DX11 revealed - fully compatible with DX10 hardware!

[Scirwode]

Although DX11 seems to be quite a good upgrade from DX10 and DX10.1 from what I've read in this thread, it will still be some time before we see games for it. And for that reason is why I'm still sticking with XP, because it just work. I like Vista but I've already tried it on the computers that I have around the house and the best one is my Mac Mini, while both of my notebooks can barely run it.

I'll probably change when I get a new notebook but as of now, I'm quite fine with XP.

Scirwode

[ViperAFK]

There are some legitimate reasons why many people stay with XP, I agree if it works fine for you keep on using it! But I hate it when people just senselessly bash it without facts. Vista is a good OS and as good of a gaming os as XP.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.asp

[revvo]

DX10 (and presumably all later versions) cannot be backported to XP.

Not without literally turning XP into Vista. So you're basically saying that Microsoft should give away Vista.

And why not? They're the makers of their own OS. The only thing preventing them would be if DX depends on kernel-specific functions or features, then I agree with you. For any non-kernel dependency, it's not impossible, it's just that Microsoft won't do it to give people reasons to upgrade to Vista. It almost worked with Halo 2, didn't it? :rofl:

[Kushan]

And why not? They're the makers of their own OS. The only thing preventing them would be if DX depends on kernel-specific functions or features, then I agree with you. For any non-kernel dependency, it's not impossible, it's just that Microsoft won't do it to give people reasons to upgrade to Vista. It almost worked with Halo 2, didn't it? :rofl:

What, you mean like the Vista Driver Model? :rolleyes:

[ViperAFK]

And why not? They're the makers of their own OS. The only thing preventing them would be if DX depends on kernel-specific functions or features, then I agree with you. For any non-kernel dependency, it's not impossible, it's just that Microsoft won't do it to give people reasons to upgrade to Vista. It almost worked with Halo 2, didn't it? :rofl:

It is heavily dependent on vista's new driver model. This should be common knowledge...

[Mikee99]

And why not? They're the makers of their own OS. The only thing preventing them would be if DX depends on kernel-specific functions or features, then I agree with you. For any non-kernel dependency, it's not impossible, it's just that Microsoft won't do it to give people reasons to upgrade to Vista. It almost worked with Halo 2, didn't it? :rofl:

In addition to the new driver model which DX10 works with, DX 10 also manages memory differently. Those differences are tied to the kernel. Vista manages memory differently than XP. To get the benefit of DX 10 on XP, it would require re-writes of entire parts of the XP kernel, so it's not worth it.

[revvo]

Well that answered my question :rofl:

I was thinking of Windows 98 and how you can have DirectX 8 and 9 on either 98 or XP. That's comparing the monolithic DOS kernel of 98 with the hybrid NT kernel of XP.

Oh well, I'll upgrade from XP once I see interesting games using the next gen DX levels.

[notuptome2004]

Well that answered my question :rofl:

I was thinking of Windows 98 and how you can have DirectX 8 and 9 on either 98 or XP. That's comparing the monolithic DOS kernel of 98 with the hybrid NT kernel of XP.

Oh well, I'll upgrade from XP once I see interesting games using the next gen DX levels.

if your ownly reason for upgrading to vista is DX10 and a game your kinda Wierd Vista improves on so many levels where XP fails or well not optimized or by default ment to do. such as vista is far more optimized and designed from the ground up to mange threading of multi-core/CPU systems while XP was not ment for that but just kinda later on slapped with the ability to accept a dual core or better CPU but does not efficiently manage it like vista does <<< just 1 example

[revvo]

if your ownly reason for upgrading to vista is DX10 and a game your kinda Wierd Vista improves on so many levels where XP fails or well not optimized or by default ment to do. such as vista is far more optimized and designed from the ground up to mange threading of multi-core/CPU systems while XP was not ment for that but just kinda later on slapped with the ability to accept a dual core or better CPU but does not efficiently manage it like vista does <<< just 1 example

What was that, I'm kinda weird? Geez thanks, but no thanks. I don't need another recital of the superiority of Vista especially since I use both regularly, on my desktop and laptop. As a gamer OS, I prefer XP. For programming and work in general, I have Vista.

[notuptome2004]

What was that, I'm kinda weird? Geez thanks, but no thanks. I don't need another recital of the superiority of Vista especially since I use both regularly, on my desktop and laptop. As a gamer OS, I prefer XP. For programming and work in general, I have Vista.

so your haveing some gaming issue still after a year or more of good drivers your having issue with running games in vista or something just curious

[revvo]

so your haveing some gaming issue still after a year or more of good drivers your having issue with running games in vista or something just curious

Nope. I just refuse to fix something that works, which is XP + SP3. It's rock solid and runs everything I need. Vista may very well run great, but I don't care since there's no features that push me to upgrade.

