[QUOTE=Jookia;24558144]DirectX is more efficient on platforms it was designed for, but I think Valve shot themselves in the foot when they chose to use DirectX, even though John Carmack himself is against it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Microsoft optimize Windows to use Dx efficiently, they don't give a shit whether OpenGL runs fast or not.
It's sad but Microsoft really want to maintain their market dominance, I'm hoping that developers really start to target the Mac now that steam runs on Macs. This will help open the door to using Linux for gaming as it's much easier to port from Mac to Linux than it is to port from Windows to Linux.
Regardless, OpenGL has been a superior product for a while.
It's had tesselation, and other technologies that DX hadn't implemented until now, for a while.
[QUOTE=eXeC64;24566377]Yeah, Microsoft optimize Windows to use Dx efficiently, they don't give a shit whether OpenGL runs fast or not.
It's sad but Microsoft really want to maintain their market dominance[/QUOTE]
What? Of course they want efficient code, otherwise it would run slow. Why the hell should they care about OpenGL running fast or not? It's up to the GL developers to optimize it, not Microsoft. You don't see Microsoft speeding up Crysis because they have Halo 2 Vista, why would this be any different?
[QUOTE=Shining_Sabe;24568012]What? Of course they want efficient code, otherwise it would run slow. Why the hell should they care about OpenGL running fast or not? It's up to the GL developers to optimize it, not Microsoft. You don't see Microsoft speeding up Crysis because they have Halo 2 Vista, why would this be any different?[/QUOTE]
That was my point. Well done for being able to interpret a post.
What I think you have missed out on is the fact that microsoft will have optimized their OS specifically for Dx, I do not expect microsoft to do the same thing for OpenGL but you assume I did expect that.
[QUOTE=eXeC64;24568173]That was my point. Well done for being able to interpret a post.
What I think you have missed out on is the fact that [b]microsoft will have optimized their OS[/b] specifically for Dx, I do not expect microsoft to do the same thing for OpenGL but you assume I did expect that.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if your English made any bit of sense, I would be able to understand you better. It sounds like you're saying they optimized WINDOWS for DirectX, and that is not the case. If they did that, they would've lost backwards compatibility with old programs as Direct X wasn't shipped with Windows until Windows 98. Developers could code OpenGL to be just as fast as Direct X, if not faster on Windows. Maybe the fact that it's faster is because Microsoft has better coders.
[QUOTE=Shining_Sabe;24571494]Maybe if your English made any bit of sense, I would be able to understand you better. It sounds like you're saying they optimized WINDOWS for DirectX, and that is not the case. If they did that, they would've lost backwards compatibility with old programs as Direct X wasn't shipped with Windows until Windows 98. Developers could code OpenGL to be just as fast as Direct X, if not faster on Windows. Maybe the fact that it's faster is because Microsoft has better coders.[/QUOTE]
except on any other operating system, OpenGL performs better than DirectX on Windows, even using the same hardware.
[QUOTE=Shining_Sabe;24571494]Maybe if your English made any bit of sense, I would be able to understand you better. It sounds like you're saying they optimized WINDOWS for DirectX, and that is not the case. If they did that, they would've lost backwards compatibility with old programs as Direct X wasn't shipped with Windows until Windows 98. Developers could code OpenGL to be just as fast as Direct X, if not faster on Windows. Maybe the fact that it's faster is because Microsoft has better coders.[/QUOTE]
What I was saying is that Microsoft have access to the internals of their operating system so they can make sure that Dx runs as efficiently as possible. OpenGL do not have that luxury with windows.
My understanding is that the reason OpenGL is generally faster is because it is [i]only[/i] a specification, and it is up to the hardware vendors to implement it in whatever manner they wish. Because they know the hardware best and because they are given plenty of freedom to tweak things, it usually ends up being very fast.
DirectX is an API with a general-purpose implementation of many features. It cannot be as fast because it has to function with all hardware.
Microsoft has been known to use underhanded tricks to make things difficult for the competition (in this case OpenGL, which makes cross-platform game development simple), so that could possibly be the case here.
I read something about how, back in the day, Microsoft had an intern port glQuake to D3D, benchmarked the two and declared "a lowly intern was able to port a major game to D3D, and it actually runs faster!". They didn't make it clear to people that the D3D port was run on hardware that was [i]significantly more powerful[/i] and that it actually performed worse when the two were compared on the same hardware.
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;24578774]Microsoft has been known to use underhanded tricks to make things difficult for the competition (in this case OpenGL, which makes cross-platform game development simple), so that could possibly be the case here.
I read something about how, back in the day, Microsoft had an intern port glQuake to D3D, benchmarked the two and declared "a lowly intern was able to port a major game to D3D, and it actually runs faster!". They didn't make it clear to people that the D3D port was run on hardware that was [i]significantly more powerful[/i] and that it actually performed worse when the two were compared on the same hardware.[/QUOTE]
That reminds me of when Microsoft announced they were dropping support for OpenGL in the next version of windows. That caused a panic and made loads of devs switch to Dx from OpenGL. Microsoft kept support for OpenGL anyway.
Sneaky bastards.
Microsoft is a cock, who would have guessed.
Oh wait.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
