It's clear both API's will be around for a while, so why not learn to live with them both?
Only the most hard-core pundits are going to make this out to be some kind of war between API's. They both have their advantages and disadvantages--and as programmers, we can choose which one suits our needs best.
Those who want a portable and robust API will choose OpenGL, and those who want to be able to run with the latest hardware and take advantage of Windows-only features, can choose D3D.
They both have their drawbacks too. It's unfortunate that OpenGL's review process takes so long to specify new features, just as it is unfortunate that D3D changes with each version at MS's whim. As a programmer you just have to decide which drawbacks you can live with.
Although this is an obvious troll, I'd still like to address these points, because a lot of people posting here seem to be clueless on some of these issues:
We are not talking about D3D 3.0 anymore. 7.0 is here, and its not your mother's pansy-ass D3D anymore. It's as fast as OpenGL, and blows it away in features and power.
This sounds more like market-speak than any kind of statement based in fact. Can you provide some examples of how an API can be fast and/or powerful?
OpenGL used to be safe in the knowledge, that as much support as D3D could get, it was still king in terms of features. Not anymore. These days there are a host of features that the D3D programmer has direct access to, but is not directly accessible from the OpenGL API.
Tell you what... For every "feature" you can find that cannot be implemented as an OpenGL extension, I'll list one that isn't in D3D... Go on, I'm waiting...
OpenGL is does not have the speed advantage anymore.
Well there goes all your credibility. Please explain again, how an API can be faster or slower than another one. An API is just an interface. Some vendors' implementations may differ in speed, but there is nothing about the API that specifies a speed difference.
The OpenGL API is not powerful enough. It does not give you enough low-level access.
You're programming down to the vertex on both API's. How much lower do you want to go, and still be able to run on all hardware?
OpenGL is not extenible. Sure there are OpenGL extensions, but they are silly compared to the ones in D3D.
They're silly... Another statement based in fact I see...
Yea thats right everyone.. Just a troll.. move along.. nothing to see here..
Hmm... Maybe I didn't look closely enough, but all I see are programming manuals and overviews of the chip's architecture. This is much less information than they released for past chips. I wouldn't trump it up as "opening their hardware" unless they did something totally uneard of like posting its complete ASIC design.
That's just it... there are many ways of doing an "open" project. You can release early and often, or you can wait until you feel the public is "ready" for your code and then release it. However I am biased: Personally, I tend to put more stock in the first method. I mean, how do you know when your code is "ready"? When it doesn't crash anyone's system? When it doesn't have any visible bugs? Isnt the strength of open software the fact that more eyes make fixing bugs easier and quicker?
There doesn't seem to me to be any point to waiting until the code is "ready". You'll find as you wait longer and longer, "ready" keeps getting farther and farther away!
The responses from Metallica during the chat for the most part were in the instantly recognisable "canned press-release-like" drone, although there were a few responces that seemed more honest and off-the-cuff.
I asked them to compare MP3 distribution to radioplay. Like Napster, the radio networks are basically a huge legitimate way to transmit information (in the form of music) to users.
My question then was to why is one method considered illegal while the other is legal and seemingly OK with Metallica (I have heard Metallica songs on the radio, so I assume they have no problem with stations broadcasting their music).
There response was that MP3's are of higher quality.
So what if someone would encode an MP3 at a bitrate producing a quality similar to radio and distributed that one instead? They had nothing to say to this one.
It's amusing to see that Russia, a country where during the cold war millions of Americans were taught to hate/fear as the big, bad, oppressive Soviet Union, may turn out to be the one place where information and "intellectual property" is free and safe from censorship.
Ahh, good ol' Slashdot. Bring up an alternate point of view and you generate a lot of replies:)
Every argument for copyrights I have heard so far goes along the following lines:
"Without copyright, information would not exist!"
Where _information_ refers to art, literature, music, etc.
May I remind everyone that the concept of "owning an idea" is a relatively new one. It's not some inherent right that everyone has, but one brought into this world by _people_.
Before the concept of intellectual property, did we have art? Literature? Music? Of course. It is absurd to suggest that people wouldn't create information without the ability to hoarde it.
Unfortunately most of the "civilized" world has forgotten this. We now see art and literature as purely a vehicle to create profit.
If all information was free, you'd be paying for the book, or the CD, and not the information contained within. Can the artist not eat from the profits made this way? And if they are selling their media at a price above what the public is willing to pay, I see no harm in someone else coming up with an alternate means of distribution.
"Copyright" and "Intellectual Property" are ideas invented by corporations, and forced through the law-making process by corporations. It's no surprise that when people violate these so-called laws, it's corporations that get all excited.
I challenge anyone to name one instance where a "Copyright" has helped a consumer, rather than an information-hoarder.
Perhaps I shouldn't lower myself to respond to your obvious troll, but here goes...
Some of us are actually 3D graphics enthusiasts who do get alot out of viewing and tweaking source code. Just because you happen to be a 12 year old kid who only uses the 3D card his mommy bought him to play Quake, that doesn't mean everyone is that unfortunate.
Perhaps I want the source so I can run it on an Alpha or PowerPC machine, whose binaries are noticably ABSENT from NVIDIA's web site.
Besides, what Linux user in his right mind would install a binary only KERNEL MODULE, not to mention one that is totally unsupported?
No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or
disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the
source code. No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a
single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more
than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts. No
Rental. Customer may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE to someone else.
Have fun, guys... I'm sticking with hardware that has free drivers.
Everyone is going to announce their latest chip with guns blazing, claiming that it will be the fastest thing ever, with the most features, bla. blah blah.
And, I'm surprised slashdotters are falling for it. "Look at those specs!!! It must be good!!! I can't wait to buy it!!!" The marketing folks there must be already patting themselves on the back.
If anyone's suffered through ATI's past chips (and their [lack of] relationship with the Linux community) they will already know to stay away from anything ATI puts out in the future.
When shopping for hardware, especially video hardware where the competition is downright cutthroat, here are some do's and dont's:
Don't rely on online reviews.
Or at least hit reload every once in a while to make sure the site isn't financially supported by one of the card companies reviewed. Let's not forget the fiasco where a chip company's ads were running on "you know who's" Hardware Guide a few months back when they were trying to do an "unbiased" review.
Don't rely on benchmarks created by a graphics chip company.
Of course NVIDIA's card will run the NVIDIA tree demo faster than anyone else!!! What unbiased information does this tell you? Nothing. I personally find any benchmark that is not part of an actual application totally useless. Quake is an OKAY benchmark if youre into gaming, and many CAD applications come with their own benchmarks. I'd put a little more trust in these.
Test all resolutions and color depths
Remember: low-resolution and/or high-poly tests guage the driver's performance and efficiency, while high-resolution, low-poly tests guage the card's fillrate. Don't trust a Quake benchmark that is only done at 640x480. Beta or low-quality drivers can make a card look bad at this low a resolution.
Test on multiple CPU's
Make sure the graphics chip's performance scales well with better CPU's. Drivers can also be optimized for Pentium-2 and -3 class machines. ________________________________
What also makes the system very different is the CPU--it stands under 30 cm high and has a front-loading CD-ROM system.
DAMN! I didn't know Intel made CPU's that big--I always thought they were getting smaller! And a built-in CD-ROM? Holy crap, that must require a huge heatsink!;-)
Oh, wait a minute, perhaps this is just a case of CNET interviewing a moron...
The number one annoying thing about Anonymous Cowards: They have this strange ability to flame and insult someone and try to pass it off as intellegent debate.
What the anti-GPL crowd always forgets is, that no one is forcing you to use a particular piece of software.
If you don't agree with the conditions of a particular software's license, then you don't have to use it! In the past whenever I have released software, I have used the GPL, to ensure that the software remains free (as in speech). If you don't like this condition, that's no problem with me--just find some other software that is suitable for you.
I find it pretty amusing that someone who seems to be a proponent of Linux, still clings to the old notion that source code should be hidden.
Your arguments are all based on the Law. The Law is based on prodcuts with finite supply. MP3s are not affected by scarcity. The Law is wrong. Your argument is wrong.
Partially correct. Traditional larceny laws are based on products with a finite supply. Once so-called "Intellectual property" came along, companies started whining that they couldn't hoard their information, so they convinced the government to enact absurd copyright and patent laws, all under the guise of "furthering the arts and sciences".
I have yet to see any example where a copyright or patent furthered anything but the bank account of the person who was given rights to the idea or information. ________________________________
Your argument is essentially, "It's stealing because it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's stealing." I don't see anything strong about that.
Once something becomes available for all, it immediately becomes worth $0, regardless of whether doing it is illegal. Sure, you can still pay for it if you want, and many people do. But anything you pay would be above market price.
And as to your "stealing from a store" argument, another poster already pointed out the difference between abundant supply and infinite supply. Until we get some kind of material replicators which can duplicate physical objects, anything you find in a store will be "abundant" instead of "infinite" and thus have worth, so yes you'd be stealing if you walked in and took one. ________________________________
Slashdot Mirror
It's clear both API's will be around for a while, so why not learn to live with them both?
Only the most hard-core pundits are going to make this out to be some kind of war between API's. They both have their advantages and disadvantages--and as programmers, we can choose which one suits our needs best.
Those who want a portable and robust API will choose OpenGL, and those who want to be able to run with the latest hardware and take advantage of Windows-only features, can choose D3D.
They both have their drawbacks too. It's unfortunate that OpenGL's review process takes so long to specify new features, just as it is unfortunate that D3D changes with each version at MS's whim. As a programmer you just have to decide which drawbacks you can live with.
Although this is an obvious troll, I'd still like to address these points, because a lot of people posting here seem to be clueless on some of these issues:
We are not talking about D3D 3.0 anymore. 7.0 is here, and its not your mother's pansy-ass D3D anymore. It's as fast as OpenGL, and blows it away in features and power.
This sounds more like market-speak than any kind of statement based in fact. Can you provide some examples of how an API can be fast and/or powerful?
OpenGL used to be safe in the knowledge, that as much support as D3D could get, it was still king in terms of features. Not anymore. These days there are a host of features that the D3D programmer has direct access to, but is not directly accessible from the OpenGL API.
Tell you what... For every "feature" you can find that cannot be implemented as an OpenGL extension, I'll list one that isn't in D3D... Go on, I'm waiting...
OpenGL is does not have the speed advantage anymore.
Well there goes all your credibility. Please explain again, how an API can be faster or slower than another one. An API is just an interface. Some vendors' implementations may differ in speed, but there is nothing about the API that specifies a speed difference.
The OpenGL API is not powerful enough. It does not give you enough low-level access.
You're programming down to the vertex on both API's. How much lower do you want to go, and still be able to run on all hardware?
OpenGL is not extenible. Sure there are OpenGL extensions, but they are silly compared to the ones in D3D.
They're silly... Another statement based in fact I see...
Yea thats right everyone.. Just a troll.. move along.. nothing to see here..
Hmm... Maybe I didn't look closely enough, but all I see are programming manuals and overviews of the chip's architecture. This is much less information than they released for past chips. I wouldn't trump it up as "opening their hardware" unless they did something totally uneard of like posting its complete ASIC design.
Nope. He's right, man.. Cash was in it during the DOOM days.
That's just it... there are many ways of doing an "open" project. You can release early and often, or you can wait until you feel the public is "ready" for your code and then release it.
However I am biased: Personally, I tend to put more stock in the first method. I mean, how do you know when your code is "ready"? When it doesn't crash anyone's system? When it doesn't have any visible bugs? Isnt the strength of open software the fact that more eyes make fixing bugs easier and quicker?
There doesn't seem to me to be any point to waiting until the code is "ready". You'll find as you wait longer and longer, "ready" keeps getting farther and farther away!
The amusing thing about this question (basically, "are you lying?") is that whether they answer YES or NO, you still don't really have an answer...
:)
The responses from Metallica during the chat for the most part were in the instantly recognisable "canned press-release-like" drone, although there were a few responces that seemed more honest and off-the-cuff.
I asked them to compare MP3 distribution to radioplay. Like Napster, the radio networks are basically a huge legitimate way to transmit information (in the form of music) to users.
My question then was to why is one method considered illegal while the other is legal and seemingly OK with Metallica (I have heard Metallica songs on the radio, so I assume they have no problem with stations broadcasting their music).
There response was that MP3's are of higher quality.
So what if someone would encode an MP3 at a bitrate producing a quality similar to radio and distributed that one instead? They had nothing to say to this one.
"No"? What kind of topic is that?? If you're going to make a one-word topic, at least be an optimist and call it "yes" ;-)
My bad... I'm surprised I missed that one... almost two weeks ago!
NOTE: This was rejected as a slashdot front page article, but it seems relevant here:
These guys at Brown University put together a huge (ten story high) tetris game, made out of their library's windows. Damn cool if you ask me!
It's amusing to see that Russia, a country where during the cold war millions of Americans were taught to hate/fear as the big, bad, oppressive Soviet Union, may turn out to be the one place where information and "intellectual property" is free and safe from censorship.
Youd only really have to store the game trees that are _candidates_ for the solution. Game trees that result in losses can be pruned.
Ahh, good ol' Slashdot. Bring up an alternate point of view and you generate a lot of replies
Every argument for copyrights I have heard so far goes along the following lines:
"Without copyright, information would not exist!"
Where _information_ refers to art, literature, music, etc.
May I remind everyone that the concept of "owning an idea" is a relatively new one. It's not some inherent right that everyone has, but one brought into this world by _people_.
Before the concept of intellectual property, did we have art? Literature? Music? Of course. It is absurd to suggest that people wouldn't create information without the ability to hoarde it.
Unfortunately most of the "civilized" world has forgotten this. We now see art and literature as purely a vehicle to create profit.
If all information was free, you'd be paying for the book, or the CD, and not the information contained within. Can the artist not eat from the profits made this way? And if they are selling their media at a price above what the public is willing to pay, I see no harm in someone else coming up with an alternate means of distribution.
"Copyright" and "Intellectual Property" are ideas invented by corporations, and forced through the law-making process by corporations. It's no surprise that when people violate these so-called laws, it's corporations that get all excited.
I challenge anyone to name one instance where a "Copyright" has helped a consumer, rather than an information-hoarder.
If these were set up in a Dual-CPU configuration would you have to pronounce it Duron-Duron?
Perhaps I shouldn't lower myself to respond to your obvious troll, but here goes...
Some of us are actually 3D graphics enthusiasts who do get alot out of viewing and tweaking source code. Just because you happen to be a 12 year old kid who only uses the 3D card his mommy bought him to play Quake, that doesn't mean everyone is that unfortunate.
Perhaps I want the source so I can run it on an Alpha or PowerPC machine, whose binaries are noticably ABSENT from NVIDIA's web site.
Besides, what Linux user in his right mind would install a binary only KERNEL MODULE, not to mention one that is totally unsupported?
________________________________
Bzzzz... No source in the src rpm's.
________________________________
2.1.2 Limitations.
No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or
disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the
source code. No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a
single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more
than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts. No
Rental. Customer may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE to someone else.
Have fun, guys... I'm sticking with hardware that has free drivers.
________________________________
You're absolutely right...
Everyone is going to announce their latest chip with guns blazing, claiming that it will be the fastest thing ever, with the most features, bla. blah blah.
And, I'm surprised slashdotters are falling for it. "Look at those specs!!! It must be good!!! I can't wait to buy it!!!" The marketing folks there must be already patting themselves on the back.
If anyone's suffered through ATI's past chips (and their [lack of] relationship with the Linux community) they will already know to stay away from anything ATI puts out in the future.
When shopping for hardware, especially video hardware where the competition is downright cutthroat, here are some do's and dont's:
Don't rely on online reviews.
Or at least hit reload every once in a while to make sure the site isn't financially supported by one of the card companies reviewed. Let's not forget the fiasco where a chip company's ads were running on "you know who's" Hardware Guide a few months back when they were trying to do an "unbiased" review.
Don't rely on benchmarks created by a graphics chip company.
Of course NVIDIA's card will run the NVIDIA tree demo faster than anyone else!!! What unbiased information does this tell you? Nothing. I personally find any benchmark that is not part of an actual application totally useless. Quake is an OKAY benchmark if youre into gaming, and many CAD applications come with their own benchmarks. I'd put a little more trust in these.
Test all resolutions and color depths
Remember: low-resolution and/or high-poly tests guage the driver's performance and efficiency, while high-resolution, low-poly tests guage the card's fillrate. Don't trust a Quake benchmark that is only done at 640x480. Beta or low-quality drivers can make a card look bad at this low a resolution.
Test on multiple CPU's
Make sure the graphics chip's performance scales well with better CPU's. Drivers can also be optimized for Pentium-2 and -3 class machines.
________________________________
My favorite quote from the article:
;-)
What also makes the system very different is the CPU--it stands under 30 cm high and has a front-loading CD-ROM system.
DAMN! I didn't know Intel made CPU's that big--I always thought they were getting smaller! And a built-in CD-ROM? Holy crap, that must require a huge heatsink!
Oh, wait a minute, perhaps this is just a case of CNET interviewing a moron...
The number one annoying thing about Anonymous Cowards: They have this strange ability to flame and insult someone and try to pass it off as intellegent debate.
I bet if a concentrated effort is made, this new "secure" file format can be cracked and unlocked in record time...
Here we go again...
What the anti-GPL crowd always forgets is, that no one is forcing you to use a particular piece of software.
If you don't agree with the conditions of a particular software's license, then you don't have to use it! In the past whenever I have released software, I have used the GPL, to ensure that the software remains free (as in speech). If you don't like this condition, that's no problem with me--just find some other software that is suitable for you.
I find it pretty amusing that someone who seems to be a proponent of Linux, still clings to the old notion that source code should be hidden.
Your arguments are all based on the Law. The Law is based on prodcuts with finite supply. MP3s are not affected by scarcity. The Law is wrong. Your argument is wrong.
Partially correct. Traditional larceny laws are based on products with a finite supply. Once so-called "Intellectual property" came along, companies started whining that they couldn't hoard their information, so they convinced the government to enact absurd copyright and patent laws, all under the guise of "furthering the arts and sciences".
I have yet to see any example where a copyright or patent furthered anything but the bank account of the person who was given rights to the idea or information.
________________________________
Your argument is essentially, "It's stealing because it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's stealing." I don't see anything strong about that.
Once something becomes available for all, it immediately becomes worth $0, regardless of whether doing it is illegal. Sure, you can still pay for it if you want, and many people do. But anything you pay would be above market price.
And as to your "stealing from a store" argument, another poster already pointed out the difference between abundant supply and infinite supply. Until we get some kind of material replicators which can duplicate physical objects, anything you find in a store will be "abundant" instead of "infinite" and thus have worth, so yes you'd be stealing if you walked in and took one.
________________________________