
Internet Explorer, WebGL and a Return to the Bad Old Days - ph0rque
http://www.readwriteweb.com/hack/2011/04/internet-explorer-webgl-and-a.php
======
bad_user
Microsoft has no problem giving developers what they want, they just want to
do it on their own terms (i.e. their own standards). WebGL is based on OpenGL
ES, you know, that standard that's supported by every freakin' recent
smartphone OS or games console, other than Windows Phone 7 or the XBox (e.g.
Android, iOS, Symbian, Maemo, webOS, Nintendo 3DS, Blackberry, Playstation 3).

The picture can't get any clearer than this -- meet the new Microsoft, same as
the old one.

~~~
pmjordan
The new version of Silverlight gives you GPU access to the GPU via a subset of
XNA, as they do on XBLA and I think WP7. So yeah, you're spot on. They won't
implement WebGL until they give up on Silverlight, which may be never.

------
chadaustin
WebGL is so compelling and well-designed that it's only a matter of time. With
Firefox plus Chrome having something like 50% penetration, and WebGL enabling
the web to do things it simply couldn't before, Microsoft can't ignore it
forever.

This will also put pressure on driver vendors to fix the desktop 3D situation
too. Firefox an Chrome both have draconian rules that limit WebGL to "known
safe" drivers. In a couple years I truly believe that everyone will want to
play in the WebGL ecosystem.

~~~
etherealG
sorry to say, but MS have been ignoring openGL from day one, instead creating
the competing direct3D and the resulting mess of double standards in the 3D
gaming graphics market. I don't see this as any different, and I don't think
they are going to "give it up". MS are adamant about holding the keys to the
graphics kingdom.

I would love it if this weren't the case, but it looks to me like they're
trying to convince people to put webGL and webSockets into the same logical
group of "non complete" standards, when they just plain aren't. It's marketing
bullshit, webGL is done and working.

~~~
nitrogen
I wouldn't say "from day one..." OpenGL performance was actually quite good in
Windows NT 4 with my ATI Xpert@Play video card (at least for the included
screensavers). The OpenGL screensavers ran smoothly at the monitor's refresh
rate. The Windows 9x equivalents seemed to chunk along at ~15fps on the same
hardware.

~~~
marshray
What I've read is that there have been times where 3D hardware vendors were
able to expose newer features in OpenGL sooner than in DirectX. OpenGL has an
extensible "GetProcAddress" facility which goes direct to the vendor's code.

------
windsurfer
As someone who has recently gotten into Processing and has experienced the
awesome that is WebGL, it's a crying shame IE doesn't support it. However, I
suppose it's better than half-supporting it and forcing app makers to only use
a subset of features.

~~~
thwarted
Agreed, and it also ends up setting user expectations more realistically in
terms of actual supported features. No more of users asking "why doesn't this
work in IE" and blaming the site developers.

------
joshes
I wasn't aware that we had really left the Bad Old Days" altogether. IE, its
atrocious fragmentation and its massive market share have been right here all
along. Things may have gotten better, but we never escaped the "Bad Old Days"
entirely.

~~~
hartror
I did, the day the CEO finally okayed dropping IE6 support was a day of
dancing in the streets for our team.

------
hartror
Could WebGL be implemented as a _shudder_ activex? Get around Microsoft and
use the large market penetration of the other browsers to drive take up for
people who insist of using that horror that is IE.

~~~
pmjordan
ActiveX is an option, and so is Java (!), but both will presumably give the
user security warnings at least once. It might be possible with the new
Silverlight though, as that contains a reduced XNA implementation. (I don't
know if XNA in general, and this subset in particular, allow low level enough
access to the 3D hardware to let you implement all of WebGL)

------
marshray
People talk about MSIE's massive market share and all that, but I don't think
I know anyone who uses it for anything other than occasional testing.

So I really couldn't care less about what MS does with IE, I'll use whatever
open standard technologies work in my and my friends' environments. Yes, I'm a
software developer (though not of the social website variety).

------
Groxx
> _In other words: Microsoft thinks it knows what developers want better than
> they do._

Haven't they always? .NET is riddled with "safety" features like sealed
classes that make programming a living hell.

~~~
innes
_Sealed classes_ , oh the humanity. You should maybe have a lie down.

By the way, WebGL doesn't work in my Chrome install (10.0.648.205, ubuntu). Is
it something that I need to switch on?

~~~
robin_reala
I’m not sure about the Linux sitation but generally you need to make sure
you’ve got up-to-date drivers before it’ll activate.

------
sid0
Microsoft's being stupid. WebGL is a way to write 3D on the Web, something
that's so far not been possible. All the Direct2D stuff is orthogonal -- you
can accelerate 2D drawing and provide 3D support separately, as Firefox does.

~~~
bad_user
Microsoft is not stupid -- WebGL is OpenGL, you know, that standard competing
with Direct3D.

I wouldn't be surprised if they released IE with DirectWeb or WebX, or
something ;)

~~~
etherealG
I think you are 100% right. The author didn't say it, but that's exactly what
they want to do. They're even buttering it up... You know what the difference
will be between WebX and WebGL when they release it: that it's NATIVE! You can
smell it coming.

~~~
pmjordan
See "Graphics Improvements" on <http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/future/>

That's all there is to this story. WebGL competes with Silverlight, and real-
world WebGL adoption isn't very high yet. Microsoft therefore feel they stand
a chance.

