   Did i jump into something stupidly?  Opengl Red Book 7th edition
  After using the opengl redbook that is freely available, i decided to pick up a more recent version. I Picked up OpenGL Programming Guide Seventh Edition and checked reviews on it.  I know this was the wrong order to do things.  I read that the book has a lot of depreciated code and that it was a major disappointment.  I can always try to return the book for a refund or store credit but i want to know your views on the red book or more specifically the seventh edition.  I know there are a lot of tutorials online but i like reading from books more then reading from the computer screen.  Why was it such a disappointment?  Is it worth keeping for the knowledge that it may contain or is it better to use the tutorials online and print them out to read?  I am fairly new to opengl and the only thing i have really done so far was a really really basic pong game with rectangles.Thanks   
  For starting out it's a pretty good reference for simple things. Eventually yeah, there is better ways of doing a lot of things in there, mainly when you start using shaders.   ;  (Comment from a 7th edition book owner)Ultimately it is up to you. Yes the book could be better, but it is not terrible either as a reference, and while a lot of it relates to depreciated code, the explanations and mathematics are still valid today even if the function names you use to set things up have changed. Viewing transformations still use the same principles even if you don't call glTranslate anymore.Are a lot of the sections depreciated? YesCould you find all of the information in the book somewhere online? ProbablyIs it still a useful book for learning and reference? I'd say so.What I think would be great is to have a copy of the Orange Book (GLSL shading language) in addition to the Red Book. If you want to program with the new profile, than the red book is not sufficient to cover learning shaders, it doesn't cover it (thats where the orange book takes over).My recommendations:1)If you want to try to learn the current standard of OpenGL and avoid the depreciated functions, and if you can afford another book, pick up a copy of the Orange Book as well, or the OpenGL Library (Red Book + Orange Book + OpenGL Poster box set (can get this for like $70 on amazon). 2)If you want to learn the new standard, and don't want to purchase another book, than I might return the Red Book and keep the money and use the internet. To learn shaders the Red Book is not a sufficient reference on its own to get you there, so might as well just save the money.3)If you don't really care about the new standards (old ones will still work fine for years to come), than you can stick with the Red Book and you'll be fine.   ;  As a Red-book owner, and Graphics person, here is my take on this:The Red book (7th Edition) is primarily dissapointing because its approach to teaching the distiction between modern OpenGL, and classic OpenGL is backwards.In general, people begining with OpenGL should be taught how to program in OpenGL 'the right way'first, and then be taught the older functions for reference. The Red book does it the other way around. After making sure it has taught how to program using the now deprecated 'glBegin glEnd', it notes that these are now deprecated and adds a couple of paragraphs explaining the newer functions, mostly without complete self-contained OpenGL 3 code that doesn't use deprecated features. What this results in, is beginners tend to stick to 'glBegin glEnd' et al. This is a disaster since its hard enough to learn OpenGL, much less the need to figure out what we should remember 'not' to use as well. I do graphics everyday, yet I'm still struggling to understand all the inctricate differences between all the OpenGL versions + extensions, and the differences on each platform. I need a book to make it clearer, rather than muddle it all up even more...   ;Quote:In general, people begining with OpenGL should be taught how to program in OpenGL 'the right way'first, and then be taught the older functions for reference. Do you really feel it is a problem that people start learning with the simple depreciated functions before they move fully into 3.2+ spec? I learned this way, first just starting out with moving around a simple cube with fixed function and then slowly rewriting pieces until I was compatible with the new spec. First replacing the immediate mode glBegin's with vertex buffers, then replacing the gl Matrix ops with my own matrix classes, then finally starting with simple shaders replacing fixed pipeline and so on. I feel like I have a very good understanding now of OGL and was in no way harmed by learning this way. I think to have never drawn a "Hello World" triangle on the screen before, and just being thrown the 3.2 spec, and having to create your own viewing matrices and camera operations, vertex buffers, custom shaders, etc is a lot to take in at once.   ;Quote:Original post by karwostsQuote:In general, people begining with OpenGL should be taught how to program in OpenGL 'the right way'first, and then be taught the older functions for reference. Do you really feel it is a problem that people start learning with the simple depreciated functions before they move fully into 3.2+ spec? I learned this way, first just starting out with moving around a simple cube with fixed function and then slowly rewriting pieces until I was compatible with the new spec. First replacing the immediate mode glBegin's with vertex buffers, then replacing the gl Matrix ops with my own matrix classes, then finally starting with simple shaders replacing fixed pipeline and so on. I feel like I have a very good understanding now of OGL and was in no way harmed by learning this way. I think to have never drawn a "Hello World" triangle on the screen before, and just being thrown the 3.2 spec, and having to create your own viewing matrices and camera operations, vertex buffers, custom shaders, etc is a lot to take in at once.I agree with Fugitive and do think it is a problem. I speak from experience. The old way is easier to understand and code. There is less code involved to get something on screen. This is a problem. People are, by nature, lazy. Anyone new to OpenGL and taught the old way first, probably will stick with it long enough to make the transition to the new way much harder. To add to that, the new methods are not documented nearly as well as the old methods. Personally, after struggling to grasp the changes, I feel the old way needs to be completely scrapped and forgotten.;  Thanks for the valuable information everyone.  I returned the book and got the money i spent on it back.  I now have a new dilemma though.  I am a bit confused on how to break into the new and interesting world of opengl 3 .  I have always used books to look at how to understand concepts but it seems that there are no books on this subject out.  I have searched some websites for some more information but to no avail.  I have never been a part of a learning group that had a major transition such as opengl is going though so i am a tad confused on the steps i should take.  Is there a website or a tutorial series that explains by only using new code about the basics? Is it better to continue reading about the old code and when i go from a complete newbie to a beginner i look at the documentation and see what to add and take out?  Or like maspeir said, that would be counter productive because by human nature i would be inclined to do the old ways anyway because i as a newbie would not know the benefits of the new ways.  My graphics card is up to date enough according to opengl extensions viewer.  Thanks;  I think there's only really two things you need to learn about to be 95% compatible with opengl 3, which is VBO's for vertex data, and GLSL (or cg) for shaders. If you look up those terms I'm sure you can find plenty of tutorials about them each individually.;@robertosaget: Try these tutorials: http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Category:Tutorials@karwosts: Unfortunately, I do feel it is a genuine problem. Your experience is actually rare. For the vast majority of beginners, having to learn and then unlearn within a short span of time is not only difficult, its frustrating. Beginners tend to stick to what they have learned. I say this from experience as a lecturer. I agree with maspeir. Old OpenGL should be eliminated. There is very little resemblance between the classic OpenGL and the modern OpenGL to justify a 'transition'. They are altogether different and should be treated as such.   