The End Of DirectX As We Know It

Wonderful by randomized · 2004-09-06 01:48 · Score: 4, Funny

And after WGF 9.0 they'll finally release OpenGL compatible standard! WOOHOO! :)

--
-- shortcut - the longest distance between two points.

Re:Wonderful by jonsmirl · 2004-09-06 02:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Does anyone have a pointer to more detailed technical specs on this? Like the reference manual for writing a compatible driver?

hmm...might this be the point of time... by scheuri · 2004-09-06 01:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

...where developers have a glance at the new OpenGL?

such changes are perfect to look around instead of hurrying to the next "standard"-MS-stuff....with some luck game devs might see, that OpenGL is neither dead nor old-fashioned!

well, there is hope...even if it is just a little!

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by Ford+Prefect · 2004-09-06 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think there are plenty of titles that use opengl

Doom 3's probably the biggest - and even if you hate the game, its very existence means that graphics card manufacturers can't even think about dropping OpenGL support, at least not without alienating a good number of potential purchasers.

Thanks, John Carmack, for keeping OpenGL alive!

--
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by pVoid · 2004-09-06 02:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

Man, today, it doesn't matter what API you use... The days of backward archane APIs are gone. Every API is just as good, and you know why? Because every API has the goal of allowing access to the underlying structure of the GPU.
Besides, developers today aren't 1 man teams pent up in their basements working against Big Brother, they are billion dollar industries (EA, id, whatever...) who have top of the line programmers who could make *any* API work regardless (because they have the budget to do so), who only really care about the performance and capabilities afforded by the API. Microsoft - like any other big company tending a big market - tries to please them, not piss them off!
IMHO, the time of the underdog syndrome is past... Let people use whatever friggin API they want. It's not like the gaming industry is in the middle of a standards battle.
On a different note, the really amazing thing about Avalon, and you gotta commend Moft for this, is that they're actually moving the graphics driver to User-mode. Just imagine what a gi-nourmous task that is... Let's you appreciate how they can have so much programming going on in there.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by tesmako · 2004-09-06 02:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, when libraries change name it is an obvious reason to go to another library. Not to mention logotypes, I can never feel comfortable with foundation technologies changing logos, you never know where you stand then.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by ergo98 · 2004-09-06 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

On a different note, the really amazing thing about Avalon, and you gotta commend Moft for this, is that they're actually moving the graphics driver to User-mode.

Do you have a source for this? My impression of Avalon is that it's a library and version of Explorer.exe that sits on top of DirectX - of course the video card driver would still be ring 0, and the GDI+++ library (the new Avalon graphics library) would be user mode, just as GDI or GDI+ are today. Avalon represents a new interface application and set of tools for third party applications to use, but it isn't a tremendous plumbing change.

Funny thing about Microsoft software - invariably it hits the market as is dramatically less of a schism than people imagined it to be.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by sh0dan · 2004-09-06 02:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Does that mean that any game made with the Doom 3 engine will be OpenGL?
Yes. Most probably they will.

As a historical note, Halflife added D3D support at some stage, even though it was based on Quake1/2, which was also OpenGL (and Glide & Software) based.
That being said, it was probably a lot easier to add at the time than with current engines, which implement a lot more features.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by sh0dan · 2004-09-06 03:08 · Score: 5, Informative

Thanks, John Carmack, for keeping OpenGL alive!

And he almost decided to kill it off. According to Carmack, the "godawful interface" for OpenGL pBuffers/Render to Texture, made him be "the closest ever to switching over to D3D".

If you are interested in listening to an hour of video-graphics supergeeky stuff, download the one hour video of his keynote from Quakecon 2004.
It contains an hour of tech-talk from John C. about the doom3 engine, and what he's working on now.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-06 04:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

"The days of backward archane APIs are gone."

That's exactly right, because DirectX is the only API people use. Why? Several reasons.
1. It drives all hardware development. There is no hardware built for SDL or OpenGL or what have you. Every feature--bad or good--is built to conform to Microsoft's latest DirectX rather than the other way around. And you thought Microsoft's monopoly was just in software! HA! And wait til you see what Longhorn itself brings to hardware!
Meanwhile, how do you even do Vsync on X11? Can it even be done?
2. Direct3D has pushed the envelope while OpenGL stagnated. Part of me hopes OpenGL 2.0 will turn this around, but you can't ignore reality that the ARB was sitting around on its collective arse for years, growing moldy a la XFree86, with only a hodgepodge of bolted-on extensions backported from DirectX 7, 8, 9. The GL shading language is even the newest shading language on the block---possibly too late for its own good.
3. DirectX, while updated every few years or so, is actually stable and consistent across Windows platforms, and even attempts to be backward compatible. You can play a DirectX 7 game on DirectX 9.0b system and have a pretty good chance it will work 100%. For example, 3Dmark2001SE still runs fine today.
4. DirectX is all-encompassing and isn't a moving target. It's more than Direct3D, but a standard way of getting input, doing sound, etc. That's alot more than the hodgepodge of ever-changing SDL,OSS/Alsa, devfs/udev, new Xorg Xinput extensions, etc. You can't even guarantee consistency across Linux *distributions*, let alone cross-OS, until Linux supports DirectX. Believe it or not, change and choice are *not* always good. You can't build a house if you're always ripping apart the foundation.

"Every API is just as good, and you know why?"

With games costing as much as they do, developers don't want to use every API. They only want to learn 1 and be done with it. That's why there is only 1 PC platform (and XBox) and 1 different console platform allowed to thrive (PS2).
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by ivan256 · 2004-09-06 04:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Man, today, it doesn't matter what API you use...

Yes it does. Some APIs have implementations on multiple platforms, and some don't.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by Corngood · 2004-09-06 05:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

And those platforms are so different that you either have to write a whole bunch of platform specific code, or settle for a least common denominator situation.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by k98sven · 2004-09-06 05:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

The only people who would be affected is OpenGL elitists

No, the only people who would be affected would be everyone who wants to play Doom 3 on their video card. That's a significant number of people.

Remember that Microsoft created PC gaming as we know it.

What the heck are you smoking? Microsoft was a pioneer in writing flight sims. But that's about it. You must be too young to remember what PC gaming was like before Microsoft ruled the universe.

There is nothing wrong with DirectX, except that such a brilliant idea came out of Microsoft.

There are plenty of things wrong with DirectX. One is that it is a proprietary standard created by MS to stop OpenGL. And unexpectedly, DirectX is locked-in to the Windows platform, unlike OpenGL.

It is not a 'brilliant idea' by any stretch of the imagination. It's was a mind-numbingly obvious idea. When DirectX was developed, essentially all PC apps had moved off DOS to Windows, except games. Obviously, Microsoft needed to get game developers to start using Windows. DirectX was an obvious solution. But they could, had they been less 'evil', just as well integrated OpenGL support into Windows instead.

Which I suspect is the real reason that certain people are as pro-OpenGL as they are. It's just more anti-Microsoft sentiment.

No, it's because OpenGL is a non-proprietary, cross-platform standard. DirectX is a proprietary API locked to the Windows platform.

That said, I'll concede that DirectX is better than OpenGL. It must be better than OpenGL to ensure its survival, because no developer wants to lock himself to a single vendor and platform if there is an equally good option.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by paradizelost · 2004-09-06 06:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Every API is just as good, and you know why? Because every API has the goal of allowing access to the underlying structure of the GPU."

That is not what makes the API just as good. if the code were done with opengl, then people on macintosh, linux, etc... could easily port the game, without having to pay fee's to M$ for the use of the new libraries on the respective platforms.

For example. RTCW, Enemy Territory, WWIIOnline, etc... use opengl, so i can play it on all the machines i own, rather than only on 1.

--
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by DWIM · 2004-09-06 07:28 · Score: 3, Informative

Microsoft was a pioneer in writing flight sims.
After purchasing SubLogic's pioneering efforts.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by Jorkapp · 2004-09-06 07:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, Half-Life is still Quake 1 at heart. If you've flipped through the source code in the SDK, you'll see alot of things that still relate it to Quake 1:
/*** * * Copyright (c) 1996-2002, Valve LLC. All rights reserved. * * This product contains software technology licensed from Id * Software, Inc. ("Id Technology"). Id Technology (c) 1996 Id Software, Inc. * All Rights Reserved. * * Use, distribution, and modification of this source code and/or resulting * object code is restricted to non-commercial enhancements to products from * Valve LLC. All other use, distribution, or modification is prohibited * without written permission from Valve LLC. * ****/
Thats the standard comment header in most if not all SDK files.

Though it has been reengineered over the years, its BSP files are still almost Quake 1 compatible, its SPR files can be recompiled in Quake 1 compilers, and many other things.

or more to the point OpenGL in it.
wtf are you on? More than 50% of people use Half-Life's OpenGL renderer over its D3D or Software renderers. Namely due to its better performance on most cards, and that the D3D Renderer is unstable and causes crashes in some instances.

--
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by Sheriff+Fatman · 2004-09-06 07:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

"You must be too young to remember what PC gaming was like before Microsoft ruled the universe."

Um, yeah. Different boot disks for every game, being able to rewrite CONFIG.SYS from memory just to get Wing Commander II to load, the joys of HIMEM.SYS and the differences between extended memory, expanded memory and high memory, manually setting the command-line IRQs for assorted soundcards and trying to find a real-mode DOS mouse driver that loaded in less than 5K of RAM.

Windows 95 (and to a lesser extent, DirectX) made it feasible to run games in the same environment as your 'normal' applications. They meant you could buy any Windows-compatible soundcard, video card, mouse or joystick and be fairly certain it would work. They also turned TCP/IP networking into a mass-market commodity. In that respect, I'd say Microsoft made a pretty substantial contribution to PC gaming as we know it. Created? Perhaps not. But I'd say PC gaming as we know it owes at least as much to Microsoft as it does to anyone else.

--
-- Open Source: It's mad, but you don't have to work here to help.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by yeremein · 2004-09-06 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Um, yeah. Different boot disks for every game, being able to rewrite CONFIG.SYS from memory just to get Wing Commander II to load, the joys of HIMEM.SYS and the differences between extended memory, expanded memory and high memory, manually setting the command-line IRQs for assorted soundcards and trying to find a real-mode DOS mouse driver that loaded in less than 5K of RAM.

Lest we forgot, we have Microsoft to thank for all of that too. :)
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by rd_syringe · 2004-09-06 07:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

even though it was based on Quake1/2

Just pointing out, this is a common mistake. Half-Life was based on a heavily modified Quake 1 engine. Not 2.
Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... by pVoid · 2004-09-06 09:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

My source would be what the Microsoft PR guy is stated to say in the article:
One of the first orders of business is to "fix busted stuff," as Blythe put it. These items include no more blue-screens (hard crashes) caused by the graphics driver, and moving more processing into what's known as user mode. [...]
To that end, Microsoft is investing considerable development resources into ensuring that crashes will be very rare, and that when they do occur (and they will), the graphics subsystem can do a snap-reset so that the user will hopefully not be aware that the subsystem even had a problem.
It's in the article man. One of the most important points made actually. I don't know how much of a divergance there can be from such a statement. If they say "no more graphics driver related BSODs", the *only* possibility is that the driver now sits on ring 3...

WTF 1.0 by flux · 2004-09-06 01:51 · Score: 5, Funny

I think the name has a nice ring to it.

DirectX by pommiekiwifruit · 2004-09-06 01:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

What is this DirectX? On most games today it says "runs on either Nvidia card xxx or ATI card yyy". Portability doesn't exist. I bought a new PC and new games won't run on it. Heck, old games won't run on it either:

"Requires Nvidia TNT2 or better. Must be running as admin. Don't press alt-tab." (ok the last bit is in the readme not on the box). So my non-nvidia card won't help me even though DirectX 9.0c claims to be running fine.

(old coot) I remember when Windows 95 came out and Microsoft claimed that this would let games run on more than a couple of graphics cards. It seems they've given up on that recently (/old coot).

Re:DirectX by FullMetalAlchemist · 2004-09-06 02:00 · Score: 5, Informative

No, it's the gamedevelopers that does that for you by checking for if your card supports the features it needs to be playable.
It's not MicroSoft's fault, by any extension, it is however silly that you are not allowed to check if it is playable according to _your_ standard; and it's the gamedevelopers you should blame.
I guess it's easy to point at something big, like MS if you want someone to blame, people tend to do that.
Re:DirectX by gowen · 2004-09-06 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

What is this DirectX? On most games today it says "runs on either Nvidia card xxx or ATI card yyy". Portability doesn't exist. I bought a new PC and new games won't run on it.
Well, the long and short of it is, if PCs are meant to compete with the PlayStation 2, then they're going to have a narrow band of hardware. The sort of performance needed for a PC game to be equivalent to a PS2/Xbox means having a top end graphics card, and using most of those top end features. Sad, but if you want cutting edge, thats just simply the case. Deal with it.

Me, I just play Nethack and Minesweeper, and use my processor for running calculations in the background.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:DirectX by Tim+C · 2004-09-06 02:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

On most games today it says "runs on either Nvidia card xxx or ATI card yyy".

Well, on most of the requirements I've seen recently, it'll list something like "Graphics card: 100% DirectX 8 compatible, 64MB RAM". Just because in today's hardware market that translates to "a recent card from NVidia or ATI" doesn't make that MS's fault.

So my non-nvidia card won't help me even though DirectX 9.0c claims to be running fine

Chances are, DX 9 *is* running fine, but your card lacks support for certain features used by the game. Now, the game devs could fall back to software, or even just disable those features; not doing so is not the fault of DX or MS.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:DirectX by gl4ss · 2004-09-06 02:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

actually it's the fault of the 3rd party gfx card makers that just adhere to buzzwords, but don't deliver(real performance & etc, even if you had them in mind when coding).

so they put in just enough features that they can dub it as directx9 compatible... and slap it to the retailers with a package that claims it'll run games fast and that it is directx9 compatible - and that it is cheaper than ati/nvidia offering claiming similar things.

remember when virge dx was dubbed as 3d accelerator card?

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

WGF? by ticklemeozmo · 2004-09-06 01:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Microsoft has had some great innovative technologies, however their naming department isn't working all that hard.

Microsoft Windows
Windows Graphics Foundation
(B)it(M)a(P)
Microsoft Proxy Server
Exchange Server
Windows Update Server
Microsoft Word
and many more...

--
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.

Re:WGF? by dasmegabyte · 2004-09-06 02:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

As opposed to the OSS world, where naming is working overtime.

Tell me -- just from the names -- what the following programs do:

Apache
Firefox
Thunderbird
Mono
BitTorrent
Grep
Putty
(and the fucking stupidest ever) Script-Fu, part of The Gimp

The idea, I guess, is to glamorize the program name like a brand name, and I suppose it works for some things (Apache, for example). Most of the time, however, it only serves to confuse people who have never heard of a program before. Microsoft errs on the side of shit you can understand, because when they use funky names (like BackOffice), they spend a lot of time explaining what the damn program does.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:WGF? by WWWWolf · 2004-09-06 02:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Apache

A big honkin' helicopter.

Firefox

Propels Fox upward (or whevever you tilt the stick) while frying everyone nearby on the ground.

Mono

It only plays from the other speaker, or if you're lucky, same stuff from two speakers. So, it's probably ancient.

BitTorrent

Hey, I know this one! It moves tons and tons of bits from one place to another! Am I right?! What did I win? Tell me!

Putty

Turns perfectly working Linux server into a blob of clay, probably. Remotely. From a Windows desktop.

(and the fucking stupidest ever) Script-Fu

"-Fu" probably refers to martial arts, so... um... "Script-Fu's Name that could be understood is not the true Script-Fu's Name." Or something.

I'm sorry. by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-09-06 01:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Did you really say I should look for WTF compatibility?

Hrm. I can hear the slogan now....

If it doesn't make you say "WTF" it isn't from Microsoft!

--
Clear, Dark Skies

I don't think so by Quasar1999 · 2004-09-06 01:56 · Score: 5, Informative

This is a boat load of hogwash. DirectX is here to stay. DirectX is the damned core, Avalon, or whatever the heck they end up calling it is simply a layer on top of DX. But don't take my word for it, google it. There is enough info out there, that anyone that knows how to program for DirectX will immediately realise that it is being modified with the new UI in mind. It's being done to help it hook into DirectX, and if you examine the DX API closely (especially the latest SDK release), you'll notice a trend to add APIs that allow features that are required for a fully integrated UI. And at the end of the day, game developers will still be using the DX api.

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

Re:I don't think so by TheRaven64 · 2004-09-06 03:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Not so. I attended a talk on WGF at Eurographics '04 last week. The disparity between GDI and DirectX is being removed (as DirectDraw and Direct3D were rolled into one around DX8). Avalon will be built on top of WGF, and any Avalon application will be able to exploit 3D capabilities directly without having to use two APIs (if you've ever written a an app that uses GDI and DirectX you'll know that there are a few cases where the two don't exactly play nicely with each other).

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:I don't think so by Quasar1999 · 2004-09-06 04:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Perhaps you misunderstood what was explained at the conference, or they did a poor job of explaining it. Either way, GDI and DX should never, ever be used to access the same screen realestate. The same app can use them at the same time, but never in the same screen area. Now with that said, the avalon interface will support the basic 2D/3D stuff as a superset of what GDI does currently for 90% of the apps out there. If you want to get fancy and use vertex/pixel shaders (or common shaders as they will be called), then you will need to fall back to the DX api... completely... you won't call Avalon for some rendering and DX for the rest, it's either all avalon or all DX, if you try and mix the two, you will have serious issues, probably similiar to the ones you run into with GDI and DX currently.

There are early versions of the API's floating around if you know where to look... trust me when I say this isn't the revolutionary be all and end all of windows graphics API's... It's just a minor evolution of DX, and a wrapper ontop of DX (think d3dx functions currently) that simply makes UI tasks easier. Perhaps that Eurographics '04 talk you attended was a lot of hype with little substance? Did they back up any of their claims?

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

So many changes... by JoeShmoe950 · 2004-09-06 01:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hope that by the 2006 Longhorn release, either most game companies also release their games for Linux, cause Wine is in for a really hard time.

--
Help Fight SPAM today!

Re:So many changes... by _Spirit · 2004-09-06 02:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

When I read the explanation one of Microsofts developers gave of what Avalon is, I got the feeling that is an additional layer on top of DirectX, not a replacement. Their relationship sounded a bit similar to the way Quartz and OpenGL work on Mac OS X: Quartz (the engine that renders the desktop and UI elements) runs on top of OpenGL.

--

beauty is only a light switch away
Re:So many changes... by dave420 · 2004-09-06 03:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Avalon is the name given to the window manager, effectively. DirectX (or whatever it'll be called then) will provide the interface for the hardware and drivers to achieve it. So yes, Avalon==Quartz (but not as advanced as Avalon), and OpenGL==DirectX :)

of course by wobedraggled · 2004-09-06 02:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

M$ knows full well that Wine now has a pretty good hold on DirectX, so of course they are gonna change things around... "rolls eyes"

--
Ubuntu- Linux for human beings.

Re:of course by dasmegabyte · 2004-09-06 02:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, I'm sure the API changes have nothing at all to do with restructuring a terse and complex API or adding changes from user and deveoper requests to improve on the GUI. I'm sure it has everything to do with breaking WINE.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju

Re:Makes perfect sense. by Seoulstriker · 2004-09-06 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

What are you talking about? OS X has native support for OpenGL capability. It just so happens that some desktop graphics functions such as windows are offloaded to the GPU. OpenGL is the equivalent of DirectX. In fact, now that the ARB finally made a decision on shading languages, OpenGL's OGSL is superior to what Microsoft has to offer.

It's just that Microsoft is finally catching up with Apple in [b]using[/b] GPU functions to control more than just games.

--
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.

Re:Makes perfect sense. by intx13 · 2004-09-06 02:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh yes, because opengl in OSX doesn't use up all a low end mac's memory or anything. If Longhorn is going to go for the whole "devote the systems memory to good looks" style, no wonder it requires 1GB ram!

As a poor college student, ram is hard to come by. I don't want my desktop using it all to generate spiffy little icon effects. And seeing as Microsoft isn't going to ship multiple desktops, I hope Longhorn keeps the graphics simple for us poor kids.

Re:Nice... by Tranzig · 2004-09-06 02:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually the whole graphic subsystem was in userland in Windows NT 3. It was bulletproof but slow and it did not allow the low level hw access needed for DirectX, so they moved it into kernel with NT 4.0. And I'm quite sure it will stay there.

Misleading title: DirectX is more than Direct3D by jrest · 2004-09-06 02:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

What about the parts of DirectX that are not about 3D? The article is only about the Direct3D part of DirectX.
I'm using DirectShow a lot myself actually. Are changes expected there too?

--
(Score:5, Not Funny)

mixed feelings by andr0meda · 2004-09-06 02:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's not a good idea to replace an API when that API is one of the major libraries people use to display fast graphics.

It is however a good idea to force people to use a new standard when the old one has limitations that start to pop up. Sometimes it's necessary to cut the cables and start over.

Personally I think Dx9 is still all valid and good, it has no issues concerning shader support or other. I would not have replaced this API at this point, because I would consider the WGF as a surplus, something extra alongside DX. I guess doubling up the internal library is too cumbersome for the ones writing the video card drivers, which is why they replaced everything at once.

--
With great power comes great electricity bills.

MS memo by corpsiclex · 2004-09-06 02:18 · Score: 5, Funny

I propose the following changes, which will result in clarity and increased initial understanding of the product:

Microsoft Windowbird
Bitthunder Mapping Format
Proxyfox
Microsoft WordBird

For every day use, the following abbreviations should be adopted to referring to the product as simple as possible:
MWB
BMF
PFX
MWD
Any more suggestions?

--

eBayDig 1s a typo saerch engien

WGF? by c0p0n · 2004-09-06 02:19 · Score: 2, Funny

WTF!!!

--

Your head a splode

Re:A little early to celebrating? by dave420 · 2004-09-06 02:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Avalon is going to be released to XP before Longhorn is released, so in fact it'll pre-date Longhorn.

In other news.. The end of Windows as we know it. by plams · 2004-09-06 02:23 · Score: 2, Funny

After Windows Longhorn, Windows is no more. In name only. The next OS from Microsoft will be integrated into the core of WMG 9.0.

Seeing that graphics cards exceeds standard desktop computers in both processing power and memory capabilities, it was the logical choice to have the graphics do the OS, and not the other way around., says Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft.

Look out for WMG 9.0 compatibility on the back of that next generation graphics card's box.

Reader in put required ... by Savage-Rabbit · 2004-09-06 02:27 · Score: 3, Funny

WGF=Windows Gone Funky
WGF=Windows Graphical Frustrater
WGF=Windows Gore Functionality
WGF=Windows Glitch Factory
WGF=Windows!!! Go Figure?!?!

Excersize your imagination:
WGF=______________________

Sigh! If only they had called it WTF!

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

Re:Reader in put required ... by Sponge+Bath · 2004-09-06 02:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Excersize your imagination: WGF=______________________
Wife or Girl Friend?

I guess that's more hopeful thinking than imagination.
Re:Reader in put required ... by simonecaldana · 2004-09-06 03:37 · Score: 5, Funny

Won't Go Fast

Ending at Direct X 9.0??? by BTWR · 2004-09-06 02:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Ending at Direct X 9.0??? They could have at least waited for the 10th version: the awesome name "Direct X, X"

Re:Ending at Direct X 9.0??? by plams · 2004-09-06 02:38 · Score: 4, Funny

or direct x_x
Re:Ending at Direct X 9.0??? by spektr · 2004-09-06 03:45 · Score: 4, Funny

They could have at least waited for the 10th version: the awesome name "Direct X, X"

I think they rename it before they reach 10.0 to make it less obvious that they wanted to avoid version Direct-X11.

Re:Makes perfect sense. by Emil+Brink · 2004-09-06 02:37 · Score: 4, Informative

OpenGL is the equivalent of DirectX

Just to pick a nit: this is not true. DirectX is a family of APIs, and not limited to graphics like OpenGL. The latter is roughly the equivalent to Direct3D, however. Or at least it used to be back around DirectX 3.0, heh. But I think it's still the case.

--
main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}

Re:please them? are you sure? by Tim+C · 2004-09-06 02:42 · Score: 5, Informative

Two things:

1) that page, judging by the date at the bottom, is 7 years old - that's plenty of time for the situation to have completely changes
2) judging from the logo on it and the URL, the guy is particularly anti-MS; you might want to cite a source with a little more objectivity

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Or by Whatsmynickname · 2004-09-06 02:45 · Score: 5, Funny

wait for DirectX 20

DirectXXX

M$ is the only one to blame... by mangu · 2004-09-06 02:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

...for inventing their own standard, instead of collaborating with the OpenGL group. That's a typical micro$oft tactic, create a new, incompatible, standard and keep changing it, to force people to upgrade.

I have the same problem the grandparent post mentions. I used to like a game by Electronic Arts, "Need for Speed - Porsche Unleashed", which was released in 2000. Then in 2003 they released "Need for Speed Underground", which required a card beyond my Riva TNT2, so I got a GeForce FX5200. Now NFSPU doesn't play in the FX5200. Unfortunately, the newer NFS sucks, it's a game designed for an arcade experience, while NFSPU was designed more like a simulator.

But why, you will ask, is this micro$oft's fault, if Electronic Arts is the company that publishes the NFS series? Because of DirectX. OpenGL games, like "Grand Prix Legends", for instance, keep running in newer hardware and software. It's micro$oft's fault if the DirectX standard changes from one release to the other making older software incompatible. The newer release should be guaranteed to support every single feature in the older version.

Of course, Electronic Arts is also guilty in this case, if an open standard exists, they shouldn't adopt a broken monopolistic standard. Well, I guess I'll never buy another racing simulator again, I'll either get an open source alternative, or pirate the commercial games.

Re:M$ is the only one to blame... by FullMetalAlchemist · 2004-09-06 03:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, DirectX is fully backwards compatible.
It's probably driver problem causing this, because you normally need a new driver to match the DirectX increments; sucks, but that's what it takes.
It's actually the buyers market, if people didn't spend money on top of the line graphics cards with new features then DirectX wouldn't need to be updated to accomodate those features.

I do think that better game programmers would write a more dynamic gfx engines that are pluggable with the new features instead of demanding them; so that they don't have to be emulated by DirectX either; on the other hand it would mean less optimized inner loops.

Re:please them? are you sure? by dasmegabyte · 2004-09-06 02:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not to mention that the reasons the article states for DX sucking HAVE been improved upon my Microsoft, and in most cases, greatly so.

Meaning that this article serves as a shining example of MS listening to developers.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju

Re:A little early to celebrating? by myster0n · 2004-09-06 02:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Then why is avalon being dropped from longhorn?

--
Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source. -- Ron Nesen

Re:please them? are you sure? by 1qa2ws3ed · 2004-09-06 03:01 · Score: 2

1) after 7 years, microsoft still doesn't provide opengl as an official api, as requested by developers. 2) the original quotes in that page are not of particularly anti-MS guys but of higlhy regarded professional 3d programmers, they make up most of the page, and looks more than objective to me. if you know of some of those facts to be false, your input is welcome. my opinion is that at least regarding 3d api microsoft historically prefers the "lock in" tactic to the "please the developers" tactic.

Oh I got a good one! by FatalTourist · 2004-09-06 03:11 · Score: 3, Funny

Windows... uh.. Graphics... Foundation!
Ha ha!
What?
Shit.

--

Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series

[OT] Re:Nice... by Tranzig · 2004-09-06 03:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

I did not say you are wrong, I said the thing you quoted from the article is unlikely to happen.

You are right, much time have passed since NT 3.1. Those days microkernels was thought to be the state of art, the future of kernels. Smart people claimed that as the hardware evolve, the performance gap between monolithic kernels and microkernels will become negligible and the robustness of microkernels will make it superior.
But it did not happen. Today, monolithic kernels dominate the desktop market, the only exception is OSX with its Mach kernel. The quasi-micro NT kernel was turned into a bloated monolithic kernel, BeOS died, and Hurd... hasn't really born yet.
Conclusion: monolitic design is still the way to follow.

Now back to the original topic: I don't really see any reason for userland graphics except stability. It WILL decrease performance, which is cruical for the VGA cards, and might result in driver incompatibility I think. If I'm right, then it will take quite some time to write compatible drivers for older cards (assuming that nvidia and ati is willing to write for their own cards). And Microsoft does not have time, they already decided to leave out WinFS from Longhorn. They can't postpone Longhorn beyond 2006 because that would be too big pull for desktop Linux/BSD. And I guess by 2006 ReactOS will become a usable OS too.

Re:[OT] Re:Nice... by Naysayer · 2004-09-06 05:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Right now, a lot of high-end games using Direct3D spend a lot of time going through kernel traps because every time you call DrawPrimitive, well, there go a boatload of cycles. This is becoming a real bottleneck to how much can be rendered.

I don't know if that's the main motivator to them moving things to user-mode or not, but it seems so. I can imagine the drivers being built in a two-stage structure where the bulk of the driver is in user mode and a small back-end runs in kernel mode.

I am not sure what world Tranzig here lives in ... Nvidia and ATI are totally prepped for the move to WGF.

Wait for it... by emarkp · 2004-09-06 03:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Since it is a MS product, be sure to wait until version 3.0.

(Yes, that is a joke.)

Re:Windows Girl Friend by BCW2 · 2004-09-06 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

"We must start coding our version NOW if we're going to have any chance of opening up how girls actually work!"

I'm sorry to tell you that this is the impossible dream. Having been married for 21 years and having 3 daughters I am an expert on how little men will ever know about women. The more you learn, the less sense it makes. Accept it and try to solve an easier problem, like the beginning of the universe, it will take less time and be achieveable!

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.

Re:curious by TheRaven64 · 2004-09-06 04:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Not really. DirectX includes functional equivalents of:

OpenGL (Direct3D)
OpenAL / CoreAudio (DirectSound)
Quicktime (DirectShow)
OpenPlay (DirectPlay)
HID Manager (DirectInput)

I may have missed a few things. WGF is roughly equivalent to OpenGL / Quartz Extreme and everything else that DirectX does at the moment, while Avalon is equivalent to Aqua / WindowServer. Of course, the differences in architectural designs mean that these equivalencies are only very approximate.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:Windows Girl Friend by pandrijeczko · 2004-09-06 04:01 · Score: 5, Funny

I quite fancy the idea of Windows Girl Friend, especially if she is modelled on "Clippy":

Would you like me to:

- Make your dinner?

- Massage your feet?

- Get you a beer from the fridge?

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.

Vaguely on-topic by bairy · 2004-09-06 04:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does anyone happen to know how DirectX got it's name?

--

Get paid to search..It's geniune and

Re:Vaguely on-topic by mikael · 2004-09-06 04:37 · Score: 3, Informative

Back in the early 1990's, Microsoft saw the re-emergence of console systems, and realised the PC platform was under threat. After consulting with many game developers, the one complaint that kept coming up was the lack of a consistent interface to control hardware. Game developers had to write their own drivers to support all the different sounds cards, video cards and CPU's that were available. So Microsoft announced a set of of libraries that would give programmers direct control of the hardware without needing to resort to hardware programming. This set of libaries became known as DirectX.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads

The end? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-06 04:21 · Score: 3, Funny

K. Brockman : ... and it appears to be the end of DirectX ...
H. Simpson : Woohoo!!
K. Brockman : ... as we know it.
H. Simpson : D'oh!!

Re:A little early to celebrating? by hedge_death_shootout · 2004-09-06 06:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Seeing as Avalon probably isnt going to make it to LongHorn, which is due out, oooh, some time 2007!?

I see this is modded 'interesting'.
Interesting, I have to presume, in the way that the statement "spider monkeys built the Great Wall of China" might be regarded as interesting.

OT: is this a entry point for OSS by Stevyn · 2004-09-06 08:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

DirectX is a bunch of APIs that are intended to make game development easier for developers. While microsoft fiddles around with the name and marketing brochures on this for a while, would this be a good time to develop a set of standards for running games on linux? A combination of graphics, sound, controllers, and network handling might sound good for a developer trying to get games to run on linux, but is worried about the costs of trying to find each component and hope it works on most people's computer.

Then again, if wineX can fit the bill for now, maybe developers should just try to make sure their products work with that. It's cheaper and probably not the best for linux in the long run, but it takes care of the need now and at lower costs.

Any set of standards would have to work then with windows or else developers probably wouldn't be interested. Does anyone know of any projects that aimed to do this with some success?

Mandatory notice by Lisandro · 2004-09-06 12:02 · Score: 2, Informative

I've noticed a lot of people referring to Direct3D as DirectX; given, it's the most visible part of the API, but DirectX is much broader and cover sound, networking, controllers, and so.

OpenGL is the multiplatform equivalent of Direct3D, and APIs like SDL are the multiplatform equivalent of SDL.

Just nitpicking here ;)

End of DirectX? by CrazyMalaysian · 2004-09-06 15:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Did linux just grab a large share of the market, and did Microsoft suddenly go broke?

Slashdot Mirror

The End Of DirectX As We Know It

75 of 285 comments (clear)