If they even WANTED non-high end gamers and developers to buy this, the lower ends models wouldn't exist. Not only is this thing pointless, its probably even sold at a loss (or no profit), and is just there to keep a brand name going:)
What kind of idiots do these politicians take us for?
They take us for average people. Simple as that. Only a small percentage of human beings seem -aware- of the world around them. I know a TON of people to whom it is -unthinkable- that a politician would lie to them
"but, look at that guy! he dresses so neat and talk so well! How can you say he's a liar?" is a sentense I heard WAY too often.
Yup. Yanno, its a shame that Microsoft had to change it to stop people from bitching: Ironically, preventing NAV from running on Windows was probably the most customer-oriented move they ever did, even though it was mostly a side effect >.>
Hmm...let see. I am tech savvy, but just for the rcord... I am using Win XP, with a SATA raid array... I hmm...plugged the drives, and hmm, installed windows (I had to configure the raid's bios, but thats OS independent in this case), and hmm....thats it.
Or, on another box which was already installed: I shut it down, I plugged the drive, screwed it in, booted back up, and...thats it.
Is there something I'm missing? (If we're comparing versions of the same generation)
Yes, because in Linux, everyone would check file permission before double clicking on them (assuming one of the desktop environments that allow you to open or execute files by double clicking). Not everyone use the command line:)
The IT industry is one of the few industries that seems almost completely unwilling to recognize general skill/talent, and expects to hire someone who they can drop in and have productive in a matter of hours. It doesn't work that way- in the IT industry or any other industry. Every new employee needs training and familiarization, every new hire causes lost productivity. GET OVER IT. There are industries where corporations send workers to a WEEK OR MORE of training before they've "worked" a single hour
Oh my god, thats too true. Recently, there IS a shortage of IT workers (though it is because of the reasons you gave), so most employers I've talked to have been VERY nice and willing to offer me the moon (I upped my salary expectations by 25% or so, and refuse to work in poor conditions, etc because of it now). That being said, until that happened...wow. I had somewhere offer me a job, 33$/hour (for you guys in Cali and NYC where thats peanut, keep in mind my apartment is huge, very nice, close to all public facilities, in a decent size city, yet only cost me 400$/month. Do the math. It would pay my rent in 2 days after taxes). So I was all happy. Went to the interview... they literally wanted someone who knew everything. (It was a C#/ASP.NET job, and I am 100% positive that even Microsoft's chief.NET engineer would NOT have qualified for the job with these expectations). In other words, I had to tell them a nice "screw you", and went somewhere else.
Correct. The OEM license is tied to the hardware. Whichever hardware you bought it with. It is very possible to be eligible for OEM by just buying a motherboard or something, so as long as the motherboard doesn't change, you're good to go. I -THINK- there are terms for if the hardware actualy fails you, but they are limited.
_however_, the license only ties you to the purchase, and the "license checker" mechanism won't be aware of the terms of the license. So its a kind of "be reasonable" area. If you change the entire computer, you're obviously breaking it. If you keep the same machine, but make major upgrade, (assuming the OEM was tied to the -machine-, like in the case of a prebuilt DELL or whatever), you're good to go.
OEM is, and has always been tied to the hardware you buy it with. So technicaly the license doesn't allow you to change PC. But OEM licenses are like 1/3rd the price when bought on your own, and abysmal (like, 10$ or something?) if you get it as part of something like a pre-built Dell. So if you get a 100$ OEM license when getting a new computer, then, while Vista's internal mechanism will (most likely) let you install it all over like if it was a full version (since technicaly, it is a full version), you're not following the license agreement (if said license agreement is binding or not, is NOT part of the scope of this post, so lets not go there).
This has always been that way since at least the days of Win95, and is the terms of virtual all OEM commercial closed source software licenses that bundle software with hardware. The good news (assuming you even CARE about following the license to the letter), is that usualy these licenses (when you buy the one at like 100something bucks while purchasing hardware) only tie you to one piece of hardware. So in my case, I got my OEM windows with my computer in parts, and it is tied to my motherboard. I'm not changing my board anytime soon, so I'm ok.
