Since DirectX 10 Never Really Became A Gaming Standard...

[ZimZum]

overall Vista was not as bad as it was made out to be.

+1

Vista's only real problem was in being such a radical jump from XP. Its code was not compatible at all with XPs. Something like only 5% of XP drivers would even work in vista. Same with many 3rd party applications that wouldn't function properly. So, non functioning hardware and software which was the responsibility of the developers and manufacturers and not MS, got blamed on Vista. By the end most of those problems were gone. Which is why Win 7 had a much smoother roll out. Because its code is based off of Vista's, only less bloated and optimized better.

 

[T2k]

Vista was utter garbage from its release 'til SP1.
Slow as @ss, full of retarded bugs, half-baked features and technologies scattered all across the OS plus now useless extra clicks introduced everywhere to reach even same old features (something W7 unfortunately carried over) and on top of it came all the driver issues.

Vista is the perfect example of the old-style Microsoft's hubris and incompetency.

 

[LoneNinja]

I've been using Vista since before SP1, originally had it on a single core Athlon system and didn't have problems with it than. I used the Win7 RC too, thought it was good, just can't afford to purchase Win7 right now.

Personally I think DX10 never caught on because of all the people clinging to Xp and it's DX9 limitations, if developers would have made DX10 exclusive titles they would of lost out on a lot of potential sales. DX11 should become used better, since many are now switching to Win7(don't understand why, it's nearly a Vista clone in my eyes), and even those remaining on Vista have access to DX11.

 

[T2k]

clinging to Xp and it's DX9 limitations, if developers would have made DX10 exclusive titles they would of lost out on a lot of potential sales.

This tells me you don't really read previous posts - as we already pointed out earlier there's nothing in DX10 you cannot do in DX9.

 

[scooterlibby]

Windows 7 is just as annoying as Vista, the only thing that changed was hype and peoples' perceptions.

The thing is, peoples' perceptions is exactly what matters most. If they think it is less annoying, then it is less annoying because annoyance is a matter of personal subjective perception. If they think Win 7 is less annoying, then it will be a success and, by extension, maybe DX11 will be too.

 

[evolucion8]

This tells me you don't really read previous posts - as we already pointed out earlier there's nothing in DX10 you cannot do in DX9.

Well, besides of Anti Aliasing through Deferred Rendering that can't be done under DX9 unless if a driver hack is used, DX10 can run more eye candy with less performance hit than DX9, but considering that DX10 is a performance hit by itself, probably is a moot point, but it had potential, Far Cry 2 proved that DX10 looked better and ran faster, the same happens with Resident Evil 5 except that the eye candy is less noticeable.

 

[mmnno]

Vista was utter garbage from its release 'til SP1.

XP wasn't? Don't even answer that, it was. Just the way it is with MS OS... unless you count 7 as something more than a Vista SP.

 

[Kakkoii]

regardless if they had allowed xp to do dx10 it would have succeeded.

http://www.techmixer.com/install-directx-10-on-xp-with-directx10-rc2-pre-fix-3/

DX10 on XP ftw. I've been using it for a while, it's quite awesome. Got Crysis running in DX10 mode =3. You usually have to command line force a game or switch dll file names to make it start in DX10 mode for you though. And sadly not all DX10 games have ways to do that, or at least publicly known command line options.

 

[T2k]

Well, besides of Anti Aliasing through Deferred Rendering that can't be done under DX9 unless if a driver hack is used,

Which means it can be done... and deferred rendering is the keyword, not DX9 and I was able to force AA under DX9 in Bioshock or any other UE3-based game.

PS: and it was an issue with UE3's DR, not a general thing.

DX10 can run more eye candy with less performance hit than DX9, but considering that DX10 is a performance hit by itself, probably is a moot point, but it had potential, Far Cry 2 proved that DX10 looked better and ran faster, the same happens with Resident Evil 5 except that the eye candy is less noticeable.

Yep, that's the point - no pain, no gain.

 

[Maximilian]

+1

Vista's only real problem was in being such a radical jump from XP. Its code was not compatible at all with XPs. Something like only 5% of XP drivers would even work in vista. Same with many 3rd party applications that wouldn't function properly. So, non functioning hardware and software which was the responsibility of the developers and manufacturers and not MS, got blamed on Vista. By the end most of those problems were gone. Which is why Win 7 had a much smoother roll out. Because its code is based off of Vista's, only less bloated and optimized better.

The UI in vista was junk and thats what you spend a large amount of time with in an OS, the UI. Windows 7 improves on this massively with the librairy window thing and the putting stuff in places that make a bit of sense.

 

[T2k]

That's true: WDDM 1.0 < WDDM 1.1

 

[ussfletcher]

Windows Vista was a perfectly fine operating system once user account control was disabled, as is Windows 7 (albeit Win7 just seems 'better')

 

[PingSpike]

Microsoft killed DX10 by making it exclusive to one OS (this would have crippled it even if Vista was well received) plus their xbox can't even use any of it. Since most big PC games are just console port dumps anyway, and the only reason developers were using direct3d was it worked on everything, it would obvious they would continue to make the same decisions they had in the past: The developed for the most supported API, directx9.

If Microsoft didn't have their head up their ass, they would have known this was the only thing that could happen. Or maybe they did know it would happen but decided it was worth the cost to sell a few extra units of Vista. In short, they overestimated the power of inertia. Hilarious when you consider it is one of their strongest advantages.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Seems to me part of the problem with DX10 was also that it required quite a strong graphics card to run it and the visual benefits were not worth the hardware requirements

 

[T2k]

Windows Vista was a perfectly fine operating system once user account control was disabled, as is Windows 7 (albeit Win7 just seems 'better')

Except incredibly lame, amateur bugs like a simple copy of few hundred kilobytes of data could last for several minutes (bigger files took hours!), that Vista WDDM 1.0 was so shitty that if you opened 20-40 simple file browsing explorer windows on your desktop your memory use spiked into almost a gigabyte, except that gigabit wired network utilization was worse than fast ethernet in XP, connecting to Samba shares over WiFi were uber-slow unless you modified your MTU etc etc etc.

Vista was an utter garbage 'til SP1.

 

[NoQuarter]

I think there's 3 reasons DX10 failed, and none really apply to DX11:

1. Xbox 360 uses DX9
2. Nvidia nerfed DX10
3. Vista's low adoption rate


From what I understand DX11 code should compile to DX9 without much work so the console port limitation shouldn't be as big a factor for DX11.

Another reason DX10 failed to gain momentum is because nVidia nerfed it.. All the features that were suppose to be in DX10 that would make it look obviously nicer got removed (and have now been added in DX11 ), so you got all the problems associated with a new API, and none of the benefits. Now that we get the benefits, DX11 should gain some momentum that DX10 didn't have.


The Vista problem was an obvious reason back when Vista was new but with SP1 and the larger install base of Vista now, and still lack of DX10 games, I think this is a distant 3rd. Between Win7 and Vista both supporting DX11 the platform limitation shouldn't be as big a problem this time around.