View Full Version : DirectX 9.L will be a DirectX 10 for Windows XP
killahsin
10-17-06, 02:38 AM
LOL!!!
You know you're going to upgrade. Why even deny it.
you have to upgrade. There is no maybe or might or won't. there is only a have to upgrade if you plan on playing future games. While i personally love and am running vista 64 right now. I am sad by the 2 pc configuration liscense model. Very very sad. Considering i fry pc's like chicken fingers with regards to my work.
Rakeesh
10-17-06, 02:51 AM
Vista may be bloated (as in oversized) but it isn't slow, in fact it runs faster on my older PC than XP does.
As for the licensing issues, vista is going to only allow you to activate for two different PC serial numbers, so if you upgrade often you'll have to buy a new copy often. It won't be like XP pro where every time your hardware changes you just reactivate it again.
I've never followed microsofts licensing anyways though; I own at least four different completely legal copies of windows xp pro and I still only use pirated copies on every single one of my computers. I'll own a completely legit copy of vista ultimate that I am getting for free, but by the time I get it I'll probably have installed a pirated copy of it anyways, and that copy will just end up collecting dust just like my xp pro copies.
AthlonXP1800
10-17-06, 06:09 AM
Fuad got it all wrong about DirectX 9L, DirectX 9L and DirectX 10 will never be available for XP as it only for Vista.
http://www.theinq.com/default.aspx?article=35140
Stop living in the past.
If those anti vista people wanna stay in the past..fine they do so..dont drag the rest of us down your whole.
If those anti vista people wanna stay in the past..fine they do so..dont drag the rest of us down your whole.Many of us have the impression that Microsoft is dragging US down with Vista.
A shiny interface and marginally better support for x86-64 architectures do not offset the vast increase in resources needed; an operating system is essentially a layer between hardware and applications.
Vista is another Microsoft poor excuse to extend its dominion on the PC; you can have perfectly stable OSes with network support and a graphic interface that fit in one floppy (QNX docet).
Redeemed
10-17-06, 07:43 AM
Many of us have the impression that Microsoft is dragging US down with Vista.
A shiny interface and marginally better support for x86-64 architectures do not offset the vast increase in resources needed; an operating system is essentially a layer between hardware and applications.
Vista is another Microsoft poor excuse to extend its dominion on the PC; you can have perfectly stable OSes with network support and a graphic interface that fit in one floppy (QNX docet).
And that one OS would be nothing compared to the functionality of Windows.
Sure, it'd be rock solid stable maybe- but what purpose would it serve? Very few.
If this were so true then the floppy would still be a widespread piece of hardware among computers these days. But as reality is, most pre-built systems don't include floppy drives unless it is a custom built one where the buyer requested a floppy.
And to this day, you pinguin-humpers that continual crap on anything MS does have no solid proof to back up what you claim. Every article to state factual holes in Vista are going to be dated well before these latest RC releases.
Hell, Vista was going to be the most secure OS ever available to consumers, untill Symantec started their bitching.
Go hump your pinguins somewhere else please. :thumbdwn:
Go hump your pinguins somewhere else please. :thumbdwn:
haha:captnkill:
Hell, Vista was going to be the most secure OS ever available to consumers, untill Symantec started their bitching.
Go hump your pinguins somewhere else please. :thumbdwn:First and foremost, QNX is not a flavor of Linux: it dates back to the early 80s and it's still the OS of choice in mission critical operations (short of employing large mainframes with the Kernel running on dedicated cores). Your sarcasm against Linux and its users are totally out of context.
Second, I'll laugh my ass off when Vista will be subject to viruses exploiting the "background intelligent transfer" on any other backdoor Micrsoft is going to leave open for the autoupdate, for license control or for any other spyware transmitting the users' habits to some Redmond server. Symantec and McAfee raised some valid points about Vista security which works two ways: both for the kernel and for any virus that slips past its defenses!
Until Micrsoft drops these "online" services, Vista or any other operating system made by them won't be secure; sadly the chances of Micrsoft doing this are the same of RIAA giving away songs for free.
