Glide 3X will not be backward compatible
Robin Sequira
backwards compatible with the original Glide either, and it didn't make much
of a difference there (expect for some POD and MechWarrior 2 owners, the
R3D's 3.0 drivers didn't install Glide 1.x)
--
"I don't have low self-esteem, I have low esteem for everyone else."
-Daria
"Right about now, the funk soul brotha, check it out now..."
-Fatboy Slim
Skanky wrote in message ...
>In article <35d55bc5...@news.cis.dfn.de>, mst...@usa.net (Mike Storr)
>wrote:
>
>> Quote from http://www.ve3d.net/articles/what_is_glide3x.html
>>
>> "Glide 3X is the next generation 3Dfx API. It has been designed from
>> the ground up to better prepare developers for future generations of
>> 3Dfx hardware. Glide 3X is not intended to be backward compatible with
>> Glide 2X."
>>
>> Who cares about 3Dfx trying to play monopoly?
>>
>> The last remaining argument for a 3Dfx card was compatibility, because
>> the technical features of the competition are better.
>>
>> The future belongs to hardware-independent APIs like Direct3D and
>> OpenGL.
>
>Huh? Monopoly? What the hell are you talking about? 3dfx cards are ALREADY
>the only ones which can use glide, so changing the spec makes no
>difference. The drivers are also capable of installing both Glide2 and
>Glide3 on the same system, so there is no noticable affect to 3dfx card
>owners. Take your paranoid fantasys elsewhere. The future belongs to
>whatever developers want to spend the time on, which, for the near furture
>at least, is Direct3d and native Glide ports. Would you like some cheese
>with that whine?
Carlos DaSilva
>
>Quote from http://www.ve3d.net/articles/what_is_glide3x.html
>
>"Glide 3X is the next generation 3Dfx API. It has been designed from
>the ground up to better prepare developers for future generations of
>3Dfx hardware. Glide 3X is not intended to be backward compatible with
>Glide 2X."
>
>Who cares about 3Dfx trying to play monopoly?
What monopoly? A monopoly is forcing developers to use a substandard 3D API
in hopes that in the future, all access to it can be controlled for a
nominal fee (oh wait, that's already happened, DirectX used to be free, but
now it costs developers $12 a CD, cause MS puts it on the website for only a
month. By the time DX7 comes out, I expect it'll cost $100 or so per unit
sold.)
Also, guess what... these people at 3DFX actually know how to program, you
can install Glide 2.x and 3.x on the SAME system, and the old games use the
old Glide and the new games use the new Glide... how about that? Not like MS
which insists that you install Internet Explorer 4 to use Notepad.
Already features are missing from DX6 (like 3D Ramp) which are breaking old
games. In the future, only MS games will be allowed to use new secret
features in DX while non-MS games break left and right. You'll see. They did
it with Windows and applications.
>The last remaining argument for a 3Dfx card was compatibility, because
>the technical features of the competition are better.
Compatibility - secured (you can install both sets of DLLs)
Speed - secured (Glide 2.x is already 50% faster than Direct3D, Glide 3.x
will be over 100% faster)
Quality - no more texture breakups, wacky driver problems, bloated layers
with Direct3D. You are to the metal with Glide, no surprises, guaranteed to
look right and play great
>The future belongs to hardware-independent APIs like Direct3D and
>OpenGL.
If Direct3D wins, we all lose.
CJD
MB
>
>Quote from http://www.ve3d.net/articles/what_is_glide3x.html
>
>"Glide 3X is the next generation 3Dfx API. It has been designed from
>the ground up to better prepare developers for future generations of
>3Dfx hardware. Glide 3X is not intended to be backward compatible with
>Glide 2X."
>
>Who cares about 3Dfx trying to play monopoly?
>
>the technical features of the competition are better.
>
>OpenGL.
>
>
Hey twit I got a few bits of information for you.
1. Glide 3.0 comes with Glide 2.46. Yes, 2 versions install on the same
system.
2. All API's have to progress. All future games developed for Glide will
now be developed for 3.0.
3. Glide only works with Voodoo cards. All Voodoo cards are compatible with
Glide 3.0.
So why are you wasting everyones time complaining about that which you have
no clue?
Furthermore, why do boneheads like you keep calling Direct3D an independent
API? Direct3D is a Windows only, proprietary API. Does Direct3D run on
Mac? No. Do Glide and OpenGL run on Mac? Yes.
You have no idea about what a monopoly is do you? 3dfx didnt force anyone
to buy a Voodoo card, nor did they force developers to use Glide. We CHOSE
to buy Voodoo because it is better. Developers CHOSE to use Glide because
it is better than Direct3D.
Jeff Peedin
>
> Quote from http://www.ve3d.net/articles/what_is_glide3x.html
>
> "Glide 3X is the next generation 3Dfx API. It has been designed from
> the ground up to better prepare developers for future generations of
> 3Dfx hardware. Glide 3X is not intended to be backward compatible with
> Glide 2X."
>
> Who cares about 3Dfx trying to play monopoly?
>
> The last remaining argument for a 3Dfx card was compatibility, because
> the technical features of the competition are better.
>
> The future belongs to hardware-independent APIs like Direct3D and
> OpenGL.
>
>
>
Glide2X. You can have both on your machine at the same time. In fact if
you are using the latest reference drivers you already have both. Do a
little more research before you fly off the handle like that.
Jeff Atwood
>>
>>"Glide 3X is the next generation 3Dfx API. It has been designed from
>>the ground up to better prepare developers for future generations of
>>3Dfx hardware. Glide 3X is not intended to be backward compatible with
>>Glide 2X."
>>
>>Who cares about 3Dfx trying to play monopoly?
>
>in hopes that in the future, all access to it can be controlled for a
>nominal fee (oh wait, that's already happened, DirectX used to be free, but
>now it costs developers $12 a CD, cause MS puts it on the website for only
a
>month. By the time DX7 comes out, I expect it'll cost $100 or so per unit
>sold.)
>
The $12 is only for shipping and handling. They don't actually charge for
DirectX. Never have, never will. Has Microsoft *ever* charged anyone to
develop a Win32 app? Nope. This whole assertion of yours is ridiculous.
>
>Already features are missing from DX6 (like 3D Ramp) which are breaking old
>games. In the future, only MS games will be allowed to use new secret
>features in DX while non-MS games break left and right. You'll see. They
did
>it with Windows and applications.
>
And new GLIDE revisions haven't broken old games? Please. Look at Unreal--
installing the latest drivers broke Unreal, due to a programming issue. You
had to have the Unreal 1.1 patch to fix that. 99% of the time the "broken"
code is not Microsoft's.
>>The last remaining argument for a 3Dfx card was compatibility, because
>>the technical features of the competition are better.
