Google Gets Into The 3D Driver Game

[frische]

isn't that more like a encapsulation than a driver?

One question is what happens when running on a system which has both OpenGL and DirectX support. Presumably there will be an option to choose the graphics stack ?

i doubt it. it will be used only for windows where directx always exist and opengl may not at all. nothing to gain...

[deanjo]

google scaring me more and more each day with more of proprietary crap - maybe it turns evil after all...

Heh, I've been saying google is a wolf in sheeps clothing for years. Fanboi blindness obscures seeing what the real google is all about.

[bridgman]

This is really only useful on Windows, isn't it ? If so, the downside seems limited and this does seem like a more OpenGL-supportive approach than implementing native DX support in WebGL. Based on that, I don't really see a problem with this.

One question is what happens when running on a system which has both OpenGL and DirectX support. Presumably there will be an option to choose the graphics stack ?

[dfx.]

google scaring me more and more each day with more of proprietary crap - maybe it turns evil after all...

[Craig73]

(like was the case with ATI Catalyst and Lucid, until yesterday)

Lucid - that's in Beta right? (ie, How does this add to the conversation?)

[Remco]

Plus, Windows does not have OpenGL drivers for NVIDIA or AMD by default.. To get OpenGL at all, you need to download NVIDIA's or AMD's updated drivers manually.

[Remco]

It would be nice to hear from the ANGLE team what aspects of OpenGL are so poorly supported on Windows that reimplementing OpenGL support is necessary.

If ATI and NVidia share most of their implementation across platforms it would seem to follow that OpenGL support on Windows isn't that bad for ATI or NVidia based solutions. Is it that OpenGL sucks that bad for other vendors?

It just seems odd that they would need to take this approach at all.

Intel has 50% of the GPU market. And Intel's OpenGL is crap.

[Jimmy]

It would be nice to hear from the ANGLE team what aspects of OpenGL are so poorly supported on Windows that reimplementing OpenGL support is necessary.

If ATI and NVidia share most of their implementation across platforms it would seem to follow that OpenGL support on Windows isn't that bad for ATI or NVidia based solutions. Is it that OpenGL sucks that bad for other vendors?

It just seems odd that they would need to take this approach at all.

[Remco]

I'm pretty sure AMD and NVIDIA won't be abandoning their OpenGL stack. The scientific industry wants OpenGL. Intel may depend on ANGLE, but I have a hard time believing they would implement anything beyond WebGL anyway.

The other side of this is that ANGLE makes WebGL feasible for all computers. WebGL has the greatest chance of making OpenGL relevant on Windows again, and if 50% of the computers can't even run WebGL, then it will fail.

[d2kx]

I don't exactly understand that move either, but what I know is:

Google likes the web
They like WebGL and want it to have success
Their new distribution Chrome OS is based on Linux and uses OpenGL
They want Chrome OS to be able to do all the things the web offers

I wouldn't panic

Also, with the recent push of Steam for Mac and regular new OpenGL releases, I think the driver's OpenGL implementation will improve anyway.