View Full Version : Microsoft Strongarms OpenGL
Liquidize105
08-10-2005, 10:45 AM
OpenGL is the open-source competitor to Microsoft's own proprietary Direct3D/Windows Graphic Foundation API, and by the looks of it MS want to make sure it runs so slowly vs D3D/WGF [under Windows Vista] that it won't be worth our while to use it. If this development comes to fruition it will be bad news indeed for everyone...except MS of course.
In the meantime, the OpenGL community is mobilizing a resistance to counter MS's roughhouse tactic. Would you like to know more? (http://www.opengl.org/)
Thanks TweakGuides (http://www.tweakguides.com/).
XxSATANxX
08-10-2005, 10:52 AM
uh yea and where's my unified Glide wrapper?
Paranoia
08-10-2005, 10:55 AM
Last time I checked most PC games I played are always under Direct 3D. I could care less for OpenGL.
Liquidize105
08-10-2005, 11:00 AM
Last time I checked most PC games I played are always under Direct 3D. I could care less for OpenGL.
Phew! Thank gawd! I thought this was all about you~!
Hungry begger: Mister, could you spare some money for food?
Paranoia: I just ate. But thanks for asking!
Achilles
08-10-2005, 11:00 AM
OpenGL is the open-source competitor to Microsoft's own proprietary Direct3D/Windows Graphic Foundation APIOh good lord, it’s free, it’s easy to use, it made it so that you didn’t have to buy a certain video card to run a game (*shakes fist at Sin). I would rather not have people complain our way back into the age of the 3d api wars.
To be more spesific, Vista is supposed to have a 3d interface that I would guess runs on Direct X. Of course if you choose to run something else its performance will degrade, they didn't make it, why would they make it an equivilant way to run their OS? As mentioned it does work, just with a performance hit, so they're not even blocking it out.
Xerxes
08-10-2005, 11:03 AM
Who is it about?
Varsity
08-10-2005, 11:03 AM
Isn't Windows Aero the thing that makes windows translucent?
bapenguin
08-10-2005, 11:03 AM
Hmm...I don't quite get it. Is it saying that because the API is layered over D3D that 3d Game perfomance is diminished? It's just talking about the desktop enviornment right? That's where Microsoft has control over it.....more insight anyone?
EvilBob46
08-10-2005, 11:13 AM
Here is a better explanation of what's going on IMO:
Evidently, as it stands now, the only provision for OpenGL Microsoft are making under Windows Vista is for it to be wrapped on top of DirectX. Windows Vista will provide two core 3D API specifications, DirectX9.L (formerly WGF1.0), which the main 3D GUI will utilise, and the yet to be finalised DirectX10 (WGF2.0), however at present it seems that MS will be layering OpenGL not on the more advanced DX10 specification, but the core DX9.L, pinning the specification to OpenGL1.4 and removing any IHV extension provisions.
With such a model in place there are several implications for OpenGL. First, its widely expected that the performance of OpenGL will be noticeably reduced by such an implementation (we may remember 3dfx were long since pilloried for not providing a native OpenGL ICD for a long time, instead laying it over their own Glide API). Pinning the specification to OpenGL1.4 and removing extensions will have implications for applications that are using shaders under OpenGL, which of course includes both workstation applications and games. Also, running OpenGL applications in windowed mode will require you to turn off the 3D Vista GUI, dropping the interface back to the Windows 2000 compatibility interface.
This coming to light now as Microsoft only recently confirmed their plans, however they are not likely to make many particularly happy, IHV’s or end users alike, however its hoped that there will be some movement from Microsoft yet. More can be read about this on the OpenGL.org discussion board here.
EDIT:
Last time I checked most PC games I played are always under Direct 3D. I could care less for OpenGL.
I think this a pretty poor argument. A lot of games use OpenGL (like Doom 3, and because of this future titles like Prey and Quake 4, Knights of the Old Republic [despite being an Xbox title also], etc, the list is quite long).
Xerxes
08-10-2005, 11:16 AM
Heeeeeeey doesn't DNF use OpenGL.... O_o
Dirty Harry
08-10-2005, 11:43 AM
Heeeeeeey doesn't DNF use OpenGL.... O_o
Actually, i dont think it does. I think its direct3d based off the Unreal engine?, thats d3d right guys?.
Paranoia
08-10-2005, 11:45 AM
So far, 3DRealms has not made any games for Windows.
XenonCJ
08-10-2005, 11:54 AM
It's like Beta and VHS. Microsoft won. Get over it people, or go run Linux if you care so much.
keeks
08-10-2005, 11:59 AM
Microsoft's current plan for OpenGL on Windows Vista is to layer OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aero experience.
Does this mean that if I use the Win2000 look (which I plan to do) I won't have a problem?
Phew! Thank gawd! I thought this was all about you~!
Hungry begger: Mister, could you spare some money for food?
Paranoia: I just ate. But thanks for asking!
Dude, that just made me spill coffee on my keyboard. :D
Could this be a move that would get Microsoft into trouble? I'm not clear on what laws they might or might not be breaking. :confused:
XxSATANxX
08-10-2005, 12:07 PM
The 3d desktop thing. First thing you turn off right??
Cha-Ka
08-10-2005, 12:27 PM
If this turns out to be true I won't buy Vista until I'm done playing the Open GL game, City of Heroes. And that's at the earliest.
The 3d desktop thing. First thing you turn off right??
Exactly. That 3-d "your desk is the inside of a sphere" thing is the biggest waste of processor power I've seen from windows. I can picture the future now...
MS: "Vista will ensure that people who have no real need to upgrade will buy entirely new computers just so their desktop runs smoothly."
Me: "Where'd I leave that shortcut? Is it behind me? Maybe it's above me... Crap!"
TheKeck
08-10-2005, 12:36 PM
Last time I checked most PC games I played are always under Direct 3D. I could care less for OpenGL.
Incidentally, it's I couldn't care less. COULDN'T. Who the hell cares if you could care less? (Actually, I'm sure nobody really cares that you couldn't care less, but at least you make SENSE if you say it right.)
Now I don't know anything about this stuff, and even worse, I read this from slashdot a week or so ago, so someone will no doubt correct me. Is it true opengl is handled soley by the video driver provided by either ATI or nvidia and that XP handled it slow as well, but it doesn't really matter?
Goronmon
08-10-2005, 01:19 PM
The 3d desktop thing. First thing you turn off right??
Prolly depends on what your system can handle more than anything.
slink-jadranko
08-10-2005, 01:51 PM
Not only do some mainstream games use OpenGL, but numerous open source, freeware and shareware games use OpenGL. This is an issue about people who aren't paying for engines and whatnot to have their products run as they should.
Fuck you MS! I shall probably write to nVidia, though not straight away, as I am guessing there will be a fair influx of emails. That said, I'd be surprised if nVidia, being it seems fairly serious about hardware OpenGL support, don't take this up themselves.
Orphiuchus
08-10-2005, 01:56 PM
It's like Beta and VHS. Microsoft won. Get over it people, or go run Linux if you care so much.
Thats moronic, this isn't a either/or situation.
Varsity
08-10-2005, 02:01 PM
Exactly. That 3-d "your desk is the inside of a sphere" thing is the biggest waste of processor power I've seen from windows. I can picture the future now...
I'm pretty sure it's 3D accelerated, not 3D in itself.
XenonCJ
08-10-2005, 02:01 PM
Thats moronic, this isn't a either/or situation.How do you figure? That's exactly what MS is making this situation into.
Lots of games use OpenGL, all ID engine games, and Epic supports both OpenGL and Direct3D.
I need to read more to see if this is going to effect game performance, but it seems like it would definately effect a windowed app, and I think it might effect game performance.
Assuming what I said earlier was BS, I would estimate (straight outta my ass)at least a dozen games over the next 4 years would be effected by this. All Doom3 engined games.
Dracula-X
08-10-2005, 02:30 PM
Nvidia has always been known for their support of OGL, hopefully they'll have something to say about this.
How do you figure? That's exactly what MS is making this situation into.Well, exactly. That's the problem. Microsoft's forcing them down to OpenGL 1.4 and saying "Well, if you want better performance, you'd better go with DirectX!" So Microsoft's throwing around their monopolistic weight to force a competitor to live in the stone ages where they rocket off to the future, and anyone not complaining about it just doesn't get the picture. This is like Microsoft requiring all data that goes through port 80 (the HTML port) to be parsed by IE first and strip any objects from the HTML (like Flash or Java, etc.), thus destroying any alternative browsers ability to exist seperately from IE on Windows and making it so whatever those browsers show is less than what IE shows. That's the problem.
