Heh, sorry, misread the first part of your reply. ^^;
In any case, I haven't seen anyone claim that any of the OSs you've mentioned are completely rewritten. Windows 2000 and Vista did have major architectural and API changes, and Windows 7 had more low-level under-the-hood changes, but I don't think anyone's said that they've been rewritten at all.
Since when were Windows 2000 and 7's network stack re-written?
Of course it's probably in there somewhere, but it'd be such a small percentage that it'd be basically insignificant. I'd doubt that any non-basic code would survive two rewrites (NT3.5 and Vista).
There's probably a compat struct somewhere for the five apps that ran on NT3.1 and required TCP/IP (or STACKS, the platform SpiderTCP ran on) but other than that, I wouldn't expect much.
Not to mention that it was only supposed to be a temporary solution. Work on the new, Microsoft-written TCP/IP started shortly after NT 3.1 RTM'd, and was released in Windows NT 3.5 and Windows 95. The command-line networking programs (like ftp) that were ported along with Spider's TCP stack were left in, mainly because they worked well enough that Microsoft saw no reason to replace them.
While I agree that would have been funny in the period 2003-2005, were this article about Vista, or even a year ago, but it just didn't resound with me right now. Windows 7 is done, pretty much, and the countdown to release will be measured in months.
I'd also appreciate it if you don't go all OH KNOES M$ TROLL as you did at the bottom. I'm fine that all your clients use OS X or Ubuntu. I wasn't even attempting to change your beliefs at all.
However, your comments RE the top half do bear answering to, as they seem to show some basic ignorance.
Er.. rather bad timing on the joke...
It's just my cynical self. Hitting RC at Microsoft doesn't mean much anymore.
RC stands for Release Candidate. In other words, it means "this is what we'll be releasing, barring any showstopping bugs." It meant the same in Vista (RC1 was released barely three months before RTM) and in XP. The fact is, Windows 7 is basically finished.
Now, I assumed in you comment title you meant "x year when Windows 7 will be released". If this was an incorrect assumption, please forgive me.
Lately, either they release horribly buggy crap with or without years of feedback or it ships three (four) years late - and it's still buggy crap.
I'm curious to know what you refer to as "buggy crap". Full of security flaws? Annoying UI issues? Blue screens at the drop of a hat? If you're talking about the former, I wouldn't recommend Mac OS X.
I'm not sure what to say about all three, as I can only speak from personal experience, in which I haven't experienced anything much like that that either a) wasn't my own fault or b) dying hardware's fault or c) random software's fault on *either* Windows, Mac OS X or Linux. Of course, I don't expect you to hold this to water as personal experience is derided on Slashdot if it runs counter to their POV. Oh well.
Again, I don't have any bias in particular, and I am perfectly fine with you using whatever OS you like.
Er.. rather bad timing on the joke, wouldn't you agree? I mean, they did just hit RC, which is basically code for "this is done, give us bug feedback."
But MS still goes out of their way to paint it unfriendly battle-ship gray everywhere possible by excluding competitors, lopping off user choice, etc. They could choose to use their app-store to include their strategic partners. They could still sell their own apps, but could build the platform by encouraging others even if their own apps' market was somewhat infringed upon.
Um, that's the whole point of the Marketplace - to promote partners and competition. The only restrictions are you can't submit a competing marketplace, VoIP (due to carrier restriction), shells, and anything that changes the user's default apps. They want the user to change their settings for themselves.
I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas from, but it's certainly not the article.
Basically, it comes down the MS making a platform, but being so greedy they treat it like the iPhone and try to lock down the app store for it for a few quick dollars in increased market-share - totally oblivious to the long-term joke it makes of them and their products. What happened to "Developers, developers, developers"?
So, when did Microsoft start restricting distribution of software or access to the SDK, and why was I not informed?
The problem is that you're trying to imply some kind of "lock down" where there is none. The Marketplace is just a convenience, provided at Microsoft's expense (vis-a-vis servers, code (aka time and money), ect). Chances are, if they can't find anything in the Marketplace, people will be still grabbing software off the Internet, like they have been since Windows CE 1.0 first came out in 1995.
That'd be a nice post, except for the fact that Windows Mobile doesn't restrict what apps you put on your device, just what apps you submit to the Marketplace. So, to make it clear, you can't submit apps that "enable rival services". You can still build an app for WinMo that "enables rival services" and put it up on the Internet for everyone and their rival-service-enabling dog to download.
BTW, I hear Apple makes this phone that does restrict the apps you can put on their phone. iCell or iPhone or some such nonsense. Perhaps you should aim your cannon at them?
The globe menu is silly, I didn't even realise it was a menu, the buttons spins around for too long so you can't read them and then when they stop they are still difficult to read due to the font and colour. The text is pink and has crusty pixels around the edges. The website itself has very little useful information what so ever and it lags when ever you do something.
So, you mean to say the website of the Stupid Fun Club is stupid, but fun?
His statement is the definition of hypocritical. They are complaining that Apple is doing what they have done/are still doing now.
I must have missed the part where Microsoft is not allowing developers to program for their mobile or desktop OS.
Take for example the Zune. Who controls the Zune? Who controls the Zune marketplace?
Uhuh, go on...
Can Microsoft's PlaysForSure partners use the Zune Marketplace?
Seeing as three-quarters to all of the Zune Marketplace is non-DRM'd MP3s, that'd be a yes.
Can Zune customers use Linux or OS X?
Both Amarok on Linux and XNJB on the Mac have partial Zune support (via libmtp), but they appear to be stuck on authorisation for file transfer. Wine seems hung up on installation of the Zune software. (If you have a VM and a copy of Windows handy, you can, of course, run it through there, but I don't think that's quite what you meant.)
However, there appears to be a larger problem with your argument. Ballmer is not complaining that Apple is not allowing people to transfer their apps (which would be impractical as, unless you're running the app under a VM, like Java, most apps are written for a specific executable structure and architecture) or data to different devices.
He is complaining that Apple doesn't allow non-authorised programs to run on the iPhone (at least, without jailbreaking it, but that's another matter entirely.) Essentially, the iPhone is a console, albeit one with a wider range of software. And with the reports of update delays, arbitary rejection, no-competition clause, and so on, I would think that complaint is quite valid.
Right because Microsoft works SO hard to make sure developers can write for windows...
From your tone, it seems like you were trying to be sarcastic. Did you mean "write for other OSs apart from Windows"?
[...]So Steve, when we getting our official MS Office and Outlook for Linux? We'd really like it if Microsoft was open with it's toys too!
Except you're taking one issue and confusing it with another. Ballmer is talking about the freedom to develop for the iPhone. Microsoft doesn't prevent you from writing programs for its' OS (they even provide free IDEs so you can do so), and nothing's stopping you from developing on Linux. Hey, you could even help out OpenOffice, if you're so concerned about having an office suite on Linux. (Crazy idea, I know!)
32bit systems don't have enough addressing space for 4GB of RAM, cuz 2^32 - 1 = 4,294,967,295. This space is also shared with other hardware. It's not because Windows is poorly written. Microsoft can't just turn on a magical switch that lets a 32bit OS see all 4GB of RAM.
Yes, they can. The person you were replying to even spelled it out for you.
Three times.
It's called PAE.
I call red herring! PAE doesn't involve magic at all!
Seriously, Windows XP SP2 and forward run in PAE mode for NX or XD processors. However, Microsoft limits access to 4GB for driver compatibility reasons.
(Russell's paradox: if I don't focus on what you say but on what I want to hear, when you say people aren't focussing on what you say but on what they want to hear, does that mean I really *was* focussing on what you said?)
not what was actually said overall.
There's a reason why the English language has qualifiers.
Cancelled is what happens when a contract is revoked. As far as I know, Microsoft is continuing with Crispin Porter + Bogusky.
Cancelled is what happens if they were planning to make more of the same vein. I see no indication of that, but of the expectant bloggers.
Microsoft had always said that the Bill & Seinfield ads were not a campaign unto itself, but an icebreaker, or rather, "phase one". Indeed, it would not surprise me if Microsoft's announcement was all about the new ads, and didn't mention Bill & Seinfield at all.
Me thinks Valleywag focused on what they wanted to hear, not what was actually said overall.
"Under their umbrella" is pretty vague. Seems like the studios that they acquire would best represent their goals and intentions, which is what this was about.
True about the vagueness. Personally, I would think that the developers MGS publishes for shows where their thinking lies. Perhaps I shoulda made that more clear.
ACES Studios is a nice example of an in-house one. Have you seen Flight Simulator on the Xbox? No? Didn't think so.
True. Flight sims are definitely a PC niche. It could never work on the XBox. It just has a very dedicated audience.
Don't think there's any technical stuff preventing it, but yes, their customers are very much entrenched on the PC.
Ensemble and FASA Interactive are both defunct now.
Ensemble is closing (read: hasn't closed yet) because of resource issues, AFAIK. Most of the core staff will form a spin-off studio which will keep ties with Microsoft, while the rest Microsoft hopes to retain at MGS.
And anyway, Digital Anvil is defunct too. You brought them up, not me.
And I realize that they were PC developers, but Microsoft was turning them into XBox developers. XBox 360 was the lead platform for them on their final games.
Was Microsoft? Bungie approached Ensemble, not MGS. Ensemble said they wanted to do it. They were the ones that pitched the idea to Microsoft. They developed the controls half a year before pitching it, specifically because console RTS games have traditionally had sucky controls. It seems that all indications are that Ensemble wanted to do this on the Xbox.
Again, one game doesn't mean they were abandoning the PC, or supporting it in a limited fashion. Maybe they would of ported AoEIV to Xbox.Next, now that they had some experience. I suspect that their main thrust would still have been on the PC.
Perhaps we should watch the new studio, see what it comes up with.
FASA Studios? I have no idea. I know Shadowrun prototypes were developed with the Halo engine, but does that indicate primarily a console focus?
Bungie was never a PC studio. They started out on the Mac, and then switched to Xbox-exclusive games when they were acquired.
Traditionally, no, but Halo was originally slated for simultaneous release for Mac and Windows.
True, but it sounds more like they were going to develop it for the Mac first, and then port it to Windows.
In any case, since they would have focused at least some of their time on making it a great experience on the Mac, it would have certainly have boosted gaming on the platform. Perhaps Microsoft was trying to kill gaming on the Mac?
Name a PC game studio that they've acquired that hasn't turned into an XBox studio?
Who said anything about acquired? I certainly didn't. (I also didn't mention anything about them being in-house either.)
However, I shall play your little game.
Name a PC game studio...
ACES Studios is a nice example of an in-house one. Have you seen Flight Simulator on the Xbox? No? Didn't think so.
Ensemble Studios is also an in-house developer for the PC, Halo Wars excluding.
FASA Studios is a good example, as only one of their five games under Microsoft have been Xbox exclusive, and Shadowrun was released for both.
The independent studios Big Huge Games, Blue Fang, and Gas Powered Games have all previously released titles with MSG, primarily PC games.
Bungie?
Bungie was never a PC studio. They started out on the Mac, and then switched to Xbox-exclusive games when they were acquired.
Lionhead?
Conceded.
Digital Anvil?
Between the time they were acquired and the time they were dissolved, they made two games - one for Windows and one for the Xbox. If you consider that "turning" into an Xbox developer, sure.
FASA Interactive? Ensemble?
One or two games does not make a developer. When the majority of their output is on the Xbox, that's when I consider them to have "turned into an Xbox studio".
Of course, all this completely misses the original point, which was that Games for Windows isn't killing PC gaming. Oh well.
Don't forget about Microsoft! Games for Windows is a cruel joke. It seems to be primarily about them padding profits by giving the PC sloppy seconds on games that get shoveled out for the 360. They tend to look like ass and play even worse because nobody bothers to make the games actually play like PC games and take advantage of the strengths of the platform. Seems like Microsoft is more determined than anyone to kill PC gaming.
GFW is only a branding program - the idea being that games designed for Windows will stand out better, rather than look like a jumbled mess - and therefore, it has no effect on the quality of games. Perhaps they've alway been that way and you haven't noticed?
Poor ports of console games have been around since the dawn of gaming. It is, therefore, no surprise that a great deal of shelf space is dedicated to these games. This would happen with or without GFW.
Besides, the idea that Microsoft is trying to kill off gaming is pretty laughable - many of the studios under Microsoft's umbrella are pretty much PC-exclusive. (And, for what it's worth, all those that are release under the GFW banner.)
"Or, should they encourage normal font files on the web and help break Microsoft's forgotten monopoly?"
Gee, I wonder what/. will think...
It's interesting to note that the linked page has absolutely nothing to do with EOT; rather, it refers to Microsoft's Core Fonts for the Web.
Besides, this is quite old news - I certainly knew about it several months ago, and the submission website says it was submitted in March, over five months ago.
I was under the impression that it was unimplementable as it referred to opaque things like "implement this feature like Word 95 does" -- but I haven't gone through the specs myself.
As to your other point - yes - some people will always love to hate Microsoft, but I don't think that is the sole reason for the outcry.
I guess the problem is the difference between "implimentable" and "fully implimentable". Tags like autoSpaceLikeWord95 were only meant to be for legacy compatability, and aren't really necessary. (IMHO, they could of just set autospacing to whatever Word 95 had it, but perhaps it gets too tricky in places to handle/clean up later.)
Of cause, as a result of the BRM, ISO/IEC 29500 apparently now documents what tags such as autoSpaceLikeWord95 actually entail. So, that's a Good Thing. Eh.
About The Other Thing, I think there were some legitimate issues, but they got drowned out by the rest of us, who get a little too passionate at times. Our tendacy to attack or defend sometimes gets the better of us. It's what we do.
Thing is, if OOXML were not from Microsoft, then there wouldn't be such an outcry.
Fixed your typo for ya.
But seriously, OOXML (i.e. ECMA 376) is implimentable, and has been implimented, both in mainstream and niche products. Since ISO/IEC 29500 hasn't even been published yet, it's hard to say if the same is true for that too, but seeing as the two are supposibly rather similar, it prolly is.
Saying "Nobody is born on the 1st of January" is like saying "Noone is born on Boxing Day" or "the 4th of July" or "12/3" or any other arbitrary date. There is always someone who is.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, sorry, misread the first part of your reply. ^^;
In any case, I haven't seen anyone claim that any of the OSs you've mentioned are completely rewritten. Windows 2000 and Vista did have major architectural and API changes, and Windows 7 had more low-level under-the-hood changes, but I don't think anyone's said that they've been rewritten at all.
Since when were Windows 2000 and 7's network stack re-written?
Of course it's probably in there somewhere, but it'd be such a small percentage that it'd be basically insignificant. I'd doubt that any non-basic code would survive two rewrites (NT3.5 and Vista).
There's probably a compat struct somewhere for the five apps that ran on NT3.1 and required TCP/IP (or STACKS, the platform SpiderTCP ran on) but other than that, I wouldn't expect much.
Not to mention that it was only supposed to be a temporary solution. Work on the new, Microsoft-written TCP/IP started shortly after NT 3.1 RTM'd, and was released in Windows NT 3.5 and Windows 95. The command-line networking programs (like ftp) that were ported along with Spider's TCP stack were left in, mainly because they worked well enough that Microsoft saw no reason to replace them.
While I agree that would have been funny in the period 2003-2005, were this article about Vista, or even a year ago, but it just didn't resound with me right now. Windows 7 is done, pretty much, and the countdown to release will be measured in months.
I'd also appreciate it if you don't go all OH KNOES M$ TROLL as you did at the bottom. I'm fine that all your clients use OS X or Ubuntu. I wasn't even attempting to change your beliefs at all.
However, your comments RE the top half do bear answering to, as they seem to show some basic ignorance.
Er.. rather bad timing on the joke...
It's just my cynical self. Hitting RC at Microsoft doesn't mean much anymore.
RC stands for Release Candidate. In other words, it means "this is what we'll be releasing, barring any showstopping bugs." It meant the same in Vista (RC1 was released barely three months before RTM) and in XP. The fact is, Windows 7 is basically finished.
Now, I assumed in you comment title you meant "x year when Windows 7 will be released". If this was an incorrect assumption, please forgive me.
Lately, either they release horribly buggy crap with or without years of feedback or it ships three (four) years late - and it's still buggy crap.
I'm curious to know what you refer to as "buggy crap". Full of security flaws? Annoying UI issues? Blue screens at the drop of a hat? If you're talking about the former, I wouldn't recommend Mac OS X.
I'm not sure what to say about all three, as I can only speak from personal experience, in which I haven't experienced anything much like that that either a) wasn't my own fault or b) dying hardware's fault or c) random software's fault on *either* Windows, Mac OS X or Linux. Of course, I don't expect you to hold this to water as personal experience is derided on Slashdot if it runs counter to their POV. Oh well.
Again, I don't have any bias in particular, and I am perfectly fine with you using whatever OS you like.
What happened to Dr.Watson?
Unfortunately, Dr. Watson only does window-to-window calls...
Er.. rather bad timing on the joke, wouldn't you agree? I mean, they did just hit RC, which is basically code for "this is done, give us bug feedback."
But MS still goes out of their way to paint it unfriendly battle-ship gray everywhere possible by excluding competitors, lopping off user choice, etc. They could choose to use their app-store to include their strategic partners. They could still sell their own apps, but could build the platform by encouraging others even if their own apps' market was somewhat infringed upon.
Um, that's the whole point of the Marketplace - to promote partners and competition. The only restrictions are you can't submit a competing marketplace, VoIP (due to carrier restriction), shells, and anything that changes the user's default apps. They want the user to change their settings for themselves.
I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas from, but it's certainly not the article.
Basically, it comes down the MS making a platform, but being so greedy they treat it like the iPhone and try to lock down the app store for it for a few quick dollars in increased market-share - totally oblivious to the long-term joke it makes of them and their products. What happened to "Developers, developers, developers"?
So, when did Microsoft start restricting distribution of software or access to the SDK, and why was I not informed?
The problem is that you're trying to imply some kind of "lock down" where there is none. The Marketplace is just a convenience, provided at Microsoft's expense (vis-a-vis servers, code (aka time and money), ect). Chances are, if they can't find anything in the Marketplace, people will be still grabbing software off the Internet, like they have been since Windows CE 1.0 first came out in 1995.
That'd be a nice post, except for the fact that Windows Mobile doesn't restrict what apps you put on your device, just what apps you submit to the Marketplace. So, to make it clear, you can't submit apps that "enable rival services". You can still build an app for WinMo that "enables rival services" and put it up on the Internet for everyone and their rival-service-enabling dog to download.
BTW, I hear Apple makes this phone that does restrict the apps you can put on their phone. iCell or iPhone or some such nonsense. Perhaps you should aim your cannon at them?
The globe menu is silly, I didn't even realise it was a menu, the buttons spins around for too long so you can't read them and then when they stop they are still difficult to read due to the font and colour. The text is pink and has crusty pixels around the edges. The website itself has very little useful information what so ever and it lags when ever you do something.
So, you mean to say the website of the Stupid Fun Club is stupid, but fun?
His statement is the definition of hypocritical. They are complaining that Apple is doing what they have done/are still doing now.
I must have missed the part where Microsoft is not allowing developers to program for their mobile or desktop OS.
Take for example the Zune. Who controls the Zune? Who controls the Zune marketplace?
Uhuh, go on...
Can Microsoft's PlaysForSure partners use the Zune Marketplace?
Seeing as three-quarters to all of the Zune Marketplace is non-DRM'd MP3s, that'd be a yes.
Can Zune customers use Linux or OS X?
Both Amarok on Linux and XNJB on the Mac have partial Zune support (via libmtp), but they appear to be stuck on authorisation for file transfer. Wine seems hung up on installation of the Zune software. (If you have a VM and a copy of Windows handy, you can, of course, run it through there, but I don't think that's quite what you meant.)
However, there appears to be a larger problem with your argument. Ballmer is not complaining that Apple is not allowing people to transfer their apps (which would be impractical as, unless you're running the app under a VM, like Java, most apps are written for a specific executable structure and architecture) or data to different devices.
He is complaining that Apple doesn't allow non-authorised programs to run on the iPhone (at least, without jailbreaking it, but that's another matter entirely.) Essentially, the iPhone is a console, albeit one with a wider range of software. And with the reports of update delays, arbitary rejection, no-competition clause, and so on, I would think that complaint is quite valid.
Right because Microsoft works SO hard to make sure developers can write for windows...
From your tone, it seems like you were trying to be sarcastic. Did you mean "write for other OSs apart from Windows"?
[...]So Steve, when we getting our official MS Office and Outlook for Linux? We'd really like it if Microsoft was open with it's toys too!
Except you're taking one issue and confusing it with another. Ballmer is talking about the freedom to develop for the iPhone. Microsoft doesn't prevent you from writing programs for its' OS (they even provide free IDEs so you can do so), and nothing's stopping you from developing on Linux. Hey, you could even help out OpenOffice, if you're so concerned about having an office suite on Linux. (Crazy idea, I know!)
A Beowulf chandelier?
All I see is **********. Maybe someone else could post their password so we can check it.
You can go hunter2 my hunter2-ing hunter2!
Haha, does that look funny to you?
32bit systems don't have enough addressing space for 4GB of RAM, cuz 2^32 - 1 = 4,294,967,295. This space is also shared with other hardware. It's not because Windows is poorly written. Microsoft can't just turn on a magical switch that lets a 32bit OS see all 4GB of RAM.
Yes, they can. The person you were replying to even spelled it out for you.
Three times.
It's called PAE.
I call red herring! PAE doesn't involve magic at all!
Seriously, Windows XP SP2 and forward run in PAE mode for NX or XD processors. However, Microsoft limits access to 4GB for driver compatibility reasons.
(Russell's paradox: if I don't focus on what you say but on what I want to hear, when you say people aren't focussing on what you say but on what they want to hear, does that mean I really *was* focussing on what you said?)
not what was actually said overall.
There's a reason why the English language has qualifiers.
I must be missing something. Cancelled?
Cancelled is what happens when a contract is revoked. As far as I know, Microsoft is continuing with Crispin Porter + Bogusky.
Cancelled is what happens if they were planning to make more of the same vein. I see no indication of that, but of the expectant bloggers.
Microsoft had always said that the Bill & Seinfield ads were not a campaign unto itself, but an icebreaker, or rather, "phase one". Indeed, it would not surprise me if Microsoft's announcement was all about the new ads, and didn't mention Bill & Seinfield at all.
Me thinks Valleywag focused on what they wanted to hear, not what was actually said overall.
"Under their umbrella" is pretty vague. Seems like the studios that they acquire would best represent their goals and intentions, which is what this was about.
True about the vagueness. Personally, I would think that the developers MGS publishes for shows where their thinking lies. Perhaps I shoulda made that more clear.
ACES Studios is a nice example of an in-house one. Have you seen Flight Simulator on the Xbox? No? Didn't think so.
True. Flight sims are definitely a PC niche. It could never work on the XBox. It just has a very dedicated audience.
Don't think there's any technical stuff preventing it, but yes, their customers are very much entrenched on the PC.
Ensemble and FASA Interactive are both defunct now.
Ensemble is closing (read: hasn't closed yet) because of resource issues, AFAIK. Most of the core staff will form a spin-off studio which will keep ties with Microsoft, while the rest Microsoft hopes to retain at MGS.
And anyway, Digital Anvil is defunct too. You brought them up, not me.
And I realize that they were PC developers, but Microsoft was turning them into XBox developers. XBox 360 was the lead platform for them on their final games.
Was Microsoft? Bungie approached Ensemble, not MGS. Ensemble said they wanted to do it. They were the ones that pitched the idea to Microsoft. They developed the controls half a year before pitching it, specifically because console RTS games have traditionally had sucky controls. It seems that all indications are that Ensemble wanted to do this on the Xbox.
Again, one game doesn't mean they were abandoning the PC, or supporting it in a limited fashion. Maybe they would of ported AoEIV to Xbox.Next, now that they had some experience. I suspect that their main thrust would still have been on the PC.
Perhaps we should watch the new studio, see what it comes up with.
FASA Studios? I have no idea. I know Shadowrun prototypes were developed with the Halo engine, but does that indicate primarily a console focus?
Bungie was never a PC studio. They started out on the Mac, and then switched to Xbox-exclusive games when they were acquired.
Traditionally, no, but Halo was originally slated for simultaneous release for Mac and Windows.
True, but it sounds more like they were going to develop it for the Mac first, and then port it to Windows.
In any case, since they would have focused at least some of their time on making it a great experience on the Mac, it would have certainly have boosted gaming on the platform. Perhaps Microsoft was trying to kill gaming on the Mac?
Name a PC game studio that they've acquired that hasn't turned into an XBox studio?
Who said anything about acquired? I certainly didn't. (I also didn't mention anything about them being in-house either.)
However, I shall play your little game.
Name a PC game studio...
ACES Studios is a nice example of an in-house one. Have you seen Flight Simulator on the Xbox? No? Didn't think so.
Ensemble Studios is also an in-house developer for the PC, Halo Wars excluding.
FASA Studios is a good example, as only one of their five games under Microsoft have been Xbox exclusive, and Shadowrun was released for both.
The independent studios Big Huge Games, Blue Fang, and Gas Powered Games have all previously released titles with MSG, primarily PC games.
Bungie?
Bungie was never a PC studio. They started out on the Mac, and then switched to Xbox-exclusive games when they were acquired.
Lionhead?
Conceded.
Digital Anvil?
Between the time they were acquired and the time they were dissolved, they made two games - one for Windows and one for the Xbox. If you consider that "turning" into an Xbox developer, sure.
FASA Interactive? Ensemble?
One or two games does not make a developer. When the majority of their output is on the Xbox, that's when I consider them to have "turned into an Xbox studio".
Of course, all this completely misses the original point, which was that Games for Windows isn't killing PC gaming. Oh well.
Don't forget about Microsoft! Games for Windows is a cruel joke. It seems to be primarily about them padding profits by giving the PC sloppy seconds on games that get shoveled out for the 360. They tend to look like ass and play even worse because nobody bothers to make the games actually play like PC games and take advantage of the strengths of the platform. Seems like Microsoft is more determined than anyone to kill PC gaming.
GFW is only a branding program - the idea being that games designed for Windows will stand out better, rather than look like a jumbled mess - and therefore, it has no effect on the quality of games. Perhaps they've alway been that way and you haven't noticed?
Poor ports of console games have been around since the dawn of gaming. It is, therefore, no surprise that a great deal of shelf space is dedicated to these games. This would happen with or without GFW.
Besides, the idea that Microsoft is trying to kill off gaming is pretty laughable - many of the studios under Microsoft's umbrella are pretty much PC-exclusive. (And, for what it's worth, all those that are release under the GFW banner.)
If XP is so dead why should they be developing new WGA tricks for it anyways?
They're not. They're updating it to bring it in line with what Windows Vista SP1 WGA does. Nice try, though. :)
"Or, should they encourage normal font files on the web and help break Microsoft's forgotten monopoly?" Gee, I wonder what /. will think...
It's interesting to note that the linked page has absolutely nothing to do with EOT; rather, it refers to Microsoft's Core Fonts for the Web.
Besides, this is quite old news - I certainly knew about it several months ago, and the submission website says it was submitted in March, over five months ago.
I was under the impression that it was unimplementable as it referred to opaque things like "implement this feature like Word 95 does" -- but I haven't gone through the specs myself.
As to your other point - yes - some people will always love to hate Microsoft, but I don't think that is the sole reason for the outcry.
I guess the problem is the difference between "implimentable" and "fully implimentable". Tags like autoSpaceLikeWord95 were only meant to be for legacy compatability, and aren't really necessary. (IMHO, they could of just set autospacing to whatever Word 95 had it, but perhaps it gets too tricky in places to handle/clean up later.)
Of cause, as a result of the BRM, ISO/IEC 29500 apparently now documents what tags such as autoSpaceLikeWord95 actually entail. So, that's a Good Thing. Eh.
About The Other Thing, I think there were some legitimate issues, but they got drowned out by the rest of us, who get a little too passionate at times. Our tendacy to attack or defend sometimes gets the better of us. It's what we do.
Thing is, if OOXML were not from Microsoft, then there wouldn't be such an outcry.
Fixed your typo for ya.
But seriously, OOXML (i.e. ECMA 376) is implimentable, and has been implimented, both in mainstream and niche products. Since ISO/IEC 29500 hasn't even been published yet, it's hard to say if the same is true for that too, but seeing as the two are supposibly rather similar, it prolly is.
Actually, my dad is.
Saying "Nobody is born on the 1st of January" is like saying "Noone is born on Boxing Day" or "the 4th of July" or "12/3" or any other arbitrary date. There is always someone who is.
Wait, there's four others?