The future of the (older) M&M games

[MistWeaver]

I will admit that my fondness of the series is highest for World of Xeen

Same for me. It had spirit of real epic adventure.

[Corribus]

Ugh! Your mindset is exactly why corporations like Microsoft et al get away with screwing the public. If no one bought their needless products, they wouldn't be able to render software we paid good money for become obsolete. Then they would have to take the time to make sure our already owned products ran on their newest operating system!

My mindset? Sorry, HP, I'm not to blame. That's the system in which we live. Sure, the public has power. We are the ones with the money. If we all collectively said, "Let's not buy this!" then it would not sell, and MS would have to change its business approach. But that's not likely to happen, is it? If MS is able to be successful by selling shoddy software, who is to blame? It's not Microsoft! It's US. If a company is able to make a profit selling a poor product, you cannot blame the company. The company's goal is to make a profit, a profit which is maximized by using as little effort or investment capital as possible. If the company can make just as much of a profit by making a mediocre product as they can by making a great product, why would the expend the extra energy making a great product? Only if the consumer tells the company that they will not buy the mediocre product will the great product be made. It's really not that complicated. So if the company is able to sell the mediocre product, it's because WE have demonstrated to the company that we are willing to settle for a mediocre product. So really HP, YOU are to blame. *I* am to blame. All the people out there who buys the products are to blame. Capitalism is to blame. Sadly, the consumer is not a collective consciousness; we all have minds or wills of our own, and most of those minds or wills just doesn't care whether they are buying a mediocre product or they feel, like you do, that they are helpless or powerless to do anything about it, so they buy it anyway. I mean, if it really meant that much to you, you could just not use a computer. But you obviously are using a computer, and probably one loaded with windows, so while you may piss and moan about the problem, and say how evil MS is, you obviously don't care enough to do anything about it. You still want the convenience of having a computer, and MS knows that and is counting on that to make their profit on mediocre software, and so they win and you lose. The actual 3% or so minority who are determined not to buy MS software don't make enough of a dent in the profits to make MS change their approach. So until you actually put your money where your mouth is and stop buying MS softare, your vitriol really just doesn't hold much water.

I do realize that Microsoft did have to make a change by developing Vista. Vista is NOT my gripe with Microsoft. It's the shoddy design and support of Vista that is my main complaint.

That's certainly your right. I for one really didn't care for XP when it came out, and right now I am having no problems with Vista. But arguing over whether Vista is a good OS or not is really not my point. I think it's a little premature to judge it too harshly in any case. But as I said above, the consumer is the one who has allowed MS to get to the point where they are essentially a monopoly, and as such MS knows that we will pretty much buy anything they put on the market. I don't really blame MS for doing what is essentially good business. Their mission is not to provide you with good software. Their mission is to make money. In many industries, the way to do that is to make a good product. MS is currently in the position where that is not really necessary. As long as they maintain the status quo, which can be done by providing software that at least works, however clumsily, they will continue in that position - and hence continue to make money - until and unless the consumer opens its eyes and make enough noise (or enough of a dent in the profits) to make MS change their practices. Again - you blame MS for putting bad software on the market, but is that really fair? They only do what a business is meant to within the rules of capitalism. You can't blame an entity by trying to perform its function. The consumer has the power, not to change the system, but to change the circumstances of the system. Blame the consumer.

So.. I need to buy & use Vista (which I find much worse that XP), also upgrade my PC - so it could run it, just because poor microsoft needs profits ??! Sounds like pure nonsense to me.

