Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
If you open the page "Graphics and Gaming (Windows)" on microsoft.com
the last category is described as
Legacy Graphics: Technologies that are obsolete and should not be used in new
applications.
This category includes (among others) the following APIs:
GDI
GDI+
OpenGL
What's your opinion? If i want to roll out a new software today it must support Windows XP (still about 50% of all installed systems). Direct2D requires Windows 7/Vista. What else should be used?
I suspect that Microsoft's definition of "legacy" has little to do with what any sensible developer should do, and is instead based on some Grand Rewrite of the Windows API.
Starting at around Windows Vista, Microsoft has been redesigning many of their API's. We now have MMDevAPI as the One True Sound API, WIC is the One True Image File API, etc. From what I've seen/heard, these new API's are much better than the old ones, and the "legacy" systems all work based on the new ones. In Windows Vista and later, DirectSound is entirely based on MMDevAPI, and components that need to read image files do it via WIC.
Windows 8 will have an ARM version, which it appears will support only a subset of the current Windows API. We won't know for sure until Windows on ARM is released, but, based on the libraries included for the ARM platform in Visual Studio 11 (ref: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2012-March/094559.html), it's looking like GDI+ and OpenGL will not be available. GDI is available for linking, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's intact.
This new API's from Vista and later roughly correspond to the libraries in the VS11 ARM target. I'm guessing that anything on that list is there because it's either the latest and greatest way to do what it does, or it's too technically important to discard (for now). Thus, "legacy" is anything that's not the latest and greatest way to do at least one thing.
I'm not sure what is the One True Graphics API. Already we have Direct2D, Direct3D, DirectComposition (which, by the way, is not available until Windows 8), DirectWrite, and DXGI. DXGI seems the closest, but I don't have a deep enough understanding of the graphics API's to say. I suspect gdi32 is technically very difficult to get rid of. How are non-legacy applications meant to find out when part of a window has been revealed and therefore must be painted, without using WM_PAINT, which involves an HDC, and how could a library do that on an application's behalf without replacing its window procedure? How are we meant to make semi-transparent windows without using UpdateLayeredWindow, which takes an HDC? How much does user32 depend on gdi32, and can they really be separated?
From a technical standpoint, Windows can easily get rid of GDI+ and OpenGL, but I'm not convinced that getting rid of OpenGL will work out, even on a new platform that doesn't promise any backward compatibility. It seems too valuable to developers. GDI+ isn't so important, but it's very easy for a third party to provide a replacement.
I would say use any of the API's you listed, and the worst that's likely to happen is that you have to rewrite your UI if you want to port your app to metro or Windows on ARM. GDI is a fine choice if your needs are simple and you'll be coding directly for the Windows API. There aren't many situations where I'd recommend GDI+ over OpenGL as a drawing API. GDI+ is slow, limited, and only available on Windows. The GDI+ API is simpler because it's 2D, so maybe it's worthwhile if you need to do something very simple but with anti-aliasing.
OpenGL isn't deprecated, Microsoft's implementation of it is. Microsoft's implementation is stuck at version 1.1, which is old. The current version of the standard is past version 4. If you want to use OpenGL, it is fully supported by NVidia, ATI, and Intel graphics cards on the Windows desktop, but not in Metro Windows Modern UI apps, is an industry standard, and also works on Mac and Linux. If you need a software fallback implementation, Mesa has got you covered, and it even works on DOS. (Since Mesa can render into memory buffers, there's no reason it won't work in Modern UI apps, but you probably don't want to do this because it can be slow.) One thing of note is that WGL, the API for accessing OpenGL functionality on the Windows desktop, depends on GDI (which is deprecated) so you probably want to use something like FreeGLUT or SDL instead if you want to future-proof your application, which also nets you platform independence.
OpenGL ES is a variant of OpenGL which works on Android and Apple iOS. It is also accessible in JavaScript via WebGL, which Internet Explorer 11 will support (and pretty much every other browser already does.) ANGLE provides a hardware-accelerated implementation of GLES for Windows which piggybacks off of DirectX (version 9 or 11) and thus should work in Modern UI apps as well. Once again, Mesa's got the software implementation covered.
TL;DR: OpenGL is not only not deprecated, it is cross-platform, standard, and has tremendous momentum in the industry. GDI and GDI+, well, not so much.
If you want to support Windows XP, then you're supporting a "legacy" operating system, and as such, using a "legacy" graphics framework is the logical choice.
Even if that weren't true, let's just say that I disagree with the advice given by the linked MSDN article. The "legacy" status here has more to do with which technology the Windows team thinks is cool this week. The status designation of "obsolete" just means that the group responsible is no longer accepting or fulfilling bug reports (except for critical security issues). Not too big of a deal—these technologies have been around long enough that they're fairly feature-complete and stable.
GDI isn't going anywhere, so if you need something rock-solid that is guaranteed to be supported anywhere and everywhere, that's what I would go with.
If you need a bit more 2D capabilities than GDI offers (e.g., alpha channel transparency), then you could consider using GDI+. It's nearly an order of magnitude slower than GDI, but that's not too big of an issue on modern machines with more power than you could ever want. This, too, is going to be supported for a very long time to come.
That said, if I were writing a new app today, I probably wouldn't bother with OpenGL. There's very little that it offers in benefits over Direct2D and DirectWrite, which are both what Microsoft is pushing as the replacements for GDI/GDI+. There might be some benefit to using OpenGL if you absolutely must target Windows XP because as far as I can tell, Direct2D/DirectWrite are only supported on Vista and later, but that's because (as I mentioned originally), Windows XP falls squarely into the "legacy" or "obsolete" camp itself. Alternatively, if you already know OpenGL well and don't have time or the desire to learn Direct2D/DirectWrite, then it might make sense to continue using it in a new application.
Don't let the verbiage of the MSDN article scare you. Choose whatever technology makes the most sense for your specific use case given all of the available information. By the time any of these technologies go away completely, you'll have to re-write the app completely for a dozen other reasons.
Edit: Hmm, it looks like DirectWrite has also been declared (by some people at least) "obsolete" as well, having been replaced by Direct2D. That's funny, it hasn't even been around long enough for me to bother learning it. I guess that only goes to support my earlier argument that "obsolete" simply designates that a particular technology is not what is currently considered to be in vogue by the Microsoft devs.
I'm personally waiting until all the bugs get worked out of this stuff (and we decide on a semi-permanent standard) before I make the switch for any of my applications. Everything I've seen written in DirectDraw or Direct2D has had serious rendering bugs and is a performance nightmare, even on reasonably competent machines. Sure, they only show up sometimes, under the right conditions, but that's too much for me. And I swear, the blurry text shows up all the time. Not being able to read what's on screen is a deal-killer for me and my users. GDI doesn't have this problem, and it's not going anywhere.
Are GDI, GDI+ and OpenGL really obsolete/deprecated?
This is not true for OpenGL. OpenGL 4 allows you to use geometry shaders on winxp. Which isn't possible with DirectX (DirectX 10 and up isn't supported on WInXP). It is also one of the only cross-platform 3D APIs out there.
From a business point of view MS is interested in promoting DirectX since it is their technology that lock Developer into windows platform (they're also interested in making DirectX more attractive for developer, but that's another story). So it makes sense that they aren't keen on promoting OpenGL.
What else should be used?
I'd advise to stop using platform-specific tecnologies when possible. Grab cross-platform framework and use it for your application. There's Qt, GTK, wxWidgets and other toolkits for GUI apps, and SDL(and alternatives) for games. This way when platform developer decide to make ridiculous decision (like not supporting DX10 on WinXP) you dislike, you'll be able to move elsewhere with minimum development cost. Qt is also ridiculously powerful and at the moment I have no reason to use something else for GUI development. Still, situation can change in the future.
In short, while developing for certain platform you should keep in mind that platform developer might have their goals that are not compatible with your wishes. Discovering that your source has become locked into single platform isn't very pleasant experience. Your own goals should be the first priority, and if os developer tries to make you use certain technology you don't like, then you shouldn't support that technology.
Because OpenGL is a standard, it should be considered equally deprecated as C or C++ so it is a matter of time before the entire Windows API -- which today has become a compile once run on every x86 machine API thanks to Wine -- is considered deprecated in favour of .NET and C#.
I use GDI for simple graphics and OpenGL, when I need accelerated 3d.
Another aspect is that Microsoft's build-in implementation of OpenGL is definitely to be considered as deprecated since it is just version 1.1 or something, but that has been for a long time.
Yeah, about OpenGL, it actually outperforms DirectX in many ways both resource and display wise. It will never be promoted by Microsoft because it can't own OpenGL, not to mention most people don't do their research and Microsoft can claim it is old. Truth is opengl is opensource standard and evolves at a much faster rate than closed does because it is more than 1 room of developers paid to work on it. Also Microsoft has contracts with many companies to release using only Microsoft's software, this causes more business for Microsoft and less to use the more advanced OpenGL standard. It is a interesting lock up if you will, Microsoft creates these contracts so that many programs are written in DirectX to keep business for Microsoft, and no company will refuse it because Microsoft has about 80%+ home user market.
Related
I recently moved the rendering part of a program of mine from GDI+ to OpenGL.
Now I'm wondering: are there any downsides to doing so?
For example, are there any versions of Windows (XP or later) that support GDI+ but not OpenGL?
Or, for example, is it possible for a lack of drivers (or poor drivers), or a lack of a graphics card, etc. to make OpenGL rendering impossible on a system on which GDI+ works fine?
(I understand the OpenGL might need to resort to software rendering on less capable systems, but aside from slowness, I'm wondering if it would ever simply not work correctly in a situation in which GDI+ would.)
It depends on the OpenGL version/profile you're using. Up to, inclusing Windows XP OpenGL-1.1 is available by default without additional drivers. Since Windows Vista the minimum available OpenGL version is OpenGL-1.4.
However if you need anything more than that, you're relying on the user installing the drivers that come from the GPU vendor; the drivers installed by default in a standard Windows installation don't cover OpenGL (for not perfectly sane reasons).
Programs and libraries that strongly depend on OpenGL-ES have resorted to incorporate fallbacks like ANGLE.
There are some idiosyncrasies, as for example: you cannot create a transparent OpenGL window, if transparency is disabled (which means, not at all, under XP). Otherwise, as datenwolf notes, there's ANGLE, but even that does not always work. Another option might be mesa3d compiled for the windows target, with software rendering enabled. This option might be the safest one and faster than the software OpenGL 1.1 implementation from Microsoft.
I want to make a 2D desktop GUI application with DirectX but I don't know which version to use. I initially tried Direct2D but it never really gained popularity, thus there isn't a lot of community support or documentation for it compared to the rest of DirectX, so it's not an option.
So I have three options:
DirectX 9.0c
DirectX 10
DirectX 11 (not 11.1, I'm not getting Windows 8)
A knowledgeable friend of mine strongly encouraged DirectX 9.0c saying that's all I need, but I am wary of using an 8-year old platform. Microsoft is pretty much the zenith of legacy support but I think that they must have a limit. I have no idea of the difference between DX10 and DX11.
Keep in mind that I'm very much a novice programmer so this is mostly a learning project.
Any advice is appreciated!
Edit: I'd also appreciate advice on any significant differences in functionality or programming paradigms between the versions.
What version of DirectX should I use to make a 2D desktop GUI application?
DirectX 9, because you'll get more users.
A knowledgeable friend of mine strongly encouraged DirectX 9.0c saying that's all I need, but I am wary of using an 8-year old platform.
Many DirectX 7 and DirectX 5 games still work just fine, not to mention titles that use DirectDraw. So there's no problem with 8-year old platform. Using newer (than 9) version might not even benefit you, so blindly going for higher version number isn't a good idea.
Depending on your circumstances you could also consider using OpenGL but that choice makes sense only if your app has to be cross-platform. If you know that application will be windows-only, then choosing DirectX 9 makes sense.
Microsoft's primary commitment is to its Windows customers. Who still run 15 years old games that use whatever DirectX version was in use back then. IDirectDraw is alive and well. Clearly you'll benefit from that as a developer secondarily. And sure, DX 9 is most widely supported by hardware so that's an excellent choice. Consider something higher if your game performs poorly on old hardware, the DX version is an automatic selector.
Are you writing this for work, or for fun?
If it's for work, then you have to go by the minimum system requirements that someone in business or marketing has defined. If your minimum OS can be Win7 or Vista SP2 w/ Platform Update, then Direct2D is a viable option. Otherwise, DX9 is the way you have to go.
