June 4, 2007 - DRAM makers lose money, having ramped up for sales that never arrived.
Of course, because the companies themselves over-estimated Vista adoption rates, it's Microsoft's fault - especially considering lines from the article that you linked saying things like "most tech observers don't anticipate Microsoft's Vista will have much of a positive impact on PC sales until 2008".
Oddly enough, despite your 'DRAM makers are going bankrupt' bluster, none of them have or are going bankrupt at all. Unless you have something to the contrary?
Not this time - you're dealing with the endlessly witty hivemind of Slashdot.
Calling Vista a downgrade the first time was such a hoot that they can't resist repeating it once a day until I feel like my eyes are actually vomiting from reading it.
You didn't say that, but I would argue that if you're trying to get the layman onto Linux, then you're not going to set them up with Debian or Slackware, are you?
Ubuntu seems to be the 'user-friendly' version of Linux, so if you're going to throw something out there as 'low-end', you are at the very least going to have it run that properly.
Incidentally, low-end Macs come with 1GB of RAM too at $600, so I would place that pretty much where you'd expect consumers to come in nowadays.
I have Vista x64. I have GTA2 installed here and it works fine, and my housemate with Diablo 2 and Vista is pretty sure he can play it.
The Wikipedia article for SimCity 2000 states "The 32bit release will work on later versions of Windows including Windows Vista but not on the 64bit versions of Windows XP or Windows Vista as the installer is 16bit". You could also try running the DOS version under DOSBox.
Age of Empires II works if you install DirectX 9.0c (this doesn't interfere with DX 10 at all).
I don't understand how any of these fixes are harder then getting this working under WINE.
How about that this is taking up actual news space on several sites I read which could be taken up with something important? That there has been massive 'outrage' about this from people who traditionally say nothing about Obama or his policies?
Just because you didn't see anybody say it, that doesn't mean that nobody has said it. Capiche?
You're locked into the thinking that you have to be armed with a weapon. Try thinking outside that limited viewpoint and you'll find plenty of ways that you can deter criminals without having to shoot them.
You won't stop every criminal but then you wouldn't have stopped them anyway - even having a gun does nothing past a certain level of determination.
Not having a gun does not mean that you're unarmed, and strictly controlled gun ownership also reduces the chances of the criminal being able to get a gun in the first place.
Trouble is, anecdotal evidence of one community does not a helpful statistic make - overall, the homicide rate in the States is about 5 times higher than it is here. Firearm homicide rate is somewhere in the region of 25 times higher.
Unfortunately I couldn't find any gun crime statistics to compare to knife crime here, but I would make a sizable bet that they're pretty favourable too. I know where I'd rather take my chances.
If you allow all law-abiding citizens to carry a gun, you're only guaranteeing that your hypothetical criminal will have one too - why carry anyone else?
There's not much you can do in self-defense if you're armed - you're only guaranteeing that somebody is going to get shot. You point out, correctly, that if you have a gun and they have a knife, then you might come out on top, so why carry a knife? Allowing guns to everybody, even with courses in gun use and safety, just means that criminals will have a gun because it's pointless to carry anything smaller.
The whole shebang then pushes itself further and further until everyone has Fatboys and mini-nukes and the entirity of Washington is a wasteland populated by mutants and assholes in power-armour.
I don't live in the States, I live in the UK, which I think you'll find is part of the conversation that was being had.
So, when you're in a society where it's incredibly hard to find a gun, legally or otherwise, you don't need a gun to defend yourself.
The point I am trying to make is that guns perpetuate themselves. When everyone else has a gun, you need one, and then the bad guys need something bigger in order to stay ahead. Handing them out like Tylenol to everyone and sundry isn't going to solve the problem.
Yeah, it's not like Apache installations are mostly maintained by experienced sysadmins whereas Windows computers are maintained by every idiot and his grandma.
Wow, it really is hard not to be sarcastic about this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod me down, made a tit of myself.
I blame the drugs.
You can't even read your own bullshit lists:
June 4, 2007 - DRAM makers lose money, having ramped up for sales that never arrived.
Of course, because the companies themselves over-estimated Vista adoption rates, it's Microsoft's fault - especially considering lines from the article that you linked saying things like "most tech observers don't anticipate Microsoft's Vista will have much of a positive impact on PC sales until 2008".
Oddly enough, despite your 'DRAM makers are going bankrupt' bluster, none of them have or are going bankrupt at all. Unless you have something to the contrary?
I know the source of the original quote. I don't know where I got the joke from - unless Archimedes was more randy than I expected...
I've got a lever of sufficient length - show me your fulcrum and I'll make the earth move ;)
Disclaimer: I have no idea where I read this joke.
