Windows rant from a gamer

Status
Not open for further replies.

enelson125

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
485
I'm not sure if this is the best place for this rant, but since it is about my frustrations with Windows and being a gamer this seemed a good place.

Basically it just pisses me off that in order to be a gamer you are pigeon-holed into using Windows. And don't give me any crap about using Cedega or Wine, because in truth to play the latest games you must be using Windows.

In the beginning I really liked Windows. Our first computer was a Micron PC with a Pentium running Windows 3.11. Then I moved onto an HP Pavilion with Windows 98. That was a big jump. Then I moved to Windows 2000, another huge jump and I loved it. Then Windows XP, it seemed nice at first and did for a while, but now in it's current state it is a big bloated patched to hell mess.

I was excited about Vista when I had first heard about it (back when it was still known as Longhorn). But now Microsoft has really lowered my expectations but cutting many key features and having delay after delay. By the looks of it we are all going to be disappointed, and the biggest feature of all is going to be the Aero Interface? Lame. Okay so they'll have some security updates and a really annoying security pop-up to go along with it.

Now here's the kicker, DirectX 10. Given I do think it does sound promising, enabling better graphics and other gaming goodies. But the fact that I am going to have to use an OS that I do not like really pisses me off. So far I've only seen one DX10 game that warrants interest, and that is Crysis. I can't believe the best thing that Microsoft can offer up itself is Halo 2. I'm not the biggest fan of the series, but the first one did have a fairly interesting story. I have played the second on the XBOX and I can't say I like it at all. The story is garbage and the best excuse for it being better is that you can dual-wield weapons and it has slightly better textures. Come on Microsoft you can do better than this port of a mediocre, extremely overhyped 2-year old game. Or maybe I have too much faith in Microsoft. I would not count Flight Simulator X as a true game, it is like its name says a simulation. It is not fun for me after five minutes.

Lately I have started using Linux and I have really been enjoying it. It may be a bit rough around the edges, but it is charming in the fact that it can do almost everything a Windows machine can, just for free. Well, except for gaming. Gaming is limited mainly to few simple games and the sparse retail titles that include linux binaries (read: Unreal Tournament, Quake 4, Doom 3). Wine and Cedega are also options, although it's really hit or miss with these programs.

As much as I like Linux I will definitely admit it has lots of room for improvement in gaming. DirectX, as many good games as it is a part of, serves as a method for Microsoft to keep gamers from switching to other operating systems (maybe unintentionally). So basically I'm saying Linux needs to pick up its gaming front and find a way to attract gamers. I don't think that there's any way that Microsoft will ever open-source DirectX so we may just be stuck.

As far as Apple goes I think the first step for them would be to allow OSX to run on any x86 hardware. But I know that selling their hardware is a big part of their business and this may not be a viable option, but I'm sure it would attract a number of users to consider switching (myself included). Outside of that Apple also needs to get more games, perhaps even exclusive ones released for OSX. At least they have lots of games being ported over these days, but usually these games are ported over a lot later than when the games are originally released for Windows.

So there's my rant. Basically I'm sick of Windows and I would like to consider the possibility of switching over to Linux or OSX, but I am stuck with Windows because of DirectX and the lack of gaming support from Linux and Apple. To be totally honest I would be completely happy if Vista ended up being a very good product, but it looks like this will not be the case.
 
enelson125 said:
Basically it just pisses me off that in order to be a gamer you are pigeon-holed into using Windows. And don't give me any crap about using Cedega or Wine, because in truth to play the latest games you must be using Windows.

And how is game companies not porting their games to other platforms Microsoft's fault?
 
KevinO said:
And how is game companies not porting their games to other platforms Microsoft's fault?

Because the majority of games released are based on DirectX, which is a Windows-only technology and thus makes porting hard, and consumes extra time and money.
 
enelson125 said:
Because the majority of games released are based on DirectX, which is a Windows-only technology and thus makes porting hard, and consumes extra time and money.

Again how is it Microsoft's fault? There is an alternative called OpenGL (both Windows and Linux can use this).

Trust me I am not trying to be an ass, as I agree with you that we are forced into gaming with just Windows really. I just don't think the fault lies solely on Microsoft's shoulders.
 
Yes.. its all comes done to we cant win them all...
cant have everything we want...
sometimes it sucks....
wanna game? use windows
 
KevinO said:
Again how is it Microsoft's fault? There is an alternative called OpenGL (both Windows and Linux can use this).

Trust me I am not trying to be an ass, as I agree with you that we are forced into gaming with just Windows really. I just don't think the fault lies solely on Microsoft's shoulders.

Oh I didn't mean for it to come off as entirely Microsoft's fault, but they are a big reason. Game publishers are also at fault for being very conservative with their money, as we have all seen recently. They don't see a whole lot of money to be made with games on OSX or Linux, since the majority of end users still do use Windows. I really think we're going to have to wait until OSX or Linux gain a larger market share, in order for game publishers to even consider releasing a decent amount of games for either of these platforms.

And of course i know what OpenGL is :p . Just not as many games use it as DirectX unfortunately.
 
enelson125 said:
I really think we're going to have to wait until OSX or Linux gain a larger market share, in order for game publishers to even consider releasing a decent amount of games for either of these platforms.

I agree and I don't see this happening anytime soon unfortunately :(
 
KevinO said:
I agree and I don't see this happening anytime soon unfortunately :(

Well at least they have been gaining some ground, even if they are doing so pretty slowly. If Vista turns out to be pretty poor that rate may increase.
 
There used to be more OpenGL games, but Microsoft has been very successful about methodically pushing DirectX. A lot of it has been how the NVIDIA and ATI have bent to the pressure of putting DirectX on their video cards. Supporting the latest DirectX was the only way to avoid the shame of software render mode, so it became a selling point.

There is a rumor about OpenGL support in Vista. I don't know if it has any truth to it, but it suggests that all OpenGL will be passed through DirectX. This would effectively put all OpenGL games into software render mode, with no chance of escape. It could just be a rumor however.
 
Don't know how valid this is but (source):

OpenGL can go through one of three paths in Windows Vista depending on how your computer is configured.

1. MSOGL - this is an implementation of OpenGL 1.4 that uses Direct3D under the covers to hardware accellerate the application.

2. Legacy ICD's - These are the ICD's that are available today for use on Windows XP. These will continue to work on Windows Vista, but will disable the DWM when they are loaded in to the process of the application that's using OpenGL. The reason for this is that Legacy ICD's operate directly on the GPU without going through Windows at all, and we have no way of redirecting application's output in a stable, predictable manner.

3. Windows Vista ICD's - this is a new path for 3rd party ICD's introduced for Windows Vista that will work in a way that is compatible with desktop composition. Essentially allowing direct access to the GPU for hardware accellaration, but then having the final surface that appears to be the front buffer to the application actually be a shared surface that gets composed by the DWM


DirectDraw works by creating shared surface and allowing you to draw to it, but if your application locks the primary for drawing, this will cause the DWM to shut down also, because the applicaiton is essentially saying "I'm a full-screen application, so give me the the whole screen to draw to, instead of whoever is currently using it".

WPF is hardware accellerated for things like text, geometrry, etc. and presents to a D3D shared surface which is the composed to the desktop by the DWM.

Looks like option 3 will be similar to XP's implementation, but how long (and who) will code for that instead of DirectX.
 
I will second the fact that MS has been lacking in its products. They dont put as much creative ideas into their products as others. And As a fellow game lover (not a hard-core game lovein freak though :p ) I agree it sucks being in the Windows useing band wagon.

However, as i have said before. If somehting bothers people, Do something about it!
Start a project to make a new standard for games that makes porting easier.
Start a "port more games" patition (sp?)

Look at what the internet offers. A huge resource of game lovers, programers, Hardware lovers. Business people. Use them all.

In the end, would a games company care if a huge ammount of game players arround the world revolt against them?
Would Microsoft care if millions of games suddenly started useing a free OS that let them play games?

Im pretty sure they would!

Think about it!
 
enelson125 said:
Because the majority of games released are based on DirectX, which is a Windows-only technology and thus makes porting hard, and consumes extra time and money.

So, MS has spent tons of resources to make their platform better to program for and support cutting-edge hardware in games and that makes them bad. Do you think if MS hadn't bothered to create DirectX, that games would be better somehow? It seems to me that Linux doesn't have the infrastructure to support modern games at their best, and that if you got what you wanted, games would be a couple of years behind where they are now. I don't know about OS X's capabilities.
 
ZXTT said:
So, MS has spent tons of resources to make their platform better to program for and support cutting-edge hardware in games and that makes them bad. Do you think if MS hadn't bothered to create DirectX, that games would be better somehow? It seems to me that Linux doesn't have the infrastructure to support modern games at their best, and that if you got what you wanted, games would be a couple of years behind where they are now. I don't know about OS X's capabilities.

I didn't say that made them bad. I said I appreciated what DirectX has done. It just sucks that it essentially locks you into Windows for DX games. DirectX has done a ton of good for gaming, I more have a problem with being locked into gaming on an operating system that I do not like using. As a gamer do you really think that I would want games to be less advanced than they are? If so that is a very naive thing to think.
 
enelson125 said:
Game publishers are also at fault for being very conservative with their money, as we have all seen recently.

I'm conservative with my money! I certainly don't view that as a fault ;)
 
enelson125 said:
I didn't say that made them bad. I said I appreciated what DirectX has done. It just sucks that it essentially locks you into Windows for DX games. DirectX has done a ton of good for gaming, I more have a problem with being locked into gaming on an operating system that I do not like using. As a gamer do you really think that I would want games to be less advanced than they are? If so that is a very naive thing to think.

Well, then lets ask this another way. What if the games were ported to Linux, but because the infrastructure (tools, middleware, drivers) either weren't as good or were non-existent, the games were only 50-75% as good as the DX version. What then? Would you still play the Linux version?
 
Well, look at it from a game developer's point of view.

+90% of computers out there are windows.
All gamers today run windows (due to this issue)
Windows is perfectly compatible with all of the up to date and cutting edge hardware
If you buy a high end system today, it will most likely come with Windows
Video game components (video cards, controllers, etc) focus thier drivers and designs to work with Windows.

So why write for any other system?
 
Vette5885 said:
Well, look at it from a game developer's point of view.

+90% of computers out there are windows.
All gamers today run windows (due to this issue)
Windows is perfectly compatible with all of the up to date and cutting edge hardware
If you buy a high end system today, it will most likely come with Windows
Video game components (video cards, controllers, etc) focus thier drivers and designs to work with Windows.

So why write for any other system?

Well that's why this is a rant ;)
I know it's a bit unrealistic to ask publisher to do this, and I don't expect this to happen over night. I'm just complaining because I am not satisfied, and that's about all I can do at this point.

I don't buy my systems pre-built, I build them myself so bundled OSes mean nothing to me.

NVIDIA's video drivers are very well done though. They rival or are better in some cases than the windows drivers. Plus I've only had one piece of hardware that didn't work in Linux and that was a USB tv tuner, which didn't like to work right in Windows either.
 
ZXTT said:
Well, then lets ask this another way. What if the games were ported to Linux, but because the infrastructure (tools, middleware, drivers) either weren't as good or were non-existent, the games were only 50-75% as good as the DX version. What then? Would you still play the Linux version?

No I probably would not play them. But that is not my point. My point is that I am disappointed with how the quality of Windows has recently gone downhill, yet I am still forced to use the OS because of the fact that I want to play games in their latest and greatest form.

Though it's not like you even have a valid arguement here as Linux is capable of having games that are just as advanced as Windows games. OpenGL for graphics, OpenAL for sound, and SDL.
 
enelson125 said:
No I probably would not play them. But that is not my point. My point is that I am disappointed with how the quality of Windows has recently gone downhill, yet I am still forced to use the OS because of the fact that I want to play games in their latest and greatest form.

Though it's not like you even have a valid arguement here as Linux is capable of having games that are just as advanced as Windows games. OpenGL for graphics, OpenAL for sound, and SDL.

Hmm, well we'd need a real game developer to talk about what's available for Linux vs Windows and how that affects the development of a game. I have the feeling the DX, plus all the tools from 3rd parties, plus VC++ and it's debugger, plus well-tuned drivers equals a much better game development situation.

Still, I wonder about your "Windows has recently gone downhill" comment. Certainly, since XP was originally released, there has been an onslaught of attacks on the OS. No Windows before XP SP2 was designed to defend against this kind of thing and none before Vista was designed from the ground-up to do that. But I don't view Windows having gone downhill any more than I view my car going downhill just because a newer model is better. Minus wear and tear, the car is still essentially the same. I haven't even reinstalled XP cleanly since Oct 2001 and it works reliably. It's a little slow to boot, but that's probably because of the years of installing things and never removing them.

