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

OpenGL
361

I find M$'s interests questionable when they forsake open standards like OpenGL.
Direct3D isn’t a better API provided by M$ for our benefit, it’s soley for their benefit.
Anyone who thinks that M$ won’t leverage Direct3D to make more money is deluding themselves.

There’s no good reason why Windows Vista can’t support OpenGL ICDs.
Mac OS X has a composite desktop that implements OpenGL just fine.

For those who like Direct3D, keep using it.
The rest of us demand that OpenGL is intergrated to the same extent as Direct3D in Windows.
M$ is trying to use the ignorance of new users to drive developers toward Direct3D.
New users don’t want to hear that their new, fancy OS has to look like last year’s OS because the game/software developers are using OpenGL.
And you can bet that’s how M$ will explain it, “It’s the developer’s fault for choosing OpenGL, not ours for refusing to support OpenGL in Windows.”

362

nobody cares what api you use, navgen. and the microsoft monopoly issue, real or imagined, is not at issue here.
This statement is incorrect. That is the very heart of the issue here. If they didn’t have the market position they have today, then they couldn’t get away with what they are doing. If more choices were available (as the monopoly issue is very real), they would have to make their systems more compatible with other APIs.

What some seem to forget is that one of the primary goals of an OS is to give access to the system’s hardware and devices. It enables things to be done, but by no means is it an end in and of itself. If it prevents access, or severely degrades it, then it is not doing its job.

In the end, though, all we ask is that Microsoft give the people the necessary information in a timely manner to help OpenGL work with Aeroglass. That seems like a reasonable request.

363

Now, somebody at MS has decided that MS would earn much more money if GL was dead.
who exactly is this person at microsoft? and pray tell, how is eliminating opengl good for business? why would you want to eliminate a large application and developer base that happily keeps cranking out software for their os? an os is nothing without good software to run on it. that’s where you guys are missing the boat on this one.

Windows OS gives you right TO USE software that use DirectX technology. It’s a completely different situation when you wish to DEVELOP software.
again, what is microsoft interest in making their api unreachable to the average programmer? there’s no business sense in this. and if there were, so what? it’s there right to do whatever they want with their sdk’s. lot’s of companies make money on sdk’s. microsoft charges for their ddk, but that’s a fairly small, professional crowd. you don’t hear a lot of pissing and moaning from them.

the rest of your post is seasonal blend of misinformation, mixed with half-thoughts and clumsy ruminations. you’ll forgive me if don’t respond to all your delightful comments.

my heart goes out to you, actiongl, really. and i thank you kindly for the warm holiday wish.

I’d still like to enquire if anyone knows of a unified API on top of OpenGL and DirectX?
i thought you were kidding.

i’ll write you one, if the price is right. say 100,000 euros? that was actiongl’s figure.

That is the very heart of the issue here. If they didn’t have the market position they have today, then they couldn’t get away with what they are doing. If more choices were available (as the monopoly issue is very real), they would have to make their systems more compatible with other APIs.
i see. well, this is clearly not the subject of this thread, according to the topic title, though at this point i guess it’s all for naught anyway…

besides, you proceed from a false assumption, that microsoft is some sort of evil empire, out to destroy opengl and its users. where do you guys get this stuff? and what are they “getting away with”? they have the right to do things the way they want to, just as you or i would expect certain freedoms in our own private enterprises. yes? or does that make too much sense?

my good friend grady once asked me what i got out of the “items of importance” forum. after some deliberation, i replied, “pain, my dear grady, pain and delight!”

grady is a good guy, but he’s overyl inquisitive at times.

happy permutations, and a warm holiday collective integration,
bonehead

364

Bonehead, I have nothing more to tell you. You seem to know it all. I suggest you read my last post few times and try to find out what it was all about.

Also, do some research about other technologies that MS has destroyed in similar fashion… I am not asking MS why? Is it good or not for them? It is a fact.

Read about MS monopoly legislations etc… and after all, try to find more what “monopoly” really means, how it makes benefit for company and what it does to economy, competition, progress etc.

365

Bonehead, I have nothing more to tell you.
i am saddened to hear this, and, if i may say so, somewhat relieved.

