Is DirectX 10 on Vista a ripoff?
Some in the great wide world of computing seem to think that DirectX 10 on Vista is a complete and total ripoff. The complaints mainly center on Microsoft not wanting to port DirectX 10 to XP and claiming that the pretty graphics are solely the responsibility of DirectX 10. Some of this is true, some of it could be considered misleading and some of it is just a flat out lie.
Whatever the case is, DirectX 10 is not going to be ported to XP but I do not think this is because they don’t want to but it’s because they can’t. Can’t meaning, Microsoft could but it would be hard and the required resources would be too great. I don’t think the resources would be too great but I do think it would be hard, would take a considerable amount of time and might even require a completely new version of XP itself and why do that when it can just sell Vista?
Then there is OpenGL. OpenGL is a competitor to DirectX 10 but no one really cares about it. OpenGL is used on primarily Linux and Mac OSX because neither of those operating systems supports the (native) use of DirectX. OpenGL could be used to provide most of the features of DirectX 10 on other systems, if developers wanted to, that’s IF.
You don’t need a DirectX 10 capable video card to run Vista but you do need it to take advantage of the DirectX 10 visual goodies in upcoming games.
Developers aren’t likely to change their ways. Some would have them move over to using OpenGL but they won’t. From my rather limited understanding it seems that DirectX may be easier to use than OpenGL. This may or may not be the case. But no one really cares which version of OpenGL their graphics card supports. No one cares if you have support for the latest OpenGL, no one.
What I do know is this; DirectX is the standard for graphics on Windows and the XBOX 360. This is not going to change soon, if ever. If you want to take advantage of DirectX 10 you need Vista and you need a DirectX 10 board, all the wishful thinking in the world is not going to change that but unlike some, I don’t have a problem with it.
If all you are interested in doing is running Vista then stick with a relatively inexpensive DirectX 9 only graphics card. For gaming on Vista and for the sake of future proofing your system then I suggest a DirectX 10 board, a certain Geforce 8800GTS will cost you $260 which is not bad considering its price only a few months ago.
To answer the question “Is DirectX 10 on Vista a ripoff?†I say it’s not.
Related Posts:
April 17th, 2007
I think you are mistaken on a few things. DirectX 10 was built on partnerships with game developers one of the main problems being the ‘excessive variation in hardware acceleration capabilities’. Generally, the more you know about the hardware you run on, the more efficient your development becomes. An engineering software challenge was met in making XP more efficient by way of driver resources usage. Vista is supposedly designed better in this way but I am yet to see it.
I also wouldnt disregard OpenGL the way you have. The majority of businesses depend on OpenGL for its fantastic specification. Of course DirectX is a Microsoft product and being closed source there is no way Mac OSX or Linux can implement it. OpenGL is aging, but still very actively used (not by big gaming companies sadly), however, in the coming years a new version of OpenGL 3.0 may change the boundaries of its current limitations.
April 17th, 2007
Yes, granted, game companies have to ensure that their games will run on low end to high-end machines and everything in between. No one would argue that point which makes the XBOX 360 so easy to develop for, they know the hardware for it and can optimize every aspect of the game. This is not possible in the PC world, nor will it ever be.
I was hoping someone would point out details I might have missed, I’m no developer so there are some things that I’m not going to be aware of. However, it’s not surprising that businesses use OpenGL. I am only dismissive of it because there is no real way for the consumer to take true advantage of it, that’s up to the game developers and DirectX is going to win, good or bad, I’m not sure.
The next version of OpenGL due out is 2.1… we’re a ways off from version 3.0 but it may change some things, we’ll have to wait and see on that one.
April 17th, 2007
Doom 3, Quake 4 were developed with OpenGL, if I recall correctly. All other games based on these engines such as Prey therefore use OpenGL as well.
Moreover, Playstation 3, Wii, Gamecube, certain PDA/cellphones all use OpenGL or an OpenGL like API. You won’t see directx dominate on these platforms.
It would be unfair to compare OpenGL with DirectX. Afterall, OpenGL is a graphics library and by definition will remain to be a graphics library only. On the other hand DirectX includes a graphics library among its components such as sound, networking, etc., which non-games applications such as CAD usually do not need.
April 17th, 2007
Also forgot to mention DX10 features such as geometry shaders are all available to OpenGL now under Win XP (not Vista) via extensions.
April 17th, 2007
“But no one really cares which version of OpenGL their graphics card supports. No one cares if you have support for the latest OpenGL, no one.”
Such bold statement yet you provide no analytic justification nor facts backing up your statement whatsoever.
Read more before you make any dumb statement.
April 17th, 2007
Okay, Gamers don’t care…
And yes, Doom 3, Quake and a smattering of other games use OpenGL but a MAJORITY and I emphasize MAJORITY don’t. You want proof, walk into any retailer look at the requirements for a game and you’ll see “DirectX 9 video card” on just about all the boxes.
Note, most DirectX 10 titles are still in development and are slated for release later this year.
True a number of businesses DO use OpenGL but they aren’t playing
games.
Consumers play games, consumers need DirectX 9/10 support they do not by any means need OpenGL support, it helps but it’s not exactly needed. It’s a statement I don’t need to prove, in the gaming world, DirectX is the standard and that’s not going to change any time soon. By consumers… I mean those that play games on their PC… REAL games.
April 19th, 2007
Gamers might not care about OpenGL, but a growing trend is game developers don’t care about vista or directx
April 19th, 2007
Well, there is truth in that as well… still… it will be a while before the paradigm of game developing switches over to something else.
April 20th, 2007
Wow… people getting pretty upset about someone else’s opinion. Whatever graphics library you use, it seems to me its user dependant. Honestly… this is like an argument between which CPU is better, Intel or AMD, or the whole Mac vs. PC argument.
I have yet to see actual FACTS (or anything making a solid case, nonetheless) from anyone to defend his/her own opinion, and seems like people are running in circles. Both applications have their upsides and downsides (OpenGL seems to have the non-Microsoft consoles won over, while DirectX seems to be more common in Microsoft reliant products), and each seems to have a set target market.
Mr. Jonathan Schlaffer should change the title of this article to “Can you afford DirectX 10?”, because there really is no case of this article stating it being a ripoff. Apperantly, Dx10 requires a certain platform to work upon, and needs certain system requirements. I don’t understand why people are reluctant to upgrade; if you want the better games/graphics that needs said requirements, spend the money. Or don’t. It doesn’t rain on my parade.
April 30th, 2007
“From my rather limited understanding it seems that DirectX may be easier to use than OpenGL”
Indeed very limited. OpenGL is considerably easier to code, and indeed grok generally, than DirectX. Actually OpenGL is extremely elegent – the basic spinning cube in OpenGL takes a dozen lines, in DirectX not less than a hundred. This is why it’s used as the graphics API of choice *everywhere* except for PC and XBOX gaming. Sure if you are focused only on PC games then you can be forgiven for thinking that OpenGL is irrelevant, but in the wider context that is far from the case.
May 8th, 2007
Dx10 is just a microsoft sales tactic to force gamers to purchase the resource HOG vista . By looking into the SDk dx10 has code going all way back to dx8.1 and even dos in vista as shell to run older 80’s games , they can port direct10 to xp or any other windows OS they so choose to without much porting involved . Typical Windows fanboy inlove with billgates you must work or are related to soemone involved with the company ..
September 28th, 2007
Software Development Guide
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting
November 5th, 2007
Well the thing is, everyone at work is going to play Medal of Honor Pacific Assault tomorrow, but I am not. I spent 3 hours downloading the game only to find out you cannot play a direct x 8.1 game with a direct x10 video card.
Sorry, but that sucks big time. No, these are not games from the ‘ 80’s, the only games from the eighties are chess and solitaire. I so regret getting a new computer with Vista on it. I actually feel like I’ve gone back in time because there are so many, many programs you can no longer use. I guess I’ll have to go back to solitaire.
November 19th, 2007
Free Software Downloads…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
February 3rd, 2008
Scam-Proof your Loan…
Looking for a personalloan?Bring your common sense with you. If you don’t make smart decisions, you could end up being scammedlosing money when you need it the most. Here are some ways of avoiding loan traps….
May 9th, 2008
Necro-post but whatever. This article is all opinion and no fact at all, I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to get at here. OpenGL is a superior graphics Library, DirectX is a superior resource hog.
As a PC gamer I look for games that support OpenGL because they are typically faster and better looking thatn those that support only DirectX. DirectX has been nothing but a pain in my ass since the days of Road Rash. It’s only Microsoft’s attempt to dominate the market with shitty software and now they are trying to get gamers to buy Vista. Hopefully the majority of gamers are smarter than that.
November 13th, 2008
How many of you were forced to pirate??
My point exactly, regardless what BS you spout online I bet majority of you run pirated copies. If not Vista then XP, even then when your belly is not full you need to complain. I think Microsoft did the right thing, XP is old and shows I agree with their move to not port DX10.
1. Its their technology they can do whatever.
2. There simply is no point in porting something so advanced to something so outdated, DX10 was built for PCIE based cards. If your running XP one could assume your also running a dated computer, in that case it would be impossible to use DX10 as older motherboards don’t support pcie. I very much doubt board manufacturers would go to the trouble to allow agp to somehow magically allow video cards to use DX10 natively.
3. Linux is shit period go away you zealots, all you ever do is talk big. DX is superior to GL, but GL is just as equal just depends how you look at it. DX requires more system resources but in the long run it pays off because it renders realism in a way GL doesn’t. But GL is much faster and doesn’t hog system resources but fails at delivering realism the way DX does.
Finally I’m an IT guy and a 3D Animator so bite my hairy yellow ass!!