Realistically you should never have to go lower than Direct3D 7, because Microsoft still had full backward compatibility with older drivers up to then. So even on the most basic 3D card and drivers, Direct3D 7 should still work.


Oh, I have to amend this statement.
I was only thinking about hardware/driver compatibility at that point.
If you also factor in OS compatibility, be aware that Direct3D 7 is not available for all versions of Windows.
NT4.0 only has DirectX 4 officially, although there is a beta for DirectX 5 around somewhere (actually meant for Windows 2000, but installs on NT4.0). But that's the highest you can go. DX4 still only comes with the first Direct3D version, DX5 has the second version of the D3D interfaces (finally getting rid of execute buffers and introducing DrawPrimitive()).
All other versions of Windows will at least support D3D7 (if you can find and install the appropriate runtime that is).
If I'm not mistaken, the full list is something like this:
Windows NT4 will support DX4/D3D1.
Windows 95 will support D3D8.
Windows 98/ME/2000/XP will support D3D9.
Windows Vista/7 will support D3D11.

So in short, if you really want to support ALL versions of Windows that support any kind of Direct3D at all, you have to aim for D3D1.
In my case that would be purely theoretical, since my PowerVR PCX2 card only has drivers for Win9x. So I might as well go for D3D7.
Which I did anyway. I've created versions of the code for all D3D versions below the D3D9/10/11 that my regular engine supports.
So I have D3D1 (DX2/3/4), D3D2 (DX5/6), D3D7, and D3D8 variations of the donut.
Posted on 2012-08-27 16:40:36 by Scali
Who supported dx10? :D
Posted on 2012-08-28 03:56:46 by Homer

Who supported dx10? :D


Well, by definition all lower versions of DirectX are also supported.
Vista originally supported DX10, but was upgraded to DX11 at about the same time Win7 was released (and there was also a DX10.1 update in-between, I believe with Vista SP1).
Windows 8 will support DX11.1 by the way, but afaik there's no update planned for Win7 or Vista.
I only mention the highest versions supported by each OS (as I say, if you installed the appropriate runtime. Most OSes shipped with a lower version of DX initially, or even with no DX at all).
Posted on 2012-08-28 04:52:04 by Scali
so microsoft are going to play the same old game, heres a new api u cant use, upgrade ur old s***, but this time, throw away ur keyboard and use our ugly as f*** gui designed for a 4 inch screen, in glorious HD
The rumours ive heard about its usability are not good.
I think this will be the last windows os for me, time I moved on since I was dragged kicking and screaming to code on their platform at all, I won't blink when it dies.
Posted on 2012-08-28 08:20:21 by Homer

so microsoft are going to play the same old game, heres a new api u cant use, upgrade ur old s***


Yea well, you could just stick to the old APIs, which will still work on Windows 8 (which you don't necessarily have to use yourself)... or use OpenGL on Windows (whichever version you prefer).
I decided long ago that my engine would be multi-API, so I integrated D3D9 and D3D10 into the same codebase. Then I extended D3D9 to make use of Vista's new D3D9Ex functionality if available, and extended D3D10 to 10.1 and 11. Extending it to 11.1 should be child's play at this point.
I solved that issue some 5 years ago. If you have to solve it now, well...
I think this blogpost is appropriate: http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/be-aware-of-the-world-around-you/


The rumours ive heard about its usability are not good.


Why not download a pre-release version and try for yourself?
Are you going to let your OS choice depend only on rumours?


I think this will be the last windows os for me, time I moved on since I was dragged kicking and screaming to code on their platform at all, I won't blink when it dies.


