PDA

View Full Version : Will OpenGL generic software implementation survive?



rlopez3d
11-27-2000, 09:34 AM
With the fast development of graphic chips there is a growing gap between software and hardware drivers capabilities. In this context what is the future of OpenGL generic software implementation?

[This message has been edited by rlopez3d (edited 11-27-2000).]

Lucretia
11-27-2000, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by rlopez3d:
With the fast development of graphic chips there is a growing gap between software and hardware drivers capabilities. In this context what is the future of OpenGL generic software implementation?

[This message has been edited by rlopez3d (edited 11-27-2000).]

The generic implementation that an OS provides should be just that. It should essentially provide the basics that any hw accelerated implementation should also provide - with more specific to that card.

I would like to see more cooperation between other hw companies for providing generic extensions. NVidia seem to be providing the majority of the extensions, with *others* lagging behind slightly.

Although, the hw accelerated OpenGL driver should provide extensions that make the best use of the hw, it would be nice to have, say, 3Dfx provide similar extensions for their next generation cards (vertex shading pipeline, etc.) to that of NVidia's as I suspect that software companies will be using NVidia's cards as a baseline - they got there first http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

It'd be nice if M$ got off their arses and produced a new version OpenGL for Windows that can handle multiple monitors!!!!!!! This really pisses me off, if you haven't guessed http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Luke A. Guest.

Siwko
11-27-2000, 11:07 AM
Haven't we talked about this before? Again and again? Oy. Hardware is made to extend the capabilities of the software. But you need a breakeven point at a decent level of performance for those few that don't have the hardware to enhance the software. Besides, the software implementation is the common ground that (at least tries to) ensure broad compatibility regardless of hardware. Chew on that.


Originally posted by Lucretia:
It'd be nice if M$ got off their arses and produced a new version OpenGL for Windows that can handle multiple monitors!!!!!!! This really pisses me off, if you haven't guessed http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Well, in my discussions with the guru's at NVidia... the fact that no clear manner of supporting the OpenGL machine across platforms simultaniously exists. There even is no specification for it.

However multimonitor in DirectX (And 3D) works fine...

Now the question I pose is why would Microshaft further enhance a competing product, as well as stray from an opensource standard? People bitch when that happens.

Siwko

Lucretia
11-28-2000, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Siwko:
Haven't we talked about this before? Again and again? Oy. Hardware is made to extend the capabilities of the software. But you need a breakeven point at a decent level of performance for those few that don't have the hardware to enhance the software. Besides, the software implementation is the common ground that (at least tries to) ensure broad compatibility regardless of hardware. Chew on that.

Well, in my discussions with the guru's at NVidia... the fact that no clear manner of supporting the OpenGL machine across platforms simultaniously exists. There even is no specification for it.

However multimonitor in DirectX (And 3D) works fine...

Now the question I pose is why would Microshaft further enhance a competing product, as well as stray from an opensource standard? People bitch when that happens.

Siwko



1) If they're not going to continue supporting it, they should just remove it and let some other company produce it.

2) Multimonitor does work under D3D, but that isn't the point, is it? If you're going to do something properly, you do it properly. You don't **** things up, just because it isn't your primary 3D API.

3) Are you trying to say that D3D is an opensource standard? It is not! It's not opensource and it is not a standard! The industry standard IS OpenGL, because it's portable!

Luke.

Siwko
11-28-2000, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by Lucretia:
[B] 1) If they're not going to continue supporting it, they should just remove it and let some other company produce it.

2) Multimonitor does work under D3D, but that isn't the point, is it? If you're going to do something properly, you do it properly. You don't **** things up, just because it isn't your primary 3D API.

3) Are you trying to say that D3D is an opensource standard? It is not! It's not opensource and it is not a standard! The industry standard IS OpenGL, because it's portable![B]

Whoa whoa whoa WHOA! I'm not trying to provoke here. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/eek.gif

Lets see, I think we got confused somewhere. Lets start with #1. I'm assuming you're talking about MS's support of OpenGL, correct? If so, MS isn't going to remove it because there are many prominent developers out there (IE: John Carmack) who refuse to use D3D. In time, as D3D matures (What, maybe DX26872 or something like?) they might. But MS isn't going to drop OpenGL like that because there is just too much demand for it. But you have to realize, DX is something that MS and MS alone holds, subsidizes, and makes money off of. A DX title is going to ensure a copy of Windows on at least 1 person's desk.

Wow... I never even thought of it that way until now. Damn that devil, thats one marketing genius!

Okay, back on topic. MS isn't just going to remove or can OpenGL to remove competition, because having OpenGL under its belt, being as popular as [OpenGL] is, also ensures that someone is going to have a copy of Windows on their desk as well. But as per above, DX is the thing that MS is going to focus on because they make more money on it.

As far as others producing it, SGI tried that, MS got PO'd cause SGI's SI was better. But SGI didn't have the time to invest in it. Or whatever the excuse was (I think the Farenheit project took that ability from SGI contractually).

But all in all, MS is going to give us the bear minimum to make us happy. Until we tell them we're not happy, they're not even going to care. Well... even if we do tell them.... http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

As far as #2 goes, multimonitor is a recent addition to the OS's (what, about a year old?). The OpenGL SI's that come with even Win2K are probably, or very nearly, the same code base that the opengl32.dll was in WinNT version ... um... 3 I think, which was the first Windows OS to support OpenGL. I seriously doubt they've changed it much. After all, WinNT didn't change (fundimentally) much until Win2K. I doubt the Win9X dll changed much either since the Win95 upgrade for OpenGL either. But again, thats the point. MS is trying to shovel DX down our throats... so why would it invest its time first and foremost on a product that they want to see die eventually?

