Quick on the DirectDraw

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post by Jonathan de Boyne Pollar » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:14:02



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.

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post by Kovacs Viktor Pete » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:34:06



Quote:> 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.

 SGI Irix uses the GL api (opengl for the rest of the world) to implement
 it's gui. It is its native interface and the x server translates its
 calls to opengl requests too. (for non native apps)

 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

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post by Tod » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:30:39



Quote:> 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!

-Todd

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post 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!

Uh, isn't directX somewhat a bit buggy??  I doubt that it could excel at
what SGI had created.
 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post 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.

DirectX may be OK and even usable, but I prefer OpenGL

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.

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post 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??

Not from what I've seen...  do you have any concrete examples that we
windows users could reproduce?

Quote:>  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.

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

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post by Darre » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:06:51



> 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

I like OpenGL .. all of the so-called advantages of DirectX .. and none
of the disadvantages of Microsoft's renowned instability, insecurity, and
poor performance .. QuakeIII anyone?

Anyway, as PlayStation2 proves, Linux rocks!

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post by Tim Robinso » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:08:11



| > Anyway, as the XBox proves, DirectX rocks!
| I like OpenGL .. all of the so-called advantages of DirectX .. and none
| of the disadvantages of Microsoft's renowned instability, insecurity, and
| poor performance .. QuakeIII anyone?

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/

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post 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

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post 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?

No, not really.

Quote:> 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.

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.

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?

An awful LOT of people, quite apparently.

--
    Later,
    Jerry.

The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post 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.

That's a load of incorrect bull.

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.

You couldn't be more incorrect.
 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post by Jerry Coffi » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:19:24



says...

[ ... ]

Quote:> >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.

--
    Later,
    Jerry.

The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post by Peter K?hlman » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:57:01




> says...

> [ ... ]

>> >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.

Your posting here was quite certainly only garbage.
You know shit about the issue at hand and spout endless streams of
FUD. Are you trying to replace Erik "Liar" Funkenbusch?
He also posted moronic stuff like that and got burned quite badly

Peter
--
Windows, for those too scared to use their brain

 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post 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?

Uh, like game crashes??  I don't play games but then again my brother
does and he complains about several games that freeze up.  Now that
could either be the O/S or directX.  Can't be the developers.

Quote:> >  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.

But of no interest to others that develop on other platforms.  DirectX
is M$ only.
OpenGl works on many different systems.  And the many different systems
have some rather * graphics hardware that the below $3000 people
couldn't afford.

Quote:> 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.

That may be for those that develop for M$ products.  But not for say
SGI, HP-UX, Solaris, OpenVMS,etc.
 
 
 

Quick on the DirectDraw

Post by Tim Robinso » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:13:03



| > 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.
|
| Your posting here was quite certainly only garbage.
| You know shit about the issue at hand and spout endless streams of
| FUD. Are you trying to replace Erik "Liar" Funkenbusch?
| He also posted moronic stuff like that and got burned quite badly

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/

 
 
 

1. DirectDraw for Linx ??

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

5. OpenGL vs DirectDraw

6. Connecting to internet thru proxy

7. Quick money - quick.mon [01/01]

8. Help with expect

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

13. Find - a quick question