What would be left of Vista when XP gets DX10? NOTHING?!

Somehow I wonder what happens if some hero programmer would be able to make DX10 happen on Windows XP. I mean common let's be honoust....it's possible....Microsoft has only one trick left and that's to go for the children....let's make the children pay and moan for DX10...let the children make their parents go wild so they'll buy a DX10 setup for them. Ummmm.....Has Microsoft sunken THAT low? Yes they DID. For example Microsoft has admitted that it will only run smooth when you use 2 GB's of memory....yes 2 GB's not the 512MB they refered to earlier on. Open your wallets people!! They do not only want to force your kids to buy DX10 cards they want you to buy more and more to get their money. Hell yeah I think they got deals with hardware companies. The more they act like this the more people will go Linux. Keep it comming Microsoft...show your monopoly game to the world....Linux (Europe) will take over this way, someday!! Somebody please get DX10 to work in XP like it works on Xbox 360 which also is not called Vista I'm sure it's possible 100% sure Microsoft just won't do it for us.

ps: one example is Germany.....there are even pc's sold with standard linux freespire on it. Standard. Also The whole Munchen state is using Linux now. In fact germany has had enough of that American Microsoft junk (installing there pc again and again every year cause microsoft's OS got junked again by spyware and virusses. In fact more and more Germans are going Linux. Can you blame them? Kids can still play their windows games by emulation( maybe in a little lower benchmark but hey with nowadays powerfull graphics cards? who cares). And programmers are allready busy into injecting DX10 into Linux with a bypass. When that happens I know what to use. A low cost Linux distribution instead of paying a big amount of cash for a bunch of fake security crap.

I'll drink to that.

DX10. Nuff said.

I haven't noticed any appreciable difference in performance that couldn't be attributed to beta software running beta drivers. Vista actually runs pretty smoothly for me for the most part.

I like being ahead of the curve. When a new Windows OS comes out, I like to make myself familiar with it... because sooner or later somone is going to come in with a computer that has the OS pre-loaded... and I'll be expected to fix any problems it might have. It's much easier to diagnose and fix problems when you're familiar with the OS the customer is using.

So I will buy Vista just because it's the newest available... not because of DirectX 10, not because of the pretty shell or any other "stupid" reason you can throw at me. I'll buy it because I want it and because I want to know the ins and outs of it.

Well thank you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to Linux in the least. Once I make Vista my primary OS, I'll be installing some version of Linux again on the other hard drive. (I was running Fedora Core 5 with XP Pro until I got into the CPP for Vista... then my Linux drive became my Vista drive). However, Linux is still too "difficult" for most users. What I'd like to see is the power of a Linux OS combined with the ease-of-use of Windows.

Installing drivers is a great example. Instead of downloading a file and then double-clicking it, I had to search for an online user's guide to installing my ATi card under Linux... and even then it didn't go as smoothly as it should have. I did get it working the way it should, but it took a lot more effort than it would have with Windows.

Until this is addressed, Linux won't be a mainstream OS. People want to be able to have the option to plug in and go without having to configure absolutely everything in minute detail.

I've seen people modify Windows drivers to work with Linux, maybe that might be possible on a large scale.

Same reason I put off any kind of hard work, or work for that matter. Laziness.

I fight it cause many people say that Vista is nice while it's a less good OS compared with XP. If you read magazines and Internet articles about Vista you should not like it at all. You should get scared with the whole security system that has fallen into pieces. And now I'm only mentioning the security system not the rest. So now you are trying to tell me that linux has a steep learning curve while my dad a Windows noob in Computing is able to perform all his needs in Linux without learning at all. Only running a linux version that runs on commands is indeed difficult but hey. That's the same if you say....oh let's use MSDOS besides XP or Vista.....that would also be very difficult for most people and MSDOS is also history. So your story dates back to the year zero when linux was still a child. What I'm saying is....check out Suse 10.2 for example and read before you talk about Linux. Almost everything is just (like Windows) automated right now so even noobs can understand it. And when you still have a little question left you will be able to find it on The Internet anyhow. So why fight it? Cause many people are loving it without knowing what they actually love If the next release of Windows would have no firewall no security system etc I'm sure there are still so many people that still dare to say they love it cause they feel like they should ride the train with the rest of the sheeps. Not that I care...I just give a little opinion about what I think of that. That's all. Respect

I beg to differ on that. Windows isn't better than Linux. Linux isn't better than Windows. OS X isn't better than either and the inverse is also true. Each is useful for what you use it for.

If you’re going to use a GUI on top of Linux, might as well use MS windows as it is widely supported.

Eventually Linux may pull ahead as the OS of choice, but a this time Windows is the main stream OS of choice except possibly servers and control systems running UNIX. I like your enthusiasm for Linux and hope Linux really catches on like I thought it was going to a few years ago.

I can’t imagine any sysdoc readers ignoring Vista even if XP supports DX10.

What is the reason for this cause it would really be great. I ask this because when they made the XBOX 360 they did not put any attention on DX10 at all but with a few software updates the XBOX 360 system is able to run DX10. I know I can't compare XP with the XBOX 360 but I just wonder why. Is it really impossible to update the part in XP that keeps it from running DX10 or is that too much work?

