Tiptup

lordjedi said:

Purity, in my mind, is unattainable by a mere person.  You can try to be as pure as possible, but things will always pop up that will cause you to deviate.  At that point, you can either beat yourself up over it or try to correct yourself back onto the path.  You can also go the opposite direction, throw purity out the window, and just do whatever the hell you please.  So how is my view of "purity" illogical?

The view of purity you specifically described before this (in the post before your last one) was similar to the kind that tries to pretend a "vow of poverty" (and worthless Mother-Teresa-style shit like that) has any value in the sight of God. Hard work aimed at wise productivity in a free market is far more pure and helpful than some supposedly high and lofty individual that spends her life obsessed with death and suffering (as apposed to someone who works hard to alleviate and heal death and suffering). You know this and, as such, running off to India would not be a righteous use of your energy and time (you would be doing what you know to be wrong).

Real purity is the kind attainable by real people. Christianity teaches that Jesus was a real person and that, as a person, he kept himself perfectly pure. He didn't have some God cheat code that he used to make himself invincible to temptation that ordinary people don't have access to. Jesus faced all the same issues you or I do on a daily basis and yet he kept himself righteous. Biblical Christianity then also teaches that our primary calling and goal in life, as Christians, is to constantly strive to be just as righteous.

A man who works hard and helps his family before others is a far more righteous and pure man than one that runs off and ignores his family so he can supposedly help dying people in a far off country. There is wisdom in helping those whom our help will yield the best results within. To act more in accordance with that kind of Godly wisdom is to be more righteous.

lordjedi said:

It sounded like you were advocating that we do everything possible to show that we care for the people involved in the attacks.  It sounded like you were advocating we do everything possible in every situation to help everyone involved. 

Seriously, I mean no offense, but, truthfully, what you think my arguments "sound like" half the time is laughable. You could really stand to learn how to read people's posts better before immediately moving on tp open your mouth.

In your post before last, you went so far as to argue against me accusing you of being someone who wanted to commit terrorism (or something insane like that). Haha. Oh well, I will say definitely have a unique way of experiencing the world, lordjedi. :)

lordjedi said:

For me, there's just no way I can do everything possible.  My point was that I'm not going to drop everything in my life to fly 10000 miles just to show that I care.  If I were willing to do that, then I'd sell all my possessions and become a missionary.  Instead, I will come out against any and all terrorists attacks.  Beyond that though, there's nothing I can do.  And sitting here behind a monitor and keyboard doesn't help the people in India one bit.

I can send money, I can send prayers.  Sure, I can talk about it, but that doesn't help them, does it?

lordjedi said:

Of course not, but I don't go around planning and executing attacks on people simply because of where they're from.

Huh?

Uhh . . . hmm. Your other point that you have a family and can't go to India is definitely interesting.

Do you believe I was advocating that you go to India and help people in the most direct sense possible? Do you believe I think you should help people in India even if it means shirking your familial responsibilities?

Your illogical view of "purity" makes you sound like you come from a Roman Catholic background, lordjedi. :)

lordjedi said:

Right.  I didn't read about it, but that doesn't mean I didn't care about it.  Why should I waste my time reading about something that I can already guess about?  I heard about a terrorist attack on Mumbai.  Should I go read about it or just assume it's the same terrorists as usual?  Personally, since it's in that region, I'll assume it's the usual.  And it turns out it was.  No point in wasting my time reading that some terrorists were targeting Americans.  Same old same old.  To me, it's nothing new and only serves to continually reinforce the point.  That point is that we weren't being attacked because of our President and his policies.  We were being attacked because of our beliefs.

I would've been shocked if it had been some westerners attacking Muslims.  That would've made me read even more about it.  As it was, it's nothing new.

It's not that I don't care about the people that were attacked.  I absolutely care about them.  What I don't care to hear is the reasoning for attacking them (based on where they were from).  I don't give a shit what reason some damn terrorist gives for attacking these people.  I care about the response and what happened to the people that got attacked.  The response wasn't reported much.  Just the dead and wounded numbers.  I can either continually get pissed every time it happens and go on a rant and rave (kinda like right now) about how the assholes need to be hunted down and killed or I can just not talk about it.  I prefer the later.

