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

[n0cmonkey]

Not at all, out with the old, in with the new.

2k3 doesn't need DirectX at all.

 

[imported_LoKe]

People still use Windows?

 

[pcgeek11]

I can't believe this is even a conversation.

WOW!

pcgeek11

 

[Seeruk]

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?

Precisely

The only important thing is that DX10 does a fine job with DX9 based games and from my experimenting so far... it does.

 

[Seeruk]

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

As my eyes read from left to right... it's strange how I always know what will be written as soon as I see the word sourceninja

 

[Seeruk]

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.

 

[spherrod]

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.

As several people have explained there are very good technical reasons why DX10 cannot be easily backported to XP - have you missed this?

 

[tlhudson69]

If DX10 was ported to XP some people would not upgrade. Now yo HAVE to upgrade to play Halo 2 and all the other games that M$oft can get there grubby hands on. BTW I have only been using XP for about a year. (98 was ok--ME blows chunks) If there software were so great why do i have to update so often????!!!! I shure hope FEAR 2 does not use DX10. Hey maby some awsome code hackers will port it for us. I have seen some stranger things done in the name of a gaming rig. ps. anyone know a lunix distro that will allow you to play DX9 games? ie FEAR--Quake---Doom 3---BF2??

 

[drag]

Doom 3 isn't a directx game. It's a opengl game.. although it will probably use directx for some of the sound/controls stuff or maybe menus or such. They have a native version for Linux.

They have native versions of all the id games for Linux including many based on id engines. (Like quake4).

For non-native games like BF2 or Fear often you can play them through Cedega with varying levels of success. Some work well, others work badly, others work not at all. Depends.

Cedega is basicly Win32 API + DirectX 9 + support for cdrom copy protection technologies. Subscription is 5 bucks a month, minimal 3 months. Unlimited updates, you download whatever version you want as long as your subscribed. They provide code for people to compile sometimes without subscription, but the GUI you get from the subscription makes things very easy.

They have a game database.. 5 stars are perfect, 4 stars have small bugs that don't affect gameplay (like cutscenes don't work all the time), 3 stars often have severe usability issues and less is worthless. Apparently BF2 works well depending on what version your using. F.E.A.R. won't work.

I prefer native Linux games most of the time.

 

[Sunner]

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.

He's right you know.
People who go of life long vendettas against, say a rapist who raped someone they know/love, I can perfectly well understand that.
Holding a life long grudge against a drunk driver who ran over your girl/boyfriend, perfectly understandable.
Having such a huge hatered for an OS that you don't need to run unless you want to...there's just something wrong with this one.

 

[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.

 

[jlbenedict]

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.

I tried to explain this to Link in a thread a while back. I don't think it ever sinks in though..

I guess Link still doesn't realize that while Windows 98 gamers were enjoying DirectX games, die hard NT 4.0 users were stuck with DirectX 3. When Windows 98 came out, the only other real option at the time was Windows NT 4.0 workstation. At that time, NT was EXPENSIVE, more so than today. So, a majority of the public chose the less expensive route, Windows 98.

Not until Windows 2000 and XP, was the NT based lineup enjoying the advances in DirectX implementation.

 

[Smilin]

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.

Usermode drivers???

Link, you have pretty much no idea what you are talking about. You don't know squat about Vista or DX10 architecture. Why don't you wait until there is a game out that you can't play on XP then start bitching.

You've preemptively bunched your own panties here.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

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.

98 was a great os for its time. i never had any problems with it.


did you get left alone and it did bad things to you or something?

 

[Brazen]

Does it anger you that Link19 is not yet locked up in a padded room?

 

[cubby1223]

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.
<snip>

How did this whole thread continue on with such a farse of a premise?

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?!!

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

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.
<snip>

How did this whole thread continue on with such a farse of a premise?

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?!!

Windows 98 is a POS OS. Windows XP is a good OS. So WIndows 98 should have died as soon as Widnows XP was released. On the other hand, Windows XP should live on for a long long time even after Vista is released because Windows XP is still a good OS. POS Windows 98/ME were not!!

 

[Link19]

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.

Sp what?? Doesn't matter at all. DX9 shoudl have still be written for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only!!

DX was only originally written for Windows 9X because Microsoft choose to do it that way. It has nothing to do with the fact that Windows 9X was more suited for that kind of stuff because it was NOT!! It was all part of what Microsoft choose to do which was a big mistake!! Enough said.

Windows 98/ME were piece of sh*t operating systems. OS/2 WARP, Linux, Solaris, BSD would all kick the pants out of Windows 98SE any day. If only there were native Linux and OS/2 WARP binaries for all the same applications written for the piece of sh*t classic based Windows OS, the whole IT industry would have been so much better off the last 10 years. Enough said.

 

[MrChad]

Let's stop feeding the troll, folks. Let this thread die.

 

[Canterwood]

Can I suggest that the OP seriously needs to get laid.

 

[EndGame]

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?

Nope......doesn't anger me in the least................but it does make me laugh that it angers you!

Seriously though...........listen to the poster above..........if this "angers" you and with your obvious hatred of an "operating system"..............you have some serious issues and based from this, I'd bet those issues don't stop with these. Seek some proffessional help and soon.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Nope......doesn't anger me in the least................but it does make me laugh that it angers you!

Seriously though...........listen to the poster above..........if this "angers" you and with your obvious hatred of an "operating system"..............you have some serious issues and based from this, I'd bet those issues don't stop with these. Seek some proffessional help and soon.

[/quote]

"Seek some professional help". Teeheee.


Link, here is a link for ya: http://www.pcrawallst.com/

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: Canterwood
Can I suggest that the OP seriously needs to get laid.

No no no, this is exactly the problem.

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

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: kobymu

Originally posted by: Canterwood
Can I suggest that the OP seriously needs to get laid.

No no no, this is exactly the problem.

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

No, the problem is that compared to what we could and should have had in OS/2 WARP, Windows 98 was a piece of sh*t operating system. Far better operating systems existed back then, its just that Microsoft and other market forces made it so that almost all applications were designed for the most inferior OS Win9X kernel at the time.

Windows 95/98/ME were by far the worst opertaing systems made since 1994. That is a technical fact!!

 

[Smilin]

haha I just saw this in your sig:



Windows 98/ME aren't even real 32-bit operating systems. They are pseudo 32-bit code on top of a native 16-bit architecture!!




hahaha. you are such a monkey. Sure 9x is a POS but you don't know why!


What does all this 9x crap have to do with DX10 again?