Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-12-04 at 18:42:24
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...6_btview04.html
I really hope Vista fails, because if that is the case, and if Microsoft stops making operating systems(Which won't happen, but if it does..), then producers will start to shift programs like games to Linux, which is free, and cool.
QUOTE
Why Vista might be the last of its kind
By Dean Takahashi
San Jose Mercury News
Imagine this. One of the world's most powerful monopolies puts 10,000 people to work for five years to create one new product. And nobody is really sure if anyone wants it. How's that for a gamble?
That's what we have with Windows Vista, the new computer-operating system from Microsoft that debuted last week for businesses and, next month, for consumers. There has been so much buildup for this moment that you would expect Vista to cure cancer.
It's been so long in coming that I'll just be happy if it does the job and doesn't present me with a daily dose of the Blue Screen of Death. Already experts are predicting Vista may be the last of its kind. Obsolete before it's out the door? Geez, we haven't even had a chance to open our wallets yet.
"Suddenly, the market changed and competitors started delivering technology at the speed of the Internet," said James McQuivey, professor of market research at Boston University. "In some cases, they do it for free, and that's painful for Microsoft."
Redmond giant
The theory about the threat to the Redmond giant goes like this: Microsoft made Vista the old-fashioned way, as a single packaged product that it puts on a disk so users can buy it in a store and load it onto their computers.
By contrast, rivals such as Google are creating spreadsheets and browsers that you simply download from a computer server, which delivers what you need to your desktop as you need it. If Google follows through with more offerings of free, ad-supported software over the Internet, Microsoft won't be able to charge a premium for its operating systems anymore. Nobody will need its big upgrades anymore.
Suppose this threat, or the one from the free Linux operating system, is real. Maybe Microsoft will have to issue smaller upgrades every year or so to keep up. You have to wonder if it is possible or wise for Microsoft to throw more money at a future project than it has thrown at Vista. This will probably be the last operating system from Bill Gates, who retires to do philanthropy in 2008. Was it worth it?
It's worth noting just how complex Vista became. BusinessWeek estimates it took 10,000 employees about five years to ship Vista.
In an interview with Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer a few weeks ago, I asked if he had added up how much money it cost to develop Vista. He laughed, "I can't say I have. It would be impossible to count up. ... I'm sure it's a lot."
If we assume Microsoft's costs per employee are about $200,000 a year, the estimated payroll costs alone for Vista hover around $10 billion. That has to be close to the costs of some of the biggest engineering projects ever undertaken, such as the Manhattan Project that created the atomic bomb during World War II. And while Microsoft toiled on Vista, its stock price stayed flat.
So many things went wrong with the building of Vista that it's hard to know where it all started. The original code name was Longhorn, kicked off in 2001 after Windows XP shipped.
The company tried to pioneer on a lot of fronts, trying to change the code language used to write the operating system and fiddling with the basic file system the software uses as its foundation.
It pondered many ideas for 3-D interfaces that would help users navigate the computer more easily. Not everything worked. After a few years, the company aimed lower.
Ballmer says Microsoft tried to innovate too much. So the company reorganized and tried to placate impatient consumers by shipping Service Pack 2 for Windows XP then rebooted the whole Vista effort in mid-2004. It's hard to imagine exactly how much Microsoft flushed down the toilet.
Microsoft has more than 500 early business customers for Vista, but companies by and large are expected to shrug at it, at least until Microsoft comes out with a service pack, or a new version that patches all the expected holes.
A survey by CDW, which supplies computers to businesses, found that only 20 percent of businesses plan to upgrade to Vista in the first 12 months after its release.
Monopoly profits
Still, Microsoft stands to reap monopoly profits if Vista takes off. Analyst Roger Kay of Endpoint Technologies estimates Vista will be running on 76 million computers by the end of next year.
And Vista sales should contribute $11.5 billion to operating profits from Windows in the year that ends June 30, 2007, according to Credit Suisse First Boston analyst Jason Maynard.
So Microsoft comes out with a product a couple of years late and it is still expected to hang on to the monopoly because it has no direct parallel competitor.
Those in other markets don't get away with this. Sony's delays with the PlayStation 3 video-game unit probably mean it will lose market share to Microsoft and Nintendo. No such catastrophe is awaiting Microsoft.
