PureBasic Forums - English

I even noticed how 32bit systems are declining. Every-time someone around here buys a system, typically 64bit computer.

There's lot of 32bits systems around, it'll require these to stop working, or finally don't meet the minimum requirements to run different software.

As long as you able to run 32bit code on 64bit computer, I don't really see it fading away too quickly.

On older couples PC, they still using Windows XP. However they really feeling the pinch now. They talking about upgrading Christmas or even before then.

Anyways LONG LIVE 128BIT!

IMO most computers are still used, more then 60% of the time, to registrate the mouse movements. For that even 16 bit is still enough.

Let's enjoy today, and let the future take care of itself.

I can't remember seeing such profundity typed here on PB in awhile. It must come with years, years, and years of experience.

I think 32 bit software will be around for a while, so I would not worry about it.

Thunder93 wrote:I even noticed how 32bit systems are declining. Every-time someone around here buys a system, typically 64bit computer.

There's lot of 32bits systems around, it'll require these to stop working, or finally don't meet the minimum requirements to run different software.

As long as you able to run 32bit code on 64bit computer, I don't really see it fading away too quickly.

On older couples PC, they still using Windows XP. However they really feeling the pinch now. They talking about upgrading Christmas or even before then.

That older couple had better get on buying a virgin Windows 7 system at retail before Microsoft's October 31st deadline.
http://www.microcenter.com/product/4458 ... efurbished
They really can't do any better than that deal, and I am amazed that there are still a few left to acquire!
A solid, 100% Intel inside HP build. ★★★★★

Anyways LONG LIVE 128BIT!

8 bit systems are practically dead in everyday use.
A few 16 bit systems are still running, but they are extremely rare.
32 bit systems will be used for another decade or so.
64 bit systems are most of the systems available to buy today.
128 bit systems are just for the bleeding edge high end nerds.
256 bit systems are exclusively for aliens.

I stopped installing the 64 bit version of PB on my system (linked above).
Why bother with two versions, if the 32 bit Windows® version's executables will run just fine on all systems?
It's not like a 64 bit version of an application program actually does anything different.

Linux is different, where a 32 bit executable is totally distinct from a x64 version.
In this area I like the Windows® implementation better, because like I typed before,
It's not like a 64 bit version of an application program actually does anything different (from a user's perspective).

Dropping OGRE support to create there own 3D engine based on OpenGL?
Sorry but i had to laugh there.
Do you have checked out what OGRE really can? Do you have compared it
with what PB OGRE can? OGRE 3D is very hugh and is still evolving.
The problem is not that it is laking somewhere. Our limitations in PB are much
worse than that. It takes time to implement all the possibilities. Fred and his
team is not able to implement all the great features OGRE is giving us. And
i bet the most of us (i included) wouldn't be able to use all the great stuff, if
we would have them in PB. Fred and his team has not the time to reinvent a
3d-engine based on OpenGL or anything else. Your disapointed face will be
priceless in a few years, after they get the first results.

Just teasing.


OGRE3D development is slow, but ongoing. OGRE 2.1 is stable and hopefully
we will get that any time for PB ... Vulkan and DX12 is planed for the future, too.
So ... OGRE is not bad, but of course we could discuss a better replacement for
OGRE3D ... but ... 3d is a very big thing ... and i'm already glad for every little
improvemend and new feature that is introduced for 3d ... how long would it
take to just change the implementation to another 3d-engine?

Just ask Comtois how hard and timeconsuming it is to get something like that running.

MFG PMV

heartbone wrote:Why bother with two versions, if the 32 bit Windows® version's executables will run just fine on all systems?

It can be practical to use 32 bit or 64 bit on all OS when developing cross platform software and on OSX it's recommended to use 64 bit.
I agree if you develop for Windows only.

J. Baker wrote:3.) Remove OGRE. It requires an external library. Its *.mesh plus *.skeleton is not widely supported. Issues can come along if you don't use the command line tools for the proper version of OGRE that you are using. Latest 3D examples require Nvidia CG. Just more external crap that I have to install on my computer. As you see, I don't like relying on external stuff.

4.) Create new OpenGL 3D Engine. One that can run on OpenGL 1.3. No need for the latest technology as you can create very nice looking games in version 1.3. It just takes graphics and modeling skills. This keeps it compatible with people who don't have the latest and fastest hardware. Plus, who on this forum is even using the latest 3D technology. I doubt many.

This is a bit like "Remove Windows", "Install DOS". Sorry, but I'd rather like OGRE to be implemented more natively and less in a wrapped way. The reasons you're pointing to are not valid, however there is another reason. PureBasic is some kind of Simple-To-Use-For-Everybody-Framework, so it could be more successful with a simple OpenGL 3D Engine, yes. I also thought about that. OpenGL 1.3 would be bad though, really, really bad. Better use OpenGL 3.0 and use Mesa as a fallback software renderer. We need a matrix, vector and quaternion datatype which can be used easily. Every entity should have a matrix attached. Rendering order should be handled directly by the user. This way you can do whatever effect you like. You should also be able to set the data of the meshs directly, meaning you can add new vertex attributes of any type and you can modify them and remove them, ... just like with OpenGL. There should just be a mesh loader built in a way like the image decoders/encoders etc. A physics engine should be available just like now.

DarkDragon wrote:This is a bit like "Remove Windows", "Install DOS".

Better use OpenGL 3.0 and use Mesa as a fallback software renderer.

That sounds a bit extreme. PureBasic's current OpenGL requirement for OGRE isn't even 3.0. So why would the minimum be 3.0? Like I already said too... Most users won't even use the latest features of OpenGL.

Thanks for your feedback though.

EDIT: ATI 8500 demos using DX 8.1 but still in the same period of OpenGL 1.3 look great! The nature demo is one of my favorites. This is what I mean by that you don't need the latest tech to make things look good.
https://web.archive.org/web/20021205200 ... 0.html#ATI

J. Baker wrote: That sounds a bit extreme. PureBasic's current OpenGL requirement for OGRE isn't even 3.0. So why would the minimum be 3.0? Like I already said too... Most users won't even use the latest features of OpenGL.

Two things for ya.
One as of Ogre 2.1 the minimum requirement for OpenGL is 3.3 and I bet Purebasic will likely support Ogre 2.1 in the next year or two.
And two the users wouldn't use any of the features directly. Only the engine would make use of them. To the end user it wouldn't be much different from using an engine based on OpenGL 1.3 except for the fact that the engine would be many many many times faster and the graphics would be a whole lot nicer.

J. Baker wrote: EDIT: ATI 8500 demos using DX 8.1 but still in the same period of OpenGL 1.3 look great! The nature demo is one of my favorites. This is what I mean by that you don't need the latest tech to make things look good.

I agree that you don't need the latest tech, but you don't need to be stuck in the past, either.
DirectX 8.1 and DirectX 11+ aren't even on the same playing field when it comes to graphics and speed.


Anyways, I doubt Ogre is going to be dropped from PB considering all the work that's been put in it already.

Samuel wrote: I agree that you don't need the latest tech, but you don't need to be stuck in the past, either.
DirectX 8.1 and DirectX 11+ aren't even on the same playing field when it comes to graphics and speed.


Anyways, I doubt Ogre is going to be dropped from PB considering all the work that's been put in it already.

LOL! I'm not stuck in the past. I'm all for new tech and optimizations. But if one is not using its full effect, why even use it? Why cut yourself off from distributing to customers who don't have the latest hardware or OS? Just because it's new doesn't make it better. Have you never had to revert to older code, app, PureBasic, etc. just because the newer version either didn't work, wasn't as fast, or compatible?

That's like saying Windows 7 or better is more secure than XP. LOL! Everything can be hacked and nothing is secure. Treat it as so.

And yes. Fred will most likely never drop OGRE. This topic was my vision. Not Fred's.

@J. Baker
>> 2-4
purebasics opengl subsystem has plenty of quirks. the dx11 subsystem is superior on every level. opengl is insanly outdated. putting effort in fixing the subsystem or even writing a new engine would be a total waste of time. why would anyone want to use a nearly dead graphics interface in the first place? no one uses opengl anymore, except mobile devices. vulkan is the way to go and it works really nice. few days ago android 7 got released, which also supports vulkan. there is simply no need for opengl anymore. also dont forget that the purbasic team doesnt consist of graphics engine experts. using an open source engine like ogre, is the smartest choice they could make. if purebasics 3d capabilities dont fit your needs, maybe you should switch to something like unity. purebasic will never be able to compete with the big players, with or without ogre.

>> 5
wanna bet this will happen in the next 15-20 years?

c ya,
nco2k

nco2k wrote:why would anyone want to use a nearly dead graphics interface in the first place? no one uses opengl anymore, except mobile devices.

OpenGL - Available on every desktop OS.
OpenGL - Available on mobile devices.
WebGL - Available for web browsers.
SteamOS - Pushing developers to use OpenGL in a recent conference.

DirectX - Windows only.

Vulkan - Too new and not enough support to justify it. Even if it states that it uses less overhead. Time will tell.

Unity - Games exported are a complete resource hog. I have tried it and never looked back when I walked away from it.

OpenGL seems to be everywhere to me. Thanks for the feedback though.

of course its everywhere, it has been around for almost 25 years now. only because its still available, it doesnt mean its a good idea to still use it. if you want to write a game, dont use something that was good 20 years ago. use something that is good now and hopefully will be in the future. microsoft is pushing directx (as always) and apple is pushing metal. hopefully vulkan will become a serious competitor in the next 4-5 years, so that we dont have to deal with other bullshit anymore. i dislike directx 12 a lot. not because of dx itself, but because microsoft is forcing you to switch the os and migrate to uwp. but thats a whole different story.

c ya,
nco2k