DX11 Coming To Linux (But Not XP)

[rajputwarrior]

Ok, that is fine, but then why do they **** and moan because they are being left out in the cold? Why do they constantly expect to be catered to by Microsoft?

Those ones are just dumb, but around here that's a miniority i think. Most people around here from my experience who still use XP around here know it's a dying horse and aren't expecting much more out of it, well that's me at least.

[Frylock86]

Those ones are just dumb, but around here that's a miniority i think. Most people around here from my experience who still use XP around here know it's a dying horse and aren't expecting much more out of it, well that's me at least.

That to me is the most frustrating aspect. There are those that cannot upgrade, but then there are a few who can upgrade, but refuse to, thinking that if I yell and scream loud enough, maybe even threaten to convert to Linux, Microsoft will have no choice but to support my OS of choice forever. And that to me is quite amusing to watch as they are realizing that that isn't the case.

[deactivated_]

OMG, You mean DX11 won't be released for Windows 98? *gasp*

Oh wait... where do you draw the line on supporting ancient operating systems and not end up with people complaining?

[Brody McKee]

I don't get why anyone would use XP anymore...

[cork1958]

You still have people in your family that you talk to enough to know they exist using XP? I ended that "problem" when Vista came around so everyone I know is using Vista/7/Ubuntu.

Porting this to XP is like trying to take a racehorse to the Kentucky Derby years past its prime and expecting it to win the race. It is too old and weak to be relavent anymore. It was good in its day (to some).

I love the non sequitur logic of the article though. Just because some Linux dev is attempting to port DX11 Microsoft needs to back peddle it to every OS since the dawn of man.

Ha!

I've PURPOSELY blown away family and friends computers (many, many of them also) that came with that crap Vista on them and installed XP on them. Works and runs MUCH better than Vista ever did or will!! Wouldn't install that Vista trash on an enemies computer!!

As far as on topic, DX11 on Linux would be sweet as heck!! Still wouldn't make me switch totally to Linux though.

[Ci7]

I don't get why anyone would use XP anymore...

1. backward Compatibility

2. can't afford

3.or n00bs/cry babies :p

4. all of above

[rajputwarrior]

I don't get why anyone would use XP anymore...

No there not, people who are using XP have specific reasons to use XP or just don't see the point of upgrading because it doesn't really suit there needs or budget at the moment. No one is really arguing that XP is better then 7.

1. backward Compatibility

2. can't afford

3.or n00bs/cry babies :p

4. all of above

[tablet_user]

to those who on are windows 7 and can't lay off people who are still on XP

get over it.

its got nothing to do with using win 7 and bothering people still on XP. The majority of the stuff i have seen on this is XP users either getting ****ed that xp isnt supported in something or trying to find ways to force it (dx10 hacks) on xp. If it was expensive i would be a bit defensive for xp users but I just got my mom a quad core windows 7 computer for like 500 so its not at all expensive anymore to get it done.

[ahhell]

Ha!

I've PURPOSELY blown away family and friends computers (many, many of them also) that came with that crap Vista on them and installed XP on them. Works and runs MUCH better than Vista ever did or will!! Wouldn't install that Vista trash on an enemies computer!!

:rolleyes:

I see you are "one of those" people.

You know the ones that talk out of their asses.

[rajputwarrior]

:rolleyes:

I see you are "one of those" people.

You know the ones that talk out of their asses.

try networking multiple computers when vista came back then tell me it wasn't in the pain in the ass...

its got nothing to do with using win 7 and bothering people still on XP. The majority of the stuff i have seen on this is XP users either getting ****ed that xp isnt supported in something or trying to find ways to force it (dx10 hacks) on xp. If it was expensive i would be a bit defensive for xp users but I just got my mom a quad core windows 7 computer for like 500 so its not at all expensive anymore to get it done.

500 could be nothing for you but for some people that's a week worths of work when they have a family support. It's all relative.

[tablet_user]

500 could be nothing for you but for some people that's a week worths of work when they have a family support. It's all relative.

you pay to play. If buying a pc every 10 years is too expensive then your in the wrong hobby.

[rajputwarrior]

you pay to play. If buying a pc every 10 years is too expensive then your in the wrong hobby.

and the majority of people who keep XP aren't computer geeks, so well put bud :rolleyes:

[HawkMan]

it is the same tech, it's just not built into the OS itself. That fact means it'll obviously work better in Wondows 7/Vista, but it's still the exact same tech.

