Frustration regarding probable obsolescence of XP x64

xylem

Senior member
Jan 18, 2001
621
0
76
I'm still waiting to install my copy of Windows XP x64, due to the fact that an audio hardware manufacturer (amongst many) has not yet released drivers for that OS.

Now it seems that XP x64 is in a sort of planned obsolescence phase... a passive one promised by the fact that there are no plans for a compatible release of DX 10. The obsolescence i'm referring to is defined by the fact that this OS will not be entirely compatible with games and other mainstream software that will make use of DX 10, and i'm clarifying that because it seems that fact conflicts with Microsoft's statements regarding its 5-year "mainstream support phase".

It is stated here that the start of this 5-year period is the "date of general availability":
Link 1

It is stated here that, for XP x64, the date of general availability was April 25, 2005:
Link 2

It follows that the end of the XP x64 mainstream support phase is April 25, 2010. Prodded by frustration, and curious as to what XP x64 users are entitled to during this support phase, i looked for clarification on the subject, and found this:
Link 3

In section 3, it is stated that I can expect support for "design changes and feature requests". It seems to me that the "feature request" of a version of DX 10 that is compatible with XP x64 is a reasonable request, if DirectX compatibility is considered an OS feature, for the following reasons: Prior revisions of DirectX have been compatible with XP x64; Gaming, and other software that has traditionally made use of DirectX revisions are traditional, widespread, and mainstream uses for Microsoft operating systems; DirectX 10 has been produced by Microsoft, obviously emphasizing the fact that the company itself considers it to be a viable product and presumably worthy of integration into mainstream software.

It seems to me that when an OS ceases to be compatible with mainstream software releases, it has become, at least to a certain extent, obsolete. For this to come to pass, software which makes use of DX 10 features will have to have been released prior to April 25, 2010, and i think it's probable that this will be the case.

Separately, i will quote a pertinent section of the text found at same as Link 1

"Listening to Customers: Expanded and Enhanced Customer Support

Clear and predictable product support road maps are essential for customers to effectively plan implementations of new technology, predict costs, justify purchases to management and budget for future technology replacements. In addition, advancements in the technology industry have elevated the need for expanded and flexible support to meet product migration timelines and directly address security needs. The updated Microsoft support life cycle directly addresses these needs while trying to minimize the likelihood of future life-cycle adjustments, thereby reinforcing the company's commitment to build predictable relationships with customers."

Failure to release a DirectX 10 version which is compatible with a product in a "mainstream support phase" seems to conflict rather obviously with the overall message of the above statement. I don't think it is predictable, based on an observed precedent of prior releases of DirectX revisions and their compatibility with previous Microsoft OS products, that DX 10 would not be compatible with previous Microsoft OS products. I also think that this lack of a compatible version of DX 10 has an opposite effect from their stated commitment to building predictable relationships with customers. This is a serious consideration in the justification of purchases, and i don't think it was expected, nor predictable, in that sense.

I understand that to build a DX 10 version that is compatible with the driver model presently used in XP x64 would be difficult, but it seems like Microsofts stated intentions should supercede this. I'd personally be willing to pay a reasonable amount for a compatible version, to not feel as if i am forced into the expense of an entirely new OS because of this lack, and to encourage Microsoft live up to what i feel to be a reasonable interpretation of its support statements.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
WinXPx64 isnt a terribly good platform for gaming anyways.
IMO it was more a testing platform for Vista.
DX10 supposedly requires the new driver model that only Vista provides.
WinXP32 users are in the same boat. I am not terribly worried right now anyways as there are billions of WinXP machines out there. It will take years before Vista is the majority that game devs will drop DX9 paths.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
DX10 leverages a driver model that does not exist in XP. Period, end of story.
DX10 was never intended for XP and never will be. If you are really frustrated by this it's because you don't really understand what an architectural difference you are talking about. It would be like trying to implement fully programmable shaders on a 3dfx Voodoo card.

By the time DX10 titles become mainstream so will Vista. Until then it's not like DX9 suddenly stopped working.