Now, if you buy a Dell or something, and complain about the terms of the OEM license, you're being a moron. The deal with pre-built PCs basicaly give you Windows for 10-15$, -if that-. So you'll have to pay for it 10 times before you even reach the price of a "sold separately" OEM license. If the terms are not OK, you just go and buy the full version. If thats not OK, you just install Linux. If thats not OK, just bitch at Microsoft some more, since, obviously from this article, it works.
Another reason, is a similar one to which Microsoft "helped" Apple back in the days: if they push alternate operating systems, they're less likely to get the anti-thrust suits on their butts.
So and So. enterprise customers include ISVs and microsoft partners, etc. Vista will probably come with some MSDN subscriptions, dev copies, etc. Its still not actual -users-, but a lot of people will be using it by then. Just not the average joe (at the office or not), so your point still stand, I'll admit.
Indeed. As an added funny thing, I read on a few blogs of high ups at Microsoft: they had quite a few issues with outsourcing that slowed them down a lot (with the firms calling change of scope all over the place to avoid having to deliver). That must have hurt like a bitch, too.
Its mostly because Microsoft, with its (quickly fading) monopoly and recent poor record on a number of sides, all the pushed deadlines, etc, kind of owes its customers a lot. For the non-customers (macs and linux users), its also a good way to bash Microsoft.
Honestly, from a developer's point of view, the recent trend was a blessing. Aside for a few hiccups, we didn't have much to worrie about. For internal apps, even IE6's stagnating was kind of a blessing, to some extent: less time spent testing new versions. From a PR and a user's perspective though, that was bad bad bad, and Microsoft's competitors got ahead. MacOSX is now superior to Windows in ways that even a fanboy can't really deny.
Honestly though, aside for that, and for developers making end user apps highly dependant on user interfaces (games, among other things), Vista is just an incremental update. The "big" deal is WinFX, and that, in a way, is the next version of Windows. WinFX is where the changes are going to happen, and while this only affects developers, the users are going to feel its effect. Vista is just an update to the platform WinFX will work with (it will work with XP too).
Actualy? Maybe. Though the latest release candidates were told to be the ones to test apps on, so I don't see them removing too much that could break apps that worked on the RCs, it HAS been MS' strategy as of late: Make feature full betas, see public reactions to them, and how much problems certain features cause, fix what they can, and take out what they cannot fix, to put it back in a service pack later.
Visual Studio, Atlas/ASP.NET AJAX, and the stuff you mentionned, all seem to have followed that trend. Now if thats good or bad... thats left to you guys to make your opinion.
You are correct. Well, for what its worth, I think Nintendo simply did not expect their potential success. Remember originaly, the PS3 was supposed to be "everything", so Nintendo's ONLY hope to make a place for itself in the market, was to avoid competing with the PS3 like plague. So they made SURE their console wouldn't appeal to the same people. One way to do that, was to purposely take OUT all of the big next gen stuff. You are right, it is a 2.5 gen console, that much is obvious, and it was made that way by design
Here is where Nintendo failed: They succeeded so well, that they are now competing with the PS3 -anyway-. Thus, people now want the next gen stuff in it. Its a bit too late right now for Nintendo to make their console a next gen one though, and if they jumped ship it would also be a PR disaster: "Hey, we told you the mass market didn't need high definition, and that we weren't going to compete with Sony...well, screw that we changed our mind!".
Nintendo NEVER thought they could be on the same playing field as Sony. But now they are...so of course, people like you now consider it, even though Nintendo never targeted it at you...they just succeeded "too" well, and now its on your "to be considered" list. I feel that if Nintendo knew what it knows now, their console probably WOULD be a next gen one.
You're not a troll. And I understand exactly how you feel: I'm the exact same way. I recently got Megaman ZX, and I drooled looking at it. I saw the trailer for White Knight Story and FFXIII, and I drooled looking at them too
Here's the deal: like most members of the human species, game developers are single minded bozos. If you give them a console like the PS3, the ONLY thing they'll do is fancy 3d games. Or almost. So the point is, because of the way they think, you can't really have both on the same console (the Nintendo DS is about as close as it gets to that). The N64 was made in a way that it could handle both, and all we got there (yes, all 4 of us who actualy liked the console) was 3D games except for Mischief Makers, or just about. So there's 2 possibilities here:
Either A) Nintendo makes a retro console with innovative gameplay, and if you want something else, you can buy 2 consoles. Or B) Nintendo makes a next gen console, and all you get is 3D fancy games no matter what you pick. I prefer A). I'll pick up a PS3 in 3 years. Its what I did with the PS2, I got mine last year, and bought all of the more "typical" games in one go at 20$ a pop:)
Thats a bit narrow minded. The cost of the licenses is totally insignificant, even if it was 5 times the price.
Just as an unrelated example: A long time ago, for a company I used to work for ( I don't anymore ), I had to select between Java and.NET as the platform for an internal solution. Our programmers were equaly comfortable with both, both fullfilled our needs equaly, etc. The reason we picked one over the other came down to: an intermediate.NET programmer in my area is about 20$/hour. An intermediate Java programmer in the same area is (almost) twice that. We needed to hire a lot of programmers. That made the decision -fast-.
This is the GBA and Nintendo DS strategy rehashed. Both these consoles has (albeit limited in the case of the GBA) the ability to do 3D, but Nintendo basically -on purpose- ommited to make an API for it to be easily done. They want (even if it has to be done against their will) to stop developers from spending too much times with graphics and technicalities, to push them to work more on gameplay. Thats why a lot of 2D SNES/GBA games are better than their 3d counterparts. Or at least thats what Nintendo and a lot of their fans think (maybe they're wrong, thats not the point of this argument here, I'm just going by what seems to be Nintendo's logic, considering their history).
So maybe the Wii even HAS the ability to do HDTV right now, the card maybe even supports it. They just, on purpose, gimped it, for the above reason.
Or so it seems to me. Maybe it was a mistake, but Nintendo got from scrap to glory with all the risks they took on the Wii. Let see if their final gamble was right or not.
If I remember well, the IPO didn't give share holders controling portion of Google, so while it would affect Google, it probably doesn't affect it SO much.
That being said, from what I've seen in the slashdot articles about Google's "evil doings", 99% of them tend to be FUD, like this one. Rarely, if ever, were they actualy "real" evil, but usualy just people flipping over nothing. This case is a prime example. Youtube pays money to calm down copyright holders. If they pay (as they should by law, as far as I know), well, YEAH, they -would- expect those who don't pay not to get the same advantages. Doesn't that like...make sense? Why pay anything if it doesn't bring you any advantages? And not paying at all IS kind of against the law in this case, since copyright holders are in the right in this case not to be too happy about seeing their stuff on youtube... So honestly, what is Google/Youtube doing that violates their don't do evil thing? They're actualy being as honest as they can possibly me, while expecting their due. We're a far cry from microsoft here.
I beleive they already answered that question, though I don't remember where. The reason CSS isn't perfect, is because Firefox's priority is to render correctly as many pages as possible, as opposed to implementing a specification.
I don't remember the reg tweak, unfortunately. And it should be fairly obvious if its the hardware detection or not. On one hand the system just won't work, on the other hand the system will give you a 30 day warning or something of the sort. I'm just assuming it was hardware detection, since it is a known, and documented by microsoft themselves, issue with Windows (by design, so I guess its not a bug, its a "feature") that changing chipset hoses an install: Windows never tries to redetect a chipset for a board. Ever. The reg tweak simply tells Windows "hey, you never tried to detect this board before::wink wink::".
Maybe you had a different issue. But this is a very common problem when moving a Windows install (again, it is documented, and is "standard procedure" when changing motherboard, however insane that sounds)
I feel for people who have no other options, but... software routers suck. That they are made by microsoft or anybody else. Hardware firewalls for the win. (which I guess in the end ARE just embedded softwares...still better at the end of the day)
Either they tweaked it in later service packs, either this is not true... Network hardware is what I changed the most, without any flag raised... And I've changed everything but the board, CPU and hard drive in one shot, still nothing.
Actualy, on this PC I never raised a flag at all (I did on other computers), but it never got anything under Service Pack 1 (I got a legit Windows XP Pro SP1 disc). Maybe it was loosened with SP1? Don't know about SP2, never changed hardware since then.
Slashdot Mirror
"but, look at that guy! he dresses so neat and talk so well! How can you say he's a liar?" is a sentense I heard WAY too often.
No way! Remember the FX serie of card? They had -amazingly- Direct X9 and Pixel Shader 2.0 support even though it was new!
::grumbles at his FX 5900 Ultra that can't play most DX9 at an acceptable frame rate...::
Yup. Yanno, its a shame that Microsoft had to change it to stop people from bitching: Ironically, preventing NAV from running on Windows was probably the most customer-oriented move they ever did, even though it was mostly a side effect >.>
Hmm...let see. I am tech savvy, but just for the rcord... I am using Win XP, with a SATA raid array... I hmm...plugged the drives, and hmm, installed windows (I had to configure the raid's bios, but thats OS independent in this case), and hmm....thats it. Or, on another box which was already installed: I shut it down, I plugged the drive, screwed it in, booted back up, and...thats it. Is there something I'm missing? (If we're comparing versions of the same generation)
Yes, because in Linux, everyone would check file permission before double clicking on them (assuming one of the desktop environments that allow you to open or execute files by double clicking). Not everyone use the command line :)
Oh my god, thats too true. Recently, there IS a shortage of IT workers (though it is because of the reasons you gave), so most employers I've talked to have been VERY nice and willing to offer me the moon (I upped my salary expectations by 25% or so, and refuse to work in poor conditions, etc because of it now). That being said, until that happened...wow. I had somewhere offer me a job, 33$/hour (for you guys in Cali and NYC where thats peanut, keep in mind my apartment is huge, very nice, close to all public facilities, in a decent size city, yet only cost me 400$/month. Do the math. It would pay my rent in 2 days after taxes). So I was all happy. Went to the interview... they literally wanted someone who knew everything. (It was a C#/ASP.NET job, and I am 100% positive that even Microsoft's chief
Correct. The OEM license is tied to the hardware. Whichever hardware you bought it with. It is very possible to be eligible for OEM by just buying a motherboard or something, so as long as the motherboard doesn't change, you're good to go. I -THINK- there are terms for if the hardware actualy fails you, but they are limited.
_however_, the license only ties you to the purchase, and the "license checker" mechanism won't be aware of the terms of the license. So its a kind of "be reasonable" area. If you change the entire computer, you're obviously breaking it. If you keep the same machine, but make major upgrade, (assuming the OEM was tied to the -machine-, like in the case of a prebuilt DELL or whatever), you're good to go.
OEM is, and has always been tied to the hardware you buy it with. So technicaly the license doesn't allow you to change PC. But OEM licenses are like 1/3rd the price when bought on your own, and abysmal (like, 10$ or something?) if you get it as part of something like a pre-built Dell. So if you get a 100$ OEM license when getting a new computer, then, while Vista's internal mechanism will (most likely) let you install it all over like if it was a full version (since technicaly, it is a full version), you're not following the license agreement (if said license agreement is binding or not, is NOT part of the scope of this post, so lets not go there).
This has always been that way since at least the days of Win95, and is the terms of virtual all OEM commercial closed source software licenses that bundle software with hardware. The good news (assuming you even CARE about following the license to the letter), is that usualy these licenses (when you buy the one at like 100something bucks while purchasing hardware) only tie you to one piece of hardware. So in my case, I got my OEM windows with my computer in parts, and it is tied to my motherboard. I'm not changing my board anytime soon, so I'm ok.
Now, if you buy a Dell or something, and complain about the terms of the OEM license, you're being a moron. The deal with pre-built PCs basicaly give you Windows for 10-15$, -if that-. So you'll have to pay for it 10 times before you even reach the price of a "sold separately" OEM license. If the terms are not OK, you just go and buy the full version. If thats not OK, you just install Linux. If thats not OK, just bitch at Microsoft some more, since, obviously from this article, it works.
Another reason, is a similar one to which Microsoft "helped" Apple back in the days: if they push alternate operating systems, they're less likely to get the anti-thrust suits on their butts.
Pretty much. Next you'll see "Microsoft releases Windows' and all of its software's full source code under the GPL", and you'll still get a itsatrap.
So and So. enterprise customers include ISVs and microsoft partners, etc. Vista will probably come with some MSDN subscriptions, dev copies, etc. Its still not actual -users-, but a lot of people will be using it by then. Just not the average joe (at the office or not), so your point still stand, I'll admit.
Indeed. As an added funny thing, I read on a few blogs of high ups at Microsoft: they had quite a few issues with outsourcing that slowed them down a lot (with the firms calling change of scope all over the place to avoid having to deliver). That must have hurt like a bitch, too.
Its mostly because Microsoft, with its (quickly fading) monopoly and recent poor record on a number of sides, all the pushed deadlines, etc, kind of owes its customers a lot. For the non-customers (macs and linux users), its also a good way to bash Microsoft.
Honestly, from a developer's point of view, the recent trend was a blessing. Aside for a few hiccups, we didn't have much to worrie about. For internal apps, even IE6's stagnating was kind of a blessing, to some extent: less time spent testing new versions. From a PR and a user's perspective though, that was bad bad bad, and Microsoft's competitors got ahead. MacOSX is now superior to Windows in ways that even a fanboy can't really deny.
Honestly though, aside for that, and for developers making end user apps highly dependant on user interfaces (games, among other things), Vista is just an incremental update. The "big" deal is WinFX, and that, in a way, is the next version of Windows. WinFX is where the changes are going to happen, and while this only affects developers, the users are going to feel its effect. Vista is just an update to the platform WinFX will work with (it will work with XP too).
Actualy? Maybe. Though the latest release candidates were told to be the ones to test apps on, so I don't see them removing too much that could break apps that worked on the RCs, it HAS been MS' strategy as of late: Make feature full betas, see public reactions to them, and how much problems certain features cause, fix what they can, and take out what they cannot fix, to put it back in a service pack later.
Visual Studio, Atlas/ASP.NET AJAX, and the stuff you mentionned, all seem to have followed that trend. Now if thats good or bad... thats left to you guys to make your opinion.
You are correct. Well, for what its worth, I think Nintendo simply did not expect their potential success. Remember originaly, the PS3 was supposed to be "everything", so Nintendo's ONLY hope to make a place for itself in the market, was to avoid competing with the PS3 like plague. So they made SURE their console wouldn't appeal to the same people. One way to do that, was to purposely take OUT all of the big next gen stuff. You are right, it is a 2.5 gen console, that much is obvious, and it was made that way by design
Here is where Nintendo failed: They succeeded so well, that they are now competing with the PS3 -anyway-. Thus, people now want the next gen stuff in it. Its a bit too late right now for Nintendo to make their console a next gen one though, and if they jumped ship it would also be a PR disaster: "Hey, we told you the mass market didn't need high definition, and that we weren't going to compete with Sony...well, screw that we changed our mind!".
Nintendo NEVER thought they could be on the same playing field as Sony. But now they are...so of course, people like you now consider it, even though Nintendo never targeted it at you...they just succeeded "too" well, and now its on your "to be considered" list. I feel that if Nintendo knew what it knows now, their console probably WOULD be a next gen one.
