Vistagonna kill blitz3d, any truth?

Ive heard lots of rumours lately that:

MS are going to lockdown the vista kernel more and more in the comming years. Starting most notibly with DX10. While at the moment DX7&8 are converted to DX9, in 2 years or so ANY software that is not authorised to run on windows wont (assumably without paying lots of money) and only DX10 will work eventually with NO legacy support!

The idea being is no virus scans will be required because no programs can be run to infect (sounds like covering yourself in gas then lighting it to kill the ants to me! Mcafee, symantec etc are already worried)

Does this spell the end for the indi programmer on windows (80% of the market!)?

Has anyone heard anything similar or have any hard FACTS either way?

I think OpenGL may suffer this to.... sigh

I'd want to know the problem with SDL/libCDX/HGE... or anything non DX10..., too...

My prediction is that it won't mean any end to the indie market.

First off, the casual market that many indie developers are targetting, probably won't see Vista in another 3-5 years..
(just look at the computers specs out there as of now)

Secondly, I'm guessing that within that time (3-5 years), MS probably will have some sort of way of opening platforms/devtools to the casual game developers,
or atleast making it easier for indie developers to create games and tools.
This is because the casual market is so huge, and MS can't afford "normal" people not to upgrade to Vista, because their casual games and apps won't work.

Sounds like a load of dogs dangly bits. There is no legal way Microsoft can force developers down that route - it's anti-competitive behaviour and law courts will not stand for it. http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/01/30/221458/vista-slammed-as-anti-competitive.htm

Look at it another way, if it's going to cost money to get a product authorised on an Operating system then people will stop developing on that OS and develop on something else. Then Microsoft will be right up the creek with a nice shiney new OS and no software to run on it.

Garbage. Microsoft deliberately restricting the usability of your computer? OK, they are big on DRM, but they are hardly going to put a spanner in the works and say "sorry guys, all those old games you like... we can't possibly allow you to execute them because they pose a security risk".

It's always been a trade off between security and usability, hence Microsoft's recent admission that all installer programs (including small installers for free tetris games, for instance) have administrator access to the machine. They left that 'backdoor' in because to restrict installation programs access would be to break most of them, rendering them useless. Obviously not a good thing!

These things will, undoubtedly, become slowly introduced but the timescales will be measured in decades, not years. 64 bit Vista has started to pave the way, offering much improved security but sacrificing support for 16 bit binaries (there are other differences too, but this illustrates the point). If you want a secure and stable OS, run 64 bit Vista. If you want a compatible and highly accessible OS, run 32 bit Vista (or, of course, XP!).

Unless Dell, HP and Gateway start pre-installing it on all their new machines. Oh wait, they are :)

They have in the past. What makes this any different?

Something else huh? Like what? Linux?

Which is probably why Microsoft don't tell anyone it's not going to work on Vista. Normal people are going to upgrade regardless, why? Because you can't get anything else. Since Microsoft have more money than god, and a de facto monopoly on operating systems, there is quite literally, nothing they cannot afford. They can afford it, because they have no competition. What are you gonna do, switch to the geeky Linux or the girly Mac? I don't think so.

You don't think Microsoft are comfortable with dropping legacy game support you must not have tried playing a legacy game recently. Like Panzer General 3D Assault, M.A.X. 2 or Incubation. So yes eventually Blitz3D applications will also stop working. Thankfully, because we have Linux, and the guys over at Transgaming have spent years developing an abstraction for DirectX for Linux, it's not unlikely (although wonderfully ironic) that a version of Cedega will be released for Vista whenever Microsoft kills off legacy support.

yes, which is why I said that it will take 3-5 years.. when the low on computer owners will buy a new computer.. ;)



I already run Linux and I also own a Mac.. and looking at buying a new one soon, when I'm selling my laptop.. :)

@OP: Since you asked for facts to back up your rumour based opening post, I'm surprised you got any responses at all, since there are no facts at all. Anywhere. Yet.


Actually, 32bit Vista has all 16 bit compatibility removed also.


XP is a good, stable OS with tonnes of software available for it and with the right key or workarounds is completely free for eternity. Assuming it's ditched in favour of Vista, or Vienna, MS can't keep releasing WGA updates for XP forever...


This thread is about Vista, not about eventually. Vista already has a near fully working DX9 and under emulated/translated interface. They're not going to just rip it out.

I think all the new secuirty in Vista is a good thing. I hate running software that can not be traced back to its publisher and the act of signing code isn't exactly difficult or expensive.

