Right, I have a DX10 card (Quadro FX4600) but I didn't buy it because of
DX10 but simply because it performs way better than any other gfx card
out there (except the Quadro FX5600 of course).
> Shoot the messenger all you want. MS made the announcement, it's their
> words, not mine, so take from it what you want.
>
> How many versions of DX9 do you know of?
There is DX9, there is DX9a, there is DX9b, and there are several
releases of DX9c.
And of course there also have been the predecessors:
"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:5id7hfF3p0fs8U1@mid.individual.net...
>* William:
>
>> Sounds like you purchased a DX10 card.
>
> Right, I have a DX10 card (Quadro FX4600) but I didn't buy it because of
> DX10 but simply because it performs way better than any other gfx card out
> there (except the Quadro FX5600 of course).
>
>> Shoot the messenger all you want. MS made the announcement, it's their
>> words, not mine, so take from it what you want.
>>
>> How many versions of DX9 do you know of?
>
> There is DX9, there is DX9a, there is DX9b, and there are several releases
> of DX9c.
>
> And of course there also have been the predecessors:
>
> DX8.1
> DX8
> DX7a
> DX7
> DX6
> DX5
> DX4
> DX3a
> DX3
> DX2a
> DX2
> DX1
>
> So in what regard is the announcement of DX10.1 different than it was in
> previous times?
>
> Benjamin
MS requires that all the specifications of DX10 be implemented for
certification. Before DX10, manufacturers had choices on what features they
complied with and still be certified on the current DX standard. Not any
more. If a manufacturer wants DX10 or DX10.1 certification, then they must
meat all the specifications in that format. This forces the manufacturer's
hand, and gives the consumer the ability to identify what hardware meets the
new standards or not. Money, money, money.
Of course you already know this.
Benjamin, please, you need to study Interpersonal Communications, and the
understanding of emotive words and how they control communications. You
over compensate for lesser developed skills by using emotive words such as
'No', 'BS', 'stupid', 'nonsense', vulgar language, and 'you must live behind
the moon' (at least that was entertaining to read). It tells me nothing
about the subject, but everything about you. You use them to belittle the
other person, and that is not conducive to learning.
Your technical skills are top-rate, but your communications skills do you a
disservice.
"Les Steel" <a@aolnot.com> wrote in message
news:f9rjjs$l21$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> William wrote:
>> Microsoft announced at Siggraph 2007 that Vista SP1 will have a new DX
>> 10.1 upgrade requiring new hardware to implement the new standard. Old
>> DX10 hardware will not support the upcoming new standard.
>>
>> See: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41577 and:
>> http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardwar.../0524250.shtml
>>
>> So all the DX10 video hardware is officially obsolete. DX10 is dead,
>> long live DX10.1!
>>
>> How wonderful. (Sure am glad I didn't rush out and purchase a new DX10
>> graphics board yet.)
>>
>> William
>
> follow on article
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41643
I agree with that:
"The larger issues of whether to go with DX10 or not are related to market
share - and interestingly the rate of OS upgrade seems to be the limiting
factor. There are about 4x as many gamers with a DX10 graphics card and XP
out there as there are with a DX10 card and Vista, and although even with
the XP users in there right now we're still only talking about 10% of the
player base overall. "
That's what I've been reading all over the enthusiast / gaming net. Hardly
anyone is excited by Vista so far. To slow, to DRM'ed out to be upgraded
too. Most people are waiting for things to change, get faster, loose some of
the bloatware. We'll see.
Thank you Les for the link. Slashdot has not done a follow up yet. Probably
won't.
> MS requires that all the specifications of DX10 be implemented for
> certification. Before DX10, manufacturers had choices on what features they
> complied with and still be certified on the current DX standard. Not any
> more. If a manufacturer wants DX10 or DX10.1 certification, then they must
> meat all the specifications in that format. This forces the manufacturer's
> hand, and gives the consumer the ability to identify what hardware meets the
> new standards or not. Money, money, money.
