Windows 3D
Author
I have heard that there would be a complete 3D interface to windows in the future Yes! using DirectX .. how far is this true.. Think of booting into DirectX directly WOW! then Resist Windows would become Cant Resist Windows3D
well be for they do that they should take a smaller step and just replace the GDI with DX...
:: Jamie Interactive ::
:: Jamie Interactive ::
I think you''re talking about Win64. Don''t know that much about it, but from what I''ve heard, it''s heavily based on Win32 and only works on a chip that won''t be out for a few years.
And yes, if we have Directx, why do we have GDI?
And yes, if we have Directx, why do we have GDI?
Win64 is just a 64-bit version of windows that will be released shortly after the new Intel 64-bit chip (Itanium). It runs on the Itanium processor, but other than being 64-bit instead of 32-bit, it''ll be no different from Windows XP.
As for DirectX vs GDI, you''re comparing apples and oranges there. DirectX is designed for fast access, direct to the video hardware. Because it is meant to be fast, it doesn''t have half the features of GDI, which sacrifices a bit of speed (well, a lot speed, actually) for a lot more functionality. GDI is used to draw windows and controls. It handles clipping, text, bitmaps, and all the drawing primitives (lines, ellipses, rectangles, etc)
DirectX will never replace GDI, and I really don''t think there will ever be a "3D Windows". It''s quite a rediculous idea, IMHO. Our monitors are 2D. Displaying 3D on a 2D surface is an ugly hack really (not that I''m against 3D games, I make them myself, actually). Until we get true 3 dimensional display systems (e.g. holograms, or whatever) normal applications will stay on our 2D screens, in 2 dimensions. How would you write a 3D wordprocessor? 3D spreadsheet? 3D email?
As for DirectX vs GDI, you''re comparing apples and oranges there. DirectX is designed for fast access, direct to the video hardware. Because it is meant to be fast, it doesn''t have half the features of GDI, which sacrifices a bit of speed (well, a lot speed, actually) for a lot more functionality. GDI is used to draw windows and controls. It handles clipping, text, bitmaps, and all the drawing primitives (lines, ellipses, rectangles, etc)
DirectX will never replace GDI, and I really don''t think there will ever be a "3D Windows". It''s quite a rediculous idea, IMHO. Our monitors are 2D. Displaying 3D on a 2D surface is an ugly hack really (not that I''m against 3D games, I make them myself, actually). Until we get true 3 dimensional display systems (e.g. holograms, or whatever) normal applications will stay on our 2D screens, in 2 dimensions. How would you write a 3D wordprocessor? 3D spreadsheet? 3D email?
Just because you can''t imagine an easy way for it to be doesn''t mean someone else can''t. The GDI could be replaced by DirectX if they wrote a couple of small calsses that had calles to DirectX. I wonder how this would affect speed?
:: Jamie Interactive ::
:: Jamie Interactive ::
Author
Well! I feel that is the challenge and just because our moniters are 2D does not mean we all to have our user interfaces in 2D. I would actually like to a complete 3d Interface. As far a wordprcessors and etc .. all text can have a 3D text converter .. The GDI can be made 3D .. maintaining the same navigation interface but in the 3rd Dimension . Basically what you are seeing laid out on a flat 2d Screen can be given depth and perspective .. anyways thats what I think and actually I would like to have my E-mail in 3D. Did anyone ever make that .. Well we have see things like that in some movies ..but is it out in the market ?
Author
Then there will be a huge rush in the market for 3D and graphics programmers and guys like us will be in great demand. That would be cool .. but I think it would be revolutionary 
It''s the same thing, really. Nothing special about it except that is 64-bit. They had those in the ''60s, and Sun is releasing the first relatively cheap one next month or so. It''s not a big deal-- only an upgrade to the same technology to make it look prettier.
And I dunno on the 2d screen business. No game IS 3d, but many only LOOK 3d. But you have to settle for something, ya know. And you won''t find me settling for any hologram computer-- it''d hurt my eyes!
And I dunno on the 2d screen business. No game IS 3d, but many only LOOK 3d. But you have to settle for something, ya know. And you won''t find me settling for any hologram computer-- it''d hurt my eyes!
We need an OS that interfaces with the brain..kinda like The Matrix only not controlled by power-crazy machines (oh wait, Microsoft...damn! )
)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
