rec.autos.simulators

by **Tabm** » Mon, 28 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>>>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, the user enjoys determining if the particular piece of software they
>bought has any chance of running on their computer. Nothing like reading the
>"system requirements" fine print with a magnifying glass.

As long as there is a choice of hardware or software, System
requirements will appear on software packaging.

I agree, but as long as software developers keep writing software
which either doesn't run on some hardware, or runs unacceptably poor on some
hardware, then that will never happen with computers.

Porting code is considered an investment. And writing portable code is
not that hard, depending on how good you are. I know, because I've written
code on Intel (DOS/Win95) for MIPS R3000 (MTOS), Intel (DOS) and MC68332 (no
OS).

If that was the case, then DOOM and Quake might not exist, since they
were developed on NeXT STEP and Linux respectively. Porting in the ***
industry is essentially inevitable, when you consider the existance of
arcade machines and consoles. You can save porting time/effort on personal
computers by simply writing your game for Win95 only, but if you want to
expand your market reach, you'll have to port it to same arcade machine
and/or console.o

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not if it was designed to be portable. See above.

It's not pointless labor. You obviously haven't done any development.

No.

You've completely missed the point. Perhaps I'll go into more detail
when you stop acting like a little 5 year-old who has just been told that he
won't be getting any candy.

Wrong. I have had to support software I've written.

- Show quoted text -

Boy, did you miss the boat on this one !

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| "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

by **ymenar** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

> >>>> 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.

> > Beta format videotapes still exist. In fact, Beta is what the pros use.

> I presume you're referring to Broadcast Beta, which is different from
> the (failed for non-technical reasons) consumer Beta.

> 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

Same thing with all the tape drives on the market. If I remember,
Iomega, about 2 years ago, took off on the Wall Street Market. The
first month were absolutly great, with only up's and no significiant
down's. But when Syquest and HP launched their own tape drives, They
went down and down and down. Now we are all waiting for one type
getting higher that the others. So Standardization is an absolute in
the market. Many exemple can be listed. Sony's minidisc, new over 1.44
meg floppy's, etc. I buyed a BETA, because IMHO it's was 10x times
better than the VHS. The tapes were smaller, the video and sound
quality was at the top of the best VHS video. But it's the market who
decides, and the VHS tapes had better publicity.

With great respect,
Good race at the Brickyard, (-o-)

SPEED- Co-director
SPEED- http://www.sim-speed.com/

AWPSS- Director of Simracing
AWPSS- http://www.awpss.com/

SRHoF- Director
SRHoF- Coming online in 6days !

- *Excuse me for my poor English(I'm French speaking) * -

by **Carl Muell** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>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? Who would benefit from this kind of competition?
>Certainly not the user. Certainly not programmers. Basically nobody would
>benefit.

Nobody says that different OS's have to be incompatible. OS/2 was
able to run Windows 3.1 programs. If IBM had kept working on
compatibility, their OS might still be viable.

TCP/IP is an open standard.

Microsoft recently bought WEBTV. Guess what? WEBTV uses it's own
protocols (not TCP/IP). I'm sure Microsoft would very much desire
that WEBTV become a more popular way for people to access Web
content than TCP/IP. Then they could control this new "standard"
and either license it out with hefty royalties or simply not license
it out at all. Would that make you happy?

by **Carl Muell** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>[...]
>>Apples and oranges. TCP/IP will run on any OS. Windows software will
>>only run on Windows.

>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.

That misses the point. The emulators simulate an x86 machine, on
which Windows is running. And lots of DOS software doesn't work on
NT. But still, all this is beside the point.

The OS is nothing more than a collection of APIs. There's no reason
that many compatible OS's can't exist. Unfortunately, this is something
that OS developers have failed to see. The reason for this is that some
of the APIs within many existing OS's suck, and somebody always wants to
toss away the whole bag and start anew. However, the market has shown
that this is not viable for the market at large (only for niches).

On the other hand, it's also probably not practical to develop an OS
that has Windows-compatible APIs, because you'd have to license most
of those APIs from Microsoft, and Microsoft won't let you do that,
because that would probably cost them market share. Microsoft doesn't
share.

by **Carl Muell** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>[...]
>> 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.

>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.

TCP/IP is a protocol for getting data from here to there.

Win32 is an API for running on an x86 machine.

If I want to make a box that talks TCP/IP, I don't have to pay
anyone anything.

If I want to make a box that runs Win32, I have to pay Microsoft
for a copy of Windows.

Do you begin to see the differences?

by **ccorpor** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

R:

Yeah but how do you stop ram-rodding. And if it were your company wouldn't you
try doing the same? I know your not blaming them but a lot of people have a
big nut against MS. But the way I see it, if it were your business you would
try to do things as much as possible to favor it. MS has to try to grow to
make stockbrokers happy. All they're trying to do is make as much money as
possible, what a lot of companies are after. Obviously MS succeeds at this and
people get a bit jealous. So arguing against MS is easy since we don't have
the ability ourselves to do such things. Somebody was going to be the one, it
happened to MS, whomever the one was giong to be I'm sure they would be looked
upon the EXACT same way MS has been.

Q.B.M.

by **Jim Sokolof** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

> >The problem is that you really can't have it both ways. We want standards to
> >make life easier for users and programmers, yet we want competing standards,
> >which invariably makes life more difficult for users and programmers? This
> >is a very fine line. Look at the "competition" between USR's X2 and
> >Rockwell's K56Flex technology. Who exactly is benefitting from this
> >competition?

> I agree with much of your argument, but the consumer benefits from the
> X2/K56 battle. Sure, everyone's afraid to commit right now, but the
> better standard is going to come out on top.

Sure, we only have to look to Beta vs VHS, Win 3.0 vs MacOS, English
Units vs SI Units, Whitworth Threads vs UNC threads, etc. Technical
superiority is no guarantee of success in the market, thus "the better
standard" doesn't always "come out on top."

So, later on in your post, you as much as state that the "better
standard" may not "come out on top", right?

---Jim

by **Jim Sokolof** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

Sorry if this shows up twice; got an error first time...

> >The problem is that you really can't have it both ways. We want standards to
> >make life easier for users and programmers, yet we want competing standards,
> >which invariably makes life more difficult for users and programmers? This
> >is a very fine line. Look at the "competition" between USR's X2 and
> >Rockwell's K56Flex technology. Who exactly is benefitting from this
> >competition?

> I agree with much of your argument, but the consumer benefits from the
> X2/K56 battle. Sure, everyone's afraid to commit right now, but the
> better standard is going to come out on top.

Sure, we only have to look to Beta vs VHS, Win 3.0 vs MacOS, English
Units vs SI Units, Whitworth Threads vs UNC threads, etc. Technical
superiority is no guarantee of success in the market, thus "the better
standard" doesn't always "come out on top."

So, later on in your post, you as much as state that the "better
standard" may not "come out on top", right?

---Jim

by **Carl Muell** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>> I think that is the crux of this argument. Windows has come out on
>> top, but many people disagree that it is the "better standard".
>> I'm happy with Win95, but I think Microsoft ramrodded their way to the
>> top with marketing... Like striking early deals with big computer
>> vendors to have Windows included with every computer they sold.

>Yeah but how do you stop ram-rodding. And if it were your company wouldn't you
>try doing the same? I know your not blaming them but a lot of people have a
>big nut against MS. But the way I see it, if it were your business you would
>try to do things as much as possible to favor it. MS has to try to grow to
>make stockbrokers happy. All they're trying to do is make as much money as
>possible, what a lot of companies are after. Obviously MS succeeds at this and
>people get a bit jealous. So arguing against MS is easy since we don't have
>the ability ourselves to do such things. Somebody was going to be the one, it
>happened to MS, whomever the one was giong to be I'm sure they would be looked
>upon the EXACT same way MS has been.

People wouldn't have such a big beef with MS if they played fairly.
But MS doesn't. They've engaged in many anti-competitive practices
in an effort to eliminate their competition.

