PDA

View Full Version : DirectX 9 & Microsoft


valcon
10-03-03, 12:19 AM
Hi All,

Microsoft dictates the spec for DirectX, whereas in the old days the graphics companies got to introduce their own features and quirks.

Is DirectX a good development for Nvidia & ATI ? Alternatively, does DirectX simply allow Microsoft to play God ? The Inquirer has an article talking about how Nvidia was excluded from the meetings when Microsoft was setting the spec for DirectX 9 with other graphics chip companies. Apparently, Nvidia tried to get MS to pay a license fee for its shader technology......

Many thanks.

cthellis
10-03-03, 12:21 AM
The simple answer is, of course, that SOMEONE is going to play God, and if it's not Microsoft they'll just destroy the other gods anyway and win by default. :D

TheTaz
10-03-03, 01:25 AM
Usually I'm against M$ "Dictating Stuff".

However,

DirectX is for THEIR Operating System. THEY are the ones that should have CONTROL over it. Since Most PC Gaming is done on Windows... It's up to the Game Devs ***AND*** the Chipmakers to "lobby what features they want" in the next version. It's also up to the Chipmakers and Game Devs to "Follow the specs / standards".

It's up to the OpenGL team to "Keep Up". They used to be ahead... But for gaming, DX has pretty much taken over.

Originally posted by valcon
The Inquirer has an article talking about how Nvidia was excluded from the meetings when Microsoft was setting the spec for DirectX 9 with other graphics chip companies. Apparently, Nvidia tried to get MS to pay a license fee for its shader technology.

Now regarding this part, if it's true....

M$ telling nVidia "Bite Me" on a licensing fee isn't suprising. M$ leaving them out of the meetings would make sense, so nVidia can't come back and "sue for license infringement", since none of their "shader technology" was even considered (Obviously). owned:

nVidia does the same thing. Why do you think there is no nForce for Intel? Cuz nvidia says "Bite Me" to Intel regarding the license fee for making a Pentium 4 chipset. Hence, an nForce for Intel isn't considered. (Yes I know recent rumors suggest otherwise... some deal must have been made, tho).

Regards,

Taz

rth
10-03-03, 01:37 AM
AFAIK nvidia walked out, they weren't forced out.

StealthHawk
10-03-03, 04:28 AM
Wasn't there already a thread on this similar subject?

particleman
10-03-03, 11:37 AM
Microsoft still consults game and hardware developers on what they would like to see in DirectX. The thing with standardization though, is that you can't try and protect your patents and expect them to become standard at the same time. If DirectX was like OpenGL and companies could add any features they want by way of extensions, then DirectX wouldn't provide the same consistent platform that it does now. Games would have to be coded in a proprietary fashion and that is not a good thing. In the end if you want a standard consistent platform, compromises have to be made, and third party (Microsoft) has to have the power to say yes and no to what is included.

creedamd
10-03-03, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
Wasn't there already a thread on this similar subject?

I can't even tell it's a horse anymore.

theultimo
10-03-03, 09:14 PM
Bah, DX vs. OpenGL will never end it seems......heck, they've been battling since DX6 if I remember....but DX is becoming the superior product finally, considering the Shader development is more full featured. However, never count out OpenGL, as most Alternatives use ie (ie: Apple, Linux, Be, etc)

reever2
10-03-03, 10:54 PM
Nvidia walking out, missing meetings, or getting kicked out of Dx9 development is complete bull. It's Nvidias job to make sure they get all of the info they need to make their cards, if they miss information or jump the gun on anything it is solely their fault

lukar
10-04-03, 01:00 AM
Windows platform doesn't need OPENGL, it's waste of time....
OPENGL nothing have to offer over DX 9.0, absolutely nothing. OPENGL is good for linux, and Mac...

lukar
10-04-03, 01:05 AM
It's not problem in Nvidia following DX 9.0 spec. They are there, some of them not, but the problem is in the GPU design itself. It's poorly designed, and that's all...

Also the bite Microsoft, and Nvidia forgot that Microsoft is much bigger fish than they are, and Microsoft could be really nutty in the future, because of Nvidia behavior in writing drivers below DX9.0 spec.

WarheadMM
10-04-03, 05:07 AM
i think nvida and ATI should make there own API. THey set the rules and follow it. Then you wont have M$ in the picture anymore

Skuzzy
10-04-03, 08:04 AM
Basically you are saying get rid of all the API's and have developers code to specific video cards. Right.
Or for the developers to take 5 times longer (probably pretty conservative) to get a game done so it will work on the majority of video cards, but not all. Right.
You are not a developer, and that is quite apparent.

I am no fan of Microsoft, but DX and OpenGL have done more to keep new games coming out faster and running on more hardware than any other single thing.

Johnmcl7
10-04-03, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by WarheadMM
i think nvida and ATI should make there own API. THey set the rules and follow it. Then you wont have M$ in the picture anymore

And split the PC market up? And what about when other graphics cards manufactures come onto the scene such as XGi, should they alos make their own API for game developers to use? The main problem with the PC market is the vast range of hardware, it's obivously far easier to develop a console game as you know precisely what hardware you are developing for and can therefore ensure it runs well. It doesn't quite work as it should but DirectX should theoretically allow game developers to make their game without worrying about the specific PC configuration. Sadly in real life this isn't the case, but it's never going to be perfect.

John

TheTaz
10-04-03, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by WarheadMM
i think nvida and ATI should make there own API. THey set the rules and follow it. Then you wont have M$ in the picture anymore

:screwy:

Oh that'd be good! Game Devs would LOVE to code their rendering engines SEVERAL times to make their games work on several different major chipsets!!! We'd love to have games take longer and pay more for them too!!! :rolleyes:

If your talking nVidia and ATi "joining forces" for an API... your smoking some good stuff. :smoking2: That will never happen!!!... and the other chip makers would be left out in the cold. There is more than nVidia and ATi, you know... mostly OEM or budget stuff, but still... you have Intel, SIS (Older Budget Chips), VIA (Older Budget Chips), XGI (SIS and Trident), and DeltaChrome (VIA and S3).... to name a few. DirectX and OpenGL are the STANDARDS... and you want another API (Non-standard, except for 2 graphics chip makers) bloating Windows even more??? You still will need DirectX and OpenGL for older games.

Taz