Tiptup said:lordjedi said:Your first comment is totally inaccurate. Read what I wrote again. DX9 gives access to the same effects, the difference is that DX10 makes those effects easier to do.
I've been researching parts for a new computer the last few months and one of the reasons I was planning on getting Vista was because I've read that DirectX 10 would be supporting newer, hardware-based effects that XP won't have access to without updates to DirectX 9. Here's one of the effects that I was led to believe this about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry_shader
Now, maybe you're just a lot smarter than all of the news and information sources I've been looking at, and if that's the case then I'm obviously misinformed, but last I checked you won't be getting support for that effect XP. If all of the sources I looked at are correct, then considering how Microsoft was actually still selling XP when they released their support for "geometry" shading, I don't see why XP couldn't have been given support for that effect too.
Sorry, I guess I simplified it to much. I didn't mean that DX10 wouldn't have any new effects that were unavailable in DX9, what I meant is that some of the effects in DX9 are just like the ones in DX10, but DX10 makes them easier to code. So of course DX10 will have newer effects, just like DX9 had newer effects than DX8, and DX8 newer than 7, so on and so forth.
Just because they were still selling XP does not mean they were doing code for it (aside from patches and security updates). Even XP SP3 just wrapped all the updates since SP2 and added a few networking enhancements from Vista into one package. The point is that DX10 accesses display drivers in a completely different way which is incompatible with XPs driver model. That is why DX10 is not available for XP.
Unless you're a gamer, DX10 isn't going to mean a whole lot to you. Yes, it's faster and better than DX9, but I don't see that having a detrimental effect unless you're using your computer to play games.
lordjedi said:
You may think backporting DX10 to XP isn't that hard, but you also don't know the code. I've seen whitepapers from MS that show the difference between the driver models in XP and Vista.
Why do you keep talking about me as if I want DirectX 10 put into XP? I've already said that if Microsoft did a lot of work on a newer version of DirectX that I'm fine with them keeping it native to Vista only. This line of yours is really starting to bug me. I hate it when people don't read what I'm saying.
I just want the same support for the newer hardware effects since I think XP is a superior OS. If that desire of mine is misinformed (and XP already supports every possible effect that Vista will support), and you can prove that, then I am corrected and we can move on. Until then, I'm going to think this is an easy way Microsoft could continue supporting XP (and should if they want happy customers).
OK. Then I'll put it this way. MS did put a lot of work into DX10. Just because it doesn't look like it to you and you don't know what's going on behind the scenes, doesn't mean they didn't put a lot of effort into it.
You're free to think XP is a superior OS. You're wrong of course, but you're free to have that opinion. Vista has improved support for multi-core CPUs, much better memory handling, and much better support for games. And that's just the beginning of the improvements. I've seen XP and Vista on the same modern hardware (Core 2 Duo, 2 GB RAM, built-in video) and Vista was noticeably faster. That was even before SP1 for Vista came out so I have no doubt that Vista is even faster with SP1. On the same hardware, I was able to leave all of Vista's flashy effects turned on and not feel like the system was crawling. When I do the same on XP, I always want to turn the effects off because I feel like the system is slowing way down.
lordjedi said:
You expect more support? Hey genius, try going to Apple and getting support on OS 9. I bet they don't do it. Getting support from MS for XP is the same thing. It's an outdated OS that has run its course.
I don't "expect" more support for XP; I want more support for XP. If Microsoft wants me to be a happy customer (which is up to me to decide in a truly free market), then it would be wise for them to give Windows XP a little more support.
Microsoft's "support" for XP hasn't ended. The only thing that ended is retail availability:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx
And, hey, genius, in your opinion XP is an outdated OS that has run its course, but I'm a different person and my opinion can be different. The best way to deal with different opinions, from people like me, is to discuss them rationally and not say the same thing over and over.
That's not my opinion though. That's Microsoft's stated fact. XP is outdated and has run its course. Here's their support timeline:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223
As you can see, Support is still available for XP. Just because you can't buy XP from a store (retail availability) or from MS, doesn't mean it isn't supported anymore.
Seriously, lj, do you think game manufacturers are stupid chumps for supporting their games with patches many years after they come out? Is Blizzard a stupid company for still upgrading StarCraft after practically ten years? The kinds of small support I'm asking for aren't extreme. The free market has space for many different ideas of software support (assuming the free market is functioning) and for you to demonize me for wanting more support is getting really silly. (You're giving me a headache.)
You're right, the free market does have many ideas of software support. Which is why there are companies out there still support NT, even though Microsoft doesn't offer support.
To answer your question, without knowing what that patch fixed, I couldn't say if they're stupid or not. If that patch only took a few man hours to work on, then no, they probably aren't stupid. But if it took several weeks to do, then yes, I'd wonder why they worked on it. With the success of WoW, I wouldn't understand them putting any extended effort into any of their legacy products.
The funny thing is, you can't BUY Starcraft from them without getting it as a digital download. So why don't you go try to buy a 10 year old game (aside from a digital download) and see how easy it is? I'm sure you could get a used copy, just like you can get a used copy of XP, but I seriously doubt you can find a new unopened box anywhere.
lordjedi said:
A few years ago, you were probably bitching that Vista still wasn't out and that XP was getting old.
