After reading the article that Mogwa originally linked to, I can see why there is Panic in Detroit.

Most users are slovenly naive - you give them stereo speakers, a 17" monitor, and a USB port and they're in heaven.  But there are also a lot of 'power users' - not just geeky technophiles - but those who do more than surf for porn and play video games.  Those who use their computers for business (and not just the Mac-PC pie chart, spreadsheet fallacy).

As I'm reading this article, more and more of my computer seems to be problematic for Vista.  I'm one of those people who has an optical out for my audio (as well as in and MIDI and so on) - because I'm a musician and like music and have a 500W 5.1 surround|DTS system attached to the computer though it.  I may also be someone who will be getting into Blu-Ray/HD-DVD at some point for either larger archival storage or AV production.  And I have video input/output for video capture/transfer and video testing.

There's the bugger.  This new protection seems to be aimed directly at people like me (and studios) who use computers for doing all sorts of Audio-Video-CG work.  Basically, they sound like they want to cut off the rest of the body in spite of the bad left hand (the pirates et al).

I'll wait for the class-action lawsuits to be decided... :)

Right, but saying to someone with C4D base ($700) on Windows that, hey, you can switch to Linux and still use it there is slightly disingenuous.  Yeah, if you don't mind the service contract, the personal request to purchase, and the 10-20 times cost.  That is so unpalatable, I'd move to Vista! ;D

Well, that is my point kuroyume - it is easy to complain about something, but takes a little more effort to move to something else. If I was as upset about something, as some people seem to be with Vista, then I would just move to something else. The choice is there for people to make...nobody is holding a gun to any persons head and saying "You will obey the law, you will use Vista!".

I can't see much wrong with Vista (and I say this keeping one eye on what many of the media companies are insisting on for DRM). Make no bones about it, OSX and Linux will have to incorporate a Windows style of DRM if they want to allow their users a full multi-media experience in the future.
Of course the user could rebel, but companies such as Sony etc are fully aware that over time users will get use to it. I also find it hard to figure out how artists here can get up in arms concerning their own rights to protect their work (and rightly so), yet be up in arms when DRM is employed to protect another artists rights (be it a band, film company or whatever). Smells of double standards to me. It's like one of us putting a copyright watermark across our image and then a viewer complain about, how dare we ruin their enjoyment.

No problem 'moving' to MacOSX for me. :)  Of course, if I were using Max or AutoCAD (those damnable AutoDesk idiots), then I'd have no choice but Boot Camp (which doesn't relegate the OS issues, does it?).

It's just one of those software things.  OSs usually run on various hardware configurations.  Windows on any Intel system, MacOS on just about any Motorola or Intel system, Linux on anything.  Software developers have to pander to the customer base and write not only for hardware (drivers etc) but to the OS - very few commercial applications using platform-dependent virtual machines (Java, Python, etc.) to have 'automagic' software across OSs.  If there are 10 million Windows customers and 2 Mac customers, there is very little (if any) incentive to port to MacOS (or maintain the port as vigorously).  And some stubbornly refuse in their long history (see AutoDesk above) to even consider other OSs.

The problem with Linux has nothing to do with its versatility and available software and solutions (either alternative or direct) but that it is not a force to be pandered with (neither is AmigaOS, BeOS, MacOS, and several other popular but marginal OSs out there).  If software (and that includes drivers and plugins) developers could be depended upon to continue support  for a marginal OS, then it would make the 'switch' more worthwhile.  Or if the OS were to gain popularity.  MacOS is gaining slightly - still not quite enough to tilt some companies over to it.

There is the potential (and this phallanx maneuver has been tried several times in the past) that disgust with Windows Vista could swell the ranks of Linux users.  But unless MS really flubs up here (and they aren't quite that stupid (we wish)), the swelling will be insignificant for the desired corporate attention to tilt much.

