---Jim
> > OpenGL standard is open for any types of computers, so porting opengl
> > app to different machine can be easy, but porting dx/d3d -app is always
> > complicated because the api is available only to win32 platforms
> So what? 95% of the world runs Win32. I could care less about all the other
> platforms.
> The world doesn't need other computer platforms any more than we needed
> Beta format videotapes. A lot of effort is saved by having a standard
> format.
> Jeff
I think it is pretty healthy to have different
platforms=competitiveness, which in turn will make better ground for
better products. What if they would make Cirrus Logic standard and the
3dfx died, just because it was cheaper, worked better and so forth?
Maybe a lot of effort is saved, but the effort WILL end up in better
understanding (sometimes at least, if corporate money doesn't rule 100%)
and better products for us, the consumers (yeah, like a salesman
teacher)
Daniel Nilsen
Daniel Nilsen
>So what? 95% of the world runs Win32. I could care less about all the other
>platforms.
>The world doesn't need other computer platforms any more than we needed
>Beta format videotapes. A lot of effort is saved by having a standard
>format.
Another good example would be local phone companies in Southern
Illinois. The local service for thsi are is controlled by one company
with no competition. They had started charging rediculous rates and
the lines have not been properly updated in the area for 20 years. But
without any competition what will force them to change. The consumer
cannot because they are the only game in town.
The diversity is what we need most. It has helped the computer
industry advance faster than any other. We need this competition.
Ed
---Jim
OpenGL is far from being the 'beta' of API's. If you would rather
have microsoft control the entire market even with inferior products
then I suggest you join the UN and fight for the one world government.
Berg
(remove the <remove this> from my address when
replying via e-mail)
Ah, but then they found out that 6 means "dumbass" in Porteguese
(remove REMOVE to reply via email)
Life is grand, don't mess it up..
Existence is meaningless, buck up!
----------
Web Page: http://http.tamu.edu/~jcm2179/
Ftp Site: ftp://blackhole.dorms.tamu.edu/ (port 80)
> >They're jumping right to DirectX 6.
> >It was just discovered that 5 means "fart" in Sighisoara.
> Ah, but then they found out that 6 means "dumbass" in Porteguese
> (remove REMOVE to reply via email)
> Life is grand, don't mess it up..
> Existence is meaningless, buck up!
> ----------
> Web Page: http://http.tamu.edu/~jcm2179/
> Ftp Site: ftp://blackhole.dorms.tamu.edu/ (port 80)
Visit my New Nascar 2 Page!
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/4568/power.htm
> >> > OpenGL standard is open for any types of computers, so porting opengl
> >> > app to different machine can be easy, but porting dx/d3d -app is always
> >> > complicated because the api is available only to win32 platforms
> >> So what? 95% of the world runs Win32. I could care less about all the
> other
> >> platforms.
> >> The world doesn't need other computer platforms any more than we needed
> >> Beta format videotapes. A lot of effort is saved by having a standard
> >> format.
> >> Jeff
> >What an ignorant statement. Of course we need other operating systems
> >around or MS wouldn't feel the need update Win32 as much as they do.
> >Competition benefits all consumers, even if most them do not know or
> >care about it. Your comment about a standard format is also
> >hypocritical. What you are saying is that you could care less about a
> >real standard like OpenGL, but a de facto standard like Windows is good.
Of course you decided to miss the point. I am not advocating all
operating systems have equal market share. I am only saying that we
want other operating systems around even if we don't personally want to
use them. MS would be left high and dry without any new ideas if
everything but Windows suddenly disappeared. That would be beside the
point since MS would no longer feel the need to update Windows on a
regular basis.
We want both. New features will not be added to the OS if MS can't copy
them from some other OS or software product, or unless they are forced
to by circumstances. Notice how MS is putting Internet features into
every product they make? A few years ago, IBM made Internet access
standard in OS/2 v3 and it was already there in other OSs. Not to
mention Internet bundles you could buy for Windows. At the time, Gates
said that the Internet phenomenom was just a passing fad. He seems to
have been wrong. Now, do you think MS was more afraid of the Internet
bundles being sold for Windows or the possibility that some other OS
would gain market share at their expense? I think it was some of both.
Yeah, but if the OS sucks, who cares how wonderful the apps are? It may
come as a surprise to you but a lot of people are unhappy with Windows
and it is not because they hate Gates or his company. (although hating
Windows will lead to that)
Apples and oranges. TCP/IP will run on any OS. Windows software will
only run on Windows. Competition between ISVs on one OS is what we want
for the short term, but we don't want to be stuck with the same OS
(feature wise) for the long haul. We want MS to continue adding
features and improving Windows but I don't see that happening at a
decent rate without pressure from other operating systems.
Randall Bagwell
--
For you automated email spammers out there, here is a list of other
companies that send unsolicited emails... spam each other all you want!
And here's the email addresses of the current board of the Federal
Communications Commission. I'm sure they would love to hear from
spammers:
>>> The world doesn't need other computer platforms any more than we needed
>>> Beta format videotapes. A lot of effort is saved by having a standard
>>> format.
I agree.
Yes.
The user.
Wrong.
True, the programmers will have more work to do.
Wrong.
Many of the apps would be ported to many of the OSes because the
of the smaller market share of each of the OSes.
Both.
Completely wrong. How does having many OSes limit the competition in the
hardware area ?
This is a *really* bad analogy because nobody *owns* TCP/IP. TCP/IP is
like an OS's API -- nobody owns it and everyone is free to implement it. A
few years ago, IBM proposed something quite interesting. Their vision was
that we would have many different OSes with different user interfaces, and what
they called "personalities" but they would all run on the same micro-kernel
(the kernel would take care of task switching, message passing, memory
management, and possibly other services (I don't remember all the details)).
They were developing a micro-kernel at the time, and they wanted to license
it to OS developers, who would then build their own personality ontop of it.
The OS developers weren't interested. This is too bad because, IMO, it was a
pretty good idea.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| "If you make people think they are
Tabman You may answer in | thinking, they will love you; if you
english, french, german | make them think, they will hate you."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - Don Marquis
>Of course you decided to miss the point. I am not advocating all
>operating systems have equal market share. I am only saying that we
>want other operating systems around even if we don't personally want to
>use them. MS would be left high and dry without any new ideas if
>everything but Windows suddenly disappeared. That would be beside the
>point since MS would no longer feel the need to update Windows on a
>regular basis.
Not only is there horizontal trickle-down from other competing commodity
operating systems, there is also vertical trickle-down where expensive OS
features considered "workstation caliber" are folded into commodity
operating systems. There is no real competition between these $100,000
workstations and a $2,000 PC, yet the commodity OS keeps evolving towards
that.
A lot of people aren't happy with the image quality of VHS. So what? It
works for 95% of the people, and it's cheap and ubiquitous. Let the other 5%
use something else more appropriate for their needs, but don't let this
cloud the issue-- we absolutely must have a standard commodity OS to work
from.
Nope. Windows software runs on Macs and UNIX via emulators. DOS software
runs under NT and 95. Old operating system APIs never die, they just get
folded into other operating systems, typically from the same company.
I concede the point that competition is important, but certainly you must
recognize that competition for competition's sake doesn't always move us
forward. It's a fine line. I draw that line just south of the operating
system. Give me thousands of apps and hardware devices from thousands of
vendors, but the only way that's practical to deliver is with a standard
commodity OS.
Jeff
>--
>For you automated email spammers out there, here is a list of other
>companies that send unsolicited emails... spam each other all you want!
>>Okay, competition is good, I agree. Let's have 10 different operating
>>systems, each totally incompatible, each with 10% of the market share. Is
>>that good competition?
> Yes.
>> Who would benefit from this kind of competition?
> The user.
>>Certainly not the user.
> Wrong.
Yes, bullshit *busy* work. Porting the same app to multiple OSes, all with
particular idosyncracies, all with different tech support requirements. This
is not work a programmer wants to do. Porting is an ugly business best
avoided altogether.
And that time used to port, which is difficult, test-intensive work, COULD
BE BETTER USED WRITING BETTER APPLICATIONS. You seem to be a big fan of
pointless labor.
Do you have difficulty with the obvious? We have to have stable *drivers*
for each piece of said hardware. Programmers have to write, debug, and
support those drivers for each supported platform. That's a buttload of work
. Clearly you have never worked a tech support desk, or had to support any
software you've written, my friend.
Nope, it's a great analogy. Everyone is perfectly free to develop new Win32
apps. They don't have to pay Microsoft one thin dime. Similarly, anyone can
write a TCP/IP app without paying anyone anything. On the other hand, I
can't change TCP/IP any more than I can change the Win32 API.
Jeff
Now that Microsoft has the power to swing the market, and dictate what
will be supported, I don't like a lot of what they're doing.
I'm not crazy about Direct 3D right now, but I have a feeling it will
start to come around with DirectX 5 (which I just started using).
It'll be nice to know that as faster D3D cards come out, they will
still be able to run the older stuff, unlike cards that had native
ports and special mini-drivers (GLQuake).
The downside is that Microsoft has the power to blow an already good
standard out of the water. I would point out Force Feedback joysticks
as an example. There is already a good standard.
Microsoft sees fit to develop their own. Why?
--
> Beta format videotapes still exist. In fact, Beta is what the pros use.
At the time, consumers did have a choice between VHS and Beta. Did
that really help anyone in the long run? (Certainly not those who
bought Beta, and now that VHS has standardized, VHS tapes and decks
are plenty cheap.) I'm not advocating monopolies, but some level of
standardization does benefit consumers.
--Jim
Very true Jim, but I think the point was more so that the technically
superior product doesn't always becomes that standard. There are too many
other factors involved. Just look at Creative Labs...
--