Oh, and just FYI regarding Design changes and feature requests.. DCRs are offered to MS Premier customers as part of their contract. It is a structured way for them to talk directly to the Dev team. This isn't something available to the average joe. A DCR to put DX10 in XP would get shot down anyway.

I'm sorry this is frustrating to you but the frustration is stemming from your expectations not being in line with what is realistic. :(

It may ease your frustration a bit if you do some digging on the new driver model to find out what's up.



 

xylem

Senior member
Jan 18, 2001
621
0
76
Genx87
I appreciate your reply, but the fact that XP x64 isn't a terribly good gaming platform seems irrelevant if it's meant to justify exclusion of DX 10 support. It works for gaming, and it is not claimed to be game-incompatible or DX-incompatible.

I agree that it was in some ways a test for Vista, and feel also that it may have been more of a move to help "shift the river" toward 64-bit computing. Also, i suspect that a lot of companies have been for a long time focusing on creating drivers according to the new driver model rather than expending resources to make drivers for XP x64, so that they could have something good for Vista at launch. Regardless, XP x64 was officially released, is a real Microsoft OS product, and is due the same support as its other OS releases.

The driver model factor is huge, but it isn't enough to cause a product in mainstream support phase to be passively forced into obsolescence.

Yes, XP32 users are in the same boat. I chose x64 since it's officially been less than 2 years since its date of general availability, and it will be a long time before it falls from its mainstream support phase.

edit: Microsoft chose to create a new driver model. At that time, i presume they were aware of their own statements regarding product support. The complexity and incompatabilities created as a result of the new model are of their own creation, and i don't think it's a valid reason to deviate from a solid history of supporting their own mainstream OS products.
 

stash

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2000
5,468
0
0
The driver model factor is huge, but it isn't enough to cause a product in mainstream support phase to be passively forced into obsolescence
It's a huge stretch to say that XP will become obsolete because of the lack of DX10. There are millions of users who will continue to happily use XP for many years for a myriad of other things besides running games that require DX10.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: stash
The driver model factor is huge, but it isn't enough to cause a product in mainstream support phase to be passively forced into obsolescence
It's a huge stretch to say that XP will become obsolete because of the lack of DX10. There are millions of users who will continue to happily use XP for many years for a myriad of other things besides running games that require DX10.

Yep. Furthermore games that work on DX10 may not require it. SimX is an example.



Also "The driver model factor is huge, but..." doesn't work. Take the "But" off of there. The driver model factor is a showstopper.
 

xylem

Senior member
Jan 18, 2001
621
0
76
Stash, these things are all relative. Yes, XP, XP x64, will continue to be useful for years to come, and for many people. By obsolete, i mean with respect to software that is developed with DX 10 features which will not be supported in XP x64 without a version of DX 10 for that OS.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the extent to which Microsoft has continued to support their other previous OS releases. This omission, however, comes as more than an unpleasant surprise, since i think it's probable that it will restrict software choices for XP x64 users within the next couple years. Maybe it won't, and if it doesn't, i'll be happy about it... but for me, i feel like this is the time to speak up.
 

xylem

Senior member
Jan 18, 2001
621
0
76
Smilin, no, i won't take the "but" off it :). The driver model may be a showstopper, but it is of their own creation. They weren't sideswiped by somebody else's creation, so they should develop ways to integrate DX 10 into a product in its mainstream support cycle.
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Originally posted by: xylem
Stash, these things are all relative. Yes, XP, XP x64, will continue to be useful for years to come, and for many people. By obsolete, i mean with respect to software that is developed with DX 10 features which will not be supported in XP x64 without a version of DX 10 for that OS.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the extent to which Microsoft has continued to support their other previous OS releases. This omission, however, comes as more than an unpleasant surprise, since i think it's probable that it will restrict software choices for XP x64 users within the next couple years. Maybe it won't, and if it doesn't, i'll be happy about it... but for me, i feel like this is the time to speak up.

If software developers choose to produce games that require DX10, your complaints and frustrations should be directed towards them and not Microsoft.

