Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / What happens to Dark Basic when DirectX 10 is released?

Author
Message
Darth Vader
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th May 2005
Location: Adelaide SA, I am the only DB user here!
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 14:33
I have heard that When DirectX 10 come out it won't have backwards capability. It is going to be great (I know) but what will happen to Dark Basic! It currently uses DirectX 9c, but will there be a DirectX 10 update? And if so what happens if we have Directx 9 video cards? Or will TGC realease a new product, something better than Dark Basic Pro? And Is it a bad time to buy a new computer (especially a laptop) because of DirectX 10? I mean I buy my Mac book pro and then DirectX 10 comes, so game migrate over to it and BAM... I am left with directX 9 and no way of upgrading my video card! Or is it possiblr to upgrade the Mac Book pros video card?
Thanks!


When in Trouble with anything visit here your number one stop for help
TDP Enterprises
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2005
Location: on or in front of my computer
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 14:55
Quote: "I have heard that When DirectX 10 come out it won't have backwards capability."
whaaaaat?

Snow Wars is making its return, check out the Game Design Theory board for more info...
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 15:00
DX9 will be with Vista anyway, so current games will run on it.

As their wont be a DX10 version of DBPro for a while, it wont matter that you wont be able to play DX10 games on XP.

Come to the last Unofficial DBPro Convention (http://convention.logicstudios.net/)
Dont do anything I wouldn't do. But if you do, take pictures.
Darth Vader
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th May 2005
Location: Adelaide SA, I am the only DB user here!
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 15:02
Quote: "DX9 will be with Vista anyway, so current games will run on it."
Amm DirectX 9 will not be on Vista!


I have the longest Biog under my profile button!
"You don't know the power of Dark Basic Pro!"
-Darth Vader-
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 15:06 Edited at: 8th Jun 2006 15:08
DX10 will be comptaible with DX9 - but probably only that one version.

DirectX 10 will be available to Windows Vista users only at its introduction. You will not find DirectX 10 being released for the Windows XP operating system. DirectX 10 is deeply embedded into Windows Vista operation and we currently know of no plans by Microsoft to allow Windows XP to officially support the new API. Also embedded into Windows Vista is DirectX 9.0L to allow for compatibility with DirectX 9 components. Think of it like two separate DirectX systems. We will have DirectX 9.0L for DirectX 9 hardware and we will have DirectX 10 for DirectX 10 capable hardware."

Come to the last Unofficial DBPro Convention (http://convention.logicstudios.net/)
Dont do anything I wouldn't do. But if you do, take pictures.
Darth Vader
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th May 2005
Location: Adelaide SA, I am the only DB user here!
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 15:31
So in other words Vista will work on a DirectX 9 card but without some feautres?


I have the longest Biog under my profile button!
"You don't know the power of Dark Basic Pro!"
-Darth Vader-
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 15:34
No, Vista & DX9 will run on cards with all DX9 features.

Come to the last Unofficial DBPro Convention (http://convention.logicstudios.net/)
Dont do anything I wouldn't do. But if you do, take pictures.
Darth Vader
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th May 2005
Location: Adelaide SA, I am the only DB user here!
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 15:44
Okay! So then is it still a good idea to get a Mac book pro? And can you upgrade the video card?


I have the longest Biog under my profile button!
"You don't know the power of Dark Basic Pro!"
-Darth Vader-
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 15:54
Quote: "So then is it still a good idea to get a Mac book pro?"

No idea.

Come to the last Unofficial DBPro Convention (http://convention.logicstudios.net/)
Dont do anything I wouldn't do. But if you do, take pictures.
Jess T
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Sep 2003
Location: Over There... Kablam!
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 16:32
Is it not that DX10 will include a DX9 emulator? But not DX9 itself..?

Not that I care, because to be honest, MS is just annoying now, so I'm switching over to Linux and dual booting with XP, and that'll do me just fine

Team EOD :: All-Round Nice Guy
Want Better dbHelp Files?
http://jt0.org
Perokreco
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 16:33
I thought that Vista will have DX10 with no backwards compatibility and DX9 with backwards compatibility?
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 17:11 Edited at: 8th Jun 2006 17:13
Vista starts off with DX9. When DX10 comes out Vista is switchable between the two. Although, that may have changed due to the late release of Vista. So now there might be a DX10,and 11 which work the same way.

OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 17:41
I dont see how Vista will be ready by January next year - its only just become public beta, and from all accounts is still rather buggyfied.

Come to the last Unofficial DBPro Convention (http://convention.logicstudios.net/)
Dont do anything I wouldn't do. But if you do, take pictures.
TDP Enterprises
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2005
Location: on or in front of my computer
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 17:47
so will i be able to play pre-dx9 games on vista?

Snow Wars is making its return, check out the Game Design Theory board for more info...
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 17:49
Highly doubtful.

Why not get the beta and find out ?

Come to the last Unofficial DBPro Convention (http://convention.logicstudios.net/)
Dont do anything I wouldn't do. But if you do, take pictures.
hyrichter
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Feb 2004
Location: Arizona
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 19:58
It would be suicide for Microsoft not to support older games that use lower versions of DirectX. Doesn't DX9 support all previous versions of DX? So by that analogy, the DX9 in Vista (emulated or whatever they do) should be able to run any version of DirectX. I hope I'm right or I'm not buying Vista.

Perokreco
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posted: 8th Jun 2006 20:34
I also think that you can player older games, as Vista supports DX9
Represent
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Dec 2003
Location:
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 04:43
DX10 will be using an emulator for DX9 and i believe its not on launch so their will be some issues


Oddmind
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jun 2004
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 07:53
Quote: "It would be suicide for Microsoft not to support older games that use lower versions of DirectX. Doesn't DX9 support all previous versions of DX? So by that analogy, the DX9 in Vista (emulated or whatever they do) should be able to run any version of DirectX. I hope I'm right or I'm not buying Vista. "


it wasnt suicide for them to go from windows 3.1 to windows 95 was it?

This is a big step but its time to leave the other stuff behind and upgrade with the rest of the world.

If DX9 is emulated it will not have backwards compatibility with the rpevious versions, therefore no older games probably will not work.

Your analogy was not correct but i am willing to bet good money that when everyone else has vista you will also buy it.

formerly KrazyJimmy

I'm the lizard king, I can do anything.
Kenjar
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 13:18
Me feels a duel boot system in my future, or a quick trip to linux land. I mean if Windows Vista isn't going to be compatible with previous games and other graphical software using older versions o Direct X, what is the point in sticking with Windows at all? If I was a games manufacture I'd seriousally consider Open GL in my future. That would maintain compatibility for older systems and Open GL drivers can be written for Vista.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120...
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 13:33 Edited at: 9th Jun 2006 13:44
Quote: "what is the point in sticking with Windows at all"

Games, unfortunately - its the main reason I'm still using Windows...
I would like to start looking into Linux (or maybe a Mac), but alas the games are limited...

Come to the last Unofficial DBPro Convention (http://convention.logicstudios.net/)
Dont do anything I wouldn't do. But if you do, take pictures.
Perokreco
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 13:47
Quote: "
it wasnt suicide for them to go from windows 3.1 to windows 95 was it?
"

Well, i can still play 3.1 games cant I? I just finished incredible machine once again.
Bizar Guy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2005
Location: Bostonland
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 13:48 Edited at: 9th Jun 2006 13:50
Most of my favorite games are pre-dx9.

Microsoft just wants to force us to get rid of our old libary of games and buy new ones...
...or something.

Bahamut
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Nov 2005
Location: Brighton
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 15:02
Then why not just keep an old laptop or something? Upgrade your PC when the time comes (well after vista has been released to avoid all those inevitable bugs), but keep your old one to play old games.

It's still a pain, but it's not the end of the world.

IceBound Melodic rock/metal band with loads of lead guitar, clean female vocals, and more guitars! What more could you want?
hyrichter
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Feb 2004
Location: Arizona
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 15:38
Quote: "it wasnt suicide for them to go from windows 3.1 to windows 95 was it?"

That's not the same. You can still run Windows 3.1 software even today. If none of your Windows 3.1 apps would work with Windows 95, I'm sure it wouldn't have had much success. I understand that Vista doesn't support Win 3.1 apps, but that's like 15 years since the release of Windows 3.1 This talk of Vista not supporting any games or applications that targeted older versions of DX sounds like the crap we heard before that it wouldn't support anything (properly) that wasn't written in .net and the whole os would be .net and on and on. I'm off to google to do a little research, but I guess none of us will really know until it ships.

