DX10 is do-able on Windows XP

When vista matures a bit and everything becomes more stable for me then I will switch. Too many things were going wonky with it when I used it. IB user error lol

No it's not user error, I'm not a freakin computer moron. The vista updates just screwed me over and I just got pissed off and went back to XP, not to mention I can now use AA again in DoD source with GOOD FPS, I was so sick of getting 25-40 fps with vista.
 
wow, people seem to like to bash people who still want to use xp. God for bid that they may run into problems with the new vista. personally i have bought 2 new laptops(i am talking about just a few weeks ago), specifcly with xp on them because i dont want to deal with the extra resources that vista uses. Its fine if you have 2GB of ram on your desktop pc, but when you just bought a laptop with 1gb of ram its not going to feel the same(I am going off of what reviews have been saying, that vista uses more ram, and cpu resources then xp).

Also Microsoft doesn't give out free trial copies on the internet for you to try out, i was never able to test it out a head of time, so why should I have to deal with any problems that may come with it?
 
sc3252 said:
wow, people seem to like to bash people who still want to use xp. God for bid that they may run into problems with the new vista. personally i have bought 2 new laptops(i am talking about just a few weeks ago), specifcly with xp on them because i dont want to deal with the extra resources that vista uses. Its fine if you have 2GB of ram on your desktop pc, but when you just bought a laptop with 1gb of ram its not going to feel the same(I am going off of what reviews have been saying, that vista uses more ram, and cpu resources then xp).

Also Microsoft doesn't give out free trial copies on the internet for you to try out, i was never able to test it out a head of time, so why should I have to deal with any problems that may come with it?
Click to expand...

We're not bashing people for wanting to stick with XP. Yes we defend Vista when the haters say things like "Vista is teh sux0rs", "Only sheep upgrade to Vista", "Vista has nothing to offer anyone over XP", or "Vista is the next ME". If you want to stick with XP then fine. But please be honest with yourself and us as to why. Saying things like "I don't want to deal with the extra resources that vista uses." just shows that you have no idea why or how it's using extra resources and how much there is for you to learn before you can spout off about how horrid Vista is.

Also, MS does offer trial software and OS's, They also had an extensive beta program for Beta 2, pre-RC1, RC1, and RC2. RC2 was more or less what the final release was going to be. There were a few quite bug fixes thrown in at the last minute before RTM, but for the most part it behaved exactly like RTM.

http://www.microsoft.com/products/i...=22&pcid=9d273393-92c9-4807-be9c-515a0d152415
 
Captain Slow said:
I've talked to more people who think Vista is a resource hog (it is) and won't switch to it. Their only selling point is a lie.
Click to expand...

And most of those people dont understand either why Vista uses 500+mb of ram because they dont bother to read about super fetch and it is easier to complain then get off their lazy asses and understand a new technology, i dont see why people get mad the OS is using the hardware they bought......
 
Alright , First off .. There are 47+ processes in windows vista that gain information . I do know you can shut a fair amount of them off but not all.

Windows vista because it "feels" different appeals to people I think . Can anyone say Vista at its current state is better than XP pro? . Why some people install a OS before its first service pack is beyond me , I thought we had learned this since 98 .

It's not an issue of what band wagon you are on , I do not even like XP that much I enjoyed 2000 a lot more. But at this current time I can not get myself to spend the 150 to support a bunch of spyware .

It reminds me of what they are doing too video games , You pay money for a product and then still have to see advertisements in game?

XP will not have dx10 , they want you too buy vista plain and simple .. Eventually we will all have vista and then a couple years later get into the same fight when they release another sub par OS untill service packs come out. its just a long cycle.


Keep in mind , either way you are supporting MS . And they never get any of their operating systems right. Right when they are about too , BAM a new version of windows.


I'll upgrade when I have too.
 
ryan_975 said:
Also, MS does offer trial software and OS's, They also had an extensive beta program for Beta 2, pre-RC1, RC1, and RC2. RC2 was more or less what the final release was going to be. There were a few quite bug fixes thrown in at the last minute before RTM, but for the most part it behaved exactly like RTM.

http://www.microsoft.com/products/i...=22&pcid=9d273393-92c9-4807-be9c-515a0d152415
Click to expand...

Yep, and believe it or not, never before has someone done what Microsoft did with Vista. Microsoft listened to it's testers and implimented hundreds of changes based on what the users requested. To sum it up, Vista is what the people wanted in an OS. I used Vista for around 2 months on my laptop before shelving it for a while. I really liked it and it took a pretty big issue with my laptop's soundcard's drivers to make me remove it.

Syndi said:
But at this current time I can not get myself to spend the 150 to support a bunch of spyware .
Click to expand...

Spyware? ROFLMAO.
 
djBon2112 said:
QFT.

But seriously, I don't even know why people are concerned about this at all right now. There are no DX10 games right now. Only a single demo! Yes, Vista's hardware support is shit right now. But really, do you need it? There's no reason to switch right now. Wait until games come out for Vista if you're having hardware problems with it; don't bother with the bandwaggon.
Click to expand...

I thought Lost Planet and Call of Juarez were both DX10, no?
How about Company of Heroes?
This List
Does seem to be quite lengthy....
I'm pretty sure any attempts to make DX10 work roperly on XP will be quite futile or crippled. There is actually nothing awfull about Vista, some lame drivers (Thank you Creative, my Audigy sounds like an onboard POS) and some future tweaks in SPs.
I think WHEN we see some real BENEFITS to DX10 we'll ll thank MS.
Till that blessed day arrives we are cursed with miserable performance with hardly any other benefits on Vista DX10 gaming.
 
altcon said:
I thought Lost Planet and Call of Juarez were both DX10, no?
How about Company of Heroes?
This List
Does seem to be quite lengthy....
I'm pretty sure any attempts to make DX10 work roperly on XP will be quite futile or crippled. There is actually nothing awfull about Vista, some lame drivers (Thank you Creative, my Audigy sounds like an onboard POS) and some future tweaks in SPs.
I think WHEN we see some real BENEFITS to DX10 we'll ll thank MS.
Till that blessed day arrives we are cursed with miserable performance with hardly any other benefits on Vista DX10 gaming.
Click to expand...

From that list FSX, SupCom, Shadowrun and CoH are all DX9 games. Some of them have been patched to DX10, but there's no native DX10 games yet

Also Lost Planet is another DX9 game that they patched (rather poorly from what I've read) to DX10. Don't know about Call of Juarez.
 
Vashypooh said:
Short answer: Direct X 10 is 100% not doable on windows XP. Period.

Long answer: Direct X 10 uses a completely new driver protocol for interacting with the system. This would lead you to having to completely rewrite the windows XP kernel, Write your own video card drivers, then work on hacking the Direct X 10 code. (By the way Direct X 9 itself is just NOW being able to be emulated on Linux albeit poorly.)

Inquirer has also been proven to be a big piece of crap that never knows what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Only person who knows his/her stuff thus far.
 
Syndi said:
What would you call the processes then? since their only purpose is to gain information that does not help you in anyway?

Have you even bothered looking at whats running in the background?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-the-WGA-20-Windows-Vista-Features-and-Services-Harvest-User-Data-for-Microsoft-58752.shtml

Could also be used as a major exploit against you.

great answer of roflmao though .. I totally see your point.
Click to expand...

So let's see of all the information collected what is actually useful

Internet protocol address, -- Every website you visit get's this info along with what site you just came from.

the type of operating system, -- gee, that's a hard one. Is it Windows, again every website you visit get this information too.

browser and name and version of the software you are using -- same as above
and the language code of the device where you installed the software." -- same as above

This is information that has been transmitted over the internet since before Windows 95.
 
Syndi said:
Windows vista because it "feels" different appeals to people I think . Can anyone say Vista at its current state is better than XP pro? . Why some people install a OS before its first service pack is beyond me , I thought we had learned this since 98 .