Say nVidia or ATI released new graphics cards shortly after you purchased their latest and greatest. Now say these new cards offer features not found in your card, and a software developer creates a game that requires those features. Would you fault nVidia or ATI for releasing the card with the new features? Or would you fault the developer for alienating a large portion of the gaming community that had not yet upgraded? IMO this DX10 "dilemma" is no different.
 

bendixG15

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2001
3,483
0
0
You got to remember that equipment manufactorers (cards, printers, etc.)

are not required by some law to provide drivers for an operating system.

Its their business decision to support or not support an OS. Nothing new about that.


 

xylem

Senior member
Jan 18, 2001
621
0
76
MrChad, i disagree that in such a case my comments or complaints should be directed at said developer. Said developer would not have played a significant role in Microsoft's statements about support of Microsoft's products.

In my observation the compatability of a released hardware product with new technology developments is not in the same league as software compatability, so i don't think that is a relevant comparison. As an example, hardware updates cannot be downloaded, nor shipped and installed easily as can software updates.

bendixG15, did you read the original post? I would be happy if you would explain the relevance of your comments.

edit: for spelling.
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Originally posted by: xylem
MrChad, i disagree that in such a case my comments or complaints should be directed at said developer. Said developer would not have played a significant role in Microsoft's statements about support of Microsoft's products.

In my observation the compatability of a released hardware product with new technology developments is not in the same league as software compatability, so i don't think that is a relevant comparison. As an example, hardware updates cannot be downloaded, nor shipped and installed easily as can software updates.

Why is the ease of distribution for software updates relevant? Updating software requires R&D and testing, just like hardware development. Both cost quite a bit of money.

The only way this issue affects you is if developers choose to abandon the XP install base and develop only for the Vista platform. That is THEIR choice, and not Microsoft's.

Keep in mind that "support" of a product does not mean that they are obligated to enhance XP's feature set with free updates for the next several years. Supporting XP means that they will maintain the codebase and correct bugs and/or exploits that arise. DX10 is a feature, not a bug fix.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: xylem
Smilin, no, i won't take the "but" off it :). The driver model may be a showstopper, but it is of their own creation. They weren't sideswiped by somebody else's creation, so they should develop ways to integrate DX 10 into a product in its mainstream support cycle.

To "develop ways" would require writing a new OS that supports a different driver model and you would end up with ... Vista.


People are being really patient about this but eventually you're going to have to go learn about the new driver model.

Start here:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480220.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter/archive/2006/04/02/566767.aspx
 

xylem

Senior member
Jan 18, 2001
621
0
76
MrChad, i was explaining, a bit, my own thoughts regarding your comparison of hardware products to software products in their possible compatability with technology that emerges after they have been released. I don't think it's a helpful comparison. Ease of distribution and modification is relevant to that point.

The cost of development, as you said, takes time and resources. The divergence in development for Vista and XP x64, with regard to DX 10, has been caused largely by the new driver model, which is Microsoft's own creation. The choice, as you said, lies with developers, and as an example, Microsoft has chosen to develop DX 10 for Vista and not for XP x64, in large part due to the new driver model that they, themselves, chose to create.

If Microsoft created a DX 10 for XP x64, it wouldn't be yet another factor for other developers in choosing whether or not to split their resources.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
The divergence in development for Vista and XP x64, with regard to DX 10, has been caused largely by the new driver model, which is Microsoft's own creation.

Wrong. The divergence worked like this:

"XP is done."
"cool"
"What's next"
"Vista"
"k, let's get started"

That's it. Once XP or any other product ships then development on new features ends. It's done. Nobody does differently. They don't go back and add airbags to a '57 Chevy, they don't add more memory chips to an old graphics card, artists don't make new songs downloadable if you bought the old album... the new songs get put into the NEW album.

"Microsoft has chosen to develop DX 10 for Vista and not for XP x64, in large part due to the new driver model that they, themselves, chose to create.

No, wrong again. They chose to create a new driver model to give you new features. Vista was designed from the ground up with this in mind. Since the ideas behind the driver model didn't exist when XP was developed they can't really go backwards in time and design XP from the ground up with this in mind now can they? It's again like asking Chevy to add airbags to the '57 model. Nobody thought to make a steering wheel with a big cavity in it back in 1957 so the idea won't work.

It's not some big conspiracy dude. It's the way progress works.
 

xylem

Senior member
Jan 18, 2001
621
0
76
It's interesting that you guys think DX 10 is a feature. If that's the case, do you think that qualifies it as the subject of a "feature request"? I re-read the part linked in Link 3, and it made no mention of 'MS Premier' customers that you mentioned, Smilin. Here's another Microsoft link inviting XP Media Center Edition 2005 customers to submit "Feature Requests", with no listed requisite that the submitter need be a MS Premier customer: Link

There are probably a lot of customers that would request DX 10 as a feature.

That's all the time i have for now.

 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
"for future versions of Windows XP Media Center Edition" it says.

That's not the same as a DCR I assure you. I know. I file them for customers on occasion :)

What you are really after is a CDCR which is a change to an existing product that needs to happen before the next version. I don't think you really fathom what goes in to these.

What happens if they completely overhaul the driver model in XP then roll it out?Yeah...congratulations you just knocked millions of people back into Beta-1 stability. Everyone and their mother will be waiting for months for the graphics manufacturers to rewrite drivers. All webcams break. All DVD decoders break. Your winamp visualizations break. All your games break.

You seem to be stuck thinking this is a trivial thing. Until you let go of that idea you're just going to bitter.


It's interesting that you guys think DX 10 is a feature
question.. what do YOU think it is if it's not a feature?
 

xylem

Senior member
Jan 18, 2001
621
0
76
Originally posted by: Smilin
The divergence in development for Vista and XP x64, with regard to DX 10, has been caused largely by the new driver model, which is Microsoft's own creation.

Wrong. The divergence worked like this:

"XP is done."
"cool"
"What's next"
"Vista"
"k, let's get started"

That's it. Once XP or any other product ships then development on new features ends. It's done. Nobody does differently. They don't go back and add airbags to a '57 Chevy, they don't add more memory chips to an old graphics card, artists don't make new songs downloadable if you bought the old album... the new songs get put into the NEW album.

"Microsoft has chosen to develop DX 10 for Vista and not for XP x64, in large part due to the new driver model that they, themselves, chose to create.

No, wrong again. They chose to create a new driver model to give you new features. Vista was designed from the ground up with this in mind. Since the ideas behind the driver model didn't exist when XP was developed they can't really go backwards in time and design XP from the ground up with this in mind now can they? It's again like asking Chevy to add airbags to the '57 model. Nobody thought to make a steering wheel with a big cavity in it back in 1957 so the idea won't work.

It's not some big conspiracy dude. It's the way progress works.

Smilin, you've said that both those statement are wrong, but you haven't said why. The paragraphs beneath the quotes don't prove wrong, nor do they directly contractict, the statements in the quotes. The conversation, though, maybe that is how the big decision makers do things.

What conspiracy? My comments are in regard to product support. You apparently disagree with the thought that Microsoft should develop DX 10 for an OS product in a mainstream support cycle. No problem... maybe they shouldn't... at least nobody else has posted here in agreement... and i don't disagree with what i think you have been saying about the complexities introduced by the driver models. The reasons i think they should are explained in the first post.

edit: I would call it a feature, too. :)
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
ok, I told you several posts ago that people were being patient about this. You need to go do some fvcking reading. This discussion has gotten old as sh1t and I'm not going to sit here like a broken record trying to explain why what you are asking is so difficult.

You're wrong. I'm not out to prove it to you. Either you know you are wrong or you do not know you are wrong. I'm not going to prove to you that a Allison Transmission won't fit in a bicycle nor am I going to prove to you that DX10 won't work in XP. That is your burden to understand. Once you understand there will be no further proof required.

Until you understand why WDDM doesn't work in XP you will never understand why there is no DX10 for XP. If you DO understand why WDDM doesn't work in XP then you'll stop asking this question over and over.


So it's time for a choice. Learn or be bitter.


Sorry to be a jerk but you would be too if someone kept wanting proof that water is wet.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
and REALLY...I'm sorry to be a jerk.

Do some digging on the new driver model and hopefully you'll understand my impatience and forgive me.

 

QuixoticOne

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,855
0
0
I agree with the OP; it's a matter of pure greed and exploitation of helpless consumers
that Microsoft has supported XP as poorly as it has.

XP SP3 isn't scheduled until 2008 which is ridiculous.

They aren't going to make DX10 or 64 bit support available as reasonable
upgrades for existing XP users, and I'm sure they'll follow in those footsteps to
make less and less improvements, fixes, and compatibility features available for XP.

VISTA had no major functional improvements to offer the XP world even after years
of botched developments on VISTA so they just took a strategy of using their market
control and monopoly to 'force' people to 'upgrade' to vista by reducing the
support for XP and making XP less available to consumers, computer manufacturers, et. al.

John Carmack who's certainly a qualified expert on the subject of game & operating
system design agrees that there's no good reason DX10 couldn't have been made
available for XP, and he also suggests that VISTA / DX10 really doesn't offer anything
very compelling as an improvement over XP.

Though Microsoft isn't releasing DX10 for XP, there are already ways to use
OpenGL to access much of the new advanced functionality present in
"DX10 class" video cards like Nvidia'a 8800 series, and they certainly
perform a lot better even under DX9 than any previous card has.
Games could simply avoid using DX10 and use OpenGL with the new extensions,
for instance, and have access to many improvements possible with the new generation
of video cards and still be compatible with Windows XP, VISTA, as well as UNIX/LINUX.
I'd be glad to see that happen!

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0109.1737.15034.htm?Page=2
...
Carmack: It?s a tough thing for Microsoft, where, essentially, Windows XP was a just fine operating system. Before that, there were horrible problems with Windows. But once they got there, it did everything an operating system is supposed to do. Nothing is going to help a new game by going to a new operating system. There were some clear wins going from Windows 95 to Windows XP for games, but there really aren?t any for Vista. They?re artificially doing that by tying DX10 so close it, which is really nothing about the OS. It?s a hardware-interface spec. It?s an artificial thing that they?re doing there. They?re really grasping at straws for reasons to upgrade the operating system. I suspect I could run XP for a great many more years without having a problem with it.
...
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
I agree with the OP; it's a matter of pure greed and exploitation of helpless consumers
that Microsoft has supported XP as poorly as it has.

As much as I dislike MS and disagree with a lot of their decisions, their support is one of the things that I'm actually impressed with.

XP SP3 isn't scheduled until 2008 which is ridiculous.

So? SPs should only be security and other critical bug fixes which they're distributing as they fix them anyway. The fact that SP2 included other major changes was a huge mistake IMO, hopefully they won't make the same mistake with SP3.

They aren't going to make DX10 or 64 bit support available as reasonable
upgrades for existing XP users, and I'm sure they'll follow in those footsteps to
make less and less improvements, fixes, and compatibility features available for XP.

They aren't doing it because it would require them to rewrite core parts of XP to support it, something that would destabilize the code base and not to mention be a huge amount of work for little gain on their part.

John Carmack who's certainly a qualified expert on the subject of game & operating
system design agrees that there's no good reason DX10 couldn't have been made
available for XP, and he also suggests that VISTA / DX10 really doesn't offer anything
very compelling as an improvement over XP.

Carmack's obviously a very smart guy and he knows a lot about game development and 3D hardware, but now he's an expert in OS design too? What OSes has he worked on? And even if I do believe that he's an OS design genious, how can he make an informed opinion about how well the new driver model in Vista would work in XP without seeing the source code for both?
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
DX10 is a feature ? I thought it was a platform.

btw, if you really look into it, the "driver model" has nothing to do with enabling DX10, it's all about DRM, baby.

Vista wants absolute control of what comes out of your pc, that's what really differentiates it from XP. The new driver model is part of enforcing that.