Down with XP, long live DX10 and up!

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Looks like XPs reign is over

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Inter chip communication is done better on SW with certain characteristics, same with OS, the very usage of the cpu and the OS together. XPs old approach doesnt contain these newer approaches, as the old approach was done with single core in mind. so OS and cpu working together used to be more of a single threaded, more costly approach, even on multicored cpus, thus XP. Now, the new OS have a friendlier MC approach allowing for better MT

 

[daedalus685]

Windows XP is as fast as Windows 7 (32 bit vs 32 bit, and 64bit vs 64bit)

this is all rubbish.. gaming should go opengl..

/facepalm

Good thing its friday and I get to go home early, as now I need a beer.

 

[brockh]

The same people thinking OpenGL is going to become a standard think there's gonna be a year of the Linux desktop, sorry guys. You won't be seeing any changes at all if not only for the corporate environment of gaming these days -- it's a mutli-billion dollar industry.

Microsoft is not gonna let DirectX be anything but the standard, and to be honest it's completely reasonable. DirectX provides a solid, powerful featureset. OpenGL does not provide any more but larger support for legacy hardware, and like was said, gamers are the ones that tend to upgrade their hardware frequently. Is it unfair you have to upgrade to Windows Vista or Windows 7 to get DirectX 10? The answer is: No. Look at consoles, you can't upgrade those at all, you just have to go out and buy a completely new one -- give me a break; it's the best gaming situation available given you make the intial investment on good hardware.

Those still arguing the advantages of Windows XP are either (a) in a corporate environment, (b) are running old hardware, (c) run Linux in a dual boot with Windows XP, and/or (d) overly skeptical of Windows Vista and Windows 7 and don't realize Windows XP was made by the same company 10 years ago. I don't assume the people that are grouped in option d are old enough to remember the change from 2000/ME to XP.

Realistically this is just dumb for this argument to continue now that we've gotten over all the non-issues involved with Vista. I can't wait for these people to fade off the face of technology with their Pentium 4s complaining about how everything is too slow or the other people that don't want to upgrade in fear they may lose that one or two FPS they have to have for their gameplay to be perfect. It's just slothful. There's valid reasons why one would still need to use XP in very specific situations or situations where it is clearly not worth the effort to upgrade (corporate situations in which they're just using it for a cash register front-end and upgrading provides no extra functionality nor does it need the security), for example, but for every day use there's no logical reason to talk down on Windows Vista or Windows 7 generally.

 

[IzzyCraft]

Windows XP is as fast as Windows 7 (32 bit vs 32 bit, and 64bit vs 64bit)

this is all rubbish.. gaming should go opengl..

Oh how this made me smile

 

[pepperman]

And when is a octo core with smt coming? Before 2012?

To say the XP perf is the same as W7 on multi cored cpus just isnt so, as the OS' dont use the same approach of MT, which gamer is saying.
XP uses the same approach as single threading here, and thats my point.
Read up on it, and again, Id point out Ive already mentioned the DRM issues which is the primary reason W& and Vista both are slower at all, IF youve read the thread amongst others explaining all this

Your the one who posted the article, not me; you just didn't read the entire thing, and thus didn't realize that the content wasn't completely in your favor.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

"Your the one who posted the article, not me; you just didn't read the entire thing, and thus didn't realize that the content wasn't completely in your favor."


Ummm lets see
"Thats today. As of right now, both W7 and Vista cant really make use of less than 16 cores and surpass xp. I see no 16 core cpus on the horizon, unless theyre using SMT in octo. A year or 2 down the road, yes. But a hex core wont show the benefits, and thats what I was saying in that thread, and is what Im saying here."

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-262946_28_50.html
So, since Ive known this since before July, now you come along with your 600 posts and tell me different?
Where do you think I got the article, and knew to pull it up?
Yea, and LRB will be a killer gpu too sarcasm off

 

[wh3resmycar]

somewhat offtopic:


my notebook got hit with confickerC the moment i switched from vista to XP.

down with XP!

