So you want to outlaw The Anarchist's Cookbook? how about Chemistry textbooks? or is just the statement "I hope you use this to blow something up" that you want to punish?
Face it, both sides have pretty strong drawbacks here. You prefer the protectionist side with a stronger government that protects their citizens, I prefer the free speech one where the citizens have to take care of themselves, its that simple. You want to punish this woman? then move next door to her and cause her 'mental anguish over an extended period', I'll defend your right to do so just the same.
But I don't want a world where you can go to jail because you were 'mean' to somebody else and censorship can be justified with a simple "think of the children!" rally call. And if she has to go free to prevent that from happening, then that's what I'll strive for, but I won't sacrifice free speech just to punish her.
There's no law of physics that dictates people will stampede when hearing the word "fire", only people's general stupidity and *that* is the problem therefore *that* is what should be punished. Or what, if I see an arab friend and, mockingly, shout "hey, Osama Bin-Laden!" and you go and shoot him, I'm the one that should go to jail for murder?
Stupidity isn't an excuse and I wish the law followed that principle a bit more, specially where free speech is concerned.
There's no complexity problem that cannot be solved by adding a layer of abstraction, nor performance problem that cannot be solved by removing a layer of abstraction.
Though I must note that you can already define your own tags in HTML+CSS and, while the W3 validator will (rightfully) complain loudly about them, most browsers deal with them just fine.
no, you do not get automatic protection from the consequences of EVERYTHING you can possibly say
You don't, but you should. No, I'm not an anarchist or even a libertarian, but the fact that there are things you can't say for fear of prison disgusts me *far* more than having this woman go free. And if a yell of "fire" in a theatre causes a stampede then I'm damn well blaming the crowd on that one, regardless of whether there was an actual fire or not.
The point is not moot, becasue he was addressing your point of movies being 'crap'.
I did not say that each and every movie ever released in Blu-Ray was crap, I said that it was the same thing as before only in higher definition. And it is.
But one is visually better. That's the point of HD. You can go watch it on a fading VHS as well, big deal.
So? who cares if its "visually better", if its twice the price and the content is exactly the same? again, unlike VHS and DVDs which *do* have differences other than resolution.
It's paying for beer in a nicer bottle and more detailed flavor.
Wrong, the content is still the same so no differences in 'flavor', its just in a nicer package.
DVD will go away and an HD format will replace it, probably Blu-Ray.
Sweet, then Blu-Rays will finally have enough penetration so movies aren't as insanely overpriced and hackers manage to break the DRM completely. Until then, however, I'll stay with my "good enough and oh-so-much-cheaper" format, thankyouverymuch, as do the rest of the world.
You're no different then those people who still only watch VHS.
And you're no different from those people who spend an entire month's worth of salary in a graphic card just to run Crysis at 2560x1920. I'll leave it to you to see which one's worse.
We're still at it, or at least I am. Though I did so when they sued the crap out of Freecraft, the bnetd and Glider fiascos just added salt on the wound.
There are many wonderful films made. Most are not making it to the screen at your local theater, but I assure you they are still being made. For instance, may I recommend "Let the Right One In"? It is a Swedish film made in 2008 and it is available on Blu-Ray. And there are classic films such as "Lawrence of Arabia", which is also available on Blu-Ray.
Are they available in regular DVDs? if so the point is moot.
If you think the DVD and the Blu-Ray of "Lawrence of Arabia" are of the same quality then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
They're not the same, but they're *practically* the same. One's a good movie in 480p, the other's a good movie in 1080p. Either way its still a good movie.
You aren't paying for better beer, you're paying for the same beer in a nicer bottle. The package is shinier, but the content itself is still the same and, since all I care for is the beer itself, I'm going with the cheaper (and easier to find) package.
It has gone from one person offering to make low quality copies for ten or twenty friends with a cost for the cassettes the copies are made on to one person offering 200,000,000 people he may or may not know extremely high quality copies with no copying costs to those making the illegal copies.
It is much easier to live with the former than the latter.
But why? why would the RIAA care about how much music people listen to? all they should care about is how much people are buying, and as far as I can tell people are buying just the same amounts as they did before.
You still buy the CD for 'bragging rights', you still buy the CD if you want the pretty artwork, and you still get the 'pirated' version if you care about neither, all it has changed is that the quality of the 'pirated' stuff has gone up, and you no longer need to pay for the extra tape.
