Windows XP SP3

[djnes]

So it seems like we might see SP3 after all. I was under the impression that SP3 wasn't going to happen.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/may07/05-21MSJuniperPR.mspx

[markt435]

later this year huh? i was thinking it'd just be a post SP2 update rollup but it looks they got more planned. dare i say its kinda stupid to do so when you have a new OS out? i would think they'd just fix stuff that needs to be fixed and be done with it and move on to fully supporting your new OS. but thats just me i guess.

[SpeedRunner]

I guess that want to show the world that they are supporting their old OS...

[pxc]

SP3 is mostly just going to be a roll up of post SP2 patches anyways, plus whatever MS wants to push (.NET 2.0/3.x, WS2008 client support, etc).

[jordan12]

Excellent. XP is a great OS. Good to see they dont just ignore it now that the better OS has been released. :D

[Crosshairs]

So it seems like we might see SP3 after all. I was under the impression that SP3 wasn't going to happen.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/may07/05-21MSJuniperPR.mspx

Oh the irony......

[djnes]

What irony would that be?

[GORANKAR]

Reading the article it does seem like a little more than a security/patch roll up.. "Interoperability" seemed to come up a lot..

Don't anybody dare ask if they are going to add DX10 to sp3 for Xp... Or I'll bonk you with my idiot hammer and ram a dunce cap up your @!! with out lube.... :D

[markt435]

Excellent. XP is a great OS. Good to see they dont just ignore it now that the better OS has been released. :D

well they're not going to ignore it...they're going to continue supporting it for awhile. but its kinda stupid to add features to a previous OS when you have a new OS you're trying to push to be adopted by businesses and consumers. but obviously its just for the users who are going to continue using XP. but then again by the time this comes out, i bet most IT depts will have finished testing Vista and making sure everything works with it and then making preparations to migrate. then MS will throw this out and there will come the question of testing the new patch or spending the money to migrate. will be interesting to see what they eventually put into SP3 other than standard patches.

[osalcido]

I guess that want to show the world that they are supporting their old OS...

you say that like its a bad thing:confused:

[Hypernova]

will be interesting to see what they eventually put into SP3 other than standard patches.

Probably some new WGA.

I would say it's about god damned time. It's rather annoying having to slip stream increasing numbers of updates into SP2 CDs.

[RangerXML]

Just imagine, DX10 in XP, but at what price...UAC in XP! Oh nooos! I'd rather see a fix/service pack for Vista real quick, not a more Vista XP!

[w1retap]

Just imagine, DX10 in XP, but at what price...UAC in XP! Oh nooos! I'd rather see a fix/service pack for Vista real quick, not a more Vista XP!

You think they don't have enough employees to do both? Also, they work in teams.

[Easykill1978]

its because many business will be using xp for years to come and will only shift to vista when next os comes out. we have only just switched to xp from 2000

[heatlesssun]

XP is going to be around a long time. For one, the number of PC's shipped with XP is in the hundres of millions. You simply can't ignore that number of computers. Plus, as Easykill1978, many large businesses just standardized on XP, so Vista is not in the picture anytime soon.

XP has worked well for me, and I'm still using it, but with better drivers Vista is started to to become what I prefer to use for general work, multimedia, and gaming.

[noobtech]

That would be sweet if they added DX10 to XP... I would never switch to Vista then :) EVARRRR!! :D

[dot_Zen]

That would be sweet if they added DX10 to XP... I would never switch to Vista then :) EVARRRR!! :D

I dunno..something tells me it's not that simple or easy..

This may just be their last roll-up for XP, before the majority of Microsoft developers and engineers switch gears for Vienna (TBA).

[Catweazle]

That would be sweet if they added DX10 to XP... I would never switch to Vista then :) EVARRRR!! :D

It's never gonna happen. EVARRRR!!!!!!! Don't hold your breath waiting ;)


Did I miss something here? Was there ever a doubt that a third XP service pack was going to be released, to bundle together the various security patches released since SP2 and to ensure interoperability with new server software releases? That'd have been silly, because a good slice of the corporate world will continue using XP until Vista's successor arrives.

[dot_Zen]

No, I don't think you Catweazle(or most of us who lounge in the OS forums) missed a beat. In fact, I still haven't had time to set up the 2k7 Server. :( I'm falling behind now.

But for some, this is new. And I know the little mice in their heads are churning away hoping for Dx10 in XP; I think for 90% it will boil down to this.

[noobtech]

It's never gonna happen. EVARRRR!!!!!!! Don't hold your breath waiting ;)

:D I have been tempted to get Vista just to learn it since it's probably going to be mainstream someday like XP.... The only thing that's kind of stopping me now is thinking it will be another ME.

[Catweazle]

.... The only thing that's kind of stopping me now is thinking it will be another ME.

Pretty hard to see how any reasonable person could make such a comparison, really.


Sure, there is sorta a similarity. Both WinMe and Vista are products designed to wean people away from particular mindsets. But that's where the comparison ends.

WinMe was designed to get private consumers ready to move to a new code base for Windows, where some substantial and fundamental changes confronted them. It was the end of the line for a code base, and an exercise in hastily bolting together elements of two different software technologies. Thus it was unstable and flawed.

Vista, on the other hand, is designed to wean people away from the 'run as admin' mindset and toward the 'least user privilege' model. It's an improvement upon and continuation of the same underlying software technology, and there's been no indication whatsoever that it's an 'end of the line' product. Quite the contrary, actually. Vista is more stable than its predecessor, and the 'flaws' people are seeing or reporting are predominately related to third party software and hardware developers. That's a very different scenario to WinMe, where even trying to use stuff like system Restore often created more new problems than it resolved existing ones!


Leave the 'WinMe' comparisons to dickheads like Charlie over at the Inquirer, would be my suggestion. Those comparisons are just plain silly!



