Machines

  • Thread starter Thread starter dlskye
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please don't start with software-think if we all listed every piece of software we've ever installed.
Let's see...I've got fdisk, edit, qbasic, paint, notepad, wordpad, Photoshop 6, Unreal, yadda yadda yadda... Get my drift?
 
Qbasic?  Man, I have that in my old 386 processor computer.
It's a packard bell computer with a 386 processor, 200 Mb of Hard drive memory, 1 Mb RAM, 2 floppy drives (big floppies and small floppies), and have Windows 3.1 installed in it. LOL.  I use Qbasic when I am really bored, and I want to use my old computer.  I learned Qbasic first, then C (a little bit), then some other programming language, and right now C++.  Woops, I got right off the subject.

-vvalentine :grin:
 
One question for programmers: what do you think, what is better, OpenGl, or Direct3D, (or maybe something else). Im trying into OpenGl a little, it looks fine. Could you rate them, tell their adv/disadvantages ?
 
That's the sort of question that sparks off large scale flame wars, you know :wink: I'll still answer it tho.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. A quick summary:

Direct3D
-----------
Pros:
-Integrates with other DirectX components for sound, video, etc.
-Sometimes better driver support (depends on the manufactorer)
-Don't have to worry about extensions

Cons:
-Windows only
-MS only support it under VB/C++ (you can get it working on lots of other things ... but no official support)
-Have to deal with COM (ie. not *quite* so simple)


OpenGL
------------
Pros:
-Cross platform
-Easier to start learning with
-Longer lifetime (ie. quite a few features, OGL has had for longer than DX has)
-Extensions
-More than one software renderer to plugin as well

Cons:
-Extensions
-Have to use something else for sound, etc, in a game


So ... what do I mean by extensions?

Well, OpenGL has a feature called extensions which means that if a card implements more than the minimum set of features, it can have an extension to let you access the additional features.

IE: All OpenGL supporting drivers will support basic features (texturing). Some (most nowadays, it has to be said) will support multitexturing, so they register an extension called GL_ARB_MULTITEXTURE (or something similar). If you want to use multitexturing you can't just use it - you have to check whether the card supports that extension; if not, do something else or at least report an error and quit :wink:

In DirectX in *theory* most of the features don't follow that pattern. Instead, if you try to use a feature the driver doesn't support, DirectX is supposed to try and emulate it in software.

So, for simple things, DirectX makes life easier because you don't have to worry about checking driver support and so on.

In practice, it makes little difference because if the card doesn't support something in hardware, you're often better off leaving it rather than letting the software renderer try it - software is sloooooow.

Also: it means for things like vertex shaders, under OpenGL each card reports and extension for vertex shaders. In DirectX, Microsoft adds shaders into the next version of DX, and the card manufacturers have to support shaders in their drivers.

Similar story there too. Under DirectX, all cards (that have shaders) will conform to the built-in DirectX shaders, so easy to use. Under OpenGL each card might well report a different extension (one per manufacturer, generally). Thats bad because your app has to support multiple methods of doing shaders. But it's good because you're going to get *full* access to each cards hardware features - under DirectX you might well just get the features MS decided DirectX would like to support.

Eventually, of course, the OpenGL authority will merge the separate shader extensions into one official shader extension so there's no problem there either.
 
pete (the creator of the xcelent PSX GPU plug ins) has said that the DX "surfaces" are better ("cant get surfaces like those in DX plug in").
also in terms of visual quality (wasnt quake 2 made in opengl?) half life (whose engine was orinigaly OpenGL) looks 20% better in D3d then OpenGL on a Gf3, 1GHz athlon at highest quality set up in riva tuner.
--
point made
 
Depends what you're doing. There's no innate quality difference between OpenGL/D3D - they both do exactly the same thing: send messages to your 3d card.

If Halflife looks better in D3d mode, it's because they wrote better D3d code...

Yes; OpenGL can't access video memory directly like DirectX can (at least, not fast enough to be useful). That's one area where DirectX has an advantage. Of course, you don't often need to (emulators are a special case, I guess).
 
Then Ill go with OpenGl. Anyhow I dont like ms, and I like porting. Who knows how to run OpenGl program in Dos ? :smile:

(oops forgot 'r')

[edited] 171 2001-11-08 13:03
 
My PC is going to be upgraded by 2002. At the moment it is:
Intel Pentium !!! 500
448mb SDRAM (PC100)
AOpen AXBsomething motherboard
13.5gb harddrive (hoo hoo hoo, God that's funny)
Creative GeForce2 Pro 64mb DDR 400mhz (Detonator 14.10)
Creative Labs Live! 1024 Player
Creative PC-DVD 12x IR Dxr3
Samsung SyncMaster 700s Plus (17")
Yamaha YST-M15 Speakers (Only two I'm afraid)
Motorola something-or-other 56k Modem
Windows 98 dual boot usind System Commander

That's about it. I hope to get a 2ghz AMD or Intel processor and convert my memory to PC133 or PC2600. Of course a new motherboard. Can anyone recommend a motherboard and processor manufacturer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top