The Vista and DirectX10 Hype

[flexy]

I know this could be an extremely long thread, but i try to keep it more generic.

I am working with Vista 64 a long time already - starting when the first betas came out where i had a separate partition to "test drive" this new OS.

Now some time has gone by and, being a proud owner of a fast Quad Core 3600Mhz, 4GB memory and a Asus GTS 8800 512 it was no question to install Vista 64 on this new machine.

There are two main reasons which don't let the common user a choice here:

) Having 4GB of memory requires a 64 bit OS
) The advent of so called "new and exciting games" using the new DirectX10 requires Vista since DX10 is Vista exklusive.

As so many of enthusiasts i was very excited having such a nice new PC, especially the 8800GTS now supporting DirectX 10 with all the exciting games, just to name a few: Crysis, Flight Simulator X/Acceleration, Upcoming Alan Wake, Tomb Raider Anniversary, Gears of War and much much more i dont even want to list.

To my dissapointment, even after installing SP1 for Vista which is supposedly getting rid of horrible performance eg. while simple file-copying Vista 64 still runs ANYTHING BUT "snappy" and with such a kilelr rig i almost have a tear in my eye going back to my old A64 PC (on the other side of the room) which, although with MUCH SLOWER hardware running XP seems way way "snappier" and more responsive in every aspect.

But this posting is NOT a "now i list all reasons why i hate Vista"-Posting.....but a posting pointing out the illusions and deceptions making us believe we "all need Vista since DirectX10 is the best thing since sliced bread" - therefore we supposedly have no CHOICE than throwing down money MS' throat since (as any serious enthusiast) we certainly don't want to miss out the latest tech and evelopment, don't we?

* Is it a fact that "real life" visible enhancements in all UP TO DATE software titles utilizing DX10 is less than "impressing" - to say the least. Maybe its just bad implementation of code, or bad drivers, or developers are just lazy. I just dont see ANYTHING at this time which legitimates DX10.

To make things worse...the net is full of comparisons of screenshots and reviews were in a rather cyinical way people augh about the so called "differences" with this or that title, pointing to screenshots of running Game X in DX9 or DX10 - one famous example would be Gears of War.

Sorry people - get along, nothing to see. Literally. Why on earth did you buy this 8800GTX? Why are you running Vista? Don't you see the giant difference? Look....here is a small white spec, maybe a reflection of some sorts. This is DX10!! Amazing! Look closer at the DX9 screenshot! There is no white little speck!
You will certainly see this legitimates that it will run 20% slower under Vista and DX10 now, but certainly you dont want to miss this little white reflection speck, don't you.

One of THE gaming titles coming right from Microsoft is certainly Flight Simulator X (short: FSX) which after SP2 and the "Acceleration" Expansion Pack now also supports DX10.

There is this famous screenshot which was released by Aces/Microsoft as a PR promo for the upcoming "amazing features" of FSX using DirectX10:

http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/cg/000000048480.jpg

or similar. Just Google them.

The problem here is that those screenshots are now labeled "artist impressions" and Aces/MS openly apologizes having released those deceiving "impressions" which (BELIEVE ME) have nothing at all to do what you actually get using FSX under Vista and DX10.

In addition, after years and years of development the "DX10" feature in MS Premium representative game title "flight simulator x" is now called "Direct X 10 PREVIEW" - knowing that everythign said and done (i.e programmed) is just ridiculous compared to what has been said about the great DX10 features before.

On the MSDN blog, the MS/Aces lead graphics programmer for FSX says:

http://blogs.msdn.com/sebby123...dispell-the-myths.aspx
>>
Because of these two issues, we are labeling the DX10 support a ?preview? in the UI. We expect it will add value; but we are not expecting the DX10 path to replace the DX9 path as the primary experience in FSX and expect third parties to author to the DX9 path in the large.
>>

and continues apologizing for the fake mock-up screenshots which suggests amazin visuals coming with DX10 which were just never implemented.

This is especially disturbing thinking about that DX10 hardware (NV 8800) exists for some while already and Vista is LONG, LONG RTM, the Vista beta times are long over. (Here would be a perfect place for some cynical laughs).

But then why it comes that even titles coming right from Redmond,WA dont even show any exciting DX10 titles? Wouldnt you expect that being the case? Assuming that MS surely would have an agenda and soe SOLID foundation to actually make their product (Vista) attractive, with SOLID and factual proof, screenshots and comparison how this or that game runs AMAZING compared to the olden times under XP.

Now...think. I was talking about Microsoft's FSX, but i could continue the line. Name any current "DX10 supporting" title and look for comparisons. Not only will you see that differences (if there are any!) are trivial or almost not existing - just by far don't legitimate the need to upgrade (even after a year+ existing DX10 hardware). No legitimiation to upgrade to either DX10 hardware NOR upgrade to Vista, which is of course needed since MS did well making it impossible to implement DX10 into a solid, fast and proven XP, although dated.

