DX11 Coming To Linux (But Not XP)

[Lazure]

As I had said previously in this post, to use an operating system which is no longer supported would be stupid. The only software to date that I find does not like XP is Microsoft's. Windows 95 had a lot of features and improvements over Win 3.1, XP was a lot more stable than its predecessors - I don't think you get me here, Im not saying we should never upgrade Im just saying that the improvements do not justify the call that XP is a dead operating system or that its archaic - there is just no reasoning behind it.

XP Doesn't support modern hardware nearly as well as Windows 7 does.

For instance:

- you can't use more than 3GB of RAM in the standard version of Windows XP, which is ONLY 32-bit. The 64-bit version is barely supported by anything and requires a SEPARATE LICENSE, unlike the case in Vista/7.

- The memory management is not as good in XP, as it is in Windows 7. You would find in Windows 7 that your multitasking is much smoother than in XP.

- Multi-core processors are much more efficient in Windows 7. Windows 7 is far more aware on how to thread their services and applications across your cores, and how to properly use the modern technology found in newer chips (such as the i7) for optimum performance. Windows XP SP3 came out before the i-Series even existed. How would it possibly know how to use an 8-threaded CPU worth diddly?

- WDDM provides much better graphics support. Games are smoother and more stable in Windows 7 than in Windows XP. Also provides Aero, which is GPU acceleration for your desktop ITSELF... no more white splotches, trails, and redrawing just because you dragged a window around over another window on your desktop! Also, like this thread topic implies, XP cannot use DX10/11!

- Some software nowadays is starting to utilize features only available due to WDDM, such as IE9 and Windows Live series. Windows XP cannot possibly use these features, as it lacks the the ability to utilize WDDM driver features. Don't expect Microsoft to be the only ones to start using these features in the near future, as more and more begin to adopt this approach to smoothen up the user experience with GPU-accelerated text and graphics.

- XP isn't as secure as Windows 7 64-bit. With XP, you are more prone as of right now to be infected without even doing anything "wrong", than currently in Windows 7 64-bit.

- Windows 7 has Superfetch. If you have a lot of RAM you AREN'T using most of the time, it actually gets used to drastically improve the speed in which your favorite programs launch (this is big for Photoshop and other long-time loading software). Windows XP does not have this, so every program regardless of your RAM capacity will take its full time to load, as Windows XP will not have nicely preloaded their data into RAM for you to speed up their launches.

And you say Windows 7 doesn't do anything new that makes it worth upgrading to, on modern day systems that have large RAM capacities, decent graphics cards, and 2+ core CPUs? I have a mediocre system (intel core 2 duo e6400 2.13ghz, intel mobo, 6gb ddr2 800mhz RAM, 256mb 8600 gts) and Windows 7 runs heaps better than XP did, and this is including when I only had 2GB of RAM in the system! How can you imply that upgrading to Windows 7 is completely useless on a modern day machine, when XP is actually holding said machine back?

[J_R_G]

I think it will. The majority of malware has nothing to do with exploiting OS bugs or anything like that. It has to do with exploiting the user, and 7 does not offer any protection there. It offers certain superficial features like protected mode IE and UAC, but these are easily bypassed once malware is adapted for Windows 7 (if you even consider UAC relevant, since most malware has no need for admin rights anyway and can run just fine as a standard user once adapted.)

Can you back up that theory that the majority of malware is not exploiting OS/app bugs? There is a ton of java/adobe reader/flash/word/etc. explot stuff out there. While there are a LOT of users who will download anything, really only so many are going to fall for the fake AV thing, and with things like url filters in browsers that number will go down even further. And while malware can run as standard user, it is much easier to deal with when you can just delete your user account and get rid of it, versus wiping and reinstalling the system.

Bottom line is almost no exploit based malware would propagate if Vista+ were the only versions of Windows out there, the rest could get cleaned up by url filters and education. It will never go away completely, but I can live with a large decrease in the amount of infections every year, instead of a large increase every year.

[sanctified Veteran]

Gotta love the nerd mentality.

Many people dont want to spend their money on new hardware when their old hardware still works. These people will use XP until their machines break. They dont have a reason to migrate nor anything you have to say is a valid for them. Thats it, period.

[mrp04]

Gotta love the nerd mentality.

Many people dont want to spend their money on new hardware when their old hardware still works. These people will use XP until their machines break. They dont have a reason to migrate nor anything you have to say is a valid for them. Thats it, period.

Those really aren't the people who say that XP is better than Vista and 7. Those are the people who just don't care and will use what they have.

[dewaaz]

Gotta love the nerd mentality.

Many people dont want to spend their money on new hardware when their old hardware still works. These people will use XP until their machines break. They dont have a reason to migrate nor anything you have to say is a valid for them. Thats it, period.

Exactly. I'd rather buy a new mobile phone or clothes, or something else. Why upgrade my OS when it does everything I want it to? Bragging rights? LOL who really cares... it's an OS :rolleyes:

This whole "XP is dead, you would only use XP if you're gay/a pedophile/the devil/Steve Jobs" has got to stop. You're all idiots. No one cares if 7 is better if XP does what they want.

Now go back to your caves and jerk off to Windows 7 Monthly magazine.

x

Back on topic: I think I read somewhere a while ago MS was trying to embrace open source as another player and accepting it as a competitor. I think DX11 coming to Linux might be part of that strategy. I don't think it will noticeably affect their business, however. Linux seems to be pretty much out of mind for mainstream consumers, and this doesn't seem to be likely to change any time in the near future.

[Solid Knight]

Yeah, because not releasing new software for an operating system nearly a decade old and two major revisions behind is "poor support". Please.

Also, if they back ported every new piece of software or feature to XP then you'd never have to upgrade.

[J_R_G]

Gotta love the nerd mentality.

Many people dont want to spend their money on new hardware when their old hardware still works. These people will use XP until their machines break. They dont have a reason to migrate nor anything you have to say is a valid for them. Thats it, period.

Yea and they will be part of the massive botnets spamming everyone because XP lacks major security features that all modern OSes have, but you know, I'm just jerking off to my windows 7 monthly by not wanting people to run old insecure junk on a world wide network where they end up spamming and DDOSing everybody else...

[Udedenkz]

XP Doesn't support modern hardware nearly as well as Windows 7 does.

For instance:

- you can't use more than 3GB of RAM in the standard version of Windows XP, which is ONLY 32-bit. The 64-bit version is barely supported by anything and requires a SEPARATE LICENSE, unlike the case in Vista/7.

- The memory management is not as good in XP, as it is in Windows 7. You would find in Windows 7 that your multitasking is much smoother than in XP.

- Multi-core processors are much more efficient in Windows 7. Windows 7 is far more aware on how to thread their services and applications across your cores, and how to properly use the modern technology found in newer chips (such as the i7) for optimum performance. Windows XP SP3 came out before the i-Series even existed. How would it possibly know how to use an 8-threaded CPU worth diddly?

- WDDM provides much better graphics support. Games are smoother and more stable in Windows 7 than in Windows XP. Also provides Aero, which is GPU acceleration for your desktop ITSELF... no more white splotches, trails, and redrawing just because you dragged a window around over another window on your desktop! Also, like this thread topic implies, XP cannot use DX10/11!

- Some software nowadays is starting to utilize features only available due to WDDM, such as IE9 and Windows Live series. Windows XP cannot possibly use these features, as it lacks the the ability to utilize WDDM driver features. Don't expect Microsoft to be the only ones to start using these features in the near future, as more and more begin to adopt this approach to smoothen up the user experience with GPU-accelerated text and graphics.

- XP isn't as secure as Windows 7 64-bit. With XP, you are more prone as of right now to be infected without even doing anything "wrong", than currently in Windows 7 64-bit.

- Windows 7 has Superfetch. If you have a lot of RAM you AREN'T using most of the time, it actually gets used to drastically improve the speed in which your favorite programs launch (this is big for Photoshop and other long-time loading software). Windows XP does not have this, so every program regardless of your RAM capacity will take its full time to load, as Windows XP will not have nicely preloaded their data into RAM for you to speed up their launches.

And you say Windows 7 doesn't do anything new that makes it worth upgrading to, on modern day systems that have large RAM capacities, decent graphics cards, and 2+ core CPUs? I have a mediocre system (intel core 2 duo e6400 2.13ghz, intel mobo, 6gb ddr2 800mhz RAM, 256mb 8600 gts) and Windows 7 runs heaps better than XP did, and this is including when I only had 2GB of RAM in the system! How can you imply that upgrading to Windows 7 is completely useless on a modern day machine, when XP is actually holding said machine back?

