Re: win32 problems - more widespread than believed?

[Tim R. <Tim@Rikers.org>]

First let me say that I only occasionally use windows.

Here is my understanding: Microsoft in their wisdom would like everyone
to code to a non-portable interface like Direct3D that:

a) offers less features that OpenGL

b) is entirely controlled by Microsoft so outside developers have no
control of it.

c) is only available on Microsoft operating systems so the applications
have little hope of ever running anywhere else.

Now Microsoft realizes that OpenGL support will be one of the
requirements of many large companies when they choose an operating
system so they:

a) include what they call OpenGL so they can "meet that requirement"

b) support it very poorly so encourage rapid migration from that "open
standard" over to the Microsoft closed standard.

This is easier for Microsoft to support as they wrote it, and
discourages people migrating to other operating systems that fully
support open standards.

Now, I'm sorry this is the case. However it is not the fault of BZFlag,
it is Microsofts fault. The hardware vendors that do test and support
OpenGL drivers in spite of Microsoft's interests are to be applauded!
They are risking invoking the rage of Microsoft.

BZFlag is not likely to ever support the Direct3D moving target. 

There is more Win32 OpenGl support information here:

http://www.pseudonymz.demon.co.uk/suppwin.html

Nick Sayer wrote:
> 
> Frank Thilo wrote:
> 
> > Question is, if this is a bug in the Matrix GL library. And even if this is
> > the case, whether bzflag can be made less demamnding with respect to the GL
> > implementations.
> 
> It can't be just Matrox. It also malfunctioned for me with a Voodoo3 and
> an ATI of some sort.
-- 
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs! <g>
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
... if I'd just been paying attention.