Couldn't OpenCL have created better and good uniformity vs what MS tried.

[Anarchist420]

DirectX is a programming interface. You seem profoundly confused on this point. They do not set any industry standards. They do not create the development environment. They do not patent 3D technology. They do not tell the hardware vendors what to make.

Patents helped enrich MS so they could make DX and moreso, so they could at least kind of enforce it on the programmers, hardware devs, gamers, and everyone else.

Have you ever read anything by Stephan Kinsella? I'm asking because I don't know what else to say.

 

[NTMBK]

Patents helped enrich MS so they could make DX and moreso, so they could at least kind of enforce it on the programmers, hardware devs, gamers, and everyone else.

Have you ever read anything by Stephan Kinsella? I'm asking because I don't know what else to say.

You mean to say that patents enabled them to make money from their innovations? Scandalous.

 

[Ferzerp]

They're supposed to work for free. Don't you know that?

The problem is, when you ask people advocating this if they will come mow your lawn and clean your gutters for free, they're actually offended. Amusingly, it always comes down to "what's mine is mine, and what's yours should be mine too"

 

[Anarchist420]

They're supposed to work for free. Don't you know that?

No, they just didn't have to work for the State. I'm not saying that they should've asked for zero patents but enough was never enough for microsoft. It could never plan ahead like the OpenGL board could.

I realize that sometimes people are forced to hold patents if they want to make money, but Microsoft was tempted to prevent the best and to make the worst. Microsoft is not a creation of the State necessarily, but it is a huge benefactor of the State. Selective regulation, patents, E.U. regulations vs. a dynamic American state, their competitors being tempted to use the courts against Microsoft so they could waste money.

Microsoft benefited from the State like few other institutions can. It made good programmers out of people who weren't the most creative, most hardworking programmers, it distorted the hardware sector thanks to the State, and it wound up responsible for artifacts from TC, aliasing, low precision at times, and dictated instructions sets. DX caused massive distortions that never would've been caused if there had been no hierarchy that was due to patents.

 

[Cerb]

Prior to the XP timeframe almost all new proofs and working understanding of new features came under OpenGL because we could actually use them without having to wait for months or years for MS to get around to adding them to DirectX.

You stated-

It was only great when there was nothing else, or today, on platforms where there indeed is nothing else.

Vendor extensions allowed developers to have titles launch that had features built in that weren't in DirectX at the time of their release, let alone a couple years in advance when they needed to have support for development purposes. You try and marginalize this if you'd like, Sweeney, Carmack and Newell all held out moving to pure DirectX support until version 8 or later. If MS allowed custom extensions in DirectX the way that OpenGL did then Sweeney and Newell at least would have moved over sooner. Sweeney is *still* lamenting this today(when Intel was trying to build hype for Larrabee they had an interview with Sweeney laying out exactly why DirectX still sucks- lack of flexibility was his main point).

I remember when every vendor had their list of crap that worked. Screw that. I don't lament it one bit, as a consumer. I can buy a major vendor (only options, now) DirectX <n> card, and it will just work, 99% of the time, for DX games, and that has been the case for over 10 years, now.

OpenGL today is not great. It's good, it works, but much of that has come from MS deciding DX features, and then the OpenGL folks going, "oh, well let's just all use that, since we know it will be there." Cg/HLSL/GLSL is a perfect example. MS has been leading the way since about DX 9.0. However. their non-technical people, though, are trying to make that not true for future, at this time, it seems, by playing the entrenched nickel-and-dimer, while their competitors have visions to sell consumers.

Lack of flexibility, which OpenGL trumped DirectX in because of vendor extensions, was a *very* real reason why it held on for so long. It is also the main reason why it absolutely owned pro 3D for even longer. If you are seriously trying to call it a strawman, then you are ignorant on this subject.

Me: DirectX determining common feature set support was good, due to not relying on vendor extensions for most current features, and helped make it far more popular.
You: Custom extensions kept OpenGL useful for a long time.

It's not inaccurate in its statement, but it's disregarding the point, presenting a side item as a counterargument (OpenGL's usefulness).

So the ~80% of the gaming market that isn't Windows or XBox doesn't matter. So sayeth you. Does it even need to be explained how ignorant that is? I don't think so, let's move on.

That other ~80% indeed does not matter, and it's not ignorance. It's context. The context was using GPUs in Microsoft Windows, since those environments are the only ones that support DirectX and OpenGL. If you don't have DX anyway, how good or bad it may be doesn't matter one bit.

Drop the lunatic fanboy mindset. Did I ever say that OpenGL was *better* then Direct3D? Nope, never came close to approaching anything of the sort. Did OpenGL have very, very real advantages over Direct3D? Yes, yes it did.

It still does, in a broader view than Windows, which accounts for a fragment of a sentence. So far, most people have preferred to improve OpenGL implementations, v. making their own API (again, excepting some esoteric embedded hardware and software--and OpenGL ES will be replacing what's left outside the OpenGL umbrella shortly, I'm guessing). But, that's well beyond the scope of my reply to Anarchist420, which only involved the one platform where any kind of choice exists--Windows--and also in the context of only video games. Outside of Windows gaming with 3D hardware, my reply to Anarchist420 had basically no meaning.

