It occurs to me: he spends so much time accusing everyone else of MS astroturfing... who pays him to be pro-Linux, and can we get them to fire him for doing a terrible job of it?
I agree. Unfortunately the gaming experience for me is more important than the minor hoops I have to jump through to do it, though I wouldn't be complaining if they removed it entirely.
Game protection root kits are not good.
Starforce is one of my sworn enemies - my drive refused to burn CDs/DVDs even after cleaning the system of it. It is also definitely the cause of the problem, as the drive burned fine before I installed PoP: Two Thrones, and I switched the drive for a new one and that now works fine with Starforce off the machine. Too much of a coincidence to be ignored, I'm afraid. I'm glad Ubisoft dropped it.
Also, steam is nice, until you realize that playing old games will be hard if they go out of business (or release forced "updates", which HAS happened).
I have a lot of games on Steam. I tend to scratch/lose CDs and DVDs anyway, so if Steam did go out of business I don't see a difference between that and the usual disdain with which I accidentally treat my media. Right now the convenience of the thing is, again, too important for me to ignore. I've had to reinstall Windows when I've changed hard-drives and the ability to install about 20-25 games overnight without having to be at the computer is a godsend. I've never had the problems that others have had, either, so I can't comment on that.
I Read The F***ing Articles Linked In The F***ing Article, and there is still no such admission from anyone.
I do, however, also agree with the articles conclusion that DRM isn't about piracy, if only because it's so ineffective to be laughable. It's always been, and obviously so, to make the people who do spend, spend more than they should.
Why chase people who won't buy jack, when you can shaft the people who do for more? It's less effort.
*bursts out laughing* Did you read any of the replies to those comments?
Do you notice that nobody, I mean nobody, actually managed to put together a cohesive argument to prove me wrong, except for one, where I actually conceded the point because someone came up with something that was actually informative? Which brings us to you, because instead of continuing to respond to my points, you decided that I 'like MS too much' and therefore you 'can't trust anything I say'? That's absolutely hilarious.
I'm don't what you really do for a living
What?
What I've see above is all designed to aggravate and annoy.
Can you not think, maybe, that it only 'aggravates' and 'annoys' you because I don't agree with you? I don't see any negative moderations in there. I also don't see any lies, FUD, or invented stories, which is all I see from you. The AC above me has it right, for once.
That ISP is probably M$ because they are the only organization that could exchange M$ documents that long without complaining, publically that is.
I was waiting for the 'astroturfing' allegation. You can't actually have a discussion without getting that one in, can you? I work in the UK, and MS doesn't have an ISP over here. That pisses that little theory up the wall, doesn't it?
they fail miserably to match any kind of competition. I can say so from watching my peers use any M$ program and noticing that things have gotten worse, not better.
Bullshit and more FUD from your addled brain.
Because Office had lots and lots of buttons to push for every task, there are a lot of people who are going to be pushing lots of the wrong buttons for years to come.
This is laughable. Show me how having 2 or more buttons for the same action is bad for a UI. Following that, show me how having to re-learn a UI to improve your efficiency is bad for a user, and then continue to make a case as for why all consumers should relearn all their UIs in order to transfer to Linux or OSS solutions. You just don't get that you can't eat your cake and have it too.
Monopolies are bad. They always provide the worst services at the greatest cost. Their entire focus is on keeping others out of the market instead of what their original purpose.
Except for when you're banned from doing so and are under a tremendous amount of legal and consumer scrutiny to keep it that way. Can you provide proof, actual solid evidence that Microsoft continues to abuse their monopoly position, other than "Slashdot sez so"?
Vista and the new Office are the end of Microsoft
I remember when WinME was the end of Microsoft. I remember when XP was the end of Microsoft. I remember when WGA was the end of Microsoft. Newsflash: the sky isn't falling, no matter how much you wish it.
Wow, that's quite a slushy pile of shit you wrote there, but you could always answer my actual points instead of wasting my time for 5 minutes.
Why do you hold MS to a higher standard than you hold OSS, to the point where "M$ can't win", not on any scale which involves actual feature comparison, but on a scale that only you hold them to? A scale where their current systems are judged on the past business practices of the company that made them?
Is it better to change or not to change? If it's better to change and evolve, why don't MS have the right to make their products better without the insane 'usability is broken because people know how it worked before' argument? If change isn't good then why aren't MS allowed to change but every other company is allowed to evolve it's products as and when it's necessary?
