View Poll Results: What Windows graphics library do you use more often?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • DirectX

    8 29.63%
  • OpenGL

    5 18.52%
  • Just the Win32 GDI

    6 22.22%
  • Other

    2 7.41%
  • Nah... I just don't like Graphics programming

    2 7.41%
  • I've never done any graphics programming

    4 14.81%

Which Windows graphics libary do you use more often?

This is a discussion on Which Windows graphics libary do you use more often? within the Windows Programming forums, part of the Platform Specific Boards category; I already answered that in the previous post, BUT i'll state it again, By producing a purposly slow and buggy ...

  1. #31
    Has a Masters in B.S.
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,267
    I already answered that in the previous post, BUT i'll state it again,

    By producing a purposly slow and buggy implementation of OpenGL MS guarenteed there was no viable competition, thusly destroying all competition and forcing developers to go for the only remaining alternative Direct-3D.

    but you don't believe thats forcing it on them do you? "they could have used nothing!! or gone back to DOS!!!", and lost their buisness too.

    >
    And by the way, I dodn't know those companies developed with OpelGL too... maybe they did, and then they found out how bad it is, because their main products (not to mention BEST) are made in DirectX, not OpenGL...
    <

    most are made to use both...

    >
    And please, since english is not my mother tongue, please DO SOME FRIGGIN SPELLING LESSONS
    <

    EXCUSE MY FRIGGEN TYPOS!!!!

  2. #32
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    955
    you should see me, I'm laughing my *** off because i got you mad...

    c'mon, man, don't take it seriously, but if you look at the reality, even YOU know that you can't convince me that OpenGL is better, and I can't convince you that DirectX is better, just use yours and Iīll use mine.

    Iīm sure that OpenGL must be better than DirectX in some things, but DirectX must be better in other things that OpenGL.

    The reason i wrote this is because I'm growing tired of arguing this way, I'd rather argue with someone I can speak directly too (I think you know why).

    By the way, I still donīt understand how did Microsoft forced them to use their software, and NO, I havenīt seen games in OpenGL (well, maybe 1 or 2).

    Oskilian

  3. #33
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    955
    I am going to write here just as said by a guy that wrote a book concerning 3D Graphics, I'm not going to say his name 'cause I don't want to involve him:

    Why use Direct3D? Why not use OpenGL?
    For those of you who have never used it, OpenGL is another graphics API, Silicon Graphicsdesigned it in the early '90s for use on their high-end graphics workstations. It has been ported to countless platforms and operating systems. Outside of the games industry, in areas like simulation and academic research, OpenGL is de facto standard for doing computer graphics. It is a simple, elegant and fast API. Check out www.opengl.org for more information.

    But it isn't perfect. First of all, OpenGL has a large amount of functionality in it. Making the interface so simple requires that the implementation take care of a lot of ugly details to make sure everything works correctly. Because of the way drivers are implemented, each company that makes a 3-D card has to support the entire OpenGL feature set in order to have a fully compliant OpenGL driver. These drivers are extremely difficult to implement correctly, and the performance on equal hardware can vary wildly based on driver quality. In addition, DirectX has the added advantage of being able to move quicker to accommodate new hardware features. DirectX is controlled by Microsoft (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on your view of it) while OpenGL extensions need to be deliberated by comittees.



    Oskilian

  4. #34
    Has a Masters in B.S.
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,267
    been to busy to relpy to the previous post so i will now,

    >you should see me, I'm laughing my *** off because i got you mad...

    Im not mad in the slightest.

    >
    c'mon, man, don't take it seriously, but if you look at the reality, even YOU know that you can't convince me that OpenGL is better, and I can't convince you that DirectX is better, just use yours and Iīll use mine.
    <

    i've know from post 2,

    >
    The reason i wrote this is because I'm growing tired of arguing this way, I'd rather argue with someone I can speak directly too (I think you know why).
    <

    i agree.

    >
    y the way, I still donīt understand how did Microsoft forced them to use their software,
    <

    ok, ill try again,
    Don't you think that purposly producing a driver to slow down and ugilify the ONLY alternative to your product is forcing it on the user? Not to mention not supporting it on any drivers that ship with your product, even though you have an agreement to do so!

    >and NO, I havenīt seen games in OpenGL (well, maybe 1 or 2).

    you will if you look.

    to the second post,

    >First of all, OpenGL has a large amount of functionality in it.

    THIS IS BAD!?!?!!?!?!

    >
    Making the interface so simple requires that the implementation take care of a lot of ugly details to make sure everything works correctly.
    <

    this is a very good thing...it allows for greater speed, flexibility, and functionality from one implementation to another, it can be tailored to a particular need.

    >
    Because of the way drivers are implemented, each company that makes a 3-D card has to support the entire OpenGL feature set in order to have a fully compliant OpenGL driver.
    <

    same goes for Direct-X.
    look at the wording "compliant" means that it meets the ENTIRE standard so DUH!! it requires a full implementation,

    and this is not entirly true a full implementation is not neccessary to use GL.

    >
    drivers are extremely difficult to implement correctly, and the performance on equal hardware can vary wildly based on driver quality.
    <

    once again a good thing, this allows hardware to accelerate a needed feature more that say another crappy manufacturer.

    >
    addition, DirectX has the added advantage of being able to move quicker to accommodate new hardware features.
    <

    OpenGL is quite capable but the ARB is lazy so...

    >
    DirectX is controlled by Microsoft (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on your view of it)
    <

    bad, very bad this holds it back.

    >while OpenGL extensions need to be deliberated by comittees.

    note the word "dileberated", the only comitte dileberating at the board is MS itself.

  5. #35
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    955
    I didn't write that, I just typed it directly from the book!

    look harder, well, I'll try and find GL games...

    and, I'm growing a little tired of this thread.

    Oskilian

  6. #36
    Has a Masters in B.S.
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,267
    consider it ended then, i was just responding to his points.
    ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.

  7. #37
    Registered User johnnie2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    186
    Last time I checked, id Software decided to port Quake III to OpenGL to conveniently miss certain inabilities in DirectX.
    "Optimal decisions, once made, do not need to be changed." - Robert Sedgewick, Algorithms in C

  8. #38
    Has a Masters in B.S.
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,267
    actually there was no port, Id Software has developed all their games exclusively in GL since quake i think... maybe earlier.

  9. #39
    Registered User dirkduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    428
    yeah, all teh quakes were origionally made with openGL...
    I get it, it's graphics only, so if you wanna make a game that uses joysticks with force feedback, or real-time music rendering, or 3d sound, you have to use both opengl and directx, or another library! "

    you could use openGL, openAL, openIL, SDL...etc to make a 'complete' game, that is portable, and doesnt use directX

  10. #40
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    955
    > you could use openGL, openAL, openIL, SDL...etc to make a 'complete' game, that is portable, and doesnt use directX <

    What is OpenAL, OpenIL and SDL? and why can they make your game īcompleteī ?

    Oskilian

  11. #41
    Has a Masters in B.S.
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,267
    As complete as Direct-X can...
    sept maybe networking, does the SDL support that yet? i think its in an upcomming version, though C++ will support networking natively soon.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. A question about the old BGI graphics libary
    By p3t3r1 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-30-2006, 11:19 AM
  2. Virtual keys
    By Arkanos in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-12-2005, 09:00 AM
  3. Graphics Programming :: Approach and Books
    By kuphryn in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-11-2004, 08:33 PM
  4. OpenGL and Windows
    By sean345 in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-24-2002, 10:14 PM
  5. Graphics in a window in windows
    By Korn1699 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-16-2002, 12:59 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21