MS not supporting GL in longhorn?
How about people asking for official links and saying that this is all rubbish actually read the thread from start to finish rather then bludering in to the middle of a conversation without any idea of context?!
Quote:Original post by bargasteh
Why not moving to Linux, it is a great platform for Gl developers, (...)
But not for driver developers. If I were in the business of driver production, I'd have kicked Linus in the nuts by now (yeah, the guy, not the kernel) and ditched support for Linux once and for all! With the 2.6 series, several low-level APIs like PCI bus management have seen drastic changes which broke at least the ATI drivers and forced ATI to implement ridiculous kernel version checks.[1] Why would anyone want to make drivers for a niche system that will be incompatible in two weeks?
To paraphrase ESR: If you want to write programs for a good system, use BSD!
(BTW, I'm right now sitting at a Linux box, running kernel 2.6.11.11 and the latest fglrx drivers, just to let you know.)
[1] (edit:) those changes were not between 2.4 and 2.6, they were between stuff like 2.6.8 and 2.6.9!
It doesn't matter if you are a D3D fan or an OpenGL fan. D3D is what is today thanks to the 'competition' with OpenGL. If MS kills or limit OpenGL (it is more or less the same), they won't need to update it. It is like when the won the browser battle with Netscape. They even dismantelate the Internet Explorer team. Now they have created it again because of Firefox.
Without OpenGL, and IHV exposing new functionality throught it, there will be no sense to create new features in HW. The feature set of the graphic cards will be those that MS has dictated. They don't need to update D3D (or WFG) for 5/6 years (we had TNT2s that time ago). They have no competition that forces them to do it, the IHV can't expose new features so they can limit the features to those that the XBOX 360 will have. This way PC games can't be visuallly better than the console ones and they can make the XBOX 360 life bigger.
Without OpenGL, MS will dictate how and when the PC 3D graphics will evolve (both HW and D3D API).
Without OpenGL, and IHV exposing new functionality throught it, there will be no sense to create new features in HW. The feature set of the graphic cards will be those that MS has dictated. They don't need to update D3D (or WFG) for 5/6 years (we had TNT2s that time ago). They have no competition that forces them to do it, the IHV can't expose new features so they can limit the features to those that the XBOX 360 will have. This way PC games can't be visuallly better than the console ones and they can make the XBOX 360 life bigger.
Without OpenGL, MS will dictate how and when the PC 3D graphics will evolve (both HW and D3D API).
that some of the kernel's system calls change dramticall from 2.6.x to 2.6.(x+1) is a major pain, especially for driver writers, I feel your pain [me thinks that the development of the 2.6.x series looks more like an unstable development, i.e should probably be called 2.7.x] but some would say that the Linux kernel is at a corssroads of revamping the system for major speed improvements...
it would be nice if the kernel API was more static and consistent [it just goes to show you that writing a keren is hard, dangerous work] but the kernel is very hardware portable [the numebr of architectures with a linux kernel is truly staggering in my opinion]
on the other hand, nVidia has demonstrated that it is perfectly possible to have a high performance driver in Linux (and FreeBSD too)
but still, most home Linux users are not Average Joe, but more like the CompyGeekMan(myself included). To get AverageJoe to use Linux one needs:
a) lots of stuff at the store that say on a big poster "Use with Linux", software for Linux. however, the majority of software in the stores is for, ahem, Windows. BUT, one can find lots of good stuff on the 'net, but then we are back to the user being CompyGeekMan and not Average Joe/Jane.
b) use it at work, back to the typical office user's crack adition to MS Office, and the idiots that write memo's (and then email them) via MS office.. me hates that soooooooo much. We could be sickfully hoping that either the EU or US govmt decree that MS ports MSOffice to Linux, but that is not such a good idea. [it walks the path of them decreeing more and more, and you watn engineers making these desiscions] and besides, do you really want to use MSOffice anywhere? it would be nice if the governemnts tried to encourage somekind of compettion if they delibertly chose NOT to use MS office and use say StarOffice or any one of a large number of other (but CompGeeky flavored) choices.