Not this time - you're dealing with the endlessly witty hivemind of Slashdot.
Calling Vista a downgrade the first time was such a hoot that they can't resist repeating it once a day until I feel like my eyes are actually vomiting from reading it.
You didn't say that, but I would argue that if you're trying to get the layman onto Linux, then you're not going to set them up with Debian or Slackware, are you?
Ubuntu seems to be the 'user-friendly' version of Linux, so if you're going to throw something out there as 'low-end', you are at the very least going to have it run that properly.
Incidentally, low-end Macs come with 1GB of RAM too at $600, so I would place that pretty much where you'd expect consumers to come in nowadays.
The thing is, I think I've found maybe one or two games that I couldn't get working in Vista.
Maybe I'm just incredibly lucky, but I've completely missed any evidence of significant truth in the "Vista breaks everything" meme.
I have Vista x64. I have GTA2 installed here and it works fine, and my housemate with Diablo 2 and Vista is pretty sure he can play it.
The Wikipedia article for SimCity 2000 states "The 32bit release will work on later versions of Windows including Windows Vista but not on the 64bit versions of Windows XP or Windows Vista as the installer is 16bit". You could also try running the DOS version under DOSBox.
Age of Empires II works if you install DirectX 9.0c (this doesn't interfere with DX 10 at all).
I don't understand how any of these fixes are harder then getting this working under WINE.
Did I actually say any of that?
It's like people who reply to your posts because they have their own point to make and end up completely ignoring everything you said.
How about that this is taking up actual news space on several sites I read which could be taken up with something important? That there has been massive 'outrage' about this from people who traditionally say nothing about Obama or his policies?
Just because you didn't see anybody say it, that doesn't mean that nobody has said it. Capiche?
I can't believe that some people care more about which MP3 player he uses than what policies he's going to implement.
Can I get a reality check to aisle S, please?
Aw, sounds like someone needs a hug.
You're locked into the thinking that you have to be armed with a weapon. Try thinking outside that limited viewpoint and you'll find plenty of ways that you can deter criminals without having to shoot them.
You won't stop every criminal but then you wouldn't have stopped them anyway - even having a gun does nothing past a certain level of determination.
Not having a gun does not mean that you're unarmed, and strictly controlled gun ownership also reduces the chances of the criminal being able to get a gun in the first place.
Trouble is, anecdotal evidence of one community does not a helpful statistic make - overall, the homicide rate in the States is about 5 times higher than it is here. Firearm homicide rate is somewhere in the region of 25 times higher.
Unfortunately I couldn't find any gun crime statistics to compare to knife crime here, but I would make a sizable bet that they're pretty favourable too. I know where I'd rather take my chances.
If you allow all law-abiding citizens to carry a gun, you're only guaranteeing that your hypothetical criminal will have one too - why carry anyone else?
There's not much you can do in self-defense if you're armed - you're only guaranteeing that somebody is going to get shot. You point out, correctly, that if you have a gun and they have a knife, then you might come out on top, so why carry a knife? Allowing guns to everybody, even with courses in gun use and safety, just means that criminals will have a gun because it's pointless to carry anything smaller.
The whole shebang then pushes itself further and further until everyone has Fatboys and mini-nukes and the entirity of Washington is a wasteland populated by mutants and assholes in power-armour.
I don't live in the States, I live in the UK, which I think you'll find is part of the conversation that was being had.
So, when you're in a society where it's incredibly hard to find a gun, legally or otherwise, you don't need a gun to defend yourself.
The point I am trying to make is that guns perpetuate themselves. When everyone else has a gun, you need one, and then the bad guys need something bigger in order to stay ahead. Handing them out like Tylenol to everyone and sundry isn't going to solve the problem.
You don't need a gun to defend yourself.
Are you saying they shouldn't be able to exercise their right to own a gun because they might use it illegally at some point?
The point is that there are no legal uses if you're out in the street. What are you going to do, use it to mix your coffee?
Yeah, it's not like Apache installations are mostly maintained by experienced sysadmins whereas Windows computers are maintained by every idiot and his grandma.
Wow, it really is hard not to be sarcastic about this stuff.
Laughable because you don't agree with them, I assume.
I note that the summary and article provide evidence whereas you haven't. Care to oblige?
So it's Microsoft's fault that publishers put DRM on their PC games because they made a console?
Can you justify that position with some actual logic?
Who said you had to? I take it you don't know how the free time system works.
You get a code, which you then apply to an account for that game. You don't have to apply them all at the same time.
Chill, friend - just a joke, aiming to highlight that it's silly to raise the fact that a woman did it, because men aren't exactly robots :)
Disclaimer: I am a guy and therefore also not a robot.