As a huge fan of the first two games (especially the first one), I'm somewhat disappointed with this one. It actually kind of bores me. At its core, WarCraft 3 seems like just a mixture of StarCraft and Diablo, like they just decided, "Hey, we'll mix our two biggest money-makers to make a mutant third one." StarCraft kept my interest for a while, but Diablo absolutely bores me. And now I'm running around in War3 doing little pointless sidequests and investigating towns and building experience levels and gaining inventory items...whatever happened to the big, massive battles? The game is party-based now!
Maybe it'll grow on me, who knows. I never really liked the storyline to begin with once I heard it, but playing the single-player campaigns, I'm even more turned off. A large amount of characters just talking, not very many cinematics (as in, stuff not done in the engine itself), and some downright cheesy stuff (for instance, the meeting with Jaina made me roll my eyes...and peasants running up to me, "My lord, legend tells of a *whatever pointless thing you should get that your character will say "Hmm, that could prove useful" about*). I feel like I'm just running around exploring more often than I'm planning attacks or doing any other war strategy. As in WARcraft.
Worst of all, the graphics retained their cartoonish look of War2. I loved War2 and tolerated the comic book look as just the theme of that particular installment, but the goofy humor and looks still exist in War3, and I'm kind of tired of it. Especially with the Orcs, who used to seem so badass and evil in the first game.
I miss the building tension of seeing the first few troops of a huge army slowly marching toward your base. Where's Bill Roper's "Yes, my lord" gone to? What about a recognizable war theme instead of the more ambient soundtrack of this game? Stuff like that. Maybe I'm stuck in the past, but it seems like Blizzard was concentrating so much on changing the gameplay and throwing so much stuff into it to make it different (heroes, hiring troops from the huts, running little sidequests, and more) that I miss the old classic simplicity of just two sides building bases and sending troops after each other to win instead of following some story about how the Orcs just happened to have revived themselves as a culture and, oh, by the way, some firey things are suddenly coming down from the sky to kill everyone and the dead are rising and the Night Elves are coming out of the trees. I guess I was hoping for just one last, huge, epic battle of Orcs and Humans, with all the neat little gameplay enhancements but without all the pointless features and unnecessary races to bog it all down. Though I'm sure a bunch of you disagree with me already.:)
At least there's Red Alert 2.:) And I'll definitely want to see how they do StarCraft 2; I'm hearing rumors of another race that is a mix of Protoss and Zerg...
I can't wait to see what is produced with this, but I really hope we don't start seeing a bunch of Warcraft/C&C/Starcraft clones (sadly, I know we will).
I'd much rather see something fresh and new, with its own identity. A whole new game with its own units, storyline, game world, and so forth.
Otherwise, people trying out some human/orc game called "FanCraft" will just note how it looks like a lame ripoff of Warcraft and go back to Battle.net. But if there's something new and innovative, there would be a reason to stay and play it, and you might just have a "killer app" on your hands.
I'll say this. Because of Slackware's "raw" way of doing things, Linux isn't really as intimidating as it once was when I was but a newbie. Redhat's RPMs were nice, but I always wondered where everything was going, what it was doing behind the scenes, etc.
Having used Slack, that mystique is gone, and I'm okay now with the basic internals of Linux. I just grew comfortable with it since Slackware exposes it all. Hell, I'm even toying with doing Linux from scratch. As someone pointed out before, Slackware is one of the best ways to truly learn Linux.
Oh, please. As you know, Slackware has its own package management system, the same one it uses to install with. glibc, bash, and so forth *are* installed via binary packages. No need to recompile. Just follow slackware-current.
I upgraded KDE 2.2.1 to KDE 3.0.1 just by downloading the packages and using upgradepkg. I've also upgraded the kernel, a bunch of my X apps, and even X itself. All without compiling.
I should probably point this out--I'm an idiot. I probably shouldn't even be using a Linux system. But someone like me got Slackware Linux up and running and using all my devices. Wasn't hard at all. And now I have no reason to use Windows except to run certain games.
Then again, maybe I'm just ignorant since I haven't used any other distros since I first used Slackware 4.0. I guess I don't need to try the others when I've already got the best.:)
(shameless plug) Slackersguild will always use Slackware...;)
Off the top of my head, these are the albums recently leaked before release date:
Rush - Vapor Trails Moby - 18 Korn - The Untouchables (a full two months before release) Weezer - Maladroit New Snoop Doggy dog album New Eminem album 15 tracks by System Of A Down (songs in consideration for the next album; they're not even mastered yet)
Honestly, I'd rather be using Windows 2000, but XP properly recognizes my soundcard and has the better application compability, among other things.
If they can make a modular XP, I would strip everything I didn't need and basically make Windows 2000 1/2. Otherwise, I'm stuck with a GB installation full of stuff I don't need nor use.
Re:X kicks ass, XFree86 doubly so.
on
XFree86 10 Years Old
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"You've misunderstood me. Computers are complex not simple. There is no way to make them simple. Any attempt to make them simple will only result in the complexity being hidden, not removed. Ease of use is different, in that it 'streamlines' the complexity to make it easier to deal with."
I guess I just disagree with you in that I don't see a problem with doing that.
"A good analogy is yours: automatic transmissions. Automatic transmissions are *more* complex than manual transmissions. But designed correctly, they are also easier to use than manual transmissions. The complexity is still there, but it's been shifted over to the auto mechanic instead of the user."
Again, I don't see the problem with that.
"There are the equivalent of auto mechanics of computers. They're called sysadmins. Problem is, hardly anyone utilizes them. Compare Windows with the support of a good MCSE with any brand of Unix with a good sysadmin. Suddenly Windows doesn't necessarily win the usability race. KDE and Gnome start to look pretty damn good. In my opinion, if you take away the hassle of installing, configuring and maintaining the system, Linux/BSD/Unix with KDE or Gnome is superior to Windows in the usability department."
I can't know what your experiences with Linux and Windows are, so I'll just have to trust that you're right.:-) But with my own experiences, Windows "just works." For instance, I've been using XP for close to half a year, and I have never seen a BSOD, ever.
"My problem isn't so much that people aren't willing to learn about their computer, it's that those who aren't willing to learn about it insist on doing their own installation, configuration and maintenance. My Mom thinks computers are easy, because I am always around to empty her trashcan when she gets a "filesystem full" error". I know other people who have sold their computer and stopped computing entirely for similar error messages that they never could figure out."
Agreed.
"Unix may not be ready for the home user's desktop, because the home user isn't willing to pay for support. But it is ready for the corporate desktop, which already has its own support department."
I agree. I don't consider Linux to be a home desktop environment at all.
"At the risk of sounding sarcastic: is that really so difficult?"
I didn't say typing "startx" was difficult, I was just responding to your "get with the program" statement.
"I remember when I got rid of my TV. For about six weeks I was in sheer panic mode. Only my impoverished status at the time prevented me from buying another. But after those six weeks I experienced this wonderful sense of freedom. Ditto for getting rid of Windows. Oh, I still have it around for a few games (and to figure out what my Mom is talking about when she calls me for her free support). But the freedom of actually being in control of your hardware and software is worth it."
Tell you what--I'll give Linux one more shot.:) Especially since KDE3 came out, I've been meaning to try it anyway.
We'll just have to agree to disagree--we both have obviously had different experiences with the two. I'll just paraphrase a friend of mine who said something I feel is so true: "Linux kicks ass, but it's written for programmers. Write it for users, and users will use it."
He wrote a post about Linux at Slackersguild: http://www.slackersguild.com/article.pl?sid=02/03/ 15/0758259&mode=nested
We'll see what happens--you got me interested. I'll give it another shot.
Re:X kicks ass, XFree86 doubly so.
on
XFree86 10 Years Old
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"There is a world of difference between making things easy and making things simple. Windows has chosen to make things simple (aka simplistic, dumbed down)."
What you're saying is simpler=dumbed down? Is the automatic transmission of a car "dumbed down"? If I use "apt-get" to grab something instead of downloading the source and running "make install," is that dumbed down as well? Personally, I think it's just making things more efficient and convenient.
"Computers are complex by their very nature. You cannot eliminate this complexity. Your choices are to either make this complexity easier, through consistency, documentation and proper design, or by hiding the complexity away where no one can see it. The latter is what Microsoft has done (thought to be fair, it has done a little bit of work on the design department). But that hidden complexity is still there, waiting to jump out and bite the unwary user the first time they have a problem."
Haven't had a problem yet, myself. If Windows is hiding complexity, I would say Linux is wearing it on its sleeve. And documentation is still difficult to find sometimes. Not necessarily a fault with Linux itself--Microsoft is the one who can afford technical writers--but it's still a problem.
"I haven't set a refresh rate in years and I don't use any command line arguments to start my GUI. It sounds like you haven't use any sort of Unix for several years if you think that sort of stuff is still required. Get with the program."
The most recent distro I have is Slackware 8. I dunno about you, but when I run the X config program, I enter the values manually because mine aren't listed in the menu. I was given a command in this very discussion that starts X preemptively. Usually I start X with "startx."
"I am in the real world, and I am using FreeBSD on the desktop. I am every bit as productive as my coworkers on Windows2K."
I wish I could say the same, I genuinely do. I would love to completely abandon Windows for Linux or *BSD, but it's just not feasible right now.
"If you're having problems with Linux (or *BSD) with 96 Megs, it sounds like you need to fix your configuration somewhere."
