So is Directx 10 out yet?

Ok, before you call me a noob, i have been out of pc gaming for a long time and i am getting back into it, so i dont know whats been going on.

So, is it?

It's out. But it was a gimmick. It doesn't offer superior performance and very little games put it to good use. You'll need an amazing rig to actually take advantage of DX10.GodLovesDead

even those that DO use it... it is such a marginal improvement that you don't even notice it after the first 2 minutes you play the game.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]It's out. But it was a gimmick. It doesn't offer superior performance and very little games put it to good use. You'll need an amazing rig to actually take advantage of DX10.weirjf

even those that DO use it... it is such a marginal improvement that you don't even notice it after the first 2 minutes you play the game.

But what about all those DX10 screenshots of FSX?

[QUOTE="weirjf"]

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]It's out. But it was a gimmick. It doesn't offer superior performance and very little games put it to good use. You'll need an amazing rig to actually take advantage of DX10.Phantsy16

even those that DO use it... it is such a marginal improvement that you don't even notice it after the first 2 minutes you play the game.

But what about all those DX10 screenshots of FSX?

Yeah, I've seen the videos too. However, if you play the games that are out now, except Crysis... the difference is marginal. It sure isn't enough to make me put up with that load of crap Vista again.

It's out but nothing is really using it, native DX10 support to utilise all its features would make a game PC/Vista exclusive; Vista hasn't got the install base to justify developers doing that without major Microsoft incentives.

As it stands DX10 is a crudely slapped on extra in a few games; some times adding something genuine while others doing very little.

[QUOTE="weirjf"]

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]It's out. But it was a gimmick. It doesn't offer superior performance and very little games put it to good use. You'll need an amazing rig to actually take advantage of DX10.Phantsy16

even those that DO use it... it is such a marginal improvement that you don't even notice it after the first 2 minutes you play the game.

But what about all those DX10 screenshots of FSX?

I'd like to know what screenshots you're talking about.

Also, DirectX 11 had been announced...MasterYevon

It was a pretty stupid move by Microsofts part to even talk about it. OMFG This just in, after DX12 will be out by 2020!. :roll: DX11 is so far away it's not even worth mentioning.

[QUOTE="MasterYevon"]Also, DirectX 11 had been announced...SuperBeast

It was a pretty stupid move by Microsofts part to even talk about it. OMFG This just in, after DX12 will be out by 2020!. :roll: DX11 is so far away it's not even worth mentioning.

heh....true... :\

The stupidiest thing made by Microsoft was to make DX10 Vista only. pilouuuu2004

I don't think they actually thought it was a smart idea, but as a business move to encourage Vista adoption despite its significantly higher system requirements? Makes sense when they are only considering their interests in a market that lacks competition.

OpenGL 3.0 is actually said to be able to access DX10 effects under XP; which just goes to show its Vista exclusivity is entirely a business decision. Though by the time it comes out XP will most likely be done and dusted while people debate if Windows 7 is a good improvement over Vista.

[QUOTE="pilouuuu2004"]The stupidiest thing made by Microsoft was to make DX10 Vista only. AnnoyedDragon

I don't think they actually thought it was a smart idea, but as a business move to encourage Vista adoption despite its significantly higher system requirements? Makes sense when they are only considering their interests in a market that lacks competition.

Very true...

[QUOTE="pilouuuu2004"]The stupidiest thing made by Microsoft was to make DX10 Vista only. AnnoyedDragon

I don't think they actually thought it was a smart idea, but as a business move to encourage Vista adoption despite its significantly higher system requirements? Makes sense when they are only considering their interests in a market that lacks competition.

OpenGL 3.0 is actually said to be able to access DX10 effects under XP; which just goes to show its Vista exclusivity is entirely a business decision. Though by the time it comes out XP will most likely be done and dusted while people debate if Windows 7 is a good improvement over Vista.

Oh, they thought it was a smart idea because they wanted to shove Vista down everyone's throat. Until we started realizing that Vista was actually "Windows ME-2" with a different name. Now they've extended XP support and they are pushing up the time table on Windows 7 telling me that not even MS has confidence in Vista as a product anymore. In the end it won't matter if people take time to debate if Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista because we will be debating if Windows 7 is an improvement over XP. Everyone I know dropped Vista within 6 months to go back to XP.

Oh, they thought it was a smart idea because they wanted to shove Vista down everyone's throat. Until we started realizing that Vista was actually "Windows ME-2" with a different name. Now they've extended XP support and they are pushing up the time table on Windows 7 telling me that not even MS has confidence in Vista as a product anymore. In the end it won't matter if people take time to debate if Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista because we will be debating if Windows 7 is an improvement over XP. Everyone I know dropped Vista within 6 months to go back to XP.

weirjf

You do realize that comparing Vista to ME is, in itself, just plain silly, right? I mean, Vista has drastic changes to the Windows code (many, if not all of them, beneficial) whereas ME was 98 minus DOS mode. Honestly, after using Vista, I find going back to XP difficult if not painful.

As for the future versions of Windows coming out sooner, you DO realise that MS's original plan was to release a new OS version every 1-3 years, right? So how is a (predicted) release date of 2009/2010 "pushing up the time table"? And, besides, why stop there? Why don't we just run around yelling "the sky is falling" and that MS hates Windows because it is planning to kill it off with Midori? Seriously, using future releases of Windows as an indication of an OS's success or failure (i.e. the time table from Vista to Vienna) is just plain fallacious reasoning.

Plus, if anybody cares to remember, people were griping and moaning about how XP would be the "death of PC gaming" because it wasn't the beloved Win95/98...how is the release of Vista ANY different? I swear...most people don't like Vista simply because of three things:

1. Their computer can't handle Vista (running with 1gb or even 512mb of RAM, an integrated video card and not disabling Aero, and a 60gb hard drive)
2. They heard from a friend that their friend's friend had their computer eaten because Vista exploded on it or some other such story
3. They fear change (even if it is for the better)

Vista driver support has improved immensely since the release of the OS (even more so if you are basing your "experience" with one of the release candidates). And I seriously can count the number of times Vista has crashed on one hand...shoot, I can count the number of times on one of the hands of a person suffering from leprosy...and I've been using it for a good solid year now and have ZERO regrets upgrading (yeah, I said it, 'upgrading') to Vista.