 

[nitros85]

I always thought XP was amazing and great. Vista sucked and still sucks, although not as bad as in the beginning. Windows 7 owns. I love it! Although 7 still has a few problems and glitches, it just came out! As a brand new OS, it's amazing bc of how FEW problems there are in addition to how amazing it is as a OS irrelevant of bugs.

I thought to myself "Well XP still owns." but then I installed it again after getting rid of Vista, and deciding against Windows 7.

XP sucks. Horrifically. It's so outdated! Everything about it stunk with incompatibility and problems. For one, you have to manually load in your RAID drives, you have to do this, do that, etc. etc.

Basically since I have modern hardware, it felt like I went back to Windows 98. I couldn't even believe some of the problems I faced installing XP in 2009. Some of the features that were missing that I had been so used to with Vista.

Truly after having used Vista for many years, XP was as archaic as 98. So I immediately formatted and installed Windows 7. Couldn't be happier, outside of the horrific sound problems which are more associated with Creative/Razer than Microsoft.

 

[pepperman]

"Thats today. As of right now, both W7 and Vista cant really make use of less than 16 cores and surpass xp. I see no 16 core cpus on the horizon, unless theyre using SMT in octo. A year or 2 down the road, yes. But a hex core wont show the benefits, and thats what I was saying in that thread, and is what Im saying here."

You're arguing against yourself; you admit that XP will continue to provide better performance until the core count reaches 16 or so (as the article says), yet you continue to state that XP gives inferior performance right now (on our current chips with a max of 8 "cores"). Where's the logic?

You took this thread from a discussion about the imminent obsolescence of DX9 to the multi-threaded performance discrepancies of different OS's, where you subscribe to an entirely different picture of performance. What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I didnt take this thread anywheres but where I wanted to, you on the other hand couldnt find mone thing right with it.
But thats no surprise really.
Just like my LRB thread, the same ummm misunderstandings were going on until it was proven I was completely right.
Give it time, youll eventually see

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Is it the comments or the writer of them thats conflicting with you?
Id guess youd need to accuse me again of something else to find out what Ive been saying, which I wont bother with, if you havnt learned anything here, good on you, and if you cant see what Im saying, you failed and missed it.
If you actually go out of your way to contribute something of worth, wed all like to see it

 

[4Ryan6]

All this is doodly squat, games will still be released with DX9 capabilities, you cannot expect game developers to shoot themselves in the foot and loose all the money they will loose trying to discard the WinXP gaming community.

Charts and graphs mean nothing compared to the actual vast amount of WinXP gaming machines presently out there and in operation, everything will still be backwards compatible as it always has been.

WinXP even gaming is a long time dying off, get used to it.

 

[pepperman]

I see exactly what your saying, but they happen to be two very different things; in fact, they contradict each other. The sources you've presented say the opposite of what you're saying, and when its pointed out to you, you brush it off and claim that no one understands you.

To be a good writer, you have to make your ideas understood upon a broad audience, and contradicting yourself is not the trait of a good writer.

 

[4Ryan6]

For the mass gaming market that you refer to, your elation may be justified - if you live in a box with a swarm of other people living in boxes around you I guess you would actually appreciate (if not outright need ) the graphical bling of DX10 and up.
However, I live in one of the most beautiful, bountiful places on the planet, and it is getting tough to get kids to do much of anything in the real world - hunting, fishing and just plain old exploring and playing outdoors. Every hour that we can pry them away from a video screen to learn real skills and their own language and culture is a chance to help them be truly independent in the real world - the world where if you can hunt and fish you can actually live separate from the corporate world and discover what being a living part of nature feels like - not to mention the topic that never gets discussed in tech forums - what happens when the economy collapses ( and it will - it is only a matter of when, whether that be this coming year or many years in the future ), or what they can do when they want a break from the growing police state syndrome I see happening. DXwhatever may numb the pain if you're trapped in a police state, but it isn't going to free you or feed you.
Don't take this as a condemnation of computer tech - I'd just like to remind people of what we are losing amidst the rush.