TDP Enterprises
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2005
Location: on or in front of my computer
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 15:58
Quote: "therefore no older games probably will not work."
so that means.....they will work?

Snow Wars is making its return, check out the Game Design Theory board for more info...
hyrichter
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Feb 2004
Location: Arizona
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 16:05
I just did a little checking on google, and this is what I've come up with:

* Vista will run your older games just fine.
* DirectX 10 will only be available for Vista. Any stuff targeting DX10 will only work on Vista. I think this is where the confusion has been. It's kinda like Win 3.1 wouldn't run any Windows 95 software -- not that Windows 95 wouldn't run Win 3.1 software.
* You need at least a DX9 compatible card to run Vista, but if you want the new user interface stuff (Aero), you'll need a
Quote: "DirectX 9 capable GPU with Hardware Pixel Shader v2.0 and WDDM Driver support"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

TDP Enterprises
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2005
Location: on or in front of my computer
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 16:11
I Wikipedia

Snow Wars is making its return, check out the Game Design Theory board for more info...
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 18:06
I find this to be a more accurate source of information: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin (DBP/DBCe) - 71%
Download the free version
Kenjar
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 18:34 Edited at: 9th Jun 2006 18:42
I'm about 62% complete on my download of Vista 64-bit, the first thing I will do (after drivers are installed) is install DBP and some older games, I'll report back if they run ok or not.

Quote: "I find this to be a more accurate source of information: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista"


yep, this sounds about right. Gotta love that PNG support with transparancy, and the white background due to colour shoratages.



Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120...
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 21:57
I give up on Microsoft. My money says Vista will be even more of a resource hog than XP, with more compatability issues and inherent flaws than XP, and it'll need 10x as many patches as XP. For the few problems it had compared to the massive awesomeness it had, Windows 98 is still the best OS they've ever made, imho anyway. They should make Vista fully compatable with everything from Windows 3.1 to XP, bug-free, and it should only need to use up 64mb of memory OR LESS. And don't say "right, they could never do that." Please... their microsoft. If they can't do that then they shouldn't be in this business


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Bahamut
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Nov 2005
Location: Brighton
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 22:25
Quote: "Windows 98 is still the best OS they've ever made"


I'm inclined to agree, especially when my inferior PC on 98 runs basic programs such as Word, Excel and winamp instantly, where as my XP PC takes over 30 seconds. In fact, even my docs and control panel have given this PC so much slowdown, they've actually crashed it on several occasions. It also takes about 3 minutes to shut down and 5 minutes to start up compared to almost intantaneous with 98.

I'm expecting vista to be alot worse.

IceBound Melodic rock/metal band with loads of lead guitar, clean female vocals, and more guitars! What more could you want?
Kenjar
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 23:13 Edited at: 9th Jun 2006 23:18
Quote: "My money says Vista will be even more of a resource hog than XP"


Lets put it this way, I just installed Windows Vista Beta 2 on the following PC.

AMD 64 2800+
512Mb PC3200 RAM
200Gb ATA/100 hard drive.
nVidia FX5900 128mb graphics card.

Install time for Windows Vista 64-bit... 1.5 hours
Install time for Open Office 2.0.2... 35 Minutes
Install time for nVidia 64-bit unified drivers... 22 minutes

.......

Compaired to Windows 2000 Professional

Install time... 25 minutes
Install time or Open Office... 4 minutes
Install time for nVidia 84.21 drivers... 2 minutes

.......

Good points.

System installed picked up my wireless router instantly so I had instant internet access... Windows update installed audio drivers for me... that's about it really. IE7 crashed twice.

The interface was very, very, slow even with the updated visual drivers.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120...
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 23:24 Edited at: 9th Jun 2006 23:25
IE 7 never crashed for me, and it took about 30 minutes to install on a Dell Dimension 2400 (with 512Mb ram and an awful internal graphics card). Even without the drivers it went pretty quickly.

Its a 2Ghz machine, by the way.

Come to the last Unofficial DBPro Convention (http://convention.logicstudios.net/)
Dont do anything I wouldn't do. But if you do, take pictures.
Kenjar
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 23:37 Edited at: 9th Jun 2006 23:39
32-bit or 64-bit? I'm sure you've noticed that the 32-bit version is just 2 gig while the 64-bit is double that a 4.04gb

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120...
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 23:44
Its 32-bit. Perhaps the 64-bit version needs more optimising...

