Results 41 to 60 of 61
26-06-2012, 03:08 PM #41
Could have, would have, should have.
I'm sorry but this is silly. You're basically asking them to endlessly support an old operating system because it's remotely possible to port new APIs to it, because an entirely different API can do it too.
Well newsflash, DirectX is not OpenGL and whether we like it or not the former has been the standard for Windows gaming for quite a while. Sure Microsoft could do a lot of things, but in the end they decided to "catch up" with Direct3D 10 with the new kernel and driver model of their new operating system in mind without having to tie it back into their "expiring" previous OS, and it's idiotic to blame them for that. Windows 2000 was a lot closer to XP than Vista and even that was eventually outdated for games because it stopped getting the newer DLLs with all the little changes and advances in minor DirectX releases.
I severely doubt that the whole DX10 thing was just a PR stunt to get people to shell out for a new OS and hardware, because realistically that wouldn't work and everyone could already see that back then - the enthusiast market is tiny compared to Joe User and corporate users who have zero interest in the latest DX10 games/hardware. So the majority of Windows users didn't care, and the smarter enthusiasts knew that eventually they'd upgrade anyway and new cards will support the API that wouldn't be used widely in games for years to come.
So in terms of conspiracy theories yours is pretty weak.
Last edited by orcane; 26-06-2012 at 03:13 PM.Stealth Mode!
26-06-2012, 03:33 PM #42
- Join Date
- May 2012
DirectX 10 may have overhauled and deprecated some functionality but since when was deprecating outdated functions a requirement for a hardware change, especially when hardly anyone transitioned over to Vista. Nothing you actually mention necessitates a hardware upgrade, beyond Microsoft making a hardware upgrade a requirement if you wanted to use the "new" rendering features of Direct3D 10.
As I said before the visible additions to Direct3D that Microsoft used in its marketing, did not actually require some new hardware.
Originally Posted by orcane
There was genuine fear that OGL development would disappear on Windows platforms:
Last edited by byteCrunch; 26-06-2012 at 03:50 PM.
26-06-2012, 09:18 PM #43
Don't forget Shadowrun. It was hyped as a Vista game, but a simple crack enabled it to work on Windows XP:
- 1. Extract RARs
- 2. Install
- 3. Go into your installationfolder and delete the srsw_shadowrun.dll.
- 4. Copy srs_shadowrun.dll and srsx_shadowrun.dll to your installationfolder.
- 5. If you want the XP compatability, copy the files from the xp/ subdir to
- your installationfolder.
- 6. If you want a shortcut on your desktop, this is the time to make one!
- 7. Play!
- 8. Have fun!
It worked until they released a patch.
26-06-2012, 09:33 PM #44
Shadowrun and Halo 2 loaded bigger data chunks in the RAM memory than XP allowed. IIRC Halo 2 only did this once in the Gravemind level. The cracks forced them to split the data.
26-06-2012, 10:18 PM #45
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
DX10 is a redesign from scratch of the whole API, and also a redesign of GPU hardware with shaders being unified and geometry shaders added (as well as compute shaders, although they were only exposed via CUDA or ATI Stream).
It includes a ton of things that require an hardware upgrade, such as geometry shaders, correct sRGB blending, additional texture formats, pixel shader features like texture lookups in vertex shaders, integer operations in shaders, system values in shaders, higher limits, etc. (these just off my mind)
OpenGL had a version of tessellation that was not hardware accelerated, not programmable and not used by anyone.
In other words, your whole post is bullshit.
Regarding restricting DX10 to Vista, it was obviously done to sell Vista, although porting WDDM and DX10 to XP would have taken some engineering effort.
26-06-2012, 10:51 PM #46
An effort they understandably didn't want to make for an aging operating system that wouldn't get much use out of the new feature anyway.
Making Halo 2 and Shadowrun (and Alan Wake before it was moved to Xbox exclusively) Vista-exclusive was bad but also had nothing to do with DirectX 10 and everything with Vista PR. It's justified to complain about this, but not porting DX10 to XP was fine.
It also didn't affect most games - before reinstalling and using Windows 7, I've had Vista64 and XP on my PC since 2009 and IIRC I only played a single game since then that had no DX9 render path for XP (Just Cause 2).Stealth Mode!
