From: tomw AT tsys DOT demon DOT co DOT uk (Tom Wheeley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: AllegroX project?
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 02:15:14 GMT
Organization: Adventures and Diving
Message-ID: <860984114snz@tsys.demon.co.uk>
References: <5ina4e$1qmc AT elmo DOT cadvision DOT com> <01bc47e0$b3940540$428911d1 AT imag DOT net DOT imag DOT net>
Reply-To: tw104 AT york DOT ac DOT uk
Lines: 23
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <01bc47e0$b3940540$428911d1 AT imag DOT net DOT imag DOT net>
           dingfam AT imag DOT net "Chris" writes:

> Heya
>   Just like to point out that there is absolutely no need what so ever for
> Allegro to have "DirectX driver support." DirectX was made specifically for
> Windows95 to allow Windows95 programmers to have Direct access to the
> computer's hardware, without writing any hardware spcific code. There is no
> need for that in DOS becuase in DOS, one already has Direct access to the
> hardware. So, essentially, Allegro is kinda like DirectX for DOS (except
> easier to use :). 

Not quite.  DirectX provides a common API to all the various nefarious
accelerations available in todays video cards.  The `Direct' in DirectX is
a misnomer.  DirectX support would be useful as it would allow Allegro to
support future cards as soon as they are released.  Also, video-card
manufacturers are now bound to accelerate their cards with respect to DirectX
rather than their own hardware, so that they work best under the most
common platform.

-- 
:sb)