If it's for fun on your own personal time, then do whatever you think will be the most fun :) Direct2D will certainly be MUCH easier to work with if you just want to do 2D graphics. I wouldn't worry much about the "it hasn't gained popularity/community support" angle, especially because it's being used by all the major desktop apps nowadays (Firefox, Internet Explorer, and even the next version of Paint.NET). Also, Win8 will update Direct2D with a whole bunch of interesting new features (and this update will also be available for Win7 from what I understand).
Direct2D can be clumsy to work with at first, but that's mainly due to all the COM stuff. Once you get used to it and build up your own little utilities warchest, it's really not any more complicated than GDI+. In fact, I've been able to port a bunch of old GDI+ code to using Direct2D/DirectWrite and often it's just a line-by-line substitution, e.g. SolidBrush -> SolidColorBrush (this is in the Paint.NET 4.0 code base, btw).
I used the Direct 2D to render graphs of functions and it's pretty easy to use - I'd say, as simple as GDI+. I'd guess, that level of complexity of DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 (in terms of 2D graphics) is quite similar, so don't worry about that.
DirectX 9.0 runs on (let's say) all modern computers, and 11 restricts you to Windows Vista (with platform pack) and Windows 7. Take into consideration, though, that Windows XP will eventually vanish and DirectX will evolve, so I'm not sure, is it worth investing your time into technology, which won't be developed anymore. I would suggest DirectX 11's Direct2D then.
What GUI toolkit does Valve use for Steam? Is it Qt? I am interested in using the same toolkit for a project.
According to Valve itself:
"VGUI is Valve's proprietary Graphical User Interface. All Source and Steam applications use VGUI to draw windows, dialogs and menus. It also handles localization: the displaying of text in the user's preferred language. "
That's interesting, maybe if you guys do some research you can have it working in your programming language. I'll download the SDK to see if I can make it work with Java :)
http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/VGUI_Documentation
Having had experience with the Source engine I know that Valve have an library called VGUI which they use for all their games and many of their tools (when in game the library sits on top of the Source renderer, when in tools it sits on top of the Windows API I believe). Although I can’t answer the question with 100% certainty I suspect that this is what they use for Steam as well (I seem to recall some Steam updates that mentioned VGUI) – I would be surprised if the new beta uses a different library.
Even if it is not using VGUI, given what I know of Valve I would think they will have written something else entirely in-house.
So, it is (almost certainly) proprietary and highly unlikely to ever be available for third party use (unless you have the funds to buy a Source engine license).
Steam only runs on Windows and predates QT for Windows, so I'd have to guess something else.
Since Steam has had the same GUI since 2003, chances are it uses some variant of MFC. It also uses an embedded Internet Explorer web browser for its Store and Community sections.
However, I can't give any guarantees about what the version currently in Beta uses. It looks quite a bit different and includs the Webkit rendering engine instead of using IE. It may use Webkit for everything rather than drawing their own GUIs.
Does this answer the question?
http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/02/25/0640233/Steam-UI-Update-Beta-Drops-IE-Rendering-For-WebKit
Is there any fundamental differences in the WinAPI/Win32? Is there any additional knowledge required to take advantage of new OS features?
Are there any pitfalls which someone who's coded Win32 apps in the past might fall in?
I'm not talking about Silverlight, that's a whole different ball of wax. (I don't have the VS that supports that at work yet.)
Edit:
Drew has a pretty good answer so far, but what's critical for a programmer to know?
i.e. What should be in an appendix to Charles Petzold's book? (Theoretically)
There are of course lots of new APIs that you should be aware of to make sure you have the tools you need. Beyond that, there are some changes to note.
Philosophical changes
Large parts of the old win32 APIs focused on C-style APIs where handles were passed around. Nowadays, many of the new APIs being developed are COM-based, so boning up on COM and ATL would be worthwhile.
You might also want to take note of the new API style if you're writing your own libraries, which is a bit more consistent and avoids things like hungarian notation.
Replacements
Generally, don't assume that the methods you knew about 10 years ago are still state-of-the-art; they all still exist, so you won't necessarily be told you're doing it wrong. Check MSDN to see if it refers you to something better, and use the latest SDK so that you'll get deprecation warnings for some functions. Especially, make sure string functions you're using are secure.