One thing that I do like very much about Cinema 4D is that Maxon has always (after moving from Amiga) supported both Windows and MacOS.   Much the same can be said of Poser and Poser's owner-of-the-month (MetaCreations, Curious Labs, e-Frontier).  MS software requires an emulator or an alternative.  In my case, as a developer, I can't see the benefit of doing development in one or not having a real system on which to build/test/debug software.  I could just as easily have used CodeWarrior on Windows to write MacOS (pre-X) plugins without a Mac in sight, but then all veracity would be through user/tester experience.  That is a poor way to quickly test, fix-update, and retest code.

In this sense, MS has me by the nads.  When (and not if) the time comes wherein my development system requires a move to Vista it will be a painful day indeed.  Maybe by then I will have reached the point where I can retire and thumb my nose at MS. :)

Take care

kuroyume - you say MS has you by the nads...but surely it's not MS, but the users who have you by the nads? ;0)

With everything else I agree with you - Linux isn't a viable alternative to many software developers, there just isn't the user base...and there is one other reason - support would be a nightmare for software companies if the average home user were to use Linux. One of the reasons as to why Maxon went the Studio only route, of that I am almost certain.

Quote - You can finally see what the Linux boys have been screaming about for years...

I... told... yo....nnnnggGGGGGGG... POW! (as /me's head goes 'splodey...) Nah - in all seriousness, I knew this was bound to happen. Let's set aside all the fanboyism and partisanship for a moment, myself included... ----------------- Windows' architecture, on a technical level, was simply not built for this. It isn't as robust nor as flexible as it seriously needs to be. I liken Vista to the upper floors of skyscraper under continuous and ongoing construction... built on a thick foundation of styrofoam. The lower floors are Windows NT, middle floors are Win2k, higher floors are XP/Win2k3... and now we get Vista. I'm sure many here have seen the results, no? This does not IMHO bode well for Windows' future, because they will simply have to rebuild from scratch from here on out, or later versions will simply get slower and less usable, in spite of Moore's Law. Problem is, if they do rebuild from scratch, legacy and existing apps will suffer - hard. Apple was smart enough to completely knock over MacOS and rebuild it on a *nix core for OSX years ago. This puts them in a better position now, IMHO - they chose and built OSX to be stable, flexible, and sturdy over time and technology. ------------------- Now, some will pipe up and proclaim that Vista runs just fine on their stuff... cool, good on 'em. But, I doubt it will be the majority, and as months (and patches) pass, such good luck stories are liable to decrease among folks who use non-Microsoft products and on anything that isn't a top-end, fully OEM-blessed machine. /P

Quote - kuroyume - you say MS has you by the nads...but surely it's not MS, but the users who have you by the nads? ;0)

With everything else I agree with you - Linux isn't a viable alternative to many software developers, there just isn't the user base...and there is one other reason - support would be a nightmare for software companies if the average home user were to use Linux. One of the reasons as to why Maxon went the Studio only route, of that I am almost certain.

It's a catch-22, really. Mainline developers won't do Linux because the small user base, and users won't do Linux because these mainline apps aren't there. There is, however, a way to break through all that: When Oracle ported to Linux awhile back, it turned out to be a huge money-maker for them, as sales boomed. Perhaps other app-makers can see the logic in this -- that the user base will grow if their products are a part of it? Similar successes have been seen by others in the user arena - Unreal Tournament, Quake... these games grew huge not only in Windows, but their Linux versions made them even bigger. Counterstrike went from big to huge once someone figured out how to run it under WINE. When Valve went strongly Windows-only w/ Half-Life2 (Counterstrike's base game engine), It and CS2 never really caught on. The point? You don't necessarily need a big userbase to make the effort justifiable... you can make the port, and use that as a vehicle for growth. A 3D/CG example? AC3D. It used to cost only $35 for the full version... now the guy can sell it (and does well from all appearances) for $149 or so - you can get it in Windows, OSX, or Linux, no prob. Technical challenges? Depends on the codebase. If the developer uses nothing but DirectX and .NET to build the thing, he's stuck... sucks to be him (same with anyone who relies on a single-platform language...) /P

Not at all.  There is no built (compiled/linked for a particular instruction set) language that will give you blanket access to various platforms - unless you do command-line with no GUI (e.g.: most of Linux) or build your own GUI.  Even then, you still need different build environments for  different architectures (Intel, Motorola, Embedded). Once the code runs on an OS and you need OS API access, the codebase will have to cover each and every OS on which it will run (not just DirectX, but each OS has its own OS API for drivers, filesystem, GUI, ports, and so on) with separate builds.

