Not on tablet/phone hardware they don't.
I'm not sure that Microsoft-based phones and tablets represent a credible enough install-base to be worried about.
More interesting to see if Apple will let this in the door to iOS - without that chunk of the mobile market, you'll be stuck supporting Vulcan and Metal for the foreseeable future.
I've been thinking, maybe they'll expose OpenGL extensions to handle the SPIRV intermediate language...
AMD published a new release: http://community.amd.com/community/amd-blogs/amd-gaming/blog/2015/03/03/one-of-mantles-futures-vulkan
The main point being that Vulkan is essentially an iterated cross platform version of Mantle. I like that AMD was willing to describe their own press release hours earlier as cryptic.
and not sure how Microsoft will cooperate (DX12 still not available).
Why would MS have to do anything?
They don't support OpenGL, Mantle, OpenCL and CUDA and yet they all work just fine... this is no different.
I was trying to bring up the fact that some people believe that Microsoft sabotaged the OpenGL implementation on Windows to increase DirectX adoption. And whether Microsoft will allow Vulkan and Mantle to be first-class citizens with DX12 (if it's even possible) and whether Microsoft will keep their open-source friendly ways up (like Promit mentioned).
IIRC, Apple has to explicitly allow support for new APIs because they write their own drivers. So "it just works" isn't always possible.
I was trying to bring up the fact that some people believe that Microsoft sabotaged the OpenGL implementation on Windows to increase DirectX adoption. And whether Microsoft will allow Vulkan and Mantle to be first-class citizens with DX12 (if it's even possible) and whether Microsoft will keep their open-source friendly ways up (like Promit mentioned).
IIRC, Apple has to explicitly allow support for new APIs because they write their own drivers. So "it just works" isn't always possible.
The story I heard was that the Windows NT team had OpenGL because they wanted to break into the CAD workstation market. The Windows 95 team wanted OpenGL for games, the NT team wouldn't play ball, and hence DirectX (or more specifically Direct3D because DirectX already existed) was born. If that was the case, any sabotage was internal. If you've ever had to deal with Microsoft in a professional capacity that's perfectly believable.
As for open-source friendliness, it hardly seems relevant; it was never the case that OpenGL was open-source (it's not even software so it can't be).
I was trying to bring up the fact that some people believe that Microsoft sabotaged the OpenGL implementation on Windows to increase DirectX adoption.
I was trying to bring up the fact that some people believe that Microsoft sabotaged the OpenGL implementation on Windows to increase DirectX adoption.
Yes, people do enjoy painting MS as the 'big bad' in all of this when, truth be told, 99% of OpenGL's problems were caused by ARB infighting and incompetence (see GL2.0 and Longs Peak/GL3.0) - the worst MS ever did was fix their software version back on GL1.1 and not ship GL drivers/dlls via Windows update for updated graphics drivers (which is a pain, but given they don't test that component I can see why), but they never actively sabotaged things.
https://www.opengl.org/archives/about/arb/meeting_notes/
Go dig in there and see for yourself what Microsoft was doing back when they were part of the ARB.
For instance:
There's nothing even vaguely unusual or improprietous about those excerpts. It's somewhat reflective of the standard internal MS dysfunction that has afflicted them for many years, but it's certainly not misconduct.
