KDEWolf

A simple [ selection + right-click + Search Google For "..." ] on Firefox gave me the following result regarding you post: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/ask-jeeves-and-msn-search-engine-technology-comparison/2273/ Since obviously you didn't write most of this article, it's necessary that you put the copied text between [ quote ] tags, adding the link to the source and if possible, the author's name. Currently you're earning credit (and hosting credits) for content you did not develop. As I can see for the above posts, most were fooled into thinking you did write the whole article, which you did not. Understand me that I'm not picking on you or anything, it's just that as as an artist I take very seriously copyrighting into account, and I wouldn't like to see a modified work of mine exposed as if it was originally done by another person. Also it's reasonably unfair to other people in the forum, due the fact on how are hosting credits earned. So please edit you post as necessary to fix the confusion caused by the current situation. ------- Now, about the article: I don't think Google is the most used search engine because of it's algorithm, seriously. I'll try to number some of the features that in my personal opinion made Google the giant it is nowadays. Please note that I'm taking into consideration how Google gained the market and fame it has today, therefore I'm considering the *old* MSN Search engine into comparison, not the new Live! one, which is in my opinion pretty good, and follows very well the principles I'll try to number below. So, let's start: 1. It's damn fast: It simply takes fractions of second to load and show up the results. And quickness of things being done these days is something you can't deny it's very important. This leads to... 2. It's simple to use and nice to look at: You don't have lots of flash ads about products and services. You don't have a bloated user-interface with tons of images that make page loading slow and hard to find simple features. Still it isn't ugly and not user-friendly. 3. It's always updated with new and most important, *useful and well-done* stuff: They try to have always the best of any feature they implement, being it original or not. When they came up with Gmail, they aimed on creating the best, biggest, and fastest one. When this happened, Microsoft still had a 2Mb, slow, confusing and cheap webmail. There were many 4. They actually listen to their customers and employees: Many of the features we have currently at our disposal were first though by people like us, or any of their employees, no matter their occupation at the office. 5. Good Algorithm and *huge* updated database: It probably doesn't have the best searching algorithm all over the internet, but they make up for this in having a *huge* and decently updated database. When I need to find "buy XBOX", it doesn't matter much which search engine I'd use, since any of them will give me satisfactory . But if I need to find a rare and unusual thing, Google is the way to go. That's why I don't believe in MSN search taking over the search market any soon, or even later on. Though their new search site is a hundred times better than the old one (it's even visually attractive to non-3-year-old kids), even with a new and better way to organize results they'll have to be 100% dedicated to us, users, before asking anything back, if ever. Microsoft usually commits the mistake of charging too much before actually giving away something of quality to their customers. It would be no surprise to see they launching the "ultimate search engine" that'll find anything you want in the 1st search page, as a paid service, and leaving normal users with the same old one. They did this with their Hotmail (250Mb versus 2Mb of the free account), which turned being ridiculous when Gmail first launched with the 1Gb capacity, realiability and speed. It's just suppositions of mine, of course, but based on my relatively good experience on this subject.

I couldn't add anything without being redundant. Very well said.

Actually, racing games (and some training of course...) made me drive much better than people who never had this kind of experience, mostly because of the sense of space, objects speed and motion, and basic car mechanics. Since I don't play much using steering wheels, probably driving in real life makes little difference in the virtual experience. Also, the realism and physics (as also the gameplay) vary up so much from game to game that it's hard to bring the experiences from one thing to another. And well, I usually drive a bit faster than normal, but I don't think it's related to how much racing games I play. It's more about my social circle (most of my friends drive as fast or even faster than me) and what I'm used to. If someone who likes to drive slowly takes me for a ride, I might get a bit irritated... Well, that's mostly it. =)

Well it's quite different to download html files and to download full online servers. It is downloading, but not "downloading the internet" as stated in the joke. And damn, I've never seen that joke before... And I'm quite of a computer rat. But unless it was somehow updated recently it wouldn't make much sense in download @ 41kbps 7 years ago. And if it was actually updated, it won't fool many people with that windows 95 appearence.

By "realistic" you mean what kind of reality? Graphics-wise, gameplay-wise, physics-wise, sound-wise, or overall? Be a little more specific when creating topics.

Well that depends really upon where do you live and what kind of school/college you're attending to. In my classroom if not everyone, 95% of people use Firefox. But that's because I'm taking Engineering, and most of its students have some decent computer knowledge. Also, the University uses Firefox as the default browser since each subject may use different operational systems.But if you took my old school as a base, probably 90% of the people there used IE, and probably still use it. Beware, Fasterfox is widely known to have evil big memory leaks, actually making your browser possibly even slower than normal. If this has been corrected, it must have been done only recently. So changing these settings manually is still a better choice.

What about all Zelda games, anyone?Old adventure games like The Day of Tentacle, Full Throttle, SAM & MAX, The Dig, and some Idiana Jones games also had awesome mini-games.

I've always been a huge fan of C&C series, mainly C&C: Red Alert one. Some like C&C: Tiberian Sun were very weird to me, but still cool, RTS games. Red Alert 2 came and I liked it a lot but I think they could push up better graphics at the time, mainly for the models and the rendering engine. I just this version keep the main aspects of the gameplay, that was the thing I was more attracted to, together with the WIDE variety of vehicles, technologies, builds and special abilities. Too bad I won't be able to play it here as well, since I still own a very old NVidia GeForce 2 card... 64Mb, but a pathetic performance for nowadays' games...

Seriously, you all have no idea of what you're saying. Unless the versions you guys tested were from years and years ago.WindowBlinds' rendering engine is dozens of times faster than Windows XP default one (since it uses hardware acceleration, and many technologies like Hyperpaint), and uses much less system resources like CPU and RAM memory, though might use more of your video card (what's nowadays a big advantage, since even some old Video cards do a wonderful job).Also, once you use WindowBlinds, you should disable XP's Theming service, to free up system resources, so you don't have both running side by side.

Which WoW server emulator are you using right now? Still, all of them need a lot of work... It doesn't compare to original servers.

Mark420 knows the most obscure distributions out there, I'm amazed.

Well it works here... Try any of the two other solutions. Last one (the "hard" always works.

Yes, that might be true. Still, I don't think their only reason was for the price. But indeed they didn't argument enough to support their opinions. Agreed. Well I'm not sure about the others, but I had two lvl 60 characters at the time I played it (Undead Warrior and Gnome Warlock). I just couldn't stand farming years for equipment in overflown stances and training for skills. I didn't have enough time to spend on my further (and final) character development, that's why I dropped playing it.Yes it's obliviously easier to implement such things in a RPG. Even it's MMO, the RPG part is part of the category name, and should be worked on as well. My point is that games are heading too much to "Massive Massive Online Massive Online Game" and are leaving original RPG elements. It was incredibly fun to many people (including me) making a Necromancer in Diablo II and giving him strength, vitality, and a two-handed sword. WoW lacks in this kind of gameplay/style customization. I don't like to have the same character as 100thousand people throughout the world. That's why I had an Undead Warrior, it was quite unusual. You have no idea of how fun it is to play Baldur's Gate II online together with some friends. You'd often see yourself in a hard situation because a mad friend of yours killed some wicked magi, or stole gold from thethe waitress. Amazing... Also since the section is called "Online Multiplayer RPG Games", I thought those games could apply to the comparison to some extent. Agreed, as stated above. Maybe they didn't get to the sweetest part of the game before reviewing. I'm not that sure. The huge amount of people I did talk to at the time I was a WoW player were mostly teenagers who played for hours and hours per day. I didn't say it's impossible to get a time and develop a character, I mean it's much harder and slower to do it just playing the game sporadically. Yeah you're right on this. But I still think many things Blizzard added had influence on the, let's say, "original" lore. I can't swallow the Paladin/Shaman thing hehe. Sure, that's why I said it was completely fair to raise the fee in times of content update. The work of people has their value, and in the game industry it's each time higher. Hehehe well soccer is still a game... And it was just an absurd statement to maybe make someone who reads it remember of the real life. Sure you can always play some Winning Eleven... =p

xboxrulz, you might find out this link very useful. It teaches how to make all your old extensions work in the latest Firefox builds. Also, it does so in 3 different ways. =) I used to do it the hard way, though once I found this resource did it that way nevermore...

Well, pretending that I didn't notice you, Alegis, calling me moron and dipshit, just because I criticized a game you seem to worship and are addicted to, I'd like like to make some comments (just in case you feel like reading): About the above posts being to you the dumbest thing you've read all week, that's probably because it was the only one you did read this week. I'd suggest you to play a little less WoW and go have other activities. I'm pretty sure that you're yourself a teenager (if not in biological age, at least in mental age) , and I'm glad your parents are rich enough to pay every month for your virtual fun. Once you realize that there are plenty more important things on a person's life, you'll possibly stop with your immature and spoiled attitude. Grow up, dude, and learn how to have a decent healthy discussion. Nobody here rated the game only based on it's price or periodic fee. I'm not sure if you read all carefully, but each person had their own specific points besides the price tag. It's quite obvious it's not that expensive in your specific case, for example. People with the whole day free to play PC Games might find spending 8 hours a day on it amusing. But, considering the fact that not everybody can do this, this isn't a fully valid point, at least it doesn't apply to anybody. In WoW, if one cannot spend more than 8 hours per week playing it two basic things will happen: first, it'll take a long time to reach the fun part of the game, and once you reach it, you'll lose several times just for the lack of equipment and skill training, which is based upon play time. Second, you'll have a much more expensive game comparatively to people who can play the whole day. I have no doubts you had your best game experience ever, as it can be seen by your post. I'm not sure if I ever played a game for that long, even ones like Starcraft I still play nowadays, or Baldur's Gate. I could also sell any of my games' CD-Keys as well, as I could get a high ladder rank and sell the account without even giving away a key. You just have contradicted yourself, since you say they release it for free, but then you remember that's because of the monthly fee you pay. So, it's obviously not free. Also, the extra content released is pretty much like any game expansion. They didn't even add new classes, and now they allow bizarre things like Horde Paladins and Alliance Shamans, things completely against Warcraft world lore. Just for the sake of making gaming balance easier for them. Two new races... new items and places. Nothing I didn't get in Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo II or any other games' expansions. I'm sorry but that's the big truth... About GW, I won't dare calling it a MMORPG or not. People seem to call games what they want to. Where in the hell is Diablo II really an RPG? For making linear quests and spending skill points? This is definitely *not* the definition of a RPG game. About your point about a product granting something others can't, this is *completely subjective*. For you who have lots of spare time, it might look that way. WoW has more things to do than GW has, so you can waste your entire week in front of the PC. To me, free time is not as much a "free" good. Then, having a game I can play as much I want a week and still not being slain by better equipment is a must. That's basically why I like much more Guild Wars than your belove WoW. Actually, what WoW delivered was events like this: http://forums.xisto.com/topic/86370-topic/?findpost=1064320835 I'm not sure about Runescape, but I can tell many much better PvE games. Diablo, Baldurs Gate and Elder Scrolls franchises for instance. Play One of the last two and then you'll know what is nearest to the real roleplaying of a RPG. I'm pretty sure not everybody doesn't love WoW, and can't talk about the comparisons with Runescape, for example, since I barely know the game. About the storyline... Well... If you call making random chain quests that were created based on Warcraft World lore, fixing inaccuracies and conflicts with the old stories, a storyline, then I won't argue with you. If you mean it can't have a main plot since theoretically it couldn't happen many times, and that the point on a MMORPG is acting like yourself, it's not true as well. You simply cannot do whatever you want in the game, or even basic RPG things like killing citizens of your own, or stealing, etc. That's where your definition of roleplay fails badly. The game imposes so many restrictions that it doesn't allow real roleplay. I'm not saying Blizzard employees didn't had their time documenting everything and making the story at least a little coherent. I'm saying it doesn't offer you a plot, neither the ability to do all the things you should be able to do for roleplaying. About the graphics, I'm well aware that they're cartoony. I agree they had an wonderful job making many kinds of somehow detailed scenarios, and they give a nice immersion feeling to the gaming experience. But I was mainly talking about the rendering engine, which is kind of poor compared to other games. It needs too much power processing for no that much eye candy. I wasn't comparing WoW to GW in every aspect. Indeed GW scenarios lack some "life" let's say. Also remember that your so belove World of Warcraft was deserted by *key* coders and software engineers, together with some artists. People who founded Blizzard Entertainment, created the very first Warcraft series, as Diablo and Starcraft ones. Even they didn't like the greedy way the company was heading to (search over the net and find it out). Guess where they are right now? Ah yes, developing Guild Wars... quite fun. After all, the only thing I can say is: Rich, spoiled, teenager, with lots of free time and patience to do item and skill farming the whole week - Play WoW, is suits your personality and empty schedule perfectly. Person with not so free much time/no patience/poor - Play Guild Wars or another game, even offline ones, you might feel it's perfect for you. Person who doesn't care - Go play soccer, it's much nicer...

Just don't stick to the community if you don't feel comfortable posting in it. Making posting at the community compulsory just to have a hosting is quite bad, and later on you might give up and throw off everything you have accumulated/done throughout months of posts and hosting.You might also try Xisto.com, it's also part of the Xisto Corporation, and has the same free hosting plans Xisto does have, with maybe a less technical approach to stuff then here.Just don't feel shy =)And be welcome.

Yes, I don't like much the monthly fee, not simply because it's monthly, but due to the fact that it's way more expensive than a maintenance tax. Paying for the bandwidth you use for gaming and the salary of Game Masters and technical support is valid, but paying for the "game" itself monthly is ridiculous. Maybe a fee increase when lots of new content arrives, but in the current shape I don't think it's fair. I used to be a big Blizzard Entertainment fan, but their greed is making them to be a little stupid. I played both and I'm sticking to Guild Wars. You don't have per-month fees and you don't have to play hours and hours, during months, to be good at it.

RC3 is, as webintern already stated, pretty much the final version without the official designation. It's not slower than the previous versions (actually the rendering of pages is much quicker. And the restore of tabs isn't really noticeable on resource use... Maybe if you have more than 50 tabs it could be an issue bu I don't see it happening to my system by now. And the spell check currently is default only for multi-lined text boxes, for the reason you said. But you can enable/disable it in any input box any time you want it.

RocketDock is smoother than Stardock's Objectdock, but up until now, it didn't have a save/load feature (what is TERRIBLE) and hadn't Docklets (dock utilities, let's say). Also I remember it eating up more RAM than ObjectDock. But, as a freeware community-based program it might eventually get much better than Stardock's program.

I agree with you. To many people unused to massive RPGs, like the ones from Elder Scrolls series, having a somehow short main quest might be a problem. To usual RPG players, side questing is a must, if not the whole meaning of the game. But normal gamers aren't always used to follow non-linear plots, because in other game styles it works in a completely different way. Even some "pseudo"-RPGs like Diablo (mainly Diablo II) have a completely linear and strict plot. You always know what to do and where to go. Most exploration occurs by curiosity, leveling, or item farming. I believe Betheseda (too lazy to check for the spelling of this...) should interlace more side quests with the main one, sort of making you have to do them to continue. This happens a lot in Baldur's Gate saga (and games alike as Icewind Dale etc.), for example. You just receive a main quest, and in the way to your destination you have to make like 10 other ones before you go on with the main one. Having to look too much after new quests might be boring to most non-hardcore gamers. The modding system offered by the game makes mods amazingly powerful yet very simple to install. It's so cool to download a pack, insert it into the game and just run! It adds a hell of a replay factor... I recommend it if you like well written stories, and doesn't care to play games offline (as I usually do...). It's not the king of game to start in the the RPGs world, though.

I don't see this with good eyes... it can't be very good having Google absorbing other companies from the same segment. Seems like in some year we may have another big monopoly, as big as Microsoft is nowadays.

It's simply astounding. An epic FPS, placed in a fantasy world. Visit their site and take a look, mainly at the downloads section. There you can see some high quality videos from what the new engine makes possible to do. This promises to be the kickass game from the next years. You won't regret downloading them, I promise.

I played WoW a lot through a friend's account (I can't really afford these monthly fees), and I must it's pretty nice for a MMORPG. I usually don't like them because the storyline sucks, you can do very little compared to single player counterparts I'm used to play, so that's why they usually disappoint me somehow.It's a huge world, with tons of people, which is great to join parties, guilds, do PvP (not that amazing, since it's too "standardized" nowadays) and exchange products you obtain or assemble.But the graphics are outdated, and and it's too time spending intensive. Normal people can't stand playing a game *at least* 4 hours a day to get decent items, gold, experience... Also the mechanism relies much on the items, and usually the nice ones are a pain to get, what might be frustrating to some people.I heard so many good things about Guild Wars that I'm willing to try a little. Also, the more realistic less cartoony graphics do attract me. For casual gamers like me, seems like a wise choice. In case anyone knows some way to get a trial or something, let me know.

I wouldn't rate that high. The storyline isn't as good as in other blizzard games, and the graphics are very outdated. On the other hand, it is really huge and lets you develop quite different games as different characters. Though it's too focused on time spending, not really skill as I'd expect in games in general. That's basically why so many people get addicted to it. If you don't play 24/7, you'll fall behind other players in gold, experience, and most important... Items! The game is so item intensive it is sometimes frustrating...

They simply built in some known extensions' functions to the default browser. Not a big deal to power users, actually. I also felt it slightly faster, but can't be 100% sure.I'm looking forward to Firefox 3... This looks like is going to be the guy