Specifically, one 'replacement' API is Direct 2d, which is a DirectX-style API for UIs. If you're writing graphics code for Windows 7, you should consider Direct2d over GDI, which has a programming model that is compatible with, but very different than, GDI's. Direct 2d may be ported back to Vista.
Also, instead of using win32-style menuing, consider using the Ribbon, which will be available for Vista as well as Win7.
If you're using the common controls library, make sure to use v6, not the default of v5.
Finally, make sure you're not unnecessarily calling things that require admin privileges, as that will prompt UAC.
All I can think of for now.
There are new API's for each.
There is additional knowledge, though it may not be required, you should be familiar with 64-bit and multi-threaded application development to name a few. The higher level constructs such as Direct2D, .NET etc., etc., are what require the adjustment in knowledge, not necessarily the lower level APIs.
You have the choice: traditional C/C++ or use the newer .Net framework languages (C# / VB.net / Python.net and more). For the latter, knowing the framework is more important than the implementation. You're isolated (in general) from pointers, threading, buffers and memory management and apart from a few differences in syntax once you know the framework it's portable between languages (ie, you could easily pick up VB.net programming if you're a C# guy as most of what your apps will do is call parts of the framework). You can create a class in C#, use it in a VB.net program and reference the same class out of a Powershell cmdlet for example.
The old-style C interfaces are still for Win32 there but unless you've got a specific need to use them (legacy code, Direct X, device drivers for example) I'd look at the newer stuff. As for things like WPF, there isn't even a direct route in via unmanaged code - you have to jump through all sorts of ugly interop hoops.
Nothing special. The old stuff pretty much works as it did.
There are some new APIs, but nothing earth shattering (and following the old Win32 conventions).
So everything you know from Vista is still true for Win7.
Now, there are some new guidelines regarding user experience (touch screen, libraries (user experience stuff, not programmer stuff)), but the API style is the same.
Integrity levels are also a good thing to learn about. Depending on the nature of your application, if it attempts to do anything involving other processes that are running on the OS, it is important to know about this. This technology prevents processes at a lower integrity level from interacting with processes that are running at a higher integrity level. This includes messaging, hooks, DLL injection, opening handles, and many other techniques.
For software applications like games, does this mean software companies have a lot of extra coding to maintain 3 branches of certain libraries?
I know this is hard to say, but for game development in general, are there specific areas in the software where they will have to write 3 times in order to work in all 3 flavors of windows?
I'm guessing the core software will be untouched, but maybe some drivers will need to be version specific?
It depends how close to the OS you are. If you're just using the .NET framework or DirectX, probably not much changes between operating systems. If you're writing drivers or relying on the Win32 API then there definitely could be subtle or not so subtle changes.
If your code is written correctly in the first place, there should not be a huge investment into supporting an OS upgrade. Using something like the .NET framework helps guarantee this even more.
Also, why would games have 'drivers'?
Not really. If you use DirectX 9, you are fine on all 3 Windows Versions. The extra maintenance evolves around stuff like the Installer/Uninstaller, about the Games-Tab that was new in Vista (if you want to use it) etc., but as said, DirectX 9 is a stable API on all 3.
You will get into some fun with DirectX 10 (not on WinXP) and with OpenGL (Support in Vista is weird).
Even if you use "portable" interfaces like DirectX or .Net or whatever that are supposed to provide the same functionality, a responsible software developer will have to do QA and testing on each supported platform.
(Note that I don't claim to be a responsible software developer. :-))
Many game develoeprs, including the studio I work for, use engines that manage cross platform issues. We are using Unreal for our game and it ports to the PS3, Xbox, and PC with no issues other than performance differences between them. The engine typically handles the differences in platforms.
As a .Net developer, most of the issues I saw when running applications built with XP as the original target were things we were doing incorrectly that just happened to work in XP (most were using the system colors that looked ok on XP but were wrong for Vista -- e.g., the default Vista theme caused a black font on black background).
It was coding by coincidence at its finest (we were naive enough to not know it was wrong). However, once we started testing on both Vista and XP, we started to produce a better Windows product.