DX10 on Win XP possible?

[PhilTaylor 45]

I think you have to stand in line there. :-) Obviously, critical thinking and facts are not a highlight of this set of arguments.

[Guest christian]

Phil,This is a very good point you raised there. Can we expect free upgrades to all infinity? Well, if you ask the costumer, yes, that's what we want, but is this a reasonable expectation? Certainly not. And when it comes to the crunch most of us are quite happy parting with our money when we get offered something we believe offers us a unique new way to deal with our everyday problems.However, I think the DX10 issue is a bit more complex. Is it reasonable to expect support for new hardware on a still widely used OS? I believe so. In the past, MS has made available drivers for new devices on old OS. Eg if I remember right USB2 got patches for older OS, not all the way back to Win95, but including the most used ones at the time. Is it unreasonable for users to expect to get native support for DX10 hardware on XP? I don't really think it is. I wouldn't expect support for Win98, but Win XP is still commonly used. DX10 doesn't give me any new features, it simply gives me better graphics. If I plunk a DX10 card into Win XP I certainly would expect that I get all hardware features. Vista on the other hand does give me new features and plenty of them. Therefore, you have a right to want money for it. Now, some people who replied wrote they don't care about Vista's new features. If they don't want these new features I'd say this is fair enough. Either MS hasn't marketed Vista right yet or it simply isn't relevant to many people. But I don't think that selling Vista so you can use new hardware is the way to go. What's next? To get DDR3 support we need to buy another OS. To get the next gen USB or whatever interface, we need to buy a new OS? We didn't need to buy a new OS to get shader 1/2/3 support. We didn't need to buy a new OS to get T&L support. This is the reason so many people get upset about this situation. It's not that we don't want to pay for new features, but when it comes down to having to buy a new OS just to make the next generation of graphics cards work things seem to have gone a bit far.It comes down to what you define DX to be. Is it a new feature? Or is it just an interface to make hardware work? If it's a new feature then you need to explain to me what daily problems DX10 solves that Win XP doesn't solve. Just offering fancier graphics for video games is _not_ a new feature. In my opinion.Does that make a bit more sense now?Christian

[PhilTaylor 45]

No, this argument still doesnt make sense.First, these cards work just fine in DX9 mode, and are great DX9 cards with great performance.So you dont need to buy Vista to make them work at all. That is misinformation.And in point of fact DX10+Vista solves at least 2 problems DX9+XP doesnt.The main one is, in Vista the OS now uses the graphics card in the most effective way, the 3D pipeline, to render the OS desktop. So Vista users actually get more benefit of their purchase more often; as opposed to XP which uses tired old GDI from the 1980s to render the desktop and only uses the card when running a game ( or an app that uses D3D or OGL ). DX10 added features to the hw that enable GPU task switching and GPU memory virtualization. And added OS and driver support for those new hw bits. The result is smoother switching between apps that use the GPU, and the ability to run, simultaneously, a lot more apps before running out of resources. Compare that to XP which has a "last card in gets all the resources" style, and where you can basically run only one GPU app at a time. 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 So the GPU usage meter is a lot higher on Vista and your investment is leveraged a lot better. MacOS does this too, and I hear Linux/X-Windows is at least planning now to use the GPU to render their desktop. And again, on XP those new hw bits that you paid for are not utilized at all.But I sense those technical facts dont really matter in this sort of argument.

[Guest christian]

>And again, on XP those new hw bits that you paid for are not>utilized at all.Exactly that is the point! When using USB2 hardware on Win2000, you're not limited to the much slower USB1 mode just because you're running Win2000.For what it's worth, I agree with your other points. XP users indeed shouldn't expect a free 3D desktop and the other techie bits. But if people don't care about having a 3D desktop? What if they just want to utilize the hw bits they paid for?I'm not insisting your wrong. However, I do feel it's very understandable if users want to use the hw they paid for without upgrading the OS. I'm not saying make DX10 available for Win95, but XP is still very much used.

[Virtualwombat 4]

Currently, there is no evidence whatever that DX10 will deliver the promised step change improvement in quality or performance. So far DX10 releases have failed to achieve worthwhile improvements: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2144449,00.asphttp://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2134729,00.aspUntil concrete examples of benefits emerge from running DX10, the question of running it under XP is irrelevant.Cheers,Noel.

[PhilTaylor 45]

Your USB example is just plain wrong. Read http://www.usbman.com/Win2000.htm, where it says Win2000 Service Pack 4 includes USB2.0 support. So without a free upgrade, you did indeed get the much slower USB1 mode on Win2000.You can use the hw bits you paid for on XP, in DX9 mode. And no one is stopping you from doing that.If you want the new behavior, you have to buy the new OS. And no one is forcing you to do that.

[teeps 0]

>>Jeese.....sadly, I'm not surprised. And we wonder why>global>>anti-americanism is at an all-time high....how does this>make>>us look in the eyes of the rest of the world? Greed, greed,>>greed...too bad really....>>>>>>http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gif>>>>Alex Christoff>>N562Z>>Baltimore, MD>>Not to take this thread off topic, but anti-Americanism is>only high among self-loathing Americans and terrorists. Most>other rational people understand the real dangers in the world>today. >>Now back to software and why you feel it should be>free...isn't that your point, that charging for innovation is>greed? Does any company have the right to exact a return on>investment for new products? Continuing the off-topic part for a moment, me and all my British chums don't fit in either of those categories, but a fair number of us hold fairly negative views about American government and corporations at the minute (although not about Americans as individuals, you guys are just as fine as the next country in that regard), so I think it is fair to say there's a strong strand of anti-americanism about at the moment.

[Guest MauiHawk]

Phil,You have valid points, but I also think its a bit naive of you to not have any respect for the widespread mistrust of M$. You point out the paradox: Companies are *supposed* to be greedy. Greed is what brings stockholders their ROI and what ultimately drives innovation and productivity. But at the same time a capitalist society is *supposed* to have competition. Without competition, greed exploits rather than innovates.No one can fairly expect a company to simply shut off greed once they capture a certain percentage of the market-- M$ is not at fault here. But that fact shouldn't mean consumers should be happy with the situation. That's where government is supposed to come in. (and IMHO M$ got off easy-- heck, Ken Starr of all people shared that same view: http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18817579). The fact is M$ arguably has a monopoly on the non-console gaming market. You have us over a barrel. You control the development of the primary API for game devs. You also control the ability to define what products of yours we need to run it. Unlike most aspects of our lives as consumers in capitalistic societies, with PC gaming we have no good alternatives but to follow the path you define and to pay the price you tell us to. So you can understand the unease whether or not you are technically doing anything wrong, yes?After all, I think a good part of this unease stems from M$'s previous forays in claiming certain applications once considered separate from the OS were, in fact, an integral piece of the OS. (Ironically, unlike DX, the latest version of IE is available for XP).So yes, you have valid points in questioning just how long you are required to provide free "upgrades" to old products. But I think Christian also has a valid point that the product in question here is billed as a *platform* not as M$ AllEncompasingSoftwareSuite version 1.0. As such I think there is a line of some sort that should be respected. One that says if too much is claimed to be married to a particular platform, then that platform becomes nothing but a bully pulpit.

[Guest UlfB]

Phil,Why do you bother? Let the fools go for the snake oil. The smart fools (!?) will learn a lesson. I'm beginning to suspect that you are concerned about the FS community members. Not good, because I'm planning to market the FBC, FSX Boost Crystal. Easy to attach to your mobo and will remove all stutters and blurries within seconds. Money back if your'e not satisfied. Bundled with an USB Super Optimizer, a FAT32 Cleaner and a Desktop Organizer - All for free and with a life time warranty.Ulf B

[mgh 89]

Exactly, why should a supplier offer free upgrades?A while ago after I'd bought a new car, the manufacturer brought out a 'special edition' with a few exras like aloy wheels etc at the same price. Should the manufacturer have offered me a free upgfrade? It dsdn't and I didn't expect one. How many here think I should have got one?

[RFields5421 1]

When USB 2.0 came along - updating W2K was a mess with SP4. It only worked part of the time as opposed to XP.While Phil notes "those new hw bits that you paid for at not utilized at all" he did not mention that the new dll's, new architecture and new supporting elements in Vista are not present in XP.It's much more than a new driver. Like it or not DX is imbeded in the OS. DX-10 takes a supporting software architecture which XP simply does to have.There is an update for XP to give it all the parts it needs for DX-10 to run properly - it's called an Upgrade to Vista.Throughout this, and similar discussions, there is a presumption that DirectX is a little application - sitting all alone - not requiring support from the OS - doing it's thing.Phil, and many others, have made it very clear that is not the case with DX-10. It is now an integral part of the OS architecture.Whether or not that is the best practice, or a Microsoft protective move - doesn't matter. XP users indeed shouldn't expect a free 3D desktop and the other techie bits. But if people don't care about having a 3D desktop? What if they just want to utilize the hw bits they paid for?1 - Why did they pay for hw bits knowing they cannot use them?2 - Not expect a free 3D desktop, not expect other techie bits - but do expect techie bits for one application ?That statement is inconsistent and self-conflicting.Face it, all our purchase choices come down to one final Yes/No decision.The essential questions is this:Is DX-10 important enough to make Vista worth the purchase/ effort?I don't know if this is the one for you. I certainly understand if you were to decide NO as many people have/ will.As I stated above - my experience tells me that upgrading existing computers is not effective. But purchasing an OS which is past it's end of service life (XP) is also not an option for any new computer I might buy.

[rhodges 6]

"Besides, you can get Vista Home Premium OEM for pretty darn cheap."Want be "pretty darn cheap" if one has to buy new printers, scanners, and other hardware simply because other manufacturers refuse to upgrade drivers so that we will have to buy their newer products. There was a post some time ago with a link to such an HP statement of all their products. I have two laser printers (not HP), one color and one B&W that I sure would hate to have to scrap. Big bucks IMHO anyway.This is the number one thing that turns me off of Vista, and I will probably hang on to XP till the last twitch before it dies.Respectfully:RTH

[ANE002 0]

Well, while I can agree with Phil's position... for me the issue was one of hardware...Flight Sim hardware...Yokes and Pedals..serial hardware...dump it..no good with Vista, dump XP no good for DX-10...So now if I want to stay abreast I need $'s for a new OS..a new Graphics card..a new USB Yoke...new USB pedals...Forget the $100 PC how about a $100 upgrade..being retired and on SS maybe Mr. Gates could work something out for all us retired folks...Getting old is bad enough but getting old without the latest and greatest? Now that stinks....

[N562Z 4]

Neil - I do not feel innovation should be free. In fact, I have, and am more than happy to again, pay for new computer products and technology. But to cloak it with deception? Well, frankly, that helps explain why you think anti-Americanism is only high amongst the groups you mention. Look outside of Fox News, The Washington Post and CNN, and see what you find. Anyway, that's off-topic.Cheers,http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[mgh 89]

Did the suppliers of your printers etc actually state that they would provide drivers for a future operating system? If not, you got what you paid for.