4 ms·

> I assume you are talking about cases of drivers not being up to date. No, I'm talking about users even having the unofficial vulkan-supporting drivers instal

> I assume you are talking about cases of drivers not being up to date. No, I'm talking about users even having the unofficial vulkan-supporting drivers installed (on Windows). Users aren't going to suddenly get Vulkan support in a driver update from Windows/Microsoft Update. > I don't see how browser makers can fix that, besides warning users that their drivers are too old. Try to read this carefully, I've mentioned it several times: The point of this WG is to provide an API layer on top of a range of low-level GPU libraries. For Windows (where Vulkan support is possible but not practical due to the unofficial nature of Vulkan supporting drivers) the most common API library that browsers would use, is DirectX, which is provided and supported by Microsoft, across a vast range of hardware. No one insists that all browser vendors use the same TLS library, or the same DOM library, or even the same JavaScript engine. They just (aim to) support the same standards, usually building on things already available from the OS. If you still can't grasp this, I have to assume you're simply trolling.

shmerl 10y ago
> Users aren't going to suddenly get Vulkan support in a driver update from Windows/Microsoft Update. They aren't likely to get updates for DX either, let's say if they are using Windows 7. They won't get DX12, right? So again, there isn't anything browser makers can do about cases of outdated drivers, besides warning the user (if they rely on such drivers). If users can fix that (by updating drivers / system), good. If not, users can skip those applications. > Try to read this carefully, I've mentioned it several times: The point of this WG is to provide an API layer on top of a range of low-level GPU libraries. Yes. This assumes 1. those libraries are installed, and 2. they have certain minimal required capabilities. And browser makers have no control over it. Only user has (or in worse cases - vendor, if the system is all locked up). So it's only a natural thing to expect, for browsers to warn the user, if minimal requirements aren't met (in whatever way).

shmerl 10y ago

> Users aren't going to suddenly get Vulkan support in a driver update from Windows/Microsoft Update. They aren't likely to get updates for DX either, let's say if they are using Windows 7. They won't get DX12, right? So again, there isn't anything browser makers can do about cases of outdated drivers, besides warning the user (if they rely on such drivers). If users can fix that (by updating drivers / system), good. If not, users can skip those applications. > Try to read this carefully, I've mentioned it several times: The point of this WG is to provide an API layer on top of a range of low-level GPU libraries. Yes. This assumes 1. those libraries are installed, and 2. they have certain minimal required capabilities. And browser makers have no control over it. Only user has (or in worse cases - vendor, if the system is all locked up). So it's only a natural thing to expect, for browsers to warn the user, if minimal requirements aren't met (in whatever way).