And yeah - I'm still using XP.

Theres a lot of wisdom in your post.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If you look at the cache size of a cpu, its limited to a certain size for best case perf/thruput.
If and app excedes that cache, then you have latency, so imagine it in a MT scenario, where the OS itself isnt cache friendly for this, and causes latencies.
Now, even tho these latencies are there on XP, then we wont see improvements in the newer OS' til we reach 16 cores, which can be octo cores using SMT. OK thats just 1 differing example between the OS, not counting OpenCl, the vast usage of APUs etc that all will play a huge part in this as well, where we find XP lacking in design.
If you havnt got what Im saying by now, I suggest you go read up on it, and try several places, because Ive made it as basic as I can.
The game I showed you has a bare minimum of consoles gfx, the chart I showed you is the single largest body of known gaming statistics available, and show XP no longer leading, and if any one of you would have been present when XP was actually 60+% when these first started, and have followed it down in 3-4 short months where we see it ar 48%, thats a huge shift, regardless of what others think.
The new OS W8 will be here possibly as early as qtr4 2011, ATI is working on 20 DX11 titles, its easy to see any game can be done with a DX11 path and a DX9 path, without the need for DX10 at all, which helps the devs, for an easier cheaper solution.
All HW sold since 2007 is DX10 on up, so the older solutions will either be incapable or simply fail as theyre aging.
Say whatever you feel, I just brought you some facts, and tear them down and disrespect them all you want, cause next month or so, Ill be here pointing out how XP will be under 45%, and we can start all over again, cause I know I win, regardless of the fruitless arguments, and attempted misunderstandings

 

[Annisman]

I'm not going to even touch this messs of a thread....












Oh, crap.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Just wait til next month, and Ill require contributions the next tiem

 

[Annisman]

Seriosuly though, no matter what XP can do the same as Vista or Win 7, the sooner people move on the better. I can't find one reason why someone would want to stay on XP. You can build a Win7 Ready computer for a couple hundred bucks, I don't think the lack of quality components is an issue.

 

[IzzyCraft]

Seriosuly though, no matter what XP can do the same as Vista or Win 7, the sooner people move on the better. I can't find one reason why someone would want to stay on XP. You can build a Win7 Ready computer for a couple hundred bucks, I don't think the lack of quality components is an issue.

Yeah but that means you are in the group of people that regularly gets new computers. I know people that have hanged onto the same computer for 4-8 years bascilly until it reaches the point of failure on the hdd's

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Just look up Intels 48 core prototype. Non OoO, thinned down cores

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://windows7news.com/2009/06/05/intel-say-windows-7-improves-multi-threading-performance/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/01/mundie_mundie/
Notice the date on the second link, its without W7, and Vista was new.
We gamers have alot of reasons to switch, more than most users, but it isnt just us that benefits here

 

[gamerk316]

The issue I brought up is a simple one: Just because a program is threaded, and just because a OS can handle threaded apps well, does NOT mean it will automatically account for extra cores.

You say 7 won't see any advantages until at least 16 cores. Besides the obvious "Windows 8 will be out then" argument, I don't see any programs in 7 suddenly start to use more processing units then they did in a previous OS. Windows may be handling threading better, but until that results in programs automatically using more processing units, any gains will be insignificant.

Multithreading is a CPU's ability to switch between active tasks, so one task doesn't eat up all avaliable CPU time. For example: If you had a start/stop button that would stop execution of an infinate while loop and the program was NOT threaded, you would never be able to stop the loops execution. Threading the program will allow Windows to to continue to process the start/stop button, and stopping the while loop when the condition is met (I'll write a program if you want to better demonstrate). The point being: Just because I thread that simple program does NOT mean it will start to use more then one core, or that Windows will automatically spread useage to more then one core.

