Username or EmailPassword
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.