Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Directx 10 on xp?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 29, 2009 3:36:05 AM

Ive seen that its possible and i want to know if i should get it or not. Im getting a new computer so if this really does work i might just get windows xp and download directx 10 instead of having to go to vista which i hear isnt to great and requires more system specs. So should i get it or just get vista?

More about : directx

April 29, 2009 5:39:42 AM

xp sp3 has dx10 but with a few features disabled due to the core that doesn't support them, i'd recommend going for vista, its not realy that heavy on resourses, the programs you use the most gets cached into the memory making them launch/run much faster, granted when you run something else that you use lets say once a month, that will be a bit slow to launch cause it needs to free up some of the cached memory...
April 29, 2009 5:42:26 AM

Windows XP doesn't support direct x 10. Wait a bit and buy Windows 7 when it comes out until then use the RC. It is much faster than Vista.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2009 6:10:54 AM

N@n0 said:
xp sp3 has dx10 but with a few features disabled due to the core that doesn't support them, i'd recommend going for vista, its not realy that heavy on resourses, the programs you use the most gets cached into the memory making them launch/run much faster, granted when you run something else that you use lets say once a month, that will be a bit slow to launch cause it needs to free up some of the cached memory...

No it doesn't. XP SP3 has DX 9.0c, just like any other XP install. DX10 is incompatible with XP in enough ways that you will never get true DX10 working.

Just get Vista x64. It works extremely well, and there's no real reason not to at this point.
April 29, 2009 7:52:49 AM

speedone said:
Windows XP doesn't support direct x 10. Wait a bit and buy Windows 7 when it comes out until then use the RC. It is much faster than Vista.


+1 on this one. You will have DX11, better memory management than vista and XP virtualised among other great features.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2009 8:16:59 AM

I spent a whole day trying to get some form of DX10 functionality on XP. I ended up with BSODs. Don't even bother thinking about it, it can't be done by just downloading DX10.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2009 8:17:43 AM

definitely go Vista or W7. Stick with the RC (released next week) 'til you can buy at retail if you decide to go W7. Don't forget to keep everything backed up ready for a clean install!
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2009 9:22:29 AM

cybot_x1024 said:
+1 on this one. You will have DX11, better memory management than vista and XP virtualised among other great features.

Though to be fair, Vista will have DX11 too.
April 29, 2009 9:35:02 AM

cjl said:
Though to be fair, Vista will have DX11 too.


This is information that I have not seen / heard. Do you have a link?
April 29, 2009 9:48:53 AM

hasnt microsoft scraped vista for win 7??? cant imagine they would bother makeing dx 11 for that platform now. and no dx10 will definatly not work with xp sp3.
April 29, 2009 10:10:53 AM

croc said:
This is information that I have not seen / heard. Do you have a link?

i read this before also. it's true that vista will have DX11 as a updated download. if i come across the link again, i will post it.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2009 11:19:32 AM

aznguy0028 said:
i read this before also. it's true that vista will have DX11 as a updated download. if i come across the link again, i will post it.


Yes, I read this too
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2009 1:37:42 PM

Windows 7 will have a ton of problems just like Vista did when it first came out... just like XP, just like 2000, and 98... OH and the best WINDOWS ME...

I have NO idea why people keep recommending.. OH WAIT FOR WINDOWS 7 BECAUSE VISTA IS CRAP... Vista is perfectly fine now that they have patched alot of the major issues. I have Absolutely no issues with Vista SP1 and it manages memory much better than XP. It preloads alot of information into memory which lets apps launch and run much better. That is why you see it using 1+GB without any apps loaded. It actually uses your memory. I can't wait till 7 comes out and everyone gets that virtual slap in the face.

