"The Mojave Experiment" A.K.A. "Windows 7"

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
dx 10 for xp
seems to only work for some games. . but its definately doable if MS choose to spend some time and money..

And I can use the same link to argue that porting DX10 to XP is not doable. The fact is that the so called DX10 port to XP is a hack and has had lackluster results.

its done by 1 single programmer...the original makers of dx10 in a group would most likely make it work.

the memory manager requirement of dx 10 can be changed to winxp memory manager, alone with the xp driver model, if MS is willing to spend the money to do it.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
dx 10 for xp
seems to only work for some games. . but its definately doable if MS choose to spend some time and money..

And I can use the same link to argue that porting DX10 to XP is not doable. The fact is that the so called DX10 port to XP is a hack and has had lackluster results.

its done by 1 single programmer...the original makers of dx10 in a group would most likely make it work.

the memory manager requirement of dx 10 can be changed to winxp memory manager, alone with the xp driver model, if MS is willing to spend the money to do it.

So, you have enough confident to shove that out into a windows update to every computer on the planet? HA!

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
dx 10 for xp
seems to only work for some games. . but its definately doable if MS choose to spend some time and money..

And I can use the same link to argue that porting DX10 to XP is not doable. The fact is that the so called DX10 port to XP is a hack and has had lackluster results.

its done by 1 single programmer...the original makers of dx10 in a group would most likely make it work.

the memory manager requirement of dx 10 can be changed to winxp memory manager, alone with the xp driver model, if MS is willing to spend the money to do it.

Microsoft have its called Vista and Windows 7 ,XP is getting too old why should Microsoft keep trying to revive a very old OS?..It's simple you want real DX10 go and buy Vista or even Windows 7 down the road,if not then live without it.


Installing unofficial DX10 hack on XP is risky at best,you can't get any official support from Microsoft or game companies.
Some people have to realize XP's time is coming to an end,its normal for operating systems to be replaced with something newer with new features etc... its called progress.

Personally Microsoft should ditch XP ASAP and concentrate on Vista,Windows 7 and Windows 8 plus their server side.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: MemXP is getting too old why should Microsoft keep trying to revive a very old OS?..It's simple you want real DX10 go and buy Vista or even Windows 7 down the road,if not then live without it.

you are exactly right. I'm just trying to correct Smilin's fud that it isn't possible to port dx 10 to xp.. because it is doable and probably not that difficult to do especially w. MS's resources.

I say MS chose not to port dx10 to xp for marketing reasons rather than a techncal one.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: MemXP is getting too old why should Microsoft keep trying to revive a very old OS?..It's simple you want real DX10 go and buy Vista or even Windows 7 down the road,if not then live without it.

you are exactly right. I'm just trying to correct Smilin's fud that it isn't possible to port dx 10 to xp.. because it is doable and probably not that difficult to do especially w. MS's resources.

I say MS chose not to port dx10 to xp for marketing reasons rather than a techncal one.

It's not FUD. The facts are that while you can get some DX10 effects to run under XP, they are being handled by the CPU instead of the GPU making it pretty much useless. So, no you can't run all DX10 effects under XP, and the ones you can are extremely limited as they have to be rendered in Software rather than hardware.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: MemXP is getting too old why should Microsoft keep trying to revive a very old OS?..It's simple you want real DX10 go and buy Vista or even Windows 7 down the road,if not then live without it.

you are exactly right. I'm just trying to correct Smilin's fud that it isn't possible to port dx 10 to xp.. because it is doable and probably not that difficult to do especially w. MS's resources.

I say MS chose not to port dx10 to xp for marketing reasons rather than a techncal one.

It's not FUD. The facts are that while you can get some DX10 effects to run under XP, they are being handled by the CPU instead of the GPU making it pretty much useless. So, no you can't run all DX10 effects under XP, and the ones you can are extremely limited as they have to be rendered in Software rather than hardware.

Yep its very poor hacked version of DX10 with important stuff missing,only one way to get the real thing,personally if you really need DX10 then just buy Vista since its not expensive, also if you got the hardware to run DX10 then you got the hardware for Vista too.

Btw don't forget DX technology is still progressing(at least for Vista and Windows 7),we are up to DX10.1 but DX11 is coming at some point so is it really worth trying to install a poor imitation DX10 hack on XP?

 

[Tempered81]

anyone have some comparisons showing that vista sp1 is faster than xp sp3?
like this: http://www.lockergnome.com/bla...p-sp3-which-is-faster/
or this: http://news.softpedia.com/news...n-the-Dust-72059.shtml

Because, despite what everyone here says about Vista having all these great technical improvements under the hood, if it's still slower than XP in daily usage, the general public will not want it until two or three service packs in, when it's matured.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
anyone have some comparisons showing that vista sp1 is faster than xp sp3?
like this: http://www.lockergnome.com/bla...p-sp3-which-is-faster/
or this: http://news.softpedia.com/news...n-the-Dust-72059.shtml

Because, despite what everyone here says about Vista having all these great technical improvements under the hood, if it's still slower than XP in daily usage, the general public will not want it until two or three service packs in, when it's matured.

