It's about time Microsoft....

This is a discussion on It's about time Microsoft.... within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Show me a law, any law that states I can't provide a product or a service, because as a result ...

  1. #16
    Registered User Scribbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Aurora CO
    Posts
    266
    Show me a law, any law that states I can't provide a product or a service, because as a result of it somebody else's product or service will no longer be needed. You're spouting nonsense.

    And quit trying to point at IE and say it's the same. As I described above, they're not. Microsoft caught flack for trying to buy off the vendors in order to control the retail market. It had absolutely nothing to do with "interreliant" markets.

    Some people seem to magically pull laws out of thin air based on their perceived notion of what's fair and what's not. And the mention of Microsoft seems to double the numbers.

  2. #17
    Banned nickname_changed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    986
    Originally posted by Pulled from my ass, not a news site
    Microsoft will have to begin offering versions of Windows without Windows Media Player built-in, according to a ruling handed down today by the President of the European Union Court of First Instance.

    The order to carry out the removal the media player as well as license communications protocols to competitors was part of the original finding that Microsoft had violated European antitrust law by abusing its monopoly position to squeeze out rival audio and video makers, and prevent competition in the low-end server market. In addition to the sanctions, the US company was fined 500 million.
    They have to remove Windows Media Player because it's built in and no one is using media players like RealPlayer, not because they're terrible, but because WMP is integrated with windows. What a load of crap.

    and prevent competition in the low-end server market
    I love that bit. When you setup a corporate intranet site, the first thing you do is listen to your MP3 collection

  3. #18
    BMJ
    BMJ is offline
    Banal internet user BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by no-one
    its called its an unfair buisness advantage... IE anyone.... Media Player?... its hard to compete... but im sorta on the ropes with this though...
    That's such crap.

    "It's unfair"... tough. Welcome to capitalism.

    It's absurd, really, to suggest that a company, albeit Microsoft, should be punished for not making the market "fair" for their competitors.
    Last edited by BMJ; 02-16-2005 at 07:30 PM.

  4. #19
    Banned nickname_changed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by BMJ
    That's such crap.

    "It's unfair"... tough. Welcome to capitalism.

    It's absurd, really, to suggest that a company, albeit Microsoft, should be punished for not making the market "fair" for their competitors.
    Motion seconded.

  5. #20
    Has a Masters in B.S.
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,267
    >It had absolutely nothing to do with "interreliant" markets.

    why dont you pay a little atention, i didnt say anything about what they got flack for did i? i was explaing to Govt. the problem with it. AND ITS NOT JUST IE.

    >That's such crap.

    "It's unfair"... tough. Welcome to capitalism.
    <

    Apparently you think of capatilism as Marx saw it? you missed the fact that we are NOT a conventional capatilistic economy, our economy(the US economy) is a government controlled capatilism, this is why it still exists, this is why a fair market must be maintained. because uncontrolled unregulated capatilism... as Marx pointed out is a bust.

    >
    It's absurd, really, to suggest that a company, albeit Microsoft, should be punished for not making the market "fair" for their competitors.
    <

    no they should not be forced to make it fair they should be prevented from taking advantage of the market and legal loopholes and anything else involved in creating an unfair market for their products, same goes for any buisness.


    edit: i would recommend you all go find and read Marx's take on capatilism, its rather interesting... full of insight.
    Last edited by no-one; 02-16-2005 at 08:43 PM.
    ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    580
    There are already projects which implement the user interface with 3d hadware acceleration, sphere xp is one such that uses opengl, and i've seen others

    http://www.hamar.sk/sphere/

    edit:

    and about the unfair thing, i sort of agree with BMJ, but you get cases where better products exist at cheaper prices, but they aren't able to get out. That's when it gets to be unfair, because Microsoft doesn't always offer the best for what prices they ask, and when other options are stymmied it's called a monopoly, and although the game was cool, monopolies are actually bad.

  7. #22
    Has a Masters in B.S.
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,267
    but isn't that just running over the windows GUI?

    he's talking about the actual GUI will be using Direct-X...
    ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    580
    well yeah it would have to be, they didn't re-write windows.

    and i wasn't saying it to belittle the announcement, it's just neat (and because it runs on top of windows it sometimes has latency problems, i.e you'll get hiccups when trying to move your mouse around).

    but there's some neat effects with it, and it's a hard project to implement

    edit:

    Apparently you think of capatilism as Marx saw it? you missed the fact that we are NOT a conventional capatilistic economy, our economy(the US economy) is a government controlled capatilism, this is why it still exists, this is why a fair market must be maintained. because uncontrolled unregulated capatilism... as Marx pointed out is a bust.
    Because I am being serious (I don't think BMJ is being 100% serious about his views) I agree with this statement.

    edit1: although, I think your definition of 'conventional capitalistic' society is flawed because I think we'd be considered one. but whatev
    Last edited by Darkness; 02-16-2005 at 08:54 PM.

