shiho wrote on Aug 7, 2016, 00:45:

Razumen wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 23:03:
Lol, it's funny that you accuse me of lacking content, because everything you've said so far about Classic Shell is complete hearsay. And yet with some googling, I've found nothing to back up what you're claiming about Classic Shell, other than there was a hacked installer that compromised people's machines when they installed the W10 Anniversary Release: http://www.classicshell.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6434

I'm well aware of the hack, and it has nothing to do with the issue. Win10's compatibility framework doesn't detect malware installers.

So, what makes it hearsay is that only this person posted about this problem?

http://www.osnews.com/story/29332/Anniversary_Update_hides_programs_forces_Skype_on_users

Well, here's another one for you:
http://betanews.com/2016/08/02/windows-10-anniversary-update-start-menu-2/#comment-2819702402

I bet for most people it's a minor issue, they don't yet understand what this kind of control really means, so they don't bother reporting it.

But I fully expect to hear more complaints about MS disabling people's software as Win10 continues to bulldoze user trust.

Enjoy the ride. I'm done wasting time on this thread.

shiho wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 22:40:

Razumen wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 21:23:
MS doesn't and quite literally CAN'T prevent every application from having problems when they update something. Saying that they "attacked" Classic Shell when it most likely was a victim of unintended consequences is quite literally a tinfoil hat conspiracy.

We don't know if that version of Classic Shell had "problems" with the Anniversary Update, and what their actual severity was, because someone at Microsoft manually entered it into an "incompatibility database" which disabled it and made it unsearchable in Start Menu.

Maybe the only problem would've been that you can't swap the taskbar icons, or that the systray icons are in the wrong order.

Now all that agency is taken away from the user, because Microsoft DECIDES and ENFORCES what's compatible and what's not.

So regardless of their motives toward Classic Shell specifically, regardless of even the program that's being affected, it is an attack, and it's not an innocent software conflict that happened without human intervention.

If such displays of Microsoft's totalitarian control over your system do not make you wary, then, well, how do I put it without insulting your intellectual capacity... I really can't.

For this, and most of your other claims, Occam's Razor gives a much better idea of what's going on.

Lazy content-free retort. As to be expected.

shiho wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 20:31:
The tinfoil hat expression is about conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories have a distinct quality of being unproveable. Yet there is clear factual, ongoing, documented evidence of the disaster that is unfolding with Win10's every step.

Its failure as OS-as-a-service is shown in above article I linked, with Anniversary Update being a trainwreck. Its filesystem-spying EULA and undoing user settings have all been well-documented. So is Microsoft's incredible arrogance as of late in its attitude toward the user.

Perhaps you don't understand the radical policy shift that happened with Win10, but that is your burden to bear.

When all you offer in response is evasion and ridicule, one has to ask who is really wearing the tinfoil in this thread. You sir are a shill. And a mediocre one at that.

nin wrote on Jul 26, 2016, 09:40:
I'm going to throw the popcorn on, should be ready shortly...

shiho wrote on Jul 30, 2016, 23:09:

Razumen wrote on Jul 30, 2016, 22:57:
I have Galaxy, Steam and Origin running right now, combined they're using no more than 650MB of ram, and their CPU use is minimal, if anything. One instance of Firefox is more memory consuming than all of them combined.

THIS is the actual working reality.

Are you running your 2GB instance of Firefox in background when running your average AAA title? If you are, that would not make you too bright.

Neither does implying that running multiple heavy clients in background with 200+mb of memory a piece has negligible impact on system performance. Some of us prefer not to throw away 650mb for shits and giggles.

And what are we arguing about, again? That smaller memory footprint is not better than larger memory footprint? I don't even.

shiho wrote on Jul 30, 2016, 20:55:

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 29, 2016, 20:12:
16 gb of ram, cool thing i noticed is that they can be turned off.
Everything requires a login or payment method, that's the world we live in today. I'm not too old that i can't navigate a different program yet, and you can put a shortcut to the game you want on your desktop, when you click on it the client opens and then you can play the game.
Never had a problem. Of course I'm not running a celeron laptop.

The storefronts cannot be "turned off" without consequences. You turn them off, you subject yourself to the auto-updating process (of the store and/or game itself) next time you want to quickly run a game.

The two biggest ones - Steam and Origin, have no option to auto-exit once they've launched a game, either. That's because any big-name, serious storefront will double as the DRM provider, so you will have them running in background while their game runs.

Blizzard's Battle.net allows auto-exit only because they sell their own games, so they can spread their DRM framework thinly across the store and game itself, making the latter semi-independent of the store once it has launched.

But you will still pay for not running it in background, because patches.

Defending the CPU and memory hogging of multiple arbitrarily-updating storefronts which have whole ecosystems built-in, is pretty absurd as well.

You can trivialize the issue, but that doesn't make your presentation of it resemble the actual working reality.

Slick wrote on Jul 29, 2016, 16:07:

Razumen wrote on Jul 28, 2016, 11:21:

Slick wrote on Jul 28, 2016, 02:35:

Razumen wrote on Jul 27, 2016, 18:51:

Slick wrote on Jul 27, 2016, 13:25:
People bitch and moan about having to install 3 maybe 4 different games store platforms to buy games. There's literally tens of thousands of virtual stores to get random applications on Windows. You can't tell me that there isn't a better solution out there. Isn't that the reason why everyone loves Steam?

Steam provides a LOT of value over just having one place to buy games; friends lists that let you easily chat, talk, invite and join friends games, workshop support, community hubs and discussion boards, etc.

If all Steam was simply a storefront and nothing more it wouldn't have gotten nearly as successful as it is now.

I don't need a friends list to be able to easily purchase apps for windows. Plus Steam has been released for 12 years, they have a bit of a head start.

Most people seem to forget that Steam had a rough first couple of years, people were mad that HL2, an offline SP game needed this bloated piece of DRM just to be able to play it. What made people actually come around is when they started listing other publisher's catalogs, and people saw it as a "one-stop-shop" for PC gaming. That's always been it's strength.

Do you really care about having a web browser embedded into your DRM? I'm gaming on a PC, I can alt-tab and open chrome. And they have extensive forums, but again, that isn't something that you can't get anywhere else on the web. Steamworks is a proper implementation of mods, they get an A+ for that, and their work on SteamVR is very impressive. Other than that, no, I don't think that all the "features" embedded into a bloated piece of DRM is why people shop there, they shop there because all of their games are on there.

I also don't really give a fuck about the quality of the Walmart greeter vs the Target greeter, as long as they have what I want to buy, that's the only reason I walked into the store.

Windows needs a store like that for everything except gaming. IMO Steam could have expanded their Apps section (it does exist, you can even buy some limited music soft on there) and just taken over the market, but I think that most serious app developers (Say $699 for Ableton) aren't interested in giving away %30 of gross (probably closer to 50% of their profit) to a storefront that had nothing to do with the development of their product. So they keep the rinky-dink dime-a-dozen payment portals, and I have to make an account for every one that I want to use. You can't say there isn't room for improvement there. Have you ever tried buying something other than a game on a PC online? It's a nightmare.

The Windows ecosystem could badly use a universal app store where the developers aren't gauged, say under 5% should be more than enough to swallow. MS might do it, someone else might, but whoever does, and does it right, will make a lot of people happy, and make billions.

Forums are everywhere on the web, but you can't dismiss the community that Steam has created by having a unified system of discussion boards and shared community content.

Alt tabbing is an option yes, but some games don't like that, and a lot of the time it's easier and faster to just do it in the steam overlay (which also lets you talk to other friends quickly as well)

None of this is part of Steam's DRM, so you're just talking BS there.

As for buying apps on Windows, Lol no, buying anything on PC (Games, Apps, etc) is dead simple these days, either with Amazon Payments, Paypal, or just straight credit cards, and finding what you want is as simple as googling it. Only a complete idiot needs a closed wall market to hold their hand.

Will MS make an app store? Of course they will, but it's not nearly as important as you're making it out to be (well, it'll be nice for MS, that's for sure)

Dead simple? Are you kidding me?

Every product has their own store. For every different product I want to buy I need to register an account on a new store. Then remember them all for each and every purchase. Can you imagine if every game title had their own store? Or at least every studio has their own store? People would riot.

People bitch about using more than 1 store for gaming (Steam). How many times have you read on here that people will never install Origin or uPlay because fuck them, they didn't release on Steam?

So I don't really know how your argument is based on objective reality, so I'll move onto your next logical fallacy:

"None of this is part of Steam's DRM, so you're just talking BS there."

Buddy, Steam IS DRM. if you think that it's just a free message forum and integrated web browser... I have a "download accelerator" to sell you.

shiho wrote on Jul 29, 2016, 19:48:

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 29, 2016, 19:31:
I could care less how I get my games. The more store fronts the merrier I say. As long as i don't have to keep track of patches, cds and dvds the world is a better place.

Yeah, good luck running 10 different Steam-type clients which will eat 2gb of your RAM, countless CPU cycles, interfere with each other with all their visual overlays, require different payment methods and memorizing different UIs, and are unable to detect when another client is running an online game so they should STOP the autoupdating process.

Fuck that shit.

Verno wrote on Jul 28, 2016, 15:16:
Can't disable Cortana and other forced policies in Windows 10 anniversary Update

I thought Microsoft was going to quit it with this heavy handed shit but apparently not. Maybe Tim isn't so crazy after all.

Slick wrote on Jul 28, 2016, 02:35:

Razumen wrote on Jul 27, 2016, 18:51:

Slick wrote on Jul 27, 2016, 13:25:
People bitch and moan about having to install 3 maybe 4 different games store platforms to buy games. There's literally tens of thousands of virtual stores to get random applications on Windows. You can't tell me that there isn't a better solution out there. Isn't that the reason why everyone loves Steam?

Steam provides a LOT of value over just having one place to buy games; friends lists that let you easily chat, talk, invite and join friends games, workshop support, community hubs and discussion boards, etc.

If all Steam was simply a storefront and nothing more it wouldn't have gotten nearly as successful as it is now.

I don't need a friends list to be able to easily purchase apps for windows. Plus Steam has been released for 12 years, they have a bit of a head start.

Most people seem to forget that Steam had a rough first couple of years, people were mad that HL2, an offline SP game needed this bloated piece of DRM just to be able to play it. What made people actually come around is when they started listing other publisher's catalogs, and people saw it as a "one-stop-shop" for PC gaming. That's always been it's strength.

Do you really care about having a web browser embedded into your DRM? I'm gaming on a PC, I can alt-tab and open chrome. And they have extensive forums, but again, that isn't something that you can't get anywhere else on the web. Steamworks is a proper implementation of mods, they get an A+ for that, and their work on SteamVR is very impressive. Other than that, no, I don't think that all the "features" embedded into a bloated piece of DRM is why people shop there, they shop there because all of their games are on there.

I also don't really give a fuck about the quality of the Walmart greeter vs the Target greeter, as long as they have what I want to buy, that's the only reason I walked into the store.

Windows needs a store like that for everything except gaming. IMO Steam could have expanded their Apps section (it does exist, you can even buy some limited music soft on there) and just taken over the market, but I think that most serious app developers (Say $699 for Ableton) aren't interested in giving away %30 of gross (probably closer to 50% of their profit) to a storefront that had nothing to do with the development of their product. So they keep the rinky-dink dime-a-dozen payment portals, and I have to make an account for every one that I want to use. You can't say there isn't room for improvement there. Have you ever tried buying something other than a game on a PC online? It's a nightmare.

The Windows ecosystem could badly use a universal app store where the developers aren't gauged, say under 5% should be more than enough to swallow. MS might do it, someone else might, but whoever does, and does it right, will make a lot of people happy, and make billions.

Slick wrote on Jul 27, 2016, 13:25:
People bitch and moan about having to install 3 maybe 4 different games store platforms to buy games. There's literally tens of thousands of virtual stores to get random applications on Windows. You can't tell me that there isn't a better solution out there. Isn't that the reason why everyone loves Steam?

Ozmodan wrote on Jul 27, 2016, 09:13:
I use steam a lot, but I think Tim Sweeney is just being overly critical. Microsoft is not going to break all the win32 software out there, it would put our company in a serious hurt if it did.

Personally the OS would be a lot safer if everything did install through the store, but Microsoft made windows open not safer from the get go, hence all the bad programs out there.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jul 26, 2016, 17:15:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jul 26, 2016, 13:25:
And imo it is extremely sad that to show what an open platform is, I actually have to point at STEAM nowadays.

What is really extremely sad is how extremely wrong you are . What exactly is "open" about a Steamworks title that absolutely 100% requires Steam to run? Where is the choice? There are literally hundreds of Steamworks games on Steam.

Also, Valve's own catalog is 100% exclusive to Steam. You can buy EA, Ubi or Activision (just to name a few of the biggies) games on a large variety of platforms from GOG to uPlay to Steam. But Valve are keeping their games Steam exclusive. The only other bigger publisher who is doing this is Blizzard who are keeping their games Battle.net exclusive. Everyone else is way more open and giving people more of a choice where to obtain games.

So, saying that Steam or Valve are particularly "open" or about choice is simply blatantly factually incorrect.

Slick wrote on Jul 26, 2016, 14:37:

007Bistromath wrote on Jul 26, 2016, 14:09:

Slick wrote on Jul 26, 2016, 13:53:
But do you really not get the potential upside of a walled garden?

