Second opinion on physx

[Scali]

Originally posted by: thilan29
I think you've illustrated something there though. The next games coming from those studios are launching simultaneously for all platforms and/or were developed primarily on the consoles (even iD software said recently they've switched mainly to the xbox360).

Well, firstly, I'll believe it when I see it.
Secondly, what does that prove? The chances that all versions are finished at the EXACT same date are virtually zero.
So it would only mean that they delay it internally now, rather than releasing each version as it is finished.

Aside from that, UT3 is an excellent example that technical reasons aren't the only ones for delays. The XBox version is far more similar to the PC version, since both platforms use a derivative of Windows and DirectX, yet it's the PS3 version that is released at about the same time as the PC version, while porting the game to PS3 was probably a whole lot more work than XBox. PS3 is NOTHING like a regular PC, with its Cell processor. And it doesn't use DirectX either.

Originally posted by: thilan29
Well hopefully we see more and more games using GPU PhysX. I think having some sort of accelerated physics is better than not having anything (I'd prefer if everyone could run it)...I'm just sort of annoyed that it hasn't picked up more steam (I can use my 8800GT if I want to experience PhysX like I did for Mirror's Edge) which probably comes off as me dismissing it which I don't.

The irony is that people put the blame on nVidia, while it's AMD that failed to deliver so far. It's AMD's fault that not everyone can enjoy accelerated physics. AMD is holding the industry back on this point.

 

[yusux]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Vista 32 SP1

Excuse me for going offtopic... but erm, wow?
Why do you still use a 32-bit OS? I've been using x64 OSes for years now, and thought that pretty much every enthusiast would have switched now, considering the obvious limitations with the 4 GB memory barrier, not even getting into performance advantages with games offering native 64-bit binaries, such as Crysis.
Assuming you have a retail version of Vista, you can legally use the 64-bit version with the same key. You just need to get a 64-bit DVD, either from MS, or just borrow or download one.

And why don't you go for SP2? It's been out for a few weeks already.

I still use Windows XP for most of my games, Vista just takes away 1/5 to 1/4 of FPS on most games, except for FarCry 2 and World in Conflict, 64bit is good if you really need the extra memory and play Crysis 24/7, I had tried both 64bit and 32bit Vista and 32bit was faster in FarCry 2

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: yusux
I still use Windows XP for most of my games, Vista just takes away 1/5 to 1/4 of FPS on most games

I don't find the actual framerate very relevant, as long as the game is playable.
I think DX10 is more important, offering better image quality, and in some cases even better performance (eg BioShock).

Besides, I was asking Keysplayr, who already uses Vista, was just a question of why he didn't go for x64. It's not about XP vs Vista.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: yusux

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Vista 32 SP1

Excuse me for going offtopic... but erm, wow?
Why do you still use a 32-bit OS? I've been using x64 OSes for years now, and thought that pretty much every enthusiast would have switched now, considering the obvious limitations with the 4 GB memory barrier, not even getting into performance advantages with games offering native 64-bit binaries, such as Crysis.
Assuming you have a retail version of Vista, you can legally use the 64-bit version with the same key. You just need to get a 64-bit DVD, either from MS, or just borrow or download one.

And why don't you go for SP2? It's been out for a few weeks already.

I still use Windows XP for most of my games, Vista just takes away 1/5 to 1/4 of FPS on most games, except for FarCry 2 and World in Conflict, 64bit is good if you really need the extra memory and play Crysis 24/7, I had tried both 64bit and 32bit Vista and 32bit was faster in FarCry 2

Switch to Windows 7.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: yusux
I still use Windows XP for most of my games, Vista just takes away 1/5 to 1/4 of FPS on most games

I don't find the actual framerate very relevant, as long as the game is playable.
I think DX10 is more important, offering better image quality, and in some cases even better performance (eg BioShock).

Besides, I was asking Keysplayr, who already uses Vista, was just a question of why he didn't go for x64. It's not about XP vs Vista.

Because 64-bit doesn't offer much over 32-bit in PC gaming

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Because 64-bit doesn't offer much over 32-bit in PC gaming

It does, especially if you run hard into the memory limit because you use so much videomemory.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: shangshang
I remember pepole were arguing/bashing against MS DirectX API when it threaten OpenGL too some 10+ years ago. And here we are today, DirectX has pretty much become the de facto gaming API for Windows.

Sadly some people are STILL in denial, and still think OpenGL (which is so open that the opensource implementation for linux and *BSD had to be called MesaGL because of trademark issues and all that) is a superior standard. Even the professional market is now moving away from it.

The professional market isn't moving away from it, really they are moving towards it since there is no directx on linux or mac. Modo 4, XSI, Maya, Zbrush, Silo, shake, combustion, liquid, blender.

XSI has a directx client but the only people using it are game developers.

While Autodesk does support Direct3D and they do it reasonably well most of the time, Max2010 excluded, it is not their only focus. They have a very large team that supports OpenGL .

A huge part of the CG professional industry runs linux . Autodesk would be committing corporate suicide to only support direct3d. Any of their software that supports linux will continue to have OpenGL.

I'm not sure where you got this MesaGL stuff at, as linux runs the same OpenGL that windows does.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
While Autodesk does support Direct3D and they do it reasonably well most of the time, Max2010 excluded, it is not their only focus. They have a very large team that supports OpenGL .

I quoted a statement from Discreet/Autodesk directly. The fact that they need a large team to maintain OpenGL *is* the problem

Originally posted by: Modelworks
A huge part of the CG professional industry runs linux . Autodesk would be committing corporate suicide to only support direct3d. Any of their software that supports linux will continue to have OpenGL.

But their software DOESN'T support linux (okay, Maya does, but they bought that from another company only recently).
3dsmax and Autocad don't support linux, and never have afaik. Autocad used to run on certain flavours of unix, but those were phased out long ago, and it's been Windows-only since. Now they're phasing out OpenGL.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I'm not sure where you got this MesaGL stuff at, as linux runs the same OpenGL that windows does.

Uhh, you come in here ranting about linux and you don't even KNOW that it's called Mesa?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_3D_(OpenGL)

Yes it's an implementation of OpenGL, but because it's not officially licensed, they aren't allowed to call it OpenGL. So much for open standards...?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin
Because 64-bit doesn't offer much over 32-bit in PC gaming

It does, especially if you run hard into the memory limit because you use so much videomemory.

i run tri-fire and i don't

what are you talking about, 2GB vRAM cards?
- that might have issues with 32-bit

for most of us with a 1GB 4890 or GTX285, on a 4GB PC, there should not be any issues [except for rare instances] with 32-bit - nor any advantage in running a 64-bit OS for 99% of all PC games

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin
what are you talking about, 2GB vRAM cards?
- that might have issues with 32-bit

Read up. Keysplayr specced out a machine with a GTX295 and a 8800GTS 512 for PhysX.
That's a total of 2.3 GB of videomemory.

 

[apoppin]

Vista doesn't choke on it; it doesn't handle memory that way

What happens if you try to run that same configuration with 2GB System RAM?
- according to you, it should not run at all

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
While Autodesk does support Direct3D and they do it reasonably well most of the time, Max2010 excluded, it is not their only focus. They have a very large team that supports OpenGL .

I quoted a statement from Discreet/Autodesk directly. The fact that they need a large team to maintain OpenGL *is* the problem

No the problem is that directx is stuck on the windows platform.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
A huge part of the CG professional industry runs linux . Autodesk would be committing corporate suicide to only support direct3d. Any of their software that supports linux will continue to have OpenGL.

But their software DOESN'T support linux (okay, Maya does, but they bought that from another company only recently).
3dsmax and Autocad don't support linux, and never have afaik. Autocad used to run on certain flavours of unix, but those were phased out long ago, and it's been Windows-only since. Now they're phasing out OpenGL.

Maya, Xsi, Combustion, Liquid are all autodesk products and they all run on linux.
Maya has been re-written twice since they acquired it, they could have removed OpenGL support if it was so inferior. Instead they improved it.
Linux was never phased out and there are no plans to do so. This is an example of someone reading a link and thinking they know what they are talking about.
I know autodesk well , I have personal contacts there. Went to the offices just last month to pick up some alpha test of upcoming programs. OpenGL is going nowhere at autodesk. In fact they are hiring in that department.

They also are not the only professional application developer.
Zbrush, Modo, Shake, Silo are all major applications that run on OpenGL exclusively.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I'm not sure where you got this MesaGL stuff at, as linux runs the same OpenGL that windows does.

Uhh, you come in here ranting about linux and you don't even KNOW that it's called Mesa?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_3D_(OpenGL)

Yes it's an implementation of OpenGL, but because it's not officially licensed, they aren't allowed to call it OpenGL. So much for open standards...?

[/quote]


All the redhat boxes I have running right now use OpenGL, not Mesa, you need to spend some time with the actual stuff you are commenting on instead of reading wiki pages.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin
what are you talking about, 2GB vRAM cards?
- that might have issues with 32-bit

Read up. Keysplayr specced out a machine with a GTX295 and a 8800GTS 512 for PhysX.
That's a total of 2.3 GB of videomemory.

Also, Scali. Just for the hell of it, I placed the GTX295 and the 8800GTS512 in my Q6600 rig and that only has 2GB of system memory on Vista32. Still plays the games perfectly well. I thought it would choke. My total graphics memory is higher that total system memory. So what is it I should be looking out for? Cause I don't notice any hitching or anything. So far I've tried CoD W@W, UT3, Crysis. They play the same as the system with 4GB of memory on Vista32. What am I missing, or gladly missing?

Keys

 

[apoppin]

i am glad you tried it.

Vista doesn't choke on it; it doesn't handle memory that way

What happens if you try to run that same configuration with 2GB System RAM? - according to you, it should not run at all

You are missing that Vista does not manage memory as Scali appears to think

vista 32 is not inferior to vista 64 for Playing 99+% of PC games

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
No the problem is that directx is stuck on the windows platform.

So you are disagreeing with an official statement from Autodesk?
Go argue with Autodesk then, not me.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Maya, Xsi, Combustion, Liquid are all autodesk products and they all run on linux.

I was talking about 3dsmax and Autocad though.
Tihs is what I said:
"For example, Discreet, maker of industry standard software packages like 3dsmax and Autocad, started supporting Direct3D as an alternative to OpenGL a few years ago, and is now phasing out OpenGL altogether, because Direct3D gives them much more consistent results across a wide range of hardware, because of more mature drivers and better overall standardization and validation of drivers and hardware.
See here for example: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/s...eID=123112&id=10676494"

So this is about 3dsmax and Autocad, and about what Discreet/Autodesk says. It's not about other software, and it's not about what I said, I just pointed to their official website. Go argue with them instead, linux fanboy.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Linux was never phased out and there are no plans to do so. This is an example of someone reading a link and thinking they know what they are talking about.

Oh yea? Where are the linux versions of 3dsmax and Autocad then?
Because again, those were the packages I was talking about.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
All the redhat boxes I have running right now use OpenGL, not Mesa, you need to spend some time with the actual stuff you are commenting on instead of reading wiki pages.

This isn't about what Redhat may or may not use, or what they may or may not call it, mr linux fanboy.
I merely stated that Mesa isn't allowed to call itself OpenGL officially, because it isn't licensed. My exact words were: "(which is so open that the opensource implementation for linux and *BSD had to be called MesaGL because of trademark issues and all that)".
Don't you think that it's a bit strange that you need a license for an 'open standard', before you are even allowed to use its name?
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Am I not right in saying that Mesa is called Mesa? Am I not right in saying that Mesa is an opensource implementation of OpenGL? Am I not right in saying that Mesa runs on opensource OSes like linux and *BSD? I don't see how you could find fault with anything I said there, it's just fact.

What is it with you linux fanboys? They never know their shit, they can't even understand a simple English sentence, and they can't say a single sentence without insulting other people. I hate linux because of people like you. And there's so many of you. It's a plague. You're spoiling linux' reputation with your bad attitude, and you're spoiling many tech sites and forums which could otherwise have been nice places for mature discussion. But linux people are just ignorant kids with a big mouth. Someone needs to discipline them.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Also, Scali. Just for the hell of it, I placed the GTX295 and the 8800GTS512 in my Q6600 rig and that only has 2GB of system memory on Vista32. Still plays the games perfectly well. I thought it would choke. My total graphics memory is higher that total system memory. So what is it I should be looking out for? Cause I don't notice any hitching or anything. So far I've tried CoD W@W, UT3, Crysis. They play the same as the system with 4GB of memory on Vista32. What am I missing, or gladly missing?

You'd have to run a 64-bit version of Windows to be able to tell the difference.

Out of curiosity, what does winver tell you about the available physical memory?

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin
vista 32 is not inferior to vista 64 for Playing 99+% of PC games

That's a rather silly statement to make on an enthusiast forum.
You stick to the old stuff because you don't think you need the new stuff yet?
Shouldn't enthusiasts be at the forefront of the technological wave? Which isn't even a forefront anymore, since we had 64-bit Windows since 2005, and 64-bit x86 CPUs even longer?
If there's no difference, you'd STILL want to use the newer tech, because of its extra potential, even though it may not yet be realized (according to you that is, I wouldn't be caught dead with a 32-bit OS, and ESPECIALLY not XP).
Heck, I've been running XP x64 since 2005. I just can't imagine people still being on 32-bit. It just... I don't have words for it.

 

[Dkcode]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
No the problem is that directx is stuck on the windows platform.

So you are disagreeing with an official statement from Autodesk?
Go argue with Autodesk then, not me.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Maya, Xsi, Combustion, Liquid are all autodesk products and they all run on linux.

I was talking about 3dsmax and Autocad though.
Tihs is what I said:
"For example, Discreet, maker of industry standard software packages like 3dsmax and Autocad, started supporting Direct3D as an alternative to OpenGL a few years ago, and is now phasing out OpenGL altogether, because Direct3D gives them much more consistent results across a wide range of hardware, because of more mature drivers and better overall standardization and validation of drivers and hardware.
See here for example: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/s...eID=123112&id=10676494"

So this is about 3dsmax and Autocad, and about what Discreet/Autodesk says. It's not about other software, and it's not about what I said, I just pointed to their official website. Go argue with them instead, linux fanboy.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Linux was never phased out and there are no plans to do so. This is an example of someone reading a link and thinking they know what they are talking about.

Oh yea? Where are the linux versions of 3dsmax and Autocad then?
Because again, those were the packages I was talking about.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
All the redhat boxes I have running right now use OpenGL, not Mesa, you need to spend some time with the actual stuff you are commenting on instead of reading wiki pages.

This isn't about what Redhat may or may not use, or what they may or may not call it, mr linux fanboy.
I merely stated that Mesa isn't allowed to call itself OpenGL officially, because it isn't licensed. My exact words were: "(which is so open that the opensource implementation for linux and *BSD had to be called MesaGL because of trademark issues and all that)".
Don't you think that it's a bit strange that you need a license for an 'open standard', before you are even allowed to use its name?
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Am I not right in saying that Mesa is called Mesa? Am I not right in saying that Mesa is an opensource implementation of OpenGL? Am I not right in saying that Mesa runs on opensource OSes like linux and *BSD? I don't see how you could find fault with anything I said there, it's just fact.

What is it with you linux fanboys? They never know their shit, they can't even understand a simple English sentence, and they can't say a single sentence without insulting other people. I hate linux because of people like you. And there's so many of you. It's a plague. You're spoiling linux' reputation with your bad attitude, and you're spoiling many tech sites and forums which could otherwise have been nice places for mature discussion. But linux people are just ignorant kids with a big mouth. Someone needs to discipline them.

It has not spoiled anything for me. I have been sat here laughing

Don't take this the wrong way though i don't want you attacking me instead!

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
No the problem is that directx is stuck on the windows platform.

So you are disagreeing with an official statement from Autodesk?
Go argue with Autodesk then, not me.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Maya, Xsi, Combustion, Liquid are all autodesk products and they all run on linux.

I was talking about 3dsmax and Autocad though.

You said :

Sadly some people are STILL in denial, and still think OpenGL (which is so open that the opensource implementation for linux and *BSD had to be called MesaGL because of trademark issues and all that) is a superior standard. Even the professional market is now moving away from it.

You tried to use the autodesk quote to say that OpenGL is dead, they are all moving away from it. Then when it was shown you were wrong, you started trying to cover up . Can't stand to be wrong ?

This isn't about what Redhat may or may not use, or what they may or may not call it, mr linux fanboy.

It isn't redhat calling it OpenGL, it is nvidia, because it is well, OpenGL , NOT mesa.

I merely stated that Mesa isn't allowed to call itself OpenGL officially, because it isn't licensed. My exact words were: "(which is so open that the opensource implementation for linux and *BSD had to be called MesaGL because of trademark issues and all that)".
Don't you think that it's a bit strange that you need a license for an 'open standard', before you are even allowed to use its name?

You said that linux and BSD used Mesa because of trademark issues not OpenGL, that is a lie.
You still do not understand the difference between OpenGL and Mesa. You keep using the two like they are interchangeable and they are not. Mesa was created so that people could have OpenGL on hardware that had no OpenGL support, not to bring OpenGL to other platforms. It could not be called OpenGL because it was not OpenGL, it was a different API with its own extensions. It was not because of trademarks.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Am I not right in saying that Mesa is called Mesa? Am I not right in saying that Mesa is an opensource implementation of OpenGL? Am I not right in saying that Mesa runs on opensource OSes like linux and *BSD? I don't see how you could find fault with anything I said there, it's just fact.

Mesa runs on lots of OS, including windows. If you can't see how someone could find fault with what you said then you need to re-read what you wrote.

What is it with you linux fanboys? They never know their shit, they can't even understand a simple English sentence, and they can't say a single sentence without insulting other people. I hate linux because of people like you. And there's so many of you. It's a plague. You're spoiling linux' reputation with your bad attitude, and you're spoiling many tech sites and forums which could otherwise have been nice places for mature discussion. But linux people are just ignorant kids with a big mouth. Someone needs to discipline them.

This last paragraph shows that you are the one acting like a little kid. It really shows your true colors. You have no understanding of the word mature.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Also, Scali. Just for the hell of it, I placed the GTX295 and the 8800GTS512 in my Q6600 rig and that only has 2GB of system memory on Vista32. Still plays the games perfectly well. I thought it would choke. My total graphics memory is higher that total system memory. So what is it I should be looking out for? Cause I don't notice any hitching or anything. So far I've tried CoD W@W, UT3, Crysis. They play the same as the system with 4GB of memory on Vista32. What am I missing, or gladly missing?

You'd have to run a 64-bit version of Windows to be able to tell the difference.

Out of curiosity, what does winver tell you about the available physical memory?

What would that mean to me? I mean, I'll let you know the numbers, (Physical memory available to Window: 2,095,040 KB.) but what does that actually mean to me? The games ran perfectly fine, quick, no hitching as I was expecting with 2GB of system RAM. I was pleasantly surprised. I'm all for new tech, but for me, there isn't a need for 64bit Windows right now. Not saying there is anything wrong with it either. Just not needed by me, and chances are, by most gamers?

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
What would that mean to me? I mean, I'll let you know the numbers, (Physical memory available to Window: 2,095,040 KB.) but what does that actually mean to me? The games ran perfectly fine, quick, no hitching as I was expecting with 2GB of system RAM.

Well, assuming you actually did put 4 GB of memory in the box, it means half your memory is wasted, and you may aswell take it out of the box and put it somewhere useful instead.
Even if you don't see any problems today, I think you'll agree with me that this is a dead end. You're bound to want more than 2 GB in the not-so-distant future, and you will need a 64-bit OS for that.

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
What would that mean to me? I mean, I'll let you know the numbers, (Physical memory available to Window: 2,095,040 KB.) but what does that actually mean to me? The games ran perfectly fine, quick, no hitching as I was expecting with 2GB of system RAM. I was pleasantly surprised. I'm all for new tech, but for me, there isn't a need for 64bit Windows right now. Not saying there is anything wrong with it either. Just not needed by me, and chances are, by most gamers?

There are some games that can and will use 2GB+ if they find enough memory available (Company of Heroes comes to mind). I haven't played it with less than 4GB to see the differences, but Yellowbeard or someone else at Corsair did look into it a bit. (Obviously, Corsair has a vested interested in selling more memory, but I can verify that CoH can use >2GB, especially with persistent damage effects maxed out.)

I guess I'm used to working with and on beta software, so I tend to be more tolerant of using newer or beta OSes despite their quirks. (Currently running W7 RC x64.)

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You tried to use the autodesk quote to say that OpenGL is dead, they are all moving away from it. Then when it was shown you were wrong, you started trying to cover up . Can't stand to be wrong ?

I'm not wrong, you're pulling other things into the discussion. You just overplayed your hand, and now try to bluff your way out of it. You don't fool me, or anyone else on this forum. Typical poor linux fanboy rhetoric. Heard it all many times before.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You said that linux and BSD used Mesa because of trademark issues not OpenGL, that is a lie.

That isn't what I said AT ALL.
It's just your poor reading comprehension.
I never said that linux and BSD used Mesa exclusively. So I don't know where you got the "not OpenGL" part from. What I said doesn't have anything to do with any other implementation of OpenGL, rather just with Mesa, and Mesa not being called OpenGL.
Don't insult me just because YOU can't read.
Besides, it isn't ME who says it, it's Wikipedia who says it isn't licensed:
"Though Mesa 3D is not an officially licensed OpenGL implementation, the structure, syntax and semantics of the application programming interface is that of OpenGL."

In fact, get it straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.mesa3d.org/intro.html

"SGI had asked me not to use the terms "Open" or "GL" in the project name and I didn't want to make up a new acronym."

I simply remarked that it's odd that an 'open standard' has licensing issues, especially with a popular opensource implementation, used on various popular opensource/open standard promoting OSes.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It isn't redhat calling it OpenGL, it is nvidia, because it is well, OpenGL , NOT mesa.

Well, nVidia has a license, obviously. Mesa doesn't.
RedHat still provides Mesa for other hardware though.
So you were wrong in saying it doesn't use it... Then again, just now you were saying "this Mesa stuff" as if you've never heard of it... And now you seem to be trying to school me on what Mesa and OpenGL are. Have you perhaps just visited Wiki and are now trying to spread your newfound wisdom? Things you accuse others of doing?
RedHat is actually one of the most active developers of Mesa, after Tungsten, the main company behind Mesa:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...esa_contributors&num=1

"Trailing behind Tungsten Graphics is Red Hat with six developers at hand. Red Hat developers are responsible for almost eight percent of the commits made to Mesa and DRM."

In your face, mr "RedHat doesn't use Mesa".
Also, you're just reaching with your "Mesa isn't OpenGL, it has its own extensions" nonsense.
Let me quote the mission statement from Mesa3D.org:
"Mesa is an open-source implementation of the OpenGL specification - a system for rendering interactive 3D graphics.
...
Mesa ties into several other open-source projects: the Direct Rendering Infrastructure and X.org to provide OpenGL support to users of X on Linux, FreeBSD and other operating systems."

There's nothing wrong with having your own extensions. nVidia has them too, as do many other officially licensed vendors. It's been an important feature of OpenGL since the beginning.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Mesa runs on lots of OS, including windows. If you can't see how someone could find fault with what you said then you need to re-read what you wrote.

No, the real problem here is that your mind is incapable of simple logic.
Because I said that Mesa DOES run on opensource OSes, does not imply that it DOESN'T run on closed-source OSes. I never said anything like that.
That's basic logic, which you fail to grasp.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You tried to use the autodesk quote to say that OpenGL is dead, they are all moving away from it. Then when it was shown you were wrong, you started trying to cover up . Can't stand to be wrong ?

I'm not wrong, you're pulling other things into the discussion. You just overplayed your hand, and now try to bluff your way out of it. You don't fool me, or anyone else on this forum. Typical poor linux fanboy rhetoric. Heard it all many times before.

Nope. You are never wrong. I think everyone understands that.

[/quote]

I simply remarked that it's odd that an 'open standard' has licensing issues, especially with a popular opensource implementation, used on various popular opensource/open standard promoting OSes.

It isn't odd at all. It is not the same thing so you can't use the name.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It isn't redhat calling it OpenGL, it is nvidia, because it is well, OpenGL , NOT mesa.

Well, nVidia has a license, obviously. Mesa doesn't.

According to you Redhat was just calling it OpenGL.

quote:

This isn't about what Redhat may or may not use, or what they may or may not call it, mr linux fanboy.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Mesa runs on lots of OS, including windows. If you can't see how someone could find fault with what you said then you need to re-read what you wrote.

No, the real problem here is that your mind is incapable of simple logic.
Because I said that Mesa DOES run on opensource OSes, does not imply that it DOESN'T run on closed-source OSes. I never said anything like that.
That's basic logic, which you fail to grasp.

If you can't see how someone could find fault with what you said then you need to re-read what you wrote.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Also, Scali. Just for the hell of it, I placed the GTX295 and the 8800GTS512 in my Q6600 rig and that only has 2GB of system memory on Vista32. Still plays the games perfectly well. I thought it would choke. My total graphics memory is higher that total system memory. So what is it I should be looking out for? Cause I don't notice any hitching or anything. So far I've tried CoD W@W, UT3, Crysis. They play the same as the system with 4GB of memory on Vista32. What am I missing, or gladly missing?

You'd have to run a 64-bit version of Windows to be able to tell the difference.

You'd have to also run a 32-bit version to tell there isn't any in gaming

That's a rather silly statement to make on an enthusiast forum.
You stick to the old stuff because you don't think you need the new stuff yet?
Shouldn't enthusiasts be at the forefront of the technological wave? Which isn't even a forefront anymore, since we had 64-bit Windows since 2005, and 64-bit x86 CPUs even longer?
If there's no difference, you'd STILL want to use the newer tech, because of its extra potential, even though it may not yet be realized (according to you that is, I wouldn't be caught dead with a 32-bit OS, and ESPECIALLY not XP).
Heck, I've been running XP x64 since 2005. I just can't imagine people still being on 32-bit. It just... I don't have words for it.

The words that describes it is your lack of *experience* with both operating systems