If you want details, see: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/

Note new followup-to group.

by **Carl Muell** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>>>The problem is that you really can't have it both ways. We want standards to
>>>make life easier for users and programmers, yet we want competing standards,
>>>which invariably makes life more difficult for users and programmers? This
>>>is a very fine line. Look at the "competition" between USR's X2 and
>>>Rockwell's K56Flex technology. Who exactly is benefitting from this
>>>competition?

>> I agree with much of your argument, but the consumer benefits from the
>> X2/K56 battle. Sure, everyone's afraid to commit right now, but the
>> better standard is going to come out on top.

>Sure, we only have to look to Beta vs VHS, Win 3.0 vs MacOS, English
>Units vs SI Units, Whitworth Threads vs UNC threads, etc. Technical
>superiority is no guarantee of success in the market, thus "the better
>standard" doesn't always "come out on top."

It depends upon who is in charge. In the case of international
telecommunications, there is a standards body. This committee
will examine the options and work out a true, open standard.

Standards committees can do good things, but they often can't overcome
great inertia (such as the use of English units in the US).

Again, Microsoft can create a lot of inertia.

by **Webb** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

> So, later on in your post, you as much as state that the "better
> standard" may not "come out on top", right?

> ---Jim

However, when you are talking about a 3D API, it's a whole different
ballgame. Both Direct3D and OpenGL and coexist peacefully, and giving
developers a choice can only help. The other thing you mention like K56 and
X2 obviously differ in this regard.

--

by **Jeff Atwoo** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>>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? Who would benefit from this kind of competition?
>>Certainly not the user. Certainly not programmers. Basically nobody would
>>benefit.

>Nobody says that different OS's have to be incompatible. OS/2 was
>able to run Windows 3.1 programs. If IBM had kept working on
>compatibility, their OS might still be viable.

The history of operating systems has shown that enforcing compatibility is
excruciatingly difficult-- look at Unix and Java. De facto standards like
Netscape and Win32 are more compelling than loose guidelines. Perfect
compatibility is the holy grail of computing. Certainly worth aspiring to
but incredibly frustrating in actual use.

So what? Open or de facto, standards move us forward. I can't change TCP/IP
any more than I can change the Win32 API. Looks pretty damn similar to me.

Microsoft doesn't give a damn, so long as everything runs best on Windows. I
think that's a noble goal-- to deliver the best possible implementation of
Java, for example, which they have certainly succeeded at.

Jeff

by **Dirtb** » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00

>So, later on in your post, you as much as state that the "better
>standard" may not "come out on top", right?

You caught me in a major contradiction, eh? Heh.
I could've worded that much more eloquently. Sorry.
I believe Windows was better than the alternatives (for me), but
now that Microsoft has emerged on top, I wish they didn't have
so MUCH influence over the industry.
That is why I brought up the force feedback issue.
I suppose the D3D and GL issue is valid too, although for all the
problems, I think I'm going to end up liking D3D.

Hope that makes a little more sense...

--

by **Jak Cro** » Wed, 30 Jul 1997 04:00:00

: However, when you are talking about a 3D API, it's a whole different
: ballgame. Both Direct3D and OpenGL and coexist peacefully, and giving
: developers a choice can only help. The other thing you mention like K56 and
: X2 obviously differ in this regard.

However, people are not talking about having D3D and GL coexist.
They're talking about one over the other.

by **Billy McCart** » Wed, 30 Jul 1997 04:00:00

I own a AWE 32 and have had no problem with it . Every game I have uses the
card without a problem . It Creative Labs has a problem with their cards
why
are other manufactures making their cards SB compatable . With a compatable
card the games are different some use SB clone ,some use SB pro ,and some
use nothing . I have had clones they are cheap they usually work ,but I
will
stay with CL . If you want a product to put down go buy a STB Velosity 3D
now you have junk .

Billy McCarty

> 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...

> --

> >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.

rec.autos.simulators

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5

DirectX5