ZellSF wrote:

Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:

ZellSF wrote:

DirectX is new now?

Well, unless you know a way on how to install DirectX 12 on previous Windows operational systems.

There's no way to install DX10/11 on previous operating systems. There's no way to install DX9 on previous operating systems.

I'm missing the new part still.

DX 9 will install all the way back to Windows 98.

DX9 eventually dropped support for Win98:
http://www.falconfly.de/directx.htm
That wasn't even a major revision.

And looking at that, support for Win95 was quickly dropped.

Can't actually say I blame MS in this, backporting features to old versions of software has never been the norm.

Oh and I don't have a MS account tied to my Windows account either and don't use Metro at all. You don't need either for Win8/10.

NT4 DX3A, DX8.1 was the last for 95, DX9C 2006 was the last for 98/ME, DX9C 2010 was the last for 2000, Windows XP DX9C, Windows Vista DX11, Windows 7 DX 11.1, Windows 8 DX 11.2. DX12 is windows 10 exclusive just like 10 was vista exclusive.

Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:

Microsoft can go to hell now with its monopoly and that new directX exclusive crap.

Out of all the reasons I can think of for Microsoft going to hell, monopoly isn't one of them.

Monopoly is the inevitable result of any of the following:

. Inferior companies with inferior products selling out to the competition to escape bankruptcy.
. Small, stable companies with good products selling out to the competition for greater profit.
. Cheap, miserable people who'd rather see a good, smaller company with a good product disappear over paying that little extra bit of money that they will exact of you in order to stay afloat.
. Piracy and heavy taxation, which only the bigger competitors are able to withstand.
. Patent costs and patent thuggery.

If you can come up with a quality product and successfully commercialize it to the point where no one can touch you because there simply isn't a superior alternative, then we have a good monopoly.

There are crimes that may lead to the formation of a monopoly, and crimes committed with the aid of the power accumulated by a monopoly, but a monopoly, given a proper context, isn't something evil in and of itself.

Monopolies that don't abuse their powers aren't bad, but those belong in the realm of fiction. Microsoft certainly isn't one.

ZellSF wrote:

Monopolies that don't abuse their powers aren't bad, but those belong in the realm of fiction. Microsoft certainly isn't one.

So how is it in any way a free market if the government props up failing companies by passing regulations protecting them from their competitors? You do realize that this is a form of corporate welfare, right?

That kind of touches on antitrust legislation, which's a completely different branch of socialist depravity.

Government has no business getting involved in business. Certainly they should ban certain things and make sure all involved parties honor the contracts they sign, but if your company's a failure because you didn't run it properly, we shouldn't have to pay for it.

God calls us to be charitable to people who really need it, but charity is a voluntary thing, not forced, and quite evidently bailouts and other parasitic behaviors are not covered.

Lo Wang wrote:

That kind of touches on antitrust legislation, which's a completely different branch of socialist depravity.

Fucking 🤣.

sliderider wrote:

ZellSF wrote:

Monopolies that don't abuse their powers aren't bad, but those belong in the realm of fiction. Microsoft certainly isn't one.

So how is it in any way a free market if the government props up failing companies by passing regulations protecting them from their competitors? You do realize that this is a form of corporate welfare, right?

How is a free market a good thing when there's just one company running everything because the others don't have any chance because that company is abusing its power?

We'll get higher prices because there's no choice. We'll get worse products because there's no choice.

What does your ideal free market offer us except letting huge corporations screw us over?

And where did I ever say government should prop up failing companies? Where are you even getting that? They should punish monopolies that abuse their power.

No politics / religion please. 😀

We will never experience a true free market as long as the government retains enough power to regulate it for or against a particular person/group.

America came pretty close at some point in history where government still feared the people, but that hasn't been the case in a long, long time.

PeterLI wrote:

No politics / religion please. 😀

+1

ZellSF wrote:

How is a free market a good thing when there's just one company running everything because the others don't have any chance beca […]
Show full quote

sliderider wrote:

ZellSF wrote:

Monopolies that don't abuse their powers aren't bad, but those belong in the realm of fiction. Microsoft certainly isn't one.

So how is it in any way a free market if the government props up failing companies by passing regulations protecting them from their competitors? You do realize that this is a form of corporate welfare, right?

How is a free market a good thing when there's just one company running everything because the others don't have any chance because that company is abusing its power?

We'll get higher prices because there's no choice. We'll get worse products because there's no choice.

What does your ideal free market offer us except letting huge corporations screw us over?

And where did I ever say government should prop up failing companies? Where are you even getting that? They should punish monopolies that abuse their power.

How is a company abusing it's power? If I own a business, and I want to buy out my competitor down the street, what business is it of yours? None, that's what. The buyout is between myself and the competitor, nobody else has a right to get involved.

And in a free market, nothing stops new competitors from opening up shop. I might buy out one competitor today, but that situation won't last forever. If I mistreat my customers too much, maybe one of them will go into competition with me and steal my customers by treating them better. The government shouldn't have a law stopping me from buying out that competitor based on what they're afraid might happen. This is what happens as a result passing laws based on people's paranoia.

sliderider wrote:

And in a free market, nothing stops new competitors from opening up shop. I might buy out one competitor today, but that situation won't last forever. If I mistreat my customers too much, maybe one of them will go into competition with me and steal my customers by treating them better.

That's a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up in industries with high barriers to entry, or when the existing players form rackets to protect one another's interest, making it artificially difficult for a competitor to enter the market.

Nothing ever works in absolutes, there are always cases where blindly adhering to an ideology does more harm than good.

Beware ye of this wicked crowd, this crowd driven by a vitriolic envy for the success and prosperity of others. This vile crowd of black-hearted, hatemongering parasites who believe they're entitled to other people's money. The crowd who'd happily have you taxed and looted into poverty, even if they don't get to see any of the looted money, just so that no one's able to stand out and enjoy the fruits of their hard work.

Some people who rent their garments over big corporations, could, in reality, care less about them, but it's the facade they use in order to justify their own criminal affections.

Lo Wang wrote:

Beware ye of this wicked crowd, this crowd driven by a vitriolic envy for the success and prosperity of others. This vile crowd of black-hearted, hatemongering parasites who believe they're entitled to other people's money. The crowd who'd happily have you taxed and looted into poverty, even if they don't get to see any of the looted money, just so that no one's able to stand out and enjoy the fruits of their hard work.

Some people who rent their garments over big corporations, could, in reality, care less about them, but it's the facade they use in order to justify their own criminal affections.

Beware ye of this wicked crowd, this crowd driven by rabid idealism, and a vitriolic hate for the critical thinking and the "all things in moderation" approach of others. This vile crowd of black-hearted "fuck you, got mine" sociopaths, who believe they're entitled to destroy anybody and anything to obtain money. The crowd who'd happily bribe and lobby for a world free of anti-corruption and anti-antitrust legislation, even if those very measures benefit them directly, just so that fanciful narratives can prevail.

Some people who believe in the economic equivalent of "spherical objects in a vacuum" physics, would, in reality, be harmed and left in poverty by such reckless abandon, but have been corrupted by the feeble-minded, self-centred right, and revel in their pious, self-righteous, arrogant quest to PREACH AND PROSELYTISE ON A GOD DAMN FORUM ABOUT OLD GAMES AND COMPUTERS.

See how easy it is to make a lot of noise without saying anything of substance? That entire paragraph makes no case at all, just a bunch of judgement and insults.

And with that... *Lo Wang on ignore list* If all you can do to make your point is throw ad-hominems around, you're not worth engaging with.

SquallStrife wrote:

That's a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up in industries with high barriers to entry, or when the existing players form rackets to protect one another's interest, making it artificially difficult for a competitor to enter the market.

Nothing ever works in absolutes, there are always cases where blindly adhering to an ideology does more harm than good.

Indeed and very well put. It will do good for everyone to internalize the part in bold. And as for the part underlined, I'd say that not only there are such cases, but that these cases are the majority.

It takes a particular kind of naivety or idiocy to think that a completely free market can exist, or that, if it could, it would be a good idea. Not so different from what it takes to believe that a fully socialist/communist approach is a good idea, even though they seem to be on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

I encourage everyone to read "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism" by Ha-Joon Chang. You don't have to take everything he says there as the truth in final form, because it isn't, and in some cases I believe he bends things a bit to make a point, but many of the points are valid nonetheless, and he describes the "free market fallacy" in very plain and accessible terms.

And on that note, I appeal to the moderators, to please split all the irrelevant political/social/religious babble (including this post of mine) out of this thread, or change the topic title, or, if you believe it has run its course, just lock it. 😀