why blame MICROSOFT

[LOneWoolF]

Hey i didn't mean that u can't play on linux

you can play on linux even better (if you know the right places)

see www.holarse.net!!!
The problem is, that linux-games aren't as well known as windows games
and THAT is the reason why windows is a good GAMING platform
the people like to pay a lot for games... Lunix users like to get them for free
u know, cube isn't that bad... it's funny!
http://wouter.fov120.com/cube/

and if you just rate the graphics of a game you are really poor...
that doesn't mean that linux games haven't good graphics
but what do you need all that light-effects of UT2003???

You know the old games
HEXEN and HERETIC?
i LOVE that games
especially hexen, i played it really often, and even today i sometimes play that game
THINK: The old games are the best games!!! Compare DSA (Das schwarze auge --eng: the black eye, dunno if there is an english version) to never winternights... nwn is booooring, really booooring
BEST GAMES I KNOW:
hexen, descent 2, d-generation, comic, ULTIMA UNDERWORLD 1 and 2, Commander Keen, dragon strike (i played that game some weeks ago... didn't take me long time LOL), PacMan, Prince of Persia 1 and 2, King's Quest1-6, Space Quest 1-5, Duke Nukem, UFO, Starfire, Inca, Might and Magic 1-5, Simon the Sorcerer 1 and 2, Hocus Pocus, Jazz Jackrabbit, Lands of Lore 1 and 2 (also 3 is good), Tyrian, Wacky Wheels, Digger, Terminal Velocity

Try out all these games: http://www.dosgamesarchive.com/

GreeZ
LOneWoolF

[Pype.Clicker]

as LoneWoolf said windows is the best GAMING platform around .. all these OS's unix , linux etc .. cant compete that ..thats a fact

best gaming platform ? really? what about PS2 ?

i mean, ever heard about directX updates, drivers patches, games that end prematuratly because of a corrupted DLL, or whatever ...

[LOneWoolF]

lol you mean these consoles? playstation, xbox and that things???

tell you what:

The are expensive, not "updateable"<-
in a few years you can't use it anymore, the games don't have that bit of what it makes fun to play them, all games will bore you ...
compare sonic1, 2, 3 and knuckles to the new 3D sonic games
the new games are just boring!

PS2 is expensive, and for the PC you can get all that games for FREE!!! (if you know where2go...)

[Pype.Clicker]

PS2 izn't much expensive compared to what a hardcore gamer would require. And if they aren't ---(oops)expansible and upgradable(/oops)---, there's usually no need for such expansion (because hardware is usually more performant).

Did the PSone games were worse than PC games just before PS2 was out ? i don't think so.

oh, and btw, the best gaming platform ever isn't windows : it's Amiga (because only amiga makes it possible :p )

getting PC games for free is usually named copyright law infrigement and it is possible for PS2 too ... unfortunately

[nullify]

Console makers generally sell their hardware for a loss, relying solely on their game sales to make up for the difference. Since PC vendors must make a profit through selling hardware alone, I can't see how console hardware could be more expensive...

[LOneWoolF_PublicPC]

Maybe u're right, but i hated prince of persia for nintendo, i tried it, but on the PC it was much better (levels and so on, and on PC you have a level editor )

and...--- they need no updated? iz more performant? I just compared splintercell on PS2 and PC, the PC graphic is much better

Ok, i think thaz enough 'bout that old gamez

i gonna play THPS3 then, thaz fun

GreeZ
LOneWoolF

[Solar]

Hmm... did this get off-topic or what?

[Ashley Oliver]

that doesn't mean that linux games haven't good graphics
but what do you need all that light-effects of UT2003???

LOneWoolF

UT2003 plays uch better on Linux for me than it does under my Win2K machine

[Tux]

I got an idea. Let's get Apple to sue Mikrosoft (Damn, commies!) for the GUI rip off. Also, let's go in front of stores telling people who go in that when they buy a pc, they pay $100 + extra money for Microsoft's junk.

