by Jonathan de Boyne Pollar » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:14:02
MSS> Also note that UNIX has not anything like DDraw.
If you really _do_ mean DirectDraw by itself, rather than DirectX as a whole,
then Unices _do_ have something like it. Most Unices allow one to mmap() a
frame buffer device.
by Kovacs Viktor Pete » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:34:06
SGI Irix uses the GL api (opengl for the rest of the world) to implementQuote:> PH> It's not. The performance of your typical DirectDraw application is
> PH> faster than your typical GDI application merely because GDI adds so
> PH> much extra [...]
> MSS> Also note that UNIX has not anything like DDraw.
> If you really _do_ mean DirectDraw by itself, rather than DirectX as a whole,
> then Unices _do_ have something like it. Most Unices allow one to mmap() a
> frame buffer device.
These systems have VL (video library, aka. directshow) and AL
(directsound) too. The world just forgot this for 20 years...
Please note that these apis are implemented fully in hw. by some newer
boards. (and are fully network transparent by design)
Viktor
by Tod » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:30:39
Well, DirectDraw is a *whole lot* more than a mmap()... it allows youQuote:> PH> It's not. The performance of your typical DirectDraw application is
> PH> faster than your typical GDI application merely because GDI adds so
> PH> much extra [...]
> MSS> Also note that UNIX has not anything like DDraw.
> If you really _do_ mean DirectDraw by itself, rather than DirectX as a whole,
> then Unices _do_ have something like it. Most Unices allow one to mmap() a
> frame buffer device.
Also, it has support for multiple monitors (great for flying SIMs) and
other more advanced features besides just getting the address to video
memory (which is almost never required anymore).
DirectX as a whole doesn't exist on any platform besides Windows
ME/2000/XP... it is an excellent API and one that Linux would do very
well to have.
DirectX has evolved very quickly into being an excellent API...
Direct3D is now easy to program as opposed to Direct3D of a couple
years ago... IDirectDraw3 ?
Anyway, as the XBox proves, DirectX rocks!
-Todd
by GreyClou » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:18:50
> > PH> It's not. The performance of your typical DirectDraw application is
> > PH> faster than your typical GDI application merely because GDI adds so
> > PH> much extra [...]
> > MSS> Also note that UNIX has not anything like DDraw.
> > If you really _do_ mean DirectDraw by itself, rather than DirectX as a whole,
> > then Unices _do_ have something like it. Most Unices allow one to mmap() a
> > frame buffer device.
> Well, DirectDraw is a *whole lot* more than a mmap()... it allows you
> to take advantage of the hardware accelerator, back buffer, texture
> memory in a device independant way.
> Also, it has support for multiple monitors (great for flying SIMs) and
> other more advanced features besides just getting the address to video
> memory (which is almost never required anymore).
> DirectX as a whole doesn't exist on any platform besides Windows
> ME/2000/XP... it is an excellent API and one that Linux would do very
> well to have.
> DirectX has evolved very quickly into being an excellent API...
> Direct3D is now easy to program as opposed to Direct3D of a couple
> years ago... IDirectDraw3 ?
> Anyway, as the XBox proves, DirectX rocks!
by Peter K?hlman » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:25:34
>> > PH> It's not. The performance of your typical DirectDraw application
>> > is PH> faster than your typical GDI application merely because GDI
>> > adds so PH> much extra [...]
>> > MSS> Also note that UNIX has not anything like DDraw.
>> > If you really _do_ mean DirectDraw by itself, rather than DirectX as
>> > a whole,
>> > then Unices _do_ have something like it. Most Unices allow one to
>> > mmap() a frame buffer device.
>> Well, DirectDraw is a *whole lot* more than a mmap()... it allows you
>> to take advantage of the hardware accelerator, back buffer, texture
>> memory in a device independant way.
>> Also, it has support for multiple monitors (great for flying SIMs) and
>> other more advanced features besides just getting the address to video
>> memory (which is almost never required anymore).
>> DirectX as a whole doesn't exist on any platform besides Windows
>> ME/2000/XP... it is an excellent API and one that Linux would do very
>> well to have.
>> DirectX has evolved very quickly into being an excellent API...