>
>Compatibility - secured (you can install both sets of DLLs)
>Speed - secured (Glide 2.x is already 50% faster than Direct3D, Glide 3.x
>will be over 100% faster)
>Quality - no more texture breakups, wacky driver problems, bloated layers
>with Direct3D. You are to the metal with Glide, no surprises, guaranteed to
>look right and play great
>
One small caveat: GLIDE games only work on 3dfx hardware. I'd hate to see a
repeat of the soundblaster syndrome where innovation is stifled because
everyone has to be compatible at the hardware layer. The very thing you are
advocating destroys competition in video cards, arguably the most
competitive arena in the PC world right now.
I also think it's cheesy the way 3dfx's lawyers sue anyone who attempts to
write GLIDE wrappers. Um, does it get more Microsoftian than that? Looks
like the devil you know is preferable to the one you don't.
>>The future belongs to hardware-independent APIs like Direct3D and
>>OpenGL.
>
>If Direct3D wins, we all lose.
>
If GLIDE wins, we all lose. Fortunately there's no chance of that happening.
Jeff
MB
>Carlos DaSilva wrote in message
<6qvq8v$7me$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>>Mike Storr wrote in message <35d55bc5...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>>>
>>>Quote from http://www.ve3d.net/articles/what_is_glide3x.html
>>>
>>>"Glide 3X is the next generation 3Dfx API. It has been designed from
>>>the ground up to better prepare developers for future generations of
>>>3Dfx hardware. Glide 3X is not intended to be backward compatible with
>>>Glide 2X."
>>>
>>>Who cares about 3Dfx trying to play monopoly?
>>
>>What monopoly? A monopoly is forcing developers to use a substandard 3D
API
>>in hopes that in the future, all access to it can be controlled for a
>>nominal fee (oh wait, that's already happened, DirectX used to be free,
but
>>now it costs developers $12 a CD, cause MS puts it on the website for only
>a
>>month. By the time DX7 comes out, I expect it'll cost $100 or so per unit
>>sold.)
>>
>The $12 is only for shipping and handling. They don't actually charge for
>DirectX. Never have, never will. Has Microsoft *ever* charged anyone to
>develop a Win32 app? Nope. This whole assertion of yours is ridiculous.
Yep just shipping. They do the same thing for all the free stuff they give
away. J++, Internet Explorer, Front Page.
The guy above probably didnt think about that.
I wouldn't say "never" though. Of course MS isnt going to charge people to
develop for an API that they would like to see be the only one. :) It is
highly unlikely they will ever charge for it, but we cant predict the
future.
>>Already features are missing from DX6 (like 3D Ramp) which are breaking
old
>>games. In the future, only MS games will be allowed to use new secret
>>features in DX while non-MS games break left and right. You'll see. They
>>did it with Windows and applications.
>>
>And new GLIDE revisions haven't broken old games? Please. Look at Unreal--
>installing the latest drivers broke Unreal, due to a programming issue. You
>had to have the Unreal 1.1 patch to fix that. 99% of the time the "broken"
>code is not Microsoft's.
I only needed to download a little, tiny, Unreal Multitexture patch to fix
that problem. I havent even installed either of the regular game patches
yet. But it wouldnt have jack to do with Microsoft anyway.
>>>The last remaining argument for a 3Dfx card was compatibility, because
>>>the technical features of the competition are better.
>>
>>Compatibility - secured (you can install both sets of DLLs)
>>Speed - secured (Glide 2.x is already 50% faster than Direct3D, Glide 3.x
>>will be over 100% faster)
>>Quality - no more texture breakups, wacky driver problems, bloated layers
>>with Direct3D. You are to the metal with Glide, no surprises, guaranteed
to
>>look right and play great
>>
>One small caveat: GLIDE games only work on 3dfx hardware. I'd hate to see a
>repeat of the soundblaster syndrome where innovation is stifled because
>everyone has to be compatible at the hardware layer. The very thing you are
>advocating destroys competition in video cards, arguably the most
>competitive arena in the PC world right now.
Developers have the choice between 3 popular APIs. Glide, Direct3D and
OpenGL. I dont think anyone is advocating 'Glide Only'. The guy above was,
I assume, defending developers choice to make Glide versions. He is
absolutely correct. All Voodoo cards handle Glide the same way, they all
support the same features, and the end result will always be the same.
OpenGL, in the true OpenGL realm, is the same way. I say true realm because
up until recently it wasn't considered a gaming platform. The true 2D/3D
development cards on the market fully support OpenGL. You cant say that for
Direct3D. Recently, Direct3D compatible cards have become better. But
everybody knows very well that not every "Direct3D compatible" card
supported all the features of Direct3D. Direct3D as an API hasnt been very
good either. Direct3D 6 supports many features that developers wanted, but
they wanted those features a year ago. I predict, and hope, that 'Glide
only' will fade away. However, Glide versions will continue to be released.
>I also think it's cheesy the way 3dfx's lawyers sue anyone who attempts to
>write GLIDE wrappers. Um, does it get more Microsoftian than that? Looks
>like the devil you know is preferable to the one you don't.
Heh.. Typical anti-3dfx response. There are plenty of cards out there that
run almost all the games available. There are not any other Operating
Systems that you can run _most_ games on. Dont make the mistake of
comparing 3dfx to Microsoft, it makes you look like an ass.
Developers choose Glide for a reason. They are not forced to use Glide, and
their game will be just as succesful without Glide... They still CHOOSE it.
A monopoly is not formed by the outside world's choices, its formed by not
having a choice.
Why sue a Wrapper maker? It is 3dfx's right to protect their property. Why
do you think it's cheesy for them to do that? You are saying that if it
were you in the same position, you wouldn't do the same thing? Yeah right.
If Rendition wants to run Glide so damn bad, they can build a Voodoo card
like everyone else.
>>>The future belongs to hardware-independent APIs like Direct3D and
>>>OpenGL.
>>
>>If Direct3D wins, we all lose.
>>
>If GLIDE wins, we all lose. Fortunately there's no chance of that
happening.
>
>Jeff
>
There is a chance, but I certainly dont want it to happen. It all lies in
the hands of Microsoft and the Direct3D card developers. If Direct3D gives
developers the features and ease of programming they want, AND card makers
support all those features, Direct3D will survive. Otherwise its going to
be a Glide world for another few years.
Tesiae
other native ports,
I don't care about Glide. However, if they decide to support Glide only, thereby
excluding all other non-3dfx cards, then, that to me sounds like a monopoly.
Rocker
>
>
> The $12 is only for shipping and handling. They don't actually charge for
> DirectX. Never have, never will. Has Microsoft *ever* charged anyone to
> develop a Win32 app? Nope. This whole assertion of yours is ridiculous.
>
"never will" ? believe that and you're heading for a sucker punch.
Typical MS tactics. Drive out the competition and than charge people an
arm and a leg for things.
> >
> >Already features are missing from DX6 (like 3D Ramp) which are breaking old
> >games. In the future, only MS games will be allowed to use new secret
> >features in DX while non-MS games break left and right. You'll see. They
> did
> >it with Windows and applications.
> >
>
> And new GLIDE revisions haven't broken old games? Please. Look at Unreal--
> installing the latest drivers broke Unreal, due to a programming issue. You
> had to have the Unreal 1.1 patch to fix that. 99% of the time the "broken"
> code is not Microsoft's.
>
> >>The last remaining argument for a 3Dfx card was compatibility, because
> >>the technical features of the competition are better.
> >
> >Compatibility - secured (you can install both sets of DLLs)
> >Speed - secured (Glide 2.x is already 50% faster than Direct3D, Glide 3.x
> >will be over 100% faster)
> >Quality - no more texture breakups, wacky driver problems, bloated layers
> >with Direct3D. You are to the metal with Glide, no surprises, guaranteed to
> >look right and play great
> >
>
> One small caveat: GLIDE games only work on 3dfx hardware. I'd hate to see a
> repeat of the soundblaster syndrome where innovation is stifled because
> everyone has to be compatible at the hardware layer. The very thing you are
> advocating destroys competition in video cards, arguably the most
> competitive arena in the PC world right now.
>
> I also think it's cheesy the way 3dfx's lawyers sue anyone who attempts to
> write GLIDE wrappers. Um, does it get more Microsoftian than that? Looks
> like the devil you know is preferable to the one you don't.
>
Tempora
an exclusive game that only works on their card(s). The publisher do what
they feel like, and they feel like using Glide and whatever the hell else
they want.
John Shiali
>
> Quote from http://www.ve3d.net/articles/what_is_glide3x.html
>
> "Glide 3X is the next generation 3Dfx API. It has been designed from the
> ground up to better prepare developers for future generations of 3Dfx
> hardware. Glide 3X is not intended to be backward compatible with Glide
> 2X."
>
Thats why Glide ships with both a version 2 and version 3 library. Any
game uses the appropriate version and thus stays able to run any title.
--
Station Omega at http://www.heights.demon.co.uk - The Space-sim Portal
John -
If I didn't know better, I'd say your stepsister prodded Andrew Bennett!
John Shiali
> Look.. as long as game developers include support for Direct 3D, Open
> GL, or
> other native ports,
> I don't care about Glide. However, if they decide to support Glide only,
> thereby
> excluding all other non-3dfx cards, then, that to me sounds like a
> monopoly.
>
This makes no sense. How can 3DFX have a monopoly if their customers
(the games developers) decide to program for GLide?
Or are you saying that all the games developers have a monopoly?
It's like saying that a bus company has a monopoly because they offer
the best service, and more people choose to travel with them than bus
companies that offer an inferior service.
3DFX supports Direct 3D, OpenGL, and Glide, which is two APIs more
than you can say for Microsoft. It is up to the developers to chose
what they want to program for. If those developers choose to support
GLide only, you can bet that 3DFX supplied some pretty damn tempting
products in order for that to be the case.
--
Station Omega at http://www.heights.demon.co.uk - The Space-sim Portal
John -
After today's purchase, IBM now owns almost 40% of Fisty's Fabulous
Fishcake Factory. "I'm quite literally stunned." remarks Dani Behr.
John Shiali
> >
>
> And new GLIDE revisions haven't broken old games? Please. Look at
> Unreal-- installing the latest drivers broke Unreal, due to a
> programming issue. You had to have the Unreal 1.1 patch to fix that. 99%
> of the time the "broken" code is not Microsoft's.
You just said it yourself - GLide was not broken, the programmer made
an error.
>
> One small caveat: GLIDE games only work on 3dfx hardware. I'd hate to
> see a repeat of the soundblaster syndrome where innovation is stifled
> because everyone has to be compatible at the hardware layer. The very
> thing you are advocating destroys competition in video cards, arguably
> the most competitive arena in the PC world right now.
And everyone who programs a GLide game knows that it only works on
3DFX hardware. They still do it because it gives them the most power,
in an easy API, and access to the largest part of the 3D accellerator
market. If anyone came up with a better package, I'm sure that would
be just as sucessful.
Its an indication of how broken DirectX was/is that even with the
might of Microsoft behind it, Glide is still so widely used.
If anything 3DFX has stimulated the market, because everyone is now
trying to catch up with the great hardware and stellar performance
that 3DFX pioneered. Without 3DFX, we'd still be impressed by Virge
performance.
>
> I also think it's cheesy the way 3dfx's lawyers sue anyone who attempts
> to write GLIDE wrappers. Um, does it get more Microsoftian than that?
> Looks like the devil you know is preferable to the one you don't.
Just protecting their investment and hard work. 3DFX also licence
Glide to anyone who wants to pay for it. Why should some people get it
for free and others have to pay for it?
Do you see Intel just giving away their Slot 1 architechture?
Do you see ID giving away the Quake/Quake 2 engines?
Do you see Epic giving away the Unreal engine?
>
> >> The future belongs to hardware-independent APIs like Direct3D and
> >> OpenGL.
> >
> > If Direct3D wins, we all lose.
> >
>
> If GLIDE wins, we all lose. Fortunately there's no chance of that
> happening.
>
No, because 3DFX support GLide, DirectX, and OpenGL. While they are
still around and so big in the market, Microsoft will not be able to
decide that all developers can only get to use DirectX for their
games.
--
Station Omega at http://www.heights.demon.co.uk - The Space-sim Portal
John -
"AAAAARRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!" - Duke Nukem (ALT-F10)
Paul Shirley
l.com.nospammy> writes
> Has Microsoft *ever* charged anyone to
>develop a Win32 app? Nope. This whole assertion of yours is ridiculous.
I paid plenty of cash for a win32 compiler with licenced headers before
M$ made them freely available (if you know where to look that is), so
yes, people *have* paid M$ directly or indirectly to write Win32
programs. This whole assertion of yours is naive.
>The $12 is only for shipping and handling. They don't actually charge for
>DirectX. Never have, never will.
If you'd bothered to read the DX licence its actually quite restrictive
and has no guarantuee of future availability or price. If its not in the
licence its not binding, and M$ are kings of the big U-turn.
Expect to see DX7 only work on Win98 (squeezing out a nice fat upgrade
fee from everyone).
---
Paul Shirley: my email address is 'obvious'ly anti-spammed
Rick Russell
Mike Storr <mst...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Glide 3X is the next generation 3Dfx API. It has been designed from
> the ground up to better prepare developers for future generations of
> 3Dfx hardware. Glide 3X is not intended to be backward compatible with
> Glide 2X."
I think you're reading this wrong. They mean that games written for
Glide 3X will not work with Glide 2X drivers. They don't mean that
games written for Glide 2X will not work with Glide 3X drivers.
