[SadisticSid]

You missed the point.  If I want to play a game on my Pc, I have virtually no choice beyond windows. 

I never said once it was bad, or wrong, that developers make applications for Windows only because it's financially viable.  If you read my post, you'd see it was bemoaning the monopoly Microsoft have gained for their Os, a monopoly based more on marketing and anti-competitive practices than any sort of technological supremacy.

For all your schmancy bold text, you completely missed the point I tried very hard to state; it's not about individual, specific or exclusive titles but the application sector, the choice, the competition that drives innovation & investment into actual quality.  If one platform is inferior  but with massive market share, and that recieves 99% instances of an application type, I'm forced into that inferior platform to use an application of that type.

Now can you try to conceive what I'm calling for here?  It's called consumer choice.  Alternatives.  Market pressures hurting shoddy practices and shoddy products.

Given his tone he sounds like he doesn't really consider your point of value. It probably isn't worth trying to point out.

Anyhow, to reinforce your point; everyone knows about Microsoft's ongoing battles with international lawmakers the world over for anti-competitive behaviour. FSSCP proves that you can take an existing game and quite effectively port it to another OS if there are no intentional obsticales placed in your way. DirectX is an intentional obstacle created by Microsoft in order to corner the market and make it exceptionally hard for other OS'es to compete, Microsoft could have quite easily joined the open library groups of OpenGL and OpenAL but intentionally decided to create their own, propietary media rendering libraries. Games written using open libraries (Unreal Tournament for instance) are already OS-free and make more money because of this fact.

Come on now, there are a whole load of problems that the apparent panacea of "use open libraries!!!!1one11one" does not solve. First off, you have to provide customer support for one or more additional operating systems, providing training, etc. Two, you're developing two (similar) codebases. Three, any optimizations you might make by using DirectX might not be easily replicated by using OpenGL. Four, open libraries may not provide the same efficiency or feature sets as their proprietary counterparts. Five, there's no equivalent copy protection for some operating systems. Six, you instantly square your support problems by having varying software configurations as well as hardware ones to deal with. Look at Oblivion for example - even if you have mainstream hardware (Creative sound card, nVidia GPU) there's no guarantee it will run out of the box very well, if at all.

Even assuming all these things don't pose a problem, consider the cost of all the extra development time that goes into an average game to make it cross-OS-compatible versus the return for it. Are there that many people who don't have a Windows box available that they can use if they really want to play the game?

[Martinus]

I totally get what you're saying, what I'm trying to argue is not that there's enough numbers of linux gamers to make it worthwhile, it's that Microsoft has so cornered the market that there never was much chance of being enough Mac OS/BSD/nix gamers to make those platforms viable on their own.

I'd have to say that the UT engine proves that not only are open libraries capable of competing against Microsoft's directX, they're chosen in preference a lot of the time. OpenGL seems to be a staple of FPS'es which are amoungst the most graphically demanding games available.

[Rictor]

My dad called me from work yesterday

"Listen, Microsoft is about to release a patch that's going to make things very annoying. Turn Automatic Update off on all the computers"

I thought it was hilarious. All the computers in our house already have it turned off by default, but I guess their evil plans spread too fast for their own good, like the pungent smell of crap on a hot day.

[achtung]

It's always so funny the way the $ sign comes up so many times in any MS conversation.

[Nix]

Also, LOL at SP2 slowing down games.  There's absolutely no difference in benchmark scores, in-game benchmark scores on my machine from an XP Gold install (meaning absolutely zero updates, absolutely zero service packs) and a slipstreamed SP2 install, with full updates to April of this year.  Absolutely zero difference. 

Except that Swat 4 for example, after copying all that data to my hard drive, fails to "register the product" in SP2 and proceeds to delete the hundreds of megabytes it just copied. The readme tells me to uninstall SP2.
IMO SP2 is not worth downloading at all. You get the updates without it too, all you miss is the firewall (get zonealarm instead) and the security updates for ie (use firefox), although I'm sure you can download those separately as well.

Really, to fix that, all I think you have to do is update the Microsoft Installer package.  I've heard of install routines not installing and blaming it on SP2, but it's bogus.  A lot of Installer-related problems can be fixed by updating the MSI package from Microsoft.

