Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
100% profit. Have you seen them rich pop stars? FRIGGIN RICH! Grrrrr....

---

Most of the money goes to the record companies, not the artist. Infact most of 'them rich pop stars' are probably heavily in debt. (agreed some of them are stupidly rich, like the actual successful ones)

Still, I'd much rather pay for a file I can download, and do what I like with it, and know that all the money went to the artist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wikipedia
Alestorm is a folk/power metal band from Perth, Scotland, formed under the name Battleheart in 2004. Their music is characterised by a pirate theme, for which reason they describe their style as "True Scottish Pirate Metal"

---

If it had a ninja theme it would be better.

---

You know, me and a friend said the same thing. But its still awesome, ill always sing along to it

This is getting so full of wrong stuff....


Aardvark, first you say that Vista sucks and isn't worth using it at all, then you say you upgrade to Ultimate because Bussiness sucks. What kind of argument is that?

mattisdada, CS3 Master Collection does not suck just because you don't need everything in it. If you just need 1 or two products then get that 1 or two products. Of course a Collection is going to include more than just that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark

quote:

---

Originally posted by vaccination
And you do realise they use crappy cheap CDs too? They probably pay about 5p per CD for their CDs, if that. The 30 'bucks' you pay, is all about profit, not quality.

---

...I didn't think about the quality of the CDs they use - they're probably worse than the ones you buy at the store!

---

100% profit. Have you seen them rich pop stars? FRIGGIN RICH! Grrrrr....

---

Sorry, but do you guys actually know what you're talking about?

How are you going to compare a home burned CD-R (most likely full of errors) with a CD which is pressed from a negative master plate in lab conditions?

100% profit? Do some research into how much the artist actually gets and where the other money goes to and why. You think you support your favorite artist by copying their CDs because you find the CDs to expensive? Guess again, for most artists copying CDs means loosing money and you do steal their bread from their plate if you do.

And the amount of succesfull rich pop stars compared to all the other billion artists who try to earn a living buy selling CDs is extremely little. The same for the very little amount of artists who successfully release a CD on their own, compared to the billions of artists who do not have the time/skill/money/whatever to make and release a CD on their own and who need a production company.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
Rock/metal on the otherhand are bands that are actually skilled and don't just pump out the same old song someone released several years ago with a new "twist", or no new twist at all!

---

You would be surprised when you learn that a lot of Rock/metal groups actual do cover old songs and bring them out with a new 'twist'. As for skill: tbh, if I hear _some_ rock/metal singers sing I think a classical musical singer has FAR more singing skill. Does that mean I like classical musical more? No... Does that mean _all_ Rock/Metal singers are unskilled? Nope...






Instead of using arguments which are completely based upon nothing but typical (internet) hear-say and what not, learn a few things about how the real world works.

Sorry if all this sounds extremely harsh, but really....

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
You would be surprised when you learn that a lot of Rock/metal groups actual do cover old songs and bring them out with a new 'twist'.

---

Yeah well I thought of that after I said it.

Anyway as for Vista - I hadn't used Vista before, and so upgraded to Ultimate to get the "full" Vista experience. Which was ok for a while...but then I got sick of it and began to realize all the flaws in Vista, and then went back to XP.

As for the CD thing, yeah I can admit I have no evidence of that and they probably do use a somewhat quality CD to burn the disks - but if they were money hungry they would use crappy ones to increase their overall budgets.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
I dont belive any software is worth buying But thats just me

---

You wouldn't say that if you spent years developing one. If that kind of thinking continues to grow, maybe some day your boss will tell you "well mate, I'm sorry but the work you did this month is not worth paying for, better luck next month".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
I hadn't used Vista before, and so upgraded to Ultimate to get the "full" Vista experience. Which was ok for a while...but then I got sick of it and began to realize all the flaws in Vista, and then went back to XP.

---

Hum... you realized about the flaws in Vista after using it for a while? please, enlighten me. I must be dumb because I've been using Vista for more than a year, on two computers. and those flaws have yet to show on my systems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
As for the CD thing, yeah I can admit I have no evidence of that and they probably do use a somewhat quality CD to burn the disks

---

You're talking about manufactured disks... whatever "quality" CD-R you're using, manufactured discs (99.9% of the time) will last 10 times longer that your home made copies and will always be far more reliable. And in any case, that has nothing to do with the problem: you're not paying for the plastic and the aluminium, you're paying for the time many people have invested into making and promoting the music that's recorded on the disc.

CookieRevised and Patchou won the argument .

-Takes far too long to boot up, uses way too much ram (I might as well say my 2gb computer is 1gb when using Vista)
-The new start menu is rubbish I liked it better when everything just nicely popped out (yes I'm aware you can change the Start Menu style, but that changes it completely and gets rid of the recently used programs and whatnot)
-The Visual style for it is rubbish, and all the Visual styles i can find for it get annoying after a while, or just don't work for me at all (so more of a personal thing there) - plus building my own style is way too hard (I've started but from a number of Googles getting transparency on my style isn't gonna happen without a lot of work)
-A number of the programs I use don't work (well) under Vista causing a number of headaches trying to find simple and efficient alternatives
-Everything by default is in LIST VIEW! I hate list view I like tiles/icons view, and it's very annoying having to change EVERY SINGLE FOLDER! I found one way I could change the default folder template but that didn't really seem to achieve what I had in mind

Umm yeah that's all I can think of at the moment. There are a lot of positive things I like about Vista too, but some of the positive things one way or another can be replicated back in XP or any other operating system.

EDIT: Oo, the bootloader! It's like a war between XOSL and bootmgr on my computer when I ever need to change something drastic with Vista. Took me 8 days to sort out the last problem...

RAM is meant to be USED for christ's sake, when will people learn that? of course your operating system is going to use whatever memory is available. That's what makes your whole computer as efficient as possible. Windows 95 used 4MB of RAM, Windows 98 8-16MB, Windows 2000 about 64MB, Windows XP could very well use 256MB and Vista is generally happy with 1GB. What is the problem there? New systems need more power and more resources for tons of reasons. Some programs look cooler and offer more features in Vista than they did in Win2000 and than they previously did in Win98? guess what, that's thank to Windows using more of what your computer has to offer.

Boot time is extremely fast on my two systems, probably faster than XP so I don't see what's your problem there. As for List View, I'm not sure what you're talking about either, as with any past version of Windows I can remember, you can ask Windows to use whatever you want by default in Folder Options. Vista will simply try to displauy your files the best way possible it can think of, it won't always succeed but that's a matter of personal taste.

As far as the new start menu and visual styles are concerned, it's alsto a matter of personal taste so that can't be considered flaws either (and you can change all of that in the options as well anyway). In any case, I don't see how they could be considered "annoying". You either like them and keep them, or you don't.

And last but not least: program compatibility. That's not Microsoft's fault, they already work their ass off to make sure many half-baked programs continue to work on their new systems. If one of your programs doesn't work in Vista and worked on XP, email the developers and ask them to stop watching porn all day long and fix stuff that needs to be fixed in their buggy program. About any well done program that was developed for Windows 2000 will work flawlessly in Windows Vista.

Yeah well that's why it's just my opinion/taste. It's a flaw in my opinion with what I use/enjoy when using a computer. Of course RAM is meant to be used - and that's where the problem is. I multitask HEAPS, and that RAM should be going towards what I'm actually focused on, not on keeping my system up and running. I often run a number of virtual machines too, and their RAM is limited because Vista is using half of my total, so it's not really easy to test and try things in the virtual machines...

Compatibility was an issue when I first got Vista (I didn't know about needing to integrate the sata drivers into my XP installation disk, so I couldn't set up the dual boot), of course XP's up and running alongside Vista now (among other things) so that's fine I guess...still a bit tedious having to constantly restart your computer just because you want to use a different program to do one simple task.

And of course your boot time is much more faster than mine. You probably have a lot more expensive computer, so it's probably better than mine (this was a pretty cheap computer, or so I think).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
-Takes far too long to boot up, uses way too much ram (I might as well say my 2gb computer is 1gb when using Vista)

---

As Patchou also said, ram is meant to be used....

I wouldn't have bought an extra GB just to let it rot away (Vista would run fine with 1GB nevertheless though), and when I would have 4GB I would almost demand that Vista used 2GB or more if it was available and not in use....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
-The new start menu is rubbish
-The Visual style for it is rubbish
-I hate list view
...

---

All preferences, not flaws! And hardly "not worth buying or using it" or "it sucks and is crap"... /me not likes it, /me changes it (like the default start menu which I don't like either; even not in XP)....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
-A number of the programs I use don't work (well) under Vista causing a number of headaches trying to find simple and efficient alternatives

---

Where are those posts talking about compatibility and people bashing MS and hating Vista because it still supports old stuff, isn't "innovative" enough and all that because it still needs to be compatible, and how MS should break their road map and start building things without taking in account old stuff... (sic: see first page or so in this thread).

Speaking of irony and contradiction....


Anyways, what I actually wanted to say: a flaw/bug <> taste/opinion....but I must always rant


EDIT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
I often run a number of virtual machines too, and their RAM is limited because Vista is using half of my total, so it's not really easy to test and try things in the virtual machines...

---

granted... but you could change that too by letting Vista only use a certain amount of RAM.... (is possible in XP too btw).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
And of course your boot time is much more faster than mine. You probably have a lot more expensive computer, so it's probably better than mine (this was a pretty cheap computer, or so I think).

---

I think he meant compared to XP on that very same machine of his.

---------

Do I like Vista: sure... Does it still has some twirks or things I don't like: sure...