WHO is more selfish Sony or Microsoft ???? >>>POLL
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Yes indeed Africa is a case a point where a charities have managed and allocated there funding poorly, with little forethought for long-term solutions. The philosophies of these institutions are however positive and certainly not sinful, it's just that with poor administration you can have an act of kindness with a damaging outcome.
It does seem a little strange that some cultures view charitable acts as some kind of sin though. We're pack animals by nature and looking out for one another, ensuring group survival through acts of altruism and kindness is one of our defining characteristics.
Oh well.
poptart
Here's what you don't understand. Sony fanboys view Bill Gates as Satan incarnate, even though he has given away more money and helped more poor people then any Sony charity ever has or will.
[QUOTE="poptart"]
Yes indeed Africa is a case a point where a charities have managed and allocated there funding poorly, with little forethought for long-term solutions. The philosophies of these institutions are however positive and certainly not sinful, it's just that with poor administration you can have an act of kindness with a damaging outcome.
It does seem a little strange that some cultures view charitable acts as some kind of sin though. We're pack animals by nature and looking out for one another, ensuring group survival through acts of altruism and kindness is one of our defining characteristics.
Oh well.
MizFitAwesome
Here's what you don't understand. Sony fanboys view Bill Gates as Satan incarnate, even though he has given away more money and helped more poor people then any Sony charity ever has or will.
Bill Gates is the man for that reason alone, although he didn't give it as a MS charity, he gave his own money, so I wouldn't go claiming more than a sony or ninty charity or anything like that. But that new CEO they have at MS, I've never seen such a child in my life and for him to be the head honcho of MS is just sad, completely and pathetically sad.so far 100% 10 votes microsoft. i have to say microsoft. i just think they want money. xbox live is $50 a year while wii, ps3, and pc all of free online play. pc is also microsft tried to have pay for pc but failed. thier download content cost money also, pc doesn't cost anything. iam2green
Yeah Microsoft discust me, all they want is money...Sony just want love!!
Joking aside, they both want your money, they just have different ways of getting it!
Evidence:
1) MS makes money with each console sold, at $120, so god knows how much they made per comsole to start with
2) MS charges you to play online, making you pay to use part of the game you already paid for
3) overpricing for all the add ons and not letting 3rd parties make their own cheaper accessories for somethings (aka steering wheel)
4) if your over warranty and you get RROD, which is MS's fault for releasing something they KNEW was faulty, YOU pay for a whole new one
1) sonys console costs more to make than they sell if for
2) Free online
3) Lets 3rd parties make any accessory they want
Both want money and its hard to say whos worse!
Due to hardware failures, charging for online and including advertising or soon tobe including it. ("Been a while now since i have been online with a 360)
Gonna say MS they have a bad habit of charging WAY to much for perphials. Take the 360 Harddrive its priced to the ceiling as is the wirless adapter and the memory cards.
Yeah gotta say MS when you buy a PS3 everything including free online and a web browser is built in and included in the cost. Not only that you can use 3rd party harddrives which is a big +
Evidence:
1) MS makes money with each console sold, at $120, so god knows how much they made per comsole to start with
2) MS charges you to play online, making you pay to use part of the game you already paid for
3) overpricing for all the add ons and not letting 3rd parties make their own cheaper accessories for somethings (aka steering wheel)
4) if your over warranty and you get RROD, which is MS's fault for releasing something they KNEW was faulty, YOU pay for a whole new one
1) sonys console costs more to make than they sell if for
2) Free online
3) Lets 3rd parties make any accessory they want
NinjaMunkey01
Yea never mind the fact that Sony's machine was a Trojan Horse for them to repackage DVD movies from the 80's and charge more for them or rip off people with current release movies...
[QUOTE="poptart"]
Yes indeed Africa is a case a point where a charities have managed and allocated there funding poorly, with little forethought for long-term solutions. The philosophies of these institutions are however positive and certainly not sinful, it's just that with poor administration you can have an act of kindness with a damaging outcome.
It does seem a little strange that some cultures view charitable acts as some kind of sin though. We're pack animals by nature and looking out for one another, ensuring group survival through acts of altruism and kindness is one of our defining characteristics.
Oh well.
MizFitAwesome
Here's what you don't understand. Sony fanboys view Bill Gates as Satan incarnate, even though he has given away more money and helped more poor people then any Sony charity ever has or will.
You don't have to like Sony to dislike Bill Gates. If we scrutinize any large corporation such as MS we'll uncover much to dislike. What is classed as immoral in human interaction is merely 'ruthless' in business practice and therefore deemed acceptable. Bill Gates is representative of that all that is wrong with capitalism.
The point I was making though is that this public perception clouds his philanthropic nature - with that level of wealth we expect philanthropy.
[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"]
Evidence:
1) MS makes money with each console sold, at $120, so god knows how much they made per comsole to start with
2) MS charges you to play online, making you pay to use part of the game you already paid for
3) overpricing for all the add ons and not letting 3rd parties make their own cheaper accessories for somethings (aka steering wheel)
4) if your over warranty and you get RROD, which is MS's fault for releasing something they KNEW was faulty, YOU pay for a whole new one
1) sonys console costs more to make than they sell if for
2) Free online
3) Lets 3rd parties make any accessory they want
MizFitAwesome
Yea never mind the fact that Sony's machine was a Trojan Horse for them to repackage DVD movies from the 80's and charge more for them or rip off people with current release movies...
Tbh the ps3 has done good with blu ray.
Imean for games its definately using the extra space to its advantage so Im not bothered really.
And since Ive got a HD TV anyway Blu ray is a good thing to have. And anyway its advancing technology. So Im happy with blu ray being in the ps3. And about the price, you can still play DVD's on the ps3, and you can always rent blu ray films. And as time goes on, blu ray will be more popular, and will get cheaper.
[QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]
[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"]
Evidence:
1) MS makes money with each console sold, at $120, so god knows how much they made per comsole to start with
2) MS charges you to play online, making you pay to use part of the game you already paid for
3) overpricing for all the add ons and not letting 3rd parties make their own cheaper accessories for somethings (aka steering wheel)
4) if your over warranty and you get RROD, which is MS's fault for releasing something they KNEW was faulty, YOU pay for a whole new one
1) sonys console costs more to make than they sell if for
2) Free online
3) Lets 3rd parties make any accessory they want
NinjaMunkey01
Yea never mind the fact that Sony's machine was a Trojan Horse for them to repackage DVD movies from the 80's and charge more for them or rip off people with current release movies...
Tbh the ps3 has done good with blu ray.
Imean for games its definately using the extra space to its advantage so Im not bothered really.
And since Ive got a HD TV anyway Blu ray is a good thing to have. And anyway its advancing technology. So Im happy with blu ray being in the ps3. And about the price, you can still play DVD's on the ps3, and you can always rent blu ray films. And as time goes on, blu ray will be more popular, and will get cheaper.
Gee I love the people blinded by the Sony Marketing Overhype Machine. Keep beleiving that EVERYONE wants to pay more for less, that's what Sony does best...
How is MS selfish? Just 'cause they are far more shrewd buisness men then SONY? Damn MS for being succesful, how dare they.
MS is a company, they have shareholders to please. They're looking after Number 1, nothing selfish about that at all. It is rational and logical to act in one's self interest, and we all do it. Including the beloved SONY.
It is said everythign we do, no matter how selfless it may seem, if in the end for ourselves. You think SONY the reason SONY sell there consoles at a loss is for us? Ha. it's for Number 1.
You think MS dropped the consoles price for us? Nope, it was for profits sake. You think Sony not charging for PSN is for the customers? No, it's cause they no they couldnt get peopel to pay for it, and would intern lose buyers.
Evidence:
1) MS makes money with each console sold, at $120, so god knows how much they made per comsole to start with
Most consoles, the Wii aside cost more to make than they sell for at launch. As hardware costs come down, manufacturers make profit later on in the consoles life cycle and they make money from games / accessories sold. Did you know this?
Also, I'm sure you know that the 360 launched a year earlier than the PS3 and has been able to bring manufactuering cost down far quicker by using more 'off-the-shelf' hardware. The PS3 uses the Cell and Blu-ray. Both are more expensive to make and hence inflates the price. Microsoft went for earlier launch and for more cost effective hardware, Sony unfortunately had a late launch has not been able to bring down its price. Does that make Microsft greedy?
You also need to consider that Microsoft has also already passed on the savings to consumers. They have brought the price down to below that of the Wii. Again, this isn't what you would call being greedy is it?
2) MS charges you to play online, making you pay to use part of the game you already paid for
I admit, as time goes on, I hate having to pay for Xbox Live as many PC online services are free and so is PSN. However, I do end up still having Live because it is fairly inexpensive when bought over a year and I always feel its a very good service. Don't forget, silver users still get tons of content like demos, videos, chat all for free.
Without Xbox Live, you still have access to all game modes, local multiplayer. Like I said, its not ideal that they charge for online but yet like millions of others, we find its worth it. It's an area Microsoft chooses to make a profit. Considering the very low price of the console in the first place, they are entitled to make profit where they can.
3) overpricing for all the add ons and not letting 3rd parties make their own cheaper accessories for somethings (aka steering wheel)
There are much much more expensive steering wheels than the 360 one. That is a bad example. They do charge exessively for the hardrives and for the wireless adaptor. However, neither are required. I choose to not puchase either. If they were required, ie you couldnt game without them, then I would have a problem with it but as you can just plug the console straight into a router/modem and use the HDD that comes with the console (already at a very low price point) then its not a problem.
By pricing something that you dont 'need' its simply just a bad pricing strategy on their part. Anything that you consider an optional extra that is priced excessively probably wont sell well. A few items like this that are overly priced, doesnt really make them greedy, if they put you in a position where you're forced to buy them then yes, but they're not!
4) if your over warranty and you get RROD, which is MS's fault for releasing something they KNEW was faulty, YOU pay for a whole new one
You really cannot in anyway, shape or form call Microsoft greedy for this. They extended the 1 year warranty to 3 years at great cost. I'm not sure about the exact figure but it was something like $1Billion, no? They made a mistake but unlike Sony in the past, they immediately put their hands up and offered to pay for the mistake no questions asked. If I hired a plumber who did something like that, I'd hire him again.
