Excellent point. I really don't have any friends that play video games, so that makes sense why it wouldn't be any fun for somebody like myself. Every time I tried an online game, I just jumped in with a bunch of random people, and the experience has always been terrible.
No, I don't play online for precisely that reason: it sucks. I'd much rather play against the computer... it tends to be smarter, and doesn't cheat! Besides, I don't have 12 hours a day to devote to practicing my reflexes like all those spoiled little shits online that you describe.
Why not use both services? If I had a blog or something similar (ie: non-ecommerce), I'd but up an iframe for each of them, let them do their magic trying to match ads, and simply se which one paid the most. Or if they're close, why not just leave 'em both up? From what I understand, there's very little that the site showing the ads has to do to get them set up, so there's really nothing to lose using both (other than screen real estate, obviously).
The thing is, Nintendo is no longer a replacement for the XBox and expecially the PS2. The PS2 (and to a lesser extent, the XBox) are more focused on games for older teens and adults. I, being 32, have no interest at all in Nintendo because the vast majority of their games are the silly Japanese "twitch" games, or other such games with themes more suited for 10 year olds. Video games have progessed a long way in the past 20 years, and I enjoy the production value (movie-like) of modern games (Silent Hill). I enjoy a good story (Deus Ex). I enjoy good actors (Grand Theft Auto Vice City). Nintendo, no matter how cheap it is, just doesn't provide very many games I'd be interested in playing.
I've had such a good experience with my modded PS2 (plays "backed up" PS1 games, PS2 games, and DVD's), that I don't anticipate buying another console *without* one. Sure, either having it done to an existing box or buying one with the chip in it is about $100 more, but it's *sooo* worth it!
I didn't get into the industry until 10 years ago, and I was amazed at this difference between the windows kids and the mainframe guys. I was a Windows/Oracle developer, but luckily I learned good practices from old MVS/greenscreen guys who taught me things that hold true no matter what kind of computer platform you're working with. I'm blown away to see some of the stupid things that new programmers/admins do. Blown away.
OK, somebody help me figure this out. There's no way that anybody could be this stupid. These dupes are on purpose. My only question is why? Do they think that they will get more clickthroughs when we get sick of looking at the same articles? Do they like all of these posts saying "dupe"? Why are they (the people who run Slashdot) doing this? Any ideas?
xfce works good on older hardware, so does blackbox and fluxbox.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
So then, I can run some form of Linux that uses KDE on old boxes, and it should work? Which ones use KDE? I don't remember seeing this choice in Ubuntu, but I think that I did with Fedora. I'm so confused.
A more pertinent question, I think, would be whether 2000 still runs with full support for new hardware devices,
That depends. On Wal-Mart quality consumer devices, they may not work on W2K. But for hardware designed to do real work (ie: in a business setting), I've never seen one that didn't run easily on W2K. As a small business, we don't plan on "upgrading" our OS for a long time (don't see any compelling reason to go to Longhorn when it comes out, even). Lots of small and mid-sized businesses need to save every dime they can, so there are lots and lots and lots of us that will hold onto Windows 2000 for as long as we possibly can. If I were to buy a device that didn't run on W2K, I'd return it. HP was notoriously bad for doing this with NT 4.0. I bought 2 HP devices, learned my lesson, returned them, and never once considered any HP devices again.
It's a completely bone-headed idea to do something as dramatic as updating an OS for a device, when it's very easy for the company to write a W2K version. If the company doesn't want our W2K business (like HP), then they won't get it. We'd have to have a very very hard time finding W2K compatible devices before I'd think about doing something as dramatic as upgrading.
This is one big reason why I standardized my company on it. It's the best OS I've seen when you want something that "just works" with all kinds of hardware and software. We won't be "upgrading" until we have a very solid business reason to do so. Right now, I don't see any reason to go to Longhorn whenever it comes out, either. So W2K may be the first desktop OS with longevity similar to that of the old Unix machines and the greenscreens before that.
Well, Linux runs well on older hardware too. Infact, the older...the better!
