Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Run Crysis Directx 10 features on Win XP

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Crysis
  • Directx
  • Windows XP
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 4, 2007 5:36:46 PM

http://www.megagames.com/news/html/pc/crysisdirectx10featuresrunonxp.shtml

Don't know if this works havn't tried it myself. (My current system won't run Crysis)

But I would be interested if it does work and to hear if a makes any difference.

More about : run crysis directx features win

a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2007 5:54:08 PM

Much more info posted in the Crysis SP Demo Performance with that hack posted back on 10/29. Screenshots and other info included.
It's not yet known if that configuration file tweak will be available in the retail version.
November 4, 2007 7:00:07 PM

So dx10 is a scam....I wish there was a way to sue micrsoft,as stupidas that sounds.
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 4, 2007 7:29:56 PM

fonzy said:
So dx10 is a scam....I wish there was a way to sue micrsoft,as stupidas that sounds.

Sounds like a good way to go skint to me.
Could it be that its just a hidden code that the developers used to see how far they could push it? Like they use God mode to test the game. Maybe only certain mainstream cards can support it so they decided to fix the settings a bit lower.
DX 10 just isnt an issue to me i still use XP but i cant see this as part of a conspiracy to shove DX10 down our throats.
Not every thing is part of a big conspiracy some things are done for a reason.
Just my opinion though
Mactronix
November 5, 2007 12:24:57 AM

Well now that it's posted on the internet I'm sure they'll fix it in time for retail. :( 
November 5, 2007 1:20:26 AM

all the talk about setting this higher is not the same as dx10 wiff dx10 gcards there is a extra pipeline for global rendering with dx10card and vista. Vista has the abilities to rendering the whole world in one render. Where dx9 uses object rendering to render the world meaning each image in the world like trees,mountains,water the scene in dx9 is a single object and dx10 can do this in one render. There is a huge difference. Global rendering
November 5, 2007 1:38:45 AM

@gomerpile, there is no real reason for XP not to have DX10, the only one is why Vista is required - MS wants to sell more of new OS, simple as that. Ofc to do so MS artificialy made some limits so you couldnt just copy DX10 program files to XP, but its only because they choose to make obstructions, not because DX10 isnt feasable on XP at all.
November 5, 2007 3:33:28 AM

Harrisson said:
@gomerpile, there is no real reason for XP not to have DX10, the only one is why Vista is required - MS wants to sell more of new OS, simple as that. Ofc to do so MS artificialy made some limits so you couldnt just copy DX10 program files to XP, but its only because they choose to make obstructions, not because DX10 isnt feasable on XP at all.


I've done some thinking on all this and I think part of the reason M$ tied DX10 into Vista was that M$ had tried to get people to move into 64 bit computing before with XP64 Pro and people didn't respond, as well as the various software and hardware companies ignoring XP64 Pro. Similar things have happened to other companies in the past when they made a new OS that would run software from a previous OS.

Back when Commodore (anyone remember using one of those?) made the Commodore 128, they made it backward compatible with the Commodore 64. The idea was to make an easy transition from an old computer to the new one. But the software companies figured there was no reason for them to write to the new C128 OS, since they could keep writing to the C64 OS and both computers would run it. Similar thing happened to Apple with the Apple II GS.

So M$ made the XP64 Pro OS and very few companies bothered to support it. So the solution? Tie DX10 to a new OS and force both the software and hardware companies to produce 64 bit stuff. Sure, there is Vista 32 available and that may be a mistake on M$'s part. Don't know for sure. But Vista 32 can't really use 4 gig or more of ram, so people will end up having to get Vista 64 sooner or later anyway.

Could DX10 be hacked into XP and XP64? People have been trying for the past year without real success. In my opinion, it won't be possible. Could be wrong, but its my present opinion. I don't object to getting a new OS. After all, I've gone from Win 3.1 to Win95, to Win98 to XP to XP 64. Most of the OS's in the past have changed every three years or so. That's called progress. My only real objection with Vista is that it has so many problem areas, bugs, etc. It reminds me all too well on WinME. But if tying DX10 to Vista is the only way to move people away from 32 bit computing and into 64 bit computing, then I accept it. Grudgingly, but I accept it. I do wish DX10 could have been made to work with XP64, though.
November 5, 2007 4:04:35 AM

@Sailer, DX10 have nothing to do with moving people to 64bit, IMO. Vista 32 bit negates that theory. Nor DX10 requires 64bit. If hardcore gamers decide to go with 4GB (or 8GB in some years), they could do the same thing with XP64, if they would have DX10 in place.

Its simply forcing customers to buy Vista, milking more for B.Gates to be even richer, thats all there is.
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 5, 2007 6:34:15 AM

While i understand the whole moving on with progress and tecnology idea and that some poeple will always want to be there or be the first when it happened,What i dont understand is why people are felling "forced" into Vista just for DX10.
Its new and it looks nice but to me its not worth upgrading for. Im in the UK so from my price point it would cost around £400 just to make the light and smoke look a bit nicer. I know im over simplyfying it but i hope you get the point.
The limitation of getting DX10 on XP was blown out of the water when MS dropped the need for virtualisation because Nvidea couldnt manage it,which means it was all b***s*** in the first place and not needed at all.
So yes MS are doing whatever they can to try and get people to move to Vista but your not really being "forced" unless they pull support for all other operating systems and you refuse to use anything except a MS OS.
November 5, 2007 7:15:50 AM

I dont think Bill Gates cares for being richer... come on he gives alot of HIS money to charity... i heard he wont even give his kids much money when he passes away... he doesnt want them to have an easy life... lets see you try to program a new windows... then u will know how ms feels...
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 5, 2007 7:26:45 AM

flip_x said:
I dont think Bill Gates cares for being richer... come on he gives alot of HIS money to charity... i heard he wont even give his kids much money when he passes away... he doesnt want them to have an easy life... lets see you try to program a new windows... then u will know how ms feels...

