DX10 (formerly WGF2.0, formerly DX10) will ship with Vista

[KimB]

Okay, first of all, there's no reason to believe that standardization wouldn't have happened if Microsoft wasn't around. Plenty of standardization has occurred independent of Microsoft. OpenGL is a primary example.

Secondly, your shortened history of Microsoft overlooks a large number of indiscretions that Microsoft used in the past to get to the position it is in today.

That said, the fact is that Microsoft has enough marketshare to control the market. One notable instance of this was when they effectively put Netscape out of business (note that price-fixing is illegal, and Microsoft effectively price-fixed the price of browsers to zero).

Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market, and has used a large number of illegal monopolistic tactics to prevent the use of other operating systems. This monopoly is bad for innovation. It is bad for cost. It is bad for the consumer.

 

[Temporary Name]

I hate to assist you in your thread derail, Chalnoth, but if adding a new feature to the OS is equivalent to "price fixing anyone offering a similar commercial product to zero", then how exactly should they proceed? The OS business is rather mature these days, and pulling entirely new capabilities from the sky is no trivial task.

There is no fair solution. Barring Microsoft from incorporating new functionality into their OS is patently unfair, and hurts consumers. Failing to allow smaller companies to compete and potentially bring innovative new products to market is patently unfair, and hurts consumers.

Blaming Microsoft for everything is childish.

 

[ANova]

I honestly find it amazing how many people are willing to accept anything MS says or does without judgement or question. And even further amazed that the majority just bite their fingers and buy MS's products even though costs increase an additional $50 or more with every new release. And now MS plans on releasing 3-5 variations of Longhorn with price points some double that of current prices. Naturally more versions also means less features for those lower on the price bracket. Is it really that hard to figure out MS's motivations for this? Not to mention all future foreseeable HD media will use DRM enabled wmv encoding. Hmm, maybe, just maybe this hurts the customers more then it helps them.

Did you know one employee of MS recieved $1 million in pay in one year, he is now working at google, go figure. And of course you'd have to be living under a rock to be unaware of Bill's fortune. Where do you think this money comes from?

 

[SugarCoat]

I honestly find it amazing how many people are willing to accept anything MS says or does without judgement or question. And even further amazed that the majority just bite their fingers and buy MS's products even though costs increase an additional $50 or more with every new release. And now MS plans on releasing 3-5 variations of Longhorn with price points some double that of current prices. Naturally more versions also means less features for those lower on the price bracket. Is it really that hard to figure out MS's motivations for this? Not to mention all future foreseeable HD media will use DRM enabled wmv encoding. Hmm, maybe, just maybe this hurts the customers more then it helps them.

Did you know one employee of MS recieved $1 million in pay in one year, he is now working at google, go figure. And of course you'd have to be living under a rock to be unaware of Bill's fortune. Where do you think this money comes from?

Because they're the best at what they do, if you know of other gaming OS's that are superior, by all means tell me what they are and i'll give them a try. And for the record, no OS is perfect, usually they're far from it, look at all the transition problems Tiger has.

Again, the fact that a user, by choice, could be using Windows 98 and be playing all the latest stuff, and for the most part, losing very little in terms of operation, is a feat in itself. You are giving them 0 credit. I also have not seen up to 5 versions planned for release. I'v seen 3. Basic, a Pro, and a Business. In the end they arent seperated by much at all. Hell im running Pro XP64 right now and i dont see squat difference visually or with what i have at my disposal over Windows XP. And while MS charges quite a bit for full stand alone versions, if you're going to complain about 120dollars for a brand new OS, thats pretty picky. I spend 5 times as much a year on computer software.

 

[John Reynolds]

I hate to assist you in your thread derail, Chalnoth, but if adding a new feature to the OS is equivalent to "price fixing anyone offering a similar commercial product to zero", then how exactly should they proceed?

When said feature was originally boxed and sold separately on retail store shelves or via OEMs like Internet Explorer was? I don't know, has anyone ever rejoiced at the way in which MS integrated IE into the OS so as to try to skirt the legalities of using one product to unfairly leverage another into the market?

 

[Dave Baumann]

Personally I've always enjoyed the fact that the new OS I buy comes with a lot of features - if MS want to sell me an OS that has IE, Outlook, Media Player, etc. and it all comes at a reasonable price, I've never had any qualms about it.

 

[a688]

I honestly find it amazing how many people are willing to accept anything MS says or does without judgement or question.

The same can be said for those who dislike or hate microsoft for half-baked or completely incorrect reasons and/or spread disinformation like you have in your post.

 

[Kombatant]

Personally I've always enjoyed the fact that the new OS I buy comes with a lot of features - if MS want to sell me an OS that has IE, Outlook, Media Player, etc. and it all comes at a reasonable price, I've never had any qualms about it.

