All of my family members and friends have fully updated version of Vista or 7 (multiple IT people around to update everyone) and yet those who haven't turned off UAC get the prompts several times a day - and I'm talking just for basic things like web browsing with IE (yes, I try to get them off it but they just say "why? it works") and using Office.
They're reduced in Windows 7 primarily because a request for privilege escalation that is a direct result of a user action (based on a bunch of criteria, including a valid digital signature on the application, and I believe on the MSI that installed it) gets escalated automatically.
While that may be true (I don't know enough about how UAC works to say it is or isn't), what I know is true is that Vista only had two settings for UAC (annoy the hell out of you, and off) where 7 has five settings - and it defaults to a lower setting than Vista.
Let's see, who are the two groups of people who would make up lies about Windows 7, the best OS Microsoft has made? Hmmm, there's only two groups - can you think of them? Oh, right, Mac fanboys and Linux fanboys. Taking a guess and picking one of the two is NOT being off topic.
But hey, why use common sense when you can just troll anyone who doesn't blindly bash Windows.
Word is an exaggeration, but it nags CONSTANTLY. There's a reason everyone hates UAC, and it's not because of extra security - it's because it nags over all sorts of minor things. It's like Clippy only for all of Windows instead of just Office.
I think your just having to eat your words about win7, because it's a fucking good OS. it runs faster then vista or winxp, they've dropped the candy land fucked up theme and given it a slick interface.
Who the hell are you talking to? I love Windows 7 and I've said it since the beta came out. I just hate UAC.
It's a lot better than Linux's su and sudo alternatives. With su you give full control over the root account, with sudo you need to write it every time you require root account. UAC is actually a lot better than what there is available for linux, in desktop use
Bullshit. Linux only makes you use sudo / su when you're doing something worthy of administrator privileges - such as installing updates to the system. UAC nags you just about every time you click the mouse - want to run a virus scan? You need to click a UAC box. Want to open Word? You need to click a UAC box. Putting in UAC for the important things would be fine, but what people are annoyed with is that it nags you with a UAC box about EVERYTHING. That's why the first thing I do on a clean install of Windows is turn UAC off. I've rarely been annoyed by sudo when using Linux (Linux on my laptop, Win 7 on the desktop), but I've always been annoyed by it in Windows.
Obviously we have Mac fanboy's with mod points. If you bothered to read my comment, I said it was a joke - besides, the person asked what his motivation for lying might be and I gave a possible explanation, so it's far from off topic.
Just because you don't care if the image quality is bad, doesn't mean you don't notice. Take Baldur's Gate - those graphics are seriously bad by modern standards, but I don't care since it's a great game. It doesn't mean I'm not aware that the graphics are bad though.
You might not even remember that it was black-and-white, because your brain is filling in the colours.
Riiiiiiiiiight. I think you need to lay off the LSD my friend - then you'll stop seeing colors where there aren't any.
I think you're forgetting who pays the money. The customer pays for the console, pays for the games, and pays for XBox Live. If MS really wants them all to take their business elsewhere, I'm sure customers would be glad to see MS go out of business.
Actually what I'd rather do is hand the money directly to the developers and avoid paying the dick publisher who forced the DRM in the game. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to do it.
VHS to DVD was an obvious improvement in both quality and convenience.
DVD to BR is meh at best.
You obviously don't watch many movies. In some rare cases, if the DVD is done just right, yes, it's hard to tell the difference between Blu-ray and upconverted DVD. However, if you're talking standard definition DVD and Blu-ray, the difference is incredibly noticeable. Even upconverted DVD and Blu-ray normally has a pretty noticeable difference in quality.
However, copy-protection DRM, is obviously about piracy.
No, it's not. If DRM was about piracy, then once companies realized that DRM doesn't stop pirates, they'd stop wasting money on it OR they would hire good programmers and make DRM that actually works. Why do you think DRM mainly uses activation limits? It's not to "stop piracy", a simple key-check would do that. The activation limits are about killing used game sales.
