directx 10?

directx 10 is released....

apparently only for windows vista. :(

just about a week ago i had installed it(vista beta) into one of my friends comp. went there to check it.
using start>run>dxdiag. came to the directx diagnostics tool. it says it has directx 10 loaded. then checked my own comp (running windows xp pro) and it says directx 9.0C.
went to the microsoft download section and looked around for directx 10. its not there. only came across the developers tools released in april and june.

then i came across this

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/d...nly-180965.php

now.....my question is this that if a computer is able to load and run vista, it should also be able to run directx 10.
reading through the above link

Quote:

---

no final Direct X-compatable hardware has been released yet

---

same computer.... directx 10 on vista and directx 9 on xp. that means the hardware is compatable.

even after downloading the new versions the diagnostics tool still shows directx 9.0C


does that mean we cant get it till we upgrade to vista?

sounds possible that this is just part of a scheme from M$ to get people to upgrade to vista..

usually all the software updates run on one level lower operating software

AMD claims to have worked out some "dirextx beta" am thinking that this is the one everyone (whoever can) install.

I would say that it is beta software, given that it is part of a beta release, which would explain why it is not available as a stand alone.

As I understand it, vista handles video somewhat differently from previous Windows, in that it can dumb down to accommodate a variety of hardware scenarios. Presumably directX takes this into account as well, so the way it works is the thing that is incompatible with previous Windows, making it a software issue not a hardware one.

After all, I don't think directX 9.0C works with older versions of Windows either?

I guess there comes a point when backwards compatibility becomes too difficult?

I also understand the hardware manufacturers being cautious ;)

Some of you will remember the last major software release from MS where the project started to slip its timeframes?

That was Windows 95, and a lot of early Windows 95 boxes have USB connectors that were about as useful as **** on a boar.............................Microsoft didn't include USB support in the early releases :D

Quote:

---

That was Windows 95, and a lot of early Windows 95 boxes have USB connectors that were about as useful as **** on a boar.............................Microsoft didn't include USB support in the early releases

---

Tell me about it, i've got one of those Boxe's in with the rest of my Collection. What was Microsoft thinking when they did that, who knows really.?

so its possible to block out a software which is half released into the market.


was having this discussion with a friend. according to his collage this "vista" which is getting released, microsoft is releasing the softwares related to the hardware only. they are trying to prevent piracy.

so they make the hardware first, then make the software to run on it. this way the softwares cant get pirated, because the hardware wont accept it.

maybe this is the case here.

Hey folks, this is pure guesswork and in reply to bagggi ,

I think that Microsoft have released most of the basic OS along with some key functionality that is interdependent and is hardware dependent ............... that gives the hardware manufacturers a chance to develop their kit and the microcode that runs it.

I am sure that the hardware guys have access to much more advanced versions than we are being allowed to play with. ;)

I do not think that there is an anti-piracy issue, as MS seem to be going in a rather different direction as far as DRM is concerned?...............WGA?, or is that just a stop-gap measure?

Fronties~ I can probably answer you with a little more authority.

Quote:

---

Tell me about it, i've got one of those Boxe's in with the rest of my Collection. What was Microsoft thinking when they did that, who knows really.?

---

Back then, Windows 95 was being developed as a multimedia, home computer application. At the same time MS were also developing Windows NT 4.0 as its commercial/network offering. Basically they just did not have the development resource to handle the two projects concurrently.

Things (project wise) started to slip, and they started to leave things out of the final delivery (we have seen the same with longhorn/vista?)....................... Well, USB support was supposed to be in there, but got left out in the end because it was 1996, and this was "Windows 95" :D

I guess I am talking Windows 95 v.950 and 950A here. By the time Windows 95 v.950B/ build 1212 came out, they had some fundamental USB support included, hey! it even says "with USB support" on the back of the CD.

The manufacturers "trusted" Microsoft when they said that USB support would be in Win 95, so they built the boxes accordingly?

Another anecdote from that era was Win NT4.0............ ("New Technology") but they were running over schedule/budget as well so they "borrowed" code from the Win95 developers............and that is why you can find 4 .bas files (QuickBasic) in the system32 folder of NT 4.0............ QBASIC shipped with DOS 5.0 and Win 95 incorporated DOS whilst NT 4.0 was supposed to be DOS free



:D

Well thanks for clearing that up Nihil. :)