<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_08_1830222</id>
	<title>Why You Should Use OpenGL and Not DirectX</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262943060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>stickyboot writes <i>"The independent games developer Wolfire describes why they decided to use <a href="http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX">OpenGL instead of DirectX</a>.  The article mainly discusses the marketing strategies behind DirectX and how the API became so popular.  It also goes over why a developer would choose OpenGL over DirectX and what this decision means for the gamer. 'Back in 1997, the situation was similar to how it is now. Microsoft was running a massive marketing campaign for Direct3D, and soon everyone "just knew" that it was faster and better than OpenGL. This started to change when Chris Hecker published his open letter denouncing DirectX. Soon after that, John Carmack posted his famous OpenGL rant, and put his money where his mouth was by implementing all of Id Software's games in OpenGL, proving once and for all that DirectX was unnecessary for high-end 3D gaming.  This lesson appears to have been forgotten over the last few years. Most game developers have fallen under the spell of DirectX marketing, or into the whirlpool of vicious cycles and network advantages.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>stickyboot writes " The independent games developer Wolfire describes why they decided to use OpenGL instead of DirectX .
The article mainly discusses the marketing strategies behind DirectX and how the API became so popular .
It also goes over why a developer would choose OpenGL over DirectX and what this decision means for the gamer .
'Back in 1997 , the situation was similar to how it is now .
Microsoft was running a massive marketing campaign for Direct3D , and soon everyone " just knew " that it was faster and better than OpenGL .
This started to change when Chris Hecker published his open letter denouncing DirectX .
Soon after that , John Carmack posted his famous OpenGL rant , and put his money where his mouth was by implementing all of Id Software 's games in OpenGL , proving once and for all that DirectX was unnecessary for high-end 3D gaming .
This lesson appears to have been forgotten over the last few years .
Most game developers have fallen under the spell of DirectX marketing , or into the whirlpool of vicious cycles and network advantages .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stickyboot writes "The independent games developer Wolfire describes why they decided to use OpenGL instead of DirectX.
The article mainly discusses the marketing strategies behind DirectX and how the API became so popular.
It also goes over why a developer would choose OpenGL over DirectX and what this decision means for the gamer.
'Back in 1997, the situation was similar to how it is now.
Microsoft was running a massive marketing campaign for Direct3D, and soon everyone "just knew" that it was faster and better than OpenGL.
This started to change when Chris Hecker published his open letter denouncing DirectX.
Soon after that, John Carmack posted his famous OpenGL rant, and put his money where his mouth was by implementing all of Id Software's games in OpenGL, proving once and for all that DirectX was unnecessary for high-end 3D gaming.
This lesson appears to have been forgotten over the last few years.
Most game developers have fallen under the spell of DirectX marketing, or into the whirlpool of vicious cycles and network advantages.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30708204</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sorry but I don't really care</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1263062040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that you are not right, but you forgot some things:</p><p>1) Other operating systems can easily run in a virtual machine inside Windows. The user can run those O/Ses for productivity tasks and run games for Windows.</p><p>2) The cost for Windows is minimal compared to games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that you are not right , but you forgot some things : 1 ) Other operating systems can easily run in a virtual machine inside Windows .
The user can run those O/Ses for productivity tasks and run games for Windows.2 ) The cost for Windows is minimal compared to games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that you are not right, but you forgot some things:1) Other operating systems can easily run in a virtual machine inside Windows.
The user can run those O/Ses for productivity tasks and run games for Windows.2) The cost for Windows is minimal compared to games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701136</id>
	<title>Not for ATI cards</title>
	<author>Dwedit</author>
	<datestamp>1262950200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad OpenGL royally sucks ass on ATI cards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad OpenGL royally sucks ass on ATI cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad OpenGL royally sucks ass on ATI cards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705292</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262980140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're out of it. Better learn how standardizing works in real world...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're out of it .
Better learn how standardizing works in real world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're out of it.
Better learn how standardizing works in real world...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382</id>
	<title>OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262946660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am still kind of surprised that even after so many years, the open source communitys answer to marketing is only ranting about it.</p><p>Providing libraries, API's or platforms is NOT only about technical platform. *Nothing* in the world works like that. You must "market" it to companies, create a community around it with the right people and actually provide support and good tools to the developers. You can rant all you want about the technical sides of things, but if you do not understand this and completely ignore it you're only hurting yourself.</p><p>I have worked with both DirectX and OpenGL. In my opinion, OpenGL is loosing because:<br>1) DirectX has a comprehensive, well-documented references and documentation<br>2) DirectX provides a lot more than just 3D drawing - sounds, networking, fonts, input processing, and it used to have an API for 2D graphics before (relevant because the story is about why DirectX gained marketshare)<br>3) The DirectX libraries had more support in whatever coding language you wanted to use. You can argue this with the point that of course they had because Microsoft is a company so they can do it, but that doesn't change it. In fact, it would show that propretiery formats and libraries are better than open<br>4) Later it was possible to easily develop XBOX 360 games with DirectX and the tools were made good and easy to pick up. You may say it's irrelevant, that MS is using another market to improve their position, but it is not irrelevant. And unless OpenGL supporters start to work at it too, they're going to lose. Give more support and more value for the work!<br>5) DirectX was easy to pick up, and everyone supported it. If it's easy to pick up for beginners, they'll learn it and continue using it later as a professional (the same thing as why Adobe doesn't really care about home users Photoshop piracy)</p><p>It is NOT only about providing the technical platform. It is also about providing all the things that company it - some may call that "marketing", but it's mostly about giving support to those who use the platform, and giving more value for their time, work and money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am still kind of surprised that even after so many years , the open source communitys answer to marketing is only ranting about it.Providing libraries , API 's or platforms is NOT only about technical platform .
* Nothing * in the world works like that .
You must " market " it to companies , create a community around it with the right people and actually provide support and good tools to the developers .
You can rant all you want about the technical sides of things , but if you do not understand this and completely ignore it you 're only hurting yourself.I have worked with both DirectX and OpenGL .
In my opinion , OpenGL is loosing because : 1 ) DirectX has a comprehensive , well-documented references and documentation2 ) DirectX provides a lot more than just 3D drawing - sounds , networking , fonts , input processing , and it used to have an API for 2D graphics before ( relevant because the story is about why DirectX gained marketshare ) 3 ) The DirectX libraries had more support in whatever coding language you wanted to use .
You can argue this with the point that of course they had because Microsoft is a company so they can do it , but that does n't change it .
In fact , it would show that propretiery formats and libraries are better than open4 ) Later it was possible to easily develop XBOX 360 games with DirectX and the tools were made good and easy to pick up .
You may say it 's irrelevant , that MS is using another market to improve their position , but it is not irrelevant .
And unless OpenGL supporters start to work at it too , they 're going to lose .
Give more support and more value for the work ! 5 ) DirectX was easy to pick up , and everyone supported it .
If it 's easy to pick up for beginners , they 'll learn it and continue using it later as a professional ( the same thing as why Adobe does n't really care about home users Photoshop piracy ) It is NOT only about providing the technical platform .
It is also about providing all the things that company it - some may call that " marketing " , but it 's mostly about giving support to those who use the platform , and giving more value for their time , work and money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am still kind of surprised that even after so many years, the open source communitys answer to marketing is only ranting about it.Providing libraries, API's or platforms is NOT only about technical platform.
*Nothing* in the world works like that.
You must "market" it to companies, create a community around it with the right people and actually provide support and good tools to the developers.
You can rant all you want about the technical sides of things, but if you do not understand this and completely ignore it you're only hurting yourself.I have worked with both DirectX and OpenGL.
In my opinion, OpenGL is loosing because:1) DirectX has a comprehensive, well-documented references and documentation2) DirectX provides a lot more than just 3D drawing - sounds, networking, fonts, input processing, and it used to have an API for 2D graphics before (relevant because the story is about why DirectX gained marketshare)3) The DirectX libraries had more support in whatever coding language you wanted to use.
You can argue this with the point that of course they had because Microsoft is a company so they can do it, but that doesn't change it.
In fact, it would show that propretiery formats and libraries are better than open4) Later it was possible to easily develop XBOX 360 games with DirectX and the tools were made good and easy to pick up.
You may say it's irrelevant, that MS is using another market to improve their position, but it is not irrelevant.
And unless OpenGL supporters start to work at it too, they're going to lose.
Give more support and more value for the work!5) DirectX was easy to pick up, and everyone supported it.
If it's easy to pick up for beginners, they'll learn it and continue using it later as a professional (the same thing as why Adobe doesn't really care about home users Photoshop piracy)It is NOT only about providing the technical platform.
It is also about providing all the things that company it - some may call that "marketing", but it's mostly about giving support to those who use the platform, and giving more value for their time, work and money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702820</id>
	<title>As a Gamer/user</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1262958600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a Gamer/user, i say show me the beef! You want OpenGL to be used then make the uses/gamers want nothing else to use. Gamers are picky people and we don't mind spending money for top systems or what makes them go faster.look better,sound better. So if you make OpenGL a must have for the end gamer its lights out for DirectX. We gamers don't care about politics or OS wars only Subhuman wars he he:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Gamer/user , i say show me the beef !
You want OpenGL to be used then make the uses/gamers want nothing else to use .
Gamers are picky people and we do n't mind spending money for top systems or what makes them go faster.look better,sound better .
So if you make OpenGL a must have for the end gamer its lights out for DirectX .
We gamers do n't care about politics or OS wars only Subhuman wars he he : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Gamer/user, i say show me the beef!
You want OpenGL to be used then make the uses/gamers want nothing else to use.
Gamers are picky people and we don't mind spending money for top systems or what makes them go faster.look better,sound better.
So if you make OpenGL a must have for the end gamer its lights out for DirectX.
We gamers don't care about politics or OS wars only Subhuman wars he he:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702102</id>
	<title>The ugly truth</title>
	<author>YouDoNotWantToKnow</author>
	<datestamp>1262954820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opengl is losing out to Directx because it suffers from the open mentality complex, where everyone gets to mess with everything and it results in much more difficult usage by the game studio guy who needs to sit down and write an engine in it.
<br>
Not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opengl is losing out to Directx because it suffers from the open mentality complex , where everyone gets to mess with everything and it results in much more difficult usage by the game studio guy who needs to sit down and write an engine in it .
Not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opengl is losing out to Directx because it suffers from the open mentality complex, where everyone gets to mess with everything and it results in much more difficult usage by the game studio guy who needs to sit down and write an engine in it.
Not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703464</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1262962560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Borland had superior development tools to Microsoft in every way DESPITE Microsoft owning the technology. Yet, Borland blew it.</em></p><p>Now, that's a history that has yet to be fully investigated and written.  And probably it can't be written because slimes in expensive offices at Microsoft will never tell.  But it's safe to say that Borland was slimed by Microsoft.  They didn't 'blow it' unless sliming is considered a legitimate business practice.</p><p>History will come out eventually.  Schoolchildren 100 years from now will be told the truth, and nothing that Bill Gates can do in his lifetime will be able to change that.  Carnegie spent a lot of money on libraries and still wasn't able to clear his record either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Borland had superior development tools to Microsoft in every way DESPITE Microsoft owning the technology .
Yet , Borland blew it.Now , that 's a history that has yet to be fully investigated and written .
And probably it ca n't be written because slimes in expensive offices at Microsoft will never tell .
But it 's safe to say that Borland was slimed by Microsoft .
They did n't 'blow it ' unless sliming is considered a legitimate business practice.History will come out eventually .
Schoolchildren 100 years from now will be told the truth , and nothing that Bill Gates can do in his lifetime will be able to change that .
Carnegie spent a lot of money on libraries and still was n't able to clear his record either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Borland had superior development tools to Microsoft in every way DESPITE Microsoft owning the technology.
Yet, Borland blew it.Now, that's a history that has yet to be fully investigated and written.
And probably it can't be written because slimes in expensive offices at Microsoft will never tell.
But it's safe to say that Borland was slimed by Microsoft.
They didn't 'blow it' unless sliming is considered a legitimate business practice.History will come out eventually.
Schoolchildren 100 years from now will be told the truth, and nothing that Bill Gates can do in his lifetime will be able to change that.
Carnegie spent a lot of money on libraries and still wasn't able to clear his record either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702208</id>
	<title>Real Men Use DirectY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262955240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DirectX is for women.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DirectX is for women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DirectX is for women.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700870</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1262949060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>instead of whining about MS's success, why don't you all go out and beat directX at it's own game - an easy to use 3d gaming API. openGL is NOT as easy and thus more expensive to write games in.<p>
if all these people wrote code instead of rants you'd be a little closer by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>instead of whining about MS 's success , why do n't you all go out and beat directX at it 's own game - an easy to use 3d gaming API .
openGL is NOT as easy and thus more expensive to write games in .
if all these people wrote code instead of rants you 'd be a little closer by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>instead of whining about MS's success, why don't you all go out and beat directX at it's own game - an easy to use 3d gaming API.
openGL is NOT as easy and thus more expensive to write games in.
if all these people wrote code instead of rants you'd be a little closer by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701510</id>
	<title>Re:I've used both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262952000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>DirectX is made for games. You can use it for other kinds of applications, but if you want to do something that you do in a game, there is likely a function or construct specifically for what you need. It's docs assume you are making a game and when there are multiple ways to do something they often point out the faster way. heck it only works with triangulated mesh data.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Please RTFA.  Also, <a href="http://chrishecker.com/images/3/33/Gdmogl.pdf" title="chrishecker.com">Chris Hecker's</a> [chrishecker.com] article, linked from TFA.  Then give us <i>specific, technical reasons</i> that DX/D3D is somehow better for games than OpenGL.  Your post is filled with assertions, but with nothing to back them up.  It's pretty sad that got moderated "informative".</p><blockquote><div><p>Open GL is made for EVERYTHING. Sure, you can use it for games. There's nothing wrong with that, but i'm not John Carmack. That shit is hard for me. If i want to make a game, i'll take the platform that holds my hand.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Again, RTFA.  Give <i>specific, technical reasons</i> that OpenGL is "harder" than D3D.  If you'd bothered to read Carmack's position, his favoring of GL <b>was because GL is easier</b>.  Your inability to deal with OpenGL putting your claims in doubt aside, you could at least be specific about the reasons.  As per Chris Hecker's article, the only one making these claims are Microsoft evangelists.  You wouldn't happen to work for Microsoft would you?</p><blockquote><div><p>Plus, like others said, direct x is a whole game api. it's not just graphics. it's input, it's networking, it's sound. the whole platform is very cohesive. I'd rather just keep up with one api, one download, etc than have to follow open gl, open al, etc.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>This is a bit disingenuous.  All of the articles involved are addressing the 3D aspect of DX.  The rest of the stuff is either trivial (use SDL or similar which is about the simplest API you could imagine, has a billion support libs, and runs on everything), or you'd be doing it by hand anyway (implement your own networking stack for performance, a la EVE).  Your point is therefore irrelevant.</p><blockquote><div><p>anyway modern game development means licensing an engine. engine developers worry about supporting open gl or direct x.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>You seem to be a lazy-enough or low-end-enough developer that this article does not apply to you.  However, it does matter to developers who make engines (either primarily or otherwise).  Perhaps you should move along; these are not the articles you are looking for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DirectX is made for games .
You can use it for other kinds of applications , but if you want to do something that you do in a game , there is likely a function or construct specifically for what you need .
It 's docs assume you are making a game and when there are multiple ways to do something they often point out the faster way .
heck it only works with triangulated mesh data .
Please RTFA .
Also , Chris Hecker 's [ chrishecker.com ] article , linked from TFA .
Then give us specific , technical reasons that DX/D3D is somehow better for games than OpenGL .
Your post is filled with assertions , but with nothing to back them up .
It 's pretty sad that got moderated " informative " .Open GL is made for EVERYTHING .
Sure , you can use it for games .
There 's nothing wrong with that , but i 'm not John Carmack .
That shit is hard for me .
If i want to make a game , i 'll take the platform that holds my hand .
Again , RTFA .
Give specific , technical reasons that OpenGL is " harder " than D3D .
If you 'd bothered to read Carmack 's position , his favoring of GL was because GL is easier .
Your inability to deal with OpenGL putting your claims in doubt aside , you could at least be specific about the reasons .
As per Chris Hecker 's article , the only one making these claims are Microsoft evangelists .
You would n't happen to work for Microsoft would you ? Plus , like others said , direct x is a whole game api .
it 's not just graphics .
it 's input , it 's networking , it 's sound .
the whole platform is very cohesive .
I 'd rather just keep up with one api , one download , etc than have to follow open gl , open al , etc .
This is a bit disingenuous .
All of the articles involved are addressing the 3D aspect of DX .
The rest of the stuff is either trivial ( use SDL or similar which is about the simplest API you could imagine , has a billion support libs , and runs on everything ) , or you 'd be doing it by hand anyway ( implement your own networking stack for performance , a la EVE ) .
Your point is therefore irrelevant.anyway modern game development means licensing an engine .
engine developers worry about supporting open gl or direct x . You seem to be a lazy-enough or low-end-enough developer that this article does not apply to you .
However , it does matter to developers who make engines ( either primarily or otherwise ) .
Perhaps you should move along ; these are not the articles you are looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DirectX is made for games.
You can use it for other kinds of applications, but if you want to do something that you do in a game, there is likely a function or construct specifically for what you need.
It's docs assume you are making a game and when there are multiple ways to do something they often point out the faster way.
heck it only works with triangulated mesh data.
Please RTFA.
Also, Chris Hecker's [chrishecker.com] article, linked from TFA.
Then give us specific, technical reasons that DX/D3D is somehow better for games than OpenGL.
Your post is filled with assertions, but with nothing to back them up.
It's pretty sad that got moderated "informative".Open GL is made for EVERYTHING.
Sure, you can use it for games.
There's nothing wrong with that, but i'm not John Carmack.
That shit is hard for me.
If i want to make a game, i'll take the platform that holds my hand.
Again, RTFA.
Give specific, technical reasons that OpenGL is "harder" than D3D.
If you'd bothered to read Carmack's position, his favoring of GL was because GL is easier.
Your inability to deal with OpenGL putting your claims in doubt aside, you could at least be specific about the reasons.
As per Chris Hecker's article, the only one making these claims are Microsoft evangelists.
You wouldn't happen to work for Microsoft would you?Plus, like others said, direct x is a whole game api.
it's not just graphics.
it's input, it's networking, it's sound.
the whole platform is very cohesive.
I'd rather just keep up with one api, one download, etc than have to follow open gl, open al, etc.
This is a bit disingenuous.
All of the articles involved are addressing the 3D aspect of DX.
The rest of the stuff is either trivial (use SDL or similar which is about the simplest API you could imagine, has a billion support libs, and runs on everything), or you'd be doing it by hand anyway (implement your own networking stack for performance, a la EVE).
Your point is therefore irrelevant.anyway modern game development means licensing an engine.
engine developers worry about supporting open gl or direct x.
You seem to be a lazy-enough or low-end-enough developer that this article does not apply to you.
However, it does matter to developers who make engines (either primarily or otherwise).
Perhaps you should move along; these are not the articles you are looking for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700526</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1262947440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it would create that much more competition. 3D API's and libraries and things like these take a lot of work, and <i>require</i> support from graphics cards manufacturers (which there are basically only two, ATI and NVIDIA). It would be out of the question they would implement 10+ different codebases on their cards.</p><p>DirectX is actually up for competition, even if it's not in PC space. DirectX is the supporter of PC gaming and it competes against Playstation and Wii, and PS3 is definitely up to par in competition. 360 is backing up DirectX some in that space, but there definitely <i>is</i> competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it would create that much more competition .
3D API 's and libraries and things like these take a lot of work , and require support from graphics cards manufacturers ( which there are basically only two , ATI and NVIDIA ) .
It would be out of the question they would implement 10 + different codebases on their cards.DirectX is actually up for competition , even if it 's not in PC space .
DirectX is the supporter of PC gaming and it competes against Playstation and Wii , and PS3 is definitely up to par in competition .
360 is backing up DirectX some in that space , but there definitely is competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it would create that much more competition.
3D API's and libraries and things like these take a lot of work, and require support from graphics cards manufacturers (which there are basically only two, ATI and NVIDIA).
It would be out of the question they would implement 10+ different codebases on their cards.DirectX is actually up for competition, even if it's not in PC space.
DirectX is the supporter of PC gaming and it competes against Playstation and Wii, and PS3 is definitely up to par in competition.
360 is backing up DirectX some in that space, but there definitely is competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700470</id>
	<title>We should use open GL because we can play</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262947200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GL quake?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GL quake ?
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GL quake?
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700438</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>jornak</author>
	<datestamp>1262946960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is NOT only about providing the technical platform. It is also about providing all the things that company it - some may call that "marketing", but it's mostly about giving support to those who use the platform, and giving more value for their time, work and money.</p></div><p>That being said I've yet to see a game using OpenGL that can render anything as well/as quickly as DX10.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is NOT only about providing the technical platform .
It is also about providing all the things that company it - some may call that " marketing " , but it 's mostly about giving support to those who use the platform , and giving more value for their time , work and money.That being said I 've yet to see a game using OpenGL that can render anything as well/as quickly as DX10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is NOT only about providing the technical platform.
It is also about providing all the things that company it - some may call that "marketing", but it's mostly about giving support to those who use the platform, and giving more value for their time, work and money.That being said I've yet to see a game using OpenGL that can render anything as well/as quickly as DX10.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705734</id>
	<title>Re:An Amateur's Perspective - OpenGL vs DirectX</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1263029700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although it has been a while since I last programmed did 3D programming, I remember when I was into that, OpenGL had only a very limited standard instruction set and the more advanced things had to be done via "extensions" which where implemented as an ugly hack.</p><p>In addition to that, if you wanted to make a complete multimedia application using OpenGL you needed to glue togheter several independent technologies (OpenGL+ sound lib + network lib + inputdev lib, etc) while DirectX provided everything under API (with standard programming conventions) and a *great* API documentation (MSDN is the best documentation for any library...).</p><p>I remember there were efforts to release a next version of OpenGL, but the consortium companies where fighting against each other without agreeing on anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although it has been a while since I last programmed did 3D programming , I remember when I was into that , OpenGL had only a very limited standard instruction set and the more advanced things had to be done via " extensions " which where implemented as an ugly hack.In addition to that , if you wanted to make a complete multimedia application using OpenGL you needed to glue togheter several independent technologies ( OpenGL + sound lib + network lib + inputdev lib , etc ) while DirectX provided everything under API ( with standard programming conventions ) and a * great * API documentation ( MSDN is the best documentation for any library... ) .I remember there were efforts to release a next version of OpenGL , but the consortium companies where fighting against each other without agreeing on anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although it has been a while since I last programmed did 3D programming, I remember when I was into that, OpenGL had only a very limited standard instruction set and the more advanced things had to be done via "extensions" which where implemented as an ugly hack.In addition to that, if you wanted to make a complete multimedia application using OpenGL you needed to glue togheter several independent technologies (OpenGL+ sound lib + network lib + inputdev lib, etc) while DirectX provided everything under API (with standard programming conventions) and a *great* API documentation (MSDN is the best documentation for any library...).I remember there were efforts to release a next version of OpenGL, but the consortium companies where fighting against each other without agreeing on anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701822</id>
	<title>OpenGL pride</title>
	<author>pyalot</author>
	<datestamp>1262953500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Irrefutable, feel welcome to try.<br> <br>

 - OpenGL works on Mac, Linux, WindowsXP and Direct3D does not (or only partially as in no DX11 for XP)<br>
 - OpenGL compatible APIs are present on the PS3, Wii, iPhone and many other devices, wheras Direct3D works on none of those.<br>
 - Cutting edge features can be accessed in OpenGL as they come out, whereas in Direct3D you'll have to wait until M$uck decides to iterate++ DX.<br>
 - A wealth of good online and dead tree documentation can be had for OpenGL<br>
 - A host of "killer apps" has been done and is continuing to be done with OpenGL (such as Maya, 3ds max, softimage, all iPhone games, Mac Games etc.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Irrefutable , feel welcome to try .
- OpenGL works on Mac , Linux , WindowsXP and Direct3D does not ( or only partially as in no DX11 for XP ) - OpenGL compatible APIs are present on the PS3 , Wii , iPhone and many other devices , wheras Direct3D works on none of those .
- Cutting edge features can be accessed in OpenGL as they come out , whereas in Direct3D you 'll have to wait until M $ uck decides to iterate + + DX .
- A wealth of good online and dead tree documentation can be had for OpenGL - A host of " killer apps " has been done and is continuing to be done with OpenGL ( such as Maya , 3ds max , softimage , all iPhone games , Mac Games etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irrefutable, feel welcome to try.
- OpenGL works on Mac, Linux, WindowsXP and Direct3D does not (or only partially as in no DX11 for XP)
 - OpenGL compatible APIs are present on the PS3, Wii, iPhone and many other devices, wheras Direct3D works on none of those.
- Cutting edge features can be accessed in OpenGL as they come out, whereas in Direct3D you'll have to wait until M$uck decides to iterate++ DX.
- A wealth of good online and dead tree documentation can be had for OpenGL
 - A host of "killer apps" has been done and is continuing to be done with OpenGL (such as Maya, 3ds max, softimage, all iPhone games, Mac Games etc.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688</id>
	<title>I've used both</title>
	<author>shadowrat</author>
	<datestamp>1262948160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>DirectX is made for games. You can use it for other kinds of applications, but if you want to do something that you do in a game, there is likely a function or construct specifically for what you need. It's docs assume you are making a game and when there are multiple ways to do something they often point out the faster way. heck it only works with triangulated mesh data.
<br> <br>
Open GL is made for EVERYTHING. Sure, you can use it for games. There's nothing wrong with that, but i'm not John Carmack. That shit is hard for me. If i want to make a game, i'll take the platform that holds my hand.
<br> <br>
Plus, like others said, direct x is a whole game api. it's not just graphics. it's input, it's networking, it's sound. the whole platform is very cohesive. I'd rather just keep up with one api, one download, etc than have to follow open gl, open al, etc.
<br> <br>
anyway modern game development means licensing an engine. engine developers worry about supporting open gl or direct x.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DirectX is made for games .
You can use it for other kinds of applications , but if you want to do something that you do in a game , there is likely a function or construct specifically for what you need .
It 's docs assume you are making a game and when there are multiple ways to do something they often point out the faster way .
heck it only works with triangulated mesh data .
Open GL is made for EVERYTHING .
Sure , you can use it for games .
There 's nothing wrong with that , but i 'm not John Carmack .
That shit is hard for me .
If i want to make a game , i 'll take the platform that holds my hand .
Plus , like others said , direct x is a whole game api .
it 's not just graphics .
it 's input , it 's networking , it 's sound .
the whole platform is very cohesive .
I 'd rather just keep up with one api , one download , etc than have to follow open gl , open al , etc .
anyway modern game development means licensing an engine .
engine developers worry about supporting open gl or direct x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DirectX is made for games.
You can use it for other kinds of applications, but if you want to do something that you do in a game, there is likely a function or construct specifically for what you need.
It's docs assume you are making a game and when there are multiple ways to do something they often point out the faster way.
heck it only works with triangulated mesh data.
Open GL is made for EVERYTHING.
Sure, you can use it for games.
There's nothing wrong with that, but i'm not John Carmack.
That shit is hard for me.
If i want to make a game, i'll take the platform that holds my hand.
Plus, like others said, direct x is a whole game api.
it's not just graphics.
it's input, it's networking, it's sound.
the whole platform is very cohesive.
I'd rather just keep up with one api, one download, etc than have to follow open gl, open al, etc.
anyway modern game development means licensing an engine.
engine developers worry about supporting open gl or direct x.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702212</id>
	<title>Re:I've used both</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262955300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>True DirectX offers a whole suite of tools but I suspect it's not best to use it for everything. Otherwise one of the biggest engines (Unreal) wouldn't be using OpenAL instead.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAL" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAL</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
It's also dishonest for the various people posting to claim that games are primarily done in D3D. That is true for a lot of PC games and all 360 games but no one uses D3D for Playstation. So any major engine has to support both as you will find one of the most popular (if not most popular at the moment) engine does indeed still support OpenGL. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal\_engine" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal\_engine</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
Granted, at the moment most non-mobile games are on Windows and the 360. If the 360 loses popularity then OpenGL would probably make a comeback for making things easier to port from the PS to the PC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True DirectX offers a whole suite of tools but I suspect it 's not best to use it for everything .
Otherwise one of the biggest engines ( Unreal ) would n't be using OpenAL instead .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAL [ wikipedia.org ] It 's also dishonest for the various people posting to claim that games are primarily done in D3D .
That is true for a lot of PC games and all 360 games but no one uses D3D for Playstation .
So any major engine has to support both as you will find one of the most popular ( if not most popular at the moment ) engine does indeed still support OpenGL .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal \ _engine [ wikipedia.org ] Granted , at the moment most non-mobile games are on Windows and the 360 .
If the 360 loses popularity then OpenGL would probably make a comeback for making things easier to port from the PS to the PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True DirectX offers a whole suite of tools but I suspect it's not best to use it for everything.
Otherwise one of the biggest engines (Unreal) wouldn't be using OpenAL instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAL [wikipedia.org]
 
It's also dishonest for the various people posting to claim that games are primarily done in D3D.
That is true for a lot of PC games and all 360 games but no one uses D3D for Playstation.
So any major engine has to support both as you will find one of the most popular (if not most popular at the moment) engine does indeed still support OpenGL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal\_engine [wikipedia.org]
 
Granted, at the moment most non-mobile games are on Windows and the 360.
If the 360 loses popularity then OpenGL would probably make a comeback for making things easier to port from the PS to the PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702202</id>
	<title>Re:What DirectX does that OpenGL/SDL don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262955240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever since Vista came out OpenGL performance of desktop apps has been knackered.</p><p>100\% CPU usage, no way round it.  Aero did a good job at sabotaging OpenGL.</p><p>Obviously Direct3D runs fine, but who wants to jump into the Microsoft trap, so I've now switched to Macs.  This was the last straw.</p><p>At least Macs do proper OpenGL, not some crippled sabbotaged version of it, on top of Aero Direct3D.</p><p>I fully respect Apple for keeping to OpenGL, because they respect the industry standards, not abuse them like Microsoft.  Hell, Microsoft even abused the web standards with IE.</p><p>I just hope Microsoft digs a big hole for itself and then we don't have to bother with them anymore.</p><p>They are just a 100\% BS company.</p><p>Life without Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since Vista came out OpenGL performance of desktop apps has been knackered.100 \ % CPU usage , no way round it .
Aero did a good job at sabotaging OpenGL.Obviously Direct3D runs fine , but who wants to jump into the Microsoft trap , so I 've now switched to Macs .
This was the last straw.At least Macs do proper OpenGL , not some crippled sabbotaged version of it , on top of Aero Direct3D.I fully respect Apple for keeping to OpenGL , because they respect the industry standards , not abuse them like Microsoft .
Hell , Microsoft even abused the web standards with IE.I just hope Microsoft digs a big hole for itself and then we do n't have to bother with them anymore.They are just a 100 \ % BS company.Life without Microsoft : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since Vista came out OpenGL performance of desktop apps has been knackered.100\% CPU usage, no way round it.
Aero did a good job at sabotaging OpenGL.Obviously Direct3D runs fine, but who wants to jump into the Microsoft trap, so I've now switched to Macs.
This was the last straw.At least Macs do proper OpenGL, not some crippled sabbotaged version of it, on top of Aero Direct3D.I fully respect Apple for keeping to OpenGL, because they respect the industry standards, not abuse them like Microsoft.
Hell, Microsoft even abused the web standards with IE.I just hope Microsoft digs a big hole for itself and then we don't have to bother with them anymore.They are just a 100\% BS company.Life without Microsoft :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700440</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262946960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your point is good and it is the same with open source programs. OSS developers give too little detail on user experience and interface and only think about technical details. It just isn't the whole package.</p><p>Ubuntu and Fedora have understood this and more developers should too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point is good and it is the same with open source programs .
OSS developers give too little detail on user experience and interface and only think about technical details .
It just is n't the whole package.Ubuntu and Fedora have understood this and more developers should too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point is good and it is the same with open source programs.
OSS developers give too little detail on user experience and interface and only think about technical details.
It just isn't the whole package.Ubuntu and Fedora have understood this and more developers should too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701162</id>
	<title>use the best tool</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1262950260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't care about history. Don't care about politics. Don't care about marketing. If I'm developing a commercial application, I'll use the best tool I can find so that I can make the most money possible.</p><p>They should focus their argument on the merits of their tool, not on the other crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't care about history .
Do n't care about politics .
Do n't care about marketing .
If I 'm developing a commercial application , I 'll use the best tool I can find so that I can make the most money possible.They should focus their argument on the merits of their tool , not on the other crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't care about history.
Don't care about politics.
Don't care about marketing.
If I'm developing a commercial application, I'll use the best tool I can find so that I can make the most money possible.They should focus their argument on the merits of their tool, not on the other crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702552</id>
	<title>Re:An Amateur's Perspective - OpenGL vs DirectX</title>
	<author>WhiteFluffyChest</author>
	<datestamp>1262956860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can only feel sorry for you, now you are stuck with Microsoft.  Hope you enjoy it better than I did before I switched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can only feel sorry for you , now you are stuck with Microsoft .
Hope you enjoy it better than I did before I switched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can only feel sorry for you, now you are stuck with Microsoft.
Hope you enjoy it better than I did before I switched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30707516</id>
	<title>Re:More like Developers don't CARE.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263055140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I also think it's unfortunate that iD is the exception to the rule...</p></div><p>Exception to the rule my ass.</p><p>Do you know how many games run on Unreal Engine 3 (the engine that dominates the market), which abstracts both Direct-X *and* Open-GL, depending on platform?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Unreal\_Engine\_games" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Unreal\_Engine\_games</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also think it 's unfortunate that iD is the exception to the rule...Exception to the rule my ass.Do you know how many games run on Unreal Engine 3 ( the engine that dominates the market ) , which abstracts both Direct-X * and * Open-GL , depending on platform ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _Unreal \ _Engine \ _games [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also think it's unfortunate that iD is the exception to the rule...Exception to the rule my ass.Do you know how many games run on Unreal Engine 3 (the engine that dominates the market), which abstracts both Direct-X *and* Open-GL, depending on platform?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Unreal\_Engine\_games [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30707962</id>
	<title>OpenGL 3.0 cock-up</title>
	<author>edxwelch</author>
	<datestamp>1263059760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer open standards, but unfortunately OpenGL is proof that design by committee doesn't work. There was a lot of negative discussion when infamous OpenGL 3.0 API was released: <a href="http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic\_id=504547" title="gamedev.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic\_id=504547</a> [gamedev.net]</p><p>Also this video is quite a laugh: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sddv3d-w5p4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sddv3d-w5p4</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer open standards , but unfortunately OpenGL is proof that design by committee does n't work .
There was a lot of negative discussion when infamous OpenGL 3.0 API was released : http : //www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp ? topic \ _id = 504547 [ gamedev.net ] Also this video is quite a laugh : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = sddv3d-w5p4 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer open standards, but unfortunately OpenGL is proof that design by committee doesn't work.
There was a lot of negative discussion when infamous OpenGL 3.0 API was released: http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic\_id=504547 [gamedev.net]Also this video is quite a laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sddv3d-w5p4 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703512</id>
	<title>Was XGL from Sun Microsystems not enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262962980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenGL presentation of an X Server with multiple desktops to the dimension of the 3D object, is much better to use than Vista, Windows 7, Mac OSX Aqua, and because it's open-source it can be used by anyone that tries to compete against it.</p><p>Everyone but OpenGL is vendor lock-in.  I remember when OpenGL was cross-implemented to use the existing acceleration libraries on the environment it ran rather than be tied with driver vendors as it is today, yet that is how much more flexible OpenGL actually is than Direct3D.</p><p>OpenGL/Glide anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenGL presentation of an X Server with multiple desktops to the dimension of the 3D object , is much better to use than Vista , Windows 7 , Mac OSX Aqua , and because it 's open-source it can be used by anyone that tries to compete against it.Everyone but OpenGL is vendor lock-in .
I remember when OpenGL was cross-implemented to use the existing acceleration libraries on the environment it ran rather than be tied with driver vendors as it is today , yet that is how much more flexible OpenGL actually is than Direct3D.OpenGL/Glide anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenGL presentation of an X Server with multiple desktops to the dimension of the 3D object, is much better to use than Vista, Windows 7, Mac OSX Aqua, and because it's open-source it can be used by anyone that tries to compete against it.Everyone but OpenGL is vendor lock-in.
I remember when OpenGL was cross-implemented to use the existing acceleration libraries on the environment it ran rather than be tied with driver vendors as it is today, yet that is how much more flexible OpenGL actually is than Direct3D.OpenGL/Glide anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705116</id>
	<title>hey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262977680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>try irrlicht and you will forget about DirectX vs OpenGL and get everything portable. Have fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>try irrlicht and you will forget about DirectX vs OpenGL and get everything portable .
Have fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try irrlicht and you will forget about DirectX vs OpenGL and get everything portable.
Have fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524</id>
	<title>Killer App</title>
	<author>decipher\_saint</author>
	<datestamp>1262947440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing around it; OpenGL desperately needs a killer app.</p><p>Show people something amazing and tell them "OpenGL did This."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing around it ; OpenGL desperately needs a killer app.Show people something amazing and tell them " OpenGL did This .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing around it; OpenGL desperately needs a killer app.Show people something amazing and tell them "OpenGL did This.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702468</id>
	<title>Re:Former OpenGL developer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262956440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So... instead of using an up to date API which supports cutting edge hardware features, you're now going to target... DX9. That's sensible, carry on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So... instead of using an up to date API which supports cutting edge hardware features , you 're now going to target... DX9. That 's sensible , carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... instead of using an up to date API which supports cutting edge hardware features, you're now going to target... DX9. That's sensible, carry on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705966</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263033360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To illustrate the difference, what platforms does DirectX run on? Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Xbox, and Microsoft Windows Mobile. Notice the pattern?</p></div><p>You forget WINE. Compared to how few people actually work on it, it's surprising how much of DirectX it implements. Of course all the graphics functions is mapped to OpenGL so if the OpenGL implementation sucks so will WINE, but it's a fairly full implementation of DirectX 9 state. The downside is of course that DirectX is patented, not just patent FUD but quite clearly like for example some of the texture compression algorithms. If anyone tried to make a more official version for Linux, they'd probably pull out a few other things as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To illustrate the difference , what platforms does DirectX run on ?
Microsoft Windows , Microsoft Xbox , and Microsoft Windows Mobile .
Notice the pattern ? You forget WINE .
Compared to how few people actually work on it , it 's surprising how much of DirectX it implements .
Of course all the graphics functions is mapped to OpenGL so if the OpenGL implementation sucks so will WINE , but it 's a fairly full implementation of DirectX 9 state .
The downside is of course that DirectX is patented , not just patent FUD but quite clearly like for example some of the texture compression algorithms .
If anyone tried to make a more official version for Linux , they 'd probably pull out a few other things as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To illustrate the difference, what platforms does DirectX run on?
Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Xbox, and Microsoft Windows Mobile.
Notice the pattern?You forget WINE.
Compared to how few people actually work on it, it's surprising how much of DirectX it implements.
Of course all the graphics functions is mapped to OpenGL so if the OpenGL implementation sucks so will WINE, but it's a fairly full implementation of DirectX 9 state.
The downside is of course that DirectX is patented, not just patent FUD but quite clearly like for example some of the texture compression algorithms.
If anyone tried to make a more official version for Linux, they'd probably pull out a few other things as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30704846</id>
	<title>Tempest in a Teapot</title>
	<author>Peter Amstutz</author>
	<datestamp>1262974560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had higher hopes for the original article in discussing specific technical reasons for choose one API over the other aside from the issue of platform support.</p><p>From my perspective, the the controversy boils down to a handful of actual issues:<br>
&nbsp; * Quality of drivers.  D3D drivers have historically been more solid than OpenGL drivers on Windows.  This is less of an issue these days with Nvidia.  Unfortunately ATI OpenGL drivers remain a bit flaky.</p><p>
&nbsp; * Market.  I believe that the very high end graphics workstation market (think Hollywood CGI artists, CAD, etc) is still invested heavily Unix (Linux) based tools.  Nvidia has a much bigger foothold in this market than ATI which explains why Nvidia has superior X.org drivers and better OpenGL support all around.</p><p>
&nbsp; * Bleeding edge technical features, if you are trying to achieve some advantage in rendering quality over your competitors.  This makes sense in the graphical arms race of gaming, but most of the rest of the visual simulation industry (3D modeling, CAD, scientific computing, government/military, etc) don't care about the cutting edge as much.</p><p>
&nbsp; * What your 3D engine of choice supports.  Writing a whole 3D engine from scratch is going to be silly most of the time with the many commercial and open source 3D engines now available, so you are not going to be writing a whole lot of bare D3D or OpenGL code.</p><p>Like a lot of other areas, Microsoft's development solutions work great if you stay in the Microsoft ecosystem.  As a pure business decision sometimes it makes sense.</p><p>What irks people (including me) is when Microsoft deliberately or de factor freezes out the competition; this is where we end up with frustrating situations like the case of ATI having inferior support for OpenGL on Windows.  There's no technical reason for it, just someone manager's decision on how to allocate developer resources.  Longtime Linux users know this is a story that has played out with many devices; usually there is no technical reason a piece of hardware can't be used on Linux, it is simply a matter of the manufacture choosing whether or not to devote additional resources to supporting platforms other than the one with the biggest market share.</p><p>So ultimately it is about mindshare and putting pressure on Nvidia and ATI step up to the plate to have good OpenGL support, and encourage Microsoft it is not in their best interests to screw over Windows OpenGL users.</p><p>(did I mention enough times how much ATI OpenGL driver quirks annoy me?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had higher hopes for the original article in discussing specific technical reasons for choose one API over the other aside from the issue of platform support.From my perspective , the the controversy boils down to a handful of actual issues :   * Quality of drivers .
D3D drivers have historically been more solid than OpenGL drivers on Windows .
This is less of an issue these days with Nvidia .
Unfortunately ATI OpenGL drivers remain a bit flaky .
  * Market .
I believe that the very high end graphics workstation market ( think Hollywood CGI artists , CAD , etc ) is still invested heavily Unix ( Linux ) based tools .
Nvidia has a much bigger foothold in this market than ATI which explains why Nvidia has superior X.org drivers and better OpenGL support all around .
  * Bleeding edge technical features , if you are trying to achieve some advantage in rendering quality over your competitors .
This makes sense in the graphical arms race of gaming , but most of the rest of the visual simulation industry ( 3D modeling , CAD , scientific computing , government/military , etc ) do n't care about the cutting edge as much .
  * What your 3D engine of choice supports .
Writing a whole 3D engine from scratch is going to be silly most of the time with the many commercial and open source 3D engines now available , so you are not going to be writing a whole lot of bare D3D or OpenGL code.Like a lot of other areas , Microsoft 's development solutions work great if you stay in the Microsoft ecosystem .
As a pure business decision sometimes it makes sense.What irks people ( including me ) is when Microsoft deliberately or de factor freezes out the competition ; this is where we end up with frustrating situations like the case of ATI having inferior support for OpenGL on Windows .
There 's no technical reason for it , just someone manager 's decision on how to allocate developer resources .
Longtime Linux users know this is a story that has played out with many devices ; usually there is no technical reason a piece of hardware ca n't be used on Linux , it is simply a matter of the manufacture choosing whether or not to devote additional resources to supporting platforms other than the one with the biggest market share.So ultimately it is about mindshare and putting pressure on Nvidia and ATI step up to the plate to have good OpenGL support , and encourage Microsoft it is not in their best interests to screw over Windows OpenGL users .
( did I mention enough times how much ATI OpenGL driver quirks annoy me ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had higher hopes for the original article in discussing specific technical reasons for choose one API over the other aside from the issue of platform support.From my perspective, the the controversy boils down to a handful of actual issues:
  * Quality of drivers.
D3D drivers have historically been more solid than OpenGL drivers on Windows.
This is less of an issue these days with Nvidia.
Unfortunately ATI OpenGL drivers remain a bit flaky.
  * Market.
I believe that the very high end graphics workstation market (think Hollywood CGI artists, CAD, etc) is still invested heavily Unix (Linux) based tools.
Nvidia has a much bigger foothold in this market than ATI which explains why Nvidia has superior X.org drivers and better OpenGL support all around.
  * Bleeding edge technical features, if you are trying to achieve some advantage in rendering quality over your competitors.
This makes sense in the graphical arms race of gaming, but most of the rest of the visual simulation industry (3D modeling, CAD, scientific computing, government/military, etc) don't care about the cutting edge as much.
  * What your 3D engine of choice supports.
Writing a whole 3D engine from scratch is going to be silly most of the time with the many commercial and open source 3D engines now available, so you are not going to be writing a whole lot of bare D3D or OpenGL code.Like a lot of other areas, Microsoft's development solutions work great if you stay in the Microsoft ecosystem.
As a pure business decision sometimes it makes sense.What irks people (including me) is when Microsoft deliberately or de factor freezes out the competition; this is where we end up with frustrating situations like the case of ATI having inferior support for OpenGL on Windows.
There's no technical reason for it, just someone manager's decision on how to allocate developer resources.
Longtime Linux users know this is a story that has played out with many devices; usually there is no technical reason a piece of hardware can't be used on Linux, it is simply a matter of the manufacture choosing whether or not to devote additional resources to supporting platforms other than the one with the biggest market share.So ultimately it is about mindshare and putting pressure on Nvidia and ATI step up to the plate to have good OpenGL support, and encourage Microsoft it is not in their best interests to screw over Windows OpenGL users.
(did I mention enough times how much ATI OpenGL driver quirks annoy me?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701090</id>
	<title>Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262950020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, AutoCAD, Softimage, Maya, 3ds max, Cinema 4d, Rhino, ZBrush, yeah, it's just a "few" standing in the way of DirectX right? It's not like THE ENTIRE FUCKING PRODUCTIVITY APP INDUSTRY is using OpenGL, right?</p></div><p>We've arrived to the point where most productivity apps are OGL, but most games are D3D. It's hard to compare here because it really is apples-to-oranges - the requirements are very different.</p><p>That said, there are obviously still a few OGL games (e.g. older id Tech stuff), though the tendency even for those is to at least provide both OGL and D3D renderers. At the same time, there are also D3D productivity apps - e.g. recent versions of AutoCAD use D3D on Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , AutoCAD , Softimage , Maya , 3ds max , Cinema 4d , Rhino , ZBrush , yeah , it 's just a " few " standing in the way of DirectX right ?
It 's not like THE ENTIRE FUCKING PRODUCTIVITY APP INDUSTRY is using OpenGL , right ? We 've arrived to the point where most productivity apps are OGL , but most games are D3D .
It 's hard to compare here because it really is apples-to-oranges - the requirements are very different.That said , there are obviously still a few OGL games ( e.g .
older id Tech stuff ) , though the tendency even for those is to at least provide both OGL and D3D renderers .
At the same time , there are also D3D productivity apps - e.g .
recent versions of AutoCAD use D3D on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, AutoCAD, Softimage, Maya, 3ds max, Cinema 4d, Rhino, ZBrush, yeah, it's just a "few" standing in the way of DirectX right?
It's not like THE ENTIRE FUCKING PRODUCTIVITY APP INDUSTRY is using OpenGL, right?We've arrived to the point where most productivity apps are OGL, but most games are D3D.
It's hard to compare here because it really is apples-to-oranges - the requirements are very different.That said, there are obviously still a few OGL games (e.g.
older id Tech stuff), though the tendency even for those is to at least provide both OGL and D3D renderers.
At the same time, there are also D3D productivity apps - e.g.
recent versions of AutoCAD use D3D on Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701722</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>neokushan</author>
	<datestamp>1262953020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it hard to believe that DirectX is soley responsible for keeping Windows a monopoly. The vast, vast majority of PCs running windows out there are not used for gaming. What other "technologies" are keeping windows a monopoly? Program compatibility is the only other thing keeping people "tied" to windows, other than them simply being used to it and happy enough. If you want to blame anyone, blame the companies that can't be bothered to port their apps to another platform, not Microsoft for being the platform of choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it hard to believe that DirectX is soley responsible for keeping Windows a monopoly .
The vast , vast majority of PCs running windows out there are not used for gaming .
What other " technologies " are keeping windows a monopoly ?
Program compatibility is the only other thing keeping people " tied " to windows , other than them simply being used to it and happy enough .
If you want to blame anyone , blame the companies that ca n't be bothered to port their apps to another platform , not Microsoft for being the platform of choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it hard to believe that DirectX is soley responsible for keeping Windows a monopoly.
The vast, vast majority of PCs running windows out there are not used for gaming.
What other "technologies" are keeping windows a monopoly?
Program compatibility is the only other thing keeping people "tied" to windows, other than them simply being used to it and happy enough.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the companies that can't be bothered to port their apps to another platform, not Microsoft for being the platform of choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30708552</id>
	<title>Re:SDL 2.0?</title>
	<author>HoppQ</author>
	<datestamp>1263065040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The *nix Analogue for DirectX is SDL. Not OpenGL.</p><p>The thing is, for a few years now, there needed to be an SDL 2.0 that made it as easy to integrate things like Nintendo's Wiimotes, Playstation controllers, and other things. But After all these years, we seem to be stuck on SDL 1.2.x - I don't know why. GTK+ moved on. Qt Moved on, what happened to SDL?</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki\_Software" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Loki</a> [wikipedia.org] died. Funding can make or break free software, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The * nix Analogue for DirectX is SDL .
Not OpenGL.The thing is , for a few years now , there needed to be an SDL 2.0 that made it as easy to integrate things like Nintendo 's Wiimotes , Playstation controllers , and other things .
But After all these years , we seem to be stuck on SDL 1.2.x - I do n't know why .
GTK + moved on .
Qt Moved on , what happened to SDL ?
Loki [ wikipedia.org ] died .
Funding can make or break free software , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The *nix Analogue for DirectX is SDL.
Not OpenGL.The thing is, for a few years now, there needed to be an SDL 2.0 that made it as easy to integrate things like Nintendo's Wiimotes, Playstation controllers, and other things.
But After all these years, we seem to be stuck on SDL 1.2.x - I don't know why.
GTK+ moved on.
Qt Moved on, what happened to SDL?
Loki [wikipedia.org] died.
Funding can make or break free software, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703906</id>
	<title>research, visualisation market, WebGL</title>
	<author>rexguo</author>
	<datestamp>1262966400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's not forget that OpenGL is still the choice of many university research projects and in the scientific visualisation markets. These projects tend to have a much longer shelf life than things like games. Also, Google's efforts in adding 3D to the web, WebGL, is an OpenGL binding to javascript.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not forget that OpenGL is still the choice of many university research projects and in the scientific visualisation markets .
These projects tend to have a much longer shelf life than things like games .
Also , Google 's efforts in adding 3D to the web , WebGL , is an OpenGL binding to javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not forget that OpenGL is still the choice of many university research projects and in the scientific visualisation markets.
These projects tend to have a much longer shelf life than things like games.
Also, Google's efforts in adding 3D to the web, WebGL, is an OpenGL binding to javascript.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701348</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1262951100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Riiight.  And this killer app will compare with "Look at these 10 games released in the last 3 months and the insane graphics they support" how?</p><p>OpenGL is, for the purposes of developing high end 3D content utilizing the latest GPUs from AMD/NVidia, inferior technically to Direct3D.  It just can't keep up.</p><p>Does that mean it sucks?  Absolutely not.  It's just used for a different type of application - e.g. cross platform stuff, CAD stuff, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Riiight .
And this killer app will compare with " Look at these 10 games released in the last 3 months and the insane graphics they support " how ? OpenGL is , for the purposes of developing high end 3D content utilizing the latest GPUs from AMD/NVidia , inferior technically to Direct3D .
It just ca n't keep up.Does that mean it sucks ?
Absolutely not .
It 's just used for a different type of application - e.g .
cross platform stuff , CAD stuff , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Riiight.
And this killer app will compare with "Look at these 10 games released in the last 3 months and the insane graphics they support" how?OpenGL is, for the purposes of developing high end 3D content utilizing the latest GPUs from AMD/NVidia, inferior technically to Direct3D.
It just can't keep up.Does that mean it sucks?
Absolutely not.
It's just used for a different type of application - e.g.
cross platform stuff, CAD stuff, etc...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703614</id>
	<title>Re:I've used both</title>
	<author>sjelkjd</author>
	<datestamp>1262963700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your appeal to authority is based on references(Chris Hecker and John Carmack) who were commenting on the state of Direct3D over 10 years ago!  Chris Hecker's article discusses execute buffers, a feature in Direct X version 3!  John Carmack's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.plan is from 1996.  Comparing DirectX 3 and DX9 is just silly.  The API has drastically changed.  Right around DX9 it was doing a better job of exposing the underlying hardware than OGL.  As of 2003(the last time I used OpenGL) OGL had all these vendor extensions, which meant you had to write different versions of your code(and your shaders!) to work on different hardware(e.g. NV\_VERTEX\_PROGRAM/NV\_FRAGMENT\_PROGRAM was nvidia only, and you needed different code for ATI).  They finally came out with ARB extensions that worked on all hardware.  Also both Nvidia and ATI had separate extensions for uploading geometry to the GPU for a while.  It was a total pain.</p><p>Here's one random example where DirectX has more helper functions than OpenGL.  DirectX has built in support for Quaternions: <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb281611(VS.85).aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb281611(VS.85).aspx</a> [microsoft.com]<br>OpenGL does not(you would need to use a custom library).  Built in font rendering is another example.  You have to load bitmap fonts in OpenGL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your appeal to authority is based on references ( Chris Hecker and John Carmack ) who were commenting on the state of Direct3D over 10 years ago !
Chris Hecker 's article discusses execute buffers , a feature in Direct X version 3 !
John Carmack 's .plan is from 1996 .
Comparing DirectX 3 and DX9 is just silly .
The API has drastically changed .
Right around DX9 it was doing a better job of exposing the underlying hardware than OGL .
As of 2003 ( the last time I used OpenGL ) OGL had all these vendor extensions , which meant you had to write different versions of your code ( and your shaders !
) to work on different hardware ( e.g .
NV \ _VERTEX \ _PROGRAM/NV \ _FRAGMENT \ _PROGRAM was nvidia only , and you needed different code for ATI ) .
They finally came out with ARB extensions that worked on all hardware .
Also both Nvidia and ATI had separate extensions for uploading geometry to the GPU for a while .
It was a total pain.Here 's one random example where DirectX has more helper functions than OpenGL .
DirectX has built in support for Quaternions : http : //msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb281611 ( VS.85 ) .aspx [ microsoft.com ] OpenGL does not ( you would need to use a custom library ) .
Built in font rendering is another example .
You have to load bitmap fonts in OpenGL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your appeal to authority is based on references(Chris Hecker and John Carmack) who were commenting on the state of Direct3D over 10 years ago!
Chris Hecker's article discusses execute buffers, a feature in Direct X version 3!
John Carmack's .plan is from 1996.
Comparing DirectX 3 and DX9 is just silly.
The API has drastically changed.
Right around DX9 it was doing a better job of exposing the underlying hardware than OGL.
As of 2003(the last time I used OpenGL) OGL had all these vendor extensions, which meant you had to write different versions of your code(and your shaders!
) to work on different hardware(e.g.
NV\_VERTEX\_PROGRAM/NV\_FRAGMENT\_PROGRAM was nvidia only, and you needed different code for ATI).
They finally came out with ARB extensions that worked on all hardware.
Also both Nvidia and ATI had separate extensions for uploading geometry to the GPU for a while.
It was a total pain.Here's one random example where DirectX has more helper functions than OpenGL.
DirectX has built in support for Quaternions: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb281611(VS.85).aspx [microsoft.com]OpenGL does not(you would need to use a custom library).
Built in font rendering is another example.
You have to load bitmap fonts in OpenGL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700416</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>Alcimedes</author>
	<datestamp>1262946840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if they tighten things up they'll be better able to compete?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if they tighten things up they 'll be better able to compete ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if they tighten things up they'll be better able to compete?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1262947140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Windows didn't have these technologies used to prop it up we'd have far less Windows in the world, which, in many ways would be the greatest thing for the consumer and the industry (as far as innovation and progress goes).  Without DirectX propping up the monopoly we'd have other technologies and far more companies that would provide innovative competition, thus providing more, and often better, products.</p><p>We know that when you have a large number of competitors you get better products.  The eReaders are a perfect example.  First the Kindle and now about 10 competitors all showing that the competition has created a much greater choice for consumers as well as better features.  Further netbooks and tablet PCs as well as touch capabilities in phones and the tablets are perfect examples of what happens when there's no technology to lock you in thus propping up the monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows did n't have these technologies used to prop it up we 'd have far less Windows in the world , which , in many ways would be the greatest thing for the consumer and the industry ( as far as innovation and progress goes ) .
