PDA

View Full Version : What company to bash..?



Pages : [1] 2

h_howee
01-30-2008, 06:18 PM
For french class, we've been given an assignment where we have to write an argumentative text in the form of a letter to some company as a complaint. The problem is there aren't any companies that I have any complaints against. I originally searched for some that purposely inhibits Linux or some of its features but found none.
Any1 know of a company I can bash for the purpose of this assignment?

dwks
01-30-2008, 06:30 PM
Since lots of people are going to suggest it, I thought I'd suggest it first: Microsoft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#Criticism

CornedBee
01-30-2008, 06:32 PM
I originally searched for some that purposely inhibits Linux or some of its features but found none.
No? Until very recently, ATI's Linux drivers were thought beyond all repair. (They were, actually. ATI completely rewrote them.) There is still a very nasty bug in video playback - let's just say that since my Radeon 9800 got fried, I can't play videos properly anymore, since the X1600 suffers from massive problems in the video overlay department.

Other hardware vendors, too, release sub-standard drivers for Linux. Can't be too hard to find one.

Elysia
01-30-2008, 06:37 PM
Microsoft. What more do we need to say?
Can't make consoles. OS market monopoly. Release awfully buggy software. Spies of on us without our consent (Vista, it's in the TOS so you must agree to it if you wish to use the OS). Illegal business practices, yada, yada, yada. And so on.

Neo1
01-31-2008, 07:03 AM
Can't make consoles.

I disagree, i think the Xbox is an awesome piece of kit!

But back on topic, bash Apple for pushing out the turd that is Macbook Air, what a joke...

Elysia
01-31-2008, 07:05 AM
I disagree, i think the Xbox is an awesome piece of kit!

I mean hardware reliability. They took resources away from reability and testing to rush the console to market.

Salem
01-31-2008, 07:16 AM
The pricing structures of some telco's leave a lot to be desired.

mike_g
01-31-2008, 10:09 AM
How about Sony? Their software either litters your hardisk with hidden stuff it wont uninstall, or it litters your hardisk with hidden stuff it wont uninstall and installs a rootkit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal

Cheeze-It
01-31-2008, 05:01 PM
I disagree, i think the Xbox is an awesome piece of kit!

...

It's a horribly engineered machine.

Does it have to be a complaint against general business practices,
or can you write a letter to the Taco Bell corporation for giving you
food poisoning?

Neo1
02-01-2008, 01:11 AM
It's a horribly engineered machine.

Do you even own an Xbox? My own Xbox is quite alot more stabile than most of my friends' PS2s, never ever had any problems with it...


I mean hardware reliability. They took resources away from reability and testing to rush the console to market.

So do i... And no, the xbox wasn't rushed to the market? It came out 1 year after its competitors? What do you mean?

zacs7
02-01-2008, 02:45 AM
> My own Xbox is quite alot more stabile than most of my friends' PS2s
Depends which version you have, the 'heat problem fixed' one -- or the original. I'd agree that the xbox is horrid, but it does look nice -- i'll give it that.

> So do i... And no, the xbox wasn't rushed to the market? It came out 1½ year after its competitors? What do you mean?
Still 1.5 years slower than Microsoft would have liked.

I'd second Sony, used to be awesome Japanese quality, now it's cheap crap made in China. Not to mention their other conundrums.

Elysia
02-01-2008, 04:11 AM
Do you even own an Xbox? My own Xbox is quite alot more stabile than most of my friends' PS2s, never ever had any problems with it...

So do i... And no, the xbox wasn't rushed to the market? It came out 1½ year after its competitors? What do you mean?

Suppose it depends on which console you mean. I was originally aiming at the 360.
The the Xbox itself was a big fat console that was poorly engineered too. It was just basically a computer in a box.
I'll also agree on Sony. Crap quality with high prices. Killer of lik-sang, installer of rootkits.

Mario F.
02-01-2008, 04:58 AM
> The problem is there aren't any companies that I have any complaints against.