>> Direct3D is now easy to program as opposed to Direct3D of a couple
>> years ago... IDirectDraw3 ?
>> Anyway, as the XBox proves, DirectX rocks!
> Uh, isn't directX somewhat a bit buggy?? I doubt that it could excel at
> what SGI had created.
Peter
--
A fool-proof method for sculpting an elephant:
first, get a huge block of marble; then you chip
away everything that doesn't look like an elephant.
by Tod » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:45:30
> > > PH> It's not. The performance of your typical DirectDraw application is
> > > PH> faster than your typical GDI application merely because GDI adds so
> > > PH> much extra [...]
> > > MSS> Also note that UNIX has not anything like DDraw.
> > > If you really _do_ mean DirectDraw by itself, rather than DirectX as a whole,
> > > then Unices _do_ have something like it. Most Unices allow one to mmap() a
> > > frame buffer device.
> > Well, DirectDraw is a *whole lot* more than a mmap()... it allows you
> > to take advantage of the hardware accelerator, back buffer, texture
> > memory in a device independant way.
> > Also, it has support for multiple monitors (great for flying SIMs) and
> > other more advanced features besides just getting the address to video
> > memory (which is almost never required anymore).
> > DirectX as a whole doesn't exist on any platform besides Windows
> > ME/2000/XP... it is an excellent API and one that Linux would do very
> > well to have.
> > DirectX has evolved very quickly into being an excellent API...
> > Direct3D is now easy to program as opposed to Direct3D of a couple
> > years ago... IDirectDraw3 ?
> > Anyway, as the XBox proves, DirectX rocks!
> Uh, isn't directX somewhat a bit buggy??
Well, Direct3D has been through many revisions and has survived thisQuote:> I doubt that it could excel at
> what SGI had created.
The 3D API (Direct3D) is just one part of DirectX.
OpenGL only competes with Direct3D. I'm not saying that OpenGL is
better or worse than Direct3D, but D3D certainly seems easier to
program and is geared towards getting the max out of the hardware.
-Todd
by Darre » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:06:51
> DirectX has evolved very quickly into being an excellent API... Direct3D
> is now easy to program as opposed to Direct3D of a couple years ago...
> IDirectDraw3 ?
> Anyway, as the XBox proves, DirectX rocks!
> -Todd
Anyway, as PlayStation2 proves, Linux rocks!
by Tim Robinso » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:08:11
Careful, you're confusing Direct3D and DirectX. Direct3D and OpenGL are
comparable for a lot of things (although Direct3D 8 can do a lot that OpenGL
can't, at least not without a lot of extensions).
DirectX also includes DirectDraw, DirectSound, DirectInput, DirectPlay,
DirectShow, DirectMusic, DirectSetup (?)...
--
Tim Robinson
http://www.themoebius.org.uk/
by Lee Sau Da » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:46:51
Todd> Well, DirectDraw is a *whole lot* more than a mmap()... it
Todd> allows you to take advantage of the hardware accelerator,
Todd> back buffer, texture memory in a device independant way.
Aren't these supported by the X protocol for over a decade? Aren't
you aware that XFree86 drivers for accelerated graphics cards can take
advantage of these hardware features, even without having the X
applications (i.e. X-clients) recompiled or modified?
Todd> Also, it has support for multiple monitors (great for flying
Todd> SIMs)
8 years ago, I used to use a dual-monitor Solaris workstation daily.
Again, it's the X protocol. General clients need no modifications in
general, as it is supported in the bottom-most layer (X11) of the
libraries. You just need to activate it (use the screen number in
DISPLAY). Window managers are multi-screen aware and will manage all
the screens.
Todd> and other more advanced features besides just getting
Todd> the address to video memory (which is almost never required
Todd> anymore).
It seems that all the featured that are apparently "advanced" to you
are what people have been using under X11 for over a decade.
Todd> DirectX as a whole doesn't exist on any platform besides
Todd> Windows ME/2000/XP...
Just like Window's bugs and Outlook's security flaws doesn't exist on
any platform besides Windows *.
Todd> DirectX has evolved very quickly into being an excellent
Todd> API... Direct3D is now easy to program as opposed to
Todd> Direct3D of a couple years ago... IDirectDraw3 ?
Who would pay attention to Direct3D, when OpenGL is there?
--
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
by Jerry Coffi » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:25:53
> Todd> Well, DirectDraw is a *whole lot* more than a mmap()... it
> Todd> allows you to take advantage of the hardware accelerator,
> Todd> back buffer, texture memory in a device independant way.
> Aren't these supported by the X protocol for over a decade?
X is a lot like GDI -- its drivers will take advantage of someQuote:> Aren't
> you aware that XFree86 drivers for accelerated graphics cards can take
> advantage of these hardware features, even without having the X
> applications (i.e. X-clients) recompiled or modified?
We could wish. Unfortunately, it's just not true.Quote:> Todd> and other more advanced features besides just getting
> Todd> the address to video memory (which is almost never required
> Todd> anymore).
> It seems that all the featured that are apparently "advanced" to you
> are what people have been using under X11 for over a decade.
An awful LOT of people, quite apparently.Quote:> Todd> DirectX has evolved very quickly into being an excellent
> Todd> API... Direct3D is now easy to program as opposed to
> Todd> Direct3D of a couple years ago... IDirectDraw3 ?
> Who would pay attention to Direct3D, when OpenGL is there?
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
by Jerry Na » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:41:13
>> Aren't
>> you aware that XFree86 drivers for accelerated graphics cards can take
>> advantage of these hardware features, even without having the X
>> applications (i.e. X-clients) recompiled or modified?
>X is a lot like GDI -- its drivers will take advantage of some
>features, but its API simply doesn't provide any way for a programmer
>to express that he wants to be able to use some other possibilities.
You couldn't be more incorrect.Quote:>> Todd> and other more advanced features besides just getting
>> Todd> the address to video memory (which is almost never required
>> Todd> anymore).
>> It seems that all the featured that are apparently "advanced" to you
>> are what people have been using under X11 for over a decade.
>We could wish. Unfortunately, it's just not true.
by Jerry Coffi » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:19:24
[ ... ]
My guess is that you've _used_ X more than you've programmed it. IQuote:> >X is a lot like GDI -- its drivers will take advantage of some
> >features, but its API simply doesn't provide any way for a programmer
> >to express that he wants to be able to use some other possibilities.
> That's a load of incorrect bull.
Yes, it's easy to see that X is a piece of garbage, but what you're
missing is that most of this is NOT due to the design of the API
itself. At least the vast majority of the problems you're seeing in
X are due to two things: first of all, despite having most of the
same general capabilities as GDI, X has quite a poorly designed API,
so it's much more difficult to put its capabilities to use.
Second, a X server is normally (always?) implemented as a separate
process. This causes _all_ sorts of problems with priority -- a
well-known example of this is when you run (say) a word processor and
a DVD player that both produce out in (X managed) windows. Short of
simply overwhelming the problem with massive numbers of CPU cycles,
there's almost no set of priorities that will keep the word processor
responsive and still display the DVD reasonably well at the same
time.
Now, I realize that anybody with an IQ above room temperature can see
that this means X becoming marginally usable is a triumph of fast
hardware over terrible design, but make no mistake about it: the
problems you see are almost entirely in how the API is implemented,
not the API itself. With a better implementation, I'd almost _bet_
that X could be made no more than 20 or 30 % slower and less
responsive than GDI on the same hardware.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
by Peter K?hlman » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:57:01
> [ ... ]
>> >X is a lot like GDI -- its drivers will take advantage of some
>> >features, but its API simply doesn't provide any way for a programmer
>> >to express that he wants to be able to use some other possibilities.
>> That's a load of incorrect bull.
> My guess is that you've _used_ X more than you've programmed it. I
> realize that as a user, it's _easy_ to look at it and say "but it
> can't _possibly_ be anything like GDI -- after all, Windows 3.0
> running on a 486 did animation better than X on a Pentium 4 even
> dreams about."
> Yes, it's easy to see that X is a piece of garbage, but what you're
> missing is that most of this is NOT due to the design of the API
> itself. At least the vast majority of the problems you're seeing in
> X are due to two things: first of all, despite having most of the
> same general capabilities as GDI, X has quite a poorly designed API,
> so it's much more difficult to put its capabilities to use.
> Second, a X server is normally (always?) implemented as a separate
> process. This causes _all_ sorts of problems with priority -- a
> well-known example of this is when you run (say) a word processor and
> a DVD player that both produce out in (X managed) windows. Short of
> simply overwhelming the problem with massive numbers of CPU cycles,
> there's almost no set of priorities that will keep the word processor
> responsive and still display the DVD reasonably well at the same
> time.
> Now, I realize that anybody with an IQ above room temperature can see
> that this means X becoming marginally usable is a triumph of fast
> hardware over terrible design, but make no mistake about it: the
> problems you see are almost entirely in how the API is implemented,
> not the API itself. With a better implementation, I'd almost _bet_
> that X could be made no more than 20 or 30 % slower and less
> responsive than GDI on the same hardware.
Peter
--
Windows, for those too scared to use their brain
by GreyClou » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:17:31
> > > > PH> It's not. The performance of your typical DirectDraw application is
> > > > PH> faster than your typical GDI application merely because GDI adds so
> > > > PH> much extra [...]
> > > > MSS> Also note that UNIX has not anything like DDraw.
> > > > If you really _do_ mean DirectDraw by itself, rather than DirectX as a whole,
> > > > then Unices _do_ have something like it. Most Unices allow one to mmap() a
> > > > frame buffer device.
> > > Well, DirectDraw is a *whole lot* more than a mmap()... it allows you
> > > to take advantage of the hardware accelerator, back buffer, texture
> > > memory in a device independant way.
> > > Also, it has support for multiple monitors (great for flying SIMs) and
> > > other more advanced features besides just getting the address to video
> > > memory (which is almost never required anymore).
> > > DirectX as a whole doesn't exist on any platform besides Windows
> > > ME/2000/XP... it is an excellent API and one that Linux would do very
> > > well to have.
> > > DirectX has evolved very quickly into being an excellent API...
> > > Direct3D is now easy to program as opposed to Direct3D of a couple
> > > years ago... IDirectDraw3 ?
> > > Anyway, as the XBox proves, DirectX rocks!
> > Uh, isn't directX somewhat a bit buggy??
> Not from what I've seen... do you have any concrete examples that we
> windows users could reproduce?
But of no interest to others that develop on other platforms. DirectXQuote:> > I doubt that it could excel at
> > what SGI had created.
> Well, Direct3D has been through many revisions and has survived this
> long. It is a very popular API now (as you know)... the XBox uses it
> and it works great.
That may be for those that develop for M$ products. But not for sayQuote:> The 3D API (Direct3D) is just one part of DirectX.
> OpenGL only competes with Direct3D. I'm not saying that OpenGL is
> better or worse than Direct3D, but D3D certainly seems easier to
> program and is geared towards getting the max out of the hardware.
by Tim Robinso » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:13:03
Jerry probably hasn't noticed that he is posting in comp.os.linux.advocacy
as well as the more conservative alt.os.development. In a.o.d we are more
concerned with unbiased technical comparisons than random flaming.
--
Tim Robinson
http://www.themoebius.org.uk/
Is there a DirectDraw implementation under Linux??
I'm developing a video system for a specialized camera.
The video images get captured with a frame grabber and should then be
transferred via PCI bus to a graphics card. To do this, it would be nice
to use some of the DirectDraw features (e.g. page flipping).
However, I haven't so fare seen any DirectDraw implementations under
Linux.
If anybody has any suggestions to this then please tell me
Georg Israel
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Georg P. Israel Phone: +41-1-6324583
IBT Fax: +41-1-6321214
SWITZERLAND
2. Sharing krn and kmail data between users
3. ATI 3D EXPRESSION (mach64) DirectDraw configuration.
4. Multi Port Serial interface
6. Connecting to internet thru proxy
7. Quick money - quick.mon [01/01]
9. I have a Quick Question, need quick answer.
10. tar question, a quick one!
11. Quick Browser use causes comp to freeze
12. Looking for a quick online intro to fw