Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Will F

OpenGL Why does Windows use OpenGL 1.1

This topic is 4869 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this has been answered before (this rather dated article was the best answer I found from a quick google search). My best guess is that Microsoft is interested in locking developers and users into their own proprietary way of doing things and hence don't want to support OpenGL any more than they have to - but this is a pretty wild guess, is there a good reason? I would think that there are enough windows developers using opengl to justify the expense to Microsoft of keeping it more current. Having to use extensions is annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Quote:
Original post by Cocalus
If you use something like GLEW or GLEE, extension use is basically painless.


I've been using GLEE, and it gets the job done, but it just irks me that OpenGL 1.1 is nearly 10 years old (maybe it's age irrelevant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another alternative solution would be to create a nice wrapper on your own, for example. Yann L did this for his engine, IIRC...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer is simple, Microsoft(like any other company) would rather have people use their product(Direct3D) than OpenGL or Glide(out of date).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MS has no interest in OpenGL, and have made it blatantly obvious that this is so (leaving the ARB and all). They have no investment in it and no particular reason to care about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by DerAnged
The answer is simple, Microsoft(like any other company) would rather have people use their product(Direct3D) than OpenGL or Glide(out of date).


That's pretty much what I figured. Though I remember reading an old interview where John Carmack stated that the Microsoft people tended to listen to him - guess this isn't as much the case anymore.

Not knowing much about Direct3D i'm curious what the differences are between it and OpenGl (note that i'm not asking which is better as that's the type of question that replies usually degenerate into uselessness). I think that I read that Direct3D has built in support for manipulating quaternions (though you can write your own code to do this with openGL) - what else is there?

Mostly just curious as I do my developement on linux, so D3D is pretty much out of the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Will F

Not knowing much about Direct3D i'm curious what the differences are between it and OpenGl (note that i'm not asking which is better as that's the type of question that replies usually degenerate into uselessness). I think that I read that Direct3D has built in support for manipulating quaternions (though you can write your own code to do this with openGL) - what else is there?

Mostly just curious as I do my developement on linux, so D3D is pretty much out of the question.


D3D comes with a huge library named D3DX which has Vectors, Matrices, Quaternions, you name it. and ALOT of other nice stuff like texture-loading functions etc, and SH-lightning(this is cool!). But D3D has the same functionality as OGL. Everything OGL can do, D3D can do and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by MickePicke
D3D comes with a huge library named D3DX which has Vectors, Matrices, Quaternions, you name it.


That would be nice, though I suppose since i'm just moving to 3D and improving my math skills, it'll be educational to do this myself.

Quote:
other nice stuff like texture-loading functions etc.


Since i'm working with SDL, SDL_image has served me well so far - but I guess it would be nice to have functions that would do this in OpenGL.

Anyways, thanks for the reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think about it. As far as Microsoft is concerned, they already spend a lot of money developing and maintaining one 3D API for their platform, Direct3D/DirectX. Why exactly would Microsoft want to throw money away (and probably incur a lot of hassles from whiners - look at what happened when they tried providing an up to date version of Java) just to duplicate existing functionality. Microsoft isn't a charity service, they're a business (actually they're a corperation, which means they have a legal obligation to the shareholders. A private business could easily throw its money away if the owners wanted to, even though it would be stupid).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 4869 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!