Thenetcase
08-10-2005, 03:01 PM
OpenGL needs to become more useful if they're going to stay around.
danhoo
08-10-2005, 03:34 PM
One thing folks might be forgetting is that the tools for creating game content (Maya, 3DS MAX) use OpenGL in Win32. Granted MAX can use D3D too (and maybe Maya, dunno), but most of the higher -end "graphics workstation" PCs have decent OpenGL drivers, but not-so-great D3D drivers. This will probably end up affecting game artists at some level.
Reanimated
08-10-2005, 04:18 PM
I really, literally, truly, wholeheartedly could not care fucking less. Really. I mean it. Honestly.
Queue generic yet applicable comment: then why'd you pother opening the comments sections at all? Let alone bosting. Wierdo.
For the people that think D3D is better, you really should do some research on, or at least some programming with, the APIs before you voice your opinion that one is better than the other. OpenGL is an extremely powerful API. Furthermore, it is rather simple to use. DirectX on the other hand, while still being very powerful, is harder to learn and use due to it's integration with MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes, ie the stuff that makes windows and such). Maybe they have since reduced this coupling, but it was definitely there when I last tried to learn it with DX7/8.
Even forgetting which API is more powerful, this is a clear monopolistic tactic on the part of MS. They are restricting both developers and gamers to using DX if they want any type of quality and performance in their applications. Many of the newer features that people have come to love, such as pixel and vertex shaders, are not as impressive under the 1.4 specs. Anyway, from the noise that this has made on the net already, there are going to be a ton of angry developers sending MS plenty of hate mail.
I'd say it's pretty ignorant for one to say they don't care. OGL has done a lot for the graphics industry and you would have to look very hard to find a programmer who doesn't apprecaite it. Of course many games use directX but companies that develop their games with the intent of outsourcing their engine realized the importance of OGL. As for being more useful, I'm not quite sure what features that DirectDraw has that OGL doesn't support. I'm relaviely sure they can't be many or the likes of Carmack would not choose to use it. The importance of OpenGL being open is of great importance as well. Only the things that MS wants in it will make it into the API. If they decide that will be nothing after DX10 then that's what will happen. Perhaps I'm not making sence, but to say that OpenGL is not important doesn't ring true to me at all.
51|RandoM
08-10-2005, 06:14 PM
Do you guys really think opengl is just for games?
You might want to educate your uninformed selves by checking out this link:
http://opengl.org/applications/applications.html
Quite a few of those are windows apps, or windows apps exclusively.
If Microsoft can say no to anything that is cross platform and from some other company they will, either directly, or by purpose-built stumbling blocks in their own code. It is good business sense for the short-sighted, I suppose.
grunter
08-10-2005, 07:11 PM
As a purchaser and player of games, why would I care if the game is openGL or D3D?
KarmaGhost
08-10-2005, 08:02 PM
Starship Troopers reference.
megatron666
08-10-2005, 08:19 PM
As a purchaser and player of games, why would I care if the game is openGL or D3D?
Because if it uses openGL then the performance you get in Vista will be worse than on XP. Right now, it doesn't matter what the game is written in. But, when you upgrade your pc in the future would you want a system that runs well with many games (XP) or one that cripples them (Vista)?
So, right now, if any developer bought the Doom 3 engine and is developing a game that might run on Vista some day, that games performance could be severly cripled.
This is bad. Right now openGL is the only competition that directX has. In fact, I believe openGL has pushed the directX API to it's current greatness. If openGL is pushed out then directX, developers, and consumers will suffer.
It's just like IE stomping on netscape. IE was king for a while but then innovation stopped. IE now sucks and hasn't changed for years. This may not happen with directX, because of the xbox, but it very well could.
Dracula-X
08-10-2005, 08:27 PM
One thing folks might be forgetting is that the tools for creating game content (Maya, 3DS MAX) use OpenGL in Win32. Granted MAX can use D3D too (and maybe Maya, dunno), but most of the higher -end "graphics workstation" PCs have decent OpenGL drivers, but not-so-great D3D drivers. This will probably end up affecting game artists at some level.
Maya is strictly OpenGL too.
Liquidize105
08-10-2005, 08:46 PM
Dude, that just made me spill coffee on my keyboard. :D
There's more where that came from!
Woman: Help help! The building's on fire!
Paranoia on the street: Don't nobody panic! I'm SAFE!
Twigz'N'Berries
08-10-2005, 09:22 PM
Microsoft is a business firt and foremost. While you all preach that it should be open and free, that takes money out of the coffers of MS. I'm sure most of you don't care, but I for one am glad they are taking steps to ensure they remain on top.
If you have jobs with pensions or 401ks, there is a chance you may want MS to do well. I see that MS is hampered and sued by Japan for strongarm tactics, but the trade imbalance to that country is phenomenal. Other companies are finding it harder to scrape out a living due to globalization. Personal, if Ms thinks that this a step they need to take to protect themselves, more power to them. If public outcry is too loud, then they will be forced to make a change. As long as they are honest about what they are doing, I have no problem with it. Then it becomes a free choice the consumer makes to support them or not. But when companies lie, that is where I begin to take issue...
Direct3D has always been superior to OpenGL and is considered the industry standard. This move doesn't bother me.
Dracula-X
08-10-2005, 10:39 PM
Direct3D has always been superior to OpenGL and is considered the industry standard. This move doesn't bother me.
That's a friggin laugh, D3D was not always superior. Two words for you, "execute buffers", if you're a programmer you'll know what kind of garbage that was and why your statement is comedy gold. It's nothing more than *** wanting to shove DirectX down everyone's throat and a there-can-be-only-one-highlander! sort of deal. It's so easy for them to simply support and provide their own proprietary framework within windows, and with everyone playing games on the OS it's an easy choice for developers to adopt, not because it's "superior", but because OpenGL is implicitly being left out in the cold. OpenGL has always been an easier API to work with, and could accomplish virtually anything that could be done in DirectX. There's a reason why hardware manufacturers like NVidia give as much priority to OpenGL accelleration as they do DirectX, and for that alone there's no reason for *** to be pulling this stunt...
Of course, I have to wonder if a small part of this can be attributed to Sony's move in adopting OpenGL/ES, this would make porting PS3<->PC problematic perhaps... Nah, conspiracy theory! Wrought by the recent slew of fanboy mania! :)
Anyway, this can't be good for the high end visualization industry on the windows side, where OpenGL reigns...
oneway23
08-10-2005, 11:12 PM
would someone be kind enough to explain to a simpleton such as myself what API is?
Dracula-X
08-10-2005, 11:46 PM
would someone be kind enough to explain to a simpleton such as myself what API is?
This might be helpful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface)
Then answer me this, how come more developers prefer and utilize D3D over OpenGL? It's just fact.
bobbler
08-11-2005, 12:37 AM
Then answer me this, how come more developers prefer and utilize D3D over OpenGL? It's just fact.
The same reason more people use IE over firefox. It certainly isn't because it's patently "better". Vista having stunted OpenGL support is a shoddy move and will hurt people more than anything (as mentioned Maya and 3DSM are OGL based, some game engines, etc). I'm a bit surprised MS didn't try this earlier -- It is a smart move for them, but complete shit for everyone else.
The PS3 API is based around OpenGL as well, if I'm remembering correctly...
The only reason I used windows for a long time instead of linux was due to the fact I couldn't play most of the games I wanted to in Linux, so I can definately see why MS would want to stamp out OpenGL. Its going to be harder to justify a linux port (i.e. Doom3/UT2004/ET all run sweet under linux) if there is no point in running OpenGL apps in windows. I think Epic would still write the OpenGL renderer though, as they are a pretty kick arse company, and they have supported linux gamers for ever.
Do many developers use WinXP over Win2K? Will many upgrade to Vista?
Gel214th
08-11-2005, 04:41 AM
This is an attempt by Microsoft to strike a blow at the OpenSource/GPL community which uses OpenGL for many of its products.
It forces developers to use the MS Standard of DX10 for their games.
I think it is incredibly shortsighted, and I'm sure there was a way around it.
Vista , more and more, sounds like something that is going to tank at the market and an OS I am not thrilled about. The new filing system sounded fantastic, but that's been dropped. The scriptable desktop objects stuff sounded great as well, sounded like Desktop Objects type stuff built into the OS. But that's been dropped too. The features that are apparently supposed to appeal to me is increased 'stability', and starting windows 20% faster.
But great marketing usually wins out the ignorant majority, and that's really all you need to get (See Intel). Plus, it will come pre-installed on people's machines by default, it is hard for anyone to compete with that, including Windows XP.
The next step will be for MS to stop supporting Windows XP with patches,upgrades and service packs, and drop support for 2000. Face it, if they start delaying security patches for XP, or stop bringing them out as often a lot of people may be forced to switch just for the security concerns.
I messed around with the beta, from a superficial standpoint I like the gui a TON better than XP, which I never cared for. Is a better GUI worth $200-$300? No, but I wasn't planning on purchasing it.
Subbacultcha
08-11-2005, 06:55 AM
The day is coming when people will need to upgrade their graphics cards to run Word and Powerpoint. Linux is looking better every day...
I doubt that day will ever come. If that was the case I would suspect you have even more problems with the processor and memory your are running.
superherotaco
08-11-2005, 07:24 AM
Will it still support internet porn? Cause the second they cut that feature, then I'll be outraged.
Hehe, oddly enough it's a valid concern with the way Microsoft pushes their DRM in media player :).
megatron666
08-11-2005, 08:16 AM
Microsoft is a business firt and foremost. While you all preach that it should be open and free, that takes money out of the coffers of MS. I'm sure most of you don't care, but I for one am glad they are taking steps to ensure they remain on top.
If you have jobs with pensions or 401ks, there is a chance you may want MS to do well. I see that MS is hampered and sued by Japan for strongarm tactics, but the trade imbalance to that country is phenomenal. Other companies are finding it harder to scrape out a living due to globalization. Personal, if Ms thinks that this a step they need to take to protect themselves, more power to them. If public outcry is too loud, then they will be forced to make a change. As long as they are honest about what they are doing, I have no problem with it. Then it becomes a free choice the consumer makes to support them or not. But when companies lie, that is where I begin to take issue...
First of all, I haven't read anywhere where people are saying MS should be open source or free. They are a company and can do what they want Second, with that logic any company that holds a monopoly is in the right. Because they are giving people jobs is not a reason for them to crush compeditors. The compeditors can just as easily employ people.
No, what MS is doing is hindering a compeditor. They are using their size in the market to push a company made closed standard on people. How is that good for anyone except MS?
Also, you claim that consumers have a choice. That's not completly true. Most people don't know and don't care what an OS is. They simply use what is on their computer when they buy it. And if they do want to use something different, like linux for example, it takes a good deal of expertise to install the OS and move all their data reliably from one system to another.
Business consumers aren't taking this lying down, though. I read today that google went with linux because they weren't satisfied with the licencing issues of Windows. Amazon is switching to Macs.
Alexious
08-11-2005, 08:59 AM
Why, in the name of Miyamoto, would you want to downgrade to Windows Vista anyway? :D
No really. Like someone already said, the best part about the whole OS, the new file system, has already been dropped. I find NOTHING compelling about Vista so far.
XenonCJ
08-11-2005, 10:03 AM
Why, in the name of Miyamoto, would you want to downgrade to Windows Vista anyway? :D
No really. Like someone already said, the best part about the whole OS, the new file system, has already been dropped. I find NOTHING compelling about Vista so far.I think the same EXACT thing has been said about every new MS OS... Yet, for example, WindowsXP has managed to be quite superior to Windows 3.11
Dracula-X
08-11-2005, 03:23 PM
Why, in the name of Miyamoto, would you want to downgrade to Windows Vista anyway? :D
No really. Like someone already said, the best part about the whole OS, the new file system, has already been dropped. I find NOTHING compelling about Vista so far.
I'm with you on this. Vista default bootup eats 500+ megs ram. that's with nothing loaded. :)
Bubby
08-11-2005, 03:58 PM
Win2k shipped without any opengl. XP did also.
What's the big deal?
Simply download drivers from your video card manufacturer and install. Why is this such a big deal again? (same outrage when MS announced no opengl support back when Win2k was releasing).
Bubby
08-11-2005, 04:01 PM
Direct3D has always been superior to OpenGL and is considered the industry standard. This move doesn't bother me.
It's proprietary!
How can it be a standard?
Thanks for the laugh though.
Bubby
08-11-2005, 04:04 PM
Then answer me this, how come more developers prefer and utilize D3D over OpenGL? It's just fact.
Because they are after the gamer's cash. Using opengl (any OS can run) would be the right thing to do. They are in business to make money, not do the right thing for the consumer.
Win2k shipped without any opengl. XP did also.
What's the big deal?
