AoC = Games for Windows that automatically means Vista, which means that if you want to roll a game which is DX 10 ONLY you must meet these requirements:
A 64 bit, Dual or Quad Core processor. WRONG!
A G8 series video card or better.
A minimum of 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM. WRONG!
A motherboard that supports hyper threading and all sorts of new tech implements. WRONG!
And the list goes on.
you do not know what youre talking about do you?
It doesn't appear he does.
2gig's of RAM is prolly the standart now, but DDR3 sure as hell isn't.
And u do? whats the point of getting a brand new car with old tires on it?
LOL you people complaining about how bad Vista is... I've been using it for months and have NO problems at all. Even old games run on it. Go ahead and live under a rock but stop spreading false information because some Unix slut tells you Vista doesn't work. Now to be honest, I did disable the stupid UAC control so it wouldn't ask me everytime I wanted to do something if I wanted to do it or not. That's the only thing I didn't like.
Vista sucks man, and yes if this game is vista only the sales will be hurt just like halo 2 for PC. That game has no popularity at all for PC cause it's freaking vista only. I was really interested in it to , but i'm not getting vista to play it
Why you will see much lower fps and it really doesn't look hardly any better .. at times it looks no better at all.
Zomg really ... really.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Vista sucks man, and yes if this game is vista only the sales will be hurt just like halo 2 for PC. That game has no popularity at all for PC cause it's freaking vista only. I was really interested in it to , but i'm not getting vista to play it
There's already cracks available. Halo 2 is dx9, they just wrote it to check for Vista as a requirement. Same with Shadowrun, but nobody will play that anyway, after the butcher job they pulled on the IP.
Vista sucks man, and yes if this game is vista only the sales will be hurt just like halo 2 for PC. That game has no popularity at all for PC cause it's freaking vista only. I was really interested in it to , but i'm not getting vista to play it
There's already cracks available. Halo 2 is dx9, they just wrote it to check for Vista as a requirement. Same with Shadowrun, but nobody will play that anyway, after the butcher job they pulled on the IP.
Shadowrun is one of the MORE fun games for a Console. Reguardless of the IP, FOR a CONSOLE it isn't bad.
These kind of threads keep popping up all around. I think Funcom has a job to do in informing people that it is not, in fact, required to have DX10. That said, this thread has lived a long and... Uhm... Interesting? Life... Time to let it die in peace? Eh?
It's not that vista has bugs, i've been running it since release, and havent experienced anything in the OS it self to make me not want to use it. The problem right now with vista is that companies arent willing to spend a little more money to make things 100% vista compatable. I'm stoked that Funcom is making it multi OS and full support for DX10. It's a step in the right direction. people should be wanting to switch to Vista and move toward new technology and have an open mind about it.
I won't disagree with your overall sentiments, particularly in saying that developers are as much the problem with Vista as anything. However, that being said it is clearly inferior to XP in so far as it offers nothing new but comes with several limitations (performance and compatibility being the biggest). Nothing works better in Vista than in XP so just because something is new doesn't mean it is worthy of transition. New technologies have to either offer better performance or a superior featureset in order to earn their place - so far Vista does neither of these.
P.S. And for the record, vista does have bugs - major glaring ones. Time will correct these but even simple file operations in Vista are entirely bugged and working far slower and flakier than in XP (just for example).
Yeah, they have been talking about doing it for a while. While I think it is a nice idea - it is never going to happen without MS consent. SP3 for XP is due next year (mid year), we shall see what they stick in it but I don't think they will do DX10 as that is the only thing Vista has to offer even if the word is getting out that DX10 may be all promise and short on delivery.
REPRESENTATIVES from the almighty Vole have been speaking at Siggraph over the last few days, and what they've said hasn't exactly lowered the blood pressure of many attendees.
Microserfs were there to espouse the greatness of DirectX 10.1, the next revision to the DX graphics spec, which is due to arrive with Windows Vista SP1.
Here's the thing. DX10 hardware - such as the GeForce 8800 or the Radeon 2900 - won't work with the new 10.1 features. The 0.1 revision requires completely new hardware for support, thus royally cheesing off many gamers who paid top whack for their new hardware over the last few months on the basis of future game compatibility.
But these gamers shouldn't fret too much - 10.1 adds virtually nothing that they will care about and, more to the point, adds almost nothing that developers are likely to care about. The spec revision basically makes a number of things that are optional in DX10 compulsory under the new standard - such as 32-bit floating point filtering, as opposed to the 16-bit current. 4xAA is a compulsory standard to support in 10.1, whereas graphics vendors can pick and choose their anti-aliasing support currently.
We suspect that the spec is likely to be ill-received. Not only does it require brand new hardware, immediately creating a miniscule sub-set of DX10 owners, but it also requires Vista SP1, and also requires developer implementation.
With developers struggling to justify including DX10 features in their games (see the recent comments by John Carmack and Mark Rein), they're going to be about as likely to further limit their product's market as they are to start developing NES games again. This is especially true given the incredibly limited benefits 10.1 is bringing to the party.
Simply put - if you're a developer, why bother with 10.1? Answers on a postcard, please. µ
Ouch - the more I look at it the more it seems obvious DX10 is dead on arrival just like Vista. I suppose it is revivable but the more time that passes the more unlikely that seems.
REPRESENTATIVES from the almighty Vole have been speaking at Siggraph over the last few days, and what they've said hasn't exactly lowered the blood pressure of many attendees. Microserfs were there to espouse the greatness of DirectX 10.1, the next revision to the DX graphics spec, which is due to arrive with Windows Vista SP1. Here's the thing. DX10 hardware - such as the GeForce 8800 or the Radeon 2900 - won't work with the new 10.1 features. The 0.1 revision requires completely new hardware for support, thus royally cheesing off many gamers who paid top whack for their new hardware over the last few months on the basis of future game compatibility. But these gamers shouldn't fret too much - 10.1 adds virtually nothing that they will care about and, more to the point, adds almost nothing that developers are likely to care about. The spec revision basically makes a number of things that are optional in DX10 compulsory under the new standard - such as 32-bit floating point filtering, as opposed to the 16-bit current. 4xAA is a compulsory standard to support in 10.1, whereas graphics vendors can pick and choose their anti-aliasing support currently. We suspect that the spec is likely to be ill-received. Not only does it require brand new hardware, immediately creating a miniscule sub-set of DX10 owners, but it also requires Vista SP1, and also requires developer implementation. With developers struggling to justify including DX10 features in their games (see the recent comments by John Carmack and Mark Rein), they're going to be about as likely to further limit their product's market as they are to start developing NES games again. This is especially true given the incredibly limited benefits 10.1 is bringing to the party. Simply put - if you're a developer, why bother with 10.1? Answers on a postcard, please. µ
Ouch - the more I look at it the more it seems obvious DX10 is dead on arrival just like Vista. I suppose it is revivable but the more time that passes the more unlikely that seems.
Wow you totaly read that out of context. 10.1 is a waste. Not DX10. DX10 isn't totaly adopted by every developer YET, and it wont be for a while. That article basicly said that 10.1 is a crap revision. It never said anything negative about DX10 besides that a lot of developers are struggleing with the idea of implimenting it.
Ok Lets LOOK .... DX10 isn't going to change things that much. DX10 doesn't make everything look better. DX10 offers NEW EFFECTS!!!!! UNLESS A GAME TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THEM, Then NO DX10 Won't look better. Check out this little snippet, you can see for yourself.
Look at the water, and sunlight effects. IS DX10 the bomb? Well if you look at that water, HOLY CRAP, no game has ever looked that good with water effects, which could argueably be the trickiest thing to make realistic in a game. DX10 offers a more lifelike lighting and other effects that just look phony in dx9. Check out the shadows on that mountain, look at the sunlight, it looks like a photograph. You be the judge.
Heres another article. That sums it up about as I've been saying. DX10 Looks better. Its not HUGE. Some things are very minor. Somethings that arn't even used are still avalable to Dx10 like morphing from one shape/creature into another as opposed to most Dx9 implimentation of just a Poof of smoke and then it appears as something else, you can see the progression from one form into another. Read it up.. Its not like going from Nintendo to Xbox360, but its the next step, and yes you'll need better hardware because LIKE EVERY OTHER GAME, The better it looks, the more its gonna cost ya in resources.
DX10 is turning out to be as much of a flop as the OS it is tied to even if it where all it was promised to me. Vista is such a turd and making such little progress in the whole market (not to mention the gaming.enthusiast market) that nobody who wants to sell successfully is going to really write anything for it. Not only does it break compatibility with DX9 in terms of console code being easily portable to DX10 (something DX10 was supposed to do but clearly doesn't) now it breaks compatibility even with itself.
Come on, seriously - can we not agree that DX10 is seeming like little more than a bad marketing ploy intended to get sales out of an OS that otherwise offers little to nothing anyone wants or needs? Perhaps one day it will be more, but as it stands now I don't see how you can seriously call it anything but a false promise, or maybe at best overhyped.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon Heres another article. That sums it up about as I've been saying. DX10 Looks better. Its not HUGE. Some things are very minor. Somethings that arn't even used are still avalable to Dx10 like morphing from one shape/creature into another as opposed to most Dx9 implimentation of just a Poof of smoke and then it appears as something else, you can see the progression from one form into another. Read it up.. Its not like going from Nintendo to Xbox360, but its the next step, and yes you'll need better hardware because LIKE EVERY OTHER GAME, The better it looks, the more its gonna cost ya in resources. www.twitchguru.com/2007/06/20/dissecting_dx10/
Look, if all this where about new abilities needing new power then you wouldn't be getting any argument about it from me. But it is more than that as DX10 is TIED to Vista is is a proven inferior platform for gaming. When coupled those minor improvements you talk about come at an incredible price as Vista games perform demostrably worse, anywhere from 25% to 40% worse. So, unlike in years past when we went from one DX version to the next and got more stuff but didn't lose any old performance gains we are taking 3 or 4 steps back in performance to get one step in graphics. It is a net loss and to make it worse adoption of Vsta is so poor that it is unlikely we will even get the benifit of that step forward as far to many people are not going to have the capability.
Come on man, it is a bust plain adn simple and without some major change in the landscape it is going down a dead end road.
I tell you what - with the delay until March of '08 I think you can pretty much write off DX10 now. While Crysis can still make a big splash and draw some interest but one game is not going to convert a substantial enough group of people to vista in order to make it a big enough chunk of the market for developers to target. Vista needed to make big inroads this year in order to bring us real development next year an beyond, with the problems, the delays to AoC, and the SP1 delays it is unlikely vista and DX10 will get anywhere near a relevant share of the market before Vista's lifecycle is up in 2009/2010.
I tell you what - with the delay until March of '08 I think you can pretty much write off DX10 now. While Crysis can still make a big splash and draw some interest one game is not going to convert a substantial enough group of people to vista in order to make it a big enough chunk of the market for developers to target. Vista needed to make big inroads this year in order to bring us real development next year an beyond, with the problems, the delays to AoC, and the SP1 delays it is unlikely vista and DX10 will get anywhere near a relevant share of the market before Vista's lifecycle is up in 2009/2010.
maybe this time you can actually play the game before the gfx engine is already long out of date ...
AgtSmith Seriously your only on this thread to bash Vista, Give it up man. Vista isn't the Anti-Christ. Why don't you go support womens rights to choose or something constructive. Maybe you don't like Vista, but vista is the next platform. IT will pass XP in Home PC's Market share. It's already shipped over 60 million Units. Vista is built for the next generation of PC's PC's that are more powerful and more entertaining. Sure XP might be faster on Single Core Processors. Vista will be almost unnoticably slower then XP on a top of the line PC built 6 months from now. Sure you may get an extra few points in a benchmark, but who gives? Vista is more secure, and easier to use. Maybe not easier for you because your afraid of change, but for your average person the learning curve is much smaller for Vista. This thread ISN'T about Vista. It's about DX10. DX10 is BETTER then DX9 LOOK AT IT AND SEE. EVERY DX progression has been more resource intesive then the last. WOW THIS ISN'T ANYTHNG NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's been like that for almost a decade. I don't see anyone still CLINGING to DX7 or DX5 why? Because they're fosils.
You can flame Vista all you want. You can't change the tides.
AgtSmith Seriously your only on this thread to bash Vista, Give it up man. Vista isn't the Anti-Christ. Why don't you go support womens rights to choose or something constructive. Maybe you don't like Vista, but vista is the next platform. IT will pass XP in Home PC's Market share. It's already shipped over 60 million Units. Vista is built for the next generation of PC's PC's that are more powerful and more entertaining. Sure XP might be faster on Single Core Processors. Vista will be almost unnoticably slower then XP on a top of the line PC built 6 months from now. Sure you may get an extra few points in a benchmark, but who gives? Vista is more secure, and easier to use. Maybe not easier for you because your afraid of change, but for your average person the learning curve is much smaller for Vista. This thread ISN'T about Vista. It's about DX10. DX10 is BETTER then DX9 LOOK AT IT AND SEE. EVERY DX progression has been more resource intesive then the last. WOW THIS ISN'T ANYTHNG NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's been like that for almost a decade. I don't see anyone still CLINGING to DX7 or DX5 why? Because they're fosils.
You can flame Vista all you want. You can't change the tides.
In what way is it more secure? I'd cracked a hole in Vista on the day I got it doing just about the same things I'd do to XP. As for your argument about Vista doing this and Vista doing that, most of it could have been implemented in XP. Vista is badly made and badly designed and your argument that people don't cling to DX7 doesn't stand up as DX10 offers very little over DX9, other than giving MS a stranglehold over the PC gaming market.
MS HAS reached its peak and IS slowly loosing it's grip, just like any empire.
AgtSmith Seriously your only on this thread to bash Vista, Give it up man. Vista isn't the Anti-Christ. Why don't you go support womens rights to choose or something constructive. Maybe you don't like Vista, but vista is the next platform. IT will pass XP in Home PC's Market share. It's already shipped over 60 million Units. Vista is built for the next generation of PC's PC's that are more powerful and more entertaining. Sure XP might be faster on Single Core Processors. Vista will be almost unnoticably slower then XP on a top of the line PC built 6 months from now. Sure you may get an extra few points in a benchmark, but who gives? Vista is more secure, and easier to use. Maybe not easier for you because your afraid of change, but for your average person the learning curve is much smaller for Vista. This thread ISN'T about Vista. It's about DX10. DX10 is BETTER then DX9 LOOK AT IT AND SEE. EVERY DX progression has been more resource intesive then the last. WOW THIS ISN'T ANYTHNG NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's been like that for almost a decade. I don't see anyone still CLINGING to DX7 or DX5 why? Because they're fosils.
You can flame Vista all you want. You can't change the tides.
Vista is no more secure than XP other than being an unknown and any good security professional (such as myself) will tell you that security by obscurity is not security. As for the comment about XP being faster on single core processor - WTF? Are you just parroting more you have read elsewhere? XP and Vista handle multiple core processors the same way, in fact - much of the Vista kernal is the same as XP excepting the virtualization and account restriction changes as well as DRM additions.
I will go along with you on the fact that Vista is better for the average novice in so far as it has a more accessible interface, in fact I am using it for my clients and have been all year (mostly). But that comes at a steep price for the rest of us, the extra user friendly stuff is so pervasive in fact that in many cases you cannot get around it so you are stuck hoping the automagik wizards and such work or you are SOL.
As for your assertion that in 6 months it will be faster than XP you are basing this on what? Fairy dust and good thoughts? SP1 will have some fixes and I am sure that will help but it is uncertain at this point if it will be out this year even. As for changing the tides - you are correct - I cannot change the tide and neither can MS as the tide is that Vista offers not much of anything and is not a very good performer. And as far as DX10 VS DX9 I think it is entirely foolish to say DX10 is better - in reality it is not. it runs far slower and offers (to date) minor improvements yielding a net negative. Additionally, since the hardware needed to really get all that DX10 promise is not even out, and since that hardware will be too far beyond consoles we are unlikely to see anyone really tax DX10 which would put them out of the console market (unless they want to do parallel development which nobody will do). And lastly, Vista itself is getting such terrible adoption that there is not going to be enough PCs with Vista and the nonexistant hardware you refer to for developers to make games for them, unless they want to go miserably broke.
Mark my words, just like with Millenium MS screwed up on this one and that much is becoming seriously clear to anyone objectively looking at the situation. And I say this as an MS partner, a MS tech and system builder. Vista is Millenium II. Besides all of that, so long as DX10 is tied to Vista then it is as bad for gaming as Vista is, and Vista is terrbile for gaming as demonstrated by every single site showing severe performace hits in Vista for not only DX9 vs DX9 but also with DX10.
AgtSmith Seriously your only on this thread to bash Vista, Give it up man. Vista isn't the Anti-Christ. Why don't you go support womens rights to choose or something constructive. Maybe you don't like Vista, but vista is the next platform. IT will pass XP in Home PC's Market share. It's already shipped over 60 million Units. Vista is built for the next generation of PC's PC's that are more powerful and more entertaining. Sure XP might be faster on Single Core Processors. Vista will be almost unnoticably slower then XP on a top of the line PC built 6 months from now. Sure you may get an extra few points in a benchmark, but who gives? Vista is more secure, and easier to use. Maybe not easier for you because your afraid of change, but for your average person the learning curve is much smaller for Vista. This thread ISN'T about Vista. It's about DX10. DX10 is BETTER then DX9 LOOK AT IT AND SEE. EVERY DX progression has been more resource intesive then the last. WOW THIS ISN'T ANYTHNG NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's been like that for almost a decade. I don't see anyone still CLINGING to DX7 or DX5 why? Because they're fosils.
You can flame Vista all you want. You can't change the tides.
In what way is it more secure? I'd cracked a hole in Vista on the day I got it doing just about the same things I'd do to XP. As for your argument about Vista doing this and Vista doing that, most of it could have been implemented in XP. Vista is badly made and badly designed and your argument that people don't cling to DX7 doesn't stand up as DX10 offers very little over DX9, other than giving MS a stranglehold over the PC gaming market.
MS HAS reached its peak and IS slowly loosing it's grip, just like any empire.
Your full of it. Theres a dozen articles and even more experts in the field that would say that vista is more secure. Weather its because its new or whatever as of right now Vista is harder to get control of then XP and OSX. As far as DX10 not offering more then DX9 What the hell ever, Your insane. Look at far graphics have come, they're already pretty damn sharp, how crisp can they get? Its about max'd out as far as that goes, DX10 offers a lot of new effects. DX9 added a lot more detail, but we're not going to be able to see much more detail now. Its about topped out as far as detail goes. IF you go back a page or two and look at the links compairing some DX9 vs 10 pictures and you can tell me that DX10 does look much better your just a liar. DX10 can render water so well it looks like a picture. In 2 years all graphics cards made will be DX10 or later, and anyone not coding DX10 will be left on the shelf. I don't care how much you say it wont. You've yet to have any information to prove otherwise. YOu can say DX10 Doesn't offer any significan benifit, but I can prove otherwise. Saying something doesn't make it true. Show me the money. Give me quotes, show me articles. IF you can't then shut it.
Comments
you do not know what youre talking about do you?
It doesn't appear he does.
2gig's of RAM is prolly the standart now, but DDR3 sure as hell isn't.
And u do? whats the point of getting a brand new car with old tires on it?
Do you work for microsoft by any chance?
Vista sucks man, and yes if this game is vista only the sales will be hurt just like halo 2 for PC. That game has no popularity at all for PC cause it's freaking vista only. I was really interested in it to , but i'm not getting vista to play it
ATM THERE IS NO REASON TO PLAY IT IN DX10.
Why you will see much lower fps and it really doesn't look hardly any better .. at times it looks no better at all.
Zomg really ... really.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
There's already cracks available. Halo 2 is dx9, they just wrote it to check for Vista as a requirement. Same with Shadowrun, but nobody will play that anyway, after the butcher job they pulled on the IP.
There's already cracks available. Halo 2 is dx9, they just wrote it to check for Vista as a requirement. Same with Shadowrun, but nobody will play that anyway, after the butcher job they pulled on the IP.
Shadowrun is one of the MORE fun games for a Console. Reguardless of the IP, FOR a CONSOLE it isn't bad.
What am I going to need to play AoC ? I havent gotten Vista yet, but was planning on getting a new comp before the AoC release.
These kind of threads keep popping up all around. I think Funcom has a job to do in informing people that it is not, in fact, required to have DX10. That said, this thread has lived a long and... Uhm... Interesting? Life... Time to let it die in peace? Eh?
This game will run on windows XP and Vista :P
It's not that vista has bugs, i've been running it since release, and havent experienced anything in the OS it self to make me not want to use it. The problem right now with vista is that companies arent willing to spend a little more money to make things 100% vista compatable. I'm stoked that Funcom is making it multi OS and full support for DX10. It's a step in the right direction. people should be wanting to switch to Vista and move toward new technology and have an open mind about it.
I won't disagree with your overall sentiments, particularly in saying that developers are as much the problem with Vista as anything. However, that being said it is clearly inferior to XP in so far as it offers nothing new but comes with several limitations (performance and compatibility being the biggest). Nothing works better in Vista than in XP so just because something is new doesn't mean it is worthy of transition. New technologies have to either offer better performance or a superior featureset in order to earn their place - so far Vista does neither of these.
P.S. And for the record, vista does have bugs - major glaring ones. Time will correct these but even simple file operations in Vista are entirely bugged and working far slower and flakier than in XP (just for example).
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Hey AgtSmith - have you seen this yet? http://www.technospot.net/blogs/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp-from-alky-project/
Dx10 for windows XP in Alpha stage?
Yeah, they have been talking about doing it for a while. While I think it is a nice idea - it is never going to happen without MS consent. SP3 for XP is due next year (mid year), we shall see what they stick in it but I don't think they will do DX10 as that is the only thing Vista has to offer even if the word is getting out that DX10 may be all promise and short on delivery.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Here is a nice tidbit of info furthering the idea about DX10 being a total mess:
DX10 hardware is already obsolete
By Wily Ferret: Thursday 09 August 2007, 09:13
REPRESENTATIVES from the almighty Vole have been speaking at Siggraph over the last few days, and what they've said hasn't exactly lowered the blood pressure of many attendees.
Microserfs were there to espouse the greatness of DirectX 10.1, the next revision to the DX graphics spec, which is due to arrive with Windows Vista SP1.
Here's the thing. DX10 hardware - such as the GeForce 8800 or the Radeon 2900 - won't work with the new 10.1 features. The 0.1 revision requires completely new hardware for support, thus royally cheesing off many gamers who paid top whack for their new hardware over the last few months on the basis of future game compatibility.
But these gamers shouldn't fret too much - 10.1 adds virtually nothing that they will care about and, more to the point, adds almost nothing that developers are likely to care about. The spec revision basically makes a number of things that are optional in DX10 compulsory under the new standard - such as 32-bit floating point filtering, as opposed to the 16-bit current. 4xAA is a compulsory standard to support in 10.1, whereas graphics vendors can pick and choose their anti-aliasing support currently.
We suspect that the spec is likely to be ill-received. Not only does it require brand new hardware, immediately creating a miniscule sub-set of DX10 owners, but it also requires Vista SP1, and also requires developer implementation.
With developers struggling to justify including DX10 features in their games (see the recent comments by John Carmack and Mark Rein), they're going to be about as likely to further limit their product's market as they are to start developing NES games again. This is especially true given the incredibly limited benefits 10.1 is bringing to the party.
Simply put - if you're a developer, why bother with 10.1? Answers on a postcard, please. µ
Ouch - the more I look at it the more it seems obvious DX10 is dead on arrival just like Vista. I suppose it is revivable but the more time that passes the more unlikely that seems.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Wow you totaly read that out of context. 10.1 is a waste. Not DX10. DX10 isn't totaly adopted by every developer YET, and it wont be for a while. That article basicly said that 10.1 is a crap revision. It never said anything negative about DX10 besides that a lot of developers are struggleing with the idea of implimenting it.