Now, there are some ways to get around this with static/dynamic libraries such as Qt - but that really depends on the nature of the application and how deeply it might need to insert its tentacles into the underlying system architecture.

Also, there are build differences.  I can only support Windows 32-bit, Windows 64-bit, MacOS PPC, and MacOS Universal binary through at minimum three development environments.  You can't build UB code with Visual anything (anywhere - ever).  You can't build Windows applications with XCode (or CodeWarrior unless you have the right version - but since CodeWarrior is now collecting-dust ware, that point is moot).  XCode uses gcc (3 or 4) and lc, but it also gets you the Apple Mac Frameworks, Bundles, and dylibs to be included into the build so that you can do things that require the MacOS API (such as access the filesystem in a non-Posix way).  Same as Visual Studio gives you the libs and dlls to get at the Windows API.

Currently, I'm lucky.  I'm a plugin developer for an application - so I don't have to care about the OS APIs.  But I still need to have a codebase that considers the differences between the build environments and systems - no way around it.  Remember that this is C++ (probably still used more than any other language for application development).

These considerations are one reason that I skipped from C to Java and bypassed C++ back in the day.  Here was the promise of a language that was fast while being completely platform-independent.  That still hasn't been fully realized - not many high-end (or highly optimal) applications written in Java (or Python, Ruby et al).  But it is fully capable for applications with GUI that do real work.

A note on CodeWarrior: although I used it only for MacOS PPC builds, it had build environments for Windows, Linux, Embedded systems, MacOS, and who knows what else.  This was a build environment that tried to be one for many architectural/OS API possibilities.  It is now defunct - sold to an electronics company that only heralds it for the Embedded portion and there will be no more versions.

To this end, this is one thing about Microsoft (and Apple to an extent) that I loathe (although MS had nothing to do with CodeWarrior's demise).  In their buffoon-like rampage to quash anything that is 'ubiquitous' and outside their control (and profit margin), they destroy the best ideas at our disposal.  JScript, J++, C# are all languages that testify to MS's commitment to kill a good technology and make it totally useless (i.e.: their own standards that only work for them and with which everyone else must comply).  Basically anything that MS copies "to make better", I ignore.  Direct3D - I'll stick to OpenGL.  J++ - I'll stick to Java.  Zune - I'll stick to, well, iPod. :)  FrontPage - I'll stick with DreamWeaver.  IIS - I'll stick with Apache (thank you very much).  The list goes on...

Quote - Vista was released, and it was almost as if all the hardware and software manufacturers were getting it the same time as we, the public. Thus your printer probably won't work, cos XXX haven't written a Vista driver yet. Your scanner probably won't work, cos XXX haven't written a Vista driver for it yet. Your.... get the picture? I blame poor planning for this one - MS should have finished the OS, then released it to every hardware and software company they possibly could. Then sat on it for three months... and THEN released it to the public. But nooooo, they wanted it in the stores the day after new years, whatever the cost.

Is not so simple, do you think that fabricants are stupid?
With all the DRM and hardware and software Vista specifications any wise fabricant never would do a new product for Vista release, it can be a suicide.
What fabricants are doing is to wait and see what happens with Vista, if Vista is accepted and has success among the public then and only then will amke a hardware for Vista, drivers for Vista and software for Vista.
If Vista is a fracass, they didn't lost any money and can working and releasing new products for XP, Mac or Linux.
An alternative that fabricants can do is to take an old product, put a label "for Vista"on it and sell it as if is for Vista. There some action class processes going on in Justice.......

