A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Nvidia Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Vista and old DX version



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 15th 07, 06:55 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
Lars-Erik Østerud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default 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  
Old January 15th 07, 08:32 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
Benjamin Gawert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,020
Default 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  
Old January 16th 07, 03:31 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #4  
Old January 16th 07, 06:05 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
Benjamin Gawert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,020
Default Vista and old DX version

* :

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

Maybe that's why I wrote "as soon as Vista gfx drivers are up on par
with the XP drivers which isn't the case yet". Both ATI and Nvidia just
have some Beta drivers available that are really far from being perfect
and are slow and suffer from several bugs. It probably will take some
time and several driver releases until the drivers are as efficient as
the ones for Windowsxp...

Benjamin
  #5  
Old January 16th 07, 08:36 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
Andrew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default 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.
  #7  
Old January 17th 07, 03:43 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
DRS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 588
Default 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  
Old January 17th 07, 04:22 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
John Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 392
Default 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  
Old January 17th 07, 04:30 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 17th 07, 06:36 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
Mön§igñor ßoddoM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.