Some myths about DX10

That is my point lol (well some of it)

You can fully utilize 'DX10' hardware on XP if you do it directly (CUDA), the hardware exists and works fine. The only limitation is a software one - which just requires software to be 1) be written, 2) to be licensed. Infact DX9 fully utilizes the Unified Shader Model to the extend that DX9 supports shader programming. But there is no reason you can not make DX10 shader programming work on Windows XP. Nvidia and ATI both wised up to MS a while back and moved to generic 'stream' processors which meet the needs for shaders, 2D acceleration, OpenGL, etc... From a Graphics card perspective they would shoot themselves in the foot if their hardware was tied to a certain software stack, it for this exact reason that the exact same hard is sold to Corps under the name "Quadro', as it is to gamers as 'G9'. The quadro provides drivers (software), that utilizes the stream processors to enhance OpenGL, while the generic driver enhances DX.

But people making the arguments that DX10 requires a Vista OS are just silly, the limitation is a business decision that MS chose, Nvidia and ATI are more than happy to slap their cards into Vista or XP and provided MS released correct software it would work perfectly fine.

Again I will say the hardware differences between DX9 and DX10 have little to do with graphics (in fact I don't think they have anything to do with rendering) - The hardware differences I have noticed have to deal with 'trusted devices', and only allowing certain content to pass through, this is a fundamental feature of Vista, and I suspect the taint is present in DX10 even though it should not be. Also moving DX10 to XP could present a loop hope for this copy protection scheme since XP was not designed around it.

 

Well sure, if you wanna rework the API and the OS, then technically you could make 'DX10' ' work' on anything, but that level of useable functionality may differ. Using CUDA just like CTM would be like simply writing to simple instructions set and bypassing the OS limitations all together, whcih is the point of both.

Also the main limitations to easily porting DX10 to XP were dropped later in the ratification of the D3D standard requirements and made optional, so while DX10 could be fairly easily (relatively) adapted to XP, DX10.1 would still have the more major limitations like memory virtualisation that would require lots of work to XP to get to work anywhere near the same level as Vista if at all. Really it's a question of manpower. Work on bringing DX10 to XP or focus on the myriad of other issues? I really don't think DX10 matters that much at this time. Very few games even make the difference all that noticeable.

BTW, Vista doesn't use DX10 for the scroll bars, etc, it uses D3D9 , D3D10 is for gaming and other aps that specifically call for it.

 

There's one thing you forgot. Even though they look the same on pictures. You will NEVER have dynamic shadows on DX9. Dynamic shadows & some reflection effects are the only "image quality" things that are not doable by DX9.0C. In the 1-2 next years, DX10 virtually-unlimited number of operations by second will shine compared to DX9.

EDIT: I also forgot one thing. Soft particles are also not do-able by DX9

To make it short: Since DX10 new features are physics-based, you will never see them in pictures.