I don't have a 386 to test it on, but something tells me that, even if I did, you would just accuse me of making it up or something.
Conspiracy? There's nothing consipiratorial going on here. Microsoft is exploiting laziness. They don't even make it a secret. They print on the box what you need to run it. They know that most people don't have sufficient hardware, and they know that enough people are lazy enough to just go buy another computer rather than demand the software be written better. Microsoft's not trying to make any money for Intel or AMD, they're just trying to save a buck by writing non-scalable software. They're not passing that savings on to us, either.
Am I wasting my time trying to get my point across, or do you just get my point and choose to not engage me in a real debate? Can you just let me know if your mind is already made up, or if you're even aiming to change my perspective with the introduction of something other than one liners?
Re:DON'T INSTALL VISTA ON 2002 COMPUTER
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're out of touch. Most Linux distros still manage this quite easily, especially the ones that aspire to a higher level of quality. Debian and Ubuntu can, to name two.
I've bought Mac hardware. I dual boot Linux and XP on PC hardware. Kindly, I'll not get over Microsoft's habit of writing terrible software for the benefit of ending a debate that you began. Vista is software designed to sell PC's. It was not designed with the consumer's needs in mind, and there's no reason it needed to be. It's because of this attitude that computers somehow lose the ability to function properly simply because you need it to do new things.
Computers are not old dogs. General purpose machines were designed in the hopes that they could learn new tricks. Your attitude perpetuates the belief that new functionality requires new hardware, which is exactly what will continue to drive down the quality of software in this world.
Why is it bad to demand more? We're the consumers.
I don't think many civil lawsuits get thrown out of court just because "someone" says "The plaintiff has no case..."
But if it goes like this,
Plaintiff: The defendant wronged me! Defendant: The plaintiff has no case. Plaintiff:...
then it would get thrown out, or found in favor of the defendant. Burden of proof is on them, not us, and pointing a finger and yelling isn't proof enough.
Re:DON'T INSTALL VISTA ON 2002 COMPUTER
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
And yet you wouldn't balk at someone for installing Linux on an 80386, as it would still have its uses.
A lack of imagniation in design makes Vista unsatisfactory for older hardware, not progress. OS X manages to remain runnable on the same hardware release after release, and it ships with new features all the time. Sometimes it even performs better than its predecessor.
Vista sucks on old machines because Microsoft wants it to.
Re:DON'T INSTALL VISTA ON 2002 COMPUTER
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, becase computers have fundamentally changed in the last four years.
You're not hearing me. This is a base legal tactic. It's a paper tiger. A public defender could shoot this down in his sleep. That's free representation. This only applies unless they have proof that you did anything wrong, which they wont have since their plan hinges on people believing exactly what you believe; that they can't possibly fight off a house of cards accusation from the RIAA!
Their whole plan is to exploit the public ignorance of the legal system. This is not an expensive fight, nor is it hard. They're making money off of our disillusionment.
You're assuming they have proof of their claim. That's their responsibility as plaintiff in the case. If they come into court and their only proof is an accusation, then their case is gonna fall out under their feet.
If they've got solid evidence, then your original chain of events will play out pretty much as stated, though one thing about this whole thing makes me very concerned. Why would anybody not countersue? Even if you don't get your money back, it's the principle of the thing. It would send the message that we don't care that a gigantic corporation tried to blackmail us, that we won't put up a fight when our honesty is called into question.
Yes, except it's not on you to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in civil cases. If the RIAA is really just trying to extort money out of lazy people, then all you'd have to do is call their bluff and take them to court. They'll back out and hope you don't countersue, which you should do to recoup your lost wages and court costs.
These guys are not invincible. It's up to us to fight these battles.
One thing really bothers me about EVE; it actually TIMES your skill upgrades. You start a stopwatch and actual, wall-clock time must elapse before it's ready. Sometimes it's days. If ever there was a device to make players want to keep their accounts active, this is it.
Granted, but the battery will be dead in a year and the owner/user is probably not gonna bother getting a new battery anyway...
So, what, that's somehow self-solving? Nevermind the fact that someone's throwing out a perfectly good product becuase it's out of juice? I don't see the point you're making. I don't know this "user" of yours that would throw out a couple hundred bucks worth of tech rather than get the battery replaced.
To address the original post, casting the geek crowd into a distinct group that doesn't understand the nuance of marketing colors doesn't make sense. If the consumer doesn't like the color, didn't the marketing fail?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you happen to read your own message subject? 2002 was the frame of reference.
Fair enough. As a software engineer I get a little hot headed about design. Everyone has different interests.
https://help.ubuntu.com/6.10/ubuntu/installation-g uide/i386/index.html
I don't have a 386 to test it on, but something tells me that, even if I did, you would just accuse me of making it up or something.
Conspiracy? There's nothing consipiratorial going on here. Microsoft is exploiting laziness. They don't even make it a secret. They print on the box what you need to run it. They know that most people don't have sufficient hardware, and they know that enough people are lazy enough to just go buy another computer rather than demand the software be written better. Microsoft's not trying to make any money for Intel or AMD, they're just trying to save a buck by writing non-scalable software. They're not passing that savings on to us, either.
Am I wasting my time trying to get my point across, or do you just get my point and choose to not engage me in a real debate? Can you just let me know if your mind is already made up, or if you're even aiming to change my perspective with the introduction of something other than one liners?
You're out of touch. Most Linux distros still manage this quite easily, especially the ones that aspire to a higher level of quality. Debian and Ubuntu can, to name two.
I've bought Mac hardware. I dual boot Linux and XP on PC hardware. Kindly, I'll not get over Microsoft's habit of writing terrible software for the benefit of ending a debate that you began. Vista is software designed to sell PC's. It was not designed with the consumer's needs in mind, and there's no reason it needed to be. It's because of this attitude that computers somehow lose the ability to function properly simply because you need it to do new things.
Computers are not old dogs. General purpose machines were designed in the hopes that they could learn new tricks. Your attitude perpetuates the belief that new functionality requires new hardware, which is exactly what will continue to drive down the quality of software in this world.
Why is it bad to demand more? We're the consumers.
But if it goes like this,
Plaintiff: The defendant wronged me!
Defendant: The plaintiff has no case.
Plaintiff:
then it would get thrown out, or found in favor of the defendant. Burden of proof is on them, not us, and pointing a finger and yelling isn't proof enough.
And yet you wouldn't balk at someone for installing Linux on an 80386, as it would still have its uses.
A lack of imagniation in design makes Vista unsatisfactory for older hardware, not progress. OS X manages to remain runnable on the same hardware release after release, and it ships with new features all the time. Sometimes it even performs better than its predecessor.
Vista sucks on old machines because Microsoft wants it to.
Yes, becase computers have fundamentally changed in the last four years.
You're not hearing me. This is a base legal tactic. It's a paper tiger. A public defender could shoot this down in his sleep. That's free representation. This only applies unless they have proof that you did anything wrong, which they wont have since their plan hinges on people believing exactly what you believe; that they can't possibly fight off a house of cards accusation from the RIAA!
Their whole plan is to exploit the public ignorance of the legal system. This is not an expensive fight, nor is it hard. They're making money off of our disillusionment.
You're assuming they have proof of their claim. That's their responsibility as plaintiff in the case. If they come into court and their only proof is an accusation, then their case is gonna fall out under their feet.
If they've got solid evidence, then your original chain of events will play out pretty much as stated, though one thing about this whole thing makes me very concerned. Why would anybody not countersue? Even if you don't get your money back, it's the principle of the thing. It would send the message that we don't care that a gigantic corporation tried to blackmail us, that we won't put up a fight when our honesty is called into question.
Yes, except it's not on you to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in civil cases. If the RIAA is really just trying to extort money out of lazy people, then all you'd have to do is call their bluff and take them to court. They'll back out and hope you don't countersue, which you should do to recoup your lost wages and court costs.
These guys are not invincible. It's up to us to fight these battles.
Confused. Why exactly do you have to pay if you haven't done anything wrong?
That must be new. That's one of the reasons I left Sprint for T-Mobile 2 years ago.
Without the aid of proprietary software?
Anybody want a peanut?
We already know most people don't have true 1080p x 1020 televisions.
Did you mean 1920x1080? That's the true resolution of 1080p.
Holy shit! You cracked ROT26!
WHOOPS!
Well, we wouldn't expect YOU to downplay the value of abuse ;)
One thing really bothers me about EVE; it actually TIMES your skill upgrades. You start a stopwatch and actual, wall-clock time must elapse before it's ready. Sometimes it's days. If ever there was a device to make players want to keep their accounts active, this is it.
"Andre...are you telling me you guys lost another submarine?"
2006 - 1936 = 70. Your maths are weak.
Granted, but the battery will be dead in a year and the owner/user is probably not gonna bother getting a new battery anyway...
So, what, that's somehow self-solving? Nevermind the fact that someone's throwing out a perfectly good product becuase it's out of juice? I don't see the point you're making. I don't know this "user" of yours that would throw out a couple hundred bucks worth of tech rather than get the battery replaced.
To address the original post, casting the geek crowd into a distinct group that doesn't understand the nuance of marketing colors doesn't make sense. If the consumer doesn't like the color, didn't the marketing fail?
And this is how we develop games in Germany, Herr Jones. *punch*
Good advice for Java 1.5 and up, but without autoboxing you'll be using primitives because of their pervasiveness in the JDK.
Sleb? Is that slang?