  9. #24
    Has a Masters in B.S.
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,267
    >edit1: although, I think your definition of 'conventional capitalistic' society is flawed because I think we'd be considered one. but whatev

    actually your probably right... poor choice of words.
    ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.

  10. #25
    PC Fixer-Upper Waldo2k2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,001
    what I don't get about this whole thing is that people assume it's going to be something evident to the user or even the programmer. The truth is it won't. There's still going to be an api for programming the windows gui. You won't be writing directx code for your apps. You'll be making windows function calls just like before, only those functions will now work with directx underneath them instead of the lame crap they've been using for the last decade. I don't have a problem with it at all...except now older games that don't work well with DX are going to be phased out, but XP did the same thing for old 16 bit apps anyway (and quite a few older 32 bit apps as well)
    PHP and XML
    Let's talk about SAX

  11. #26
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    The inherent problem is that:

    1. If the GUI is built on DirectX and nothing else then:
    - Windows relies solely on DirectX for its operation therefore it follows that:
    - DirectX will no longer be an option available to user's, it will be an integral component of the entire operating system thus:
    - Another monopoly and unfair advantage issue in the works.

    You can't build an OS GUI or shell on DirectX and yet not integrate DirectX into the OS itself. Not possible. So the entire scope of DirectX would change and if you have downloaded the newest SDK's you will already notice some very striking changes taking place within the structure. Just look at how they have divided up the help files and claimed to have dropped support for other DirectX components. Something's stirring at MS you can be sure of it. Normally when they do that it means they are in the process of integrating said components into one component, thus eliminating the need for two documents describing two separate components, or they are phasing one component out altogether.

    And besides none of us here on the board started any of the previous lawsuits - these were started by other companies who felt that MS had an unfair advantage over their products. I'm not sure I totally agree with them, but that does not mean they won't continue to file lawsuits in hopes that one sticks MS good.

    I personally like MS the more and more I tinker with their newest stuff. I'm not sure I totally agree with their business practices, their upgrade policies, their strict EULA's, etc, etc., but they must be doing something right because they are just getting bigger and bigger. I mean face it, if you can beat Microsoft...you are probably already a part of Microsoft (that is they have probably bought you out somehow). That's just how it is.

    what I don't get about this whole thing is that people assume it's going to be something evident to the user or even the programmer.
    It will be quite evident to me. Anyone who has been in computers for any length of time can tell when DirectX and/or OpenGL is drawing to the screen. It looks about 10000% better than the crappy 2D stuff they are using now - and it's a heck of a lot smoother. I think it will be evident....or there would be no reason to justify changing over to DirectX.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 02-16-2005 at 11:50 PM.

  12. #27
    Banned master5001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Visalia, CA, USA
    Posts
    3,685
    Bubba, I agree and disagree. Moreoever I do agree with the argument that its about damn time the GUI is run this way. It will benefit greatly in performance. As for your monopoly argument, I think people site too many examples of Microsoft using perfectly fair techniques. According to your thinking the fact that a Ford automobile is only compatible with Ford parts is illegitamate business practice. Yeah its a kick in the teeth in either case, but they can make their own parts for their machines. Whether it be software (m$) or hardward (Ford) both are entitled to exclusively support their own product.

    In the case of Windows, just because the GUI uses DX (which I never claimed to be a fan of) doesn't mean OpenGL will become unsupported. Its a touchy subject. I think the bottom line is I'm most likely to jump on board with all the m$ bashers for the sake of making cheap knocks on m$. But in truth, if someone has contempt for some company like microsoft, it should be based on reasonable cause. Not because of a personal vendeta.

    Since I see no evidence that OpenGL support will be axed, I see no reason to say nay to this prospect. I use more than one OS and when m$ goes way out of its way to ........ me off I just avoid their OSes for long periods of time. Thats my personal satisfaction.

  13. #28
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Not for or against here. I like the DX idea....but I see troubles ahead with other competing companies in the same field.

  14. #29
    Banned master5001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Visalia, CA, USA
    Posts
    3,685
    Oh that is definitely a factor. Microsoft has had a history of starting off with an innocent gesture of convenience then turning it into a way of forcing competitors into the ditch. We will have to wait and see what Microsoft does from here.

    Being that OpenGL is a much more widely accepted (by that I'm refering to multi-platform support) API it would be hard to just make it "go away."

  15. #30
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    What I don't like about the whole thing is that my current computer setup becomes very loud when the 3d functions of my graphics card get used. This is fine in a game, where the in-game music is louder anyway, but for normal working I think it would get annoying very quickly. Meaning that I need to spend more money on a quieter cooling system.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Problem building Quake source
    By Silvercord in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-11-2010, 09:13 AM
  2. M$ phone suit
    By RoD in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-26-2002, 04:58 PM
  3. Is this really true or it's just science fiction?
    By Nutshell in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 04-09-2002, 06:17 PM
  4. time class
    By Unregistered in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-11-2001, 09:12 PM
  5. Retaliation towards witch king\microsoft
    By Koshare in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-19-2001, 04:54 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21