GDImage 3D primitives

[Chris Boss]

Petr,

Very nice little program! Good idea!

Heres the test report for my computer (NVidia card):

Vendor: NVIDIA CORPORATION
Renderer: GEFORCE4 MX 4000/PCI/SSE2
OpenGL: 1.5.5
Extensions( 75 ):
GL_ARB_IMAGING
GL_ARB_MULTITEXTURE
GL_ARB_PIXEL_BUFFER_OBJECT
GL_ARB_POINT_PARAMETERS
GL_ARB_POINT_SPRITE
GL_ARB_SHADER_OBJECTS
GL_ARB_SHADING_LANGUAGE_100
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_COMPRESSION
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_ENV_ADD
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_ENV_COMBINE
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_ENV_DOT3
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_MIRRORED_REPEAT
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_RECTANGLE
GL_ARB_TRANSPOSE_MATRIX
GL_ARB_VERTEX_BUFFER_OBJECT
GL_ARB_VERTEX_PROGRAM
GL_ARB_VERTEX_SHADER
GL_ARB_WINDOW_POS
GL_S3_S3TC
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_ENV_ADD
GL_EXT_ABGR
GL_EXT_BGRA
GL_EXT_BLEND_COLOR
GL_EXT_BLEND_MINMAX
GL_EXT_BLEND_SUBTRACT
GL_EXT_CLIP_VOLUME_HINT
GL_EXT_COMPILED_VERTEX_ARRAY
GL_EXT_CG_SHADER
GL_EXT_DRAW_RANGE_ELEMENTS
GL_EXT_FOG_COORD
GL_EXT_MULTI_DRAW_ARRAYS
GL_EXT_PACKED_PIXELS
GL_EXT_PALETTED_TEXTURE
GL_EXT_PIXEL_BUFFER_OBJECT
GL_EXT_POINT_PARAMETERS
GL_EXT_RESCALE_NORMAL
GL_EXT_SECONDARY_COLOR
GL_EXT_SEPARATE_SPECULAR_COLOR
GL_EXT_SHARED_TEXTURE_PALETTE
GL_EXT_STENCIL_WRAP
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_COMPRESSION_S3TC
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_EDGE_CLAMP
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_ENV_COMBINE
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_ENV_DOT3
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_FILTER_ANISOTROPIC
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_LOD
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_LOD_BIAS
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_OBJECT
GL_EXT_VERTEX_ARRAY
GL_IBM_RASTERPOS_CLIP
GL_IBM_TEXTURE_MIRRORED_REPEAT
GL_KTX_BUFFER_REGION
GL_NV_BLEND_SQUARE
GL_NV_FENCE
GL_NV_FOG_DISTANCE
GL_NV_LIGHT_MAX_EXPONENT
GL_NV_PACKED_DEPTH_STENCIL
GL_NV_PIXEL_DATA_RANGE
GL_NV_POINT_SPRITE
GL_NV_REGISTER_COMBINERS
GL_NV_TEXGEN_REFLECTION
GL_NV_TEXTURE_ENV_COMBINE4
GL_NV_TEXTURE_RECTANGLE
GL_NV_VERTEX_ARRAY_RANGE
GL_NV_VERTEX_ARRAY_RANGE2
GL_NV_VERTEX_PROGRAM
GL_NV_VERTEX_PROGRAM1_1
GL_SGIS_GENERATE_MIPMAP
GL_SGIS_MULTITEXTURE
GL_SGIS_TEXTURE_LOD
GL_SUN_SLICE_ACCUM
GL_WIN_SWAP_HINT
WGL_EXT_SWAP_CONTROL

That would be great for Patrice to put with all his demos. If anyone has a problem with the demo, then it would be possible to see what version of OpenGL they are using and what functions are available.

[Petr Schreiber jr]

Thanks for the info,

well, I see nothing suspicious in the listing, I can even see support for GL_ARB_SHADING_LANGUAGE_100, which surprises me a bit.

I presume the problem could be in fact Patrice uses NPOT ( not-power-of-two dimensions ) textures.

NPOT is standard from OpenGL 2.0+, on older cards it might not be supported. But I think he does some "texture normalization" preprocessing... Patrice will tell more


Petr

[Arthur Gomide]

No 3D with my Nvidia card too:

Vendor:	NVIDIA CORPORATION
Renderer:	GEFORCE FX 5200/AGP/SSE2
OpenGL:	2.0.3
Extensions( 109 ):
GL_ARB_DEPTH_TEXTURE
GL_ARB_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM
GL_ARB_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM_SHADOW
GL_ARB_FRAGMENT_SHADER
GL_ARB_HALF_FLOAT_PIXEL
GL_ARB_IMAGING
GL_ARB_MULTISAMPLE
GL_ARB_MULTITEXTURE
GL_ARB_OCCLUSION_QUERY
GL_ARB_PIXEL_BUFFER_OBJECT
GL_ARB_POINT_PARAMETERS
GL_ARB_POINT_SPRITE
GL_ARB_SHADOW
GL_ARB_SHADER_OBJECTS
GL_ARB_SHADING_LANGUAGE_100
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_BORDER_CLAMP
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_COMPRESSION
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_ENV_ADD
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_ENV_COMBINE
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_ENV_DOT3
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_MIRRORED_REPEAT
GL_ARB_TEXTURE_RECTANGLE
GL_ARB_TRANSPOSE_MATRIX
GL_ARB_VERTEX_BUFFER_OBJECT
GL_ARB_VERTEX_PROGRAM
GL_ARB_VERTEX_SHADER
GL_ARB_WINDOW_POS
GL_S3_S3TC
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_ENV_ADD
GL_EXT_ABGR
GL_EXT_BGRA
GL_EXT_BLEND_COLOR
GL_EXT_BLEND_FUNC_SEPARATE
GL_EXT_BLEND_MINMAX
GL_EXT_BLEND_SUBTRACT
GL_EXT_COMPILED_VERTEX_ARRAY
GL_EXT_CG_SHADER
GL_EXT_DRAW_RANGE_ELEMENTS
GL_EXT_FOG_COORD
GL_EXT_FRAMEBUFFER_OBJECT
GL_EXT_MULTI_DRAW_ARRAYS
GL_EXT_PACKED_DEPTH_STENCIL
GL_EXT_PACKED_PIXELS
GL_EXT_PALETTED_TEXTURE
GL_EXT_PIXEL_BUFFER_OBJECT
GL_EXT_POINT_PARAMETERS
GL_EXT_RESCALE_NORMAL
GL_EXT_SECONDARY_COLOR
GL_EXT_SEPARATE_SPECULAR_COLOR
GL_EXT_SHADOW_FUNCS
GL_EXT_SHARED_TEXTURE_PALETTE
GL_EXT_STENCIL_TWO_SIDE
GL_EXT_STENCIL_WRAP
GL_EXT_TEXTURE3D
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_COMPRESSION_S3TC
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_EDGE_CLAMP
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_ENV_COMBINE
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_ENV_DOT3
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_FILTER_ANISOTROPIC
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_LOD
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_LOD_BIAS
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_OBJECT
GL_EXT_TEXTURE_SRGB
GL_EXT_TIMER_QUERY
GL_EXT_VERTEX_ARRAY
GL_IBM_RASTERPOS_CLIP
GL_IBM_TEXTURE_MIRRORED_REPEAT
GL_KTX_BUFFER_REGION
GL_NV_BLEND_SQUARE
GL_NV_COPY_DEPTH_TO_COLOR
GL_NV_DEPTH_CLAMP
GL_NV_FENCE
GL_NV_FLOAT_BUFFER
GL_NV_FOG_DISTANCE
GL_NV_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM
GL_NV_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM_OPTION
GL_NV_HALF_FLOAT
GL_NV_LIGHT_MAX_EXPONENT
GL_NV_MULTISAMPLE_FILTER_HINT
GL_NV_OCCLUSION_QUERY
GL_NV_PACKED_DEPTH_STENCIL
GL_NV_PIXEL_DATA_RANGE
GL_NV_POINT_SPRITE
GL_NV_PRIMITIVE_RESTART
GL_NV_REGISTER_COMBINERS
GL_NV_REGISTER_COMBINERS2
GL_NV_TEXGEN_REFLECTION
GL_NV_TEXTURE_COMPRESSION_VTC
GL_NV_TEXTURE_ENV_COMBINE4
GL_NV_TEXTURE_EXPAND_NORMAL
GL_NV_TEXTURE_RECTANGLE
GL_NV_TEXTURE_SHADER
GL_NV_TEXTURE_SHADER2
GL_NV_TEXTURE_SHADER3
GL_NV_VERTEX_ARRAY_RANGE
GL_NV_VERTEX_ARRAY_RANGE2
GL_NV_VERTEX_PROGRAM
GL_NV_VERTEX_PROGRAM1_1
GL_NV_VERTEX_PROGRAM2
GL_NV_VERTEX_PROGRAM2_OPTION
GL_SGIS_GENERATE_MIPMAP
GL_SGIS_TEXTURE_LOD
GL_SGIX_DEPTH_TEXTURE
GL_SGIX_SHADOW
GL_SUN_SLICE_ACCUM
GL_WIN_SWAP_HINT
WGL_EXT_SWAP_CONTROL

[Paul Squires]

I definitely do not agree!
...
What matters is the market one targets.
...
A developer must know his/her market. Who will use my software ?
What kind of PC do they have ? What operating system ?

Well then you obviously don't know a major portion of your own target market.

You target the programmer market yet you are not developing on at least Vista Premium. Vista Home Basic is not representative of Vista because the Aero interface is disabled. The majority of new PC's today are shipped with Vista installed, and the majority of those would be (at least) Vista Home Premium.

"Leading Edge users" is another word for those who either have money to waste...

Really? Wow. I can't believe you actually said that. I consider it an investment in my business. Not a waste of money. You can have the Windows 95 market. It is dead and has been for a long, long, long, long time.

Patrice is pushing the limits of Windows programming and has been for a long time. I bet his skills are more employable than many of us and it is not because his software does not run on a 15 year old dinosaur operating system - it is because he understands the current market and the current market + 2 years. He is definitely a few steps ahead of the rest of us.

[Brad D Byrne]

you know, I would try to hear what Paul & Patrice are saying, imo they are well current, and further if I had the capital I would beg Patrice to let me pick up his US distribution of his products, they are the best out there!!

but back to topic, we need to at some point let go of backward compatibility (old technology), I have learned this the hard way in many ways, as a first example I have spent countless hours working (internet) dhtml stuff to work cross-browser, when soon after (as should have been expected) all the competing browsers updated to make my fixes unnecessary!, next as Chris, you should know, I was heavy into high speed graphics, I had many stretching, rotation, etc routines, that are still to this day the fastest out there, but who cares!, now the hardware is so fast that no-one cares or needs the difference.

the point is, in terms of computers we need to give some credibility and respect for the newer technology, for not too far in the future all our effort to support older hardware & platforms will have no beneficiaries.

[Chris Boss]

Actually I do know my market better than you may think.

My customers are using my software all over the world and on Vista and one thing they tell me is that it runs very well. It actually takes advantage of some newer features in Windows, but I choose them very carefully.

I never said, leading edge technologies are bad. My point in this discussion is that one must make sure they know what systems will reliably run their software. The problem with leading edge technologies is that you have more problems with customers having problems with hardware. When customers complain that the software does not run as expected and you tell them its their problem because their computers needs something more, even though the computer runs most other software, it makes them very unhappy.

Because my software uses a runtime, which handles a major portion of what an application may do, I can not afford to have my customers end users complaining about this problem and that problem, because incompatibilities with their hardware or operating system. It would be a tech support nightmare.

Software developers (especially those who develop tools for programmers) have to know exactly what the requirements are for their software. The more blurred this is (meaning you don't know exactly), the more problems it creates in the long run.

I don't target Win95 for your info. I target Windows XP. I do though examine API's very carefully to make sure that the majority of my softwares features don't conflict with legacy systems. My software polls the operating system and if a legacy system is present it uses a legacy API to accomplish a task, where as it uses more current API's for new OS. If it is necessary to dynamically call an API, rather than declare it explicitly, I do.

As far as the market is concerned, you would be surprised how many people, especially businesses are using PC's with Windows 98, ME, 2000 and XP. Large companies often trickle down their PC's. They buy new ones for those who it may be critical and then pass on the older ones to departments that don't need so new a computer. Small businesses especially are more careful of about not buying a new computer when it is not yet necessary. The life cycle of a PC may often be 5 years or more.

As an example, I have one customer who has used some custom software I designed which is a 16 bit (Windows 3.1) program and has used it for 13 years. He has a DOS version as well which he runs along with it (some in his company prefer the DOS version). The software runs on a network with at least seven PC's (multi-user database). After 13 years, he recently told me that he felt it was the best software of its kind around and this guy is very computer savvy. He is running Windows 2000 on his PC's. This company is thriving when most are not today.

Another customer who has used some custom software I wrote which is DOS based, is still using it after 17 years and it works great. He is currently running it on an XP system. It is an account payables and receivables package.

Smart businessmen, don't want to waste the resources they have in software or hardware.

I have designed software which has been used by small "mom and pop" operations (ie. video rental store or a transmission repair shop), for manufacturing, for engineering and quality control. I have watched what these businesses did in the real world and have used that experience in my business.

Have you ever wondered why Powerbasic still sells a DOS compiler ?

If you call Windows XP dead or Windows 95 dead, how about DOS ?

Obviously businesses still use DOS for a number of reasons.

In the real world, knowing your customer base means more than thinking everybody is in love with the leading edge technology. People just want to handle a task. They want it to work flawlessly. They don't want to spend more money than is necessary. They especially don't want to throw away a good computer if it still works flawlessly. Sure, some don't mind wasting money, but in todays economy I would think that people are starting to think twice about that.

In the real world, PC sales are down significantly this year. That means more people aren't willing to buy a new computer, when their old ones works perfectly.

I only tried to make a point telling Patrice, how important it is to tell potential customers exactly what the requirements are for his software, so they can make an informed choice of whether it will fit their needs. Leading edge is great, as long as the user knows what is needed and requires it.

[Patrice Terrier]

I only tried to make a point telling Patrice, how important it is to tell potential customers exactly what the requirements are for his software, so they can make an informed choice of whether it will fit their needs. Leading edge is great, as long as the user knows what is needed and requires it.

1 The hability to mix OpenGL 3D and 2D raster and vectorial altogether, is a very unique feature that can be found only in a high end graphic tool, like the new "PhotoShop CS4 Extended". GDImage brings up this feature to you, but this doesn't mean it forces you to use it.

2 Programmers are not end users, they are responsible for their choice. And a programmer working in the imaging industry is well aware that using 3D features would require a hardware that would support it. Further more GDImage is provided with a bunch of source code examples, some close to commercial applications, giving you the unique opportunity to try the package and see if it matches a specific requirement. The GDImage trial version has no time limitation nor missing feature, who else here, is doing that?

3 While GDImage is written in PowerBASIC, it is not limited to it. Most GDImage customers are WinDev or DotNET users, these guys are well aware of the latest technologies because they are part of their programming environment. For example WinDev offers direct support of the Google API, like "Google map" or "Picassa 3", and the same for VS users.

To let you see what i am speaking about, here is a copy of a message i just get this morning:

Hello Pat

I’m a Windev 12 user and in our company we are searching a solution for a new project that must show a human body (male and/or female) in 3D and have the ability to rotate, set a part of the body (legs, hands, etc etc), view the body from every point of view and store a colored shape (a red circle) and connect it to an image (picture) to document better the defeat of the patient.

Of course, I’m referring only for the animation part + how to attach a shape to the body.

Can you tell me if this is possible using your GDIMAGE library?

Thanks in advance

I can tell you, that the debate we have here, would seem very strange to most of my users that are out of this community...

...

[Patrice Terrier]

Paul,

We should probably even be developing our software on 64 bit machines by now.

As you know, i encountered many compatibility problems with 64-bit, especialy in the graphic area.

So far i have solved most of them, but there is one i can't solve myself: my GDImage being a PowerBASIC 32-bit DLL, it can't be used with the 64-bit applications generated by my VS and WinDev users. Actually i have no other choice than to tell them, please compile your application only to 32-bit mode...

64-bit will be the next challenge for us all, and the sooner we use a 64-bit computer the sooner we can detect the part of our code that must be fixed. Usually Wow64 does a good job for 98% of the 32-bit applications, but what if your code belongs to the 2%...

The same would apply to Windows 7. Thus of us who moved already to VISTA and its new API, have a big advantage hover those using XP only.

For example, consider the old GDI32, it is totaly obsolete as soon as you have to deal with DWM (AERO). I know you can ask VISTA to disable the AERO mode when you run a specific software, but then imagine the reaction of the end user...

[Patrice Terrier]

Petr,

I presume the problem could be in fact Patrice uses NPOT ( not-power-of-two dimensions ) textures.

NPOT is standard from OpenGL 2.0+, on older cards it might not be supported. But I think he does some "texture normalization" preprocessing... Patrice will tell more

GDImage creates only power-of-two textures from any of its supported graphic format. If some textures seems to have another size, this is because GDImage is able to generate full ARGB textures and does preprocessing to adapt any size at the closest power-of-two, while preserving the aspect of the original bitmap

...

[RyanCross]

Partrice...I haven't looked, but do you have some help file documentation I could look at to get an idea of GD Image's capabilities?

[RyanCross]

My mistake I did not know you had a trial version, downloading now.

[Patrice Terrier]

Ryan,

Take also a look at the dedicated GDImage forum there:

1 - Link to the GDImage forum

2 - You can post your questions here

By the way, Ryan, i am always fascinated by your work: See Panther by Ryan Cross there :applaus:

...

[Edwin Knoppert]

There is no excuse for idiots still using older than XP os's.
These dinosaurs don't understand that the slowness of booting and working is counter-productive.
Saving on the wrong things imo.

A great dell PC nowadays costs around 350euro, high speed and quiet.

And no i am not talking about a PC swap each year but for this example anything older than XP is what i should update.

'for idiots' i mean those people have no clue about computers and are simply not updated since they don't complain.
Ignorance is bliss!

So now and then i speak with customers for support, several do have fast computers and some totally not.
"How can you work with this thing?" they laugh a bit.

[Chris Boss]

I currently have 5 Windows desktop PC's which are available for use when I need them.

1 - Vista 3.0 ghz (for testing right now)
1 - XP Home 2.5 ghz (sp2) my main development PC
1 - XP (upgraded from ME) 667 mhz (wifes PC)
1 - Windows 95 500 mhz for using a lot of older great graphics software I own
1 - Windows 95 PC

The Windows 95 PC us running Win95 on a 500 mhz CPU and apps work faster and smoother (as far as display speed) than my best XP computer.

The faster speeds of CPUs has been lost on the bloat in newer operating systems.

Now of course XP is my development platform.

Now as far as older OS's, many business applications don't require any fancy graphics, only need basic input and output, printing, etc and they run fine on such PC's. Fancy graphics often is overated, compared to basic sound functionality.

Now that I recommend people use older PC's, but there are many businesses (and individuals) who still do.

PC's at times are like cars.

I am still driving my 1990 Geo Prizm with over 330,000 miles on it and while todays new car drivers complain about gas prices, I am still getting 40 mpg out of my "so called" obsolete car.

Value has more to do with functionality and serving a purpose, than it does the latest gadgets.

I design software to get the best of both worlds. Runs great on new OS's and takes advantage of valuable features, but also runs great on legacy systems. Best of both worlds.

[Edwin Knoppert]

As an example, I have one customer who has used some custom software I designed which is a 16 bit (Windows 3.1) program and has used it for 13 years. He has a DOS version as well which he runs along with it (some in his company prefer the DOS version). The software runs on a network with at least seven PC's (multi-user database). After 13 years, he recently told me that he felt it was the best software of its kind around and this guy is very computer savvy. He is running Windows 2000 on his PC's. This company is thriving when most are not today.

1) Did you maintain a service contract with this person?
No - he never updates = no new money

2) Of course there is software working flawlessly under those circumstances.
Did he ever request a feature you could not deliver due the os or hardware?
No - he's happy = no new money
No - You could not deliver due the os he was using (win98 GDI/USR/RAM issues for example) = no new money.

Imo you are in a self-destruct business.

Have you ever wondered why Powerbasic still sells a DOS compiler ?

PB inc does not do the programming here, it just delivers a tool.
Since they sell a DOS compiler does not mean there is a (serious) market.

So many remarks about the good old DOS age, still people work with Windows.
I never see console apps to simulate good old DOS.

The Windows 95 PC us running Win95 on a 500 mhz CPU and apps work faster and smoother (as far as display speed) than my best XP computer.

I fully agree, since Win98 they made a serious internal change to app loading and such, user experiance (for the impatient like me) is that windows got slower and slower.
XP is an exception imo.
Vista, do i need to say more?
For Vista and Windows7 we currently need computers where once rocket-sience was performed, it's absurd.

