- Nov 14, 2003
- 159
- 0
- 0
Now that Vista is released, is Microsoft going to release a Windows XP SP3? It would be nice to have a single "wrap-up" package with all updates, even including IE7 and WMP11.
WinXP will be supported until 2014, didn't you get the memo?Originally posted by: bendixG15
Don't hold your breath....
MS is selling Vista, no money in free updates for old OS
Regarding Vista's new features, you said there was "not a *single* one" you liked. I was going to ask if DX10 gaming really held no interest for you... looks like it does, though.Originally posted by: Arkaign
Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10
Originally posted by: mechBgon
Regarding Vista's new features, you said there was "not a *single* one" you liked. I was going to ask if DX10 gaming really held no interest for you... looks like it does, though.Originally posted by: Arkaign
Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10
Except that it isn't. Or else you misunderstand the meaning of the word arbitrary.Yes, but it's totally arbitrary
How are Microsoft being ridiculous? Ridiculous would be backporting an entirely new video driver model to XP for the purposes of running DX10 on XP. It would be a non-trivial undertaking, requiring significant time and money.I *do* think Microsoft is being ridiculous w/DX10 situation, even if I don't game
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: mechBgon
Regarding Vista's new features, you said there was "not a *single* one" you liked. I was going to ask if DX10 gaming really held no interest for you... looks like it does, though.Originally posted by: Arkaign
Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10
Yes, but it's totally arbitrary. It's like saying, after packaging Firefox 3 into a particular build of Linux, that it's a *feature*. There's no credible reason that DX10 should be Vista-only, other than to attempt to force more people to 'upgrade'. I don't game anymore anyway, I run my own business and have a 9 week old son to raise Half a game of solitaire here and there.
I *do* think Microsoft is being ridiculous w/DX10 situation, even if I don't game.
Originally posted by: mechBgon
WinXP will be supported until 2014, didn't you get the memo?Originally posted by: bendixG15
Don't hold your breath....
MS is selling Vista, no money in free updates for old OS
Check your facts more closely, because Windows 2000 is still in its Extended Support phase, and will be so until 7/13/2010. Here's Microsoft's product lifecycle list to help sort this stuff outOriginally posted by: bendixG15
Originally posted by: mechBgon
WinXP will be supported until 2014, didn't you get the memo?Originally posted by: bendixG15
Don't hold your breath....
MS is selling Vista, no money in free updates for old OS
Define ..... s-u-p-p-o-r-t
Win2k was supposed to get support .... and it just went away in a rollup
Originally posted by: Aluvus
Yes, they will. It is scheduled for the first half of 2008.
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10, and if you buy their BS about it not being possible ... lol. Microsoft is getting a lot uglier with their tactics regarding new OS/product releases. I remember being told that USB 2.0 wasn't possible on anything except Win2k or XP with the service pack installed, and then lo and behold, MSI released Win9x USB 2.0 drivers for my old MSI 845 GE-Max mainboard, which I was running a NW 2.4@3.2Ghz on at the time w/98SE. Worked like a charm, totally proving Microsoft wrong on the whole issue. It wasn't that it wasn't possible, they just wanted to try to force more people to upgrade. Same here. WinXP is simply too good for many people to even consider upgrading from, unless of course you FORCE them to by making integral windows components Vista-only. Nasty stuff, really.
Originally posted by: fighterpilot
Or is there someplace that is consolidating the post-SP2 updates in a single file?
Check your facts more closely, because Windows 2000 is still in its Extended Support phase, and will be so until 7/13/2010. Here's Microsoft's product lifecycle list to help sort this stuff out
Originally posted by: Brentx
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: mechBgon
Regarding Vista's new features, you said there was "not a *single* one" you liked. I was going to ask if DX10 gaming really held no interest for you... looks like it does, though.Originally posted by: Arkaign
Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10
Yes, but it's totally arbitrary. It's like saying, after packaging Firefox 3 into a particular build of Linux, that it's a *feature*. There's no credible reason that DX10 should be Vista-only, other than to attempt to force more people to 'upgrade'. I don't game anymore anyway, I run my own business and have a 9 week old son to raise Half a game of solitaire here and there.
