DX10 - why not on XP?

No one is forcing you to upgrade. And it's not like there's a must have AAA Dx10 only title out there.

People buy Vista because its a good OS. There's no performance issue either if you don't run it on a 7 year old machine.

Actually they are forcing you to upgrade to Vista. I was recently looking at buying a laptop and every single one I looked at came with a Vista variant installed on it by default. Actually, I tell a lie, one laptop had an "upgrade to XP" option for an extra £20 :p
 
People need to move on, XP is going, Vista is fine, and only slated by those who are scared of change or read what others say and think "ZOMG V1sta suxx0rz"
 
People need to move on, XP is going, Vista is fine, and only slated by those who are scared of change or read what others say and think "ZOMG V1sta suxx0rz"
Yes it is fine but XP does everything Vista does but faster and with less resources (apart from the useless 3D flip tabbing)

There is nothing out there that needs Vista to run so what is the point of upgrading, I think htere is one reason and that is DX10 but thankfully that is hardly used in games and in the games it is used in it gives a huge drop in performance for little IQ impovement (this is actually just the opposite of what they have been telling.

The only thing I ran on Vista is Bioshock as that offered much better water IQ
 
Yes it is fine but XP does everything Vista does but faster and with less resources (apart from the useless 3D flip tabbing)

There is nothing out there that needs Vista to run so what is the point of upgrading, I think htere is one reason and that is DX10 but thankfully that is hardly used in games and in the games it is used in it gives a huge drop in performance for little IQ impovement (this is actually just the opposite of what they have been telling.

The only thing I ran on Vista is Bioshock as that offered much better water IQ

Whats the point in not upgrading if you're getting a new machine? Or you're replacing your motherboard?

Vista is a stable OS with many features XP doesn't have. Even if you don't use them, doesn't mean others don't.
 
Whats the point in not upgrading if you're getting a new machine? Or you're replacing your motherboard?

Vista is a stable OS with many features XP doesn't have. Even if you don't use them, doesn't mean others don't.
As I said, it is fine but for me Vista offers nothing useful over XP, it only gives slower performance and worse compatibility, I have a HP scanner and Printer and both are not recognised and can't be used in Vista (in any easy way)

I am not dissing Vista, all I am saying is that it is not as big a difference than going from Win98 to WinXP.

I am just glad I setup a dual boot setup with XP and Vista and I find myself rarely booting Vista
 
As I said, it is fine but for me Vista offers nothing useful over XP, it only gives slower performance and worse compatibility, I have a HP scanner and Printer and both are not recognised and can't be used in Vista (in any easy way)

I am not dissing Vista, all I am saying is that it is not as big a difference than going from Win98 to WinXP.

I am just glad I setup a dual boot setup with XP and Vista and I find myself rarely booting Vista

It depends what you want. Why should a company offer every update there new, latest and greatest inventions for every old o/s - hell if we look at it that way MS would still be supporting Win95. I have Vista and I am over the moon with it. I have no compatiiblity issues to report off. Every piece of hardware I have is supported and runs superbly well on Vista. All my games work with LOTRO being the only one that I'm playing currently that supports DX10. I have a ton of emulators that I use as well so SNES9x / MAME / WinUAE / etc. all run fine.

If you're buying new hardware then really it is pointless staying with XP. I have no performance related issues to report either - technically it may be a few FPS slower in certain games with certain settings. However it is faster to load and superfetch works brilliantly so games/applications load that little bit quicker.



M.
 
Dont get me wrong i like vista ive been using it since i deemed it viable and that was only after installing every beta release on release to see how it was getting on hands on.
All i was trying to put across is vista's thinking behing making DX10 vista exclusive, I hounestly dont think it would have cost them that much to code for XP but at the end of the day whats the point, if they did that they could have just released a service pack with updates and DX10 compatibility but instead they had a new OS and wanted to push it... hell of course they wanted to push it its good buissnes sense to but dont for one second stand and say that microsoft wernt forcing people to use vista, i have seen vista come installed stock on machines that are no way near the hardware threshold required for the OS but there installed on it even though XP would be a much better choice, Vista on a single core 2.5ghz celeron with 1gb of DDRII is insane granted there arnt many PC'S about like that being sold as new but they are there and 6-8 months ago was a lot worse!
 
DX10 on XP can't happen, the various graphics and memory subsystems don't support the DX10 features. The best you can do (and what the group was trying to do) is emulate those features in XP, but software emulation and hackery is no substitute for the real thing. Remember that although vista and XP look similar on the surface, they are dramatically different underneath.
 
im just really not keen on vista but thats because its only on my laptop, and its dualboot anyway, i much prefer using XP since its what i use at uni+my main rig too, but tbh its stupid moaning about vista, we are moving over to it, end of, XP cant last forever, 2k was great and we all moved from that didnt we.
vista will get better, DX10 on XP.. financially unfeasable, its literally pointless from a business perspective.. where will the money come from?
 
I guess you could further the argument as to why make a PS3 when you could be investing time into the PS2? Why make an Xbox 360 and not invest more time into upgrading the Xbox?

Simply put it's money. If the latest and greatest anything did not have features you already had then you wouldn't buy it.

It's the same with cars, tv's, dvds, pcs, consoles, etc, etc.

Basically put if I was in MS's shoes I wouldn't release anything that great for XP, I'd be putting the majority of my resources into Vista.


M.
 
I guess you could further the argument as to why make a PS3 when you could be investing time into the PS2? Why make an Xbox 360 and not invest more time into upgrading the Xbox?
Because a PS3 is far superior to a PS2 (and a 360 vs Xbox) but a OS is something entirely different, Vista needs more hardware to run the same or slightly better.

I think I read that even Microsoft kinda admitted that Vista isn't what they had hoped.

And wasn't the next Windows version being developed far earlier than expected?
 
They're constantly developing the operating system. It was speculated it would be earlier than expected but the sources were very poor indeed so I'd take that with a vat of salt.

What I was suggesting is that they could have invested money into the PS2 instead they just literally dumped it and developed the PS3. Same with the Xbox. With Vista it's massively different. Yes it requires new hardware to get the most out of it but so what. You can't complain that it requires new hardware if you have a 5 year old PC hell you have to move with the times. If you don't want to move, fine, stay there but don't complain to MS when you can't run there O/S.

Same with games. If people want to run Crysis at a decent speed / FPS rate then they need good hardware. You can't blame the game manufacturer for not thinking of you when he made that game.



M.
 
And wasn't the next Windows version being developed far earlier than expected?

Not really, Microsoft have been saying for quite a while that the delay between XP and Vista was far too long and so they are intending to shorten that between Vista and whatever comes next.
 
It also should be noted that MS are changing there exam regime. Currently you get the qualification and that's it. With the new regime it's going to be like Cisco / VMWare / etc. and have a 3 year life cycle which means they need to move there operating systems to fit in with this better.



M.
 
Not really, Microsoft have been saying for quite a while that the delay between XP and Vista was far too long and so they are intending to shorten that between Vista and whatever comes next.
Which to me can indicate that they think Vista does not perform as they had hoped and that they can't wait to get the next OS out.
 
Which to me can indicate that they think Vista does not perform as they had hoped and that they can't wait to get the next OS out.

Except it isn't at all, it's simply a return to the old product cycles they used to do. The delay between XP and Vista was abnormal, prior to that there was a new os release every 2-3 years. Windows 7 is basically like 98 SE or ME, it's built on the vista codebase but will have a few new features and a redesigned front end. It's not at all a sign that vista failed, but natural progression.
 
Back
Top Bottom