Giganthrax

The Razer mousepad I've been using for some years now has served me really, really well. As far as I can tell, the color hasn't even faded with age. In comparison, some of the cheaper mousepads I used before have all gotten damaged overtime and just weren't as good. So, yeah, if you really want to optimize your gaming rig for competitive gaming, it's probably worth investing in a quality mousepad. If you're just using your computer for work or casual gaming/browsing the web, then I don't think it really matters.

I daily drive ZorinOS Core on my work laptop. It looks and feels really good to use, and has so far served me well. IMO it's the best user-friendly distro I tried so far.

Seeing as they couldn't even make my 3700x work properly on my X370 pro, I'm doubtful as to how well this is going to turn out.

The most surprising thing here is that people are apparently still using Norton.

Eh, things aren't really that black and white. Across the world, laws vary widely in how strongly they're followed and enforced, and there's a good reason for that. Many of these laws are also specifically designed to oppress people and limit their freedoms, such as geolocking streaming services or severely censoring content to fit with the goals of the ruling regime. Just because something is technically illegal doesn't mean it's also immoral, or that someone will or even should actually prosecute you for it. Throughout history, people have fought and won against many of these laws, or times have simply changed and the laws were forgotten and not enforced even though they technically still existed. Hell, the US is full of crazy laws that nobody actually enforces : https://www.thelawyerportal.com/blog/unbelievably-weird-laws-in-america-that-still-exist/

I'm not talking historically in this thread. I'm speaking of the current situation in the world. I absolutely agree with you that the "pirates = carjackers" worldview made sense in the early 2000s, just like giving infants cocaine sounded like a good idea in the 19th century. However, hanging onto it in the current climate isn't good. As the past 20 years have shown, the music, movie, and gaming industries have all flourished and we as consumers have more quality content available to us than ever before. Despite all the doomsaying of the early 2000s, piracy didn't hurt any of those industries. In fact, I believe it may have helped them reach new audiences, as I've already argued in this thread. Overall, the discussion in this thread was really enjoyable. I'm glad to have heard so many different opinions on this topic.

I wasn't arguing that at all. I'm talking about a specific subset of people (typically individuals from less wealthy countries) who can't or won't pay. Trying to prevent them from pirating #1 doesn't work, and #2 reduces exposure. Also, I strongly disagree with the notion that people only buy stuff because laws and societies impose that system on them. Most people enjoy spending money and buying things, and will readily pay a premium for all kinds of useless things (eg., cosmetics in a F2P game) simply because it pleases them to do so. Hell, I didn't have to buy any of the singleplayer games I own. I still bought them because I get enjoyment from owning them and supporting the devs. Society has nothing to do with it. I already explained why I feel this isn't really the case. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It is if you're a tech enthusiast like you and I who knows their way around the internet. However, most users are not tech savvy enough to safely download movies or games. They want to just have everything set up for them and to just plug and play, and they don't mind paying the small monthly fee Netflix requires of them. When did I ever say it's anyone's right to watch spiderman? Please don't put words in my mouth. To clarify, I said the entire point is moot. When given the choice between pirating a movie or not being able to enjoy it at all, most people will choose the former, especially if piracy is something everyone does in their country anyway. It's just the way things are. Calling all these people thieves isn't going to have any more effect than yelling at clouds. Many successful companies have already accepted this state of affairs and are successfully adapting to it. Examples include Steam's region-specific pricing, CSGO going F2P with extreme success, CD Projekt Red's full embracing of piracy, Epic drawing in an ever-larger audience by giving out free games and discount coupons like candy, and so on.