How the fuck do you know that Office's new UI is worse when you haven't used it?
I don't want to hear your opinion on Spandex, or Rubber, or whatever you use. I don't give an arse about your opinions of W2k or XP. It doesn't matter two fetid cocks whether you think an employer is 'stupid' for sticking to Office.
Hell, seeing as this is exposition hour, why don't I tell you my story.
I use MSOffice and I have never, ever had a problem with sending clients and bosses alike well formatted presentations in Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, that have earnt me 2 promotions in 6 months. I am now, after a short period of time, overseeing all reporting and statistical matters for the entire customer service department of a UK-based ISP. I am in line for my third pay raise in as many months. Why? You said it yourself - content is more important than form. With Word I have never had an issue presenting documents legibly and professionally, and that will continue to earn me my pay.
With OpenOffice, which I tried to use when working from home one night, I spend 20 minutes doing a task that took me 2. It is slow, buggy, and unstable. It didn't take me long to give up on it entirely.
So how about you give up this shit, Twit? You never answer the questions people ask you, you just run out on a tangent and hope that people fawn on your experience with OSS. Doesn't work on me, and it won't work on anyone with half a brain.
M$ owed it to their customers to get things right the first time they made the menus.
Menus which OpenOffice has copied practically pixel for pixel? Which is now at version 2.1, and the menus are still consistent with the 'old' MSOffice? Why doesn't OpenOffice have to get it 'right first time'? Or any other open source effort? How many revisions and changes has Ubuntu been through? Debian? KDE and Gnome?
Even if they hadn't, change is a bad idea after spending years telling people that change is hard and that alone is reason to stick with M$.
So Microsoft's old menus were shit, so they should have changed them, but they shouldn't have changed them because they should have got them right first time because change is bad. Seeing as I first used wordprocessors on an Amstrad, which was entirely text based, should they have stuck with that?
Still, it's nothing new from M$ and the cumulative result is a horribly fragmented and inconsistent GUI
Which you've admitted to never using, as you've said you haven't used an MS product in 7 years, so how would you even know? At least I had the decency to use OpenOffice before I deleted it.
I think the fact that you just summed up everything you've said on this thread with "You don't agree with me so you're either insane or stupid" really says a lot.
To assume that this would not be followed by further legislation is naive at best.
Strangely, so is just assuming that it will. You've yet to offer any evidence that this government, here, now, or at any time in the future, will consolidate this database with further surveillance and invasions of privacy, other than vague references to irrelevant historical data of other cultures and civilisations that you never provided anyway.
It's like saying I should be allowed to murder you as you might get murdered by someone else tomorrow anyway.
I can't even begin to fathom how you linked that to what I said. Care to elaborate?
If by "You fail to realise", you mean "You noticed it was a slippery slope argument and recognised that it is a logical fallacy", then you are quite right.
You have no basis to believe other than speculation that either of the two scenarios you describe would happen at all. You also don't have any evidence other than speculation to say that either of the two scenarios wouldn't happen if these databases weren't combined.
Unfortunately the majority of the Slashdot crowd are obsessed with slippery slope arguments and fallacious interpretations of '1984'.
They don't seem to realise that this information already exists, merely spread amongst a number of different governmental departments. This is merely an attempt to consolidate that data and make access more efficient.
It still makes me cringe when someone says "Vista is crippled with DRM" when you can't even boot OSX on a computer that Apple didn't make. Not to mention FairPlay, which I was told doesn't count as DRM because "you can remove it easily".
I see what you're saying now, but I stick with what I said about it being Cisco's pie in this instance: not because Apple have a monopoly on iEverything, but because they still have to work with Cisco in order to use the iPhone trademark.
It doesn't matter any more what Cisco's motives were, because speculation to that end won't stand up in any court, nor will it prevent Apple from having to do what is necessary to be able to use the iPhone name.
Except I'm lying, it was a terrible point. If they were still in discussion, then Apple haven't got a leg to stand on in going right ahead and using the trademark anyway. As has been said earlier, they would not have been in discussion with Cisco if they felt their trademark wasn't enforcable, made more notable by Apple's tendency to just sue companies they feel they have a chance of winning against.
It doesn't matter a dog's fetid testicle whether Cisco wanted 'a bigger slice of Apple's pie than they deserve'. Cisco still own the damn pie. It's Apple who want the slice here.
what if you want that particular ModelX-BrandY laptop, just without that particular OS We know for instance that MS has the bad habit of bending OEM arms behind their back [...] in a memo some time ago
I rest my case, your honour.
As far as I can tell, that is now an OEM decision, not an MS decision. As you said, the memo in question was some time ago, and there have been a few court-cases and lawsuits since then with no further evidence that MS actually acts the same way now that it did then. I have seen plenty of advertisements for PCs with Windows and Linux pre-installed from the same vendor, on the same page no less. Maybe I look at different magazines to you.
What if you want to try the OS for a few days before buying?
Good idea, but if you're buying online it's impractical. You can go to a shop and ask for a demonstration.
What if you want to touch your laptop before buying it, like in a shop?
You mean like you can, in a shop? That's more to do with the manufacturer you buy from than Microsoft.
Maybe you can claim that OEM are free to choose, and they all have happened to choose not make you choose the OS. Maybe, or maybe not...
Well, from my own observations and experience, they haven't all made me choose an OS. In fact, when I'm buying a pre-built computer (rarely, considering I build my own), if I don't have the choice to take the OS off, I don't buy it, and I go somewhere else. There's no point in being loyal to a brand that doesn't actually give you what you want.
I will merely reiterate that I have never had a problem with getting an OS-free PC, nor would I have any issue with getting a PC pre-installed with a flavour of Linux. If your 'brand' isn't doing that, vote with your feet. Companies pay more attention to profits than Slashdot.
I've never had trouble buying a computer without XP on it. In fact, the last computer I bought on behalf of my father didn't have an OS at all. He already had a copy of Windows 98SE which he installed on it, then upgraded to XP Home when he felt he needed to. Also, you could build your own? I don't see Microsoft telling you what to put on your own build.
I love the whole 'I CAN'T BUY A COMPUTER WITHOUT XP ON IT!" thing that flies around this place. Can I suggest that you aren't trying?
Santa Rosa isn't a CPU, it's a Centrino platform. From the article you linked to:
second generation Intel Core 2 processor (code named Merom) that uses Socket P 800 MT/s front side bus with Dynamic Front Side Bus Switching to save power during low utilization Intel Mobile 965 Express chipset (code named Crestline) with Intel's GMA X3000 graphics technology Intel PRO/Wireless 4965AGN IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n mini-PCIe Wi-Fi adapter (code named Kedron)
Slashdot Mirror
It occurs to me: he spends so much time accusing everyone else of MS astroturfing... who pays him to be pro-Linux, and can we get them to fire him for doing a terrible job of it?
Windows XP/Vista activation/DRM is not good.
I agree. Unfortunately the gaming experience for me is more important than the minor hoops I have to jump through to do it, though I wouldn't be complaining if they removed it entirely.
Game protection root kits are not good.
Starforce is one of my sworn enemies - my drive refused to burn CDs/DVDs even after cleaning the system of it. It is also definitely the cause of the problem, as the drive burned fine before I installed PoP: Two Thrones, and I switched the drive for a new one and that now works fine with Starforce off the machine. Too much of a coincidence to be ignored, I'm afraid. I'm glad Ubisoft dropped it.
Also, steam is nice, until you realize that playing old games will be hard if they go out of business (or release forced "updates", which HAS happened).
I have a lot of games on Steam. I tend to scratch/lose CDs and DVDs anyway, so if Steam did go out of business I don't see a difference between that and the usual disdain with which I accidentally treat my media. Right now the convenience of the thing is, again, too important for me to ignore. I've had to reinstall Windows when I've changed hard-drives and the ability to install about 20-25 games overnight without having to be at the computer is a godsend. I've never had the problems that others have had, either, so I can't comment on that.
I Read The F***ing Articles Linked In The F***ing Article, and there is still no such admission from anyone.
I do, however, also agree with the articles conclusion that DRM isn't about piracy, if only because it's so ineffective to be laughable. It's always been, and obviously so, to make the people who do spend, spend more than they should.
Why chase people who won't buy jack, when you can shaft the people who do for more? It's less effort.
*bursts out laughing* Did you read any of the replies to those comments?
Do you notice that nobody, I mean nobody, actually managed to put together a cohesive argument to prove me wrong, except for one, where I actually conceded the point because someone came up with something that was actually informative? Which brings us to you, because instead of continuing to respond to my points, you decided that I 'like MS too much' and therefore you 'can't trust anything I say'? That's absolutely hilarious.
I'm don't what you really do for a living
What?
What I've see above is all designed to aggravate and annoy.
Can you not think, maybe, that it only 'aggravates' and 'annoys' you because I don't agree with you? I don't see any negative moderations in there. I also don't see any lies, FUD, or invented stories, which is all I see from you. The AC above me has it right, for once.
Try again!
That ISP is probably M$ because they are the only organization that could exchange M$ documents that long without complaining, publically that is.
I was waiting for the 'astroturfing' allegation. You can't actually have a discussion without getting that one in, can you? I work in the UK, and MS doesn't have an ISP over here. That pisses that little theory up the wall, doesn't it?
they fail miserably to match any kind of competition. I can say so from watching my peers use any M$ program and noticing that things have gotten worse, not better.
Bullshit and more FUD from your addled brain.
Because Office had lots and lots of buttons to push for every task, there are a lot of people who are going to be pushing lots of the wrong buttons for years to come.
This is laughable. Show me how having 2 or more buttons for the same action is bad for a UI. Following that, show me how having to re-learn a UI to improve your efficiency is bad for a user, and then continue to make a case as for why all consumers should relearn all their UIs in order to transfer to Linux or OSS solutions. You just don't get that you can't eat your cake and have it too.
Monopolies are bad. They always provide the worst services at the greatest cost. Their entire focus is on keeping others out of the market instead of what their original purpose.
Except for when you're banned from doing so and are under a tremendous amount of legal and consumer scrutiny to keep it that way. Can you provide proof, actual solid evidence that Microsoft continues to abuse their monopoly position, other than "Slashdot sez so"?
Vista and the new Office are the end of Microsoft
I remember when WinME was the end of Microsoft. I remember when XP was the end of Microsoft. I remember when WGA was the end of Microsoft. Newsflash: the sky isn't falling, no matter how much you wish it.
Too long. Didn't read.
Ah, childishness on the internet, may you never die.
As an afterthought, if you don't care about GP's opinion, why spew bile when he gives it to you?
If you didn't bother to read what I wrote, how do you know I don't care about his opinion, and why did you bother to respond?
Wow, that's quite a slushy pile of shit you wrote there, but you could always answer my actual points instead of wasting my time for 5 minutes.
Why do you hold MS to a higher standard than you hold OSS, to the point where "M$ can't win", not on any scale which involves actual feature comparison, but on a scale that only you hold them to? A scale where their current systems are judged on the past business practices of the company that made them?
Is it better to change or not to change? If it's better to change and evolve, why don't MS have the right to make their products better without the insane 'usability is broken because people know how it worked before' argument? If change isn't good then why aren't MS allowed to change but every other company is allowed to evolve it's products as and when it's necessary?
How the fuck do you know that Office's new UI is worse when you haven't used it?
I don't want to hear your opinion on Spandex, or Rubber, or whatever you use. I don't give an arse about your opinions of W2k or XP. It doesn't matter two fetid cocks whether you think an employer is 'stupid' for sticking to Office.
Hell, seeing as this is exposition hour, why don't I tell you my story.
I use MSOffice and I have never, ever had a problem with sending clients and bosses alike well formatted presentations in Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, that have earnt me 2 promotions in 6 months. I am now, after a short period of time, overseeing all reporting and statistical matters for the entire customer service department of a UK-based ISP. I am in line for my third pay raise in as many months. Why? You said it yourself - content is more important than form. With Word I have never had an issue presenting documents legibly and professionally, and that will continue to earn me my pay.
With OpenOffice, which I tried to use when working from home one night, I spend 20 minutes doing a task that took me 2. It is slow, buggy, and unstable. It didn't take me long to give up on it entirely.
So how about you give up this shit, Twit? You never answer the questions people ask you, you just run out on a tangent and hope that people fawn on your experience with OSS. Doesn't work on me, and it won't work on anyone with half a brain.
So Microsoft's old menus were shit, so they should have changed them, but they shouldn't have changed them because they should have got them right first time because change is bad. Seeing as I first used wordprocessors on an Amstrad, which was entirely text based, should they have stuck with that?
Which you've admitted to never using, as you've said you haven't used an MS product in 7 years, so how would you even know? At least I had the decency to use OpenOffice before I deleted it.
I think the fact that you just summed up everything you've said on this thread with "You don't agree with me so you're either insane or stupid" really says a lot.
Who are you kidding?
Try reading the summary for this very story, and then say that Slashdot is "an MS apologists' haven".
One would hope.
But you didn't.
Strangely, so is just assuming that it will. You've yet to offer any evidence that this government, here, now, or at any time in the future, will consolidate this database with further surveillance and invasions of privacy, other than vague references to irrelevant historical data of other cultures and civilisations that you never provided anyway.
I can't even begin to fathom how you linked that to what I said. Care to elaborate?
If by "You fail to realise", you mean "You noticed it was a slippery slope argument and recognised that it is a logical fallacy", then you are quite right.
You have no basis to believe other than speculation that either of the two scenarios you describe would happen at all. You also don't have any evidence other than speculation to say that either of the two scenarios wouldn't happen if these databases weren't combined.
Easier =/= more likely.
Lived in Sheffield for 2 years when I was (failing) at university there. Lovely city - I fully intend to move back there at some point.
Unfortunately the majority of the Slashdot crowd are obsessed with slippery slope arguments and fallacious interpretations of '1984'.
They don't seem to realise that this information already exists, merely spread amongst a number of different governmental departments. This is merely an attempt to consolidate that data and make access more efficient.
I gave up saying this months ago.
It still makes me cringe when someone says "Vista is crippled with DRM" when you can't even boot OSX on a computer that Apple didn't make. Not to mention FairPlay, which I was told doesn't count as DRM because "you can remove it easily".
It honestly doesn't matter. The point of my original post was missed anyway.
Probably.
Only plays games in Flash/JS. Only $100 dollars less than a PS3. Lame.
I see what you're saying now, but I stick with what I said about it being Cisco's pie in this instance: not because Apple have a monopoly on iEverything, but because they still have to work with Cisco in order to use the iPhone trademark.
It doesn't matter any more what Cisco's motives were, because speculation to that end won't stand up in any court, nor will it prevent Apple from having to do what is necessary to be able to use the iPhone name.
Also, Cisco already have released an iPhone.
Good point!
Except I'm lying, it was a terrible point. If they were still in discussion, then Apple haven't got a leg to stand on in going right ahead and using the trademark anyway. As has been said earlier, they would not have been in discussion with Cisco if they felt their trademark wasn't enforcable, made more notable by Apple's tendency to just sue companies they feel they have a chance of winning against.
It doesn't matter a dog's fetid testicle whether Cisco wanted 'a bigger slice of Apple's pie than they deserve'. Cisco still own the damn pie. It's Apple who want the slice here.
what if you want that particular ModelX-BrandY laptop, just without that particular OS
We know for instance that MS has the bad habit of bending OEM arms behind their back [...] in a memo some time ago
I rest my case, your honour.
As far as I can tell, that is now an OEM decision, not an MS decision. As you said, the memo in question was some time ago, and there have been a few court-cases and lawsuits since then with no further evidence that MS actually acts the same way now that it did then. I have seen plenty of advertisements for PCs with Windows and Linux pre-installed from the same vendor, on the same page no less. Maybe I look at different magazines to you.
What if you want to try the OS for a few days before buying?
Good idea, but if you're buying online it's impractical. You can go to a shop and ask for a demonstration.
What if you want to touch your laptop before buying it, like in a shop?
You mean like you can, in a shop? That's more to do with the manufacturer you buy from than Microsoft.
Maybe you can claim that OEM are free to choose, and they all have happened to choose not make you choose the OS. Maybe, or maybe not...
Well, from my own observations and experience, they haven't all made me choose an OS. In fact, when I'm buying a pre-built computer (rarely, considering I build my own), if I don't have the choice to take the OS off, I don't buy it, and I go somewhere else. There's no point in being loyal to a brand that doesn't actually give you what you want.
I will merely reiterate that I have never had a problem with getting an OS-free PC, nor would I have any issue with getting a PC pre-installed with a flavour of Linux. If your 'brand' isn't doing that, vote with your feet. Companies pay more attention to profits than Slashdot.
I've never had trouble buying a computer without XP on it. In fact, the last computer I bought on behalf of my father didn't have an OS at all. He already had a copy of Windows 98SE which he installed on it, then upgraded to XP Home when he felt he needed to. Also, you could build your own? I don't see Microsoft telling you what to put on your own build.
I love the whole 'I CAN'T BUY A COMPUTER WITHOUT XP ON IT!" thing that flies around this place. Can I suggest that you aren't trying?
Ah, Father Ted, how we miss thee.
Did you have something to bring to the discussion other than putting words in someone's mouth?
I don't see the part of his post where he said it MUST be false, nor did I see the implication.