Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Orion2012
2. The reason DX10 is only supported by vista is the new way that graphics drivers are stored in the OS. In XP the driver cabnet that contains your graphics driver is not seperate from another other driver cabinet. In Vista (for DX10) the graphics driver cabninet is seperate meaning that when you have either a memory allocation error or stop error that would normally cause an unstable "core" (the input between the bios and windows) instead of the OS crashing, the driver cabinet will crash and restor the OS (the goal set forth was to allow 90% of all error to be a CTD instead of a core crash)
|
Uhm, I'm no expert but that doesn't sound right. The only reason
AFAIK why DX10 couldn't be backported to XP was because of "virtualisable video memory", a feature that was planned to be implemented in DX10 but never was. And since it never was, DX10 on XP is perfectly feasible, the only reason why it hasn't happened yet being that that would take away the only reason to switch to Vista... Typical M$ arm twisting IMHO. :hmm:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Orion2012
If it were feasible to run DX10 on XP MS would offically support it.
|
:rotfl: Offcourse they wouldn't, I don't have to be an expert to figure that one out. No self-respecting gamer would switch to Vista if they did.
No offense, but I really think you're forgetting about the MS "comply or die" way of doing business. The number of competitors they actively drove out of business is ever growing, the company was build on the corpses of whoever stood in their way or formed a threat to their profits.