DX10 is do-able on Windows XP [INQ]

Richdog · 11 Jul 2007 at 09:21

Taken from here http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40913

Microsoft backpedals for Nvidia, you lose

By Charlie Demerjian: Wednesday 11 July 2007, 08:56

EVER WONDER WHY MS refuses to release DX10 for XP, forcing users to Linux, and barring that, Vista - also known as Me II? It is easy, there was a technical reason, but it shot that down when Nvidia couldn't cut it. Now it is simply arm twisting.
The original reason was that DX10 required graphics memory to be virtualisable, a laudable goal. You can see hints of it here and here among other places. This was a good thing, perhaps a really good thing, and Microsoft was clamping down on requirements with the usual subtlety of a convicted monopolist.

This would not work with XP, and that was fine and dandy. It was an honest technical reason why you could not backport DX10 to XP without a major rip and replace operation. Microsoft wasn't going to bend on this one at all.

Then something odd happened. Nvidia had about as much success implementing this required feature as it did with it Me II drivers, that is to say, none. It couldn't do it, but it was required for DX10. What's an arm twisting Vole to do? Backpedal obviously.

So, MS threw NV a life preserver and made GPU memory virtualisation completely optional. ATI, which had implemented a dandy memory virtualisation scheme got screwed, or at least got what everyone who partners with MS got. Oh wait, I said that.

In any case, in doing this, MS removed the only impediment to backporting DX10 to XP, it is now, and has been for quite a while, completely possible. MS is screwing its customers to force an upgrade and you are a pawn in their revenue generation scheme.

Sadly, I will admit that I did upgrade. I went from XP to Ubuntu and bought a Wii. Life could not be better now, gaming is fun again, and spyware is a distant memory. µ

Written by the quite frankly un-journalistic and "bitter against the world, especially Microsoft and Sony" Charlie but it kind of makes a mockery of the people who swore blind that DX10 on Vista was 100% necessary and simply couldn't be done on XP, requiring some form of ******* DX9.5-esque method. Just a curious and interesting titbit of news is all...

Steedie · 11 Jul 2007 at 09:29

Well the guy who wrote it is a complete idiot

But good to hear its possible, just unlikely it will ever happen

Noto · 11 Jul 2007 at 09:42

well you may dislike the journalist but at least he is putting out the news, even if you dont like his slant

Rather hear something and make my own conclusions than have it swept under the carpet like most do these days. I hate the way some sites and people work, stuff like - Companies that will only give review items if they garantee good reviews, one semi bad review and you wont receive future products.

robg1701 · 11 Jul 2007 at 09:49

Im on the fence on this one. I already bought vista. Like anyone i enjoy a free upgrade, but XP is almost 6 years old, thats the longest any of their mainstream OS has been the major OS at the time really. At what point will people let M$ actually sell them somthing new without moaning about it ? We buy new cars more regularly, even when we dont have to but because we want to.

Past versions of DX have just been installable like a patch, but DX10 and Vista are tools M$ have spent far mroe money to develop and will help take gaming to another level on the PC. They dont make the kind of license fees from games for windows they do for the xbox, but that is a tool that people happily pay for then spend far mroe on games for it due to said license fees.

Then theres the way everyone drops up to £450 on a DX10 capable vidcard, then moans when they actually have to pay for DX10/Vista and the ?(almost non existant) DX10 games to play on it. Double standard anyone? At some point they have to be allowed to charge for the new work they do, no?

On the other hand, bad M$ for screwing their partners again, and bad nvidia for screwing their customers again

Richdog · 11 Jul 2007 at 09:58

robg1701 said:
Im on the fence on this one. I already bought vista. Like anyone i enjoy a free upgrade, but XP is almost 6 years old, thats the longest any of their mainstream OS has been the major OS at the time really. At what point will people let M$ actually sell them somthing new without moaning about it ? We buy new cars more regularly, even when we dont have to but because we want to.

Past versions of DX have just been installable like a patch, but DX10 and Vista are tools M$ have spent far mroe money to develop and will help take gaming to another level on the PC. They dont make the kind of license fees from games for windows they do for the xbox, but that is a tool that people happily pay for then spend far mroe on games for it due to said license fees.

Then theres the way everyone drops up to £450 on a DX10 capable vidcard, then moans when they actually have to pay for DX10/Vista and the ?(almost non existant) DX10 games to play on it. Double standard anyone? At some point they have to be allowed to charge for the new work they do, no?

I think you kind of missed the bigger picture here...

MystaEB · 11 Jul 2007 at 09:59

Really poor article. It seems to be aimed more at bashing Vista than reporting that DX10 could be possible on XP. DX10 on XP sounds great, but it's just a temporary solution, we're all going to end up using Vista. It's inevitable.

I still fail to understand the hostility towards Vista. It works great for me, gaming performance is barely 2-3% different compared to XP and in some games it's noticably better. Vista just takes some gentle tweaking to remove all the gunk that comes with it, once stripped down it works fine. For me, at least.

lay-z-boy · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:09

I'm beginning to see why everyone at XS gets :mad:

when someone posts something to do with the Inq or fud.

Utter garbage, vista is MeII? :rolleyes:

helmutcheese · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:15

HAHA, never heard of Vista as ME II, thats a good one, I dont like it and know it was a half baked OS thrown out the door 2 years late and I miss the Real Codename Longhorn I beta tested.

,some dude has a project to put DX10 in XP, kinda grey area though and may be a scam as he promotes games for sale on site. "Alky Project"

/me looks at his sealed free copy of Ultimate, waiting on SP1

Richdog · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:16

lay-z-boy said:
Utter garbage, vista is MeII?

