From: frenchc AT cadvision DOT com (Calvin French)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: AllegroX project?
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:27:06 GMT
Organization: CADVision Development Corp.
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <5j14qn$33ss@elmo.cadvision.com>
References: <199704142323 DOT AA232160213 AT typhoon DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts5ip175.cadvision.com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Crabtree <andrewc AT typhoon DOT rose DOT hp DOT com> wrote:

>I see some potential problems with this.

>1) The DirectX standard is evolving and controlled by microsoft.  
>Presumably, the actual driver interface won't change much, but still, 
>the next version of Windows might change things.

True enough, in that higher versions of DirectX would likely be more
complex and/or better (which usually means worse when it comes to
microsoft, but oh well...) However: Even M$ wouldn't try and re-create
a standard they spent to long trying to get the gaming industry to
buy, and if that's true then future versions would still need to be
backwards-compatable. This may not be true with the OEM shipped
drivers, however. That is, OEM-shipped drivers (if we decide to have
AllegroX support just the drivers, not make API calls) made for say,
DirectX 10.8 may not be usable by an AllegroX designed to support
DirectX 2.0 drivers. However if we go the second route, and make Win95
API calls, AllegroX will always be at least compatable with DirectX,
although it may not take full advantage of it. We can always upgrade
AllegroX, too.

>2) What about VBE/AF?  I don't know what specifically it will support,
>but I assume Scitech will release software for it sometime in the next 
>1/2 year, and Shawn has already worked on support for it.

Don't know VBE/AF. I assume this is another acceleration standard?

- Calvin -