I've been playing around with the test version of Vista. It appears to accomplish things we ought to take for granted: better reliability, compatibility, security, search capability and task management. That said, it doesn't feel like a product that is the fruit of 10,000 brilliant minds and $10 billion in resources.
When I think about how much Microsoft poured into Vista, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a longtime Microserf.
"I think about what it could have been," he said.
Dean Takahashi is a columnist with the San Jose Mercury News.
By Dean Takahashi
San Jose Mercury News
Imagine this. One of the world's most powerful monopolies puts 10,000 people to work for five years to create one new product. And nobody is really sure if anyone wants it. How's that for a gamble?
That's what we have with Windows Vista, the new computer-operating system from Microsoft that debuted last week for businesses and, next month, for consumers. There has been so much buildup for this moment that you would expect Vista to cure cancer.
It's been so long in coming that I'll just be happy if it does the job and doesn't present me with a daily dose of the Blue Screen of Death. Already experts are predicting Vista may be the last of its kind. Obsolete before it's out the door? Geez, we haven't even had a chance to open our wallets yet.
"Suddenly, the market changed and competitors started delivering technology at the speed of the Internet," said James McQuivey, professor of market research at Boston University. "In some cases, they do it for free, and that's painful for Microsoft."
Redmond giant
The theory about the threat to the Redmond giant goes like this: Microsoft made Vista the old-fashioned way, as a single packaged product that it puts on a disk so users can buy it in a store and load it onto their computers.
By contrast, rivals such as Google are creating spreadsheets and browsers that you simply download from a computer server, which delivers what you need to your desktop as you need it. If Google follows through with more offerings of free, ad-supported software over the Internet, Microsoft won't be able to charge a premium for its operating systems anymore. Nobody will need its big upgrades anymore.
Suppose this threat, or the one from the free Linux operating system, is real. Maybe Microsoft will have to issue smaller upgrades every year or so to keep up. You have to wonder if it is possible or wise for Microsoft to throw more money at a future project than it has thrown at Vista. This will probably be the last operating system from Bill Gates, who retires to do philanthropy in 2008. Was it worth it?
It's worth noting just how complex Vista became. BusinessWeek estimates it took 10,000 employees about five years to ship Vista.
In an interview with Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer a few weeks ago, I asked if he had added up how much money it cost to develop Vista. He laughed, "I can't say I have. It would be impossible to count up. ... I'm sure it's a lot."
If we assume Microsoft's costs per employee are about $200,000 a year, the estimated payroll costs alone for Vista hover around $10 billion. That has to be close to the costs of some of the biggest engineering projects ever undertaken, such as the Manhattan Project that created the atomic bomb during World War II. And while Microsoft toiled on Vista, its stock price stayed flat.
So many things went wrong with the building of Vista that it's hard to know where it all started. The original code name was Longhorn, kicked off in 2001 after Windows XP shipped.
The company tried to pioneer on a lot of fronts, trying to change the code language used to write the operating system and fiddling with the basic file system the software uses as its foundation.
It pondered many ideas for 3-D interfaces that would help users navigate the computer more easily. Not everything worked. After a few years, the company aimed lower.
Ballmer says Microsoft tried to innovate too much. So the company reorganized and tried to placate impatient consumers by shipping Service Pack 2 for Windows XP then rebooted the whole Vista effort in mid-2004. It's hard to imagine exactly how much Microsoft flushed down the toilet.
Microsoft has more than 500 early business customers for Vista, but companies by and large are expected to shrug at it, at least until Microsoft comes out with a service pack, or a new version that patches all the expected holes.
A survey by CDW, which supplies computers to businesses, found that only 20 percent of businesses plan to upgrade to Vista in the first 12 months after its release.
Monopoly profits
Still, Microsoft stands to reap monopoly profits if Vista takes off. Analyst Roger Kay of Endpoint Technologies estimates Vista will be running on 76 million computers by the end of next year.
And Vista sales should contribute $11.5 billion to operating profits from Windows in the year that ends June 30, 2007, according to Credit Suisse First Boston analyst Jason Maynard.
So Microsoft comes out with a product a couple of years late and it is still expected to hang on to the monopoly because it has no direct parallel competitor.
Those in other markets don't get away with this. Sony's delays with the PlayStation 3 video-game unit probably mean it will lose market share to Microsoft and Nintendo. No such catastrophe is awaiting Microsoft.
I've been playing around with the test version of Vista. It appears to accomplish things we ought to take for granted: better reliability, compatibility, security, search capability and task management. That said, it doesn't feel like a product that is the fruit of 10,000 brilliant minds and $10 billion in resources.
When I think about how much Microsoft poured into Vista, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a longtime Microserf.
"I think about what it could have been," he said.
Dean Takahashi is a columnist with the San Jose Mercury News.
I really hope Vista fails, because if that is the case, and if Microsoft stops making operating systems(Which won't happen, but if it does..), then producers will start to shift programs like games to Linux, which is free, and cool.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-12-04 at 18:47:31
I kinda like Windows 
.
.Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-12-04 at 18:52:04
Windows is fine with me, but Vista looks like nothing but 1GB of RAM's worth of extra bells and whistles that I don't give a damn about. I'll stick to XP Pro and the extra RAM, thank you very much.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-12-04 at 18:53:10
Well, with Windows out of the way, on the other hand, everything will be adapted to either Macintosh or Linux, probably Macintosh, and Macintosh will become teh bigger operation system and will get more features : ).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cole on 2006-12-04 at 19:15:24
QUOTE
Well, with Windows out of the way, on the other hand, everything will be adapted to either Macintosh or Linux, probably Macintosh, and Macintosh will become teh bigger operation system and will get more features : ).
I would be ABSOLUTELY PISSED IF WINDOWS FELL AND MAC DOMINATED.
Why? Why would you ask?
I'll tell you why and it will have nothing about me saying "omgz mac sucks". Not at all. Heres the problem. Apple and how they work. Until recently Apple manufactured everything. Now intel is the only one making other stuff for them and thats only for processors.
So what you may think?
Heres what. How many people would be out of jobs?. Apple makes the hardware, not other companies. Apple would have much more of an monopoly than Microsoft could of dream of. Control over the software and hardware? All the people making hardware out of work because of no OS to use? Would be chaos. Throw in you'd have less innovation with this route. AMD would be gone. AMD be gone would give Intel a massive monpoly. Intel with no competition = no innovation and they'd sit back like they did with the P4..thankfully AMD woke them up and kicked there ass utnil Intel finally made conroe.
I would prefer Linux Domination over Mac any day because Linux would allow for even a more competitive hardware market than Windows.
However this articles far from right. Windows Vista wil hit big just as all there other OS'es have. Microsoft had a lot of internal problems really messing up Vista's roadpath. Microsoft seems to have it under control now. Vista has come togeather well to be an incredible operating system. Microsoft has promised no long Vista waits again, and I expect there next version to be incredibly feature packed. Microsoft's Vista will be put in Dell, Emachines, HP, Gateway, and countless other companies computers and therefor will hit big.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-12-04 at 19:18:49
Well, regardless, I think Vista will end up being a small little hit to Microsoft. Less and less people will keep using Windows, and once more and more people will use Linux, more games and stuff will be made for it, and once stuff like that happens, why would you pay 190 dollars for a copy of Windows..?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by dumbducky on 2006-12-04 at 19:25:13
Lets say Microsoft does fail. Then what do you think emachines, dell, and all those other companies will do? They'll probably find a new OS to stick on their machines, which will probably be Linux. Of course then, Linux might not be free.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-12-04 at 19:27:36
Maybe if you buy computers from eMachines and Dell, but there are tons of distros of Linux that are free.. nearly all of them except for like Xandros and Linspire(A few others too..)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ShadowFlare on 2006-12-04 at 19:35:03
Microsoft does actually have some pretty good ideas for their products sometimes. For example, after sometime reading a list of changes/new features in Vista it was enough to make me want to upgrade to Vista at least eventually (when I can afford it...). Since I have professional edition of XP, I would be upgrading to Vista Ultimate though, which costs around $250 for the upgrade version. 
(upgrade path from XP Pro is either Vista Business or Ultimate, but Vista Business doesn't have certain things I would want from Vista Home Premium)
(upgrade path from XP Pro is either Vista Business or Ultimate, but Vista Business doesn't have certain things I would want from Vista Home Premium)Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cole on 2006-12-04 at 19:47:01
QUOTE
Lets say Microsoft does fail. Then what do you think emachines, dell, and all those other companies will do? They'll probably find a new OS to stick on their machines, which will probably be Linux. Of course then, Linux might not be free.
You can quote me on this.
Unless Emachines, Dell, or another big player abandons Microsoft.... If Microsoft falls, Emachines, Dell, and other big players will already have been deeply hurt or completely dead.
The only way for Microsoft to fall would be the major PC companies abandoning them, and if they abandon Microsoft...then they would definently have a smart plan for something else.
The other thing I hate about apple is there commericals. Most of them are such bullcrap.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-12-04 at 20:26:39
Yeah, funny how I never heard how Macs can't play any DirectX games... I always thought playing games was more fun that looking at photos and videos, which I can do without iLife, somehow...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Oo.Insane.oO on 2006-12-04 at 21:38:21
I used a vista skin from Stardock and personally I didnt like it really it was confusing to get used to and kinda reminded me of a mac and if I wanted a mac I would have bought one instead of a pc
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cole on 2006-12-04 at 22:26:12
Lakai you do realize that are more differences between Mac and Windows than the skin? Same with Xp and Vista.
Vista is no more confusing than Xp. I am in love with the new menu explorer though. It's simple, looks good, and I can store all my favorites to the left which I love.
Also Xp skins don't really compare to the full thing. Theres a lot more options to edit with Vista.
Vista is no more confusing than Xp. I am in love with the new menu explorer though. It's simple, looks good, and I can store all my favorites to the left which I love.
Also Xp skins don't really compare to the full thing. Theres a lot more options to edit with Vista.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)Excalibur on 2006-12-05 at 05:56:32
Im a good 5-15 years: "Your still running a microsoft OS? Wtf is wrong with you??!??!"
I hate macs, the company, and the OS. However: I have an iPod. and I have to say, iTunes is a masterpiece. I dont think Microsoft couldve out done Apple in the Mp3 Player and support it with such good softoware. Im on XP and running a program that was originaly for another OS, and it still is awesome. Thats quality.
And im not a fanboy. If tomorrow, Apple changed its direction to plunge into a good gaming OS, I'd get it when it came out. The problem is their not. Macs are for music and pictures, but if you want games you need Windows.
As for Linux, i like Linux better then id like a gaming Mac OS. Its currently free, but i wouldnt care if it costed me anything. Linux is a good OS, and once its brought up into a good version, i might get it.
Vista is, for someone like me with 4GB of RAM, a good move. My PC is tricked out, and it will only benifit from the addition of Vista, as from what i understand it will make better use of my Core2Duo. So im fine with paying for the extra bells and whistles.
It all depends on your situation, and even if this is Microsofts last OS, I dont think other companys are going to give Apple the chance to grab the entire market.
I hate macs, the company, and the OS. However: I have an iPod. and I have to say, iTunes is a masterpiece. I dont think Microsoft couldve out done Apple in the Mp3 Player and support it with such good softoware. Im on XP and running a program that was originaly for another OS, and it still is awesome. Thats quality.
And im not a fanboy. If tomorrow, Apple changed its direction to plunge into a good gaming OS, I'd get it when it came out. The problem is their not. Macs are for music and pictures, but if you want games you need Windows.
As for Linux, i like Linux better then id like a gaming Mac OS. Its currently free, but i wouldnt care if it costed me anything. Linux is a good OS, and once its brought up into a good version, i might get it.
Vista is, for someone like me with 4GB of RAM, a good move. My PC is tricked out, and it will only benifit from the addition of Vista, as from what i understand it will make better use of my Core2Duo. So im fine with paying for the extra bells and whistles.
