Netflix comes to Windows Media Center

Nice. I guess it'll be in the RTM version of Windows 7 too. Now, if they manage to get Hulu too, my efforts to build a new Media Center PC would have paid off.

Dang. I've been hoping against hope that they'd work something out with Blockbuster instead. I'm sure that'll never happen now. Time to consider switching to netflix :-/

Oh I forgot one thing why don't we have IPTV on media center yet.

Good step on the right direction, but there are so many third party tools that add other stuff like Hulu and others for free, and most of them are available on more than just Windows.

"Whoop-de-do another wonderful feature.... oh wait US-only..." My thoughts exactly.. Seems that I'll have to move to US, just to get some US-only features and content finaly..

The Netflix thing will clearly be in general release (hence RTM) Win 7. It may very well not come to RC (despite the code being similar or identical) as a prod to move from RC to paid-for before Feb 28. If that's the case, there could be more of these things. After all, one shouldn't run things like beta or RC on front-line machines. (Yes, I too am doing so--so perhaps I should bank the Netflix fees I'm not now paying towards paying for Win 7.)

Shark47, install Boxee on your PC and there you have both !

"Shark47, install Boxee on your PC and there you have both !" I don't think Boxee is available on PCs. There are other Media Center plugins, but most of them suck. Even Microsoft's own internet TV stuff on Windows Media Center is pretty bad.

"I think they just need to partner with motorola, get the software on a STB and call it a day" I think once we see mass production of Ion-based systems, we'll see STB's just as complete computers. Zotac already has a motherboard with Ion. It's very awesome. WiFi, GF 9400GS, CUDA support, PhysX support, the Atom 330 dual-core, etc. http://vimeo.com/4703310?pg=embed&sec=&hd=1 If you build a box with that system with a hard drive, and Windows 7 Home Premium, you could put it together for about the same as most of these $400 STB's, and it's still a fully functioning computer. Add high-bandwidth Blu-ray, and the chipset can still handle it just fine. Oh, and did I mention that it's silent too?

