OSNews

Well, it's not just about games. I am personally interested in PureVideo HD 2.0, which is only available in Vista currently. Nvidia said that they will make an XP Purevideo HD 2.0 driver available for XP this summer too, BUT, it will use a proprietary API and apps will have to be coded to take advantage of it, while on DX10 and Vista, all apps can take advantage of 100% CPU offloading in h.264 1080p video automatically.

So, personally, I pretty bummed about XP not supporting DX10, even if I don't play any 3D games anymore. And I can't upgrade to Vista, because I have many apps for my hobbies that don't quite work on Vista, while I need Purevideo HD 2.0 for my video editing with Sony Vegas (Vegas does not support GL cards like the Quadros you see, so these Purevideo cards would have been perfect if DX10 was supported on XP).

It certainly is a real shame. You've raised some good points, but for me I am primarily a gamer when it comes to DirectX 10 and as such I feel that I am being forced to upgrade to Vista to enjoy the benefits of DX10.

I guess, fortunately, there aren't many impressive games yet that offer any decent benefit over their counterparts to force the upgrade. Yet...

Shame on sony for not supporting openGL but for supporting DirectX10 so heavily.

Lots of industries are in a big quandry because of microsoft discourating opengl and pushing directx10. Small fragile industries are faced with having possibly deal with investing a fairly tidy sum into supporting a "lock in" technology instead of improving their products already based on open cross platform standards.

Ugh.

bnolsen:

This is a little off-topic, but I'd like to point out that Sony's Playstation 3 uses OpenGL as its primary API (although it uses Nvidia's Cg rather than the OpenGL standard GLSL for the shading language). So Sony does support open standards in this case. Refer to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_3

The real shame is that "Playstation Edge" SDK has not yet been released to the wider public (registered developers only), unlike the XBox 360's XNA

A separate question is why people would develop for the platform-limited DirectX 10 rather than OpenGL 2 (or the imminent 3), since they now have near feature parity? I much prefer to use OpenGL when doing graphics.

A thought on your your seperate question. If I was a game developer and had my choice between OpenGL and Direct X (At least now) I would go with Direct X just for the fact that my game that I developed would be published on Windows and Xbox360 with virtualy no extra effort of porting. Both of those two platforms have a very large user base. then after if I knew my product did well in those two markets I would port to Mac,Linux and or the other game systems.

steverez1:

That is a common argument that is made, but it is also incorrect. The difference between OpenGL and DirectX is the different between logical AND and OR.

With OpenGL you are developing for Linux,PS3, MacOSX *AND* Windows (and possibly Xbox). Using OpenGL doesn't exclude you from Windows in the slightest, although admittedly you have to use other libraries such as OpenAL for game-related things that are in DirectX but not in OpenGL.

With DirectX it is Windows only (and you are pretty much limited to games only, since DirectX lacks some of the CAD-friendly things such as picking). Using DirectX excludes you from anything except Windows.

The difference is between choosing 100% percent of the market or 90% percent of the market when you develop.

Can you really develop games in OpenGL for Xbox?

If not, his point stands. Using DirectX means being able to develop for 2 larger userbases with minimal effort.

I did not quite follow your last sentence. You are saying Opengl has 90% of the market?

After some additional research I am corrected. I believed OpenGL could run accelerated on the xbox after hearing Quake III ported to xbox but after research it appears it'll be software only, see http://forums.xbox-scene.com/lofiversion/index.php/t502610.html

What I'm saying is that any program written for OpenGL will run on 100% of platforms (although it may not always be accelerated, so perhaps it isn't worth it). While DirectX is available on fewer, especially since various versions of DirectX are only compatible with specific versions of Windows.

Say you are writing a CAD application, should you use DirectX? Perhaps not.

Say you are writing a game, then DirectX is viable, but which version? Use 9c and you miss out on new effects and are associated with a obsolescent platform (WinXP), choose DX10 and only the small percentage of the market with Vista use your stuff (not everyone upgrades their computer at a rate faster than 3 years). However, if you choose OpenGL (as ID continues to do) you can have new shader types and effects on Windows XP (via OpenGL extensions) and can write programs that will work on WindowsXP AND Vista (as well as MacOS X).

The thing is, if you use OpenGL on 'DirectX 10 class hardware' you can have all the 'DirectX 10' (and Direct X11, and DirectX 12 ...) effects without caring about the platform. This is because OpenGL abstracts the hardware and platform, while DirectX doesn't (this is a deliberate strategy from Microsoft, by the way). I know which 3D API makes most sense from a strategic perspective for me (yes, I am writing commercial software that requires use of a 3D API).

Why not use SDL*. It is truely cross platform in graphics multimedia and works with both DirectX (under Windows) and OpenGl (Under Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS-X). It is also F/OSS under the LGPL which allows its use in proprietary/closed source software.

(SDL == Simple Direct Media Layer)

SDL is like (parts of) DirectX; you still need to use Direct3D or OpenGL for doing 3D with it.

