About EA and WC games...

My two gripes on Vista:

1: ANY change in hardware configuration seems to count as a "New computer" and require that you re-register Vista to prove that you haven't tried to install it on a second machine. A new CPU or motherboard I can understand, but demanding re-registration for adding more RAM or a video card? Oh, and you have to call in to Microsoft and talk to a live person within 72 hours of changing the hardware (God forbid that you do it on a weekend!) or else Vista will lock you out.

2: There is a severe lack of overrides for many of the automatic functions that I would wish to disable. For example, every time that the system has trouble connecting to the Net, first it tries to force me to go to dial-up (which I don't HAVE--that's why I have DSL, duh), and then if I reject the dial-up option, it forces me into Offline mode, and I have to go and manually turn off Offline mode every single time before I can get online again. I would like to have the option of disabling all of this "we know what you need better than you do" hand-holding stuff that is clearly only there for the benefit of beginners.
 
I just think on general principle, the goal for an OS should be to make using the computer more convenient, not to make it 'prettier' which seems to be the only purpose for Vista.
Click to expand...

It has to sell itself, too - and there's a lot of people who won't put down a hundred dollars for an operating system that *looks* the same, no matter how more efficient it is. Whatever innovations you come up with, you need a fresh coat of paint to sell it to the masses.
 
Jason_Ryock said:
It gives you less control - for more automation.
Click to expand...

I'll take controll any time i have a choice.


Ijuin said:
2: There is a severe lack of overrides for many of the automatic functions that I would wish to disable. For example, every time that the system has trouble connecting to the Net, first it tries to force me to go to dial-up (which I don't HAVE--that's why I have DSL, duh), and then if I reject the dial-up option, it forces me into Offline mode, and I have to go and manually turn off Offline mode every single time before I can get online again. I would like to have the option of disabling all of this "we know what you need better than you do" hand-holding stuff that is clearly only there for the benefit of beginners.
Click to expand...

Ouch thats what i mean :D

I'll stick to XP for as long as i can
 
Ijuin said:
1: ANY change in hardware configuration seems to count as a "New computer" and require that you re-register Vista to prove that you haven't tried to install it on a second machine. A new CPU or motherboard I can understand, but demanding re-registration for adding more RAM or a video card? Oh, and you have to call in to Microsoft and talk to a live person within 72 hours of changing the hardware (God forbid that you do it on a weekend!) or else Vista will lock you out.
Click to expand...

I added new RAM to my computer, and true to form it needed to re-register itself. However, I didn't need to call Microsoft at all, and the re-registration process itself was a lot easier then the XP process.

Ijuin said:
2: There is a severe lack of overrides for many of the automatic functions that I would wish to disable. For example, every time that the system has trouble connecting to the Net, first it tries to force me to go to dial-up (which I don't HAVE--that's why I have DSL, duh), and then if I reject the dial-up option, it forces me into Offline mode, and I have to go and manually turn off Offline mode every single time before I can get online again. I would like to have the option of disabling all of this "we know what you need better than you do" hand-holding stuff that is clearly only there for the benefit of beginners.
Click to expand...

I largely suspect this is because you are using Internet Explorer. I've never had any similar problems on my machine, at all. It could be that you're running a different version of Vista then I am, but once my network settings were configured on Vista I've not had to go back and touch them at all.

In paticular, the OS's handling of wireless connections seems to be handled very well. On XP I would sometimes have to double click on my wireless connection repeatedly without it connecting, and after several frustrating minutes of waiting for it to pick up automatically, it would connect...and then bump me offline the second it detected another wireless network in range. Listing or de-listing networks on my "preferred" list had absolutely no affect on this phenomenon. I finally switched to a third party wireless handler to get around these issues.

Quite the opposite has been true with my Vista OS. Once I set it up to connect to my work home and friends wireless (I move between about 4 wireless networks on a given day) it connects to my preferred networks automatically whenever I'm within range of one of those nets. (Which is the way preferred listings on XP is supposed to work).