It's funny how worked-up people get about a new start-menu.
As if that is the most important thing of an entire OS.
How quickly people forget that the main reason nearly the entire world uses Windows is because nearly the entire world uses Windows. In other words, most applications are only available for Windows, and most hardware only has driver support for Windows.
I guess most of them will find out the hard way that you can't just leave Windows behind just because you don't like the new start-menu.
Posted on 2012-08-28 12:02:45 by Scali
I'll try it of course, but I'm already targeting a range of platforms, the main issue for me on Windows 8 is that third party software licensing issue, the 'windows app store' one. That more than any other rumors worries me.
Indie developers can't be handing out money unless the system works for them, like with Steam, which is proven and trusted, lets face it, nobody is using microsoft's online store as it is, so forcing users to do so is risky, and for us poor developers, microsoft is well known for being obtuse and over-regulatory, not to mention expensive. I am not going to hold my breath, I am already working towards making my stuff work on all platforms from a common code base.
Posted on 2012-08-30 04:10:56 by Homer

I'll try it of course, but I'm already targeting a range of platforms, the main issue for me on Windows 8 is that third party software licensing issue, the 'windows app store' one. That more than any other rumors worries me.


Rumours have a tendency of being false.
Especially when they come from big FUD-spreading monopolies such as Valve. They've had the online distribution market for Windows games pretty much to themselves for about a decade, and they're scared to death by the fact that Microsoft is now going to compete with them. They're even going as far as spreading misleading or downright false information on the alleged performance of their vapourware 'native' OpenGL ports of Left 4 Dead 2. All just scare-tactics to lure people away from Windows, and towards platforms where Steam will still have the monopoly.
As if greedy fat Gabe Newell wasn't fat enough already.

Yes, there will be an app store for Windows. But no, you don't HAVE to use it. Microsoft is not going to prevent regular installers. How could they? The entire OS would be completely useless since NOBODY has bought ANY software yet through the app store, since it simply wasn't around. So all software people own, has been distributed through conventional means of downloaded installers, DVDs and other media. Those will continue to work just fine.


Indie developers can't be handing out money unless the system works for them, like with Steam, which is proven and trusted


You don't *have* to use the Windows store, just like you don't *have* to use Steam.
They are simply services that these companies provide. Yes, they take a percentage of your earnings, but that is only fair, since they provide hosting, handle payment and administration, DRM and various other things. Also, don't forget, the reason why you would want to use a wellknown store like Steam in the first place is because it is easier for people to find and purchase your products.


lets face it, nobody is using microsoft's online store as it is


That's simply because it wasn't available yet (except for the XBox, but many people use it there).
There are plenty of examples that demonstrate that people generally use a built-in app store for the OS rather than downloading and installing software manually, if they have the option. It is just more convenient for end-users to be able to find everything in one place. So the Windows 8 app store will likely become very popular very quickly as soon as Windows 8 is released.
And then developers will probably think: "Hum, if I make my applications available through the app store, my sales will likely increase considerably. I can also stop hosting the content myself, and save money there. Sounds like a good deal."


so forcing users to do so is risky, and for us poor developers, microsoft is well known for being obtuse and over-regulatory, not to mention expensive.


Firstly, nobody is forcing anyone.
Secondly... Microsoft the obtuse, over-regulatory and expensive company? Is your tinfoil hat on a bit too tight perhaps?
This is Microsoft, not Apple.
Microsoft has never charged application developers anything for publishing Windows software. They even gave out free development tools, SDKs, documentation and everything. If there is one company who is NOT obtuse about developers, it is Microsoft. They are one of the few who understand that you need to stimulate developers to develop for your platform, and have always done everything in their power to do so.


I am not going to hold my breath, I am already working towards making my stuff work on all platforms from a common code base.


Striving to support multiple platforms is always good, but we have to be realistic here. The Windows market is orders of magnitude larger than any other market, and that will not change overnight, if at all.
You're still far better off supporting only Windows than supporting every other platform but Windows.

Also, don't confuse Windows RT with Windows 8, or Metro apps with conventional Windows apps.
In other news... Unlike fatty Newell, some companies ARE excited about Windows RT/Metro/App Store etc.
Take this for example: http://blogs.nvidia.com/2012/08/nvidia-brings-unreal-engine-3-to-windows-8-and-windows-rt/
nVidia and Epic demonstrating Unreal Engine 3 on an Asus tablet with nVidia's (ARM-based) Tegra3 SoC.
Yes, this is actual Windows/DX9 code, unlike eg the iPad version of UE3, where you would have to modify your game/content before it could work with that specific version of the engine.
Apparently they don't see a problem with games on Windows 8, not even on ARM (where Metro apps are the only option, and app store rules are more strict, much like on any other tablet device out there).
Posted on 2012-08-30 08:42:58 by Scali
I normally just lurk in this forum and let you two slug it out but quite frankly the smell of fanboy is rather offensive with the latest discussion.


Rumours have a tendency of being false.
Especially when they come from big FUD-spreading monopolies such as Valve. They've had the online distribution market for Windows games pretty much to themselves for about a decade, and they're scared to death by the fact that Microsoft is now going to compete with them. They're even going as far as spreading misleading or downright false information on the alleged performance of their vapourware 'native' OpenGL ports of Left 4 Dead 2. All just scare-tactics to lure people away from Windows, and towards platforms where Steam will still have the monopoly.
As if greedy fat Gabe Newell wasn't fat enough already.


Right....because Microsoft itself never used those tactics.  :roll: :roll:


Yes, there will be an app store for Windows. But no, you don't HAVE to use it. Microsoft is not going to prevent regular installers. How could they? The entire OS would be completely useless since NOBODY has bought ANY software yet through the app store, since it simply wasn't around. So all software people own, has been distributed through conventional means of downloaded installers, DVDs and other media. Those will continue to work just fine.


Easy way to lock out the competition and force compliance:
Apps can only be installed or executed if authenticated with digital certificates signed only by Microsoft.



so forcing users to do so is risky, and for us poor developers, microsoft is well known for being obtuse and over-regulatory, not to mention expensive.


Firstly, nobody is forcing anyone.
Secondly... Microsoft the obtuse, over-regulatory and expensive company? Is your tinfoil hat on a bit too tight perhaps?

This is Microsoft, not Apple.


Just...Wow...


Apparently they don't see a problem with games on Windows 8, not even on ARM (where Metro apps are the only option, and app store rules are more strict, much like on any other tablet device out there).


Of course nVidia doesn't have a problem...they have a vested interest in sales.
Posted on 2012-08-30 11:16:09 by p1ranha

Right....because Microsoft itself never used those tactics.  :roll: :roll:


Congratulations, you spotted the irony (speaking of irony,  be aware that apparently you tried to accuse me of Windows fanboyism in a thread where I discuss Amiga rendering techniques... Which is as unconvincing as it is ridiculous).
However, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because MS has spread FUD in the past doesn't make it right for companies like Valve to do the same to influence the opinion on Windows 8 to their (financial) advantage.
I am deeply disappointed that you are suggesting otherwise.


Easy way to lock out the competition and force compliance:
Apps can only be installed or executed if authenticated with digital certificates signed only by Microsoft.


Yes, I can smell that fanboyism you're talking about :)
That is generally how app stores work. The same goes for Steam (and Google Play, and the Apple Store etc). You can only distribute applications through Steam after they're approved by Valve, and only through the Steam installation/authentication/DRM mechanisms.
Point is however, the Windows store is *NOT* the only way to install Windows applications. It is the only way to install Metro applications (although, not entirely, there are other ways, mainly meant for developers), but let's not kid ourselves here: none of us has ever written a Metro application, and most of us are most probably not planning to. We have always written *desktop* applications for Windows, and we can continue to do so exactly as we've always done.
You can choose to distribute desktop applications via the Windows store if you like, but that is entirely up to you.

Of course you realize that of all companies, Microsoft is the least likely to 'take any liberties' with the app store in the way you suggest. Antitrust legislation has often been on Microsoft's case in the past.


Just...Wow...


What point is it exactly that you're trying to make here?
Are you trying to deny that Apple has/wants more control over the hardware/software of their platform than Microsoft? I certainly hope not. I can't imagine anyone being THAT delusional.
I prefer it when people actually express what they're trying to say, rather than hiding behind some vague comments. But usually it just means that these people suffer from cognitive dissonance, and aren't capable of formulating valid arguments to support their view.