I *do* think Microsoft is being ridiculous w/DX10 situation, even if I don't game.
DX10 is a completely new software architecture for DirectX. It would be impossible to port to XP, or at least not a wise decision. It is based on the new WDDM, which depends on WDDM Video drivers to be released from manufacturers. The problem with backporting it is that DX10 and WDDM all depend on User mode drivers. Most of XP's drivers are running in Kernel mode, especially the video drivers, which is why it would not work. You would have to rewrite XP's entire Kernel to get it to work. It is just not feasible.
Yes DX10 was a risky move by Microsoft, but just wait until DX10 games start hitting the market. Then they won't be complaining.
No it isn't impossible, but the rest of your statement is rubbish.*impossible* is an overly strong word for the situation .. the decision to make DX10 Vista-only is nothing more than a cheap move by Microsoft to try to force more people to jump, or to give up PC gaming entirely and go to Xbox360.
I see this sort of statement a lot, and it really shows a fundemental lack of understanding about what is going on here. You can't just make a patch for this because it is dependent on the new Vista video driver model (WDDM). You would have to implement that first before even thinking about doing DX10. And unless you work at Microsoft, it's going to be rather difficult to shim your own approximation of WDDM into XP, given the necessary modifications to the kernel.Loose prediction : someone will make a DX10 patch for XP, from the 3rd party standpoint.
Windows 98 came out of the box with USB support. Windows 95 OSR2.5 had a USB supplement patch on the OSR2 CD that added USB support.Microsoft has lied to me before, telling me that USB 2.0 was impossible on Win9x.
Originally posted by: stash
No it isn't impossible, but the rest of your statement is rubbish.*impossible* is an overly strong word for the situation .. the decision to make DX10 Vista-only is nothing more than a cheap move by Microsoft to try to force more people to jump, or to give up PC gaming entirely and go to Xbox360.
Sure it's possible, anything is. But at what cost? And for what benefit? If you are a shareholder of MSFT, what does the large investment needed to backport DX10 get you?
It's just the way things work when you are a software business. You have to work on putting out the new products that generate revenue and profit for your investors. Taking resources from things like Vista SP1, Longhorn Server, Media Center, Windows Home Server, etc would be a tremendously stupid business decision. It has nothing to do with forcing people to do anything. A lot of the same people who complain that DX10 isn't being backported will drop hundreds of dollars on new video cards without blinking. Sometimes they'll do it more than once a year.
Being a gamer almost by definition necessitates that you be on the bleeding edge of eveything...hardware and software. The gamer chooses to partake in this expensive hobby, nobody is forcing him to buy any of the hardware of software they buy. So the irony is quite apparent if you think about it.
Originally posted by: Solema
Wow Arkaign really has it out for Microsoft. They are no different than any other software company. Arkaign, how is Microsoft any different than the Adobes, Nvidias, and Apples of the world? Sure, Apple could backport almost every feature in their upcoming OSX update, and Adobe could backport every new update to Photoshop. But stop blindly hating and think for a second. How would ANY of these companies make any money if they just backported everything and never gave any of their consumers REASON to purchase an upgrade?
Arkaign, it's Business 101. It's the same reason you work for a company and don't run one yourself. Try starting your own business and try spending tons of time working on something and giving it to your customers for free. See you long you last.
People like you are what's wrong with the tech world. Even just a small modicum of intelligence and logic is all that's needed to realize such simple facts of business.
Originally posted by: Solema
Wow Arkaign really has it out for Microsoft. They are no different than any other software company. Arkaign, how is Microsoft any different than the Adobes, Nvidias, and Apples of the world? Sure, Apple could backport almost every feature in their upcoming OSX update, and Adobe could backport every new update to Photoshop. But stop blindly hating and think for a second. How would ANY of these companies make any money if they just backported everything and never gave any of their consumers REASON to purchase an upgrade?
Arkaign, it's Business 101. It's the same reason you work for a company and don't run one yourself. Try starting your own business and try spending tons of time working on something and giving it to your customers for free. See you long you last.
People like you are what's wrong with the tech world. Even just a small modicum of intelligence and logic is all that's needed to realize such simple facts of business.