   Upcoming Vista - Chance for OpenGL to gain wider usage?
  Maybe at first you're a bit irritated by the headline.Let me explain.I do not have seen any statistics about that, but in my environment I sense a feeling that has not a very big acceptance for the upcoming Windows Vista.Be it that people don't appreciate the feeling of being controlled like in a police state, by all that DRM stuff I mean (some people said they'd never use Vista as I told them about the CPU<-->Gfx encryption and stuff like that), or be it the resentment about the insane hardware/resource hog that Vista is.So, assuming that in the near future probably not the core of PC gamers will jump on the Vista bandwagon, there can a few things be said:New DirectX versions will only be available for Vista, but no support for Win2k/XP. Which means that new features of future graphics hardware will probably not be available via DirectX on those systems.But, if every now and then a new install-version of OpenGL, supporting the new hardware features, would be released, the owners of such systems could install these on their Windows 2000 or Windows XP systems and thus be equipped with the new functionality, and won't have to upgrade their entire OS, but rather only the hardware.This way, it could be a chance for OpenGL to gain wider usage - to please the probably big chunk of gamers that will stick to their Win2k/XP for quite some time.So, besides MS who will get a severe sore throat if something like that should happen, everyone would be happy, no?Well, just some thoughts. I did not have much sleep last night, and am not that awake, so I might as well have screwn up totally.Please discuss ;-)- unshaven   
  I for one am considering switching to Mac. That will seal the deal for me to not develop in DirectX really (though I haven't worked much in directx anyway)I don't think I am concerned about DRM in vista, or vista being a resource hog (since it probably will not be too bad in that area with the fancy features turned off)Rather I don't see any new features in vista that convince me to upgrade from XP, except for (possibly) improved reliability and security. And I can buy that today in a Mac.   ;  Upcoming Vista? Isn't Vista due in like...2021 now?   ;  I, for one, only develop games with OpenGL and SDL. Not because it's better than D3D, but because D3D only supports 1 platform, and I don't want my code to depend on a single platform. I prefer to use open standards to be sure that my games will work on many current and future systems.I assume that one day (when current PC systems are emulated, just like we emulate DOS in DosBOX now), Direct3D will be hard to emulate, while OpenGL will be easy to emulate because it's open.I'm glad to hear that the Vista spec now allows OpenGL applications to be run in a window at full speed. If it weren't, then my games would only have worked properly in Linux, Mac, and pre-Vista versions of Windows, and Vista users would have experienced a slow down that they would blame on me instead of Vista.Apart from a new interface, Vista appears not to have so much new things. The beta I tried was pretty annoying for experienced computer users, for example I still found no powerful command line for example for a proper and fast way to search for files. The vision of Microsoft about a GUI isn't really the same as my own vision, they think that it's actually useful to have things like menus that aren't completely visible when you open them and similar things. I also don't like how they implement a search function. Powerful command based search, or straightforward options in a wizard would have been good, but they chose to make their search function only work properly on certain file formats and have some settings that severely limit the usability of it. An improvement to Windows would have been to let it encourage the use of open standards. If I see at how it looks, I wonder why it took them 5 years to develop it.OpenGL 2.0 would have all new features built-in right (no extensions)? I have yet to see the release of it though...   ;Quote:Original post by LodeI, for one, only develop games with OpenGL and SDL. Not because it's better than D3D, but because D3D only supports 1 platform, and I don't want my code to depend on a single platform. I prefer to use open standards to be sure that my games will work on many current and future systems.I would say that this is a more predominant view among "indie" developers, whose market is smaller and so always want to expand where possible (i.e., by writing cross-platform)When looking at big studios, they will probably only care about this once alternative platforms are a (more) significant fraction of the gaming market.Quote:OpenGL 2.0 would have all new features built-in right (no extensions)? I have yet to see the release of it though...OpenGL 2.0 is already "out". It is not an implementation - it is a specification. Vendors such as NVIDIA and ATI have already released drivers and cards supporting opengl 2.0Technically, "extensions" were never necessary through opengl 1.1-1.5 either. The only reason it seemed that you needed to use "extension loading" to access features in opengl 1.1 through 1.5 is the way Windows handles it, since you are only guaranteed opengl 1.1If you develop opengl on linux