I read what you wrote, I just don't care. There is nothing within five conceptual miles of "walled garden" that has a meaningful upside. This is like telling me to consider the upside of being the middle of the human centipede.

"A class of app that can't be fucked with in the first place?" Are you high? Anything can be fucked with, and with all that money floating around in e-sports, life will find a way. Meanwhile, devs producing legitimate products will have to divert part of their budget to coding around Microsoft's mistakes, and many attempts to do so will fail or be buggy as shit.

Baby, I'm high erryday, don't mean I'm not wrong though.

Again, I'll ask you, when was the last software hack you seen for the PS4? Xbone? Oh right, for all intents and purposes they're un-fuck-wit-able. The irony that the most secure platforms to have a clean competitive match today is on fucking consoles. And that's a sad reality to PC gamers.

Give me the security of gaming on a console, with the hardware and peripheral freedom of PC, and you'll have a real e-sports scene. I don't know if UWP is the way to get there, like I've already said, they have all of their work still ahead of them if they want to prove this platform. But you're a fool if you think that PC gamers don't want a class of app that can't be infiltrated with script kiddies and their ESP aimbot bullshit nonsense.

And I refuse to say: "well since I don't want to deal with hackers, I'll just play my FPS games with a fucking controller on perpetually outdated hardware." get the fuck outta here.

And apparently you've never heard of Denuvo is you think that everything can be hacked, lol.

And the Steam Workshop works just fine on consoles, so modding isn't even on the chopping block when thinking of a walled garden game that just works as intended.

Slick wrote on Jul 26, 2016, 13:02:

HorrorScope wrote on Jul 26, 2016, 12:57:

Wesp5 wrote on Jul 26, 2016, 10:25:
If it weren't for GOG and other small sites, Steam on PC would already be pretty much a closed platform...

There's a difference between closed and choice, Steam has always been a choice.

Anyway, yeah if MS makes that move, then it becomes an obvious shitfest and then it actually truly does begin the process to something else. I'd say they wouldn't do it, but they do some of the dumbest shit over there. I'm not going to worry again if it happens another option will appear shortly after.

As for allowing only UWP apps to run, well this there goes all my companies software running on 100's of thousands of units moving commerce as well as our competitors. The US gov't honestly would step in because the system would break. MS isn't even that stupid.

Barring the privacy concerns over win10, I think that MS has taken a significant turn for the better since Ballmer left. Focusing on just one OS moving forward is a move that Apple figured out 12 years ago, so it's about time. Developing for the billions of hardware configurations on PC is enough of a headache, having just one OS that will be updated and not abandoned in a few years is good news for developers, and consumers, and was honestly long overdue.

And yes, MS has been sued for anti-competitive behavior for MUCH smaller things in the past, shit they weren't even allowed to bundle their own anti-virus in their own OS for years. Why any sane rational person would think that they'd take the 30 years of development for their platform and throw it out the window is either crazy, or has an axe to grind. Think about exactly how many people are employed by developing for Win32 programs. You'd take basically the entire IT and software sector of the global economy and throw it out the window. It's madness.

jdreyer wrote on Jul 18, 2016, 14:08:
I wouldn't have thought a game like Doom would benefit much from something like Vulcan.

Nullity wrote on Jul 15, 2016, 12:15:

Daikatana 1.3 for Windows, Linux, OS X, and FreeBSD.

Is this the patch that finally makes me Romero's bitch?

Sorry, someone had to.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jul 13, 2016, 20:42:

Razumen wrote on Jul 13, 2016, 18:51:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jul 13, 2016, 18:31:

Razumen wrote on Jul 13, 2016, 11:16:

descender wrote on Jul 13, 2016, 11:09:
Increased FOV lets you see more to your sides without turning increasing your situational awareness. It doesn't improve your aim.

Increased your situational awareness can be argued as an advantage, whether it's unfair or not, that's a bit more contentious.

It makes aiming harder. And if you don't have relative fov adjustment on "zoom" weapons it also makes those weapons zoom *less* so there is no advantage. In fact too high FOV often breaks first person aim entirely, only BF4 (The only REAL shooter currently) as adaptive fov when you have a zoom scope or just merely "aim down sighs" allowing you to actually see as far as someone on a 4:3/5:4 screen would.

Not when switching between a 16:9 and 21:9 screen, there would be no real difference in character sizes on screen, or zoom levels for that matter, because you'd only be gaining horizontal screen space, thus there are no changes to aiming...

In Overwatch you do not gain horizontal screen space though thanks to their idiotic "FOV / Aspect Ratio" implementation. On 21:9 you are zoomed in more, meaning you have to move your mouse pointer more than someone at 16:9.