Murky Direct3D History
I really need to sit down and write a history of Direct3D from day one, i.e. pre-Microsoft acquisition of RenderMorphics, through to around DirectX 6.
The anti-Microsoft venom that still surrounds the whole OpenGL v Direct3D wars still hurts - we honestly we’re trying to (and did do) the right thing. Even the Wikipedia article I just linked to has unpleasant bias…
I still posit that the state of consumer 3D would not be what it is today without Direct3D appearing on the scene.
And OpenGL would still be in the same stagnant state that it was in 1995.
Anyhow, this little outburst was due to a comment on a blog I happened to stumble on.
Not quite a happy ending. OpenGL was totally shot down by Microsoft, who used its monopoly in the desktop OS market to push DirectX instead, a propriety Microsoft graphics library. Had they embraced openGL, we would be seeing good games on all platforms, not just Windows.
Lots of high-profile game developers signed an open letter to Microsoft, including John Carmack (who may have even authored the letter if I memory serves), to ask Microsoft to embrace OpenGL for the good of the industry, the developers, the games, and most of all, the consumers.
Of course, Microsoft wouldn’t listen, and used their power to push out OpenGL and gain market control, as per their traditional modus operandi.
Sorry to be Debbie Downer, just wanted to point out that the ending isn’t so happy after all.
To which I responded:
Regarding Zach’s comment - Not to totally thrash a dead horse or anything, but I was the PM and oddly enough one of the developers on Direct3D and it’s predecessor, Reality Lab.
We did not set out to “kill” OpenGL. OpenGL was stagnant, did not run on commodity hardware and had laughable realtime software rendering support. I posit that if it were not for Direct3D giving the 3D graphics hardware industry a kick in the arse, we would not have the games we have today and OpenGL would still be stagnant.
At the original PDK outing of Direct3D, all the 3D hw guys really had no idea what was going on - they were all aimed at arcade and military applications. No one was focussed on the consumer.
I wish people would look at that time objectively and not with “MS hate” in their eyes. Hmm, maybe it’s time I wrote it up.
btw - it was Chris Hecker that authored the letter.
Time to sit down and write that history post…
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Murky Direct3D History.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.steve-lacey.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-bar.cgi/954
I agree it would be valuable. Do it on a wiki, and I promise to do teh Matrox portion of the pre-D3D fragmented-proprietary-api landscape. Some trivia of which includes:
- I think Matrox did the first 3D HW accelerated game bundle. It was on a gouraud shading card (!), pre-dating even Playstation, IIRC. I want to say 1994?
- They were supporters of 3DR, Intel's gambit in teh consumer 3D api game.
- they once shipped a consumer 3D part based on someone else's silicon (powervr)
I agree with you about the role of D3D. OpenGL's run-by-standards-body speed of progress was its downfall, nothing nefarious by MS.
I *do* think that there's some validity to the argument that the Direct3D Microsoft approach of "ship, get feedback from people developing product, change direction if needed" approach is perhaps more painful in cases, but that's a cost of rapid progress. Better than not making any.
I agree it would be valuable. Do it on a wiki, and I promise to do teh Matrox portion of the pre-D3D fragmented-proprietary-api landscape. Some trivia of which includes:
- I think Matrox did the first 3D HW accelerated game bundle. It was on a gouraud shading card (!), pre-dating even Playstation, IIRC. I want to say 1994?
- They were supporters of 3DR, Intel's gambit in teh consumer 3D api game.
- they once shipped a consumer 3D part based on someone else's silicon (powervr)
I agree with you about the role of D3D. OpenGL's run-by-standards-body speed of progress was its downfall, nothing nefarious by MS.
I *do* think that there's some validity to the argument that the Direct3D Microsoft approach of "ship, get feedback from people developing product, change direction if needed" approach is perhaps more painful in cases, but that's a cost of rapid progress. Better than not making any.
While I can not comment on your recollection of the history of 3D, I can, and will, make the following observation. That's how it works. In this subject you (they) are talking about Microsoft vs. the world. It could have just as easily have been IBM vs. the world, or GM vs. the world or Ford or ATT etc...
Technology innovation is wickedly expensive. If there is no market incentive no one will spend the capital and time to innovate, that's no one with an N not an M. A more recent case in point would be IE 6 vs. Firefox. Without FF there would likely never have been an IE7. That, by the way, does not mean FF is bad or IE7 is any good. It is just how capitalism works. In theory, at the end of the day, everything gets better.
Hey Steve,
Your Blog rocks!! Just wanted to share something with ya… one blogger to another…
There is this amazing site that I came across where u can make money by sharing information…check it out here’s the link http://www.myndnet.com/login.jsp?referral=alpa83&channel=al105
The coolest part is…every time ur information gets sold u get paid for it!!
I signed it for it.. very cool stuff… u can also mail me at barot.alpa@gmail.com
Cheers!
Alpa