Copy protection is things like disk-check & cd-key and what Blizzard does with making sure no two cd-keys are logged into battle.net at the same time. That isn't DRM, because it doesn't restrict what people can do with the game that they bought. DRM is about online activation and activation limits where the company can control whether or not you play the game or can resell the game.
I have no problem with copy protection (I only have a handful of games that don't have copy protection), but DRM is anti-consumer bullshit.
I'm more than willing to pay for games and movies (hence why I own several hundred movies and more games than I can count). However, I refuse to buy DRM ridden shit. I got screwed with hidden DRM on a couple of games, and now I heavily research any game before I buy it. I'm also very against piracy, but recently I started downloading DRM'd games that I would've bought if they didn't have the DRM. Why would I do that if I'm against piracy? Because fuck those bastards for wanting to screw over their paying customers. They're making no money off me either way, so I don't feel bad in the slightest for playing the game. If they hadn't tried to trick me and screw me over (I've actually had a customer service rep flat out lie to me about the DRM on a recent game, trying to get me to buy it), they'd have gotten my money. Now it is somewhat unfair that it's publishers forcing developers to do this (such as with Mass Effect), so I do wish that there was an easy method of "donating" money to the developers - that way the developer gets rewarded for making a great game and the publisher gets nothing for being assholes.
Also, there's a guy who commented on the same post who hit the nail on the head:
Think of a government curtailing civil liberties because of a few anarchists, and said action causing previously law-abiding citizens to take up arms.
Piracy is a means of protest - showing that the games are worth playing, but the DRM is totally unacceptable.
DRM is a response to second-hand sales and game companies being greedy and thinking that they deserve the money from used games. They lie and say it's a response to piracy to get dipshits like you to accept being raped by DRM. Also, DRM causes many people to start pirating who would never consider it beforehand.
"anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."
The majority of gamestop customers is 15 yr olds without credit cards. I doubt this will work. Meanwhile an adult like me will just wait until the game is on sale for 20 bucks after it has been out a year.
Or they'll just buy the game used and download a crack to get multiplayer for free.
Once a few high-profile games establish the profitability of this scheme, it won't take long for all the major companies to switch over to this model (much to the chagrin of physical retailers, who will be reduced to selling access codes rather than physical products, until they go out of business.)
And that's when I do either one of two things - I either stop getting new games and play my old games until I get sick of them, or pirate. Either way the companies won't get money from me. I have a feeling that I'll be far from alone. Sure, the moronic masses don't care much about DRM right now, but that's only because they haven't gotten burned by it yet. Once they find out that Valve took game X off their servers and they can no longer download the game they paid for or Sony turns off their activation servers for older games (hey, we've seen EA do it on games only a year old for multiplayer) to force people to buy new games, then people will get pissed and stop buying.
Except no one reads the licenses AND the agreements are not shown to you until after you've bought and opened the software (which stores don't accept returns on opened software). That's why courts are 50/50 on upholding them and the FCC is considering banning EULA's because they take away customers rights.
I was on the 2K forums and someone asked their customer service rep that, given the horrible DRM on Bioshock 2, why should someone buy it instead of pirating it? The only reason the 2K rep could come up with? Pirating is illegal.
And if the coolest laptop was also cheap and didn't run Windows, he'd learn. It's not that people like him are incapable of learning, they just haven't been given a reason to.
Slashdot Mirror
Hence why (if you bothered to read my post) I said I turn off UAC right after I install Windows 7.
All of my family members and friends have fully updated version of Vista or 7 (multiple IT people around to update everyone) and yet those who haven't turned off UAC get the prompts several times a day - and I'm talking just for basic things like web browsing with IE (yes, I try to get them off it but they just say "why? it works") and using Office.
They're reduced in Windows 7 primarily because a request for privilege escalation that is a direct result of a user action (based on a bunch of criteria, including a valid digital signature on the application, and I believe on the MSI that installed it) gets escalated automatically.
While that may be true (I don't know enough about how UAC works to say it is or isn't), what I know is true is that Vista only had two settings for UAC (annoy the hell out of you, and off) where 7 has five settings - and it defaults to a lower setting than Vista.
Let's see, who are the two groups of people who would make up lies about Windows 7, the best OS Microsoft has made? Hmmm, there's only two groups - can you think of them? Oh, right, Mac fanboys and Linux fanboys. Taking a guess and picking one of the two is NOT being off topic.
But hey, why use common sense when you can just troll anyone who doesn't blindly bash Windows.
I do the same tasks in Windows as I do in Linux (well, I also game in Windows or else I'd only use Linux) - you get prompted far, far less in Linux.
Word is an exaggeration, but it nags CONSTANTLY. There's a reason everyone hates UAC, and it's not because of extra security - it's because it nags over all sorts of minor things. It's like Clippy only for all of Windows instead of just Office.
I think your just having to eat your words about win7, because it's a fucking good OS. it runs faster then vista or winxp, they've dropped the candy land fucked up theme and given it a slick interface.
Who the hell are you talking to? I love Windows 7 and I've said it since the beta came out. I just hate UAC.
It's a lot better than Linux's su and sudo alternatives. With su you give full control over the root account, with sudo you need to write it every time you require root account. UAC is actually a lot better than what there is available for linux, in desktop use
Bullshit. Linux only makes you use sudo / su when you're doing something worthy of administrator privileges - such as installing updates to the system. UAC nags you just about every time you click the mouse - want to run a virus scan? You need to click a UAC box. Want to open Word? You need to click a UAC box. Putting in UAC for the important things would be fine, but what people are annoyed with is that it nags you with a UAC box about EVERYTHING. That's why the first thing I do on a clean install of Windows is turn UAC off. I've rarely been annoyed by sudo when using Linux (Linux on my laptop, Win 7 on the desktop), but I've always been annoyed by it in Windows.
Obviously we have Mac fanboy's with mod points. If you bothered to read my comment, I said it was a joke - besides, the person asked what his motivation for lying might be and I gave a possible explanation, so it's far from off topic.
I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.
He's a Mac fanboy. While I say that jokingly, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the truth.
Just because you don't care if the image quality is bad, doesn't mean you don't notice. Take Baldur's Gate - those graphics are seriously bad by modern standards, but I don't care since it's a great game. It doesn't mean I'm not aware that the graphics are bad though.
You might not even remember that it was black-and-white, because your brain is filling in the colours.
Riiiiiiiiiight. I think you need to lay off the LSD my friend - then you'll stop seeing colors where there aren't any.
I think you're forgetting who pays the money. The customer pays for the console, pays for the games, and pays for XBox Live. If MS really wants them all to take their business elsewhere, I'm sure customers would be glad to see MS go out of business.
Actually what I'd rather do is hand the money directly to the developers and avoid paying the dick publisher who forced the DRM in the game. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to do it.
The quality of a movie and whether or not it holds your attention has nothing to do with image quality.
VHS to DVD was an obvious improvement in both quality and convenience. DVD to BR is meh at best.
You obviously don't watch many movies. In some rare cases, if the DVD is done just right, yes, it's hard to tell the difference between Blu-ray and upconverted DVD. However, if you're talking standard definition DVD and Blu-ray, the difference is incredibly noticeable. Even upconverted DVD and Blu-ray normally has a pretty noticeable difference in quality.
However, copy-protection DRM, is obviously about piracy.
No, it's not. If DRM was about piracy, then once companies realized that DRM doesn't stop pirates, they'd stop wasting money on it OR they would hire good programmers and make DRM that actually works. Why do you think DRM mainly uses activation limits? It's not to "stop piracy", a simple key-check would do that. The activation limits are about killing used game sales.
Copy protection is things like disk-check & cd-key and what Blizzard does with making sure no two cd-keys are logged into battle.net at the same time. That isn't DRM, because it doesn't restrict what people can do with the game that they bought. DRM is about online activation and activation limits where the company can control whether or not you play the game or can resell the game.
I have no problem with copy protection (I only have a handful of games that don't have copy protection), but DRM is anti-consumer bullshit.
Then there are special rates for certain items like vehicles, some items are non-taxable, some are taxable after $X...
Other than some items being non-taxable (only food that I've ever heard of), show me proof of the others, because I've never heard of such a thing.
But that's because sales tax is really complicated in the USA.
Really? You think sales tax is complicated? I guess division was a brain buster for you too, huh?
Yet another reason not to bother with BR.
Yea, who the hell wants high quality picture? Not me! Fuck that high quality shit, give me low-def and grainy images any day!
I'm more than willing to pay for games and movies (hence why I own several hundred movies and more games than I can count). However, I refuse to buy DRM ridden shit. I got screwed with hidden DRM on a couple of games, and now I heavily research any game before I buy it. I'm also very against piracy, but recently I started downloading DRM'd games that I would've bought if they didn't have the DRM. Why would I do that if I'm against piracy? Because fuck those bastards for wanting to screw over their paying customers. They're making no money off me either way, so I don't feel bad in the slightest for playing the game. If they hadn't tried to trick me and screw me over (I've actually had a customer service rep flat out lie to me about the DRM on a recent game, trying to get me to buy it), they'd have gotten my money. Now it is somewhat unfair that it's publishers forcing developers to do this (such as with Mass Effect), so I do wish that there was an easy method of "donating" money to the developers - that way the developer gets rewarded for making a great game and the publisher gets nothing for being assholes.
Also, there's a guy who commented on the same post who hit the nail on the head:
Think of a government curtailing civil liberties because of a few anarchists, and said action causing previously law-abiding citizens to take up arms.
Piracy is a means of protest - showing that the games are worth playing, but the DRM is totally unacceptable.
DRM is a response to second-hand sales and game companies being greedy and thinking that they deserve the money from used games. They lie and say it's a response to piracy to get dipshits like you to accept being raped by DRM. Also, DRM causes many people to start pirating who would never consider it beforehand.
"anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online." The majority of gamestop customers is 15 yr olds without credit cards. I doubt this will work. Meanwhile an adult like me will just wait until the game is on sale for 20 bucks after it has been out a year.
Or they'll just buy the game used and download a crack to get multiplayer for free.
Once a few high-profile games establish the profitability of this scheme, it won't take long for all the major companies to switch over to this model (much to the chagrin of physical retailers, who will be reduced to selling access codes rather than physical products, until they go out of business.)
And that's when I do either one of two things - I either stop getting new games and play my old games until I get sick of them, or pirate. Either way the companies won't get money from me. I have a feeling that I'll be far from alone. Sure, the moronic masses don't care much about DRM right now, but that's only because they haven't gotten burned by it yet. Once they find out that Valve took game X off their servers and they can no longer download the game they paid for or Sony turns off their activation servers for older games (hey, we've seen EA do it on games only a year old for multiplayer) to force people to buy new games, then people will get pissed and stop buying.
Except no one reads the licenses AND the agreements are not shown to you until after you've bought and opened the software (which stores don't accept returns on opened software). That's why courts are 50/50 on upholding them and the FCC is considering banning EULA's because they take away customers rights.
I was on the 2K forums and someone asked their customer service rep that, given the horrible DRM on Bioshock 2, why should someone buy it instead of pirating it? The only reason the 2K rep could come up with? Pirating is illegal.
You know damn well what I meant by "cool", now you're just trolling.
And if the coolest laptop was also cheap and didn't run Windows, he'd learn. It's not that people like him are incapable of learning, they just haven't been given a reason to.