Re: Why don't the tutorials work?
From: Alex Pavloff (ThisPartIsBogus.alex_at_ThisPartIsBogus.Pavloff.Net)
Date: 06/03/04
- Next message: Larry Serflaten: "Re: Why don't the tutorials work?"
- Previous message: Rich [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]: "Re: Texture"
- In reply to: Larry Serflaten: "Re: Why don't the tutorials work?"
- Next in thread: Larry Serflaten: "Re: Why don't the tutorials work?"
- Reply: Larry Serflaten: "Re: Why don't the tutorials work?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:42:34 -0700
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:03:03 -0500, "Larry Serflaten"
<serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:
>The point is, if the industry did not try to peicemeal all the parts out to
>different vendors, we might get a whole system together where what is now
>ancilary technology, could be included in the Operating System of the
>package.
Sure, maybe. Chance of that happening: Extremely low. Chasing
windmills won't get you very far.
>> DirectX is specifically created for creating complex and radical thinking
>> application and graphics/music etc that you cant do directly with most
>> utilities, AND to top it off, its free.
>
>Funny, I thought DirectX came about because of complaints that Windows
>API's did not support graphic applications very well, and they were getting
>complaints from every direction. So they came out with a new API to
>to address better access to video memory. From that was born a new
>'technology' and the resulting releases of DirectX.
DirectX was developed because Windows was a poor environment for games
in general. Game development is a rather different environment than
normal application development.
>
>> If you want graphics, use paintshop prop. If you want music, use
>> CreativeLabs hardware with their software etc.
>> When you say it just shouldn't be so "hard" to do this or do that. Who's
>> responsibility do you think it is to make it "easy" for you.
>
>Why do they think complexity is an adavantage? Stuffing a value into memory
>is a very basic operation of any CPU, why is it required to have an entire
>technology to read or write to video memory? THEY MADE IT COMPLEX
>it was not very difficult on the earlier machines.
Or course it wasn't as hard back in the DOS days -- there was less to
worry about. Multiple screen resolutions? Color depths? Multiple
screens? Multiple video cards? (I'm typing this on the 2nd screen
attached to the 2nd video card in the system). Oh, and how about the
desire that code can be written once and run on a variety of video
cards, and run as fast as possible on each of them.
There are more requirements today than there were in the past -- it
had to get more abstract than inport() and outport().
>I would beg to differ, it is only complex because of all the interoperability
>that is being forced upon us in the industry. Steve Jobs went off to create
>the 'Next' great machine, but it never took off in any big way. (That would
>be a story worth investigating...) If you control the hardware and the software,
>and don't have to apply 'standards' to all the connection points, it really
>isn't all that hard for people familiar with that sort of work.
Chasing windmills...
>Speaking of laws, there is the law of supply and demand. A company can
>order parts to meet a specific specification. If the vendor can't meet the
>specification, then there is no demand, the company will simply look for
>a different vendor who can meet the demand. So, no micro management
>needs to take place, they simply order parts that they have desigined their
>system for, and demand that the parts are reliable. From those parts the
>entire system can be built....
Speaking from the perspective of a company that integrates expensive
peripherals into an expensive devices, that's not _exactly_ how it
works. Its quite a bit messier than that.
>Getting a bit personal, aren't you? When did I ever say it was their fault
>the tutorials don't work. I simply asked why they don't work, that I was
>surprised that they don't work.... I followed their own instructions and
>recommendations to install all of their software, and now there are some
>things that don't operate as indicated. Their own diagnostics say everything
>is working, but somehow a thrown exception is my fault???
Its not your fault -- but you've been doing more windmill chasing than
anything else. Various things have been suggested like the "perhaps
the tutorials assume certain things about your hardware that aren't
actually supported." Installing the debug DirectX libraries would
probably tell you the exact error. Why don't you try that, as the MVP
around here has suggested.
- Next message: Larry Serflaten: "Re: Why don't the tutorials work?"
- Previous message: Rich [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]: "Re: Texture"
- In reply to: Larry Serflaten: "Re: Why don't the tutorials work?"
- Next in thread: Larry Serflaten: "Re: Why don't the tutorials work?"
- Reply: Larry Serflaten: "Re: Why don't the tutorials work?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