On that note, Vista does one thing absolutely right with networking: No more workgroups. On the same four wireless networks I was connected to, I was able to share and transfer files between my Vista laptop and computers that existed on multiple workgroups - without every changing my network settings. At my friends house, I was acting as a link between two work groups, letting them swap and share files through my computer without having to adjust settings themselves. It was quite nice to be able to do.

Bandit LOAF said:
It has to sell itself, too - and there's a lot of people who won't put down a hundred dollars for an operating system that *looks* the same, no matter how more efficient it is. Whatever innovations you come up with, you need a fresh coat of paint to sell it to the masses.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with this - people aren't going to be a newer version of the same thing they already own just because it has new bells and whistles. My chief complaint is that instead of adding in a new skin or new enhancements that improved the operating of the computer, they added in new enhancements and improvements that made operating the computer the same, but flashier. They could have easily redesigned the interface in the same way and left out the blackouts greyouts fade in fade outs and various other fancy (and CPU/RAM intensive) graphical operations they put into it.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
It has to sell itself, too - and there's a lot of people who won't put down a hundred dollars for an operating system that *looks* the same, no matter how more efficient it is. Whatever innovations you come up with, you need a fresh coat of paint to sell it to the masses.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that they risk alienating a significant portion of their customer base who like, or are used to, the old coat of paint. Personally, whenever I install XP on a new system, the very first thing I do is find the setting that makes XP look exactly like Windows NT/2000, turining off the fresh coat of paint, because it is familiar. Nearly everyone I know my age, who grew up on the Win95/98/NT interface do the same...not because one interface/appearance is better, but because it is more familiar.

At the same time, I see your point...some people want a flashy new looking toy (I have one or two friends like that, who upgrade to a new OS whenever one comes out, no matter how buggy, because they like to feel that they are on "the edge".) But many of us are creatures of habit. I would still be running Win95 if I had my choice...and would be perfectly happy if they had built in the "underneath improvements" that went into 98, 2000, and XP, under the same interface, changing the interface only when absolutely necessary to enable the user to access the new features.
 
Farbourne said:
At the same time, I see your point...some people want a flashy new looking toy (I have one or two friends like that, who upgrade to a new OS whenever one comes out, no matter how buggy, because they like to feel that they are on "the edge".)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the implication there is that "Vista" is buggy or not, but I would like to point out that while Vista had a dedicated Beta Phase, it's still considered by experts and critics to be in the "Beta" Phase. You shouldn't expect to buy Vista (in it's current form) and get a bug free product. It's going to be buggy for at least two service packs, and just like Dos-98, 98-XP, there are going to be XP-Vista program compatibility issues (which many people improperly regard as "Bugs").

Farbourne said:
But many of us are creatures of habit. I would still be running Win95 if I had my choice...and would be perfectly happy if they had built in the "underneath improvements" that went into 98, 2000, and XP, under the same interface, changing the interface only when absolutely necessary to enable the user to access the new features.
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting theory, and one that I would subscribe to but for the fact that if Windows never upgraded it's interface, we'd still be looking at the 3.1 way of doing things, and it wasn't very pretty or convenient.

Things like the Start Menu (albeit it, stolen from Apple) would never have come about, and the ease of use with the My Computer icon never would have appeared either. Both of things were significant enhancements in the Windows World, making it far easier to navigate both the programs installed on the computer and the contents of ones hard drive.

As you already pointed out, however, it's very easy to please the "I like things the way there are" consumer by simply allowing a simple overlay or skin that sets things back to the way the previous operating system has done things. This sort of argument rather destroys the "I Don't want to upgrade because I don't like change" argument you're using against Vista. At the moment, my Vista skin is set up to duplicate my XP configuration at home.

