The end of OpenGL on Windows?

[Siebharinn]

http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001

Looks like OpenGL will be implemented as an emulation layer over Direct3D on Longhorn...er...Vista, with a substantial speed reduction.

[princec]

It's just FUD. Micrsosoft will not cripple a critical system API; far too many applications rely on OpenGL, especially serious ones. It's actually a very good thing that's happening: instead of the current situation which is a guaranteed OpenGL1.1 software implementation in XP, we'll have a guaranteed OpenGL1.4 hardware implemenation in Vista, which is rather better than most Macs have. Vendors will then be supplying ICDs - contrary to the FUD - which will provide full acceleration, extensions, and GL2.0 support. And don't be forgetting that Vista is in a relatively early stage of development and won't be out for at least a year.

Cas :)

[Robert Cummings]

It's a load of old bollocks from the usual scaremongering sources. When it ships, all will be fine.

[ZephyrXero]

I sure hope it's FUD... because if it is true then that will be a major stumbling block for developers wanting to be multiplatform.

[vjvj]

It's actually been quite rocky, and there was a point where it really looked like MS was actively trying to kill OpenGL. From my perspective, the current implementation of GL support in Vista has been a result of pressure from IHVs.

The DCC/CAD argument is a good one, and has probably been the core of the IHV's argument.

From the linked thread, a 3DLabs guy broke down the gist of it. And yes, as far as I know (coming from another IHV myself), this is all true.

Yes, it's stupid.

This information came from the OpenGL BOF held at Siggraph 2005 in LA this last Wednesday evening. This was confirmed at the BOF by NVIDIA, ATI and us (3Dlabs).

As soon as an ICD is loaded the composited desktop is turned off on Windows Vista. If you want the composited desktop Aeroglass experience, you will need to make your application go through Microsoft's OpenGL implementation, which is layered on top of DirectX. As pointed out earlier, this layering can have performance implications. Their implementation supports OpenGL version 1.4 only, without extension support.

We believe it possible to provide an ICD with full composited desktop support while adhering to the stability and security requirements in Windows Vista. But we need Microsoft's help in doing so.

For some more information, you can browse these Microsoft Winhec slides:

"Windows Graphics Overview [WinHEC 2005; 171 KB]" http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWPR05007_WinHEC05.ppt

"Advances in Display and Composition Architecture for Windows [WinHEC 2005; 422 KB]" http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWPR05005_WinHEC05.ppt

Regards,
Barthold
3Dlabs

[Jim Buck]

In addition to the reasons already mentioned, a significant enough % of people won't even have the newer Windows for a looooooong time.. most people on these boards are still aiming for Win98.

[Rainer Deyke]

If Microsoft manages to get a solid working OpenGL implementation on top of Direct3D, then there is no reason to program directly to Direct3D anymore. Let's face it: Direct3D is basically an unusable mess until you encapsulate your Direct3D calls in a higher level library. That higher level library might as well be OpenGL. Put another way: The only reason that anybody uses Direct3D is that driver support for OpenGL is lacking. If OpenGL is a layer on top of Direct3D, then the same drivers that allow Direct3D to work will also work for OpenGL.

Put this way, this is a very good thing. Now Microsoft just has to deprecate the Direct3D API and turn it into an implementation detail for OpenGL (and optimize it for OpenGL support).

[Bachus]

It's just FUD. Micrsosoft will not cripple a critical system API; far too many applications rely on OpenGL, especially serious ones. It's actually a very good thing that's happening: instead of the current situation which is a guaranteed OpenGL1.1 software implementation in XP, we'll have a guaranteed OpenGL1.4 hardware implemenation in Vista, which is rather better than most Macs have.

All new Macs except the Mini support OGL 1.5 (and this is with full extension support). The vast majority of older Macs support at least 1.3 (also with extensions). I fail to see how Vista with 1.4 *without* any extensions is "rather better." This is of course, disregarding the fact that the Macs that only support OGL 1.1, 1.2.1, or 1.3 don't support higher version numbers because the accelerator cards are incapable of supporting features in later versions. Presumably Vista, if it guarantees 1.4 hardware support, will simply drop support for older cards and not work at all.

OGL isn't in danger of dying out as soon as Vista is released. After all, it's got full support on Mac OS X, Linux, and the PS3. Presumably, all future non-Microsoft platforms will continue to use it, but there's absolutely no reason for it to be given second-class status on Vista.

[princec]

At least 33% of Macs I come across are still on 1.1. And yes "rather better" is a bit strong considering the differences between 1.4 and 1.3 are so small ;)

Cas :)