> > > ATI and Intel two special cases of poor OpenGL support? We'll that > > only leaves one mainstream vendor that provides acceptable OpenGL > > drives, and it make it the exception to the rule - so > surely NVidia is > > the special case here, not ATI and Intel. > > Please actually read my arguments instead of just focusing on > the wording. You can't refute the fact that Intel's hardware > is not really 3D "accelerators", rather "decelerators" and > that is in both Direct3D and OpenGL. So that dismisses one > case right there, we're left with NVidia and ATI. > I can refute the "fact" that Intel's hardware is not really 3D "accelerators". I'm currently developing an embedded product that uses OSG on an Intel 945 chipset. It is certainly not a decelerator. Sure its fill-rate isn't great ( but it is better than the CPU could do ) but it is adequate for my purposes. Other chipsets ( X3100 and later ) are even more capable. Interestingly the OpenGL driver for this chipset is far far better on Linux than on Windows. I suspect the Open Source driver is responsible for this.
Interesting about the stats though. I'm one of those people who skews the statistics. I do 90% of development on Linux and 90% of browsing ( including openscenegraph.org a fair amount ) on Windows. Linux screen space is valuable... Colin. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
