PDA

View Full Version : Call to Action: Ensure that OpenGL remains a first class API under Windows Vista



Pages : [1] 2

Khronos WebMaster
08-05-2005, 10:28 AM
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?
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) 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 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)

artlab
08-05-2005, 10:54 AM
Mac and Linux developers should be especially active, since without a cross platform API, there will be less development on non-Windows systems

bobvodka
08-05-2005, 11:37 AM
out of intrest, where did this infomation come from?

Khronos WebMaster
08-05-2005, 11:53 AM
This was discussed within the community both at WinHEC and at Siggraph.

Several tech and gaming web sites have also posted the basic info on Windows Vista and the impact on OpenGL. http://www.gamingforums.com/showthread.php?p=2193526 is the latest one I found

bobvodka
08-05-2005, 12:21 PM
hmmm alot of people I know still arent buying it, they are putting it down to rumors and without any hard evidance to support it from a decent source I dont see them doing so either..

actionGL
08-05-2005, 01:36 PM
:mad: This is just outrageous!

M$ has decided to make console system out of PC and windows. To make PC to be closed platform for hardware and API they don’t want (read – better than their DX product). With 2.0 spec, OpenGL has finally got real power – and with portability, Sony PS3 development, mobile and PDA market, more and more companies are sure going to use it in game/application development. This is what M$ doesn’t want.

1. First step is to degrade OpenGL – and force programmers to go to WGF (resulting complete disappearance of GL from windows).
2. When this is done – force hardware manufacturers to produce windows ONLY hardware (hi-end gaming hardware). Effectively killing growth of Linux and Mac systems.
3. When this is achieved, M$ will control most of the desktop industry – and then $$$ royalty for each card/hardware/peace of software that works on Windows.

------------

Great plan. If we can’t keep up the race let’s just kill the opponent. Nice and easy. Like a huge truck on the road -it sees Ferrari trying to take advantage in the race – well it simply pushes it of the road.

The true looser in this $$$ policy will be end user. Since if this pass, the day will come when only M$ will choose what way would be right for every application, game or hardware (not to mention programming language - C# and similar). And this is called monopoly – the best way to destroy progress. I don’t know what to say, this move is not only move that hits directly OpenGL and game industry - it is try to control all aspects of future computing. I hope they will fail.

Btw, I would really like to see some sort of easy, plug and play Linux standard for games. For example, user just puts DVD in drive, turn on the computer and nice and easy interface for gaming is there – insert the OpenGL game and enjoy. Or better, small gameLinux OS that goes free, and when inserted in drive reboots machine in “game mode” and starts the game without M$ stuff…

santyhamer
08-05-2005, 02:15 PM
Facts:

1) Microsoft left ARB comitee.

2) David Blythe now works for M$.

3) David Blythe - TWPR05007_WinHEC05.ppt
See his diagrams and comments... OpenGL will be implemented OVER directX, will be open1.4 only and see the ICD diagrams...

4) WinFX SDK - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/detai...&DisplayLang=en (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=23a22468-5807-4ff7-a363-ce6fe69b8f04&DisplayLang=en)

As you can see Longhorn(windows vista) API REQURIES a CLR/.NET language, even for some drivers ...

5) WFG2.0 and DirectX Next.ppt - Siggraph 2005
More nasty-hurting diagrams...

My thoughts:

1) M$oft is DECIDED to kill openGL. As you said is a policy... But mr666 has technical reasons too... OpenGL doesn't fit well with the next MANAGED (clr, .net call it like you want) windows API called WinFX ( read some of my previous posts if you dont trust me... ) neither with the new driver LDDM model.

Remember to initialize opengl in windows XP need to call GDI funcions like GetDC(), ChoosePixelFormat(), blah blah... Also requires POINTERS, unmanaged calls and OGL is NOT strong-typed. Also, GDI IS DEAD IN LONGHORN.

OpenGL in Windows Vista EXISTS but considered an obsolete legacy API. Obviously M$ want ppl using DirectX and WGF, not OpenGL are primary render API... But they are forced to implement it because they dont wanna loose, for example, Doom3/XSI/Maya users... M$ strategy is very logical.

2) Pls somebody explain why in the meltdown 2005 presentation called "DirectX Futures - David Blythe (Meltdown 2005).ppt" it says literally:


DirectX Technology drives the next generation of graphics: Microsoft Windows® Graphics, Xbox 360™ and PS3/RSX 3) Personally I don't anymore use OpenGL in Windows... I use DirectX because I really thing is much better for this platform... But if I need portability I am forced to use OpenGL...

4) Now OpenGL is in Windows what is Wine in Linux, an emulator...

cutmeaslice
08-05-2005, 02:27 PM
This was discussed within the community both at WinHEC and at Siggraph.Who discussed it? Any official sources? Were you there?

None of this is true. The source posted (Gamingforums) originated, I believe, from Guru3D and is completely discountable based on the fact it contains not only articles contradicting what we do know about Vista, but fallacies about the architecture of operating systems and computers in general. Please read it, excersizing scrutiny, and you will see what I mean. Please do not use this piece of drivel as a basis for attacks on Microsoft, it will only make you look foolish.

actionGL
08-05-2005, 03:51 PM
@cutmeaslice - Good point

I would like to hear comments from OpenGL.org authority. I failed to find more info about Windows Vista and OpenGL. All there is are some messages on forums, speculations, nothing official (same article on several forums). So, I would like to get answers from OpenGL.org.

Where did you get this information? Is it confirmed?
Any official news about the “subject” from Microsoft? (links to web pages)
Comments from ARB board members?

After all, it is in your Headline News, and really casts shadow on future of OpenGL on windows. I REALLY like the GL, speed, simplicity, portability but this headline really got me… what to say more.

sqrt[-1]
08-05-2005, 04:31 PM
I have been doing some testing with the new Betas on Longhorn and this is somthing I noticed.

A flat install gives you eye candy but once you install the latest drivers, you get proper OpenGL but no eye candy. (I had assumed that this was because the drivers were not WHQL for longhorn or whatever - but this discussion makes me think otherwise)

What can we do? Well for gamers and professionals it probably won't affect them as they always install the latest drivers and plain OpenGL 1.4 won't cut it even for current games/apps (ie no shaders)

I think they are trying to cut it both ways, gamers and professionals don't care about UI eye candy and will happly install the latest drivers to get OpenGL support for Max/Maya/Doom3/Prey etc. Joe average user never install drivers and likes eye candy. Net result is that developers see that most computers have inadequate OpenGL support and will stop developing for it.

Again what can we do?
Well Microsoft is not part of the ARB anymore correct?
Microsoft will probably have to get their "wrapper" certified as OpenGL compliant. Correct?
I suggest the ARB (or SGI or whoever) test the stuffing out of this "wrapper" and don't approve it unless it conforms 100%.
(From what I have seen in the beta, it is quite a way from conformance)

Then MS will have to waste engineering effort to try and get it to conform.(Is it even possible? there is a lot of stuff in OpenGL that I can't easily see translating, two sided lighting, fixed function lighting is different (specular) )

Hopefully if they cannot conform by longhorn shipping date, they will have to cave-in and ship the OpenGL drivers provided by the hardware providers.

Another plan of attack would be if some "killer" everyday-user application starts using OpenGL and has a check at startup for this "wrapper" and directs users to download correct OpenGL drivers. (not forcing them, just suggesting that for optimal experience update from <link to vendor site>)
Suggestions could be OpenOffice.org (as it already uses OpenGL and it seems to ship on a lot of no-name brand PCs) or perhaps even firefox could have some "fancy OpenGL" usage and do this.

It also does not have to be open source apps that do this. If you ship an app that even uses OpenGL in the slighest, warn and bug the user on first run.

Perhaps the ARB could contribute some code so all these warning messages are displayed in a consistent manner. A interface provided in a static lib like:

GLuint WINCheckOpenGLSupport();

Which would open a dialog if the wrapper was detected and then (with users permission) attempt to contact a central repository (OpenGL.org/SGI?) with the video card vendor and device ID. (assuming Internet support - should be common by the time longhorn ships) This repository would then reply with the website from which the latest drivers could be downloaded from. The dialog would then open the web browser pointing at this web site. (vendors could be responsible for updating their download links)

Return codes from this could be:
0 - driver is OK. Continue to run.
1 - driver is wrapper - user elected to not update. Continue to run.
2 - driver is wrapper - user elected to update. (so exit app now)
3 - driver is wrapper - no net connection/ unable to contact website/ unknown device.

This interface is probably a bit high level but could broken into sub-sections (ie CheckForWrapper, ContactRepository etc) to let the the app developer open their own dialogs.
This lib could be updated periodicly with just the vendor ID's to websites (ie www.nvidia.com (http://www.nvidia.com) www.ati.com) (http://www.ati.com)) so if the repository went down, you could still direct them to the main site. (vendor ID's and sites should almost never change)

(This is off topic from the MS thing - but would be handy)
This interface could even be extened to provide a means of checking driver support. For example, you could pass a data structure with the date you did all your testing. This date would then be compared agains the timestamp of the currently installed driver (once the wrapper checks pass) and prompt the user if their drivers are too old. Then proceed to do the usual website lookup.

gee, what a rant...

barthold
08-05-2005, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by bobvodka:
out of intrest, where did this infomation come from?This information came from the OpenGL BOF held at Siggraph 2005 in LA this last Wednesday evening. This was confirmed at the BOF by NVIDIA, ATI and us (3Dlabs).

As soon as an ICD is loaded the composited desktop is turned off on Windows Vista. If you want the composited desktop Aeroglass experience, you will need to make your application go through Microsoft's OpenGL implementation, which is layered on top of DirectX. As pointed out earlier, this layering can have performance implications. Their implementation supports OpenGL version 1.4 only, without extension support.

We believe it possible to provide an ICD with full composited desktop support while adhering to the stability and security requirements in Windows Vista. But we need Microsoft's help in doing so.

For some more information, you can browse these Microsoft Winhec slides:

"Windows Graphics Overview [WinHEC 2005; 171 KB]" http://download.microsoft.com/download/9...07_WinHEC05.ppt (http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWPR05007_WinHEC05.ppt)

"Advances in Display and Composition Architecture for Windows [WinHEC 2005; 422 KB]" http://download.microsoft.com/download/9...05_WinHEC05.ppt (http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWPR05005_WinHEC05.ppt)

Regards,
Barthold
3Dlabs

bobvodka
08-05-2005, 07:06 PM
OK, thank you for confirming it and explaining more, this should certainly help convince people its not just a load of rumours and anti-MS bashing

actionGL
08-05-2005, 10:10 PM
Ok, thanks for info... this is so Micro$oft. And they wonder why do they have bad reputation among developers. It's easier to destroy everything that's not M$ produced than to make it part of family. If you can't buy them, destroy them policy.

zed
08-05-2005, 11:24 PM
As soon as an ICD is loaded the composited desktop is turned off on Windows Vista. If you want the composited desktop Aeroglass experience, you will need to make your application go through Microsoft's OpenGL implementation, which is layered on top of DirectX. As pointed out earlier, this layering can have performance implications. Their implementation supports OpenGL version 1.4 only, without extension support. one thing i dont understand fully.
does this mean u cant have an ICD + and the desktop (showing)running at the same time, ie it wont effect the dude who runs doom3 fullscreen but will affect the user who runs windowed apps eg modeling software with the aeroglass thing showing. also for the user who runs doom3 fullscreen what happens when the exit the game?

unreal
08-06-2005, 06:22 AM
Hello guys. I didnt got something form all this...
It will not be possible to turn this aero **** off and run OpenGL Applications without this DirectX wrapper?
thank you

foobar
08-06-2005, 06:40 AM
DirectX Technology drives the next generation of graphics: Microsoft Windows® Graphics, Xbox 360™ and PS3/RSX The PS3 is using OpenGL 2.0 ES.

But anyhow, presumably it would be easy for driver writers to get round this since DirectX now replaces GDI completely effectively the driver writers have full control over the graphics subsystem. The solution seems to be for card vendors to get Microsoft to ditch their ICD altogether (why would anyone use it now anyway?) and have video card manufacturers make stand alone OpenGL drivers.

Groovounet
08-06-2005, 07:24 AM
Is there any protection by Anti-trust laws ?

It's clearling an idea to kill OpenGL on Windows and
impose only their API so maybe...

Obli
08-06-2005, 08:05 AM
It is obviously another "smart move" which perfectly fits in a monopolist behaviour which is entering the console market.

Since I have decided to drop linux, I could live with DirectX, still, I am very disappointed by the news. I was considering switching to DirectX but a being forced to do so is a different thing.


Originally posted by Groovounet:
Is there any protection by Anti-trust laws ?I also believe we shall look in that direction but what legislation would apply? Maybe someone like the ARB should put up a digital way to sign a petition. Since digital petitions are not really useful, they may also provide a way to give "real signatures" on paper. I think this would pack more momentum than electronic medium on legislators.
The problem involved is that it should be valid worldwide (I mean, accept signatures from all the world).
As recently done in the struggle against SW patents in EU, maybe a "economical majority" could also be formed, with enterprises signing in.

It sounds like when Microsoft decided to drop Java from IE. Maybe a similar process shall be followed.

I think I've already written too much. Add the obvious (flaming) considerations here.

opengles
08-06-2005, 08:08 AM
Umm, this is Microsoft way, but not a wise way !
I do believe that things would be better soon !

God bless OpenGL ;-)

Grung
08-06-2005, 10:43 PM
I think that OpenGL standard is too strong to simply destoy it - too many companies support it. However there is another scenario what would happen if NVidia and ATI drop new D3D from their driver? I think that those hardware companies have much more power than software oriented Microsoft...

Phobeus
08-07-2005, 12:21 AM
I guess it is pretty unrealistic that NVIDIA or ATI drops D3D support. ;) To many gamers would run berserk. However the graphic companies should be worried about this as well. What's the next step? They need to ask MS for adding a feature to WGF to test if their new technology is working? I guess they will work with OpenGL in the company also and really hope that this new "technology" won't affect the driver support of NVIDIA and ATI.
However many different opinions are crawling arround in the web. Can anybody really confirm that the D3D-Wrapper is only used when using MS OpenGL ICD or is it also getting active when using another ICD of a third party? If yes, we really should play the game with Microsoft and get graphic vendors to show a message in aeroglass envroiment that user should deactivate aeroglass and to blame MS to be the orgin of this problem. The worth thing that might happen is that the public is thinking OpenGL is causing any problems and is bad. There are easily rumors spread arround that would blame to be "to old to run with modern technologies".
So if anybody can confirm that this would also affect all ICDs, we should start a fire in all graphic, developer and Doom3 gaming sites to say their opinion loudly!
Additionally a question, that would bring up my worth nightmare. Could it be MS is trying to bash OpenGL, because they don't control the driver code and wants to avoid that somebody gains access to their DRM model to grab a DVD or something like that? Then it easily could happen that non aeroglass envroiment are not allowed to do things that are allowed in "normal mode". This would be a catastrophe. Doesn anyone with beta access, can check this out?

Jernej
08-07-2005, 01:29 AM
possible solution: win32 MESA dll with ICD support?

really i don't care about aeroglass much, i will just suggest people not to use aeroglass to have full opengl support..

Grung
08-07-2005, 02:21 AM
I read somewhare (don't remember where) that graphics quality may be much worse in non Areo mode...

Anitox
08-07-2005, 06:35 AM
We should fight back.

Everyone should realize that Microsoft will not stop doing things like this until they control the whole world. They consistantly fail to meet standards in an attempt to set their own.

People should stop trying to get Microsoft to change, and just kick it to the curb.

Developers and manufacturers can make an effort to help promote non-Microsoft products. I'm sure Microsoft is going to charge manufacturers for every piece of hardware you want digitally signed. That's just another way for them to take your money. Not to mention they charge for the OS itself.

Save your money, go get a free Operating System. Encourage your hardware and software development companies to support your OS. I would much rather spend my $100 on a new piece of hardware or software when I can get the OS for free.

Now, I know the average user probably cannot take Linux and use it. Therefore, we should also encourage developers to make things easier on the average consumer. Take OS installation for example, you put in the Windows CD, and it does it for you. Linux is usually not so easy. Simple solution: Create an advanced and simplistic install. One that will do everything for you, and one that will let the power-user configure things as it does now. Applications could also be written this way. I can easily see how most apps are written for the power-user and not the average user. For some of those, all it would take is a new GUI interface.

The main problem here is everyone is just going to play 'follow the leader' and use what everyone else uses. Make a stand. Become a leader. Honestly, the only reason I still have Windows is because I cannot run some games under Linux. If I was able to run them, Windows would be long gone. And if what I've been reading is true, I won't be able to even play some of my games on Windows Vista because of the low version support and no extensions.

If Microsoft wants to go around in an attempt to phase out technologies to promote its own growth, I saw we return the favor.

Oliver Stieber
08-07-2005, 08:58 AM
I can help, I have a 100% sure fire solution to the problem.

Over the past six months or so I've been writing a DirectX 9 compatibility layer for the WINE project. The layer basically translates DirectX calls into OpenGL calls allowing DirectX games and application to run under Linux and in theory Aeroglass should work too. ( DirectX for WINE (http://directxwine.sourceforge.net) )

The compatibility layer has already been modified to use WGL instead of GLX and is already capable of running DirectX games and application under Windows replacing Microsoft's DirectX 9 Library.

Extending the idea to Windows Vista you could have good OpenGL drivers and run Aeroglass through the DirectX 9 compatibility layer, loosing a little performance for window effects but gaining 100% performance for OpenGL applications.

If anyone is interested in taking this idea any further then please send me an email. oliver_stieber@yahoo.co.uk

mikef
08-07-2005, 10:46 AM
Whenever a new version of windows breaks an app, the default user action is to blame Microsoft:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/12/23/45481.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/10/15/55296.aspx

If there were a decent number of GL2 apps out there before Vista got serious market penetration, the user experience of upgrading to Vista would be "my apps worked fine on XP and now they're broken, therefore Vista sucks".

Of course, a 'GL2 app' doesn't actually need to use 2.0 features, it only has to refuse to run when GL_VERSION<2.

joshua_falken
08-07-2005, 11:03 AM
I slapped together a quick logo for the cause, so people might put it on their homepages and link to this page:

http://www.janfischer.com/images/OGLWindowsLogo.jpg

zed
08-07-2005, 11:34 AM
the best method of attack is to hit ms in the pocketbook, 5 methods i can see

A/ some lawsuit forcing ms to include full support for opengl, based on thier monopolistic methods of trying to exclude ogl (im sure they will come up with some very lame excuses stability/security etc but we all know these aint the truth), this has a good chance of suceeding in the european union
note the windows version without the media player they had to release, though in that case it was way to late, i mean how long has windows xp already been out.
this needs to be done ASAP so a ruling comes out before vista is shipped. a lawsuit could be attempted in the US as well though wont have such as good chance of sucess (ms + the us gove seem to be bedfellows) but even if it doesnt suceed it will be bad publicity for ms, + will drive the shareprice down a few dollars.
hit them where it hurts, in the pocketbook!

B/ ms's biggest money earner + biggest weakness is ms office, there are myriad methods of 'discouraging' ppl for using ms office from encoraging ppl to use openoffice upwards

C/ find someone whos written a gui (or whatever) similar to whatevers in vista, take ms to court (dont expect to win) but do a ms + hold up the release of vista for a few years, poetic justice

D/ somehow convince apple to allow their OS to be installed on generic computers, (though one of apples pluses is its limited range of hardware it runs on thus writing drivers is easier, but hardware standards are much better today than they were say 10years ago, ie less conflicts etc)
im pretty sure if apple done this their market share would rise from 3% to 10-20% in a year + ultimatly they would make more profits for apple, im sure a lot of companies will preinstall the apple os on their computers (esp laptops)
the main things stopping this is mr X is a twat + will not admit he was ever wrong, good example check out apple have finally gotten around to releasing a multibutton mouse recently, until now multibutton actions (eg rightclick) were performed on the keyboard, how was that simplier, me no understando

E/ xbox360 is due out later this year, even though its virtually guaranteed to tank, a little nudge down that slope certainly wont harm matters.
-talk about xbox360s lack of backwards capabilty
-inferior hardware compared to the ps3
-no blueray disk (u gonna have to buy a xbox360 + blueray disk player to watch the new movies making it more expensive than just a ps3)
-the lack of quality launchtitles + if its true to form of the xbox1 the lack of quality titles fullstop

andras
08-07-2005, 12:40 PM
Here's something I don't truly understand: OpenGL should be window independent in the first place! And then we would never ever have to worry about Windows or Microsoft again. Everything I render with GL should go into an offscreen buffer! Windows shouldn't care about that, right? When I'm done, I could simply pass the result to aeroglass, if it were just a raw buffer, with an image in it. And then aeroglass could do whatever it wanted with it: stretch it, bend it, etc...

This even fits in nicely with the Vista design, as they say that every window will be rendered to an offscreen buffer first, and then composited on the display in a final step.

JD
08-07-2005, 01:23 PM
Ok, it isn't that bad at all. It will affect gl windowed apps under aero but fullscreen games are going to run full speed. Maybe ihvs will circumvent the aero problem as well.

GKW
08-07-2005, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by barthold:
We believe it possible to provide an ICD with full composited desktop support while adhering to the stability and security requirements in Windows Vista. But we need Microsoft's help in doing so.
Obviously IHV's can circumvent the problem but they need Microsofts help and they need your help. Don't wait for the problem to be fixed. Email your nVidia, ATI, et al and tell them to make OpenGL a first class API. Even if you think this is FUD, send the email. It'll take you all of two minutes. You may end up being sorry if you don't.

eahumada
08-07-2005, 04:35 PM
Apple has a composite desktop technology with doublebuffering like Aeroglass that is full compatible with OpenGL. If they can do it why not Microsoft ?

My question is first is : ¿ In this case, what Microsoft need to do is allow and help to the 3d Accelerated Hardware Manufacturers is to write Instalable Client Drivers that support OpenGL and the new Composite Desktop resulting in 0% performace loose in Windows Vista ?

Second : ¿ Microsoft don't must deactive composite desktop (Aeroglass) when a Installable Client Driver (ICD) is loaded ?

Third : ¿ What is the main benefit of the Aeroglass composite desktop for Windows user, a user interface flicker-free, smoth windows moving, continuos video, anything else ?

Four: ¿ If we make enough preasure like costumers this can change the things ? ¿ How ?

mowa
08-07-2005, 07:07 PM
there is a conversation going on at gamedev.net (http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=337097&PageSize=25&WhichPage=1) on tis topic also.

one of the moderators, Yann L seems to have a grasp of what effects this may have, not good.

I summarised most of his thoughts from the thread to an off-topic post on groklaw.net (http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20050807070440160&type=article&title=more+info+and+links+on+this...&pid=347319)

This part seemed most relevant...

"Sure. As Barthold mentioned, 3DLabs don't see a problem with making their OpenGL drivers work on Aeroglass without any wrapper at all, at full speed and full feature set. They only need MS to give them the details of the internal driver/Aeroglass interface. Should this become available to them, then both 3DLabs and Nvidia would create a compatible driver in no time. ATI won't have a choice, and will have to join.

The problem is that MS doesn't want to give them that info, because they want to see GL dead. So either 3DLabs & co manage to put enough pressure on MS, or this issue is sorted out by an anti-competitivity lawsuit against MS. At least in the EU, a new directive forces software manufacturers to open file formats, protocols, and interfaces to the competition under certain circumstances. This might come in handy."

azcoder
08-07-2005, 07:34 PM
Well this is no surprise.

But it is clear - the time has come to stop building for the latest versions of Windows.

Apple is coming to intel, linux continues to shine. Win XP and 2k will continue to support OpenGL. The choices are rich and abundant. The PS3 is coming.

Linux in the server room, Mac on the desktop, PS3 at home. And they all use TCPIP and OpenGL.

Anyone with an ounce of moral fiber will refuse to cave to such monopolistic practices. Open Standards like tcp/ip and OpenGL are clearly what the industry needs.

I am buying my Mac tomorrow.

XCode here I come.

glfreak
08-07-2005, 10:23 PM
Although I was somehow disappointed by that, it does not necessarily mean that their intention is degrading OpenGL and attract more and more developers from deifferent arenas to the Direct3D world.
They may want to relief some hardware vendors from providing OpenGL drivers and hence linux will have no chance in 3D acceleration since it's still now a developer-spare.
I remebr that 3Dfx did the same for OpenGL, wrapping their neat decent API, called Glide. so it's up to the implentor to decide how to implemnt it, then how come Mesa3D provides a software impl. so it's an option and Direct3D impl would not be worst at all.
You see. ;)

What could be done? Nothing. Switch to Mac OS X.
I beleive that the creator of the platofr knows better than us. :D

Treesong
08-08-2005, 12:39 AM
Since I have access to Vista I performed some tests.
System:
- Vista Beta1(AMDx64)
- AMDx64
- ATI Radeon 9800 Pro

After install Aero is the active desktop theme. When I started up a small OpenGL application of my own I got an OpenGL view but with several artifacts. The renderer string gave: OpenGL to D3D. The version: 1.4
Then I activated the classic Desktop theme en ran the application again. However the renderer was the same, no genuine OpenGL.
Next step was to install the latest ATI drivers.
As expected the OS refused to update because it found the drivers to be less suitable, after overriding this they installed just fine.
After a restart and an other run of the app... Now I got normal ATI Hardware support (Renderer: RADEON 9800 Pro x86/MMX/3DNow!, version: 2.0.5220). Performance seemed ok too.
Ofcourse I tried to enable Aero and see what happened. At first glance it looks the same however, all the "fancy" effects are gone (dissolving, tild, etc..)
Conclusion seems to be that Vista in it's current state can have full OpenGL but not with fancy Vista. The install of a OpenGL ICD effectively disables Aero. Is that a bad thing?
;)

Hylke Donker
08-08-2005, 12:50 AM
I'm getting really angry about such things, because they're killing OpenGL , so people don't switch to other Operating Systems(because there won't be any games for it, or good visualation software).

Apeluier
08-08-2005, 06:43 AM
OpenGL is a hardware API and should not be a software emulation. We developed a large C++ library based on OpenGL so software emulation would be a huge problem for us. We need the speed !!!!

M/\dm/\n
08-08-2005, 06:52 AM
It's very smart step from their point of view.

1st: games like Neverwinter nights, UT, Doom3, Quakes, RTCW, F.E.A.R. and bunch of others use GL, and !!!crap!!! there are Linux/Mac OS ports. Moreover they are not going to run on X-box, at least if MS don't force devs to write DX engine (Doom3 etc. case)

2nd: PS3 is more friendly to GL, why not make GL undesireble platform for PC devs, so that there are no ports to PS3 later???

execom_rt
08-08-2005, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Treesong:

The renderer string gave: OpenGL to D3D. The version: 1.4
;) Could try this app : http://www.realtech-vr.com/glview/ and gives the full OpenGL report (if it doesn't breach your NDA). This might interest other people, and try to run the rendering tests provided by the application.

eahumada
08-08-2005, 07:33 AM
"[QUOTE]Originally posted by Treesong:
[QB]Since I have access to Vista I performed some tests.
System:
- Vista Beta1(AMDx64)
- AMDx64
- ATI Radeon 9800 Pro"

Then this happens, after install Windows Vista :
- Aeroglass is active (composite desktop,nice GUI effects)
- OpenGL is layered over D3D (no after 1.4 support and no full performance)

We can install a ICD, if we install we obtain :
- Aero desktop without nice GUI effects
- OpenGL running with ICD 100% performance

After read the posts, I thing that Areoglass is one of the most important enhacement in Windows Vista. We will have support for ICD but we loose the composite desktop. OpenGL became a "invited" in the windows area and not a main actor.

I think that for some application (CAD,Engineer,simpe games) the support for OpenGL 1.4 is ok. But for games...

¿ This will affect my pockets in the future ? ¿ This will make the software tittles more expensive ? Like customer and end user I think that I want to see more applications with 3D capabilities based on OpenGL, for this the Microsoft support is OK.
I want to play on PC the same OpenGL games that Linux, Mac and PS and have the freedown to go from one machine to another. PS3 in my home, OpenGL ES in my mobile, Vista PC in my office. And not pay more for it.

I want a full aeroglass user experience and I want to play my OpenGL games at full speed, the only thing that I want is that my O.S. vendor have the intention to do it.