SP2 is worth it if you want your TCP stack hardened.  Many people who need to use network scanning tools and other tools used in penetration testing will find that the stack in SP2 is bothersome.  If you just play games though, SP2 has no effect whatsoever when applied correctly.  The best way to apply SP2 is to either use an install disc with SP2 on it, or slipstream the pack with your Gold CD.  If you've applied patch after patch, and installed pieces of software, then applied SP2, all you're doing is kicking yourself in the ass.  Now, if you're using ethereal or some other scanner to test for holes in  your network, SP2 is a little more difficult to work with, but it still WORKS if you have patience and know what you're doing.  SP2 also helps protect your core system files from intrusion and/or modification.  There's a patch that can be applied (but never really works) to get around the 10-connection limit for WindowsXP SP2, which modifies some of the TCP stack files.  Upon modification, Windows will report back that the file had been modified, and will replace it with a known-good copy of the file.  This is an added layer of protection that SP2 provides the average, non-tech savvy user.  That, and people who haven't been educated in how the networking subsytem actually WORKS in XP.  Having a firewall is not the best solution here.  Having a firewall is just one more layer of protection, but having all of the underlying updates and protection installed is that much safer.  All it takes is one program or one remote user, sneaking in through a service that just uses Generic Host Process to access a system and wreak all sorts of havoc.

I'm just speaking from a network technician's standpoint, I'd rather use the fixes from my software vendors than just plug the holes up with a firewall. 

[Kamikaze]

Two, you're developing two (similar) codebases. Three, any optimizations you might make by using DirectX might not be easily replicated by using OpenGL.

The whole point of OpenGL or SDL is that it's cross platform. That means you only need one codebase. See Id Software for example.

Four, open libraries may not provide the same efficiency or feature sets as their proprietary counterparts.

This isn't really true of OpenGL. See Id Software, they're doing fine.

Five, there's no equivalent copy protection for some operating systems.

Eh? Since when is copy protection built into an OS?

Even assuming all these things don't pose a problem, consider the cost of all the extra development time that goes into an average game to make it cross-OS-compatible versus the return for it.

You're completely missing the point of a cross-platform library.

[CP5670]

On the SP2 issue, you need it in order for the MS dual core hotfix to install. That's the only reason I will be switching to it in a few days.

[Nuke]

you know what id like to see microsoft do? id like to see them start using a hardware license key. it would be in the form of an internal usb dongle that is placed on a usb port header on the mobo. perhaps using a passthrough thing so that  you dont have to give up use of the header. in order to install and run windows this dongle must be attached to the computer. without in windows no workie. you are however free to reinstall windows, upgrade your mobo, move the licence to a new computer, download updates, all the comforts of owning a legal operating system.

some would say this is a bad idea, but id rather run with a dongle than have ms snoop my drive, waste processor cycles on license check, have to put in license codes, or call them to tell em i replaced a mobo, or have to activate. the freedom would be greater for us, and they can avoid loosing money on piracy. so long as we bought the os, we could use it as freely as we wish, so long as it remains on one machine.

what i dont want microsoft to do is make windows a use once and throw away os. where once you install it on a computer,  you can run it only on that computer and no other computer (either by license or lockout).

[Nix]

That'd be a great idea, nuke, only if everyone was tech-savvy enough to dive into thier box and install the dongle onto the header.  Sure, they could pay thier local computer repair shop to do it, but not every town has a computer repair shop.  That'd be shorting a lot of people. 

What you've mentioned, about throwaway os's, well it's already happened.  According to M$'s  OEM licensing, one key is only to be used on one machine only.  Even if you have no other machines, and you upgrade the motherboard and/or processor for the system you're using, you're "supposed" to get another license.  Of course, if you be sensible about your re-activations, meaning dont use up all three activations in a week, you'll never ever have to talk to a rep to activate your OS.

[SadisticSid]

This isn't really true of OpenGL. See Id Software, they're doing fine.

Admittedly I don't know about specifics, but is there an open library alternative to every feature a game developer might want to put in? Like physics libraries, strange input devices and so on?

Eh? Since when is copy protection built into an OS?

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that it is not available. Publishers will cry foul when you can't plaster Safedisc or Starforce or whatever over the finished product since they don't run under Linux.

You're completely missing the point of a cross-platform library.

