New project team aims to bring DX10 XP

Hey guys,
Didnt see this posted anywhere so:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...inux-os-x.html

Quote:

---

The project plans to do this by building a converter that can take in a DX10 game executable and spit out a modified version that can be run on a (non-Vista) target OS.

---

I know its slightly old :embarrassed: but it could be promising.
Only thing that worries me is if it takes TOO long, it might *actually* be worth going to vista :angst:

Yea, longer than 3-4 years HEHE

I like the idea, but I can see a few problems with that:

* AFAIK, it's illegal to modify a games executable without permission?
* The game will be slower as it will have to go through a converter.
* Why not just upgrade to vista? Nothing wrong with it after all, and after you've got a DX10 capable card and a better CPU for the extra processing, you might as well tbh.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

To help fund the project, Falling Leaf has set up the Sapling Program, which lets those who donate $50 get access to development builds and other perks.

---

Doesn't this mean it won't be free? Yet another reason vista's probably the way to go anyway...

nah it says its going to be free, the $50 was to pay wages for people etc.

It's a total waste of time IMO, especially as it's such a small group of people working on it

Quote:

---

Published: April 24, 2007

---

its been discussed before, but its still a cool project :)

$50 is like £24ish, and a Vista OEM is only £64 for home premium. Seems like a total waste of time and money to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tigerboyce

$50 is like £24ish, and a Vista OEM is only £64 for home premium. Seems like a total waste of time and money to me.

---

that and they still haven't got it working ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finlay666

It's a total waste of time IMO, especially as it's such a small group of people working on it

---

The knowledge of those people is the important bit though, not the number of them :)

It only took one bloke to break the CSS on DVD's, not a team ;)

This isn't about figuring out an encoding type.

This is about providing much much more. You need brains and plenty of them. Even not very good brains to do all the testing/bugfinding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent

The knowledge of those people is the important bit though, not the number of them :)

It only took one bloke to break the CSS on DVD's, not a team ;)

---

http://www.blogger.com/profile/07620618495518177164

also the kid behind it is 19...and AFAIK there is no evidence of it working yet and it has been going on quite some time, doesnt exactly have a huge amount of programming experience.....at least not compared to some, seems a bit too ambitions IMO

to add to mine more:
http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/compatibility/

Quote:

---

Alky for Games - Free Edition

The Free Edition of Alky for Games is expected to launch on the 15th of August 2007 with full support for Halo 2. Support for Shadowrun will be added shortly thereafter.

---

Razor1911 the warez cracker beat him by QUITE a margin...and the alky one still isn't out :lol:
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/11/ha...layable-on-xp/

(includes XBL stuff as I have done it myself with my legit game of shadowrun....pos that it was lol)

I really don't understand why MS couldn't have designed DX10 for XP. I can't speak for everyone else, but it is not going to make me migrate to Vista any faster. I make it a rule not to move to a new MS OS before the first service pack (and don't usually until some time after).

I am sure it is 'mostly fine', but I still hear the odd problem (e.g. X-Fi). I do not really care if the problem lies with the OS or the hardware manufacturer, but if even *one* component fail to work property as intended, then the upgrade is not worthwhile for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

I really don't understand why MS couldn't have designed DX10 for XP. I can't speak for everyone else, but it is not going to make me migrate to Vista any faster. I make it a rule not to move to a new MS OS before the first service pack (and don't usually until some time after).

I am sure it is 'mostly fine', but I still hear the odd problem (e.g. X-Fi). I do not really care if the problem lies with the OS or the hardware manufacturer, but if even *one* component fail to work property as intended, then the upgrade is not worthwhile for me.

---

Firstly cause they are a money hungry monopoly, and with it, there is also that fact that they are a business, and unfortunately they are there to make money. Damn I hate ends and means.

There is no secondly cause thats all there is to it. I too have the same perspective on new OS's from MS, heck I didn't install XP till 2006, thats 5 years after its release and 2 years after service pack 2.
I don't see why I should have to move to a new OS when 1) XP works fine 2) I don't need a "better" looking OS, what am I, 5? 3) this OS takes such high specs to run it (smoothly) and as of right now, drivers are still buggy/non-existent/performance isn't that much better.

Yea I agree that you are going to have to move to it to play DX10 games, but it doesn't mean I should have to upgrade anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finlay666

http://www.blogger.com/profile/07620618495518177164

also the kid behind it is 19...and AFAIK there is no evidence of it working yet and it has been going on quite some time, doesnt exactly have a huge amount of programming experience.....at least not compared to some, seems a bit too ambitions IMO

to add to mine more:
http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/compatibility/

---

I wasn't actually offering an opinion of if they will succeed or not, but just pointing out that some amazing things have been accomplished by even small numbers of people :)

How do you do the funny shared virtual application memory thingy in XP then? While that's not a specific dx10 effect, it's one of the advantages to dx10 under Vista. I doubt they're going to be able to rewrite the whole XP memory system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

How do you do the funny shared virtual application memory thingy in XP then? While that's not a specific dx10 effect, it's one of the advantages to dx10 under Vista. I doubt they're going to be able to rewrite the whole XP memory system.

---

I thought I read (on these forums) that nvidia couldnt figure out how to do the virtual shared memory thing, so they took it out of the dx10 specification - ie dx10 could in fact be made for xp...

I see.. how come Vista still tries to share virtual application memory related to graphics data then? For dx9 games this creates a problem because the game does the same thing, and you almost double the amount of virtual address space taken up (addressed in KB 940105). Dx10 games don't suffer this problem.

edit: it must still be in dx10 - from the KB article:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MS

With the introduction of DirectX 10 and Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) in Windows Vista, it is no longer necessary for an application to maintain a copy of its resources in system memory. Instead, the video memory manager makes sure that the content of every video memory allocation is maintained across display transitions. For compatibility reasons, Windows Vista emulates "device lost" for DirectX versions that are earlier than DirectX 10 to make sure that no application-visible API behavior changes.

To virtualize video memory, the video memory manager in Windows Vista assigns a virtual address range to every video memory resource. This range is conceptually similar to the copy that an application might create. However, the video memory manager manages the process more efficiently than the application might. The video memory manager uses the virtual address range to handle transitions or over-commitment of video memory. However, the virtual address range is typically unused on a system that has lots of video memory. As long as this virtual address range remains unused, no physical memory is allocated for it. In contrast, the system memory copy that is maintained in the older driver model is guaranteed to be fully populated with physical memory.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I see.. how come Vista still tries to share virtual application memory related to graphics data then? For dx9 games this creates a problem because the game does the same thing, and you almost double the amount of virtual address space taken up (addressed in KB 940105). Dx10 games don't suffer this problem.

edit: it must still be in dx10 - from the KB article:

---

I was under the impression the memory virtualisation thing has been written out of the DX10 specs becasue it was (yet another) badly coded item that was causing devs loads of trouble?

As for DX10 on another OS, the XOSX 3.0 team have been working in conjunction twith MS to get a Unix OS to have compatability with windows programs and native DX10 support.