DX10 - why not on XP?

shaffaaf27 · 26 Mar 2008 at 02:28

Why couldn't DX10 be inplemented on XP. was it just to drive the sales of Vista, or could DX10 only use hardware and sytem coding from vista?

if it was down to the coding, couldn't a patch for XP be made?

TheVoice · 26 Mar 2008 at 02:34

Probably both due to technical reasons and to make Vista more appealing. I don't doubt that MS could have released DX10 for XP, but it'd obviously be fairly silly for them to do that.

helmutcheese · 26 Mar 2008 at 02:36

I advise you Google it, some peep claimed to be working on it but I smelled a scam, he had games avail to buy from his site so some kinda of adverts etc (cant remember as long ago).

DX10 was written from the ground up into Vista so it will never happen.

Its hard enough to get Halo2 to run on XP (Vista only but DX9), I did it but got issues.

mr.sly · 26 Mar 2008 at 02:42

helmutcheese said:
I advise you Google it, some peep claimed to be working on it but I smelled a scam, he had games avail to buy from his site so some kinda of adverts etc (cant remember as long ago).

DX10 was written from the ground up into Vista so it will never happen.

Its hard enough to get Halo2 to run on XP (Vista only but DX9), I did it but got issues.

Hard enough to get Dx10 games working in Vista as well. Just failed from the start TBH.

shaffaaf27 · 26 Mar 2008 at 03:09

but im sure if MS wrote it for vista, someone (inc MS) could write it for XP. if im correct DX10 is an API (like OpenGL), so why couldnt it be done?

TheVoice · 26 Mar 2008 at 03:49

It probably could, but I doubt MS would be willing to invest time and money into transplanting one of their new technologies - and major selling points for Vista - to a 7-year old OS that is nearing its product life cycle.

.one. · 26 Mar 2008 at 03:50

There is a group at the moment trying just that not sure if it's a fake or not but i should imagine microsoft could have done said task if they really wanted to.

StriderX · 26 Mar 2008 at 04:55

sorry but that group was nailed by bill gates.

scorza · 26 Mar 2008 at 08:11

TheVoice said:
Probably both due to technical reasons and to make Vista more appealing. I don't doubt that MS could have released DX10 for XP, but it'd obviously be fairly silly for them to do that.

Why would it be silly to do something that the vast majority of their customers want?

Meridian · 26 Mar 2008 at 08:14

scorza said:
Why would it be silly to do something that the vast majority of their customers want?

Because it will cost M$ money, and won't make them any. It won't even generate goodwill (because people would just say "it's about time"), even if M$ cared about that.

My understanding is that the way Vista addresses hardware is so different to the way XP does it, that it's not possible.

M

wannabedamned · 26 Mar 2008 at 08:15

scorza said:
Why would it be silly to do something that the vast majority of their customers want?

because MS would then have to put resources into keeping XP alive. They want to move away from XP and onto Vista, They want to move forward. Forcing DX10 only in Vista, Is forcing people forward. Whether we like it or not.

Minstadave · 26 Mar 2008 at 08:15

scorza said:
Why would it be silly to do something that the vast majority of their customers want?

Because customers don't want to spend money, and Microsoft wants to sell you a new OS every few years, not keep perfectly working ones going.

Dutch Guy · 26 Mar 2008 at 08:28

Because Microsoft wants to force Vista down our throats and charge a lot for it as well.

scorza · 26 Mar 2008 at 08:39

Minstadave said:
Because customers don't want to spend money, and Microsoft wants to sell you a new OS every few years, not keep perfectly working ones going.

To be fair, MS have never had a perfectly good OS before - until XP (SP2)

Tefal · 26 Mar 2008 at 08:45

shaffaaf27 said:
Why couldn't DX10 be inplemented on XP. was it just to drive the sales of Vista, or could DX10 only use hardware and sytem coding from vista?

if it was down to the coding, couldn't a patch for XP be made?

because why would they waste millions of pounds and hundreds of hours of man time, on a product they are discontinuing?

Kanifee · 26 Mar 2008 at 09:03

Why make a feature for a product you trying to make EOL, vista had performance issues and M$ new about hat so it had to have exclusive features to help push the product.
If they had of released DX10 for XP there would have been no reason for many many people to upgrade.

mr.sly · 26 Mar 2008 at 12:21

damian666 said:
Why make a feature for a product you trying to make EOL, vista had performance issues and M$ new about hat so it had to have exclusive features to help push the product.
If they had of released DX10 for XP there would have been no reason for many many people to upgrade.

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.

Samione · 26 Mar 2008 at 12:38

DX10 is pretty farcicle from what i've seen. A major case in point is Crysis, the so called 'DX10 only' features were nothing more than a tweak in a .cfg file that was disabled in dx9 mode. Needless to say you could enable all the DX10 features in DX9, with no visual compromise, or difference in visual fidelity, yet the framerates were much higher.

TheVoice · 26 Mar 2008 at 12:56

Dutch Guy said:
Because Microsoft wants to force Vista down our throats and charge a lot for it as well.

I paid £50 for Vista; doesn't seem like a lot to me, considering what the OS actually does.

Spektor · 26 Mar 2008 at 12:57

scorza said:
Why would it be silly to do something that the vast majority of their customers want?

The vast majority of their customers couldn't tell you what DirectX is and probably haven't ever heard of it to boot.

Also DX10 is much much more than a config tweak in Crysis - read a few whitepapers about what it really offers and try to understand how no game at present takes any real advantage of whats available to them in DX10 without redeveloping an engine from line #1 with DX10 in mind which won't happen until DX9 and its backdated hardware is dead and buried, which is a trillion miles away.

I seem to remember all these exact same arguements (probably made by the same people) when we went from DX8.1 to DX9... none of the first cards ran it very well, it didn't look much better, the performance sucked, yada yada. Look how far DX9 has been taken and how in love with it everyone seems to be now. I can't wait for the next incarnation of DX and people saying "omg DX10 owns, that doesn't look any better and runs crap compared, DX10 forever!!"...