Can't you pretend?
Anyway, a good target for your assignment is your ISP. Lots of grounds for complaining there. Announced transfer speeds not being what they say, ADSL users phone charges not being exactly as announced, too much use of fine print in contrats, lack of some basic services like NNTP, et cetera

Elysia
02-01-2008, 05:09 AM
Now that would depend on where you live. Lots of complaints against US broadband dealers like AT&T, but in other countries, the situation is a little better.

whiteflags
02-01-2008, 06:07 AM
Google. They make money off of advertising on the internet and simply spammed that everywhere. Those suggested links when you search for something are also paid for so that Google will display them. There are people paying $50 for a click on a link! And it's just a tax on the consumer, because Google has to be paid somehow. So the company's will raise the price of their products to pay.

To make matters worse, there are web sites run by people whose only job is to figure out how to mess with the text on pages to get them indexed in Google higher. It becomes a contest and not about content sometimes. Such waste for so little in our economy cannot be tolerated.

They also sold out to China and their oppression of its citizens.

Mario F.
02-01-2008, 06:20 AM
> They also sold out to China and their oppression of its citizens.

touché!

maxorator
02-01-2008, 06:34 AM
Google. They make money off of advertising on the internet and simply spammed that everywhere. Those suggested links when you search for something are also paid for so that Google will display them. There are people paying $50 for a click on a link! And it's just a tax on the consumer, because Google has to be paid somehow. So the company's will raise the price of their products to pay.

To make matters worse, there are web sites run by people whose only job is to figure out how to mess with the text on pages to get them indexed in Google higher. It becomes a contest and not about content sometimes. Such waste for so little in our economy cannot be tolerated.

They also sold out to China and their oppression of its citizens.
If it werent for Google, 100% ads would be popups or blinking stuff.

And dealing with ads is a damn good thing, because it eats up money from companies trying to advertise their stuff and then makes free stuff for people (Google search, Gmail, Google Earth, Google Sketchup, Google Maps).

Google is the only huge company I don't have any complaints against.

Neo1
02-01-2008, 06:35 AM
Suppose it depends on which console you mean. I was originally aiming at the 360.
The the Xbox itself was a big fat console that was poorly engineered too. It was just basically a computer in a box.
I'll also agree on Sony. Crap quality with high prices. Killer of lik-sang, installer of rootkits.

Never said anything about a 360, never had one so i wouldn't know. But the original XBOX isn't fragile or unstable or anything, don't know why you find it to be poorly engineered? And yes, it's a computer in a small box, how is that different from ANY other console :S?

Edit:

Agree with Maxorator, everything that ever came out of Google was a stroke of genius, basically... Anyone here ever tried Google Analytics? Also, who doesn't like GMail or Google Earth?

whiteflags
02-01-2008, 06:49 AM
Google is the only huge company I don't have any complaints against.
Good for you, but I think your conception of what the Internet was before Google is very skewed.


And dealing with ads is a damn good thing, because it eats up money from companies trying to advertise their stuff and then makes free stuff for people (Google search, Gmail, Google Earth, Google Sketchup, Google Maps).
Why is that a good thing? Why should the internet be a billboard? Why should a company own indexing technology? Why is "fast better than slow" if a slightly slower engine returns better results? What's the sense in PageRank and aren't you concerned that this let's a private corporation control what you see? People already try to figure out how to index Google higher.

It should be noted that other companies tried to win the race to make the internet searchable, and when Microsoft tried to do it, people screamed bloody murder. But Google is so harmless.



If it werent for Google, 100% ads would be popups or blinking stuff.

Oh? If it weren't for Google, we wouldn't have text ads interrupting the flow of content on a page. If it weren't for Google, selling ads would be harder. In my opinion, the availability to advertise and market crap on the internet now is due to Google in part. I wouldn't be surprised if Google considered its own ads good pages. If Google wasn't for-profit, they might be more concerned about their core concept than making more billions of dollars.

