Finally DX 10 on XP

[macky]

Do any of you believe this or is it just FUD??????????

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

This sucks if that was what M$ was doing.

 

[alia83444]

so how do i get dx10 on my (xp OC) pc. do i just install it and it will work?

 

[macky]

so how do i get dx10 on my (xp OC) pc. do i just install it and it will work?

I guess when its out it will be available for download or it will come with the installation of certain programs or games, but you will need a DX-10 card to reap the benifits.

But I am not sure if the article is true, thats why I posted here to see if anyone else found anything anywhere else to prove if this was true.

 

[justjc]

I told you guys that nVidia cut corners to DX10 but nobody would listen LOL

Nah, so far it's only the Inq doing their job of making interesting debat tropics for Toms Forums, untill I hear ATi or Microsoft, perhaps even Intel, claim this to be true I doubt it.
Still this could be why ATi supports DX 10.1 and nVidia doesn't

And even if it is true, then I doubt anyone will make a patch for XP, so that it can run DX10, however independent developers have surprised me before.

 

[DJ_Jumbles]

Do any of you believe this or is it just FUD??????????

Links: http://www.legionhardware.com/news.php?id=5051
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40913

This sucks if that was what M$ was doing.

Just for future reference: if you give 2 links and the source for the 1st link is the 2nd link, why not just put the 2nd link in? The Legion Hardware article doesnt say anything other than push you back to the INQ and quote their story directly.

If this is true, it's a welcome sigh of relief for consumers and those of us who have waited for Crapta's growing pains/driver unavailability issues to get settled. If it's true, it is disturbing that NVidia of all people couldn't make memory virtualization work with their new cards/drivers and ATI could.

 

[macky]

Just for future reference: if you give 2 links and the source for the 1st link is the 2nd link, why not just put the 2nd link in? The Legion Hardware article doesnt say anything other than push you back to the INQ and quote their story directly.

O.K. Post edited Thanks.

 

[russki]

Probably FUD. Just as much as statements that Vista is known as ME 2. You have to be a moron without any understanding of what an OS does and how it works, not to mention knowing the history of Windows, to say something like that.

Can we get a source saying that the requirement has been made optional? How about the interruptability one, also a major part?

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Do any of you believe this

I'll believe it when I see M$ dedicate the resources, and see a BETA on MSDN.

This sucks if that was what M$ was doing.

Well if you read it, M$ was supporting virtualization which was the buzz word all last year, but it seems like since only half of the IHV's can do it right they ended up making the major barrier optional. But when did they find that out, at hardware launch or before or after, and how long before/after? Long enough to start fresh with DX10 for XP?

And likely the refresh part or replacement part will have better support as it's likely now moved to DX10.1 requirement. So do they still make it optional, is it possible to make it an optional call?

Seems like the story both gives people hope that DX10 may come to XP, but also confirms what people like Taylor said, in that it's not just marketing. Heck even M$ said DX10 was pretty much doable on XP, but that the effort required to do it and make it work well wasn't worth it. So even if a physical barrier is removed, there needs to be the market motivation for M$, and really XP is mainly people who've already paid M$, Vista in to them 'future sale' and making the Vista experience better is a more money making prospect than tacking DX10 onto old OSs.

Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Probably FUD. Just as much as statements that Vista is known as ME 2. You have to be a moron without any understanding of what an OS does and how it works, not to mention knowing the history of Windows, to say something like that.

Only if you look at it from the technical side. From the PR side, Vista is very much MEv2.

 

[srgess]

I think the reason why ms don't want dx10 on xp its because they would not sell vista if it was not exclusive. But seeing the difference between dx9 and dx10 in world in conflict its not that much insane and not a selling point anymore. My opinion its just marketing and now that people know it well i guess they are going to have to make dx10 on xp aswell.

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

The article was clearly written by a Redmond-hater and I wouldn't give it any credibility. Nothing about it makes any sense. Plus, if M$ is having to hack and cut DX10 to even make it work, can it be called DX10 legitimately? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it DX9.1 or whatever? Once you start cutting here and there, what's it really going to be worth at the end? For a very good recent example of setting a high-bar and then utterly failing to reach your objectives, look no no farther than Vista itself. So many promises, so little achieved.

 

[Crashman]

Probably FUD. Just as much as statements that Vista is known as ME 2. You have to be a moron without any understanding of what an OS does and how it works, not to mention knowing the history of Windows, to say something like that.

Can we get a source saying that the requirement has been made optional? How about the interruptability one, also a major part?

You'd have to be a moron not to understand the comparison between Vista and ME: ME was an OS with problems that didn't sell well because few buyers saw a need for it. Vista is an OS with problems that few buyers see a need for.

But getting back to the OP, it's still not a "lie" or "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt" to say that removing a key requirement could make DX10 port-able to XP through hacks. And that's specifically what they're talking about, that DX10 formerly had requirements that prevented it from use on XP, and that removing these requirements MIGHT allow a saavy cracker to hack it up and put it on XP.

Gee, you guys are really dense when you can't understand when an article proposes a theory (rather than pointing to actual development) or even when it points to a marketing comparison (rather than a technical comparison).

 

[Harrisson]

As much I agree DX10 was doable on XP (as confirmed by pretty much every source), MS wont do it because of very simple reason - money. It would cost more to troubleshoot several OS generations, and the main reason - sales of Vista would stall. As much as I hate MS greedy approach , they wouldnt be the richest company in the world if they would think of customers first.

 

[boner]

well i dont really trust the inquirer. ..

 

[Crashman]

well i dont really trust the inquirer. ..

