I've always been a big fan of C|NET networks. They've always been my choice for solid reviews of most of the things that I care about, and their massive download.com is a great source for getting the files that you need. I've been a member of GameSpot.com for years, and generally take their reviews of games to heart, because, to be honest, they do things right. As time has gone on, GameSpot.com has grown to be more than just a simple game review site, and has blossomed into a really powerful game community, allowing their users to rate and review games, and keep track of games they own and want. To see what I mean, check out my user page, which, is pretty basic, there are users that have posted reviews, blogs, and are really active in the community.
Now, to the point, C|NET has had a few other sites for a long time, and while I've always meant to check them out, because I can use my same login info between each of them, I really haven't gotten into mp3.com or tv.com. However, there's a new addition to the lineup called FilmSpot.com, which, much like GameSpot.com is designed to be a large community revolving around film. The tagline of the sits says that it's still in beta, but, overall, it seems pretty slick so far.
I've already started posting my 2¢ and, the interface is pretty slick. The one thing that I would like would be a 'DVD Collection' feature, but it wouldn't surprise me if they added it at some point.
Anyway, if you like movies, you might want to check it out, because C|NET remains a great media company, and they've yet to truly let me down.
Windows Live OneCare!
I mentioned before that it was a little frustrating to discover that Microsoft's anti-virus software was not x64 compatible. What I didn't point out that this information is NOT ON THE PACKAGE, nor is it on their website yet under the system requirements. As a matter of fact, on their webiste, to find this out, you need to launch their support system, type in '64 bit', say that the information present was not helpful (the system requirements page), and it will present you with a list of options, you then have to say that none of those options are helpful and it will pull up one last pane which says: "Windows Live OneCare cannot be install on an x64 System", or something to that effect anyway.
It seems that this is common knowledge for some people, however, if you're standing in a store reading the box, and at no point does it make a distinction between x64 and x86, how are you to know it doesn't work for you? You won't until you launch installation.
As if that wasn't bad enough, here you will find people who are also upset about the situation, including quite a few that finished installing the 64-bit version of Vista, then clicked the button on the welcome center that offered to sell them OneCare, so, they go to the website, pay for their subscription and download the software. It's at that point they discover that it WILL NOT WORK for them!
It's pretty sad that Microsoft, who has been so loud in station that 64 bit operating systems are the future, and that everything must be updated to take advantage of a superior architecture, yet when they launch a new version of their Anti-Virus to be Vista compliant, they not only don't have it 64 bit version, and don't tell people that it's not 64 bit.
It's frustrating. I really wish that there was a mega company out there that did EVERYTHING right, and you could never get upset with them for any reason!
HA!
A Jab at a The Register Article...
in which I copy and paste my forum reply to poster...
Poster: "Vista first look: Bugs and confusionReview: A massively multiplayer beta test"
My Reply:
"Writer is an idiot. His biggest complaints are of price, which is very common for those on the little Emerald Isle, where everything is significantly more expensive than it is here in the U.S., and then to the interface being more and more like Aqua, which, for someone who claims to be a linux user, should not be unusual, everyone is copying apple, they've got great designers. Of course MS isn't reinventing the wheel. Beyond that, he makes it sound as though a brand new interface is as simple as buttering toast. I can't imaging the trouble these guys had trying to build a system that used the already solid foundation of previous version of windows, yet incorporated the things that people were ASKING FOR, which, in essence, is exactly what they've done; a Windows system with touches of Mac OS.
There's numerous errors in the editorial, a good example:
Moron: "Next, there's the Flip-3D feature, which gives you a moving Rolodex view of your open windows. When the one you want comes into view, you stop flipping at that point and it opens for you. Unfortunately, there seems not to be a reverse feature on this little merry-go-round, so if you miss your stop, round you go again. I wonder when I might ever find it useful, as I rarely have enough windows open to make a challenge out of finding whatever I want in the taskbar. I rather think it's there merely because it's "cool". And I'll confess; I've played with it a few times. I've never used it, mind, but I have fiddled. And it is rather cool, actually. And pretty useless."
The truth, it's a pretty basic 'Tab' convention in a windows system, if tab goes one way, shift+tab goes the other. This holds true for the flip3d, of course, he could also have tried the mouse wheel for scrolling, up and down scrolls through the windows. I now use it constantly.
Further, he speaks to having no idea which version to use, or that he'd have to do a back-up and clean install or not. Honestly, anyone who upgrades ANY operating system is a moron. This, for most tech savvy people, is pretty common knowledge, the fact that he couldn't take a couple of minutes to look at the box he was spending so much money on speaks volumes to his level of stupidity. Why are consumers so incapable of thinking for themselves? Worse, why can consumers not read things? Does it really seem like such an inconceivable notion that one might want to 'know' what they are doing when dealing with a massive change to their extremely complex computer system.
Oh, and the chart he refers to that is "NOT" on the package, is, by requirement of Microsoft, part of the P.O.P. display from which he picked up his copy of Vista. Also, it's on the package, under the flap on the front...
He then continues to complain about his inability to disable the 'security' center. First, there's no conceivable reason for someone to do this, but, even if there was, it's a massive component of Windows, it's not something that can be disabled. Of course, since he's not even running Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, he wouldn't know about that, now would he?
I'm not sure how someone this completely retarded was charged with the task of testing Windows Vista, but, yet again, I find myself loathing another 'almost' news article on The Register. It's very hit or miss for me, but, more often than not, it's usually miss.
Seriously, there's many more problems with the article, although, that isn't to say he doesn't have SOME valid points, I could spend a lot of time arguing the points, but, you get the idea.
My opinion of this article is *pffffft*."
There are, like I said, numerous things about this article that are just completely ignorant, and I truly wonder how someone could actually get paid to write it.
Sad.
That's all for now, but, you better believe that I'll be back!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment