DippyskoodlezAPI's.

When you have a Monopoly, restricting interoperability, is illegal.

It's the F'ing definition of anti-competitive.

Webpages and Applications that are "IE Only".

That's consumer choice. They (banks/businesses) could have made their intranet software based open standards. They chose not to do that, don't blame IE.

DippyskoodlezAPI's.

When you have a Monopoly, restricting interoperability, is illegal.

It's the F'ing definition of anti-competitive.

Webpages and Applications that are "IE Only".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft



And right here in black and white:

Yeah. Settled out of court to shut them up, in a case where the EU's nose didn't belong to begin with. Settling a case doesn't make it right.

FordGT90ConceptAny application coded for DirectX won't work on any operating system other than Windows. That is very anti-competitive and one of the leading reasons why there are so few games on Mac and Linux. It is far more dominating than any "anti-competive" threat Internet Explorer posed.

Once again, look up the definition of anti-competitive practices.

You are about 3 miles off target.

There is nothing PREVENTING another 3d API from functioning. OpenGL is available.

If Microsoft put in effort to block OpenGL from being installed as they initially attempted with Windows Vista, they would have had another anti-trust case against them. Remember the longhorn beta without OGL? Or the fact that they BLOCKED installation?

Making a product for an Api is not illegal. Seriously, read the damn definition.

Wile EYeah. Settled out of court to shut them up, in a case where the EU's nose didn't belong to begin with. Settling a case doesn't make it right.

:confused:

The API's were made available for a competitor to..... compete.

How does that not fix anti-competitive behavior?

Problem, meet solution. No use wasting everyones time, for the exact same outcome.

The illegal part was the inability for a competitor to compete with 90% of the market. The ability to compete was enabled, thus making it legal again.

DippyskoodlezAnd right here in black and white:

Read a little farther down:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Settlement
However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future.

The EU did--despite the same situation.

DippyskoodlezOnce again, look up the definition of anti-competitive practices.

You are about 3 miles off target.

There is nothing PREVENTING another 3d API from functioning. OpenGL is available.

If Microsoft put in effort to block OpenGL from being installed as they initially attempted with Windows Vista, they would have had another anti-trust case against them. Remember the longhorn beta without OGL? Or the fact that they BLOCKED installation?

Making a product for an Api is not illegal. Seriously, read the damn definition.

Right, and by this exact logic, IE nor MS have ever blocked anyone from using another browser, nor have they blocked other browsers from going online. I still don't see where IE/MS has done anything anti-competitive. You also have yet to explain exactly how IE is anti-competitive.

Wile ERight, and by this exact logic, IE nor MS have ever blocked anyone from using another browser, nor have they blocked other browsers from going online. I still don't see where IE/MS has done anything anti-competitive. You also have yet to explain exactly how IE is anti-competitive.

You own 99% of the cars in the world.(MARKET SHARE)

You also own a patent for the Wheel. (API'S)

Noone is allowed to use a wheel, unless you make it, and use your car.

That is anti-competitive. There is no way for anyone to compete.

Now, say you share the plans for the Wheel(API'S), so Firefox can make a car too.

Firefox can now compete with you, making cars.

FordGT90ConceptRead a little farther down:

The EU did--despite the same situation.

EU and Places outside of the US also have totally different consumer rights laws.

DippyskoodlezYou own 99% of the cars in the world.

You also own a patent for the Wheel.

Noone is allowed to use a wheel, unless you make it.

That is anti-competitive. There is no way for anyone to compete.

Now, say you share the plans for the Wheel, so Firefox can make a car too.

Firefox can now compete with you, making cars.

That is, frankly, a broken analogy. First, because MS only owned the patent to one wheel design, so they could only restrict that single design. That did not stop anyone else from using an alternative wheel design. I still don't see your point.

Wile EThat is, frankly, a broken analogy. First, because MS only owned the patent to one wheel design, so they could only restrict that single design. That did not stop anyone else from using an alternative wheel design. I still don't see your point.

Now you're trolling.
All you're gonna do it claim any analogy is broken, because it's an analogy.

No shit it's broken. It's an analogy.

DippyskoodlezOnce again, look up the definition of anti-competitive practices.

I would classify DirectXs control over 3D game developement as a "barrier to entry"--an anti-competitive practice. That is, a large segment of people won't buy other than Windows PCs because not having DirectX means they can't run most games.

DippyskoodlezIf Microsoft put in effort to block OpenGL from being installed as they initially attempted with Windows Vista, they would have had another anti-trust case against them. Remember the longhorn beta without OGL? Or the fact that they BLOCKED installation?

Microsoft is at fault for not licensing DirectX to non-Windows platforms (like Linux/Mac). The relationship is a lot like Intel and x86.

FordGT90ConceptI would classify DirectXs control over 3D game developement as a "barrier to entry"--an anti-competitive practice. That is, a large segment of people won't buy other than Windows PCs because not having DirectX means they can't run most games.



Microsoft is at fault for not licensing DirectX to non-Windows platforms (like Linux/Mac). The relationship is a lot like Intel and x86.

OpenGL is not restricted from operating.

Many developers use it.

Direct X is in no way a "barrier to entry".

I could make a video game right now, without having to use direct X.

If I built a webpage, It would be a mistake to not make sure it functions in Internet explorer. That's the difference.

Licensing is only a problem if others are unable to compete. Apple doesn't want direct X, and nor would I want it in OS X. OpenGL works fine.

DippyskoodlezNow you're trolling.
All you're gonna do it claim any analogy is broken, because it's an analogy.

No shit it's broken. It's an analogy.

No, it's broken because it makes no sense. And no, I'm not trolling. That sentence wasn't meant to convey any feelings or anything of the sort. It was just supposed to be "matter of factual", if you will.

If I wrote an application in DirectX and wanted to get it to Mac OS X, I would have to start over pretty much from scratch and recode it in OGL to make it work. It is a barrier to entry because DirectX dominance makes it hard for most developers to develop for Mac OS X.

Kind of like you would need a huge amount of capital to compete with Wal-Mart--their dominance is also a barrier to entry.

DippyskoodlezIf I built a webpage, It would be a mistake to not make sure it functions in Internet explorer. That's the difference.

That's a problem with standards compliance (which IE isn't 100% compliant), nothing else.

Well, I'll pick up with this tomorrow. Have fun gents. Time for me to go to bed. Gnite.

FordGT90ConceptIf I wrote an application in DirectX and wanted to get it to Mac OS X, I would have to start over pretty much from scratch and recode it in OGL to make it work. It is a barrier to entry because DirectX dominance makes it hard for most developers to develop for Mac OS X.

Kind of like you would need a huge amount of capital to compete with Wal-Mart--their dominance is also a barrier to entry.


That's a problem with standards compliance (which IE isn't 100% compliant), nothing else.

That was your choice. All of my Programming I and II homework was done in xCode on OS X. I copy pasta'd my source code into Visual Studio, compiled, and submitted.

Code it in OGL the first time (COUGH DOOM 3 COUGH) and Wowsers, you can port a linux, and Mac version with almost no hassle.

That is called product planning.

Direct X could arguable be anti-competitive if you want, but it is by no means a Monopoly.

Anti-competitive is allowed, as long as you don't have a monopoly.

LIST OF 3d API's


Pick one.

Not in that list is also openCL, and I'm sure a few others.

as i see Ms is doing exactly what i predicted in other similar thread...

i read all the "fight" from this thread and believe me you all have right this is why Ms implement this option to please everybody.

all i can comment is that i don't like that we still have sites which work only with a specific browser..this must and will stop in the near future but till than a lot of user will have at least 2 browser installed because is forced..i don't like to be forced to use a soft that i don't consider good enough or mature.. i'm not a beta tester.

DippyskoodlezCode it in OGL the first time (COUGH DOOM 3 COUGH) and Wowsers, you can port a linux, and Mac version with almost no hassle.

Ideally, that's the way it works. Sometimes, however, your product finds a user base that you don't expect.

DippyskoodlezDirect X could arguable be anti-competitive if you want, but it is by no means a Monopoly.

Anti-competitive is allowed, as long as you don't have a monopoly.

Yes, the same goes for IE. Almost any single, popular product warrants an antitrust lawsuit. The thing is, the monopoly holder must behave in a manner that threatens to eliminate the competition in order for the state to win an antitrust lawsuit against them. DirectX isn't doing that to OpenGL and Internet Explorer isn't doing that to FireFox.

