DX11 Coming To Linux (But Not XP) 370
gr8_phk writes "As reported over at Phoronix, the Direct X 11 API now has an open source implementation on top of Gallium3d which should ease porting of games to Linux with or without Wine. While still in its infancy, you can see where this is heading. All this while Microsoft hasn't offered DX11 for their own aging WindowsXP. Could it be that Linux may soon support this Microsoft API better than Microsoft itself?"
At Long Last (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At Long Last (Score:2)
Pickled okra? Pickled eggs? Pickled Pigs Feet?
Re:At Long Last (Score:3, Interesting)
Because "corn" means a large grain.
Such as peppercorns, barleycorns, maize corns or (such as in the naming of corned beef), salt corns.
Response to rampant speculation (Score:5, Funny)
"Could it be that Linux may soon support this Microsoft API better than Microsoft itself?"
Yes. It seems very likely to me that an open-source implementation of a Microsoft API, and implementation "in its infancy", will soon surpass Microsoft's own offering.
I mean, if you're comparing DX11 support on Linux to DX11 support on XP - well, some support is better than none, right? So, OK, sure.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
XP? Forget XP! (Score:4, Funny)
I was die-hard on XP, but then I tried Windows 7 for the last couple of days and will simply NEVER go back to XP again..
Besides, if you're gonna do SSD, Windows 7 is the way forward. XP will be obsolete, like Red Hat 5 and Windows 98SE. Do you really want to risk your data or latest gadget to fail?
Win 7 vs XP:
* Better looking
* Fast
* More options, integrated backup, it's a big mess, but most of it works. Yeah, u know the drill by now, but it *mostly* works, most of the time, and then it's "good enuff"
* More integrated recovery tools. More chances of getting back up and running..
* More robust, flexible & userfriendly install. Not as good as Ubuntu, but better than last time.
* Support
* SSD support without all the headaches necessary on XP & Vista. If you're like me, you don't want your drive to die in its infancy..
* non-admin accounts works
* UAE security, and no, it's not as annoying as on Vista
* Better driver support than Vista, runs newer hardware without slipstreaming tons of drivers
* More native drivers available on Windows Update
* DX11
Not a quantum-leap, but Windows 7 fixes most nuances with Vista, and has more OPTIONS ;-)
XP is already obsoleted by Windows 7 IMHO.
Face it, XP is dying ;-)
Re:XP? Forget XP! (Score:4, Insightful)
We all have our different opinions. I've had Windows 7 for a little over a month now and I still find hacks to revert some things back to the way XP did it.
* Reverted the "breadcrumb" address bar
* Removed libraries
* Flexible/robust install? I had no options during mine... There was basically a button that said "Install."
* Had to remove the search box from Window header, wish I could remove/move the rest
* Had to edit windows resource files to remove that stupid "command bar" with the organize/etc.
* Installed Classic Shell to get my treeview lines back. Classic start menu was a bonus.
* Had to clean up 15 or so folder shortcuts that didn't point to anything in my "user" folder.
* Had to download a tweak program to remove the horrendously huge borders. Found out theme editing is a PITA, even with a program made for it. Wanted to reduce the button sizes. Couldn't find a decent theme out there.
* Still hate going into the control panel. Try to manage things in "Computer" / Right-Click Manage so I don't have to go to the control panel.
* Notice no real speed difference. (Seriously... I had XP installed to burn in my system, then switched to Win7...) SSD performs great on both systems.
* I spent well over 10 times as much time making Windows 7 close to how I wanted it, XP was a breeze and two registry entries. Windows 7 is going on 10 registry edits + resource hacking + disabling so many services... I'm still not done.
* The only thing I like about Windows 7 so far is the >4G RAM support without crazy settings and limits.
* If you know how I can change the file click rename timing (or reverting back to the old file selection look and feel), I'd love to know it. I hate clicking on a file and hitting delete to have windows interpret that as me wanting to delete the filename.