Without DirectX propping up the monopoly we 'd have other technologies and far more companies that would provide innovative competition , thus providing more , and often better , products.We know that when you have a large number of competitors you get better products .
The eReaders are a perfect example .
First the Kindle and now about 10 competitors all showing that the competition has created a much greater choice for consumers as well as better features .
Further netbooks and tablet PCs as well as touch capabilities in phones and the tablets are perfect examples of what happens when there 's no technology to lock you in thus propping up the monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows didn't have these technologies used to prop it up we'd have far less Windows in the world, which, in many ways would be the greatest thing for the consumer and the industry (as far as innovation and progress goes).
Without DirectX propping up the monopoly we'd have other technologies and far more companies that would provide innovative competition, thus providing more, and often better, products.We know that when you have a large number of competitors you get better products.
The eReaders are a perfect example.
First the Kindle and now about 10 competitors all showing that the competition has created a much greater choice for consumers as well as better features.
Further netbooks and tablet PCs as well as touch capabilities in phones and the tablets are perfect examples of what happens when there's no technology to lock you in thus propping up the monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702424</id>
	<title>Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1262956260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you develop via OpenGL you can address XP+Vista, Mac, Linux, iPhone, and Android, plus all the major consoles. Its one stop shopping. With DX and comparable graphics with OpenGL, you can only target Vista.</p></div><p>There are three major game consoles. Two (PS3, Wii) use something strongly resembling OpenGL or OpenGL ES; one (Xbox 360) uses DirectX. Two (PS3, Wii) require developers to be medium or large businesses; one (Xbox 360) has a public developer program that Apple copied for the iPhone. So this means that unless you have a dedicated office and a commercially successful PC title, you have to develop your first console title for DirectX.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you develop via OpenGL you can address XP + Vista , Mac , Linux , iPhone , and Android , plus all the major consoles .
Its one stop shopping .
With DX and comparable graphics with OpenGL , you can only target Vista.There are three major game consoles .
Two ( PS3 , Wii ) use something strongly resembling OpenGL or OpenGL ES ; one ( Xbox 360 ) uses DirectX .
Two ( PS3 , Wii ) require developers to be medium or large businesses ; one ( Xbox 360 ) has a public developer program that Apple copied for the iPhone .
So this means that unless you have a dedicated office and a commercially successful PC title , you have to develop your first console title for DirectX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you develop via OpenGL you can address XP+Vista, Mac, Linux, iPhone, and Android, plus all the major consoles.
Its one stop shopping.
With DX and comparable graphics with OpenGL, you can only target Vista.There are three major game consoles.
Two (PS3, Wii) use something strongly resembling OpenGL or OpenGL ES; one (Xbox 360) uses DirectX.
Two (PS3, Wii) require developers to be medium or large businesses; one (Xbox 360) has a public developer program that Apple copied for the iPhone.
So this means that unless you have a dedicated office and a commercially successful PC title, you have to develop your first console title for DirectX.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706512</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1263042000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yo Frankie? No wait, that game fails as a game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yo Frankie ?
No wait , that game fails as a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yo Frankie?
No wait, that game fails as a game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701774</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262953260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is not stopping any one from creating competitors to DirectX. Just nobody has created something of the same caliber - you're free to create something with more power, better documentation, more flexibility then directX. OpenGL has failed to so far, that's not Microsoft's fault.

Use DirectX in your development and with less effort realism is added into games, less effort for sounds etc, and there are plenty of examples and very high quality documentation. (openGL documentation doesn't come close)

It's not Microsoft's fault nobody else has created something better<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is not stopping any one from creating competitors to DirectX .
Just nobody has created something of the same caliber - you 're free to create something with more power , better documentation , more flexibility then directX .
OpenGL has failed to so far , that 's not Microsoft 's fault .
Use DirectX in your development and with less effort realism is added into games , less effort for sounds etc , and there are plenty of examples and very high quality documentation .
( openGL documentation does n't come close ) It 's not Microsoft 's fault nobody else has created something better .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is not stopping any one from creating competitors to DirectX.
Just nobody has created something of the same caliber - you're free to create something with more power, better documentation, more flexibility then directX.
OpenGL has failed to so far, that's not Microsoft's fault.
Use DirectX in your development and with less effort realism is added into games, less effort for sounds etc, and there are plenty of examples and very high quality documentation.
(openGL documentation doesn't come close)

It's not Microsoft's fault nobody else has created something better ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700846</id>
	<title>Re:OGL V D3D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262948880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DirectX is not available on MacOS. The iPhone does not support DirectX. Linux does not support DirectX. Everybody in academia uses OpenGL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DirectX is not available on MacOS .
The iPhone does not support DirectX .
Linux does not support DirectX .
Everybody in academia uses OpenGL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DirectX is not available on MacOS.
The iPhone does not support DirectX.
Linux does not support DirectX.
Everybody in academia uses OpenGL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701160</id>
	<title>Re:Direct X and the Xbox</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1262950260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure if you've noticed, but both windows and the Xbox/360 use DirectX, which represents something like 50-90\% of the "gaming market".</p></div></blockquote><p>Could you make those error bars a bit bigger? You almost said something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if you 've noticed , but both windows and the Xbox/360 use DirectX , which represents something like 50-90 \ % of the " gaming market " .Could you make those error bars a bit bigger ?
You almost said something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if you've noticed, but both windows and the Xbox/360 use DirectX, which represents something like 50-90\% of the "gaming market".Could you make those error bars a bit bigger?
You almost said something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702490</id>
	<title>Re:An Amateur's Perspective - OpenGL vs DirectX</title>
	<author>Prune</author>
	<datestamp>1262956500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And here's another application of your argument pattern:

Basic is <i>much</i> easier to write working code than C++.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here 's another application of your argument pattern : Basic is much easier to write working code than C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here's another application of your argument pattern:

Basic is much easier to write working code than C++.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700986</id>
	<title>Cross Platform OpenGL is a Myth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262949600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that OpenGL is cross-platform is a myth spread by uneducated fools:<br>- Mac OSX, which is the main system you would do OpenGL based games for, has a piss poor, shitty implementation of OpenGL that is so useless and outdated that you cannot really do much of anyting with. Apple really dropped the fucking ball on this one and I am surprised they dont get called out more for fucking up things so badly. Words cannot describe how horrible OSX OpenGL is, you guys bitch about Windows OpenGL support have no idea the level of hell OSX OpenGL is.<br>- PS3 has its own OpenGL way of doing things (hey go figure, Sony makes things difficult for its developers... therse a shocking revelation) that you need to code around and utilize its multiple processors to best utilize.<br>- Linux no one gives a rats ass about making games for. Sorry Linux fanboi's but its the truth.<br>- OpenGL ES isn't OpenGL</p><p>Sorry guys but the reason why OpenGL has gotten the crap kicked out of it recently and lost support has nothing to do with Microsoft, the Xbox or even Nvidia or AMD. It has everything to do with OpenGL being an outdated and non relevent solution towards allowing game developers to be productive and provide the features that are needed for today's applications. Worse yet the biggest problems with OpenGL has to do more with the fact that the "partners" in it spend more time trying to manipulate the spec to best benefit their company and not the 'standard' itself. All this time Microsoft has moved forward and iterated through DirectX and Direct3D with both good and bad results much faster and provided what game developers need in the end for PC and Xbox development.</p><p>With regards to the shameless POS FUD blog that these Wildfire guys posted. The point that they clearly miss in the whole arguement is that good game engines made by competent developers have a graphics abstraction layer that allows the developer to use the best possible rendering API for each platform the game will be released on. These guys clearly need to get their facts straight before they post sensational crap that people with experiance are clearly calling them out on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that OpenGL is cross-platform is a myth spread by uneducated fools : - Mac OSX , which is the main system you would do OpenGL based games for , has a piss poor , shitty implementation of OpenGL that is so useless and outdated that you can not really do much of anyting with .
Apple really dropped the fucking ball on this one and I am surprised they dont get called out more for fucking up things so badly .
Words can not describe how horrible OSX OpenGL is , you guys bitch about Windows OpenGL support have no idea the level of hell OSX OpenGL is.- PS3 has its own OpenGL way of doing things ( hey go figure , Sony makes things difficult for its developers... therse a shocking revelation ) that you need to code around and utilize its multiple processors to best utilize.- Linux no one gives a rats ass about making games for .
Sorry Linux fanboi 's but its the truth.- OpenGL ES is n't OpenGLSorry guys but the reason why OpenGL has gotten the crap kicked out of it recently and lost support has nothing to do with Microsoft , the Xbox or even Nvidia or AMD .
It has everything to do with OpenGL being an outdated and non relevent solution towards allowing game developers to be productive and provide the features that are needed for today 's applications .
Worse yet the biggest problems with OpenGL has to do more with the fact that the " partners " in it spend more time trying to manipulate the spec to best benefit their company and not the 'standard ' itself .
All this time Microsoft has moved forward and iterated through DirectX and Direct3D with both good and bad results much faster and provided what game developers need in the end for PC and Xbox development.With regards to the shameless POS FUD blog that these Wildfire guys posted .
The point that they clearly miss in the whole arguement is that good game engines made by competent developers have a graphics abstraction layer that allows the developer to use the best possible rendering API for each platform the game will be released on .
These guys clearly need to get their facts straight before they post sensational crap that people with experiance are clearly calling them out on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that OpenGL is cross-platform is a myth spread by uneducated fools:- Mac OSX, which is the main system you would do OpenGL based games for, has a piss poor, shitty implementation of OpenGL that is so useless and outdated that you cannot really do much of anyting with.
Apple really dropped the fucking ball on this one and I am surprised they dont get called out more for fucking up things so badly.
Words cannot describe how horrible OSX OpenGL is, you guys bitch about Windows OpenGL support have no idea the level of hell OSX OpenGL is.- PS3 has its own OpenGL way of doing things (hey go figure, Sony makes things difficult for its developers... therse a shocking revelation) that you need to code around and utilize its multiple processors to best utilize.- Linux no one gives a rats ass about making games for.
Sorry Linux fanboi's but its the truth.- OpenGL ES isn't OpenGLSorry guys but the reason why OpenGL has gotten the crap kicked out of it recently and lost support has nothing to do with Microsoft, the Xbox or even Nvidia or AMD.
It has everything to do with OpenGL being an outdated and non relevent solution towards allowing game developers to be productive and provide the features that are needed for today's applications.
Worse yet the biggest problems with OpenGL has to do more with the fact that the "partners" in it spend more time trying to manipulate the spec to best benefit their company and not the 'standard' itself.
All this time Microsoft has moved forward and iterated through DirectX and Direct3D with both good and bad results much faster and provided what game developers need in the end for PC and Xbox development.With regards to the shameless POS FUD blog that these Wildfire guys posted.
The point that they clearly miss in the whole arguement is that good game engines made by competent developers have a graphics abstraction layer that allows the developer to use the best possible rendering API for each platform the game will be released on.
These guys clearly need to get their facts straight before they post sensational crap that people with experiance are clearly calling them out on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702294</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sorry but I don't really care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262955660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as Nvidia and Ati are writing the drivers, you will need to reboot no matter what OS you are using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as Nvidia and Ati are writing the drivers , you will need to reboot no matter what OS you are using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as Nvidia and Ati are writing the drivers, you will need to reboot no matter what OS you are using.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700690</id>
	<title>Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL</title>
	<author>pyalot</author>
	<datestamp>1262948160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, AutoCAD, Softimage, Maya, 3ds max, Cinema 4d, Rhino, ZBrush, yeah, it's just a "few" standing in the way of DirectX right? It's not like THE ENTIRE FUCKING PRODUCTIVITY APP INDUSTRY is using OpenGL, right? Geeze, get a clue man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , AutoCAD , Softimage , Maya , 3ds max , Cinema 4d , Rhino , ZBrush , yeah , it 's just a " few " standing in the way of DirectX right ?
It 's not like THE ENTIRE FUCKING PRODUCTIVITY APP INDUSTRY is using OpenGL , right ?
Geeze , get a clue man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, AutoCAD, Softimage, Maya, 3ds max, Cinema 4d, Rhino, ZBrush, yeah, it's just a "few" standing in the way of DirectX right?
It's not like THE ENTIRE FUCKING PRODUCTIVITY APP INDUSTRY is using OpenGL, right?
Geeze, get a clue man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705600</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>dotwaffle</author>
	<datestamp>1263070620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Historically, OpenGL has always been *easier* to code for, faster code execution, and generally able to compete based on the fact it's a graphics library and *NOT* a 3D Gaming API. That's not what it's for at all, it's a Graphics Library.</p><p>DirectX, on the other hand, has been more interested in providing a one-size-fits-all solution, doing user-input, networking, sound etc, all of which is rapidly becoming deprecated in the eyes of Microsoft.</p><p>As a 30,000 foot view of the two projects would imply, OpenGL defines a series of methods of doing things, with common physical/mathematical operations being specified as functions to make it both easier and faster to do things, while DirectX focuses on defining a new specification and forcing the hardware manufacturers to "keep up".</p><p>DirectX is the monopoly, beating manufacturers with a stick and screaming at customers going "I'm better!" while OpenGL has just got on with the job. The fact is, these days, there isn't much between them, and it comes down to what your use case is. If you want something that is going to be used in a gaming environment, you tend to lean towards DirectX. If you want something that is going to be used for a simulation environment, you tend to lean towards OpenGL. YMMV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Historically , OpenGL has always been * easier * to code for , faster code execution , and generally able to compete based on the fact it 's a graphics library and * NOT * a 3D Gaming API .
That 's not what it 's for at all , it 's a Graphics Library.DirectX , on the other hand , has been more interested in providing a one-size-fits-all solution , doing user-input , networking , sound etc , all of which is rapidly becoming deprecated in the eyes of Microsoft.As a 30,000 foot view of the two projects would imply , OpenGL defines a series of methods of doing things , with common physical/mathematical operations being specified as functions to make it both easier and faster to do things , while DirectX focuses on defining a new specification and forcing the hardware manufacturers to " keep up " .DirectX is the monopoly , beating manufacturers with a stick and screaming at customers going " I 'm better !
" while OpenGL has just got on with the job .
The fact is , these days , there is n't much between them , and it comes down to what your use case is .
If you want something that is going to be used in a gaming environment , you tend to lean towards DirectX .
If you want something that is going to be used for a simulation environment , you tend to lean towards OpenGL .
YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Historically, OpenGL has always been *easier* to code for, faster code execution, and generally able to compete based on the fact it's a graphics library and *NOT* a 3D Gaming API.
That's not what it's for at all, it's a Graphics Library.DirectX, on the other hand, has been more interested in providing a one-size-fits-all solution, doing user-input, networking, sound etc, all of which is rapidly becoming deprecated in the eyes of Microsoft.As a 30,000 foot view of the two projects would imply, OpenGL defines a series of methods of doing things, with common physical/mathematical operations being specified as functions to make it both easier and faster to do things, while DirectX focuses on defining a new specification and forcing the hardware manufacturers to "keep up".DirectX is the monopoly, beating manufacturers with a stick and screaming at customers going "I'm better!
" while OpenGL has just got on with the job.
The fact is, these days, there isn't much between them, and it comes down to what your use case is.
If you want something that is going to be used in a gaming environment, you tend to lean towards DirectX.
If you want something that is going to be used for a simulation environment, you tend to lean towards OpenGL.
YMMV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30704622</id>
	<title>Re:I've used both</title>
	<author>Rycross</author>
	<datestamp>1262972760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same Chris Hecker that <a href="http://chrishecker.com/OpenGL" title="chrishecker.com">currently recommends you use Direct3D for production code</a> [chrishecker.com] on his web page?
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, finally getting to the actual advice, if you want a better chance of getting your code to work using "mainstream cutting edge features" (say, lots of render-to-texture, deep render target pixel formats, etc.), and you don't want to fight a battle with your publisher, you're probably better off using Direct3D. If you only need to use a safe subset of features that lags the cutting edge by a year or so, and you want the nicer programming experience, or if you want to use the most bleeding edge stuff that's only available in vendor extensions, then you should use OpenGL.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I write all of my prototypes, tools, and indie games in OpenGL, because it's just more agile and toolkit-y. And fun. Don't underestimate the motivational power of having fun while you program. The games I work on for big companies are almost all written in Direct3D.</p> </div><p>Sure, he's still recommending OpenGL for prototypes or experimental stuff, but its kinda damning praise, don't you think?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same Chris Hecker that currently recommends you use Direct3D for production code [ chrishecker.com ] on his web page ?
However , finally getting to the actual advice , if you want a better chance of getting your code to work using " mainstream cutting edge features " ( say , lots of render-to-texture , deep render target pixel formats , etc .
) , and you do n't want to fight a battle with your publisher , you 're probably better off using Direct3D .
If you only need to use a safe subset of features that lags the cutting edge by a year or so , and you want the nicer programming experience , or if you want to use the most bleeding edge stuff that 's only available in vendor extensions , then you should use OpenGL.Personally , I write all of my prototypes , tools , and indie games in OpenGL , because it 's just more agile and toolkit-y .
And fun .
Do n't underestimate the motivational power of having fun while you program .
The games I work on for big companies are almost all written in Direct3D .
Sure , he 's still recommending OpenGL for prototypes or experimental stuff , but its kinda damning praise , do n't you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same Chris Hecker that currently recommends you use Direct3D for production code [chrishecker.com] on his web page?
However, finally getting to the actual advice, if you want a better chance of getting your code to work using "mainstream cutting edge features" (say, lots of render-to-texture, deep render target pixel formats, etc.
), and you don't want to fight a battle with your publisher, you're probably better off using Direct3D.
If you only need to use a safe subset of features that lags the cutting edge by a year or so, and you want the nicer programming experience, or if you want to use the most bleeding edge stuff that's only available in vendor extensions, then you should use OpenGL.Personally, I write all of my prototypes, tools, and indie games in OpenGL, because it's just more agile and toolkit-y.
And fun.
Don't underestimate the motivational power of having fun while you program.
The games I work on for big companies are almost all written in Direct3D.
Sure, he's still recommending OpenGL for prototypes or experimental stuff, but its kinda damning praise, don't you think?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701544</id>
	<title>OpenGL is great!</title>
	<author>WhiteFluffyChest</author>
	<datestamp>1262952180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many platforms that use OpenGL, like PS3, Wii and iPhone etc, etc...</p><p>I don't know of one killer D3D app that can't be done with OpenGL, in fact OpenGL can do anything that D3D can, they are just APIs.</p><p>True, Microsoft have created a simple platform to develop on, and it is more user friendly.  But it is just a developers trap.</p><p>Cross platform development can be achieved with a little more effort.  And if you look round the web, I'm sure you'll find cross platform libraries for game development, both free and commercial.</p><p>For instance look at the Lego games, they are cross platform, and I am looking forward to Bioshock on the Mac.  There was a time when I though that Microsoft had cornered the market, but if you have a PS3, Wii, iPhone and Mac.  There is not much you can't get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many platforms that use OpenGL , like PS3 , Wii and iPhone etc , etc...I do n't know of one killer D3D app that ca n't be done with OpenGL , in fact OpenGL can do anything that D3D can , they are just APIs.True , Microsoft have created a simple platform to develop on , and it is more user friendly .
But it is just a developers trap.Cross platform development can be achieved with a little more effort .
And if you look round the web , I 'm sure you 'll find cross platform libraries for game development , both free and commercial.For instance look at the Lego games , they are cross platform , and I am looking forward to Bioshock on the Mac .
There was a time when I though that Microsoft had cornered the market , but if you have a PS3 , Wii , iPhone and Mac .
There is not much you ca n't get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many platforms that use OpenGL, like PS3, Wii and iPhone etc, etc...I don't know of one killer D3D app that can't be done with OpenGL, in fact OpenGL can do anything that D3D can, they are just APIs.True, Microsoft have created a simple platform to develop on, and it is more user friendly.
But it is just a developers trap.Cross platform development can be achieved with a little more effort.
And if you look round the web, I'm sure you'll find cross platform libraries for game development, both free and commercial.For instance look at the Lego games, they are cross platform, and I am looking forward to Bioshock on the Mac.
There was a time when I though that Microsoft had cornered the market, but if you have a PS3, Wii, iPhone and Mac.
There is not much you can't get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702330</id>
	<title>SDL 2.0?</title>
	<author>Zombie Ryushu</author>
	<datestamp>1262955780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The *nix Analogue for DirectX is SDL. Not OpenGL.</p><p>The thing is, for a few years now, there needed to be an SDL 2.0 that made it as easy to integrate things like Nintendo's Wiimotes, Playstation controllers, and other things. But After all these years, we seem to be stuck on SDL 1.2.x - I don't know why. GTK+ moved on. Qt Moved on, what happened to SDL?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The * nix Analogue for DirectX is SDL .
Not OpenGL.The thing is , for a few years now , there needed to be an SDL 2.0 that made it as easy to integrate things like Nintendo 's Wiimotes , Playstation controllers , and other things .
But After all these years , we seem to be stuck on SDL 1.2.x - I do n't know why .
GTK + moved on .
Qt Moved on , what happened to SDL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The *nix Analogue for DirectX is SDL.
Not OpenGL.The thing is, for a few years now, there needed to be an SDL 2.0 that made it as easy to integrate things like Nintendo's Wiimotes, Playstation controllers, and other things.
But After all these years, we seem to be stuck on SDL 1.2.x - I don't know why.
GTK+ moved on.
Qt Moved on, what happened to SDL?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705226</id>
	<title>OpenX</title>
	<author>sixsixtysix</author>
	<datestamp>1262979180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why not combine opengl, sdl, qt,etc into one package?</htmltext>
<tokenext>why not combine opengl , sdl , qt,etc into one package ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not combine opengl, sdl, qt,etc into one package?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sorry but I don't really care</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262948040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I exclusively use Windows for PC gaming. I could give two flying F's whether my game is developed in OGL or DX.</i></p><p>If more games were developed in OGL, they would be easier to port to other operating systems (or run under Wine)so you wouldn't need to use Windows anymore.  That would save you a hundred bucks or so on a Windows license, or at the very least the need to reboot to play a game. That's got to be worth at least one flying F.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I exclusively use Windows for PC gaming .
I could give two flying F 's whether my game is developed in OGL or DX.If more games were developed in OGL , they would be easier to port to other operating systems ( or run under Wine ) so you would n't need to use Windows anymore .
That would save you a hundred bucks or so on a Windows license , or at the very least the need to reboot to play a game .
That 's got to be worth at least one flying F .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I exclusively use Windows for PC gaming.
I could give two flying F's whether my game is developed in OGL or DX.If more games were developed in OGL, they would be easier to port to other operating systems (or run under Wine)so you wouldn't need to use Windows anymore.
That would save you a hundred bucks or so on a Windows license, or at the very least the need to reboot to play a game.
That's got to be worth at least one flying F.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30704322</id>
	<title>ok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262969880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cant we all get along --Rodney King</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cant we all get along --Rodney King</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cant we all get along --Rodney King</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702388</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>Prune</author>
	<datestamp>1262956020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OpenGL 3.x with the omitted deprecated functionality IS quite easy to use, as the pruning the committee has done is significant, and things are much better organized and appear more orthogonal, while retaining the flexibility of what you do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenGL 3.x with the omitted deprecated functionality IS quite easy to use , as the pruning the committee has done is significant , and things are much better organized and appear more orthogonal , while retaining the flexibility of what you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenGL 3.x with the omitted deprecated functionality IS quite easy to use, as the pruning the committee has done is significant, and things are much better organized and appear more orthogonal, while retaining the flexibility of what you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702004</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262954280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One big advantage of an open standard is that you can implement it on whatever system you wish.  OpenGL is available pretty much everywhere that's even close to reasonable.  DirectX is ONLY available where Microsoft has written an implementation - on MS platforms.</p><p>It's starting to bite them now.  All the smart phones (except the Windows Mobile ones I guess) are running OpenGL ES.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One big advantage of an open standard is that you can implement it on whatever system you wish .
OpenGL is available pretty much everywhere that 's even close to reasonable .
DirectX is ONLY available where Microsoft has written an implementation - on MS platforms.It 's starting to bite them now .
All the smart phones ( except the Windows Mobile ones I guess ) are running OpenGL ES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One big advantage of an open standard is that you can implement it on whatever system you wish.
OpenGL is available pretty much everywhere that's even close to reasonable.
DirectX is ONLY available where Microsoft has written an implementation - on MS platforms.It's starting to bite them now.
All the smart phones (except the Windows Mobile ones I guess) are running OpenGL ES.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700684</id>
	<title>Direct X and the Xbox</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1262948100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if you've noticed, but both windows and the Xbox/360 use DirectX, which represents something like 50-90\% of the "gaming market". It's simply easier to write your game/engine for Direct X and be ready to port it to console/PC with little more than a recompile. I don't know if the Xbox supports openGL at all, but I doubt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if you 've noticed , but both windows and the Xbox/360 use DirectX , which represents something like 50-90 \ % of the " gaming market " .
It 's simply easier to write your game/engine for Direct X and be ready to port it to console/PC with little more than a recompile .
I do n't know if the Xbox supports openGL at all , but I doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if you've noticed, but both windows and the Xbox/360 use DirectX, which represents something like 50-90\% of the "gaming market".
It's simply easier to write your game/engine for Direct X and be ready to port it to console/PC with little more than a recompile.
I don't know if the Xbox supports openGL at all, but I doubt it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700818</id>
	<title>Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1262948760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really the last place OpenGL stands strong is in AutoCAD and even they have indicated that the platform will not last longer, so we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years.</p></div><p>I find that hard to believe. Right now there is a new renaissance in game development and game platforms. Mobile platforms are just now grabbing noteworthy market share and it looks like its only continuing to grow as more mobile devices increase in capability - especially 3d capabilities. Thus far that segment has clearly spoken. Thus far this segment is OpenGL and/or OpenGL ES. And that's entirely his point. You want to chase an emerging market plus cover all other platforms, you have exactly one option - OpenGL.</p><p>If you develop via OpenGL you can address XP+Vista, Mac, Linux, iPhone, and Android, plus all the major consoles. Its one stop shopping. With DX and comparable graphics with OpenGL, you can only target Vista. If you want Vista + XP + Consoles, you're looking at DX9 which is a subpar graphics experience compared to that which is provided by OpenGL. Simply put, OpenGL provides you more platforms more easily.</p><p>We most certainly have not reached any critical point which can not be reversed. As the author clearly points out, OpenGL vs MS is much the same today as it was in the past. At this point, its strictly about mind share and that needs to change.</p><p>Much is said that OpenGL is less than DX, and that's true. But people seem in a hurry to ignore the fact that there is a standardize solution which is OpenGL/OpenAL/OpenSL/SDL. When game developers talk about OpenGL as a solution, they really mean all four. OpenGL has a complete solution which addresses both CAD and gamers alike. The only questions is, are companies smart enough to realize this - far too often, its seems not because of the MS marketing. And as I've said many times before here, MS is not so much a technology company as they are a marketing company. Generally speaking their technology is second rate, but their marketing and business prowess is world renowned. All too often people confuse the facts.</p><p>Ultimately, the problem is that the PHB making the technology decision is simply unaware of the poor MS-centric decision they are making, which is then costing them additional dollars to later turn around and target the platforms they specifically excluded themselves from by picking DX in the first place. OpenGL needs to be championed by someone that understands how to speak PHB so that OpenGL can be fairly evaluated. Right now the only contender who is whispering into the PHB's ear is MS, and as a result, everyone is losing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really the last place OpenGL stands strong is in AutoCAD and even they have indicated that the platform will not last longer , so we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years.I find that hard to believe .
Right now there is a new renaissance in game development and game platforms .
Mobile platforms are just now grabbing noteworthy market share and it looks like its only continuing to grow as more mobile devices increase in capability - especially 3d capabilities .
Thus far that segment has clearly spoken .
Thus far this segment is OpenGL and/or OpenGL ES .
And that 's entirely his point .
You want to chase an emerging market plus cover all other platforms , you have exactly one option - OpenGL.If you develop via OpenGL you can address XP + Vista , Mac , Linux , iPhone , and Android , plus all the major consoles .
Its one stop shopping .
With DX and comparable graphics with OpenGL , you can only target Vista .
If you want Vista + XP + Consoles , you 're looking at DX9 which is a subpar graphics experience compared to that which is provided by OpenGL .
Simply put , OpenGL provides you more platforms more easily.We most certainly have not reached any critical point which can not be reversed .
As the author clearly points out , OpenGL vs MS is much the same today as it was in the past .
At this point , its strictly about mind share and that needs to change.Much is said that OpenGL is less than DX , and that 's true .
But people seem in a hurry to ignore the fact that there is a standardize solution which is OpenGL/OpenAL/OpenSL/SDL .
When game developers talk about OpenGL as a solution , they really mean all four .
OpenGL has a complete solution which addresses both CAD and gamers alike .
The only questions is , are companies smart enough to realize this - far too often , its seems not because of the MS marketing .
And as I 've said many times before here , MS is not so much a technology company as they are a marketing company .
Generally speaking their technology is second rate , but their marketing and business prowess is world renowned .
All too often people confuse the facts.Ultimately , the problem is that the PHB making the technology decision is simply unaware of the poor MS-centric decision they are making , which is then costing them additional dollars to later turn around and target the platforms they specifically excluded themselves from by picking DX in the first place .
OpenGL needs to be championed by someone that understands how to speak PHB so that OpenGL can be fairly evaluated .
Right now the only contender who is whispering into the PHB 's ear is MS , and as a result , everyone is losing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really the last place OpenGL stands strong is in AutoCAD and even they have indicated that the platform will not last longer, so we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years.I find that hard to believe.
Right now there is a new renaissance in game development and game platforms.
Mobile platforms are just now grabbing noteworthy market share and it looks like its only continuing to grow as more mobile devices increase in capability - especially 3d capabilities.
Thus far that segment has clearly spoken.
Thus far this segment is OpenGL and/or OpenGL ES.
And that's entirely his point.
You want to chase an emerging market plus cover all other platforms, you have exactly one option - OpenGL.If you develop via OpenGL you can address XP+Vista, Mac, Linux, iPhone, and Android, plus all the major consoles.
Its one stop shopping.
With DX and comparable graphics with OpenGL, you can only target Vista.
If you want Vista + XP + Consoles, you're looking at DX9 which is a subpar graphics experience compared to that which is provided by OpenGL.
Simply put, OpenGL provides you more platforms more easily.We most certainly have not reached any critical point which can not be reversed.
As the author clearly points out, OpenGL vs MS is much the same today as it was in the past.
At this point, its strictly about mind share and that needs to change.Much is said that OpenGL is less than DX, and that's true.
But people seem in a hurry to ignore the fact that there is a standardize solution which is OpenGL/OpenAL/OpenSL/SDL.
When game developers talk about OpenGL as a solution, they really mean all four.
OpenGL has a complete solution which addresses both CAD and gamers alike.
The only questions is, are companies smart enough to realize this - far too often, its seems not because of the MS marketing.
And as I've said many times before here, MS is not so much a technology company as they are a marketing company.
Generally speaking their technology is second rate, but their marketing and business prowess is world renowned.
All too often people confuse the facts.Ultimately, the problem is that the PHB making the technology decision is simply unaware of the poor MS-centric decision they are making, which is then costing them additional dollars to later turn around and target the platforms they specifically excluded themselves from by picking DX in the first place.
OpenGL needs to be championed by someone that understands how to speak PHB so that OpenGL can be fairly evaluated.
Right now the only contender who is whispering into the PHB's ear is MS, and as a result, everyone is losing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700764</id>
	<title>Oh ok...</title>
	<author>Schnoogs</author>
	<datestamp>1262948520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>funny how the article doesn't mention that guys like John Carmack have gone on to use DirectX for various things and I don't seem him crying about using it for the XBox 360.</htmltext>
<tokenext>funny how the article does n't mention that guys like John Carmack have gone on to use DirectX for various things and I do n't seem him crying about using it for the XBox 360 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>funny how the article doesn't mention that guys like John Carmack have gone on to use DirectX for various things and I don't seem him crying about using it for the XBox 360.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702086</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>Ronin Developer</author>
	<datestamp>1262954700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We know that when you have a large number of competitors you get better products.  The eReaders are a perfect example.  First the Kindle and now about 10 competitors all showing that the competition has created a much greater choice for consumers as well as better features.  Further netbooks and tablet PCs as well as touch capabilities in phones and the tablets are perfect examples of what happens when there's no technology to lock you in thus propping up the monopoly.</p></div><p>The problem with this argument is that with the Kindle there are now 10 competitors with 10 different document specifications.  Netbooks and tablet PCs are based on a few operating systems - Windows being the primary OS.  The manufacturers of those devices, while diverse, are based on a common hardware architecture.</p><p>The argument of superiority, while it may be true, won't matter if there isn't a significant adoption.  Look at Betamax vs VHS.  Betamax was clearly the superior technology, yet it lost out  to the sheer marketing power put behind VHS.  Borland had superior development tools to Microsoft in every way DESPITE Microsoft owning the technology.  Yet, Borland blew it.</p><p>OpenGL will survive in niche circles and won't make it make stream unless a concerted effort is made to promote it and it gains a foothold in established development houses. This article did nothing to make me want to jump on the bandwagon (I am not a game developer...but, the argument wasn't persuasive enough for me).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We know that when you have a large number of competitors you get better products .
The eReaders are a perfect example .
First the Kindle and now about 10 competitors all showing that the competition has created a much greater choice for consumers as well as better features .
Further netbooks and tablet PCs as well as touch capabilities in phones and the tablets are perfect examples of what happens when there 's no technology to lock you in thus propping up the monopoly.The problem with this argument is that with the Kindle there are now 10 competitors with 10 different document specifications .
Netbooks and tablet PCs are based on a few operating systems - Windows being the primary OS .
The manufacturers of those devices , while diverse , are based on a common hardware architecture.The argument of superiority , while it may be true , wo n't matter if there is n't a significant adoption .
Look at Betamax vs VHS .
Betamax was clearly the superior technology , yet it lost out to the sheer marketing power put behind VHS .
Borland had superior development tools to Microsoft in every way DESPITE Microsoft owning the technology .
Yet , Borland blew it.OpenGL will survive in niche circles and wo n't make it make stream unless a concerted effort is made to promote it and it gains a foothold in established development houses .
This article did nothing to make me want to jump on the bandwagon ( I am not a game developer...but , the argument was n't persuasive enough for me ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know that when you have a large number of competitors you get better products.
The eReaders are a perfect example.
First the Kindle and now about 10 competitors all showing that the competition has created a much greater choice for consumers as well as better features.
Further netbooks and tablet PCs as well as touch capabilities in phones and the tablets are perfect examples of what happens when there's no technology to lock you in thus propping up the monopoly.The problem with this argument is that with the Kindle there are now 10 competitors with 10 different document specifications.
Netbooks and tablet PCs are based on a few operating systems - Windows being the primary OS.
The manufacturers of those devices, while diverse, are based on a common hardware architecture.The argument of superiority, while it may be true, won't matter if there isn't a significant adoption.
Look at Betamax vs VHS.
Betamax was clearly the superior technology, yet it lost out  to the sheer marketing power put behind VHS.
Borland had superior development tools to Microsoft in every way DESPITE Microsoft owning the technology.
Yet, Borland blew it.OpenGL will survive in niche circles and won't make it make stream unless a concerted effort is made to promote it and it gains a foothold in established development houses.
This article did nothing to make me want to jump on the bandwagon (I am not a game developer...but, the argument wasn't persuasive enough for me).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702596</id>
	<title>Re:Not for ATI cards</title>
	<author>WhiteFluffyChest</author>
	<datestamp>1262957160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How vulgar!</p><p>Doesn't the Wii use ATI and OGL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How vulgar ! Does n't the Wii use ATI and OGL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How vulgar!Doesn't the Wii use ATI and OGL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701632</id>
	<title>Re:I've used both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262952660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701234</id>
	<title>Status</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262950620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Xbox360: D3D only<br>Windows: Both<br>Wii/Playstation3: OpenGL/ES<br>Mac: OpenGL<br>mobile market: OpenGL (winmo is dead).</p><p>The most popular gaming console mandates D3D, therefore trying to keep games out of competiors hands. And they're still portable to Windows.<br>Sony tries something similar with ES, as well as Nontendo.</p><p>Microsoft holds a strong grip on gaming market. Only the mobile market is slipping out of control, but those games are different codebase anyway.</p><p>OSX crowd isn't about gaming, they don't care (except for MMO's).</p><p>Linux: not really relevant, even if drivers improve.</p><p>Unless MS opens up D3D, we will be stuck with two equivalent API's for too long (or until another antitrust case tackles this).<br>Right now only option for making a game for all popular platforms is dual OGL/D3D engine, thanks to 360.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Xbox360 : D3D onlyWindows : BothWii/Playstation3 : OpenGL/ESMac : OpenGLmobile market : OpenGL ( winmo is dead ) .The most popular gaming console mandates D3D , therefore trying to keep games out of competiors hands .
And they 're still portable to Windows.Sony tries something similar with ES , as well as Nontendo.Microsoft holds a strong grip on gaming market .
Only the mobile market is slipping out of control , but those games are different codebase anyway.OSX crowd is n't about gaming , they do n't care ( except for MMO 's ) .Linux : not really relevant , even if drivers improve.Unless MS opens up D3D , we will be stuck with two equivalent API 's for too long ( or until another antitrust case tackles this ) .Right now only option for making a game for all popular platforms is dual OGL/D3D engine , thanks to 360 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xbox360: D3D onlyWindows: BothWii/Playstation3: OpenGL/ESMac: OpenGLmobile market: OpenGL (winmo is dead).The most popular gaming console mandates D3D, therefore trying to keep games out of competiors hands.
And they're still portable to Windows.Sony tries something similar with ES, as well as Nontendo.Microsoft holds a strong grip on gaming market.