No, you don't have to do anything. You DO have a choice. You can continue running XP and eventually be left behind, or you can stop using a computer. Is that ideal? Probably not. But we as the consumer have put Microsoft in their monopolistic position to essentially completely control what software we must buy if we want to be "current". We are enablers. They will continue to be in that monopolistic position until enough consumers decide they've had enough of MS and exercise their right to not buy MS's new, putatively mediocre software. Quite frankly that is not likely to happen, because most consumers aren't computer savvy enough to know the difference between good software or bad software, and most consumers are casual users where even mediocre software is good enough for their needs. Most consumers are not even aware of other options. Obscure versions of Linux or 3rd party web browsers may be far superior to what MS offers, but MS is simple and for the vast majority of users who only want a computer to check their email, write poetry and maintain a myspace account, MS's software is sufficient, convenient and looks good. For most people it is also the only real option. So while you and I and other people with more advanced computer interests and needs can easily identify that there is vast room for improvement, we are in the extreme minority. MS knows this and knows that their position is secure as long as their new software is functional enough that the "average user" is content.

In capitalist society if you want to sell something, you need to make it worth buying... or be monopolist.

Right. So that's my fault? That's MS's fault? That's the system. That's the rules. Don't blame MS by playing by those rules.

Corribus, tell me, how bad next OS from Microsoft should be, in order you to change your mind ?

Change my mind? Why would I change my mind? I understand the state of affairs. I know MS's software is not as good as it should be. I think it's sufficient for what most people need, and that's all it needs to be for MS to succeed. And I have a feeling that it would need to be worse, much worse, before MS ever started facing problems. I mean, Windows ME was deplorable and even THAT didn't stop MS. The problem is that once a company is as entrenched and powerful as MS has been allowed to become, BY US, it's next to impossible, short of government intervention, to make changes.

[PhoenixReborn]

I'm honestly not overly worried about the future of the games. If I can still introduce my eight year old cousin to the game loom on a windows xp machine through dosbox in 2007 then it will still work on windows ? in 200x.

Since we have the programs now, there's little reason to think they won't work in the future...for example, I'll bet dosbox works in windows vista? Yes? No?

[DaveO]

Corribus, I greatly appreciate your counterpoints! The way I see it right now, I expect Apple to be the 'dark horse' that overtakes and makes M$ no longer a monopoly. Monopolies can last a while, but for the consumer it's more important to have a choice. Monopolies have been broken up before, so it's not impossible. By adding in the capability of running multiple operating systems, I honestly see Apple in a very good position to capture more of the computing market.

P.S. - A good saying to keep in mind is: 'Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.

[HodgePodge]

… By adding in the capability of running multiple operating systems, I honestly see Apple in a very good position to capture more of the computing market.

P.S. - A good saying to keep in mind is: 'Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.

Yes! A Macintosh was my very first computer and I loved it. Everyone knows that Bill Gates and Microsoft stole the GUI (graphic user interface) from Apple. Hopefully, M$'s karma will eventually catch up with them … soon.

[Corribus]

The way I see it right now, I expect Apple to be the 'dark horse' that overtakes and makes M$ no longer a monopoly. Monopolies can last a while, but for the consumer it's more important to have a choice. Monopolies have been broken up before, so it's not impossible. By adding in the capability of running multiple operating systems, I honestly see Apple in a very good position to capture more of the computing market.

Look, I give apple a lot of credit for managing to carve a niche for itself despite Microsoft's domination of the market, particularly in the area of peripherals such as the iPod, although I personally think it's largely due to style rather than substance. But I have a hard time seeing them being the catalyst that will ultimately topple the Microsoft titan in the OS and home computing market. Besides the fact that Microsoft is pretty well entrenched already, particularly in the business sector, you have to realize that Apple and Microsoft have dominion over very different product areas. Microsoft is smart in that they only develop software, which they then licence to third party hardware retailers. Apple develops the software AND sells the hardware, and nobody else is allowed (or wants to, whichever) sell computers with Apple software. Thus in order to overtake Microsoft, Apple must not only compete and win against Microsoft, but they also essentially take on Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, Sony, HP, and every other electronics company that sells computers loaded with Microsoft software. That's a lot of Goliaths for one David to fell at once. Apple's strength is not in their software. I think very few people could actually give a lick about Apple OS vs. Windows. The people who buy Apples by and large do so because they look good. It's what really brought about Apple's renaissance, and what STILL causes people to buy them. The style is attractive to young, college age people, who buy them for their looks. Also they are used a lot in education, probably a remant of their earlier days when they were available very cheap and thus were bought up by colleges and universities. But the problem is that while college and teenage-aged girls buy Mac laptops, when they graduate and need a computer for work, they are pretty much forced to buy a PC, because that's what businesses use, because most of them probably have deals with Dell and Gateway, and that's where their network servers come from, etc., so the MS dominated market is just a very hard nut to crack, because really you don't have a choice, except for home use.

