None of that spam supports your claim that DirectX wasn’t popular before 2001.

Did you even read it?
Since Windows 95 was itself still new and few games had been released
for it, Microsoft engaged in heavy promotion of DirectX to developers
who were generally distrustful of Microsoft’s ability to build a gaming
platform in Windows. Alex St. John, the evangelist for DirectX, staged
an elaborate event at the 1996 Computer Game Developers Conference which game developer Jay Barnson described as a Roman theme, including real lions, togas, and something resembling an indoor carnival.[8] It was at this event that Microsoft first introduced Direct3D and DirectPlay, and demonstrated multiplayer MechWarrior 2 being played over the Internet.

The DirectX team faced the challenging task of testing each DirectX release against an array of computer hardware and software.
A variety of different graphics cards, audio cards, motherboards, CPUs,
input devices, games, and other multimedia applications were tested
with each beta and final release. The DirectX team also built and
distributed tests that allowed the hardware industry to confirm that new
hardware designs and driver releases would be compatible with DirectX.

Prior to DirectX, Microsoft had included OpenGL on their Windows NT platform.[9] At the time, OpenGL required “high-end” hardware and was focused on engineering and CAD uses.[citation needed]
Direct3D was intended to be a lightweight partner to OpenGL, focused on
game use. As 3D gaming grew, OpenGL developed to include better support
for programming techniques for interactive multimedia applications like
games, giving developers choice between using OpenGL or Direct3D as the
3D graphics API for their applications. At that point a “battle” began
between supporters of the cross-platform OpenGL and the Windows-only
Direct3D. Incidentally, OpenGL was supported at Microsoft by the DirectX
team. If a developer chose to use OpenGL 3D graphics API, the other
APIs of DirectX are often combined with OpenGL in computer games because OpenGL does not include all of DirectX’s functionality (such as sound or joystick support).

In 1998, four engineers from Microsoft’s DirectX team, Kevin Bachus, Seamus Blackley, Ted Hase and DirectX team leader Otto Berkes, disassembled some Dell laptop computers to construct a prototype Microsoft Windows-based video game console. The team hoped to create a console to compete with Sony’s upcoming PlayStation 2, which was luring game developers away from the Windows platform. The team approached Ed Fries,
the leader of Microsoft’s game publishing business at the time, and
pitched their “DirectX Box” console based on the DirectX graphics
technology developed by Berkes’ team. Fries decided to support the
team’s idea of creating a Windows DirectX based console.[8][9]

DirextX wasn’t that popular until the xbox. I remember, I always preferred the better quality OpenGL

I did. And it revealed how it was popular before Xbox ever existed.

At that time, no. DirectX was only supplementing OpenGL initially. Wiki DirectX

Direct X was popular long before Xbox ever existed. Direct X is popular because Windows is popular.

DirextX altogether is only popular because of xbox aka the directx box. xbox promoted the wide adoption of directx and thus surpassed other options. it wasn’t just better by default.

Who else would I be speaking for?

Speak for yourself.

English is not my native language. In my native language, that type of sentence structure is common.

Adoption and reliance don’t really negatively affect what I’m talking about: performance. Typically, specialization always results in increased performance. Any time you have to divert resources to co-develop for other platforms, this limits the ability reach full potential on any of them. No company has infinite resources, and any resources spent somewhere else are resources spent somewhere else. DirextX 12 being confined to one platform is its strength just as it is its weakness. Strength in performance potential, weakness in dissemination potential.

I know i misinterpreted the tone, i didn’t say that i didn’t. I was saying that it would be easier not to, if your sentence was structured differently (simple as that, at least for me)

Specialization isn’t always better when it comes to a development like that, as it makes it harder for possible adoption depending on the circumstances (Dx9 to dx10), or it creates a reliance, where there doesn’t need to be one.

And the specialization argument may not neccessarily apply. They aren’t things where they are massively different from advantages like dx or opengl, the scope is different now. Instead of it being an api that is on multiple versions of an OS, it is on one. If a person could use something that only works in one room, and something else that does the same thing, but works everywhere, and they do things the same, the person would more likely choose the latter thing. Thinking DX 12 would be better by a lot is a great deal of speculation, that shouldn’t be assumed unless there was proof (especially since, again, benchmarks between dx12 and mantle proved to be very close already).

Vulkan isn’t necessarily tagging alongside DX12. The whole aspect of it being a tool that does what it does fits a purpose outside of dx, which is supporting more than one platform, or platform version more seamlessly. That isn’t something DX12 can just do, unless microsoft changes it, which we all know they aren’t. Another thing is that, that basis is the same as “directx 12 is tagging alongside mantle”.

Anyways, i’m done. This is tiring, and in the end, i fulfilled my original quota. There’s no need to drag this along for no reason, as it is clear you really believe what you believe, and i do the same. Its just turning into two immovable walls that are both trying to be moved, its getting nowhere