Txemi Jendrix wrote:
> I can run Moray in Vista, that's not the problem. The problem is that I
> cannot run povray 3.5 in Vista so I can't render directly from Moray and I
> can't use the material editor.

Really?  POV 3.5 works fine in Vista for me.  Sure, it hangs Moray if I 
try to render from Moray without POV being open first, but if I close 
and restart Moray it's fine.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Microsoft has already demonstrated how incredibly powerful they are
> and how dependent hardware manufacturers are on them when they released
> the requirement specs for certain hardware to work properly in Vista
> (most prominently display hardware), and the hardware manufacturers
> have had no other option than to submit and to spend money and resources
> in creating compatible hardware.
> 
>   I think there's something very wrong when one single company can
> dictate what a myriad of other companies must do, lest they make a
> financial suicide. That sounds illegal. Monopoly laws anyone?

I call BS.  Microsoft hardly forces anyone to write programs that just 
run on Windows; everybody just decides that they won't support other 
OSes.  The could if they wanted.  They're the ones choosing not to.
I think it's wrong when a myriad of other companies can dictate what one 
single company is allowed to do with their own product.  Don't like 
where MS is going?  Switch to *nix or make Steve Jobs all giddy by going 
Mac en masse.  MS'll get the point.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> MS is 
> cutting their own throat this time imho, but it might take some time for 
> the corpse to show signs of the real necrosis.

  Unfortunately I don't believe that's the case this time either.

  When Windows95 hit the shelves for the first time it was a horrible,
horrible "OS" (if it can even be called that). It was rushed half-ready
because of deadline pressures, it was extremely heavy for the computers
of the time, it was full of bugs, it was full of hardware problems, it
was full of backwards compatibility problems...

  Does this sound familiar? Yet it took but 1-2 years for Windows95 to
become the "industry standard", even though some struggled with Windows 3.x
for a few years more.

  Windows XP was for long time vaporware, delivered very late, it was
promised to be the next "big step" in the Windows history (equal, if not
even larger step than the Win3 -> Win95 step), a promise which was only
half-fulfilled (well, I would say only 1/4-fulfilled). When it hit the
shelves it was ridiculously heavy, with ridiculous hardware requirements,
it was very buggy, and almost all reviews recommended waiting for SP1
before changing to it at the big scale.

  Does this sound familiar? Yet, once again, it took 1-2 years for WinXP
to become the "industry standard".

  I don't see Vista being any different from this. It's ridiculously
heavy, it's buggy, it has backwards-compatibility issues... It's the
same story repeated once again. In 1-2 years it *will* be the "industry
standard".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> I call BS.  Microsoft hardly forces anyone to write programs that just 
> run on Windows; everybody just decides that they won't support other 
> OSes.  The could if they wanted.

  Sadly that's simply not true. The vast majority of hardware and software
manufacturers can *not* abandon Windows and start making software for
other platforms instead. It would be an economical suicide.
  In the majority of cases making the software for Windows *and* other
platforms is not cost-effective enough. If the Windows version brings 99.5%
of the money and the other versions the remaining 0.5%, it's certainly not
worth the money and resources spent porting the software to those other
platforms.
  It's *not* a choice. They *have* to make Windows software if they want
to stay in business. (Sure, there are exceptions, but those are few. We
are talking about the average hardware/software house here, not the few
lucky exceptions.)

  This simply gives Microsoft a monopoly status. They can dictate how and
what those manufacturers do. If Microsoft says "for the new version of
Windows all software must use DRM or Windows will refuse to run it" then
they have no choice but to add DRM to their software or it will not sell.

  Microsoft might not be "guilty" for being so popular (although some
could argue against that), but that doesn't change the fact that abusing
monopoly status is illegal in most countries.

  A good example: Apple cannot be considered "guilty" of being so popular
in the mp3 player business. However, that doesn't mean they can start
abusing their enormous monopoly however they like. This was clearly seen
when the EU sued Apple for abusing their monopoly status (related to DRM
protection which basically gave Apple unfair competition over other
companies).

  One could think that "it's their product, they can do whatever they
like with it". Even though that's true in small-scale applications, that's
not how fair trade works at the big scale. Monopoly and cartel laws exist
for a reason.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

In article <46fdf7e6@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > MS is 
> > cutting their own throat this time imho, but it might take some time fo
r 
> > the corpse to show signs of the real necrosis.
> 
>   Unfortunately I don't believe that's the case this time either.
> 
>   When Windows95 hit the shelves for the first time it was a horrible,
> horrible "OS" (if it can even be called that). It was rushed half-ready
> because of deadline pressures, it was extremely heavy for the computers
> of the time, it was full of bugs, it was full of hardware problems, it
> was full of backwards compatibility problems...
> 
>   Does this sound familiar? Yet it took but 1-2 years for Windows95 to
> become the "industry standard", even though some struggled with Windows 3
.x
> for a few years more.
> 
>   Windows XP was for long time vaporware, delivered very late, it was
> promised to be the next "big step" in the Windows history (equal, if not
> even larger step than the Win3 -> Win95 step), a promise which was only
> half-fulfilled (well, I would say only 1/4-fulfilled). When it hit the
> shelves it was ridiculously heavy, with ridiculous hardware requirements,
> it was very buggy, and almost all reviews recommended waiting for SP1
> before changing to it at the big scale.
> 
>   Does this sound familiar? Yet, once again, it took 1-2 years for WinXP
> to become the "industry standard".
> 
>   I don't see Vista being any different from this. It's ridiculously
> heavy, it's buggy, it has backwards-compatibility issues... It's the
> same story repeated once again. In 1-2 years it *will* be the "industry
> standard".
> 
Depressing thought...

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <46fdfa28@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> > I call BS.  Microsoft hardly forces anyone to write programs that just
 
> > run on Windows; everybody just decides that they won't support other 
> > OSes.  The could if they wanted.
> 
>   Sadly that's simply not true. The vast majority of hardware and softwar
e
> manufacturers can *not* abandon Windows and start making software for
> other platforms instead. It would be an economical suicide.
>   In the majority of cases making the software for Windows *and* other
> platforms is not cost-effective enough. If the Windows version brings 99.
5%
> of the money and the other versions the remaining 0.5%, it's certainly no
t
> worth the money and resources spent porting the software to those other
> platforms.
>   It's *not* a choice. They *have* to make Windows software if they want
> to stay in business. (Sure, there are exceptions, but those are few. We
> are talking about the average hardware/software house here, not the few
> lucky exceptions.)
> 
Not to mention that often MS makes special deals with many companies to 
include Windows only features, such that they not only are not supported 
by other OSes, they can't be. DirectX is one of the biggest examples of 
this, however, many software companies have fallen for that sort of 
"deal" as well, where MS allows them a look at the dark recesses of the 
web of connections within their code, as well as help making it work, 
knowing full well that the agreements they make to get that benefit will 
prevent them from providing the same functionality to anyone else's OS. 
Most companies are starting to wake up and realize they sold their souls 
to the devil via those agreements, but some of them are so heavily 
reliant on the products that exist under such cross licensing that it 
would in fact be financial suicide to try to break loose from them.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message