So, really, the downhill part is that many security-related vulnerabilities have been found and patched. Do you have any data though, to prove your assertion that it is now bloated, when it wasn't in Oct 2001? And what the heck does bloated mean, anyway? I keep hearing it, and I take it to mean "I don't understand how a modern OS uses RAM" or "This OS has features I don't want, so it sucks". Is there another meaning? If I'm sounding nasty in some way, sorry, but I keep hearing this as a vague, catch-all criticism against just about anything MS produces.
 
enelson125 said:
Though it's not like you even have a valid arguement here as Linux is capable of having games that are just as advanced as Windows games. OpenGL for graphics, OpenAL for sound, and SDL.

Good point. Doom 3, Unreal, et. al. aren't exactly technological slouches and they use OpenGL, OpenAL and SDL. My guess is directx is easier to develop for though (admittedly my only experience being with opengl).

There's not a lot of financial incentive to develop cross-OS sadly.
 
ZXTT said:
Hmm, well we'd need a real game developer to talk about what's available for Linux vs Windows and how that affects the development of a game. I have the feeling the DX, plus all the tools from 3rd parties, plus VC++ and it's debugger, plus well-tuned drivers equals a much better game development situation.

Still, I wonder about your "Windows has recently gone downhill" comment. Certainly, since XP was originally released, there has been an onslaught of attacks on the OS. No Windows before XP SP2 was designed to defend against this kind of thing and none before Vista was designed from the ground-up to do that. But I don't view Windows having gone downhill any more than I view my car going downhill just because a newer model is better. Minus wear and tear, the car is still essentially the same. I haven't even reinstalled XP cleanly since Oct 2001 and it works reliably. It's a little slow to boot, but that's probably because of the years of installing things and never removing them.

So, really, the downhill part is that many security-related vulnerabilities have been found and patched. Do you have any data though, to prove your assertion that it is now bloated, when it wasn't in Oct 2001? And what the heck does bloated mean, anyway? I keep hearing it, and I take it to mean "I don't understand how a modern OS uses RAM" or "This OS has features I don't want, so it sucks". Is there another meaning? If I'm sounding nasty in some way, sorry, but I keep hearing this as a vague, catch-all criticism against just about anything MS produces.

Well my comment about Windows going downhill is that as far as features go it has been surpassed by both OSX and Linux. And as far as windows being bloated, Vista is the particular offender as far as this goes. Both Linux and OSX are far more efficient while still accomplishing the same task, the glaring example being the Aero interface vs XGL for Linux and Quartz Extreme (I believe that is what it's called) for OSX. Both XGL and Quartz Extreme do not require a high end video card, where as Aero needs a DirectX 9.0c card. Vista has very high hardware requirements when compared with XP and the alternative OSes.

I still don't understand why you keep saying Windows has better-tuned drivers. Driver support in Linux is excellent these days, even ATI's drivers are performing quite well now. Most hardware runs without a hitch. Every OS has its fair share of crap drivers, Windows included, but that's the hardware companies' fault not the maker of the OS.

You're really missing the point of my whole post. I was just reflecting on the fact that I am stuck with Windows because I like to game, but I would really like to see some more gaming support in Linux and in OSX. For general computer use I have more fun using Linux, I would even consider switching to it were it not for my love of computer games. So I am stuck using Windows, and at the very most I can do a dual-boot. I have a dual-boot but I do not Linux that much as it is kind of a pain to boot back into windows every time I want to game. So for the time being I deal with Windows XP even as frustrating as it can be.
 
enelson125 said:
Because the majority of games released are based on DirectX, which is a Windows-only technology and thus makes porting hard, and consumes extra time and money.
And that's also what makes the level of sophistication of games possible in the first place (and arguably that it has pushed GPU features forward). Name a modern commercial OpenGL game for Windows that doesn't use parts of DirectX for other functions besides rendering. :p
 
pxc said:
And that's also what makes the level of sophistication of games possible in the first place (and arguably that it has pushed GPU features forward). Name a modern commercial OpenGL game for Windows that doesn't use parts of DirectX for other functions besides rendering. :p

