J. Clarke said:
In case you're not aware of it Gemstar Plus is tied into the TV Guide
database and it's the _only_ scheduling software that you can get for a PC
that is tied into that database. All the others get their data from
secondary sources. Now, one could argue that TV Guide should provide
better software but then how would they sell their magazine? Or would you
pay an annual fee for access to their database? Didn't think so.
So you think, for example, being able to click on a show (to see the
description) without having the stupid TV display change to that channel,
means I'll no longer buy TV Guide? (Not that I do). Huh?
So what _should_ they do to provide scheduling information direct from the
TV Guide database? Maybe they're idiots for not going with a secondary
source--that's a judgment call--but if they're going with the "official"
database then they're stuck with the software that the provider makes
available and the terms and conditions associated with that software.
Don't like it, then go with one of the other schedulers.
I'll assume what you say is true. They're both idiots for not
finding/creating better software. If ATI cared about software quality they
would have done *something* about the Gemstar nonsense by now. But then MMC
("Multimedia Center") provides ample proof that that good software design
means about as much to them as it does to Microsoft.
What are they supposed to do about that?
Why should they do that? They provide driver downloads, Gemstar doesn't.
Why? Umm, maybe because at minimum it could provide a direct link to the
correct download page? The website is MUCH better than it used to be, so
it's easier to find your driver, but still having an update link would be
useful. On a side note, 15 years from now they'll decide to consolidate all
their files into single-installer options. Like they did with the catalyst
drivers recently. Or wait, maybe an installer that does the driver, and
then MMC automatically? Oooh, that would be advanced. Morons.
It _is_ a bastion of logic. Ever read Aquinas? It's the underlying
assumptions that are questionable, not the reasoning from them.
So then no, religion isn't a bastion of logic. Or does the term religion
not include these utterly baseless/meaningless "underlying assumptions"?
Uhh, yeah they're the only important part. Well, important to this
discussion; otherwise irrelevant.
Why don't you enlighten us?
This would be my opinion. They're making comfortable livings and the
company is doing well. There's no real motivation to clean up and revamp th
e clunky and awkward junksuite that is MMC.