1) sonys console costs more to make than they sell if for
Do you think Sony choose to sell their console for a loss or do you think they are in a position where if they did charge more they would price themselves out of the competition? This one is a nobrainer!
2) Free online
They are steadily building a very good online service that is getting close to Xbox Live. Kudos to them but I cannot help feel that if they could get away with charging like Microsoft does, they would! Their service is second best and came out later. Microsoft game them very little room to compete in this area, the only way was on price. As XBL is already very low price, Sony have gone for free.
3) Lets 3rd parties make any accessory they want
Microsoft have always had a very 'controlling' approach to 3rd party companies, whether its developing 3rd part software or hardware. It's just the way the company works. It doesnt make them any more money to work this way but it does give them more control.
NinjaMunkey01
Overall, you kinda have a point on Xbox Live, its becoming harder and harder to justify the price but Microsoft have also shown in other areas they can be very generous in terms of passing on price cuts to the end consumer and in supporting consumers with RROD. In the past Sony have been negligent of their consumers and yet in other ways they have been generous.
Both companies sole goal is to make profit. Everything they do is for this purpose. However both have a huge incentive to keep consumers happy and again both do this in different ways, both have been generous both have been negligent. They're the same dude!
[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"]
Evidence:
1) MS makes money with each console sold, at $120, so god knows how much they made per comsole to start with
Most consoles, the Wii aside cost more to make than they sell for at launch. As hardware costs come down, manufacturers make profit later on in the consoles life cycle and they make money from games / accessories sold. Did you know this?
Also, I'm sure you know that the 360 launched a year earlier than the PS3 and has been able to bring manufactuering cost down far quicker by using more 'off-the-shelf' hardware. The PS3 uses the Cell and Blu-ray. Both are more expensive to make and hence inflates the price. Microsoft went for earlier launch and for more cost effective hardware, Sony unfortunately had a late launch has not been able to bring down its price. Does that make Microsft greedy?
You also need to consider that Microsoft has also already passed on the savings to consumers. They have brought the price down to below that of the Wii. Again, this isn't what you would call being greedy is it?
You have a good point there. Now Id say the price is pretty good though I think to start with considering youve got to pay for live more could have been done to lower the price, Though epople wer ewilling to pay so MS saw no point.
2) MS charges you to play online, making you pay to use part of the game you already paid for
I admit, as time goes on, I hate having to pay for Xbox Live as many PC online services are free and so is PSN. However, I do end up still having Live because it is fairly inexpensive when bought over a year and I always feel its a very good service. Don't forget, silver users still get tons of content like demos, videos, chat all for free.
Without Xbox Live, you still have access to all game modes, local multiplayer. Like I said, its not ideal that they charge for online but yet like millions of others, we find its worth it. It's an area Microsoft chooses to make a profit. Considering the very low price of the console in the first place, they are entitled to make profit where they can.
You say people say its worth it. But lets be honest, theres no choice. What core gamer is going to miss out on online modes? And even if they feel the price is unfair theyre still going to pay for live becuase they need it to play with friends. Maybe it is worth it. But having both a ps3 and 360 i do have chocie as I can play games online with PSN, so I can choose not to pay for XBLG. But if you only have a 360 theres not mcuh chocie if you really like gaming.
3) overpricing for all the add ons and not letting 3rd parties make their own cheaper accessories for somethings (aka steering wheel)
There are much much more expensive steering wheels than the 360 one. That is a bad example. They do charge exessively for the hardrives and for the wireless adaptor. However, neither are required. I choose to not puchase either. If they were required, ie you couldnt game without them, then I would have a problem with it but as you can just plug the console straight into a router/modem and use the HDD that comes with the console (already at a very low price point) then its not a problem.
By pricing something that you dont 'need' its simply just a bad pricing strategy on their part. Anything that you consider an optional extra that is priced excessively probably wont sell well. A few items like this that are overly priced, doesnt really make them greedy, if they put you in a position where you're forced to buy them then yes, but they're not!
You sau people are not forced, but then look at Forza 3. To get all the content with that game you NEED a hard drive, Otherwise you miss out onf a lot of content you paid for. That is pretty much forcing you to buy the hard drive. And as time goes on and demands for graphics get greater this may happen more and more.
4) if your over warranty and you get RROD, which is MS's fault for releasing something they KNEW was faulty, YOU pay for a whole new one
You really cannot in anyway, shape or form call Microsoft greedy for this. They extended the 1 year warranty to 3 years at great cost. I'm not sure about the exact figure but it was something like $1Billion, no? They made a mistake but unlike Sony in the past, they immediately put their hands up and offered to pay for the mistake no questions asked. If I hired a plumber who did something like that, I'd hire him again.
Its more the fact that they knew there was a severe problem, and they let the console be released anyway just to get in first. Now that IS greedy. Releasing something knwoingly faulty to get in there first. And they never admitted to knowing there was a problem before launch for a good year and a half.
So if there is this problem which was avoidable you should not have to pay for it. Its like the lottery, you just have to hope your console dies just before your warranty goes. Otherwise you get another 360 which wringly puts money n their product and means their sales increase making the install base look larger than it is.
1) sonys console costs more to make than they sell if for
Do you think Sony choose to sell their console for a loss or do you think they are in a position where if they did charge more they would price themselves out of the competition? This one is a nobrainer!
Fair enough.
2) Free online
They are steadily building a very good online service that is getting close to Xbox Live. Kudos to them but I cannot help feel that if they could get away with charging like Microsoft does, they would! Their service is second best and came out later. Microsoft game them very little room to compete in this area, the only way was on price. As XBL is already very low price, Sony have gone for free.
sony could get away with charging. At the end of the day the only extra things you get for gold is demoes eariier and online play. Most of which will be peer to peer. So sony could easily charge for the service. but they dont.
3) Lets 3rd parties make any accessory they want
Microsoft have always had a very 'controlling' approach to 3rd party companies, whether its developing 3rd part software or hardware. It's just the way the company works. It doesnt make them any more money to work this way but it does give them more control.
Well maybe they should stop with this controlling approach. Look at the iphone, psp homebrew, linusx and googles new OS in development. user creation is in right now and if MS doesnt capitalise on that in a few years time they could have serios issues.
DAZZER7
Overall, you kinda have a point on Xbox Live, its becoming harder and harder to justify the price but Microsoft have also shown in other areas they can be very generous in terms of passing on price cuts to the end consumer and in supporting consumers with RROD. In the past Sony have been negligent of their consumers and yet in other ways they have been generous.
Both companies sole goal is to make profit. Everything they do is for this purpose. However both have a huge incentive to keep consumers happy and again both do this in different ways, both have been generous both have been negligent. They're the same dude!
Youve definately got good points there. But some of the things I have put there initially are far from right. your right with sonys pricing and to some extent with accessories. Though XBLG pricing is not really fair and you dont really get a choice with that. And you say how they are a controling company, well if they want to stay in the game personally I thknk its likely they will end up changing that.
But yes, they are pretty much the same wanting money. Though I feel that sometimes MS is a little decieveing trying to mae out that their console is the cheaper option with the Tv ads, when in reality, its very likely that it will end up more expensive.
[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"]
[QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]
Yea never mind the fact that Sony's machine was a Trojan Horse for them to repackage DVD movies from the 80's and charge more for them or rip off people with current release movies...
Tbh the ps3 has done good with blu ray.
Imean for games its definately using the extra space to its advantage so Im not bothered really.
And since Ive got a HD TV anyway Blu ray is a good thing to have. And anyway its advancing technology. So Im happy with blu ray being in the ps3. And about the price, you can still play DVD's on the ps3, and you can always rent blu ray films. And as time goes on, blu ray will be more popular, and will get cheaper.
Gee I love the people blinded by the Sony Marketing Overhype Machine. Keep beleiving that EVERYONE wants to pay more for less, that's what Sony does best...
What are you on about? With the ps3 you pay more for more. Thats it. If you dont like that, then dont get one. Personally before buying I extensively reaserched what the console offered and like millions of others decided it was a perfectly acceptable deal. I love it when people say how these compaines are blinding us as if its all a conspiracy. Think about what your saying. :roll:So true.Sony is the most selfless company in the world, they released the most expensive system in the market so other companies could grab over 75% of their former marketshare with cheaper consoles and practically gave away all their former third party exclusives, no exclusivity deals, contracts etc, thus renouncing to their advantage.
They realized that winning two gens in a row was too selfish and stepped down so Microsoft and nintendo could surge this one regarless of the billionaire losses, that my friend is NOT a selfish company.
AgentA-Mi6
Uh....they're businesses. If they weren't selfish, they wouldn't be successful.pyromaniac223
exactmundo a company wouldnt last long if it was complecant and always let the consumer decide price points,decisions etc.
How is MS selfish? Just 'cause they are far more shrewd buisness men then SONY? Damn MS for being succesful, how dare they.
MS is a company, they have shareholders to please. They're looking after Number 1, nothing selfish about that at all. It is rational and logical to act in one's self interest, and we all do it. Including the beloved SONY.
It is said everythign we do, no matter how selfless it may seem, if in the end for ourselves. You think SONY the reason SONY sell there consoles at a loss is for us? Ha. it's for Number 1.
You think MS dropped the consoles price for us? Nope, it was for profits sake. You think Sony not charging for PSN is for the customers? No, it's cause they no they couldnt get peopel to pay for it, and would intern lose buyers.
-Snooze-
Everything isn't black and white, there is room for grey areas. I don't think that anyone is saying that MS is selfish and Sony is selfless (Sony is a member of both the MPAA and RIAA, two of the most selfish anti-consumer organizations to ever exist). The consensus is that MS is more selfish than Sony. MS isn't content with being #1 in a market they want to be the only one. Ounce MS has a stranglehold on a market they devote their resources to locking in their customers so they have little chance for choice.
If you need an example I can elaborate on the particulars of the OOXML debacle.
he map option switches hd0 and hd1 and makes it appear that hd1 is the primary drive. So you should now have a starting point for most configurations.Odrec
the link. ""Multibooting with Grub -A Short guide for the rest of us-"" Looks to me like your having more of a problem with grub then windows actually, Because last i checked you said.
""The other day I wanted to install Linux on a machine with Windows Vista but, interestingly enough, Vista basically won't let you install an additional OS on the same HD.""
which I gave you a link showing just how EASY it is to install linux on a windows vista installed HD, now your trying to make out. """but but i wanted to install it on a 2nd hard drive."" which isn't what you said, your exact words being. ""The other day I wanted to install Linux on a machine with Windows Vista but, interestingly enough, Vista basically won't let you install an additional OS on the same HD.""
Evidence:
1) MS makes money with each console sold, at $120, so god knows how much they made per comsole to start with
2) MS charges you to play online, making you pay to use part of the game you already paid for
3) overpricing for all the add ons and not letting 3rd parties make their own cheaper accessories for somethings (aka steering wheel)
4) if your over warranty and you get RROD, which is MS's fault for releasing something they KNEW was faulty, YOU pay for a whole new one
1) sonys console costs more to make than they sell if for
2) Free online
3) Lets 3rd parties make any accessory they want
NinjaMunkey01
If my 360 dies and its out of warranty i have to buy a whole new one....Odd i only had to pay 55 dollars to have my out of warranty one fixed....in a week and 2 days.
[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]
How is MS selfish? Just 'cause they are far more shrewd buisness men then SONY? Damn MS for being succesful, how dare they.
MS is a company, they have shareholders to please. They're looking after Number 1, nothing selfish about that at all. It is rational and logical to act in one's self interest, and we all do it. Including the beloved SONY.
It is said everythign we do, no matter how selfless it may seem, if in the end for ourselves. You think SONY the reason SONY sell there consoles at a loss is for us? Ha. it's for Number 1.
You think MS dropped the consoles price for us? Nope, it was for profits sake. You think Sony not charging for PSN is for the customers? No, it's cause they no they couldnt get peopel to pay for it, and would intern lose buyers.
skektek
Everything isn't black and white, there is room for grey areas. I don't think that anyone is saying that MS is selfish and Sony is selfless (Sony is a member of both the MPAA and RIAA, two of the most selfish anti-consumer organizations to ever exist). The consensus is that MS is more selfish than Sony. MS isn't content with being #1 in a market they want to be the only one. Ounce MS has a stranglehold on a market they devote their resources to locking in their customers so they have little chance for choice.
If you need an example I can elaborate on the particulars of the OOXML debacle.
Or their products are just that much better then others that they just happen to become a monoply? *which every company wish they could be*[QUOTE="Odrec"]he map option switches hd0 and hd1 and makes it appear that hd1 is the primary drive. So you should now have a starting point for most configurations.
WilliamRLBaker
the link. ""Multibooting with Grub -A Short guide for the rest of us-"" Looks to me like your having more of a problem with grub then windows actually, Because last i checked you said.
""The other day I wanted to install Linux on a machine with Windows Vista but, interestingly enough, Vista basically won't let you install an additional OS on the same HD.""
which I gave you a link showing just how EASY it is to install linux on a windows vista installed HD, now your trying to make out. """but but i wanted to install it on a 2nd hard drive."" which isn't what you said, your exact words being. ""The other day I wanted to install Linux on a machine with Windows Vista but, interestingly enough, Vista basically won't let you install an additional OS on the same HD.""
Just to add my own bit: Vista and Linux can coexist on the same system or even the same HDD just fine, as long as you install Vista first. Vista doesn't play nice if you install it second, but this is no different than any other version of Windows.
[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="-Snooze-"]
How is MS selfish? Just 'cause they are far more shrewd buisness men then SONY? Damn MS for being succesful, how dare they.
MS is a company, they have shareholders to please. They're looking after Number 1, nothing selfish about that at all. It is rational and logical to act in one's self interest, and we all do it. Including the beloved SONY.
It is said everythign we do, no matter how selfless it may seem, if in the end for ourselves. You think SONY the reason SONY sell there consoles at a loss is for us? Ha. it's for Number 1.
You think MS dropped the consoles price for us? Nope, it was for profits sake. You think Sony not charging for PSN is for the customers? No, it's cause they no they couldnt get peopel to pay for it, and would intern lose buyers.
WilliamRLBaker
Everything isn't black and white, there is room for grey areas. I don't think that anyone is saying that MS is selfish and Sony is selfless (Sony is a member of both the MPAA and RIAA, two of the most selfish anti-consumer organizations to ever exist). The consensus is that MS is more selfish than Sony. MS isn't content with being #1 in a market they want to be the only one. Ounce MS has a stranglehold on a market they devote their resources to locking in their customers so they have little chance for choice.
If you need an example I can elaborate on the particulars of the OOXML debacle.
Or their products are just that much better then others that they just happen to become a monoply? *which every company wish they could be*LOL the accidental monopoly, I like that!
Just to add my own bit: Vista and Linux can coexist on the same system or even the same HDD just fine, as long as you install Vista first. Vista doesn't play nice if you install it second, but this is no different than any other version of Windows.
skektek
yeah but that's not even what he's claiming now, hes claiming he wanted to *by the link* install linux on one HD, then install windows on another HD...
lolwutSony is the most selfless company in the world, they released the most expensive system in the market so other companies could grab over 75% of their former marketshare with cheaper consoles and practically gave away all their former third party exclusives, no exclusivity deals, contracts etc, thus renouncing to their advantage.
They realized that winning two gens in a row was too selfish and stepped down so Microsoft and nintendo could surge this one regarless of the billionaire losses, that my friend is NOT a selfish company.
AgentA-Mi6
[QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]And sony donates puppies to orphanages, :lol: at anyone who thinks bill gates is special for giving a day of his money to schools. Then what is he, he still gave money away.MS donates computers to schools. Bill gates donates money to charity.
:lol: @ anyone that says MS.
110million
Both have a long list of questionable, very selfish acts on their records.
Both are equally selfish.
Edit: Old thread is old. Didn't notice.
[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"]
Evidence:
1) MS makes money with each console sold, at $120, so god knows how much they made per comsole to start with
2) MS charges you to play online, making you pay to use part of the game you already paid for
3) overpricing for all the add ons and not letting 3rd parties make their own cheaper accessories for somethings (aka steering wheel)
4) if your over warranty and you get RROD, which is MS's fault for releasing something they KNEW was faulty, YOU pay for a whole new one
1) sonys console costs more to make than they sell if for
2) Free online
3) Lets 3rd parties make any accessory they want
If my 360 dies and its out of warranty i have to buy a whole new one....Odd i only had to pay 55 dollars to have my out of warranty one fixed....in a week and 2 days.
Unfortunately not many people actually know that outside of SW. Funny how MS only markets what they want...Micorsoft. They charge money for onlline.
So this old thread is back huh?
It's as silly as it was in 08.
Uh....they're businesses. If they weren't selfish, they wouldn't be successful.pyromaniac223Very true. I guess the TC doesn't have a clue about the gaming industry. IT'S A BUSINESS!
[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]No MS donates *Windows* computers to schools. MS wouldn't want all those little consumers-to-be to grow up using Macs or Linux now would they?MS donates computers to schools. Bill gates donates money to charity.
:lol: @ anyone that says MS.
MrSlippery39
Seriously? A company is horrible for donating its own products to a school? WTF should Microsoft donate then? A fukin zoo?
I wouldn't say horrible but it is a sneaky move. Why donate PC's with windows. The best selfless thing to do is donate cash to the school and let them decide what computers to have. What if the school wants to teach kids the variety of OS's making them even smarter? They can't because MS donated a bunch of PC's with windows. They're only trying to secure a user base early on so that when they grow up all they know how to use is windows and they'll stick with windows to the death.
[QUOTE="MrSlippery39"][QUOTE="skektek"] No MS donates *Windows* computers to schools. MS wouldn't want all those little consumers-to-be to grow up using Macs or Linux now would they?Zero_epyon
Seriously? A company is horrible for donating its own products to a school? WTF should Microsoft donate then? A fukin zoo?
I wouldn't say horrible but it is a sneaky move. Why donate PC's with windows. The best selfless thing to do is donate cash to the school and let them decide what computers to have. What if the school wants to teach kids the variety of OS's making them even smarter? They can't because MS donated a bunch of PC's with windows. They're only trying to secure a user base early on so that when they grow up all they know how to use is windows and they'll stick with windows to the death.
Macs are a lot more popular with schools.
They are a lot easier for IT and the kids have to try really hard to mess them up.
Microsoft doesn't like that at all.
So yeah, sneaky move.
[QUOTE="caligamer"]What people forget is that Microsoft took a billion dollar hit to make up for their failings. If they were well and truly greedy, they would've left us with defective goods and not bothered to change their warranty to accommodate us. In my book that makes them less greedy. But make no mistake, they are all businesses. They may be providing a service but they expect money in return, money to justify the cost of creating products that we can enjoy. It isn't really about greed. It's common sense and it's just how it is. MS took the billion dollar hit, not out of the kindness of their hearts, more like to avoid a lawsuit ala PS2 and the DRE. Come on people. Corporations are not selfish. They are money making entities, and by nature all they want is your business. If they offer psn for free, it's not out of kindness of Sony's heart, it's so you can find value in purchasing their $600 (at launch) console. Sony selling at a loss is not because they want to. "Oh I care for gamers so much I will sell the console at a loss." Come on, all consoles are sold at a loss at first, with the money being recouped with later sales. Hence the reason MS dropped their console price. They recouped their sunk costs and are now trying to capture market share, which they have. Company's are in it for one thing....PROFIT. Everything else they provide, good customer sevice, great experiences, etc. is all in the name of creating brand loyalty, repeat customers, leading up to future purchases---------------------->PROFITThe last couple of days iv heard a lot of people bashing sony for not allowing xbox to the rights of sony and its related studios movies...but isnt microsoft just as selfish for not allowing GTA4 to share the new DLC in february to all ps3 owners, they paid the 50million and got the exclusive rights and im sure if they pay Sony the right price sony would gladly let xbox360 users download its movies.
business is business
What do you guys think?
AncientDozer
[QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]No offense but Metal Gear SolidMicrosoft. I understand that they're a business, but I'm starting to wonder the position they're taking as a short-term high income approach or a long-term customer relationship establishment. Look at how they're handling the halo series. Wondering how they're gonna hype Halo ODST? By announcing ANOTHER halo game of course!!
pyromaniac223
Explain, please.
No offense but Metal Gear Solid[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"][QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]
Microsoft. I understand that they're a business, but I'm starting to wonder the position they're taking as a short-term high income approach or a long-term customer relationship establishment. Look at how they're handling the halo series. Wondering how they're gonna hype Halo ODST? By announcing ANOTHER halo game of course!!
muzik_mafia
Explain, please.
He doesn't understand that Sony is not Kojima Productions and Kojima Productions is not first party.
Ignore him.
Sony sold my console at a loss, gave me a 1% failure rate, a 1 year warranty out of the box, provides high-capacity and high-performance dedicated servers at no cost to me, and creates some of the best first-party software anywhere in the industry.BobHipJames/thread
UHmmmm....any publicly traded corporation has one single motive and one motive only...to serve their own short term interests and much as possible. Corporations are legally obligated to be as selfish as possible. So much so that most are willing to break the law to serve their own purposes because they know the penalty of getting caught is a slap on the risk compared to the profits they will make.
So considering this simple fact, I fail to see how ANY company can be considered more selfish than the next.
[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"]
Evidence:
1) MS makes money with each console sold, at $120, so god knows how much they made per comsole to start with
2) MS charges you to play online, making you pay to use part of the game you already paid for
3) overpricing for all the add ons and not letting 3rd parties make their own cheaper accessories for somethings (aka steering wheel)
4) if your over warranty and you get RROD, which is MS's fault for releasing something they KNEW was faulty, YOU pay for a whole new one
1) sonys console costs more to make than they sell if for
2) Free online
3) Lets 3rd parties make any accessory they want
If my 360 dies and its out of warranty i have to buy a whole new one....Odd i only had to pay 55 dollars to have my out of warranty one fixed....in a week and 2 days.
Unfortunately not many people actually know that outside of SW. Funny how MS only markets what they want... then i guess those same people when a ps3 dies do the same then? which can be applied as well right? you cannot use that as a mark againest microsoft when those same people will think the same thing of the wii, psp, ds, 360, snes, nes....ect No wait in reality people outside of system wars do know this, People aren't generally stupid most people know that they call tech support when dealing with a technological item....So yeah most people will know that if they are out of warranty they can pay to get it fixed at most for 55 dollars. Next you will claim that half of 360s 30 or so million sales are rebuy's :roll:[QUOTE="MrSlippery39"][QUOTE="skektek"] No MS donates *Windows* computers to schools. MS wouldn't want all those little consumers-to-be to grow up using Macs or Linux now would they?Zero_epyon
Seriously? A company is horrible for donating its own products to a school? WTF should Microsoft donate then? A fukin zoo?
I wouldn't say horrible but it is a sneaky move. Why donate PC's with windows. The best selfless thing to do is donate cash to the school and let them decide what computers to have. What if the school wants to teach kids the variety of OS's making them even smarter? They can't because MS donated a bunch of PC's with windows. They're only trying to secure a user base early on so that when they grow up all they know how to use is windows and they'll stick with windows to the death.
Yep, that's also true. It also happened at my University. In my country they are trying to get rid of propietary software because it costs the state millions of dollars they could safe with free software (ours is a poor country) but they are having a hard time finding people with experience on other open software because, basically, almost every University uses Windows systems and products exclusively. You can also see Microsoft donating computers (of course with Windows) and giving students cds with copies of .NET and all the products used on windows. This is a way for them to secure their future market share by making people dependant on the technology.[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="MrSlippery39"]
Seriously? A company is horrible for donating its own products to a school? WTF should Microsoft donate then? A fukin zoo?
Odrec
I wouldn't say horrible but it is a sneaky move. Why donate PC's with windows. The best selfless thing to do is donate cash to the school and let them decide what computers to have. What if the school wants to teach kids the variety of OS's making them even smarter? They can't because MS donated a bunch of PC's with windows. They're only trying to secure a user base early on so that when they grow up all they know how to use is windows and they'll stick with windows to the death.
Yep, that's also true. It also happened at my University. In my country they are trying to get rid of propietary software because it costs the state millions of dollars they could safe with free software (ours is a poor country) but they are having a hard time finding people with experience on other open software because, basically, almost every University uses Windows systems and products exclusively. You can also see Microsoft donating computers (of course with Windows) and giving students cds with copies of .NET and all the products used on windows. This is a way for them to secure their future market share by making people dependant on the technology. And windows is a horrible OS that cannot do any thing as good as free software, then again every thing should be free. (watch the world die when the world market falls through and free happens)[QUOTE="skektek"]
Just to add my own bit: Vista and Linux can coexist on the same system or even the same HDD just fine, as long as you install Vista first. Vista doesn't play nice if you install it second, but this is no different than any other version of Windows.
WilliamRLBaker
yeah but that's not even what he's claiming now, hes claiming he wanted to *by the link* install linux on one HD, then install windows on another HD...
What difference does it make the configuration I wanted to try? I have done the same thing like 5 times this month on different computers. It isn't hard when you realize how to do it but it doesn't take away the fact that Windows doesn't like to be installed as second. It is certainly a limitation that would make most people install it first and keeping it as their main OS. Linux certainly has no such limitation.[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]lolwutSony is the most selfless company in the world, they released the most expensive system in the market so other companies could grab over 75% of their former marketshare with cheaper consoles and practically gave away all their former third party exclusives, no exclusivity deals, contracts etc, thus renouncing to their advantage.
They realized that winning two gens in a row was too selfish and stepped down so Microsoft and nintendo could surge this one regarless of the billionaire losses, that my friend is NOT a selfish company.
Communistsheep
Scan it with your sarcasm detector! You'll get a strong reading.
[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]Yep, that's also true. It also happened at my University. In my country they are trying to get rid of propietary software because it costs the state millions of dollars they could safe with free software (ours is a poor country) but they are having a hard time finding people with experience on other open software because, basically, almost every University uses Windows systems and products exclusively. You can also see Microsoft donating computers (of course with Windows) and giving students cds with copies of .NET and all the products used on windows. This is a way for them to secure their future market share by making people dependant on the technology. And windows is a horrible OS that cannot do any thing as good as free software, then again every thing should be free. (watch the world die when the world market falls through and free happens)I wouldn't say horrible but it is a sneaky move. Why donate PC's with windows. The best selfless thing to do is donate cash to the school and let them decide what computers to have. What if the school wants to teach kids the variety of OS's making them even smarter? They can't because MS donated a bunch of PC's with windows. They're only trying to secure a user base early on so that when they grow up all they know how to use is windows and they'll stick with windows to the death.
WilliamRLBaker
That's not what I said. Windows can work but for most things you can have free alternatives. Google gives most of their services for free and still make money, the same can be said with many linux companies.
[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="MrSlippery39"]
Seriously? A company is horrible for donating its own products to a school? WTF should Microsoft donate then? A fukin zoo?
Odrec
I wouldn't say horrible but it is a sneaky move. Why donate PC's with windows. The best selfless thing to do is donate cash to the school and let them decide what computers to have. What if the school wants to teach kids the variety of OS's making them even smarter? They can't because MS donated a bunch of PC's with windows. They're only trying to secure a user base early on so that when they grow up all they know how to use is windows and they'll stick with windows to the death.
Yep, that's also true. It also happened at my University. In my country they are trying to get rid of propietary software because it costs the state millions of dollars they could safe with free software (ours is a poor country) but they are having a hard time finding people with experience on other open software because, basically, almost every University uses Windows systems and products exclusively. You can also see Microsoft donating computers (of course with Windows) and giving students cds with copies of .NET and all the products used on windows. This is a way for them to secure their future market share by making people dependant on the technology.lol kinda like how dealers give kids free samples or cigarette companies give out free cigarettes in 3rd worls countries! Become utterly dependant on windows!
[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="skektek"]
Just to add my own bit: Vista and Linux can coexist on the same system or even the same HDD just fine, as long as you install Vista first. Vista doesn't play nice if you install it second, but this is no different than any other version of Windows.
Odrec
yeah but that's not even what he's claiming now, hes claiming he wanted to *by the link* install linux on one HD, then install windows on another HD...
What difference does it make the configuration I wanted to try? I have done the same thing like 5 times this month on different computers. It isn't hard when you realize how to do it but it doesn't take away the fact that Windows doesn't like to be installed as second. It is certainly a limitation that would make most people install it first and keeping it as their main OS. Linux certainly has no such limitation. the difference is you claimed that you had to do all these complicated tricks to get linux to install on an hd with vista on it, when this is untrue, when you were proven wrong you tried to claim you were doing something COMPLETELY different, and then you posted a link to a site that actually shows that via BIOS settings or grub its actually QUITE easy to get this done, you don't have to do any complicated tricks. Let alone that ANY ONE that wants to dual boot will likely KNOW this stuff any ways so its a moot point. But this doesn't detract you are trying to make out microsoft is evil because your biased against any thing Microsoft. which is why when you were proven wrong you tried to make out doing something completely different, which then is proven by your link not to be hard for any one that is actually doing a dual boot.Yep, that's also true. It also happened at my University. In my country they are trying to get rid of propietary software because it costs the state millions of dollars they could safe with free software (ours is a poor country) but they are having a hard time finding people with experience on other open software because, basically, almost every University uses Windows systems and products exclusively. You can also see Microsoft donating computers (of course with Windows) and giving students cds with copies of .NET and all the products used on windows. This is a way for them to secure their future market share by making people dependant on the technology.[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]
I wouldn't say horrible but it is a sneaky move. Why donate PC's with windows. The best selfless thing to do is donate cash to the school and let them decide what computers to have. What if the school wants to teach kids the variety of OS's making them even smarter? They can't because MS donated a bunch of PC's with windows. They're only trying to secure a user base early on so that when they grow up all they know how to use is windows and they'll stick with windows to the death.
DAZZER7
lol kinda like how dealers give kids free samples or cigarette companies give out free cigarettes in 3rd worls countries! Become utterly dependant on windows!
A lot is the fault of the Universities and the students for not thinking outside the box and look for alternatives but Microsoft purposes are, in my view, not really altruistic. The amount of money the government could be saving right now using free software is considerable but of course Microsoft doesn't care about that, they want to keep everyone as dependant as possible.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment