none
Directx 10 for XP in Service Pack 3?

Answers

  • No. There won't be any officially supported DirectX 10-version for Windows XP at all.

    Bye,
    Freudi
    Wednesday, February 13, 2008 6:45 PM

All replies

  • No. There won't be any officially supported DirectX 10-version for Windows XP at all.

    Bye,
    Freudi
    Wednesday, February 13, 2008 6:45 PM
  • I thought Microsoft was going to put it in, I seen some sites giving instructios on how to do it in XP
    but it look like a lot of work for the normal user.
    Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:27 PM
  •  treb wrote:
    I thought Microsoft was going to put it in, I seen some sites giving instructios on how to do it in XP
    but it look like a lot of work for the normal user.


    http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/
    The Alky Project is about the only DX10 for XP game in town and it is not a flawless implementation.  It was developed from the DX10 SDK by a 19 year old programmer and big props to him for getting it to work to any degree.  Microsoft has no interest in making DX10 available to XP.  They could do so easily, but then Vista would have less appeal and Vista needs all the appeal it can get.
    Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:56 PM
  • Thank you
    Friday, February 15, 2008 11:41 PM
  • well let me just butt in and say that if i don't see, DX for XP, I will discontinue buying Microsoft products, and tell all my friends and family about Linux distrobutions that can use Windows applications.
    I've said my peace.
    Sunday, March 02, 2008 5:31 AM
  •  che3z! wrote:
    well let me just butt in and say that if i don't see, DX for XP, I will discontinue buying Microsoft products, and tell all my friends and family about Linux distrobutions that can use Windows applications.

    LOL, which Linux distribution is capable of dealing with DirectX 10 games and displaying them using DirectX 10? Wink

    Bye,
    Freu"wine doesn't count <g>"di
    Sunday, March 02, 2008 10:18 AM
  • I <3 LInux, but i use windows for games, so i want Dx for XP
    Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:23 AM
  • Thanks,

    That's good to know, how MS manipulates us, to just keep paying for systems that are the most hackable and hacker friendly you can find.

    I just did a new isntall on my new PC I built, ASUS P5NSLI-ED 4 500GB Deskstar 7200rpm sata drives 2 x LG 18X dvd/cd/r/rw drives, and 4gb ddr2 corsair ballistix dual chanel sticks, truepower 750 watt PS, 2 x SLI evga 8900 512mb gddr3  video cards internal sli conector and a 3.4ghz Pentium Dual core, overclocked to 3.8ghz with a 1156 fsb.

    And using win XP & VISTA Ultimate dual boot most of the hardware is best in it's class.

    And now that I see that MS is going to drop the ball on win xp to force us to use Vista and I saw that they have sp1 for vista already, and sp3 for xp, and update after update about security risks built into the system, and updates that at times do more harm than good, like loosing sound on a system that was working great till certain updates, and stuff like that from a major OS company is just a little too much to take. And on one pc I own I open control panel > system > system properties> hardware> device manager > and click the device manager button and it says that it can't find the file??? This was after an update the only way to get to it is from the Administrative tools. I called ms searched etc but found nothing even in the ms help system. That was my best box it's rock solid even overclocked NO BSOD at all all it was an update and after it was done I lost the device manager.!!! 

    I will be looking at Unix or Linux and I can always add windows x and make it look like I want.

    We spend money to get new systems to run these supposed great systems and it's really for nothing, Build an OS from scratch with a great foundation and go from there, not using a 20year old foundation and add eye candy to it.

    Look and learn from Apple [I don't use it] but they seem to be doing better than the oses from ms.

    I hope that Apple ports leopard to work on a intel foundation, and I will be first in line to get it.

    thanks peep's just vented a bit while looking at freebsd and some linux os's.

    ttyl.

    Zeus [the original one] 

    Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:22 AM
  • Upgrade 2 Windows Vista RTM In Order 2 Get Direct X 10.0, Or Upgrade 2 Windows Vista Service Pack 1 RTM 2 Get Direct X 10.1, Just FYI.

     

    Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:49 AM
  •  I-Zeus wrote:

    And now that I see that MS is going to drop the ball on win xp to force us to use Vista

    Pardon, MS has never stated that DirectX 10 will be supported on Windows XP, just the opposite. During the early beta phase of Vista back in 2006, it has been stated, that DirectX 10 will be on Vista only. http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/2/b/22bfadd8-01b0-4fc4-942b-6e7b1635b214/Intro_to_Direct3D10.ppt


    That's it and nothing will be changing in the future on that official position/decision.
    Although I can understand that you feel Windows XP beeing the better choice over Vista in your personal situation/needs/configuration, it may be good idea to have in mind, that Windows XP has been released in 2001 and SP2 (you may call it "Windows XP Second Edition" due to it's changes to Windows XP) is dated back August 2004. It's IMHO illusory to expect all new technologies to be backported into Windows XP.

    FWIW,
    Freudi
    Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:10 AM
  • Vista runs ok on my older hardware, however I just don't like it.
    XP is Microsoft's last Gold os
    Vista kinda like a Apple knock off
    I just hate the new start menu, If Microsoft would offer a Second Edition upgrade
    to XP, id buy that before Vista, for some of the new stuff in Vista
    Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:09 PM
  •  I-Zeus wrote:

    freebsd and some linux os's.



    ya know BSD Berkley Software Division helped make Windows

    heres something called Freespire, it's a Linux distro that can run Windows programs

    http://tracker.linspire.com/torrents/freespire_2.0.8.iso.torrent

    I also found a way to make XP look like Vista, but it's still the same, pure XP

    http://davc73.free.fr/madotate/Madotate_2.02.02.zip


    and DirectX 10

    http://download1us.softpedia.com/dl/6ae014facc075cb1be2da902c6180756/47d06a1f/100072164/software/programming/dxpreview.zip

    Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:47 PM
  •  che3z! wrote:
    heres something called Freespire, it's a Linux distro that can run Windows programs

     

    che3z!,

     

    Freespire is originally derived from Linspire (which is based on Ubuntu), and is using a software called Wine (API emulation layer) to run Windows software, and games.

     

    Regards,

    Thomas

    Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:55 PM
  • I'm aware, I CAN READ ROTFLOLZ!

    this one's even cooler though, it's all 3D

    Saboyon Linux v3.4E
    Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:06 PM
  •  treb wrote:
    Vista runs ok on my older hardware, however I just don't like it.
    XP is Microsoft's last Gold os
    Vista kinda like a Apple knock off
    I just hate the new start menu, If Microsoft would offer a Second Edition upgrade
    to XP, id buy that before Vista, for some of the new stuff in Vista


    You can make vista look like 95/98/XP
    Change the themes to "Windows Classic" then apply.
    Next, right click the taskbar, choose start menu, and configure it to be "classic start menu"
    Tada! Back to the old familiar style of start menu.
    Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:47 PM
  • I hope someday to see DX10 working on XP, I'm sure that Microsoft can make it if they want (improving the XP Kernel) Wink

     

    But they don't want it ¬¬

     

    Anyway I prefer XP instead of Vista Wink

    Thursday, March 13, 2008 6:49 AM
  • I think now that will not happen. they got to give you reasons to upgrade
    I run Vista Ultimate it runs ok on my hardware but its bloatware for sure
    Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:18 AM
  • I couldn't get Directx10 to work in XP, found it a little confusing and gave up.
    I been using both XP and Vista and I still prefer XP for many reasons.
    Vista upgrade from XP is like Windows 98 to Windows ME, pointless

    Thursday, March 13, 2008 7:12 PM
  •  treb wrote:
    I couldn't get Directx10 to work in XP, found it a little confusing and gave up.
    I been using both XP and Vista and I still prefer XP for many reasons.
    Vista upgrade from XP is like Windows 98 to Windows ME, pointless

     

    I'll probably get flamed for this, but nothing could ever match the pointlessness of Windows ME; or at least nothing has matched it yet .  Vista versus XP is not even close to ME versus 98 or 98SE.

