I don't see it discussed, but it seems to me that DirectX is mainly a 
rip-off of OpenGL. Beginning with Direct3D7 "Immediate Mode", the D3D 
methodology began to look a lot like OpenGL, despite the fact that 
previous D3D versions claimed OpenGL was inferior because it is too 
low-level.

It seems to me that the SGI/Microsoft Fahrenheit project was a scam by 
Microsoft to steal OpenGL's superior methods, combined with Microsoft 
dropping OpenGL support to a bare minimum.

Isn't this just a good example of Microsoft using good Lawyers instead 
of good Computer Scientists to get ahead?

Joe Krahn

Joe Krahn wrote:
> I don't see it discussed, but it seems to me that DirectX is mainly a 
> rip-off of OpenGL. Beginning with Direct3D7 "Immediate Mode", the D3D 
> methodology began to look a lot like OpenGL, despite the fact that 
> previous D3D versions claimed OpenGL was inferior because it is too 
> low-level.
> 

Direct3D started out really awful. It was a last
minute buy-up by Microsoft who decided that Windows 95
needed 3D graphics. They bought the first thing
available and took it from there. That's why the
evolution has been horrible and has set the industry
back many years while they worked with it, rewrote code
on every generation, etc., etc. Luckily most of the
products written with Direct3D were throwaway products
with a short shelf life. Long term maintenance of
Direct3D-based products would be a nightmare.

Yes, OpenGL is better. So is Betamax...and any
number of other products which were lost due to
better marketing and ordinary consumers who chose
the market-leading product over technical specs.

> It seems to me that the SGI/Microsoft Fahrenheit project was a scam by 
> Microsoft to steal OpenGL's superior methods, combined with Microsoft 
> dropping OpenGL support to a bare minimum.
> 

If anything it was a scam to waste everybody's time
(especially SGI's) and prevent an open 3D API from
coming to market while Direct3D went through its
growing pains.

> Isn't this just a good example of Microsoft using good Lawyers instead 
> of good Computer Scientists to get ahead?
> 

Not lawyers, marketing.

Yes, Microsoft is an evil beast! They've lied,
cheated, stolen, and done everything in their
power to crush open standards. Their political
machinations and constant API churn (to prevent
cloning/emulation efforts) waste everybody's time.

My advice: Don't cry over it, expect more of the
same in the future and plan accordingly.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> Direct3D started out really awful. It was a last
> minute buy-up by Microsoft who decided that Windows 95
> needed 3D graphics

Inaccurate flame-bait...

> They bought the first thing
> available and took it from there.

Ditto.

> That's why the evolution has been horrible and has set the industry
> back many years while they worked with it

Ditto, funny, nobody held a gun to anyone's head to use it.  Poor id 
Software, their development was set back years by DirectX.  LOL.

>, rewrote code
> on every generation

Ditto, only if you wanted to use new features available in the migrated 
interface.

>, etc., etc. Luckily most of the
> products written with Direct3D were throwaway products
> with a short shelf life.

Yeah, I was playing Interstate 76 the other day.  Execute buffers from 
DirectX3, what crap...

> Long term maintenance of
> Direct3D-based products would be a nightmare.

Ditto, why?  Sigh, I'm being sucked in...  Fungus, you're a competent OpenGL 
programmer, but you seriously do not know what you're talking about when 
comparing Direct3D and OpenGL.  Yes, it has its weaknesses, yes it has had 
an 'easy to poke fun at' past in comparison with OpenGL, say pre-DX 7.

> Yes, OpenGL is better.

At what?  Running on other platforms, sure, that's about it.

I wonder why so many game companies, today, are so ridiculously stupid as to 
nearly all write DirectX rendering paths?  It must be a conspiracy, M$ must 
pay them to do so, Bill Gates has pictures of their president's playing golf 
with Satan, et cetera...

> So is Betamax...and any
> number of other products which were lost due to
> better marketing and ordinary consumers who chose
> the market-leading product over technical specs.

Yeah, consumers of games bought their games because they said Direct3D on 
the side.  That's why.  LOL.

>> It seems to me that the SGI/Microsoft Fahrenheit project was a scam
>> by Microsoft to steal OpenGL's superior methods, combined with
>> Microsoft dropping OpenGL support to a bare minimum.
>>
>
> If anything it was a scam to waste everybody's time
> (especially SGI's) and prevent an open 3D API from
> coming to market while Direct3D went through its
> growing pains.

A scam to keep what open 3D API from coming to market?  It was Microsoft's 
initiative.  If anything, it was plan that was trashed shortly after being 
introduced and an absolutely dying SGI used it to try and keep their name in 
the news.  SGI, a company of good engineers run by the Scott McNealy of the 
graphics world.

>> Isn't this just a good example of Microsoft using good Lawyers
>> instead of good Computer Scientists to get ahead?
>>
>
> Not lawyers, marketing.
>
> Yes, Microsoft is an evil beast! They've lied,
> cheated, stolen, and done everything in their
> power to crush open standards. Their political
> machinations and constant API churn (to prevent
> cloning/emulation efforts) waste everybody's time.

You don't sound like a loon, really.

> My advice: Don't cry over it, expect more of the
> same in the future and plan accordingly.

Better advice, graphics APIs are toolboxes, just like operating systems. 
Don't worship one over the other, learn them both (hell, learn to rasterize 
your own 3D graphics as well.)

    WTH

-- 
"We scored 127 goals - the third highest total in the club's history.
Although, if you believe everything you read in the papers, 126
probably came from a breakaway from the edge of our penalty area. The
other one was probably an own goal." - G�rard Houllier

WTH wrote:
 > Inaccurate flame-bait...

<pttttt>

This is well documented, eg.:

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html

> Ditto, funny, nobody held a gun to anyone's head to use it.  Poor id 
> Software, their development was set back years by DirectX.  LOL.
> 

See above.

>>, rewrote code
>>on every generation
> 
> 
> Ditto, only if you wanted to use new features available in the migrated 
> interface.
> 

And you wouldn't want to do this?

>>Long term maintenance of
>>Direct3D-based products would be a nightmare.
> 
> Ditto, why?

Because you wanted to use those new features you
just mentioned...? Are you proposing to mix
Direct3D interfaces all over the program?

> I wonder why so many game companies, today, are so ridiculously stupid as to 
> nearly all write DirectX rendering paths?

We've been through all this before:

Games companies are different. Games companies
work to specific time frames and need to plan
on having specific API/graphics card features
which will be available at Xmas two years from
now. Microsoft works with everybody involved
to achieve this.


>>So is Betamax...and any
>>number of other products which were lost due to
>>better marketing and ordinary consumers who chose
>>the market-leading product over technical specs.
> 
> Yeah, consumers of games bought their games because they said Direct3D on 
> the side.  That's why.  LOL.
> 

Huh? We were discussing Windows, not OpenGL.


>>>It seems to me that the SGI/Microsoft Fahrenheit project was a scam
>>>by Microsoft to steal OpenGL's superior methods, combined with
>>>Microsoft dropping OpenGL support to a bare minimum.
>>>
> 
> A scam to keep what open 3D API from coming to market?

Ummm... one called "Fahrenheit".


> Better advice, graphics APIs are toolboxes, just like operating systems. 
> Don't worship one over the other, learn them both (hell, learn to rasterize 
> your own 3D graphics as well.)
> 

Except that "choosing" is about to get more difficult.
If you use OpenGL and you're short-changing your
Windows users. I'm sure that many people will go to
Direct3D because of this.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:

> I wonder why so many game companies, today, are so ridiculously
> stupid as to nearly all write DirectX rendering paths?

Actually most commercially avaliable game engines also provide an
OpenGL renderer in their vanilla form. Just take the Unreal
Engine as an example.

I also wonder, why game companies are choosing DirectX over
OpenGL. My best guess is, that they want to hit the shelfs with
state of the art features. And at the planning time only DirectX
can offer these featues. OpenGL is maintained quite some people
(the ARB) so introducing new features is done carefully and well
planned. However a for a game there is oftently a deadline and
developers can't wait for the ARB to release a new extension
that will be widely supported - and then to be implemented by
the driver developers.

However this will only happen if you focus on _features_. We for
example focus on gameplay. And as we build content we're also
revision some stuff so that it get's smoother. Also we're
filling plotholes. As the game develops I'm extending the engine
more and more. We started 1999, with a large change in concept
2002 and since then are developing "CASSANDRAproject". On such a
long term project I've seen DX7 to DX9 and I'm glad that my
OpenGL stuff from 1999 is still usable, while the DX7 renderer I
wrote then is today a pile of code junk (actually I've a
directory ~/projects/old_stuff/junk in which the code now
resides).

I think that's the main reason for mass market games: They have
to ship at a given deadline, and DirectX offers the features
_now_. If you're going to do a long term development then you
want a stable, sound API. And that is OpenGL.

Wolfgang Draxinger
-- 

WTH wrote:
> 
>I wonder why so many game companies, today, are so ridiculously
>stupid as to nearly all write DirectX rendering paths?
>

Oh, I forgot this one: http://rmitz.org/stjohn.html

"Many of the Direct3D titles shipping today, or
  shipping shortly have been developed with assistance
  from our developers and our porting lab"

- Alex St. John

(Who was later fired for saying that Direct3D sucked
  and John Carmack was a "god").

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/17148/17148.html
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/17172/17172.html


More links:

General story, including how the games industry
petitioned Microsft to support OpenGL instead of
Direct3D (Microsoft totally ignored them of course...)

http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/windoze/OpenGLvsDirect3D.html



-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
> my OpenGL stuff from 1999 is still usable, while the
 > DX7 renderer I wrote then is today a pile of code junk


How can this be????

[...over to WTH who says there's no absolutely
  no problem with maintaining old Direct3D code]




-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger@darkstargames.de> loquated like no one had 
ever loquated before with:

> WTH wrote:
>
>> I wonder why so many game companies, today, are so ridiculously
>> stupid as to nearly all write DirectX rendering paths?
>
> Actually most commercially avaliable game engines also provide an
> OpenGL renderer in their vanilla form. Just take the Unreal
> Engine as an example.

Exactly, it's all a toolbox.

> I also wonder, why game companies are choosing DirectX over
> OpenGL. My best guess is, that they want to hit the shelfs with
> state of the art features.

Contemporarily I'd have to agree with that.  That certainly doesn't mean you 
can't ship with latest and greatest under OGL, but I think people who 
haven't already decided one way or the other about their API don't realize 
that.

> And at the planning time only DirectX
> can offer these featues. OpenGL is maintained quite some people
> (the ARB) so introducing new features is done carefully and well
> planned. However a for a game there is oftently a deadline and
> developers can't wait for the ARB to release a new extension
> that will be widely supported - and then to be implemented by
> the driver developers.

Agreed, I think that (again, contemporarily) it is down to people seeing 
differences between OGL and D3D that just are no longer there (unless you're 
gong to deploy on non-Windows systems.)

> However this will only happen if you focus on _features_. We for
> example focus on gameplay. And as we build content we're also
> revision some stuff so that it get's smoother. Also we're
> filling plotholes. As the game develops I'm extending the engine
> more and more. We started 1999, with a large change in concept
> 2002 and since then are developing "CASSANDRAproject". On such a
> long term project I've seen DX7 to DX9 and I'm glad that my
> OpenGL stuff from 1999 is still usable, while the DX7 renderer I
> wrote then is today a pile of code junk (actually I've a
> directory ~/projects/old_stuff/junk in which the code now
> resides).

I don't seem to have that problem with my old DX or OGL code.  Porting a 
deformable mesh animation system from 7 to 9 took about 2 days, adding a new 
extension management system in some older OGL code took about the same.

> I think that's the main reason for mass market games: They have
> to ship at a given deadline, and DirectX offers the features
> _now_. If you're going to do a long term development then you
> want a stable, sound API. And that is OpenGL.

I pretty much agree except for how you indirectly characterize DirectX as 
unstable, and unsound.  I wrote a rendering system for a software company in 
2001 that took less than one day to move to DX9 from DX8, and I didn't have 
to except I wanted to add the ability to compile scripts that resulted in 
HLSL.  It runs great.

I wrote DX5 code for WorldToolKit in 1997/8 that runs perfectly fine to this 
day, and would be very easy to move to DX9.

    WTH 

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
>> my OpenGL stuff from 1999 is still usable, while the
>> DX7 renderer I wrote then is today a pile of code junk
>
>
> How can this be????
>
> [...over to WTH who says there's no absolutely
>  no problem with maintaining old Direct3D code]

There isn't, unless you're talking execute buffers from DX3.  You'd know 
that if you had any idea about what you were talking about.

    WTH

I read through all your links, and wow!  I had always known Microsoft was
slime, but that had always been from a business applications standpoint. 
Until I recently got interested in 3D programming, I didn't understand how
deeply that slime had penetrated into other areas.

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>> Inaccurate flame-bait...
>
> <pttttt>
>
> This is well documented, eg.:
>
> http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html

Holy schnikes batman, a link on the internet?  Then it must be true...

>> Ditto, funny, nobody held a gun to anyone's head to use it.  Poor id
>> Software, their development was set back years by DirectX.  LOL.
>>
>
> See above.

Ibidem

>>> , rewrote code
>>> on every generation
>>
>>
>> Ditto, only if you wanted to use new features available in the
>> migrated interface.
>>
>
> And you wouldn't want to do this?

Oh, I see, if you want to use new features in OpenGL you don't have to write 
any code.  Brilliant.
Next you'll pedantically reply with "rewrote code", there's certainly no 
reason why anyone would have to rewrite their code to move a rendering 
system from DX5 to DX9.  Maybe if you spend your time writing demos and 
'programming' instead of 'software engineering' you would, but then the 
problem is you, not the API.  You can have the same problem in OpenGL.

>>> Long term maintenance of
>>> Direct3D-based products would be a nightmare.
>>
>> Ditto, why?
>
> Because you wanted to use those new features you
> just mentioned...? Are you proposing to mix
> Direct3D interfaces all over the program?

What you've just said makes no sense at all.  I wanted to use HLSL in a 
rendering system a company paid me to write for them just a year ago, I only 
ended up billing them about 16 hours for updating the rendering engine in 
order to move from one DX interface to the latest and greatest and 
simultaneously move the programmable pipeline code to hook to HLSL.  You 
really need to stop pretending you know anything about DirectX because you 
quite obviously do not.

>> I wonder why so many game companies, today, are so ridiculously
>> stupid as to nearly all write DirectX rendering paths?
>
> We've been through all this before:
>
> Games companies are different.

Different than who?  This is an OpenGL forum.  OpenGL is used to make games. 
DirectX is used to make games.  OpenGL is used to render in real-time in 
modeling systems.  DirectX is used to render in real-time in modeling 
systems.  OpenGL is used in rendering scientific data.  DirectX is used to 
render scientific data.  OpenGL is used to render across platforms.  DirectX 
is not.

> Games companies
> work to specific time frames and need to plan
> on having specific API/graphics card features
> which will be available at Xmas two years from
> now. Microsoft works with everybody involved
> to achieve this.

Funny, several prominent game companies provide paths through both D3D and 
OpenGL.  Sort of shoots a hole in that theory of yours.

>>> So is Betamax...and any
>>> number of other products which were lost due to
>>> better marketing and ordinary consumers who chose
>>> the market-leading product over technical specs.
>>
>> Yeah, consumers of games bought their games because they said
>> Direct3D on the side.  That's why.  LOL.
>>
>
> Huh? We were discussing Windows, not OpenGL.

I guess you missed the point.

>>>> It seems to me that the SGI/Microsoft Fahrenheit project was a scam
>>>> by Microsoft to steal OpenGL's superior methods, combined with
>>>> Microsoft dropping OpenGL support to a bare minimum.
>>>>
>>
>> A scam to keep what open 3D API from coming to market?
>
> Ummm... one called "Fahrenheit".

Why would Microsoft partner an initiative with SGI to produce an API that 
was to be "open" (your attribution), when SGI already had an "open" API that 
was released to the public?  I know two people who worked obliquely with 
SGI's side of Faehrenheit and what they tell me is that it basically starved 
to death because they couldn't offer anything that anybody wanted that they 
couldn't already find in OGL/D3D.

>> Better advice, graphics APIs are toolboxes, just like operating
>> systems. Don't worship one over the other, learn them both (hell,
>> learn to rasterize your own 3D graphics as well.)
>>
>
> Except that "choosing" is about to get more difficult.
> If you use OpenGL and you're short-changing your
> Windows users. I'm sure that many people will go to
> Direct3D because of this.

Why?  Are you one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks that OpenGL will 
not run on Windows "vista"?  LOL.

    WTH 

Tony O'Bryan <storm_reaver@yahoo.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

If you're referring to this: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html

It's unbelievably inaccurate.  Just to give you a clue about how inaccurate, 
note the 'devilish' activity surrounding Windows 95 and how Micro$oft was 
supposedly trying to push OpenGL away.  What the zealot who wrote that crap 
fails to tell you is that at the EXACT same time, Micro$oft was pushing VERY 
hard for the acceptance and advancement of OpenGL on NT 3.5x/4.0.  How do I 
know this?  Because I was personally working at SoftImage in downtown 
Montreal for Microsoft after having only worked on Irix and Solaris machines 
using Irix GL, through GL, to OpenGL.  Why was I hired?  Explicitly to make 
Windows NT the platform of choice for OpenGL rendering at a price point 
companies could afford.  What was the product?  Sumatra (now known as 
SoftImage XSi.)  How hard was Microsoft working to make NT the OpenGL 
workstation of the future?  They purchased SoftImage for roughly $70,000,000 
(iirc) exclusively for the purpose of moving the (at the time) world's best 
modelling package from SGI exclusivity to both SGI and NT.

I spent plenty of time dealing with the Micro$oft, Evans & Sutherland, 
Intergraph, and a slew of other companies, dealing with OpenGL issues which 
they were all more than too happy to help dealing with.

There was no nefarious 'get OpenGL out of the way' reasoning behind no 
initial Win95 OGL support.  At that time, nobody used OpenGL for commercial 
gaming at all.  It wasn't until 1997 that the first commercial game (that 
I'm aware of, and this may very well be erroneous) used OpenGL and that was 
glQuake if I'm not mistaken.

When did Windows 95 come out? ;)

Look, Micro$oft has certainly had some questionable practices, and I've 
worked for them, I've also worked for SGI (so hopefully I'm not going to 
hell for that reason...)  OpenGL and Direct3D had very little to do with 
each other until late 1998 at best.

OpenGL is great, DirectX is (now) great, depending upon your project needs, 
you're in safe hands with either one.

    WTH

WTH wrote:
> What the zealot who wrote that crap 
> fails to tell you is that at the EXACT same time, Micro$oft was pushing VERY 
> hard for the acceptance and advancement of OpenGL on NT 3.5x/4.0.

Of course....they wanted all those yummy Unix CAD
programs to run on their "professional" OS.

At the same time they were working as hard as possible
to make sure OpenGL stayed out of their "consumer" OS.

> I spent plenty of time dealing with the Micro$oft, Evans & Sutherland, 
> Intergraph, and a slew of other companies, dealing with OpenGL issues which 
> they were all more than too happy to help dealing with.
> 

....on Windows NT, yes.

> There was no nefarious 'get OpenGL out of the way' reasoning behind no 
> initial Win95 OGL support.  At that time, nobody used OpenGL for commercial 
> gaming at all.  It wasn't until 1997 that the first commercial game (that 
> I'm aware of, and this may very well be erroneous) used OpenGL and that was 
> glQuake if I'm not mistaken.
> 

Before that it was either software or GLIDE.

> OpenGL is great, DirectX is (now) great, depending upon your project needs, 
> you're in safe hands with either one.
> 

....until Windows Vista comes along and spoils that
rosy picture by making OpenGL look bad to end users.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> 
>>This is well documented, eg.:
>>
>>http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html
> 
> Holy schnikes batman, a link on the internet?  Then it must be true...
> 

I don't see you posting any facts to back up your
case. Care to disprove what it says on that page?

> Why?  Are you one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks that OpenGL will 
> not run on Windows "vista"?  LOL.
> 

Flame bait...?


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> DirectX is used to make games.  OpenGL is used to render in real-time in
> modeling systems.  DirectX is used to render in real-time in modeling
> systems.  OpenGL is used in rendering scientific data.  DirectX is used to
> render scientific data.  OpenGL is used to render across platforms. 
> DirectX is not.

Windows and DirectX are much less prevelant in science compared to PC games,
where they are the defacto standard. OpenGL isn't just used to render
"across platforms" (i.e. cross-platform), it is also used to render on
other platforms (i.e. Linux programmers will use OpenGL whether or not they
intend to write cross-platform applications).

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com

WTH wrote:

> Tony O'Bryan <storm_reaver@yahoo.com> loquated like no one had ever
> loquated before with:

Please quote correctly if you quote at all.  Your message erroneously
attributes your own text as a quote made by me.

Actually, all those links describe behavior that is standard Microsoft fare.
I'm sure the authors took a few descriptive liberties in places, but I have
every reason to believe that the overall gist is accurate.  Having watched
Microsoft's underhanded tactics destroy the business software industry,
there is no reason to believe it is not attempting the same with the gaming
industry.

For someone claiming the experience you claim, you should be clearly aware
of Microsoft's EEE methodology.  That Microsoft was pushing hard for OpenGL
acceptance on NT is no surprise.  That is the definitional first step of
EEE.  I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but your description is reinforcing
the premises of the articles to which fungus linked.

I'm sure you know this already, but just as a refresher, here is Microsoft's
M.O.:

1) Recognize a superior product which will take away Microsoft's market
share.

2) Buy the company outright if no one will notice, or adopt and integrate
that company's technologies into Microsoft's own products (there's a good
reason Microsoft is called Borg).  This is the Embrace stage.

3) Extend the Microsoft implementation to be incompatible with the rest of
the industry, and lure developers into a dependency of this implementation. 
This is the Extend stage.

4) When developers are intractably dependent on the Microsoft bastardization
of the industry standard, remove or reduce support for the standard in
order to favor the Microsoft implementation.  With too few customers to
keep the industry solvent, the other businesses leave the market.  This is
the Extinguish phase.

Tony O'Bryan wrote:
> 
> 4) When developers are intractably dependent on the Microsoft bastardization
> of the industry standard, remove or reduce support for the standard in
> order to favor the Microsoft implementation.  With too few customers to
> keep the industry solvent, the other businesses leave the market.  This is
> the Extinguish phase.
> 

Or in the case of OpenGL: Wait until you have
a lock-in product which is comparable with the
open version, then make the open version work
badly on Windows.

It's a new angle on the "extinguish" phase,
but very cleverly thought out.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Tony O'Bryan <storm_reaver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Actually, all those links describe behavior that is standard Microsoft fare.
>I'm sure the authors took a few descriptive liberties in places, but I have
>every reason to believe that the overall gist is accurate.  Having watched
>Microsoft's underhanded tactics destroy the business software industry,
>there is no reason to believe it is not attempting the same with the gaming
>industry.

Every company wants to drive their competition out of business, at
least out of their market. That's not news.

nobody wrote:
> 
> Every company wants to drive their competition out of business, at
> least out of their market. That's not news.
> 

Monopolies should be held to a higher moral
standard.

In theory there are laws to enforce this but
the US Government seems unwilling to apply
them to Microsoft.



-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

fungus wrote:
> In theory there are laws to enforce this but
> the US Government seems unwilling to apply
> them to Microsoft.

Not exactly. US are powered by philosophy
which makes everybody else their enemy.
They're in open conflict with many countires,
fighting hidden economical wars for decades
and are currently very active in information
warfare. MS is one of their weapons and
they're naturally unwilling to apply
restrictions to it...

--

Regards, Karel Miklav

> Not exactly. US are powered by philosophy
> which makes everybody else their enemy.
> They're in open conflict with many countires,
> fighting hidden economical wars for decades
> and are currently very active in information
> warfare. MS is one of their weapons and
> they're naturally unwilling to apply
> restrictions to it...

Uh-Oh - that's getting us off OpenGL, I guess... 

WTH wrote:
> 
> Next you'll pedantically reply with "rewrote code", there's certainly no 
> reason why anyone would have to rewrite their code to move a rendering 
> system from DX5 to DX9.

Apparently moving from DX8 to DX9 is a very minor
change. This page lists the things which will break:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/directx9_c/directx/graphics/ConvertingToDirectX9.asp

Moving from DX5 to DX9 is easier? Really??




-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
>
> What you've just said makes no sense at all.  I wanted to use HLSL in a 
> rendering system a company paid me to write for them just a year ago, I only 
> ended up billing them about 16 hours for updating the rendering engine in 
> order to move from one DX interface to the latest and greatest and 
> simultaneously move the programmable pipeline code to hook to HLSL.  You 
> really need to stop pretending you know anything about DirectX because you 
> quite obviously do not.
> 

I only know what I read, eg.:

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article1247.asp

"Sometimes it is nice to start with a clean sheet of
paper. While I can make jokes about Microsoft starting
over eight times when it comes to DirectX, the latest
version of DirectX is Microsoft�s freshest start since
DrawPrimitive came into style."

