Will 3DMark_Next support DirectX10.1 [Shader Model 4.1]

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Shtal, Nov 14, 2007.

  1. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    The different syntax isn’t the only GLSL problem. There are big issues with the way OpenGL consume these shaders. Each driver takes the GLSL source code directly. The first problem is that the compilers of todays driver have some differences in their lexers and parsers. This will make shaders accepted by one implementation and refused with a syntax error by another one. The second problem is that there is no way to say beforehand if a shader will work hardware accelerate on a GPU. This may be OK if you write an application and you control the hardware it would run but in the world of PC gaming this just causes massive headaches.

    This was more or less a personal decision and not business driven. There were never an official Linux SKU of any id game.

    No Cieder. Cieder is Cedega for the Mac but with a complete different business model.

    If game developers talks about portability they talk about PC, Xbox, Playstation they don’t talk about different OSes for PCs.

    Again. 3dmark tests how fast a card/driver can run their implementation of a technique.

    Games may use other implementation and techniques. Additional they use different combinations. This make the results of an 3dmark run hardly useable for prediction of other game performances.
     
  2. Sc4freak

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Not really. The basic concepts of DirectX remain the same between D3D9 and D3D10 - I ported a simple graphics engine over from D3D9 to D3D10 with little effort/hassle. I couldn't say the same for a port to OpenGL. Oh, and the additions to the Win32 API in Vista are minimal. It's pretty much all the same.

    That's funny. I seem to remember a statistic where Windows users comprised 90% of the entire desktop computer market. I imagine an even higher percentage of gamers would use Windows (since there are practically no games for Mac/Linux compared to Windows).

    So I guess you're right, if you develop a game exclusively for a single OS such as Linux it would be suicide. But if you develop solely for Windows you'd be able to do quite fine. As evidenced by the many successful games companies that do just that and are getting along fine.
     
  3. Nick[FM]

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Helsinki
    I'm here. :wink: Why our next gen 3DMark isn't our yet? Because the next 3DMark simply isn't done yet. Also, we have no plans to produce an OpenGL benchmark on the PC. At least not in the near future.

    Cheers,

    Nick
     
  4. kyetech

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nick,

    I know you often say ...soon... very soon.... etc... with regard to 3dmark 08

    But when are you going to release your first image of 3dmark 08 ? if not a date, a solid time frame, about some movement?
     
  5. santyhammer

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Behind you
    Well, OpenGL ES allows to use precompiled shaders. The decision to use source coded shaders was to optimize better but, as you mention, drivers include different GLSL compiler implementations and sometimes a code works on a card and does not in other. They way to solve that is to test your shader on different cards until it works in all.

    The OGL software mode fallback was a pain, I agree with you. Hopefully OGL3 gonna change that ( gonna make things to emit an error if are not supported instead of use the software mode ).

    Ahhhh I see. Well I googled it and got no emulator entries hehe, must be new or something.

    Well, portability is a general term... it refers to consoles, different OS or even different languages ( for example C is portable because can be used inside C++, ObjetiveC, D, etc ). I could accept a "DX is portable" because runs on Windows and XBox and can be used from C++,VB,C#, etc... but is not native(emulators excluded) multivendor portable because only runs 100% well on Microsoft products.
    Btw, I think you can program the PS with OGL too.

    Well, to be sincere I don't like synthetic test too much... but they should develop it in a way that could represent the general game performance of a card... because if not they are just a nice thing to your eyes.

    But Vista has all the .NET 3.5 things(Thing many game editors, MDX games and .NET apps count too), new security model, new input and sound system, new driver model, etc...

    Well, I would like to know then why no company is making a game exclusively for Windows Vista and DX10.
     
    #25 santyhammer, Nov 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2007
  6. Demirug

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    69
    Very bad solution. Especial as it would not be enough to test against every card you need to test against every driver too. Additional what is about unreleased cards and driver?

    A special OpenGL Es version that use Cg instead of GLSL. But it isn’t recommended to use it.

    Some of these things are transparent for the application and you are not forced to use any of the others.
     