I don't see why anyone would care. DirectX 5 games don't work with
DirectX 3, but people don't curse Microsoft for having upgraded to DX5
(except in as much as they curse Microsoft all the time :-) Even if
you've got a 3DFX card from an older manufacturer who doesn't support
new drivers, I'm sure 3DFX will make the reference drivers available
for free.
Rick R.
--
Rick Russell * peripher...@miningco.com
* http://peripherals.miningco.com
The Tuna
Jeff Atwood wrote in message <35d3b...@news.mti.net>...
>If GLIDE wins, we all lose. Fortunately there's no chance of that
happening.
Nope...I will win. My 3DFX card will be blazing away at GLIDE code!!!!
Resistance is futile.....
Faye Pearson
>Speed - secured (Glide 2.x is already 50% faster than Direct3D, Glide 3.x
>will be over 100% faster)
So why did the prey authors switch from Glide to Direct3D (DX6) because
it would be faster?
>If Direct3D wins, we all lose.
I don't agree. I have a Voodoo graphics card and I have a G200.
Most of the games I have look just as good on the G200 as they did
on the Voodoo, if not better.
The only Direct3D game I have seen that disappoints me compared to
the Glide version is World Cup 98. That's just lazy programming
and I don't think they're going to be able to get away with it for
the '99 version of their software.
When Voodoo was the only viable games hardware, glide was the
way to go because it interfaced directly with the hardware.
Now that other cards provide more features and comparable speed to
the 3dfx offerings it is better to go with a more generic API. OpenGL
is great for any platform, Direct3D is great for Windows. Glide is
great only for one manufacturer's hardware (remember good old DOS and
Soundblaster?).
It seems that the choice given to game developers is learn a new
API just for 3dfx's products or learn a new API which will support
more products. The choice will remain with the developer of course
but I can't see many Glide only or Glide favoured (like WC98) games
being in the future.
Faye
Scan your mailbox for unwanted mail before you fetch it:
POP3c for Java at http://www.zippysoft.com/
BeOS for Intel File Depot @ http://betrieve.com/
Jeff Peedin
> Look.. as long as game developers include support for Direct 3D, Open GL, or
> other native ports,
> I don't care about Glide. However, if they decide to support Glide only, thereby
> excluding all other non-3dfx cards, then, that to me sounds like a monopoly.
>
>
monopoly?
Worker Working
Every developer has the chance to write with whatever API they choose.
If THEY choose Glide it just means that 3DFX did the job right with an
API.
Why aren't they choosing D3D? Or OPENGL? Dang, give 3DFX the credit
they deserve, not only did they create an incredible set of graphics
chips, they also created a great API.
I don't think 3DFX has ANY pull over developers. I don't think they are
FORCING anyone to develop for Glide only or Glide or nothing. They just
did a good job.
Now the other companies are catching up. Native APIs aren't necessary
anymore and developers are picking OPENGL and D3D. If they are STILL
choosing Glide, then blame should be laid where it deserves to be, the
card companies that DON'T support OpenGL, the designers of OpenGL and
Microsoft for it's weak and complex D3D.
Certainly not 3DFX.
Eric Whalen Ominous[CW]
streach of road.
AL
>
>the technical features of the competition are better.
>
>OpenGL.
I think 3DFX is doing a good job with support, But I have to blame game
developers for not supporting D3D or OGL in addition to Glide.
I don't have a 3DFX card and wanted to buy "Need for Speed 2 SE version"
only to realize that it only supported Glide perdiod....!!!
Well again that's EA's fault but I'm pretty sure other developers are doing
the same.
So no.. 3DFX don't have a monopoly it's game develeopers that are causing us
to this otherwise.
AL
MB
>In article <35d55bc5...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
>Mike Storr <mst...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Glide 3X is the next generation 3Dfx API. It has been designed from
>> the ground up to better prepare developers for future generations of
>> 3Dfx hardware. Glide 3X is not intended to be backward compatible with
>> Glide 2X."
>
>I think you're reading this wrong. They mean that games written for
>Glide 3X will not work with Glide 2X drivers. They don't mean that
>games written for Glide 2X will not work with Glide 3X drivers.
No, he is reading it correctly. That is why both versions of the Glide
drivers come together now. If you get 3.0 you will notice it comes with
2.46 as well.
>
>I don't see why anyone would care. DirectX 5 games don't work with
>DirectX 3, but people don't curse Microsoft for having upgraded to DX5
>(except in as much as they curse Microsoft all the time :-) Even if
>you've got a 3DFX card from an older manufacturer who doesn't support
>new drivers, I'm sure 3DFX will make the reference drivers available
>for free.
Yep. People look for the amo, yet dont stop to think before firing it.
3DFx does have the drivers downlaodable on the site. That is where I got
mine.
Joe
>Quote from http://www.ve3d.net/articles/what_is_glide3x.html
>"Glide 3X is the next generation 3Dfx API. It has been designed from
>the ground up to better prepare developers for future generations of
>3Dfx hardware. Glide 3X is not intended to be backward compatible with
>Glide 2X."
So what?akes no difference, since Glide 2.x and Glide 3.x and co-exist
on the same system. So you can still run both Glide 2.x and Glide 3.x
games.
Joe
athol-brose
>The only Direct3D game I have seen that disappoints me compared to
>the Glide version is World Cup 98. That's just lazy programming
>and I don't think they're going to be able to get away with it for
>the '99 version of their software.
I doubt there will be a World Cup '99.
--
r. n. dominick -- cinn...@one.net
If a production of horror outranciere and weakly forces dilates you
the spleen of time to others, The Toxic Avenger is not without charm,
I suppose. (Philippe St-Germain via babelfish)
k...@ecpi.com
>M$ made them freely available (if you know where to look that is), so
>yes, people *have* paid M$ directly or indirectly to write Win32
>programs. This whole assertion of yours is naive.
Where is the free win32 compiler?
Jeff Atwood
Win32 apps/components all day and night long without paying MS a dime. BTW,
the Win32 documentation is included on the Delphi CD.. as it is with every
other win32 development tool. Duh.
Jeff
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner wrote in message
<35ddd868....@news.uswest.net>...
>"Jeff Atwood" <jat...@nospammy.a.crl.com.nospammy> wrote:
>>Carlos DaSilva wrote in message
<6qvq8v$7me$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>>The $12 is only for shipping and handling. They don't actually charge for
>>DirectX. Never have, never will. Has Microsoft *ever* charged anyone to
>>develop a Win32 app? Nope. This whole assertion of yours is ridiculous.
>
>$12 for shipping and handling... and I'm not being charged for it? I buy a
>lot of CD's that have way smaller runs than an MS CD that cost less than
>$12 with shipping.
>
>Furthermore, have you ever actually developed a Win32 APP? If so, then
>almost certainly you subscribed to MSDN. Another way to suck money from
>you that is pretty much a requirement.
>
>No, you pay for MS products one way or another. They make sure you pay
>just enough so that you won't buy a competeing compiler/word
>processor/whatever, but you still pay.
>
>Just to put something about games in, does anyone know if the install of
>Dx^ will work yet on Qin98 without needing to go through Windows Update?
>
Jeff Atwood
pretty much over.
Jeff
AL wrote in message <6r1plm$l5...@dm1cns.on.bell.ca>...
DVS Lurker
Rocker wrote in message <35D3C20C...@home.com>...
>> >>The future belongs to hardware-independent APIs like Direct3D and
>> >>OpenGL.
>> >
>> >If Direct3D wins, we all lose.
>> >
>>
>> If GLIDE wins, we all lose. Fortunately there's no chance of that
happening.
GLIDE will never win. Direct3D will win. You have to ask yourself, has
Microsoft ever lost ?
John Shiali
>
> I think 3DFX is doing a good job with support, But I have to blame game
> developers for not supporting D3D or OGL in addition to Glide. I don't
> have a 3DFX card and wanted to buy "Need for Speed 2 SE version" only to
> realize that it only supported Glide perdiod....!!! Well again that's
> EA's fault but I'm pretty sure other developers are doing the same. So
> no.. 3DFX don't have a monopoly it's game develeopers that are causing
> us to this otherwise.
So you have to ask yourself why developers are still choosing Glide.
The answer is that they are getting the most out of their games
with the least pain when they use 3DFX hardware & software.
Until other hardware and API developers catch up with 3DFX (not just
in framerates, but in support, ease of use, hardware features - in
fact the whole package), then this will keep happening. You will keep
seeing major releases like Unreal with a heavy bias towards 3DFX.
--
Station Omega at http://www.heights.demon.co.uk - The Space-sim Portal
John -
Hiffle and piffle and old plum pud.
Faye Pearson
>I doubt there will be a World Cup '99.
Very astute. I think you realise that they'd be going back to naming
it FIFA '99. The point remains. Up until now Direct3D support in
hardware has been pretty poor. Other games have shown that there
need be no difference between D3D rendering and Glide rendering of
a game. They won't be able to get away with a "well it supports
DirectX" (just) attitude this Christmas.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner
Zenomorph
>Need for Speed 3 has a Direct3D version. The days of the GLIDE-only game are
>pretty much over.
Dynamix has yet to release a version of Starseige that uses something
other than Glide for acceleration (both ATR1 and ATR2 are Glide only).
Granted, it is not an officially released game, but that's not much
consolation for those who don't have Voodoo hardware. The thousands
of fans in the Starseige conferences are buying up V2's left and
right.
IMHO, the days where you have demo or pre-release games being Glide
only are not over at all.
Brete Root
voted for their leader (3Dfx).
Brete
MB
Monopoly = no choice.
Developers have a choice.. They choose Glide..
--
fREoN98
"Just came to have some fun"
m | b @ mocc dot com
remove the |
Brete Root wrote in message <35d52ca8...@news.supernews.com>...
k...@ecpi.com
install of
>Dx^ will work yet on Qin98 without needing to go through Windows
Update?
Ya, I do not like windows update at all either. You have no
control. They want you to sign your life away(give gobs of
personal info), if you don't, your limited to what updates you can
get. even for those, when it initiates
a download, it doesnt give u the option of where to put it/name
it, doesnt say where it's putting the file on your computer,
doesnt say what the name of the file is, then auto installs after
the download. do you still have the file? was it deleted right
after?(imagine if they did this, having to dl directx6:6mb/other
large files everytime you want to reinstall). Oh, they ask if
they can scan your harddrive too.
If you still use w95 though, they put up a regular file on a
regular ftp/web site for you to download(ie control in your hands,
not theirs).
azog
DVS Lurker wrote in message <6r3fpu$7...@news1.emarites.net.ae>...
>
>GLIDE will never win. Direct3D will win. You have to ask yourself, has
>Microsoft ever lost ?
Sure, I can think of several times Microsoft lost. But, they usually end up
buying the competition.
Joe Korty
DVS Lurker wrote in message <6r3fpu$7...@news1.emarites.net.ae>...
>GLIDE will never win. Direct3D will win. You have to ask yourself, has
>Microsoft ever lost ?
Microsoft loses all the time. They just keep coming back and coming back
until they win.
Joe
MB
www.microsoft.com/directx
Really, I dont see how you could possibly know that much about Microsoft's
plans when you dont even know enough to download the file on your own.
For win98 you need the Core version of the upgrade, not the Eng version.
--
fREoN98
"Just came to have some fun"
m | b @ mocc dot com
remove the |
k...@ecpi.com wrote in message <6r3lkn$d1p$1...@nntp.smartdna.com>...
Paul Shirley
l.com.nospammy> writes
>Go buy a copy of Borland (nee Inprise) Delphi and you can easily develop
>Win32 apps/components all day and night long without paying MS a dime. BTW,
>the Win32 documentation is included on the Delphi CD.. as it is with every
>other win32 development tool. Duh.
So you think 'Licenced from Microsoft' notices in the headers mean
nothing and involved no licence fee? You've just let Borland collect the
tax for them. Stop being so naive.
The headers are now freely downloadable, but don't work with the
available free compilers, so you *still* end up buying a licenced copy
of them.
Dave Glue
Tesiae wrote in message <35D384B9...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Look.. as long as game developers include support for Direct 3D, Open GL,
or
>other native ports,
>I don't care about Glide. However, if they decide to support Glide only,
thereby
>excluding all other non-3dfx cards, then, that to me sounds like a
monopoly.
Sounds like shortsighted programmers. How is it a "monopoly"? How is 3DFX
forcing developers or consumers to choose their product?
happy
When MS loses, it gives a press release that their product
is the best ever and has sold more than any other product,
which makes their loss back into a gain.
Jeff Atwood
stuff, it would have a chilling effect on the rest of the video card
market..
Jeff
Dave Glue wrote in message ...
Jeff Atwood
without ever touching Windows Update.
Jeff
Jeff Atwood
Sounds like a decided lack of programming skills to me. I guess if you want
it spoonfed, you could make the case that you MUST buy a MS compiler.
Otherwise there is a ton of free source code and documentation out there--
even from MS itself.
Sorry, I'm not buying your argument. Those "licenses" have to do with lawyer
crap, not income for MS.
Jeff
MB
>In article <35d5d...@news.mocc.net>, nos...@nospam.com says...
>>
>>Just go to the microsoft directX page. You people are too paranoid.
>>www.microsoft.com/directx
>>
>>Really, I dont see how you could possibly know that much about Microsoft's
>>plans when you dont even know enough to download the file on your own.
>>For win98 you need the Core version of the upgrade, not the Eng version.
>>--
>
enough
>that the core isnt all of directx6.
Eh? You think I was born yesterday? Of course the core is not ALL of
DirectX. That is why it is named CORE. Core is just the core items of
DirectX and not device drivers. It has always been that way, since core
versions were made available in 3.0. I always get the Core version, I do
not like my drivers over-written. Like I said, YOU NEED CORE FOR WIN98 not
win95. Do not download the the full version if you have Win98. Well you
can download it all you want. When you run it, it will tell you that Win95
is required.
Kids these days... Sheeesh..................
Sorry about the "Microsoft's Plans" thing. Just thought your "Ya, I do not
like windows update at all either. You have no
control. They want you to sign your life away(give gobs of personal info),
if you don't, your limited to what updates you can get. even for those,
when it initiates" comment, seemed to hint towards it.
MB
happened.
The amount of Glide-only games is not that important. The importance of a
Glide-only game, is. Unreal is a perfect example. Yes, I know it has
PowerVR support but who cares about that :). Glide is the acceleration of
choice for Unreal. Unreal has been in the top 3 for sales since its
release. You also have FFVII in the top 10.
GLQuake and GLQuake2, two more perfect examples of a direct hit to Direct3D.
I dont see chilling effect on the market. People are still going to buy the
TNT and the Savage3D. Voodoo2 may not be the #1 video card in sales for
much longer... There will still be millions of Voodoo owners and will still
be Glide games.
There is no way to stop it now. A developer has no worries when his
potential market is in the millions. And you know as well as I, if a game
comes out that supports your card, you are going to buy it. More so for
those newbie computer buyers. they dont have a clue, they just buy it..
I call it the Myst effect. When I bought Myst I had just bought a new
computer. Myst was the only 'real' CDROM game there. They had other games
on CD but nothing they didnt have on floppy. Myst was multimedia. I did
not buy Myst because I knew about it, heard about it, or read about it.. It
was something that would run in my spankin new high speed 2X CD Drive. :)
--
fREoN98
"Just came to have some fun"
m | b @ mocc dot com
remove the |
Jeff Atwood wrote in message <35d63...@news.mti.net>...
Jeff Atwood
don't care. 3dfx deserves a lot of credit for kickstarting the 3D movement
on the PC, however, at this point in time we need competition. I really
think that native APIs like GLIDE are bad for the video card industry in the
long run because they hinder competition.
Jeff
MB wrote in message <35d63...@news.mocc.net>...
k...@ecpi.com
Dave Glue
Jeff Atwood wrote in message <35d63...@news.mti.net>...
>Stupidity does not equal monopoly. However, if we had a lot of GLIDE-only
>stuff, it would have a chilling effect on the rest of the video card
>market..
Certainly. But that isn't a monopoly if the developers have choice. They
didn't have much of a choice when Direct3D sucked eggs, so they chose
proprietary API's (S3 had one, ATI had one, Rendition had one, etc). People
seem to forget that basically *every* 3D gaming card had their own API, 3DFX
became popular because the chipset had legs and their own API was easy to
work with. And as Direct3D continues to improve, it will eventually die.
Bickering back and forth and proclaiming the apocalypse if Glide takes over
is rather silly at this point, it's quite obvious that's not going to
happen.
DVS Lurker
support than the rest because the customers also paid a lot for their cards.
Their cards are expensive, even though if their performance dips they can
still sell their product for $250 by just saying that its the most widely
supported card! While normal D3D, OpenGL etc. cards are less expensive.
Brete Root wrote in message <35d52ca8...@news.supernews.com>...
>Sounds more like a democracy ... the people (game developers) have
>voted for their leader (3Dfx).
>
>
>Brete
>
>
>
>On 14 Aug 1998 00:28:43 GMT, Tesiae <Tes...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
DVS Lurker
eventually win!! So you must say, that they eventually win the war, but at
the expense of a lot of losses. But hey, at Microsoft money ain't no object.
;-)
Joe Korty wrote in message <6r4hrf$c...@hawk-hcsc.hcsc.com>...
>
>DVS Lurker wrote in message <6r3fpu$7...@news1.emarites.net.ae>...
>>GLIDE will never win. Direct3D will win. You have to ask yourself, has
>>Microsoft ever lost ?
>
>
MB
Glide killed competition and created it at the same time.
The major problem with Direct3D, besides MS not developing for developers,
is the fact that the various cards on the market just didnt support it
correctly. You had card A doing some of Direct3D, card B did it all but
took shortcuts to achieve better speed, while card C claimed Direct3D but
didnt work well with it at all.
Enter Glide. The holy grail. :) Developers didnt have to play the mystery
game. Voodoo is Voodoo no matter who made the card. Glide Turok on my
Monster3D looks and runs like Glide Turok on my friends Pure3D.
Now MS and chipset developers have a challenge. MS had to develop a
Direct3D that the game developers wanted. Chipset makers had to stop half
assing and get the damn proper support in the chip.
We're at that point now.
Direct3D 6.0 is receiving praise. Chipset makers like Nvidia and S3 are
promising full support.
But Glide is still Glide.. Voodoo/Voodoo2 is still Voodoo/Voodoo2.
Developers can make or break Direct3D at this point.
I guess what we are really waiting for is the new crop of Direct3D cards to
have a hold of the market. We will probably have an answer to this whole
mystery by Christmas.
Hell, maybe OpenGL will shut them both down :)
--
fREoN98
"Just came to have some fun"
m | b @ mocc dot com
remove the |
Jeff Atwood wrote in message <35d67...@news.mti.net>...
>>Jeff Atwood wrote in message <35d63...@news.mti.net>...
>>>Stupidity does not equal monopoly. However, if we had a lot of GLIDE-only
>>>stuff, it would have a chilling effect on the rest of the video card
>>>market..
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>>
>>>Dave Glue wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>Tesiae wrote in message <35D384B9...@worldnet.att.net>...
>>>>>Look.. as long as game developers include support for Direct 3D, Open
>GL,
>>>>or
>>>>>other native ports,
>>>>>I don't care about Glide. However, if they decide to support Glide
only,
>>>>thereby
>>>>>excluding all other non-3dfx cards, then, that to me sounds like a
>>>>monopoly.
>>>>
Paul Shirley
l.com.nospammy> writes
>Sounds like a decided lack of programming skills to me. I guess if you want
>it spoonfed, you could make the case that you MUST buy a MS compiler.
Since I make my living programming it makes no financial sense rewriting
100K lines of header just to save 1-2 days income on buying VC. And
redoing it every 6 months as M$ change them.
You may have too much spare time, I don't.
>Otherwise there is a ton of free source code and documentation out there--
>even from MS itself.
You're going to have to help me here. Are you incapable of reading the
whole of my post, or just incapable of understanding all of it?
When win32 launched there was close to *no* freely available source
code, no freely available headers and damn close to no documentation
outside M$ products (or M$ licenced ones).
Nan Shing
Eric Whalen Ominous[CW] wrote in message
<35D46C55...@ameritech.net>...
>Yea, but their monopoly is as big as the monopoly a bad pimp has over a 1/4
mile
>streach of road.
>
>Jeff Peedin wrote:
>
>> So if someone writes a program that only runs on a Mac, then Apple has a
>> monopoly?
>>
>
Jeff Atwood
you can easily program the Win32 API without paying MS a dime, directly or
indirectly. The "licensing" of the headers you refer to is standard lawyer
disclaimer bullshit, not an indication that MS makes people pay for use of
the API.
P.S. Go buy a copy of Delphi or C++ Builder if you're so anti-MS.
Jeff
Paul Shirley wrote in message ...
MB
MS is charging for the DirectX SDK.
The cost of the DirectX SDK on CD-ROM, version 5.2 or 6.0, is $8.65 for
residents of the United States.
I thought it was only shipping for a more convenient CD. Then, I noticed one
small line on the web page:
Note: The DirectX 6.0 SDK can only be downloaded from this Web site through
August 31, 1998. Beginning September 1, 1998, the DirectX 6.0 SDK must be
ordered on CD-ROM.
--
fREoN98
"Just came to have some fun"
m | b @ mocc dot com
remove the |
Jeff Atwood wrote in message <35d63...@news.mti.net>...
>You can still download the updates manually. I run 98 and I downloaded DX6
>without ever touching Windows Update.
>
>Jeff
>
>k...@ecpi.com wrote in message <6r3lkn$d1p$1...@nntp.smartdna.com>...
>>>Just to put something about games in, does anyone know if the
>>install of
>>>Dx^ will work yet on Qin98 without needing to go through Windows
>>Update?
>>
>>Ya, I do not like windows update at all either. You have no
>>control. They want you to sign your life away(give gobs of
>>personal info), if you don't, your limited to what updates you can
>>get. even for those, when it initiates
Jeff Atwood
DirectX, you need the SDK. If you just want to run DirectX games, all you
need is the freely downloadable runtime.
Jeff
MB wrote in message <35d79...@news.mocc.net>...
Robin Sequira
have actually ordered it, but plenty still run DirectX games.
--
"I don't have low self-esteem, I have low esteem for everyone else."
-Daria
"Right about now, the funk soul brotha, check it out now..."
-Fatboy Slim
Jeff Atwood wrote in message <35d7d...@news.mti.net>...
MB
charge programmers to develop a Win32 App. part of this thread..
:)
Anyway, I am sure you understood what it meant.
--
fREoN98
"Just came to have some fun"
m | b @ mocc dot com
remove the |
Jeff Atwood wrote in message <35d7d...@news.mti.net>...
>The SDK has nothing to do with the runtime... if you want to program
>DirectX, you need the SDK. If you just want to run DirectX games, all you
>need is the freely downloadable runtime.
>
>Jeff
>
Timothy McNeill
card. That is not what is good for the average person who plugs in their
new game and has all sorts of computability problems. This is why we need
one API and it looks more like Direct X is the defacto standard. Direct X
has its problems, but games do play on more systems that way. This is why
the public is feed up with the compatibility issues. And, shame on 3dfx for
not going in a direction that promotes this exclusively! Shame indeed!!
AL wrote in message <6r1plm$l5...@dm1cns.on.bell.ca>...
>>Who cares about 3Dfx trying to play monopoly?
>>
>>The last remaining argument for a 3Dfx card was compatibility, because
>>the technical features of the competition are better.
>>
>>The future belongs to hardware-independent APIs like Direct3D and
>>OpenGL.
>
>
>I think 3DFX is doing a good job with support, But I have to blame game
>developers for not supporting D3D or OGL in addition to Glide.
>I don't have a 3DFX card and wanted to buy "Need for Speed 2 SE version"
>only to realize that it only supported Glide perdiod....!!!
>Well again that's EA's fault but I'm pretty sure other developers are doing
>the same.
>So no.. 3DFX don't have a monopoly it's game develeopers that are causing
us
>to this otherwise.
>
>
>AL
>
>
Rick Reitano
<tmcn...@isd.net> wrote:
>Glide is dead! Shame on 3dfx for supporting a API that only supports their
>card. That is not what is good for the average person who plugs in their
>new game and has all sorts of computability problems. This is why we need
>one API and it looks more like Direct X is the defacto standard. Direct X
>has its problems, but games do play on more systems that way. This is why
>the public is feed up with the compatibility issues. And, shame on 3dfx for
>not going in a direction that promotes this exclusively! Shame indeed!!
>
Geez, Glide was written when D3D was a nightmare to program for and no
other cards (or very few mainstream ones) had OpenGL support which,
also, did not support all of the features of the first Voodoo.
They distributed Glide because nothing else worked right on the
Voodoo.
NOW it's not 3DFX's fault if DEVELOPERS choose to write Glide
programs. Why aren't THEY writing in D3D?
Don't blame 3DFX for writing a good API. They had to at the time and
it's the developers who STILL choose to support it and only it.
SH
setup. Glide is not dead. I love games from EA sports and they are ALL GLIDE!
Don't make stupid comments please.
Timothy McNeill wrote:
> Glide is dead! Shame on 3dfx for supporting a API that only supports their
> card. That is not what is good for the average person who plugs in their
> new game and has all sorts of computability problems. This is why we need
> one API and it looks more like Direct X is the defacto standard. Direct X
> has its problems, but games do play on more systems that way. This is why
> the public is feed up with the compatibility issues. And, shame on 3dfx for
> not going in a direction that promotes this exclusively! Shame indeed!!
>
Jeff Atwood
shipped, because Direct3D wasn't even ready. And Direct3D is only now
becoming fully mature; OpenGL on the PC is still not mature. Furthermore,
when a high-end CPU was a P166, the low overhead of GLIDE was a real boon.
But in an era of Pentium II chips and mature Direct3D, GLIDE is a bit of a
dinosaur now.
Jeff
Timothy McNeill wrote in message <35db5...@aedes.isd.net>...
Jeff Atwood
Sign of the times...
Jeff
SH wrote in message <35DB9032...@2xtreme.net>...
>Shame on you for being so stupid! I plan on using the Riva TNT and the
VOODOO 2
>setup. Glide is not dead. I love games from EA sports and they are ALL
GLIDE!
>Don't make stupid comments please.
>
>Timothy McNeill wrote:
>
Doug
>Glide is dead! Shame on 3dfx for supporting a API that only supports their
>card.
What, are you on drugs? Most of us think that a company supporting
their products is a GOOD thing. If you don't like their products,
don't buy them. It's not like they are Microsoft or anything...
Phil
> Exactly.
> Monopoly = no choice.
> Developers have a choice.. They choose Glide..
>
> --
>
> fREoN98
> "Just came to have some fun"
> m | b @ mocc dot com
> remove the |
> Brete Root wrote in message <35d52ca8...@news.supernews.com>...
> >Sounds more like a democracy ... the people (game developers) have
> >voted for their leader (3Dfx).
> >
> >
> >Brete
> >
> >
> >
> >On 14 Aug 1998 00:28:43 GMT, Tesiae <Tes...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Look.. as long as game developers include support for Direct 3D, Open GL,
> or
> >>other native ports,
> >>I don't care about Glide. However, if they decide to support Glide only,
> thereby
> >>excluding all other non-3dfx cards, then, that to me sounds like a
> monopoly.
> >
>
>
Sorry, off-topic but this reminded me of something :
Anybody on here form the UK watching the Fast show :
First bloke : Now I admire 3Dfx.
Second bloke: Well who wouldn't? After all they have done a lot for the
gaming industry.
First bloke : However, if developers start to support Glide only,
excluding all other non-3dfx cards, then I should say
"OY! NOOOOO! I LIKE YOUR FANCY LOGO AND YOUR REASSURING
CLICK, BUT I DO NOT ENJOY BEING FORCED TO USE YOUR CARDS
FOR ALL MY GAMING NEEDS, YOU OVERPRICED, USELESS PIECE OF
FILTH!!!!!!
(Getting redder and redder and shouting at the top of his
voice)
Second Bloke : And you'd be right to do that too, Frank!
Both together : Microsoft is crap and it'll be around forever!!
For the record I have a Righteous 3D and am very happy with it, but I
don't think developers should develop for a single API or they lose out on
a large market. I think they shoudl develop Glide versions though, or my
money was wasted.
Sorry to those who don't get it.
Phil
John Shiali
>
> For the record I have a Righteous 3D and am very happy with it, but I
> don't think developers should develop for a single API or they lose out
> on a large market. I think they shoudl develop Glide versions though,
> or my money was wasted.
But arn't people talking about everything going Direct 3D - isn't that
a single API?
Wheras 3DFX support GLide, Direct3D, OpenGL, Mac and Linux. That's a
lot more suport than you get out of Microsoft.
As for losing out on "a large market", the biggest market for 3D
accelerated games are from 3DFX owner.
--
Station Omega at http://www.heights.demon.co.uk - The Space-sim Portal
John -
Sharon Stone found face-down in lemonade bottle full of jelly - Maggie Philbin spotted leaving the scene.
Gary Tarolli
> "Timothy McNeill" <tmcn...@isd.net> wrote:
>
> Glide is dead! Shame on 3dfx for supporting a API that only supports their
> card.
As far as I know, DirectX only runs on Windows,
so what's the difference?
Worker Working
Actually, I'd love to ask you a question here.
I have been a staunch defender of Glide's use. There were a lot of
people, like the previous poster, blaming 3DFX for Glide's popularity
but some of us seem to have quietened them down by pointing out that it
is the DEVELOPER'S choice to pick Glide over D3D and OpenGL. Obviously,
if D3D were good enough at supporting new features and was easy enough
to work in, nobody would be choosing Glide.
The other side of the coin is that no generic API could be as fast as a
native one like Glide. It has the unfair advantage of talking straight
to the hardware. My question:
When a company states that it is creating a game, does 3DFX contact them
and offer Glide programming support? If so, and the developer decides
to work in D3D will 3DFX still support them with some 3D programming?
Or only for Glide? Or does 3DFX stay out of the picture until THEY are
contacted by a developer? I gues what I'm asking is how active a role
does 3DFX take in getting Glide support for a game, or do they (you, I
suppose) sit back and wait for questions to come in?
Thanks
Steve
Jeff Dallacqua wrote in message <35e065d9...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Sat, 22 Aug 1998 09:17:09 -0700, Gary Tarolli
><tar...@3dfx.NOoooSPAaaaMcom> wrote:
>
>>> Glide is dead! Shame on 3dfx for supporting a API that only supports
their
>>> card.
>>
>>As far as I know, DirectX only runs on Windows,
>>so what's the difference?
>
>Windows.
>
What if I was running Windows NT which doesn't officially support DirectX 5?
Then no matter what card I had I could not run a game (Tomb Raider 2 for
example) in D3D(if it required DX5). If the game was written for Glide, I
could run it but he couldn't. Who should the developer cater to then? One of
the great (and yes, most frustrating) things about a computer is that it's
such an open platform, which allows for great innovation at the cost of
universal compatibility. If you don't like that, get a playstation. Which is
really a great game machine, but held back (in my eyes) because you can't
even add more internal memory, and you're stuck with the same 2x speed
CD-ROM that shipped with it.............
Steve
Jeff Dallacqua
MB
>Gary Tarolli wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Timothy McNeill" <tmcn...@isd.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Glide is dead! Shame on 3dfx for supporting a API that only supports
their
>> > card.
>>
>> As far as I know, DirectX only runs on Windows,
>> so what's the difference?
>
>
>I have been a staunch defender of Glide's use. There were a lot of
>people, like the previous poster, blaming 3DFX for Glide's popularity
>but some of us seem to have quietened them down by pointing out that it
>is the DEVELOPER'S choice to pick Glide over D3D and OpenGL. Obviously,
>if D3D were good enough at supporting new features and was easy enough
>to work in, nobody would be choosing Glide.
>
>The other side of the coin is that no generic API could be as fast as a
>native one like Glide. It has the unfair advantage of talking straight
>to the hardware. My question:
>
>When a company states that it is creating a game, does 3DFX contact them
>and offer Glide programming support? If so, and the developer decides
>to work in D3D will 3DFX still support them with some 3D programming?
>Or only for Glide? Or does 3DFX stay out of the picture until THEY are
>contacted by a developer? I gues what I'm asking is how active a role
>does 3DFX take in getting Glide support for a game, or do they (you, I
>suppose) sit back and wait for questions to come in?
>
>Thanks
I would imagine it is just like DirectX. Developers just have to download
the SDK.
Ty
>
> Glide is dead!
Better tell all those game developers who are still using it then!
> Shame on 3dfx for supporting a API that only supports their
> card.
Yes, shame on 3Dfx for not getting developers to make ports in SGL
(PowerVr) and RRedline (Rendition)! Shame indeed! Perhaps you should
be castigating the manufactuer of YOUR card (PCX2, right?) for not
getting suppport and leaving you in the dust!
> That is not what is good for the average person who plugs in their
> new game and has all sorts of computability problems.
?? IS that like plugging in a PCX2 and not having any free IRQs?
> This is why we need
> one API and it looks more like Direct X is the defacto standard.
Are you the new Alex St. John, Microsofts Dx evangelist?
> Direct X
> has its problems, but games do play on more systems that way.
So who are you blaming when Dx games DON'T work? Funny how 3Dfx has one
of the BEST implementations of Dx. DOH!
> This is why
> the public is feed up with the compatibility issues. And, shame on 3dfx for
> not going in a direction that promotes this exclusively! Shame indeed!!
Serious question here, "Are you for real?"
Ty