With the shift from dedicated GPUs that do all in hardware to GPGPUs that need and OS and everything that goes with it, I think DX11+ will be about having the GPGPU kernel absorbed into Windows. DX10 is currently laying the foundation to do just that.
GPGPU makers might be very happy with that transition, as they are first and foremost interested in designing hardware, not OSes.
Microsoft would definitely be very happy with that, as it allows them to make the rules.
The Linux crowd would be very happy with that, as long as they could get the low-level documentation needed to do it themselves.
The users should be very happy with that, as their games will simply work, without needing to jump through the hoops of getting just the right "driver" (actually an Application Programming Interface with compiler and libraries) installed to get it working. And even AMD cards would work well under Linux.
Then again, if AMD and nVidia consider their innards restricted and agree only to work with Microsoft under NDA, we all lose.
Fortunately, there is much more than Windows. Everyone (but Microsoft, unless it runs Windows Mobile) wants that vast amount of non-windows computers (including your watch, MP3 player, router, DVD player, navigation system and mobile phone, most of which run Linux or Symbian) to be able to display yummy 3D graphics.
Unfortunately, I don't think that AMD and nVidia want to hang out all the low-level specs for everyone to see, nor will they be able to make contracts with the Linux crowd (the only one that really matters), unless Linus abandons the OpenSource model. If he can. Although they might with Symbian.
Another interesting point to consider is, that it would be very cost-effective for the hardware manufacturers to drop OS development as soon as Microsoft takes over.
So, where does that leave Linux, or OpenGL SE as a valid platform? Or do we need Windows to run on the device to be able to have ass-kicking 3D graphics?
Do you WANT to pay for Windows on your watch, phone or MP3 player?
GPGPU makers might be very happy with that transition, as they are first and foremost interested in designing hardware, not OSes.
Microsoft would definitely be very happy with that, as it allows them to make the rules.
The Linux crowd would be very happy with that, as long as they could get the low-level documentation needed to do it themselves.
The users should be very happy with that, as their games will simply work, without needing to jump through the hoops of getting just the right "driver" (actually an Application Programming Interface with compiler and libraries) installed to get it working. And even AMD cards would work well under Linux.
Then again, if AMD and nVidia consider their innards restricted and agree only to work with Microsoft under NDA, we all lose.
Fortunately, there is much more than Windows. Everyone (but Microsoft, unless it runs Windows Mobile) wants that vast amount of non-windows computers (including your watch, MP3 player, router, DVD player, navigation system and mobile phone, most of which run Linux or Symbian) to be able to display yummy 3D graphics.
Unfortunately, I don't think that AMD and nVidia want to hang out all the low-level specs for everyone to see, nor will they be able to make contracts with the Linux crowd (the only one that really matters), unless Linus abandons the OpenSource model. If he can. Although they might with Symbian.
Another interesting point to consider is, that it would be very cost-effective for the hardware manufacturers to drop OS development as soon as Microsoft takes over.
So, where does that leave Linux, or OpenGL SE as a valid platform? Or do we need Windows to run on the device to be able to have ass-kicking 3D graphics?
Do you WANT to pay for Windows on your watch, phone or MP3 player?
Last edited by a moderator: