Lies. Ghostbusters 2 is better than Ghostbusters 1, on the merits of the Statue of Liberty scene alone. Everything else is just icing on the proverbial cake. God, that scene rocks.
Oh, trust me, I have. There is a difference, though, between legitimate high bursts of traffic and DDoSing... or else/. would be shut the hell down for how many web servers we crash.
Except even if Blizzard is horribly invading the privacy of their users, that doesn't make it a botnet. I assure you we won't be seeing anything like a DDoS attack from WoW subscribers any time soon.
Just shows how uneducated the Linux crowd can be. Just shows how stupid people can be about assumptions. I don't use Linux at all.
Do you mean to say people don't minimize/maximize windows, move things to folder, click on an item? No shit, people do those things. GUIs don't differ in the basic areas, they differ in the finer details. I'm done, though. If you still don't get it, after all that's been said, you're too stuck on your own idiotic ideas for anyone to make an impact on you.
You obviously didn't read my post, because I pointed out why it's a legitimate point: depriving Blizzard of money, while simultaneously letting them know why, is the best way to get them to change their ways.
Then don't play. It really IS that simple. If you're having too big of a problem with that, put the mouse down and go join a support group. a) Whoever modded this troll is on crack, this is a legitimate point.
b) This is exactly right. I don't have a problem with this personally, but I'm sure other people do, and the proper solution for them is to not play. By not playing (and letting Blizzard know why), you send a message to them that their behavior isn't acceptable to you, and, if enough people are upset about this, they'll do something about it. Complaining to Blizzard won't change anything, you need to take action.
Yes, and the one who just doesn't get it is you. I don't even know why I'm trying, but I'll try to spell it out again. We have two users, personA and personB. personA and personB are both equally familiar with how to use Windows and MacOS. Yet, personA is more comfortable in MacOS. It makes more sense to him, and he can get things done more quickly and easily there. The opposite is true of personB. Although he's equally familiar with macOS, he finds Windows far more intuitive, and gets things done more quickly and easily there. personA and personB are both happy in their own world, and are both equally efficient in their work.
This is a perfectly damn realistic scenario (as in, I know people who fit personA and personB perfectly). This is exactly the reason why GUI design is NOT objective. Each person has their own way of doing things which comes naturally to them, and each GUI does things slightly differently, making it better for the person who it matches up with! Even if someone who finds MacOS to be more difficult to use switched to it, things wouldn't improve for them, because in the end, they can't change how God/fate/the Flying Spaghetti Monster wired them. I don't have to refuse to accept GUI design as a science, because it already falls apart on its own, because two people can get the same results using different GUIs (one of which is "superior", and one of which is "inferior")! It should be readily apparent to ANYONE with intelligence that this prevents GUI design from being an actual science. Something which is an actual science produces the same damn results for everyone who uses it.
Dude, good GUI design is done with statistical testing and - gasp - even some theory of cognitive science thrown in. Measuring response times, irritation, how many times and how easily the user gets a task right. Etc. For instance, Microsoft Vista beta was tested on families for an extended period of time. This goes for an average user, the Ion-3 user doesn't count, does it? And that means not a damn thing in the end, because everyone does things differently! I find Windows to be more intuitively laid out than Mac OS, despite having a decent working knowledge of both. Others have the opposite experience. Neither of us is wrong, and because both types of people exist, saying you can objectively measure GUI design is idiotic! Of course I don't work in the field, I'd refuse to work in such a useless field. You can't measure whether one GUI design is better than another any more than you can measure which is better, sniping the enemy out of their trees or calling down an air strike. Both are effective, and which one you use is going to come down to personal preference.
I wouldn't quite call Mario Galaxy must-own. I don't know why the GP was dismissing it so casually, but the reason I do is because I can't stand 3D Mario games. Every one has sucked. I'm not trying to trash-talk Mario here, and I don't know if that's why the GP doesn't care about Galaxy, but I'm just saying, there is at least one legit reason to not be excited about it.
What is it that makes Vista suck? Nothing. It doesn't suck. This is not to say that it's perfect, by any means (I'm willing to bet that most of the tales about Vista around here have some basis in reality, although some are outright lies or obviously not the OS' fault), but suck it does not.
I have to put the trust in my congressmen and women. You may be ok with that, but I sure as hell am not. The government can have legitimate reasons to want to hide things, but the more the government wants to hide something, the more suspicious I am. We already know our politicians are crooked, and we're just supposed to trust them??
No, GUI design is not science, and yes, it is completely subjective. Bad design is whatever a person finds unpleasant, good design is what they find pleasant. There are arenas in which good and bad can be objectively measured, for instance, we can objectively measure how good my scissors are by how well they cut things. The point of a user interface is to enable you to get what you want done, done effectively. Since every person has a way they prefer to do things, there is not, and cannot, be a "right" way to do it (in contrast to scissors, where there's only one way to cut things with them, so we can measure against that). The other aspect of a user interface is aesthetics, which, like any other aesthetic, cannot be objectively proven to be correct or incorrect.
Saying that someone likes bad design (or bad art, or bad music, or any other of those things which get tossed around) is the pinnacle of elitism. It's the sophisticated-sounding equivalent of, "But... but... but... your personal taste is WRONG! So there!!", and it has no place in a discussion amongst those who should know better (like the generally intelligent, mature slashdot crowd).
If you buy a retail box copy of a Microsoft OS you can install it any time, for ever, on a single machine and remain 'legal' in doing so. Back in my days working at a small computer shop, every time we had a customer come in with a retail copy of XP, it was a hassle to reinstall it, and I had to call Microsoft's stupid hotline. With OEM copies, it was never a problem. The decision practically makes itself, in my opinion.
Additionally, judging from the behavior Microsoft reps exhibit when you call said hotline, it's perfectly legal to upgrade your hardware with the same OEM copy. It flags you for using a different hardware config, you call the hotline, they ask if it's the same computer with upgraded hardware, you say yes, they activate your copy of Windows. I find it rather hard to believe that Microsoft doesn't enforce their own EULA, so I'd say you must be incorrect on that one.
their developers are unable to forge a decent user desktop experience That's a matter of sheer opinion. I think the exact same thing about Apple's devs, I've never seen a good GUI (by my personal definition of good, more accurately, "what I like") in Mac OS. Don't act like your OS of choice is above reproach, because some of us hate it just like you apparently hate Linux.
Bullshit. If you have a crappy low-end computer, that's true, but no one in their right mind would expect a crappy low-end computer to handle software made too long after they bought it. Better computers can upgrade just fine. Macs tend to have nicer hardware, and besides, for the price you pay for a Mac, you'd better damn well not need a hardware upgrade to run the latest OS.
1. Those that build there own PCs Those who build their own PCs would never buy a boxed copy of Windows, as you can go to newegg and buy an OEM copy for half the cost.
I find the sound produced by my mobo's onboard audio quite acceptable. I have no issue with buying parts, but I need to see benefit: I see no benefit in upgrading to a nice sound card. Gamer, after all, does not necessarily imply audiophile, nor does it imply someone who buys stuff just because it's there.
On hardware, yes. On software (not counting games), I've never found this to be the case. Every single gamer I've ever run across sticks with their OS version of choice for forever, and upgrades only when they have to (or get a new version for free). I think you overestimate how far ahead of the OS upgrade curve gamers are.
I can't really agree with your assessment, I find that Vista is either the same in terms of usability, or better, than XP. I do feel the need to point out, however, that Word has nothing whatsoever to do with Vista. Don't lump it all in together.
No matter what the percentage of Mac/Linux gamers is (relative to the whole), it will still be 100%. This is especially going to be true on the Mac, which is the more "mainstream" of the two underdog platforms, and has a lot more (forgive the term) noob users who are unlikely to have much of a gaming interest. Thus, since Mac/Linux users have a really low market share to begin with, I don't feel it's at all unreasonable to say that Mac/Linux gamers are = 9% of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... the movie was based on the game. Not the other way around.
Lies. Ghostbusters 2 is better than Ghostbusters 1, on the merits of the Statue of Liberty scene alone. Everything else is just icing on the proverbial cake. God, that scene rocks.
...that's a big Twinkie. *Venkman walks in* Egon... tell him about the Twinkie.
There will be people who really like it. I'm really psyched for this game, provided they do a good job, just based on the fact that it's Ghostbusters.
