4 ms·
There's a pretty good chance (e.g. about 100%) that anything you would want to run on that high-end visualization system won't run on your laptop, and anything
by ajg1977 16y ago
There's a pretty good chance (e.g. about 100%) that anything you would want to run on that high-end visualization system won't run on your laptop, and anything you would want to run on your laptop won't run on your phone.
If your definition of success is to be running on the broadest spectrum of devices with no regard to marketshare, adoption, or interoperability, then you're right - OpenGL is far more attractive than Direct3D. Ditto Linux over OSX/Windows.
My interests are driven more by market realities.
Having a wide breadth of device vendors and formats is NOT attractive when considering what platforms to target. This is one reason why games on iPhone are far more prevalent than Android - there are basically three iPhone revisions to worry about, compared to a dozen Android handsets that all have slightly different specs, capabilities, and driver bugs.
If OpenGL sees accelerated adoption over the next few years it will be because it's the chosen API of the wildly popular and relatively homogeneous iOS family of devices, not because it has the greatest breadth of hardware support.
- rbanffy 16y ago> There's a pretty good chance (e.g. about 100%) that anything you would want to run on that high-end visualization system won't run on your laptop, and anything you would want to run on your laptop won't run on your phone. I agree I will not be able to view 3D medical images on my phone with the same ease I can with a visualization workstation, but that's beyond the point. The point is the same functions are being called by Google Earth on the cellphone and the medical imaging application. > your definition of success is to be running on the broadest spectrum of devices No. That's my definition of "cross-platform". Comparing OpenGL with Direct3D is an apples to oranges comparison.