Newell: Win8 is a catastrophe; Pardo: I don't disagree.

Discussion in 'PC Hardware, Software and Displays' started by Grall, Jul 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AlexV

    AlexV Heteroscedasticitate
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,528
    Likes Received:
    107
    I take it your expertise in software design and implementation is extensive. Sorry, could not resist (pun intended).
     
  2. CouldntResist

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    6
    Name one Direct3D 10 feature that you think is impossible/difficult to implement in XP, and example of game/application that depends on it.
     
  3. Ethatron

    Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    258
    The API to channel the hardware-abstracted information is rigid. The driver-code maybe wants to offer the feature, and the OS wants to use it, but there is no way those two can come together.
    Microsoft doesn't add/plan extension-mechanisms for their low-level APIs, like those for high-level APIs fe. the OLE-layer. The result is that you get "funky" hacks like ATI did with their cool DX9 add-ons. But basically it ends there. We won't see partially-resident textures in DX for the near future, because there is simply no way to add it in any meaningfull way to the old APIs.
     
  4. Dominik D

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Wroclaw, Poland
    It's not about DX API, it's about driver model. Graphics stack changed completely between XP and Vista and shell (UI) as well as IE are tightly coupled with it for performance reasons. If you pull WDDM in, you have to change the underpinnings of Explorer, UI controlls, IE and probably a dozen more applications. The alternative is updating old driver model with new features. How many HW vendors would update their XP drivers with tons of new features? Here's a guess: none would.
     
  5. CouldntResist

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    6
    This is entirely irrelevant, driver model is not a D3D feature.

    You can prove me wrong, by giving me example of game/application that "uses Vista driver model".
    Of course I know you can't do it, but I needed to illustrate you technical absurdity of this explanation.
    What you say provides factual reasons why there was need for D3D 3, D3D 5, D3D 6, D3D 7, D3D 8, D3D 9, D3D 10, and D3D 11. But it has nothing to do with nonexistence of D3D 10 for XP.
     
    #185 CouldntResist, Nov 17, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2012
  6. I.S.T.

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    3,174
    Likes Received:
    389
    For the love of God, you can't just separate out D3D from a DX version like that.

    Christ.
     
  7. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    The main feature of Direct3D 10/11 is running on that new driver model, then you have geometry shader and tesselators as little features we can live without (until the new consoles use them, that is).

    How does that help?, well I guess the newer way is less wasteful of CPU cycles.
    Hell, I'd like Microsoft to implement Direct2D in Linux so I can try the acceleration in Firefox, I used pirated Windows before so they owe me, right? :razz:
     
  8. Dominik D

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Wroclaw, Poland
    Driver model has everything to do with this. Drivers on Vista+ are built around a completely different infrastructure provided by the OS than they were on XP. All of the drivers had to be mostly written from scratch. The way driver is being notified about stuff application does in DirectX is different; when it's notified changed; how you divide resources have changed; everything is different. DirectX APIs "just work" because there's a DX infrastructure and gfx driver underneath that deal with applications' requests.

    You have to realize that you can't get DX10/11 features without support from the driver. You just can't. So what and how driver does matters profoundly. DXGI doesn't exist on XP and it's required to even start any DX10/11 application. And none of the XP drivers supported it because it didn't exist on XP. And you can't just make it part of the XPDM because it requires system-wide facilities for virtual video memory, proper scheduling, fault tolerance and many others. These come with WDDM.

    There are only 3 ways to get DX10 features on XP:
    - rev DX9.0c to DX9.0d or DX9.1 or something, essentially forking and fragmenting application development even more, requiring hardware manufacturers to work on two generations of drivers in parallel
    - port WDDM to XP with everything that comes with it, pretty much making a completely new Windows XP (remember not to charge consumers for this work, after all they are certain it was done magically by itself)
    - create a fake DX10/11 layer on top of DX9 making APIs consistent but exposing only DX9-level features through DX10/11 APIs, essentially changing nothing

    I simply couldn't resist adding this: go and write some DX9 code, then write some DX10 or DX11 code. Go read XPDM and WDDM documentation. Then come back discussing what's possible and what isn't. And possible doesn't mean "can be done with infinite time and resources", it means "within a reasonable time frame by a reasonably sized team". We occupy this space called reality, stick with it.
     
  9. swaaye

    swaaye Entirely Suboptimal
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,450
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    WI, USA
    If only OpenGL still mattered for PC games.
     
  10. zed

    zed
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,384
    Likes Received:
    598
    you're missing number 4
    use opengl, which gives you dx11 features on XP.

    hmmm wait a second
     
  11. Npl

    Npl
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    6
    or port the wine emulation layer to run on windows.
     
  12. NRP

    NRP
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,709
    Likes Received:
    289
    Or just upgrade your freaking OS and quit whining. :roll:
     
  13. MfA

    MfA
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    6,683
    Likes Received:
    445
    They ported the new WDDM model from Windows 7 to Vista at the time ... any way as I said when I saw all this coming, WDDM 1.2 is nice ... but also irrelevant since they aren't backporting it. They are killing PC graphics/gaming with a thousand paper cuts, also themselves.
     
  14. Dominik D

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Wroclaw, Poland
    Vista shipped with WDDM support. In fact it was one of its big features (and was known for some time as LDDM - Longhorn Display Driver Model).
     
  15. MfA

    MfA
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    6,683
    Likes Received:
    445
    Yes and they backported 1.1 to it.
     
  16. Dominik D

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Wroclaw, Poland
    Ah, that's what you've meant by saying "ported the new WDDM model". Sure, true.
     
  17. CouldntResist

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    6
    If this is your way to say you can't name one, I rest my case.
     
  18. CouldntResist

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    6
    Driver model is your red herring. I gave you simple task:

    Name one Direct3D 10 feature that you think is impossible/difficult to implement in XP, and example of game/application that depends on it.

    That's by far the easiest possible way for you to prove me wrong and that reasons for nonexistence of DX10 on XP were indeed technical. Allegedly there are looooooooooots of features. Vista has been out there for 6 years, so there are lots of apps too. If what you believe were true, the evidence would be at your reach of your hand.

    DX10 application cannot depend on something, that isn't part of the DX10 interface and its contract. What's inside the black box, is private matter beteen Windows devs and driver devs. Game/app developer doesn't need nor want to have anything to do with the insides. Unless he is dealing with driver or OS bug, obscure undefined behaviour etc. but that's outside of our scope.

    So, instead of producing the evidence, you responded with elaborate mumbo jumbo vomit, that is irrelevant to the task given. Irrelevancy aside, you made some kinda vague claims that need to be addressed:

    - You seem to imply that Vista's WDDM is part of the only possible implementation of DX10 interface.
    That would be absurd for anyone who can comprehend basic concepts of software engineering.

    - You seem to imply that DX10 level hardware cannot function without Vista's WDDM.
    For this, there is one giant, well known counter evidence. It had 20th birthday this summer (hint).
    Hardware manufacturers do have been working on two generations of drivers in parallell since Vista came out. They continually release Windows XP DX9 drivers for their DX10 and DX11 level hardware. The work hasn't stopped. It's just that one of those two driver generations has to be limited to DX9 level.
    For once again, you are making assumption that DX10 level hardware magically requires Vista WDDM to function.
    Great, now all you need is to explain exactly why Windows devs would have to refrain from going one step further and exposing also DX10-level features. What magical force would stop them from throwing in support for geometry shaders, texture arrays, SM 4.0?

    OpenGL managed to do it with just that, throwing in bunch of ARB extensions. But you believe that Microsoft wouldn't be able to do it with clean rewrite of their own API.

    Oh, it's "fake" API, I forgot. Your fake DX10 would be enough for any DX10 game out there to work. Even Wine allows some DX10 games work in entirely alien operating system, but you believe Microsoft wouldn't be able to do it with all games, in its native environment.
    You are the one who believes in extraordinary claims without evidence, and against counterevidence.
    And save your efforts on this aggressive rhetoric, no amount of it will make you right.
     
  19. BRiT

    BRiT (╯°□°)╯
    Moderator Legend Alpha Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    12,155
    Likes Received:
    8,306
    Location:
    Cleveland
    Alright, this discussion is clearly going nowhere.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...