall, etc. I'll use whatever suits the task. To me, the only people that lose out are the o
Re:Exactly... (Score:2)
HP d4100 with dual-core - US$1500 with rebate.
That's less of a difference than I expected.
The problem, again, is that Apple has a realy funky product line. Not that the Mac Tax is outrageous for what they do have.
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
In that it's only marginally different from XP Professional, but that's beside the point. The same thing is true of the Mac mini hardware, and I know for a fact that the crippled video and low performance hard drive has cost it sales as a result. Neither the Mac mini not the Walmart Economy PC are anything but entry-level computers.
We're not talking about Atlon 64s or G5s. You can easily p
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
4200 RPM laptop drive. Going to an external drive, even with firewire overhead, improves disk benchmarks by 75%. Since it's a crippled unexpandable box, that's the best you can do without fabricating a new case and extending the IDE cable.
The video ports are low-power, leading to problems driving standard DVI and VGA displays.
The USB ports are low-power. You can't even charge an iPod Shuffle reliabily without an external powered hub.
The $500 version doesn't have a wireless
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
It's no secret that Apple shipped all initial review units of the Mac Mini with a 5400 RPM drive, and it's no surprise how much the 4200 RPM drive hurts general usability performance in comparison.
Perhaps another good improvement would have been something more recent for video (no,
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
That's the real problem: the thing has even more of a heat problem than a laptop because it's just about as cramped and it's got a smaller surface area... and remember that several models of Apple laptops have had a history of overheating if you run them with the lid closed.
I suspect that's one reason they didn't put more VRAM or a better GPU in it... they simply couldn't keep it cool.
That tiny
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
That doesn't mean it's not crippled.
That just means that if your requirement is a very silent computer, that crippling is worth it to you.
It's like responding to the difference in price between Macs and PCs by talking about how great OSX is and how you don't need antivirus.
That doesn't mean a Mac isn't more expensive, it's just an explanation for why you bought it despite it being more expensive.
I happen to agree with you. OSX is worth paying the Mac T
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
I started the thread by responding to someone who was commenting that the Intel switch would mean that Apple could make Macs that were as cheap as PCs now. My response was that there are good reasons why Macs weren't as cheap as PCs and that the processor wasn't one of them.
Macs always have been more expensive than PCs, but only in the way that Mercedes is more expensive than Hyundai.
You're not disagreeing with me when you say this.
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
Boy, you would think they could make them as cheap at least. They don't have to fabricate as many mouse buttons and the MB and monitor are housed in a single case (in some models). If they can't save money by cutting down on real expenses like that, then perhaps you are right, they will never be cheaper or even competitive in pricing.
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
They could make them just as cheaply as Dell or HP could make a similar PC, in fact they almost certainly do make them for about that price since they use the same far-eastern systems houses as Dell and HP. It's not anything in the actual physical hardware that makes Macs expensive, it's the 40% profit margin that does it.
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
Don't you find that evil in it's own regard?
Re:Macs are not going to be cheap, ever. (Score:2)
Should I? Are they using the money for something you think I should disapprove of?
Re:less and less anti-mac fuel (Score:2)
Re:less and less anti-mac fuel (Score:2)
Since Macs will be running on PowerPC and Intel processors, this won't happen. Cell optimizations are not terribly portable.
"Macs are too expensive. With the mac mini and potential price drops with soon to be intel CPUs - a shrill cry Looks like all the reasons to not go with mac are evaporating. I won't even mention the traditional windows problems..."
It depends on what you mean by "too expensive". If you mean "Are they too expensive for people to be able to
What a curious thing to say... (Score:4, Informative)
I would have dismissed this as complete bullshit had it not been on Sony's own PR. What an odd thing to mention. I mean, It's not unknown for PR's to "name drop" in order to more likely appear in search engine listings, Sony doesn't have to resort to that sort of thing because their PR's are widely disssiminated by the media anyway (especially PS3 related stuff).
While Kunitake Ando and Steve Jobs were making complimentary (if somewhat guarded) comments about the two companies early in 2005 (was it at Macworld or something?), steve has been less upbeat about Cell [google.com].
If you take the statement at its fact, its really just saying that the cell is general purpose enough to handle any OS. In fact, there's nothing incorrect or even exaggerated about the statement: The cell could certainly support OSX in the same way that PearPC enables a x86 to support OSX (i.e. emulation) but it would be slow as hell. Whether Sony means anything other than that is another question.
Curious, but I'm leaning towards dismissing this as PR hubris. But give it a couple weeks - if the media get's into a froth about it I'm sure Apple will speak up or Sony will clarify one way or the other.
Re:What a curious thing to say... (Score:1, Insightful)
Huh???
Cell chips are essentially insanely fast PowerPC chips. Apple could have OS X running on a Cell chip in about the same time it takes for them to support any other new PowerPC chip that comes out.
Not only would it be incredibly easy for OS X to use Cell chips, Apple has spent years setting up the media technologies like QuickTime and all the Core* libraries to se
Re:What a curious thing to say... (Score:3, Interesting)
It is hilarious(and sad) to think of all that hardwork Apple engineers went through to be ready for media processing monster chips like Cell
The problem with this argument is that only a small percentage of Apple's business is related to high-end, specialized media-processing. Apple primarily markets general purpose computers to consumers. And even then, Intel prov
I'm just sayin... (Score:2)
Sorry, I shoulda been more clear. I wasn't trying to say whether it would be fast, slow, or anything else. I dont have any idea until we start seeing it in the "real-world". My point was that the statement "cell can support any os (such as linux or tiger)" isn't all that shocking because virtually *any* d
Re:I'm just sayin... (Score:2)
You have several clues and you are almost completely right.
"it just depends on how much of a hit you will take in duplicating and/or emulating the environment (cpu, chipset, sound hardware, etc) that the target OS expects. MIPS, ARM, x86, Cell, you name it. For x86 it's a pretty big hit (for now at least)."
You don't even need to consider emulation. Most OSes (Linux, *BSD, Windows, etc) have been ported to PowerPC and can run natively.
"So it's not
Re:What a curious thing to say... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong. The PowerPC part of the cell is quite stripped down compared to the CPUs found in Macs. The bulk of the die is taken up by the SPEs. These are the components responsible for the Cells "insanely fast" numbers. While some parts of OS X can make very good use of the SPEs, the work to make that happen is far
Re:What a curious thing to say... (Score:2)
True.
However, they would then say "Oh look, these codecs that are fast but everything else is many times slower. We should have gone with Intel chips because more people care about web browsing than encoding HD video in realtime.".
Re:What a curious thing to say... (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering that each cell has a PPC core, it's plausible to a certain extent that OS X could be made to run on a PS3 with some changes to take advantage of the cell's abilities and the lack of AltiVec (I'm not even sure how much OS X uses this to begin with), smaller cache, and other changes made to the PPC chip on the cell.
Sony stands to benefit from this deal because they get a solid OS available to them to run on their PS3. This allows them to say that the PS3 can be used as a computer as well (just make sure to buy our $100 hard drive and the $100 software). They get to sell some accessories, which they seem to love doing considering the amount of stuff (memory cards, multitaps, network adapters, hard drives) that you could use to upgrade your PS2. It's likely they'd also get a small amount of money for each copy software sale Apple makes.
Apple tends to benefit if they handle things a little more carefully. If they start giving PS3 owners the full version of OS X then the whole clone problem that Apple had in the past rears its ugly head once again. On the other hand, offering a stripped down version of the OS for the PS3 that doesn't have all the bells and whistles attached could easily pursuade more consumers to purchase Apple computers. It would be very similar in result to Windows users purchaing an iPod and deciding to try an Apple computer. Considering that the PS2 has sold over 80 million units world wide, it might be tempting for Apple to give more people a small taste of what they have to offer considering the potential amount of users the PS3 can reach.
What I really think this is all about though is that Sony wants to get in a little closer with Apple. Sony has wanted to get into the online music business for quite some time now but has found itself falling flat on its face. Apple's iPod and iTunes have been dozens of times more successful than whatever Sony has had to offer. If OS X or some varient of it is ported onto Sony's console you can bet it will have iTunes on it that will be featuring Sony's songs (and maybe eventually movies) available for download. Not only does it give Sony a way to start selling its music through a venue that many people already know, trust, and use, but it will give Sony a digital media box that can do everything a console, computer, and home entertainment center can do. This would be widely popular in Japan where living conditions are more cramped and people would welcome having one box that can do everything.
Having accomplished what Microsoft has been wanting to do so badly, get into the living room as the media centerpiece, Sony would be able to one up them in a sense. Microsoft has been designing the Xbox 360 to do exactly this. If you don't believe me, consider all the features it has built in that allow it to link to a Windows PC. Apple and Sony could team up and accomplish the same thing in an effort to drive Microsoft out of the console business. Considering the amount of money Microsoft has lost with the Xbox, and it likely to lose early on with the Xbox 360, they can't afford to trail so far behind this generation. If Sony can out-do Microsoft in almost every aspect, they could easily accomplish the feat. I'm quite sure that Apple wouldn't have much of a grudge in hurting Microsoft either.
Eventually this will hurt Microsoft more than most people would think at first. Considering that Sony is likely to use OpenGL (can't recall where I read this) which Microsoft dislikes because it's an open source standard competing with their proprietary one and that more and more games are being made on consoles rather than on the PC, ports of widely successful games would be made with OpenGL as well.
Now that I've gotten everyone who hates Microsoft with a passion hopes up, I will kindly point out that none of this is likely to happen. Considering the egos of the two men whose cooperation would be necessary to pull this off, it seems unlikely it will ever come to pass. Conspiracy theory that sounds good on paper, yes. Accurate prediction of future events, no.
Re:What a curious thing to say... (Score:2)
The main advantage of OGL is it's a cross platform graphics library, much like C is a cross platform programming language. The disadvantage of OpenGL is that it is somewhat slow at adopting new technologies and has a lot of infighting, wh
Re:What a curious thing to say... (Score:2)
Re:What a curious thing to say... (Score:2)
I would agree with this on earlier versions of Direct3D (Up to DX7), where Ms was basically just playing catchup with OpenGL.
However, DX8.0 and above have all been hardware vendor driven upgrades, pushing the boundaries of capab
Re:What a curious thing to say... (Score:3, Interesting)
wow (Score:1, Flamebait)
Just, wow.
Take an 8-month old report of Apple looking to "work with" Sony. Add marketing speak from the initial burst of info about Cell, and how it is designed to run "multiple OSs".
Add some Sony fanboyism.
Add some "Slashdot Anti-Microsoftism(TM)".
Watch the speculation fly. And watch people make complete asses of themselves.
This is hands down the stupidest, weakest thing I have read here in a long time.
Re:wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Just, wow.
Take a slashdot article.
Add some slashdot readers who don't read the article.
Add some games.slashdot.org Xbox fanboyism.
Watch people make idiots of themselves as they dismiss information taken straight from an official Sony press release as speculation by PS2 fanboys.
The parent to this comment is hands down the most blatently stupid comment I've read here in a long time.
Re:wow (Score:2)
Nevermind the fact that the press release says the same thing that Sony has been saying for 2 years, that the Cell processor is can run multiple operating systems. And that saying that, and listing OSX as an example of an operating system, has nothing to do with the chances of that operating system ever being put on the Cell.
Nevermind the fact that much speculation occurred on Apple fan sites 6 months ago or longer about Apple potentially using the Cell processor in the future. And that the spec
Re:wow (Score:2)
Already been considered pretty unlikely (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe I'll finally get a Playstation... (Score:1)
Cooperation (Score:2)
Just checking.
