OSNews

xp not getting directX 10 kinda just put a rather large nail into a coseing coffin. assuming that pc game creaters embrace directX 10 thouse without Vista are going be in trouble. Personaly i would rather see OpenGL catch up to the featchers of direct x 10.that would make me happy

You know, it's funny .. on one hand, people keep saying how Vista brings nothing much to the table and there's no reason to upgrade, but then when people run into a Vista-only feature they're interested in, they bitch when it's not backported to XP.

I'm not really hip on the technology, but I've read that a lot of the new features in DX10 are a direct result of the underlying changes made in Vista.

Edited 2006-11-30 23:42

Well, if you've tried it, you know it's XP (all OS-related programs are the same, from Control panel to almost every other feature) with news look (poorly done that requires unreasonably lots of resources), new Windows Explorer (they made it worse) + some "security" crap no one wants, yet they are still enabling "hide ext for knowing filetypes" feature that is the main cause for all those worms and loveletters.
Anyways, DX10 is just a feature, that MS is hoping will help selling Vista, since they are making it "vista only", while I bet anything it can also be done on XP. But DX is for home gamers only and we know not many home users actually buy Vista, unless they get it with new comp (and most people can't wait to get some crappy Vista edition for additional $200), it's mostly companies and OEMs that sell Windows OS for Microsoft. Things will not go as they plan this time, it didn't go with XP and clearly this ship is sinking, it's just a band still playing (deja vu, anyone?)...but they can still save it if they start acting normal and open.

Edited 2006-12-01 07:10

They are making it Vista only because of the Windows Dislay Driver Model (WDDM) which will not work on XP because it will break things.

WDDM allows a lot of things to happen including virtual memory. It allows you to take your video cards memory and your system memory and put it into a pool of memory that is virtualized.

WDDM also allows you to pre-emptive multi-task on your video card's GPU (Graphics Processing Unit).

WDDM is a new driver system designed from the ground up and allows you to have a more stable environment so that you won't get bluescreens by putting most of the driver part into user space.

Of course you don't want to hear any of that. You just want to bitch and falsely claim that the ship is sinking.

Well that ship isn't sinking and just owns you as it's little bitch.

I'm fairly sure that the bit about WDDM allowing user space drivers provides exactly zero benefit for video card drivers, as these still run in kernel space. As far as I'm aware, user space drivers are aimed at peripherals such as printers and mas storage devices, i.e. non performance critical items.

Also can anyone clarify whether having virtualised gfx card memory will actually provide a benefit? surely it will be incredibly slow to page the gfx memory out to system memory and back as needed? not to mention disk.

Finally all this pre-emptive multi tasking stuff, would that not have been possible through the original driver model, and if not, why not?

I just get the feeling that the reasons given for DX10 only being on Vista of "the new driver model" are not as compelling as they should be.

You know, it's funny .. on one hand, people keep saying how Vista brings nothing much to the table and there's no reason to upgrade, but then when people run into a Vista-only feature they're interested in, they bitch when it's not backported to XP.

I'm not really hip on the technology, but I've read that a lot of the new features in DX10 are a direct result of the underlying changes made in Vista.

People keep bitching because the new features of DirectX 10 could have been implemented on Windows XP as well, albeit in a different manner from Vista.

To put it in another way: it was not the changes in Vista that enabled the new capabilities of DX10; those capabilities could exist for XP as well, if Microsoft did not want to force Vista on us.

Evidence to this is OpenGL: it already can do what D3D10 can do, even in "lowly" XP.

You know, it's funny .. on one hand, people keep saying how Vista brings nothing much to the table and there's no reason to upgrade, but then when people run into a Vista-only feature they're interested in, they bitch when it's not backported to XP.

Maybe they wouldn't "bitch" so much if there were any better reasons to go to Vista than simply the forces of market control sucking them into the upgrade cycle.

I see no asymmetry in complaining both that Vista doesn't accomplish much and that people are going to end up needing it for some new feature. $300 for a Wintendo firmware upgrade (assuming DX10 is what the buyer is after) seems just a bit unreasonable. Upgrades this expensive should offer advantages across the board, not just a new baseline for what makes an up-to-date PC.

Other than a package install/uninstall feature (which you can program yourself) what other feature would you want that Vista does not bring to the table.

It's not that vista does not have any new features, it's that we have some anti-microsoft liberal linux biggots that are uncontrollable.

If we had to ban all the liberals who were anti-microsoft on this forum, there would be five posters left.

This is why it is so frustrating to see such garbage.

If you want a list of what Vista offers (which is quite a lot and it is better in many ways than linux) you can go to the wikipedia and do a search.

If we had to ban all the liberals who were anti-microsoft on this forum, there would be five posters left.

This is why it is so frustrating to see such garbage.

If you want a list of what Vista offers (which is quite a lot and it is better in many ways than linux) you can go to the wikipedia and do a search.

If you banned everyone who had something against Microsoft, you'd have Yet Another Windows News Site. This site exists because the alternatives do.

Personally, I want absolutely nothing out of Vista except for it to leave me alone. Microsoft is not the vendor I choose for the computing features I want. But I am interested in maintaining compatibility with the Windows world, especially since so much unique software (not a good thing) that I may have to use at one point or another for school- or work-related reasons depends on it, and this very expensive upgrade cycle makes that a major thorn in my side. Lest a mile be taken, I'm not giving an inch. My above post was trying to say two separate but related things: upgrades at this price point (and certainly at this degree of invasive rights control) should be justified by more than just influence and de facto standards, and people who buy the thing just to keep pace have every right to complain they're not getting their money's worth, no matter how many checks you can put in any "features" column.

xp not getting directX 10 kinda just put a rather large nail into a coseing coffin. assuming that pc game creaters embrace directX 10 thouse without Vista are going be in trouble. Personaly i would rather see OpenGL catch up to the featchers of direct x 10.that would make me happy

OpenGL can already do DX10 stuff. As soon as the Nvidia 8800 drivers where released OpenGL could do it trough extensions. In Windows XP and Linux etc.

Just to highlight your point, OpenGL can do everything Direct3D 10 can do, but under Windows XP (and Linux and every other half-modern OS). If game developers want to use geometry shaders and support Windows XP (which will probably still be a major player in OS land for a while), they MUST use OpenGL.

I'm guessing that it won't happen, and Windows XP gamers will soon have all the selection in modern shooters that Linux gamers have, but it must be a bit of a tough choice from the POV of the game houses...

Not only that, but the major companies tend with the need for CAD (Chrysler/GM/etc) and high end 3d (ILM/Pixar/etc) tend to use a Unix or Unix-like systems.

For them, DirectX is a non-starter.

I wouldn't use it, but I am biased against enslavement and would never really consider it anyway.

Edited 2006-12-01 02:35

"Not only that, but the major companies tend with the need for CAD (Chrysler/GM/etc) and high end 3d (ILM/Pixar/etc) tend to use a Unix or Unix-like systems. "

As far as I know, SGI systems are very useful for this purpose. They even aren't x86 architecture.

An advantage of "DirectX" 10 could be it's ability to run on the newest x86 hardware (Core 2 Duo etc.) with a high clock rate. So it could compete with the hardware representations of OpenGL that do shading, clipping etc. Maybe it's the choice of industry. We'll see.

Game developers should tend to interoperability to gain more market share (How I love this term!) if they can release a game for different OSes. But "DirectX" does not seem to cover this, so OpenGL or SDL based games would surely be more popular. As far as I see from the article, "DirectX" offers nothing that you can't do with OpenGL, Mesa or SDL, except that it is restricted to MICROS~1 products.

But I'm not very interested in gaming, so I don't care much.

Not all DX 10 features are already OpenGL supported but yes, it is only a matter of time.

It might not completely possible through extensions alone though, since things like a completly unified shader architecture might make changes to OpenGL itself necessary.

OpenGL can't do everything Direct3D 10 can do unless you re-write the API and you also create it so that openGL has the same driver system as Direct3D 10 does.

It can support geometry shaders sure, but then you are looking at yet another set of extentions that you have to program for each video card vendor.

Let me explain this to you:

The D3D 10 is like a console experience because every D3D 10 video card has to have the exact same features and has to be certified by Microsoft. This means that every DX10 video card cannot have optional features and must contain every feature in the exact way that it is documented and must be only on Vista and above. The drivers also must be certified and written acording to the documentation that Microsoft has set out.

This means that there are no CAPS and this means no variables.

This means that you will have a console like development and that you don't have to guess if a driver is lying to you or if the video card has that feature or not.

In a couple of years when the people owning DX10 video cards grow, this will be a godsend.

There, so I hope you learned something.

The D3D 10 is like a console experience because every D3D 10 video card has to have the exact same features and has to be certified by Microsoft. This means that every DX10 video card cannot have optional features and must contain every feature in the exact way that it is documented and must be only on Vista and above. The drivers also must be certified and written acording[sic] to the documentation that Microsoft has set out.

This means that there are no CAPS and this means no variables.

So developers will have to program to D3D 9 and D3D 10 to support cards older than Q42006? Is that a good thing? I'd much rather check caps/gl extensions than have to support two different APIs. Besides, I've always been able to write code that only supports a small subset of cards on the market and that grows as obsolete cards are discarded. That's hardly revolutionary...

This means that you will have a console like development and that you don't have to guess if a driver is lying to you or if the video card has that feature or not.

You have console-like development only if all hardware is identical. Otherwise, you still need different code paths for different hardware implementations of D3D10, just as Doom3 has different HLSL code for Radeons and geForces. Having a unified consistent API is a good first step, but it's hardly a complete solution.

[edit]:

Sorry to sound like an ass - your comment was informative. I just don't see it fixing everything you think it will.

Edited 2006-12-01 19:05

That is not correct. There is nothing to dismay those that whish to use OpenGL on Vista since the *very* old news that OpenGL will be slower on Vista or suffer from other drawbacks just isn't actual anymore. Vista is going to get fully functional OpenGL.

Also, as nVidia has already shown, almost everything that is possible with DX10 is also possible already with OpenGL and missing functionality is only a matter of a newer OpenGL Version (i'm not sure if the bigger changes in functonality could be reproduced using OpenGLs extention mechanism).

Lastly, i don't see how SDL is involved. SDL is used to open an OpenGL window, offers functonality for multithreaded programming and if you want it also can handle input for you. SDL itself has no 3D functionality, just primitive access to an framebuffer which isn't even officially existent anymore in direct x since dx8. So unless DirectX 10 handles Keypresses in a very new and spectacular way, i don't even see any need for an modifyed SDL version execept if DX 10 can't handle DX9 input methods anymore which surely would be new to me.

There is nothing to dismay those that whish to use OpenGL on Vista since the *very* old news that OpenGL will be slower on Vista or suffer from other drawbacks just isn't actual anymore. Vista is going to get fully functional OpenGL.

Microsoft tried to do this, rather pathetically, but it just wasn't a practical. There's no reason why someone couldn't trivially implement OpenGL on Vista, perhaps even taking advantage of DirectX 10 itself, and get around any restrictions Microsoft had placed.

Of course. It is all about driver model. Linux is getting fairly big improvements in this area currently, while XP will probably see good OGL support for new DX10-like features because of good driver models developed by Nvidia and - maybe - ATI. Porting DX10 to XP, 2000 requires lots of work by MS on XPDM (backporting), but isn't impossible. They obviously chose not to go that way for multiple reasons, one of them is just forcing XP out of enthusiast machines ASAP.

They don't make the OS and all other software running on their "gaming api".

Competitors don't need to "make the OS and all other software running on their "gaming api"" in order to be successful. They simply need to provide an alternative gaming api.

You can't hold to standards that doesn't exist. If you want anyone to actually *follow* OpenGL that would require OpenGL to take the lead again first.

Not that i believe Microsoft would follow an standard if it existed, but you know, it is not Microsofts job to push ahead competitors.

But don't worry. For the next two years DX10 only games will be a sure bet for lousy sales and in time when it matters, OpenGL will have catched up again.

OpenGL was a standard for most of the games. Now you see that Microsoft is using their big cash flow to push everyone on the console and using directx.
I still think it's unfair business.

The problem with OpenGL is that if you use anything beyond the basics you have to use extensions and you have to program for each of these extensions. Go ahead and ask John Carmack how much fun that was in Doom 3.

Microsoft pushed their own format which did not need extensions. A console or a handheld that has the same hardware OpenGL with extensions is fine. On a PC platform which can have multiple flavors of video card vendors and multiple video video cards with different features OpenGL is just a silly idea to have to support all of those flavors of extensions.

OpenGL is the ONLY option if you have to support multiple platforms beyond Microsoft platforms (i.e. Macs or Linux), but is pretty useless for much more than that.

DirectX is the much more superior option in drivers and features without having to add any extra layer of complexities.

It has nothing to do with Microsoft's cash flow pushing developers to use DirectX.

This is the reason I can't stand this forum. Too many people here are misinformed and blame everything on Microsoft because they do a lot of things right.

Here is the deal. It's not that I love Microsoft so much, its that almost everyone on here has either an agenda or is really very misinformed.

Microsoft can never have a good product no matter what they do on here. People on here are just so grossly misinformed or have an agenda that is extremely liberal and blame everything on Microsoft.

I get tired of people doing this all the time and every day and every night and not even bothering to see the truth. It is like a world if ignorance out there and even if the truth is out there nobody cares.

The problem with OpenGL is that if you use anything beyond the basics you have to use extensions and you have to program for each of these extensions. Go ahead and ask John Carmack how much fun that was in Doom 3.

I'd love to ask him..

Microsoft pushed their own format which did not need extensions. A console or a handheld that has the same hardware OpenGL with extensions is fine. On a PC platform which can have multiple flavors of video card vendors and multiple video video cards with different features OpenGL is just a silly idea to have to support all of those flavors of extensions.

I'm not sure what you mean here. You need a DX-x capable hw for DX-x "extensions" as well as you need an openGL-X-X capable hardware for openGL-X-X extensions.

DX doesn't enable you to use shaders 2.0 on a non-shader hw so I don't see your point.

Your point about "not need extensions" is a bit stupid.

You have to understand that while Microsoft has done a lot of things right, the things they have done wrong (in peoples minds) overshadow everything. I think what you perceive as agendas and liberalism is simply the fact that people do not trust their motives, so while yes they may do some things right, the perception is that they have ulterior motives. Microsoft has never appeared to welcome and embrace open standards, and that is what largely ticks everyone off. Computing is no longer a luxury (at least in the West), and IMHO conflicting standards is the bane of computing. A lot of people feel this way. I believe that very thing is responsible for one of the worst squandering of manpower that afflicts the computing industry, and Microsoft is perceived as the crown prince of anti-standard vendor lock in behavior. People resent having their freedom tampered with. There have been many times I have wished to PURCHASE a Microsoft product, but from the activation and registration nonsense to the lack of inter-operation with other products, I have chosen another product or just to do without. I really believe if they just devoted all of their immense resources to just making efficient kick ass products they would still be profitable and you would not see the hootin' and hollerin' that takes place any time they announce an initiative.

OpenGL is too slow-moving. That's one big reason why DX has managed to steal its thunder. MS works very closely with video card manufacturers to make sure that they support as much cutting edge functionality as possible -- and that the manufacturers' latest innovations are leveraged by MS's gaming software. OpenGL is much less interested in pushing cutting edge technology into the API so, as a result, MS has managed to take the lead with DX.

"OpenGL was a standard for most of the games. Now you see that Microsoft is using their big cash flow to push everyone on the console and using directx.
I still think it's unfair business."

Actually I disagree with this comment. OpenGL is still used by some of the big game companies, making them available on Linux as well..ever hear of Id Software, Blizzard, etc.?

It is the game companies that choose what to write their games in, not Microsoft. OpenGL works fine in Windows Vista. As for pushing to a console, I wouldn't own a game console myself, but that is my choice, as the games I like, FPS, are available on Windows. Why have a console?

OpenGl is almost never used in the latest. Only a few games are shipped with it (on pc). OpenGL can be implemented by everyone because its open. So now every other OS can take a look at the directx code and push it on their OS ?

Up until mid nineties pcs did not have 3d accelerator cards, only expensive workstations and those were not used for gaming (well... at least not much).
Then came Voodoo cards and Glide was the 3D standard and then after that D3D developed into something usable (although painfull).

On PCs OpenGL *never* was used for gaming. OpenGL games on the PC started when John Carmack of idsoft fame began to promote OpenGL as an better choice (man, Direct3D sucked bad at that time), so graphic card vendors listened to the great god of 3d programming and delivered tiny subsets of OpenGL (thats why these drivers where called MiniGL). The reason for that was that Quake did not have direct 3D support and an graphics card vendor at that time could stop sell his cards if they did not support Quake.

So back in those days OpenGL was mainly used for serious applications.

Of course on consoles OpenGL was the saner choice right away, because why would you want to throw money at microsoft.
And of course DirectX was a better choice for Microsofts XBox because why shouldn't they use their own products.

So what is a standard. Answer there isn't one.

There is OpenGL, but that API isn't a standard, that is why there are so many problems with drivers and then you have to have extensions for each feature on every video card. It is a mess.

Direct3D 10 will only work on Windows Vista, but it brings a "console" experience to the PC.

DirectX also works on the Xbox 360 as well as some arcade games.

Directx 10 is another move to get world domination

Well I think the shareholders would be pretty upset if that wasn't the plan. ..

If they want to show real good products they should hold themselves to the standards so everyone could enjoy them

... hey, there is nothing stopping you building something better than DirectX10 ...

Edited 2006-12-01 15:04

> This puts Vista limiting OpenGL to 1.4 into
> perspective. If they had allowed a modern version of
> OpenGL on Vista companies would be pushed towards
> OpenGL for DX10 features and maximum compatibility.

yes, only that they aren't anymore limiting OpenGL to 1.4 which is widely known for quite some time now.

I just want to say, I am not modding you down.

But yes, it's called SDL.

SDL isn't an OpenGL port. It's an abstraction layer above OpenGL or Direct3D/X.

>DirectX is a proprietary format locked in to a
>specific operating system that cannot be ported over
>to any other platform, or if it can will require a
>lot more work.

Well it works on Windows, Xbox 360, Xbox 1, PocketPC, and some arcade games.

I would not call that the only platform that DirectX is on.

Repeat after me:

Microsoft is one vendor.

DirectX is a vendor lock-in.

>Repeat after me:
>Microsoft is one vendor.
>DirectX is a vendor lock-in.

Microsoft isn't just a vendor, they run the most successfull OS in the world.

DirectX is on Windows, Xbox 360, Xbox 1, Pocket PC, and arcade games.

These are the ONLY platforms I care about and these are the platforms that really matter.

Linux sucks for Multimedia and gaming and the Mac users can just run windows with their new Intel Macs.

There done!

oh man is opengl getting old, sometimes im ashamed to say i use, but hey i take a hit for FOSS

>DirectX is on Windows, Xbox 360, Xbox 1, Pocket PC, >and arcade games.

And ReactOS (open source Windows 2K/XP clone).

It is all nicely build into the OS using DX, you don't need anything else. Just code and go. You don't have to worry about bugs in each library messing you up. It works and it supports a ton of the controllers that can be used by an other OS (ie the Xbox 360 controllers wired and wireless for example). Xbox 360 driving controllers can be used as well on the PC or the Xbox 360.

Your point about bugs is a nice showing of how you think anything from microsoft is bugfree. I think I could just add another "nuff-said" here but won't.

XNA is not an engine, it is a .NET(managed) wrapper for Direct X that allows you to program for both Windows and the Xbox 360 platforms (in managed code and using the same code for both platforms) using the IDE and programming tools of Visual Studio. The one out now is made for indie programmers and a full version will be out for retail programming a little bit latter. If you have tried it, then why are you so misinformed?

XNA is what is called a GAME engine. It adds shortcuts for model loading in 3d, special effects, resource handling, audio support, without you needing to do the low level stuff (which in this case would be DX).

I don't know what you call a GAME engine.. but this is exactly it. It's perfectly comparable to EG: panda3d.

It does not have Shader Model 4.0 and it does not have Geometry Shaders either and there is no streamout support like what is in DX10 either. So you are SOL.

Sure that may be true but you STILL need a gfx card which supports those things. When such a card hits the deck GL will be there as well to support it. DX is just slightly ahead of time here. The streamout is new to me, I admit.


First of all DirectX 10 uses a lot of what is in the WDDM and OpenGL does not use or is designed for the WDDM which will limit OpenGL's use somewhat. Second of all OpenGL is not a new API, there are still lots of Fixed Function stuff in OpenGL. DX10 is a brand new API with no Fixed function code in it's pipeline. You could add in some of the stuff such as the new shaders but you would have to make an extension. This means you have to make things a 1000 times more complex on a PC because they would have to expose this through a new extension for the different video card.

WDDM is just a driver model, that's not a particular advantage although I see your point.

The extension system of openGL isn't a bad thing. I'm not sure what you ment with fixed functions tho. How is DX less problematic with this? You still have to query capabilities of hardware anyhow.

Edited 2006-12-01 10:08

>Your point about bugs is a nice showing of how you
>think anything from microsoft is bugfree. I think I
>could just add another "nuff-said" here but won't.

I never said it was bug free. See the thing is that when hundreds of thousands of video game titles have been written using DirectX most of those bugs will be exposed and fixed. Major developers such as EA use Microsoft Direct X and thus the SDK has been widely used and thus pretty tested. Use your head dude. They have a more unified architecture as well.

>XNA is what is called a GAME engine. It adds
>shortcuts for model loading in 3d, special effects,
>resource handling, audio support, without you
>needing to do the low level stuff (which in this
>case would be DX).

If you call XNA an engine then Direct3D must be an engine too since it has an .x model loader as well.

An engine is something like the Unreal 3 engine or Doom 3 Engine which most of the programming is done for you to make a game. All you need to do is have the artists make models and the rest of the world, plugin the scripting (A.I) and maybe another engine for physics or it maybe already built in.

That is an engine and this has nothing to do with ZNA. XNA is a wrapper for DirectX that allows programmers to program in a language like C#. Yes it is easier, but none of the work is done for you.

That is only part of XNA. There are other parts that help you with management of resources and models and such. I don't think you really tried it and put thought into it.

>Sure that may be true but you STILL need a gfx card
>which supports those things. When such a card hits
>the deck GL will be there as well to support it. DX
>is just slightly ahead of time here. The streamout
>is new to me, I admit.

I never said you didn't have to buy a new video card for Direct3D 10. You can run older games though as you can use DX 9 emulation using DX10 functions.

>WDDM is just a driver model, that's not a particular
>advantage although I see your point.

It offers a huge advantage as DX 10 uses this model to be more reliable than that of OpenGL and uses it to do things that OpenGL cannot do (virtual memory).

>The extension system of openGL isn't a bad thing.
>I'm not sure what you ment with fixed functions tho. >How is DX less problematic with this? You still have
>to query capabilities of hardware anyhow.

For PC's that have different hardware it is a bad thing if you want to do any of the new fun stuff that DX10 cards can do. Programming for different extensions means that you have to waste more time programming for that specific extension rather than having it just built right in using directX.

Basically it goes like this:
more time programming = Bad
more programing having bugs with different extensions = bad

Fixed function means when I call a fog function (just an example here and nothing else) that function just makes fog. It is not programmable like shaders are and slows down the pipeline.

Basically Fixed Function is like this:

Old OpenGL is Fixed Function (non programmable functions)
New OpenGL is programmable using shaders.

Shaders are much better, but fixed function can slow down a programable pipeline.

Also because everyone is calling the same fog fixed function that everyone's fog is going to look the same.

With a programmable shader, you can make your own fog instead of calling a basic fog from the API. This like I said above can slow down your output due to the issues in the programmable pipeline.

Fixed function is legacy code and that is why DX10 is a lot better than OpenGL, it has NO LEGACY and INCLUDES A NEW PIPELINE THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE IN OPENGL.

Imagine if you could design a graphics API from the ground up with NO LEGACY, well this is Direct3D 10.

Direct 3D 10 is not backwards compatible with older versions of Direct 3D. You can however emulate older versions using the new hardware and drivers of the DX10 cards.