Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The End Of DirectX As We Know It

Hemos posted about 10 years ago | from the and-i-feel-fine dept.

GUI 285

socram writes "Speaking with ATI and NVIDIA at ECTS allowed us to confirm that after DX9.0, DirectX Graphics is no more. In name only. Microsoft's next set of core presentation and 3D APIs are now under the umbrella of Windows Graphics Foundation and Avalon. Microsoft will still rely on DirectX in name for the rest of the core components, but the graphics API is now under a new name. Look out for WGF 1.0 compatibility on the back of that next generation graphics card's box. Some WGF 1.0 Info!" Update: 09/06 22:27 GMT by T : David Ross of hexus.net points out that this text comes straight from hexus, and should have been credited as such.

cancel ×

285 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp! (-1, Offtopic)

tidepool (137349) | about 10 years ago | (#10168250)

firstpost.

god is in the details.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

jintxo (698154) | about 10 years ago | (#10168253)

nah

Wonderful (4, Funny)

randomized (132106) | about 10 years ago | (#10168254)

And after WGF 9.0 they'll finally release OpenGL compatible standard! WOOHOO! :)

Re:Wonderful (0, Troll)

SoSueMe (263478) | about 10 years ago | (#10168311)

Maybe I am over-exposed to acronyms, but I saw "WGF" and thought: "Who Gives a F***?"

WGF? (2, Funny)

c0p0n (770852) | about 10 years ago | (#10168459)

WTF!!!

Re:Wonderful (4, Informative)

jonsmirl (114798) | about 10 years ago | (#10168518)

Does anyone have a pointer to more detailed technical specs on this? Like the reference manual for writing a compatible driver?

Re:Wonderful (1, Insightful)

r3dx0r (716364) | about 10 years ago | (#10168542)

nope, more likely they'll adopt opengl, add plenty of windows only features, rename it to microsoftgl and patent it.

asdf (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168255)

furst post!

1st post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168258)

my 1st 1st post :D

hmm...might this be the point of time... (5, Interesting)

scheuri (655355) | about 10 years ago | (#10168268)

...where developers have a glance at the new OpenGL?

such changes are perfect to look around instead of hurrying to the next "standard"-MS-stuff....with some luck game devs might see, that OpenGL is neither dead nor old-fashioned!

well, there is hope...even if it is just a little!

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168298)

Haven't Netcraft said that OpenGL is dying? :)

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168310)

I think OpenGL and SDL have a very bright future not only for open platforms. After all blizzard has been a long time known user of opengl. I think there are plenty of titles that use opengl

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (5, Insightful)

Ford Prefect (8777) | about 10 years ago | (#10168339)

I think there are plenty of titles that use opengl

Doom 3's probably the biggest - and even if you hate the game, its very existence means that graphics card manufacturers can't even think about dropping OpenGL support, at least not without alienating a good number of potential purchasers.

Thanks, John Carmack, for keeping OpenGL alive!

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (1)

Jason_says (677478) | about 10 years ago | (#10168606)

Does that mean that any game made with the Doom 3 engine will be OpenGL?

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (1)

Warped-Reality (125140) | about 10 years ago | (#10168670)

Yes, yes it does.

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (3, Informative)

sh0dan (762382) | about 10 years ago | (#10168713)

Does that mean that any game made with the Doom 3 engine will be OpenGL?
Yes. Most probably they will.

As a historical note, Halflife added D3D support at some stage, even though it was based on Quake1/2, which was also OpenGL (and Glide & Software) based.
That being said, it was probably a lot easier to add at the time than with current engines, which implement a lot more features.

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (5, Informative)

sh0dan (762382) | about 10 years ago | (#10168793)

Thanks, John Carmack, for keeping OpenGL alive!

And he almost decided to kill it off. According to Carmack, the "godawful interface" for OpenGL pBuffers/Render to Texture, made him be "the closest ever to switching over to D3D".

If you are interested in listening to an hour of video-graphics supergeeky stuff, download the one hour video [gamespy.com] of his keynote from Quakecon 2004.
It contains an hour of tech-talk from John C. about the doom3 engine, and what he's working on now.

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 years ago | (#10168367)

...where developers have a glance at the new OpenGL?

One can only hope. It's bad enough shelling $$$ for graphics cards without seeing them incompatible not for bruteforce reasons, but for software.

Probably will happen anyway as developers are among the first to turn against old hardware, wanting more of this more of that to play with.

"Look! 8192 new shades of dark gray for d00m 4!"

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (4, Interesting)

pVoid (607584) | about 10 years ago | (#10168420)

Man, today, it doesn't matter what API you use... The days of backward archane APIs are gone. Every API is just as good, and you know why? Because every API has the goal of allowing access to the underlying structure of the GPU.

Besides, developers today aren't 1 man teams pent up in their basements working against Big Brother, they are billion dollar industries (EA, id, whatever...) who have top of the line programmers who could make *any* API work regardless (because they have the budget to do so), who only really care about the performance and capabilities afforded by the API. Microsoft - like any other big company tending a big market - tries to please them, not piss them off!

IMHO, the time of the underdog syndrome is past... Let people use whatever friggin API they want. It's not like the gaming industry is in the middle of a standards battle.

On a different note, the really amazing thing about Avalon, and you gotta commend Moft for this, is that they're actually moving the graphics driver to User-mode. Just imagine what a gi-nourmous task that is... Let's you appreciate how they can have so much programming going on in there.

please them? are you sure? (1)

1qa2ws3ed (662567) | about 10 years ago | (#10168581)

"Microsoft - like any other big company tending a big market - tries to please them, not piss them off!" http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/windoze/OpenGLvsDir ect3D.html

Re:please them? are you sure? (5, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | about 10 years ago | (#10168626)

Two things:

1) that page, judging by the date at the bottom, is 7 years old - that's plenty of time for the situation to have completely changes
2) judging from the logo on it and the URL, the guy is particularly anti-MS; you might want to cite a source with a little more objectivity

Re:please them? are you sure? (2, Insightful)

dasmegabyte (267018) | about 10 years ago | (#10168717)

Not to mention that the reasons the article states for DX sucking HAVE been improved upon my Microsoft, and in most cases, greatly so.

Meaning that this article serves as a shining example of MS listening to developers.

Re:please them? are you sure? (2)

1qa2ws3ed (662567) | about 10 years ago | (#10168744)

1) after 7 years, microsoft still doesn't provide opengl as an official api, as requested by developers. 2) the original quotes in that page are not of particularly anti-MS guys but of higlhy regarded professional 3d programmers, they make up most of the page, and looks more than objective to me. if you know of some of those facts to be false, your input is welcome. my opinion is that at least regarding 3d api microsoft historically prefers the "lock in" tactic to the "please the developers" tactic.

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | about 10 years ago | (#10168687)

On a different note, the really amazing thing about Avalon, and you gotta commend Moft for this, is that they're actually moving the graphics driver to User-mode.

Do you have a source for this? My impression of Avalon is that it's a library and version of Explorer.exe that sits on top of DirectX - of course the video card driver would still be ring 0, and the GDI+++ library (the new Avalon graphics library) would be user mode, just as GDI or GDI+ are today. Avalon represents a new interface application and set of tools for third party applications to use, but it isn't a tremendous plumbing change.

Funny thing about Microsoft software - invariably it hits the market as is dramatically less of a schism than people imagined it to be.

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... (4, Funny)

tesmako (602075) | about 10 years ago | (#10168424)

Yes, when libraries change name it is an obvious reason to go to another library. Not to mention logotypes, I can never feel comfortable with foundation technologies changing logos, you never know where you stand then.

Re:hmm...might this be the point of time... MOD UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168471)

Thank you, you made my day =)

WTF 1.0 (5, Funny)

flux (5274) | about 10 years ago | (#10168276)

I think the name has a nice ring to it.

Re:WTF 1.0 (1, Funny)

Konstantinos (619831) | about 10 years ago | (#10168329)

it's short of "We Got F*cked"
yeah, definitely a MS name...

Re:WTF 1.0 (1)

Abundantes (780802) | about 10 years ago | (#10168399)

i sense some prior art here....

Re:WTF 1.0 (1)

kenthorvath (225950) | about 10 years ago | (#10168639)

Yeah, but WGF could be "Who Gives a Fuck?"

DirectX (3, Interesting)

pommiekiwifruit (570416) | about 10 years ago | (#10168281)

What is this DirectX? On most games today it says "runs on either Nvidia card xxx or ATI card yyy". Portability doesn't exist. I bought a new PC and new games won't run on it. Heck, old games won't run on it either:

"Requires Nvidia TNT2 or better. Must be running as admin. Don't press alt-tab." (ok the last bit is in the readme not on the box). So my non-nvidia card won't help me even though DirectX 9.0c claims to be running fine.

(old coot) I remember when Windows 95 came out and Microsoft claimed that this would let games run on more than a couple of graphics cards. It seems they've given up on that recently (/old coot).

Re:DirectX (0, Flamebait)

woodhouse (625329) | about 10 years ago | (#10168317)

No offense, but that's just because you're crap.

Re:DirectX (5, Informative)

FullMetalAlchemist (811118) | about 10 years ago | (#10168338)

No, it's the gamedevelopers that does that for you by checking for if your card supports the features it needs to be playable.
It's not MicroSoft's fault, by any extension, it is however silly that you are not allowed to check if it is playable according to _your_ standard; and it's the gamedevelopers you should blame.
I guess it's easy to point at something big, like MS if you want someone to blame, people tend to do that.

Re:DirectX (2, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 years ago | (#10168445)

actually it's the fault of the 3rd party gfx card makers that just adhere to buzzwords, but don't deliver(real performance & etc, even if you had them in mind when coding).

so they put in just enough features that they can dub it as directx9 compatible... and slap it to the retailers with a package that claims it'll run games fast and that it is directx9 compatible - and that it is cheaper than ati/nvidia offering claiming similar things.

remember when virge dx was dubbed as 3d accelerator card?

M$ is the only one to blame... (2, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | about 10 years ago | (#10168650)

...for inventing their own standard, instead of collaborating with the OpenGL group. That's a typical micro$oft tactic, create a new, incompatible, standard and keep changing it, to force people to upgrade.


I have the same problem the grandparent post mentions. I used to like a game by Electronic Arts, "Need for Speed - Porsche Unleashed", which was released in 2000. Then in 2003 they released "Need for Speed Underground", which required a card beyond my Riva TNT2, so I got a GeForce FX5200. Now NFSPU doesn't play in the FX5200. Unfortunately, the newer NFS sucks, it's a game designed for an arcade experience, while NFSPU was designed more like a simulator.


But why, you will ask, is this micro$oft's fault, if Electronic Arts is the company that publishes the NFS series? Because of DirectX. OpenGL games, like "Grand Prix Legends", for instance, keep running in newer hardware and software. It's micro$oft's fault if the DirectX standard changes from one release to the other making older software incompatible. The newer release should be guaranteed to support every single feature in the older version.


Of course, Electronic Arts is also guilty in this case, if an open standard exists, they shouldn't adopt a broken monopolistic standard. Well, I guess I'll never buy another racing simulator again, I'll either get an open source [sourceforge.net] alternative, or pirate the commercial games.

Re:M$ is the only one to blame... (1)

kahei (466208) | about 10 years ago | (#10168827)

That's a typical micro$oft tactic, create a new, incompatible, standard and keep changing it, to force people to upgrade.

You're so right. They have no business creating a product and enhancing it as time goes on and new gpus become available. That's what a company that was trying to make a profit by filling a market niche would do! Ew! They should have donated all their efforts to some other product.

