DX10 (formerly WGF2.0, formerly DX10) will ship with Vista
- Thread starter Temporary Name
- Start date
- Status
Uttar said:
???
now that is a weird strategy to support (decapitate?) a capable platform... through denying it the latest and greatest
Sure they can. It's almost the same driver model as OpenGL (which, last I checked, is supported on WinXP). That doesn't mean they will do it.
Btw, not supporting DX10 on Win2k or WinXP (or arguably, even WinME) will be very painful for developers. Now they can't just code to DX10 (even for new GPUs) because DX10 won't be available on the OSes that most people will have in the next few years.
Since the new driver model only really applies to D3D10 (err, I mean WGF 2.0), let me ask: what's in WGF 2.0 that's too much connected with the OS to be radically changed? How does that compare to OpenGL and/or wgl?
Have a look at this presentation from Microsoft. Follow the path from "OpenGL32" to "Kernel mode driver" and from "WGF2.0" to "Kernel mode driver". Notice the similarities?
Ok, now let's look at the WinXP driver model. I can't seem to find anything from Microsoft on the topic, but it basically goes like this:
OpenGL32 <-> IHV ICD <-> IHV Kernel driver
It looks to me like Microsoft just ported WGF to the OpenGL driver model they themselves had since Windows NT.
Of course you'll need new OpenGL drivers on Vista: The driver API has changed. However, the driver model itself (ie: an IHV-provided client-space ICD) hasn't.
Sorry I wasn't being more clear in my previous post. I was trying to argue for the portability of WGF 2.0 to other Microsoft operating systems.
JasonCross
Newcomer
Kombatant said:I imagine a simple "Would you like to enable the x64bit extensions of your processor" question should doI am not sure how they'll implement it; we'll see as the beta program progresses.
With Beta 1, there are seperate builds and ISO files for 32 and 64 bit. (But then, there is no "upgrade" option yet either. It's greyed out.) My understanding from Microsoft of how it will work, is that the installer will automatically detect what your CPU is capable of and default to that, with the option to force the other mode somewhere in the installer. That's not the way it works right now, though.
Of course, by late 2006, 64-bit capable CPUs will be extremely common.
Bob said:
As of now, it's back to being just DirectX 10, there is no WGF (1.0 or 2.0). There's just DirectX 9.L and DirectX 10.
As for what's changed... the LDDM driver model at its core is quite a bit different from that in Windows XP/2000, whether you're talking about OpenGL or D3D. A lot more of the driver lives in a protected user space rather than the kernel space, and there are quite a few changes made for the 3D pipeline to be used as a resource that can be more easily shared between the OS and several concurrent apps... after all, it'll be driving multiple 3D windows all the time, not just a single full-screen 3D app or windowed 3D app with GDI functions around it.
The new driver model does NOT apply only to D3D10. It applies to DirectX 9 as well, hence the need to include DirectX 9.L - which is DX9 altered to work with the LDDM driver model.
JasonCross
Newcomer
Maintank said:
If a game uses D3D10_ function calls, you're gonna need to upgrade. Think of it like "I need to buy an Xbox360 or PS3 if I want to play that new game that requires it." Same thing. At some point, you need to move to the new platform to use the stuff that takes advantage of it. Don't freak out though. You still have a year and a half before it even comes out, and who knows when "requires Vista" games will hit.
As for making DirectX 10 for XP... I don't think they can. It does stuff with regards to small batches, state changes, CPU dependicies (or lack of CPU dependency, I should say), and memory management that pretty much requires the LDDM driver model. That's the way I understand it now, anyway.
It will ALSO require new hardware, which is bound to cost a lot more than the OS.
One thing to bear in mind is that the scheduled end of mainstream support for XP is Dec 2006 which, assuming MS is strict with their own rules, means among other things no new features will be available after that date. On the other hand with longhorn, sorry Vista, expected to ship on Q4 2006 I'm expecting MS to extend mainstream support for XP.
Also, Avalon/Indigo were supposed to be Longhorn-only features and are now being back ported to enlarge the market base for those applications because of developer feedback. I assume that if MS wants games to begin making use of DX10 that they'd also back port that for the same reason.
Even if that happens I don't expect them to go any farther back than XP SP2, the same threshold they're going for IE 7/Avalon/Indigo, etc.
Also, Avalon/Indigo were supposed to be Longhorn-only features and are now being back ported to enlarge the market base for those applications because of developer feedback. I assume that if MS wants games to begin making use of DX10 that they'd also back port that for the same reason.
Even if that happens I don't expect them to go any farther back than XP SP2, the same threshold they're going for IE 7/Avalon/Indigo, etc.
Maintank said:
There is no Direct X after 9.x
It turns into Windows Graphic Foundation that from all indications i'v seen, will not see the light of day on XP. Dont forget it extends further then just games, WGF will also be 3D support everywhere we have 2D now, for example the desktop. They want to make the entire OS utilize 3D accelerators.
Do your games look ugly now? Are you disatisfied? Then one would hope you wouldnt care. If on the otherhand you are someone who spends 400-X amount of money a year upgrading graphic cards, i think you can handle the 120ish dollars for the accompying OS update thats going to last you another 4-6 years. No sense in buying the latest hardware if you arent willing to do what you have to, to get it supported. Thats how i feel. I dont have limitless funds, but this is one thing i wont complain about. Like i said the OS is quite the long term update, especially in computers, its actually one of the best investments compared to a graphics card or CPU. I hardly see the sense in complaining about it. Any pre-2006 graphics card will have its features totally utilized in XP, any post 2006 graphics card will have most of its features utilized in XP *most importantly speed bumps which you'll still have*, and complety in Vista.
You want what WGF brings, you're problably a hardware update nut, then you update the OS.
Temporary Name
Newcomer
Please read the OP and associated link before offering "insights".
You know, I'm not sure if I buy that Microsoft won't have support for DirectX 10 in previous versions of Windows. It seems ridiculous to me.
After all, if they did only enable DirectX 10 for Windows Vista, then it'd be years before any games bothered to support DirectX 10, just because it'd take years for the userbase to catch up. And even when some games do start to use the new API, most will offer fallbacks for previous versions of DirectX.
It could really end up starting a revival of OpenGL in the end, because you can be sure that IHV's will allow support for the advanced functionality available in DX10 through new OpenGL extensions, and OpenGL updates will certainly still be available for older OS's.
So, I just don't buy that DX10 will be Vista-only.
After all, if they did only enable DirectX 10 for Windows Vista, then it'd be years before any games bothered to support DirectX 10, just because it'd take years for the userbase to catch up. And even when some games do start to use the new API, most will offer fallbacks for previous versions of DirectX.
It could really end up starting a revival of OpenGL in the end, because you can be sure that IHV's will allow support for the advanced functionality available in DX10 through new OpenGL extensions, and OpenGL updates will certainly still be available for older OS's.
So, I just don't buy that DX10 will be Vista-only.
Okay, there's a monstrous difference here.SugarCoat said:
If, and I stress if (see my previous post) Microsoft only supports DirectX 10 on Vista, it'd be nothing like when I choose to upgrade my video card to play games better.
If Microsoft only supports DX10 on Vista, it will essentially be Microsoft saying, "Pay us money or don't play." Video cards are entirely different, because not only are fallbacks to older hardware ubiquitous in games, but we have two IHV's from whom to buy that hardware. That's the difference. With video cards I have a choice. Not only can I choose not to upgrade if I don't want to (and still play all games to be released for a reasonable time frame), but I can also choose who gets my money.
If Microsoft does make this move (which I think would be a bad move for them anyway), it's highly likely that I'll be upset enough to finally make the move to 100% linux.
Game Developers will support DX9 for a long time to be Windows XP compatibel. IMHO the first wave of DX10 games will have a DX9 render mode too. Good engines already support a plugin interface to swap the render mode easy.
But IMHO gamers will upgrade very fast to Vista because the new drivermodel should make current games less CPU dependent. It is possible too to make better use of multi core CPUs in the driver.
But IMHO gamers will upgrade very fast to Vista because the new drivermodel should make current games less CPU dependent. It is possible too to make better use of multi core CPUs in the driver.
The amount of clueless replies in this thread terrifies me - sorry guys, but I've come to expect more out of Beyond3D. But maybe that's just me - I sure hope not, though. I'm not talking of the intelligent replies here though, even if I completely disagree with some of them - I'm focusing more on the ones that imply MS "owe" you something, when you really don't even know anything about DirectX 10. Inform yourself, and then try to inform others with your new knowledge. It doesn't work the other way around.
Anyway, I'll try to briefly but clearly explain the decision of "No DirectX 10 for Vista". Hopefully this will help some of you understand what's at stake here. Reading articles would provide you with the same information - this is all public knowledge, although it tends to be a bit too verbose to my liking (considering the weak amount of content), or just aren't explicit enough.
---
Unlike past DirectXs, DX10 is more than an API; it's also a required specification. In the past, "HAL modes" or Shader Models have played that role. And in fact, as it is right now, I could install DirectX 9.0c and the Forceware 77.72s (or many earlier versions) and get Direct 9.0c support on my old TNT2 M64. This will simply not be possible for DX10. No current GPU, including the GeForce 7 series and R5xx series, will support DX10.
The DX10 API is not based on "Shader Models" or "Cap Bits". You either support it completely or not at all. However, it doesn't matter how the HIVs implement this functionality - for example, even if the API unifies PS and VS, the hardware could choose not to do so.
There's apparently a but though, and it's not a small one: at least for the original WGF2.0, supported GPUs had to have a certain amount of performance, agreed by Microsoft using one or several simple tests. This aspect might, however, have been dropped since then - little current information is available.
This highlights three key points: First of all, your current machine will not be able to use DX10 without a new GPU. Secondly, any game wanting backwards compatibility with slower or less capable will have to support DX9.L. Thirdly, game programming on Vista will feel a lot more "Closed Box with a PC Path", with the important difference however than the so-called "Closed Box" might have very variable performance, although only to a certain extend (initially) if specific minimum performance is required for DX10 compatibility.
This makes the programmers' life significantly easier and significantly harder at the same time: should a game only support DX10 and Vista, no real fallback paths will be required should a powerful pixel and vertex-level LoD system be implemented.
But on the other hand, if you wanted a pre-DX10 fallback path AND you did extensive use of the new features and of the advantages of the new driver model, then you'd need to reimplement a good chunk of the engine completely. If you only had minor use of those new features and don't benefit dramatically from the new driver model, then keeping it compatible with DX9 should be quite easy - and then, you don't need a new GPU, and you don't need Vista.
---
Subjective part, please only read if interested - otherwise, don't bother:
Personally, and this is just my opinion, I think Microsoft's decision is excellent for the PC videogame industry. Making DX10 and Vista more similar to "closed box systems", yet capable of significantly more performance than any next-generation console given the right hardware (GPU-wise, at least; my opinion of the CPU/PPU side of things is Another Post For Another Day).
Overall, this creates an interesting market for game programmers. I think there will be a fair bit of DX10+DX9.L+DX9.0 games released around Vista's launch timeframe: this is an interesting market because anyone who bought Vista and a DX10 GPU will want to buy your game to justify their purchase, while people still on XP or DX9 GPUs will be happy it till provides good support for them.
So that means you'd get a a big market AND an additional specific niche market that's much more likely to buy your games at launch. Everyone wins. I'm sure this is also in the best interest of both HIVs and MS: To play these new games at high settings, you need to buy both a new GPU and a new OS. And possibly a new CPU (or even a PPU) if they're a console port and your current one isn't quite up to it.
From the customer's point of view however, this encourages you to do a "double purchase", which many people hate. However, I think this is a flawed idea: you can very well buy Vista and then buy a new GPU supporting DX10 three to six months later. It's not because Vista is required to support DX10 that the latter is required to support Vista - sadly, I fear that in the mind of many hardcore gamers, that might seem to be the case. Hopefully Microsoft's marketing deparment will somehow manage to crush that idea, and yet not make DX10 appear less important than it really is.
As for OS support, I personally regret that this move is likely to reduce the adoption of OpenGL, and thus Linux and MacOS X for gaming. This is a very smart move for Microsoft: they're basically guaranteeing themselves a real monopoly of gaming platforms if this move is a success - which it might still not be, only time will tell. If all goes as planned though, this might also have a slight benefit for the Xbox360 on the long-term: XB titles will be more easily portable to PC, and vice-versa; at the same time, the PS3 is based on OpenGL, so it wouldn't make porting those titles any easier - apparently there won't be many PS3 ports in the short-term anyway, though.
Anyhow, as is clearly visible, I decided to be a bit more verbose than I had originally wanted to be - hopefully at least the non-deliberately-subjective part will be useful to some of you
Uttar
Anyway, I'll try to briefly but clearly explain the decision of "No DirectX 10 for Vista". Hopefully this will help some of you understand what's at stake here. Reading articles would provide you with the same information - this is all public knowledge, although it tends to be a bit too verbose to my liking (considering the weak amount of content), or just aren't explicit enough.
---
Unlike past DirectXs, DX10 is more than an API; it's also a required specification. In the past, "HAL modes" or Shader Models have played that role. And in fact, as it is right now, I could install DirectX 9.0c and the Forceware 77.72s (or many earlier versions) and get Direct 9.0c support on my old TNT2 M64. This will simply not be possible for DX10. No current GPU, including the GeForce 7 series and R5xx series, will support DX10.
The DX10 API is not based on "Shader Models" or "Cap Bits". You either support it completely or not at all. However, it doesn't matter how the HIVs implement this functionality - for example, even if the API unifies PS and VS, the hardware could choose not to do so.
There's apparently a but though, and it's not a small one: at least for the original WGF2.0, supported GPUs had to have a certain amount of performance, agreed by Microsoft using one or several simple tests. This aspect might, however, have been dropped since then - little current information is available.
This highlights three key points: First of all, your current machine will not be able to use DX10 without a new GPU. Secondly, any game wanting backwards compatibility with slower or less capable will have to support DX9.L. Thirdly, game programming on Vista will feel a lot more "Closed Box with a PC Path", with the important difference however than the so-called "Closed Box" might have very variable performance, although only to a certain extend (initially) if specific minimum performance is required for DX10 compatibility.
This makes the programmers' life significantly easier and significantly harder at the same time: should a game only support DX10 and Vista, no real fallback paths will be required should a powerful pixel and vertex-level LoD system be implemented.
But on the other hand, if you wanted a pre-DX10 fallback path AND you did extensive use of the new features and of the advantages of the new driver model, then you'd need to reimplement a good chunk of the engine completely. If you only had minor use of those new features and don't benefit dramatically from the new driver model, then keeping it compatible with DX9 should be quite easy - and then, you don't need a new GPU, and you don't need Vista.
---
Subjective part, please only read if interested - otherwise, don't bother:
Personally, and this is just my opinion, I think Microsoft's decision is excellent for the PC videogame industry. Making DX10 and Vista more similar to "closed box systems", yet capable of significantly more performance than any next-generation console given the right hardware (GPU-wise, at least; my opinion of the CPU/PPU side of things is Another Post For Another Day).
Overall, this creates an interesting market for game programmers. I think there will be a fair bit of DX10+DX9.L+DX9.0 games released around Vista's launch timeframe: this is an interesting market because anyone who bought Vista and a DX10 GPU will want to buy your game to justify their purchase, while people still on XP or DX9 GPUs will be happy it till provides good support for them.
So that means you'd get a a big market AND an additional specific niche market that's much more likely to buy your games at launch. Everyone wins. I'm sure this is also in the best interest of both HIVs and MS: To play these new games at high settings, you need to buy both a new GPU and a new OS. And possibly a new CPU (or even a PPU) if they're a console port and your current one isn't quite up to it.
From the customer's point of view however, this encourages you to do a "double purchase", which many people hate. However, I think this is a flawed idea: you can very well buy Vista and then buy a new GPU supporting DX10 three to six months later. It's not because Vista is required to support DX10 that the latter is required to support Vista - sadly, I fear that in the mind of many hardcore gamers, that might seem to be the case. Hopefully Microsoft's marketing deparment will somehow manage to crush that idea, and yet not make DX10 appear less important than it really is.
As for OS support, I personally regret that this move is likely to reduce the adoption of OpenGL, and thus Linux and MacOS X for gaming. This is a very smart move for Microsoft: they're basically guaranteeing themselves a real monopoly of gaming platforms if this move is a success - which it might still not be, only time will tell. If all goes as planned though, this might also have a slight benefit for the Xbox360 on the long-term: XB titles will be more easily portable to PC, and vice-versa; at the same time, the PS3 is based on OpenGL, so it wouldn't make porting those titles any easier - apparently there won't be many PS3 ports in the short-term anyway, though.
Anyhow, as is clearly visible, I decided to be a bit more verbose than I had originally wanted to be - hopefully at least the non-deliberately-subjective part will be useful to some of you
Uttar
- Status
