Why DirectX 10 is vista Exclusive

[mzkhadir]

ARSTechnica

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Awaits posts that go, "LIES! Micro$ucks did this just so they could pimp their abortion of a code called Vista down our throats for $400 blah blah blah"....


or something to that effect.

 

[TecHNooB]

Cuz DX10 is a selling point for some people.

 

[Roguestar]

THEY WANTED TO MAKE GAMERS GET VISTA!!!!!!111ONeTw0

As likely as it is that it would be a factor in their decision, the opportunity for a new unexploited, clean slate to work from was probably heaven for the developers.

 

[CaiNaM]

"Technical reasons aside, money was also a big contributor in the decision to make DX10 exclusive to Vista. Microsoft felt as though Windows XP customers had received, as Taylor puts it, "good value for their money." Taylor even goes as far as admitting that Microsoft knew that making DX10 exclusive to Vista would certainly bring in new customers. "At some point, the question 'to serve existing customers' or 'to get new customers' is a question every business has to ask itself."

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Roguestar
THEY WANTED TO MAKE GAMERS GET VISTA!!!!!!111ONeTw0

As likely as it is that it would be a factor in their decision, the opportunity for a new unexploited, clean slate to work from was probably heaven for the developers.

While that's a solid argument it doesn't exactly jive with the completely crap driver support from some very major manufacturers.

 

[Aberforth]

XP cannot run DX10. Its a different architecture. Pls read the DX10 documentation and find out how DX10 API works.

EDIT: If you somehow run DX10 in XP it will run slower

 

[Roguestar]

Yes we know D3D10 (why does no-one use the proper name goddamnit) is Vista-only.

 

[Arkaign]

lol they basically admitted the marketing angle in this article

"admitting that Microsoft knew that making DX10 exclusive to Vista would certainly bring in new customers. "At some point, the question 'to serve existing customers' or 'to get new customers' is a question every business has to ask itself."

Looks like marketing won out over supporting existing customers

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: Roguestar
Yes we know D3D10 (why does no-one use the proper name goddamnit) is Vista-only.

Because it isn't just D3D10. DX10 encompasses all of the DirectX API such as DirectDraw, DirectSound, Direct3D, etc. You can't just say D3D10 because there is a lot of other stuff it brings for gamers.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Roguestar
THEY WANTED TO MAKE GAMERS GET VISTA!!!!!!111ONeTw0

As likely as it is that it would be a factor in their decision, the opportunity for a new unexploited, clean slate to work from was probably heaven for the developers.

While that's a solid argument it doesn't exactly jive with the completely crap driver support from some very major manufacturers.

What does crap driver support have to do with DirectX?

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: 40sTheme

Originally posted by: Roguestar
Yes we know D3D10 (why does no-one use the proper name goddamnit) is Vista-only.

Because it isn't just D3D10. DX10 encompasses all of the DirectX API such as DirectDraw, DirectSound, Direct3D, etc. You can't just say D3D10 because there is a lot of other stuff it brings for gamers.

http://preview.creativelabs.com/alchemy/default.aspx

DirectSound and DirectSound3D are no more.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Roguestar
THEY WANTED TO MAKE GAMERS GET VISTA!!!!!!111ONeTw0

As likely as it is that it would be a factor in their decision, the opportunity for a new unexploited, clean slate to work from was probably heaven for the developers.

While that's a solid argument it doesn't exactly jive with the completely crap driver support from some very major manufacturers.

What does crap driver support have to do with DirectX?

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: 40sTheme

Originally posted by: Roguestar
Yes we know D3D10 (why does no-one use the proper name goddamnit) is Vista-only.

Because it isn't just D3D10. DX10 encompasses all of the DirectX API such as DirectDraw, DirectSound, Direct3D, etc. You can't just say D3D10 because there is a lot of other stuff it brings for gamers.

http://preview.creativelabs.com/alchemy/default.aspx

DirectSound and DirectSound3D are no more.

DirectDraw has also legacied since dx7.

 

[cubeless]

i was pretty ticked that i had to go to xp from w2k so the kids could play coh...

 

[Sureshot324]

I have a hard time buying that it's really that hard to implement DX10 in XP. They don't NEED to implement the driver model from Vista on XP. All DX10 on XP would need to do is implement the DX10 API so a DX10 game can interact with it. It doesn't matter what goes on behind the scenes.

"Microsoft felt as though Windows XP customers had received, as Taylor puts it, "good value for their money." "

What about gamers who just recently bought a copy of Win XP. Last I heard Dell XPS systems are still selling with Win XP, because Nvidia does not have a WHQL Vista driver yet.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I have a hard time buying that it's really that hard to implement DX10 in XP. They don't NEED to implement the driver model from Vista on XP. All DX10 on XP would need to do is implement the DX10 API so a DX10 game can interact with it. It doesn't matter what goes on behind the scenes.

"Microsoft felt as though Windows XP customers had received, as Taylor puts it, "good value for their money." "

What about gamers who just recently bought a copy of Win XP. Last I heard Dell XPS systems are still selling with Win XP, because Nvidia does not have a WHQL Vista driver yet.

That line from microsoft is bullsh|t. Sure it would have taken some extra work...but you know what, thats what the API is for. Lets face it, it was a marketing decision...because honestly, WTF else does vista have going for it?

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I have a hard time buying that it's really that hard to implement DX10 in XP. They don't NEED to implement the driver model from Vista on XP. All DX10 on XP would need to do is implement the DX10 API so a DX10 game can interact with it. It doesn't matter what goes on behind the scenes.

"Microsoft felt as though Windows XP customers had received, as Taylor puts it, "good value for their money." "

What about gamers who just recently bought a copy of Win XP. Last I heard Dell XPS systems are still selling with Win XP, because Nvidia does not have a WHQL Vista driver yet.

That line from microsoft is bullsh|t. Sure it would have taken some extra work...but you know what, thats what the API is for. Lets face it, it was a marketing decision...because honestly, WTF else does vista have going for it?

IE7? Wait, that's on XP already.
The Journal Filing System? Wait, that was ditched.
The ability to turn off all OS processes when in a game? Nope. Gone.
DX10? The Latest XSOS will have DX10 support.

 

[AVP]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
lol they basically admitted the marketing angle in this article

"admitting that Microsoft knew that making DX10 exclusive to Vista would certainly bring in new customers. "At some point, the question 'to serve existing customers' or 'to get new customers' is a question every business has to ask itself."

Looks like marketing won out over supporting existing customers

Sure there is a marketing angle but this does not imply causation

 

[VirtualLarry]

They (MS) did the same thing with DirectX 5 and WinNT 4.0/Win2000. They ditched support for newer DX versions on the old OS, to attempt to force users to upgrade to the newer OS. MS does this time and time again. Why is anyone surprised? The name of the game for MS is lock-in.

 

[Zap]

Wouldn't it be funny if independant programmers figured out a way to easily shoehorn DX10 into XP? You know, like back when MS claimed in court that IE was an integral part of Windows 95/98/ME... what happened? Well, shortly thereafter independant programmers came up with IE uninstallers. MS claimed that Windows NT 4.0 Server and Workstation operating systems were vastly different from each other... what happened? Shortly thereafter someone came up with the exact file location to do a hex edit and voila, Workstation became Server.

Just some idle thoughts.

 

[RobertR1]

All consumers products have a marketing angle. I seriously hope this is not a shocker to any of you......

 

[Bob151]

We can only hope that WineHQ will be successfull coding for DX10. Its been discussed arround on the Internet, and on their web site. http://www.winehq.org/?issue=320

A free OS not limited to two processor cores or 4GB of RAM, would be nice to run on as well.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: RobertR1
All consumers products have a marketing angle. I seriously hope this is not a shocker to any of you......

(uh uh.... vaporlock... choke... gasp... IMPOSSIBLE!)

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
They (MS) did the same thing with DirectX 5 and WinNT 4.0/Win2000. They ditched support for newer DX versions on the old OS, to attempt to force users to upgrade to the newer OS. MS does this time and time again. Why is anyone surprised? The name of the game for MS is lock-in.

Well let see Apple do something different either? ... IF you hate Microsoft for this reason and you are an MAC user then you?re ignorant. If your Linux user than you have a valid point.

Then you have to think about how much it did it cost microsoft to develop DX10. Why should software companies give away major software developed project for free when it would cost them the same amount a money that a hardware company would develop its next line of product. Do you think hiring all the software developer and making them work thousands of hrs to complete a project should be then given to people for free since it?s not a tangible thing.