Why you're focusing on one stupid comment in the article I have no idea... that point is the valid information on DX10 is it not?

helmutcheese · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:20

If Nvidia can do DX10 in Vista, I see no reason they couldnt have made a driver for XP that was DX10, I for one know that site can talk crap mostly, takw all sites with pinch of salt.

Noto · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:22

MystaEB said:
Really poor article. It seems to be aimed more at bashing Vista than reporting that DX10 could be possible on XP. DX10 on XP sounds great, but it's just a temporary solution, we're all going to end up using Vista. It's inevitable.

I still fail to understand the hostility towards Vista. It works great for me, gaming performance is barely 2-3% different compared to XP and in some games it's noticably better. Vista just takes some gentle tweaking to remove all the gunk that comes with it, once stripped down it works fine. For me, at least.

paying for an OS that is 6 years + in the making that has barely any real advantages over XP. And you mention a slight performance drop in some games (why is there a drop? it should be an UPgrade). Sure XP had teething problems over 98 and ME as gaming platforms but it had one advantage it was MUCH MUCH MUCH more stable. Can you say that about Vista over XP. NO and in some cases XP can be set up to be more secure.

lay-z-boy · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:25

Oh trust me, there are many more.

EVER WONDER WHY MS refuses to release DX10 for XP, forcing users to Linux, and barring that, Vista

You don't see me or many other users moving to Linux or meII because of dx10

ATI, which had implemented a dandy memory virtualisation scheme got screwed, or at least got what everyone who partners with MS got. Oh wait, I said that.

+ the rest of the article

Not bias at all.

Its written with so many riddles in it I had to read it twice to understand what on earth the point he was attempting to convey was.

Poorly constructed parts of an article stand out, oh wait that's all of it.

Richdog · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:37

Noto said:
paying for an OS that is 6 years + in the making that has barely any real advantages over XP. And you mention a slight performance drop in some games (why is there a drop? it should be an UPgrade). Sure XP had teething problems over 98 and ME as gaming platforms but it had one advantage it was MUCH MUCH MUCH more stable. Can you say that about Vista over XP. NO and in some cases XP can be set up to be more secure.

No matter how many times you explain this exact point people just don't seem to get it... there seems to be a culture of "hey it's new so must be better, lets buy it!".

Squink · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:38

Sure enough it's a biased article, but I don't understand the hostility. XP fulfills my needs 100% and I'd like to see the latest eye candy without forking out 60 quid for a software upgrade I don't want or need. Reading the responses to this thread it's like people are lining up to give away their cash to MS.

helmutcheese · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:39

I use XP, I can play HALO2 in XP if I want, only do cause HALO was good game, 2 aint as hot.

I play all other games in XP like Lost Planet and assume other new DX10 titles will also run DX9, I will pop my Vista in PC once more when SP1 arrives if it really does change much.

From someone who offically tested betas and unoffically tested every early leaked Alpha/Beta/RC (from IRC place I'm part of), this is what Vista should have been:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y

It gets good at 1min 3secs as PINK starts to sing.

stickroad · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:39

mulpsmebeauty said:
Sure enough it's a biased article, but I don't understand the hostility. XP fulfills my needs 100% and I'd like to see the latest eye candy without forking out 60 quid for a software upgrade I don't want or need. Reading the responses to this thread it's like people are lining up to give away their cash to MS.

Dam it. Dont people get it its down to personal prefence now. So what if you dont like Vista someone else might.

This XP vs Vista is really starting to get boring now.

If XP full fils your needs stick with it. :confused:

Whats the problem?

Noto · 11 Jul 2007 at 10:49

Richdog said:
No matter how many times you explain this exact point people just don't seem to get it... there seems to be a culture of "hey it's new so must be better, lets buy it!".

too right

well lets face it its a marketing world these days, they could sell you your own right hand if they wanted to. Though to other posters dont get me wrong i wanted Vista to be all signing all dancing. And if it was i would happilly shell out cash for it but as it stands ill save my vista ultimate monies and spend it on a Media Center PC when i buy a whole new PC

ROLL ON JULY 22nd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /edit i hear SP1 will be on beta by then maybe ill check that out ;o

Squink · 11 Jul 2007 at 11:00

stickroad said:
If XP full fils your needs stick with it. Whats the problem?

Because it's highly unlikely we'll ever experience DX10 eye candy, as I pointed out in the post that you quoted.

stickroad · 11 Jul 2007 at 11:02

mulpsmebeauty said:
Because it's highly unlikely we'll ever experience DX10 eye candy, as I pointed out in the post that you quoted.

Your right their. But by the time Direct X 10 games become mainstream Vista would have deveveloped enough for people to feel confident in Vista and know that they can use it without any problems.

Vista is still fairly new.

Theirs just no right answer to Vista i dont care what anyone saids.

If Vista didnt work on any ones computer full stop then yes it needs to be sorted out.

The point that a load of people are actully running Vista perfectly fine and their programs work pretty much saids that we need to give Vista a bit more time to develop.

Dyson · 11 Jul 2007 at 11:07

Richdog said:
Written by the quite frankly un-journalistic and "bitter against the world, especially Microsoft and Sony" Charlie but it kind of makes a mockery of the people who swore blind that DX10 on Vista was 100% necessary and simply couldn't be done on XP, requiring some form of ******* DX9.5-esque method. Just a curious and interesting titbit of news is all...

Believe it when it arrives... Easy to make claims with nothing to back it up, wouldn't hold my breath.

Im on Vista 64, and very happy with it. I fail to see quite why everyone seems to get quite so aggressive about it, everything works fine for me. Was £60 well spent in my opinion.