Simply download drivers from your video card manufacturer and install. Why is this such a big deal again? (same outrage when MS announced no opengl support back when Win2k was releasing).
This is what I said, hoping for someone to clarify it. No one mentioned it again til you.
bobbler
08-11-2005, 05:25 PM
The problem isn't not including it. MS wants to kill true support for it all together. They are essentially only allowing DX to touch the hardware. OpenGL will have to be "translated" to DX at run-time -- which means overhead for all things that use OGL will run poorly (Maya/3DSM, some game engines, etc,etc). That was my understanding at least...
Twigz'N'Berries
08-11-2005, 08:04 PM
First of all, I haven't read anywhere where people are saying MS should be open source or free. They are a company and can do what they want Second, with that logic any company that holds a monopoly is in the right. Because they are giving people jobs is not a reason for them to crush compeditors. The compeditors can just as easily employ people.
No, what MS is doing is hindering a compeditor. They are using their size in the market to push a company made closed standard on people. How is that good for anyone except MS?
Also, you claim that consumers have a choice. That's not completly true. Most people don't know and don't care what an OS is. They simply use what is on their computer when they buy it. And if they do want to use something different, like linux for example, it takes a good deal of expertise to install the OS and move all their data reliably from one system to another.
Business consumers aren't taking this lying down, though. I read today that google went with linux because they weren't satisfied with the licencing issues of Windows. Amazon is switching to Macs.
Which is my point. There are options for companies that do not want to do business with MS...not many, but there are options. They can start using the Mac platform...or move over to Linux.
If people are uninformed and unaware of the choices that are available to them, then that isn't the fault of MS. They do not have a monopoly; people may buy their product because they do not know any better, but where does the fault lie there? With the consumer who doesn't do their research. A perfect example of this is Mozilla Firefox. They have more than 25 million users (or more). That means that those people either use IE and/or Mozilla. They excercised their options. If others do not know how to partion their systems to run to OS, then that is their fault, not MS. No company in their right mind makes it easier for their customers to leave them.
You just gave examples of companies that are excercising their right of choice. So, there are alternatives out there.
31 Flavas
08-12-2005, 02:39 AM
A perfect example of this is Mozilla Firefox. They have more than 25 million users (or more). That means that those people either use IE and/or Mozilla. They excercised their options.The difference, though, is that the users have the choice whether they know it or not, if they want a choice. The important thing is if they want an unhindered non-Microsoft choice they have it or CAN have it.
If MS gets its way here, users won't have a choice because OpenGL performace will always be worse, thanks exclusivly to Microsoft. It would be like Microsoft saying, "Ok, you want to use Mozilla? Sure you can use it, but only at 50% speed (or without images, or whatever) because you should be using IE. Not because it may or may not be better, but because we're in the position to force it on you and we don't want you to use the competition. But you still really have a choice."
Do you get the picture now?
I'll let someone else drop the details on why Microsoft wants to do this.
Simply switch to a flavour of Linux if you want to avoid using IE, DX and WMP so badly. :)
There are plenty of OS's out there for those who want to buck the "Standard" trend. There is no choice if you want the benefits of a Windows system, but isn't that how it should be? Why should MS provide you with their product on your terms?
There are plenty of OS's out there for those who want to buck the "Standard" trend. There is no choice if you want the benefits of a Windows system, but isn't that how it should be? Why should MS provide you with their product on your terms?
Because you can't use your monopoly in one section of the market to create a monopoly in another section of the market. Its illegal... i.e. they control the OS that 90% of people use, and regardless of why that is that doesn't give them the right to disadvantage another graphics library on their system. That's getting towards anti-competitive behaviour, and if it was proven that they had made their decision in to base the Visa GUI in DX in order to cripple OpenGL support, they could be sued.
31 Flavas
08-12-2005, 05:48 AM
There is no choice if you want the benefits of a Windows system, but isn't that how it should be?Have you ever tried your hand at computer programing, just out of curiosity? You sure don't sound like it. That not an attack on you, just an observation, it might help you with realizing this situation. I mean the benifits of Windows to you as a consumer are a lot different then to someone who programs for it.
Why should MS provide you with their product on your terms?I think I can speak for almost every developer here when I say "We're". But We're not asking for their product on our terms. We're asking that they just do not artifically hinder the video game code we write because they want to maintain their OS monopoly.
edit: I guess if your a DirectX programer you really don't have a problem...
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.