Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Petrarch of the VBB on October 31, 2003, 07:05:00 pm
-
Says it all really.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-876034,00.html
I'm not having this. I'm utterly powerless, but I'm not having it.
-
I like Dogpile... m'self.
-
Dear Lord... not another one.
-
:wtf: What's wrong with Dogpile. And don't say 'It sucks'
-
It's crap.:D
Nah, it's pretty good and I'll probably use it if Micro$oft buys Google.
-
Anything but Google. IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE?
-
No...wait till Microsoft controls your computer with Palladium (oh sorry, umm whatever the acronym is for it now) and can delete, view, and modify whatever they want on your computer, all in the name of security.
THEN, and only then, will nothing be truly sacred.
-
meep. Thats when I become a devout linux user.
-
No...wait till Microsoft controls your computer with Palladium (oh sorry, umm whatever the acronym is for it now) and can delete, view, and modify whatever they want on your computer, all in the name of security.
Don't they also need Palladium enabled hardware for that to work?
And besides, its bound to be cracked by someone. The crack for the Window$ XP product activation came out before the public release of Window$ XP itself.
-
Why can't they just stop trying to be a monopoly?
-
Originally posted by 01010
Anything but Google. IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE?
wait... stuff used to be sared?
-
Originally posted by Krackers87
wait... stuff used to be sacred?
...
-
Originally posted by Bri_Dog
Why can't they just stop trying to be a monopoly?
tehcnically its called capitalism; but taking Google? that would make me mad at them...
-
Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
meep. Thats when I become a devout linux user.
My thinking exactly...thats when I hope a very violent (symbolically) shift is made to alternative OSes that better respect basic rights that have been long established and fought over in my country and other countries.
I actually would be interested to see what the CRTC up here would do about something like that. I'd hope they'd give Microsoft a good blackeye perhaps. Make them rethink their security strategy...like actually bothering to spend the time to program better software in the first place.
-
And my friends all wonder why I don't use Microsoft Word...I use Open Office.org and Notepad (do the occasional science report in HTML).
Bill gates has so many houses...which do I send the bomb to...j/k
-
"Microsoft want to buy %s"
yes, we know
-
Well, it has dominated for a time long enough.
Time for some fresh winds to blow..
-
Well what can we do about it?
nothing legal... :devil:
-
Oh, horrors. One giant, faceless, disgustingly rich corporation that provides menial but important services functionally, if not pleasantly or particularly efficiently and treats its customers like so much livestock is about to be bought up by another. And I had such a deep emotional investment in one of them.
Yeah, Google's pretty handy (for now), but it's not like it's the only search engine that could ever be any good, or like its performance (or the performance of whatever engine it's turned into) will be greatly hampered by this. The result is about the same for end users no matter what. No real reason to be upset about it other than projecting human features on thoroughly nonhuman megacorps.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
...like actually bothering to spend the time to program better software in the first place.
Why bother when you can buy the best and market it as your own?
-
Google DID tell Microsoft a very clear "NO". But somhow everyone forgets to point that out. Microsoft approached BEFORE they announced MSN was going to get its own new search service to compete with Google.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Oh, horrors. One giant, faceless, disgustingly rich corporation that provides menial but important services functionally, if not pleasantly or particularly efficiently and treats its customers like so much livestock is about to be bought up by another. And I had such a deep emotional investment in one of them.
Actually, Google is NOT a "giant, faceless, disgustingly rich corporation that provides menial but important services functionally, if not pleasantly or particularly efficiently and treats its customers like so much livestock". They generally treat their users very well, and are very responsive to user input and critique. What's more, they invest back into the community that spawned their technology, and they do it all without taking htemselves too seriously.
What will be interesting to see is what happens when Google does its auction-IPO. Microsoft will almost certainly be there with cash in hand to buy up every share it can get its hands on. I'm hoping that the Big G only puts 49% or less shares on the table, so they can maintain control of their offerings.
-
Just to reiterate because I know people won't read the long version:
GOOGLE TOLD MICROSOFT NO. GOOGLE IS NOT BEING BOUGHT BY MICROSOFT.
Thank you.
-
I spent hour upon hour last week trying to work around problems caused by M$'s shoddy programming and lack of internal communication. Based on what I've learned here are my guesses as to what will happen when M$ buys Google.
1. It will be renamed Net Find . NET
2. You will need an MSN passport to use it.
3. It will forcibly install software on your machine (probably Outlook Express).
4. It may well break your operating system, at the bare minimum it will stop sysprep working correctly so you can't image machines.
5. It will have a buffer overflow vulnerability.
6. It will not show search hits relating to apple and sun websites.
-
Nobody says no to M$. Anyone who tries to cannot be heard, because a M$ owned dump truck has buried them under an enormous mound of money. Nice font by the way. I wonder if size=8 works?
Originally posted by mikhael
Just to reiterate because I know people won't read the long version:
[size=8]
GOOGLE TOLD MICROSOFT NO. GOOGLE IS NOT BEING BOUGHT BY MICROSOFT.
[/size]
Thank you.
-
Lots of people tell Microsoft no. It happens all the time. An ISP I worked for told Microsoft no. NINTENDO told Microsoft no. Google told Microsoft no.
None of them needed Microsoft's cash.
-
It will not show search hits relating to apple
Actually, since M$ owns a good percentage of Apple, that money that you spend (or at least some of it) on Apple products still winds up back in M$'$ pocket anyway.
-
I thought MS sold their share of Apple?
At any case, noone says no to MS. If they try, MS release a shoddy imitiation (think Windows, Internet Explorer, Pocket PC and the Xbox) of their product and market the crap out of it so it eventually becomes the industry standard forcing the original product almost entirely off the market.
-
And thank goodness for that. Google is really cool, my brother knows a few of the programmers who work in their Australian branch. :)
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
I thought MS sold their share of Apple?
At any case, noone says no to MS. If they try, MS release a shoddy imitiation (think Windows, Internet Explorer, Pocket PC and the Xbox) of their product and market the crap out of it so it eventually becomes the industry standard forcing the original product almost entirely off the market.
Why is the Xbox shoddy?
-
I think the phrase I keep hearing from non-MS sponsored developers is 'a nightmare to code for'. Oh, and try holding a Billbox controller some time. It was nothing short of an insult to my hands. Nasty little thing.
-
[color=66ff00]But it has so many great games! Games like Halo and... Halo.
Wait, wasn't Halo just released for the PC? Oh well...
[/color]
-
You forgot Halo
-
I don't even like Halo (PC). It's boring.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I think the phrase I keep hearing from non-MS sponsored developers is 'a nightmare to code for'. Oh, and try holding a Billbox controller some time. It was nothing short of an insult to my hands. Nasty little thing.
The fact that I own an Xbox means that I hold the controller pretty much on a daily basis and I love it. It's the only controller I've used that isn't dwarfed by my hands, now the Gamecube controller, THAT is a travesty, whoever invented that piece of crap has hands the size of a fifty pence piece and incredibly poor eyesight considering they give you all of two inches of cable to work with.
I've heard nothing but praise for the 'box's programming environment too by any developer that's cared to mention it, mostly because there's very little difference between it and the P.C, now the PS2 I heard was an absolute ***** to program because you have a tiny amount of video memory but a huge bus to push the data through, amongst other things.
As for the games, I'd say that was a matter of preference more than anything but I own 20+ games for my Xbox with at least 9 or 10 that I play regularly (religously in Halo's case) and only 7 games for my Gamecube with only 2 that I play often (Pikmin (ace game) and Super Monkey Ball).
I just don't understand why anybody would call the Xbox shoddy when it's not, large yes, ugly most certainly (not that the aesthetics bother me, but some people would be put off by it I guess) but it's a good console with some absolutely stunning looking titles coming for it (Fable, Halo 2, B.C, Crimson Skies, Splinter Cell 2, Ninja Gaiden) and I don't think it's fair that just because its a Microsoft product, all the anti M$ *****es whine like babies about it.
::Edit::
One last thing, I really love the Xbox dashboard, it's a thing of tremendous beauty and ease.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Why is the Xbox shoddy?
The main reason? It's based on the shockingly inefficient (due mainly to over 20 years of being pieced together and added to from a base that wasn't even the best to start with) x86 PC architecture because MS couldn't be bothered designing something even half way decent, they just wanted a quick inroad into the console market so they turned to the cheapest and easiest place they knew.
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
The main reason? It's based on the shockingly inefficient (due mainly to over 20 years of being pieced together and added to from a base that wasn't even the best to start with) x86 PC architecture because MS couldn't be bothered designing something even half way decent, they just wanted a quick inroad into the console market so they turned to the cheapest and easiest place they knew.
But it works fine, it's a powerful piece of hardware and it does the job it's supposed to do (play games) with a lot more grunt than either competing consoles. Also, using the cheapest and easiest methods available would be basic economics if I'm not mistaken, why make a whole new proprietary system when you know you have an existing system that works (and reasonably well at that) and can be made efficiently and cheaply?
-
IIRC, Ps2 has about 4(+) pipeline that need balanced, as well as a large bus (!GB/sec, IIRC) feeding a very small texture memory block. Although I think they've been refining it recently towards a cheaper-to-produce version with a single pipeline and more efficient architecture.
I think the major difference in design between a Pc & X-box is that the Xbox's Pentium 3 has a reduced pipeline (so it's just inefficient, rather than deliberately over-long to decieve customers), and uses copper instead of alumnium for certain bits (or the other way round...). Plus - and it shares this with the Gamecube - the memory bus is controlled by the GPU, rather than the CPU. It's not exactly an inspired design..... in fact, it's not even the most powerful possible, because of heat concerns, et al (i.e. MS used intel instead of AMD because of cooling issues).
Incidentally, I tried all 3 consoles when they came out. i hate the X-box controller (too big), dislike the PS2 (hurts thumbs), but I really liked the GC one. In the end, I bought a Ps2 because it had Pro Evo.
-
it all comes up to personal preference.. i actually like the Xbox controller because i have large hands.. the GC, i hate due to the same reason, and aldo stated the PS2 is pretty true, you end up with a pair of sore thumbs after a decent session of ssx..
note: i own an XBOX, and i haven't had ONE problem with it, so i don't really know what the blazes people are complaining about.. personally i'm sick of hearing people going "Microsoft Sucks", etc.. if some other company other than microsoft made it big like it has, some of you would be *****ing about that, and you know it... so shut the hell up, and play the ****ing games already, that's what they're there for... yeesh.. :doubt:
that said.. i have not had ONE microsoft application that locked up or restarted on me.
//Warning\\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
do not torment the sleep deprived artist, he may be vicious when cornered,
in case of emergency, administer caffeine to the artist,
he will become docile after that,
and less likely to stab you in the eye with a mechanical pencil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Damn, it's time to end all this anti Microsoft policy...
Personally, after seeing how much worser was the alternative to Windows (IBM OS was and is just pure crap) i thank Bill Gates every time i place my hands on Windows XP... Anyways, to go back into the topic MS isn't going to buy google, it's improving MSN instead... And since they can spend much more money in development, i wouldn't be surprised if it will surpass google...
For those which blindly hates Microsoft, look at how most competitors are trying to save her ass with Internet Explorer right now, they know that they will never be able to deploy something capable to replace it, so that they're putting pressure on doj to revoke eolas patent suit, as hurting the de facto standard would be hurting everyone.
-
I hate Micro$soft.
Ever watched Pinky and the Brain?
There was one episode in which Bill Gates bought 51% of all shares in the world and became the world leader! Brrrr.....
-
yeah i know this episode that was funny :lol:
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Damn, it's time to end all this anti Microsoft policy...
Personally, after seeing how much worser was the alternative to Windows (IBM OS was and is just pure crap) i thank Bill Gates every time i place my hands on Windows XP... Anyways, to go back into the topic MS isn't going to buy google, it's improving MSN instead... And since they can spend much more money in development, i wouldn't be surprised if it will surpass google...
For those which blindly hates Microsoft, look at how most competitors are trying to save her ass with Internet Explorer right now, they know that they will never be able to deploy something capable to replace it, so that they're putting pressure on doj to revoke eolas patent suit, as hurting the de facto standard would be hurting everyone.
I don't think you can really better google because the best thing about it is that it's a search engine and nothing more, it doesn't try to be a content provider, it doesn't try to "tailor your web browsing experience" to whatever it assumes you like, it's a search engine that does the job incredibly well.
Which is what most people want, same with Winamp 2, I want a music player that I can add different components too, without it already being bloated from the initial install. Unlike winamp 3, which is ass.