I am starting to rant....
however, I don't think MS would be able to get away with crippling openGL this way, they are already on very thin ice with both the EU and US dept of Justice, and a move like this would only encourage the image of the hostile-monpolist that MS has right now. After all, a large portion of the video game industry lives on the PC (right now atleast, me thinks in a 10 years not so really) and if openGL is killed there, then developer houses are less likely to use openGL and be encouraged to jsut use directX which would imply more X-Box. I.e., deliberate use of PC monopoly to get another monopoly....
ehhh.... in truth probably not, but still, the govmnt's might get a touch hot under the collar for that alone.
still, the hardware driver developers have stated they can get openGL to be jsut dandy IF microsoft helps, and that would jsut fuel the monopoly charges more... and to put gasoline in people's hearts some more: considering MS's track record with their OS, does anyone really want them to dictate hardware architecture too much?
as for Yann's ide of rendering openGL behind the screens to a back buffer then swapping that to the GUI, it could be cool, but that would imply that the openGL calls completely bypass Microsoft's lowlevel graphics API... which then could mean that other things get bypassed (like video DRM), not to mention the much needed (potential) system stability.
the other way around this is if the drivers were integrated with all that stuff, and that is more or less what I guess that the driver writers are asking for, support from MS.
just my thoughts....
it would be nice if the kernel API was more static and consistent [it just goes to show you that writing a keren is hard, dangerous work] but the kernel is very hardware portable [the numebr of architectures with a linux kernel is truly staggering in my opinion]
on the other hand, nVidia has demonstrated that it is perfectly possible to have a high performance driver in Linux (and FreeBSD too)
but still, most home Linux users are not Average Joe, but more like the CompyGeekMan(myself included). To get AverageJoe to use Linux one needs:
a) lots of stuff at the store that say on a big poster "Use with Linux", software for Linux. however, the majority of software in the stores is for, ahem, Windows. BUT, one can find lots of good stuff on the 'net, but then we are back to the user being CompyGeekMan and not Average Joe/Jane.
b) use it at work, back to the typical office user's crack adition to MS Office, and the idiots that write memo's (and then email them) via MS office.. me hates that soooooooo much. We could be sickfully hoping that either the EU or US govmt decree that MS ports MSOffice to Linux, but that is not such a good idea. [it walks the path of them decreeing more and more, and you watn engineers making these desiscions] and besides, do you really want to use MSOffice anywhere? it would be nice if the governemnts tried to encourage somekind of compettion if they delibertly chose NOT to use MS office and use say StarOffice or any one of a large number of other (but CompGeeky flavored) choices.
I am starting to rant....
however, I don't think MS would be able to get away with crippling openGL this way, they are already on very thin ice with both the EU and US dept of Justice, and a move like this would only encourage the image of the hostile-monpolist that MS has right now. After all, a large portion of the video game industry lives on the PC (right now atleast, me thinks in a 10 years not so really) and if openGL is killed there, then developer houses are less likely to use openGL and be encouraged to jsut use directX which would imply more X-Box. I.e., deliberate use of PC monopoly to get another monopoly....
ehhh.... in truth probably not, but still, the govmnt's might get a touch hot under the collar for that alone.
still, the hardware driver developers have stated they can get openGL to be jsut dandy IF microsoft helps, and that would jsut fuel the monopoly charges more... and to put gasoline in people's hearts some more: considering MS's track record with their OS, does anyone really want them to dictate hardware architecture too much?
as for Yann's ide of rendering openGL behind the screens to a back buffer then swapping that to the GUI, it could be cool, but that would imply that the openGL calls completely bypass Microsoft's lowlevel graphics API... which then could mean that other things get bypassed (like video DRM), not to mention the much needed (potential) system stability.
the other way around this is if the drivers were integrated with all that stuff, and that is more or less what I guess that the driver writers are asking for, support from MS.
just my thoughts....
Quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
They don't need to update D3D (or WFG) for 5/6 years (we had TNT2s that time ago).
Let me say, I am totaly against the MS tactic with open gl on Longhorn.. but.. The above scenario has its merits
I am sick of the featuritis and the constant hardware upgrades. Not long ago the geforce 6 class appeared, and now the geforce 7 is coming.. Games like Half-Life 2 suck the resources of the latest PC dry with tons of features, that have no benefits to the actual gameplay.
I think a stagnant phase for a few years will be quite helpful. The developers need to appreciate the software and hardware again, that is given to them.
Take the console market: Developers manage to write games for five year old consoles, and the games look better each year. It was even more so in the days of the Genesis (Mega Drive) and SNES.
I think the PC scene should take an example of this. The hardware demand of actual pc games is too heavy. PC developers are wasting too much resources and rely too much on new frameworks and features, that don't help the actual gameplay one bit. The best games in my opinion are still the adventures of the glory days, and games like "Frontier: Elite 2" or "starcontrol 2" have much more depth than any Freelancer, X2 or other crap of today.
Quote:Original post by Anonymous PosterQuote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
They don't need to update D3D (or WFG) for 5/6 years (we had TNT2s that time ago).
Let me say, I am totaly against the MS tactic with open gl on Longhorn.. but.. The above scenario has its merits
I am sick of the featuritis and the constant hardware upgrades. Not long ago the geforce 6 class appeared, and now the geforce 7 is coming.. Games like Half-Life 2 suck the resources of the latest PC dry with tons of features, that have no benefits to the actual gameplay.
I think a stagnant phase for a few years will be quite helpful. The developers need to appreciate the software and hardware again, that is given to them.
Take the console market: Developers manage to write games for five year old consoles, and the games look better each year. It was even more so in the days of the Genesis (Mega Drive) and SNES.
I think the PC scene should take an example of this. The hardware demand of actual pc games is too heavy. PC developers are wasting too much resources and rely too much on new frameworks and features, that don't help the actual gameplay one bit. The best games in my opinion are still the adventures of the glory days, and games like "Frontier: Elite 2" or "starcontrol 2" have much more depth than any Freelancer, X2 or other crap of today.
I hate people who only care about graphics, just because a game has good technology does not mean it has bad gameplay. Halflife2 with its puzzles involving the physics instead of hard coded triggers was a refreshing change that would not have been possible without utilizing heavy system resources for example. Give them a chance.
We have a good mix of low end to high end games coming out now. Would you rather that no one would try and push technology to its limit? You are not forced to have to play the cutting edge games afterall as there is plenty of selection otherwise. With that said I see no merits in this move by Microsoft, it is quite unsound from both a moral and intellectual standpoint since it stands to as you said "stagnate the industry."
I do not mean to insult your viewpoint since to the consumer I understand how needing the latest hardware can be a large burden, but I think your perspective is rationalizing this loss too much when in reality we should just admit this is an asinine move by Microsoft.
Right, as this thread has in my opinion (and that of a couple of others) wandered away from the point somewhat I'm going to close it.
Later today/tomorrow I'll be putting up a sticky trying to objectively explain the situation and I'll update it as more infomation becomes solid on the matter, I'd do it now but I'm short on time and I dont want to rush it, however I want this thread closed to stop it going off the rails while I'm out.
If anyone starts another thread about this expect me to come down on them hard (its against forum rules anyway so I shouldnt have to tell you), you have been warned.
Later today/tomorrow I'll be putting up a sticky trying to objectively explain the situation and I'll update it as more infomation becomes solid on the matter, I'd do it now but I'm short on time and I dont want to rush it, however I want this thread closed to stop it going off the rails while I'm out.
If anyone starts another thread about this expect me to come down on them hard (its against forum rules anyway so I shouldnt have to tell you), you have been warned.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
