On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:57:42AM -0500, Daniel Vogel wrote: | On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Allen Akin wrote: | | > Once you get rid of the legacy stuff in OpenGL, drivers are pretty much | > the same level of complexity for OpenGL as for D3D. | | I guess you also had to take away mandatory software fallbacks and the | imaging subset. ...
Sure, and all the other stuff that's important to OpenGL apps that's not important to D3D apps. (Antialiased lines come to mind.) Otherwise we wouldn't be making a valid comparison. | ... In reality though, every IHV I've talked to stated their | OpenGL drivers being far more complex to maintain. Sure, because their drivers *do* have to include all the stuff that's important to OpenGL apps and not important to D3D apps. :-) There's at least one other important reason. Microsoft bears a lot of the burden for D3D by collecting and maintaining the common code (as well as nontechnical stuff like patent licensing and sublicensing). SGI didn't do that for OpenGL in the early days, and by the time it understood the problem, most hardware vendors had already invested in independent driver code bases for OpenGL. So today there's not as much sharing in the OpenGL world as there might have been. Some improvements are possible, though, and are being discussed in the ARB. Allen ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
