Finally DX 10 on XP

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.
50 answers Last reply
More about finally
  1. so how do i get dx10 on my (xp OC) pc. do i just install it and it will work?
  2. alia83444 said:
    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.
  3. 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.
  4. macky said:
    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.
  5. DJ_Jumbles said:
    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 :D Thanks.
  6. 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?
  7. macky said:
    Do any of you believe this


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

    Quote:
    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.
  8. russki said:
    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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. russki said:
    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).
  12. 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.
  13. well i dont really trust the inquirer. ..
  14. boner said:
    well i dont really trust the inquirer. ..

    Read my post 2 above yours and tell me what they said that's questionable.
  15. 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 :??:
  16. Crashman said:
    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...
  17. macky said:
    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.
  18. What the hell are these 5-stars beneath our screen names?
  19. russki said:
    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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. Heyyou27 said:
    If this is really happens I'll never have a reason to upgrade to Vista.

    Yeh me too
  23. Heyyou27 said:
    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.
  24. sailer said:
    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".
  25. Crashman said:
    Gee, are you saying you'd doubt that site if it said the sky was blue?


    That all depends. If I was in Seattle, I might wonder if the sky really was blue or was the cloudy gray that I saw most of the time. Sure, the Inq gets some things right, but its reputation is spotty enough that I like to see confirmation from somewhere else before I get my hopes up. Yes, if they have links to other sites, then they gain a lot of credibility.

    I'm a bit skeptical of the Inq, I'll admit that. But they aren't alone in getting my skepticism. Fudzilla gets it as well, for example. Both sites get things right at times, but both also get fuzzy on the details at times. Now if the Inq said something like "DX10 is available for XP and you can get the downlaods, hardware or whatever from this place" then I'd have a lot more trust in what they were saying. As it is, with their thoughts toward the troubles of Nvidia and DX10, and the possibility that M$ has subsequently changed DX10 and therefore made it possible to port into XP, well, I'll withhold my enthusiasm until I see it reported elsewhere.
  26. I find this all interesting. nVidia (if true) isnt able to run virtualisation? Ive seen some evidence of nVidias problems with DX10 .
    Quote:
    GGA wrote : 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.
    Which you can find here http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/03/03/optimized-for-vista-does-not-me an-dx10.aspx To blame MS for this is just wrong. And to go further, when ATI poured its resources into virtualisation, and then was told, whoops not this round, well it just stinks. I credit this as part of the non 88 killer scenario, for obvious reasons. Tell me if Im wrong, Ill listen. So M$ candy@$$3$ with nVidia for both their gains, leaving us and ATI/AMD at a loss. NICE. Ive known this for awhile, and to see it still being put forward only shows its merit. I do hope DX10 as we currently know it, with the advent of better DX9 innos gets hacked, and we have "DX10" on XP. Probly wont happen, and as said, virtuo will come back, but its a shame we have to settle for less My edit is for the link, as it only goes so many characters , leaves a space then goes to black/regular type. The word means in my link should not have a space cut, paste and piece the me with the an of the word mean, and youll get there sheeeeeeeesh
  27. Would it be possible for AMD to sue MS about the virtualization thing?
  28. Anath said:
    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


    Exactly what I was thinking! Imagine how much money they could make if they charged maybe $20-$30 for a DX10 XP add-on. How many of us gamers would actually pay for that? I would, I think it would be fair. If I was M$ this is how I would handle the situation because even though I am a gamer I do not see enough value in Vista to move to it. But for only $25, I would move to DX10! :D
  29. I still think Vista is for Darwin Award Candidates. Smarter and more powerful people and corporations won't touch it until the Proletariats have tested it.

    Vista is like WinMe, and XP didn't exactly start out on the right foot either. So if one had 98se when XP came out, one still shuddered at some of the stupid things M$ forgot how to do. Lets give Mister$oftie a break, they haven't been too good on initial releases for a whole decade. Why expect a revelation?

    As for DX10, M$ picked the wrong stooge. Its pretty clear. AMD will have to dig up their scheme again, and try to force it. Chalk up the expenses to R&D, take a tax-break, and move along.

    Does anyone think M$ knows what it takes to produce a GPC? It certainly isn't spit out specs and design to it.

    IMHO theres a lot of gonads being flapped about in the breeze and very little thinking. But thats what I expect of gonads.
  30. @bumster:

    That would be a good idea, but it solves the problem, and noone wants that. ;)
  31. bumster said:
    Exactly what I was thinking! Imagine how much money they could make if they charged maybe $20-$30 for a DX10 XP add-on. How many of us gamers would actually pay for that? I would, I think it would be fair. If I was M$ this is how I would handle the situation because even though I am a gamer I do not see enough value in Vista to move to it. But for only $25, I would move to DX10! :D

    The problem with this is, the virtualisation will evenyually come to DX10, and with it Vista only. Im still sketchy as to how all this works, but Im thinking certain games written/done certain ways wont play on a non-virtualised DX10, so it would be short lived. Heres a nice link for info on it http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/11/30/directx10_future_of_pc_gaming/1
  32. inquirer-link =auto ignore...
  33. unfortunately, i think dx 10 can run flawlessly on xp, most if not all the libraries required to run it are in the SDK, and the sdk runs fine on xp, so why wouldn't actual dx x, why i say this is unfortunate? because it probably never will be real
  34. "I still think Vista is for Darwin Award Candidates. Smarter and more powerful people and corporations won't touch it until the Proletariats have tested it. " That funny my CIO runs Vista as do I. I'll guess that both of us must have gotten pretty lucky in life's lottery to have all those digits in our paychecks...

    "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."

    Vista has far fewer problems than XP on release which is not remotely close to Me. This is all stemming from a guy that switched to Ubuntu also known as Linux for Dummies. I should write articles for the inquirer... This guy is on a rant that he isn't supporting with any facts. I'm not saying he is wrong but it comes across as tabloid journalism as it's written.

    As for DX10 and XP I just don't see it happening from M$ but I do believe it their choice.
  35. Crashman said:
    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.


    Well, nobody accused anyone of "launching disinformation campaign." Merely saying that the statement published was disinformation, as a matter of fact. It's not a matter of intent. It just seems that the Inq. will publish anything without checking facts, which is, actually, bad reporting. And it was the Inq. article that was, in fact, making accusations. Why do you defend them so adamantly?! They have been known to be wrong before...
  36. I posted an earlier thread saying we may all have to go to a 64bit OS for newer games, as the current ones are hitting the wall in addressing. DX10 opens that door wide open, relieves the cpu, and gives tessalation and it does it all more efficiently. For a true DX10 type game to run on DX9, Itd have to be 64bit, have a super killer card, one thatd need 3 psu's just for it, and still the cpu wouldnt be able to handle it all. We need the new kernel in Vista, DX10 and alotta innovation. Period
  37. f61 said:
    I still think Vista is for Darwin Award Candidates. Smarter and more powerful people and corporations won't touch it until the Proletariats have tested it.

    Vista is like WinMe, and XP didn't exactly start out on the right foot either. So if one had 98se when XP came out, one still shuddered at some of the stupid things M$ forgot how to do. Lets give Mister$oftie a break, they haven't been too good on initial releases for a whole decade. Why expect a revelation?


    Again, this is not the right thread to do this, but it is a bad argument. Corporations do not switch for a long time not because they don't like the tech, but because they need legacy software support, which is not there a lot of times because that legacy software is poorly designed. That plus the cost - why upgrade if it is working. But they will eventually, particularly because Vista offers plenty of neat enterprise level functions.
  38. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    I find this all interesting. nVidia (if true) isnt able to run virtualisation? Ive seen some evidence of nVidias problems with DX10 .
    Quote:
    GGA wrote : 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.
    Which you can find here http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/03/03/optimized-for-vista-does-not-me an-dx10.aspx To blame MS for this is just wrong. And to go further, when ATI poured its resources into virtualisation, and then was told, whoops not this round, well it just stinks. I credit this as part of the non 88 killer scenario, for obvious reasons. Tell me if Im wrong, Ill listen. So M$ candy@$$3$ with nVidia for both their gains, leaving us and ATI/AMD at a loss. NICE. Ive known this for awhile, and to see it still being put forward only shows its merit. I do hope DX10 as we currently know it, with the advent of better DX9 innos gets hacked, and we have "DX10" on XP. Probly wont happen, and as said, virtuo will come back, but its a shame we have to settle for less My edit is for the link, as it only goes so many characters , leaves a space then goes to black/regular type. The word means in my link should not have a space cut, paste and piece the me with the an of the word mean, and youll get there sheeeeeeeesh