27-06-2012, 01:15 AM #47
Also it's kind of amusing that people think that DX10 was the major selling point of Vista. I shouldn't have to remind you that PC gamers aren't the majority in the PC world at all; by and large PCs do work-related tasks. The casual "PC gamers" don't even need a meaty GPU with the capability to use DX10 effectively, so you can count them out of the 'marketing' hype. Really, Microsoft arbitrarily limited DX10 to sell more copies of Vista. Copies which were probably pirated or OEM versions with bits and pieces of hardware. Sure thing...
27-06-2012, 02:38 AM #48
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
27-06-2012, 06:43 AM #49
but win7 is to vista what XP SP1 was to vanilla XP was isn't it?
other problem with vista was that it was too power hungry. and it was installed on notebooks which could not run it properly. that problem does not exist with win7 because tech moved on and i think it is less power hungry than vista.
so the issue is not that rebrand is super effective (it does contribute tough) but that win7 genuinely was better system for users in day one than vista.
and for users it does not matter whether it is virtually identical. it matters only that when they had vista they had troubles. when they got win7 they did not have those troubles.
27-06-2012, 08:05 AM #50
27-06-2012, 08:34 AM #51
27-06-2012, 09:31 AM #52
27-06-2012, 10:17 AM #53
They actually can be blamed for many things in Vista.
Despite of some improvements Vista was quite the resource hog and had several issues that weren't fixed till 7 (and some never, eg. it was a massive step backwards in letting users customize their UI experience that was exacerbated with the mandatory start menu redesign in 7). These things were not driver problems, like the way the OS rendered the desktop/UI which occasionally made it seem unresponsive until they completely changed it for 7. Vista was also quite a mess before SP1 - it was sluggish, copy/move was slow, UAC was obnoxious, etc.
It was clearly usable and in several ways an improvement over XP, but not for the average user. It's too easy to say "Vista was good, just 3rd party drivers were bad", and inaccurate.Stealth Mode!
27-06-2012, 11:08 AM #54
- Join Date
- May 2012
At the end of the day it achieved the desired result with alot of OGL graphics programmers being worried they might be out of the job if they didn't switch, so they did, this is why we are at the point where DirectX is so dominant in gaming, only now thanks to mobile platforms/indie developers and OGL ES are we even seeing OGL make a comeback in the gaming space. Widespread OGL use would give more access to games for people on non-Windows platforms.
Last edited by byteCrunch; 27-06-2012 at 11:25 AM.
27-06-2012, 12:54 PM #55
DirectX was already dominant in Windows gaming before Vista, and OpenGL largely ignored in Ati/Nvidia Windows drivers...Stealth Mode!
27-06-2012, 03:25 PM #56
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
As I said, win 7 DID recognise all the above hardware in the same pc with legacy drivers to support it.
Why do you focus on creative so much? Are you missing the part where it also didn't support my (extremely popular and not even 2 years old) nforce 2 mobo's built in sound and network cards? That there was no driver that worked with the ever so popular and still relevant and recent radeon 9800 pro (granted I blame AMD for this more).
And again , win 7 had proper drivers included for all of those!
Clearly they can if they want to, they just couldn't be arsed with vista.
Even in the case of creative sound cards MS shared the responsibility to make an OS that frigging FUNCTIONS with current (and extremely common and popular) hardware.
Like one in three people had an audigy or audigy 2 back then...
Last edited by Finicky; 27-06-2012 at 03:29 PM.
27-06-2012, 04:02 PM #57
If companies couldn't be bothered to make new drivers and stuff for Vista I think that tells you much about how they even thought Vista was going to suck.
27-06-2012, 08:12 PM #58
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
The reason it required a hardware upgrade was because a large part of that bloat was down to backwards compatibility with hardware that, should it still happen to exist anywhere, would likely be of great interest to a museum. It's also why it wasn't backwards compatible with windows, because they shifted things around between the HAL and the API. None of which makes a blind bit of difference to the average consumer, but it does make a world of difference to the people who actually pay Microsoft to use the API.
27-06-2012, 08:35 PM #59
And I still think most of the Vista (graphics) drivers fiasco at launch is to be blamed at least 50% on manufacturers.
"I'm too big of a hothead, I've got a history, I've got implants...take your pick."
27-06-2012, 09:58 PM #60