Re: OGL portability and future delivery


Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
[...]
But Apple will never do this for 5 reasons:

1. MacOS X is a Unix based operating system (BSD Usertools, Mach
based Darwin Kernel). In it's concept DirectX is contrary to the
Unix philosophy KISS.
2. MacOS X GUI system QuartzExtreme is a Layer above OpenGL and
thus inherently coupled with it. Though not impossible I don't
see a reason why Apple should change the underlaying API for no
sensefull reason.
3. DirectX is no standardized API. It a propritary Microsoft
product, with one, and only one company (=Microsoft) dictating
it. There are no sample reference implementations avaliable, the
same goes for an exact specifiaction of the API, which changes
with every version.
4. Making heavily use of a certain API as an operating system
standard library underlying layer requires the API being stable.
OpenGL has proved to be stable for over 10 years (OpenGL 1.1
1996 IIRC)
5. DirectX 10 relies on the Windows Driver Model. Since MacOS
X != Windows, and Darwin although being a Microkernel has an
inherently different driver model than Windows any
Implementation of DirectX 10 would require massive changes in
the OS.

Perhaps #5 is a serious reason if the driver model is radically
different, but the other 4 reasons are easier to workaround than the
move from PPC to Intel. If Apple didn't want to depend on PPC, and so
developed OSX to be Intel-compatible, I wouldn't be surprised if the
OSX graphics side has some sort of "B Plan" in case OpenGL fails, or in
case it becomes a problem to depend on it (for whatever reason like
less games, less popularity, etc...).

Now that you can boot XP in a Mac, OpenGL will be the only difficulty
for game developers who wish to port from Windows to Mac. And they will
tell Apple about it, they'll want to have D3D support in OSX.

[...]
You're free to implement an OpenGL like API. Wait... this has
already been done and called Mesa. The problem is just, that the
HW vendors must provide you with either drivers for your API or
enough documentation that you can write drivers on your own.

I think you didn't understand what I meant: I was talking about a
graphics API that didn't have any hardware drivers, but just a driver
for OpenGL, another for D3D, or for any other API of interest.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OGL portability and future delivery
    ... it could be a severe impact against OpenGL. ... DirectX is no standardized API. ... DirectX 10 relies on the Windows Driver Model. ...
    (comp.graphics.api.opengl)
  • Re: OGL portability and future delivery
    ... However if a critical underlying API is changed this is a major ... implemented by wrapping a layer aroung OpenGL. ... And they will tell Apple about it, ... changing to DirectX would require a lot of work. ...
    (comp.graphics.api.opengl)
  • Re: please sign for not delete the opengl from next release of windows
    ... problems in a long haul for *windows* as platform considering driver ... OpenGL, Direct3D, GDI all in their drivers. ... Writing DirectX code is mostly extra complexity if their applications ... different API features. ...
    (comp.graphics.api.opengl)
  • Re: OGL portability and future delivery
    ... I've taken a look and the driver argument is rubbish, ... OpenGL, a robust API developed from the experiences of an earlier API, ... be much better without this annoying computer market. ...
    (comp.graphics.api.opengl)
  • Re: direct3d / openGL??
    ... people will choose OpenGL because it is available on non-Microsoft ... DirectX is built upon COM and OpenGL is built upon plain old C code. ... to call the OpenGL.dll API calls. ... aren't the first who tried to compare the two technologies. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)