It's about time Microsoft....

**Scribbler** · 02-16-2005

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.

**~~nickname_changed~~** · 02-16-2005

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

**BMJ** · 02-16-2005

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.

**~~nickname_changed~~** · 02-16-2005

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.

**no-one** · 02-16-2005

>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.

**Darkness** · 02-16-2005

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.

**no-one** · 02-16-2005

but isn't that just running over the windows GUI?

he's talking about the actual GUI will be using Direct-X...

**Darkness** · 02-16-2005

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

**no-one** · 02-16-2005

>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.

**Waldo2k2** · 02-16-2005

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)

**VirtualAce** · 02-17-2005

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.

**~~master5001~~** · 02-17-2005

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.

**VirtualAce** · 02-17-2005

Not for or against here. I like the DX idea....but I see troubles ahead with other competing companies in the same field.

**~~master5001~~** · 02-17-2005

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."

**CornedBee** · 02-17-2005

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.