Wasn't MS in "we only support the previous two OS" mode at that time? XP, ME, 98 SE, 98, 95. . . . Now, whether it'd actually work or not, rather than "supported," I don't remember.
Edit: Yup, MS ended support for Win95 on Dec 31, 2001.
98SE can take up to DirectX 9.0c. 95 can only use up to DX8.0a.
95 has lots and lots of limitations that make it useless, before your DirectX needs, however. But wow is it fast! Even compared to 98. I have my old glory 486 at home in the closet with 95C on it. Things really go zoom when your OS isn't loading 50 "integrated" apps in the background in addition to itself.
I think they're reading too much into Kim's statements... Sounds more like he's talking about exclusive content for Live and DX10, something for there to be a buzz about for marketing types like him to hype. They've already got the platform(s), just no content to deliver (yet).
Shane Kim said:
Because, at the end of the day, it's all about content to me.
Again, even if DX10 comes to WinXP, there are a ton of API issues that aren't immediately resolvable and you still have an entirely "incorrect" kernel and driver structure. I use the term "incorrect" in relation to the efficiency improvements gained in DX10 from the changes in the underlying OS structure.