and this time.... it might work.
http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boa...;f=12;t=000001
Printable View
and this time.... it might work.
http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boa...;f=12;t=000001
As long as DirectX continues to only work on Windows, OpenGL will survive.
how many game/app companies do you think are gonna take the extra time to write their apps again in OpenGL for linux? far less than do now...
besides that they're gonna KILL the high end graphics markets... especially the 3d modeler/renderer markets... morons.
edit:... seriously, they're gonna have to back down on this... toooo many companies are gonna complain.
Vista is beta software. Microsoft wouldn't do something so utterly retarded and performance-crippling. 50% of all 3d games and applications use OpenGL, Microsoft can't shut them out or people would stick with Windows XP. On top of that Microsoft can't force all those developers to rewrite their software in DirectX.Quote:
Originally Posted by no-one
This is most likely just a temporary bug in beta software, otherwise microsoft would see a huge loss of sales if people decide to stick to Windows XP.
read the first paragraph of the thread... it's a "current plan" not a bug.
> Microsoft wouldn't do something so utterly retarded and performance-crippling.
we are talking about the same MS, right?
>
50% of all 3d games and applications use OpenGL, Microsoft can't shut them out or people would stick with Windows XP. On top of that Microsoft can't force all those developers to rewrite their software in DirectX.
<
they're not "technically" forcing them... just "gently" coercing them.
Designer induced bug... aka "user-friendly feature".
I'm guessing it won't fly, though, for the reasons mentioned above. I would not be surprised, however, if they still tried to degrade OGL performance in some other manner, by a less drastic margin.
This is not quite as bad as it sounds. As taken from a post I found on another message board (via Slashdot), full screen games and the like will not be effected.I stole that post from here: http://www.gamedev.net/community/for...age=4�Quote:
Just want to get everyone to slow down for a minute and take a hard look at what is and isn't happening.
Let's basically take the following as hard fact:
Quote:
As soon as an ICD is loaded the composited desktop is turned off on Windows Vista. If you want the composited desktop Aeroglass experience, you will need to make your application go through Microsoft's OpenGL implementation, which is layered on top of DirectX. As pointed out earlier, this layering can have performance implications. Their implementation supports OpenGL version 1.4 only, without extension support.
ICD = Installable Client Driver (i.e. this is what you get when you go to nVidia's site and install their driver.)
So, when a display driver for OpenGL is loaded, Aeroglass shuts down. First and foremost:
This has absolutely no implications for fullscreen games on single monitor setups!
So, with that important detail out of the way, let's look at the scenarios where we DO have a serious problem:
* Multi-monitor setups
* Windowed mode applications
The former is of concern primarily for developers, and I won't really look at it, as it's really just an extension of the latter. So what do windowed mode applications entail? Game editors, scientific and engineering software, tons of academic stuff, modeling and CAD software -- basically, everything that isn't a game. Now, suppose one of these applications starts. Windows again has two options:
* Give the client app the virtualised MS implementation, and keep Aeroglass running as normal.
* Shut down Aeroglass, revert to a 2D desktop, and load a real ICD for the app.
I think it's fairly obvious what the pros and cons of each choice are. The problem at this point, and the objection of the people leading this charge, is that there is no third option:
* Load a real ICD, but keep Aeroglass running as normal.
So, that is the real problem. Vista will not allow both a true accelerated OpenGL app and Aeroglass to run concurrently. And that, basically, is how the cards fall right now. The second alternative of shutting down Aeroglass when an OpenGL app does not really bother me -- we're using a 2D desktop right now, and we seem to be getting along fine. Should we be putting pressure on MS to resolve this issue? The answer is a resounding YES. But let's keep our heads here, shall we? Before screaming about this, that, and the other, understand what exactly is and isn't happening.
This is why I want to use Linux as my main os...sigh....if only I could get my mom to realize that her e-mail isn't on the computer (she uses Yahoo webmail), and that double clicking isn't hard...
Of course, if she can't overcome Double clicking, nearly all Desktop Environments have a single click option.
Man... that's twice the physical exertion of a single click... That can be pretty intense.
That also wears out your mouse TWICE as fast!!
Heh just one of the joys of being a teenager with computer illiterate parents.
"Oh? I have to double click? Wow this sucks lets go back to the old computer"
"Huh? You fixed an issue with the ethernet card? DON'T TOUCH THAT COMPUTER YOU MIGHT BREAK IT!"
The way they talk they act like computers should never be touched by a human being...
Anyways back on topic:
Couldn't there simply be an API call to disable the aeroglass look & feel on the fly for programs that -need- to use OpenGL? For some reason I don't see too many companys being happy if Microsoft makes DirectX the only useable graphics library on Windows.
Microsoft isn't forcing people to stick with Windows. Cedega can already run games pretty well and this might make more companies start to consider supporting Linux as well. Maybe it'll backfire nicely for Microsoft. :D
That's what I'm hopeing for. Since Microsoft has already decided not to implement many features in Vista (WinFS, and being built upon .NET, and I know of others that I can't think of right now) I couldn't imagine many people getting it other than those who like having the latest and greatest, at least not until Microsoft includes several other features they promised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frobozz
The only difference I see in Vista from XP are purely looks, and some minor differences that I think a lot of windows users will probably not like (such as virtual folders, and the directory change) since they'll have to adapt to a new way of thinking, even if the changes aren't major.
I was thinking about what would happen even if it did backfire on microsoft...even in the best case scenario. Lets say everyone switches to linux. Every non-techie yuppie will be asking every other non-techie yuppie which is the best distro, and in the end 90% of the country will end up using only RedHat (example) and it'l start all over again.
True, but since Linux is Linux so long as you have the right windows enviroment, there really isn't anything stopping someone from writing a program for Red Hat and having it run on Fedora, Slackware, or Debian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan100
And I could see every non-techie person to go to a free distro, since everyone loves cheap stuff!
Most of the differences are ones that developers will notice more than the average user. The replacement of GDI and the presence of .NET being the biggest two.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7smurfs
Virtual foldes is not that difficult a concept. Google is doing it with email using their "labels" system. A pretty useful idea really. Instead of copying every picture to My Pictures, you could simply tell the virtual folder to show every image on the drive and even possibly on currently inserted floppies and CDs. ;)
>Most of the differences are ones that developers will notice more than the average user. The replacement of
>GDI and the presence of .NET being the biggest two.
actually that got canned with all of the other new technologies supposed to be in Vista. Vista is NOT based on .NET
more here, http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1841067,00.asp
Developers don't make up the main windows users though. The end user isn't going to go, "Oh my gosh developers can do things easier! I must upgrade!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Frobozz
Then again, I may just be underrating the end user.
The problem is, that a lot of people see no reason to upgrade (at least, the people I talk to don't). It seems to be nothing but XP with an expensive GUI. The high requirements alone will turn people off.
I said the presence of, not based on. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Perspective
From what I've seen of the average Windows user, there is no way you could be underrating them. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 7smurfs
Microsoft has ways of "persuading" users to switch to a new operating systems. Eventually Microsoft will drop support and upgrades to Windows XP. And while that hasn't stopped home and business users from using Windows 98, it will cause some to switch to it. Plus look at all those people who like to "skin" their desktop - Windows Vista would allow for some nifty effects. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 7smurfs
http://www.gamedev.net/community/for...opic_id=337097
He is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michalson
I haven't even upgraded to XP, though I have a legal version that came with my latest PC. Why should I ? 2K is running fine and I don't mind missing the latest and cutest bubble user interface. The first thing I switched at work was the candy/baloon-style interface. I don't like to have barbie sit on my windows. I never had dolls and I will not start now.
I like 2K pro but also winxp pro to some extent.
Ok, if Microsoft went bankrupt, our economy would suffer greatly. Think about it, they control a ton of products and other companies and they make the most "user friendly" O/S environment.
I like windows, I like linux, leave linux for the smart people, and windows for smart people and dumb people.
>>I said the presence of, not based on.
How will the presence of .NET be any different than it is now on XP? The big deal was supposed to be that the OS is based on a .NET platform... but its not anymore. MS set their sights too high and dropped almost all of the new innovations that were supposed to go into Vista. No new filesystem (WinFS), no fancy new command line tools (Monad), no .NET basis...
I think everybody's missing the one good thing about all of this that MS is actually updating they're OpenGL imp... woot!
>sand_man's ref...
he's not right... i dont think he even read whats going on... and yeah, they could do A LOT WORSE...
such as leave the Direct-X Aeroglass running when you start a GL app so the driver can crash them both! like happens nowa days when you overlap the two...
but its totally ........ing stupid for them to claim that they have to run GL through a Direct-X wrapper to make it fly with aeroglass... on current drivers maybe?... but i expect that they IHV's will fix that...
> nv's post
haha... nice.
I could care less about the OS being based on .NET. The biggest deal is in the form of the Mono Project. By the time Longhorn is released, it should be able to support most .NET projects. If companies switch to it, then there is a good chance their programs will be cross-platform because of it. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Perspective
as soon as mono is mature enough for compaines to profit from, MS will step in and claim copyright infringment or something of the sort and force anyone who wants to profit to pay a micro-soft tax. If that wasn't the case they would have just picked up java instead of pulling random programming languages out of their ass.
I'm pretty sure .NET is an open standard that anyone is free to implement. It would look pretty bad for MS to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perspective
If M$ went bankrupt out of nowhere, I'd be more worried about why Washington (state) got bombed :pQuote:
Originally Posted by JoshR
Actually, I don't think the economy would suffer greaty. I agree it would do bad...but alot of hardware is based on linux, including routers and less computer oriented things. And all those companies that "recommend windows"--if M$ went bankrupt, they'd switch to the next big thing. It's money, not loyalty.
Because then Sun would stick their nose into it and complain that Microsoft was trying to take away what little they had left. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Perspective
I seriously doubt that Microsoft is going to kill OpenGL. Even if they did it would only be for their implementation of the driver. And anybody who cares about it is going to be using a driver by the company that makes their video card.
You have to wonder though - how come the terrorists haven't bombed them. But I imagine it is because it wouldn't have much of an effect. Sure people know of Bill Gates, but the non-techie wouldn't really care. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Stan100
if they were for that sort of thing... they would bomb Wal-Mart....