So I'm constantly told.;-) But I don't have the time to search for the configuration problem--so I'll just use what already works.
Re:X kicks ass, XFree86 doubly so.
on
XFree86 10 Years Old
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"And the opposite attidute--'we don't need to stinkin' manuals'--is why the number solution to any Windows problem is to reinstall."
I'm not afraid to say it--the fact that to use Windows requires little to no reading of HOW-TOs and thick manuals is a point in its favor.
"Yeah, but I bet you didn't pass your driver's test without reading the manual."
Read no manual, I learned from my dad.
"You don't need to be an auto mechanic to know how to drive, but you should at least know how to change a tire."
What would be the Windows equivalent to that? Adding/removing a program? These are simple operations compared to what I was referring to, things like making the GUI preemptive by using some command at the bash prompt. And such knowledge may be trivial to you and me, but to someone inexperienced with Linux, they'll just say "Well, that's stupid," and move on to to something that works for them outright. Why shouldn't they?
"The common Windows perception is that you don't need to know how to maintain your car."
Ideally, a computer should be able to maintain itself. And people don't credit Windows enough for how well it works. I'm not talking about the 9x line, either--I know how bad it was.
We have the ability to make things easier on the user. You seem to be suggesting that it doesn't matter, and that the user *should* be forced to manually maintain their computers on principle. That seems a step backwards, like a halt on progress. Should we get rid of automatic transmissions, power steering, and more, because drivers *should* drive it raw just to know how and what it's like? Why should computers be complex? Most other industries consider it a good thing to simplify and make their products more efficient.
"If you get a blowout you'll just call up your neighbor Marge who knows even less about computers than you do. Unfortunately that doesn't work when your blowout occurs on I15 in the middle of the Mojave Desert."
So I guess users should be forced to memorize refresh rates and command-line parameters to launch their GUIs as preemptive in high resolutions, simply because elitists feel they should take time out of their lives to learn such things as the format of a xf86config file or the correct timings for their monitor or which version of XFree86 uses their video card without crashing. Never mind that there is an equivalent car that takes care of most of that automatically.
Most developers, including in other industries, take the time to make their products user-friendly. Only in the Linux community have I encountered people who tell me it is good to keep things complex and time-consuming because it's supposed to be better that way. This is why I personally consider Linux to still be just a server OS, although KDE is really starting to look good.
This is all my opinion, of course.:-) I used to be a complete Slackware devotee and despised Windows on principle. Then I got into the real world and saw how silly and hindering such polarized viewpoints can be. Linux has its place, but not on the desktop. Not just yet.
Re:X kicks ass, XFree86 doubly so.
on
XFree86 10 Years Old
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"I used a Voodoo3 3000 for several years under Linux with a middling K6 CPU and did not experience any slowdown -- opaque window moves were rapid and there were no slowness artifacts like window trails or visible redraws -- it was every bit as fast as Windows. I played 3D accelerated games (Myth II, Quake II) with no problems -- again, every bit as fast as the Windows versions."
Hmm, interesting.
"What distribution are you using? And are you sure it hasn't configured your card using the VESA framebuffer mode, instead of the tdfx driver module, which is what it should be using?"
I was using the tdfx driver on Slackware 8. I'm sure it could be any number of things causing the low performance. As I said, I really should just look into upgrading to more modern hardware. Still, XP runs nicely right now (granted, I'm using third-party drivers for improved OpenGL support), so perhaps there was something I missed in the config. Either way, it's problems like this that make me realize I don't have the time to be fishing for the problem when I have work to do! And so I boot up the XP partition...:) I'm sure things will improve with XFree86 as time goes on, and maybe then I'll make the total switch, but not now.
Re:X kicks ass, XFree86 doubly so.
on
XFree86 10 Years Old
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
PII266mhz with 96MB. XP runs faster than Win98 did on this same hardware. No smoking, seriously. The only slowdown I have is with the transparent selection box in Explorer, which I disabled anyway.
I'm also on a 33.6 modem. I guess I'm "old school."
"The flaw, of course, is that Ad-Aware doesn't delete their product automatically -- it gets the user's permission to delete it first, unless that user explicitly changes Ad-Aware's settings to do auto-deletions."
Not only that, but the simple act of installing Ad-Aware and using it is giving permission for Ad-Aware to remove the software it deems spyware (or should I say "HELPWARE", lol). The entire purpose of Ad-Aware is clear. You know what it will do when you run it--you *know* it will seek out spyware and remove it. So it's okay that it does that because the user is aware that it's doing that and chooses to use it for that purpose.
The difference with Radlight is that its little uninstallation of Ad-Aware is buried in a EULA and otherwise not apparent to the user. Most won't read it. The whole thing is just sleazy. Radlight is supposed to be a media player, and someone who installs it isn't expecting it to uninstall Ad-Aware (or install its "HELPWARE" either).
Imagine if something hugely popular like Winamp had its installation program uninstall Radlight and mentions it would do so somewhere deep in its EULA. In that situation, I bet Radlight's developer would be up in arms.
Re:X kicks ass, XFree86 doubly so.
on
XFree86 10 Years Old
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Windoze optimises for 'client' use, bumping the piority of the GUI at the expense of background processes (even on nominally 'server' computers)"
Actually, this makes sense to me. You should always be able to access the GUI. If I'm playing mp3s and suddenly all the buttons and menus on my other apps start lagging, it's not a very fun experience. Also, if something tries to bring down the system, you're more likely to be able to access the GUI to stop it. Since the GUI is what I'm using to interact with my computer, it stands to reason that it should have priority, so that it's fully responsive to user input. My opinion, anyway!
"Linux installations typically don't (except for Mandrake 8.1+), since they're generally assumed to be "server" machines - you can significantly speed up your GUI by running X with a negative nice value, since that way the GUI pre-empts background stuff, just like on Windows. This _is_ mentioned in the X manual, BTW. I don't understand why people don't read computer manuals."
I do read computer manuals. By the way, it's ridiculous that to get better performance, I have to fish through a manual for some arcane command. Your attitude--"RTFM"--is why Linux is not a very widespread desktop OS amongst us more "common folk."
"It takes months to learn how to drive. Computers are several orders of magnitude more complicated than cars, yet people seem to think one should be able to jsut muddle through wihtout any learning."
As someone here mentioned, just because you know how to drive a car doesn't make you a mechanic. That's like saying I should understand the internals of my VCR before I can watch a movie, or memorize all the positions of the Dorian scale before I can play a Led Zeppelin song on my guitar. People *should* be able to "muddle" through without learning the CLI commands to make their GUI preempt background processes. Otherwise, what's the point of a GUI?
Incidentally, I learned to drive in two weeks.
"Even windows only has a VERY thin veneer of 'easiness', it's actually horrendously complicated (more so than unix)."
I strongly disagree. In my opinion, I think it's ridiculous to say Windows is more complicated than Unix. Windows does most everything for you. As much as I hate to say it, "it just works." I remember jumping through hurdles the first time I used XFree86 some years ago just to get it to switch into something higher than 640x480. After spending an hour and a half and finally getting it working, I realized I could have just booted up Windows, where it *already worked.*
Your condescending attitude isn't causing sudden adoption of Linux by computer users (most of whom happen to use computers and drive cars but don't know their horizontal refresh rates nor their ignition timings).
My card is a Voodoo 3. I've posted about this before--how anytime I mention the slow performance of XFree86 for me, it's always about drivers or misconfiguration. Ah, well. Like I said, I'd love to try XFree86 on better hardware than what I've got! The slow performance of XFree86 is the only thing stopping me from adopting it as my main desktop instead of Windows XP.
Re:X kicks ass, XFree86 doubly so.
on
XFree86 10 Years Old
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I wish I could be as excited about XFree86, but for all the years I've used it, it still doesn't touch the responsiveness of my Windows computer. I'm not trolling, just stating my experiences. Simply dragging an X window in any window manager for me creates a trail of artifacts behind it that I can see being drawn over. This is on my 266mhz. On my old 66mhz, on the other hand, Windows 3.1 is smooth and responsive. I'm not even going to go into the complexities of configuring X, which has thankfully improved a bit over the years but not by much.
I just wish XFree86 was faster and easier to use. Needless to say, Linux remains in text mode most of the time whenever I use it. Hopefully, I'll have better experiences with XFree86 on better hardware.
"Well I don't happen to have a copy of Rolling Stone so I can't verify that right now..."
A search through alt.music.tool would probably bring up a scan of the ad.
"Hooker with a penis talks about selling out. Obviously. However, just because he made a song talking about it, doesn't mean that it is true of himself... Even though it may be. I'm sure you know he has some songs, written in 1st person perspective, that can't be attributed to his own experiences."
I'm not sure how the song *couldn't* be about them lyrically. He meets a kid who acts "OGT" and accuses the band of selling out to the man. Maynard tells him everyone is the man, and that the band sold out themselves to make a record the kid bought.
"Besides... That is off topic in any respect. It's just a quote, not a statement that Maynard should be the world's new moral leader."
Do me a favor, pick up the latest issue of Rolling Stone (the one with Shakira on the cover), and flip to page 122--the Oakley Ad. See anyone familiar? Maynard has been affiliated with Oakley for a number of years now.
One of these times, you should read into the meaning of "Hooker With A Penis" more closely. Maynard is singing that the band has already sold out, simply by making an album. They sold themselves, hence the title of the song.
