News Behind the scenes with Windows 7

[Hielor]

Maybe.
Can you continue the list?

I don't consider "version 2.0 of program A" a new program, unless it's VERY different.
I don't consider a remake of a program (like OS-S) a new program.
I don't consider a game made on some common engine a new game.
I don't consider any version of Windows since Win95 a new OS.

Not much is left afterwards.

But, i don't have a very wide scope in consumer software, so i asked to continue the list.

If by "engine" you mean something like DirectX, then Orbiter doesn't count. If you mean the traditional definition of engine, there have been plenty of games not based on common engines in the last ten years, because engines from ten years ago simply can't support the features that modern games have.

Your kidding right?! As one who daily supports M$, I can tell you that Vista and ME drive more calls than any other OS. ME was/is complete trash IMHO and Vista is sub-trash. When GE, one of the largest corp in the world won't upgrade to Vista, you know you have one piece of "crappy" software

Then, as I'm sure you know, the vast majority of problems with Vista are problems with other software not doing things correctly (needing administrator-level access just to run).

Plenty of people (myself included) have been using Vista for quite some time with few problems. Certainly fewer problems than ME had.

 

[Artlav]

If by "engine" you mean something like DirectX, then Orbiter doesn't count. If you mean the traditional definition of engine, there have been plenty of games not based on common engines in the last ten years, because engines from ten years ago simply can't support the features that modern games have.

I mean something close but widened common definition of engine.

A new game must have something significantly new.
-Wolfenstine 3D and/or Doom was new, then Quake was new, and that account for all/most of FPS made later.
-Around Homeworld time space opera games was made, with all of them looking alike.
-Among space sims, MSSS, shuttle and Orbiter are about the only things available, with various follow-ups and look-alikes made.
-I haven't played any strategy games newer than M.A.X., made in 1996, so no idea what's new and old there.
-Etc.

There is no difference between Quake and Half-life 2, Stalker, Crysis, Call of Duty 4, etc. Nothing really new.
Garry'smod is almost is, since it allows for more than any of these games combined, despite being built on the same "engine".
Portals can be if you forget what it is made in image of - a game from 90's.

There might be a dozen versions of MSFS, X-plane, ysflight, etc but none of them are new - all doing the same thing a little different.

Every Windows version looks and works and sells similarly to Windows 95.
There are lots of internal changes, but the concept is unchanged.

So, what new software can you name?

 

[Brad]

Then, as I'm sure you know, the vast majority of problems with Vista are problems with other software not doing things correctly (needing administrator-level access just to run).
........

It's funny how this "other software" worked fine with Windows XP and prior. The biggest problem with Vista is the backward compatibility and the refusal of M$ to fix or address this issue. For a novice, this is a monumental task to resolve, for someone more proficient like you or I, it can be frustrating at best to find a resolution.

It is my hope that this time the M$ does listen to its customers.

 

[Hielor]

I mean something close but widened common definition of engine.

A new game must have something significantly new.
-Wolfenstine 3D and/or Doom was new, then Quake was new, and that account for all/most of FPS made later.
-Around Homeworld time space opera games was made, with all of them looking alike.
-Among space sims, MSSS, shuttle and Orbiter are about the only things available, with various follow-ups and look-alikes made.
-I haven't played any strategy games newer than M.A.X., made in 1996, so no idea what's new and old there.
-Etc.

There is no difference between Quake and Half-life 2, Stalker, Crysis, Call of Duty 4, etc. Nothing really new.
Garry'smod is almost is, since it allows for more than any of these games combined, despite being built on the same "engine".
Portals can be if you forget what it is made in image of - a game from 90's.

There might be a dozen versions of MSFS, X-plane, ysflight, etc but none of them are new - all doing the same thing a little different.

You're not talking about new engines. You're talking about new genres. That would be like asking, what new genres of books have there been in the last ten years? Well, not many, because there aren't that many options, and if you distill it as much as you are then of course there won't be anything "new." If you're going to talk about new genres, don't forget the "rhythm" games--DDR, Guitar Hero, Rock Band, etc. That's a genre that didn't exist.

But yeah, I'm sorry, if you're asking for genres that have been invented in last ten years, then no there aren't that many. However, you can't look at Doom and Crysis and then tell me they are the same thing. Sure, they have the same goal (walk around and kill things). Plus, how is Quake "new" compared to doom? It's still got the same goal.

At that point, how can you really call Doom new? Mankind has been walking around shooting each other with guns for a few hundred years now.

Every Windows version looks and works and sells similarly to Windows 95.
There are lots of internal changes, but the concept is unchanged.

You complain that it looks similar to 95, the paradigm that has worked since then. Yet, when there are large changes to that paradigm (see Vista), people complain. You have just done a great job demonstrating the dilemma that any developer (but particularly OS developers) are in: Change anything, people complain. Don't change enough, people complain.

I'm sorry you're unhappy with things improving on what was there before rather than re-inventing the wheel every day. That's the way the world works.

 

[Face]

It is my hope that this time the M$ does listen to its customers.

In the end, Microsoft will always listen to money. And this is what makes 7 the next XP. They can't afford another Vista...

I'm pretty sure we'll talk about 7 like about XP in 2 years from now...

regards,
Face

 

[Artlav]

You're not talking about new engines. You're talking about new genres. That would be like asking, what new genres of books have there been in the last ten years? Well, not many, because there aren't that many options

So, everything is already invented?
It's quite impossible to run out of new things to invent yet, just because the universe isn't ending the next second.

Plus, how is Quake "new" compared to doom? It's still got the same goal.

At that point, how can you really call Doom new? Mankind has been walking around shooting each other with guns for a few hundred years now.

Quake to Doom is like Orbiter to MSSS - a finished piece of idea, or i think so.
Doom to wars have one important newness - it let you shoot things without going to prison and facing moral problems.

I'm sorry you're unhappy with things improving on what was there before rather than re-inventing the wheel every day. That's the way the world works.

Yes, and along with improving what is, there is one just as important thing as making something new. Without that there will be nothing is to improve. That's the way the world works.

 

[Hielor]

So, everything is already invented?
It's quite impossible to run out of new things to invent yet, just because the universe isn't ending the next second.

No, not everything is already invented. But you shouldn't say "oh, only a few really new things have shown up" and use that as evidence that the state of software is terrible. Huge improvements have been made in the last ten years. You can't honestly compare a computer from 1999 and a computer from 2009 and tell me that we're in almost the same place now that we were then.

Quake to Doom is like Orbiter to MSSS - a finished piece of idea, or i think so.
Doom to wars have one important newness - it let you shoot things without going to prison and facing moral problems.

A "finished piece of idea" is not a new idea.

Yes, and along with improving what is, there is one just as important thing as making something new. Without that there will be nothing is to improve. That's the way the world works.

By your own admission, for the last ten years we've primarily just been improving on the same things in software, and the software market is doing just fine.

By your logic, for the last fifty (or more) years we've just been improving on the state of cars and vehicles, and yet people don't seem to mind buying a car that's not radically new, but rather just an improvement over what they had before.

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

Moreover, it's worth pointing out that Vista was a whole lot more "new" than the usual pace of Windows versions. We all saw how well that works.

People may say they want "new" things, but really in most cases they just want improved things--things that do what the previous version could, better or faster or with more features.

 

[Omhra]

The problem with what you say Hielor is that it sounds like this...
"Vista is not bad if you happen to have it working right", in conjunction with "you haven't used "Me (Millenium)" on a machine where it runs well"... I have to say... ahem.. yeah .. well... ofcourse. Its what we are saying...

Problem is, we are not diluted or ignorant to the evolution of the OS and Microsoft in general... We know whats happened...
Nothing in its defence can be said that doesn't sound like a hustle...
"if you want to run new software you need new OS... and that is the biggest problem...

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM.

The biggest problem is that Microsoft is not so much (only) "advancing" matters... insomuch as it is making things, from a not too distant past, obsolete... and that is mildly to obscenely irresponsible an inconsiderate to their subjects... (the world).
Like I have said before.. if you do get into the "club" and use only Microsoft partners with signed drivers, software and the lot... it will obviously (and it have BETTER) work.
But Ms (Hielor, read M$ OK?) is posturing itself to be the next "pseudo-Apple-like" company, selling hardware through partnership and software (through partnership also). Even messenger is not compatible as of a couple of weeks ago with XP 64...
And even tho the real reason escapes me... if you uninstall and reinstall it, it works,... (You have to dig-out the MSI since the downloader rejects the os) but it works... until the next restart... when the system hangs...
Raises some eyebrows; that this is happening. And you honestly can't tell us that its "four our own good"... And that "they know better" without getting an honest burn for it.

I sincerily hope Windows 7 is trully better, not just "porked" and "secure" full of indexes that if hacked could mean devastation for a business...
I hoope it brings the freedom of bAcKwArD compatibility and some good new things, but fancy looking buttons do not impress the serious computer user... it only impresses "impresisionable" newbies... which is the broadest section of the markets. And clearly who M$ (Micro$oft [Microsoft]) is trying to entice...

 

[Hielor]

Even messenger is not compatible as of a couple of weeks ago with XP 64...
And even tho the real reason escapes me... if you uninstall and reinstall it, it works,... (You have to dig-out the MSI since the downloader rejects the os) but it works... until the next restart... when the system hangs...

I daresay that it's not the fault of Windows when an app refuses to work on its platform.

 

[Artlav]

You can't honestly compare a computer from 1999 and a computer from 2009 and tell me that we're in almost the same place now that we were then.

We are in the same place we were then.
We still use the same digital computers based on same number crunching ideas, only crunching numbers a bit faster.
I fail to see any HUGE improvements in the industry. Some new ideas are flying around, a bit of improving is going on some place, a larger bit of degrading the other, but nothing really new, only improved.

In plainer words - you can do the same office stuff on 2009 computer you could have done on 1999 computer.
There is nothing useful Excel 2008 can do that Excel 5.0 can't.
You can have same or more fun with games from 1999 than with games now. They may look nicer, but nice look in not always fun.

There is a distinct branch of industry - special purpose and high-performance computations, where the speed matters. From that point of view, all the lithography and processor/memory architectures changes are indeed filled with both novelty and improvements, but even there the software didn't improve much in novelty terms - lot's of stuff is running on Fortran, and message passing is a primary architecture.

A "finished piece of idea" is not a new idea.

Thus, a rocket that gets you to orbit is not new compared to a rocket that barely reaches the clouds? I think work in progress on the idea and a finished piece of idea are different things. Once you made it work, you can improve it.

By your own admission, for the last ten years we've primarily just been improving on the same things in software, and the software market is doing just fine.

By your logic, for the last fifty (or more) years we've just been improving on the state of cars and vehicles, and yet people don't seem to mind buying a car that's not radically new, but rather just an improvement over what they had before.

As i said, it's just as important to improve as it is to make new things. But one without the other is not "doing just fine".

People may say they want "new" things, but really in most cases they just want improved things--things that do what the previous version could, better or faster or with more features.

I noticed that too.
There seem to be two kinds of people - ones who actively seek novelty, and ones who avoid it at all costs, with something that feels like 1 to 5 ratio respectively.
So, like with any other "there seems to be two kinds of people" cases, producers often choose the one with bigger share and sells for them.

 

[Omhra]

I daresay that it's not the fault of Windows when an app refuses to work on its platform.

I offcourse said Microsoft... not "Windows" and it clearly says on the "system requirements" that XP64 is not supported... But it works on Vista...

