Oh, for fuck's sake, every time I've downloaded a Vista ISO from MS, the MD5 sums were right on the page. Do you have any fucking idea what you're talking about?
Get a racing wheel and a copy of Gran Turismo HD (or a 360, the MS wheel, and Forza 2). Get a Wii. Get a DS (though be careful about what games you pick for it).
As someone with a similar problem, you don't have to give up every game - just the ones that make your hands hurt. I gave up PC FPS a couple years ago (with exceptions; I'll deal with it for stuff like HL2) and while it sucks to think, "Can I play this without it killing my wrists?", it's not the end of gaming if you choose your titles properly.
I'm kinda curious... what would MS have to do before people finally stop crying every time there's a CHANCE that something they do will be successful? At what point are they allowed to go about their business like any other company?
All that stuff costs money to produce. HD video's certainly a cheap(er) way of filling a disc, but it's just that - filler - and if it doesn't add value for a significant segment of the market, then one starts to wonder whether the extra storage is worth the increased cost and reduced supply.
Yeah, but what benefit does Blu-ray provide for games? All that storage space is wasted if your textures are too high-res to be used with the graphics memory available. If you use the space for more content instead of higher-res content, then you need more artists to make it.
I don't understand the mentality of the wink-and-nod crowd. You seem to be implying that most people would just acquire a copy without paying for it. I understand that not everyone's moral beliefs include paying Microsoft for Vista (or the creators of intellectual property in general), but why the need to brag about it? If you're going to just help yourself to the fruits of the labors of others without compensation, when they've explicitly requested that you refrain from doing so, then please just do it quietly. Giving away intellectual property for the good of others is putting your money where your mouth is - what you're talking about isn't laudable, it's just freeloading.
Does either console really have enough memory to take advantage of that level of detail in its art assets? With the extra space, they can make the games longer (unlikely, unless they start paying more artists and level designers) or more detailed (unlikely, since their are PC games with install sizes smaller than a DVD which have lower-res textures on their 360 counterparts).
Next generation, it's going to make a difference, but hopefully by then one of the two formats will have died a quick death. I don't think it'll be a big deal this time out.
Nah. I'd say a fairer comparison is between the $400 360 and the $500 PS3. Both of them are roughly equivalent at playing games, which is the point of buying a game console in the first place.
Basically, if you want a Blu-ray player, the PS3 is a good deal. If you want a HD-DVD player, the 360 and a HD-DVD drive is a good deal. If you don't want either, a 360 is a great deal. I'd rather have the choice of whether to buy a HD movie player, and I'd definitely rather have Halo than Killzone (especially since you can play Halo in realtime, instead of having to wait for Killzone to render).;)
I doubt you're going to find anyone on this site who hasn't heard of Linux. Some of us have to run Windows for work, some of us choose to run Windows (or OS X, or -gasp- both). In most cases, however, we're at least aware of our options, and capable of evaluating them regularly.
McCauley had his own opinion, to be sure, but he did a decent job of trying to balance coverage of the issues. I hope it doesn't just become a mouthpiece for Halpin (even if I agree with him).
The driver isn't being blamed for causing the crash - they're being blamed for being a squishy bag of wet meat that can't tolerate being introduced to their steering column at high speed.
Why not blame the user? MS didn't start taking security seriously until the customer demanded it. If you want a product to have a certain attribute (security, safety, whatever) then there's really only two ways to get it: vote with your wallet (and convince others to do so as well) or pressure the government to regulate it (setting a minimum standard, which might be more difficult with an OS than crash-testing a Mustang).
MS made an insecure product for a very long time, and while I'm sure they'd like to make a more secure product, even now there are still things the customer wants more (like backwards compatibility - ever notice all the "Vista's not ready" posts mention some app or device that's not working yet?)
Nope, but if viruses came with a label on the cover, then I'd say that's where the blame needs to go.
Seriously, I think it's time for the death penalty for virus writers. Sure, it's excessive, but it'd show those assholes that finally we mean business.
You know, at this point, it's pretty obvious that there are people who simply will never want Windows. You don't want to pay for it, you prefer Unix, you have an irrational hatred of Microsoft, you have a rational hatred of Microsoft, whatever the reason.
Given this fact, why would Microsoft care to find out why those people don't run Windows, or to ruin their non-Windows experience? It'd be a waste of money chasing people who will never buy your product. Why would they go to all that effort to spite and/or research people who stand no chance of ever becoming profitable customers?
MS cares about their customers and their potential customers. Paranoid ABMers don't fall into one of those two categories.
The only reason why we're hearing about this is that Symantec needs a new release for the OEMs in a few weeks, and it's not going to run on Vista without a major rewrite. New PC buyers are going to be pissed when they get Vista early next year and their AV software doesn't work with it.
Come on, Symantec, your developers should know better than to patch the kernel. Microsoft can't make an exception, even for themselves, or it'll leave a hole for exploitation.
If Microsoft told them not to do it, and they did it anyway, then I have no sympathy at all.
Slashdot Mirror
If it was such a sandbag, why would MS choose to use it?
Oh, for fuck's sake, every time I've downloaded a Vista ISO from MS, the MD5 sums were right on the page. Do you have any fucking idea what you're talking about?
Say what? Any official source for Vista ISOs (MSDN and the like) include MD5 sums.
Now, if you're downloading the software illicitly, you deserve a compromised copy.
Get a racing wheel and a copy of Gran Turismo HD (or a 360, the MS wheel, and Forza 2). Get a Wii. Get a DS (though be careful about what games you pick for it).