Elysia
02-01-2008, 07:50 AM
Never said anything about a 360, never had one so i wouldn't know. But the original XBOX isn't fragile or unstable or anything, don't know why you find it to be poorly engineered? And yes, it's a computer in a small box, how is that different from ANY other console :S?

No, no, no. A console is not a computer.
The architecture is way different. But xbox on the other hand... Microsoft just put a miniature computer into a box with and sold it. That's xbox. They fixed that with the 360, but they screwed up and rushed the thing to market so it's hardware is greatly unstable. Engineering crap.
For example, the GPU produces lots of heat. And they put a very small fan on it and the DVD drive over. Is that smart? I think not. Have you even heard a 360 when it's running? It's like a vacuum cleaner. Microsoft didn't even think of engineering good hardware. And now they're just trying to get around it by popping in huge fans.

I believe Google is the only big company I don't really hate but not really love. I don't really care what Google does. But Microsoft and Sony on the other hand is on the hate list. On whose list aren't they?

Mario F.
02-01-2008, 08:00 AM
Hating companies, big or small, is really an exercise in futility. They still love you the same.

Elysia
02-01-2008, 08:02 AM
They still love you the same.
Correction: Hate you ;)

Mario F.
02-01-2008, 08:38 AM
Which is much better than hating Microsoft - I fight back. What's more invigorating that that?

... on the other hand one should always hate governments. and the powlice.

indigo0086
02-01-2008, 10:07 AM
I have had problems with a lot of companies, mainly stemming from outsourced user support, but you probably have to complain to said outsourced user support so that would be useless.

ATI I've had problems with their drivers until recently, they seem to be getting on top of that. But addressing that was a pain, because no one responds to you.

as with Microsoft I've had my 360 sent in thrice (only two times for RROD, the third time was a minor annoyance with the drive not popping out immediately, but having it horiz solves that). I generally support them moreso than the other game companies because they put out games I like, so I buy. But their customer service sucks, do everything online, re-route some of those funds to building a reliable machine (at the time I bought it).

Sony, despite their hardware, whatever their software developers touch turns to some sort of goo and hatred.

Nintendo, for the hardware shortage and overall lack of support to developers besides their own that CAN make games. Also their lack of quality assurance for 3rd party. For every 1 good 3rd party wii game, there are 20 horrid ones that were probably byproducts of an experiment on how alcohol affects a developers ability to make a good game.

Elysia
02-01-2008, 10:11 AM
Nintendo, for the hardware shortage...
I really agree on that. I believe they're just making excuses with the typical "it's not easy to increase production." They also announced they won't increase production until after April. I mean, what the heck??? What's more important--your forecasts or making to satisfy demand?
I can understand that they underestimated the demand, but they've been selling the machine for a year, yet only doubled production and it's not enough! What are they thinking?


...and overall lack of support to developers besides their own that CAN make games.
But hopefully, that is about to change now. Or is changing.

Neo1
02-01-2008, 11:07 AM
No, no, no. A console is not a computer.
The architecture is way different. But xbox on the other hand... Microsoft just put a miniature computer into a box with and sold it. That's xbox.

But why is that a problem? To the user, it's all the same, as long as the console can handle the games properly, and won't cost a fortune. And besides, the Xbox was greatly superior to the PS2 as far as hardware goes, it also cost about the same and the general build quality is way above the PS2..


They fixed that with the 360, but they screwed up and rushed the thing to market so it's hardware is greatly unstable. Engineering crap.
For example, the GPU produces lots of heat. And they put a very small fan on it and the DVD drive over. Is that smart? I think not. Have you even heard a 360 when it's running? It's like a vacuum cleaner. Microsoft didn't even think of engineering good hardware. And now they're just trying to get around it by popping in huge fans.


No i haven't heard an Xbox 360 running, only the display models in stores, never paid much attention to the noise it makes. The only reason i'd buy a 360 would be because of the games that are available for it, i have to agree with you, from the things i've heard, the 360 isn't nearly as good as it's predecessor...

Elysia
02-01-2008, 11:20 AM
But why is that a problem? To the user, it's all the same, as long as the console can handle the games properly, and won't cost a fortune. And besides, the Xbox was greatly superior to the PS2 as far as hardware goes, it also cost about the same and the general build quality is way above the PS2..
That tells loads to me. It's an inefficient piece of crap. The Xbox gave less horsepower than it could have, had it been designed properly.


No i haven't heard an Xbox 360 running, only the display models in stores, never paid much attention to the noise it makes. The only reason i'd buy a 360 would be because of the games that are available for it, i have to agree with you, from the things i've heard, the 360 isn't nearly as good as it's predecessor...
Indeed, but it also makes you afraid of purchasing one. And it also makes you loathe Microsoft for not being able to make proper hardware. Or not trust them.

Neo1
02-01-2008, 11:51 AM
That tells loads to me. It's an inefficient piece of crap. The Xbox gave less horsepower than it could have, had it been designed properly.


Who cares? It was still considerably faster than the other consoles in it's generation, and for the same price, not poor quality either. PC in a box or not...



Indeed, but it also makes you afraid of purchasing one. And it also makes you loathe Microsoft for not being able to make proper hardware. Or not trust them.

Regardless of the 360, which i don't have any 1st hand experience with, i still think the Xbox was and is a terrific piece of kit, you obviously don't agree, why?

Elysia
02-01-2008, 12:01 PM
Who cares? It was still considerably faster than the other consoles in it's generation, and for the same price, not poor quality either. PC in a box or not...
It was only at the same price level because it came after all the other consoles. And hey, once they introduced it, Sony and Nintendo began cutting prices. Microsoft were left in the dark and the Xbox would not have survived if it wasn't Microsoft who designed it with their deep pockets.


Regardless of the 360, which i don't have any 1st hand experience with, i still think the Xbox was and is a terrific piece of kit, you obviously don't agree, why?
Well, as I stated, it's a computer in a box.
I don't like it. Efficiency and power comes before "it's working."
Computers draws lots of power and are inefficient. That's why I dislike the whole computer in a box ordeal.

Mario F.
02-01-2008, 12:20 PM
> Computers draws lots of power and are inefficient. That's why I dislike the whole computer in a box ordeal.

That's weird because no console can match the a personal computer in processor speed, graphics quality, sound suport... or anything for that matter.

> I don't like it. Efficiency and power comes before "it's working."

I think the "I don't like it" is the real only valid argument you have. How exactly you feel XBox isn't a powerful console... actually what means powerful in this context? And do you mean that being less powerful (whatever that means) than something else means it's not powerful anymore?

Neo1
02-01-2008, 12:31 PM
It was only at the same price level because it came after all the other consoles. And hey, once they introduced it, Sony and Nintendo began cutting prices. Microsoft were left in the dark and the Xbox would not have survived if it wasn't Microsoft who designed it with their deep pockets.

I have no idea about prices in the US, but when i got my Xbox it was in a bundle with 2 games and it was exactly the same price as an equivalent PS2 bundle, only it had faster hardware, better games (Don't think anyone will agree with me on that one) and a harddrive...



Well, as I stated, it's a computer in a box.
I don't like it. Efficiency and power comes before "it's working."
Computers draws lots of power and are inefficient. That's why I dislike the whole computer in a box ordeal.

What a strange measure of a console's quality, power efficiency? You do realize that a PS2 leaks 17,5 kWh per year when it is in standby? The Xbox leaks 3,50kWh, also please take into consideration that the Xbox has a built in harddrive, while the PS2 doesn't, so it isn't really a fair comparison..

Also, when both consoles are turned on and gaming, a PS3 uses about 13W more than an Xbox 360, so i still don't get your point?

Elysia
02-01-2008, 12:32 PM
That's weird because no console can match the a personal computer in processor speed, graphics quality, sound suport... or anything for that matter.
No, that's not right.
A computer uses very high processor speeds and even more powerful graphics cards to make themselves at equal performance to their console counterpart.
The gamecube for example used very high speed memory which operated at or near processor speed. Computers don't have that fast memory.
Consoles are using different architectures because they need to be small, efficient and fast at a low price.


I think the "I don't like it" is the real only valid argument you have. How exactly you feel XBox isn't a powerful console... actually what means powerful in this context? And do you mean that being less powerful (whatever that means) than something else means it's not powerful anymore?
It's not really an argument. It's an opinion against Microsoft.
Powerful meaning how much graphics it can cram on the screen before it starts to lag.


I have no idea about prices in the US, but when i got my Xbox it was in a bundle with 2 games and it was exactly the same price as an equivalent PS2 bundle, only it had faster hardware, better games (Don't think anyone will agree with me on that one) and a harddrive...
You forget, it's already been several years since it was released :)
When it was released, it was almost crushed by the competition...


What a strange measure of a console's quality, power efficiency? You do realize that a PS2 leaks 17,5 kWh per year when it is in standby? The Xbox leaks 3,50kWh, also please take into consideration that the Xbox has a built in harddrive, while the PS2 doesn't, so it isn't really a fair comparison..

Also, when both consoles are turned on and gaming, a PS3 uses about 13W more than an Xbox 360, so i still don't get your point?
No, no, no. No comparing the PS2. Or Xbox. They're both power monsters.
The sleek, power efficient machine was the Gamecube. It had beefier specs than the PS2, yet drew less power.
And the Revolution (Wii) is pretty much a GC 2.0, yet draws less power than the gamecube. Nice.
And the Xbox had beefier specs than the PS2 and draws more power basically because it's a computer in a box.

But you know, you can sometimes judge an application by its GUI, you know? If I see poor GUI, then most likely it's poorly coded (does not apply to all cases, however).
Microsoft just wanted a console on the market so they rushed the xbox. By making it a computer in the box, they saved dev costs and it was easier to test since there wasn't so much custom hardware.
Poor engineering.

indigo0086
02-01-2008, 12:43 PM
I really agree on that. I believe they're just making excuses with the typical "it's not easy to increase production." They also announced they won't increase production until after April. I mean, what the heck??? What's more important--your forecasts or making to satisfy demand?



The thing's a toy. It doesn't require any extraneous technology or hardware to promote such a journeyed hardware shortage. Demand may be high, but it's just paving the way for funding their next system that will probably come out this year.

CornedBee
02-01-2008, 12:50 PM
But you know, you can sometimes judge an application by its GUI, you know? If I see poor GUI, then most likely it's poorly coded
Hehe, you're definitely not a Linux user. :)

indigo0086
02-01-2008, 12:55 PM
Anyone ever use gimp...

Great program, horrid gui.

Elysia
02-01-2008, 01:27 PM
The thing's a toy. It doesn't require any extraneous technology or hardware to promote such a journeyed hardware shortage. Demand may be high, but it's just paving the way for funding their next system that will probably come out this year.
It uses pretty small chip sizes, but aside from that. Perhaps it will pave a way for a new console. Perhaps not. Nintendo will probably keep the Rev around until demand for it starts to slack. So why not up production to meet demand? They're making money off every produced console! Even more so this year, I would believe since they haven't made any price cuts.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 has already fallen in manufacturing prices, so...


Anyone ever use gimp...
Great program, horrid gui.

Yeah, like any Adobe software. Horrible GUI (and also quite buggy), but widely used due to their functionality. Like Photoshop. Horrible program.

Neo1
02-01-2008, 02:01 PM
No, no, no. No comparing the PS2. Or Xbox. They're both power monsters.
The sleek, power efficient machine was the Gamecube. It had beefier specs than the PS2, yet drew less power.
And the Revolution (Wii) is pretty much a GC 2.0, yet draws less power than the gamecube. Nice.
And the Xbox had beefier specs than the PS2 and draws more power basically because it's a computer in a box.