Same thing, but it's missing 1/4ths of it. the search and saved searched may be there. but that's just a quarter of the indexing/cataloging functionality in 7.

Ha!

I've PURPOSELY blown away family and friends computers (many, many of them also) that came with that crap Vista on them and installed XP on them. Works and runs MUCH better than Vista ever did or will!! Wouldn't install that Vista trash on an enemies computer!!

As far as on topic, DX11 on Linux would be sweet as heck!! Still wouldn't make me switch totally to Linux though.

or you could have just upgraded the drivers and vista would have run better than XP ever would

[hdood]

You can't scroll in an app that you aren't currently viewing. Like any background task such as word you can't hover over it and scroll while browsing a web page. How something like this isn't built into the OS already just baffles me, especially with snap, it's basic functionality that would compliment snap sooo nicely.

Backwards compatibility. I suppose it might be possible to add new messages that only programs specifically designed for it would know what mean, but it would still introduce problems with programs that make assumptions about how the mouse works and expect it to behave the same even though it's outside of the window.

[HawkMan]

You can scroll in non active apps. depend on the mouse driver/software actually, Intellipoint allows it, and logitech's software allows it, and third party add ons activate it.

[Kreuger]

No sane person uses XP in 2010

I have it on my mom's computer because it does what she needs. She can get her banking done, pop on facebook and google any old history she wants. Why would I waste over 100 bucks to upgrade it?

On topic, its good news for gamers I guess but it means nothing to me

[J_R_G]

I have it on my mom's computer because it does what she needs. She can get her banking done, pop on facebook and google any old history she wants. Why would I waste over 100 bucks to upgrade it?

On topic, its good news for gamers I guess but it means nothing to me

Windows Vista and Windows 7 are way more resistant against malware, especially 0-day exploiting malware, compared to XP. XP is wide open to 0-days, in the browser for instance, 9 times out 10 Vista and Win 7 are usually immune and when they are not they have sandboxing plus run the user as standard user by default. There is still malware on Vista/7 but it is probably mostly stuff the user got tricked into downloading and installing and clicking OK to UAC for. I would never do banking on XP, XP is probably responsible for almost all botnet computers, thanks to people like you who think "there's no reason to upgrade, XP does everything, blah blah blah" who've seemingly never heard of ASLR or mandatory access controls, defense in depth, Microsoft's SDL, and so on.

[hdood]

You can scroll in non active apps. depend on the mouse driver/software actually, Intellipoint allows it, and logitech's software allows it, and third party add ons activate it.

I'm sure. There are no real limits to how you can extend Windows. He should take a look at that if he wants the feature.

What I mean is that you're unlikely to see things like this in the OS itself, because compatibility comes before most things at Microsoft, and some programs actually do make assumptions about how Windows works and could outright crash or corrupt data if they, say, expect the window to always be activated before receiving scroll messages.

Every little change has far-reaching consequences.

Windows Vista and Windows 7 are way more resistant against malware, especially 0-day exploiting malware, compared to XP. XP is wide open to 0-days, in the browser for instance, 9 times out 10 Vista and Win 7 are usually immune and when they are not they have sandboxing plus run the user as standard user by default. There is still malware on Vista/7 but it is probably mostly stuff the user got tricked into downloading and installing and clicking OK to UAC for. I would never do banking on XP, XP is probably responsible for almost all botnet computers, thanks to people like you who think "there's no reason to upgrade, XP does everything, blah blah blah" who've seemingly never heard of ASLR or mandatory access controls, defense in depth, Microsoft's SDL, and so on.

Don't worry, once XP truly is gone and everyone is on 7, it will be just as riddled with the same problems. Windows 7 is not particularly immune to anything, malware just requires adapting. User education is the only thing that can help.

[Orange Battery]

I could understand it if XP wasn't supported now but I still have not seen any reason why an XP user who:

1) Has a console for gaming, or is not a gamer

2) Has never had any security or stability issues.

XP is a stable os, 7 offers no new features where it counts for me as a long term PC user. I have no extra control over file manipulation or cataloguing, there is no in depth control of the os or expert functions if anything is been dumbed down.

