Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
T Than
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 09:21:00 -
[61]
Edited by: T Than on 17/08/2007 09:24:23
Originally by: Redflare This originated on The inquierer.
You know, the guys taht said we'd have a 30GHz Pentium 3 by 2005?
well the speed aint right, but the performance on the top of the range quad core when using an application that can utilise all cores is not far off what you would get if using the pentium 3 architecture at those speeds. speed is nothing these days, its how the chip is built.
and why is everyone surprised about the DX10.1 thing?
DX7 cards did not support DX8 only features. DX8 cards did not support DX9 features. DX9.0 cards did not support DX9.0b features. or 9.0c features. DX9 cards are an even bigger mess, what with there being 9.0, 9.0b & 9.0c, and nne of them support DX10 features.
so why on earth would a DX10 card support DX10.1??
|
Ealiom
Infinitus Morti R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 11:32:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Redflare and why is everyone surprised about the DX10.1 thing? So why on earth would a DX10 card support DX10.1??
Because people like there moans about seemingly unpredictable events. Especially when it involves. 1: Microsoft 2: Money they have spent 3: Money they haven't spent but said they will 4: etc etc etc etc etc
ModelsBlackbirdExecutioner |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 12:45:00 -
[63]
Again, I feel you miss the guts of the whine. No-one is particularly shocked that a new revision of an API isn't supported by hardware compatible with the "old" API.
What people are surprised about is:
1) The fact that DX10 hasn't even been implemented yet in more than about 2 games, meaning that (in theory) current "DX10 compatible cards" won't actually be compatible with much of anything. Most people expect a new piece of ú150 hardware to have a shelf life of more than 6 months.
2) The revisions in DX10.1 don't do anything. They stop developers from having some choice in some areas, and make it harder to port games to DX9. Thats all. It's not adding hundreds of spiffy new features or increasing performance. It's just that Microsoft's intended DX10 / Vista lock in (which they still maintain is SOLELY because it is IMPOSSIBLE to port DX10 to XP, but they would if only they could, honestly) was actually pretty easy to port to XP, and they wanted to close up a hole.
I still don't understand why people so vehemently defend Microsoft. Why aren't people more ****ed that a company is trying to extract money out of them, and lying about it (again, they still maintain that it is all about technical limitations, not money grabbing)? If you bought a car and the company then informed you that you could ONLY fill it with their special brand fuel (which costs triple any other fuel) or it'll self destruct by design, you'd be extremely ****ed off. Not only that, but they'd be prosecuted for vendor lock-in. But when you apply the same thing to computers, people tell you you should just bend over and be happy about it...
This is why most countries have anti-monopoly laws (and why most countries need to make these anti-monopoly laws a little more useful). Monopoly's can mean only one thing: the consumer is going to get it where it hurts. --------
|
T Than
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 13:03:00 -
[64]
DX10 has been ported to XP.....
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 13:10:00 -
[65]
I'll stick with my x1950xt (dx9) for at least another year..screw m$
|
T Than
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 14:20:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Sokratesz I'll stick with my x1950xt (dx9) for at least another year..screw m$
DX9.0c, which has support for pixel shader 3. and since games using DX10 features, never mind 10.1, are as rare as non annoying isk spammers, i wouldnt worry about upgrading any time soon. the fact is, from DX9 to DX10, the difference is not all that much in terms of what you actually see.
|
Scorpyn
Caldari Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 14:27:00 -
[67]
Hopefully this will make developers switch to OpenGL and other open multi-platform libraries.
In other words, Microsoft may actually be shooting themselves in the foot. My only fear is that they may have accidentally used a paint bullet instead of a real bullet.
2007-07-19 20:26 |
Yoshimako
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 14:41:00 -
[68]
nevermind just means ill buy two more cards in nov if the 9800 gtx's come out
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 18:21:00 -
[69]
Originally by: T Than
Originally by: Sokratesz I'll stick with my x1950xt (dx9) for at least another year..screw m$
DX9.0c, which has support for pixel shader 3. and since games using DX10 features, never mind 10.1, are as rare as non annoying isk spammers, i wouldnt worry about upgrading any time soon. the fact is, from DX9 to DX10, the difference is not all that much in terms of what you actually see.
I know. Got plenty of experience on the subject hence why i can safely and surely say, 'screw them' :)
|
Malcanis
High4Life Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 18:51:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Whoa! Wait a sec...
Are you saying the 8800GTX card I bought three weeks ago, in part because it was DX10 compatible, is now not DX10 compatible? Or rather, DX10 compatible but now any card could be DX10 compatible and when DX10.1 hits the streets I'm screwed?
I'd like to thank you and all the other early adopters for funding this research.
Could I get you a chicken sandwich or something? I feel I owe you.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |