PDA

View Full Version : Microsofts pathetic attempts to force upgrades.



curuxz
February 10th, 2006, 10:35 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4698072.stm

How mean on all the kids that just wana play a game, seems like MS will do all it can to force people into doing things they dont want to do ....

TrendyDark
February 10th, 2006, 10:40 AM
Non-backwards compatibility is the way Microsoft makes all it's money. That's why the standard Microsoft Word Document Format changes so much, because if it's not compatible with older versions you'll have to upgrade if say, your business partner switched to the new version of Word.

curuxz
February 10th, 2006, 10:45 AM
yea, unfortuantely the media is still very anti-linux. I just wrote a letter to the writter or an article on the bbc site about spyware asking why was linux not mentioned for its ablity to overcome this. And on this story no metion of windows losing its market share and the expectation that vista will be very slow to adopt due to stupid requirements and usless featues.

Derek Djons
February 10th, 2006, 10:54 AM
And still people want to be rather plugged into the Matrix then reconsider their OS choice based on things like:


Minimum specifications for Vista (formerly called Longhorn) will be released in the summer but information gathered from reviews of pre-release versions have given clues about its hunger for computer power.

How many households really need an Intel Pentium IV or AMD Athlon 64? The primary functions of a computer are still using internet, email and wordprocessing. Playing games could also be done using a console. The hardware and software is optimized for the best performance. That way you know every game you buy will run fine with nice graphics.


With Vista, Microsoft has made big changes to the way it handles graphics. Unlike other versions of Windows, it will need an advanced video card to get the most out of it.

Mighty! Well that's very productive?! Do I really need these features to enjoy from an solid and state of the art OS? A fact is that Microsoft has a long way to go in order to make their operating systems more solid and reliable. I don't see these kind of features achieving that.

Derek Djons
February 10th, 2006, 10:57 AM
yea, unfortuantely the media is still very anti-linux. I just wrote a letter to the writter or an article on the bbc site about spyware asking why was linux not mentioned for its ablity to overcome this. And on this story no metion of windows losing its market share and the expectation that vista will be very slow to adopt due to stupid requirements and usless featues.

It's not always necessary or easy to involve other factors along. Some factors such as Linux features benefitting over Windows features just don't matter to the subject. The author just want to report an important story in an objective way and nothing more. He doesn't want the people to start thinking over Linux vs. Windows.

TrendyDark
February 10th, 2006, 11:03 AM
yea, unfortuantely the media is still very anti-linux. I just wrote a letter to the writter or an article on the bbc site about spyware asking why was linux not mentioned for its ablity to overcome this. And on this story no metion of windows losing its market share and the expectation that vista will be very slow to adopt due to stupid requirements and usless featues.

Windows Vista, I'm on the fence about that. I love Linux and support open source to the full extreme, but I'm curious. I may end up trying out Vista only for it's new External Memory support (using usb memory sticks as system memory).

curuxz
February 10th, 2006, 11:09 AM
external memory is one of the stupidist ideas ever, how can that possibly be faster than using swap files on SATA drives, unless usb has suddenly found a way of going about a 100 times faster. What a stupid idea total gimic

Derek Djons
February 10th, 2006, 11:14 AM
external memory is one of the stupidist ideas ever, how can that possibly be faster than using swap files on SATA drives, unless usb has suddenly found a way of going about a 100 times faster. What a stupid idea total gimic

I totally agree. I don't see anybody pluggin in additional memorysticks in his / her computer in order to gain system performance. Really they've could've spend their time better making in depth system changes which would allow an increase of system performance.

TrendyDark
February 10th, 2006, 11:14 AM
Well, it actually is faster because USB uses Flash which has no moving parts like a HDD, but the fact that Vista's hardware requirements are so great, I'm not sure I would want to run an Operating system that needs 1gig of memory to run at normal speeds.

curuxz
February 10th, 2006, 11:27 AM
thats guna be a massive advantage for amd which made cheeper 64bit chips and thus will be more compatible (cost wise) with 4gig+ memory setups.

I still disagree with the the speed trendy because regardless of moving parts it comes down to interface speeds, and the USB interface is a massive bottle neck compaired with SATA (a modfied scuz controler a i think)

blueturtl
February 10th, 2006, 11:30 AM
With Vista, Microsoft has made big changes to the way it handles graphics. Unlike other versions of Windows, it will need an advanced video card to get the most out of it.

Mighty! Well that's very productive?! Do I really need these features to enjoy from an solid and state of the art OS? A fact is that Microsoft has a long way to go in order to make their operating systems more solid and reliable. I don't see these kind of features achieving that.

Basic principles of aesthetics: if an object is beautiful it is easier for a human being to tolerate it's faults. Even Macs aren't perfect, but the Mac users I know are much more sympathetic towards their Macs in problematic situations than any Windows users I know. Maybe Microsoft is aiming for the easier goal (aka making it look pretty) since they know they will never achieve the quality of *nix.

Let's hope the gamers wake up to smell the fire before it's too late (before MS has a permanent handle on the gaming industry)...

TrendyDark
February 10th, 2006, 11:37 AM
thats guna be a massive advantage for amd which made cheeper 64bit chips and thus will be more compatible (cost wise) with 4gig+ memory setups.

I still disagree with the the speed trendy because regardless of moving parts it comes down to interface speeds, and the USB interface is a massive bottle neck compaired with SATA (a modfied scuz controler a i think)

You're right about interface speeds, I use two SATA HDs in my setup, but reading the hard drive takes valuable time away from your performance in any case. I believe it's easy to understand if you were to read a review, with benchmarks, about one of those Memory Hard Drives (using RAM as your Storage vs hard drive)

Teroedni
February 10th, 2006, 11:45 AM
hmm after what i know the new graphics use directx10

Cedega plans to have this supported on Linux.

'That would mean that windows xp could not play halo2 while linux will be able too:)

TrendyDark
February 10th, 2006, 11:49 AM
And you have solved our problems and made me a happy person! lol Now I just need money to buy Cedega, it does cost money correct?

chimera
February 10th, 2006, 11:57 AM
And you have solved our problems and made me a happy person! lol Now I just need money to buy Cedega, it does cost money correct?

It does, but it's very cheap from what I've heard

Master Shake
February 10th, 2006, 02:59 PM
All I know is that I have stated before that XP is my last M$ OS (although not neccisarily M$ product. THey do make good keyboards and mice)

Stormy Eyes
February 10th, 2006, 03:03 PM
How mean on all the kids that just wana play a game, seems like MS will do all it can to force people into doing things they dont want to do

Screw 'em. Nobody ever died because they couldn't play a crappy videogame.

TechSonic
February 10th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Next we will be reading that Microsoft will be ending support for Windows 2000 and XP by end of 2007.

briancurtin
February 10th, 2006, 05:19 PM
All I know is that I have stated before that XP is my last M$ OS (although not neccisarily M$ product. THey do make good keyboards and mice)
this MS wireless optical mouse i am using right now is the best wireless mouse i have ever used. ive had it for a year and a half and its the only MS thing i have used on a personal level in a long time, and it still feels brand new.

mstlyevil
February 10th, 2006, 05:25 PM
Next we will be reading that Microsoft will be ending support for Windows 2000 and XP by end of 2007.

MSFT annouced last year that they will quit supporting 2000 in 2010 and XP will quit being supported when it's marketshare drops below a certain percentage. They did not set a date for XP yet since it is expected to be the dominant OS for a few more years.

Artificial Intelligence
February 10th, 2006, 05:29 PM
this MS wireless optical mouse i am using right now is the best wireless mouse i have ever used. ive had it for a year and a half and its the only MS thing i have used on a personal level in a long time, and it still feels brand new.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's Logitech that makes them.

KingBahamut
February 10th, 2006, 05:32 PM
I guess the really irritating part about all of this is that the Vista Betas from sight and use dont move very cleanly on any of the current hardware , specially after you crank all the eye candy up. Not that beta is a representation of how release will function, but as bad or worse will be when they release Halo 2 to the users , something I suspect that will be very proc and vid heavy, will bog it down even more.

Derek Djons
February 10th, 2006, 05:55 PM
I guess the really irritating part about all of this is that the Vista Betas from sight and use dont move very cleanly on any of the current hardware , specially after you crank all the eye candy up. Not that beta is a representation of how release will function, but as bad or worse will be when they release Halo 2 to the users , something I suspect that will be very proc and vid heavy, will bog it down even more.

I think a lot of gamers will be confused. Do they have to pursue the game requirments or Windows Vista's requirments... or even count all specs together?

If Windows Vista will be a power-hungry virtual pet what to say about such games as HALO 2 (which are also not the lightest.

I find it becoming more shocking with the year. Powerusers now have a setup similar to something like:

- AMD 64 3500+
- 1Gb DDR SDRAM
- 200 / 320 GB Harddisk
- nVidia GeForce 7800
- 500 Watt powersupply

What's next? 2x 500watt build in options, 2GB DDR SDRAM standard? 2x DUAL SLI videocards? And what about the electricity bill by the way? [-(

Though I have two good computers I'm still glad Linux is able to work on my good old 800MHz computer without any hassle. =D>

Mr_J_
February 10th, 2006, 05:57 PM
The minimum requirements for Windows Vista officially will be lower than we think. Since Vista can adapt the eye candy to suit the computer.

The problem will be that "normal" full eye candy, computer health maintainers, plus 3 or so Offfice programs, plus 1 or 2 IE 7 windows are actually what most people at work will be using.
Those requirements won't be shown until some people start getting mad at their computer.

Minimum requirements for Vista I expect won't be that high officially.
I remember the minimums for XP and those were the absolute bare minimums in which the computer works.
And I tried them and did they sicken the holliest of men.

I expect those comments of external drives to be used as pagefile to be refering to an upcoming technology for laptops.
Some sort of secret from Intel or another of their partners.

Maybe the battery operated Flash drive to substitute RAM I heard about some time back.:mrgreen:

Vistas full requirements are higher than normal boxes wil have when it comes out just to continue to amaze people...

I still say XGL will be around when most people have Vista.
Cedega will support most games I like to play... Hopefully...

A dream come true would be Photoshop and Flash on Ubuntu with XGL.
Running natively...\\:D/

dosed150
February 10th, 2006, 06:34 PM
if u wanted to play halo 2 wouldnt it be much cheaper to just buy an xbox instead of getting vista

Sirin
February 10th, 2006, 06:55 PM
if u wanted to play halo 2 wouldnt it be much cheaper to just buy an xbox instead of getting vista

indeed. ;)

xequence
February 10th, 2006, 09:26 PM
yea, unfortuantely the media is still very anti-linux.

Dude... The media isnt anti linux. Just because they wont take your story or whatever.


'That would mean that windows xp could not play halo2 while linux will be able too

If microsoft will be able to stop XP from playing halo, I am sure they can also stop linux from playing it.


Screw 'em. Nobody ever died because they couldn't play a crappy videogame.

And while we are at it, lets stop using computers too. Nobody ever died because they didnt use a computer.

Face it: People like to play video games.

commodore
February 10th, 2006, 09:33 PM
That's great! I like it. It shows how bad Microsoft is.

(I was not sarcastic BTW)

Stormy Eyes
February 10th, 2006, 09:38 PM
Face it: People like to play video games.

Face it: I have ZERO SYMPATHY for PC gamers. They know that PC gaming is Microsoft-centric, yet they do it anyway. To Chaos with them.

xequence
February 10th, 2006, 09:41 PM
Face it: I have ZERO SYMPATHY for PC gamers. They know that PC gaming is Microsoft-centric, yet they do it anyway. To Chaos with them.

"Yet they do it anyway"... You act like it is a bad thing to play games on windows.

ssam
February 10th, 2006, 09:58 PM
Windows Vista, I'm on the fence about that. I love Linux and support open source to the full extreme, but I'm curious. I may end up trying out Vista only for it's new External Memory support (using usb memory sticks as system memory).

linux lets you put a swap file on anything. you could easily use a usb stick, or a compact flash card or what ever.

i have heard of people using a pcmcia CF card adaptor for swap on a laptop to extent the battery life (it let you spin down the HD more of the time)

aysiu
February 10th, 2006, 10:05 PM
My wife is sad that the latest computer games aren't available for Mac.

You know what? She loves her Mac anyway. Then she buys games for her Gamecube and PS2. Life goes on.

If you let games dictate which operating system you use, you'll be a slave to Windows, probably. If you love your slavery, cool. If you don't, then think about getting a gaming console.

Personally, I don't game, so I'm cool with Ubuntu and have no complaints.

xequence
February 10th, 2006, 10:15 PM
You know what? She loves her Mac anyway. Then she buys games for her Gamecube and PS2. Life goes on.

If you let games dictate which operating system you use, you'll be a slave to Windows, probably. If you love your slavery, cool. If you don't, then think about getting a gaming console.

The thing is though... You already have a computer, why get another one (like a PS2, xbox, or gamecube) to play games? It is alot costlier.

And about your slave comment, I think it is stupid.

Thats like saying "if you let the apt-get system on linux decide what OS you use you will be a slave to linux, probably".

People who have a choice (and dont just use windows because it came on their computer) will weigh the pros and cons of each OS, then decide which one works best for them. Its not called being a slave, its called using what suits you. For example, someone who plays a windows only game alot, windows will probably be the best for them. For someone who plays UT or another game avalable on linux, linux will probably be the best for them. If someone doesent game and they like not having to know much about computers to use one, linux is probably the best for them. If someone likes to be different, and have everything they use work seamlessly together they could choose OSX. (Or linux, to an extent)

Derek Djons
February 10th, 2006, 10:32 PM
I've been thinking about it bit longer. If you look at software of which future release are only becoming bigger and more complex it are titles like:

- Microsoft Office
- Adobe Suite
- Adobe (MacroMedia) Flash / Dreamweaver
- Professional Music / Video applications which aren't being used often by end users
- Gamers

Microsoft Office, Photoshop and Adobe products can be used with a normal computer PIV 1Gb memory by end users. If you are a pro, then you have the money to purchase such expensive hardware.

Professional Music and Video editors could choose to use PowerMacs which are especially made for such tasks.

