From: akin2 AT pobox DOT com
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.graphics.api.opengl
Subject: Re: OpenGL and DJGPP
Date: 15 Nov 1998 12:15:35 -0800
Lines: 26
Sender: akin AT tuolumne DOT arden DOT org
Message-ID: <72ncp7$qkl$1@tuolumne.arden.org>
References: <364D4E35 DOT BC8123BE AT Helsinki DOT fi> <364F1509 DOT 80988EBF AT widomaker DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cm20816641208.cableco-op.com
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: cm20816641208.cableco-op.com
X-Trace: 15 Nov 1998 12:15:26 +0800, cm20816641208.cableco-op.com
Organization: MediaCity World & ISPchannel
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

In article <364F1509 DOT 80988EBF AT widomaker DOT com>,
Wes Kurdziolek  <wesk AT NOSPAM DOT widomaker DOT com> wrote:
| OpenGL was never meant for software rendering. ...

If you pick up a copy of SGI's OpenGL for Windows, I think you'll find
that the software renderer is quite fast enough to be useful for many
purposes.  It's comparable to the software renderer in Direct3D (faster
on some things, slower on others).  Neither OpenGL nor Direct3D is as
fast as the specialized software renderers used for some games, of course.

|                                                            ... Allegro is a
| very good alternative to OpenGL, and DirectX (if you have the time to learn
| it) is even better.

I don't have experience with Allegro, but as for DirectX: DirectX includes
a bunch of useful things unrelated to 3D graphics (sound, special input
devices, etc.).  These things can be used whether or not you use OpenGL.
Direct3D (the 3D graphics API in the DirectX group) has been compared to
OpenGL often enough on this newsgroup that I'll just recommend people
check DejaNews rather than repeating the old posts.  Suffice to say
that there are plenty of people who prefer OpenGL, so I wouldn't take
a particular opinion as gospel.  Check out the two APIs for yourself.

Allen

(To reply to me, remove the random digit from my return address.)