SL performance degraded by Windows Vista?

Windows Vista will degrade Open GL

With Windows Vista’s new interface and driver model the way DirectX is implemented into the operating system is somewhat different than before, however, it appears that these changes have had a knock on effect with other graphics API’s, which, being the only alternative to Direct3D on the Windows platform currently, affects OpenGL.

Evidently, as it stands now, the only provision for OpenGL Microsoft are making under Windows Vista is for it to be wrapped on top of DirectX. Windows Vista will provide two core 3D API specifications, DirectX9.L (formerly WGF1.0), which the main 3D GUI will utilise, and the yet to be finalised DirectX10 (WGF2.0), however at present it seems that MS will be layering OpenGL not on the more advanced DX10 specification, but the core DX9.L, pinning the specification to OpenGL1.4 and removing any IHV extension provisions.

With such a model in place there are several implications for OpenGL. First, its widely expected that the performance of OpenGL will be noticeably reduced by such an implementation (we may remember 3dfx were long since pilloried for not providing a native OpenGL ICD for a long time, instead laying it over their own Glide API). Pinning the specification to OpenGL1.4 and removing extensions will have implications for applications that are using shaders under OpenGL, which of course includes both workstation applications and games. Also, running OpenGL applications in windowed mode will require you to turn off the 3D Vista GUI, dropping the interface back to the Windows 2000 compatibility interface.

This coming to light now as Microsoft only recently confirmed their plans, however they are not likely to make many particularly happy, IHV’s or end users alike.

Can you cite your evidence .. links?

What? Say what this means in simple terms, please, for those like me.

coco

From slashdot:



more:

Microsoft trying to make thier product/standard more accessable or usable on thier platform than others? Quell surprise.

Meh, it was similar for Win2K. OpenGL will come entirely from the vid card manufacturers.

Check SLASHDOT (http://www.slashdot.org) and opengl.org (http://www.opengl.org).

Simple explanation: Games and apps dont send commands directly to your graphics card. A game that needs to draw something on the screen sends a drawing command to an API (application programming interface). An API is software that takes commands from a game and "interprets" the command so your graphics card can execute the command. This makes life easier for game programmers. Programmers dont have to worry about quirks of different graphics cards. Since the API is standard, programmers just send simple commands like "draw 1 blue rectangle" and the API does the heavy work of communicating with the graphics card to make sure the blue rectangle gets drawn.

But it couldnt be that simple when Microsoft is involved, could it? Nope. Microsoft has designed their own, proprietary, API, called DIRECT X. DIRECT X is in competition with the open, industry standard, API: OPEN GL. Programmers have to make a decision. Will they code their game to support one API or the other? It's a rare game that supports both. Too much work is involved in writing all your code twice.

Microsoft has always resented OPEN GL. But, they have grudgingly supported OPEN GL compatibility on Windows till now.

It appears that, in Windows VISTA (the coming upgrade to XP) Microsoft plans to design VISTA so that games coded for OPEN GL run 50% slower. Also, VISTA will only support OPEN GL 1.4, not 2.0. Games coded for OPEN GL will run slow and be unable to access the modern features of OPEN GL 2.0.

This will finally show the world that DIRECT X is superior. The only API to use, really.

Thanks, Bill.

QUOTE: "It would be technically straightforward to provide an OpenGL ICD within the full Aeroglass experience without compromising the stability or the security of the operating system. Layering OpenGL over Direct3D is a policy more than a technical decision."

Did you not read the quote? "...without compromising the STABILITY or the SECURITY of the operating system..." It's easy to spot the two words that aren't in the quote as being possibly "compromised." Those words are "performance" and "functionality."

I can't wait for the "Aeroglass experience." Ugh. What marketing shite. I'm sure it will be "technically straightforward" using Microsoft's historically poor technical documentation and lack of cooperation with anyone who opposes their standards.

How about this quote, which DIDN'T originate from the bowels of MS Marketing:

"Microsoft's current plan for OpenGL on Windows Vista is to layer OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the *Aeroglass experience*. If an OpenGL ICD is run - the desktop compositor will switch off - significantly degrading the user experience. In practice this means for OpenGL under Aeroglass:

* OpenGL performance will be significantly reduced - perhaps as much as 50%
* OpenGL on Windows will be fixed at a vanilla version of OpenGL 1.4
* No extensions will be possible to expose future hardware innovations

"

You can stick that in yer ICD and smoke it, eh!

Well, as per above - it will come from the driver manufacturers anyways. Nobody is using the default version.

Anyways, is open gl even the right way to go? Sacrificing performance and technical superiority for cross platform is rarely wise.

I'm jumpin outta this one. I think I said what I had to say. Peace.

Meh. One more reason to make the Linux client a priority.

