> > But Glide didn't hurt the Glide -games- which were far superior
> > to DX/D3D/OGL at the time. Maybe you haven't ever been able to
> > see both a Glide version of a game and compare it to the D3D version.
> > If you did, you may not feel the way you do.
> Uh, dude... I'd have agreed with you on that had you limited yourself to
> D3D. According to those in the know, all previous D3D versions to DX6 or
> something like that seemed to have been put together by a team of drunken
> monkeys. However, OGL is by far the more competent and powerful API of the
> two, and trying to pass off BS that Glide is/was superior is just plain
> bullshit.
> Of course, back then like nobody wrote any PC games in OGL so your point
> isn't even valid from THAT point of view either. It took a certain Carmack
> guy to put OGL firmly on the roadmap for driver development teams (and if
> memory serves me correctly, 3dfx was one of the last to offer a proper
> implementation instead of just a minidriver).
If the point was that the Glide/3DFX combination was the best thing in PC
*** and what put it on the map, then Ed is right. That 3DFX optimized its
hardware through the use of a proprietary API and made 3D a reality that
started a revolution should hardly be criticized. And their miniGL driver
worked great on Quake-based games, which was about all there was out there
at the time - the only complaints I recall from people at the time I was
using a Voodoo3 was that some OpenGL screensavers didn't work too well. Even
now how many games are out there that were designed to run in OpenGL and
aren't Quake-based? Anyway, perhaps another example of one of the things
that separated 3dfx and nVidia - 3dfx didn't seem very inclined to spend
their money, which meant their customer's money, on things that had little
or no practical application. While nVidia has made their reputation on doing
that.
