Slashdot Mirror
Hacked DX10 for Windows Appears
Oddscurity writes "According to The Inquirer someone managed to write a wrapper allowing DirectX 10 applications to run on platforms other than Vista. The Alky Project claims to have reverse-engineered Geometry Shader code, allowing Windows games to run on Windows XP, MacOSX and Linux. The Inquirer is understandably cautious about these claims, urging readers to investigate the releases themselves to ascertain whether or not it's a hoax."
Even if he really managed to do this (which I doubt, look how long wine has been around and it still doesn't run everything), won't he get sued immediately for something like this?
----
Squirrel
well, you're going to need those cards to run DX10 anyway.
The article claims to have a software implementation of DirectX 10 Geometry Shaders, so no, you wouldn't.
If nothing else, this can be a call to others to create similar projects. If the Alky Project is real (which it is by all accounts so far), then even if it is shut down, their work will continue. If it can't meet it's goals in some way, then it's full promise will remain as a focus for the great need to NOT 'upgrade' to Windows Vista, drawing in a large number of developers. It is also the promise that applications made for DirectX 10 may live beyond their operating environment.
This is very much a more direct refection of the same phenomenon that allows entire hardware systems to be emulated against the wishes of console, arcade and computer manufacturers.
This is the start of the market's reaction to Vista, made manifest.
Ryan Fenton
We are hacking Windows apps to run them on Windows OS's.
Let the sadness ensue.
I can't ignore this comment as it seems Slashdot keeps perpetuating this myth...
Why do people keep perpetuating this misnomer?? If you don't use Aero and instead switch to Windows Classic Appearance, Vista works great on a wide variety of machines.
Now, if you had said it as below you would have had a point:
"No thanks. I'd like to be able to use my computer without needing five top-of-the-line graphics cards just to run the OS in 'fancy graphics' mode.
I downloaded it and everytime I start up a Direct X 10 tutorial it crashes out, the file sizes 400k also seem a little small.
I'd also like to know how he implemented Vertexs and Indexs since in DirectX 10 you allocate one buffer and it can be any type but under DirectX 9 you have to choose the type of buffer when you create it. Copying all that stuff into memory so you can allocate the buffer in the DirectX 10 drive at render time is going to slow things down a hell of a lot.
Still if it worked it would be very interesting for the wine project.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If only windows were like Linux. I don't really mean in the open-source way, but more in the separate projects way. If DirectX was a separate project from the windows OS, then it would work on windows XP without us having to go hack it. There's no reason why DirectX 10 can't work on windows XP. It's just an artificial limitation that MS through in to get people to buy Vista. MS does this a lot, with IE, IIS, MS Office, DirectX, and many other tools. I don't see why people put up with it.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
So rather than a top-of-the-line GPU, you'd have to compensate with a top-of-the-line CPU to handle the load brought on by software rendering.
With the (arguably) poor reception for Vista from the press and user communities and the (GPU) Hardware and Games writers obviously wanting to push DirectX 10 to help sales (ooo shiney AND blured!) is MS under non-trivial pressure to bring DirectX10 to XP? What are the chances of this happening?
Will we end up with a backlash where OpenGL is updated to include features parity of the DirectX10 cards and developers switching to using OpenGL as the driver layer so they get the XP market?
I think it's a perfectly cromulent word.
Realistically, to run any likely dx10 app, you'd need at least 64 top of the line cpus to handle the software rendering load.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Kinda how no one sued DVD Jon?
. . but this screams "Getting gullible people to give me $50 for mostly snake oil"
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
> The Inquirer is understandably cautious
Wow, now there's a sentence I never expected to see in print!
I'd be the first to agree that the UI in Mac OS X is quite limited in terms of customisability.
If you like the OS X GUI, great! If you don't, you'd be forced to use third party apps to change even the most basic elements.
Me, I'm happy with the way things are, but if there was an easier way to change the appearance, I might consider changing. All in all, it doesn't play that big a role though, the increase in productivity has been well worth the decrease in UI customizability.
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
It's a lovely word, isn't it? I really think it's use embiggens the English language.
I kind of went along with that too, but have now re-installed XP out of frustration.