Ok Lets LOOK .... DX10 isn't going to change things that much. DX10 doesn't make everything look better. DX10 offers NEW EFFECTS!!!!! UNLESS A GAME TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THEM, Then NO DX10 Won't look better. Check out this little snippet, you can see for yourself.
gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/directx-9-vs-directx-10-worth-upgrading-to-vista-for-243099.php
Look at the water, and sunlight effects. IS DX10 the bomb? Well if you look at that water, HOLY CRAP, no game has ever looked that good with water effects, which could argueably be the trickiest thing to make realistic in a game. DX10 offers a more lifelike lighting and other effects that just look phony in dx9. Check out the shadows on that mountain, look at the sunlight, it looks like a photograph. You be the judge.
Heres another article. That sums it up about as I've been saying. DX10 Looks better. Its not HUGE. Some things are very minor. Somethings that arn't even used are still avalable to Dx10 like morphing from one shape/creature into another as opposed to most Dx9 implimentation of just a Poof of smoke and then it appears as something else, you can see the progression from one form into another. Read it up.. Its not like going from Nintendo to Xbox360, but its the next step, and yes you'll need better hardware because LIKE EVERY OTHER GAME, The better it looks, the more its gonna cost ya in resources.
www.twitchguru.com/2007/06/20/dissecting_dx10/
DX10 is turning out to be as much of a flop as the OS it is tied to even if it where all it was promised to me. Vista is such a turd and making such little progress in the whole market (not to mention the gaming.enthusiast market) that nobody who wants to sell successfully is going to really write anything for it. Not only does it break compatibility with DX9 in terms of console code being easily portable to DX10 (something DX10 was supposed to do but clearly doesn't) now it breaks compatibility even with itself.
Come on, seriously - can we not agree that DX10 is seeming like little more than a bad marketing ploy intended to get sales out of an OS that otherwise offers little to nothing anyone wants or needs? Perhaps one day it will be more, but as it stands now I don't see how you can seriously call it anything but a false promise, or maybe at best overhyped.
Look, if all this where about new abilities needing new power then you wouldn't be getting any argument about it from me. But it is more than that as DX10 is TIED to Vista is is a proven inferior platform for gaming. When coupled those minor improvements you talk about come at an incredible price as Vista games perform demostrably worse, anywhere from 25% to 40% worse. So, unlike in years past when we went from one DX version to the next and got more stuff but didn't lose any old performance gains we are taking 3 or 4 steps back in performance to get one step in graphics. It is a net loss and to make it worse adoption of Vsta is so poor that it is unlikely we will even get the benifit of that step forward as far to many people are not going to have the capability.
Come on man, it is a bust plain adn simple and without some major change in the landscape it is going down a dead end road.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
AgtSmith trolling AOC board again...give up on your agenda already. Go play a game you like since we already know this isn't it.
Yeah, I have really been bashing AoC in this thread.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I tell you what - with the delay until March of '08 I think you can pretty much write off DX10 now. While Crysis can still make a big splash and draw some interest but one game is not going to convert a substantial enough group of people to vista in order to make it a big enough chunk of the market for developers to target. Vista needed to make big inroads this year in order to bring us real development next year an beyond, with the problems, the delays to AoC, and the SP1 delays it is unlikely vista and DX10 will get anywhere near a relevant share of the market before Vista's lifecycle is up in 2009/2010.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
maybe this time you can actually play the game before the gfx engine is already long out of date ...
AgtSmith Seriously your only on this thread to bash Vista, Give it up man. Vista isn't the Anti-Christ. Why don't you go support womens rights to choose or something constructive. Maybe you don't like Vista, but vista is the next platform. IT will pass XP in Home PC's Market share. It's already shipped over 60 million Units. Vista is built for the next generation of PC's PC's that are more powerful and more entertaining. Sure XP might be faster on Single Core Processors. Vista will be almost unnoticably slower then XP on a top of the line PC built 6 months from now. Sure you may get an extra few points in a benchmark, but who gives? Vista is more secure, and easier to use. Maybe not easier for you because your afraid of change, but for your average person the learning curve is much smaller for Vista. This thread ISN'T about Vista. It's about DX10. DX10 is BETTER then DX9 LOOK AT IT AND SEE. EVERY DX progression has been more resource intesive then the last. WOW THIS ISN'T ANYTHNG NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's been like that for almost a decade. I don't see anyone still CLINGING to DX7 or DX5 why? Because they're fosils.
You can flame Vista all you want. You can't change the tides.
In what way is it more secure? I'd cracked a hole in Vista on the day I got it doing just about the same things I'd do to XP.
As for your argument about Vista doing this and Vista doing that, most of it could have been implemented in XP. Vista is badly made and badly designed and your argument that people don't cling to DX7 doesn't stand up as DX10 offers very little over DX9, other than giving MS a stranglehold over the PC gaming market.
MS HAS reached its peak and IS slowly loosing it's grip, just like any empire.
Vista is no more secure than XP other than being an unknown and any good security professional (such as myself) will tell you that security by obscurity is not security. As for the comment about XP being faster on single core processor - WTF? Are you just parroting more you have read elsewhere? XP and Vista handle multiple core processors the same way, in fact - much of the Vista kernal is the same as XP excepting the virtualization and account restriction changes as well as DRM additions.
I will go along with you on the fact that Vista is better for the average novice in so far as it has a more accessible interface, in fact I am using it for my clients and have been all year (mostly). But that comes at a steep price for the rest of us, the extra user friendly stuff is so pervasive in fact that in many cases you cannot get around it so you are stuck hoping the automagik wizards and such work or you are SOL.
As for your assertion that in 6 months it will be faster than XP you are basing this on what? Fairy dust and good thoughts? SP1 will have some fixes and I am sure that will help but it is uncertain at this point if it will be out this year even. As for changing the tides - you are correct - I cannot change the tide and neither can MS as the tide is that Vista offers not much of anything and is not a very good performer. And as far as DX10 VS DX9 I think it is entirely foolish to say DX10 is better - in reality it is not. it runs far slower and offers (to date) minor improvements yielding a net negative. Additionally, since the hardware needed to really get all that DX10 promise is not even out, and since that hardware will be too far beyond consoles we are unlikely to see anyone really tax DX10 which would put them out of the console market (unless they want to do parallel development which nobody will do). And lastly, Vista itself is getting such terrible adoption that there is not going to be enough PCs with Vista and the nonexistant hardware you refer to for developers to make games for them, unless they want to go miserably broke.
Mark my words, just like with Millenium MS screwed up on this one and that much is becoming seriously clear to anyone objectively looking at the situation. And I say this as an MS partner, a MS tech and system builder. Vista is Millenium II. Besides all of that, so long as DX10 is tied to Vista then it is as bad for gaming as Vista is, and Vista is terrbile for gaming as demonstrated by every single site showing severe performace hits in Vista for not only DX9 vs DX9 but also with DX10.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
In what way is it more secure? I'd cracked a hole in Vista on the day I got it doing just about the same things I'd do to XP. As for your argument about Vista doing this and Vista doing that, most of it could have been implemented in XP. Vista is badly made and badly designed and your argument that people don't cling to DX7 doesn't stand up as DX10 offers very little over DX9, other than giving MS a stranglehold over the PC gaming market.
MS HAS reached its peak and IS slowly loosing it's grip, just like any empire.
Your full of it. Theres a dozen articles and even more experts in the field that would say that vista is more secure. Weather its because its new or whatever as of right now Vista is harder to get control of then XP and OSX. As far as DX10 not offering more then DX9 What the hell ever, Your insane. Look at far graphics have come, they're already pretty damn sharp, how crisp can they get? Its about max'd out as far as that goes, DX10 offers a lot of new effects. DX9 added a lot more detail, but we're not going to be able to see much more detail now. Its about topped out as far as detail goes. IF you go back a page or two and look at the links compairing some DX9 vs 10 pictures and you can tell me that DX10 does look much better your just a liar. DX10 can render water so well it looks like a picture. In 2 years all graphics cards made will be DX10 or later, and anyone not coding DX10 will be left on the shelf. I don't care how much you say it wont. You've yet to have any information to prove otherwise. YOu can say DX10 Doesn't offer any significan benifit, but I can prove otherwise. Saying something doesn't make it true. Show me the money. Give me quotes, show me articles. IF you can't then shut it.