Oh, trust me, I have. There is a difference, though, between legitimate high bursts of traffic and DDoSing... or else /. would be shut the hell down for how many web servers we crash.
I believe that they've said in the past that it means active accounts.
Except even if Blizzard is horribly invading the privacy of their users, that doesn't make it a botnet. I assure you we won't be seeing anything like a DDoS attack from WoW subscribers any time soon.
You obviously didn't read my post, because I pointed out why it's a legitimate point: depriving Blizzard of money, while simultaneously letting them know why, is the best way to get them to change their ways.
b) This is exactly right. I don't have a problem with this personally, but I'm sure other people do, and the proper solution for them is to not play. By not playing (and letting Blizzard know why), you send a message to them that their behavior isn't acceptable to you, and, if enough people are upset about this, they'll do something about it. Complaining to Blizzard won't change anything, you need to take action.
This is a perfectly damn realistic scenario (as in, I know people who fit personA and personB perfectly). This is exactly the reason why GUI design is NOT objective. Each person has their own way of doing things which comes naturally to them, and each GUI does things slightly differently, making it better for the person who it matches up with! Even if someone who finds MacOS to be more difficult to use switched to it, things wouldn't improve for them, because in the end, they can't change how God/fate/the Flying Spaghetti Monster wired them. I don't have to refuse to accept GUI design as a science, because it already falls apart on its own, because two people can get the same results using different GUIs (one of which is "superior", and one of which is "inferior")! It should be readily apparent to ANYONE with intelligence that this prevents GUI design from being an actual science. Something which is an actual science produces the same damn results for everyone who uses it.
I wouldn't quite call Mario Galaxy must-own. I don't know why the GP was dismissing it so casually, but the reason I do is because I can't stand 3D Mario games. Every one has sucked. I'm not trying to trash-talk Mario here, and I don't know if that's why the GP doesn't care about Galaxy, but I'm just saying, there is at least one legit reason to not be excited about it.
And, you know, it plays games. That's just a bit important.
Saying that someone likes bad design (or bad art, or bad music, or any other of those things which get tossed around) is the pinnacle of elitism. It's the sophisticated-sounding equivalent of, "But... but... but... your personal taste is WRONG! So there!!", and it has no place in a discussion amongst those who should know better (like the generally intelligent, mature slashdot crowd).
Additionally, judging from the behavior Microsoft reps exhibit when you call said hotline, it's perfectly legal to upgrade your hardware with the same OEM copy. It flags you for using a different hardware config, you call the hotline, they ask if it's the same computer with upgraded hardware, you say yes, they activate your copy of Windows. I find it rather hard to believe that Microsoft doesn't enforce their own EULA, so I'd say you must be incorrect on that one.
Bullshit. If you have a crappy low-end computer, that's true, but no one in their right mind would expect a crappy low-end computer to handle software made too long after they bought it. Better computers can upgrade just fine. Macs tend to have nicer hardware, and besides, for the price you pay for a Mac, you'd better damn well not need a hardware upgrade to run the latest OS.
I find the sound produced by my mobo's onboard audio quite acceptable. I have no issue with buying parts, but I need to see benefit: I see no benefit in upgrading to a nice sound card. Gamer, after all, does not necessarily imply audiophile, nor does it imply someone who buys stuff just because it's there.
On hardware, yes. On software (not counting games), I've never found this to be the case. Every single gamer I've ever run across sticks with their OS version of choice for forever, and upgrades only when they have to (or get a new version for free). I think you overestimate how far ahead of the OS upgrade curve gamers are.
I can't really agree with your assessment, I find that Vista is either the same in terms of usability, or better, than XP. I do feel the need to point out, however, that Word has nothing whatsoever to do with Vista. Don't lump it all in together.
No matter what the percentage of Mac/Linux gamers is (relative to the whole), it will still be 100%. This is especially going to be true on the Mac, which is the more "mainstream" of the two underdog platforms, and has a lot more (forgive the term) noob users who are unlikely to have much of a gaming interest. Thus, since Mac/Linux users have a really low market share to begin with, I don't feel it's at all unreasonable to say that Mac/Linux gamers are = 9% of the market.