As for all the Anti MS bull****, I'm not pro or anti any company because I figure they're "evil", I'll judge a company that manufactures a product on the product they sell and the service they provide in supporting that product. I've never had a truly bad experience with a MS product that wasn't an operating system and I actually REALLY like a lot of MS hardware (intellimouse is nice, sidewinder 2 joystick is nice, never had a problem with my Xbox or any of it's peripherals).
Personally, if Linux had anything approaching (what I would deem) decent support for games I'd be all over it like a rash, but until that day I'm stuck with buggy hole ridden bloat ware.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Damn, it's time to end all this anti Microsoft policy...
Personally, after seeing how much worser was the alternative to Windows (IBM OS was and is just pure crap) i thank Bill Gates every time i place my hands on Windows XP... Anyways, to go back into the topic MS isn't going to buy google, it's improving MSN instead... And since they can spend much more money in development, i wouldn't be surprised if it will surpass google...
For those which blindly hates Microsoft, look at how most competitors are trying to save her ass with Internet Explorer right now, they know that they will never be able to deploy something capable to replace it, so that they're putting pressure on doj to revoke eolas patent suit, as hurting the de facto standard would be hurting everyone.
What anti-Microsoft policy....there is no anti-Microsoft policy anywhere here. What you DO see is alot of opposition to an increasingly large monopoly where the other players no longer become a voice, a single company controls everything, there is no innovation, prices are high, and you no longer have control of your own intellectual property - its Microsofts because they "allow" you to use it.
I agree. Windows XP is the best they have done for home computer use. Its much better. Due in part to competition from other companies.
I own a Sidewiner Precision 2 and a MS Keyboard and an earlier version of the Intellimouse with optical sensors. I like those products, I bought them willingly because they were good. But I'd be annoyed if they were my only option.
If what MS plans to do in the next 6 years happens, stuff like SCP can be kissed goodbye because we (others) aren't going to pay big bucks for Microsoft to say it is and thus it'd be consigned to being considered illegitimate.
Imagine game MOD's being made impossible because Microsoft says we can't. In a monopoly/dictatorship like that, it could very well happen.
-
I don;t trust MS because they're a monopoly, and the less competition a company has, the less pressure there is on them is to improve their products. And a lot of the stuff Ms does (like their moves to integrate Windows in BIOS, for example) is solely to maintain that monopoly.
And MS' interests are not the same as ours - we want cheap, effective software. they want money, and that means continously 'refreshing' their product line, and flashy marketing.
Unfortunately, it's not just MS - they're just the biggest company doing it at the mo. Look at the Intel centrino adverts for an example of marketing with no basis in fact.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Damn, it's time to end all this anti Microsoft policy...
Personally, after seeing how much worser was the alternative to Windows (IBM OS was and is just pure crap) i thank Bill Gates every time i place my hands on Windows XP...
I take it you've never heard of Linux (any variety), FreeBSD (or any other BSD), etc... IBM OS was a long time back. From my experience with WinXP Home, on a Sony laptop my dad owns (hence, pre-configured and everything, ought to have no hardware problems), it periodically forgets it has different things. e.g. sound goes. Sound is fixed, CD/DVD goes. etc... I've never had any problems like that with Linux or FreeBSD. It just works. And, both of the alternatives I've mentioned are one hell of a lot faster than Windows XP - they're not just a load of crummy graphics to make people go 'ooo, pretty'.
Originally posted by Zarax
And since they can spend much more money in development, i wouldn't be surprised if it will surpass google...
Ehh... Yeah, sure, you've just pointed out one of Microsoft's flaws. They just throw money and deadlines at things, and expect them to turn out okay. The open source community works for nothing. And look where it got them - now we've got excellent alternative OSes.
Originally posted by Zarax
For those which blindly hates Microsoft, look at how most competitors are trying to save her ass with Internet Explorer right now, they know that they will never be able to deploy something capable to replace it, so that they're putting pressure on doj to revoke eolas patent suit, as hurting the de facto standard would be hurting everyone.
Firstly, the only competitor I know of using Internet Explorer is Apple. And that's because Apple is doing anything it can to make transition easier from Windows to Mac.
Second, what do you mean, nothing capable to replace it? Mozilla, Opera, Mozilla Firebird, want me to continue? I never touch IE unless forced to by a website.
Finally, your usage of 'de facto standard' is a little unclear. If you mean it as 'the thing everyone has got', then sure. Because everyone, like you apparently, doesn't realise there are plenty of perfectly good alternatives. If by 'de facto standard' you mean 'handles HTML properly', you are sadly mistaken. IE couldn't be much further from W3C standard HTML, and it makes coding websites a nightmare.
EDIT: Hey, Zarax, do you by any chance work for Microsoft? It's just this 'Location: Redmond', and 'Microsoft User Network' stuff.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"Microsoft want to buy %s"
yes, we know
:lol:
-
Meh. Microsoft's an extremely minor evil compared to many, if not most, on the national scale. Here we have a president whose campaign is planned to hinge on homophobic propoganda, and we're worrying about a corporation that does what corporations do. They don't do the best programming in the world, but... hell, Disney leaves MS behind when it comes to cutthroat business tactics.
All the problems with Microsoft are the precise same ones you see in any large corporation- stagnation, bureaucracy, the prevailing idea that some shiny new interface graphics are a far preferable alternative to increased functionality, impersonality, and inefficiency on a massive scale. Apple, for example, is very much the same. Linux, in all of its distros, has its own problems related to small groups of people (i.e. arcane interfacing functions, generally a few more bugs, limited availability and extremely short list of options for what to do with it, etc.). But you don't see anyone complaining about them. Why? Because Microsoft is a celebrity. Everyone knows about it, everyone has some (at least imagined) relationship to it, it's percieved as the "big dog", and our culture has this rather foolish ingrained belief that anything but the one on top is some embattled, idealistic rebel minority fighting for truth and justice and rainbows and puppy dogs and so on, while those who are percieved to have power are some ominous, actively malevolent group bent on destroying the Universe for no apparent reason. Like the entire universe operates like Star Wars. And, though that is often the case in real life (i.e. at any point ever in the entire history of politics, no matter who was playing which role), that doesn't mean it can just be applied at first glance to every situation ever. All those little corporations you see, given half a chance, would be every bit as mercenary and monopolistic as Microsoft- in fact, they try damn hard. MS happens to be it at the moment, but it won't always be, and in the meantime it's handy to have around.
-
Stryke, you are indeed right that Microsoft is a target because its the celebrity of the bunch, the guy at the top, and the easiest target to hit. Every else is percieved as the rebel with a good cause.
But its a bit of a regulatory system isn't it...the one at the top with the lionshare of the power is the target of everyone else. If the king falls, another takes its place...in that struggle we see innovation and progress. Another one takes the kingship for a bit before it too falls again replaced by another and another.
Humans have a propensity for creating self destructive systems encompassed within larger ones. All that we can be sure of is change...at least with Linux and others challenging the status quo...there is a good possibility of that.
-
I wouldn't mind if Microsoft was extremely powerful, as long as there was another company competing with it. Right now, Microsoft has no competition (not enough to do any good anyways) and is just barely staying on the good side of the law.
As for Internet Explorer being the de facto standard, that's a load of bull****. Most computer users (ones that don't know what they're doing ) use it because it's there, prepackaged with windows, not because it's the best browser. I hate microsoft not because they're the big dogs on the block, but because they're power hungry. Like I've said, if they had any good competition (well...they did...but they crushed it with their POS software because people didn't know any better) then I'm sure their crap would be ok.
I have to admit windows XP is a pretty good operating system, although it's still a piece of crap compared to FREE operating systems. Windows is the best for computer gaming not because it is a good operating system, but because they're such a big corporation that they practically control the game companies...Now that fs2 has been ported to OS X, I'm seriously thinking about getting a Mac.
-
Oh yeah, if there was an equally big company in the OS/software market like Microsoft, then the situation would be much better. There would be push between the two....fighting over market share and gaining and loosing based on the users.
Thats what democracy is about.
-
I think I mis-expressed myself, I don't want another Microsoft competing with the current one, that would be twice as bad.:)
Rather two or more smaller companies competing would probably produce some better software.
And sure any company would be as bloodthirsty as Microsoft if they were in their position, and that is just one thing I don't like about today's society, nothing I can do about it.:)
-
As per Intel and AMD... well, AMD's getting there. :)
-
Originally posted by 01010
now the Gamecube controller, THAT is a travesty, whoever invented that piece of crap has hands the size of a fifty pence piece and incredibly poor eyesight considering they give you all of two inches of cable to work with.
I'm not dignifying that with an answer. Well, except to say that I got F-Zero GX yesterday and it pwnz everything else.