It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion OpenGL DirectX Linux and Windows.(113 posts)(113 posts)
(113 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 13, 2015
DirectX has lost much of its significance since Microsoft went into consoles, on the other hand OpenGL developement is pretty much dead and Linux, while free, is a hopeless enduser product.

The Future of PC doesn't look bright, not because of the lack of users, which is stable at the moment, but the lack of interest of developing parties as it is more lucrative to invest in growing markets like mobile phones and tablets.
Posted January 13, 2015
avatar
hummer010: The other possibility is that MS open sources DirectX and gets it on multiple platforms, like they are doing with .net. Really, that is the only way DirectX will stay dominant.
avatar
Magmarock: I highly doubt that will happen.
Did you ever think they would open source .net? I sure didn't.
Posted January 13, 2015
avatar
Magmarock: I highly doubt that will happen.
avatar
hummer010: Did you ever think they would open source .net? I sure didn't.
They only open-sourced the stuff you need to run server-side .NET applications because they're fighting to remain relevant in the cloud where Linux is already dominant.

Client-side stuff like WinForms didn't get opened up.
avatar
Magmarock: Mate if you're think you're wasting your time you can leave any time you want. No one is forcing you to be here. Furthermore I really don't get what your statement is about. I don't think OpenGL is bad I just don't see the industry as a while wanting to use it. If you want evidence for this then just compare how many games work on one VS the other.
You made a claim about the reason DirectX dominates. I countered with a different rationale and backed my hypothesis with some specific examples.

Comparing how many games use DirectX vs. how many use OpenGL says nothing about the reasons behind those choices.
Post edited January 13, 2015 by ssokolow
Posted January 13, 2015
avatar
shmerl: The only thing they can gain is to keep DirectX viable in the long term. But it's not yet at the point of being seriously threatened. Things change fast however.
Not really. Everything graphics related in Windows is nowadays DirectX based, so even if nobody uses it, Microsoft would be using it. It is not a platform to sell, it is a major graphics API stack of Windows made specifically for Windows. There is no logical reason to expand it to anything else.
Post edited January 13, 2015 by Elenarie
Posted January 13, 2015
avatar
shmerl: The only thing they can gain is to keep DirectX viable in the long term. But it's not yet at the point of being seriously threatened. Things change fast however.
avatar
Elenarie: Not really. Everything graphics related in Windows is nowadays DirectX based
Key part - nowadays.

avatar
Elenarie: There is no logical reason to expand it to anything else.
The reason is simple as always - competition. MS gets away with it only because competition is too weak now. With stronger pressure they'll quickly start singing another tune. And competition is coming. The story of IE demonstrates it very clearly.
Post edited January 13, 2015 by shmerl
Posted January 13, 2015
avatar
shmerl: Key part - nowadays.
I don't think you understood what I meant by this. Every legacy junk that is not DirectX yet it is a graphical-sort-of API is being removed.
avatar
shmerl: The reason is simple as always - competition. MS gets away with it only because competition is too weak now. With stronger pressure they'll quickly start singing another tune. And competition is coming. The story of IE demonstrates it very clearly.
That is a completely different thing. It is like saying that they should open source the Registry APIs because there is "competition" from text based config files.
Post edited January 13, 2015 by Elenarie
Posted January 14, 2015
avatar
shmerl: The reason is simple as always - competition. MS gets away with it only because competition is too weak now. With stronger pressure they'll quickly start singing another tune. And competition is coming. The story of IE demonstrates it very clearly.
avatar
Elenarie: That is a completely different thing. It is like saying that they should open source the Registry APIs because there is "competition" from text based config files.
Here it's quite straightforward. I.e. competition is for developers. If OpenGL becomes ubiquitous and high quality, developers with start demanding it from MS everywhere, including their Xbox and what not. And if MS will want to attract any developers, they'll start supporting it. That's where it's heading, at least I hope it does in some long term.

In Web development though it already happened. If you remember history, IE used all kind of lock-in in hope of hijacking the Web with MS only stuff. But competition beat it into the dust, and today MS runs to support open standards in the browser, including WebGL by the way. To put it shortly, competition helps.
Post edited January 14, 2015 by shmerl
Posted January 14, 2015
avatar
shmerl: In Web development though it already happened. If you remember history, IE used all kind of lock-in in hope of hijacking the Web with MS only stuff. But competition beat it into the dust, and today MS runs to support open standards in the browser, including WebGL by the way. To put it shortly, competition helps.
But you're still thinking in terms of products. DirectX is not a product. It is a core set of APIs, a piece of their operating systems. The example you mentioned, web browsers, use DX, more specifically, Direct2D and DirectWrite to render their graphical content. And WebGL, which I assume you mean WebGL for IE, it still goes through DX to render the content.
Posted January 14, 2015
avatar
Elenarie: But you're still thinking in terms of products. DirectX is not a product. It is a core set of APIs, a piece of their operating systems. The example you mentioned, web browsers, use DX, more specifically, Direct2D and DirectWrite to render their graphical content. And WebGL, which I assume you mean WebGL for IE, it still goes through DX to render the content.
IE was never a product either. You could neither buy it, nor remove it from windows.

