Direct X10 For Vista Only

WingaWinga MrSouth Africa Icrontian
edited June 2006 in Science & Tech
Those who plan to buy Direct X 10 hardware will have to buy Vista as well if they want to use it's full potential.

It seems the current driver model on the Windows XP is the limitation. A key feature of Direct X 10 is it's ability to handle more independent objects and Windows XP simply won't be able to deal with it.
Direct X 10 hardware will of course run Direct X 9 games and is supposed to do it a lot faster.
The Vole, ATI, Nvidia and the other creators of the Direct X 10 specification wanted to make sure that you will be offered the toppest-notch gaming experience.
Source: The Inquirer

Comments

  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    Winga wrote:
    Direct X 10 hardware will of course run Direct X 9 games and is supposed to do it a lot faster.

    According to Microsoft the opposite is true. Games that aren't DirectX10 will need to be almost emulated ergo performing WORSE than on a DX9 machine (the only redeeming point being that DX10 cards would [normally] be more powerful than the older DX9 cards and may initially take some of the blow, but I doubt all of it).

    Although, I offer free slaps for anyone that didn't see this coming.
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    heh... so am I correct in assuming...

    "GET VISTA OR YOU'RE SCREWED!"
  • airbornflghtairbornflght Houston, TX Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    RWB wrote:
    heh... so am I correct in assuming...

    "GET VISTA OR YOU'RE SCREWED!"


    Yes, pretty much.:Pwned: (by M$) Although, this isnt the first time M$ did this. Well, I wonder when Xp's EOL is going to be.
  • rapturerapture
    edited June 2006
    I thought this pretty much common knowledge already. Microsoft can't take all the blame either...
  • Unknown
    edited June 2006
    Well at least none of us have shelled out vast quantaties of money on a DX9 SLi setup that will be obselete when vista launches right? er...
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    Oh, great, more "Bend Over, Here Comes Vista!" news... :(
  • jradminjradmin North Kackalaki
    edited June 2006
    What about all these cards that say they are designed for Windows Vista? Thats like false advertisment right?
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    I don't think it's necessarily false advertising. Aero Glass apparently runs on DX9 hardware just fine, as long as you have enough video RAM. The cards that are advertising made for Vista are probably talking about being able to run Aero Glass.
  • airbornflghtairbornflght Houston, TX Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    GHoosdum wrote:
    I don't think it's necessarily false advertising. Aero Glass apparently runs on DX9 hardware just fine, as long as you have enough video RAM. The cards that are advertising made for Vista are probably talking about being able to run Aero Glass.

    Is it seriously going to suck up that much juice?
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    airbornflght wrote:
    Is it seriously going to suck up that much juice?

    Something like 128-256MB of Video RAM required just to run Vista with Aero Glass enabled, IIRC.
  • airbornflghtairbornflght Houston, TX Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    good god, my video card only has 256, and I thought that was a lot. damn!
  • Yayo01Yayo01 Member
    edited June 2006
    Vista sucks to the bone.....i will never buy the damn thing....ill stick with WinXP
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    Wow... Linux's XGL looks much better than Aero Glass and will even run on crappy old cards. What the fear with optimising things these days so they'll actually run on anything other than the actual best of the best?
  • rapturerapture
    edited June 2006
    Vista sucks to the bone.....i will never buy the damn thing....ill stick with WinXP

    Same thing was said over and over again about XP and Win2k. What's everybody using (and defending) now?
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    rapture-IC wrote:
    Same thing was said over and over again about XP and Win2k. What's everybody using (and defending) now?

    Little choice, can't really use 98 due to it's now complete discontinuance.
  • rapturerapture
    edited June 2006
    You seriously expect me to believe you think Windows 98 is better than XP?
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    No, I don't. But I have friends that would rather use it, but, for people that needed or wanted to use programs that worked on 98 but not XP then it would have been better then aswell.
  • Unknown
    edited June 2006
    Well here you go, since you can try the damn thing out for yourself and see how it works on your rig. I installed 32bit Win Vista on a rig with these specs;

    AMD 3000+ socketA
    512mb ram
    ATI 9600xt
    80GB HDD

    Runs smooth. Few slow ups, and everything performs exactly the same as on WinXP. Seriously as far as realworld performance goes it was equal to how that rig runs xp. Obviously with the limited RAM I was unable to run 56820572 windows open and 18501058 more apps running the background, but I couldn't do that with winxp anyway. DX9 was more than capable to handle all of Vistas out of the box features, at least what they gave us in Beta 1
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited June 2006
    WinXP and 2000 was bad when they first came out. I hated XP at first but it got better with Age. Hell I even managed to get Windows 98 to run pretty damned well if you ask me...

    Vista will get better as well, hopefully quick.
  • rapturerapture
    edited June 2006
    I've used XP since it was released to OEMs. Other than having to use Win2k drivers with some devices at the beginning which caused its own problems I cant complain at all. I only bought it cause of the green start button, never expected it to actually be half decent.
Sign In or Register to comment.