OpenGL vs Direct3D

[mobrien_12]

Hey all, does anyone know of some good web pages which discuss the pros and cons of OpenGL and Direct3D on the Windows platform only?  Things like ease of programming, stability, cost, and performance would be of interest (for example).  Cross-platform capabilities are not (OpenGL wins there no-brainer).  

This is a question I've been interested in for a while.  I always thought that OpenGL was better overall, with the D3D advantage being in the number of cards supported.  Well now it seems like it works the opposite.  Most cards have OpenGL capabilities but the D3D API is constantly changing and few cards have hardware support for the latest versions (e.g. DX9), so why use D3D at all?

[Refalm]

Many Windows games need OpenGL, like UT2003, Quake 2 (and all games that has the Quake 2 engine, like Half-Life and Tribes 2), Quake 3 (and all games that has the Quake 3 engine, like Medal of Honor), etc.

D3D had more effects, details and anti-aliasing rate then OpenGL a few years ago, but OpenGL has catched up, and provides the same detail that D3D delivers, except that D3D has a higher anti-alias rate.

[theangelofdeath69]

And unfortunately, any game either made by Microsoft or "playable on Zone.com" such as Asheron's Call absolutely DEMAND direct3d or directdraw.

Sorry, but if you intend to play the whole shebang, you can't dump Directx