Microsoft quits?

Just saw this story at slashdot saying that microsoft has quit the ARB. URL is http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/29555.html . I know the register isn’t exactly the finest news source, so I was wonder if there is likely to be any truth to this story. Any ideas?

Sorry, this isn’t exactly Advanced OpenGL, but it seemed somehow relevant.

EDIT: that dot in the URL just doesn’t want to go away…

[This message has been edited by tsuraan (edited 03-03-2003).]

Cass confirmed this in a post about half way down the front page:

http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/Forum3/HTML/008848.html

– Zeno

heh, right you are. strange that it took this long to make any sort of news.

Now the challenge is to define the difference between MS being on the ARB and not being on the ARB? (With respect to us end users)

Does it simply mean that Opengl32.dll won’t be updated as often?

The end of Microsoft’s efforts to piss off the ARB with its IP claims…

> The end of Microsoft’s efforts to piss off the ARB with its IP claims…

Or rather the ability to spam the ARB even more with no longer any restrictions, rules or requirements that they should disclose their IP before the ARB decides/approves anything… in a two-month-after-spec-and-driver release fashion: “hey you can’t use that, we’ve got patents A, B, C & D”.
However they would never do that, others maybe, but not Microsoft, never, ever.

Does it simply mean that Opengl32.dll won’t be updated as often?

LOL!

Hi

perhaps they plan to develop a OpenGL to D3D wrapper by writing a driver that uses the D3D drivers as a base.

After leraning it, my first thoughts were: Uggh, now they can launch torpedo after torpedo if e.g. vertex_program2 is released.

Now, as D3D is widely adopted it seems that they are so arrogant to leave OpenGL…

But the effort of MS to OpenGL won’t be more or less wether they are in the ARB or not.

I guess that the next game of JC will use … ;(

Bye
ScottManDeath

Originally posted by ScottManDeath:
perhaps they plan to develop a OpenGL to D3D wrapper by writing a driver that uses the D3D drivers as a base.

nVidia already do that don’t they? I’ve seen plenty of D3D errors appear when GL code fails on nVidia hardware so I do wonder…

[EDIT] Mind you I haven’t seen one for a while so maybe that was just a win98 thing…

[This message has been edited by rgpc (edited 03-04-2003).]

Originally posted by rgpc:
nVidia already do that don’t they? I’ve seen plenty of D3D errors appear when GL code fails on nVidia hardware so I do wonder…

That’s impossible: their OpenGL drivers typically provide more functionality than Direct3D (e.g. occlusion queries weren’t available in DX8).

– Tom

Originally posted by ScottManDeath:
Perhaps they plan to develop a OpenGL to D3D wrapper by writing a driver that uses the D3D drivers as a base.

That´s possible. If they had such a wrapper they could easily port OpenGL games to the X-Box (although i still don´t understand why the X-Box doesn´t support OpenGL).

Of course they want to see OpenGL dead, but there are too many applications (not games), which need OpenGL, therefore i don´t see this as a threat.

Jan.

Originally posted by Tom Nuydens:
[b] That’s impossible: their OpenGL drivers typically provide more functionality than Direct3D (e.g. occlusion queries weren’t available in DX8).

– Tom[/b]

Not impossible, you just wouldn’t have to develop the hardware based code to do the things you’ve already developed in the DX driver (to a certain extent anyway).

>[…] I’ve seen plenty of D3D errors appear when GL code fails on nVidia hardware so I do wonder…

The last ones I saw (a long time ago) were actually related to DirectDraw, not D3D.

I wouldn’t be surprised if both APIs were actually layered on some kind of “unified” low-level internal API/Library/Kernel (they probably wouldn’t risk tieing their whole internal architecture too closely to any API version).

The ‘OpenGL emulator via D3D’ thing would be a good way to give OpenGL the ‘Java treatment’ (make something that looks like, tastes like, but isn’t and introduces proprietary dependencies).
Small & low-end hardware manufacturers would probably applaud, however that would be quite an investment of time/$$$ and may prove counterproductive. Swamping ARB with IP issues may prove more efficient IMO.

Originally posted by EG:
[BThe ‘OpenGL emulator via D3D’ thing would be a good way to give OpenGL the ‘Java treatment’ (make something that looks like, tastes like, but isn’t and introduces proprietary dependencies).

…Swamping ARB with IP issues may prove more efficient IMO.[/b]

Hi

it sounds as if hard times are underway …
But on the other hand, would the IHV as nVidia or ATI stop developing their OpenGL drivers? I don’t think so, how should they develop their launch demos I think that IHV will not give up OpenGL just because MS wants.

If next generations windows is without OpenGL would Maya or 3DS be ported to D3D or will there be no versions for windows?

IIRC there were rumors that future windows versions will requiere 3D hw support because each window is a D3D surface. Where would then be space for OpenGL ?

Bye
ScottManDeath

Don’t know about Maya, but 3DS already supports D3D. They wrapped the libraries years ago

Hm… I hope that one day we’re not saying

“gg SGI, you boneheads, you killed opengl with your IP sale :/”

If you cared so much you could always have offered them more cash, too late now I guess.

It’s dog eat dog, welcome to the meal.

It takes a real bonehead to feel Microsoft chewing on your ass and blame the starting course for your discomfort, but it takes spectacular boneheadedness to complain when you were doing some of the dining.

[This message has been edited by dorbie (edited 03-04-2003).]

If you cared so much you could always have offered them more cash, too late now I guess.

Yup, I certainly do have the power to out-bid microsoft. Yup…

It’s dog eat dog, welcome to the meal.

It takes a real bonehead to feel Microsoft chewing on your ass and blame the starting course for your discomfort, but it takes spectacular boneheadedness to complain when you were doing some of the dining.

That’s what we call an extended metaphor gone wrong. Would you like to rephrase?

No, it’s a great metaphor. Very appropriate.

Why should SGI give a crap about what you “want”? Put up the cash or shut up. You’ve enjoyed your PC’s and cheap video cards, now you bleat about the consequences, or worse blame SGI.

You deserve SGI’s contempt, not their consideration.

FWIW I love my cheap video cards, but I ain’t calling SGI boneheaded for accepting a $70M windfall. Lots of things they did were plenty boneheaded, but this is just bad news for you.