Direct X 10 for XP?

[hardnrg]

but you are comparing an X2 at it's OC limit vs a C2D at stock speed when the C2D's oc ability is proven to be extremely good...

 

a C2D at 3.4 GHz is more than 10-20% faster than an X2 at 3.0 GHz... it's more like 33% and you'd be an OC noob or very unlucky if your C2D topped out at 3.4 GHz

 

if you compare a C2D at 3.8 GHz to an X2 @ 3.0 GHz, that would be a better comparison, both towards the upper end of OC limits, but each not the highest

[Waco]

it's more like 33% and you'd be an OC noob or very unlucky if your C2D topped out at 3.4 GHz

Not all motherboards can run at 333+ fsb.

[hardnrg]

not all motherboards can support a 3.0 GHz speed of a dual-core 939 CPU... in fact, very few at all

[kingdingeling]

So whats up waco? Are we gonna have an OC battle now or what?

[Silverfox]

So whats up waco? Are we gonna have an OC battle now or what?

 

I doubt it. Some people would rather just believe they are right. A bit like girlfriends when they don't want to argue "sure...whatever..."

[swifty11212]

very unlucky if your C2D topped out at 3.4 GHz

mines topped out @ 3.5ghz, and needed some near w/c level voltage too *goes back to guild wars while waiting for hellgate london beta servers to go back up*

[spathalogic]

The problem with Vista doesn't rest inherently in itself, it rests in the fact that XP provides well-enough for the majority of users and that this majority already has XP. Furthermore, Microsoft, through limiting DX10 to Vista, essentially shafts all XP gamers that lack the resources to upgrade to Vista. From the consumer's standpoint, this action ultimately results in a negative perception of Microsoft.

 

However, from Microsoft's standpoint, things work out quite well. They have the resources to wait things out, and they know that if they released DX10 on XP, many people would hold-off purchasing Vista until later, and they can't have that as they want to shift their assets towards providing for Vista. By requiring Vista for DX10, as previously noted, they create a greater divide between DX9 & XP and DX10 & Vista. I don't think there is any gamer here that doesn't think of "DX10" when they hear Vista, or "Vista" when they hear DX10. From a marketing stand-point, things will work out well for Microsft, as they have the time and money to wait for us to adapt to fit their needs.

 

Of course, that is another reason that yields the stigma about Microsoft- they don't especially mind all that much when they force the consumers to adapt to them (instead of them gladly adapting to us). However, in the end, the average consumer probably will 'upgrade' to Vista within two or three years when Vista has become faster and more stable, and even better hardware exists compatible with DirectX 10. It may put a slight dent in the pockets of the early-adapters of this new Operating System, but those individuals most likely have the money to take the small hit, and will gladly continue to upgrade their systems as advances are made. The rest of us, for better or for worse, are unable to do so, but as things become cheaper and better designed, we know, as Microsoft knows, that we will be ready in a few years to take on Vista & Co.

[ThunderChicken]

Ok so i think its a good idea to say this has just been a flame war.

 

performance wise i think its safe to say xp is faster for gaming.

 

If you look at vista past a group of people like ourselves with better than average hardware, you look at business's for example vista wont be upgraded for a while. No, its not Microsoft's fault at all.

 

Look at small business's, many anti-virus companies didnt come out with upgraded software tell the last month or so. OCR is something that many companies use to convert printed documents to .pdf format to change things they have printed, that only works with xp. Look at UPS's software that they ahve to ship things, many companies use this software guess what? It only works with xp. Some adobe products maybe not the more house hold consumer products but the business sides many of the apps dont work with vista. last but not least vista does require companies to impliment new hardware especially if a client has been using xp for the last couple years. It would be stupid on the computer company and the clients part to just upgrade current machines to more ram or better cpu's. So, vista wont be widely adapted until new machines are implemented into the business not needing an upgrade either due to just things work, and/or things like stated above the software that companies need to run start getting newer versions, hell quickbooks just recently came out with vista compatible software.

 

ON the consumer side its a matter of personal prference i think, the hardware i run runs fine with vista, why do i run xp thougH? i like xp better and i like the performance i get with xp, my machine does run slower with vist, and i think thats the case with many people, Both os's are good but vista is just new and if you look at the business world it takes a long time to change due to many factors and i stated some above.

 

Vista, imo is a great os but i dont like some of the features and i do not like the new look, i like the old look but guess what? The old Windows gui the windows classic theme runs slower in vista....for god knows what reason. If you want proof ill ahve to go find it on another forum i saw some benches with.

 

 

thats my opinion on it all. Dx10 is besides the point int he business world, and imo dx10 seems like as i forgot who stated as a way to get people to switch to vista. Microsoft is coming out with Sp3 for xp which shows they will continue to support xp for the next year or two fully. So, why rush to vista, and not wait for it to mature into an os like xp is now.

[capthowdy575]

ok lets get some things straight here i like pie a lot if vista offers me pie then i take vista if xp pro offers me a lama i take the lama any day lol

[ThunderChicken]

ok lets get some things straight here i like pie a lot if vista offers me pie then i take vista if xp pro offers me a lama i take the lama any day lol

 

that sums up this whole thread.

[bigred]

1: microsoft's sales of the PC version of Halo 2 SUCKED. MS KNOWS THIS!!!!!

 

2: Crysis' developers and others have been going ape spit over the "vista" only DX 10 factor. they know full well what happened with point #1 and will NOT put up with it. Nvidia and AMD / ATI have been barking about the exact same thing. Vista's sales have been horrid next to XP and it's been hampering sales of DX10 as a selling feature to those who flat out won't / can't use Vista.

 

3: MS has said pubically that they can't do DX10 for XP however in the beta / deveoper forums it's been stated that it's not a techical issue, but a marketing issue (the one and only "need" to go vista).

 

4: DX10.1 is close. 8800 / 8600 / 8500 / 8400 and 2900 / 2600 / 2400 GPU's are useless for this standard. most likely to appease the marketing folks along with "needs" folks DX10 for XP will be released in the same time frame.

 

5: Vista's hogging of resources has shown to negate the abilities of DX10, if not cripple them.

 

6: Much thanks to the US government, banking insititutions, the EU, and health care industry, Vista's life span has been crushed and limitted... 7 is coming FAST. Vista = the second coming of windows ME, dont' expect to see it on the MCP / MCSE tests in any great volume. Business and ultimate versions are NOT gaining the wide spread fame of XP pro / 2000 pro.

 

 

Believe what ever in the fork you want, but LOGIC and the almighty dollar prevail in this argument. MS has no choice but to cave and give the paying consumer what they demand. DX10 WILL come to XP. and for those involved in the developer forums, monday at 6 PM pacific time... something BIG is coming down the pipes on the web cast.

[Waco]

5: Vista's hogging of resources has shown to negate the abilities of DX10, if not cripple them.

Except that it doesn't...