When you buy things on ebay, they are kind of hard to return. Also, the first card I had some a rage pro 128 or something. The drivers worked about as good as 3dfx's at that point, but they still weren't fantasic. One reason being the tv out it was supposed to have never did work properly, or at all I should say. That was under 98.
About the driver issue and the switch between 98 and 2k... I agree, it was a huge switch. But, I wouldn't have purchased the TV card if ATI had not claimed that moving their software to 2000 would improve stability, and that they were working on a driver for 2k. The 98 drivers were a joke, so you can't blame me for believing ATI when they said the instability was the fault of 98, and 2k would fix everything. 2 years later, I still didn't have a finished product, so I don't see how that's my fault.
The only way I would try anything by ATI now is if it was given to me for free, since they refused to give me my money back the three other times they sold me junk. And yes, I do buy Leadtek products now, usually with nvidia chips on them, and I have been perfectly happy with each one up to this point.
This is the most stupid argument I've ever seen against any console. It's like saying "I'll never buy an Apple computer because they use Motorola CPUs and Motorola's phones suck" then how about "I'll never buy an IBM Thinkpad because AIX sucks"?
Stupid argument?!? How is it a stupid argument that I not purchase a machine whose soul purpose is to play games and display video, which had the same purpose of another product I hated by the same company??? Your analogy isn't even close to relevant - not buying an Apple because of motorola would be a great argument if I had purchased something else with a motorola cpu in it that I hated. I'm comparing apples to apples - two ATI products, both multimedia/graphics chips made by the same company. Another poster recently stated in this thread that ATI didn't design the "flipper" chip in the gamecube - but just bought the company that did. In that case then I would have more confidence that the gamecube would actually work as advertised, rather than having ATI design the chip, in which case I would never purchase one of those just like I said before. I've been burned by ATI on 3 different occassions, and each time their support group refused to refund me even though I was sold completely lemons.
For your information I had an AIW, and it was a huge pile of crap when it came to stability. Not to mention half the features that were advertised when I bought didn't even work in their multimedia software as long as 3 months after I bought it. I ditched it thinking the reason my system was unstable with it was because it was a card with two purposes - for gaming and multimedia. And once again, when I owned it, there were no 2k drivers for it, I was forced to use 98 SE, which was a joke. I sold the joke-of-a-card on ebay and purchased 2 new items: Nvidia TnT2 M64 and the ATI TV card. Apparently I was wrong about the card being unstable because it had more than one function - the TV card turned out to be just as bad.
Read my post - I said the 2k driver was in beta. Just to use the damn TV card, I had to have a dual boot system. Win2K for all my regular stuff, and 98 SE just to capture TV and use my TV card in general.
EXACTLY - I have owned 3 ATI video cards in my life, and never again will I do that. The drivers were a complete joke, the worst product I ever owned was ATI TV. It was a pci card that was advertised to work with 98/ME, and I bought it in July 2000. They were at that time developing Win2k drivers for it, but by November 2001, the drivers were still in beta for it, so I gave up. Not to mention that even in 98 SE with their "polished" drivers, every time I would try to capture a TV feed from cable, the damn thing would crash on me. And it wasn't just the program that would die, the whole machine would die, and the best part was that even when the machine was rebooting, you could still HEAR the TV feed through my PC speakers behind a deafing screeching sound that started when the software crashed. Turning off the PC didn't even kill it, I had to unplug the damn thing to stop it before my next reboot. As a result, I have no confidence in ATI what-so-ever, and that's why to this day I won't purchase a gamecube.
"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EA'S GAMES ARE PLAYABLE ON SONY'S NETWORK!"
No, EA games don't just play on a Sony-only network, they work on the INTERNET through EA servers, just like 90% of all online games out there, such as Unreal Tournament, you name it. Also, how does 989=Sony? Unless Sony owns 989, which I suppose it is entirely possible that they do, but as far as I know, they do not. So, when you say "Sony's network", I think you mean 989's network, right? That's why the PS2 is doing so damn well - people aren't forced to pay anything to join an online game, and that's the way it should be. You already pay for the internet access, you shouldn't have to pay EA (or anybody else) to play a friend over the internet. I say that they make the ps2 act as a host if you want, and screw the third party servers, just let people host their own servers and rooms, and people will be happier.
I get the same thing actually - the only solution I have found is to reinstall windows for the billionth time. Why did the post above here get modded down?? It's a very real problem that affects a lot of windows users.
So, my question is this: who is going to be first to pay up? If nobody pays, then SCO is just out of luck. If people start paying, and Red Hat is victorious in Court, do the people who initially paid get their money back? Probably not. So, I don't see any reasonable company paying this. If they are really worried about it, roll back to 2.2.X, that would be the easiest solution until the court battle is done.
You're right - if the other person is an adult, you wouldn't be guilty because this is a CRIMINAL case, and that's what ticks me off about this whole RIAA thing. They are not the cops, and nowhere are the police/feds involved in this whole thing, so if I was the one ending up in court with them, I'd fight it to my last breath because they have no right to claim you did something wrong without having to prove it first. And even then, it's not their job to hunt you down - they would have to report this to the proper authorities and let them prosecute you. Lawsuits are a joke, and a sick circumvention of this countries legal system.
Hey jackass, I never said everyone not being CEOs had to do with not working hard. You're a moron if you think that everyone who wants to be a CEO and works hard to become one will. There are a lot of obvious reasons not everyone can be a CEO or high level manager, and it has to do with REALITY and basic economics. Who would do the actual real work if everyone was a manager?
Thank you, I agree. I don't see how this article I posted was flamebait at all.... It goes to show just how badly our economy is getting because of bad government policy. Yes, Bush is handing out tax rebates... but destroying the economy one sector at a time with policies like this one.
Most admins aren't in charge of money - and thus can not just subscribe to things without approval of some type. And even if there were benefits, I couldn't justify the expense - seriously, our router has run fine for 4 years now. I haven't paid a dime to Cisco since the original purchase, and that's the way it should be.
Well, you have a point - but on the side of the coin, there should be another option like the previous poster wants. Let's say that you are an experienced network admin who knows exactly what version of the IOS you need, and you know how to install it. Wouldn't it be a pain in the ass for you to have to go through this ridiculous process for every router you were responisble for if you didn't have a contract with Cisco like many companies don't? I'm half-way wondering if this isn't an easy way for Cisco to generate some business for itself by showing why it's better for your company to have a service contract with Cisco.... makes you think, doesn't it?
Look at the page in IE and then look at it in Mozilla. See how the paragraph in the middle of the page is only supposed to take up a small part of the screen? Instead, in Mozilla it completely goes off the page to the right and covers up the stupid MSN ad bar thing. This is NOT the fault of Mozilla, it's bad code, plain and simple. IE simply renders the incorrect code to look fine because it's less picky. Mozilla on the other hand barfs over it. I think any web developer for an orginization as large as ESPN needs to do their job and test sites in multiple browsers, and I don't care if 90% of people only use IE - that simply means your page will look like crap for the other 10%.
I disagree with you here - a case is very important. With cpus running hotter and hotter everyday, cooling becomes my main concern when building a system these days. I prefer a case that has good airflow - the number of fans isn't important to me, but the design of the case is. For example, I like to be able to see the inside of a case before I buy it, and that includes online. So, if I can't find a good review with good pics, I won't buy. I need to know that the air will flow from the front of the case to a fans in the back. I HATE cases that have fans on the sides or top - it's idiotic to have fans that fight each other, which reduces over all airflow.
Re:Problems I have with Mozilla 1.3
on
Mozilla 1.4 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
As far as pages not loading correctly as your gripe #1 - this is not Mozilla's fault in my cases. It's IE's. How? Well, lets look at this page for a moment:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/clubhouse?team=col
It looks like total ass in Mozilla, and basically any browser I've tried besides IE. It used to look just fine BEFORE that damned MSN ad bar that takes up most of the screen now. You can write terrible code, and have it look fine in IE because IE just ignores a lot of mistakes. I see this as a bad thing, because when browsers try to correctly render a page according to standards, it makes you think the browser is broken and not the page.
BTW, I have tried repeatedly to notify the ESPN guys about all their messed up pages, but obviously nobody cares as long as they get their MSN money.
Well, as far as finding ads that I would actually watch... I don't think so. The whole reason I tivo a TV show like the West Wing is so I can watch it in 30 minutes instead of 60, so regardless of what commericals they put in there, I can promise I won't watch a single one.
Sadly, this will become a bad thing for consumers I think. How? Well, for starters, companies like Nike or whoever will stop paying extreme amounts of cash for stupid commericials nobody cares about anyway. The only commercials that I would expect to work and be worth it are late night fast food commercials. I can't even begin to count the number of times where I hopped in the car for some Taco Bell because I saw a chalupa on tv at 1 am. So, if the ad revenue stops coming, 1 of 2 things will happen:
1) TV degrades - actors get paid less (more realistic salaries for once) and tv execs can't live like kings anymore, while the consumer isn't affected a bit.
or
2) Your Cable/DirecTV bill doubles per month over a 2 year period, or whatever it takes for the money-hungry-whores to be happy again.
An even better question is how do these hackers think they can make this work *after* M$ fixes their blessed little hole for new versions of the console? Their linux distro will be worthless then again, and M$ wins again. It would be cool to have linux on the Xbox, but it will never happen with the support of M$, everybody knows that.
Slashdot Mirror
When you buy things on ebay, they are kind of hard to return. Also, the first card I had some a rage pro 128 or something. The drivers worked about as good as 3dfx's at that point, but they still weren't fantasic. One reason being the tv out it was supposed to have never did work properly, or at all I should say. That was under 98.
About the driver issue and the switch between 98 and 2k... I agree, it was a huge switch. But, I wouldn't have purchased the TV card if ATI had not claimed that moving their software to 2000 would improve stability, and that they were working on a driver for 2k. The 98 drivers were a joke, so you can't blame me for believing ATI when they said the instability was the fault of 98, and 2k would fix everything. 2 years later, I still didn't have a finished product, so I don't see how that's my fault.
The only way I would try anything by ATI now is if it was given to me for free, since they refused to give me my money back the three other times they sold me junk. And yes, I do buy Leadtek products now, usually with nvidia chips on them, and I have been perfectly happy with each one up to this point.
This is the most stupid argument I've ever seen against any console. It's like saying "I'll never buy an Apple computer because they use Motorola CPUs and Motorola's phones suck" then how about "I'll never buy an IBM Thinkpad because AIX sucks"?
Stupid argument?!? How is it a stupid argument that I not purchase a machine whose soul purpose is to play games and display video, which had the same purpose of another product I hated by the same company??? Your analogy isn't even close to relevant - not buying an Apple because of motorola would be a great argument if I had purchased something else with a motorola cpu in it that I hated. I'm comparing apples to apples - two ATI products, both multimedia/graphics chips made by the same company. Another poster recently stated in this thread that ATI didn't design the "flipper" chip in the gamecube - but just bought the company that did. In that case then I would have more confidence that the gamecube would actually work as advertised, rather than having ATI design the chip, in which case I would never purchase one of those just like I said before. I've been burned by ATI on 3 different occassions, and each time their support group refused to refund me even though I was sold completely lemons.