Yea, the GC used less power than the other two, but what i fail to understand is how that makes it a better console? I think the Xbox was the best of the three because it had a harddrive and outperformed the other consoles (Amongst other things, but thats irrelevant for now..), why does power consumption mean anything? And why is the architecture important? Sure you might have lightning fast memory in a GC, but i'm still looking at you in my rear view mirror with my 733mHz P3 in the Xbox, to the user, it doesn't really matter how the console works internally does it? As long as it is fast?

I'm perfectly happy with the Xbox as it is, even though it might resemble a PC more than the other 2, it's still faster, so who cares?



But you know, you can sometimes judge an application by its GUI, you know? If I see poor GUI, then most likely it's poorly coded (does not apply to all cases, however).
Microsoft just wanted a console on the market so they rushed the xbox. By making it a computer in the box, they saved dev costs and it was easier to test since there wasn't so much custom hardware.
Poor engineering.

You say poor engineering, i say a beneficial shortcut, why over complicate things. The way they did it worked, and better than how Sony and Nintendo did it even...

maxorator
02-01-2008, 02:06 PM
Oh? If it weren't for Google, we wouldn't have text ads interrupting the flow of content on a page. If it weren't for Google, selling ads would be harder. In my opinion, the availability to advertise and market crap on the internet now is due to Google in part. I wouldn't be surprised if Google considered its own ads good pages. If Google wasn't for-profit, they might be more concerned about their core concept than making more billions of dollars.
You don't want to say you think if there wouldn't be Google, there would be less advertisings. Give me a break. It's like if there wouldn't be Osama bin Laden, there would be less terrorism. It's not a about a person, it's about the religion there. As for advertisings - it's not about a company, it's about the market+technology. Google uses the power it has only for good purposes. You will understand that only when some greedy idiots take over the market.

If Google wasn't popular, there wouldn't be less ads. There are many many many ad systems out there, many of them as easy to use as Google's. Google ads are just preferred because they aren't annoying. They look as a natural part of the site, not as some disturbing, blinking, popuping, screaming crap.

Btw, they need the billions - they are maintaining ~500000 servers worldwide and they're building new datacenters. Only to be able to cache more and give faster results. Plus big companies CAN'T be non-profit companies because there aren't enough "programming social workers" to pay for all of those servers & other expenses.

whiteflags
02-01-2008, 03:11 PM
> Yeah, like any Adobe software.

I think it's the industry's standard for a reason though. Yeah there is a lot to learn, but it's not really that different from a computer illiterate person learning how Office works. At least that was my experience. I really don't have any real artistic ability; the computer hasn't helped me get any. Even then I was able to find all the brushes and use the lasso tool and stuff.

I'd eventually learned to alter photos to an extent... I put a friend of mine against a B&W backdrop. It turned out pretty nicely.

If I remember gimp correctly it wasn't that different either (toolbox and layer windows), but it was different enough to be annoying, so I found Adobe to be a pleasant working experience.

My $.02.

Elysia
02-01-2008, 03:15 PM
Yea, the GC used less power than the other two, but what i fail to understand is how that makes it a better console?
It tells wonder of how much Nintendo has went to create a fast, power efficient architecture that works at blazing speeds at low clock speeds! You have to admire it, at least from an engineer's standpoint. And from a programmer's standpoint, when a program runs blazingly fast with little CPU, I'd be proud too.


I think the Xbox was the best of the three because it had a harddrive and outperformed the other consoles (Amongst other things, but thats irrelevant for now..)
It had an advantage in features, but not in its specs and architecture.


why does power consumption mean anything?
Do you want it to eat up your electric bill? Then how about we let them consoles eat away at 30k kilowatt hours?


And why is the architecture important? Sure you might have lightning fast memory in a GC, but i'm still looking at you in my rear view mirror with my 733mHz P3 in the Xbox, to the user, it doesn't really matter how the console works internally does it? As long as it is fast?
To me, it matters. I don't like wasted power. It speaks lengths of how far they went to make a good console. A console of build quality. The quality of the console is poor. Yes, it works, but that doesn't make it right.


