June 4th, 2002, 02:00 AM
June 4th, 2002, 02:09 AM
You dont have to keep windows you can buy a windows game to Linux game converter it's expensive but works.
June 4th, 2002, 02:17 AM
that's the point.......windows is so damn expensive............but WINE, I guess (it's free, as far as I know)
June 4th, 2002, 02:21 AM
/me pokes his head in.... hmmm.. another worthless post...
Maybe once you grow up you realize that windows is an operating system that is widly used in the workplace. Not just for games.
/me leaves this worthless post.
June 4th, 2002, 03:07 AM
xmadness, he has a very valid point...MS is in the workplace because businesses want to buy an 'all in one' package and that includes IIS, NT site licenses, Exchange, support contracts, etc etc...all by Compaq or HP (before the merger, now they're gonna be HPQs) who made deals with MS. I have yet to walk into a Best Buy and see a Compaq or HP with linux on it. Why? Because that makes no money and nobody knows how to use it to boot. Games, on the other hand, are 95% win32 applications made for Windows because that's what sells. If I knew right now though, this very minute, that without fail, I could switch over to Lindows or linux running vmware or wine without ANY problems with my games (and I'm talking games like Global Operations, GTA3, upcoming Warcraft 3 and Neverwinter Nights), I'd be SO GONE from the windows scene, never to turn back ever.
We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.
June 4th, 2002, 04:40 AM
Windows would suffer without games but I think not having office would be needed to deliver the final blow.
My question is could Mac survive with out m$ office?
Its not software piracy. I’m just making multiple off site backups.
June 4th, 2002, 05:31 AM
Well, there is no way that MS would die that easily. However, their games support is very key for the home user. This really comes down to the companies that write games software - are you really going to invest millions of $ writing a game for a *nix or Mac, when MS have about 90% of the market share - of course not! Trouble with converters/emulators for *nix is that they take a lot of processing power to run, and in some cases they will fail completely.
The office environment is a bit different, and will probably come down to price - MS office type products have been produced for the MAC & *nix systems. Maybe MS should be suing these vendors for breach of copyright?
June 4th, 2002, 06:06 AM
There are several questions to this tread (or points to ponder)
Would MS die without gaming.... it would certainly suffer a degree of hurt...
Would I convert completely to Linux had it not for my vast collection of games?
Certanly, that is one reason that I have a dual boot.
I know there are many programs that emulate windows through Linux, but they suck up so much resource and aren't fully complatible (as well as a pain to configure for a learning pupil like myself)
June 4th, 2002, 06:16 AM
Re: Would M$ Die w/out Games?
I have to disagree with this. No it would not die out. Why you ask? Well. Me myself, I 'm a Linux fan. I just switched over to Tux 100% for my personal box and ditched Windows. I like the stability and I like to tinker with code and such. Moreover, opensource is a concept I like. Anyway, to the point. My other machines run Windows of many flavors. For stable servers and workstations that seamlessly intergrate. You can't beat Windows networking features. 99% of my customers use some type of MS server and 100% of their workstations use MS. Because this is what companies want. It all to work together as one package. As I dais, I'm a diehard Linux fan. But, Linux is still an infant in the average user game. You can go out and pick 10 people at random at the mall and set them down in front of a Winbox and at least 9 out of the 10 know how to point and click. Do the same with Linux, and you'd be lucky if one of them could get past the login let alone start-X. Even if the average user used KDE or Gnome. Wait till they have to do their first /make or ask them what /home or /usr is. All you would get is a blank stare or they will hit the power button and say "put my windows back on". I don't like MS either. Their business tatics are drakonian. I can't say to much against the OS'es and software though. (other than all the damn patches and fixes) MS provides my clients with what they want. A simple easy interface for their workers to point and click. They don't do any more than that and thats all they want. Anything more complicated than this and they call me. Most companies don't want to have to deal with anymore than this, they leave the heavy stuff to us IT people. Even the few companies that I deal with that have a *nix box on their network leave it to one or two people to deal with or call me in. They don't want the average users even in the same room with it. Anyway I have went on way to long. So to summ up. You can have any system be good as long as it's setup and configured right and is comfortable for the user. Any OS can be secured and on the same note it can be broken into. This is what gives us jobs and keeps us working..............................
Originally posted here by pysk0tik
I've been thinking about it.........do all of you think that M$ would die w/out its control as the primary OS of games?
The COOKIE TUX lives!!!!
Windows NT crashed,I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams.
June 4th, 2002, 07:08 AM
Totally agree with Apoc. I don't like M$ but I like Windows. I love the idea of Linux, but I don't like it at the point it currently is at.
Don't get me wrong, I like to tinker with Linux but it can sometimes take a lot of my time to get something working(I am a newbie). Windows, it's easy to get things done(Pls don't flame me ).