A sad loss of one of only two "real" competitors to the Microsoft OS monopoly (the other, I would hazard, being the Free/OSS/Unix-y crowd all bundled together). Apple wouldn't want to risk it for the world.
EU without Hitachi:
So what? Plenty of other companies in and out of the EU that compete in all their product lines.
EU without Toshiba:
So what? Plenty of other companies in and out of the EU that compete in all their product lines.
EU without Microsoft:
That's what they are TRYING to do... or at least without the *current* Microsoft which has stifled the competition in the EU market.
You picked some wonderful examples. Microsoft is easily the largest company in that list, one that is actually being punished for monopolistic practices, and one in a marketspace that has no significant commercial competitors (talking about the home- and small-business-based OS market here). The EU would barely notice the absence of the other three companies mentioned, unless it were for Apple's iPod business.
None of the other companies have made a big deal of crying foul, or that they are being unfairly treated etc. and even if you scale up, MS is really the only one trying to look for sympathy.
Univerisities have the budget to replace stuff often. Smaller schools don't and it's generally expected that PC's last at least three and possibly five years. I don't think I've seen an RM do it yet, without some sort of replacement board/PSU/etc.
Seriously, I've had machines arrive *from factory* with CMOS jumpers missing (so the CMOS reset on every boot, stopping them booting automatically - and this was on an RM One which is basically a sealed unit), the motherboard sensor warnings are usually disabled in the BIOS by default (very common, and means that the systems can overheat without so much as a warning beep or shutdown), the old capacitor-explosions (anything made two-three years ago will show problems with this), motherboards where the network port (despite NEVER moving, being stressed or manhandled, because the PC's are in a sealed case) fails after about a year and it's a new motherboard or a PCI-card replacement - a problem which worsens over time taking the other ports (parallel, USB, etc.) with it.
The prices are extortionate (unless you mention other suppliers in which case you'll either get a discount or you'll be ignored for the next five years on every support call you make). The hardware is substandard. The specifications are far too low, even for so-called video editing machines. The quality control is appalling. And the laptops are even worse!
Even down to things like RM Classpads that bundle with a bluetooth USB adaptor - the adaptor will ONLY work with the TDK Bluetooth stack so you have to uninstall the MS-built-in one and then you run into all sorts of problems if you then change your mind or want to use a "normal" bluetooth adaptor. But the RM software will only recognise the Classpad's if their are plugged into the TDK adaptors. (Although, they may have resolved that by now).
Some places this is true. And of course there is nothing stopping anyone from doing anything. But when you get the threat (even if it's just from the grapevine) or zero support if you go non-RM for even one little bit (believe me, I've seen it FAR too much), heads won't take the risk. You think MS's business practices are despicable? Try RM in a "bought" borough.
A lot is down to the individual borough's attitude though - they only have to specify ONE thing that requires RM support for you to be scuppered into having to have RM hardware and a support contract too, and then while you're there...
"You missed out "refusal to support you as soon as you buy anything which isn't RM"."
So I did! Without pointing fingers, I could tell you lots of worse things though. Sabotage of new non-RM servers? "Bribing" heads/boroughs? Complete technical imcompetence? Outright subterfuge and "plotting" to score against non-RM technicians? The list just grows and grows.
I have dealt with many non-RM education companies (Viglen etc.) and they don't seem to have the same knack of getting heads on their side (even the knowledgable heads), which is their main problem. You can't get work in a school into you've worked in lots of schools etc. It's a nightmare for the person who doesn't understand how schools work.
I've had systems delivered without soundcards, with icons on student logins that can be deleted/moved/etc. (in a primary school), etc. and they don't seem to get the "it is broke and you will fix it TODAY, even though it's down to school staff being complete idiots in the first place".
Self-employed ICT Technician / Consultant / Support (e.g. out-of-hours, phone etc.) depending on client needs + how much money the school can afford:-) I actually change my job title to how "poncy" the school want me to be - consultant to some, lowly tech to others! Basically, I end up doing just about everything technical - specifying networks, moving them between suppliers, interim cover support, supporting the stuff that's middle-ground or that nobody will support, staff training, "everyday" support (everything from cleaning mice and counting Tesco vouchers through to rebuilding the servers), all sorts.
How "nice" the school are to me determines what I will "stoop" to for them. For my "favourite" schools (the ones who LISTEN to what the person that they are paying an awful lot of money actually SAYS), I'll do pretty much anything because I can recoup it from those schools that just want someone to come in for a few days on enormous pay and tell them what to do.
I've tried the thin-client idea and not many people are interested (I haven't yet been able to determine why, I assume that they can't really grasp the concept but I'm not actually sure). Converting RM-lock-in's to MS-only shops is a bit of a speciality now (although I never intended it that way, I'm a bit of a Linux nut in secret) but it's hard to find adventurous schools.
CC 2.4 - agreed heap of rubbish CC 3 - I have managed several CC£ networks (and still am) - nightmare.
Lots of silly problems:
Poor software compatibility - the simplest software can bork the entire CC3 network - you can't apply MS hotfixes (without risking serious crashes) and RM takes about 6 months to bring out the "RM version" of the MS hotfixes that actually work (and in the meantime you catch every virus known to man).
Buggy horrible programming - for a while, certain characters in package names could cause NETWORK-WIDE crashes and there were NO checks on what you enter, so no warning. RM programs crash on a regular basis. RM machines also, thank God that they have a decent, working "rebuild" option to bring them back from nothing.
Poor performance over low-speed networks - such as the wireless AP's on the trolley that RM try to ram down everyone's throats because of the profit margin on £30,000 of equipment.
BAD salesmanship - FORCED meetings with schools, in school time, without warning because you "excluded" them from your own purchasing decisions. Failure to heed school requirements. Failure to meet specifications. Outright lying on specifications (e.g. I was once in a meeting where they ASSURED the school that CC3 would specifically work on their laptops - twenty minutes later, I overhear the THREE salesmen discussing the fact that they did not have a single working package for the network interface chipset in question that was a vital part of the specified system). You just would NOT believe half the stories I have to tell.
RM are now buying up companies that do "related" software that's better than the RM equivalent and absorbing their products - e.g. the Ranger suite, including their Remote Control program. Also, they are either behind or somehow involved in EVERY large initiatives like Tesco Computers For Schools, the London Grid For Learning etc.
Speaking for Essex and a London Borough, most schools are RM-exclusive and those that are not have to use them for things like webmail, internet filtering etc. somewhere along the way due to Borough/County rules which have been laid down.
I've even seen with my own eyes a BOROUGH support contract which says that they will ONLY recommend, upgrade, replace or support RM products. So you can't even get independent advice from the Borough's that are supposed to helping ALL schools.
It's a nightmare. I've actually helped several schools go pure-Microsoft (Server 2003/XP etc.) because it's just so much easier, better, cheaper etc. than the RM-offered solutions. Even down to the RM applications - they supply most Primary Schools with Talking First Word - Think Word 2000 + macros + lots of clippy-style talking wizards all wrapped up to look like a new program (with all the problems that brings).
Common sense arrives at last. It's only taken more than a decade! Now, could we possibly do something about the actual REAL problem, being the Research Machines monopoly over just about every government contract to do with schools and the majority of the school market in the UK despite their poor support, substandard hardware, astronomical pricing and hard-sales tactics and MS-only policies that thus reinforce the MS monopoly?
(If you didn't already guess, I work in schools within the UK).
We haven't used Vista. We haven't tested the features we're talking about. We think they're actually probably very good. We don't know (and nor does anyone) because we haven't tested them. They could be bad. They could do nasty stuff to your networks. But we don't know because we haven't tested anything. Sounds good in theory though. And all the MS guys that have ever wrote about it say it works. We don't think it'll work perfectly first time. But we don't know because we haven't tested anything at all in any way. We advise others to test before they make any decision.
Good article. (That was sarcasm. At least I think it was but I haven't tested it myself yet).
That's obviously why they won't tell them WHAT to do, just to do it. And there isn't even a need to change the reader, most probably. A simple embossing of a small area of the bill will be sufficient, I should think. There wouldn't be any need for any machinery changes to handle a different embossing or texture - it wouldn't need to be used for "verification" of the bill in an electronic device, just so that a blind human can tell the difference between them (the issue of whether blind people can spot a forged 20 from any country is a different question altogether).
And this is something that I've always questioned about the US currency - in the UK we have different designs, patterns, textures, embossing, sizes and colours on each of our denominations. It doesn't generate any problems in terms of carrying or using the money and blind people can probably tell quicker than a sighted person what denomination the note that they have in their pocket is. I've always wondered how the bloody hell you are supposed to tell US bills apart if you are blind.
Incidentally, coins in the UK are similar to our notes - different sizes, metals, embossings, shapes etc.. I think almost every country has done this with coins, though, even if only for reasons of economy (e.g. the 1p coin not costing more than 1p to produce).
For the average home user, you are correct. However, big business, schools and government departments do not see it that way. End of support from manufacturer is end of product in their eyes, even if they have twenty tech staff who write patches for it day in day out. And rightly so, or they'd be swimming in a bunch of unofficial hacks to keep vital services running - hacks that probably won't work tomorrow, or on other hardware etc. At least if they have a support contract with the manufacturer, they can use their pushing power to get stuff fixed.
Option 1: If it happened, it's not good for the EU at all (to be seen as toothless would let any monopoly run rampant). The EU is more than just a single unit, it's a collection of lots of countries - most of whom have absolutely no interest at all in seeing an MS monopoly. Plus, the chances are that it will end up costing an awful lot of "important" people in an awful lot of countries their jobs. Plus, currently, the financial incentive to the EU alone is worth continuing pursuing the case, even if it takes years and years to appeal.
Option 2: The MS software they had would not spontaneously explode, they would have at least until the end of support for XP/2003 (which is still a few years away) in which to migrate. The enormous inertia of dozens of countries migrating simultaneously will make this no more expensive than any other option (who's going to say no to doing one country's IT if they have sites in other countries that they can reuse their creations?) - sheer demand will mean that it would be worth creating an OS completely from scratch with real funding at a fraction of the money that they would STILL be making from MS's fine. And the final target would be complete independence of any company to prevent a future re-occurence. Even if expensive, that will save a lot more money in the long run.
If MS do decide to pull out of the EU (unlikely given the figures - at least 50% of their revenue comes from there), then the EU has already stated that it would be perfectly happy to say bye-bye to them. Nobody is MAKING them do business in the EU. However, they would still have to resolve prior, historical trading issues. So annoying the EU at this point will just mean a harsher perspective on issues that are still in front of them (and will be for several years yet, no doubt). Pulling out now doesn't cancel all the legal problems that they've generated in the past and this case itself dates back to at least 2004 (and relates to affairs from a while before that).
If MS pulled out, the "vacuum" created by absence of a product to replace MS stuff would generate a lot of easy revenue - the various governments, companies, institutions would look at replacing everything NOW rather than wait until they hit problems. They'd do it right to prevent a reoccurence and they'd (ironically) be using MS's own money to fund the replacement. Unix/Linux/Apple companies would make a killing overnight.
Yes, but it was of course inevitable. Unless you want to mod and meta-mod tags themselves, we were always going to get this rubbish. You can't stop the tags any more than you can stop spam email coming through by blocking anything that contains the word "penis" in it. They'll just change the word, change the spelling, etc. and you'll still end up with spam. Tags never were a bright idea, it's the AUTHOR or EDITOR who should be tagging stories, not the general Slashdot populous.
Zero gravity - you push large object - still takes quite a lot of oomph to move it (plus you would have to have something to push AGAINST in order to make it work). Then the real problem shows itself... how the hell do you stop that nuclear bomb you just pushed from careening across the warehouse and smashing into the wall without hurting yourself?