Only the mobile market is slipping out of control, but those games are different codebase anyway.OSX crowd isn't about gaming, they don't care (except for MMO's).Linux: not really relevant, even if drivers improve.Unless MS opens up D3D, we will be stuck with two equivalent API's for too long (or until another antitrust case tackles this).Right now only option for making a game for all popular platforms is dual OGL/D3D engine, thanks to 360.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706676</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL pride</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263045120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good points, but you lost me at "M$uck".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good points , but you lost me at " M $ uck " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good points, but you lost me at "M$uck".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701130</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sorry but I don't really care</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1262950140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, not worth a single flying F.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , not worth a single flying F .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, not worth a single flying F.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702450</id>
	<title>Re:Not for ATI cards</title>
	<author>StoatBringer</author>
	<datestamp>1262956380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you mean "Too bad ATI card royally suck ass at implementing OpenGL"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you mean " Too bad ATI card royally suck ass at implementing OpenGL " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you mean "Too bad ATI card royally suck ass at implementing OpenGL"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701060</id>
	<title>I'm on a mac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262949900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And so far OpenGL is winning over DirectX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And so far OpenGL is winning over DirectX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And so far OpenGL is winning over DirectX.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701588</id>
	<title>D3D backwards compatibility is A JOKE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262952420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still love playing the old Thief games from around 2000. If you try to run them on modern cards, there are problems ranging from downscaled color depth to failing to initialize the 3D device entirely. Compare this to other favorite games of mine, like Sin and Quake. Sin and Quake just run immediately on even the newest video cars without issue.</p><p>Opengl seems to have much better backward compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still love playing the old Thief games from around 2000 .
If you try to run them on modern cards , there are problems ranging from downscaled color depth to failing to initialize the 3D device entirely .
Compare this to other favorite games of mine , like Sin and Quake .
Sin and Quake just run immediately on even the newest video cars without issue.Opengl seems to have much better backward compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still love playing the old Thief games from around 2000.
If you try to run them on modern cards, there are problems ranging from downscaled color depth to failing to initialize the 3D device entirely.
Compare this to other favorite games of mine, like Sin and Quake.
Sin and Quake just run immediately on even the newest video cars without issue.Opengl seems to have much better backward compatibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30707350</id>
	<title>Carmack now uses DirectX too.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263053460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason was, that OpenGL did lack modern features. Which was true back then.</p><p>BUT. OpenGL now has caught up. And it has one huge advantage: Extreme cross-platform capabilities.<br>You can even use OpenGL ES (a light version) on all modern mobile phones.<br>Runs on Linux and Mac without hassle. And on consoles. Mobile ones too.</p><p>With GLSL, there&rsquo;s no excuse anymore.</p><p>I mean, come on! That all has <em>got</em> to be an advantage!<br>I see no reason to succumb to lock-in and learn the tricks of a whole new API, just for a (now) imaginary advantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason was , that OpenGL did lack modern features .
Which was true back then.BUT .
OpenGL now has caught up .
And it has one huge advantage : Extreme cross-platform capabilities.You can even use OpenGL ES ( a light version ) on all modern mobile phones.Runs on Linux and Mac without hassle .
And on consoles .
Mobile ones too.With GLSL , there    s no excuse anymore.I mean , come on !
That all has got to be an advantage ! I see no reason to succumb to lock-in and learn the tricks of a whole new API , just for a ( now ) imaginary advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason was, that OpenGL did lack modern features.
Which was true back then.BUT.
OpenGL now has caught up.
And it has one huge advantage: Extreme cross-platform capabilities.You can even use OpenGL ES (a light version) on all modern mobile phones.Runs on Linux and Mac without hassle.
And on consoles.
Mobile ones too.With GLSL, there’s no excuse anymore.I mean, come on!
That all has got to be an advantage!I see no reason to succumb to lock-in and learn the tricks of a whole new API, just for a (now) imaginary advantage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706014</id>
	<title>Re:I've used both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263033840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol asshole have you ever gotten laid in your life? answer's no, you seem to be a lazy-enough or low-end-enough fucktard</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol asshole have you ever gotten laid in your life ?
answer 's no , you seem to be a lazy-enough or low-end-enough fucktard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol asshole have you ever gotten laid in your life?
answer's no, you seem to be a lazy-enough or low-end-enough fucktard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702418</id>
	<title>Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262956200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years.</p></div><p>Autodesk has been moving away from OpenGL to Direct3D for some time now. They did it first with AutoCAD 2008 (in March 2007) and its vertical flavors. Then with 3ds Max, Revit and others. They have completed the move to D3D in almost all of their CAD and 3D applications. Of course, all of those apps are Windows only.</p><p>This move has caused quite a bit of concern with the CAD community because "gamer" cards which rock in D3D (and are dirt cheap compared to workstation cards) don't quite work that well in CAD and high-end 3D workstation apps. Particularly if you app tries to use hardware acceleration. Whoops.</p><p>Google SketchUp still uses OpenGL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years.Autodesk has been moving away from OpenGL to Direct3D for some time now .
They did it first with AutoCAD 2008 ( in March 2007 ) and its vertical flavors .
Then with 3ds Max , Revit and others .
They have completed the move to D3D in almost all of their CAD and 3D applications .
Of course , all of those apps are Windows only.This move has caused quite a bit of concern with the CAD community because " gamer " cards which rock in D3D ( and are dirt cheap compared to workstation cards ) do n't quite work that well in CAD and high-end 3D workstation apps .
Particularly if you app tries to use hardware acceleration .
Whoops.Google SketchUp still uses OpenGL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years.Autodesk has been moving away from OpenGL to Direct3D for some time now.
They did it first with AutoCAD 2008 (in March 2007) and its vertical flavors.
Then with 3ds Max, Revit and others.
They have completed the move to D3D in almost all of their CAD and 3D applications.
Of course, all of those apps are Windows only.This move has caused quite a bit of concern with the CAD community because "gamer" cards which rock in D3D (and are dirt cheap compared to workstation cards) don't quite work that well in CAD and high-end 3D workstation apps.
Particularly if you app tries to use hardware acceleration.
Whoops.Google SketchUp still uses OpenGL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703126</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262960340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use both, and find them as easy overall. Each is better than the other in different areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use both , and find them as easy overall .
Each is better than the other in different areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use both, and find them as easy overall.
Each is better than the other in different areas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706704</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sorry but I don't really care</title>
	<author>ByteSlicer</author>
	<datestamp>1263045720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That would save you a hundred bucks or so on a Windows license</p></div></blockquote><p>
Seems like he already has one of those, so he wouldn't save a dime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would save you a hundred bucks or so on a Windows license Seems like he already has one of those , so he would n't save a dime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would save you a hundred bucks or so on a Windows license
Seems like he already has one of those, so he wouldn't save a dime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701790</id>
	<title>I use linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262953320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a fairly recent Graphics card (Nvidia 9600 GT), and twin 22" samsung monitors (50000:1 contrast, 2ms response).  Not the latest &amp; greatest, but not bad.  OpenGL lives on my machine.  I have OpenGL support.  DirectX is proprietary.  They won't support me.  Since OpenGL is superior to directx, or at least equivalent, they could provide me with support, but they do not.  There are a lot of games that use OpenGL, and a lot of other technology too.  I've heard people who claim its an "also ran", but no, its the leader.  Its the first one.  The other is a johnny-come-lately.  Microsofts play using directx is like its play for winsock.  Everyone who knew anything about technology, 'knew' that TCP/IP was the superior protocol, but microsoft persevered.  Their drivers and problems never ended till XP (when they finally ditched winsock).  They tried to have Active Directory instead of LDAP (and they weren't first there either).  LDAP is still the leader and better technology.  Microsoft could have adapted it, but they insist on corralling people.  I understand that microsoft is running a business, and forming a monopoly and locking in customers is part of their strategy, as is marketing proclaiming 'better than all others' on a constant basis, even without any basis in fact (marketing is the gentle art of fibbing).  My applications use OpenGL without compromise.  Compiz is the most advanced GUI in 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a fairly recent Graphics card ( Nvidia 9600 GT ) , and twin 22 " samsung monitors ( 50000 : 1 contrast , 2ms response ) .
Not the latest &amp; greatest , but not bad .
OpenGL lives on my machine .
I have OpenGL support .
DirectX is proprietary .
They wo n't support me .
Since OpenGL is superior to directx , or at least equivalent , they could provide me with support , but they do not .
There are a lot of games that use OpenGL , and a lot of other technology too .
I 've heard people who claim its an " also ran " , but no , its the leader .
Its the first one .
The other is a johnny-come-lately .
Microsofts play using directx is like its play for winsock .
Everyone who knew anything about technology , 'knew ' that TCP/IP was the superior protocol , but microsoft persevered .
Their drivers and problems never ended till XP ( when they finally ditched winsock ) .
They tried to have Active Directory instead of LDAP ( and they were n't first there either ) .
LDAP is still the leader and better technology .
Microsoft could have adapted it , but they insist on corralling people .
I understand that microsoft is running a business , and forming a monopoly and locking in customers is part of their strategy , as is marketing proclaiming 'better than all others ' on a constant basis , even without any basis in fact ( marketing is the gentle art of fibbing ) .
My applications use OpenGL without compromise .
Compiz is the most advanced GUI in 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a fairly recent Graphics card (Nvidia 9600 GT), and twin 22" samsung monitors (50000:1 contrast, 2ms response).
Not the latest &amp; greatest, but not bad.
OpenGL lives on my machine.
I have OpenGL support.
DirectX is proprietary.
They won't support me.
Since OpenGL is superior to directx, or at least equivalent, they could provide me with support, but they do not.
There are a lot of games that use OpenGL, and a lot of other technology too.
I've heard people who claim its an "also ran", but no, its the leader.
Its the first one.
The other is a johnny-come-lately.
Microsofts play using directx is like its play for winsock.
Everyone who knew anything about technology, 'knew' that TCP/IP was the superior protocol, but microsoft persevered.
Their drivers and problems never ended till XP (when they finally ditched winsock).
They tried to have Active Directory instead of LDAP (and they weren't first there either).
LDAP is still the leader and better technology.
Microsoft could have adapted it, but they insist on corralling people.
I understand that microsoft is running a business, and forming a monopoly and locking in customers is part of their strategy, as is marketing proclaiming 'better than all others' on a constant basis, even without any basis in fact (marketing is the gentle art of fibbing).
My applications use OpenGL without compromise.
Compiz is the most advanced GUI in 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700600</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1262947800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>which, in many ways would be the greatest thing for the consumer and the industry (as far as innovation and progress goes).</p></div><p>What industry?  If you mean the 3D "market," I disagree.  Having a large number of very different systems (e.g., let's just take Linux for example, drivers that work in one distro don't always work in another) does not necessarily help innovation and progress.  Having a stable/typical setup helps, as you can focus in more on your product than worrying about whether or not it will work on all these different platforms/drivers/whatever.  Unless we're talking about different industries, here.</p><p>As it is, I would rather have a lot of developers being able to easily produce quality stuff using DirectX than having developers squabbling about different 3D drivers, and then having to make sure my card supported all those kinds of drivers so I could play all those kinds of games, etc...</p><p>To me, that sounds bad.  Sure, you could have an "open standard," but someone is controlling that, too.  Being "open-source" does not mean you are inherently a better individual and less susceptible to the same squabbles that companies that are closed-source/proprietary get into.</p><p>I don't like all of what Microsoft does.  But Microsoft does appear to do DirectX fairly decently... and they have realized it's to their advantage to let others easily access it and learn it (documentation, etc).  I fail to see how that's a bad thing.  Being good in an area, even if you're a monopoly, is not a bad way to squash competition.  To think that a product should be <i>worse</i> so that competition could be <i>better</i> is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a very strange way of looking at things, IMO.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>which , in many ways would be the greatest thing for the consumer and the industry ( as far as innovation and progress goes ) .What industry ?
If you mean the 3D " market , " I disagree .
Having a large number of very different systems ( e.g. , let 's just take Linux for example , drivers that work in one distro do n't always work in another ) does not necessarily help innovation and progress .
Having a stable/typical setup helps , as you can focus in more on your product than worrying about whether or not it will work on all these different platforms/drivers/whatever .
Unless we 're talking about different industries , here.As it is , I would rather have a lot of developers being able to easily produce quality stuff using DirectX than having developers squabbling about different 3D drivers , and then having to make sure my card supported all those kinds of drivers so I could play all those kinds of games , etc...To me , that sounds bad .
Sure , you could have an " open standard , " but someone is controlling that , too .
Being " open-source " does not mean you are inherently a better individual and less susceptible to the same squabbles that companies that are closed-source/proprietary get into.I do n't like all of what Microsoft does .
But Microsoft does appear to do DirectX fairly decently... and they have realized it 's to their advantage to let others easily access it and learn it ( documentation , etc ) .
I fail to see how that 's a bad thing .
Being good in an area , even if you 're a monopoly , is not a bad way to squash competition .
To think that a product should be worse so that competition could be better is ... a very strange way of looking at things , IMO .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which, in many ways would be the greatest thing for the consumer and the industry (as far as innovation and progress goes).What industry?
If you mean the 3D "market," I disagree.
Having a large number of very different systems (e.g., let's just take Linux for example, drivers that work in one distro don't always work in another) does not necessarily help innovation and progress.
Having a stable/typical setup helps, as you can focus in more on your product than worrying about whether or not it will work on all these different platforms/drivers/whatever.
Unless we're talking about different industries, here.As it is, I would rather have a lot of developers being able to easily produce quality stuff using DirectX than having developers squabbling about different 3D drivers, and then having to make sure my card supported all those kinds of drivers so I could play all those kinds of games, etc...To me, that sounds bad.
Sure, you could have an "open standard," but someone is controlling that, too.
Being "open-source" does not mean you are inherently a better individual and less susceptible to the same squabbles that companies that are closed-source/proprietary get into.I don't like all of what Microsoft does.
But Microsoft does appear to do DirectX fairly decently... and they have realized it's to their advantage to let others easily access it and learn it (documentation, etc).
I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
Being good in an area, even if you're a monopoly, is not a bad way to squash competition.
To think that a product should be worse so that competition could be better is ... a very strange way of looking at things, IMO.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700730</id>
	<title>More like Developers don't CARE.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262948340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ultimate monetary advantage of using OpenGL for games (imo and ime) is it makes Mac porting a hell of a lot easier.</p><p>The ultimate monetary downside of making Mac games is that only a small fraction of the install base can upgrade their video cards - the one constantly-moving PC gaming component.</p><p>You can build a useable gaming PC for under $700 - the buy-in for a Mac with an upgradeable video card is presently $2499.  With the <i>vast</i> majority of PC gamers using wintendos, Windows/DirectX is the LCD.  It's where most (or all) of the money is.</p><p>I think it's fantastic that iD uses OpenGL and makes all of their games cross platform.  I also think it's unfortunate that iD is the exception to the rule... but I <i>also</i> vote with my wallet, and I use a $600 non-upgradeable (video, anyway) Mac Mini for all of my Mac-oriented needs, and a massively-upgradeable, equally-priced Shuttle PC for everything else.  Which includes a long list of games that haven't been released on the Mac - and even if they <i>had</i> been, wouldn't be playable on the GMA-950 video chipset.  It's shite for games, fine for Photoshop... and Windows is the reverse for me.</p><p>If I need a wintendo to play Orange Box or S.T.A.L.K.E.R., does it really matter if the game uses DirectX or OpenGL?</p><p>Not really.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-|</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ultimate monetary advantage of using OpenGL for games ( imo and ime ) is it makes Mac porting a hell of a lot easier.The ultimate monetary downside of making Mac games is that only a small fraction of the install base can upgrade their video cards - the one constantly-moving PC gaming component.You can build a useable gaming PC for under $ 700 - the buy-in for a Mac with an upgradeable video card is presently $ 2499 .
With the vast majority of PC gamers using wintendos , Windows/DirectX is the LCD .
It 's where most ( or all ) of the money is.I think it 's fantastic that iD uses OpenGL and makes all of their games cross platform .
I also think it 's unfortunate that iD is the exception to the rule... but I also vote with my wallet , and I use a $ 600 non-upgradeable ( video , anyway ) Mac Mini for all of my Mac-oriented needs , and a massively-upgradeable , equally-priced Shuttle PC for everything else .
Which includes a long list of games that have n't been released on the Mac - and even if they had been , would n't be playable on the GMA-950 video chipset .
It 's shite for games , fine for Photoshop... and Windows is the reverse for me.If I need a wintendo to play Orange Box or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. , does it really matter if the game uses DirectX or OpenGL ? Not really .
: - |</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ultimate monetary advantage of using OpenGL for games (imo and ime) is it makes Mac porting a hell of a lot easier.The ultimate monetary downside of making Mac games is that only a small fraction of the install base can upgrade their video cards - the one constantly-moving PC gaming component.You can build a useable gaming PC for under $700 - the buy-in for a Mac with an upgradeable video card is presently $2499.
With the vast majority of PC gamers using wintendos, Windows/DirectX is the LCD.
It's where most (or all) of the money is.I think it's fantastic that iD uses OpenGL and makes all of their games cross platform.
I also think it's unfortunate that iD is the exception to the rule... but I also vote with my wallet, and I use a $600 non-upgradeable (video, anyway) Mac Mini for all of my Mac-oriented needs, and a massively-upgradeable, equally-priced Shuttle PC for everything else.
Which includes a long list of games that haven't been released on the Mac - and even if they had been, wouldn't be playable on the GMA-950 video chipset.
It's shite for games, fine for Photoshop... and Windows is the reverse for me.If I need a wintendo to play Orange Box or S.T.A.L.K.E.R., does it really matter if the game uses DirectX or OpenGL?Not really.
:-|</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701584</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App</title>
	<author>Victor Liu</author>
	<datestamp>1262952420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and that killer app would probably be easier to write in DirectX.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and that killer app would probably be easier to write in DirectX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and that killer app would probably be easier to write in DirectX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701592</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>n8\_f</author>
	<datestamp>1262952420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Sure, you could have an "open standard," but someone is controlling that, too. </i>
<br> <br>
No, that is why it is an open standard.  Once it is out there, anyone can implement it and conform to the standard.  Maybe someone maintains it and maybe someone is working on the next version, but no one controls it.  To illustrate the difference, what platforms does DirectX run on?  Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Xbox, and Microsoft Windows Mobile.  Notice the pattern?  And what platforms does OpenGL run on?  All of those plus dozens or even hundreds more.  If you want to port your app to the iPhone or the Palm Pre or an Android phone, who is going to have to do more work, the person with the app programmed in DirectX or the person with the app programmed in OpenGL?  That is the advantage of an open standard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , you could have an " open standard , " but someone is controlling that , too .
No , that is why it is an open standard .
Once it is out there , anyone can implement it and conform to the standard .
Maybe someone maintains it and maybe someone is working on the next version , but no one controls it .
To illustrate the difference , what platforms does DirectX run on ?
Microsoft Windows , Microsoft Xbox , and Microsoft Windows Mobile .
Notice the pattern ?
And what platforms does OpenGL run on ?
All of those plus dozens or even hundreds more .
If you want to port your app to the iPhone or the Palm Pre or an Android phone , who is going to have to do more work , the person with the app programmed in DirectX or the person with the app programmed in OpenGL ?
That is the advantage of an open standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, you could have an "open standard," but someone is controlling that, too.
No, that is why it is an open standard.
Once it is out there, anyone can implement it and conform to the standard.
Maybe someone maintains it and maybe someone is working on the next version, but no one controls it.
To illustrate the difference, what platforms does DirectX run on?
Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Xbox, and Microsoft Windows Mobile.
Notice the pattern?
And what platforms does OpenGL run on?
All of those plus dozens or even hundreds more.
If you want to port your app to the iPhone or the Palm Pre or an Android phone, who is going to have to do more work, the person with the app programmed in DirectX or the person with the app programmed in OpenGL?
That is the advantage of an open standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702796</id>
	<title>Re:More like Developers don't CARE.</title>
	<author>Narishma</author>
	<datestamp>1262958540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incorrect on both points. id was bought by Zenimax, which is the parent company of Bethesda, so Bethesda doesn't have any say on what they use or don't use. In addition, Carmack already confirmed that they'll use OpenGL for their next game on Windows and Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incorrect on both points .
id was bought by Zenimax , which is the parent company of Bethesda , so Bethesda does n't have any say on what they use or do n't use .
In addition , Carmack already confirmed that they 'll use OpenGL for their next game on Windows and Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incorrect on both points.
id was bought by Zenimax, which is the parent company of Bethesda, so Bethesda doesn't have any say on what they use or don't use.
In addition, Carmack already confirmed that they'll use OpenGL for their next game on Windows and Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701528</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1262952120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>That being said I've yet to see a game using OpenGL that can render anything as well/as quickly as DX10.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>That's cute and all but It's just a shame that it's blatantly and fundamentally wrong. Taken from TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>It's common knowledge that <b>OpenGL has faster draw calls than DirectX</b> (see NVIDIA presentations like this one if you don't want to take my word for it), and it has first access to new GPU features via vendor extensions. </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>The link to NVidia's presentation is <a href="http://developer.nvidia.com/object/opengl-nvidia-extensions-gdc-2006.html" title="nvidia.com">here</a> [nvidia.com] and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_OpenGL\_and\_Direct3D#Performance" title="wikipedia.org">wikipedia article on the subject</a> [wikipedia.org] also states that OpenGL is faster than DirectX.</p><p>So, where exactly do you base your "OMG OpenGL is tHe sLowZz" claims?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That being said I 've yet to see a game using OpenGL that can render anything as well/as quickly as DX10 .
That 's cute and all but It 's just a shame that it 's blatantly and fundamentally wrong .
Taken from TFA : It 's common knowledge that OpenGL has faster draw calls than DirectX ( see NVIDIA presentations like this one if you do n't want to take my word for it ) , and it has first access to new GPU features via vendor extensions .
The link to NVidia 's presentation is here [ nvidia.com ] and the wikipedia article on the subject [ wikipedia.org ] also states that OpenGL is faster than DirectX.So , where exactly do you base your " OMG OpenGL is tHe sLowZz " claims ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That being said I've yet to see a game using OpenGL that can render anything as well/as quickly as DX10.
That's cute and all but It's just a shame that it's blatantly and fundamentally wrong.
Taken from TFA: It's common knowledge that OpenGL has faster draw calls than DirectX (see NVIDIA presentations like this one if you don't want to take my word for it), and it has first access to new GPU features via vendor extensions.
The link to NVidia's presentation is here [nvidia.com] and the wikipedia article on the subject [wikipedia.org] also states that OpenGL is faster than DirectX.So, where exactly do you base your "OMG OpenGL is tHe sLowZz" claims?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701022</id>
	<title>openGL 2.0 versus 3.0</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262949780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a game programmer, but back when 2.0 first launched, I did hear programmers say it had valid technical merits over DirectX at the time. Yet now all I hear is that the openGL 3.0 standard didn't evolve the way people wanted, and it isn't nearly as good as DirectX anymore. Is there any truth to this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a game programmer , but back when 2.0 first launched , I did hear programmers say it had valid technical merits over DirectX at the time .
Yet now all I hear is that the openGL 3.0 standard did n't evolve the way people wanted , and it is n't nearly as good as DirectX anymore .
Is there any truth to this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a game programmer, but back when 2.0 first launched, I did hear programmers say it had valid technical merits over DirectX at the time.
Yet now all I hear is that the openGL 3.0 standard didn't evolve the way people wanted, and it isn't nearly as good as DirectX anymore.
Is there any truth to this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700532</id>
	<title>OGL V D3D</title>
	<author>Dark\_Matter88</author>
	<datestamp>1262947440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OpenGL and not Direct3D.

OpenGl is best in my view simply for cross platform. If OGL3 was what it was to be it would have been better. In the end legacy won that battle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenGL and not Direct3D .
OpenGl is best in my view simply for cross platform .
If OGL3 was what it was to be it would have been better .
In the end legacy won that battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenGL and not Direct3D.
OpenGl is best in my view simply for cross platform.
If OGL3 was what it was to be it would have been better.
In the end legacy won that battle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30709406</id>
	<title>Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1263028920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with D3d is that Microsoft only offers it for their own platform. Seeing that 3D-capable smartphones/media players are getting increasingly common (and many of them don't run Windows, Nokia's and Apple's devices being prominent examples), Microsoft only offering it for their own OS is a drawback.<br>
<br>
If I want to write a game for mobile platforms, OpenGL ES allows me to target the iPhone/iPod touch, the N900, some or all Android devices, newer BlackBerry models and even portable consoles like the Pandora (NDS and PSP use OGL derivatives and require more porting work). D3D allows me to target the Zune HD and... well, I actually can't think of another high-profile 3D capable WinMo device right now.<br>
<br>
Microsoft can try to release an XBox equivalent for the portable market - but their attempt with the Zune HD hasn't shaken up the market much and the hottest items are still based on either Linux or Mac OS. While D3D might be a no-brainer if you target X360 and/or Windows it's fairly useless if you want to target one ore more of the most important portable devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with D3d is that Microsoft only offers it for their own platform .
Seeing that 3D-capable smartphones/media players are getting increasingly common ( and many of them do n't run Windows , Nokia 's and Apple 's devices being prominent examples ) , Microsoft only offering it for their own OS is a drawback .
If I want to write a game for mobile platforms , OpenGL ES allows me to target the iPhone/iPod touch , the N900 , some or all Android devices , newer BlackBerry models and even portable consoles like the Pandora ( NDS and PSP use OGL derivatives and require more porting work ) .
D3D allows me to target the Zune HD and... well , I actually ca n't think of another high-profile 3D capable WinMo device right now .
Microsoft can try to release an XBox equivalent for the portable market - but their attempt with the Zune HD has n't shaken up the market much and the hottest items are still based on either Linux or Mac OS .
While D3D might be a no-brainer if you target X360 and/or Windows it 's fairly useless if you want to target one ore more of the most important portable devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with D3d is that Microsoft only offers it for their own platform.
Seeing that 3D-capable smartphones/media players are getting increasingly common (and many of them don't run Windows, Nokia's and Apple's devices being prominent examples), Microsoft only offering it for their own OS is a drawback.
If I want to write a game for mobile platforms, OpenGL ES allows me to target the iPhone/iPod touch, the N900, some or all Android devices, newer BlackBerry models and even portable consoles like the Pandora (NDS and PSP use OGL derivatives and require more porting work).
D3D allows me to target the Zune HD and... well, I actually can't think of another high-profile 3D capable WinMo device right now.
Microsoft can try to release an XBox equivalent for the portable market - but their attempt with the Zune HD hasn't shaken up the market much and the hottest items are still based on either Linux or Mac OS.
While D3D might be a no-brainer if you target X360 and/or Windows it's fairly useless if you want to target one ore more of the most important portable devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701662</id>
	<title>Wine - Direct3D on OpenGL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262952780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Well, if you need any more proof of OpenGL's ability you can look at Wine's implementation of Direct3D all layered on top of Direct3D.

Now, having said that, drivers are much more optimized for DirectX than for OpenGL and tend to render similar scenes quite a bit faster.  Direct3D is also ahead of OpenGL in terms of technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you need any more proof of OpenGL 's ability you can look at Wine 's implementation of Direct3D all layered on top of Direct3D .
Now , having said that , drivers are much more optimized for DirectX than for OpenGL and tend to render similar scenes quite a bit faster .
Direct3D is also ahead of OpenGL in terms of technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Well, if you need any more proof of OpenGL's ability you can look at Wine's implementation of Direct3D all layered on top of Direct3D.
Now, having said that, drivers are much more optimized for DirectX than for OpenGL and tend to render similar scenes quite a bit faster.
Direct3D is also ahead of OpenGL in terms of technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703110</id>
	<title>Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262960220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doom 3? Can't believe we're talking about something that was what, better than 10 years ago? I mean, things that were happening when we were happy to have a 486-66? You're only as good as you are right now, so I don't see how arguments Carmack was making LAST CENTURY really apply. We might as well dredge up the windows 3.11 vs. OS/2 debate for the value it will bring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doom 3 ?
Ca n't believe we 're talking about something that was what , better than 10 years ago ?
I mean , things that were happening when we were happy to have a 486-66 ?
You 're only as good as you are right now , so I do n't see how arguments Carmack was making LAST CENTURY really apply .
We might as well dredge up the windows 3.11 vs. OS/2 debate for the value it will bring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doom 3?
Can't believe we're talking about something that was what, better than 10 years ago?
I mean, things that were happening when we were happy to have a 486-66?
You're only as good as you are right now, so I don't see how arguments Carmack was making LAST CENTURY really apply.
We might as well dredge up the windows 3.11 vs. OS/2 debate for the value it will bring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700668</id>
	<title>Apples to Oranges</title>
	<author>Giltron</author>
	<datestamp>1262948100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OpenGL is about graphics.
DirectX is alot more than that.
Should be comparing Direct3D and OpenGL
<p>
Also, Direct3D is pushed by Microsoft (heavy PR and community support), unlike the openGL committee (no PR and fragmented community support) so the base spec is perceived to be slower/inferior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenGL is about graphics .
DirectX is alot more than that .
Should be comparing Direct3D and OpenGL Also , Direct3D is pushed by Microsoft ( heavy PR and community support ) , unlike the openGL committee ( no PR and fragmented community support ) so the base spec is perceived to be slower/inferior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenGL is about graphics.
DirectX is alot more than that.
Should be comparing Direct3D and OpenGL

Also, Direct3D is pushed by Microsoft (heavy PR and community support), unlike the openGL committee (no PR and fragmented community support) so the base spec is perceived to be slower/inferior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702646</id>
	<title>Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1262957460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the scientific community OpenGL reigns supreme. So AutoCAD really isn't the last place OpenGL stands strong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the scientific community OpenGL reigns supreme .
So AutoCAD really is n't the last place OpenGL stands strong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the scientific community OpenGL reigns supreme.
So AutoCAD really isn't the last place OpenGL stands strong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706620</id>
	<title>DirectNot</title>
	<author>De-Jean7777</author>
	<datestamp>1263044280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The primary reason why I decided not to use DirectX is because there is no DirectX on Linux, Mac or anything else that does not come with a Microsoft branded logo. Advantages or not, DirectX is a proprietary API which cannot be used on non Microsoft platform, other than by means of reverse-engineering it (a la WINE).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary reason why I decided not to use DirectX is because there is no DirectX on Linux , Mac or anything else that does not come with a Microsoft branded logo .
Advantages or not , DirectX is a proprietary API which can not be used on non Microsoft platform , other than by means of reverse-engineering it ( a la WINE ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary reason why I decided not to use DirectX is because there is no DirectX on Linux, Mac or anything else that does not come with a Microsoft branded logo.
Advantages or not, DirectX is a proprietary API which cannot be used on non Microsoft platform, other than by means of reverse-engineering it (a la WINE).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701292</id>
	<title>Irrevelant</title>
	<author>Dunge</author>
	<datestamp>1262950860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I programmed on both, and DirectX is way better on every aspect (except that Microsoft own it).
This article is stuck in time 5years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I programmed on both , and DirectX is way better on every aspect ( except that Microsoft own it ) .
This article is stuck in time 5years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I programmed on both, and DirectX is way better on every aspect (except that Microsoft own it).
This article is stuck in time 5years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701138</id>
	<title>Misrepresentation of Carmack's "rant"</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1262950200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carmack's problems were with one particular way of using Direct3D, which is what he would have had to use for games like Quake. He was pretty clear that he had no problem with it for games that did not need that particular mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carmack 's problems were with one particular way of using Direct3D , which is what he would have had to use for games like Quake .
He was pretty clear that he had no problem with it for games that did not need that particular mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carmack's problems were with one particular way of using Direct3D, which is what he would have had to use for games like Quake.
He was pretty clear that he had no problem with it for games that did not need that particular mode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703894</id>
	<title>AutoCAD has supported Direct3D for months...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262966280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AutoCAD has supported Direct3D since February 2009.  Here are the drivers: http://www.nvidia.com/object/autocad\_pd\_perf\_drivers.html</p><p>It always surprises me when people mention AutoCAD as if it has stood still in the ten years they've used it since high school, while the rest of the CAD industry has charged ahead.  <a href="http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/limage?siteID=123112&amp;imageID=13794733" title="autodesk.com" rel="nofollow">Nontrivial, 3d geometry</a> [autodesk.com] is well possible in AutoCAD today.  It's no CATIA or UGS NX, but most parts in a car or aircraft can be modeled in AutoCAD with high fidelity today.  Five to ten years?  Good luck predicting ANYTHING in the software industry at that extent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AutoCAD has supported Direct3D since February 2009 .
Here are the drivers : http : //www.nvidia.com/object/autocad \ _pd \ _perf \ _drivers.htmlIt always surprises me when people mention AutoCAD as if it has stood still in the ten years they 've used it since high school , while the rest of the CAD industry has charged ahead .
Nontrivial , 3d geometry [ autodesk.com ] is well possible in AutoCAD today .
It 's no CATIA or UGS NX , but most parts in a car or aircraft can be modeled in AutoCAD with high fidelity today .
Five to ten years ?
Good luck predicting ANYTHING in the software industry at that extent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AutoCAD has supported Direct3D since February 2009.
Here are the drivers: http://www.nvidia.com/object/autocad\_pd\_perf\_drivers.htmlIt always surprises me when people mention AutoCAD as if it has stood still in the ten years they've used it since high school, while the rest of the CAD industry has charged ahead.
Nontrivial, 3d geometry [autodesk.com] is well possible in AutoCAD today.
It's no CATIA or UGS NX, but most parts in a car or aircraft can be modeled in AutoCAD with high fidelity today.
Five to ten years?
Good luck predicting ANYTHING in the software industry at that extent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702350</id>
	<title>Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262955840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you develop via OpenGL you can address XP+Vista, Mac, Linux, iPhone, and Android, plus all the major consoles. Its one stop shopping. With DX and comparable graphics with OpenGL, you can only target Vista. If you want Vista + XP + Consoles, you're looking at DX9 which is a subpar graphics experience compared to that which is provided by OpenGL. Simply put, OpenGL provides you more platforms more easily.</p></div><p>well that's wrong isn't it?<br>if you target the the wii, ps3, android, and iphone platforms with opengl it's not going to work because you have to target (afaik) opengl es<br>and if you say they're the same thing then you can't say dx9 vs dx10/11 are different<br>also i'm inteerested in how dx9 is sub-par. please provide the example you have which the software:<br>a) renders in dx9<br>b) can be switched to render in opengl instead<br>c) is slow paced enough that you're seeing noticable difference in "graphics experience"</p><p>there's also one other thing missing in you're argument<br>while it's nice to also have your software run on 'emerging' markets, if it's going to cost more to maintain / develop vs market size &amp; uptake rate then you're making a pretty bad business decision<br>in the desktop space at least, using a less developer friendly set of libraries to get pick 10\% more market share, of which the uptake rate is less than 1\% does not make good business practice</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you develop via OpenGL you can address XP + Vista , Mac , Linux , iPhone , and Android , plus all the major consoles .
Its one stop shopping .
With DX and comparable graphics with OpenGL , you can only target Vista .
If you want Vista + XP + Consoles , you 're looking at DX9 which is a subpar graphics experience compared to that which is provided by OpenGL .
Simply put , OpenGL provides you more platforms more easily.well that 's wrong is n't it ? if you target the the wii , ps3 , android , and iphone platforms with opengl it 's not going to work because you have to target ( afaik ) opengl esand if you say they 're the same thing then you ca n't say dx9 vs dx10/11 are differentalso i 'm inteerested in how dx9 is sub-par .
please provide the example you have which the software : a ) renders in dx9b ) can be switched to render in opengl insteadc ) is slow paced enough that you 're seeing noticable difference in " graphics experience " there 's also one other thing missing in you 're argumentwhile it 's nice to also have your software run on 'emerging ' markets , if it 's going to cost more to maintain / develop vs market size &amp; uptake rate then you 're making a pretty bad business decisionin the desktop space at least , using a less developer friendly set of libraries to get pick 10 \ % more market share , of which the uptake rate is less than 1 \ % does not make good business practice</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you develop via OpenGL you can address XP+Vista, Mac, Linux, iPhone, and Android, plus all the major consoles.
Its one stop shopping.
With DX and comparable graphics with OpenGL, you can only target Vista.
If you want Vista + XP + Consoles, you're looking at DX9 which is a subpar graphics experience compared to that which is provided by OpenGL.
Simply put, OpenGL provides you more platforms more easily.well that's wrong isn't it?if you target the the wii, ps3, android, and iphone platforms with opengl it's not going to work because you have to target (afaik) opengl esand if you say they're the same thing then you can't say dx9 vs dx10/11 are differentalso i'm inteerested in how dx9 is sub-par.
please provide the example you have which the software:a) renders in dx9b) can be switched to render in opengl insteadc) is slow paced enough that you're seeing noticable difference in "graphics experience"there's also one other thing missing in you're argumentwhile it's nice to also have your software run on 'emerging' markets, if it's going to cost more to maintain / develop vs market size &amp; uptake rate then you're making a pretty bad business decisionin the desktop space at least, using a less developer friendly set of libraries to get pick 10\% more market share, of which the uptake rate is less than 1\% does not make good business practice
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30704688</id>
	<title>Re:Status</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262973300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>360's nowhere near the most popular console, just the one with the biggest target market crossover with PC games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>360 's nowhere near the most popular console , just the one with the biggest target market crossover with PC games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>360's nowhere near the most popular console, just the one with the biggest target market crossover with PC games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701068</id>
	<title>Re:More like Developers don't CARE.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262949960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also thought that iD got bought by Bethesda, and that Bethesda has said iD won't be using OpenGL anymore, and won't be releasing source code anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also thought that iD got bought by Bethesda , and that Bethesda has said iD wo n't be using OpenGL anymore , and wo n't be releasing source code anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also thought that iD got bought by Bethesda, and that Bethesda has said iD won't be using OpenGL anymore, and won't be releasing source code anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701736</id>
	<title>DirectX - The Choice Of Talentless Hacks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262953080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congrats dimwit, all that valuable DirectX experience will possibly land you a job at some no-name PC only game company where you can put all that experience to work on a 20k selling FPS title or a job working on the dead Xbox 360 platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congrats dimwit , all that valuable DirectX experience will possibly land you a job at some no-name PC only game company where you can put all that experience to work on a 20k selling FPS title or a job working on the dead Xbox 360 platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congrats dimwit, all that valuable DirectX experience will possibly land you a job at some no-name PC only game company where you can put all that experience to work on a 20k selling FPS title or a job working on the dead Xbox 360 platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701118</id>
	<title>Re:Former OpenGL developer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262950140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pleasing the CAD community is a non-trivial thing, by the way.  I'd MUCH rather they keep CAD in mind at the expense of the latest and greatest shiny in games - CAD systems do Real Work and Important Work.  Games just aren't that important, and when creating something like the OpenGL spec I'd think the priority should be with the more important applications.  If they want to create a Game Specific API (like DirectX) then no problem - but keep OpenGL around and have it focus on CAD - I can live with two APIs if the card folk can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pleasing the CAD community is a non-trivial thing , by the way .
I 'd MUCH rather they keep CAD in mind at the expense of the latest and greatest shiny in games - CAD systems do Real Work and Important Work .
Games just are n't that important , and when creating something like the OpenGL spec I 'd think the priority should be with the more important applications .
If they want to create a Game Specific API ( like DirectX ) then no problem - but keep OpenGL around and have it focus on CAD - I can live with two APIs if the card folk can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pleasing the CAD community is a non-trivial thing, by the way.
I'd MUCH rather they keep CAD in mind at the expense of the latest and greatest shiny in games - CAD systems do Real Work and Important Work.
Games just aren't that important, and when creating something like the OpenGL spec I'd think the priority should be with the more important applications.
If they want to create a Game Specific API (like DirectX) then no problem - but keep OpenGL around and have it focus on CAD - I can live with two APIs if the card folk can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702326</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262955780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Find someone with an iPhone or Android based phone.</p><p>There's your killer app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Find someone with an iPhone or Android based phone.There 's your killer app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Find someone with an iPhone or Android based phone.There's your killer app.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701058</id>
	<title>An Amateur's Perspective - OpenGL vs DirectX</title>
	<author>Philodoxx</author>
	<datestamp>1262949900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've dabbled in 3D programming, I haven't done anything amazing, let alone made my own game, but I will say that D3D is <i>much</i> easier to write working code than OpenGL.  With OpenGL I got about as far as a spinning triangle on the screen.  With D3D I was able to get to the point where I was rendering a model on the screen and manipulating it with pixel and vertex shaders.</p><p>
Somebody earlier hit the the nail on the head when they said that because it's easier it's what people will start and subsequently stick with.  Not only that, but as a business if it takes your programmers 10 months to write a graphics engine in D3D and 12 months to write one in OpenGL, which one are you going to go for?  There aren't many instances where I will go to bat for MS, but DirectX has a better graphics API compared to OpenGL.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've dabbled in 3D programming , I have n't done anything amazing , let alone made my own game , but I will say that D3D is much easier to write working code than OpenGL .
With OpenGL I got about as far as a spinning triangle on the screen .
With D3D I was able to get to the point where I was rendering a model on the screen and manipulating it with pixel and vertex shaders .
Somebody earlier hit the the nail on the head when they said that because it 's easier it 's what people will start and subsequently stick with .
Not only that , but as a business if it takes your programmers 10 months to write a graphics engine in D3D and 12 months to write one in OpenGL , which one are you going to go for ?
There are n't many instances where I will go to bat for MS , but DirectX has a better graphics API compared to OpenGL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've dabbled in 3D programming, I haven't done anything amazing, let alone made my own game, but I will say that D3D is much easier to write working code than OpenGL.
With OpenGL I got about as far as a spinning triangle on the screen.
With D3D I was able to get to the point where I was rendering a model on the screen and manipulating it with pixel and vertex shaders.
Somebody earlier hit the the nail on the head when they said that because it's easier it's what people will start and subsequently stick with.
Not only that, but as a business if it takes your programmers 10 months to write a graphics engine in D3D and 12 months to write one in OpenGL, which one are you going to go for?
There aren't many instances where I will go to bat for MS, but DirectX has a better graphics API compared to OpenGL.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700518</id>
	<title>I'm sorry but I don't really care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262947440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is like a VHS vs. Betamax debate. Like millions of other people, I'm not a developer. I exclusively use Windows for PC gaming. I could give two flying F's whether my game is developed in OGL or DX. Coke, Pepsi, Ford, Chevy, just don't care...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like a VHS vs. Betamax debate .
Like millions of other people , I 'm not a developer .
I exclusively use Windows for PC gaming .
I could give two flying F 's whether my game is developed in OGL or DX .
Coke , Pepsi , Ford , Chevy , just do n't care.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like a VHS vs. Betamax debate.
Like millions of other people, I'm not a developer.
I exclusively use Windows for PC gaming.
I could give two flying F's whether my game is developed in OGL or DX.
Coke, Pepsi, Ford, Chevy, just don't care...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701894</id>
	<title>Only on Slashdot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262953800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>I exclusively use Windows for PC gaming. I could give two flying F's whether my game is developed in OGL or DX.</i> </p><p>If more games were developed in OGL, they would be easier to port to other operating systems (or run under Wine)so you wouldn't need to use Windows anymore.  That would save you a hundred bucks or so on a Windows license, or at the very least the need to reboot to play a game. That's got to be worth at least one flying F.</p></div><p>would this be modded as anything other than -1 Troll.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I exclusively use Windows for PC gaming .
I could give two flying F 's whether my game is developed in OGL or DX .
If more games were developed in OGL , they would be easier to port to other operating systems ( or run under Wine ) so you would n't need to use Windows anymore .
That would save you a hundred bucks or so on a Windows license , or at the very least the need to reboot to play a game .
That 's got to be worth at least one flying F.would this be modded as anything other than -1 Troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I exclusively use Windows for PC gaming.
I could give two flying F's whether my game is developed in OGL or DX.
If more games were developed in OGL, they would be easier to port to other operating systems (or run under Wine)so you wouldn't need to use Windows anymore.
That would save you a hundred bucks or so on a Windows license, or at the very least the need to reboot to play a game.
That's got to be worth at least one flying F.would this be modded as anything other than -1 Troll.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701726</id>
	<title>Re:I've used both</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1262953020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``anyway modern game development means licensing an engine. engine developers worry about supporting open gl or direct x.''</p><p>Exactly. That makes me wonder why they actually bother supporting DirectX, though, seeing as DirectX really only works on Windows, which is also supported by the APIs that the other platforms use.</p><p>``Plus, like others said, direct x is a whole game api. it's not just graphics. it's input, it's networking, it's sound. the whole platform is very cohesive. I'd rather just keep up with one api, one download, etc than have to follow open gl, open al, etc.''</p><p>But you don't; you just use the engine and let the engine developers worry about platform specific APIs. You even said as much yourself.</p><p>Also, I don't know to what extent DirectX is "one api". The way I understand it, DirectX is, first of all, made up of several different APIs for different purposes, e.g. Direct3D, DirectSound, and DirectInput. So there isn't really just one API. As for keeping up with it, to what extent is DirectX actually backward and forward compatible? I have never coded for it, so I don't know, but I got the impression that compatibility is often broken between releases. OpenGL seems (again, this is just my uninformed impression) to be rather stable, favoring extensions over completely changing things. Given these things, I find your argument that, with DirectX, you have to only keep up with one API hard to follow. To reiterate, I don't think it's one API, and I don't think it's easier to keep up with than its competing APIs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` anyway modern game development means licensing an engine .
engine developers worry about supporting open gl or direct x.''Exactly .
That makes me wonder why they actually bother supporting DirectX , though , seeing as DirectX really only works on Windows , which is also supported by the APIs that the other platforms use. ` ` Plus , like others said , direct x is a whole game api .
it 's not just graphics .
it 's input , it 's networking , it 's sound .
the whole platform is very cohesive .
I 'd rather just keep up with one api , one download , etc than have to follow open gl , open al , etc .
''But you do n't ; you just use the engine and let the engine developers worry about platform specific APIs .
You even said as much yourself.Also , I do n't know to what extent DirectX is " one api " .
The way I understand it , DirectX is , first of all , made up of several different APIs for different purposes , e.g .
Direct3D , DirectSound , and DirectInput .
So there is n't really just one API .
As for keeping up with it , to what extent is DirectX actually backward and forward compatible ?
I have never coded for it , so I do n't know , but I got the impression that compatibility is often broken between releases .
OpenGL seems ( again , this is just my uninformed impression ) to be rather stable , favoring extensions over completely changing things .
Given these things , I find your argument that , with DirectX , you have to only keep up with one API hard to follow .
To reiterate , I do n't think it 's one API , and I do n't think it 's easier to keep up with than its competing APIs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``anyway modern game development means licensing an engine.
engine developers worry about supporting open gl or direct x.''Exactly.
That makes me wonder why they actually bother supporting DirectX, though, seeing as DirectX really only works on Windows, which is also supported by the APIs that the other platforms use.``Plus, like others said, direct x is a whole game api.
it's not just graphics.
it's input, it's networking, it's sound.
the whole platform is very cohesive.
I'd rather just keep up with one api, one download, etc than have to follow open gl, open al, etc.
''But you don't; you just use the engine and let the engine developers worry about platform specific APIs.
You even said as much yourself.Also, I don't know to what extent DirectX is "one api".
The way I understand it, DirectX is, first of all, made up of several different APIs for different purposes, e.g.
Direct3D, DirectSound, and DirectInput.
So there isn't really just one API.
As for keeping up with it, to what extent is DirectX actually backward and forward compatible?
I have never coded for it, so I don't know, but I got the impression that compatibility is often broken between releases.
OpenGL seems (again, this is just my uninformed impression) to be rather stable, favoring extensions over completely changing things.
Given these things, I find your argument that, with DirectX, you have to only keep up with one API hard to follow.
To reiterate, I don't think it's one API, and I don't think it's easier to keep up with than its competing APIs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700906</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sorry but I don't really care</title>
	<author>Servaas</author>
	<datestamp>1262949240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't mean you shouldn't care. I'm not a developer myself but i understand competition drives consumer delight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't mean you should n't care .
I 'm not a developer myself but i understand competition drives consumer delight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't mean you shouldn't care.
I'm not a developer myself but i understand competition drives consumer delight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700452</id>
	<title>Former OpenGL developer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262947080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a former OpenGL developer, I am not too fond of GL anymore.</p><p>Khronos really disappointed a lot of people when they announced the GL3 specs. They had promised SO much and delivered SO little. Khronos claimed that it didn't want to piss of the CAD community, which is heavily GL based. They basically chose to please the CAD community instead of the gaming community.</p><p>That move totally killed GL for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a former OpenGL developer , I am not too fond of GL anymore.Khronos really disappointed a lot of people when they announced the GL3 specs .
They had promised SO much and delivered SO little .
Khronos claimed that it did n't want to piss of the CAD community , which is heavily GL based .
They basically chose to please the CAD community instead of the gaming community.That move totally killed GL for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a former OpenGL developer, I am not too fond of GL anymore.Khronos really disappointed a lot of people when they announced the GL3 specs.
They had promised SO much and delivered SO little.
Khronos claimed that it didn't want to piss of the CAD community, which is heavily GL based.
They basically chose to please the CAD community instead of the gaming community.That move totally killed GL for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701660</id>
	<title>What DirectX does that OpenGL/SDL don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262952780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What DirectX does that OpenGL/SDL don't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...provides sound and frame sync.  I could moderate in this thread (I have points), but no one had mentioned this crucial issue.  Sure, if you are doing scientific visualization, you're going to use OpenGL, either on a Mac or on incredibly budget Linux-running white box hardware because you don't have the $ for anything else.  But if you want to d games, it's important to have both the sound and the image (and haptic feedback, and anything else) synchronized.  Same for using it for video playback or video chat.  Apple goes out of its way to provide Apple-specific APIs for this, just as Microsoft provides DirectX, and the code you write using them is no more portable to other platforms than DirectX code is.</p><p>For very high frame rates, which are used to allow speculative pre-calcualtion and discard (i.e. pre-computing "the road not taken" in a multipathed decision tree, and throwing it away if a different road is taken), it's even more important to have the ability to combine work lists for speculative rendering along with audio etc. for the work, should it be used.</p><p>OpenGL is a graphics language.  It's good at what it does, but it's not good at what DirectX does on top of that.</p><p>Disclaimer: I work for Apple, and yes, I'm making more or less positive comments about "DirectX vs. OpenGL" when considered for a particular use related to what the article author proposes to use OpenGL for...</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What DirectX does that OpenGL/SDL do n't ...provides sound and frame sync .
I could moderate in this thread ( I have points ) , but no one had mentioned this crucial issue .
Sure , if you are doing scientific visualization , you 're going to use OpenGL , either on a Mac or on incredibly budget Linux-running white box hardware because you do n't have the $ for anything else .
But if you want to d games , it 's important to have both the sound and the image ( and haptic feedback , and anything else ) synchronized .
Same for using it for video playback or video chat .
Apple goes out of its way to provide Apple-specific APIs for this , just as Microsoft provides DirectX , and the code you write using them is no more portable to other platforms than DirectX code is.For very high frame rates , which are used to allow speculative pre-calcualtion and discard ( i.e .
pre-computing " the road not taken " in a multipathed decision tree , and throwing it away if a different road is taken ) , it 's even more important to have the ability to combine work lists for speculative rendering along with audio etc .
for the work , should it be used.OpenGL is a graphics language .
It 's good at what it does , but it 's not good at what DirectX does on top of that.Disclaimer : I work for Apple , and yes , I 'm making more or less positive comments about " DirectX vs. OpenGL " when considered for a particular use related to what the article author proposes to use OpenGL for...-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What DirectX does that OpenGL/SDL don't ...provides sound and frame sync.
I could moderate in this thread (I have points), but no one had mentioned this crucial issue.
Sure, if you are doing scientific visualization, you're going to use OpenGL, either on a Mac or on incredibly budget Linux-running white box hardware because you don't have the $ for anything else.
But if you want to d games, it's important to have both the sound and the image (and haptic feedback, and anything else) synchronized.
Same for using it for video playback or video chat.
Apple goes out of its way to provide Apple-specific APIs for this, just as Microsoft provides DirectX, and the code you write using them is no more portable to other platforms than DirectX code is.For very high frame rates, which are used to allow speculative pre-calcualtion and discard (i.e.
pre-computing "the road not taken" in a multipathed decision tree, and throwing it away if a different road is taken), it's even more important to have the ability to combine work lists for speculative rendering along with audio etc.
for the work, should it be used.OpenGL is a graphics language.
It's good at what it does, but it's not good at what DirectX does on top of that.Disclaimer: I work for Apple, and yes, I'm making more or less positive comments about "DirectX vs. OpenGL" when considered for a particular use related to what the article author proposes to use OpenGL for...-- Terry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703258</id>
	<title>Quicktime?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262961120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA "What kind of bizarro world is this where engineers are not only going crazy over Microsoft's latest proprietary API, but actively denouncing its open-standard competitor?"<br>Overgrowth is an evolution of Lagura, which is linked on the webpage. If you you'd like to watch a trailer of Lagura, just grab the quicktime vids. Not OGG or x264 or XviD. -shrug-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA " What kind of bizarro world is this where engineers are not only going crazy over Microsoft 's latest proprietary API , but actively denouncing its open-standard competitor ?
" Overgrowth is an evolution of Lagura , which is linked on the webpage .
If you you 'd like to watch a trailer of Lagura , just grab the quicktime vids .
Not OGG or x264 or XviD .
-shrug-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA "What kind of bizarro world is this where engineers are not only going crazy over Microsoft's latest proprietary API, but actively denouncing its open-standard competitor?
"Overgrowth is an evolution of Lagura, which is linked on the webpage.
If you you'd like to watch a trailer of Lagura, just grab the quicktime vids.
Not OGG or x264 or XviD.
-shrug-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466</id>
	<title>John Carmack ditched OpenGL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262947200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In an article a couple years back during the Doom 3 release he(John Carmack) said in later articles that they would be moving away from the OpenGL platform and considering he was one of the biggest backers of it. He even said in the article that they liked DirectX and the new features they have added, also that it was a lot better to work with these days and supported more. I can only imagine after the last fiasco update that OpenGL put out and all the missing features they promised, it looks pretty dismal for that development team as they cannot deliver what they promise.</p><p>Really the last place OpenGL stands strong is in AutoCAD and even they have indicated that the platform will not last longer, so we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In an article a couple years back during the Doom 3 release he ( John Carmack ) said in later articles that they would be moving away from the OpenGL platform and considering he was one of the biggest backers of it .
He even said in the article that they liked DirectX and the new features they have added , also that it was a lot better to work with these days and supported more .
I can only imagine after the last fiasco update that OpenGL put out and all the missing features they promised , it looks pretty dismal for that development team as they can not deliver what they promise.Really the last place OpenGL stands strong is in AutoCAD and even they have indicated that the platform will not last longer , so we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an article a couple years back during the Doom 3 release he(John Carmack) said in later articles that they would be moving away from the OpenGL platform and considering he was one of the biggest backers of it.
He even said in the article that they liked DirectX and the new features they have added, also that it was a lot better to work with these days and supported more.
I can only imagine after the last fiasco update that OpenGL put out and all the missing features they promised, it looks pretty dismal for that development team as they cannot deliver what they promise.Really the last place OpenGL stands strong is in AutoCAD and even they have indicated that the platform will not last longer, so we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702022</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing</title>
	<author>englishknnigits</author>
	<datestamp>1262954400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do agree that competition usually results in consumers getting better products (duh) but do you really want to develop a game for 10\% of the market share or alternatively, develop the same game for 10 different platforms?  It makes a lot of sense from a consumer standpoint about quality, but it doesn't make as much sense from a developers standpoint.  Yes, more competition will also breed better APIs, more efficient libraries, etc. but I think I would rather code with a semi-crappy API then code with 10 beautiful APIs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do agree that competition usually results in consumers getting better products ( duh ) but do you really want to develop a game for 10 \ % of the market share or alternatively , develop the same game for 10 different platforms ?
It makes a lot of sense from a consumer standpoint about quality , but it does n't make as much sense from a developers standpoint .
Yes , more competition will also breed better APIs , more efficient libraries , etc .
but I think I would rather code with a semi-crappy API then code with 10 beautiful APIs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do agree that competition usually results in consumers getting better products (duh) but do you really want to develop a game for 10\% of the market share or alternatively, develop the same game for 10 different platforms?
It makes a lot of sense from a consumer standpoint about quality, but it doesn't make as much sense from a developers standpoint.
Yes, more competition will also breed better APIs, more efficient libraries, etc.
but I think I would rather code with a semi-crappy API then code with 10 beautiful APIs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706700</id>
	<title>Re:OpenGL pride</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263045540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>M$uck</p></div></blockquote><p>
What are you? 13?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>M $ uck What are you ?
13 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M$uck
What are you?
13?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701822</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30708552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30704622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30707516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30709406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30704688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30708204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1830222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30708552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30704688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703126
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702004
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701592
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705966
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30708204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30709406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30707516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30703614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30704622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30706014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30705734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30702490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30700846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1830222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1830222.30701662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