I am certain that MS sees this and many, many disappointed users with their new PCs and graphicscards see this too - and here we come to another title i am actually very much looking forward to "Alan Wake" which will SUPPOSEDLY be the first real native game *requiring* (!) DX10 (ergo: Vista) and multi cpu core.

Too bad this game is obviously still developed, maybe its already finished but knowingly held back since remedy (the developers) know that RIGHT NOW only 4% of all PC users would even be capable of running this game on their PCs. (I would be one of them, and i am sure many on AT have nice rigs too. But the majority of PC users..NOT). Releasing this game for sure would be a big risk since those 4% of all PC users even CAPABLE of running the game certainly dont make a market!

SUPRISINGLY....Microsoft is (and always has) pushing "Alan Wake" a lot and there are of course rumors that the developers got paid by MS. Who knows. Point is: MS NEEDS the killer app/game to show off DX10, otherwise it is getting ridiculous.
SURPRISINGLY....remedy is working on a Xbox 360 port of "Alan Wake" which is very, very ironic.

While promoted as the first real native DX10 game which WILL need Vista and DX10 they're porting this game down to DX9 (XBox 360 uses DX9!!) - but of course nothing mentioned that the same would happen on PC. If this were the case (Alan Wake using DX9) i am sure it would be out already Personally i am thinking those people will finish the Xbox 360 version since this will be the only way to get sales in since Remedy knows they wont win bigs releasing a "DX10 exclusive" for a handful of nerds running killer rigs.

So..where do we stand?

We have Vista with its quirks, too many. We have Directx10. We have some titles with "DX10 support" which look identical on DX9 and DX10 and very often faster under XP/DX9, what irony! We have promises and fake screenshots, and we have people being disappointed with their performance and "what you see on the screen" compared to the old times.
Now..this is far, far worse than a few years ago when the graphics world updated from Shader1.4 to Shader 2.0, or DX8 up to DX9, respective. Makes you wonder what the REAL advantage of Vista is.
Or maybe there is no single advantage, but only hype ????

Also...in addition, a good laugh was caused a few weeks ago when ATI released its new line of cards now supporting "DX10.1". Since...well...we really, really waited for this...(or: who cares????)


G.

 

[Mem]

I don't see the point of this thread,however Microsoft as a company can do what they want with their products,you have the option to buy or not to buy their products etc..as to DX10...video hardware and DX10 gaming is still in its infancy so expect more progress in both hardware and games down the road,not to meantion DX11 etc.. don't think Microsoft will stop at DX10.

Vista may not be perfect but as any Microsoft OS ever been...Answer is no.
,personally I don't have any major problems with Vista x64 or Vista x86 ,yes I'm aware there are people that have issues but there are also people that don't have any major issues so where does that leave us,same as any other user in general.

You better get use to Microsoft with Windows 7 and Windows 8 down the road etc.

As to DX10 hype I don't think anybody buys into it,we know that DX11,12 etc will require more demanding hardware but that has always been the case as technology/software moves forward.

I'm looking forward to Windows 7,8 etc ..as a gamer I'm quite happy with Microsoft,not many operating systems out there with sort of gaming support Microsoft have, come to think of it there's none.

Btw for the record I still think Vista is the best Operating System Microsoft have made so far (as I have always stated).

 

[MrChad]

The illusions, lies and deceptions by MS and how people fall for it.

What illusions and lies? DirectX 10 is only available for Vista and will not be back-ported to XP. This is a fact. If you want to run a DX10-only game, you'll need Vista. This is also a fact. If the initial batch of DirectX 10 games show little to no improvement over their DX9 counterparts, I don't see how that's "deception" on the part of Microsoft.

Frankly, I think it's stupid to buy Vista for its DX10 support when there are no DX10 games that you want to play. It's also stupid to spend several hundred dollars on a video card when your current one will work fine for the games you play. I still run an Athlon XP 1600 with 512 MB RAM and XP SP2 because it meets all my current needs. There are many legitimate reasons to upgrade to Vista (improved security, better driver support for the 64-bit version, driver/kernel architecture improvements, etc), but DX10 support may not be one that applies to everyone.

 

[ChronoReverse]

I can make a DX9 based game look like it was done in DX6 too. That doesn't make DX9 "only as good as" DX6

 

[QuixoticOne]

I've got a similar quad core system with 8GB, so Vista 64 is the natural choice of Microsoft OS for general use. Overall it's working "OK" in that it gets the basic jobs done while being compatible with my hardware in ways that XP32 would not be.

