🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:46:58 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 2/14/2016 9:06 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:29:27 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2016 3:03 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:05:04 -0500, DMP <D...@mungemaid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I tried all the compatibility settings in properties with scaling both
>>>>> on and off. Still no start. I don't have a Creative Labs sound card, but
>>>>> just use sound from the motherboard with Real-tek drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Just as an FYI, I mentioned Creative because they took over the OpenAL
>>>> project from another developer as an open standards project.  It's a
>>>> cross platform driver, and you don't have to use a Creative brand card
>>>> to use OpenAL.
>>>>
>>>> Also when I said Creative drivers are notorious for this, I wasn't
>>>> necessarily picking on them as a company.  The problem is that because
>>>> Windows is designed to work with a gazillion different audio interface
>>>> hardware possibilities, there are a lot of things that can go wrong
>>>> with regards to gaming.  If Microsoft went the way of Apple, and made
>>>> their software runnable only on their own hardware, this sort of audio
>>>> driver snafu would go largely away because it removes driver
>>>> configuration differences as a potential source of issue.
>>>>
>>> This is what Microsoft is doing with WX.  I don't have a URL for the
>>> press release but they have announced that WX will not be fully
>>> supported unless it is being running on certain hardware.
>>>
>>> (Of course they waited until WX had been forcefully installed on
>>> millions of "non-compatible" machines....)
>>
>> Umm..  There is a massive difference between saying "ok, here are the
>> tens of thousands or so of compatible devices" and saying "our OS will
>> only run on hardware we sell you".
>>
>Their press release says the list is not exhaustive and more may be 
>added to it.  At the moment MS' list of compatible devices is:
>Intel Skylake chips.
>End of list.
>
>MS has a history of deliberately writing code that is not 100% 
>compatible with the standards agreed upon by everyone else so that their 
>in-house products run better on Windows than anything anyone else can 
>make.  This is just an extension of that policy.

Every for-profit manufacturer of any sort of integrated product,
whether software, or anything else, deliberately takes steps to make
sure their products work better together than with competitors
products.  It's called the pursuit of competitive advantage.  We do
not live in a communist society where everyone has an obligation to
code to the lowest common denominator.  

Anyone who has been involved in the creation of this type of product
knows that there is another reason for this.  It is not cost-feasible
to test every possible third-party vendors stuff with your own stuff.
It is up to the third party vendor to make sure they are compliant
with the marketshare leader.  

If a group of hippies wants to march off and create their own
standards committee, they are free to do so, but it means fuck all if
they end up falling flat on their asses when they try to get their
shitty products to take off and fail to get market share.

Now, that said, Microsoft for years has pumped millions upon millions
into the WHQL initiative to wipe the asses of these third parties,
making it easier for them to ensure compliance.  The only thing they
haven't done thus far is twist people's arm.  The result of not arm
twisting is that people bitch about how Apple doesn't have driver
problems, yada yada.  Hell, Apple re-invents their cablilng technology
every couple of years to make sure you buy a new device. So Microsoft
is doing what they need to do in order to achieve Apple-like
reliability.

Microsoft made Office documents an open-standard, but people still
don't use the shitty rip off apps, because they aren't as good. They
go to great pains to make sure Office works just as well on Mac OS X,
because otherwise the operating system that has the second best
marketshare would not have to settle for shitty Open Office and such.

A lot of people don't realize that in the big scheme of things,
notwithstanding OEM licenses that PC vendors pay for, Microsoft does
not make much of their total revenue off individual Windows copies.

Therefore this notion of forcing Windows 10 on people as a money
making ploy is about as foolish as the individuals that propagate the
idea.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-subscriptions-arent-happening-heres-why/