OK true...the Xbox 360 is offcourse not exact DX10 but it still supports most functions with that update for the game Gears Of War that uses the Unreal 3 Engine. Well, that's too bad.....my aim will be the wait for WINE to come up with (embedded) DX10 support. Orelse another option to run DX10 in Linux would be Cedega but this will take a little bit of performance away as it's an emulation but it won't be a huge difference I think.

As a user of both Linux and Windows I have no particular axe to grind. But I do find myself using Linux more with each passing year. Not because it is a "better" OS (a notion that begs the question "better for what?" ). Both are competent operating systems. Both need some expertise to set up, in the case of Windows to achieve security, in the case of Linux to accommodate any unusual hardware.

What makes me use Linux more each year is the open source concept: there is a wealth of top quality, free, open source software available for Linux. I no longer trust closed-source freeware because so much of it carries a payload of malware. OK, there's open source software for Windows. But the Linux offerings seem better and more numerous.

As for Vista, I'll be waiting for at least a year until the security holes have been plugged and the bugs fixed.

Ironically many techies are learning Linux because the quickest way to sort out a dead Windows system is with a Linux live CD. Sure, it takes some learning. In my opinion, making a Windows system reasonably secure takes a fair degree of technical knowledge. But in comparing the two operating systems we tend to discount the time we've already spent in learning to use Windows.

It's worth being proficient in both if you can find the time.

Well, learning Linux in the ninetees or learning Linux in the year we are now. It's just a huge difference. Linux has become much more easy to use. In Fact Suse had tested pc amature people that normally use Windows XP to do the things they were using the pc for. They all were able to do just the same things on Linux without a single problem.

But to get back on Topic.....WineHQ (the guys that support Linux) is also working to port DX10 to run on Windows XP. Yes....not Microsoft but a Linux team is working to get it done. Ain't that funny? Linux helping Microsoft.

Check this link for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX

Click on the links 3 and 4 and take a look at the links wikipedia provides there: http://www.winehq.org/?issue=320

Search for this part for example>>> Stefan mentioned Microsoft is currently offering a lot of incentives for Windows developers who develop D3D10-only games since they'll only be usable on Vista - there's no plan to backport D3D10 to XP. Dan Kegel asked if that means we should port Wine's forthcoming D3D10 implementation to Windows, which would be relatively easy when we switch to WGL.

Well, so it is possible......there you have it...

You think Microsoft want DX10 running on XP? I doubt it. But it's good news for the rest of us

Well, thx but no...Linux is allready able to run most Windows XP games. Linux programmers are not only programming games for Linux but also for Windows XP etc....they are not like money making Microsoft at all. No wonder Microsoft is finally taking a step down by making friendly signs towards Suse Linux distribution. It's kinda funny. Also I could still advise you to keep an eye on the WineHQ crew that has never failed in making Linux direct x compatible. They WILL get DX10 for XP too...I'm sure they will.

SuperFetch, cache management, resistance to hang ups are a big plus for Vista... and DX10.

Well, it is probably the most anticipated launch of this era. And one of the most beta'ed. I've found countless flaws that I forgot to report when testing. Also take into account the amount of people using Vista. If not for that, it would be relatively secure.

Its funny. because about a year from now, while youre still on an aging OS, vista will be shining. True, currently driver support is still crappy but it will take only time for vista to surpass xp, just as xp surpassed the others.

Nah I don't hate MS orelse why I'm a running on XP multibooted together with Linux? I think they did a pretty good job with XP but a very bad job on Vista. If Vista really had big advantages over XP I would say....nice work Microsoft but it's just a fact that indeed you need better hardware....but what do I get when I use better hardware? Only a better Windows Layout? A less secure OS compared with XP? Program that run slower? Please tell me what is really so interesting about Vista. If it's all about the interface I would go Linux all the way. For me XP still does everything that Vista can do except for the aero look but who knows when DX10 for XP comes this will also open up doors for a better look on XP. I just wait and see what happens in the next year to come. More harmfull Virusses spyware etc.....I just won't buy it YET.

It's always worth remembering that OS is just a vehicle for running applications. I run W2K on one machine, Linux on my other. Why? Some apps which I want to run need Windows. Others only run on Linux. I've yet to encounter one which requires XP, which is why I never adopted it.

Doubtless something will come along that I really want to run and which requires Vista. When that happens I'll upgrade. Or some fancy piece of hardware will crop up which needs it.

I can't see why everyone makes such a meal of Vista's interface, however pretty it might be. Most users spend most of their time running applications. Firefox is much the same on W2K, Vista or Linux!

As for security, I reckon an OS that's been around, and patched, for a few years is likely to be more secure than one that's been heavily rewritten. Knowing Microsoft, Vista will have more holes than a Gruyere cheese for the first year or so.

Something people seem to forget is that the majority of people will not be able to afford or will have the knowledge to purchase or switch up to DX10. So for the foreseeable future, I'd hazard 90% of games will be optimized, not for DX10, but for DX09. So if anyone is upgrading just for DX10, I'd suggest you'd find another reason to shell out $200+. Eye candy? Its great but, meh.

I recently let my Vista RC1 activation time expire... the only thing the OS allowed me to do was go online and purchase a key. Maybe only the beta has this limited access use if not activated.

Wish I purchased XP retail instead of the OEM version... looking to upgrade my PC again. MS said I used up all my activations for my current XP OS - I did not call yet