And if gamers would use consoles then the economical duration of a computer would be several years more. But with the current crusade, turning every computer in an eye-candy, constantly upgrading machine every new Windows release seems just around the corner.

Virogenesis
February 10th, 2006, 10:33 PM
The thing is though... You already have a computer, why get another one (like a PS2, xbox, or gamecube) to play games? It is alot costlier.
not exactly with a console they do not require upgrading every 6 months to get the best out of the games a console will last for roughly around 2 years maybe even longer.


And about your slave comment, I think it is stupid.

Read below to my last statement



Thats like saying "if you let the apt-get system on linux decide what OS you use you will be a slave to linux, probably".

thats out of content I don't actually get what you mean


People who have a choice (and dont just use windows because it came on their computer) will weigh the pros and cons of each OS, then decide which one works best for them. Its not called being a slave, its called using what suits you. For example, someone who plays a windows only game alot, windows will probably be the best for them. For someone who plays UT or another game avalable on linux, linux will probably be the best for them. If someone doesent game and they like not having to know much about computers to use one, linux is probably the best for them. If someone likes to be different, and have everything they use work seamlessly together they could choose OSX. (Or linux, to an extent)

BUT DO I HAVE A CHOICE?
I want to use Linux and play games but no I cant.
I don't get a choice WHY?
Because Windows controls the gaming market so no choice does not exist but I won't be a slave to my computer if I don't want to run windows I won't.
My brother on the other has to run windows as he wants to play his windows games.
Its not about what works best for them its about not having the choice.

aysiu
February 10th, 2006, 10:40 PM
The thing is though... You already have a computer, why get another one (like a PS2, xbox, or gamecube) to play games? It is alot costlier. As opposed to buying Vista or another computer with Vista on it? A Gamecube is $99 US, even cheaper used. Can you really tell me buying Vista and/or the upgrades to make it work properly is cheaper than that?



And about your slave comment, I think it is stupid. No, it's not. When you're tied down to using a particular operating system, you're making yourself a slave to it.



Thats like saying "if you let the apt-get system on linux decide what OS you use you will be a slave to linux, probably". And you will be. I'm a slave to Linux because I love apt-get. It's the same thing, really. If you focus on the end result (the ability to play games, the ability to install software), you'll be free to choose whatever you want. If you focus on the method (gaming on PC, installing through apt-get), you will be tied down.

P.S. You can install apt on Mac OS X using Fink.

xequence
February 10th, 2006, 10:58 PM
thats out of content I don't actually get what you mean

The ability to run games in windows is a feature. The ability to use apt in linux (and now I know in OSX) is a feature.


I want to use Linux and play games but no I cant.

http://unrealtournament.com/


Fresh Install? Get the Must Have files here:
UT2004
v3339 patch
Windows Demo
Linux Demo
Mac Demo
Tech Support


Can you really tell me buying Vista and/or the upgrades to make it work properly is cheaper than that?

You cant really mention the upgrades as we dont know the system requirements... And the cost of the OS, you very well know I dont intend to pay for software.


No, it's not. When you're tied down to using a particular operating system, you're making yourself a slave to it.

I get your point of view now (more then before).


And you will be. I'm a slave to Linux because I love apt-get. It's the same thing, really. If you focus on the end result (the ability to play games, the ability to install software), you'll be free to choose whatever you want.

Im not saying you are a slave to linux, I am just comparing the feature of linux (or osx as you said) is apt-get, and a feature of windows is to play windows games, and commenting on your comment o_O

[quote]If you focus on the method (gaming on PC, installing through apt-get), you will be tied down.

I dont quite understand what you mean there...

WildTangent
February 11th, 2006, 12:27 AM
There are huge differences between games on computers an consoles. Some games only come out on PC, some games look better on PC. And the biggest: They control different on PC. I can't stand playing with controllers now, I need to have a keyboard and mouse, because that's what I prefer. Keyboards and mice generally don't work on consoles. Besides...buying an Xbox is still supporting M$, buying a PS2 is supporting Sony...and Gamecube..ugh, I'm sorry, it's way too much of a little kids toy. And the games suck in my opinion.

-Wild

knives
February 11th, 2006, 12:40 AM
With Vista, Microsoft has made big changes to the way it handles graphics. Unlike other versions of Windows, it will need an advanced video card to get the most out of it.

Microsoft must be in kahoots with EA Games <sarcastic>lol</sarcastic>.
Whats the point in making an OS that requires an <b>advanced</b> video card?
Why would one need an advanced video card anyway? Pictures and movies are great, but considering that most of the users in the world just want to get on with work, won't an excessive amount of distractions just turn people off Vista?
...This could work towards a Linux revolution...:-k
(I am a little late so yeah, apology pending if this has been raised...)

xequence
February 11th, 2006, 12:42 AM
I can't stand playing with controllers now, I need to have a keyboard and mouse, because that's what I prefer. Keyboards and mice generally don't work on consoles.

I aggree. Nothing beats mouselooking in a FPS.


Besides...buying an Xbox is still supporting M$, buying a PS2 is supporting Sony...

Id way rather support microsoft then sony, so, yea.


and Gamecube..ugh, I'm sorry, it's way too much of a little kids toy. And the games suck in my opinion.

Yea. With the exception of super smash bros, most good games arnt on it.

Malphas
February 11th, 2006, 12:46 AM
Playing games on PC (which yes, means using Windows for the most part) is still a far more gratifying experience than playing on a console in my opinion. I can't see this ever changing. If Linux users want to see more games available for Linux then it's down to them how they go about this (e.g. using Cedega or putting pressure as a whole on developers to port games and graphics card manufacturers to release Linux drivers). Who the hell is anyone to say that their efforts are futile and they should just forget about it and go back to Windows or buy a console?

mstlyevil
February 11th, 2006, 12:52 AM
Microsoft must be in kahoots with EA Games <sarcastic>lol</sarcastic>.
Whats the point in making an OS that requires an <b>advanced</b> video card?
Why would one need an advanced video card anyway? Pictures and movies are great, but considering that most of the users in the world just want to get on with work, won't an excessive amount of distractions just turn people off Vista?
...This could work towards a Linux revolution...:-k
(I am a little late so yeah, apology pending if this has been raised...)

By advanced they mean almost any graphics card and most integrated graphics produced today. If you are buing a system with a standalone graphics card for the past 3-4 years then they will support Vista. The integrated graphics on the other hand are just now begining to use this advanced tech so if you have onboard graphics you will either have to install a video card or upgrade the motherboard and graphics. With $50 USD you can upgrade to the graphics required to use Vista as long as you have a AGP or PCIE slot on the mobo.

prizrak
February 11th, 2006, 01:19 AM
Playing games on PC (which yes, means using Windows for the most part) is still a far more gratifying experience than playing on a console in my opinion. I can't see this ever changing. If Linux users want to see more games available for Linux then it's down to them how they go about this (e.g. using Cedega or putting pressure as a whole on developers to port games and graphics card manufacturers to release Linux drivers). Who the hell is anyone to say that their efforts are futile and they should just forget about it and go back to Windows or buy a console?
That would depend on what kind of games you like.
RPGs, Racing and platform games are definetly console territory. Also fighting games such as Mortal Kombat.
FPS is more or less evenly divided.
Strategy and MMORPG are PC territory.
It really all depends on what you like to play and will have to choose the best platform for it. Making a game artificially non backwards compatible is not the best PR move ever made.