So, you believe, then, that all your actions are completely in line with a supreme model of daily perfection? I understand you're a person that generally take things seriously, but, if you were to honestly analyze every action and attitude of your life, you don't believe that there is even one tiny change that you could make with yourself to potentially be even better? :)

Supposedly "caring" in our heart of hearts about rightly apposing terrorism is well and good, but if that caring doesn't really affect our most substantial actions for the better, then what good is it? I think that we don't really, truly care, in the fullest sense possible for human beings, because then our actions would be very different. If we were all actually acting with such purity I think our effect on the world would be much greater, don't you?

I'm not saying the world is an easy place to figure out, and I'm not even sure where we would start acting better, but when I honestly look at myself, I know I'm not working with pure motives or pure judgments. To automatically assume I have achieved perfection when it comes to caring about people that face the evils of this world is not something I can do.

lordjedi said:

Tiptup said:

That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)

But who says we don't?  Just because we don't talk about it here, doesn't mean we don't care.  There's plenty of things I care about that I never discuss here.

Well, you yourself said you didn't even bother reading about the attacks until a secondary headline came along. Perhaps if we each did our small part to raise awareness and proper thought about events like these we'd be doing a better good. :)

Baronlando said:

Lucasfilm=deadbeat dad on Maury Povich

George Lucas would then argue he has the right to treat his children however he wants since they owe him their lives. :)

lordjedi said:

Other than that, it's yet another terrorist attack.  What more can be said?

That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)

C3PX said:

It is like the little kid who's younger brother is just born, and suddenly the younger brother gets all the attention and the older kid is completely ignored. In this case his parents have some serious mental issues and go about saying the first kid no longer exists, because the second kid is so much better. They lock the first kid in the basement and keep him there until he is older, then they finally let him out, only they make him wear ugly clothes that are more than ten years out of style, and now that he has spent so many years locked in the basement he is not so well socially adjusted, things just are not right about him, and he looks really crappy and pixelated on an HD TV, because he has not received the love and attention needed. Meanwhile the younger brother is the star of the football team, gets his picture in the paper all the time, has a wall full of trophies. The parents constantly brag about him and beam with pride. When the older brother's name comes up in conversation, the parents look at the floor uncomfortably and go, "Oh, uh, yeah, him. Nearly managed to forget about him. You did have to go and bring up such a sore subject as him did you? Uh.. so... yeah, you've heard about our youngest son, right? The star of the football team? His girlfriend has just given birth to their baby, he is 100% CG and such a sweetheart, a real bundle of joy. Despite poor success at the box office, the little dear has brought new happiness to this household. 

Hah, that is pretty brilliant. I don't have anything against what any of you are all saying, really. It's just that negative one goes way out of his way to insult everyone here with incredibly stupid understandings of reality. In that sense I don't think he's worth anyone's time. Hell, just on the basis of the way he pretends to be so sensitive to some of the more extreme statements coming from you guys and then immediately turns right around and makes far more extreme statements (albeit couched in tame langage) is laughable.

Hmm, I wonder how he'd feel if, as someone else suggested might happen, Lucas digitally inserted Hayden's Vader suit into the original trilogy over Prowse's Vader suit.

(And we all know Lucas would probably do it if he had the money and time.)

negative1 said:

would you even bother complaining about the original trilogy?

[yes, you would, because at the point, all you would have to

complain about is all the mistakes/errors/problems in the original trilogies]..

How any of you can take this /r/-tard seriously (when he says completely unfounded and inflamatory things like this) is beyond me. But, whatever . . . have fun trying to argue with someone who has no grasp of reality, you guys.

C3PX said:

Arg! Why does this stupid thread keep popping up to the top! Scares me every time I read the title, then my brain kicks in and reminds me that this is an old thread.

LOL, me too!

Hmm, suicide is a dimension I wasn't really considering. I suppose it makes sense that a suicidal kid will dwell on death and the macabre. A video of a person's death would definitely fit that curiosity. However, that said, I'd still guess that most kids are looking for entertainment.

For me the sickest facet of people watching a suicide video is for the entertainment "value." It's like how a lot of young guys are addicted to hardcore porn. Disturbing content encourages some people to find excitement in bad ways. I suppose I wish young people were educated better.

All of that said, watching a video of someone's death for the sake of learning something important (or facing something important) would be okay with me, but that sort of opportunity is extremely rare in my mind.

