It is clear to me that there is only one answer to this:

WHICHEVER YOU LIKE

Thats right. Try them both, then, and ONLY then will you be in a position to make a decision. If you already know DX, then just learning the basics of OpenGL will give you an idea of whether you like it better or not. and vice-versa.

As for the features/support issue. There really isn't a whole hell of a lot when you get out there into the consumer market, everyone basically has a TNT(1 or 2) or a 3Dfx board, which both support OGL and D3D very well, so STOP THIS STUPID ARGUMENT, and use whichever is best for you.

On a personal note: I am an OpenGL advocate, but I don't see any slanging of DX in this post, so it just goes to show this argument IS solvable, just like the Commodore vs Spectrum argument was!

------------------
LoungePig
OpenGUI

Someone should outlaw asking any question in regards to API preference. I doubt anyone haas made it this far through the thread, but here goes anyway.
I have done work in both D3D and oGL, and oGL is a whole hell of a lot easier to work with. D3D is very painful, almost like pulling teeth- but be forwarned that I quit before DX 7.0 was released, and it sounds like things may have changed.
The driver support argument is becoming weak, try running any oGL program on a TNT2 or GeForce, they run very well. If you try running textured filters on a Rage Pro, you're going to have problems- but most newer 3D accelerators have good oGL support, and if they don't they're not worth buying.
You, as a programmer, owe it to yourself to give both APIs a try (or just read a little about them) and see what you think. I prefer oGL, but D3D isn't bad by any means. As a matter of fact, as soon as Microsoft gets off of their ass and sends me a copy of the DX 7 api I'll be looking into the new D3D features.
Look at both, the basics of oGL can be grasped in about a week's worth of spare time. oGL DOES rule though... hehe

I've used both API's and my experience has been this:

-OpenGL is the easiest of the two
-Direct3D has the advantage that there creating some pretty interesting new features. Note that I didn't say that OpenGL is standing still though. There have been plenty of new features in OpenGL, the argument that Direct3D has been evolving much faster than OpenGL is BS. Direct3D's been playing catch up and it still doesn't have all the features of GL.
-Direct3D has been getting substantially easier to use with each new version. D3DX is very nice, although I think wish that it gave developers a bit more control.

My opinion: Try both api's, choose which one you like better.

--TheGoop

Nice Post Guys!
I think this is really a really good bit of reading and might save it all into a text file for I have learned alot of both API's history here and will look into both more.

Tallek,
Working on OGL right now,
will check out DX

Hello. I am learning to make games, and am using DirectX right now. I was wondering what people thought about OpenGL? Is it easy to use, but still as versatile as DirectDraw/Direct3D? I was thinking about changing to it for my next game, but I wanted to see what you had to say first.

------------------
http://qoy.tripod.com

Well... this is kinda late.. but anyway, if memory serves me right, Carmack said 'D3D has no reason to exist' was due to the fact that it was still in Execute Buffer phase last time (errr.. DX3?)

Carmack hated the fact that to draw a triangle required... oh.... 10 lines of code?

If I remember well as well at a later time.. sometime after DX5, he concluded that D3D was getting somewhere, but he'll still stick to GL for the time being...

Hope I remember well enough.

------------------
-------------------------
-Now Working on Pokemon like Engine!