     

    I only recommend Vista for computers that are going to use Media Center pretty much exclusively, and it goes without saying that for any games that require, or possibly improved by DirectX 10.

    Sunday, March 16, 2008 2:22 AM
  • New computer, Vista yes, if you have the proper hardware to support all that blaotware
    I do like the 64bit for the memory but XP has a 64 bit version. I have not tried it.
    Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:33 PM
  •  

    I installed 64-bit XP on a customer's two computers about two years ago.  She just uses her computer for email and other office type stuff and the other computer was for her son who plays games a lot.  Although I thought the move to 64-bit would be faster, the only thing they absolutely had a problem with working under 64-bit was her son's brand new iPod.  Originally I had put both 64 and 32-bit Windows on both computers in case 64-bit was too much of a problem, but we had lost his 32-bit partition at one point and didn't bother to restore it's backup.  I installed VMWare Workstation with XP 32-bit under XP 64-bit and put his iPod software on there and it worked perfectly.

     

    Of course you can't get Media Center under XP 64-bit.

    Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:19 PM
  •  

    AFAIK, this project has been at a standstill for a while.  And while they had some success with some example applications that they provided to test DX10 under XP, I read that it's still not working 100% for actual retail DX10 games.

    Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:21 PM
  •  

    There is a latest version of DirectX at version 9.22.1284 released on March 13, as slated supported even on Windows XP Service Pack 3. You can download it from here.

     

    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=2da43d38-db71-4c1b-bc6a-9b6652cd92a3&DisplayLang=en

     

    Regards,

    Thomas

     

     

    Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:45 PM
  • This thread is still going?  lol

    OK, well, thanks for everyone bringing up the ALKY project over and over - first page, post #4 didn't cover it for you already?

    Someone wanted flaming over saying ME vs 9x was worse then XP vs Vista - you got it - consider yourself flamed.

    Thanks for the update on DX9 - I didn't know they made a new build this month - kudos Thomas!

    Finally, someone said something about MS being able to redo the XP kernal so to accomodate DX10 - the sad part is they don't even have to - the ALKY project was a teenagers proof of concept that the DX10 content, as extracted from MS's own SDK, CAN work as is under XP if MS would let it.  How much does that suck?  I know.
    Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:57 PM
  •  white_sereph wrote:
    Thanks for the update on DX9 - I didn't know they made a new build this month - kudos Thomas!

     

    The new DX can be installed on SP3 RC1/2. Tested!

     

    Regards,

    Thomas

    Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:19 PM
  •  roirraW "edor" ehT wrote:

     treb wrote:
    I couldn't get Directx10 to work in XP, found it a little confusing and gave up.
    I been using both XP and Vista and I still prefer XP for many reasons.
    Vista upgrade from XP is like Windows 98 to Windows ME, pointless

     

    I'll probably get flamed for this, but nothing could ever match the pointlessness of Windows ME; or at least nothing has matched it yet .  Vista versus XP is not even close to ME versus 98 or 98SE.

     

    Right - I would compare XP to Vista as Windows 2000 is to OS2.     I don't know anyone who downgraded from 2000 to OS2 as MS calls  Vista to XP - yet seems that all my clients really appreciate the downgrade/upgrade to XP from Vista.

    Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:35 AM
  • vista might as well be called Windows ME 2.0 beta
    Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:08 PM


  • Hi to all,


    Microsoft does not support DX 10 in Windows XP SP3 or any other version of XP! There are technical reason why they don't

    support this. If Microsoft did support this, it would be very, very limited if they did! ThomasLee is linking you to DX 9.0!

    You can search the internet on why Microsoft does not support DX 10 in Windows XP for technical reasons!

    It does make sense why they don't support DX 10 in XP!

    Take Care,

    thesunnytexas
    Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:24 PM
  • If I had as much trouble with Windows Vista as I did when *trying* Windows ME (never successfully used it on a system), then I wouldn't be using Vista on my home-built Media Center.  It's way more stable than ME.

    Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:58 PM
  •  thesunnytexas wrote:


    Hi to all,


    Microsoft does not support DX 10 in Windows XP SP3 or any other version of XP! There are technical reason why they don't

    support this. If Microsoft did support this, it would be very, very limited if they did! ThomasLee is linking you to DX 9.0!

    You can search the internet on why Microsoft does not support DX 10 in Windows XP for technical reasons!

    It does make sense why they don't support DX 10 in XP!

    Take Care,

    thesunnytexas


    It is well documented with the Alky Project that there are absolutely no technological issues of any kind preventing Direct X 10 from being Windows XP compatible - other than the fact that Microsoft has intentionally written the installer to deny XP.

    But, it could still be considered technical issues if we mean the term in another manner.  Technically, the reason is marketting because technically Vista sucks so badly it needs every advantage in marketting it can find so badly that Microsoft has resorted to engineering advantages artificially because technically, all the true merits of Vista were dropped out of the Vista project development before it shipped to help meet deadlines.  Technically they spent 5 years writing a new OS only to dump most of the work and use XP legacy code in a large number of places in the end for the sake of saving face and meeting a deadline for a change.  Pure 64-bit OS - dumped.  WinFS - dumped.  Dozens of other examples - dumped.  Technically, Vista has no real merit of appeal left.

    "OK then, let's make DX10 a Vista exclusive" was Redmonds answer.


    Friday, May 16, 2008 9:51 AM

  • Hi white_sereph,

    This is not true about DX10 being exclusive! I've research this issue from a technical angle. What I found out from

    the game development companies is that their was no unified system for developing games with visual effects.

    Many game developers used their own system to develop games for Windows. I don't want to get into the specifics

    concerning the technical aspects of development of games. Vista was created with unifying some of game development

    technologies. Let's say it made it easier for developers. There would have to be a lot of changes to Windows XP to do this.

    Microsoft does not want to spend the resources to change windows xp!


    Note: I don't like Vista - plain and simple!


    I do not work for Microsoft!


    thesunnytexas


    Friday, May 16, 2008 10:32 PM
  •  thesunnytexas wrote:

    Hi white_sereph,

    This is not true about DX10 being exclusive!

    I'm being a jerk but am attacking this post point for point.

    Up first is the above quote.  OK.  You are saying that DX10 is not a Vista Exclusive.  Please name one single PC Operating System that can run DirectX 10 - other than Vista.  You can't because it is a Vista Exclusive.

     

     

     thesunnytexas wrote:

     I've research this issue from a technical angle. What I found out from the game development companies is that their was no unified system for developing games with visual effects.  Many game developers used their own system to develop games for Windows.

    Direct X was designed to do what you describe - and also to do so in a way that was both functionally and financially competitive with Open GL for the PC gaming market.  These attributes you mention are in no way unique to DirectX 10 alone.  There are very specific things designed into DirectX 10 that are improvements over DirectX 9, for instance support for Shader Model 4, which has a more efficient rendering pipeline and support for unified shaders.  While in DirectX 9 the video card was expected to have dedicated pixel shaders and dedicated vector shaders, DirectX 10 compliant video cards can have a single bank of unified shaders that can do both pixel and vector shader work.  None of this has any impact on the operating system.  DirectX needs to open, like any program, in the operating system - and then it needs to assess the video card in order to know what it can do with it.  If DirectX 10, only installed on Vista, detects a DirectX 9 compliant video card, it runs in DirectX 9 mode where no shader advantages to DX10 are realized - because the hardware to facilitate those advantages are not presesnt.  If a video card is not even DirectX 9 compliant, Vista won't even install in the first place thus no DirectX 10.

     

    Exactly what game developers were you speaking to in order to achieve such a broad and generalized statement applicable to all editions of DirectX, anyway?

     

     

     thesunnytexas wrote:

    I don't want to get into the specifics concerning the technical aspects of development of games.

    I would love to see some specifics.

     

     

     thesunnytexas wrote:

    Vista was created with unifying some of game development technologies. Let's say it made it easier for developers. There would have to be a lot of changes to Windows XP to do this.

    Neither Windows XP nor Vista was designed in order to accomodate gaming in any way.  That is what the DirectX team's job was.  Only with the advent of Vista did the DirectX team get the mandate to prevent an edition of DirectX from installing on a current operating system.  You can install DirectX 9 on Windows 98 for gods sake, although I've never used Windows 98 myself since the DirectX 8.1 days.  The gaming on Windows is very much a DirectX and a video card affair.  Granted, faster hard drives, more RAM, great re-fresh rates, and a more efficient operating system can help.  Using equivalent hardware, Windows XP beats Vista on an average of 15% on tests done on Anandtech.com (Anand is one of the writers for Computer Power User Magazine, by the way - a great monthly publication - you are welcome for the plug guys) - and that difference can only be attributed to how much more efficient XP is than Vista at managing system resources.

     

    Of course what I haven't mentioned is that sometimes gaming isn't largely a DX  and video card affair - sometimes it is an OpenGL and video card affair instead.

     

    To be fair, what MS gives game develpers to help make games are DirectX SDK's - not operating system technologies.

     

     

     thesunnytexas wrote:

    Microsoft does not want to spend the resources to change windows xp!


    The Alky Project has demonstrated a working proof that MS needn't change anything about Windows XP for DX10 to function.  Even the guys from the Vista and DX10 teams that trained us for supporting them agreed that they thought that this move to make DX10 a Vista exclusive for marketting purposes alone was lame, but naturally we were not supposed to admit as much publically.  I don't work support there now so I can say whatever I want without fear oF MS getting miffed about it and firing me - lol - so there it is.  For you to be correct, the Alky team and Microsofts own trainers pulled from the design team would all have to be lying to us.  I doubt that Microsoft telling us that DirectX 10 CAN but won't run in XP, and the Alky project showing that you can at the very least JAM DirectX 10 into XP to partially defect the measures that had been taken to prevent any XP installations of DX10 are all untrue - but it seems to be what you are saying.  Is there something else that you mean?  Microsoft would have to change NOTHING about Windows XP to get DirectX 10 to work in XP.  Microsoft WOULD have to undo the measures they made to the installer of DirectX 10 which prevent it from installing on Windows XP in order to get it to work on XP - nothing more.

     

     thesunnytexas wrote:

    Note: I don't like Vista - plain and simple!

    I hate Vista too.  Most of us that worked support hated Vista as well - at least in my building.  The trainers hated Vista, but would followup saying as much with paid-for enthusiasm and a plea to try to look at the bright side.  Even the EULA and the warranty for Vista sucks VERY MUCH MORE than that of XP.

     

     

     thesunnytexas wrote:

    I do not work for Microsoft!

    I did work for Microsoft for 4 years.  My alias internally was v-2brdow.  I was the most mishandled resource they ever employed, IMHO.  I am free of the empire now though.

     

    Cheers - sorry for the jerk mode I made.  Some fun in it.

    Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:35 AM
  • Nice post!

    Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:54 AM

  • Hi white_sereph

    I'm glad you posted what you posted. Through my research in this subject, I've been trying to find out why Microsoft

    wouldn't release a DX 10 for windows XP? I searched the internet and came to game development sites discussing

    DX 10 for XP. All these folks were talking about a unified system for game development. My interpretation was they were

    saying that Vista had a system something like Java, Netframework and etc for just game development. The same folks

    were talking about how difficult it would be to do it in XP! I am not too familiar with how Vista was put together. I was a bit

    puzzled by these statements  but then latter I concluded that these folks must know what they are talking about.

    I do know that Vista is based on XP in many areas of it's operating system! I'm not a computer programmer.

