Well, there is more to the story that hasn't been said, namely problems we've had with this particular end-user. I don't have any remote access tools installed because the user is adamant about not sending back the pc, and had this position long before it was infected with anything, let alone before I had even started with this company. It has NAV Corporate installed and LiveUpdate configured properly...thus my frustration with the Comcast diagnosis of "trojan". For all I know, she has a FunFunBackstreetBoys.exe game that hits a port they don't like. Again, something I do not and cannot know without access to the machine.
My point is simply that this user's pc was reasonably-well protected, perhaps not against anything self-inflicted (I will certainly own that the tools I normally have availible are not availible on this laptop, but it's a machine that pre-dates my employment), but how is the average home user going to stand a chance against a policy like this? You (and several replies under my parent) somewhat skirted the issue...my dissent lies in the fact that saying "you might be doing something bad, so I have to make sure you can't do it" is on par with impounding a driver's car because they run a curb when pulling a turn. If a home user is told "you have a trojan" and told to fix it or get the boot, what do they do? This user went to four different repair vendors (several mega-conglomerate shops as well) and came back clean. I can't trust work I don't do myself, but I'm pretty sure at least one of them should have fixed whatever the problem was, assuming there was one at all. How is the average home user going to be able to check this/deal with this/ensure their safety?
I'm one of the sysadmins for a company with a large number of remote employees. Recently, one called me saying Comcast told them they had a trojan. Well, I couldn't fly out to look at the laptop and the employee couldn't exactly just send the computer and work from nothing. I had this person seek local help, and after several attempts Comcast still shut down internet service.
I understand that techies across the world think this is super-fantabulous, but this is horrendous for the average end-user. Comcast doesn't (I will refrain from saying can't or won't) say what a user's system is infected with, or what exactly it's doing...just that there's some "illicit traffic" coming from that IP. That's great, now how am I supposed to diagnose the problem? It wouldn't be that difficult if the machine were in front of me, but how to I walk Mary End User through complicated tasks over the phone while she's already frustrated? If Comcast were doing more - i.e. they told you what the problem was and the steps you can take to remedy it - I would be more supportive of this. As it stands, it's just going to make a lot of end-users get cheated by shady local PC repair places while they get the run-around from fifteen different vendors. Make jokes about virus scans all you want, but nothing is fool-proof...and since any fool is equipped with a computer these days, infections will happen and malicious attacks will succeed. So +1 to Comcast for taking some initiative, and -2 for crappy execution and not giving half as much of a flying foo as they'd leave their customers to believe.
I'll preface by saying I don't want to start a flame war between hardcore X-Box fans, PC gamers, and the Sony elite.
That said, before saying how limiting the PS2 hardware is, you should read up on how the PS2 hardware design is supposed to be used. The emotion engine opens up some insane possibilities...the problem is with developers and not with the hardware. Look at games like Gran Turismo. Disgustingly beautiful, disgustingly smooth. The X-Box can't touch that, even if MS has guides to programming for it. The problem is that the technology is too complicated for most American (and in many cases European) developers to truly comprehend and utilize without trying to hack together.
Couple that with the extra dev time Rockstar had between the PS2 and X-Box versions of the game...your argument there is weak, at best. Just because the same software seems different on two different platforms doesn't mean that software was developed for both on the same schedule or with the same resources. I think it's fair to say Rockstar had a lot of feedback, research time, and some newly-grown muscles when porting their games. I could be wrong, in which case time will tell when GTA: SA comes out. Otherwise your crankiness is unwelcome.:)
That said, if you don't like a sequel, thank goodness that there are about 50,000 internet review sites, gaming mags, and published reviews of games that hit the streets in advance of a game's release...well, that and the fact that you can rent a game for anywhere from $1-$3 to try it out yourself. In the PC world you can't rent games, which is why the crowd is so unforgiving. When you sink your $50 into a game you just bought because of the pretty box and the reputation (and poorly-set expectations you put on the game's shoulders), you get a little bitter. With console games, the only person to blame for buying a bad game is yourself. This is one of many reasons I try my best to limit my gaming to a console. Not only don't I develop a snappy attitude about my games, but I have an opportunity to sample games I'd normally never look twice at, just because I can spend a few dollars testing it out, then buy it cheap in a few months when the marketing craze for it is over.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there is more to the story that hasn't been said, namely problems we've had with this particular end-user. I don't have any remote access tools installed because the user is adamant about not sending back the pc, and had this position long before it was infected with anything, let alone before I had even started with this company. It has NAV Corporate installed and LiveUpdate configured properly...thus my frustration with the Comcast diagnosis of "trojan". For all I know, she has a FunFunBackstreetBoys.exe game that hits a port they don't like. Again, something I do not and cannot know without access to the machine.
My point is simply that this user's pc was reasonably-well protected, perhaps not against anything self-inflicted (I will certainly own that the tools I normally have availible are not availible on this laptop, but it's a machine that pre-dates my employment), but how is the average home user going to stand a chance against a policy like this? You (and several replies under my parent) somewhat skirted the issue...my dissent lies in the fact that saying "you might be doing something bad, so I have to make sure you can't do it" is on par with impounding a driver's car because they run a curb when pulling a turn. If a home user is told "you have a trojan" and told to fix it or get the boot, what do they do? This user went to four different repair vendors (several mega-conglomerate shops as well) and came back clean. I can't trust work I don't do myself, but I'm pretty sure at least one of them should have fixed whatever the problem was, assuming there was one at all. How is the average home user going to be able to check this/deal with this/ensure their safety?
I'm one of the sysadmins for a company with a large number of remote employees. Recently, one called me saying Comcast told them they had a trojan. Well, I couldn't fly out to look at the laptop and the employee couldn't exactly just send the computer and work from nothing. I had this person seek local help, and after several attempts Comcast still shut down internet service.
I understand that techies across the world think this is super-fantabulous, but this is horrendous for the average end-user. Comcast doesn't (I will refrain from saying can't or won't) say what a user's system is infected with, or what exactly it's doing...just that there's some "illicit traffic" coming from that IP. That's great, now how am I supposed to diagnose the problem? It wouldn't be that difficult if the machine were in front of me, but how to I walk Mary End User through complicated tasks over the phone while she's already frustrated? If Comcast were doing more - i.e. they told you what the problem was and the steps you can take to remedy it - I would be more supportive of this. As it stands, it's just going to make a lot of end-users get cheated by shady local PC repair places while they get the run-around from fifteen different vendors. Make jokes about virus scans all you want, but nothing is fool-proof...and since any fool is equipped with a computer these days, infections will happen and malicious attacks will succeed. So +1 to Comcast for taking some initiative, and -2 for crappy execution and not giving half as much of a flying foo as they'd leave their customers to believe.
I'll preface by saying I don't want to start a flame war between hardcore X-Box fans, PC gamers, and the Sony elite.
:)
:)
That said, before saying how limiting the PS2 hardware is, you should read up on how the PS2 hardware design is supposed to be used. The emotion engine opens up some insane possibilities...the problem is with developers and not with the hardware. Look at games like Gran Turismo. Disgustingly beautiful, disgustingly smooth. The X-Box can't touch that, even if MS has guides to programming for it. The problem is that the technology is too complicated for most American (and in many cases European) developers to truly comprehend and utilize without trying to hack together.
Couple that with the extra dev time Rockstar had between the PS2 and X-Box versions of the game...your argument there is weak, at best. Just because the same software seems different on two different platforms doesn't mean that software was developed for both on the same schedule or with the same resources. I think it's fair to say Rockstar had a lot of feedback, research time, and some newly-grown muscles when porting their games. I could be wrong, in which case time will tell when GTA: SA comes out. Otherwise your crankiness is unwelcome.
That said, if you don't like a sequel, thank goodness that there are about 50,000 internet review sites, gaming mags, and published reviews of games that hit the streets in advance of a game's release...well, that and the fact that you can rent a game for anywhere from $1-$3 to try it out yourself. In the PC world you can't rent games, which is why the crowd is so unforgiving. When you sink your $50 into a game you just bought because of the pretty box and the reputation (and poorly-set expectations you put on the game's shoulders), you get a little bitter. With console games, the only person to blame for buying a bad game is yourself. This is one of many reasons I try my best to limit my gaming to a console. Not only don't I develop a snappy attitude about my games, but I have an opportunity to sample games I'd normally never look twice at, just because I can spend a few dollars testing it out, then buy it cheap in a few months when the marketing craze for it is over.