You seem to know it all.
it’s not that i know that much, i don’t. rather, it’s that you know so little.

it doesn’t take a great deal of thought to find logical holes in your arguments. and in the absence of fact, there’s little to do but theorise and pontificate, to the indeterminate bemusement of all concerned.

Also, do some research about other technologies that MS has destroyed in similar fashion… I am not asking MS why? Is it good or not for them? It is a fact.
what fact? i see no facts. microsoft can no more destroy technology than monkeys can fly out of my butt. if you mean they have “acquired” certain technologies in their bid to be the biggest and best software house in the world, then you’re right, and i suspect you’d do the same, if you had half the business savvy they posses.

what’s wrong with wanting to succeed? do you honestly think you’d be any different in their shoes? i find this entire argument intellectually disturbing and profoundly irritating on several fundamental levels, not least of which is the base implication that microsoft has proceeded any differently than any other business would have, given equal opportunity and skill. the point here being that there may be no one to beat them at their own game, but that’s not microsoft’s fault now is it?

Read about MS monopoly legislations etc… and after all, try to find more what “monopoly” really means, how it makes benefit for company and what it does to economy, competition, progress etc.
yes, yes. microsoft’s monopoly and …zzzzzz…zzzzzz…zzzzzz. huh? oh yeah, the monopoly thing. right. well, it seems to me that society is trying to come to terms with what to do when a business becomes “a bit too big for its britches”. naughty microsoft for being so successful… for shame, for shame. what about all those companies that can’t seem to get a leg up in microsof’t long, menacing shadow?

hey, where there’s a will, there’s a way. enough people with enough smarts willing to make enough of a sacrifice could make a play. but i’m not going there; you’re on your own.

and i suppose you’d be happier if there were 50 operating systems to develop for, each with an equal share, each with its own peculiar nuances, pitfalls, and incompatibilities. wouldn’t that be great! heck, why not 100, 200, 1000! oh yeah!

i do wish you luck, actiongl, but i’m plum tuckered…

366

i see. well, this is clearly not the subject of this thread, according to the topic title, though at this point i guess it’s all for naught anyway…

besides, you proceed from a false assumption, that microsoft is some sort of evil empire, out to destroy opengl and its users. where do you guys get this stuff? and what are they “getting away with”? they have the right to do things the way they want to, just as you or i would expect certain freedoms in our own private enterprises. yes? or does that make too much sense?
I tend to disagree about it being so off-topic. The kind of discussion I presented there listed one of the reasons why OpenGL might not stay a first class API under Vista. In order to address a problem, one must identify its causes. One way to possibly remedy this situation is to participate in reducing Microsoft’s huge market share from its current monopolistic state.

and i suppose you’d be happier if there were 50 operating systems to develop for, each with an equal share, each with its own peculiar nuances, pitfalls, and incompatibilities. wouldn’t that be great! heck, why not 100, 200, 1000! oh yeah!
In such a competitive environment, each OS maker would most likely have to adhere to certain interface requirements in order to survive. I think such requirements work in everyone’s favor, as it allows the people to choose what they would like to use, and at the same time have compatibility with most software. That would most certainly help in the current situation.

I believe we need good, constructive ideas on how to change things, after identifying the inherent problems and a good discussion. If you have any thoughts on how to do this with the current topic, please let us know.

367

I don’t think politely asking Microsoft will change their minds.
how do you know? bashing them most certainly isn’t going win their hearts and minds.

So, primarily I think Microsoft should be challenged with the European Commission.
how is the eu going to help here?

the eu action is about opening certain systems to developers, not how the systems themselves should actually operate. you can’t legislate an api. you can argue that developers have a right to know enough about a system to write good software for it, but you can’t dictate the use of that software. people have the right to use netscape instead of ie, but microsoft isn’t forced to use it or bundle it with its distribution. and with apis, i imagine the ice gets even thinner.

Then, if we fail to change their policy we should have plenty of workarounds in place.
what are all these other workarounds?

368

the eu action is about opening certain systems to developers, not how the systems themselves should actually operate.
Well, for start, MS could provide IHVs info how Vista composer works -> that is, how it comunicates with D3D… I am sure that workaround for OpenGL wouldn’t take long.

Data demand

Microsoft was also ordered “to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers”.
EU could apply this to Vista composer also…

369

I believe we need good, constructive ideas on how to change things, after identifying the inherent problems and a good discussion. If you have any thoughts on how to do this with the current topic, please let us know.
touche, my good man. you may indeed be right. i’d be the first to admit it if you are, and the last to say i told you so if you aren’t.

i’ve precious little to offer your cause, other than what i’ve already alluded to. but if i think of something, you’ll be the first to know.

370

Bonehead:

If I may say so myself, your ignorance scares me. Rarely have I seen someone miss the point so thoroughly, and miss the obvious so well. I will try and keep this brief:

First off, Microsoft is not an “Evil Empire”. I’m not claiming they are, and I acknowledge that they’ve done much good for the IT industry as a whole. However, fact remains that their main tactics up until now has been bullying their way through, using next to every dirty trick in the book to get to where they are today.

These tactics has cost them a great deal of (public) goodwill, and it is one of the primary reasons they’re so disliked by the general geek populace. Time and time again, they’ve sent the very same message: “We’ll do everything in our power to keep our monopoly, and if anyone doesn’t agree, we’ll just dispose of 'em.”

You only need to look at the recent MA ODF debate to see how Microsoft is actively taking measures to prevent interoperability.

With this history in mind, do you really trust Microsoft not to try everything in it’s might to prevent interoperability? Because that’s what this question is all about; trust.

Microsoft isn’t stupid. The easier you can port programs, the easier people can switch to other OSes. If enough people run Linux/OSX/Amiga/Whatever, then the Windows monopoly will be broken.

Any software company wants as huge a target audience as possible, so for them it’s much better to write OpenGL-based apps instead of apps based on Direct3D. The reason? Why settle for 90% of the market when you can reach 99% of the market for basicly the same development costs? Especially if it looks like the 90% market share will shrink, and if you look around at Linux development and deployment in the world, it looks like it will indeed shrink.

And that’s why it makes business sense for Windows Vista to not fully support OpenGL. It’s also the same reason why it will be a cold day in hell before DirectX comes to Linux and/or OSX. I believe, however, that this tactic won’t save them in the long run.

So, I ask you again: Do you trust them? Because I sure as hell don’t.

'Nuff said.

371

that’s interesting, actiongl.

i’d be curious to know if that fits the bill legally. if so, could be a back door. don’t ask me why, but i’m having my doubts. even if they find a way to make this stick legally, i don’t see how they can force microsft to use a particular api for a given device, which would seem to entail some fairly hefty implications.

this has got to involve some rather complicated dependencies on the exact nature of the system in question, various legal definitions, and all sorts of other relatively uninteresting but important stuff. i dunno.

372

pardon this brief digression, but i got a hair.

However, fact remains that their main tactics up until now has been bullying their way through, using next to every dirty trick in the book to get to where they are today.
what you call “bullying” and “dirty tricks”, other might term “business”. i’m sure microsft would prefer the latter. in any case, both being extraordinarily subjective terms, and terms designed to evoke a negative emotional response, i prefer not to use them, and i don’t see how they add to the discussion. furthermore, the powers that be at other os companies would surely love to see microsoft fall, and anything they can do to facilitate this end is of course good for them, never mind their/your tactics, no matter how dirty they may be.

as the rest of your tirade progresses along essentially the same line of reasoning, i’ll summarize for brevity. i think it’s all a non-issue. you want a better operating system than windows, create one. you don’t like windows, don’t use it. it’s simple. no muss, no fuss. i realise of course that this is a simplification, but i like things simple. the simpler the better. if want them complicated, that’s up to you.

373

They’ve all been killed off by Microsoft
no, they’ve seen a reduced market due to competition. need i remind you that free enterprise is legal? hehe…

maybe i should break out my old atari, and in the hour or so it take to boot up, i’ll stick my head in the sand, in tribute to ignorance, as a stupid, useless gesture. what do you think, navgen?