Leo_01
February 11th, 2006, 01:55 AM
How many households really need an Intel Pentium IV or AMD Athlon 64? The primary functions of a computer are still using internet, email and wordprocessing. Playing games could also be done using a console. The hardware and software is optimized for the best performance. That way you know every game you buy will run fine with nice graphics.


Maybe home users can still use Win XP even when the offcial support by MS is over.
but for biz users they can't afford upgrade all their laptops and PC just to get the support by MS...
i find it is totally unfair.
MS is pushing users to go to Vista...
*sigh*

bored2k
February 11th, 2006, 01:58 AM
I aggree. Nothing beats mouselooking in a FPS.



Id way rather support microsoft then sony, so, yea.



Yea. With the exception of super smash bros, most good games arnt on it.
That's a completely biased and in my opinion wrong opinion of it. On top of that, you liking or disliking videogamingconsoleX is not even what this discussion is about. Whether you prefer your mouse or a controller is not even remotely related to the issue, so as our guidelines state, do not drift off.

-
I have to agree with aysiu here on the fact that buying a gaming console is arguably cheaper than trying to keep up with the latest plethora of computer games to come out. A 2000 Playstation 2 (for those of you who can't do math, that's a 6 year -old gaming console) packs way much more than any 6 year-old computer when it comes to gaming. In fact, a six year-old console can still play games being released as we speak, whereas the computer cannot. Scratch that, just a decent GPU (according to the 2006 and to-come standards, not some year-old "bargain") that could last about a year supporting most of the games of its current year (along with buying ridiculous amounts of RAM) costs more than any console itself.

Microsoft is in my opinion using a very shameful yet smart tactic to force people into buying a new incredibly costly software (Ubuntu=$0.00; Windows=$+100 ---> that's costly), and not only that, but people serious about gaming would be almost forced into buying the most expensive version of their Operating System (Ultimate Edition will include "a game performance tweaker (code-named WinSAT)").

From one of Gamespot Editor Jason Ocampo's Freeplay (http://www.gamespot.com/features/freeplay/index.html?story=6142855) articles, here's my prime example of just how bad is Microsoft forcing people to upgrade and just how costly it is:



I never really appreciated the effect of fill rate on multiplayer games until I played the Battlefield 2: Special Forces expansion last year. (...) You can have a machine that plays all the other levels in Battlefield 2 fine, but once you get to Iron Gator, prepare to watch your frame rates stutter. (...) You're going to need a beast of a system to keep up.


But, probably like you, I'm living on a budget and I can't really afford to buy a new $900 processor and $600 video card every year. And that's not counting all the other parts you may need, such as a new motherboard, a gob of expensive new memory, and more. So I've been pretty happy with my current PC setup for more than a year now, but I've decided that 2006 is to be The Year of The Major Hardware Rebuild (copyright 2006, Jason Ocampo, patent pending). And it's no coincidence that it's set to coincide with the release of Windows Vista. (...) If you're planning on buying or building a new system this year, you may as well wait until Vista gets released.


And, of course, the next-generation of games will all be built to take advantage of these hardware features, since they're all part of the next-generation of consoles, like the Xbox 360.
Note: The above is coming from someone who by today's standards, already has a killer machine.

xequence
February 11th, 2006, 02:05 AM
That's a completely biased and in my opinion wrong opinion of it. On top of that, you liking or disliking videogamingconsoleX is not even what this discussion is about. Whether you prefer your mouse or a controller is not even remotely related to the issue, so as our guidelines state, do not drift off.


Mind your own business. I dont care if you are a mod. You have been nice on some few rare posts (and a nice PM) to me, but other then that you have been only mean. This topic is about video games, consoles and computers. I am naming something that makes PC gaming better then console gaming.

By your odd standards, you are also going off topic. What does a PS2 have to do with halo 2? What does the fact a PS2 is 6 years old have to do with halo 2 on vista? Im not saying you are off topic or drifting off, I am just saying you should stop using double standards.

Other then the first paragraph, the rest of your post is just adding to the discussion, as my post was.

And how is my opinion completly biased? Please enlighten me here.

Oh, and I will get back to where I was before I was very rudely interrupted, I still maintain that computer gaming is much less expensive. Even if you are a person who doesent like to pirate games/vista, it is still cheaper. How? Well, my 10 year old CRT monitor can get HDTV resolution. To get that on a normal console I would need to buy an expensive HDTV.

And other people on other sites are really mad at this too. This one guy, Spammerman, on another site is saying to snail mail complaint letters to them =P

Leo_01
February 11th, 2006, 02:10 AM
yeah.
what is with those extra "versions" of vista?
why don't they stick their UI to those in Win Xp and be happy with it?
rather than making computer cheaper for everyone to use it is going to be more expensive.
Joy.

Leo_01
February 11th, 2006, 02:14 AM
Mind your own business. I dont care if you are a mod. You have been nice on some few rare posts (and a nice PM) to me, but other then that you have been only mean. This topic is about video games, consoles and computers. I am naming something that makes PC gaming better then console gaming.

By your odd standards, you are also going off topic. What does a PS2 have to do with halo 2? What does the fact a PS2 is 6 years old have to do with halo 2 on vista? Im not saying you are off topic or drifting off, I am just saying you should stop using double standards.

Other then the first paragraph, the rest of your post is just adding to the discussion, as my post was.

Oh, and I will get back to where I was before I was very rudely interrupted, I still maintain that computer gaming is much less expensive. Even if you are a person who doesent like to pirate games/vista, it is still cheaper. How? Well, my 10 year old CRT monitor can get HDTV resolution. To get that on a normal console I would need to buy an expensive HDTV.

And other people on other sites are really mad at this too. This one guy, Spammerman, on another site is saying to snail mail complaint letters to them =P

There are no games that stay PC/console exclusive for long.
FYI ID supports LINUX with their games being able to be played without WINE(and other emulation) on linux.

prizrak
February 11th, 2006, 02:21 AM
Mind your own business. I dont care if you are a mod. You have been nice on some few rare posts (and a nice PM) to me, but other then that you have been only mean. This topic is about video games, consoles and computers. I am naming something that makes PC gaming better then console gaming.

By your odd standards, you are also going off topic. What does a PS2 have to do with halo 2? What does the fact a PS2 is 6 years old have to do with halo 2 on vista? Im not saying you are off topic or drifting off, I am just saying you should stop using double standards.

Other then the first paragraph, the rest of your post is just adding to the discussion, as my post was.

And how is my opinion completly biased? Please enlighten me here.

Oh, and I will get back to where I was before I was very rudely interrupted, I still maintain that computer gaming is much less expensive. Even if you are a person who doesent like to pirate games/vista, it is still cheaper. How? Well, my 10 year old CRT monitor can get HDTV resolution. To get that on a normal console I would need to buy an expensive HDTV.