And for #3... NO. I certainly am not saying that D3D is opensource. Emphatically no...

What I was referring to is why would MS want to enhance OpenGL to what isn't a "standard". Please realize that nowhere is the definition of how OpenGL should handle multimonitor support. OpenGL was around before multimonitor was a reality (okay, maybe not, but in the windows world...). I'm certain that if MS were to add the support in, it would definitely cause problems and be very non-standard.

What I was referring to is that if MS were to make OpenGL slightly non-standard, people would bitch because it wouldn't be pure OpenGL anymore. Look at MS's extensions to Kerberos... people bitched.

As far as your retort, no, D3D is not opensource, but yes it is a standard. Its MS's standard 3D API of choice.

Its all about marketing and the $$$.

I'm sorry I ruffled feathers, I didn't mean to. I hope I clairified myself here.

!!! Disclaimer - I in no way endorse, nor condemn the use of DX, hell I don't even use it. !!! http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Have a good one...
Siwko

Lucretia
11-28-2000, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by Siwko:
Whoa whoa whoa WHOA! I'm not trying to provoke here. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/eek.gif


Ok, you'll have to fiorgive me on that one. I get a little testy when I have to put up with M$'s crap.



Lets see, I think we got confused somewhere. Lets start with #1. I'm assuming you're talking about MS's support of OpenGL, correct? If so, MS isn't going to remove it because there are many prominent developers out there (IE: John Carmack) who refuse to use D3D. In time, as D3D matures (What, maybe DX26872 or something like?) they might. But MS isn't going to drop OpenGL like that because there is just too much demand for it. But you have to realize, DX is something that MS and MS alone holds, subsidizes, and makes money off of. A DX title is going to ensure a copy of Windows on at least 1 person's desk.


It's good to see that some developers are prepared to not use anything except OpenGL. It took over a yer for me to convince my boss to let me do an OpenGL driver for our 3D engine - even though I wa right http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif



Okay, back on topic. MS isn't just going to remove or can OpenGL to remove competition, because having OpenGL under its belt, being as popular as [OpenGL] is, also ensures that someone is going to have a copy of Windows on their desk as well. But as per above, DX is the thing that MS is going to focus on because they make more money on it.


I'm not saying that, I'm saying either support it or don't bother with it. That's all. At least if they don't support it, then somebody else can. This way we can have all the nice features that DX provides but within OpenGL - like multimonitor.



As far as others producing it, SGI tried that, MS got PO'd cause SGI's SI was better. But SGI didn't have the time to invest in it. Or whatever the excuse was (I think the Farenheit project took that ability from SGI contractually).


Yeah, and that was a bit of a laugh, as they got totally pissed off with them and pulled out in the end...allegedly http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif



But all in all, MS is going to give us the bear minimum to make us happy. Until we tell them we're not happy, they're not even going to care. Well... even if we do tell them.... http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif


Which is what people have been asking for for ages - a good couple of years in fact and still nothing.



As far as #2 goes, multimonitor is a recent addition to the OS's (what, about a year old?). The OpenGL SI's that come with even Win2K are probably, or very nearly, the same code base that the opengl32.dll was in WinNT version ... um... 3 I think, which was the first Windows OS to support OpenGL. I seriously doubt they've changed it much. After all, WinNT didn't change (fundimentally) much until Win2K. I doubt the Win9X dll changed much either since the Win95 upgrade for OpenGL either. But again, thats the point. MS is trying to shovel DX down our throats... so why would it invest its time first and foremost on a product that they want to see die eventually?


It's not that recent.



And for #3... NO. I certainly am not saying that D3D is opensource. Emphatically no...

What I was referring to is why would MS want to enhance OpenGL to what isn't a "standard". Please realize that nowhere is the definition of how OpenGL should handle multimonitor support. OpenGL was around before multimonitor was a reality (okay, maybe not, but in the windows world...). I'm certain that if MS were to add the support in, it would definitely cause problems and be very non-standard.


Ah, but I wasn't saying to enhance OpenGL. I was saying, get OpenGL to work properly with multiple monitors, which means sorting out GDI or moving OpenGL to sit on top of DX - not D3D.

Anyway, OpenGL is a standard for 3D rendering not windowing.



What I was referring to is that if MS were to make OpenGL slightly non-standard, people would bitch because it wouldn't be pure OpenGL anymore. Look at MS's extensions to Kerberos... people bitched.

As far as your retort, no, D3D is not opensource, but yes it is a standard. Its MS's standard 3D API of choice.

Its all about marketing and the $$$.


That's fair enough, but it really needs OpenGL IMO. M$ cannot deny other platforms especially now. I don't see M$ in the desktop business for much longer now they ****ed it up. They're going to try to **** up the console market instead http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif



I'm sorry I ruffled feathers, I didn't mean to. I hope I clairified myself here.

!!! Disclaimer - I in no way endorse, nor condemn the use of DX, hell I don't even use it. !!! http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Have a good one...
Siwko

Ah, no probs. We (the industry) really need more support for open standards, and M$ just don;t support anything they cannot control. It just pisses me off.

Laters,
Luke. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif