EVE Search - EVE DX10 ... on XP?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

EVE DX10 ... on XP?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fierce Fury Caliber Corp	Posted - 2007.04.24 13:51:00 - [1] I know this my sound abit noobish, but i don't really know that much about the newer D3D/DX versions. So is there a possibillity that the upcoming DX10 EVE client would run on Windows XP instead of Vista? I really can't be bothered to go buy vista and begin having all sorts of nightmares to get my stuff up and running on it, while XP still runs fine.
Caffeine Junkie Caldari Elite Storm Enterprises Storm Armada	Posted - 2007.04.24 13:53:00 - [2] Originally by: Fierce Fury I know this my sound abit noobish, but i don't really know that much about the newer D3D/DX versions. So is there a possibillity that the upcoming DX10 EVE client would run on Windows XP instead of Vista? I really can't be bothered to go buy vista and begin having all sorts of nightmares to get my stuff up and running on it, while XP still runs fine. I have Vista, and i urge everyone to wait until they've fixed a couple (of hundred) things. ___________________ ...and its "Armour" not "Armor" ... m'kay! passive armour-tanking ftw! ;-)
Ker Ching	Posted - 2007.04.24 13:56:00 - [3] Edited by: Ker Ching on 24/04/2007 13:53:39 I'm not 100% sure, but I can't see why not. DX10 is hardware based (my 8800GTX), so as long as you have a DX10 capable card then I don't see why DX10 won't be XP compatible. I could be talking out of my arse though. Originally by: Caffeine Junkie I have Vista, and i urge everyone to wait until they've fixed a couple (of hundred) things. I have it too (Vista Ultimate), and everything runs lovely. What's not right with yours?
Del Narveux Obsidian Angels Enterprises	Posted - 2007.04.24 13:56:00 - [4] Edited by: Del Narveux on 24/04/2007 13:53:02 MS is being lame and making DX10 vista only, probably because they realize that theres no other reason anyone would really want to upgrade to it (I got a newsletter from CEA the other day talking about how DX10 will fix the "slow" Vista sales and loled to myself). However CCP has also indicated that theyre not gonna stop supporting XP/DX9 users anytime soon. edit: if MS doesnt rescind this plan someone will probbly make a bootleg DX10 emulator, so I wouldnt get too worried just yet. _________________ [SAK] Alumnus--And Proud Of It! -- aka Cpt Bogus Is that my torped sig cloaking your base? Originally by: Wrangler Well, at least we have forum PvP..
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.04.24 13:59:00 - [5] Originally by: Del Narveux edit: if MS doesnt rescind this plan someone will probbly make a bootleg DX10 emulator, so I wouldnt get too worried just yet. Already happened --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.24 14:01:00 - [6] Theres a thread about this in OOP as we speak. To sum up: you cannot use unmodified DX10 in unmodified XP, right now. And according to Microsoft, you never will. BUT, many talented programmers have, completely legally, got other DX versions running on non-Windows OSs before, and it's widely believed to be only a matter of time before someone figures out DX10 soon. According to some sources, we're already getting pretty close. --------
Miss Anthropy School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.04.24 14:06:00 - [7] I forked out ú200 for Vista Home Premium, installed it and had a play with it. After having lots of driver and software issues I went back to XP. I've tried using it several times (using Acronis True Image to restore a saved image of it) as new drivers have come out but keep going back to XP. Vista is a con, and Microsoft are buggers for trying to force it on us. DRM and DX10 will eventually demand that people have no other choice but to use Vista. It was released as beta to be honest. But... on another note, software developers have had well over a year (since Vista beta versions started coming out) to get ready for it. It's their fault as well for not releasing Vista patches for their software. Overall, the whole thing has been a shoddy farce. But it'll probably get a big service pack by the end of the year. Until I actually need DX10 though, I'm staying away from it. /end of rant ---------- Originally by: Valorem snip Please be civil - Valorem Awwww, I was roleplaying a misanthropist.
JoDirt Minmatar House of Geezer	Posted - 2007.04.24 14:25:00 - [8] Originally by: Caffeine Junkie Originally by: Fierce Fury I know this my sound abit noobish, but i don't really know that much about the newer D3D/DX versions. So is there a possibillity that the upcoming DX10 EVE client would run on Windows XP instead of Vista? I really can't be bothered to go buy vista and begin having all sorts of nightmares to get my stuff up and running on it, while XP still runs fine. I have Vista, and i urge everyone to wait until they've fixed a couple (of hundred) things. I run vista and it's great. /shrug what couple of hundred things do you speak of?
Talkie Toaster Amarr Knights of the Industrial Order	Posted - 2007.04.24 15:10:00 - [9] as others have said, nativly at the current time DX10 wont work on anything but vista. but there are always work arounds. i cant see microsoft releasing dx10 for xp as its one less things on the vista check list. though i do think its harsh that they are trying to make all gamers buy vista to play new games.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.04.24 15:17:00 - [10] Originally by: JoDirt Originally by: Caffeine Junkie Originally by: Fierce Fury I know this my sound abit noobish, but i don't really know that much about the newer D3D/DX versions. So is there a possibillity that the upcoming DX10 EVE client would run on Windows XP instead of Vista? I really can't be bothered to go buy vista and begin having all sorts of nightmares to get my stuff up and running on it, while XP still runs fine. I have Vista, and i urge everyone to wait until they've fixed a couple (of hundred) things. I run vista and it's great. /shrug what couple of hundred things do you speak of? The massively bugged file copier that goes 1000 times slower than XP? The horribly bugged security that is almost worse than nothing at all? The miserable "click 57 times to copy a few files" User Access Control? The overly restrictive Microsoft-Controls-Your-Computer DRM? The incredibly restrictive driver development guidelines that ensure that most Vista drivers will suck for quite a while? The fact that Aero stutters on an X1950XT when dragging windows? --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio

Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.04.24 15:21:00 - [11] Originally by: Miss Anthropy I forked out ú200 for Vista Home Premium, Ouch. You know you can buy it for like ú63 if you don't want Microsoft techinical support, right? Hell, you can get Ultimate for about ú100. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Rhaegor Stormborn Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.04.24 15:21:00 - [12] I have an 8800GTS, which is ready for DirectX 10, and I pray that I can stick with XP as I see no reason at all, none what-so-ever, to switch to Vista. The operating system lowers computer performance and has a ton of bugs. If Microsoft does not release DirectX 10 for XP I will finally start to dislike them after all these years. Vista is nothing but another ME type debacle. Hopefully the next OS they release isn't a half finished piece of crap.
Miss Anthropy School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.04.24 15:55:00 - [13] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Miss Anthropy I forked out ú200 for Vista Home Premium, Ouch. You know you can buy it for like ú63 if you don't want Microsoft techinical support, right? Hell, you can get Ultimate for about ú100. OMG!!! I didn't know this. I compared prices from a few places and eventually just got it from Amazon (UK). There was only a few pounds difference between the different offers I saw. /me cries Either way, it really was a waste of money whether I paid ú200 or ú100. I regret it now. ---------- Originally by: Valorem snip Please be civil - Valorem Awwww, I was roleplaying a misanthropist.
Turin Caldari RONA Deepspace	Posted - 2007.04.24 17:12:00 - [14] As everyone else says. No. MS has not planned, and does not plan to release any backwards versions of DX10. DX10 -= Vista or nothing in the MS world. There will of course be hacks out that will eventualy emulate DX10. However, most of the time this requires that you be fairly computer literate to make them work. By the sound of your question, im guessing you are not really, so I dont know if that will be an option for you. Vista is NOT a bad OS. Sure, its brand new, it has a few issues. And I am NOT a fan of DRM ( though it will be a couple years before this really becomes an issue ) Drivers ARE a pain in the arse, and I am NOT happy in the slightest with companies slow pace on drivers. They have had the final specs for over a year, and have done nothinging. That is NOT MS's fault. That is the fault of Creative Labs, NVIDIA, ATI, and the like. They are the ones who dropped the ball on drivers. Also, just an FYI, I gain about 15% more speed running vista 64 bit vrs XP32, and that is WITH the crappy drivers. I have no issues with Vista. It runs everything. The only things it does NOT run are programs from those companies who have not updated their software to run on Vista. That again is Not MS's fault. Im not an MS fan boy, but I think Vista is taking a bit of an unfair beating. DRM sucks, though, and that shlt im sure will be hacked out of it somehow. ________________________________________________________
Merick Dronome Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.04.24 17:33:00 - [15] XP and 2k on my machines. They do everything I need to do. Due to many reason, I will not bother to list here, I will never move any of my machines to Vista. I'd sooner go back to DOS, or at the very least, finally make the move to Linux. Your Signature exceeds the max filesize limit of 24,000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo
Turin Caldari RONA Deepspace	Posted - 2007.04.24 17:49:00 - [16] Well, good luck running all those DX10 games. The emulators have never worked for all of them and im sure somewhere in the line youll be left out in the cold. Sucks. ________________________________________________________
Rhaegor Stormborn Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.04.24 17:51:00 - [17] Originally by: Turin Also, just an FYI, I gain about 15% more speed running vista 64 bit vrs XP32, and that is WITH the crappy drivers. I call BS. It is a well known fact on all the overclocking/benchmarking web sites that Vista benchmarks lower than XP. Plain and simple, not arguements, nothing. Maybe when you installed Vista you formatted or whatever and that increased your performance, but for a top of the line computer Vista benchmarks substaintially lower than XP.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:07:00 - [18] Microsoft only enables DX 10 on Vista. XP will forever be stuck with DX 9.But don't fear. OpenGL 3 that have all the DX10 features is to be compatible with anywindows, plus Linux, FreBSD, Solaris, etc.. etc.. etc...So if some developers grow some brain they will know what to do. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
JoDirt Minmatar House of Geezer	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:09:00 - [19] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: JoDirt Originally by: Caffeine Junkie Originally by: Fierce Fury I know this my sound abit noobish, but i don't really know that much about the newer D3D/DX versions. So is there a possibillity that the upcoming DX10 EVE client would run on Windows XP instead of Vista? I really can't be bothered to go buy vista and begin having all sorts of nightmares to get my stuff up and running on it, while XP still runs fine. I have Vista, and i urge everyone to wait until they've fixed a couple (of hundred) things. I run vista and it's great. /shrug what couple of hundred things do you speak of? The massively bugged file copier that goes 1000 times slower than XP? The horribly bugged security that is almost worse than nothing at all? The miserable "click 57 times to copy a few files" User Access Control? The overly restrictive Microsoft-Controls-Your-Computer DRM? The incredibly restrictive driver development guidelines that ensure that most Vista drivers will suck for quite a while? The fact that Aero stutters on an X1950XT when dragging windows? Give me an example of the "bugged security". I do penetration testing so I'm interested in all input regarding security. and the UAC is a good thing, protects those not so familar with computers and that = less zombies spawning. really your list is pretty typical of a xp fan boy. Aero is fine if you meet the requirements and have the proper drivers loaded. Less fan boy battle cry and more facts please. If you don't like it just say bah I don't like it and leave it at that, no need to spread misinformation.
Turin Caldari RONA Deepspace	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:26:00 - [20] Originally by: Rhaegor Stormborn Originally by: Turin Also, just an FYI, I gain about 15% more speed running vista 64 bit vrs XP32, and that is WITH the crappy drivers. I call BS. It is a well known fact on all the overclocking/benchmarking web sites that Vista benchmarks lower than XP. Plain and simple, not arguements, nothing. Maybe when you installed Vista you formatted or whatever and that increased your performance, but for a top of the line computer Vista benchmarks substaintially lower than XP. So you have benchmarked my system? I call Ignorance. I already stated I went from a a 32bit OS to a 64bit OS, and that is likely where the differance is made up.I have never benchmarked my system with XP64 bit. ________________________________________________________

JoDirt Minmatar House of Geezer	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:30:00 - [21] Originally by: Turin Originally by: Rhaegor Stormborn Originally by: Turin Also, just an FYI, I gain about 15% more speed running vista 64 bit vrs XP32, and that is WITH the crappy drivers. I call BS. It is a well known fact on all the overclocking/benchmarking web sites that Vista benchmarks lower than XP. Plain and simple, not arguements, nothing. Maybe when you installed Vista you formatted or whatever and that increased your performance, but for a top of the line computer Vista benchmarks substaintially lower than XP. So you have benchmarked my system? I call Ignorance. I already stated I went from a a 32bit OS to a 64bit OS, and that is likely where the differance is made up.I have never benchmarked my system with XP64 bit. I would also add that as 3rd parties optimize their drivers for vista the benchmarks will improve. They are dragging their feet though so complain to the 3rd parties. I will also add that we went through this same crying from 98 to 2000 and 2000 to xp.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:30:00 - [22] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 24/04/2007 18:28:03 Originally by: JoDirt Give me an example of the "bugged security". I do penetration testing so I'm interested in all input regarding security. and the UAC is a good thing, protects those not so familar with computers and that = less zombies spawning. really your list is pretty typical of a xp fan boy. Aero is fine if you meet the requirements and have the proper drivers loaded. Less fan boy battle cry and more facts please. If you don't like it just say bah I don't like it and leave it at that, no need to spread misinformation. The former head of development for the DirectX project described Windows Vista as a reinforced concrete house with screen doors. It has incredibly powerful enterprise-class security that is compromised by the fact that these powerful features can be bypassed incredibly easily. Almost all of Vista's security features have already been bypassed through various holes. One of the main weaknesses is that User Access Control is required for so many aspects of the OS, even user-specific aspects, that people will simply get used to clicking yes over and over and over until they'd happily click yes to a virus also. If it was reserved for actual system-related processes and files, it might be more effective. Originally by: JoDirt I will also add that we went through this same crying from 98 to 2000 and 2000 to xp. Wrong. We and the consumers went through this crying on the way from 98 to ME. Guess what happened to Windows ME? The worst failure in operating system history, maybe even worse than OS/2. It was completely trashed, Microsoft lost billions, and XP was the result. Vista is going to die, plain and simple. The only question that remains is whether or not Microsoft will die with it, or if they will learn from their mistakes and make the next version of Windows suck less. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio
oDDiTy V2 Epic.	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:34:00 - [23] Originally by: Dark Shikari One of the main weaknesses is that User Access Control is required for so many aspects of the OS, even user-specific aspects, that people will simply get used to clicking yes over and over and over until they'd happily click yes to a virus also. If it was reserved for actual system-related processes and files, it might be more effective. So I take it the User Access Control stuff can't be turned off?
JoDirt Minmatar House of Geezer	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:37:00 - [24] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: JoDirt Give me an example of the "bugged security". I do penetration testing so I'm interested in all input regarding security. and the UAC is a good thing, protects those not so familar with computers and that = less zombies spawning. really your list is pretty typical of a xp fan boy. Aero is fine if you meet the requirements and have the proper drivers loaded. Less fan boy battle cry and more facts please. If you don't like it just say bah I don't like it and leave it at that, no need to spread misinformation. The former head of development for the DirectX project described Windows Vista as a reinforced concrete house with screen doors. It has incredibly powerful enterprise-class security that is compromised by the fact that these powerful features can be bypassed incredibly easily. Almost all of Vista's security features have already been bypassed through various holes. One of the main weaknesses is that User Access Control is required for so many aspects of the OS, even user-specific aspects, that people will simply get used to clicking yes over and over and over until they'd happily click yes to a virus also. If it was reserved for actual system-related processes and files, it might be more effective. Give me an example of bypassing the features easily and I don't mean turning off the security features which is how many of the holes are created. I mean with all the security enabled. Security is only going to get better, when longhorn server launches we will see a newer implementation of windows IPSEC that will make hacking windows even harder. There is a reason the new attack vectors are mostly 3rd party software/hardware related. The attack vectors change when the target becomes too hard. You will see more social engineering in the years to come. I do agree with you on the point that some users might get to yes happy though but there are other ways to deal with this especially in a windows domain environment where GPO comes more into play coupled with IPSEC policies.
JoDirt Minmatar House of Geezer	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:39:00 - [25] Originally by: oDDiTy V2 Originally by: Dark Shikari One of the main weaknesses is that User Access Control is required for so many aspects of the OS, even user-specific aspects, that people will simply get used to clicking yes over and over and over until they'd happily click yes to a virus also. If it was reserved for actual system-related processes and files, it might be more effective. So I take it the User Access Control stuff can't be turned off? yes and then you are basically running XP with Aero and dx10. the UAC is a good thing imo.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:40:00 - [26] Originally by: JoDirt Give me an example of bypassing the features easily and I don't mean turning off the security features which is how many of the holes are created. I mean with all the security enabled. I don't have time to go dig up all the articles, but go to Slashdot and check for articles tagged "defectivebydesign". Some recent hacks include the bypassing of the "unbreakable" Vista Code Signing feature, for example, allowing any code, signed or not, to run in the kernel (allowing rootkits, malware, etc). Originally by: oDDiTy V2 Originally by: Dark Shikari One of the main weaknesses is that User Access Control is required for so many aspects of the OS, even user-specific aspects, that people will simply get used to clicking yes over and over and over until they'd happily click yes to a virus also. If it was reserved for actual system-related processes and files, it might be more effective. So I take it the User Access Control stuff can't be turned off? It can, but obviously that makes most of the security moot. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio
Kappas. Galaxy Punks Production	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:46:00 - [27] Every operating system has its security holes. If one particular distro of linux was used as much as windows is then I guarantee you that there would be just as many exploits, spyware and virus's as there is for windows. And yes UAC can be disabled. I've used many distros of Linux (only dabbled though) and have tried Vista recently which I agree sucks arse atm and slows my PC right down, but still...
JoDirt Minmatar House of Geezer	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:49:00 - [28] Edited by: JoDirt on 24/04/2007 18:54:21 Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: JoDirt Give me an example of bypassing the features easily and I don't mean turning off the security features which is how many of the holes are created. I mean with all the security enabled. I don't have time to go dig up all the articles, but go to Slashdot and check for articles tagged "defectivebydesign". Some recent hacks include the bypassing of the "unbreakable" Vista Code Signing feature, for example, allowing any code, signed or not, to run in the kernel (allowing rootkits, malware, etc). Originally by: oDDiTy V2 Originally by: Dark Shikari One of the main weaknesses is that User Access Control is required for so many aspects of the OS, even user-specific aspects, that people will simply get used to clicking yes over and over and over until they'd happily click yes to a virus also. If it was reserved for actual system-related processes and files, it might be more effective. So I take it the User Access Control stuff can't be turned off? It can, but obviously that makes most of the security moot. That search brought up nothing in regards to hacking vista, but it did bring up a lot of anti DRM ranting. I also searched vista hack, The animated curser hack is the only thing legit that popped up and that has been patched. I am not going to say that there are NO holes, I will say there are fewer when compared to the XP launch I will also say there are fewer then xp sp2. a lot of the "OMG Vista has holes" has mostly been anecdotal at best or when all the security has been turned off (black hat convention lol). The security is improving and will continue to improve. Some examples of improvement off the top of my head. Random memory addressing, disabled administrator account and no more predictable SIDs, outbound firewall protection, more dificult to finger print via nmapper. Over all the attack surface is a lot smaller out of the box.
oDDiTy V2 Epic.	Posted - 2007.04.24 18:57:00 - [29] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: oDDiTy V2 Originally by: Dark Shikari One of the main weaknesses is that User Access Control is required for so many aspects of the OS, even user-specific aspects, that people will simply get used to clicking yes over and over and over until they'd happily click yes to a virus also. If it was reserved for actual system-related processes and files, it might be more effective. So I take it the User Access Control stuff can't be turned off? It can, but obviously that makes most of the security moot. Well, it sounds like everyone is saying the security is garbage anyways, so whats the difference between garbage security and no security? Not much I guess :P I've not gotten a virus in years, so I fail to see how a bunch of pop up windows asking me to confirm everything every 10 seconds would help me at all, unless I'm confusing UAC with something else. I haven't gotten around to installing Vista to try it out on my own machine yet so my experience with it is limited.
JoDirt Minmatar House of Geezer	Posted - 2007.04.24 19:02:00 - [30] Originally by: oDDiTy V2 Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: oDDiTy V2 Originally by: Dark Shikari One of the main weaknesses is that User Access Control is required for so many aspects of the OS, even user-specific aspects, that people will simply get used to clicking yes over and over and over until they'd happily click yes to a virus also. If it was reserved for actual system-related processes and files, it might be more effective. So I take it the User Access Control stuff can't be turned off? It can, but obviously that makes most of the security moot. Well, it sounds like everyone is saying the security is garbage anyways, so whats the difference between garbage security and no security? Not much I guess :P I've not gotten a virus in years, so I fail to see how a bunch of pop up windows asking me to confirm everything every 10 seconds would help me at all, unless I'm confusing UAC with something else. I haven't gotten around to installing Vista to try it out on my own machine yet so my experience with it is limited. your not prompted as often as you might think, you are prompted for admin tasks for example or first time installs. on apps your prompted the first time, after that you are no longer prompted. I don't have to say yes everytime i run eve for example, just that first time for the install.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.