I'm perfectly happy with the Xbox as it is, even though it might resemble a PC more than the other 2, it's still faster, so who cares?
Well, obviously not you :)


You say poor engineering, i say a beneficial shortcut, why over complicate things. The way they did it worked, and better than how Sony and Nintendo did it even...
They didn't do better than Sony & Nintendo. They had the advantage of time, that is all. By releasing the console later than the two, they could get away with adding beefier specs at the same price.
Just image how could the Xbox could have been if they'd designed it as good as the Gamecube?


> Yeah, like any Adobe software.

I think it's the industry's standard for a reason though. Yeah there is a lot to learn, but it's not really that different from a computer illiterate person learning how Office works. At least that was my experience. I really don't have any real artistic ability; the computer hasn't helped me get any. Even then I was able to find all the brushes and use the lasso tool and stuff.

If I remember gimp correctly it wasn't that different either (toolbox and layer windows), but it was different enough to be annoying, so I found Adobe to be a pleasant working experience.

My $.02.
You hit the nail with the hammer I think.
It's standard for a reason indeed, and it's because of its functionality. Unfortunately, Adobe's software is awful. They're buggy and ugly. And it's sad to see Adobe has purchased Flash, as well.
But this is why I'm rooting for Paint Shop Pro! It may not be its equal but it costs 10x less and has a pretty interface and less buggy! Go PSP! :)

whiteflags
02-01-2008, 03:27 PM
It's standard for a reason indeed, and it's because of its functionality. Unfortunately, Adobe's software is awful. They're buggy and ugly.

Maybe you could make a fairer evaluation in a different thread at some point, but I don't think that opinion is a good one. If the GUI were truly awful, I don't see how it could become the standard for a whole industry; some of the functionality you speak of, the feature richness, would be inacessable.

"Buggy and ugly" ... well, buggy not so much in my experience, but that's what happens. Adobe's a pretty big program, and it's difficult to get things right until you discover new problems. Same thing with a mainstream OS that needs updating every second Tuesday of the month. I think Adobe's been pretty responsible when it comes to patching, provided you update stuff.

CornedBee
02-01-2008, 03:37 PM
PSP still exists?

Mario F.
02-01-2008, 03:40 PM
I do have a beef with one particular piece of Adobe software. And that is the Reader. It's a trend I never appreciated - certainly by far not an adobe exclusive - of filling software one wants simple, fast and almost transparent with so many useless features it becomes some combination of complex and heavy on resources.

Like the Reader, all of a sudden I can think of all current web browsers or software like Nero.

However, it doesn't make me feel anything other than a slight annoyance. Thankfully for each there's second options. For instance, I replaced the Reader a long timer ago for Foxit Reader.

Conversely Adobe Acrobat (the software) is by far the best PDF editor in the market.

Elysia
02-01-2008, 04:35 PM
Maybe you could make a fairer evaluation in a different thread at some point, but I don't think that opinion is a good one. If the GUI were truly awful, I don't see how it could become the standard for a whole industry; some of the functionality you speak of, the feature richness, would be inacessable.
Haha, well... compare the GUI of Photoshop to Paint Shop Pro. PSP is much nicer, richer and a pleasure to work with while Photoshop's is... well, purely ugly.
The GUI works, but it's an eyesore to look at, if you ask me :)
So the program does its work well, and that's why it's the industry standard. But GUI and functionality are different things as we both know!


"Buggy and ugly" ... well, buggy not so much in my experience, but that's what happens. Adobe's a pretty big program, and it's difficult to get things right until you discover new problems. Same thing with a mainstream OS that needs updating every second Tuesday of the month. I think Adobe's been pretty responsible when it comes to patching, provided you update stuff.
OH, but I see Adobe's software equal to Microsoft's. Buggy.
I used to work a lot with incoming work before. Typically where we had to print their work. It turns out we a lot of trouble with stuff made with Adobe. The rest went mostly easy from what I can vaguely remember.


PSP still exists?
Yeah, it's up to version 11 or 12 or something like that, but who counts? Corel purchased it and I can't I'm too happy about that >_<

Neo1
02-01-2008, 04:37 PM
It tells wonder of how much Nintendo has went to create a fast, power efficient architecture that works at blazing speeds at low clock speeds! You have to admire it, at least from an engineer's standpoint. And from a programmer's standpoint, when a program runs blazingly fast with little CPU, I'd be proud too.


That's true.

Not that i know anything about porting console games to PC, but if you compare the minimum requirements for Halo 2 for the PC, and then look at the Xbox specs, then i'd say it's fairly impressive that it even runs on that ancient Geforce 3/P3 combination. Though there is probably more to it than that, i don't know..


Do you want it to eat up your electric bill? Then how about we let them consoles eat away at 30k kilowatt hours?

No, but i won't base my choice of console on power usage anyways? If it's efficient then that is a perk, but power usage is hardly something anyone focuses on when looking to buy a console, it's just not that relevant.


Well, obviously not you :)

I guess you and i differ, from my point of view, the Xbox is fast, durable and generally superior to other consoles of its time, maybe i'll think differently if i ever decide i wan't to write console games? But as a consumer, i couldn't care less about its internal workings.



They didn't do better than Sony & Nintendo. They had the advantage of time, that is all. By releasing the console later than the two, they could get away with adding beefier specs at the same price.
Just image how could the Xbox could have been if they'd designed it as good as the Gamecube?


Well, the main reason that the PS2 outsold the Xbox by such a wide margin is because it came out alot earlier. By the time the Xbox was available, everyone and their mother had a PS2. So i don't think Microsoft considered the late release of the Xbox an "advantage".

But again, if you're only going to use it as it was intended -for playing games-, then there is no reason to worry about the internal design, as long as it works, and is faster...

Mario F.
02-01-2008, 04:47 PM
> Haha, well... compare the GUI of Photoshop to Paint Shop Pro. PSP is much nicer, richer and a pleasure to work with while Photoshop's is... well, purely ugly.

Hmm... you do know the differences between Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro, don't you? You can't really compare those two products. They have different target users.

> So the program does its work well, and that's why it's the industry standard. But GUI and functionality are different things as we both know!

Again... do take a look at Photoshop and do ask people who use it as a professional tool in a daily basis before you proceed any further.

> I used to work a lot with incoming work before. Typically where we had to print their work. It turns out we a lot of trouble with stuff made with Adobe. The rest went mostly easy from what I can vaguely remember.

It's a good thing you remember vaguely, because that's probably the result of selective memory (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?selective+memory).

Elysia
02-01-2008, 04:52 PM
Hmm... you do know the differences between Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro, don't you? You can't really compare those two products. They have different target users.

Again... do take a look at Photoshop and do ask people who use it as a professional tool in a daily basis before you proceed any further.
Perhaps you should enlighten me.


It's a good thing you remember vaguely, because that's probably the result of selective memory (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?selective+memory).

Regardless, it tells me that Adobe software is buggy or behaves unpredictably or is difficult to set up and use on other computers since the documents worked fine for those who made them.

Mario F.
02-01-2008, 04:59 PM
> Perhaps you should enlighten me.

I can't because I couldn't draw a straight line with a ruler to save my life. As such image editing programs aren't really my forte. However, life happened to surround me with great artists both in family and close friends who would be quick on theirs fingers to do just that and enlighten you, I'm sure. Particularly since I've witnessed similar discussions before.

And exactly because of that, I do advise you to inform yourself better. You'll see you are actually quiet wrong. Which is just fine. There's so much to learn when we learn we didn't know.

zacs7
02-01-2008, 06:23 PM
> And exactly because of that, I do advise you to inform yourself better. You'll see you are actually quiet wrong. Which is just fine. There's so much to learn when we learn we didn't know.
Huh? You're the one who couldn't back your own argument :confused:

No point arguing girls, seriously it doesn't go anywhere.

Mario F.
02-01-2008, 06:52 PM
do read my post again