How Cg favors NVIDIA products (at the expense of others)

[Doomtrooper]

More HLSL means more confusion for developers, more HLSL means more money spent on training for say 5 different HLSL. Having TWO HLSL to MATCH the TWO API's only makes good sense, more effort can be put towards to the two vs. spreading it out over 5.

Yes I'm sitting in a Armchair right now, and having beer too

 

[Geeforcer]

LOL, let me take this one step further then:

"More IHVs means more confusion for developers, more IHV means more money spent on support for say 5 different IHVs. Having TWO IHVs to MATCH the TWO API's only makes good sense, more effort can be put towards to the two vs. spreading it out over 5. ".

Don't spill your beer.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Ahhh now your getting just plain silly...how would more IHV's make things more confusing if there was a standard set like in the past for whatever API..If you choose to shoot above that spec then fine yet the user base will not be sufficient to warrant support until the next API upgrade. Unless you make your own tools to expose them

Right now there is more than ever..

Matrox is back, I still think the Parhelia is a nice card
ATI
Nvidia
SiS
Via S3
Powervr
3Dlabs
Trident

 

[Geeforcer]

Of course having more IHVs would make thing more confusing, just read what Carmack wrote about having different code paths in DoomIII. So following your "don't confuse or stain the developers" logic, all we need is one IHV.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Carmack is a exception..he does write code paths for certain hardware to get the most out of them...problem is that him and Sweeny are one of the few that actually do this..

I just bought Solider of Fortune 2...on the setup screen there is two options.. ATI specific or Nvidia Specific extensions...a OGL game...hmmm there should be no need for specific extensions and why OpenGl is a mess.


Still I almost fell off my chair when I saw it

 

[DemoCoder]

There is a few people here that have had business experience...people that have open minds besides a few slams from the pro CG group including Reverend. Joe, Pascal, Shark, Noko and a few others see it the way I see it...its a move to put Nvidia in the drivers seat...I can see no answer to why else we need three HLSL...if the effort to design a entire new language by one IHV isn't a sign of cornering a market..I don't know what else is. If Nvidia would have put its CG team working towards OGL 2.0 instead of blocking extensions..Opengl would not be in the mess its in now.

I can't resist.

Doomtrooper, how many businesses have you ran?

(and before you ask the reverse, I am the former proprieter of 3, 1 S-Corp and two C Corps. Two of them sold. I have raised venture capital, done sales, marketing, and finance, as you have to do when you run a small company with < 10 employees)


On another issue, what are you going to do when Cg HLSL is shown to be DX9 HLSL, and/or Cg is adopted by ARB and merged.

Finally, 3DLabs developed their HLSL completely in house with ZERO input from the outside world. This was in development for a long time before it was publically announced and submitted as a complete proposal to ARB. Why aren't you bashing them? They did the same thing as NVidia. They developed an inhouse HLSL for their super-flexible (more flexible than NV30 and R300 by a long shot) and then submitted it to OpenGL *later*. They totally skipped the part of the standards process whereby vendors develop *requirements* first for what the future spec should address, before developing the spec itself.

NVidia did the same thing. They developed an inhouse language to satisfy the need to develop and test for their NV30, and now that language is being submitted to Microsoft for DX9 and ARB for OpenGL.

The fact is, Cg has been submitted to both ARB and Microsoft just as 3DLabs HLSL has been submitted to ARB. It is up to the standards groups to sort it out. Neither 3DLabs HLSL nor Cg are standards yet, both are proprietary.

 

[pascal]

The anti-competitive practices come from large companies dictating to the entire world what will be done.

You are gratuituslly insulting me saying that I am an "armchair analyst" and saying that "people like you...".

No pascal, anti-competitive propositions can come from everyone who says thing along the lines "we don't need more products" or "2 is enough" - it doesn't matter if you are an individual or a huge corporation.

Let me ask you you this: how many graphics IHVs do you think we need?

I think that "armchair analysis" is a pretty accurate description of what you have said so far. You already deiced how many HSLS we heed as well as what they should be, all that prior to any HSLS being fully available.

All I am proposing is a non proprietary standard. Lets see what the industry decide.
You are a dictator saying what should be my opinion.
Also what can I expect from someone with a "GeeForcer" name? Are you another nVidia fan?

 

[echo]

Hmm ... democoder, you seem to fit the profile of a director on the nvidia board.

(and before you ask the reverse, I am the former proprieter of 3, 1 S-Corp and two C Corps. Two of them sold. I have raised venture capital, done sales, marketing, and finance, as you have to do when you run a small company with < 10 employees)


On another issue, what are you going to do when Cg HLSL is shown to be DX9 HLSL, and/or Cg is adopted by ARB and merged.