It is that way with every major desktop environment these days; Gnome, KDE, MacOS etc. It's not just MS; and I agree, MS should be able to do that. If you make a better product, you will succeed. Firefox is a testament to that.

 

[Albuquerque]

And even further amazed that the majority just bite their fingers and buy MS's products even though costs increase an additional $50 or more with every new release. And now MS plans on releasing 3-5 variations of Longhorn with price points some double that of current prices.

While you and I have agreed in the past, this time you're off.

I paid for my upgrade from Win3.1 to Win95. Cost? $99

I paid for my upgrade from Win95 to Win98. Cost? $99

I paid for my upgrade from Win98 to Win2K Pro. Cost? $99

I paid for my mother's upgrade from Win2K Pro to WinXP Home. Cost? $99

I've paid the same cost for five different OS upgrades over ten years. I think I can see fit to squeeze another $50 into my budget for the bi-annual OS upgrade sale, know what I mean?

And how did Bill Gates pick up all that money? If he were making such a shoddy product, people wouldn't buy his stuff. Tell me I'm lying...

 

[Tim Murray]

And how did Bill Gates pick up all that money? If he were making such a shoddy product, people wouldn't buy his stuff. Tell me I'm lying...

You underestimate the importance of a critical mass of market share. There's a reason why Microsoft will never go the OSX route and break backwards compatibility even if it means the resulting OS would be infinitely better.

Then again, they did buy VirtualPC.

 

[Albuquerque]

You underestimate the importance of a critical mass of market share. There's a reason why Microsoft will never go the OSX route and break backwards compatibility even if it means the resulting OS would be infinitely better.

Then again, they did buy VirtualPC.

Can you really say it would be infinitely better? I really want to know how you see that. What exactly does OSX do that Microsoft doesn't? You can tell me that it's cool because it's rudimentarily based on FreeBSD, but why does that make it better?

 

[KimB]

And how did Bill Gates pick up all that money? If he were making such a shoddy product, people wouldn't buy his stuff. Tell me I'm lying...

First of all, the primary reason that Microsoft has so much money has nothing to do with the quality of their products.

That said, there are many good things that Windows does better than other OS's, but there are things that other OS's do better, too. The lack of competition has meant that those things that other OS's do better have never actually found their way into Windows.

For example, one of the great things about using Linux at home and at work is that I can remote SSH into my machine in my office and work from home when I want to. This not only includes transferring files between the computers, but also using remote X to execute software that I do not have access to at home (such as, for example, Matlab).

Though you can purchase software packages that have similar functionality in Windows, I've never seen one that would work well across the internet for remote Windows, and there's no built-in functionality that comes close.

There are other areas, of course, where Windows is much better than Linux. But the fact that Microsoft has had about a decade to get caught up with remote X and hasn't says to me that competition would definitely help.

 

[KimB]

Can you really say it would be infinitely better? I really want to know how you see that. What exactly does OSX do that Microsoft doesn't? You can tell me that it's cool because it's rudimentarily based on FreeBSD, but why does that make it better?

Notice the "even if" in his post.

 

[Albuquerque]

That said, there are many good things that Windows does better than other OS's, but there are things that other OS's do better, too. The lack of competition has meant that those things that other OS's do better have never actually found their way into Windows.

Quite the contrary, I think the competition (no matter how small) has led Microsoft into adding a LARGE quantity of features into their OS. You and I both know they grab ideas from everywhere and make them their own... Have you seen the tabbed browser functionality in IE7? Did we not see them rape the OSX look for Vista?

For example, one of the great things about using Linux at home and at work is that I can remote SSH into my machine in my office and work from home when I want to. This not only includes transferring files between the computers, but also using remote X to execute software that I do not have access to at home (such as, for example, Matlab).

It's called Remote Desktop Connection, it comes bundled with Windows XP (home AND pro). You find it in My Computer, Properties, Remote, "Allow users to connect remotely to this computer". You can transfer files, print, run almost any program on the remote machine (except 3D apps, which SSH is also limited to) and it works VERY well even on a 128kb connection. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's missing.

For the most part, the "general user populace" has no use for this feature. Your argument of it not being included is simply a matter of it not being used by anyone but the "uber leet". In which case, there have been applications for MANY years that allow the same functionality on the WinTel platform (PCAnywhere, VNC, just to name a pair)

Gimme something else.

 

[Moose]

Thats great,fuck up drivers and DX and we'll be playing only brand new games. Release of XP already break many games and Vsita will go even futher. That sux. I don't know,am i the only one who still enjoy older games?
NFS4 was broken with release of XP,Half-Life 1 doesn't work anymore,legendary Mechwarrior 2 doesn't work,and loads of other games require hacks or patches. Integrated compatibility mode works in just few cases.

I think Vista will be shipping with a free copy of MS Virtual PC which should let it work with older games.



heh, I think skipping this gen of video cards is becoming an even better way to go if they won't work with Vista anyway.

WTF is up with that???

 

[Albuquerque]

No, as ATI (and NV) have already said, all the DX9 level cards will have support for the Longhorn Display Driver Model. Which means your 9500+ cards or our 5x00+ cards will have support in Vista.

The reverse is what some people are ticked about: you apparently won't get DX10 support in OSes previous to Vista. To me, it makes sense -- you can't do a serious upgrade without breaking a few things. DX10 is a serious overhaul of the underlying technology that links the 3D rendering system to the OS. Unfortunately this means you need a new OS to link it all together. So what? For the functionality we're gaining, I'll gladly take it. Hell, I was gonna upgrade to Vista anyway.

For everyone bitching about how Microsoft is a monopoly and Linux / OSX are such viable and robust alternatives, WTF is the problem? Convert, STFU and leave us Microsoft "suckers" alone. MS probably won't miss you, and neither would I

 

[Tim Murray]

It's called Remote Desktop Connection, it comes bundled with Windows XP (home AND pro). You find it in My Computer, Properties, Remote, "Allow users to connect remotely to this computer". You can transfer files, print, run almost any program on the remote machine (except 3D apps, which SSH is also limited to) and it works VERY well even on a 128kb connection. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's missing.

For the most part, the "general user populace" has no use for this feature. Your argument of it not being included is simply a matter of it not being used by anyone but the "uber leet". In which case, there have been applications for MANY years that allow the same functionality on the WinTel platform (PCAnywhere, VNC, just to name a pair)

Gimme something else.

You have no understanding of how remote X works. It's not "transmit the image being rendered over the net connection." It's "transmit the windowing commands and bitmap images being displayed over the net connection." It's also a lot faster than Remote Desktop. I've used RD since 2002, I am extremely familiar with it, I've done the SSH forwarding, etc. However, RD is very slow. On a wireless connection with a throughput of 6Mbps to the host machine (I tried this at school), RD is nowhere close to sitting at the terminal, whereas X is very close (there's a bit of latency--maybe 30 ms or so, but nothing huge).

By the way, RD does not come bundled with XP Home. The client does, but you can only establish a connection to a machine running XP Pro.

The biggest features I don't have with Windows, to me, are the lack of a security model that can be extremely fine-tuned easily and the lack of a cohesive scripting language. The only OS that I can think of with a comprehensive scripting language like I would like to have is AmigaOS back in the early 90s with ARexx, and it's easy to see how it could be a security nightmare. But with a much-improved security model, it's certainly possible.

The biggest problem with Windows, to me, is the total lack of distinction between the shell and the kernel. The kernel is the window manager is the shell--you can't have one without the rest. That's a load of crap. IE is not built into the kernel, it's built into the shell or window manager for some ungodly reason (I'm sorry, I find the ability to open PDF documents using an IE plugin from inside an Explorer window nauseating). OSX is much improved on that front, with obvious distinctions between the three. Linux has very clear distinctions between the three. Windows has none. If they were to separate them, I doubt they would run into anywhere near the number of security holes in IE or Outlook that they have now.

 

[KimB]

Quite the contrary, I think the competition (no matter how small) has led Microsoft into adding a LARGE quantity of features into their OS. You and I both know they grab ideas from everywhere and make them their own... Have you seen the tabbed browser functionality in IE7? Did we not see them rape the OSX look for Vista?

Well, IE7 isn't an OS, and how long has it been since Mozilla first implemented tabbed browsing? Two years? Three? Compare that to a market where there's real competition, like the video card market.

It's called Remote Desktop Connection, it comes bundled with Windows XP (home AND pro). You find it in My Computer, Properties, Remote, "Allow users to connect remotely to this computer". You can transfer files, print, run almost any program on the remote machine (except 3D apps, which SSH is also limited to) and it works VERY well even on a 128kb connection. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's missing.

I'll admit, I didn't know XP had this, but that still means that it took Microsoft nearly a decade to implement it. Again, see my above note on competition.

Currently, one of the huge benefits with working in Linux is actually robust command line and the robust text-based software available. Text-based software is very nice to use from time to time for speed reasons. GUI's are okay for when you're just going to do something once, or for when you're just learning, but text is where it's at for getting work done quickly. I've never been able to make new plots as quickly as I can now with supermongo under Linux (a completely text-based plotting program).

For the most part, the "general user populace" has no use for this feature. Your argument of it not being included is simply a matter of it not being used by anyone but the "uber leet". In which case, there have been applications for MANY years that allow the same functionality on the WinTel platform (PCAnywhere, VNC, just to name a pair)

"uber leet"?? Nothing of the sort. Using SSH is extremely common around here. Some people use it to run programs on idle machines elsewhere in the building. Others use it to connect to offsite computers (I used it for a time to do some processing on the Seaborg computer at NERSC). SSH is a fantastic tool for getting stuff done in a networked environment.

 

[Richard]

If anything I think MS are being too conservative with Longhorn and that the next Windows*should* break compatibility. If I find any more Windows 3.1 files in Longhorn's Windows dir I'm going to be very annoyed. IMHO MS should make Vista only support 2000/XP/2003 apps and force every other app to run through the built-in Virtual PC (heck, that way your old OSs are still in use).

Backwards compatibility is only needed in the transition period. I'd very much prefer if MS dedicated their time making sure Longhorn apps work their best and break compatibility for DOS-Win9x-NT4 instead of trying to make everything run, taking engineer time away from longhorn apps (you know, the ones we're actually going to be using 6 months after Longhorn ships), and still ending up with backwards compatibility that is less than perfect.

 

[Albuquerque]

You have no understanding of how remote X works. It's not "transmit the image being rendered over the net connection." It's "transmit the windowing commands and bitmap images being displayed over the net connection."

You know what? You're right, I really don't know how RemoteX works. Thank you for the crash course, it sounds fabulous et al, but so what? I do remote desktop on a daily basis to multiple servers over my broadband (4mbit down, 256kb up) without any problems. Yeah, it's not INSTANTANEOUS like sitting at the console, but I don't need something with a 30ms response time either. When I'm running a remote job, the job itself is running at the speed of the remote host -- my display doesn't need to keep up at the EXACT same speed, that's why I have log files if I want to get crazy. I can do what I need to do as if I were sitting there, and that's all I need. What processes do you run that require such incredibly tight display latencies? (just as a curiousity)

The biggest features I don't have with Windows, to me, are the lack of a security model that can be extremely fine-tuned easily and the lack of a cohesive scripting language.

I can't speak to the security model; I'm not sure what you're aiming for there. NTFS permissions, user rights, local policy, firewall rules... Maybe it's too abstract to you. For me, Linux is WAY too abstract in the way they do things as well. What makes sense to you is what you learned on -- I learned on Windows, and Linux goes out of it's way to make things convoluted in my opinion. Does that make either of our opinions more right than the other's? I think you know the answer

As for scripting language, you've had batch scripting since the dawn of DOS. I use batch scripting almost daily. If you don't want to count batch scripting, you also have Windows Scripting Host, available since Win2K. Both are free, both allow registry maniuplation, file manipulation, user interface manipulation, you name it.

Well, IE7 isn't an OS, and how long has it been since Mozilla first implemented tabbed browsing? Two years? Three? Compare that to a market where there's real competition, like the video card market.

Doesn't matter. Microsoft steals ideas from everyone else, even the small guys. And I used it as one example, I'm sure you and I both could think of four dozen other ways they've grabbed ideas from other OSes. Howabout the ability to mount a volume as a folder instead? (Linux had this for years, MS had it since Win2K because people started asking for it)

I'll admit, I didn't know XP had this, but that still means that it took Microsoft nearly a decade to implement it. Again, see my above note on competition.

They put it in when the requests hit a certain critical mass. You give an example of how "everyone" in your office uses SSH. Does your office consist of Joe Dumb and Jane Dumb clientelle? Twenty bucks says no, or if there are, it's because they don't know what SSH is and can't tell it's any different from actually using the program on their own machine. Seriously. Consider the market that Microsoft has, and tell me that 99% of their user base is going to realize what they're missing with Remote Desktop... You ARE the "uber leet", just as I am, and it has no bearing on our relative merits but instead our daily interaction with the OS. I coined the term to poke a bit of fun, but in reality, it's not too far off. If you're reading this forum, you're one of that 1% who knows enough to understand how effective remote control can be.

Currently, one of the huge benefits with working in Linux is actually robust command line and the robust text-based software available. Text-based software is very nice to use from time to time for speed reasons. GUI's are okay for when you're just going to do something once, or for when you're just learning, but text is where it's at for getting work done quickly. I've never been able to make new plots as quickly as I can now with supermongo under Linux (a completely text-based plotting program).

I agree completely, GUI just isn't effective for a lot of tasks. I do quite a bit in command line; I always have at least one command line shell open on my XP box at work (typically two) I don't know about plotting, but I'm quite sure you can find something... I do most of my ISO creation with a nice old version of CDRPACK and MKISOFS; I do most of my script editing in good ol' EDIT.COM.