SDL + OpenGL + OpenAL (if only it didn't suck) would result in an easy-to-port application. SDL exists for a ridiculous number of platforms... Windows, OS X, Linux, *BSD, etc. and consoles like the DS.

It's a great set of libraries, but it's not a magic bullet.

- chrish

For the record, DirectSound is no longer in Vista, so OpenAL looks like the future as far as hardware accelerated sound goes.

http://www.openal.org/openal_vista.html

Specifically, DirectX 9. DX10 does not, and will not run on the Xbox 360 (as I understand it). If this really is the case, any developer supporting DX10 would have to be insane, as this only gives you the Vista market, which is already covered by both DX9 and OpenGL.

>> Aseparate question is why people would develop for the platform-limited DirectX 10 rather than OpenGL 2 (or the imminent 3), since they now have near feature parity?<<

Some answer as always, because some company (A..) provides better driver for DirectX than for OpenGL.

Note: ATI being the company with the crappy Opengl implementation (something they say they are going to fix soon, due to the whole Vista fiasco and the general crappiness of the *nix drivers).

Lots of industries are in a big quandry because of microsoft discourating opengl and pushing directx10.

How dare them try to promote their product...

It's not about promoting a product, but about deliberately hinder other products in working. Particularly open standards.

Same Company, Same Old Story.

When they deliberately hinder OpenGL from working?

Oh yeah.. they didn't.

You all have it backwards.

When it comes to 3d (not other aspects of directX), it's the HW which has "features" and OpenGL and DirectX are just the interfaces to use those "features".

OpenGL is actually the one to have things first most of the time, because it offers an extensions mechanism, while you always have to wait with directX for the next release to get them.

gee where to start.

it has ALWAYS been possible from day one to get DX10 into XP with out major reconstructive surgery. this was MS spreading FUD.

the new opengl is on par with directx on features and effects, along with visual quality.

does anyone remember how MS was originally talking about not supporting opengl except through a DX10 wrapper? that bombed not for any technical reason, but the market for lots of video editing and CAD type and rendering software is done in pure opengl so they would have killed its performance. literally forcing large render houses to switch to linux/ solaris. etc.

i dont get why peeple dont like the inq, and the reg. they are more often right then not, and a lot of times they post opinion pieceis. its hard to be WRONG when its an OPINION. also their attitude and peeple skills are what keep me around, most other news sites are fruity at best.

"it has ALWAYS been possible from day one to get DX10 into XP with out major reconstructive surgery. this was MS spreading FUD."

Hmmm, do you work for MS or one of the VC manufacturers?

Please explain to me (feel free to be as technical as you can) how you know this to be true. Every thing that I have read about GPU memory virtualization is a good thing, and perhaps they were forcing users to upgrade to Vista to get that DX10 goodness, that doesn't mean that the goals weren't justified.

The benefits of virtualization might have been worth it for MS, but then when Nvidia couldn't get it together, MS was looking at a disaster, if Nvidia couldn't support Vista, Vista was dead in the water, so they loosened up the requirements to make sure that both companies were able to sell VCs for Vista, and users kept the ability to choose the best VC from the best company for them.

MS has backported quite a bit of functionality from Vista to XP, they can't backport everything, or why would they even bother with developing Vista anyway? They are a business, and they have to keep improving (as far as they are concerned) Windows to continue to exist. offering free upgrades to their newest toys doesn't do MS, it's employees or it's shareholders any good, and could be disastrous for the company. Other companies don't backport everything from their latest releases, so why does MS have to?

"the new opengl is on par with directx on features and effects, along with visual quality. "

so what? OpenGL can be installed on Vista, and MS has relented and allowed more direct OpenGL support, so it is not crippled like in their original plan. So if you need an application that uses OpenGL, it can be installed.

In the case of the Inq, it might have something to do with the consistently poor-writing and tiresome attempts at sensationalism. The Reg does seem to be of a slightly higher calibre, but it's not as if the Inq sets a terribly high standard.

While I agree with you that the Inq is far from the paragon of journalistic rigor and integrity, I don't find it hard to believe the argument that MS is using DirectX 10 as an incentive to move to Vista.

If the facts presented in the article are true, and it shouldn't be to hard to find out, then it really does mean that the only reason MS isn't providing DirectX 10 for XP is that they want to force their users to upgrade - and in my book that's a pretty shady thing to do.

If the facts presented in the article are true, and it shouldn't be to hard to find out, then it really does mean that the only reason MS isn't providing DirectX 10 for XP is that they want to force their users to upgrade - and in my book that's a pretty shady thing to do.

Wonder if people will make the same comment about Apple if they don't backport Core Animation (along with the other nifty new Leopard features) to OSX 10.4.
Anyway, how much of Vista's functionality should MS reasonably be expected to backport? They've already got the new DotNet stuff from Vista in there.

