Right. other OSes have done it for ages...MS doing it means nothing TO USERS OF THOSE OSES.
It means a HELL of a lot to windows users.
M-dollar fans? Never heard of 'em.
*anyone* using windows should appreciate thet they are finally doing this. Not just their fans.
Thanks for playing, but I'm not really into arguing with folks who see *everything* MS does as a "Bad" thing. Kind of pointless, like banging you head against a wall. You guys are worse than fanboys.
No. You misunderstand. I am not talking about simply upgrading the linux kernel to the new version. I am talking about backporting the major improvements in the new kernel to an older version.
This does *not* imply a version change.
When you replace your Linux kernel, you do *not* modify the existing kernel to support major improvements in the new kernel.
Well....unless you have no life, nothing of any value whatsoever to add to society, and no job. Of course...this *is* slashdot. I probably just nailed over half the userbase dead-on with that description.
I suppose this is a purely subjective conjecture. Arguing it with you would be pointless. I suppose I could simply mention Memory Heaps, moving the drivers from Kernel to User mode, Rewritting the Audio subsystem and, of course, rewritting DirectX from the scratch....
But of course you would consider none of those groundbreaking.
Also I seem to recall *many* games that would *only* operate in Windows XP. Not Windows ME, Not Windows 98,a nd Not Windows 2000....very shortly after XP came out. I am not the least bit doubtful that the very same thing will happen upon the release of Vista. Of course, people complained about having to pay for an OS upgrade to play a game then, as well.
[sarcasm]
I guess performance, features, stability, and security are just not all that important to gamers.
A new version of DX still ran on the existing platform.
Ah... You are under the impression XP will be considered 'the existing platform'. MS has already focused it's efforts on Vista. Vista will be 'the' existing platform.
I could be wrong, but as I recall when MS made the jump from Windows 98/ME/2000 to XP DirectX ran on all those platforms, probably a little better on XP, but it ran on old systems.
Not *all* versions ran on *all* operating system though. For Instance, just try installing DX9 on a Windows 95 machine, which *does* support DX8:)
Perhaps, though, Microsoft should have given this new API a different name. Calling it DirectX (even though it shares *no* functions with any other DX version) was probably a mistake, but...branding wins out. Perhaps DXe (enahanced) 1.0?
Point being, this is new. It's not an upgrade, it's not the same API, in fact it's been rewritten from the ground up...*For* Windows Vista.
The days of people upgrading their OS itself are long over.
An interesting theory, but woefully incorrect. I've upgraded mane folks from 98 and 95 to XP this year alone.
people just simply wont care enough to bother upgrade to Vista.
Going only by the amount of press and interest the Beta 2 has generated, I'm going to call BS on that one. It's said for every OS MS produces and fails to be true every time. And when they *do* buy a new PC? You can *bet* Vista will be on it.
I'm sorry, I gotta stop laughing. Give me a sec...
Okay, I'm better now.
What is stopping devs from writing for both DX9 *and* DX10? (Vista will support both)
Why should MS backport elective technology to an old platform? Consider:
Blizzard Develops Warcraft 1. Then, after a few patches and a long dev cycle releases Warcraft 2. Warcraft 2 improves graphics and network play. Did you hear *anyone* asking, no, demanding that Blizzatd update Warcraft 1 to support the improvements to Warcraft 2? No.
I fail to see how this is *any* different, other than MS having, in the past, provided backwards compatibility. They never *backported* a version of DX to support a *new* version.
A lot of people here seem to be operating under a major misconeption.
DX10 is *not* a DX9 patch. Yet you're asking MS to make DX9 DX10 compatible?
Microsoft has *never* backported to an older product compatibility for a *new* anything. Ever. Tehy have in the past on occaision provided backwards comptibility in a *new* product, but they have *never* modified an *old* product to support a new model.
DX10 will simply *not* work in XP using XP's driver model. They would be forced to backport the driver model of Vista. This is an absurd expectation.
Does a new Linux kernel backport it's improvements to a previous kernel? Hell no.
This is amazing. I have *never* seen a group of people so blinded by their dislike of a company to expect them to do something *no-one* does.
Apple doesn't do it, Red-Hat doesn't do it, Blizzard doesn't do it, and you expect, no, DEMAND that Microsoft do it.
Does that mean Blizzard needs to backport all the graphics improvements from Warcraft 3 to Warcraft 1??
Hell no!
So why the hell are you expecting Microsoft to do it? It's absurd. I cannot believe we're even having this discussion.
Are you people's brains not working any longer, or are you so blinded by your anti-MS fanboyism you cannot even see how absolutely ridiculous what you are asking for is?
You will not get above a 3 on *any* system unless the Vid card has 512MB of ram. This has already been discussed. This does *not* mean Vista will not run just as well on a 256MB vid card, or even a 128MB, for that matter. The rating is intended for use on pproducts other than just Vista, and provides for future products/upgrades.
Using your current rating as an excuse not to upgrade to Vista is absurd. It's be near impossible to build a 5 rated system today. But, considering it's not necessary, why would you want to?
My system, a 1.5Ghz beast with a mere 768MB of RAM and a 128MB Radeon 9600 runs Vista/Aero just fine. Check out the latest Beta, it's even faster.
C: Provide support for both. This is *very* realistic, and will probably be the norm for at least a year upon the release of Vista.
There is a 50/50 chance the hardware they have wont run Vista or run it well.
Vista runs fine on my 1.5Ghz, 768MB, Radeon 6800 128MB system. Considering this, and the fact that a $600 system purchased *today* will support Vista beautifully, I *really* don't see how, in late 2007, 50% of the users won't have the hardware to support it.
Yeah...right...Cuz game developers *always* code to the lowest common denominator and *never* push the envelope to get better graphics/performance.
And no OS / program / API should *ever* limit backwards compatibility in exchange for *current* compatibility, performance gains, stability, and ease of future improvements..../Sarcasm
Seriously, we've been backwards compatible long enough. The time to change to a better model and framework is long overdue. Providing compatibility would not only delay the project, but the cost, effort, and loss of performance and ease of future development on a far superior model would far outweigh any benefit.
I think the WTO understand the value of copyright, and I think the EU does as well. I do not believe for one second that either organization would do either of the things we're talking about in this thread.
The EU might go so far as to refuse MS further entry into their market, but they wouldn't pull the copyright and throw it on the public domain. Again, very doubtful, as it would cost *both* parties involved an enormous amount of money to accomplish this.
I doubt the WTO will even get involved. I doubt the EU will levy any fines, and I doubt MS will ever be kicked out the EU market.
Keep in mind, the EU threatened almost the exact same thing in 2004. Funny thing about that....it just wwent away. It's back, but will likely just go away again.
They'd get booted from the WTO faster than they can say "Oops!"
My God, we're blocking Russia's admission because of another countries' copyright laws (AllofMP3, anyone?).
If a copyright is held by a company in a member country of the WTO, that copyright will hold in virtually *any* other member country. Failure to to do so would very likely result in removal from the WTO. Something the EU would, to put it mildly, shy away from.
Alright then. Tresspassing it is. He will be charged. It's a damn near guarantee. Whether they find anything on the laptop of interest or not could lead to more charges considering his past history.
It would be interesting to know if the owner of the 'property' in question ever gave the man notice that he was did not have their permission to do so. Cannot one assume, in a parking lot, that unless told to leave, you presence is tolerated?
Did they do such a thing, or did they just call the cops?
How hard is it to walk up to the car, tap on the window, and ask the guy to leave?
Slashdot Mirror
Right. other OSes have done it for ages...MS doing it means nothing TO USERS OF THOSE OSES.
It means a HELL of a lot to windows users.
M-dollar fans? Never heard of 'em.
*anyone* using windows should appreciate thet they are finally doing this. Not just their fans.
Thanks for playing, but I'm not really into arguing with folks who see *everything* MS does as a "Bad" thing. Kind of pointless, like banging you head against a wall. You guys are worse than fanboys.
Thanks for the advice, mine to you would be not to be so juvinile when posting.
AS for being proud? Well, I didn't respond in kind, so I guess I am.
No. You misunderstand. I am not talking about simply upgrading the linux kernel to the new version. I am talking about backporting the major improvements in the new kernel to an older version.
This does *not* imply a version change.
When you replace your Linux kernel, you do *not* modify the existing kernel to support major improvements in the new kernel.
Well....unless you have no life, nothing of any value whatsoever to add to society, and no job. Of course...this *is* slashdot. I probably just nailed over half the userbase dead-on with that description.
Absolutely *no* major changes needed to be made for the compatibility you mention. You are confusing backporting with backwards compatibility.
