@ZeRoCo0L The point is they haven't necessarily GOT time. The world doesn't stand still for anyone and right now Palm is in danger of getting swallowed up. Apple has the high ground well and trully covered, Android is riding high and even Windows Mobile 6.5 has a couple of handsets that aren't a disaster right now. In the next year we've probably got a Googlephone coming, Apple have another iPhone in the works, there's surely going to be a glut of Android devices in all shapes and sizes and maybe, just maybe, we'll see Windows 7 as well. I just don't see that Palm has that much time at the moment.

The problem Palm faces is they're providing a bespoke OS on a very limited handset range. Apple also do this but they got there first, have the best product on the market (please, no arguments there, the iPhone is still the most complete smartphone around although Android is closing quickly on the right hardware) and, most importantly, have the support of a massive dev community. Palm have launched the Pre internationally at this point, that 784,000 handsets covers (I assume) WORLDWIDE sales. Put it in context, Apple is likely to sell close to 10,000,000 handsets in the quarter and those haven't been given heavy discounts to shift stock. If you're a developer which platform are you going to head for at this stage? For that matter, they may only have two handsets but it's clear that customers aren't interested. Again, look at the heavy discounts on offer, that's not something you do if demand is high. Oh, and as for going to Verizon being the saving grace of WebOS... Palm Pre or Motorola Droid? I know which one I'd rather have at ths point.

I really want Palm to survive and do well. They've got some very nice ideas and I've always liked 'em as a company and have found memories of my Palm PDA's. But wishing doesn't mean a thing in the grand scheme of things and right now the future looks pretty bleak.

@(Unverified) Nah, this isn't an ultraportable chip, it really isn't. However I'm almost certain this WILL be the update for the Macbook Pro. The Macbook is currently on the same spec as the equivalent MBP only with more hard drive space and other manufacturers have had i5 machines out for a while (albeit running ridiculously hot and hungry for power). The i5 will almost certainly become the high end processor on the 15 and 17 MBP's with the 13" maybe getting an i3 in the base configuration? Actually, that'd be a killer package for me: a 13" MBP with a i3 processor, 250Gb hard drive, 2Gb of Ram (preferably 4) and the usual extras for the same price as the current entry level MBP. Very very nice indeed as an entry level Mac. Not that it'll ever happen of course as Apple never seem to do what you'd expect but....

@ZeRoCo0L Ummm, what are you basing that on exactly? WebOS is kinda cool and all but it's got virtually no developers pushing it as a primary platform, a very limited range of hardware that isn't really anything special and some glaring holes in its software line up, not least of which is a decent media manager out of the box.

Let's face it, Palm have blown their opportunity. If they'd agressively pushed the Pre in the summer and deployed it to as many carriers as possible, not to mention launched it internationaly, they'd have had a chance to build some momentum. As it is the devices are being HEAVILY discounted, Android has easily won over the geek vote and the iPhone is clearing up almost everyone else. Is there a market for the Pre and Pixi? Yeah, certainly there is. Is it big enough to keep Palm going? Hmm, not so sure about that one.

Agreed, the game's got more heart than anything I've played in years and that alone puts it right at the top of my list for 2009 (maybe just behind Batman). Escaping from a collapsing building in a car made from the metal flesh of a fire god while 'Through the Fire and the Flames' plays on the car stereo? Most fun I've had for years! So glad I traded in the overhyped MW2 for this.

@TC Yes, really, considering you can pick up the PSP 3000 with Invisimals, Little Big Planet (or GT PSP)AND an accessory kit for £136.99 from Argos. That makes the Go horribly bad value for money considering the PSP 3000 does virtually everything the Go does with the added bonus of not being tied in to Sony's on-line store for your games. Oh, and a bigger screen. And access to second-hand games.

It's a negative because the PSN service has been sold for several years now as free. For a long time it was one of the very few gaming-related positives that the PS3 could claim when compared to the 360 (that's from someone who owns both consoles by the way). It's a negative because, if this service adds the remaining features that Xbox Live has over the PSN (unified messaging for instance), it blows a massive hole in Sony's marketing and flips the middle finger to all current users who based their purchase in any way on 'it's free'.

Again it depends on what exactly they put on the service but it's a VERY fine line they're about to walk. If they get it wrong it could undo all the hard work they've put in to repair the damage from the PR disaster they caused the first year of the PS3's life.

Yeah, sorry, have to disagree on this one. Google's one adveture into OS land prior to Chrome has gotten a foothold simply becuase the competition was, for lack of a better word, crap. The only decent mobile OS when it came out was the OS X Mobile (or whatever it's called) and that was only available on the iPhone. Android gave handset manufacturers an OS that, while it needed a bit of work, was a massive step forward from what they'd been stuck with at that point.

Now in Netbook land... hmm, this is a very difficult sell. Various Linux distros already tried it and while it wasn't a disaster as soon as the hardware could run Windows they were pretty much done and dusted. The problem is if you've got typical netbook hardware you have a system quite capable of running XP or Windows 7, why would you cripple that potential with Chrome? It doesn't seem to give you anything you can't get with a web browser. Yes, it should be more secure and easier to support and maintain but is Windows 7 really that bad on the security side nowadays?

Basically, if you can supply Chrome OS on a netbook device for a very low price point (£100 would be the cut off for me) then there's potentially a very big market there. If it's much more than that... why would you choose a crippled device over the flexibility of a Windows box?

@Darwin - No, I've never used the Adamo but for me this design is utterly useless. As I write this I'm sitting on a sofa with my laptop perched on my... wait for it... lap. There's no way that the Adamo is every going to feel comfortable doing that, period. Yes, I use this machine on a desk as well but why am I going to pay a $100 premium over the vastly more powerful Macbook Air (for example) for a thin, portable, ultralight machine that's basically a desktop replacement?

@JKC: 1) Okay, I have no idea what you're saying there. What I'm saying is that good storytelling requires you to invest in a character to have an emotional response. This is actually easier in a game because you can both be told a story and take part in it. In order to acomplish this in MW2 with that particular scene they needed another few missions before it to increase the impact of that horrible moment when you realise you have no way out of this AND to better explain why you can't just spray all of your terrorists buddies while you're standing behind them with a full auto. Coincidentaly this would have also extended the single player campaign to a better length than about 6 hours.

2) The US attacked two countries yes, well done, glad you're paying attention. But the first was directly linked to the organisation behind the attacks and the second was presented as being a direct threat. Of those that committed the acts precisely ZERO were from Afghanistan and ZERO were from Iraq. If you want to know one was Egyptian, one Lebanese, Two from the UAE and FIFTEEN from Saudi Arabia. Did the US and its allies go after Saudi Arabia? No. Why? Because it would have been pants-on-head retarded! The explanation offered in game of a few thousands deaths being blamed on America because ONE American was found dead at the scene after taking part in the attacks is stupid beyond belief.

3) To me a couple of restaurauts and a Burger Time = suburbia (and while I was a litle busy running like hell away from and then around big ass armoured vehicles with the aid of smoke grenades I could have sworn those didn't look like million dollar houses to me....) but regardless the point still stands. Why, in the name of all that's holy, do you send your FIRST wave of troops when you have the tactical advantage into a residential area? It doesn't make any sense. If you want a couple more how come the Russians are invading on the EAST coast? How have they got helicopters operating so far from home without a friendly landing strip for refuel and rearm? They took out the American electronic warning systems but what happened to human intel? What about other countries noticing the spinning up of LARGE parts of the Russian airforce and navy. How did they mobilise for a strike on THAT level as quickly as the game suggests? For that mater how did they manage to keep a deployment that large a secret? What's protecting their own borders while they do this because the rest of the world wouldn't be too happy about Russia going off the deep end and at the very least NATO would get involved in a big way. I can go on if you want...

This is the problem with setting a game in the current age and not presenting your story well, it's far too easy to pick holes in it. Do I care about plot holes when playing Halo 3, or even Killzone 2? Nope, because they're Sci-Fi and can be (fairly) safely ignored so long as the story holds together. In the real world games though it's not so easy, especially when you're pitching the strength of the narrative as a big selling point.

As for not playing the campaign... *sigh*, yes I'm going to criticise a game I haven't played or bought because... actually, I can't think why you'd do that. But: screwed up dodging the truck on its return journey on the arctic level (that thing did a handbrake turn or something) and had to run and gun my way out of trouble. Didn't realise I had control at the start of the first Brazil level while sitting in the car and was happily waiting for the computer to duck before my brains sprayed over the dashboard. And had to laugh out loud when the massive explosion that damange the restaurant conveniently left the access ladder and stock of Stinger missiles undamaged to let me kill the helicopter gunship that came looking. Enough for you?

Thing is though there's two problems with the scene / level:

1) It comes FAR too early in the game. You haven't had any chance to get to know your character or what the heck you're doing. There's no other missions with the terrorist group of lesser impact to let you try and skirt that moral line. There's no time to setup the history of the game world properly and show WHY it's so important that you do this (no, one cutscene isn't enough). Without that background info and attachement the scene is robbed of most of its potential impact. You pretty much go into it with the mentality that it's still a videogame rather than being fully immersed in the game world and the choice (or lack thereof) before you.

2) As a catalyst it makes no sense whatsoever. Your character has NO other distinguishing feature or affiliation than being American. Are we SERIOUSLY supposed to buy that such a flimsy reason would be enough to push an entire country to wage war against the most advanced army in the world? For that matter how does that country wage that war? It seems to be mainly by air so they have very limited troop numbers and decide to drop them in... suburbia?

I've actually traded in MW2 already because the storyline is so ridiculous and so badly presented to the player it failed to hold my interest. And yet it's being presented as this great feat of storytelling and emotional impact but, sorry, judged as a narative it's nowhere near that level.