Re:DirectX (2, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | about 10 years ago | (#10168346)

What is this DirectX? On most games today it says "runs on either Nvidia card xxx or ATI card yyy". Portability doesn't exist. I bought a new PC and new games won't run on it.
Well, the long and short of it is, if PCs are meant to compete with the PlayStation 2, then they're going to have a narrow band of hardware. The sort of performance needed for a PC game to be equivalent to a PS2/Xbox means having a top end graphics card, and using most of those top end features. Sad, but if you want cutting edge, thats just simply the case. Deal with it.

Me, I just play Nethack and Minesweeper, and use my processor for running calculations in the background.

Re:DirectX (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168801)

Really. If it takes a $2000+ PC to "compete" with a $200 PS2, why the fuck even bother.

Re:DirectX (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168825)

Good question. And mind your language, kid.

Re:DirectX (5, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | about 10 years ago | (#10168417)

On most games today it says "runs on either Nvidia card xxx or ATI card yyy".

Well, on most of the requirements I've seen recently, it'll list something like "Graphics card: 100% DirectX 8 compatible, 64MB RAM". Just because in today's hardware market that translates to "a recent card from NVidia or ATI" doesn't make that MS's fault.

So my non-nvidia card won't help me even though DirectX 9.0c claims to be running fine

Chances are, DX 9 *is* running fine, but your card lacks support for certain features used by the game. Now, the game devs could fall back to software, or even just disable those features; not doing so is not the fault of DX or MS.

Re:DirectX (1)

1qa2ws3ed (662567) | about 10 years ago | (#10168623)

if a feature is not available on a certain card, the one that should fall back to software is directx, not the devs.

Re:DirectX (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 10 years ago | (#10168824)

I've not done a lot of DX programming, but iirc you can query to see what features are supported by the current hardware. I don't know, but I'd imagine that in this case the game is querying the available featureset, finding it lacking, and refusing to start.

I've seen that with the Deus Ex 2 demo, which refused to run on my gf's PC due to lack of hardware support for T&L. That was the demo saying "no, sorry, won't play", not DX.

Re:DirectX (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 10 years ago | (#10168456)

It lets card manufacturers produce cards that will work with developers games, without either party having to talk to each other to ensure compatability.

Without it, your card would have to be specifically coded for, to enable the game to run. As it is, most cards from most manufacturers work with most games, as opposed to a few cards from a few manufacturers work with a few games.

Your card not being able to play those games isn't microsoft's fault. Of course, this is slashdot, where logic never impedes an anti-MS argument.

Re:DirectX (1)

lsmeg (529105) | about 10 years ago | (#10168462)

What is this DirectX? On most games today it says "runs on either Nvidia card xxx or ATI card yyy". Portability doesn't exist. I bought a new PC and new games won't run on it. Heck, old games won't run on it either:

Please... Any modern game will work fine on any modern card using DX or Open GL. Any game that says "works best with nvidia/ati" is either fulfilling a marketing deal or trying to cut support issues (having problems with the game? oh you're running a matrox, sorry we only support ati/nvidia..."

About the only issue that can arise between different brands is with the latest cutting edge features that haven't been incorporated into DX or Open GL yet. But even with those kinds of issues, it's a far cry from not being able to run today's games on other cards.

Re:DirectX (1)

abb3w (696381) | about 10 years ago | (#10168726)

Please... Any modern game will work fine on any modern card using DX or Open GL.

The key being how you define "modern". As a not-at-random example, City of Heroes will not work with a ATI 7500 -- a card less than three years old. I'll grant the 7500s are far from state-of-the-art. But if you're defining "modern" as "less than 18 months on the market", I believe you've been hanging out with Humpty Dumpty [sundials.org] too long.

I don't care... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168286)

...if just I can play HL2.

Re:I don't care... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168327)

Buddy, I've been playing HL2 for over a month now. It's great!

Oh, my bad. I meant Doom 3.

A little early to celebrating? (1, Interesting)

Dogers (446369) | about 10 years ago | (#10168296)

Seeing as Avalon probably isnt going to make it to LongHorn, which is due out, oooh, some time 2007!?

