Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Anyone running DX10 on Windows XP?
Hairysun
Member UncommonPosts: 1,059
I've been doing some checking on this as of late and find it to be pretty interesting....
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1847/directx-10-no-longer-a-vista-exclusive/
Google ...."DX10 on Windows XP"
Is anyone doing this that frequents this site? I'm pondering Vista for DX10 in my new rig but don't like a bunch of BS running in the backround. I hear Vista has a boatload of it.....
~Hairysun~
Comments
From what I read on the guy's blog site, he's not going to continue with his project anymore. Apparently he released the source code, so maybe someone will pick it up. Although the link that's suppose to contain the source code leads to a site that attempts to load a trojan downloader unto your system.
http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/
Is it BS? I really don't know.
**WARNING: Don't click on the source code link unless you want a trojan.**
I have it on my system with xp because i didn't want to invest in vista due to all the bugs and the lack of quality with it. I've been playing Vanguard and i did notice a slight difference in graphics when playing max settings. I got it from Rapidshare tho.
If you have (or can borrow from a friend) Hellgate: London, Lost Planet, World in Conflict or Crysis, you might want to check out one of those. Supposedly some of those games have visual upgrades you'll notice once up and running.
I have no problems with Vista at all. Just stick with 32 bit.
But if you could run DX10 (officially) on Windows XP, that would be pretty sweet. But if someone is going to continue on with the project, I may check it out just to see what it's like on an XP Machine.
I use Vista64... works just fine. But, sans Conan, I don't use DX10 in any of the games I play... haven't found a game yet that seemed worth it.
All the shooters I'm too busy to notice the DX10 bonuses... but Conan I can stop and look at the scenery, which is part of a MMO to me.
- CaesarsGhost
Lead Gameplay and Gameworld Designer for a yet unnamed MMO Title.
"When people tell me designing a game is easy, I try to get them to design a board game. Most people don't last 5 minutes, the rest rarely last more then a day. The final few realize it's neither fun nor easy."
Happen to have that rapidshare link? i'd like to check it out.
Still doing some checking on this myself.....
RAPIDSHARE LINK: http://rapidshare.com/files/96505022/DirectX.10.for.XP.rar
Link acquired from a post HERE
Dunno if it's BS .....Trojan .....or what ....
~Hairysun~
http://www.straightdope.com/
Yes, I found mine from a very reliable tech forum I visit frequently (though I can't seem to find the post again that had the file attached to the post).
I'm using Windows XP 32bit and I have to say, Crysis looks absolutely stunning now. I took a buttload of bmp screenshots and then, realizing their size, I converted them to full quality .jpg's. If you want to see what I have from this dx10 XP patch here yea go:
#1)
#2)
#3)
Btw, I have around 90megs of non-zipped bmp screenshots depicting the quality I have now with this dx10 patch for xp. Although the patch itself is in korean (i think?) and every now and then when opening dx9 required programs it will pop up that it's missing a .dll (I believe it's trying to find the dx10 variant). Although it's ONLY an annoying message and doesn't interrupt your program your trying to play/run it might get annoying for you after re-opening that program a LOT in a short amount of time (again, it doesn't close your program or interrupt it.....it just pops up saying it's missing a .dll and lets you continue on with what you origionally wanted to do).
If you want a link to mine I'll put it up on rapidshare or filefront and post a link.
-DraGa
[edit] PS: I have post-processing on ZERO because It hurts my eyes and it's one of the most useless adaptation filters EVER created for game design.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
To tell you the truth, I have less crashes and problems running Vista now than I did running XP. Granted, when I first installed and started using Vista it was a nightmare... I had trouble with drivers, crashes, software, etc., and to this day I no longer use my Razer AC-1 due to a horrid driver issue.
However, over the past several months everything has been smooth sailing. The only time I crash is in beta's, and that is to be expected, really. And using SP1 now, the problems have really dried up. I really can't see myself going back to XP.
The only issue really is the larger footprint, though you can work around that and kill anything you never use. Besides that, ram is cheap.
We all know that DX10 will have many incarnations just like 9 did, and if this hack can keep up and really give you access to all of the features of dx10 now and in the future, more power to you. Stick with XP. However, if you build yourself a new rig, going with an oem version of Vista Ultimate isn't a bad idea, really.
Humm... another hack that can be interesting could be to "lie" about the version installed. So Crysis think is using a DX10 and enable all the eyecandy. This could be enabled editing the ini file in Crysis, but on other games (LOTRO) theres no ini to edit, so this hack could be interesting. The version of DX has to be somewhere on the registry..
ugh, Vanguard isn't a DX10 game. Then again Vista isn't full of bugs or lacking quality, so tons of fail all around
member of imminst.org
*cough* *cough* not DX10 *cough* *cough*
member of imminst.org
*cough* *cough* Crytek's art assets don't look any different between DX9 and DX10 *cough* *cough*
-- Brede
No, it's not. It's third party software that just happens to not be endorsed by Microsoft. If this is illegal, then so is installing every video card driver known to man, which 9 times out of 10 cause a pop-up saying they are not certified by Microsoft.
As for Crysis, there is another hack out there which has shown that what they call DX10 graphics in the game can be achieved without DX10. The higher graphic resolutions, etc. are merely blocked by software in the game. The same way Halo 2 was supposedly required to have Vista installed, when in fact it was only a bit of code requiring the game to look for Vista before installing. Plays nice on XP, by the way. As nice as a game that was outdated by the time it hit PCs can play, anyway.
There was a project to run dx10 on XP, but they ended up giving it up some time ago. It had some success from what I remember, but It had to have a specific code or something or other for every game that wanted to use it. I dunno really, but it was too much work, and they opened up all the files and work they had done so far so others could work on it if they wanted. Alky project I think it was called.
http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/
Just wait until Windows 7 and DX11 (2009/10).
Yep, ol' Billy already said target date is next year.
*cough* *cough* Crytek's art assets don't look any different between DX9 and DX10 *cough* *cough*
-- Brede
At high setting snthere is little no difference between DX9 and 10 but at V.High DX10 beats 9 even with the hack. As the hack isn't the full V.High settings. This is pointless however as Crysis like all games that advertise DX10, aren't even proper DX10 games. They are DX9 with some of the features getting a DX10 make over to look better but this causes bad performance in most cases. A game that is built from the ground up with DX10 would not have the performance issues that all these so called DX10 games are having.
That's partly true, what V. Settings in DX10 offers isn't higher resolution for textures or a radically different manner which light is rendered. What it gives is noticeable only because what's different under the hood as it were: a unified shader language. If you've ever played with 3d demo scenes that run under OpenGL you'll notice how pretty they are as well, and it's because the shader language that it uses is similar to that of DX10's in that it provides additional features for manipulating meshes within the scene that the other version of DX couldn't do (because of the lack of a unified shader language). In DX9, often you will resort to either taking what M$ provides (which is little) or you use the GPU's own shader language (ATI and Nvidia vary *greatly* in how their languages function, but they both result in the same sorts of effects), but DX10 makes it as simply a few function calls in some cases. Now, with all that said, the art assets are not different between the lowest setting and the highest setting in Crysis, which is my point. How they are rendered can be subtly better, but unless you're a 'visual-phile' the difference doesn't matter, especially if you're in a fire fight (you're more worried about the AI running that copter over head...).
-- Brede
*cough* *cough* Crytek's art assets don't look any different between DX9 and DX10 *cough* *cough*
-- Brede
At high setting snthere is little no difference between DX9 and 10 but at V.High DX10 beats 9 even with the hack. As the hack isn't the full V.High settings. This is pointless however as Crysis like all games that advertise DX10, aren't even proper DX10 games. They are DX9 with some of the features getting a DX10 make over to look better but this causes bad performance in most cases. A game that is built from the ground up with DX10 would not have the performance issues that all these so called DX10 games are having.
Exactly. DX10's most compelling feature is that a game coded from the ground up for DX10 ONLY should be able to push graphics like we've never seen, and do it far easier than DX9 ever could.
Take the same exact game, one made exclusively for DX9 and the other for DX10, run them side by side and the DX10 version in theory should look better and play far smoother.
As for DX11, has that even been announced yet? Granted, I haven't been paying much attention in that area recently, but this would seem to buck the trend, so to speak. DX10 is hardly out yet, so it would make far more sense for ms to release several versions of 10 before they move onto 11, though I could be wrong. But either way, 11 will still be another version of 10, just like 7 8 and 9 were all of the same api, simply with more and more features. So, 11 should be able to run in vista, just as 9 could be used in several different versions of windows.
With the trouble ms had getting people to adopt the vista platform, I can't see them coding 11 to be a windows 7 exclusive. DX10 was supposed to be a vital selling point for vista, however hardly any games at all support dx10 at this point, and none whatsoever are coded exclusively for it. Making 11 available to users of vista and windows 7 would kick developers in the ass, and then we would see more games take advantage of it. As it stands, sadly, it simply isn't profitable for devs to make dx10 games.
Which also brings us to the 64 bit debate. Really, if 64 bit was the standard, we wouldn't see a fraction of the problems with it as we do now. I would say less than a quarter of vista and xp users use 64 bit, so 32 bit drivers and issues get the priority. Even though, in the near future, 64 bit will be needed to play games. Why would it be needed? If you are using a 32 bit environment, this gives you 4 gigs of address space, which is divided among your memory and pci devices, and this includes your video card. I run vista 32, with 4 gigs of ram and a single 8800gtx, which has 768mb of video ram. Combine that 768 with my other pci devices and I am left with 2814mb of usable physical memory. The overhead of Vista alone, with my firefox process (88356K) adds up to 949mb of that ram used. (this drops off somewhat while gaming, as dwm and some other processes go idle somewhat, taking less resources) This leaves me with about 1865mb available for gaming.
Does anyone else see games needing more than this in the future? I'm playing a game right now that when at max settings, uses upwards of 1500mb. Within the next couple of years I can see this breaking the 2gb barrier, and then we'll be in trouble.
Sorry about going off topic, I just got a little bit sidetracked. Some of this crap is just frustrating is all.
Don't worry. Far as I know, dx 11 hasn't been announced, only Windows Vienna to replace Vista next year.
my computer is still running DX9 on Windows XP...- -||| Does DX10 do great work on games...?
My vision has been too impaired by video games to notice any difference anyways :P