Come to the last Unofficial DBPro Convention (http://convention.logicstudios.net/)
Dont do anything I wouldn't do. But if you do, take pictures.
Saikoro
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2003
Location: California
Posted: 9th Jun 2006 23:54
I think its funny how people complain about the resources and memory Vista will take, but yet again want it to support more than it already does...

"One World, One Web, One Program" -Microsoft ad.
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer"(One People, One Kingdom, One Leader)-Adolf Hitler.
Kenjar
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 10th Jun 2006 00:01 Edited at: 10th Jun 2006 00:02
An operating system should not require the power of a game to run. If it's taking this much power just to run windows, where is the benefit for games? As soon as 4Gb becomes standard I'm sure Vista will purr, but right now, in the land of mid ranged machines with 512mb - 1gb, vista is a nightmare. The point is to allow more resources to become availible to software, not to have Windows Vista eat up resources so much, that you need 4Gb of ram, just to run a game the quaility of Oblivion, which frankly runs well with 2Gb on a 32-bit machine.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120...
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 10th Jun 2006 00:45
You people are in the wrong business if you have a problem with comptuer software needing more hardware requirements. Deal with it--- it's been that way since the invention of the microchip.

"I understand creative people. After all, I worked with towel designers." - Ray Kassar, former head of Atari
Kenjar
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 10th Jun 2006 01:21 Edited at: 10th Jun 2006 01:22
I don't mind new software requiring more to run it. Photorealistic, realtime graphics is the only point at which we need to stop improving 2D Game hardware, and then it's time for real 3D monitors. No my problem is with an OS that steals more from a given system then it returns. How can DirectX 10 possibily provide such a performance increase if half the resorces are going into the bloody OS. It's like having a man train so hard that they can lift 100 pounds more then they could before then giving them shoes 100 pounds heavier so there is no net benefit.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120...
MikeS
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 10th Jun 2006 01:39
What if I distribute a game I've made with DirectX 8 and include the redistributable package? Can a Vista user then play my game?

Not that I'm really to worried. DirectX 8 even is over 4.5 years old, and will probably be over 5 years old by the time Vista comes out. So from a developer stand point, that's no problem. Playing some of my older games, well, that's what I'm interested in.



A book? I hate book. Book is stupid.
(Formerly Yellow)
TKF15H
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2003
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posted: 10th Jun 2006 07:37 Edited at: 10th Jun 2006 07:38
Quote: "Windows 98 is still the best OS they've ever made"

imho, Windows 98 is just as bad as Windows ME. It crashes randomly, leaks memory and crashes randomly some more. XP or 2000 are much more stable. I haven't had any slowdown compared to 98, and I haven't had to push the reset button since installation. Not to mention XP is a much sexier OS-Tan.

DC emulator code size: 9MB. Compiled: 4MB.
Overall Status: 20% done. CPU: 80% (no floats), RAM: 10%, GFX: 0%
Kenjar
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 10th Jun 2006 12:44 Edited at: 10th Jun 2006 12:50
Agreed, 98 is highly unstable, very easy to crash. Out of XP and 2000, I'd say 2000 has the edge when it comes to stability. XP is nothing like as unstable as 98 of cause, or heavens forbid, ME. But it is less stable then 2000 simply because of the graphical enhancements they've made to the shell. I've almost never had windows 2000 professional crash on me, while using applications like Truespace 4, Blender 3D, Milkshape 3D, and various games like Bridge Commander, SWAT 4, Oblivion and command and conqure, however each of these games have crashed XP Pro.

On another subject, I've managed to get Windows Vista running smoothly and at a reasonable rate. I've changed the themes from windows default back to windows classic. The transparancy effects of Vistas default theme, and unnessassary special effects such as glowing, flashing progress bars, really does take a staggering amount of memory and processing time. It's very pretty and all, but I don't buy an OS because it looks pretty, I buy it so I can run programs and the lastest software.



I've installed DarkBASIC Professional, and the good news is, the compiler does produce programs. Yay!, and I've got a simple:

Print "Hello World!!"
Wait Key
End

Program running just fine. But I've also compiled a graphics program which basically reads a set of data statements, then creates a cube object for each location specified. This program threw up the standard "This application has failed to start because d3ddx9_28.dll was not found. Re-installing the applications may fix this problem."