This is *really* not the same thing as Core Animation. We're talking about DirectX here, one of the cornerstones of PC Gaming! You really can't compare this to Apple's new desktop features.

From your comment, I gather you are opposed to any backporting of DirectX 10 to XP, and therefore approve this shady tactic on MS's part to force PC gamers happy with XP to upgrade?

Can anyone say "MS shill"?

Mod away (though, since you're being off-topic, I'll mod you down as well). Personally, I don't see how someone could side with MS and

(i.e. those who bought XP) without having some kind of personal interest at stake.

So you may doubt that WorknMan is a MS shill (we already know that such a thing is impossible in your mind), but as far as I'm concerned that's what he is.

we already know that such a thing is impossible in your mind

No you don't know that. Don't make assumptions about me, thank you.

Classy.

"""
Can anyone say "modded down for personal attack"?
"""

Can anyone say "flagrant abuse of the moderation system"?

It was a personal attack. That's EXACTLY one of the options. Not an abuse at all.

Relevance to the price of tea in China?

"""
Relevance to the price of tea in China?
"""

http://supertart.com/priceofteainchina/chart.html

Edited 2007-07-13 12:56

Hey, guys. That was a fair question. Don't mod him down for it!

Edited 2007-07-13 20:04

This is *really* not the same thing as Core Animation. We're talking about DirectX here, one of the cornerstones of PC Gaming! You really can't compare this to Apple's new desktop features.

I dunno .. if it ends up being used by a lot of developers, will apps built using this technology work in OSX 10.4, which was only released back in 2005?

From your comment, I gather you are opposed to any backporting of DirectX 10 to XP, and therefore approve this shady tactic on MS's part to force PC gamers happy with XP to upgrade?

Personally, I don't do much gaming so couldn't care less. But if I did, I'm thinking that XP is 6 years old .. I don't expect that they'd support it forever. Hell, a lot of people are still happy with Windows 98, so why not demand of MS to release DX10 on Win98? Or why not a version for Windows 3.1? Where exactly do you draw the line?

I don't know if MS not releasing DX10 for WinXP is a shady move or not, but it's ironic that people who endlessly bash MS don't hold Apple and other companies to the same standards.

Edited 2007-07-12 22:15

Why even bother to comment then? Oh yeah, I forgot: any criticism of Microsoft must be brushed aside, for Microsoft can do no wrong and never attempts to screw its customers. Right.

Edited 2007-07-12 22:26

Yes, brushed aside by the huge contingent of rabid Microsoft supporters here - both of them! I hear it's rumoured they might even be recruiting a third.

You draw the line at the point where a simple legal copyright/patent monopoly becomes a DICTATORSHIP OVER AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY. This sort of thing is what Anti Trust is all about. It's also why I use Linux.

Can't be a monopoly if you can use linux. My phone company has a monopoly. I have to pay out the ass ($70 a month for DSL and basic phone service , no long distance, and it costs me 10 cents a minute to call anywhere even local) and there is NOTHING I can do about it. They are the ONLY phone company and the only ISP that works in my area. What Microsoft has engaged in is Anti-competitive practices, they are not a monopoly.

While they may not be a monopoly in the strictest sense any company that can tell hardware manufacturers what literally what a computer MUST be every five years (and usually in favor of their redicuously bloated software which basically consists of building new junk on top of old junk) is a DICTATORSHIP over the industry.

Sticking up for Windows XP user is "MS hating" now?

I'm sorry, I must have missed this morning's Shill memo.

"Sticking up for Windows XP user is "MS hating" now?"

You seriously underestimate the intelligence of the readers here.


"I'm sorry, I must have missed this morning's Shill memo."

Your "shill" accusations are getting old. You seem to have been long under the impression that bringing out the "shill" card automagically destroys opposing argument. It doesn't. Instead it only makes it look like you have a weak position such that you have to resort to such a ploy. It would behoove you and your debating to stick to real argument and stop the baseless accusations.

Edited 2007-07-13 01:12

I'm sorry, but that is *exactly* what ronaldst implied. Go back and re-read his post.



So is the constant pro-MS cheerleading coming from some of the users here.



No, I don't. I keep the two separate: logical arguments, and comments about the motives of some posters based on their posting history.



It's not a ploy, it's an opinion, and it comes separate from my actual arguments. But you're right, I should refrain from it, because it gives something for the MSDF to argue about instead of actually trying to come up with valid counter-arguments.



I *do* provide arguments. The "shill" comments are a bonus, free of charge. And they're not baseless accusations, either - when someone *consistently* adopts a pro-MS position, even when others try to take the side of XP users who *don't* want to upgrade, it's reasonable to question that person's motives.

Hey, I get accused of being anti-Microsoft all the time, even though I actually like many of their products and have developed games for their consoles. Someone even accused me of working for IBM back in the days. I didn't get all uppity about it. If those who feel targeted by my jibes are getting tired of them, maybe they should try being more objective about Microsoft, and actually criticize them when they do something wrong. The way some people talk here, MS is perfect and can't possibly have anything but the purest of intentions. I find that a little hard to believe...

Yes, and people should certainly know better than to expect anything other than perfunctory attempts at backwards-compatibility from Apple.



Oh, please. Can anyone say intellectually-lazy characterization?

Don't try to change the subject.

Are you seriously comparing DirectX with Core Animation? How many multi-million dollar projects depend on Core Animation?

I don't think people here realize the relative importance of the PC game industry compared to the technology used in a well-made, but marginal OS.



If people don't want to be called shills, then they shouldn't be so consistently one-sided. Even I can praise MS when it does something good.

No, I was simply pointing out the silliness of holding up Apple as a positive example of backwards compatibility when they, in fact, regularly break it between relatively minor version iterations.



It's becoming obvious that you're using the word "shill" when you really mean cheerleader/fanboi/etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

Who exactly was holding Apple up as a positive example of backwards compatibility? I certainly wasn't. What I *was* saying is that the comparison is irrelevant.

Indeed.
Another example is that Apple could've easily provided Spotlight to Panther users, but made it a Tiger-specific feature to add incentive to upgrade to Tiger (and ideed, Spotlight is THE feature wrt Tiger). And good for them! That's the way things work. It makes no sense to make all features of new versions of software available for old versions if you want to provide some reason for users to buy the new version.

The only thing is that Microsoft gets ripped for making Vista features unavailable to XP, while Apple got praised for making Tiger features unavailable for Panther. And Microsoft did back-port .NET 3.0 and PowerShell to XP; they do much more of that sort of thing than does Apple.

This isn't the same thing at all: did Apple introduce a new framework for game development in Tiger, ensuring that games made for Tiger wouldn't play on previous versions of the OS?

It seems the Microsoft Defense Brigade is already all over this. Would it be too much to ask for you guys to consider the possibility that MS could be in the wrong, here?

No, but they did add frameworks so that apps (like Apples Appature, and the latest versions of Final Cut and Logic to name just a few) written against 10.4 won't run on 10.3 (and they added features to 10.3 so that some apps written against it wouldn't run on 10.2 etc.) Did they do this because back porting was impossible, or did they do this because they wanted people to upgrade?

I'm far from an MS supporter and I'm not denying that MS could very well be doing this to make people upgrade to Vista, but it's hardly a unique MS strategy.

No, but they did add frameworks so that apps (like Apples Appature, and the latest versions of Final Cut and Logic to name just a few) written against 10.4 won't run on 10.3 (and they added features to 10.3 so that some apps written against it wouldn't run on 10.2 etc.) Did they do this because back porting was impossible, or did they do this because they wanted people to upgrade?

I think this is the point that archiesteel is missing. People go on a tirade about how MS is evil because they do xyz, and then don't even bat an eyelid when their competitors engage in the same business practices.
Think Windows XP users are getting screwed? Alright, fine, I'll agree with you .. just like OSX users are getting screwed too. Maybe we should all just switch to Linux

Edited 2007-07-13 02:17

I was already going to say something along those lines. Let's face it, Apple and Microsoft are proprietary software companies. They'll release a new version of their software that has new features to try to get people to upgrade and buy that new software. In my opinion though, it is kind of crappy of them to make new APIs (which by the way I, among many others, wouldn't really consider a FEATURE. It's a programming interface. All it really does is FORCE people to upgrade. Rather than for the example used before about Apple's Spotlight. That's a feature, some people may need or want that, and some may not. No one was forced to upgrade because of it. Now on the other hand if a application you want to use has a new feature or bug fixes added to it, and you want to upgrade, but because of an API upgrade in the newest version of your operating system prevents you from using that newer version of the software you want, that is shady practices. That's basically saying "hey, we don't care about our older users at all. When $COMPANY barks, we must jump."

API upgrades are not feature upgrades. Same thing with bug fixes.

On the other hand, Linux is great because of it's openness. If a new version of SDL, for example, comes out, everyone can benefit from it.

Besides, no one here has yet mentioned the fact that Vista in general has poorer 3D performance and more overhead than XP. Of course people would rather keep XP around and have DirectX 10 then to upgrade to Vista and have their fancy new 500+ video cards (well 1000+ for those with crazy SLI rigs) to work like crap.

I'm not "missing" anything. All I'm saying is that you can't compare DirectX, one of the cornerstones of the multi-billion dollar PC gaming industry, with a few enhancements to OS X. How big is the industry depending on those features that Apple has introduced?

In any case, I find the fact that people here defend MS against its customers a little disturbing. XP is a great OS, and many people don't want to do a double upgrade just so they can run Vista *and* play DirectX games.

Even Eugenia opined in that direction - funny, I didn't see many of the MSDF try to challenge her...

Next thing you know, you'll be arguing that all car makers that made cars the previous year without the option of antilock brakes is doing something shady because the current model year cars have that as an option.

Really, let's be realistic here! No manufacturer is under any legal or moral requirement to upgrade their older model product to have the same functionality of the newest model, unless they've signed a contract stating otherwise.

Calling any manufacturer "shady" because they don't update their old product in a way that adds new features is pure BS, regardless of the manufacturer.

No manufacturer is under any legal or moral requirement to upgrade their older model product to have the same functionality of the newest model, unless they've signed a contract stating otherwise.

This is all that needs to be said.

Umm, not same thing at all, ppl buy cars to _drive_ them, and the cars will still be _driven_ even without that option, most WinXP users however did buy the friggin OS bc of games, so not backporting DX10 means what ? well u guessed it, they wont be able to use their OS for what they paid for it in the first place.

I was counting on people to make the stupid whine that "it's not the same at all!" because I picked antilock brakes.

Well, there's no real difference here with XP without DX 10 versus Vista with it: XP is still useful as-is for what it was originally claimed it would run with: games with DX 9 and earlier, which is what's still the majority of games that exist for Windows are written for, and this is for an OS that's been out for at least a couple of CPU generation refreshes.

It's quite revealing how many of the people who challenged me because I *dared* to criticise MS can't make an argument without resorting to inadequate comparisons and half-baked analogies.

The fact is that MS said that they couldn't backport DirectX because it required features that were only in Vista, then backpedaled when Nvidia didn't want to implement those features.

Instead of wasting your time to attack someone who criticizes MS, perhaps you should think of those who are forced to upgrade their PCs so they can run Vista, only because they want to play DirectX games...

AFAIK, this "backpedaling" is about a single feature that nVidia failed to implement.
Do you seriously believe that a single feature is the difference between the XP and Vista graphics subsystems?

The analogy I used is less than half-baked as your idea that I'm picking on your posts because it's Microsoft: I would have shot you down for your claim that a manufacturer should provide such a major feature enhancement (not correcting a defect) for free, regardless of the manufacturer, regardless of the industry.

I could only hope that in your work, you get an abundance of customers that demand the same thing from you that you're demanding here: that you upgrade their product/service (that's over 5 years old) with some arbitrary thing for free to make it more comparable with a later product/service that they might otherwise buy if you don't update their older product. If you don't practice what you preach for your own work, then you shouldn't fight this so hard, either.

You should've picked a better analogy.

Antilock braking is a safety feature, you'll find there's a great deal of moral requirement for them to provide retrofitting the feature onto their previous car models. They even get additional sales! As a company they'd be stupid to ignore it.

I don't feel the need to call MS shady, because it's obvious they need people to upgrade to Vista. It's completely overt.

No, Beta, while antilock braking is an safety feature it is an optional safety feature that in reality is not an absolute requirement for stopping a car. Antilock brakes allow you to choose where you crash if you don't have enough space to stop: they do not always help you stop faster and I've even heard of people that have had them cause them to stop slower at the low-end and as a result, get into an accident, that older non-antilock brakes wouldn't have done.

Antilock brakes are actually a fairly good example, because while they can be retrofitted onto an older model, there's more involved with doing that correctly than you're probably aware of: I do have first-hand experience in working with the embedded software/hardware in the automotive world, and the electronics/hardware training that goes with it, so I know that it isn't the simplest thing to just retrofit that onto a car that didn't have that feature before, because that requires new hardware that takes up space that wasn't allocated before. You don't think that antilock brake mechanical hardware and electrical wiring takes up zero space, do you, or that they don't need to add new electronics that tie it into the rest of the system (dashboard indicator lights for the startup diagnostic: believe me, if you don't see that indicate things are fine, you do NOT want to be driving that car: that can fail, for example, if your alternator is dying, due to low voltage: I've seen that in person, in my car) and then there's the instruction manual they have to update, etc.

So, in theory, they could do it, the result would be expensive to engineer, a pain to retrofit, and chances are would cause a lot of trouble for the user, ad cost a lot to add to an older vehicle, which may no longer be within normal operational parameters that allow it to be installed safely. In some cases, antilock brakes aren't what someone really wants/needs (police departments have actually had problems with them on their police cruisers, because they're used in a different way in chases, though perhaps they've trained cops to not do brake-torqueing now, etc.) and in all cases, the buyer (like in XP) never was promised or guaranteed in any contract that this new feature (DX 10 or antilock brakes) would later be added.

Wonder if people will make the same comment about Apple if they don't backport Core Animation (along with the other nifty new Leopard features) to OSX 10.4.

If I understand correctly, applications currently running on OS X 10.4 will run on 10.5 (the reverse might not be true obviously)

That is not the case with Vista.
I for one, do not want to spend money upgrading all my applications just because I need to move to Vista.

Me being a geek that I am, I might have done so, provided that Vista itself presented compelling enough reasons to upgrade. IMHO it doesn't. Not at the moment.

