It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Who agrees about this?(79 posts)(79 posts)
(79 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 07, 2012
Dreamcast INVENTED online gaming for consoles BUT XBL was the innovation. The Dreamcast got doomed by costs and the competition like the PS2. XBL had Halo 2 to speed it up and then COD came and BAM! Roman5 it sort looks like your a PS3 fanboy or just anti-MIcrosoft. I'm just mad at MS for the tech support. 9x was a great series of systems-If you knew how to use it.
avatar
Roman5: the first Xbox was OK but the 360 is absolutely terrible, and I don't think it's going to get any better at this point, you also have to take into consideration that Microsoft has done literally Zero innovation in the industry and has done nothing but bad for it
avatar
Neobr10: How is it terrible, care to elaborate? Also, i have to remind you that the Xbox 360 is the most profitable gaming platform of this generation. I mean, its the one that sells the most games, which is why most publishers and developers focus on it. If it was that bad, i dont think it would be doing so well. And Kinect is just printing money for Microsoft.

They did make a few mistakes, like fucking Rare up, letting Bungie and Bizarre Creations go, closing talented internal studios (like Ensemble), but still they got a lot of things right.
Agreed. +1 for you! Those guys at Redmond are masterminds!
avatar
Roman5: Hmm...really?

Alright, explain to me how exactly Xbox Live is Innovative
avatar
danteveli: aybe you should start with why 360 is so terrible?
With Xbox Live Microsoft made digital distribution model that is now copied also they gave users new services and brought true online gaming to consoles. i may not like it and almos never use it but I have to admit they have made online mass thing for consoles.
+1 for ya!
Post edited April 07, 2012 by somegamer786
Posted April 07, 2012
People complained about 9x 'cause of driver problems. BUT look at NT. NT was stabler.
Posted April 07, 2012
They are not bad. Well if they release Windows 8 in it current form i will have to revisit my opinion ...
Posted April 07, 2012
avatar
Navagon: Windows 7 is the best OS they've done. Anyone who thinks that Win98 is better doesn't remember it very well.
- Windows 1-2 -> a joke, just to say to non-Apple/Atari/Amiga users 'Hey, we have a GUI too, guys!'
- Windows 3.0 -> better, but mostly a GUI-library 'Winword is pretty?'
- Windows 3.1 -> ...'with a network?'
- Windows 3.11 -> ...'with internet?'

- NT 3.5, and then
- NT 4 where real OSes, but not usable for games.

- Windows 95 was a big step forward from previous interfaces, picking NT4 GUI for individual users - but still a DOS-based app.
- Windows 98 expanded on it, pushing the interface toward the web,
- Windows 98 SE stabilized that,
- Windows Me... let's not talk about IT.

=> Windows 98 SE, if completed with the only good evolution of Me, a better working defrag, was quite good, but not really an OS, and suffered instabilities from it.

- Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) was good and a full OS, but not very user friendly (you had to work to start some games)

- Windows XP (NT 5.1) added good improvement, better gaming too, but a lot of pretty GUI slowing stuff. After some config, it's was better that 2000.

- Windows Vista (NT 6.0) changed too much, but without touching the crucial deficiencies (NTFS and fragmentation, the central register). Add blind and stupid security (too many requester -> the user learns to NEVER read them and just click OK), a lot of incompatibilities, a drop in performance, and it's one of the most hated OS.

- Windows Seven (NT 6.1) took the same base, but polished it. It's faster, and as most incompatibilities are already sorted, most hardware works with it.

- Windows 8 (NT 6.2) same base, switchable tablet/desktop interface. The tablet part needs a lot of work, the desktop part looks quite usable.

I never used the server versions. Some where said to be better as a user experience that the desktop ones.

I would say that the polished releases: Win 7, then Win XP then Win 98SE are good choices. Win98SE could run 16-bit Windows games, an option later lost.

(I can't stand the Vista/7/8 interface, neither XP and 98SE in webified config, but it's more a personal matter)
Posted April 08, 2012
Having never had to contact MicroSoft for tech support (phone or e-mail) myself, what is the gripe with their support?
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Who agrees about this?(79 posts)(79 posts)
(79 posts)