Talk:Comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D/Archive 2

Comparison in "Ease of Use" unclear
This section first says: (1) "Direct3D frees the game programmer from accommodating the graphics hardware." and then later: (2) "With Direct3D, the developer must manage hardware resources independently; however, the implementation [of the API or driver] is simpler, and developers have the flexibility to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible for their application."

Isn't that a contradiction? It sounds like in OpenGL the user would not have to care about hardware resources and in Direct3D he would. But that doesn't fit to the introduction sentence. So what is true now? -- Rabenschwinge (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You're correct in observing that issue. What's happening here is that who wrote that text referred to "hardware requirements and resources" with different context in the same sentence using similar wording. To a certain degree, we could even debate whatever the sentence holds true. The whole "comparison" section is completely rubbish to me.

Right now, we can only speculate on whatever this whole section was intended to say. I suppose that (1) referrers to API's ability to abstract hardware differences (only 3Dfx, only PowerVR, only MGA) - a capability surprising no one since 1998. Sentence (2) is possibly related to the presence (...D3D9) of different resource pools and the lost device situation. As it is written right now, it could mean pretty much everything...  MaxDZ8 talk  06:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed some lines in the comparison table at the top
I removed the following lines in the table at the top because none of the associated comparisons are sourced: Ease of use, Performance, Structure, and Support. There is a paragraph about performance, but no source at all, and it even seems to contradict the conclusion in the table (maybe because it is really dated). About ease of use, there is also no source about it, tnhe paragraph looks very much OR to me. About Structure and Support, the reference to SGI is now only historical, and is even difficult to understand in the context of the table. I am not against re-adding the lines (this is also one of the reasons of this comment here), but we really need sources about these comparisons. However, this is the same with the whole article. Hervegirod (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)