Um, if you have a DX10 card but not vista, what's stopping hackers from getting DX10 running on XP?

[Hajpoj]

Could someone please explain to me why DX10 can't be run on XP? Seems like there could be ways of doing it...

 

[oynaz]

Of course there are ways, but it is a very large programming task. I doubt anyone would think it was worth the time and effort. It is much easier to simply hack Vista and remove the copy protection.

 

[Hajpoj]

Reading up on using software emulation to run a Dx10 game in XP. It would be neat if you could allocate a core from a multi-core processor for that task.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: Hajpoj
Could someone please explain to me why DX10 can't be run on XP?

Microsoft would sue you if you did.

 

[razor2025]

DX10 is an API. Think of it as "toolkit" to draw graphics. Basically, DX10 contains sets of "instructions" the programmers can use to draw objects on the screen. Even if you have a DX10-capable card, you will still need the DX10 API to have any program draw objects that require DX10 instructions.

This is really over-simplification of what API and DX10 is, but to make the answer short; No, without the DX10 API that's packed with Vsita, you won't be able to take advantage of DX10 graphics.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: razor2025
DX10 is an API. Think of it as "toolkit" to draw graphics. Basically, DX10 contains sets of "instructions" the programmers can use to draw objects on the screen. Even if you have a DX10-capable card, you will still need the DX10 API to have any program draw objects that require DX10 instructions.

This is really over-simplification of what API and DX10 is, but to make the answer short; No, without the DX10 API that's packed with Vsita, you won't be able to take advantage of DX10 graphics.

This.

Basically when you break it down, DX10 is giving instructions (via shader model 4) that XP doesn't have a complement to. So even if you were to emulate it, it would be horribly inefficient and difficult.

 

[Molondo]

Why are people so against Vista? Im just starting to use it, if great!
Sorry, i tknow its a bit offtopic.

 

[Roguestar]

Fear of the unknown!

 

[Mark R]

Essentially, one of the major changes from Windows NT/2000/XP to Vista has been a complete re-engineering of the OS core (the kernel). While the basic design of XP is very old, it has been patched and upgraded to keep it up to date. However, the changes in Vista are more substantial than just simple updates.

DirectX is an 'API' - it's a language, a vocabulary, of commands that programs can use. A DirectX compatible card is able to understand those commands - or the card has a driver which can understand them, and translate them into a form that the electronics can understand.

Part of the changes in Vista are a complete overhaul in how card drivers communicate with programs and with Windows. These changes were done to improve stability and speed. This means vista drivers need to be designed in a different way to XP drivers. DirectX 10 takes advantage of some of these changes in order to improve performance.

While, technically, making DirectX10 work on XP would be possible - it would be difficult. It would require redesigning the DirectX 10 system, so that it doesn't rely on the new stability/performance features of Vista, redesigning the card drivers so that they are XP compatible, etc.

It would be so much work that it would be almost as much work as designing and building DX10 in the first place. Now put yourself in MS's position - would you spend 10s or 100s of thousands of man-hours, at a cost of millions of $ - to upgrade a product that is nearly 6 years old, and a product for which you already have a superior replacement?

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: oynaz
Of course there are ways, but it is a very large programming task. I doubt anyone would think it was worth the time and effort. It is much easier to simply hack Vista and remove the copy protection.

Bingo!

 

[pm]

Why are people so against Vista? Im just starting to use it, if great!

I was on the Vista beta, so I've used it a lot. BUT I don't like the license limitations on the upgrade version and the retail version is expensive. XP works great for me, and I don't feel like I need to ante up $200 to get a slightly improved version of it. I would imagine that the price has a lot to do with why so many people are down on Vista.