Slashdot Mirror
You want a Star Wars RPG? Look no further. Contribute if you can.
Hey, aren't you that Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons?
Keep in mind, this is all just opinion. :)
:)
:) And I'll definitely want to see how they do StarCraft 2; I'm hearing rumors of another race that is a mix of Protoss and Zerg...
As a huge fan of the first two games (especially the first one), I'm somewhat disappointed with this one. It actually kind of bores me. At its core, WarCraft 3 seems like just a mixture of StarCraft and Diablo, like they just decided, "Hey, we'll mix our two biggest money-makers to make a mutant third one." StarCraft kept my interest for a while, but Diablo absolutely bores me. And now I'm running around in War3 doing little pointless sidequests and investigating towns and building experience levels and gaining inventory items...whatever happened to the big, massive battles? The game is party-based now!
Maybe it'll grow on me, who knows. I never really liked the storyline to begin with once I heard it, but playing the single-player campaigns, I'm even more turned off. A large amount of characters just talking, not very many cinematics (as in, stuff not done in the engine itself), and some downright cheesy stuff (for instance, the meeting with Jaina made me roll my eyes...and peasants running up to me, "My lord, legend tells of a *whatever pointless thing you should get that your character will say "Hmm, that could prove useful" about*). I feel like I'm just running around exploring more often than I'm planning attacks or doing any other war strategy. As in WARcraft.
Worst of all, the graphics retained their cartoonish look of War2. I loved War2 and tolerated the comic book look as just the theme of that particular installment, but the goofy humor and looks still exist in War3, and I'm kind of tired of it. Especially with the Orcs, who used to seem so badass and evil in the first game.
I miss the building tension of seeing the first few troops of a huge army slowly marching toward your base. Where's Bill Roper's "Yes, my lord" gone to? What about a recognizable war theme instead of the more ambient soundtrack of this game? Stuff like that. Maybe I'm stuck in the past, but it seems like Blizzard was concentrating so much on changing the gameplay and throwing so much stuff into it to make it different (heroes, hiring troops from the huts, running little sidequests, and more) that I miss the old classic simplicity of just two sides building bases and sending troops after each other to win instead of following some story about how the Orcs just happened to have revived themselves as a culture and, oh, by the way, some firey things are suddenly coming down from the sky to kill everyone and the dead are rising and the Night Elves are coming out of the trees. I guess I was hoping for just one last, huge, epic battle of Orcs and Humans, with all the neat little gameplay enhancements but without all the pointless features and unnecessary races to bog it all down. Though I'm sure a bunch of you disagree with me already.
At least there's Red Alert 2.
I'll go ahead and give War3 another try, promise!
I can't wait to see what is produced with this, but I really hope we don't start seeing a bunch of Warcraft/C&C/Starcraft clones (sadly, I know we will).
I'd much rather see something fresh and new, with its own identity. A whole new game with its own units, storyline, game world, and so forth.
Otherwise, people trying out some human/orc game called "FanCraft" will just note how it looks like a lame ripoff of Warcraft and go back to Battle.net. But if there's something new and innovative, there would be a reason to stay and play it, and you might just have a "killer app" on your hands.
I'll say this. Because of Slackware's "raw" way of doing things, Linux isn't really as intimidating as it once was when I was but a newbie. Redhat's RPMs were nice, but I always wondered where everything was going, what it was doing behind the scenes, etc.
Having used Slack, that mystique is gone, and I'm okay now with the basic internals of Linux. I just grew comfortable with it since Slackware exposes it all. Hell, I'm even toying with doing Linux from scratch. As someone pointed out before, Slackware is one of the best ways to truly learn Linux.
Oh, please. As you know, Slackware has its own package management system, the same one it uses to install with. glibc, bash, and so forth *are* installed via binary packages. No need to recompile. Just follow slackware-current.
I upgraded KDE 2.2.1 to KDE 3.0.1 just by downloading the packages and using upgradepkg. I've also upgraded the kernel, a bunch of my X apps, and even X itself. All without compiling.
I should probably point this out--I'm an idiot. I probably shouldn't even be using a Linux system. But someone like me got Slackware Linux up and running and using all my devices. Wasn't hard at all. And now I have no reason to use Windows except to run certain games.
Then again, maybe I'm just ignorant since I haven't used any other distros since I first used Slackware 4.0. I guess I don't need to try the others when I've already got the best. :)
(shameless plug) Slackersguild will always use Slackware... ;)
I merged with the Helios A.I., so all of this is very exciting.
Off the top of my head, these are the albums recently leaked before release date:
Rush - Vapor Trails
Moby - 18
Korn - The Untouchables (a full two months before release)
Weezer - Maladroit
New Snoop Doggy dog album
New Eminem album
15 tracks by System Of A Down (songs in consideration for the next album; they're not even mastered yet)
Probably more I'm forgetting.
