DX10 IN XP IS POSSIBLE! evil microsoft >.<

Ok guys, may be i should have done this when i started the thread but here it is...

IF THEY(microsoft) IMPLEMENTED SOME FORM OF DX10 IN XP, would u buy VISTA?

 

Yes i love vista and wouldnt want to go back to xp.I honestly dont know why all the hate is aimed at vista its a much better os than xp and that has had 6 years.Remember back when xp launched what a pile that was back then.

 

Games will continue to support DX9 primarily with DX10 support. Crysis is DX9 and Bioshock is also DX9. People said Lost Planet would suck on my PC on XP yet it is F'ing awesome and I haven't lagged a bit. Still going strong here with my 7600 GT OC.

the key thing you said was 'If you have that hardware why not use it'. I don't have the hardware, don't have the financial freedom as others to throw money away because of a game. You mention struggle? Hmm, that depends. I'm not going to run Crysis at 1680x1050 at full settings(doubt I will even buy it). And if I do I'll run it at 1024x768 just as I do most every other game. 'A' game has never sparked me to spend hundreds of dollars...I got other responsibilities in life than to spend my hard earned dollars on. Hardware to play a game is not one of them. I've been gaming for a LONG time.

 

This is just going around in circles. The only people that are soliciting Vista are the ones who already spent good money on their systems. The point overall here is that if anyone is going to go with Vista, you want a DX10 card.

For me, I've never been one who jumps on 1st generation video cards. I've waited for them to mature and waited for the 2nd generation to compare against the 1st generation.. Again, I don't just throw hundreds of bucks out the window to satisfy me for a few months. Before my 7600 I had a 4600 and I used it until I couldn't anymore. Vista = Money. Period. That's my overall and final view. Games don't require it and wont for sometime.

 

See, there's the problem with your statement. You may not be able to afford to keep up with the latest hardware, and that's totally understandable. But to say that it's "throwing hundreds of bucks out the window" is simply not true for people that can afford to buy the latest and greatest. It's not a waste at all. If having the latest hardware gives people pleasure, and they can afford it, it's not throwing money out the window at all. I say more power to them.

Personally, Vista runs great! Love it. I had my 8800GTS on a 939 platform, and spent $315 to move over to the C2D platform. That's when Vista really took off. But, I am a bargain shopper when it comes to the parts I can do that with. I bought the e4300, and an oem MSI mobo. But I'm getting over $1000+ performance for $315. Good investment imo.

 

And how long have you been waiting for your second gen card?

Ive been playing with the most excessive FPS for over 6months and ive enjoyed it.
I didnt buy my card because it was DX10 i bought it because it was the fastest just like my 7800GTX was the fastest when i bought that.

And if they did implement DX10 into XP i would still use Vista its 5 Years newer then XP and IMO is better looking much faster and just generally. . . cooler, XP was long in the tooth its been around way to long and Vista needed to come out not only for DX10 but for the fact that we need a new OS.

And your all wondering about a backport on XP well of course i is going to be possible, dont you think M$ considered doing DX10 on XP first. . . then maybe they thought how old and boring it was and decided to make a new better OS.

I am looking forward to Crysis and im glad im going to be able to enjoy it, i dont upgrade my PC alot as i dont really have much time/money to do it i have a good PC now but that wont last, infact its already out of date.
Im going to get a Gen 2 DX10 card when this one becomes slow but why wait i mean Flukester you could have been enjoying everything in superspeed if you'd have got a GTX,

 

Excellent investment, i did pretty much the same thing.

And i didnt get Vista Ultimate as its rip off, people spend money on what makes them happy, for most people on here that's there PC and others its that as well but to say that its a waste of money is like saying wearing clothes is a waste of time.

 

I have tried Vista and I absoultly hate it

Not to mention it running a dual core 2.8gb with 4gb ram and it bootup way slower then my computer running xp and it it slower in performance too (desktop gameing, etc) In the time it take visata to boot and complete loading XP would would boot up twice and shut down twice I find that to be joke I also find the fact it eat up 450-1gb ram on boot to be joke too when Xp dont even break 150mb(bloat ware anyone?)

though I guarntee you if I put xp on that Duo Core computer it will eat my northwood p4 computer performance for breakfast

 

I did.
And I already thought you wouldn't understand it properly so I repeated it just to provide a complete post and to let you read it again, just in case you weren't convinced and it wouldn't get thru to you.
But I guess you have had only bad experiences with upgrading in the past or something, well then don't bother. Go buy a console or find another hobby to waste your life on.


And btw I forgot to add the new and improved image quality with DVD playback (Purevideo)
and 16xAA with playable framerates.

 

WTF are you talking about?

This means i think there is NO reason NOT, i repeat NOT! to get an 8 series video card, you are preaching to the choir.

Are you just trying to disagree with me for a laugh? You are disagreeing with me even although i agree people should get an 8 series video card if they can. Unbelievable.

 

Oh damn
2 times no is yes.. hmmz, never mind

I thought you said you couldn't see any reason to get an 8 series card

I know: I'm saying this to l33t masta! Yes that's it, I got confused with you and l33t masta.
I'm terribly sorry, mate.
Too bad l33t masta got banned to reply on this.

 

OK fair enough. No problem man, don't worry about it.

I used a "double negative", i can see where the confusing could come from.

Leet Masta banned? Hmm second person i have seen banned today, i'm not saying they were banned at the same time, just that it's the second name with 'Banned' under i have seen.

I suppose it's a reminder for us all to keep it civil eh. uke3: :approval:

 

I'm sorry, man. Just read it wrong.
Also that "besides there are no games that currently support Dx10 anyway ", made me think you were against the 8 series.

It's l33t masta that is the idiot, my posts were actually meant for him.

 

Ah right, nah i was saying that even although people have XP, they should still get an 8 series card because even with Vista there would be no Dx10 games to play with anyway so it wouldn't really matter if it was XP or Vista.

Don't worry about it, it was an honest mistake, but i thought you were trying to disagree with me even after i pointed out that i was for the 8 series.

No problem man, forget about it.

 

Yay problem solved.

To get on topic:
Even if Dx10 was ported to XP, I would still be upgrading to Vista in the end, because it is a much faster, stable and nicer looking OS than XP.
Sure it had some driver problems in the past, but that's become common with new things these days. Driver support for the 8800 series was also crap when they came out.
At the moment it's one of the most secure OSses available and it's fast like hell.
Also I think Dx10 porting to XP isn't such a good idea, cos I believe they will never be able to let it run as good as in Vista.

 

Sorry I think you missunderstood what i meant by struggle. I meant for all those that demand only the best graphics and performance. Personally I am not one of them. I also dont spend much money on my comp, I also spend money on other things that i believe are far more important . To be honest i rarely game at all nowadays...

Anyway on point what im trying to say is a lot of people here will upgrade their hardware to play the mentioned games anyway, dx10 or not.... The performance in say crysis in dx9 will be bad on 2 year old hardware (which is what i mean by 'old') as well as dx10. Well if you consider struggling running at low sub 60 fps on medium settings. That is what i consider struggling . Buying new hardware isn't driven by a new OS for some, It's driven by those who seek the best performance all the time. Those ppl are pc enthusiasts:smoke:

 

honestly.... i LIKE having the latest and greatest hardware (nice to have a decent paying job ($10.27/hr) and no bills).... but honestly.... i could even deal with my FPS being in the high 20's into the 30's. i don't see how people are always like "eew, i can't play if i'm under 50-60FPS". not like the difference is really THAT noticable. i mean yeah, it's not quite as smooth, but it's not like you're playing at 5fps... where you can barely ever tell what the hell's going on.

 

LoL

True. Win ME was the worst OS ever produced from MS. Atleast that was produced on such a large scale. It was essentially a worked Win98 with TONS of problems holes. Windows 2000 is infinitely better.

 

please get the 8800gts 640mb instead of the 320mb, you'll thank me later.
with all these latest games coming out 320mb is not enough, once upon a time 32mb > 64mb or 128mb > 256mb didn't make a difference, today 256mb to 512mb or more is almost vital for these latest games and let's not talk about Crysis or UT2007 or whatever. the least you want right now is games stealing your precious RAM for textures loading (which in turns will use the Swap file even if you got 2GB of ram, which in turns will stutter your game thanks to HD activity).

GRAW2 is out in the next couple of weeks and that uses more than 320mb for it's "High" setting on textures, you can only assume that all games after this will most likely be the same. Basically the 320 will fly if you set it to Medium, but slow to a crawl just by enabling High res textures. Where as the 640 will still fly set to High res textures @ 1280x1024 or more (640mb benefit from higher res like 1600x1200).

futureproof yourself or you will regret it, performance isn't just more Pipelines in the card or higher speeds, increased Vram size is extremely important today. i'd choose the 8800gts 640mb with 500mhz/1200mhz over an equivalent 8800GTX 320mb 600mhz/1600mhz. might sound stupid but it isn't.

 

Yea i do see what you're saying, it's just that my monitor has a max res of 1280 x 1024. The other thing is cost, it will be difficult enough for me to get the cash together for the 320MB never mind the 640MB.

That said, i was actually looking at the 640MB versions the other day and found a couple for around £230, but that's still nearly £50 more than the 320MB versions. I would like to get a 640MB, but it doesn't look likely.