If I was Apple, I would work really hard on compatibility and then try to start getting Dell and Gateway to make PCs with Apple OS installed, so when you buy a computer from Dell you can choose Windows or Apple OS. Of course, I'm not a businessman so maybe there's some reason that I'm not seeing why that hasn't happened.

Edit: And let's not forget MS's brilliant decision to entre the video game industry with its XBOX, which gives young users one more reason to pick a PC. You can't interface an XBOX with an Apple, as far as I know, and with the PS3 a major disappointment so far, a Nintendo a distant runner-up, it's only a matter of time before MS corners the console market as well. Apple would do well to develop their own video game console, less they also face losing their young demographic in the console wars.

[DaveO]

Apple did copy the GUI interface from a machine at the Palo Alto Research Center. IIRC, it was a Xerox machine that had the interface that led to Apple making their own GUI. Computing history has numerous occasions when a person copied from somebody else. Heck, DOS was just a glorified version of CP/M!

[Corribus]

Apple did copy the GUI interface from a machine at the Palo Alto Research Center. IIRC, it was a Xerox machine that had the interface that led to Apple making their own GUI. Computing history has numerous occasions when a person copied from somebody else. Heck, DOS was just a glorified version of CP/M!

Tsk tsk, DaveO, you're coming awfully close to destroying HodgePodge's delusion that MS is the only "evil" company out there that has ever "stolen" another company's innovation in order to stay competitive.

[UndeadHalfOrc]

Microsoft also forces PC manufacturers to ship with the newest Windows product, so that as a customer buying a PC, you are *forced* to get the latest Windows version. If you absolutely must get an earlier version, too bad. You're still forced to buy the latest version that comes with your PC, so you have to buy Windows *twice*.

This is a big problem for me right now. I'm gonna buy a new PC really soon. What I *want* is Windows XP, but most of the new PCs (if not all) come with Vi$ta.

[Corribus]

Microsoft also forces PC manufacturers to ship with the newest Windows product, so that as a customer buying a PC, you are *forced* to get the latest Windows version. If you absolutely must get an earlier version, too bad. You're still forced to buy the latest version that comes with your PC, so you have to buy Windows *twice*.

This is a big problem for me right now. I'm gonna buy a new PC really soon. What I *want* is Windows XP, but most of the new PCs (if not all) come with Vi$ta.

First, there are vendors who sell computers with no OS at all installed.

Second, even though it sucks for you, it really isn't reasonable to expect computer vendors to supply obselete software, no matter how good it is. There's no real reason, from a business point of view, why Microsoft should make it easy for you to purchase old software either. That's not in their interest to do so. I really like a lot of old games, but sometimes I have to pay a premium to get them, and I certainly don't cry foul when a company doesn't release copies of older games. Yeah, that sucks and I wish I didn't have to spend 50 dollars for a Russian version of Winds of War online; I wish that they had made it easily available, but I recognize that my interests and a business's interests are not always one and the same, and I just have to learn to deal with it.

Again, please understand, I am not defending bad software. What I'm arguing is that it's unreasonable for you to expect a company to make decisions that aren't in its best interest, just to make your life easier or better.

[DaveO]

As much as I've appreciated the comments in the various replies and responses, I would like to request that this whole thread 'cool off' for 24-48 hours. Emotions are running a bit high in the responses and replies, and I'd truly hate to have somebody put in a response that they may regret later. To show that I 'put my money where my mouth is', I will refrain from making further comments in this thread for a week. That's how committed I am to making an example of the Golden Rule(treat others how I'd like to be treated).