Yes, thank you multi-billion dollar company, for letting me know that while I'm searching the interwebs, today is a 'holiday'! Great job with that. This year, I'm single over Valentines Day. The negative, I probably won't be having any sex. The plus side, I'm saving at least $200 between a date and gifts.
There's always a bright side to things.
On with the blogging!
Fake Blogs / Bloggers?
The Times Online posted an article about a new law that's going into place soon. Apparently the new trend of companies and people reviewing themselves in the guise of customers is about to come to an end in the UK. Not only can people be named for doing so, and shamed and shown for being asshats, but they may also be charged criminally.
It's a sad state of affairs that we live in a world where businesses can't pose as customers and post glowing reviews of themselves.
Quoting Morons!?!
"Formatted PC, installed Vista, updated any drivers possible. Now half [of my] games will not run, or run with corrupt graphics," lamented one poster on Jan. 31 in a discussion forum at graphics chipmaker Nvidia Corp.’s Web site."
This quote made it into an "article" on computerworld.com about the 'problems' of Windows Vista with gaming.
Now, here's the problem with that. Quoting a forum is silly. Yes, your average forum goer is the target audience, and yes, it's true that there are people who have had some trouble with Windows Vista. But, if you follow the link, you'll see that the poster claims to be a Network Administrator. If that was the case, he would not have dived head first into Windows Vista. It's more likely, given the spelling and grammar errors present that he's actually a young gamer who managed to get his hands on a copy of Vista without first doing some research and then found out the hard way that there's still some driver issues.
Alright, that's fine. But, the problem here is that you aren't getting an actual sampling of what REAL people are experiencing. As a matter of fact, there's a slew of regurgitated information throughout that thread about the inability to use unsigned drivers, stability, and the actual feature set of Vista.
Regurgitated? Yes, it seems like the majority of the people out there merely have a few buzz 'facts' about Vista and are spouting them off whenever they get a chance, even though they've never used it, or seen it in action. A lot of people talk about instability, driver problems, and lack of features.
I would like to pose a question to people in regards to features, to anyone who claims that vista is not an upgrade to the features found in XP. Do they know what the difference between Windows XP and Windows 2000 are? How about the difference between Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME?
The problem is that the 'average' user doesn't have much of a clue when it comes to what makes an OS work. They don't get what an API is, the difference between a 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit operating system, or what 'layers' are. Most of them couldn't tell you the difference between a process and a thread.
Why is this a problem? The problem lies in the fact that these 'average' users are far more vocal on the internet now than ever before. Our world has gotten smaller since the release of Windows XP, where all of these same 'problems' plagued the system. I stayed away from XP for a little over a year back then, choosing instead to stick with my Windows 2000 install because it was stable and more secure. Sure, there were rumors, but, when XP first hit the shelves, the word 'blog' was just a twinkle in some guys eye.
So, back to the 'article', which seems to be written around the same hearsay and conjecture that plagues the internet these days. The writer seems to be merely parlaying about more rumors.
Yes, gaming under Vista is not like gaming under vista. For the most part, my own tests show that gaming under Vista is slower. However, I've yet to find a game that just doesn't run, and so far the differences between XP and Vista are small enough that it's fixable with minor tweaking of the game, such as dropping the resolution by 1 notch, or disabling 1 or 2 bits of eye candy, but, like I said, it all runs. I've had to do some special things to make them install or start correctly, this is true, but, a visit to each games website, or a simple search in google has helped me to that end.
So, what's the big deal? I knew going into this new operating system that it would be flaky. I did research before I did so, and, because I don't want to do anything that would degrade my game's performance, I dual boot with Windows XP for now.
This is nothing new. I suppose the long gap between XP and Vista means that there are a lot of people who didn't experience the driver and stability problems when migrating from Windows 9x systems to XP (Very few people ever even used 2000 because it was considered too radical to go to an NT based system at the time). I suppose that all the kids then weren't aware of the huge performance hits they took by upgrading to Windows XP, though, if you google it, you will find there are still a few articles out there that talk about the evils of XP and how it broke so many things.
Now, in that article, it mentions NT Compatible, which on the surface seems like a great website concept. Here's how it works: if you want to know how an application will work under the new OS (or, an old OS that's NT based, such as XP or 2k), you can search there and it will tell you how it fares. It includes games, productivity and utilities. Where's the problem with that site? It includes anonymous posting. The same morons I've already been talking about can, without even registering, post their experience with any piece of software. Do you see the problem with that? I sure as hell do. It's moderated, so, someone has to approve your comments, and I'm assuming they are trying hard to keep all the posts reasonable. Here's my post on Adobe CS2, because, if you read the previous 3 posts, no one seemed to have the first clue as to what was going on. You see the problem now, don't you?
What was this entire rambling about? I don't even know anymore. I guess it's that you can't trust everything you read on the internet. There's an amazing number of complete idiots out there who are just throwing around random 'facts' they read from 'some guy's blog' who don't have the first clue about what they're talking about.
It drives me crazy. Windows Vista is stable, and it works pretty damn well. My windows XP installation has become my Xbox 360, I use it to play games, all my productivity now is in Vista, and I don't see that as changing.
Where's Waldo?
Waldo's fucking EVERYWHERE!!! In this case, though, Waldo is actually Sony's PS3.
There was an interview conducted with Sony Entertainment of America's President, Jack Tretton, actually put a bounty on the PS3. Now, this interview was conducted in mid-January, but, none-the-less he stated "If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on the shelf for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1200 bucks for it."
Hmm, since early to mid-January, my local Super Target has had tons of these things just sitting there. So has my local Best Buy, and, as far as I know, most of the retailers near me.
Apparently, it's the same for Gabe and Tycho and the folks over at kotaku.
Now, if only I could find a damn Wii!
Who is Russell Carroll, and why is he so stupid?
First, I'll present you with an article, by some guy, called "Offline: Why Online Multiplayer isn't all that Important."
Here's the skinny: This guy thinks that multiplayer games are stupid, and likens them to having a dance party in your living room where you're by yourself, and your only company is people across the country who are all connected by their Televisions. He claims that he would much prefer single player gaming, and local multiplayer where everyone is in the same room.
Really? Single player games with ZERO social interaction are more socially satisfying to you than multi player? That makes sense. I suppose the guy also shuns telephones as being far less satisfying than just driving a couple hundred miles to visit your family, or that web cams are not a viable alternative to just hopping an airplane to the U.K. and meeting up with people at the corner pub.
It's a pretty asinine concept, considering the fact that most reviewers can't seem to praise a game unless it has a viable multiplayer option. Of course LAN games are more satisfying. It's the reason that there are so many people that will set up big gaming events, but, how is it that you should shun multiplayer gaming otherwise?
I suppose the millions of WoW players probably agree, because, let's be real, $15 a month and hundreds of hours of game time logged, they really just wish they were at the coffee shop hanging out with their friends and reading poetry. And, you know the internet hasn't turned into a giant social networking system anyway. Second Life isn't becoming more and more popular every day....
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I think online gaming isn't without it's flaws. Though, it looks like Halo 3 is going to take more steps at getting rid of them (if only they could prevent tea bagging). It's true that prepubescent kids and under sexed adults plague the online gaming world with words like 'pwnzord' and 'headshotboom'.
*le sigh*
Zombies!!!
And, continuing to disprove the above article's audacity, Urban Dead, A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Zombie Apocalypse, which has over half a million subscribers, is growing every day as well. It's actually a lot of fun.
:)
That's all for now, but, I've still got a few things in the works and a 3 day weekend on the horizon!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment