MS has said that if Blu-Ray becomes the clear leader, they will put out a 360 add-on for it. This would make the 360 a dual format player, just what everyone wants.
SDL tries to be DX ported to other OS's. It is a much better choice than Allegro, and has been used commercially. It even came about from Loki, a commercial group releasing games for Linux. It just falls short when you reach debugging or advanced features. DirectX has been ported to the DreamCast, and is a big part of the XBox and PocketPC.
Wrote quite a few 2d top down games and other weird demos with it.
This is actually part of my point. Allegro was originally the way things were done, but they never moved out of the stone age. I've tried to use it myself, but it's just too barbaric. I remember back in 98 trying to load graphics with it and you had to do some really bizarre things. Later when I learned DirectDraw, it was a much simpler process. You create a buffer, load the graphic onto it, and it's ready for display.
So if by producing Windows software you could be finacially set, would you do it? I know quite a few people who retired at 30 after making a couple million. It's not uncommon, but it is harder as time moves on.
Allegro is not a good solution. It has lots of issues and bugs of its own, and the only support you get is "here's the source!".
Second, I don't see how writing for DX can be easier than GL. DX like all MSFT software has a long list of complicated functions that are well documented in the MSDN but only useful for that platform. Learning GL means you can write apps for many more OSes.
It's "in MSDN", no need for "the". Learning GL means you can use GL on the platform you learned it on. They all have various incompatabilities and differences in how they operate. There are some libraries that try to take care of this all, but usually they fall short of the quality one would expect from a game company if given the time to do a proper release. Also, you need to consider that it's Direct3D, as GL provides no real competition to DX as a whole.
It's lazyness and indifference that causes people to just use DX and other msft proprietary shit apis.
And here's the strong-man showing your true goal to push inaccurate FUD. DX is much more an enterprise class API with the debugging and profiling support than GL. MS has teams of people you can call and get support from. GL has the internet. Expecially if we consider managed DirectX, then programming in GL you will often end up trying to add things in that DX already has such as reference counted buffers and texture management.
This makes no sense.. and to clear the confusion, DOOM 3 ran with OpenGL shaders. Carmack himself pushes NV/ATI to better support OGL so that his games will run.
Because your anecdotal evidence with no information is worth precisely jack. You're going to have to provide numbers, proof of these numbers, and descriptions of the operation.
You are assuming they are hacking DX10 to run on Windows XP and earlier. This is incorrect. They state they are translating the DX10 shaders and calls to run on DX9.
There's also DirectX, Visual Studio, XNA, and tons of other MS supplied services/help/software that makes programming on Windows that much easier for games development...
Clearly trolling.. Since the days of at least Windows 98 there were built in mechanisms to backup and restore the registry. Windows XP even does this on its own when needed.
You can do it, but it's really slow and not hardware accelerated... There's a "3D" window manager addon that lets you tilt windows and do some other weird things. It's been around since at least Windows 2000 and I know it works on XP.
DirectX has been around for a long time. Long before OpenGL was on the desktop. Direct3D may be competing with OpenGL, but we should all be glad for the competition. The OpenGL board stagnated and didn't update for a few years. In this time, MS updated DirectX and tried to keep one step ahead of video card makers. Whereas OpenGL was playing catch up with hardware that was a couple generations old.
"This environment (for me) is FAR more productive than XP or Vista could ever be."
Loaded statement... Mark parent troll/overrated/flamebait. Even if Vista was Ubuntu then you would still not be as productive in Vista? Logic make you not sense.
Multiple virtual desktops pales greatly in comparison with multi-monitor. Virtual desktops are pretty clumsy for a number of reasons, including having to look around to find the one that has what you want on it.
Slashdot Mirror
MCE has had MSN Remote Record for a long ass time. tv.msn.com
Using "M$" makes you look like a conspiracy theorist on high power hallucinogens.
MS has said that if Blu-Ray becomes the clear leader, they will put out a 360 add-on for it. This would make the 360 a dual format player, just what everyone wants.
So it's ok that you have to hassle a company into providing you this support and that's what makes them the BEST?
This is actually part of my point. Allegro was originally the way things were done, but they never moved out of the stone age. I've tried to use it myself, but it's just too barbaric. I remember back in 98 trying to load graphics with it and you had to do some really bizarre things. Later when I learned DirectDraw, it was a much simpler process. You create a buffer, load the graphic onto it, and it's ready for display.
So if by producing Windows software you could be finacially set, would you do it? I know quite a few people who retired at 30 after making a couple million. It's not uncommon, but it is harder as time moves on.
It's "in MSDN", no need for "the". Learning GL means you can use GL on the platform you learned it on. They all have various incompatabilities and differences in how they operate. There are some libraries that try to take care of this all, but usually they fall short of the quality one would expect from a game company if given the time to do a proper release. Also, you need to consider that it's Direct3D, as GL provides no real competition to DX as a whole. And here's the strong-man showing your true goal to push inaccurate FUD. DX is much more an enterprise class API with the debugging and profiling support than GL. MS has teams of people you can call and get support from. GL has the internet. Expecially if we consider managed DirectX, then programming in GL you will often end up trying to add things in that DX already has such as reference counted buffers and texture management.
Well, if Ellen Feiss is any indication most Mac people are "on cough medicine" most of the time.
This makes no sense.. and to clear the confusion, DOOM 3 ran with OpenGL shaders. Carmack himself pushes NV/ATI to better support OGL so that his games will run.
Because your anecdotal evidence with no information is worth precisely jack. You're going to have to provide numbers, proof of these numbers, and descriptions of the operation.
You are assuming they are hacking DX10 to run on Windows XP and earlier. This is incorrect. They state they are translating the DX10 shaders and calls to run on DX9.
No, the article states that the shaders are recompiled for DX9. Way to go coward.
I was responding more to reasons one would not switch even without lock-in.
There's also DirectX, Visual Studio, XNA, and tons of other MS supplied services/help/software that makes programming on Windows that much easier for games development...
Because a MS Passport is required to start up Windows?
So you're worried about them sending back data that has been shown to not identify you in any manner? TIN FOIL HATTER
Clearly trolling.. Since the days of at least Windows 98 there were built in mechanisms to backup and restore the registry. Windows XP even does this on its own when needed.
Exchange.........callender.......scheduling.....
You can do it, but it's really slow and not hardware accelerated... There's a "3D" window manager addon that lets you tilt windows and do some other weird things. It's been around since at least Windows 2000 and I know it works on XP.
So you're saying that combining the two things you like in TWO seperate OS's into one is somehow bad? TROLL
And DRM/Spyware? Please... you might as well be citing Loose Change for information.
DirectX has been around for a long time. Long before OpenGL was on the desktop. Direct3D may be competing with OpenGL, but we should all be glad for the competition. The OpenGL board stagnated and didn't update for a few years. In this time, MS updated DirectX and tried to keep one step ahead of video card makers. Whereas OpenGL was playing catch up with hardware that was a couple generations old.
"This environment (for me) is FAR more productive than XP or Vista could ever be."
Loaded statement... Mark parent troll/overrated/flamebait. Even if Vista was Ubuntu then you would still not be as productive in Vista? Logic make you not sense.
Multiple virtual desktops pales greatly in comparison with multi-monitor. Virtual desktops are pretty clumsy for a number of reasons, including having to look around to find the one that has what you want on it.
Potentially in the EULA... Nobody ever reads those things, but sometimes they provide interesting information.