DirectX 10 available for Windows XP - Not true

Kinda. It will be DirectX 9.0 L

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110

 

I'm certain that you will need true DX10 (on Vista) in order to access certain eye-candy and features in a game. True DX10 will never happen in XP, given the different driver model for Vista.

 

That's ... fantastic!

 

A driver is COMPLETELY different from an API. DirectX 10 is an API. It's just a set of functions that your application can count on calling and working. How it converts those calls through the driver to the actual display is up for grabs, but I doubt they'll make them not work. That would be stupid. Perhaps they'll put some optimizations and such into Vista's DX10 distribution, and I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to do something underhanded like that. But the point is that you will still be able to run DirectX 10 games on Windows XP, and your DX10 card will not go unused on XP.

 

Well, I don't know what this means exactly, but I know that on my computer, Vista shows my graphics card as running DirectX 9.0L, indicating that 9.0L is not a DX10 for XP, but rather what DX9 cards can do on Vista. Again, I have not researched this, but from everything I hear, theinquirer.net is not exactly a reliable source. Do with this what you will.

 

That's what I heard...9.0L is supposed to be for Vista and DX9 cards. Windows Vista driver model boils down to making the GPU a shared resource (makes sense given the OS will now be 3D), thus requiring DX9.0L & DX 10. AFAIK 9.0c is the last XP DX API.

 

DirextX 10 will never be available on XP, discounting the possibility of some clever programmers finding away around it.

DX9.L is now known as Direct3D9Ex. It's a bit enhanced version of Direct3D9, which adds cross-processing shared surfaces, "unlimited memory" (all memory resources are "managed), resource management control (priorization of resources) and antialiased text rendering support. Oh, and less frequent "device removed" and thus, "no more "device lost". Its an enhanced version of DX9 for Vista.

 

Yeah, I noticed that in Vista my Display properties says that I have 512MB of vRAM... which obviously I don't. This might explain that.

 

I thought the 1500M was a 512MB card...?

 

There's no technical obstacles to releasing something that uses the DX10 API on XP, as said above. It could be done (although it might be more likely to make an extended version of the DX9 api, with support for SM4.0).

What they can't port is Vista's driver model, which allows a bunch of improvements and optimizations under the hood. But the features such as SM4.0 and Geometry Shaders could be ported. If Microsoft wants to do it.

If they don't, I assume the same features would still be available through OpenGL, GLSL and CG.

 

DX10 isn't going to Windows XP. Microsoft isn't currently developing it, and considering they have been developing it for Vista for the last several years, putting DX10 on XP as well wouldn't really make sense. From my previous understanding, DirectX 9.0L was designed to allow Vista based computers to use DX10 GPU's to run DirextX 9.0c based content. It used DX10 hardware to create backwards compatability for DX9. It is possible that DirectX 9.0L could be used on XP. 9.0L and 10 however are in seperate categories, so even if 9.0c is upgraded into 9.0L, DX10 based content will still be only compatable with DX10 based GPU and Windows Vista.

 

Check this out...

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110

hmmmmmmmm

 

That is backwards...DX9.0L is for Vista machines with only DX9 hardware...

See this thread for discussion

 

No, it's 256. The 2500M is a 512MB card.

1500M=7900GS
2500M=7900GTX

 

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35140

Doh. Guess they retracted it. It was an interesting rumor at least

 

I stopped trusting their articles a LONG time ago...

 

ATTENTION: Some Mod

Please combust this topic.
Thanks.

 

I don't see a need to close the thread if that is what you mean, but I will alter the title slightly so no one is mislead.

The Inquirer is a plain crazy site. It helps to research & get firm facts before posting.

 

But it's such good gossip

 

I got a good chuckle from this one. People may say that hate it, but most of us love the gossip.

 

Gossip and speculation is always good. Although The Inquirer really need to do some basic research before posting such news, just looking through the DX10 presentation (available to all us great unwashed online) would have sorted this out in a matter of minutes.

Here is some reading on DX10. Its a powerpoint presentation, so you will probably need it to view it.

 

we all love to hate gossip

or do we all love to gossip and hate it for social acceptance?

hmmmmmm

totally off topic

 

I was wondering if this was a second thread since the title changed. Now I know why.

 

Someone may open a dedicated section called "Modern Fairy Tales - A way of life" and I am sure that he/she "will become famous soon enough"...