Quote - Not at all.  There is no built (compiled/linked for a particular instruction set) language that will give you blanket access to various platforms - unless you do command-line with no GUI (e.g.: most of Linux) or build your own GUI.  Even then, you still need different build environments for  different architectures (Intel, Motorola, Embedded). Once the code runs on an OS and you need OS API access, the codebase will have to cover each and every OS on which it will run (not just DirectX, but each OS has its own OS API for drivers, filesystem, GUI, ports, and so on) with separate builds.

It depend on the application. You can divide the software in two parts, the core and the user interface (GUI). The GUI is dependant on the OS used, it can depend more or less, but always depend. The core can be made to not depend on the OS.
In the case of 3d programs the most important and heavy part is the 3d part, the GUI can be very simple or complicated depending on the application, in any case is only a small part of the program.
The core that is the 3d part itself the only thing that needs from the OS is malloc() and free() and this can be provided by the compiler used.
You can make all the file access needed using standart io C functions that are also provided by the compiler, remaining only graphic interface that depend on the OS.
Is not difficult to write multi-platform 3d software, 80 or 90 % of the software is the same for any platform remaining the GUI that must be made one by one for every platform.
The other overhead that can exist is the optimization for speed of the core (in 3d is important), but the optimization doesn't depend on the OS, it depend only on the CPU used.
If your target is only PC platform or Mac running on Intel/AMD and you use only instruccions that are common to Intel and AMD you only need to have one optimized core.
Of course, if you write your software using Microsoft's MFC, DirectX, Microsoft SDK, Microsoft Visual C you end doing a program that only is able to work in Windows and probably if you use Microsoft newest C compiler your software will only run on Microsoft's Vista.

Basically what Kawecki said... if you use a language that is recognized and buildable across platforms, then you can segregate the OS-specific bits off to one side, making porting easier. Perfect example and one relevant to us here in Poserdom: DAZ|Studio takes very little to port over between platforms, and the plugins are mostly drop-easy to port over. The UI is based on Qt ( http://www.trolltech.com ), which is itself cross-platform. The core is in C++ and is heavily Object Oriented in style. This means that the only things left are basically things that cannot be avoided due to the x86/PPC architectural differences (and by now this is mostly a legacy thing on the Mac side due to all of us old-school G5 Mac holdouts :) ). Now, if D|S were written purely in .NET and/or Visual Basic, and using DirectX instead of OpenGL, it would require a near-total re-write of the whole thing just to port it to something that's Not Windows. Someday when time permits me (or I hit the lottery), I might even be able to talk DAZ into letting me do a Linux port of it. I know that porting would be fairly trivial by now, IMHO... just that I barely have time to get a few hours in here and there nowadays, and I know they don't have the resources to spare in maintenance, else it prolly would've happened by now. /P

I said it depends.  You can segregate, but that just makes 'porting easier' - but it doesn't make it non-descript.  You still need to consider the OS-specifics (architecture specifics, filesystem specifics) in a separate module/lib/dynamiclib/etc.
I mentioned Qt (didn't I - you can double check that). :P  Yes, I agree and was saying this, but there are other things to consider.  Unless you expect people to play by specific rules, current filesystems can handle much more than Posix path structures (I've specifically run into this with MacOSX and zlib - where zlib uses fopen()).  The problem is that MacOSX and Windows allow Unicode folder/file naming.  fopen() doesn't - of this I am 1000% certain - been using fopen() since, hmmm, before some of you (gen.) were born (in the original C libs).  There are variants like Microsoft's _wfopen() but these are platform-dependent (not good) and not part of the standard.  Don't know if fstream has been updated since then, but then zlib doesn't use fstream without some third-party wrapper.