Hah, that was very fun to read. Witty and well-written.

Hmm, if I were you I'd keep it and give it a viewing. Star Wars can remain pure in that instance. At the very least, there are worse, tackier gifts that you could have recieved.

It's boredom. I find that it isn't the kids into "emo" culture that obsess over blood, death, and gore as much as the young guys that are just looking for something to shock themselves with. It's sick, yeah, but I don't think it really speaks to anything insanely sinister. If they could find a worthwhile direction for their lives I'm sure they'd leave it behind (I suspect there's only so much gore you can watch before becoming bored of that too).

I can definitely understand why most people seemed to dislike Episode I, but I was able to enjoy it myself (though I knew it was nowhere near being great in any way whatsoever) and saw it about four times (and I can still watch it to this day). It hit me that Episode II sucked after my second viewing (it was insanely boring, the dialogue sucked, and it was poorly acted). Episode III seemed to save the trilogy for me at first, but after a number of weeks I began realize, while looking back, that there was absolutely no redeemable substance to the film (it was just edited as if there were) and I became disgusted (it's my least favorite film of the three now).

Then, when the 2004 DVDs were released, I got really pissed and really angry. Feeling better lately.

Hunter6 said:

For me, if this type of movie is the future of star trek, then it is better to let it die. The thing is that Star Trek fans have to know that Star Trek is Forever and if this movie bombs, Star Trek itself will not.

Why do you even want future adventures in the Star Trek franchise? Wouldn't you rather keep it as it is?

lordjedi said:

Nanner Split said:

lordjedi said:

The funny thing is, you can't BUY Starcraft from them without getting it as a digital download. So why don't you go try to buy a 10 year old game (aside from a digital download) and see how easy it is? I'm sure you could get a used copy, just like you can get a used copy of XP, but I seriously doubt you can find a new unopened box anywhere.

WRONG! Every time I go into Wal-Mart I see this: Starcraft Battle Chest

That's the Battlechest.  You can't buy a standalone copy of Starcraft.  If we were to compare this to Microsoft, it would be like only wanting Word 2007, but being forced to buy the whole Office suite (even if it is for a lower price).

. . . so I think this is a moot point.

You didn't say a "standalone copy." You said it's only available by "digital download" and Nanner was merely correcting that specific statement of yours. (Also, I highly doubt he was trying to make any "point" about our discussion, so I think your last post was barking up the wrong tree there.)

Otherwise, the rest of what you said about StarCraft shows that you know nothing about the game (which you should if you're going to keep acting like you're an expert on every subject in the world). StarCraft is not StarCraft if you don't have the Brood War expansion (the campaign additions and the changes the expansion made to the core multiplayer game were immense). Your analogy equating StarCraft: Brood War to Microsoft Word and getting the whole, expensive Office Suite is lame and makes very little sense to me (StarCraft without Brood War would be more like settling for Windows 95's "Wordpad" and not even getting MS Word [or an equivalent] in the first place!).

At any rate, Brood War was released in the fall of 1998 so the combined product of that battle chest has been supported by Blizzard for over ten years now. If you think it's "moot" to say that Blizzard's product support doesn't outweigh Microsoft's product support, well . . . I guess you're allowed to think that, but it sounds silly to me. :)

TheoOdo said:

John William's score and Ralph McQuarrie's concept art. It's difficult to capture the kind of exotic epic that can be imagined by simply listening to that music and looking at those images. You can truly feel what the young George Lucas was aiming for. I don't know why, but somehow the feelings I get from those two elements feel purer and even better than even my experience of the film(s).

I wouldn't say that's necessarily better than the original films, but it's definitely close. Those two aspects are also, easily, the best part of what made Star Wars and it's two sequels the great movies they are (George Lucas' brilliant concepts might have failed otherwise). George Lucas relied on the talents of two truly great artists to accomplish what he did. He collaborated with many other fantastic artists as well and yet some people strangely believe that he pulled everything out of nowhere. :)

C3PX said:

Star Trek died. Why not let it rest in peace, and come up with something original.

I can wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Star Trek should have had it's nice end a long time ago. You can argue, however, that it was Roddenberry that brought the show back to life and mixed everything up even more. But, I've noticed glaring inconsistencies and weird things I've had to overlook even from just the original series alone. There have always been things in the series for a serious mind to overlook, and while a new movie will probably heap more crap onto this pile, it's not as if Star Trek will really suffer that much more.

Otherwise, I would not call myself a "casual" fan of Star Trek. I'd say I'm about as obsessed with Star Trek as a person can be while still realizing the true quality of the series. ;)

I grew up on Star Trek, knew it well, and still regard it very fondly. That said, though, it wasn't exactly Shakespeare and I found the later seasons of TNG to be the best of the series. So, perhaps it's due to the fact that my favorite portion of Star Trek was a later incarnation (that had, by that point, moved beyond the direct control of Gene Roddenberry) that makes me more willing to have newer experiences with it. Now, maybe to counter my open-ness you'll then equate the quality of the latter TNG episodes with the quality of the Star Wars prequels, but on that point I'd have to heavily disagree. ;)

Wow, the game is almost eleven years old and it's still making money for Blizzard with Wal-Mart shoppers. (Hopefully not the Wal-Mart shoppers that trample people.)

Yep. They're real fascinating too, I'm sure. :)

I'm expecting this movie to suck in a general sense, but, at the same time, I'm curious why some people are talking as if Star Trek is going to be ruined. I'm sorry, but, for me, the series was a mixed bag from the beginning, it then became riddled with even more goofy and contradictory stuff, and it's already well past being ruined after we got Nemesis. From what I'm seeing in this new movie, it's looking to offer a better experience than the worst of what we've gotten in the past. :)

In my mind, all a good (or decent) Star Trek film needs to do is rise above the rest and make you forget about all the crap in the series. It's not like people are going to spend money on a Star Trek film and expect it to change their lives or anything. People know what they're spending their money on and if this movie can achieve only mediocrity, it will still be a good Star Trek film. (Wrath of Khan was the only movie that can truly be considered excellent if you ask me.) We shall see.

Johnboy3434 said:

Do you have any studies or professional opinions to back up that assertion from the first paragraph? On a personal level, I find extremely fine-grained pictures to be much more involving, because it feels like there's nothing between me and what's happening on screen (like 3D, but reversed; like I could reach into the film). Higher-grain pictures I find more distracting, because I'm like "Whoa, there's this constantly fluctuating cloud of stuff over my picture!" Granted, that cloud of stuff is the picture, but it wasn't in front of the camera (like the actors), nor does it exist within the construct of the film's story (like effects done in post). In my opinion, something that doesn't meet at least one of those two requirements is something not worth keeping. That's why I don't like grain. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but can you at least understand where I'm coming from?

I somewhat understand where you're coming from. Yes, it's obvious to me that our eyes work in a way that involves much higher accuracy than 35mm film grain since, with the latter, we're seeing something that wouldn't be present if we were actually standing there. However, do you think that pixels and the softening of one pixel's value in combination with another, to produce a soft, solid image would be something you'd see in real life? That takes me out of the moment too! Our eyes don't see in a method that uses averaged pixels and the resulting soft and solid look is not something that was in front of the camera (in terms of what our eyes would see) or a part of the films story either, was it?

It's at that point that I don't understand where you're coming from. Grainy film images or softened, solid, pixel-based images are both capturing what is in front of the camera but in two different ways. Both give us textures that are different from what our eyes would directly see, but both capture what is, in reality, in front of them. There's nothing fake about grain. The texture of film grain captures reality and I would argue that it's less contrived and controlled than an electronic means that shoots out averaged values across many squares in a rectangular grid. Do I know that for sure? No, but it sure feels right to me.

Grain-based images feel much more natural, emotional, and organic. I only like the feel of digital to the degree it is very straightforward in a logical sense. Neither functions as our eyesight does, however. I would guess that our eyes pick up distinct, random values of light and color more like what 35mm grain does, but at the same time it's far more accurate and I would guess that matches the straightforward nature of the latest digital cameras.

The top paragraph in my last post was simply my own, crazy thinking and I would love to see some technical science explore the issue. For instance, highly chaotic grain and straightforward, averaged pixels are not even apposed to each other. For Blu-ray and DVD, people can use a digital scan to actually capture grain detail in a digital form (which is a weird thing to see). The two methods work differently and can affect each other. Ultimately this was the basis of the thinking behind my point. Any real-world image will have less detail than an image of infinite accuracy. If I use a grain-based method or a pixel-based method to achieve high or low detail it doesn't matter.

Ultimately it comes down to whatever an artist wants or what an artist used. I'm not going to support people who destroy what old films ACTUALLY ARE for the sake of reproducing them with a straightforward digital look. Their images were made on grainy film and should be represented as they are. If you want to make alternate versions, go ahead and do that, but leave grain where it is on any official media translations. Wherever artists want to go on newer films is up to them.

Johnboy3434 said:

zombie84 said:

"look at how CLEAN this is! Its not dirty! Its really SHARP! You can SEE everything really clear!"

 

Are you implying that crystal clarity is an inherently bad thing? Okay, let's flip the argument around. Instead of "Why should we remove grain?" let's ask "Why shouldn't movies have the picture quality of a polished mirror?" And I'm not talking about movies that already exist. I'm talking about for films that have yet to be made.

Your argument is flawed. It assumes that the lack of grain equals more detail. Grain is a detail in and of itself (that may or may not have aesthetic value). This detail, I believe, works with our brains better than some smooth, supposedly solid image does. It reflects a reality that is statistical and random. Hiding that and making an image smooth and solid is simply a different way to display reality and one that I do not believe is as compatible with the way people think. People intuitively grasp physical reality with some chaos more than they can grasp a physical reality designed to be as simple and controlled as possible (though we may understand the latter more in a simplistic, logical sense, I do not believe it resonates with the whole of our beings to the same degree and would love to see some scientists study this issue).

Essentially, film grain is not something apposed to high resolution, it is another approach to resolution entirely, and one that I believe communicates more real data. As such, digital, electronic images designed to make everything look smooth and solid can be just as identified with "low resolution" as grainy film is. Likewise, grainy film can be identified with high resolution. Film grain is simply a different technique to arrive at a low or high resolution, it is not just low or high in and of itself.

Alright, well, since you got nicer in your last reply, lordjedi, I guess I'll continue the discussion:

lordjedi said:

Sorry, I guess I simplified it to much.  I didn't mean that DX10 wouldn't have any new effects that were unavailable in DX9, what I meant is that some of the effects in DX9 are just like the ones in DX10, but DX10 makes them easier to code.  So of course DX10 will have newer effects, just like DX9 had newer effects than DX8, and DX8 newer than 7, so on and so forth.

Just because they were still selling XP does not mean they were doing code for it (aside from patches and security updates).  Even XP SP3 just wrapped all the updates since SP2 and added a few networking enhancements from Vista into one package.  The point is that DX10 accesses display drivers in a completely different way which is incompatible with XPs driver model.  That is why DX10 is not available for XP.

Unless you're a gamer, DX10 isn't going to mean a whole lot to you.  Yes, it's faster and better than DX9, but I don't see that having a detrimental effect unless you're using your computer to play games.

I guess that makes sense that an effect not directly supported by DirectX 9 can still be coded to run under DirectX 9. However, that seems to support my argument if you ask me. If a game can still run "Geometry Shading" under DirectX 9 when it isn't directly and specifically supported by Direct X 9, then it seems to me that Microsoft could have thrown together a quick update of DirectX 9 that could have automatically done that job for game designers.

Otherwise, DirectX 10, with its faster, re-designed system sounds nice, and the fact that it is not being implemented into XP is not something I'm complaining about. If Microsoft wants to make money for their hard work, then that makes perfect sense to me (as I've said a number of times now). It just seems to me that a specific effect directly supported by DirectX 10 could have been implemented in DirectX 9 (albeit in a slower, crappier way) without much trouble for Microsoft's part.

If you're telling me that the coding of specific support for a specific effect like geometry shading is too difficult for Microsoft to do in DirectX 9, then I'll take your word on that (since you clearly know more about this issue than I do). However, if such a change would have been an easy and small thing for their part (which I was previously guessing), and you're simply arguing to me that Microsoft should in no way, whatsoever, feel obligated to their customers to implement such a small item of support, then that's something that I'll have to disagree with you about (which I'll argue about in a bit here).

