07-Jan-2014 15:52, Iain Buclaw пишет:
On 7 Jan 2014 10:20, "Dmitry Olshansky" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> 07-Jan-2014 12:30, Adam Wilson пишет:
>>
>> On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:05:35 -0800, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
>> <[email protected]
<mailto:ola.fosheim.grostad%[email protected]>> wrote:
>> There is nothing technically wrong with DirectX on Windows
>> and unlike OpenGL which requires manufacturer provided drivers, it's
>> guaranteed to be available.
>
>
> Pardon, but this reads like citation of some old crap to me.
> And how would you use a GPU w/o manufacturer provided drivers?
> DX also builds on top of vendor specific drivers.
>
I thought it was the other way round. As in vendors write drivers to
interface specifically with directX on windows, so Microsoft doesn't
have to.
As with all drivers they do follow interfaces for directX to build upon.
And there is the same thing with OpenGL and the way it integrates with
the windows.
The difference might be in that DX is huge framework, and vendors
effectively write small "core" for it.
With GL the balance could be the other way around, but GL doesn't try to
be all of the many facets of the multimedia in the first place.
(and now with DirectCompute I'm not even sure what DX wants to be actually)
--
Dmitry Olshansky
