Mordent

Tell me about it. On the topic of resource hogging programs, I noticed a pleasant increase in the speed of my laptop by removing ZoneLabs' free internet firewall and replacing it with a less demanding one. I'd heard good things about Sygate so I installed it, and he whole user interface is far more friendly, too, as it tells you exactly what applications you've got running that are accessing the internet etc. For home use, I just don't think there's a need to spend money on security software where freeware can do the job perfectly well - and sometimes even better - without costing you a penny.

Urgh, safe mode...there's nothing quite like having your cunning coding efforts foiled because someone somewhere has a little 1 where they should have a 0. Sure, it stops you completely ruining things (in theory), but I'd rather have the freedom to do what I want. There's other great examples out there, such as Game Maker's "secure mode", where you can't alter certain files. Fantastic if you don't do any serious work with it, but when you're tinkering with data structures and using the program to create/delete files, it's an absolute nightmare to find out how to turn that damn thing off. Still, as you could potentially delete every file on your hard drive, I suppose that secure mode is useful for people who don't really know what they're doing, just as safe mode is there for the "casual" coder.

Interesting side note:Once you've reformatted your PC, for whatever reason, try not to get it in such a bad state again. Ever since I reformatted my laptop I've kept all programs installed in logical directories (unlike the root directory ), and got things like anti-virus/firewall/anti-spyware etc. sorted, meaning that it's been running nice and smoothly since. No more files in ridiculous places, and I keep all of my installers in one directory (for downloads, at least) so I know where to access them. Do a disk defrag every so often, and run a cleanup utility on a regular basis as well and you shouldn't have to worry about reformatting again.

Eeek, topic necromancy... Anyway, I've always found it highly entertaining that most of the reported or publicised successful hacking attempts are by teenagers. Personally, I'm at a loss as to why people are so amazed by this sort of thing, as today's teenagers have grown up with all of this technology. Sure, they haven't got all of the experience behind them as older "hackers" do, but they have the same capability. Sometimes it's the younger generation that spot a simple flaw in security whereas those who know more ways to get in to a secure site probably overlook the simple methods for that reason alone. If a site/company is supposedly hard to hack in to, why bother with the simple methods? Surely they wouldn't work? Regardless of that, teenage computer whizzes are forever popping up in the news. Google's not necessarily more secure than any other major site, and it always amuses me when people believe otherwise.

I've used AVG since I got my laptop, simply because I'd heard good reviews about it from various sites. My sister recently got a new machine (from start to finish) simply because her old one was something like sixth hand. I kid you not when I say it took 5 minutes to open a Word document. Her new one came with Norton, and although it looks pretty good whenever I use her machine (far more powerful than my poor laptop) I can't stand the way it keeps popping up with alerts while I'm in fullscreen. Sure, that's as a firewall, though, so I guess it's a bit off topic.Anyway, as for anti-virus, I've never had a problem with AVG. I'm careful with firewalls as well, though (Sygate all the way) as well as doing a weekly spy/adware scan with both Spybot and AdAware, meaning my old laptop is still clean. I've never noticed any problems, anyway...

Google, simply because it makes an awesome home page. Well...iGoogle does, to be precise. Every morning when I log in I get a nice Garfield comic, a direct Wikipedia search link, a link to Babelfish and a whole load of other stuff, as well as the standard search engine.Google's just nice and user friendly.

Bubble sorts are awesome. As for which language you should learn, it entirely depends on how much you're planning on doing with it. As you said, C and C++ are great for games because of DirectX. I'd imagine you can make pretty much anything you like out of most major languages, but some are better suited to certain types of job than others. For quick, simple games Game Maker is fantastic. If I wanted to make, for instance, a Pacman clone I'd use Game Maker simply because it's ideal for that sort of game. Sure C/C++ could do it as well, but why bother going for that layer of complexity when you don't need to? Similarly, for multiplayer games (online), GM is far outclassed by pretty much every other language out there. If you use some DLLs for it then you can make a pretty decent game, but that's only because you brought another language in to make the DLL. The difficulty of a programming language compared to another depends on what you want out of it. Machine code is capable of doing everything, and is almost certainly more efficient at it than any language you care to mention, but the difficulty in making anything out of it when there's other methods of doing it out there just doesn't make it worthwhile for most projects. In terms of learning a programming language, the more complex languages will, of course, be harder to learn than simpler ones. It opens up more doors for those who want to do more, however, so I reckon it's still worth it. I wouldn't dream of making a MMOFPS with GML, for example.

A fair enough point, but we are talking about a majority of games, here. Most games lack something, and unless the development "team" (even if it is a handful of people) is very switched on and do something to address it then that'll be a flaw in the game. I agree that not all games have to have cutting-edge graphics, in fact personally I think graphics are one of the things that matter least when it comes to games unless it's vital that they look good, but even if they're stylistc they still need someone to create them. Every time I design a game I work out what the graphics should look like (very roughly), and design crude polygons (I work almost exclusively in 2D) to represent that object. Once the gameplay works brilliantly I go back and look through all the graphics and ask someone to create them for me. I've never released a game commercially, and it's purely a hobby based thing, but the finished product is a nice blend of gameplay (done entirely by me) and pretty pictures (done by someone else). Gameplay's what I'm after when I'm looking for a game, and provided that the graphics are either acceptable by default or able to be adjusted (my poor little 64MB graphics card doesn't appreciate all these latest games) to keep the frames per second up then I'm happy.

Same, but Vista does have its merits (even if they are hidden under a load of abuse from most XP users ). Seriously, though, when it comes to community support (namely what other people on forums know instead of Microsoft itself), sticking with XP is often the way to go. If you're going to do anything "non-standard", at the moment most people use XP (or at least have used it) so they're more likely to be able to help. When it comes to questions concerning Vista, I find a lot of the time it's just a compatibility issue. To get something to work on Vista is often a lot trickier than getting it to work on XP, simply because it's new. After the majority of people use Vista instead of XP we'll be back to where we started, with whatever new Windows OS they release giving us the same problem. A lot of people put Vista down - me being one of them - but really I think people over exaggerate. Sure, it's got a good few bugs, isn't compatible with a lot of programs, and is generally trickier to get running, but eventually XP will be outdated, meaning all of us who cling on the past and our comfort zone won't have a clue what they're doing once the world of Vista has been thrust upon them or face slipping back in versions much like most people consider '95 to be today. Either that, or you can just go get yourself a Mac like I'm thinking about doing.

I couldn't agree more with the top quoted paragraph. Game Maker is a fantastic learning resource, and by the time you've learned enough so that you're limited by what you can do with it you're more than ready to move on to another language anyway. The fact that it's similar in some respects to C++ naturally makes that a great one to pick next, and although initially it's a very steep climb most of it is just learning how to do something in C++ that you did in Game Maker. I didn't use Game Maker to make games, I used it to learn the ideas behind games. Before I used Game Maker I had little to no knowledge about programming. Sure, I knew what it was and what it could lead to but I had no idea where to start. After a few years of tinkering with Game Maker during my teens I've managed to get a decent grip on some of the basic ideas behind programming (if statements - and all of the others that I can't be bothered to list in such a nice format - loops and how to use them, arrays (both 1D and 2D, although Game Maker doesn't support 3D arrays), and a whole stack of other stuff that's proved invaluable). Sure, if I now go on to learn another programming language (which I am - C++ has drawn me at last) I won't be able to do anything at first as I get to grips with how I can tell it what to do, but that's far better than being thrown in the deep end and struggling with C++ without a hope in hell of getting anything decent out of it (unless you've got someone to give you a hand or a hefty list of tutorials) before your patience runs out and you decide that programming isn't for you. In terms of getting something to work in C++ compared to getting something to work in GML, I wouldn't say it's that much harder. You just need to really know what you're doing and have it clearly outlined in your mind, rather than the far more easy-going attitude you can have with GML and still get things to work. Sure, if you want something decent out of GML it's no easier than any other language (if nothing else it's harder, as you're limited in what you can do), but the point is Game Maker is meant as an introductory language. No industry uses Game Maker (that I know of), and although you can make some pretty great games with it they just don't compare to the power of more advanced and complex languages. Make the shift once you're comfortable with GML, else you'll just flounder in the new world of C++ and lose confidence. As for making "quality" games, I can't picture any team of a handful of coders being able to make anything that makes a substantial amount of money these days simply because of the sheer volume of different skills needed to appeal to the modern gamer. Back when computers were first released, the hardware limited the programmer so much that a lot of "industry standard" games could be made by people at home, simply because there was only so much you could do. The old Amstrad, for example (64 KB of RAM, I believe) was great for its time, but I don't care how many programmers, graphics artists, audio engineers and so on that you throw at it, you really won't be able to do anything more spectacular than Joe Bloggs sitting at home coding long in to the night. These days the reverse is true. Manpower means more resources: you don't just have one-man game developers who can compete with industry because even if they could do everything they just wouldn't have the time. Graphics are great, but I still don't understand everyone's insistence that they're what defines a "quality" game. With the games you mentionned above, the handful of coders sat down and came up with the entire game leaving a load of god-awful graphics for users to grimace at, but I personally just don't care. Today, when lifelike 3D graphics are basically required, that'd cripple a company. Back then, 99% of games were like that, but that's why no one cared. Sure, those 1% of games were "great" (and I use the term lightly) to look at, but I'd rather have an ugly game than one with lots of pretty images that was fundamentally flawed in something else. Eye candy is getting more important, so that's why people are specialising. In Game Maker, most of the time you could get away with some fairly shoddy graphics. Failing that you could always get an artist in to make you a few, but with C++ you've got to start thinking about a path you want to take. I'm far more interested in coding than animation etc., so while I'm happy to work with someone who thinks the other way around I'm not going to start telling them how to do their job just as I don't want them to tell me how to do mine. I can give a few requirements (size, frames, whatever), and I work with what they give me. If it's not quite right I ask them to tinker it a bit until it's more usable and go from there. The point is, I couldn't possibly do the tinkering myself, so while C++ is harder than GML, the kind of community that's associated with the latter just wouldn't work anymore. You can't just create a game on your own and expect it to both play well and look good. The more involved you get, the more you discover that. I'm still relatively new to the whole thing, but I know that I just haven't got the time to do everything in my games anymore (if I want them done before I get arthritis and can't type anymore, anyway), so I'm learning to accept that. Sure, I dabble in a few other fields (it would be foolish not to, as then you can tailor your work to fit nicely with someone else's as you know roughly what they're doing), but I haven't done any audio work for a few years just because I'm not as good at is as someone else is. Anyway, that's a new C++er's view on the transistion. Flame away.

I've been using GM for several years now, and to be honest I've enjoyed every minute of it. For the brand new programmer it offers simple drag-and-drop functionality, yet should you want to (and have the know-how) you can create some amazing programs. Many people underestimate it after they get bored of the simple games you start out making, but can you honestly say any other programming language is different? You start by learning the basics, then slowly move on to more advanced things. DLLs are available in all shapes and sizes, expanding its functionality even more. Personally, I think the major perk of GM is its price. You can do a lot with the standard functions (even mimic some of the registered-only ones if you've got the patience to work out how ), and for a mere $20 (I believe) you have full access to a wide range of functions, such as the use of said DLLs, advanced drawing options and (most importantly, in my opinion) the ability to make an online game. Combine that with an active community, where there's a whole host of users (me included under a different username) who are willing to answer questions and offer advice on any problems you may encounter (and, let's face it, things just don't go right the first time round). Sure, it can't do some of the things other, more recognised languages can, but for $20 and a great introduction to the world of game programming I'm not arguing. Heck, even if you don't cough up the $20 you can do a whole range of things as it is. In short: it's a great little program for beginner programmers, and builds up to allow you to create nigh-on-professional games. That's my two pence, anyway.