[SDL] DirectX 7?

Neil Griffiths n.griffiths at virgin.net
Thu Sep 26 04:24:01 PDT 2002


PM> No, thats wrong. 3D accelerator or not, its slower, and often not smart for
PM> other reasons. DirectX 8 has serious issues (cant run on 486s or Pentiums or
PM> K6s), DirectDraw is basically shot, and Win95 users cant install it (Microsoft,
PM> due to not supporting it, added in a check to prevent that from happening
PM> (money grubbing bastards))

It renders to textures, that's how it does 2D. I know it's faster,
I've seen it. I also have DirectX 8 running fine on my laptop, which
happens to be a Pentium, so what's the deal?

So you haven't got DirectDraw? Big deal. You do exactly what GL_SDL is
doing. We can already guess that SDL will render to OpenGL, there is
no issue at all with doing the same with Direct3D. Look, here's an
example of how you can do 2D with DirectX 8:


Windows '95 is 7 years old right now, I don't see that as being a
problem. Have you left your OS running as-is for 7 years then get
pissed off when the latest software doesn't work on it?

PM> Because of this, DX8 is not suitable for 2D games. And thusly, its not suitable
PM> for SDL 2.0 as well. DX7 is, but really, we probably could get away with doing
PM> something like build multiple drivers (one that does DX7 and one that does DX3,
PM> so we dont have to kick out NT4 users (Unless Sam puts his foot down and says
PM> NT4 is dead)) out of one set of code, but have it enable DX7 specific functions
PM> when building the DX7 portion (this works due to the fact that DX is massivly
PM> backwards compat)

And, I guess, OpenGL is also not suitable for 2D games? Sure.

PM> So, yeah, if you wanna basically screw everyone that has an old machine (but
PM> one that is perfect for playing 2D games) and everyone that doesnt run 
PM> Win98/ME or Win2k/XP, yeah, go ahead and use DX8. But I specifically Sam wishes
PM> to piss off around 2/5ths of the SDL userbase.

I'd love to see where you get your numbers from. People who play games
will nearly always have fairly modern hardware. Those who don't won't
care that SDL will be dropping back to GDI which Sam has already said
SDL will be doing.

2/5ths of the SDL userbase are not going to be using Windows '95. Most
of the SDL userbase will be made up of Linux users and programmers.
The majority of the rest will be made up of emulation fans and games
players. All of these will have reasonably up-to-date hardware and
software. That's pure logic - and I'd love to see you back up your

Basically, you should take advantage of current technology, not stick
to the old days because you know how to use DirectDraw. There's a good
reason for rendering to textures. It's fast on pretty much every piece
of graphics hardware since 1996.

Get with the times. And for people not with the times, they have GDI.


PS It's interesting to see how in your next e-mail you say that
anything under 640x480 isn't acceptable. How are you planning to do
that at a reasonable framerate on the 486, one of the reasons you
suggest we shouldn't use DX8 for? You're inconsistant. And no, pixel
doubling from 320x240 isn't a great solution. You just have bigger
pixels, it doesn't look better. It still looks blocky and you have no
more effective screen area, the main reason for WANTING to use a
higher resolution.

More information about the SDL mailing list