I really wish that were true. I tried Ubuntu and Fedora on 3 old clunkers the other week. None worked. Ended up putting Windows 2000 on all of them. Worked like a champ.
I don't quite see why moving forward should necessarily leave old applications broken.
You should pose this same question to Apple. Every try running OSX on an 8 year old Mac? But more to the point, I don't know where they got that 95% number. Maybe I've just gotten lucky, but all I use in my business and at home is Windows 2000, and I've never run across an app that didn't work on W2K.
Unlike all those other electronics companies that send you a free product whenever they come out with a new version? Sony didn't send me a free DVD player just because I bought a VCR from them a few years earlier.
Very different. Apple charges for each and every software upgrade/update. They've been doing it with OSX since it came out. I don't even know how mayn iterations they came out with, but each time, I remember reading articles about people standing in line outside the stores, waiting for the second that they could buy the "new" software. And from what I understand, they are all relatively minor updates and they seem to happen every year or so. That would be comprable to Microsoft charging for each Service Pack. I'd argue that Windows 98 --> ME was a bit of a rip off, but other than that, their updates are usually worth buying (ie: Windows NT to Windows 2000)
The parent post was wondering, since the iPod apparently is already capable, would they just allow users to flash their iPods or would they require them to buy a whole new IPod with the major difference being only a few bits of code.
A VCR and DVD player are obviously quite different on the inside. No matter what kind of software you use, you can't make a VCR play a DVD. It's not physically possible.
If you look through Apple's history, they have historically charged for each and every new upgrade, requiring the customer to buy an entirely new product. They only do "free" upgrades if there's a very serious flaw, apparently (like exploding batteries). In fact, that's why we won't consider Apple products.... their lock-in is ridiculous. Their PC's are notorously hard (if not impossible) to upgrade, as are their other products.
Rest assured, it'll be a new iPod, and all of the current iPod owners will happily be waiting in lines outaside the Apple stores like good little consumer drones, ready to pledge their eternal, undying love, affection, and wallets to Apple. All Praise Apple!
It's not coming up with the ideas that lets you cash out. People come up with ideas like this and better every second of every day. The trick is to be able to use all of the lingo, talk to the right people, jump through the right hoops, and figure out how to get people give you millions for a silly idea, and how you can personally walk away with a pile of cash, even if (when) the idea flops. If you know any venture capitalists personally, and you know how to talk to them, and what kind of bullshit they expect, you've gotten past your first hurdle.
Why? I buy my machines for $50-$100 each while everyone else is spending hundreds and hundreds of bucks on a machine that does the same goddamned thing.
But no, I've never seen a USB keyboard or mouse. All of our computers use PS2 ports.
Although they're not *too* expensive, it bears reminding that people buying a Mac Mini also have to buy a new keyboard and mouse, since PS2 ports are the de facto standard, and the Mac Mini has none.
I've actually spent quite a bit of time thinking and talking about this. The current method of enforcing "fair trade" and "level playing fields" is quite arbitrary. The MS anti-trust suit, for example, was against a company that while huge, is certainly not a monopoly, as per the definition of the word. So, when exactly is a company a monopoly? When they are worth $x? When they have X number of employees? When they control x% (less than 100%) of a market? And once they're deemed a "monopoly", what can they do and not do? Apparently, they can sell products to customers at a loss to kill competitors, but they aren't allowed to motivate their customers to purchase their products instead of a competitors by refusing to sell to them if they carry brand X. etc. etc. etc.
So I ask, in a case like this, or any other anti-trust lawsuit, where's the line? And if there is a line, why is the line there?
And while I like my own privacy, I don't know of a law that says that we have the right to privacy. What lengths do we go to protect privacy?
I understand what you're saying, but I fail to see how either case is *not* arbitrary.
As a business owner, I understand ethics pretty thoroughly. However, most OSS zealots have no clue. Most OSS zealots are more than happy to side with the gov't when they think it's somehow at their advantage (anti-trust against MS), and slam the gov't for it's stupid laws when it's at their advatage to do so (DMCA, IP laws, etc.). It's completely arbitrary and generally pretty damned uninformed.
