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

[Tim Murray]

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.

It doesn't allow for manipulation of every app. That's what I'm after. I can't do things like once an email formatted in a particular way enters my inbox in Thunderbird, the attached picture is saved to a directory and Photoshop converts it to a greyscale TIF at 300dpi. I can't do anything close to that.

As to what processes require such tight latency, it's not a latency issue; it's a bandwidth issue. Network-transparent X works much better than RD or VNC when you're dealing with low-bandwidth connections (dial-up, poor quality broadband like I have in rural NC). Instead of refreshing the screen (or the changes in the screen, whatever, but a bitmap image either way), you send commands. "Message Box Ahoy!" instead of an image of a message box. There's zero reason why this cannot be implemented in Windows--they just haven't, and the plattform is so closed that it will never be created by a third party.

Also, you seriously underestimate the prevalence of ssh. Go to a college--when you have to connect to a remote machine (which everyone does, to put something on a server or for that basic CS class or whatever), you use ssh. Telnet is dead; ssh is king.

 

[Albuquerque]

It doesn't allow for manipulation of every app. That's what I'm after. I can't do things like once an email formatted in a particular way enters my inbox in Thunderbird, the attached picture is saved to a directory and Photoshop converts it to a greyscale TIF at 300dpi. I can't do anything close to that.

Ever stop to consider why? How many millions of developers are there for Microsoft OSes? It would be like saying that EVERY intake manifold ever made for your Kia Spectra bolts on with zero issues, versus saying that half of the intake manifolds made for a Chevy 350 require some sort of modification. Gee, let's think of why: Perhaps there are four thousand times more developers (and about eight million times more development effort) put into applications that run on Microsoft OSes? I'm just guessing, but that may be part of the problem.

I want to know what scripting language you're using (and not some screen recorder crap) that allows you to script EVERY SINGLE application ever created under Linux? I can create some pretty elaborate WSH scripts to do things, so long as the applications have the appropriate hooks. But it all ends up landing on the app developer, not the scripting language itself.

As to what processes require such tight latency, it's not a latency issue; it's a bandwidth issue. Network-transparent X works much better than RD or VNC when you're dealing with low-bandwidth connections (dial-up, poor quality broadband like I have in rural NC). Instead of refreshing the screen (or the changes in the screen, whatever, but a bitmap image either way), you send commands. "Message Box Ahoy!" instead of an image of a message box. There's zero reason why this cannot be implemented in Windows--they just haven't, and the plattform is so closed that it will never be created by a third party.

What makes you so certain "it will never be created by a third party"? If people start clamoring for it, then it will happen. I think you underestimate Microsoft's want to make their OS replace everything, which will undoubtedly include making a lighter-weight remote control function if the populace asks for it. But again, along with my note to Chalnoth, you really aren't the huge majority. You might think you are, but you most certainly are not. Of the eleventy billion people who have Windows OS'es on their machine, there's probably a million of us that would notice.

Also, you seriously underestimate the prevalence of ssh. Go to a college--when you have to connect to a remote machine (which everyone does, to put something on a server or for that basic CS class or whatever), you use ssh. Telnet is dead; ssh is king.

No, I think you overestimate the market saturation of Linux. I've been to three colleges -- one private (Friends University in Kansas) and two public (Kansas State University, University of New Mexico). First college was for a CSIS degree, second two were for an Structural Engineering degree. NONE of the three had any sort of wide installed base of *nix except for a few specialized areas. No SSH. No Telnet.

SSH might be alive, just as alive as LInux is. But Linux is a bug splatter on the windshield of a Mac Truck with a MS logo on the side, ESPECIALLY when talking about market penetration to the masses. You keep talking about how much SSH is used; you're VERY obviously only considering what you can see from your viewpoint. Of the several hundred servers in my company's stockpile, only a dozen or so are Linux based. They're all ESX boxes, of which I'm sure we use some RemoteX (or something similar) to administer them at a root level. But all the VM's that are running on those ESX boxes? They're all Windows servers, and they're all administered (along with the other several hundreds of boxes) by a combination of Microsoft Remote Desktop (aka Terminal Services) and Compaq Insight Manager (Lights out edition) boards.

 

[KimB]

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)

For me, mostly editing source files. It's more of a hassle to edit them locally and upload (and more prone to human error).

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.

Batch scripting is nothing compared to what you can do with Linux scripts.

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.

I am a graduate student at a University. My work is research work. Linux is the norm for most research universities, and ssh use is very common (well, there are plenty of Windows machines on campus when you go over to the humanities, or in one of the many computer labs, but in the sciences, it's almost all Linux, with Macs coming in a distant second, though with OSX, they now have many of the same networking benefits).

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.

And let me tell you, once you get past the learning curve, the linux text-based utilities are vastly superior to Microsoft's. A few nice things:
1. Tab-complete in the command line (for executables, files, not options).
2. Text editor that knows about C, Fortran (I dispise the language, but its use is still common, unfortunately, in physics research...frequently it's older versions, too), shell scripts, makefiles, you name it.
3. Ability to trivially use files as text input for programs (e.g. you have a program that prompts user input: use a file instead of typing it in every time), or send text output from programs to files or other programs.

Sometimes Linux goes a bit overboard on its text-based interface, as that's often the only way you can do some things (like install most new software), but it's fantastic for getting stuff done.

Edit:
Another slick thing with Linux is the way cut-and-paste works. Highlight text anywhere, and then click the middle mouse button anywhere else, and the text gets pasted. Other than being a neat shortcut, it's nice because it works with anything, as it's a function of the OS.

 

[Tim Murray]

Ever stop to consider why? How many millions of developers are there for Microsoft OSes? It would be like saying that EVERY intake manifold ever made for your Kia Spectra bolts on with zero issues, versus saying that half of the intake manifolds made for a Chevy 350 require some sort of modification. Gee, let's think of why: Perhaps there are four thousand times more developers (and about eight million times more development effort) put into applications that run on Microsoft OSes? I'm just guessing, but that may be part of the problem.

I want to know what scripting language you're using (and not some screen recorder crap) that allows you to script EVERY SINGLE application ever created under Linux? I can create some pretty elaborate WSH scripts to do things, so long as the applications have the appropriate hooks. But it all ends up landing on the app developer, not the scripting language itself.

I never mentioned Linux in this regard. You can't do it on Linux. I mentioned AmigaOS and ARexx, and it was pretty much the case that you could control any app. Don't put words in my mouth, please.

By the way, "Perhaps there are four thousand times more developers (and about eight million times more development effort) put into applications that run on Microsoft OSes?" Heard of the Linux kernel lately? What about Apache? Firefox, perhaps?

What makes you so certain "it will never be created by a third party"? If people start clamoring for it, then it will happen. I think you underestimate Microsoft's want to make their OS replace everything, which will undoubtedly include making a lighter-weight remote control function if the populace asks for it. But again, along with my note to Chalnoth, you really aren't the huge majority. You might think you are, but you most certainly are not. Of the eleventy billion people who have Windows OS'es on their machine, there's probably a million of us that would notice.

I don't think it can be created by a third party, due to the kernel, shell, and window manager being tied together as tightly as they are. It's not modular enough to add something like network transparency without a major overhaul.

No, I think you overestimate the market saturation of Linux. I've been to three colleges -- one private (Friends University in Kansas) and two public (Kansas State University, University of New Mexico). First college was for a CSIS degree, second two were for an Structural Engineering degree. NONE of the three had any sort of wide installed base of *nix except for a few specialized areas. No SSH. No Telnet.

SSH might be alive, just as alive as LInux is. But Linux is a bug splatter on the windshield of a Mac Truck with a MS logo on the side, ESPECIALLY when talking about market penetration to the masses. You keep talking about how much SSH is used; you're VERY obviously only considering what you can see from your viewpoint. Of the several hundred servers in my company's stockpile, only a dozen or so are Linux based. They're all ESX boxes, of which I'm sure we use some RemoteX (or something similar) to administer them at a root level. But all the VM's that are running on those ESX boxes? They're all Windows servers, and they're all administered (along with the other several hundreds of boxes) by a combination of Microsoft Remote Desktop (aka Terminal Services) and Compaq Insight Manager (Lights out edition) boards.

You're putting all free software, open standards, and open source software under the umbrella term "Linux," which is totally inaccurate. ssh is not Linux. It's the primary way to get remote access to a Linux server, but it has nothing to do with Linux. The marketing assistant in this tiny little non-profit organization uses ssh to tunnel a remote desktop connection securely to the ticketing server--which runs Windows Server 2003--several times a day. ssh is about more than just simple command line access; port forwarding means that anyone can use it for anything they would like to packet sniffers from detecting. It's not some arcane program like emacs is.

