I am NOT bashing your thoughts/observations/ideas/whatever, because they do make sense. But your comment made me think of the SNL skit where David Spade is doing an infomercial about his time-saving, abbreviated speech techniques...
Great points. I was wondering some of the same things.
I have used the RTM Ultimate version at home (installed on my main machine to a spare drive). I honestly can't really tell that much difference in the interface performance. For me, the biggest thing is the redesign of the menu(s) and locations where common tasks are located. I'm so used to XP's interface that the new layout really slowed me down for the first few days.
I don't know... sounds more like fiction than friction.
Yeah, Charter's DNS servers (at least the ones I was assigned) have been shit for long time. I recently switched to OpenDNS and have been very pleased - extremely fast lookups.
... I don't want to see an advert for Bandaids
This re-inforced my initial question about ads in 2142 - What kind of ads or prouduct placements could possibly be inserted in the game that wouldn't seem totally out of place?
I hope this doesn't come across as flamebait, and I'm certainly not the biggest MS fan, but... When VMWare gives away a version of one of their products, the consensus is "YIPPIE!!! How cool are they?!" (and it is very cool)... When MS does the same though, some view it as reinforcement of their monopolistic business practices and its TOTALLY bad. What gives? Am I the only that thinks this is a bit unfair? Maybe I'm missing something.
Hmm... 45 minute XP install. I recently built 2 systems for a friend and his dad. Both were AMD64 3400+ w/ serial ATA drives and 512MB of RAM... average install time for the two: 16 minutes - from initial CD-boot to the wonderful XP welcome screen (including reading the the SATA drivers from a floppy). My point, not ALL XP installs take 45 minutes... depends on the hardware. Hell, my 2400+ will install Windoze in 25-30 minutes.
Good points, but... there will always be groups of users that want/need/demand faster and faster performance -- this ulitmately drives the never ending Ghz wars.
To say "games can't get much more realistic (and don't really need to)", isn't really fair. For the hardcore gamer, games can't be realistic enough - they'll always be willing to buy the latest hw - so they can run their directx12 games at 2048x1536 with 32xAA and all the eye-candy and get 250fps; similar to the group of users who edit massive digital images and video -- one of them posted earlier, "you can never *never* have too much ram/cpu..." Average users don't need the latest and greatest; the groups I speak of will never settle for average systems.
snp
Slashdot Mirror
Compensating for their husband's/bf's small penis?
Sounds like BULLSHIT to me! :-D
I am NOT bashing your thoughts/observations/ideas/whatever, because they do make sense. But your comment made me think of the SNL skit where David Spade is doing an infomercial about his time-saving, abbreviated speech techniques...
Great points. I was wondering some of the same things.
I have used the RTM Ultimate version at home (installed on my main machine to a spare drive). I honestly can't really tell that much difference in the interface performance. For me, the biggest thing is the redesign of the menu(s) and locations where common tasks are located. I'm so used to XP's interface that the new layout really slowed me down for the first few days.
I don't know... sounds more like fiction than friction.
*shrug*
"Games are meaningless... as is .. slashdot"
Take - it - back
Yeah, Charter's DNS servers (at least the ones I was assigned) have been shit for long time. I recently switched to OpenDNS and have been very pleased - extremely fast lookups.
located here: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4908/
The NSA already has them... where's my tin-foil hat...
I hope this doesn't come across as flamebait, and I'm certainly not the biggest MS fan, but... When VMWare gives away a version of one of their products, the consensus is "YIPPIE!!! How cool are they?!" (and it is very cool)... When MS does the same though, some view it as reinforcement of their monopolistic business practices and its TOTALLY bad. What gives? Am I the only that thinks this is a bit unfair? Maybe I'm missing something.
Hmm... 45 minute XP install. I recently built 2 systems for a friend and his dad. Both were AMD64 3400+ w/ serial ATA drives and 512MB of RAM... average install time for the two: 16 minutes - from initial CD-boot to the wonderful XP welcome screen (including reading the the SATA drivers from a floppy). My point, not ALL XP installs take 45 minutes... depends on the hardware. Hell, my 2400+ will install Windoze in 25-30 minutes.
New war on Iraq "strategery?"
Good points, but... there will always be groups of users that want/need/demand faster and faster performance -- this ulitmately drives the never ending Ghz wars. To say "games can't get much more realistic (and don't really need to)", isn't really fair. For the hardcore gamer, games can't be realistic enough - they'll always be willing to buy the latest hw - so they can run their directx12 games at 2048x1536 with 32xAA and all the eye-candy and get 250fps; similar to the group of users who edit massive digital images and video -- one of them posted earlier, "you can never *never* have too much ram/cpu..." Average users don't need the latest and greatest; the groups I speak of will never settle for average systems. snp