As for your remark about linux: If you do not like the browser, media player or any other software package coming with your distro you can remove it and install something you do like without having to fear you would break something else. Furthermore, if you do not want any of these tools at all just roll your own linux distro. Try that with Windows......
despite popular./ belief, it is possible to not use any of the default MS bundled software. download mozilla, aim, aol, realplayer, star office, and video editing software of your choice and shut the hell up. just because it's "bundled" does not force you to use it. just imagine - in the amount of time it took for all these complaints about how "evil" MS is, you could have downloaded all this stuff, installed it, and set it to default.
anyone want to place bets on the word processor used to write this complaint? i wonder why they would use word... maybe it's the best thing available right now? if you don't think it's fair, go right ahead and write a better office package. i'll buy it - i promise.
now let's think about the majority of the world's pc users. take my parents, grandparents, parents-in-law, my brother, sister-in-law, guy next door, etc. realize that most people don't give a shit what OS they have - they just want it to be easy to use. they want to buy a $600 pc from (insert favorite OEM here), plug it into AC power, turn it on, play solitare. they really don't care that it comes with IE - they use AOL to browse because they don't even know that it's possible to browse outside of their AOL window. hell, (insert favorite OEM here) even installs AOL and gives them 6 free months service - they don't even have to worry about that! all they care about is that their favorite apps have a shortcut on the desktop - this way they don't have to know jack about how the machine is set up.
it's kind of funny to me - i've heard these "non-tech" people complain that no "real" office package comes free with windows and they're pissed that they have to go buy office. so now we have people complaining about "too much" being bundled while others are complaining about "not enough" being bundled. it's just a matter of opinion.
for all you idealists that think the entire world should run some linux distro, you need to get a clue. think - how long did it take for you to become totally comfortable with linux? not everyone cares enough to deal with the learning curve associated with linux. could you imagine your grandmother compiling scsi emulation into her kernel to get her cdrw drive working?
./'s are not the majority. we are a minorty. most people really don't care.
actually, i have. i have an ultra10 at work and i create guis to run on it. once again, i'll have to point out that looks aren't everything. it's what's under the hood that matters. my 1991 toyota camry doesn't look as nice as my girlfriend's sisters '86 mustang, but it runs a hell of a lot better than her 'stang ever will (assuming she can ever get it to run in the first place).
Apple did easily what Unix vendors have been trying and failing at for years - make a Unix without all that cryptic command-line crap
i can't believe you'd say something like that. that 'cryptic command line crap' as you call it is what makes unix superior to other oss. unix systems give unlimited power to the users. that 'command line crap' allows us to create shell scripts to do all of our mindless tasks for us. windows batching does not even come close. if you sit down and look at those 'cryptic commands', you'll see that most of them are simple english abbrieviations
for starters, sun does not make pcs. sun machines are meant to be used as servers or serious number-crunchers.
when you could get a cheaper, better-looking Macintosh running OSX, which is much more advanced and more stable than anything
how can you say that osx is more stable than sunos/solaris? have you ever used these oss? how can you say the mac is more advanced than a sun-box? show me a super-high-performance mac server and we'll talk. and about the way it looks...
macs look like a child's toy. they're 'pretty' with rounded corners. tell me - do you prefer coke over pepsi because the red can is prettier than the blue can?
if solaris were to be open-source, who would actually do anything with it? doesn't solaris only run on sun-boxes? and who would waste time porting solaris to x86 architecture when we already have a few good open-source os's. i've never seen a solaris kernel-panic, but i've never seen a linux kernel-panic (except when i make mistakes in my own kernel code).
this case is just going to go back and forth between all kinds of courts. m$ will appeal any judgement against them. and on top of that, i really don't think anyone cares anymore.
--
let me start out by saying zelda for the NES could possibly be the best game in the zelda series. the 8 bit display was good for its time. its gameplay was better than a number of more recent games for modern consoles. the game pad was so simple that even i could use it.
but as technology progresses, more is expected of gaming consoles - faster, more colorful, 3d displays are expected. would the p2 have as many sales in this past year if it were a 8 or 16 bit machine? so if consoles are all about speed and graphics now, why wouldn't they use the machines to their fullest potential?
i guess what i'm trying to say here is that changing the way a game is displayed is fine as long as you keep the gameplay exciting.
Slashdot Mirror
hehe... "./" should be "/." as i'm sure you've realized. i'm *nix user, so when those 2 chars appear together, it's automatically ./
As for your remark about linux: If you do not like the browser, media player or any other software package coming with your distro you can remove it and install something you do like without having to fear you would break something else. Furthermore, if you do not want any of these tools at all just roll your own linux distro. Try that with Windows......
./ belief, it is possible to not use any of the default MS bundled software. download mozilla, aim, aol, realplayer, star office, and video editing software of your choice and shut the hell up. just because it's "bundled" does not force you to use it. just imagine - in the amount of time it took for all these complaints about how "evil" MS is, you could have downloaded all this stuff, installed it, and set it to default.
./'s are not the majority. we are a minorty. most people really don't care.
despite popular
anyone want to place bets on the word processor used to write this complaint? i wonder why they would use word... maybe it's the best thing available right now? if you don't think it's fair, go right ahead and write a better office package. i'll buy it - i promise.
now let's think about the majority of the world's pc users. take my parents, grandparents, parents-in-law, my brother, sister-in-law, guy next door, etc. realize that most people don't give a shit what OS they have - they just want it to be easy to use. they want to buy a $600 pc from (insert favorite OEM here), plug it into AC power, turn it on, play solitare. they really don't care that it comes with IE - they use AOL to browse because they don't even know that it's possible to browse outside of their AOL window. hell, (insert favorite OEM here) even installs AOL and gives them 6 free months service - they don't even have to worry about that! all they care about is that their favorite apps have a shortcut on the desktop - this way they don't have to know jack about how the machine is set up.
it's kind of funny to me - i've heard these "non-tech" people complain that no "real" office package comes free with windows and they're pissed that they have to go buy office. so now we have people complaining about "too much" being bundled while others are complaining about "not enough" being bundled. it's just a matter of opinion.
for all you idealists that think the entire world should run some linux distro, you need to get a clue. think - how long did it take for you to become totally comfortable with linux? not everyone cares enough to deal with the learning curve associated with linux. could you imagine your grandmother compiling scsi emulation into her kernel to get her cdrw drive working?
Ugh...have YOU ever seen the Solaris GUI?
actually, i have. i have an ultra10 at work and i create guis to run on it. once again, i'll have to point out that looks aren't everything. it's what's under the hood that matters. my 1991 toyota camry doesn't look as nice as my girlfriend's sisters '86 mustang, but it runs a hell of a lot better than her 'stang ever will (assuming she can ever get it to run in the first place).
Apple did easily what Unix vendors have been trying and failing at for years - make a Unix without all that cryptic command-line crap
i can't believe you'd say something like that. that 'cryptic command line crap' as you call it is what makes unix superior to other oss. unix systems give unlimited power to the users. that 'command line crap' allows us to create shell scripts to do all of our mindless tasks for us. windows batching does not even come close. if you sit down and look at those 'cryptic commands', you'll see that most of them are simple english abbrieviations
Why get an overpriced Sun PeeCee
for starters, sun does not make pcs. sun machines are meant to be used as servers or serious number-crunchers.
when you could get a cheaper, better-looking Macintosh running OSX, which is much more advanced and more stable than anything
how can you say that osx is more stable than sunos/solaris? have you ever used these oss? how can you say the mac is more advanced than a sun-box? show me a super-high-performance mac server and we'll talk. and about the way it looks...
macs look like a child's toy. they're 'pretty' with rounded corners. tell me - do you prefer coke over pepsi because the red can is prettier than the blue can?
if solaris were to be open-source, who would actually do anything with it? doesn't solaris only run on sun-boxes? and who would waste time porting solaris to x86 architecture when we already have a few good open-source os's. i've never seen a solaris kernel-panic, but i've never seen a linux kernel-panic (except when i make mistakes in my own kernel code).
this case is just going to go back and forth between all kinds of courts. m$ will appeal any judgement against them. and on top of that, i really don't think anyone cares anymore. --
assuming you are not being sarcastic:
let me start out by saying zelda for the NES could possibly be the best game in the zelda series. the 8 bit display was good for its time. its gameplay was better than a number of more recent games for modern consoles. the game pad was so simple that even i could use it.
but as technology progresses, more is expected of gaming consoles - faster, more colorful, 3d displays are expected. would the p2 have as many sales in this past year if it were a 8 or 16 bit machine? so if consoles are all about speed and graphics now, why wouldn't they use the machines to their fullest potential?
i guess what i'm trying to say here is that changing the way a game is displayed is fine as long as you keep the gameplay exciting.