And being that the MSI installs AND runs on XP 64 until a restart ... well it just might be by design... If I find proof I will post it. And semantically you are correct, but "actually" is a hustle.

 

[Hielor]

We are in the same place we were then.
We still use the same digital computers based on same number crunching ideas, only crunching numbers a bit faster.
I fail to see any HUGE improvements in the industry. Some new ideas are flying around, a bit of improving is going on some place, a larger bit of degrading the other, but nothing really new, only improved.

Mankind is in the same place that we were two hundred years ago. Each of us tries to do the best we can for ourselves, our families, and our friends.

Internal combustion is in the same place that it was ninety years ago.

I don't understand why something that works (and works well) is so bad that it must be replaced by something new. Plus, your statement that computers are "a bit faster" over the last ten years is a huge understatement. In 1999 games that were based on realistic physics interactions were not possible with desktop hardware. Now they are. My graphics card in my current computer is more powerful than my entire previous desktop.

In plainer words - you can do the same office stuff on 2009 computer you could have done on 1999 computer.

No. I can't run FSX on a 1999 computer (hell, I can hardly run it on a 2009 computer, as has been pointed out in this thread)

Thus, a rocket that gets you to orbit is not new compared to a rocket that barely reaches the clouds? I think work in progress on the idea and a finished piece of idea are different things. Once you made it work, you can improve it.

A rocket that gets you to orbit is an improvement to a rocket that barely reaches the clouds, just like a game which looks disturbingly realistic is an improvement to a game that's got 8x8 pixel sprites walking around.

 

[Artlav]

Mankind is in the same place that we were two hundred years ago. Each of us tries to do the best we can for ourselves, our families, and our friends.

No, a lot was accomplished and invented since then.
Do the best we can in what form? Do we?

Internal combustion is in the same place that it was ninety years ago.

Yes, there are no atomic cars yet.
No, the IC engines are better now.

I don't understand why something that works (and works well) is so bad that it must be replaced by something new.

Because, something new works a little or a lot better.

I can't run FSX on a 1999 computer (hell, I can hardly run it on a 2009 computer, as has been pointed out in this thread)

You can't.
You can run other games of the same or other kind that were there that time. And have lots of fun.

A rocket that gets you to orbit is an improvement to a rocket that barely reaches the clouds, just like a game which looks disturbingly realistic is an improvement to a game that's got 8x8 pixel sprites walking around.

Exactly what i said, both examples.

 

[Hielor]

Yes, there are no atomic cars yet.
No, the IC engines are better now.

I really am not understanding how you can say that computers have not improved in the last ten years when they've increased in capability by orders of magnitude, but that internal combustion engines are "better" now and therefore new.

Because, something new works a little or a lot better.

Not always. Something new can have a new set of issues. For example, hydrogen-fueled cars have the minor issue that there's no place to get hydrogen fuel.

You can't.
You can run other games of the same or other kind that were there that time. And have lots of fun.

For flight simulators, realism is what's fun. Flight simulators in 1999 were no where near as realistic as they are now, in flight model, ATC interaction, AI, and graphics. Therefore, for me, they are less fun.

Exactly what i said, both examples.

Er, what? The rocket that gets to orbit is just an improvement on the rocket that didn't get to orbit.

You're doublethinking. At what point do you make the distinction between something "new" and something that's not new? You say that a game like Doom 3, which featured dynamic lighting (not used extensively before in a game) and a custom engine, is not new (just an improvement); yet you say that rocket B which can get to orbit is a totally new thing when it's just a bigger version of rocket A which can't get to orbit.

You're moving the line around to suit your own purposes, which makes it very difficult to figure out what you're talking about.

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

And, in other news:
http://i.gizmodo.com/5226696/windows-7-release-candidate-1s-best-surprise-new-features

 

[Pilot7893]

My dad says if I ever get a computer for my room, we will try to get Win7 on it.

