I may still be missing your point, but that has to do with the information that they each let out.. which doesn't coincide with the complexity of the coding used to create the system
The biggest improvement the SNES offered over the NES is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, extra buttons. Having 6 Buttons (discluding start and select) over the old 2, was something that was absolutely needed. SNES is (in my mind) the second best console to exist, second to the PS2.
But look at the games that are being made for the PS1 still. They're all really, really corny games intended for little kids, because they know that a sizable percentage of the people who have PS1's but not PS2's are children. Once PS3 comes out, major game developers will move to PS3 for all their new, good titles. All that will continue to be developed for PS2 are mediocre titles and childrens games.
Were you disagreeing with me? It sounded to me more like you were agreeing... Microsoft marketing has nothing to do with it. I say Windows is more complex because of my own experience with programming and stuff. Windows is easier to use. 9 times out of 10, the only way to make an OS easier to use is to make the code for it more complex. Direct X coding is quite complicated, I say that from my own experience, though I have no experience with Quicktime, so I am unable to compare the two.
The key difference in your examples is that an aircraft being faulty may cause people their lives. They can't afford to have any issues. Now, if there is anyone stupid enough to put a Windows system in a position that puts people's lives are at stake, they need to be slapped. Do you honestly want every minute bug to be fixed before they move on? I'm sorry, but that's just silly. There is a point at which it makes more sense to move on that to spend all your resources correcting every minor error. Albeit, Microsoft seems to have some major issues with determining where that line is.
Isn't linux very large and complex? What about OSX? They don't nearly have as many bugs as Windows, do they? No.
In other words, a large complex program or OS can be bug free, if it is done correctly...
I garrauntee you (though I do so without physical proof) that an Operating system such as Windows XP is exponentially more complex than about any Mac or Linux system. And you think that OSX or and Linux distro is bug free? You're sadly mistaken, my friend.
Aye, yet there has to be some underlying reason for it, no? This may not so much apply today, but, at some point or another, Windows had to stand out so as to make everyone say, "Hmm, I want to put this on the computers I sell, and not the other guy." I agree that nowadays, more than anything else, Windows has perpetuated itself so that it quite possibly will never go out of style. But, if Windows is as horrible as certain people claim it is, the masses, however ignorant, would start to get a clue. That hasn't happened yet.
Okay, perhaps I was a bit hasty in my cursory dismissal of Microsoft's track record when it comes to patching. You're right, and I agree.. to a point. I don't have any logical arguements for that, but personally, I think people should ignore the minor bugs and flaws (some of which, I do realize, are the ones you're speaking of), and let them focus on creating newer (and hopefully better) software. That is, of course, just a personal preference, as many would prefer that older platforms are as stable and bug-free as can be before they even consider moving on.
Cheap hardware is useless if nobody knows how to do anything with it. If you don't like Microsoft's history with bugs, don't use it, which I'm sure you don't. Microsoft fixes all it's major bugs and security holes. People buy software knowing it's not perfect. If you want your software to be emaculate, don't buy any.
You're entitled to your opinion, how ever thick, and close-minded you may be. No matter what you say about Windows, the fact remains that it is the most widely used OS on Earth. If Windows remain's bigger than Linux, it's because it obviously offers something that Linux doesn't to the normal user.
What will happen if Microsoft falls? Nothing for you. You will just have one less thing to bitch about.
Indeed. There would almost undoubtably be a widespread economic depression. People are stubborn. The masses would just stick with whatever the latest version of Windows was when Microsoft went down. Most people probably wouldn't buy a new computer until they had to, because like you mentioned, they don't want to have to learn how to use another one. Hell, most people barely know how to use Windows, as easy as it is. It would be years before people started buying personal computers again on a large scale. The PC gaming industry would likely never recover. But worst of all? I'd have to get a new email address.
Personally I have nothing against Microsoft. People constantly complain about Microsoft, yet Microsoft has certainly made things a lot easier for the standard end-user. Windows 95 was a near revolutionary thing. It brought computers into most households which otherwise probably wouldn't have had computers. A world in which microsoft never existed would be harder on all of us because it would make little things that we all do every day that much more difficult. If Microsoft were to fall right now, I would silently applaud their former riegn of the PC industry. Corporations don't become giants without reason.
People often complain about how buggy and how full of security holes. Bugs are what occur when you make something that is very large and very complex. People want stuff to be easy to use, which means advanced programming, which in turn results in bugs. As for security holes. This is a subject that really bugs me. The people that tend to be the most critical of microsoft for their numerous security holes (which also result from having such a complex system), also tend to be the ones that like to exploit them. Which is a damn hipocracy if you ask me. Security holes exist, they always have, they always will, and there is nothing whatsoever that you, I or Mr. Gates can do to change that. The problem isn't the security holes, it's the fact that there are people that exploit them. And then those innocent people who don't exploit them will get mad at Microsoft, effectively siding with those malicious jerks who exploit the holes. People should be supportive of Microsoft to fix the holes and bugs, while denouncing the jerks, letting them know that they are neither cool nor respected. Okay.. I went quite a bit off subject. But essentially I'm saying that Microsoft has been a *good thing*. And while whether or not they do or will continue to be is up for debate, they have been. And I will always chear on a nobody that can go from being nothing to the world's most powerful corperation and only a decade or two's time.
Slashdot Mirror
I may still be missing your point, but that has to do with the information that they each let out.. which doesn't coincide with the complexity of the coding used to create the system
That's a good point. The question is, will it be enough to keep the PS2 alive?
Funny part about a bunch of those PS1 games is that they come directly from SNES, only difference being that new video sequences were added
The biggest improvement the SNES offered over the NES is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, extra buttons. Having 6 Buttons (discluding start and select) over the old 2, was something that was absolutely needed. SNES is (in my mind) the second best console to exist, second to the PS2.
But look at the games that are being made for the PS1 still. They're all really, really corny games intended for little kids, because they know that a sizable percentage of the people who have PS1's but not PS2's are children. Once PS3 comes out, major game developers will move to PS3 for all their new, good titles. All that will continue to be developed for PS2 are mediocre titles and childrens games.
Were you disagreeing with me? It sounded to me more like you were agreeing... Microsoft marketing has nothing to do with it. I say Windows is more complex because of my own experience with programming and stuff. Windows is easier to use. 9 times out of 10, the only way to make an OS easier to use is to make the code for it more complex. Direct X coding is quite complicated, I say that from my own experience, though I have no experience with Quicktime, so I am unable to compare the two.
The key difference in your examples is that an aircraft being faulty may cause people their lives. They can't afford to have any issues. Now, if there is anyone stupid enough to put a Windows system in a position that puts people's lives are at stake, they need to be slapped. Do you honestly want every minute bug to be fixed before they move on? I'm sorry, but that's just silly. There is a point at which it makes more sense to move on that to spend all your resources correcting every minor error. Albeit, Microsoft seems to have some major issues with determining where that line is.
Aye, yet there has to be some underlying reason for it, no? This may not so much apply today, but, at some point or another, Windows had to stand out so as to make everyone say, "Hmm, I want to put this on the computers I sell, and not the other guy." I agree that nowadays, more than anything else, Windows has perpetuated itself so that it quite possibly will never go out of style. But, if Windows is as horrible as certain people claim it is, the masses, however ignorant, would start to get a clue. That hasn't happened yet.
Okay, perhaps I was a bit hasty in my cursory dismissal of Microsoft's track record when it comes to patching. You're right, and I agree.. to a point. I don't have any logical arguements for that, but personally, I think people should ignore the minor bugs and flaws (some of which, I do realize, are the ones you're speaking of), and let them focus on creating newer (and hopefully better) software. That is, of course, just a personal preference, as many would prefer that older platforms are as stable and bug-free as can be before they even consider moving on.
Cheap hardware is useless if nobody knows how to do anything with it. If you don't like Microsoft's history with bugs, don't use it, which I'm sure you don't. Microsoft fixes all it's major bugs and security holes. People buy software knowing it's not perfect. If you want your software to be emaculate, don't buy any. You're entitled to your opinion, how ever thick, and close-minded you may be. No matter what you say about Windows, the fact remains that it is the most widely used OS on Earth. If Windows remain's bigger than Linux, it's because it obviously offers something that Linux doesn't to the normal user. What will happen if Microsoft falls? Nothing for you. You will just have one less thing to bitch about.
Indeed. There would almost undoubtably be a widespread economic depression. People are stubborn. The masses would just stick with whatever the latest version of Windows was when Microsoft went down. Most people probably wouldn't buy a new computer until they had to, because like you mentioned, they don't want to have to learn how to use another one. Hell, most people barely know how to use Windows, as easy as it is. It would be years before people started buying personal computers again on a large scale. The PC gaming industry would likely never recover. But worst of all? I'd have to get a new email address.
Personally I have nothing against Microsoft. People constantly complain about Microsoft, yet Microsoft has certainly made things a lot easier for the standard end-user. Windows 95 was a near revolutionary thing. It brought computers into most households which otherwise probably wouldn't have had computers. A world in which microsoft never existed would be harder on all of us because it would make little things that we all do every day that much more difficult. If Microsoft were to fall right now, I would silently applaud their former riegn of the PC industry. Corporations don't become giants without reason.
People often complain about how buggy and how full of security holes. Bugs are what occur when you make something that is very large and very complex. People want stuff to be easy to use, which means advanced programming, which in turn results in bugs. As for security holes. This is a subject that really bugs me. The people that tend to be the most critical of microsoft for their numerous security holes (which also result from having such a complex system), also tend to be the ones that like to exploit them. Which is a damn hipocracy if you ask me. Security holes exist, they always have, they always will, and there is nothing whatsoever that you, I or Mr. Gates can do to change that. The problem isn't the security holes, it's the fact that there are people that exploit them. And then those innocent people who don't exploit them will get mad at Microsoft, effectively siding with those malicious jerks who exploit the holes. People should be supportive of Microsoft to fix the holes and bugs, while denouncing the jerks, letting them know that they are neither cool nor respected. Okay.. I went quite a bit off subject. But essentially I'm saying that Microsoft has been a *good thing*. And while whether or not they do or will continue to be is up for debate, they have been. And I will always chear on a nobody that can go from being nothing to the world's most powerful corperation and only a decade or two's time.
Rufus Dark