I don't think any of the "extras" in terms of APPLICATIONS that come with Vista are worth a much of damn compared to XP or just not having those "new" applications at all because they're so BAD.

e.g. XP Home NTbackup is way BETTER than Vista Home backup, that gets WAY WORSE in Vista and, really, both XP and Vista backup sucks compared to even a half-way decent 3rd party backup program.

Vista's DVD burner doesn't work worth a damn -- can't even burn pre-mastered ISO images to CD/DVD, WTF?! Also the live-filesystem burning is SLOW and UNRELIABLE IMHO.

Bitlocker? Doesn't work with 95% of the hardware out there and isn't all that great, has some flaws, isn't compatible, isn't verifiably secure, non-standard, etc.

Ultimate extras? There are none to speak of.. a couple of video screen savers, whoopie. You might as well have saved the money, bought a camera and taken some pictures / videos for your own screensaver.

Readyboost? Nice idea but too little too late. Don't be upgrading to vista unless you have plenty of RAM and a good fast CPU.

DX10? This should never have been marketed *to the public*. Yes, it is of some interest to software developers writing games and 3D software on Vista. Yes if you work for ATI/NVIDIA you had to know about it and work with it. For the average user and even for the major game playing enthusiast it is absolutely hype that makes no useful benefit in almost every case you could possibly want TODAY.

Maybe 24 months from now there will be some great DX10 games that run under Vista and Windows 7 that are significantly more pretty and detailed and faster than the best of the current generation of games. Guess what, that woun't be BECAUSE of DX10 or Vista, it'll be BECAUSE by then you'll be running an 8-core Nehalem 2 CPU with 16GB DDR3 RAM and an NVIDIA 12000GTX card that is like four times faster than anything you can buy today. And, yes, incidentally they'll be running DX10 to its fullest since it'll be the only CHOICE from Microsoft, but that's irrelevant.

Direct X is like an inkjet printer cartridge. They WANT to keep changing it and making it incompatible with past / future versions because then you'll HAVE to buy new operating system software and new video hardware to get the latest multimedia capabilities. There's no REASON they couldn't have made DX10 run on XP, but they wouldn't make much more money if they did that. If you're a serious high performance 3D gamer you pretty much hard to do a major video card upgrade every 18 months even if they stayed with DX9 just because the cards get like 3x as powerful by then and you'd be playing a slide-show instead of a fast action game if you used a 6800GTX (DX9 card) for Crysis / FSX instead of an 8800GTX (still a DX9 card) for Crysis / FSX. It isn't about DirectX, it's about them making games with twice the 3D texture details and shading effects etc. every 18 months.

Basically Vista 64 = XP 64 with more eye candy, more bugs, a few extra applications that don't work well in general, and better driver / OS support for more RAM and newer hardware.

Marketing people ruin EVERYTHING when they take some SLIGHT technical difference and start HYPING it as a new EXCITING feature that will improve your sex life, stop balding, make you more fun at parties, whiten your teeth, impress your co-workers, and revolutionize your PC experience. Sales / Marketing hype = bull manure 100% of the time. Ignore it. Take a look at the few technical differences, some real world benchmarks, and decide if something is REALLY going to benefit how YOU want to use your computer TODAY. Most of the time the answer is: slim to none.

 

[nerp]

People ran out and bought FX series NVIDIA cards in the hopes of experiencing dx9 glory.

Ahem.

The way I see it, MS creates the DirectX. It's up to the hardware and game manufacturers to make it worth using the latest version of DirectX.

 

[imported_wired247]

I didn't fall for crap, directX 10 is in its infancy, I wanted vista for other reasons than just Dx10, Microsoft is better at marketing than you are at ranting IMHO

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: Mem

You better get use to Microsoft with Windows 7 and Windows 8 down the road etc.

(...)

Btw for the record I still think Vista is the best Operating System Microsoft have made so far (as I have always stated).

mem, after some initial quirks (i do a lot of "low level" stuff which is a bitch under 64bit Vista...i have to agree that it is STABLE, indeed.

However the "shock" is big in terms of responsiveness and "snappynes" when i go over to my old A64 PC running XP.

Also, isn't it ironical how already Win7 and Win8 is spoken about all over and rumors are going? Vista is still in an early phase (IMHO) with SP1 adressinn the FIRST really, really urgent issued....SP1 is not even out officially and now we're talking about Win7 which is a total different story.

YES...i remember how i needed to think twice whether i wanted to upg from 98 to XP...now afterwards XP looks like one of the best, most stable OS ever, also in terms of speed.

Vista, ON PAPER, does indeed offer a lot of new features, and i am ALSO talking about rewritten stuff in the kernal, stuff which is supposed to make a system faster. Readyboost, Superfetch, TCP/IP stack...just to name a few.