There are very few "changes" to the inherent order of the system in Vista, and the ones that are there are very convenient. The way it stores and lists shortcuts to common and recently opened documents is very nice. The file browsing system is very sound - moving up a level is as simple as clicking on the name in the window bar, and moving up two or more levels is as simple as doing the same thing. Drop down windows provide access to sub folders at any level at any time.

The only real complaint I can lodge against Vista is that, because of it's flashy graphics and fade affects, switching tasks is a virtual impossibility unless you're running a very high end system. I had no problems running XP on a machine with 512 RAM, but Vista requires a flat 2 GIG upgrade. And let's face it - how many home machines come equipped standard with 2 GIGs of RAM? That's the kind of stuff gaming machines are made of.

I think it goes against the nature of an operating system to be Hardware Intensive. An operating system should be a background GUI for looking at things on your system and accessing the programs that help you look at, edit, or run those things. It shouldn't be something that makes switching tabs in your internet browser like watching the latest Die Hard movie, with a bullet flying across the screen trailing a curtain behind it, which drops down a moment later to a fanfare of trumpets with your new window.

That's an extreme example, and it's certainly only my opinion (I'm sure many other people disagree, and think the visual affects in Vista make owning and operating a computer more pleasant [note: not more convenient, more pleasant.]). I just don't understand how having a flashy animation play everytime I change a window sells an operating system better then an "intuitive and automated wireless connectivity setting" - though, I suspect due to our good old friend HAL, when people here "Automated" they probably get turned off to computer software.
 
Things like the Start Menu (albeit it, stolen from Apple)
Click to expand...
Buddy, the whole windows concept was stolen from the apple in the first place...

I have an xp that i set to look like 2000. Not because i'm a creature if habit, but because i would rather have an ugly thing that works better than a pretty but fairly useless thing. Even if i have a good machine i am not gonna waste my resources on unnecessary aspects such as shadings and 3d pointers in OS.
Guess that's a main reason why i'm not looking forward to upgrading to vista.

Might just switch to linux these days... ;)
 
Ricochet said:
Buddy, the whole windows concept was stolen from the apple in the first place...
Click to expand...

... who swiped it from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center. So what? :p

(Advance notice from your friendly neighborhood administrator: OS Holy Wars are a bad idea. Don't start them here.)
 
If it's not patented or copyrighted, it's not theft. So... if you don't want some big bad man "stealing" your IP, don't leave it in public domain.
 
Death said:
Especially for the "anyone else" including the fandom. You only need to look at Privateer Remake for evidence. :p
Click to expand...

Thats a little unfair. I don't see what everyone had against the remake, I liked it... yeah it had its problems, but hey, take a look at the gaming industry; thousands of terrible games for a few hundred gold ones. Yeah Privateer wasn't all that great, but what about Unknown Enemy and Standoff?
 
Other than the fact it's a slap-together half-assed job made primarily for the sake of fluffing up the creator's job resume, that it takes a good bit of the original gameplay elements and throws them away for the sake of tossing in assorted "wouldn't it be cool...?" fanwanks, and didn't even do all that great a job of recreating the feel of the original Privateer it was supposed to be a remake of, PR is a fine game.
 
Death said:
... who swiped it from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center. So what? :p

(Advance notice from your friendly neighborhood administrator: OS Holy Wars are a bad idea. Don't start them here.)
Click to expand...

Agreed... whenever I see such tail chasing questions start... I am tempted to pull a page from Kim Stanley Robinson's Blue Mars: The answer to any 'why' question is "...which all started with the Big Bang!"
 
Quote ChrisReid(sorry I haven't figure out how to do this properly):
I don't think that holds up. The fact that you're running "SE" should tell you that they spend time improving their OSes. XP was released in 2001, and they spent almost six years improving that before releasing Vista.

Good point. But, from hearing about Vista from other people, it had several basic problems with it when they first released it. What I found amusing was that several of the problems (which were fixed right away) were similar problems they had with XP Beta. (my memory sucks and I can't think of an example.

It seems like there was less problems though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top