For your information I had an AIW, and it was a huge pile of crap when it came to stability. Not to mention half the features that were advertised when I bought didn't even work in their multimedia software as long as 3 months after I bought it. I ditched it thinking the reason my system was unstable with it was because it was a card with two purposes - for gaming and multimedia. And once again, when I owned it, there were no 2k drivers for it, I was forced to use 98 SE, which was a joke. I sold the joke-of-a-card on ebay and purchased 2 new items: Nvidia TnT2 M64 and the ATI TV card. Apparently I was wrong about the card being unstable because it had more than one function - the TV card turned out to be just as bad.
Read my post - I said the 2k driver was in beta. Just to use the damn TV card, I had to have a dual boot system. Win2K for all my regular stuff, and 98 SE just to capture TV and use my TV card in general.
EXACTLY - I have owned 3 ATI video cards in my life, and never again will I do that. The drivers were a complete joke, the worst product I ever owned was ATI TV. It was a pci card that was advertised to work with 98/ME, and I bought it in July 2000. They were at that time developing Win2k drivers for it, but by November 2001, the drivers were still in beta for it, so I gave up. Not to mention that even in 98 SE with their "polished" drivers, every time I would try to capture a TV feed from cable, the damn thing would crash on me. And it wasn't just the program that would die, the whole machine would die, and the best part was that even when the machine was rebooting, you could still HEAR the TV feed through my PC speakers behind a deafing screeching sound that started when the software crashed. Turning off the PC didn't even kill it, I had to unplug the damn thing to stop it before my next reboot. As a result, I have no confidence in ATI what-so-ever, and that's why to this day I won't purchase a gamecube.
You're kidding, right??
"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EA'S GAMES ARE PLAYABLE ON SONY'S NETWORK!"
No, EA games don't just play on a Sony-only network, they work on the INTERNET through EA servers, just like 90% of all online games out there, such as Unreal Tournament, you name it. Also, how does 989=Sony? Unless Sony owns 989, which I suppose it is entirely possible that they do, but as far as I know, they do not. So, when you say "Sony's network", I think you mean 989's network, right? That's why the PS2 is doing so damn well - people aren't forced to pay anything to join an online game, and that's the way it should be. You already pay for the internet access, you shouldn't have to pay EA (or anybody else) to play a friend over the internet. I say that they make the ps2 act as a host if you want, and screw the third party servers, just let people host their own servers and rooms, and people will be happier.
I get the same thing actually - the only solution I have found is to reinstall windows for the billionth time. Why did the post above here get modded down?? It's a very real problem that affects a lot of windows users.
So, my question is this: who is going to be first to pay up? If nobody pays, then SCO is just out of luck. If people start paying, and Red Hat is victorious in Court, do the people who initially paid get their money back? Probably not. So, I don't see any reasonable company paying this. If they are really worried about it, roll back to 2.2.X, that would be the easiest solution until the court battle is done.
You're right - if the other person is an adult, you wouldn't be guilty because this is a CRIMINAL case, and that's what ticks me off about this whole RIAA thing. They are not the cops, and nowhere are the police/feds involved in this whole thing, so if I was the one ending up in court with them, I'd fight it to my last breath because they have no right to claim you did something wrong without having to prove it first. And even then, it's not their job to hunt you down - they would have to report this to the proper authorities and let them prosecute you. Lawsuits are a joke, and a sick circumvention of this countries legal system.
Hey jackass, I never said everyone not being CEOs had to do with not working hard. You're a moron if you think that everyone who wants to be a CEO and works hard to become one will. There are a lot of obvious reasons not everyone can be a CEO or high level manager, and it has to do with REALITY and basic economics. Who would do the actual real work if everyone was a manager?
Thank you, I agree. I don't see how this article I posted was flamebait at all.... It goes to show just how badly our economy is getting because of bad government policy. Yes, Bush is handing out tax rebates... but destroying the economy one sector at a time with policies like this one.
That's my point - you say "go be a CEO". Now imagine everyone thinking the same thing. Obviously that's not going to work.
Yeah, you mean 92% of the current 40% that are still around from pre-1999 days.
Yeah, this all relates to the Government's plan to continually screw the working class over and make the CEO's even richer:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10595
Most admins aren't in charge of money - and thus can not just subscribe to things without approval of some type. And even if there were benefits, I couldn't justify the expense - seriously, our router has run fine for 4 years now. I haven't paid a dime to Cisco since the original purchase, and that's the way it should be.
Well, you have a point - but on the side of the coin, there should be another option like the previous poster wants. Let's say that you are an experienced network admin who knows exactly what version of the IOS you need, and you know how to install it. Wouldn't it be a pain in the ass for you to have to go through this ridiculous process for every router you were responisble for if you didn't have a contract with Cisco like many companies don't? I'm half-way wondering if this isn't an easy way for Cisco to generate some business for itself by showing why it's better for your company to have a service contract with Cisco.... makes you think, doesn't it?
Ok Ballmer, we know it's you. Admit it.
That's why freenet needs to purge their webserver logs once an hour :)
Look at the page in IE and then look at it in Mozilla. See how the paragraph in the middle of the page is only supposed to take up a small part of the screen? Instead, in Mozilla it completely goes off the page to the right and covers up the stupid MSN ad bar thing. This is NOT the fault of Mozilla, it's bad code, plain and simple. IE simply renders the incorrect code to look fine because it's less picky. Mozilla on the other hand barfs over it. I think any web developer for an orginization as large as ESPN needs to do their job and test sites in multiple browsers, and I don't care if 90% of people only use IE - that simply means your page will look like crap for the other 10%.
I disagree with you here - a case is very important. With cpus running hotter and hotter everyday, cooling becomes my main concern when building a system these days. I prefer a case that has good airflow - the number of fans isn't important to me, but the design of the case is. For example, I like to be able to see the inside of a case before I buy it, and that includes online. So, if I can't find a good review with good pics, I won't buy. I need to know that the air will flow from the front of the case to a fans in the back. I HATE cases that have fans on the sides or top - it's idiotic to have fans that fight each other, which reduces over all airflow.
As far as pages not loading correctly as your gripe #1 - this is not Mozilla's fault in my cases. It's IE's. How? Well, lets look at this page for a moment:
l
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/clubhouse?team=co
It looks like total ass in Mozilla, and basically any browser I've tried besides IE. It used to look just fine BEFORE that damned MSN ad bar that takes up most of the screen now. You can write terrible code, and have it look fine in IE because IE just ignores a lot of mistakes. I see this as a bad thing, because when browsers try to correctly render a page according to standards, it makes you think the browser is broken and not the page.
BTW, I have tried repeatedly to notify the ESPN guys about all their messed up pages, but obviously nobody cares as long as they get their MSN money.
Well, as far as finding ads that I would actually watch... I don't think so. The whole reason I tivo a TV show like the West Wing is so I can watch it in 30 minutes instead of 60, so regardless of what commericals they put in there, I can promise I won't watch a single one.
Sadly, this will become a bad thing for consumers I think. How? Well, for starters, companies like Nike or whoever will stop paying extreme amounts of cash for stupid commericials nobody cares about anyway. The only commercials that I would expect to work and be worth it are late night fast food commercials. I can't even begin to count the number of times where I hopped in the car for some Taco Bell because I saw a chalupa on tv at 1 am. So, if the ad revenue stops coming, 1 of 2 things will happen:
1) TV degrades - actors get paid less (more realistic salaries for once) and tv execs can't live like kings anymore, while the consumer isn't affected a bit.
or
2) Your Cable/DirecTV bill doubles per month over a 2 year period, or whatever it takes for the money-hungry-whores to be happy again.
An even better question is how do these hackers think they can make this work *after* M$ fixes their blessed little hole for new versions of the console? Their linux distro will be worthless then again, and M$ wins again. It would be cool to have linux on the Xbox, but it will never happen with the support of M$, everybody knows that.