Anyways, moving on. XP doesn't support DX10, if you want to run DX10 just buy Vista. It's worth it for your games, and all my apps and games run much smoother on Vista than they did in XP.
April 29, 2009 3:06:08 PM

Quote:
i might just get windows xp and download directx 10 instead of having to go to vista which i hear isnt to great and requires more system specs.
For a new build there is no point in getting less than 3/4 GB RAM now and something less than a dual core/quad core. So Vista should work fine. And about the not so great part - that's a thing of the past. I switched over from XP to Vista and when I use my friend's computer (XP) I just can't imagine switching back to XP.
a c 83 à CPUs
April 29, 2009 4:33:52 PM

I've also seen that DX11 will be supported in Vista as well, but I do not have a link to back it up either.

I've also run Vista since a few months after it's release(long before SP1), and the machine I installed it on was a Socket 754 Athlon 3400, 2Gb DDR, and a Geforce 6600GT and I had absolutely no problems with it. Only problem I had was that norton antivirus wasn't compatible, I never experienced most of the problems everyone seemed to have.
April 29, 2009 4:43:54 PM

I thought DX11 came with SP2,

also Vista is better for now mainstream+ pc's or 2006 high-end.

now back then some people wished the 360 supported vista.
April 29, 2009 4:47:54 PM

^You heard right. Vista SP2 will bring DX11 support with it.
April 29, 2009 5:25:50 PM

cjl said:
...

Just get Vista x64. It works extremely well, and there's no real reason not to at this point.


Umm, except for the fact that Win7 is right around the corner and is better in every way...

EDIT: To clairify, yes, Vista works great, but why buy an OS thats already being scrapped for the next new thing, may as well have the new thing.
April 29, 2009 6:06:54 PM

actually it depends what SP2 does, if it brings vista to XP SP3 perf. then win7 will be a waste.
April 29, 2009 8:57:24 PM

Even if someone offered me a free upgrade to W7 I wouldn't take it. That's because I really don't find it different than Vista in enough ways to change. MS added some stupid features like the AutoRun thing and others which I don't give a damn about. I'm totally fine with Vista. Just wish I'd gotten the x64.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2009 9:26:48 PM

DX11 is a superset to DX10, thus Vista is supported. Same thing with DX10.1.
April 29, 2009 9:50:29 PM

rags_20 said:
Even if someone offered me a free upgrade to W7 I wouldn't take it. That's because I really don't find it different than Vista in enough ways to change. MS added some stupid features like the AutoRun thing and others which I don't give a damn about. I'm totally fine with Vista. Just wish I'd gotten the x64.



What about less memory usage? Less pagefile use? Re-mapped GDI that doesn't stall your system when a graphicical bug hits it?

Agreed, that upgrading for a few icons and features that I might not use is wastful and pointless. However, there are many proven performance issues that have been addressed with W7. Not one person thinks that vista is faster than W7.

I have been playing with the beta and after many hours of optimisation, i was able to make W7 scream with no problems in the last 2 weeks. And after spending 1.5 years with vista, and too many days trying to get the same results as I have seen with W7, all i have to say is, 1 copy of W7 please!
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2009 9:59:02 PM

I actually think Vista still boots faster than Win 7. That was my experience anyway.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2009 10:12:45 PM

N@n0 said:
xp sp3 has dx10 but with a few features disabled due to the core that doesn't support them...



Wrong

Windows XP does not, and never has had DX10. There was an open source effort to build a port, called the "Alky Project", which the original creators abandoned close to 2 years ago. 'The Community' continues to have faith this will somehow be accomplished. :sarcastic: 

Don't hold your breath.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2009 10:42:05 PM

XP is too old to make the Alky Project viable any more.
April 29, 2009 11:44:17 PM

randomizer said:
I actually think Vista still boots faster than Win 7. That was my experience anyway.


Wowie, wasnt mine. Just before the Win7 beta came out, I was up to almost 2.5 min before my Vista 64 install was useable. The beta booted in 30-45 sec every time, even after I got all the crapware on it. (DAMN YOU CRYTEK FOR BUNDLING GAMESPY COMRADE)

April 30, 2009 12:08:33 AM

Uh, your computer is real slow then. My Vista boots in less than 50 secs.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2009 1:01:46 AM

For clarification, the difference was a few seconds, not minutes. But Win 7 was on a faster partition and it was a fresh installation, whereas Vista was at least 5 months old.
April 30, 2009 2:04:59 AM

^ Exactly.
April 30, 2009 2:38:42 AM

hmm, my Vista boots in 20-30 seconds, pretty good for boot time.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2009 2:45:01 AM

Mine boots in 30 sec or so. It's fairly cluttered too.

Of course, the RAID 0 velociraptors helps a bit...
April 30, 2009 10:57:13 AM

I really don't care what the boot time is, because I hardly ever shut down. When I'm not using, its in sleep. So Windows 7's faster boot times mean nothing to me. Microsoft themselves recommend to put it to sleep unless you're not going to use it for a few days. How do they expect people to be attracted to W7 because of boot times?
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2009 12:09:38 PM

CAll me when the HD is completly used up and fragmented. Lets compare boot times then.

All these statistics M$ gives are on clean systems used for testing (hence, the folly of the tests). Hence, why Vista is supposed to be faster (until the HD gets fragmented, you install programs that start to eat up RAM in a hurry, etc.).
April 30, 2009 12:21:34 PM

well Win7 is just Vista SP2 with a new GUI so don't get your hopes up about it being faster.
April 30, 2009 12:36:38 PM

Yeah. I didn't think it was great. Only noobs think vista "sucks" and that Windows 7 is "faster." They just added stupid stuff in it. And Vista's boot times are probably on HDDs and Windows 7's on SSDs.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2009 1:00:40 PM

gamerk316 said:
CAll me when the HD is completly used up and fragmented. Lets compare boot times then.

All these statistics M$ gives are on clean systems used for testing (hence, the folly of the tests). Hence, why Vista is supposed to be faster (until the HD gets fragmented, you install programs that start to eat up RAM in a hurry, etc.).



Too many variables - A new istall on a clean HDD is the only reliable way to compare. How could one possibly ensure equal levels of fragmentation? How can one ensure equal levels of crapware? Equal Registry clutter? And, of course, the same applies to XP.

If the user can't/won't maintain their installation, then performance degrades as the install ages.

Besides - Win 7 defrags itself. The others do not. Therefore over time, 7 will maintain more of it's original performance as the others clutter up. Reference: http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/01/25/disk-defrag...
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2009 4:34:01 PM

I didn't say it was TESTABLE, but certain OS's do better then others when things are not in an ideal state, which is what M$ is testing off of.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2009 4:54:41 PM

Then it's a BS argument since, as you point out and I agree, it's not testable. Rather, it's one opinion against another which level of degraded performance is "less bad" than the other.

The clear winner in that case being Windows 7. Why? Because it cleans itself as it goes, while the prior operating systems do not.


Now that we've thoroughly lost sight of the original post: (1) DX10 does not and will not appear on Win XP. (2) The project to port DX10 to XP is dead (3) DX11 will be available on Win 7 and Vista SP2
April 30, 2009 5:32:30 PM

[*** in thing wasnt useable for 2.5 minutes. Win7 was responsive as soon as I hit the desktop every time.
April 30, 2009 5:37:32 PM

^IDK, the forum cut half my post off

rags_20 said:
Uh, your computer is real slow then. My Vista boots in less than 50 secs.


Its the same computer that loads Win7 in 45 secs.

My vista install was only 5 months old. O sure, it got to desktop in 45 sec, but it was a good 2 min before prefetch was done loading ***. Win7 was useable as soon as I hit desktop every time.
May 1, 2009 12:11:12 AM

I timed it now. 37 seconds to boot. 18 seconds for shut down.
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2009 2:05:21 AM

B-Unit said:
Win7 was useable as soon as I hit desktop every time.

Mine was too for about a week, then it ended up just as slow as Vista with prefetching. I didn't have barely anything installed to prefetch either.
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2009 2:45:56 PM

randomizer said:
I spent a whole day trying to get some form of DX10 functionality on XP. I ended up with BSODs. Don't even bother thinking about it, it can't be done by just downloading DX10.


Totally different driver system, random... you'd have to rewrite the kernel a fair bit and do extensive modification to get it working proper.
!