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.
"
Don’t forget to post the answer too 
thanks
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.
Originally posted by Aeluned:
[b]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[/b]
Sorry, 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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…
[b]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.[/b]
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.
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.
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
[quote]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.
[/QUOTE]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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Att least all are professionals and experienced users, versu the Windows users whihc are mostly nopvice and agerage/casual business/desktop users
Um, 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 it
There 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.