That's what it'll be called. There will be one with Wifi and one with 3G. The 3G one will, in America, be locked to AT&T. The press audience was NOT polite about it (nor should they be) openly booing the announcement. Good for them. Devices really should be service agnostic. I'd hate to get routers that were locked to Comcast or Cox. In this case, it's going to cost $299. Unless that's STILL being subsidized by a contract (doubtful, the wifi-only one isn't something you get from a cell phone provider), then we're paying full price and still don't have full freedom.
Expect this to be unlocked about as fast as the PSP was.
As usual, this guy is very enthusiastic about this new interface. I must be honest, the "desktop" of today is a cluttered mess. Just about everyone out there just saves everything right to the desktop, filling it up very quickly with everything from photos to movies to documents to full fledged programs. The number of times I've seen a desktop with, in order, every upgrade to a piece of software they use sitting right on the desktop, is rather surprising. People seem to keep this "desktop" allegory about as neat as they keep their actual desktops, which for most isn't very good.
This is a step in eliminating the desktop as an "all purpose storage folder". It's also a good step in eliminating the steady expansion of a billion different places to store shortcuts. I mean, how many do we really need? There's the desktop itself, the start menu (within that, the "programs" list, the top "quick launch" list, and custom folders), the quick launch on the task bar (updated in Windows 7, but still redundant), and the "side bar", which is basically just yet another quick launch bar, but at a right angle to the first.
In reality, they ALL do the same thing. You stick a shortcut for a program in there and you can run it when you click on it. Why so many? About all that's ever been needed is one spot for the most commonly used programs, and another for a big organized list of everything else. The problem has always been that the first spot steadily becomes a copy of the second as more and more "quick access" shortcuts are stuck there, until some brilliant designer says "okay we need a spot for quick access", and tosses in yet another shortcut point, which itself gets bloated (the average "quick launch" bar has 20 icons in it), and the cycle repeats, never really addressing the main problem.
This is the best solution. Just make the "quick access" shortcuts be the same place as every other shortcut, organized by the user having to pick what gets center stage on the first page. If nothing BUT shortcuts can be placed in this part (because instead of it being a directory, it's instead an XML file), then the problem of a universal "dumping ground" of files is solved pretty well. I honestly can't think of a reason why the desktop itself needs to continue existing since the desktop doesn't really have any purpose but as a GUI representation of a directory, full of shortcuts, which this does.
There's some obvious concerns here. Mostly, it's customizing the appearance. If one can adjust the size of the new tiles, say if they simply want more shortcuts to appear, that's one important part. If it's all one big XML file, being able to manually edit it will be nice. Lastly, being able to open an "explorer" to go through files and the directory structure in a much more detailed and direct way when needed, as well as a command prompt, are still a must. Other than that, I honestly don't see the need for anything further. Every folder in the start menu/desktop/quick launch/side bar along with their shortcuts can be temporarily stored in one page while the user slowly adapts and moves those shortcuts into easier to use positions in the new interface. In terms of usability, I can't think of anything a power user couldn't do with this simplified interface (along with a command prompt and a directory browser like "explorer") that could be done with the previous bloated one. Applications could still be windows on "top" of these pages (or full screen obviously), but ideally I'd like to see applications as their own pages. That would most likely be the form "minimizing" would take, and the task bar would go back to it's original purpose, being nothing more than selecting already-open applications.
Heck, even the task bar's system tray would be much easier to manage, especially as it's own page. One change they really need to make is informed consent for any application wishing to be "automatic", starting itself up whenever Windows boots or assigning itself to files. The OS should detect such attempts to insert themselves and ask your permission, with an added check box for something along the lines of "never allow this program to auto start", for persistent ones like Quicktime that re-register themselves in "Run" whenever they are run.
Hard not be excited about Arkham City after how awesome Arkahm Asylum turned out to be. And you get to play [for roughly 20% of the main game] as the impossibly-sexy Catwoman, so I don't see how you can go wrong there.
It looks...not very good. The graphics look dated, as does the animations. Some of the alien stuff looks kinda of neat, but nothing about the gameplay looks even remotely compelling. If I didn't know better, I'd think this was some budget game from a first-time developer or maybe something from an unknown Eastern European team.
Instead it's 2K Marin, people who did some work on Bioshock and developed Bioshock 2. Very disappointing, eve knowing how Bioshock 2 turned out. Also disappointing in that it bears absolutely no resemblance to the X-COM series.
