Wine Devs Have Mixed Feelings Over Direct3D In Gallium3D

[BlackStar]

In case that isn't obvious, OpenGL used to be the dominant graphics API back in the '90s (Glide, S3 Metal and D3D were just bleeps on the radars). Developers started moving to Direct3D around version 5 and all but abandoned OpenGL around D3D7. This wasn't due to Microsoft pressure but simply because developers found D3D easier and more efficient to work with. Outside Id software, OpenGL was only used for cross-platform ports.

This may or may not change but you cannot deny that modern desktop 3d hardware is designed with D3D in mind, rather than OpenGL.

[mirv]

In case that isn't obvious, OpenGL used to be the dominant graphics API back in the '90s (Glide, S3 Metal and D3D were just bleeps on the radars). Developers started moving to Direct3D around version 5 and all but abandoned OpenGL around D3D7. This wasn't due to Microsoft pressure but simply because developers found D3D easier and more efficient to work with. Outside Id software, OpenGL was only used for cross-platform ports.

This may or may not change but you cannot deny that modern desktop 3d hardware is designed with D3D in mind, rather than OpenGL.

Modern desktop 3D hardware is also designed with OpenGL in mind. Anything else would be madness (and most definitely not Sparta) considering the workstation market relies upon....OpenGL!
As for D3D being easier - it's more that microsoft made OpenGL more difficult on their platform and actively attempts to stifle anything they can't entirely control.

[BlackStar]

Modern desktop 3D hardware is also designed with OpenGL in mind. Anything else would be madness (and most definitely not Sparta) considering the workstation market relies upon....OpenGL!

I am afraid this is incorrect.

OpenGL 4.0 was made available a whole year after the hardware was released. D3D11 was available before the hardware was even released. It should be obvious that the hardware was designed with D3D11 in mind.

Additionally, workstation features are - and have always been - made available through OpenGL extensions. Things like genlock and quad-buffer stereo are not available on core OpenGL or Direct3D, this is a completely different market, with an independent, vendor-specific design process.

[BlackStar]

To clarify, quad-buffer stereo is in core OpenGL but is not available on consumer-level hardware.

[pingufunkybeat]

Microsoft doesn't force people into it's "nest". People deliberatly go into it because they're given love there.

LOL.

OK, now try being serious for a while. Or read a bit. Microsoft didn't get sued for half a billion euro because they are full of "love".

Look, I've been arguing here about D3D strengths vs OGL's, and all of you have just been putting up points about Microsoft instead of criticising the API itself.

That's the whole point. The nicest API in the world won't help you if it's run by an anti-competitive monopolist who has abused each and every one of its technologies in the past, and will continue to do so.

Do you really believe the only benefit from having this state tracker on G3D is to run windows games? I can tell you I'd use it for linux-only apps every day at work.

Did you read the title of this thread?

[pingufunkybeat]

YES, as long as they don't p/invoke winapi functions. With Mono I can write an OpenGL application that runs on Linux/Windows/Mac OS X without even recompiling and iPhone/Android with a simple recompilation.

Carry on.

So only Linux-based Mono applications run on Mono, and 99% of the .Net apps written for Windows do not run.

Thanks.

[Remco]

In case that isn't obvious, OpenGL used to be the dominant graphics API back in the '90s (Glide, S3 Metal and D3D were just bleeps on the radars). Developers started moving to Direct3D around version 5 and all but abandoned OpenGL around D3D7. This wasn't due to Microsoft pressure but simply because developers found D3D easier and more efficient to work with. Outside Id software, OpenGL was only used for cross-platform ports.

OpenGL on Windows is horrendously outdated by hand of Microsoft. OpenGL is broken on Windows. That's why it isn't used. The mass exodus from OpenGL to Direct3D by game developers on Windows had nothing to do with the quality of the API, and everything with the fact that you can't rely on it on Windows. Customers who don't know anything about computers can't install an OpenGL driver, and many of them have hardware that doesn't even have a suitable OpenGL driver. In the scientific community, where these problems are moot, nobody cares about Direct3D.

This may or may not change but you cannot deny that modern desktop 3d hardware is designed with D3D in mind, rather than OpenGL.

What are NVIDIA and ATI going to do, wait until Microsoft approves of their work and releases a new version of Direct3D? No, they work very much like the browser vendors. They create their extensions to OpenGL, and work together as part of Khronos on standardization.

[pingufunkybeat]

In case that isn't obvious, OpenGL used to be the dominant graphics API back in the '90s (Glide, S3 Metal and D3D were just bleeps on the radars). Developers started moving to Direct3D around version 5 and all but abandoned OpenGL around D3D7. This wasn't due to Microsoft pressure but simply because developers found D3D easier and more efficient to work with. Outside Id software, OpenGL was only used for cross-platform ports.

This may or may not change but you cannot deny that modern desktop 3d hardware is designed with D3D in mind, rather than OpenGL.

Are you aware that there is 3d software outside of games? And there OpenGL owns.

There are reasons why game studios went with Direct3d:

- it supported the latest hardware, and OpenGL did not
- it was cheaper and aggressively promoted by MS
- they were only interested in Windows anyway.

If you really want Linux to become a relevant target for games, D3D is not the answer. Even with D3D, nobody will code games for Linux, because they don't give a crap.

[mirv]

I am afraid this is incorrect.

OpenGL 4.0 was made available a whole year after the hardware was released. D3D11 was available before the hardware was even released. It should be obvious that the hardware was designed with D3D11 in mind.

Additionally, workstation features are - and have always been - made available through OpenGL extensions. Things like genlock and quad-buffer stereo are not available on core OpenGL or Direct3D, this is a completely different market, with an independent, vendor-specific design process.

So....the features available in OpenGL 4.0 have been available as extensions for quite some time, well before D3D11 (those same features as D3D11 has used) and the hardware is suddenly designed with D3D in mind?
Don't forget that the hardware companies take part in the discussions of future OpenGL standards (visit the registry and you'll see a heavy load of nvidia and ati/amd people responsible for various parts). On the other hand, they're not quite as involved in the process for D3D - but I assure you that the hardware designs were well in place before D3D11 was released.

[Remco]

I am afraid this is incorrect.

OpenGL 4.0 was made available a whole year after the hardware was released. D3D11 was available before the hardware was even released. It should be obvious that the hardware was designed with D3D11 in mind.

Additionally, workstation features are - and have always been - made available through OpenGL extensions. Things like genlock and quad-buffer stereo are not available on core OpenGL or Direct3D, this is a completely different market, with an independent, vendor-specific design process.

OpenGL 4.0 is the result of standardization. You may have noticed that those "D3D11 features" were OpenGL extensions before they were D3D11 features.