Windows 7 and general bitching about OSes

[ailailou]

A possible solution for the problems encountered with Windows Update and MSI Installer (ArsTechnica forum):

start regedit
navigate to HKLM\Software\Microsoft\SQMClient\Windows\Disabled Sessions
rename MachineThrottling to _MachineThrottling

[IceRiccy]

You could just shift to console gaming exclusively

yes ill switch to console gaming, where there is limited competition in games, shitty controllers to rely on, shittier utilization of game engines AND NO LEANING.

I am stuck using shitty things like xbox live to play, and have less control over tweaking my config for making people show up easier or just more to my liking.

Modding the game on consoles is limited extremely  and are usually shitty at best.

Ide be stuck using my XBOX or buying a ps3. Would have to play on my tv which i dont like to do for FPS. Also being stuck with limited patching and paying for new maps.

Thats all purely developer choice. If the developers wanted to, they could easily give you tweaking upon a console game. Same for mods, it only requires a build in mod section within the game itself and a harddisk to store these mods upon. and maybe an open downloadable marketplace, instead of a microsoft controlled one.

[costi]

In other words you can't play BF2 with it's 20+ unofficial mods   However some games are exclusive for consoles... too bad you have several of them to choose from with each having their own exclusive games.

Right now, of you get an X360, you have access to 95% of the titles available.

yes ill switch to console gaming, where there is limited competition in games, shitty controllers to rely on, shittier utilization of game engines AND NO LEANING.

I am stuck using shitty things like xbox live to play, and have less control over tweaking my config for making people show up easier or just more to my liking.

ZOMG, you can't use a wallhack, consoles must suck...

Define "shitty controllers" and "shittier utilization of game engines", please. Especially in the case of GTA4, for example "limited competition" is also interesting...

[AceHigh]

Right now, of you get an X360, you have access to 95% of the titles available.

Pure bullshit.... and I am not even counting all the games in the entire history of computer gaming. Too many games just can't be made for console, those who are are shittier, also don't forget the mods (which I play more then vanilla, all my current games that I play frequently are modded).  Look at Oblivion and Fallout, Oblivion has tons of mods coming out and fallout makes 5 new ones every day. FPS for consoles? What a joke, we see the results of that in "context movement, shooting and shitting" like Gears of war and all it's clones where one button has 20 different functions depending on your position, things around you, weather, mood of your console and the fortune cookie you ate a week ago. Also other good games like Ghost Recon went crap after adopting to a console and now the latest one is another "use context button to lean against walls and use blind fire because console gamers can't aim for shit"

Basically every console title ripped of an original pc game is a crappy piece of shit that is not worth mentioning, because playing Xbox version of "Operation flashpoint" would be just as crappy as playing "Devil may cry" on a pc with a keyboard.

[mgz]

In other words you can't play BF2 with it's 20+ unofficial mods   However some games are exclusive for consoles... too bad you have several of them to choose from with each having their own exclusive games.

Right now, of you get an X360, you have access to 95% of the titles available.

yes ill switch to console gaming, where there is limited competition in games, shitty controllers to rely on, shittier utilization of game engines AND NO LEANING.

I am stuck using shitty things like xbox live to play, and have less control over tweaking my config for making people show up easier or just more to my liking.

ZOMG, you can't use a wallhack, consoles must suck...

Define "shitty controllers" and "shittier utilization of game engines", please. Especially in the case of GTA4, for example "limited competition" is also interesting...

um lets see basic things like LEAN, a function that is in call of duty 4 for the PC you know where its not? THE CONSOLE.

I personally hate playing games without lean which is why i hate counterstrike. I dont hack, i enjoy to play competetively cevolved.com caleague.com
and for the lesser skilled players teamwarfareleague.c om
point is i can pay and compete against other players for money or play for free and face other teams for genuine competition.

Through winning online events in caleague or cevo league you can get lan sponsors hardware sponsors server and ventrillo sponsors softdrink sponsors ect ect.