you can avoid all the weird "extension" loading of opengl 1.5/2.0 features.;  I dont have the time to dig up the link, but I proposed something slightly similar in my journal a while back.My angle was more for the "transition" period rather than as a full-blown change of direction. Making a vista-exclusive product is risky at the moment due to the lack of installed base for the near future; whereas if you want the new toys you've little choice but to move forwards. Maintaining two products (a DX9c and DX10 version) is equally difficult. So, a possibility if and only if OpenGL takes advantage of it AND the NV/ATI drivers support it, that people can handle the transition by effectively back-porting Vista/D3D10 features to XP via OpenGL.I'm not convinced it'll happen, nor would it be a good idea (maintaining a 9c and 10 version is hard, and a D3D and OpenGL version isn't likely to be much easier) but it could be a possibility [smile]Not that I'd be at all biased or anything, but D3D10 for the win [razz]Jack   ;  The thing you've forgotten is that DirectX is more portable than you think - it'll run on an Xbox 360. Given a choice of windows + mac or windows + xbox then I think you'll find plenty of developers will go for the latter because of it's bigger market.   ;Quote:Original post by UnshavenBastardBe it that people don't appreciate the feeling of being controlled like in a police state, by all that DRM stuff I mean (some people said they'd never use Vista as I told them about the CPU<-->Gfx encryption and stuff like that)None of that made it into the final product, as far as I know.Quote:, or be it the resentment about the insane hardware/resource hog that Vista is.Vista is actually more efficient than XP. You can turn effects off, you know.Quote:So, assuming that in the near future probably not the core of PC gamers will jump on the Vista bandwagonThe "core" of gamers were never our problem. It's everybody else, the people who use their computer for work but fire up a game once in a while on their intel integrated graphics.Quote:New DirectX versions will only be available for Vista, but no support for Win2k/XP. Which means that new features of future graphics hardware will probably not be available via DirectX on those systems.But, if every now and then a new install-version of OpenGL, supporting the new hardware features, would be released, the owners of such systems could install these on their Windows 2000 or Windows XP systems and thus be equipped with the new functionality, and won't have to upgrade their entire OS, but rather only the hardware.This way, it could be a chance for OpenGL to gain wider usage - to please the probably big chunk of gamers that will stick to their Win2k/XP for quite some time.This, however, is a pretty legitimate point and I'm curious to see how it will play out over the next year or two.;Quote:Original post by PromitQuote:New DirectX versions will only be available for Vista, but no support for Win2k/XP. Which means that new features of future graphics hardware will probably not be available via DirectX on those systems.But, if every now and then a new install-version of OpenGL, supporting the new hardware features, would be released, the owners of such systems could install these on their Windows 2000 or Windows XP systems and thus be equipped with the new functionality, and won't have to upgrade their entire OS, but rather only the hardware.This way, it could be a chance for OpenGL to gain wider usage - to please the probably big chunk of gamers that will stick to their Win2k/XP for quite some time.This, however, is a pretty legitimate point and I'm curious to see how it will play out over the next year or two.It will indeed be interesting, but unless I'm much mistaken it'll be entirely down to the quality of the drivers that ATI/NV release for XP/2K as well as which (if not all) features are expressed via extensions...?I'll admit I'm guessing here... but is there any case for ATI/NV NOT releasing XP drivers with D3D10-like capabilities?1. If no *commercial* titles need them, why would they invest the time/effort in creating drivers?2. How much is shared between the D3D and GL driver "under the bonnet"? If D3D10 is tied to WDDM, presumably a GL-for-Vista driver will also be WDDM? So if they abstract that out somehow, maybe it'd actually be a lot of work to create a set of XP extensions/drivers for D3D10-like features?3. Not sure on this one, but do they have anything to gain by trying to push Vista adoption/sales? Any exclusivity/sweetner type deals with MS?Would be interested in your thoughts on those angles [smile]Cheers,Jack   ;  If Apple can lower their prices slightly and continue to "get things right", they might just gain a fair percentage of market share. People are simply tired of endless windows exploits, poorly written software and the crap that DRM is.Since it will require a fair investment to get vista ($150 for the home version, $300 for pro? just a guess), another fair investment for the new version of office ($150 more?), et cetera. Plus the $1000 to be spent on a brand new PC just to run the OS, and the fact that vista *will* have numerous bugs on release, as well as incompatibility problems...... People may just be tempted to spend all that cash on a mac...   