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

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

I don't know the plans for D3D 11 and couldn't comment even if I did. But if we took the DX10 on XP example, the number of people who would've paid for that simply couldn't begin to justify the cost in building it.

[jjrambo]

I don't know the plans for D3D 11 and couldn't comment even if I did. But if we took the DX10 on XP example, the number of people who would've paid for that simply couldn't begin to justify the cost in building it.

I understand. DX10 and XP -> not worth it by any mean. I agree there too. The whole argument in this thread was my statement that MS can make DX10 for XP if they wanted to against argument saying that is impossible (technically wise). I want to apologize if i was a bit hard with my choice of words.

[waruikoohii]

I seem to recall reading that DX11 will be released for Vista. So this whole argument is pointless.

Back to the topic: If you want WDDM 1.1, buy 7. Otherwise, deal with WDDM 1.0, it works okay.

[jjrambo]

I seem to recall reading that DX11 will be released for Vista. So this whole argument is pointless.

Back to the topic: If you want WDDM 1.1, buy 7. Otherwise, deal with WDDM 1.0, it works okay.

:) WDDM 1.0 works great here for my needs. If you use TuneUp 2009 utility you can run a lot of custom visual styles.

[Skyfrog]

I wouldn't go so far as to say OpenGL is dead. Anyway I'm sure DirectX 11 will be available for Vista too.

[Ci7]

^ so what the rampage all about again .

[hadouken]

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.

Unfortunatly for you (and probably a lot of us), you can't set the conditions on what you want from a Microsoft product, it's released as a whole and you have to weigh up the pro's and con's. If you "burned" money on Vista then no offense but the only person to blame is you, it was your money and your choice.

Like most companies, MS realise that their product has strong and weak points, they will use the strong points as leverage to get you to buy their product, which pays for the staff, time, research etc. They don't need to feel guilty about that. I can't think of many (if any) private companies that can afford to take any other approach.

Microsoft employ thousands of people all over the world, people with families and mouthes to feed. I'm more than happy to pay for their products, even if it is just for a few features that I deem worthy of my money, because I don't expect perfection, just gradual improvement. If you want honesty and ghandi-like business practise then you're barking up the wrong tree.

[notuptome2004]

While Windows 7 and vista share alot of Code under the hood , Windows 7 also builds upon that foundation under the hood as well' things Added to such example as the audio stack in windows 7 has been vastly beefed up with new features and things that Windows vista could not do and some of them features were there from the beginning with vista but had unfinished system code witch by all means could not be added via service pack.

one thing is for sure it does seem like Windows 7 is more modular then vista

oh and for the guy who said OpenGL is Dead i would think agian since all Id software games run on OpenGl and no Directx and there up coming games Rage build on Id tech 5 engine only furthers that with the use of i would assume custom open GL 3.0 libraries

[argonite]

I love how a whole bunch of people here suddenly work for Microsoft (not directed at Brandon, of course) and know all about the fine changes Microsoft made in each of their software products. I'm not even sure, but I do know that Brandon says it's a lot of hard work.

Here's the pattern-based logic:

DirectX 10 - DirectX 9 = 1 iteration

Vista - XP = 1 iteration

THEY MUST WORK!

IE 7 - IE 6 = 1 iteration; got ported to XP

WMP 11 - WMP 10 = 1 iteration; got ported to XP

EVERYTHING MUST GET PORTED NOW!

I'm sorry, it appears to be more complicated than that.

When you buy Windows, you are obligated to FREE SUPPORT. That means bug fixes and security patches for a few years. NOT FREE FEATURE UPGRADES. On the event that you get Free Upgrades (such as when SP2 spoiled everyone), be thankful. Even Apple charges for major feature upgrades.

If you want this to change, go for Linux! Free software upgrades!

[bob_c_b]

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.

:rolleyes: You are grossly ill-informed.

[bradavon]

Same reason that WinXP can't have DirectX 10 and 11

And Windows 2000 cannot have Internet Explorer 7, Windows Media Player 10 or Windows Media Player 11.

Hell, XP has gotten utterly spoiled with free stuff (SP2, WPF support, IE 7 and 8, WMP 10, WDS, and on and on). I'm sorry that rewriting the kernel wasn't a part of that list.

Definitely. Personally I think it's a mistake to support IE8 in XP. It's just another excuse for luddites to hold on to XP for even longer. XP already got IE7 two years ago, which granted was long overdue but unlike IE6, IE7 is a modern browser.