As someone with a similar problem, you don't have to give up every game - just the ones that make your hands hurt. I gave up PC FPS a couple years ago (with exceptions; I'll deal with it for stuff like HL2) and while it sucks to think, "Can I play this without it killing my wrists?", it's not the end of gaming if you choose your titles properly.
I'm kinda curious... what would MS have to do before people finally stop crying every time there's a CHANCE that something they do will be successful? At what point are they allowed to go about their business like any other company?
All that stuff costs money to produce. HD video's certainly a cheap(er) way of filling a disc, but it's just that - filler - and if it doesn't add value for a significant segment of the market, then one starts to wonder whether the extra storage is worth the increased cost and reduced supply.
Yeah, but what benefit does Blu-ray provide for games? All that storage space is wasted if your textures are too high-res to be used with the graphics memory available. If you use the space for more content instead of higher-res content, then you need more artists to make it.
I was. However, that's not why I'm posting.
I don't understand the mentality of the wink-and-nod crowd. You seem to be implying that most people would just acquire a copy without paying for it. I understand that not everyone's moral beliefs include paying Microsoft for Vista (or the creators of intellectual property in general), but why the need to brag about it? If you're going to just help yourself to the fruits of the labors of others without compensation, when they've explicitly requested that you refrain from doing so, then please just do it quietly. Giving away intellectual property for the good of others is putting your money where your mouth is - what you're talking about isn't laudable, it's just freeloading.
I've got my copy of IE7 set up to search via Google. It's not the easiest thing to find, but the dialog is still fairly clear.
What's needed, perhaps, is a "set my search engine" similar to setting the homepage. There's definite potential for misuse there, however.
Does either console really have enough memory to take advantage of that level of detail in its art assets? With the extra space, they can make the games longer (unlikely, unless they start paying more artists and level designers) or more detailed (unlikely, since their are PC games with install sizes smaller than a DVD which have lower-res textures on their 360 counterparts).
Next generation, it's going to make a difference, but hopefully by then one of the two formats will have died a quick death. I don't think it'll be a big deal this time out.
Nah. I'd say a fairer comparison is between the $400 360 and the $500 PS3. Both of them are roughly equivalent at playing games, which is the point of buying a game console in the first place.
;)
Basically, if you want a Blu-ray player, the PS3 is a good deal. If you want a HD-DVD player, the 360 and a HD-DVD drive is a good deal. If you don't want either, a 360 is a great deal. I'd rather have the choice of whether to buy a HD movie player, and I'd definitely rather have Halo than Killzone (especially since you can play Halo in realtime, instead of having to wait for Killzone to render).
I doubt you're going to find anyone on this site who hasn't heard of Linux. Some of us have to run Windows for work, some of us choose to run Windows (or OS X, or -gasp- both). In most cases, however, we're at least aware of our options, and capable of evaluating them regularly.
McCauley had his own opinion, to be sure, but he did a decent job of trying to balance coverage of the issues. I hope it doesn't just become a mouthpiece for Halpin (even if I agree with him).
What would you suggest they do then, just give up on improving the security of their product? The customers (and shareholders) will love that.
Vista 32-bit and 64-bit come in the same box - there's no price difference.
So much for that brilliant theory, huh?
Me. I like OS X, but I keep finding ASP.Net jobs, and I like working with .Net.
The driver isn't being blamed for causing the crash - they're being blamed for being a squishy bag of wet meat that can't tolerate being introduced to their steering column at high speed.
Why not blame the user? MS didn't start taking security seriously until the customer demanded it. If you want a product to have a certain attribute (security, safety, whatever) then there's really only two ways to get it: vote with your wallet (and convince others to do so as well) or pressure the government to regulate it (setting a minimum standard, which might be more difficult with an OS than crash-testing a Mustang).
MS made an insecure product for a very long time, and while I'm sure they'd like to make a more secure product, even now there are still things the customer wants more (like backwards compatibility - ever notice all the "Vista's not ready" posts mention some app or device that's not working yet?)
Nope, but if viruses came with a label on the cover, then I'd say that's where the blame needs to go.
Seriously, I think it's time for the death penalty for virus writers. Sure, it's excessive, but it'd show those assholes that finally we mean business.
So, a guy from Capcom makes a comment you don't like, and you hold it against Microsoft?
Explain the logic in that, please.
You know, at this point, it's pretty obvious that there are people who simply will never want Windows. You don't want to pay for it, you prefer Unix, you have an irrational hatred of Microsoft, you have a rational hatred of Microsoft, whatever the reason.
Given this fact, why would Microsoft care to find out why those people don't run Windows, or to ruin their non-Windows experience? It'd be a waste of money chasing people who will never buy your product. Why would they go to all that effort to spite and/or research people who stand no chance of ever becoming profitable customers?
MS cares about their customers and their potential customers. Paranoid ABMers don't fall into one of those two categories.
It's a 20GB hard drive on the base unit. They're 25GB discs.
Way to think that one through, genius.
No, the second bomb was absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the Japanese response would have been "Nice trick - betcha can't do it again!"
I think a closer analogy would be a gas station that charged more to drivers whose vehicle manufacturers don't pay an extra fee.
The only reason why we're hearing about this is that Symantec needs a new release for the OEMs in a few weeks, and it's not going to run on Vista without a major rewrite. New PC buyers are going to be pissed when they get Vista early next year and their AV software doesn't work with it.
Come on, Symantec, your developers should know better than to patch the kernel. Microsoft can't make an exception, even for themselves, or it'll leave a hole for exploitation.
If Microsoft told them not to do it, and they did it anyway, then I have no sympathy at all.