On the Subject of OpenGL 2.0

zendal writes "The danger with pixel shaders and vertex shaders is that there is no standard for programmability of graphics hardware. A schism has formed within DirectX between the competing demands of GPU makers Nvidia and ATI. Noted analyst Jon Peddie gives THG an exclusive first look at a White Paper on how OpenGL 2.0 is trying to bring stability and open standards to programmable graphics and GPUs."

Comments

Re:DirectX and speed

[grinwell]

Interesting quote from the article:

In fact, the tables have turned. Less burdened by the OpenGL committee-based design approach, DirectX is providing a number of examples for what OpenGL might someday offer. The prime innovation is the promise of programmability included in an API, which, though quite a ways from being widely put to work by developers, is attractive to ISVs and IHVs alike. It means that graphics development can be taken as far as any creative developer wants to take it, and all the effects, looks and features will be accessible by mainstream hardware and software. It also offers that long-sought and oft-promised goal of "off-loading the host CPU." The members of the OpenGL ARB, for the most part, companies also developing products for DirectX , clearly recognize the desirability of furthering OpenGL - the ability to deliver their products across hardware platforms. GOD, I THINK THAT'S WORSE. Try this

(methinks the editor left in a few comments ;-)

Excuse me?

[qurob]

"OpenGL 2.0 is trying to bring stability and open standards to programmable graphics and GPUs."

Uh...isn't that what OpenGL did in the first place?

This is a technology that's been around for years and isn't verion 9 yet :)