Sign in to follow this  

Windows 10 - OpenGL Version

This topic is 671 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

They haven't changed their stock version, it is still 1.1 with no acceleration. 

 

I can see and understand their reasoning for leaving it to the old (1995 or 1996?) implementation.  

 

Replacing it and supporting it would mean adding another software implementation since they would need to support non-accelerated hardware and remote displays and terminals. They could probably get it updated to a newer version of Mesa's software implementation, but there really isn't a need since the hardware vendors provide drivers with newer implementations.  There isn't a problem with the software implementation since anybody who has graphics hardware is going to bring in their own drivers, and the rare people who want a software rasterizer have Mesa available to them. Leaving it alone they get support that works just fine for terminals and local rendering, and hardware vendors can push it to whatever version they want.  Why do something when you can do nothing for equal benefit?

 

There are many sources for more current libraries, so that shouldn't be much of a hardship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I can see and understand their reasoning for leaving it to the old (1995 or 1996?) implementation.  

Hilariously enough, it is not the same implementation. It transitioned from software to a wrapper around D3D - 9 in the XP timeframe and 10 from Vista I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Hilariously enough, it is not the same implementation. It transitioned from software to a wrapper around D3D - 9 in the XP timeframe and 10 from Vista I think.

Fun.  So they paid the price a decade ago but did not bump the version at the time.  

 

Even so, I imagine wrapping the 1.1 version would be easier than trying to wrap 2.0 or 2.1, which again would be easier than wrapping 3.x or 4.x. The same argument of not doing unnecessary work applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Even so, I imagine wrapping the 1.1 version would be easier than trying to wrap 2.0 or 2.1, which again would be easier than wrapping 3.x or 4.x. The same argument of not doing unnecessary work applies.

They also maintain a fork of ANGLE, to make porting mobile (OpenGL ES 2.0) apps onto D3D a lot easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilariously enough, it is not the same implementation. It transitioned from software to a wrapper around D3D - 9 in the XP timeframe and 10 from Vista I think.

Fun.  So they paid the price a decade ago but did not bump the version at the time.

It did cause a hilarious FUD storm at the time though, with the people-who-spell-it-Micro$oft-and-read-slashdot crowd completely losing their mind and jumping to the conclusion that this meant that OpenGL drivers would be restricted, and GL would always just be an inefficient API-emulation layer on top of D3D.

 

Come to think of it, if MS had actually gone down that imaginary path and banned GL drivers, then it would probably be more popular now, because it would actually be stable as stable as D3D is :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It did cause a hilarious FUD storm at the time though, with the people-who-spell-it-Micro$oft-and-read-slashdot crowd completely losing their mind and jumping to the conclusion that this meant that OpenGL drivers would be restricted, and GL would always just be an inefficient API-emulation layer on top of D3D.


That's a slight misrepresentation of the past there!

It wasn't entirely a FUD storm, OpenGL was going to end up being relegated to a second class citizen, but not for the reasons you state. The original plan was that when OpenGL was run, the aero theme would switch off (no transparency on the desktop). If you wanted your app to be compatible with aero, you needed to use d3d (or the OpenGL 1.4 -> d3d wrapper). This was the behaviour in the first vista release candidates (I actually remember having serious discussions about porting our 3d app to d3d)

If you were a game developer using gl then, none of this was a concern (you'd be full screen anyway). For 3d app devs though, this was a pretty big concern back in the day (your competitor, with a d3d viewport, would have a nicer looking gui than you).

Microsoft eventually backed down after autodesk/Adobe and others pointed out they needed OpenGL for their products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 671 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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this