You don't want to support Microsoft's software OpenGL.
Originally Posted by stepasite
I'm not sure if you've actually benchmarked or even tested your program with this implementation - my feeling is that if you had, you'd be running screaming from it. It's a very very bad software OpenGL implementation, and I don't mean in terms of functionality (which is as good as one could expect for GL 1.1) but in terms of performance. This isn't going to give you, say, 50%, 25% or even 10% performance. It's going to give you ONE FRAME PER SECOND, even with a program as simple as the original Quake, and even on a modern CPU.
It's 2014 - it's perfectly reasonable to say that your program requires hardware-accelerated OpenGL, and if a user doesn't have it you're not interested in supporting them.
No, I haven't mentioned that GL 1.1 renderer already exists, but it is not of big importance as I will have to code new features twice (if possible in OpenGL 1.1).
I have mentioned in my first post that I do not want to end up with coding as many renderers as there are OpenGL versions. Having two rendering paths is reasonable for me.
No, I haven't benchmarked GDI renderer, but I agree it is very very slow. But, still I want to support it. I think it is better to see something (e.g. via remote desktop) than being said sorry. And it is more true for very simple or static scenes.
Originally Posted by mhagain
I haven't benchmarked GDI renderer, but I agree it is very very slow. But, still I want to support it
We still support GDI - it is a great backup for a lot of views but then the code has existed for years so we are not actually developing in GDI.