Edit:

By the way. There's no "if" about Vista becoming 'mainstream'. It's a "when". Vista will inevitably become the desktop OS used by the bulk of people.

[Krilikz]

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=8948&pagtype=samechan


windows denies....

[duby229]

Reading the article it does seem like a little more than a security/patch roll up.. "Interoperability" seemed to come up a lot..

Don't anybody dare ask if they are going to add DX10 to sp3 for Xp... Or I'll bonk you with my idiot hammer and ram a dunce cap up your @!! with out lube.... :D

Why wouldnt they include DX10 support? They would have a much larger user base if they did....

Oh wait, I forgot... :D

[Archer75]

Why wouldnt they include DX10 support? They would have a much larger user base if they did....

Oh wait, I forgot... :D

Adding DX10 for XP isn't a matter of just release software to install. It's a radical change to DirectX that would require even more changes under the hood of the OS. It would require a massive effort to do and alot of code rewritting. There's just no good reason to do so.

If it was simply a matter of downloading and installing it would still be kept vista only. You don't see other companies release all of the updating features for their software for free do you? Everybody adds new features and sells their software as updated programs.

Go tell apple you want spotlight released for OSX 10.3 and see how they laugh at you.

[djnes]

If it was simply a matter of downloading and installing it would still be kept vista only. You don't see other companies release all of the updating features for their software for free do you? Everybody adds new features and sells their software as updated programs.

Go tell apple you want spotlight released for OSX 10.3 and see how they laugh at you.
But...but...but when Microsoft does it...it's evil! When anyone else does it...it's just good business sense!

[duby229]

Adding DX10 for XP isn't a matter of just release software to install. It's a radical change to DirectX that would require even more changes under the hood of the OS. It would require a massive effort to do and alot of code rewritting. There's just no good reason to do so.

If it was simply a matter of downloading and installing it would still be kept vista only. You don't see other companies release all of the updating features for their software for free do you? Everybody adds new features and sells their software as updated programs.

Go tell apple you want spotlight released for OSX 10.3 and see how they laugh at you.

No but all I'll say is "GLSL" Not that big a deal after all,. considering that DX10 provides little functional improvement over DX9.
http://www.majorgeeks.com/DirectX_10_Compatibility_Libraries_d5615.html

The entire D3D API can be rendered in a better environment, faster and more effectively. In addition GLSL can also be used to extend OpenGL to include those few and far between features that DX10 actually does have over DX9

[RangerXML]

I love MS encouragement to switch to Vista with a DX9 version of Halo 2, brillaint and not gonna make me switch...oh wait I already have Vista, damn it!

[Unknown-One]

Figures, this degenerated back into another "DX10 for XP" thread :rolleyes:

I present to you, Falling Leaf Systems Alky Project (http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/), which aims to allow games to run independent of an operating systems proprietary libraries. They have a video of Prey (a DX9 title) running on MacOS X, and they are working on porting DX10 to Windows XP.

Recently, they merged with project VAIO (http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/), who have already released libraries which allow some Vista apps to work on Windows XP (I have the Vista sidebar installed and working under XP right now), so there is active development going on...looks to me like these guys are for real. :D

If you want to give it a try, the latest release is available here (http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/site_media/vaio/vaioxp_b2r3.4_feb02.zip). It won't get Halo 2 running on XP just yet, but it will allow some Vista specific apps to function (like the sidebar).

[pxc]

I present to you, Falling Leaf Systems Alky Project (http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/), which aims to allow games to run independent of an operating systems proprietary libraries. They have a video of Prey (a DX9 title) running on MacOS X, and they are working on porting DX10 to Windows XP.Prey is an OpenGL game and it runs natively on OS X (official port). :p

Alky is a long way from running a game. It can't even run a simple precompiled DX10 .exe. Nothing fancy, just a simple rendered triangle.

[Unknown-One]

I could have swore it asked me to install DirectX 9 when I installed Prey, Quake 4, and Doom 3 (all are based on the Doom 3 engine)...

In any case, the point is that someone is working on it :p

[feek]

it's never gonna happen.

[zacdl]

No but all I'll say is "GLSL" Not that big a deal after all,. considering that DX10 provides little functional improvement over DX9.
:rolleyes: At first when I read this thread, I thought "That was the most idiotic statement that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand on this whole thread. Furthermore, it is more along the lines of pure Vista-bashing". And then I saw the username, and it explained everything :p

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=8948&pagtype=samechan
windows denies....
Wouldn't that be "Microsoft Denies"???
At any rate... I think the point was to note that SP3 IS coming.

Adding DX10 for XP isn't a matter of just release software to install. It's a radical change to DirectX that would require even more changes under the hood of the OS. It would require a massive effort to do and alot of code rewritting. There's just no good reason to do so.
But, DX10 for XP would be FREE!!! As well all know, Microsoft is not a business, and just hands their products out for nothing. We also know that they are not interested in giving Vista better features (which you would pay for) over XP (which you wouldn't pay for).

Microsoft is still a business. Microsoft has no responsibility to even give you SP3, much less DX10. So enough with the complaining, and be happy you are even getting the darn thing.

[Catweazle]

- snip -
The Falling Leaf project has been discussed on the forum before, and shown to be pie in the sky rubbish which will never lead to DX10 games running under XP. Waste of time and space mentioning it again ;)

[Super Mario]

But, DX10 for XP would be FREE!!! As well all know, Microsoft is not a business, and just hands their products out for nothing. We also know that they are not interested in giving Vista better features (which you would pay for) over XP (which you wouldn't pay for).

Microsoft is still a business. Microsoft has no responsibility to even give you SP3, much less DX10. So enough with the complaining, and be happy you are even getting the darn thing.

Well they released DX9 for Windows 2000 and even lousy low end Windows 98/ME. And it was given for free. If Microsoft was a business, DX9 should have been for Windows XP only just like DX10 is for Vista only.

In that case, there must be something in DX9 that is for XP only if Microsoft really wanted to make money on Windows XP.

[markt435]

seriously how many times must it be explained that DX10 is built on an entirely different driver model that WONT WORK in XP???

do i need to write it on a hammer and hit you in the head with it to make you understand? and why the fuck did this have to turn into a DX10 in XP thread? THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT PERIOD.

:rolleyes: :mad:

and if by the slight chance they do put DX10 on XP (i am not talking about a user created port either...i'm talking OFFICIAL MS software), I will eat a raw oyster.

[duby229]

seriously how many times must it be explained that DX10 is built on an entirely different driver model that WONT WORK in XP???

do i need to write it on a hammer and hit you in the head with it to make you understand? and why the fuck did this have to turn into a DX10 in XP thread? THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT PERIOD.

:rolleyes: :mad:

and if by the slight chance they do put DX10 on XP (i am not talking about a user created port either...i'm talking OFFICIAL MS software), I will eat a raw oyster.

I'm sure MS will never do it. But unlike you, I know that DX10 is DX9 with a handful of new shaders. And really nothing more. From an API standpoint, DX10 is a trivial update that could be ported to XP in a few weeks.

As per your argument about implementation doesnt matter. Whether it is implemented is user space or kernel space doesnt matter. The API will be functionally identical.

[markt435]

We can argue those points all day long. And you can argue what DX10 is and what it isn't. The fact is, its not going to come out on XP in an official manner. EVER. I seriously wish people would stop bringing it up.

[feek]

I'm sure MS will never do it. But unlike you, I know that DX10 is DX9 with a handful of new shaders. And really nothing more. From an API standpoint, DX10 is a trivial update that could be ported to XP in a few weeks.

As per your argument about implementation doesnt matter. Whether it is implemented is user space or kernel space doesnt matter. The API will be functionally identical.

you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

[duby229]

We can argue those points all day long. And you can argue what DX10 is and what it isn't. The fact is, its not going to come out on XP in an official manner. EVER. I seriously wish people would stop bringing it up.

We can dream right?

We have to accept it because Billy says so? I'm thinking of the song "Hey Mickey" but with the words replaced with something else.... Some pom poms in your hands singin a song.....

[duby229]

you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Yep, I'm clueless.....

The only thing it adds is SM4.0, which can be implemented in HLSL, or GLSL anyway in just a couple of weeks. Everything else is artificial. The whole WDDM fiasco, in order to be "DX10 compatible:" Artificial.

[markt435]

We can dream right?

We have to accept it because Billy says so? I'm thinking of the song "Hey Mickey" but with the words replaced with something else.... Some pom poms in your hands singin a song.....

you're gonna have to accept it cuz last time i checked, Windows is made by MS. and if they don't wanna put DX10 in an older OS and would rather use it to push the new OS (Which was gonna come out anyway...why not put it in the new OS?), they are going to do so. i'm sorry but you're gonna have to get used to that idea. and if you don't like it...well, you already know the answer to that one.

[LstOfTheBrunnenG]

We can dream right?

We have to accept it because Billy says so? I'm thinking of the song "Hey Mickey" but with the words replaced with something else.... Some pom poms in your hands singin a song.....

And I can picture you jumping around in a skirt too, just championing a different group of people.

People in glass houses...

[duby229]

And I can picture you jumping around in a skirt too, just championing a different group of people.

People in glass houses...

Not exactly. Billy didnt tell me to do it.

[zacdl]

What so many people seem to not understand, is this is largely a business choice.
Why in the world would Microsoft give people DirectX10 for free on XP, when it can be offered as an attraction to upgrade (spend money) for their new Operating System?

We have to accept it because Billy says so?
Are you really this ignorant?
Last time I checked, the company that created the software product, as well as the platform it runs on, can do whatever the heck they want to do with their own product.
If they don't want one of their own products to support another of their products- that is their choice.
You don't like how Microsoft does it? Write your own stinking product and let's see how much greater it is. Oh- and because it would have to be on a level playing field- you have to spend thousands of hours on new revisions for better graphics as technology advances- and offer it for free.


Yep, I'm clueless.....
Whew- Good! Glad we are all on the same page now...

[duby229]

Last time I checked, the company that created the software product, as well as the platform it runs on, can do whatever the heck they want to do with their own product.
If they don't want one of their own products to support another of their products- that is their choice.


Even when it is detrimental to the consumer?

hmmmm Interesting.

[markt435]

how is it detrimental? last time i checked, most of the new games coming out with DX10 will be able to be played in DX9 mode. whether they will allow you to install those games on the OLDER OS is up to them. but if you're pissed you can't play Halo 2 on XP...well...that makes me chuckle.

[zacdl]

LMAO... This all goes back to the whole Vista debate.

Technology ADVANCES. If you want it to stand still so everything continues to work- do so. But then don't start griping because nothing new works.

As already asked- what does it do bad to the user?
You can still do everything you have been able to do. You just won't be able to use any of the new, ADVANCED, technology.

What drives me nuts is people praise companies like Apple for "advancing"- and mandating their users to upgrade their whole systems- for new features or software. When Microsoft does it, everyone complains.

[LstOfTheBrunnenG]

Not exactly. Billy didnt tell me to do it.No, Stallman did.

[GORANKAR]

What drives me nuts is people praise companies like Apple for "advancing"- and mandating their users to upgrade their whole systems- for new features or software. When Microsoft does it, everyone complains.

^^^^^ I think, well, am pretty sure that, Widows fanatics are just not quite as fanatical, as Mac fanatics.. ^^^^^^^^^

I saw this thing denigrating into a "No DX10 for Xp, How come, MS you bastards" thread.. If I had kept the promise I made in post 8 of this thread, I would have wore out my idiot hammer, ran out of dunce caps, and a lotta folks would have sore bums right about now..

