Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

WMP 9: Open and on Mac this Fall

You should care, if you want open standards.

Once Microsoft dominate music and video formats, they'll bleed consumers dry and todays abuse of being market leader will look tame compared to what is coming.

... People and Businesses never learn, follow MS blindly and in the end, they are the ones who get screwed over. Many, Many examples of this...

Microsoft are happy to crush competition, and cry when things go against them - case in point - East Asian Countries planning to develop their own OS.




Originally posted by midifarm
Who cares?
Click to expand...
 
Open standards are fine and I detest MS. I don't personally care if MS creates versions of their software for the Mac or not with the exception of Office. When there's a viable competing product for Office, I'll drop MS completely. The fact that the sheople buy MS products and follow blindly is not my fault. I think different! I have a huge quandry in my life in that I have to buy a Windows machine to run any of the available software for my industry and they don't work with an emulator. I evangelize Apple products to everyone I can and do what I can to thwart MS's efforts. With the coup of Va Tech choosing Apple as it's supplier for their latest supercomputer and the US government approving OSX, Apple may indeed be on their way to more acceptance. I truly wish I will see the day when there are more Apples than wintel boxes.
 
Revisionist history

I'm no IE or MS fan, but the note from SilliconAddict above about how great Netscape was compared to IE 3 is not how I remember it. At least not on Windows. (IE vs. Netscape on Mac may have been different if that's what you are talking about)

I've been "on the net" since long before the WWW was around and I remember very well the various incarnations when it was in it's infancy.

I think the first web browser I tried was Cello followed by good old NCSA Mosaic. When Netscape came around it was awesome, the ability to click on a link before the page was done loading was "revolutionary" ! 😱

IE 1 and 2 sucked so bad, I don't know anyone who took them seriously, but when IE 3 came out, it had not only a superior fit and feel to it, it also had the Win95 marketting jugernought (sp?) behind it to give it market share. At the same time, Netscape was pissing developers off by going outside of the W3 convention and HTML standards with their proprietary frames and some other things. (IE actually was more close to the W3 standards then than Netscape and it stayed that way untill the open source community put Mozilla/NS 7 together.

I only use Netscape 7 on windows (unless a brain dead site requires me to fire up IE) and I use Safari almost exclusively on Mac now. But, like I said, I remember the time period you mentioned a lot differently than you do.

PS: I don't thing Netscape ever made that much money on the browser, they were trying to make it selling their web server software --- now there's a subject to talk about with IIS server being free. But then again, Apache ate everyone's lunch didn't it! 🙂

edit: Oh and hell yes, IE 2 -> IE 3 was worlds of difference.
 
Re: Revisionist history

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I'm no IE or MS fan, but the note from SilliconAddict above about how great Netscape was compared to IE 3 is not how I remember it. At least not on Windows. (IE vs. Netscape on Mac may have been different if that's what you are talking about)

I've been "on the net" since long before the WWW was around and I remember very well the various incarnations when it was in it's infancy.

I think the first web browser I tried was Cello followed by good old NCSA Mosaic. When Netscape came around it was awesome, the ability to click on a link before the page was done loading was "revolutionary" ! 😱

IE 1 and 2 sucked so bad, I don't know anyone who took them seriously, but when IE 3 came out, it had not only a superior fit and feel to it, it also had the Win95 marketting jugernought (sp?) behind it to give it market share. At the same time, Netscape was pissing developers off by going outside of the W3 convention and HTML standards with their proprietary frames and some other things. (IE actually was more close to the W3 standards then than Netscape and it stayed that way untill the open source community put Mozilla/NS 7 together.

I only use Netscape 7 on windows (unless a brain dead site requires me to fire up IE) and I use Safari almost exclusively on Mac now. But, like I said, I remember the time period you mentioned a lot differently than you do.

PS:
edit: Oh and hell yes, IE 2 -> IE 3 was worlds of difference.
Click to expand...


You are right. Navigator sucked in later versions. That was them trying to keep up to MS. Initially when it was version 1,2, and even 3 of IE Navigator was on equal footing. After that they slide downhill fast. I can't remember the rev numbers anymore but the stability slide downhill fast. I do remember having Navigator, that eventually was rebranded into Communicator, crash on me every other hour. Honestly I don't know where to place the blame for that. I do know the resources of Netscape was nothing in comparison to MS. So the question is how do you compete against a company that floods its product onto the market for free and can roll out new versions once every 6 months. It didn't take long for MS to leave Netscape eating its dust.
Interesting side note. You spoke of Mosaic. If you ever get a chance on IE go into HELP -> ABOUT and check out what it says. Righ there in black and white: Based on NCSA Mosaic.
Gotta love it.
 
I hate to say it, but...