[Pype.Clicker]

I got an idea. Let's get Apple to sue Mikrosoft (Damn, commies!) for the GUI rip off.

As M^$ is one of the biggest stock holder for Apple and as Apple needs the MS office suite for his MAC, i'm not sure they would agree with you

They could have done it for MacOS 1 vs Windows 1, but as Mac ripped the GUI principle (not only design) from the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, it wouldn't have been wizer.

Also, let's go in front of stores telling people who go in that when they buy a pc, they pay $100 + extra money for Microsoft's junk.

I guess they'll return you that they don't need to buy the MS products to use them. What makes windows so wide-spreaded is that it is sooo easy to copy

[Solar]

I got an idea. Let's get Apple to sue Mikrosoft (Damn, commies!) for the GUI rip off.

That has been settled by mutual agreement quite some years ago IIRC, which makes a lawsuit a non-option.

The best chance would be late Be Inc. suing Microsoft on the bootloader issue, but even that has a small chance of achieving anything.

If you're a company, you are offered some millions by the unfathomable Microsoft treasury (which doesn't really hurt them); if you're the government you'd have to make the Supreme Court democratic again first...

Also, let's go in front of stores telling people who go in that when they buy a pc, they pay $100 + extra money for Microsoft's junk.

The vast majority couldn't care less. If you are referring to Microsoft receiving money for every IBM compatible sold whether or not it comes with Windows, that contract expired several years ago.

From Pype.clicker:

What makes windows so wide-spreaded is that it is sooo easy to copy...

Amen. It might be bad for you as a company, but for your market penetration there's nothing like having millions of pirate copies distributed...

Or do you really believe Linux would be where it is if everybody had to pay for it?

[PeaceMan]

Microsoft are only doing well out of the OS business because there is no competition. If someone could write an OS that could run windows software but was cheaper and more reliable they would be put out of business.

[Solar]

Too short a solution.

Running Windows software still means running Microsoft software. They're not only reaping profits from Windows, but Office, Visual etc. too.

Then, why should anybody care to use a new, unproven, not-as-well-supported OS to run the software he/she could run just the same on the stock preinstalled Dell / Compaq system? Why should anybody jump at that system being "better" when neighbour, co-worker, magazine and internet can readily give help with Windows?

Then, how much better *can* such an OS be without breaking things for Windows software? You'd have to run Windows software in a sandbox. Would anybody care to leave that sandbox?

There was a time when there *was* replacement available for MS-DOS running the same software (PC-DOS and others). They didn't succeed, because of the above reasons.

In the beginning, the competition in the OS market was there, at a time when Microsoft was not yet "the" big player. Apple, Amiga, Acorn, the professional Unixes.

Microsoft pushed them aside not because there was no competition, but because they knew how to legalise their way into the market. (Exclusive OEM contracts etc.)

As long as that market power remains unbroken, I don't see much chance for any competitor, much less a clone as you suggest.

Penfield Jackson was close, the rest is history. Say thanks to the US who screwed up what might have been the only chance we ever got.

[Pype.Clicker]

As long as that market power remains unbroken, I don't see much chance for any competitor, much less a clone as you suggest.

and even if you break them, nobody has something ready to propose as an alternative (unless there's some secret OS somewhere) because it's not worth trying to develop a commercial OS as long as the market power is there. So they would probably just respawn from their bits.

they have virtually nothing to fear ... but opensource initiatives

[anubis]

they have virtually nothing to fear ... but opensource initiatives

I read in some pro-Microsoft book somewhere about Microsoft bashing of other vendors like Apple.

It ran something like "Microsoft doesnot care a damn abt its competitors and will not give any mercy to them, but in that case it also excepts no mercy from them either." The author went on by saying that it was JUST for MS to be among the top by using a ruthless marketing stategy of suffocating all the competitors.

Only an organized opensource initiative that too adopted by all can think of stopping such a monopoly. Tit-for-Tat.