    This is part of the story that I find very interesting. I shall also qualify my remarks in pointing out that I have a 8800 GTS in my computer, so I well understand some of the problems concerning the card.

    Yes, it seems that Nvidia still can't get the 8800's to work properly after all this time. It makes sense that there is something wrong in the construction of the 8800 series cards. Otherwise, drivers should have been developed by now that would have solved the initial problems. A reading of the release notes from Nvidia shows a long list of problems, almost all being blamed on other companies, with many requiring that OS codes be changed to allow implementation of the 8800 card. That tells me that the M$ OS was not at fault, but Nvidia was for not following the design parameters. If M$ changed the OS to suit Nvidia, then which is the dog and which is the tail? And where does that leave everybody that did design their hardware to meet the original M$ Vista design?

    Much has been made of the failing of ATI's HD 2900 XT. But what has the failing really been? Yes, it has lower frame rates then the 8800, but has it caused any other troubles or conflicts with Vista? If it is true that ATI managed to build a card that is fully compliant with Vista, then I think it is the better card, despite its lower frame rate. If it is also true that M$ changed the OS specifications to please Nvidia, then that might both explain why the 2900 XT was so late and why the 8800 outperforms the 2900. In my opinion, such a change on the part of M$ implies that someone in the M$ company was bought and paid for by Nvidia.

    As a consumer, will it matter? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. If I get high performance in spite of the changes on the part of M$ and Nvidia, then I probably will be satisfied. But if that higher performance comes at a cost in other areas, I may well end up loosing more than I gained. The one thing that does end up happening either way is that I loose confidence in M$ and its dealings, since I don't know who to trust, who to believe. Oh well, so much for my opinions.
  39. Well, if all that is true, it is particularly appalling (as far as nV goes). The API's, as I understand, were known for a long time, so there's no excuse not to implement it. I certainly hope that nV does not have enough power to change the API, as the API is bigger than nV - it was designed by a collaborative effort of MS, nV, ATI, and most importantly the developers...
  40. We really dont know how good the 2900 is or isnt in DX10. Not to argue, as I like the 2900 and its arch. This is the way I see it. Its like the cpu industry. We have Intel going to a IMC, while we have AMD most likely going off SOI. nVidia came up with have the shader clocked seperately from the rest, and ATI making a truer unified shader arch. Now we hear that ATI/AMD is going to put 2 gpu's in there next arch. WHY? Maybe one for the shaders, and one for everytrhing else. Havnt heard zip from nVidia tho, as has been said, theyve struggled going in that direction (unified shader arch) They just got their CUDA up and running while ATI has been doing this for years. These are all things needed to truly run DX10, plus a 64bit OS with a kernel that allows for more driver control, and like was said, nVidia is having trouble coming up with new drivers for Vista. Anyone see a pattern here? OK, done with my rant, this isnt a flame as I too own 8800GTS :)
  41. We really dont know how good the 2900 is or isnt in DX10. Not to argue, as I like the 2900 and its arch. This is the way I see it. Its like the cpu industry. We have Intel going to a IMC, while we have AMD most likely going off SOI. nVidia came up with have the shader clocked seperately from the rest, and ATI making a truer unified shader arch. Now we hear that ATI/AMD is going to put 2 gpu's in there next arch. WHY? Maybe one for the shaders, and one for everytrhing else. Havnt heard zip from nVidia tho, as has been said, theyve struggled going in that direction (unified shader arch) They just got their CUDA up and running while ATI has been doing this for years. These are all things needed to truly run DX10, plus a 64bit OS with a kernel that allows for more driver control, and like was said, nVidia is having trouble coming up with new drivers for Vista. Anyone see a pattern here? OK, done with my rant, this isnt a flame as I too own 8800GTS :)
  42. shargrath said:
    Would it be possible for AMD to sue MS about the virtualization thing?
    ATI better get working on their OpenGL support. ;)
  43. Heyyou27 said:
    ATI better get working on their OpenGL support. ;)
    :bounce: LOL :bounce: :kaola:
  44. "MS is screwing its customers to force an upgrade and you are a pawn in their revenue generation scheme."

    As if that were news ...
  45. Hello everyboy,

    macky said:
    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.


    I didn't see these links mentioned yet;

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/02/14/why-dx10-wasnt-created-on-xp-and-why-it-isnt-in-xp.aspx
    http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/28/dx10-on-xp-round-2.aspx
    http://letskilldave.com/archive/2006/10/17/DirectX-10-for-Windows-XP_3F00_--Repeat-after-me_3A00_-No.-No.-No_2E00_.aspx

    Shame, I had another that explained it even in a more detailed/technical way, offcourse now I can't find that one.

    Offcourse, getting DX10 on XP is in theorie always possible, it would require another service pack like SP2, that changes the kernel, display drivers etc etc, and do things the way Vista does and I would guess make XP even more incompatible then Vista is to XP with SP2. It would require a long development time, a long test cycle and in the end XP support is going to end "soon" so it's not worth the effort and SP3 is I think going to be the last big update for XP.

    Another way is the wrapper aproach that apperently is done in these cases, run a DX10 game, wrap the commands around DX9 or OpenGL. That's not the same as native DX10 offcourse, you could compare it to Wine on Linux that way.
  46. russki said:
    Why do you defend them so adamantly?! They have been known to be wrong before...


    It's about this particular article: The guy puts forth a theory, and rather than debate the theory's usefullness everyone wants to debate its intent.
  47. seer1975 said:


    Well that's the comments I was talking about mentioning 'what Taylor said' and the one JaydeeJohn was trying to post.

    PS JDJ, for long links be sure to put the tag brackets around them so they will keep the formating when shrinkning. <url>long link</url> (using [ ] instead of <>) will ensure it stays linked to the right address. IT's fine for shorter links but longer links get cut at puntuation marks and some spaces or even arbitrarily if too long.

    We've had the discussion before, and while I personally hate M$ for things they did elsewhere, it's always best to be accurate about the gripes, there's no need to make stuff up with so much good fodder already out there, so people have to realize it's not like a flipped bit that we're talking about we're talking about alot of effort and some real barriers to putting a version of 'D3D10' on to XP, like the story mentions, some of the barriers may be reduced, but those who haven't read those links really should before criticizing the situation, they're very enlightening.

    Quote:
    Another way is the wrapper aproach that apperently is done in these cases, run a DX10 game, wrap the commands around DX9 or OpenGL. That's not the same as native DX10 offcourse, you could compare it to Wine on Linux that way.


    Yeah and while a wrapper may give you many simulated features in OGL, you lose alot of the benefits, and considering how slow it is native, a wrapper would likely make GF8800/HD2900 performance in DX10GL look like GF8600/HD2600 performance.
  48. Seer, thanks for the links. Those are some of the ones I was referring to. Was it Taylor, too, who pretty much ridiculed the desire to have DX10 on XP or was it someone else? I think that one was from somebody who was working on FSX...
  49. The article has a much credibility as some of the erroneous post on this forum and you guys are taking it like fact. I personally would want some validated facts before I started going off the deep-end.

    I personally have the 8800 GTX, Vista 64 and don't really know what problems you are speaking of.

    Secondly M$ has no special love for Nvidia they are however partners with ATI/AMD. They worked very close with them on the 360 which could explain why ATI was able to get more features in. It could be unrelated.

    Having worked with M$ engineers for over 10 years I can tell you that for the most part they don't hire the sharpest knives in the draw even when come to their own product. I have had my engineer's submit code fixes which were later release as patches or fixes from M$. My point we've all seen code from M$ not work so without more info I wouldn't be so certain it's all Nvidea's fault for all we know ATI may have just found a work around.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Windows XP Graphics