What is Digg?80 Comments
- turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+54yay opengl
- LemmingJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+49Oh well if one random guy says so, it must be true!
- OmEgA286, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49"b) Most DX10 games, including Crysis, whose screenshot was included just because it’s the poster child of DX10 gaming, will automatically run on the D3D9 pathway on non-Vista systems, whether your PC has a DX9 or a DX10 card."
looks like you need to learn how to read. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+47Uh, Doom 3 is an OpenGL game, not DirectX (in fact, it's OpenGL 1.4 or 1.5)
- lifeandtimes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38"All DX10 games have DX9 capability. So no, you don't need Vista."
As long as the game developers choose to make a DX9 engine for their DX10 games. If a game developer decides to just use a DX10 engine, it will not run on anything else. DX10 is significantly different from DX9.
So, the moral of the story is: As soon as developers decide to make their games using only DX10, XP users will not be playing them because there will be no DX9 version. - PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34i'm all for crysis on dx9, because i don't plan on making the dx10 jump for another few years.....but i would like to see crysis dx9 vs. dx10 shots side by side....
- BostonLow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31I believe Doom3 is 100% OpenGL when it comes to video. It's probably input, audio, or network code that requires dx9
- plague, on 10/12/2007, -14/+41Funny how they show a screenshot of Crysis, which will play fine on XP with DX9
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Meh, that isn't the purpose of Open Source.
- benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29fanboy much?
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18No version of Windows has ever had 'native' OpenGL support. It's always been up to the graphics drivers to provide it.
It's no different in Vista. There was a time when OpenGL running in Windowed mode would have been crippled (read: wouldn't affect games, only things like CAD software.) That was changed a very long time ago. You're just spouting old news that the OSS community has pepetuated as FUD. - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20I believe the phrase "stick it to those bastards at m$" qualifies you as a fanboy. Very clever that, replacing the s with a $.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Well since its a 19 year old "software reverse-engineer" what do you expect. My gut feeling is that its just some prat trying to up his blog traffic like the guy who claimed to be able to hack apple's wifi thingy a few months ago.
- maxtypezero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15whoever wrote this seems like they have no idea what they're talking about or have a very difficult time communicating what they want to communicate.
- BlackKnight6, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Digg title is misleading and the blogger is plain wrong. DX10 has features DX9 can't do, plain and simple. DX10 does a lot of direct access optimizations making the CPU have alot less work to do when rendering, meaning you can crank CPU sided options higher. DX10 also supports Shader Model 4.0 (SM 4.0) while DX9 only supports SM 3.0 and lower.
As for Crysis, Crytek CHOSE to have the engine support DX9 and DX10, just when you run in DX9 your CPU is slower, due to more CPU overhead and you don't get all of the graphical goodies that things like SM 4.0 only support. Crytek could have just programmed the game to be just DX10 but they want everyone to be able to run the game. Yes, Crysis will run in DX9 on XP, will it run slower and not look as good? Yes, because its not running in DX10. Go play Splinter Cell Chaos Theory on your PC. Run it in SM 1.1, look at graphics, then run in SM 2.0/3.0, it looks a hell alot better in SM 2.0/3.0 for many reasons, and enables grayed out graphical options. Anyways, here is a small article on DX10 and its advantages. Quit hating on MS. This is nothing compared to something like Apple's OSX losing the level of BC it threw out moving over to the new OS, grow up.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/news.html?sid=6163791&q=crysis&tag=result;title;4
I can't find the old gamespot article where they talk with a MS DX engineer, he went into much more detail. - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11You people have a very narrow idea of what DirectX is.
DirectX includes DirectInput, DirectShow, DirectPlay (Which is now dead, I guess.), and most importantly, Direct3d.
On windows, it's probably easier for the game to use one of the other DirectX APIs, for example, Doom3 might use DirectSound for its sound system on Windows, and one of the *nix APIs under linux. That would make it require DirectX 9. - erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"These libraries allow the use of DirectX 10 games on platforms other than Microsoft Vista, and increase hardware compatibility even on Vista, by compiling Geometry Shaders down to native machine code for execution where hardware isn't capable of running it."
I'm guessing that since DX10 chips use unified architectures, it is a binary flag in a compiled shader that determines whether to use the shader units as vertex, fragment, or geometry shaders. Perhaps a geometry shader is compiled into binary form with the hypothetical geometry shader flag set to true, and uploaded to the GPU in the form of a pixel shader or vertex shader. Just hypothesizing. I'm not too familiar with Direct3d . - Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm interested in just how he's going to do this since DX10 requires a number of large OS changes (e.g. the user-side graphics system).
- Xiata, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8As a developer who knows,
OpenGL is a lot easier to write code for but lacks a lot of cool effects DirectX offers. D3D is a bit of a pain in this respect but, hey, we get to do more of what we want to do.
Speed though is almost purely related to the effects being used and support of the videocard.
D3D9 vs D3D10 is significant though because it is a lot less CPU bound than GPU bound. There are a number of other reasons why D3D10 cannot be ported back to XP, but I am not getting into that. This article though shows very little understanding of the new DirectX architecture.
But I am not one to take away someone's pipe dream. - Enverex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Come on people, this is the same Alky project that KEEPS PROMISING THINGS and never delivers. Look up the companies name. They keep claiming all these great things, charge people for a non-existant product and then dissapear again. This is their third time around now afaik. Nothing will ever come of this, other than them making some more money from easily misled people and spam on sites like Digg.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'll never understand why people digg down comments like bostonlow's. Doom 3 IS using nothing but OpenGL for it's video interface, and it DOES require DX9 for the DirectSound and DirectInput APIs.
It doesn't "Mix and Match" between OGL and DX9, since that's hackish if not outright impossible. - BlackKnight6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Its not all code, DX10 requires a DX10 card too, but then there is the driver issue of there being Vista drivers for the DX10 card that only supports Vista, the XP drivers don't even have DX10 stuff in them, why would they? If they ever got it all working, XP would just being doing DX10 graphics with artifacts, errors and lower FPS then running it properly. If it was possible there would be no reason to make it Vista only. Some people don't realize how much DX10, mainly the D3D portion, relies on Vista's handling of the computer resources.
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Or perhaps its just an attempt to achieve a very ambitious programming project.
- Ngai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If they made that Geometry Wars compatible with Windows XP, then i'm pretty damn sure they can do the same for DX10.
"Its all software baby..." - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I know everybody wants to believe that Microsoft arbitrarily decided that DX10 would be Vista only so they could "force" people into buying the OS, but, as usual, it's a tiny bit more complex than that.
DX10 relies heavily on graphics card memory virtualization. The new Windows Display Driver Model, WDDM, introduces this feature. In order to accomplish this, it required a lot of low level kernel changes. So many, in fact, that back-porting it to XP would basically make XP's kernel into Vista's kernel.
There comes a point where you just have to say that a particular feature is only available in Vista. DX10 fits that bill. - chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4All the power to him if he manages this. I remember seeing a story where the MS devs say that DX10 is just too hard to write into XP (or words to those effect).
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/2007/04/finally-making-use-of-this-blog-i.html Original link
Story buried as blogspam. - darthsnoopy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Interesting: From that page:
"...by compiling Geometry Shaders down to native machine code for execution where hardware isn't capable of running it"
My biggest question is perf..and how useful this is to mainstream, or if htis is going to be something for tweakers only. I imagine though your compiling the shaders down, you're going to take a library/proxy perf hit in translation. Assuming that the resons a person didnt upgrade to Vista don't have to do with the hardware requirements, and they're running same hardware...this perf hit may come at a pretty hefty price. DX, IIRC, was tied to the unified driver system in Vista...meaning that just API interpolation methods may not work alone. Sure, he's got the SDK samples running, but when it gets into complex shader architecture, as well as the crazy crap devs do to optimize gamecode...is the pain and perf hit going to be worth it?
on top of that, this would have to be rock solid. Any code glitches could cause anything from artifacts to hangs, to just straight app crashes. Not sure if I want to be playing Halo3PC (I figure by then that'll be dx10 only), and find out halfway through a level that my proxy library threw a fit and I get to start over.
Guess time will tell, but if it's too much time, noone will care. - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7WDDM drivers, GPU scheduling, etc.
DirectX 10 will never run on XP. There are far too many changes made at the kernel level to accomidate it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You're a tool. If Microsoft could sell DX10 for XP at $100, they'd find a way to get it to work. Like how they got IE7 on Windows XP to weakly counter Firefox. Tech pundits said IE7 required new gizmos only in Vista, but whatdyaknow? IE7 works perfectly on XP.
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, the biggest issue is the fact that Vista virtualizes video memory, and Direct3D 10's resource management, or perhaps lack of resource management, depends on this.
- GezusK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So what are the disadvantages? There must be enough of them, otherwise, why are developers avoiding it? I think I remember reading the problem of slow approval of OpenGL standards is one. It takes longer for OpenGL to add new features, due to the approval process. DirectX doesn't have that problem, since MS decides, and implements. Which is why DX10 is such a change from DX9.
Also, how is the change to Vista and DX10 any different than what Apple user went through with the jump to OS X. Older programs would run on it, which meant OS 9 had to be used for those, and new program made for OS X wouldn't run on OS 9. At least Vista does handle most older games and programs. No need to keep a separate copy of XP.
Also, people complain about MS not being innovative, and creative. But such large changes means giving up the old software and hardware. Impossible to please everyone. But, no one is forcing you to upgrade, you can stick with what you have. You don't have to HAVE the latest game or software. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DX10 for XP is called OpenGL.
- xSEED, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3so halo 2 is dx10 only? since it can't be played on xp AFAIK
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2[quote]DirectX 10 will never run on XP. There are far too many changes made at the kernel level to accomidate it.[/quote]
Accommodate WHAT? What features are you talking about? You can use any DX10 hardware feature on any platform as long as you have a way of communicating with that hardware through a driver of some sort. Last time I checked, XP had such OpenGL drivers. So did OS X and Linux.
And the PS3! - Strd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5If games developed with OpenGL API instead of Direct3d (DX), it can have unified shaders and all functionality advertised for DX10 on XP. Of cause that is up to developers, but advantages are clear - the game would run on both XP and Vista without any Vista-specific code and would use full GPU abilities.
- OBKenobi, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2[quote]DX10 has features DX9 can't do, plain and simple. DX10 does a lot of direct access optimizations making the CPU have alot less work to do when rendering, meaning you can crank CPU sided options higher.[/quote]
Microsoft FUD. - plague, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No problem
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[quote]Its good to dream that we can run DX 0 games on XP but what about the drivers? Would nvidia and ati put support for DX10 on xp?[/quote]
That support would come through OpenGL support, which already supports DX10 hardware on ANY platform. Go to Nvidia's dev site and take a look.
Some of the game engine would have to be rewritten to eliminate any Vista-specific code, but you would still have geometry shaders and the optimizations of DX10 GPU programming.
It really could be done without any major effort. Trying to port DX10 itself to XP would be more difficult. - iSlayer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its good to dream that we can run DX 0 games on XP but what about the drivers? Would nvidia and ati put support for DX10 on xp? I know nvidia and ati are working closely with microsoft on this and I dont think it will ever happen. Even if you installed DX10 on xp I dont see how they can get the drivers to work with it also. I know MS will shut this down very quickly in a blink of an eye. Boom! this is yesterdays news of what could of been...ahh well
- brianboyko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2An interesting analysis.
I think people aren't mad at MS for requiring a new OS for DX10, so much as they're really not enthused about the OS in particular. - OmEgA286, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@plague
ok, if that is the case then im sorry. when i read it, it was right there, so i had assumed that you didnt read the article. no hard feelings. - plague, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@omega286
I don't see that quote anywhere on the cached page, and it wasn't there when I first read the article. If it was updated before it went down, I didn't see it. - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Tech pundits said IE7 required new gizmos only in Vista"
There are IE7 features that don't run on XP.
For example, coupled with UAC and Vista's improved DEP support, IE7 runs in a ultra-sandboxed mode when you use it in Vista. - legatus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Paul thurrott of windows super site stated the date for xp support cut off was 2011. As for dx10 on xp, kinda doubt it, MS really needs the new OS to move and that is a big stick/carrot. Mostly stick.
- SirFatOfJake, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0fag
- brando721, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0You can get cracks to run Halo 2 on XP but they are unstable and your system shuts down randomly and stuff. Maybe theres some better cracks i haven't found though.
- erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9Same guy who makes Alky, so this project will probably be closed source and non-free. Interesting nevertheless, but it would be good to open source it if MS has a problem with it. This will allow the source be distributed, and it could be developed in a less centralized fashion, that would make it harder for MS to sue people...
- seansshack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2they have to do something to get you to buy vista. The biggest problem with vista? XP was just too good. It is was crap and unstable, we all may have a bigger reason to shift. But Aero, dx10 etc = can wait for upgrade until I have to.
- Yokai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Does it really matter? They want to sell a product, who really cares that much? Its all marketing, so does it really matter why they did it?
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is