Down with XP, long live DX10 and up!

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Looks like XPs reign is over

 

[gamerk316]

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.

Using 98SE is also a cop out. As I recall, 98SE supported the entire DX feature set up until DX9.0c, making the transition to newer OS's less painful overall. That is, you didn't have to flat out cut off an entire OS population in order to use newer graphical techniques.

Secondly, how do you distinguish between the population who brought DX10 level hardware and Vista+, or the 50 yr old who brought a new dell? Theres no way to distinquish between the two using any graph, so the only way to determine the markets for a game is overall OS usage, which currently favors XP. Like it or not, there is no ADVANTAGE to dropping DX9 support, and thrown in with the fact DX10 requires new renders, and the new OS requirements, is a major roadblock to adoption.

The multi-thread/core was in response to JayDee, but also to make a point: One of the "Improvements" in Vista/7 is its better multithreading, but so far, I've yet to see any significance of this whatsoever. If you're going to argue that a OS will grow because of a specific improvement, you have to show that improvement in fact exists.

DX10 aside, the only real improvements I see in Vista/7 are automatic driver downloads. Any other improvements can be handled through other software (EG: ZoneAlarm acted like UAC long before UAC came about). My point being, even for gamers, there isn't much incentive besides DX10 to switch from XP, unlike the 98-XP transition, where XP offered clear and immediate benifits over 98.

BTW: XP64 is halfway decent now that 64-bit drivers are around. Still a crappy OS, but then again, so was its first replacement 😀

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Using 98SE is also a cop out. As I recall, 98SE supported the entire DX feature set up until DX9.0c, making the transition to newer OS's less painful overall. That is, you didn't have to flat out cut off an entire OS population in order to use newer graphical techniques.

How is that different than Vista, which had a minimum requirement of DX9.0a/SM2.0 and still allows DX9 if you want to go that route with Vista? You say the cut-off was DX9.0c, so essentially SM3.0, with the GF6 series and with Splinter Cell being one of the big splits, it cut-off the Win98 user, as did Rainbow Six Vegas, etc, all of which happened BEFORE Vista came out when there was ONLY XP on the desktop environment, so explain how that is different that the current situation.

Secondly, how do you distinguish between the population who brought DX10 level hardware and Vista+, or the 50 yr old who brought a new dell? Theres no way to distinquish between the two using any graph, so the only way to determine the markets for a game is overall OS usage, which currently favors XP.

Hardly, Steam does a far better job of giving you a snapshot of gamers, than including the business machines, websurfers, netbooks, zombie PCs, and all the other 'XP users' trying to include them as gamers. One way would be o start counting those who have updated to SP3, which would probably cut your XP users in half, especially eliminating those that don't pay for software and thus don't deserve a voice or consideration just like those who don't game. Using generic 'installed OS' numbers is about as useful as saying DX10+ is the only thing that should be coded for since the vast majority of PC sales are DX10+ including the DX10+ GMA series.

Like it or not, there is no ADVANTAGE to dropping DX9 support, and thrown in with the fact DX10 requires new renders, and the new OS requirements, is a major roadblock to adoption.

Sure there is, DX9 users don't buy things as I just pointed out above using your # logic, so it's not revenue generating coding for DX9 which has to be done twice, DX9 for XP and DX9 for Vista/W7, so the ROI is terrible. Like it or not the #s don't favour your statements either, especially when you talk about revenue and not simply warez users or people playing flash games.

My point being, even for gamers, there isn't much incentive besides DX10 to switch from XP, unlike the 98-XP transition, where XP offered clear and immediate benifits over 98.

That sentence is written by someone who didn't game on XP originally. I use all OSes at launch, and you were obviously a naive user when XP launch if you think it offered clear and immediate benefits to gamers, and wasn't the exact same resource hog Vista was seen as as well. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]

BTW: XP64 is halfway decent now that 64-bit drivers are around. Still a crappy OS, but then again, so was its first replacement 😀

XP64 being half-way decent is like saying Liux is halfway compelling to the average user. XP64 sucks worse than Vista did on new hardware, both have legacy issues, the difference being on new hardware Vista/Win7 are worth putting on a new rig, XP64 is still pointless.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

All I was trying to say was XPs approach doesnt stick the threads like the latter 2 OS do, especially W7, and that causes cache problems/latencies.
Xps wasnt designed for MT in inter communication on cpus, whereas the nwer OS was.
I was being a lil strong in my wording, but essentually, I meant what I just typed, and ummm welll errr, ok, you kinow how it is heheh

 

[gamerk316]

How is that different than Vista, which had a minimum requirement of DX9.0a/SM2.0 and still allows DX9 if you want to go that route with Vista? You say the cut-off was DX9.0c, so essentially SM3.0, with the GF6 series and with Splinter Cell being one of the big splits, it cut-off the Win98 user, as did Rainbow Six Vegas, etc, all of which happened BEFORE Vista came out when there was ONLY XP on the desktop environment, so explain how that is different that the current situation.

You're not listening. My point was that that 98SE having access to the 9.0 DX library made it more attractive to devs to use the newer DX version, as they didn't have to worry about compatability with the previous OS. DX10 did not release for XP, which killed off the incentive to code to the higher standard (and hence, why its reserved for the highest end options, while DX9.0c remains the API of choice)

Hardly, Steam does a far better job of giving you a snapshot of gamers, than including the business machines, websurfers, netbooks, zombie PCs, and all the other 'XP users' trying to include them as gamers. One way would be o start counting those who have updated to SP3, which would probably cut your XP users in half, especially eliminating those that don't pay for software and thus don't deserve a voice or consideration just like those who don't game. Using generic 'installed OS' numbers is about as useful as saying DX10+ is the only thing that should be coded for since the vast majority of PC sales are DX10+ including the DX10+ GMA series.

PC sales != active PC's. And as I've pointed out, how do you know that non of those you put in the 'installed OS' group won't end up buying a game at some point? It is idiotic of companies to throw away any potential sales that way. Like it or not, even the Steam graph shows that 50% of all gamers (as you describe them) still run XP. To ignore THAT group would be beyond idiotic. So you're own argument sabotages you're point in the end.

Sure there is, DX9 users don't buy things as I just pointed out above using your # logic, so it's not revenue generating coding for DX9 which has to be done twice, DX9 for XP and DX9 for Vista/W7, so the ROI is terrible.

Right...DX9 users don't buy things. I won't even dignifiy that with a response.

That sentence is written by someone who didn't game on XP originally. I use all OSes at launch, and you were obviously a naive user when XP launch if you think it offered clear and immediate benefits to gamers, and wasn't the exact same resource hog Vista was seen as as well.

Where did I say "gamer"? I was speaking for XP's overall stability compared to 98, which made it a far more attractive OS then 98 was.

 

[4Ryan6]

This is the Graphics and Displays section isn't it, I think this has gone far enough, the entire thread serves no useful purpose other than an argumentative platform.