For 3 lovely days I ran Vista at work before reluctantly having to go back to XP. Our Cisco Firewall doesn't support Vista as my boss refuses to upgrade it's firmware and that means no Exchange VPN access when running Vista. Obviously something I cannot do with out.

XP is 9 years old and feels it!

I wonder which consumer software Microsoft will drop from Windows XP first, any guesses? Office 2009/2010 would be tricky to drop support for.

Edited January 3, 2009 by bradavon

[NEVER85]

Windows XP can run DX10 and DX11

No, no it can't.

[x-byte]

:) WDDM 1.0 works great here for my needs. If you use TuneUp 2009 utility you can run a lot of custom visual styles.

Do you even know what WDDM is and do? Why do you try to complain about something you don't know anything about? You just make a fool out of yourself.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I love how a whole bunch of people here suddenly work for Microsoft (not directed at Brandon, of course) and know all about the fine changes Microsoft made in each of their software products. I'm not even sure, but I do know that Brandon says it's a lot of hard work.

Here's the pattern-based logic:

DirectX 10 - DirectX 9 = 1 iteration

Vista - XP = 1 iteration

THEY MUST WORK!

IE 7 - IE 6 = 1 iteration; got ported to XP

WMP 11 - WMP 10 = 1 iteration; got ported to XP

EVERYTHING MUST GET PORTED NOW!

I'm sorry, it appears to be more complicated than that.

Exactly. Sometimes it's (relatively) easy to port things. It's never free. Getting WMP 11 to work on XP, or getting WMP 12 to work on Vista, takes work. For example, WMP 12 on Win7 makes heavy use of the Library API and other shell features new in Win7. I don't know a ton about WMP but they may use other new media or networking API features as well. Porting the application to Vista means writing a lot of new code to handle the cases where those APIs aren't available. It isn't free, but of course with enough time and resources it's doable.

Something like WDDM or porting DX10 to XP is an entirely different matter. It's not an application, it's basically a major stack of the core OS that goes as deep as the kernel (or lower down to the HAL, in some cases). In the case of WDDM 1.1, there's no point in supporting those drivers if you can't make use of the new features they offer. So even if you ported all the kernel changes down to Vista to support the drivers, you'd also have to port all the changes in the display stack above it, all the way up to the window manager. At this point you aren't talking about Vista anymore, you're talking about Win7.

It's like taking a chimpanzee and a human and trying to take features from the human "downlevel" to the chimp. Some things, like the human's clothes, might be easy to put on the chimp without changing what it is. You might need to tighten or loosen things up here and there, but it could work. But trying to give the chimp opposable thumbs, or a human's brain, or even just some human bones, would be very problematic. The larger brain would require changes to the skull, and those would necessitate changes in the neck and below. In theory you could do it, but the chain of dependencies you'd impact is quite long. In the end, what you'd be left with wouldn't be a chimp.

[Ryster]

It's like taking a chimpanzee and a human and trying to take features from the human "downlevel" to the chimp. Some things, like the human's clothes, might be easy to put on the chimp without changing what it is. You might need to tighten or loosen things up here and there, but it could work. But trying to give the chimp opposable thumbs, or a human's brain, or even just some human bones, would be very problematic. The larger brain would require changes to the skull, and those would necessitate changes in the neck and below. In theory you could do it, but the chain of dependencies you'd impact is quite long. In the end, what you'd be left with wouldn't be a chimp.

I lol'd at that, and yet it's so true :)

[DrCheese]

Personally I think it's a mistake to support IE8 in XP

No. Browsers should be a separate application to the OS. Think how retarded it would be if Mozilla suddenly dropped support for Windows XP. If MS dumped IE support on XP whist it's still installed on a huge amount of computers they would run the risk of alienating those customers and pushing them to other browsers (Such as the afore mentioned Firefox.)

I have to say tho, it's only because MS has competition in the browser market that they are doing this in the first place (Same with IE7 on XP) afaik the original plan (back in the day) was to make IE7 longhorn only!

[Skyfrog]

It's just another excuse for luddites to hold on to XP for even lon...whaargarble

I stopped reading at that point. There is nothing wrong with XP and it doesn't make one a luddite to use it.

[Mordkanin]

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.

Oh yeah, the massive shell changes are in no way shape or form 'user-centric'.

[Ci7]

For 3 lovely days I ran Vista at work before reluctantly having to go back to XP. Our Cisco Firewall doesn't support Vista as my boss refuses to upgrade it's firmware and that means no Exchange VPN access when running Vista. Obviously something I cannot do with out.

XP is 9 years old and feels it!

I wonder which consumer software Microsoft will drop from Windows XP first, any guesses? Office 2009/2010 would be tricky to drop support for.

they wont , not any time soon

XP still commanding 65%+ of the marketshare

Vista is about 21%

i could safely say they gonna support application for xp for at least five-six years from now

windows component upgrade for xp this year would be phased out (Windows search ,Internet explorer(version 8 probably the last then) , Windows media ....you name it )

according to MS life-cycle

[jamesVault]

Same reason that WinXP can't have DirectX 10 and 11

it's a completely different thing. You can't compare XP (NT 5.1) with Vista (NT 6.0)! Vista is a major version of Windows, XP belongs to an old OS generation.

Win7 (NT 6.1) belongs to the same Vista generation (NT 6.0), so I would expect WDDM 1.1 to be available on Vista in a future service pack.

[neo158]

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 have and it runs fine after the post install tasks have completed.

To be honest, the machine isn't even a Vista capable. It has had the memory upgraded to 1Gb from 512Mb, had a GeForce 6200 installed in place of the on-board graphics but Vista Home Premium runs just fine on it.

Edited January 3, 2009 by neo158

[ViperAFK]

That's bull**** you're meant to believe. Windows XP can run DX10 and DX11, as Vista can support WDDM 1.0 and 1.1.

DX is just API, you don't even need it to run OS itself.

The biggest mistake MS might do it is to decide not to have DX11 for Vista. That would bite them back so hard....

Don't be a moron it's already confirmed directx 11 will be for vista and win 7.

And the only reason directx 10 isn't available for xp is because it is heavily based on vista's driver model. It would take a LOT of work to port it to xp. Win 7 uses the same driver model more or less as vista.

Stop trying to act like you know a lot about subjects you are obviously clueless about.

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...

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

there will be IE8 ( I have the beta installed right now ) wmp 12 and dx11 for vista.... You are extremely misinformed if you for some reason think otherwise.

[-Hiroshi-]

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).

Oh my mistake then. I was seriously offended, I admit I used to use a pirated XP, mainly because I had a Windows ME machine and wanted to upgrade it, but then I bought two licenses for XP Home Edition and have three OEM copies, plus a legitimately activated Windows Vista Ultimate, and I didn't spend a crap load of money to be told by an MS employee that I'm a thief after I went out of my way to set things right. :(

[bradavon]

No. Browsers should be a separate application to the OS

Tell that to all the Windows 2000 users who cannot run IE7 ;).

Think how retarded it would be if Mozilla suddenly dropped support for Windows XP.

Microsoft is in an entirely different position to Mozilla.

The fact is the free added built-in features are also what sells the OS. IE is one of them.

If MS dumped IE support on XP whist it's still installed on a huge amount of computers they would run the risk of alienating those customers and pushing them to other browsers (Such as the afore mentioned Firefox.)

Definitely with IE6 (which an upgrade to was long overdue) but IE7 is already a very good browser. The trouble is, Windows 2000 finally gave us a usable (think Windows 9x) and stable (think Windows NT) Windows operating system and for many that is all they need.

If Microsoft keep updating XP (which giving IE8 to it is exactly what's going to happen) will mean there is even less incentive to upgrade.

I have to say tho, it's only because MS has competition in the browser market that they are doing this in the first place (Same with IE7 on XP) afaik the original plan (back in the day) was to make IE7 longhorn only!

Very true.

i could safely say they gonna support application for xp for at least five-six years from now

True. I see no problem doing this as far as security etc.. goes.

windows component upgrade for xp this year would be phased out (Windows search ,Internet explorer(version 8 probably the last then) , Windows media ....you name it )

Interesting, thanks. I wonder if they stick to this.

I stopped reading at that point. There is nothing wrong with XP and it doesn't make one a luddite to use it.

That fact by default it allows Malware to run as Admin is a pretty big one.

[Mercellus]

It's like taking a chimpanzee and a human and trying to take features from the human "downlevel" to the chimp. Some things, like the human's clothes, might be easy to put on the chimp without changing what it is. You might need to tighten or loosen things up here and there, but it could work. But trying to give the chimp opposable thumbs, or a human's brain, or even just some human bones, would be very problematic. The larger brain would require changes to the skull, and those would necessitate changes in the neck and below. In theory you could do it, but the chain of dependencies you'd impact is quite long. In the end, what you'd be left with wouldn't be a chimp.

That has to be the oddest yet most accurate explanation ever.