I find it funny the editors are probably pushing their thirties, yet still act like 5 year olds toward a billion dollar corporation that has contributed more and done more for the world than they can ever hope to.
For one, their philanthropy really is unmatched. I've never heard of an OSS company giving away anywhere *near* the cash that MS gives away. On top of that, MS made PC's ubiquitous. Sure, you could say, "somebody else would've done it", but there's no way of knowing. But absolutely, definitely, MS made PC's widespread and easy to use for the masses... something that no OSS project has even come close to doing.
Oh yeah, there are lots of good libraries/dll's, but with IE, you can easily (literally click and drag) dropit into an app with a GUI and get full functionality (same applies to Windows Media Player). You'll see IE embedded in *lots* of applications. Hell, I think that most if not all Intuit products use IE. It's especially good since you don't have to include IE as part of the install package.
But thanks for the info. I'll remember that next time I need a purely back-end tool. I'm sure that cURL and others have more functionality than IE does.
I have never *once* had a security issue with Linux. But then again, I've been trying to use various versions of it for 10 years, and I've never gotten a working box. The last Ubuntu install I did, I ended up at a command prompt at the end of the install. Now, *that's* security!
Also, my bicycle has never caught fire, while my car did once. My bicycle is *much* more fireproof than my car is!
Do you thoroughly investigate the business practices of everyone you do business with? If you don't shop at places where they don't do everything completely ethically and above board, you're going to have to be self sufficient.
Actually, yes, I know the owners of the majority of the businesses I do business with (as a consumer and as a business owner).
I've seen it. Last time I tried to use Ubuntu, I got a black screen with some white text that ended with one line that just said something along the lines of:
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent point. I really don't have any friends that play video games, so that makes sense why it wouldn't be any fun for somebody like myself. Every time I tried an online game, I just jumped in with a bunch of random people, and the experience has always been terrible.
No, I don't play online for precisely that reason: it sucks. I'd much rather play against the computer... it tends to be smarter, and doesn't cheat! Besides, I don't have 12 hours a day to devote to practicing my reflexes like all those spoiled little shits online that you describe.
Why not use both services? If I had a blog or something similar (ie: non-ecommerce), I'd but up an iframe for each of them, let them do their magic trying to match ads, and simply se which one paid the most. Or if they're close, why not just leave 'em both up? From what I understand, there's very little that the site showing the ads has to do to get them set up, so there's really nothing to lose using both (other than screen real estate, obviously).
Actually, it sounds like it *is* for blogs. But calling bloggers "publishers" is far-fetched. I'd call the vast majority of blogs "online diaries".
The thing is, Nintendo is no longer a replacement for the XBox and expecially the PS2. The PS2 (and to a lesser extent, the XBox) are more focused on games for older teens and adults. I, being 32, have no interest at all in Nintendo because the vast majority of their games are the silly Japanese "twitch" games, or other such games with themes more suited for 10 year olds. Video games have progessed a long way in the past 20 years, and I enjoy the production value (movie-like) of modern games (Silent Hill). I enjoy a good story (Deus Ex). I enjoy good actors (Grand Theft Auto Vice City). Nintendo, no matter how cheap it is, just doesn't provide very many games I'd be interested in playing.
Two words: mod chip.
I've had such a good experience with my modded PS2 (plays "backed up" PS1 games, PS2 games, and DVD's), that I don't anticipate buying another console *without* one. Sure, either having it done to an existing box or buying one with the chip in it is about $100 more, but it's *sooo* worth it!
I didn't get into the industry until 10 years ago, and I was amazed at this difference between the windows kids and the mainframe guys. I was a Windows/Oracle developer, but luckily I learned good practices from old MVS/greenscreen guys who taught me things that hold true no matter what kind of computer platform you're working with. I'm blown away to see some of the stupid things that new programmers/admins do. Blown away.
OK, somebody help me figure this out. There's no way that anybody could be this stupid. These dupes are on purpose. My only question is why? Do they think that they will get more clickthroughs when we get sick of looking at the same articles? Do they like all of these posts saying "dupe"? Why are they (the people who run Slashdot) doing this? Any ideas?
xfce works good on older hardware, so does blackbox and fluxbox.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
So then, I can run some form of Linux that uses KDE on old boxes, and it should work? Which ones use KDE? I don't remember seeing this choice in Ubuntu, but I think that I did with Fedora. I'm so confused.
A more pertinent question, I think, would be whether 2000 still runs with full support for new hardware devices,
That depends. On Wal-Mart quality consumer devices, they may not work on W2K. But for hardware designed to do real work (ie: in a business setting), I've never seen one that didn't run easily on W2K. As a small business, we don't plan on "upgrading" our OS for a long time (don't see any compelling reason to go to Longhorn when it comes out, even). Lots of small and mid-sized businesses need to save every dime they can, so there are lots and lots and lots of us that will hold onto Windows 2000 for as long as we possibly can. If I were to buy a device that didn't run on W2K, I'd return it. HP was notoriously bad for doing this with NT 4.0. I bought 2 HP devices, learned my lesson, returned them, and never once considered any HP devices again.
It's a completely bone-headed idea to do something as dramatic as updating an OS for a device, when it's very easy for the company to write a W2K version. If the company doesn't want our W2K business (like HP), then they won't get it. We'd have to have a very very hard time finding W2K compatible devices before I'd think about doing something as dramatic as upgrading.
This is one big reason why I standardized my company on it. It's the best OS I've seen when you want something that "just works" with all kinds of hardware and software. We won't be "upgrading" until we have a very solid business reason to do so. Right now, I don't see any reason to go to Longhorn whenever it comes out, either. So W2K may be the first desktop OS with longevity similar to that of the old Unix machines and the greenscreens before that.
Well, Linux runs well on older hardware too. Infact, the older...the better!
I really wish that were true. I tried Ubuntu and Fedora on 3 old clunkers the other week. None worked. Ended up putting Windows 2000 on all of them. Worked like a champ.
I don't quite see why moving forward should necessarily leave old applications broken.
You should pose this same question to Apple. Every try running OSX on an 8 year old Mac? But more to the point, I don't know where they got that 95% number. Maybe I've just gotten lucky, but all I use in my business and at home is Windows 2000, and I've never run across an app that didn't work on W2K.
Unlike all those other electronics companies that send you a free product whenever they come out with a new version? Sony didn't send me a free DVD player just because I bought a VCR from them a few years earlier.
Very different. Apple charges for each and every software upgrade/update. They've been doing it with OSX since it came out. I don't even know how mayn iterations they came out with, but each time, I remember reading articles about people standing in line outside the stores, waiting for the second that they could buy the "new" software. And from what I understand, they are all relatively minor updates and they seem to happen every year or so. That would be comprable to Microsoft charging for each Service Pack. I'd argue that Windows 98 --> ME was a bit of a rip off, but other than that, their updates are usually worth buying (ie: Windows NT to Windows 2000)
The parent post was wondering, since the iPod apparently is already capable, would they just allow users to flash their iPods or would they require them to buy a whole new IPod with the major difference being only a few bits of code.
A VCR and DVD player are obviously quite different on the inside. No matter what kind of software you use, you can't make a VCR play a DVD. It's not physically possible.
If you look through Apple's history, they have historically charged for each and every new upgrade, requiring the customer to buy an entirely new product. They only do "free" upgrades if there's a very serious flaw, apparently (like exploding batteries). In fact, that's why we won't consider Apple products.... their lock-in is ridiculous. Their PC's are notorously hard (if not impossible) to upgrade, as are their other products.
Rest assured, it'll be a new iPod, and all of the current iPod owners will happily be waiting in lines outaside the Apple stores like good little consumer drones, ready to pledge their eternal, undying love, affection, and wallets to Apple. All Praise Apple!