MikeGalos, The other thread is locked...but you asked for TWO examples of MS winning out by being unfair, one for each of the "MANY" that I shouted...wasn't supposed to be shouting, was supposed to be emphasis...but anyway, since you asked for it..this one link has NUMEROUS examples...of course I'm sure you'll spin it that I'm wrong, but here is a link so anyone can look... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090421111327711 here are some exerpts. A. Microsoft's Campaign To Destroy DR-DOS "[W]e need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS DOS." --David Cole, Microsoft Senior Vice-President "The approach we will take is to detect dr [DOS] 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface.'" --Phillip Barrett, Microsoft Windows Development Manager In the early 1980s, Microsoft purchased an early version of a standard disk operating system ("DOS") that became known as MS-DOS. At the time, a number of rival operating systems offered features, such as the ability to run multiple programs at the same time, that Microsoft's operating systems would not offer until years later. At the time, operating systems were just beginning to move from a command-based interface to a graphical user interface. Microsoft developed a graphical user interface known as Windows. Early versions of Windows did not actually "run" the computer rather, they were a shell surrounding the underlying DOS program, which in turn ran the computer. Initially, Windows embraced the DOS standard, which meant that Windows would run on top of any DOS, including DR-DOS, Microsoft's principal rival in the DOS market. This initial interoperability came to be known as part of Microsoft's now-classic "embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy, which Microsoft has subsequently and successfully employed in many other product areas. This strategy has three phases: First, Microsoft "embraces" a competing product by developing software or implementing standards that are compatible with the competing product. Microsoft then "extends" its own offering by creating features or standards that are interoperable only with Microsoft's proprietary technologies. Finally, when Microsoft's proprietary software or standards have achieved widespread adoption, Microsoft "extinguishes" its competitors by dropping any remaining pretense of compatibility. In the case of DR-DOS, Microsoft's initial decision to make Windows interoperable helped promote rapid adoption of the Windows shell. At the same time, however, it meant that many consumers chose the superior DR-DOS over MS-DOS. In an email to then-Vice President Steve Ballmer, Microsoft founder and then-CEO Bill Gates wrote: "Our DOS gold mine is shrinking and our costs are soaring--primarily due to low prices, IBM share, and DR-DOS.... I believe people underestimate the impact that DR-DOS has had on us in terms of pricing." Microsoft "extended" Windows by making changes so that Windows would no longer interoperate with DR-DOS smoothly. For example, Microsoft designed Windows to display an ominous error message when used in conjunction with the DR-DOS software. Notice that DR-DOS was able to run multiple programs at the same time where MS-DOS was unable to. A quick quote from Wikipedia: "A pre-release version of Windows 3.1 to returned a non-fatal error message if it detected a non-Microsoft DOS. This check came to be known as the AARD code. With the detection code disabled, Windows ran perfectly under DR-DOS and its successor Novell DOS. The code was present, but disabled in the released version of Windows 3.1" Another example of other OSs being superior to MS OS is UNIX OSs were capable of "long filenames" long before Windows (this wasn't even possible on MS-DOS). Here are more exerpts from the groklaw link B. Microsoft's Anticompetitive Per Processor License Fees "Another [DR-DOS] prospect bites the dust with a per-processor DOS agreement." --Microsoft sales employee in an internal email Most operating systems are purchased by original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs"), such as Dell and HP. OEMs preinstall operating systems on the computers they manufacture before selling the computers to consumers. In the late 1980s, Microsoft began requiring OEMs to pay Microsoft a "per processor license fee" for each computer they shipped, regardless of whether they installed Windows on the computer. This arrangement gave OEMs a powerful incentive not to pay for and install competing operating systems. In 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft challenging this conduct, resulting in a consent decree under which Microsoft agreed to stop using per processor license fees. But the anticompetitive practice had already been quite effective in reducing competitors' share, particularly when combined with Microsoft's other actions directed against DR-DOS There's two that you asked for...I'm sure I could find more, just in that one groklaw article. Yeah Mike Galos, seems like MS won out STRICTLY on having "a better product at better prices that people actually wanted" Go ahead..now you can rant about how that stuff isn't true, or try to justify it to make it sound like Microsoft was NOT convicted of using its monopoly to position to harm competition and force out competition...that they have ONLY EVER won out on "better products at better prices that people actually want" what a joke.

@panache - mikegalos will find a way to refute you on anything that you say. What needs to be understood is that the word "better" is subjective. You each have your own definition of what that is. --tayme

No MikeGalos, YOUR RATIONALIZATION of any illegal business practice by Microsoft is the joke! How about reading the WHOLE GROKLAW LINK instead of commenting on *EXERPTS* that i copied and pasted? Maybe you should take your rationalization to the Supreme Court and have them overturn their anti-trust ruling since you obviously have it all figured out. Again, you can't accept that MS has gained its position through PROVEN ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES, *NOT* because they had "better products at better prices". Which is pretty pathetic since its been proven Get this quote "Microsoft is an American success story but there is no excuse for any company to try to cement its success through unlawful means, as Microsoft has done with its contracting practices," said Anne K. Bingaman, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division. These "unlawful contract practices" are what YOU are claiming was Microsoft giving OEMs a CHOICE! LOL!!!! Again MikeGalos, you prove that YOU are the joke. You have the nerve to go so far to call people on here iCabal, or claim that Apple will tell people what their opinions will be, when you yourself can't accept Microsoft's illegal business practices...calling them "choice" to OEMs. Pathetic.

MikeGalos, "I'm sure you'll find some consumer harm. (Well, probably not. Nobody else has.)" Except the United States Department Of Justice. LOL. are you claiming that DR-DOS didn't clone MS-DOS well enough?! From what I keep finding, DR-DOS had features that MS-DOS had to keep up with, not the other way around. Keep trying MikeGalos...keep telling yourself that the MS products were techinically superior and THAT is why MS won out, maybe the past will change if you wish it hard enough.

"Maybe you should take your rationalization to the Supreme Court and have them overturn their anti-trust ruling since you obviously have it all figured out." Maybe you should take your comments to a board that cares. Nobody does here. Do you see anybody still running any version of DOS? No, I didn't think so. PS: The only joke here is the US law system. Moving on....

@panache - mikegalos will never admit he is wrong...it is not in his vocabulary. He will now begin to point out your spelling and grammar errors as he likes to do when he has been proven to be wrong. The saqme thing has happenned multiple times, both on this board and other places as well. --tayme

in case tayme is right about panache... Here's the second to last paragraph of my last post with the typo fixed: As for whether DR-DOS was a bad clone, you, yourself show that it was. A clone's success is how accurately it copies the original. Changes, good or bad, are flaws in the clone and any change, good or bad, results in different behavior that can cause a bug in a product that counts on the behavior.

"Maybe you should take your comments to a board that cares" Mike should have that on his forehead, written backwards so he can see it when he looks in the mirror. "mikegalos will never admit he is wrong" no he wont. Mike lives to spew anti-anything MS. His favorite tactic is to change subject or attack you somehow. He will never answer a direct question. In fact 98% of the time he will answer a question with a question. He should be a politician. Less than 2% of what he says would be considered helpful or postive. On a good note he is as predictiable as the sun rising tormorrow.

MS does it. Every company does it. If you could, you would do it too. Every big company tries to bully smaller partners. It doesn't come out into the open most of the time because these smaller partners don't want to lose the business. This is getting silly now.

Once again, Mikey ignores the court's findings (spewing, "The court didn't find actual consumer harm."), which couldn't be further from the truth. At the risk of repeating myself: "Microsoft's market share and the applications barrier to entry together endow the company with monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems ... directly evidenced by the sustained absence of realistic commercial alternatives to Microsoft's PC operating-system products." and "...no significant percentage of consumers will be able to abandon Windows without incurring substantial costs. Microsoft can therefore set the price of Windows substantially higher than that which would be charged in a competitive market — or impose other burdens on consumers — without losing so much business as to make the action unprofitable." and "Microsoft's monopoly power is also evidenced by the fact that, over the course of several years, Microsoft took actions that could only have been advantageous if they operated to reinforce monopoly power." and "Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest. " http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm Sounds like "customer harm" to me, Mikey. "And, on the rare times I have something wrong and somebody teaches me something, I happily acknowledge that. " We're waiting.

"Sounds like "customer harm" to me, Mikey." Again, every big company has engaged in actions to increase revenues and profits. This has hurt consumers on several occasions too. When things were going well, credit card companies minted money by charging customers all kinds of fees and charges. As long as their share prices were rising, no one complained. Greed is human nature. It's not a Microsoft trademark. Sorry, but if any of you believe that companies like Apple haven't done things that have ended up hurting the consumer, you're either naive or an egg head.

tayme "mikegalos also shifted my sentence to sound like I was talking about panache in regards to pointing out spelling errors," You're right. I was in error. Thanks for the correction. See how easy that is? You should try it sometime instead of personal attacks.

@Lindy - "His favorite tactic is to change subject" OK, so which subject should he stick to? "Microsoft's past" or "Mike's character"?

bettie "I bet hell has frozen over" You could look out the window and let us know.

panache That's an awful lot of cutting and pasting to say nothing but some personal attacks.

@ waethorn... ""I'm baffled by the fact that my general purpose PC is a better recording solution than a purpose-made recording box!" As with anything, make sure you buy the components that fit the usage." Actually, what I meant was that a PC I built as a general purpose PC DOES actually perform BETTER than a purpose-made sky+ digital sattelite recorder, even whilst I'm still using that PC to play games, mix multi-track music, edit photos and all the other stuff I find an use for my computer. I mean i can even do those things, whilst it records in the background, with no issues. I cannot understand how sky (and others) can get away with selling a purpose made product that performs worse than a generic PC, with a tv-tuner and Media Center. I wish one day Sky (BSB) would allow the use of a PC-based tuner to work with their system so we can use media center instead of their crappy boxes. I wouldn't mind (and would actually expect) the compatible DVB-S receivers to require a subscription cards like their boxes do. All I want is for them to allow it, as they are currently locking out anyone from their proprietary encryption system. But, for now, I'm happy with DVB-T, which is actually a pretty damned good FREE service in the UK, courtesy of the BBC. We're getting DVB-T HD in the coming months as well :)