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
|
|||
|
|||
Question about SM 4.0, DX10 hardware, & OpenGL
MS decided to force (yes... this is more, or less a "strong
arm" tactic) gamers to give up games that require earlier than DirectX 9 on their new Vista machines (how much of a hit does DX9 games take since DX9 is emulated in Vista?). They also made sure that if we want to play new DirectX 10 required games, that we'd have to drop WinXP, instead of coding DX10 for WinXP. This only shows how Vista is to WinXP as Win98SE was to Win98FE... A few added features, but functunally the same. While non-gamers have Linux, or other open source OSes to go with, us gamers are stuck with MS. Since most game developers seem to only support Windows, & DirectX API, what if all games supported OpenGL as well? Would this allow new games that uses new SM 4.0, & such to work under WinXP? I'm not up to speed on how OpenGL works, or if it can use the hardware effects that DX10 uses to get that new eye-candy. If it can produce the same effects as DX10 using Nvidia's 8xxx, or ATI's R6xx GPUs, can it work under WinXP, or is Vista still needed? I'm not so ****ed that MS is moving to Vista, but I'm ****ed that I have to keep my current system for WinXP, DX9, and lower games while building a complete new system for Vista instead of just upgrading it with a DX10 videocard, & still being able play all the games that work in WinXP (they could have at least made DX10 backwards compatable like DX9 is, or at least made DX10 for WinXP). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Question about SM 4.0, DX10 hardware, & OpenGL
* Larry Roberts:
MS decided to force (yes... this is more, or less a "strong arm" tactic) gamers to give up games that require earlier than DirectX 9 on their new Vista machines That's nonsense. I can run older games down to DirectX7 games on Vista just fine. (how much of a hit does DX9 games take since DX9 is emulated in Vista?). None, since it's not a "real" emulation but just some kind of compatibility layer. Most performance difference comes from the fact that Vista drivers still aren't perfect, but that will improve after Vista is available for the masses.. They also made sure that if we want to play new DirectX 10 required games, that we'd have to drop WinXP, instead of coding DX10 for WinXP. Right, but since DirectX 10 isn't just another new version of DirectX but a really major change it should be understandable that MS only puts ressources into development for their new OS and not for the over 5 year old predecessor... This only shows how Vista is to WinXP as Win98SE was to Win98FE... A few added features, but functunally the same. Maybe for you, but the differences between Vista and Winxp are much bigger than one might think when looking at the new desktop. I'm not so ****ed that MS is moving to Vista, but I'm ****ed that I have to keep my current system for WinXP, DX9, and lower games while building a complete new system for Vista instead of just upgrading it with a DX10 videocard That's correct if your current system has less than 512MB or is something like a Pentium2 300 or something similar old. In other cases chances are very good that it runs Vista just fine. , & still being able play all the games that work in WinXP (they could have at least made DX10 backwards compatable like DX9 is, or at least made DX10 for WinXP). DX10 _is_ backwards compatible through the compatibility layer. Maybe you should try Vista yourself or at least get your knowledge up to date first... Benjamin |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Question about SM 4.0, DX10 hardware, & OpenGL
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 06:40:04 +0100, Benjamin Gawert
wrote: * Larry Roberts: MS decided to force (yes... this is more, or less a "strong arm" tactic) gamers to give up games that require earlier than DirectX 9 on their new Vista machines That's nonsense. I can run older games down to DirectX7 games on Vista just fine. (how much of a hit does DX9 games take since DX9 is emulated in Vista?). None, since it's not a "real" emulation but just some kind of compatibility layer. Most performance difference comes from the fact that Vista drivers still aren't perfect, but that will improve after Vista is available for the masses.. They also made sure that if we want to play new DirectX 10 required games, that we'd have to drop WinXP, instead of coding DX10 for WinXP. Right, but since DirectX 10 isn't just another new version of DirectX but a really major change it should be understandable that MS only puts ressources into development for their new OS and not for the over 5 year old predecessor... This only shows how Vista is to WinXP as Win98SE was to Win98FE... A few added features, but functunally the same. Maybe for you, but the differences between Vista and Winxp are much bigger than one might think when looking at the new desktop. I'm not so ****ed that MS is moving to Vista, but I'm ****ed that I have to keep my current system for WinXP, DX9, and lower games while building a complete new system for Vista instead of just upgrading it with a DX10 videocard That's correct if your current system has less than 512MB or is something like a Pentium2 300 or something similar old. In other cases chances are very good that it runs Vista just fine. , & still being able play all the games that work in WinXP (they could have at least made DX10 backwards compatable like DX9 is, or at least made DX10 for WinXP). DX10 _is_ backwards compatible through the compatibility layer. Maybe you should try Vista yourself or at least get your knowledge up to date first... Benjamin Well, unless I'd be willing to purchase a "cookie cutter" OEM system, I'd have to wait till the retail Vista is available. As for my system, it is quite enough for Vista, and has 2GB RAM, but that's what has me ****ed. I just spent alot of money building it, and pumping more RAM into it, then I hear that Vista was not gona be compatable with my pre-DX9 games, and that even DX9 games would have limited performance. However, if what you say is true, then it makes feel a little better (however MS anti-consumer... I mean anti-piracy stuff is crap). I'm not looking to build another system for another year, & a half, or two. I'd like to be able to play new games, but also play my old favorites as well on this one PC. I already have to have a P3, Voodoo5 with Win98SE to play old games that don't run under WinXP. I don't have space for another system. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Question about SM 4.0, DX10 hardware, & OpenGL
* Larry Roberts:
Well, unless I'd be willing to purchase a "cookie cutter" OEM system, I'd have to wait till the retail Vista is available. As for my system, it is quite enough for Vista, and has 2GB RAM, but that's what has me ****ed. I just spent alot of money building it, and pumping more RAM into it, then I hear that Vista was not gona be compatable with my pre-DX9 games, and that even DX9 games would have limited performance. Quite understandable, but since there is so much bull**** written on websites and forums I strongly recommend to take everything with a grain of salt. Especially since most people complaining never used the RTM version. And the beta versions (RC1 and RC2) are hardly a reference because there changed a lot between them and the RTM version of Vista. Besides that, beta versions usually contain tons of debugging code which slows down the system and also can cause nasty errors. However, if what you say is true, then it makes feel a little better (however MS anti-consumer... I mean anti-piracy stuff is crap). I'm not looking to build another system for another year, & a half, or two. I'd like to be able to play new games, but also play my old favorites as well on this one PC. I already have to have a P3, Voodoo5 with Win98SE to play old games that don't run under WinXP. I don't have space for another system. Well, every somewhat newer system of say the last 4 years or so should run Vista just fine if it has enough memory (512MB is minimum, 1GB recommend). Just for fun I had Vista run on an old HP Netserver E800 with P3 1.1GHz, 768MB RAM and slow ATI RageXL 4MB on-Board gfx (well, it's just a server). Besides the lazy gfx it ran ok and performed around the same like Windows Server 2003. I also have an old HP x2000 P4 2GHz (Williamette, the first P4 generation which has only 256k of Cache) with 1GB RDRAM and GF 6600 256MB, and Vista runs very fine on it. Most of todays problems with games on Vista are caused not by DirectX but by drivers (current Vista drivers have a lot of room for improvement), by outdated installers or by games getting confused if run without administrator privileges. Benjamin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Question about SM 4.0, DX10 hardware, & OpenGL
"what if all games supported
OpenGL as well? Would this allow new games that uses new SM 4.0, & such to work under WinXP? I'm not up to speed on how OpenGL works, or if it can use the hardware effects that DX10 uses to get that new eye-candy. If it can produce the same effects as DX10 using Nvidia's 8xxx, or ATI's R6xx GPUs, can it work under WinXP" I was also wondering about this. Especially OpenGL 2.0 supposed to be a big-deal, like DX10, right? Anyone here have answers to these questions? GT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Old hardwa question | [email protected] | General | 2 | October 22nd 05 01:56 AM |
xp legasy hardware question | !Allen Lasting | Homebuilt PC's | 11 | September 17th 04 02:42 AM |
hardware compatibility question regarding compaq deskpro 1.0 Ghz | J Santos | Compaq Computers | 4 | September 16th 04 12:46 PM |
hardware compatibility question regarding compaq deskpro 1.0 Ghz | J Santos | Compaq Computers | 2 | September 14th 04 05:43 PM |
Multiplier question, bios or hardware... ? | Bougon | General | 1 | June 24th 03 12:58 AM |