As has been said many times above, XP-x64 is based off of Server 2003, and uses the same service packs that it does. Since the latest 2k3 service pack is 2, that's the latest for XP-x64, and is still being supported.
Older operating systems are also out of print for the next several decades.
You're saying someone who still has a Windows 3.1 game is assumed to NOT still have a copy of Windows 3.1? Hell, I'm pretty sure I still have copies of Windows 95 AND 98 laying around here, either of which would do the job.
But don't you need an original Mac ROM to get one of these working?
To my knowledge, yes, you do. Which can be ripped from the user's original system, assuming they still have it.
Of course, should the user could always download a copy of Win3.1 or a Mac ROM, should they not have the originals. Sure, it's technically copyright infringement, but realistically, neither Apple NOR Microsoft have any interest in stopping people from sharing decade old software that not only is out of production, but doesn't affect their bottom line in any way.
Unless the games you missed are unsupported in modern operating systems. Sure, DOSBox can run MS-DOS games, but games for Windows 3.1 don't run on 64-bit Windows, games for Windows 95 or 98 that didn't consider NT 4 have problems under Windows XP and Windows 7, and Apple no longer sells anything that can run games for Mac OS 6 through 9.
But Windows 3.1 will run in DOSBox, even on 64-bit Windows, and you can easily run Windows 9x and even older Mac OS's in virtual machines.
They DID post a warning, although I'm not sure if it was ever in-game, having not played Halo 2 in years. They announced they were shutting down the servers on April 15th a few weeks before hand.
Your argument is invalid because my hat is a duck.
Wait, that's not right...
Your argument is invalid because they didn't specifically shut down Halo 2 multiplayer, they shut down the original XBox Live servers. They did this for a legitimate reason too; the legacy system was holding back the modern Live service, applying specific limitations that couldn't be overcome without shutting it down like this. Hell, a minority of users have been constantly complaining about the 100 person limit on Live friends list, which was, surprise, caused by the legacy Live system. People complained about it time and again, and every time, Microsoft responded with "we can't do that without shutting down the original Live!"
As much as you'd like to believe "the man" is out to get you, this wasn't done for "forced obsolescence".
They could have been on the disk, since they were available at launch.
You're right, everything available for download the day the game is released could have been on the disc when it was pressed months earlier. The time in between, the developers spend with hookers and blow.
It'll cost $10-$15 to play a [i]used[/i] copy of the game online. New copies will come with a code to enable it for free. The idea is to provide an incentive to buy the game new, while making money off of used sales.
I don't think an author should be paid for a single work for the rest of his life, no matter how popular that work is. I also think that the author's estate shouldn't get paid for the same work for 70 freaking years afterwords, either.
Copyright law was meant to encourage authors to release their works to contribute to society. The idea was that the creator got exclusive rights to their work for a limited period, after which it enters public domain, allowing ANYONE to use it.
With copyright extended to obscene lengths, as it is now, by the time a body of work hits the public domain, it is forgotten and irrelevant. Which is to say, by extending copyrights to the length they have now, the society's benefit from the contract is all but ELIMINATED.
I firmly believe US copyright law should revert to it's original length: 14 years, with a 14 year extension if the author is still alive. Hell, even a flat 28 years up front would be WAY better than life + 70. By the time 28 years have passed, few people will remember it, but it will still be fresher than if people have to wait a bloody CENTURY for things to hit public domain.
Of course, this is all massively off-topic, because this lawsuit is about TRADEMARK law, not copyright, which are two VERY different things.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the viewpoint of a good chunk of the industry.
Of course, first sale doctrine says that they can go screw themselves, but hey, that doesn't stop them from spreading FUD long enough for people to believe it.
Only one goomba comes at you at the beginning of that level because it doesn't track enemy movement while they're off screen, which can cause... interesting scenarios.
And are you really complaining that he didn't go out of his way to implement a BUG? World -1 is an interesting bug, sure, but it adds uh, let's see, JACK EFFING CRAP to the actual game.
Except that the kind of user that would stay infected long enough for this to be an issue don't even KNOW about the MSRT, let alone would think that they should use it...
A good idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of people ignored said warning.
Personally, I think that if an ISP can POSITIVELY identify a customer with a compromised system, they should isolate them from the rest of the network, and forward all their HTTP requests to a webserver explaining what's going on.
Until the next time this happens. If the systems that they use all eventually go down, either they'll get fed up and stop using the Internet, or they'll try to figure out what's going on.
And even if they don't, a temporary benefit for us is still a benefit...
Nice strawman argument. Too bad you're full of shit. Knowing not to do stupid shit on the net and to run antivirus software is nowhere near knowing Cisco networks or any form of programming at all, but you do an excellent job trying to equate them.
I don't think that everyone needs to be as technically literate as I am, but I DO believe that they have the responsibility for what their machines do. And if they're a part of a bot-net, they're sending out spam, participating in DDoS's, etc.
AND THEY ARE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
If patching rooted systems causes them to BSOD, do it. It's probably the ONLY way to FORCE the uneducated user to get his system cleaned.
I'll admit that I know nothing of vehicle maintenance, farming, construction, plumbing, OR healthcare. But if I try my hand at any of those, I'm responsible for the outcome. If I try a heart-transplant without knowing what the hell I'm doing, I GO TO JAIL. Yeah, that example is pretty extreme, but it should get my point across.
My point is that yes, these people SHOULD be allowed to use their computers. They SHOULD be allowed to be on the Internet. But they NEED to keep their systems clean, and if they won't take the time to learn, or don't know that they need to, they need a wake-up call. And considering that people have a tendency to stick their heads in the sand and ignore all but the most extreme signs, they need an EXTREME wake-up call. Like, say, their systems suddenly not working, prompting them to either buy a new system (a temporary fix for the root problem), or hire an expert to fix the computer, who will hopefully figure out what actually happened and let them know. Once people understand that they need to not be stupid OR ELSE, they'll learn.
Slashdot Mirror
Just the 32bit version, 64bit XP is an entirely separate product.
As has been said many times above, XP-x64 is based off of Server 2003, and uses the same service packs that it does. Since the latest 2k3 service pack is 2, that's the latest for XP-x64, and is still being supported.
The 64-bit is pretty much the "standard" for Windows 7; I've yet to see a system available that's sold with the 32-bit version.
And Microsoft has stated that 7 will be the last 32-bit OS they make, so they're getting there.
Older operating systems are also out of print for the next several decades.
You're saying someone who still has a Windows 3.1 game is assumed to NOT still have a copy of Windows 3.1? Hell, I'm pretty sure I still have copies of Windows 95 AND 98 laying around here, either of which would do the job.
But don't you need an original Mac ROM to get one of these working?
To my knowledge, yes, you do. Which can be ripped from the user's original system, assuming they still have it.
Of course, should the user could always download a copy of Win3.1 or a Mac ROM, should they not have the originals. Sure, it's technically copyright infringement, but realistically, neither Apple NOR Microsoft have any interest in stopping people from sharing decade old software that not only is out of production, but doesn't affect their bottom line in any way.
Actually, now that I think about it, Windows 95 works in DOSBox, too...
Unless the games you missed are unsupported in modern operating systems. Sure, DOSBox can run MS-DOS games, but games for Windows 3.1 don't run on 64-bit Windows, games for Windows 95 or 98 that didn't consider NT 4 have problems under Windows XP and Windows 7, and Apple no longer sells anything that can run games for Mac OS 6 through 9.
But Windows 3.1 will run in DOSBox, even on 64-bit Windows, and you can easily run Windows 9x and even older Mac OS's in virtual machines.
They DID post a warning, although I'm not sure if it was ever in-game, having not played Halo 2 in years. They announced they were shutting down the servers on April 15th a few weeks before hand.
Mod parent +1 Awesome.
Your argument is invalid because my hat is a duck.
Wait, that's not right...
Your argument is invalid because they didn't specifically shut down Halo 2 multiplayer, they shut down the original XBox Live servers. They did this for a legitimate reason too; the legacy system was holding back the modern Live service, applying specific limitations that couldn't be overcome without shutting it down like this. Hell, a minority of users have been constantly complaining about the 100 person limit on Live friends list, which was, surprise, caused by the legacy Live system. People complained about it time and again, and every time, Microsoft responded with "we can't do that without shutting down the original Live!"
As much as you'd like to believe "the man" is out to get you, this wasn't done for "forced obsolescence".
They could have been on the disk, since they were available at launch.
You're right, everything available for download the day the game is released could have been on the disc when it was pressed months earlier. The time in between, the developers spend with hookers and blow.
It'll cost $10-$15 to play a [i]used[/i] copy of the game online. New copies will come with a code to enable it for free. The idea is to provide an incentive to buy the game new, while making money off of used sales.
So you're telling me the shitty DVR the cable company tries to force on you is, *gasp*, SHITTY? Say it isn't so!
I don't think an author should be paid for a single work for the rest of his life, no matter how popular that work is. I also think that the author's estate shouldn't get paid for the same work for 70 freaking years afterwords, either.
Copyright law was meant to encourage authors to release their works to contribute to society. The idea was that the creator got exclusive rights to their work for a limited period, after which it enters public domain, allowing ANYONE to use it.
With copyright extended to obscene lengths, as it is now, by the time a body of work hits the public domain, it is forgotten and irrelevant. Which is to say, by extending copyrights to the length they have now, the society's benefit from the contract is all but ELIMINATED.
I firmly believe US copyright law should revert to it's original length: 14 years, with a 14 year extension if the author is still alive. Hell, even a flat 28 years up front would be WAY better than life + 70. By the time 28 years have passed, few people will remember it, but it will still be fresher than if people have to wait a bloody CENTURY for things to hit public domain.
Of course, this is all massively off-topic, because this lawsuit is about TRADEMARK law, not copyright, which are two VERY different things.
Actually, your cable company can provide an SDV adapter for CableCARD devices. From what I hear, though, they're a major pain to get working reliably.
One hoop for informed users.
How many hoops do users have to jump through until they're "informed"?
A long time ago, it did.
The point of the article was that the "opportunity cost" of the piracy of these games are significantly lower than that 80-90% figure would suggest.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the viewpoint of a good chunk of the industry.
Of course, first sale doctrine says that they can go screw themselves, but hey, that doesn't stop them from spreading FUD long enough for people to believe it.
The platform is there for the new characters, who couldn't reach the top of the flagpole if it wasn't for that.
Only one goomba comes at you at the beginning of that level because it doesn't track enemy movement while they're off screen, which can cause... interesting scenarios.
And are you really complaining that he didn't go out of his way to implement a BUG? World -1 is an interesting bug, sure, but it adds uh, let's see, JACK EFFING CRAP to the actual game.
+1 Frag
Except that the kind of user that would stay infected long enough for this to be an issue don't even KNOW about the MSRT, let alone would think that they should use it...
A good idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of people ignored said warning.
Personally, I think that if an ISP can POSITIVELY identify a customer with a compromised system, they should isolate them from the rest of the network, and forward all their HTTP requests to a webserver explaining what's going on.
Until the next time this happens. If the systems that they use all eventually go down, either they'll get fed up and stop using the Internet, or they'll try to figure out what's going on.
And even if they don't, a temporary benefit for us is still a benefit...
Nice strawman argument. Too bad you're full of shit. Knowing not to do stupid shit on the net and to run antivirus software is nowhere near knowing Cisco networks or any form of programming at all, but you do an excellent job trying to equate them.
I don't think that everyone needs to be as technically literate as I am, but I DO believe that they have the responsibility for what their machines do. And if they're a part of a bot-net, they're sending out spam, participating in DDoS's, etc.
AND THEY ARE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
If patching rooted systems causes them to BSOD, do it. It's probably the ONLY way to FORCE the uneducated user to get his system cleaned.
I'll admit that I know nothing of vehicle maintenance, farming, construction, plumbing, OR healthcare. But if I try my hand at any of those, I'm responsible for the outcome. If I try a heart-transplant without knowing what the hell I'm doing, I GO TO JAIL. Yeah, that example is pretty extreme, but it should get my point across.
My point is that yes, these people SHOULD be allowed to use their computers. They SHOULD be allowed to be on the Internet. But they NEED to keep their systems clean, and if they won't take the time to learn, or don't know that they need to, they need a wake-up call. And considering that people have a tendency to stick their heads in the sand and ignore all but the most extreme signs, they need an EXTREME wake-up call. Like, say, their systems suddenly not working, prompting them to either buy a new system (a temporary fix for the root problem), or hire an expert to fix the computer, who will hopefully figure out what actually happened and let them know. Once people understand that they need to not be stupid OR ELSE, they'll learn.
OR ELSE.