[Open-graphics] Re: Open-graphics Digest, Vol 2, Issue 47
lthuring at logopak.de
Thu Dec 2 02:44:40 EST 2004
miller at techsource.com wrote:
> Kent Rosenkoetter wrote:
>>>The code morphing software really is SOFTWARE, but I've never seen
>>>people demand that it be opened up. It's the big value-add that
>>>Transmeta has for their processors. What's important is that they
>>>release specs for everything you need to know about how to USE the
>>>processors, even tips and tricks for optimizing your code to get better
>>>morphing results, etc.
>>I think the appropriate analogy is that we need to keep the ISA open,
>>not the circuit layout. No one badgers Intel for the internals of the
>>Pentium. Why should we badger nVidia for the internals of the GeForce?
>>All we need are the fully-documented interfaces. The ISA of the
>>graphics card. (And for programmable cards, the ISA of the shaders.)
>>This is what so many hardware vendors won't give up, and this is what
>>this project was originally predicated upon. Right?
> Someone reminded me that the original design had a programmable setup
> engine (which was later dropped from the spec). In the future, it will
> reappear. How to program that will be fully documented. Doing that
> sort of thing makes MY life a lot easier and gives developers a great
> deal more freedom. (It's amazing what people will do with your hardware
> that you never conceived of.)
There must be a huge number of people intrested in a free FPGA design
for doing 2D gfx which *never* gets close to being displayed using a PC
gfx card. That is what attracted me atleast. The new page at
http://www.opengraphics.org/ clears up quicker for everyone first
locking at this (w/o reading 1MB of archives first). Still some
intresting discussion here.
More information about the Open-graphics