Not this guy again...
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The author behind these pieces clearly has no understanding of how markets are defined or represented. He continues to insist in his articles that it's possible to combine Microsoft + OEM marketshare in the PC industry into a single number, then give 48.3% of it to MSFT.
Reality is, market share is measured in only [b]one[/b] product category at a time. If we're talking operating systems, that's Microsoft. If we're talking hardware PC shipments, it isn't. The kind of arbitrary graphing he produces (and bases a number of his arguments on) is nothing but made-up garbage. If I sound slightly peeved, it's because I read and emailed the author a few weeks back (after another/.ing) and tried to engage him in dialog on some of these issues and got no response. Now here he is again, continuing to tout his made-up numbers and methodology.
I assume you're referring to my "I reboot once a month" comment, and the answer is no, I do security updates when I feel they're necessary or important.
As for rebooting, I'd say the biggest two reasons I do it are either because I'm planning to dust out the system (which I do about once a month), or because a random bit of software actually needs one after being installed or updated. If it's not those two, it's because I like to periodically give the system a fresh boot, the same way I like to periodically vacuum the house vents (pick your periodic chore, here).
The point is, it's no longer a matter of "Oops, gotta reboot after 24 hours or else my performance in applications X, Y, and Z will suck."
But I have to, as far as the Dave Barry quote goes, especially since it wasn't even related to the story being linked.
I've used every Windows OS going back to 2.0, and run my main system on 95, 98SE, ME (briefly, and just to see if it was really that bad), 2K, and XP. I've done tech support for both businesses and consumers, I've built systems for people, and I've reviewed computer hardware for years--and in the process of doing all that, I've seen a lot of Windows installations on a lot of different hardware, from brand-new to dying of old age.
There are a lot of things I don't like about Microsoft, and there are a lot of areas where I think their products could be improved and streamlined--but I think a lot of people (both here and elsewhere) throw out disparaging remarks about XP in certain areas just because it's fashionable, or convenient, especially about system stability. XP may have had its kinks early on, but I'd say its been incredibly stable / reliable since at least SP1. I reboot my home rig, on average, maybe once a month--and that's typically a choice, not a forced situation. I've had one hard crash / reboot situation in the past 6 months. It's not just a system that sits idle all day, either--I work from home, game, and do all my multimedia / browsing, IM'ing, etc, all from the same box. Now yes, if you start to factor security updates into the "reliability" equation, WindowsXP starts to look a bit less shiny. If you assume that "WindowsXP" also means "WindowsXP + IE6", that's even worse...but hey, that's why I use Firefox.
People can argue that they hate the XP GUI--that's opinion. You can argue it's bloated, or you hate WGA, or Product Activation, or whatever, and you can argue about security issues all day long. But measured in terms of basic reliability--no BSODs, no inexplicable driver failures or failed device detection, and no random reboots--XP blows the doors off any of the Win9X products, and is arguably better than 2K in some performance and multimedia areas. (Hyper-Threading is the one area where I distinctly remember XP outperforming 2K--other areas I'd have to dig for at the moment).
I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but part of doing that fairly means admitting when a company gets something right--and anyone still pretending that Microsoft hasn't made huge strides in stability, reliability, features, and performance since the Win9X days needs to go out and actually try to set up (and then modify) a 98SE box. I've had to do so recently, and it's not a pretty picture. I still remember how to jump through all the various hoops, but that doesn't mean I miss them.
Of Pentium 4 Prescott laptops. That system is physically incapable of handling the heat output of the CPU + graphics card combined (though I'd bet most of the problem lies with the chip itself). Check any reputable website for information on Prescott thermal output and you'll see why.
You'd have been much better served (at much lower temperatures) by a Pentium M. In terms of game performance, they tear Prescott apart clock-for-clock, they consume about half the power, and they dont' require a case the size of your desk.
You make fair points, and perhaps I should've been more nuanced at the end of the article. I'd have been less quick to do so if every sign I'd seen hadn't pointed me to my conclusions. Even now that I'm yet deeper into both games, I haven't seen anything that really changed my opinion on either.
BUT--
I can see your point when you say that in principle, this is a bad thing to do. I will look over the last few paragraphs and see if they can be shifted a bit to keep my meaning while not giving such a strong recommendation.
Actually I'm really hoping for some great Doom 3 mods (I'm the author of the article in question). I'd love to see what people are doing and I've got high hopes for the classic doom project.
Just a note on what you've said here: (I am the author of the article in question).
I stated the following:
In all fairness, I cant' say that the Source engine is "better" than the D3 engine at water rendering (I haven't seen any water in Doom 3 to compare to, and I've got a feeling that any running liquid I find may not be a fair comparison).
So I agree. I never said D3 couldn't do water as well as HL2.
I'm the author of the article in question.
First: I state clearly that this is not a comprehensive review.
Second: I now have the Gravity Gun in HL2. Its tons of fun to play with, but it doesn't change anything I said about physics or the physics in Half Life--namely that they are excellent and that the puzzles are mostly good.
Third: I'd agree that Doom 3 is easier to play than Half Life 2--but Doom 3 is mainly a graphic-driven game, and casual gamers are less-likely to have the high-end hardware necessary to make it look good. If I had to recommend one over the other for the "casual" gamer I'd have to think about it--but you've got a good point.
Fourth: I find it odd that people criticize me for having not played through the entire game (despite clearly representing this as an initial impression of both games) yet no one stands up and says: "You got it all wrong!"
I have yet to get an email or see a comment from anyone who thinks Doom 3 has innovative gameplay, but I've seen lots of posts from people who think Doom 3 has repetitive rooms and a tired design structure. Some people may find Doom 3 creepier than others, but not too many seem to think it breaks any new (non-graphical) ground.
I stand by my piece as written. It is not a comprehensive review of either game. It is a comparison of them and their early stages. Many of the factors I compare (lighting, models, atmosphere) are consistent throughout both games. I'm now halfway through HL2, and it continues to have excellent models and good lighting. As I approach Hell, Doom 3 continues to be dark and shadowy. I'm still relying on my flashlight all the time.
Doesn't seem like much has changed.
Slashdot Mirror
The author behind these pieces clearly has no understanding of how markets are defined or represented. He continues to insist in his articles that it's possible to combine Microsoft + OEM marketshare in the PC industry into a single number, then give 48.3% of it to MSFT. Reality is, market share is measured in only [b]one[/b] product category at a time. If we're talking operating systems, that's Microsoft. If we're talking hardware PC shipments, it isn't. The kind of arbitrary graphing he produces (and bases a number of his arguments on) is nothing but made-up garbage. If I sound slightly peeved, it's because I read and emailed the author a few weeks back (after another /.ing) and tried to engage him in dialog on some of these issues and got no response. Now here he is again, continuing to tout his made-up numbers and methodology.
I assume you're referring to my "I reboot once a month" comment, and the answer is no, I do security updates when I feel they're necessary or important. As for rebooting, I'd say the biggest two reasons I do it are either because I'm planning to dust out the system (which I do about once a month), or because a random bit of software actually needs one after being installed or updated. If it's not those two, it's because I like to periodically give the system a fresh boot, the same way I like to periodically vacuum the house vents (pick your periodic chore, here). The point is, it's no longer a matter of "Oops, gotta reboot after 24 hours or else my performance in applications X, Y, and Z will suck."
There are a lot of things I don't like about Microsoft, and there are a lot of areas where I think their products could be improved and streamlined--but I think a lot of people (both here and elsewhere) throw out disparaging remarks about XP in certain areas just because it's fashionable, or convenient, especially about system stability. XP may have had its kinks early on, but I'd say its been incredibly stable / reliable since at least SP1. I reboot my home rig, on average, maybe once a month--and that's typically a choice, not a forced situation. I've had one hard crash / reboot situation in the past 6 months. It's not just a system that sits idle all day, either--I work from home, game, and do all my multimedia / browsing, IM'ing, etc, all from the same box. Now yes, if you start to factor security updates into the "reliability" equation, WindowsXP starts to look a bit less shiny. If you assume that "WindowsXP" also means "WindowsXP + IE6", that's even worse...but hey, that's why I use Firefox.
People can argue that they hate the XP GUI--that's opinion. You can argue it's bloated, or you hate WGA, or Product Activation, or whatever, and you can argue about security issues all day long. But measured in terms of basic reliability--no BSODs, no inexplicable driver failures or failed device detection, and no random reboots--XP blows the doors off any of the Win9X products, and is arguably better than 2K in some performance and multimedia areas. (Hyper-Threading is the one area where I distinctly remember XP outperforming 2K--other areas I'd have to dig for at the moment).
I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but part of doing that fairly means admitting when a company gets something right--and anyone still pretending that Microsoft hasn't made huge strides in stability, reliability, features, and performance since the Win9X days needs to go out and actually try to set up (and then modify) a 98SE box. I've had to do so recently, and it's not a pretty picture. I still remember how to jump through all the various hoops, but that doesn't mean I miss them.
Of Pentium 4 Prescott laptops. That system is physically incapable of handling the heat output of the CPU + graphics card combined (though I'd bet most of the problem lies with the chip itself). Check any reputable website for information on Prescott thermal output and you'll see why.
You'd have been much better served (at much lower temperatures) by a Pentium M. In terms of game performance, they tear Prescott apart clock-for-clock, they consume about half the power, and they dont' require a case the size of your desk.
I actually played other games on the PC, and quite a few of them. Since WoW launched, the only other game I've played and beaten was Half Life 2.
;) Until WoW, I'd never been hooked on a game this long.
If that's indeed indicative, than yes, the game industry may have a problem.
You make fair points, and perhaps I should've been more nuanced at the end of the article. I'd have been less quick to do so if every sign I'd seen hadn't pointed me to my conclusions. Even now that I'm yet deeper into both games, I haven't seen anything that really changed my opinion on either. BUT-- I can see your point when you say that in principle, this is a bad thing to do. I will look over the last few paragraphs and see if they can be shifted a bit to keep my meaning while not giving such a strong recommendation.
Actually I'm really hoping for some great Doom 3 mods (I'm the author of the article in question). I'd love to see what people are doing and I've got high hopes for the classic doom project.
Just a note on what you've said here: (I am the author of the article in question). I stated the following: In all fairness, I cant' say that the Source engine is "better" than the D3 engine at water rendering (I haven't seen any water in Doom 3 to compare to, and I've got a feeling that any running liquid I find may not be a fair comparison). So I agree. I never said D3 couldn't do water as well as HL2.
I'm the author of the article in question. First: I state clearly that this is not a comprehensive review. Second: I now have the Gravity Gun in HL2. Its tons of fun to play with, but it doesn't change anything I said about physics or the physics in Half Life--namely that they are excellent and that the puzzles are mostly good. Third: I'd agree that Doom 3 is easier to play than Half Life 2--but Doom 3 is mainly a graphic-driven game, and casual gamers are less-likely to have the high-end hardware necessary to make it look good. If I had to recommend one over the other for the "casual" gamer I'd have to think about it--but you've got a good point. Fourth: I find it odd that people criticize me for having not played through the entire game (despite clearly representing this as an initial impression of both games) yet no one stands up and says: "You got it all wrong!" I have yet to get an email or see a comment from anyone who thinks Doom 3 has innovative gameplay, but I've seen lots of posts from people who think Doom 3 has repetitive rooms and a tired design structure. Some people may find Doom 3 creepier than others, but not too many seem to think it breaks any new (non-graphical) ground. I stand by my piece as written. It is not a comprehensive review of either game. It is a comparison of them and their early stages. Many of the factors I compare (lighting, models, atmosphere) are consistent throughout both games. I'm now halfway through HL2, and it continues to have excellent models and good lighting. As I approach Hell, Doom 3 continues to be dark and shadowy. I'm still relying on my flashlight all the time. Doesn't seem like much has changed.