The Khronos Group has released the latest version of its OpenGL graphics standard, 20 years after SGI first opened up the code. The latest revision, OpenGL 4.3, adds the ability to harness the GPU for shading and draw commands, ETC2/EAC texture compression is included as standard, and an improved debugging system has been added …
not to mention
With steam now spread over mac windows and soon linux, devs may find it easier to just code their games in openGL from the get go, rather than making directX for the windows version and openGL for everything else. With any luck that may move more developers over to learning and using openGL while encouraging them to ignore DX.
Honestly I kinda wish microsoft would drop DirectX and donate some of its codebase to openGL. It'd save microsoft money in the long run, rather than spending money on a technology people don't actually buy, and give us a greater graphics API by the end of it.
Sadly we know that'll never happen.
Re: not to mention
No, it won't happen while MS can perceive a competitive advantage in keeping DX just for Windows. In the past, that's been an ace in the hole, especially for games use and hence the personal/home desktop PC. I do think that if Valve actually come through on porting Steam and the major part of their catalogue to Linux, then MS may well have a problem, but I seriously doubt they'd rethink opening up DX anyway. I just can't see any commercial advantage.
Re: not to mention
Where DirectX treads, OpenGL follows. Who would Open GL follow if DirectX stopped refreshing? I mean, come, on, "the ability to draw multiple objects with one command"? DirectX 9 had that. 9!
Re: not to mention
AFAIK, all the GPU API calls begin life as OpenGL extensions, as this allows nVidia and ATi to develop, test and demo them, where they then may move into DirectX and/or the OpenGL standard. I would argue that its not OpenGL but DirectX who does the following.
It may take some time for some concepts to enter the final OpenGL standard, and usually for excellent reasons, as OpenGL is designed to last, unlike DirectX. Twenty year old OpenGL 1.0 code will almost certainly still compile and do what it was intended to do. Good luck getting a codebase written to DirectX 1.0 to compile and work...
Re: not to mention @GameCoder
Twenty year old OpenGL 1.0 code will almost certainly still compile and do what it was intended to do.
Maybe. There's a big discontinuity between OpenGL 2.1 and OpenGL 3.1 when you are forced to rewrite code using shaders instead of the fixed function pipeline.
I'm under the impression that DirectX has some functions that OpenGL does now have, can anyone give me the broad strokes of what OpenGL is missing?
I'm all for open platforms but as a "hardcore" gamer, I'm more interested in seeing graphical technology move on than taking a step back to widen the market. Unless OpenGL becomes so popular that the standard moves on a lot quicker. I'm happy with DirectX, and I'm happy using Windows as my gaming OS. I'm also happy to jump ship if the experience is as good.
DirectX is a collection of APIs that cover sound and networking as well as graphics. OpenGL deals solely with the graphics side of things only, and is equivalent to the Direct3D and DirectDraw APIs from DirectX. Quite a few cross platform games use open source libraries such as Allegro or SDL to complement OpenGL, as these libraries offer support for non-graphics aspects such as audio.
Its important to remember that DirectX and OpenGL are just software interfaces to the graphical capabilities of your machine, usually a dedicated graphics card. Its very similar to having two different menus and waiters in a restaurant, but the same kitchen and chef in the background.
In the last few years DirectX has greatly improved (and has converged in many areas of its API on the directions OpenGL originally took), but it has indeed also overtaken OpenGL from time to time, mostly due to the standardization needs of OpenGL, and the longer life expectancy of any OpenGL standard.
DirectX is for developing games; OpenGL is for developing games but is also the correct choice for any non games related visualization required by an application (medical visualization etc) and of course, its very cross platform too.
If you are a gamer, simply don't worry about it - just buy yourself the best graphics card you can happily afford and enjoy the beauty of todays amazing games.
Those projections seem to imply that Windows on Mobile will get around 30% of the market.
Is that really possible?
"Is [Windows Mobile getting 30% of the market] really possible?"
Yes, it is possible.
It is also possible that all the fecal matter in my body will undergo quantum tunneling, appearing 2m to my left, and then re-assemble itself into a 5 star, 4 course meal, complete with after-dinner mint.
It is just not very likely.