My point is, times are changing, and the old ways no longer apply. The "digital pirates are criminals just like carjackers" worldview made sense back in early 2000s, but the world has been moving further and further away from it for a long time now. If I'm at the point that enough people want to read my work that they're actively torrenting it, then it means I'm already a successful writer and am probably doing quite well financially from it. By having some of my audience pirate my work, I'll make less money in the short term, but in the long term I'll get more exposure and more potential readers. Also, if people like my work and want to have a physical copy they can showcase on their bookshelf - which many book readers do - they'll buy the physical copies later. On the other hand, I gain nothing by denying my work to people who can't or won't pay for it for whatever reason. In fact, by enforcing DRM-like tactics, I risk angering and alienating my audience. Why do it? @Thaldoralready answered this. The people who actually worked on the movie or game were already paid all they were going to get paid for it while they worked on it. The companies and producers who are raking in all of the cash from streaming services and sales and whatnot are drowning in money as it is. They'll be fine. Theatres are going to be fine because they offer something you can't pirate: the moviegoing experience. Streaming services are doing extremely well because, like theaters, they offer something piracy never will be able to: a hassle-free, plug and play experience on any internet-enabled device. As for "fundamental human rights", there's no such thing. Read some history. The only reason we're even aware of that concept is because we had the luck to be born in the right place at the right time.

In a perfect world, everyone would have enough disposable income and goodwill to pay for all the digital content they consume. However, this is not the reality we live in. When faced with a choice between not getting to enjoy a piece of digital content at all, and pirating it without any reprecussions, most people will chose the latter, as evidenced by decades of digital piracy. I don't have to imagine myself as an artist. I'm a writer. I've had dozens of short my stories published in various magazines and anthologies. I've also emailed the PDFs of these stories to people who asked for them after the exclusivity period for the story (most publishers require 3-12 months of exclusivity in their contract) has passed. Those people weren't going to buy those magazines and anthologies anyway, but they wanted to read my stories. Why not let them? I lose nothing, because the stories are digital and I already got paid for them by the publishers, and I get the satisfaction of knowing that more people have been exposed to my work and perhaps have enjoyed it enough to recommend my stuff to their friends and family. I think the added exposure from piracy helps everyone or at least doesn't affect them, as shown in my own example about my stories above. I also think that, with the both mainstream and indie movie and gaming industries doing better than ever before, it's pretty clear that decades of piracy barely affected them and, possibly, helped them thrive. Perhaps I should clarify. Remember all the public outcry against Napster in the early 2000s and how it would ruin the music industry and make it impossible for artists to make ends meet. Fast forward 20 years later, and you see musicians everywhere offering their stuff for free on YouTube and Spotify. We see similar things happening with TV shows and movies on streaming services such as Netflix. All of these industries are swimming in money, too. That's why I say the notion that "you should pay up to watch spiderman or you're a morally bankrupt criminal, on par with a carjacker" is outdated and an example of clinging to old values that are less and less relevant today.

Every ferrari is made out of real materials that had to be bought, transported, and turned into car parts. There's a limited supply of these materials in the world. When you steal a ferrari, the company or person who owns it no longer has access to that particular ferrari and becomes unable to sell it. With digital goods, there are no actual, limited stock materials involved. You can make infinite copies of the finished product at no extra cost. The company that sells the game or movie still has it in their inventory no matter how many times it's "stolen". You could say they were "robbed" of the price of the digital product, but that's assuming that the pirates would've bought these products had they not been able to pirate them, which I can tell you is absolutely not the case. So there's little to lose for the company, and potentially a lot to gain from the extra exposure and playing nice with prospective customers. I've already made it clear why I think piracy is - in the vast majority of cases - a victimless crime, and one that may even benefit creators in the long run. Hence, there's no reason to justify anything. Like many people, you're just holding onto an outdated belief system that has been slowly dying off since the days of Napster.

This has nothing to do with morality or cowardice. You're just clinging to an outdated way of thinking. People don't care what you believe they're entitled to. If a piece of entertainment they want to watch is freely available online, they're going to download it. This is simply a fact of life, and sticking your head in the sand or taking a moral high ground isn't going to change that. Piracy is here to stay. Rather, you should look at the positive sides of this, such as what I said about piracy exposing content to a far greater audience than would otherwise be able to experience it. In fact, I can even give myself as an example. I pirated Dark Souls 3 in 2016. It was the first Souls game I played. 200 hours of gameplay later, I bought the original + bought DLCs because I loved the game so much and wanted to enjoy the multiplayer. In the years that followed, I also bought Dark Souls 2, Dark Souls 1 Remastered, a Black Knight action figure, and now I'm eagerly waiting for my Elden Ring preorder. I'd also buy Bloodborne in a blink if they ported it to PC. There is no chance in hell I would've ever shelled out 60 euros for DS3 back in 2016. It's simply too expensive, and therefore risky, when you live in a non-first world country. At best, I could've tried it out for up to 2 hours on Steam, but that's often not enough time to determine whether the game is worth the money or not. It's safe to say that, without piracy, I would've never become the FROM SOFTWARE fanboy I am today.