Cab
08-08-2005, 07:46 AM
I posted my opinion about this in other forums:

If this is true, it doesn't matter if you are a D3D fan or an OpenGL fan, we all lose. D3D is what it is today thanks to the 'competition' with OpenGL. If MS kills or limit OpenGL (it is more or less the same), they won't need to update D3D. It is like when they won the browser battle with Netscape. They didn't update IE with new features for a long time (now with Firefox, it seems that there are movement again).
Without OpenGL, and IHV exposing new functionality through it, there will be no sense to create new features in HW as there is NO way to expose them through D3D. The feature set of the graphic cards will be those that MS will dictate. They don't need to update D3D (or WFG) for 5/6 years (we had TNT2s that time ago). They have no competition that forces them to do it. For example, speculating, MS can limit the features in the API to those that the XBOX 360 will have. With no API update, PC games can't be visually better than the console ones and they can make the XBOX 360 life longer.
Without OpenGL, MS will dictate how and when the PC 3D graphics will evolve (both HW and D3D API). This will affect everybody. D3D and OpenGL programmers, PC users, IHV, …

rtargosz
08-08-2005, 09:21 AM
As the ex-development lead for this project, I can tell you the following without breaking my NDA:
- The new Vista OpenGL driver is a single file "ogldrv.dll", code-named "MSOGL" which takes the place of the ICD.
- The intent here is two-fold: 1) reduce the work of driver developers and 2) reduce the security risk presented by the ICD driver model.
- This is not an overt attempt to kill OpenGL; far from it. By eliminating the need to write two different sets of drivers (ICD and DDI), Microsoft has taken a large burden off the likes of ATI, NVIDIA, 3D Labs, etc., while ensuring performance and expansibility continue.
- MSOGL sits between OpenGL32.dll and D3D. It translates OpenGL calls into D3D calls. This is done using MANY different techniques and at several different levels to ensure the highest possible performance. When I left the project, we were well over 80% performance on average compared to the native OpenGL driver.
- It is still possible to use an old ICD driver on Vista, but this disables D3D rendering of the desktop, which basically takes you back to XP theming of the desktop. This is because D3D cannot share the rendering context with OpenGL. Ideally, most games would run in full-screen OpenGL mode, so the intended audience for this driver is the content creation, CAD/CAM, etc. crowd (AutoCAD, Maya, 3DS Max, Pro Engineer, etc.)
- When I left, the driver supported over 80% of OpenGL 1.4, with plans to continue implementing support for extensions most used by the target applications. We were even able to run Doom 3 in some limited modes over 6 months ago (some functions were NULLed out for testing).

actionGL
08-08-2005, 10:41 AM
@rtargosz

And that should be "good"? For 1.4 specification?

Graphic Vendors say that they can do it properly (speed and security) for OpenGL, but need M$ help. Which I doubt they will get (they need to get organized and take hard pressure on MS). It is clear that M$ is trying to achieve monopoly in the whole industry and set its own standards - and in the same time constantly fails to make products relatively BUG free and secure. And now, suddenly, M$ want to help out (???) and do more job for OpenGL? Portable, open standard, direct M$ competitor... How naive...

rtargosz
08-08-2005, 12:07 PM
We need to remember that many of the major content creation and CAD/CAM applications originated on platforms like SGI, HP-Apollo and Solaris, all running on OpenGL. Microsoft worked long and hard to convince the ISVs to port their applications to Windows, and part of this support is OpenGL. They cannot simply abandon OpenGL because D3D is "better", and with the time and money invested in programs like ProE, Unigraphics, Maya, SolidWorks, etc., there's no short-term solution for them to be ported to DirectX, nor is there any real incentive for the ISVs to do so, since it limits their portability.

IMO, Microsoft will have to continue to support OpenGL in future versions of Windows in order to maintain their partnership agreements with the ISVs. While I'm obviously not privy to the details of these agreements, I have seen first-hand the kinds of pressure AutoDesk and Unigraphics can put on Microsoft.

From a gaming perspective, however, things are completely different. I've seen some posts which say that lack of competition with OpenGL will slow invention in D3D. I don't believe this is the case, since the main driver behind D3D technology has historically been game sales. John Carmack can say what he likes, but the API in DX10 (when you get your hands on it) far Outstrips OpenGL, and provides game developers (and other ISVs) with the ability to do things never before possible in graphics. Without starting a whole new "D3D vs. OpenGL" war, I think I can safely predict that OpenGL has lost the game development battle. Whether it will also lose share in the rest of the ISV world is entirely dependant on the ability of the ARB to innovate. Frankly, with competing members like ATI and NVIDIA, and Apple vs. Intel constantly bickering, I just don't see the kinds of innovation happening in OpenGL that we'll be seeing in D3D over the next few years.

In my opinion, OpenGL will continue to hold a place as a graphics API for some time. Applications in the embedded fields (cockpit displays, automotive, etc.) will continue to grow and mature. On the Windows platform, however, I think the writing is pretty much on the wall; D3D has won, and it's frankly a shame. If you ask Alex St. John, he'll tell you that D3D should never have existed save for the bickering of the WinNT and Win9x teams...imagine shooting yourself in the foot like that and getting away with it!

J.C. Coelho
08-08-2005, 12:50 PM
I think we should start to plead with Steve Jobs
to release an OEM verion of MacOS X.
Will it ever happen?
Wouldn't it just solve everybody's problems?
Isn't Darwin open source anyway?

MacOS X: taking over the planet!
Let everybody switch.
Otherwise we all switch to Linux it's fine.
Why oh why can't it happen?

neilt
08-08-2005, 01:01 PM
>> I think I can safely predict that OpenGL has lost the game development battle.

Not so - OpenGL ES is now widely adopted by the handheld industry for 3D gaming (soon - 100s of millions of OpenGL ES cell phones a year). OpenGL ES has also been adopted by Sony for PS3. That makes OpenGL an increasingly attactive target for gaming developers. See www.khronos.org (http://www.khronos.org)

adamnation
08-08-2005, 01:14 PM
Could somebody with some descent writing skills write up a form letter to write to ati & nvidia.

Then we could all send them too:
For ati please send emails to: cevenden@ati.com
For nvidia send emails to: dperez@nvidia.com
For Microsoft: rrt@wagged.com

I’m not 100% sure this is right, but its who shows up when you search "public relations" on their websites.

zero0w
08-08-2005, 01:15 PM
Re: actionGL

> @rtargosz
> And that should be "good"? For 1.4 specification?

I have pondered about this. I mean, if Microsoft wants to alienate _all_ OpenGL users / gamers outright, why would they want to implement the OpenGL 1.4 spec in their crippled Vista OpenGL driver?

Why don't Microsoft force users to make the choice between Aeroglass compositor and full OpenGL ICD all the time, and instead implement this OpenGL 1.4 driver on their own?

As someone in the thread has already said, Microsoft is no longer on the OpenGL ARB board, and it has no obligation to provide its own OpenGL driver (well, this has been more or less the case with Windows up to this point, right? Everybody installed OpenGL driver from the graphics card vendor, and expected next to nothing from MS regarding OpenGL). Hence it really has NO responsibility to offer both Aero and OpenGL at the same time, right? Then why the OpenGL 1.4 driver in Vista's implementation? Why don't drop the ball altogether?

See, the writing is _really_ on the wall, because MS chooses the path of least resistance, strategically. If all those Counterstrike and Quake3 gamers out there found out they have to sacrifice Aeroglass to play their games, they will be up in arms and flame at Microsoft to no end.

Instead, MS allows these gamers to have it both ways - because OpenGL 1.4 guarantees most but the latest OpenGL games running OK, and many gamers can live with it as long as it doesn't run too bad. It only cripples the future of OpenGL development beyond 1.4 spec.

See, Microsoft is willing to risk the few number of gamers who play newer OpenGL games that require >=1.5+ spec, and the fact that they choose to fix the support at 1.4 ensures the minimum amount of complaints to them. They don't drop the ball altogether, but cripples OpenGL enough so it has no desirable future so to speak.

A lot of OpenGL developers will really find it disturbing, but there's no point to convince MS to play nice. Their chosen fix support of 1.4 already tells you how they play their cards well. Perhaps the PC gaming will die sooner because of this as this may move people to consoles faster. OpenGL's future will reside with Mac OS X, Linux, and PS3. I bet Autodesk and UG will port their apps to Mac OS X sooner as Apple is migrating to x86. Microsoft probably won't mind losing 2-3% of OpenGL focused marketshare to undermine an competing technology.

glfreak
08-08-2005, 03:24 PM
Why should gamers (majority kids and average users) to switch to another OS and play a very few number of games because they cannot have their favourites run in full OpenGL under Windows? Who cares?

Professionals and developers could write their own ports, what a big deal?

The time Glide is dead computer graphics is dead.

The time vendors don't dare a proprietry API then why do u blame them for not supporting OpenGL?

Don't blame Microsoft for that because it's a business and now competing with a giant monster called Playstation 3 which will be using OpenGL, so what do u expect? A good support from MS?

Get real. The only thing you can do is to port ur applications or face it and like D3D. Anyway we use 90% of DirectX it will not be a problem if we complement it by using D3D instead of OpenGL.

Personally I will be targetting consoles XBox and PS3 and probably others.

bhpaddock
08-08-2005, 03:36 PM
Man, what a nightmare of a forum to register for. Kept giving me errors about a conflicting name because of the *DISPLAY NAME* I entered, and then gave me flood protection warnings even though I was fixing errors it gave me. Yikes, someone should really fix that.

Anyway, this was my response over on Neowin:



IMHO...

It's a tricky problem... Apple decided to pipe everything through their own interfaces, and lost a lot of GL performance. It sounds like the Vista designers are trying to find ways around those limitations where possible - but it might not be possible in all cases.

Basically, it looks to me like the DWM is one big full-screen Direct3D app that hosts all your other apps. Piping a Direct3D app through it probably took some clever thinking and a lot of work with the Longhorn driver model, but I'd think this is only possible since it's the same API.

However, an OpenGL app is going to want direct access to the hardware... something it can't get if a Direct3D app (like the DWM) is running. So either it has to shutdown the DWM, or find a way to pipe it through Direct3D. They seem to be trying to support both options, depending on which is optimal for a specific scenario.

I'm always skeptical of conspiracy theories, but this one seems particularly "out there." It's a technological problem that is difficult to overcome.

Worst case is that CAD/modeling users will have to run in Classic mode, or at least with the DWM shut off. Big deal.

bhpaddock
08-08-2005, 03:41 PM
Why should gamers (majority kids and average users) to switch to another OS and play a very few number of games because they cannot have their favourites run in full OpenGL under Windows? Who cares?
That's not what's being suggested here.

I believe the Vista guys have said that when ANY full-screen game is run, many system services including the DWM will stop to allow the game to take full advantage of the system's resources.

In windowed mode (which is rarely used for games), you have two options:
1) Let the system turn off the DWM in order to let the application run at full speed.
OR
2) Let the application run through the DWM with somewhat reduced performance, if it supports the DWM/OpenGL compatibility layer.

For 99% of games, no one will notice a difference. Most games have crappy windowed mode support to begin with.

For 99% of CAD/modeling people, they're not going to care if the DWM stops while they're working.

Of course, this is all speculation at this point, since little or none of this has been confirmed by the Vista team.

Tankgirl
08-08-2005, 03:48 PM
I fail to understand what the problem is here. Let's stop the hatin' for a moment here, and step back to take a look at things. So Microsoft has a DirectX based GUI. Okay, I get that, they want all the shiny bells and whistles bull**** to make it look nice. If they can accomplish all this with DirectX, why re-write it for OpenGL? There's some older games that support both OpenGL and DX (the Unreal 1.x/2.x engine comes to mind) But you don't see many hybrid DX/OGL games anymore. Why? Because it's a salty pain in the ass to code for both if you can just do one! If you want to use OpenGL, then turn off the damn Aeroglass! Geez! :p We've been perfectly happy with the same GUI for 10 years- many people I know even turn off Luna on XP in favour of the classic 9x GUI look. Now, we're getting some crazyass 3d accelerated GUI, and all y'all are pissing and moaning because it uses DX- and Microsoft had the foresight to build a (good) OGL wrapper into it! How about instead of "aw, HELL no", let's hear a "we don't have room to complain because half of us are gonna download Longhorn from Bittorrent, and the other half is gonna stick with XP for another 3 years because we're too lazy to upgrade" :D Point being, until we get more info, wait an see.
Oh, and one more thing- Microsoft is spelled M-I-C-R-O-S-F-T. This little guy- $ - he's meant as a prefix for united states currency. If I see any more "M$" or "Micro$oft", I'm taking out the rusty spork, and you know what that means. Sorry if I'm coming across as a bitch, I'm nice, uh, really! :D

bobvodka
08-08-2005, 05:26 PM
errm.. we should be greatfull because MS have forced everyone who wants to ue OpenGL to jump thru hoops todo so?

Frankly, no.
Firstly, 1.4 was 2 revisions of the spec ago, we've had 1.5 and 2.0 since then.
I do ALL my coding against the 2.0 spec because I use GLSL all the time, as such 1.4 is utterly useless to me.
Now, when debugging I run my stuff in windowed mode so I can break the program and see whats going on, so it 'being ok for fullscreen apps' is like wise utterly useless for me.

OK, so I could turn off Aeroglass, practically the ONLY selling point for Vista after they stripped most of the other stuff out for 'later' release, but this is where the whole 'jumping thru hoops' kicks in. Under XP I run the skinned GUI as I happen to like it to look nice, Vista is ment to look and respond even better and thats what I want from my OS, not to have MS dictate how I use it (which is basically what they are saying).

As for not being able todo it, sorry, I dont buy that for one moment. End of the day everything ends up in video ram in the same format, as such it should be possible to render GL commands to a 'render target' of sorts and then use that as a source for Vista's rendering of the desktop.
Sure, you've never been able to run D3D and OGL in the same app before now but thats because no ones ever needed to, end of the day the driver writers should have complete control over what goes where and how things are accessed, so there shouldnt be an issue into supporting it.

tranders
08-08-2005, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by bhpaddock:
For 99% of CAD/modeling people, they're not going to care if the DWM stops while they're working.This is most definitely not true. 99% of CAD/modelling people use other applications in conjunction with the modeller (e.g., Office, IE, etc.). It is definitely not clear if these applications will provide full functionality if the DWM is running in ICD compatibility mode.

I can say for certain that 100% of CAD/modelling people will not accept a 20%-50% drop in performance. Therefore the people that are paying the bills for high-end graphics cards will still require ICD support to maintain the current level of performance. That being said, there is no reduction in the burden on the graphics card vendors because they are already committed to OpenGL 2.0 and that is clearly not going to be supported in the full featured Aero DWM.

If there is no significant technical reason for preventing full ICD support along side the full featured Aero DWM (per a previous post by a 3Dlabs poster), then there is only one reason for this limitation but I will leave it up to the reader to determine what that might be. I will point out that both D3D and OpenGL share a common low-level interface -- silicon -- and every graphics card vendor maps ICD and DDI calls onto this interface.

-- tranders

thwart
08-08-2005, 06:43 PM
Makes me long for the days when we used to boot up a game at computer startup. I think it's time that someone provides a lite OS to cradle games with full support for OpenGL.

Do it! Do it! Just do it!

thwart

computrius
08-08-2005, 07:04 PM
If this is the case, couldnt linux just adapt? Why not just create a directX for linux? Something that just has the same function calls as the windows directX, only they call opengl equivilent, or even a whole new 3d system should opengl die.. All is never lost, MS cant kill linux, or other alternate OS's.

tosa
08-08-2005, 09:06 PM
As things develop this site may be called:
OpenGL - Industry standard for low performance and compatibility graphics :D

actionGL
08-08-2005, 09:47 PM
Can anyone post links or official statements from NVidia, 3DLabs, ATI, Intel... regarding OpenGL and Vista. I would like to hear their opinion - since I find that they are the only one that can truly correct things. And if it is not clear for them what kind of problem this would be in 3-5 years, then I really have nothing to say more. We all know what is MS (M$ - "the way its meant to be spelled" ;) ) doing with vista.

Also it would be good to make automated petition page, where people can post their opinions. Also providing email addresses with template text would be good.

We can talk forever on this forum, but only ones with true impact on MS are IHV-s and big software companies that support OpenGL. The problem can be solved, but MS don’t want that – that’s the point. MS wants to push some-sort-of crappy GL till all apps go WGF and then leave GL stuff forever…

shiro
08-08-2005, 09:56 PM
Microsoft is Dead

M/\dm/\n
08-08-2005, 10:46 PM
*If* you can run aeroglass, then your card is DX9.0 card, that's not 1.4 but rather 1.5 and shader support...

Anyway, I have written a few general computing apps in windowed mode under GL lately, and guess what, they use shaders. With aeroglass they're not going to run and that's a whole branch of programs that are not CAD or games...

sqrt[-1]
08-09-2005, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by rtargosz:

IMO, Microsoft will have to continue to support OpenGL in future versions of Windows in order to maintain their partnership agreements with the ISVs. While I'm obviously not privy to the details of these agreements, I have seen first-hand the kinds of pressure AutoDesk and Unigraphics can put on Microsoft.
OK people, new tactic. Everyone email AutoDesk and Unigraphics to insist on decent OpenGL support.


Originally posted by rtargosz:

John Carmack can say what he likes, but the API in DX10 (when you get your hands on it) far Outstrips OpenGL, and provides game developers (and other ISVs) with the ability to do things never before possible in graphics. Uhh, isn't it the graphics cards that would enable this "never before possible" effects and not the API? Anyone could write an API to specify unlimited freedom when doing computer graphics. (if the hardware could do it or not is another story)
I would be more inclined to give credit to the Nvidia, ATI, SGI and other engineers for all their wonderful hardware.

Also by the time DX10 comes out, who knows what OpenGL will be like..

husakm
08-09-2005, 12:17 AM
I work on application targeted for 3D stereoscopic visualization. DirectX simply does not have the neccesary commands for stereoscopic data handling - only OpenGL does.
Any restriction in OpenGL implementation will kill totaly the market for profesional VR visaulisation systems based on stereoscopy ...
My company as well as sever other VR visualisations comapnies will be forced to tell users NEVER UPGRADE TO NEW WINDOWS. If Microsofts wants to get such result - he will get it.

Joe Canone
08-09-2005, 02:54 AM
Maybe it's a little late to cry. We know since a year that there will be no proper OpenGL in Longhorn. When I've startet coding hardware accelerated graphics 10 years ago, OpenGL was clearly the better API. But who but id Software used it? Nearly nobody, compared to D3D. That's the reason why now it's possible for M$ to start killing OpenGL. Shame on them, but also on developers and publishers following them if there's a better choice.
I truely hope that M$ will fail to succeed in mobile and console market...

Phobeus
08-09-2005, 02:57 AM
Also an idea. We all know we need strong partners, if we want to stand against Microsoft. I am not able to test, but isn't google Earth also including a OpenGL mode? I could guess, that if get them on our side and they would use OpenGL-mode require an vendor ICD, many users might not want to use aeroglass anymore, because it is a nice toy (and everybody like this). I also guess that the google guys will some day wanna use Shaders to push up the program a little bit and they also currently try to enforce Microsoft also. Maybe this could be worked out somehow?

Obli
08-09-2005, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Phobeus:
isn't google Earth also including a OpenGL mode? I could guess, that if get them on our side and they would use OpenGL-mode require an vendor ICD, many users might not want to use aeroglass anymore, because it is a nice toy (and everybody like this).By the way, isn't google by some kind of insitution (Mit? Berkeley?).
What I mean here is that maybe we shall engage other people outside the "strictly GL developers". Having institutions like those two would surely pack a punch... and what about Sun with its Swing GL renderpath? They are windowed. While I don't think 50% slowdown would affect them, what I mean is that there's not only ATi, nVIDIA, 3DLabs VS the evil one.
By the way, anyone heard of general stream processing algorithms developed under DirectX?

Stream processors are very promising and GPUs are the (IMHO) the best of them (what others? Image? Merrimac?) so this would make other people suffer badly... altough they probably don't develop on win32 anyway.

actionGL
08-09-2005, 06:10 AM
About your comment on D3D 10 features...


Originally posted by sqrt[-1]:
Uhh, isn't it the graphics cards that would enable this "never before possible" effects and not the API? Anyone could write an API to specify unlimited freedom when doing computer graphics. (if the hardware could do it or not is another story)
I would be more inclined to give credit to the Nvidia, ATI, SGI and other engineers for all their wonderful hardware. Exactly - MS guy obviously has MS looking at the things. Like: "Lets monopolize industry and then we WILL SAY what hardware should do"... and our way means best way, always, no matter what... we will just sabotage anything better (read GL) if it doesn’t fit in our BIG $$$, market control, policy.

Jonus
08-09-2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by rtargosz:
As the ex-development lead for this project, I can tell you the following without breaking my NDA:
- The new Vista OpenGL driver is a single file "ogldrv.dll", code-named "MSOGL" which takes the place of the ICD.
- The intent here is two-fold: 1) reduce the work of driver developers and 2) reduce the security risk presented by the ICD driver model.
- This is not an overt attempt to kill OpenGL; far from it. By eliminating the need to write two different sets of drivers (ICD and DDI), Microsoft has taken a large burden off the likes of ATI, NVIDIA, 3D Labs, etc., while ensuring performance and expansibility continue.
- MSOGL sits between OpenGL32.dll and D3D. It translates OpenGL calls into D3D calls. This is done using MANY different techniques and at several different levels to ensure the highest possible performance. When I left the project, we were well over 80% performance on average compared to the native OpenGL driver.
- It is still possible to use an old ICD driver on Vista, but this disables D3D rendering of the desktop, which basically takes you back to XP theming of the desktop. This is because D3D cannot share the rendering context with OpenGL. Ideally, most games would run in full-screen OpenGL mode, so the intended audience for this driver is the content creation, CAD/CAM, etc. crowd (AutoCAD, Maya, 3DS Max, Pro Engineer, etc.)
- When I left, the driver supported over 80% of OpenGL 1.4, with plans to continue implementing support for extensions most used by the target applications. We were even able to run Doom 3 in some limited modes over 6 months ago (some functions were NULLed out for testing).Even without reading anything additional to your post everyone who has common sense knows that this is a covered attempt to kill OpenGL. It's MS way to compromise the OpenGL Standard by creating there weird vanilla version. It's the same they did to the web standards, c++, java and a book of stuff more.

By not allowing the driver creaters to competed in driver quality this will be a huge downgrade for the overall quality and force the OpenGL users to rely on the crap MS makes:
80% performance with 80% of OpenGL1.4?
This must be a nightmare or a joke.

With things standing OpenGL will lose the last percentages on the windows plattform and this will prevent even more ppl to start learning and writting it.

No casual windows user will want to turn off the glass feature. So face it MS kills OpenGL. There is no way to talk that "right".


Originally posted by rtargosz:
We need to remember that many of the major content creation and CAD/CAM applications originated on platforms like SGI, HP-Apollo and Solaris, all running on OpenGL. Microsoft worked long and hard to convince the ISVs to port their applications to Windows, and part of this support is OpenGL. They cannot simply abandon OpenGL because D3D is "better", and with the time and money invested in programs like ProE, Unigraphics, Maya, SolidWorks, etc., there's no short-term solution for them to be ported to DirectX, nor is there any real incentive for the ISVs to do so, since it limits their portability.

IMO, Microsoft will have to continue to support OpenGL in future versions of Windows in order to maintain their partnership agreements with the ISVs. While I'm obviously not privy to the details of these agreements, I have seen first-hand the kinds of pressure AutoDesk and Unigraphics can put on Microsoft.

From a gaming perspective, however, things are completely different. I've seen some posts which say that lack of competition with OpenGL will slow invention in D3D. I don't believe this is the case, since the main driver behind D3D technology has historically been game sales. John Carmack can say what he likes, but the API in DX10 (when you get your hands on it) far Outstrips OpenGL, and provides game developers (and other ISVs) with the ability to do things never before possible in graphics. Without starting a whole new "D3D vs. OpenGL" war, I think I can safely predict that OpenGL has lost the game development battle. Whether it will also lose share in the rest of the ISV world is entirely dependant on the ability of the ARB to innovate. Frankly, with competing members like ATI and NVIDIA, and Apple vs. Intel constantly bickering, I just don't see the kinds of innovation happening in OpenGL that we'll be seeing in D3D over the next few years.

In my opinion, OpenGL will continue to hold a place as a graphics API for some time. Applications in the embedded fields (cockpit displays, automotive, etc.) will continue to grow and mature. On the Windows platform, however, I think the writing is pretty much on the wall; D3D has won, and it's frankly a shame. If you ask Alex St. John, he'll tell you that D3D should never have existed save for the bickering of the WinNT and Win9x teams...imagine shooting yourself in the foot like that and getting away with it!First and formost D3D is not better then OpenGL.

D3D was pure crap until version 9, but we all know how monopolist MS forces thier crap standards on the industry.

And by the way when was the last time MS inovated anything? MS is made of stolen ideas and dreams. And so is D3D. Without OpenGL D3D wouldn't exist.

All in all everything you have written sounds like a MS commercial to me, no offense.

Oh and even when it is true that D3D cannot share the same rendering context with OpenGL, what would prevent you to render to a texture or ram and let D3D paint that? I am quite sure that nvidia could easily make everything work out fine, but MS clearly doesn't want them to do so. For me this whole case sounds like antitrust division material.

rebb
08-09-2005, 08:18 AM
But with OpenGL gone.. MicroSoft will be out of Resources for.. lets call it "Inspiration" ;) .

Well we shall see, maybe there still are people at MicroSoft who arent half-choked on their ties - so this whole matter gets resolved in a fair and civilized manner - for all parties.

ac2005
08-09-2005, 08:46 AM
I don't see the problem really. Why can you not just disable the DWM when you run an OpenGL application. It's even an automatic option. Anyone with access to the beta, right click on an executable and do properties, on the compatability tab is a tickbox to "Disable the Desktop Window Manager", do that, and suddenly it appears there won't be a problem anymore.

Dramus
08-09-2005, 09:00 AM
After reading everything everyone has written about this topic, there are some misconceptions I think people are having about this whole problem.

1. By having OpenGL commands ported to D3D commands and having the OpenGL version stuck at 1.4, all the new powerful features of OpenGL 2.0, So any new software that uses say GLSL won't work on the Aero desktop.

2. So some people are saying just not use Aero, use fullscreen, create a simple OS for running games only, switch to Linux, Switch to Mac OS X etc... All these are workarounds that most people don't want to deal with. When I want to work on writing my 3D software I don't want to have switch OSes or restart my computer or even go into properties and change the desktop settings. It isn't convenient and you shouldn't have to do it.

3. This is not a Microsoft vs. Linux or Mac fight and I don't reccommend people try and turn it into that. Many people use Windows, and many people do 3D on the Microsoft platform. They don't care about other OSes, but they do care if the newest features of their 3D app work on the latest version of Windows.

As I recall there is no mechanism in D3D for hardware vendor extensions, if this is true I don't see how someone can explain that D3D is better, since OpenGL can be improved not only by the ARB, but also by the individual hardware vendors.

bhpaddock
08-09-2005, 09:58 AM
2. So some people are saying just not use Aero, use fullscreen, create a simple OS for running games only, switch to Linux, Switch to Mac OS X etc... All these are workarounds that most people don't want to deal with. When I want to work on writing my 3D software I don't want to have switch OSes or restart my computer or even go into properties and change the desktop settings. It isn't convenient and you shouldn't have to do it. This has nothing to do with disabling Aero or 90% of the UI changes in Vista.

You only have to stop the DWM, which is handled automatically if you want it to. You won't get the fancy minimize/maximize transitions and such, but that's all.

Seeing as none of this has actually happened yet, the performance delta is entirely unknown (as is the feature set of the MSOGL driver), and no one knows how transparent this will be to the user...

It's one thing to make sure the Vista team knows that OpenGL support is vital to you guys. I highly doubt there's some vast conspiracy to kill OpenGL... it's simply a technical hurdle and they are considering *different ways* that it can be handled.

Bibobibobibo22
08-09-2005, 12:55 PM
They are doing the same thing they did with Internet Explore: anti thrust commision, can't sell an internet browser with an OS and blah blah... So Windows became Internet Explorer: you open a directory or a web page in the same way. Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are the same thing. Hihihi, funny, and bye bye Netscape, no more anti-thrust problems.

Now the same thing with DirectX. The Windows desktop, GUI and windowing system will be DirectX. Funny, eh? You pay for an OS and you receive Internet Explorer with DirectX. Bye bye Opengl, no more ethic problems.
Why getting a wife if Microsoft can implant tits directly on you?

artlab
08-09-2005, 01:25 PM
There is a clarification post from an ATI engineer who was at the Siggraph BOF, posted on the OpenGL Game Dev List (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opengl-gamedev-l/message/23827) .

The gist:

First, there were two current paths for OpenGL on Vista mentioned. The first one is a DX wrapper, with its potential performance shortfalls and lack of extension support. The second path was a traditional ICD which when activated would force the desktop out of the compositing mode, but would allow performance and extensions.
Second, 3DLabs, ATI, and NVIDIA all pledged that they were dedicated to work with Microsoft to add the additional support necessary to make ICDs work seamlessly with the rest of the OS. There was an open request to have developers contact their Microsoft reps to express any concerns that they have over this.He cautions not to get caught up in the FUD and instead if you feel the OpenGL limits under the Vista Aero compositor will impact your products, make whatever Microsoft contacts you have aware of your concern over the issue.

The good news is that the top 3 board manufacturers are committed to developing ICDs for OpenGL under Vista. The bad is that there is no resolution to the emulation or dropping out of Aero problem which is what all this was about to begin with.

andrehe
08-09-2005, 02:54 PM
This action from Microsoft costs the economy, again. After creating an unneeded second 3D graphics API, they again attack the bottom line of other companies. Several groups/markets are affected, you may choose one. Seeing a funny translation of DRM = Digital Restriction Management, I have recognized that this is strategy from Microsoft: They create restrictions, lessen options. See DRM, see TCPA, see .NET and software patents on the API. The Linux way is the other way round: provide options, from which you can choose. You can customize it, adapt it to your needs, differentiate it to offer a unique product. I understand why both parties fight so hard, because these principles are not compatible with each other, like fire and water.