Sorry I don't really know enough about programming/game development to answer this for ya. My friend who is a programmer filled me in a little bit: You can't easily access low level hardware routines through windows without writing hooks, which are sort of a pain in the ass. DirectX is really the only smart method to do it in Windows, aside from SDL.
 
enelson125 said:
You're really missing the point of my whole post. I was just reflecting on the fact that I am stuck with Windows because I like to game, but I would really like to see some more gaming support in Linux and in OSX. For general computer use I have more fun using Linux, I would even consider switching to it were it not for my love of computer games. So I am stuck using Windows, and at the very most I can do a dual-boot. I have a dual-boot but I do not Linux that much as it is kind of a pain to boot back into windows every time I want to game. So for the time being I deal with Windows XP even as frustrating as it can be.

OK, point accepted. And I do understand, since I was in that boat once with the Amiga. Funny how it's changed - the hardware is all the same now, but people are arguing about different OSes.
 
I'm not sure who is getting blamed for what. If all the games that use DIrectX were made to use OpenGL and run on Linux, we would find just as many problems running them in that environment. I am getting rather tired of people expecting MS to create a perfect product that is without flaws. It's just not realistic.
 
pxc said:
And that's also what makes the level of sophistication of games possible in the first place (and arguably that it has pushed GPU features forward). Name a modern commercial OpenGL game for Windows that doesn't use parts of DirectX for other functions besides rendering. :p

I agree that you'd be hard-pressed to name a game for windows that doesn't use DirectX in one way or another, but I don't agree that DirectX is mandatory for that level of sophistication.

Furthermore, OpenGL had a signicant influence on graphics card technology before DirectX existed, and still does to this day.
 
enelson125 said:
In the beginning I really liked Windows. Our first computer was a Micron PC with a Pentium running Windows 3.11. Then I moved onto an HP Pavilion with Windows 98. That was a big jump. Then I moved to Windows 2000, another huge jump and I loved it. Then Windows XP, it seemed nice at first and did for a while, but now in it's current state it is a big bloated patched to hell mess.

I was excited about Vista when I had first heard about it (back when it was still known as Longhorn). But now Microsoft has really lowered my expectations but cutting many key features and having delay after delay. By the looks of it we are all going to be disappointed, and the biggest feature of all is going to be the Aero Interface? Lame. Okay so they'll have some security updates and a really annoying security pop-up to go along with it.
From the first paragraph in the quote I don't see how patching security holes makes the OS bloat now when it wasn't on its initial release. If anything it made the OS safer and better but here you hate XP because it has improved.

Regarding your Vista comment I'd think you'd be happy they took out features to remove bloat and the extra security is always welcomed. As far as Aero goes just go back to the classic theme of Win2k and 98 that you loved to use it'll be just like using Win2k or 98.

Yes you are forced to use Windows when you want to play the latest and greatest games but I don't see how you can hate the operating system for this reason alone. If you know what you're doing with computers then you shouldn't have to worry about the vulnerabilities of Windows and with my suggestion with the classic theme and classic start menu it'd be just like your cherished Win2k days.
 
The majority of people grew up using win at work or home or school and now know how to use Windows.. Those people are not likely throw away much of what they already know, to learn to use Linux.. That is prolly one of the biggest problem Linux faces..

Is this free os worth the time it will take to figure it out, or should I pay the price and stick with what I already know?? The average consumer with kids, a wife, a job, and other drains on their time will not even blink b4 going with what they are already familiar with..

We can rant all we like, but MS will dominate as long as that is the way of it.. You want linux to take over the world?? Get it into the schools, all of them... Of course that did not exactly work for Apple, but hey it sounds good.. And you can always dualboot...
 
jimmyb said:
Furthermore, OpenGL had a signicant influence on graphics card technology before DirectX existed, and still does to this day.
It's true that it *did* have a significant influence on early desktop graphic cards, but OpenGL is still losing ground (marketshare) now because it fell behind DX years ago and never caught up.

OpenGL hasn't driven card features since shaders were added to GPUs. Shaders are what caused OpenGL to fall behind due to the slug slow ARB. When OpenGL 2.0 came out game developers yawned.

OpenGL does of course have the advantage of being cross platform. But Mac games sell poorly and Linux games sell even worse (the company that did ports on a shoestring budget couldn't even survive). IOW, if 99% of gamers can use DX, then DX is the only reasonable choice.
 
