Not 100% sure I understand your question. But DX10 for WinXP would sacrafice aeroglass support as that would require Kernel changes which is not good thing. But the actual graphics functions for gaming would be fully intact and useable by developers.Anyone that has does some serious coding in this industry knows the reality of why DX10 is not available for WinXP, it's not a technical barrier that's for sure.I know many game developers in this industry (some large like EA), they ARE not too happy about the lack of DX10 for WinXP. Smaller game development shops are in a world of hurt because of this decision by Microsoft.Rob.

I meant to ask that if microsoft modified WinXP to run DX10 and we were to recieve a copy of that modified version on WinXP as it is right now, will there be features (security features for exampler) that are currently on the vanilla winXP that MS would have had to remove because they would cause conflicts with the DX10 modification.Also would resolving those conflicts be a trivial task?Kabs

Robin, please, stay with the facts ...1st If DX 10 for XP was possible, we would have seen it by now. I find nowhere on the net a hint that someone is even working on it. So I guess it is not so easy as you pretend. 2nd Microsoft promised us that FSX would be DirectX 10. They said clearly that they will provide a free patch to make it DirectX 10. Phil Taylor stated several times in those same forums that they started working on the DirectX 10 patch, but that they are concentrating first on getting SP 1 out of the door.I tend to believe him, not you, but then you will call me a Microsoft believer ? May I ask you where you get your info from that Aces stopped working on an advertised and promised feature ?I said nowhere I had access to a working alpha, beta or whatever. It is just you bragging again that you have access to "a lot of alpha software". Must I assume that you mean you have access to Microsoft new software projects ? Or did you mean your own in house developed software ? Why would ACEs - a gaming programming team - share their working projects with you ? If you were that close with Microsoft, you would be advertising Vista by now, not fulminate against it.Also I told no one to run out and replace XP on their existing setup with Vista, on the contrary. Only that I decided to go Vista with my new PC, because I don't have the time, nor the money to change to a new pc every 3 months. I plan further ahead, choose parts that hopefully still can be changed in 1 year time, and up to now, all of my PCs were good for 4 years of gaming. And that is not bad in this fast developing world. And up to now, FSX ran just as fine on my system as it does on XP. Let's say it is just as buggy and runs just as slow. Are you happy now ?So stop bragging. If you prefer XP, I am happy for you. I am happy with my new Vista PC and hope to enjoy FSX and other DX 10 games the coming year. Jan

>Jack/Jan so I assume by your posts that you know there will>be an FSX for Vista that supports DX10 (other than what you've>been told)? And apparently you have also confirmed that it>will be a better experience? I have access to A LOT of Alpha>software and I must admit I clearly don't seem to have the>confirmed knowledge that you folks do -- could you fill me in>on your first hand experience? I'd love to hear the details>of your experience with the 64bit version of FSX, but I guess>you have an NDA so that you can't inform me?>Or are you really just saying you got Vista 64bit hoping the>software will come to you and hoping developers code 64bit>versions? Either way, do you really think making a purchase>decision now on something that "might" happen in the future>where any number of other variables could change that really>-- is a good decision even when buying a new PC?God this is tiring. I'll try to type slowly so you can follow along. We moved to Vista cause we got new machines, don't want to play the /3GB game, don't want to buy another OS in 6 months, etc. We're not going back to Windows Me. We're not going to Linux. We don't believe that Microsoft is an evil corporation bent on keeping us under the boot. If you look at your hardware and make sure you won't get bit by a missing device driver, and you're building a new machine, and you can pay for it, it's a no brainer that will future proof you. That's what it is for me. And evidently for Jan. DirectX 10 is here. Deal with it. Just like 9, 8, and 7 were in their time. Games took time to trickle out then just like now. FSX will benefit, Crysis will benefit. You're dream world where Vista blows up, Microsoft execs are led away in chains, and everybody merrily uses Linux ain't going to happen. >As others have pointed out, there is absolutely NO reason to>get Vista now. "Wait and see" is a very valid and good>conclusion that some folks have come. And please, stop>mis-quoting me.If you build/buy a new machine, you're not waiting and seeing. You have to pick an OS. And for a new machine in most cases, Vista is just fine, and you don't have to buy another OS in 6 months to use DirectX10. >BTW, no need to change the Kernel for DX10 unless you plan to>provide aeroglass interface in WinXP. Here's another whopper. You did know there is a new display driver model in DX10/Vista? You're just going to tack that on to XP, too? And Aero runs on DirectX 9.0L not 10. >You release DX10 for>WinXP just like they have done with all prior versions of>DirectX. This is very doable and like I've said before...what>OS do you think they used to create Vista and DX10? Your ignorance is appalling. Why don't you read Phil's blog and find out? Or is Phil persona non grata because he works for THAT company...the horror. I'll save you some time. The Vista codebase came from Windows Server 2003. Not XP.>I can>assure you, their development cycle isn't code DX10 features,>make a build, install that build on a unknown state of a Vista>build, and then test -- that is not efficient. You can ASSURE us? Did you have access to THAT alpha software, too? Could you fill me in on your first hand experience? I'd love to hear the details of your intimate experience with the DirectX 10 development process... Go read Phil's blog. They did the kernel changes first to the Windows 2003 Server codebase, then the DirectX 10 driver layer and API.>And the posts about "vaunted dev team" and "ruin your QA>team's live" -- liver still acting up?Yeah those posts made a point which still stands. You can't refute it, so keep talking about my liver (which is just fine, but I'm still assembling the 50 pages of evidence you require for information you're not predisposed to). Retrofitting DirectX 10 into XP is quite hard and is not just a marketing decision. It's fine to advocate a wait and see approach to Vista, especially if your current machine can run FSX OK. But when you utter platitudes like "there is absolutely NO reason to get Vista now", your raging bias shows.

Jan,Bragging?? What interest do I have in bragging? and Why? What would that gain me? I'm providing honest accurate information, not fiction, not whatever Phil Taylor and/or Microsoft tell me.You said you got your Vista PC to plan for the future, so I assumed you know what the future is going hold in terms of FSX?Why should anyone believe Microsoft? 5 years to get an OS shipped after countless missed delivery dates -- 3 years to get FSX which is a slide show when visual details are turned up. What reason/evidence is there to demonstrate that I should believe Microsoft?Information about frequency of my PC upgrades was provided because someone suggested I had some regret or "mistake" in my hardware selection -- so I responded with the frequence of my upgrades and hence demonstrated why my hardware selection was a non-issue.I'm a software engineer, of course I have access to alot of alpha products and beta products (and also why I get all the latest hardware). I've worked WITH Microsoft before, I have a pretty good understanding of how they operate and how to stay one step ahead and under their radar. Fortunately I'm currently in a market segment that Microsoft could not understand (and probably don't want to understand) nor consume.Yes, 4 years is a good life span for any PC. Now go buy a MacPro and see what 64bit computing and lots of memory can really do for you and even install Vista on it ya must ;)Rob.

Who said anything about retro-fitting DX10? It would have been more efficient to do parallel development lines (even more so since they were starting with Win2K3 code base). Microsoft have a pretty extensive version control system.Yes, the approach they took was very much governed by a marketing decision and lack of competition.But I agree, you've presented your opinion and I've presented mine. Let the sales numbers do the rest.Rob.

So you would have them build Vista twice? "The runtime and its communication with the kernel is tied to the OS. There were significant changes in the runtime-kernel interaction in Vista. That would have to be back-ported to XP ( in addition to the API work ) and changes made to the XP kernel. Its not XP at that point, it is Vista. The changes are that significant." - from Phil's bloghttp://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...ts-of-dx10.aspxI think you're gloming onto evil marketing reasons instead of understanding the technical difficulties.

>>No, everyone does NOT know what you were talking about which>is why I, and a few others were like ##### is this guy talking>about. Now that you have adequately explained yourself instead>of jumping around screaming I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO! then>more people are likely to read what you have to say and>respond to it. You have 100 posts and there are dozens of>forums here with thousands of active threads so it's not>beyond the realm of expectation for none of us to have ever>read any of your previous predictions of a horrifying vista>failure...>>________________________________________________________________________________________________>>Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz>| 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | >Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA>RAID-0 | >OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW |>Matrox Triplehead SetupAh, sorry. Now I understand. I apologize; when I look at things based on how you explained it, I can see why people wrote what they did. I don't have a lot of experience in forums, and assumed that, as the subjects grow, the people that post back and forth in it are following what's being said-I totally wasn't thinking along the lines that not everyone might have seen what I said before. I hope everyone will excuse me and thanks for making it clear :)P.S. I still prefer XP :_)