Does it anger you that DX10 won't be released for Windows XP/2003?

[Link19]

It angers me. Windows XP is already a good OS, and it should still be supported for the latest games and hardware even years after Vista is released.

I mean what about gamers who want to be able to run the latest games using the latest video cards, but don't want to be forced into Vista because they think it is too bloated and don't like some of the features in it that will be forced upon you?

DX10 should be available for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.

On the other hand, DX9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only. In NO WAY should DX9 have supported piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. How sad is it that there won't be a DX version that isn't compatible with POS Windows 98/ME, but at the same time won't require Vista. Windows XP is already a good OS, so DX10 should be fully compatible with it. Starting with DX11, Vista will have been out long enough that DX11 can be made for Vista and above only.

What do you think?

 

[brainwrinkle]

I doubt game developers will make a game DX10 only for quite a while. Why make a game that only 10% of the user base has the ability to play? It would be business suicide. Game developers will continue to support XP until the majority of gamers have DX10 hardware and Vista.

And no, I'm not angry. I would rather have large improvements in DX10 than a worthless upgrade that supports XP too. The main reason they didn't port it is the difference in driver models. Vista drivers will run in usermode, so there would be quite a lot of work in porting it to XP with kernel mode drivers.

 

[cubby1223]

DX10 should have been for Vista and above only. In NO WAY should DX10 have supported piece of sh*t Windows XP/2003. How sad is it that there won't be a DX version that isn't compatible with POS Windows XP/2003. Vista is already a superior OS, so DX10 should only be fully compatible with it.

 

[MrChad]

Does it anger you that game developers create games that play like sh!t on the PC you bought just 2 years ago?

As brainwrinkle mentioned, there are a lot of changes to the Vista driver model that likely need to be accounted for in the development of DirectX. Backporting DX10 would likely be complex and expensive for Microsoft. As with anything in the PC gaming realm, if you want the latest and greatest games, you have to upgrade.

 

[nweaver]

lol, Link just makes me laugh...DX 10 SHOULD be, but DX9 SHOULDN'T have been

Maybe MS should start consulting you on what it does and does not support/backport

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
DX10 should have been for Vista and above only. In NO WAY should DX10 have supported piece of sh*t Windows XP/2003. How sad is it that there won't be a DX version that isn't compatible with POS Windows XP/2003. Vista is already a superior OS, so DX10 should only be fully compatible with it.

That post of full of garbage, Windows 98/ME were POS operating systems. Windows XP and Windows 2003 are already good opertaing systems. So no trying to spout off that BS analogy.

The differences between Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP are so huge. They are completely different operating system architectures. The difference between Windows XP and Windows Vista won't be that much as Vista is still based on the same OS heritage as Windows XP is.

DX9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only. It was a huge mistake by Microsoft to make DX9 compatible with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. Windows 2000/XP were light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME, even for their time.

But DX10 should be made available for Windows XP because it is still a Windows NT based OS and thus still fine quality and native to the same OS heritage that Vista will be.

 

[rbV5]

Your dorkrant is amusingly ironic. Nice one

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: nweaver
lol, Link just makes me laugh...DX 10 SHOULD be, but DX9 SHOULDN'T have been

Maybe MS should start consulting you on what it does and does not support/backport

DX9 should have been back ported to Windows 2000 because Windows 2000 is still a good quality OS. It should NOT have been back ported to POS Windows 98/ME because Windows 98/ME were piece of sh*t operating systems.

If Microsoft made DirectX 9 compatible with only Windows XP and above, and not Windows 2000, people running Windows 2000 would have a right to complain about being forced to upgrade so fast because Windows 2000 is a good OS and should be supported. But anyone running such a piece of sh*t operating system in Windows 98/ME should have been forced to upgrade, or been stuck using older software because Widnows 98/ME were POS operating systems and should have been cut off a long time ago.

Why weren't people forced to upgrade from POS Windows 98/ME back in 2003 to be able to use DX9. But people in 2007 will be forced to upgrade from an already good OS like Windows XP if they want to use DX10. It flat out disgust me. It should have been the other way around because Windows NT based operating systems should live, while that piece of turd called Win98/ME should have died a long long time ago. DX9 performance has probably suffered because Microsoft made it compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. If DX9 were for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only, the performance would have been so much better because the native OS heritage of Windows 2000/XP/2003 (being Windows NT) is so different and has nothing in common with the native OS heritage of POS Windows 98/ME.