Some suggestions to handle this issue:

ISVs, the question is which future we want to have:

- less income and business opportunities, less products to choose from, less innovation; giving Microsoft profits like 36 %

or

+ act now: write portable code ( Book: Write Portable Code (http://www.writeportablecode.com/) ) might be a helpful resource), do not comply to Microsoft's orders, keep an eye on your _own_ business goals, port your code to Linux or MacOS X instead of Direct3D; make your customers happy (those Linux and MacOS users), not one OS vendor

Really, this is not the first time they add to your expenses, and it won't be the last time. They want to own the market 100 %, so that they have less expenses on research/innovations and can advance their prices even higher (directly and indirectly). I rather want to make profit for myself/my company, I am not at the least interested in advancing the profit of a supplier over some common sense limit.

Graphics HW vendors: Do not support Direct3D anymore, emulate it on your OpenGL layer: it provides no extension mechanism, there is no agreement on it, you cannot innovate on your own and differentiate your product. With OpenGL, application developers can target a common denominator, and at the same time offer some special render paths to exploit vendor specific features. Everyone can live with that, I think. And SDL ( Media Library: SDL (http://www.libsdl.org/) ) allows for a portable setup, OpenML ( Media Library for Multimedia Devices (http://www.khronos.org/openml/) ) eventually will cover framegrabbers, video mixing HW, etc. in the future.

I support the idea of Oliver Stieber to provide a Direct3D wrapper for OpenGL. This is because it would get wider testing (installing a game on Wine still is not easy), and field testing leads to faster development. It is a vital part of the bridge from the Windows world to the Linux/Mac world, walking on it with known and loved applications/games in the backpack.

The future will rock, this bullet is going to backfire. Let us do some more action on this "issue". We want to have new, exciting products, innovations, which is a declared goal of the market economy. Let us make sure we get them furthermore!

I would like to hear about your actions, let us celebrate this opportunity given by Microsoft!

André Heynatz

zero0w
08-09-2005, 02:56 PM
Just a question to MS developers reading this:

Can't you guys develop the Aeroglass acceleration over a straight Direct3D path instead? That way, you will have complete control over your programming API and what matters, and while at the same time will leave OpenGL support intact.

If you want to make the OpenGL ICD more secure, as you say, then you can have more QA and co-operation with OpenGL driver vendors, instead of limiting OpenGL support to the full desktop experience in this way.

Korval
08-09-2005, 04:26 PM
Thank God for level-headed posters like Dramus, bhpaddock and artlab. They see the problem for what it is, rather than taking the opportunity to bash Microsoft or cast this as some conspiracy against their preferred API. Deal with the problem and stop trying to turn the problem into your own personal problems with a company or product. If you want to bash Microsoft or cite this in some ever-growing list of monopolistic practices at Micrsoft, please do it on some other forum (and I'm sure that there are plenty that are dedicated to such things). We have substantive issues to discuss.


The good news is that the top 3 board manufacturers are committed to developing ICDs for OpenGL under Vista. The bad is that there is no resolution to the emulation or dropping out of Aero problem which is what all this was about to begin with.Of course, neither Vista nor Vista-specific ICDs are done either. Indeed, Microsoft isn't finished with Vista, so it wouldn't be a good idea for them to give IHVs the kind of low-level information to make their ICD's play ball with compositing until they themselves are fully finished making it.

Best case, Microsoft, in a few months or so when Vista goes into a hard Beta cycle, they divulge various bits of info to GL IHV's to allow them to provide ICD's that work with compositing. Worst case, they don't, and nVidia, ATi, and 3DLabs have to deprocess how Vista does compositing themsevles without Microsoft's help. Either way we get what we want, and that's whats important. The 3 companies are willing to work towards this goal, so they will be able to achieve this goal, even if they have to fool Vista into thinking that they're using D3D.

And it isn't dropping out of Aero; it's just the compositing that no longer works.


Can't you guys develop the Aeroglass acceleration over a straight Direct3D path instead?So what happens with an OpenGL window in terms of compositing? It isn't part of D3D, so it isn't playing ball with how D3D works, so other windows can't talk to its framebuffer to get the compositing to work. And therein lies the problem: in order for compositing to work all windows need to speak the same way. The IHV solution is to simply change how their ICD's work to make them speak in that way.

zed
08-09-2005, 04:38 PM
to anyone who believes this ive found a way of making lots of cash u might be interested in


- This is not an overt attempt to kill OpenGL; far from it.LAGOS, NIGERIA.
ATTENTION: THE PRESIDENT/CEO
DEAR SIR,
CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL
HAVING CONSULTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE NIGERIAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO REQUEST FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE TO TRANSFER THE SUM OF $47,500,000.00 (FORTY SEVEN MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS) INTO YOUR ACCOUNTS. THE ABOVE SUM RESULTED FROM AN OVER-INVOICED CONTRACT, EXECUTED COMMISSIONED AND PAID FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS (5) AGO BY A FOREIGN CONTRACTOR. THIS ACTION WAS HOWEVER INTENTIONAL AND SINCE THEN THE FUND HAS BEEN IN A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AT THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA APEX BANK.

glfreak
08-09-2005, 06:37 PM
Solutions for OpenGL games:

1 - To make the game when starts run in background mode when it starts

glfreak
08-09-2005, 06:43 PM
Solutions for OpenGL games:

1 - To make the game when starts run in
background mode once Using OpenGL and
once using Direct3D, then if the fps when
running in OGL is less than that of D3D then
quit with a message "insufficient OpenGL
support." It's not necessarily that a
developer has to make two pathlines to run
the game, but only a mini d3d for testing a
minimal game scene.

2 - Test for some ATI/NVIDIA specific extensions
such as np triangles or NV program v3.

3 - Check if the d3d module is loaded and then
quit the game if so :D

Hope this help.

V-man
08-09-2005, 06:56 PM
Why does this Areo thing or compositing thing use D3D? Aren't most windowed 3D programs using GL?

Personally, I think that this problem would only serve to encourage developers to switch to D3D. End users of software may complain to ISV which would also have the effect of developers switching to D3D.

Given enough time, GL's share will erode, very much like the egyptian pyramids are eroding.

I don't know what the case of mobiles is. GL ES also has competition from MS.

glfreak
08-09-2005, 08:07 PM
Whay some accept the idea of having DirectX ported to linux, and at the same time complain about it in its native platform?

And it will only hurts windows platform, that OpenGL sucks under it so many softare andf game developers will have less interest in supporting Windows. This is because big software like Maya, softimage, Lightwave, and game Quake's, Doom 3, Unreal and so on maintain different paltforms: Win/Lin/Mac so they have to make at least two ports with OpenGL and one port for Windows. Then they cannot stop support of OpenGL otherwise they are going to loose two platforms from the market share. You see. so the only doomed platform where openGL will be poor and hence will gain a bad reputation however is Microsoft Windows Vista.

Treesong
08-09-2005, 10:03 PM
Today I tried the (LDDM) ATI Vista drivers that just came out. And I'm sad to report that there is no genuine OpenGL support in them (allthough I expected as much). Just the OpenGL-D3D Translator. For anyone interested, I summorized my findings with Vista and OpenGL on http://www.OrganicVectory.nl

lois lacroux
08-09-2005, 11:53 PM
I think one place to write to, also, could be
http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.windows.developer .winfx.aero

You'll need a .net passport to post there(an account on hotmail can do it)....

Ebrahim Pasbani
08-10-2005, 01:53 AM
We must think logically. If opengl is strong (realy it is strong), so we should not worry about this matter.
Opengl is on Linux and ... , so we can develop on it.
Last, we should not forget that DirectX is good and it is for game programming (Direct3D).
Bye.

actionGL
08-10-2005, 02:16 AM
If we think logically, there are four great things for game industry:
1) OpenGL (OpenGL ES)
2) OpenAL
3) OpenML
4) OpenVG

This stuff is open and free. It makes possible to make games for ANY platform, not just Windows. Btw, Sony didn’t accidentally choose OpenGL standard for PS3.

What does this mean? It means that game and application developers will see opportunity to use these APIs for development, since it makes sense:

1) Larger desktop market: Windows, Linux, Mac…
2) Less work - investments ($)
3) Ability to enter console PS3, PSP market
4) Ability to port to mobile devices

If you think logically, this is exactly what Microsoft doesn’t want. So there is actually no problem (technical or otherwise) to have OpenGL on Windows Vista – the only “problem” is because Microsoft doesn’t want it.

Think about it:
What if tomorrow all systems could have hi quality games (free Linux, Mac)?
What if Sony PS3 could run games for PC (written in OpenGL/AL/ML technology?

You will find answer who and why obstruct OpenGL standard. And this is not Microsoft bashing. It is common sense.

daminetreg
08-10-2005, 02:43 AM
I talk in France from this:
http://lecbna.com/
http://cbna.forumactif.com/viewtopic.forum?t=647

It would be read this evenning by minimum Hundred person.

Ob1
08-10-2005, 04:24 AM
I don't know about MS monopolistic plan, but I'd like to have some more info about the ( eventual ) techical problems that might rise in having full openGL support through aeroglass.

1) Is it true that only one API at a time can retain control of the graphic subsystem? If so, is it feasable for the HW vendors/MS to build a virtualization layer that has the exclusive control of it and lets D3D and OGL work toghether?

2) Does OGL actually have all the features needed to run aeroglass? ( i.e. frame-buffer partitioning, video memory virtualization...). Are they ARB features yet?

3) As OGL dirvers are pretty different from D3D ones, not to mention the new Longhorn driver model, and the extension fetching method isn't that clean, safe and comfortable, is it possible for the ARB to issue a new OGL base implementation that better fits MS models?

Thanks!

Byez =8)!
Ob1

eahumada
08-10-2005, 05:03 AM
I think that the compatibility option in the program ejecutable properties is a good solution.

"[x] Run in compatibility mode" System : [Window XP-OpenGL]

"[x] Run in OpenGL ICD fullscreen mode"

"[x] Force run OpenGL ICD and DWM in my own risk"

This maintain the Aeroglass composite desktop while no OpenGL fullscreen application is running. When the game in running the system switch off all the D3D stuff.

This can be only a patch, Of course the best solution is that ISV and IHV work with microsoft to write a ICD that substitute MSOGL and be compatible with the Aeroglass composite desktop.

linuxalien
08-10-2005, 11:26 AM
I haven't read all the replies, but it seems that M$ wants to strangle OpenGL out of existance not only to compete with platforms like Playstation but perhaps also to shoot for making linux less of a desktop OS choice. How many fewer people are going to switch to linux if games are not ported over when they don't make the money they'd also make on Windows. What I mean is, the main development would be for windows and secondary for linux. I just hope companies start programming directly for OpenGL in linux. I prefer it as a gaming platform anyhow. I get better framerates in Gentoo than I do in WinXP Pro.

sxpert
08-10-2005, 11:57 AM
well, guess this is all a good thing.
look at it this way, the serious stuff (maya, catia & friends are already moving to Linux, which sports proper OpenGL support. furthermore, Xorg is going in the direction of running over the OpenGL layer, turning all 2D operations into OpenGL things that do the same thing, and things like gtk are getting build on top of cairo, which in turn is build on those OpenGL things.
What will remain on Windows is the only things that should have been there, that is, games. windows will become a playing OS...
Of course, the PS3 using linux may also get all those games easily ported on desktop linux boxes...

Korval
08-10-2005, 12:18 PM
Is it true that only one API at a time can retain control of the graphic subsystem? If so, is it feasable for the HW vendors/MS to build a virtualization layer that has the exclusive control of it and lets D3D and OGL work toghether?Not really. Technically, only one API can be active on a single window, but you can definately spawn, even on XP, a D3D app while running a GL app.

Obviously, you can only have one fullscreen app running at any one time.


Does OGL actually have all the features needed to run aeroglass? ( i.e. frame-buffer partitioning, video memory virtualization...). Are they ARB features yet?It all depends on how it is done. Apple, for example, is able to make it work OK. So it certainly is possible. But, then again, Apple uses OpenGL the way Microsoft uses D3D: they provide a non-trivial portion of the code themselves and have driver developers develop to an internal API that can be anything. OpenGL on Windows doesn't work this way.


As OGL dirvers are pretty different from D3D ones, not to mention the new Longhorn driver model, and the extension fetching method isn't that clean, safe and comfortable, is it possible for the ARB to issue a new OGL base implementation that better fits MS models?That's not really the problem. The issue, as Evan Hart (ATi) put it in the link found on the second page, is that theoretically an ICD can interface with the desktop compositing stuff. However, Microsoft has yet to divulge the necessary information to IHVs to allow them to make this happen. Until they do (which they may hold back for a number of legitmate reasons, the most important of which is that Vista isn't finished yet, so it may change and break stuff), or until Vista is released and the IHVs are able to deprocess what the compositing needs and replicate it in the ICD, the issue will persist.

tranders
08-10-2005, 03:15 PM
I find it very interesting that the average gamer will be able to buy a $49.99 OpenGL based game, run that game on a $219.99 consumer level graphics card and continue to have the full Aeroglass desktop experience with full OpenGL acceleration, while the professional who purchaces a $4999.99 engineering package that requires a $2199.99 professional graphics card will be stuck with a Windows XP themed desktop.

FWIW, high-end engineering applications have been moving FROM *nix TO Windows over the past 10 years -- not the other way around. These companies have moved to that platform because of market demands. Those same markets demand performance. It is yet to be seen if loss of the Aeroglass desktop compositing engine will be accepted. Considering that D3D does not support key functionality that is an intrisic part of OpenGL, I'm not sure the market will have a choice.

One other point that I have not seen in these posts is that while the GENERIC OpenGL 1.1 software rasterizer currently delivered with Windows (through XP) is slow -- there is one extremely useful aspect of that pixelformat -- the software rasterizer is very stable and isolates the application from all hardware anomalies. Nearly every high-end application I have used offers an option to select the GENERIC OpenGL pathway and in many cases (e.g., laptops, legacy hardware, etc.) this is the ONLY way to run the application successfully. If "OpenGL on D3D" is the default pixelformat for Vista, will there continue to be a GENERIC (software only) pixelformat? If not, then that could render many applications unusable on Vista (pun intended :) ).

-- tranders

glfreak
08-10-2005, 04:57 PM
After reading all the post here, I think the only thing we can be done is up to the ARB and SGI. Yes it's their responsibility to protect the OpenGL quality and assure it's not degraded in any way.

The ARB and SGI should only allow or confirm OpneGL implementation for those who are members of the ARB. This way MS will not be able to provide a crappy implentation and if they don't have OGL then they will lose many titles on their Vista.

glfreak
08-10-2005, 06:54 PM
I don't understand why all that action and intense regarding what MS gonna do. It's their platform and they can do whatever they want. They are not saying we are going to stop OpenGL dev, but it's for definite that D3D is more appropriate to the platform and it's the only way that allow low level frame buffer control under Windows.

Stop all that panic. My first game will be both OpenGL for Linux or even Mac, who cares, and D3D for Windows. Just I replace the calls and re-program the sahders, what's a big deal. It's enjoyable experience to master both APIs.

Get real and stop hating MS, it's the best and greatest software company ever happned to the computer industry.

siarnne
08-10-2005, 07:03 PM
I don't know how layered support for OpenGL (and limited implementation at that) is going to fly with the design and simulation application vendors.
Autodesk, Solidworks and Bentely rely heavily on OpenGL for their 3D modelling suites and in some cases demand a full ICD. Hardware graphics acceleration is the single-most important performance factor and I suspect they've stayed away from DirectX for it's lack of support on complex surface geometry.
Given that these programs run exclusively on Windows (no OSX or Linux support amoung them), a stunted GUI or degraded performance seems like a bad choice to hand indirectly to their clients.
I'm a Solidworks operator by trade ( http://www.solidworks.com ) and since their first release in 1995, your card and drivers fully implement OpenGL, you wait...and wait...and wait.
What's more, these companies are developing their apps to support the new shaders in OpenGL 2.0 and are paralleling their development for OpenGL's future.
I've heard the arguments for the business sense of Microsofts decision, but limiting support for an open standard like OGL seems antithetical to the philosophy behind their push for XML and opens the door for OS's with a more consistent development philosophy to court these big-ticket customers.
Many people in the Autodesk discussion forums wonder casually when the first Mac release for AutoCAD will show up again. With the kinds of pressures Microsoft's putting on developers and the attitude that all applications want to be Xbox games or Office, that day may be dawning directly.
I will take this news to Solidworks and Autodesk (though I'm sure they've gotten wind of it, already) and voice my support for full OpenGL implementation. Autodesk did a billion dollars in sales last year. Solidworks has two hundred fifty thousand installed seats. I'm sure Microsoft doesn't want to share this exclusive and lucrative market segment.
-and this last part is just a personal plea. Given the gross technical illiteracy in the US legislature and judiciary the neolithicly crude laws proposed thus far to govern file sharing and intellectual property rights, the whole industry would be better served if the courts were left out of our efforts. It's the only way to make sure Microsoft's powerful lobbyists don't decide this for us.

Korval
08-10-2005, 07:12 PM
After reading all the post here, I think the only thing we can be done is up to the ARB and SGI.Then you clearly did not actually read the posts here. The ARB can't fix this problem, and neither can SGI. Only IHVs with the cooperation (and possibly without) of Microsoft can.

The problem is caused by Microsoft not (yet) having divulged information to IHV's about how windows communicate for the purposes of desktop compositing. With that information in hand, whether Microsoft gives it to them or they figure out what Vista is doing, they will be able to create ICDs that work with desktop compositing.


This way MS will not be able to provide a crappy implentation and if they don't have OGL then they will lose many titles on their Vista.I find it silly that you're calling Microsoft's new GL implementation "crappy", when it is, in fact far superior to their last one, which is frozen at 1.1, and also doesn't offer up extensions. Oh, and it was software so it was unusably slow. At least they'll offer up a reasonable level of functionality this time around. It may not have shaders, but it'll have VBOs, multitexturing, and stuff. And it'll have decent performance. Not up to D3D, but that's not really the point.

The generic implentation has always been a fall-back implementation anyway. It was never intended to be used as the primary implementation on shipping products. And the fact that this implementation is clearly superior to their previous one is cause for celebration.

glfreak
08-10-2005, 07:41 PM
Korval, actually I find ur replies offending me and dunno why. You just want to oppose every view I have and just for that reason nothing else.

I find your replies are silly and it's obvious you have never had the decent experience in the graphics realm.

EvilE
08-10-2005, 09:15 PM
Both you and korval are both being clowns, you both advocate Microsoft's current OpenGL Vista strategy as positive, when the majority of the people here making articulate posts do not. The current implementation on Vista cripples OpenGL 1.5 and up. Anyone using gl 1.5, gl 2.0, shaders and extensions is crippled on vista. Forcing end-users to install an ISV driver that disables Aero everytime you need to switch to a high end OpenGL app is a huge deterrent to those apps. People who have already invested their time in developing their apps past openGL 1.4 on windows are going to get screwed by this, myself included. Anyone developing windows using Aero will not be able to take advantage of OpenGL past 1.4. Not knowing whether the problem lies in MS's incomplete wrapper or the direct3D driver will cause further problems. Given what we know, this is not a good thing, so please stop advocating that it is based on unproven speculation.

As for those of you bashing MS, you've already admitted defeat on having proper OpenGL on Vista and might as well move to a new platform now. Microsoft as far as I know is not dependent on any IHV or software developer using OpenGL, if anyone complains and leaves, another competitor waiting in the wings will no sooner take its place and conform to the new MS standard. It is in our best interest that we politely ask Microsoft to provide us with a descent solution, one that allows OpenGL and Areo to co-exist peacefully without compromising the other. We can only hope that the current situation is a temporary measure and that OpenGL will continue to survive on windows, otherwise we must either conform to Direct3D or leave the platform. I regrettably would choose the latter.

Fingers crossed.

Joe Canone
08-10-2005, 10:17 PM
There are some statements from game engine developers on www.beyond3d.com. (http://www.beyond3d.com.)

Linuxhippy
08-11-2005, 05:47 AM
Thats really unfair and ugly.

It seems MS is REALLY afraid in competition - so instead of just building the best operating system they use their dominance to kill all other competitors and force developers to use ONLY their APIs.

Please write to NVIDIA, ATI and whoever that they should create preasure on MS that this won't happen.

lg Clemens

tranders
08-11-2005, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by Korval:
The generic implentation has always been a fall-back implementation anyway. It was never intended to be used as the primary implementation on shipping products. And the fact that this implementation is clearly superior to their previous one is cause for celebration.While the software rasterizer is not recommended for production work, it is in many cases the only pixelformat that will allow high-end applications to work on certain graphics configurations. If Vista does not provide a software rasterization pathway, then ALL OpenGL applications will be at risk regardless of the selection of "OpenGL on D3D" or a native ICD. The primary need for the software OpenGL rasterizer is not for the production workers - it's for the managers and field personnel that don't have access to the latest and greatest hardware; the graphics vendors have either discontinued support for the graphics cards or are not capable of supplying decent support for any 3D graphics technology. WRT laptops and mobile workstations, the graphics drivers are almost always unsupported by the graphics card vendor and support has to come from the OEM vendor (i.e., the laptop manufacturer). These drivers are rarely up to date and tend to lag weeks or months behind the latest patches from the graphics vendor. While the primary graphics card vendors produce excellent drivers and are usually very quick to respond to major problems, they are not perfect and there will continue to be bugs in the drivers that will prevent an application from running. It is naive to believe that there are no similar bugs in D3D.


Originally posted by rtargosz:
- When I left, the driver supported over 80% of OpenGL 1.4, with plans to continue implementing support for extensions most used by the target applications. We were even able to run Doom 3 in some limited modes over 6 months ago (some functions were NULLed out for testing). Given that quote, it is simply speculation that the "OpenGL on D3D" implementation will even be sufficient for "non-targeted" applications. It is easy to get an application run if over 20% of the graphics engine does nothing -- you just don't get to see 20% of your data :(

-- tranders

scipio
08-11-2005, 07:10 AM
Support may never be up to snuf on Windows Vista so...
Why not put in more requests/pressure to get the PS3 platform to support MacOS X (Tiger and beyond) and Linux. This platform is a huge win for OpenGL and with(if) Mac and Linux support is there a general purpose platform to boot. I've read that the capability is there (Mac/Linux hard drive..) and I wouldn't think sony/ibm/toshiba would be against it either.
To far fetched?

cococarbon
08-11-2005, 07:34 AM
I don't think that a few games (10 at most?) that don't work on WinVista will stop MS from doing it's move, but, WILL Doom 3 engine based games run well on windows vista???

About Maya and other high-end GL apps, probably MS will release something like WinVista Workstation that will include the ICD. What do the video card industry people think about this???

actionGL
08-11-2005, 07:42 AM
As independent game developer, I was looking forward to develop average/budget games for Windows/Linux/Mac. Naturally OpenGL is only, and for me preferred solution. If IHVs don’t see future of their decisions, let it be. Do I have to write for each platform in its own 3D API??? Where is this industry going, wake up it’s 2005.

I don’t see why should I write emails, like there is no importance in OpenGL - open and portable standard that is only D3D competitor on windows, and winner on all other platforms - so we all have to “write” to them to “support” and “backup” something. And if enough emails arrive, they will consider it. It is ridiculous. I just don’t get the point of writing to you. If you are brain dead, my letter is surly not going to change that fact.

And I had nothing against Microsoft before this Vista crap. XP really works fine, has OpenGL, DirectX tons of free libraries and friendly development environment. You can do what you like on it. And now, suddenly, all that has to change? Now, I really see Microsoft and Vista as cancer in computing society. So IHVs use your brain, or don’t use it. If it has to come to this – for us to write you emails - than you simply are morons and should consider changing your management staff or who ever got this idea. Do whatever you like.

mikef
08-11-2005, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Korval:
The generic implentation has always been a fall-back implementation anyway. It was never intended to be used as the primary implementation on shipping products.You can't describe an OpenGL implementation as a fallback if there's nothing to fall back *from*. Users think of the OS as being the GUI. If installing an ICD switches off a major feature of the GUI then ICDs will be viewed as a nasty hack that cripples their OS. You cannot tell users to cripple their OS just to run your app, hence the ICD route is strictly for hobbyists and specialist apps.


Originally posted by Korval:
And the fact that this implementation is clearly superior to their previous one is cause for celebration.I'm not breaking out the champagne just yet. The GL->D3D shim will be good enough to maintain compatability with existing apps (Maya etc), but also clearly signposted as a dead-end to discourage any further OpenGL development.

Like I said in a previous post, the best way I can see to discourage Microsoft from taking this route is by getting facts on the ground ASAP - apps that refuse to run on less than 2.0.
If a user runs a GL2 app on Vista and it breaks the GUI, they'll think the app's broken. But if they see the app working fine on XP first, they'll think that Vista is broken. And Microsoft really dislikes people thinking of their products as broken.

Korval
08-11-2005, 10:00 AM
Both you and korval are both being clowns, you both advocate Microsoft's current OpenGL Vista strategy as positive, when the majority of the people here making articulate posts do not.So? Just because a lot of people are on one side doesn't make them right.

And I am not advocating the current Vista strategy. I just don't see it as the end of the world that so many alarmists on this forum think that it is.

I also don't think that it's going to matter to Microsoft or the IHVs what we think too much. The IHVs are both aware of the situation (the actual situation, as opposed to what keeps getting tossed around here), and they want to provide a solution for it. They may get Microsoft's help (it has not been said if they've asked for it yet) or they may have to figure it out on their own from a more stable version of Vista. In either case, once they fix it, it's fixed.


People who have already invested their time in developing their apps past openGL 1.4 on windows are going to get screwed by this, myself included. Anyone developing windows using Aero will not be able to take advantage of OpenGL past 1.4.See, that's the problem with this whole issue. There's so much disinformation out there that people say things like this, which are just not true.

The only part of Aero that is affected by the use of an ICD is desktop compositing. That's all. The rest works just fine. So, in the absolute worst case, what we will see in the shipping product (as opposed to the beta product combined with XP drivers we see today) is that the activation of an ICD deactivates desktop compositing.


The primary need for the software OpenGL rasterizer is not for the production workers - it's for the managers and field personnel that don't have access to the latest and greatest hardware; the graphics vendors have either discontinued support for the graphics cards or are not capable of supplying decent support for any 3D graphics technology.Your lamentations of not having a Microsoft-provided software OpenGL 1.1 implementation do not concern this issue. MesaGL is still out there, and it is well past 1.1 (and it's faster than the old Microsoft generic implementation). If people want to use it, they are free to do so. The fact that the generic implementation is no longer software based is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

I can understand that you don't like it. And I can understand that there is a class of people for whom this will create problems. But this class of people is largely tiny and not terribly relevant. Plus, the Microsoft generic implementation was almost certainly not bug-free, so not terribly much changes in this case.

Lastly, people using not-entirely-advanced hardware probably aren't going to switch to Vista to begin with, so there's not even a problem.


You can't describe an OpenGL implementation as a fallback if there's nothing to fall back *from*. Users think of the OS as being the GUI. If installing an ICD switches off a major feature of the GUI then ICDs will be viewed as a nasty hack that cripples their OS. You cannot tell users to cripple their OS just to run your app, hence the ICD route is strictly for hobbyists and specialist apps.You are aware, of course, that every time someone downloads the drivers (D3D and OpenGL) from an IHV, they're getting an ICD with that, yes? So they will have ICDs whether they wanted to have them or not. Every game sold, as part of the readme or other instructions, say to update your drivers to the latest revision for your graphics card. Granted, not too many people actually do, but it's still there and it's still recommended.

So people are going to have ICDs and it is up to applications as to whether to use the ICD or the generic implementation. There's almost always going to be something to fall back from.

mikef
08-11-2005, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Korval:
You are aware, of course, that every time someone downloads the drivers (D3D and OpenGL) from an IHV, they're getting an ICD with that, yes? So they will have ICDs whether they wanted to have them or not. Every game sold, as part of the readme or other instructions, say to update your drivers to the latest revision for your graphics card. Granted, not too many people actually do, but it's still there and it's still recommended.

So people are going to have ICDs and it is up to applications as to whether to use the ICD or the generic implementation. There's almost always going to be something to fall back from.Ah, that sounds ok. I was assuming that Vista would need to reboot into a regular XP-style GUI to enable ICDs, but it sounds like you're saying that only the compositor needs to be stopped and that this can be done on-the-fly. You have concrete information that this is the case?

And yep, I'm aware of what an ICD is and how they're distributed.

andrehe
08-11-2005, 02:24 PM
And I am not advocating the current Vista strategy. I just don't see it as the end of the world that so many alarmists on this forum think that it is.It is apparent that you downplay this issue. If the topic is not important to you, why do you answer and post with such carefully chosen words? If some people take some action which affects other people in a negative way, of course a reaction can be expected. Company execs are not pleased of these additional costs given by Microsoft, and I hope they solve the problem with a one-time investion relieving them from such surprises in the future: Porting their professional graphics apps to another OS! It is easy for customers to change the OS of one of their workstations from Windows to Linux, as most of them already use those systems. It is well known that Microsoft pays lobbyists to turn matters to their favor, but I think this time it is very difficult to cover their motivation. They would argue as you do, but we have already seen that such an attempt would be uncovered easily.


I also don't think that it's going to matter to Microsoft or the IHVs what we think too much. The IHVs are both aware of the situation (the actual situation, as opposed to what keeps getting tossed around here), and they want to provide a solution for it. They may get Microsoft's help (it has not been said if they've asked for it yet) or they may have to figure it out on their own from a more stable version of Vista. In either case, once they fix it, it's fixed.If it is fixed, we had luck. But you cannot bet on it. Users do not like a degraded visual experience, and most of them do not understand the issue deeply enough to know who is responsible. They assume a coding error in the application and call their application vendor. Even if they are told by them who is responsible, they expect the application vendor to solve the issue. This is not amusing, that is why I would tell the customers that the next version of the application runs perfectly on Linux, so that the customers can choose among options they deserve to have.


Your lamentations of not having a Microsoft-provided software OpenGL 1.1 implementation do not concern this issue. MesaGL is still out there, and it is well past 1.1 (and it's faster than the old Microsoft generic implementation).Mesa is slower than D3D with hardware acceleration, other comparisons are irrelevant to the user experience. OpenGL is not inferior technology but appears to be, because Microsoft has found a way to play a foul using uncompetitive means. nVidia's OpenGL implementation gives this API an edge, and Microsoft cannot help other than to forbid their new desktop to cooperate.


I can understand that you don't like it. And I can understand that there is a class of people for whom this will create problems. But this class of people is largely tiny and not terribly relevant. Plus, the Microsoft generic implementation was almost certainly not bug-free, so not terribly much changes in this case.

Lastly, people using not-entirely-advanced hardware probably aren't going to switch to Vista to begin with, so there's not even a problem.This shows very clearly your motivation. You want to distract the readers from the main issue. The Microsoft generic implementation is not important, no one in the professional graphics or games field wants to use a software-only renderer today. If you count the OpenGL applications which do not have a D3D rendering path, and then add the companies using OpenGL in-house for some components, I would not say the class of people being concerned is irrelevant.


You are aware, of course, that every time someone downloads the drivers (D3D and OpenGL) from an IHV, they're getting an ICD with that, yes? So they will have ICDs whether they wanted to have them or not. Every game sold, as part of the readme or other instructions, say to update your drivers to the latest revision for your graphics card. Granted, not too many people actually do, but it's still there and it's still recommended.Of course they can download the ICD, and many gamers do, as the original driver is not up to par. But then they have a degraded user experience when starting an OpenGL application (disabled composition manager), already forgotten? Of course, some glitches are not important, I know... Sort of a blue screen of the application, destabilizing the system... Very funny indeed!

JD
08-11-2005, 03:39 PM
Gamedev.net has a remark from ati dev who thinks this is going to be fixed and become a non-issue. I agree with him because barthold from 3dlabs also mentioned this not being an imposiblity to fix. If MS really wanted to kill gl they would have blocked arb from using their IP rights while back.

This issue reminds me of Y2K precisely because we didn't have enough info about possibility of fixing it and how hard or easy that would be. So people pre-empted to doom and issue became overblown. I remember a tv interview with a guy who build a shack and stuffed it with food and survival gear and in the end Y2K came and gone w/o problems.

matt72186
08-11-2005, 04:57 PM
(Sorry that this is my first post here, but this topic really disturbs me)

Does anyone else here think that Microsoft might just be over-stepping their boundries a little bit? I mean after all it has already been recognize that Microsoft will use it\'s monopolistic hold on the OS market to crush it\'s competitors (http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/28/appeals_reaction/print.html) .

If so then it seems like now\'s the time to take action (http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/releases/2003/dec18.html) especially since unlike previous years Microsoft is actually losing court cases against them (http://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/websitemgmt/story/0,10801,83929,00.html) . I mean it's obvious enough that this uneccesary restriction against OpenGL is soley aimed to force hardware and software developers to only use DirectX, this same/similiar thing didn't go too well for Internet Explorer (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A//www.developer.com/net/net/article.php/959651&ei=-gD8Qv7rF8iGaqOy5UI) or Windows Media Player (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-03-25-msoft-cover_x.htm) .

Either way, this seems like the opportune moment for the Linux community to get working hardcore on some major innovations, or at least a nice distribution aimed toward regular users (http://www.ubuntulinux.org/) . If only they could get good enough media coverage and such to let everyone know they exist.

Then again I could just be another typical "Anti M$ Hippie"...

tranders
08-11-2005, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Korval:
Your lamentations of not having a Microsoft-provided software OpenGL 1.1 implementation do not concern this issue. MesaGL is still out there, and it is well past 1.1 (and it's faster than the old Microsoft generic implementation). If people want to use it, they are free to do so. The fact that the generic implementation is no longer software based is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

I can understand that you don't like it. And I can understand that there is a class of people for whom this will create problems. But this class of people is largely tiny and not terribly relevant. Plus, the Microsoft generic implementation was almost certainly not bug-free, so not terribly much changes in this case.

Lastly, people using not-entirely-advanced hardware probably aren't going to switch to Vista to begin with, so there's not even a problem.First, MesaGL is far from being a polished, professional graphics library that would pass muster against an ISO9000 audit. If you've never had to deal with one of those beasts, then you know nothing about professional application development. MesaGL would be an absolute last resort simply because of the added headache of delivery, support, and maintenance. FWIW, it is not as fast as the current OpenGL 1.1 software rasterizer in many ways and while there are "issues" with the current generic offering, they are well defined and avoidable. If you don't know how to work around these problems, then you know less than you believe about that implementation.

I think your estimates on how many people could be affected by this is understated. One single engineering software company recently announced 2 million active desktop users. That company represents only a fraction of total users and only represents a fairly narrow scope of the total market. Relatively speaking, the people that would be affected by the lack of a decent fallback scenario is significantly less than that, but it is worth noting that those people are the ones that are selling the software or making the decisions about what to buy and when.

Windows XP is being sold TODAY on less-than-capable machines and some high-end applications still require those machines to run in software OpenGL -- even if they are only being used for reviewing data. I would not expect those conditions to change when they start shipping with Vista. To think otherwise is naive.

--tranders

Korval
08-11-2005, 07:57 PM
It is apparent that you downplay this issue.I think there are enough end-of-the-world scenarios and conspiracy theories going around the web already on this issue; I don't feel the need to add to them.

If you feel that I am specifically downplaying the issue, perhaps it is you who are "up-playing" it? Perhaps I'm looking at it from a cold, rational perspective and you're in ther camp that wants to say that this is the most horrible thing ever and it will destroy OpenGL.


It is well known that Microsoft pays lobbyists to turn matters to their favor, but I think this time it is very difficult to cover their motivation.And therein lies the problem. You hate Microsoft, so you are senstive to anything that Microsoft does that affects you in any way negatively. Couple that kind of attitude with the rampant exaggeration of the facts of what this problem entails, and you have mass hysteria.

Since you're utterly convinced that your position is right, you see any less inflamitory position, irrespective of arguments, to be that of an appologist.

There's got to be a sociology paper in this somewhere.


OpenGL is not inferior technology but appears to be, because Microsoft has found a way to play a foul using uncompetitive means.Even if your statement against Microsoft is true (and it is purely conjecture at this point, as there are plenty of rational reasons why interfacing OpenGL ICDs to Direct3D runtimes would be something that ICD developers would have to work out), that statement has nothing to do with the actual problem. How it got there is not terribly relevant (except in how it relates with the problem at hand), and attacking Microsoft is of no value. The purpose should be finding a solution.

Your personal hatred of Microsoft has nothing to do with the problem.


This shows very clearly your motivation. You want to distract the readers from the main issue. The Microsoft generic implementation is not important, no one in the professional graphics or games field wants to use a software-only renderer today. If you count the OpenGL applications which do not have a D3D rendering path, and then add the companies using OpenGL in-house for some components, I would not say the class of people being concerned is irrelevant.Let me get the facts straight, because I fail to grasp the logic of what you're saying.

Right now, we have ICDs and the generic implementation. ICD's are hardware, the generic implementation is pure (crappily written, I might add) software and frozen at GL 1.1. Buggy as well.

What Vista will give us is ICDs and a new generic implementation that is frozen at 1.4, and is hardware based and therefore faster than before.

Ignoring for the moment the issue of deactivating desktop compositing due to using an ICD (which is a separate issue and, according to JD, will likely be fixed, thus truly becoming a non-issue), your argument in this passage seems to be that advancing the generic implementation to 1.4 and making it fast enough to be useable is... bad?

Is it full D3D speed? No, of course not. But nobody was complaining about the speed of the generic implementation before. If you only had one apple before, and someone offers you five, it seems inappropriate to tell them off for not giving you 9.

Tranders has an actual point about needing an implementation that simply functions and not wanting the generic implementation to be based on the vagaries of hardware drivers. Though I might suggest that it is equally dubious to expect OS code to be either rock-solid stable or to never change (particlarly Microsoft code).


First, MesaGL is far from being a polished, professional graphics library that would pass muster against an ISO9000 audit.Are you, by chance, suggesting that Microsoft's OpenGL implementation would pass such an audit? Because that seems unlikely for a piece of code that hasn't been updated in upwards of a decade.


If you don't know how to work around these problems, then you know less than you believe about that implementation.If a company is willing to work around problems in the generic implementation just to get their GL app up and running on it, it stands to reason that said company has the development time to work around a different set of problems in MesaGL. Both Mesa and the 1.1 software implementation are stable (Mesa particularly so when you decide not to update it). Plus, since Mesa's source is available, they can actually go and fix the problems that they'd rather not work around. Not an easy thing in all cases, of course, but that's beside the point.

Microsoft never committed to providing a rock-solid stable software implementation for people to rely on (particularly when that reliance is on buggy functionality). The only reason they didn't pipe their 1.1 stuff through D3D is because D3D didn't exist at the time. Microsoft is interested in performance in terms of graphics, and performance comes from driver dependence. If a developer needs driver-independence, they should have been using a real software implementation.

What if Microsoft said that they were changing their generic implementation to be MesaGL? If they were just going to take the Mesa source and plop it down as their generic implementation? What if Microsoft were to make bug fixes to their implementation that makes workarounds break?

Reliance on someone elses code, particularly when you have no assertions or guarentees that this code will never change, is just begging for trouble.

They're going to have to accept the switch to a faster renderer that may not be as obviously stable in some ways. I'm going to have to learn an entirely new API for interfacing with Windows. We all have stuff to do when faced with major OS changes. It's a fact of life; get over it.

vistabedamned
08-11-2005, 11:49 PM
I don't see why anyone would want to update to Vista anyway. I don't see any significant difference between XP and Vista, and I find that my Linux distro. works miles better than any Microsoft product ever has.

The only people likely to update to Vista are Universities or Businesses who have a contract with Microsft to receive their latest software. I doubt home users will go out of their way to buy a copy of Vista, as what is Vista going to do that XP doesn't already do for them?

Most PC games companies will produce games with the knowledge that the majority of their consumers will be running XP and not Vista. What is more from Microsoft's point of view Vista is not an operating system for playing games. That's what the Xbox is for. It is reckoned that Microsoft plan to sell the Xbox OS for you to install on your home PC so you can play Xbox games will improved resolutions and frame rates and such. Besides this, both Nintendo and Sony use OpenGL for their hardware. Sony's Cell processor and GPU is OpenGL based.

It is completely wrong of Microsoft to implement OpenGL in the form of a wrapper for DirectX but I doubt this move will have any serious dent on the use of OpenGL. I personnely doubt Vista will be such a popular incarnation of Windows anyway.

But the answer is simple. Don't use Vista, use the system and the distribution that suits YOUR OpenGL needs, not the needs of Microsoft. If you HAVE to have Vista installed to use a particular application or play a particular game then I guarantee you that that piece of software ISN'T worth buying and ISN'T worth using.

ze moo
08-12-2005, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by rtargosz:
.. Whether it will also lose share in the rest of the ISV world is entirely dependant on the ability of the ARB to innovate... How?

If there is no GL support beyond 1.4 and extensions
are disabled, the ARB can innovate what they want;
It wouldn't work on M$ in windowed mode...

using GL would mean crippled windows compared to D3D

yeah, it's entirely up to the ISVs and the ARB
:rolleyes:

JasonL
08-12-2005, 01:05 AM
I have been reading in PCFormat that AMD has sued Intel becuase they have been paying retails to only have amd proccessors amount to 10% of the market sales, isn't that what microsoft are doing with graphics card manufacturers? so if this happens are they liable to be sued?

I think getting ride of openGL support will impact windows massively becuase lots of game use GL eg Half life 2

Azdo
08-12-2005, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Korval:
Right now, we have ICDs and the generic implementation. ICD's are hardware, the generic implementation is pure (crappily written, I might add) software and frozen at GL 1.1. Buggy as well.

What Vista will give us is ICDs and a new generic implementation that is frozen at 1.4, and is hardware based and therefore faster than before.
Of course it's better to have accelerated OpenGL 1.4 (though with worse performance that the same 1.4 drivers on XP) than software OpenGL 1.1. What this topic is about is that on earlier MS products, vendor ICD's provided an enhancement of the system by bringing hardware acceleration and new extensions at no cost. Now, on Vista, the hardware ICDs doesn't integrate seamlessly on the OS anymore, and furthermore disable vital parts of the OS in order to run while they are installed.

The fact is that before, MS OpenGL software implementation was an aid in the rare cases an ICD were not installed, while MS Vista's OpenGL 1.4 implementation is designed to be the first one to use and to fall back to hardware ICDs only in rare cases. Even MS's 1.4 is far better than MS's 1.1, the former is far worse than any actual hardware vendor GL driver. That's what is wrong.

tranders
08-12-2005, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by Korval:

Right now, we have ICDs and the generic implementation. ICD's are hardware, the generic implementation is pure (crappily written, I might add) software and frozen at GL 1.1. Buggy as well.
The OpenGL 1.1 softare implemenation was written by SGI as the official OpenGL reference port. Microsoft simply ported that into Windows with little or no modifications. I'm not sure why you think it is poorly written simply because it is 10 years old and hasn't been updated to support the current feature set of 1.5 or 2.0. I have personally used its inherent stability to prod graphics card vendors to fix bugs in their drivers.


What Vista will give us is ICDs and a new generic implementation that is frozen at 1.4, and is hardware based and therefore faster than before.
It has yet to be determined if "OpenGL on D3D" will provide any implementation that could be considered GENERIC in the current meaning of the word (i.e., software only and isolated from hardware or other external sources of "interference"). Speed is not what is at issue here.


Though I might suggest that it is equally dubious to expect OS code to be either rock-solid stable or to never change (particlarly Microsoft code).
EVERY OS is "expected" -- even required -- to provide rock solid and stable code, otherwise no application would ever survive beyond a single service pack. OpenGL has been a core technology since Windows NT 3.51 (which was IMO the first usable NT version), so there is every reason to expect this support to continue.


Are you, by chance, suggesting that Microsoft's OpenGL implementation would pass such an audit? Because that seems unlikely for a piece of code that hasn't been updated in upwards of a decade.
Precisely. OpenGL is an open standard that is supported by bylaws and review board directed controls. These are the types of things that ISO9000 auditors live for and are what puts it light-years ahead of MesaGL. Guaranteed quality control and documentation are crucial to this type of certification -- neither of which exists with MesaGL (no malice towards Brian Paul who I think has done an admirable thing).


If a company is willing to work around problems in the generic implementation just to get their GL app up and running on it, it stands to reason that said company has the development time to work around a different set of problems in MesaGL.
You fail to grasp to purpose of a failsafe scenario. The workarounds are not to get the application to work -- they work just fine with full ICD acceleration -- the workarounds are to make the application function reliably under the worst possible conditions -- a catastrophic failure of the 3D graphics subsystem (e.g., a buggy or unsupported driver, unexpected conflicts caused by other applications, etc.). Attempting to do the same with MesaGL is vastly more demanding for reasons previously described.


Microsoft never committed to providing a rock-solid stable software implementation for people to rely on (particularly when that reliance is on buggy functionality).
That is exactly what Microsoft promised as long as high-end professional applications would be willing to port their OpenGL applications to the Windows platform. That promise is on the verge of being broken.

I've said enough about this so I'll stop.

--tranders

Korval
08-12-2005, 10:18 AM
It is completely wrong of Microsoft to implement OpenGL in the form of a wrapper for DirectX but I doubt this move will have any serious dent on the use of OpenGL.Why? The DirectX wrapper isn't the problem (unless you're Tranders); it's the interaction between ICDs and desktop compositing that is the problem in question. For the most part, the D3D wrapper is a good thing, as Azdo accepts.

Apple provides a wrapper for their OpenGL too. They implement many parts of OpenGL, thus allowing their IHVs to write... less complicated GL drivers. This functions very similarly to how D3D works on Windows. There's the OS-provided half of the code, and there's the IHV-provided driver. The difference is, besides the GL/D3D differences, that IHV's can expose extensions under AppleGL, while D3D doesn't (yet. Microsoft apparently wants to allow this in the future) allow such things.

It would actually not be a bad idea for Microsoft to do with OpenGL what Apple does. That is, drop the ICD mechanism entirely and just convert the GL calls into graphics driver calls. It's different from being a D3D wrapper, because D3D is also talking to the graphics driver. It would be lower-level and therefore faster, but it would have the same performance penalties of D3D (that being that the Microsoft-provided code does marshalling, so any glEnd-equivalent call will provoke a driver call. IHV ICDs can avoid this by doing more intelligent, hardware-specific marshalling).


If there is no GL support beyond 1.4 and extensions
are disabled, the ARB can innovate what they want;
It wouldn't work on M$ in windowed mode...Please read the thread. There is quite a bit of misinformation in your post, and this thread corrects it.


What this topic is about is that on earlier MS products, vendor ICD's provided an enhancement of the system by bringing hardware acceleration and new extensions at no cost. Now, on Vista, the hardware ICDs doesn't integrate seamlessly on the OS anymore, and furthermore disable vital parts of the OS in order to run while they are installed.ICDs do still integrate into the OS just fine. And they don't "disable vital parts of the OS" when they are installed; they only disable desktop compositing, and only when they are activated. Anything else is misinformation.

Remember: ICDs come with graphics drivers. And people (particularly gamers) will still be updating their graphics drivers regularly. Driver developers will not be shutting down parts of the OS just because a user decided to install their drivers.


I have been reading in PCFormat that AMD has sued Intel becuase they have been paying retails to only have amd proccessors amount to 10% of the market sales, isn't that what microsoft are doing with graphics card manufacturers? so if this happens are they liable to be sued?No. This is nothing like the AMD/Intel case.

OpenGL is not a company; it is a specification. So, even if this were a coordinated attempt to stimy GL development on Windows (a point that I do not conceed), it is not a violation of any anti-trust laws because it has little to no effects on a company. Seeking to inhibit people's uses of a specification on a platform is not against the law.


The fact is that before, MS OpenGL software implementation was an aid in the rare cases an ICD were not installed, while MS Vista's OpenGL 1.4 implementation is designed to be the first one to use and to fall back to hardware ICDs only in rare cases.That is also misinformation/erronous. The ICD mechanism is not changing. It will not suddenly start turnning accelerated pixel formats into generic pixel formats. If your app has been getting accelerated pixel formats, and an appropriate driver has been installed on the machine, it will still get accelerated pixel formats under Vista.

It is only in the cases where a user gets (or a program wants) a generic pixel format that they will get this expanded version.


It has yet to be determined if "OpenGL on D3D" will provide any implementation that could be considered GENERIC in the current meaning of the word (i.e., software only and isolated from hardware or other external sources of "interference"). Speed is not what is at issue here.The term "generic" in terms of the ICD mechanism and GL's implementation on Windows has meant the Microsoft-supplied OpenGL implementation. It has never meant "software", and to assume that it has to is wrongheaded. It is simply the default implementation for the cases when no ICD is installed.

Does MacOS have a generic implementation at all, software or otherwise? I know all its graphics work is done through OpenGL, and I know that, as long as hardware drivers are installed, all windows will be rendered through those drivers. I also know that Apple writes part of the implementation on Macs, thus providing MacOS IHVs with an internal API (plus extension support) that they build their drivers to.

As such, I'm not certain it does. After all, since all drawing commands go through GL, it would be exceptionally slow to draw lines, etc through software OpenGL rather than through a special-case, 2D-based renderer.

Does Linux provide a generic implementation, software or otherwise? I don't think it does, though some distros ship with MesaGL.

If neither Linux nor MacOS provide software fallback implementations, if they both can accept the vagaries of IHV drivers, why shouldn't Windows do the same? They're already providing more by providing any kind of generic fallback. Why force them to make a slow one?


That is exactly what Microsoft promised as long as high-end professional applications would be willing to port their OpenGL applications to the Windows platform. That promise is on the verge of being broken.I've never heard of this alleged promise. Even if they did, there are more important things at stake here. Besides, if neither Linux nor MacOS provide a software GL, what were they relying on before Windows? I'm willing to accept Microsoft breaking this alleged promise. It's not like the ISVs have someone else to turn to (besides MesaGL).

tranders
08-12-2005, 12:07 PM
First I apologize to the group for breaking my promise to stop responding, but ...


Originally posted by Korval:
The term "generic" in terms of the ICD mechanism and GL's implementation on Windows has meant the Microsoft-supplied OpenGL implementation. It has never meant "software", and to assume that it has to is wrongheaded. It is simply the default implementation for the cases when no ICD is installed.Here's a quote directly from Microsoft's own current documentation for DevStudio 2003 regarding the PIXELFORMATDESCRIPTOR:


PFD_GENERIC_FORMAT
The pixel format is supported by the GDI software implementation, which is also known as the generic implementation. If this bit is clear, the pixel format is supported by a device driver or hardware.

PFD_GENERIC_ACCELERATED
The pixel format is supported by a device driver that accelerates the generic implementation. If this flag is clear and the PFD_GENERIC_FORMAT flag is set, the pixel format is supported by the generic implementation only.

© 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
I believe that's pretty clear language describing the generic implementation. BTW, I find that it is always useful to do a little bit of research so that I get my facts straight before responding to posts.

--tranders

A Developer
08-12-2005, 04:50 PM
Give OpenGL legal protection from any threat by Microsoft: Have it legally declared a critical access to an "essential facility". The essential facility here is the OS, with the required access being the API represented by OpenGL. Companies are not allowed to monopolize or restrict access to an essential facility.

OpenGL is used in approximately 90-95% of industrial applications. (Number quoted from a Microsoft employee recently). These applications include many critical to the health, welfare and safety of the general public.

Critical applications using OpenGL include Computer Aided Design (CAD), industrial plant design, mechanical design, architecture, medical imaging, etc. The industrial plants designed with OpenGL produce every manufactured or refined product essential to human life including: food processing plants, pharmecutical plants (including plants that make vaccines), oil refineries, etc.

Loss of the use of OpenGL or a degradation in the performance and quality of OpenGL would constitute both a danger to the public welfare and a serious economic hardship on the companies producing vitally important industrial design software using OpenGL. These companies have invested heavily in producing reliable and long lived software for serious applications essential to human life. Its both expensive and time consuming to have to constantly re-write the graphics software, re-certify the whole product and re-deploy an industrial application just so that it will run on the latest version of an OS. Being able to upgrade easily to the latest and fastest hardware, could mean the difference between life and death in some time critical medical diagnostic applications.

Entertainment software such as games are a different product altogether from serious industrial applications. Games while entertaining are not critical to human life. Games also have a very short life span and are less affected by constant changes to a graphics API such as DirectX.

OpenGL has been a reliable and stable API providing a very long lifetime for critical industrial applications. OpenGL Applications written more than 10 years ago on OpenGL 1.0 still run on the newest version, OpenGL 2.0. The design applications are in use for many years during the design and construction process. Typically it can take 3 to 7 years or more to design and build a complex industrial plant. The stability and performance of OpenGL is critical to the successful completion of such a complex and important project. Every version of OpenGL is a superset of the versions before. OpenGL applications written on any older version of OpenGL are always guaranteed to work on any newer version of OpenGL. The DirectX graphics API has been re-written in approximately 9 versions since its inception. Some versions of DirectX were radically different from other DirectX versions. The longevity of DirectX applications has been adversely affected by its everchanging interface. An everchanging or poorly performing graphics API is not an acceptable substitute for OpenGL API with its proven characteristics of performance, reliability, stability and longevity.

OpenGL is a serious tool used in serious applications critically important to the welfare of virtually every human being on the face of the earth. Its time to give it legal protection as the access to an "essential facility".

What is an "essential facility"?

The following information was gleaned from various web sites:

There is a well established legal doctrine of an "essential facility". Such policies and jurisprudence specify when the owner of an "essential" facility is required by law to provide access to that facility at a "reasonable" price.

An essential facility can be a product such as a raw material, or a service, including access to a place such as a harbour or a distribution network such as a telecommunication network. Essential facilities do not require "infrastructure". It may be a service connected to infrastructure, e.g. ground handling, or a service with no such connection e.g. interlining. It may also be technical information necessary to competitors such as competitors in the computer peripherals market. Copyright protected daily TV listings used in weekly TV guides (Magill case) or data on Telco customers needed for telephone directory publishers. Under antitrust case law some of the following facilities have been deemed essential: railway bridges, telecommunications network, local electricity transmission network, sports stadium and a multi-day ski-pass scheme. Under EU
case law some facilities deemed essential are: ports (see Sea Containers v Stena Sealink and Port of Rodby), telecoms network infrastructure, electricity and postal networks, gas or fuel pipelines, computer reservations systems for airport airlines (see LEA v Sabena), ground handling services at airports, interlining (see Aer Lingus v British Midland) and payment systems in the financial sector.

Consumer and data protection laws may also apply here and some may be more relevant to the issues discussed here.

actionGL
08-12-2005, 06:48 PM
@A Developer - 100% right

As I said before, it is not question "whether seamless OpenGL implementation is possible or not?" it is a question of Microsoft "policy" - MONOPOLY. Stronger monopoly, more $$$.

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

So questions and answers like "How it could be done?", "Can it be done?" are useless. It CAN BE DONE, but only if Microsoft is PRESSURED enough.

If they keep hanging to current Vista policy, I am 100% for court approach. Only thing that bothers me is – what if all of this is FUD, intentionally presented by Microsoft at this stage, to scare and bully companies that develop in OpenGL. Damage is done.

Korval
08-12-2005, 07:58 PM
Here's a quote directly from Microsoft's own current documentation for DevStudio 2003 regarding the PIXELFORMATDESCRIPTOR:OK. So Microsoft is now, with Vista, going to change what the generic implementation means.

And nowhere did Microsoft promise that this would never be changed.


Loss of the use of OpenGL or a degradation in the performance and quality of OpenGL would constitute both a danger to the public welfare and a serious economic hardship on the companies producing vitally important industrial design software using OpenGL.Well, considering that OpenGL on Vista will neither be lost nor degraded in performance or quality, this statement (and the ones following it) are of no value in this discussion.


OpenGL is a serious tool used in serious applications critically important to the welfare of virtually every human being on the face of the earth. Its time to give it legal protection as the access to an "essential facility".My God. I've read some BS in my time but... wow. Just wow.

From the misinformation about how D3D versions work (you can still use all the old interfaces in D3D, and they are all still supported, and there have only ever been 6 versions of D3D to begin with) to the notion that losing OpenGL support in Windows (which, btw, isn't even under discussion) would mean that people die is evidence that human capacity to produce FUD is truly limitless.

Face facts: if Microsoft said tomorrow that Vista would be completely without OS support for OpenGL, the world would not end. People would not suddenly start dying, nor would their future lives be endangered. Buildings would not collapse because of it, nor would the design of such buildings and facilities be in any way endangered. At the absolute worst case, instead of upgrading to Vista, they upgrade to Linux, or perhaps MacOS if Apple makes that possible. Or they stick with XP.

And even if they decide to stay on Windows and convert their apps to be D3D apps, it doesn't mean that their app will fall apart in 2 years. D3D9 has been around for a good 2 years now in its current incarnation; the only additions have been what OpenGL would have made as extensions. The next revision of D3D (whether it's DX10 or WGF 1.0 or whatever they call it) probably isn't going to radically revamp the interface either; it's much more about the internals than the externals.

And D3D apps build on older versions of D3D still work, though some of the products themselves may not for other reasons. I'm farily certain I got a D3D 3.0 game up and running on D3D 8 hardware.


As said by IHVs:Which IHV? I don't recall that quote being attributed to anyone of relevance except for the original poster. Who, almost certainly, does not work for an IHV.


Only thing that bothers me is – what if all of this is FUD, intentionally presented by Microsoft at this stage, to scare and bully companies that develop in OpenGL. Damage is done.If the damage has been done, it has been done by the Internet community's willingness to blow just about everything about this issue out of proportion.

Burkey
08-12-2005, 08:46 PM
I am not going to write a huge page but I want to voice my concern about MS plans.

Sadly it does not surprise me since I have been developing software, mostly on their platform since DOS 3 and they ALWAYS pull this kind of thing.

Personally I only care because I am an avid gamer and DX games run more poorly through wine than OpenGL ones, of course this is not a problem if developers use OpenGL INSTEAD of D3D and then port it to Linux, but thats another story...

OpenGL = Good
DX = Bad

Just my 2 cents :)

actionGL
08-12-2005, 09:05 PM
From the misinformation about how D3D versions work (you can still use all the old interfaces in D3D, and they are all still supported, and there have only ever been 6 versions of D3D to begin with)
That’s exactly why you have stuff like "DirectX Uninstaller". It is "supported" and works "fine". I had problems with older DirectX games, search google, read forums...



Which IHV? I don't recall that quote being attributed to anyone of relevance except for the original poster. Who, almost certainly, does not work for an IHV.
Sorry, my mistake. Original poster just doesn’t have any idea what is IHV position. As A matter of fact, opengl.org just tends to post things (that may have large impact on OpenGL community and future development) without checking it first... not likely. One of developers (Ati or 3D Labs, not sure) said that all of them (Ati, NVidia, 3D Labs) are willing to implement seamless OGL ICD but need help from Microsoft.

So I don't know, maybe this is the next great thing from Microsoft, and there is nothing to be concerned about. Many others and me just fail to see it that way...

DieMongo
08-12-2005, 11:40 PM
Sorry, I just have to flush guys...

Nothing in the world can persuade me to belive that mankind should follow the leadership of one single company, despite an apparently devine format.
- When it comes to Microsoft I get associations to this joke: What's the differens between God and a surgeon? - God knows he's not a surgeon!

I live in Denmark, a small country proud of being at your service with Carlsberg, LEGO, The Dogme Movies, Bang&Olufsen, The Law of Jante, H.C Andersen and a few bloody stories about Vikings. Perhaps I should have erased the The Law of Jante, but for once in my lifetime I think someone could benefit from an adoption of this law - Microsoft - perhaps they could, in long terms, end up being a fair company....or storywriter...H.C Andersen wrote the story about an ugly duckling who turned out to be a beautyfull swane. Microsoft is writing the reversed version of this story.

And what a story to tell our kids! Terrorism against an innocent open source movement. Another great plot for Hollywood - I hope it gets the same fair outcome as the best movies, you know where all attempts to take over the incredible beatyfull blue planet will be granted the same destiny as Eva and her husband in Berlin.

I don't want to put any links in here refering to statements or whatever could prove that Microsoft is fighting for it's existence, google yourself.
Instead I'll just point to a single dilemma every businessman is facing: "It's business, we have stockholders to worry about!". Is he limited?

Microsoft now has to limit their software integration in an attempt to survive....the open source vision has the opposite approach!

And life too......quote from Jurassic Park - "Life finds a way out" ;-)

Ob1
08-13-2005, 12:34 AM
I have to agree with Korval, this thread is filled with FUD and lacks some serious info about the problem.

Did someone actually write to Ati, nVidia, 3dLabs, Intel? Could you post their replies if you got any?

Did anyone write to Microsoft to ask if they mean to help solve the problem or not? Again, could you post the answers?

Please don't turn this in a Linux VS Windows flaming war, there's plenty of them around the web and I'm pretty convinced they don't help solve problems!

Byez =8)!
Ob1

Azdo
08-13-2005, 12:40 AM
What this topic is about is that on earlier MS products, vendor ICD's provided an enhancement of the system by bringing hardware acceleration and new extensions at no cost. Now, on Vista, the hardware ICDs doesn't integrate seamlessly on the OS anymore, and furthermore disable vital parts of the OS in order to run while they are installed.ICDs do still integrate into the OS just fine. And they don't "disable vital parts of the OS" when they are installed; they only disable desktop compositing, and only when they are activated. Anything else is misinformation.

Remember: ICDs come with graphics drivers. And people (particularly gamers) will still be updating their graphics drivers regularly. Driver developers will not be shutting down parts of the OS just because a user decided to install their drivers.


IMHO, on Windows platform, the window manager is a vital part of the OS. Why act as if OpenGL broke the desktop composition? If hardware vendors are able to full integrate GL ICDs with aero, why MS doesn't supply the appropriate information?



The fact is that before, MS OpenGL software implementation was an aid in the rare cases an ICD were not installed, while MS Vista's OpenGL 1.4 implementation is designed to be the first one to use and to fall back to hardware ICDs only in rare cases.That is also misinformation/erronous. The ICD mechanism is not changing. It will not suddenly start turnning accelerated pixel formats into generic pixel formats. If your app has been getting accelerated pixel formats, and an appropriate driver has been installed on the machine, it will still get accelerated pixel formats under Vista.

It is only in the cases where a user gets (or a program wants) a generic pixel format that they will get this expanded version.



You have probably seen the report on this thread at http://www.organicvectory.nl/ in which it is stated that a fullscreen working application doesn't run on MS 1.4 implementation. That is an example of an accelerated pixelformat that doesn't work on Vista's 1.4.

One thing I'm wondering: if MS is no longer related nor affiliated to OpenGL, why do they bother to implement a new 1.4 GL subsystem instead of sticking with old 1.1? Is it a hack to hopefully make the most existent GL applications work and diminish the number of complaints?

Azdo
08-13-2005, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Ob1:

Please don't turn this in a Linux VS Windows flaming war, there's plenty of them around the web and I'm pretty convinced they don't help solve problems!I think there wasn't any Linux vs Windows flaming on this thread, mainly because it is Windows Vista what is on topic. Some people named Linux or Mac -- that's all-- but never the virtues of some OS over another.

Wertigon
08-13-2005, 03:39 AM
I believe the reason why many people (myself included) see this as a move by Microsoft to "kill" OpenGL, is because they've pulled the exact same "embrace-and-extend" crap before (in various different incarnations). Their webbrowser Internet Explorer is perhaps the most famous example, Windows Media Player the most recent.

Yes, this may just be a red herring. However, as people have stated before, as things stand OpenGL-developers on Windows have one of two choices:

1. Go with OpenGL 1.4 and the features Microsoft decides should be supported, or
2. Break some features of Aeroglass, using a vendor-supplied driver.

Neither of these alternatives are acceptable. I agree that there are many legit reasons why Microsoft won't cooperate with hardware vendors at this point (and unstable APIs is one of the most plausible ones). I find it alarming, however, that ATi/nVIDIA/3DLabs haven't received any word whatsoever from Microsoft regarding this.

I won't pass any judgement until I see how this goes, and I'm hoping anyone suspicious of Microsoft does the same. But, mind you, *if* Vista's OpenGL support ships in the state it's now, then this *will* mean the death of OpenGL on Windows - Unless the hardware vendors can fix it within six months or so.

So yes, this issue is quite serious. But there's not much you as a single individual can do, so let it rest people! Complain to ATi/nVIDIA/3DLabs/Microsoft instead of posting crazy conspiration theories. ;)

madmajor
08-13-2005, 04:01 AM
petition pls, so we can sign and make our voices heard...

cannot afford to wait till Virus Infections Spyware Trojan Adware OS finally released, by then it might be too late, as develpers might by then have recoded their apps to use DX instead of OGL...

M/\dm/\n
08-13-2005, 07:03 AM
All this is non issue?????

If you say OS you'll hear answer Windows in 99.99% cases.
If you buy new computer you get latest windows version pre-installed with license in 99.99% cases - Dell, HP, Alienware nobrand or whatever. Even if computer specs are just bare theoretical mininum (I remember few lappies with XP preinstalled despite 128 or 64 MB RAM)
If you have problems with applications only 10% of people will download newest driver (and prolly won't even uninstall previous to avoid problems), 1% will check properties to find that there are compitability options hidden in one of the tabs, 0.05% will experiment with in OS settings to get stuff right and 0.00000000000000000000001% will try to find MS compitability kits, that are so self explanatory-working that you don't even need to click your mouse.

And lets remember what is the first thing avg. user says about OS - "It looks cool, it has fancy effects"
Security and other things is BS for Avarage Joe.
Breake the fancy shell and you'll be one responsible.

I wonder what to do in Vista if you have windowed GL2 app. I don't think I have rights and time to implement code in my application that downloads vendor driver and forces it to be primary, but then again if my application is intended for those 90% ppl who barely can make folder *you heard me right 90%* I have pretty much dead end, xcept maybe support staff of 1000ppl who can drive home and install drivers, turn off UI and get yelled at for making *my fancy windows* look like crap.

Pretty much it can be summed up this way - if there is no preinstalled vendor driver with prompt to use ICD at runtime when first Vista preinstalled computers ships, then GL is just a joke on windows and that *tiny* market share it holds.

compitability tab or driver download is sure death for mainstream GL apps

Korval
08-13-2005, 10:32 AM
One of developers (Ati or 3D Labs, not sure) sad that all of them (Ati, NVidia, 3D Labs) are willing to implement seamless OGL ICD but need help from Microsoft.It was Barthold from 3DLabs.

According to JD, "Gamedev.net has a remark from ati dev who thinks this is going to be fixed and become a non-issue." I haven't been able to find a thread on GameDev with this commentary, but GameDev's forums aren't exactly easy to search or read. I trust JD enough to accept that he's telling the truth, so it seems like the issue will be resolved as it should have been: behind the scenes.


Why act as if OpenGL broke the desktop composition? If hardware vendors are able to full integrate GL ICDs with aero, why MS doesn't supply the appropriate information?First, how do you know that they haven't? It's not like anyone on this thread are being kept appraised of the day-to-day operation of any IHV or Microsoft. For all we know, the problem may have already been solved by now. Unlikely (as I think 3D Labs or ATi would have told people that it was being corrected if it had been done), but possible.

Another explaination is that Microsoft isn't finished with Vista. To give IHV's information about a product that isn't even in full Beta could cause them to modify their drivers entirely wrongly if Microsoft has to change things at the last minute. It wouldn't take a major change in desktop compositing to make the IHV solutions suddenly cause Vista to crash when an ICD starts up.

Vista isn't launching for a good year or so. Give it time.


Pretty much it can be summed up this way - if there is no preinstalled vendor driver with prompt to use ICD at runtime when first Vista preinstalled computers ships, then GL is just a joke on windows and that *tiny* market share it holds.Microsoft didn't ship Windows XP with an ICD either. Any computers you buy that have ICD's installed were done so by the computer manufacturer. Since ICD's are part of graphics drivers, there's no reason to suddenly expect computer makers to start shipping their computers without graphics drivers for the hardware in question. As such, this argument is moot.

A Developer
08-13-2005, 05:21 PM
In response to:

>>I'm farily certain I got a D3D 3.0 game up and running on D3D 8 hardware.

So, you think that the interfaces are all there and are still supported eh? A quick Google pulls up a great deal of information contradicting this assumption such as:
-----------------------------------
Q. After installing the DX 8 SDK, I recieve the error LNK1104: Cannot Open File "d3dim.lib" when attempting o compile my program.
After installing the DirectX 8 SDK, you may recieve the following error when compiling existing source code written for previous versions of DirectX:

LINK : fatal error LNK1104: cannot open file "d3dim.lib"

This is because the library for Direct3D Immediate Mode (now called DirectGraphics) has been renamed as D3D8.LIB. To correct this, link to D3D8.LIB instead of D3DIM.LIB.
-----------------------------
Looks like Microsoft renamed functions/modes as well as the libs/dlls doesn't it? So that means your old game is highly unlikely to be actually be using anything in DirectX V8.

What the games that still run are doing is quietly installing an old copy of Direct3D Version 3 software. The Direct3D V3 game is not running through DirectX V8 software - the game is using the old copy of D3D that it loaded when it installed. If D3D V3 installed itself properly, you should find an entry for it in Add/Remove programs. If the installation just copied the files over then you can troll for the dlls.

Obviously you are not familar with the long term problems caused by Direct3D and DirectX incompatabilities between versions. This misconception is common. Even Microsoft has admitted that the constant interface changes have long been a serious problem. Check out the numerous complaints over the years on the game boards and sites about the incompatabilities of various versions of Direct3D and DirectX, its a well known problem.

In the course of software development, its a good idea to try and use the current version of a compiler to keep current and take advantage of the latest API's and compiler optimizations for newer hardware. Frequently, when going to a new version of the compiler, the ability to use an old version of an API is lost since its typical for only the latest version of an API to be supported and not some old archaic one. Its a really good idea to compile the entire application on the same compiler - weird things happen if you don't and sometimes it just flat out doesn't work. Industrial applications are updated on a regular basis with new features needed by customers. New features help revenues. Rewriting the graphics interface to basically do the same thing the old one did, does not pay back a dime. The money spent on a graphics interface re-write could be better spent on writing tools that help your customers do their jobs better and faster. New, improved, better, faster features will increase revenues and keep a company solvent.

For a high volume, short life game, an experimental and constantly changing graphics API is not such a huge issue. Games make so much money that re-writing an interface is no big deal in comparison to the net return on investment.

But, for a low volume, mission critical application, having to constantly change or re-write the software interfacing to the graphics engine is simply not economically feasible. You spend a lot of time re-writing the code and re-testing the app to make it do the same old thing, nothing new. An industrial application's seat count runs in the thousands of copies not the millions. Nothing tangible is gained from the constant outflow of money to re-write code to do the same thing. You aren't going to make the cost up on the volume.

Your customers may be delayed in going to better hardware and OSes due to the lack of support for the old graphics API on the newer OS. If they are stuck on slow old machines its entirely possible that critical projects may be delayed because they simply could not get their work done in time. On some of these big number crunching projects, having faster hardware can cut weeks or even months off of a schedule. Performance does matter. The data sets involved can be huge and must be displayed real time. Sorry, but 5 DVD's worth of pre-drawn game style bitmaps for bit-blitting don't cut it in real-time applications. You have to draw the real thing in its current state. While the OpenGL interface may be available, deliberately degrading performance 50% below what it could be, is not acceptable for a real-time application.

Windows NT 4.0 was frozen on Directx V3 for eternity while new versions of DirectX were made available to Windows 95/98/2000 customers. Low volume Industrial Apps that have to support several versions of the Windows operating systems are hosed in this unstable scenario. The same standard version of OpenGL was available for all operating systems completely eliminating the compatability issue. So, the same application software ran on the various Windows OS's without a hitch.

One of my customers was using NT4 - it was slow as a dog on his extra large data set. We got him to switch to Windows 2000 and with the improvements to memory management on 2000 that customer got a 4x performance improvement on the same machine with the same data set and the same software. The customer had been behind on schedule - he got caught up in a hurry. OpenGL made it possible to run the identical software on two different versions of the Windows OS without a hitch. NT 4 was frozen on D3D V3 while Windows 2000 was up to DirectX 7. If we had used DirectX instead of OpenGL there is no way that the same software would have worked on the two different operating systems with the performance our customer needed.

Having an Open non-proprietary graphics interface standard that works across different versions of the OS for many years makes it possible to run software seamlessly. At the same time software development and maintenance costs are reduced for the application. Its important to keep the costs in line for low volume but critically important applications. Otherwise, no one could afford to do the low volume applications and the technical capability would be lost.

JD
08-13-2005, 10:30 PM
'A Developer' I think you should voice your concerns with MS. I understand the d3d interface issues and what a pain it is to rewrite the init code for the zillionth time, etc. But I think we shouldn't turn this discussion into d3d vs. gl. I can't get into gamedev but when I do I'll try to find the page of ihv responses and post it here. I think it was one of news posts on the main page inside the topic discussion thread. Also, perhaps in the opengl subforum in a thread that got closed.

M/\dm/\n
08-13-2005, 11:51 PM
Microsoft didn't ship Windows XP with an ICD either. Any computers you buy that have ICD's installed were done so by the computer manufacturer. Since ICD's are part of graphics drivers, there's no reason to suddenly expect computer makers to start shipping their computers without graphics drivers for the hardware in question. As such, this argument is moot.If we are talking about possible security risk and degradation of visual experience that most users stand for, then I doubt manufacturers will willingly include ICDs. I bet MS will prolly advise not to.

Of corse there might be misconceptions and so, but so far that's likely result of current action if information given is correct.

V-man
08-14-2005, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Korval:
[QUOTE]Vista isn't launching for a good year or so. Give it time.Sure, no problem.
And after it is released MS still hasn't cooperated with the IHV on the matter, we can come here and debate some more. :)

ukdeveloper
08-14-2005, 10:41 AM
DirectX is a hellishly complicated API relying heavily on the equally hellish Win32 framework, and doesn't even have the same graphical power as OpenGL.

OpenGL is a staple, used by developers the world over, its benefits lying in its cross-platform compatibility. OpenGL is a lot easier to use, and can be used alongside the equally easy SDL framework.

All Microsoft will gain from this is disrespect. People will turn to Linux and Mac due to the continued support of such widely acclaimed technology. Like I say, DirectX is so stupidly clumsy and complicated that you'd be hard pushed to port it to anything else, whereas many of the huge software houses use OpenGL all the time.

Brolingstanz
08-14-2005, 11:07 AM
thanks ukdeveloper, your sentiments are deeply appreciated.

there have been some good ones so far, but i think this one takes the cake.

heck, now i forgot what this is about.

M/\dm/\n
08-14-2005, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by ukdeveloper:
All Microsoft will gain from this is disrespect. People will turn to Linux and Mac due to the continued support of such widely acclaimed technology. Like I say, DirectX is so stupidly clumsy and complicated that you'd be hard pushed to port it to anything else, whereas many of the huge software houses use OpenGL all the time.Not going to happen, they'll do whatever they please and period. IE, MP, .NET, spying on your habbits/software etc.
What they get sued for and so is just a small slowdown.

Moreover, don't fool yourselves, 90% Avarage Joe's are not going to switch to Linux because of GL, we are going to switch to DX, that's the problem.

We should do whatever we can to protect GL, better safe than sorry

actionGL
08-14-2005, 11:43 AM
Any official/unofficial news from IHVs? Microsoft?

A Developer
08-14-2005, 11:54 AM
Maybe this whole issue is a ploy to sell more upgrades of Windows.

OpenGL has been such a stable interface that favorite games have run for years on Windows 95 and 98 as well as on 2000 and XP. You don't need to upgrade the Windows OS to run your favorite OpenGL game.

Perhaps Microsoft is trying to force "built in obsolesence" of the graphics engine. They aren't as afraid of the MAC and Linux as much as they are frustrated that they are not selling enough upgrades of Windows.

So, discourage people from using OpenGL. Degrade the OpenGL performance 50% by running it on top of DirectX instead of parallel to DirectX. Force people to lose the Vista "cool eye-candy" if they use that mean old OpenGL. Frighten the average consumer with scary dialogs that advise them not to turn off the Avalon compositor and load the manufacturer's ICD. The average consumer who doesn't understand the technical side of it, shifts to only running DirectX games because they run faster. The Game Makers stop producing OpenGL games because people stopped buying enough of them to make it profitable. Now, when a great new game comes out it only runs on DirectX 10 in Vista. Ooops, have to upgrade that OS right away. Microsoft recognizes more revenue, faster.

davej
08-14-2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Korval:
According to JD, "Gamedev.net has a remark from ati dev who thinks this is going to be fixed and become a non-issue." I haven't been able to find a thread on GameDev with this commentary, but GameDev's forums aren't exactly easy to search or read. I trust JD enough to accept that he's telling the truth, so it seems like the issue will be resolved as it should have been: behind the scenes.
It's at GameDev thread (http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=337739&PageSize=25&WhichPage=2) . The last post on that page. Search for "Evan Hart" if it's not there on your browser.

Another explaination is that Microsoft isn't finished with Vista. To give IHV's information about a product that isn't even in full Beta could cause them to modify their drivers entirely wrongly if Microsoft has to change things at the last minute. It wouldn't take a major change in desktop compositing to make the IHV solutions suddenly cause Vista to crash when an ICD starts up.

Vista isn't launching for a good year or so. Give it time.
Whilst you wouldn't expect Microsoft to say "it will work like this" if something wasn't finalised yet, you would expect them to be talking to IHVs about their plans. From Barthold's and Evan's posts, it appears they have been and the IHVs are worried enough to have raised the issues with Vista's OpenGL support.

A lot of people have been overreacting, the sky hasn't fallen in yet after all, but this is something to be concerned about. Until we get some more information from the IHVs, the only thing we can do is, as they suggest, raise the issues with Microsoft/our ISVs/whoever in order to ensure Microsoft do provide the IHVs with an interface/the information they require to allow seamless OpenGL support with a compositing desktop.

dave j

JD
08-14-2005, 12:46 PM
This is the post on gamedev that I and davej is talking about:

"Since I was at the OpenGL BOF at SIGGRAPH where this was discussed, I would like to clarify a bit of what was mentioned.

First, there were two current paths for OpenGL on Vista mentioned. The first one is a DX wrapper, with its potential performance shortfalls and lack of extension support. The second path was a traditional ICD which when activated would force the desktop out of the compositing mode, but would allow performance and extensions.

Second, 3DLabs, ATI, and NVIDIA all pledged that they were dedicated to work with Microsoft to add the additional support necessary to make ICDs work seamlessly with the rest of the OS. There was an open request to have developers contact their Microsoft reps to express any concerns that they have over this.

Finally, this is all my personal take on the issue as an attendee at the BOF. I think an unfortunate bit about the issue in that it gets quickly caught up in FUD from all directions, which helps no one. With the current state of affairs, you could possibly classify all of the following statements as true:

1. OpenGL support on Vista will run through a slow D3D wrapper.
2. OpenGL on Vista will not support the compositing desktop.
3. OpenGL will have support for the compositing desktop on Vista.
4. Vista will support high-performance OpenGL ICDs.

Obviously, they all need qualifiers, and are not simultaneously true. This unfortunately makes it too easy to confuse developers. Please get the facts straight and if you feel it will impact your products, make whatever Microsoft contacts you have aware of your concern over the issue."

chris ferro
08-14-2005, 02:25 PM
Im sorry to be the only one to say this but,
Who cares?
Yes i know it's easier to code in opengl then it is in d3d, but this is microsoft's call to make..
And calling them M$ isnt going to change their minds.
I know 2.0 was implemented, and it has alot of power, but it doesnt matter anymore.. D3D is growing ever more like opengl, and soon, it's going to eclypse it.
Microsoft has put alot of effort into D3D, they should back down because a bunch of weirdo developers dont want to work the extra time.
Microsoft obviously knows what they're doing...And if you dont like it? Fine go use linux(im sure you already do).
Developers like valve know and repect D3D for what it can do...
Unless someone can convice valve otherwise, i say forget opengl.

actionGL
08-14-2005, 04:10 PM
@chris ferro

Very nice, mature conclusion. So we should have only one king, one army, one operating system, one nation, one religion... and we should be all white (or trying to starve to death or kill all others). We should have blue eyes and be specific height and proportions... speaking one language, and wearing only clothes that have (Microsoft) certificate.

How can you be limited enough not to notice that there are systems like Mac, Linux, Playstation3, PSP, bunch of mobile devices, mobile phones, the whole scientific community (labs, research companies and such “stuff”)...

Microsoft is available only on Windows (and XBox), and every other OS, including windows has OpenGL. Graphic industry NEEDS standards. Consider yourself driving completely different car (different interface - steering wheel, pedals etc.) in each country in the world... that would make things very difficult.

Now, OpenGL is standard for all platforms and, as such, makes life easier for developers. Not to mention that MONOPLY is the best way to destroy progress. IF we had only one company to be asked about graphic - without competition - we would be still using monochrome displays... since it's much cheaper not to develop things:).

So there are few things why OpenGL should exist:
1) Portability (all OS systems)
2) Open standard - nobody can dictate future on its own, and it is free for usage
3) Only D3D competitor

It would be 100% legit for MS to have better technology that "eclipses" every other 3D API, and is widely available, open, and free. And because of that every developer has chosen DirectX, and nothing else exists. But that is not the case.

As soon as:
1) Sony said that PS3 will use GL 2.0
2) Mac and Linux desktop market started to grow
3) Other open cross platform tools, such as OpenAL, OpenML, OpenVG and OpenMAX were developed.
4) Collada standard was presented - interchange format for content creation and 3D processing tools.
http://www.khronos.org/collada/presentations/
5) ARB announced widespread adoption of OpenGL standard
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2005/august/arb.html

Microsoft decided to block OpenGL - NOT by having better product... BY MONOPOLY, FORCE. And it doesn’t cost anything to work with IHVs – they will provide (PAY) development for seamless OpengGL implementation under windows, but need information.

Hope, that this does fit in your head.

zed
08-14-2005, 08:45 PM
# 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)IMO this is not good idea, how many ppl are u expecting to write?
1000 would be an excellant response, now what happens when u have 1000 ppl do u point out this fact to ms, they'll just reply along the lines of thats noone as its less than 0.0001% of developers.
hmmm gives me an idea, how about making the question,
anyone who wants d3d to remain in any form with windows pls write to mrX
now u can use the results of this to state 1000 pl want ms to retain d3d + 6.2 billion ppl dont :)

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 crippledbeing a person of action, ive written a song.

VictorG
08-15-2005, 09:22 AM
Whether we really need a 3D desktop or not, It looks like we are going to get it, with or without OpenGL.

So the real question is how can we get microsoft back on the ARB committee, and why did they feel it was necessary to leave? Was the ARB committee holding microsoft progress back? While I am not a MSoft fanatic, I do have the upmost respect for people like Jimm Blinn who have affiliated themselves (for whatever motive) with MS.

Wouldn't it be better to lobby for Microsoft to return to the ARB committe rather than lobby against how they are implementing opengl in their future products?

santyhamer
08-15-2005, 09:40 AM
Ok I have an idea.... Lets do this:

1) Don't take any legal action versus M$ or they will destroy you. Lets the people to assume Windows Vista == NO OpenGL.

2) Dont use Windows any more. We are tired of M$oft attitude. Use linux, solaris and MacOS.

3) Letz make a BOOTABLE CD or DVD with linux kernel + XWindows + some drivers(nvidia/ati, blah blah)

4) Use OpenGL and GLX. NVIDIA and ATI should improve their OGL driver for linux etc etc...

5) To debug your application use windowed mode in Linux or remote debugging if you like full screen graphics...

6 and THE key) When all games run in this mode, Microsoft will suffer because NOBODY need Windows anymore to play...

So the procedure is something like inserting your bootable game CD into the computer and play... No need at all to init and use the OS installed in the machine... Is like a console... you insert your CD and play, period.

I am trying to make this but I have some problems... How can I make a CD bootable with vmlinuz thingy? How can I write TEMPORALLY files if I start from a CD-read-only-media?

pls give me your thoughts!

M/\dm/\n
08-15-2005, 10:38 AM
Concerning previous post
[once more]Not going to happen...[/once more]
I know that, you know that, MS knows that :rolleyes:

actionGL
08-15-2005, 11:21 AM
As said before everything is up to big ISVs, and pressure from IHVs. If they don't find it worth the effort (they don't see future consequences: monopoly, higher cost/impossible porting to other platforms) there is nothing more to do. OpenGL will remain primary 3D API on platforms other than MS (it will not die, but it will have limited usage comparing to current status – Windows is dominant OS, and money is key motivation for game/application industry). I am sure that they are much more aware of situation than we are.

And writing letters is just plain crap (explanation posted by Zed). Why don't someone from ARB or opengl.org show some responsibility toward OpenGL developers, contact IHVs (NVidia, ATI, 3D Labs, etc) and give us their official statement. Like answer to question: Will they apply pressure to MS or not, what is their position? What is OpenGL/Vista status?

chris ferro
08-15-2005, 03:15 PM
actionGL
Dont you think you're being a tad dramatic?
As it's written, vista used opengl, just not as effective as D3D, as it should be.
Why on earth should microsoft care about opengl?

And about opengl for the developer, im sure there will be many ways to implement it better in vista.

But this is still beta 1, many changes are planned so dont get your panties in a wad.

As for ps3...Who cares? Thats a console, and chances are, even if sony is said to support opengl whole heartedly with a cherry on top, most developers are going to write their own API anyway.
As console developers often do and will always do.. Compared to the API's custom written for the games both opengl and D3D are limited.

Also, i really doubt microsoft (or as the idiots call it M$) is going to piss on the developers that DO use opengl to port.
Microsoft did'nt get to be number 1 by making poor choices, so im sure they will have a solution when the time comes.

I can't believe the stupid things people say when the word microsoft is involved, no one here seemed to care when apple used opengl to manage IT'S desktop and degraded the performance of it's games.

But when some one mouths microsoft the whole henhouse starts roaring with clucks.

I have nothing against opengl, but dont expect me to feel sorry for you because your ogre games you write in opengl dont perform as well.
It's the ARB's fault they didnt update opengl for so long...This includes microsoft.

A Developer
08-15-2005, 03:59 PM
>>Wouldn't it be better to lobby for Microsoft to return to the ARB committe rather than lobby against how they are implementing opengl in their future products?

That is truly the right idea. Microsoft hasn't upgraded the version of OpenGL since 1996 introduced version 1.1. Had they kept up with the OGL upgrades 2 things would have been possible:
1. Upgrades would have been easier for the average consumer whose old favorite OpenGL games would have continued to work.
2. New OpenGL games could have had more features with the newer OGL. People would have wanted to upgrade to get the new eye-popping OGL features.

Outcome: Customers would be less afraid of upgrading. Customers would have had a good reason to upgrade without fear of breaking everything.

Microsoft would have been in a wonderful position to sell more upgrades of Windows and make more money.

Microsoft has been disappointed that they haven't upgraded more Window's users to the newer versions. Since their current strategy hasn't been as successful as they would like, trying a new approach would be a great idea. Here's a winning strategy to rectify that issue: Embrace OpenGL, provide outstanding OpenGL performance, keep the OGL upgrades coming and the money rolling in.

The OpenGL Org should make that Microsoft has an application to re-join the ARB. Along with that they could tuck in a request for two things:
1. That Microsoft upgrade to full OpenGL 2.0 in Vista and all 64-bit OS's.
2. That Microsoft continue to upgrade OpenGL in all active Windows OS's at reasonable intervals.

This is definitely a Win-Win scenario.

Korval
08-15-2005, 04:23 PM
Thats a console, and chances are, even if sony is said to support opengl whole heartedly with a cherry on top, most developers are going to write their own API anyway.
As console developers often do and will always do.. Compared to the API's custom written for the games both opengl and D3D are limited.That's not entirely true. Very few developers actually spent the effort in doing an end-run around D3D to code directly to the metal for X-Box. As development costs increase, there will be an even less likelihood of them avoiding the vendor provided API, simply as it just won't matter that much. PS2 was probably the last console where game developers have to code to the metal to get decent performance.

Granted, I agree with your assertion that the PS3 has nothing to do with this discussion. But that's more from the fact that this discussion has nothing to do with the viability of OpenGL in general.


1. Upgrades would have been easier for the average consumer whose old favorite OpenGL games would have continued to work.
2. New OpenGL games could have had more features with the newer OGL. People would have wanted to upgrade to get the new eye-popping OGL features.Nonsense. No game ever shipped expecting to use the Microsoft (software pre-Vista) implementation of OpenGL. There may be some applications that expect to use the software implementation itself, but those aren't games. All games expect to run an ICD. Some of them even load the ICD directly themselves.

GL games have kept pace with the expansion of OpenGL, through both extensions and OpenGL version upgrades.

actionGL
08-15-2005, 04:38 PM
@chris ferro


void brainUpdate(bool (*fPtr_brainInterface)(char *))
{
printf("Trying to access brain, and correct corrupted data\n");

char *topicBuffer = getTopic("ActionGL previous reply to chris ferro");
while ((*fPtr_brainInterface)(topicBuffer) == false)
{
printf("Brain not responding... trying again\n");
}
printf("Finally... brain responded\n");
}Don't take this personally, I am just tired of writing ;)
Read ALL my previous posts, and if you don't find logic in that... well… what can I do?
As I said, am tired of writing. There is no point repeating myself.

V-man
08-15-2005, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by A Developer:
That is truly the right idea. Microsoft hasn't upgraded the version of OpenGL since 1996 introduced version 1.1. Had they kept up with the OGL upgrades 2 things would have been possible:
1. Upgrades would have been easier for the average consumer whose old favorite OpenGL games would have continued to work.
2. New OpenGL games could have had more features with the newer OGL. People would have wanted to upgrade to get the new eye-popping OGL features.
Why do people keep insisting on talking bull?
Old GL games work fine to this date unless they have been badly coded.
No one wants a GL 1.4 (or whatever) software emulation. That's what GL 1.1 was on Win95/98/Me/NT 4/Win2k
Do you think customers would be happy running a game at 0.1 FPS?

The wglGetProcAddress allow developers access to higher GL functions since Win95.
To this date, this is the mechanism used to have access to GL 2.0 on Windows.
All that was needed was for the ARB to release tools to make our lives easier. Take a look at glew, glee and others.

GL is in good standing on the Windows platform.
MS needs not even update to 1.4
They need to make it work with their DWM system.

tosa
08-15-2005, 06:23 PM
1) Don't take any legal action versus M$ or they will destroy you. Lets the people to assume Windows Vista == NO OpenGL.

2) Dont use Windows any more. We are tired of M$oft attitude. Use linux, solaris and MacOS.

3) Letz make a BOOTABLE CD or DVD with linux kernel + XWindows + some drivers(nvidia/ati, blah blah)

4) Use OpenGL and GLX. NVIDIA and ATI should improve their OGL driver for linux etc etc...

5) To debug your application use windowed mode in Linux or remote debugging if you like full screen graphics...

6 and THE key) When all games run in this mode, Microsoft will suffer because NOBODY need Windows anymore to play... Now that is the attitude that will earn you some cash :)
Feel free to starve to death, while industry is making a real progress using available tools!
You may be fed up with MS, but that is not the case with everybody.
The real problem I see, is that the majority of OpenGL community are linux-oriented, MS hating,
anti-social (excluding internet communication), human left-overs!
Sorry guys, you don't create the market, nor the standards!

actionGL
08-15-2005, 06:34 PM
Interesting reading, but differs from my opinion.
http://www.gaminggroove.com/blog.php?id=11

Also, I got info concerning result of massive emailing of IHVs and ISVs - most definitely write emails to them, it will have impact. Personally, I think that they should know without emailing stuff what to do. All they need is to type "OpenGL Vista" in google and see other opinions.

rebb
08-16-2005, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by tosa:
Now that is the attitude that will earn you some cash :)
Feel free to starve to death, while industry is making a real progress using available tools!
You may be fed up with MS, but that is not the case with everybody.
The real problem I see, is that the majority of OpenGL community are linux-oriented, MS hating,
anti-social (excluding internet communication), human left-overs!
Sorry guys, you don't create the market, nor the standards!Hey nice 2nd Post there, you should be proud ( which you probably very much were after posting - also, note sarcasm ).

Since youre playing the Generalization Game so well, let me take a shot at it too.

Yes not everyone is fed up with them, but many of those ppl dont give a **** about anything anyways, as long as its "not much hassle" or gets them the "easy" Cash ( which they usually need to keep the supply of new neck-ties flowing.. ).
Cheap thinking i call that, but i digress.

You are right tho, "we" dont make the standards, the ARB does :) . Just as "you" dont make the standards for Direct3D, right ?

V-man
08-17-2005, 04:46 AM
I wrote to an ATI member and have received a response.
The idea is to spread the word. It will have an impact in the end. If no one does anything and wait for others to do the work, then nothing will move forward.

The impact may be that this gets fixed or it gets remembered as another "MS decision to kill off another technology".

Of course, if you are going to write, make sure that you do it in a professional manner. Everyting matters like the way you express yourself and zero errors.

Silkut
08-18-2005, 01:16 AM
http://www.janfischer.com/images/OGLWindowsLogo.jpg

I hope that Microsoft will stay a great platform for OpenGL API

Groovounet
08-18-2005, 09:48 AM
Why not using a logo as the one by Silkut to show our will to have a real OpenGL under Windows ?

We can put it on our websites, on forums as lot of people do in Europe against software patents.

I think it can be a good solution to keep in touch all the community all time until the release of Windows Vista.

Windows without OpenGL, hasta la Vista

or may be better :

Without OpenGL, hasta la Vista Windows (edit)

Aeluned
08-18-2005, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Groovounet:

[B]Windows without OpenGL, asta la Vistaexcellent! :p

Groovounet
08-18-2005, 01:02 PM
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/8600/openglvista0hc.jpg

A Developer
08-18-2005, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Korval:

>>Nonsense. No game ever shipped expecting to use the Microsoft (software pre-Vista) implementation of OpenGL.
>>There may be some applications that expect to use the software implementation itself, but those aren't games.
>>All games expect to run an ICD. Some of them even load the ICD directly themselves.
>>GL games have kept pace with the expansion of OpenGL, through both extensions and OpenGL version upgrades.

Originally posted by V-man

>>Old GL games work fine to this date unless they have been badly coded.
>>No one wants a GL 1.4 (or whatever) software emulation. That's what GL 1.1 was on Win95/98/Me/NT 4/Win2k
>>Do you think customers would be happy running a game at 0.1 FPS?

You are both absolutely correct. Everyone prefers the speed of a well written ICD. In an ideal world, all video cards would have hardware accelerated ICD's. All ICD's would run flawlessly and never, ever, need to have the hardware acceleration turned down or off to avoid a serious problem like crashing an app, blue screening a system, mis-drawing graphics, etc. In the ideal world there would be no need for a generic software implementation of OpenGL because the ICD would be perfect.

Reality check: Ever had a problem with a video driver? Ever had to turn down the hardware acceleration or even turn it completely off? Guess what kicks in to keep everything working? That's right the generic Microsoft Software Implementation of OpenGL. No matter what happens with the ICD there is a very reliable, albeit slower, complete version of OpenGL backing up the display.

Originally posted by V-man

>>The wglGetProcAddress allow developers access to higher GL functions since Win95.
>>To this date, this is the mechanism used to have access to GL 2.0 on Windows.
>>GL is in good standing on the Windows platform.
>>MS needs not even update to 1.4

There is a slight problem with this logic. Certainly, wglGetProcAddress allows access to higher GL functions. However, not every OpenGL ICD supports the same version of OpenGL. So wgl won't get you there if the card doesn't support the feature. What to do? Hmm, if there was a full generic software version, it could backup any unsupported hardware features, so that all features would be available at all times to all customers. What a great idea! Then everybody can at least have the same feature set, even if they couldn't afford the best or fastest hardware to support it fully accelerated. For developers, having the OpenGL 2.0 implementation as the base version on the OS means that there is full support for the API in the development tools like Visual Studio.

You can't always choose your customer's hardware. But you better believe, that your customers want all the basic features working. We had customers complain when we used extensions for textures in GL 1.0 that were only available on a rather expensive video card. When Microsoft upgraded to OpenGL 1.1 with built in texture support, all customers got textures regardless of whether they had "the right hardware".

Korval
08-18-2005, 04:50 PM
Reality check: Ever had a problem with a video driver? Ever had to turn down the hardware acceleration or even turn it completely off?While I have had problems with a video driver before, I've never turned off hardware acceleration and then decided to play a 3D game (one that doesn't have its own software rendering engine, at any rate).


No matter what happens with the ICD there is a very reliable, albeit slower, complete version of OpenGL backing up the display."Complete" is rather generous considering the state of GL development at 1.1. It had nothing resembling shader support, no VBOs, not even basic multitexturing. 1.1, for its day, was OK, but by current standards it was the eqivalent of D3D 5.0, only with a nicer API.

"Reliable" is another dubious word used in conjunction with this particular code. The generic implementation had its bugs too. The only thing that could be relied on is that these bugs never changed, so they could be worked around.

And I hate to keep pointing this out, but Linux has no equivalent to a generic implementation at all. And MacOS X has built OpenGL into the GUI, so they are always relying upon the stability of video drivers; they don't have a backup software GL implementation just in case ATi or nVidia screws up their drivers.

If it's good for the 2 nearest compeditors to Windows, why can't Windows do it too?


Hmm, if there was a full generic software version, it could backup any unsupported hardware features, so that all features would be available at all times to all customers. What a great idea!Which is why we have MesaGL. If you need software OpenGL that supports modern features, that's where you should go.

V-man
08-18-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by A Developer:
Originally posted by Korval:
There is a slight problem with this logic. Certainly, wglGetProcAddress allows access to higher GL functions. However, not every OpenGL ICD supports the same version of OpenGL. So wgl won't get you there if the card doesn't support the feature. What to do?There isn't any logic problem there. If a feature is not supported (either GL version is low or some extension is not present, then I execute another path or application terminates)

In the case of Windows Vista, MS will update to GL 1.4
I'm assuming that MS wants people to own a decent video card because certainly D3D doesn't have a software path.

MS wants people to own shader capable hw. Probably SM2.0 minimum.

MacSlow
08-18-2005, 10:33 PM
Greetings everyone!

This perspective of MS once again doing their "Because We Can"-stunt for totally superfluous (technically), selfish and cowardly reasons is really driving me up the #@%?§!!!

Now I'm trying to throw my "weight" into it ;) Thanks to the cross-platform nature of OpenGL I'm able to put forth fresh UI-concepts (http://macslow.mine.nu/?page_id=18) on all three major platforms. The outlook of Microsofts (no pun intended) assumed attempt to kill OpenGL would render my efforts in vain in the long term, because I use OpenGL for "lowfat" and don't want to use DirectX (giving up cross-platform capability when you already have it isn't the wisest thing to do). I plan to give "lowfat" a solid base to handle thousands of images that way (also on low-spec systems) and add the same natural handling for videos and documents (at least PDFs). All this takes time... more than I like. So if OpenGL was to really die, we have a very dull future ahead of us. I just hope NVIDIA, ATI, Apple, Alias, Sony & Co get their act together and help us fight this!

Best regards...

M. Mueller

fluppeteer
08-19-2005, 05:21 AM
Hi all. I'm not going to chip in to the debate, because others have stated my views already, but I do have a quick question...

I was under the impression that the IHVs stood up at the OpenGL BOF to report, and complain about, this state of play. If the issue (as I understand it) is that the IHVs would like to provide a fully-integrated ICD but Microsoft (for good, bad or both reasons) are standing in the way, I'm not sure why the IHVs should be the target of our complaints. The impression I got was that the IHVs *want* decent OpenGL support - they're "on our side", as it were.

I'm not trying to cause confusion here, but why should we complain to the IHVs rather than complaining to Microsoft? Is the plan just that the IHVs will assemble the petitions to take to Microsoft? (Have they said they'll do this?) I'd have thought that complaints sent straight to Microsoft might show up on their radar more, but I wouldn't know - I'm just trying to understand why the IHVs have been put forward as the clearing house. They have to be fairly polite in their dealings with Microsoft, after all, whereas customers can be a little more direct.

Incidentally, something which I don't think has been pointed out (unless I missed it): this whole business, unless I've misunderstood, is unlikely to affect most games in the slightest, because most games run full screen with the compositor not doing anything anyway. I doubt IHVs are suddenly going to stop shipping decent ICDs, so games can keep running OGL regardless; the question will only be whether the experience under Avalon is compromised.

It does, of course, affect the high end modelling apps (amongst a lot of lower profile stuff - no offence to the rest of the community), so I'm completely behind the fact that this situation is a problem. However a bootable gaming Linux distro won't actually solve any problems (other than a having a fixed, clean system which may or may not support all the user's hardware), and there's no benefit as I see it to Id et al. in going Linux/OS X only. More's the pity, arguably.

Those comparing this situation to the "non-event" of the Y2K bug might like to recall the amount of effort which went into ensuring that it *was* a non-event, before the fact...

--
Fluppeteer

zeb
08-19-2005, 05:25 AM
I've yet to see any discussion about potentially using GL with Aero by rendering to an off-screen buffer in GL, fetching the result into main memory then pushing the pixels back to the graphics card. At which point the window should hopefully be nicely transparent for all those users with so fast a machine that they really want to slow it down with eye candy...

Or is there going to be a complete lock out from the graphics card?

preshel
08-19-2005, 07:50 AM
:mad: :mad: :mad:
I dont belive it! I will not be forced to learn DX and I will not sit from the side and watch my favotive library (OPENGL!!!) wither and die !

I will buy a mac and an OS-X system. Now it even seems more reasonable since they are moving to Intel's platform.

This step will be the "final straw"...
will be bye bye microsoft, bye bye for good!

Korval
08-19-2005, 09:36 AM
I've yet to see any discussion about potentially using GL with Aero by rendering to an off-screen buffer in GL, fetching the result into main memory then pushing the pixels back to the graphics card.Well, that's because such a thing would be atrociously slow. Plus, since it's still loading and activating the ICD, it will still turn off the desktop compositing. So, it's pretty much lose-lose.

gp343
08-21-2005, 02:19 AM
It is very hard to regard this topic without bashing microsoft. I will now appologise in advance for what i'm gonna write.

I'm a long time windows user and do like windows very much, but we must draw the line somewhere.

If we continue to follow Microsoft, what i envisaged is that computer science as a whole would become so commercialize that it would be way too unrecognizable. Take a good look at all of these new high-level languages Microsoft is putting out. This is way way far beyond Microsoft trying to kill Opengl. Microsoft is trying to kill computer science as a whole.

Any game that runs on windows can be developed to run on linux and performance would be far better.

What we can start to do now is encourage developers to develop linux version for all their softwares, be it games or others.

Years ago, Microsoft did help the computer science community, but then they took it just too far, got greedy, and ruthless.

20yrs ago getting into IT meant you had some mathematical, engineering, or scientific background. Now Every tom, dick and harry is a IT expert. Due to all of this, there are even more bad software being developed now than they did 10yrs ago - not to mention the fall in IT jobs. Teaching standards in universities have dropped tremendously due to computer science being so commercialised. We now got universities offering courses like Software Engineering, Information Systems, blah blah, when in fact all of these are not needed at all. In the near future we shall see software engineers or computer science graduates who won't know how to write a for-loop. That is where i see this going.

If we all decide to stop using and purchasing microsoft products, that will then be the first step in the right direction.

Microsoft doesn't even care about the impact this is going to have on the scientific research and medical software community. Microsoft is so consumed by killing a Great API(Opengl) that they would go to any length no matter what it takes.

Whether you call yourself a developer, a software engineer, a programmer, or whatever fancciful name we have been indoctrinated to believe we are, WE ARE ALL PROGRAMMERS. SOFTWARE = LOGIC + CODE. Design fall under logic.

We don't need visual studio, we don't need c#, we don't need, visual basic, we don't need the .Net framework. Linux is a mature OS and we should all consider moving over to it.

We should START to stop using Microsoft products and preserve a science we all love and believe in.

Ob1
08-21-2005, 08:37 AM
Now this last post is AMAZING! Apart the idea of swithcing all to Linux, which as someone mentioned before is just pretty unlikely at the moment, you're suggesting to leave apart all the advancements that have been made in the last years to simplify coding so that only a restricted elite actually knows how to do the thing, is that it?

Things such are visual IDEs ( visual studio, but also eclipse an Kdevelop to mention some ) and higer level languages ( .NET, but also Java... ) are meant to make it easy for programmers to do what has already been done a milion times by now, and let a few person handle projects of much bigger size than they used to do before.

This is what most companies ask for at the moment, and what you should be happy of, most of the times!

Apart from this... how does it concern OpenGL on Vista after all?

Byez =8)!
Ob1

fooguru
08-21-2005, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by fluppeteer:
this whole business, unless I've misunderstood, is unlikely to affect most games in the slightest, because most games run full screen with the compositor not doing anything anyway. I doubt IHVs are suddenly going to stop shipping decent ICDs, so games can keep running OGL regardless; the question will only be whether the experience under Avalon is compromised.It will surely affect games, as this forces most developers (who stayed with OpenGL) to unwillingly embrace Direct3D, just to avoid the thought of a performance hit under Vista (regardless of desktop environment). In addition, it opens the door for more vendors shipping an even sloppier and less optimized driver for non-layered OpenGL on the platform. Lastly, any problems with those separate drivers could potentially hurt the user’s experience.

EvilOne
08-21-2005, 11:47 PM
Just my two cents...

This is just a beta of Vista and by no means the final product. Let's see whats in the final. I don't think Microsoft will give away the chance to sell a copy of Vista to users who want to play GL games like DIII, etc. or to annoy users of high end 3D packages. Does someone really think Microsoft is that stupid? Come on...

Next thing is this D3D bashing. It is a nice API. It is easy to use. Most people bashing D3D even don't have coded a line with the D3D8 or D3D9 interfaces. OpenGL has problems on it's own. Imho D3D is currently a better and simpler to use API. GL in it's current state often feels like a big patchwork. A high level language compiler in the driver? Come on friends...

Some weeks ago I ported my engine over to D3D - mostly because it even run (in compatiblity mode, no shaders, no fancy stuff) on intel onboard hardware, but I never get it to work on ATi cards... hngpfh. I must say, I am very happy with the D3D version. Rock solid driver work from all of the IHVs.

Let's switch to insert niche OS here is simply idiotic. It should read: Let's switch to where our customers are. And I don't think they are on linux or the 1% of Apples market share out there.

Cheers, E1.

zeb
08-22-2005, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Korval:

I've yet to see any discussion about potentially using GL with Aero by rendering to an off-screen buffer in GL, fetching the result into main memory then pushing the pixels back to the graphics card.Well, that's because such a thing would be atrociously slow. Plus, since it's still loading and activating the ICD, it will still turn off the desktop compositing. So, it's pretty much lose-lose.To be honest I wasn't suggesting that this approach would not be available without support from Microsoft, I was suggesting it was possible for them to provide some hardware accelerated pixel formats purely for off-screen rendering. I just don't know what the practicalities are of attempting to run OpenGL and DirectX side-by-side.

I do realise it will be slow, but the user is surely accepting the performance degradation as part of the deal for having translucent windows? I'm afraid my job involves giving users work arounds to their OpenGL driver problems, currently I'm saying they'll have to turn off eye candy with the subsequent performance boost. It would be nice to say they can have it if they really want it and it'll give them time to make a cup of coffee...

If worst comes to worst I'll have to re-write everything in Direct3D (currently one customer is asking and being told no) and then I'll spend all my time re-writing the code whenever MS decide to release a new version of D3D.

tosa
08-22-2005, 12:46 AM
You should all together learn more about Microsoft
technologies to be able to understand the move like
this. OpenGL simply doesn't fit into the modern OOP
OS design.
Stop whining, and face it, you may get what you want
but this is actually what is stopping the progress
of software.

actionGL
08-22-2005, 01:16 AM
@Tosa
And you are (according to your last posts here) obviously "expert" in such fields. Go home and play with your xBox or something.

IronRaph
08-22-2005, 01:58 AM
So killing OpenGL support is the progress of software...
You should learn more about other technologies...

And don't forget: 'Layering OpenGL over Direct3D is a policy more than a technical decision.'

@EvileOne

D3D and OGL aren't the same kind of Lib.

D3D includes a small 3D engine...
OpenGL is just a low level lib just layering over the GPU.

D3D simpler than OGL...? NO!

Ask a new programmer to make a 3D cube under OGL and under D3D... ;)

And don't forget that OGL is a C API!

To conclude, we are not comparing OGL and D3D but talking about the Microsoft policy as OGL is concerned...

fluppeteer
08-22-2005, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by fooguru:

Originally posted by fluppeteer:
this whole business, unless I've misunderstood, is unlikely to affect most games in the slightest, because most games run full screen with the compositor not doing anything anyway. I doubt IHVs are suddenly going to stop shipping decent ICDs, so games can keep running OGL regardless; the question will only be whether the experience under Avalon is compromised.It will surely affect games, as this forces most developers (who stayed with OpenGL) to unwillingly embrace Direct3D, just to avoid the thought of a performance hit under Vista (regardless of desktop environment). In addition, it opens the door for more vendors shipping an even sloppier and less optimized driver for non-layered OpenGL on the platform. Lastly, any problems with those separate drivers could potentially hurt the user’s experience.Er. Sorry, my understanding is that there are likely to be two OpenGL implementations available under Vista on any given machine.

1) The Microsoft layered implementation, which is a bit slower than a native one (how much remains to be seen), is based on an old API, and (because it's layered on DX) plays nicely with the desktop compositor. And...

2) The IHV-supplied ICD, which will run just as fast as it always did, as is fully up-to-date, but results in the desktop compositing being switched off (by Microsoft, not by the ICD).

Unless IHVs stop shipping their highly-optimized ICDs (which, given how much effort has gone into beating each other at Viewperf, seems unlikely at least in the short term) I don't see why there's a performance issue unless games deliberately choose the Microsoft implementation - which given that it would rule out a lot of recent OpenGL features too would seem a strange thing for them to do.

It's true that IHVs don't *have* to ship an ICD at all, and there'd still be OpenGL support on the system because of the Microsoft implementation. Even without considering new games, it would still make them look bad in benchmarks scores and features (even for current games) run on Vista, so I can't see the IHVs dropping their OpenGL efforts until they run out of apps to support. If your concern is that IHVs will stop making decent ICDs, IMHO it's premature - although the current Microsoft position would seem to make the ICDs look like second-class software.

If "normal" (desktop) apps want to run without affecting the compositor (decent performance, new features), there's an issue. I don't see why it should affect games at all, assuming the current state of play continues, though.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding.

actionGL
08-22-2005, 02:22 AM
EvilOne: I really don't know what are you talking about. Currently I am finishing my third game, and two previous games have shelf life and are written only in OpenGL. I have deal with hardware store to have access to as many computers/hardware I like, and do the testing. And your ATI complaints are just ridiculous. My engine is pure OpenGL and works on all kinds of graphic cards, even on those low budget integrated Intel chips and all kind of laptop hardware. So I don’t know what are you talking about – most certainly you have done something wrong in code.

And, yes I have used DirectX. Direct3D 8 last time – and was so disappointed that I decided not to use it again unless I really have to. D3D is simply badly organized and gives me pain to code in it. Direct Show – try to play mp3 with example that comes with Microsoft SDK. Well it works in 70% of cases, on some other cards, especially integrated you have sound artifacts – it plays – but with very noticeable errors. So for this game I am switching to OpenAL and OggVobris. DirectSound worked but it made mess in my code.

Any DirectX API has the same ill brained Microsoft version of OOP/interface – and has to be wrapped to user classes to be usable at all. And that interface changes from one version to another. Just try OpenAL and you will see the difference in same approach, it is the same with OpenGL – it’s very easy and logic to integrate them in any OOP project, it doesn’t make you think or read tons of code and MSDN documentation just to see if you pasted everything right from some DirectX example…

And one other thing, I like to make my own decisions. So I would like to have option to choose between OpenGL and Direct3D in future. If Direct3D becomes as good as OpenGL (or better) for me, cross platform and easy to implement I will consider switching to it. Now I don’t have intention, and MS is trying to force us all to adopt something. I wish to port games for other systems too… and with MS DirectX it is impossible. I think that they are trying to keep dominant position and are doing it by force – monopoly, not by quality of their product. And that should be stopped.

If OpenGL is worse than DirectX, programmers will switch to better one. I have nothing against switching to better solution. But DirectX is far from that. So MS, don’t force us to use your crappy technology, just make it better than competition (OpenGL) and we will accept it. The oppression policy is always contra productive – ask yourself why large groups of IT experts dislike you? Why are people constantly searching for flaws in your OS? Why are they wasting time writing viruses especially for your platform? It has to do something with your IT policy and “vision” of computer science.

As said:

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

And give that system/driver info that IHVs require for full OpenGL implementation under Vista. It will cost you nothing, and you might do something good for a change. Let us choose.

fluppeteer
08-22-2005, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by EvilOne:
Just my two cents...

This is just a beta of Vista and by no means the final product. Let's see whats in the final. I don't think Microsoft will give away the chance to sell a copy of Vista to users who want to play GL games like DIII, etc. or to annoy users of high end 3D packages. Does someone really think Microsoft is that stupid? Come on...
This *is* just a beta, but my impression is that it's Microsoft's policy that this will still be an issue when the Vista final appears - otherwise the IHVs wouldn't have mentioned it.

I've said that I don't think this affects games (but could be wrong), and Microsoft may feel that it can pressure high end packages to switch to DX (given that they *can* run, but a DX re-write would look better or run faster, under Vista). The high end apps will follow their users, and if the customers have Vista machines then they're a bit stuck.

I'm not going to get into the evil empire arguments, but I certainly don't think it would be a financial catastrophe for Microsoft to demote OpenGL - and it might do enough damage to Mac OS and Linux (and other Unices) that it's a net gain for them. I don't think this would have been raised if the IHVs really thought it couldn't happen.

It's a beta now. When we have the final version of Vista, it'll be too late to do anything about it (until the next OS upgrade, at least). By all means don't panic, but I can see why action is needed sooner rather than later.

EvilOne
08-22-2005, 04:03 AM
@IronRaph

I haven't seen a small 3D engine in D3D yet. If you mean retain mode, thats gone a decade ago... And OpenGL is (in my opinion) not a thin hardware abstraction layer. To many burden laid on the GL implementation. You can use D3D from C too, no problem. Not a single use of OOP.

@actionGL

Hmmm, although this is my first effort in doing a game, it's surely not the first engine I've written - just not game engines, thats all. Btw, it had something to do with ATi's implemententation of VBOs. I suspected there a bug I could not hammer down... as it takes the whole machine down. Some people on #coders and #szene.get tried to help but failed too. There where two solutions for me: a) Fill in a bug report and wait for new drivers, or b) just do a week of crunch mode and port to D3D. Going for b) was just the better solution for me, as my primary working system was the one with the ATi... hngpfh.

I know what you mean, COM is in some aspects badly designed. But when using D3D you just have to call it, you dont have to implement own objects (THAT sucks really).

No problems with DirectShow here. Maybe crazy driver combination? Worked fine for all, even when mixing DirectShow with a DirectSound based soft synth.

Maybe it is a political decision, but one that I can understand and live with. Otheres surely dislike this decision and will switch to OSX or Linux. No one will stop them from switching to another OS. Will be hard to tell the customers...

M/\dm/\n
08-22-2005, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by EvilOne:
Just my two cents...

