DirectX 10: More harm than good for graphics?

[M0RPH]

This article has some very good info on DirectX 10 and I haven't seen it posted here yet:

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/article.asp?CIID=24636

As of DirectX 10, to be introduced in Windows Vista, 3D features will be bound to version numbers of Direct3D. What this means is that all 3D vendors will support the same features, guaranteeing compatibility across the board. Although this may sound great, allowing for a more standardised games development environment, the reality is that Microsoft will soon be regulating the introduction of 3D features, leaving companies such as NVIDIA and ATI at the mercy of the software giant.

 

[xtknight]

Excellent article.

Anyway I don't see a problem with Microsoft regulating the graphics cards as long as they don't touch or remove OpenGL. I'm fine if they add extensions to it though, but being Microsoft they better not remove it.

As for DirectX, Microsoft should regulate it. It would be nice if our graphics cards were more up to date.

Thanks to the new, shared architecture in the APIs, it will be possible to install new drivers without rebooting; perform 'video card-only' reboots and isolate the display driver from the rest of the system.

I can already change video drivers without rebooting. Just install the driver, choose not to reboot, and change your resolution to 1024x768 (or other resolution) and back to what you had it to. Boom, video driver loaded. I've done it on XP64, and I played Battlefield 2 on the first boot of it.

The presentation, in all its completeness, failed to touch on the implementation of OpenGL in Windows Vista. When questioned, Balaz explained that OpenGL would be in Vista in three forms: straight software, 'wrapped' around Direct3D and finally run through an installable client driver.

That's good. At least they're not removing it. XP64's WOW64 'wrapper' is excellent, so I expect OpenGL's to be of the same caliber.

 

[Markbnj]

Teh Great Satan only cares about increasing profist and wurld domination when what we really need are great games that run in a standard environment and use the latest graphics hardware!

Oh, wait...

 

[johnnqq]

to apple!

 

[PrayForDeath]

Doesn't look bad to me, as long as there's an OpenGL alternative.

 

[forumposter32]

I just hope Micro$h1t destroys itself with all that DRM crap ect. Then the Apple OS and Linux will rule the world.

 

[hans030390]

the new shader model features look interesting.

Oh well, by the time Vista and DX10/sm4 (or whatever) is widely used, I will be getting a new computer.

I do find it funny that a bunch of next gen games are based on SM3, so I really wonder if SM4 will take off faster since it's getting more of a push by MS...hmm...

 

[bersl2]

How has this not been obvious to all of you over the past few years?

OpenGL has the Architecture Review Board, made up of many (mostly hardware) companies. No one company controls the standard.

OpenGL has an extension registry, which allows new features to be added at will by a company, for consideration of inclusion into future versions of the standard, should the extension prove well-accepted.

This post explains why wrapping OpenGL over Direct3D is bad for OpenGL (emphasis mine):

Microsoft's current plan for OpenGL on Windows Vista is to layer OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. If an OpenGL ICD is run - the desktop compositor will switch off - significantly degrading the user experience.

In practice this means for OpenGL under Aeroglass:

* OpenGL performance will be significantly reduced - perhaps as much as 50%
* OpenGL on Windows will be fixed at a vanilla version of OpenGL 1.4
* No extensions will be possible to expose future hardware innovations

It would be technically straightforward to provide an OpenGL ICD within the full Aeroglass experience without compromising the stability or the security of the operating system. Layering OpenGL over Direct3D is a policy more than a technical decision.

What can you do?

1. Write to your preferred ISV, hardware developer or OEM and tell them to bring this up with Microsoft (e.g. 3Dlabs, ATI, Intel, Matrox, NVIDIA, HP, Dell)
2. Bring this issue up on other developer and tech-related web sites. If you have a personal blog or podcast, talk about the issue there. Windows Vista might end up being a great product, but not if OpenGL is crippled
3. Post your comments to this message board (please no Microsoft bashing - Just make it clear that Windows needs to stay a great platform for the OpenGL API and offer any suggestions)

The two points I bolded may be important. It is very possible that this means that the programmable shaders will be unavailable to OpenGL. The programmable rendering pipeline only became a vital part of the language in the 2.0 standard; the OpenGL Shading Language was a companion specification to OpenGL 1.4, but it was only accessable through an official ARB extension. The linked thread elaborates and provides further references.

I don't know what to think, other than I'm glad I switched to Linux a while ago, and that this stinks of non-technical BS.

 

[xtknight]

We simply don't know at this point how Microsoft is going to wrap OpenGL and what will limit it. It's a long way away.

 

[M0RPH]

It's a shame and all but let's face it, OpenGL has lost the battle, just like Linux lost the battle against Windows. How many games can you play on Linux?

I don't know if I can blame Microsoft. Should they spend lots of time and effort getting OpenGL to work optimally under Vista, or use that effort to make Direct3D better?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
It's a shame and all but let's face it, OpenGL has lost the battle, just like Linux lost the battle against Windows. How many games can you play on Linux?

I don't know if I can blame Microsoft. Should they spend lots of time and effort getting OpenGL to work optimally under Vista, or use that effort to make Direct3D better?

You can play quite a few including Battlefield 2 with the TransGaming DirectX wrapper and any OpenGL game supported like Quake, RTCW, Wolfenstein: ET, Doom 3, any of the UTs.

Supported DX games:
http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: bersl2
How has this not been obvious to all of you over the past few years?

OpenGL has the Architecture Review Board, made up of many (mostly hardware) companies. No one company controls the standard.

OpenGL has an extension registry, which allows new features to be added at will by a company, for consideration of inclusion into future versions of the standard, should the extension prove well-accepted.

This post explains why wrapping OpenGL over Direct3D is bad for OpenGL (emphasis mine):

Microsoft's current plan for OpenGL on Windows Vista is to layer OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. If an OpenGL ICD is run - the desktop compositor will switch off - significantly degrading the user experience.

In practice this means for OpenGL under Aeroglass:

* OpenGL performance will be significantly reduced - perhaps as much as 50%
* OpenGL on Windows will be fixed at a vanilla version of OpenGL 1.4
* No extensions will be possible to expose future hardware innovations

It would be technically straightforward to provide an OpenGL ICD within the full Aeroglass experience without compromising the stability or the security of the operating system. Layering OpenGL over Direct3D is a policy more than a technical decision.

What can you do?

1. Write to your preferred ISV, hardware developer or OEM and tell them to bring this up with Microsoft (e.g. 3Dlabs, ATI, Intel, Matrox, NVIDIA, HP, Dell)
2. Bring this issue up on other developer and tech-related web sites. If you have a personal blog or podcast, talk about the issue there. Windows Vista might end up being a great product, but not if OpenGL is crippled
3. Post your comments to this message board (please no Microsoft bashing - Just make it clear that Windows needs to stay a great platform for the OpenGL API and offer any suggestions)

The two points I bolded may be important. It is very possible that this means that the programmable shaders will be unavailable to OpenGL. The programmable rendering pipeline only became a vital part of the language in the 2.0 standard; the OpenGL Shading Language was a companion specification to OpenGL 1.4, but it was only accessable through an official ARB extension. The linked thread elaborates and provides further references.

I don't know what to think, other than I'm glad I switched to Linux a while ago, and that this stinks of non-technical BS.

IIRC, at most it will mean that you won't be able to use Aeroglass features with a vendor's ICD running...big deal. I doubt you'll care much about aeroglass when working in OpenGL apps like Maya, or OpenGL games like Doom3. Anything that runs Opengl now in XP, will run just the same in Longhorn.

 

[Turtle 1]

Nice work guys There is much much more out there go get it.