Re:A little early to celebrating? (2, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | about 10 years ago | (#10168475)

Avalon is going to be released to XP before Longhorn is released, so in fact it'll pre-date Longhorn.

Re:A little early to celebrating? (2, Informative)

myster0n (216276) | about 10 years ago | (#10168725)

Then why is avalon being dropped [theregister.co.uk] from longhorn?

WGF? (4, Funny)

ticklemeozmo (595926) | about 10 years ago | (#10168297)

Microsoft has had some great innovative technologies, however their naming department isn't working all that hard.

Microsoft Windows
Windows Graphics Foundation
(B)it(M)a(P)
Microsoft Proxy Server
Exchange Server
Windows Update Server
Microsoft Word
and many more...

MS memo (5, Funny)

corpsiclex (735510) | about 10 years ago | (#10168453)

I propose the following changes, which will result in clarity and increased initial understanding of the product:

Microsoft Windowbird
Bitthunder Mapping Format
Proxyfox
Microsoft WordBird

For every day use, the following abbreviations should be adopted to referring to the product as simple as possible:
MWB
BMF
PFX
MWD
Any more suggestions?

Re:WGF? (4, Insightful)

dasmegabyte (267018) | about 10 years ago | (#10168534)

As opposed to the OSS world, where naming is working overtime.

Tell me -- just from the names -- what the following programs do:

Apache
Firefox
Thunderbird
Mono
BitTorrent
Grep
Putty
(and the fucking stupidest ever) Script-Fu, part of The Gimp

The idea, I guess, is to glamorize the program name like a brand name, and I suppose it works for some things (Apache, for example). Most of the time, however, it only serves to confuse people who have never heard of a program before. Microsoft errs on the side of shit you can understand, because when they use funky names (like BackOffice), they spend a lot of time explaining what the damn program does.

Re:WGF? (5, Funny)

WWWWolf (2428) | about 10 years ago | (#10168689)

Apache

A big honkin' helicopter.

Firefox

Propels Fox upward (or whevever you tilt the stick) while frying everyone nearby on the ground.

Mono

It only plays from the other speaker, or if you're lucky, same stuff from two speakers. So, it's probably ancient.

BitTorrent

Hey, I know this one! It moves tons and tons of bits from one place to another! Am I right?! What did I win? Tell me!

Putty

Turns perfectly working Linux server into a blob of clay, probably. Remotely. From a Windows desktop.

(and the fucking stupidest ever) Script-Fu

"-Fu" probably refers to martial arts, so... um... "Script-Fu's Name that could be understood is not the true Script-Fu's Name." Or something.

Re: WGF? (1)

Some Dumbass... (192298) | about 10 years ago | (#10168831)

As opposed to the OSS world, where naming is working overtime.

Tell me -- just from the names -- what the following programs do:


Since when were program names supposed to be nothing more than bland descriptions (cue "in Soviet Russia" joke...)? They're for branding for chrissake! It would be incredibly irritating if every program were named that way ("Do you have 'internet browser'"? "No, I have 'internet navigator'. Or maybe that was 'internet explorer'?")

Okay, so I'm exagerrating for laughs :). However, MS has run into some problems with trying to trademark its more generic product names (e.g. "Windows"), so there is some truth underlying the grandparent post's joke. It is just a joke, though. There are plenty of counterexamples. For instance, "Excel" is not the first word which comes to mind when I think of spreadsheets. Is it a pun on "x-cell"? Who knows?

I'm sorry. (5, Funny)

porkchop_d_clown (39923) | about 10 years ago | (#10168302)

Did you really say I should look for WTF compatibility?

Hrm. I can hear the slogan now....

If it doesn't make you say "WTF" it isn't from Microsoft!

Makes perfect sense. (-1, Troll)

MesiahTaz (122415) | about 10 years ago | (#10168307)

Does Apple have something truly analagous to DirectX? No. OS X uses those nifty graphics functions for so much more than games.