Originally posted by montecristo
I don't know if I am missing something, but it seems to me that the hidden motive (not so hidden) is to become more of, or as much of, as standard as Quicktime is. Don't the two products have pretty much completely overlapping uses? (Sure Quicktime might be better now, but that's precisely the problem in the eyes of M$). They also want to target Real, I'm sure. If they really want to be "open", loosen up on Office and Windows....
Click to expand...

I don't want to be cynical, but past history makes it hard to see MS's motive in a positive light.

What happens, assuming there aren't egregious NDAs and unmentioned license fees attached to this "opening" and MS is successful in getting their codec in widespread use?

Do they just "extend" it later to trap us yet again?

Apple and Real have made significant strides by moving towards open standards. I remain unconvinced that MS is doing anything other than business as usual. If I'm wrong, we might all be bettered by the open competition. However, that seems unlikely at this point.
 
Originally posted by midifarm
Open standards are fine and I detest MS. I don't personally care if MS creates versions of their software for the Mac or not with the exception of Office. When there's a viable competing product for Office, I'll drop MS completely.
Click to expand...

This is a good example of how Microsoft "opening" their file formats is totally disingenious - the Office file formats have been "opened" for ages (well, word, excel and powerpoint have been) but there is still no apps that are a 100% replacement for those three (although some do come close). I would be very surprised if the situation was different with WMP.
 
Re: Re: Revisionist history

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
You spoke of Mosaic. If you ever get a chance on IE go into HELP -> ABOUT and check out what it says. Righ there in black and white: Based on NCSA Mosaic.
Gotta love it.
Click to expand...
Yep - they licensed it from SpyGlass and that put all other companies that SpyGlass licensed to pretty much out of business.

I did a Google search on Spyglass Mosaic and found this interesting, insider's article on that time in history: http://www.netvalley.com/archives/mirrors/eric/Eric_Weblog.htm
 
(date correction)

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Microsoft (which purchased Virtual PC about 2 weeks before the G5 was announced).
Click to expand...

The purchase was in mid-August - a few days before the G5s started shipping, and about 2 weeks before the dual 2.0GHz G5s showed up....
 
Re: Re: Revisionist history

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
You are right. Navigator sucked in later versions. That was them trying to keep up to MS. Initially when it was version 1,2, and even 3 of IE Navigator was on equal footing. After that they slide downhill fast. I can't remember the rev numbers anymore but the stability slide downhill fast. I do remember having Navigator, that eventually was rebranded into Communicator, crash on me every other hour. Honestly I don't know where to place the blame for that. I do know the resources of Netscape was nothing in comparison to MS. So the question is how do you compete against a company that floods its product onto the market for free and can roll out new versions once every 6 months. It didn't take long for MS to leave Netscape eating its dust.
Interesting side note. You spoke of Mosaic. If you ever get a chance on IE go into HELP -> ABOUT and check out what it says. Righ there in black and white: Based on NCSA Mosaic.
Gotta love it.
Click to expand...
You have to also remember, MS has been known to make changes to the OS so that competing applications either don't run correctly or don't run at all. Remember DRDOS, Real Player, etc. I am sure that netscape was probably the target of that as well...

Though I did hear that their code was so messy they had to junk NS5 and start fresh with Mozilla/NS6. So who knows for sure...
Also, it becomes hard to compete when your "air supply (emphasis to billG)" has been cut.
 
Re: Re: Re: Revisionist history

Originally posted by Fukui
MS has been known to make changes to the OS so that competing applications either don't run correctly or don't run at all
Click to expand...

Right, and no Mac application has ever had to have been updated to run on 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.2.x, 10.3 ....

My favorite Netscape version is simple Navigator 3.08 - and it runs fine (at least as well as it ever did) on Windows 2003 ...
 
Re: Re: Re: Revisionist history

You are correct.

They nearly finished Netscape 5.0, but they realized that, as you say, the code was a pile of steaming turd. Gecko, the rendering engine was born.

The Gecko rendering engine is supposed to be quite small - in the beginning...


Originally posted by Fukui
Though I did hear that their code was so messy they had to junk NS5 and start fresh with Mozilla/NS6. So who knows for sure...
Also, it becomes hard to compete when your "air supply (emphasis to billG)" has been cut. [/B]
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Revisionist history

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Right, and no Mac application has ever had to have been updated to run on 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.2.x, 10.3 ....
...
Click to expand...
Actually, not many that I know of...
Photoshop runs just fine on 10.1 and 10.2 10.3 no updates necessary. MS office runs just fine with no updates from 10.1 to 10.3... Internet Explorer, same thing....the list goes on and on.

Why would an app need to be updated if it doesn't take advantage of APIs that don't exist on its original release? The only time apps broke was between 10.0 and 10.1 which was understandable because 10.0 was a piece of beautiful-looking but Beta-Quality OS.