Both D|S and I have to contend with, speaking of legacy, something from Poser - MacOS Resources.  Poser still uses them - although they are basically legacy that doesn't mean that they don't exist.  I assure you that they are still alive and well on my Mac in Poser 4/PP.  Handling them using CodeWarrior and the 'old' Mac API (ala Carbon for MacOSX) was relatively simple.   Handling them using Xcode in the new Mac API is very frustrating - as Resources are 'shunned' (no longer supported) in favor of Bundles.

Again, it all depends on what your application needs to do.  Mine needs to dig its tentacles into the OS API here unfortunately.  :) I have no idea how D|S handles them - if it even does or if it preprocesses them out to .rsr or .png.

Java certainly has its charms, especially since the vastly improved 3D handling that has emerged recently. And there's a JRE and JDK for just about any hardware/OS platform around. NetBeans is a nice and free comprehensive development environment (but needs a fast machine). The Eclipse environment is pretty cool too, but it's not fully platform independent.

There's only one gotcha. If you want a Java app that is really robust and fast, you need another JRE, not the free reference JRE from Sun. And the really fast and robust JREs are EXPENSIVE! The one that comes with WebSphere often outperforms native C/C++ compiled apps, since the JRE optimizes for the machine the code is run on, not for the machine the code is developed on. But WebSphere is a) far too large a package to purchase for a good JRE alone, and b) out of budget for everyone except large companies (several hundred thousands of dollars....)

I turned off the nannie control with my partner's help. That stopped some of the annoyance. . . Rick is smart and knows what to do with Vista. If I was on my own, I would have had no clue what to do. I am not "stupid" - I just don'e tahnt to have to have a tech certifcation to use my own damn computer. I ahve had lots of problems . . . .now Flash will not work - even though we have unistalled it and reinstalled it and I have troied to update it umteen times. I wish I was back on XP. BTW - I am on a souped up gaming computer - we have updated all of my drivers . . . 

I live with a MS developer - my own helpdesk right across the room - and we still can't get to run with out problems.

PS - HEre is an interesting link where a retired co-president of MS called Vista a "pig". This is a link from the article posted in the forum here. Here is an exceprt from the link:

"LH - Longhorn - now know as Vista - is a pig and I don't see any solution to this problem. I we are to rise to the challenge of Linusx and Apple, we need to start taking lessons of 'senario, simple, fast" to heart."
Jim Allcin, Retired Co-President of MS in a memo on Jan 7 - 2007

kuroyume - I have no doubt that there are always little things that make life real fun for cross-platform programming (take file I/O, ferinstance... okay, let's not. The less said about that particular headache, the better). OTOH, the point I was pressing is that with a good sense of architecture and an eye for cross-platform compatibility, you can make it relatively pain-free to shift platforms. If you tangle yourself into a proprietary morass of language and method, you're basically stuck, period. Prolly lots of app-makers for the old Commodore out there that found out the hard way what happens when you get tied too close to an OS. As for how D|S deals w/ MacOS-style resource handling? Can't remember half of it this far out, but I do remember that the solutions weren't near the headache you've described in regards to cross-platform porting issues. IIRC, it was one of the many reasons I really loved Taylor's sense of problem-solving. I agree perfectly on one thing though - from what little I've seen of it recently, the new Mac API kit sucks to wrap one's brain around... but that'd be just as bad as wrapping oneself around .NET, IMHO. Avoiding ObjC would be just as paramount as avoiding C#, IMHO. svdl: Just be glad you've never had to mess about w/ Webmethods - bleah. My last employer is prolly still trying to untangle themselves from that snarl of a kit that they had inherited. /P

Ah, Web methods. Now that is one of the things that .NET does really well. Even in Mono.

Oh, no... I was talking about this little nightmare: http://www.webmethods.com/

There's no problem with filesystems, fopen(), fread(), fprintf(), etc are in the compiler and you use the appriopiate compiler for every OS.
For example for Windows the only thing that my programs need from Windows for reading/writing files is to fill a structure and the function call GetOpenFileName or GetOpenSaveFileName, the function returns the string of the file name that I use to open with fopen, I need nothing more from Windows.

