Over at ZD-Net

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-964876.html

Its the future if we the consumers dont stop it.

<font color="#00ccff">all you got to do to stop it is to not buy it. Not that dificult a thing. </font>

True to a point.

If it becomes a standard then you will be forced to purchase it.

I have a top of the line rig at this time.

But no matter what, I will need a new computer in around 3 to 4 years time.. why?

Because like 99.99% of us here, I love computer games.

So we need to nip this in the bud now.. or you wont have a choice when you finally upgrade to play BG 10 in 6 years.

<font color="#00ccff">If you do not buy BG 3-9 because they wont work on honest rigs that aren't microsquish controlled there wont be a BG 10 [img]smile.gif[/img]

I remember a technology that Intell tried to force through, a whole new line of CPU's. They were not X86 compatible..and so they died an ugly death. I know what microsoft wants to do, I don't think the user community will let it happen....we will see. </font>

Bah, security software, like all other "encryption" made so far it'll most likely be broken in less than three months by a group of dedicated hackers. I have no worries whatsoever about this.

I also can't see why everyone worries so much about MS having a virtual monopoly on the O/S market. Can you imagine what it'd be like to have 7 or 8 O/S's out there? Half of the games wouldn't work on half of the O/S's, and the other half of the games would only work on the half of the O/S's that the first half of the games didn't work on.

Oh, and imagine the many bugs that would be spawned by having to adapt a game to more than one O/S. Personally I'm thankful that MS has pretty much full control over things, it isn't causing me any discomfort. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh I remember the Intel Pro as well (Ive been computing since the old TRS-80 days) MagiK the problem is that its not just MS this time. Its MS, Intel, AMD to name a few and most importantly the RIAA behind this and they have ALOT of support in congress. And its not at the software level its at the hardware level. If the RIAA pushes a fine on non- compliant hardware manufactures (like they did with CD-Burners and scanners) the hardware makers will say WTH and start adding the chips into the hardware and then it will be a done deal.

Its alot more complicated than that but I think you can see my point.

Neb it isn´t that it´s not a good idea IMO (which it isn´t, third party controlling my programs and data, no thank you). It´s more the feeling of having Microsoft controlling every program I run... *shudders* Aren´t they spying enough already?

Neb I am a full supporter of a MS led world, if it wasn't for MS we wouldn't be writing to each other across thousand of miles or enjoying the many games that we do. But if you think I trust MS... well then I have some land near Live Oak Florida to sell you [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Well, the simple reason to trust MS is that Bill Gates is a greedy bastard. Normally that would not add up, but here's how I come to that conclusion:

Bill Gates wants more money. If he screws people over he can get lots more money for a short amount of time. But his long time profits from sales of software would pretty much die as soon as it was found out, plus, he could face various lawsuits. So therefore it's more profitable for him and his products to be reliable, legal and nice.

Oh it will be all that err well reliable we could go round and round on ;) ... But I work as a IT Manager for a large firm and MS has always considered the customer the enemy sad but true. So I argee to disagree with your point of view. People will buy MS regardless if its a friendly company or not... Having a stranglehold on the market allows them that luxory (sp).