Gabe Newell: DirectX 10 for Vista was a mistake
- Thread starter dafloppyone
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,277
- Location
- England
Give Gabe a lolly
So Vista hasnt taken off yet, to me its just a sneak peak of things to come... SP1 around the corner, bioshocks foggy mist and Crysis being Vista only... looks like we all have no choice come this fall.
So Vista hasnt taken off yet, to me its just a sneak peak of things to come... SP1 around the corner, bioshocks foggy mist and Crysis being Vista only... looks like we all have no choice come this fall.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 2,642
Well i have an 8800GTS with XP, and im only interested in performance and not DX10
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,277
- Location
- England
If the Xbox360 could have been upgraded to a DX10 by swapping a graphics module then I'd expect quite a few of the 45 million (or whatever the high number was) to buy into it.
Consoles - you have the ability to produce one code base and get the best performance for cost out of it (talking as a dev) however you also can't go beyond it to better your competitors - hang on.. maybe game play may do that
Consoles - you have the ability to produce one code base and get the best performance for cost out of it (talking as a dev) however you also can't go beyond it to better your competitors - hang on.. maybe game play may do that
Given the % of users who can use DX10, I think he's making a fair point. Developement costs money, and it may not be viable to develop code that can only be used by 2-3% of gamers.
DX10 should have been made possible to implement in XP so as to broaden it's exposure and encourage developers to take it on.
As it is, Vista has little to offer over XP, and DX10 has had very little to offer over DX9 so far.
The fact that Vista is still lacking DX9 performance wise is a major blunder by Micromoneys.
Vista is actually slower and more bloated than XP! It would be forgiven if Vista actually offered really good must-have features over XP, but thats not the case at all, it's just a few more useless bells and whistles for the average user.
As someone stated above, Micromoneys have shown sheer arrogance towards the gaming community as a whole. I sincerely hope devs take note this year, and move their expertise towards open source technologies. that would spare us all this sillyness in the future
To be fair joo monkey gamer wont go out and buy a brand new OS just because it came out. There only going to get it with a new PC. Just look at the survey, most people are still using single core cpu's and nvidia 6600 series graphics cards. Those kinds of people are not going to go out and buy vista until it comes on there next pc from the purple place or ****.
Only 4-5% of people actually own a graphics card capable of DX10.
Also this argument happened meny times around the birth of XP did it not? Im prity sure that chart would have looked around the same 10 months after XP was released. Thats windows 98 with 90% and XP with 10%
Give people a chance to actually buy the OS as it takes time for half of the population of the world upgrade there PC's.
Only 4-5% of people actually own a graphics card capable of DX10.
Also this argument happened meny times around the birth of XP did it not? Im prity sure that chart would have looked around the same 10 months after XP was released. Thats windows 98 with 90% and XP with 10%
Give people a chance to actually buy the OS as it takes time for half of the population of the world upgrade there PC's.
thats spot on oh and just one more thing pc games *** be soooo much better if consoles wasnt around becasue consoles are holding pcs back
The fact that Vista is still lacking DX9 performance wise is a major blunder by Micromoneys.
Vista is actually slower and more bloated than XP! It would be forgiven if Vista actually offered really good must-have features over XP, but thats not the case at all, it's just a few more useless bells and whistles for the average user.
As someone stated above, Micromoneys have shown sheer arrogance towards the gaming community as a whole. I sincerely hope devs take note this year, and move their expertise towards open source technologies. that would spare us all this sillyness in the future
No, actually, it is you who is showing your arrogance here. Vista is faster than XP at pretty much everything, including DX9. It also has a lot of good improvements which add up to make it better than XP in many ways. The real improvement, however, is hidden below the surface. It is, in fact, designed for things like high end graphics and has the potential, once it has been exploited by non-bitching developers, to be vastly superior to XP.
Everyone was saying the same thing about XP when it came out. Come to think about it everyone has always said it about everything Microsoft do. Seems they can't do anything right, yet over 90% of the worlds computer uses suggest otherwise. People are just scared of change. Give it time and all will be well once again.
PS, please use their real name as using something like Micromoneys makes you look like a childish fool
Last edited:
No, actually, it is you who is showing your arrogance here. Vista is faster than XP at pretty much everything, including DX9. It also has a lot of good improvements which add up to make it better than XP in many ways. The real improvement, however, is hidden below the surface. It is, in fact, designed for things like high end graphics and has the potential, once it has been exploited by non-bitching developers, to be vastly superior to XP.
Everyone was saying the same thing about XP when it came out. Come to think about it everyone has always said it about everything Microsoft do. Seems they can't do anything right, yet over 90% of the worlds computer uses suggest otherwise. People are just scared of change. Give it time and all will be well once again.
PS, please use their real name as using something like Micromoneys makes you look like a childish fool
Got to agree Vista seems superiour to XP and snappier as well. While microsoft may not be perfect and have made mistakes (Windows Me) they also do a lot of things well. There was a slight difference in fps in games on Vistas release (read somewhere that this was due to Vista emulating DX9 through DX10, don't know how accurate that is) but seems to be about the same on both OS's now.
I don't think MS thought that by having DX10 only in vista means it would shift more units. Sure it's a carrot alright but to be honest the process of change will be slow. This is a computing site thus most of the people reading the gaming forums will be up to date with graphics and vista. My parents' OS along with 10s of millions of PCs around the world runs what the manufacturer puts in them. Hardly any of your general users, especially SMEs or small companies would take the risk of upgrading to VISTA as the potential risk Vs benefit is too great.
Vista will become more popular as people start to buy PCs again as most are only sold with VISTA oem, expect a jump in user numbers after christmas.
Vista will become more popular as people start to buy PCs again as most are only sold with VISTA oem, expect a jump in user numbers after christmas.
Well I think we could safely say DX10 got hardcoded into Vista so Microsoft would have a backup to their claim of why they couldn't bring it to XP. Not only that but they prefer it that way since it forces people to Vista from XP for people that like to game.
Oct 10th I think someone said in another thread
The way I see it is it's all about the the business model(s). When you make a game you have to make sure that you can sell enough copies to cover your costs plus make a healthy profit. Modern games take a huge amount of money to make, much more than when dx5-8 where the standard.
So you have to make sure that your target market is big enough to sell enough copies of the game to cover your costs. Many developers do this by supporting both a games console platform & pcs. If they support the xbox 360 they massively increase their potential number of customers.
The problem is that the 360 doesn't do directx 10, and such a small percentage of desktop PCs support DX10 (vista + dx10 gfx card), they would be committing business suicide by creating exclusive DX10 games.
This coupled with the re-development costs and the fact that dx9 works under vista means there is no reason for game developers to move from dx9. Essentially Microsoft have shot themselves in the foot with the success of the xbox 360, no sane game developer wants to exclude themselves from such a profitable market.
akakjs
So you have to make sure that your target market is big enough to sell enough copies of the game to cover your costs. Many developers do this by supporting both a games console platform & pcs. If they support the xbox 360 they massively increase their potential number of customers.
The problem is that the 360 doesn't do directx 10, and such a small percentage of desktop PCs support DX10 (vista + dx10 gfx card), they would be committing business suicide by creating exclusive DX10 games.
This coupled with the re-development costs and the fact that dx9 works under vista means there is no reason for game developers to move from dx9. Essentially Microsoft have shot themselves in the foot with the success of the xbox 360, no sane game developer wants to exclude themselves from such a profitable market.
akakjs