Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can XP run DX10?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 12, 2008 9:46:29 PM

Hi

I was wondering if XP32 or XP64 can run DX10.....looked in to it but got alot of mixed signals

does someone know :-)

More about : run dx10

July 12, 2008 9:49:16 PM

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.
a c 107 U Graphics card
July 12, 2008 9:53:54 PM

No it can not, Microsoft says it is integrated into vista and can not be ported over to XP. There are users trying to get it working. So far there is not much success. Since vista also uses a different driver model this may be why DX10 was unable to be ported over to XP.

If you want DX10, you need vista(at least for now).

Please note there are very few games that deliver acceptable performance in DX 10 anyway, so if you are not ready for vista, just wait it out. Drivers for vista get better every single day.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 12, 2008 9:59:59 PM

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
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2008 10:43:23 PM

in theory... but in reality no
a c 107 U Graphics card
July 12, 2008 10:43:52 PM

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.
July 12, 2008 10:48:44 PM

ok thanks for the info :-)
July 12, 2008 11:53:21 PM

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.
July 12, 2008 11:58:47 PM

rodney_ws said:
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.

It should, eventually. Not sure if you remember this, but it was a similar situation back in the directx8-9 transition.
July 14, 2008 9:59:05 AM

ok no dx10 in xp....damn
July 14, 2008 10:54:50 AM

I don't really buy that Microsoft cannot port Directx 10 over to XP. Its all a scheme to get us to use Vista.

Who cares about Directx 10. All it does is eat more of your GPU power = lower FPS which isn't worth it.
July 14, 2008 11:45:31 AM

John Vuong said:
I don't really buy that Microsoft cannot port Directx 10 over to XP. Its all a scheme to get us to use Vista.

Who cares about Directx 10. All it does is eat more of your GPU power = lower FPS which isn't worth it.


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.
July 14, 2008 1:14:30 PM

Bah - more fud.

All the people complaining about Vista were those that complained about XP who also complained about Windows 95. Actually, probably not the latter because most of them weren't even born then. Or maybe they were, and there was some serious neonatal Windows 95 bashing going on in nursey.
July 14, 2008 1:43:56 PM

The_Abyss said:
Bah - more fud.

All the people complaining about Vista were those that complained about XP who also complained about Windows 95. Actually, probably not the latter because most of them weren't even born then. Or maybe they were, and there was some serious neonatal Windows 95 bashing going on in nursey.


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.
a c 107 U Graphics card
July 14, 2008 10:52:01 PM

For what i do, vista performs as well as XP. When super fetch pre loads(it learns what i use often) stuff, loads are actually faster. Game performance has caught up in most titles.

98 to XP was far worse then XP to Vista SP1 to be honest.
a b U Graphics card
July 14, 2008 10:59:07 PM

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.
July 14, 2008 11:13:18 PM

Even before SP1, Vista still performed better than XP SP2 on heavy applications on quad core systems with 4gb or more of ram. It handles multithreading better, and high ram usage doesn't harm performance as long as you have enough. The perceived slowdown in Vista are only for people who use lower duals and single cores, and more importantly, ran out of ram and had to use page file off hdd.
July 15, 2008 5:00:24 AM

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.
a c 107 U Graphics card
July 15, 2008 5:12:47 AM

Very High is just a little mod to the game to let is use the full textures(its not DX 10 at all. The developers just locked out textures on the DX9 settings.). No point in trying to make DX 10 work on XP.
a c 130 U Graphics card
July 15, 2008 6:07:13 AM

dagger said:
Even before SP1, Vista still performed better than XP SP2 on heavy applications on quad core systems with 4gb or more of ram. It handles multithreading better, and high ram usage doesn't harm performance as long as you have enough. The perceived slowdown in Vista are only for people who use lower duals and single cores, and more importantly, ran out of ram and had to use page file off hdd.


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" :ouch:  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
July 15, 2008 6:23:49 AM

mactronix said:
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" :ouch:  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

You can use more then 4GB ram with XP, it just have to be x64 same as for Vista.
a c 107 U Graphics card
July 15, 2008 6:28:35 AM

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.
a c 130 U Graphics card
July 15, 2008 7:29:42 AM


@xrodney

I did consider mentioning XP 64 but then again as far as i know the majority of XP installs are 32 bit.

@nukemaster

I agree that now the playing field is much more even and gaming wise if people would just code the games for 10.1 then using the ATI cards i think Vista would be faster than XP in some instances and certainly no worse.
But to say that out of the gate Vista was better than XP with SP2 is just plain missleading. I know Dagger did specifically site certain apps but its the previso that you must be running a Quad and lots of ram that got me. Thats on a par with saying Nvidia cards are always better than ATI cards as long as you run them in Tri SLI against a single ATI card as far as im concerned.

Mactronix
July 15, 2008 9:18:06 AM

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.
July 15, 2008 9:44:20 AM

IMO there is some legitimacy to the whole idea that Vista needs more resources. I have run Vista and XP on 2 computers, and one has Vista now and the other has XP. The Vista computer runs faster than it did with XP, but it also has 4 gb of memory. The XP computer has 2 gb and runs wayyy slower with Vista. If your computer has good enough hardware, Vista is in fact a bit faster, but if you do not have good enough stuff, XP is still faster. Of course, this is the newest version of Vista... At its launch, Vista was wayyyy behind XP in performance and compatibility.
a b U Graphics card
July 15, 2008 6:54:12 PM

Quote:
At its launch, Vista was wayyyy behind XP in performance and compatibility


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/article2/0,2845,2302495,00.a...



And a little XP nostalgia:


Intel upgrades to Windows 2000 six months after Windows XP was released:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2002/01/10/...

Sluggish corporate adoption of Windows XP:
http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2002/0,4814,7427...

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/0,1000000121,39151481,...

Four long years after XP release, more corporate desktops still using Windows 2000:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/XP-May-Catch-Up-to-Win...
a c 107 U Graphics card
July 15, 2008 6:59:24 PM

Scotteq said:

And a little XP nostalgia:


Intel upgrades to Windows 2000 six months after Windows XP was released:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2002/01/10/...

Sluggish corporate adoption of Windows XP:
http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2002/0,4814,7427...

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/0,1000000121,39151481,...

Four long years after XP release, more corporate desktops still using Windows 2000:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/XP-May-Catch-Up-to-Win...


Ahh yet people tend to forget this.
!