rec.autos.simulators

by **Alfie [UK** » Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:43:23

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:02:05 -0500, "HockeyTownUSA"

reply with:

>> [...]

>>> It's unfortunate, but reality that I believe we must face with
>>> Windows Vista and DirectX 10, as far as *** is concerned.

>> Google DirectX 9L.

>I know that DirectX 9L is for "backwards" Vista compatibility with DX9 and
>prior games, but who knows what compatability issues that will bring?

I think that the point that DRS was trying to make is that all games
using DX9 up to DX9.0c will run under DX 9L in Vista, the point that was
missed is DX9L is a software interpreting layer so they may actually run
slower on the same PC under Vista as they did under XP, plus Vista/DX9L
offers no assurance of backwards compatibility to DX8 or lower so older
games may fail completely.
--
Alfie
<http://www.racesimcentral.net/;
The important things are always simple; the simple things are always hard.

by **HockeyTownUS** » Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:02:51

> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:02:05 -0500, "HockeyTownUSA"

> reply with:

>>> [...]

>>>> It's unfortunate, but reality that I believe we must face with
>>>> Windows Vista and DirectX 10, as far as *** is concerned.

>>> Google DirectX 9L.

>>I know that DirectX 9L is for "backwards" Vista compatibility with DX9 and
>>prior games, but who knows what compatability issues that will bring?

> I think that the point that DRS was trying to make is that all games
> using DX9 up to DX9.0c will run under DX 9L in Vista, the point that was
> missed is DX9L is a software interpreting layer so they may actually run
> slower on the same PC under Vista as they did under XP, plus Vista/DX9L
> offers no assurance of backwards compatibility to DX8 or lower so older
> games may fail completely.
> --
> Alfie
> <http://www.racesimcentral.net/;
> The important things are always simple; the simple things are always hard.

Gotcha. That was my point. I figured he was trying to say that there's no
need to worry since we have DX9L. From experience I say no way in hell.
Backwards compatability is always an issue. Hence my discussion about this
time the need for a backwards compatible *** box. At least I plan on
keeping mine. Perhaps I will just keep my Athlon64 4800+ X2, 2GB DDR500,
7950GT instead of my Sempron 2400+, 1GB DDR333, 6600GT.

by **evente..** » Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:52:21

[snip]

I'd bet by the time Vista is well established and a must-have,
quad-core will be the norm for high-end *** boxes. Look at what
Remedy were demoing for Alan Wake, and claiming they used an entire
core just for the physics.

I'm hoping the onset of Vista doesn't make nVidia say "the 8800 and up
are meant as Dx10 only parts, sorry about the bugs, but they're
staying" I don't think they *can* say that with the market the way it
is now. I've been playing some other games, and I haven't found many
other problems. I never did a comprehensive sweep of my games when I
had the 7900GTO, so some of what I'm finding may have been there, too.
With a number of big recent titles having problems, I think there will
be fixes soon. It does worry me a bit that alot of the issues in the
latest driver release notes are blamed on the games themselves, and not
the drivers.

If we're lucky, the normal driver maturation will take care of the
older stuff running under XP, and we can just dual-boot for a while.
My *** rig had a Win98 partition until the last rebuild. Hopefully
I can just SLI this 8800GTS on a quad-core motherboard for the next
build.

Kendt

by **Kurt Herma** » Sun, 24 Dec 2006 00:58:46

The future at MS is Virtualization. Thats why Vista comes with MS Virtual PC
for free. You can install your older windows version and run it from within
Vista, as a virtual PC, with virtually "old" hardware. I find it works
great for the really old games (dx 7, dx8). I think the dx9 games will run
fine nativly in Vista. You can also install your favorite flavor of linux as
a virtual machine. I thought that programs run in virtual machines would run
really slow, but so far I have been pleasantly supprised.

Kurt

> [snip]

>> Gotcha. That was my point. I figured he was trying to say that there's no
>> need to worry since we have DX9L. From experience I say no way in hell.
>> Backwards compatability is always an issue. Hence my discussion about
>> this
>> time the need for a backwards compatible *** box. At least I plan on
>> keeping mine. Perhaps I will just keep my Athlon64 4800+ X2, 2GB DDR500,
>> 7950GT instead of my Sempron 2400+, 1GB DDR333, 6600GT.

> I'd bet by the time Vista is well established and a must-have,
> quad-core will be the norm for high-end *** boxes. Look at what
> Remedy were demoing for Alan Wake, and claiming they used an entire
> core just for the physics.

> I'm hoping the onset of Vista doesn't make nVidia say "the 8800 and up
> are meant as Dx10 only parts, sorry about the bugs, but they're
> staying" I don't think they *can* say that with the market the way it
> is now. I've been playing some other games, and I haven't found many
> other problems. I never did a comprehensive sweep of my games when I
> had the 7900GTO, so some of what I'm finding may have been there, too.
> With a number of big recent titles having problems, I think there will
> be fixes soon. It does worry me a bit that alot of the issues in the
> latest driver release notes are blamed on the games themselves, and not
> the drivers.

> If we're lucky, the normal driver maturation will take care of the
> older stuff running under XP, and we can just dual-boot for a while.
> My *** rig had a Win98 partition until the last rebuild. Hopefully
> I can just SLI this 8800GTS on a quad-core motherboard for the next
> build.

> Kendt

rec.autos.simulators

8800 - wait and see...

8800 - wait and see...

8800 - wait and see...

8800 - wait and see...

8800 - wait and see...