Will any of the 2.0 feature set be implemented in software? or will it be primarily a hardware oriented system?
If it can be done in software, whats the impression the ARB's getting from it's MS member on whether or not they will be beligerent in implementing 2.0 for Windows?
Regards,
Jim
We're just dealing with platform independent specification. How MS or SGI will solve problem of ICD Server (Windows's opengl32.dll) is their problem.
Well, yes. Although Microsoft's refusal to update opengl32.dll has been an ever-growing hindrance to the API's popularity, and anything the ARB could do to prevent such sabotage in the future would be good. There was talk in the ARB minutes a while back about creating some sort of bypass for WGL, but AFAIK nothing came of it. Shame. It's important.Originally posted by zom:
How MS or SGI will solve problem of ICD Server (Windows's opengl32.dll) is their problem.
I find it interesting Microsoft can claim they are working on 1.2/1.3 upgrades but have yet to release either. Hell MS was promising 1.2 support back before they released Win2K! They've since released 2k, multiple service packs for it, and subsequently developed and released a brand new OS in WinXP. Yet OpenGL still isn't upgraded?
Something fishy goin on here. Can somebody clarify the current state of 1.2, 1.3 and 2.0 on Windows?
Here's something interesting - I searched the recent ARB meeting notes. The last major mention of OpenGL was Sept 2000. This guy from MS seems to be stalling. I wonder what ever came of this discussion..
WGL / opengl32.dll Status
Dave Aronson, MS - working internally and externally to push OpenGL forward; no major announcements since SIGGRAPH timeframe.
Dale - Microsoft's future doesn't seem to be OpenGL. IHVs have been having informal discussions about taking over, promoting, and adding OpenGL features on Windows (NT), integrating OpenML features, etc. Is there interest in specifying and developing an open implementation of this? ICD-centric; possibly NT-centric.
3Dlabs would like to see this, and is willing to do some of the work.
Bimal - Intel is interested in participating in a working group. Some WGL features leave a lot to be desired, e.g. error handling mechanism.
Jon - SGI is willing to open source opengl32.dll infrastructure, if Microsoft allows it. IP issues involved.
ChrisH - Different levels of IP. Probably no patents involved.
Dale - Mainly interested in what the application sees, and a specification of how that works. Easier on Win2K - Win98 does lots of this work inside opengl32.dll rather than the ICD.
George - Will Microsoft say just what IP they're concerned about?
DaveA - Will research it and report back.
Dale - Thinks NT has actually hurt OpenGL by not evolving its support.
ChrisH - advocates taking control of the entire mechanism, to not rely on Redmond. Concerned about how much systems work is involved.
Michael - Ideally, ICD loader would come from Microsoft, if they can keep it up to date. Code effort required isn't significant.
Jon - SGI has already done this work; the issue seems to be Microsoft finding engineering resources to test / package / ship it.
DaveA - Trying to find resources to get this done.
Kurt - it's clear Microsoft won't do this. If people want it, they need to just go do it.
ChrisH - volunteers to drive the spec, with Bimal, Michael, and Dale. Will create a working group through the regular ARB process.
Jon - concerned about compatibility issues with existing build/runtime environment.
Dale - don't want to get into namespace wars with Microsoft. Will write up a proposal for ARB vote.
ChrisH - wants to make sure this includes Win9x too.
Dale - impromptu meeting at 5 PM.
[This message has been edited by jmathies (edited 02-21-2002).]
I don't get the impression that Dave Aronson is stalling, just that OpenGL carries less than zero weight with the folks at MS who hand out resources. So Dave goes back and asks for a budget, and his PHB says no, I'd rather implement coloured scrollbars in IE, thanks all the same.
MS-the-company wants OpenGL to die, and doesn't bother to hide it. They want everyone to use D3D, and the few important ISVs (mainly CAD/CAM) who won't use D3D have sufficient engineering resources that programming to extensions isn't an issue.
Does anyone know what IP issues would be involved with a WGL bypass? Assuming SGI and MS weren't involved, shouldn't a clean-room implementation of a similar interface for 2.0 be possible?
Dear Bill,
I realize your budgets are quite tight, hence you may not have
enough money to support further development of OpenGL32.dll.
I realize you would prefer I use Direct3D, but I really prefer the
simplicity of OpenGL. I'm sure you understand and will
support me considering my work in promoting your operating
systems over the past 12 years.
In an effort to insure continued support for my favorite 3D API on
my favorite operating systems, I'm prepared to offer you some
help in aquiring the neccassary resources. Some friends of mine
and I will happily do the work for you, free of charge. If you could
send us the source code involved, we'll get started right away.
Thanks again!
Regards,
Jim
FFS!DaveA - Trying to find resources to get this done.
M$, one of the biggest companies in the world, can't even find a couple of coders to upgrade 1 single dll?!?!?
Mr Gates, why dont you just tatoo on your forehead "We trying to kill GL, but we're **** at excuses!"
how lame can you get eh?!
Posting Permissions