Years old idea finally making it from Apple to MS.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (5, Insightful)

Seoulstriker (748895) | about 10 years ago | (#10168372)

What are you talking about? OS X has native support for OpenGL capability. It just so happens that some desktop graphics functions such as windows are offloaded to the GPU. OpenGL is the equivalent of DirectX. In fact, now that the ARB finally made a decision on shading languages, OpenGL's OGSL is superior to what Microsoft has to offer.

It's just that Microsoft is finally catching up with Apple in [b]using[/b] GPU functions to control more than just games.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (4, Informative)

Emil Brink (69213) | about 10 years ago | (#10168578)

OpenGL is the equivalent of DirectX
Just to pick a nit: this is not true. DirectX is a family [microsoft.com] of APIs, and not limited to graphics like OpenGL. The latter is roughly the equivalent to Direct3D, however. Or at least it used to be back around DirectX 3.0, heh. But I think it's still the case.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (2, Informative)

intx13 (808988) | about 10 years ago | (#10168373)

Oh yes, because opengl in OSX doesn't use up all a low end mac's memory or anything. If Longhorn is going to go for the whole "devote the systems memory to good looks" style, no wonder it requires 1GB ram!

As a poor college student, ram is hard to come by. I don't want my desktop using it all to generate spiffy little icon effects. And seeing as Microsoft isn't going to ship multiple desktops, I hope Longhorn keeps the graphics simple for us poor kids.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168668)

1GB of ram is nothing.

When longhorn ships in 2-3 years? Most people will probably have 2-3 gigs.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (1)

swb (14022) | about 10 years ago | (#10168794)

I wonder if Intel's processor roadmap will extend 64-bit memory addressing to all their desktop line by then. At that point, I'd expect 2GB to be minimum, 4GB common, and 8GB "power desktop" configurations.

I don't think so (5, Informative)

Quasar1999 (520073) | about 10 years ago | (#10168309)

This is a boat load of hogwash. DirectX is here to stay. DirectX is the damned core, Avalon, or whatever the heck they end up calling it is simply a layer on top of DX. But don't take my word for it, google it. There is enough info out there, that anyone that knows how to program for DirectX will immediately realise that it is being modified with the new UI in mind. It's being done to help it hook into DirectX, and if you examine the DX API closely (especially the latest SDK release), you'll notice a trend to add APIs that allow features that are required for a fully integrated UI. And at the end of the day, game developers will still be using the DX api.

Re:I don't think so (1)

Have Blue (616) | about 10 years ago | (#10168382)

The functions in the API may remain the same, but the classification and implementation may change. This is just like Apple changing the Mac Toolbox to Carbon.

you might even say... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168316)

Game Over?

Nice... (0, Redundant)

pVoid (607584) | about 10 years ago | (#10168325)

moving [the graphics driver] into what's known as user mode...(page 2)

They seem to be moving the graphics drivers into user-mode.

I really want to see how this is going to turn out, what with Graphics being an uber high bandwidth thing and all...

Re:Nice... (4, Informative)

Tranzig (786710) | about 10 years ago | (#10168386)

Actually the whole graphic subsystem was in userland in Windows NT 3. It was bulletproof but slow and it did not allow the low level hw access needed for DirectX, so they moved it into kernel with NT 4.0. And I'm quite sure it will stay there.

Re:Nice... (1)

pVoid (607584) | about 10 years ago | (#10168487)

I know about how it used to be, but if you read the actual article, it says they are moving it to "user-land"... hence my saying "I really want to see how this is going to turn out, what with Graphics being an uber high bandwidth thing and all..."

How much more explicit can it be man? Give me a break and RTFA.

On a side note, I am sure in the 15 years since NT 3.5 came out, there has been some developments in the kernel, and programming know how to allow for better performance than what we had back then.

[OT] Re:Nice... (4, Insightful)

Tranzig (786710) | about 10 years ago | (#10168813)

I did not say you are wrong, I said the thing you quoted from the article is unlikely to happen.

