That's great for you and all, but almost every PC game that has ever been released is a testament to why Wine is still necessary (even if not necessary for some).
Re:Replacement to DOSBox?
on
Wine 1.2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Anyone expecting their 20-year-old legacy system to run on a modern OS is insane. It may be desirable, but you have to accept that if you cling to a legacy system you will have to deal with the increasing support costs for it.
Bullshit. People have been bashing the government for a long time now (not that it doesn't generally deserve it). If you think that it has anything to do with Obama, that's your personal bias talking.
He didn't bring up Obama. He brought up Washington, which generally means the entire government... but don't let the English language cloud your political prejudices.
I disagree. The videos, to me, say that this game will essentially be multiplayer KOTOR (with a combat system more or less transplanted from WoW). If you look at the demonstrations they've had of the way missions and cutscenes work, these are very reminiscent of single-player RPGs.
The Old Republic is being billed as an RPG which happens to be multiplayer. Bioware's loyal fans should all be paying close attention, because if they deliver on their promises, the game will be EXACTLY what we want.
Only a chicken could produce a chicken egg. Whatever egg hatched the first chicken was not a chicken egg (which is what the question implies), but a whatever-the-parent-was egg. I wouldn't throw around terms like "logic deficient" so quickly if I were you, because there's a perfectly logical argument against your position.
Daetrin also raised a valid point, that it depends on how you define the question (and the definition is arbitrary).
Honestly, I would think your Dragon Age problem is hardware-related, not OS. I run Win7 x64, and I had no such problems with that game (and my graphics card is only a GeForce 8800 GTS, so not even as good as yours). FWIW, I run Ultimate, but I can't imagine it's a problem with Ultimate vs whatever you have.
The 512 megabytes because my old 64 MB machine suffered from hard drive thrashing (i.e. I wanted more speed).
And someone wants a 100 Mbps connection because they want more speed. It's not really hard to understand. I have a 15 Mbps connection, and sometimes I still would like more. Not necessarily 100 Mbps, but more would come in handy.
Not to mention that this guy didn't say the government should be providing 100 Mbps service... merely that there was no good reason it isn't available in major cities already. Given the relative ease of upgrading infrastructure in those areas, I'm inclined to agree.
This is why people continue to smoke cigarettes regardless of how much truth they hear about how bad and utterly useless it is. (Yeah, call me troll or flamebait or whatever, but if you are a smoker, and a LOT of you are, you're just a dumb shit for wasting your money and your health on it. Seriously. "It's an addiction!" Be stronger than the addiction dumbass!)
This is bullshit. Smoking can be (although isn't always) as simple as the smoker deciding "I enjoy smoking enough that the extra quality of life I get is worth the trade-off in money and longevity." Sure, I don't agree, but it's not like they are completely without any sort of rational thought on the subject, as you are portraying them.
If it's so easy to do the conversion, do it yourself rather than complain that a story about US policy, regarding an event happening right by the US, is using US units of measurement. If this were a story stemming from a nation where metric was the norm, I might agree with you... as it is, you're just being silly, and coming off as someone trying to pick a fight.
Honestly, I don't know WTF the rest of the world's obsessions is with our units of measurement. It's our own fucking business, leave it be already. I don't go and bother other countries that they shouldn't be using the metric system because "that's not what I use here, so it would be easier for me". It's their call what to use in their own country.
Does it come as any surprise that a company that would sell out it's own employees would also sell out their customers?
Maybe. Most companies would sell out their own employees in a heartbeat. Employees are an expense to them, the more they can get rid of (without a correspondingly big decrease in revenue) the better. On the other hand, those same companies usually realize that they have to keep their customers somewhat happy, or they won't make money any more.
whether you meant it or not, the subtext of your previous post was his way isn't any better.
Only in your imagination. I don't really care one way or the other which way is better. And he DID say he got "free" (well, $500) education, which is not true except on the surface. That's all I was commenting on.
At what point did I say I was against the benefit he received? At none, that's right. I'm merely making sure that he isn't falling into the trap of thinking it's free.
Uh, I would say you do pay money for the roads in the US (unless you don't pay taxes here, of course). There's no "having it both ways" going on here. I'm well aware that I pay for government-provided services. I don't have a problem with it, I just don't call it "free", because it isn't.
You paid for it just like the rest of us. The only difference is that your payment came (and comes) in the form of taxes, rather than student loans (or whatever else).
I'm not trying to make judgements as to which way is better. I'm merely saying you shouldn't be deluded into thinking that it was free (or nearly free, in your case), simply because you didn't write a check to your school.
I don't know about that. Never underestimate the power of the Apple marketing department, and the perception of the iPhone seems to be (albeit horribly wrong) that no other smartphone is even comparable to the iPhone. I'd wager that for more than a few average users, Android was something that was a placeholder until they could get their hands on an iPhone. Then again, I'm fairly cynical as to the susceptibility of the average person to the inane "Apple's thing is great" hype.
It can still have draws, if you get technical about it. I forget offhand how many quarters of overtime the NFL makes you play before it's a tie, but you can get there. Granted, it's very hard to do so because of the sudden death rule.
If we're going to call anything "boringball", it's going to be soccer/football/[insert term of choice in your country here]. That game, hockey, and baseball are the most boring sports I've ever had the misfortune of watching.
The point is that you dismissed the concerns with iPhone lockdown as "devices aren't made for the people that develop for them any more, consumers rule now". I am not a developer, I am a consumer and Apple isn't giving me what I want. I'm just pointing out that it isn't as simple as "consumers get what they want". Consumers get what they want if the business deems it more profitable to give them that, otherwise they don't.
And of course, as I said, I think this has jack shit to do with what consumers want. The iPhone would have a great user experience (which is what consumers want) without the restrictions, that's just a line that Apple feeds people to justify their strategy to try to maximize the money they make from apps on their platform.
Liar. You "vastly prefer" buying from Apple to any open system, and that's all there is to it.
That's an extremely strong claim with nothing to base it on. Your explanation is one possible one, but there are others. Perhaps he/she wants an open system, but there are other qualities that cause him/her to buy from Apple (finding user experience lacking on other platforms, lack of applications being developed, whatever it may be). If Apple happens to have the quality that's most important to someone, that doesn't mean they "vastly prefer" buying from Apple. It simply means that when you add it all up, Apple has more good check marks than bad ones in their opinion.
Yes, and Pojut (and everyone else who doesn't want an iPhone for his reasons) is a consumer. If consumers truly "ruled", as you say, we would have what we want. Apple is not simply giving consumers what they want: they are applying an arbitrary limitation (app store) because it is their claim that if they don't do that, certain consumers will not get what they want (a simple user experience). So at the very least, they are choosing one group of consumers over another. In my personal opinion, the argument of how much negative impact there would be to "user experience" if they removed the restrictions is flat-out wrong, so they are taking away from some consumers for no benefit to others. Either way, this is not a "consumers get what they want now, adapt or die" issue as you are painting it.
And that's with the charitable interpretation of Apple's restrictions. It's not that far-fetched to say that Apple doesn't give two shits about what the consumer wants either way, and is doing this simply because they can wring more money from the market by creating an app monopoly on their phones (and in fact, I believe that is what Apple's goal is). Regardless, no matter which way you slice it, this is a debate that cannot be framed as simply as you are framing it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's great for you and all, but almost every PC game that has ever been released is a testament to why Wine is still necessary (even if not necessary for some).
Anyone expecting their 20-year-old legacy system to run on a modern OS is insane. It may be desirable, but you have to accept that if you cling to a legacy system you will have to deal with the increasing support costs for it.
Bullshit. People have been bashing the government for a long time now (not that it doesn't generally deserve it). If you think that it has anything to do with Obama, that's your personal bias talking.
He didn't bring up Obama. He brought up Washington, which generally means the entire government... but don't let the English language cloud your political prejudices.
I disagree. The videos, to me, say that this game will essentially be multiplayer KOTOR (with a combat system more or less transplanted from WoW). If you look at the demonstrations they've had of the way missions and cutscenes work, these are very reminiscent of single-player RPGs.
The Old Republic is being billed as an RPG which happens to be multiplayer. Bioware's loyal fans should all be paying close attention, because if they deliver on their promises, the game will be EXACTLY what we want.
Yeah, but I bet the people he pays $50 to enjoy themselves in his place love him.
Only a chicken could produce a chicken egg. Whatever egg hatched the first chicken was not a chicken egg (which is what the question implies), but a whatever-the-parent-was egg. I wouldn't throw around terms like "logic deficient" so quickly if I were you, because there's a perfectly logical argument against your position.
Daetrin also raised a valid point, that it depends on how you define the question (and the definition is arbitrary).
Honestly, I would think your Dragon Age problem is hardware-related, not OS. I run Win7 x64, and I had no such problems with that game (and my graphics card is only a GeForce 8800 GTS, so not even as good as yours). FWIW, I run Ultimate, but I can't imagine it's a problem with Ultimate vs whatever you have.
The 512 megabytes because my old 64 MB machine suffered from hard drive thrashing (i.e. I wanted more speed).
And someone wants a 100 Mbps connection because they want more speed. It's not really hard to understand. I have a 15 Mbps connection, and sometimes I still would like more. Not necessarily 100 Mbps, but more would come in handy.
Not to mention that this guy didn't say the government should be providing 100 Mbps service... merely that there was no good reason it isn't available in major cities already. Given the relative ease of upgrading infrastructure in those areas, I'm inclined to agree.
This is why people continue to smoke cigarettes regardless of how much truth they hear about how bad and utterly useless it is. (Yeah, call me troll or flamebait or whatever, but if you are a smoker, and a LOT of you are, you're just a dumb shit for wasting your money and your health on it. Seriously. "It's an addiction!" Be stronger than the addiction dumbass!)
This is bullshit. Smoking can be (although isn't always) as simple as the smoker deciding "I enjoy smoking enough that the extra quality of life I get is worth the trade-off in money and longevity." Sure, I don't agree, but it's not like they are completely without any sort of rational thought on the subject, as you are portraying them.
If it's so easy to do the conversion, do it yourself rather than complain that a story about US policy, regarding an event happening right by the US, is using US units of measurement. If this were a story stemming from a nation where metric was the norm, I might agree with you... as it is, you're just being silly, and coming off as someone trying to pick a fight.
Honestly, I don't know WTF the rest of the world's obsessions is with our units of measurement. It's our own fucking business, leave it be already. I don't go and bother other countries that they shouldn't be using the metric system because "that's not what I use here, so it would be easier for me". It's their call what to use in their own country.
Does it come as any surprise that a company that would sell out it's own employees would also sell out their customers?
Maybe. Most companies would sell out their own employees in a heartbeat. Employees are an expense to them, the more they can get rid of (without a correspondingly big decrease in revenue) the better. On the other hand, those same companies usually realize that they have to keep their customers somewhat happy, or they won't make money any more.
whether you meant it or not, the subtext of your previous post was his way isn't any better.
Only in your imagination. I don't really care one way or the other which way is better. And he DID say he got "free" (well, $500) education, which is not true except on the surface. That's all I was commenting on.
At what point did I say I was against the benefit he received? At none, that's right. I'm merely making sure that he isn't falling into the trap of thinking it's free.
Uh, I would say you do pay money for the roads in the US (unless you don't pay taxes here, of course). There's no "having it both ways" going on here. I'm well aware that I pay for government-provided services. I don't have a problem with it, I just don't call it "free", because it isn't.
You paid for it just like the rest of us. The only difference is that your payment came (and comes) in the form of taxes, rather than student loans (or whatever else).
I'm not trying to make judgements as to which way is better. I'm merely saying you shouldn't be deluded into thinking that it was free (or nearly free, in your case), simply because you didn't write a check to your school.
I don't know about that. Never underestimate the power of the Apple marketing department, and the perception of the iPhone seems to be (albeit horribly wrong) that no other smartphone is even comparable to the iPhone. I'd wager that for more than a few average users, Android was something that was a placeholder until they could get their hands on an iPhone. Then again, I'm fairly cynical as to the susceptibility of the average person to the inane "Apple's thing is great" hype.
That's because brats are far more worthy of discussion than any sport ever conceived, or yet to be conceived. :)
It can still have draws, if you get technical about it. I forget offhand how many quarters of overtime the NFL makes you play before it's a tie, but you can get there. Granted, it's very hard to do so because of the sudden death rule.
If we're going to call anything "boringball", it's going to be soccer/football/[insert term of choice in your country here]. That game, hockey, and baseball are the most boring sports I've ever had the misfortune of watching.
True enough. I do realize that as little as I like it, my discontent doesn't make a bit of difference to them.
The point is that you dismissed the concerns with iPhone lockdown as "devices aren't made for the people that develop for them any more, consumers rule now". I am not a developer, I am a consumer and Apple isn't giving me what I want. I'm just pointing out that it isn't as simple as "consumers get what they want". Consumers get what they want if the business deems it more profitable to give them that, otherwise they don't.
And of course, as I said, I think this has jack shit to do with what consumers want. The iPhone would have a great user experience (which is what consumers want) without the restrictions, that's just a line that Apple feeds people to justify their strategy to try to maximize the money they make from apps on their platform.
Liar. You "vastly prefer" buying from Apple to any open system, and that's all there is to it.
That's an extremely strong claim with nothing to base it on. Your explanation is one possible one, but there are others. Perhaps he/she wants an open system, but there are other qualities that cause him/her to buy from Apple (finding user experience lacking on other platforms, lack of applications being developed, whatever it may be). If Apple happens to have the quality that's most important to someone, that doesn't mean they "vastly prefer" buying from Apple. It simply means that when you add it all up, Apple has more good check marks than bad ones in their opinion.
Yes, and Pojut (and everyone else who doesn't want an iPhone for his reasons) is a consumer. If consumers truly "ruled", as you say, we would have what we want. Apple is not simply giving consumers what they want: they are applying an arbitrary limitation (app store) because it is their claim that if they don't do that, certain consumers will not get what they want (a simple user experience). So at the very least, they are choosing one group of consumers over another. In my personal opinion, the argument of how much negative impact there would be to "user experience" if they removed the restrictions is flat-out wrong, so they are taking away from some consumers for no benefit to others. Either way, this is not a "consumers get what they want now, adapt or die" issue as you are painting it.
And that's with the charitable interpretation of Apple's restrictions. It's not that far-fetched to say that Apple doesn't give two shits about what the consumer wants either way, and is doing this simply because they can wring more money from the market by creating an app monopoly on their phones (and in fact, I believe that is what Apple's goal is). Regardless, no matter which way you slice it, this is a debate that cannot be framed as simply as you are framing it.