One thing's for sure... if you tried to run OS X on a PS3, you'd find out why Apple decided not to come out with a Cell-based computer. The PPC implementation isn't all that hot, and the other cores won't help because they don't run PPC code.
Re:Cooperation (Score:2)
"Uh, no.
Although, kudos to Apple in managing to get that damage control meme out into the computing public's minds."
What are you talking about?
IBM's documentation states specifically that the SPEs won't run PowerPC code.
The PPE front end is an in-order core, and despite the fact that it has SMT it's so minimalist that it can't keep up with G5s, and G5s are falling behind everyone else. Cell is much fa
Re:Cooperation (Score:2)
That isn't quite true. Media applications could get a huge boost from the powerful vector processors in the cell. Since media applications and games are the only desktop applications that really require lots of CPU power, I would imagine that a Cell desktop could be pretty fast.
Of course, this doesn't take into account that it is very hard to program efficiently for parall
Re:Cooperation (Score:2)
Three points:
First, games do need lots of CPU power, but a Cell isn't necessarily the way to go. Did you see those benchmarks with Pentium Ms in a desktop system? Not only did they annihilate Pentium 4s, they did very well against
Jobs and Sony? (Score:1)
Re:Jobs and Sony? (Score:2)
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard... (Score:4, Interesting)
The OS X userspace is nice but a bit redundant for a machine that only needs a few utilities and games. The OS X OpenGL implementation isn't the fastest, and the spiffy display technologies (and they are spiffy) aren't necessary. Sony just needs a subset of OpenGL but it needs to be fast.
The Darwin kernel isn't the fastest either, and Sony can do a lot better whether or not they're willing to pay for it (Linux or NetBSD on the free side, any number of real-time kernels on the other side).
Hype, Marketing, and Speculation (Score:3, Informative)
The companies (MS, Sony) know their machines are being hacked to run Linux and such. Those two sentences up there are worse than the rumor sites and the speculation is even worse. Of course it could run an OS. That's a no brainer. It could probably run any flavor of Mac OS X (being UNIX-based) and also Linux. So...what's the news? It's speculation, hype, and a bit of marketing to get all the geeks all giddy, wondering what Sony has up its sleeve.
What DOES Sony have in mind? Have you noticed how many commercials for the PSP aren't specific to the gaming platform but more to the video capabilities? Or new videos released "available on DVD and PSP"? Match that with Sony's pissiness about being manhandled by the iPod and it only makes sense that Sony will do what it takes to get itself in the limelight. Mention Apple and heads will turn...
This Is Utterly Absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
This is so stupid, it's hard to imagine how it got into that press release. It's so stupid, it's even hard to imagine how it was considered Slashdot-worthy.
Yes, it's a PPC chip, so Apple could release Tiger for it. No, they're not going to do it.
Let's consider the facts:
Sony simply wrote about what their processor could do, not about what they're going to do. Linux? Maybe, they did it before. Mac OS? Definitely not.
Re:This Is Utterly Absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
they sure don't, but they could sell a $300 hard drive loaded with OSX attachment to make the PS3 a fully functional computer.
Not so absurd (Score:2)
Re:This Is Utterly Absurd (Score:2)
It's not that simple. Gaming console is - well - a gaming console. To turn it into a functional equivalent of a computer, you have to invest in a proprietary harddrive and VGA adaptor. Add a price for MacOS X and your setup is already more expensive than the low-end Mac Mini. And a cheaper Mac Mini would still be better bang-for-buck if you just consider computing, not gaming. They wouldn't caniba
There goes the neighborhood... (Score:2)
Not likely, but wouldn't it be cool!?! (Score:2)
Re:If it supported Windows and DirectX (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If it supported Windows and DirectX (Score:1)
Re:If it supported Windows and DirectX (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If it supported Windows and DirectX (Score:2)
Microsoft?
Re:If it supported Windows and DirectX (Score:2)
Re:So would this be a.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So would this be a.... (Score:2)
Re:So would this be a.... (Score:2)