Carmack not considering switching to Windows 8

[Denial]

Originally Posted by Yxskaft

I too don't expect them to backport DX12 to Win7. It's sad, because it means it will take a longer time before studios start using the new API.

I have no doubt that DX10 and DX11 had been used much more if they were ported to XP. At least DX11 made one thing right with it's feature levels to target DX9 and DX10/10.1 hardware

Studios don't support the new DX's because there is little to no financial incentive too when they HAVE to develop a DX9 version for consoles. It has nothing to do with XP and whether or not it was ported.

Also you can't just port DX10 to XP without majorly rewriting the kernel. You guys make it sound like could have pushed a compile button and bam DX10 on XP. They'd need to rewrite entire portions of the OS to make it work, and for what? So people could play the two games that came out before 7 with slightly better graphics? Ok.

[Neo Cyrus]

From everything I've heard there isn't that large of a difference between Windows 7 and 8 aside from the interface. No major changes in the OS like there was between XP and Vista. If they develop DX12 and make it Windows 8 only, it's to attempt to force users to move to that OS, nothing more.

[Denial]

Originally Posted by Neo Cyrus

From everything I've heard there isn't that large of a difference between Windows 7 and 8 aside from the interface. No major changes in the OS like there was between XP and Vista. If they develop DX12 and make it Windows 8 only, it's to attempt to force users to move to that OS, nothing more.

Depends. You have to understand that in XP the the software talked directly to the driver which talked directly to the hardware. Now you have WDDM in the picture. WDDM 1.2 is in Windows 8 and AFAIK isn't being backported to Windows 7. If DX12 relies on WDDM 1.2 it won't work on 7, but I doubt that will happen.

[Cyberdyne]

Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm being too nice to MS, but I don't think they are "that" petty. It's not as if Vista from a business stand point was a make or break situation based on DX10 support.
Though, I am willing to believe they left out updating XP to help people decide to switch, but I also think that updating XP would have been on big, and probably uncalled for, update. Which simply is not the case with Windows 7 vs 8.
Think about it, Windows 7 was there best OS in a long long time, which used DX11 at launch. And even then, they added DX11 as an update for Vista after it came out.
You might feel just as attached to 7 as you were XP. But I just don't think MS is as worried about you feeling that way with Windows 8's launch and people sticking with 7, as they were about people sticking with XP over Vista in '07.

[Stormyandcold]

Well, if DX12 is windows 8 only, then, this is my last PC until my son get's old enough to want a PC. Hes 1 1/2.

[The Chubu]

Originally Posted by sykozis

ARM designs micro-architectures, which are useless without companies that design the SoC's

They actually licence complete layouts for SoCs. Though there isnt much rocket science into that either in this day and age. It's been "connect everything through a FPGA" designs for a couple of years... There were times when you could see some interesting designs, like TI's DSP+ARM CPU SoCs, but right now its ARM CPU+Power VR GPU+bunch of other ARM designs for I/O controllers and whatnot+FPGA in the middle connecting it all.

The whole point of ARM is that they pretty much sell complete packages, companies only decide how much they want of them. ARM has a very long shadow covering all sort of devices, while we always hear about Cortex A this and Cortex A that, they do the designs of many other smaller controllers that create the "ecosystem" where most of their Cortex As live.

Any device maker either can buy ARM licences or try to compensate for 20+ years of research (or you know, be Intel or IBM), and you can guess which is the most cost effective solution.

All of them, nVidia, Samsung, TI, Apple, Qualcomm, etc, are intertwined in a place where they cant live without ARM (well Apple technically has half of ARM but still...), and vice versa of course. They need low-power low-cost RISC, and ARM is the only one in a good spot to deliver.

[chispy]

Originally Posted by Denial

Studios don't support the new DX's because there is little to no financial incentive too when they HAVE to develop a DX9 version for consoles. It has nothing to do with XP and whether or not it was ported.

Also you can't just port DX10 to XP without majorly rewriting the kernel. You guys make it sound like could have pushed a compile button and bam DX10 on XP. They'd need to rewrite entire portions of the OS to make it work, and for what? So people could play the two games that came out before 7 with slightly better graphics? Ok.

^^ This I agree

[sykozis]

Originally Posted by Stormyandcold

Well, if DX12 is windows 8 only, then, this is my last PC until my son get's old enough to want a PC. Hes 1 1/2.

Why are we even discussing DX12? Windows8 is launching with DX11.1.

[Stormyandcold]

Originally Posted by sykozis

Why are we even discussing DX12? Windows8 is launching with DX11.1.

Wasn't me who mentioned it, but, I think many people would be "p****d-off" if dx12 was windows 8 only and locked out windows 7. It's totally relevant tbh.

[The_Fool]

DX12? DX11 is just starting to get used.