It all depends on your situation, and even if this is Microsofts last OS, I dont think other companys are going to give Apple the chance to grab the entire market.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-12-05 at 06:38:28
You guys are forgetting, not everybody has a programming skill compatible with Linux. Also, you guys are also forgetting - Mac PCs dominate picture works and others, but it doesn't with games. Although, Macs never crash... which I like.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-12-05 at 07:49:35
QUOTE(CaptainCrunch @ Dec 4 2006, 07:25 PM)
Lets say Microsoft does fail. Then what do you think emachines, dell, and all those other companies will do? They'll probably find a new OS to stick on their machines, which will probably be Linux. Of course then, Linux might not be free.
[right][snapback]599380[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]599380[/snapback][/right]
At least a few distros will always be free, such as the Ubuntu family.
QUOTE(Lithium @ Dec 5 2006, 06:38 AM)
You guys are forgetting, not everybody has a programming skill compatible with Linux. Also, you guys are also forgetting - Mac PCs dominate picture works and others, but it doesn't with games. Although, Macs never crash... which I like.
[right][snapback]599587[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]599587[/snapback][/right]
Programming for *nix is so much easier than programming for win32. Almost every distro has a built in C/C#/C++ compiler, I believe all of them come preloaded with PHP or Python, and the basic GUI is powered by GTK+ which can easily be customized with PyGTK or PHP-GTK without having to bundle bothersome libraries with your programs.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-12-05 at 09:32:15
QUOTE(Lithium @ Dec 5 2006, 02:38 PM)
You guys are forgetting, not everybody has a programming skill compatible with Linux. Also, you guys are also forgetting - Mac PCs dominate picture works and others, but it doesn't with games. Although, Macs never crash... which I like.
[right][snapback]599587[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]599587[/snapback][/right]
Like how?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lord_Agamemnon(MM) on 2006-12-05 at 09:38:30
Some people actually like Windows. Now, I won't argue that XP is without its bugs, but there aren't many of them. I don't think Vista will be a big hit; I don't want it and I don't think Microsoft should have spent all that money on it.
The reason that I hope Microsoft doesn't go belly up is this: I think the options are worse. Every piece of Mac hardware that I have known has broken in some interesting way. For example, one of my friends had a Mac laptop that burnt four logic boards in six months; it was replaced, under warranty, with one that couldn't find its battery and would go into sleep mode every two minutes. Another mac laptop, belonging to another friend, would only work if the screen was at about a 60 degree angle with the horizontal. Both of these were computer people who knew what NOT to do to their computers, so it wasn't user error. OSX is great, I'll certainly say that, but the hardware it runs on is crap.
I also don't care for Linux. The other day, we were struggling for four hours to get a Linux system, running Fedora, to do a backup. Yes, one backup. And not even to do the actual process; we couldn't get it to run a backup routine. Linux is powerful, but you need to know programming to do anything with it.
So I say Microsoft is the best for the average computer user, and I hope they don't go bankrupt. Vista, however, was a bit of a mistake...
The reason that I hope Microsoft doesn't go belly up is this: I think the options are worse. Every piece of Mac hardware that I have known has broken in some interesting way. For example, one of my friends had a Mac laptop that burnt four logic boards in six months; it was replaced, under warranty, with one that couldn't find its battery and would go into sleep mode every two minutes. Another mac laptop, belonging to another friend, would only work if the screen was at about a 60 degree angle with the horizontal. Both of these were computer people who knew what NOT to do to their computers, so it wasn't user error. OSX is great, I'll certainly say that, but the hardware it runs on is crap.
I also don't care for Linux. The other day, we were struggling for four hours to get a Linux system, running Fedora, to do a backup. Yes, one backup. And not even to do the actual process; we couldn't get it to run a backup routine. Linux is powerful, but you need to know programming to do anything with it.
So I say Microsoft is the best for the average computer user, and I hope they don't go bankrupt. Vista, however, was a bit of a mistake...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-12-05 at 10:03:52
If Linux and it's 3290329021901q90109 distros were the most used OS's, I'm sure some distros would end up making Linux work a lot easier. I agree, I suck at using the terminal, and only really type in what I'm told, get getting packages ~.~
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2006-12-05 at 16:47:16
@ Agam
My friend's Mac laptop's power connection is screwed up and needs to be pushed in constantly for it to stay charging. Pushed as in held in.
My friend's Mac laptop's power connection is screwed up and needs to be pushed in constantly for it to stay charging. Pushed as in held in.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cole on 2006-12-05 at 17:55:14
I wouldn't mind Linux being dominant.
Anyway Vista is a great OS, theres not much wrong with it.
XP is a decent OS, so far most of the viruses and spyware are a lot less compared to before. I haven't got one in a long ass time(can't remember the last time I had one). XP rarely crashes and when it does it's because of a programs poor programming not the OS.
I think you may have missed the point with his sentence. Linux without a doubt, even Ubuntu, is harder to use than Windows. Linux is simply not matured enough to be availaible for the average user. My experience with installing nvidia graphic drivers with Fedora Core 4 was horrible. 6 years ago installing my first graphic drivers with windows was a breeze and has is like nothing now. Linux has a lot maturing to do.
Windows works well. Microsoft has much improved security than the initial Xp and 2000, Xp, and Vista are all incredibly stable operating systems. Windows is a great OS that makes things easy while also allowing advanced setups. It has a great variety of free and paid software.
Anyway Vista is a great OS, theres not much wrong with it.
XP is a decent OS, so far most of the viruses and spyware are a lot less compared to before. I haven't got one in a long ass time(can't remember the last time I had one). XP rarely crashes and when it does it's because of a programs poor programming not the OS.
QUOTE
Programming for *nix is so much easier than programming for win32. Almost every distro has a built in C/C#/C++ compiler, I believe all of them come preloaded with PHP or Python, and the basic GUI is powered by GTK+ which can easily be customized with PyGTK or PHP-GTK without having to bundle bothersome libraries with your programs.
I think you may have missed the point with his sentence. Linux without a doubt, even Ubuntu, is harder to use than Windows. Linux is simply not matured enough to be availaible for the average user. My experience with installing nvidia graphic drivers with Fedora Core 4 was horrible. 6 years ago installing my first graphic drivers with windows was a breeze and has is like nothing now. Linux has a lot maturing to do.
Windows works well. Microsoft has much improved security than the initial Xp and 2000, Xp, and Vista are all incredibly stable operating systems. Windows is a great OS that makes things easy while also allowing advanced setups. It has a great variety of free and paid software.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-12-05 at 18:00:56
Except, it costs 200+ dollars, and wants you to renew your license when you upgrade your computer... how do you expect me to upgrade my computer when I have to spend 200 dollars on Vista itself. ~.~
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cole on 2006-12-05 at 18:08:21
QUOTE
Except, it costs 200+ dollars, and wants you to renew your license when you upgrade your computer... how do you expect me to upgrade my computer when I have to spend 200 dollars on Vista itself. ~.~
Well you've obviously not done your research.
Have you ever upgraded a computer or deal with Xp's? They revamped Vista's licensing to work much more similar to Xp's. Only MAJOR hardware modifications..like the motherboard and probably the Hard Drive will require you to re-authorize Vista. I believe you can have 3(?) times of those. After that you can just CALL IN. I've reactived my Xp probably 8 - 10 times in a year. The first 3 worked great. The next one I had to call in. The next 2 I was able to do it over the internet. The ones after that were call in's. I've had my computer for a little over a year. Although the 5th time I put it on a friends computer
.Calling Microsoft works, and is a pretty easy process. I've never been given wrong numbers and everything has always worked great.
When it comes to upgrading your computer. Well hey you don't have to upgrade to Vista. You don't and if you don't want or even if you want to I don't really care. You should also upgrade your computer at sessions. Add in some ram this month....few months later upgrade the graphics card....few months later the CPU... a few months later maybe get Vista. Keep it like that for a year/2. Always buy a motherboard that looks like processors for it be around for a while.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-12-05 at 18:43:30
I didn't know that ~.~ my mistake.
No, I haven't been able to do any major upgrades.
No, I haven't been able to do any major upgrades.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cole on 2006-12-05 at 18:59:51
QUOTE
I didn't know that ~.~ my mistake.
No, I haven't been able to do any major upgrades.
No, I haven't been able to do any major upgrades.
It's cool. Sorry if the "you obviously haven't done your research" was at all a bit harsh.
So many things to buy recently. From consoles to games to operating systems.