WHY then does it feel like i am walking in 2ft of mood, its constantly a "feeling" like there's something running in the background slowing the OS down.

Thinsk take forever, starting with simple reading my mail, Vista Mail taking forever just to come up with my mails.

I dont see ANY of those performance enhancements. I even got me a Patriot Xport 4GB USB drive and use Readyboost, i tweasked a LOT and disabled many unneeded services. Its still slow and puts ANY high-end PC to shame.

The fact of "stability" doesnt make it more attractive.

If i were a salesman..how would i want to sell this to an enthusiast?

I cannot argue with "DX10" since this is (see first post) not relevant.

I cannot argue with speed because its slow like ****.

So..what remains???? Tell me!

I even turned off DWM/Aero since i was unable to change the ugly black task-bar (makes sense, right?) You can change a lot, but NOT the color of the task-bar.

Vsync on the desktop....not working...or desktop performance in general...its fricking ridiculous to see extreme window tearing just by dragging windows around...on a $340+ graphics card. Like its rendered in software.

This just regarding speed and responsiveness in general. MUCH, MUCH mroe to say.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: wired247
I didn't fall for crap, directX 10 is in its infancy, I wanted vista for other reasons than just Dx10, Microsoft is better at marketing than you are at ranting IMHO

hm...irrelevenat They just shove Vista on each and any PC/NB out there and then its sold in Best Buy. Whether you like it or not. They dont need marketing

But in the case of Vista i am just looking for some SOLID argument making it plausible that its in fact a path UP from XP, in regards to EVERYTHING. But it is not.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: MrChad
I don't see how that's "deception" on the part of Microsoft.

deception in a sense that its suggested there is a need to upgrade to Vista since Vista is faster and has more features.

The "features" IMHO are just 900 security windows asking you 900 times if you point your browser ANYWHERE. Out of the box i need to click away 6 security warnings just to read a fricking PDF manual off a CD, it asks me whether i am "really sure" "whether i am aware of the risk" and stuff which might be useful for paranoid people, but it gets annyoing.

Dont even mention the additional headaches in regards to V 64 bit and low-level drivers.

The deception is in the fact, on side of MS:

its indeed not faster and all the so called performance enhancements, be it filesyste, tcp/ip stack, readyboost and whatnot do NOT (in no way) translate into real live performance gains.

I dont see a point if booting might indeed 2 seconds faster now, but i need to wait 20 seconds sometimes til my mail window shows me my mails! Just as one example.
Vista is SLOWER in any sense but they claim the opposite.

) features are "useless" whatever those "features might be". Nice window flipping using direct3d. NICE. If you see it the first time. As said above i can live without Aero (even on a more than capable graphics card, also mem is not an issue!).

Sorry...deep down i am "purist"..things can look nice indeed, but they dont impress me if i see that some basics are not working right or (IMHO) work slower than they actually should.

) deception and PURE, blatant "give us more money" strategy:
To make DX10 Vista exclusive. You have no fricking CHOICE if you want to use DX10, whatever "real life" advantage this might now have.



Waht else was introduced in the "great Vista":

*
total rewriting of the soundstack and getting rid of DirectSound. Blame it on Creative, sure. But it really doesnt matter! What counts is the REAL EFFECT then on the user. The suer doesnt care whether its creative's fault or MS's fault:

Many (mostly older) games wont right anymore with Creative cards, EAX gone

I have a "subjective felt" worse sound quality here ion teh same audio hardware than i had under XP. Thats a little "bonus" you get with Vista

*
Similar things happened with hardware level access in regards to graphics, especially GAMMA.

Did you notice that you can NOT set your game gamma anymore from your display drivers planel? This is, as far as i understand also a result of their new paranoid "security strategy"....including making it impossible to actually directly access the hardware from a driver's perspective Thats why we dont have an option of "3d game gamma" anymore, eg in NV control panel.

If a game does NOT have this option built in the game you just cant control this anymore at all. I ahd an older monitor (thanks god i got a new one now)..but i needed to crank up my 3d gamma BADLY since picture was too dard....it was just impossible. Of course this was no peoblem in XP.

So..add this, and then worse sound, WORSE FPS...hideous DX10 effects and you really, really feel like an idiot who might've just spent a lot of money on HW PLUS the OS...and gets slapped in the face instead in any way possible.

Also..people are already talkin about Windows 7...lol..what makes you think it will improve??? I predict it will need 8GB MIN and a current high-end system as MINIMUM...just so it can run 25% slower than Vista now? Maybe MS thinks that half a dozen security warnings are not enough, they will add ADDITIONAL security measures just to actually compensate for their OWN flaws & security holes etc..and all this stuff will certainly NOT make your PC perform faster. OS getting MORE complex, needing better HW, not the other way around. (Sorrym, ranting about a not even released OS )

 

[flexy]

btw. how can someone with a straight face say that Vista is great if copying of a simple 500kb file takes 30seconds?