GORANKAR said:
The majority of people grew up using win at work or home or school and now know how to use Windows.. Those people are not likely throw away much of what they already know, to learn to use Linux.. That is prolly one of the biggest problem Linux faces..

Is this free os worth the time it will take to figure it out, or should I pay the price and stick with what I already know?? The average consumer with kids, a wife, a job, and other drains on their time will not even blink b4 going with what they are already familiar with..

We can rant all we like, but MS will dominate as long as that is the way of it.. You want linux to take over the world?? Get it into the schools, all of them... Of course that did not exactly work for Apple, but hey it sounds good.. And you can always dualboot...

I'm one of those people who grew up using Windows, I loved it for a time. But now that I've seen what the other OSes have to offer I'm not impressed by Windows anymore. Linux was definitely intimidating the first time I used it, and this was a few years ago and it was Gentoo. Yes someone recommended me Gentoo for my first Linux experience...yuck. I was driven away from Linux for a time, but recently I have revisited it and now it totally kicks ass.
 
rapperwith1p said:
From the first paragraph in the quote I don't see how patching security holes makes the OS bloat now when it wasn't on its initial release. If anything it made the OS safer and better but here you hate XP because it has improved.

Regarding your Vista comment I'd think you'd be happy they took out features to remove bloat and the extra security is always welcomed. As far as Aero goes just go back to the classic theme of Win2k and 98 that you loved to use it'll be just like using Win2k or 98.

Yes you are forced to use Windows when you want to play the latest and greatest games but I don't see how you can hate the operating system for this reason alone. If you know what you're doing with computers then you shouldn't have to worry about the vulnerabilities of Windows and with my suggestion with the classic theme and classic start menu it'd be just like your cherished Win2k days.

First of all security patches are not bloat, I never said that. Security patches are fine by me, I like being safe. It's just the fact that Windows is terribly inefficient with resources when compared to Linux and OSX, and Vista is just following the trend. Given some of this bloat is impossible to avoid because people need some backwards compatability for old programs they might be locked into using. It may be getting its security holes frozen but it is stagnant as far as feature advancement goes.

Secondly, I like the Aero effects but I think they can be done without such a high end system. Look at Linux and OSX, both can do accelerated desktops without DirectX 9.0c hardware. Do you think I like the "Classic" theme? It's very boring. Also WinFS wouldn't have been bloat it would have made the OS faster. Microsoft is removing good features that would have made Vista an excellent OS.

Lastly, I don't "hate" Windows because it is the only PC gaming platform. I dislike the fact that I am pigeon-holed into using a lame OS for everything because I like to game. The operating system should provide what the end-user wants, the user should not be forced to deal with a mediocre product and on top of that pay money for it.
 
enelson125 said:
I'm one of those people who grew up using Windows, I loved it for a time. But now that I've seen what the other OSes have to offer I'm not impressed by Windows anymore.
Spoken like someone who has very little clue of what Windows XP is capable of.

enelson125 said:
First of all security patches are not bloat, I never said that. Security patches are fine by me, I like being safe. It's just the fact that Windows is terribly inefficient with resources when compared to Linux and OSX, and Vista is just following the trend.
Give some examples, because as someone who is familiar with all three platforms I am prepared to call that statement total bullshit.

enelson125 said:
Secondly, I like the Aero effects but I think they can be done without such a high end system. Look at Linux and OSX, both can do accelerated desktops without DirectX 9.0c hardware.
True, but Windows is tying those accelerated features to different things for what can only be called a similar effect. While the end result of what you describe could be had with lower resources, that does not necessarily mean that a lower-resource implementation is better. OS X is a perfect example of this: while some of the full GUI features are visible on lower-end hardware, OS X truly does require hardware that was cutting edge (not bleeding edge) when it first appeared to take advantage of the GUI features. With each subsequent version of the OS that included visual upgrades, the requirements equally went up (Tiger is a good example). So, OS X went through the same requirement process that Vista will experience: when the OS is released, the hardware requirements are going to aim for the more mid-to-high-end hardware to take full advantage of the feature set.

In other words, you are damning Microsoft for doing the same thing Apple did, except Apple is far more secretive about their software and doesn't allow public beta testing (well, unless you count 10.1).

enelson125 said:
Also WinFS wouldn't have been bloat it would have made the OS faster. Microsoft is removing good features that would have made Vista an excellent OS.
Because they want to ensure at least a modicum of backwards compatibility. Frankly, as an IT person who has to tend to people who get very upset when things don't work, I am happier they are working compatibility in the system instead of requiring a full infrastructure change.

enelson125 said:
Lastly, I don't "hate" Windows because it is the only PC gaming platform. I dislike the fact that I am pigeon-holed into using a lame OS for everything because I like to game. The operating system should provide what the end-user wants, the user should not be forced to deal with a mediocre product and on top of that pay money for it.
Sorry, but until you gamers finally realize that you are the vast minority in the computing world, despite what impression you have based on the intarweb, you are not going to understand that the demands of the few do not take precedence over the demands of the many. Bite the fiscal bullet for a short time and only buy games that are portable to other platforms, and you will find the developers are going to be more interested in listening. But you won't do that, because whether it is addiction or simply a lack of desire to go without something, you are going to expect companies to stop doing what makes them money in order for you to be happy.

I understand your rant, but I have no sympathy for it. There is very little I can't accomplish in one OS that I can't in another, and for my needs there are alternatives out the wazoo. Heck, with the exception of POSIX forking, I can pretty much make Windows do everything Unix can do. With the exception of a few killer apps that require I stay with Windows as a professional, I could drop Windows tomorrow without any hesitation. Maybe the pigeon-holing that is being done isn't coming from the software companies or hardware developers, perhaps it is coming from the behavior of the people who are pigeonholed to begin with.
 
jimmyb said:
There's not a lot of financial incentive to develop cross-OS sadly.
Exactly, so the OP needs to direct the question towards the overall community, and not Microsoft. Why is it, that anytime someone is unhappy with somethin in the computer universe, they HAVE to blame Microsoft? When will the madness end? Don't you think if 50% of the computers ran Linux, there'd be more and more games released supporting Linux? It's common sense, and yet there still is a MS-bashing thread created. This gets old in a hurry.
 
I give up on this thread. I was just trying to say its a shame that most games are Windows only and that it'd be nice to see that change, because I like using Linux. I just wanted to see if other people thought the same, but instead I get a lot of beligerant replies. I wasn't trying to get people to convince me that Windows is better or worse, I was just voiceing my opinion.

But instead people are trying to cram down my throat that Windows is the best. Yes I realize it is not shit but it's not really amazing in my book either. I was content with Windows for a long time but I've really come to like the alternative choices that are out there.

GreNME: Yes I do have a good idea of what Windows XP is capable, I have been using it since it first came out. I also interned at my high school with the network administrator, and our machines used Windows XP. So I do have a good idea of what it is capable of. You didn't have to take up such an asshole attitude either.

djnes: If you read what I wrote I'm not blaming Microsoft entirely. Please read the whole thread before you post. But I can blame Microsoft if I don't like Windows, they wrote the OS.

Can a Mod please close this thread.
 
enelson125 said:
I give up on this thread. I was just trying to say its a shame that most games are Windows only and that it'd be nice to see that change, because I like using Linux. I just wanted to see if other people thought the same, but instead I get a lot of beligerant replies.

If you want to have a productive and intelligent conversation, then present your side without a lot of general derogatory remarks.

Simply ragging on Microsoft and making very broad claims with no "evidence" will get you called out very quickly.

Not to mention your being so quick to close the thread because others either disagree or are calling BS on your remarks simply means you are really not interested in having a thoughtful or productive discussion.
 
I did read the thread, and in typical fashion for these threads, when others called out the ridiculousness, you suddenly backed off and changed course. The damn title of the thread is Windows RANT!

Secondly, if you want the thread closed, then close it...you are the OP.
 
enelson125 said:
I give up on this thread. I was just trying to say its a shame that most games are Windows only and that it'd be nice to see that change, because I like using Linux. I just wanted to see if other people thought the same, but instead I get a lot of beligerant replies. I wasn't trying to get people to convince me that Windows is better or worse, I was just voiceing my opinion.
Dude, this isn't a MySpace blog. If you didn't want to also have to defend your position, then you should have considered that fact before you posted. This is a discussion forum, not a blog.

enelson125 said:
But instead people are trying to cram down my throat that Windows is the best. Yes I realize it is not shit but it's not really amazing in my book either. I was content with Windows for a long time but I've really come to like the alternative choices that are out there.
Then use only the alternatives. But you won't. You won't because of your own choice, though, so keep that in mind.

enelson125 said:
GreNME: Yes I do have a good idea of what Windows XP is capable, I have been using it since it first came out. I also interned at my high school with the network administrator, and our machines used Windows XP. So I do have a good idea of what it is capable of. You didn't have to take up such an asshole attitude either.
While I'm sure you believe you know what it can do, the fact that you cannot specify any of your blanket statements and broad generalizations leads me to believe you think being able to follow directions to slap together a system and using an MMC to add or remove users in an AD environment makes you knowledgeable.

I state that Windows is capable of pretty much anything *nix is capable of doing, and yet you fail to provide any example of how my statement is false. You have basically already come to the conclusion that Windows is lacking, and the fact that you cannot argue why you think that leads me to believe you don't have solid reasons.

Call me an asshole all you want, but that just means that all you are doing is name-calling while I am simply pointing out your ignorance. That's a good way to wind up in bansville, kiddo.
 
Alright just calm down. I'm sorry that I don't like Windows, and maybe I dislike it for the wrong reasons. I know Windows is capable of most things Linux is, and the reverse is true as well. I never said Windows was not capable of Linux was either.

And I'm sorry if you got offended when I called you an asshole, but there was no need to talk down to me either.

Opinions and rants aren't allowed on discussion forums? That's news to me, I had an opinion and I wanted to see what other users thought. Is that so bad? I did try to some extent to defend my opinion as well.

This thread needs to be closed, it's just a flame war now. This happens every time any thread is made comparing two different OSes. Perhaps I took the wrong tone in my original post, so maybe it is my fault in the first place.
 
Hmmm, differences between XP and Vista....


Oh wait. That's right, Vista is handling graphics card drivers COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY, in part because they're responsible for a significant number of system crashes out there.

But of course, that's not an advancement in the least.
 
enelson125 said:
Alright just calm down. I'm sorry that I don't like Windows, and maybe I dislike it for the wrong reasons. I know Windows is capable of most things Linux is, and the reverse is true as well. I never said Windows was not capable of Linux was either.

And I'm sorry if you got offended when I called you an asshole, but there was no need to talk down to me either.

Opinions and rants aren't allowed on discussion forums? That's news to me, I had an opinion and I wanted to see what other users thought. Is that so bad? I did try to some extent to defend my opinion as well.

This thread needs to be closed, it's just a flame war now. This happens every time any thread is made comparing two different OSes. Perhaps I took the wrong tone in my original post, so maybe it is my fault in the first place.
Dude, you really are just not getting it.

This is not a flame war. This is you making claims, people calling BS on it, and then you snapping at them with broad generalizations. When people call you on your broad generalizations, you either backpedal or name-call.

I'm not offended, and I wasn't talking you down. You seriously come across as someone who may honestly believe you understand more about how the operating system works than you do in reality. I pointed out your obvious ignorance, and you decided to respond not by rebutting my observation, but by calling me a name (of which I've been called worse), further strengthening my initial observation that you really don't know what you are talking about in terms of the OS internals.

For example: you probably didn't know that *nix and Windows pretty much handle virtual memory the same way now. There are slight cosmetic differences, but the processes that take place are pretty much the same.

Another example: you probably didn't know that process management by the kernels is pretty much the same between *nix and Windows. Sure, the base kernels are different one can obviously not look into the code for the Windows kernel to do a stronger comparison, but they both move from point A to point B in essentially the same manner.

More examples: you are quite possibly unaware of the versatility of the command line in Windows, judging from your comments to date. You can thank multiple members of the [H] forums for helping me compile that list, which actually needs updating as I've gotten far more information since originally putting that document there.

You are quite welcome to dislike whatever software you want for whatever reasons you want. I don't necessarily care as I don't know you, and wouldn't really care much even if I did. However, when you post something as contentious as you did on a discussion forum where operating systems and how they work are the main focus, then you should be prepared to either back up your claims or re-assess.

If you don't want to continue this topic, then just stop. However, you are instead doing the metaphorical equivalent of arguing something like "I don't fly because the sky is too green," to which more than one of us has pointed out (metaphorically) "the sky is blue," to which you reply by changing the subject to something else or insulting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top