Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:46 UTC, submitted by netpython
3D News, GL, DirectX "DirectX 10 would not work with XP, and that was fine and dandy. It was an honest technical reason why you could not backport DX10 to XP without a major rip and replace operation. Microsoft wasn't going to bend on this one at all." More here.
Thread beginning with comment 254988
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: OpenGL
by Zedicus on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:14 UTC in reply to "OpenGL"
Zedicus
Member since:
2005-12-05

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: OpenGL
by BluenoseJake on Fri 13th Jul 2007 01:05 in reply to "RE: OpenGL"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"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.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: OpenGL
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 13th Jul 2007 03:09 in reply to "RE: OpenGL"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

i dont get why peeple dont like the inq, and the reg.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 4