You are going over old ground,I have already posted newer benchmarks(dated this year) from other sites showing Vista is up there with XP SP3.


Link.

Game Results
It's clear that driver issues in Windows Vista have been largely ironed out, as the five to 10 percent performance drop compared to Windows XP is virtually gone. In fact, the only test out of these three in which Vista didn't match its predecessor was in the pre-SP1 World in Conflict result.



Final Thoughts
If you were expecting a huge drop in performance as your eyes scanned from the XP to the Vista results, well, surprise! As many a tech analyst predicted, Windows Vista's gaming performance conundrum has largely been solved, and it was mainly due to early graphics drivers.

It took about a year and a half, but the performance gap between Vista and its forerunner has finally evaporated.

Note the Date (May 12th 2008).

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
anyone have some comparisons showing that vista sp1 is faster than xp sp3?
like this: http://www.lockergnome.com/bla...p-sp3-which-is-faster/
or this: http://news.softpedia.com/news...n-the-Dust-72059.shtml

Because, despite what everyone here says about Vista having all these great technical improvements under the hood, if it's still slower than XP in daily usage, the general public will not want it until two or three service packs in, when it's matured.

Well, the first link is nothing but someones anecdotal evidence. No information on how the test was performed. Was it a fresh install of Vista (where it is at a disadvantage)? Vista doesn't see it's full performance for a few days after the initial install. I have personally seen an increase in performance on my Laptop going from XP to Vista.

The second one is nothing more than a rehash to a claim Devil Mountain software which has been shown to be unrealistic in every way. All it did was test a script which opened and closed windows, scrolled through windows, all at speeds far faster than any human can do. The actual test was also easily affected by animation sequences of windows opening and resizing. Something that would appear instantaneous to a user but adversely affect a script like this. Worse still, the actual test was run on a virtual machine rather than native XP/Vista machines.

On the other hand, there are plenty of benchmarks out there that show Vista SP1 vs XP SP3 performance to be just fine:
http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,2845,2302499,00.asp

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1772

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
there are plenty of benchmarks out there that show Vista SP1 vs XP SP3 performance to be just fine:
http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,2845,2302499,00.asp

That games benchmark shows them to be pretty much equal & Vista to be faster in the Supreme command bench:

XP SP3 : 51 FPS
Vista SP1 : 53 FPS

How soon before the naysayers quit bashing Vista then? 1-2 years?

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
there are plenty of benchmarks out there that show Vista SP1 vs XP SP3 performance to be just fine:
http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,2845,2302499,00.asp

That games benchmark shows them to be pretty much equal & Vista to be faster in the Supreme command bench:

XP SP3 : 51 FPS
Vista SP1 : 53 FPS

How soon before the naysayers quit bashing Vista then? 1-2 years?

The tide is starting to turn. There are a lot of "tech personalities" that are now actually using Vista and having their opinion changed by it.

A part of it is the rise in popularity of X64. Since RAM prices have gotten so cheap, more and more people are going 4+GB of RAM and finding that they need a 64bit version of windows to address the full amount. As a result, most are going Vista 64 and realizing that it's actually pretty good.

 

[Insomniator]

Never really had any problems with vista, no more than I ever had with XP and I like the interface better. Boots up and shuts down much faster than XP ever did also.

 

[EKKC]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
there are plenty of benchmarks out there that show Vista SP1 vs XP SP3 performance to be just fine:
http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,2845,2302499,00.asp

That games benchmark shows them to be pretty much equal & Vista to be faster in the Supreme command bench:

XP SP3 : 51 FPS
Vista SP1 : 53 FPS

How soon before the naysayers quit bashing Vista then? 1-2 years?

The tide is starting to turn. There are a lot of "tech personalities" that are now actually using Vista and having their opinion changed by it.

A part of it is the rise in popularity of X64. Since RAM prices have gotten so cheap, more and more people are going 4+GB of RAM and finding that they need a 64bit version of windows to address the full amount. As a result, most are going Vista 64 and realizing that it's actually pretty good.

im not going to bash vista x64. but my main workstation and work laptop are both XP x64 (8GB and 4GB RAM, respectively)

my gaming rig is vista x64. i hardly use it though, but it's not bad and boots up fast. but i don't do enough work on it to make a proper critique on it.

 

[BoberFett]

So the best that can be said about Vista is that "It's not worse than XP."

I guess if you're buying a new PC and it comes preloaded with Vista, have at it. But I can't see any reason for anybody to upgrade.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: MemXP is getting too old why should Microsoft keep trying to revive a very old OS?..It's simple you want real DX10 go and buy Vista or even Windows 7 down the road,if not then live without it.

you are exactly right. I'm just trying to correct Smilin's fud that it isn't possible to port dx 10 to xp.. because it is doable and probably not that difficult to do especially w. MS's resources.

I say MS chose not to port dx10 to xp for marketing reasons rather than a techncal one.

What's FUD is you claiming that's a DX10 port. That's nothing more then a terrible hack.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: MemXP is getting too old why should Microsoft keep trying to revive a very old OS?..It's simple you want real DX10 go and buy Vista or even Windows 7 down the road,if not then live without it.

you are exactly right. I'm just trying to correct Smilin's fud that it isn't possible to port dx 10 to xp.. because it is doable and probably not that difficult to do especially w. MS's resources.

I say MS chose not to port dx10 to xp for marketing reasons rather than a techncal one.

What's FUD is you claiming that's a DX10 port. That's nothing more then a terrible hack.

He's not going to be convinced. He's made up his mind and it won't be changed. Microsoft could probably port directX 10 back into Windows 95 if you want to take the discussion to that level of stupidity. I think it's gotten stupid enough.


Jackdruid is so transparent. He is pissed at Microsoft and wants to stay that way. Leave him be.

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: toadeater
If you've got nothing better to do with your time, get Vista and you can spend all day messing with it trying to get it to work right.

No, that's linux.


People are so fucking stupid. Especially those that think mac is better for an unbacked reason.

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: toadeater
If you've got nothing better to do with your time, get Vista and you can spend all day messing with it trying to get it to work right.

Gee I install it and go. What problems do you have that take all day to fix?

He didn't say he had problems with it. He's never used Vista. He says YOU'll have problems with it because the Mac commercial told him so.

x2

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: MemXP is getting too old why should Microsoft keep trying to revive a very old OS?..It's simple you want real DX10 go and buy Vista or even Windows 7 down the road,if not then live without it.

you are exactly right. I'm just trying to correct Smilin's fud that it isn't possible to port dx 10 to xp.. because it is doable and probably not that difficult to do especially w. MS's resources.

I say MS chose not to port dx10 to xp for marketing reasons rather than a techncal one.

What's FUD is you claiming that's a DX10 port. That's nothing more then a terrible hack.

whats the difference between a hack and a port? nothing.

its all software changes that would allow something made in one to work on the other.

Smilin you are so transparent to simply believe anything MS tells you.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

whats the difference between a hack and a port? nothing.

its all software changes that would allow something made in one to work on the other.

No, not really. A port is a modification or rewrite of something to have the same functionality. A hack just gets something to kinda sorta work. In this case, a port would be for DX10 effects to work under XP using hardware acceleration. The existing Hack only allows for some DX10 effects but rendered using software with no hardware acceleration. A pretty big difference.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

whats the difference between a hack and a port? nothing.

its all software changes that would allow something made in one to work on the other.

No, not really. A port is a modification or rewrite of something to have the same functionality. A hack just gets something to kinda sorta work. In this case, a port would be for DX10 effects to work under XP using hardware acceleration. The existing Hack only allows for some DX10 effects but rendered using software with no hardware acceleration. A pretty big difference.

That's a HUGE difference, considering the point of DX10 is to provide hardware acceleration for GFX operations.

Everything else is right though

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

whats the difference between a hack and a port? nothing.

its all software changes that would allow something made in one to work on the other.

No, not really. A port is a modification or rewrite of something to have the same functionality. A hack just gets something to kinda sorta work. In this case, a port would be for DX10 effects to work under XP using hardware acceleration. The existing Hack only allows for some DX10 effects but rendered using software with no hardware acceleration. A pretty big difference.

facts:

ports are not always complete.
some hacks completely work.

call it a port or a hack or anything you like, but in the end, its just a software change/modification.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: MemXP is getting too old why should Microsoft keep trying to revive a very old OS?..It's simple you want real DX10 go and buy Vista or even Windows 7 down the road,if not then live without it.

you are exactly right. I'm just trying to correct Smilin's fud that it isn't possible to port dx 10 to xp.. because it is doable and probably not that difficult to do especially w. MS's resources.

I say MS chose not to port dx10 to xp for marketing reasons rather than a techncal one.

What's FUD is you claiming that's a DX10 port. That's nothing more then a terrible hack.

whats the difference between a hack and a port? nothing.

its all software changes that would allow something made in one to work on the other.

Smilin you are so transparent to simply believe anything MS tells you.

Your wild unsubstantiated claims about what influence marketting has over the Dev teams inside MS come from what source?

I'm pretty sure I know more about MS than you do.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

facts:

ports are not always complete.
some hacks completely work.

call it a port or a hack or anything you like, but in the end, its just a software change/modification.

Contrary to popular opinion, grasping at straws will not increase your chances of finding that needle in the haystack.

Facts:

Ports are not always complete, but they do provide the major functionality. The DX10 hack in no way provides the major features of DX10 in that most effects are not there and there is no hardware acceleration which is the whole point of DX10 hardware.

Some hacks do completely work, but the DX10 hack barely works and the stuff that does has terrible performance.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

facts:

ports are not always complete.
some hacks completely work.

call it a port or a hack or anything you like, but in the end, its just a software change/modification.

Contrary to popular opinion, grasping at straws will not increase your chances of finding that needle in the haystack.

Facts:

Ports are not always complete, but they do provide the major functionality. The DX10 hack in no way provides the major features of DX10 in that most effects are not there and there is no hardware acceleration which is the whole point of DX10 hardware.

Some hacks do completely work, but the DX10 hack barely works and the stuff that does has terrible performance.

Don't you feel like you have been hitting your head up against a brick wall? Some people never let little things like facts get in the way of their prejudices.