Console Wars IV

[Asher]

The DS isn't radically different -- it's more powerful than the GBA (considerably so) whereas the Wii isn't much more powerful than the GCN. Additionally, with the DS if you didn't want to use the 2nd screen or the touchscreen you don't have to. It was a very safe bet compared to the Wii vs the GCN.

[LordShiva]

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
The DS isn't radically different -- it's more powerful than the GBA (considerably so) whereas the Wii isn't much more powerful than the GCN. Additionally, with the DS if you didn't want to use the 2nd screen or the touchscreen you don't have to. It was a very safe bet compared to the Wii vs the GCN.

The DS was a huge gamble, acknowledged by N themselves. It was the third pillar, not the GBA replacement for a reason. I would argue that it was more of a gamble than the wii, as they were rolling the dice as the #1 rather than a distant (compared to 1st anyway) third, the potential for disaster for the ds was much higher-it was their cash-cow-failure would have meant sega-status. The philosophy behind the wii is really just a refinement of the philosophy behind the DS.

[Asher]

I'm not sure why you consider it a big gamble when all it does is supplement what was already available on the GBA, while the Wii itself is a paradigm shift.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
I'm not sure why you consider it a big gamble when all it does is supplement what was already available on the GBA, while the Wii itself is a paradigm shift.

The DS is a half-jump towards the Wii. Look at a lot of the software out for it - brain trainers, Nintendogs, Trauma Center, even games that are supposed to teach foreign languages. It's much more of a general audience piece of hardware than the GBA was.

In that sense, especially given that Nintendo owned the portable market, it was a pretty tremendous gamble. Sony went the "safe" route and made a machine that had pretty graphics, but was nowhere near as popular.

I don't know what you mean by not using the touch screen or second screen if you don't want to. Every game I've seen uses both screens, and many use the touch screen for essential functions (drawing minigames mostly).

[Felch]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
The only people I ever hear *****ing about Vista on a regular basis are Mac users or Linux users, and journalists who pick that up to write sensational stories.

Not to rag on you twice in a row, but I use XP at home and Vista at work, and I can't stand Vista. My big beef are the security prompts. It's never content to ask once, so it's always like this:

VISTA: Are you sure you want to move file to the new folder?
ME: Yes
VISTA: Are you sure that this is really what you want to do?
ME: Yes

Now if this were only when I was doing things that were actually dangerous, I'd understand. Deleting core files should always arouse the OS's suspicion. But simply doing routine stuff is made into a gigantic pain for no real reason. And now MS is abandoning XP, leaving us with this steaming pile of second guessing.

Aside from that Vista's not as bad as people make it out.

[Asher]

If the prompts bother you, did it occur to you to turn them off?

They're there to prevent people from doing what they shouldn't be doing. For too long on Windows users and programs have been doing things they shouldn't for the long-term detriment to the system's stability.

That said, since I know exactly what I'm doing, I simply turn off the UAC prompts with a click of a button...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch


The DS is a half-jump towards the Wii. Look at a lot of the software out for it - brain trainers, Nintendogs, Trauma Center, even games that are supposed to teach foreign languages. It's much more of a general audience piece of hardware than the GBA was.

In that sense, especially given that Nintendo owned the portable market, it was a pretty tremendous gamble. Sony went the "safe" route and made a machine that had pretty graphics, but was nowhere near as popular.

I don't know what you mean by not using the touch screen or second screen if you don't want to. Every game I've seen uses both screens, and many use the touch screen for essential functions (drawing minigames mostly).

Yes, but the thing is you can make 100% acceptable "status quo" mobile games on the DS without using the touchscreen or the 2nd display in any extensive manner. This is why it is NOT a big gamble, if no one wanted to use the new features it wouldn't kill the platform or the device, it can still function as a "status quo" mobile gaming platform.

The Wii is completely different. The hardware and control scheme of the Wii means it cannot compete vis-a-vis with Xbox 360/PS3 "status quo" games and it forces games to take a new paradigm, which is why it is a far larger gamble.

[Nostromo]

I have Vista SP1 and I have none of that bull****. I believe they improved UAC in SP1. I keep it on since I know that its a good way to prevent outsiders from installing crap on my PC without my knowledge.

[Asher]

Most of the prompts were because programs were doing things they shouldn't necessarily be doing with the tightened security model in Vista. Since Vista has come out, programs have become much better and accessing files and doing things within the security sandbox allotted to the programs, which mean less dialog boxes.

It's kind of a necessary evil to keep security tight while training developers to do the right thing.

[Wiglaf]

In what universe is moving a file from one folder to another something the user "shouldn't necessarily be doing," you lunatic?

It took Microsoft over a year to release a simple patch to mitigate (not entirely fix) that nagging. This is the definition of unacceptable.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
In what universe is moving a file from one folder to another something the user "shouldn't necessarily be doing," you lunatic?

User-driven files should be in the User's directory as a root. That's why, in Vista, you'll notice the username is the root entity in explorer (Dave -> Documents, etc).

MS is trying to discourage people from populating random files throughout the directory structure of your computer outside of user or profile-specific directories. This is particularly a big deal as more and more users use the same computer with different security scopes. You shouldn't be storing your porn in C:\Porn, it should be in Wiglaf\Porn instead. Of course, you're allowed to create C:\Porn to put your files but this is not a great idea.

It is asking for your permission because when you write to directories not permissioned to your user account (like C:\Porn) the system actually has to elevate privileges to a user who can do that (Administrator). In XP and prior, the default user was the administrator but this is bad practice from a security perspective. In Vista, you're a regular user with reduced security permissions unless you explicitly permit Administrator actions. Such a setup dramatically reduces virus and spyware infections. Unfortunately, a lot of people still use their computers like they did in the DOS days where there's no concept of user scope or Admin privileges. Those people can disable UAC and pretend like nothing has changed. But overall, UAC is both necessary and good (in that it promotes good practices by developers and users).

[Wiglaf]

First of all you cannot disable UAC and pretend like nothing has changed. Doing so triggers regular security alert popups that act like all hell is about to break loose every 5 minutes. You know, the popups that also tell you whether windows update or your antivirus is working. You need to then disable ALL of those security alerts in order to get this to go away. This is bad design, no way around it.

Second, it will be a cold day in hell when I write only to my isolated directory, but even if I let Microsoft annoy me into organizing my files this way, that's not the only thing that triggers UAC, and you know it. You can't even install or remove applications without a prompt. Do you have any idea how big a pain in the ass that is?

Third, UAC is like the neurotic guy who lives in a bubble and washes his hands 20 times a day only to get hit by a semi in the one second he's not looking. Annoying and not even that effective. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=29

UAC is just not well implemented, sorry.

[Wiglaf]

MS is trying to discourage people from populating random files throughout the directory structure of your computer outside of user or profile-specific directories

They fail. All they have encouraged is for people to get pissed at their OS.

You're lying anyway. There are better ways to tell people to stop populating random directories with files than simply giving them a popup that says "Can I continue?" without explaining why the question is being asked in the first place.

[Nikolai]

First of all you cannot disable UAC and pretend like nothing has changed. Doing so triggers regular security alert popups that act like all hell is about to break loose every 5 minutes.

You must have a funny computer.