And what technology am I thinking of? I was replying directly to a comment that not having Active-X is one of the many reasons that game developers aren't porting to OSX.
And that means you're off by at least 100 miles.
If you're going to pretend to know what you're talking about, at least do so convincingly.
It doesn't matter who started saying "Active-X" as opposed to "Direct-X"; what matters is who kept spouting nonsense.
Active X has next to nothing to do with game development, unless you're developing a bitblt sidescroller in VB 6, and even then it's a tenuous relationship at best.
That is all.
Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know that active-X is the holy grail. Thank you for correcting me. I'll make a note that things that don't have anything to do with gaming are the most important factor in game development. Is that closer than 100 miles?