Hello, I have read your post and I would like to point out a few things you said which are incorrect,

XP x86_64 works just fine. Greater majority of software compatibly with XP will run with XP x86_64. Crysis ran beautifully. Also, there is little need for more than 2GB... unless the computer is infected with massive amounts of user neglect and pre-installed bloatware.

Oh and I have to add, W7 uses ~600MB more RAM than XP. At 4GB, a 64-bit W7 won't really have an advantage.

XP memory management is just fine. Esp. XP x86_64. It is the the better choice for highest performance in DX9 games {ie. majority of them}. Although you might be talking about servers, then I dunno ... that would be more 2003 x86_64 ?

XP works just fine w. multi core processors. I think you confuse XP and 98SE, you are arguing against Windows 98 SE here.

This is a lot of crud. XP GUI is also hardware accelerated. Do not believe me? Uninstall your GPU drivers, you will have to wait for the GUI to redraw itself really slowly. The only advantage to DX10/11 for the avg. user is Direct2D - which is not really available outside beta software ATM.

Microsoft is promoting the move to Vista / 7. XP users could have gotten IE9 without Direct2D if MS desired to do so.

Windows 7 is more idiot oriented than XP when it comes to security... I can give you that. Also, XP x86_64 is by far more secure than XP x86_32.

I guess you can say that Superfetch is better memory management... in concept it works, outside of concept - minimal if anything noticeable at all. Considering that after the initial launch, parts of the program are loaded in memory thus drastically speeding up subsequent launches.

Last statement is again uneducated crud. Considering that I had a similar system to that before it fried {Intel C2D T8400, 4GB DDR2, 1stGen SSD, NV 8600M GT}. XP ran by far faster than Windows 7 {And I am not just talking about Windows Explorer in W7 being slow}. XP x86_64 was the first OS that I installed {for 64-bit Crysis BTW}. Although if you are talking about an infected XP vs a clean Windows 7, then well that makes sense, but that comparison is FOX NEWS quality.

The major advantage of W7 is it is future proof, when drivers for XP will stop being available. It has a very nice interface - the best I have seen actually. It is much more user friendly. It has Direct2D which offers significant speed boost when browsing. No video tearing. Windows Media Player is really awesome too. gpedid.msc got a great revamp and W7 loads itself on multiple cores which XP cannot do.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Udedenkz

[ArKeYa]

Yea and they will be part of the massive botnets spamming everyone because XP lacks major security features that all modern OSes have, but you know, I'm just jerking off to my windows 7 monthly by not wanting people to run old insecure junk on a world wide network where they end up spamming and DDOSing everybody else...

What do you care? You don't have to worry because you and your brethren are protected by your highly secured uber cool Windows 7 OS. Let the lunatics spam themselves with their old, unsecured and dilapidated XP OS. :angry:

[sanctified Veteran]

Yea and they will be part of the massive botnets spamming everyone because XP lacks major security features that all modern OSes have, but you know, I'm just jerking off to my windows 7 monthly by not wanting people to run old insecure junk on a world wide network where they end up spamming and DDOSing everybody else...

Cry any rivers you want, it will not change anything.

[wellofsouls]

What do you care? You don't have to worry because you and your brethren are protected by your highly secured uber cool Windows 7 OS. Let the lunatics spam themselves with their old, unsecured and dilapidated XP OS. :angry:

OS security only protects against malware attacks on the client side at best, not spamming and DDOS attacks.

It's the mail servers and website servers that are subject to spam and DDOS attacks, so the client OS has little to do with it. If some botnet of millions of WinXP machines DDOS attack and take down your personal blog site, you won't be abled to read or write your blog whether you use WinXP or Win7 on the client side.

[wellofsouls]

Cry any rivers you want, it will not change anything.

considering the fact that WinXP usage is going down steadily and Win7 usage is going up quite fast, things are changing anyway. Times change, old things go, new things come, that's how the world going forward.

[NEVER85]

I can understand using XP if you don't have the budget to upgrade. It's the people that put XP on brand new $1000 machines that need their heads examined.

Oh and I have to add, W7 uses ~600MB more RAM than XP.

Naw, really? A 2009 OS using more memory than a 2001 OS? Who cares? The memory is far better managed in Vista/7. RAM is wasted in XP.

[c3ntury]

Crysis on Ubuntu anyone?

[ArKeYa]

OS security only protects against malware attacks on the client side at best, not spamming and DDOS attacks.

It's the mail servers and website servers that are subject to spam and DDOS attacks, so the client OS has little to do with it. If some botnet of millions of WinXP machines DDOS attack and take down your personal blog site, you won't be abled to read or write your blog whether you use WinXP or Win7 on the client side.

We all now all of that. The question is what do you care? So what if a lot of people are using XP on their old system are you being affected badly because of it? Losing sleep for one? Cannot concentrate on your work because there are still old xp machines out there?

If some botnet of millions of WinXP machines

Operative word is IF. You speak like it occurs more often than it actually does. And if it does happen it'll be done for how long?

I understand there are people who likes to always gets what's new and the latest things that's fine. But you don't have to shove it down to other people's throats especially when they are satisfied with what they have.

[Udedenkz]

Naw, really? A 2009 OS using more memory than a 2001 OS? Who cares? The memory is far better managed in Vista/7. RAM is wasted in XP.

People that care about high performance; you are more likely to have disk trashing on W7 than on XP.

Also read my post before replying - I also addressed your comment on memory management.

[Xilo]

People that care about high performance; you are more likely to have disk trashing on W7 than on XP.

Also read my post before replying - I also addressed your comment on memory management.

More memory usage = less disk thrashing

[Antaris Veteran]

I'm a bit late to this topic, but daaammmnn, what a sensationalist title!

[ahhell]

People that care about high performance; you are more likely to have disk trashing on W7 than on XP.

:no:

WRONG

Win7 is infinitely more efficient in managing memory than XP. If you want high performance, you use Win7. XP is dinosaur that needs to be buried.

[Knife Party]

ahahaha, my god, what has Neowin turned into? Its fanboys galore, what sad sad sad little souls

[Udedenkz]

:no:

WRONG

Win7 is infinitely more efficient in managing memory than XP. If you want high performance, you use Win7. XP is dinosaur that needs to be buried.

There have been countless topics similar to this one, so far no convincing arguments to support this assertion.

I have had my fill of testing RAW XP performance vs. W7 performance. Your assertion of speed superiority is incorrect.

Raw Performance: XP

Usability and Features: W7

Trolling: Linux

[ahhell]

There have been countless topics similar to this one, so far no convincing arguments to support this assertion.

I have had my fill of testing RAW XP performance vs. W7 performance. Your assertion of speed superiority is incorrect.

Raw Performance: XP

Usability and Features: W7

Trolling: Linux

:wacko: Whatever helps you sleep at night dude.

[Xilo]

Don't bother arguing with Udedenkz. He's demonstrated many times on this forum that he really has no clue wtf he's talking about and is obsessed with Windows XP.

[Yakuzing]

This thread should be closed. The "news" does not even mean anything near to what the original post hints at.

Why oh why did it get derailed into a kill xp vs love xp silly thing though.

There won't be DX11 on linux. Just like DX10 didn't arrive.

[wellofsouls]

We all now all of that. The question is what do you care? So what if a lot of people are using XP on their old system are you being affected badly because of it? Losing sleep for one? Cannot concentrate on your work because there are still old xp machines out there?

well, I'm not affected badly by people using old energy inefficient cars out there, but that doesn't mean I can't dislike those old pieces of bulky junks. And more people using old insecure WinXP does mean there's a higher chance of DDOS attacks on my company's and my clients' websites, which is my responsibility to fix.

Operative word is IF. You speak like it occurs more often than it actually does. And if it does happen it'll be done for how long?

I understand there are people who likes to always gets what's new and the latest things that's fine. But you don't have to shove it down to other people's throats especially when they are satisfied with what they have.

I speak only what the statement means upfront, you are clearly reading it wrong IF you think I "speak like it occurs more often than it actually does".

I'm just saying the world is moving forward as WinXP usage is going down and Win7 usage is going up, and that's a good thing too (which can make my job of maintaining websites easier too). I'm not shoving Win7 down on anyone's throats, people move from old obsolete stuff to newer better stuff naturally, it may not happen overnight, but it's always happening, and that's the way of things.