Originally posted by Lucretia:
[b] 1) If they’re not going to continue supporting it, they should just remove it and let some other company produce it.
- Multimonitor does work under D3D, but that isn’t the point, is it? If you’re going to do something properly, you do it properly. You don’t **** things up, just because it isn’t your primary 3D API.
- Are you trying to say that D3D is an opensource standard? It is not! It’s not opensource and it is not a standard! The industry standard IS OpenGL, because it’s portable![b]
Whoa whoa whoa WHOA! I’m not trying to provoke here.
Lets see, I think we got confused somewhere. Lets start with #1. I’m assuming you’re talking about MS’s support of OpenGL, correct? If so, MS isn’t going to remove it because there are many prominent developers out there (IE: John Carmack) who refuse to use D3D. In time, as D3D matures (What, maybe DX26872 or something like?) they might. But MS isn’t going to drop OpenGL like that because there is just too much demand for it. But you have to realize, DX is something that MS and MS alone holds, subsidizes, and makes money off of. A DX title is going to ensure a copy of Windows on at least 1 person’s desk.
Wow… I never even thought of it that way until now. Damn that devil, thats one marketing genius!
Okay, back on topic. MS isn’t just going to remove or can OpenGL to remove competition, because having OpenGL under its belt, being as popular as [OpenGL] is, also ensures that someone is going to have a copy of Windows on their desk as well. But as per above, DX is the thing that MS is going to focus on because they make more money on it.
As far as others producing it, SGI tried that, MS got PO’d cause SGI’s SI was better. But SGI didn’t have the time to invest in it. Or whatever the excuse was (I think the Farenheit project took that ability from SGI contractually).
But all in all, MS is going to give us the bear minimum to make us happy. Until we tell them we’re not happy, they’re not even going to care. Well… even if we do tell them…
As far as #2 goes, multimonitor is a recent addition to the OS’s (what, about a year old?). The OpenGL SI’s that come with even Win2K are probably, or very nearly, the same code base that the opengl32.dll was in WinNT version … um… 3 I think, which was the first Windows OS to support OpenGL. I seriously doubt they’ve changed it much. After all, WinNT didn’t change (fundimentally) much until Win2K. I doubt the Win9X dll changed much either since the Win95 upgrade for OpenGL either. But again, thats the point. MS is trying to shovel DX down our throats… so why would it invest its time first and foremost on a product that they want to see die eventually?
And for #3… NO. I certainly am not saying that D3D is opensource. Emphatically no…
What I was referring to is why would MS want to enhance OpenGL to what isn’t a “standard”. Please realize that nowhere is the definition of how OpenGL should handle multimonitor support. OpenGL was around before multimonitor was a reality (okay, maybe not, but in the windows world…). I’m certain that if MS were to add the support in, it would definitely cause problems and be very non-standard.
What I was referring to is that if MS were to make OpenGL slightly non-standard, people would bitch because it wouldn’t be pure OpenGL anymore. Look at MS’s extensions to Kerberos… people bitched.
As far as your retort, no, D3D is not opensource, but yes it is a standard. Its MS’s standard 3D API of choice.
Its all about marketing and the $$$.
I’m sorry I ruffled feathers, I didn’t mean to. I hope I clairified myself here.
!!! Disclaimer - I in no way endorse, nor condemn the use of DX, hell I don’t even use it. !!!
Have a good one…