Redeemed
10-17-06, 08:20 AM
First and foremost, QNX is not a flavor of Linux: it dates back to the early 80s and it's still the OS of choice in mission critical operations (short of employing large mainframes with the Kernel running on dedicated cores). Your sarcasm against Linux and its users are totally out of context.
Second, I'll laugh my ass off when Vista will be subject to viruses exploiting the "background intelligent transfer" on any other backdoor Micrsoft is going to leave open for the autoupdate, for license control or for any other spyware transmitting the users' habits to some Redmond server. Symantec and McAfee raised some valid points about Vista security which works two ways: both for the kernel and for any virus that slips past its defenses!
Until Micrsoft drops these "online" services, Vista or any other operating system made by them won't be secure; sadly the chances of Micrsoft doing this are the same of RIAA giving away songs for free.
After going through and re-reading your post, you are right. I though you were referring to a distro of Linux, but- you have refreshed my memory. I do apologize for my tone.
Regardless, Vista is targeted for the masses. The OS you mention is not one for the masses... how many gamers would actually want to use it? It cannot support DX9, DX10, IE7, FF, OpenGL, SLi, CrossFire, Steam, any game for the most part, and then how about more professional-targeted software such as Photoshope, Premiere, SoftImage, Dreamweaver, etc. The list continues. For user-specific tasks QNX is a no go.
If you disagree, run it on a state of the art system and post your 3DMark06 scores. While your at it, make me a poster in Photoshop, a video in Premier, and render me a character the likes of what we'll see from DX10 games. Once you do that, then I'll consider your argument against Vista as legit.
Untill you can provide such proof, that is a rather pointless argument you mentioned. Atleast 80% of the market would find no reason to use QNX.
And, correct if I'm wrong, originally the kernal in Vista was completely sealed shut from "outside" access. Thus, yes, you could recieve updates via Windows Update, but only programs that have specific rights would allow access to such system critical components. Everything else remained incapable of accessing it. Thus rendering Antivirus and even antispyware rather impracticle.
If my above understanding about Vista's prior condition before Symantec's crying, then please- provide a link to prove me wrong.
The way I see, is Symantec and McAfee need there to be holes in Windows. If Windows were to be made perfectly secure, thus making it so AV, AS, and firewalls were pointless- companies such as McAfee and Symantec would go out of business. And, to my understanding, that is why they cried.
Again, if I'm wrong, provide to proof to prove so. If accurate, I'll gladly change my opinion. :)
I can't help but sense that you are no sympethiser of Microsoft. You talk with a tone that hints at dislike towards Windows and Microsft products in general. As such, it is rather easy to lump you in with the Linux fans.
If I'm wrong about that as well, then I apologize, yet again. ;)
QNX is a niche OS, there's no doubt. It supports OpenGL but it requires hardware specific drivers which are, atm, almost nonexistant. My point is that a bigger OS is not necessary the way to go and you can have a complete, fully functional and satable OS which can run mission critical applications even on old hardware employing little resources.
You are right, I dislike Microsft as a company. Yet, I've purchsed and enjoying the Xbox 360 which I still find a noteworthy machine. As a consumer, I'm more worried about making the best value out of my money then pursuing ideological battles so I usually evaluate case for case what I'm going to purchase and what not.
Unlike the console market, in the PC space Microsoft is not really interested in offering a better product but rather to try to consolidate their position in the least painful way possible. Most of the features which would have made Vista truly a superior product (ie the new filesystem) were dropped during development. We're left with a mere upgrade of Windows XP which seems more focused on pleasing hardware vendors by requiring more resources and an overhaul of the machine on the maket. In the meantime, Microsoft is still set in its path of trying to control all the aspect of the PC world to make it as dependant as possible to their products. 90% of the software and services coming packed with the Windows OSes are useless, reduntant or having a bad effect on security and performance of the computers. Try playing with nLite (www.nliteos.com) and realize that you can have a perfectly stable, reliable and secure Windows XP installation which requires 1/4th of the resources.
As for Vista security complaints, Patchguard not only shuts down kernel access to antivirus makers like McAfee and Symantec (they can rot in hell for what I care, I had nothing but bad experiences) but any other firm as well. The autoupdate feature (a backdoor always open) is not the only source of worry. Micrososft has redone the networking stack and God knows how many flaws are waiting to be exploited by the new rewritten code. Between Windows 2000 and XP it took 6 service packs, 5 years and countelss of patches to iron out many serious security flaws which exploited network bugs.
PatchGuard is a temporary patch (pun intended!); Sophos security consultant Ron O'Brian stated: "If there is a point in time in which the kernel and the accessibility to the kernel is compromised, then we would need to work with Microsoft to be able to access the kernel and correct whatever changes had been made by whatever malware was written to it." Note that Sophos is a partner of Micrsoft and it hasn't adopted the same antagonistic approach of Symantec or McAfee.
Yet O'Brian does not rule out that the kernel may be compromised. He just rests on the assumption that hackers will simply take more time to figure a way to attack the kernel. Once the cat will be out of the bag, the problem will persist and PatchGuard will only make things worse.
I'm still suprised at all the anti vista ppl. It's not even out yet and people are already saying they don't like it.
Because we're not idiot 'kiddies' that are wowwed by the stupid 3D interface.
There are very good reasons not to like Vista.
Here is a biggie that I was talking about:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2030005,00.asp
MS has been attempting to go the "software rental model" for years. With Vista's License, and WGA "cripple enforcement"... that's EXACTLY where they're headed. Sorry... I'm not going to pay MS $300 every other time I upgrade my ****in machine! :rant:
candle_86
10-17-06, 11:36 AM
Well for once, Vista has become more unstable, Beta 1 was the most stable version yet, then everyone cried about it and made MS change some stuff, untill that point Vista was great. And you are right about how the Kernal is accessed, the only tools that have access to the Kernal are installed on your drive, if there tampered with vista gives you a warning like xp does if you delte or modify a crital system file. The only thing that can tap into those tools is another tool in redmond, so unless that virus matchs the ip and digital signature, hackinv via auto update is kinda hard.
candle_86
10-17-06, 11:37 AM
Because we're not idiot 'kiddies' that are wowwed by the stupid 3D interface.
There are very good reasons not to like Vista.
Here is a biggie that I was talking about:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2030005,00.asp
MS has been attempting to go the "software rental model" for years. With Vista's License, and WGA "cripple enforcement"... that's EXACTLY where they're headed. Sorry... I'm not going to pay MS $300 every other time I upgrade my ****in machine! :rant:
It's not just about security holes. Please go do the same with your ignorance.
not this agian, its quite simple, when you upgrade, call MS, is a phonce call that damn hard, you have to do it with XP, so do it with Vista and stop your bitching, you sound like a 3 year old
Dont like it..dont use it..why cry about something someone else uses when you dont plan to use it yourself..
Rakeesh
10-17-06, 02:38 PM
Many of us have the impression that Microsoft is dragging US down with Vista.
A shiny interface and marginally better support for x86-64 architectures do not offset the vast increase in resources needed;
Like what? Vista has a smaller CPU footprint compared to XP.
an operating system is essentially a layer between hardware and applications.
No, it isn't. An operating system is all of the core functions that allow the user to "operate" the hardware. That includes everything from driver interfaces, API's, disk management utilities, and file manipulation tools. Applications are merely an extension to help the user accomplish a more specialized task more efficiently than the core utilities do, this is why in unix/posix OSes they are called userland programs.
Vista is another Microsoft poor excuse to extend its dominion on the PC; you can have perfectly stable OSes with network support and a graphic interface that fit in one floppy (QNX docet).
That is a bit ironic then because the average desktop "free" OS distribution weighs in at around 12GB after its installed on the hard disk. Vista is about 7GB in comparison.
It's annoying how often I see some people spout off how great posix OSes are compared to windows yet when you read into what they are saying, most of the time its pretty obvious that they know jack sh*t about what exactly a posix OS is. They are nothing more than a bunch of mindless drones who repeat crap they read one day off of sites like slashdot.