"Since DX8 is so different..."

"DirectDraw is dead, replaced completely by Direct3D."

etc.

Uhuh. All those maintenance programmers must
be having fun.

-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

"fungus" <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> wrote in message
news:vlvOe.84457$dr.38531@news.ono.com...
> nobody wrote:
> >
> > Every company wants to drive their competition out of business, at
> > least out of their market. That's not news.
> >
>
> Monopolies should be held to a higher moral
> standard.
>
> In theory there are laws to enforce this but
> the US Government seems unwilling to apply
> them to Microsoft.
>
>
>
> -- 
> <\___/>
> / O O \
> \_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.
>
> In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
> that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
> and then they actually change their minds and you never
> hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
> It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
> are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
> every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
> that happened in politics or religion.
>
> - Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address
>

Right on, fungus. It's not just a moral standard; it's a darn real one. We
are being overcharged,
immensly, for Windows products. But because they have essentially eliminated
much of
the competetion, you have no choice.

How much $ for a DirectX devkit? How about in a few years when there's no
OpenGL devkit alternative?

ouch! (Have you seen the price of an MSDN lately!?).

jbwest wrote:
> 
> How much $ for a DirectX devkit? How about in
 > a few years when there's no OpenGL devkit
 > alternative?
> 

Will we return to the days of Nintendo SNES?

In those days you had to pay Nintendo to be
allowed to develop games for their consoles
($50,000 developers kit)

Not too bad so far but there was no guarantee
your game would ever be published. Nintendo
had a fixed number of "release slots" every
year and they had the final say on which games
filled those slots.

So...after finished developing a game you got
*one* chance to present your game to Nintendo.
If they didn't like it they rejected it, no
second chance. Even a bad graphic (easy to fix!)
could mean somebody else got the slot (and that
you'd just wasted two years of your life and
a whole lot of money).

And, if you made it past all that...then you
had to pay them top dollar to make the game
cartridges for you in their special factory
(minimum order: One million cartridges!)


Kids today? Don't know they're born...


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>>> This is well documented, eg.:
>>>
>>> http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html
>>
>> Holy schnikes batman, a link on the internet?  Then it must be
>> true...
>
> I don't see you posting any facts to back up your
> case. Care to disprove what it says on that page?

Neither did you.  If that's your burden of proof, I'll just go write up a 
web page since I've got as much or more OpenGL and Direct3D experience as 
that person, especially during the critical periods in question.

    WTH 

Jon Harrop <usenet@jdh30.plus.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>> DirectX is used to make games.  OpenGL is used to render in
>> real-time in modeling systems.  DirectX is used to render in
>> real-time in modeling systems.  OpenGL is used in rendering
>> scientific data.  DirectX is used to render scientific data.  OpenGL
>> is used to render across platforms. DirectX is not.
>
> Windows and DirectX are much less prevelant in science compared to PC
> games, where they are the defacto standard.

In academia I would agree that your statement is accurate.  In the 
commercial software world, I would not (regarding scientific applications, 
imaging systems, CAD, modeling, et cetera.)

> OpenGL isn't just used to
> render "across platforms" (i.e. cross-platform), it is also used to
> render on other platforms (i.e. Linux programmers will use OpenGL
> whether or not they intend to write cross-platform applications).

Arguably because there's no other remotely decent choice.

    WTH

-- 
"I don't know all the cities in England, of course, but I do get the
feeling that Liverpool is something special." - Salif Diao

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>> Next you'll pedantically reply with "rewrote code", there's
>> certainly no reason why anyone would have to rewrite their code to
>> move a rendering system from DX5 to DX9.
>
> Apparently moving from DX8 to DX9 is a very minor
> change. This page lists the things which will break:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/directx9_c/directx/graphics/ConvertingToDirectX9.asp

Now you're being obtuse on purpose (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt 
about your earlier mistakes.)

It is incredibly minor.  Did you read the list?  Half of those items are 
"new enumerations" or "pass NULL for a new argument" the rest are "the 
struct you passed to this method before calling <function name> now just 
gets passed to <function name>."

Holy crap, that's really difficult.  That's a real issue for a software 
engineer.  How, oh how, will people ever move from 8 to 9?  Egads, it is 
un-possible.

Moving to a new DirectX interface is arguably easier than using a new OpenGL 
extension depending upon the extension and the DirectX feature (the point 
being you would want to argue the cases where the extension is easier but 
ignore the cases where it is not.)

> Moving from DX5 to DX9 is easier? Really??

Easier than what?  It is easy, it isn't easier than moving from 8 to 9.

    WTH 

>> What you've just said makes no sense at all.  I wanted to use HLSL
>> in a rendering system a company paid me to write for them just a
>> year ago, I only ended up billing them about 16 hours for updating
>> the rendering engine in order to move from one DX interface to the
>> latest and greatest and simultaneously move the programmable
>> pipeline code to hook to HLSL.  You really need to stop pretending
>> you know anything about DirectX because you quite obviously do not.
>>
>
> I only know what I read, eg.:

Of course, you only know what your read because you have no actual 
knowledgeable experience with DirectX, ergo, you are in no position to 
berate it.

> http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article1247.asp
>
> "Sometimes it is nice to start with a clean sheet of
> paper. While I can make jokes about Microsoft starting
> over eight times when it comes to DirectX,

Fungus, can you not be objective at all?  You are using ridiculous quotes 
about DirectX from people who have obvious biases against it, how else would 
someone describe each iteration of DirectX as "starting over"?  LOL.   I can 
google pages by DirectX idiots who do nothing but subjectively bash OpenGL 
but I can acknowledge that they're zealots, just like the links you're 
trying to use.

> the latest
> version of DirectX is Microsoft�s freshest start since
> DrawPrimitive came into style."
>
> "Since DX8 is so different..."
>
> "DirectDraw is dead, replaced completely by Direct3D."

What's that got to do with Direct3D?  DirectDraw was dropped from the *new* 
interfaces in DirectX.  If you want to use it, it is still there.

> etc.
>
> Uhuh. All those maintenance programmers must
> be having fun.

Well, seeing how you're not one and I am, you're certainly far less educated 
about the subject than I am.  It's easy, just don't write crap software.

    WTH 

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>> What the zealot who wrote that crap
>> fails to tell you is that at the EXACT same time, Micro$oft was
>> pushing VERY hard for the acceptance and advancement of OpenGL on NT
>> 3.5x/4.0.
>
> Of course....they wanted all those yummy Unix CAD
> programs to run on their "professional" OS.
>
> At the same time they were working as hard as possible
> to make sure OpenGL stayed out of their "consumer" OS.

You certainly needed to think that through a little bit better.  Microsoft 
charged more for which version of its software?  NT or 95?  People 
professionally working in OpenGL in the mid 90's ran on workstations or 
desktops?  Microsoft didn't want OpenGL accelerated on 95 (ergo Cosmo gl 
crap) so that they didn't have to compete *with their own product*.  Use 
some common sense.

>> I spent plenty of time dealing with the Micro$oft, Evans &
>> Sutherland, Intergraph, and a slew of other companies, dealing with
>> OpenGL issues which they were all more than too happy to help
>> dealing with.
>
> ...on Windows NT, yes.

Yes, as I made clear.

>> There was no nefarious 'get OpenGL out of the way' reasoning behind
>> no initial Win95 OGL support.  At that time, nobody used OpenGL for
>> commercial gaming at all.  It wasn't until 1997 that the first
>> commercial game (that I'm aware of, and this may very well be
>> erroneous) used OpenGL and that was glQuake if I'm not mistaken.
>>
>
> Before that it was either software or GLIDE.

Not true.  You could get OpenGL boards for NT 3.5 in 1994, in addition to 
that, even earlier with NT you could get boards like a SPEA that provided 
'drivers' for certain programs like auto-cad which would hardware 
accelerate.

>> OpenGL is great, DirectX is (now) great, depending upon your project
>> needs, you're in safe hands with either one.
>>
>
> ...until Windows Vista comes along and spoils that
> rosy picture by making OpenGL look bad to end users.

That would make no sense at all for Micro$oft.  They'd just lose droves more 
people to Linux, which is having a hard enough time with OpenGL.

    WTH 

Tony O'Bryan <storm_reaver@yahoo.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>
>> Tony O'Bryan <storm_reaver@yahoo.com> loquated like no one had ever
>> loquated before with:
>
> Please quote correctly if you quote at all.  Your message erroneously
> attributes your own text as a quote made by me.

I just erased your text as it was unnecessary, try not to get huffy about 
it.

    WTH 

> Actually, all those links describe behavior that is standard
> Microsoft fare. I'm sure the authors took a few descriptive liberties
> in places, but I have every reason to believe that the overall gist
> is accurate.

Actually you have no reason to believe it as I know for certain that it is 
factually incorrect and you have no idea whether it is or not, it just fits 
your subjective view of typical Micro$oft behavior (which is understandable 
but you should certain be capable of the objectivity to ignore it.)

>  Having watched Microsoft's underhanded tactics destroy
> the business software industry, there is no reason to believe it is
> not attempting the same with the gaming industry.

You don't find all of that a tad dramatic?

> For someone claiming the experience you claim, you should be clearly
> aware of Microsoft's EEE methodology.  That Microsoft was pushing
> hard for OpenGL acceptance on NT is no surprise.  That is the
> definitional first step of EEE.  I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but
> your description is reinforcing the premises of the articles to which
> fungus linked.

LOL, I know that Kissinger said "even paranoids have enemies" but you seem 
to enjoy the idea of a world filled with black and white...

Your statements in that paragraph quite clear sum up the all of the reasons 
a reader would need to dismiss your position as mere biased speculation.

> I'm sure you know this already, but just as a refresher, here is
> Microsoft's M.O.:
>
> 1) Recognize a superior product which will take away Microsoft's
> market share.

Such as?  (Don't make the mistake of saying Internet Explorer because you 
clearly stated market share.)  You could try to argue OS/2 but that wouldn't 
really work either.
Stick to the "Micro$oft makes it tough for competitors to play on level 
ground regarding their OS."

> 2) Buy the company outright if no one will notice, or adopt and
> integrate that company's technologies into Microsoft's own products
> (there's a good reason Microsoft is called Borg).  This is the
> Embrace stage.

I wonder if you find Google as nefarious as Micro$oft, as they are certainly 
doing these things.

> 3) Extend the Microsoft implementation to be incompatible with the
> rest of the industry

Such as?

> and lure developers into a dependency of this
> implementation. This is the Extend stage.

Developer dependency?  Why would a developer be dependent upon a single 
company for anything?

What is it with people and Micro$oft?  They're a nicer company than Oracle, 
but you don't hear people blathering on about Ellison all the time.  Who 
cares?  When I want to write something on *nix I use FreeBSD or Linux, if 
it's desktop software or a particular enterprise architecture, I use 
Windows, it's all a toolbox.  Zealotry is for the uneducated.

> 4) When developers are intractably dependent on the Microsoft
> bastardization of the industry standard

Please give us a concrete example of what you're talking about here, I don't 
know what you mean.  "Intractably dependent" [sic]?

>, remove or reduce support for
> the standard in order to favor the Microsoft implementation.  With
> too few customers to keep the industry solvent, the other businesses
> leave the market.  This is the Extinguish phase.

Maybe you'll come to realize that Microsoft just has more money, and will 
iterate their software until they get it right (or close to right.)  It's 
pretty simple really.
Take Apache/IIS for example.  IIS used to be an unmitigated disaster, now 
look at IIS 6, it's quite impressive actually.  I still prefer Apache 
because I can use it wherever I want, but that doesn't mean I can't 
appreciate, objectively, the quality of IIS.

In any case, Micro$oft has met its match in the EEE department simply 
through the explosive growth of OSS.  You can't extinguish that.

    WTH 

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> nobody wrote:
>>
>> Every company wants to drive their competition out of business, at
>> least out of their market. That's not news.
>>
>
> Monopolies should be held to a higher moral
> standard.

?  What about Sun?  What about Oracle?  They're arguably monopolies.  Want 
to see Microsoft lose marketshare?  Get Apple to sell OSX for x86.
I for one would LOVE to be able to triple boot slack, 2003 Server, and OSX.

> In theory there are laws to enforce this but
> the US Government seems unwilling to apply
> them to Microsoft.

Well, I somewhat agree with that, but many large companies in the US get 
this type of 'favorable' treatment.
I certainly expected the DOJ to hammer M$ for its somewhat 'lacklustre' 
compliance with earlier court decisions.

    WTH

-- 
"I don't know all the cities in England, of course, but I do get the
feeling that Liverpool is something special." - Salif Diao

Gernot Frisch <Me@Privacy.net> loquated like no one had ever loquated before 
with:

>> Not exactly. US are powered by philosophy
>> which makes everybody else their enemy.
>> They're in open conflict with many countires,
>> fighting hidden economical wars for decades
>> and are currently very active in information
>> warfare. MS is one of their weapons and
>> they're naturally unwilling to apply
>> restrictions to it...
>
> Uh-Oh - that's getting us off OpenGL, I guess...

How long until someone is 'nazified'?

    WTH 

> ouch! (Have you seen the price of an MSDN lately!?).

You can get free versions of MSDE, Visual Studio, and other tools from 
Microsoft (a relatively new development), plus there's gcc, the intel 
compiler and tools, Code Warrior, et cetera..

How much is OSX?  How much is a supported version of Red Hat?  Yadda^3..

    WTH
-- 
"I don't know all the cities in England, of course, but I do get the
feeling that Liverpool is something special." - Salif Diao

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> jbwest wrote:
>>
>> How much $ for a DirectX devkit? How about in
>> a few years when there's no OpenGL devkit
>> alternative?
>>
>
> Will we return to the days of Nintendo SNES?
>
> In those days you had to pay Nintendo to be
> allowed to develop games for their consoles
> ($50,000 developers kit)

You still have to do that today for modern console systems.

    WTH 

WTH wrote:
> 
> It is incredibly minor.  Did you read the list?  Half of those items are 
> "new enumerations" or "pass NULL for a new argument"

New arguments in the middle of a function...!

> Holy crap, that's really difficult.  That's a real issue for a software 
> engineer.  How, oh how, will people ever move from 8 to 9?  Egads, it is 
> un-possible.
> 

I'm not saying it's difficult, I'm saying it broke
your (working) code.

> Moving to a new DirectX interface is arguably easier than using a new OpenGL 
> extension depending upon the extension and the DirectX feature (the point 
> being you would want to argue the cases where the extension is easier but 
> ignore the cases where it is not.)
>  

OPenGL has never broken any code. I can take code
written ten years ago and compile it. It will use
the latest hardware even without a recompile.

In DirectX you still ahev to choose between hardware
T&L or software T&L when you choose the device. It
really shouldn't be necessary....

>>Moving from DX5 to DX9 is easier? Really??
> 
> Easier than what?  It is easy, it isn't easier than 
 > moving from 8 to 9.
> 

Moving from 8 to 9 isn't really so bad. Just look
at the compiler errors and tweak the code.

Moving from earlier versions needs a rethink. So
many things ar changed/missing, eg. execute buffers,
clip objects, etc. All gone. Code written a few years
ago simply isn't going to compile with the latest SDK,
period. No ifs, no buts, it really doesn't compile.

With OpenGL I don't even have to recompile, the exact
same executable will run and use updated features.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> Fungus, can you not be objective at all?  You are using ridiculous quotes 
> ab]=[out DirectX from people who have obvious biases against it

eg. The link from msdn.microsoft.com? Biased!!! LOL!



-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> 
>>...until Windows Vista comes along and spoils that
>>rosy picture by making OpenGL look bad to end users.
> 
> That would make no sense at all for Micro$oft.  They'd just lose droves more 
> people to Linux, which is having a hard enough time with OpenGL.
> 


As far as I can tell you really seem to be living
on another planet....Microsoft has announced its
plans for Windows Vista/OpenGL and it's designed
to make OpenGL look bad.

Early versions of Windows Vista/Aeroglass worked
perfectly with with OpenGL ICD drivers (eg. see
recent 3dlabs postings on opengl.org). Only
lately does it, um, "fail". The failure is 100%
deliberate policy, not for any tecnnical reasons.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>> It is incredibly minor.  Did you read the list?  Half of those items
>> are "new enumerations" or "pass NULL for a new argument"
>
> New arguments in the middle of a function...!

People who think that a method change in a NEW INTERFACE in DirectX really 
need to get a grip.

>> Holy crap, that's really difficult.  That's a real issue for a
>> software engineer.  How, oh how, will people ever move from 8 to 9? 
>> Egads, it is un-possible.
>>
>
> I'm not saying it's difficult, I'm saying it broke
> your (working) code.

It does not.  Moving to use a NEW INTERFACE, which you are under no 
obligation to do, means that MAYBE a couple of functions which have the same 
name as ones in the old interface have a new argument, oh wait.  That 
doesn't break my "working" code at all.  It means that my NEW code using the 
NEW interface using a NEW method that has the same name as the old method, 
can't use the old method's argument list.  Man, that's just ridiculous. 
LOL.

>> Moving to a new DirectX interface is arguably easier than using a
>> new OpenGL extension depending upon the extension and the DirectX
>> feature (the point being you would want to argue the cases where the
>> extension is easier but ignore the cases where it is not.)
>>
>
> OPenGL has never broken any code.

Neither has DirectX.

> I can take code
> written ten years ago and compile it. It will use
> the latest hardware even without a recompile.

You can do the same with DirectX, although I've heard that some hardware 
vendors don't handle DX3 execute buffers anymore.

> In DirectX you still ahev to choose between hardware
> T&L or software T&L when you choose the device. It
> really shouldn't be necessary....

Crazy, the idea that somebody may actually wish to enumerate the 
capabilities of a video card before choosing a rendering path.  Absolutely 
nuts that is.

>>> Moving from DX5 to DX9 is easier? Really??
>>
>> Easier than what?  It is easy, it isn't easier than
>> moving from 8 to 9.
>>
>
> Moving from 8 to 9 isn't really so bad. Just look
> at the compiler errors and tweak the code.

Why on earth would you do it so stupidly?  I certainly would read up on the 
differences between the interfaces, and then (most likely) create an 
alternate rendering path using 99.9% re-usable code so that I could run with 
whatever DirectX vesion I wanted to at the time, or just latest and 
greatest.

> Moving from earlier versions needs a rethink. So
> many things ar changed/missing, eg. execute buffers,

I'm sorry, but that's DX3 you're talking about, and to be honest, moving 
your rendering from execute buffers to more modern approaches is TRIVIAL. 
It's just a bunch of packed up immediate mode calls like a display list. 
Why do you insist on pretending it's like black magic?  Lol.

> clip objects, etc. All gone. Code written a few years
> ago simply isn't going to compile with the latest SDK,
> period. No ifs, no buts, it really doesn't compile.

Sure it will, it compiles fine.  Oh, wait, you mean to say "code written a 
few years ago will not compile if you tell it to use a NEW interface and new 
methods."  Of course it won't, that's why there are NEW interfaces.  You 
don't mind being deceptive do you? ;)

> With OpenGL I don't even have to recompile, the exact
> same executable will run and use updated features.

Oh, my goodness, the opportunities provided by that statement :).  A little 
deceptive again?

    WTH 

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>> Fungus, can you not be objective at all?  You are using ridiculous
>> quotes ab]=[out DirectX from people who have obvious biases against
>> it
>
> eg. The link from msdn.microsoft.com? Biased!!! LOL!

I'm sorry, I only see a link from gamedev in that post.  Is that not true? 
Is that not the post I am responding to?

    WTH 

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>>> ...until Windows Vista comes along and spoils that
>>> rosy picture by making OpenGL look bad to end users.
>>
>> That would make no sense at all for Micro$oft.  They'd just lose
>> droves more people to Linux, which is having a hard enough time with
>> OpenGL.
>
>
> As far as I can tell you really seem to be living
> on another planet....Microsoft has announced its
> plans for Windows Vista/OpenGL and it's designed
> to make OpenGL look bad.
>
> Early versions of Windows Vista/Aeroglass worked
> perfectly with with OpenGL ICD drivers (eg. see
> recent 3dlabs postings on opengl.org). Only
> lately does it, um, "fail". The failure is 100%
> deliberate policy, not for any tecnnical reasons.

It is a matter of common sense.  It has been 'leaked' that OpenGL will be 
layered over DirectX for Vista.
Now, that can mean many things.  Ask yourself this, how does the framebuffer 
in your video card get the rendered scene to the desktop?

    WTH

WTH wrote:
>>Early versions of Windows Vista/Aeroglass worked
>>perfectly with with OpenGL ICD drivers 
> 
> It has been 'leaked' that OpenGL will be layered
 > over DirectX for Vista.
> Now, that can mean many things.

According to Microsoft the OpenGL calls will be
remapped to corresponding Direct3D calls via
a wrapper layer.

> Ask your self this, how does the framebuffer 
> in your video card get the rendered scene to the desktop?
>

Ummm..yes. A framebuffer is a framebuffer, whether
it's rendered by OpenGL or DirectX. There's no
reason the window compositor can't work with an
OpenGL framebuffer, a guy from 3DLabs has openly
said it can be done...this is deliberate,
premeditated sabotage of OpenGL by Microsoft.

Microsoft wants OpenGL to stay at version 1.4,
ie. no VBOs, no shaders, nothing that will help
it compete with Direct3D on even ground in terms
of speed or rendering quality without turning off
Aeroglass first.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> 
> People who think that a method change in a NEW INTERFACE in DirectX really 
> need to get a grip.
> 

Ok, so we agree there's new interfaces and that
they're different.

> It does not.  Moving to use a NEW INTERFACE, which you are under no 
> obligation to do

So you think it's a good working practice to mix
Direct3D version 5/6/7/8/9 interfaces in the same
program...?



-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

"WTH" <spamsucks@Ih8it.com> wrote in message 
news:ZP_Pe.10126$N1.8816@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

> People who think that a method change in a NEW INTERFACE in DirectX really 
> need to get a grip.

I have trouble parsing this sentence.

fungus wrote:
>> OPenGL has never broken any code.

WTH wrote:
> Neither has DirectX.

The transition from DX9.0a to DX9.0b broke code that requested
various fonts because the interfaces changed.  So in fact DX has
broken code.  This meant you had to add conditional compilation
to allow users to compile based on which version of DX they had.

To play both sides of the fence, you have to question the assertion
that *not* having to change code is a Good Thing.  Hardware
evolves, and interfaces must follow.  Of course, you can argue about
the quality, efficiency, and user burden regarding those interfaces.

For what it is worth, the argument for some of us comes down to
amount of required maintenance.  I was hoping to be solely
OpenGL based to be portable and to reduce the amount of
renderer code to maintain.  If MS Windows evolves not to support
OpenGL efficiently, and given that many of my customers are on
the Windows platform, that means I have to maintain a DX renderer.
A company's policy decision has the consequence of my having to
maintain twice as much code as I really want to.  Naturally, I can
choose to abandon DX and Windows, but sadly, that is not the
reality of writing software folks can use on any platform *they*
choose.

> To play both sides of the fence, you have to question the assertion
> that *not* having to change code is a Good Thing.  Hardware
> evolves, and interfaces must follow.  Of course, you can argue about
> the quality, efficiency, and user burden regarding those interfaces.

Then you're got the issue of a developer compiling against DX9 when the code
didn't go higher than DX8, which unnecessarily locked a large chunk of their
customer base out. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the issue of
scalability, which pressures customers again.

Since discussing these issues in here several years ago, I'd hoped things
would've moved on by now. In some ways it has, in some ways it hasn't, but
that's life. Personally, I suspect, the best course is accepting DX as an
inevitability, but positively advocating OGL's benefits.

And here's where, I think, developers who favour OGL might have an
advantage. If they cogently translate their understanding into something
customers can understand and see with their own eyes, they'll get the best
friend they could have on their side, in their millions.

Success has many friends. A loser has none.

-- 
Charles E. Hardwidge.

wasting time wrote:
> To play both sides of the fence, you have to question the assertion
> that *not* having to change code is a Good Thing.

I think it's best to be able to choose.

If you go with Microsoft then you end up
on a treadmill and Microsoft controls the
speed.

Old programs may still run in theory (though
I've got a few which don't) but the code
won't compile on the latest SDK. The latest
SDK only has DirectX 8 and 9 in it. No code
written before that will compile under it
without rewriting, and a lot of the changes
are big ones.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

> If you go with Microsoft then you end up
> on a treadmill and Microsoft controls the
> speed.
>
> Old programs may still run in theory (though
> I've got a few which don't) but the code
> won't compile on the latest SDK.

Extend, embrace, and extinguish is a well known strategy they're used to
great effect with business applications, in the case of Microsoft Office,
and seems to be coming in to play with games, looking at it from the volume
perspective.

I was a great fan, and remain a great fan, of SmartSuite, which slipped
behind in terms of visual and portability appeal, while remaining
technically excellent to the end. As you commented earlier, Microsoft won
the battle of marketing.

Again, I think, instead of focusing on Microsoft, which is what they want,
if the advantages of OGL are more purposely advocated, it's more likely to
make them look as if they're on the back foot. Politically, this is
dynamite, and a good morale boost to the OGL cause.

The best form of defence is to attack.

-- 
Charles E. Hardwidge.

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>> People who think that a method change in a NEW INTERFACE in DirectX
>> really need to get a grip.
>>
>
> Ok, so we agree there's new interfaces and that
> they're different.
>
>> It does not.  Moving to use a NEW INTERFACE, which you are under no
>> obligation to do
>
> So you think it's a good working practice to mix
> Direct3D version 5/6/7/8/9 interfaces in the same
> program...?

What on earth are you babbling about now?  If you want to move to a new 
interface, do so. If you want to run your DX5 application, or recompile it 
with changes, do so.

    WTH

-- 
"Life is only worth experiencing if you are prepared to go beyond the
edge." - G�rard Houllier

wasting time <wastingtime@whileatwork.com> loquated like no one had ever 
loquated before with:

> "WTH" <spamsucks@Ih8it.com> wrote in message
> news:ZP_Pe.10126$N1.8816@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>> People who think that a method change in a NEW INTERFACE in DirectX
>> really need to get a grip.
>
> I have trouble parsing this sentence.

You should, it's a typo ;).  What I had meant to say is that people who 
think that method signature changing in a NEW INTERFACE is something 
unacceptable are being ridiculous.  Don't want to change ANY your code? 
Don't move to a new interface, simple.  People like fungus like to pretend 
that any little difference is a huge stumbling block to objective criticism 
of Direct3D.  It's really pretty simple.  Most games are written in DirectX 
using Direct3D (DirectXGraphics is the more recent name for the same thing) 
and most of the truly talented 3D developers are working in the games 
industry, and they choose DirectX.  Now, who would (without stupid 
conspiracy theories) believe that they would choose D3D over OpenGL for any 
reasons other than technical considerations?

> fungus wrote:
>>> OPenGL has never broken any code.
>
> WTH wrote:
>> Neither has DirectX.

> The transition from DX9.0a to DX9.0b broke code that requested
> various fonts because the interfaces changed.  So in fact DX has
> broken code.

Yes, and this was an accident.  How many examples from Linux would you like 
where OpenGL is broken across multiple distributions (because of accidents, 
not by design)?  I guess that OpenGL breaks code as well.

> This meant you had to add conditional compilation
> to allow users to compile based on which version of DX they had.

?  Don't see why you would find yourself doing that.

> To play both sides of the fence, you have to question the assertion
> that *not* having to change code is a Good Thing.  Hardware
> evolves, and interfaces must follow.  Of course, you can argue about
> the quality, efficiency, and user burden regarding those interfaces.

I'm not interested in disparaging OpenGL, I just don't like people using 
their subjective ignorance (like fungus) and bashing something undeservedly.

> For what it is worth, the argument for some of us comes down to
> amount of required maintenance.  I was hoping to be solely
> OpenGL based to be portable and to reduce the amount of
> renderer code to maintain.  If MS Windows evolves not to support
> OpenGL efficiently, and given that many of my customers are on
> the Windows platform, that means I have to maintain a DX renderer.
> A company's policy decision has the consequence of my having to
> maintain twice as much code as I really want to.  Naturally, I can
> choose to abandon DX and Windows, but sadly, that is not the
> reality of writing software folks can use on any platform *they*
> choose.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it rather useful to write rendering systems 
which are API agnostics and simple plug an API into the back of it.
I actually have one for my last company that renders in both OpenGL and 
DirectX simultaneously (in different windows of course) and the performance 
is surprisingly good. ;)

    WTH 

WTH wrote:
> fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
> before with:
> 
>>OpenGL has never broken any code.
> 
> Neither has DirectX.
> 

Can you compile your old programs using the
latest SDK? I don't see any Direct3D 3/4/5/6/7
header files or libraries in there.

Microsoft's stated policy is "API churn"
- change the APIs often enough that the
emulators can't keep up.

If you're a developer then you have to play
along with Microsoft, simple as that. I
really don't see how you can deny this.

If you want your code to stay "current" then
you have to refactor/rewrite it at each
release. This might be a lot of work or it
might be very little, depending on how well
you plan ahead, but it has to be done.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Charles E Hardwidge <nospam@nospam.co.uk> loquated like no one had ever 
loquated before with:

>> To play both sides of the fence, you have to question the assertion
>> that *not* having to change code is a Good Thing.  Hardware
>> evolves, and interfaces must follow.  Of course, you can argue about
>> the quality, efficiency, and user burden regarding those interfaces.
>
> Then you're got the issue of a developer compiling against DX9 when
> the code didn't go higher than DX8, which unnecessarily locked a
> large chunk of their customer base out. And that doesn't even begin
> to touch on the issue of scalability, which pressures customers again.

I can compile DX5 code with the against DX9 just fine.

    WTH

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
> Again, I think, instead of focusing on Microsoft, which is what they want,
> if the advantages of OGL are more purposely advocated, it's more likely to
> make them look as if they're on the back foot. Politically, this is
> dynamite, and a good morale boost to the OGL cause.
> 

I'm not sure how this works...end users don't
care what API a program uses, and developers
should really choose the API which give the end
user the best experience (if they're smart).

 From Windows Vista onwards this will be
Direct3D because OpenGL will be crippled.

> The best form of defence is to attack.
> 

So what's the cest attack. You can emulate
Direct3D on other platforms via an wrapper
layer to OpenGL, but there's a new problem
on the horizon - shaders. Shaders are a lot
harder to emulate than a vertex buffer (they
need a language translation not just a remap).

What would be really cool is if the driver
writers allow OpenGL to run Direct3D shaders
directly. It would be easy enough for them
to do (assuming their contracts with MS allow
it).


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> 
> I can compile DX5 code with the against DX9 just fine.
> 

I don't see any DirectX5 headers in my copy
of the SDK....




-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> wasting time wrote:
>> To play both sides of the fence, you have to question the assertion
>> that *not* having to change code is a Good Thing.
>
> I think it's best to be able to choose.
>
> If you go with Microsoft then you end up
> on a treadmill and Microsoft controls the
> speed.

Funny, I've been using OpenGL on Windoze for 11 years now.  Microsoft hasn't 
been touching any treadmill...

> Old programs may still run in theory (though
> I've got a few which don't) but the code
> won't compile on the latest SDK.

Bullshit, I compile DX5 code just fine with the latest.  Out of curiousity, 
I just built an old DirectDraw (DirectDraw2 interface) piece of code as 
well, compiled fine, runs fine.  Maybe the problem is you.

> The latest
> SDK only has DirectX 8 and 9 in it.

Total bullshit.

> No code
> written before that will compile under it
> without rewriting, and a lot of the changes
> are big ones.

Again, total bullshit.  That is flat out wrong.  I don't think you'd lie 
about it fungus, but I've no difficulty at all building several old projects 
and running them just fine.

    WTH 

> Can you compile your old programs using the
> latest SDK? I don't see any Direct3D 3/4/5/6/7
> header files or libraries in there.

Yep, just fine.  Maybe you should read up on how DirectX is actually 
implemented.  Ignorance of DirectX is a big part of your objectivity problem 
fungus.

> Microsoft's stated policy is "API churn"
> - change the APIs often enough that the
> emulators can't keep up.

Really...  I've never heard them state that this was their policy.  You 
conspiracy theorists have got a story for everything.

> If you're a developer then you have to play
> along with Microsoft, simple as that. I
> really don't see how you can deny this.

?  You should define what that means.  I've been an all-platform developer 
since the mid-90's and I don't see how Microsoft's APIs have changed any 
differently than Apple's, SUN's, TrollTech's, GTK's, et cetera...

> If you want your code to stay "current" then
> you have to refactor/rewrite it at each
> release.

You're really clueless.  I haven't had to 'refactor' anything because of 
interface change since DX3's execute buffers and then it was refactoring a 
very small area of code dealing with vertex submission.  Shall we get onto 
the topics of extensions in OpenGL and refactoring?  Lol.

> This might be a lot of work or it
> might be very little, depending on how well
> you plan ahead, but it has to be done.

That's the most sensible thing I've seen you post in this thread, of course, 
if you want to plan on using new features in EITHER API you must do the same 
thing.  You sort of forgot to mention that.

    WTH 

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>> I can compile DX5 code with the against DX9 just fine.
>>
>
> I don't see any DirectX5 headers in my copy
> of the SDK....

You've got no clue what you're doing, do you?

    WTH 

WTH wrote:
> 
> Funny, I've been using OpenGL on Windoze for 11 years now.  Microsoft hasn't 
> been touching any treadmill...
> 

Ever hear of the "ARB"?

>>The latest
>>SDK only has DirectX 8 and 9 in it.
> 
> Total bullshit.
> 

???


cd DirectX SDK\Include
dir /w

[.]             [..]            d3d.h           d3d8.h 
     d3d8caps.h
d3d8types.h     d3d9.h          d3d9caps.h      d3d9types.h 
     d3dcaps.h
d3drm.h         d3drmdef.h      d3drmobj.h      d3drmwin.h 
     d3dtypes.h
d3dvec.inl      d3dx9.h         d3dx9anim.h     d3dx9core.h 
     d3dx9effect.h
d3dx9math.h     d3dx9math.inl   d3dx9mesh.h 
d3dx9shader.h   d3dx9shape.h
d3dx9tex.h      d3dx9xof.h      ddraw.h         dinput.h 
     dinputd.h
dls1.h          dls2.h          dmdls.h         dmerror.h 
     dmksctrl.h
dmplugin.h      dmusbuff.h      dmusicc.h       dmusicf.h 
     dmusici.h
dmusics.h       dpaddr.h        dplay.h         dplay8.h 
     dplobby.h
dplobby8.h      dpnathlp.h      dsconf.h        dsetup.h 
     dsound.h
dvoice.h        dvp.h           dx7todx8.h      dxdiag.h 
     dxerr8.h
dxerr9.h        dxfile.h        dxsdkver.h      dxtrans.h 
     multimon.h
PIXPlugin.h     rmxfguid.h      rmxftmpl.h      strsafe.h
               62 File(s)      2,810,799 bytes
                2 Dir(s)   7,307,743,232 bytes free





-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

> I'm not sure how this works...end users don't care what API a program
> uses, and developers should really choose the API which give the end user
> the best experience (if they're smart).

Well, as we discussed a few years ago, the final choice is a mix of
technical factors, usability, and politics. The technical and usability
factors are easily quantifiable and not something likely to create
disagreement. The hard part is politics.

> So what's the best attack?

Firstly, I think, a sober assesment of all the factors involved in a
decision need to be compiled. They're generic across industries and won't be
much of a surprise to anyone. Next, you just have to make a case and
communicate that to customers and regulators.

>  You can emulate Direct3D on other platforms via an wrapper layer to
> OpenGL, but there's a new problem on the horizon - shaders. [...] What
> would be really cool is if the driver writers allow OpenGL to run Direct3D
> shaders directly.

Certainly, there's nothing stopping either of those two things. It might be
a useful strategy if it fits neatly behind the bigger campaign. Personally,
I'd rather maintain the abstraction, but would go with a positive consensus
if that improves OGL's long-term position.

One thing I would like to see is the ARB take communication and promotion
more seriously, and encourage the various inside parties to support a more
public, positive, and unified agenda out to developers, customers, and any
other interested third-party.

A divided house will fall.

-- 
Charles E. Hardwidge.

>Most games are written in DirectX using Direct3D (DirectXGraphics is the
>more recent name for the same thing) and most of the truly talented 3D
>developers are working in the games industry, and they choose DirectX.
>Now, who would (without stupid  conspiracy theories) believe that they
>would choose D3D over OpenGL for any reasons other than technical
>considerations?

Microsoft's agressive developer programme in the early years, inertia, and
critical mass take up the slack between technical  considerations and API
choice. This is well documented and commented on. Their latest move, as
gatekeeper, only serves to reinforce this position.

While I won't undermine the work done by many game developers, they tend to
spend their time rediscovering work done decades ago, and real progress has
been built on the efforts of academia, industry, and hardware vendors. Most
success is really down to bringing products to market.

I'm really big on trying to build good customer relationships and, often,
the active role of customers in the development of better products and
services isn't highlighted as often as it might be. Again, I think, there's
some scope here for OGL's cause to reach out.

-- 
Charles E. Hardwidge.

>> If you're a developer then you have to play along with Microsoft, simple
>> as that. I really don't see how you can deny this.
>
> You should define what that means.

All roads lead to Rome.

Another lesson is that the Mongols (Sony) weakened Rome (Microsoft) to the
point where it collapsed from the inside out (X-Box), leaving a small tiny
island (Britain), to emerge as the largest empire the world had ever seen.

Things change.

Seriously, I think, there's been a lot of interesting perspectives from all
sides of the discussion, but the real focus shouldn't be the past. That's
dead and gone. The challenge is to accept realities, whatever they are, and
build a positive consensus for the future. After all, that's where we live.

"The best way to predict the future is to create it." - Peter Drucker.

Anyway, that's got nothing to do with the API.

-- 
Charles E. Hardwidge

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>... most of the truly talented 3D developers are
>>working in the games industry,  and they choose DirectX.
> 
> While I won't undermine the work done by many game developers

I've said this before and I'll say it again:

"Professional games are different"

These people don't choose an API because of
elegance, good design, future-proofing or
anything like that.

Many, many of those talented games developers
*did* petition Microsoft (quite literally) at
the beginning of this API "war" to go with
OpenGL instead of DirectX. They could see that
it was a superior design, etc.

Microsoft turned a deaf ear. They made the
entire industry suffer all the growing pains
of Direct3D and probably set things back by
a few years overall.

> Again, I think, there's some scope here for
 > OGL's cause to reach out.
> 

Unfortunately for the world the only "cause"
left for OpenGL is it's cross platform ability.

Microsoft has used it's monopoly to force-feed
the runt to the point where there's not an awful
lot to choose between them on paper. The only
real difference is one of style - COM and
ALLCAPITALLETTERS vs. the slightly more laid
back OpenGL style. Take your pick.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> but the real focus shouldn't be the past. That's
> dead and gone. The challenge is to accept realities,
 > whatever they are, and build a positive consensus
 > for the future. After all, that's where we live.
> 

I agree with that...

> Anyway, that's got nothing to do with the API.
> 

....but I'm not sure I agree with that. Open APIs
are the key to change. Every time you shrug your
shoulders and use a lock-in API out of sheer
inertia you make it harder for revolution to
appear.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
>>Microsoft's stated policy is "API churn"
>>- change the APIs often enough that the
>>emulators can't keep up.
> 
> Really...  I've never heard them state that this was their policy.  You 
> conspiracy theorists have got a story for everything.
> 

Well...obviously they didn't do a press
presentation complete with powerpoint slides
for this one. Duh!


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>> Early versions of Windows Vista/Aeroglass worked
>>> perfectly with with OpenGL ICD drivers
>>
>> It has been 'leaked' that OpenGL will be layered
>> over DirectX for Vista.
>> Now, that can mean many things.
>
> According to Microsoft the OpenGL calls will be
> remapped to corresponding Direct3D calls via
> a wrapper layer.

You mean "according to somebody who posted to a gaming site, who got it from 
a gaming forum, from someone who spoke to somebody who attended WinHEC". 
OpenGL calls made through a non-ICD driver will be mapped to non-OpenGL 
calls (however the graphics layer gets implemented in Vista, for the beta 
thats DX.)  This is the part that is so humorous about your DirectX posts 
fungus, you've no idea what you're talking about and you take highly 
questionable information as evidence.  The RUMOURS are that all graphics 
calls into the next generation Vista graphics driver model will be mapped, 
irrespective of API (for compatibility reasons), into WFG (or whatever 
they're calling it today) calls.  In the beta, the WFG calls are currently 
mapping into DirectX.  RUMOURS suggest that this means Aeroglass will be 
disabled while OpenGL is running through an ICD.  Ergo, you can still use 
OpenGL just fine even just listening to the RUMOURS.

>> Ask your self this, how does the framebuffer
>> in your video card get the rendered scene to the desktop?
>
> Ummm..yes. A framebuffer is a framebuffer, whether
> it's rendered by OpenGL or DirectX. There's no
> reason the window compositor can't work with an
> OpenGL framebuffer, a guy from 3DLabs has openly
> said it can be done...this is deliberate,
> premeditated sabotage of OpenGL by Microsoft.

Like I said, you're clueless.  RUMOURS suggest that non-ICD OpenGL calls 
will be mapped to the new windows graphics engine.  The XP driver model is 
fully supported (meaning ICDs are supporting) meaning OpenGL in all its 
glory is supported.  RUMOURS state that the mapping will map up to the 1.4 
OpenGL specification.

> Microsoft wants OpenGL to stay at version 1.4,
> ie. no VBOs, no shaders, nothing that will help
> it compete with Direct3D on even ground in terms
> of speed or rendering quality without turning off
> Aeroglass first.

Funny, what do people use now to compete with Direct3D (hint, messy code 
called ***ensions...)

    WTH 

As I said before, you've no clue what you're doing.

    WTH

>> Most games are written in DirectX using Direct3D (DirectXGraphics is
>> the more recent name for the same thing) and most of the truly
>> talented 3D developers are working in the games industry, and they
>> choose DirectX. Now, who would (without stupid  conspiracy theories)
>> believe that they would choose D3D over OpenGL for any reasons other
>> than technical considerations?
>
> Microsoft's agressive developer programme in the early years,
> inertia, and critical mass take up the slack between technical 
> considerations and API choice. This is well documented and commented
> on. Their latest move, as gatekeeper, only serves to reinforce this
> position.

Sorry, no reasonably intelligent person who has been out of uni for more 
than 3 years as a software engineer falls for crap like that.
Marketing and "critical mass" taking up the slack between what real game 
developers know?  Puh-leeze.  You're literally saying that technical leads 
for game development companies are either (a)stupid or (b)do not get to 
choose their technology.  That's just wrong.

> While I won't undermine the work done by many game developers, they
> tend to spend their time rediscovering work done decades ago, and
> real progress has been built on the efforts of academia, industry,
> and hardware vendors. Most success is really down to bringing
> products to market.

I'm sorry but they would most likely disagree with you strongly.  Real 
progress in real-time 3D graphics coming from academia and industry?  That's 
pretty funny.  See "Carmack" for why.

> I'm really big on trying to build good customer relationships and,
> often, the active role of customers in the development of better
> products and services isn't highlighted as often as it might be.
> Again, I think, there's some scope here for OGL's cause to reach out.

Yes, it's all a part of the toolbox, some projects fit OpenGL well, some 
projects fit DirectX well, some fit both, and some very rarely fit 
neither...

    WTH 

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>> ... most of the truly talented 3D developers are
>>> working in the games industry,  and they choose DirectX.
>>
>> While I won't undermine the work done by many game developers
>
> I've said this before and I'll say it again:
>
> "Professional games are different"

Yes, they are.  The tend to be peopled with the most driven, capable, and 
talented 3D deveopers in the world.

> These people don't choose an API because of
> elegance, good design, future-proofing or
> anything like that.

Really?  Then why'd Carmack go with OpenGL?  I thought it was for most of 
those reasons.  Don't know for sure what you mean by "future proofing". 
OpenGL offers nothing better in that regard than Direct3D does (it used to 
though, back in DX6 days.)

> Many, many of those talented games developers
> *did* petition Microsoft (quite literally) at
> the beginning of this API "war" to go with
> OpenGL instead of DirectX. They could see that
> it was a superior design, etc.

What a crock of malarkey, lol.  How many is 'many'?  BTW, how many video 
cards even offered a partial OpenGL implementation when DirectX was 
introduced?  How many offered a full implmentation?  You really are talking 
out of your rear.

> Microsoft turned a deaf ear. They made the
> entire industry suffer all the growing pains
> of Direct3D and probably set things back by
> a few years overall.

Yeah, right.  The only reason we have an OpenGL spec greater than 1.2 today 
is because of DirectX.  OpenGL was moving very slowly (it still does to be 
honest, especially since we rely on extensions now for functionality that 
should be introduced just a bit faster into the spec itself.)

>> Again, I think, there's some scope here for
>> OGL's cause to reach out.
>
> Unfortunately for the world the only "cause"
> left for OpenGL is it's cross platform ability.

Well, it depends on what you want to do.  Certain types of rendering I would 
only do in OpenGL, others in DirectX.  Cross platform is definitely the 
easiest way to single out one over the other, but for the most part they're 
equivalent.

> Microsoft has used it's monopoly to force-feed
> the runt to the point where there's not an awful
> lot to choose between them on paper. The only
> real difference is one of style - COM and
> ALLCAPITALLETTERS vs. the slightly more laid
> back OpenGL style. Take your pick.

Funny, you don't have to know anything about COM to use Direct3D (and 
haven't for several years.)

    WTH


-- 
"I notice a former captain of ours said recently that this squad is so
good that we don't need a manager. I took this as a great compliment.
He must have changed his mind since leaving as he said at the time that
Phil Thompson and I would drag the club down. On that point I suppose
he was right - we dragged the club down to Cardiff three times in the
last 10 months." - G�rard Houllier

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>> Microsoft's stated policy is "API churn"
>>> - change the APIs often enough that the
>>> emulators can't keep up.
>>
>> Really...  I've never heard them state that this was their policy. You 
>> conspiracy theorists have got a story for everything.
>>
>
> Well...obviously they didn't do a press
> presentation complete with powerpoint slides
> for this one. Duh!

So you heard this whilst hiding in Bill G's office?

    WTH

-- 
"These players are my true heroes." - G�rard Houllier

> Anyway, that's got nothing to do with the API.

>...but I'm not sure I agree with that. Open APIs are the key to change.
>Every time you shrug your shoulders and use a lock-in API out of sheer
>inertia you make it harder for revolution to appear.

I was pulling a Paul Martz. Between us, we've covered most realistic
perspectives. Unless you're getting into the detail, which has all been said
before, it runs the risk of getting religious and too personal.

Microsoft are swimming against the tide and constraining OGL is just their
way of putting off the inevitable, as momentum tilts towards other
platforms, like *nix, OS/X, and PlayStation 3.

So, instead of getting depressed about things, there's a lot achievements to
count, as Microsoft have proven by duplicating OGL, and more to come in the
future, as the market evolves and Microsoft responds, as it will have to.

-- 
Charles E. Hardwidge.

>> Well...obviously they didn't do a press presentation complete with
>> powerpoint slides for this one. Duh!
>
> So you heard this whilst hiding in Bill G's office?

Microsoft are using textbook strategies to achieve their ends, which is the
success of everything Microsoft, but that's not important. What is important
is how OGL supporters deal with this.

Personally, I think, the future remains with open and accountable standards,
and if Microoft weren't so precious about D3D and OGL, everyone would be a
lot better off in the long run.

The best relationships which achieve the most are open, positive, and
constructive, and I don't see why Microsoft shouldn't embrace this, and bury
the pseudo hatchet between D3D and OGL.

-- 
Charles E. Hardwidge

> Like I said, you're clueless.  RUMOURS suggest that non-ICD OpenGL calls
> will be mapped to the new windows graphics engine.  The XP driver model is
> fully supported (meaning ICDs are supporting) meaning OpenGL in all its
> glory is supported.  RUMOURS state that the mapping will map up to the 1.4
> OpenGL specification.

Why should Microsoft stab OGL in the back when one uncorrected allegation
has OGL supporters running around like headless chickens, and more customers
and developers sweating to side with Rome? Rumours, maybe. On the other hand
it's a fact that Microsoft hasn't corrected those rumours. A simple press
release stating their position on OGL would've done it.

The thing is, Microsoft have a track record of strong-arming the
competition, whether it's OGL, HTML, or DOC, and a hint they might change
the rules of the game is something that's easily fuelled by this, and not
helped by misleading comments from their head of D3D development, which we
saw only a few years ago, when D3D was still playing catch-up.

Again, I think, it's best to take as cautious a view of these things as
possible, and stay calm while you wait for the other shoe to drop. It may
just turn out to be a miscommunication, which wouldn't surprise me, or an
over-enthusiastic apparatchik who isn't representative of company policy,
which wouldn't surprise me either.

-- 
Charles E. Hardwidge

WTH wrote:
> As I said before, you've no clue what you're doing.
> 
>     WTH

Christ man, can you just stop the remarks and tell us *HOW* to do it then!!
(compile DX5 code with latest SDK)


Thanks,
Mike

WTH wrote:
> As I said before, you've no clue what you're doing.
> 


Acyually you've just proved my point for me...

....well done!

If you load up an old DirectX project and try
to compile it it doesn't work. It tells you all
the old interfaces are missing. You have to edit
your code and put some special "#defines" in
there to get it to compile. Then you have to edit
your project settings to change library files.


I don't recall ever having to do that with OpenGL.



-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
> before with:
> 
>>Well...obviously they didn't do a press
>>presentation complete with powerpoint slides
>>for this one. Duh!
> 
> So you heard this whilst hiding in Bill G's office?
> 


No I read it in the internal "doomsday" memo revealed
during the Microsoft antitrust case. I'm sure you can
manage to find a copy on the web.


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
> before with:
> 
>>According to Microsoft the OpenGL calls will be
>>remapped to corresponding Direct3D calls via
>>a wrapper layer.
> 
> 
> You mean "according to somebody who posted to a gaming site, who got it from 
> a gaming forum, from someone who spoke to somebody who attended WinHEC".

No, I mean "according to the powerpoint
presentation on the Microsoft web site".

http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWPR05007_WinHEC05.ppt



> This is the part that is so humorous about your DirectX posts 
> fungus, you've no idea what you're talking about and you take highly 
> questionable information as evidence.

That's the MICROSOFT web site....

....As in "microsoft.com".


 > The RUMOURS are that all graphics
 > calls into the next generation....

And the people at opengl.org obviously know
nothing either:

http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001


>>Microsoft wants OpenGL to stay at version 1.4,
>>ie. no VBOs, no shaders, nothing that will help
>>it compete with Direct3D on even ground in terms
>>of speed or rendering quality without turning off
>>Aeroglass first.
> 
> 
> Funny, what do people use now to compete with Direct3D (hint, messy code 
> called ***ensions...)
> 

What's this supposed to be? Flame bait...?




-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Mike Austin <no@spam.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated before 
with:

> WTH wrote:
>> As I said before, you've no clue what you're doing.
>>
>>     WTH
>
> Christ man, can you just stop the remarks and tell us *HOW* to do it
> then!! (compile DX5 code with latest SDK)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Mike

Compile it.

For example, an old DDraw project I have lying around, know what I did to 
build it with the DX9 SDK (DirectDraw is not part of the DX9 interface by 
the way)?  I opened the project up in Visual Studio and selected "Rebuild 
all".  That's it.

    WTH


-- 
"Taxi drivers know best." - Rafael Ben�tez

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>> As I said before, you've no clue what you're doing.
>>
>
>
> Acyually you've just proved my point for me...
>
> ...well done!
>
> If you load up an old DirectX project and try
> to compile it it doesn't work. It tells you all
> the old interfaces are missing. You have to edit
> your code and put some special "#defines" in
> there to get it to compile. Then you have to edit
> your project settings to change library files.

No it doesn't.  I compiled several applications today that use DirectDraw 
and DX5 interfaces and I didn't have to change A SINGLE THING.  Other than 
receiving some notifications from Visual Studio that some windows calls were 
now deprecated (nothing to do with Direct3D or DirectX.)

    WTH



-- 
"Taxi drivers know best." - Rafael Ben�tez

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>> fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever
>> loquated before with:
>>
>>> Well...obviously they didn't do a press
>>> presentation complete with powerpoint slides
>>> for this one. Duh!
>>
>> So you heard this whilst hiding in Bill G's office?
>>
>
>
> No I read it in the internal "doomsday" memo revealed
> during the Microsoft antitrust case. I'm sure you can
> manage to find a copy on the web.

Why don't you just save us all some time by posting a link to it.  Surely 
it's tattooed on your backside, right? ;)

    WTH

-- 
"Taxi drivers know best." - Rafael Ben�tez

WTH wrote:
>>These people don't choose an API because of
>>elegance, good design, future-proofing or
>>anything like that.
> 
> Really?  Then why'd Carmack go with OpenGL?

This is well documented, try reading something.


>>Many, many of those talented games developers
>>*did* petition Microsoft (quite literally) at
>>the beginning of this API "war" to go with
>>OpenGL instead of DirectX. They could see that
>>it was a superior design, etc.
> 
> 
> What a crock of malarkey, lol.  How many is 'many'?

I posted a link to the petition somewhere near the
start of this thread. You can count them if you
want...



-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Charles E Hardwidge <nospam@nospam.co.uk> loquated like no one had ever 
loquated before with:

>> Like I said, you're clueless.  RUMOURS suggest that non-ICD OpenGL
>> calls will be mapped to the new windows graphics engine.  The XP
>> driver model is fully supported (meaning ICDs are supporting)
>> meaning OpenGL in all its glory is supported.  RUMOURS state that
>> the mapping will map up to the 1.4 OpenGL specification.
>
> Why should Microsoft stab OGL in the back when one uncorrected
> allegation has OGL supporters running around like headless chickens,
> and more customers and developers sweating to side with Rome?
> Rumours, maybe. On the other hand it's a fact that Microsoft hasn't
> corrected those rumours. A simple press release stating their
> position on OGL would've done it.

No offense Charles, and Micro$oft is certainly no corporate angel, but if 
they went out of their way to dispell every rumour they'd have to double 
their communications budget.  Plus, it's a rumour started about a product 
that's in beta, and the rumour doesn't say that OpenGL is being dropped at 
all.  They probably think "what is all the fuss about?"

> The thing is, Microsoft have a track record of strong-arming the
> competition, whether it's OGL, HTML, or DOC, and a hint they might
> change the rules of the game is something that's easily fuelled by
> this, and not helped by misleading comments from their head of D3D
> development, which we saw only a few years ago, when D3D was still
> playing catch-up.

As does every other large corporation in the US.

> Again, I think, it's best to take as cautious a view of these things
> as possible, and stay calm while you wait for the other shoe to drop.
> It may just turn out to be a miscommunication, which wouldn't
> surprise me, or an over-enthusiastic apparatchik who isn't
> representative of company policy, which wouldn't surprise me either.

Indeed, I certainly do not advocate blind belief that Micro$oft would not 
use its inertia to its advantage, of course it would, that is what public 
companies do.  IBM, SUN, Oracle, even SGI.  Ever wonder why SGI made OpenGL 
'open'? ;)

WTH

-- 
"Taxi drivers know best." - Rafael Ben�tez

WTH wrote:
> 
>>No I read it in the internal "doomsday" memo revealed
>>during the Microsoft antitrust case. I'm sure you can
>>manage to find a copy on the web.
> 
> 
> Why don't you just save us all some time by posting a link to it.  Surely 
> it's tattooed on your backside, right? ;)
> 

I've posted dozens of links to stuff and
you've ignored them all. Why should this
be any different?


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>> fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever
>> loquated before with:
>>
>>> According to Microsoft the OpenGL calls will be
>>> remapped to corresponding Direct3D calls via
>>> a wrapper layer.
>>
>>
>> You mean "according to somebody who posted to a gaming site, who got
>> it from a gaming forum, from someone who spoke to somebody who
>> attended WinHEC".
>
> No, I mean "according to the powerpoint
> presentation on the Microsoft web site".
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWPR05007_WinHEC05.ppt

Maybe if you'd bothered to read the PPT slides you'd realize that what you 
state is false.

Here's from the PPT that YOU posted the link to:

    Continue to support OpenGL ICDs
    Can be shipped by OEMs
    New ICDs required for LDDM
    Old XP ICDs work with XP driver model in Longhorn

>> This is the part that is so humorous about your DirectX posts
>> fungus, you've no idea what you're talking about and you take highly
>> questionable information as evidence.
>
> That's the MICROSOFT web site....
>
> ...As in "microsoft.com".

Maybe you're just confused, again, because the PPT sure doesn't say what you 
seem to think it does.  The crap you were spouting about it being gone and 
then respouted as 'OpenGL will be mapped..." is crap.  You probably failed 
to note that the LDD model has all DirectX interfaces mapping into the 
kernel level graphics system as well.  Hmmm, I wonder why the XP driver 
model is used by Vista?  Crazy...

>> The RUMOURS are that all graphics
>> calls into the next generation....
>
> And the people at opengl.org obviously know
> nothing either:
>
> http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001

That's right.  The article is pure stupidity.

>>> Microsoft wants OpenGL to stay at version 1.4,

Just like it's not possible to use 1.4 on XP, right?  Funny, I have somehow 
gotten something better than 1.2 on my XP Pro box, I must be a miracle 
worker!

>>> ie. no VBOs, no shaders, nothing that will help
>>> it compete with Direct3D on even ground in terms
>>> of speed or rendering quality without turning off
>>> Aeroglass first.
>>
>>
>> Funny, what do people use now to compete with Direct3D (hint, messy
>> code called ***ensions...)
>>
>
> What's this supposed to be? Flame bait...?

Not at all, it quite clearly points out your suggestion that OpenGL needs to 
use the latest API spec in order to compete with D3D when quite clearly the 
extension mechanism (is it missing from your 1.4 somehow?) is used currently 
to do so.

    WTH

-- 
"Taxi drivers know best." - Rafael Ben�tez 

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>> These people don't choose an API because of
>>> elegance, good design, future-proofing or
>>> anything like that.
>>
>> Really?  Then why'd Carmack go with OpenGL?
>
> This is well documented, try reading something.

Thanks for making my point.  You're really not very good at this fungus.

You state that game developers don't choose an API because of elegance, good 
design, future-proofing, or "anything like that".
I point out that one of the pre-eminent 3D engine developers of one of the 
most successful game companies ever chose OpenGL, and since I know why he 
did it and you apparently don't (unless it was some egregious oversight on 
your part and you somehow forgot) I therefore asked you if you knew why 
Carmack did.
You apparently missed the point.

>>> Many, many of those talented games developers
>>> *did* petition Microsoft (quite literally) at
>>> the beginning of this API "war" to go with
>>> OpenGL instead of DirectX. They could see that
>>> it was a superior design, etc.
>>
>>
>> What a crock of malarkey, lol.  How many is 'many'?
>
> I posted a link to the petition somewhere near the
> start of this thread. You can count them if you
> want...

LOL, oh, well done.  That's fanstatic evidence, hehe.

    WTH

-- 
"You are not sure to succeed in this job but you are absolutely certain
to fail if you are not one hundred per cent committed to the job." -
G�rard Houllier

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>>> No I read it in the internal "doomsday" memo revealed
>>> during the Microsoft antitrust case. I'm sure you can
>>> manage to find a copy on the web.
>>
>>
>> Why don't you just save us all some time by posting a link to it. Surely 
>> it's tattooed on your backside, right? ;)
>>
>
> I've posted dozens of links to stuff and
> you've ignored them all. Why should this
> be any different?

Bullshit, I've read ALL of them.  They've all either contradicted your 
points (the PPT url for example) or they're simply posted by zealots like 
yourself out of their own sheer ignorance (take the idiot who didn't know 
that OpenGL worked great under NT and theorized that because it wasn't in 95 
that Micro$oft was trying to destroy OpenGL.)

    WTH

-- 
"You are not sure to succeed in this job but you are absolutely certain
to fail if you are not one hundred per cent committed to the job." -
G�rard Houllier

WTH wrote:
 >
> I point out that one of the pre-eminent 3D engine developers of one of the 
> most successful game companies ever chose OpenGL, and since I know why he 
> did it and you apparently don't (unless it was some egregious oversight on 
> your part and you somehow forgot)

You refer to what I posted a week ago. It's well
explained in Carmacks famous letter which was
on one of the links I posted (and which you
handily dismissed).

Here it is again, just for you:

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html#carmack


>>I posted a link to the petition somewhere near the
>>start of this thread. You can count them if you
>>want...
> 
> LOL, oh, well done.  That's fanstatic evidence, hehe.
> 

<sigh>

In the middle of the same page:

"Two petitions were issued by game developers to Microsoft.
The first, from 56 top game developers, called for Microsoft
to release OpenGL MCD device drivers and other work that it
had completed, but not released because it would allow
OpenGL to compete with Direct3D. A second open letter to
Microsoft on the same subject gathered 254 signatures
initially and over 1400 by the time the letter was closed;"



-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> 
> Maybe if you'd bothered to read the PPT slides you'd realize that what you 
> state is false.
> 
> Here's from the PPT that YOU posted the link to:
> 
>     Continue to support OpenGL ICDs
>     Can be shipped by OEMs
>     New ICDs required for LDDM
>     Old XP ICDs work with XP driver model in Longhorn
> 

Are you doing this on purpose or is your reading
compreshension really that impaired?

Of course ICDs work...they just work badly. I've
never said anything different and you're delusional
if you think otherwise.


> 
> The crap you were spouting about it being gone

Reference please...


> and then respouted as 'OpenGL will be mapped..." is crap.

Slide 15:

You see that little box labelled "OGL->D3D"...

>>And the people at opengl.org obviously know
>>nothing either:
>>
>>http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001
> 
> That's right.  The article is pure stupidity.
> 

And your evidence is....?

<...sound of crickets chirping...>

> Not at all, it quite clearly points out your suggestion that OpenGL needs to 
> use the latest API spec in order to compete with D3D when quite clearly the 
> extension mechanism (is it missing from your 1.4 somehow?
> 

Read that opengl.org link again:


"In practice this means for OpenGL under Aeroglass:
* OpenGL on Windows will be fixed at a vanilla version
   of OpenGL 1.4
* No extensions will be possible to expose future
   hardware innovations "


So tell us, which part of "no extensions" are you
having trouble with?



-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
> before with:
> 
> 
>>WTH wrote:
>>
>>>>No I read it in the internal "doomsday" memo revealed
>>>>during the Microsoft antitrust case. I'm sure you can
>>>>manage to find a copy on the web.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why don't you just save us all some time by posting a link to it. Surely 
>>>it's tattooed on your backside, right? ;)
>>>

Ooops...my mistake. I meant "halloween" (of course...)


>>
>>I've posted dozens of links to stuff and
>>you've ignored them all. Why should this
>>be any different?
> 
> 
> Bullshit, I've read ALL of them.  They've all either contradicted your 
> points (the PPT url for example)
> 

In what way does that PPT contradict anything?


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>> I point out that one of the pre-eminent 3D engine developers of one
>> of the most successful game companies ever chose OpenGL, and since I
>> know why he did it and you apparently don't (unless it was some
>> egregious oversight on your part and you somehow forgot)
>
> You refer to what I posted a week ago. It's well
> explained in Carmacks famous letter which was
> on one of the links I posted (and which you
> handily dismissed).
>
> Here it is again, just for you:
>
> http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html#carmack

And as I stated before, which you seemed to be unable to read, his opinion 
directly contradicts YOUR statements about why game developers use DirectX 
as he, a pre-eminent game developer, chooses OpenGL for the very reasons you 
state a game developer would not.

>>> I posted a link to the petition somewhere near the
>>> start of this thread. You can count them if you
>>> want...
>>
>> LOL, oh, well done.  That's fanstatic evidence, hehe.
>>
>
> <sigh>

Oh, I saw it the first time, what value you seem to ascribe to this in our 
thread is questionable.  See below.

> "Two petitions were issued by game developers to Microsoft.
> The first, from 56 top game developers, called for Microsoft
> to release OpenGL MCD device drivers and other work that it
> had completed, but not released because it would allow
> OpenGL to compete with Direct3D. A second open letter to
> Microsoft on the same subject gathered 254 signatures
> initially and over 1400 by the time the letter was closed;"

That's fantastic, did you bother to note when this occurred?  What on earth 
does this have to do with choosing one API over the other?

    WTH

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>> fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever
>> loquated before with:
>>
>>
>>> WTH wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No I read it in the internal "doomsday" memo revealed
>>>>> during the Microsoft antitrust case. I'm sure you can
>>>>> manage to find a copy on the web.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you just save us all some time by posting a link to it.
>>>> Surely it's tattooed on your backside, right? ;)
>>>>
>
> Ooops...my mistake. I meant "halloween" (of course...)
>
>
>>>
>>> I've posted dozens of links to stuff and
>>> you've ignored them all. Why should this
>>> be any different?
>>
>>
>> Bullshit, I've read ALL of them.  They've all either contradicted
>> your points (the PPT url for example)
>>
>
> In what way does that PPT contradict anything?

To directly quote you: "...until Windows Vista comes along and spoils that
rosy picture by making OpenGL look bad to end users."

    WTH

-- 
"You are not sure to succeed in this job but you are absolutely certain
to fail if you are not one hundred per cent committed to the job." -
G�rard Houllier

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>> Maybe if you'd bothered to read the PPT slides you'd realize that
>> what you state is false.
>>
>> Here's from the PPT that YOU posted the link to:
>>
>>     Continue to support OpenGL ICDs
>>     Can be shipped by OEMs
>>     New ICDs required for LDDM
>>     Old XP ICDs work with XP driver model in Longhorn
>>
>
> Are you doing this on purpose or is your reading
> compreshension really that impaired?
>
> Of course ICDs work...they just work badly. I've
> never said anything different and you're delusional
> if you think otherwise.

Obviously you have difficulty reading the line "XP ICDs work with the XP 
driver model..."
You're trying to pretend that there's only LDDM ICDs, and that is not the 
case.

>> The crap you were spouting about it being gone
>
> Reference please...

Apologies, by 'it being gone' I intended to mean "about straight running 
clean un-affected OpenGL support."

>> and then respouted as 'OpenGL will be mapped..." is crap.
>
> Slide 15:
>
> You see that little box labelled "OGL->D3D"...

And, yet again, you ignore the fact that OpenGL ICDs running right through 
to kernel mode are supported in Vista.

>>> And the people at opengl.org obviously know
>>> nothing either:
>>>
>>> http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001
>>
>> That's right.  The article is pure stupidity.
>>
>
> And your evidence is....?
>
> <...sound of crickets chirping...>

The very same PPT you provided.  Try reading ALL of it, not just the part 
that gets your ire up.

>> Not at all, it quite clearly points out your suggestion that OpenGL
>> needs to use the latest API spec in order to compete with D3D when
>> quite clearly the extension mechanism (is it missing from your 1.4
>> somehow?
>
> Read that opengl.org link again:
>
>
> "In practice this means for OpenGL under Aeroglass:
> * OpenGL on Windows will be fixed at a vanilla version
>   of OpenGL 1.4
> * No extensions will be possible to expose future
>   hardware innovations "

Again, you fail miserably to understand that OpenGL is not frozen in any way 
on Vista.  The description of what is in the PPT states that the OpenGL 
mapping that will occur in the longhorn driver model ICDs which do not run 
in kernel space (no API will in the LDDM) will support 1.4.  If OpenGL 30.0 
comes out next year, it is easily supported on Vista via a normal XP ICD 
driver, that simple.

> So tell us, which part of "no extensions" are you
> having trouble with?

It is you who seems to be obsessed with ignoring the simple fact that OpenGL 
ICD drivers just like todays (actually today's drivers most likely) are 
supported by Vista.

    WTH 

WTH wrote:
> fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
> 
>>In what way does that PPT contradict anything?
> 
> 
> To directly quote you: "...until Windows Vista comes along and spoils that
> rosy picture by making OpenGL look bad to end users."
> 

So you think that turning off Aeroglass won't
bother end users in the slightest?


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

> As does every other large corporation in the US.

Whether you believe in the conspiracy or cock-up theory, Microsoft do have a 
trust and credibility problem, and the onus is really on them to take fair 
and reasonable measures to prove otherwise. Personally, I find them to be a 
rude and pushy company, and not one I want to do business with.

And you can read into that what you want.

-- 
Charles E. Hardwidge. 

WTH wrote:
> 
> And as I stated before, which you seemed to be unable to read, his opinion 
> directly contradicts YOUR statements about why game developers use DirectX 
> as he, a pre-eminent game developer, chooses OpenGL for the very reasons you 
> state a game developer would not.
> 

And you're mixing time frames and twisting things
around to try and make them fit.

You said:
> Most games are written in DirectX using Direct3D (DirectXGraphics is the
>more recent name for the same thing) and most of the truly talented 3D
>developers are working in the games industry, and they choose DirectX.
>Now, who would (without stupid  conspiracy theories) believe that they
>would choose D3D over OpenGL for any reasons other than technical
>considerations?

So: Either John Carmack is an idiot, most truly talented
games programmers are idiots, or WTH is playing word games
on Usenet. Which is it to be...?


> That's fantastic, did you bother to note when this occurred?  What on earth 
> does this have to do with choosing one API over the other?
> 

There you go again....


-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>> And as I stated before, which you seemed to be unable to read, his
>> opinion directly contradicts YOUR statements about why game
>> developers use DirectX as he, a pre-eminent game developer, chooses
>> OpenGL for the very reasons you state a game developer would not.
>>
>
> And you're mixing time frames and twisting things
> around to try and make them fit.

Not at all.  You didn't specify any time frames for your reasoning behind 
why game developers choose DirectX over OpenGL.  I certainly don't have to 
'try and make them fit.'  They just fit.

> You said:
>> Most games are written in DirectX using Direct3D (DirectXGraphics is
>> the more recent name for the same thing) and most of the truly
>> talented 3D developers are working in the games industry, and they
>> choose DirectX. Now, who would (without stupid  conspiracy theories) 
>> believe that
>> they would choose D3D over OpenGL for any reasons other than technical
>> considerations?
>
> So: Either John Carmack is an idiot, most truly talented
> games programmers are idiots, or WTH is playing word games
> on Usenet. Which is it to be...?

You really need to take a logic course.  My statements in no way imply that 
Carmack is an idiot.  You understand what "most of..." implies, yes?  As for 
word games, pointing out the fundamental errors in your assertions when they 
contradict your own 'points' is to be expected.

>> That's fantastic, did you bother to note when this occurred?  What
>> on earth does this have to do with choosing one API over the other?
>>
>
> There you go again....

Ibidem.

    WTH 

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>> fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever
>> loquated
>>> In what way does that PPT contradict anything?
>>
>>
>> To directly quote you: "...until Windows Vista comes along and
>> spoils that rosy picture by making OpenGL look bad to end users."
>>
>
> So you think that turning off Aeroglass won't
> bother end users in the slightest?

First, nothing I've seen from Micro$oft says that Aeroglass is disabled by 
running an application that uses an OpenGL ICD.  Now, if you wish to say "An 
application using an OpenGL ICD can't itself use Aeroglass features" I would 
say that it would appear that this is true.

Second, all of the diagrams in Microsoft's presentation materials distinctly 
show that kernel level IHV code can perform OpenGL rendering for you without 
having to use the OpenGL LDDM implementation.

You should also note the way drivers in both models (Micro$oft and IHV) are 
to gain virtualization.

    WTH

fungus wrote:
> WTH wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001 
>>>
>>
>>
>> The article is pure stupidity.
>>
> 
> And your evidence is....?
> 
> <...sound of crickets chirping...>
> 

<still chirping...>





-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

WTH wrote:
> 
> First, nothing I've seen from Micro$oft says that Aeroglass is disabled by 
> running an application that uses an OpenGL ICD.

So unless Bill Gates writes to you personally it
can't be true...? You must be very important!

http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001

User "barthold*" says:

"This information came from the OpenGL BOF held at Siggraph
2005 in LA this last Wednesday evening. This was confirmed
at the BOF by NVIDIA, ATI and us (3Dlabs).

As soon as an ICD is loaded the composited desktop is turned
off on Windows Vista. If you want the composited desktop
Aeroglass experience, you will need to make your application
go through Microsoft's OpenGL implementation, which is
layered on top of DirectX."


This would be "Barthold Lichtenbelt". He works for
3DLabs and is a very active member of the OpenGL ARB
(read the ARB meeting notes - he's always there). If
anybody knows about this, he does.



-- 
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/  FTB.    For email, remove my socks.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know
that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
and then they actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.
It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens
every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like
that happened in politics or religion.

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> WTH wrote:
>>
>> First, nothing I've seen from Micro$oft says that Aeroglass is
>> disabled by running an application that uses an OpenGL ICD.
>
> So unless Bill Gates writes to you personally it
> can't be true...? You must be very important!
>
> http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001
>
> User "barthold*" says:
> "This information came from the OpenGL BOF held at Siggraph
> 2005 in LA this last Wednesday evening. This was confirmed
> at the BOF by NVIDIA, ATI and us (3Dlabs).
>
> As soon as an ICD is loaded the composited desktop is turned
> off on Windows Vista. If you want the composited desktop
> Aeroglass experience, you will need to make your application
> go through Microsoft's OpenGL implementation, which is
> layered on top of DirectX."
>
>
> This would be "Barthold Lichtenbelt". He works for
> 3DLabs and is a very active member of the OpenGL ARB
> (read the ARB meeting notes - he's always there). If
> anybody knows about this, he does.

That's great.  I'll go write a $10,000 check to the ARB and then you'll have 
to take what I say as the bible.

Sorry, but he doesn't specify whether the information related to the beta, 
to potential implementations, to the release candidates, et cetera.  It is 
all still rumours irrespective of whether "Barthold Lichtenbelt" says it or 
not.

For me, I hope you're wrong about that.  It's too early to tell.  The PPT 
diagrams could mean many things, and appear to demonstrate that an ICD can 
run while the LDDM driver is compositing the desktop.  We'll have to wait 
and see a little longer.

    WTH

fungus <umailMY@SOCKSartlum.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated 
before with:

> fungus wrote:
>> WTH wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The article is pure stupidity.
>>>
>>
>> And your evidence is....?
>>
>> <...sound of crickets chirping...>
>>
>
> <still chirping...>

Are you telling me that you can't read your own supplied PPT link?

    WTH