You basically get dick from playing on a console except an xbox live bill

[costi]

Well, guess what - some people play just for fun
Though I do prefer FPS games on a PC, I'm just more used to a keyboard+mouse.

Pure bullshit.... and I am not even counting all the games in the entire history of computer gaming.

I was referring to the current line-up of games and the exclusives for both consoles and the PC. MY comment was a response to this exact statement:

too bad you have several of them to choose from with each having their own exclusive games.

Also other good games like Ghost Recon went crap after adopting to a console

Ummm... GRAW was released first for the X360, IIRC. And the Rainbow Six series went downhill long before the current generation of consoles... R6:Vegas was actually an improvement.

[AceHigh]

Ummm... GRAW was released first for the X360, IIRC. And the Rainbow Six series went downhill long before the current generation of consoles... R6:Vegas was actually an improvement.

It is released for console first for strategic reasons. What I meant is that the series of this game was originally for PC only starting from the first title.

Rainbow six was a piece of shit lately. it is basically Gears of war with other skins, and models. It used to be a tactical FPS once you know.

[mgz]

games like ghost recon and rainbow six are fucking garbage now, i know i played one of the 2 5 or 6 years back, it was a slightly more tactical version of counterstrike, and more fun. I got bored with it though.

They gave me oneof hte newer ghost recons with something i bought for my pc, and rainbow six vegas with one of my processors ITS FUCKING GARBAGE.

The started making them to console because there was a large fanbase for them on PC, when they did that they simplified movements, removed some movements and made the games all around shittier because of what they did.

[AceHigh]

Thank you for making it sound better then I did. Console ruins the gaming experience when it tries to make games that are not meant for consoles.

[mgz]

Thank you for making it sound better then I did. Console ruins the gaming experience when it tries to make games that are not meant for consoles.

basically they have to dumb down some styles of games for them to work on a console most specifically first person shooters have to be made or strategic shooters or any shooters just about, have to be made so that basically a retard can play them competently, where as you have retards playing the same games on computers they just do nothing but TACTICAL REALISM MODS or RIFLES ONLY, and play with rules that make them like consoles. Like no jumping and shooting no jumping more then once in like a 2 second period. No using pistols, flashes, smokes ect things that are part of a game. And this is in pubs.

In competitive play its a whole different story where guns and things will be removed or changed because they are overpowered for 5v5 combat, or allow things to be overwhelmingly easy for one side due to spawns or positioning of a bomb that needs to be planted.

But more or less they have to dumb it down so a fucktard with a joystick on a controller can aim OK, and even if he doesnt aim perfect its got much larger hit boxes(sounds like what it says basically the area in which a bullet registers as a hit) Hit boxes tend to be larger and more forgiving on a console. Same hitboxes on PC = way to fucking easy

[Sakura588]

Thank you for making it sound better then I did. Console ruins the gaming experience when it tries to make games that are not meant for consoles.

The only reasons people are into console gaming is because they don't have to spend the 10 minutes it takes to plan out what you want a gaming-rig to have, buy those parts, and then install properly upon arrival. If PC gaming wasn't "too technically advanced for the general gamer" and more people supported it, not only would those gamers have a better experience, but, the console wouldn't have all these games that should be on PC ported to it.

One of the best examples of this is way back in the day when they made a ported version of Starcraft for the N64...

Most FPS games released on the consoles now-a-days are playable but nothing compares to the WASD days of counter-strike and unreal tournament where you actually have maneuverability which makes it that much harder to hit people and get hit, thus requiring much more hand-eye coordination than console gaming (especially when one hand moves you around and controls most of your actions while the other controls shooting, the direction you face, and aiming).

