Page 2 of 4

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:40 am
by Grim...
This is just Windows bashing, pure and simple.

If another company did the same thing, no-one would care.

Did I get <span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> when PS2 games didn't work on my PSX?
No. I just brought a PS2.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:54 am
by Roja
Grim... wrote:It's not like MS are saying 'You must buy Vista'.
Unless you want IE7.

Or XNA for gaming. Or a shorter boot up time. Or better secuirty. Or..

The list goes on. They most definitely *are* saying you must buy Vista if you want any improvements. They are using the exact opposite approach that Apple does. Apple gives substantial updates roughly twice a year, for a reasonable fee. Apple also backports many of the fixes (security, and some improvements) to previous versions.

Vista on the other hand is the first new release in *years*, and the few improvements it has (see above) require a *massive* upgrade in hardware.

Honestly, I'm with Jcart. Its bloatware, plain and simple. They are choosing to embrace massive requirements, and its going to cost them customers in the long run as a result.
Grim... wrote:This is just Windows bashing, pure and simple.

If another company did the same thing, no-one would care.
On the contrary, I've called other companies out for the same thing. Many people won't run Adobe Photoshop 7, because it deeply bloated the memory requirements. (I still deeply prefer 5.5)

The key difference is that with programs like Adobe's Photoshop, there are substantial competitors that provide the same functionality. There is no similar alternative to Windows - Microsoft made sure of that. The closest alternatives (OSX and Linux) aren't truly binary-compatible, and both have managed to keep their memory requirements much lower.

Its not Microsoft bashing. Its bad programming and business bashing, and Microsoft chose to be included in that category.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:57 am
by n00b Saibot
Grim... wrote:This is just Windows bashing, pure and simple.
This is not true and you know it. We are concerned over the dramatic changes that Vista's hardware requirements will ensue. Several hundred, well maybe thusands people switch to F/OSS every year because of M$ products being overly priced and everyone knows this. M$ has even lost a case for over-pricing Office XP.
Grim... wrote:If another company did the same thing, no-one would care.
We care because we care :) For M$ maybe, but I really care for is Windows OS :D
Grim... wrote:Did I get <span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> when PS2 games didn't work on my PSX?
Why should they :|
Grim... wrote:No. I just brought a PS2.
Good for you :D

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:04 am
by n00b Saibot
Roja wrote:
Grim... wrote:It's not like MS are saying 'You must buy Vista'.
Unless you want IE7.

Or XNA for gaming. Or a shorter boot up time. Or better secuirty. Or..

The list goes on. They most definitely *are* saying you must buy Vista if you want any improvements. They are using the exact opposite approach that Apple does. Apple gives substantial updates roughly twice a year, for a reasonable fee. Apple also backports many of the fixes (security, and some improvements) to previous versions.

Vista on the other hand is the first new release in *years*, and the few improvements it has (see above) require a *massive* upgrade in hardware.

Honestly, I'm with Jcart. Its bloatware, plain and simple. They are choosing to embrace massive requirements, and its going to cost them customers in the long run as a result.
Grim... wrote:This is just Windows bashing, pure and simple.

If another company did the same thing, no-one would care.
On the contrary, I've called other companies out for the same thing. Many people won't run Adobe Photoshop 7, because it deeply bloated the memory requirements. (I still deeply prefer 5.5)

The key difference is that with programs like Adobe's Photoshop, there are substantial competitors that provide the same functionality. There is no similar alternative to Windows - Microsoft made sure of that. The closest alternatives (OSX and Linux) aren't truly binary-compatible, and both have managed to keep their memory requirements much lower.

Its not Microsoft bashing. Its bad programming and business bashing, and Microsoft chose to be included in that category.
A very good one, Roja :wink: This greatly explains what the real scenario is & what i was wanting to say. It has been established time and again that you are good at creating a true view and bringing out the real picture. Your theory-abilities are amazing ;)

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:19 am
by Grim...
I still disagree - if you want to use the latest software, you'll need the latest hardware. Gamers never complain, why should other users?