  7. santyhammer

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Behind you
    Hey, Nick... can you tell us if 3dm2008 gonna use the GI technique in the ATI paper using cubemap arrays or any other exclusive DX10.1 feature(like MSBRW) pls?
     
    #27 santyhammer, Nov 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2007
  8. Andrew Lauritzen

    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    You completely missed the point of what he is saying. He was saying that requiring Vista for DX10 is an arbitrary way to tie the improved API to the new OS... whether or not that is true is debatable and besides-the-point. No one is arguing that DX10 isn't significantly superior to DX9 as that is just vacuously true.

    Wow, I'm getting great flashbacks to how bad XP was when it came, or XP SP1, and yet all of those things I had no problem with and indeed in time have been accepted to be clear improvements over what was there previously :D (Aside: seriously you like to overexaggerate much? Your assertion is really that Vista is inferior to DOS? Lol!) My point is not to get in an argument over whether or not you can find people that don't like Vista - because I don't care: I can find people that love it. People are just whiny and conservative, as they always are. In the end, use what you want but you're not gonna get much sympathy when you whine about DX10/3dmark being Vista-only.

    The comparison is totally meaningless unless the games are doing the *exact same thing* on each API. I've written such an app and it was faster on Vista/DX10, sometimes by as much as 10-15%, so you can perhaps understand my skepticism :)

    = conservative bias and self-selecting nature of internet posting. I'm a fairly "serious FPS gamer" and I'm quite happy with Vista (x64 even!).

    I tested Vista myself and I think "it" is a good OS, already clearly superior to XP and it will only get better. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and I expect you to no longer make any sweeping statements to anyone that don't include my quite-informed positive opinion of Vista ;)

    Meh... I've played all of the above (and CoH) in DX10 mode without a single blue-screen, and that's on the terrible x64 OS (the horror!) ;)

    Anyways enough of this rediculously pointless debate. DX10 and Vista are both here to stay and unless OpenGL 4.0 or 5.0 is going to come out in the next month I'm not going to get very excited and I doubt that many (windows) game developers will. GL is just falling further and further behind and needs a swift kick in the butt if it wants to get back in the game. Until that happens, and a good percentage of games start to use the significantly improved/changed OpenGL, it has no real place in 3dmark.
     
  9. santyhammer

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Behind you
    All i'm saying is that Vista is getting hard critics from all the sectors(gamers,developers,press,IHVs,users). If 3dm2008 is DX10-Vista only then won't be too popular(and there is other thread for this I think). You like Vista and I hate it with pure passion. I think we aren't going to change our opinion :p Vista sales will say the last word.

    So lets center into DX10.1 and 3dm2008 because we're going completely offtopic :D!
    But all this was not completely pointless! Nick appeared so we can bomb him with questions!

    Nick, pls if you can tell us more about
    DX10.1 and 3dmark 2008 we will be very pleased.
    Basically I wanna know:

    1. Is 3dm2k8 Vista and DX10-only? Is 3dm2k8 enrolled into the "Designed for Windows Vista" or TWIMTBP program? What paper plays Microsoft, NVIDIA, ATI, Intel, etc on 3dm2k8?
    2. Are you going to use DX10.1 or just DX10? If only DX10.0... planned any patch for DX10.1 in the future?
    3. Any plans to give an app-postmortem telling us about the pros/cons of Vista and DX10 programming you found?
    4. Are you going to use any GI technique like Lightsprint, Geometrics, FantasyLabs or ATI GI demo?
    5. Which software are you using to create 3dm2k8?
    6. How many people are working on 3dm2k8 currently? Which group structure you use(lead graphics, programmers, etc)? Do you use any team system like Subversion?
    7. Are you going to release a x64 version of 3dm2k8? Any patch for SSE4 and Penryn/Phenom?
    8. Can you give us some info about estimated finalization date? Any screenshot?
    9. What do you think in general about Microsoft, XP/Vista, DX9/10, OpenGL, linux, MacOSX and future platforms like android, Larrabee or virtualized graphics?
    10. Any plans to port 3dmark to other platforms?
    11. Any plans to include the 3dmark technology in a game like Alan Wake(I think madonion/futuremark and Remedy are related?)
    12. Any plans to dev-blog?

    thx!
     
    #29 santyhammer, Nov 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2007
  10. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    Very interesting feature!

    Edit: I wonder what Nick[FM] has to say, since 3DMark predicts future gaming! "Hopefully assuming :D"

    Thanks,

    Best regards,

    Shtal.
     
    #30 Shtal, Nov 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2007
  11. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,314
    Likes Received:
    140
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    Just another misinformation article from The Inq...
     
  12. Dooby

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    3
    He didnt mention Ultimate, and no one in their right mind buys retail.

    XP PRO = £82.83
    Vista Home Premium = £63.76
     
  13. Rodéric

    Rodéric a.k.a. Ingenu
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    4,030
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
  14. Andrew Lauritzen

    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    Actually that's not true since the distribution of features in Home vs Pro is much more sane in Vista. Note that there is no "Vista Pro", only a "Vista Business" which is a good name since they really did move around the features. For instance I'm quite happy with Vista Home Premium on my laptop whereas I consider XP Home to be stupidly gimped in several places. The only thing I miss from Vista Home is remote desktop (server) but arguably you only need that for a few server-like computers anyways.

    And seriously, buy OEM! Retail only makes sense if you're going to transfer the license >2 or 3 times, which most people aren't.

    For reference, Vista HP OEM = $112CAN @ NCIX... I consider that more than reasonable for an OS. If you want all of the bells and whistles, Vista Ultimate OEM = $183 which is also quite reasonable IMHO.

    Thus I'm not saying that everyone needs to run out and upgrade right now, but if you're getting a new PC or video card anyways, the cost of a new OS isn't really that critical (particularly if you'd have to buy a new XP license anyways in the first case).
     
  15. santyhammer

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Behind you
    AndyTX, the price of Visyta in Europe differs a lot from the American continent. I bet that is due to the 600M $ UE fine vs Microsoft, so need to raise price to compensate. Here you can only find Vista "N" versions ( without IE7, MediaPlayer, Outlook, etc... ) due to the judge resolution. I could buy it on an USA shop, but then a special VAT + import tax will be applied raising a lot the final price. On the other hand I could but one in eBay, but if the user already activated the license I could not be able to use it and neither use the tons of WGA-protected updates from Microsoft.

    For example, see the price of Vista Home Premium "N" here:
    http://www.elcorteingles.es/informatica/producto/producto.asp?referencia=28610737869
    Yes, 524$ (around 340€).. that's the real price on the street here.
    And about WinXP's price... I don't think is good... the only good price was the Win1.0/WIN95 ones... See this funny video "only 99$" from current Microsoft's director... Ballmer... and the people rushing the shop to get Win95 ( I didn't see people rushing the shops to get Vista... )

    http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-2992183880068262304&hl=en
    [​IMG]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCMZZgBURls

    and see what happened when they shown the new speech recoginition system...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiG7KFDYkLI

    find in youtube a bit and you will find nice videos like this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kql8cWqiv8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO8cAwf-weo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyUENvhsHi4
    hahahah!

    I personally won't pay more than 100$ for the OS... and nope, I don't want IE7, neither Outlook, Paint, Defrag, a disk compressor based on stolen Stacker's tech, MS Office or Media Player/Media center, Firewall, Windows Defender... I can use firefox, thunderbird, GIMP, OpenOffice, LutelWall, Avast! and Totem/VLC... so I don't wanna pay extra $$$ for all those stinky apps and DRM included in Windows.

    And you could need the retail version, because if you change your motherboard or CPU the license will be invalidated so you would need to spend more money on a new license! And btw, virtualization is explicitly prohibited by the Vista's OEM license!