The funniest part about console gaming is that it will inevitably merge with PC-gaming anyways. We are approaching the days where console pricing is getting closer and closer to that of decent gaming rigs. Consoles are now being loaded with more and more features that can be seen on PCs (and are much better on PC too). They are trying to give consoles the functionality and graphics of a gaming rig PC without the customization of parts. This works well for the general user who isn't technically savvy, but in the grand scheme of it all, the features of consoles are lackluster compared to their computer counterparts. The graphics of the next-generation consoles aren't anywhere near where the PCs of today are at; neither is the processing power. Add to the fact that reverse-compatibility seems to be a convenience no longer afforded to us by the console-producers (or, if at all, in expensive, no-longer-in-production models) and that you buy a console and get stuck with whatever they release for it in the future, without any real guarantee that it will be worth it (buy the PS3 just for FFXIII & Versus, since that was a given; or XBOX 360 for Halo 3 [before we found out it was just better graphics]).

You look at the PC and all you see is MMO's or RTS' because that's all people are willing to put on the PC without porting it to the console, or, rather, porting a console-geared game to the PC. CoD 4 was awesome, but World at War is just... the MMO's from Blizzard are still highly popular despite how long it has been since their various release dates (WoW, SC: BW [3v3 BGH, and many UMS games], Diablo II: LoD, W3 [DOTA/Foot Frenzy anyone?]. Counter-strike is still the classic "you're only pro at FPS if you're good at this" game. It's rare to find a "next-gen" game that lives up to these gems of the past. Many will intrigue the general user and they might check it out on impulse, but, when was the last time a game has fully entranced the user for more than the general 2 weeks of playing it takes before boredom sets in?

ON TOPIC: Windows 7 won't really solve much in my opinion; Microsoft needs to bring back Vista Beta 1 when the OS was actually good. It's too bad they opened the BETA up to people who had nowhere near the technical-savvy required to understand why the OS was revolutionary and was a vast improvement for those of us who knew what the hell we were doing. Instead, Microsoft decided to go about and listen to all these people complain about things as simple as "Where is MyDocuments located" and decided to scrap their awesome layout for Vista and dumb it down so the more "technically-retarded" people could buy their OS and then wonder why nothing they install on it will work because they can't fathom what the hell Run As Administrator means or does, or what Compatibility Mode does or how it may not work in all cases because of coding differences.

The world has come to a point where its "better" to model everything towards the general user and not the ones who will actually benefit from the use of a revolutionary OS like Vista Beta 1 was. The people who want to just boot up the computer (where is that button again?) and get on to check e-mail via IE 7 or open up Microsoft Word/Excel to do some typing shouldn't worry about future OS's if they have no use for the new features it will provide (otherwise why the hell would they even waste their time on making a new OS and instead not just release another SP? Oh, wait, it's to sucker these morons into buying their half-assed OS because they said that they would buy it because of the changes they bitched about).

[iindigo]

I personally think what Microsoft needs to do is give the entire legacy Windows codebase a big pitch out the window and start from scratch. For compatibility with all those creaky, old, cantankerous internal apps that companies refuse to rewrite properly and all the old normal consumer Windows applications, implement a stripped-down virtualized legacy Windows environment similar to XP for them to run in. This would eliminate the problems of users having to figure out if a program needs to run under a certain compatibility mode setting or not - legacy apps would open the "classic" Windows environment, no if's, and's, or but's about it.

The "run as admin" problem could be tackled by designing the system in a way that administrator access should not be required in most cases, and even when it is, the application in need of the privilege would just ask the user for it via name and password instead of just flipping out and not running correctly (like they do now).

Getting companies to write drivers for the entirely new Windows OS may be a problem, but could be solved if MS were able to convince those companies that this new OS actually brings something new to the table instead of just being a refinished rehash of what we've had since Windows NT/2K.

And although I know it will never happen, they would more likely than not be better off basing this beast off a *nix of some sort.

As for the UI and general arrangement of things in the new OS, they should offer the user a choice between:

• Windows classic UI simulation. This mode would resemble XP in look, feel and function, and would hold the user's hand through more things. This would be default for Home and Home Business editions.
• A completely new, much more modern layout and design. It would do away with silly things like convoluted path navigation (for example, currently going "up" from My Documents in Explorer will take you to My Computer instead of your user folder, which is the true parent directory of My Documents. What the hell?) and and would be generally more geared towards technically-adept users by taking a more *nix-style approach of things. This would be default on Professional and the newly-introduced Gamer editions.