Though, let me just say, again, before I move on, that I'm not talking about XP getting all (or even most) of DirectX 10's improvements (with all of its increased speed and whatever else), I'm just talking about some kind of direct support for a specific hardware-based effect being put into DirectX 9. If that's not an accurate view of something like "Geometry Shading" (since you'd need practically all of Direct X 10 to have it) or if it's simply not possible to implement direct support for that kind of effect in DirectX 9 easily (it would practically need a complete reworking of DirectX 9), then I'll simply take your word on that and move on. All I ask is that you stop wasting my time with arguments that I am not making. Thank you.

lordjedi said:

OK.  Then I'll put it this way.  MS did put a lot of work into DX10.  Just because it doesn't look like it to you and you don't know what's going on behind the scenes, doesn't mean they didn't put a lot of effort into it.

You're free to think XP is a superior OS.  You're wrong of course, but you're free to have that opinion.  Vista has improved support for multi-core CPUs, much better memory handling, and much better support for games.  And that's just the beginning of the improvements.  I've seen XP and Vista on the same modern hardware (Core 2 Duo, 2 GB RAM, built-in video) and Vista was noticeably faster.  That was even before SP1 for Vista came out so I have no doubt that Vista is even faster with SP1.  On the same hardware, I was able to leave all of Vista's flashy effects turned on and not feel like the system was crawling.  When I do the same on XP, I always want to turn the effects off because I feel like the system is slowing way down.

You see, lordjedi? What the fuck is that top paragraph about there? When did I say that it "doesn't look" to me like Microsoft "put a lot of work" into DX10? I've granted that possibility and virtually said the opposite quite a few times. Why are you making that argument with me? You're wasting my time with stupidity and I don't like stupidity. Please, start reading what I'm saying. Thank you.

Otherwise, if you want to argue that Vista is a superior OS (over XP) in terms of speed, support for multi-core cpus, memory handling, and whatever else, I'd probably agree with you on all of those points. I am not making an argument there. My problems with Vista touch on different issues.

I just got done helping a friend of mine wipe his whole Vista-run computer because the thing was buggy as hell. It was a Core2 Duo laptop with great hardware specs and yet he couldn't even get through an install of WoW on it. Even after I wiped the hard drive and reinstalled Vista clean (and updated it with SP1), it still ran like crap. The computer restarts at odd points, slows down sometimes, and occasionally gets stuck at blank screens. Other Vista machines (desktops mostly) I've played around with have been buggy in other nasty ways (restarts, freezes, and other crap like that). XP, however, was stable from the day I began using it and is generally stable on every other machine I've seen it installed or played with it on. That's a big difference and an important issue to me. Are you saying that stability shouldn't matter to me?

And, I'm sorry, but have you noticed those shitty little messages asking you to confirm every little simple action in Vista? Microsoft didn't even implement a "don't ever ask me about this again" option! It's an incredibly obnoxious feature! From that crappy, needless chore alone I will have to warn you not to argue that Vista is "superior" to XP in every last way. If you try to tell me that it's a good thing for an OS to have because it protects stupid people, I'll simply have to laugh at you. A horribly stunted interface is not a decent trade off for the protection of dumb people.

lordjedi said:

Microsoft's "support" for XP hasn't ended.  The only thing that ended is retail availability:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

Ahh, so are you trying to tell me that Microsoft is "supporting" XP in every way it can? :)

I'm sorry, but even brand new products don't get absolute support and you know that. The question in this debate is what level of support would be an ideal balance for Microsoft to make the most short-term profits while preserving the long-term profits they'd get from happy customers (who won't get angry enough to rework our nation's patent laws for example). Getting cute and saying that there is a non-zero level of support is not helpful to that discussion. You know what I mean by "support" and I'd like to get back to discussing that real issue now. :)

lordjedi said:

XP is outdated and has run its course.  Here's their support timeline:

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223

As you can see, Support is still available for XP.  Just because you can't buy XP from a store (retail availability) or from MS, doesn't mean it isn't supported anymore.

Retail availability is a kind of support. So, by definition, we cannot say that MS is "supporting" XP in at least that way, can we? There are other ways in which it is not being supported anymore too. This is a silly point of yours. ::yawn::

lordjedi said:

You're right, the free market does have many ideas of software support.  Which is why there are companies out there still support NT, even though Microsoft doesn't offer support.

To answer your question, without knowing what that patch fixed, I couldn't say if [Blizzard Entertainment is] stupid or not.  If that patch only took a few man hours to work on, then no, they probably aren't stupid.  But if it took several weeks to do, then yes, I'd wonder why they worked on it.  With the success of WoW, I wouldn't understand them putting any extended effort into any of their legacy products.

The funny thing is, you can't BUY Starcraft from them without getting it as a digital download.  So why don't you go try to buy a 10 year old game (aside from a digital download) and see how easy it is?  I'm sure you could get a used copy, just like you can get a used copy of XP, but I seriously doubt you can find a new unopened box anywhere.

Yes, you're finally talking about different ideas of support. Right. You're catching on to what I actually want to argue here. Good. Thank you.

Blizzard didn't devote a ton of time to getting StarCraft to work in XP (perfectly I might add). They didn't spend a lot of time on the small map updates that pleased StarCraft's large "professional" community (mostly in Korea). Their most recent patch to the game simply removed StarCraft's need for a CD-Key and I bet that didn't take them long either. Even just a few years ago they updated StarCraft to have some interface improvements and I'm willing to bet that wasn't even too much work for them. However, those improvements helped them sell more copies of the game, helped them to keep the "StarCraft" brand popular (in a competitive RTS environment), and generally kept their new and long-term customers happy. Those kinds of support have helped keep Blizzard to be the successful company it is today. They did little things to keep their customers happy.

In terms of buying StarCraft, Blizzard isn't selling it in stores anymore because they can't make money that way (people aren't buying it in stores enough for them to make a profit by selling physical copies). That doesn't bug me at all. That's the free market deciding that it doesn't want to buy new physical copies of the game anymore. However, if I and plenty of others still wanted to purchase new copies of the game in that way (for the appropriate amount of money), I'm sure Blizzard would still sell it like that (since they'd make money doing that), and if they didn't, that would make me as a fan and a customer displeased.

New copies of XP are being sold for a lot of money right now (nobody is doing that with copies of StarCraft). The reason for that is because it is still in high demand by people like me who want to purchase it. However, Microsoft has a high degree of control when it comes to helping force a free market to go against what it actually wants (for whatever reason) and, as a result, they don't really worry about any lost revenue from selling no new copies of XP or lost revenue from making unhappy customers. A company like Blizzard, on the other hand, isn't allowed to make that kind of a move if it wants to remain successful. A company like Blizzard has to work harder and be smarter than that because RTS games are a far less centralized product (and therefore the market is less controlled). In other words, Blizzard has to work harder to give people more and not give them less. Are you saying Microsoft's market behavior is more ideal?

lordjedi said:

The comment was made because most of the people that bitch about Vista were the same people bitching about XP when it was first released and now they're professing how great XP is in comparison.  I remember the comments quite well.  XP was trash and 2000 was the best OS ever released.

Well, I've never met any of those people and I hate it when people assume things about me. In the first place it wastes my time. Beyond that, it clearly shows you're being stupid when it comes to substantially reading what I'm saying in this thread. You're smarter than that, though, and you're clearly assuming such stupid things about me because you desire to use aggression to win your arguments (for whatever reason) and that makes me angry (since it doesn't care about fairness or accuracy).

XP was a fantastic operating system in my mind (from its beginning) and Vista has been a much more troublesome experience for me by comparison. Maybe that's not what most people have encountered and therefore my Vista experiences have just been a run of bad luck, but I would have a lot of trouble believing that. That's not a crime on my part and I think the impatience and belligerence you expressed in your earlier posts were uncalled for.

I'm not some anti-Microsoft kook and I am not an idiot. I don't believe I treated you that way in this thread. How would you like it if I had said stuff like this to you:

"You're probably one of those idiots that has always sucked Microsoft's cock in that you've absolutely loved every product and move they've ever made as a company."

Certain expressions are uncalled for and demeaning if you ask me. In fact, I'm not even all that apposed to Vista as a product. (I was planning on getting a copy before Windows 7 was announced.) I'm just expressing some slight resentment over my options being so limited. Overall, however, I appreciate the good company that Microsoft is and think they deserve their position in the market by doing a good job (I just would be happier if they could be even better and that's what I'd like to discuss with you). Talking with you about the absurd, extreme viewpoints of "most of the people" you talk to is not something I care at all to do.

lordjedi said:

Seriously, I don't care if you have a love affair with Vista. So, why, then, do you feel so keen on lecturing others for not liking Vista? What on earth is making your blood boil so much with this issue? (I have no fucking desire to have a heated debate about Windows for crying out loud.)

I haven't lectured anyone for not liking Vista.  I've asked people what programs they had trouble with.  I've explained that MS hasn't changed their support timeline or the retail availability timeline (aside from extending them) since they released XP.  What I don't like is people bitching about how MS is forcing them to get a newer version.  What I don't like is people saying how easy it would be to make newer graphics effects work in XP, when they clearly have no idea what's involved behind the scenes.

Okay, well, first, I am not being unappreciative of the remaining support that Microsoft still gives to Windows XP. I am not being unappreciative of the fact that each new OS has a realistic lifetime in our free market. I am not unappreciative of all the hard work Microsoft does when it creates a new OS like Vista that is admittedly better in some ways. I certainly don't have a problem with Microsoft trying to make profits with all of the good things they do. I have not argued otherwise and for you to argue with me as if I were is getting really, really old.

Second, to the degree that what I am complaining about is wrong and misinformed on my part, I'm willing to let you (or someone else) correct me. I'll admit that you probably know a hell of a lot more about these issues than I do. However, I will not change my opinions because someone tries to accuse me of being an ingrate.

And, seriously, you have been "lecturing" me for not liking Vista. You've gone out of your way to turn my arguments into absurd straw men before moving on to tell me how supposedly stupid or spoiled I must be for believing them. Nowhere have I made statements as extreme as those portrayals, however. I must conclude, therefore, that you want to attack me for simply having problems with Microsoft and that's weird to me. Do you have some personal stake in Microsoft to explain your sensitivity on this issue?

Are you trying to tell me, lordjedi, that you have absolutely no problems with Microsoft whatsoever or in any way? Are you telling me it's unfair for laypeople like me to have opinions based on my own experiences? I've built and set up many computers and worked with a lot of different hardware and different versions of Windows for many years and I don't think I'm an idiot. I could be honestly wrong in many ways (I'm no coding expert), and certainly idiotic in some small ways here, but you went way overboard in your previous posts. I really have trouble believing that you think Microsoft is so perfect and so justified in everything that it has done in the free market that you have absolutely no problems with them whatsoever. If that's not the case, however, and you actualkly do think Microsoft could be better in some ways yourself, then why are you being so extreme in reprimanding someone like me who happens to have some problems of my own (that are based upon my own point of view)?

If we could discuss the issues I want to discuss, that would make me happiest here. For now, though, I have run out of time and must be moving on. You actually touched on some more substantive points further down in your post and I'll want to discuss them later. For now, though, if you want to reply to the useful parts of our discussion, feel free and I'll try to address them later as well.

Bah, to me the issue boils down to reality before aesthetics. I do like the feeling that grain gives an image but my reason for that is because its a real thing. Real visuals are filled with chaotic depth that our eyes can get lost in and changes from one instant of time to another. Film that captures images in a grainy way feel more seamless to the way I see in the real world (albeit less fine of course). By comparison, even a fantastic film like Apocalypto feels slightly less real to me with the overly smooth, non-deep visuals it got from using a digital camera.

After that, I find it insulting to think that an old movie has to be smoothed out by some computer program for me to enjoy it. It's absurd to say that grain equals a lack of clarity. I actually think my brain does a far superior job of figuring out what I'm looking at before I need some DNR or "Lowry" program to assist me. When I look at a grainy image I see the separated flecks combining into whole objects and I lose no detail (as apposed to looking at Lowry's "fixed" Sleeping Beauty which looks soft and blurry at parts). In light of that, preserving the statistical reality of the real photons and real molecules that interacted to capture real world images is very important to me. Reality should have value in and of itself when all things are equal. So, then, if grain preserves reality without sacrificing clarity (since brain is already good at piecing it together) why should we then go back and change things for no reason?

Seriously, do the brains of people who greatly dislike film grain function so differently from my own? Are they unable to compute a fleck of light and color as something that should be combined with some other, offset flecks of light and color? I never even noticed film grain until people started talking about it so much. Now that I've been watching for it I'm convinced it feels more natural and real.

(Only after all that will I agree that grain can be an interesting aesthetic choice.)