Note that Joe Average User does not have SP1 where this problem has been solved to a certain extent (although OTHER issues have been introduced w/ SP1)...Joe Average gets his new PC with Vista and it takes forever for the simplest filecopy - and you would stand there with a straight face "recommending" Vista where it takes 30seconds to copy a little file on a HIGH-END machine?

 

[ChronoReverse]

It doesn't take 30 seconds for everyone. For some reason it only affects some users but not all.

 

[stash]

Bitlocker? Doesn't work with 95% of the hardware out there and isn't all that great, has some flaws, isn't compatible, isn't verifiably secure, non-standard, etc.

OT, but WTF are you talking about? What are the flaws (the Princeton thing is not a flaw)? WTF does not verifiably secure mean? Non-standard? Doesn't work with 95% of the hardware? I didn't realize 95% of the hardware out there didn't have either a USB port or TPM chip or both.

 

[Mem]

Also, isn't it ironical how already Win7 and Win8 is spoken about all over and rumors are going? Vista is still in an early phase (IMHO) with SP1 adressinn the FIRST really, really urgent issued....SP1 is not even out officially and now we're talking about Win7 which is a total different story.

The point I was trying to make is that every OS that has been released there are people that find and have honest issues with it,remember XP?.. some 2K users did not see any performance difference, main difference was security(ironic security is another main improved feature of Vista),when Windows 7,8 is released down the road we are going to see the same sort of comments all over again for the 1000000 time,it maybe a different story but you can bet your last dollar it'll have bugs and some users will find issues with it ,just like some have already with previous operating systems over the years.

You'll always get some people like you that'll won't be happy or have issues with Vista or other operating systems etc....I have seen it with 95,98,ME etc...

Vista far as I know has been in the making for quite a long time,SP1 so far IMHO has been pretty solid for a young operating system,gaming has been stable,performance I can't complain about,but thats down to your own personal experience with Vista or the operating system in question.

Many (mostly older) games wont right anymore with Creative cards, EAX gone

Care to list those games?...also don't forget Alchemy for some of the older EAX games,however forget about EAX it was overated years ago and still is IMHO,Creative should have fully opened the market instead they shot themselves in the foot.
I think every new OS that I have had from Microsoft over the years had some older games that would not run on the OS in question,nothing new there.

Do I think Vista or any OS is perfect?.....obviously not, however operating systems seem to be getting more complex and bloated as time goes on,do I expect some people/users to have issues with operating systems in the future ?..obviously the answer is going to be a yes (look at history).End of the day Vista to me is just another Microsoft OS like XP,98,95 etc... nothing more and nothing less and like the rest not perfect,however in my case it gets the job done just like 95,98,XP did for me when they were the new kid on the block.


Side Note I do expect to see SP2 for Vista,but I think Microsoft will take their time on that one.

Btw I make comments like this and I get called a Vista fan,sure I like Vista ,however those that have been here a long time might remember me defending XP to 2K users,I'll probably be defending Windows 7 to Vista users so I better get a nice big comfy chair ,I like progress but one thing is for sure ,the new kid on the block always gets all the flak.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: flexy
I know this could be an extremely long thread, but i try to keep it more generic.

I am working with Vista 64 a long time already - starting when the first betas came out where i had a separate partition to "test drive" this new OS.

Now some time has gone by and, being a proud owner of a fast Quad Core 3600Mhz, 4GB memory and a Asus GTS 8800 512 it was no question to install Vista 64 on this new machine.

There are two main reasons which don't let the common user a choice here:

) Having 4GB of memory requires a 64 bit OS
) The advent of so called "new and exciting games" using the new DirectX10 requires Vista since DX10 is Vista exklusive.

As so many of enthusiasts i was very excited having such a nice new PC, especially the 8800GTS now supporting DirectX 10 with all the exciting games, just to name a few: Crysis, Flight Simulator X/Acceleration, Upcoming Alan Wake, Tomb Raider Anniversary, Gears of War and much much more i dont even want to list.

To my dissapointment, even after installing SP1 for Vista which is supposedly getting rid of horrible performance eg. while simple file-copying Vista 64 still runs ANYTHING BUT "snappy" and with such a kilelr rig i almost have a tear in my eye going back to my old A64 PC (on the other side of the room) which, although with MUCH SLOWER hardware running XP seems way way "snappier" and more responsive in every aspect.

But this posting is NOT a "now i list all reasons why i hate Vista"-Posting.....but a posting pointing out the illusions and deceptions making us believe we "all need Vista since DirectX10 is the best thing since sliced bread" - therefore we supposedly have no CHOICE than throwing down money MS' throat since (as any serious enthusiast) we certainly don't want to miss out the latest tech and evelopment, don't we?

