glyphstrip FAQ button
Halo.bungie.org
glyphstrip
Frequently Asked Forum Questions
 Search the HBO News Archives

Any All Exact 
Search the Halo Updates DBs

Halo Halo2 
Search Older Posts on This Forum:
Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts


Re: Carmack...
Posted By: Mr. Zarquon <chrisb@sneezingdog.com>Date: 4/17/02 9:31 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Carmack... (ferrex)

: I'm not sure that Microsoft needs to sanction it. I'm sure they could
: challenge it if they wanted, on some grounds, but then again, perhaps
: not... I'm no expert in the associated laws.

: What they've done is made their own technology and given it a developer
: interface identical to DirectX. It's like writing a stub library for all
: of the DX commands and then compiling your Windows DX code on a Mac using
: those stubs. These guys fleshed out those stubs with their own code--they
: didn't take the DX source and port it to the Mac.

: I believe that's why they can do this sort of thing without promptly being
: crushed like an ant beneath a sumo wrestler, or this product simply being
: released by Microsoft as a Mac port of DirectX.

: -rex

I never meant to make claims towards an MS conspiracy. Just my worries on how MS could possibly use the situation to leverage themselves into a market to dominate.

It would be nicer if MS embraced open standards, with code freely available, making it a lot easier to port games across platforms, because the code base can move easier. But I doubt that is going to ever happen, since MS doesn't like to share (ex- continual "anti open source / gpl" advertising by them).

Make me games, make them good. Let them run on my Mac. Make sure you don't get painted into a corner. Because it would suck if Bungie lost that independent flame that (still) burns bright.

Mr. Zarquon
Who has read entirely too much sci fi today.

Message Index



Replies:

Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh!Miguel Chavez 4/17/02 11:19 a.m.
     Yeah... KindaMr. Zarquon 4/17/02 11:56 a.m.
           Geez... why the negative spin?ferrex 4/17/02 1:03 p.m.
                 Because, I am.Mr. Zarquon 4/17/02 1:10 p.m.
                 Re: Geez... why the negative spin?Kanen Faud'r 4/17/02 1:26 p.m.
                 Re: Geez... why the negative spin?PCDestroyer 4/17/02 2:32 p.m.
                       Re: Geez... why the negative spin?Mark Levin 4/17/02 3:07 p.m.
                             Carmack...Miguel Chavez 4/17/02 3:22 p.m.
                                   Re: Carmack...ferrex 4/17/02 7:08 p.m.
                                         Re: Carmack...Mr. Zarquon 4/17/02 9:31 p.m.
                             Re: Geez... why the negative spin?PCDestroyer 4/17/02 3:45 p.m.
                       Re: Geez... why the negative spin?ferrex 4/17/02 7:02 p.m.
                             Re: Geez... why the negative spin?PCDestroyer 4/18/02 9:57 a.m.
                       Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGGprotexts 4/18/02 4:46 a.m.
                             Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGGPCDestroyer 4/18/02 10:11 a.m.
                                   Re: Why PCDestroyer is offprotexts 4/18/02 2:11 p.m.
                                         Make a 1AC!123456789 4/19/02 11:47 a.m.
                             Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midgetkiro69 4/18/02 11:19 a.m.
                                   Re: Speak for yourself there, parnter...Lophan 4/18/02 12:09 p.m.
                                   Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midgetprotexts 4/18/02 2:30 p.m.
                                         Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midgetPCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:37 p.m.
                                               The place where your whole argument falls down...Louis Wu 4/18/02 4:54 p.m.
                                                     Re: The place where your whole argument falls downPCDestroyer 4/18/02 5:04 p.m.
                                                           Ack.Louis Wu 4/18/02 5:16 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Ack.PCDestroyer 4/18/02 5:45 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Ack.protexts 4/18/02 9:34 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Ack.kiro69 4/19/02 10:36 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Ack.Louis Wu 4/19/02 10:54 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Ack.protexts 4/19/02 10:01 p.m.
                                                           As I said before, I agree.123456789 4/19/02 5:36 p.m.
                                               Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midgetprotexts 4/19/02 5:38 a.m.
                                   Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midgetPCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:26 p.m.
                       awesome reply, pcd *NM*kiro69 4/18/02 10:43 a.m.
                       Re: Quick note...Lophan 4/18/02 12:38 p.m.
                             Re: Quick note...PCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:40 p.m.
                                   Re: Quick note...Warbow 4/18/02 4:42 p.m.
                                         Re: Quick note...PCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:57 p.m.
                                               Re: Let's look at this a little closer...Lophan 4/19/02 12:24 a.m.
                                                     Re: Let's look at this a little closer...PCDestroyer 4/19/02 10:24 a.m.
                                                           Re: Let's look at this a little closer...vector40 4/19/02 9:03 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Then again, theoretically...Lophan 4/20/02 12:13 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Then again, theoretically...vector40 4/20/02 1:12 a.m.
                                                                             Re: Then again, theoretically...PCDestroyer 4/21/02 6:27 p.m.
                                                                       Re: Then again, theoretically...protexts 4/20/02 5:15 a.m.
                                                                             Re: Then again, theoretically...vector40 4/20/02 4:09 p.m.
                                                                       Re: Then again, theoretically...PCDestroyer 4/21/02 6:24 p.m.
                                                                             Implementation and Stealingprotexts 4/22/02 3:24 a.m.
                                                                                   Re: Implementation and StealingAida-kun 4/22/02 5:15 a.m.
                                                                                         Re: Implementation and StealingPCDestroyer 4/22/02 9:56 a.m.
                                                                                         Re: Implementation and Stealingprotexts 4/22/02 2:45 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Implementation and StealingPCDestroyer 4/22/02 9:49 a.m.
                                                                                         Re: Implementation and Stealingprotexts 4/22/02 3:05 p.m.
                                                                                               Re: Implementation and StealingPCDestroyer 4/22/02 8:34 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Implementation and Stealingkiro69 4/23/02 10:35 a.m.
           I agree123456789 4/17/02 3:19 p.m.



contact us

The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33.