 

[Moonwalker]

If all you want to do is e-mail and web browsing, sure Linux is fine. If you're a gamer, Windows is your only choice.

That was a valid sentence some years ago, but not nowadays anymore. Honestly, beside the gamying thing, Windows really lags behind Linux meanwhile. Even Vista and even 7.

Linux, especially Ubuntu, is a real multimedia and multi-tasking OS compared to Windows. And more and more games run in Ubuntu. The Nvidia graphics card support also is great meanwhile. It's almost just one click and Envy installs and configures the latest driver for your card directly from the web. Nothing else to do, even less than in Windows. I have a high end-machine and I'm very pleased with Ubuntu nowadays. The only game I still play in Windows is World of Warcraft (beside MSFS of course). But even that runs perfectly in Ubuntu as well, just like Windows and its games run in Linux on the whole

Gaming is something I'm going to do only on consoles in the future. Email, web and multimedia is something I'm going to do in Linux. The only reason why I'm still using Windows is Orbiter and MSFS. Nothing else left.

The game industry easily could adapt to Linux. As you can see above, it works even without the suppport of the game industry. The only reason why the game industry does not adapt to Linux as well is the money-making monopoly of Windows, and that only because it is sold with almost each PC and laptop.

Regarding MS FS and X-Plane:

I know the differences. I use MS FS since 1990 and X-plane for many years as well. FSX uses the same ATC module as FS2004 and 2002. It has only been updated very slightly. And the multiplayer capabaility and missions of MS FS is a least reason for most FS users who want more than just use FS as a sandbox (and by the way, using XSquawkBox enables X-Plane pilots to fly together with MS FS pilots including the virtual ATC). The reason why the MS FS community grew over the last years, especially since 2000, is the professional aicraft addons and the scenery enhancements later on. Without that, MS FS would just be nothing more than a sandbox. Another advantage of MS FS is the capability to connect it to home simulator hardware, combined with project magenta. But the MS FS era is going to end. I doubt there'll be a replacement of FSX in the future. A significant amount of users don't even need/change over to FSX. I'll also stick with FS2004 for another years.

And I'm not going to throw Windows XP away as well. It will be suitable for antoher years, way longer than Windows 98 was. Remember that Windows XP is almost 8 years old already. And it is still widely used. I don't know a lot of people who changed over to Vista. Not even the company I'm working for. Things have changed. Some software does not become old and out of date anymore as fast as it still was the case in the 1990's. FS2004 is almost 6 years old. The majority still use it. But as far as I can see it, Linux has made the most impressive progress within the last years if we talk about operating systems.

 

[RisingFury]

You can still go directly to wherever it actually is on your system; the libraries don't remove that possibility. They just make it faster to see all of your pictures or music or whatever, even if it's scattered all over your system.

I just hope that folder isn't "My Pictures" because it would suck BIIIIG time having to go through hundreds of icons, screenshots, received IM pics,... just to find the particular pic that you *saved* into "My Pictures".

If not, I can see this feature making sense to the sloppy users with no discipline. To me, it doesn't... I have things in the few things where I can find them. I would much prefer that feature to be among the Start ===> Search function... and not just for pics and vids, but for other formats too.

Also, I think a good thing for the Windows 7 installation process would be a question that asks you how many of these features you want to install / be turned on by default. You want the all-in, minimal and a way to customize every feature. That would allow for a simple installation of Windows for simple users and a good way to turn off the load of features that just slow things down for advanced users.




All in all, I think having user-friendly software is good, but Microsoft has taken things to a level so high that it now makes it difficult for an advanced user to customize their system for performance. And with the whole "simplicity" thing, Microsoft has spoiled the public into not learning anything about their computers.
I mean... if the internet doesn't connect, people say their computer is broken... they don't try to ping or renew their IP.

 

[Jarvitä]

All in all, I think having user-friendly software is good, but Microsoft has taken things to a level so high that it now makes it difficult for an advanced user to customize their system for performance. And with the whole "simplicity" thing, Microsoft has spoiled the public into not learning anything about their computers.
I mean... if the internet doesn't connect, people say their computer is broken... they don't try to ping or renew their IP.

Haven't you heard? Microsoft knows what you want/need better than you do. Or at least that's what their attitude and their corporate ethics reflect.

 

[Hielor]

I just hope that folder isn't "My Pictures" because it would suck BIIIIG time having to go through hundreds of icons, screenshots, received IM pics,... just to find the particular pic that you *saved* into "My Pictures".

If you'll read what I already wrote, then you will notice that it's not an existing folder. It's a separate "folder" that indexes a list (which you specify) of real folders. The library itself doesn't actually exist anywhere. If you save something to the library, it gets put into whichever indexed folder you specified as the default save location.

If not, I can see this feature making sense to the sloppy users with no discipline. To me, it doesn't... I have things in the few things where I can find them. I would much prefer that feature to be among the Start ===> Search function... and not just for pics and vids, but for other formats too.

Don't use it then. It doesn't search your entire system for stuff. It just collects multiple folders (that you specify) into one.

Also, I think a good thing for the Windows 7 installation process would be a question that asks you how many of these features you want to install / be turned on by default. You want the all-in, minimal and a way to customize every feature. That would allow for a simple installation of Windows for simple users and a good way to turn off the load of features that just slow things down for advanced users.

That's what different SKUs are for. If you want minimal, buy Starter (well, you can't actually buy Starter, get Home Premium then). If you want all the bells and whistles, get Ultimate. In fact, that's even better than your proposal, because with the SKUs you don't spend money on what you don't want.

Plus, if you'll read what I already wrote, you'll realize that this feature does not slow things down. At all. It's not sitting there searching your hard drive every five seconds looking for more pictures to add to its database. When you open the library, it looks at the folders that it has been told to look at. If you never open a library, the code for the libraries will never run on your system.

All in all, I think having user-friendly software is good, but Microsoft has taken things to a level so high that it now makes it difficult for an advanced user to customize their system for performance.

I do agree here. It's like, "wait--I'm an administrator on this computer, why do I need extra permission to write to this folder?"

And with the whole "simplicity" thing, Microsoft has spoiled the public into not learning anything about their computers.
I mean... if the internet doesn't connect, people say their computer is broken... they don't try to ping or renew their IP.

You're right, I agree. It's just like cars. With that whole "simplicity" thing, automakers have spoiled the public into not learning anything about their cars.
I mean... if the car doesn't start, people say their car is broken... they don't try to jump it.

Except, this is what the public wants. The public wants their computers to be something they can use every day without ever having to think about what's going on on the inside, just like their cars. Average Joe Computer User doesn't want to think about the registry or IPs or pinging anything.

---------- Post added at 08:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

Haven't you heard? Microsoft knows what you want/need better than you do. Or at least that's what their attitude and their corporate ethics reflect.

Please back up your utterly absurd assertions with facts, and also see my response to the quote you quoted above.

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------

That was a valid sentence some years ago, but not nowadays anymore. Honestly, beside the gamying thing, Windows really lags behind Linux meanwhile. Even Vista and even 7.

Linux, especially Ubuntu, is a real multimedia and multi-tasking OS compared to Windows. And more and more games run in Ubuntu. The Nvidia graphics card support also is great meanwhile. It's almost just one click and Envy installs and configures the latest driver for your card directly from the web. Nothing else to do, even less than in Windows. I have a high end-machine and I'm very pleased with Ubuntu nowadays. The only game I still play in Windows is World of Warcraft (beside MSFS of course). But even that runs perfectly in Ubuntu as well, just like Windows and its games run in Linux on the whole

Yes, it is still a valid statement. "Runs perfectly" does not mean "Well, I had to spend about six hours twiddling with settings in order to get this to load." "Runs perfectly" means I stick the disc into my computer, I install it, and I can play the game.