You're not a troll. And I understand exactly how you feel: I'm the exact same way. I recently got Megaman ZX, and I drooled looking at it. I saw the trailer for White Knight Story and FFXIII, and I drooled looking at them too
:)
Here's the deal: like most members of the human species, game developers are single minded bozos. If you give them a console like the PS3, the ONLY thing they'll do is fancy 3d games. Or almost. So the point is, because of the way they think, you can't really have both on the same console (the Nintendo DS is about as close as it gets to that). The N64 was made in a way that it could handle both, and all we got there (yes, all 4 of us who actualy liked the console) was 3D games except for Mischief Makers, or just about. So there's 2 possibilities here:
Either A) Nintendo makes a retro console with innovative gameplay, and if you want something else, you can buy 2 consoles. Or B) Nintendo makes a next gen console, and all you get is 3D fancy games no matter what you pick. I prefer A). I'll pick up a PS3 in 3 years. Its what I did with the PS2, I got mine last year, and bought all of the more "typical" games in one go at 20$ a pop
Thats a bit narrow minded. The cost of the licenses is totally insignificant, even if it was 5 times the price. .NET as the platform for an internal solution. Our programmers were equaly comfortable with both, both fullfilled our needs equaly, etc. The reason we picked one over the other came down to: an intermediate .NET programmer in my area is about 20$/hour. An intermediate Java programmer in the same area is (almost) twice that. We needed to hire a lot of programmers. That made the decision -fast-.
:)
Just as an unrelated example: A long time ago, for a company I used to work for ( I don't anymore ), I had to select between Java and
Initial cost is rarely significant
This is the GBA and Nintendo DS strategy rehashed. Both these consoles has (albeit limited in the case of the GBA) the ability to do 3D, but Nintendo basically -on purpose- ommited to make an API for it to be easily done. They want (even if it has to be done against their will) to stop developers from spending too much times with graphics and technicalities, to push them to work more on gameplay. Thats why a lot of 2D SNES/GBA games are better than their 3d counterparts. Or at least thats what Nintendo and a lot of their fans think (maybe they're wrong, thats not the point of this argument here, I'm just going by what seems to be Nintendo's logic, considering their history).
So maybe the Wii even HAS the ability to do HDTV right now, the card maybe even supports it. They just, on purpose, gimped it, for the above reason.
Or so it seems to me. Maybe it was a mistake, but Nintendo got from scrap to glory with all the risks they took on the Wii. Let see if their final gamble was right or not.
If I remember well, the IPO didn't give share holders controling portion of Google, so while it would affect Google, it probably doesn't affect it SO much.
That being said, from what I've seen in the slashdot articles about Google's "evil doings", 99% of them tend to be FUD, like this one. Rarely, if ever, were they actualy "real" evil, but usualy just people flipping over nothing. This case is a prime example. Youtube pays money to calm down copyright holders. If they pay (as they should by law, as far as I know), well, YEAH, they -would- expect those who don't pay not to get the same advantages. Doesn't that like...make sense? Why pay anything if it doesn't bring you any advantages? And not paying at all IS kind of against the law in this case, since copyright holders are in the right in this case not to be too happy about seeing their stuff on youtube... So honestly, what is Google/Youtube doing that violates their don't do evil thing? They're actualy being as honest as they can possibly me, while expecting their due. We're a far cry from microsoft here.
I beleive they already answered that question, though I don't remember where. The reason CSS isn't perfect, is because Firefox's priority is to render correctly as many pages as possible, as opposed to implementing a specification.
I don't remember the reg tweak, unfortunately. And it should be fairly obvious if its the hardware detection or not. On one hand the system just won't work, on the other hand the system will give you a 30 day warning or something of the sort. I'm just assuming it was hardware detection, since it is a known, and documented by microsoft themselves, issue with Windows (by design, so I guess its not a bug, its a "feature") that changing chipset hoses an install: Windows never tries to redetect a chipset for a board. Ever. The reg tweak simply tells Windows "hey, you never tried to detect this board before ::wink wink::".
Maybe you had a different issue. But this is a very common problem when moving a Windows install (again, it is documented, and is "standard procedure" when changing motherboard, however insane that sounds)
I feel for people who have no other options, but... software routers suck. That they are made by microsoft or anybody else. Hardware firewalls for the win. (which I guess in the end ARE just embedded softwares...still better at the end of the day)
Either they tweaked it in later service packs, either this is not true... Network hardware is what I changed the most, without any flag raised... And I've changed everything but the board, CPU and hard drive in one shot, still nothing.
Actualy, on this PC I never raised a flag at all (I did on other computers), but it never got anything under Service Pack 1 (I got a legit Windows XP Pro SP1 disc). Maybe it was loosened with SP1? Don't know about SP2, never changed hardware since then.