Geez... why the negative spin?





Frequently Asked Forum Questions

Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact	Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2	Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ \| More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker



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
: IMHO. To make it more and more desirable to game programmers to use
: directx. The problem is, microsoft's purpose is to stay alive and make
: money. In the short term, getting every OS able to run direct X games may
: weaken their sales for a bit, but it increases the installed base of
: Gaming companies that are comfortable with and now dependent on DirectX.
: They have too much money invested in DirectX programming to not Jump when
: MS says Jump. So they get suckered in, buy in, thinking this is an sweet
: deal, and then blam! The fastest / newest / spiffiest features that they
: want to implement, that their customers are demanding, they only know how
: to do so in DirectX. And DirectX version 12, which for some reason, has
: yet to be ported to MacOS, which has yet to be ported to Linux, etc. So by
: being cutting edge, they have gotten themselves entirely dependent on MS.
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
: bittersweat taste in my mouth when I do so.
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

Message Index

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.

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.