* Is it a fact that "real life" visible enhancements in all UP TO DATE software titles utilizing DX10 is less than "impressing" - to say the least. Maybe its just bad implementation of code, or bad drivers, or developers are just lazy. I just dont see ANYTHING at this time which legitimates DX10.

To make things worse...the net is full of comparisons of screenshots and reviews were in a rather cyinical way people augh about the so called "differences" with this or that title, pointing to screenshots of running Game X in DX9 or DX10 - one famous example would be Gears of War.

Sorry people - get along, nothing to see. Literally. Why on earth did you buy this 8800GTX? Why are you running Vista? Don't you see the giant difference? Look....here is a small white spec, maybe a reflection of some sorts. This is DX10!! Amazing! Look closer at the DX9 screenshot! There is no white little speck!
You will certainly see this legitimates that it will run 20% slower under Vista and DX10 now, but certainly you dont want to miss this little white reflection speck, don't you.

One of THE gaming titles coming right from Microsoft is certainly Flight Simulator X (short: FSX) which after SP2 and the "Acceleration" Expansion Pack now also supports DX10.

There is this famous screenshot which was released by Aces/Microsoft as a PR promo for the upcoming "amazing features" of FSX using DirectX10:

http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/cg/000000048480.jpg

or similar. Just Google them.

The problem here is that those screenshots are now labeled "artist impressions" and Aces/MS openly apologizes having released those deceiving "impressions" which (BELIEVE ME) have nothing at all to do what you actually get using FSX under Vista and DX10.

In addition, after years and years of development the "DX10" feature in MS Premium representative game title "flight simulator x" is now called "Direct X 10 PREVIEW" - knowing that everythign said and done (i.e programmed) is just ridiculous compared to what has been said about the great DX10 features before.

On the MSDN blog, the MS/Aces lead graphics programmer for FSX says:

http://blogs.msdn.com/sebby123...dispell-the-myths.aspx
>>
Because of these two issues, we are labeling the DX10 support a ?preview? in the UI. We expect it will add value; but we are not expecting the DX10 path to replace the DX9 path as the primary experience in FSX and expect third parties to author to the DX9 path in the large.
>>

and continues apologizing for the fake mock-up screenshots which suggests amazin visuals coming with DX10 which were just never implemented.

This is especially disturbing thinking about that DX10 hardware (NV 8800) exists for some while already and Vista is LONG, LONG RTM, the Vista beta times are long over. (Here would be a perfect place for some cynical laughs).

But then why it comes that even titles coming right from Redmond,WA dont even show any exciting DX10 titles? Wouldnt you expect that being the case? Assuming that MS surely would have an agenda and soe SOLID foundation to actually make their product (Vista) attractive, with SOLID and factual proof, screenshots and comparison how this or that game runs AMAZING compared to the olden times under XP.

Now...think. I was talking about Microsoft's FSX, but i could continue the line. Name any current "DX10 supporting" title and look for comparisons. Not only will you see that differences (if there are any!) are trivial or almost not existing - just by far don't legitimate the need to upgrade (even after a year+ existing DX10 hardware). No legitimiation to upgrade to either DX10 hardware NOR upgrade to Vista, which is of course needed since MS did well making it impossible to implement DX10 into a solid, fast and proven XP, although dated.

I am certain that MS sees this and many, many disappointed users with their new PCs and graphicscards see this too - and here we come to another title i am actually very much looking forward to "Alan Wake" which will SUPPOSEDLY be the first real native game *requiring* (!) DX10 (ergo: Vista) and multi cpu core.

Too bad this game is obviously still developed, maybe its already finished but knowingly held back since remedy (the developers) know that RIGHT NOW only 4% of all PC users would even be capable of running this game on their PCs. (I would be one of them, and i am sure many on AT have nice rigs too. But the majority of PC users..NOT). Releasing this game for sure would be a big risk since those 4% of all PC users even CAPABLE of running the game certainly dont make a market!

SUPRISINGLY....Microsoft is (and always has) pushing "Alan Wake" a lot and there are of course rumors that the developers got paid by MS. Who knows. Point is: MS NEEDS the killer app/game to show off DX10, otherwise it is getting ridiculous.
SURPRISINGLY....remedy is working on a Xbox 360 port of "Alan Wake" which is very, very ironic.

While promoted as the first real native DX10 game which WILL need Vista and DX10 they're porting this game down to DX9 (XBox 360 uses DX9!!) - but of course nothing mentioned that the same would happen on PC. If this were the case (Alan Wake using DX9) i am sure it would be out already Personally i am thinking those people will finish the Xbox 360 version since this will be the only way to get sales in since Remedy knows they wont win bigs releasing a "DX10 exclusive" for a handful of nerds running killer rigs.

So..where do we stand?

We have Vista with its quirks, too many. We have Directx10. We have some titles with "DX10 support" which look identical on DX9 and DX10 and very often faster under XP/DX9, what irony! We have promises and fake screenshots, and we have people being disappointed with their performance and "what you see on the screen" compared to the old times.
Now..this is far, far worse than a few years ago when the graphics world updated from Shader1.4 to Shader 2.0, or DX8 up to DX9, respective. Makes you wonder what the REAL advantage of Vista is.
Or maybe there is no single advantage, but only hype ????

Also...in addition, a good laugh was caused a few weeks ago when ATI released its new line of cards now supporting "DX10.1". Since...well...we really, really waited for this...(or: who cares????)


G.

are you frickin' kidding me?
-all this ... for what ?


a rant?

First of ALL, you are hanging your *entire premise* on one huge FALLACY:

) Having 4GB of memory requires a 64 bit OS

Wrong! ... 32-bit Vista is slightly *faster* in 99.9% of games with 4GB of system RAM than Vista 64-bit
- if you don't want 64 bit right now, go for 32 bit Vista - it is JUST AS FAST AS XP! ... and DX10 looks awesome - right now - IF you have the HW; don't give that parroted crap that Crysis looks as good in DX9 as it does in DX10 - With ALL the tweaks in the world, it absolutely does NOT look as good nor does the difference show up well in screen shots as well as actually playing the game.

Try Hellgate: London in 64-bit DX10 with everything completely maxed and with AA/16xAF ... my CrossFire rig can consistently run it in the 30s FPS.
[btw, it is in the .01% of games that run MUCH faster in 64bit]
-It is MUCH better looking in DX10 and ... and, get this - it runs better in DX10 than in DX9

When HW "catches up" this year to modern gaming we will have those screen shots you crave ... Crysis looking more "realistic" than ANYTHING to date on Very High.

Do your research ... get a clue before you make yourself look silly[ier]

... and my Task Bar is pretty in pink

How long did you say you had Vista?
:thumbsdown:

 

[loup garou]

Some people have way too much time on their hands.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Lock this up, the OP is clueless about Vista.

 

[mechBgon]

Why are you running Vista?

Well, since you ask... Security. If you hadn't noticed, the malware authors have gone professional. :evil: There's more and more value to proactive defenses and mitigations, especially in the hands of average PC users who don't have the knowledge level to secure WinXP or Win2000 with such proactive techniques as non-Admin user accounts.

 

[bsobel]

I even turned off DWM/Aero since i was unable to change the ugly black task-bar (makes sense, right?) You can change a lot, but NOT the color of the task-bar.

Right click on desktop, properties. Window Color and Appearance. From that dialog I quote:

You can change the color of windows, the Start menu, and the task bar. Pick one of the available colors or create your own color using the color mixer.

Kinda hard to take you seriously when you can't even right click.

Bill

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: wired247
I didn't fall for crap, directX 10 is in its infancy, I wanted vista for other reasons than just Dx10, Microsoft is better at marketing than you are at ranting IMHO

Same here, I got Vista for other features. DX10 is just an upgrade to DX9. It's going to be a bit before DX10 is fully worked out. While I agree that DX10 is more hype than anything else, I disagree with most of the other comments on Vista since I did not have the same experience when I went from XP to Vista. In fact Vista felt a lot more "snappier."

The original poster asked why I went out and got an 8800GTX. In all honesty, DX10 wasn't the reason. It was more of a "and I will be able to run DX10 when vista comes out" side thought. The real reason I went with the 8800 was because it was/is the fastest video board on the market.

SUPRISINGLY....Microsoft is (and always has) pushing "Alan Wake" a lot and there are of course rumors that the developers got paid by MS. Who knows. Point is: MS NEEDS the killer app/game to show off DX10, otherwise it is getting ridiculous.
SURPRISINGLY....remedy is working on a Xbox 360 port of "Alan Wake" which is very, very ironic.

They aren't pushing Alan Wake any harder than any other game. In fact, most people probably have never heard of it unless they follow gaming news. Even then there has been little information for months about the game. That's hardly pushing the title.

And there is nothing ironic or surprising about Alan Wake being released on the 360. It has always been planned as a 360/PC title. MS has clearly been moving to a cross platform model with the PC and 360 from a development, marketing and gaming standpoint. Ultimately MS wants Live to allow people with 360s to play games with PC gamers that have the same title. This isn't new information either. MS has been talking about it for a couple of years now.

 

[Mem]

The illusions, lies and deceptions by MS and how people fall for it.

