PDA

View Full Version : Another "XP capable of DX10" report


Pages : [1] 2

jcrox
07-11-07, 03:27 AM
yep, you guessed it, Good old Charlie D. over at the INQ spewing more garbage. Oddly enough though this one actually sounds plausible and, it includes nvidia in the reasoning, it's a bit interesting either way. I would post a link to the article but weirdly the site seems to have crashed immediately after I read it....... any MS conspiracy theories are welcome.

Edit: Link: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40913

Wolfhound
07-11-07, 03:54 AM
yep, you guessed it, Good old Charlie D. over at the INQ spewing more garbage. Oddly enough though this one actually sounds plausible and, it includes nvidia in the reasoning, it's a bit interesting either way. I would post a link to the article but weirdly the site seems to have crashed immediately after I read it....... any MS conspiracy theories are welcome.

Edit: Link: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40913


Same as always, MSīs conspiracy to force users to upgrade to Vista, what is next? MS known that aliens exist the facts are that they have some in Redmond offices, a friend of mine had seen them, in fact we all saw them, first one is Steve Balmer, commander in chief of the total invasion of our planet. Just kidding, MS said that DX10 what impossible to backport to Windows XP, probably this isnīt the truth, but who knows?

Rakeesh
07-11-07, 04:36 AM
I don't get it - how is not releasing DX10 forcing users to linux, in any way shape or form?

MUYA
07-11-07, 05:01 AM
That article I think actually blames NVIDIA why there will be no DX10 in XP...memeory virtualisation. Can any confirm?

grey_1
07-11-07, 05:38 AM
Same as always, MSīs conspiracy to force users to upgrade to Vista, what is next? MS known that aliens exist the facts are that they have some in Redmond offices, a friend of mine had seen them, in fact we all saw them, first one is Steve Balmer, commander in chief of the total invasion of our planet. Just kidding, MS said that DX10 what impossible to backport to Windows XP, probably this isnīt the truth, but who knows?
I doubt it's impossible, but it wouldn't be worth it just from a productivity standpoint alone. To me it's all pretty simple. If an end user doesn't want to pay for the move to Vista and DX10, then stay with XP. It's not like DX9 looked bad, 10 just looks better.

On Balmer...he is a fricken alien, planet assholius. I saw it on MIB. Truth. :D

Lfctony
07-11-07, 05:51 AM
That article I think actually blames NVIDIA why there will be no DX10 in XP...memeory virtualisation. Can any confirm?

I think they mean that memory virtualisation was a requirement for DX10, but it can't be done in XP. So Vista was required. But when Nvidia couldn't do it in Vista either, they made memory virtualisation completely optional for DX10. Threrefore, DX10 can be implemented in XP supposedly, since MV is no longer a requirement... Sounds reasonable...

Revs
07-11-07, 05:54 AM
If it's so possible, why aint someone done it yet. These storys keep popping up and yet there's still nothing to prove it's possible.

Don't get me wrong, i'd love it to work, but I see no PROOF!

MUYA
07-11-07, 07:39 AM
I think they mean that memory virtualisation was a requirement for DX10, but it can't be done in XP. So Vista was required. But when Nvidia couldn't do it in Vista either, they made memory virtualisation completely optional for DX10. Threrefore, DX10 can be implemented in XP supposedly, since MV is no longer a requirement... Sounds reasonable...
Cheers....my reading comprehension is getting worse but, I did see a hint of NV bashing

six_storm
07-11-07, 08:21 AM
I don't get it - how is not releasing DX10 forcing users to linux, in any way shape or form?

Because there is no DX10 in XP, I feel that I'm being forced over to Vista. Now you know why I went to Mac/Linux. :rolleyes:

Just like in the Crysis DX9 vs DX10 videos, there is not enough difference in visual effects to make me wanna switch to Vista. And like I said in another thread, unless you have a dual-core rig with 2GB RAM, it's pointless to choose Vista over XP. Why waste 10-20 FPS (yes, it's true for my rig, at least on CSS) in your games if you don't have a monster rig?

maxpaynez
07-11-07, 08:37 AM
B.S. also nice source lmfao.



Yea... you know what's funny... I play Shadowrun in XP. Don't believe everything MS and NV feed you. In fact Shadowrun runs much better in XP. Imagine that... and they said this:


Shadowrun Vista and Games for Windows LIVE FAQ - Updated 05 June 2007

Q: Is the PC version Windows Vista only?
A: Yep. It uses Microsoft's new Games for Windows - LIVE service.

Source: http://forums.shadowrun.com/forums/thread/53910.aspx

I love how this thread gets buried here so no one will see it, whatever. Anyways - my point was that MS says it's Vista only, however someone released files that allow u to play it in XP. I'm sure this trend will continue.

maxpaynez
07-11-07, 08:47 AM
Yes, this is from fudzilla.com but confirmed...


Now it is official, the rumor that Gears Of War would be a Vista exclusive game is no more. Did Microsoft really decided to let go of the entire "Games for Windows Live is Vista exclusive" concept? It sure looks like it did.

Maybe the feedback that it got from the Shadowrun and Halo 2 "fix" for XP made Microsoft realise that it is not yet time for Vista exclusive games. Gears of War for PC will include DirectX 10 support on Vista, but it will also work on XP with DirectX 9. You can check out the "E3 2007 MS Press Conference Gameplay" video here.

This is a good thing and we are happy about it, even Viva Pinata that has been announced, will also support LIVE on Vista and XP.


haha less and less moving towards Vista now!! I almost feel bad for those that went and spent $599 for Vista when it first came out. I've seen OEM on newegg now for under $200.

tieros
07-11-07, 09:00 AM
Charlie "forgot" to mention that the video part of the hardware abstraction layer in Vista is COMPLETELY different from XP. MS could support DX10 in XP, but it would either be a complete rewrite of HAL, or it would be a tacked-on emulator that would have it's own bugs and suffer from the same context switching that chokes graphics performance in XP currently.

The audio and graphics parts of Vista are brand new, which is why the drivers for those two subsystems are the weakest. But, the new model allows for significant performance increases over XP. It's just going to take the driver writers some time to master the new approach.

jcrox
07-11-07, 09:05 AM
Personally, I think there would be a lot less complaining about all this if they came out with a Vista Gamers Edition. A stripped down version designed for running games as fast as possible, the whole DRM thing is turning out to be just a fiasco... like I said before, the only thing all this DRM stuff has done is made it more difficult for people who buy legitimate stuff to use it. The (lee63) 's are still out there (lee63) ing.

Revs
07-11-07, 10:02 AM
I don't understand the problem with Vista. I've been using it since it's UK release and the only thing the vexes me is the drivers, which are very close to being sorted. I got the OEM version of Ultimate which cost me about Ģ90 + tax.

I've changed the motherboard twice now and just told them the old ones had died, they gave me a new reg. number there and then, no questions asked.

I find it more stable and faster than XP, it even boots quicker. And the main thing, it's all ready for DX10.

Why fook about trying to get DX10 to work on XP, even if it is possible i'm sure it'd cause more stress than using Vista.

This is just my opinion from my experience the Vista, i'm sure there's a load of u who think i'm talkin' crap, but I quite like it. So there! :p

six_storm
07-11-07, 10:34 AM
I don't understand the problem with Vista. I've been using it since it's UK release and the only thing the vexes me is the drivers, which are very close to being sorted. I got the OEM version of Ultimate which cost me about Ģ90 + tax.

I've changed the motherboard twice now and just told them the old ones had died, they gave me a new reg. number there and then, no questions asked.

I find it more stable and faster than XP, it even boots quicker. And the main thing, it's all ready for DX10.

Why fook about trying to get DX10 to work on XP, even if it is possible i'm sure it'd cause more stress than using Vista.

This is just my opinion from my experience the Vista, i'm sure there's a load of u who think i'm talkin' crap, but I quite like it. So there! :p

Again (apparently nobody reads my posts), look at your specs. No wonder you're getting a good experience from Vista. Now look at my specs. See where I'm getting at here?

Slammin
07-11-07, 10:46 AM
Again (apparently nobody reads my posts), look at your specs. No wonder you're getting a good experience from Vista. Now look at my specs. See where I'm getting at here?


Get a job! :captnkill:

jcrox
07-11-07, 10:47 AM
Again (apparently nobody reads my posts), look at your specs. No wonder you're getting a good experience from Vista. Now look at my specs. See where I'm getting at here?

I agree, Vista runs great on this system. My Abit AN8/4000+ with 2gigs of memory and a 640MB GTS that I use for school doesn't fair so well with it, I put XP back on it. My neighbor (the idiot that she is, wouldn't listen to me) bought a brand new computer from some chain store with Vista on it, sticker right on the non-vented plain Jane toaster-oven of a case claims it's "Vista ready"...... Vista runs like a herd of turtles in a blizzard headed up hill on that POS.

Revs
07-11-07, 11:44 AM
Again (apparently nobody reads my posts), look at your specs. No wonder you're getting a good experience from Vista. Now look at my specs. See where I'm getting at here?

I have a friend who just got a laptop with a Celeron M 1.7ghz :thumbdwn: CPU and Vista basic installed. It ran like a big stinky bag of poo. But when I delved deeper I saw it only have 512mb of RAM, which was totally used up just running the OS plus about 200mb of page file.

I recommended he install some more RAM, at least another 512mb. He put another Gb in it and it now runs pretty damn well, to say is got a crappy Celeron M chip in it.

Vista uses about 600-700mb just for it's self, so 1 Gb is the absolute minimum required. Better with 1.5 or 2 gig, and as seen as RAM is so damn cheap now-a-days there's no point in not doing the upgrade.

Anyhow, if your system is so poo, how the hell u gonna run DX10 on it. I assume it don't have DX10 card in there, so why would ya want Vista anyway?!?

