Reply-To: <arfa AT clara DOT net>
From: "Arthur" <arfa AT clara DOT net>
To: "DJGPP Mailing List" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: DJ+Allegro & employment?
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:22:16 +0100
Message-ID: <000201bdbfaa$e66a17a0$ec4b08c3@arthur>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199808031926120380.00024F3C@pogwizd.tcs.uni.wroc.pl>
Precedence: bulk

> >> DJGPP is good for Dos, not Windows. Of course you can access Windows
> >> through DJGPP,
> >> but YOU CAN NOT USE ANY MS-COMPATIBLE LIBRARY, it needs porting to DJGPP first.
> >> Eg. is it possible to use DirectX 5.0 SDK with DJGPP? -not. However with
> >> VC++ it is.
> >
> >Agreed.
> >
> >> In most cases DirectX is NOT faster than OpenGL. However DirectX is more
> >> widely supported.
> >
> >Depends on the hardware. Direct 3D is slower in GL on some cards (such as
> 3Dfx cards)
> >but faster on others. DX6 will cream GL when it comes out. I've seen the
> development
> >version.
>
> Maybe. But most cards are based on 3DFX nowdays. (at least those available
> in Poland)

In the UK all 3D cards support Direct 3D. There are a handful of 3Dfx based cards,
and a similar amount of Voodoo2 Cards. But there are also the PowerVR cards, the
Nvidea Riva, the Rendition... And after DX6 is released there's going to be a whole
lot more. 3Dfx has only a small corner of the market now, whereas D3D has about 95%
of it because almost all cards can use it. Some games (such as Jedi Knight) work
better on my ATI Rage Pro under D3D than on the 3Dfx under D3D (because I can get
1024x768 resolutino in 16bit colour).

> >Do you know what WinAllegro is? It is a Windows version of Allegro. That
> means that
> >you can do stuff like set up a VESA 2 screen mode in one line, blit areas of the
> >screen about easily, and if you're used to Allegro then it would be invaluable.
>
> I'd rather use DirectX or OpenGL directly.

That's your choice.

> >Because the programming teams have made their fortune and so can afford
> it. VC++ is
> >fast and is probably one of the best tools for the job, but I for one am
> reluctant to
> >spend £350 (about $500?) on something that I am most likely not going to
> get a return
> >on. Note that all the programming teams above started out by writing shareware/PD
> >games in low-budget or free compilers, such as DJGPP. You don't have to
> use VC++ to
> >produce a game...
>
> I agree, but despite it's expensive, it better than RSXNTDJ to write a win32 game.

Yes.

> >I am not saying that DJGPP+RSXNTDJ is the best. I am saying that it is better if
> >you're on a budget. I definitely did not say it was the best for Windows
> >development - and did not even include the other packages you mentioned above.
>
> And I'm not saying that VC++ is the best. If it was free, it would be beter than
> RSXNTDJ. But itsn't :(

If I was to get VC++ 5, then I'd wait about two months till VC++6 comes out and pay
about a quarter of the price for it.

> >Also if VC++ is so good, why are you still on this newsgroup?
> Because I'm still using DJGPP for DOS. (and I'm sure it's the best compiler
> for dos)

It's not bad :^)

James Arthur
jaa AT arfa DOT clara DOT net
ICQ#15054819