![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() |
Geez... why the negative spin? | |
Posted By: ferrex | Date: 4/17/02 1:03 p.m. |
In Response To: Yeah... Kinda (Mr. Zarquon) This is good news. : MS wants DirectX to be THE gaming API set, that is the purpose of the XBox
First off, DirectX's development is being driven by the developers. The new features in the API are features that have been requested by developers. While it is easy and, for some, comfortable to think that Microsoft is this malevolent corporation that exists for the sole purpose of screwing people, the truth is that they pay attention to their 3rd party developers and work with them wherever possible. Currently, the Mac platform relies on OpenGL. Certainly, it's a capable graphics API. However, has already fallen behind DirectX in capabilities, and DX is continuing to develop faster than OpenGL. You're worried about MS not porting DX12 to the Mac, leaving them with DX8 or 9? Well the Mac is already facing that "left behind" scenario. And provided there is no legal objection from Microsoft to this UK company (I'm sure we'll find out within a few days), this company will likely continue to upgrade MacDX in step with Microsoft. And worst case, MS prevent them from doing so and prevents developers from using MacDX. What's the worst that can happen? Mac developers go back to OpenGL, no worse off than before. It isn't so difficult to learn and use a different API that the industry would be appreciably affected by such a move. : But yeah! I can play more games... I'll just have to deal with the
I'd happily take this over the sour taste in my mouth when I see new PC titles released every month, and Mac ports of them follow six months later, if at all. -rex |
|
Replies: |
Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh! | Miguel Chavez | 4/17/02 11:19 a.m. |
Yeah... Kinda | Mr. Zarquon | 4/17/02 11:56 a.m. |
Geez... why the negative spin? | ferrex | 4/17/02 1:03 p.m. |
Because, I am. | Mr. Zarquon | 4/17/02 1:10 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | Kanen Faud'r | 4/17/02 1:26 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | PCDestroyer | 4/17/02 2:32 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | Mark Levin | 4/17/02 3:07 p.m. |
Carmack... | Miguel Chavez | 4/17/02 3:22 p.m. |
Re: Carmack... | ferrex | 4/17/02 7:08 p.m. |
Re: Carmack... | Mr. Zarquon | 4/17/02 9:31 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | PCDestroyer | 4/17/02 3:45 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | ferrex | 4/17/02 7:02 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 9:57 a.m. |
Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG | protexts | 4/18/02 4:46 a.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 10:11 a.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is off | protexts | 4/18/02 2:11 p.m. |
Make a 1AC! | 123456789 | 4/19/02 11:47 a.m. |
Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | kiro69 | 4/18/02 11:19 a.m. |
Re: Speak for yourself there, parnter... | Lophan | 4/18/02 12:09 p.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | protexts | 4/18/02 2:30 p.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:37 p.m. |
The place where your whole argument falls down... | Louis Wu | 4/18/02 4:54 p.m. |
Re: The place where your whole argument falls down | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 5:04 p.m. |
Ack. | Louis Wu | 4/18/02 5:16 p.m. |
Re: Ack. | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 5:45 p.m. |
Re: Ack. | protexts | 4/18/02 9:34 p.m. |
Re: Ack. | kiro69 | 4/19/02 10:36 a.m. |
Re: Ack. | Louis Wu | 4/19/02 10:54 a.m. |
Re: Ack. | protexts | 4/19/02 10:01 p.m. |
As I said before, I agree. | 123456789 | 4/19/02 5:36 p.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | protexts | 4/19/02 5:38 a.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:26 p.m. |
awesome reply, pcd *NM* | kiro69 | 4/18/02 10:43 a.m. |
Re: Quick note... | Lophan | 4/18/02 12:38 p.m. |
Re: Quick note... | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:40 p.m. |
Re: Quick note... | Warbow | 4/18/02 4:42 p.m. |
Re: Quick note... | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:57 p.m. |
Re: Let's look at this a little closer... | Lophan | 4/19/02 12:24 a.m. |
Re: Let's look at this a little closer... | PCDestroyer | 4/19/02 10:24 a.m. |
Re: Let's look at this a little closer... | vector40 | 4/19/02 9:03 p.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | Lophan | 4/20/02 12:13 a.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | vector40 | 4/20/02 1:12 a.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | PCDestroyer | 4/21/02 6:27 p.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | protexts | 4/20/02 5:15 a.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | vector40 | 4/20/02 4:09 p.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | PCDestroyer | 4/21/02 6:24 p.m. |
Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 3:24 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | Aida-kun | 4/22/02 5:15 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 9:56 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 2:45 p.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 9:49 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 3:05 p.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 8:34 p.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | kiro69 | 4/23/02 10:35 a.m. |
I agree | 123456789 | 4/17/02 3:19 p.m. |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |