[Panda X]

steve-, on Feb 14 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

Bryant, on Feb 14 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

Svyat, on Nov 1 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

And I beleave, that soon somebody will make DX10 work on XP/2K3!

No one will do any such thing; it's an utter waste of time. Windows XP as an OS is over 8 years old! People who want to keep supporting it when a perfectly good successor has already come along (Vista SP1) are delusional.

Well in defense of the ignorant delusional people for the most part they are more than likely misguided by false advertising and so on. But to extend what you said, I HATE when people say they "Upgraded to XP!".

Only reasonable when going from 2000 to XP. Else I too hate it.

[steve-]

Panda X, on Feb 14 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

steve-, on Feb 14 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

Bryant, on Feb 14 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

Svyat, on Nov 1 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

And I beleave, that soon somebody will make DX10 work on XP/2K3!

No one will do any such thing; it's an utter waste of time. Windows XP as an OS is over 8 years old! People who want to keep supporting it when a perfectly good successor has already come along (Vista SP1) are delusional.

Well in defense of the ignorant delusional people for the most part they are more than likely misguided by false advertising and so on. But to extend what you said, I HATE when people say they "Upgraded to XP!".

Only reasonable when going from 2000 to XP. Else I too hate it.

Well yeah, 2k to XP is fine, it only bugs me when they are referring to Vista.

[Windows OCManage]

Or Windows 7 or even UNIX in one case!

[wildwood]

I know this is an old thread, but I'll throw my newbie 2 cents in.

First I would like to say that I hate it when people say "xp is an 8 year old OS.. you're an idiot if you keep running it" or things like that. The fact is that XP is the perfect OS, except in the places where Microsoft has chosen to gimp it. DX10 being the primary example.

Microsoft chooses not to port or release dx10..11...etc on XP for a simple reason. They know if they did that every gamer and a good chunk of other users would continue to run it. They don't want that. DX10 is the one place where they can draw a line and say "we're not doing it, and if you want it.. upgrade" The bottom line is... XP is faster in almost every way than Vista or Win7 - http://www.testfreak...-vs-vista-vs-7/ - It amazes me how they broke simple things like file copies with their new wonderful OS.

There are only two other innovations Microsoft brought to Vista that aren't available on XP. UAC, and how many people reading this actually use it? And Aero, which doesn't actually count because you can get every feature of Aero in another utility. My point is, that XP isn't technologically inferior in any way. I know 64 bit is faster, I know more cores and win7 shines.. but these aren't things that XP didn't have. I just wish that Microsoft would come out and say "XP was pretty much perfect, but we needed to keep you on the upgrade wagon, so we gimped it and we're calling you an idiot if you still like it"

I run win7 at work because we're moving to it next year and it is inevitable and needs to be tested. I don't run dx10 games though, so at home I run xp and will continue to until I have a reason to switch. It just pisses me off that I have to accept bloatware because Microsoft needs a check. They did the same thing with office 2007. nothing but bloated.......oh well..

[WindowsScientist]

wildwood, on Nov 2 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

I know this is an old thread, but I'll throw my newbie 2 cents in.

First I would like to say that I hate it when people say "xp is an 8 year old OS.. you're an idiot if you keep running it" or things like that. The fact is that XP is the perfect OS, except in the places where Microsoft has chosen to gimp it. DX10 being the primary example.

Microsoft chooses not to port or release dx10..11...etc on XP for a simple reason. They know if they did that every gamer and a good chunk of other users would continue to run it. They don't want that. DX10 is the one place where they can draw a line and say "we're not doing it, and if you
want it.. upgrade" The bottom line is... XP is faster in almost every way than Vista or Win7 - http://www.testfreak...-vs-vista-vs-7/ - It amazes me how they broke simple things like file copies with their new wonderful OS.

There are only two other innovations Microsoft brought to Vista that aren't available on XP. UAC, and how many people reading this actually use it? And Aero, which doesn't actually count because you can get every feature of Aero in another utility. My point is, that XP isn't technologically inferior in any way. I know 64 bit is faster, I know more cores and win7 shines

UAC is not an inovation, its an irritation lol

[Chris]

I don't use Windows XP anymore, haven't for over three years. But people still using it aren't missing much on the DirectX side. Almost every new game still doesn't support DirectX 10 or 11, and if they do having it enabled gives you very minor differences. Not to mention they also all still support DirectX 9, so they run on XP anyway.