Yeah, in a completely hypothetical world they could be getting paid for each and every one of those copies, but in an hypothetical world I could be getting paid for granting you all the priviledge of my wonderful insight, and both imaginary worlds still mean shit to the real one. "Piracy" was widespread back then, "piracy" is widespread today, and for some reason I cannot fully grasp sales continue strong for the RIAA members. So why the *fuck* should they care?
I feel like there is a huge groupthink happening here. Do we all really dislike Blu-Ray? Is there no one else that finds the quality unbeatable and worth the price?
Not really.
I cannot believe you do not appreciate the quality difference between a DVD and a Blu-Ray. That is as bizarre to me as people, and there are many of them, that say they cannot tell the difference between a CD and a 192 kbps MP3. I think those people have hearing problems. The loss of quality is like nails on a chalkboard.
Yeah, except here the 'loss' of quality simply comes from having less pixels, not from compression artifacts which are what produce the "nails on a chalkboard" effect. It is simply less bothersome for most people.
In both cases, the difference is striking and the higher quality product is significantly better. I love my Blu-Ray films and I love losslessly compressed audio (FLAC anyone?).
And there's where we disagree. You see, DVDs look good, Blu-Rays look great, but the majority of my opinion of the end product is determined by the content itself. Transformers is shit on DVDs, shit on Blu-Ray, and shit on the cinema screen, it is *not* 'significantly better'. And Mozart's Requiem is awesome on 192k MP3s, and only marginally more awesome on lossless FLACs, the MP3s may have some compression artifacts but the *music* itself is still the same. Furthermore, all I pay for FLACs over MP3s is the fraction-of-a-dollar increase in storage space, not so with Blu-Ray.
More importantly, is it TOO expensive? I answer firmly, "No. The quality justifies the price."
And I answer firmly: FUCK YEAH! Blu-Ray players are 5x the price of a DVD player with similar features, movies are at least twice as much as regular DVDs, and all for what? higher resolution. DVDs had multiple audio tracks and user-selectable subtitles in many different languages, plus "behind the scenes" features and complementary material compared to VHS, but all Blu-Ray offers me is just same old crap in high definition. Gee, no wonder I'm in no rush to buy one of those things.
Why would improved Direct3D performance under Windows 7 be considered 'weird'? it *is* a newer version of DirectX, performance improvements are to be expected.
Pretty well, actually. Its easier, in my experience, to input those long chains of commands for special moves with a keyboard, 2D platformers like Megaman work just as well with an "old-school" keyboard setup (read: arrow keys instead of WASD), and if you want to see how incredible playing a vertical shooter is with a mouse you should go and play Chromium B.S.U., available at your nearest Ubuntu repository.
About the only genre I can think of where a controller is noticeably superior to a keyboard and/or mouse are platformers, but even then I had no problem finishing Assassin's Creed with my trusty keyb+mouse combo. And, of course, simulations but for those you want a specialized controller anyways.
If anyone is looking for legal free music, it is worth surfing around Archive.org and/or LegalTorrents. There are a lot of good independent artists out there giving their music away.
There's also Jamendo.com which, IMHO, has a pretty nice selection as well.
But he did give a speech last year to the media where he told them that it was past time to allow dissenting voices to be heard as they only confused people. He said the debate was over and those few voices from the other side were outliars (intentional misspelling) and must be ignored
While I certainly don't support that mindset, he *does* have a point. Even here on Slashdot everytime the subject of evolution comes up someone claims not to believe in evolution (to put it bluntly: we may not be 100% accurate as to why and how it happens, but that it happens, it happens, its proven). Go to a less geeky website, and the problem only becomes worse.
Its a pity that such a mindset will likely end up burying legitimate criticisms, but I assure you that neither this is one of them, nor that they'll be the majority in such a controversial, politically-charged topic as this one.
Actually, I've seen and heard "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" plenty of times, more often than "Franklin D. Roosevelt" at least. I didn't know Bush's middle name was Walker 'til now, however, and I'll be damned if I can remember Clinton's so your point still stands.
You know the easiest way to spot a biased person? they always give praise to those who support their particular views (with statements such as "a very clever man"), and either ignore the credentials or even denigrate anyone who disagrees with them (with phrases such as "complete load of bunk").
Put your post in Wikipedia, and it'd be tagged with a dozen "Citation Needed" and "Weasel Words" tags inmediately, for good reasons.
Guild Wars' method also has one *very* important advantage going for it: 'lowbie' areas still have people in them.
I can be playing with my Warrior main, doing a mission on Cantha's mainland when a guild mate asks for help on a new Nightfall character. I just hit 'M', select the little ship, select the continent of Elona and 30 secs later I'm standing in the middle of Kamadan, port city of the Elonian continent and 30 secs away from any outpost in the Nightfall campaign ready to help him out.
That ease, in turn, also means many 'lowbie' areas are full of lv20s selling their wares and giving free stuff to newbies, since there's only a 30-sec difference between idling on the Realm of Torment or idling on Old Ascalon and helping/pestering newbies more than compensates for that.
But who's gonna spend from 30 mins to an hour in WoW going to a lowbie area and back just to help somebody else? let alone sell or give out stuff to random newbies. From what I've heard playing the lv1-60 content in WoW these days is pretty much like playing a single-player RPG, except with a monthly fee, and that's very much a result of long travel times, IMHO.
And I hate having to play through Max Payne 2 three times in a row every time I reinstall it just to get myself some real difficulty, but this is at best only a half-assed solution to that problem.
I'd rather ask for everything to be unlocked by default, or something like the unlock codes of old rather than use this, since it still means I have to spend ~6 hours in front of the computer pressing the "play by yourself" button, watching shit pass by and for that, I'd rather play the goddamned game.
The problem is that skipping the "not fun" parts means all you look for is the type of entertainment that can be quickly enjoyed without much work. The problem with that thinking is that leads to movies like Terminator: Salvation or Transformers, which are what a great movie would be if you removed anything that didn't have action or sexual innuendo, AKA all the "non fun" parts.
Games, like all other media, are an experience and to skip anything that doesn't give a direct stimulation is doing yourself, the game, and the whole genre a disservice.
We forgive war-mongering maniacs who cause the deaths of thousands just to further their political agenda simply because they belong to the same political party as we do(1), and you're wondering about simple allegations of pedophilia?
(1) Applies to both the largest parties in the US, and plenty others around the world. No political party or country holds a monopoly in stupidity.
Well, most DVD players also have a "Fast Forward" button so you can skip all the dialogue thingie and just get to the next action scene, so games certainly aren't alone in that respect. I'd still consider that to be intelectually lazy, however.
Its not about liking him, its about recognizing the huge influence he had over contemporary and later musicians. Its much like Nirvana, I may personally hate their music (and that statement alone would've been enough to send my karma into the fiery pits of hell, had Slashdot a younger population), but even to me the influence they've had over pretty much anything that calls itself "rock" these days is undeniable. Michael Jackson represented the same thing for pop, so regardless of whether you liked him or not he most certainly wasn't "forgettable".
That's what should ideally happen, but generally once shit like this begin to happen you realize they have far too many people in their pockets, give up and move out of the country. That's what I'd do in their situation at least.
If the judge had been a member of the FSF you would have declared that perfectly acceptable.
Strawman, WTF has the FSF got to do with this? they're not an anti-copyright association and only a fool with an axe to grind would suggest otherwise.
You guys insisted they would never go to trial, they did You guys insisted they would never be found guilty They were You guys insisted there would be a re-trial. There won't be.
Yeah, we thought Sweden was less corrupt than the US. Blame us for being so naive.
Face it, this went to court, they were found (quite rightfully) guilty as hell. Deal with it.
Face it, both judges involved were biased as hell against them so the fact they were found guilty doesn't mean shit. Deal with it.
Convert them to US dollars and you'll see retail prices are still higher:
Home Premium - £149.99 -> $245 vs $199 Professional - £219.99 -> $360 vs $299 Ultimate - £229.99 -> $378 vs $319
So a more accurate statement would be "upgrade versions will be priced as if it were a retail version", except it'd be a PR nightmare to admit as such.
Not really. Windows XP was widely considered a pretty good OS yet support for Win2K only started to fade a couple years ago when.NET (unsupported on 2K) started to gain significant momentum. Same for 2K and 98, and for 98 with 95. So no, its cute that you use Vista's suckage to defend Apple but reality says otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
So you want to outlaw The Anarchist's Cookbook? how about Chemistry textbooks? or is just the statement "I hope you use this to blow something up" that you want to punish?
Face it, both sides have pretty strong drawbacks here. You prefer the protectionist side with a stronger government that protects their citizens, I prefer the free speech one where the citizens have to take care of themselves, its that simple. You want to punish this woman? then move next door to her and cause her 'mental anguish over an extended period', I'll defend your right to do so just the same.
But I don't want a world where you can go to jail because you were 'mean' to somebody else and censorship can be justified with a simple "think of the children!" rally call. And if she has to go free to prevent that from happening, then that's what I'll strive for, but I won't sacrifice free speech just to punish her.
There's no law of physics that dictates people will stampede when hearing the word "fire", only people's general stupidity and *that* is the problem therefore *that* is what should be punished. Or what, if I see an arab friend and, mockingly, shout "hey, Osama Bin-Laden!" and you go and shoot him, I'm the one that should go to jail for murder?
Stupidity isn't an excuse and I wish the law followed that principle a bit more, specially where free speech is concerned.
There's no complexity problem that cannot be solved by adding a layer of abstraction, nor performance problem that cannot be solved by removing a layer of abstraction.
Though I must note that you can already define your own tags in HTML+CSS and, while the W3 validator will (rightfully) complain loudly about them, most browsers deal with them just fine.
no, you do not get automatic protection from the consequences of EVERYTHING you can possibly say
You don't, but you should. No, I'm not an anarchist or even a libertarian, but the fact that there are things you can't say for fear of prison disgusts me *far* more than having this woman go free. And if a yell of "fire" in a theatre causes a stampede then I'm damn well blaming the crowd on that one, regardless of whether there was an actual fire or not.
The point is not moot, becasue he was addressing your point of movies being 'crap'.
I did not say that each and every movie ever released in Blu-Ray was crap, I said that it was the same thing as before only in higher definition. And it is.
But one is visually better. That's the point of HD.
You can go watch it on a fading VHS as well, big deal.
So? who cares if its "visually better", if its twice the price and the content is exactly the same? again, unlike VHS and DVDs which *do* have differences other than resolution.
It's paying for beer in a nicer bottle and more detailed flavor.
Wrong, the content is still the same so no differences in 'flavor', its just in a nicer package.
DVD will go away and an HD format will replace it, probably Blu-Ray.
Sweet, then Blu-Rays will finally have enough penetration so movies aren't as insanely overpriced and hackers manage to break the DRM completely. Until then, however, I'll stay with my "good enough and oh-so-much-cheaper" format, thankyouverymuch, as do the rest of the world.
You're no different then those people who still only watch VHS.
And you're no different from those people who spend an entire month's worth of salary in a graphic card just to run Crysis at 2560x1920. I'll leave it to you to see which one's worse.
We're still at it, or at least I am. Though I did so when they sued the crap out of Freecraft, the bnetd and Glider fiascos just added salt on the wound.
There are many wonderful films made. Most are not making it to the screen at your local theater, but I assure you they are still being made. For instance, may I recommend "Let the Right One In"? It is a Swedish film made in 2008 and it is available on Blu-Ray. And there are classic films such as "Lawrence of Arabia", which is also available on Blu-Ray.
Are they available in regular DVDs? if so the point is moot.
If you think the DVD and the Blu-Ray of "Lawrence of Arabia" are of the same quality then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
They're not the same, but they're *practically* the same. One's a good movie in 480p, the other's a good movie in 1080p. Either way its still a good movie.
You aren't paying for better beer, you're paying for the same beer in a nicer bottle. The package is shinier, but the content itself is still the same and, since all I care for is the beer itself, I'm going with the cheaper (and easier to find) package.
It has gone from one person offering to make low quality copies for ten or twenty friends with a cost for the cassettes the copies are made on to one person offering 200,000,000 people he may or may not know extremely high quality copies with no copying costs to those making the illegal copies.
It is much easier to live with the former than the latter.
But why? why would the RIAA care about how much music people listen to? all they should care about is how much people are buying, and as far as I can tell people are buying just the same amounts as they did before.
You still buy the CD for 'bragging rights', you still buy the CD if you want the pretty artwork, and you still get the 'pirated' version if you care about neither, all it has changed is that the quality of the 'pirated' stuff has gone up, and you no longer need to pay for the extra tape.
