I remember the people bleating about how they'd never put XP on their machines. How they were sticking with 98se forever. They say the same thing about Vista now. Then again, Vista kind of sort of sucked more than XP did when it first came down the pipes.
I remember when XP came out. I knew it had problems and said I would stick with 98SE. I also knew that XP had benefits, and that once the problems were (mostly) worked out, I would make the switch. I said that, too.
The big difference between then and now is that Vista offers me minimal benefits, and builds in DRM and other stuff that actually makes it more difficult to use my oomputer the way I want.
I knew I would eventually switch to XP, though I still resent the CPU and RAM upgrades I had to do to get the same performance I had been getting under 98SE. I waited 2 years, but I made the move. I know that I will NOT move to Vista, just as I knew I would never make the move to WinMe. XP made major changes that brought me real benefits compared to 98SE where WinMe did not. Vista (like WinMe) offers me no major benefits and comes with many problems, even after SP1.
The big difference between then and now, however, is that all indications then were that XP would eventually be a big improvement over 98SE, and a REALLY BIG improvement over the failure that was WinMe. I look at everything being said about Windows 7 and I see Vista 2.0, not a new OS that offers me major benefits. I avoided WinMe and I will avoid Vista. I knew early on that I would eventually switch to XP, but at this point I don't see myself switching to Windows 7. Unless Win7 develops into something that a) offers me major benefits and b) does not restrict my use of my computer, I will avoid it as well.
The BIGGEST difference between then and now, however, is that now I have many well-developed alternatives to Windows, including Mac and several *nix systems. I may lose some software options, but I believe it would be worth it to keep my tech freedom.
I'm worried someone will use this to attack reverse-engineered servers for MMO's
Already done.
Blizzard sued the makers of bnetd and won. All bnetd did was reverse engineer the battlenet communication protocols, and use that info to create their own server software. This is LEGAL! No copyright was infringed, and even the DMCA allows reverse engineering. Nevertheless, Blizzard got bnetd declared illegal.
As I said in a previous post, Blizzard's misuse of the legal system is the reason why, no matter how good their games are, I will not buy them.
This is why I no longer buy or play any Blizzard/Vivendi games.
Sure they make good games, but so do many other companies. Blizzard has historically misused the law for their own purposes. I won't support that, so I will buy other companies games, or no games at all.
What makes you think Microsoft will continue to allow you to run XP indefinitely? Personally, I expect them to turn off the activation servers (removing your ability to reinstall or upgrade your hardware) once support ends (which, admittedly, won't be until sometime in 201X).
I don't. I expect Windows 7 to be a turd like Vista was.
This means that I expect to run XP until support ends, then bite the bullet and give up Windows completely, switching all my machines to some flavour of Linux (as opposed to running it mainly on my server, though it runs on a few of my other machines as well). For games, I will have to switch to consoles.
>1. Take a shrinkwrapped XP copy off the shelf and upgrade to that
This is why I own 3 copies of XP: Laptop, Main Desktop, Secondary Desktop I will NOT run Vista - ever! I have tried, and have had far too many problems, even since SP1. My new laptop came with Vista, and after problems with networking, printing, sound and video, I went back to XP. It's been running smoothly ever since.
>2. Switch to ReactOS
Not realistic. WINE is more useable, and even that refuses to run too much software.
>3. "Upgrade" to Windows 7
I am hoping that this will be an OK OS, but I don't believe that it will be. From what I have heard, it is based on the same OS architecture as Vista, and so has the same fundamental design problems that are causing user problems in Vista.
>4. Stick with Windows 2000, hoping that a third party keeps up with security patches
Again, not realistic. It didn't happen for Win98, I don't expect it to happen for Win2K.
Bell doesn't want anyone to know just how much money they've been siphoning off that should have been spent on infrastructure upgrades to avoid the current congestion in the first place.
I'm no MS apologist, but I think you should actually try using Vista before making statements like that. Despite what you might read on slashdot, there is nothing fundamentally broken in it and most "average" users find it a step up from XP.
I don't know about the other guy, but I have used Vista, and have worked with other Vista users, who are generally unhappy with it. In my experience, it IS fundamentally broken: Driver problems (and not just one company's drivers, either), software compatibility problems, user confusion about interface changes, excessive hardware requirements, stability problems, networking problems, sound problems, and more.
Yes, some people have had no problems with Vista, but of those I have worked with, most have had several problems. About half of them went back to XP.
0x80073712 error in doing updates
Video drivers
Renaming everything You forgot network drivers, sound drivers, printer drivers, software incompatibility, network incompatibility and DRM. I have had bad experiences with all of these, though on other people's computers, as I refuse to run Vista myself.
XP may have had more holes in it but it just WORKED Actually, this was not true until after SP2. That's why I didn't migrate to XP until Fall 2003, and I'm still ticked off at how much it slowed my system down.
I'm going out and getting a copy of XP before they totally yank it I have already done this. I picked up a couple of cheap copies from a store that was clearing them out in favour of Vista (fools!). I now have 3 legitimate XP licenses - 1 for my primary machine, 1 for my "Guest" machine (used by nieces and nephews - used to run Win98SE) and 1 for my laptop (which I just bought with Vista preinstalled, so I need to wipe and install XP).
What really ticks me off is how the OEMs have all fallen into line with MS. Very few of them still allow you to order a system with XP, and when they do, it is on older hardware only, and you pay more for the privilege (Yes, I'm talking about DELL). If MS doesn't make some major changes to Windows 7 (including removing the DRM crap) I strongly suspect that my recent XP purchases will be the last MS software I ever buy.
Good luck - from the stories I've heard, you'll spend well over the $50 in your own labor trying to get the $50.
For me, it would not be so much about the $50 as about making sure the OS installed was 1)The one I want, not the one MS wants me to have. 2)A clean install, without tons of crapware. Of course, since I will have to spend a significant amount of my time to do a clean install, I figure I'm entitled to the $50 as partial compensation for the time I would have to spend to remove what Dell/MS forced on me and install what I truly want.
Yes, it was buggy (not surprising for such an ambitious work, really) but, unlike most software companies (especially game companies!), Bethesda fixed bug after bug after bug. As I recall, there were over 200 patches released by the time I beat the game.
It is a classic for two reasons. 1) It was the first game (that I played, anyway) that allowed you to explore the game world freely without locking you into a linear quest storyline. 2) It was the first game (again, in my recollection) that allowed you to define your own character by developing the skill set that YOU wanted, rather than having skills rigidly limited by character class.
And even before WinMe there was Dos 4. Does anyone else remember just how buggy that was? And how much bad PR it garnered for M$? Yes, the Borg CAN make mistakes.
But there were a LOT of people running Windows 98/ME. For them, Windows XP was a huge, meaningful upgrade. They all went with WinXP, either as an upgrade, or as part of a new hardware purchase.
Actually, I was running Win98SE and was quite happy with it. I didn't get XP until fall 2003, and then only because some of the new software wouldn't run on Win9x. As I recall, even at the end of 2003 XP was slower and less compatible than Win98SE, and the stability question was a wash. Programs crashed more often under XP, but a crash under Win98SE was MUCH more likely to take the whole system down. I still resent having to upgrade my CPU and RAM just to get the same performance I was getting under Win98SE.
Am I willing to pay M$ my hard-earned cash just so I can spend more cash to upgrade my hardware? All so I can get the same performance and feature downgrades? I don't think so!
I tried ripping my copy of Casino Royale so I could watch it. The ripped copy wouldn't play either. I tried 3 times using 3 different methods. Same result. I returned the movie, and will not buy another DVD unless I am assured there is no DRM (beyond the mandatory but useless CSS) on it.
The area that Intel/AMD/etc should be targeting is multi-tasking: play a video game while encoding a movie and running Folding@Home without a performance drop in any of the programs.
That's one reason multi-core CPUs were developed. At some point, however, Intel and AMD are going to have to begin increasing clock speeds again. The reason is that many problems (and the programs that solve them) can't be broken into parallel tasks and thus adding cores doesn't help. Only a clock speed increase can speed them up.
I have stopped buying (and playing) all Blizzard games since they started using lawsuits to illegitimately intimidate other software projects (such as bnetd) into shutting down.
I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."
I would argue that, since the laws have never been used, they were unneeded, not untested. Furthermore, key provisions of the laws were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Canadian courts.
So, not only were the laws not necessary, they contravened the highest law of the land. It's no wonder Parliament voted them down! I'm just surprised that the same hasn't happened yet to the blatantly unconstitutional laws that have been enacted since 9/11 south of the Canadian border!
However, I never needed to cheat to complete the game. Every time I ran into a bug, I discovered that Bethesda had released a patch to fix it.
As I recall, there were over 200 patches released for the game. Sure the game was buggy, but I have never before or since seen a game company that supported their game to the degree that Bethesda did for Daggerfall. It is one of my favourite games of all time.
you live in a dream world? Windows 98 was a disaster compared to 95 in stability.
Actually, I bought Win95 on release because of the built-in networking. That feature was nice, but the frequent crashes were bloody annoying!
In my experience (talking only about Win9x series) Win95b was better, but Win98SE was the most stable of the lot.