From the updated Inq article:
We managed to confirm the existence of DirectX 9.0L but it won't be a DirectX 10 for Windows XP. It will be the other way around. It is a faster version of DirectX 9.0 that will run under Vista only.
Yeah, well if the source was Google they´d also know that there wasnt a DX9.0L, there used to be D3D9L some time back when Vista was still using its Codename.. and that its now DirectX for Vista, D3d9Ex.
I mean its not like you have to go look in dark alleys for rogue insiders on MS to find that out, its old old news, and easily googled for.
"Managed to confirm".. real heavy journalism going on here...
No, it isn't. An operating system is all of the core functions that allow the user to "operate" the hardware. That includes everything from driver interfaces, API's, disk management utilities, and file manipulation tools. Applications are merely an extension to help the user accomplish a more specialized task more efficiently than the core utilities do, this is why in unix/posix OSes they are called userland programs.It doesn't contradict what I've said. You include in the definition of OS also most advanced functions performed by APIs but that's really an extra. The sole purpose of the OS is to avoid programmers to go messing with certain hardware directly by providing a degree of abstraction and by setting up a common method to access shared resources (ie disks or memory).
That is a bit ironic then because the average desktop "free" OS distribution weighs in at around 12GB after its installed on the hard disk. Vista is about 7GB in comparison.I haven't mentioned in my post the weight on disk of the installation but rather the resources used. Just for the record, I'm not even a Linux lover either because I find equally stupid all the configuration and setting up work I've to endure to operate that system.
The OS that came close to perfection for home computing applications in my view is still the Mac System 7 because it combined ease of management, little resources employed and a state of the art user interface all in a single package.
It's annoying how often I see some people spout off how great posix OSes are compared to windows yet when you read into what they are saying, most of the time its pretty obvious that they know jack sh*t about what exactly a posix OS is. They are nothing more than a bunch of mindless drones who repeat crap they read one day off of sites like slashdot.Great. I hate people talking without a clue, too so we're in perfect agreement.
To end this discussion, the fact that QNX is Posix compliant has little to do with the fact I used it as a prime example of small OS with great capabilities. There are something like an half dozen Linux distros out there which are Posix compliant by adding a RT microkernel which operate in parallel giving developers real time, deterministic operation in a full Linux environment (the so called "soft-real time" allowed with kernel 2.4); even Windows NT (and its descendants) has limited Posix support because of government regulations.
So, yeah QNX is hardly supported outside specific environments and its a differnt beast. But it does not change the fact that Windows is hardly the best solution for home computing and that all of Microsoft decisions in the past 10-15 years were not motivated by the will of improving the "user experience" but only to tighten its grip on the personal computer market.
Redeemed
10-17-06, 06:43 PM
So, yeah QNX is hardly supported outside specific environments and its a differnt beast. But it does not change the fact that Windows is hardly the best solution for home computing and that all of Microsoft decisions in the past 10-15 years were not motivated by the will of improving the "user experience" but only to tighten its grip on the personal computer market.
You have stated nothing to prove this. QNX is not nearly as functional nor user-friendly from the get go as Windows. Where are those benchmarks, that poster, that movie, and that character I asked you to provide as proof to my statement?
QNX for home use is a POS. Simply cause home computers have multiple "mission critical" tasks (depending on your definition of "mission critical", I guess).
QNX could never and will never make for a great home OS. Does it have support for dual or even multi-core CPUs out of the box? How about coming with DX out of the box? Does it have as much hadware support as XP/ Vista out of the box? Is it 64 bit, out of the box (Vista)? Can you run any application on it without any tweaking to the OS itself? How well would it support a rather large home network sharing a broadband internet connection? Would today's AV, AS, and firewall software work from the get-go on it?
I would bet that you would have to answer "no" to the majority of my above questions. As such, QNX will never make for a good home or even mainstream OS. I could see certain distros of Linux have a better chance at that than QNX.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.