Gaming is something I'm going to do only on consoles in the future.

Good for you. Forgive me for wanting a gaming machine that I can upgrade, that has better graphics, and a better input system (because a controller is only better for racing and fighting games, for everything else mouse + keyboard gives you far better control.)

Email, web and multimedia is something I'm going to do in Linux. The only reason why I'm still using Windows is Orbiter and MSFS. Nothing else left.

Okay, so you're not a heavy gamer. Then yes, Linux suits your purposes.

The game industry easily could adapt to Linux.

Except for, you know, the whole DirectX thing.

As you can see above, it works even without the suppport of the game industry.

Not as well as it does on Windows.

The only reason why the game industry does not adapt to Linux as well is the money-making monopoly of Windows, and that only because it is sold with almost each PC and laptop.

Let's say you want to sell gidgets, which are used on gaks. There are three types of gaks, one of which is used by 90% of people, one of which is used by 8% of people, and one of which is used by 2% of people. Making a gidget work on more than one type of gak is possible, but increases your cost by about 30%. Let's say that every single person who owns a gak will buy your gidget, assuming its for their type of gak.

What do you do? Well, you could make your gidgets for 90% of the population, at which point you would earn 90% of the total possible revenue you could make. Or you could make your gidgets for everyone and earn 100% of the total possible revenue, but at 130% of the cost. Was it worth it? (hint for the math-challenged: the answer's no).

The first one is what game companies actually do. The second is what you're proposing.

Regarding MS FS and X-Plane:

I know the differences. I use MS FS since 1990 and X-plane for many years as well. FSX uses the same ATC module as FS2004 and 2002. It has only been updated very slightly.

If by "very slightly" you mean "adding ATC that actually talks to you" then sure, "very slightly."

And the multiplayer capabaility and missions of MS FS is a least reason for most FS users who want more than just use FS as a sandbox

Well, if they want it as more than just a sandbox, then they certainly won't be getting X-Plane.

(and by the way, using XSquawkBox enables X-Plane pilots to fly together with MS FS pilots including the virtual ATC).

Only on VATSIM or a similar virtual ATC, which is a whole lot more serious simming than I imagine most people want to get. If you're just bored one evening and want to get online for a little casual flying in a multiplayer setting, X-Plane can't do that for you (since the user base, and consequently the online population, is so low).

The reason why the MS FS community grew over the last years, especially since 2000, is the professional aicraft addons and the scenery enhancements later on.

I would be willing to bet that the majority of people who've bought MSFS haven't bought more than one professional addon. Pilot7893 doesn't count, he's addicted to buying those things.

Without that, MS FS would just be nothing more than a sandbox.

You know, except for the missions which FSX includes (that X-Plane doesn't have)...the training flights which FSX includes (that X-Plane doesn't have)...

Another advantage of MS FS is the capability to connect it to home simulator hardware, combined with project magenta.

To be fair, X-Plane can be connected to simulator hardware as well.

But the MS FS era is going to end. I doubt there'll be a replacement of FSX in the future. A significant amount of users don't even need/change over to FSX. I'll also stick with FS2004 for another years.

The main problem with FSX is how ridiculously power-hungry it is in terms of needing a good system. In another couple of years we might finally start to see systems that can run it at 60fps with (most) settings maxed, but we haven't yet. In terms of added features, I'm not really sure FSX added any less to 2004 than 2004 added to 2002.

I too am doubtful that anything more will come of the MSFS franchise. I've heard rumors that something is in the works, but with all of the great minds who'd been working on it for years gone (sad day), I suspect that the next "release" will be the last.

And I'm not going to throw Windows XP away as well. It will be suitable for antoher years, way longer than Windows 98 was. Remember that Windows XP is almost 8 years old already. And it is still widely used. I don't know a lot of people who changed over to Vista. Not even the company I'm working for.

Well, there's a couple of reasons for that (not a full list, there are others):
-Not as many people buying new computers. For the average user, a computer they bought five/six years ago still meets their daily e-mail/messaging/web-browsing needs.
-Too much "new" stuff in Vista which caused a lot of problems. It's not the best version of Windows ever (intentional understatement). There's the problem, though: Microsoft tried to listen to vocal people like Artlav, who claimed they wanted new, new, new. Well, they got new, new, new, and then everyone complained that too much had changed. Catch-22.

Things have changed. Some software does not become old and out of date anymore as fast as it still was the case in the 1990's. FS2004 is almost 6 years old. The majority still use it. But as far as I can see it, Linux has made the most impressive progress within the last years if we talk about operating systems.

Well, that's because in the last few years Linux has made huge progress as a result of being relatively new. Twenty years ago when Windows was new, it was making huge progress between versions as well.

I'm also just going to put this out there, without further comment: http://community.winsupersite.com/b...vealing-virtual-windows-xp-for-windows-7.aspx

 

[Moonwalker]

Yes, it is still a valid statement. "Runs perfectly" does not mean "Well, I had to spend about six hours twiddling with settings in order to get this to load." "Runs perfectly" means I stick the disc into my computer, I install it, and I can play the game.

As I said, you are talking about past days

If you want to play Doom 3 for example, you just need to copy the 5 pk4 files from the Doom DVD (or CD's) into the Doom 3 base folder and that's it. The loki software enables you to just hit the exe and start the game like in Windows. Almost the same for World of Warcraft for example. Just install it from CD or even use the Blizzard web installer (using wine), like you do it in Windows. Edit the config and the registry (takes just 2-3 minutes) and that's it.

Except for, you know, the whole DirectX thing.

That's another Microsoft monopoly, widely used by lazy developers who feel comfortable to use what's already there and which already offers a big market. It would be no problem to develope such a platform also for Linux. And to be honest, with a good machine you don't really see a big difference between playing it in Windows or Linux these days already .

Not as well as it does on Windows.

If you have crapy hardware, it also does not run well in Windows. I have no problems in Windows but Linux as well. It is mostly just missing registry entries which slows down the game. All in all, games on Linux would be no big deal, would Microsoft not play the big monopoly.

I would be willing to bet that the majority of people who've bought MSFS haven't bought more than one professional addon. Pilot7893 doesn't count, he's addicted to buying those things.

The sales and communities/forums of different aircraft developers (who are partly way more as ten times as big as the orbiter community) talk a different language.

If I start counting, I get 9 professional aircraft addons only for FS2004 (from single piston engine up to the PMDG 747-400)

Those who buy not more than one, or none, are those who instead play missions and multiplayer. And regarding the communties I know of, and the big payware market for MSFS, I think that those fun-users are not the big majority.

You know, except for the missions which FSX includes (that X-Plane doesn't have)...the training flights which FSX includes (that X-Plane doesn't have)...

That's not why the majority buys and uses MS FS. Training and missions and multiplayer is something that is mostly done by kiddies or people who just want to have fun in a way they have with other games too.

To be fair, X-Plane can be connected to simulator hardware as well.

Sure, you can connect pedals, throttles and such stuff to it as well. But I actually mean one-on-one Boeing and Airbus replica hardware for professional simulators at home, in conjunction with project magenta and FSUIPC. You would have a hard time trying to use X-Plane...

I'm also just going to put this out there, without further comment: http://community.winsupersite.com/b...vealing-virtual-windows-xp-for-windows-7.aspx

Well, why do I need a Windows XP Mode while XP already fully performs my demands and makes Vista (but also 7) already totally dispensable? I already can run Windows XP in Linux without any Micrsosoft extra mode

And even more: what does Windows Vista or 7 enables me to do (beside some game compatibility) the latest Linux Ubuntu does not offer?...

Nah. For me the Windows era is going to end by WinXP.