[notuptome2004]

Nope. I just refuse to fix something that works, which is XP + SP3. It's rock solid and runs everything I need. Vista may very well run great, but I don't care since there's no features that push me to upgrade.

so being more rock solid and stable along with a better optimized threaded windows system including threaded windows explorer is not worth the upgrade having a screen free of screen tering and GUI glitches in windows and non responsive windows that may cause part or all of your screen to have stuck pixels in windows GUI rendering itself is not WORTH the UPGRADE

if you don't get what i mean for the GUI i am talking about that windows vista uses a new graphics sub system to render everything on a 3d texture so you get non of those old issue you got with old GDI rendering system.

so many under the hood changes in vista witch for the better makes your parts in the system actually do something constructive when in general usage

[Kushan]

If he doesn't need or want to switch to Vista for gaming, there's no point trying to force him.

Switching OS's isn't so cut and dry, you know.

[bobbytomorow]

so being more rock solid and stable along with a better optimized threaded windows system including threaded windows explorer is not worth the upgrade having a screen free of screen tering and GUI glitches in windows and non responsive windows that may cause part or all of your screen to have stuck pixels in windows GUI rendering itself is not WORTH the UPGRADE

if you don't get what i mean for the GUI i am talking about that windows vista uses a new graphics sub system to render everything on a 3d texture so you get non of those old issue you got with old GDI rendering system.

so many under the hood changes in vista witch for the better makes your parts in the system actually do something constructive when in general usage

Why are you trying to sell him something he already said he's not interested in?

[notuptome2004]

Why are you trying to sell him something he already said he's not interested in?

NO WTF no he made the point that vista has no new features and crap i was just pointing out that while he wants a stable OS and reliable OS or and he says XP is fine in that why not opt for even better stability better performance more optimized for his system in General i siad nothing about gaming in that last post i was talking about better use of his components in day to day use and how windows work with the stuff and is able to do alot of the stuff he does now general usage but more efficiently.

That is the main reasons i switched to vista was it could do things more smoothly and efficiently with all the improvements made to the core of windows

[revvo]

NO WTF no he made the point that vista has no new features and crap

Not really. I said there's no new features that compell me to upgrade. I never said that Vista doesn't have new features.

i was just pointing out that while he wants a stable OS and reliable OS or and he says XP is fine in that why not opt for even better stability better performance more optimized for his system in General

I don't need a stable and reliable OS for my desktop, XP is already both especially with all the service packs and updates that were done throughout its lifetime.

[Andre S. Veteran]

If your XP installation is very stable, and you're not sold on Vista's GUI being rendered on the GPU, I guess there's not that big of an incentive to upgrade. I did upgrade because XP was never that stable for me (at least one explorer crash per work session - on ALL computers I've worked with), I thought it was about time Windows users were treated on par with OSX users in terms of UI, and also I had a free license of Vista Business. And I wouldn't go back.

Even though I'm personally sold on Vista, I think the OS doesn't offer enough new or improved features for the amount of changes it makes to driver, sound, networking and D3D architecture, and also for its heavy hardware requirements. It's more of a transition OS.

[Denis W. Veteran]

(...)

Wow calm down. It's not like he quickly glossed over Vista and wrote it off after an hour's worth of usage; according to his signature Vista's on his laptop.

From my point of view, if you're a raw speed freak, don't keep your computer on for twenty-four hours a day, do primarily just gaming, music listening, and some movie clip watching, plus Web surfing, XP fits the bill fine. Vista is suited more towards those who use their computers for many different things and do it repetively at certain times, i.e. laptop users who benefit from Vista being able to set different network settings depending on your location, or people in the workplace who tend to open Excel roughly around 1 PM in the afternoon on weekdays. And for gaming, it's still a mixed bag. Some - keyword, SOME - users report improved performance over XP. Some report the opposite. Where XP bests Vista is sound processing - Creative's ALchemy is still buggy with some games. And if moving both sound and video into the user stack is supposed to help reliability, then I don't see the benefits so far. Nvidia's driver still brings systems down with BSODs instead of reloading the driver.

For me, I'm going through a three month trial phase on my desktop computer where I'm using Vista Business x64 fulltime, without dualbooting into XP at all. So far it's been alright, other than giving up on some tools that are not 64-bit compatible (i.e. Rivatuner doesn't have a signed 64-bit driver, Sandboxie tampers with the kernel which is a no-no for Vista 64-bit).

[ViperAFK]

Yeah you guys don't need to push vista on the guy, he has used it and realizes it does in fact have some advantages and new features. He has tried it and thinks XP fills all his needs, No one should have any qualms with that. I am quite happy with vista and am glad I made the switch but XP is still a great stable OS which can fill the needs of many people. The only thing I have a problem with is when people deliberately spread rumors, FUD and misinformation ect... which he is obviously not doing.