The last version of Windows that was called NT was version 4.

That's what I was running, from '97-'00.

So, link me up these Windows NT Direct X 11 libraries.

XP and newer only for OpenGL 4, Vista and newer only for DX 11. NT has long been past EOL, so no GPU vendors have been making new drivers for it. Software rendering libraries would be kind of pointless to try to play games with. I wouldn't expect XP support for the next OpenGL iteration, either since it will be EOL, soon. NT >= 6.0, however, has plenty of support, and will for several more years.

NT4 was my primary OS until 2K hit(when I could finally drop the dual boot with Win98)- I am very well versed in what Windows NT could and could not do for gaming- and if you wanted to port a game to Windows NT you used OpenGL. Again, you can try and say that you decide what Windows is called and not Microsoft, but reality doesn't agree with that line of thought.

Iit's not just me. NT, without a version, is commonly used in the same way 9x is.

No, it is setting a platform standard. Do nVidia and AMD both offer a rather lengthy list of capabilities that go outside of the D3D specification? Yes. If you can pull the IEEE standard up that mandates D3D compliance I will gladly say that I am wrong without hesitation.

Multiple major hardware vendors adhere to it--all of them that want to run Windows. Being proprietary, not vetted by ISO or IEEE, does not make it less of a standard. That kind of standard is something MS has wanted to generally avoid (otherwise, they could very well have just mandated a set of OpenGL extensions that must be supported for Windows version X, and been done with the 3D part of it all).

Their shrinking market has far more to do with Ballmer than anything technical, one way or another. With Windows 8 once again not using supersets, WinRT only being half a Windows OS, licensing changes to server applications, and so on, I can't feel bad for them, either. I almost wonder of the board wants to let Ballmer go on until the company has to be bought by Apple :sneaky:.

Sony, Nintendo, iOS, Android, Mac OS and Linux developers are curious about where this D3D development environment is. The majority of the gaming world uses something that is *NOT* D3D. That is reality.

A reality I not once denied. I have been dealing in Windows, Windows, and Windows, because that's the only place DirectX exists. Outside of Windows, benefits or drawbacks of DirectX are irrelevant.

 

[BenSkywalker]

It's not inaccurate in its statement, but it's disregarding the point, presenting a side item as a counterargument (OpenGL's usefulness).

You stated the only reason it stuck around was for platforms that didn't have DirectX, this dates you as quite wet behind the ears for one(DX prior to 7 was *horrific*)- perhaps that is why you seem to have no understanding of why OpenGL wasn't just hanging on for so long, all of the most popular game engines supported it. It would normally take MS *years* to add a feature to D3D, and then years after that before it actually worked. Because of vendor extensions OpenGL wasn't just clinging on in the early days, it was *far* superior. Up until the Win98 era D3D wasn't even the main competition for OpenGL, Glide was. That is speaking strictly of Windows based PCs, the cross platform portability was another rather large issue.

Multiple major hardware vendors adhere to it

Who does? Who adheres strictly to DirectX- I won't even limit it to Direct 3D? Vendors release parts that hit certain feature sets, none of them have been fairing all that great compared to D3D refrast for a while now(then we have input and sound issues etc), they also have feature support outside of DirectX. DirectX is a very lose guideline for a small segment of the market.

I have been dealing in Windows, Windows, and Windows, because that's the only place DirectX exists. Outside of Windows, benefits or drawbacks of DirectX are irrelevant.

A feather and hammer will hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum. For what you say to have merit, Windows would need to exist inside of a vacuum, it does not.

 

[DominionSeraph]

A feather and hammer will hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum. For what you say to have merit, Windows would need to exist inside of a vacuum, it does not.

No, to be irrelevant it merely need be irrelevant.

 

[Cerb]

You stated the only reason it stuck around was for platforms that didn't have DirectX

No, I did not.

OpenGL is still less uniform, and will remain so. It was only great (em. added) when there was nothing else, or today, on platforms where there indeed is nothing else. [It] tries to be everything to everyone, and has all the problems of legislative bodies because of it.

"Stuck around," and, "great," are not remotely the same things. It has, "stuck around," because it is a practical necessity.

Who does? Who adheres strictly to DirectX- I won't even limit it to Direct 3D?

Intel, AMD, NV, now. Maybe VIA? IE, everyone who makes x86 PC GPUs. Probably Imagination, as well.

A feather and hammer will hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum. For what you say to have merit, Windows would need to exist inside of a vacuum, it does not.

Neither do you. You are in a bubble, with ~1G of gravity and plenty of air, and all the worries of the cosmos are not yours. DirectX is in a bubble with Microsoft OSes.

OpenGL serves everybody. DirectX primarily serves MS, and hardware vendors that make money from MS software (including software that requires MS OSes). It exists primarily because OpenGL acts like a stereotypical committee (because it is), and MS wanted to get work done ASAP. OpenGL would need to be able to tell too many people, "no," to do what MS has done with Direct3D (specifically, state that X, Y, and Z must be supported), but that's simply not possible for them to do.

Microsoft focused on improving the developer situation (including deciding what features need to baked into the HW) on the platforms they have some control over, using an API of their own, tied into the Windows API(s); and later, using moderately strict hardware requirements for that API.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Intel, AMD, NV, now. Maybe VIA? IE, everyone who makes x86 PC GPUs. Probably Imagination, as well.

Could you please list one graphics chip ever made by anyone that strictly adheres to Direct 3D? It is kind of a trick question, none exist. Ever.

It exists primarily because OpenGL acts like a stereotypical committee (because it is), and MS wanted to get work done ASAP.

If by ASAP you mean to say As Slow As Possible perhaps. Singular feature example- tessellation, in hardware for a *decade* before MS finally was dragged kicking and screaming to include it in D3D. They don't give us a truly forward unifying feature set, nor do they give us great utilization of existing technology, in fact they tend to help hold the industry back with D3D. What they provide is a development environment for a small slice of the industry. Nothing more.

 

[Zxian]

Sony, Nintendo, iOS, Android, Mac OS and Linux developers are curious about where this D3D development environment is. The majority of the gaming world uses something that is *NOT* D3D. That is reality.

PC gaming is starting to overtake console gaming in terms of revenue. This could be a result of the now 5+ year old consoles, but it's still something to consider. At this point in time, it's fairly safe to say that the vast majority of PC gaming rendered using DirectX. We'll have to see what happens when PS4/X720/WiiU start rolling out into the market to see if console game sales rise again, as well as the effect that Steam on Ubuntu will have.

iOS and Android games don't really count at this point (I'm looking at you Angry Birds). Mobile devices are in a completely different league at the moment, and it will be a very, very long time until we get something with comparable graphics quality to what you can get on a PC today. Besides, most of the graphics capabilities are locked into the API's you're handed by Apple and Google anyways. Oh, wait. They charge you for that simplicity as well.

This thread has the same taste that a lot of anti-MS threads have. Microsoft standardized something and wants you to pay for it. Therefore, Microsoft bad. The open-source community can't agree to a unified standard (on many fronts, not just graphics) and provide support for it. It's taken a giant like Google to provide a unified and supported front on (one branch of) the Linux side of things.

People will easily pay to have something "just work". I buy a PC. I install Windows. I install DirectX. I install the game. I play the game. That level of support doesn't exist on PCs outside of Windows at the moment, and it hasn't for quite some time now.

 

[Anarchist420]

OpenGL serves everybody. DirectX primarily serves MS, and hardware vendors that make money from MS software (including software that requires MS OSes). It exists primarily because OpenGL acts like a stereotypical committee (because it is), and MS wanted to get work done ASAP. OpenGL would need to be able to tell too many people, "no," to do what MS has done with Direct3D (specifically, state that X, Y, and Z must be supported), but that's simply not possible for them to do. Microsoft focused on improving the developer situation (including deciding what features need to baked into the HW) on the platforms they have some control over, using an API of their own, tied into the Windows API(s); and later, using moderately strict hardware requirements for that API.

We finally agree on something.

Could you please list one graphics chip ever made by anyone that strictly adheres to Direct 3D?

He may have been pointing out that nothing can be run from the top down and then result in unification. DX tries to run from the top down, OpenGL is more democratic. Anarchy doesn't suck at first because it evens out... there is hope during the chaos even though not everyone can see it. DX didn't allow for OpenGL to really take off because DX got things done too quickly while MS was having affairs with software devs.

 

[Cerb]

Could you please list one graphics chip ever made by anyone that strictly adheres to Direct 3D? It is kind of a trick question, none exist. Ever.

It has required a minimum feature set. Exceeding that feature set is adhering to it (FI, GF FX's proper 32-bit FP met the requirement for 24-bit shaders). Not exceeding any required features, and not having anything to add to them, and just baking in the minimum to the hardware, would be pointless for anyone but Intel, I think (and these days, even for Intel).

If by ASAP you mean to say As Slow As Possible perhaps. Singular feature example- tessellation, in hardware for a *decade* before MS finally was dragged kicking and screaming to include it in D3D. They don't give us a truly forward unifying feature set, nor do they give us great utilization of existing technology, in fact they tend to help hold the industry back with D3D. What they provide is a development environment for a small slice of the industry. Nothing more.

By ASAP I mean a group of features that everyone will support, through the same code, very soon (as soon as the hardware can make its way to customers). Would support for HLSL's feature set, FI, have been likely to grow to encompass the whole of PC gaming GPUs and drivers, if MS hadn't decided on it? I'm not going to argue we might have gotten some feature or another without them (dildo guns for everyone! )...but even now, we still have a few features here and there limited to vendors. The less of those, the better, as long as we can still have competing GPU makers.

Regardless of how tiny that slice of the industry may be (frankly, no one has yet compiled enough stats to make a good comparison, since B&M sales can't be trusted for any platform, these days), it's a platform most of us here happen to use all the time, and buy for preferentially. It's nice, given that, to be able to know, barring NV's driver issues of recent years (please keep the quality of 30x.xx!), that it can just run and everything will work, with some nominal expected performance level.