uh no, language packs won't help much, same like they didn't on XP(yes, they added support for a lnaguage, but the interface didn't get affected much by it). For example a windows in hebrew is even hardcoded to have everything on the opposite side(start button is to the right, icons too and so on). How are you going to change -that- with a language pack? eh?

This is because of poor programming on the part of the developers. There are a huge number of programs that work perfectly fine as a regular user (with the exception of antivirus/defrag/etc programs which need admin rights to scan everything, and even without they work perfectly at grabbing what they can). It is also a symptom of Microsoft's long backwards compatibility stance which they have thankfully partially scrapped for Vista.

Which is about the only time you need to use UAC with well designed applications. Windows developers have had it easy for a long time in regards to what they could do (yes coding was a pain in the ass, but where you could go and what you could do was ridiculous) and now with Vista they are starting to have to do things properly.


Yes, with Linux you only need to click on that "go" button to install something - but thats only something somebody else has compiled for you. Even with an easy system like ubuntu you will end up having to compile some software or programs that you want to use. As far as your description of windows software, you are a retard. You spend just as much, if not more time on Linux working out what software to use for what purpose as you do for Windows (which in most cases is easy as hell, especially with the amount of reviews of popular applications). The popular applications are generally more powerful than their Linux clones too - MS Office > OpenOffice/KOffice/etc, Photoshop > Gimp (though not by much), Quicken/MYOB > GNUCash, iTunes > amarok, nero > k3b, etc (notice I didn't mention XMMS - because that DOES rock muchly). The only area where Linux applications really outshine their windows counterparts is with their internet applications, and even then you have a hell of a time with proprietary format problems like trying to get 64 bit flash working properly in firefox.


And in the next six months or so we will see a lot more Vista systems come out as games like Crysis, Bioshock, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Team Fortress 2 and Halo 2 come out for Vista. Initial adoption for *any* new MS operating system is slow, but it speeds up by the 6th month mark as most of the teething problems start to get sorted out (don't even think of comparing this period to Linux because Ubuntu goes through the same thing with an extensive open beta before release and even then there is still a mass of problems that hit the UbuntuForums within the first couple of weeks of a release - it took weeks to get Flash working decently under the released version of Ubuntu 6.06).

I disagree on calling it "poor programming from the side of developers". It is not. Making an incompatible api is the fault of Microsoft not the devs and therefore they shouldn't be blamed.

In windows you also can install only things that someone else compiled for you or did it learn to run source code? Personally i compile on Ubuntu only my -own- source code, most other things are available in repositories, nicely tuned and precompiled. If something is not there then i can make a request of adding a package and it will be, or i can package it myself and send it to be added.

Most popular applications are generally -not- more powerfull than their alternative(clone would be a wrong word in most cases. Gimp is not a photoshop clone). It's a myth in most cases and your comparision is misleading. And i have no problems with proprietary formats at all.

I haven't had to compile ANYTHING from source for years. The Ubuntu repositories are ridiculously pervasive, and even when something you want isn't in the repositories (With experimental or severely obscure software, for example) the developers almost always provide their own repositories or just plain old .deb files. People who think Linux users still need to compile code they didn't write themselves are living in 1999 or spend waaaaaaay too much time around Gentoo users. I'm not going to compare Photoshop to the Gimp or MS Office to Open Office (Specially considering that I haven't used the proprietary software in question in ages) but the fact remains that Open Office is superior simply because it's file formats don't break. Additionally, it has real, useful features that MS office doesn't have - Like a simple and truly usable UI, converting files to PDF, and being cross-platform. However, having used both Bluefish and Adobe Dreamweaver, I have to say I much prefer Bluefish; having used Inkscape and Corel Draw, I have to say I much prefer Inkscape, despite it not having a handful of features which Corel Draw does have; having used Trillian, MSN messenger and Yahoo messenger, I have to say Gaim is light-years ahead of them; and having used Ekiga, I have to say the only reason I use Skype is because people use that instead of a SIP softphone. And iTunes is nothing but annoying glitz. It looks pretty, and that's it; it's painfully slow and it hijacks your computer with quicktime. Frankly, I prefer Rhythmbox.

Mitbulls is arguing one side, and Asarnil is arguing from a totally different angle, it seems. All those programs are perfect replacements of their counterparts for probably a majority of people, I'd guess. Personally, I've never had to do anything in Office I couldn't do just as easily OO.o. And the vast majority of things that my friends and coworkers do would be easier on Ubuntu, actually. For all the people who haven't used a computer before in their lives that I deal with at work, I could teach them Ubuntu just as easily as I could Windows, and they'd be able to do more with less chance of totally boning their machine.

Windows and Linux are hugely different in some aspects, but for many, many users, those differences may as well not exist, and arguing about them is silly. If you know enough to even be able to pick your own OS, you know plenty to use either of them, and you just need to pick based on software. I'd go full Ubuntu if I didn't play WoW/SC/WC3 all the time.

I want you to try and use an excel spreadsheet with a lot of complex formula and macros (for an easy example here look at HeroForge) and try running them on OpenOffice properly. If you can, you will be the first of many people who have tried since the mid-90's to get it done. OpenOffice, while okay for basic stuff is still WAY behind on the complex things that just Microsoft Office is capable of. Going back to the HeroForge sheet, it is virtually an entire new application written on an excel spreadsheet. It is like comparing Zmud/Cmud/Mushclient to the java client.

In regards to the messenger clients (I did say here that is one of the areas that Linux did do better in) Gaim is bloody good, but lately on windows I have started using alternate versions of the main applications - instead of AIM, either Aim Pro or Aim Lite are both very solid (both made by AOL and Aim Lite is surprisingly good considering who made it). Windows Live Messenger is customizable through things like A-Patch which can strip and customize it in a huge variety of ways, etc. I won't comment on Yahoo messenger because I loathe it. Irc is also better from a windows point of view - while the plain mIRC is boring and bland, the sheer number of scripts around to make it better are useful, as well as complete makeovers like Polaris or nnScript to make it into a more full featured client.

In regards to the proprietary formats, the flash issue was HUGE at the release of Ubuntu 6.06. The other formats that you don't have a problem with are usually due to the owners allowing them for linux or you grabbing them when you aren't supposed to (depending on the laws of your country it can be illegal to grab them for linux - in others its not).

Sorry for the hijack, but: NOOO! Are you serious!? Can you show me a link or something where they said that? I've been looking forward to playing it on XP.

Once again, for the vast majority of users, complex spreadsheets aren't something they need, so there is really no difference. If you need a specialized product, then yes, you'll have to tailor your choices to that, but most people don't.

Bioshock is due out August 21-24th depending on where you live (the same company is also releasing The Darkness - see my sig - at the end of June which means by then I will probably have forked out the money for an xbox360 or a ps3 ).

I think I will have to save up for one of those if bioshock is going to be Vista-only. Ugh.

I don't know if it will be Vista only (I doubt it) but if you don't have at least a X2 4600+, 2 GB Ram, single 7900GT system then you might want to think of upgrading - thats about the same specs as the system they are testing it on. There is also this little snippet by one of the developers that makes me want the Xbox version more though "For what it's worth, the XBox360 version will perform the same as, if not better than, a decked-out quad-core PC rig running at 720p with all graphics options set to maximum." and how much such a system would cost by the time Bioshock comes out, it will probably be cheaper to get the Xbox version for that kind of performance.

PCs are dead as a platform for serious gaming, anyway.

I'll see how much they end up being closer to the time I suppose.

Better not be too much, I do NOT want to miss Bioshock.

Anyway, hijack over.

People have been predicting that for over a decade now. If they were you wouldn't have Dell's XPS or HP's Voodoo series, or those ATI/NVIDIA cars. There are still a lot of things the x86 platform can do a lot better. I have a feeling it will still be around for a long time. With the proper game engines and graphic APIs, things should be fine.

Shiri, Bioshock uses the Unreal 3 engine, which was designed to work with both DirectX 9 and 10. I think you will be safe. I don't think too many games will go Vista/DirectX 10 only until another year has passed or so.

Ack, the nerdiness. It burnsssssss.

I'm not predicting the death of PC gaming as in, "Developers will stop making PC games"; as long as there are personal computers, people will game on them. But I do believe that, thanks in part to Microsoft's beautifully incompatible, shut-in APIs, gaming on a PC has lost. A PC that can do everything but gaming, nowadays, is so cheap, common and easy to produce that it's almost no longer a product, but rather a commodity. A PC that can play modern games with a level of graphic refinement and performance comparable to current consoles is expensive. The PC platform lost, because dedicated consoles are always going to be cheaper, faster, easier. I love PC gaming; I think there are things PC games can do that are impossible on a console; but I don't think PC games are going to be seen as an important or interesting platform by developers from now on, except for its high sales volume. Serious gamers (If there is such a thing) are likely to migrate in droves to console platforms, simply because it gives you all the benefits of Vista, with none of the drawbacks and for less money.

That's my plan, but I haven't played a console FPS I like yet. Having a keyboard and mouse really does wonders for that genre.

Which is part of the reason I can't wait for Halo 2 to hit Vista and the service to play vs xbox users online starts.

RTS and FPS games are infinitely better on a PC than they are on a console, even if its only because console requires auto-aim hax to not suck too much.

With the Nintendo wii, I have to agree with verithrax.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that PC gaming is dead, thats a fairly stupid statement, but now that consols are on the internet, and they are under half the price of a gaming pc, It seems smarter to spend your money on Consol games than it does to buy PC games.
However... getting free pc games is much easier than getting free console games, and that in my opinion will keep the demand for highend Gaming Pcs up.

http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/17/the-olp...-un-net-summit/

Ok, I'm wrong, gaming pcs arn't more expensive than the Wii