Directx10 for xp ?

I been reading there are files out there to covert to X10 in xp. Anyone try them yet ?


http://www.pcplus.co.uk/news/home_news/directx_10_port_for_windows_xp_users

http://www.technospot.net/blogs/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp-from-alky-project

I would imagine it works fine. Hopefully this will pressure MS into releasing a legit XP version instead of the deceitful forced upgrade tactic they're using currently.

Yeah I also bet AMD/ATi and Nvidia are hoping too then it will push more DX10 based cards off the shelf and everyone's a winner. The difference in some games when you read reviews those comparison shots looks amazing some games in VISTA take a hit I've heard too.

It's only a matter of time before MS break!

Yeah they really need to release a thing so Direct10 can be used in xp, not just vista. Racist...

You guys forget that their job is to make a product and sell it.

If they want to make DX10 Vista only, it is their choice and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

Most games in the future will be dx9/dx10 anyway so there is no "M$ is forcing us to buy Vi$ta!!", it is all in your head.

I swear bill gates is going to come to my door and throw vista at me like a ninja star but I am just going to have to dodge it.

Elluzion said:

I swear bill gates is going to come to my door and throw vista at me like a ninja star but I am just going to have to dodge it.

Click to expand...

He'll use some force pull to extract $$$ out of your wallet too.

anyways are there any true 10dx games out there?

meionm said:

anyways are there any true 10dx games out there?

Click to expand...

How do you mean? There are DX10 games, but they're also backwards compatible with DX9. Generally the DX9 version of the same game doesn't look as good as the DX10 version (there's a few exceptions where the DX10 version was poorly coded/written by the game developer). For better graphics there is a performance hit, which varies from 5% to as much as 30% depending on several factors. In general people are reporting 10% drops in frame rates in DX10/Vista. Not a huge deal considering you get something for the lost frames, not merely losing frames for no reason. There's some issues with DX9 games losing frame rates because of Vista running DX9 as an emulated layer in the OS. I haven't read much on this lately (well, since Vista's release many months ago), so I'm curious to hear if this is still entirely accurate or if M$ has finally fixed enough bugs to get things running on par across the board.

Well as MS always update DX9 for XP often they do it with DX10.1 as thats the new version which is coming out or is and AMD/ATi's new line of cards support it so as it comes it'll get tweaked for better frame rates.

thideras said:

You guys forget that their job is to make a product and sell it.

If they want to make DX10 Vista only, it is their choice and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

Most games in the future will be dx9/dx10 anyway so there is no "M$ is forcing us to buy Vi$ta!!", it is all in your head.

Click to expand...

The issue was that M$ stated that it wasn't even possible to run DX10 on XP. Then a 19 yr old kid figures it out ? Just goes to show you what kind of people are running that business.

anyways are there any true 10dx games out there?

Click to expand...

Not really, no. There are DX9 games out with some DX10 particle effects hacked in. We're not going to see a true DX10 engine for a long time, thanks to it being Vista only. It's just not economically feasible for a gaming studio to alienate a massive segment of users.

I think this was discussed in another thread awhile back, but I read an interesting article/interview with Carmack who was saying that only in 2006 did it start to become feasible from an economic standpoint to completely drop support for Windows 98 in games, but that didn't limit them in gaming engines because Win98 could use DX9. So in theory, if that model holds true, gaming companies will need to support Windows XP through 2012, but will be limited by it's artificial DX handicap.

But we might be in a worse state this time around. Windows 98 came out in June of 98, with XP coming out in October of 2001. Just a little over three years for 98 to proliferate the market, whereas XP had a little over five years to do so. Not to mention computers have been more popular in that time as well.

DSM4Life said:

The issue was that M$ stated that it wasn't even possible to run DX10 on XP. Then a 19 yr old kid figures it out ? Just goes to show you what kind of people are running that business.

Click to expand...

Hehe, your missing the point again

It isn't because they can't run dx10 on XP, they don't want to. If they make it Vista only, more and more people will migrate to it for dx10.

You have to step back and look at it from a business point of view.

Plus it will be a LONG time before games don't give a DX9 option... Look how long DX9 has lasted so far, 4 or 5 years at least! I'm not going to worry about it for at least another year.

Good news for the future:

http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/compatibility/

Ok first off guys, besides those two tech demo's the Alky Project has shown no signs of actually working. Go read their forums, there isn't much. I mean WINE hasn't even done much of anything for D3D10 yet. I'm not saying its not possible, but search our forums there is some other threads on this.


The "technical" reason XP doesn't have DX10 is because with DX10 there was the standard that the new generation of graphic cards had to support virtualization, this would have been great, because one of the major thing holding back virtual machines right now is graphics, there is not easy way to get 3d graphics inside a virtual OS. Sadly though Nvidia couldn't get their 8800 series to work right with virtualization, there was an issue with the memory, so that has become and optional feature of DirectX 10. The reason this was holding DX10 from XP was because it would have required a rewrite of portions of the XP kernel in order to work with this. Just like how to use Xen with Linux you have to compile a new kernel because the changes Xen makes are part of the kernel. (Xen is a virtualization platform for linux) But since this factor has been removed from the table there is no reason besides $$ now.

thideras said:

Hehe, your missing the point again

It isn't because they can't run dx10 on XP, they don't want to. If they make it Vista only, more and more people will migrate to it for dx10.

You have to step back and look at it from a business point of view.

Click to expand...

It is because they can't, because that's what they told the computing industry. While it's obvious that it's more an issue of profits and potential forced upgrades, their official story was that it was not possible with XP due to architectural differences. This has now been proven inaccurate.

thideras said:

Hehe, your missing the point again

It isn't because they can't run dx10 on XP, they don't want to. If they make it Vista only, more and more people will migrate to it for dx10.

You have to step back and look at it from a business point of view.

Click to expand...

So you're admitting it's okay for a company to lie to its customers? I don't know, maybe they really thought it wouldn't work on XP, but then, that makes them lazy and/or not as competent as they should be. So, you get to take your pick between calling them lazy, incompetent programmers or greedy, lying scumbags.

Soichiro said:

So you're admitting it's okay for a company to lie to its customers? I don't know, maybe they really thought it wouldn't work on XP, but then, that makes them lazy and/or not as competent as they should be. So, you get to take your pick between calling them lazy, incompetent programmers or greedy, lying scumbags.

Click to expand...

Can I take all three?

Hope this guy is able to pull this off. I'm not ready to go to Vista yet but would like to experience the eye candy.