It's not coming up with the ideas that lets you cash out. People come up with ideas like this and better every second of every day. The trick is to be able to use all of the lingo, talk to the right people, jump through the right hoops, and figure out how to get people give you millions for a silly idea, and how you can personally walk away with a pile of cash, even if (when) the idea flops. If you know any venture capitalists personally, and you know how to talk to them, and what kind of bullshit they expect, you've gotten past your first hurdle.
or stop shopping for hardware at Goodwill.
Why? I buy my machines for $50-$100 each while everyone else is spending hundreds and hundreds of bucks on a machine that does the same goddamned thing.
But no, I've never seen a USB keyboard or mouse. All of our computers use PS2 ports.
Although they're not *too* expensive, it bears reminding that people buying a Mac Mini also have to buy a new keyboard and mouse, since PS2 ports are the de facto standard, and the Mac Mini has none.
I've actually spent quite a bit of time thinking and talking about this. The current method of enforcing "fair trade" and "level playing fields" is quite arbitrary. The MS anti-trust suit, for example, was against a company that while huge, is certainly not a monopoly, as per the definition of the word. So, when exactly is a company a monopoly? When they are worth $x? When they have X number of employees? When they control x% (less than 100%) of a market? And once they're deemed a "monopoly", what can they do and not do? Apparently, they can sell products to customers at a loss to kill competitors, but they aren't allowed to motivate their customers to purchase their products instead of a competitors by refusing to sell to them if they carry brand X. etc. etc. etc.
So I ask, in a case like this, or any other anti-trust lawsuit, where's the line? And if there is a line, why is the line there?
And while I like my own privacy, I don't know of a law that says that we have the right to privacy. What lengths do we go to protect privacy?
I understand what you're saying, but I fail to see how either case is *not* arbitrary.
As a business owner, I understand ethics pretty thoroughly. However, most OSS zealots have no clue. Most OSS zealots are more than happy to side with the gov't when they think it's somehow at their advantage (anti-trust against MS), and slam the gov't for it's stupid laws when it's at their advatage to do so (DMCA, IP laws, etc.). It's completely arbitrary and generally pretty damned uninformed.
I find it funny the editors are probably pushing their thirties, yet still act like 5 year olds toward a billion dollar corporation that has contributed more and done more for the world than they can ever hope to.
For one, their philanthropy really is unmatched. I've never heard of an OSS company giving away anywhere *near* the cash that MS gives away. On top of that, MS made PC's ubiquitous. Sure, you could say, "somebody else would've done it", but there's no way of knowing. But absolutely, definitely, MS made PC's widespread and easy to use for the masses... something that no OSS project has even come close to doing.
Oh yeah, there are lots of good libraries/dll's, but with IE, you can easily (literally click and drag) dropit into an app with a GUI and get full functionality (same applies to Windows Media Player). You'll see IE embedded in *lots* of applications. Hell, I think that most if not all Intuit products use IE. It's especially good since you don't have to include IE as part of the install package.
But thanks for the info. I'll remember that next time I need a purely back-end tool. I'm sure that cURL and others have more functionality than IE does.
RealPlayer
What's your point? How's it supposed to be delivered to you? What magical piece of software will allow them to deal with security, advertising, etc.?
I have never *once* had a security issue with Linux. But then again, I've been trying to use various versions of it for 10 years, and I've never gotten a working box. The last Ubuntu install I did, I ended up at a command prompt at the end of the install. Now, *that's* security!
Also, my bicycle has never caught fire, while my car did once. My bicycle is *much* more fireproof than my car is!
Do you thoroughly investigate the business practices of everyone you do business with? If you don't shop at places where they don't do everything completely ethically and above board, you're going to have to be self sufficient.
Actually, yes, I know the owners of the majority of the businesses I do business with (as a consumer and as a business owner).
I've seen it. Last time I tried to use Ubuntu, I got a black screen with some white text that ended with one line that just said something along the lines of:
>
Worst error message ever. Had to re-install W2K