"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:15817825.XkYNjGu9sD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> __/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Wednesday 31 January 2007 20:22 \__
>
>>
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1466196.2t5aOYcs2h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Vista breaks 90% of games, claims game publisher
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Alex St. John, chief executive of game publisher WildTangent, today
>>> | blasted his former employer for a half-baked and negligent way of
>>> | treating the majority of game publishers - small development studios
>>> | and individual programmers of casual games: St. John claims that at
>>> | least nine out of ten games do not work with Vista.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007/01/30/vista_games/
>>
>> It's funny, 'cause WildTangent produces spyware, so it's actually
>> good
>> publicity for Vista that WildTangent is unable to get their products to
>> run
>> on Vista without the user's consent.
>>
>> http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007/01/30/vista_games/
>> <quote>
>> He conceded that Microsoft "likely made a conscious decision to make it
>> tough for downloadable applications to work with Vista."
>> </quote>
>>
>> Check out Slashdot for more commentary on Vista and Games:
>>
>> http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/30/2049251
>> <quote>
>> I must admit, everytime I see wild claims of "Vista breaks gaming",
>> deeper
>> reading usually reveals "Vista breaks our stupid copy protection that
>> needed admin access". I see this as a good thing. Ive had enough
>> computers
>> fucked over by SecuROM, StarForce and friends.
>> </quote>
>>
>
> Oliver, whatever the true figures are, this is a terrible thing.
What does "this" refer to? That Vista blocks spyware? Sounds like a good
thing to me. That there exists some games out there which are incompatible
with Vista? I think "terrible" is too alarmist. We've gone through this
before in another thread: Updating your OS is a major change, and while you
can certainly expect most of your old software to work under the new
version, you shouldn't expect *all* of it to work. This was true in the
transition from DOS to Win3.1, the transition from Win3.1 to Win95, from
Win95 to WinXP, from WinXP to WinVista. This is also true of XBox to
XBox360, from Playstation 1 to Playstation 2, from Playstation 2 to
Playstation 3, and even from Ubuntu 6.06 to Ubuntu 6.10.
> I have been
> glancing at about a dozen articles this morning, all of which complain
> about
> compatibility... games... online games... software... even Web-based
> software is said to sometimes break with IE7...
With been through this as well: If you're genuinely having problems with
a specific game, online game, software, or web based software, then name it,
and we can try to go about helping you with your problem. If you just want
to complain to scare people away from Vista, then I guess it doesn't matter
how good Vista gets, there'll always be something to complain about.
> even crucial things like
> online payments and government sites in Korea.
I heard about this (from this newsgroup, I think). Wasn't the issue
basically that they were using some insecure portion of ActiveX, which IE7
no longer supports? Maybe it's a *good* thing that people can no longer
access their bank accounts via insecure technology.
>
> Whatever Vista brings, people won't be happy.
Interesting assertion. I'd rephrase it as "Whatever Vista brings, there
will exist people who will be unhappy with it". Your phrasing implies that
*all* people are unhappy with Vista, which is obviously not the case.
> People take pleasure in
> collecting things (and I'm no exception). People have collections of
> films,
> music, even games... and, heck, a friend of mine has a /huge/ game
> collection and he once said he would one day make some good use of it...
> speaking about the possibility of doing legacy stuff... he messes about
> with
> DOS emulators even.
>
> Vista marks the stage when not only films and music can be invalidated or
> inaccessible overnight (DRM), but games will also become useless binary
> blobs (no source code to bring them back into life, so to speak)... and
> will
> no longer be accessible unless you keep some old pile of metal in your
> house
> and use highly insecure O/Sen.
>
> Vista breaks digital preservation. Documents get locks. Music and films
> need
> keys. Games cease to function and there's no access to code that can be
> tweak to mend them.
Are you claiming that once I install Vista on my computer, somehow my
Ogg Vorbis music files, and Theora movies files will magically have DRM
applied to them? If not, then what are you referring to when you say "films
and music can be invalidated or inaccessible overnight (DRM)"? I am highly
skeptical of your claim. If your concern is that you have the *choice* of
buying DRMed media once you've installed Vista, then don't you think having
that choice is good? "More choice!" is the cry I constantly here in this
newsgroup.
Well, with a non-Vista OS, you can watch your non-DRM movies, but you
can't watch the Vista-only-DRMed movies (not legally, at least). With Vista,
not only can you watch yoru non-DRM movies, but you can ALSO watch your
Vista-only movies.
>
> This whole thing is a disaster to archiving and historians. The British
> library (or some representative association thereof) has already
> complained
> about this and shortly afterwards Gates makes some notebook available to
> Vista only.
So maybe the archivers and historians can stick with whatever OS they
currently use for their archiving and histor-ing, and the rest of the world
can use whatever they want, and each party is largely unaffected by the
other. You seem to be under the impression that if *I* use Vista, you are
somehow going to lose your data. It's possible for some people to use Vista,
and others to not use Vista, you know...
>
> I wrote this message very quickly (as usual), so excuse the spew-like
> nature
> of it.
Don't worry about it.
- Oliver
|
|
