MS Clarifies why Win 10 is free

heatlesssun said:
I do think Microsoft could improve things a lot around the area of PC gaming. Certainly bringing all of its XBox titles to the PC would go a long way for the PC crowd. The only reason why I guess they don't do that are economics. I guess there will always be PC gamers that look at the XBox and despise it for taking away from PCs. At some point, and it does look like Microsoft has gone a long way towards this with Windows 10, that XBox and PC are 100% app compatible and interchangeable. That's where it needs to go I think and should be a good thing in the end for everyone.
Click to expand...

Since the 360, I feel like little other than lipservice has been paid to Windows as a gaming platform until now, with DirectX12. It's a step. The part I bolded and underlined I think is the last step towards proving they are serious about PC gaming again. You buy one disk, and can pop it into a PC with a Blu Ray drive or XB1, install, and play on either. In theory, shouldn't this be possible, yes?

But alas, it's just a pipe dream, as you said, because it doesn't make financial sense to them to do so.
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Since the 360, I feel like little other than lipservice has been paid to Windows as a gaming platform until now, with DirectX12. It's a step. The part I bolded and underlined I think is the last step towards proving they are serious about PC gaming again. You buy one disk, and can pop it into a PC with a Blu Ray drive or XB1, install, and play on either. In theory, shouldn't this be possible, yes?

But alas, it's just a pipe dream, as you said, because it doesn't make financial sense to them to do so.
Click to expand...

Except it is STILL lipservice, just as its been ever since the first Xbox launched. Updating DirectX every 3-5 years and tying it to a new version of windows to compel upgrades - historically always paywalled - has only ever been a means to extend platform lock-in, not because they cared about the PC gaming ecosystem. Like renewing a domain name you aren't using but don't want it falling into someone else's hands - that's been their mentality with PC gaming.

Until they announce Halo 5 for PC-Windows, until they stop paying off third party developers to keep previously announced PC titles off of windows (Rise of the Tomb Raider), until they start telling their first party studios to include PC-Windows in their platform targets, every annual press releaes about "We really really care about Windows gaming this year. No, this time we mean it! Really, really!" is just more BSwagon.

And all the "One windows for everything" over-the-rainbow marketing campaign noise for Windows 10 really only means Metro/Universal app interoperability. Not Win32. So WGAF. The Xbox One streaming to Windows 10 is also a joke, since its little more than a value add for Xbox One owners to play games on other screens in the house, and does nothing for PC gamers. Buying an Xbox One + Xbox Live subscription + $60 games + streaming latency + shitty framerates and resolutions is an unacceptable if not totally absurd catch for their boast that "Windows 10 will play Xbox games".

A lot of PC gamers are simply tired of the ever-continuing marketing doublespeak that freeflows out of the gullets of Phil Spencer and his predecessors like it was dropping from a horse's rectum.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Except it is STILL lipservice, just as its been ever since the first Xbox launched. Updating DirectX every 3-5 years and tying it to a new version of windows to compel upgrades - historically always paywalled - has only ever been a means to extend platform lock-in, not because they cared about the PC gaming ecosystem. Like renewing a domain name you aren't using but don't want it falling into someone else's hands - that's been their mentality with PC gaming.

Until they announce Halo 5 for PC-Windows, until they stop paying off third party developers to keep previously announced PC titles off of windows, until they start telling their first party studios to include PC-Windows in their platform targets, every annual press releaes about "We really really care about Windows gaming, NO really, we mean it this time!" is just more bullshit.

And all the "One windows ecosystem" marketing taglines for Windows 10 really only means Metro/Universal app interoperability. Not Win32. So WGAF. The Xbox One streaming to Windows 10 is also a joke, since its little more than a value add for Xbox One owners to play games on other screens in the house, and does nothing for PC gamers. I am just tired of all the ever-continuing marketing doublespeak that freeflows out of the gullets of Phil Spencer and his predecessors like it was dropping from a horse's rectum.
Click to expand...

Billy-D_Approves.gif
 
Absolutely 100% chance Microsoft will charge a subscription fee for Windows.
 
DPI said:
Except it is STILL lipservice, just as its been ever since the first Xbox launched. Updating DirectX every 3-5 years and tying it to a new version of windows to compel upgrades - historically always paywalled - has only ever been a means to extend platform lock-in, not because they cared about the PC gaming ecosystem. Like renewing a domain name you aren't using but don't want it falling into someone else's hands - that's been their mentality with PC gaming.

Until they announce Halo 5 for PC-Windows, until they stop paying off third party developers to keep previously announced PC titles off of windows (Rise of the Tomb Raider), until they start telling their first party studios to include PC-Windows in their platform targets, every annual press releaes about "We really really care about Windows gaming this year. No, this time we mean it! Really, really!" is just more BSwagon.

And all the "One windows for everything" over-the-rainbow marketing campaign noise for Windows 10 really only means Metro/Universal app interoperability. Not Win32. So WGAF. The Xbox One streaming to Windows 10 is also a joke, since its little more than a value add for Xbox One owners to play games on other screens in the house, and does nothing for PC gamers. Buying an Xbox One + Xbox Live subscription + $60 games + streaming latency + shitty framerates and resolutions is an unacceptable if not totally absurd catch for their boast that "Windows 10 will play Xbox games".

A lot of PC gamers are simply tired of the ever-continuing marketing doublespeak that freeflows out of the gullets of Phil Spencer and his predecessors like it was dropping from a horse's rectum.
Click to expand...

I'd upvote this if it were possible. Still, cross compatibility with XB1 titles would be more than what we are getting now, which is fuckall
 
They have to make money somehow.... Ballmer needs his stocks to go up and not down so he can pay for his Billion dollars Clippers.
 
Effectively, the Marketplace is the money maker.

Microsoft's version of an App store. This will be the gravy train, and explains why they want you to create a "Live" account to install and run windows... Buy thru the store, Microsoft gets (supposedly) 30% of what you pay.
Basically, it is copying Apple and Android.

NEVER create the online account. Always create a Local Account for Admin (then a second account for web surfing.)
Why? Well, typically, Microsoft wants the "Live" account to be either an Outlook or Hotmail account... Let that sink in. How secure is a Hotmail password? And Microsoft wants you to rely on a Hotmail password to run your PC?

If your Hotmail account gets hacked, and the hacker changes your password, your PC's password will change to the new Hacker's password within 5 minutes of accessing the internet. Good luck with Microsoft's "tech support" getting access to your PC back.

Never set up the OS with the "express settings." It gives your location, your computer's Admin account name and picture to the app store, apps, programs, and websites that request the information...
 
it would have been soo easy too all they would have to do is validate all existing activated licenses of 7 and 8, 8.1 pc to windows 10 existing licenses covered they get the free upgrade and it does not cover post release licenses

Also they could to line their pockets a bit offer unlicensed dvd copies for 20$ they would work with retail license only just like current upgrade licenses. And dont try to tell me they cant do any of the things im talking about they can and have in the past...
 
They've basically done this exact same thing before. Can't say it's not a pain in the butt though, having to install one and then the other. I'm just glad this new OS came out while I can still get my hands on the Student version ;)
 
DPI said:
Except it is STILL lipservice, just as its been ever since the first Xbox launched. Updating DirectX every 3-5 years and tying it to a new version of windows to compel upgrades - historically always paywalled - has only ever been a means to extend platform lock-in, not because they cared about the PC gaming ecosystem.
Click to expand...

There were some very significant cross-cutting architectural changes made to Windows post-XP that were necessary to implement a majority of the functionality in DirectX 10. The reason DirectX 10 wasn't put on Windows XP is that it wouldn't work on Windows XP, period. This is one of the things which I find irritating about all the basement dwelling neckbeards giving armchair commentary on these things; If you were a developer and actually had to work with these things you'd be fully aware that what you just said is complete nonsense, but that hasn't stopped you from spoutin' it like you're the truth fountain.

Beyond that, do you really believe that any relevant subset of Windows users would upgrade to the new version just to get the latest DirectX? Do you honestly believe that any relevant subset of Windows users even knows or cares what DirectX is? Does that honestly seem like a legitimate explanation to you?
 
Last edited:
wrangler said:
One word if that happens.

Linux.

Don't laugh.
Click to expand...

I'm laughing. The real answer is whatever the last lifetime license version of Windows is. It will be XP all over again but for 20 years if MS tries to pull off an annual license for consumers.
 
Dogs said:
There were some very significant cross-cutting architectural changes made to Windows post-XP that were necessary to implement a majority of the functionality in DirectX 10. The reason DirectX 10 wasn't put on Windows XP is that it wouldn't work on Windows XP, period. This is one of the things which I find irritating about all the basement dwelling neckbeards giving armchair commentary on these things; If you were a developer and actually had to work with these things you'd be fully aware that what you just said is complete nonsense, but that hasn't stopped you from spoutin' it like you're the truth fountain.

Beyond that, do you really believe that any relevant subset of Windows users would upgrade to the new version just to get the latest DirectX? Do you honestly believe that any relevant subset of Windows users even knows or cares what DirectX is? Does that honestly seem like a legitimate explanation to you?
Click to expand...
That is a load of bullshit that is not why direct x 10 was not put in xp it was intended to get gamers to jump up to vista. The only incompatibility is that dx10 and up require wddm signed drivers same reason vista was such a massive turd as many drivers were not compatible thus vast amounts of hardware became trash.

10 could have run on xp 11 probably too but Microsoft wanted xp to die... also dx 12 should work on Vista but it won't even be on 8.1... 10 is 8.2...
 
Lunas said:
That is a load of bullshit that is not why direct x 10 was not put in xp it was intended to get gamers to jump up to vista. The only incompatibility is that dx10 and up require wddm signed drivers same reason vista was such a massive turd as many drivers were not compatible thus vast amounts of hardware became trash.

10 could have run on xp 11 probably too but Microsoft wanted xp to die... also dx 12 should work on Vista but it won't even be on 8.1... 10 is 8.2...
Click to expand...

Microsoft is a business, not a charity.
 
Tsumi said:
Microsoft is a business, not a charity.
Click to expand...

that is a good way to cliff notes what i was trying to get at.

The only reason xp does not have direct x 10 or 11 is Microsoft used direct x as a reason to force gamers to buy a vista or 7 or 8 license and as a way to force drivers to be written in a certain way. A service pack could have added wddm to xp and dx10 but xp was eol at that point they wanted to move onto the next.

I am not entirely opposed to a windows 365 style system i just want both options to be available i can pay 200 for the upgrade or 10 a month to get upgrades and support.

The thing is with windows 10 they are moving to a more stream lined upgrade method it is not a bad thing but they are going to need to make sure to make it so you can do a clean install to eliminate bugs and issues... windows 8 has an interesting system for such a thing but it does not do the same thing as a full format and reinstall.

We will be looking at a future where upgrades to the next windows are delivered not via dvd but instead via windows update... I'm predicting there will be more and more odd less laptops as time goes on... Physical media is a dying format...
 
Lunas said:
The only reason xp does not have direct x 10 or 11 is Microsoft used direct x as a reason to force gamers to buy a vista or 7 or 8 license and as a way to force drivers to be written in a certain way. A service pack could have added wddm to xp and dx10 but xp was eol at that point they wanted to move onto the next.
Click to expand...

Yes, the only reason was that Microsoft didn't go back and retrofit a lot of old code to work with the latest and greatest hardware because they wouldn't have made any money doing so.
 
heatlesssun said:
Yes, the only reason was that Microsoft didn't go back and retrofit a lot of old code to work with the latest and greatest hardware because they wouldn't have made any money doing so.
Click to expand...

that statement is a bit off they did not incorporate old code to allow the continued use of old and out dated hardware even if that hardware still worked or was not really even that old if it was not released with vista drivers it was dropped from support. It was not limited to key devices most of the devices this hit was printers and scanners...

The old code as you put it works fine on most new hardware just as direct x would have easily fit into the modular way windows is coded...
 
Someone care to post a review of Windows 10?
What I use works..
It could be XP but it's not.
 
schmuckley said:
Someone care to post a review of Windows 10?
What I use works..
It could be XP but it's not.
Click to expand...

ok..


There are very few changes from windows 8.1 aside from the 3 glaring changes the ui by default uses the new start menu which is a much welcome change to the metro ui it emulates the all programs section of the metro ui in a single column on the left to the right of that is a metro tile area so essentially the same metro ui we all hated in 8 got rearranged and condensed to resemble a almost pleasing to use menu.

The next big changes is the settings to resemble a control panel of sorts it works ok.

search works i have not used it

windows 10 is the same as windows 8.1 with something like classic shell on it not a perfect fix but good enough and similar enough to 7.

above said i have ran into some software that did not work in the 10041 build also the network status menu does not work.
 
For me in Win10 it was all smooth sailing until build 10041 broke punkbuster so now I get booted from servers if I try to play BF. Tried reinstalling punkbuster, no joy.
 
Lunas said:
That is a load of bullshit that is not why direct x 10 was not put in xp it was intended to get gamers to jump up to vista. The only incompatibility is that dx10 and up require wddm signed drivers same reason vista was such a massive turd as many drivers were not compatible thus vast amounts of hardware became trash.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The whole point of DirectX 10 was that it gave more efficient ways of doing things you could already do with DirectX 9.0C. The big selling point of DirectX 10 (selling point for developers, not consumers, of course) was that you could now do things that were previously prohibitively expensive on hardware of the time, allowing to you cram more effects and higher levels of detail into your product while still getting the same performance. The reason DirectX 10 was able to do things more efficiently than DirectX 9 was a.) DirectX 10 dropped DirectX 9's legacy friendly 'capability levels' and required all DirectX 10 devices to support ALL of DirectX 10's features (which is why the older hardware couldn't do DirectX 10) and b.) the graphics stack in the operating system was largely re-written to allow significantly more control over the hardware. Because Vista introduced features like virtual video memory and better scheduling in WDDM, all of the features in DirectX 10 were able to be written to run much more efficiently.

DirectX 10 would not have worked on XP because XPDM did not support the features necessary. Microsoft could have made DirectX 10 work on XP...by turning XP into Vista. But then it wouldn't be XP anymore; It would be Vista.

Beyond that, bleeding edge gamers who could not live without DirectX 10 represent such an irrelevantly small portion of the Windows userbase that having the meetings to design a scheme to get these users to switch would cost considerably more than the profit Microsoft would have made by having all of these users upgrade. The people claiming that DirectX 10 was a ploy to get people to upgrading are only claiming so because they lack fundamental quantitative understanding.
 
I read the article twice. What the article doesn't clearly address is for those (like me) who have Windows 7 Ultimate x64 installed on one SSD and Windows 10 installed on a separate SSD and just change the BIOS boot order to run either version of Windows as I choose. I do not want Windows 10 touching my Windows 7 install whatsoever. If MS doesn't allow me to boot each OS separately then I will bypass Windows 10 completely.
 
AceGoober said:
I read the article twice. What the article doesn't clearly address is for those (like me) who have Windows 7 Ultimate x64 installed on one SSD and Windows 10 installed on a separate SSD and just change the BIOS boot order to run either version of Windows as I choose. I do not want Windows 10 touching my Windows 7 install whatsoever. If MS doesn't allow me to boot each OS separately then I will bypass Windows 10 completely.
Click to expand...

Then you will have to buy Windows 10 because the free version is an upgrade from a previously installed OS. It is not a free full version blank hard drive installation. That is pretty much the way upgrades have always worked as far back as I can remember.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top