DirectX 9.L will be a DirectX 10 for Windows XP

[Gstanfor]

DirectX9.L will never be seen on windows XP though. It's DX9 for Vista.

ANd M$ most certainly would pull the plug on XP gamers - they don't really have a choice but to do otherwise is they want to continue to grow.

Remember, back in Win9x / early XP days, M$ was a dominating force for x86 machines. They no longer have that same level of dominance thanks to Linux, OpenOffice, etc. This erodes the two foundations the M$ wealth was built upon. I'm reminded of the rant a young Bill Gates had about freeware/shareware software early in his career.

M$ really only has DirectX and XBOX left as unchallenged assets now (little wonder M$ has manipulated OpenGL and explains why 99% of games now use DirectX).

The only question is will they get away with not allowing DX10 for XP. It will only take one clever hacker to get DirectX to work in Linux or XP and then 99.9% of consumers will have no good reason to pay M$ for anything...

 

[imported_RedStar]

simple:

"DirectX 9.0 L is simply a renamed and refurbished DirectX 10 for Windows XP. It will make DirectX 10 games to work on Windows XP."

Clearly this is an erroneous/misleading statement --compounded by your determination that a game can not be labelled a directX 10 game until the game has fully realized the whole DirectX 10 specification to its fullest potential.

Yet here you go implying that a dx10 game can be played on XP --when we know that 1/2 of the DirectX10 spec is in optimizing code with an entirely rebuilt driver model --not supported by XP.

All you really ment, if we believe you did not fall for the inquirer's misdirection, is that you will be able to play directX10 games BUT using the alternate dx9 rendering path (a lesser state). big deal

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
DirectX9.L will never be seen on windows XP though. It's DX9 for Vista.

ANd M$ most certainly would pull the plug on XP gamers - they don't really have a choice but to do otherwise is they want to continue to grow.

Remember, back in Win9x / early XP days, M$ was a dominating force for x86 machines. They no longer have that same level of dominance thanks to Linux, OpenOffice, etc. This erodes the two foundations the M$ wealth was built upon. I'm reminded of the rant a young Bill Gates had about freeware/shareware software early in his career.

M$ really only has DirectX and XBOX left as unchallenged assets now (little wonder M$ has manipulated OpenGL and explains why 99% of games now use DirectX).

The only question is will they get away with not allowing DX10 for XP. It will only take one clever hacker to get DirectX to work in Linux or XP and then 99.9% of consumers will have no good reason to pay M$ for anything...

It goes without saying that people who dont purchase Vista and choose to "steal DX10" deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And anyone who hacks Microsofts proprietary products such as DX deserve to be prosecuted.

The best that will ever be done is slow emulation.
MS will hunt you down like a rabid dog if people start porting DX directly. It wont ever happen as long as MS has billions of dollars and throngs of lawyers.

Besides, if you dont want DX10/Vista.. dont buy it... ?
If you do want it, well.. that surely merits paying for it.
If you do want it, and dont want to pay for it, that merits prosecution.

 

[Gstanfor]

M$ can keep DirectX for all I care. Work is progressing on OpenGL 3.0, and it's way more flexible than DX10 could ever hope to be - and you can bet your bottom dollar nvidia will fully support it - OpenGL is a nvidia strength.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
DirectX9.L will never be seen on windows XP though. It's DX9 for Vista.

ANd M$ most certainly would pull the plug on XP gamers - they don't really have a choice but to do otherwise is they want to continue to grow.

Remember, back in Win9x / early XP days, M$ was a dominating force for x86 machines. They no longer have that same level of dominance thanks to Linux, OpenOffice, etc. This erodes the two foundations the M$ wealth was built upon. I'm reminded of the rant a young Bill Gates had about freeware/shareware software early in his career.

M$ really only has DirectX and XBOX left as unchallenged assets now (little wonder M$ has manipulated OpenGL and explains why 99% of games now use DirectX).

The only question is will they get away with not allowing DX10 for XP. It will only take one clever hacker to get DirectX to work in Linux or XP and then 99.9% of consumers will have no good reason to pay M$ for anything...

theInq probably got the 'L' designation wrong . . . that is not unusual for them to confuse that. HOWEVER, there will certainly be a 'final' version of DX9 for XP . . . that is the version that theInq is talking about [i believe]

AND the Wine developers have plans about porting their upcoming DirectX 10 implementation to older windows versions.

i still don't think this thread was misposted . . . there is still a lot we are piecing together about DX9/10 vista and XP and gaming.

and i got my 'semantics' and timing about "full" DX10 games correct . . . it is an entirely different thing to now talk about DX10 games being played on XP . . . not Vista

 

[BFG10K]

the FC devs NEVER could create an "anytime save" for FC - even though they promised it

Uh, what? There was quick-save/quick-load, just not through the menu system. Those functions were most certainly bindable to keys though.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

the FC devs NEVER could create an "anytime save" for FC - even though they promised it

Uh, what? There was quick-save/quick-load, just not through the menu system. Those functions were most certainly bindable to keys though.

not in the game as shipped . . . it was hack-patched later.

it was always buggy . . . it didn't save correctly - at least thru 1.3 the AI certainly was different on each reload and occasionally it corrupted.

 

[BFG10K]

It was in at least patch 1.1. There were a few issues but it was definitely usable. I've finished the game four times using quick-save/quick-load over a range of game versions.

 

[40sTheme]

So.. this would be nice. Because i'm not buying a new OS anytime soon.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
It was in at least patch 1.1. There were a few issues but it was definitely usable. I've finished the game four times using quick-save/quick-load over a range of game versions.

was it 1.1?

are you sure?

anyway, i played 1.3 and it was not a "normal" save . . .

. . . usable . . . sure

and certainly not 'anytime' save . . . as promised by the devs.

but then both of us are nitpicking . . . i think you liked FC a LOT more than i did.

i hope Crysis is a better game and less buggy

 

[apoppin]

back OT . .. this guy knows what he is talking about:

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/d3d10overview/page2.asp

Windows XP and DirectX 9 are still going to be around for some time yet. . . . Application compatibility is a big factor in a new OS such that DirectX 9 applications built for Windows XP will still work under Windows Vista, and there will even be an updated version of DirectX 9 to take advantage of the new driver model in Vista ("DirectX 9.L").

and from my 'reading' it is not a huge project to make DX10 available for XP . . . MS just doesn't want to.

Wine may do it.

 

[BFG10K]

was it 1.1?

Yes - then 1.2 fixed a whole lot of issues when using it.

anyway, i played 1.3 and it was not a "normal" save . . .

Huh? Hit the button and the game quick-saves. Hit another and the game quick-loads. That sounds pretty normal to me. The only thing not normal was that it wasn't available through the key menu system.

Under 1.3 the only problems I had were one Trigen boss in the water tunnel and also dropped enemy armour was not rendered after quick-loading. I don't recall any other issus with AI et al.

 

[apoppin]

the quicksave and quickload are normal functions .... in my experience with FC . . . and as i remember in current threads at the time . . . what you reloaded sometimes looked really different from what you saved.

i used it to my advantage several times . . . when the AI was really tough, i would 'save' . . . piece of cake to take 'em out on most of the reloads . . . the Enemy AI 'lost track' of you.

maybe i save too much

edit: FC reminded me of a console game with checkpoints . . . with the save just tacked on.

 

[apoppin]

speaking of FC . . . some Crysis tidbits --quoted in part:

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=905

Notes:
-You will need a SM2.0 (or higher) compatible graphics card.
-The official system requirements/minimum specs have not yet been released.
-What framerate is acceptable depends a lot on what you've gotten used to. Some people can play with around 20 FPS and others will not go below 50. Obviously those who can't stand "low" framerates need better hardware or they'll have to lower the settings.
-We do not know how well DX10 cards will perform.
-There are no DX10 cards available yet. Vista ready is simply a clever marketing trick.
-We do not know how much processor horsepower is needed. Dual/Multi -core processors are supported, though.
-You do NOT need a DX10 card or Vista to run Crysis.
-Pretty much everything you've seen so far has been DX9.

Q: They're running the game on super fast machines at E3 and GC and they still have performance issues! The game will need an über PC to run!
A: That wasn't a question. tongue However, the builds shown at E3 and GC were not optimized yet. They had not removed unneccessary debug code. That is why it was stuttering at points, but the final release you're going to buy at a store will run a lot better, so there won't be a need for an 'über PC'.

Q: Does Crysis support the Ageia PhysX card?
A: No, it doesn't.

:Q

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: apoppin
speaking of FC . . . some Crysis tidbits --quoted in part:

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=905
Notes:
-You will need a SM2.0 (or higher) compatible graphics card.
-The official system requirements/minimum specs have not yet been released.
-What framerate is acceptable depends a lot on what you've gotten used to. Some people can play with around 20 FPS and others will not go below 50. Obviously those who can't stand "low" framerates need better hardware or they'll have to lower the settings.
-We do not know how well DX10 cards will perform.
-There are no DX10 cards available yet. Vista ready is simply a clever marketing trick.
-We do not know how much processor horsepower is needed. Dual/Multi -core processors are supported, though.
-You do NOT need a DX10 card or Vista to run Crysis.
-Pretty much everything you've seen so far has been DX9.

WTF is up with Crytek? I mean I loved Far Cry (patch issues aside), and Crysis looks amazing, but the developers consistenly do 180's on everything.

So now "there are no DX10 cards" (aren't they a software developer!? They should have access to DX10 hardware).

Who else saw that interview (I saw it on IGN) with the lead developer at Crytek maybe 6 months ago, and among other things he said that:

-Crysis was developed from the ground up to support DX10
-Vista will run games faster than XP (even DX9 stuff!), and Crysis will perform better on Vista.

So, was he just shilling for Microsoft at the time? Did he even have access to Vista back then? I guess he had us all fooled - I mean what kind of company would develop their next game, crucial for such a small developer, on a beta OS with constantly changing code?

 

[apoppin]

that incrysis forum is interesting:

MORE

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=8534#p8534

Yes, DX 9L is going to run on XP. Cevat Yerli talks about its advantages in the Edge magazine article

look at Doc's photocopy of the crysis interview [posted 2006-06-24 12:05:09]

"Crysis is not Vista exclusive. It supports DX9 and Shader Model 2.0 for XP and up to DX10 and Shader Model 4.0 for XP because DX10 won't be on XP. But there is DX9.L which will be the counterpoint of DX10 in XP."

i'm SORRy, josh6079 but this "inq thread" is turning out to be quite intersting.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: apoppin
speaking of FC . . . some Crysis tidbits --quoted in part:

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=905

snipped some cool stuff

I'm really looking forward to Crysis, now.

-You do NOT need a DX10 card or Vista to run Crysis.

If only Remedy would say this about Alan Wake!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: apoppin
speaking of FC . . . some Crysis tidbits --quoted in part:

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=905
Notes:
-You will need a SM2.0 (or higher) compatible graphics card.
-The official system requirements/minimum specs have not yet been released.
-What framerate is acceptable depends a lot on what you've gotten used to. Some people can play with around 20 FPS and others will not go below 50. Obviously those who can't stand "low" framerates need better hardware or they'll have to lower the settings.
-We do not know how well DX10 cards will perform.
-There are no DX10 cards available yet. Vista ready is simply a clever marketing trick.
-We do not know how much processor horsepower is needed. Dual/Multi -core processors are supported, though.
-You do NOT need a DX10 card or Vista to run Crysis.
-Pretty much everything you've seen so far has been DX9.

WTF is up with Crytek? I mean I loved Far Cry (patch issues aside), and Crysis looks amazing, but the developers consistenly do 180's on everything.

So now "there are no DX10 cards" (aren't they a software developer!? They should have access to DX10 hardware).

Who else saw that interview (I saw it on IGN) with the lead developer at Crytek maybe 6 months ago, and among other things he said that:

-Crysis was developed from the ground up to support DX10
-Vista will run games faster than XP (even DX9 stuff!), and Crysis will perform better on Vista.

So, was he just shilling for Microsoft at the time? Did he even have access to Vista back then? I guess he had us all fooled - I mean what kind of company would develop their next game, crucial for such a small developer, on a beta OS with constantly changing code?

actually we've known about this for some time:
Crysis Exclusive Preview - Technology and the Hardware That You'll Need to Run the Game

quote:

Yerli: If there is no [DX10] hardware, you have to use the software emulation, and because of its performance, it's no pleasure to work with. On the other hand, buggy alpha hardware can be really painful. We cannot develop techniques solely for DX9 or DX10, so we implement, create, and tweak the level with DX9 and adjust the code afterwards for DX10

.

and

quote:

Yerli: Crysis will ship with features that are exclusive to DX10, however, ultimately we will develop more elegant solutions with time coming forward, since we have implementation ideas that at this stage would fight our DX9 implementation. Hence we will improve DX10 even more after Crysis ships through patches, but only if the DX10 hardware base is big enough to reduce focus on DX9. Probably a year will have to pass by.

Crysis is a dx9 game with 'optimizations' for DX10 . . . and latersupport for DX10 added in patches . . . after a year. Technically it IS a DX10 game oob [Vista is DX10 even though it ships with its desktop still on DX9]

what REALLy interests me is what he said in the Edge interview:

"Crysis is not Vista exclusive. It supports DX9 and Shader Model 2.0 for XP and up to DX10 and Shader Model 4.0 for XP because DX10 won't be on XP. But there isDX9.L which will be the counterpoint of DX10 in XP."

kinds supports theInq
:Q

 

[Sable]

Bwhahaahhahahaha

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35140

UNFORTUNATELY, we were wrong about DirectX 9.0 L.
We managed to confirm the existence of DirectX 9.0L but it won't be a DirectX 10 for Windows XP. It will be the other way around. It is a faster version of DirectX 9.0 that will run under Vista only.

I thought we already knew this anyway. Wasn't it mentioned months ago that in order to run DX9 games on Vista it would have to be run through DX9L as DX10 wasn't backwards compatible.

 

[Gstanfor]

oops
ROFLMAO!

Well, Fraud my friend, some of us had managed to know about DirectX9.L for what seems like forever now - and and no stage was it ever going to be for Win XP (or Dx10 related - gee don't you think the "9" would give you a big fat hint about that?).

Better luck next time perhaps... Better yet, just do us all a favor and resign -- I'd say "quit while you're ahead", but you've never been ahead, ever.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
oops
ROFLMAO!

Well, Fraud my friend, some of us had managed to know about DirectX9.L for what seems like forever now - and and no stage was it ever going to be for Win XP (or Dx10 related - gee don't you think the "9" would give you a big fat hint about that?).

Better luck next time perhaps... Better yet, just do us all a favor and resign -- I'd say "quit while you're ahead", but you've never been ahead, ever.

At least he is a man and admits he got it wrong. That is why I like him.

 

[Gstanfor]

I suppose so. Still don't like him though.

Personally, I'm waiting for the article proclaiming he won't be able to prove he was right about rydermark, 'cause its XP only and uses DX9.L...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
oops
ROFLMAO!

Well, Fraud my friend, some of us had managed to know about DirectX9.L for what seems like forever now - and and no stage was it ever going to be for Win XP (or Dx10 related - gee don't you think the "9" would give you a big fat hint about that?).

Better luck next time perhaps... Better yet, just do us all a favor and resign -- I'd say "quit while you're ahead", but you've never been ahead, ever.

At least he is a man and admits he got it wrong. That is why I like him.

agreed . . . and rather quickly also
:thumbsup:

now . . . wth is Yerli talking about another DX - part of DX9Ex - "which will be the counterpoint of DX10 in XP."

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: apoppin
yes they were . . . but Vista is dog-slow compared to XP in current games . . .

Vista looks to be actually 'ready' in a year or two - for gaming . . . when full DX10 games actually come out.

You do them too much honor (been playing too much Oblivion). We barely have full DX9.0 games now, and how long have we had DX9.0 hardware out?! I give it 2-3 years for full DX10 games to arise.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: letdown427

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
this "DX 9.0L", if true, would be the icing on the cake.

My fingers are crossed they let Windows 2000 users use it, I really want Crysis!

so far, i don't believe there is a single game that will run on XP that will not run on 2K

and Crysis is developed for XP . . . with a little 'dx10 bone' tossed in for the Vista owners . . . Crysis will become more dx10-like in patches . . . after a year after release IF the HW base is large enough.

i wouldn't bother with Vista for gaming for at least a year.
[although i will dual-boot with it on my new rig]

This is EA we're talking about. If it doesn't sell over a million copies or it isn't still in the top 10 selling games a year after release, expect EA to not patch.