Photoshop 7 needs more memory because it can do more stuff.
Wanting the computing world to stand still because it will cost lots of money is absurd.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:23 am
by Grim...
n00b Saibot wrote:
Grim... wrote:Did I get <span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> when PS2 games didn't work on my PSX?
Why should they :|
Because I'll need expensive new hardware to run the latest stuff... :?

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:33 am
by feyd
you guys need to cool it...

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:34 am
by Grim...
I'm cool - friendly debate more than argument (in my head at least, but I know how these Windows bashers get sometimes ;)).

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:48 am
by Roja
Grim... wrote:I still disagree - if you want to use the latest software, you'll need the latest hardware. Gamers never complain, why should other users?
Gamers complain plenty. In fact, they are one of the loudest groups complaining. Take a peek around the discussions about the Xbox 360 for a glimpse at how much complaining we do. Its huge.

But thats just one group, and remember: Gamers want to push their hardware to the edge. Someone running a web-browser and Word to do papers while in college shouldn't need a GIG of ram to do that, let alone a 2ghz+ processor!

Lets get serious for a moment and remember that the vast majority of computer users rarely use more than 2 applications at a time. One of them is the browser, and the other is a word processor (be it notepad, word, and so on). Considering that the minimum requirements for the OS itself is half-a-gig of ram, and one gig is suggested, we see that those users are being pushed to spend quite a bit of money just to keep doing what they already do - NOT gain new functionality.

That is pretty much the exact definition of bloat.
Grim... wrote:Photoshop 7 needs more memory because it can do more stuff.
On the contrary, I can do virtually everything you can do in 7 in 5.5, with the sole exception of better text layer handling.

In exchange for that trivial improvement (at least, I rarely needed it), I had to have almost double the memory. Thats not a reasonable tradeoff, and as a consumer, it is definitely my right to stand up and say thats silly! Thats not bashing, thats being a good consumer. You should try it sometime. :)
Grim... wrote:Wanting the computing world to stand still because it will cost lots of money is absurd.
Money isn't the root issue. Requiring a user to upgrade to continue doing the same thing is. The fact that it is expressed in large amounts of money just emphasizes the point.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:50 am
by n00b Saibot
Grim... wrote:Because I'll need expensive new hardware to run the latest stuff...
How much does PS2 cost you there... Here, its about Rs. 9K - 9.5K which roughly translates to $210-$220. I can send you one, if it cost you more there & you pay me :lol:
feyd wrote:you guys need to cool it...
I knew this was coming, sooner or later :lol: No, we are absolutely cool, even chilling, isn't it Grim :lol:

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:51 am
by shiznatix
feyd wrote:you guys need to cool it...
of course you know, this means war

EDIT: holy crap 2 people posted in the time it took me to type that last sentence

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:56 am
by feyd
Grim already has a PS2, from the looks of it... and I'd wait until the PS3 is out... or Xbox 360 :)

As for Vista, I'm not likely to upgrade to it anytime soon... all my work machines will be moved to OSX and/or some flavor of *nix as soon as someone releases stable ISOs for them.. However, because a lot of our business is Windows users, we'll be likely getting some high-end machines for Vista within a year.... unless there's a sudden shift away from Microsoft (which I don't see happening very soon.. not that the install base will move all that quickly anyways...)

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:00 am
by n00b Saibot
shiznatix wrote:holy crap 2 people posted in the time it took me to type that last sentence
and that includes :?: :twisted:

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:04 am
by Grim...
Roja wrote:Money isn't the root issue. Requiring a user to upgrade to continue doing the same thing is. The fact that it is expressed in large amounts of money just emphasizes the point.
If they want to continue doing the same thing, then they won't need Vista. I think that's fair enough.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:06 am
by Grim...
Roja wrote:Gamers complain plenty. In fact, they are one of the loudest groups complaining. Take a peek around the discussions about the Xbox 360 for a glimpse at how much complaining we do. Its huge.
Xbox 360? Who's that made by, then?