Can XP run DX10?

No. Microsoft is trying to use DX10 to try to make you upgrade to Vista.

Some people tried to hack it for XP, but it wasn't stable.

does that mean that performance will improve in vista as new drivers develope so that you can run higher settings with the same graphic card when you're gaming

That was the hope, but until game developers learn to harness the power to use unified sharers(unified shaders can do Vertex or Pixel shading, before they had to be separate units so a game that used one did not use the other, this way they can ALL be one or the other or any number of each) better the performance is actually worse with the exception to a few games.

The game assasins creed actually ran better by using DirectX 10.1, but since it was a Nvidia "The way its meant to be played" game and Nvidia does not support DX 10.1(ATI does) the company actually removed the feature and gimped the games performance.

The potential is there, developers just need to use it. DX9 was the same when it was released

For now tho DX 10 is slower on most games.

DX10 was a pretty good way to poke and prod enthusiasts to adopt Vista. Everything was supposed to look better... run faster... and so on. Does it? Nope. Does Microsoft care? Nope. They made it. You buy it. It's really that simple to boys in Redmond.

ok no dx10 in xp....damn

Not that M$ cant, but they dont want to as noone vould buy their crapy Vista if DX10 exist in XP as well.

Direct X is just api betwen game and OS+HW and as this it can be ported to XP.

I was born long time before w95, and its not only users complaining about Vista, companies as well.
My company even encourage ppl work on linux and have no plans emplement Vista in any way once XP stop to be supported.

Agreed. After over a year with Vista now, I have to say that all the moaning doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, there were a few bugs initially (nothing horrible though), but most of them have been fixed by now. Everything I have runs perfectly, and I haven't found anything that completely refuses to run. Speed isn't a problem either.

so no dx10 on xp......

well microsoft is about to bust out DX11 !!!!

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/604 [...] month.html

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.htm
That has many different screenshots (same ones) in crysis comparing dx10 in vista and dx10 in xp, and dx9 in xp. The graphics look great in all, dx10 only has a bit better shaders (unnoticable if not mentioned) and a bit better anistropic filerting cause you can see textures at great distances in dx10. Also dx10 with xp is highly unstable, I tryed it and I had to remove my hardrive from the computer, stick it into my friends and format it completey cuase dx10 screwed it over completely lol.

WTF your delusional !!!
So all the reviewers and press reporters are muppets that dont know there arse from thier elbows then are they ?
What a load of bull. "Performs better than XP SP2 as long as you use a Quad and 4gb or more ram" Can you run 4gb or more on XP ? No you cant.
What your basically saying is Vista is fine as long as you throw enough resourses at it. So as far as your concerned there has never been a badly coded game or aplication, its just people dont give them enough resources ?

Mactronix

I think they are saying that while XP was built with single core in mind(lets face it, it was 8 years ago) Vista was built to use multithreading better(windows it self the apps should be the same).

I did read a review of several apps that did run better in Vista then XP. Some games run up tp 1 fps better in vista 64. So when people thought Vista would NEVER catch up, they did end up being wrong(it was just a matter of drivers). they are both fairly close now(almost within the area of margin).

Do not get me wrong. They are just allot closer now and in games they are in single digits for the fps difference when there is one.

I don't have any problems with Vista, other than regretting getting the 32 bit OEM. I should have gone 64, in fact, I will upgrade in the fall. IMHO, they should not have made a 32 bit version of this OS.

The only DX10 patched game I'm playing right now (virtually the only game I'm playing at all), is LOTRO. The DX10 effects mostly involve water and reflections, but the game looks good on my wife's PC under XP too. Vista's finally decent with SP1, so I have no complaints.

I half expect Microsoft to only include DX11 in their next OS, and not as a download for Vista. Whether that ends up being "Vista SP2" remains to be seen. As far as multithreaded apps, I've found even Vista 32 to be stable. The only irritation is what it does to some retro games (but XP had similar problems with Win 9x games).

With XP, we actually had Windows stability for many years. Now, we could end up back to a new OS from Redmond every couple of years, released buggy and with little support.

Certainly some truth, *IF* you are comparing Vista at release to XP SP2.

But as pointed out already - XP at release was MUCH worse that Vista at release. Performance, Compatitibility and (especially!) reliability.

I'll certainly grant that Vista lacks a "Killer App" to drive people to adopt it. But it's hardly 'bad', and has been no more difficult to learn than any other OS I've played with.

A Recent~ish comparison in gaming:
http://www.extremetech.com/article [...] 495,00.asp



And a little XP nostalgia:


Intel upgrades to Windows 2000 six months after Windows XP was released:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inqu [...] over-winxp

Sluggish corporate adoption of Windows XP:
http://www.computerworld.com/print [...] 76,00.html

Microsoft offers new licensing terms and other incentives to jump-start stalled corporate XP adoption:
http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18821819

Three years after release, XP uptake still too slow:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0 [...] 00.htm?r=8

Four long years after XP release, more corporate desktops still using Windows 2000:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/X [...] Years-End/