And other people on other sites are really mad at this too. This one guy, Spammerman, on another site is saying to snail mail complaint letters to them =P
Cept all that your CRT can be connected to is your PC. An HDTV is used for ALOT more than gaming. The cheapest HDTV I seen is a 34" CRT for $950 + $400 for the next gen console. You come up with $1350 total. My friend who was buying a computer last winter/beginning of spring payed $2000 for it and never upgraded his monitor. When he was getting it it wasn't even top of the line either, came close but not top of the line. Now I ask you which is cheaper?

xequence
February 11th, 2006, 02:25 AM
Cept all that your CRT can be connected to is your PC. An HDTV is used for ALOT more than gaming. The cheapest HDTV I seen is a 34" CRT for $950 + $400 for the next gen console. You come up with $1350 total. My friend who was buying a computer last winter/beginning of spring payed $2000 for it and never upgraded his monitor. When he was getting it it wasn't even top of the line either, came close but not top of the line. Now I ask you which is cheaper?

You can get a computer able to play UT2004 for 500$ including the price of a monitor.

And thats canadian money. Its cheaper in american dollars.

Virogenesis
February 11th, 2006, 02:35 AM
This topic is about video games, consoles and computers. I am naming something that makes PC gaming better then console gaming.



By your odd standards, you are also going off topic. What does a PS2 have to do with halo 2? What does the fact a PS2 is 6 years old have to do with halo 2 on vista?



Oh, and I will get back to where I was before I was very rudely interrupted, Even if you are a person who doesent like to pirate games/vista, it is still cheaper. How? Well,

Explain this to my bro who has a AMD Barton running @ 2 Ghz with a gig of pc2700 OCZ ram and a geforce 4 ti 4200.
But yet can't run BF2 because EA decided to change the pixel shader and funny thing is a ATI card which is a older card is supported.
Work that out?


I still maintain that computer gaming is much less expensive.
my 10 year old CRT monitor can get HDTV resolution. To get that on a normal console I would need to buy an expensive HDTV.

You'd need a decent TV why?


And how is my opinion completly biased? Please enlighten me here.

Well lets see you haven't said a single word good about gaming on a console.
You back your pc gaming like its your religion and well you more than likely have a windows partion for gaming to play all the directx games you own.

prizrak
February 11th, 2006, 03:28 AM
You can get a computer able to play UT2004 for 500$ including the price of a monitor.

And thats canadian money. Its cheaper in american dollars.
And we are talking about more than one game. You said that gaming is cheaper on the comp and you were wrong. I can play Golden Axe on a $20 computer but that hardly makes it a cheaper gaming platform. Also take into account that current consoles been on the market for 5+ years already and are still nice for gaming.

xequence
February 11th, 2006, 03:34 AM
Well lets see you haven't said a single word good about gaming on a console.
You back your pc gaming like its your religion and well you more than likely have a windows partion for gaming to play all the directx games you own.

Do I have a windows partition? You bet. Windows is my main OS. I dont even have linux installed on my computer.

Why? Linux is too slow on it. And it takes up valuable hard drive space, on my 20gb hard drive.

Ill isntall it on my new computer though.

And is there any good things about console gaming? Yea. A 300mhz processor equals a much higher clocked PC processor. And the initial console is a bit cheaper, or alot cheaper in the case of the gamecube.


Explain this to my bro who has a AMD Barton running @ 2 Ghz with a gig of pc2700 OCZ ram and a geforce 4 ti 4200.
But yet can't run BF2 because EA decided to change the pixel shader and funny thing is a ATI card which is a older card is supported.
Work that out?

Battlefield 2 needs ALOT of resources. I think 2GB of RAM is recomended.


You'd need a decent TV why?

640*480 max resolution isnt that good, which is the limitation of a normal TV.


And we are talking about more than one game. You said that gaming is cheaper on the comp and you were wrong. I can play Golden Axe on a $20 computer but that hardly makes it a cheaper gaming platform. Also take into account that current consoles been on the market for 5+ years already and are still nice for gaming.

I am not familiar with the system requirements of other games as I cant really think of any I would want to play, so I dont have any interest to ask the system requirements.

Virogenesis
February 11th, 2006, 04:03 AM
Do I have a windows partition? You bet. Windows is my main OS. I dont even have linux installed on my computer.
Why? Linux is too slow on it. And it takes up valuable hard drive space, on my 20gb hard drive.
Ill isntall it on my new computer though.

ATI card I'm guessing


And is there any good things about console gaming? Yea. A 300mhz processor equals a much higher clocked PC processor. And the initial console is a bit cheaper, or alot cheaper in the case of the gamecube.

Wait til the PS3 comes out :)



Battlefield 2 needs ALOT of resources. I think 2GB of RAM is recomended.

Quake 4 is hungry but my bro can that play, he also runs farcry no prob.


640*480 max resolution isnt that good, which is the limitation of a normal TV.

True but if you do buy a HDTV it will be a fantasic picture and not only that but the purchase of it will see you years.
HDTVs are bleeding edge still so they have a price.


But yeah why should I care what microsoft does its not going to affect me and infact we might see a gaming push on linux.

xequence
February 11th, 2006, 04:08 AM
ATI card I'm guessing

Me? No, I have 4MB intel integrated graphics. I play UT in software rendering.


True but if you do buy a HDTV it will be a fantasic picture and not only that but the purchase of it will see you years.

HDTV really isnt that impressive to me. Yea, its cool, but the cost is way to high for it.

And it is already becoming obsolete. Reaseachers have made a TV that plays like 9000*6000 or something like that TV.

curuxz
February 11th, 2006, 04:09 AM
ATI card I'm guessing

Wait til the PS3 comes out :)


Quake 4 is hungry but my bro can that play, he also runs farcry no prob.

True but if you do buy a HDTV it will be a fantasic picture and not only that but the purchase of it will see you years.
HDTVs are bleeding edge still so they have a price.


But yeah why should I care what microsoft does its not going to affect me and infact we might see a gaming push on linux.

im drunk we went to the bar and i was liek oh i will drinl ladkds and i fortog to eat and now its like 2am and im like bored so im online drunk ms fkig sucks

mstlyevil
February 11th, 2006, 04:36 AM
im drunk we went to the bar and i was liek oh i will drinl ladkds and i fortog to eat and now its like 2am and im like bored so im online drunk ms fkig sucks

I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

WildTangent
February 11th, 2006, 04:41 AM
OK, I think I am responsible for starting this whole PC vs. console argument. The reason I mentioned my dislike for consoles, is because in this topic, and many other similar topics about linux gaming and/or those dual-booting for games where the linux evangelists tell everyone to just buy a console. Sorry, but if I wanted to play console games, I would, and I wouldn't be upset by this. But because I do enjoy PC gaming MUCH more...this does upset me. Ya, I'll probably end up getting Vista anyway, but I'll probably end up paying for it, and that's just not fair. XP is the closest Microsoft has come yet to a good OS (stability, security and usability-wise), and from what I see of Vista, its XP, with more bloat.

-Wild

prizrak
February 11th, 2006, 05:09 AM
I am not familiar with the system requirements of other games as I cant really think of any I would want to play, so I dont have any interest to ask the system requirements.
I was just making a point. Bleeding edge gaming on a console is gonna run you about $1500 on the hardware (you can add $300 for a decent surround system) and to play the latest and greatest in PC gaming you will spend over $2000 since you'd want a nice monitor and a surround system as well. The games I play run fine on $300 hardware ;) (prolly like a $100 now since I got my PC a while ago) so I could care less.