This is just a beta of Vista and by no means the final product. Let's see whats in the final. I don't think Microsoft will give away the chance to sell a copy of Vista to users who want to play GL games like DIII, etc. or to annoy users of high end 3D packages. Does someone really think Microsoft is that stupid? Come on...
Browser wars spring in mind. I was like 15 then, I think, everyone used Netscape. Netscape, Netscape gold and so on, it was realy nice compared to MS browser then, but...
There were no strategical decision from MS and no direct assault...
However IE was integrated into windows, Netscape started to work dog slow on windows compared to other platforms (must have been bad coding practices) and... dam wher's Netscape...

If you asked users about browser 2/3 years back 99% would be IE, 1% alternatives. That's how much it takes to kill competition without directly killing it at all.

Imagine OpenGL starting to get slow and DX bein integrated in Vista...

IronRaph
08-22-2005, 05:37 AM
Hum When I said that D3D includes a small 3D engine I mean D3D can load textures, animated mesh with lod, there is a State Wrapper etc etc

As your ATI problem is concerned ok you have found a problem but it isn't an OpenGL issue!

And it's true that ATI OpenGL drivers are not as good as Nividia's drivers...

fooguru
08-22-2005, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by fluppeteer:
I don't see why it should affect games at all, assuming the current state of play continues, though.I disagree, atleast regarding game development. With the current situation being that Vista will most likely have degraded support for OpenGL, there will be more worries introduced for a game developer. Even if performance where to be untouched by this events (by using the non-layered driver) the simple possibility of that being untrue will impact developers when considering API. Furthermore, the future for OpenGL on the windows platform appears to have become even worse.

fluppeteer
08-22-2005, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by fooguru:

Originally posted by fluppeteer:
I don't see why it should affect games at all, assuming the current state of play continues, though.I disagree, atleast regarding game development. With the current situation being that Vista will most likely have degraded support for OpenGL, there will be more worries introduced for a game developer. Even if performance where to be untouched by this events (by using the non-layered driver) the simple possibility of that being untrue will impact developers when considering API. Furthermore, the future for OpenGL on the windows platform appears to have become even worse.That's true - I was talking technically, not commercially, which may have been naive of me. The fact that there *ought* to be no change in performance - and that there are reasons for the IHVs to maintain a decent ICD for at least the near future - may not be enough for developers to plan several years in advance. (Similarly, that the PS3 *ought* to be a larger market than the XBox 360...)

I guess the game developers (of whom I'm not one) may also be a bit put off by their development apps not behaving perfectly regarding OpenGL and the compositor.

But still, the broken compositor shouldn't directly affect (full screen) games, other than by signalling Microsoft's intent. Microsoft's intent will be what is it regardless of whether the IHVs are permitted to fully integrate their ICDs into the compositor...

Korval
08-22-2005, 10:16 AM
Layering OpenGL over Direct3D is a policy more than a technical decision.You say that as though it were a fact.

This wasn't written by a Microsoft insider. Nor was it written by a member of the ARB or an IHV driver developer. Or even a high-profile ISV (like Carmack, etc). It was written by the guy who started this thread: a nobody. Noone different from you or me. And his opinion has no greater weight than yours or mine.

So, please do not quote this guy as though he were spouting fact, not opinions. Or even weighted opinions.


D3D includes a small 3D engine...
OpenGL is just a low level lib just layering over the GPU.The fact that you said this at all shows your ignorance of modern D3D. Go read the (extensive) documentation on modern D3D and you will find nothing even vaguely engine-like in it.


D3D simpler than OGL...? NO!Good. Both of you stated your opinions. The fact is that D3D and OpenGL are comparable in terms of their "simplicity" (whatever that means) is what matters. One is not so much better than the other that it can be objectively determined.


Ask a new programmer to make a 3D cube under OGL and under D3D... The ability of an API to make it easy for someone to write cube-drawing applications is not something I would consider to be an asset. Since nobody writes cube drawing applications, what really matters is how easy an API makes it to do common tasks: drawing meshes, setting up shaders, etc.


And don't forget that OGL is a C API!...and?

Modern programmers don't often write in C; indeed, graduating programmers don't even know straight C. They write in C++, Java, C#, or even Visual Basic. While C++ can certainly access C, none of these others can. And that is far more of a liability in this day and age than an asset.


When I said that D3D includes a small 3D engine I mean D3D can load textures, animated mesh with lod, there is a State Wrapper etc etcThat would be D3DX. Which is an external library that links into your application if you wish to use it. You aren't forced to use it.

It's like someone shipping a comparible library that provides similar functionality for OpenGL. Except that it is always available to developers; no seperate download, and there's no question of "quality" (that is, you don't have to trust some no-name; you're trusting Microsoft. Though, which is better in this case...). It is useful to have, particularly for indie developers, but it is hardly forced upon anyone (as pro game developers have their own resource loading and management systems).

M/\dm/\n
08-22-2005, 11:42 AM
Korval, I respect your opinions and your posts are very insightful, but from tone you are trying to keep it looks like you are protecting MS decision and that I cannot support.

Reason: OpenGL is going to be turned into 2nd class API

No matter what we say or flame here, OpenGL will be limited if current MS plans are not stopped.

Wether it will be limited for windowed apps only, or just with few Vista desktop setting on, you will not be able to just write code and expect it to run 100%.

Of course you might never face a Vista limitation in YOUR work, but a lot of people will.

Take any windowed GL2.0 app for example - scientific, demo, modeler, general purpose computation app on GPU or whatever - they will not just run, they will require some background work / configuration / ICD loading / effect disabling or whatever.

With GL 1.4 apps situation will not be any better, because if so far we used GL to talk 'directly' with HW, then now we will lose some performance and will have another chain ring that might break because of a simple (MS) bug. It might be 1% and bug in one application of 10000000000000000000000000, but it's still a step backwards in GL development.

zero0w
08-22-2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by M/\dm/\n:

Browser wars spring in mind. I was like 15 then, I think, everyone used Netscape. Netscape, Netscape gold and so on, it was realy nice compared to MS browser then, but...

There were no strategical decision from MS and no direct assault...
However IE was integrated into windows, Netscape started to work dog slow on windows compared to other platforms (must have been bad coding practices) and... dam wher's Netscape...

If you asked users about browser 2/3 years back 99% would be IE, 1% alternatives. That's how much it takes to kill competition without directly killing it at all.

Imagine OpenGL starting to get slow and DX bein integrated in Vista...[/QB]Interesting observation. There is a lot of 'modern programmers/real programmers' don't use "X programming language"/"Y 3D API" argument, which is non-sense because it is just purely personal opinion, totally disregarding the work done by other people who have accomplished with their favorite choice of languages and APIs. And this is very unprofessional either.

Yes, it's interesting. Bundling IE + Netscape going downhill really decided the outcome of the browser war. But OpenGL doesn't face the same consequence as Netscape even DirectX is bundled with Windows 98/2000 and later. I guess it's IHV that supports OpenGL, plus a lot of Quake3-derived games that made the API going ahead in the mainstream. Bundling DirectX didn't kill OpenGL in this sense.

Still I now trust the issue would be hacked around either by the IHV, or maybe by some brilliant hackers out there. It will be very unfortunate if many cross-platform libraries like 'cairo' vector acceleration (which has OpenGL backend) causing visual degrade on Windows Vista when used by Firefox to render SVG in the upcoming 1.5 & later releases. But the scenario may also turn out that the OpenGL diehards would have to switch platform sometime, because as someone suggested before, the IHV wouldn't raise such concern if MS has promised to work this out. 'Open request' is the choice of their word as I remember.

Petrus
08-22-2005, 12:08 PM
This is really annoying. Personally, I hate directX and generally Windows API. I develop using java and lwjgl, which uses openGL. At this time, I use this under Windows and Linux. If this topic tells the truth, I'll only develop under Linux, whis is not a problem but if my app is 50% slower on windows vista, I'll stay on Windows 2000 ( I don't like XP either ), and encourage everybody to do so. Sorry for my "buggy" english, I'm only a french guy.

Korval
08-22-2005, 12:33 PM
Take any windowed GL2.0 app for example - scientific, demo, modeler, general purpose computation app on GPU or whatever - they will not just run, they will require some background work / configuration / ICD loading / effect disabling or whatever.See, this is why I don't like this thread. It's filled with misinformation like this by people who have blown this issue out of proportion.

You're saying that GL 2.0 apps won't work without downloading an IHV-supplied driver, right? Well, this is as it has ALWAYS been. If you don't have an IHV driver installed on your XP machine, you get the Microsoft generic implementation of OpenGL, which is software and stuck at 1.1, with no extensions. For Vista, if you don't have an IHV driver installed, you get the Microsoft generic implementation of OpenGL, which is a D3D wrapper and is stuck at 1.4, with no extensions. There has been no information even suggesting that the ICD mechanism is changing.

The only problem (unless you consider the fact that the generic implementation will be a D3D wrapper rather than software to be a problem) is that the use of an ICD will turn off desktop compositing. That is the issue, that is the problem. IHV's know this and understand this.

All they want is developer community support to pressure Microsoft to release information that will allow them to make ICDs work with desktop compositing.

So, worst-case, Microsoft refuses to supply this information, and ICDs will either turn off desktop compositing when active, or (and I consider this more likely, since the IHVs have dedicated themselves to dealing with this problem) IHVs will study Windows Vista as it nears release and figure out the information that Microsoft has not released, and simply make their ICDs work with desktop compositing via reverse engineering.


Interesting observation. There is a lot of 'modern programmers/real programmers' don't use "X programming language"/"Y 3D API" argument, which is non-sense because it is just purely personal opinion, totally disregarding the work done by other people who have accomplished with their favorite choice of languages and APIs. And this is very unprofessional either.It's "opinion"? The fact that C is rarely taught in colleges these days is "opinion"? The fact that the first language most college compsci students take is Java is "opinion"? Maybe you need to check the curricula of some colleges. Or perhaps you should check the help-wanted ads and see how many of them are looking for people with C experience.

Besides this is the fact that whether D3D is better than OpenGL or not is not the issue. The issue is what I outlined above.

Aeluned
08-22-2005, 12:38 PM
I've read a lot of people posting things like: "Well, I'm happy with XP or 2000 and won't make the move to Vista".

Unfortunately, security is a large issue for most people. As microsoft security patches and overall focus on their former OSs ebb, the older OSs will deteriorate; XP will not be what it is today (Shame too, because I really like XP).

The bottom line is that all Windows users at some point will give in and upgrade their OS. Vista marks the birth of their new OS platform - based on the D3D API to render their interface - I don't think it's going to go away.

Clinging onto old technology isn't the way to fix the problem...


EDIT: nvm

M/\dm/\n
08-22-2005, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Korval:
[QUOTE]You're saying that GL 2.0 apps won't work without downloading an IHV-supplied driver, right?Not really, more that you'll have to dance around Aero/ICD/wrapper to make em run. And I think I hear from one of the betta testers that downloading ICD disables Aero completely

Korval
08-22-2005, 03:00 PM
Not really, more that you'll have to dance around Aero/ICD/wrapper to make em run.Do you have to do any of that currently? No? Then you still won't. The mechanism that makes ICDs work doesn't change; only the effect of running them.


And I think I hear from one of the betta testers that downloading ICD disables Aero completelyNo, they said downloading drivers disables Aero. Remember, ICD's are part of graphics drivers. If you install any driver (like 90% of games tell you to do in their Readme files), you will get the ICD. You can't not get it. The deactivation of Aero when installing graphics drivers has nothing to do with OpenGL. Either it's a fact of Vista being beta or they're installing old (XP) graphics drivers that put Vista into XP compatibility mode.

This will not affect the final release of Vista.

selwakad
08-22-2005, 04:14 PM
Hi,

I tried to email Nvidia but i could not find a link to their e-mail.
I am not an ATI customer so I will not e-mail them.
If OpenGL is no longer supported on windows, will it still be supported on linux?
I have a dual boot machine, and my linux is much much faster then my windows xp. so i hope that i will still be able to use the latest and greatest of opengl on my linux box.
The hardware makers are extremely silent on this matter while and MS is playing deaf ... this just creates more uncertainty ... i wonder why they are so silent ... surely they are aware of the problem and the community's concerns. A simple post from them outlining their future plans, at least for other OS's would go a long way in removing the uncertainty.
I hope that they are reading this post.
Thanks.

V-man
08-22-2005, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Korval:

Not really, more that you'll have to dance around Aero/ICD/wrapper to make em run.Do you have to do any of that currently? No? Then you still won't. The mechanism that makes ICDs work doesn't change; only the effect of running them.


And I think I hear from one of the betta testers that downloading ICD disables Aero completelyNo, they said downloading drivers disables Aero. Remember, ICD's are part of graphics drivers. If you install any driver (like 90% of games tell you to do in their Readme files), you will get the ICD. You can't not get it. The deactivation of Aero when installing graphics drivers has nothing to do with OpenGL. Either it's a fact of Vista being beta or they're installing old (XP) graphics drivers that put Vista into XP compatibility mode.

This will not affect the final release of Vista.I think you can install drivers and Aero will function as it does. It's only when a GL app is running (through ICD) that Aero (or is it DWM?) turns off.

I'm assuming closing the GL app brings Aero back online.

actionGL
08-22-2005, 09:10 PM
Korval:
All they want is developer community support to pressure Microsoft to release information that will allow them to make ICDs work with desktop compositing.
This is exactly the point. So after all it is Microsoft policy rather than some real reason/problem.

Only thing that Microsoft has to do is to release info to IHVs. I don't know why are they silent, or why this hasn't been done. But this whole OpenGL thing looks like they are trying to scare people and see the reaction. If pressure is hard, then they will release it - if not they will simply ignore the problem (it suites their monopolistic policy).

Draw your own conclusions about MS from this info. And let your opinion to be heard (write emails, contact people).

zero0w
08-22-2005, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Korval:
It's "opinion"? The fact that C is rarely taught in colleges these days is "opinion"? The fact that the first language most college compsci students take is Java is "opinion"? Maybe you need to check the curricula of some colleges. Or perhaps you should check the help-wanted ads and see how many of them are looking for people with C experience.

Besides this is the fact that whether D3D is better than OpenGL or not is not the issue. The issue is what I outlined above.See, this is why I call it unprofessional, because professionals respect others' choice and keep things technical where technical stuff is concerned.

So they teach whatever language is possible in the college setting, but what keeps people from using a particular language/API in the real world, technically? The cairo cross-platform vector acceleration backend (will be used by Firefox 1.5) and many open source stuff completely uses C and they achieve a lot of what they want. If you want to debate what and why people use certain language, please start your new thread.

noselasd
08-23-2005, 01:06 AM
http://msdn.microsoft.com/ has several "Contact Us", and feedback possibilities.

I sent them
"Hello,
I just wanted to state my opinion on Windows Vista layering OpenGL on top of
DirectX in Microsofts future operatingSystems.
As an indepentant software developer, I fear this move, it sems like OpenGL
will become a second class citizen in future Windows.

Please keep up with OpenGL standards, and fully support it as a first class member of Windows.
"

IronRaph
08-23-2005, 03:11 AM
Don't forget to post the answer too ;) thanks

Petrus
08-23-2005, 04:18 PM
Just an idea, tell me if I'm wrong, but, don't you think there may be a way to install openGL under vista as a library that has direct access to hardware, without layering on top of DirectX?
Like it does nowadays?
Won't there be some sort of driver-style direct access to hardware? perhaps it could be some trick, with a patch ? I know, it is not the way most people will use it, but don't you think it might be done?
I'm not an expert in such things, so forgive me if I'm wrong.

Petrus
08-23-2005, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Aeluned:
I've read a lot of people posting things like: "Well, I'm happy with XP or 2000 and won't make the move to Vista".

Unfortunately, security is a large issue for most people. As microsoft security patches and overall focus on their former OSs ebb, the older OSs will deteriorate; XP will not be what it is today (Shame too, because I really like XP).

The bottom line is that all Windows users at some point will give in and upgrade their OS. Vista marks the birth of their new OS platform - based on the D3D API to render their interface - I don't think it's going to go away.

Clinging onto old technology isn't the way to fix the problem...


EDIT: nvmSorry, but I have worked a lot in hotline, and I've seen a lot of people having Window 95!!! Nowadays, people having XP are about 25 to 30%. Most of them still run Windows 2000, mostly because of XP SP2 problems. They wait for it to have reached the same security level as 2000. Win2000 is still supported by Micro$oft, and with a real firewall ( ulike the one of XP SP2 ) it is much safer than XP SP2.

glfreak
08-23-2005, 04:47 PM
Now we are getting off topic!

Why do we all OpenGL lovers care about OpenGL status under MS platforms?

OpenGL is something highly appreciated by many top-noptch manufacturers and hardware vendors. It's something to be run efficient under mature and professional platforms, not business/office suits and ties "Windows."

I care for OpenGL performance and support by HW vendors under Linux, probably Apple/Mac OS X, Solaris, SGI, and derivatives of nix.

My advice to all hardware manufacturers, before implementing drivers for OGL or even D3D, release your own API (3Dfx had Glide), work on a solid base, don't waste time and money on cripple mal-created API, like D3D, which itself is wrapped by the ugly unportable, inefficient business-oriented novice-user targetted model called "COM."

marc2718
08-23-2005, 05:19 PM
This situation with Microsoft and OpenGL is not
so surprising, seems MS has always been uncorfortable with OpenGL, as they are with any open crossplatform standard.

I don't have anything against MS, but it's getting old, this cheap attempt to bully developers into D3d will ultimately fail. I have a choice and next time I buy a computer it probably will be an Apple.

It's really too bad, OpenGL is widely used in the academic and scientific sectors, I use OpenGL because it's a very solid API and I can produce some amazing graphics with it, not because I have anything against D3D.

As a programmer to me OpenGL is another tool I can use.
Software design is a creative process at heart, the role of technology should be to liberate this creativity as much as possible.

If MS ships a crippled OpenGL in Vista, it is taking a technological step backward in this regard only due to its fear and distrust of an open cross platform standard.

One way to combat this is just to not allow it. If MS cripples OpenGL on Vista this way, they should not be allowed to ship an OpenGL implementation at all. OpenGL won't die,
it will continue to develop on Linux and Apple and high end graphics stations.

Allowing MS to ship a crippled OpenGL, now that will do damage to OpenGL. Because Windows is in such widespread use OpenGL will then gain a bad reputation as a slow second rate problematic graphics API, which we all know it is not.

glfreak
08-23-2005, 05:53 PM
Yeh I agree with that.

But you knwo there are many D3D adicts out there, particularly game devlopers, who just want to please MS. And another crippled piece of crap called XBox is out there. It's by no means a console, and should not be called so. I don't mean any disrespect, but in the gaming console realm, it cannot fit there. It's more like a comprtessed PC, with multi processors.

Korval
08-23-2005, 10:51 PM
This is exactly the point. So after all it is Microsoft policy rather than some real reason/problem.Is it?

Vista isn't finished. The info in question could change at any minute due to bug fixing, or just from feature polishing. The last thing Microsoft needs to do is give IHV's info in good faith that, on the release of Vista, turns out to make ICDs cause significant system instability. That'd really help perception of GL...

Now, this doesn't preclude the possibility of Microsoft just sitting on this info out of neglect or the wish to damage OpenGL support on Vista. However, it is a viable possibility, and we only have speculation (and typically biased at that) as to which is the case.


I just wanted to state my opinion on Windows Vista layering OpenGL on top of
DirectX in Microsofts future operatingSystems.
Just an idea, tell me if I'm wrong, but, don't you think there may be a way to install openGL under vista as a library that has direct access to hardware, without layering on top of DirectX?
Like it does nowadays?Christ, do none of you know how to READ?. Maybe if it's all in bold, somebody might read it someday...

Once again, the layering of the generic implementation of GL on D3D is NOT the problem! It's the fact that the use of ICDs deactivate the desktop compositing features of Aero that is the problem.

The ICD mechanism is still there. It isn't going away.


OpenGL is something highly appreciated by many top-noptch manufacturers and hardware vendors. It's something to be run efficient under mature and professional platforms, not business/office suits and ties "Windows." Just because you prefer non-Windows platforms and consider them to be more "mature and professional" does not mean that others share your opinion.


like D3D, which itself is wrapped by the ugly unportable, inefficient business-oriented novice-user targetted model called "COM."These random attacks on various technologies that you don't like aren't actually helping you make a rational case here. Your personal opinion of COM, C#, .NET or Java are not relevant to the discussion, nor is your personal distaste and/or distrust of Microsoft. All it does is show your obvious bias towards Microsoft, and thus actually damages your standing in this debate.

glfreak
08-23-2005, 11:29 PM
Then how u interpret that Pixar and DreaWorkds studio switched to linux? And probably many other graphics innovators?

How many times Windows crashes? And when it crashes it does it very well.

Is it a stable OS? No way.

C#? Did any one mention it here? I don't think so but now I will, C# is the crapiest thing ever happened. It's unfair to consider it a language.

.NET Wow! What's that?

COM is cooooool but not for real time arena.

OpenGL is the thing MS cannot avoid no matter what they do. And actually who cares about OGL under Windows?

DOOM 3 is first developped under Mac and then proted to Doors, ah sorry, Windows.

Quake 3 Arena under Linux runs like hell, god damn, cannot beleive the speed, and there's no DirectThing in linux, only the basic os interface.

glfreak
08-23-2005, 11:32 PM
Linux vs. Windows

Linux rules in networking caps
Linux rules in OpenGL
Linux rules in the windowing system
Linux rules in GUI toolkits
Linux rules in ALSA/OpenAL
Linux rules in Driver implentation
Linux rules in documnetation and community support
Att least all are professionals and experienced users, versu the Windows users whihc are mostly nopvice and agerage/casual business/desktop users

actionGL
08-23-2005, 11:34 PM
@Korval



This is exactly the point. So after all it is Microsoft policy rather than some real reason/problem. Is it?

Vista isn't finished. The info in question could change at any minute due to bug fixing, or just from feature polishing. The last thing Microsoft needs to do is give IHV's info in good faith that, on the release of Vista, turns out to make ICDs cause significant system instability. That'd really help perception of GL...

Now, this doesn't preclude the possibility of Microsoft just sitting on this info out of neglect or the wish to damage OpenGL support on Vista. However, it is a viable possibility, and we only have speculation (and typically biased at that) as to which is the case.
I failed to find Microsoft "official" statement or any other as matter of fact. OpenGL.org would not take this approach if MS plans to release this info before final Vista. So it is policy to harm OpenGL in either case:
1) by scaring of developers, and if pressure from developers is too high, they will provide info after all
2) if pressure is not to high - they will never give required info, and final Vista ends up with ICD that compromises Aero desktop

After displaying "Call to action" in headline news of opengl.org, every major IT site posted it. A lot of negative MS opinions, questions etc. were posted, and yet MS fails to give any further info.

If MS doesn't have the info at the moment it could send message such as:
"Microsoft is working hard to provide best windows experience.... blah, blah.... using next generation... blah, blah... that will improve graphic quality and user experience of Windows system more than 1000 times... blah, blah... and wishes to clarify that MS is working hard with IHVs ... blah, blah... and that OpenGL ICD support will be integrated seamlessly in future versions..."
But hey, that wasn't the case.

So in both cases, damage to OpenGL has been made (rumors). And if they are not pressured enough they will ignore OpenGL and IHV requests. So it is POLICY, simple as that.

MButchers
08-24-2005, 03:00 AM
C#? Did any one mention it here? I don't think so but now I will, C# is the crapiest thing ever happened. It's unfair to consider it a language.

.NET Wow! What's that?
Having seen this not very usefull dialog I thought I'd put in my thoughts on this topic

1) As many people have stated the issues are currently within a BETA version of the OS,
and to raise public hysteria at this point is irrisponsible and un-productive.

2) In answer to the above quote. .NET provides a much more stable, secure framework for
developing applications and is the native API for VISTA if my memory serves me well. The
Win32 API's will be emulated via this on VISTA, this is the opposite of the current
.NET framework where .NET is emulated via calls to the Win32 API's.

3) As a sidenote to the above, where is the Official support for OpenGL within the .NET framework?
The answer to this is NONE. There are some very good 3rd party Assemblies for OpenGL support in
.NET ( Tao etc ) but nothing that seems to be sponsored officially, or from the major vendors!

As for the comment that C# is rubbish, have you ever used it for anything major?
is your opinion of this based on the lack of OpenGL support for the .NET framework?

Also the view that this is not a technical issue in my opinion is flawed, Microsoft may be
calling a halt at 1.4 as 1.5 has GLSL in it, this is probably not to force the death of GLSL but
simply as implimenting this via DX/HLSL would be un-feasable

Just My Opinion

Mark

actionGL
08-24-2005, 06:06 AM
Again, if IHVs (NVidia, ATI, 3D Labs...) say that they will provide seamless OpenGL implementation BUT need more info from Microsoft, I trust them... so there is no technical issue. And what is better C# or something else is off topic here.

Korval
08-24-2005, 11:09 AM
Att least all are professionals and experienced users, versu the Windows users whihc are mostly nopvice and agerage/casual business/desktop usersUm, your blind hatred of all things Windows aside, your unwillingness to at least try to spell isn't helping your argument here. Lastly, this is all OT anyway, as this is not a Windows vs. Linux debate.


I failed to find Microsoft "official" statement or any other as matter of fact.So? Just because they haven't responded to this doesn't mean that you can simply infer that they are willfully trying to hurt OpenGL on Windows. It is certainly a possible explaination; however, fairness demands that other, equally viable explainations also be entertained when there is limitted information.

A lack of evidence towards a positive conclusion is not evidence towards a negative conclusion.


If MS doesn't have the info at the moment it could send message such as:You cannot factually infer from their lack of statement on the matter that they are maliciously attacking OpenGL. You can only posit suppositions. And one supposition is no better than another.

You choose to believe that Microsoft is attacking OpenGL. That's your choice. But your choice doesn't make it a fact. The facts do not persuasively lead to your conclusion, as there are other explainations that also fit the facts. As I have stated.


Also the view that this is not a technical issue in my opinion is flawed, Microsoft may be
calling a halt at 1.4 as 1.5 has GLSL in itThere are two inaccuracies in that statement.

One, Microsoft is not "calling a halt" at 1.4. That is simply the version that they are using for their new generic implementation. Their old one stopped at 1.1. So they are simply picking a version, not "calling a halt".

Two, glslang is in GL 2.0 core, not 1.5.

However, there are definately some significant technical reasons why the generic implementation stops at 1.4. I'm sure Microsoft has no intension of hiring on a dedicated support staff to keep upgrading their D3D wrapper to new GL versions. So picking a reasonable version to stop at for their generic implementation is hardly unreasonable.

al_bob
08-24-2005, 02:35 PM
I'm sure Microsoft has no intension of hiring on a dedicated support staff to keep upgrading their D3D wrapper to new GL versions. So picking a reasonable version to stop at for their generic implementation is hardly unreasonable.Perhaps, but then why not pick up GL 1.5? GL 1.5 only adds VBOs, occlusion querries and generalized shadow compare functions to the core.

Without either VBOs or IHV extensions for vertex arrays, how does one write a reasonably performing application using the updated generic (yet accelerated) implementation?

Sure, it's better than GL 1.1 (I don't dispute it), but why stop at GL 1.4? It's not as if D3D9 / 10 was missing any of the functionality in GL 1.5.

Korval
08-24-2005, 02:39 PM
Without either VBOs or IHV extensions for vertex arrays, how does one write a reasonably performing application using the updated generic (yet accelerated) implementation?A fair point, but how did one write a reasonably performing application using the software generic implementation? They didn't; indeed, performance-critical applications avoided the generic implementation like the plague.

I agree that 1.5 would have been a better stopping point from a general use perspective. Though it is more the lack of VBO's than anything else in 1.5.

al_bob
08-24-2005, 02:56 PM
A fair point, but how did one write a reasonably performing application using the software generic implementation? Like I mentioned, I don't disagree that accelerated 1.4 is much better than software 1.1.

I'm much more worried about the new UI being turned off when the IHV's ICD is loaded, though. This is likely what will deter users and developers, more than anything.

Now if the generic implementation covered most of the functionality exposed by IHVs today (or even from a year or two ago), this would be less of an issue for users. If someone really wanted desktop compositing and OpenGL, they could use MS's (hypothetical) reasonable implementation.

As things stand (assuming nothing changes from Beta to Retail), it's a lose-lose situation. Either you get the shiny new GUI but can't run OpenGL apps very fast / with half-decent features, or you get all the speed and features, but no shiny new GUI.

Has anyone with the beta determined if Aeroglass is turned off once the ICD is installed, or only when the ICD is loaded?

glfreak
08-24-2005, 04:42 PM
I have nothing against MS Win98/WinNT/WinXP as they are professional platforms serve their purposes, desktop/business/gaming, and so.

However when MS offers an implementation of OpenGL 1.4 wrapping their platform native API is something totally up to them, the creators, and trying to stopping them is nonsense.

Where is the problem then? It's that HW manufactureres and driver providers are now released from developing OpenGL impl for Windows, they only have to work on Direct3D drivers, and the OGL thing is there provided by MS on top of D3D. Cool? Maybe but they might stop supporting other platforms or it could be advantegous that they will concetrate on implenting OpenGL under a fewer platforms, linux and *nix. By maintaing one unified OGL driver architect under one platform genre it could help improve OGL efficiency and performance and for defianite it will outperform MS graphics. The result may be that graphics industry will start turn to Linux and probably gaming.

MS guys, what could be done under Windows/.NET that could not be achieved under Linux?

actionGL
08-24-2005, 08:43 PM
@Korval

I agree with your point - but this is real world... it wouldn't be the first time that MS does something like that to OpenGL. Read:
http://www.gaminggroove.com/blog.php?id=11

Having this in mind, from people that actually watched this with their own eyes, I am drawing my conclusions. I wish that I am 100% wrong (I also wish peace in the world, no hunger, no killings - but what are the chances for that)

This is one part of the original text, also please read the whole article, since it is very well written and logic (except for the percentage part on the end, but that is my opinion):



I was a bit taken back by this news initially myself (mostly influence by the commentary rather than the facts) and needed some time to digest all this information and think through all the implications for the future of OpenGL on Windows.

Yes, it is true Microsoft tried to kill OpenGL in the past - I was there. I worked for a board vendor, I was an ARB attendee, and even contributed to one of the versions of the spec. I was there when Microsoft told us all (all the graphics card vendors) to use their MCD driver tool kit to make OpenGL drivers for Windows 98 instead of making our own ICD's. I was there when Microsoft was ticked off that too many OpenGL games were being demoed at GDC. I was there when Otto Burkes was told he could not speak at the GDC about OpenGL for games or he would loose his job (he sat next to me when Brian Hook announced that he could not make it). I was there when Microsoft told all the hardware vendors that they would not extend the MCD license past the beta period, thus preventing us from shipping our drivers (it still give me chills every time Microsoft "gives" you code to make development easier). I was there when we could not get D3D support or code for our drivers until I signed an NDA agreeing not to disclose Microsoft's plans for OpenGL (this has since expired and is now irrelevant - but basically "Developers Want OpenGL... but sometimes we have to do what we think is best for the industry (read: US)). Yeah... that's right - if Real 3D didn't shut Richard Wright up about OpenGL for games, we weren't going to ship D3D drivers either... yes boys and girls, that's what Monopolies do. I could go on and on... but I digress.

Like the Russians in the cold war erra... one thing we can still count on is that Microsoft will do what is in their own best interests. All this FUD I think is more an attempt to see what they can get away with, than any indication that OpenGL is "doomed". And I'm not sure just a little post-tramatic shock kicking up from those of us who survived the "API Wars". So, from the perspective of someone who has eat, breathed, and drank OpenGL for over 10 years, taught OpenGL for over 5 years, spoke at GDC on OpenGL, written countless commercial OpenGL programs (even a couple games), and a book on OpenGL.... here's what I think about all this.

glfreak
08-24-2005, 09:11 PM
Maya uses OGL
Lightwave uses OGL
Softimage uses OGL
3DS Max crashes when set to use D3D
DOOM 3
Quake 1 2 3
MDK2
Sin
HL
and many others

All are the fastest smoothest graphics apps

And who dares to degrade or kill OGL. No way. So don't worry at all. OGL has its own self-defence system, the need for grahhics.

noselasd
08-24-2005, 11:36 PM
I sent them
"Hello,
I just wanted to state my opinion on Windows Vista layering OpenGL on top of
DirectX in Microsofts future operatingSystems.
As an indepentant software developer, I fear this move, it sems like OpenGL
will become a second class citizen in future Windows.

Please keep up with OpenGL standards, and fully support it as a first class member of Windows.
"

And I got a reply :-)

"Hello Nils,

Thank you for your feedback on the Windows Vista .Your thoughts have been shared with the Windows Vista product team.

We hope you have had a chance to visit the Windows Vista Web site, http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.mspx

This site will be updated regularly with announcements, news, and information, including information about opportunities to beta test and evaluate Windows

We appreciate your interest in Windows Vista, and thank you again for your comments

Thank you,

Jason
Microsoft Online Customer Service Representative"

fluppeteer
08-25-2005, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by glfreak:
Where is the problem then? It's that HW manufactureres and driver providers are now released from developing OpenGL impl for Windows, they only have to work on Direct3D drivers, and the OGL thing is there provided by MS on top of D3D. Cool? Maybe but they might stop supporting other platforms or it could be advantegous that they will concetrate on implenting OpenGL under a fewer platforms, linux and *nix. By maintaing one unified OGL driver architect under one platform genre it could help improve OGL efficiency and performance and for definite it will outperform MS graphics. The result may be that graphics industry will start turn to Linux and probably gaming.Some smaller card vendors could perhaps stop providing an ICD (if they currently provide one). I can't see nVidia, ATi or 3Dlabs not providing one, though - there's a lot of investment in OGL2, and nobody's going to want the press which comes from their ICD suddenly being less good than anyone else's.

Microsoft may say "you don't have to write an ICD now", but since the major vendors already *have* a highly tuned ICD - which, in part, differentiates them from their competitors - I'm not convinced that the IHVs will want to give up this component of their IP.

That's not even considering the Linux/Mac situation (for which they *will* have to write one anyway, or give up on that fraction of the market).

Microsoft's implementation is, no doubt, a handy fallback. It may also have been the answer to the question of how to have a compositing desktop without "breaking OpenGL" - if they'd made running OpenGL completely impossible (or provided no way to integrate *any* OGL apps with the compositor) they may have had much more bad press. The confusion even in this thread suggests that they've at least reduced the problem to one the public can't understand enough to complain about coherently; that may be the biggest cost to OpenGL in general of this piece of software. The fact that this solution isn't "perfect" may or may not be something Microsoft loses any sleep over.

Other than confusion it's causing, I don't feel the Microsoft implementation is significant for this discussion. The problem is with what the IHV's ICDs can't do, not with what the Microsoft one can't. If the IHV's implementations are fully featured, the Microsoft implementation becomes irrelevant.

RobertLockwood
08-25-2005, 05:07 AM
Since this is all about CG, how about the big $$$ apps like Maya(100% OpenGL), 3DMax, Softimage, etc.

Will they abandon Window$ via Vista?

Korval
08-25-2005, 10:21 AM
I'm much more worried about the new UI being turned off when the IHV's ICD is loaded, though. This is likely what will deter users and developers, more than anything.Well, it isn't the totality of the new UI that's turned off; it's just the desktop compositing feature of Aero that is affected. The rest all still works.

3D Labs has gone on record saying that they can make their ICDs work with desktop compositing if Microsoft gives them certain information. So the solution is for Microsoft to divulge said information. Or for IHVs to figure it out for themselves by trying various things under Vista (making the front buffer a D3D texture that is then displayed with a D3D framebuffer, etc).


3DS Max crashes when set to use D3DOT: As someone who has worked with Max for quite some time (tool-side), I have to say that Max crashes when you look at it. I've seen it crash for just being unused. GL, D3D, software renderer, it doesn't matter. It's an unstable POS of a product, and its renderer has nothing to do with it.


All are the fastest smoothest graphics appsOT: And? You've stated something, but failed to actually draw a conclusion from it. Are you suggesting that D3D apps are inhierently slower than GL apps by using these specific examples? I could list examples of good, performant 3D games that run under D3D too, but that isn't necessary, because your argument itself is invalid. Just because one API has some nice applications for it doesn't mean that the other API is inferior.

And the above was OT because D3D vs OpenGL isn't the point of this thread. Neither is Microsoft vs OpenGL or anything else you want to frame this discussion as.


Some smaller card vendors could perhaps stop providing an ICD (if they currently provide one). I can't see nVidia, ATi or 3Dlabs not providing one, though - there's a lot of investment in OGL2, and nobody's going to want the press which comes from their ICD suddenly being less good than anyone else's.
They've already gone on record as saying that they're committed to supporting OpenGL on Vista.

Of any of the significant GL implementors, I would suspect that Intel (and other integrated graphics solutions) to be the ones to stop making ICDs. I don't know how many of them support non-Windows OS's (they don't have to worry about MacOS), so I don't think Linux support factors into any of their decision making.

*-*

As for the (OT) question of whether this was a "policy" decision or whether it was a "technical" one, consider the following (and I know that this will not convince anyone of anything, as people on the "policy" side cannot be convinced that Microsoft makes any kind of reasonable decision):

Microsoft wants to have their GUI be all snazzy and stuff like MacOS's GUI. They're doing what they should be: competing in an open marketplace for consumers. They see that their compeditor has added some interesting features to their OS that have tested well in the marketplace, and they wish to do something similar. All well and good.

The foundation of this new GUI is 3D hardware accelerated rendering of all primitives. This is what is required to make this all work. Apple did it by requiring all Mac graphics hardware to implement OpenGL. However, they don't require IHV's to implement OpenGL directly; they implement a portion of GL and the IHV's implement a subset and an internal API that Apple defines (though IHV's can still expose extensions).

This mechanism works well because the less IHV written code, the better. It's better for MacOS, as it insulates the graphics subsystem from IHV mistakes. Plus, it makes it easier for Apple to fully test new graphics drivers, as the API isn't as complicated and overwraught as OpenGL's is. It's better for IHVs because their MacOS GL implementations are written much faster and updating them is easier. And they can still expose extensions. And it's better for the consumer, as they have a more stable, and prettier, OS, one who's stability isn't defined so much by its graphics drivers.

Incidentally, D3D works almost exactly the same way as AppleGL. IHV's implement a driver that implements a hidden API, and Microsoft writes the part that converts this hidden API into the user API.

So, now Microsoft wants to make their GUI run through 3D hardware. Well, to do that they obviously use D3D, for the advantageous reasons that have already been stated. This system has certain D3D expectations for how a Window works internally.

But then Microsoft remembers that they have this OpenGL ICD mechanism. The ICD mechanism works completely differently from AppleGL or D3D. When an ICD is active, it hijacks the system; it takes total control of the window and external windows can't even so much as talk to that window normally. Regular Win32 GUI drawing commands don't work anymore. In short, the window is in an entirely different mode now. And it is a mode that they have absolutely no control over once it is active; they have no idea how IHV's are drawing to the window. That's one of the reasons why the ICD mechanism turns off GUI drawing in that window; it simply isn't playing by any rules except its own.

Well, Microsoft now has some choices to make. They could do any of the following:

1: Simply kill the ICD mechanism off entirely. The concept of ICDs is built into the OS, so they could simply remove this state from the window. This doesn't preclude IHVs from releasing OpenGL implementations, of course, but it makes their job much, much harder. Particularly across different types of hardware, as each IHV could implement OpenGL activation in their own ways.

2: Allow for ICDs to functions, but also fix the internal bugs that this new ICD-active state causes. This means preventing other windows or systems from expecting this ICD-active window to behave like a normal window, in terms of its internal "framebuffer". In short, turn off desktop compositing (as this is the feature that depends on how each window stores its data).

3: Put specific requirements on ICDs in terms of framebuffer construction, etc.

#2 is clearly what they choose. #3 is what we would like to see them have, and it is the one that IHV's are willing to conform to. Microsoft simply needs to tell them what to do.

The only real "policy" decision that was involved here was to base the new GUI's 3D interface on D3D rather than OpenGL. But even that has technical reasons, as I explained when discussing how AppleGL and D3D are similar.

actionGL
08-25-2005, 08:37 PM
...(and I know that this will not convince anyone of anything, as people on the "policy" side cannot be convinced that Microsoft makes any kind of reasonable decision):
Quite opposite - MS did make (trying to make) reasonable decision from their monopolistic ($$$ business model) position - to obstruct "normal" behavior of OpenGL windowed apps under Windows Vista, since that will affect future decisions concerning API of choice for professional 3D Apps on Windows platform (currently GL segment). Can it be simpler?

1) MS wants to have DirectX as most powerful – only technology on windows Xbox etc…
2) Total removal of OpenGL would have consequences at this point (medical, CAD, 3D CG apps, games)
3) Reasonable decision is not to remove it totally, just to make impossible for IHVs to make proper drivers that integrate seamlessly with Windows Vista.
4) Watch slow migration from OpenGL to Direct3D on Windows Vista platform.

And this is exactly what is going to happen if developer community don’t get active. I have posted you the text from person who witnessed this kind of MS behavior in past – try to read it, I mean really read it.

glfreak
08-25-2005, 09:10 PM
OpenGL OpenGL OpenGL OpenGL OpenGL OpenGL OpenGL

My views are somehow different. Acting against their decision will change nothing.

But someone mentioned the way Mac uses GL, nearly the same as D3D under Windows: Main driver supported by the platform vendor and a basic/mini drivers by the HWer's.

Ok let be OpenGL run the same under Linux and have the option of having ICD whihc can run much faster with less overhead. Sounds great!

OpenGL under windows is really should not be taken seriously, and those giants who invested many years using OpenGL in their software and have been considering Windows platform ignoring Linux, should now learn their lesson.

Imagine Maya/Lightwave running in OpenGL 1.4 where openGL is currently about to become 2.x, and a very slow version. Imagine DOOM 3, hahhahahahaha.

OpenGL OpenGL OpenGL OpenGL OpenGL OpenGL OpenGL

glfreak
08-25-2005, 10:44 PM
Then let some PS3 developer layer D3D on top of OGL so that D3D games can easuilt be ported.

glAppDeveloper
08-26-2005, 09:05 PM
I think that one of the following changes to OpenGL would promote its future success and help keep it mainstream despite Microsoft's attacks:
1. make OpenGL easier to understand
2. restructure OpenGL to more closely match AppleGL and D3D
3. build new and better features into OpenGL
Also note that I have found multiple windows in a single application to be essential. Just using fullscrean mode will not always be good enough.

kakushya
08-27-2005, 05:10 PM
As far as ease of use on a platform, OpenGL is the best... Again, have you ever programmed in D3D or AppleGL? Restructure OpenGL... why do you suppose there is an ARB that makes GREAT design decisions, though we have all wished for them to act more quickly. Multiple Windows??? Have you ever programmed in 3D... What are you talking about Multiple Windows?

It sounds to me like you don't have experience programming 3D, and you like to talk garbage about OpenGL. You should find something better to do with your time...

V-man
08-27-2005, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by glfreak:
Imagine Maya/Lightwave running in OpenGL 1.4 where openGL is currently about to become 2.x, and a very slow version. Imagine DOOM 3, hahhahahahaha.
What's your point?
Install the video drivers and you get GL 2.0 on the bestest of hw.

Direct3D is a pretty good API. I have used it for a while now. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be much games using it.
It's not my API of choice, but the majority of games use it. It's a fact.

Swiftless
08-28-2005, 03:43 AM
I originally coded with Visual Basic and with that went into a little of Direct X. I got into DirectDraw but that was about it. I hated the code and found it difficult to understand. Not to mention I only found out how to to 2D :mad:

Anyway I switched over the C++ and thought, hey I will go into OpenGL, a few of my games used it so it must have been decent. I ended up loving OpenGL right from the start because it was so much simpler than DirectX. But now I find out after 8 months of doing OpenGL that windows is planning on removing most of it. Let me just say I am NOT happy. :mad:

But what I find even more frustrating is that I often went to the MSDN website to find out about OpenGL because they have a huge section on it in the MSDN library. I also noticed they have links to download OpenGL for previous windows versions and quote on there website
See Microsoft tools and techniques associated with OpenGL. OpenGL is a cross-platform standard for 3D rendering and 3D hardware acceleration. They are totally contradicting their own point of view.

I have also contacted Microsoft about this and am putting a message in both my blog and my website about it.

I state once more... NOT HAPPY :mad: :mad:

Brolingstanz
08-28-2005, 07:51 AM
angels and ministers of grace, defend us.

actionGL
08-28-2005, 10:36 PM
@Swiftless

Games and other fullscreen apps will work fine, using OpengGL ICD driver and with full performance – because they will use OpenGL directly without MS “help”, same as they work now on Windows XP.

However windowed apps - will not work fine, they will have two options:
1) To work fine with windows (everything looks like it should - Aero works fine etc) - BUT you can't use more than GL 1.4 without extensions, and all calls are translated to D3D. Look at this as MS emulation mode.

2) To have full power, with no limits - using graphic driver from manufacturer. BUT then Aero will be turned off, and Vista will have similar look of windows XP.

So games and other fullscreen applications are not affected by current "Vista" plan. Windowed apps are - CAD, 3D Modeling, Medical, windowed games etc.

And all of this can be solved if Microsoft wouldn't stick to its policy to obstruct OpenGL. IHVs sad that they will do additional work to seamlessly integrate OpenGL in Vista, and only need more information. Whether or not will Microsoft give them this remains open question?

If it stays like this (MS current plan for Vista), windowed apps will gradually migrate to D3D API and this is what MS want. It is clearly monopolistic behavior/policy or you can call it whatever you want… it has nothing to do with technical issues etc.

Btw, just played great game Chronicles of Riddick. I was surprised with graphic and wanted to see what engine/3D API they use - and it is OpenGL.

glfreak
08-29-2005, 07:13 PM
What special about Visat UI? I've not tried it yet myself but I'm wondering why all that concern about UI if turned off? And by the way from computer science point of view the OS shouyld have no much intereference with the UI or even forcing a native UI. It's up to the application to do so, other wise the platfor is completely-closed.

And I doubt that MS can fully implement the core OpenGL 2 using Direct3D in its current status. This is one reason they offered only OGL 1.4 and again I'm not sure if it's going to be fully OpenGL compliant or even have 60% of its features accelerated.

Microsoft please don't take revenge on a good well established API in the computer graphics realm, because of some wrapped Direc3D around OpenGL under Linux. :D

glfreak
08-29-2005, 07:19 PM
Layering D3D on top of OpenGL under Linux, maybe under playstation or even Mac OS X. lol lol lol
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

croky
08-30-2005, 07:04 AM
@korval

Please can you stop accusing people of hating M$. That argument is becoming annoying and is far from factual.
It is EVIDENT that M$ is trying to kill OGL, wether one likes M$ or not. It is EVIDENT that people will give opinions about what M$ is trying to do and it's EVIDENT those opinions - based on what's happening - won't be pro-M$.
Please accept this EVIDENCES once and for all ! Stop assuming what's behind peoples intention when they make angry post against M$.
Thanks,

Croky

croky
08-30-2005, 08:08 AM
Christ, do none of you know how to READ?. Maybe if it's all in bold, somebody might read it someday...

Once again, the layering of the generic implementation of GL on D3D is NOT the problem! It's the fact that the use of ICDs deactivate the desktop compositing features of Aero that is the problem.

The ICD mechanism is still there. It isn't going away.Christ ?! Does he matters to this discussion :rolleyes:
LOL. So really ? You don't consider a wrapper (performing 20% slower than an ICD) a problem ?
:rolleyes: come on ...


Just because you prefer non-Windows platforms and consider them to be more "mature and professional" does not mean that others share your opinion.Sure, this is all about opinions not conclusions, it's still too early to reach conclusions. Still, you just fail to understand that, and you also fail to understand the amount of EVIDENCE regarding M$ attitude towards OGL. As for now, our opinnions are based in what we see, and guess what we see ? M$ trying to cripple OGL in their next OS. Simple as that.
Have we the right to be mad at M$ ? Well if you use OGL applications or games under windows, i believe it is legitimate to be angry at M$ because they're downgrading their support.
For Bill Gates sake, can't you understand this ?


These random attacks on various technologies that you don't like aren't actually helping you make a rational case here. Your personal opinion of COM, C#, .NET or Java are not relevant to the discussion, nor is your personal distaste and/or distrust of Microsoft. All it does is show your obvious bias towards Microsoft, and thus actually damages your standing in this debate.There's no "Red herring" here but "Straw man" fallacies you made, LOL.
When people speculate and opine, trying to reach a future conclusion, sometimes recalling the whole picture makes it easier to understand a specific decision.
The java issue is a prime example of monopoly abuse just as this OGL move from M$. So it's pertinent to recall it and compare it to the OGL situation.
Btw, try reading and understanding the differences between argumentation and explanation, please.

Croky

croky
08-30-2005, 09:13 AM
3D Labs has gone on record saying that they can make their ICDs work with desktop compositing if Microsoft gives them certain information. So the solution is for Microsoft to divulge said information. Or for IHVs to figure it out for themselves by trying various things under Vista (making the front buffer a D3D texture that is then displayed with a D3D framebuffer, etc). So the solution is for Microsoft to divulge said information But they don't want to. See, it's an attitude problem :cool: and if you're on the IT scene for some time, you'll understand it's a chronic problem.


And? You've stated something, but failed to actually draw a conclusion from it. Are you suggesting that D3D apps are inhierently slower than GL apps by using these specific examples? I could list examples of good, performant 3D games that run under D3D too, but that isn't necessary, because your argument itself is invalid. Just because one API has some nice applications for it doesn't mean that the other API is inferior. More "Straw man" fallacies. No ones trying to make any conclusion, yet. People are giving their opinions, you're the one assuming too much.


And the above was OT because D3D vs OpenGL isn't the point of this thread. Neither is Microsoft vs OpenGL or anything else you want to frame this discussion as.
Call to Action: Ensure that OpenGL remains a first class API under Windows Vista

We're exchanging opinions and trying to reach a conclusion with the purpose to Ensure that OpenGL remains a first class API under Windows Vista. Now, people has many ways to do this and i don't see why "D3D vs OGL" posts are out of the point of this thread. After all, D3D is one of the main reasons M$ is trying to cripple OGL. As far as i know the main Win 3D APIs are OGL and D3D and we need people to know why OGL is being practically dumped in favor of , yes you guessed it, D3D.


as people on the "policy" side cannot be convinced that Microsoft makes any kind of reasonable decision That's an hasty generalization man, one more argumentative fallacy. So please, don't jump on people (again) about lack of reasoning or logic in their posts.


It's better for MacOS, as it insulates the graphics subsystem from IHV mistakes.Is it ? As i see it, this is just shifting the problem. Besides, the graphics subsystem gets insulated not only from IHV mistakes but also from IHV corrections. What, waiting for a fix in the next OS update ?


The only real "policy" decision that was involved here was to base the new GUI's 3D interface on D3D rather than OpenGL.Conclusion or opinion ?

Croky

V-man
08-30-2005, 03:33 PM
Here is a user who tries out Windows Vista and notices something "weird"
http://www.longhornblogs.com/bleblanc/archive/2005/07/31/14321.aspx

I think the Aero glass effect would look like this
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/default.mspx

and here is a whole series of screenshots

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=351342

glfreak
08-30-2005, 03:56 PM
Thanks crocky for your posts which defend many people there giving their opinions.

Cedega layers DirectX on top of OpenGL and X Windows under the linux platform, right? I want to ask Microsoft how do they feel about it? How do they feel about Wine?

The same for OpenGL being layerd on a mal-formed API from pure computer science perspective. Though it would be unfair to compare OpenGL to Linux current status.

It's not openGL vs. Direct3D or Windows vs. Linux, but if these issues have not been mentioned, what other kind of arguments should we use?

Tell me Korval.

glfreak
08-30-2005, 04:54 PM
Please read what's posted on the OpenGL future suggestions, I got a reply that D3D reflects what's implemented in silicon, is that true?

Brolingstanz
08-30-2005, 05:58 PM
glfreak... would you please bring your rabble-rousing to an immediate end? if you'd like to immerse yourself in a symphony of petty bickering, start a new thread, far, far away, in a snow covered, moonlit glen. bring corky along, you could build a fire and sing songs.

glfreak
08-30-2005, 06:43 PM
This thread is for OpenGL, defend OpenGL, and promote OpenGL, not to rush on any one who tries to do so by whatever way. Those guys defending MS and their good looking platform should go out and find some otherforum to worship MS things.

croky
08-31-2005, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by glfreak:
This thread is for OpenGL, defend OpenGL, and promote OpenGL, not to rush on any one who tries to do so by whatever way. Those guys defending MS and their good looking platform should go out and find some otherforum to worship MS things.Yeah that's true. Being this an OpenGL forum, i would expect people would defend OpenGL, but the opposite happens :eek: , go figure ...

Anyway, thanks bonehead for the trip suggestion but if somebody has to go far, far away from this forums are people not defending OGL. If you don't even care to criticize my points please don't bother to include my name on your posts because it's pointless.
You seem to be on the other side of the fence and running further away ...

The arguments defending M$ are very weak, as they are based in the hope M$ has good intentions. The fact is - and some people are not smart enough to grasp it - M$ attitude is against the existence of OGL. So, please stick to the facts and try to post a more objective set of arguments.

We can make endless posts about trying to find a way to change M$ mind, but i bet my left hand it won't happen, it has never happened but with the application of law and justice. The only way for M$ to change its mind before vista is ready, is to show M$, that their users are not happy with the situation, not complying with the situation.

Croky

haust
08-31-2005, 04:31 AM
I would take a moment to thank Korval for his instructive to-the-fact point of view. Really.
When I started to hear about OpenGL on Vista it was like OpenGL will be doomed. Now I understand more clearly what is all about.
Sure the OpenGL/Vista/Aero problem is still here but I hope IHVs will be able to get valuable info on how to make OpenGL and Aero work together. For now it's up to Microsoft to make this happen.

So let's keep constructive :)

From Korval


But then Microsoft remembers that they have this OpenGL ICD mechanism. The ICD mechanism works completely differently from AppleGL or D3D. When an ICD is active, it hijacks the system; it takes total control of the window and external windows can't even so much as talk to that window normally.
If I understand what you said here, it means that Aero is only disabled for the ICD-enabled window and NOT for the whole desktop ??

actionGL
08-31-2005, 04:50 AM
@haust
As soon as ICD is loaded, COMPLETE Aero desktop is turned off. It seems that MS provided D3D wrapper just to make their intention less noticed by developers. If they do it, then they should do it right together with IHVs, instead of making excuses and half way solutions. But it is Microsoft, why make things right when you can make them wrong, earn more cash and cripple open and portable 3D standard on long term bases. And you should read the whole topic, there was discussion about this and almost all aspects that MS “reasonable” decision is doing to GL.

MS why don’t you drop out your emulated D3D version of GL and instead give info to IHVs? It will cost you less, and everybody will be happy, like with XP – unless majority of developers is right and it is your policy after all (monopoly driven business aiming to extract maximum cash from users and kill out any technology that is not under your control).

haust
08-31-2005, 05:22 AM
Ok thank actionGL.
Then if the whole desktop is affected I guess having W2K/WXP visual experience on Vista won't please lots of people....
Anyway as I said before IHVs need to talk with Microsoft to make OpenGL and Aero work at the same time....

croky
08-31-2005, 06:08 AM
Sure the OpenGL/Vista/Aero problem is still here but I hope IHVs will be able to get valuable info on how to make OpenGL and Aero work together. For now it's up to Microsoft to make this happen. Of course, this is the most reasonable level of action, but where is the OGL community in this scene ? After all, aren't we here to Ensure that OpenGL remains a first class API under Windows Vista ?

The community can organize and start mailing IHVs and M$. I will predict a more open attitude from IHVs and i believe that should be the main concern as for now. IHVs can then persuade M$ to change its plans and shift this situation to a more favorable position for OGL, a "real" OGL.

It is a fact this is a problem, it is a fact that M$ originated the problem, it is a fact that M$ does not want to solve the problem with IHVs, it is a fact that the best that M$ came up with will cripple OGL, it is a fact that Win developers working with OGL will be negatively affected, it is a fact that due to OGL portability, other OSs will also be hit as OGL is their main 3D API, and i assume - with a high degree of certainty - that without developers, there's no future but only a decaying API.

How many more facts do we need for people to stop assuming a heavenly M$ attitude towards OGL ?
Such possible attitude is obviously clouded due to such facts.

Croky

A Developer
09-03-2005, 04:19 AM
According to the following article Microsoft is dropping hardware support on Vista for all older versions of DirectX prior to Vista's DirectX 10.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25902

This article hammers home the point that OpenGL is the only graphics API that has provided the kind of longevity, performance and stability even among different versions of Windows. It is critical the OpenGL remain a First Class API on Windows. It is critical that the IHVs be given the information that they need to write first class ICD's to allow high performance and stable support for OpenGL.

Korval may jump in to bash and ridicule the importance of some very critical industrial applications. However, the undeniable fact remains that those industrial applications are critical to the long term welfare of every human on the planet. Those apps design machines, oil refineries, industrial plants, run medical imaging and diagnostic devices, etc. We need a first class graphics API with the longevity and stability of OpenGL to support those applications. Performance and quality are of the utmost importance in supporting such time critical applications. These apps have to deal with massive amounts of real time data. Poor or unstable performance may mean slowing down and delaying the completion of critical machinery or facilities like oil refineries and vaccine plants.

Abstract ideas: Does it matter if these machines and facilities are delayed due to poor graphics support which slowed the completion of the complex design effort? Does it matter that a delay of a few weeks or months kept life saving vaccines off the market during an epidemic? Concrete answer: It won't matter to you unless you are affected by it. As long as there is electricity to run games, most people probably won't care.

Microsoft should be proud to do their part and support these critical Windows business applications with a high performance, reliable and stable version of OpenGL.

actionGL
09-03-2005, 05:21 AM
Microsoft is unable to provide backward compatibility for its own API. I don’t know what to say. OpenGL is backward compatible since its beginning. IHVs and ISVs should not take this for granted, it seems that GL is the only API that provides stability and reusability of code. It would be funny to write professional application and change its graphic core each time MS release new version – think about it.