http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/55

Seems like the conspiracy theories that evil Microsoft does this on purpose could be wrong.
Of course we could now blame them that they hadn't done it with XP already.

Reply

Actually, I think the article highlights several ways that MS could have done it, but didn't. It still ultimately comes back to "because they didn't want to" for the reason for no DX10 in XP. From a Vista marketing standpoint, it's not hard to understand why they didn't see the need in spending resources making DX10 work in XP, but that doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.

They point out that releasing DX10 support in XP as part of a service pack could break compatibility with some software. Big deal- several of their service packs have broken compatibility with some older pieces of software...

However, from reading the article, the cleanest solution seemed like using the already in-place OpenGL architecture to implement DX10 in both XP and Vista. To my moderately techy eyes, that seems as though it would have fixed everything. But, since MS wants OpenGL to die, it's obvious why they wouldn't embrace an open standard.

Interesting article though.

Reply

You could well be right, however I'm usually more enraged about such things in the hardware industry which force me to buy almost a whole new computer because they keep changing slots and compatibilities. Nothing against progress, but it sometimes seems like they care even less about compatibility, except maybe ASUS, who keep churning out cheap motherboards under the name of AsRock which are sometimes very compatible and upgradeable, like the one I have now. Many others just go for the enthusiasts who can afford a whole new computer every year.
At some point they all cut support, some people still use Win 98, does that mean it should get DX10?

Reply

Don't forget Windows 95...

Reply