Frankly i would not mind if MS got bumped out of the market, the os can only get worse.
I mean.. XP was good and enough, do we need transparent Windows?
No we simply needed eternal support for XP.

In my future there will be serious shift for virtualization.
For companies but also for consumers.
Just a matter of time.
I suspect a full integration with your ADSL (or wifi-like) subscription so simple netbooks can be used to access your own Windows/Linux or whaterver platform os.
There you go with your PB software.

Oh btw after all, was VB6 so bad?
It would run perfectly on current computers.

[Arthur Gomide]

I'm sure that Chris say all the words about this question. I agree with him.

[Patrice Terrier]

Looks like we are not living on the same planet.

On early january of this year, my HP notebook with VISTA 32-bit pre-installed, has blown up, giving me no other choice than to buy a new one.

I selected the new HP HDX 18 laptop, that comes with VISTA 64-bit pre-installed.

Two weeks ago, my sister bought a TOSHIBA QOSMIO that was also provided with the same 64-bit processor and 64-bit VISTA.

And my son, one month ago also bought a 16 inches HP notebook, and guess what, it was also provided with VISTA 64-bit pre-installed.

Now i will tell you what they are doing with their computer:
- Surf on the Internet
- Download and play AVI/DivX movies (with movieBox)
- Play audio (with BassBox)
- Store and edit photography
- Watch and Record HD TNT TV
- Type their letters and check their bank account with the Open Office suite.
and that's all!

Being a software developper, i am just using the same OS and the same material than the one currently being sold, and i am glad to do this, because i have encountered several compatibility problems between my 32-bit applications and the 64-bit OS that i would have never found (and solved) without that...

[Chris Boss]

As far as my business model, I try to follow the principle of:

"Do unto others as you would want others to do to you"

I am not in business to "suck my customers dry" for financial gain, but simply to offer the best service I possibly can for a fair price. I don't inflate my customers needs in their mind, simply to keep myself in business. I stayed in business because I solved customers problems for a reasonable price and they grew to trust me because of this.

When I did custom programming, I always tried to find ways to save my customers money by finding ways to help them accomplish necessary tasks with as little expense possible.

Maintainance of the software I wrote was minimal, because it worked so well. I encouraged customers not to upgrade their hardware unless absolutely necessary.

Computers and software are simply a means to an end, to accomplish a necessary task for ones business. It absolutely does not matter whether that computer/software is 10 years old or brand new. It is whether it handles the task at hand and does so well.

The businesses I mentioned above, which used my software for many years, are all still in business and very successful. The one that uses the Windows 3.1 version software, has customers all over the country and has been a model of successful business.

I would think with all the "worldwide" economic problems, that companies would be concerned about saving money, saving valuable resources (software and computers are valuable resources) so they can stay in business.

Even from a so called "green" viewpoint, which is becoming more common among many companies, the saving of existing resources (hardware) is of great benefit to all. Look at all the old computers ending up in landfills.

When we as programmers develop software for companies, do we ever consider the ramifications of our work on that company ?

If we help a business to do their work, with the least expense, but still accomplish the task to their satisfaction, then we help them stay in business. Every job they provide for their employees affects families.

I take great joy when I see a client or customers business succeed.

If that means finding ways to utilize their existing hardware fully, to develop software faster to decrease costs, to find solutions to complex problems critical to their business, then I take great pleasure in knowing I contributed in some small way.

I try to live a modest life, so I have no need take advantage of customers for my own profit. I may not get rich from my work, but I always have food on the table and the things I need.

[Patrice Terrier]

Because this is a thread about GDImage i would like to come back to the initial purpose of this post.

- GDImage works very well on XP.
- GDImage works not only with VISTA, but is AERO (DWM) 100% compatible.
- GDImage works on older and newer computer generation including 64-bit.
- GDImage is not limited to one single graphic technology, it has them all.
- GDImage can match 2D/3D altogether as you can see in the Image3D demo.
- GDImage 3D primitives are based on the OpenGL 2.0+ API.
- GDImage is developped on the latest computer generation to make sure it follows the actual market tendance.
- GDImage is not targeted to one single language, it can work with L5G, managed code, and plain Win32.
- GDImage is a business tool, not a philosophy of life.

[Paul Squires]

GDImage is a buisiness tool, not a philosophy of life.

Thanks for the smile today, Patrice!

2D, 3D, or 10D... your imaging products are fantastic.