OpenGL vs Direct 3D
Author
Ok heres the thing. OpenGL appears easier to code, runs faster, is just as supported nowdays, doesnt require a 70mb download, and in my opinion it looks quite a bit better so why in the heck is Direct 3D the main system used? Is there something ive missed? Is direct 3D some magical thing that makes all your programs sound cooler or something?
Thats my winge feel free to coment :-)
-ando15
lol. yes, magic.
Direct3D does not require a 70MB download. the current version of DirectX does. DirectX comes pre-installed with Win9x/ME/NT/2000 & XP.
To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.
Edited by - jenova on February 6, 2002 5:06:59 PM
Direct3D does not require a 70MB download. the current version of DirectX does. DirectX comes pre-installed with Win9x/ME/NT/2000 & XP.
To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.
Edited by - jenova on February 6, 2002 5:06:59 PM
Before the FUD starts flying, I''ll simply state that the two are comparable in all aspects and that choosing one over the other is a matter of preference. This issue has been hashed, rehashed and fought over several times (some threads going over 20 pages).
Thread closed.
[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!
Thread closed.
[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