Nothings stopping you from not buying VISTA or uninstalling it,as to lies deceptions etc..I'm not sure what you are talking about there ,anyway the internet is a powerful tool for finding info on a particular product so its very easy for you or any person to get the facts/info before buying a product etc....people are not as stupid as you make them out to be.

You are really ranting for nothing as they say.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: flexy
btw. how can someone with a straight face say that Vista is great if copying of a simple 500kb file takes 30seconds?

Funny, I just tried copying a 500Kb file on a Vista machine that doesn't have SP1 on it. It took less than 1 second. How can someone make a claim such as your with a straight face?

 

[brandonb]

This is just one mans opinion.

In DirectX, they typically have a code base like any other. In order to add enhancements, you have to add something ontop of the existing product, and in doing so, must not break the older product. After doing this 9 times (with DirectX), I believe the only true rewrite was with DirectX 7, and now again with DirectX 10... But what happens is the code becomes very spaghetti.

DirectX9 was originally backwards compatible with Windows 95... Windows 95!!!! Sure windows 95 might run more snappy than Vista, but is it better? I'd say no. Theres a ton of issues with Windows 95 codebase that sucked, which when the merge from NT and 9x into XP happened, and moving to DirectX9c or whatever we are at now (not including dx10) we seen a huge increase in games, graphics, and so on. The reason we got to that point is because with the latest DirectX9 they removed some of the legacy code which was preventing them from moving forward.

DirectX10 is the same difference. DirectX9 and before did not support dual cores, did not really support any of the advanced features in todays world. In order to support that, they had to make DirectX10, and change how drivers were written (to support dual cores/multithreading) so the apps can take advantage of it.

Most of the games that are DX10 compatible still are compatible with DX9 and before, which means, they are not really using DX10 how they should be.

It follows the saying... One step backwards to make two steps forwards. I can guarentee in 2 years from now when Vista is more widely used and hardware is better, there will be vista/DirectX10 only games out there, and they will blow away anything seen for DirectX9.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: brandonb
This is just one mans opinion.

In DirectX, they typically have a code base like any other. In order to add enhancements, you have to add something ontop of the existing product, and in doing so, must not break the older product. After doing this 9 times (with DirectX), I believe the only true rewrite was with DirectX 7, and now again with DirectX 10... But what happens is the code becomes very spaghetti.

DirectX9 was originally backwards compatible with Windows 95... Windows 95!!!! Sure windows 95 might run more snappy than Vista, but is it better? I'd say no. Theres a ton of issues with Windows 95 codebase that sucked, which when the merge from NT and 9x into XP happened, and moving to DirectX9c or whatever we are at now (not including dx10) we seen a huge increase in games, graphics, and so on. The reason we got to that point is because with the latest DirectX9 they removed some of the legacy code which was preventing them from moving forward.

DirectX10 is the same difference. DirectX9 and before did not support dual cores, did not really support any of the advanced features in todays world. In order to support that, they had to make DirectX10, and change how drivers were written (to support dual cores/multithreading) so the apps can take advantage of it.

Most of the games that are DX10 compatible still are compatible with DX9 and before, which means, they are not really using DX10 how they should be.

It follows the saying... One step backwards to make two steps forwards. I can guarentee in 2 years from now when Vista is more widely used and hardware is better, there will be vista/DirectX10 only games out there, and they will blow away anything seen for DirectX9.

The biggest difference is the move of many drivers from kernel-mode in XP to user-mode in Vista. This allows the OS to recover from driver failures more gracefully (rather than simply blue screening). It's a major change to the operating system, and DX10 is designed to work in conjunction with this new driver model. Backporting it to XP would essentially be a complete rewrite, which makes little sense for a 7 year old operating system.

 

[Aberforth]

There is nothing bad about DirectX 10, the hardware required to run DX 10 applications are simply *underpowered*, dx 10 also simplifies the development time which naturally reduces the overall production cost. It reduces CPU usage by 12 to 40%, you can notice all dx10 apps will be using very little CPU because it redirects the API's to gpu instead of CPU, but developers never make use of this extra free room that is left in the CPU. Developers often abuse these features without understanding the architecture properly- like they add 50% more effects to a game than what is necessary which defeats the whole point of dx10.

DX10 introduces geometry shaders that requires shader processors in the hardware but developers took this feature for granted and abused it, so the shader processor required a lot more power than the GPU itself, can you believe that? LOL - that's why you don't see huge difference in dx10 apps if you overclock because the shader processor just sucks.

And Vista introduces Windows Device Driver Model, incase you haven't noticed Nvidia took more than a year to bring stable drivers for vista, this is because the driver model in vista is totally different and to make stable and optimized drivers it required a lot of studying and understanding of the architecture (which they didn't do it), so Vista does enhance gaming experience - there is no point in blaming MS on this.

So a DX 10 app runs better if you understand how it works and it should comply with everything I mentioned above.