DirectX 9.L will be a DirectX 10 for Windows XP

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: apoppin
yes they were . . . but Vista is dog-slow compared to XP in current games . . .

Vista looks to be actually 'ready' in a year or two - for gaming . . . when full DX10 games actually come out.

You do them too much honor (been playing too much Oblivion). We barely have full DX9.0 games now, and how long have we had DX9.0 hardware out?! I give it 2-3 years for full DX10 games to arise.

*finished* Oblivion . . . months ago

we have had DX9 since '03 . . . 3 years . . . and DX9 has looked 'nice' for a year.

so it is 'fair' to assume - with M$' weight behind Vista - that full DX10 games are ~2 years off. Remember Crysis IS a DX10 game that will actualy be patched to resemble a "full DX10" game a year after release.

and 2-3 years is reasonable for mainstream DX10 . . . no doubt there will still be DX9 games still being released then . . . as DX9 has certainly not been 'tapped'.

 

[apoppin]

oh yeah . .. i signed up to "ask M$" about Vista

Start Time: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada)

Event Overview

The Technology Guarantee, Vista Upgrade Program is Finally Here!



Come learn about the windows upgrade program where you can get Windows Vista when you buy Windows XP. We will go over the different options and Windows Vista SKU?s that will be available. We will also discuss the differences between the available versions, why you should buy Vista, and which option is right for you: Vista Home, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business, or Vista Ultimate. We will follow this up with an in depth look and demonstration of Vista.



Join Monarch and Microsoft for an exclusive first look at Vista before it is available in stores. And find out how to get Windows Vista when you purchase Windows XP today.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35129

"WTH is DX9Ex that is the DX9L 'counterpoint' for XP that Yearli talks about?"

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: apoppin
yes they were . . . but Vista is dog-slow compared to XP in current games . . .

Vista looks to be actually 'ready' in a year or two - for gaming . . . when full DX10 games actually come out.

You do them too much honor (been playing too much Oblivion). We barely have full DX9.0 games now, and how long have we had DX9.0 hardware out?! I give it 2-3 years for full DX10 games to arise.

*finished* Oblivion . . . months ago

we have had DX9 since '03 . . . 3 years . . . and DX9 has looked 'nice' for a year.

so it is 'fair' to assume - with M$' weight behind Vista - that full DX10 games are ~2 years off. Remember Crysis IS a DX10 game that will actualy be patched to resemble a "full DX10" game a year after release.

and 2-3 years is reasonable for mainstream DX10 . . . no doubt there will still be DX9 games still being released then . . . as DX9 has certainly not been 'tapped'.

Well some of us have a job, 3 year old son, and 6M into pregnancy wife to deal with. Let's just say gaming is a bit on the back burner right now.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: apoppin
yes they were . . . but Vista is dog-slow compared to XP in current games . . .

Vista looks to be actually 'ready' in a year or two - for gaming . . . when full DX10 games actually come out.

You do them too much honor (been playing too much Oblivion). We barely have full DX9.0 games now, and how long have we had DX9.0 hardware out?! I give it 2-3 years for full DX10 games to arise.

*finished* Oblivion . . . months ago

we have had DX9 since '03 . . . 3 years . . . and DX9 has looked 'nice' for a year.

so it is 'fair' to assume - with M$' weight behind Vista - that full DX10 games are ~2 years off. Remember Crysis IS a DX10 game that will actualy be patched to resemble a "full DX10" game a year after release.

and 2-3 years is reasonable for mainstream DX10 . . . no doubt there will still be DX9 games still being released then . . . as DX9 has certainly not been 'tapped'.

Well some of us have a job, 3 year old son, and 6M into pregnancy wife to deal with. Let's just say gaming is a bit on the back burner right now.

well some of us own their own company, have a chronically sick family member to care for, and are remodeling a house to deal with. Let's just say gaming is some people's only form of entertainment.

:roll:

wtf does that have to do with DX10? :Q

 

[Gstanfor]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35129

"WTH is DX9Ex that is the DX9L 'counterpoint' for XP that Yearli talks about?"

Don't know - have heard nothing about it. Linkage?

DX9Ex is merely another name for DX9.L, still vista only. I wouldn't expect anything more than the occasional DX9 compatability update for XP - the last one (October 2006) was released only a few days ago.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35129

"WTH is DX9Ex that is the DX9L 'counterpoint' for XP that Yearli talks about?"

Don't know - have heard nothing about it. Linkage?

DX9Ex is merely another name for DX9.L, still vista only. I wouldn't expect anything more than the occasional DX9 compatability update for XP - the last one (October 2006) was released only a few days ago.

someone noticed . . .
:Q



i linked above . . . but will try again:
look at Doc's photocopy of the crysis interview [posted 2006-06-24 12:05:09]

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=8534#p8534

Yes, DX 9L is going to run on XP. Cevat Yerli talks about its advantages in the Edge magazine article

"Crysis is not Vista exclusive. It supports DX9 and Shader Model 2.0 for XP and up to DX10 and Shader Model 4.0 for XP because DX10 won't be on XP. But there is DX9.L which will be the counterpoint of DX10 in XP."

look at the Edge magazine [scanned photo]

there is "something" that simply doesn't 'add up'

-i sincerely hope you can explain it


EDIT: this is all over the 'net . . . that there is 'something' new DX10 style for XP . . . the article in the Edge with the crysis dev is the only thing *concrete* i can find.

 

[Gstanfor]

Once again, I can only say I don't know. I'm guessing the magazine was thinking of a word other than "counterpoint", which normally means "difference" or "contrast" in the conxtext they are trying to use it. Weird.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Once again, I can only say I don't know. I'm guessing the magazine was thinking of a word other than "counterpoint", which normally means "difference" or "contrast" in the conxtext they are trying to use it. Weird.

look at it this way:

there is "something" about DX9L related to DX10 in XP

M$ has been 'hinting' at 'something' . . . i have been following the dev kits and they are making stuff that only ran on Vista compatable with XP in the latest releases.
:Q

and from the Dictionary:

coun?ter?point /'ka?nt?r?p??nt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koun-ter-point]
?noun

5. any element that is juxtaposed and contrasted with another.
?verb (used with object)
6. to emphasize or clarify by contrast or juxtaposition.

i'm sure it will be clear later . . . i am just damn impatient to know NOW!

 

[Gstanfor]

DX9.L works on a different driver model though, and that was one of M$ excuses for not giving XP DX10.

Must admit I've been lazy and not followed the dev kits / sdk's myself so far for Vista since I'm largely disinterested at present.

The cynic in me is inclined to think that the increased XP compatability prpobably has a lot to do with the cut down versions of Vista that sprang up recently and the classic GUI they will employ.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
DX9.L works on a different driver model though, and that was one of M$ excuses for not giving XP DX10.

Must admit I've been lazy and not followed the dev kits / sdk's myself so far for Vista since I'm largely disinterested at present.

The cynic in me is inclined to think that the increased XP compatability prpobably has a lot to do with the cut down versions of Vista that sprang up recently and the classic GUI they will employ.

well the cynic in me realizes that EVERYthing M$ does is a 'business decision'.

we know for a fact that it is very possible to make DX10 for XP . . . and if M$ thinks it's to their advantage, they will do so.

we'll see

 

[imported_RedStar]

"So I have to disappoint all of you who expected to run DirectX 10 games under Windows XP (and apologise, huh, Fudo? News Ed.) as there won't be an API to supports it."

Well, this is the first time i have seen the inquirer apologize for getting it "wrong" (distortion on purpose more like). Mine must not have been the only email into them. hehe.

So this is a start. But, cmon ...

 

[A554SS1N]

Surprise surprise, the inquirer is wrong - we all know it's just to generate traffic to their website.

 

[Armorize]

when will the mayhem end and MS just play nice so we dont have to buy new slowwer os's.... I think there will eventually be a dx10 compatible version for xp their just telling us its not for xp to sell some more vista's

 

[Continuity28]

Originally posted by: Armorize
when will the mayhem end and MS just play nice so we dont have to buy new slowwer os's.... I think there will eventually be a dx10 compatible version for xp their just telling us its not for xp to sell some more vista's

You're comparing a product still in beta testing to a product that's been out for about 5 years. Vista is currently slower playing DirectX 9 games, but this may not remain so in the future. It's also not indicative of DirectX 10 performance.

The whole reason we were skeptical of there being a DirectX 10 for XP is because the biggest differences of DirectX 10 in the first place involved the changes made in the Windows driver model and interaction in Vista over XP. You expect Microsoft to completely rewrite Windows XP to match Vista for free? That's what DirectX 10 would require, unless it tried to virtualize the changes (similar to emulation) which would make it much slower than the Vista version.

Microsoft made Vista to improve upon the operating system internals in drastic ways, then they developed a new version of DirectX to take advantage of those changes... and now people wonder why that same new version isn't being matched with XP? To use a completely different situation but similar argument: Why won't my PS2 game play on my PS1? Sure Sony could have made the PS2 games such that it could have been played by the PS1... but then I'm still playing a PS1 game aren't I? They couldn't have taken advantage of the new hardware in a PS2, because I'm trying to play it on a PS1. Same argument, just one is hardware changes/software (PS1->2/games), the other is software changes/software (XP->Vista/DirectX).

 

[Munky]

The whole reason we were skeptical of there being a DirectX 10 for XP is because the biggest differences of DirectX 10 in the first place involved the changes made in the Windows driver model and interaction in Vista over XP.

Or at least that's what MS wants everyone to believe. I dont doubt that there are new features and changes in Vista which DX10 takes advantage of, but I also dont discount the possibility that MS might be exaggerating just how necessary Vista is for DX10, at least as far as game development goes.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I am not sure what to think on the issue. I have my doubts that Windows XP will received DX10 or the DX10 features under a different name. I would be ecstatic if they would do something like that... But my thoughts are in line with their business decisions. They have to make a reason for people to jump ship to Vista. Most gamers probably won't jump to Vista if XP does everything it needs to do. This is why I believe that XP will never receive DX10. I hope I am wrong, because I would rather not spend 'mucho denero' on Vista just to play some new DX10 games in a few years...

 

[yyrkoon]

Uh, where do you 'guys' come up with this crap ?

Windows Vista originally was supposed to ship with two versions of Directx. Directx 9L for hardware unable to handle Directx 10 (D3D 10), and of course Directx 10. Let me nail this to your forehead, in case it hasnt sunk in yet, Directx 10 is NOT backwards compatable with previous versions of Directx, it WILL NOT have any of the legacy ties to previous versions, and it WILL NOT work with hardware that doesnt support it, hence why Vista will most likely ship with two versions, if not ONLY Directx9L until MS has ironed out the software issues with version 10.

Of course, if you had a MSDN subscription, you would know about this, and wouldnt be spreading mis-information such as this around random forums. Anyhow, thanks for reminding me why I keep my post count so low.

 

[imported_RedStar]

As expected ...MS gets blasted for not adding features and sticking with ancient code.
MS makes a slight change to backwards compatibility and all of a sudden its a full blown conspiracy theory. How dare MS try to shed some of the dead weight.

No matter which way MS goes ..too many people are just too happy to blast 'em.

In my day, big blue was the evil empire and MS the under dog. Now MS is the evil empire and big blue is the peaceful force behind the benign open source religion.
How long will it be until we start clawing at the next evil empire --google?

a wee digression perhaps

 

[yyrkoon]

Originally posted by: munky

The whole reason we were skeptical of there being a DirectX 10 for XP is because the biggest differences of DirectX 10 in the first place involved the changes made in the Windows driver model and interaction in Vista over XP.

Or at least that's what MS wants everyone to believe. I dont doubt that there are new features and changes in Vista which DX10 takes advantage of, but I also dont discount the possibility that MS might be exaggerating just how necessary Vista is for DX10, at least as far as game development goes.

Let me ask you a question.

Lets assume you're a owner of a company that writes software. you've had a product out for several years, and have supported it for many years, and at the same time you have a new revolutionary product coming out (soon).

Would you re-write the older software to support things that are implemented in the new software, and thusly losing your self (and share holders) money in the process ?

Software companies are in buisness to make money, just like any other company, and Microsoft is no exception. Microsoft HAS in the past practised some fairly shady tactics in the market to make sure thier product survives, but that does not make them stupid. They have thousands of people to feed, not to mention all of the the MS share holders to take care of.

Windows Vista from XP is not going to be like moving from Win95 to Win98, this is not a 'minor' upgrade. Windows Vista desktop is *supposed* to be 100% hardware driven (with proper hardware) as aposed to Windows XP software model. Changing the Drivers of Windows XP to Directx10 isnt as easy as installing the latest .NET base class library, then Directx 10, as the case with Windows PowerShell (PowerShell was designes as a .NET technology, and not OS specific per se).

I honestly havent a clue how much different the new OS' 'COM model' is going to be from Windows XP, but you can bet your ass, that if it requires new hardware, and DOES NOT offer backwards compatability with older versions of Directx, that its not going to be an easy few days project to make Directx10 possible on XP. Besides, as I've already stated, it would NOT be smart buisness tactics for MS to persue that line of reasoning to begin with.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: yyrkoon

Originally posted by: munky

The whole reason we were skeptical of there being a DirectX 10 for XP is because the biggest differences of DirectX 10 in the first place involved the changes made in the Windows driver model and interaction in Vista over XP.

Or at least that's what MS wants everyone to believe. I dont doubt that there are new features and changes in Vista which DX10 takes advantage of, but I also dont discount the possibility that MS might be exaggerating just how necessary Vista is for DX10, at least as far as game development goes.

Let me ask you a question.

Lets assume you're a owner of a company that writes software. you've had a product out for several years, and have supported it for many years, and at the same time you have a new revolutionary product coming out (soon).

Would you re-write the older software to support things that are implemented in the new software, and thusly losing your self (and share holders) money in the process ?

Software companies are in buisness to make money, just like any other company, and Microsoft is no exception. Microsoft HAS in the past practised some fairly shady tactics in the market to make sure thier product survives, but that does not make them stupid. They have thousands of people to feed, not to mention all of the the MS share holders to take care of.

Windows Vista from XP is not going to be like moving from Win95 to Win98, this is not a 'minor' upgrade. Windows Vista desktop is *supposed* to be 100% hardware driven (with proper hardware) as aposed to Windows XP software model. Changing the Drivers of Windows XP to Directx10 isnt as easy as installing the latest .NET base class library, then Directx 10, as the case with Windows PowerShell (PowerShell was designes as a .NET technology, and not OS specific per se).

I honestly havent a clue how much different the new OS' 'COM model' is going to be from Windows XP, but you can bet your ass, that if it requires new hardware, and DOES NOT offer backwards compatability with older versions of Directx, that its not going to be an easy few days project to make Directx10 possible on XP. Besides, as I've already stated, it would NOT be smart buisness tactics for MS to persue that line of reasoning to begin with.

This is the thing: DX10 was most likely developed with Vista as a target platform, and likewise Vista was developed to support all the changes, features and requirements of DX10. So, I dont expect MS to develop two versions of DX10 to support legacy systems, they'd just be shooting themselves in the foot financially, from decreased Vista sales and the additional work required.

However, I dont buy the story that none of the DX10 API features could not be implemented in DX9, especially the functionality associated with 3D games. I know that DX10 has all these efficiency improvements, but I see no reason why DX9 could not be updated to support unified shaders on appropriate hardware, for example, and thus allow XP/DX9 users to take advantage of the new features in upcoming hardware and future games.

 

[yyrkoon]

Are you sure Intel isnt still the evil empire ? Oh, Wait, AMD just bought out ATI, and it was *supposedly* a hostile take over . . . maybe I should beat my current AM2 system with a sledgehammer, and buy a C2D system ?

Seriously, I hope AMD doesnt ruin ATI, as while I AM a nVidia fan, I still think my GPU company of choice needs competition to keep sharp, and compedative.

On a side note, I for one am glad big blue is no longer in the desktop market like they were 8+ years ago, I dont need large corporations telling me what choices I have for hardware

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: yyrkoon
Uh, where do you 'guys' come up with this crap ?

Windows Vista originally was supposed to ship with two versions of Directx. Directx 9L for hardware unable to handle Directx 10 (D3D 10), and of course Directx 10. Let me nail this to your forehead, in case it hasnt sunk in yet, Directx 10 is NOT backwards compatable with previous versions of Directx, it WILL NOT have any of the legacy ties to previous versions, and it WILL NOT work with hardware that doesnt support it, hence why Vista will most likely ship with two versions, if not ONLY Directx9L until MS has ironed out the software issues with version 10.

Of course, if you had a MSDN subscription, you would know about this, and wouldnt be spreading mis-information such as this around random forums. Anyhow, thanks for reminding me why I keep my post count so low.

do you work for MS?

only come out of the woodwork to spew official propaganda?

What about "the DX9 version which will be the counterpoint of DX10 in XP"? the Crysis Dev must know something more than you.

and i have been watching the Dev kits . . . i DO have a MSDN sub . . . some graphics tools are getting much more compatable with XP then formerly .... specially recently.

 

[Sable]

Originally posted by: gsellis
At least he is a man and admits he got it wrong. That is why I like him.

You w0t?!!?!?!?

What about that BLATENT photoshopping incident with Rydermark? And we've still yet to see any follow up to that.