Yeah, in a completely hypothetical world they could be getting paid for each and every one of those copies, but in an hypothetical world I could be getting paid for granting you all the priviledge of my wonderful insight, and both imaginary worlds still mean shit to the real one. "Piracy" was widespread back then, "piracy" is widespread today, and for some reason I cannot fully grasp sales continue strong for the RIAA members. So why the *fuck* should they care?
I feel like there is a huge groupthink happening here. Do we all really dislike Blu-Ray? Is there no one else that finds the quality unbeatable and worth the price?
Not really.
I cannot believe you do not appreciate the quality difference between a DVD and a Blu-Ray. That is as bizarre to me as people, and there are many of them, that say they cannot tell the difference between a CD and a 192 kbps MP3. I think those people have hearing problems. The loss of quality is like nails on a chalkboard.
Yeah, except here the 'loss' of quality simply comes from having less pixels, not from compression artifacts which are what produce the "nails on a chalkboard" effect. It is simply less bothersome for most people.
In both cases, the difference is striking and the higher quality product is significantly better. I love my Blu-Ray films and I love losslessly compressed audio (FLAC anyone?).
And there's where we disagree. You see, DVDs look good, Blu-Rays look great, but the majority of my opinion of the end product is determined by the content itself. Transformers is shit on DVDs, shit on Blu-Ray, and shit on the cinema screen, it is *not* 'significantly better'. And Mozart's Requiem is awesome on 192k MP3s, and only marginally more awesome on lossless FLACs, the MP3s may have some compression artifacts but the *music* itself is still the same. Furthermore, all I pay for FLACs over MP3s is the fraction-of-a-dollar increase in storage space, not so with Blu-Ray.
More importantly, is it TOO expensive?
I answer firmly, "No. The quality justifies the price."
And I answer firmly: FUCK YEAH! Blu-Ray players are 5x the price of a DVD player with similar features, movies are at least twice as much as regular DVDs, and all for what? higher resolution. DVDs had multiple audio tracks and user-selectable subtitles in many different languages, plus "behind the scenes" features and complementary material compared to VHS, but all Blu-Ray offers me is just same old crap in high definition. Gee, no wonder I'm in no rush to buy one of those things.
Why would improved Direct3D performance under Windows 7 be considered 'weird'? it *is* a newer version of DirectX, performance improvements are to be expected.
Pretty well, actually. Its easier, in my experience, to input those long chains of commands for special moves with a keyboard, 2D platformers like Megaman work just as well with an "old-school" keyboard setup (read: arrow keys instead of WASD), and if you want to see how incredible playing a vertical shooter is with a mouse you should go and play Chromium B.S.U., available at your nearest Ubuntu repository.
About the only genre I can think of where a controller is noticeably superior to a keyboard and/or mouse are platformers, but even then I had no problem finishing Assassin's Creed with my trusty keyb+mouse combo. And, of course, simulations but for those you want a specialized controller anyways.
If anyone is looking for legal free music, it is worth surfing around Archive.org and/or LegalTorrents. There are a lot of good independent artists out there giving their music away.
There's also Jamendo.com which, IMHO, has a pretty nice selection as well.
But he did give a speech last year to the media where he told them that it was past time to allow dissenting voices to be heard as they only confused people. He said the debate was over and those few voices from the other side were outliars (intentional misspelling) and must be ignored
While I certainly don't support that mindset, he *does* have a point. Even here on Slashdot everytime the subject of evolution comes up someone claims not to believe in evolution (to put it bluntly: we may not be 100% accurate as to why and how it happens, but that it happens, it happens, its proven). Go to a less geeky website, and the problem only becomes worse.
Its a pity that such a mindset will likely end up burying legitimate criticisms, but I assure you that neither this is one of them, nor that they'll be the majority in such a controversial, politically-charged topic as this one.
Actually, I've seen and heard "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" plenty of times, more often than "Franklin D. Roosevelt" at least. I didn't know Bush's middle name was Walker 'til now, however, and I'll be damned if I can remember Clinton's so your point still stands.
You know the easiest way to spot a biased person? they always give praise to those who support their particular views (with statements such as "a very clever man"), and either ignore the credentials or even denigrate anyone who disagrees with them (with phrases such as "complete load of bunk").
Put your post in Wikipedia, and it'd be tagged with a dozen "Citation Needed" and "Weasel Words" tags inmediately, for good reasons.
Guild Wars' method also has one *very* important advantage going for it: 'lowbie' areas still have people in them.
I can be playing with my Warrior main, doing a mission on Cantha's mainland when a guild mate asks for help on a new Nightfall character. I just hit 'M', select the little ship, select the continent of Elona and 30 secs later I'm standing in the middle of Kamadan, port city of the Elonian continent and 30 secs away from any outpost in the Nightfall campaign ready to help him out.
That ease, in turn, also means many 'lowbie' areas are full of lv20s selling their wares and giving free stuff to newbies, since there's only a 30-sec difference between idling on the Realm of Torment or idling on Old Ascalon and helping/pestering newbies more than compensates for that.
But who's gonna spend from 30 mins to an hour in WoW going to a lowbie area and back just to help somebody else? let alone sell or give out stuff to random newbies. From what I've heard playing the lv1-60 content in WoW these days is pretty much like playing a single-player RPG, except with a monthly fee, and that's very much a result of long travel times, IMHO.
And I hate having to play through Max Payne 2 three times in a row every time I reinstall it just to get myself some real difficulty, but this is at best only a half-assed solution to that problem.
I'd rather ask for everything to be unlocked by default, or something like the unlock codes of old rather than use this, since it still means I have to spend ~6 hours in front of the computer pressing the "play by yourself" button, watching shit pass by and for that, I'd rather play the goddamned game.
The problem is that skipping the "not fun" parts means all you look for is the type of entertainment that can be quickly enjoyed without much work. The problem with that thinking is that leads to movies like Terminator: Salvation or Transformers, which are what a great movie would be if you removed anything that didn't have action or sexual innuendo, AKA all the "non fun" parts.
Games, like all other media, are an experience and to skip anything that doesn't give a direct stimulation is doing yourself, the game, and the whole genre a disservice.
We forgive war-mongering maniacs who cause the deaths of thousands just to further their political agenda simply because they belong to the same political party as we do(1), and you're wondering about simple allegations of pedophilia?
(1) Applies to both the largest parties in the US, and plenty others around the world. No political party or country holds a monopoly in stupidity.
Well, most DVD players also have a "Fast Forward" button so you can skip all the dialogue thingie and just get to the next action scene, so games certainly aren't alone in that respect. I'd still consider that to be intelectually lazy, however.
Its not about liking him, its about recognizing the huge influence he had over contemporary and later musicians. Its much like Nirvana, I may personally hate their music (and that statement alone would've been enough to send my karma into the fiery pits of hell, had Slashdot a younger population), but even to me the influence they've had over pretty much anything that calls itself "rock" these days is undeniable. Michael Jackson represented the same thing for pop, so regardless of whether you liked him or not he most certainly wasn't "forgettable".
That's what should ideally happen, but generally once shit like this begin to happen you realize they have far too many people in their pockets, give up and move out of the country. That's what I'd do in their situation at least.
If the judge had been a member of the FSF you would have declared that perfectly acceptable.
Strawman, WTF has the FSF got to do with this? they're not an anti-copyright association and only a fool with an axe to grind would suggest otherwise.
You guys insisted they would never go to trial, they did
You guys insisted they would never be found guilty
They were
You guys insisted there would be a re-trial. There won't be.
Yeah, we thought Sweden was less corrupt than the US. Blame us for being so naive.
Face it, this went to court, they were found (quite rightfully) guilty as hell.
Deal with it.
Face it, both judges involved were biased as hell against them so the fact they were found guilty doesn't mean shit. Deal with it.
Convert them to US dollars and you'll see retail prices are still higher:
Home Premium - £149.99 -> $245 vs $199
Professional - £219.99 -> $360 vs $299
Ultimate - £229.99 -> $378 vs $319
So a more accurate statement would be "upgrade versions will be priced as if it were a retail version", except it'd be a PR nightmare to admit as such.
Not really. Windows XP was widely considered a pretty good OS yet support for Win2K only started to fade a couple years ago when .NET (unsupported on 2K) started to gain significant momentum. Same for 2K and 98, and for 98 with 95. So no, its cute that you use Vista's suckage to defend Apple but reality says otherwise.