They certainly have more than enough money and programming power to accomplish such a thing. I just wish they'd do it.

[AceHigh]

Funny that you first state that they should do it all from scratch (agree with you there) and then you come with *nix as example even though *nix is an archaic system. Indeed windows was a new innovation compared to unix 

[iindigo]

Funny that you first state that they should do it all from scratch (agree with you there) and then you come with *nix as example even though *nix is an archaic system. Indeed windows was a new innovation compared to unix 

The difference is that all those years put into developing UNIX have actually improved it greatly and perfected it. If you put a user-friendly face on top of it, it'll perform extremely well even under heavy workloads. It's come through the generations as a killer workhorse, impervious to age.

Windows, however, is showing its age quite badly. It's covered in wrinkles and white hair even though it's only in its 20s...

[fohfoh]

Funny that you first state that they should do it all from scratch (agree with you there) and then you come with *nix as example even though *nix is an archaic system. Indeed windows was a new innovation compared to unix 

The difference is that all those years put into developing UNIX have actually improved it greatly and perfected it. If you put a user-friendly face on top of it, it'll perform extremely well even under heavy workloads. It's come through the generations as a killer workhorse, impervious to age.

Windows, however, is showing its age quite badly. It's covered in wrinkles and white hair even though it's only in its 20s...

Uhh... no. It's more like shitloads of flavors crashed and burned while the decent ones were left standing.

Back on topic. Windows 7 isn't bad. I'd say it's got potential. Faster than XP (but barely) but hard to declare stability though. (XP has "time" on its hands though). 7 is WAY better than Vista... but Vista was shit in the first place.

All in all, I might consider a copy of 7 for my laptop if it stays as thus.

[costi]

games like ghost recon and rainbow six are fucking garbage now, i know i played one of the 2 5 or 6 years back, it was a slightly more tactical version of counterstrike, and more fun. I got bored with it though.

They gave me oneof hte newer ghost recons with something i bought for my pc, and rainbow six vegas with one of my processors ITS FUCKING GARBAGE.

The started making them to console because there was a large fanbase for them on PC, when they did that they simplified movements, removed some movements and made the games all around shittier because of what they did.

Too bad the "consolified" R6: vegas has more tactical options than the previous PC-only instalments... Only thefirst two R6 games were the good ones, with pre-mission planning (that was more important than the exacution itself), selecting equipment for each team member, etc.

Personally, I have the "games must be dumbed dowm for consoles" argument, mostly because the dumbing has nothing to do with consoles. The reason is simple: games are being targeted at a much broader audience, so they have to be simpler. Hardcore gamers are just a small group, not big enough to make big0budget titles only with them in mind. Casual gamers are where the money is, and they're the target market for 95% of the titles coming out right now. The fact that most games are released as multi-platform is just a by-product, aimed at maximizing sales.

Most FPS games released on the consoles now-a-days are playable but nothing compares to the WASD days of counter-strike and unreal tournament where you actually have maneuverability which makes it that much harder to hit people and get hit, thus requiring much more hand-eye coordination than console gaming (especially when one hand moves you around and controls most of your actions while the other controls shooting, the direction you face, and aiming).

But it's the same on a console - one analog stick fr moving, the other for targeting. The general principle isthe same, but the difference is that a pad is just much, much slower that a keyboard+mouse combo.

The graphics of the next-generation consoles aren't anywhere near where the PCs of today are at; neither is the processing power.

So? I was always under the impression that playability was more important than graphics (which most developers seem to forget as well).

The world has come to a point where its "better" to model everything towards the general user and not the ones who will actually benefit from the use of a revolutionary OS like Vista Beta 1 was.

Money makes the world go round... See the thing about casuals above. Besides, there's always Linux

A completely new, much more modern layout and design. It would do away with silly things like convoluted path navigation (for example, currently going "up" from My Documents in Explorer will take you to My Computer instead of your user folder, which is the true parent directory of My Documents. What the hell?) and and would be generally more geared towards technically-adept users by taking a more *nix-style approach of things. This would be default on Professional and the newly-introduced Gamer editions.

Actually, I prefer it this way. How often do you need to access the "Users\USERNAME\" folder? I know I almost never do. So, the fact that Windows explorer skips these totally unused folders and sticks to the important ones is IMHO better. It'd be nice to have an option to chnge this, though, for the people who need it.

[fohfoh]

I keep getting random BSODs if I push too many processing requirements with programs etc.

[mgz]

games like ghost recon and rainbow six are fucking garbage now, i know i played one of the 2 5 or 6 years back, it was a slightly more tactical version of counterstrike, and more fun. I got bored with it though.

They gave me oneof hte newer ghost recons with something i bought for my pc, and rainbow six vegas with one of my processors ITS FUCKING GARBAGE.

The started making them to console because there was a large fanbase for them on PC, when they did that they simplified movements, removed some movements and made the games all around shittier because of what they did.

Too bad the "consolified" R6: vegas has more tactical options than the previous PC-only instalments... Only thefirst two R6 games were the good ones, with pre-mission planning (that was more important than the exacution itself), selecting equipment for each team member, etc.

Personally, I have the "games must be dumbed dowm for consoles" argument, mostly because the dumbing has nothing to do with consoles. The reason is simple: games are being targeted at a much broader audience, so they have to be simpler. Hardcore gamers are just a small group, not big enough to make big0budget titles only with them in mind. Casual gamers are where the money is, and they're the target market for 95% of the titles coming out right now. The fact that most games are released as multi-platform is just a by-product, aimed at maximizing sales.

Most FPS games released on the consoles now-a-days are playable but nothing compares to the WASD days of counter-strike and unreal tournament where you actually have maneuverability which makes it that much harder to hit people and get hit, thus requiring much more hand-eye coordination than console gaming (especially when one hand moves you around and controls most of your actions while the other controls shooting, the direction you face, and aiming).

But it's the same on a console - one analog stick fr moving, the other for targeting. The general principle isthe same, but the difference is that a pad is just much, much slower that a keyboard+mouse combo.

The graphics of the next-generation consoles aren't anywhere near where the PCs of today are at; neither is the processing power.

So? I was always under the impression that playability was more important than graphics (which most developers seem to forget as well).

The world has come to a point where its "better" to model everything towards the general user and not the ones who will actually benefit from the use of a revolutionary OS like Vista Beta 1 was.

Money makes the world go round... See the thing about casuals above. Besides, there's always Linux

A completely new, much more modern layout and design. It would do away with silly things like convoluted path navigation (for example, currently going "up" from My Documents in Explorer will take you to My Computer instead of your user folder, which is the true parent directory of My Documents. What the hell?) and and would be generally more geared towards technically-adept users by taking a more *nix-style approach of things. This would be default on Professional and the newly-introduced Gamer editions.

Actually, I prefer it this way. How often do you need to access the "Users\USERNAME\" folder? I know I almost never do. So, the fact that Windows explorer skips these totally unused folders and sticks to the important ones is IMHO better. It'd be nice to have an option to chnge this, though, for the people who need it.

define what you mean for a tactical option, i dont care about picking different guns, but abilities of a character to move and use different features ect ect. You have to toggle through some features in console games that you have seperate buttons for. Be it leaning, crouch, prone, sprint, stand, jump. Throwing flash grenade, smoke grenades stun grenades. Drop weapons,  Pick up guns, melee. Attaching and detaching silencers and other add ons for guns.


All of that kind of shit, that is usually not available OR available in more limited capacity due to its lack of buttons.

[Sakura588]

Personally, I have the "games must be dumbed dowm for consoles" argument, mostly because the dumbing has nothing to do with consoles. The reason is simple: games are being targeted at a much broader audience, so they have to be simpler. Hardcore gamers are just a small group, not big enough to make big0budget titles only with them in mind. Casual gamers are where the money is, and they're the target market for 95% of the titles coming out right now. The fact that most games are released as multi-platform is just a by-product, aimed at maximizing sales.

But we are talking about the future of gaming, with the understanding that PCs and consoles will eventually become one and the same due the very issue you brought up: maximizing sales. If the prices of consoles jumps the way it did after the transition from Xbox to Xbox 360 and PS2 to PS3 (especially in this economy), and companies see that, for around the same price as their console, the user could purchase PC with better specs and processing power than said console, and that console, being a "next-generation" piece of technology, and therefore offering (or trying to offer) similar services as PCs, would you not think that the developers might not think "Hey, we can save money AND increase sales if we combine high-end PC power with console gaming". All they need to do is create a nice UPnP controller (gee, like the one's they already have now?) create a program/system partition that reads the next-gen games, and "Voila!", you have the console games you love, with the graphics that consoles rarely ever see (since most are "toned down" due to lack of graphics processing power), and, oh, you can also use all the services you would normally use your PC for. And, for those hardcore PC gamers that already have rigs that beat the mass-produced models, just download the software to play and you don't even need to purchase the new console-PC". Yeah, it takes away from part of their profit, but it also gets them into that share of the market of those PC gamers who would purchase and play console games if it was only ported to their PC.

But it's the same on a console - one analog stick fr moving, the other for targeting. The general principle is the same, but the difference is that a pad is just much, much slower that a keyboard+mouse combo.

Hand-eye coordination is better when you can actually move at the same speed with which you react. This allows games to become much easier to play, and, in the terms of online multi-player games, allows for much more difficult matches.

So? I was always under the impression that playability was more important than graphics (which most developers seem to forget as well).

What do 90% of the games today put out as their major sales-pitch besides being the sequel to popular series X, Y, or Z? It's graphics. Gameplay is what keeps gamers interested and enjoying the product, hopefully making a return-buyer out of them when a new game is created by "the company that brought you... [insert good game here]". Graphics are what entice the player to overlook the initial gameplay and purchase the game. As long as people purchase the game based on graphics and are mildly awestruck by them, there is a good chance they will buy another game by that company for the same reason (unless the gameplay is absolutely horrendous).

Money makes the world go round... See the thing about casuals above. Besides, there's always Linux

Indeed, money makes the world go round, but, if the market is saying "Your prices are rediculous for what we are (or aren't) getting" then the developers need to find a way to appeal to their would-be consumers, and the merging of console gaming with the convenience and graphics and processing power of a PC would do just that. Mass production of decent gaming rigs (right now) wouldn't cost much more than a PS3 when it first came out, especially since OS and hardware development companies will want to be the one's producing such units, therefore driving prices down due to the competition and the fact that they want to have their name on it.

ON TOPIC: I have a hybrid Win XP/Win Vista/Win 7 on my computer. Since it has all the good (and properly working features) of all the OS's, from what I have seen it looks very good. Now I just have to wait for them to finish the OS, release it, and then release their first SP after a month of two so it will be good to use .

[AceHigh]

Too bad the "consolified" R6: vegas has more tactical options than the previous PC-only instalments... Only the first two R6 games were the good ones, with pre-mission planning (that was more important than the exacution itself), selecting equipment for each team member, etc.

Ever played SWAT 4? I wonder how they could implement features on the console like opening small windows to see what your teammates sees and to give them orders based on what you see through his camera on his helmet and at the same time coordinate another element while you still do it quickly enough not to get shot yourself. I also wonder how easy would it be to replace the button range from F1 to F11 that are used to give orders in Operation Flashpoint?

Why don't we look at Oblivion compared with Morrowind in terms of interface? Oblivion interface is clearly dumbed down for the console, not casual gamer.