PDA

View Full Version : Question about SM 4.0, DX10 hardware, & OpenGL


Larry Roberts
December 21st 06, 05:01 AM
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).

Benjamin Gawert
December 21st 06, 06:40 AM
* 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

Larry Roberts
December 21st 06, 10:21 AM
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.

Benjamin Gawert
December 21st 06, 12:49 PM
* 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

GT-Force
December 22nd 06, 08:29 PM
"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