No, actually, I wasn't, you obnoxious fruitcake. Where is there any evidence for you to go off assuming something like that about me? XP is perhaps the best version of Windows I have ever used and I was one of the people who bought it on the day it was released. (XP has always been a fantastic product to me.) The few times I've used Vista I've found it to be a piece of shit by comparison. Beyond the fact that it is clearly less stable (I had no major errors or restarts with XP from the very start), having to tell it that I want to wipe my ass all the time (or be bothered by a security message every two seconds) is absurd. I just don't like it at all and I don't see who you are to fucking reprimand me for making that personal judgment. (Only lordjedi's personal judgments of what's desirable or undesirable are allowed in this world?)
The comment was made because most of the people that bitch about Vista were the same people bitching about XP when it was first released and now they're professing how great XP is in comparison. I remember the comments quite well. XP was trash and 2000 was the best OS ever released.
Seriously, I don't care if you have a love affair with Vista. So, why, then, do you feel so keen on lecturing others for not liking Vista? What on earth is making your blood boil so much with this issue? (I have no fucking desire to have a heated debate about Windows for crying out loud.)
I haven't lectured anyone for not liking Vista. I've asked people what programs they had trouble with. I've explained that MS hasn't changed their support timeline or the retail availability timeline (aside from extending them) since they released XP. What I don't like is people bitching about how MS is forcing them to get a newer version. What I don't like is people saying how easy it would be to make newer graphics effects work in XP, when they clearly have no idea what's involved behind the scenes.
lordjedi said:
I'm not trying to convince any of you to upgrade. That's your choice if you want to or not. But don't try to say that MS is forcing you to upgrade. You don't have to do it. Go use Linux or some other alternative. No one's making you upgrade anything.
Huh? You've just made three long posts about how horrible a person I am for wanting XP to have some more support and for thinking Vista isn't absolutely worth the money. That certainly sounds to me like you're trying to tell us all what's a good or bad decision.
Nice try. I'm not saying you're a horrible person at all. What I am saying is that I think it's unreasonable to expect MS to support such an old OS for so long. No other company takes the beatings MS does when they announce the end of retail sales and the coming end of support.
Also, nowhere am I saying that Microsoft is really forcing me to "upgrade" in any absolute sense (that's absurd and you're clearly not reading what I'm saying here). My criticisms with Microsoft (and supposedly "upgrading" their products) are far smaller than that.
I have no problem with old software dying when its time comes in the free market. It's all the little things that Microsoft does to influence that transition that bother me as a customer. The way that I can no longer purchase a new, decently priced copy of XP or some equivalent OS is another good example. Linux and the other OSs on the market are not an alternative XP. If there were truly an operating system being sold in the market that works and functions just like XP, then I can assure you that I would be purchasing that. However, there is no operating system on the market like it and I see no good reason why. Why is there no OS selling on the market that can comparably perform just like Windows XP (running all the same software in the same way and so on)? Another company wouldn't make money by selling a Windows equivalent?
Uh, OS X running parallels? OS X has comparable software for everything except gaming. MS Office is available. I'm sure there's an accounting package available. I don't know about any CAD packages. Most Adobe software is available. For the occasional package that isn't available, simply fire up parallels to run the software under XP or dual boot with bootcamp and XP. There are alternatives. I'm not saying I like them (I don't), but alternatives are there.
Microsoft has to make a business decision to either keep supporting old products in perpetuity or move on to newer technologies. XP and Vista are no different than any other product in the past. And since Microsoft has shareholders to answer to, they have to do what's best for their business, not necessarily what people think is best for the market place.
Continuing to support ancient products (remember, XPs support hasn't ended, just retail sales) can actually be detrimental to a company. Just take a look at Novell. They supported Netware 3.12 for what seemed like forever. In fact, they supported it for so long that people didn't bother upgrading. Why upgrade when it works and you can still get support? Now look at them. They're a shadow of their former selves. If they had not waited so long to end support for an ancient product, they may have been able to get people to upgrade and at least been able to compete. Instead, they ended up basically dropping Netware and becoming a Linux company.
With Windows 7 on the horizon, Microsoft is continuing to move forward. If you want to stay with XP, feel free, no one's forcing an upgrade. But if you want to take advantage of the newer features and enhancements in Vista and Windows 7 (touch screen capabilities, mmm), then you'll need to shell out some cash and upgrade.
I'm honestly still on XP, but that's because I'm lazy and don't feel like going through the trouble of making a complete backup of all my stuff, formatting my system partition, and installing Vista. I like Vista. I like it a lot. But right now, it's a little bit to much trouble to bother installing. If something ends up requiring it, then sure, I'll install it no problem. Just like I upgraded to Win98 way back in the day in order to have better USB support because I was going to work on a USB project. Just like I upgraded to XP because Adobe Premiere wouldn't work on Win2k and XP had better support for FireWire.
EDIT: If you want XP so bad, go buy it http://www.google.com/products?q=windows+xp+professional&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title