.
Click to expand...

because for some it works perfectly fine and they arent paranoid....? 3 computers, Macbook with Vista buisness, desktop with buisness and 2nd desktop with ultimate, i have not had a single issue, bug, crash or incompatibility with any of them, so why would i wait for an SP....... So i say, why some people wait for an SP is beyond me......
 
So since 95 that information has been sent to not just microsoft but other companies ? , and personally I use a proxy just because I do not like sending out that information .

Since when did windows send information on what you are watching or listening too?

You might not think this is a big issue but the limits are slowly being pushed , So you think thats the only information they can get ? Ever see the blizzard lawsuits and what they are able to gain access too?


Its a lot different when I go to hardocp and make a post and them having a log of my IP compared to me booting up my computer and it being automatically sent . I am not saying Vista is the devil , But Windows is basically our only choice of an operating system for the majority of users.


It wouldnt be an issue if we had more options but we dont . And read up on the issue further , they just do not get your IP they know what ip's you are connecting too. Personally I do not want MS knowing what im looking at.

I cant believe you find my post offensive , We will be forced into vista. If XP had dx10 how many people would change over too it? I don't think a lot of people here would untill its cleaned up. If at all.

They know what they are doing , its MS a lot of their market accounts for game multimedia , and they are well aware by them having dx10 only in vista and whatever is beyond that , gamers will migrate . It forces you in to a hole , so they know they can put whatever information grabbing utilities in the OS they want. They could have your wall paper constantly scrolling ads , its also not an option to just "keep xp" eventually once games mature you will have to switch to whatever os they currently have.


Im not bashing vista get that through your heads , I just do not like the direction all of this is taking. Besides sound problems and mem leaks I hear hardly any complaints about vista.


Remember the mess that was napster / metallica? sure would suck if I went to jail over a copy of kings quest 2 .
 
MrGuvernment said:
because for some it works perfectly fine and they arent paranoid....? 3 computers, Macbook with Vista buisness, desktop with buisness and 2nd desktop with ultimate, i have not had a single issue, bug, crash or incompatibility with any of them, so why would i wait for an SP....... So i say, why some people wait for an SP is beyond me......
Click to expand...

I remember it helped 2000 server greatly , and sp1 helped xp a bunch .. although the later ones , Not so much.

Am I paranoid? Not really , I dont think the party van is going to arrive in front of my house , But as technology grows so does advertising and gaining information for profits.

Do you doubt in a few years we will see a windows that gathers all of your searches and while you are simply listening to music ads will pop up to buy a certain cd from a MS web store? .. Its very possible , I do not care what information they have . I just do not want them to use it for profit.

I remember years ago on a local bbs it was discussed how just not a bbs would be a monthly fee like it was but Single games would charge monthly , a lot of people thought it was absurd "you would pay 50 for a game then have to pay monthly?" I would add LOL but it wasnt invented yet. :/

my new build will have vista , and im not looking forward to it because its just one step closer to what windows is eventually evolving into .
 
Syndi said:
So since 95 that information has been sent to not just microsoft but other companies ? , and personally I use a proxy just because I do not like sending out that information .

Since when did windows send information on what you are watching or listening too?

You might not think this is a big issue but the limits are slowly being pushed , So you think thats the only information they can get ? Ever see the blizzard lawsuits and what they are able to gain access too?


Its a lot different when I go to hardocp and make a post and them having a log of my IP compared to me booting up my computer and it being automatically sent . I am not saying Vista is the devil , But Windows is basically our only choice of an operating system for the majority of users.


It wouldnt be an issue if we had more options but we dont . And read up on the issue further , they just do not get your IP they know what ip's you are connecting too. Personally I do not want MS knowing what im looking at.

I cant believe you find my post offensive , We will be forced into vista. If XP had dx10 how many people would change over too it? I don't think a lot of people here would untill its cleaned up. If at all.

They know what they are doing , its MS a lot of their market accounts for game multimedia , and they are well aware by them having dx10 only in vista and whatever is beyond that , gamers will migrate . It forces you in to a hole , so they know they can put whatever information grabbing utilities in the OS they want. They could have your wall paper constantly scrolling ads , its also not an option to just "keep xp" eventually once games mature you will have to switch to whatever os they currently have.


Im not bashing vista get that through your heads , I just do not like the direction all of this is taking. Besides sound problems and mem leaks I hear hardly any complaints about vista.


Remember the mess that was napster / metallica? sure would suck if I went to jail over a copy of kings quest 2 .
Click to expand...

Nobody is "forcing" you into anything. MS cannot collect information about a person, they can collect information about error messages, system information but they CANNOT COLLECT PERSONAL INFORMATION. Their is no memory leaks in Vista, the rumors are caused by people who are astounded to see an OS actually using the hardware unlike XP, and the sound issue is Creative's fault. And before you go saying that, "Vista is the plague, RUN!!!!11!!!11!" MS doesn't create drivers for hardware. MS creates software. If everyone was a conservatist the world would still be in the Middle Ages, get that through your head before you think someone is trying to "force feed" you something. Change makes the world go round.
 
Syndi said:
I remember it helped 2000 server greatly , and sp1 helped xp a bunch .. although the later ones , Not so much.
Click to expand...

Actually SP2 was a huge step in security and reliability for XP. I seem to remember reading an interview with the lead program manager on the SP2 project. At one point they were going to release it as a whole operatiing system, but then decided to implement it as a free downloadable patch simply because of the profound need that XP had to become more secure and reliable.


But because of the huge public involvment with Vista there are were lot of things fixed that otherwise wouldn't have been until SP1.
 
There is more than one technical limitation as to why DX10 cannot easily be ported back to XP, the main one currently is that it uses the new drivers model for Vista and interestingly enough this is where a lot of the optimisations and impovements come in, they even help DX9.0L (which is DX9.0c for Vista) be more efficient than it's XP counterpart.

The problem is that DX has always been backwards compatible, so over the years it's been built up one system built upon another system and all the while getting much less efficient. There needed to be a time where Microsoft said:

"OK enough is enough, lets re-write a large portion of it, it's going to break backwards compatability but that's going to pay off with a more efficient API and a better driver model"

Yes we'd all love DX10 for XP (actually I don't really care, I'm an early adopter and have been using Vista since November last year) but the simple fact is that it's an insanely large amount of work to re-write XP's driver model, incorperate DX10 (which by the way would require a completely new set of drivers for ALL of your hardware to work with the new driver model) THEN on top of that you'd have to go back and make sure DX9 and earlier worked so that would require DX9.0L to be also ported back onto XP

Short answer:- In light of the above, it's not going to happen, if it was really as easy as everyone says it is, then we'd have seen someone do it by now.

*edit*

A few additional notes on Vista:

It's not a "resource hog", it has a higher memory and CPU usage over XP, but all new OS's are the same in this respect. Since when did everyone start expecting more from newer OS's but not expect it to require more resources?!?

In either case Vistas memory usage is far more inteligent than XP's, just because Vista "idles" at a high memory usage does not mean it's hogging resources, as soon as something needs that memory it unloads certain windows sub-systems that do not strictly need to be running. It seems to "aim" for roughly 1/4 of your memory usage, most people whine it's ~500mb (and likely have 2Gb installed) but with 4Gb installed it actually hits ~1Gb usage after a few hours of running.

As has already been said, RAM is there to be used (suprise suprise), any OS that's not putting lots of RAM to use is actually wasting it, and Vista is HIGHLY responsive with 2Gb installed. CPU usage is higher also, but with dual core CPU's flooding the market it hardly makes any difference, even when runnng most games (most games only use one core)
 
Vista may be the best OS ever but the driver front is still pretty shitty
*cough*Creative and nVidia*cough*
till drivers get to the level they are at in XP now in Vista no thanks
doesnt matter how good an OS is if drivers suck
 
Elios said:
Vista may be the best OS ever but the driver front is still pretty shitty
*cough*Creative and nVidia*cough*
till drivers get to the level they are at in XP now in Vista no thanks
doesnt matter how good an OS is if drivers suck
Click to expand...