I'll bite my tongue on this one, but let's just say I'm already considering not touching Longhorn/Vista for several other reasons.

omg windoze sux LOL mac os x forevar rotflmao omg wtf

Obviously, every OS sucks.

i only touch their server os (2000 -2003)

less bells and wistles to eat my cpu cycles

Actually looks like this is just plain FUD. I use Linux, and mostly F/OSS software myself - but even I can admit that slashdot is the worst kind of rumour mill - the amount of stuff that gets reported as 'fact' there; when it is just rumour or plain lies is amazing.

From what I gather about this whole thing, it's working as follows:
First: Microsoft wont be providing their own OpenGL Driver for Windows; it will instead be a wrapper to their Direct3D generic driver. However, no-one uses MS's own OpenGL Driver on plain windows currently, so this is a bit of a nonissue.
Second: ATI & nVidia still produce their own OpenGL drivers - they have since day one.
Third: Even if only the first option was availible; the slowdown will be 5-10% at the most; that's about the loss you get on Linux emulating Direct3D in OpenGL using WineX.

Now - the big issue here is compatibility; Microsoft's new windowmanager uses Direct3D; which means the ATI/nVidia drivers are going to need to be written to allow two simultaneous 3D apps running accellerated concurrently; but given the amount of time they will have to work on this problem (since Longhorn^H^H^H Vista wont be out for another two years), it will become a nonissue.

-Adam

I'll let you know how SL runs on Vista as soon as I get my beta in a couple of weeks.

And to be fair, taking Slashdot's opinion on any Microsoft product is like reading a column in the Hizb-ut-Tahrir weekly newsletter on American culture...

Slashdot likes to grandstand and sensationalize so that they gain some sort of relevence. If it's on Slashdot, it's always hype and it's often wrong.

I agree with Adam's assesment. The OS is some time before release, and worst case I suppose I can just stay with XP Pro which is quite servicable now.



That should be interesting, to say the least. I suspect you'll be more pissed at the change in UI than over a performance hit (because the former tends to create the latter - oh and I do have mine set to the old 2K format, saving quite a bit of memory doing that ).

<OT>



As much as I clearly like Solaris (see sig), I have a lot of respect for the Linux OS, mostly due to the experience I've had with it both privately and in corporate environment. Note also that Solaris is now going freeware - www.opensolaris.org - and Sun made their real $$$ in hardware and support anyway. (This is also from personal experience )

</OT>

Then why is it headline on www.opengl.org?


Microsoft basically fighting open sourced APIs? Oh, now that's just b.s.


Post your comments to our public message board. The more conversation and solution ideas, the better.

Not really. See here:

Meaning, if you use a real OpenGL driver (ie. a vendor-provided one that talks to the hardware directly), you won't get the new user interface. Even though it's easy for MS to allow both without compromising anything (except their market hold). Microsoft has never liked OpenGL. For a while, Microsoft didn't even ship a default OGL driver in WinXP.. which considering that their driver is a buggy-as-hell software implementation of OpenGL 1.1, I'd think was a good thing. You could say Microsoft is enhancing their OGL driver (by upping from 1.1 in software to 1.4 w/o extensions mapped to D3D), but at the cost of up-to-date vendor-supplied drivers. 1 step forward, 3 steps back.

And it's unfortunate too, because most users won't know or care of this. They'll just hear about this bad thing called opengl that turns off their pretty new desktop, or that games using this opengl will be slow and sub-standard. What's more, even a good number of current Windows games that use OpenGL won't be able to run at all on Vista under the Aeroglass configuration. Anything that requires something that OpenGL 1.4 doesn't define as standard won't work at all. Hardware manufacturers and developers alike won't have a choice but to use D3D for acceleration or else they face loss of profits.. unless they collectively stand against this move and tell Microsoft to do it right.

Estimated time by which shipment of Vista will be in deployment broad enough to matter given the installation history of NT6: 2010. I think Jupiter is due to be imploded by an enigmatic alien culture of monoliths prior to that.

That's what I worry about.

Slashdot is number one on my reading list.

The headlines are always weak, but the inside debate and commentary is always golden.

Which, frankly, is as it should be.

The only relevant and fact driven post of this thread. Thanks Malachi.

Microsoft has a history of shipping. They say 2006, and so I doubt it'll arrive no later than 2007.

... even if they have to strip out everything new and ship it later in successive buggy patches.

Microsoft should ship it when it's done, not on a specific date. The people who whine about slipping ship dates would never use anything except a Mac anyway. OK, they might use a Windows machine just long enough to prove that they have no ability to run it. But if MS waits until 2010 to ship the next version of Windows, that's fine for users. The only people who suffer from a late ship date are hardware and software vendors who depend on regular obsolescence so that they can sell upgrades.