DX10 on Win XP possible?

[N562Z 4]

Teeps-If people here do not read your newspapers or periodicals, or partake in any of your on-line media, how would they know? The American press is under general anesthesia when it comes to anything outside of sex scandal, paris Hilton's driving record, or how much money Johnny Depp made last year. Bad news is hard to swallow here....Again off-topic, bad me.Cheers,http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[jlohrenz 133]

Phil, I have to ask a question about your comment. You state that Vista+DX10 takes better advantages of the GPU than XP+DX9 did. Am I correct in assuming that the current performance hit we see with using FSX on Vista instead of XP will possibly go away with the DX10 update and the ability to utilize the GPU better? I'm also guessing that the maturity of the video drivers themselves also play into this but was just curious about your comment as I currently run a dual OS box with XP and Vista and I always get better framerates in XP. (And yes, I have all of the Vista Eye Candy turned off)

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

The performance degradation in Vista (to the extent that there is one) compared to XP is primarily due to immature drivers. This was more of a problem early this year. The drivers have since gotten better. That has been my experience.Reasons why you get better framerates in XP could be 1) the drivers for you card are still not as mature in Vista; 2) FSX is memory constrained in Vista--make sure that's not happening--there are a bunch of services you can turn off to help.There is nothing inherent in the plumbing of Vista that makes it significantly slower than XP when running DX9. And the advantage that Phil mentions that Vista has is that apps in Vista can share access to the graphics card hardware. So you can run FSX in a window while the desktop is using the graphics card at the same time. Or you can run a 3D modeling program and FSX at the same time. I hope I have recounted what Phil said here accurately...DX10 will include new features that can provide better eye candy (geometry shaders, long shaders), and optimizations that will make the same eye candy in DX9 run faster in DX10 (low overhead API calls, better small batch Draw call behavior). So the potential for more performance is there, but it depends on how the FSX team uses it. Even if DX10 is more efficient, if you try to stuff too many triangle and shaders into a scene, it'll crawl. So they'll probably establish a resource budget that will strike a balance. You can read a lot more about this DX10 stuff in Phil's blog.

[bob.bernstein 0]

Christian, you've done the BEST job clarifying my angst with this situation.I didn't need a new os to upgrade to dx9.I shouldn't need a new os to upgrade to dx10.Bob

[N562Z 4]

Phil-Anyway, no matter what, you should know that the vast majority of us in here are with you, and appreciate you putting yourself in the firing line. I think it's safe to say that anyone in this forum will will hang with FSX for the long-haul, and be patient enough, if not perhaps a bit frustrated at times, to apply the tweaks, updates, and yes, I'm sure even changes in OSs and hardware to maximize our enjoyment of FSX. Heck, I'm so excited by the potential for orbital / space flight, that I can hardly stand it. Flying the freeware Valkyriehttp://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/syb2.cgi...file=XB-70x.zipto FL750 the other day, my jaw was open as I watched the contours of mother earth morph from recognizable terrain to a perceived curvature...wow...and I haven't even tried my CaptainSim Space Shuttle yet....http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[bob.bernstein 0]

Phil, normally I've felt your discussions have been balanced and sensible, but comments like "But I sense those technical facts dont really matter in this sort of argument" are way way way out of line, in the face of such a well written post by Christian.You haven't accepted that (at least some users) are telling you that using a 3d pipeline to provide me graphics on my desktop is not a feature worthy of dx10 being kept from xp. That capability is marketing eye candy in my opinion. In fact, using my gpu for my applications is the only capability I'm interested in. You write: "True for games that are intended to be run one at a time this may not be as important - but for users who are using Photoshop, Illustrator, Premier, Flash, CAD apps etc - to do real work this is a key benefit of DX10+Vista "This logic is understandable and sound, but definitely smacks of a concept that would have permitted a version of dx10 for xp with reduced allowance for multiple apps. Then the use of multiple apps simultaneously is really the draw for folks to buy vista, and not the ability to use a perfectly good os with a single app enjoying the latest graphics appearance.Face it, if MS was passionate to allow me and others like me to experience the graphics capability that dx10 brings to a single app without having to buy vista, it could have been. Notice I didn't say bring me DX10 to Xp, cuz you are invoking a "Clintonesque" willingness to use definition of what dx10 means to MS as an "out", no I believe ms could have allowed me to see the beauty of latest dx10 graphics functions with xp in a single app one at a time.And that would have been really appreciated.Best,Bob

[bob.bernstein 0]

I'm willing to pay for dx10. I'm just not willing to surrender my perfectly running os with no driver and app conflicts to acheive that. In your analogy, would likely be in the same boat...you could get those tasty extras added to your new car at a cost. You wouldn't have to surrender and replace the car just to get the extras.

[bob.bernstein 0]

Not sure why you assume people want something for free. I think folks would love an option to pay a smaller amount for dx10 addon to xp. I would for sure.

[RFields5421 1]

DX9 is the end of the evolutionary software chain.DX10 is an unfortunate choice of a name, because as Phil clearly explained it is not an update or new version of a separate DirectX application. It is the integration of a new 3D draw engine into the OS.Could MS have designed DX10 to not be part of the OS? Sure.Would it have the capabilities they are seeking? No, it would be limited severly because it would be not part of the OS.When you and others say - "I don't need the 3D desktop" you show you are not looking at the answer and the description of what DX10 is.With DX9 one window on the screen runs DirectX.With DX10 the entire screen runs DirectX and your game runs in one window. You cannot separate out one window because from the fundamental level the OS no longer runs that way.And XP cannot run that way unless it is significantly rebuilt into another OS with a 3D desktop - called Vista.DX10 has as much in common with DX9 as fuel injectors with the jets in a carburator.Vista and DX-10 are a fuel injected engine.XP is a carburated engine - and nothing you do to your XP carburator by adding new DX-9 + jets is going to make it work with fuel injectors.

