pouët.net

Zplex: then be constructive and feel free to show us what should be done and how :)

Keops: I will, hmm....what was the URL for the NeHe tutorials? :)

> So in your average demo, even if you want to use some, you'd go for a cpu > solution, because:
> - you're most likelly not cpu limited, unlike in games.
> - it's more compatible and doesn't requires a dx10 card to get the routine working

nystep: the bandwidth between gpu and cpu is still a huge limiting factor.
you can do everything you can with vertexshaders on a cpu too - you just dont, cos it sucks to have to modify geometry on cpu and upload it to the card every frame. and besides, gpus are far faster than cpus are right now :) maybe it opens up the possibility to doing some effects like realtime animating and tessellating volume fields which arent very feasible at a decent res right now.
personally im looking forward to it. or rather, im looking forward to 2 years time when a few people actually have the cards and the os, the problems are ironed out etc etc. (and maybe also to, say, a year's time when we can use ps3.0 in a demo without annoying loads of sceners cos they cant run it.)

Zplex: nehe.gamedev.net ;)

Looking forward to watching fresh stuff ;)

I just got a new dell with vista and it is the crappiest pile of shite I've ever seen. Shame really.

i have a strange feeling that Vista is one of the last OS's Microsoft will ever make.

i have feeling that i will use mac os x when i buy laptop

Forget it, we got flamed for using ps1.1 in 2006 - just do what you want to and make sure the compo pc can run it *g*

by the way, what kind of opengl support is there actually in vista now it's out? there has been a lot of speculations but no clear point all in all in the past.

so, can we expect 1.4 on a windowed app and all we want in fullscreen? or...

I think the move to vista will be slow. And I don't think much of vista either. I work in a network team, and we checked vista out as we do with all new MS releases, when it was in beta. Since then, nobody even bothered to check out the final release, nobody cares, and there's no interest in moving to it. With XP, most of us installed it within a month or two of release, and we rolled it out across the whole organisation within a year, no way that will happen this time, and I think other places will be the same.

And from the mac side, I think when xp was released only one guy in the team used a mac, nobody else was interested. Now about half of us use one at home, and most of us have both a pc and a mac at work. MS are going to have to get working fast on vista 2 I think.

Exactly the same as with XP: on a vanilla installation, you get software rendered OpenGL 1.1. Install proper drivers and you get whatever OpenGL the drivers do support (all seamlessly integrating with Aero).

There is a rumored GL1.4-to-D3D layer, but I did not manage to get it working in any way. Some say it's kind of "secret" and only pops up for some predefined set of applications (QuakeIII ?).

...the Vista GL driver quality at present day does suck tho...

to run tiny intros (16bit ms-dos emulation, fullscreen) and textmode demos (windows terminal, fullscreen) on vista :

-disable display adapter driver in device manager.
-watch the intro.
-enable display adapter driver in device manager.

takes nanoseconds for switching display, aero etc. no need to reboot.

a simpler solution is virtual pc running an xp machine. i've tried several 256b's and some ran a bit sluggish, but they were not the actual slow ones. overall, they run faster under virtual pc under my new machine (core2duo) than they ran under my old box (p4). it's also very lightweight, a vmware solution would be overkill (though virtual pc is not a great general purpose x86 emulator).

the intros run way faster with the above solution (previous post), but i doubt it's worth the hassle.

Closed-source OSes is so 2005......