Yes, Microsoft monopoly, unfortunately. Until someone backports it to XP. IIRC someone is already doing that, but I don't know how well it's going / how well it can be done.
And my computer (the one I usually use for my programming) is quite old. 400mhz, 198mb ram.
I'm hoping I can fit the DX SDK and DX9.0c onto the hard drive.
Not really sure... Still setting it up.
Will probably be making small things, then when I get into bigger things, I will move my programs down to this computer. (Much faster)
I would still use it for coding, compiling, simple things.
I've tried doing so many of those XP tweaking guides on the internet...
edit: Although Microsoft does make it for new machines, they are probably one of the biggest companies in the world, so the API won't go out of date. Like OpenGL, it hasn't been updated in a while.
Last edited by michaelp; 01-02-2008 at 06:47 PM.
> Like OpenGL, it hasn't been updated in a while.
OpenGL is merely a specification. There have been a lot of OpenGL extensions and developments recently, and OpenGL 3.0 is on the way.
I feel that DirectX gives me the most bang for my buck, or lack thereof, because it entails sound, input, and the whole enchilada. Direct3D is just one portion of DirectX and to judge DirectX solely in the context of Direct3D is a misstep.
But you use whatever API aids you the most and what you feel comfortable with. We could give you all kinds of advice and opinions for and against both but in the end the choice is yours.
You will not get slammed for using DirectX, OpenGL, Allegro, SDL, etc, on these boards. You will get slammed if you use those with no forethought as to the underlying principles. A fancy API is nothing without knowing how to apply it.
Your first question should not be what's the easy and quick route unless this is a product that is dependent on money and thus time. Your question should be which API offers the most for your specific project. Don't choose DX, GL, Allegro, or SDL just because one is easier than the other. They are all about the same as far as difficulty goes. Game programming is not easy, period. But it is some of the most enjoyable code I've written (when it works) and the satsfaction of seeing your game code running is worth all the fuss.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 01-02-2008 at 08:42 PM.
Thanks for the help everyone, I've chosen DX and have set it up with Dev-Cpp.
I have a had quite a few good games be able to run on the computer.
Age of Empires 1 and 2 could run on it.
A game called "G-Nome", which now that I think about it, has very impressive graphics for he computer it is ran on. Under system requirements for it, it only needed 16MB of ram.
Google "G-Nome" for images.
I won't know until I start to make some.
But I'm sure I will be able to make something half-decent (maybe not as good as G-Nome) on my computer.
And G-Nome was made using DX 3. :O
I found it odd that you're running a DX on a pretty low-tech computer on an almost unsupported IDE system.
You make it sound like 400 MHz is the stone age. Bah. Most of the best games I know would run flawlessly there.
All the buzzt!
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law