If windows was REALLY smart, you could make 4 programs that did nothing but increment an integer, each one eating up one avaliable core (I'm assuming a Quad here, obviously). In theory, Windows should allocate the program to the least used core, but Windows will execute all 4 programs on the same core, every single time (despite the fact the first one will shoot that particular core to 100% usage).

Until Windows properly handles that case, I see no benifit to extra cores, unless the app in question is specifically coded to take advantage of them.

On an aside: I'm not arguing 7 isn't a better OS then XP, I argue that there is very little reason for existing XP users to upgrade. IE: The advantages aren't enough for most of the general population to go through a full format just for a handful of features and a new GUI.

On a second aside: I expect a general shift toward OGL now that 3.0 is (finally) out. Considering that every single platform except Windows/Xbox (Linux, Mac, PS3, Wii, Iphone, Android, etc) use it, I expect at least a few mid-major studios to use it more often. Nevermind its not OS limited, which in the short term makes it more attractive...

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Basically, I'm calling the graph above simply a snapshot of what OS gamers favor, and not having anything to do with actual usage overall.

And basically overall usage is pointless to gaming and DX models which was what was being discussed both here and in the past.

I don't care what people are using to watch YouTube, or what they use for their Googling, word, excel, etc. and it's not relevant to your previous statements about DX10+ and gaming on XP vs other versions of Windows.

You also keep forgetting that DX9 hardware will still play on Vista and WIn7, so that's a dead-end argument as well, your statement was specific to XP.

XP is dying like Win98SE did, and it's not going in the other direction, and for high end users like gamers, the trend is simply at the point where most people are looking ahead for all the benefits that the newer OSes offer, especially compared to the pitiful XP-64.

The derailing into multi-thread/core is as irrelevant, the reality is that the transition for gaming (we weren't talking about productivity software) happened way before you predicted despite all the nay saying about the future of DX and the lack of any games before 2011.

And we're not, nor never have been, talking about the general minesweeper / bejeweled / SIMs playing population, so that statement is a cop out, because the big developers aren't considering them either, they are server by FLASH games.

 

[mactronix]

You are making no sense whatsoever. Seriously.

You say OS when really you mean windows. You say mutli threading but you are not using it in the fashion that Gamer is using it, you are meaning multi-core, i.e being able to distribute loads more effiiciently.

But then you say multithreading isn't multicore, the exact same thing that gamer said but you say he is thinking in a single threaded context when he wrote the exact opposite in his last post.

Which thread are you reading?

Got to say i agree with the sentiment of this post ^ JD. Seriously what are you on ?
You talked yourself around in circles last week on a differant thread and here you are doing it again.
While i agree that the adoption of the newer tech can only be a good thing, just taking steam numbers and using them as a serious guideline is seriously dodgy to say the least. You have already been given the why so i wont bother to repeat it. I have looked at 3 differant usage stats sites and they all have XP seriously beating other OS versions, Just to round the numbers its about 60/65% XP and 30/35% Vista + W7. Even allowing for the fact that they say 25% of the usage is company based Then if you were to assume the 25% was all XP then that would equal things up but i think that would be quite fancifull.
Besides what about dual booting ? Whats the percentage of steam users who are dual booting between XP and a higher version ?
I do and i sure as hell cant be the only one.
Toms even posted an article a short while ago saying that W7 usage was going up but it was Vista usage that was dropping and not XP.
There is nowhere enough evidence to say one way or another if Gamer, or if those of us, myself included who could see reasons for faster adoption were correct.
You know if i didnt know you better i could make the mistake of thinking thats what this thread is really about 😗

Mactronix

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Wait, what about consoles, and hand held computing devices, TVs, Sat/Cable PVRs, DVD players, servers, routers, automobiles, ATMs ? I bet XP isn't in all those, so I question all the numbers people keep providing for XP being above 50%, you're simply liars trying to make XP look cool and popular.

Kinda missing the point, aren't you guys?