Creative are having a hard time since EAX is no longer supported, and well...Creative are not best known for their driver support in the first place, although by all accounts they're "on the case"

Nvidia have pulled it together a lot since the initial reviews of their hardware under Vista, support and performance is close to that of XP now and performance is getting better with every driver revision, as to be expected with Nvidia.
 
Frosteh said:
Creative are having a hard time since EAX is no longer supported, and well...Creative are not best known for their driver support in the first place, although by all accounts they're "on the case"

Nvidia have pulled it together a lot since the initial reviews of their hardware under Vista, support and performance is close to that of XP now and performance is getting better with every driver revision, as to be expected with Nvidia.
Click to expand...

i still dont know how Creative didnt see this coming
i mean the OS was available to devs like almost a year befor any one else got there hands on it
 
Its what happens where there is no competition, Creative doesn't care enough to give us proper drivers, even with legacy support because people will still go out and buy their products as they are currently the only major seller of Audio AIC's
 
Maybe, I've never had a lot of faith in Creative drivers, back when I had a Creative soundcard (2000 ish) there was nothing but constant errors with games and always having to upgrade drivers to ensure compatability. It was a long time ago now but in all fairness they do have to start the learning process all over again with the new driver model.
 
Elios said:
Vista may be the best OS ever but the driver front is still pretty shitty
*cough*Creative and nVidia*cough*
till drivers get to the level they are at in XP now in Vista no thanks
doesnt matter how good an OS is if drivers suck
Click to expand...

I believe Creative has fixed their problems. And NVIDIA...no comment there, other than I'm using ATI and it's rock-solid. :p
 
Side note: Creative has fixed the lack of EAX in Vista, they created a wrapper that translates DirectSound calls over to OpenAL. It's a free download for anybody who has an Xfi card, and around $15 for anybody with older cards.
 
ScYcS said:
I have a reality check for most of you guys: How many of you still use Windows 2000 or Windows 98? Or how many thought that DX7 would finally make it's way to DOS 6.2? Thought so.

Funny thing is: 95% of the people saying it have never tried Vista and the other 4.5% can't afford it. And then we have the only group that actually really won't switch to Vista, the linux naysayers. These 0.5% will argue that they don't need Vista nor do they want it because, hey, Simcity 1 WORKS WITH WINE under IceWM in Libranet!!!!!! GOTCHA!
Click to expand...

I was reading and just had to reply to this one. lol

I would actually be using win2k if I hadn't gotten so mad at my laptop one day that I hit it hard enough to corrupt some data on the hard drive. x.x
Now I'm using Ubuntu, Linux, and it's running okay but since one fan is dead it gets a little hot and it is a little slow as well(Only ~866MHz). I probably wouldn't mind using Vista, but I don't like Microsoft in general so I might never get it. Maybe one day in the future when I have a nice paying job and find a game that I really want to play but can't because I don't have Windows. But then, I would have to get a good enough video card to play the game first and that would probably be more than I'd want to spend. And, of course, it wouldn't be on my laptop because it's really not qualified to run Vista. But my desktop probably could.

And Simcity 1? Come on! Everyone knows that SimTower was the greatest game ever. Then there was SimCity 3000, but I don't know how well that would work on Linux... Then again, I don't know how well SimTower would work either.:D
 
Frosteh said:
Nvidia have pulled it together a lot since the initial reviews of their hardware under Vista, support and performance is close to that of XP now and performance is getting better with every driver revision, as to be expected with Nvidia.
Click to expand...

No, actually nVidia didn't get it together. Microsoft changed the DX10 spec to suit what nVidia couldn't do which was make graphics memory virtualizable. It's now an optional part of the spec.
 
I couldn't believe what the writer's said either...

But if we take a deep loook at the title of the website, we'll start to realise that,

The Inquirer

News, reviews, facts and FICTION
 
ryan_975 said:
We're not bashing people for wanting to stick with XP. Yes we defend Vista when the haters say things like "Vista is teh sux0rs", "Only sheep upgrade to Vista", "Vista has nothing to offer anyone over XP", or "Vista is the next ME". If you want to stick with XP then fine. But please be honest with yourself and us as to why. Saying things like "I don't want to deal with the extra resources that vista uses." just shows that you have no idea why or how it's using extra resources and how much there is for you to learn before you can spout off about how horrid Vista is.

Also, MS does offer trial software and OS's, They also had an extensive beta program for Beta 2, pre-RC1, RC1, and RC2. RC2 was more or less what the final release was going to be. There were a few quite bug fixes thrown in at the last minute before RTM, but for the most part it behaved exactly like RTM.

http://www.microsoft.com/products/i...=22&pcid=9d273393-92c9-4807-be9c-515a0d152415
Click to expand...

When someone says they don't like the resources used up, why is that a problem? Vista DOES use more resources. Period. End of story. Proven.

If he knows or not knows what they are used for, how does that change the need for 2GB RAM?

Yes, bash the leet retards and people like me who haven't used Vista, but if he has and doesn't like how it FEELS WHEN HE USES IT, how is that subjective call on his part assailable by you?

It's not. In any way.

My girlfriend doesn't like driving my truck. IT"S TOO BIG. Does she know that she can haul a couch in it? Sure. Does she realize that it's size allows a larger engine, thus more power? Maybe, maybe not. But it's too big for her and that's that.

The irrefutable truth is that some don't like how it runs are less than 2GB. So let them not use it even if the larger size benefits them. He didn't say it was horrid, just said too big and doesn't want to deal with it.
 
JStudrawa said:
When someone says they don't like the resources used up, why is that a problem? Vista DOES use more resources. Period. End of story. Proven.

If he knows or not knows what they are used for, how does that change the need for 2GB RAM?

Yes, bash the leet retards and people like me who haven't used Vista, but if he has and doesn't like how it FEELS WHEN HE USES IT, how is that subjective call on his part assailable by you?

It's not. In any way.

My girlfriend doesn't like driving my truck. IT"S TOO BIG. Does she know that she can haul a couch in it? Sure. Does she realize that it's size allows a larger engine, thus more power? Maybe, maybe not. But it's too big for her and that's that.

The irrefutable truth is that some don't like how it runs are less than 2GB. So let them not use it even if the larger size benefits them. He didn't say it was horrid, just said too big and doesn't want to deal with it.
Click to expand...


The thing is the guy said he bought to laptops and specifically with XP on them. And he specifically says that he's going on information from other's reviews and experiences. Not that he's tried it and doesn't like it.

And by the way, I've got Vista Home Premium and it runs just fine with 1GB of RAM most of the time. I run into trouble when trying to switch out of a game to the desktop, but it's not anything different than XP. The thing about Vista's resource usage is that if gives up those resources when something else wants it.
 
TownRanger said:
I couldn't believe what the writer's said either...

But if we take a deep loook at the title of the website, we'll start to realise that,

The Inquirer

News, reviews, facts and FICTION
Click to expand...

It's emulated. Maybe the actual DX10 API calls could be designed for XP, but due to the completely new driver model, they aren't.

It was a business decision, not a technical one.

Face it, XP is nearing end of life, whether we like it or not. I'm another that does not. I have a few thousand PC's at work that I share responsibility for and we're dreading the shift to Vista. It'll be a long slow upgrade path for us there. I run XP at home just fine. Does everything that I need quite well, and it's stable with few bugs. Vista is a bit of a curve, but I still use PC's and serveres with Win 2000 on them!
 
ryan_975 said:
The thing is the guy said he bought to laptops and specifically with XP on them. And he specifically says that he's going on information from other's reviews and experiences. Not that he's tried it and doesn't like it.

And by the way, I've got Vista Home Premium and it runs just fine with 1GB of RAM most of the time. I run into trouble when trying to switch out of a game to the desktop, but it's not anything different than XP. The thing about Vista's resource usage is that if gives up those resources when something else wants it.
Click to expand...

Good point, but I've seen Vista run on 1GB (never used it myself) and people don't like the start time for apps.

It's been a long day already. Ignore me. I took it that he used Vista prior.
 
JStudrawa said:
Good point, but I've seen Vista run on 1GB (never used it myself) and people don't like the start time for apps.

It's been a long day already. Ignore me. I took it that he used Vista prior.
Click to expand...

Were those fresh installs? Remember it takes Vista about a week of use to get optimized. Then it's just as fast as XP.
 
ryan_975 said:
Were those fresh installs? Remember it takes Vista about a week of use to get optimized. Then it's just as fast as XP.
Click to expand...

They were a few months old. Opening Excel, browsers, etc. XP was snappier from what I saw. So I can understand the larger usage issue.

I have a hard time believing that Vista is as fast as XP. Maybe during calcs and usage, but opening programs, with 1gig RAM?
 
JStudrawa said:
They were a few months old. Opening Excel, browsers, etc. XP was snappier from what I saw. So I can understand the larger usage issue.

I have a hard time believing that Vista is as fast as XP. Maybe during calcs and usage, but opening programs, with 1gig RAM?
Click to expand...

Well if you get a Vista and XP computer with 2gb of RAM then neither would be significantly faster.
 
While I was using Vista with a mere 1 gig of ram, it ran very well. I don't see how 2 gigs is a necessity. That being said, I went back to XP because of Nvidia's horrible drivers.
 
JStudrawa said:
They were a few months old. Opening Excel, browsers, etc. XP was snappier from what I saw. So I can understand the larger usage issue.

I have a hard time believing that Vista is as fast as XP. Maybe during calcs and usage, but opening programs, with 1gig RAM?
Click to expand...


Yes, with 1GB of RAM (2x512MB in dual channel) I have just as fast app loading times as I did in XP. Office 2007 apps open just a fast, IE7 opens just as fast, WMP, WoW, Control Panel, (My) Computer. It's all the same as it was in XP. The only things that are slower is when I open as an Admin, but that's only because of the UAC prompt that pops up. But even that's instantly popping up.
 
Don't please EVER take anything Charlie Demerjian has to say about Windows/Microsoft very seriously. EVERY article he writes about Microsoft technology is completely, 100% anti-Microsoft without exception.

I’m really getting sick of the anti-Microsoft media. They lie and deceive far more than Microsoft ever has (maybe I’m exaggerating but it’s getting out of hand).

Windows XP is almost SIX YEARS OLD!!!!! It will still be supported for years to come, even the newest games will run on it for years in DX9 mode, and to date, no game is even taking advantage of DX10 by most accounts that I’ve read, though that’s beginning to change.

PC gaming is a pretty bleeding edge technical ecosystem, both hardware and software, and as a result the hardware is many times more expensive than a console, which costs are subsidized anyway. High end gaming (which DX10 is right now) is a very small segment of the general PC population. That’s the main reason Microsoft didn’t worry about porting it. Even if they did, maybe 1% of current XP users would get anything from it right now. Actually, right now, DX10 is so new with so few titles supporting it there’s no big advantage right now anyway. All games for the next year or two will have a DX9 mode, which is faster, even for people with DX10.

How many Windows XP PC’s out there have AGP GPU slots? For that matter how many don’t even have a GPU slot and rely on an integrated graphics chip (heck a chunk of brand new Vista PC’s fall into this category)? Then on top of that add to the fact that your average retail PC doesn’t even have an adequate power supply to power something like a 2900 or 8800, and then you’ve really thinned the existing XP user base. Yeah, you could go with a 2600 or 8600, but looking at DX10 numbers for those cards are for now DX9 is a better option anyway.

So this is the real truth. DX10 is so new and immature, both hardware and software, that back porting to XP would be expensive with little benefit to end users. There’s no conspiracy here. Microsoft is a for profit company, and spending lots money of money for little customer benefit is just a sound business decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top