Also, CS sophomore at Carnegie Mellon. CS department is entirely OSX with the exception of a Solaris server. The only Windows machines are for humanities and engineers, where they don't have apps that will run on *nix. *nix is not some insignificant tiny portion of the market like you believe it is. All Macs are *nix. Top 10 supercomputers in the world? Nine of the ten run Linux. The other one runs a variety of Unix (Super-UX). I can tell you in two words why Windows is used on corporate networks: Active Directory.

 

[Albuquerque]

And let me tell you, once you get past the learning curve, the linux text-based utilities are vastly superior to Microsoft's. A few nice things:
1. Tab-complete in the command line (for executables, files, not options).
2. Text editor that knows about C, Fortran (I dispise the language, but its use is still common, unfortunately, in physics research...frequently it's older versions, too), shell scripts, makefiles, you name it.
3. Ability to trivially use files as text input for programs (e.g. you have a program that prompts user input: use a file instead of typing it in every time), or send text output from programs to files or other programs.

Well, two of the three ain't bad. Tab-complete in a command shell is available in both Win2K and WinXP. The ability to use text files as input or as a pipe to another application is also very much available in command line, interestingly enough, with the pipe "|" function. I use this quite a bit in a LOT of my batch scripting functions. I can pipe data in, pipe data out, use piped data from one app to answer another. Your text editor that knows some basic programming languages and the build methodology for some of the core files is pretty nice, I can see plenty of benefit for that in the Wintel world if it existed.

I am a graduate student at a University. My work is research work. Linux is the norm for most research universities, and ssh use is very common (well, there are plenty of Windows machines on campus when you go over to the humanities, or in one of the many computer labs, but in the sciences, it's almost all Linux, with Macs coming in a distant second, though with OSX, they now have many of the same networking benefits).

Seems that you and Baron both use research universities as your proving grounds for open source. Since that was the birthplace of these types of things, it stands to reason that this is where they will continue to thrive. Howabout the other hundreds, if not thousands of schools (universities, community colleges, primary and secondary schools) that have computer labs and equipment? What is the grand majority using, *nix , Mac (which is almost the same) or Windows? Now tell me how many of those people are technically savvy enough to understand what SSH is and why it's so much better than Terminal Services.

Most of us in this thread can think of reasons why SSH is superior to MSTSC, I'll freely admit to that. But consider the TOTAL audience of computer users in this world, and you still end up in the vast minority with your request. Seriously. You know this just as well as I do.

Microsoft got this big and made this much money for pleasing the masses and for killer business tactics. Just like *nix, their software doesn't fill EVERY niche. But you know what? Their software fills the niches that the most of the computer-using world wants. And most of the computer-using world isn't technically savvy enough to even know what a makefile is, what a shell is, what a kernel is, what bandwidth means or why it's limiting their speed online. Everyone in this thread knows this; none of this is new.

Also, CS sophomore at Carnegie Mellon. CS department is entirely OSX with the exception of a Solaris server. The only Windows machines are for humanities and engineers, where they don't have apps that will run on *nix. *nix is not some insignificant tiny portion of the market like you believe it is. All Macs are *nix. Top 10 supercomputers in the world? Nine of the ten run Linux. The other one runs a variety of Unix (Super-UX). I can tell you in two words why Windows is used on corporate networks: Active Directory.

Let's do the math. Top 10 supercomputers in the world? Yup, *nix based. YOu made the same point as Chalnoth did with your university using *nix, let's count in all the other classrooms in the world. *nix really IS on an insignificant tiny portion of the market, whether you like to admit it or not.

The *nix-powered top 10 super computers in the world is NINE computers. Howabout the other BILLION or so computers that exist on the planet? *nix and every single variant thereof (Solaris, FreeBSD, SUSE, RedHat, OSX, whatever else) probably accounts for less than 10% of the entire installed base of the planet -- not even counting the machines that dual boot or are running a VM / emulated OS on top of another host. Seriously, you guys ARE THE MINORITY. That doesn't mean it's a lesser platform, or that it sucks, or that it doesn't work, and nor have I said anything to that effect. What it does mean is that Microsoft has no real need or want to hunt down your little "nit picking" problems and solve them until your issues become a BIGGER part of their pie.

You continue asking about SSH, but you mention there are apps that allow it to function on a Win2003 server. Guess what? Give it about three to five years, and I bet there will be an SSH snapin to IIS. You know why? Because someone has already developed it, and so long as it continues gaining critical mass, they'll eventually import it. Just like they imported telnet clients, web browsers, you name it.

 

[ANova]

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.

That's exactly my point. This means MS can devise any price they deem fit and the consumer only has two choices, either pay or you have to give up whatever it is you want to do. I'll give them credit for supporting win 98 when it comes to gaming, but that's about to stop with the advent of DX10, not only for 98 but also 2000 and XP. Granted we will still have some support for DX9, that is until game developers decide to drop support for it altogether maybe 2 or 3 years after Longhorn releases. Then we will be forced to upgrade.

As far as prices are concerned. You can get an OEM version of XP Pro for under $150 now, but that wasn't always the case and the retail versions cost quite a bit more. Longhorn will no doubt be priced higher. It's not simply the cost that bothers me, as I think it is a good OS overall, it's more that I don't like being treated like a thief. Required activation (every time you install or update your computer), stuff like the OS's refusal to start if you make a large hardware change (which was added purposefully), and now lots of DRM (there will be around 6 variations included with Longhorn). Oh and then theres the fact that you aren't allowed to install the OS on more then one computer, as if I have $500 to spend on three family computers just for an OS. This is where MS gets all of its money, they have little to no costs like hardware companies do since they have to buy the parts and the packaging. An OS, on the other hand, is strictly software which means it can be duplicated almost infinitely and downloaded free of any shipping charges asside from what it costs for the broadband service. Once the initial cost of developing the OS clears, which is fairly fast, profit is nearly one hundred percent for each OS that sells.

Which leads me to my next problem with MS. They have money, lots of money. More so then most would know what to do with, yet they require more. They increase prices rather then decrease and create more versions because they know they can get more money out of Premium versions with all the bells and whistles. This is more or less what Ballmer said regarding XP Pro and how it created billions in extra revenue for them. So I suppose adding an additional version for say an extra $50-100 over the current price of XP pro will provide them billions more. So when does it become too much? When does it become greed. How many houses does one need. I guess I'm a bit of a humanitarian and when I see giant corporations like MS hording money when there are people in the world starving and impoverished, it makes me feel angry. Sure Bill does give away billions, but he has many billions more and he gets a large chunk of that back in tax breaks. I just don't like supporting a company that I know screws the majority of its customers so that its employees can have another Porsche or Ferrari. You can turn away from the problems of the world all you like, but that won't fix them.

 

[Albuquerque]

I suppose we could all agree to disagree, and get back to talking about DX10/WGF2.0 on Vista and not on XP

I'm still all for it. You want the best toys, you keep up. I vaguely recall some bitching when Quake 3 called for no less than a 3D accelerator and software rendering wasn't even going to be an option. But hey, if you wanted to play, then you needed to pony up the $$$.

 

[KimB]

Well, two of the three ain't bad. Tab-complete in a command shell is available in both Win2K and WinXP.

Er, it's definitely not in Win2k (which I'm still using...). There is something similar when filling in path prompts (when, say, making shortcuts or somesuch), but not in the command line.

Let's do the math. Top 10 supercomputers in the world? Yup, *nix based. YOu made the same point as Chalnoth did with your university using *nix, let's count in all the other classrooms in the world. *nix really IS on an insignificant tiny portion of the market, whether you like to admit it or not.

If *nix OS's weren't on a rather small portion of PC's worldwide, do you think we'd be having a conversation about how Microsoft is a monopoly? But the portion of the market is not insignificant.

You continue asking about SSH, but you mention there are apps that allow it to function on a Win2003 server. Guess what? Give it about three to five years, and I bet there will be an SSH snapin to IIS. You know why? Because someone has already developed it, and so long as it continues gaining critical mass, they'll eventually import it. Just like they imported telnet clients, web browsers, you name it.

Eventually is the problem. This is, again, why the tiny amount of competition in the OS market harms the consumer.

 

[Bob]

Er, it's definitely not in Win2k (which I'm still using...). There is something similar when filling in path prompts (when, say, making shortcuts or somesuch), but not in the command line.

You need TweakUI to activate the feature (or some manual registry editing, whichever you prefer).

 

[Colourless]

You need TweakUI to activate the feature (or some manual registry editing, whichever you prefer).

These are the registry settings:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor\CompletionChar
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor\PathCompletionChar

 

[SugarCoat]

That's exactly my point. This means MS can devise any price they deem fit and the consumer only has two choices, either pay or you have to give up whatever it is you want to do. I'll give them credit for supporting win 98 when it comes to gaming, but that's about to stop with the advent of DX10, not only for 98 but also 2000 and XP. Granted we will still have some support for DX9, that is until game developers decide to drop support for it altogether maybe 2 or 3 years after Longhorn releases. Then we will be forced to upgrade.

As far as prices are concerned. You can get an OEM version of XP Pro for under $150 now, but that wasn't always the case and the retail versions cost quite a bit more. Longhorn will no doubt be priced higher. It's not simply the cost that bothers me, as I think it is a good OS overall, it's more that I don't like being treated like a thief. Required activation (every time you install or update your computer), stuff like the OS's refusal to start if you make a large hardware change (which was added purposefully), and now lots of DRM (there will be around 6 variations included with Longhorn). Oh and then theres the fact that you aren't allowed to install the OS on more then one computer, as if I have $500 to spend on three family computers just for an OS. This is where MS gets all of its money, they have little to no costs like hardware companies do since they have to buy the parts and the packaging. An OS, on the other hand, is strictly software which means it can be duplicated almost infinitely and downloaded free of any shipping charges asside from what it costs for the broadband service. Once the initial cost of developing the OS clears, which is fairly fast, profit is nearly one hundred percent for each OS that sells.

Which leads me to my next problem with MS. They have money, lots of money. More so then most would know what to do with, yet they require more. They increase prices rather then decrease and create more versions because they know they can get more money out of Premium versions with all the bells and whistles. This is more or less what Ballmer said regarding XP Pro and how it created billions in extra revenue for them. So I suppose adding an additional version for say an extra $50-100 over the current price of XP pro will provide them billions more. So when does it become too much? When does it become greed. How many houses does one need. I guess I'm a bit of a humanitarian and when I see giant corporations like MS hording money when there are people in the world starving and impoverished, it makes me feel angry. Sure Bill does give away billions, but he has many billions more and he gets a large chunk of that back in tax breaks. I just don't like supporting a company that I know screws the majority of its customers so that its employees can have another Porsche or Ferrari. You can turn away from the problems of the world all you like, but that won't fix them.

Well man, i think you'd have every other computer maker and OS up in arms if MS started mass price cuts on operating systems which is what you seem to want. This would problably stick them right back in court for monopoly violations if they began to undercut everyone. Right now they dont charge anymore then everyone else.

 

[Pete]

Um, why would lowering their prices (read: profits) land them in court? ANova's not advocating dumping Windows on the market (selling below cost in anticipation of growing marketshare and later boosting prices [*cough*Xbox*cough*]), but merely selling it at less of a profit. I don't think it's illegal yet to sell for profit in America.

I tend to think the same way as ANova, but I don't know how R&D or simply being a publicly-traded company affects MS' bottom line (and management of it).

 

[SugarCoat]

Um, why would lowering their prices (read: profits) land them in court? ANova's not advocating dumping Windows on the market (selling below cost in anticipation of growing marketshare and later boosting prices [*cough*Xbox*cough*]), but merely selling it at less of a profit. I don't think it's illegal yet to sell for profit in America.

I tend to think the same way as ANova, but I don't know how R&D or simply being a publicly-traded company affects MS' bottom line (and management of it).

well i consider an operating system on the same level as any other type of hardware. What would happen if one specific creator of something, IE AMD/Intel, Nvidia/ATI or any motherboard manufacturers, undercut everyone else? People do like more for less, and that would feed that stealing sales most certainly from other places that need everyone, IBM, Apple, etc..

but ya know, what ever...threads gotten way off topic

 

[KimB]

well i consider an operating system on the same level as any other type of hardware.

Hardware?

Anyway, it's impossible for Microsoft to undercut Linux, for instance (since it's always available for free). Typically the only time you pay for Linux is when you pay for a service contract. From what I understand, the service contracts from Microsoft are still quite a bit more expensive.

 

[WaltC]

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.

Again, it wasn't and has never been "just Microsoft"--it was the alliance of MS *and* all of the major hardware OEM players in the x86 market working together over the last 20 years that created the standardized x86 market of today. It didn't happen overnight and it certainly didn't happen because of any sort of unilateral behavior on the part of Microsoft. You give Microsoft far too much credit and you give nobody else any credit at all, it seems to me.

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.

As yours overlooks the fact that "indiscretions" or no, Microsoft did not reach its present position by itself, but instead was merely a boat rising on the tides created by the voluntary cooperation of all the major hardware OEMs in the world. The x86 ocean was a rising tide lifting all boats sailing on it, not just Microsoft's boat.

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).

The simple answer to that is this: if all of Microsoft's hardware OEM partners of the last 20 years had decided to manufacture hardware incompatible with x86--just where do you think Microsoft would be today in terms of marketshare? The idea that Microsoft is some kind of a puppet master pulling the strings of the world technology markets is pure poppycock... The fact is that Microsoft pulls no strings which do not wish to be pulled in the first place. x86 is entirely a cooperative effort of hundreds of companies to create a huge and dynamically competitive market centered around *standards* which are mutually agreed to and accepted by all parties involved.

Note: price-fixing by a single company cannot technically exist, because the definition of price fixing requires that a group of companies conspire to fix prices.

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.

The "monopoly" MS has exists on the backs of the hundreds of companies around the world who have voluntarily cooperated with MS to expand and standardize the x86 marketplace. It's exceptionally easy to prove this point as Microsoft alone is not the *only* company to profit from the x86 markets, and literally never has been. Instead, MS is but one of hundreds-thousands of companies internationally which all profit individually from their voluntary roles inside the x86/Windows marketplace. MS is not and never has been alone in forming today's x86 markets--a compelling fact which your analysis neatly ignores.

 

[ANova]

Well man, i think you'd have every other computer maker and OS up in arms if MS started mass price cuts on operating systems which is what you seem to want. This would problably stick them right back in court for monopoly violations if they began to undercut everyone. Right now they dont charge anymore then everyone else.

All Linux builds are free except for some enterprise editions such as Red Hat, and even then its price is nowhere near that of what MS charges for Win Server 2003 Enterprise Edition. The only other OS that costs is Apple's OSX, which is still cheaper then any Windows platform.

x86 is entirely a cooperative effort of hundreds of companies to create a huge and dynamically competitive market centered around *standards* which are mutually agreed to and accepted by all parties involved.

Competitive to all those except Microsoft.

 

[KimB]

Again, it wasn't and has never been "just Microsoft"--it was the alliance of MS *and* all of the major hardware OEM players in the x86 market working together over the last 20 years that created the standardized x86 market of today. It didn't happen overnight and it certainly didn't happen because of any sort of unilateral behavior on the part of Microsoft. You give Microsoft far too much credit and you give nobody else any credit at all, it seems to me.

Did I ever say "just Microsoft?" You're the one that's crediting Microsoft with the standard platform we have today, not me.

As yours overlooks the fact that "indiscretions" or no, Microsoft did not reach its present position by itself, but instead was merely a boat rising on the tides created by the voluntary cooperation of all the major hardware OEMs in the world. The x86 ocean was a rising tide lifting all boats sailing on it, not just Microsoft's boat.

I don't see what relevance this has to anything. Nothing exists in a vaccum.

The simple answer to that is this: if all of Microsoft's hardware OEM partners of the last 20 years had decided to manufacture hardware incompatible with x86--just where do you think Microsoft would be today in terms of marketshare? The idea that Microsoft is some kind of a puppet master pulling the strings of the world technology markets is pure poppycock... The fact is that Microsoft pulls no strings which do not wish to be pulled in the first place. x86 is entirely a cooperative effort of hundreds of companies to create a huge and dynamically competitive market centered around *standards* which are mutually agreed to and accepted by all parties involved.

Unrelated.

The "monopoly" MS has exists on the backs of the hundreds of companies around the world who have voluntarily cooperated with MS to expand and standardize the x86 marketplace. It's exceptionally easy to prove this point as Microsoft alone is not the *only* company to profit from the x86 markets, and literally never has been. Instead, MS is but one of hundreds-thousands of companies internationally which all profit individually from their voluntary roles inside the x86/Windows marketplace. MS is not and never has been alone in forming today's x86 markets--a compelling fact which your analysis neatly ignores.

Does this make Microsoft have any less of a monopoly? Or make Microsoft's dominance any better for the consumer? As far as I can see, Walt, your arguments all have missed the point completely.

C'mon, Walt, you could at least argue the point. Is Microsoft a monopoly or isn't it? Is this bad for the consumer or isn't it? How Microsoft got to where it is today affects neither of these.

 

[blakjedi]

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.

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

Ha that made me laugh out loud but i agree.

 

[scificube]

Hold on...MS can stop would hunger and poverty? Since when and how?

If MS gave away every cent it had it would only still make a very small dent in the whole situation as it is now and furthermore would solve absolutely nothing with respect to how things will still be in the future.

Poor countries will remain poor and ever dependent upon others if they are not developed to the point at which they can do for themselves. Such a task is well out of the reach of MS and is a task they are ill equipped to perform.

This task is reserved for governments not companies. Governments still just can't throw money at the problem...it hasn't worked and never will. A country's infrastructure must improve, education must be improved, economy adjusted, social development must change course and a litany of other things must occur before extreme poverty of both body and mind can eliminated permanently. These things take both time and considerable effort ALONG WITH money to make happen.

Money however is all most have the power contribute...like me, most likely you reading this, and Bill Gates. He contributes a great deal of money to those less fortunate than him etc. However, this is simply to be dismissed because in some way he also gets to benefit from it in the form of tax cuts? I ask...what do you prefer should happen? Should Bill Gates be punished for helping othesr with taxes placed upon his contributions? Or do you think Bill should not get a break in that the tax revenue collected from him would go to starving people around the world...really?

Giving one incentive to do good by and for their fellow man SHOULD be what we all want in a world where caring for another out of the desire to do 'good' in itself is an increasingly rare trait among people. If there is anything good at all in America's tax code...giving someone a break for trying to help the world's least fortunate is it and IMO people qualified to take advantage of this full well deserve to be able to do so with impunity.

Sorry for this off topic post, but I had to say something.

 

[WaltC]

Competitive to all those except Microsoft.

So, it's Microsoft's fault that companies like Apple and Commodore, at a time before Windows existed and the entire x86 hardware world market was a flyspeck, chose not to license the cloning of their hardware--which in turn would have dramatically increased sales and circulations of their respective OS's? I cannot see how that situation could possibly have anything at all to do with Microsoft's decision to support x86 when nobody else wanted to. It just seems so convenient to sit back and blame the judgmental failures of all of these other companies on Microsoft. Their lapses of vision were their own, entirely.

I mean, even today Apple has no plans whatsoever to challenge Microsoft in the x86 OS field--we know that for a fact because Apple isn't going to allow, support, or promote an x86 OSX that will run on any x86 box except an Apple x86 box. Even now, these companies are still chasing their own limited, custom *hardware* markets and want nothing to do with competing with Microsoft directly on x86--this isn't a new phenomenon--it's been that way for decades.

Also, your comments suggest that Microsoft is still selling nothing but DOS and has never been competitive simply because it hasn't had to do anything except sit on its monopoly. The vast sums of money and time which Microsoft pours into its never-ending OS development, sums of money and time unmatched by any corporate entity on earth at any time in the history of the personal computer, completely destroy such a hypothesis in my opinion. MS has *never* "sat still" and "milked" the purported monopoly that it is supposed to have, but to the contrary is always "raising the bar" in a number of fundamental areas. Sitting still and "raking in the dough" has never been characteristic of Microsoft, and that is *precisely* what the company's detractors despise about it.

If Microsoft was a real monopoly in the sense it is often said to be then "sitting still" would be the very thing Microsoft excels in, but obviously, such is not the case at all, is it? Microsoft's competitors loathe the company exactly because it is so vigorously competitive and is perpetually seeking to improve its products and services. Such conduct rubs against the grain of many tech companies--who merely want to *quit* development, hang out a sign that says, "We've arrived!" and rake in the dough in perpetuity. Microsoft makes that kind of complacency improssible for them and that's why they loathe the company as they do.