Backporting support for DX10 to XP would require an absurd amoutn of work, effectively making the DX10 rewrite a complete waste of time.
Not groundbreaking.
Huh.
I suppose this is a purely subjective conjecture. Arguing it with you would be pointless. I suppose I could simply mention Memory Heaps, moving the drivers from Kernel to User mode, Rewritting the Audio subsystem and, of course, rewritting DirectX from the scratch....
But of course you would consider none of those groundbreaking.
Also I seem to recall *many* games that would *only* operate in Windows XP. Not Windows ME, Not Windows 98,a nd Not Windows 2000....very shortly after XP came out. I am not the least bit doubtful that the very same thing will happen upon the release of Vista. Of course, people complained about having to pay for an OS upgrade to play a game then, as well.
[sarcasm]
I guess performance, features, stability, and security are just not all that important to gamers.
[/sarcasm]
A new version of DX still ran on the existing platform.
:)
Ah... You are under the impression XP will be considered 'the existing platform'. MS has already focused it's efforts on Vista. Vista will be 'the' existing platform.
I could be wrong, but as I recall when MS made the jump from Windows 98/ME/2000 to XP DirectX ran on all those platforms, probably a little better on XP, but it ran on old systems.
Not *all* versions ran on *all* operating system though. For Instance, just try installing DX9 on a Windows 95 machine, which *does* support DX8
Perhaps, though, Microsoft should have given this new API a different name. Calling it DirectX (even though it shares *no* functions with any other DX version) was probably a mistake, but...branding wins out. Perhaps DXe (enahanced) 1.0?
Point being, this is new. It's not an upgrade, it's not the same API, in fact it's been rewritten from the ground up...*For* Windows Vista.
You are a moron.
Sorry. I simply cannot take anyone seriously after they start a post in such a sophmoric way. Enjoy your recess.
The days of people upgrading their OS itself are long over.
An interesting theory, but woefully incorrect. I've upgraded mane folks from 98 and 95 to XP this year alone.
people just simply wont care enough to bother upgrade to Vista.
Going only by the amount of press and interest the Beta 2 has generated, I'm going to call BS on that one. It's said for every OS MS produces and fails to be true every time. And when they *do* buy a new PC? You can *bet* Vista will be on it.
I'm sorry, I gotta stop laughing. Give me a sec...
Okay, I'm better now.
What is stopping devs from writing for both DX9 *and* DX10? (Vista will support both)
Why should MS backport elective technology to an old platform? Consider:
Blizzard Develops Warcraft 1. Then, after a few patches and a long dev cycle releases Warcraft 2. Warcraft 2 improves graphics and network play. Did you hear *anyone* asking, no, demanding that Blizzatd update Warcraft 1 to support the improvements to Warcraft 2? No.
I fail to see how this is *any* different, other than MS having, in the past, provided backwards compatibility. They never *backported* a version of DX to support a *new* version.
Can you see the difference here?
A lot of people here seem to be operating under a major misconeption.
DX10 is *not* a DX9 patch. Yet you're asking MS to make DX9 DX10 compatible?
Microsoft has *never* backported to an older product compatibility for a *new* anything. Ever. Tehy have in the past on occaision provided backwards comptibility in a *new* product, but they have *never* modified an *old* product to support a new model.
DX10 will simply *not* work in XP using XP's driver model. They would be forced to backport the driver model of Vista. This is an absurd expectation.
Does a new Linux kernel backport it's improvements to a previous kernel? Hell no.
This is amazing. I have *never* seen a group of people so blinded by their dislike of a company to expect them to do something *no-one* does.
Apple doesn't do it, Red-Hat doesn't do it, Blizzard doesn't do it, and you expect, no, DEMAND that Microsoft do it.
I paid for Warcraft 1.0
Does that mean Blizzard needs to backport all the graphics improvements from Warcraft 3 to Warcraft 1??
Hell no!
So why the hell are you expecting Microsoft to do it? It's absurd. I cannot believe we're even having this discussion.
Are you people's brains not working any longer, or are you so blinded by your anti-MS fanboyism you cannot even see how absolutely ridiculous what you are asking for is?
It's the same as telling game devs to backport any improvements made in sequels to be backported to the previous game as a 'patch'.
It's an absurd request. But just because it's MS, we can ask for the world, right?
You will not get above a 3 on *any* system unless the Vid card has 512MB of ram. This has already been discussed. This does *not* mean Vista will not run just as well on a 256MB vid card, or even a 128MB, for that matter. The rating is intended for use on pproducts other than just Vista, and provides for future products/upgrades.
Using your current rating as an excuse not to upgrade to Vista is absurd. It's be near impossible to build a 5 rated system today. But, considering it's not necessary, why would you want to?
My system, a 1.5Ghz beast with a mere 768MB of RAM and a 128MB Radeon 9600 runs Vista/Aero just fine. Check out the latest Beta, it's even faster.
DX9 will be supported in Vista via a different API.
Since Vista is the only OS that will support DX10, DX10 and 9 will *both* work on any system that has DX10 running.
DX 10 does not specifically support DX9, but the DX9 API is going to be there to provide that backwards compatibility.
What's keeping MS from backporting some of the new Longhorn kernel/driver niftiness to XP?
If you fail to see the difference here in what you are asking, let me explain it:
Windows 98 SE supported it's own driver model and that of a *previous* OS. They did *not* backport WDM to Windows 95.
Windows Vista will support DX10 natively, and DX9 through a seperate API (This is *exactly* the same as your 98SE example)
They will *not* backport the new model to a previous OS.
point:
Huh.... Your argument seems to be a bit flawed....
C: Provide support for both. This is *very* realistic, and will probably be the norm for at least a year upon the release of Vista.
There is a 50/50 chance the hardware they have wont run Vista or run it well.
Vista runs fine on my 1.5Ghz, 768MB, Radeon 6800 128MB system. Considering this, and the fact that a $600 system purchased *today* will support Vista beautifully, I *really* don't see how, in late 2007, 50% of the users won't have the hardware to support it.
Dx9 will be supported in Vista. It will be a seperate API than DX10, however.
The issue here is that DX10 will not be released for Windows XP.
LMAO!
/Sarcasm
Yeah...right...Cuz game developers *always* code to the lowest common denominator and *never* push the envelope to get better graphics/performance.
And no OS / program / API should *ever* limit backwards compatibility in exchange for *current* compatibility, performance gains, stability, and ease of future improvements....
Seriously, we've been backwards compatible long enough. The time to change to a better model and framework is long overdue. Providing compatibility would not only delay the project, but the cost, effort, and loss of performance and ease of future development on a far superior model would far outweigh any benefit.
Unless you sit next to the guy and he was speaking hte words as he typed them....
;)
Well, let's just say I think it tells us more about you, than him.
I think the WTO understand the value of copyright, and I think the EU does as well. I do not believe for one second that either organization would do either of the things we're talking about in this thread.
;)
The EU might go so far as to refuse MS further entry into their market, but they wouldn't pull the copyright and throw it on the public domain. Again, very doubtful, as it would cost *both* parties involved an enormous amount of money to accomplish this.
I doubt the WTO will even get involved. I doubt the EU will levy any fines, and I doubt MS will ever be kicked out the EU market.
Keep in mind, the EU threatened almost the exact same thing in 2004. Funny thing about that....it just wwent away. It's back, but will likely just go away again.
Must be election time *somewhere*
1.) The EU is not a nation, it is an organization. They are *not* the same.
2.) They can sieze all the IP they want. Opening it to public domain is the issue. Did you *read* my comment?
3.) The WTO will protect copyright before it protects childish whining by *any* state, nation, or organization.
They'd get booted from the WTO faster than they can say "Oops!"
My God, we're blocking Russia's admission because of another countries' copyright laws (AllofMP3, anyone?).
If a copyright is held by a company in a member country of the WTO, that copyright will hold in virtually *any* other member country. Failure to to do so would very likely result in removal from the WTO. Something the EU would, to put it mildly, shy away from.
The parking lot was owned by the shop. It's private property. :)
There you have it.
Alright then. Tresspassing it is. He will be charged. It's a damn near guarantee. Whether they find anything on the laptop of interest or not could lead to more charges considering his past history.
Meh... No issues with this.
It would be interesting to know if the owner of the 'property' in question ever gave the man notice that he was did not have their permission to do so. Cannot one assume, in a parking lot, that unless told to leave, you presence is tolerated?
Did they do such a thing, or did they just call the cops?
How hard is it to walk up to the car, tap on the window, and ask the guy to leave?