    Well, at least the truth is coming out about DX 10!  I do not want to migrate to Vista. I thought of Linux. If they made linux

    a easy system for installing programs I would probably move to it. I do not like using libraries(depositories) or what ever

    they call it to install software because in most cases they don't update them quick enough. I've been told that Linux is for

    computer  geeks and not the everyday user. I tried Linux in the past and had a hell of a time just to install the latest java

    from Sun Microsystems. I'm not sure if anything has changed in the last year and a half to make Linux easier?

    Anyway, Good post concerning DX 10 and Windows XP!

    I do not work for Microsoft.

    Take Care,


    thesunnytexas



    Monday, May 19, 2008 3:42 AM
  • Hi, I'm Willierun;  For those who knows and don't know, if i'm correct

    Microsoft may have mentioned that they will stop supporting Windows

    XP Service Pack 1,2, and 3, or perhaps someone did mentioned it but however, it should be for everybody's concern because this Operating System indeed have been around for very long time and they shouldn't stop supporting the OS,  This word should spread around and mention to the Microsoft Company and or somewhat Company that for

    those who still have Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1,2, and 3 in 

    the computer that we have now and must continue in supporting the system.  and for those who have Microsoft Windows Vista should be also concered about their OS because there will be another higher OS in the market sometime maybe in the few short year and or perhaps in a much later time.  do to the early version OS, like windows 95, 98, 2000, and Windows ME have been in the market and perhaps it doesn't support at all, at all but correct me if i'm wrong.  As for the Microsoft Company, and perhaps the other Company, to them it is time to look foward and not so much back, they should have alittle consideration for those who still have the version that we all have for now, Windows XP version service Pack 1,2, and 3 and also Windows Vista.  Thank You.....

    Sunday, July 06, 2008 12:39 AM
  • I have XP64 and I love it, there are a few incompatibility problems since Microsoft dropped XP64 for Vista. I would love to see DirectX10 for XP64 and why cant they release DirectX10 for XP64?

    Sunday, July 13, 2008 12:54 AM
  •  Mt.Dew wrote:
     treb wrote:
    Vista runs ok on my older hardware, however I just don't like it.
    XP is Microsoft's last Gold os
    Vista kinda like a Apple knock off
    I just hate the new start menu, If Microsoft would offer a Second Edition upgrade
    to XP, id buy that before Vista, for some of the new stuff in Vista


    You can make vista look like 95/98/XP
    Change the themes to "Windows Classic" then apply.
    Next, right click the taskbar, choose start menu, and configure it to be "classic start menu"
    Tada! Back to the old familiar style of start menu.
    Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:49 PM
  •  I too would like to see DirectX 10 for windows XP. I beta tested windows Vista, and was quite unimpressed with it, and the fact that they had removed all the legacy coding in DX. Basically I like being able to play older games, I design games and I feel that the older games have alot to teach the developers about how to make good newer games. Granted, there are alot of good games now, but there are also alot of pretty looking games that have boring or horrid game play or stories.  When the Vista beta ended, I went back to XP Pro and never looked back. I've talked to other game and software developers about what their take on DX 10 on XP was, and they said it could be done, and that it wasn't impossible. Like other people before me have stated "Microsoft made DX10 just for Vista to give it more appeal" true enough, but even with DX 10 only features in games, in my opinion and from what I've seen, its still not worth it.  I know that you can play (some) older games on Vista, but only if they support the ability for you to choose a sound codec other than the older DirectX ones. Still, I own over 200 PC games, and the list of them that actually worked on Vista was about 5. Microsoft can fight XP all they want, but its still a rock solid truth that Vista isn't going to replace XP, even as a gaming OS. There are some people who would beg to differ with this, but those people gave up on their older games, and older apps for the shiny appeal of Vista. Those kind of people are always just looking for the next big thing, and nothing more. They'd sell their own mother for the newest and shiniest PC toy on the market, and really they shouldn't represent the majority of PC users, since really they don't.

    Monday, August 25, 2008 12:44 AM
  •  

    There will never be DX10 for XP.

    Monday, August 25, 2008 10:47 AM
  • Agreed.  It's time to face facts.  Vista may be technically the "new" Windows, but do you realize that in just a month and half, Vista RTM will be two years old???

    It's time to move forward, not backward.  Would it be nice?  Sure.  But it's not going to happen.
    Monday, August 25, 2008 6:45 PM
  • The Alky Project has demonstrated a working proof that MS needn't change anything about Windows XP for DX10 to function.  Even the guys from the Vista and DX10 teams that trained us for supporting them agreed that they thought that this move to make DX10 a Vista exclusive for marketting purposes alone was lame, but naturally we were not supposed to admit as much publically.  I don't work support there now so I can say whatever I want without fear oF MS getting miffed about it and firing me - lol - so there it is.  For you to be correct, the Alky team and Microsofts own trainers pulled from the design team would all have to be lying to us.  I doubt that Microsoft telling us that DirectX 10 CAN but won't run in XP, and the Alky project showing that you can at the very least JAM DirectX 10 into XP to partially defect the measures that had been taken to prevent any XP installations of DX10 are all untrue - but it seems to be what you are saying.  Is there something else that you mean?  Microsoft would have to change NOTHING about Windows XP to get DirectX 10 to work in XP.  Microsoft WOULD have to undo the measures they made to the installer of DirectX 10 which prevent it from installing on Windows XP in order to get it to work on XP - nothing more.

     

     True, and DX 10 on XP may not be official in the future, but people like that are going to make Vista users/lovers feel kind of stupid. Maybe hopefully Microsoft (not holding breath though)

    Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:37 AM
  •  

    The Alky Project has been dead for almost a year, apparently because it was such an easy thing to make DX10 work on XP and all.  They managed to prove absolutely nothing except that you can emulate some SM4.0 features in a few game demos on certain graphics cards with certain driver versions at a significant performance penalty, and even then it will fail to run or will crash on a substantial percentage of computers.  Wow.

     

    SM4.0 is not DX10.

    Saturday, August 30, 2008 10:41 AM
  • Thhaankksss!

    Friday, September 12, 2008 6:29 PM
  •  zplexone wrote:
    vista might as well be called Windows ME 2.0 beta

     

     To those of us who have been around a while your comment is extremely funny!

        

        I will forever remember the words, "Windows Me 2 Beta" , and may even suggest it to Jerry Seinfeld?
    Saturday, September 13, 2008 7:55 AM
  • Hi,

      Id like to add some thoughts. I have been using Windows since its first conception. And I have to say Windows Vista is a total let down to all the hype. I used it for about a year, and everytime a new update was released something else would screw up on my computer. Software started asking me to run everything as an administrator, when i already had the main account setup as administrator. I recently went back to XP because i feel that vista is just to bugged out to use properly or efficiently for games. DirectX 10 is nice but it isnt the be all and end all to your games. Also when i got to the point that my computer just seemed like i had a shitload of viruses even though my Anti Virus/Trojan/Worm/Spyware program didnt come up with any results i figured id reinstall Vista. Let me tell you that was an experience id never like to have happen again. When all is said and done, when vista becomes more stable, i may reinstall it. As of now im back on XP. Also if Microsoft keeps shrugging off its user base with comments like DX10 will never be on Linux or other OS's. You can damn sure expect someone will make a new DX10 equivalent. And yall be out of a job. IMHO tone down the arrogance and give the users what they want and/or need, Not what Microsoft wants. We buy what we want not what you want remember this :)

    Sincerly,
     Asfluxiation

    P.S. Your software is kinda like that guy in Bonds "Tommorow Never Dies" where the dude on the big screen tv is asked hows the program, and he responds with; "Filled with bugs, users will be updating for years"

    I dont intend to be a user if thats the case :)
    Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:11 PM