[bob.bernstein 0]

We all know arguments can be crafted that supports one's chosen end point.Still, I'd say MS missed a chance for added revenue, craft a different concept dx10 that makes dx10 version of fsx look awesome to owners of a 8800gtx and xp. Charge me $50 for it. Would generate millions for ms.And isn't that really the bottom line?Best,Bob

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Phil, while you're creating a parallel version of DX10 and a parallel version of XP to run it on, and hiring the QA and support staff to support these two projects, I would like ReadyBoost backported to Windows Server 2003. If you're really passionate about me being able to run Windows Server 2003 with only a gig (or less) of RAM, you'd offer me the capability to supplement that with a big, fat 2GB USB thumb drive using ReadyBoost.:D

[bob.bernstein 0]

An atmosphere of sarcasm is not desireable, it attempts to establish group-think, and then trades on this air. Group Think is especially conforting to some folks, if it aligns themselves with power, like when little boys root for the Yankees cuz they really really need to find themselves rooting for a winner.I get that you want Phil to like you very much.Please don't further your effort along that line by rediculing my ideas.There is a very logical business case here.

[RFields5421 1]

craft a different concept dx10 that makes dx10 version of fsx look awesome to owners of a 8800gtx and xpI'm sure they could - I hope they have bean counters who are better than me to see if the market is there.Though the real answer is probably the DX10 budget was included in a part of the bigger Vista budget. Breaking it out as a separate product would probably not meet their cost/profit criteria - but we'll probably never know.I have absolutely no doubt that DX9 can be improved. Whether it has a new name or not - would enough people really pay for it, or expect a free upgrade?Can it equal DX10, or DX11 or DX12 on Vista - I also have no doubt the answer is no.

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Um, not sure what you mean about group think and power. Sarcasm has been used since words were first getting written down. I use it to make a point. The point is that we all have our desires about what we want Microsoft to do with its operating systems. But I think all too often I see a simplistic view ascribed to the level of effort involved for Microsoft to fulfill those desires.Backporting a "single app at a time" version of DX10 to XP would take a lot more than passion. First, you break one of the core design points of DX10--it no longer allows shared access to the hardware. Boom. Tons of code relies on this--you have to rewrite all of that. Then you break another huge design point--that DX10 is running in Vista. More rewriting.Then you get to QA and support two parallel versions of DX10. One for XP and one for Vista. You get to internally test them both, beta test them both with game publishers, and drop a note to ATI and NVidia that they need to create a whole new driver code tree to support DX10 on XP. The MSDN team gets to create two dev/support sites, and create two SDKs. Then every bug fix or enhancement you do to create DX10.1 and DX10.2 has to be made twice, and tested twice.These things don't happen in a vacuum. There are a lot of inter-related things going on--in the code, in the company, and between Microsoft, game publishers, and hardware companies.BTW, sarcasm isn't a hijack. A hijack is if a Mac (or Linux) a really excited user comes in here and says we should drop everything and just use a Mac.

[PhilTaylor 45]

So far, to me, this thread doesnt feel logical at all. It feels like people just want what they want, and are crafting whatever arguments serve that purpose, as you said in another of your reply.So lets boil it all down.Basically, you are saying you disagree with the design of Vista and its DX10 component. Ok, sure, one could design almost anything given enough resources. But lets talk to what was designed first A radical change to the graphics hw to add "CPU-like" management features to enable the OS to resource manage the graphics hw. And an OS that embodied that change via runtime, kernel, and driver layer behavior changes. And a runtime that surfaces that behavior to the programmer.And yes, it was radical because Apple's work with a 3D desktop did not try to influence the graphics hw design with elements of CPUs, it simply lived with what OGL gave them at the time. Thats the difference between clever and radical in my book. Apple was clever with MacOS and the 3D desktop, Microsoft was radical. Time will tell which approach has more mileage.Now, with that as the design, doing anything for XP is just plain compromising the design. And splitting resources which creates project risk. In a nutshell, that is what happened. What you ask was not the design point. It is that simple.Now as to why we didnt do both? Even MS doesnt have enough resources to both design and develop Vista as well as this other thing you ask for. So every business has to make choices about what it works on and how it spends its people resources on projects. That is just reality. You can say we "shoulda coulda" but every org has to make choices.Also, we should note doing what you ask would mean the driver writer resource would be split amonst Vista DX10 drivers and XP DX10 drivers. Driver quality being what it is at this time, I posit that would turn out to be a very bad thing in practice.So you can say or ask for whatever, sure. But do consider the fact of what the design was and what the outcome was. Sure you can disagree with it. And sure, if you feel that strongly about it, vote with your feet. That is your right. On to the purpose of my original reply to this thread. My original post talked to what FallingLeafSystems is saying they are doing and with some analysis showed the reality of it are two entirely different things. And Christians' first post about it was entirely too uncritical. There is no way they can deliver on the claim to not need a DX10 graphics card and even Christian now admits that claim is rubbish.And so yes, when instead of engaging on that part of the discussion which was the original intent of the thread we go off into the politics of design ( slaves vs rippers or whatever that was that abulaafia said ) and why reality isnt different than what it is - yes I dont see that tack of the discussion as staying with the technical facts. Do you see my point?