I don't think so. I'm assuming development time is not just coding time; programmers might have to learn the ins and outs of an open library instead of already having the knowledge to use the proprietary one, for example. Things like that surely add up.

[aldo_14]

Admittedly I don't know about specifics, but is there an open library alternative to every feature a game developer might want to put in? Like physics libraries, strange input devices and so on?

Cross platform (which is really what we mean by open)?  Probably; definately there are cross-platform audio and physics libraries for the 'base' engine stuff, and common data formats.  The only problem could be driver support, but that's an issue down to the market being dominated by one company and manufacturers failing to develop for smaller formats.

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that it is not available. Publishers will cry foul when you can't plaster Safedisc or Starforce or whatever over the finished product since they don't run under Linux.

I believe Safedisk is available for Linux already.

I don't think so. I'm assuming development time is not just coding time; programmers might have to learn the ins and outs of an open library instead of already having the knowledge to use the proprietary one, for example. Things like that surely add up.

But that's the same reasoning as would apply to, for example, switching from Havok to PhysX or maybe even between versions of proprietary libraries.  All these things exist as abstraction layers to hardware, after all, the only real issue AFAIK is whether or not they also hook themselves into Os-specific functions, and arguably that is more a method of format-locking than a technical necessity.  So it's more an arguement against changing libraries than the type of those libraries.

[Nuke]

That'd be a great idea, nuke, only if everyone was tech-savvy enough to dive into thier box and install the dongle onto the header. Sure, they could pay thier local computer repair shop to do it, but not every town has a computer repair shop. That'd be shorting a lot of people.

What you've mentioned, about throwaway os's, well it's already happened. According to M$'s OEM licensing, one key is only to be used on one machine only. Even if you have no other machines, and you upgrade the motherboard and/or processor for the system you're using, you're "supposed" to get another license. Of course, if you be sensible about your re-activations, meaning dont use up all three activations in a week, you'll never ever have to talk to a rep to activate your OS.

im running an illegal copy riight now, only because i activated my legal copy on my old machine (now a linux box) just before building this one, and i wasnt sure if theyd let me activate it again, having already been activated on 2 other machines(though not at the same time). i dont mind buying an os so long as i can migrate it to other machines without wading knee deep in bull****.

on future versions of windows. installation of the dongle would be done by an oem on the assembally of a retail pc. microsoft sells more oem versions than any other versions of the os.  i find it unlikely that the computer-unskilled would ever have to handle the dongle, as they tend to buy from oems anyway. perhaps over the shelf os could use a hybrid internal/external dongle, one side a standard usb port, and the other the header connector. of course microsoft is greedy and although this idea would greatly reduce piracy of windows, they would not accept it because they have the jack factor in their favor right now.

[Nix]

Again, it's a good idea, but what about people needing to upgrade?  There ARE people who refuse to buy a new computer, but will upgrade the OS out of fear, and inexperience.  You have to cover ALL the bases here, and there's just too many problems that can arise from a hardware-based key.  Besides, if people were going to do that, they'd just integrate the technology into the motherboard itself, OEM's would, because then that'd lock the copy of the OS to the machine.  If you do that, you short the system builders, who can't have integrated hardware authentication, unless they sacrifice a USB header, which I know a lot of stupid, opinionated people would not want to do.  Hardware authentication is a huge can of worms here, and although it's probably the best way to protect the software at the moment, there's just so much that has to be taken into consideration, before anything like this becomes a reality.

Plus, there's two different sales outlets for OEM software.  System builders can purchase the software discs with a valid hardware purchase.  Newegg, for example, will throw in a  free 3 dollar power splitter cable to satisfy the hardware requirement.  Many copies of software will be sold through that outlet.  The other outlet is with a brand new PC from a manufacturer, Dell, HP, whoever.  Integrating the hardware for the manufacturers would be easy to do, but for the people who just buy the software as part of a system builder pack, they'd have to start shipping the hardware key as well.  IF they did that, they wouldn't be able to mass-produce the OEM copies because they'd have to start shipping stuff in bigger boxes providing crush protection and the like. 

Putting it simply, it's not because of greed, primarily.  Just because they have a monopoly (rightly so, as it's the best and easiest software for the non-technical computer user)  over the home PC OS market, and that they are large in size does not automatically move them into the "evil greedy bad no good" corporation.  There are reasons WHY they got so big, and the same thing goes for other large corporations as well.

[Flaser]

Again, it's a good idea, but what about people needing to upgrade?  There ARE people who refuse to buy a new computer, but will upgrade the OS out of fear, and inexperience.  You have to cover ALL the bases here, and there's just too many problems that can arise from a hardware-based key.  Besides, if people were going to do that, they'd just integrate the technology into the motherboard itself, OEM's would, because then that'd lock the copy of the OS to the machine.  If you do that, you short the system builders, who can't have integrated hardware authentication, unless they sacrifice a USB header, which I know a lot of stupid, opinionated people would not want to do.  Hardware authentication is a huge can of worms here, and although it's probably the best way to protect the software at the moment, there's just so much that has to be taken into consideration, before anything like this becomes a reality.

Plus, there's two different sales outlets for OEM software.  System builders can purchase the software discs with a valid hardware purchase.  Newegg, for example, will throw in a  free 3 dollar power splitter cable to satisfy the hardware requirement.  Many copies of software will be sold through that outlet.  The other outlet is with a brand new PC from a manufacturer, Dell, HP, whoever.  Integrating the hardware for the manufacturers would be easy to do, but for the people who just buy the software as part of a system builder pack, they'd have to start shipping the hardware key as well.  IF they did that, they wouldn't be able to mass-produce the OEM copies because they'd have to start shipping stuff in bigger boxes providing crush protection and the like. 

Putting it simply, it's not because of greed, primarily.  Just because they have a monopoly (rightly so, as it's the best and easiest software for the non-technical computer user)  over the home PC OS market, and that they are large in size does not automatically move them into the "evil greedy bad no good" corporation.  There are reasons WHY they got so big, and the same thing goes for other large corporations as well.

Are you plant job as well?

MS got the market, 'cause geeks/hackers (use whichever term you find sympathetic) failed to get off their collective asses and realize, the age of closed shop is forever over.
Both DOS and the later incarnations of Windows was lightyears away from the standards already present in Unix.
The one area, that you claim they had mastered is also their biggest plagarism - ripped staight from Machintosh. (Anyone else remember the first lawsuit between Apple and MS?)...btw Mac also copied it off someone else, but I'm not old enough to remember who.

MS gained monopoly through taking a chance with their inferior software in a new market while the experts were still asleep; then hanging onto their share with heavy handed tactics that prevented anyone else from entering the market.
Even before Direct-X, they pulled crap like enforcing their propietary formats that failed to live up to their own standards; as well as dirty tricks like secret handshake protocols built into their network code to prevent 3rd party applications from working in an MS network.

[Kamikaze]

Putting it simply, it's not because of greed, primarily.  Just because they have a monopoly (rightly so, as it's the best and easiest software for the non-technical computer user)  over the home PC OS market, and that they are large in size does not automatically move them into the "evil greedy bad no good" corporation.  There are reasons WHY they got so big, and the same thing goes for other large corporations as well.

Umm. Are we talking about the same Microsoft that has been convicted of being an illegal monopoly?

[Flipside]

I suppose my stance is, I use Windows because that's what most stuff runs on. Sure, I'd like a less bloated OS, but Windows is what I have.

Is that right or wrong? Couldn't say, if Apple had come out on top, would we be having this exact same discussion with every reference to MS replaced by Apple? Probably.

[knn]

Also, LOL at SP2 slowing down games.  There's absolutely no difference in benchmark scores, in-game benchmark scores on my machine from an XP Gold install (meaning absolutely zero updates, absolutely zero service packs) and a slipstreamed SP2 install, with full updates to April of this year.  Absolutely zero difference. 

Except that Swat 4 for example, after copying all that data to my hard drive, fails to "register the product" in SP2 and proceeds to delete the hundreds of megabytes it just copied. The readme tells me to uninstall SP2.
IMO SP2 is not worth downloading at all. You get the updates without it too, all you miss is the firewall (get zonealarm instead) and the security updates for ie (use firefox), although I'm sure you can download those separately as well.

Really, to fix that, all I think you have to do is update the Microsoft Installer package.  I've heard of install routines not installing and blaming it on SP2, but it's bogus.  A lot of Installer-related problems can be fixed by updating the MSI package from Microsoft.

I don't know if MSI is updated by windowsupdate.com, but if it is, I did have the latest version at that time. The Sierra knowledge base article told me to run windows update and deactivate the windows firewall. I did. It did not work.

SP2 is worth it if you want your TCP stack hardened.  Many people who need to use network scanning tools and other tools used in penetration testing will find that the stack in SP2 is bothersome.  If you just play games though, SP2 has no effect whatsoever when applied correctly.  The best way to apply SP2 is to either use an install disc with SP2 on it, or slipstream the pack with your Gold CD.  If you've applied patch after patch, and installed pieces of software, then applied SP2, all you're doing is kicking yourself in the ass. 

So I should reformat if I want SP2?

Now, if you're using ethereal or some other scanner to test for holes in  your network, SP2 is a little more difficult to work with, but it still WORKS if you have patience and know what you're doing.  SP2 also helps protect your core system files from intrusion and/or modification.  There's a patch that can be applied (but never really works) to get around the 10-connection limit for WindowsXP SP2, which modifies some of the TCP stack files.  Upon modification, Windows will report back that the file had been modified, and will replace it with a known-good copy of the file.  This is an added layer of protection that SP2 provides the average, non-tech savvy user.  That, and people who haven't been educated in how the networking subsytem actually WORKS in XP.  Having a firewall is not the best solution here.  Having a firewall is just one more layer of protection, but having all of the underlying updates and protection installed is that much safer.  All it takes is one program or one remote user, sneaking in through a service that just uses Generic Host Process to access a system and wreak all sorts of havoc.

I'm just speaking from a network technician's standpoint, I'd rather use the fixes from my software vendors than just plug the holes up with a firewall. 

I wasn't saying you should not download fixes from microsoft. You should. I was saying I did not download SP2 because I think it is not worth it. AFAIK updates are available for SP1 users as well.

[karajorma]

btw Mac also copied it off someone else, but I'm not old enough to remember who.

It was Xerox FYI.

Xerox PARC was the incubator of many elements of modern computing. Most were included in the first personal computer, the Alto, which included many aspects of now-standard personal computer usage model: the mouse, computer generated color graphics, the WYSIWYG text editor, InterPress (a resolution-independent graphical page description language and the precursor to PostScript), Ethernet, and fully formed object-oriented programming in the Smalltalk programming language and integrated development environment. The laser printer was developed at the same time, as an integral part of the overall environment.

[Nuke]

Again, it's a good idea, but what about people needing to upgrade?  There ARE people who refuse to buy a new computer, but will upgrade the OS out of fear, and inexperience.  You have to cover ALL the bases here, and there's just too many problems that can arise from a hardware-based key.  Besides, if people were going to do that, they'd just integrate the technology into the motherboard itself, OEM's would, because then that'd lock the copy of the OS to the machine.  If you do that, you short the system builders, who can't have integrated hardware authentication, unless they sacrifice a USB header, which I know a lot of stupid, opinionated people would not want to do.  Hardware authentication is a huge can of worms here, and although it's probably the best way to protect the software at the moment, there's just so much that has to be taken into consideration, before anything like this becomes a reality.

Plus, there's two different sales outlets for OEM software.  System builders can purchase the software discs with a valid hardware purchase.  Newegg, for example, will throw in a  free 3 dollar power splitter cable to satisfy the hardware requirement.  Many copies of software will be sold through that outlet.  The other outlet is with a brand new PC from a manufacturer, Dell, HP, whoever.  Integrating the hardware for the manufacturers would be easy to do, but for the people who just buy the software as part of a system builder pack, they'd have to start shipping the hardware key as well.  IF they did that, they wouldn't be able to mass-produce the OEM copies because they'd have to start shipping stuff in bigger boxes providing crush protection and the like. 

Putting it simply, it's not because of greed, primarily.  Just because they have a monopoly (rightly so, as it's the best and easiest software for the non-technical computer user)  over the home PC OS market, and that they are large in size does not automatically move them into the "evil greedy bad no good" corporation.  There are reasons WHY they got so big, and the same thing goes for other large corporations as well.

Are you plant job as well?

MS got the market, 'cause geeks/hackers (use whichever term you find sympathetic) failed to get off their collective asses and realize, the age of closed shop is forever over.
Both DOS and the later incarnations of Windows was lightyears away from the standards already present in Unix.
The one area, that you claim they had mastered is also their biggest plagarism - ripped staight from Machintosh. (Anyone else remember the first lawsuit between Apple and MS?)...btw Mac also copied it off someone else, but I'm not old enough to remember who.

MS gained monopoly through taking a chance with their inferior software in a new market while the experts were still asleep; then hanging onto their share with heavy handed tactics that prevented anyone else from entering the market.
Even before Direct-X, they pulled crap like enforcing their propietary formats that failed to live up to their own standards; as well as dirty tricks like secret handshake protocols built into their network code to prevent 3rd party applications from working in an MS network.

i must also add that early versions of mac os were superior to early versions of windows.

[Nix]

I'm no plant job, but I've taken college courses on Windows Server 2000, Novell Netware 6, RedHat Linux 9, and even dabbled around with the dreaded SCO linux.  I have to say from my experiences in those classes that I've had better luck and a much easier time to get the things done that I needed to on the Windows platforms, over any of the others I've used.  I'm speaking from pure personal experience.  Netware is inflexible when it comes to networking.  Once you give the settings upon install, even such little things like an IP address, which you can change on the fly in windows, cannot be changed unless you reinstall the server in NW6!  I'm GLAD that Novell dumped thier crappy NOS for Linux, which will be much better in the networking department over what they had in the past.  (Who uses Novell?  I'm in a Utah university.  Utah uses Novell.  Go figure.)  For a web server class I took, the final project involved making a rudimentary web server to display web pages, cgi and the like.  Our team spent weeks on Linux and trying to get Apache to work on our Linux system, and I said, to hell with it, I'm dumping linux and attempting to get IIS to work.  I had a webserver up and running in 6 hours, instead of weeks like we've already taken on Apache for Linux.

I find that most of the hatred towards Microsoft is misguided, partially due to people just liking to have someone to bash, and partly due to NOT HAVING A CLEAN INSTALL OF YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM.  ABout 99% of the problems people come up with while using M$  (ooh! I used a term to bash M$! Does Deepblue use that? No.)  crop up because they don't KNOW the in's and out's of thier OS, how it works, and what probably broke the software in the first place.  All the people who are Anti-SP2 usually applied SP2 over the top of an already broken installation of windows, and other people don't use it because they simply cannot afford to wipe thier environment clean just for a service pack install.   (If it ain't broke and it's going to take me days to get my system back up and running... and it's finals week next week, I think I'll wait, for example)
I am a network technician for a ski resort, and we exclusively use Microsoft products on our networks due to thier simplicity.  It's far easier also to use products that are developed exclusively for M$ windows over a proprietary solution.  For example, we use Quickbooks POS for our sales software, which installs, networks, and keeps inventory so much easier than running the old RPro system we had, which ran through DOS.  That, and anyone who works at one of those selling terminals is already familiar with the way Microsoft products work.  It's that much easier for people to use one simple unified interface and product.  

Some people are microsoft people (Me), and other people are Linux people.  Don't you DARE think I'm a plant just because I PREFER microsoft products over Linux products.  Yes, Sir, I DO take offense.

EDIT:
Apple has it's own proprietary standards for networking too, that aren't compatible with other OS's unless they support them!  Have you tried to get Appletalk to work with NT4?  All the hoops you have to jump through JUST to get the machines to talk, and then you still have to hope and pray you'll get them to network properly.  Yes, I DO know M$ has a tarnished history by making things incompatible, but I support thier software TODAY, as it is NOW, not as it is in the PAST.  Everyone needs to get out of the past, saying that M$ said this, M$ did that, Well the key operative words here are SAID and DID, PAST TENSE.  XP, Server2K3 are much better than thier older revisions, and adhere to standards used today.  I'm GLAD that M$ went through the legal battles they did, otherwise you'd still be seeing those alleged "secret handshakes" and probably making IE the ONLY browser you could use on Windows.  They're cleaning up thier act, but as I've said before, people like to bash others just for bashing's sake, and I feel a lot of M$ badmouthers just do it cause it makes them feel better about themselves.  They have not had the chance to actually use it and compare it between other products.  If you have had the chance, and you prefer a *nix solution, hey, more power to you.  I will use whichever vendor I want to use that provides me with a solution to a problem, and a solution that I actually understand and know how to operate.  Right now, thats M$ for me.