For Windows I use the old Borland C 4.5, I don't need any other or newer compiler, it is enough for Windows.
For Assembler I use the free NASM.

From what I've observed: both in postings on the web and in personal conversations with people who've already made the jump over to Vista -- Vista gets decidedly mixed reviews.  I've talked to some people who absolutely hate it; while other people think that switching over to Vista was the best thing that they ever did.

sigh

My PC is new (purchased in November) -- and I've upgraded it, hardware-wise, several times since the purchase (new video card, bumped up the RAM from 2G to 4G, new/bigger power supply, extra widescreen monitors, etc., etc.).  My machine is probably about as Vista-ready as I can make it.  I was in Costco a couple of days ago -- and I happened to notice that the upgrade prices on Vista have dropped.  The price for the Vista Ultimate upgrade had gotten down to around $237.00 -- which is chicken feed as PC upgrades go.

I dunno......I'm very hesitant about this.  One guy that I know -- and he was a Vista beta tester -- hates Vista with a blue passion and wishes that he could wipe it off of his hard drive.  Another, much younger college guy that I know loaded Vista onto his year-old laptop: and he thinks that it's just dandy.  He's fine with it.

The thing is that I'm wanting to go 64-bit on the OS -- for applications like Lightwave and Vue 6I.  So I'm honestly torn at this point.  To be Vista 64-bit or to not be Vista 64-bit......that is the question.  It's a decision that only I can make for myself.....and I'm currently leaning towards upgrading.

We'll see.  Perhaps in a month or two, after some serious research.  And reading threads like this one.

BTW -- Running XP on my Core 2 Duo machine with 4G's of RAM -- I am able to work without a hitch in AutoCAD 2007, while at the same time Poser 7 renders scenes with lotsa raytracing, etc. in the background -- and other multiples of programs are open and running.  So.....it's all good at this point. 

And I do remember how incoherently passionate the anti-XP feelings frequently were back when XP first hit the market.  Thinking back......I recall similar sentiments vis-a-vis what's now being said about Vista coming from many anti-XP sources back then.  In fact, you could probably take some of those old XP threads, substitute the term "Vista" for each reference to "XP", and then those old threads could be substituted for the current Vista threads.  I doubt that there'd be a lot of significant differences in tone.  Many people might not even notice the switch.

@kawecki:

Vista will be accepted, simply because it is bundeled with new PCs and a lot of people, who use the PC mainly for multimedia, gaming and internet will be pleased with the new user interface and not ask about internals.

Vendors will deliver at least buggy drivers for Vista, to be able to get their market share. If you have problems they will blame it on Vista (which may also be correct). We had that before.

I also agree that XP will be around for a long time. Big Companies like mine, will avoid Vista as long as possible. Vista has no feature that will raise the productivity. MS Office 2007 and Sharepoint 2007 is much more interesting and you can still use them with XP and Server 2003!

Quote - The thing is that I'm wanting to go 64-bit on the OS -- for applications like Lightwave and Vue 6I.  So I'm honestly torn at this point.  To be Vista 64-bit or to not be Vista 64-bit......that is the question.  It's a decision that only I can make for myself.....and I'm currently leaning towards upgrading.

I run Windows XP Pro x64 on my newly aquired PC and it really works great. There is a problem with DVD-RAM packet driver and there is no 64bit driver for my Netgear printer port. The G Data realtime antivirus protection is a bit unstable, but not really a security problem.

I have a dual core with 4 Gig RAM a NVidia 7950 GT, a Wacom Graphire4. iTunes works without problems and so does Nero burning software with a SATA DVD Writer. I see no use to switch to Vista 64bit in order to use 64bit.

Photoshop, Poser, Carrara, Cinema 4D and other applications are all working stable and fast.

OK, Real Player doesn't support 64bit. I can live with that.