Windows 3D

well be for they do that they should take a smaller step and just replace the GDI with DX...

---

:: Jamie Interactive ::

I think you''re talking about Win64. Don''t know that much about it, but from what I''ve heard, it''s heavily based on Win32 and only works on a chip that won''t be out for a few years.

And yes, if we have Directx, why do we have GDI?

Win64 is just a 64-bit version of windows that will be released shortly after the new Intel 64-bit chip (Itanium). It runs on the Itanium processor, but other than being 64-bit instead of 32-bit, it''ll be no different from Windows XP.

As for DirectX vs GDI, you''re comparing apples and oranges there. DirectX is designed for fast access, direct to the video hardware. Because it is meant to be fast, it doesn''t have half the features of GDI, which sacrifices a bit of speed (well, a lot speed, actually) for a lot more functionality. GDI is used to draw windows and controls. It handles clipping, text, bitmaps, and all the drawing primitives (lines, ellipses, rectangles, etc)

DirectX will never replace GDI, and I really don''t think there will ever be a "3D Windows". It''s quite a rediculous idea, IMHO. Our monitors are 2D. Displaying 3D on a 2D surface is an ugly hack really (not that I''m against 3D games, I make them myself, actually). Until we get true 3 dimensional display systems (e.g. holograms, or whatever) normal applications will stay on our 2D screens, in 2 dimensions. How would you write a 3D wordprocessor? 3D spreadsheet? 3D email?

Just because you can''t imagine an easy way for it to be doesn''t mean someone else can''t. The GDI could be replaced by DirectX if they wrote a couple of small calsses that had calles to DirectX. I wonder how this would affect speed?

---

:: Jamie Interactive ::

Well! I feel that is the challenge and just because our moniters are 2D does not mean we all to have our user interfaces in 2D. I would actually like to a complete 3d Interface. As far a wordprcessors and etc .. all text can have a 3D text converter .. The GDI can be made 3D .. maintaining the same navigation interface but in the 3rd Dimension . Basically what you are seeing laid out on a flat 2d Screen can be given depth and perspective .. anyways thats what I think and actually I would like to have my E-mail in 3D. Did anyone ever make that .. Well we have see things like that in some movies ..but is it out in the market ?

Then there will be a huge rush in the market for 3D and graphics programmers and guys like us will be in great demand. That would be cool .. but I think it would be revolutionary

Would it be able to do existing movies in 3D...TopGun in 3d

It''s the same thing, really. Nothing special about it except that is 64-bit. They had those in the ''60s, and Sun is releasing the first relatively cheap one next month or so. It''s not a big deal-- only an upgrade to the same technology to make it look prettier.

And I dunno on the 2d screen business. No game IS 3d, but many only LOOK 3d. But you have to settle for something, ya know. And you won''t find me settling for any hologram computer-- it''d hurt my eyes!

We need an OS that interfaces with the brain..kinda like The Matrix only not controlled by power-crazy machines (oh wait, Microsoft...damn! )

Don''t quote me on this, but I heard a rumour (repeat, rumour... i.e, it might not be true), but this rumour (get the point yet) was that future versions of Windows might use DirectX instead of GDI, so essentially all the extra GDI functions would be written to be part of DX, so there would be no difference between BitBlt and BltFast.

As for a 3d operating system and all that, I detest 3d text. I don''t see a point of making the characters like that, all it does is blurs them. For a semi decent 3d operating system, my idea is to use cubes, with each side of the cube as a different window. Althogh even that is gimmicky and has no real advantages. If someone can come up with an idea, and some advantages, then maybe I would take the idea a bit more seriously.

I would like the windows interface to be laid out according to the application needs . Like a open field or room with various objects in 3d which can be clicked to start another 3d interface and so on . Anyways we can have various features which can be configured ..like what would be the depth of 3d text , color etc so on ..

Hasn''t it occured to anyone that GDI accesses the hardware directly anyway? You''re talking about interface here, nothing more. As for GDI being replaced, it''s as likely as CreateWindow going out of style.

What''s the point of having DIrectX take the role of GDI? Once you add all the features that GDI has into DirectX, it''ll be just as slow anyway.

And what''s the point of 3D windows? What would make 3D? 3D text is just gimiky, and has no point, add to that that it''s much easier to read text that is 2D anyway (how would you print a "3D document"? do we need 3D printers as well?)

Also, we all complain about how much extra resources windows takes up each time they release a new version, image how much reasources a "3D windows" would require!

I think the future of the desktop (on a computer) is more towards larger and larger screens. Have a look at the video capture at: http://www.asktog.com/starfire/starfireHome.html Now here is the future of the computer desktop! (imagine playing Quake on the vertical part, while your controls are all down on the horizontal part! *drool*)

Doesn''t DirectX go straight to the hardware?
And the GDI accesses the computer Drivers?
(well that is what my OpenGL SuperBible says)

---

:: Jamie Interactive ::

DirectX also has to access the drivers - there''s no way around that. It''s just that the GDI has more abstraction between API interfaces and hardware, and as many have said, you can''t really make the GDI faster just by writing it in DX.

- JQ
Infiltration: Losing Ground
"You just don''t understand. Guys have to be immature and stupid. It''s some biological thing. It helps us hunt and gather and stuff." -Nazrix

and what do the computer drivers access? The hardware, of course! All GDI is, is the functions for drawing lines, rectangles, circles, etc, it also takes clipping and the fact that many different threads are trying to access it at the same time into account. Adding this functionality onto DirectX will not be any faster.

All DirectX is, is a different path to the graphics hardware. It takes out all the clipping and thread-safe code. To turn it into a GDI-clone, you''d have to add all that code back in, thereby making it just as slow as GDI.

i read they have already developed this and that their having trouble with getting the interface to work properly with the mouse

where did you read that OmegaSyphon ?? can you provide a link ??

Okay, now I think we''re taking this too far: 3d text? Do you really think Microsoft is that stupid? Seriously. They''re not going to replace 2d text with 3d for many reasons. You don''t have to be a genius to figure that out.

Also, it seems some people are having trouble getting around the 3d OS business. They continue to match "3d" anything with Quake. For instance, this:

"I would like the windows interface to be laid out according to the application needs . Like a open field or room with various objects in 3d which can be clicked to start another 3d interface and so on . Anyways we can have various features which can be configured ..like what would be the depth of 3d text , color etc so on .. " --Nat

That''s exactly what I''m talking about. QUAKE IS NOT THE ONLY 3D THING OUT THERE!!! Are Flash animations not 3d? Yes they are. Are there not interactive Flash animations? Yes there are. That''s what I think Win64 will be like, only it will look even better than Flash. If you''ve played around with Flash stuff, you know what I''m talking about.