Now if that were really the case surley he would just take his money and give the company to a charitable trust ? no dont think so.
Its his baby is an ongoing concern and they are doing whatever they can to sell there new product its not about money at this point but a big P****** game to stay at the top of the tree.
Dont get me wrong i know MS do a lot of stuff that ends up costing them money like work arounds,and patches/fixes for compatability problems that are not strictly speaking there fault/problem,but on the flip side they do do alot of cynical stufff as well.
Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2007 7:38:13 AM

I still go with Phil Taylor's statements that it's more of a limited resources issue for adding a DX10 version for XP, not a priority for limited resources.

As for these tweaks making Crysis run in DX10 on DX9, that's not the case, what it looks more like is that they are maxing the DX9 path with many of the settings, except the truly DX10 feature of their implementation of motion blur.

I'd be interested in seeing an IQ difference between the two in comparison to the performance differences as well, as there could be some subtle differences.

To me the most attractive benefit is that you have access to the higher texture quality, which shouldn't be a limitation of DX10 in any case, especially when they don't use a feature like tessellation, but I'd be interested in seeing if the depth effects on rocks of what is either true displacement mapping or mimicked parallax mapping, and how this tweak affects that, which was what impressed me the most in the screenies.
November 5, 2007 2:34:39 PM

flip_x said:
I dont think Bill Gates cares for being richer... come on he gives alot of HIS money to charity... i heard he wont even give his kids much money when he passes away... he doesnt want them to have an easy life... lets see you try to program a new windows... then u will know how ms feels...

Actualy Microsoft (and Gates in particular) are so much after profits, they wrist arms and legs of competition directly and through minions (including infamous recent SCO story) and exploits monopoly as much as possible, often on the grey area or even ilegaly.

If Gates would decide its enough to be one of the richest man in the world, they could lower bloated software prices, or even make most of its software true open source (maybe excluding core programs), but its not happening.

About charity - as much as I respect those who are doing it, Gates approach more saddens me than encourages. Do you know almost all his huge donations are... software? It doesnt cost you anything to donate 1000x of OS/Office to 3rd World country, who wouldnt buy it anyway, but it gives you nice publicity. Actualy its not only that - ppl who gets used to Windows, will most likely buy it when they can. Its how addiction is formed, drug dealers use the same scheme, free samples now, pay full price later :sarcastic: 
November 5, 2007 2:39:14 PM

Harrisson said:
@Sailer, DX10 have nothing to do with moving people to 64bit, IMO. Vista 32 bit negates that theory. Nor DX10 requires 64bit. If hardcore gamers decide to go with 4GB (or 8GB in some years), they could do the same thing with XP64, if they would have DX10 in place.

Its simply forcing customers to buy Vista, milking more for B.Gates to be even richer, thats all there is.


I think Vista 32 was only allowed so that that people whose computers aren't capable of running a 64 bit OS could have access to DX10. I don't see why anyone with a 64 bit capible machine would choose the 32 version of Vista and its limitation of 4 gig of ram. Otherwise, I think that was a mistake on M$'s part.

Yes, as far as gaming with 4 gig or even 8 gig of ram goes, I think XP64 would have been a good OS for M$ to have worked with. I wrote that in my last sentence, "I do wish that that DX10 could have been made to work with XP64, though". I have XP64 on one of my machines and I like it very well. I think it could have been done, as well, by simply writing DX10 in 64 bit code only, so that it couldn't be used by 32 bit XP. That said, hackers would probably find a way to emulate the 64 bit code and then use it on a 32 bit system in little time.

As far as making Bill Gates richer, M$ is providing support for XP until 2012 and XP64 until 2014, which is unheard of in terms of supporting old OSs. That's 5-7 years support for a pair of OS's that they no longer officially sell. Yes, there's a bunch of them still on the shelves of Newegg, etc, but M$ is ceasing production of them. Bill Gates and M$ have no obligation to continue to support XP and XP64 like this, so if anything, far from being money greedy, they are being magnanimous.
a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2007 6:55:13 PM

Harrisson said:

About charity - as much as I respect those who are doing it, Gates approach more saddens me than encourages. Do you know almost all his huge donations are... software? It doesnt cost you anything to donate 1000x of OS/Office to 3rd World country, who wouldnt buy it anyway, but it gives you nice publicity. Actualy its not only that - ppl who gets used to Windows, will most likely buy it when they can. Its how addiction is formed, drug dealers use the same scheme, free samples now, pay full price later :sarcastic: 


Yeah, I agree with that. While they do do alot more for disease in 3rd world countries, those types of donations of software, are only helping M$, by killing off other small competitiors, when they are essentially dumping their product into new markets. M$ and him are more worried about the spread and adoption of Open Source there than anywhere else, so if you can't sell your product, give it away and claim the tax/PR benifit.

I admire some of his charitable other works, but that type of donation is not in the same as people who give extra boxes of food or clothing from their production run.
February 19, 2009 12:39:36 PM

To the DX9/DX10 debate, I'll give my answer:

Go OpenGL :D 
February 19, 2009 1:09:08 PM

lol... 2 years old, the debate ended;) haha
!