Page 3 of 3

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:11 am
by oiaohm
Haos I do talk to greatlord a lot. I found about this one when trying to work out why 1 wine test case would work perfectly fine on windows 2000 but bring XP to a complete stop.

Issue with 2000 DX has safeguards that prevent a Direct X program with a minor error from blue screen the OS by passing invalid data.

XP removes these protections for the minor speed gains. Direct X in 2000 is also kernel mode to the same amount as XP.

Haos don't take me out of context. Wine direct X to opengl is not a unstable design. Due to syscalls missing MS Direct X cannot be completely used with wine. There are limitations from the wine design. Also wine design has a place with Reactos. When running inside a virtual machine with only opengl on the OS outside.

XP direct X design is unstable by design. XP is blindly trusting data sent threw to direct x kernel model.

Note the base design for React X is Windows 2000 direct x so the safe guards are there. Really Haos you need to talk to greatlord and kinda have the facts before telling me to go talk to him.

Unstable gpu drivers are not the issue I was referring to. There is nothing much you can do about that other than find better drivers. Its a equal problem to windows linux and mac that one.

The fault is where application does something stupid like sends a null pointer instead of a pointer to data. There is no reason for that to crash the OS.

Even Vista's direct X is not contained to usermode. But the usermode does a sane check on what is been sent to kernel mode. In side vista kernel there is protected path and other protections.

At long last you said the important thing Haos. performance issues. Wine Direct X does not match 1 to 1 with XP or Vista on performance. Its kinda part way between. Some parts are even faster than XP. There is room for improvement.

The important issue for me. Is if you are going to run windows drivers you might as well use windows driver direct X acceleration if it works. Since to to that requires kernel mode features. Time to add kernel features is when a kernel is in alpha before its in production use.

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:01 pm
by Haos
No point to continue this discussion. We seem to have been told different things.

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:41 pm
by cppm
oiaohm wrote: cppm also somethings are not being worked on because they are not important now.
But different dev's will have different ideas of what is 'important'. It's a community thing that takes into account many factors, such as personal interest, the overall perception of particular features and peoples coding abilities. Not just what seems most efficient and is best for 'the mission'.

linuxgx has every right to suggest strategy changes, but saying that reactx is a waste of time seems to boil down to telling greatlord to do something else, I don't think that's going to happen until greatlord feels like it.

Is there anyone else actually working on rx?

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:46 pm
by Haos
Rx is mainly Greatlord`s baby, at least nowadays. I have no idea how did it look earlier. GL has to cooperate closely with kernel and GDI devs when working on Rx.

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:48 pm
by linuxgx
First off DirectX is not a waste of time, I just think it should be placed on hiatius until the kernel is better deffined for its development.

I welcome the work being done by Greatlord, the man is a wonderful coder and has placed allot of time and effort into the project. I just wish that he would help focus on finishing a kernel implantation. That way he doesn't have to back track every time a kernel change is made. And since greatlord has informed me that MS-DX will function in the near future, its just logical in my eyes that the kernel and compatablity be the focus at the moment.

You want Ros to gain some market share quick? 2 steps need to be made
1) Fix USB stack
2) Find a way of running autocad on Ros

That is the surest method for getting us support. Ros would have to have a very clean and efferent memory management system though, there couldn't be any leaks. 2kb loss per year max

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:58 pm
by oiaohm
linuxgx ... 09-sy.html

Sorry for current Autocad we need working Direct X. So without Greatlord's work Autocad is not going to work. Numbers of applications linked to Direct X is massive.

Direct X support requires getting video interfaces working correct. This is required to run Reactos inside a virtual machines. No video output 100 percent useless Reactos.

Usb is need to real hardware. Now see the difference. Usb is under development.

Back tracking is part of alpha status since everything is in flux.

Greatlord started off as a GDI developer in Ros and started Rx because it become basically a requirement to make the video side work correctly.

Doing the kernel based direct x stuff is directly helping to complete the kernel.

Yes the developers have different ideas on important. Cppm. Lot of things have been still classed by common talking between the development as not important at this stage.

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:08 am
by Radhad
1280 x 1024 32-bit color video display adapter (True Color) 128 MB or greater, OpenGLĀ®, or Direct3DĀ® capable workstation class graphics card.
For Windows Vista, a Direct3D capable workstation class graphics card with 128 MB or greater is required1024 x 768 VGA with True Color (minimum)
I think that means when you install Autocad on ReactOS, you have to use the Windows XP 32Bit Edition becuase then it will work with OpenGL instead of Direct3D - what is supported ;) DirectX 9.0c is a must for 3D hardware acceleration ...

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:19 am
by oiaohm
Please read more carefully.
For graphic cards that support Hardware Acceleration, DirectX 9.0c, or later, must be installed.
Some sections of Autocad need direct X to perform well.

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:12 am
by FlyingIsFun1217
cppm wrote:Or do you think that MS would try and force software vendors to gain 'permission' to use their API's and thereby force them to put a 'windows only' clause in their license agreement... that would actually ruin them...
Thats where I disagree. Apart from legal issues that might or might not cause, Windows has a large enough market share that any developer not porting an application to it has FAR less potential profit (with the rare exceptions of graphics applications that the Mac users seem to gravitate towards).


Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:48 pm
by cppm
Meh. It would still be illegal.

And if they still managed to pull it off t would be tantamount to making ROS illegal, if that happened then we'll probably get a lot more coder support :P... (the US can't try to extradite -everyone-... unless we're really getting dystopian)