Frank C. Earl wrote:
>
> On Monday 21 January 2002 09:21 am, Mike Westall wrote:
> > Conversely, if "MS considers OpenGL to be dead and buried,
> > period", it seems that Bill would be "bit silly" to want to
> > spend $62.5 to become the owner of said dead + buried
> > technology!!
>
> OpenGL i
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:09:29PM +, Josef Karthauser wrote:
| You reckon? I was told by a group of games writing guys (currently
| working on Xbox) that Direct3D is getting closer and closer to OpenGL in
| functionality.
|
| Which opinion is correct?
D3D has been absorbing OpenGL technolo
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:21:54AM -0500, Mike Westall wrote:
| Conversely, if "MS considers OpenGL to be dead and buried,
| period", it seems that Bill would be "bit silly" to want to
| spend $62.5 to become the owner of said dead + buried
| technology!!
I doubt that most of SGI's patents ar
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:00:55PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Carl Busjahn wrote:
> >
> > I think the question is not wether they want to kill openGL or not.
> > Microsoft doesn't have anything to replace openGL therefore they are
> > not capable of killing it even if they wanted to. I wish
Carl Busjahn wrote:
>
> I think the question is not wether they want to kill openGL or not.
> Microsoft doesn't have anything to replace openGL therefore they are
> not capable of killing it even if they wanted to. I wish people
> wouldn't get excited about this, because SGI wouldn't be stupid
I think the question is not wether they want to kill openGL or not.
Microsoft doesn't have anything to replace openGL therefore they are
not capable of killing it even if they wanted to. I wish people
wouldn't get excited about this, because SGI wouldn't be stupid enough
to let Microsoft hav
On Monday 21 January 2002 09:21 am, Mike Westall wrote:
> Conversely, if "MS considers OpenGL to be dead and buried,
> period", it seems that Bill would be "bit silly" to want to
> spend $62.5 to become the owner of said dead + buried
> technology!!
OpenGL is not really technology- it's an API t
Conversely, if "MS considers OpenGL to be dead and buried,
period", it seems that Bill would be "bit silly" to want to
spend $62.5 to become the owner of said dead + buried
technology!!
Mike
Gareth Hughes wrote:
>
> Philip Brown wrote:
> >
> > but I would say that microsoft DOES want to kil
On 2002.01.21 00:41 Philip Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 07:17:40AM -0800, Gareth Hughes wrote:
> > Philip Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > but I would say that microsoft DOES want to kill OpenGL,
> >...
> > Allen's original statement made the point that MS considers OpenGL
> > to be dead and bur
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 07:17:40AM -0800, Gareth Hughes wrote:
> Philip Brown wrote:
> >
> > but I would say that microsoft DOES want to kill OpenGL,
>...
> Allen's original statement made the point that MS considers OpenGL
> to be dead and buried, period. They've fought that battle, and in
> t
Philip Brown wrote:
>
> but I would say that microsoft DOES want to kill OpenGL,
> since then they
> would control the only useful 3D API.
> It's all about creating monopolies. (so he can build hotels?)
Allen's original statement made the point that MS considers OpenGL
to be dead and buried, pe
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:11:39PM -0800, Gareth Hughes wrote:
> ...
> The DRI is encompassed by OpenGL (as a whole), and if Microsoft
> isn't interested in killing OpenGL because they don't consider
> it a threat (*), one would reach the conclusion they don't care
> about the DRI either.
>
>
> I think microsoft is trying to kill DRI. It is a big threat
> to all their products. If the open source community can offer
> good 3d graphics at low cost then their system will suffer a
> good loss in market share.
Ummm, somehow I don't think so...
The DRI is encompassed by OpenGL (as a wh
I think microsoft is trying to kill DRI. It is a big threat to all their products. If
the open source community can offer good 3d graphics at low cost then their system
will suffer a good loss in market share.
On Friday, January 18, 2002 at 01:06:05 AM, David Johnson wrote:
> >Of course we don
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 01:06:05AM +, David Johnson wrote:
| I actually disagree. I suspect they are more likely to be software patents.
| I don't think Microsoft has any intentions on becoming a chip
| designer/manufacturer or even a hardware manufacturer.
I don't know whether MS wants
>Of course we don't know exactly which patents are involved, or what the
>terms of the transfer were. But my guess would be that the patents
>primarily involve hardware, and Microsoft is interested in covering its
>potential liabilities as it moves into the hardware market (though XBox,
>Homestat
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:08:54PM +1100, Dan wrote:
| http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
Of course we don't know exactly which patents are involved, or what the
terms of the transfer were. But my guess would be that the patents
primarily involve hardware, and Microsoft is intere
Dan wrote:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
> This does not look good for OpenGL / DRI.
> The article is not very specific though.
> I assume that xfree86 doesn't use anything affected by these patents,
> otherwise it wouldn't be able to carry it's current license. Is this
>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
This does not look good for OpenGL / DRI.
The article is not very specific though.
I assume that xfree86 doesn't use anything affected by these patents,
otherwise it wouldn't be able to carry it's current license. Is this
correct?
However The Re
19 matches
Mail list logo