It's like you paraphrased FilmThreat's review.
Honestly, I'd rather be using Windows 2000, but XP properly recognizes my soundcard and has the better application compability, among other things.
If they can make a modular XP, I would strip everything I didn't need and basically make Windows 2000 1/2. Otherwise, I'm stuck with a GB installation full of stuff I don't need nor use.
http://www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/sue_5 6k.html
"Stop buying their product until they smarten up."
That's what we're doing.
How do you feel about OS X? Just curious.
"You've misunderstood me. Computers are complex not simple. There is no way to make them simple. Any attempt to make them simple will only result in the complexity being hidden, not removed. Ease of use is different, in that it 'streamlines' the complexity to make it easier to deal with."
:-) But with my own experiences, Windows "just works." For instance, I've been using XP for close to half a year, and I have never seen a BSOD, ever.
:) Especially since KDE3 came out, I've been meaning to try it anyway.
/ 15/0758259&mode=nested
I guess I just disagree with you in that I don't see a problem with doing that.
"A good analogy is yours: automatic transmissions. Automatic transmissions are *more* complex than manual transmissions. But designed correctly, they are also easier to use than manual transmissions. The complexity is still there, but it's been shifted over to the auto mechanic instead of the user."
Again, I don't see the problem with that.
"There are the equivalent of auto mechanics of computers. They're called sysadmins. Problem is, hardly anyone utilizes them. Compare Windows with the support of a good MCSE with any brand of Unix with a good sysadmin. Suddenly Windows doesn't necessarily win the usability race. KDE and Gnome start to look pretty damn good. In my opinion, if you take away the hassle of installing, configuring and maintaining the system, Linux/BSD/Unix with KDE or Gnome is superior to Windows in the usability department."
I can't know what your experiences with Linux and Windows are, so I'll just have to trust that you're right.
"My problem isn't so much that people aren't willing to learn about their computer, it's that those who aren't willing to learn about it insist on doing their own installation, configuration and maintenance. My Mom thinks computers are easy, because I am always around to empty her trashcan when she gets a "filesystem full" error". I know other people who have sold their computer and stopped computing entirely for similar error messages that they never could figure out."
Agreed.
"Unix may not be ready for the home user's desktop, because the home user isn't willing to pay for support. But it is ready for the corporate desktop, which already has its own support department."
I agree. I don't consider Linux to be a home desktop environment at all.
"At the risk of sounding sarcastic: is that really so difficult?"
I didn't say typing "startx" was difficult, I was just responding to your "get with the program" statement.
"I remember when I got rid of my TV. For about six weeks I was in sheer panic mode. Only my impoverished status at the time prevented me from buying another. But after those six weeks I experienced this wonderful sense of freedom. Ditto for getting rid of Windows. Oh, I still have it around for a few games (and to figure out what my Mom is talking about when she calls me for her free support). But the freedom of actually being in control of your hardware and software is worth it."
Tell you what--I'll give Linux one more shot.
We'll just have to agree to disagree--we both have obviously had different experiences with the two. I'll just paraphrase a friend of mine who said something I feel is so true: "Linux kicks ass, but it's written for programmers. Write it for users, and users will use it."
He wrote a post about Linux at Slackersguild: http://www.slackersguild.com/article.pl?sid=02/03
We'll see what happens--you got me interested. I'll give it another shot.
"There is a world of difference between making things easy and making things simple. Windows has chosen to make things simple (aka simplistic, dumbed down)."
What you're saying is simpler=dumbed down? Is the automatic transmission of a car "dumbed down"? If I use "apt-get" to grab something instead of downloading the source and running "make install," is that dumbed down as well? Personally, I think it's just making things more efficient and convenient.
"Computers are complex by their very nature. You cannot eliminate this complexity. Your choices are to either make this complexity easier, through consistency, documentation and proper design, or by hiding the complexity away where no one can see it. The latter is what Microsoft has done (thought to be fair, it has done a little bit of work on the design department). But that hidden complexity is still there, waiting to jump out and bite the unwary user the first time they have a problem."
Haven't had a problem yet, myself. If Windows is hiding complexity, I would say Linux is wearing it on its sleeve. And documentation is still difficult to find sometimes. Not necessarily a fault with Linux itself--Microsoft is the one who can afford technical writers--but it's still a problem.
"I haven't set a refresh rate in years and I don't use any command line arguments to start my GUI. It sounds like you haven't use any sort of Unix for several years if you think that sort of stuff is still required. Get with the program."
The most recent distro I have is Slackware 8. I dunno about you, but when I run the X config program, I enter the values manually because mine aren't listed in the menu. I was given a command in this very discussion that starts X preemptively. Usually I start X with "startx."
"I am in the real world, and I am using FreeBSD on the desktop. I am every bit as productive as my coworkers on Windows2K."
I wish I could say the same, I genuinely do. I would love to completely abandon Windows for Linux or *BSD, but it's just not feasible right now.
"If you're having problems with Linux (or *BSD) with 96 Megs, it sounds like you need to fix your configuration somewhere."
;-) But I don't have the time to search for the configuration problem--so I'll just use what already works.
So I'm constantly told.
"And the opposite attidute--'we don't need to stinkin' manuals'--is why the number solution to any Windows problem is to reinstall."
:-) I used to be a complete Slackware devotee and despised Windows on principle. Then I got into the real world and saw how silly and hindering such polarized viewpoints can be. Linux has its place, but not on the desktop. Not just yet.
I'm not afraid to say it--the fact that to use Windows requires little to no reading of HOW-TOs and thick manuals is a point in its favor.
"Yeah, but I bet you didn't pass your driver's test without reading the manual."
Read no manual, I learned from my dad.
"You don't need to be an auto mechanic to know how to drive, but you should at least know how to change a tire."
What would be the Windows equivalent to that? Adding/removing a program? These are simple operations compared to what I was referring to, things like making the GUI preemptive by using some command at the bash prompt. And such knowledge may be trivial to you and me, but to someone inexperienced with Linux, they'll just say "Well, that's stupid," and move on to to something that works for them outright. Why shouldn't they?
"The common Windows perception is that you don't need to know how to maintain your car."
Ideally, a computer should be able to maintain itself. And people don't credit Windows enough for how well it works. I'm not talking about the 9x line, either--I know how bad it was.
We have the ability to make things easier on the user. You seem to be suggesting that it doesn't matter, and that the user *should* be forced to manually maintain their computers on principle. That seems a step backwards, like a halt on progress. Should we get rid of automatic transmissions, power steering, and more, because drivers *should* drive it raw just to know how and what it's like? Why should computers be complex? Most other industries consider it a good thing to simplify and make their products more efficient.
"If you get a blowout you'll just call up your neighbor Marge who knows even less about computers than you do. Unfortunately that doesn't work when your blowout occurs on I15 in the middle of the Mojave Desert."
So I guess users should be forced to memorize refresh rates and command-line parameters to launch their GUIs as preemptive in high resolutions, simply because elitists feel they should take time out of their lives to learn such things as the format of a xf86config file or the correct timings for their monitor or which version of XFree86 uses their video card without crashing. Never mind that there is an equivalent car that takes care of most of that automatically.
Most developers, including in other industries, take the time to make their products user-friendly. Only in the Linux community have I encountered people who tell me it is good to keep things complex and time-consuming because it's supposed to be better that way. This is why I personally consider Linux to still be just a server OS, although KDE is really starting to look good.
This is all my opinion, of course.
"I used a Voodoo3 3000 for several years under Linux with a middling K6 CPU and did not experience any slowdown -- opaque window moves were rapid and there were no slowness artifacts like window trails or visible redraws -- it was every bit as fast as Windows. I played 3D accelerated games (Myth II, Quake II) with no problems -- again, every bit as fast as the Windows versions."
:) I'm sure things will improve with XFree86 as time goes on, and maybe then I'll make the total switch, but not now.
Hmm, interesting.
"What distribution are you using? And are you sure it hasn't configured your card using the VESA framebuffer mode, instead of the tdfx driver module, which is what it should be using?"
I was using the tdfx driver on Slackware 8. I'm sure it could be any number of things causing the low performance. As I said, I really should just look into upgrading to more modern hardware. Still, XP runs nicely right now (granted, I'm using third-party drivers for improved OpenGL support), so perhaps there was something I missed in the config. Either way, it's problems like this that make me realize I don't have the time to be fishing for the problem when I have work to do! And so I boot up the XP partition...
PII266mhz with 96MB. XP runs faster than Win98 did on this same hardware. No smoking, seriously. The only slowdown I have is with the transparent selection box in Explorer, which I disabled anyway.
I'm also on a 33.6 modem. I guess I'm "old school."
"The flaw, of course, is that Ad-Aware doesn't delete their product automatically -- it gets the user's permission to delete it first, unless that user explicitly changes Ad-Aware's settings to do auto-deletions."
Not only that, but the simple act of installing Ad-Aware and using it is giving permission for Ad-Aware to remove the software it deems spyware (or should I say "HELPWARE", lol). The entire purpose of Ad-Aware is clear. You know what it will do when you run it--you *know* it will seek out spyware and remove it. So it's okay that it does that because the user is aware that it's doing that and chooses to use it for that purpose.
The difference with Radlight is that its little uninstallation of Ad-Aware is buried in a EULA and otherwise not apparent to the user. Most won't read it. The whole thing is just sleazy. Radlight is supposed to be a media player, and someone who installs it isn't expecting it to uninstall Ad-Aware (or install its "HELPWARE" either).
Imagine if something hugely popular like Winamp had its installation program uninstall Radlight and mentions it would do so somewhere deep in its EULA. In that situation, I bet Radlight's developer would be up in arms.
"Windoze optimises for 'client' use, bumping the piority of the GUI at the expense of background processes (even on nominally 'server' computers)"
Actually, this makes sense to me. You should always be able to access the GUI. If I'm playing mp3s and suddenly all the buttons and menus on my other apps start lagging, it's not a very fun experience. Also, if something tries to bring down the system, you're more likely to be able to access the GUI to stop it. Since the GUI is what I'm using to interact with my computer, it stands to reason that it should have priority, so that it's fully responsive to user input. My opinion, anyway!
"Linux installations typically don't (except for Mandrake 8.1+), since they're generally assumed to be "server" machines - you can significantly speed up your GUI by running X with a negative nice value, since that way the GUI pre-empts background stuff, just like on Windows. This _is_ mentioned in the X manual, BTW. I don't understand why people don't read computer manuals."
I do read computer manuals. By the way, it's ridiculous that to get better performance, I have to fish through a manual for some arcane command. Your attitude--"RTFM"--is why Linux is not a very widespread desktop OS amongst us more "common folk."
"It takes months to learn how to drive. Computers are several orders of magnitude more complicated than cars, yet people seem to think one should be able to jsut muddle through wihtout any learning."
As someone here mentioned, just because you know how to drive a car doesn't make you a mechanic. That's like saying I should understand the internals of my VCR before I can watch a movie, or memorize all the positions of the Dorian scale before I can play a Led Zeppelin song on my guitar. People *should* be able to "muddle" through without learning the CLI commands to make their GUI preempt background processes. Otherwise, what's the point of a GUI?
Incidentally, I learned to drive in two weeks.
"Even windows only has a VERY thin veneer of 'easiness', it's actually horrendously complicated (more so than unix)."
I strongly disagree. In my opinion, I think it's ridiculous to say Windows is more complicated than Unix. Windows does most everything for you. As much as I hate to say it, "it just works." I remember jumping through hurdles the first time I used XFree86 some years ago just to get it to switch into something higher than 640x480. After spending an hour and a half and finally getting it working, I realized I could have just booted up Windows, where it *already worked.*
Your condescending attitude isn't causing sudden adoption of Linux by computer users (most of whom happen to use computers and drive cars but don't know their horizontal refresh rates nor their ignition timings).
My card is a Voodoo 3. I've posted about this before--how anytime I mention the slow performance of XFree86 for me, it's always about drivers or misconfiguration. Ah, well. Like I said, I'd love to try XFree86 on better hardware than what I've got! The slow performance of XFree86 is the only thing stopping me from adopting it as my main desktop instead of Windows XP.
I wish I could be as excited about XFree86, but for all the years I've used it, it still doesn't touch the responsiveness of my Windows computer. I'm not trolling, just stating my experiences. Simply dragging an X window in any window manager for me creates a trail of artifacts behind it that I can see being drawn over. This is on my 266mhz. On my old 66mhz, on the other hand, Windows 3.1 is smooth and responsive. I'm not even going to go into the complexities of configuring X, which has thankfully improved a bit over the years but not by much.
I just wish XFree86 was faster and easier to use. Needless to say, Linux remains in text mode most of the time whenever I use it. Hopefully, I'll have better experiences with XFree86 on better hardware.
"Well I don't happen to have a copy of Rolling Stone so I can't verify that right now..."
:)
A search through alt.music.tool would probably bring up a scan of the ad.
"Hooker with a penis talks about selling out. Obviously. However, just because he made a song talking about it, doesn't mean that it is true of himself... Even though it may be. I'm sure you know he has some songs, written in 1st person perspective, that can't be attributed to his own experiences."
I'm not sure how the song *couldn't* be about them lyrically. He meets a kid who acts "OGT" and accuses the band of selling out to the man. Maynard tells him everyone is the man, and that the band sold out themselves to make a record the kid bought.
"Besides... That is off topic in any respect. It's just a quote, not a statement that Maynard should be the world's new moral leader."
I know, I just like to argue.
Do me a favor, pick up the latest issue of Rolling Stone (the one with Shakira on the cover), and flip to page 122--the Oakley Ad. See anyone familiar? Maynard has been affiliated with Oakley for a number of years now.
One of these times, you should read into the meaning of "Hooker With A Penis" more closely. Maynard is singing that the band has already sold out, simply by making an album. They sold themselves, hence the title of the song.