374

I better don’t want to make any comments on how is Microsoft doing it’s “business”. The problem is about interfaces which Microsoft should provide to let other APIs interact wih Vista composer. Officially they said there are security reasons why they keep these interfaces hiden. I could not find many technical informaion here, so maybe I am wrong. I just wonder if these interfaces are that complicated und could be source of OS instability. The Vista composer should get access only to the final stage of whole graphic pipeline which is an OpenGL frame buffer. I think if Microsoft won’t provide interfaces to Vista composer then the IHVs would find the way how to keep OpenGL the first class API under Vista. Maybe they will have to do it in a bit complicated manner and use DirectX for the final stage when interacting with composer. I hope it won’t hurt the performance. I don’t like it to be done like that but I am optimistic about windowed OpenGL under Vista. OpenGL will find it’s way.

375

Originally posted by bonehead:
what you call “bullying” and “dirty tricks”, other might term “business”. i’m sure microsft would prefer the latter.
Ah yes. Just as you can describe “Rape” as “A way of expressing your love”. I know the comparisions are ridiculus, but Microsoft has been convicted of Anti-trust charges several times in the past, and they still keep at doing what they’ve always done. Which is why the EU recently fined Microsoft for breaking antitrust law.

Sure, bad things happen, and some companies have done real suicides (like Netscape - NS4 was crap compared to IE4 which lead to IE winning the browser wars). I actually applaud Microsoft if they make an excellent product that beats the crap out of the competition, since that’s what Free Markets are all about.

However, since Microsoft more often than not resort to other tactics such as spreading FUD or using their desktop monopoly to leverage sales instead of competing on their products own merits, well… Let’s just say I don’t trust them. But I digress.

Originally posted by bonehead:
as the rest of your tirade progresses along essentially the same line of reasoning, i’ll summarize for brevity. i think it’s all a non-issue. you want a better operating system than windows, create one. you don’t like windows, don’t use it. it’s simple. no muss, no fuss. i realise of course that this is a simplification, but i like things simple. the simpler the better. if want them complicated, that’s up to you.
I personally don’t like windows, and if I have a choice I don’t use it. But as a game developer I cannot ignore the fact that most people are, in fact, using Windows. However, many people are slowly turning away from the allmighty Redmond giant - Mostly in Asia but also in Europe.

To return to the heart of the matter, as it is now I can code an OpenGL app and with very little extra work port it to just about any platform that supports OpenGL. Heck, even the AmigaOS supports OpenGL, if only a small subset of the standard. That’s if not 100% atleast 99% of the market.

However, if Microsoft gets their way, I’ll only be able to reach maybe 10-15% of the market with my OpenGL app, and I have to put down a whole lot of extra work to use an API which also has been known to change from time to time. Which one would you rather prefer?

So, bottom line: Microsoft, share your information god dammit! :stuck_out_tongue:

Regards,
Per Ekström
College Student, Sweden

376

Originally posted by Wertigon:
[b]if Microsoft gets their way, I’ll only be able to reach maybe 10-15% of the market with my OpenGL app, and I have to put down a whole lot of extra work to use an API which also has been known to change from time to time. Which one would you rather prefer?

So, bottom line: Microsoft, share your information god dammit! :stuck_out_tongue: [/b]
Amen!

377

Originally posted by navgen:
I’d still like to enquire if anyone knows of a unified API on top of OpenGL and DirectX? I know this is not the best solution to Vista, but can be a backup for writing portable applications.

Depends on your definition of API. A lot of people/companies have created a wrapper for GL/D3D
You can do it as well.
I find that it makes the code cleaner and organized, even if you only support GL.

378

a very merry christmas to you, navgen.

and a happy holiday to all of you.

:cool:

379

navgen,
I don’t have an extra machine to do beta testing of OSes. For sure, you would be putting your data at risk by installing any OS, beta or not. I have had trouble with Linux. I think it was due to the grub boot loader.

Did you get Vista to run?

Oh yes, happy xmas and season’s greetings to everyone!

380

navgen,

I had a bad experience once when I installed Linux on my dual boot Win2k/XP machine. I could no longer boot either of the Windows. Luckily, I backed up everything but restoring wastes hours.

Now I can tripple boot, so I’m happy. I don’t want to attempt a quad boot :slight_smile: