Vista delayed... DX10?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I know for a fact that there were DX9 games about before mid 2004. Flight simulator 2004 is full DX9 and i remeber buying that in september of 2003.
Click to expand...

Define "full DX9"? There is a difference between having an extra shader path to add a couple nice SM2.0 goodies (ala HL2 to a large degree) and building a game as a full DX9 title. e.g. Oblivion and UT2007 are full DX9 titles. They are built, from the ground up, to be "full" DX9 games. Every art asset and feature is designed to run with DX9, no compromises with DX8.1 and older models.

The business of GPUs/Game design obviously necessitates the use of DX7/8 as a baseline (until now), but building DX9 games on top of DX8, while possible, will always have certain limitations. The difference between a full featured DX8.1 title and DX9 one is pretty big. Everything in between is just adding a couple layers of new paint 😉
 
Acert93-You are right about HL2, UT2007, Oblivion, etc.
What I said earlier was FarCry was the first of this type of game instead of the DX9 on top of DX8.
Maybe I am wrong.
So why did I "bash" Flight Sim 2004? Because I think flying over San Adreas actually looks BETTER in every way than Flight Sim 2004 (I know the map is smaller); GTA-SA is only a DX8 game.
 
Since dx9 was revised 3 times, it's difficult to say when it 'came out'. 2003, I think.
As for games, Halo 2 will be DX10 only - of course, it's an MS game, so...

DX10 is interesting as a concept, it's like those projects in Linux using OpenGL to display X - it can lead to fast performance, add many interesting effects and such - SuSE's Xgl is very impressive.

What it leads to, though, is a better HAL concerning 3D hardware: it's not 'add-on' anymore, allowing better interaction between the system and the 3D interface.

What it may also mean, is that a buggy 3D driver can completely crash the system - like in Win98 with bad 2D drivers.
 
Unlikely. Display is now in user mode rather then the kernel with vista.
Click to expand...
True, you can even have a GUI-less Vista if you want (will we get a brand new command line terminal?) - but if your 3D game or app crashes the GUI, it's more than likely that any application that was open at the time will crash too.

So much for multitasking...
 
DX10 delays will NOT impact when new GPUs are released, though it may impact what they do with them.

Both cards were already slated to be releasted July-September, both were supposed to be DX10 compatable (ATI already has the shaders combined, Nvidia will have a driver workaround for this on their first card).

You see, there will be speed increases even for DX9, so with the crown and rep on the line, they aren't going to slow down.

As for DX10 being only on Vista, I doubt that, simply because when Windows XP came out, it had an exclusive DX version (It may have been 9), that eventualy made it's way to Win2K.
 
DX8 was shipped with WinXP - and a complete DX package was released for nearly all M$ OSes:
- DX 8.1a was the last Win95 DX version (Win95 never came with a DX embedded version)
- DX9.0c was released on Win98 (over DX5), 98SE, Millenium (over ??), Win2000 (over DX7)
- DX9.0c was integrated into WinXP SP2 and 2k3 SP1. It is still available as a standalone upgrade for Win9x/Me/2k/older XP.

While DX is used by a large bunch of applications, it is still a non necessary system element - it can, for example, be removed from Win2k, and revert to pure Win95 capabilities.

However, since DX is now a GUI platform instead of a secondary mode - and XP's kernel is programmed with embedded GUI elements - , XP would need a kernel rewrite to give it DX10 support.

I mean, MS didn't even want to correct 2k's kernel to better its ACPI support, do you think they'd rewrite XP's to radically change its GUI handling, only to support near to be obsolete OSes (XP Home support will end in June 2006) ?
 
Sigh, have you even used vista or know anything about it?
Click to expand...

I have. I didn't see anything that would make me want to buy it.

The jump from Windows 3.1 to 95/98 was huge. 95/98 to XP was beneficial (e.g. it crashes less) but small. XP to Vista looks insignificant in terms of actual, real benefits to me as a user. It's like Microsoft Bob++.

its been said that the DX10 games with have the abbility to if you get shot in the game with lets say your right arm, you then lose that right arm, if you get shot in the leg you going to limp ETC.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because no game has ever been able to do that before.

As far as I can see the only real benefit that Vista provides to 3D graphics is a different driver model which may be more efficent (though I'm not exactly convinced of that until I see it). Anything else could be done just as well on XP, but then why would we pay Microsoft even more money for another operating system?

And that's the real issue: Microsoft are running out of reasons for users to upgrade. Heck, my girlfriend still runs Win98 on her laptop, which is nearly ten years old: she doesn't do anything that needs an operating system more sophisticated than that.

Knowing this might help predict when real DX10 games using PPU will come out.
Click to expand...

Releasing a DX9 game didn't cut you off from 90% of the market: only Win95 wasn't supported. Releasing a DX10 game will cut you off from any customers who don't have Vista.

That's a _huge_ difference, and one which I think is going to backfire on Microsoft.
 
DX10 allowing better interactin with disabled limbs depending on where you're shot? Actually that already existed in VGA DOS-based games, so I don't think DX10 has much to do with that.

Vista is a huge leap forward for M$:
- componentized OS - yup, like GNU/Linux (1992)!
- separated user/admin accounts - yup like UNIX (1970)!
- the GUI is now separate from the kernel and runs in a different memory space - yup, like X11 (1986)!

The rest:
- new database-based disk format: nope, removed
- new network stack: update to latest BSD stack... Nope, done in Win2k
- new 3D interface: already in production in SuSE 10
- nicer looking GUI: 2D version looks like skinned XP, 3D version is a 3D adaptation of OS X 10.4.
- new Web server: not out yet, based on Apache's modular design.
- syntax highlighting notepad: keep dreaming.

Meaning that now Windows is only 20 years late compared to other OSes - what a powerful thing marketing is...
 
- separated user/admin accounts - yup like UNIX (1970)!
Click to expand...

To be fair, XP has seperate user/admin accounts. It's just extremely difficult to run a lot of software as a non-admin user.

I doubt Vista will solve that problem with older software unless Microsoft remove backward compatibility.
 
WinNT 4 had separated admin/user accounts - but it was easier to enforce it, since it was geared towards corporate use.

Win2K had very nice account rights managements, almost on par with *NIX provided you were using NTFS as a file system - however, while in *NIX preventing access to a device merely requires a file attribute to be set to 0, it's harder in winXX.

BUT, Win XP home stripped much of those settings out of the OS, and too many softwares were programmed assuming every user had administrator priviledges, since XP doesn't even ask you what rights a new account should get - it just sets it up as admin.
 
I mean, MS didn't even want to correct 2k's kernel to better its ACPI support, do you think they'd rewrite XP's to radically change its GUI handling, only to support near to be obsolete OSes (XP Home support will end in June 2006) ?
Click to expand...
XP Home support will end in 2006? That can't be right.

On the seperate user/admin thing, XP Pro does that just fine, I just hope it's not stripped out of Vista Home.

As for the GUI needing to be rewritten, I don't think so, since they'll have to write a new layer of DX to run on XP anyway, so they simply leave the older GUI code in, and simply allow access to the newwer features, much like the current DX models.
 
As for the GUI needing to be rewritten, I don't think so, since they'll have to write a new layer of DX to run on XP anyway
Click to expand...
Uh..? Why would they have to write a new layer of DX to run on XP? DX10 isn't coming to XP. At least it's not planned now. (it might come later, of course)
 
- componentized OS - yup, like GNU/Linux (1992)!
Click to expand...

Where have you seen that its component based? I've run both Beta 1 and Feb. CTP and it doesn't appear that component based. I haven't dug into it much though so maybe I've missed it.

Of course then theres the gigantic size. 32 bit Feb CTP is 2.5GB download. 64 bit is 3.5GB. And thats just the ISO to burn on to the disk to install it. It unpacks to a much larger size when you install it like XP does. I forgot to look at how much hard drive space was used after the install of both but by comparison the XP SP2 ISO is like 550MB and expands to around 2GB. So about a 4x expansion. 2.2GB expanding out 4x would mean nearly a 10GB footprint on your hard drive. Kiss 20GB hard drives in laptops goodbye. Personally I don't know how any computer with anything short of a 1GB of RAM will run it. I originally installed it on a 2GHz Core Duo system running a Calistoga motherboard in a desktop chassis with 256MB of RAM on it. *shudder*
 
Actually no ... But if you all get off some new OS then that's your cup of tea.

My point is not VISTA being bad, it's the whole DX10 with SM4.0 needed to really run it. That's forcing the market, and money runs linearly with it.
 
Uh..? Why would you actually NEED DX10 and SM4.0 to run it? What's wrong with a fancy OS when you CAN run it without the eye candy? They're not forcing you to buy anything. You can run Vista with a really old machine with a crappy GPU if you like. It's a POSSIBILITY to make it pretty.
 
My point is not VISTA being bad, it's the whole DX10 with SM4.0 needed to really run it. That's forcing the market, and money runs linearly with it.
Click to expand...

Please stop posting FUD, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

1) You don't need DX10 or a DX10 GPU to operate Vista.

2) Everything in the computer industry is related to money. Any corperation (AMD, NV, ATI, etc) that offers a product does so to maximize profits.

3) MS did more for unity, competition, and quality in regards to consumer level 3D than any company on the market. No one has done as much as MS has in regards to improving their API, providing developers with quality tools, listening to IHVs and ISVs in regards to the direction of the market, and getting the market powers to agree to a roadmap to aid consumers and developers.

4) And I am still waiting for you to reply to my post about your previous accusations on these points and how DX10 is only a "money making stunt". I gave a number of reasons -- and there are dozens more in regards to the workflow, pipeline, features, usability, and platforming I did not even mention -- why DX10 (D3D10) is a HUGE step forward for consumers.

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=178886&highlight=

The features MS has added to D3D10 -- based on conjunction with working closely with ATI & NV -- are huge wins for developers and for consumers.

It may not mean much to casual fans, but adding Geometry Shaders to shore up poor CPU performance and CPU<>GPU communication, removing cap bits and requiring all IHVs to fully support every feature in the API, unifying the shader language and featureset, adding full integer and bitwise instructs to the programmable shaders, so forth and so on are very significant moves that not only make GPUs more powerful but also more flexible. DX9 was an superficial upgrade of the DX7 fixed function architecture; DX10 is a clean slate that starts off from day 1 with programmability in mind with an emphasis on performance and usability.

You are right it is about money; but you could not be more incorrect in regards to it being a "stunt".
 
Hell, you guys quickly get ur nickers in a twist. Please note the word I used "it's the whole DX10 with SM4.0 needed to really run it" - I never said it was a must.

And I believe this is a forum, so I can state my opinion can't I? Last time I checked democracy was alive and well on these forums. So if I make a mistake by freedom of speech, you can at least correct me. I admit I know jack about Vista, but I can still comment on the surface.

And yes, I see the benefit of DX10. No, I rarely back track on posts, so sorry for not replying to your previous questions. I have next to zero time to myself.

And if my previous posts seemed a bit anti Vista, along with my claims on it being a marketing stunt, I apologize for that aswell. I'm just naturally sceptic.

I have a question though - is VISTA required for DX10 API - in other words, can DX10 be run from XP, or does it require the functionality of Vista?
 
You can run Vista with a really old machine with a crappy GPU if you like.
Click to expand...

No you can't, just like you can't run XP on a 486!

You need a mionimum of DX9 feature-compliant card, and a recommended 64+MB of memory, preferably 256MB for running vfull blown vectored desktops.

It will NOT run on an old machine with a CRAPPY GPU anymore than XP did, or Win2K before it or W98SE before it. There's always a higher minimum spec and even the not glossy version of vista is a resource hog requiring minimum of 512MB and better at 1GB.
 
Well yes to run the AeroGlass part of it, which is the major component of Vista that makes it different from VMS or Unix (which seems to be where all OSs are headed), the GUI.

The integration is nice, but no one bought any previous M$ product because of the efficiency so much as the GUI and marketing. OS/2 would be better for stability and efficiency (especially after Warp).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom