![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | |
Posted By: Kanen Faud'r <eli@nuprometheus.com> | Date: 4/17/02 1:26 p.m. |
In Response To: Geez... why the negative spin? (ferrex) : First off, DirectX's development is being driven by the developers. The new
In some ways a Mac developer is probably better off with a third party DirectX port than a PC developer using DirectX. The biggest problem with DirectX has always been that it's totally closed source. This means PC developers are at the mercy of Microsoft for bug fixes and updates. And while I don't think Microsoft is exactly evil, they do certainly screw stuff up on a regular basis. DirectX is something of a Faustian bargain - it can be a great API, but you're trading away all of your control for convenience. If something is broken you can't fix it, and unless you're huge (and sometimes even if you are) you can't get Microsoft to fix it any faster than they feel like. Your mileage may vary, offer not valid in the fiefdom of Redmond,
|
|
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. |