All "zero gravity" does help with is reducing friction from the floor. It still has mass and the problems associated with things just floating about are one of the banes of the space program... look at the movie, look at all the cables, ammunition, explosives, etc. that would all just "float" around the bay if they were in zero-G. Securing them is a lot harder and more expensive than just buying a forklift or, say, a power-loader.
No, everybody doing something is not a good justification. However, if that "something" is totally within the rights of the law and not harmful and not "forced" on anyone, there's no need to get uppity.
People stupid enough to pay more to have a console now? That's THEIR problem. Why NOT sell it to them? Do you think Sony would feel guilty (or even be "in the wrong", or even be "shunned" by the collectors) for charging $1000 for a console on release day and $950 the next etc.? Hell no. The only problem is that that would alienate "normal" customers, so they don't do it.
I have a rare, one-of-a-kind, postage stamp. Some sap wants to pay me $10,000,000 for it because it's in short supply. Where's the difference? Am I "taking advantage" of him in selling him it? Of course not.
Do you hover every time you visit a cemetary? I suppose you would like us to also hover over any grave that's ever been made (which would mean hovering for all eternity unless we visit another planet), so as not to (potentially) damage it?
How, exactly, do you propose to stop other people grave robbing, those who wreck the tombs, the history, all evidence and the artifacts, FOR THE GOLD AND THE MONEY before "real" scientists (who quite often go out of their way to make sure that virtually every body that can be is preserved and respected to the utmost degree and then usually re-buried in a ceremony as close to traditional as possible, as close to their original burial place as possible?) come along and carefully preserve every bit they can. Look at the photos in the article - the BODYGUARD guarding the tomb now that it's been discovered - think he'd be there if there were no scientists around to fight for the rights of the dead?
Maybe we shouldn't sell people's houses when they die? Maybe all their possessions should stay in the same place for ever and ever?
Maybe we should forget every bit of history we've ever learned from about 200 years ago previously, if we can't find documentary evidence of it? Let's forget all we know about the Romans, the Egyptians, the Greeks, pre-historic people, dinosaurs... After all none of them were a civilisation worth researching, remembering or revering? And none of them can help us answer questions such as evolution, or the ice ages, or the sudden dying-out of millions of species, or the natural cycles of the planet's ice ages, or global warming?
Go find out how they bury bodies in cemetaries in smaller (developed) countries - Every twenty or so years, parts of the existing cemeteries are covered in twenty feet of soil and new bodies are buried atop the older ones. Is that desecration to you?
*Of course* human graves should be respected at all times. "Real" grave robbers lack this respect. Archaeologists do not EVER lack respect for the bodies, civilisations or artefacts they find. That's WHY they fight to study them, preserve them, store them (in a safer place than an unguarded tomb that will be robbed within MINUTES), allow people to marvel at them BEFORE some git comes along and steals it (whether from a dig site, an undiscovered site or a museum itself) to sell to the highest bidder who only wants them as something "nice" to put on their mantlepiece.
It seemed to me that this reviewer wanted to give this product a "good" review in face of a lot of evidence against.
- The extremely high price, yes, we can set that to one side for "new" technology. - Then you have the "No output at all without HDCP" problem (although early adopters should know this already) - Then you have the software problems related to Blu-Ray which stop you using the built-in software that plays EVERYTHING else (and only Vista will support Blu-Ray properly, it seems). - Then the right-handed-only keyboard/mouse combo (instantly denying comfortable use by a fair percentage of the population) - Then the spurious errors and crashes - The Keyboard's high power usage (4AA's) - No SCART/DVI-I ports *at all* - Single TV Tuner preventing simultaneous viewing/recording - Frame-rate issues (Possibly the most worrying problem) - Possible minor quality issues on the playback
But yet the summary of the article is almost 100% positive about it.
So because the system has no backups now means that it should go on without backups forever? Surely this should be the catalyst FOR registering lots of domains in different countries and making sure that EVERYONE uses them all. Then if one goes down (like this story suggests could happen), then no big deal.
If you're going to have to (potentially) change the config anyway, why not make LOTS of backups so that one massive change now (with the publicity behind it all) saves lots of little changes later?
OK, there's legal wranglings over the domain that you use for distributing this information.
This information is NOT illegal in the UK (in fact, the exact opposite).
So where's the backup.org.uk name, controlled by a British entity, that people who are worried about ANY downtime can use instead? I've seen ten or twelve press releases on this thing and not once a single mention of their contingency plan for if the world goes insane and the domain IS suspended (which they can fight about later).
In fact, why stop at one, why not have half a dozen, registered under different countries? Why not publish lots and lots of backup domains that work in an identical manner that everyone can plug into their systems NOW and then not have to worry about things like this ever again?
Or is the press generated by such an issue more important for spamhaus than their user's mailbox?
I understand the principle of fighting the case anyway and not giving in because of some loopy judge in the US, but seriously people - this is the computing industry. Where are your backups?
No. But do I take my wife with me and say to the salesman "Here's my naked wife. Choose something for her to wear that will turn me on. Thanks." and then buy the head-to-toe rubber suit when he recommends it?
You're interested in games. You can read. There are magazines in every store, there are millions of websites, your friends have their own "reviews" and you have a brain.
The man behind the counter is interested (directly or indirectly) in making money. Even if he's a nice bloke, he still likely has a stupid manager behind him making him recommend games that make them more money. The man behind the counter HAS NOT necessarily even played the game (no matter what he says), has no idea of the type of games that you like, does not have to put up with a bad purchase and is primarily a salesman.
Now, what do you do if you want to choose a good game to play? Why this incessant need to listen to salespeople in order to determine what to buy? Customers have NEVER had so much information (and summarised information, and rating systems, and word-of-mouth and...) available to them for, in some cases, absolutely no money whatsoever. Why listen to anyone behind a counter whose wages ultimately depend, at the end of the day, on people like you buying games from them? They may be "nice" to you and try to help you, but it's YOUR decision first because it's YOUR money.
If you are really in doubt between two games, ask for a demo of each. If they can't provide, locate a demo of each next time you see a magazine on the shelf, or download one, or play a friends copy. Why take some clerks word for what YOU would like, or even a magazine for that matter?
If you approach me while I'm browsing video games and you ask if I need help then you will get told that I'm fine. If you start trying to question my purchase or even question what game I've picked up to read the back of (which is far and away a different thing altogether) then you will get a "No, I'm alright, thanks". If I go to the counter and you offer me ANYTHING other than the game I want to buy or to point out that they are 3-for-the-price-of-2 then I guarantee you will get answered before you can finish your sentence. "Can I interest you..." "No." "Would you like to read abo..." "No." "Would you like to become a member.." "No."
I just want the damn game. It's not being unsociable, I've had many a good chat in the local video games store, it's not wanting to be pestered. You don't get people come up to you in a library saying "Oh, no. I read a review of that book that said it was awful, it only got 5 out of 10" or "Really, sir, this book is so much better even though it's not even on the same subject".
Become educated buyers. That means NOT listening to salesmen (this is a general rule that will keep you in good stead in lots of other situations too), who always have other ulterior motives.
My dad probably buys one DVD a year, plus possibly a video game when it comes to birthday time. He knows absolutely NOTHING about the games at all. Does he get the salesman to choose? Never. He's smarter than that. Does he spend money on magazines full of other people's (usually very biased) opinion? No. He looks at the back of the box of several games that catch his eye, studies them carefully, maybe he's heard of one or maybe he saw someone play a demo or maybe he can even get to play one of them in the store. Then he chooses and buys, using all the information that ONLY he has about the potential reciever of the game. Does he ever make bad decisions? Very, very rarely. This is a man that can't figure out how to run AND jump in Super Mario.
If you really, really make a bad mistake, that's what receipts are for - take it back and change it. If you're prone to making mistakes, rent the games instead.
I apply this to EVERY purchase. Electronics? Don't breathe down my neck, little salesman oik - I can probably take any of those DVD players apart and explain how every single component works whereas you've never SEEN a real Video-CD. If I wasn't that knowledgeable, guess what? I'd go look it up beforehand, or at least know the difference between a DVD player and a DVD recorder an
Or turned off crash reporting, or a behind a strict firewall, or never finished installing the thing, or never managed to get their network card/modem working, or don't didn't use it on an Internet connected PC.
When you look at the possibilities, it's almost certain that EVERY user experienced some kind of crash, however minor. Whether that reflects on the state of Vista, or the state of modern operating systems in general, I don't know.
I'm sure you'd like to clarify what legal abandonware is and of course, thanks for linking to the letter from the rightsholders of Dune, including the movie clips that are included in some versions of the game, giving the right to free redistribution.
Well, I would have to echo the thoughts of some of the other comments but not the article.
I hate and detest sequals for all they are worth. Why can't people just leave a good game alone rather than trying to constantly cash in on the name? Rarely does a sequel come out better than the original unless the original was obviously lacking (i.e. pushed out before it was finished). Video game sequels may be slightly better than movie sequels (which, again, are on the whole quite terrible with only a few minor exceptions).
To make a sequel for a videogame work, the only way is to keep the majority of the game exactly the same (as in controls, mechanics, etc.) and add "more", more levels, more secrets, more bonuses etc. But even if that's not done right, it can totally ruin a game. It has to be an "expansion pack" not a sequel for it to work properly.
There are obviously exceptions to the rule, must as there are in the movie industry, but as in the movie industry you can find that people take things just that bit too far and ruin the impression of a whole series of games. (Not that in the below list, good means "good for it's time")
GTA - good. GTA London - Good but short. GTA2 (Engine change, graphics, destroyed controls etc.) - Poor but with a few okay ideas. GTA3 (A different game entirely) worthy in it's own right but could easily have NOT been a sequel just by changing it's name.
Age of Empires - good. Age of Empires 2 (same engine, same style, same feel, same everything but done so much better, with features that are genuinely useful and with new maps, races, missions etc.) - Excellent. Age of Mythology (Let's cash in on the "Age Of" Series)- crap. Age of Empires III (a return to the old style but with my pet hate of "updated to true 3D") - good.
Carmageddon - good. Carmageddon 2 (an expansion pack with better graphics) - good. Carmageddon TDR2000 (another expansion pack, again with slightly better graphics and some physics/bonus tweaks) - good.
Command and Conquer + it's expansion packs - good. Red Alert + it's expansion packs (basically the same as C&C but with different units etc.) - Good. Red Alert 2 - starting to go downhill. Command & Conquer: Generals - crap.
Quake - excellent. Quake 2 - not too bad. Quake 3 - Yuk but fun if you started off on it as a multiplayer deathmatch kind of thing. Quake 4 - nuff said.
Counterstrike - excellent. Counterstrike Condition Zero - actually surpisingly good, despite a bad reputation. Counterstrike: Source - let's not go there.
And it's obvious why this should be = those players who love a certain game expect a sequel to be more of the same, but better. They don't expect an entirely different style of game. Those sequels that are purely mission packs / graphics upgrades but still manage to capture that same atmosphere, same responsiveness to controls etc. are the ones that are popular. Those that change the game radically will put off a lot of the original players, although if the sequel is really THAT different, it may create a new genre of it's own and thus attract players back because it's a "new" type of game. For instance, GTA3 or Quake3. However that's rare and most sequels like that just aren't as good (Age of Mythology).
If you're going to do a sequel, make it similar to the original but better (i.e. don't destroy the good pieces of the game that you originally had). If you can't make it similar, call it something else or make it clear that it is absolutely NOT a sequel in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
EU without Apple:
A sad loss of one of only two "real" competitors to the Microsoft OS monopoly (the other, I would hazard, being the Free/OSS/Unix-y crowd all bundled together). Apple wouldn't want to risk it for the world.
EU without Hitachi:
So what? Plenty of other companies in and out of the EU that compete in all their product lines.
EU without Toshiba:
So what? Plenty of other companies in and out of the EU that compete in all their product lines.
EU without Microsoft:
That's what they are TRYING to do... or at least without the *current* Microsoft which has stifled the competition in the EU market.
You picked some wonderful examples. Microsoft is easily the largest company in that list, one that is actually being punished for monopolistic practices, and one in a marketspace that has no significant commercial competitors (talking about the home- and small-business-based OS market here). The EU would barely notice the absence of the other three companies mentioned, unless it were for Apple's iPod business.
None of the other companies have made a big deal of crying foul, or that they are being unfairly treated etc. and even if you scale up, MS is really the only one trying to look for sympathy.
How much are they paying your friend? :-)
Univerisities have the budget to replace stuff often. Smaller schools don't and it's generally expected that PC's last at least three and possibly five years. I don't think I've seen an RM do it yet, without some sort of replacement board/PSU/etc.
Seriously, I've had machines arrive *from factory* with CMOS jumpers missing (so the CMOS reset on every boot, stopping them booting automatically - and this was on an RM One which is basically a sealed unit), the motherboard sensor warnings are usually disabled in the BIOS by default (very common, and means that the systems can overheat without so much as a warning beep or shutdown), the old capacitor-explosions (anything made two-three years ago will show problems with this), motherboards where the network port (despite NEVER moving, being stressed or manhandled, because the PC's are in a sealed case) fails after about a year and it's a new motherboard or a PCI-card replacement - a problem which worsens over time taking the other ports (parallel, USB, etc.) with it.
The prices are extortionate (unless you mention other suppliers in which case you'll either get a discount or you'll be ignored for the next five years on every support call you make). The hardware is substandard. The specifications are far too low, even for so-called video editing machines. The quality control is appalling. And the laptops are even worse!
Even down to things like RM Classpads that bundle with a bluetooth USB adaptor - the adaptor will ONLY work with the TDK Bluetooth stack so you have to uninstall the MS-built-in one and then you run into all sorts of problems if you then change your mind or want to use a "normal" bluetooth adaptor. But the RM software will only recognise the Classpad's if their are plugged into the TDK adaptors. (Although, they may have resolved that by now).
Oh yeah, and I work in Essex and a nearby London Borough but I couldn't name names or places on a public forum.
Some places this is true. And of course there is nothing stopping anyone from doing anything. But when you get the threat (even if it's just from the grapevine) or zero support if you go non-RM for even one little bit (believe me, I've seen it FAR too much), heads won't take the risk. You think MS's business practices are despicable? Try RM in a "bought" borough.
A lot is down to the individual borough's attitude though - they only have to specify ONE thing that requires RM support for you to be scuppered into having to have RM hardware and a support contract too, and then while you're there...
"You missed out "refusal to support you as soon as you buy anything which isn't RM"."
So I did! Without pointing fingers, I could tell you lots of worse things though. Sabotage of new non-RM servers? "Bribing" heads/boroughs? Complete technical imcompetence? Outright subterfuge and "plotting" to score against non-RM technicians? The list just grows and grows.
I have dealt with many non-RM education companies (Viglen etc.) and they don't seem to have the same knack of getting heads on their side (even the knowledgable heads), which is their main problem. You can't get work in a school into you've worked in lots of schools etc. It's a nightmare for the person who doesn't understand how schools work.
I've had systems delivered without soundcards, with icons on student logins that can be deleted/moved/etc. (in a primary school), etc. and they don't seem to get the "it is broke and you will fix it TODAY, even though it's down to school staff being complete idiots in the first place".
Self-employed ICT Technician / Consultant / Support (e.g. out-of-hours, phone etc.) depending on client needs + how much money the school can afford :-) I actually change my job title to how "poncy" the school want me to be - consultant to some, lowly tech to others! Basically, I end up doing just about everything technical - specifying networks, moving them between suppliers, interim cover support, supporting the stuff that's middle-ground or that nobody will support, staff training, "everyday" support (everything from cleaning mice and counting Tesco vouchers through to rebuilding the servers), all sorts.
How "nice" the school are to me determines what I will "stoop" to for them. For my "favourite" schools (the ones who LISTEN to what the person that they are paying an awful lot of money actually SAYS), I'll do pretty much anything because I can recoup it from those schools that just want someone to come in for a few days on enormous pay and tell them what to do.
I've tried the thin-client idea and not many people are interested (I haven't yet been able to determine why, I assume that they can't really grasp the concept but I'm not actually sure). Converting RM-lock-in's to MS-only shops is a bit of a speciality now (although I never intended it that way, I'm a bit of a Linux nut in secret) but it's hard to find adventurous schools.
CC 2.4 - agreed heap of rubbish
CC 3 - I have managed several CC£ networks (and still am) - nightmare.
Lots of silly problems:
Poor software compatibility - the simplest software can bork the entire CC3 network - you can't apply MS hotfixes (without risking serious crashes) and RM takes about 6 months to bring out the "RM version" of the MS hotfixes that actually work (and in the meantime you catch every virus known to man).
Buggy horrible programming - for a while, certain characters in package names could cause NETWORK-WIDE crashes and there were NO checks on what you enter, so no warning. RM programs crash on a regular basis. RM machines also, thank God that they have a decent, working "rebuild" option to bring them back from nothing.
Poor performance over low-speed networks - such as the wireless AP's on the trolley that RM try to ram down everyone's throats because of the profit margin on £30,000 of equipment.
BAD salesmanship - FORCED meetings with schools, in school time, without warning because you "excluded" them from your own purchasing decisions. Failure to heed school requirements. Failure to meet specifications. Outright lying on specifications (e.g. I was once in a meeting where they ASSURED the school that CC3 would specifically work on their laptops - twenty minutes later, I overhear the THREE salesmen discussing the fact that they did not have a single working package for the network interface chipset in question that was a vital part of the specified system). You just would NOT believe half the stories I have to tell.
Just don't go there, that's my advice.
Worse than that...
RM are now buying up companies that do "related" software that's better than the RM equivalent and absorbing their products - e.g. the Ranger suite, including their Remote Control program. Also, they are either behind or somehow involved in EVERY large initiatives like Tesco Computers For Schools, the London Grid For Learning etc.
Speaking for Essex and a London Borough, most schools are RM-exclusive and those that are not have to use them for things like webmail, internet filtering etc. somewhere along the way due to Borough/County rules which have been laid down.
I've even seen with my own eyes a BOROUGH support contract which says that they will ONLY recommend, upgrade, replace or support RM products. So you can't even get independent advice from the Borough's that are supposed to helping ALL schools.
It's a nightmare. I've actually helped several schools go pure-Microsoft (Server 2003/XP etc.) because it's just so much easier, better, cheaper etc. than the RM-offered solutions. Even down to the RM applications - they supply most Primary Schools with Talking First Word - Think Word 2000 + macros + lots of clippy-style talking wizards all wrapped up to look like a new program (with all the problems that brings).
Hooray!
Common sense arrives at last. It's only taken more than a decade! Now, could we possibly do something about the actual REAL problem, being the Research Machines monopoly over just about every government contract to do with schools and the majority of the school market in the UK despite their poor support, substandard hardware, astronomical pricing and hard-sales tactics and MS-only policies that thus reinforce the MS monopoly?
(If you didn't already guess, I work in schools within the UK).
Article summary:
We haven't used Vista.
We haven't tested the features we're talking about.
We think they're actually probably very good.
We don't know (and nor does anyone) because we haven't tested them.
They could be bad.
They could do nasty stuff to your networks.
But we don't know because we haven't tested anything.
Sounds good in theory though.
And all the MS guys that have ever wrote about it say it works.
We don't think it'll work perfectly first time.
But we don't know because we haven't tested anything at all in any way.
We advise others to test before they make any decision.
Good article. (That was sarcasm. At least I think it was but I haven't tested it myself yet).
That's obviously why they won't tell them WHAT to do, just to do it. And there isn't even a need to change the reader, most probably. A simple embossing of a small area of the bill will be sufficient, I should think. There wouldn't be any need for any machinery changes to handle a different embossing or texture - it wouldn't need to be used for "verification" of the bill in an electronic device, just so that a blind human can tell the difference between them (the issue of whether blind people can spot a forged 20 from any country is a different question altogether).
And this is something that I've always questioned about the US currency - in the UK we have different designs, patterns, textures, embossing, sizes and colours on each of our denominations. It doesn't generate any problems in terms of carrying or using the money and blind people can probably tell quicker than a sighted person what denomination the note that they have in their pocket is. I've always wondered how the bloody hell you are supposed to tell US bills apart if you are blind.
Incidentally, coins in the UK are similar to our notes - different sizes, metals, embossings, shapes etc.. I think almost every country has done this with coins, though, even if only for reasons of economy (e.g. the 1p coin not costing more than 1p to produce).
For the average home user, you are correct. However, big business, schools and government departments do not see it that way. End of support from manufacturer is end of product in their eyes, even if they have twenty tech staff who write patches for it day in day out. And rightly so, or they'd be swimming in a bunch of unofficial hacks to keep vital services running - hacks that probably won't work tomorrow, or on other hardware etc. At least if they have a support contract with the manufacturer, they can use their pushing power to get stuff fixed.
Option 1: If it happened, it's not good for the EU at all (to be seen as toothless would let any monopoly run rampant). The EU is more than just a single unit, it's a collection of lots of countries - most of whom have absolutely no interest at all in seeing an MS monopoly. Plus, the chances are that it will end up costing an awful lot of "important" people in an awful lot of countries their jobs. Plus, currently, the financial incentive to the EU alone is worth continuing pursuing the case, even if it takes years and years to appeal.
Option 2: The MS software they had would not spontaneously explode, they would have at least until the end of support for XP/2003 (which is still a few years away) in which to migrate. The enormous inertia of dozens of countries migrating simultaneously will make this no more expensive than any other option (who's going to say no to doing one country's IT if they have sites in other countries that they can reuse their creations?) - sheer demand will mean that it would be worth creating an OS completely from scratch with real funding at a fraction of the money that they would STILL be making from MS's fine. And the final target would be complete independence of any company to prevent a future re-occurence. Even if expensive, that will save a lot more money in the long run.
If MS do decide to pull out of the EU (unlikely given the figures - at least 50% of their revenue comes from there), then the EU has already stated that it would be perfectly happy to say bye-bye to them. Nobody is MAKING them do business in the EU. However, they would still have to resolve prior, historical trading issues. So annoying the EU at this point will just mean a harsher perspective on issues that are still in front of them (and will be for several years yet, no doubt). Pulling out now doesn't cancel all the legal problems that they've generated in the past and this case itself dates back to at least 2004 (and relates to affairs from a while before that).
If MS pulled out, the "vacuum" created by absence of a product to replace MS stuff would generate a lot of easy revenue - the various governments, companies, institutions would look at replacing everything NOW rather than wait until they hit problems. They'd do it right to prevent a reoccurence and they'd (ironically) be using MS's own money to fund the replacement. Unix/Linux/Apple companies would make a killing overnight.
Yes, but it was of course inevitable. Unless you want to mod and meta-mod tags themselves, we were always going to get this rubbish. You can't stop the tags any more than you can stop spam email coming through by blocking anything that contains the word "penis" in it. They'll just change the word, change the spelling, etc. and you'll still end up with spam. Tags never were a bright idea, it's the AUTHOR or EDITOR who should be tagging stories, not the general Slashdot populous.
Zero gravity - you push large object - still takes quite a lot of oomph to move it (plus you would have to have something to push AGAINST in order to make it work). Then the real problem shows itself... how the hell do you stop that nuclear bomb you just pushed from careening across the warehouse and smashing into the wall without hurting yourself?
All "zero gravity" does help with is reducing friction from the floor. It still has mass and the problems associated with things just floating about are one of the banes of the space program... look at the movie, look at all the cables, ammunition, explosives, etc. that would all just "float" around the bay if they were in zero-G. Securing them is a lot harder and more expensive than just buying a forklift or, say, a power-loader.
No, everybody doing something is not a good justification. However, if that "something" is totally within the rights of the law and not harmful and not "forced" on anyone, there's no need to get uppity.
People stupid enough to pay more to have a console now? That's THEIR problem. Why NOT sell it to them? Do you think Sony would feel guilty (or even be "in the wrong", or even be "shunned" by the collectors) for charging $1000 for a console on release day and $950 the next etc.? Hell no. The only problem is that that would alienate "normal" customers, so they don't do it.
I have a rare, one-of-a-kind, postage stamp. Some sap wants to pay me $10,000,000 for it because it's in short supply. Where's the difference? Am I "taking advantage" of him in selling him it? Of course not.
Do you hover every time you visit a cemetary? I suppose you would like us to also hover over any grave that's ever been made (which would mean hovering for all eternity unless we visit another planet), so as not to (potentially) damage it?
How, exactly, do you propose to stop other people grave robbing, those who wreck the tombs, the history, all evidence and the artifacts, FOR THE GOLD AND THE MONEY before "real" scientists (who quite often go out of their way to make sure that virtually every body that can be is preserved and respected to the utmost degree and then usually re-buried in a ceremony as close to traditional as possible, as close to their original burial place as possible?) come along and carefully preserve every bit they can. Look at the photos in the article - the BODYGUARD guarding the tomb now that it's been discovered - think he'd be there if there were no scientists around to fight for the rights of the dead?
Maybe we shouldn't sell people's houses when they die?
Maybe all their possessions should stay in the same place for ever and ever?
Maybe we should forget every bit of history we've ever learned from about 200 years ago previously, if we can't find documentary evidence of it? Let's forget all we know about the Romans, the Egyptians, the Greeks, pre-historic people, dinosaurs... After all none of them were a civilisation worth researching, remembering or revering? And none of them can help us answer questions such as evolution, or the ice ages, or the sudden dying-out of millions of species, or the natural cycles of the planet's ice ages, or global warming?
Go find out how they bury bodies in cemetaries in smaller (developed) countries - Every twenty or so years, parts of the existing cemeteries are covered in twenty feet of soil and new bodies are buried atop the older ones. Is that desecration to you?
*Of course* human graves should be respected at all times. "Real" grave robbers lack this respect. Archaeologists do not EVER lack respect for the bodies, civilisations or artefacts they find. That's WHY they fight to study them, preserve them, store them (in a safer place than an unguarded tomb that will be robbed within MINUTES), allow people to marvel at them BEFORE some git comes along and steals it (whether from a dig site, an undiscovered site or a museum itself) to sell to the highest bidder who only wants them as something "nice" to put on their mantlepiece.
It seemed to me that this reviewer wanted to give this product a "good" review in face of a lot of evidence against.
- The extremely high price, yes, we can set that to one side for "new" technology.
- Then you have the "No output at all without HDCP" problem (although early adopters should know this already)
- Then you have the software problems related to Blu-Ray which stop you using the built-in software that plays EVERYTHING else (and only Vista will support Blu-Ray properly, it seems).
- Then the right-handed-only keyboard/mouse combo (instantly denying comfortable use by a fair percentage of the population)
- Then the spurious errors and crashes
- The Keyboard's high power usage (4AA's)
- No SCART/DVI-I ports *at all*
- Single TV Tuner preventing simultaneous viewing/recording
- Frame-rate issues (Possibly the most worrying problem)
- Possible minor quality issues on the playback
But yet the summary of the article is almost 100% positive about it.
So because the system has no backups now means that it should go on without backups forever? Surely this should be the catalyst FOR registering lots of domains in different countries and making sure that EVERYONE uses them all. Then if one goes down (like this story suggests could happen), then no big deal.
If you're going to have to (potentially) change the config anyway, why not make LOTS of backups so that one massive change now (with the publicity behind it all) saves lots of little changes later?
OK, there's legal wranglings over the domain that you use for distributing this information.
.org.uk name, controlled by a British entity, that people who are worried about ANY downtime can use instead? I've seen ten or twelve press releases on this thing and not once a single mention of their contingency plan for if the world goes insane and the domain IS suspended (which they can fight about later).
This information is NOT illegal in the UK (in fact, the exact opposite).
So where's the backup
In fact, why stop at one, why not have half a dozen, registered under different countries? Why not publish lots and lots of backup domains that work in an identical manner that everyone can plug into their systems NOW and then not have to worry about things like this ever again?
Or is the press generated by such an issue more important for spamhaus than their user's mailbox?
I understand the principle of fighting the case anyway and not giving in because of some loopy judge in the US, but seriously people - this is the computing industry. Where are your backups?
No. But do I take my wife with me and say to the salesman "Here's my naked wife. Choose something for her to wear that will turn me on. Thanks." and then buy the head-to-toe rubber suit when he recommends it?
How hard is it really?
You're interested in games. You can read. There are magazines in every store, there are millions of websites, your friends have their own "reviews" and you have a brain.
The man behind the counter is interested (directly or indirectly) in making money. Even if he's a nice bloke, he still likely has a stupid manager behind him making him recommend games that make them more money. The man behind the counter HAS NOT necessarily even played the game (no matter what he says), has no idea of the type of games that you like, does not have to put up with a bad purchase and is primarily a salesman.
Now, what do you do if you want to choose a good game to play? Why this incessant need to listen to salespeople in order to determine what to buy? Customers have NEVER had so much information (and summarised information, and rating systems, and word-of-mouth and...) available to them for, in some cases, absolutely no money whatsoever. Why listen to anyone behind a counter whose wages ultimately depend, at the end of the day, on people like you buying games from them? They may be "nice" to you and try to help you, but it's YOUR decision first because it's YOUR money.
If you are really in doubt between two games, ask for a demo of each. If they can't provide, locate a demo of each next time you see a magazine on the shelf, or download one, or play a friends copy. Why take some clerks word for what YOU would like, or even a magazine for that matter?
If you approach me while I'm browsing video games and you ask if I need help then you will get told that I'm fine. If you start trying to question my purchase or even question what game I've picked up to read the back of (which is far and away a different thing altogether) then you will get a "No, I'm alright, thanks". If I go to the counter and you offer me ANYTHING other than the game I want to buy or to point out that they are 3-for-the-price-of-2 then I guarantee you will get answered before you can finish your sentence. "Can I interest you..." "No." "Would you like to read abo..." "No." "Would you like to become a member.." "No."
I just want the damn game. It's not being unsociable, I've had many a good chat in the local video games store, it's not wanting to be pestered. You don't get people come up to you in a library saying "Oh, no. I read a review of that book that said it was awful, it only got 5 out of 10" or "Really, sir, this book is so much better even though it's not even on the same subject".
Become educated buyers. That means NOT listening to salesmen (this is a general rule that will keep you in good stead in lots of other situations too), who always have other ulterior motives.
My dad probably buys one DVD a year, plus possibly a video game when it comes to birthday time. He knows absolutely NOTHING about the games at all. Does he get the salesman to choose? Never. He's smarter than that. Does he spend money on magazines full of other people's (usually very biased) opinion? No. He looks at the back of the box of several games that catch his eye, studies them carefully, maybe he's heard of one or maybe he saw someone play a demo or maybe he can even get to play one of them in the store. Then he chooses and buys, using all the information that ONLY he has about the potential reciever of the game. Does he ever make bad decisions? Very, very rarely. This is a man that can't figure out how to run AND jump in Super Mario.
If you really, really make a bad mistake, that's what receipts are for - take it back and change it. If you're prone to making mistakes, rent the games instead.
I apply this to EVERY purchase. Electronics? Don't breathe down my neck, little salesman oik - I can probably take any of those DVD players apart and explain how every single component works whereas you've never SEEN a real Video-CD. If I wasn't that knowledgeable, guess what? I'd go look it up beforehand, or at least know the difference between a DVD player and a DVD recorder an
Or turned off crash reporting, or a behind a strict firewall, or never finished installing the thing, or never managed to get their network card/modem working, or don't didn't use it on an Internet connected PC.
When you look at the possibilities, it's almost certain that EVERY user experienced some kind of crash, however minor. Whether that reflects on the state of Vista, or the state of modern operating systems in general, I don't know.
I'm sure you'd like to clarify what legal abandonware is and of course, thanks for linking to the letter from the rightsholders of Dune, including the movie clips that are included in some versions of the game, giving the right to free redistribution.
Well, I would have to echo the thoughts of some of the other comments but not the article.
I hate and detest sequals for all they are worth. Why can't people just leave a good game alone rather than trying to constantly cash in on the name? Rarely does a sequel come out better than the original unless the original was obviously lacking (i.e. pushed out before it was finished). Video game sequels may be slightly better than movie sequels (which, again, are on the whole quite terrible with only a few minor exceptions).
To make a sequel for a videogame work, the only way is to keep the majority of the game exactly the same (as in controls, mechanics, etc.) and add "more", more levels, more secrets, more bonuses etc. But even if that's not done right, it can totally ruin a game. It has to be an "expansion pack" not a sequel for it to work properly.
There are obviously exceptions to the rule, must as there are in the movie industry, but as in the movie industry you can find that people take things just that bit too far and ruin the impression of a whole series of games. (Not that in the below list, good means "good for it's time")
GTA - good. GTA London - Good but short. GTA2 (Engine change, graphics, destroyed controls etc.) - Poor but with a few okay ideas. GTA3 (A different game entirely) worthy in it's own right but could easily have NOT been a sequel just by changing it's name.
Age of Empires - good. Age of Empires 2 (same engine, same style, same feel, same everything but done so much better, with features that are genuinely useful and with new maps, races, missions etc.) - Excellent. Age of Mythology (Let's cash in on the "Age Of" Series)- crap. Age of Empires III (a return to the old style but with my pet hate of "updated to true 3D") - good.
Carmageddon - good. Carmageddon 2 (an expansion pack with better graphics) - good. Carmageddon TDR2000 (another expansion pack, again with slightly better graphics and some physics/bonus tweaks) - good.
Command and Conquer + it's expansion packs - good. Red Alert + it's expansion packs (basically the same as C&C but with different units etc.) - Good. Red Alert 2 - starting to go downhill. Command & Conquer: Generals - crap.
Project IGI - good. Project IGI2 (Same gameplay, slightly better) - good.
Quake - excellent. Quake 2 - not too bad. Quake 3 - Yuk but fun if you started off on it as a multiplayer deathmatch kind of thing. Quake 4 - nuff said.
Counterstrike - excellent. Counterstrike Condition Zero - actually surpisingly good, despite a bad reputation. Counterstrike: Source - let's not go there.
And it's obvious why this should be = those players who love a certain game expect a sequel to be more of the same, but better. They don't expect an entirely different style of game. Those sequels that are purely mission packs / graphics upgrades but still manage to capture that same atmosphere, same responsiveness to controls etc. are the ones that are popular. Those that change the game radically will put off a lot of the original players, although if the sequel is really THAT different, it may create a new genre of it's own and thus attract players back because it's a "new" type of game. For instance, GTA3 or Quake3. However that's rare and most sequels like that just aren't as good (Age of Mythology).
If you're going to do a sequel, make it similar to the original but better (i.e. don't destroy the good pieces of the game that you originally had). If you can't make it similar, call it something else or make it clear that it is absolutely NOT a sequel in any way.