The bad thing isn't about Windows itself, it's just about its USERS, i'm a Linux addict since 17 years ago, and continued using windows beside, what i have experienced is that while i formatted and reinstalled linux whenever i wanted to try a new distribution, i had to format and reinstall windows once a month, sometimes twice, because of the garbage it creates during its day use, but it seldom crashes, it is almost as stable as linux, if i manage to do a fresh install once a month.
Windows is bad only because it is so easy to use that you don't require even to know how to type on the keyboard... Windows creates users, Windows users "just click", because it's easy and it does not do anything bad to them, and you software developer receive millions of spam messages, complaints from your customers because IE caches pages that don't exist anymore, because the last update of the.NET framework had broken something in the backward compatibility and your program does not work anymore.
Windows does not require from its users to actually know how to USE a computer, why should you want them to actually know what's good and what's not?
I think you missed the point, just because Ubuntu chose GNOME as its default DE, it does not mean that it is "better", if we want to, i'd like to read YOUR definition of "better", i tried a lot of DEs for linux, and really can't decide which one is better than the other, there are too much differences between them that a comparation is useless and meaningless, just use which one you prefer, and don't go around slapping "GNOME is better" comments.
Nobody told you not to do it, he just said "that's isn't the IDEAL way of running Linux".
If you want to run it this way, do it, who cares?
The fact is that you are running a stable platform on an unstable one, if you are not concerned about this issue, you can use it as long as you want, but it surely is not the ideal way of using Linux, you just miss a huge chunk of its features, however, no one told you not to do so.
BTW, you're not very much expressing the spirit of Free and Open Source in your comment...
You should also consider that in that "era", given the programming differences between consoles and PCs, also every PC game was ONLY released for PCs, it's from when consoles actually are stripped down PCs, that the operation called "Porting" could be done, since Xbox360, PS3 and Windows now "talk" ALMOST the same language (at least it keeps the same structure), and since Xbox360 relies on DirectX the same way Windows gaming does, for example (don't know how PS3 handle the graphic framework, will search)
I would gladly give a leg (i need the arms to play) to have some games with the same amount of work on the plot that marked The Dig, Day of the Tentacle, and almost every one of the older adventure games, as a PC gamer, and an addicted one, i really have little patience left for the crappy titles with shining lights and cool graphic effects, and no story and no good gameplay (the last FPS game i enjoyed was Battlefield 1942)
The kind of FPS player that makes such a big deal over the controls are usually graphics whores, so they wouldn't consider the Wii. Not to mention online play on the Wii sucks so far. I don't agree with you, i make a big deal over the controls, but i'm also one of the many that prefer running FPS games at lower graphic settings than with extreme details, so i cannot consider myself a "graphics whore", nor even a "frames whore", since on my pc the fps drop in keeping full details isn't that much, but I do agree in not considering the Wii for FPS, even if i love Metroid Prime; any control different from keyboard and mouse is extremely inefficient, if you don't take in consideration VR goggles + IR tracking array and sensor-laden full body suit (The Lawnmower style)
Sure, they're not great for aiming, but nothing tops them for moving. Again, even if you admit that sticks aren't great for aiming (i'd say they suck at aiming, but come on..), i must again say that once you get the habit of running/strafing/jumping/ducking/firing/reloading with a keyboard, any analog stick + pad buttons is a major drawback about reaction time (i must now admit that it changes everything depending on the type/quality of the keyboard you're using, it took me 6 different keyboards to find my own preference).
How do you view and hear the game? Control the game? Please don't try to fool us in saying that you can "Control" an FPS with the X360 pad, or with the PS3 pad, even.
PC gaming depends on having a desktop computer, but the vast majority of people prefer a notebook to a desktop. A gaming console depends on having a television, which is not only a less onerous requirement, but one which most people already meet. Not one of the PC gamers i know would prefer a laptop to a desktop for gaming, every single person that wants to play on a PC know that a laptop is the worst machine the would think of, not to mention that you can run the latest games on a $600, 1-year-old PC, (as i do), even with scaled-down graphics it looks better than an X360 one (provided they are set at the same resolution, which is 720p or 720i, if you don't plan to spend $1200-$1400 on a HDTV), even with one single good video card.
By the way, man, i love your sig... XD
I have a similar machine, bought only last year, so i spent on it only €400 (should be something like $600), hooked up on my DLP projector (the same i use with the X360, so there's no difference in price) and bought a wireless keyboard+optical mouse for €25 ($40) and i was able to run Crysis on it, sure, without all the fancy graphics and on DX9 (i'm a Vista hater), and TF2, experiencing no slowdowns or framerate drops, and playing them just by sitting on my bed, i should point out that when i bought the 360, it costed me the same €400, so i really don't understand where PC gaming is dying...
Slashdot Mirror
The bad thing isn't about Windows itself, it's just about its USERS, i'm a Linux addict since 17 years ago, and continued using windows beside, what i have experienced is that while i formatted and reinstalled linux whenever i wanted to try a new distribution, i had to format and reinstall windows once a month, sometimes twice, because of the garbage it creates during its day use, but it seldom crashes, it is almost as stable as linux, if i manage to do a fresh install once a month. Windows is bad only because it is so easy to use that you don't require even to know how to type on the keyboard... Windows creates users, Windows users "just click", because it's easy and it does not do anything bad to them, and you software developer receive millions of spam messages, complaints from your customers because IE caches pages that don't exist anymore, because the last update of the .NET framework had broken something in the backward compatibility and your program does not work anymore.
Windows does not require from its users to actually know how to USE a computer, why should you want them to actually know what's good and what's not?
I think you missed the point, just because Ubuntu chose GNOME as its default DE, it does not mean that it is "better", if we want to, i'd like to read YOUR definition of "better", i tried a lot of DEs for linux, and really can't decide which one is better than the other, there are too much differences between them that a comparation is useless and meaningless, just use which one you prefer, and don't go around slapping "GNOME is better" comments.
Nobody told you not to do it, he just said "that's isn't the IDEAL way of running Linux". If you want to run it this way, do it, who cares? The fact is that you are running a stable platform on an unstable one, if you are not concerned about this issue, you can use it as long as you want, but it surely is not the ideal way of using Linux, you just miss a huge chunk of its features, however, no one told you not to do so. BTW, you're not very much expressing the spirit of Free and Open Source in your comment...
You should also consider that in that "era", given the programming differences between consoles and PCs, also every PC game was ONLY released for PCs, it's from when consoles actually are stripped down PCs, that the operation called "Porting" could be done, since Xbox360, PS3 and Windows now "talk" ALMOST the same language (at least it keeps the same structure), and since Xbox360 relies on DirectX the same way Windows gaming does, for example (don't know how PS3 handle the graphic framework, will search)
I would gladly give a leg (i need the arms to play) to have some games with the same amount of work on the plot that marked The Dig, Day of the Tentacle, and almost every one of the older adventure games, as a PC gamer, and an addicted one, i really have little patience left for the crappy titles with shining lights and cool graphic effects, and no story and no good gameplay (the last FPS game i enjoyed was Battlefield 1942)
I have a similar machine, bought only last year, so i spent on it only €400 (should be something like $600), hooked up on my DLP projector (the same i use with the X360, so there's no difference in price) and bought a wireless keyboard+optical mouse for €25 ($40) and i was able to run Crysis on it, sure, without all the fancy graphics and on DX9 (i'm a Vista hater), and TF2, experiencing no slowdowns or framerate drops, and playing them just by sitting on my bed, i should point out that when i bought the 360, it costed me the same €400, so i really don't understand where PC gaming is dying...