So, from XP, moving to Vista or OS X would present a similar effort (new, faster hardware would be needed for Vista anyways) and Macs do run XP and its application, so...

Go tell apple you want spotlight in 10.3 and see what happens. Newer versions of apple's own software(itunes, etc.) require newer versions of OSX.
Go tell cyber media that you want HD-DVD and Blue Ray support in an earlier version of PowerDVD. Not going to happen.
Companies want to sell software and the only way to continue to do so is to come up with new features in updated versions to sell.
It's just common sense. Microsoft releasing DX10 in XP(and there is alot more to it than the article suggests) would not sell as much product for them.

Businesses are in it to make money. It's common sense, it's to be expected. If I want you to buy a new product I will put new features in it that are only in that product. Otherwise there would be no reason to purchase my product. Makes sense.

Edited 2007-07-12 23:10

IIRC didn't they have a DirectX 10 build working on Windows XP?

If the issue is performance, then why didn't Microsoft say, "Windows XP supports DirectX 10, but for the best possible performance, we suggest you upgrade to Windows Vista".

With that being said, I question whether DirectX is just simply a waste of time given that Microsoft would be a lot better off to tell developers to move games development to the XBox and be done with it.

That's only possible insofar as Vista came from the same codebase as XP (well, it came from the 2003 codebase, of which XP was just one fork).

There are actually some serious changes across the kernel to make the Windows Driver model work. Most notably, the memory management system was changed to encompass the GPU memory as well as the main system memory. There is also some added security mechanism to allow for DMA transfers directly from usermode without risking system stability. These things are pretty serious changes and you'd need to replace the XP kernel with the Vista kernel to really get it to work.

I stand corrected. Mind you, by Microsoft keeping DirectX 10 as a Windows Vista only thing, wouldn't that alone risk gnomes developers deciding not to move to Direct X 10 for an extended period of time, thus, slow down the adoption of Windows Vista?

With that being said, one has to ask - maybe game producers should look at alternatives such as OpenGL and alternative platforms; given how much Microsoft will eventually expand its own games offerings (and its ability to crush competitors), wouldn't it be prudent to look at platforms which aren't Microsoft dominated.

Very well said. Backporting DirectX 10 to XP, if possible, would not only be a nice thing to do for XP users, but might also speed up adoption of DirectX 10...but careful, the Microsoft Defense Brigade might gang up on you for suggesting something that could actually help MS!

Edited 2007-07-13 14:33

To push the evelop even further - why did they even develop DirectX? why didn't they work within the OpenGL group to expand the API into something that covered audio and multimedia as well? so that there was a complete platform independent stack?

One could argue that DirectX was merely developed to lock developers into Windows via a so-called 'superior' API which is little more than veiled attempt top maintain and extend a monopoly.

Then again, one could argue that ultimate it was the games companies who were suckered into DirectX - they had the opportunity to say "no, we want a framework which is platform agnostic and does not tie us to Windows" but the fact is, they chose to stay silent, and now customers are suffering because of it.

Then again, one could argue that ultimate it was the games companies who were suckered into DirectX - they had the opportunity to say "no, we want a framework which is platform agnostic and does not tie us to Windows" but the fact is, they chose to stay silent, and now customers are suffering because of it.

Maybe the game companies want to be locked into proprietary platforms?

If they don't they should start developing with OpenGL.

"the only reason MS isn't providing DirectX 10 for XP is that they want to force their users to upgrade - and in my book that's a pretty shady thing to do."

Their product, their decision, their rules. I don't find this any more shady than, for example, Sony not backporting PS3 games to the PS2 and therefore "forcing" people to buy a PS3.

"If the facts presented in the article are true, and it shouldn't be to hard to find out, then it really does mean that the only reason MS isn't providing DirectX 10 for XP is that they want to force their users to upgrade - and in my book that's a pretty shady thing to do."
Yes indeed, I also found shady that my 1983 Honda Civic wasn't updated to latest Civic model in cardealer, free ofc. If DX10 is one of the main big thing in Vista then why should they bring it free to Windows XP, answer they shouldn't! Whole article was pure crap mostly (call it Inq quality) and I been hearing this same nonsense since Vista was released. Hey get used to it that if you want something new you must pay, same goes with cars.

Sure, except that when Microsoft came out with DirectX 8 and DirectX 9, it backported it to Windows 98 and ME (which are as different from XP as XP is from Vista). In other words, MS *used* to backport DirectX to previous systems - heck, the last version to support Win98 and ME came out in December 2006! Oh, and contrary to your irrelevant claim that "if you want something new, you must pay", these updates to DirectX were free.

I vote that archiesteel is awarded an "Entitle Mint" (you know, the one that tastes great to start, but causes everything else to taste worse than before because it doesn't mix well) for arguing on emotion and cutting every bit of logic out, attacking everyone, etc. and calling all logical rebuttals in the discussion "intellectually dishonest" and "intellectually lazy" and calling everyone "MS Shills" because people won't bend over and acknowledge his opinion as being consistent with how life should be.

Even if hit upside the head with an unbreakable Clue-By-4, it would only be a noisy affair, as nothing could possibly sink in to someone that only uses emotion and refuses to allow logic to seep in.

Everyone, at least on this point, we might as well give up attempting to convince archiesteel using any form of pursuasion: he simply is not amenable to any remote bit of logic, and he'll only scream bloody murder "That's not true!" based on emotions.

Good to see that the Microsoft Defense Brigade sticks together, and mods up off-topic personal attacks against those who dare question the software giant's motives.

Let us not forget, it is also not their first time at such foolishness. If DX10 genuinely requires features only included under Vista, then o.k. - maybe they shouldn't be *forced* to include additional extensions, wrappers, etc. for the sake of an older product line.

However, if they are doing OS version checks, and then purposely locking-out older versions - even if that OS is capable - then that is wrong.

It has happened before: Windows live messenger (8.0) runs fine on W2k, once you grab your hex editor and change it's version check. Same to some screensavers and the like.

"Anyway I don't trust anything posted there, especially about Windows since that is a very biased anti-Microsoft web site that has no journalistic integrity at all."

Ignoring bias of your own statements. The Inquirer does not pretend to be anything else, and it doesn't hide behind any subterfuge, unlike Ars Technica which is a higher class site but lies, and is pro-Microsoft. This is very different from say something like phoronix which is just plain bad.

The bottom line is Nvidia is a hardware manufacture it does not sell Vista...It does not even care about selling Vista, unless their is mutual benefit from it doing so, and there would be if Vista was selling better.

OpenGL 3.0 which contains DirectX10 features in a few months so will be available to XP.

They call Intel "Chipzilla" and AMD/ATI "DAAMIT" quite often too. They're equally biased toward each depending on the article. People read too much into the tone of the article(which is as far as i'm aware) is intended to be humorous and not lacking in personal opinion and not enough into what the article actually says.

I really cannot find flaw with the actual facts they're reporting, the rest is just down to your own personal opinion of their type of journalism. From my point of view at least they're upfront about what to expect unlike newspapers (mostly just lies) or other sites that try to pretend they aren't biased yet make excuses only for the party they support.

Here's where people fight about whether directx should be backported or not. Honestly I dont think they should have to. The only reason people are making such a fuss is because vista is such a massive failure of an operating system, especially for gamers. Things like changing hardware and then, oops, you require a new £200 licence to use your OS you paid for 3 months ago are just silly. That shuns customers and people hate it, it's unacceptable.

As vista is such an utter failure in many regards (spying on you, drm, gaming, huge driver related issues) if i was still using windows i'd be *demanding* DX10 on XP. Not because XP is great, because it isn't(i've never considered any os great...) but because it's reasonable, it does do some things extremely well.....gaming being one, backwards compatibility being another, and just general unrestrictive ease compared to vista.

My point really is that if vista were a slightly better, slightly upgraded XP we wouldn't be here. As it is now vista is a worse desktop OS than XP ever was.

I highly doubt anyone would care that DX10 was Vista only if vista was actually any good. People would just move to vista. Right now what im hearing from friends in pc retail is that more than half of their vista PCs come back demanding they put XP on them. That's a pretty damning statement on its own.

Fairly unrelated but ive just found out my (seemless) bluetooth printer adapter doesn't work in vista....I find that kind of odd considering it works by disguising itself as a usb printer(thus requiring no drivers, just like if the printer was plugging in directly) when using the adapter. Does anyone have any idea why that might be? It's worked in every version of windows since 2000 and pretty much every linux distro since linux had usb2 support :/

Edited 2007-07-13 06:44

So what? Voles are quite nice

why in the world would that switch be to Linux? So you could play killer ogl games like tuxracer?

No, SuperTux.

how bout warsow, nexuiz, racer, or even savage2. not that they dont have windows ports but they are opengl.

and more with: vendetta-online, eternal lands, secondlife (yeah we have that too), ufoai, Defcon, Darwinia… we’ve got quite a few games over in Linux

I don't know that i'd call any of those good.

The best games are Neverwinter Nights, Tribes 2 and RTCW:ET but now all of those are old and no longer worth playing IMO.

RTCW:ET is old and not worth playing ?
I am shocked and saddened by your assumption.

Come and play with me on our community server, (note not a "clan" server), but a community..

85.236.100.205:27960

I like this phrase the best in this article, it being true or not (an sadly we again and again find it to be), it's a good way of saying it.

Nalle Berg
./nalle.

The funny thing about Microsoft is they are a business. Their goals are completely focused around market saturation and profit. Although partnerships with Microsoft can be beneficial to both, Microsoft is only looking out for Microsoft.

I'm not knocking Microsoft for being that way, but it's not particularly friendly competition and it certainly isn't designed to benefit partners.

As for DX10. It looks real nice, but just about everybody I know who plays games these days owns at least one gaming console. Although I don't ever see computer gaming going completely away it seems to me to be a dying breed. As consoles have gained hard drives, memory cards, keyboards, lan connections, etc. the games that once relied on computers to connect online can now be played via the console as well.

Hence why I liked to quote about Ubuntu and Wii. To me the PC is slowly becoming the least favorite place to play games among the general population of gamers.

Those reasons are the one the Inq article claim are not valid anymore.

As for sources, they're not necessary: all you need to do is validate if GPU memory virtualisation is still a requirement for DX10. That's the crux of the article's argument.

They are necessary. A source that validates even that claim should be necessary for the article.

Besides, the URL I linked talked about MORE than just the memory management. There was also "GPU task switching and more".

I wish I could find a more in depth explanation, because I know there was one.

Thank you for providing that information. It's basically the same type of stuff I read previously about why it wasn't backported. It's nice to see actual information posted here instead of all the other crap.

Thank you for providing that information. It's basically the same type of stuff I read previously about why it wasn't backported. It's nice to see actual information posted here instead of all the other crap.

There are a lot of technical issues with backporting DX10, but with enough time and effort, it is, in theory, possible. It’s just not practical and Microsoft gains nothing from it other than the very temporary praise of a few gamers. Actual developers WOULD STILL have to develop multiple rendering paths and, let’s face it, graphics alone do not a good game make. The whole premise for this argument that developers and gamers would somehow massively benefit from a backport is just silly. DX10 is a new API, requiring new hardware with lib’s built around the WDDM/DXGK infrastructure. People just need to get over it.

The bigger issue, as I illustrated in my first post, is that I believe the Inquirer’s article to be completely wrong with no technical merit whatsoever. The technical specifications, documentation and ACTUAL current drivers, strongly support my position and no one has provided one iota of information to the contrary. I would assert that the ONLY reason the Inquirer article has any credence is because Jeremy Reimer of Ars Technica essentially republished the Inquirer’s statements (in very un-Ars like fashion). I have an e-mail out to Jeremy asking for technical clarification of the issues, but until I see some documented proof, this entire discussion is, IMHO, based on a false assumption - namely that the Inquirer article is correct.

"Btw, playing games is a hobby - not a way of life,"

This is going offtopic but...
Are you sure? I mean, they have Gaming Olympics and Cyber Athletes (that made me laugh harder than I have ever done before) nowadays and gaming is serious, or at least big, business.
Cyber Athlete...seriously...there's nothing I can say that could possibly make those two words any more hilarious than they already are.
Ok, I'm being sarcastic, sue me, but this whole gaming "lifestyle" is just really annoying me. Playing computer games is even less of a sport than chess is.
Then again, poker is apparently a "sport" these days so what do i know.

Edited 2007-07-13 06:48

More correctly, ESPN can turn anything into a damn sport these days - hence the reason you'll never see my watch ESPN - Rugby, Soccer, Cricket, they're sports - they require some physical and/or metal prowess - but overweight V-Drinking gamers as sports men? dear god.

Do half an hour of Wii Boxing, then get back to us on that... ;-)

Half hour? Geez, my arms get too sore to play anymore after 15 - 20 minutes.

I can do 2 hours of hockey, but only 15 - 20 minutes of boxing..

"Do half an hour of Wii Boxing, then get back to us on that... ;-)"

Sorry, it's still not a sport. Sex is also exhausting but you don't see that in the olympics, do you?

Uh, wow. Convincing argument.

You had me on "mind controlling substances"...

I'm not sure you can say that DirectX 10 is a feature of Vista. It's a set of libraries and programs that are separate from the OS (i.e. the OS can function without them, AFAIK).

Also, MS used to provide backports of new DirectX versions for older OSes. DirectX 9, for example, was made available for Win98 and Me.

Also, MS used to provide backports of new DirectX versions for older OSes. DirectX 9, for example, was made available for Win98 and Me.

Fair point, but it doesn't take into account how different of a change DX8 -> DX9 was from DX9 -> DX10, as well as a difference in the driver architecture from W98 -> XP from XP -> Vista.

Again, we don't know for sure. That is why I said "if this is true" in my first comment.

Can we at least agree that *if* it's true, then it would be a nice gesture from MS to backport DirectX 10 to XP?

Please read through some of the other "main" posts in this thread...
Others have already pointed out reasons (other than gpu virtualization) for why DX10 will not be backported as well as why it's not so trivial as theinq tries to put it.

Sure it would be nice if you could use DX10 on XP, but the effort involved would be so large that MS would probably do it for a "Windows XP Second Edition", so you'd still have to pay up...

Maybe they should have gone that route when they first realized Vista was going to take longer than planned to get out to ease the transition path from Windows XP to Windows Vista, but they chose not to do so.

IF, then yes it would be nice, not not necessary. Nor would I reasonably expect them to do so.

I'm pretty sure that has little to do with opengl or directx and more to do with the engine.