    Btw, look at the news appeared this week:
    http://www.microsoft-watch.com/cont...maybe_macintosh.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
    http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sp1-performance-dud.html
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vist...-039-s-Windows-for-Supercomputers-71157.shtml

    And let me remind you tons of european institutions are migrating to free OS solutions in their public administrations... and thats due to the exagerated Windows price:
    http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/linux/largest-linux-migration-europe-city-bergen
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/10/30/brussels_to_spend_euro_250k/
    http://www.news.com/Munichs-Linux-migration-slips-to-2006/2100-7344_3-5850633.html
    http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/35108.html
    http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/10/13/dutch_consumer_association_declares_war/

    Why you would pay 500 or even 200$ in Vista when MacOSX costs 100$ and Solaris and linux are free... I personally find Ubuntu a very good, user friendly and easy to use OS(and btw Compiz is as good if not better than Aero). The only real reason to use Windows is because some apps still don't exist in other OS(3dsmax for example)... but you can find a lot of very popular apps in other OS like XSI, Maya, Skype, GIMP, OpenOffice, Java/gcc/OGL/Mono/Apache/Eclipse, ID's games, etc and the driver support for linux starts to be good.

    So, I have an better and cheaper idea... start programming for these OS... and that includes a petition to port the old 3dmarks pls!
     
    #35 santyhammer, Nov 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2007
  16. JHoxley

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    South Coast, England
    I thought slashdot was the internet's flypaper to keep this sort of thing away from the civilised and informed internet? :roll:
    Chicken meet egg. When the other OS's are commercially viable targets then we'll develop for them - they're not even close to critical mass as far as I can tell.

    The whole "Open source is free therefore everything is free and cheaper" is unrealistic. Yes, some elements of truth but if you blindly believe that then you really need to get yourself a few years in the profession - there are so many costs beyond the most obvious ones it's not funny!

    Jack
     
  17. Sc4freak

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    So, in other words, you want to shift the cost away from yourself (the consumer) and just instead spend all your time blaming Microsoft for their evil marketshare and demand that every other company drive themselves into bankruptcy by spending large amounts of time and money developing for 0.5% of the market?

    Sure.
     
  18. santyhammer

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Behind you
    In Europe, the public administration is subject to very strict cost controls by the UE commision. If they are moving from Windows to other OSs then is because the change cost is less than the Microsoft's solutions(time to click again in the links you appeared to ignore before). You need also to consider in UE there are no software patents, which reduces costs too.
    Take a look into http://www.proposicion.org.ar/doc/noticias-web.html.en and see how many important organizations migrated to linux due to low global and well meditated costs.

    I would like you to see why linux hosting are much much cheaper than IIS-based ones... or why tons of mobile phones uses linux kernels with Java technology ( android, Symbian, MIDP, etc ) and not Windows Mobile... or why Google, Sun, Mozilla grew using this software model... or how Apple is there... or what OS uses IBM's BlueGene and the NASA... or this SGI's workstation... or why we can get Maya, XSI, ID's games and other commercial apps on linux/mac... or why we ported a lot of pipeline in the enterprise from WinXP/WinServer to linux/MacOSX in a domain managed using Apache some years ago and we are very happy...

    There is a non-Windows business world out there!

    0.5% of the market... are you referring to Vista-DX10-only, don't you? That could be the market share of 3dm2008 if is vista-dx10 only... Well, I think Vista got only a 4% of marketshare after one year... very poor results:
    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2&qpmr=15&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=Y

    If you program using Visual Studio( specially using dynamically-linked model which requires the msvcrt80.dll, msvcrt.dll, msvb6.dll, mscoree.dll, MFC shared dlls, WinSxS DLLs, etc... ), you use .NET >1.0, you use MFC, DirectX, Office/Access/ADO technologies.... you will need to do a lot of work to port your app... so yes, the linux port cost will be inmense... BUT if you plan well you application based on standard, portable and open things like gcc, Eclipse/Netbeans, OpenGL, OpenAL, Java, PostgreSQL(or MySQL)... then and only then, changing a few lines of code you can port it better.. and the costs will be amortized by the not so small ( specially in the server sector where Apache is really strong, see http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/01/overallc.gif ) linux/mac/sun community.

    What Microsoft wants is to force you to use their exclusive/non-portable/non-open tech and make you very dependent on it ( aka completely Windozed )... so my advice is not to use any exclusive and non-portable technology like Win32, VS, .NET/WPF/Vista API, IIS/ADO, Windows Media or DX10. You can substitute it using Java, GTK+, Mono, OpenGL, posix, OpenAL, NetBSD-style sockets, Apache, Theora/Ogg/XVid, etc... or whatever. For example, see how Maya, XSI, GIMP, OpenOffice or firefox were easy ported using that model... but you need to start your app and plan it well from a start.

    Think you can ALSO program Windows with all this... so the code changes won't be so dramatic/costly as you thing.
     
    #38 santyhammer, Nov 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2007
  19. Andrew Lauritzen

    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    This is veering heavily off course. We're still talking about gaming, DX10 and 3dmark right? For now the only viable PC gaming platform is Windows, so everything else is irrelevant to this conversation.

    Furthermore these sorts of conversations are just meaningless... for every link you find I can find another one that says exactly the opposite. Thus while I respect the windows cost situation in Europe (although it kind of sounds like you brought it upon yourselves legislatively, but that's really another topic!), it really is pretty irrelevant. Similarly business adoption of Vista has no bearing on gaming/DX10. There was a discussion a while ago about the Steam survey results (look it up), and it appeared to me that people were indeed getting DX10-ready setups at a fairly rapid pace; of course it could always be more rapid (it could have been with DX9 too!), but there's no cause for concern.

    That's totally false... all of our stuff at work compiles fine in gcc, icc and msvc with very few OS-specific sections. Furthermore there are plenty of libraries and functions that only work on Linux or Mac; shall I dare to mention the huge number of OpenGL extensions that Apple decided to create for Mac, in many cases *rather* than supporting the "open" extensions that already existed for the same functionality!? And last I checked, .NET is a pretty well-accepted and developing standard with increasingly good support on non-windows OSes.

    Don't get the wrong impression: *everyone* wants to lock you in to their stuff, not just Microsoft. You're being naive to think that Microsoft is a big bad monster but - for instance - Apple is some sort of holy saint.

    In some cases portable libraries and software is a no-brainer. In some cases it is required even if difficult. However for games it is neither required nor often easy as the "open/portable" libraries heavily lag the platform-specific ones in functionality, efficiency and particularly support and documentation. OpenGL is clearly behind DX10 right now and it will take a severe overhaul to fix that (3.0 won't do it). Similarly stuff like gtk is a long way behind WinForms.

    Thus while we'd all love to live in a wonderful work of software compatibility and portability, it just isn't feasible in many cases. For games in particular there's really no need right now and thus I'd prefer that the developers spend their time making it work flawlessly on even just the windows platforms, let alone bringing in even *more* platforms! For that reason, as well as the current game market, I don't think that it's very critical that an OpenGL path be included in the next 3dmark.
     
  20. santyhammer

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Behind you
    You omited the important part hidding the statement with the [..] about WinSxS DLLs and language dependencies.
    Yep, you CAN port pure C/C++ easy but... Try to port your Visual Basic application to linux... Try to port your MFC8 app to linux... Try to port your Managed C++ app to Mono ( go talk M.Icaza about MS CRT and you will discover a bad thing)... Emulators don't count... and if you count then try to install the WinSxS DLLs using WineHQ... Oppz you need IExplorer and MSIInstaller, which won't install.

    Btw, have you tryed to install VS2005 on Windows98/ME? Ooopz, you cannot ( manifest problems, WinSxS models, recompiled DLLs, etc). So i'm forced to buy a Win2k/XP and also VS2005 to make a .NET 2.0 application.

    And remember... IExplorer/Media system/DLL File protection/other DLLs were embedded into the OS so Microsoft could not extract it... and thats why the UE required the "N" Windows versions.

    Thats true. But well, I can buy the only-and-all-features-included Leopard OS by just 100$ ( which i think is a decent price for an OS... not 300€ llike Vista is selling here ). Well, Solaris or Ubuntu only accepts $$$ for the support but not the software itself. And well... GNU or Open source foundation only want you to participate.

    That's what Microsoft wants you to think. The .NET source code exists(google "rotor"), but license does not allow to use it really. We have seen some deals with Novell too... but the .NET as exists in Windows is not ported to other OSs. Novell IS porting the parts which can be ( others cannot, by technical, license or patents reasons )... the project is called "Mono". GNU is working also on other port(google dotGNU), but is very immature.

    Mono just works decently (where it means... not perfectly...) with .NET 1.0, that's why I put the >1.0 on the statement. Also contains C# support ... and, AFAIK, lacks VB, MC++ or J#(which is a very curious Java microsoft implementation btw... created from the Sun vs Microsoft Java fighting ).
    System.Windows.Forms namespace is not yet totally implemented. Also got some problems because uses Wine emulation and a strange mixed Gtk model ( because GDI+ was patented or something like that ).
    .NET 2.0 is only partially supported(in fact, has no official support). VistaAPI(WPF/Avalon, WCF,etc) is not at all done.
    Also, MonoForge no longer exists to host your ASP.NET pages... and hosting enterprises don't like Mono because uses too many resources.
    Monodevelop (the Mono IDE) is still very immature.
    The garbage collector on Mono could use some optimizations ( ask the Unity Engine people or Artificial Studios team about Mono implementation ).
    So, even when Microsoft tries to tell you .NET is a standard and portable thing, no... is not really... not yet and perhaps never will be... and if you don't trust me run your .NET app in linux as "./mono myBeautyNET20App.exe" and see.

    Due to all this, I was recommending Apache (+php, etc) and Java as an alternative to .NET... but if you can use pure C/C++ will be better... thats, perhaps, why you say your C apps compile and run well on some OSs... but for other .NET languages is other history... and please notice VS is more than just C/C++ !.

    For posix/unix libraries on Windows need to try compilation with MinGW or Cygwin. They could work if don't have very complex dependencies or are too HW-dependent. Usually they give you the source code so you can modify them too(now go and get the source code for Avalon, DirectX, Windows kernel or some file systems/formats... and remember the EU directives vs Microsoft for this ).
    For example, you can port zlib, tifflib, pnglib, posix threads, openGL, openAL, theora, ogg/vorbis, XViD, libxml2, iconv, postgreSQL, gtk+, wxWidgets, etc...

    On the other hand I can see more Windows-only libraries which cannot be natively-ported to other OSs.. for example Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput, Xaudio 1/2, Winsocks(well, just the async part), MSXML, .NET 1/2/3, ADO/Access/SQLServer, Office controls/doc SDK, Windows Media technologies(ASF/WMV/codecs...), MFC, ATL, etc etc, but well... sometimes is better to use DX to OpenGL as you mention... but requires to code a different path specific for Windows... while the OpenGL path can work on different OSs with a few modifications(OGL3 gonna be a special case, I admit it... i'm talking to port OGL 1.3 for Windows to linux, for example )

    And, again, the first block libraries can be used in linux, macos, solaris and Windows too, the second ones just work well on Windows.

    You still can use glx protocol and Mac X-Windows port. Humus can tell you if was very hard to port his OGL framework to Mac, pls.
    And let me remember Microsoft left the OpenGL's ARB and wanted to kill OGL in Vista... so I still prefer a few extensions than Microsoft wanted to do!

    Yep, is going a bit offtopic. Pls, somebody start a Vista sux/nosux/Microsoft 666/angel /damm portability / windozed thread! I just hope this contributes a bit to open some windozed minds and to get 3dmark ports to other OSs.

    Well, with the current OpenGL 2.1(or 3.0) status, I could agree.
    The question is if 3dm2008 gonna be Vista and DX10 only. Or DX10.1 only ( so we need to thrash our GF8800s). Perhaps with Mount Evans(3.1) they could do nice next-gen effects without having to require Vista :razz: and could open some portability possibilities... but Nick had to GLSL "discard" this pixel fragment!
    Cmon! almost tell us if is DX10.1 or what! and if you have plans to port 3dmark to other OSs!
     
    #40 santyhammer, Nov 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...