To give an example: for both Windows Metro and Android I have been able to develop code and deploy it on an actual device, without ever spending any money on development tools or certificates or anything.
Apple is the only one where I physically can't even *build* the application for an actual device until I pay Apple for a developer key. Only then can I build and sign the application, and install it on an actual iDevice.
(You can run your code in the emulator, but it uses x86 code, and as such the binaries are not compatible with actual devices).

Or what about the obvious fact that all iDevices are made by Apple? Both Google and Microsoft allow any OEM to build Android/Windows-compatible devices.

But yea.. "Just...Wow..." I guesss...?


Of course nVidia doesn't have a problem...they have a vested interest in sales.


Way to ignore the fact that Epic ported the Unreal Engine to the nVidia/Asus platform.
Epic is a game developer, just like Valve.
Or in fact, Epic is not just like Valve. Unreal Engine 3 is by far the most popular games engine for Windows.
In terms of potential marketshare it means a whole lot more that Unreal Engine 3 games can run on Windows RT than it does that Source Engine games can run on linux/OS X.
There are far more UE3 games out there, and there will likely be more Windows RT devices out there than linux/OS X devices.
Don't mistake that for them being Windows-only. The engine also supports OS X, iOS, Android and various other platforms. Far more than Valve.
While Valve is mostly talk currently, Epic actually bothered to port their engine to nearly every gaming platform out there.
Posted on 2012-08-30 11:53:13 by Scali

I prefer it when people actually express what they're trying to say, rather than hiding behind some vague comments. But usually it just means that these people suffer from cognitive dissonance, and aren't capable of formulating valid arguments to support their view.


No.  It can also mean an expression of sheer disbelief at the incredulousness of that which was stated without devolving said discussion into a flame war.  Your broad generalizations serve no purpose.
Posted on 2012-08-31 10:49:37 by p1ranha

No.  It can also mean an expression of sheer disbelief at the incredulousness of that which was stated without devolving said discussion into a flame war.  Your broad generalizations serve no purpose.


Disbelief of what exactly?
I already covered the MS/Apple part.
Which would only leave "Firstly, nobody is forcing anyone."
Which is a clear and easily verifiable fact: Windows 8 allows installation through all classic means that we've always used. They just add the Windows Store. Microsoft has made it clear that the focus of the Windows store will be on Metro apps, although they do allow desktop apps to be sold through the store as well.
You can read all of that here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/
Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Store
Or probably various other sources.

So where is the disbelief, really? Facts support everything I've said in the part you've quoted in your "Just...Wow..." response.
Posted on 2012-08-31 11:40:03 by Scali

Disbelief of what exactly?


That you've placed Microsoft on such a high pedestal yet complete ignore the tactics they themselves have used to stifle competition, lock in customers, thus extending their monopoly.  Perhaps you've never heard of the old saying "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" or are unware of their "embrace/extend" tactics or have not been exposed to the draconian licensing agreements with hardware vendors strong-arming them via egregious volume licensing price points should said vendors even think about installing software that Microsoft didn't give a wink and a nod to.

Do you really think either the United States or European Union are wrong in policing such a pedatory company?  Microsoft earned its reputation and has instilled a strong distrust into many a developer effectively killing any remaining innovation.  Although Homer may not have stated it precisely to your liking I share his sentiment of a strong dislike of the Microsoft API treadmill that exists more for lock-in than for improvement.  Just so you know, my own tin-foil hat fits quite nicely, thank you.

So their latest offering is that now you click or touch tiles/squares instead of a start button and we're supposed to be impressed by this?  That's some progress.  Again, there is no more innovation left on that platform.  Windows 8/Metro/whatever will be a complete flop of Vista proportions. 

Don't misconstrue this as solely Microsoft bashing.  I'm no Apple fanboy either ( I've never used/programmed one nor do I own an iPhone ) and, given their recent litigous behavior, feel rather appalled and disgusted.  Copying the design of a rectangle ( ie: the Samsung suit )?
Just....wow....  ( hopefully the meaning of which is rather clear to you by now ).

Now, we can continue trashing this poor thread ad nauseam if you like or we can let it die and return this thread back to it's main purpose - that of "oldskool" programming - which quite frankly I enjoy much more...
Posted on 2012-08-31 22:32:15 by p1ranha

Copying the design of a rectangle ( ie: the Samsung suit )?
Just....wow....


That's a rectangle with rounded corners! The difference is HUGE, you insensitive clod :cry:

I think Apple has a real case, the PADD iPhone/iPad is the first time I've seen this r/evolutionary design, and it should be defended by Apple at any cost... to them :lol:


Now, we can continue trashing this poor thread ad nauseam if you like or we can let it die and return this thread back to it's main purpose - that of "oldskool" programming - which quite frankly I enjoy much more...


Agreed. When I want to see biased or naive arguments, I read Slashdot.
Posted on 2012-09-01 01:38:12 by SpooK
Not meant to inflame, this is the kind of quote which pervades my eye sockets.

"Yeah, as an indie developer myself, I'm concerned about Windows 8. It's the first step to phasing out Win32, the framework of just about every piece of Windows software in existence today. In fact, even developing C++ Metro-compatible Win32 titles, the app-market penetration is limited only to the desktop and the Surface Pro. Neither Windows Phone 8 nor the standard Surface (which only runs Windows RT, on an ARM chipset) are Win32 capable. Worse than that, Windows 8 Phone won't even run HTML/JS Metro applications, limiting you almost solely to developing non-portable code purely for the RT platform.

Win32 likely will still be around a few years yet simply because of the overwhelming software base for it, but it'll be disappearing in likely Windows 10 or 11. It's not as simple as everybody moving to Metro, because Metro is sandboxed and doesn't allow mixed-mode applications (with the sole exception, apparently, of web browsers). Which means, no Steam for Metro. You can't make an App which launches programs, so no Metro integration for Steam or any other popular indie launch platforms.

The single biggest limiting factor to developing for Windows 8 is complexity. To develop Metro applications which work across the Windows platforms (Windows 8 & Windows RT) you're pretty much limited to using their development tools, and these are going to be more limited. XNA, the most popular Microsoft games development platform today is being phased out. Actually, it's being phased out with Windows 7. It's not supported by Metro. The Win32 applications generated by it will still run in Windows 8, but you can't produce Metro applications with it. There's a project called MonoGame which produces valid Metro targets for VS2012 from XNA code, but the "free" edition of VS2012 is going to be the most restricted in years.

In short: It's going to be much more restrictive and much more expensive for indies to develop titles for Windows 8/Windows RT/Windows 8 phone. The existing tools are being locked out across the board and can't be used to develop Metro applications. The one freely accessible resource that is capable of developing Windows 8 applications - HTML/JS - won't be able to run natively on Windows 8 Phone, outside of a browser (which in turn severely limits the performance you can get out of JS).

While there'll always be alternatives to developing for Windows, able to produce all manner of COM applications, these will largely be missing the most vital component of Windows 8 - Metro integration. They still let you play in their sandpit, but you don't get any of the toys, unless you've got the time and/or money to do so. This won't matter to the major application developers.. people will still use a desktop Photoshop application, for example, and lack of Metro integration means zilch. People will still buy the major games, and will buy Call of Duty 9 regardless of whether it's a desktop or Metro.

But for indies, it's a bad sign. The relatively unrestricted Win32 access we've had for years has built the industry tremendously, but now that indies are finally making money, the major players are moving into the indie space and they have money and resources we could only dream of. Various corps have been going around snatching up as many profitable indies as they can for the last few years. Microsoft's been in on it. EAs been trying their hand at it - hell, they own Popcap now. And Zynga.. the company which just craps all over every indie developer by, whenever they see a successful indie game, they just copy it in its entirety and give it a new name .. their marketing arm is so much stronger and richer than anything we can compete with.

These are the companies which will occupy the Windows 8 "indie" space. Indies are being forced out of the market they've built up over years. The companies that help them build it up - Steam, Desura, GreenManGaming, etc, are being forced out with them. "

BlackD, Admin, theoldergamers.com
Posted on 2012-09-01 03:29:51 by Homer

That you've placed Microsoft on such a high pedestal yet complete ignore the tactics they themselves have used to stifle competition, lock in customers, thus extending their monopoly.


Excuse me, but this was not about how Windows 8 affects competing platforms.
It was about how Windows 8 and the Windows store would affect development and distribution of Windows applications.
And as far as development of *Windows* applications go, Microsoft has always been very supportive to developers (part of their strategy: supporting developers means more Windows applications to help lock customers into their platform. That's what Ballmer's Developers Developers Developers speech was all about, in a nutshell).

But yes, I can see how you want to drag unrelated topics into the discussion...
I guess it says a lot about you that (even in a topic like this) you have no idea where I'm coming from.
Let me spell it out for you: the Commodore Amiga was my platform of choice. If there was ever any platform that you could call me a fanboy of, it would be the Amiga.
Microsoft and IBM are a big part of the reason why that platform died, and why I was forced to move to DOS and later Windows (in a time when DOS/Windows couldn't even do half of the things the Amiga could do, the things that I loved about the Amiga, why the Amiga was my platform of choice, rather than anything else out there). And you actually think I *like* Microsoft? Just...Wow...
Get a clue, mate. It's sad how blind your Microsoft hatred makes you.
Posted on 2012-09-01 03:36:42 by Scali

Not meant to inflame, this is the kind of quote which pervades my eye sockets.


The problem with these quotes is that they are baseless.
Win32 being phased out? Based on what exactly? Windows 8 still supports Win32, so how is that 'phasing out'.
Yes, it seems inevitable that at some point in the future, any API will eventually get phased out. I mean, we no longer use DOS or Win16 API either. But does that matter?
They were phased out long after the Win32 API had completely taken their place.
If anything, Microsoft has a great track record in keeping legacy code around. Most other companies (yes, including Apple) phase out older technologies sooner.
Again, funny that it comes up in this thread, where I point out that Direct3D 1.0 still works on Windows 7 x64. They haven't phased that out even though NOTHING uses it anymore.
Windows 8 is not phasing out Win32, and we don't know Microsoft's future plans beyond Windows 8. So far, Microsoft has not mentioned Win32 being phased out at all. In fact, Microsoft themselves still rely heavily on Win32. You'd think that the first step of phasing out Win32 would be for Microsoft to write all their own applications with .NET or whatever new API would replace Win32. But so far they haven't. Meaning that they *can't* phase out Win32 even if they wanted to.

You see where the tin-foil hats come from? People just love to bash Microsoft and spread FUD. And other people love to repeat that FUD. Microsoft is the company that everyone loves to hate.
In the meantime, I've actually installed a few of the pre-release versions of Windows 8 in a VM, and actually tried them. Aside from the start menu being replaced by the Metro interface, I found no differences with Windows 7. I still had a desktop, still had the explorer, and I could still install and run all my Win32 software. Some of it even ran slightly faster than on Win7.
So really: NOTHING CHANGES!

We can worry about Windows 10 or 11 when we get there. The guy who wrote this based those statements on absolutely NOTHING, since Microsoft has not announced anything of the sort. I'm not ruling out the possibility... but we'll cross that bridge if we ever get there. As my blog says: be aware of the world around you. But currently there is nothing to be aware of, for at least as long as Windows 8 will be around.
I've heard such statements many times over the years. Even 10 years ago people were telling me not to use MFC because it would be phased out. Oh really? With every release of Visual Studio, they still update MFC to support the latest GUI features. These people were simply spreading lies.

The other thing these people don't seem to get is that WinRT is a mobile platform. These platforms are more limited, but Microsoft is in no way unique in that.
What you people failed to pick up on earlier, apparently, is that Microsoft seems to be doing it better than the rest. Namely, the Unreal Engine 3 port for Windows RT can just run Windows and DX9 code. And that makes it a lot closer to the desktop version than the ports for eg iOS and Android (especially Android development can be very nasty because there are so many different versions of ARM CPUs and GPUs around. WinRT seems to abstract this better, like Windows has generally done on the desktop as well).
So, no s*** Sherlock... Mobile platforms more limited? But such comments could only have come from developers who have not developed for mobile platforms AT ALL, before. Which results in such ignorant statements.
As I already said, with iOS I am limited to Apple stuff as well... and Android is quite limiting as well, although not quite as much as Apple. Then again, Android has that Dalvik VM and API which is not compatible at all with anything else, unlike iOS and WinRT.
Comparing desktop with mobile is just a fallacy. Please open your eyes, Homer.
Posted on 2012-09-01 03:52:24 by Scali
Lately everything I code is GLES based, it WILL run on a real desktop, guaranteed, its a subset of their implementation. I do put some faith in rumour, because its usually based on a grain or two of truth, but I don't base my business model on it.
To be more accurate, the best lies always contain some truth, or else they do not perpetuate.
Posted on 2012-09-01 05:56:49 by Homer

Lately everything I code is GLES based, it WILL run on a real desktop, guaranteed, its a subset of their implementation.


No it won't.
GLES uses a slightly different dialect of GLSL, with certain keywords that are not supported by regular GLSL.
Aside from that, OpenGL is only part of the application.
Having written a renderer that can run on Windows, OS X, iOS, linux, FreeBSD, Android, I am quite familiar with the effort required to make the 'same' OpenGL code run on these various platforms.


I do put some faith in rumour, because its usually based on a grain or two of truth, but I don't base my business model on it.


Well, as I say, all APIs have a limited lifetime, and you should see that end coming, and be prepared when it gets there.
I can agree with the point that Metro applications will likely play a large role on the desktop as well, since the advantage of Metro apps is that you write it once, and it runs on both Windows 8 and Windows RT (and again, I stress that this is not possible with either iOS or Android. Both need considerable rewriting before your application can run on any desktop OS).
But currently people are trying to make it sound like Windows 8 will break compatibility with Win32, which is clearly false.
At this point, all we know for sure is that Metro apps will run on Windows 8. And in one possible future, perhaps 99% of all applications will be Metro apps at some point. Which would render Win32 obsolete, just as DOS and Win16 have been rendered obsolete by Win32 years ago.
So far, Microsoft has only dropped APIs long after they were obsolete (DOS/Win16 still being supported in 32-bit versions of Windows today. The first OS to drop support was XP x64 back in 2005, but x64 Windows has only become mainstream after the release of Windows 7 in 2009).
So I find it most likely that Win32 will not get dropped until the Metro has taken over... if it ever will (currently major applications such as Microsoft Office still require the full desktop Windows 8 environment, not Metro).
But if Metro can fully replace desktop applications as we know them today, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't see it as a bad thing that Windows apps replaced DOS, or Win32 apps replaced Win16 apps. This did not happen overnight however, and required various iterations of Windows until the system was mature enough to fully replace what went before it. Likewise I don't see the current Metro as the be-all-end-all version of Metro. Currently it is not a complete replacement for the desktop. However, I don't rule out that future versions of Metro might make the desktop as we know it today obsolete.

Anyway, since Epic has demonstrated a fully working Unreal Engine 3 as a Metro app on Windows RT... what exactly is the point these 'indie game developers' are trying to make? He doesn't actually make any concrete points, but he wants to imply that somehow Win32 allowed you more freedom to develop games than Metro did.
Well, UE3 is used in various triple AAA titles, pushing the limits of the hardware. If that level of gaming possible inside Metro, what could these indie game developers possibly want more? Games don't need full system access. They just need to be able to load their data, have fast access to audio/video hardware, and connect to other players over a network. This is possible in Metro. It just smells of more FUD.
Posted on 2012-09-01 06:21:58 by Scali

Lately everything I code is GLES based, it WILL run on a real desktop, guaranteed, its a subset of their implementation.


For Windows, check out ANGLE.
Posted on 2012-09-01 06:33:32 by SpooK


Lately everything I code is GLES based, it WILL run on a real desktop, guaranteed, its a subset of their implementation.


For Windows, check out ANGLE.


My point exactly.
OpenGL ES works on a desktop about as well as Direct3D runs with WINE...?
Posted on 2012-09-01 06:39:12 by Scali