Direct X10 and XP

can you get direct X10 on XP i heard you couldnt get it unless you had vista?

 

DirectX 10 is a Vista-only feature unfortunately, but it does not matter all that much . . . DirectX 10 is all hype and no substance. I have not seen an instance where DirectX 10 has shown a clear advantage over DX9. So far we have not seen any benefits from DX10 - as a matter of fact, the only thing I have seen is a decrease in performance.

 

Yes, DirectX10 is exclusively for Vista....

Never seen anyone tried this before.. but what the heck... try for yourself....

http://www.techmixer.com/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp/

P.S.
FSX In DirectX10 Does NOT Look Near Close To That (As depicted in the website picture)...

 

Yeah, the picture was an artists conception for DX10...and in reality is no where near that in quality at all.

For instance...this is (at best) what you should expect:
DX9


...and...

DX10


Yes, I used the same picture in my link. That is because at best DX10 is an equal to DX9. Most of the time, it is not...so the 2nd picture should actually look worse.

 

ok sweet i really see no difference, plus i really dont like vista so im not getting it

 

http://www.techmixer.com/download-di...or-windows-xp/


why does it show on this link a link that says download dx10 for xp?

 

There was a rumor once that XP would support DX10 in the future, but that would mean MS killing Vista, cause it`s the only 'advantage' it has over XP..
So yea, DX10 is Vista only, but maybe,in 1-2 will we really see what Dx10 is all about.

 

ROFL

I remember when DX10 games were supposed to have super awesome graphics and it ended up being all hype no show.

 

yeah cause if that flight simulator dx10 image was really from the game id be like wow

 

Yeah, remember the DX10 rendering for FSX? That was just an artists impression.

Actually, DX10 graphics were added to FSX in Service Pack 2 about a week ago, but it only improves water and particle effects, not much else, yet.

 

Here's the direct download link...

http://fallingleafsystems.com/site_media/preview.zip

 

Yes you can get DX10 for Windows XP... couple of projects are in the works.
- Alky Project (already released DX10 alpha for download)
- Nvidia (has been working with Microsoft to make DX10 virtualization.. optional... sweet.)

Since XP Service Pack 3 has been shown to outperform Vista SP1, there is only DX10 that is left in Vista to make it worth using.... until DX10 is incorporated into XP.

 

Hers a comparison between Dx9c and Dx10 in Lost Planet: Extreme Condition:

 

It only allows DX10 librairies to run under DX9.0C (AKA our former DX9.0L). No DX10 randering.


For a quick reminder: DX10 allows soft particles (debris affecting the environement), "real clouds/smokes " and a virtually unlimited amount of operations per second compared to DX9. So once developpers get a grip about it, performances will be better than DX10 rendering will be able to rend physics engine that weren't available under DX9

 

Physics engine is NOT related to DX, at ALL.

You might as well be saying that OpenGL is going to propel Doom 4's physics engine .

 

theres going to be a doom4?

 

Oh lord.

I like Vista, but I would NOT consider purchasing it simply for DX10...not until 2008 at least.

I bought Vista because it is newer software that will go farther than XP (and XP makes me sick). When Vista SP1 has been fully released, XP parity will have been reached (don't try to debate me on this, my parity is not your parity) while providing a more stable, more secure, and more functional OS. My experience with Vista has always been pretty decent, much smoother than my LONG and PAINFUL experience with XP. I was so glad to jump out of that sinking pile of dilapidated crap.

At this point, I'd rather have Windows ME installed than XP. Maybe it was just horrible luck, but XP has never worked properly on any of my machines. Who knows, maybe my install disk was scratched and resulted in a perpetually corrupt kernal, gosh I don't know. I'm just glad that I never have to go back.

So, if it is too old to run Vista, it either goes to OSX or Ubuntu.

Oh for crying out loud XP wasn't THAT bad...it just failed me so many times when it really should not have and critical data had to be recovered. SO MANY TIMES!

<---Issues to deal with.

There will be a time when DX10 makes more sense. Right now the situation reminds me of how HDTV was perceived a few years ago: too expensive, hard to set up, annoying, seemingly pointless, etc. Now HDTV is finally catching on and people feel better about it because it makes sense.

DX10 was born, enjoyed a cheerful childhood (hype period), and 2007 will be remembered as its REALLY awkward adolescence. I have great hope for early 2009, the college years.

 

YESSSSS

 

That doom picture is gross.

 

that games going to be sick tho

 

i heard that xp sp3 is coming with dx10 support but idk maby just a rumor...yes dx10 is overhyped so badly. lmao in crysis all dx10 would give u is the ability to set everytin on "very high" but if u tweak ur dx9 settings u can set everything on very high also so dx10 is def overrated

 

The Alky project is a joke. (As it currently stands, of course it may change)
Software emulation of the missing DX10 features is not really viable.

Source please?
I'm not sure I see why on Earth Microsoft would need NVidia's help in making DX10 on XP. Nor do I see why they would *want* DX10 on XP.

Seems extremely unlikely to me.

As for what DX10 can do that couldn't be done on DX9? Nothing.
DX9 could already do anything imaginable. It's just a question of performance while doing it. (For that matter, any graphics could be made completely with software rendering as well. Again, just a matter of performance)

DX10 allows more fine-grained control over what is run on the GPU and on CPU respectively. That is, some things have to be done on the CPU under DX9, but can be moved to the GPU when running DX10. Of course that means *potential* performance improvement (if you're CPU-bound) It also allows you to eliminate some CPU/GPU traffic, again potentially improving performance (if that is your bottleneck)

That's all it does. It gives developers a bit more control over the CPU/GPU workload, which allows *potentially* better performance, which developers can of course trade in for *potentially* better graphics.

On top of this, it seems that current DX10 drivers (and/or DX10 itself) suffer from additional performance issues that may or may not get fixed in the future. (my guess is they will. In theory, DX10 *should* be more efficient than DX9)

But DX9 vs DX10 screenshots are meaningless, because they just show how one particular game chose to take advantage of each API. DX10 can look better or worse, or exactly the same, and it can run better or worse or exactly the same. It depends on exactly how each is used. And both can achieve the exact same visuals, but at different tradeoffs in terms of performance.

 

World in Conflict in DX10 looks greatand really shows off some of those DX10 effects, that is if you can max the game of course

 

Very little difference in effects, and as you said, needs powerful hardware for very little in return.

 

well from the lost planet picture im not too impressed

 

Microsoft has argued that because DirectX10 was such a massive redesign of the overall driver model, it was not possible to retrofit it to run on Windows XP. One of the arguments supporting this was the fact that DirectX10 required graphics memory to be virtualizable—that is, swappable for system RAM if the on-board video card RAM became full.

However, NVIDIA has had difficulty making virtualization work on their Vista graphics drivers, so Microsoft has now [or will] made GPU virtualization optional for DX10. Charlie Demerjian over at the Inquirer is arguing that this means there is no valid technical reason why DirectX10 couldn't be back-ported to Windows XP.

Of course, there was never a reason that implementing DirectX10 on XP was technically impossible, just that Microsoft felt that the engineering and testing effort to retrofit the new driver model to the old operating system was more than the company was willing to expend, particularly as DirectX10 was touted as one of the major benefits of upgrading to Windows Vista. However, the PC gaming market has been slow to embrace Vista and so Microsoft may have to reconsider this decision in the future.

 

So I take it that those rumours were not fake. I am still far from seing any real improvements for Vista over XP , and as soon as I get some time, I`ll rever to XP. Vista x64 has been ok, but gaming performance was a torture,and the main reason for buying my laptop was that I could play in peace and max performance.
As for DX10, who cares...Ati went ahead and developed 10.1 GPUs ,while DX10 has no game that could not run in DX9. So the future looks bright.