I hope the EU doesn't fine me because I own the market share of awesomeness.

This is all ridiculous.

Facts:
Microsoft in no way forces you to use Internet explorer *as a browser.* Ive never had anything since windows xp force me to use it. Just set FF or whatever you want as the default.

Microsoft in no way blocks the installation or use of other browsers.

Microsoft does not have a monopoly:
monopoly "(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "
www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:monopoly&ei=3ONuSqSvHsrBtwfh1JzdCA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Microsoft is not using barriers to entry, as there are plenty of other browsers out there. They had to enter somehow.

Last but certainly not least... it is none of the EU or any other governing organization's business what microsoft does. Consumers should be what governs markets. If consumers wanted something other than microsoft, they would find something different. Some say "well the average consumer doesnt know any different." That may be true. However, if they wanted or needed anything different, they would find it. IE is perfectly suitable for 99% of the population.
Heres an example: I may know nothing about cars, how to fix them, how they work, etc. (i do but thats not the point) But if I buy a toyota and it breaks down every day, its totally unreliable, and I cant use it, I will go buy something else (i will research, ask friends, whatever). Then if I like the Honda (or whatever, pick a manufacterer) that I found, I will use it. The fact is though, if the toyota isnt broken, if it works just fine, and does what I need it to do, I wont go to find something new.

The problem is not microsoft, it can only be one of two things:
Either IE works just fine and most of the world doesnt need anything else;

or it is lazy, apathetic consumers who would rather a bunch of sniveling bureaucrats tell them and companies what to do instead of doing thier own research and deciding for themselves what they want... which always leads to a "like lambs to slaughter" scenario. Turned into robots who eat that big mac because its quick and easy and cheap, who vote for a president because he gets the most facetime and looks best on TV, who spend millions on botox and plastic surgery because the magazines tell them to look that way...


I suspect its quite a bit of both, personally.

The scenarios could go on forever, but the point is the evil is not the corporations like every sci-fi novel would have you believe. You think governments dont love the fact that all it takes to rile you up is the fact that you have to install your own goddamn web browser? All the while they smirk while they gain more power because you think youre getting more freedom because now "OMG I can CHOOSE my own web browser?" When in fact they're sucking the freedom right out of the very people youre paying to provide you with the operating system to run that web browser.

It makes me sick to think that anyone would see this as a good thing. The things that could be justified by this precident are just too scary.

Re. The B rowser Bar

I thinki that the European Commision went to far in this casem, as you
mentionned also that Apple will not get the heat for Safari, or in the
future, Google with their new OS platform

The "ballot screen" looks great in the beginning, but many questions
arise later.
1. Who will decide who is on the list, as we can't block new startups
make even better browsers
2. What is the procedure to follow to be in th elist
3. Who will be responsable for the browser code
4 etc


You can read more on FrederikVanLierde.wordpress.com, where I
explain more in detail and also give a proposition that could help.
ll comments are welcome :)


Frederik Van Lierde

Frederik Van LierdeI thinki that the European Commision went to far in this casem, as you
mentionned also that Apple will not get the heat for Safari, or in the
future, Google with their new OS platform

The "ballot screen" looks great in the beginning, but many questions
arise later.
1. Who will decide who is on the list, as we can't block new startups
make even better browsers
2. What is the procedure to follow to be in th elist
3. Who will be responsable for the browser code
4 etc


You can read more on FrederikVanLierde.wordpress.com, where I
explain more in detail and also give a proposition that could help.
ll comments are welcome :)


Frederik Van Lierde

Welcome to the forums Frederik Van Lierde! That sounds like the name of a Luftwaffe Ace :laugh:

FordGT90ConceptIt's not Microsoft's job to offer choices. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. If there's enough people like you, they'll get the message and do something about it.

The EU's decision was wrong before and it is still wrong today. A court should not be permitted to force the developer of an application to include or exclude features.

Its MS's choice to go into those markets, once they do they need to follow the laws of those markets, ITS THEIR CHOICE TO BE THERE.

TheMailMan78I use IE8 and love it.

that explains alot......

alexp999You do realise that Windows 7 has the option to remove IE?

Dont talk to me about no merit.

this had to happen because the EU and other countries dont like IE being forced on everybody.

also the fact is that as ms has found out, its far easier to make the browser secure and update it if its not part of the core OS.

FordGT90ConceptThat's a lot of work for Microsoft and what does Microsoft gain by offering those?

Microsoft would have get distribution authorization from Mozilla, Apple, and Google. In order to do that, those companies are probably going to want something in return too (like reporting which choice was selected).

We also can't forget that if you embed one of these browsers into the OS and it has a vulnerability, that makes Windows have a vulnerability too when installed from scratch (e.g. Sasser/Blaster worms). Instead of the problem being Google's, Apple's, or Mozilla's, the problem is now Microsoft's. They have to get on whomever is responsible and get a critical update out on their update software (major PITA especially considering these rivals aren't likely to be cooperative).

It just goes on and on and on.


Most likely, the Windows 7 installer has some kind of Internet Browser although it isn't a browser per say. It is merely code the facilitates Internet networking (in effect, an unwindowed Internet Explorer). This internal networking code is also used to get updates from Microsoft.

When you make your selection of what browser to use, the code will fetch the most recent version from the provider and either launch it once you are in Windows or run it right then and there. Internet Explorer is still there, you just can't find it. It isn't a windowed application unless you choose Internet Explorer which in turn installs the GUI.

Internet Explorer is still the only browser packaged with Windows (this violates the EU ruling which is why you still need an E version) but it makes it easy to get the other popular browsers too.

not really, its not alot of work, they can just do what alot of apps i have do and run a remote install(downloads the stuff from the net like a webinstaller, makes sure u alwase have latist build)

OS security is alwase MS's problem, they are the ones who will get blamed when shit gets in either way, Oh and OPERA is far more secure then IE ever has been, and thats OUT OF THE BOX.

little note about ms update in win7, it is not in any way a web browser, its a standalone app that ms wrote specifically for that and it was a good move, even they will admit that, by removing IE from the OS CORE they can update it more easily as well as updating windows explorer more easily (updates for one wont break the other)

Wile EEven with extreme integration into the OS, the EU had no business telling them not to do it. If you don't want it, don't use it. Nobody said you had to buy Windows.

MS's IP should not be the business of ANY govt body, unless there is copyright infringement involved. They should be allowed to code their software however they see fit, not how the EU deems acceptable.

If MS didnt like it, they could leave the EU market, plane and simple, you go into another country you live by its rules.

Just like if Intel dosnt like being fined by the EU they could just pull out of that market.

they choose to be there, they need to live by that market/country/regions laws.

FordGT90ConceptAny application coded for DirectX won't work on any operating system other than Windows. That is very anti-competitive and one of the leading reasons why there are so few games on Mac and Linux. It is far more dominating than any "anti-competive" threat Internet Explorer posed.

yeah you can run dx games in other os's, ofcorse you wouldnt know that being a hater of all things not windows/microsoft.

sourceforge.net/projects/winex/ (just an example there are ones that are updated constantly to add support for new games as the come out)

Hey, I used Netscape on Windows 95 while IE3 was already installed. Internet Explorer in no way prevents another browser from being used.

once again you fail at history of computers and how things have developed.

IE3 was pre browser integration into the kernel, it could be removed without killing windows, it was later on that practices MS engaged in lead to them being sued and fined.

Its still a core part of the OS.

All that is removed is the GUI

Im running Windows 7 E, steam still works, and right clicks look like IE context menus.

So many programs wont function without the trident engine, including Windows itself.

Meecrobthat explains alot.......

What does it explain?

it fits right in with the quote from you in my sig, I will leave it at that.

WineX is reverse engineered. It is in no way guaranteed to work or even near fully featured as the real deal. Developers that are in the business of making money don't rely on free-ware projects. This is why any professionally developed application for Windows, Max OS X, and Linux must be originally coded for Open GL.


As stated many times before, 99% of IE is embedded into the Windows Kernel. The only thing missing is the GUI in EU versions. Why is the EU getting their undies in a bundle over 1% of an operating system? Hell if I know. The EU defies all conventional logic. They just wanted money and Microsoft is easy prey with deep pockets.