Think about this, apple has no vested interest in making anyone's applications look bad, because it reflects bad on themselves; they can't afford to piss off developers anymore than they have. But MS can get away with it because it makes the application vendor look bad, at least until the truth comes out in the end...

It has been documented in court cases how MS has altered the OS purposefully and for the sole intent of making a competitors application look bad with fake error messages etc. Why is it that MS has to be ORDER BY COURT to disclose Windows APIs that they themselves use in their own Windows apps that run faster and more efficient than what they dish to developers???

People have eyes, they should use it to read once in a while.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revisionist history

Originally posted by Fukui
Actually, not many that I know of...
Click to expand...

Type any OSX version into the search bar at macfixit.com, you'll see lots of them!
 
Re: (date correction)

Originally posted by AidenShaw
The purchase was in mid-August - a few days before the G5s started shipping, and about 2 weeks before the dual 2.0GHz G5s showed up....
Click to expand...

Talk about revisionist history! Here's an article from MacCentral:

Microsoft acquires Virtual PC from Connectix
By Jim Dalrymple
February 19, 2003 2:50 pm
Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday announced that they had acquired Connectix Corp.'s Virtual PC products, including Virtual PC for Mac, Virtual PC for Windows and Virtual Server. Microsoft also hired many of the Connectix employees that worked on the products to continue development . . .

While Microsoft has no immediate plans to change Virtual PC for Mac, they do have a development team, marketing and planning teams already in place and are evaluating the product line. Microsoft is looking at the current product roadmap from Connectix and will decide where to take the product at a later date . . .


SO, I think you may have had your facts incorrect both times. In this news article from MacCentral, dated February 19, 2003, MicroShaft had not only purchased Virtual PC, but also already had a development team, marketing and planning teams in place. And in August, they are shocked and surprised to find out that VPC doesn't run on the G5's ? What did they do for 6 months? And when asked about this, the answer from MS was:

Microsoft confirms Virtual PC not G5-compatible
By Jim Dalrymple jdalrymple@maccentral.com
August 27, 2003 1:05 pm ET

. . . said compatibility with the G5 will make it into the next release of Virtual PC, no timeframe was given for the update.


No timeframe ? Throw us a bone, M$! End of the year ? End of the decade ? With all the vapor-ware and pre-announcements that abound in the software world, couldn't they have at least said we're working on it as fast as we can ? That comment seems to show little concern to me, especially after they have had people working on it for 6 months.
 
Re: Re: (date correction)

Originally posted by MacEyeDoc
Talk about revisionist history!
Click to expand...

Try the Connectix website http://www.connectix.com

As part of the Microsoft acquisition of the Virtual PC and Virtual Server technology and products, Connectix is in the final stages of transitioning the business to Microsoft, and plans to complete this transition by August 15, 2003.

Corporate acquisitions take some time - and there are certain things which cannot be undertaken until the deal is final. Final, as in August 15, as in when the first 1.6 and 1.8 G5 systems were appearing on store shelves.

MacCentral says February, Connectix says August.... Tomato, tomahto
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revisionist history

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Type any OSX version into the search bar at macfixit.com, you'll see lots of them!
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that does not negate the fact of Microsoft's said behavior toward sabotaging their own developers.
 
Nice to see WMP 9 for Mac OS X finally. DRM support is old though...ick. They did demo the media player with Safari so they got the part right. MS said they are looking to make sure they are compatible with three major browsers.....Safari, IE, and Netscape(hopefully mozilla too).
 
Originally posted by bcsimac
Nice to see WMP 9 for Mac OS X finally. DRM support is old though...ick. They did demo the media player with Safari so they got the part right. MS said they are looking to make sure they are compatible with three major browsers.....Safari, IE, and Netscape(hopefully mozilla too).
Click to expand...

And hopefully that would include Camino as well
 
Re: Re: (date correction)

Originally posted by MacEyeDoc
No timeframe ?... That comment seems to show little concern to me...
Click to expand...

So you'd rather they just plucked a date randomly out of the air and missed it by miles like, say, Apple? Don't get me wrong - I hate MS - but has it ever occoured to anyone to take them at their word here - that, if they update VirtualPC, it'll be PC compatible.

There is all this talk of how Apple is a business and does what it needs to, yet everyone is up in arms when MS behaves like one.

If we were to abandon double standards, is it still possiblee to hate MS? Yes. So why make ourselves look like squabbling schoolkids who aren't allowed to play? "it's not fair..."
 
MS has indicated they are not sure about Camino and Firebird or for that matter regular Mozilla......MS basically said commercial browsers....that leaves it to Safari, IE, and Netscape.....Opera doesn't count I guess.

Originally posted by MasterMac
And hopefully that would include Camino as well
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back