Read my post 2 above yours and tell me what they said that's questionable.

 

[biohazard420420]

This story which I saw a week or so ago is interesting, but (there is always a but) as everyone said it is the Inq they don't have the best track record in the world after all. My point in this post however is to say I wouldn't be blown out of the water surprised is MS ported DX10 to XP due to slack Vista sales, but DX10 is pretty much the only reason to move to Vista for alot of people. Yes there are improvements but thats debateable the fact is it is not selling well for various reasons. But all the overdone attention paid to DX10 and it not really living up to the hype are the real story. Yes it will be a few years before we see widespread use of new DX10 features in games but even so the question is are the improvements really worth it?

Or can the same enhancements be had in DX9 with proper coding on the developers side. The truth of the matter is that game performance and eye candy are all directly tied to how well the maker codes the game itself. Let me say I am not nor have I ever written code save for a few simple batch files but if you look at different game engines you can see my point. Look at the difference in performance between the HL2 game engine and that of Oblivian. Yes the games are TOTALY different in terms of gameplay and size but look at the Lost Coast tech demo and the amount of eye candy and detail they put into that and compare that with (insert Scene) from Oblivian and then compare both of those to a new DX10 game do you see a really worthwhile image improvement I don't at most more often than not you get tiny improvements that unless you stop and pour over every inch you will really never see or get use from. You can see that with the code done right you can get or come damn close to most of the DX10 features, excluding improvements made to the way the API runs DX? code.

There is still a huge amount of improvement that can be made in DX9 to get what you could with DX10 or damn close. You can code to make it look just like DX10 with the improved bump mapping etc but it will take more powerful hardware i.e. 8800 series which chew through DX9 code like crazy. The point of my rambling is that DX10 yes over time DX10 coding will get much better but I think will probaly never live up to the hype. But then again I may be wrong after all in a few years most of us will probally be running Vista

 

[russki]

You'd have to be a moron not to understand the comparison between Vista and ME: ME was an OS with problems that didn't sell well because few buyers saw a need for it. Vista is an OS with problems that few buyers see a need for.

That statement is just plain wrong. ME was a minor facelift with some CE features added as an afterthought. It did not change the kernel at all, added instability, etc. ME is was a step in the wrong direction.

Vista is a major kernel redesign which fixes a lot of considerations for which a lot of users were crying, that is as stable as XP (if not more) with proper driver support. There are plenty of reasons to have Vista; may not be enough to upgrade right away; point is, Vista is a step in the right direction. There was no reason to have ME at all. None. So your analysis is baseless. Tha's not the point of this thread though.

The article I think implied portability and not cracking - I think the point was that somehow it's all MS' ploy. Yes, memory virtualization was one of the key reasons why it wasn't portable without a kernel re-write but not the only one. And memory virtualization, if I recall, was touted by developers as one of the most exciting features, so I'm sure it will be making a comeback. There was a great blog post from a game developer, IIRC, that pretty much blasted the thought that DX10 even should be ported - can't find the link right now. It will not be ported, and it can not be hacked. There is another post from a developer pretty much dismissing the thougt behind that DX10 emulation project...

Everyone is just content on accusing MS of this and that. I disagree with a lot of what they do, but why do people always want to criticize them even when they do something right? (like the architectural changes in WDDM).

@TGGA: I still beg to differ for the above reasons. I think that PR is somewhat more favorable for Vista, particularly from the experts...

 

[Heyyou27]

Do any of you believe this or is it just FUD??????????

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

This sucks if that was what M$ was doing.

If this is really happens I'll never have a reason to upgrade to Vista.

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

What the hell are these 5-stars beneath our screen names?

 

[Crashman]

The article I think implied portability and not cracking - I think the point was that somehow it's all MS' ploy. Yes, memory virtualization was one of the key reasons why it wasn't portable without a kernel re-write but not the only one. And memory virtualization, if I recall, was touted by developers as one of the most exciting features, so I'm sure it will be making a comeback. There was a great blog post from a game developer, IIRC, that pretty much blasted the thought that DX10 even should be ported - can't find the link right now. It will not be ported, and it can not be hacked. There is another post from a developer pretty much dismissing the thougt behind that DX10 emulation project...

Well that certainly sounds a lot better than accusing someone of launching a disinformation campaign when in fact he was only speculating. I'd stick with this one if I were you and forget about making accusations.

 

[macky]

What I'm waiting to see is if after fixing the problem with DX-10, if the Nvidia 8 series graphics cards can get as big boost like what the ati's 2900 xt cards got with new drivers.

 

[Anath]

well i think a good idea for microsoft might be to charge for the dx10 patch to xp, maybe $25-50? I think then sales would skyrocket off of that plus the people who want to go to vista still can while the gamers can stay with xp. just an idea tho

 

[shargrath]

If this is really happens I'll never have a reason to upgrade to Vista.

Yeh me too

 

[sailer]

If this is really happens I'll never have a reason to upgrade to Vista.

If this is able to be done on XP, maybe it can be done on XP64 Pro as well. Then I could have a 64 bit OS, DX10, and not have to deal with the DRM and other garbage that comes with Vista. Can it be that some dreams really come true? Still, I'll believe it when I see it announced by some news site more trustworthy than the Inq.

 

[Crashman]

Still, I'll believe it when I see it announced by some news site more trustworthy than the Inq.

Gee, are you saying you'd doubt that site if it said the sky was blue?

I've used the site to track down leads before, if they "anounced" that someone had a method of deployment they'd show a link, and I'd follow it. I wouldn't sit around saying "I don't know if I can trust this link".