Too bad really.. All this noise over a security roll up, with a few upgrades aimed at keeping Xp going a bit longer/stronger in the corporate world... The majority of the upgrades mentioned in that article have little bearing on your typical home user, not even most of the [H] ones...

I suppose there could be more to Sp3 than that article talks about, but we will have to wait and see..

[Catweazle]

It's a pity, actually, that Microsoft didn't simply discontinue using 'DirectX' as the name of the API. Would've made more sense to come up with a complete new name for the interface, especially with DirectSound now gone from it. DX10 is effectively a new programming interface, rather than a tweak of the old one. A new name might've gone some wy toward helping avoid the bullshit discussion we've been seeing.

People carrying on about wanting 'DX10' for XP are really wanting to see a further upgrade to DX9, which adds support for newer hardware features. DX10 can't be 'changed' for XP.

[dot_Zen]

Was only a matter of time I 'spose..

At any rate, this thread now...

/fails

[duby229]

It's a pity, actually, that Microsoft didn't simply discontinue using 'DirectX' as the name of the API. Would've made more sense to come up with a complete new name for the interface, especially with DirectSound now gone from it. DX10 is effectively a new programming interface, rather than a tweak of the old one. A new name might've gone some wy toward helping avoid the bullshit discussion we've been seeing.

People carrying on about wanting 'DX10' for XP are really wanting to see a further upgrade to DX9, which adds support for newer hardware features. DX10 can't be 'changed' for XP.

Thats funny. :eek: :D

Considering that the only major difference is SM4

[duby229]

No, Stallman did.

Nope. I'm not promoting free software in this thread. Just pointing out that DX10 is a trivial update, with no good reason to --not-- backport it to XP I think it would be in MS best interest to backport it to XP. In this way they would have a much larger install base.

I dont think Stallman would have me say that.

[zacdl]

Considering that the only major difference is SM4
I really don't know what to say. When you are wrong and keep claiming all this crap- not much else you can do. I guess we can just hope you never are allowed to touch a computer that matters to someone...

I think it would be in MS best interest to backport it to XP.
Can you explain to me, how it would benifit Microsoft?
When I need to spend money on a whole new OS to get DirectX10- it's profit.
When it is issued as an update, it is free- no profit.

You could argue (as I am guessing you are) that there would be more folks sticking to XP for longer. But therein is the key: "For longer". Why would MS delay picking up more Vista customers?

[duby229]

I really don't know what to say. When you are wrong and keep claiming all this crap- not much else you can do. I guess we can just hope you never are allowed to touch a computer that matters to someone...


Can you explain to me, how it would benifit Microsoft?
When I need to spend money on a whole new OS to get DirectX10- it's profit.
When it is issued as an update, it is free- no profit.

You could argue (as I am guessing you are) that there would be more folks sticking to XP for longer. But therein is the key: "For longer". Why would MS delay picking up more Vista customers?

It benefits MS becouse they would have a much larger install base. It's the same reason they pushed IE7 out as a critical update. There is no good technical reason that DX10 should be a Vista only tech.WDDM is an implementation detail. It could still be ported to use XP's driver model.

[defuseme2k]

its ironic when I can read this and clearly see both sides of the arguement. duby229 really isn't that far off base, honestly. Even carmack made comments that microsoft was reaching for straws by making directx10 a vista only thing. I tend to agree that microsoft's choice with directx 10 was relatively a lame one. However, all I really see going on here is people dying to get the 'other side' to concede they're wrong. You're both right, honestly. Direcxt10 did not HAVE to be for vista only, however it is going to be vista only --forever. You could break this down even further by saying that directx10 is more than just d3d in and of itself, however I believe the real arguement is around direct3d. I don't see that there is anything else left to be said. Have a 10 year old kid arguement someplace else.

[GORANKAR]

Nevermind --- delete...

[zacdl]

You're both right, honestly. Direcxt10 did not HAVE to be for vista only, however it is going to be vista only --forever.
No use for me to do much more than mention it- but DX10 just won't work in XP.
It's much the same as getting around Microsoft activation. You can patch it however the heck many times you want, but you will always end up losing (if someone were to port DX10 over to XP someway).

It benefits MS becouse they would have a much larger install base.
Microsoft doesn't accomplish that with Vista?

You are also forgetting about game developers. DX10 would increase their work on XP.
Right now, Game devs are writing for XP and Vista.
A year from now, it may largely be Vista. Why would they put the time in to re-write their XP software? They could better spend their time IMPROVING their software (I know you have improvements and advances in technology...) rather than getting it to work on old systems.

[markt435]

as much as he is gonna call it the same, he obviously doesn't understand the fact it was completely rewritten for WDDM. windows are drawn in DX9 and its run in kernel mode. it works in user space for XP and not until something is run that requires it. least thats how i understand it. hell DX10 could be the exact same as DX9 just with SM4. but that doesn't change the fact it was rewritten to work with WDDM and hence, will not work with XP. go call MS up and tell them you'd be willing to try and port WDDM to the OLDER OS. they will laugh in your ear. its a new OS, its a new driver model and will be used to help PUSH the new OS as an option for consumers. is the new OS needed now? not really, as we can count the number of DX10 games on one hand that can be played now. but a lot of us that have migrated haven't looked back. nor should you. Vista will have a decent user base by the time the big DX10 games come out. even if you don't decide to join that user base. guess you'll miss out on the fun if those game makers don't allow the games to be played on XPin DX9 mode...but that is up to them and also something i highly doubt. so quit yer beetchin

:o :cool:

[duby229]

as much as he is gonna call it the same, he obviously doesn't understand the fact it was completely rewritten for WDDM. windows are drawn in DX9 and its run in kernel mode. it works in user space for XP and not until something is run that requires it. least thats how i understand it. hell DX10 could be the exact same as DX9 just with SM4. but that doesn't change the fact it was rewritten to work with WDDM and hence, will not work with XP. go call MS up and tell them you'd be willing to try and port WDDM to the OLDER OS. they will laugh in your ear. its a new OS, its a new driver model and will be used to help PUSH the new OS as an option for consumers. is the new OS needed now? not really, as we can count the number of DX10 games on one hand that can be played now. but a lot of us that have migrated haven't looked back. nor should you. Vista will have a decent user base by the time the big DX10 games come out. even if you don't decide to join that user base. guess you'll miss out on the fun if those game makers don't allow the games to be played on XPin DX9 mode...but that is up to them and also something i highly doubt. so quit yer beetchin

:o :cool:

WDDM is an implementation detail. The API would be the same regardless. WDDM was a step in the right direction. Good for MS, but it on no way prevents them from backporting to XP. In either case the API would be the same.

The real issue here is that Billy says jump.

[Catweazle]

Wrong. SM4 is the incidental detail and the rewrite of the API for WDDM the major change. If you want to argue for SM4 support then argue for SM4 support to be added to DX9. THAT could be done! The DX10 API itself can't be back-ported to XP without it being a major job, which nobody in their right mind would expect to see carried out.

[markt435]

WDDM is an implementation detail. The API would be the same regardless. WDDM was a step in the right direction. Good for MS, but it on no way prevents them from backporting to XP. In either case the API would be the same.

The real issue here is that Billy says jump.

sigh...

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:B9ooMyUWRmQJ:pollux.arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2007/2/14/7060/p1+why+dx10+can%27t+be+ported+to+XP&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

DirectX 10: why it's exclusive to Vista

When Microsoft officially announced that DirectX 10 (DX10) would only be available for Windows Vista, many gaming fans yearning to be on the bleeding edge were upset. In order to get the most from their video cards, users would have to upgrade their operating systems to Vista. Some have attributed Microsoft's decision to be purely based on marketing, but that's not entirely the case. What other factors were in play?

According to Microsoft DirectX guru Phil Taylor, development for DX10 wasn't complete until late in Windows XP's lifecycle, and during the time of its development, things became clear that DX10 simply would not fit into XP.

Given XP shipped in 2001 and it was late 2003 when the DX10 design solidified - it should be obvious that 'what the OS was' was well beyond XP before serious DX10 work commenced. Heck, the Longhorn reset was in 2004 and DX10 wasn't done until later. The build that was demo'ed [sic] at WinHEC 2004 with the texture memory management was a very fresh build and wasn't feature complete - and that was April or May 2004. The 1st DX SDK supporting DX10 didn't appear until Dec 2005.

Taylor also noted that it would take a tremendous amount of work if the company were to retrofit DX10 into XP. "Given the new features in the driver model and hardware (with GPU task switching, GPU memory management and more) all of which require kernel support - hoisting a driver layer like that on XP is rewriting it to be Vista," he wrote on his blog.

Technical reasons aside, money was also a big contributor in the decision to make DX10 exclusive to Vista. Microsoft felt as though Windows XP customers had received, as Taylor puts it, "good value for their money." Taylor even goes as far as admitting that Microsoft knew that making DX10 exclusive to Vista would certainly bring in new customers. "At some point, the question 'to serve existing customers' or 'to get new customers' is a question every business has to ask itself."

Overall, the reasons presented seem logical. It's clear that Microsoft would need to do some major work in Windows XP for DX10 to run just as smoothly as it does on Vista, and even the idea of luring new customers to Vista with DX10 isn't so bad. After all, many people have asked why they should upgrade to the new operating system. There are a variety of reasons, and being able to run DX10 is a bigger one. Would you agree?

done yet duby? or are we gonna keep arguing cuz you have to have the last word?

[zacdl]

done yet duby? or are we gonna keep arguing cuz you have to have the last word?

lol, more like he'll drop off the thread and never reply again. Some of his other arguments either failed because they were so ridiculous, or because they were completely uneducated statements that were plain wrong... needless to say, I think they were conveniently "forgotten".

At any rate- still great article. I don't think it would matter even if you gave rock-hard solid proof- you would still have plenty of people making absurd comments.
What's worse is the same people, once shown wrong, often turn around and throw the statements around in the "real" world- where the chances of running into someone else that actually knows the facts is pretty slim...

[Catweazle]

Doesn't matter if it's duby or if it's anybody else. Claiming that WDDM is just a 'minor detail' of DX10 is just plain wrong. WDDM is an entirely new environment within which DirectX needs to operate, and DX10 is the rewrite of the API for that environment.


Edit:

Could people please stop making those personally directed comments, perhaps?

[markt435]

well i would. but he decided to call me a fanboy twice without actually saying it. does understanding the business and even technical decisions of a company make me a fanboy? :confused: its like Fox News...they whine and complain the other media outlets are liberal, yet they forget to mention the fact that they are obviously on the conservative side of things and just as much at fault of spinning news their way as much as the other guys. but noooo they're "fair and balanced" :rolleyes:

but i digress...

its a business decision and the fact it would also take a lot of work in the first place. its not detrimental to the consumer since new things are gonna come out, and vista will be supporting them...just as any other new OS would. so the consumer would upgrade when they choose to do so. games will still be able to be played in DX9 mode until a certain point and will just be abandoned all together. hell, COD2 can still be rendered in DX7 mode. even years after XP came out, some games were still being made for 98/ME/2000, until 98/ME were abandoned (prolly around the same time MS stopped offering support completely).

so acting like its a bad thing for the consumer now is a bogus argument. maybe 1 or 2 years down the line when something comes along and a user is FORCED to spend the money to upgrade, it will become detrimental, but when you have even the [H] saying upgrading is not needed now, its just retarded to bring it up.

the user base mentioned is being underestimated and will grow by the time the newer games come out if that is the point of upgrading for said user.

in the words of bill o'reilly, "i'll let you have the last word." :p

[duby229]

lol, more like he'll drop off the thread and never reply again. Some of his other arguments either failed because they were so ridiculous, or because they were completely uneducated statements that were plain wrong... needless to say, I think they were conveniently "forgotten".

At any rate- still great article. I don't think it would matter even if you gave rock-hard solid proof- you would still have plenty of people making absurd comments.
What's worse is the same people, once shown wrong, often turn around and throw the statements around in the "real" world- where the chances of running into someone else that actually knows the facts is pretty slim...

Yep that must be what it is.... Oh thow greatness.:rolleyes:

[duby229]

Doesn't matter if it's duby or if it's anybody else. Claiming that WDDM is just a 'minor detail' of DX10 is just plain wrong. WDDM is an entirely new environment within which DirectX needs to operate, and DX10 is the rewrite of the API for that environment.


Edit:

Could people please stop making those personally directed comments, perhaps?

It's an entirely new environment that doesnt affect the API in any way. That is an implementation detail. You can call it something else Iguess, but you cant make it something that it isnt.

[Catweazle]

It's an entirely new environment that doesnt affect the API in any way.
If that were true we wouldn't be seeing all the display driver related issues we've been seeing ;)

[duby229]

If that were true we wouldn't be seeing all the display driver related issues we've been seeing ;)

The devil is in the details. And those details have nothing to do with DX10, and rather other "issues" that are specific to Vista.

[LstOfTheBrunnenG]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_10#Direct3D_10

New features

* Fixed pipelines are being done away with in favor of fully programmable pipelines (often referred to as unified pipeline architecture), which can be programmed to emulate the same.
* Paging of graphics memory, to allow data to be loaded to video memory when needed and move it out when not needed. This enables usage of the system memory to hold graphics data, such as textures, thereby allowing use of more and higher resolution textures in games (this was possible with older DirectX APIs by using the GART).
* There is no limit on the number of objects which can be rendered, provided enough resources are available.
* Virtualization of the graphics hardware, to allow multiple threads/processes to use it, in turns.
* New state object to enable the GPU to change states efficiently.
* Shader model 4.0, enhances the programmability of the graphics pipeline. It adds instructions for integer and bitwise calculations.
* Geometry shaders, which work on individual triangles which form a mesh.
* Texture arrays enable swapping of textures in GPU without CPU intervention.
* Resource View enables pre-caching of resources, thereby reducing latency.
* Predicated Rendering allows drawing calls to be ignored based on some other conditions. This enables rapid occlusion culling, which prevents objects from being rendered if it is not visible or too far to be visible.
* Instancing 2.0 support, allowing multiple instances of similar meshes, such as armies, or grass or trees, to be rendered in a single draw call, reducing the processing time needed for multiple similar objects to that of a single one.You're trying to tell us that all of those features can be implemented without a serious rewrite of the driver model?

[duby229]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_10#Direct3D_10

You're trying to tell us that all of those features can be implemented without a serious rewrite of the driver model?

Most of those are hardware features that are already supported on every OS in common use today through other API's.

Like I said WDDM is a step in the right direction, but it in no way prevents MS from backporting DX10 to XP.

The problem is that Bill said bend over.

[Catweazle]

The problem here is that pre-schoolers are let in to the lecture hall!

We're talking about the DirectX API, not other API's on other OS's..

[markt435]

...The problem is this thread is going nowhere because someone is dens..errr i think its time for a close maybe. :D

Seriously duby....read the article I posted from ArsTechnica. Its explains everything you need to know. From someone who knows what he's talking about even! :) And if you can't believe what he says...then I can't help you with your problem.

Here I'll even quote it just for you and put the answers to your problem in BOLD:

Taylor also noted that it would take a tremendous amount of work if the company were to retrofit DX10 into XP. "Given the new features in the driver model and hardware (with GPU task switching, GPU memory management and more) all of which require kernel support - hoisting a driver layer like that on XP is rewriting it to be Vista," he wrote on his blog.

Technical reasons aside, money was also a big contributor in the decision to make DX10 exclusive to Vista. Microsoft felt as though Windows XP customers had received, as Taylor puts it, "good value for their money." Taylor even goes as far as admitting that Microsoft knew that making DX10 exclusive to Vista would certainly bring in new customers. "At some point, the question 'to serve existing customers' or 'to get new customers' is a question every business has to ask itself."

[duby229]

The problem here is that pre-schoolers are let in to the lecture hall!

We're talking about the DirectX API, not other API's on other OS's..

I'm talking about XP and 2000... If others can do it, then MS can do it better. It is just a shame that they chose not to.

[duby229]

...The problem is this thread is going nowhere because someone is dens..errr i think its time for a close maybe. :D

Seriously duby....read the article I posted from ArsTechnica. Its explains everything you need to know. From someone who knows what he's talking about even! :) And if you can't believe what he says...then I can't help you with your problem.

Here I'll even quote it just for you and put the answers to your problem in BOLD:

Yep.... HLSL......

[zacdl]

I knew it would be turned into a "other OS" thread. It just had to be...
It is so obvious you are a Linux fan, you turn these threads around to make it into a "why Windows (or Vista) sucks" thread. And here I thought the Admin re-established it as a Windows forum and this crap wouldn't be allowed any more... sigh. Another (YET AGAIN) characteristic is there has been no proof or evidence of any kind from your side of the argument- yet there has been plenty to refute the false claims set forth.

I consider that trolling. Maybe I should hop on over to the Linux forums and start saying "Linux sucks because it sucks at gaming!"

Great info, LstOfTheBrunnenG. I, too, would like to know how you can implement all those features with "minor" updating.

Guess it's like packing 100lbs of camping gear into a fanny pack. I sure would like to know how to do it, but just because someone on the internetz says it can be done, never makes it so.

[markt435]

Yep.... HLSL......

:rolleyes:

http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/DX10Pre.asp?df=100&forumid=310197&exp=0&select=1893392

With the impending release of Vista, supposedly the largest computing leap since Windows 3.1...or whichever point and click OS came first, many new technologies have been announced.

One of these is DirectX 10, naturally the successor to DirectX 9 - but in this case it really is that, it succeeeds it.

Microsoft want a new start to their Operating System, and this means a new DirectX which does not need to support older versions, meaning it can use new technology to make it faster and more effective than every before.
Vista will only run pre-DirectX 10 applications in software mode, and current-gen graphics cards cannot run DirectX 10 at all.

From a developer's point of view, DirectX 10 changes are:

Sprites / Offscreen surfaces can no longer be used, all rendering must be done via primitives (polygons)- in addition to this, DirectDraw is now completely un-usable (it no longer exists)

Apparantly there will be no fixed function pipeling (FFP) and so all rendering must be done using Pixel / Vertex shaders (by this time Shader Model 4.0 will be released). Geometry shaders will also be introduced which have the ability to modify entire polygons, giving effects such as fluid simulation, growth etc

There is a new, much improved version of HLSL (high level shader language) - more details in another article

DirectX 10 uses much faster, completely new DLLs to increase performance dramatically

The GPU's supporting DX 10 have a more advanced, unified structure allowing them to complete tasks which traditionally could only be completed by a CPU.

In DX9, however, this was further refined by the introduction of the High Level Shader Language (HLSL). This allowed developers to write shaders using a familiar, C-style syntax.
This was much simpler, and more people started to override the fixed-function-pipeline (FFP) in favour of their own shaders, adapted to their games.
Shader Model 3.0, the current model of choice for shader development is good, but it still has its limits. In the new version, 4.0, there are no limits on instructions on each pass. Why? Because in Vista, the GPU will be seen as a shared resource, so infinate loops / rolls can be done without hanging the rest of the computer's processes.

The HLSL has been updated include every mathematical and logical operator you would expect to see in a normal programming language such as C, including bitwise and equality operators etc.
It also adds support for Shader Model 4.0's new "Geometry Shaders". These are similar to Vertex and Pixel shaders, but they allow the GPU to create, delete or modify whole primitives. It is run in before the Pixel shader and after the Vertex shader.

Thats right, in DirectX 10, there is no such thing as a "Fixed Function Pipeline" - you will have to use shaders.

reading comprehension FTW

btw, duby....if you think its so easy to backport it and stick it on to XP....Driver Model and all (which enables all the enhancements that were tacked on to DX10)....you should call them up and say I'll do this for free.

[markt435]

I knew it would be turned into a "other OS" thread. It just had to be...
It is so obvious you are a Linux fan, you turn these threads around to make it into a "why Windows (or Vista) sucks" thread. And here I thought the Admin re-established it as a Windows forum and this crap wouldn't be allowed any more... sigh. Another (YET AGAIN) characteristic is there has been no proof or evidence of any kind from your side of the argument- yet there has been plenty to refute the false claims set forth.

I consider that trolling. Maybe I should hop on over to the Linux forums and start saying "Linux sucks because it sucks at gaming!"

Great info, LstOfTheBrunnenG. I, too, would like to know how you can implement all those features with "minor" updating.

Guess it's like packing 100lbs of camping gear into a fanny pack. I sure would like to know how to do it, but just because someone on the internetz says it can be done, never makes it so.
its actually pretty civil in here right now. as long as name calling doesn't start...at least in the serious sense ;), its fine. and in fact i'm actually learning something with all the googling i'm doing. keeps me away from typing a paper right now :)

[zacdl]

btw, duby....if you think its so easy to backport it and stick it on to XP....Driver Model and all (which enables all the enhancements that were tacked on to DX10)....you should call them up and say I'll do this for free.
Heck, they'd probably pay you a few hundred thousand. What excuse would there be to not write it? I mean, you have such a deep understanding of how it works and everything...

its actually pretty civil in here right now. as long as name calling doesn't start...at least in the serious sense ;), its fine.
I agree- I'm disapointed that ridiculous statements like these are still allowed to circulate though.

[markt435]

Just for further enjoyment...here is a PDF I came across thats a BootDaily interview with another one of the DX team members Chris Donahue....

http://www.bootdaily.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=112

BD: Why will it only be available for Vista? Isn't that - by it's nature - forcing the folks (gamers) to upgrade?

Chris: DirectX 10 requires specific features of the Windows Vista operating system in order to take full advantage of graphics hardware. We took a dramatic new approach with DirectX in Windows Vista and as I mentioned before, completely rebuilt it from previous versions. DirectX 10 is built on the new Windows Vista Display Driver Model (WDDM) which is designed to usher in a new era of graphic capabilities while increasing stability and reliability. Additionally, we have re-architected the driver model to provide for more stability and better performance which allows the use of the graphics processor for other tasks like AI and physics.

So as I've been saying...when you have the NEW OS that is out, that DX10 was BUILT FOR, why would you spend the manpower on bringing the ENTIRE DRIVER MODEL to XP, which is the OLDER OS?

Now that that is out of the way...maybe we can get back on topic to XP SP3 or is it that far gone? lol

[kirk]

I have been reading this from the start, I just have to ask to the people that think that it is easy to code DX10 for XP one question.

Do any of you code DX for microsoft? If not then how do you know how easy it is to port it for XP? O and dont just say it is SM4 that is diff

If you do program for microsoft then there would be no question then if it were possible or not..

[odoe]

This has strayed way off-topic of the original OP, but has some good info. So keep it clean in here please. I can already see some of you with that glare.

[duby229]

I have been reading this from the start, I just have to ask to the people that think that it is easy to code DX10 for XP one question.

Do any of you code DX for microsoft? If not then how do you know how easy it is to port it for XP? O and dont just say it is SM4 that is diff

If you do program for microsoft then there would be no question then if it were possible or not..

No I dont code for MS, and I never said it would be easy. It would take a full team several weeks to port the API. I never said they have to port WDDM. As others in here keep implying.

The fact of the matter is simple. The hardware features provided by the G80 are already being used in Windows 2000 and XP. Just not by MS. If others can do it, then MS can do it better. I think in the end it just goes to show how greedy and corrupted the company really is.

[zacdl]

No I dont code for MS, and I never said it would be easy.
No????

Not that big a deal
DX10 is a trivial update that could be ported to XP in a few weeks.
The only thing it adds is SM4.0, which can be implemented in HLSL, or GLSL anyway in just a couple of weeks
DX10 is a trivial update

I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and give you a whole month to work on it. I'm sure Microsoft would pay you well for figuring out such a huge problem for them...
Ready... Set... Go!

I never said they have to port WDDM.
No???
WDDM is an implementation detail. It could still be ported to use XP's driver model.

I have still seen no proof for these ridiculous comments, either. There has been many articles linked to showing how completely wrong they are- yet they have all been dismissed with nothing more than one person's opinion.

Just be happy you are getting SP3 at all. Many people thought it won't happen. They might add a cool new feature (although I doubt it). Whatever the case, Microsoft has already said they are NOT implementing DX10 into XP. End of story. Move on.

[duby229]

I have still seen no proof for these ridiculous comments, either. There has been many articles linked to showing how completely wrong they are- yet they have all been dismissed with nothing more than one person's opinion.

It's already been done. You are the one who keeps bringing up WDDM, not me. The points have already been made, and shown that WDDM is a good move for Vista, but it in no way prevents DX10 from being ported to XP. We already have a group working on it now. In addition we also have several other graphics libraries that provide the same functions. There is no good reason wgy it cant be ported. none.


Just be happy you are getting SP3 at all. Many people thought it won't happen. They might add a cool new feature (although I doubt it). Whatever the case, Microsoft has already said they are NOT implementing DX10 into XP. End of story. Move on.

You go right ahead and do that. Me, I'll continue to speak out against anti-consumer decisions.

You can put the blame on me all you want, but the truth is, that I dont have --any-- ability to make decisions for MS. None. It isnt my fault, and I wont except it. I wont get used to it, and I will always speak out against it.

The day that MS starts making consumer centric decisions is the day I'll pat them on the back, until then, they --need-- a dissenting voice.

[markt435]

It's already been done. You are the one who keeps bringing up WDDM, not me. The points have already been made, and shown that WDDM is a good move for Vista, but it in no way prevents DX10 from being ported to XP. We already have a group working on it now. In addition we also have several other graphics libraries that provide the same functions. There is no good reason wgy it cant be ported. none.

they either have to port WDDM or they have to rewrite DX10 which is retarded as it uses most of the features of WDDM to its advantage. How many times must that be explained? they're not gonna waste manpower doing that when they have a new OS to promote, so forget it. Its obvious that its a BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL DECISION NOT TO PORT DX10

and btw, we still have yet to see that DX10 "port" actually work correctly, unless you have a link that says otherwise. and work correctly meaning, actually playing a game like Lost Planet with DX10 enabled.

The day that MS starts making consumer centric decisions is the day I'll pat them on the back, until then, they --need-- a dissenting voice.

The day ANY COMPANY starts making consumer centric decisions is the day pigs will grow wings and fly and hell will freeze over. Lets go pat Google on the back for the "Do no harm." slogan. Oh wait, they want to "organize your life". Right....you mean keep your emails in some kind of storage even after you cancel your Gmail account.

[pxc]

The Alky Project is an OpenGL wrapper that tries to emulate the DX10 API. It is not a "port" of DX10 to WinXP. About the only thing it runs are a few very simple DX10 examples in the DX9 SDK from inside VS.NET, but it doesn't work with GS at all.

Alky doesn't run even simple *precompiled* examples like a simple DX10 shaded triangle and it's a long way from running any games (if ever).

[Catweazle]

Yep. I mentioned back in post #33 that the Falling Leaf/Alchemy project has been discussed and debunked conclusively in forum discussions previously. It's most certainly NOT something which is ever going to see Windows DirectX 10 games running under Windows XP.

[duby229]

Yep. I mentioned back in post #33 that the Falling Leaf/Alchemy project has been discussed and debunked conclusively in forum discussions previously. It's most certainly NOT something which is ever going to see Windows DirectX 10 games running under Windows XP.

Whether it is realized or not doesnt matter. It shows that is possible. The main reason it wont become fully functional is simply man hours. The concept and the implementation are proven solid, and would in fact work if followed through.

Like I said, MS could do it better if they tried. Alchemy may never become a viable solution. There prolly will never be a viable solution, and --that-- is the point. That is the whole point. And nothing but the point.

[zacdl]

Whether it is realized or not doesnt matter. It shows that is possible.
Are you that dense? Catweazle just gave you information on how it is NOT possible under XP- and you throw in an old strawman argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument) by putting words in his mouth.

There prolly will never be a viable solution, and --that-- is the point. That is the whole point. And nothing but the point.


You sure do flipflop around, the more you are found to be full of junk information:

pointing out that DX10 is a trivial update, with no good reason to --not-- backport it to XP

[markt435]

There prolly will never be a viable solution, and --that-- is the point. That is the whole point. And nothing but the point.

congrats, thumbs up to you

now time to get back on topic.

[duby229]

Are you that dense? Catweazle just gave you information on how it is NOT possible under XP- and you throw in an old strawman argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument) by putting words in his mouth.




You sure do flipflop around, the more you are found to be full of junk information:

Are you that thick?

The point is that MS chose not to port it, despite the fact that it is possible. That is the point.

[odoe]

Nice.