Discussion Forums > Technology
Windows 7 and general bitching about OSes
Sakura588:
--- Quote from: Dragoon AceHigh on January 21, 2009, 04:24:07 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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 ;D
iindigo:
--- Quote from: Dragoon AceHigh on January 21, 2009, 06:13:11 PM ---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 ;D
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: iindigo on January 21, 2009, 06:44:41 PM ---
--- Quote from: Dragoon AceHigh on January 21, 2009, 06:13:11 PM ---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 ;D
--- End quote ---
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...
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version