Questions on WGF 1.0

And when you bought (assuming you did) Windows nowhere did they make a guarantee that it would support all future versions of API’s and software, you may hope that it will, but there is no obligation for them to do so. The actual cost of the operating system is fairly small anyway, when you weight it against the price of a few games, and the game costs are generally lower as a result of the different cost structures.

“You feelingâ€￾ you shouldn’t need to purchase new software to get new support is not the way the world works.

 

This is microsoft we are talking about here so you know what to expect.

 

Yes, of course. Otherwise I wouldn't be posting

 

Yes, and if I am forced to purchase new software, as I have said before, I will purchase new software not from Microsoft.

 

Except that absolutely no one is forcing you to buy anything.

 

They are if I want to play game X that requires version Y of the API that is not support on, say, Windows 2000.

 

Forcing means that you havo no other options. You do have other options (stay with current OS, move to alternative) but those don't allow you to play the game X. Welcome to life!

 

Me wanting to drive with a car will make me pay taxes for my car, whether I like it or not. This whole argument is about nothing. You are not forced into playing game X.

 

You do what you need to do, but to be honest with you after using Linux for awhile, discounting security, linux sucks for multimedia or gaming and even beyond that windows Longhorn will own linux.

You might as well go back to Unix from the AT&T days.

I would rather buy a forward OS than a backwards OS trying to be new while you use WineX to play windows games (not too bright IMO).

I wish all the people saying I am going to Linux if Microsoft does XYZ, would go over to linux and try to get the same abilities as Windows without having freezes, easy printing abilities, USB that actually works, and wireless that actually works.

 

Except it won't be just one game that will require the new API. It takes too much development time to make most games for multiple API's.

 

I've been using Linux for a while, and while it can sometimes be a challenge to set things up, once I have done so, multimedia has been no problem at all (I can play all of my music and 99.9% of all the videos I've downloaded just fine in Linux). The only multimedia drawback I've had so far is that I've had issues getting my TV capture card working, but I have no reason to believe it couldn't work with a bit of tweaking.

Now, most of my games don't come in a Linux version, of course, so I obviously can't compare that very well right now (those that do have typically felt like they ran a bit better under Linux, provided I use an nVidia card). But before totally making the switch I'd have to do a serious test in using some Windows emulation software and see how things go.

Linux is continually evolving and updating, so I'd say this has nothing to do with anything resembling a step backwards in technology.

USB works fine. Have never tried wireless. I've gotten DSL connections up and running, ethernet is flawless, freezes haven't been a problem. I don't actually bother with a printer at home so I can't comment on that.

But, in the end, provided I can get my games working adequately in Linux, it would actually be vastly more convenient for me, since I use Linux every day for work (I could then work more easily when at home without having to reboot).

 

If a developer programs a game for platforms X and Y, you have to own one of them (or an emulator). It has always been like that.

It will take more than two years after Longhorn is out until there are WGF2.0-only games. Until that happens, you should be able to enjoy your games under WinXP without a problem.

 

A major part of the new UI is that it allows a much greater off-loading of graphics tasks to the GPU, meaning less strain on the CPU. It'll do stuff like font antialiasing and such that is entirely CPU-driven today.

It will also get rid of ancient crappy kludgy solutions like the video overlay, and allow multiple hardware accelerated video windows that can be alphablended - impossible with today's tech.

 

The average consumer won't be the one who is most pissed by model #2. The software vendors will hold that honor. Which will slow development of new software showing off the new features, which in turn will slow adoption of the new OS in the classic chicken/egg conundrum of developing software for a new incompatible OS. History suggests that model #1 looks better in theory to marketing guys than it turns out to be in practice --let's hope that somebody at MS remembers that.

The better model is to have it run on the old OS but the performance (possibly even artificially for you conspiracy fans) be significantly but not tragically worse than on the new OS. That way developers can write for the whole market, and OS hold outs get a drip-drip-drip of performance pressure to eventually jolly them into upgrading.

 

Right, so that's why I'm holding out hope that they will release compatible 3D graphics interfaces for older programs. Some of the features that Guden Oden mentioned would almost certainly not be ported back, but that's not really a concern in the context I'm talking about.