"...Microsoft's Sam Glassenberg told Next-Gen in a phone interview,
"DX10.1 fully supports DX10 hardware. No hardware support is being
removed....It's strictly a superset. It's basically an update to DX10
that extends the hardware functionality slightly."
He said that the update is similar to what Microsoft did with DX9. "We
did make updates to [DX9] that extended the supported feature set.
"All the hardware is still supported, all the games still run, all the
features are still there, we've just simply extended the feature set and
the lifetime of the API," he said...."
> Benjamin, please, you need to study Interpersonal Communications, and the
> understanding of emotive words and how they control communications. You
> over compensate for lesser developed skills by using emotive words such as
> 'No', 'BS', 'stupid', 'nonsense', vulgar language, and 'you must live behind
> the moon' (at least that was entertaining to read). It tells me nothing
> about the subject, but everything about you. You use them to belittle the
> other person, and that is not conducive to learning.
You would probably have been right if I wouldn't usually include some
facts or arguments at the same time. It's not that I say "this is all
BS" and that's it.
> Your technical skills are top-rate, but your communications skills do you a
> disservice.
Maybe, but that's how I am. I don't like beating around the bush.
It's the same over and over again: some vendor changes anything and
immediately folks are crying that this and that won't work or that your
new hardware is useless. And as it always has been before it's just
utterly BS. May not sound nice, I admit. But it's the truth.
"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message news:5ihahfF3o5fkpU1@mid.individual.net...
> It's the same over and over again: some vendor changes anything and
> immediately folks are crying that this and that won't work or that your
> new hardware is useless. And as it always has been before it's just
> utterly BS. May not sound nice, I admit. But it's the truth.
People who ride the bleeding edge often wind up in these situations.
The fact is, people who splurged on the first batch of DX10 cards,
for no other reason than to brag about them, won't have full
functionality with DX10.1. Period. And I say good.
> People who ride the bleeding edge often wind up in these situations.
Well, in my experience it's usually people that *hesitated* to buy the
bleeding edge stuff that wind up. These people usually wait for the
according midrange models following the latest highend cards (which
basically is not a bad idea!), but then go crazy when reading that there
is something new on the horizon.
> The fact is, people who splurged on the first batch of DX10 cards,
> for no other reason than to brag about them, won't have full
> functionality with DX10.1. Period.
They will lack a few functions that probably won't be used by much games
or applications, so who gives a ****? That's basically the same like the
move from DirectX 8 to DirectX 8.1.
For people that bought the first batch of DX10 cards when they came out
it's probably much more disappointing that still there are no real DX10
games out there. And even then for most gamers the move to the new DX10
cards for sure wasn't lost since these cards simply kick *** of even the
fastest DX9 card in DX9 games.
"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message news:5ihiclF3pofe6U1@mid.individual.net...
> * nospam@sbcglobal.invalid.net:
>
> > People who ride the bleeding edge often wind up in these situations.
>
> Well, in my experience it's usually people that *hesitated* to buy the
> bleeding edge stuff that wind up. These people usually wait for the
> according midrange models following the latest highend cards (which
> basically is not a bad idea!), but then go crazy when reading that there
> is something new on the horizon.
>
> > The fact is, people who splurged on the first batch of DX10 cards,
> > for no other reason than to brag about them, won't have full
> > functionality with DX10.1. Period.
>
> They will lack a few functions that probably won't be used by much games
> or applications, so who gives a ****? That's basically the same like the
> move from DirectX 8 to DirectX 8.1.
>
> For people that bought the first batch of DX10 cards when they came out
> it's probably much more disappointing that still there are no real DX10
> games out there. And even then for most gamers the move to the new DX10
> cards for sure wasn't lost since these cards simply kick *** of even the
> fastest DX9 card in DX9 games.
>> For people that bought the first batch of DX10 cards when they came out
>> it's probably much more disappointing that still there are no real DX10
>> games out there. And even then for most gamers the move to the new DX10
>> cards for sure wasn't lost since these cards simply kick *** of even the
>> fastest DX9 card in DX9 games.
>
> Under Vista? Keep guessing.
"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:5ihahfF3o5fkpU1@mid.individual.net...
>* William:
>
>> MS requires that all the specifications of DX10 be implemented for
>> certification. Before DX10, manufacturers had choices on what features
>> they complied with and still be certified on the current DX standard.
>> Not any more. If a manufacturer wants DX10 or DX10.1 certification, then
>> they must meat all the specifications in that format. This forces the
>> manufacturer's hand, and gives the consumer the ability to identify what
>> hardware meets the new standards or not. Money, money, money.
>
> Maybe you want to read this:
>
> <http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/33868/DX10-1-DOES-Work-with-This-Gen-DX10-Cards>
>
> "...Microsoft's Sam Glassenberg told Next-Gen in a phone interview,
> "DX10.1 fully supports DX10 hardware. No hardware support is being
> removed....It's strictly a superset. It's basically an update to DX10 that
> extends the hardware functionality slightly."
>
> He said that the update is similar to what Microsoft did with DX9. "We did
> make updates to [DX9] that extended the supported feature set.
>
> "All the hardware is still supported, all the games still run, all the
> features are still there, we've just simply extended the feature set and
> the lifetime of the API," he said...."
This information does not address the point I am making - Straw man
argument! You are trying to introduce an argument that I have not argued
for so you can claim victory and get me off subject. Not interested. You
have not addressed my paragraph.
Again: DX10 cards will not be certified to work on DX10.1 software. DX10
cards will run a sub-set of DX10.1, but they will not be DX10.1 certified.
Or DX10.2 or .3 ..... They will run using a sub-set, but they will not be
certified, hence the customer will not purchase them - obsolete.
>
>> Benjamin, please, you need to study Interpersonal Communications, and the
>> understanding of emotive words and how they control communications. You
>> over compensate for lesser developed skills by using emotive words such
>> as 'No', 'BS', 'stupid', 'nonsense', vulgar language, and 'you must live
>> behind the moon' (at least that was entertaining to read). It tells me
>> nothing about the subject, but everything about you. You use them to
>> belittle the other person, and that is not conducive to learning.
>
> You would probably have been right if I wouldn't usually include some
> facts or arguments at the same time. It's not that I say "this is all BS"
> and that's it.
You are not including facts addressing the points made, this is a
non-sequitur. The conclusions presented by you are not supported by the
facts given. Their is some type of disconnect going on here. We are
talking past each other. I am saying one thing, and you are repling to a
different subject.
>
>> Your technical skills are top-rate, but your communications skills do you
>> a disservice.
>
> Maybe, but that's how I am. I don't like beating around the bush.
>
> It's the same over and over again: some vendor changes anything and
> immediately folks are crying that this and that won't work or that your
> new hardware is useless. And as it always has been before it's just
> utterly BS. May not sound nice, I admit. But it's the truth.
This is a No Good Scotchman Argument. It has nothing to do with what I
have been posting. NO THIS IS NOT THE SAME OVER AND OVER THING AGAIN!!!!!
Gee whiz, I have completely blown past you on my points. Again: The
certification process has changed with XD10. Their is no over and over
again. This is new and to the point. DX10 is obsolete.
>
> Benjamin
What a waste of time, we are moving further and further away from the
subject line and more and more about you and your reading comprehension
problems. I've had enough of this hijacking of the subject line. Go play
with someone else.
<nospam@sbcglobal.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:HdMwi.109$vU4.27@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:5ihahfF3o5fkpU1@mid.individual.net...
>> It's the same over and over again: some vendor changes anything and
>> immediately folks are crying that this and that won't work or that your
>> new hardware is useless. And as it always has been before it's just
>> utterly BS. May not sound nice, I admit. But it's the truth.
>
> People who ride the bleeding edge often wind up in these situations.
> The fact is, people who splurged on the first batch of DX10 cards,
> for no other reason than to brag about them, won't have full
> functionality with DX10.1. Period. And I say good.
>
He has money on the table, so he does not like the message. Been their,
done that. Nothing new.
Re: DX10 cards are officially obsolete. 
Linear Mode