You are right, much time have passed since NT 3.1. Those days microkernels was thought to be the state of art, the future of kernels. Smart people claimed that as the hardware evolve, the performance gap between monolithic kernels and microkernels will become negligible and the robustness of microkernels will make it superior.
But it did not happen. Today, monolithic kernels dominate the desktop market, the only exception is OSX with its Mach kernel. The quasi-micro NT kernel was turned into a bloated monolithic kernel, BeOS died, and Hurd... hasn't really born yet.
Conclusion: monolitic design is still the way to follow.

Now back to the original topic: I don't really see any reason for userland graphics except stability. It WILL decrease performance, which is cruical for the VGA cards, and might result in driver incompatibility I think. If I'm right, then it will take quite some time to write compatible drivers for older cards (assuming that nvidia and ati is willing to write for their own cards). And Microsoft does not have time, they already decided to leave out WinFS from Longhorn. They can't postpone Longhorn beyond 2006 because that would be too big pull for desktop Linux/BSD. And I guess by 2006 ReactOS will become a usable OS too.

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168646)

Quoth the idiot: Actually the whole graphic subsystem was in userland in Windows NT 3. they moved it into kernel with NT 4.0. And I'm quite sure it will stay there.

From the article: "no more blue-screens (hard crashes) caused by the graphics driver, and moving more processing into what's known as user mode. "

Informative? nope, just wrong.

Re:Wrong (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 10 years ago | (#10168735)

Moving "more processing" doesn't necessarily mean moving the entire graphics subsystem into user mode.

Retro NT 3.51 (1)

anti-NAT (709310) | about 10 years ago | (#10168473)

From memory, apparently they moved them into Kernel mode in NT 4.

Is it just me.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168328)

Or is DirectX/WGF just about Microsoft's most valuable intellectual property? I myself would have bought a Mac years ago if it weren't for the fact that I wouldn't be able play many games on it.

By extending their 3D domination to the desktop itself with Avalon, MS is poising itself to get the same API-level lock on desktop applications that it has on games.

So many changes... (2, Interesting)

JoeShmoe950 (605274) | about 10 years ago | (#10168333)

I hope that by the 2006 Longhorn release, either most game companies also release their games for Linux, cause Wine is in for a really hard time.

Re:So many changes... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 years ago | (#10168465)

but then again, wasn't avalon already slashed from longhorn, or are they still saying it'll be in it at release time?

it's still too early to speculate what will really make it or not..

Re:So many changes... (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 10 years ago | (#10168586)

They said Avalon would be released for XP, before longhorn's release...

Re:So many changes... (2, Insightful)

_Spirit (23983) | about 10 years ago | (#10168719)

When I read the explanation one of Microsofts developers gave of what Avalon is, I got the feeling that is an additional layer on top of DirectX, not a replacement. Their relationship sounded a bit similar to the way Quartz and OpenGL work on Mac OS X: Quartz (the engine that renders the desktop and UI elements) runs on top of OpenGL.

OpenGL looking to change too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168336)

In other news, the OpenGL foundation has announced the end of OpenGL as we know it. The foundation is set to announce a new name, called "DirectX", at the upcoming OpenGL Hardware Developer's Conference and plans on incorporating sound, media, and controller capabilities along with its current graphics technology under the "DirectX" umbrella.

of course (2, Insightful)

wobedraggled (549225) | about 10 years ago | (#10168356)

M$ knows full well that Wine now has a pretty good hold on DirectX, so of course they are gonna change things around... "rolls eyes"

Re:of course (3, Insightful)

dasmegabyte (267018) | about 10 years ago | (#10168605)

Yes, I'm sure the API changes have nothing at all to do with restructuring a terse and complex API or adding changes from user and deveoper requests to improve on the GUI. I'm sure it has everything to do with breaking WINE.

It's the end of DirectX as we know it.... (0, Offtopic)

BradlyLane (314200) | about 10 years ago | (#10168362)

...and I feel fine

curious (1)

ivano (584883) | about 10 years ago | (#10168368)

for Apple people is DirectX = OpenGL and WGF/Avalon the same as CoreImage/CoreVideo

I found this one of the most interesting things for Tiger but no-one really commented if it was anything really new

ciao

Re:curious (0, Troll)

PoopJuggler (688445) | about 10 years ago | (#10168429)

A more important question is what do you get if you mate an Oreo with an EL Fudge?

Re:curious (1)

Bohemoth2 (179802) | about 10 years ago | (#10168431)

Nobody's gonna buy this Longhorn/alvalon any way. i know i won't.

Misleading title: DirectX is more than Direct3D (5, Insightful)

jrest (539296) | about 10 years ago | (#10168412)

What about the parts of DirectX that are not about 3D? The article is only about the Direct3D part of DirectX.
I'm using DirectShow a lot myself actually. Are changes expected there too?

Its the end of DirectX as we know it. (0)

CatDogLordOfTheRoot (778170) | about 10 years ago | (#10168436)

and I feel fine....

mixed feelings (5, Interesting)

andr0meda (167375) | about 10 years ago | (#10168442)


It's not a good idea to replace an API when that API is one of the major libraries people use to display fast graphics.

It is however a good idea to force people to use a new standard when the old one has limitations that start to pop up. Sometimes it's necessary to cut the cables and start over.

Personally I think Dx9 is still all valid and good, it has no issues concerning shader support or other. I would not have replaced this API at this point, because I would consider the WGF as a surplus, something extra alongside DX. I guess doubling up the internal library is too cumbersome for the ones writing the video card drivers, which is why they replaced everything at once.

Netcraft confirms it (0, Offtopic)

Jrod5000 at RPI (229934) | about 10 years ago | (#10168443)

Netcraft confirms: DirectX is dying.

WOOOHOO!!! Man, I've been dying to say it for years. :)

.Not is dead (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168482)

Yeah .Not , IE and windoze are dead. Thank god these carppy stuff is gone

In other news.. The end of Windows as we know it. (2, Funny)

plams (744927) | about 10 years ago | (#10168483)

After Windows Longhorn, Windows is no more. In name only. The next OS from Microsoft will be integrated into the core of WMG 9.0.

Seeing that graphics cards exceeds standard desktop computers in both processing power and memory capabilities, it was the logical choice to have the graphics do the OS, and not the other way around., says Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft.

Look out for WMG 9.0 compatibility on the back of that next generation graphics card's box.

Reader in put required ... (3, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 10 years ago | (#10168507)

WGF=Windows Gone Funky
WGF=Windows Graphical Frustrater
WGF=Windows Gore Functionality
WGF=Windows Glitch Factory
WGF=Windows!!! Go Figure?!?!

Excersize your imagination:
WGF=______________________

Sigh! If only they had called it WTF!

Re:Reader in put required ... (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 10 years ago | (#10168718)

Excersize your imagination: WGF=______________________

Wife or Girl Friend?

I guess that's more hopeful thinking than imagination.

Oh I got a good one! (3, Funny)

FatalTourist (633757) | about 10 years ago | (#10168806)

Windows... uh.. Graphics... Foundation!
Ha ha!
What?
Shit.

Ending at Direct X 9.0??? (4, Funny)

BTWR (540147) | about 10 years ago | (#10168540)

Ending at Direct X 9.0??? They could have at least waited for the 10th version: the awesome name "Direct X, X"

Re:Ending at Direct X 9.0??? (4, Funny)

plams (744927) | about 10 years ago | (#10168589)

or direct x_x

Or (5, Funny)

Whatsmynickname (557867) | about 10 years ago | (#10168648)

wait for DirectX 20

DirectXXX

Re:Or (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168676)

Bah, two minutes before me :-)

Re:Ending at Direct X 9.0??? (0, Redundant)

Jugalator (259273) | about 10 years ago | (#10168664)

They could have at least waited for the 10th version: the awesome name "Direct X, X"

Version 10 would of course be powerful enough to be labelled as "Extreme".

That would make DirectX 10 eXtreme = Direct XXX.

Surely enough to grab any gamer's attention.

bow down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10168608)

I for one welcome our new WGF 1.0 Overlords!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>