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?
Originally posted by: sourceninja
Doesnt' bother me at all, by time time DX10 games start becoming common cedega should have dx10 support.
Originally posted by: stash
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.
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: 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???
Originally posted by: Stumps
Originally posted by: 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???
Umm...dickhead, you seem to forget that DirectX was orginally written for the Win9x Kernel not the NT kernel...other than allowing for more advanced features to be incorporated in software that uses directx..it hasn't changed from the original Win9x version...so naturally DX9 works on the Win9x kernel...because that is what it was designed for.
IIRC DirectX was backported to the NT kernel...just so WinNT could run "some" of the software that Win9x was capable of running.
once again you open your mouth and only sh1t dribbles out as usual...do you have ANY clue what you are babbling about...I don't think so.
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: 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.
How did this whole thread continue on with such a farse of a premise?Originally posted by: Link19
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.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.
<snip>
Originally posted by: cubby1223
How did this whole thread continue on with such a farse of a premise?Originally posted by: Link19
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.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.
<snip>
Yeah I gave a BS analogy - but it was to a BS post, so it was the perfect analogy. All you are is a whinny person who doesn't seem to realize that 98 was written before XP. Not only that, you don't understand why Win98 was written in the first place, and you're never going to listen to reasoning, so there really is no point of this thread continuing.
Actually, maybe I'll give you a hint. Your reasonings for wanting DX10 written for WinXP is the same reasonings why people wanted Win98 over WinNT. *gasp* how could that possibly be true?!!
Umm...dickhead, you seem to forget that DirectX was orginally written for the Win9x Kernel not the NT kernel...other than allowing for more advanced features to be incorporated in software that uses directx..it hasn't changed from the original Win9x version...so naturally DX9 works on the Win9x kernel...because that is what it was designed for.
IIRC DirectX was backported to the NT kernel...just so WinNT could run "some" of the software that Win9x was capable of running.
once again you open your mouth and only sh1t dribbles out as usual...do you have ANY clue what you are babbling about...I don't think so.
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?
Originally posted by: EndGame
No no no, this is exactly the problem.Originally posted by: Canterwood
Can I suggest that the OP seriously needs to get laid.
Originally posted by: kobymu
No no no, this is exactly the problem.Originally posted by: Canterwood
Can I suggest that the OP seriously needs to get laid.
One day when link was left alone in his room by his parents after bed time, he started to "tinker" with his windows98 when all of a sudden windows.... "touched" him.
Ever since every time link tries to get laid he gets a flashback and run over here and post his "pos os" in the attempt to do some os therapy.
Poor boy