Virogenesis
February 11th, 2006, 05:20 AM
But because I do enjoy PC gaming MUCH more...this does upset me. Ya, I'll probably end up getting Vista anyway, but I'll probably end up paying for it, and that's just not fair. XP is the closest Microsoft has come yet to a good OS (stability, security and usability-wise), and from what I see of Vista, its XP, with more bloat.

So you'd support something you didn't like to play a game to me it seems mad as less users would mean we might see a increase in OpenGL games being ported to linux.

Malphas
February 11th, 2006, 05:29 AM
No-one has even said that they're going to buy Vista to play Halo 2 on PC though. This debate was primarily in response to some arrogant comments telling PC gamers to buy consoles. The whole games console vs PC argument is completely irrelevant other than the fact that there's a sizable amount of people that wish to use their PCs for gaming. A fact that some people can't seem to respect.

xequence
February 11th, 2006, 05:39 AM
I was just making a point. Bleeding edge gaming on a console is gonna run you about $1500 on the hardware (you can add $300 for a decent surround system) and to play the latest and greatest in PC gaming you will spend over $2000 since you'd want a nice monitor and a surround system as well. The games I play run fine on $300 hardware (prolly like a $100 now since I got my PC a while ago) so I could care less.

Its gonna cost you that if you buy it from Dell or something.

prizrak
February 11th, 2006, 06:30 AM
Its gonna cost you that if you buy it from Dell or something.
No he built the comp himself. He actually had a case and HDDs and a PSU (which he had to replace with a one for like $200 that was made specifically for SLI systems) oh and also he had opticals and kbd/mouse. He also never changed his old sound card and speakers. So he basically go a CPU (non dual core), two video cards, a mobo and RAM for like 2 grand. Anything high performance is very costly because it's aimed at like 2% of the market that cares to have the power.

bored2k
February 11th, 2006, 06:40 AM
No he built the comp himself. He actually had a case and HDDs and a PSU (which he had to replace with a one for like $200 that was made specifically for SLI systems) oh and also he had opticals and kbd/mouse. He also never changed his old sound card and speakers. So he basically go a CPU (non dual core), two video cards, a mobo and RAM for like 2 grand. Anything high performance is very costly because it's aimed at like 2% of the market that cares to have the power.
Correct. "Buying a Dell" doesn't always mean buying the most expensive hardware. Building your own computer isn't even about getting it cheaper, but to primarily know what exactly do you have there (brand, etc).

Teroedni
February 11th, 2006, 10:04 AM
OK, I think I am responsible for starting this whole PC vs. console argument. The reason I mentioned my dislike for consoles, is because in this topic, and many other similar topics about linux gaming and/or those dual-booting for games where the linux evangelists tell everyone to just buy a console. Sorry, but if I wanted to play console games, I would, and I wouldn't be upset by this. But because I do enjoy PC gaming MUCH more...this does upset me. Ya, I'll probably end up getting Vista anyway, but I'll probably end up paying for it, and that's just not fair. XP is the closest Microsoft has come yet to a good OS (stability, security and usability-wise), and from what I see of Vista, its XP, with more bloat.

-Wild
I didnent know the linux evangelist told peole to buy console. Thats is a bad solution:(

As for Your Vista purchase.Vista is still a wholeyear away. Why doyou think you have to buy vista?
Wine and cedega is progressing good,and gets better and better support:)
And i heard than Cedega is getting ready for directx10 (they still has a whole year;)

egon spengler
February 11th, 2006, 11:41 AM
You cant really mention the upgrades as we dont know the system requirements... And the cost of the OS, you very well know I dont intend to pay for software.

If you're arguing over which is the better choice due to finances you can't really say that Vista is cheaper because you intend to pirate it. Someone could just as easily say "Hey, I burgle houses so I'm gettinig my ps3 and xbox360 for free"

Mr_J_
February 11th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Microsoft is going to try and force as many users as it can to move to Vista.

I know plenty of people that will not buy computers for Vista for a long time, and I for one am not recomending the purchase of those computers that can play high definition graphics just yet.

By the time Vista comes in if they want an upgrade I'll just give them an Ubuntu CD. I'll say that's free and I'm pretty sure they'll consider it.

A normal computer costs in the region of 500 to be on the nice side.
400 if you go really cheap on everything.

These people don't have the money to buy monitors to run Vista let alone the processor, RAM and the rest.

Vista might not have a lot of problems with entering the american market, but over where I live there will be hardship. XP might just be my last MSFT based O.S. :-D

Teroedni
February 11th, 2006, 10:23 PM
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1925173,00.asp

xequence
February 11th, 2006, 10:32 PM
If you're arguing over which is the better choice due to finances you can't really say that Vista is cheaper because you intend to pirate it. Someone could just as easily say "Hey, I burgle houses so I'm gettinig my ps3 and xbox360 for free"

But that someone would be stealing. Accually stealing, not the RIAA "when you download MP3s you are downloading communism" kind.

If you want to argue about if piracy is stealing, press "Search", then "Advanced Search" and search for the topics I have posted in. A majority of them are argueing over that.


Correct. "Buying a Dell" doesn't always mean buying the most expensive hardware. Building your own computer isn't even about getting it cheaper, but to primarily know what exactly do you have there (brand, etc).


No he built the comp himself. He actually had a case and HDDs and a PSU (which he had to replace with a one for like $200 that was made specifically for SLI systems) oh and also he had opticals and kbd/mouse. He also never changed his old sound card and speakers. So he basically go a CPU (non dual core), two video cards, a mobo and RAM for like 2 grand. Anything high performance is very costly because it's aimed at like 2% of the market that cares to have the power.

To both of you, I meant buying from a smaller store/building your own computer will cost you alot less then buying from Dell or someone.

Ive been researching prices since the beginning of last summer.

The computer that I am probably gonna buy is 300$. A computer equal (futureshop one has more ram, but not a dvd burner) to that at Futureshop is about 600$.

christhemonkey
February 11th, 2006, 10:50 PM
How scarey would it be if this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4727267.stm) happened!

mstlyevil
February 11th, 2006, 11:00 PM
I guarantee you if you went out and bought my computer premade with the same parts and specs you will spend upwards of $300-$500 USD more than what I paid to build it. Low end computers are the only segment where it may be cheaper to buy it pre-built then to build it. Go out and price a computer with a DFI Infinity NF4 MOBO, Athlon 64 3200 CPU, Gigabyte 6600 GT PCI-e Graphics, Patriot DDR 3200 (timings 2-3-2-5) RAM, Liteon DVDR/RW, Thermaltake 430 watt PS, and a Thermaltake Saprano tower for $900 USD or less. I bet you could not get one with cheaper parts for that price. That is what I paid to build this computer.

Teroedni
February 11th, 2006, 11:30 PM
How scarey would it be if this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4727267.stm) happened!

rofl:mrgreen:
Man they will never be able to do all that.


And if thy were it would only mean that all standards get open, and ms would have no chance to turn back propiery then .It would be really suicide for them;)

christhemonkey
February 11th, 2006, 11:32 PM
Haha yeah!

Delvien
February 11th, 2006, 11:46 PM
I may end up trying out Vista only for it's new External Memory support (using usb memory sticks as system memory).

If i liked windows that would be cool... i would just Daisy-chain all my friends flash thumb drives and take over the world with over 10k in memory MWAHAHA...


Stupid idea, next please.

prizrak
February 12th, 2006, 08:20 AM
To both of you, I meant buying from a smaller store/building your own computer will cost you alot less then buying from Dell or someone.

Ive been researching prices since the beginning of last summer.

The computer that I am probably gonna buy is 300$. A computer equal (futureshop one has more ram, but not a dvd burner) to that at Futureshop is about 600$.
That's a completely different point there man. I thought we were talking about consoles being more expensive than gaming rigs ;)

prizrak
February 12th, 2006, 08:26 AM
I guarantee you if you went out and bought my computer premade with the same parts and specs you will spend upwards of $300-$500 USD more than what I paid to build it. Low end computers are the only segment where it may be cheaper to buy it pre-built then to build it. Go out and price a computer with a DFI Infinity NF4 MOBO, Athlon 64 3200 CPU, Gigabyte 6600 GT PCI-e Graphics, Patriot DDR 3200 (timings 2-3-2-5) RAM, Liteon DVDR/RW, Thermaltake 430 watt PS, and a Thermaltake Saprano tower for $900 USD or less. I bet you could not get one with cheaper parts for that price. That is what I paid to build this computer.
Again, it's not that one would be more expensive than the other. The original claim was that getting a next gen console + HDTV would cost more than a top of the line PC to game on. A real top of the line system will run alot more than an XBOX 360 + HDTV (even if it is the cheapest one it's still real nice) not to mention that it will be obsolete for new games after about 2 years while a console has a life cycle of about 5.
In any case it's pretty screwed up that MS would force people to use Vista if they wanted Halo 2. At the same time I'm sure the OEM's are loving it since it would force people to get much more expensive hardware than they would otherwise (well Vista would not Halo 2 necesserily).

egon spengler
February 12th, 2006, 05:52 PM
But that someone would be stealing. Accually stealing, not the RIAA "when you download MP3s you are downloading communism" kind.

If you want to argue about if piracy is stealing, press "Search", then "Advanced Search" and search for the topics I have posted in. A majority of them are argueing over that.

Way to miss the point, well done. I'm pretty certain that pirating Vista will be illegal, at best you could argue it's a grey area.

You can't pick and choose, if saying "I don't care, I'll just pirate it therefore it's free" is a valid argument then saying "I don't care, I'll just steal it therefore it's free" is also valid. What makes you think that your moral code is the barometer we all need to adhere to?

cdhotfire
February 12th, 2006, 08:04 PM
This is obviously a bad scheme of Microsoft to make you put money into their huge enough pockets.

But, xequence, I have not seen a post of yours that refers to the topic, all your posts have been about how wrong people are, like you said to bored2k a while ago, "Mind your own business". You should really try and see what people are trying to say before you post something like: your wrong, microsoft rules, or microsoft is my daddy. Seems you are more into windows than anyone in this whole forum is, makes me think why you even post here.

Im sure youll post back with something even more intriguing.

xequence
February 13th, 2006, 12:48 AM
That's a completely different point there man. I thought we were talking about consoles being more expensive than gaming rigs

Yea, but then someone mentioned a gaming computer is like 2000$, so I told them that is the price for one if you get it from dell or someone :P


Way to miss the point, well done. I'm pretty certain that pirating Vista will be illegal, at best you could argue it's a grey area.

You can't pick and choose, if saying "I don't care, I'll just pirate it therefore it's free" is a valid argument then saying "I don't care, I'll just steal it therefore it's free" is also valid. What makes you think that your moral code is the barometer we all need to adhere to?

I have no idea what you just said, but piracy isnt stealing, thats my opinion, you are not going to change it.


But, xequence, I have not seen a post of yours that refers to the topic, all your posts have been about how wrong people are, like you said to bored2k a while ago, "Mind your own business". You should really try and see what people are trying to say before you post something like: your wrong, microsoft rules, or microsoft is my daddy. Seems you are more into windows than anyone in this whole forum is, makes me think why you even post here.

Bored2k really annoys me alot.

Microsoft rules? Hardly. Do they make some nice software? Yes. Do they make some bad software? Yes.

I just try to be fair. If someone lies about how horrible Windows is, I will correct them. But the same thing with Linux... There have been many sites where people were all "OMZORZ, LINUX SUKZ" and I corrected them.

How can I support both OSes? They both work!

Why am I here? Why not =P

And I said mind your own business to bored2k because he has been nothing but mean to be (Except for some rare times) on my whole stay on these forums. I just get fed up and frusterated with it. It might not look like it to someone who just sees 1 or 2 of their posts to me, but when I see almost all their posts to me, I just get really mad.

Oh, and one more thing cdhotfire... You have been on these forums for a year and had over 400 posts, how come ive never seen you? o_O

cdhotfire
February 13th, 2006, 01:34 AM
Im in and about.

xequence
February 13th, 2006, 01:59 AM
Heh, I guess ive never seen most of the people on this forum. Like ive only ever seen two people on the top beans list of 5 o_O

aysiu
February 13th, 2006, 02:05 AM
But, xequence, I have not seen a post of yours that refers to the topic, all your posts have been about how wrong people are, like you said to bored2k a while ago, "Mind your own business". You should really try and see what people are trying to say before you post something like: your wrong, microsoft rules, or microsoft is my daddy. Seems you are more into windows than anyone in this whole forum is, makes me think why you even post here. Xequence can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe he or she started off dual-booting with Ubuntu and Windows and then needed Windows for something (I forget what) and decided 20 GB of hard drive space wasn't enough for files and a dual-boot, so she/he is on Windows only now.

xequence
February 13th, 2006, 02:07 AM
Xequence can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe he or she started off dual-booting with Ubuntu and Windows and then needed Windows for something (I forget what) and decided 20 GB of hard drive space wasn't enough for files and a dual-boot, so she/he is on Windows only now.


Correct! And the thing I needed windows for was my Sony MP3 player :P

When I get my new computer (ive been planning to get one for months though... I think I might get one soon though! Maybe :P) I will put XP on, then dual boot and try and see if FreeBSD works well. If it doesent ill put Ubuntu (Dual booted of course, maybe my next MP3 player wont be from such a stupid company and will support linux) on :) (You know, ive heard cool things about FreeBSD, cant hurt to try it out, eh?)

nocturn
February 13th, 2006, 08:51 AM
The thing is though... You already have a computer, why get another one (like a PS2, xbox, or gamecube) to play games? It is alot costlier.


Actually, it makes pretty much sense. The cost of either buying a new windows license if you haven't got one yet or to pay for the update to Vista come pretty close to the cost of a console. That is not covering the costs of upgrades for Office on Vista, new virus scanner etc.

If you go with Linux as an OS and a console to play games, there are no costs for the OS and apps, no cost for a virus scanner. The end equation is cheaper, plus most consoles can play Video DVD's too, so that's a bonus.



People who have a choice (and dont just use windows because it came on their computer) will weigh the pros and cons of each OS, then decide which one works best for them. Its not called being a slave, its called using what suits you.

I'm sorry to say, but that is not true. Most end users don't know what an OS is, let alone consider that they have a choice in it.
Even when I explain this to them and offer the option of Linux, they say 'so I can buy a Linux computer when this one breaks'.

It is a small percentage that actually makes a deliberate choice of OS and install it themselfves.
And even then, it is hard to buy a computer (specially a laptop) without Windows pre-installed.

nocturn
February 13th, 2006, 08:55 AM
http://unrealtournament.com/


Sorry to say, but not everyone likes UT... It's not a game I'm rushing out to play. There are some games I did like though, Need for Speed was one of them.

I've been windows-free since 1999 and don't regret it. I can do almost everything and more with my Linux boxes, but gaming is one area that is not where I would like it to be (not through any fault of Linux though).

In the long run, when my son gets somewhat older, we might go for something like a playstation though.

nocturn
February 13th, 2006, 09:46 AM
Ive been researching prices since the beginning of last summer.

The computer that I am probably gonna buy is 300$. A computer equal (futureshop one has more ram, but not a dvd burner) to that at Futureshop is about 600$.

When you quote prices, please keep in mind that they are different in different countries (for many reasons). Additionally, wages are also different in different parts of the world, some people have to put up 2 months of pay for a computer.

I doubt you'll find a (new) 300$ computer here (it should already include a 21% sales tax). Specially if you want a monitor with it.

egon spengler
February 13th, 2006, 01:26 PM
I have no idea what you just said, but piracy isnt stealing, thats my opinion, you are not going to change it.

Basic reading comprehension lost.

Please don't try to attribute any quotes to me if by your own admission you can't fathom what it is that I am saying

prizrak
February 13th, 2006, 07:09 PM
xequence,
The reality of the world is that it is highly irrelevant what YOU think about piracy. It is illegal in your country (as it is in mine) therefore when you are quoting prices for a Windows based machine unless you already own a licensed version or getting an OEM system you MUST include the price of the OS as part of the price of the system.

christhemonkey
February 13th, 2006, 07:58 PM
I think its really sad that although we are all on here quite a lot, none of us seem to know each other at all!

bored2k
February 13th, 2006, 08:04 PM
Let's stay on-topic please. Anything else, take it "outside" this thread.

xequence
February 13th, 2006, 09:08 PM
That is not covering the costs of upgrades for Office on Vista, new virus scanner etc.

Asuming the person in question is against piracy, why do you need office upgrades or a virus scanner?

For one, openoffice is there if you dont want to pay for or pirate MS Office. And if you really needed office 2003 I would assume you would already have it. And even though I dont believe you accually need a virus scanner, there are many free ones.


can play Video DVD's too

My friends PS2 cant play a KVCD I burned for him that my DVD player can.


Sorry to say, but not everyone likes UT... It's not a game I'm rushing out to play. There are some games I did like though, Need for Speed was one of them.

Just an example of all the games avalable for linux. There are many many more.


When you quote prices, please keep in mind that they are different in different countries (for many reasons). Additionally, wages are also different in different parts of the world, some people have to put up 2 months of pay for a computer.

I doubt you'll find a (new) 300$ computer here (it should already include a 21% sales tax). Specially if you want a monitor with it.

A monitor is extra on the one I have found... And the whole two months to pay for a computer? It has taken me much longer then that to get enough in allowance ;)


I think its really sad that although we are all on here quite a lot, none of us seem to know each other at all!

I dont know just about anyone on here... Except a couple people I know.


The reality of the world is that it is highly irrelevant what YOU think about piracy. It is illegal in your country (as it is in mine) therefore when you are quoting prices for a Windows based machine unless you already own a licensed version or getting an OEM system you MUST include the price of the OS as part of the price of the system.

Nomatter what anyone thinks of piracy, nomatter how illegal it is, I will not attribute the price of windows into it as I would pirate it. If you want to yourself you can very easily do your prices in terms of with windows, but that is your choice.


Basic reading comprehension lost.

Please don't try to attribute any quotes to me if by your own admission you can't fathom what it is that I am saying

Wow. That was really stupid. All you did was try to act really smart. Oh yea, you are cool now ;)


You can't pick and choose, if saying "I don't care, I'll just pirate it therefore it's free" is a valid argument then saying "I don't care, I'll just steal it therefore it's free" is also valid. What makes you think that your moral code is the barometer we all need to adhere to?

I would pirate windows, but not steal a computer.

Pirating doesent effect microsoft or anyone besides me.

Stealing makes the person who I stole it from not be able to sell that certain computer any more, therefore losing money.

I have already picked and chose what I would do, and that is how much it is gonna cost me. I am not talking about someone who would not pirate windows and buy it. When I talk about buying a computer I do not use what you would do as an example, I use what I would do.

egon spengler
February 13th, 2006, 09:20 PM
I have already picked and chose what I would do, and that is how much it is gonna cost me. I am not talking about someone who would not pirate windows and buy it. When I talk about buying a computer I do not use what you would do as an example, I use what I would do.

You have no idea at all what you are talking about


[I still maintain that computer gaming is much less expensive. Even if you are a person who doesent like to pirate games/vista, it is still cheaper.

You wasn't talking specifically about yourself, you were talking in terms of everyone

KiwiNZ
February 13th, 2006, 09:22 PM
Please do not promote the piracy and theft of software etc on these forums.

Ghetto_Smurf
February 13th, 2006, 10:03 PM
Vista isn't on the market sill microsoft anounces a new name for their next windows. this causes the market chars to go down because people think they are gonna buy a system that will not last longer. plus, microsoft sez xp needs urgently an sp3, but it will not go in development before vista is released. microsoft lost the contracts to apple to develop WMP and microsoft office for mac. every microsoft office they release is automaticly competing with his older version, wich is more stable(?), is faster, does the same, and doesn't need to upgrade people's pc.

this is why i use linux. it is free of charges, no viruses, security leaks fastly repaired thanks to open-source software, it is stable(!), and lots of other things i could say.

only one thing: old pc's are faster in windows, but on faster pc's, Linux rocks. this is just an opinion based on 3 and half years of linux.

prizrak
February 13th, 2006, 11:18 PM
Nomatter what anyone thinks of piracy, nomatter how illegal it is, I will not attribute the price of windows into it as I would pirate it. If you want to yourself you can very easily do your prices in terms of with windows, but that is your choice.

Again you are completely missing the point. The discussion that you entered was about PC gaming vs console gaming. Not the computer you are getting yourself a general high performance machine capable of playing the greatest and latest in PC games and how much it would cost vs a next gen console + HDTV and how much that would cost. In that case the price of the OS is going to be part of the equation. Your own personal hardware/software choices aren't exactly relevant to the discussion.

xequence
February 14th, 2006, 12:23 AM
Heh. I am done with this conversation.

One, Kiwi thinking I am promoting piracy, and two... You people just get annoying often :P

mstlyevil
February 14th, 2006, 12:29 AM
microsoft lost the contracts to apple to develop WMP and microsoft office for mac.

I just wanted to correct this. Apple and MSFT just signed a new agreement for a new version of Microsoft Office for the Mac. They jointly annouced it at Apple World last month. You can find the article on news.com.