Now the good news is that there is a 64-bit version of the Direct X 9.0c SDK 2006. I installed this on Windows Vista Beta 2, and the compiled programs run just fine. I tested this with the following code.



So all is not lost for DarkBASIC Professional. It remains to be seen however, how these newly installed files will affect Vista, but so far I've seen no problems. After the installation of 2006 SDK, I did receive an error message from Vista claiming that the files didn't install correctly, and if I sould use the recommended settings. Cancel this, and you should get trouble free operation.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120...

Attachments

Login to view attachments
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 10th Jun 2006 13:35
Quote: "I've almost never had windows 2000 professional crash on me"

First time I installed Windows 2000, it crashed on me. XP is the only OS, so far, that hasn't crashed immedidately after an install.

Come to the last Unofficial DBPro Convention (http://convention.logicstudios.net/)
Dont do anything I wouldn't do. But if you do, take pictures.
Kenjar
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 10th Jun 2006 14:22
Then you are using a dodgy motherboard. I intentionally stick with the Gigabyte brand, because for the last three boards I've purchased I've had no stability problems at all. The only thing's I know that upset Windows 2000, is SATA, you need manufactures drivers for this, and Hard Disk Drive Partions above 120Gb, windows 2000 pro doesn't come with 48-bit HDD drivers as standard, and it either needs to be added via manufactures drivers, or by setting your hard drive up as a 120Gb parition then creating a second partition or resizing the old partition once the 48-bit drivers are installed. Also, once windows is installed, don't rush and install all your drivers at the same time, start with the motherboard drivers, then graphics, audio etc. Make sure you reboot between each driver install. It's long and labourious, however it's definately going to give you a far more stable system on 2000.

Also remember that XP and 2000 are more or less one and the same. The core of XP will register as Windows 5.1 while 2000 registers as 5.0,and to be honest with service pack 4 installed there is even less between the two kernals. The only major change in XP was it's interface and a few tools. Windows themes have been a major souce of much of the windows instability, which is why they were not directly intergrated into 2000, while it's possible to set themes on 2000 it's not easyily obvious how too. And of cause there are other interface enhancements. My primary reason for not going to XP, is that I really don't like the new interface, and the way it try's to organize your files for you. I find the new my computer screen too full of information. If I wanted such information on 2000 I'd just click on the driver. 2000 and 95's interface seem functional, and uncluttered to me. The first thing I do on any XP system is reset the interface to windows classic. Which for me means I shouldn't bother with XP at all seeing as the interface is it's only real change.

It was pretty much the same with Windows 95/98/ME, 95 OSR 2.5 was far more stable then 98 because it had less "enhancements", and shell enhancements. The only reason for getting 98 at the time was the FAT32 file system upgrade that came with 95 OSR 2+ anyway. It was the same with 98 and ME. ME was a terrible system, my company refused to install it on their systems. The only reason for getting 98 was the troubleshooting tools that came with it, most of which could be done manually with 95 anyway, and as I just said, the 32-Bit file system.

Frankly the only reason I am considering Vista at this point is because it's coming out in a 64-bit version, and microsoft are refusing to install Direct X 10 on previous versions of windows. They have been attempting a simular stratagy with 2000, programs like windows media player 10/11 and Internet explorer 7 refuse to install on 2000. Media Player 9 is still 100% usable, and there's other players such as WinAMP and Realplayer that support 2000 just fine. The only game I've ever seen not run on 2000 is Age of Empires 3, which amazingly enough is microsoft. Games like Oblivion run just fine, and graphically speaking are far more advanced. There isn't a driver in existance that runs on XP that doesn't run on 2000. No, all in all, XP was just a way of making some extra cash for the company. We've seen this sales stratagy with 95. They develope a core system, 95, then they repackage that same system a few years later with graphical changes and enhancements, and perhaps some compaitibility with new technologies, that 95 supports with the right drivers anyway. Then they wack out, just before a major upgrade, a quick version of windows (ME) as a cheaper alternative to the one they are going to push hard, in the hope that people will upgrade from 98 to ME, then to 2000. In this case it was XP Pro, then XP Pro 64-bit, and now that some people have taken up XP Pro 64-bit they've rejected all possibility of that system being upgraded with Direct X 10, and will soon release Vista. It's a predictable pattern now.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120...

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-17 04:54:26
Your offset time is: 2024-11-17 04:54:26