I still don't understand firewalls in regards to software, from what I can tell a malicious program can pull html from any server it wants using a hidden htmlview encoding the contents of your most private secrets in the param fields of those requests without any security warning being issued to the user.

news headline: users cry foul as Microsoft forces Blitz3D upgrade to DX10

:D

If there's a Blitz3D with DX10 renderer... will be cool.

In my experience it's a big pain to upgrade Renderer from DX7 to DX9/10... but as long as Blitz lives, will happen eventually.

Before you Install a Software you must deactivate your Internet/Network or/and deinstall drivers.

Nvidia, ATI and many other *BIG* players see it in a different light. Any hardware vendor will spend money to get their drivers WHQL if it is required to run on a MS OS. Hell Indie, even you (me included) spend money for SSL certificates for our own applications.

If Microsoft keeps clamping down and controlling things they will shut themselves off and then alternatives will spring up more popularly. People want freedom.

How much does it cost to do this code signing business?

If it hadn't already happened before, Vista would have been the final push to make me convert to the "girly OS X".

Wil Shipley made a nice presentation about the whole subject, so there is no need to rephrase everything here. For those interested, this is the URL:

http://wilshipley.com/blog/2005/06/student-talk-from-wwdc-2005.html

The podcast is more descriptive than the PDF file alone, so you should listen to it while flipping through the paper.

I think the man's got some good points.

Anyway. Time to get out of here.

One point you probably didn't consider is: hardware manufactors will implement this "the hard way", eg. on the motherboard or in the cpu. You can't patch it nor hack it.

A lil dated, noless:
http://www.againsttcpa.com/index.shtml

Vista comes in flawors.
Maby MS do a big Xbox of windows :)

Maby cal this box Windows Live.

What kind of special Dells, HP's and Gateways are these which work for an average of 4.5 to 7.5 years?

Good question... hehe.

All I know, is that I've seen my fair share (and more!) of old hogs, that people use...

The average consumer does not upgrade their PCs for a very long time. They consider it almost a lifetime purchase. The only reason they upgrade is if they need something new that their old hog can no longer handle. Whereas most PC professionals would consider roughly 3 years a good lifespan for a computer, the average consumer would consider that to be more like 6 years, at a minimum.

Oh really? Try reading the initial post again.

Thawte charges $200 USD a year. I believe Microsoft and Apple are seperate certificates, so multi-platform developers will be out twice that amount.

Of course you can. No system is totally secure. You can hack hardware as well. Google for modchip.

Sure. But do they buy a lot of games for them? I don't think so.

This is not the average consumer. These are the laggards - they make up less than 1/6th of a total market. The average consumer is going to fall into the early majority, or late majority, which together makes up for more than 2/3's of the total market.

Wow. Things must be really different in Australia. I don't know a single person whom I consider a PC professional, whose main computer is more than two years old and most are less than one. I don't think I've even heard of someone whose computer is six years old or more, who actually qualifies as a consumer (ie they buy something for it). They're certainly not an average or mainstream consumer.

Yeh, the original poster asks for replies with facts, not rumours, like in his original post. Since they are all rumours and very likely to be completely false, my point stands.


Tell that to Steam and Microsoft Update.


While I'm not questioning how MUCH they buy, they do buy games. They just don't buy AAA titles.


Dell, Kmart, Target (uh, probably Walmart or something where you lot are from) don't sell to average consumers? Last I checked all their new PCs come with Vista. People who are OK buying from places like that are not regular new computer consumers.


They is a significant difference between IT Professionals and gamer lamers.


<shrugs> Maybe things are different elsewhere, but I'd doubt it until I saw it for myself.

They aren't secure. You can get every game on steam from any half-decent torrent site, and there are plenty of sites that offer Windows Updates to non-WGA systems.

Average consumers for what? Talking about an "average" consumer, without talking market segments is pointless. And no, I don't think someone who consumes once every six years qualifies as a consumer, never mind an average one. I mean sure they might buy lots of bananas, books and DVD's, but that doesn't make them a consumer in the video game market.

Yeah. The later don't have the cool hardware - because they don't make enough money to be able to afford it. I can't really say I know any gamers, much less any lamers (well I know one, but he doesn't play any games at all, including solitaire and match-3 games).

And play them multiplayer to your heart's content. By yourself.


I guess I meant Microsoft Update more in reference to WGA and Vista.


Average consumers for a computer.


Nobody mentioned video games.

I can't even begin to imagine that any IT Pro (barring those into heavy editing of any sort - video, audio, code or hardware) feels they need to be on top of the market or their PC is suddenly useless.

Or on a hacked server.

Okay, so here's how we define a market:
* a set of actual or potential customers,
* for a given set of products and services,
* who have a common set of needs and wants,
* and who reference each other when making buying decisions.