1. Windows 95 2. Windows 95C 3. Windows 98 4. Windows 98SE 5. Windows ME
I would rate them this way: 1. Win98SE 2. Win95b and c (no significant difference) 3. Win98 4. WinME 5. Win95
I would still be running Win98SE if I could. It was faster, had better legacy support (yes, I still play old games), and (until recently) was more stable than XP. Well, not really. I got fewer crashes in Win98SE, but those I did get frequently took out the whole machine. In XP I got more crashes, but they almost never locked up the whole system.
Unfortunately, XP-only games and lack of MS support for Win98SE forced me to "upgrade" about 4 years ago. Just to maintain performance, I also had to upgrade my CPU and RAM. If I had still been running Win98SE, those purchases would have meant a performance boost, instead of merely maintaining the status quo.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, for those reasons I am also a former Blizzard customer. I will not support a company that so abuses the legal system.
I remember when XP came out. I knew it had problems and said I would stick with 98SE.
I also knew that XP had benefits, and that once the problems were (mostly) worked out, I would make the switch. I said that, too.
The big difference between then and now is that Vista offers me minimal benefits, and builds in DRM and other stuff that actually makes it more difficult to use my oomputer the way I want.
I knew I would eventually switch to XP, though I still resent the CPU and RAM upgrades I had to do to get the same performance I had been getting under 98SE. I waited 2 years, but I made the move. I know that I will NOT move to Vista, just as I knew I would never make the move to WinMe. XP made major changes that brought me real benefits compared to 98SE where WinMe did not. Vista (like WinMe) offers me no major benefits and comes with many problems, even after SP1.
The big difference between then and now, however, is that all indications then were that XP would eventually be a big improvement over 98SE, and a REALLY BIG improvement over the failure that was WinMe. I look at everything being said about Windows 7 and I see Vista 2.0, not a new OS that offers me major benefits. I avoided WinMe and I will avoid Vista. I knew early on that I would eventually switch to XP, but at this point I don't see myself switching to Windows 7. Unless Win7 develops into something that a) offers me major benefits and b) does not restrict my use of my computer, I will avoid it as well.
The BIGGEST difference between then and now, however, is that now I have many well-developed alternatives to Windows, including Mac and several *nix systems. I may lose some software options, but I believe it would be worth it to keep my tech freedom.
I'm worried someone will use this to attack reverse-engineered servers for MMO's
Already done.
Blizzard sued the makers of bnetd and won.
All bnetd did was reverse engineer the battlenet communication protocols, and use that info to create their own server software. This is LEGAL! No copyright was infringed, and even the DMCA allows reverse engineering. Nevertheless, Blizzard got bnetd declared illegal.
As I said in a previous post, Blizzard's misuse of the legal system is the reason why, no matter how good their games are, I will not buy them.
This is why I no longer buy or play any Blizzard/Vivendi games.
Sure they make good games, but so do many other companies. Blizzard has historically misused the law for their own purposes. I won't support that, so I will buy other companies games, or no games at all.
I was looking at alternatives to AVG because of this. Good to know I don't have to keep looking.
I don't. I expect Windows 7 to be a turd like Vista was.
This means that I expect to run XP until support ends, then bite the bullet and give up Windows completely, switching all my machines to some flavour of Linux (as opposed to running it mainly on my server, though it runs on a few of my other machines as well). For games, I will have to switch to consoles....decide among four choices:
>1. Take a shrinkwrapped XP copy off the shelf and upgrade to that
This is why I own 3 copies of XP: Laptop, Main Desktop, Secondary Desktop
I will NOT run Vista - ever! I have tried, and have had far too many problems, even since SP1.
My new laptop came with Vista, and after problems with networking, printing, sound and video, I went back to XP. It's been running smoothly ever since.
>2. Switch to ReactOS
Not realistic. WINE is more useable, and even that refuses to run too much software.
>3. "Upgrade" to Windows 7
I am hoping that this will be an OK OS, but I don't believe that it will be.
From what I have heard, it is based on the same OS architecture as Vista, and so has the same fundamental design problems that are causing user problems in Vista.
>4. Stick with Windows 2000, hoping that a third party keeps up with security patches
Again, not realistic. It didn't happen for Win98, I don't expect it to happen for Win2K.
Bell doesn't want anyone to know just how much money they've been siphoning off that should have been spent on infrastructure upgrades to avoid the current congestion in the first place.
I don't know about the other guy, but I have used Vista, and have worked with other Vista users, who are generally unhappy with it. In my experience, it IS fundamentally broken: Driver problems (and not just one company's drivers, either), software compatibility problems, user confusion about interface changes, excessive hardware requirements, stability problems, networking problems, sound problems, and more.
Yes, some people have had no problems with Vista, but of those I have worked with, most have had several problems. About half of them went back to XP.
Don't you mean *Upgrade* to XP?
What really ticks me off is how the OEMs have all fallen into line with MS. Very few of them still allow you to order a system with XP, and when they do, it is on older hardware only, and you pay more for the privilege (Yes, I'm talking about DELL). If MS doesn't make some major changes to Windows 7 (including removing the DRM crap) I strongly suspect that my recent XP purchases will be the last MS software I ever buy.
For me, it would not be so much about the $50 as about making sure the OS installed was 1)The one I want, not the one MS wants me to have. 2)A clean install, without tons of crapware. Of course, since I will have to spend a significant amount of my time to do a clean install, I figure I'm entitled to the $50 as partial compensation for the time I would have to spend to remove what Dell/MS forced on me and install what I truly want.
Yes, it was buggy (not surprising for such an ambitious work, really) but, unlike most software companies (especially game companies!), Bethesda fixed bug after bug after bug. As I recall, there were over 200 patches released by the time I beat the game.
It is a classic for two reasons. 1) It was the first game (that I played, anyway) that allowed you to explore the game world freely without locking you into a linear quest storyline. 2) It was the first game (again, in my recollection) that allowed you to define your own character by developing the skill set that YOU wanted, rather than having skills rigidly limited by character class.
You mean, like the PATRIOT act?
And for each person who complained, how many did not, but just took their business elsewhere? Personally, I did both.
Dell is smart enough to know the relationship between complaints and lost sales. Hint: it's not a one-to-one relationship.
And even before WinMe there was Dos 4. Does anyone else remember just how buggy that was? And how much bad PR it garnered for M$? Yes, the Borg CAN make mistakes.
Actually, I was running Win98SE and was quite happy with it. I didn't get XP until fall 2003, and then only because some of the new software wouldn't run on Win9x. As I recall, even at the end of 2003 XP was slower and less compatible than Win98SE, and the stability question was a wash. Programs crashed more often under XP, but a crash under Win98SE was MUCH more likely to take the whole system down. I still resent having to upgrade my CPU and RAM just to get the same performance I was getting under Win98SE.
Am I willing to pay M$ my hard-earned cash just so I can spend more cash to upgrade my hardware? All so I can get the same performance and feature downgrades? I don't think so!
My next computer will be running Ubuntu, with my old copy of XP on it so I can dual-boot or run it in a VM. No Vista for me!
I tried ripping my copy of Casino Royale so I could watch it. The ripped copy wouldn't play either. I tried 3 times using 3 different methods. Same result. I returned the movie, and will not buy another DVD unless I am assured there is no DRM (beyond the mandatory but useless CSS) on it.
That's one reason multi-core CPUs were developed. At some point, however, Intel and AMD are going to have to begin increasing clock speeds again. The reason is that many problems (and the programs that solve them) can't be broken into parallel tasks and thus adding cores doesn't help. Only a clock speed increase can speed them up.
I have stopped buying (and playing) all Blizzard games since they started using lawsuits to illegitimately intimidate other software projects (such as bnetd) into shutting down.
I haven't even owned a television since last summer!
I would argue that, since the laws have never been used, they were unneeded, not untested. Furthermore, key provisions of the laws were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Canadian courts.
So, not only were the laws not necessary, they contravened the highest law of the land. It's no wonder Parliament voted them down! I'm just surprised that the same hasn't happened yet to the blatantly unconstitutional laws that have been enacted since 9/11 south of the Canadian border!
However, I never needed to cheat to complete the game. Every time I ran into a bug, I discovered that Bethesda had released a patch to fix it.
As I recall, there were over 200 patches released for the game. Sure the game was buggy, but I have never before or since seen a game company that supported their game to the degree that Bethesda did for Daggerfall. It is one of my favourite games of all time.
Actually, I bought Win95 on release because of the built-in networking. That feature was nice, but the frequent crashes were bloody annoying!
In my experience (talking only about Win9x series) Win95b was better, but Win98SE was the most stable of the lot.
I would rate them this way:
1. Win98SE
2. Win95b and c (no significant difference)
3. Win98
4. WinME
5. Win95
I would still be running Win98SE if I could. It was faster, had better legacy support (yes, I still play old games), and (until recently) was more stable than XP. Well, not really. I got fewer crashes in Win98SE, but those I did get frequently took out the whole machine. In XP I got more crashes, but they almost never locked up the whole system.
Unfortunately, XP-only games and lack of MS support for Win98SE forced me to "upgrade" about 4 years ago. Just to maintain performance, I also had to upgrade my CPU and RAM. If I had still been running Win98SE, those purchases would have meant a performance boost, instead of merely maintaining the status quo.