I'm using a Dual 8800 GTX video card (the Dell XPS H2C system: http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetai
I have 2 fast disks striped w/hardware raid and things like file copies felt sluggish and slow. (Moving files around the hard disk).
Using the windows explorer was numbingly frustrating.
The Video driver would crash frequently, even after disabling SLI (I know, it's nVidia's problem, not MS's...) But, the driver would recover and then it would go into a chain of driver crash warnings.
The BSOD's would occur not hourly, but seemingly about 1-2x per week.
The AERO didn't seem to make the system sluggish, but I'm running the fastest video cards on the market..
I'm sure if your running a simple system, integrated graphics card and AC97 audio, your disk configuration isn't complex, or has good drivers.. you might be ok, but some of the subtle problems of vista don't show up until after a month or two of using it. (I've been using since Beta 2 off and on, including RTM and bought a copy at launch).
Funny enough, my wife got my old computer (dual core 3600+ AMD, 2 gigs ram and ATI Radion XT1800), and I put a copy of vista on that machine and it works fine, but all she does on her computer is open the web browser and play solitaire. She has FAR from high end hardware, and she runs it in the high graphics desktop mode without a hickup. the issues I've described on my machine doesn't bother her, she doesn't do things like open the file explorer or copy large files around.
We ordered a batch of dell low end desktop for customer-service reps here at our office, they are running Vista. They have integrated video cards (probably Intel) and it seems to be fine with Aero running, 1 gig of ram. But the only app they use is Mozilla.
I personally regret not buying a Mac Pro after spending 3 or so months fighting with Vista on my new machine, I've concluded that XP will have to work until it's EOL'd and I can feel I didn't completely waste my money on that Dell and buy another Mac to replace it.
A quick google results in "ShapeShifter" http://unsanity.com/haxies/shapeshifter
I've had good fun with ctrl scroll-wheel-up and ctrl scroll-wheel-down though. So that might be a way to go for visually impaired.
It doesn't solve the menu bar problem though. Whilst annoying at times, I've recently seen a widescreen windows notebook with adobe reader within a browser. My word! There was hardly any space for the text left due to the sheer number of toolbars present.
Good luck.
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
I've seen 2 posts so far where you state that Vista has some superior "resource management" that will make a massive difference in between it and XP.
From my personal experience with Vista, everything runs slower than on XP. Identical binaries, identical versions, Vista is slower.
Why should DirectX 10 be any different?
You are still innocent until proven guilty. What's changed is what they do to innocent people. - notnAP, #26891325
You know that OpenGL has the same abilities as DirectX 10 (at least on DirectX 10 compatible hardware) thanks to some extensions added by NVIDIA. These extensions are available on Windows 2000/XP, Linux, Solaris and FreeBSD.
How come OpenGL can do it on those platforms, yet DirectX 10 can only do it on Vista?
RegardselFarto
okay, the video is crap; but we have tested the preview, and it does provide (limited) DX 10 for WinXP! So it works for real, no hoax, but only for DX SDK demos, maybe some more apps.
My favourite operating system is ReactOS; binary compatible to WinNT series
I know everybody wants to believe that Microsoft arbitrarily decided that DX10 would be Vista only so they could "force" people into buying the OS, but, as usual, it's a tiny bit more complex than that.
DX10 relies heavily on graphics card memory virtualization. The new Windows Display Driver Model, WDDM, introduces this feature. In order to accomplish this, it required a lot of low level kernel changes. So many, in fact, that back-porting it to XP would basically make XP's kernel into Vista's kernel.
There comes a point where you just have to say that a particular feature is only available in Vista. DX10 fits that bill.
Anyone can sue anyone. I can sue you for ... umm... parking your car on my lawn.
You don't have a car? So what, I don't have a lawn.
Doesn't matter who sues who. Who wins the suit matters.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Commercial software vendors will make their apps available on Linux when more users migrate to the platform.
More users will migrate to the platform when the apps they need are available.
Chicken.
Egg.
WINE short-circuits the dependency loop by allowing people who still need this or that Win32 app to migrate to Linux if they want to.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll