OpenGL remains a first class API under Windows Vista ?
roman modic
Quote from http://www.opengl.org/
"Microsoft's current plan for OpenGL on Windows Vista is to layer OpenGL
over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the
Aeroglass experience. If an OpenGL ICD is run - the desktop compositor will
switch off - significantly degrading the user experience. In practice this
means for OpenGL under Aeroglass:
OpenGL performance will be significantly reduced - perhaps as much as 50%
OpenGL on Windows will be fixed at a vanilla version of OpenGL 1.4
No extensions will be possible to expose future hardware innovations."
Regards, Roman
must stay@discussions.microsoft.com OpenGL must stay
mean that more than ten years of development and tweaking will go down the
drain.
Serpe
company also develop library to be used with opengl and this for us is
a primary point.
If vista won't support opengl we will choose other operating systems.
Sven Devriese
news:1123507804....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I'm obviously no MS Manager but from what I understand this is the deal:
Nothing changes if you don't use Aero (Glass ?). You still have "raw"
OpenGL (i.e. through ICD) both windowed and full-screen.
However, as soon as you use Aero Glass (which in turn uses D3D and
hence locks the 3D device), it becomes impossible for an OpenGL
ICD to directly use the hardware. This is only for windowed applications
though.
Full-screen applications (e.g. D3D or OpenGL games) can grab hold
of the 3D hardware because AeroGlass lets go it while the application
has the complete screen.
HTH
Sven
Lacroux@discussions.microsoft.com Lois Lacroux
Vista, if it's true. As a lot of professional 3D applications, we've based a
lot of our 3D developments on OpenGL. To reply to Sven, in professional 3D
there is very few apps that use fullscreen... But a lot of improvements over
time use GL extensions that will not be available no more...
Stability, extensibility, cross-platform are reasons that make GL a strong
foundation for a 3D professional app. We use GL for more than 9 years and
time show we were right (DirectX history was somewhat.... chaotic). We don't
plan to change for a new version of DirectX 10 or WGF or WGF 2.0.... :)
Aero seems to be a good point for Vista but is not necessary. Such a recent
technology and so limitations regarding 10 years old standards? Impossible...
Seems to me that a wrong marketing choice has been made.
If we must find any mean to shortcut/bypass Aero to make OpenGL work, we
will. In a 3D app most of the business value is in the 3D viewport not in the
buttons, the choice will be easy to do. But it could be funny if 3d apps on
Vista stay at the current graphic level when on other system they will really
benefit from the OS (Who said MacOS? ;) ) .
It's really sad that the next Microsoft OS make our work harder by making
such arbitrary limitations instead of making it easier. We use .Net for 2
years now and are pretty happy with it (you could even do OpenGL with Tao...
;) ) but as I read news like that, I'm asking myself if binding us to such
solutions is a really a good idea....
Lois
Christian Schormann
According to slide 16, there is a default hardware accelerated OpenGL
implementation in the box (OGL 1.4), which uses WGF1.0 as its underlying
hardware pipeline. At the same time, support for the OGL ICDs is still
there - existing ones work with the XP-compatible driver model, if a card
uses LDDM, a new ICD is required.
As I read this, it means that the base OGL that MSFT ships is better than
what we have today - it is OGL 1.4, and it uses hardware acceleration.
Graphics card vendors can still write ICDs to give access to the full OGL
functionality and power - in fact, if they plan to use the old driver model
(compatibility mode), they don't even have to write a new ICD. But for all
new cards that come with LDDM drivers, a new ICD would be required.
There is a potential snag though (slide 18): The desktop window manager
(which delivers some of the coolest Longhorn graphics features) switches off
when certain application types are run. The slide mentions overlay planes
and front buffer rendering, but there might be other types. I am not quite
sure what "switching off" in this context means and how smooth this will
feel to the user, and in how far OpenGL applications using a native LDDM ICD
necessarily would fall in this category.
In summary, it does not sound as if OGL support would be downgraded - the
dwm behavior might require some application adaptation though, depending on
what really is supported and what is not.
Regards,
CS
"roman modic" <mod...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:OzFhR9rm...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Marcel Dupré
extensions, meaning no GLSL, no shaders. Btw, we are at OpenGL version 2.0,
so why implementing a 2 (or more) years old release? It's like implementing
DirectX 7.0 on MacOS X: non sense.
In my company we are also using exclusively multiplatform APIs: OpenGL and
OpenGL ES, OpenAL, SDL, ... No directX at all. We are happy with Windows XP,
but no compromise will be accepted if OpenGL will be downgraded or limited in
Vista. Our software is already working under Linux, PocketPC, and will on
MacOS soon. We can live without Vista, but we can't without a full support of
OpenGL, so our choice will also be obvious... I hope Microsoft will provide a
full and updated support of OpenGL in the next Windows release (and please,
stop with this annoying OpenGL 1.1 stucked since Windows 95...). I hope also
that the rumors about the will to kill OpenGL in order to get a monopolistic
position about 3d API for both Windows and console market are only rumors...
They are only rumors, right?
ABCD
If we think logically, there are four great things for game industry:
1) OpenGL (OpenGL ES)
2) OpenAL
3) OpenML
4) OpenVG
This stuff is open and free. It makes possible to make games for ANY
platform, not just Windows. Btw, Sony didn’t accidentally choose OpenGL
standard for PS3.
What does this mean? It means that game and application developers will see
opportunity to use these APIs for development, since it makes sense:
1) Larger desktop market: Windows, Linux, Mac…
2) Less work - investments ($)
3) Ability to enter console PS3, PSP market
4) Ability to port to mobile devices
If you think logically, this is exactly what Microsoft doesn’t want. So
there is actually no problem (technical or otherwise) to have OpenGL on
Windows Vista – the only “problem” is because Microsoft doesn’t want it.
Think about it:
What if tomorrow all systems could have hi quality games (free Linux, Mac,
Apple)?
What if Sony PS3 could run games for PC (written in OpenGL/AL/ML technology?
You will find answer who and why obstruct OpenGL standard. And this is not
Microsoft bashing. It is common sense.
Lois Lacroux
following this way will come from applications that will continue (or begin)
to use OpenGL and that are cross platform (there will be a lot ;) ) . The
result will be that the Vista versions of these applications will not be able
to compare with those sames applications on other OSs in term of Look. And
creative people really like good looking softwares (that's why Aero Glass is
here, to follow Quartz approach...).
Seems to me that the calculus is not so easy to do... ;)
Lois
Default User
this was questioned earlier in private vista ng.
Everything will be the same for full screen OGL Apps or independent IGs.
Only when you want to user OpenGL from WPF you have to fall back on
Microsoft's OGL solution.
Jan
Ray@discussions.microsoft.com OpenGL Ray
on XP) has graphic errors in Vista and am wondering if this explains why. I'm
pretty upset that I've lost a month of development time trying to figure it
out and am angry that it may be due to a marketing choice by Microsoft to
squeeze out OpenGL. Should I ask for a refund on Vista?