Back porting DX10 to WIndows XP WON'T hurt performance very much, if at all because Windows Vista is still native to the same OS heritage (Windows NT) as Windows XP is.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: brainwrinkle
I doubt game developers will make a game DX10 only for quite a while. Why make a game that only 10% of the user base has the ability to play? It would be business suicide. Game developers will continue to support XP until the majority of gamers have DX10 hardware and Vista.

And no, I'm not angry. I would rather have large improvements in DX10 than a worthless upgrade that supports XP too. The main reason they didn't port it is the difference in driver models. Vista drivers will run in usermode, so there would be quite a lot of work in porting it to XP with kernel mode drivers.

Usermode drivers are slower than kernel mode drivers anyways. They could just make it a kernel mode driver in Windows XP. How much work can that be.

If Microsoft could make DX9 comaptible with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME which are a comnpletely different OS architecture than Windows NT/2000/XP/2003, than there is absolutely no reason DX10 can't be made compatible with Windows XP, without much if any of a performance penalty. The performance penalty was probably substantial for making DX9 compatible with the completely different OS architecture in piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME as well as the good operating systems based on the other completely different OS architecture in Windows 2000/XP/2003.

DX10 shoukd be made for Windows XP. Windows XP is still native to the same OS architecture as Windows Vista will be, so it shouldn't be that hard for Microsoft to make DX10 for Windows XP.

 

[sourceninja]

Doesnt' bother me at all, by time time DX10 games start becoming common cedega should have dx10 support.

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: cubby1223
DX10 should have been for Vista and above only. In NO WAY should DX10 have supported piece of sh*t Windows XP/2003. How sad is it that there won't be a DX version that isn't compatible with POS Windows XP/2003. Vista is already a superior OS, so DX10 should only be fully compatible with it.

That post of full of garbage, Windows 98/ME were POS operating systems. Windows XP and Windows 2003 are already good opertaing systems. So no trying to spout off that BS analogy.

The differences between Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP are so huge. They are completely different operating system architectures. The difference between Windows XP and Windows Vista won't be that much as Vista is still based on the same OS heritage as Windows XP is.

Actually the differences between Vista and XP/2000 will be at least as big, if not much bigger then the differences between 2000/98.

Moving video drivers from Kernel mode to User mode alone is a MASSIVE change, that has a huge effect on DirectX.

Its a long article, but a good read if you like DirectX: Read

 

[Link19]

Actually the differences between Vista and XP/2000 will be at least as big, if not much bigger then the differences between 2000/98.

Moving video drivers from Kernel mode to User mode alone is a MASSIVE change, that has a huge effect on DirectX.

Its a long article, but a good read if you like DirectX: Read

No they won't! Because Vista is still based on Windows NT, while Windows 98 is based on a completely different OS architecture than Windows NT. So the changes from Windows 98 to 2000/XP are much bigger than the changes from XP to Vista. But the changes from XP to Vista will be bigger than the changes from Windows 2000 to XP, but still not nearly as big as the change from piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME to Windows 2000.

 

[Nothinman]

Nope.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Link19

Actually the differences between Vista and XP/2000 will be at least as big, if not much bigger then the differences between 2000/98.

Moving video drivers from Kernel mode to User mode alone is a MASSIVE change, that has a huge effect on DirectX.

Its a long article, but a good read if you like DirectX: Read

No they won't! Because Vista is still based on Windows NT, while Windows 98 is based on a completely different OS architecture than Windows NT. So the changes from Windows 98 to 2000/XP are much bigger than the changes from XP to Vista. But the changes from XP to Vista will be bigger than the changes from Windows 2000 to XP, but still not nearly as big as the change from piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME to Windows 2000.

Read the article. Especially this page.

Why it's only for Windows Vista

ExtremeTech: Part of what you said about making the whole thing more efficient relies on the new driver model in Vista, is that right?

Blythe: That is correct.

ExtremeTech: A lot of people are complaining, "Oh, why won't we have DirectX 10 for Windows XP." There's a good technical explanation for that, where it's really not possible to do what DX10 does in the Windows XP driver model.

Blythe: Definitely in the long term there's a vision in how we think the applications and the runtime and the hardware need to work together. What we've done in Vista was to make some major changes to try to improve that. We've got a number of additional things we wanted to do over the next few years to try to make that even better, and it's just hard to say, "oh well we'll just retrofit all that into Windows XP." That kind of put us in this position of saying, do we really want to get all these big improvements, and what do we have to give up in order to do it?

ExtremeTech: So if the decision had been made, "Yes, we're going to try to make all this work on XP," you'd really have to sort of hamstring DirectX 10. You'd have to say, "Then we can't do this, we can't do that?"

Blythe: That's right. We would probably end up with something that, from an API point of view it might not be that different, but what we ultimately get for performance and things like that, you might not get nearly as dramatic an improvement as we're hoping to see over the next few years.

Donahue: There are a bunch of other benefits to the new driver model, as well. Not just the performance and graphics component. It all has to do with graphics, obviously. But the stability and other parts that the new driver model brings in are a big advantage.

 

[stash]

I love the armchair software developer attitude Link. Just flip the backport switch and poof..DX10 on XP. It's just that easy.

Although I hear that if you post rants on Internet forums entirely in bold font, Microsoft will do what you ask. So feel free to use more bold since it's clear you're much smarter than anyone else here, and we need to have your manifestos explained to us through mind-numbing repitition and bold fonts.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: stash
I love the armchair software developer attitude Link. Just flip the backport switch and poof..DX10 on XP. It's just that easy.

Although I hear that if you post rants on Internet forums entirely in bold font, Microsoft will do what you ask. So feel free to use more bold since it's clear you're much smarter than anyone else here, and we need to have your manifestos explained to us through mind-numbing repitition and bold fonts.

DX9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 only then. Why was it compatible with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. It shouldn't' have been!! Just as DX10 won't be compatible with Windows XP.

Windows 98/ME were POS operating systems, so why was DX9 made compatible with them???

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
DX10 should have been for Vista and above only. In NO WAY should DX10 have supported piece of sh*t Windows XP/2003. How sad is it that there won't be a DX version that isn't compatible with POS Windows XP/2003. Vista is already a superior OS, so DX10 should only be fully compatible with it.

I agree 100%! :thumbsup:

 

[stash]

DX9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 only then. Why was it compatible with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. It hsouldn't have been. way more so than DX10 shouldn't be compatible with Windows XP.

Good job posting entirely bold. At least now I know you have some listening capabilities.

The fact that DX9 works on 9x as well as 2000 and XP is irrelevant. I'm not a DX developer, but I would imagine it is significantly easier to backport DX9 to 9x than it is to backport DX10, which relies on an entirely different driver model, to XP.

 

[RebateMonger]

I get upset by the whole DX8, DX9, DX10 thing. It's ridiculous that developers write games that won't work with recent earlier DX versions and earlier video cards. I simply won't buy the games.

 

[doornail]

Did you play boat horn in the school band?

 

[jlbenedict]

how come with every fvcking thread you start, even if it pertains to Windows XP or Windows 2000, you ALWAYS find a way to throw something in your comments about Windows 98??

I am 99% sure you have some serious mental issues. I'm serious. Take what I say seriously.. go get some professional, mental help.

 

[thegorx]

I think you mean 98% sure

Personally I think if they were smart they'd do everything they can to keep PC gamers happy before we all start running linux.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
how come with every fvcking thread you start, even if it pertains to Windows XP or Windows 2000, you ALWAYS find a way to throw something in your comments about Windows 98??

I am 99% sure you have some serious mental issues. I'm serious. Take what I say seriously.. go get some professional, mental help.

It is because I am bothered that DX9 was compatible with POS Windows 98/ME and that DX10 won't be compatible with Windows XP. That is why.

 

[sonoma1993]

isnt halo 2 for the pc suppose tobe windows vista only/ directx 10 only?

in a few threads, few posters, mention usermode drivers and kernel modedrivers? what excatly are they?

 

[Xonoahbin]

Originally posted by: Link19
It angers me. Windows XP is already a good OS, and it should still be supported for the latest games and hardware even years after Vista is released.

I mean what about gamers who want to be able to run the latest games using the latest video cards, but don't want to be forced into Vista because they think it is too bloated and don't like some of the features in it that will be forced upon you?

DX10 should be available for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.

On the other hand, DX9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only. In NO WAY should DX9 have supported piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. How sad is it that there won't be a DX version that isn't compatible with POS Windows 98/ME, but at the same time won't require Vista. Windows XP is already a good OS, so DX10 should be fully compatible with it. Starting with DX11, Vista will have been out long enough that DX11 can be made for Vista and above only.

What do you think?

I think you just made yourself look completely hypocritical.