So why do I need to upgrade, apart from:

XP sucks

XP needs to die

Because Win 7 is the best os ever (without a solid reason)

[notuptome2004]

I have it on my mom's computer because it does what she needs. She can get her banking done, pop on facebook and google any old history she wants. Why would I waste over 100 bucks to upgrade it?

On topic, its good news for gamers I guess but it means nothing to me

My mom dont Game and she is on windows 7 because she hated windows XP and had to keep calling me to figure out how to do this or that in the OS but now she is on 7 has yet to call me for help on anything so yea

Windows 7 is the best windows OS for gaming but by no means is it its only Reason to upgrade and or use windows 7 you XP users make it sound like 7 was made for gaming and that because your not a gamer you feel no need to use windows 7 ( oh and most of you have not used windows 7 so you have no clue how windows 7 is with the same damn task ya perform in windows XP)

Windows 7 works in the following scenarios

Gaming.

Video production.

Productivity task : Spread sheet word processing all the rest ya can think of.

and every damn task you have ever needed a computer for and yet it will do those task far better more efficient you will be able to do those task faster

[Mr. Gibs]

I could understand it if XP wasn't supported now but I still have not seen any reason why an XP user who:

1) Has a console for gaming, or is not a gamer

2) Has never had any security or stability issues.

XP is a stable os, 7 offers no new features where it counts for me as a long term PC user. I have no extra control over file manipulation or cataloguing, there is no in depth control of the os or expert functions if anything is been dumbed down.

So why do I need to upgrade, apart from:

XP sucks

XP needs to die

Because Win 7 is the best os ever (without a solid reason)

I pretty much have no security or stability issues, guess that means I should go back to Windows 3.1. Amirite?

If you want to use old software, do so by all means. We don't care. But, seriously, don't expect new software to work with it.

[Frylock86]

Don't worry, once XP truly is gone and everyone is on 7, it will be just as riddled with the same problems.

I don't think it will.

Both Windows Vista and Windows 7 have shown how stable and versatile they can be. Windows Rot is a thing of the past, and it has been proven by Ed Bott and company that Windows Vista and Windows 7 both receive fewer security bulletins than XP does each month. Both operating systems are better secured than what XP could ever hope to acquire, even with third party junk installed.

[hdood]

I don't think it will.

Both Windows Vista and Windows 7 have shown how stable and versatile they can be. Windows Rot is a thing of the past, and it has been proven by Ed Bott and company that Windows Vista and Windows 7 both receive fewer security bulletins than XP does each month. Both operating systems are better secured than what XP could ever hope to acquire, even with third party junk installed.

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.)

[Orange Battery]

I pretty much have no security or stability issues, guess that means I should go back to Windows 3.1. Amirite?

If you want to use old software, do so by all means. We don't care. But, seriously, don't expect new software to work with it.

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.

[treemonster]

hey guys why doesn't ms support win 98 anymore? it's stable and does everything i want it to and runs old games great and win xp vista and 7 do nothing that win 98 can't do really right? i think i should be able to have dx11 and ie 9 on win 98 ok?

but seriously, there's more reasons to update to 7 than simple ui tweaks, the way indexing and search works, or the file system works(though imho, once you get used to the way 7 treats libraries and even better get into customizing this feature to your own wants and needs...) there also security, even if that security is simply because hackers have yet to fully adapt their malware to vista and 7. there's also resource management and the way win 7 utilizes your hardware better than xp could ever hope to, which makes me shake my head in disbelief when people have modern or fairly recent hardware being managed by win xp.

as for vista ever being bad or slow, well that was true in teh first year before 3rd party driver support was decent(and that goes for pretty much all hardware manufacturers- and they had plenty of time to get on board with vista before it was released, so it really wasn't ms's fault), or more likely, vista was preinstalled on machines built with minimum/medium specs for xp, which was partially ms's fault(as they aggressively encouraged prebuilt PC vendors to adopt vista on all their products) though nowadays we see prebuilt pc vendors having learned from this, kinda, which is demonstrated with the huge amounts of ram modern prebuilts ship with, which is usually 4-8gb on low-mid range packages. so if you were spending the money to downgrade a vista machine to xp, instead of spending even less money to simply add another gb or 2 of ram, then you were doing the PC owner a disservice in the long run and wasting their money in the short run. it would be like downgrading to ie6 on a pc because you don't like the ui of ie9.