Making a digital copy isn't the same as stealing. Furthermore, people who pirate movies - especially the ones who live in the second and third world - either can't afford to pay, or their culture considers it idiotic and wasteful to pay for something that you can just download for free. Also, creators actually benefit somewhat from their content getting pirated, as that means their work is going to be exposed to a broad audience that wouldn't experience it otherwise. This audience is going to talk about their content, leave positive reviews online, make videos about it on youtube, recommend it to other people, and so on. In other words, the creator loses some sales due to piracy, but gains a much broader audience. There are prons and cons to everything. Also, all of those actors, editors, camera operators, etc. were already paid for their work on the movie. By and large, their paychecks aren't actually going to be affected by how well the movie does at the box office.

The way I see it, people who run and install .exe files when downloading a movie have gained a basic, yet very valuable lesson in computer security. Hopefully, they won't make the same mistake again. If they do, well... fool me twice... This would be a valid argument back when Napster was still a thing. These days, it's pretty much a hard truth that piracy for personal use doesn't put so much as a dent in any these industries.

I'll have some of what this guy is smoking. Yesterday, I was reinstalling my GPU drivers so my 170hz monitor was limited to 60fps for a few minutes until the new drivers downloaded and installed, and it was absolutely horrid to look at. You being able to make do with 45fps just goes on to show that we're a hardy species that will adapt and thrive in any conditions, and endure any hardship, even a near-PS4-level gaming experience. As for your friend, obviously he's doing something wrong. I hope he learns his lesson.

You don't need Windows drivers to run Linux. The Linux kernel already comes packaged with its own set of drivers. Most Windows programs also have alternatives that do the same thing either natively or through a browser. IMO the best Linux distros for an old laptop are Lubuntu, Linux Mint Xfce, and ZorinOS Lite. Go to https://distrotest.net/index.php and check them out there. When you find one you like, boot it live off of an USB and try it out like that before installing.

I absolutely love the wooden case. The only thing I'd change is to add some good wood polish, like what you'd see on a piano or expensive furniture. I think that'd really look classy with this design.

ZorinOS Core is the best of the one's I've daily driven so far. It looks great and the GUI was designed by a human, so it gets my vote. So far, it only crashed once in months of use. Let's hope it stays that way.

I think it's the opposite. With larger monitors, multiple monitor setups, huge GPUs, huge cpu cooling towers, and 2-3 140mm fan AIOs becoming increasingly more affordable and available, large rigs definitely arent going anywhere.

Unless you have specific reasons to use Linux for work, I advise against it. Windows 10 can be bought on ebay for like $5. I have a few of those keys and they've all been working fine for years.

Lubuntu, ZorinOS Lite, Or Linux Mint (Xfce or Mate).

Halo Infinite is an actual working game that doesn't have major gamebreaking bugs and terrible design choices. It's also F2P, so people leaving isn't actually a huge problem for Microsoft as long as they can maintain a stable population, whereas people quickly leaving BF probably means they almost certainly refunded the game.

Reaching 2200 rating (or was it 2400? I cant remember) in WoW arena and rated battlegrounds so I could get fancy-looking armor. That took me such a long time and a lot of effort. Beating Dark Souls 3 with a level 1 character was quite challenging as well.

It's a buggy piece of trash without a singleplayer campaign. It's no wonder people tried it for half an hour or so and refunded.

If you're coming from windows, try Linux Mint (any desktop environment) or ZorinOS. They're both quite stable and look good from my experience. Avoid POP_OS, as it's very buggy (these forums alone are full of ppl who have problems with Pop, Linus includee), and also avoid standard Ubuntu. Both of these use the basic gnome environment, which is waàaay different from windows, and not in a good way. Arch is for advanced users, so you really dont want to tackle that as a beginner.

Anydesk is free and works fine for me in both Linux and Windows.