Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 17th Aug 2006 19:05 UTC
Permalink for comment 153580
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-08-18
I found this "comparison" really outrageous. Especially at the very beginning of the article :
Why comparing an outdated game (Halo) not even built for PC at a time when even DirectX8 was shiny new, and then brand it "DirectX 9 example" !!!!
How come !
Why not using a tetris in flash for a "fair" comparison to this wonderfull still-image from Crysis, that by the way we yet have to see anywhere (no trace of such details in the ingame vidéo of crysis online) ?
The rest of the article is all the same : praise the wonderfull DirectX10 that brings you game that you can't get with Directx9 ! Please buy Windows Vista !
How disgusting !
For information, most of the effects presented as "brand new" in this cheated DirectX10 article are already present in DirectX9.
For a better comparison of these two version (because there are some, although none of those presented by this microsoft-bought guy), go to EliteBastard.