If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Vista and old DX version
Read somthing on a forum about Microsoft dropping backwards DX support
in Vista. They will emulate DX9 (slowdown) and drop DX7 and DX8 (no more games like NFS3, NFS5 and stuff). Can this be for real= Havn't they annoyed enough people with the messed up IE7 userinterface How do they expect all home user to upgrade if all their old games will either run slow or not at all? Or are they gambling on them not noticing until AFTER they have upgraded (and then they can't go back)? -- Lars-Erik - http://www.osterud.name - ICQ 7297605 XP, Asus P4PE, 2.53 GHz, Asus V8420 (Ti4200), SB-Live |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Vista and old DX version
* Lars-Erik Østerud:
Read somthing on a forum about Microsoft dropping backwards DX support in Vista. They will emulate DX9 (slowdown) and drop DX7 and DX8 (no more games like NFS3, NFS5 and stuff). Can this be for real= Well, somewhat, but different than you think.. FYI: DirectX 9 will run in a compatibility layer which (as soon as Vista gfx drivers are up on par with the XP drivers which isn't the case yet) probably will be noticeably faster than the native DirectX 9 in Windowsxp. It's right there is no DirectX 7 or DirectX 8 in Vista. But then, there is no DirectX 7 and DirectX 8 in Windowsxp, too. DirectX 9 is backward compatible back to DirectX 5 so you don't need to install all DirectX versions (which btw is not possible). You can be sure that the DirectX 9 compatibility layer is at least compatible with DirectX 8 games (and probably also down to DirectX 5). How do they expect all home user to upgrade if all their old games will either run slow or not at all? Or are they gambling on them not noticing until AFTER they have upgraded (and then they can't go back)? I assume they don't expect home users to believe every crap they hear or read somewhere. And there is a lot of FUD spread around, which also was the case with every former release of a new Windows version. Some things probably never change... Benjamin |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Vista and old DX version
"Benjamin Gawert" wrote in message ...
* Lars-Erik Østerud: Read somthing on a forum about Microsoft dropping backwards DX support in Vista. They will emulate DX9 (slowdown) and drop DX7 and DX8 (no more games like NFS3, NFS5 and stuff). Can this be for real= Well, somewhat, but different than you think.. FYI: DirectX 9 will run in a compatibility layer which (as soon as Vista gfx drivers are up on par with the XP drivers which isn't the case yet) probably will be noticeably faster than the native DirectX 9 in Windowsxp. I'll believe that when I see it. In the meantime, benchmarks have Vista 30-40% slower than XP, e.g.: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...review_11.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Vista and old DX version
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:31:07 GMT, wrote:
I'll believe that when I see it. In the meantime, benchmarks have Vista 30-40% slower than XP, e.g.: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...review_11.html No, they have the Vista beta running very beta drivers being slower than XP. Vista and drivers has improved a lot since then. All this BS is the same as when XP came out. It was a minor downgrade in performance, but that is all long forgotten as hardware moved on and the advantages of a new OS overcome the potential loss of a few theoretical FPS. -- Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Vista and old DX version
wrote:
"Benjamin Gawert" wrote in message ... * Lars-Erik Østerud: Read somthing on a forum about Microsoft dropping backwards DX support in Vista. They will emulate DX9 (slowdown) and drop DX7 and DX8 (no more games like NFS3, NFS5 and stuff). Can this be for real= Well, somewhat, but different than you think.. FYI: DirectX 9 will run in a compatibility layer which (as soon as Vista gfx drivers are up on par with the XP drivers which isn't the case yet) probably will be noticeably faster than the native DirectX 9 in Windowsxp. I'll believe that when I see it. In the meantime, benchmarks have Vista 30-40% slower than XP, e.g.: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...review_11.html With all of Vista's overhead at the OS level, I can't see how it could ever run faster than XP. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Vista and old DX version
"Lars-Erik Østerud" .@. wrote in message
[...] Havn't they annoyed enough people with the messed up IE7 userinterface I've come to like it over the IE6 interface. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Vista and old DX version
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:55:22 +0100, Lars-Erik Østerud .@. wrote:
Read somthing on a forum about Microsoft dropping backwards DX support in Vista. They will emulate DX9 (slowdown) and drop DX7 and DX8 (no more games like NFS3, NFS5 and stuff). Can this be for real= Havn't they annoyed enough people with the messed up IE7 userinterface How do they expect all home user to upgrade if all their old games will either run slow or not at all? Or are they gambling on them not noticing until AFTER they have upgraded (and then they can't go back)? -- Lars-Erik - http://www.osterud.name - ICQ 7297605 XP, Asus P4PE, 2.53 GHz, Asus V8420 (Ti4200), SB-Live Chicken Little..... There is no compulsion to upgrade. WinXP will be fully supported by Microsoft till 2013. Also no need to upgrade hardware. Also, all games have to support Dx9 for at least the next 2 years -- the penetration of Vista as an OS is going to be far more dependent on new-computer sales (with Vista pre-installed) than ever WinXP was. The 50% crossover point in XP vs Vista installations is likely to be AT LEAST 2 years and PC game developers cannot afford to cut out that many potential customers by only supporting Vista and/or Dx10. For any that are thinking of upgrading to Vista, I suggest a long pause to research the many 3rd-party utilities and applications that they now take for granted and check for those that either will require PAID upgrades or be never compatible with Vista because the developer is defunct. John Lewis |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Vista and old DX version
"No One" wrote in message ...
wrote: "Benjamin Gawert" wrote in message ... * Lars-Erik Østerud: Read somthing on a forum about Microsoft dropping backwards DX support in Vista. They will emulate DX9 (slowdown) and drop DX7 and DX8 (no more games like NFS3, NFS5 and stuff). Can this be for real= Well, somewhat, but different than you think.. FYI: DirectX 9 will run in a compatibility layer which (as soon as Vista gfx drivers are up on par with the XP drivers which isn't the case yet) probably will be noticeably faster than the native DirectX 9 in Windowsxp. I'll believe that when I see it. In the meantime, benchmarks have Vista 30-40% slower than XP, e.g.: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...review_11.html With all of Vista's overhead at the OS level, I can't see how it could ever run faster than XP. Agreed. That why I'm highly skeptical of the claim that driver optimizations will close or eliminate the performance gap. I just don't believe it's possible with Vista. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Vista and old DX version
John Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:55:22 +0100, Lars-Erik Østerud .@. wrote: Read somthing on a forum about Microsoft dropping backwards DX support in Vista. They will emulate DX9 (slowdown) and drop DX7 and DX8 (no more games like NFS3, NFS5 and stuff). Can this be for real= Havn't they annoyed enough people with the messed up IE7 userinterface How do they expect all home user to upgrade if all their old games will either run slow or not at all? Or are they gambling on them not noticing until AFTER they have upgraded (and then they can't go back)? -- Lars-Erik - http://www.osterud.name - ICQ 7297605 XP, Asus P4PE, 2.53 GHz, Asus V8420 (Ti4200), SB-Live Chicken Little..... There is no compulsion to upgrade. WinXP will be fully supported by Microsoft till 2013. Also no need to upgrade hardware. Also, all games have to support Dx9 for at least the next 2 years -- the penetration of Vista as an OS is going to be far more dependent on new-computer sales (with Vista pre-installed) than ever WinXP was. The 50% crossover point in XP vs Vista installations is likely to be AT LEAST 2 years and PC game developers cannot afford to cut out that many potential customers by only supporting Vista and/or Dx10. For any that are thinking of upgrading to Vista, I suggest a long pause to research the many 3rd-party utilities and applications that they now take for granted and check for those that either will require PAID upgrades or be never compatible with Vista because the developer is defunct. Total agreement. Besides having ram overhead of approx. 450 megs on a clean install, the amount of people that are going to upgrade their existing PC's will be very low. I know people who still run Win98 (and like it). When a 128meg Radeon 9200se won't run Aero, how many more people are left hanging. Besides the pretty graphics of the Vista desktop, I have found the "NEW SECURE" interface a complete pain. From an admin perspective, everything takes extra clicks just to do standard tasks. Worthless. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|