Conversely, if MS considers OpenGL to be dead and buried,
period, it seems that Bill would be bit silly to want to
spend $62.5 to become the owner of said dead + buried
technology!!
Mike
Gareth Hughes wrote:
Philip Brown wrote:
but I would say that microsoft DOES want to kill OpenGL,
On Monday 21 January 2002 09:21 am, Mike Westall wrote:
Conversely, if MS considers OpenGL to be dead and buried,
period, it seems that Bill would be bit silly to want to
spend $62.5 to become the owner of said dead + buried
technology!!
OpenGL is not really technology- it's an API that
I think the question is not wether they want to kill openGL or not.
Microsoft doesn't have anything to replace openGL therefore they are
not capable of killing it even if they wanted to. I wish people
wouldn't get excited about this, because SGI wouldn't be stupid enough
to let Microsoft
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:21:54AM -0500, Mike Westall wrote:
| Conversely, if MS considers OpenGL to be dead and buried,
| period, it seems that Bill would be bit silly to want to
| spend $62.5 to become the owner of said dead + buried
| technology!!
I doubt that most of SGI's patents are
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:09:29PM +, Josef Karthauser wrote:
| You reckon? I was told by a group of games writing guys (currently
| working on Xbox) that Direct3D is getting closer and closer to OpenGL in
| functionality.
|
| Which opinion is correct?
D3D has been absorbing OpenGL
Frank C. Earl wrote:
On Monday 21 January 2002 09:21 am, Mike Westall wrote:
Conversely, if MS considers OpenGL to be dead and buried,
period, it seems that Bill would be bit silly to want to
spend $62.5 to become the owner of said dead + buried
technology!!
OpenGL is not really
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:11:39PM -0800, Gareth Hughes wrote:
...
The DRI is encompassed by OpenGL (as a whole), and if Microsoft
isn't interested in killing OpenGL because they don't consider
it a threat (*), one would reach the conclusion they don't care
about the DRI either.
(*)
On 2002.01.21 00:41 Philip Brown wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 07:17:40AM -0800, Gareth Hughes wrote:
Philip Brown wrote:
but I would say that microsoft DOES want to kill OpenGL,
...
Allen's original statement made the point that MS considers OpenGL
to be dead and buried, period.
I think microsoft is trying to kill DRI. It is a big threat
to all their products. If the open source community can offer
good 3d graphics at low cost then their system will suffer a
good loss in market share.
Ummm, somehow I don't think so...
The DRI is encompassed by OpenGL (as a
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
This does not look good for OpenGL / DRI.
The article is not very specific though.
I assume that xfree86 doesn't use anything affected by these patents,
otherwise it wouldn't be able to carry it's current license. Is this
correct?
However The
Dan wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
This does not look good for OpenGL / DRI.
The article is not very specific though.
I assume that xfree86 doesn't use anything affected by these patents,
otherwise it wouldn't be able to carry it's current license. Is this
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:08:54PM +1100, Dan wrote:
| http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
Of course we don't know exactly which patents are involved, or what the
terms of the transfer were. But my guess would be that the patents
primarily involve hardware, and Microsoft is
Of course we don't know exactly which patents are involved, or what the
terms of the transfer were. But my guess would be that the patents
primarily involve hardware, and Microsoft is interested in covering its
potential liabilities as it moves into the hardware market (though XBox,
Homestation
I think microsoft is trying to kill DRI. It is a big threat to all their products. If
the open source community can offer good 3d graphics at low cost then their system
will suffer a good loss in market share.
On Friday, January 18, 2002 at 01:06:05 AM, David Johnson wrote:
Of course we
14 matches
Mail list logo