LycosV
07-11-07, 12:44 PM
Vista is a new operating system for new computers. Sure it doesn't run as good on older systems, but that's been the case for every OS upgrade ever. I can remember shoehorning Windows 95 onto my family's 486SX back in the day when it was brand new. It ran like crap, but I did it anyway so I could see what the future was like. When we finally got a new machine 95 ran like a dream and there's no way we were going to drop it back to DOS/3.1.

Back on topic, it's always possible to program something, in this case making DX10 work in XP, but as has been previously pointed out here, the drivers between XP and Vista are entirely different. You'd have to port DX10 back to XP (If you can do that, you should port it to Macs and Linux instead), AND you'd have to port every driver revision from nVidia and ATI to XP so that you could actually USE DX10 in XP.

Best case you could get would be emulating a connection for your drivers and DX10 and no matter how you slice it that's going to run drastically worse than Vista ever will on your machine.

six_storm
07-11-07, 01:17 PM
Anyhow, if your system is so poo, how the hell u gonna run DX10 on it. I assume it don't have DX10 card in there, so why would ya want Vista anyway?!?

I was talking about gaming. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Vista can run a web browser and some office apps pretty standard. But when it comes to gaming, Vista just Tonya Hardings your rig.

I've got a AMD 3800X2 on it's way and plan on upgrading my 7600GT to a 8600GT later this year. I'll bench my system with Crysis once I upgrade and see what numbers I get.

ViN86
07-11-07, 01:54 PM
I was talking about gaming. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Vista can run a web browser and some office apps pretty standard. But when it comes to gaming, Vista just Tonya Hardings your rig.

I've got a AMD 3800X2 on it's way and plan on upgrading my 7600GT to a 8600GT later this year. I'll bench my system with Crysis once I upgrade and see what numbers I get.
:rofl

wow, thats an awesome verb hahaha.

AngelGraves13
07-11-07, 02:05 PM
Not this guy again with his Windows ME II. He puts a bad name to Armenian people. I'm half Armenian and half Greek.

Revs
07-11-07, 02:30 PM
I was talking about gaming. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Vista can run a web browser and some office apps pretty standard. But when it comes to gaming, Vista just Tonya Hardings your rig.

I've got a AMD 3800X2 on it's way and plan on upgrading my 7600GT to a 8600GT later this year. I'll bench my system with Crysis once I upgrade and see what numbers I get.

LOL. Don't forget the drivers still are no-where near perfect yet. It's true that Vista needs more power, but like LycosV said, new OS's always do.

BTW: I doubt a 8600GT will run Crysis very well at all, even on lowish settings. Ya gonna need MORE POWER dude!

Anyhoo, yes, back on topic. I'm no expert, but i'm sure if DX10 was made to run on XP, there would have to be sooo much of the OS changed it would probably run like Vista anyhow. And who the hell is gonna make the drivers, cos i'm damn sure nVidia aint. Sounds like too much of a ball ache.

It would make a very interesting experiment, but as a realistic option for full time use, I can't see it. I am a total pessimist though.

Rakeesh
07-11-07, 02:33 PM
Because there is no DX10 in XP, I feel that I'm being forced over to Vista. Now you know why I went to Mac/Linux. :rolleyes:

Right, but those don't have DX10 either. By switching to those OSes, you don't gain that benefit. So again, how is that forcing you to switch to another OS? It seems to me either you want DX10, or you don't. Choosing no doesn't force you away from XP. This is honestly the most retarded and petty talking point I have ever heard anybody use.

BTW, technology wise DX10 is a large step ahead of XP, linux, and OSX. None of those OSes have a driver configuration that could support many of the DX10 functions (read: programming side, not visual effects side) without taking a huge performance hit. Yes, you probably could emulate or simulate all of the DX10 graphical improvements in XP/linux/OSX, I don't think anybody ever doubted that. But it would require much better hardware to get the same performance that you'll get in vista.

To further that I would say the entire driver model in vista is the best of any OS. It allows the OS as a whole to be far more stable and heavily reduces the chances of ever getting a rootkit installed, because most of the hardware functions that stand a chance at crashing or being exploited are performed in user space rather than kernel space.

For your macintosh that may not matter a whole lot as everything comes from crapple anyways. But some of us like having superior graphics cards, sound cards, etc, that aren't available from the OS vendor. Either that or are cheaper but same or better quality than the OS vendor.

Rakeesh
07-11-07, 02:36 PM
haha less and less moving towards Vista now!! I almost feel bad for those that went and spent $599 for Vista when it first came out. I've seen OEM on newegg now for under $200.

The price for ultimate was $399, and the price you saw for the OEM is still the same as it was at launch.

Some of us, e.g. me, got two copies of ultimate basically for free.

Get a job! :captnkill:

Higher end macintoshes cost a hell of a lot of money compared to their PC counterparts. You'll easily pay $1k more for a mac than a PC in the high end area. This is why he tends to use low end equipment.