No, it was created to make Windows a sensible gaming platform in the first place. It's not like Windows 95 was already a great OS for gaming without DirectX. DirectX was itself the original project that was supposed to make Windows a truly sensible OS for gaming, it's what MS needed, it's what allowed the shift from DOS games to actual Windows games and it would have just been brainless of Microsoft to ship Windows 95 without any plans of providing these kinds of APIs on its own. In case of any other OS developer you would consider it just sensible, with MS it just HAS to be evil, doesn't it... And it really should make you think that before like DirectX 3.0 all major games released for PC were actually DOS applications and only as DirectX became more advanced the shift from DOS to Windows games really happened. And it's not like Microsoft somehow banned other APIs from its OS. How is it that OpenGL actually became pretty popular for a while on PC even when Direct3D was already a standard? How does that fit into your picture?

And this:
It just blows my mind that when facing the facts here you actually turn to mindless Microsoft bashing and ironically ignore yourself the context while accusing others of doing so.
There is nothing stupid in creating proprietary APIs for a proprietary operation system either. Well, there are obviously some downsides, but there are advantages, including ones for third party developers and even the consumers.

There is. It sets the whole industry backwards when that API becomes the poisonous standard (that's exactly what happened with DX). But what does MS care, it serves their monopolistic interests. To summarize - using development tools for lock-in is simply crooked. You can argue how "stupid" it is, but it doesn't change the former.

Edited a few additional words into the part you commented on but you ninja'd me. :P As I said, there are some ugly sides to it but it's hardly stupid.

Edit: Oh lol, we have some serious Ninjaception going on here.

Let's assume for a moment that they aren't trying to be monopolistic and just making a great operating system for the hardware that runs it?

If you found a way to make your life better and thought that you could probably barter your knowledge in order to earn some interest off of it, would you not do so?

Microsoft is not a monopoly, in case you haven't been keeping up with current events, other operating systems and even hardware platforms have been eating their lunch.

Amazon, Google, other large fish in pond Microsoft has to swim with... and we're only talking tech companies right now, there's much bigger fish out there.

I think Bill Gates was quite the intelligent person who started up a great company that gave people what they needed and offered great comfort to the masses. Don't bash Windows, it only shows how much you can be a hooligan.

You know what? Proprietary software is better sometimes than open software. Just look at Nvidia's PhysX physics engine with the GameWorks libraries.

It is way better than AMD's open source TressFX and it is way better than that open source Bullet physics engine Rockstar has been using for the video games that they develop since Grand Theft Auto IV.

Stop saying closed source software is poisonous.

Linux users make me laugh very hard on how wrong they can be sometimes.

Windows will always be dominating Linux and DirectX will always be dominating OpenGL. Get over it and deal with it.

Thanks for keeping it real. :)

That's some strong stuff you're smoking there.

Not as they used to be, and they are slowly losing ground practically everywhere. But in some markets they are still very very prevalent, and computer graphics APIs is one of those examples.

He was smart but also a total jerk in enforcing his monopoly and pushing EEE as known. Here is some historic overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_lock-in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows

Microsoft is not losing any ground. Stop with this nonsense.

any jerk-wad can be smart, but if you're pushing the right thing, all the better.

Microsoft raised the bar for not only computer manufactures but also for software developers. They may be losing traction in the mainstream market, but they've had the best damn software development tools out there and I'm glad I had my MSDN subscription when I did.

Yes, it had great APIs that made games great, for those who remember, they shipped APIs to MSDN subscribers who make games.

You know, it's really time to stop hating on Microsoft, they've done a lot for the Open Source community (like making their development tools open source), and making their new OS free (for the first year anyway).

I don't know the answer to the question posed in the OP.

Personally, I play OpenGL games on my iMac and soon I'll be playing games that utilize the Metal API for better performance than is possible with OpenGL. I expect to see OpenGL deprecated in OS X by the time two or three more releases of OS X come out which are currently on an annual schedule.

Meantime, on the Linux side of things I imagine it will be Vulkan that replaces OpenGL there.

Although I don't know this, I'd imagine that some very close form of DirectX exists for Xbox development as well as Windows development and given the dominance of consoles over PCs for game sales along with the fact that using the same API for one game makes obvious sense, it's hard to see a lot of cases for using OpenGL in Windows for games, at least those that would be coming from XBox ports.

I would say OpenGL's days are numbered myself. It does not afford the same level of access to the hardware for improved performance that modern APIs such as DirectX 12, Metal and the upcoming Vulkan will. Presumably Vulkan is going to ultimately feature in SteamOS also. Considering the platform coverage offered by these more powerful APIs, OpenGL becomes redundant and obsolete in the next few years.

You have to remember though Vulkan, Metal and D3D12 are all harder to work with as a consequence of being "close to the metal" API's. It may be that for indie games OGL hangs around for quite a while....at least on Linux/OSX

Microsoft didn't lose any browser war on the desktop. The mobile numbers which quite happily obfuscate the truth Microsoft never had any real chance to change because they never were a real part of any competition for mobile browsers. On the desktop chrome continues to cannibalize Firefox to the eventual harm of Firefox and ex-Firefox users and IE is picking up steam and reclaiming what little market share it lost.

yeah that post on stackexchange sums it up pretty well. OpenGL became a maze of old functionality and eventually became confusing, and all of your install base had DirectX support anyway. Quite a few lesser-known details in that post. It's a good read.

DirectX could very well fall out of relevance with the coming Vulkan/D3D12 situation. After all, so much of D3D12 and Vulkan are just newer Mantle. This time there will be support for things and this time the developers are involved because they're likely all sick of Microsoft and happy to jump on an opportunity to alleviate themselves of MS dependence and influence while not losing any money from doing so. They're also wary of Microsoft for its Apple-centric Microsoft store and lock-in ambitions. With everyone on Steam, and Steam promoting crossplay, and Vulkan being so similar to D3D12, all developers will likely divert attention to Vulkan.

Games have been the big thing Linux didn't have for the average user and now it's getting them. With Linux there is no corporate agenda to interfere, or at least there is none that would go actively counter to game-development interests, and there is no cost to the end user. With Valve keeping on eye on things with its SteamOS there is also no chance of typical FOSS developer... let's call it conundrums, to interfere with things. Maybe Vulkan won't supplant D3D12, but I don't think it's going away.

Monopoly is not a right thing. Unless you are against free market.
Fist to market with lock-in garbage is not compatible with advancing the industry forward. First time with open standard is.

You mean it made the industry hostage to whims of MS. That's not called moving forward.

They did, and they admitted defeat the moment they stopped pushing for IE lock-in idiocy and started trumpeting how their browser is standard compliant these days. It's indeed day and night if you compare it to IE of old. MS had a change of heart? No, they just understood that pushing further lock-in will only make developers even more angry and will alienate IE even further. That's why they are even implementing WebGL in IE. In case of proper desktop graphics - they don't care, because developers are still not demanding much from them. I expect MS to change their tune only when Vulkan will really become an expected industry standard like it happened with HTML and JavaScript. And that will take quite some time and effort. Luckily there is good progress now and things changed quite a lot in Khronos.