According to Valve, only 2% of steam users have computers capable of running DirectX 10 Games.
To Run DirectX 10 games, users must have both Windows Vista and a DirectX 10-capable Graphics card installed. We can speculate that hardcore gamers -graphics cards early adopters- prefer Windows XP to Windows vista which is still resource intensive. On the other hand, we can argue, most Windows Vista owners are mainstream brand pc buyers who'd settle for an onboard graphics chip or a low end graphics card such GeForce 7300 GS.
In an interview with heise online, Gabe Newell, president of Valve Software, said that Microsoft's decision to have DirectX 10 exclusive for Vista is a \"terrible Mistake\" which has affected the whole industry.
Gabe Newel then added that Xbox 360 and Playstation 3's lack of DirectX 10 support further narrowed DirectX 10 user base; and that's the reason why developers are reluctant to develop DirectX 10 games. When developing cross-platform games developers look for the smallest common denominator, he explained.
Newel revealed Half Life 2: Episode 2 will use DirectX 10 features only for accelerating some mimics and that it would be impossible to differentiate between DX10 and DX9 versions visually. The source engine was expanded for Episode 2. New features include a special alpha blend mode which generates smoother anti-aliasing edges, new distortion effects and soft shadows. The Orange Box console versions will also apply the new engine features, including high dynamic range rendering and multi core support, to the main game. Half-Life 2 runs at a resolution of 720p (1280 x 720 pixels) on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3.
Gabe Newel also blamed DirectX's clumsy support for new and uncommon input devices, and claimed that this is the main reason why developers \"didn't dare to implement such expensive innovations\" like the WiiMote or the Guitar Hero guitar.
The Half-Life 2 Orange Box will be released for PC and Xbox 360 on 12 October 2007. The PS3 edition is being developed by an EA studio and is scheduled for release two to three weeks later.
All those points are weak, really weak! It's all pretty much based on 'things made exclusive suck'. I've heard enough of that as it is from people complaining about consoles being different!
I'm only an online PC gamer, FFXI is all I play. The only offline game I play is Oblivion.
Just like consoles, I'll upgrade to a DX10 card and Vista only when the games I want to play are there (and the performance doesn't suck ass because of a bloated OS).
I don't care what OS I have if I just surf and check email...
TIGERassault wrote:All those points are weak, really weak! It's all pretty much based on 'things made exclusive suck'. I've heard enough of that as it is from people complaining about consoles being different!
On the contrary, having been in the software business as a developer for 24 years, all the points are very strong.
Microsoft shot itself in the foot two ways:
Releasing DirectX 10 for Vista only. If you're spending millions of dollars developing a game title for Windows, you have to target the biggest audience possible to make a profit: DirectX 9.0c on Windows XP.
Releasing Vista with 32-bit and 64-bit kernels. It exponentially increases the work load for driver developers, thus slowing hardware support for Vista. 90% of the systems that can run Vista well are 64-bit capable anyway. Since OEMs already have a lot of 32-bit legacy code that can be ported to 32-bit Vista, they release 32-bit drivers first. Thus slowing down the adaptation of the 64-bit platform that can better-handle a resource hog like Vista.
I won't go to Vista until I have a system powerful enough to run it like I'm running XP now. That and the games I play are supported in Vista and MS has released at least SP1.
CDN_Merlin wrote:I won't go to Vista until I have a system powerful enough to run it like I'm running XP now. That and the games I play are supported in Vista and MS has released at least SP1.
X2
Not to mention it will still BE a dualdrive Boot system with XP
I seem to have a better workout dodging your stupidity than attempting to grasp the weight of your intelligence.
Repo Man wrote:[*]Releasing Vista with 32-bit and 64-bit kernels. It exponentially increases the work load for driver developers, thus slowing hardware support for Vista. 90% of the systems that can run Vista well are 64-bit capable anyway. Since OEMs already have a lot of 32-bit legacy code that can be ported to 32-bit Vista, they release 32-bit drivers first. Thus slowing down the adaptation of the 64-bit platform that can better-handle a resource hog like Vista.
[/list]
I disagree. Machines now are starting to come out with 4 gigs of RAM. Most software is still written to be 32-bits. So we're at a cross roads: people want to use more RAM but need their software to still run performantly.
XP shipped with x86 and x64, 2003 the same. If MS shot itself in the foot, it was 5 years ago now.
Every major OS now has an x86 and x64 flavor, I don't think this is unique to Vista.
Repo Man wrote:Releasing DirectX 10 for Vista only. If you're spending millions of dollars developing a game title for Windows, you have to target the biggest audience possible to make a profit: DirectX 9.0c on Windows XP.
On the contrary, the exact same thing is happening for the PS3 too. The number of PS2 games developed recently greatly outnumber the number of PS3 games.
In fact, that happened for nearly ALL of the consoles at the start of their lives! But I never hear anyone saying that the console industry was a complete bust.
If anything, Vista should have shipped in a 64 bit only version. Running Vista on a system that can only do 32 bit is questionable at best. I had the 32 bit version running on my notebook PC for a few hours before I formatted and loaded XP Professional. A few features are nice, but overall it is lipstick on a wild boar, and completely retarded in 32 bit flavors.
Also; most PCs are still shipping with 1 GB or less of system ram as the base setting, and these computers are being loaded with Vista which I have personally seen doesn't run well till you break 2-3 GB. The vast majority of people out there that shop for their own PCs will usually read a Dell or HP ad and call in or go to their website and order one off with little or no customization from the default specs. Look on the Dell or HP website and tell me how many average systems that most people would buy have 4 GB of ram by default. Some of the more top of the line \"high end\" systems come with 2 GB by default, and that should really be the minimum requirement to run Vista. On the Dell home/small office area, only ONE computer comes with 4 GB by default, and it has a $7,000 USD pricetag, but to top it all off, they still give you the option of using Windows XP on that machine.
The vast majority of systems being shipped with Vista preinstalled are woefully inadequate to run it well.
Blue wrote:what reason, exactly, does a consumer see to buy vista?
Umm, the colors, the pretty glass interface, and AIM works. Oh yea, and MySpace looks awesome on the new IE7. And come on, its so freaking cool! Im the only one on my block with Vista and everyone thinks im cool!
BTW, The Sims doesn't work for me. Im really upset because I JUST got the expansion last weekend for it along with my Lindsay Lohan CD (she is my idol! omg!!!1!!1) ------->For your information, I am being sarcastic!<-------
Blue wrote:what reason, exactly, does a consumer see to buy vista?
Umm, the colors, the pretty glass interface, and AIM works. Oh yea, and MySpace looks awesome on the new IE7. And come on, its so freaking cool! Im the only one on my block with Vista and everyone thinks im cool!
BTW, The Sims doesn't work for me. Im really upset because I JUST got the expansion last weekend for it along with my Lindsay Lohan CD (she is my idol! omg!!!1!!1) ------->For your information, I am being sarcastic!<-------
When apple switched from OS 9 to OSX there was a NOTICABLE speed increase. Nothing from os 9 could work on OSX but hell, OSX was a powerhouse compared...why isn't microsoft working towards the same? Vista should be so fast and so slim it leaves XP in the dust. It should be so wicked developers and users should be clammering to get in on the deal.
Blue wrote:When apple switched from OS 9 to OSX there was a NOTICABLE speed increase. Nothing from os 9 could work on OSX but hell, OSX was a powerhouse compared...why isn't microsoft working towards the same? Vista should be so fast and so slim it leaves XP in the dust. It should be so wicked developers and users should be clammering to get in on the deal.
A spiffy new UI with lots of effects makes that virtually impossible.
Blue wrote:When apple switched from OS 9 to OSX there was a NOTICABLE speed increase. Nothing from os 9 could work on OSX but hell, OSX was a powerhouse compared...why isn't microsoft working towards the same? Vista should be so fast and so slim it leaves XP in the dust. It should be so wicked developers and users should be clammering to get in on the deal.
A spiffy new UI with lots of effects makes that virtually impossible.
In the case of Vista this is true. There are a couple linux distros that Vista seems to *cough*rip off*cough* ..oh I mean copy... and while they run a bit slower than the run of the mill Linux and it's gui.. they are not nearly the resource hog that Vista is.
I have to agree with Blue here. There is always a way, if time is spent on it.
ive said it several times and ill say it again, Vista will only be installed on my machine when its absolutely required. as long as there are XP Cracks and Unlocks i will remain on XP Pro.
Im really upset because I JUST got the expansion last weekend for it along with my Lindsay Lohan CD (she is my idol! omg!!!1!!1)
