Re: Geez... why the negative spin?





Frequently Asked Forum Questions

Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact	Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2	Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ \| More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker



Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum \| Archived Posts

Re: Geez... why the negative spin?

Posted By: Kanen Faud'r <eli@nuprometheus.com> Date: 4/17/02 1:26 p.m.
In Response To: Geez... why the negative spin? (ferrex)

: First off, DirectX's development is being driven by the developers. The new
: features in the API are features that have been requested by developers.
: While it is easy and, for some, comfortable to think that Microsoft is
: this malevolent corporation that exists for the sole purpose of screwing
: people, the truth is that they pay attention to their 3rd party developers
: and work with them wherever possible.
In some ways a Mac developer is probably better off with a third party DirectX port than a PC developer using DirectX. The biggest problem with DirectX has always been that it's totally closed source. This means PC developers are at the mercy of Microsoft for bug fixes and updates. And while I don't think Microsoft is exactly evil, they do certainly screw stuff up on a regular basis. DirectX is something of a Faustian bargain - it can be a great API, but you're trading away all of your control for convenience. If something is broken you can't fix it, and unless you're huge (and sometimes even if you are) you can't get Microsoft to fix it any faster than they feel like.
Your mileage may vary, offer not valid in the fiefdom of Redmond,
eli

Message Index

Replies:

Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh! Miguel Chavez 4/17/02 11:19 a.m.

Yeah... Kinda Mr. 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 LONGGGGGG protexts 4/18/02 4:46 a.m.

Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG PCDestroyer 4/18/02 10:11 a.m.

Re: Why PCDestroyer is off protexts 4/18/02 2:11 p.m.

Make a 1AC! 123456789 4/19/02 11:47 a.m.

Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget kiro69 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 midget protexts 4/18/02 2:30 p.m.

Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget PCDestroyer 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 down PCDestroyer 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 midget protexts 4/19/02 5:38 a.m.

Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget PCDestroyer 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 Stealing protexts 4/22/02 3:24 a.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing Aida-kun 4/22/02 5:15 a.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing PCDestroyer 4/22/02 9:56 a.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing protexts 4/22/02 2:45 p.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing PCDestroyer 4/22/02 9:49 a.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing protexts 4/22/02 3:05 p.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing PCDestroyer 4/22/02 8:34 p.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing kiro69 4/23/02 10:35 a.m.

I agree 123456789 4/17/02 3:19 p.m.

The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33.

Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh!	Miguel Chavez	4/17/02 11:19 a.m.
Yeah... Kinda	Mr. 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 LONGGGGGG	protexts	4/18/02 4:46 a.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 10:11 a.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is off	protexts	4/18/02 2:11 p.m.
Make a 1AC!	123456789	4/19/02 11:47 a.m.
Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	kiro69	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 midget	protexts	4/18/02 2:30 p.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	PCDestroyer	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 down	PCDestroyer	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 midget	protexts	4/19/02 5:38 a.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	PCDestroyer	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 Stealing	protexts	4/22/02 3:24 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	Aida-kun	4/22/02 5:15 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	PCDestroyer	4/22/02 9:56 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	protexts	4/22/02 2:45 p.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	PCDestroyer	4/22/02 9:49 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	protexts	4/22/02 3:05 p.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	PCDestroyer	4/22/02 8:34 p.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	kiro69	4/23/02 10:35 a.m.
I agree	123456789	4/17/02 3:19 p.m.