Finally, 3DLabs developed their HLSL completely in house with ZERO input from the outside world. This was in development for a long time before it was publically announced and submitted as a complete proposal to ARB. Why aren't you bashing them? They did the same thing as NVidia. They developed an inhouse HLSL for their super-flexible (more flexible than NV30 and R300 by a long shot) and then submitted it to OpenGL *later*. They totally skipped the part of the standards process whereby vendors develop *requirements* first for what the future spec should address, before developing the spec itself.

NVidia did the same thing. They developed an inhouse language to satisfy the need to develop and test for their NV30, and now that language is being submitted to Microsoft for DX9 and ARB for OpenGL.

The fact is, Cg has been submitted to both ARB and Microsoft just as 3DLabs HLSL has been submitted to ARB. It is up to the standards groups to sort it out. Neither 3DLabs HLSL nor Cg are standards yet, both are proprietary.

 

[Doomtrooper]

I can't resist.

Really..go figure

Doomtrooper, how many businesses have you ran?

Oooh a credential comparison, can I play.. . Next comparison may include some anatomy comparisons

On another issue, what are you going to do when Cg HLSL is shown to be DX9 HLSL, and/or Cg is adopted by ARB and merged.

I'll probably have another beer and spend more time on the playboy channel.

 

[Gollum]

judging people by their names is not really helping any discussion now is it? maybe he picked the nick 2 years ago when he got that new card and just doesn't want to change it now?
you might as well wonder why ...doomtrooper and hellbinder like to tell end of the world horror stories whenever Cg gets mentioned. does that mean ATI is the devil, because both doom and hell are loyal followers? I hardly think so ...

 

[Doomtrooper]

Actually I got my name during Quake 2 CTF clan matches years ago, if we needed the flag back... I was the one they sent in

BTW you just judged names yourself so 'right back at ya'

 

[pascal]

There is a few people here that have had business experience...people that have open minds besides a few slams from the pro CG group including Reverend. Joe, Pascal, Shark, Noko and a few others see it the way I see it...its a move to put Nvidia in the drivers seat...I can see no answer to why else we need three HLSL...if the effort to design a entire new language by one IHV isn't a sign of cornering a market..I don't know what else is. If Nvidia would have put its CG team working towards OGL 2.0 instead of blocking extensions..Opengl would not be in the mess its in now.

I can't resist.

Doomtrooper, how many businesses have you ran?

(and before you ask the reverse, I am the former proprieter of 3, 1 S-Corp and two C Corps. Two of them sold. I have raised venture capital, done sales, marketing, and finance, as you have to do when you run a small company with < 10 employees)


On another issue, what are you going to do when Cg HLSL is shown to be DX9 HLSL, and/or Cg is adopted by ARB and merged.

Finally, 3DLabs developed their HLSL completely in house with ZERO input from the outside world. This was in development for a long time before it was publically announced and submitted as a complete proposal to ARB. Why aren't you bashing them? They did the same thing as NVidia. They developed an inhouse HLSL for their super-flexible (more flexible than NV30 and R300 by a long shot) and then submitted it to OpenGL *later*. They totally skipped the part of the standards process whereby vendors develop *requirements* first for what the future spec should address, before developing the spec itself.

NVidia did the same thing. They developed an inhouse language to satisfy the need to develop and test for their NV30, and now that language is being submitted to Microsoft for DX9 and ARB for OpenGL.

The fact is, Cg has been submitted to both ARB and Microsoft just as 3DLabs HLSL has been submitted to ARB. It is up to the standards groups to sort it out. Neither 3DLabs HLSL nor Cg are standards yet, both are proprietary.

Democoder,

DT is not saying "everybody should use RenderMonkey", he is saying lets give a non proprietary standard a chance and you say he is a fanATIc and ofending him!!! This is absurd

I could call you a NVIDIOT for that.

I am the one that cant resist,
You are very uneducated.

To answer your question I have been responsible for more money and people than you can imagine, and previous to that I have done some highlly technicall hands on work before. I like this forum because it is supposed to be open to new ideas and it is relaxing for me while I do other things.

We only want a non proprietary open standard. If the ARB decide to use what nVidia has to offer than it will be fine, but lets the ARB decide what to do. It has to go by the industry commite.

My guess ATI could have designed a simple HLSL language and compiler/tools by themselves, specially because they had the technicall power, money and leadership to design and implement IMHO a very impressive chip (R300). The HLSL is just a side effect.

 

[Geeforcer]

All I am proposing is a non proprietary standard. Lets see what the industry decide.
You are a dictator saying what should be my opinion.
Also what can I expect from someone with a "GeeForcer" name? Are you another nVidia fan?

You have every right to have an opinion, just as I have the right to disagree with your rationalization. I particular disagree with the "Is better prevent than try to fix later" part, for the reasons I already outlined... Just because a standard is proprietary at first, doesn’t mean it is not useful or will not become public in the future, therefore I think that opposing it on proprietary grounds alone is somewhat close-minded. But it a moot point anyway: Industry will decide if we need CG or not, not you or me.

Regarding the name.., I was wondering how long it would be untill you got to that. Let me just say that on this particular issue I would have no trouble whatsoever repeating my argument word-for-word if CG came from ATi rather then Nvidia; something I doubt some other people in this thread would be able to do. My take on this issue has nothing to do with companies evolved, but rather with the way I think the industry should operate.

 

[demalion]

But on the grand scale, things have been "working out" so far - why do you think this no longer be the case in the future?

Towards the issue at hand, I'd hardly call the situation with OpenGL "working out", I'd call it a struggle with an outcome in doubt.

I don't think there is any need to make a specific assertion about the US political and economic system, or of the world in general, to support my comments about human behavior.

You maintain that things in the 3D industry will be different, and are different now, and it is simply my observation that it is not different now (see above), and I don't share your confidence in believing it will "work out" to be different in the future. I'm not trying to convert you to my belief, so I'll leave it as that, since we are both speculating.

 

[Gollum]

BTW you just judged names yourself so 'right back at ya'

LOL, well actually I was just trying to show how pointless this name-judging is and yours was the easiest to make up some kind of story about.
no offence intended...

 

[Geeforcer]

Towards the issue at hand, I'd hardly call the situation with OpenGL "working out", I'd call it a struggle with an outcome in doubt.

I don't think there is any need to make a specific assertion about the US political and economic system, or of the world in general, to support my comments about human behavior.

You maintain that things in the 3D industry will be different, and are different now, and it is simply my observation that it is not different now (see above), and I don't share your confidence in believing it will "work out" to be different in the future. I'm not trying to convert you to my belief, so I'll leave it as that, since we are both speculating.

I think you misunderstood me: I do not claim that the way 3D industry operates is any different today then it was 5 years ago. What I do contend is that the industry is self-regulating, hence numerous Glide references: standards are embraces when they needed and are discarded when they have outlived their usefulness. I am not trying to convert you either (although I see why it might sound that way, heh), I am just trying to articulate my beliefs, which happen to be "Let the free market sort it out." While some might argue that unregulated free market has failed on several occasions (of course I would argue with most of the likely examples, lol), there is no denial that the overall track record in picking the superior products has been very good.

As for OGL mess - although regrettable, I would suggest that it could be considered that oppose of CG situation (depending on one's prospective). For example, I could argue in case of OGL a company is trying to reduce the number of available alternatives by accreting IP claims, while in case of CG a company is actually increasing the number of available alternatives by releases another language to compete. I know this has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make (which is well-taken, btw), but it is still food for thought.

 

[DemoCoder]

Cg is going to be a non-proprietary standard, it is a proposal to ARB and has the exact same status as 3DLabs HLSL Both are proposals.

Cg is might also be a Microsoft standard, because NVidia and Microsoft worked on the language together and it will be incorporated into DX9 HLSL.

So there you go, both standard APIs, DirectX and OpenGL have Cg up as a proposal to become the standard.

What else do you people want? NVidia open-sourced the compiler. They opened sourced the backend code generator for DirectX. And now they have even sent Cg as a proposal to ARB to become a standard.

Yet, the ranting continues. A rational mind would sit back and wait to see the outcome of ARB.

But no, let's proceed as if NVidia did none of these things and assume that Cg will be a proprietary NV30 only language.

 

[pascal]

I am seated here waiting the standard.

Fact: Today the Cg status is a proposal and proprietary.

If it become a standard by the ARB rules then it will be fine.

Will you accept another ARB resolution?

 

[DemoCoder]

I am seated here waiting the standard.

Fact: Today the Cg status is a proposal and proprietary.

If it become a standard by the ARB rules then it will be fine.

Will you accept another ARB resolution?

So is the 3DLabs proposal. Why aren't you attacking them?

 

[pascal]

I am not atacking anyone.

I want the standard.

Again will you accept whatever the ARB decides? Yes or No?