* As a gamer, I can't think of any games I've played that use DX11... or even 10 for that matter. Then again, there's been a terrible slump in games that excite me recently so I haven't been playing as much as I used to.
* I'm sure there's more...
Re:XP? Forget XP! (Score:3, Interesting)
That doesn't seem that different, even back with Windows 2000 started the standard post-install/reinstall procedure:
* Folder tweaking (show hidden files, file extensions, otherwise it was impossible to see if something was an executable, icon or whatever)
* TweakUI to improve responsiveness of the UI (this is an official Microsoft tool though, just not shipped with OS).
* Registry tweaking (In win2k and winxp only to disable auto-loading of all useless services installed by required crapware like DVD-players, file archives, PDF readers, etc.)
* Enabling useful "eye-candy" (font antialiasing, and more), disable useless eye-candy (oversized borders, slow animations, etc).
So nothing much changed, it only got slightly worse.
Re:XP? Forget XP! (Score:3, Insightful)
Debatable. I prefer XP's minimalist looks.
Bollocks to that. I went from XP to 7 at work and now having 2 VM's running at once makes my entire system chug (E6600, 4 GB RAM, 2 windows VM's should run fine). 7 is only fast if you're doing nothing with it, utter shite resource management.
If I want to change my network settings I have to navigate through 7 "helpful" windows wizards before being able to manually set my IP address. No Windows, I dont need you to diagnose the problem, I know the problem. What's that, you want me to contact my Systems Administrator, I AM THE SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR.
Nothing wrong with the Windows 7 install, apart from the fact it installs Windows 7.
Clearly the GP has never tried to contact Microsft support. As an enterprise customer they've been nothing but useless.
Well you may consider United Arab Emirates security to be good but it's not what I look for in an OS. Introducing Windows Dubai, Burka edition.
Its just as annoying, the only differnce is I can copy a file with just one UAC popup, not three. Still occurs far too often and takes over whatever I am doing.
Win 7 default drivers for Asus and Gigabyte motherboards are atrocious, if they haven't published drivers for Vista or 7 for your board forget about upgrading.
Now for the problems
* Uses more system resources. Running VMware or playing games is severely affected.
* USB Storage is more painful. Not just the "scan and fix" dialouge with each USB Drive but I installed the Android SDK and now it refuses to recongise my milestone as a Mass Storage device (only computer in the lab that does this)
* UI demands more attention, default settings are painful.
* Important system config utilities are hidden behind bad and useless wizard.
If they can get DX 11 working OK on Linux, I'll ditch Windows 7.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. It seems very likely to me that an open-source implementation of a Microsoft API, and implementation "in its infancy", will soon surpass Microsoft's own offering.
I was about to post the same thing. The summary is amazingly hasty in its conclusion... I mean, WINE has been at it for what, 10 years? They still don't have it working as well as the original. Not dissing WINE, but I mean, implementing the entry points of a published API is easy. Making it do the correct things under the hood is the hard part...
That being said, I can certainly applaud the effort, but this should be news once it's working otherwise it's meaningless.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say WINE has done quite nicely. Remember when WINE emulated Win 3.11? WINE's biggest problem is that it will forever be playing catch up.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:2)
Oh, I certainly agree, WINE is quite an achievement. My point was that it's much too soon to celebrate an open-source DX11 implementation because they haven't started doing the hard part yet; look at how long it took WINE to get accelerated DX9 to a "mostly working (with limitations)" state...
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:2)
It seems Wine works pretty well on very popular apps, but not so much with obscure ones.
And those are the ones that usually keep people stuck on Windows.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
I had a quick look at the system requirements for this project, and it said: "The following are required for DRI-based hardware acceleration with Mesa...Linux 2.6.28." This version was released nearly two years after Vista. I don't think that it can be said to support DirectX better than Microsoft when it can't run on a version that dates back to XP days.
Now I think that it is great that they are doing this project, but saying it supports the API better than Microsoft only distracts from the developer's achievements.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that it can be said to support DirectX better than Microsoft when it can't run on a version that dates back to XP days.
Irrelevant. The latest Linux kernel is available for free, and can be upgraded without any compatibility issues or changes to the UI. Why would this project waste time redoing all the work which has already gone into kernel development? The odds that anyone would be interested in DX11 on Linux and simultaneously have a good reason not to upgrade their kernel are rather slim.
Not to mention that the whole kernel is open-source, so if you really wanted to make it work you could probably backport the necessary DRI changes to an older kernel.
There are good reasons for retaining XP on existing systems, not least of which are the facts that upgrading would cost several hundred dollars and force a major change in the user interface. You can't upgrade an XP system to a Vista or Windows 7 kernel with DX11 support while leaving the rest of the system intact. The situations are not comparable.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:2, Insightful)
There are good reasons for retaining XP on existing systems, not least of which are the facts that upgrading would cost several hundred dollars
Windows 7 Home Premium is only $99 from Newegg. Actually $89 today on sale. While I'm a die-hard Ubuntu user, I keep a copy of Windows around for gaming. As obvious, the price isn't what's keeping me from using Windows on my main machine. It's more an issue of Linux constantly improving in quality, whereas Windows seems to be going slowly downhill post-XP. Eventually they met in the middle and I found myself less frustrated in Linux compared to Windows. If I could get my gaming done on Linux, I'd love to toss the Windows machine completely.
OEM vs. retail pricing; pro vs. home (Score:3, Informative)
Windows 7 Home Premium is only $99 from Newegg.
As I understand it, that's the price of the OEM version, and the OEM version is available only when purchased on the same invoice as a motherboard. Otherwise, you have to buy the retail version, which is $100 more. Besides, a lot of people who need features found only in the Professional edition don't want to have to dual boot Windows XP Professional and Windows 7 Home Premium.
Re:OEM vs. retail pricing; pro vs. home (Score:4, Interesting)
The OEM version is available with any hardware purchase. My understanding is that to meet the requirement when ordering just the software they'll throw in a tiny "hardware" component (usually a screw or a cable) to legitimize it. If you have ANY other piece of hardware in your order though then even that is not needed.
In regard to features, you have a point there, though several features that were limited to the "Professional" version of XP (such as SMP support) have migrated to the "Home" version of Windows 7. That's assuming they were even using XP Pro. I know a lot of people that were using XP Home just fine. And if you really do need Professional, then the OEM Windows 7 Pro is only $40 more than Home Premium.
Re:OEM vs. retail pricing; pro vs. home (Score:3, Informative)
OEM versions are only for new machines that will be resold. You cannot build your own machine this way.
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/licensing/sblicensing/pages/licensing_for_hobbyists.aspx [microsoft.com]
OEM System Builder Software
Must be preinstalled on a PC and sold to another unrelated party.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:4, Informative)
I'd like to point out that comparing linux with Home Premium isn't fair either.
Linux only comes in one version: Awesome.
You should compare it with the Win7 Awesome version, whatever it's called.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. MS won't support it on XP because they are trying to get gamers to buy Windows 7ista. I'm sure the Windows 7 support for DX11 will be on par with the linux support.
*note I'm not a windows fanboi, I just happen to have a firm grasp of reality. I do game on windows, but my development work is entirely FOSS based on linux systems.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:3, Interesting)
MS won't support it on XP because they are trying to get gamers to buy Windows 7ista.
Doesn't work though. Look at how many Windows games are written for the Xbox360 and are therefore run fine with Directx9.
Re:Response to rampant speculation (Score:3, Informative)
Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because I can't help but think that this may be some sort of scheme to put OpenGL out of the picture....
I'm generally not one to presume conspiracy right off the bat, but there's something about this that just doesn't quite seem on the up-and-up, IMO.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:5, Informative)
This is what the developer wrote in the commit message [freedesktop.org]:
Thanks to a very clean and well-though design done from scratch,
the Direct3D 10/11 APIs are vastly better than OpenGL and can be
supported with orders of magnitude less code and development time,
as you can see by comparing the lines of code of this commit and
those in the existing Mesa OpenGL implementation.
As somebody who only has little OpenGL coding experience I can't really comment on this.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to implement this into the driver, considering no windows code can interface with it.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to just implement this at the Wine layer?
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
No, because this will help to convince producers to port games (not having to use OpenGL is a big bonus), and this is not a layer "on top" but a proper tracker for Gallium, meaning it'll have much better performance than any proxy Wine could implement.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
I doubt anyone will use Direct3D natively on Linux, except for the Wine developpers.
I wonder if they won't because of technological or ideological reasons
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:5, Informative)
Gallium drivers are in several layers. The majority of a modern GPU is basically a general-purpose processor optimised for running floating-point heavy, branch-light, programs in parallel. The back end of a gallium driver is just a compiler and runtime that takes TGIR programs and runs them on the GPU (or the CPU if the GPU can't handle them). The front end of the driver generates TGIR programs.
Because modern GPUs are so flexible, Direct3D 11 and OpenGL 3 are basically APIs for launching shader programs, which do the real work. The front end of the driver compiles GLSL or HLSL programs to TGIR and passes them to the back end. The back end then compiles them for the native architecture and runs them.
When you use OpenGL 2 or DirectX 9 on Gallium, you have something like Mesa that implements the older, less-flexible (but simpler-to-use) APIs by generating fairly static TGIR programs.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2, Interesting)
I only have a little GL experience myself, but I can tell you that the DX10 API is *vastly* better. Basically it takes all the OO pieces of GL like which is what modern GL code uses anyway (VBO's, FBO's etc) and throws out the requirement for you to have to deal with the very non-OO GL state machine. It's like the difference between C and Forth in that you no longer have to manage the stack of states yourself. Architecturally speaking, OpenGL's shaders are kind of weak (it basically requires the GLSL compiler as part of the driver) but in real-world terms it's pretty much a wash.
That said, OpenGL has a far superior extension system where DX has bupkus, which lets OpenGL keep pace and sometimes set the pace. Someone seems to have lit a fire under Kronos, because OpenGL is iterating very fast (I'd even say too fast!) these days. But in API terms, it's still way behind.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:5, Interesting)
As the developer claimed:
I call BULL SHIT. I call it loudly and I call it with a big raspberry. Because: OH REALLY??? ONE HUNDRED or more times more code and development time? Thats what "orders of magnitude" with an "s" means.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds about right. Direct3D uses COM interfaces. This means that each version require an entirely new interface. All of the new stuff is in a separate function pointer table (COM object) and all of the new stuff is in the old one. OpenGL, in contrast, uses C functions, and new versions just add new ones (although with 3.x they've started deprecating / removing them).
This means that the DirectX 11 API can be very clean, however the DirectX11 library also includes the DirectX 1 to 10 interfaces. Implementing DirectX 11 is probably an order of magnitude or two easier than implementing OpenGL 3.0 or 3.1, but implementing DirectX 1 to 11 is probably about as hard. If you only want to support the new APIs, then it's easy. OpenGL ES 2.0 is probably about as complicated.
The latest versions of both APIs dispense with all of the old fixed-function stuff. In slightly earlier versions, the driver was responsible for basically providing a complete software emulator for an old fixed-function card that ran on newer completely programmable ones.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:4, Funny)
Base 1.01 [wikipedia.org] - when you need to make drastic improvements fast.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:5, Informative)
What he says is a criticism of what happened with OpenGL 3. Despite hopes that the old fixed-function API would all be removed in favor of the modern programmable API, it was all left in--along with the *massive* API and all the extra state and complex code it took to implement it. The Direct3D 10 API was, functionally, what most developers were hoping OpenGL 3 would be--a clean break. Smaller, optimized, easy to use, and easy to implement. OpenGL 3.1 eventually removed all the old fixed-function APIs, and OpenGL 3.2 brought rough feature parity with Direct3D 10.
Unfortunately, OpenGL was so backwards- and forwards-compatible with itself that many games were made using some mix of the old and new functionality, so even modern games can be found that won't work without an implementation that supports the older stuff. Direct3D is a pretty rigid API without extensions, and Direct3D 10 was not backwards-compatible at all, so code that is written for it is unable to be anything but simple to implement.
From an implementer's perspective, supporting modern OpenGL use can be a much larger problem than supporting modern Direct3D use. Of course, many games also use older Direct3D versions, and that API is bound to be much more complex too--something he didn't mention.
Hello World (Score:2)
OpenGL 3.1 eventually removed all the old fixed-function APIs
Did this come at the cost of making the program to display a spinning cube textured with "Hello World" ten times longer?
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:5, Interesting)
OTOH, Macs run OpenGL and are stereotyped as having an affluent user base. Blizzard still releases Mac versions of games. Steam for Mac launched in May. Not really "out of the picture" yet.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
The PS3 has both a slow opengl implementation and a faster native API. Guess which one gets used.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
Nobody uses OpenGL (or derivatives) on consoles. Everybody uses low level proprietary libraries specific to particular consoles, except the Xbox which uses DirectX.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:4, Informative)
the Wii uses Nintendo's in-house graphics API, not OpenGL.
If the Wii graphics API (GX) is anything like the DS graphics API (also called GX), it's OpenGL with the serial numbers filed off.
OpenGL not just used on PCs (Score:5, Informative)
It bears noting that various flavors of OpenGL are used on other hardware, such as Sony's various consoles [google.com] or the Wii [google.com], and it is apparently part of the underlying codebase for the upcoming Nintendo 3DS system [google.com]. So it looks unlikely to die in the near term, at least.
Cheers,
Re:OpenGL not just used on PCs (Score:2)
Even though OpenGL or OpenGL-like APIs are supposed to be available on those platforms, nobody actually uses them for anything useful.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
and PS3, Wii (OpenGL like AP), iPhone and iPad, WebOS, Android ....
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
>> With people like John Carmack now even coding in Direct X,
Wrong. The ID tech engine isn't tied to DirectX at all. Sure, it has a DirectX9 backend renderer, but it also has an OpenGL renderer.
The DirectX backend was a necessary evil, since MS had announced that Vista wouldn't have OpenGL support, and when they backtracked they made sure the implementation would be sufficiently fragmented as to not compete with their own proprietary (i.e. "lock you into Windows") API.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:4, Interesting)
DirectX 10+ is vastly superior to what is available on Linux for writing apps,
1. Direct3D - OpenGL is OK. It's not the largest problem after all!
2. DirectInput - what is the Linux analogy? Using X.Org shitty API? It's akin to using Windows' WM_KEYPRESS and similar messages to do keyboard interface, except it's even more cryptic. X.Org is OK for desktop apps, like Win32 API is OK for desktop apps, but that's about it.
3. DirectSound - let's not even get started on the horrendous crap ALSA has become. It's a prime example of *over-engineered*, unusable project. Hell, even my headset returns multiple interfaces while in fact it is 2 channels OUT, 1 channel IN. Yet in Alsa it has a shit ton of options that are completely useless, like emulating 7.1 input. WTF??
Here's more proof how crap ALSA is,
http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib/index.html
Even the documentation is a mess. Click on high level control interface and you get a blank page!
http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib/hcontrol.html
Going from a different path (modules => high level interface), thus ignoring the main navigation page gets me a page with NO overview, *nothing*.
http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib/group___h_control.html
ALSA is one of many OSS projects that makes me ashamed of OSS. You look at projects like PostgreSQL that has *clear* and *concise* documentation available,
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/index.html
to something like ALSA, and you want to cry. ALSA looks like overengineered project by a 20 year old that simply ignored making any documentation. Winsauce!
DirectX is NOT only about graphics. It's too bad that Linux/XOrg tends to be barely about graphics and almost nothing about the rest.
And I'm speaking as someone that uses Linux 100% of the time.
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you? (Score:2)
one of many large groups of windows users is gamers, another is the folks who are now switching to apple to a degree (clueless users).
If their games ran under linux, you could scratch a lot of word of mouth support and a lot of marketshare right there. So I'd love to see this work, but I'll remain extra skeptical because Microsoft will intentionally change DX calls once wine is able to use them, and has done that for a while.
Support MS APIs better than MS? (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean like CIFS as supported by SAMBA...
Sound API is the issue now (Score:2, Interesting)
Graphics are an issue but Sound is the item holding back games for Linux.
If this can include a universal sound API then Microsoft will be in trouble.
Re:Sound API is the issue now (Score:2)
Sound already works OK in Linux. A little bit of a headache, but most users don't notice it.
Trust me, it'll take a LOT more than adding a sound API for Microsoft to be "in trouble" regarding this.
I'd be happy with just getting a few native ports, which would probably put Microsoft into the "just barely concerned" category regarding gaming.
Microsoft may well be afraid of Linux, this ain't the area spawning that fear.
Re:Sound API is the issue now (Score:2)
routed through Pulseaudio to the ALSA driver.
Or to SDL to Arts to OSS.
Re:Sound API is the issue now (Score:2)
Well that's what OpenAL is for. Plus there's OpenCL, which would be the open-source equivalent of PhysX+CUDA.
Seems sensible enough (Score:5, Informative)
D3D 10/11 are pure shaders, the API does little more than compile, upload, and bind data to those shaders.
So the only 'trick' is to automatically convert HLSL to GLSL, which again, is pretty straightforward, since concepts and structures should pretty much map up 1:1.
Oh, BTW.. It's not DX11 it's D3D11, DirectX is no longer versioned or packaged as one big 'thing', each component carries it's own version number and release schedule.
Day I thought I'd never see (Score:2)
Phoronix (Score:2)
So on a scale of 90-100, how many percent of this article is bullshit?
Re:Phoronix (Score:2, Funny)
100-x where x is the number of linux steam installations
Re:Phoronix (Score:2)
Re:Phoronix (Score:3, Informative)
$cd tmp/mesa
$ git pull
$ ls src/gallium/state_trackers/d3d1x/
d3d1xshader docs dxgid3d11 gd3d1x Makefile.inc tools
d3d1xstutil dxgi gd3d10 gd3dapi mstools w32api
d3dapi dxgid3d10 gd3d11 Makefile progs
Only about 11%, it seems.
Pimp my linux. (Score:5, Funny)
Hello sir, I have been told that you enjoy compatibility. I took the liberty of installing a Direct X compatibility layer on top of your WINE compatibility layer. Now you can have a compatible user experience while having a compatible graphical experience.
Wait, did I do that right?
Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
great idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:great idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Wine (Score:2)
Doesn't WINE already have a reasonable Direct X implementation? And with that I mean it's still quite iffy for a lot of games, so it looks like it's pretty hard to get a good implementation done..
Re:Wine (Score:2)
Yes, but only upto DirectX 9. Direct X 10 (and possibly bits of 11 too) are in the works, but it is slow going.
Just having the shader part of DX10/11 is not enough. It interacts with other Windows APIs like HWND (to create windows and process messages), HDC (to do some 2D drawing), Direct2D (for accelerated 2D rendering), DirectWrite (for accelerated text rendering), GDI+ (the XP-era acceleration APIs) and other APIs. Therefore, you need to pull in a lot of Windows APIs and behaviour to get games working properly.
no (Score:2, Troll)
not better than microsoft. microsoft has merely made a well-announced, long-planned strategic decision to stop supporting XP on new products. this isn't a surprise, and anyone who complains about it needs to stop living in 2001.