I get what you're saying though.
Post edited January 14, 2015 by hummer010
Posted January 14, 2015
Not to mention, all browsers on Windows are translating "OpenGL" related WebGL calls into DX in the end. So, WebGL doesn't do anything here for this discussion.
Posted January 14, 2015
avatar
Elenarie: But you're still thinking in terms of products. DirectX is not a product. It is a core set of APIs, a piece of their operating systems. The example you mentioned, web browsers, use DX, more specifically, Direct2D and DirectWrite to render their graphical content. And WebGL, which I assume you mean WebGL for IE, it still goes through DX to render the content.
I'm thinking in the terms of developers. If MS will feel they are losing developers by not supporting OpenGL, no matter how deeply DirectX is integrated, MS will start supporting OpenGL everywhere.

avatar
Elenarie: Not to mention, all browsers on Windows are translating "OpenGL" related WebGL calls into DX in the end. So, WebGL doesn't do anything here for this discussion.
You didn't get the point. MS initially opposed WebGL as well, just because (as expected). But they lost the browser wars, and they saw that developers demand it, so they dropped their nasty lock-in mentality (in that case) and started supporting it. Same can happen with OpenGL proper.
Post edited January 14, 2015 by shmerl
Posted January 14, 2015
avatar
Elenarie: But you're still thinking in terms of products. DirectX is not a product. It is a core set of APIs, a piece of their operating systems. The example you mentioned, web browsers, use DX, more specifically, Direct2D and DirectWrite to render their graphical content. And WebGL, which I assume you mean WebGL for IE, it still goes through DX to render the content.
avatar
hummer010: IE was never a product either. You could neither buy it, nor remove it from windows.

I get what you're saying though.
Probably simpler to say that DirectX and OpenGL are developer-facing "features" rather than "products". DirectX is a feature that is more or less unique to the Windows ecosystem (Wine support for DX9 aside) and OpenGL is a feature that is common outside the Microsoft ecosystem but undersupported within it.

That way, you can just phrase it as a feature-based "buying decision" like so many other things.
Posted January 14, 2015
OGL vs. DirectX in theory is quite simple:
If OpenGL would be as good or better then DirectX in every aspect there´d be no reason why to go with DirectX
If DirectX would be as good or better then OpenGL in every aspect there´d still be a few reasons why you could go with OGL.


Well, saying this nearly everything is said but one thing: DirectX is the current ruler. Let´s hope for both to advance, but generally a hope that OGL will start to advance faster than DirectX does!
Posted January 14, 2015
avatar
RadonGOG: OGL vs. DirectX in theory is quite simple:
If OpenGL would be as good or better then DirectX in every aspect there´d be no reason why to go with DirectX
If DirectX would be as good or better then OpenGL in every aspect there´d still be a few reasons why you could go with OGL.
Exactly. That's why it's important for OpenGL to become much better and surpass DirectX (3D) and competition is expected to intensify strongly. I.e. it's not enough to just play catch up - it should get ahead. And Khronos + participants are finally getting it. This doesn't just include API, but as well tools and etc.
Post edited January 14, 2015 by shmerl
Posted January 14, 2015
avatar
shmerl: Sure no need to. And you can install Linux on that machine all the same. However I suspect that the vast majority of users never built anything and only buy prebuilt hardware. Same as the vast majority would never even install an operating system on their own, be it Linux or Windows.

So Valve have a chance to increase the number of PCs (Steam Machines) sold with Linux preinstalled. That's a major step to reduce Windows dominance.
avatar
Johnathanamz: I just don't see Linux growing at all on Steam Linux grows 0.xx% each year, outside of Steam I do not know how much % Linux grows each year.

People will still continue to purchase a pre-built PC with Windows installed, a PlayStation 4 (PS4) or a Xbox One.

I just don't see VALVe being very successful with having Steam Machines selling very well at all.

2016 Time will tell. If Linux after GDC 2015 in April is still at 1.xx% on Steam then in 2016 if Linux is still at 1.xx% then that means Linux will never take off, unless Microsoft really messes up Windows 10 a lot. Which so far 3 million people who have tested Windows 10 or was it 2 million people? I can't remember, but a lot of them are very happy with Windows 10.

There is even talk from Alienware, Dell, HP (Hewlett Packard), Intel that Microsoft will end up selling 600 million Windows license copies.

So time is the only thing that will tell Windows and Linuxes future. Time is what will determine the success of Linux.

If not many people start using Linux it's over for Alienware to sell the Steam Machines, then later it's over VALVe selling Steam Machines.

So 2016, maybe after GDC 2015 we will see the %'s.
This is the problem with only looking at percentages, Steam itself in total has grown from about 70 million accounts from the time the Linux client hit to over 100 million accounts now. The fact that Linux has roughly the same % as before means its growing as well.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion OpenGL DirectX Linux and Windows.(113 posts)(113 posts)
(113 posts)