So there are quite a lot of flaws in your statement about the average consumer for computers. For starters, people who have no interest in buying another computer in six years is not a potential customer, by any stretch of the imagination. Also, people who own computers do not have a common set of needs or wants. People buy computers for all kinds of different reasons. But most importantly (in my experience) very few of the people you're talking about reference each other when making purchasing decisions. Most will reference someone from a different market segment (for instance someone with different needs and wants who is perceived to be an IT professional).

Because you know, Blitz3D is used to make all kinds of diverse applications.

Who said it was about needs? Nobody really NEEDS anything much more powerful than a C64 or an Amiga (with the possible exception of those people you just mentioned).

flameducks right about steam, it took them a while but they hacked it. i bought halflife2 on the day of release, if you only buy a few games that has to be one of them.

XP is full of holes including auto update, why do you think you need to update, its not for fun?

anyway back to the post,

Vista as with xp will slowly force an upgrade and you will have to use programs like dos box etc to get old games to run, they wont run as well, but the new games will run fine and everyone will be pissed of for a year or so like they where when xp came out.

in the end anyone buying an off the shelf PC from now on will have Vista and as most people in the UK replace there PC every 3 years. Theres no point even trying to put it off. if they do as there history show in under 3 years xp's support will be dropped and it will be up to others to make legacy support to get old games and apps to run.

face it microsoft suck, but we are stuck with them, we can only watch as they make gaming on PC just like a console. Soon i predict that the only way to make indie game for the pc will be though a Microsoft SDK and if you want to make money from your game its going to cost you.

Im going to get the Wii SDK it $1000 which seams cheap and id rather give money to nintendo than the microsoft profit making machine.

We dont need Vista, they do!

Pete

The answer is simple; get a Mac. Alternatively, you can start writing games for the Web - Microsoft will never be able to force you to pay license to them for that, plus you have the added bonus of it being compatible with multiple platforms including Wii and PS3.

Flameduck, I know you are Windows-gaga...
Bute I value quality over quantity.
And the girl-MacOS X seems to be a better choice.
(Especially over Vista so far)...


And the security in Windows Vista is close to paranoia by the way. All my programs need permission to run, and when I tried to move a document from one folder to another I had to confirm 5 times that I am the administrator and 10 times that I was and 10 times that I was sure I wanted to move that file.
Thanks God that computer isn't mine, I tell ya.

No, quite clearly those who are looking to buy a computer -right- -now- is a potential customer. A potential customer you might not see a second time for another 5-10 years.


So you're saying that despite them buying a computer, they are in fact NOT a customer because of who they asked about it?

I'd say your definition of a market may be at fault.


That's right actually. Besides, the average consumer doesn't know what Blitz3D is, so kind of a moot point, given that the discussion has clearly moved on somewhat from the original post in that regard.


I do for the games I want to play.


It kind of is for me. =]

No. I'm saying they aren't in the same market, so you can't lump them together in a meaningful way. Apples and Oranges and all that.

It's Geoffrey A. Moore's definition, and if you find it lacking, please take it up with Regis McKenna Inc. Or the Chasm Group. If it worked for EA, it's good enough for me.

Name five.

So it's not really Vista killing off legacy support that's the problem, it's because the mythical average customer doesn't know about Blitz3D, that causes ISV's to lose slrrp at night. Does that even make sense to you? Becuase I would think the average consumer would be less worried about what tools where used to make his game, and more concerned about whether it worked on Vista or not (and perhaps more importantly, whether it would continue to do so).

So you don't NEED it. You just WANT it. Not the same thing. Much like I'm sure that the IT professionals I know get new computers once a year, because they want new shiny toys, and not because it's they're otherwise incapable of doing their jobs.

Hmm... well for me Vista, as we are coming to know it, has me actively pondering a different brand. I was not expecting to be, but I am, just the same.

See, what has changed is that while Vista is not forcing, but strongly suggesting a major hardware upgrade, and as long as I am going to be spending that sort of money anyway, then why not try something different? If only to investigate, on one machine.

So Vista's release, in my experience so far, has me looking at buying a Mac. And a few weeks ago, macs just made me laugh and little else, and that had been the case for years and years and years.

I know all I want to about Linux and that still just makes me laugh, but maybe it's time to know something for sure about Macs.

If MS releasing Vista can make me look at another brand then clearly Apple don't look all that girly in marketing terms do they? If I were at Redmond I'd have a reason be worried. I can easily imagine why Gates got his cash out when he did.

Oh, no wonder I find it odd.


Care factor.


Good point. Given that there's nothing to worry about (assuming we're still talking about Blitz made games), there's nothing to worry about though.


No. I NEED a certain amount of computing power in order to play what I WANT to play. Learn to differentiate.

Me dont get this thread.

i always thougt Linux was going to kill Blitz3d lol :)

That's not true. Any decent firewall will alert you to an app attempting network connections if it has not been authorized to do so.

Code signing isn't going to mean the end of independant apps and Microsoft isn't a bogeyman for taking it seriously. If you buy a copy of Visual Studio you will find you can create your own certificates, or if you want more recognition you can buy them from a root provider cheaply (~£100).

What it does do is mean that if I am installing a program I can be sure however I downloaded it (torrent, website, mirror etc) that it IS the product I think it is from the site I intended to download it. I think in the majority this will be a much better thing for ALL developers and consumers.

The problem Linux has got as a workstation OS is simple useability and relevant applications. Face it if you can't give it away and people are PAYING >£100-£300 for the alternative then your solution needs more work.

The rumours that "Microsoft are gonna kill all independant apps!" is just typical scaremongering by people who just assume, Microsoft=BAD, before they even look at what they are doing or why. Not everything Microsoft do is good not everything they do is bad either, it's a lot easier to take people seriously if they present both sides of the argument and the facts without the hysteria.

Darkheart

The problem with self-signed certificates is that when you use then, XP (and I assume Vista) will pop-up a box warning you not to run the program. Most people who think their OS is secure will automatically assume that this is because your software is bad.

solution: get a mac =)

Problem is Windows today is verry unsecure then users run as administrators.

If users run as users on linux there is much less problem. and application on linux is growing every day.. more and more windows apps works under linux.

i agree, ive always seen it as stupid and dangerous that windows allows just any user or program to alter any file belonging to the operating system. At least with linux you cannot alter any file outside your userspace(unless logged in as root), and nor can programs/processes run under your permissions (unless run as root)..

Imagine how much better windows would be if you (and programs run by you) could only modify files in c:\documents and setings\username\. (or any folder superuser(root) allows you to) and on d:,e: etc.. Any other access requires a password. Also, any run apps can only modify their own filespace and the user's whos running it. This is why linux, unix, vms etc. is soo much better than windows!! Its stupid, VMS & unix have been around forever, the principle is nothing new so why not adopt it?!? Seing as m$ favours changing standards to their own (better known as bastardizing) mabe they could call superuser 'master window', 'the double glazer' or how about 'MR skylight' anything!!

Just lock it up properly! not no half ass "we cant do security properly so we blame everone else and make it so nothing can run without a big nightmare of box un-checking and a million 'are you sures'" (that leave most users saying 'um, err and eh?...')

In windows you can choose to be a restricted user not admin, but its crap, and run programs still have full permission to run riot (so.. its pointless really unless you want to stop your bored staff or kids doing unsanctioned stuff).

in a word... dum :/

Vista fixes all of that, finally. Now you see thousands of threads all over the place that it breaks thousands of old programs that didn't adhere to MS's guidelines. MS are in a situation where they can't win... they did at least finally think long term here though.

No it doesn't. Have you tried running on an account without Administrator privileges (you will have to have actually created it yourself)? Nobody in their right mind is going to not run a Vista box as an Administrator. If they do, they won't be in their right mind for long.

Well it might help if the Windows design guidelines wasn't a moving target. What are they at for Vista, revision 900 or something? I mean really? Who's going to want to read (much less develop software that complies to) a 2000 page specification, that changes every 3 months and is inconsistent at best. Since Windows95 it has been the position of Microsoft that the registration database is for Windows use only (something they themselves fail to live up to) for the obvious reason that the windows registration database is (until recently) the only uniformly accessible persistent storage on a Windows box.

In vista are all programs now run with proper user, or full system level privalages?, because this is the crux of the problem with windows full stop (as i explained above)
If all aps and processes are still run at system level regardless of the executor then all i can say is tsktsk & roll my eyes (again)

If windows used a similar permissions to unix/linux, i dont see how it would stop old programs from running (unless they were up to no good in first place) , as its the filesystem that decides it. Its either alowed to run & (read, write, execute) on an allowed 'part' of the disk or isnt.

Ah yes and you don't create it yourself. The initial account you create (and name) during the install process has only User level priveledges.


In some years time, when programs start (hopefully) adhereing to MS's guidelines, running Vista will be much akin to running Linux with regards to account permissions. Except Linux is slightly less annoying about it. Still, UAC boxes only pop up for system level changes, so presumably once you finish configuring your system you won't see it again.


Agreed.


Very little programs were not up to no good up until this point. Any program that wrote to it's own directory in Program Files is a bad program.