In ten years (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In ten years (Score:2)
Extrapolating from past trends trends[0], in ten years, a moldy peach will be a better Windows than Windows.
[0] (yeah yeah, I know... ObXKCD: http://xkcd.com/605/ [xkcd.com])
Re:In ten years (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In ten years (Score:4, Funny)
An insider view (Score:5, Informative)
"not XP" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"not XP" (Score:3, Informative)
Gallium requires some sort of adapter to interface with hardware. There are no such adapters for any MS kernel, save for the closed-source VMWare stuff.
Re:"not XP" (Score:3, Interesting)
slashdotted? (Score:2)
2011 is the year of the Linux desktop (Score:2, Funny)
That damn Linux is at it again... (Score:3, Insightful)
... taking an established technology - embracing, extending, and finally engulfing, and uh... wait a sec. Wha?
Apples to Oranges (Score:2, Insightful)
Could it be that Linux may soon support this Microsoft API better than Microsoft itself?"
Not until they backport this project to work with kernel 2.2.19, which was current when XP was released 9 years ago. Failing that, they should at least be honest and compare support among current implementations.
It's one thing for people to chose XP for their recent builds -- more power to them for choosing whatever they like best. But when you deliberately chose a 9 year old OS, you lose the right to complain that you cannot run the latest DirectX in the same fashion that people still on kernel 2.2 (I'm sure there are in-use servers still running that) can complain they cannot run the CFS [slashdot.org].
Don't get too carried away... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Don't get too carried away... (Score:2)
Nothing to see here.. move along (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't really that exciting. Firstly it doesn't benefit Wine at all. Wine supports other platforms than Linux and other drivers than Gallium3D and Mesa and so this is useless to them, if that isn't enough the Wine source structure isn't built for this kind of swap out, specifically because Wine limits X interaction to a single DLL, winex11, and the WineD3D stuff doesn't have direct access to X. The Wine D3D developers have long said that a D3D state tracker won't help them.
Secondly, it's not gonna help porting games to Linux either. D3D is only one part of the DX API and a game does a lot more than just draw stuff. Arguably swapping out D3D for OGL is relatively straightforward in comparison to swapping out sound API, file IO API, network IO API, message handling, etc. etc. that's why some games allow you to switch between the graphics API.
Interesting. (Score:2)
With Gallium 3D? (Score:3, Interesting)
A bit off-topic, but... (Score:2)
On a marginally related note, I've actually had something like this happen to me. I couldn't get Railroad Tycoon 3 running in Vista, and it worked just fine under Wine.
Back on topic: the submitter misspelled "eventually".
To be fair... (Score:2)
To say Linux 'may support D3D better than MS' while referencing lack of D3D 10+ on WinXP is a tad disingenuous.
Unless you are saying that the community is going to meaningfully backport full D3D 10/11 to RedHat 7.2 that is (WinXP and RedHat 7.2 came out roughly at the same time). I doubt you'll see this work seriously put to use in anything even as old as Vista with respect to the linux world
Re:News? (Score:2)
Re:Comment: No Computers on TV Show HOUSE (Score:2)
Apparently you didn't watch last night's episode.
House, like apparently everyone else on TV/movies, has a macbook.
I don't get it. Does Apple encourage it (giving them away to be used as props) or are these twits just feeding the iHype themselves?
Re:Comment: No Computers on TV Show HOUSE (Score:2)
My guess would be that Apple pays them to put Macs on TV, but also, everyone who is in the industry seems to like Macs.
Re:Dangerous path for Microsoft (Score:2)
Re:Gre (Score:3, Insightful)