Thread: Bloat
View Single Post
Old 05 October 2001, 20:55   #9
Give up the ghost
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: U$A
Age: 25
Posts: 4,662
Before I respond, I'll mention that I split this thread since none of this has arse to do with Faery Tale Adventure.

So much has been posted on this thread since I have been able to get on and read this, I hardly know where to begin. I do agree that I was on the right track and shadowfire either has some connection to the PC industry or Micro$oft, as all of these stupid comments blaming all problems PC on beta software, user errors, etc. and nary a blame in sight to Micro$oft is awful strange. Especially considering the fact that we all know better.

- My A2000 did not have the option to boot into 68000. It had an 030 processor and that was it. Sure, I could pop an 000 chip or rom switcher in there, but I didn't have those things, so in effect, I couldn't do this. Either way, you later dismiss the incompatibility issue of the op-codes anyhow, so what difference does it make? We didn't buy the A3000 because we did our homework first and were aware of certain limitations that came with being an A3000 user regarding backwards compatibility. If you didn't, I hate it for you.

- I never denied that bad code was bad code, but that is not what we were discussing. We were discussing bloatware. And just because bad code exists, doesn't dismiss the fact that bloatware exists, as well.

If you had enough money to buy a machine & a development kit & get your game published, you definitely had enough money to get minimal (Certified) developer support from Commodore. No if's and's or but's about that one.
Not true. There are ifs ands & buts: you talk of 'affording' the development kit...the starting coding teams who were programming from their bedrooms and selling their wares to the softco house likely couldn't afford it, but at the same time, the software houses many times simply didn't bother, afford or not. And even if they had said kits, every programmer of games released by them were not done by an 8-5 staff that clocked in and out everyday with these tools at their disposal. More often than not, the development team was completely separate from the publishing company. I think we have all read enough horror stories from the developers about their dealings with the publishers, including the typical being ripped off of money, among other things. We are talking about impassioned programmers, not the kind of mindless zombies churning out games now with their pre-fab 3D engines tied into 3D drivers, graphic cards and the OS. Let's call a spade a spade here...your parallels are completely unfair!

When codetapper fixes the games, does he not add a *lot* of software from the WHDLoad suite? Isn't that bloat? Don't you require a SHITLOAD more memory to run the WHDLoad versions than the original?
You're delusional, dude! No, a *lot* of software from the WHDLoad suite is not added. Since you obviously don't know, I'll explain. You install the WHDLoad 'suite'. The archive for that package is 120k!!! You think that's a lot while you defend PC games and OS? And as is discussed in a different thread, the memory requirements can very often be reduced by a switch in either the command line or in the icon for the WHDLoad game. But those that need a WHDLoad version due to incompatibility with their too powerful machine typically have these minimal memory requirements that you refer to as SHITLOAD. Perhaps you can elaborate on that term with some real examples.

- Your comments about how much more is going on in Quake than in Amiga games was a bit condescending, I think. OBVIOUSLY more is going on in a complex 3D game. Nobody ever stated anything to the contrary, so I fail to see your point. My point was how much horsepower a PC already has and how crap the games still are. And I stand by that. By your rationale, there's not enough horsepower out there to service a 3D dungeon game with bitmapped textures and realtime 3D views. And you ignore the neverending patching issue entirely. Why does everything PC games related have a tidy little excuse to go with it, but the games that didn't work on your A3000 are unforgivable?

Yes, the Amiga is an older, simpler computer. It was much easier to make an OS stable when it only took up 256k of space. Of course, Windows does much more than AmigaDOS ever did, so of course it's bigger.
Gawd, what a patronizing comment! So the OS on your A3000 only occupied 256k of space, huh? And it's all about how much more Windows does. Your tone is so snobbish towards the Amiga and so cozy with Windows, I wonder why you are even here in the first place! Furthermore, there's a lot more to an Amiga than the OS. Windows does a lot of things in software because the PC architecture was not created with being a multimedia machine in mind. The Amiga has custom co-processors that the PC doesn't, so you cannot look at the size of the OS and expect that to explain away how complex the machine is. Despite this, there's still a lot of things the AmigaOS does that is far more intuitive than Windows does even today. I'll not elaborate on that because if you don't know, then you are not an Amiga user and it's not my job to teach the differences in the two OS's. And I have no desire to 'convert' you to the Amiga camp.

When people start whining about Windows being bugged, that 95% of the time it's "pilot error" [thats a nice way of saying the user screwed up] and 5% of the time it's "hardware error". <1% of the time is it "Windows error".
I'm very curious as to what source these statistics come from. How could you possibly create these figures without knowing everything ever user on the planet is doing? You can't. You are fabricating figures from nowhere! 96% of the time pilot error...LOL!!! Windows <1%???? You're on crack, dude! Show me your source for these figures, otherwise this is a 'faery tale'...

The Win98 boxes only lock up on me when running beta emulation software. I don't get sudden spontaneous blue screens of death, but then again, I don't have a gazillion 3rd party programs running in the systray. I don't have any beta device drivers installed. Beta = asking for trouble.
You only speak of how it affects YOU. There are other users with other hardware configs, other software installed. Just because everything works perfectly for you except for beta software does not mean that your conclusions are defacto. If the systray was only for Windows OS apps, why are other programs allowed to reside there? I run Win98 on a LOT of machines at work and at home. They lock up all the time and there is no beta software in ANY of them. Especially at work! Yet we have issues all the time with software such as Adobe Photoshop, Quark Xpress, etc. Out of the box, no pirated versions, no beta version, clean OS installs. You aren't factoring in networking, memory differences, etc. And on those systems at work, the only third party software in the tray is Norton virus software (which is not beta, btw...)

Just because you have different experiences with whatever it is you do on your machine, does not explain away that we are all making stupid users errors, using buggy beta software, and that Windows itself is doing almost everything by the book!

Enough....this message is way too long already...
Twistin'Ghost is offline  
Page generated in 0.07086 seconds with 9 queries