From: Robert DOT Cross AT scottish-newcastle DOT co DOT uk
Subject: DirectX (was Re: server X)
25 Sep 1998 11:28:26 -0700
Message-ID: <01J27VP3NPSO000L5V.cygnus.gnu-win32@scottish-newcastle.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="Boundary_(ID_AeouAG8FjU0By0gS1DR4LQ)"
To: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com


--Boundary_(ID_AeouAG8FjU0By0gS1DR4LQ)
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN

Alexander Kriegisch wrote:

#I do not know enough about it, so this is more a question than a hint:
#How about DirectX and the like? Is it not designed for granting the
#developer direct hardware access?

As far as I can tell from M'softs' literature, DirectX is *not* designed to 
give direct
hardware access. It appears to be graphics middleware, that is an application 
can
rely on a certain set of services and capabilities, and a hardware vendor can 
ensure
that their driver performs these services in the most optimal way possible, (or 
not - there's
some really lousy driver code out there!).

We keep being told that DirectX will make an appearance in NT, (5.0 perhaps?). 
This being
the case if it provided direct hardware access, wouldn't that break NT's 
security model?

Any other opinions anyone?

Bob Cross.

Disclaimer: My opinions, like my fingerprints, are unique to me.

--Boundary_(ID_AeouAG8FjU0By0gS1DR4LQ)--
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".