What is Digg?167 Comments
- CasperCreepz, on 10/20/2008, -3/+75Wait wait, I haven't caught up to 10 yet!
- refreshers, on 10/21/2008, -1/+51We've barely started to use DX10...
- magamiako, on 10/21/2008, -9/+47Just for the record, it's true that DX10 *cannot* be ported to XP. It expects certain functions out of the video drivers and the video subsystem that just aren't available on XP.
I know everyone seems to think it's an artificial "limit", but that's just not the case. It wasn't just a matter of replacing the DX9 files with DX10 and calling it a day.
This is why the DX10 port to XP project failed. They really didn't know what they were getting into when they started. They thought it would be an artificial "oh let's just make it think it's running Vista and we're good" fix. It wasn't. - chillout89, on 10/19/2008, -0/+32I'm a little confused here. How will current graphic cards hold up once DX11 games are out?
- magamiako, on 10/21/2008, -3/+28No, you managed to play games that were tricked to thinking they were running Vista that didn't quite use DX10 properly. They used DX10 to "enhance" certain visual effects but were not built with utilizing DX10 in mind.
Essentially, it's equivalent to making a single shader effect use a different method between DX9 and 10, but looks the same, and saying the game uses "DX10".
And that's if they even went that far.
Essentially, you played a DX9 game with a DX10 label stickered on it for marketing purposes. - KMartSheriff, on 10/21/2008, -2/+22I agree. XP is bloated and slow on my P2. M$ really ***** themselves with that one.
- jjmckay, on 10/20/2008, -19/+35I'm still waiting for DX10/11 for Windows 3.11 for workgroups. I still boot into Windows 1 often enough so they should at least plan DX12 for that too. XP is only 7 years old but Windows 1 is like 23 and I think it should still get service packs and drivers. Although Wikipedia says "Unsupported as of 31 December 2001" for Windows 1 dammit!!
- Alias1431, on 10/21/2008, -1/+15Windows 7 is Vista at heart, so compatibility is no surprise.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/21/2008, -2/+15Crysis is a DX9 game with some (few) DX10 effects.
Anyhow DX11 is an api, it can't run games , games will run ON it - govsucks, on 10/21/2008, -1/+14OpenGL guy here but dugg anyway cause its always good to know whats up with DX.
- jako91, on 10/20/2008, -30/+42it is a really big mistake on Microsofts part not to port DirectX10/11 for XP.
It's not going to convince anybody to convert to vista because playing games in vista just sucks. - venom8599, on 10/19/2008, -1/+12It might be compatible with some smaller scale features--but when you get to the biggies--SM5, the new aspects of the rendering pipeline--there's no way it will be. As far as development goes, I'm sure it'll be very similar to DX10 and DX10.1, but that's not the same as how the hardware is going to hold up.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/21/2008, -5/+15Problem with XP is that both the driver model and the sound system are completely rewritten in Vista.
So there is some truth to their claim "not being feasible" to have DX10 on XP. Obviously the other half of it is them trying to get people to upgrade. But then again it was 6 or 7 years since the last OS, where previously they were going only 2 years between releases. - Ahweb, on 10/19/2008, -11/+21Me ?
- purplesawdust, on 10/19/2008, -10/+20And Me?
- mshtml, on 10/21/2008, -1/+11CUDA, we hardly knew ya.
- honesttussey, on 10/21/2008, -7/+17Not sure why you're getting dugg down. You're spot on. Vista is a dismal failure. I don't care if you use it and you don't have any problems with it. That's nice. The fact is the *rest* of the industry doesn't use Vista. It's still on XP. This little stunt that MS is trying by forcing Vista upgrades to use the latest DirectX isn't going to work. It didn't work for DirectX 10 and it won't work for 11.
- LMN8R, on 10/21/2008, -1/+11Why the ***** would Microsoft fix "bugs" that exist because some overzealous retards thought that they could magically make Windows XP handle a vastly overhauled API that was built from the ground-up to support an entirely different driver model?
- magamiako, on 10/21/2008, -4/+13DX10 is much better than 9, just that developers have been VERY slow on the uptake. Since many, many developers are moving to console editions of their games, they make some serious design considerations early on that accommodate this.
On top of that, the market for DX10 is so small that it's not really worth developing a game that uses it primarily. I mean, you figure the person has to have both Vista and a decent video card to take advantage of it.
Vista numbers aren't that high amongst the "hardcore" gaming base. And I would say you narrow it down even further when you have to cut out all of the mid series card owners (the people who bought 8400s,8500s, and 8600s).
When you're making a top end gaming title, this just is not a good business decision.
That said, I think more people would adopt Vista and DX10 if there was something worth having it for. - dsmx, on 10/21/2008, -5/+13Just remember microsoft promised better framerates as well as better graphics with dx10 and that didn't really pan out to any significant level so I don't think it's worth getting excited about dx11 until we actually see evidence that it is significantly better than dx9.
- djbon2112, on 10/21/2008, -2/+10You CAN'T port it. What about that can't people understand? It's IMPOSSIBLE because the API relies on KERNEL-LEVEL features in Vista that don't exist in XP!
Jesus, please just put this one to rest! It won't happen because it CAN'T happen. - cnldelta, on 10/20/2008, -8/+16Not Me
- magamiako, on 10/21/2008, -1/+9The API being compatible and older hardware taking advantage of the newer functionality are two entirely different things.
When they stated there are some "backwards compatible" features, it means that some older hardware should benefit from some of the optimizations they made in DX11 vs DX10.
However, older hardware isn't going to be able to take advantage of the new features offered by DX11.
This is similar to venom's post but I think offers a little more clarity on the differences. - wolferz, on 10/21/2008, -1/+9FTA - "While you will still need to have Vista as the minimum OS, the package is being released with the next iteration of Windows – Windows 7 – and so will be compatible across both platforms."
Whoa! Whoa! Hold on a second. The problem with people adopting DX10 is their perception of Vista (which I believe is less than 10% accurate... but that's beside the point I'm making here). In other words people are still running XP. How does it still being available on Vista when Windows 7 hits change that? How is that "tackling the problem?" Sounds more like side stepping it to me.
The reason behind DX10 being available only on Vista is that MS didn't want to have to create and maintain two completely different implementations of DX10, especially when XP was ell past the point where it needed to be end-of-lifed already. The limitations imposed on drivers and user-space-to-kernel-space communication under Vista means that DX10 would work very differently on Vista than it would on XP. Could they have made two versions? Sure. Should they have? Debatable. Did they do it to force people to upgrade? Sorry, the marketing boys over at MS are not stupid enough to think that would work, especially since computer gamers are an extreme minority among computer users and the vast majority of computer users don't know (or care) what DirectX is.
Given the real reason behind DirectX 10 not being available on XP and given that Windows 7 uses a similar security model to Vista it makes sense that new versions of DX will work for both and still not work for XP. Still this doesn't mean MS tackled the problem.
As you can probably tell I tend to be one who defends MS against the MS-Haters' ignorant rhetoric but my issue is not with MS-Haters. My issue is with ignorant rhetoric. And what is said in this article is just that... only on the other side of the spectrum.
/3 cent - rheaume, on 10/21/2008, -0/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
- Stevethegreat, on 10/21/2008, -0/+7Except of course of it giving -singlehandedly- 1.5 TFLOPS worth of performance to folding@home (making the 4 times less numerous nvidia cards producing equal performance to the PS3s) and enabling physx on nvidia cards, yeah, apart from those it was pretty worthless....
/sarcasm - bwdd, on 10/21/2008, -2/+9Ubuntu.
No, I didn't bury you. - Chainheart2, on 10/21/2008, -2/+9That's a bad analogy. Nobody is giving us money, we're giving THEM our money in hopes that the new technology will help us game better. And the gamemakers haven't even been able to use DirectX10 any more effectively than DirectX9 in their games, why are we moving on then?
- magamiako, on 10/21/2008, -1/+7URL?
- LMN8R, on 10/21/2008, -2/+8U R SO COOL LULZ CUZ VISTA SUX AMIRITE
- mycoplasma, on 10/21/2008, -0/+6As a programmer who mostly uses opengl, I can't help but feel sad every time I compare the upcoming dx11 to the colossal dissapointment that is opengl3
- shethinkmefunny, on 10/19/2008, -3/+9Actually, from TFA;
"It's also going to be compatible across the hardware spectrum as well, working with DX10 and DX10.1 specced graphics cards, as well as the new SM5 cards to come. This means that right from the off there will be a large installed user base ready to use the new API." - Stevethegreat, on 10/21/2008, -3/+9Yeh, because DX9 (a 2002 api) was backward compatible with Win 3.11 (a 1993 OS).... oh no it wasn't. Why do you expect now a 2010 API to be compatible with an 2001 OS, that would be absurd in respect to the waisted developers' time it would take? If you are to use DX11, you would HAVE to use a more modern OS, like one that it would not be a decade old perhaps...
- ommadawn, on 10/21/2008, -1/+7Indifferent of this assertion, the Wine developers are proving the opposite at the moment.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 10/21/2008, -6/+11*****. All my games run faster, SMOOTHER, and just plain better under Vista than they ever did under XP. Especially when you are talking about how hardware sound access under XP (pos Creative Labs anyone?!) causes frame drops, input lag, etc. That does not happen under Vista. Period.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/21/2008, -0/+4Indeed but CUDA is still made to be run on the specific nVidia's features. We don't even know that GPGPU processes coming from DX11 would be as effective as the more specific to nVidia's products' feautures, CUDA's
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/21/2008, -2/+6Yeah, it is, but does anyone know what the hell is up with OpenGL?
- Raptor007, on 10/21/2008, -4/+8I have to wonder whether Vista and DX10's intention was to move PC gamers to the 360.
(Didn't work on me... yay XP!) - inactive, on 10/21/2008, -1/+5Had to be done.
- JoeB4ever, on 10/21/2008, -2/+6I hate you
- metallica093, on 10/21/2008, -0/+4And my axe.
- Tyrghast, on 10/21/2008, -3/+7The argument that piracy holds pc gaming back has been proven time and again to be wrong. Have you been paying attention to all the news and discussions since Spore? Try again.
- AReallyGoodName, on 10/21/2008, -3/+7The team who do Wine have stated that they can implement DirectX10 functionality without changing any of the driver models of whatever OS Wine is running on. So in the future XP users will probably be using Wine to run DirectX10 games on XP.
It just goes to show how ***** the "it can't be done in XP" line is. - pizpot, on 10/21/2008, -1/+5it is waiting to kill DX one day
- magamiako, on 10/21/2008, -1/+5Tyrghast:
It's a chicken and egg scenario. The developers want the market to be there, and the gamers want the developers to be there.
In this situation though I always place it on the burden of the software developers. If the gamers aren't upgrading, it's because nothing is available. Gamers just don't "make" a gaming market without games being there.
The problem is nobody has really figured out how to tackle piracy all that much. It's just way too easy to pirate on the PC than it is on a console.
Granted, dropping the price on the PC versions of the games by $20-$30 might build up the PC market some. If a person who has both a 360 and a PC had the choice between a $30 game and a $60 game, it's obvious the one we would choose.
But, that's assuming that person would buy it in the first place. - magamiako, on 10/21/2008, -1/+5There are other reasons most businesses haven't done complete overhauls of the systems to Vista yet, and it has very little to do with whether or not Vista is a good OS. On the contrary, most of the IT people I've spoken to (yes, I work in IT) tend to think the changes that Vista and Server 2008 bring are really pretty interesting.
The problem is, a lot of those changes require some serious planning and rethinking about how their group policy structure works.
And yes, the higher ram requirements out of Vista certainly put off a lot of IT departments from buying systems early on. When Vista first came out, a lot of people were still thinking "omg, 2GB for a simple OS used by the masses at our business!?"
Essentially, upgrading to Vista doesn't really improve IT infrastructure all that much.
Keep in mind, it took years for people to move away to Windows 2000 as well. I was beta testing Windows XP while in high school when my high school was just upgrading to Windows 2000 desktops.
It also took a while for XP use to pick up after that. I don't think XP became ubiquitous on the business desktop until late 2003/early 2004. (This of course is 2-3 years after XP's release).
When I was taking MCSE courses started in October 2003, it was still MCSE on Windows 2000 rather than XP/2003. - magamiako, on 10/21/2008, -0/+4Steve:
What he means is the new feature that will work regardless of the video card it's being run on. With DX11 coming out, it's simply a matter of a company making DX11 compatible components to run hardware GPGPU functions.
Unlike CUDA, which is Nvidia specific. - IamZed, on 10/21/2008, -1/+4I bought an 8800GTS to run DX10, and a week later 10.1 was announced, and it needed new hardware to run. Hell with 11.
- IndigoMoss, on 10/21/2008, -0/+3Not quite, the fact of the matter is, Direct X 10 as you know it, isn't what the spec was supposed to be in the first place. There's a lot of things that Nvidia (first to the market with DX 10 cards) either refused, or couldn't do, so the cut those features in order to push DX10, and the cards that support it.
Direct X 10.1 is more or less the original planned spec, and has been featured on the HD 3xxx and 4xxx series cards from ATI, and rumor says will be in the next major line-up of the new Nvidia cards. Direct X 10.1 games, (currently only Assassin's Creed and soon to be released Farcry 2) have shown a very good performance increase over DX 10 mode, including much better AA performance.
In short, DX10 wasn't the original spec that they had purposed. So hopefully DX11 is what they are purposing, much like DX9 was.
The 9700 series from ATI back in the DX9 days, was able to handle any DX9 game of the day without major issue. - digitalpencil, on 10/21/2008, -1/+4^ it's a ***** awful analogy..
no-one gave us any ***** money.. we were promised sweet graphics with DX10 and so many upgraded their hardware and OS for that explicit reason.. of course it failed to truly come into fruition and has yet to be successfully leveraged by the vast majority of titles..
Now, they want to push DX11 demanding yet more upgrades and we're probably still going to be left swiveling with DX9 despite having upgraded machines twice and invested a fair portion of money into instantly redundant technology.
***** it, i'm tired of the BS.. OpenGL has matured into a formidable engine, i'd like to see wider adoption of this platform. -
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is