If Win7 supports both WDDM 1.1 and 1.0 why Vista SP2 can't have it?

[Eric Veteran]

I guess you missed the whole "vista capable" shambles then...

Nope. Vista Capable machines are capable of running Vista. Hardware that uses all the advanced features of Vista such as Aero had the "Vista Premium Ready" logo on them. If you bought a "Capable" machine that doesn't run Vista, take it up with the OEM. You might also try complaining to Microsoft that an OEM licensee is misusing their logo program.

[Si_]

Come on let's not kid ourselves, from what we've seen Windows 7 is nothing more than a trimmed down, fixed Vista with little or no "major" user-centric improvements. It's what vista should have been, and for all intents and purposes (although it's a tired cliche) is Vista R2.

[Kirkburn]

DX10.0 not in shape and form done for Vista. It doesn't matter. I didn't say they should make DX10.0 for XP...that would be waste of time. Time moves on. XP is ancient at this point. As far as those handful of stubborn people, oh well they still run Vista for free by cracking it. Some people are just bad...hardly anybody can do anything about it. As far as Windows 7, i have all positive comments for it at this point. As I said i hope MS decides to bring DX11 for Vista, at least Vista is not 8 years old and it's pretty up to standards and everything...

I always believed that SP2 was something to keep customers and IT industry busy and XP up to date due Longhorn delay. I'm sure if Longhorn was released when was supposed to SP2 would not be even in this form.

Is it me, or has a completely different person written this post? Methinks someone had a talking to (yay).

On topic: just something can be done, doesn't mean it should.

Come on let's not kid ourselves, from what we've seen Windows 7 is nothing more than a trimmed down, fixed Vista with little or no "major" user-centric improvements. It's what vista should have been, and for all intents and purposes (although it's a tired cliche) is Vista R2.

Trimmed down, meaning what exactly? Would you describe each of the OSX releases in the same vein? I think you're somewhat underplaying the differences here.

[Si_]

Nope. Vista Capable machines are capable of running Vista.

Capable of having it installed, sure, capable of being usable? no. What's the spec for Capable certificaiton, 1gb ram? I dare you to try and use vista for any length of time with that.

[fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj]

cuz m$ wantz ur cashs

[Unknown_97784568745]

Capable of having it installed, sure, capable of being usable? no. What's the spec for Capable certificaiton, 1gb ram? I dare you to try and use vista for any length of time with that.

No need to dare, I have (for just under 2 years) and there was nothing wrong with it.

[Kirkburn]

Capable of having it installed, sure, capable of being usable? no. What's the spec for Capable certificaiton, 1gb ram? I dare you to try and use vista for any length of time with that.

I did, from mid-beta to end of 2007. It worked fine, and only games that required masses of RAM had a problem (e.g. WoW) which would have been little different on XP.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

MS is in business to make money-tons of money. They make it by developing new OS's that may or may not be better than what they already have released. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade to Windows 7 and why should it's features be backwards compatible? Those of you that thing Vista SP2 is going to have new features are in for a big letdown.

[Eric Veteran]

MS is in business to make money-tons of money. They make it by developing new OS's that may or may not be better than what they already have released. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade to Windows 7 and why should it's features be backwards compatible? Those of you that thing Vista SP2 is going to have new features are in for a big letdown.

It will have a new Bluetooth and Wireless stack and native BD burning support. :)

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Capable of having it installed, sure, capable of being usable? no. What's the spec for Capable certificaiton, 1gb ram? I dare you to try and use vista for any length of time with that.

I ran Vista for quite some time on a 512MB Mac Mini. It couldn't run Aero and Media Center wasn't usable, but the OS worked absolutely fine.

[bjoswald]

Technology evolves to new standards, new methods to perform old tasks, and so forth. I realize W7 shares a similar code base to Vista, but it would still require a lot of reverse engineering to make it work. A lot of people will agree that this kind of backporting is the reason why technology doesn't evolve as fast as it does. But yes, some people are right when they said "Hey, Microsoft need to advertise something."

[-Hiroshi-]

This is idiotic, obviously Windows XP can't run DX10.

If you meant that it could, theoretically run DX10, then of course it could. Instead of building DirectX 11 and 10.1, instead of building Direct2D and WARP10 and working on all the performance improvements in Win7, that team hypothetically could've worked on building DX10 for XP.

Get a clue, your ridiculous statements are getting very tiresome. DX isn't just an API, there needs to be code on the other side of that API that actually does something. That takes a lot of time and effort to write, test, and refine. Nevermind the fact that companies like Nvidia and ATI would now have to write yet another driver in order to support DX10 on XP. As if they don't have enough trouble getting their current ones working well.

All this for what? So that a handful of stubborn people who didn't pay for Windows XP in the first place can run their favorite 8 year old OS on a brand new computer and play the latest games with a couple extra bells and whistles turned on?

No, they made the right decision, and focused on the future not the past.

Your ignorance is incredible.. Just because someone has XP still, doesn't mean they didn't pay for it. How about you think before you mouth off in a way that hurts your reputation.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Your ignorance is incredible.. Just because someone has XP still, doesn't mean they didn't pay for it. How about you think before you mouth off in a way that hurts your reputation.

I was referring to jjrambo specifically, who has mentioned on several occassions hints that he has not paid for his copies of Windows (including the various Server variants I recall him mentioning).

[Tomoko]

Brandon Live: So that a handful of stubborn people who didn't pay for Windows XP in the first place can run their favorite 8 year old OS

Why would you say that everyone still running XP never paid for it? Overlooking the insult that they are doing so because they are stubborn. Perhaps they just like it better, or they see no reason to pay for a new OS that they don't need.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Why would you say that everyone still running XP never paid for it? Overlooking the insult that they are doing so because they are stubborn. Perhaps they just like it better, or they see no reason to pay for a new OS that they don't need.

Sorry, that was hyperbole and directed at jjrambo, and you're right that was worded poorly and came off as an unfair generalization.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Don't push it. Windows XP performs perfectly good and it runs everything perfectly fast and beats Vista in gaming, office and other apps. You don't need WDDM drivers for XP. Why are you limited? When you run Crysis, Crysis doesn't give a **** about WDDM etc...it's just looking for DX10.0 files supporting features on Video Card like Pixel Shader. It's Crysis which calles DX10.0 library to run certain things. Forget about OS. XP doesn't need half of **** Vista needs which simplifies DX10 code wise big time.

Reason is simple, me and a lot of other people would not give a **** about Vista if there was DX10.0 for XP. I understand MS business decision, and i can agree with it or not...it doesn't matter. They do what they think it's right, and i accept that. But, i don't accept bull**** somebody selling me...i wish MS is more honest and say...they is no DX10.0 for XP cause we don't want to make it and not like some bull**** saying how Vista is so superior that it would be almost impossible to do it.

Wow, that is an incredible amount of hostility you're harbouring there! Microsoft cannot be expected to spent time, money and effort on backporting every new feature to older operating systems.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

It will have a new Bluetooth and Wireless stack and native BD burning support. :)

That's nice, but I don't use either.

[Skyfrog]

That's nice, but I don't use either.

Whether or not you yourself use them is irrelevant, they are still new features.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Whether or not you yourself use them is irrelevant, they are still new features.

Yes but not major features. Most of SP2 is fixing issues that have occurred since SP1.

[jjrambo]

I was referring to jjrambo specifically, who has mentioned on several occassions hints that he has not paid for his copies of Windows (including the various Server variants I recall him mentioning).

I think you got me misplaced with somebody. I never run any Windows i didn't pay for including two ultimate copies, one OEM business copy and home premium copy of Vista i got with laptop, Windows 98 copy, Windows ME Upgrade copy, Windows XP Pro (i got from school, academic version along with Windows 2003 Server i got from school), Two Windows XP Home Edition copies i got with two dells, and one Windows XP Pro copy i purchased. Yes i did run Windows 2008 Server Copy before its expiration as Testing and Comparing to Vista. Just to add Live One Care activated on 2 PC and one laptop at home. I did mention that people cracked Vista day after Vista was released, and that MS wasted a lot of money to keep it uncrackable.

I think you got me wrong there...

Wow, that is an incredible amount of hostility you're harbouring there! Microsoft cannot be expected to spent time, money and effort on backporting every new feature to older operating systems.

Just looking for IE8, WMP12 and DX11 for Vista, nothing else.

[Mercellus]

Just looking for IE8, WMP12 and DX11 for Vista, nothing else.

Okay, first of all, Internet Explorer 8 is being developed for Windows Vista as well. Secondly, I'm sure that Windows Media Player 12 and DirectX 11 both have enough improvements over the current versions found in Windows Vista that would warrant them only being available in Windows 7... do you know how hard it is to back-port new functionality into an older operating system where other technologies on which these applications rely on may not be present?

[jjrambo]

Okay, first of all, Internet Explorer 8 is being developed for Windows Vista as well. Secondly, I'm sure that Windows Media Player 12 and DirectX 11 both have enough improvements over the current versions found in Windows Vista that would warrant them only being available in Windows 7... do you know how hard it is to back-port new functionality into an older operating system where other technologies on which these applications rely on may not be present?

I don't think that DX10, and DX11 are the much different that would create such a problem. Afterall, Microsoft didn't say they wont relese DX11 for Vista nor they said will. We will have to sit and wait. As far as WMP12, come on? Again as far as DX11. You don't need to back port those new functionalities for Vista if Vista is not meant to use it. All what Vista needs out of DX11 is support features for new upcoming video hardware, essentially just to run DX11 games.

[hadouken]

Sounds like you want most of the features of Windows 7 without actually having to pay for it, jjrambo. Why don't you just buy it? If you don't like what Microsoft are doing then there's always alternatives, they don't owe you anything except for security patches and critical updates. You knew the features of Vista before you bought it, if you weren't happy then why'd you buy it?

[jjrambo]

Sounds like you want most of the features of Windows 7 without actually having to pay for it, jjrambo. Why don't you just buy it? If you don't like what Microsoft are doing then there's always alternatives, they don't owe you anything except for security patches and critical updates. You knew the features of Vista before you bought it, if you weren't happy then why'd you buy it?

I'm willing to pay for DX11 for Vista if MS wants to do business that way? How about that? I burned too much money on Vista, and burning again on Windows 7 for one feature i'm looking for is not worth it. So, let MS create DX11.0 for Vista and then sell it for $30 (just random amount to illustrate an example). That would be more honest then silently forcing me burn $$$ for Windows 7. I hope you're getting the point.

There are no alternatives for DX API. OpenGL is dead fish in the sea. IE has an alternative called Firefox, WMP has an alternative called VLC (i think i got the name right). If MS wants they could make WMP12, DX and whatever and sell it. I will buy DX11 for Vista, somebody will buy just WMP. That would be more honest as i said instead forcing people to spent more $$$ on new OS just because people liked specific feature on application.

[LTD]

Same reason as for any other company. They want you to buy a new OS.