Top
70°

No DirectX 10 in Windows XP rant

Some Windows XP vs. Direct X interesting insight.

The story is too old to be commented.
gta_cb3600d ago

well like the article said, looks like there is going to be alot more pirating. as for me i'm going to stick with legal XP Home and see what happens

calderra3600d ago

Anyone remember back when the very introduction of DirectX was just an attempt by Microsoft to monopolize the graphics business? Heh.

It seems like everything they do is always only for evil- there can't possibly by anything about this move that's necessary because of hardware and software constraints at all. No, not at all. Can't possibly be true.

Kodici3600d ago

Microsoft have spent a fortune developing Vista but very little of the new architecture is of interest to the general public. Therefore they are going to have problems convincing people to switch. One way to get the 20million PC gamers to shift is to make the new wizzy DirectX 10 only available on Vista.

BIadestarX3600d ago

Why do Microsoft hater give Microsoft so much importance?
" DirectX was just an attempt by Microsoft to monopolize the graphics business?" "It seems like everything they do is always only for evil".
It gets anoying when people start crying about microsoft monopolizing the world and becoming the anti-christ.
Ever hear of OpenGL? Well, that's an option developers have to make games, and hundreds of other solutions. OpenGL works everywhere including linux. Microsoft spend millions on DirectX for only one reasons because the fact is that they don't charge developers for licencing directX (Like Unreal Engine 3 or 3rd party SDK and engines) to make or run games. but the only reason why they spend so much money on it is to strengten their OS (windows). Microsoft spend lots of money on ther things like Creating development tools like C# Studio Express, visual developer express, robotics express, XNA framework, .net framework, .net framework conpact (PDA dev) and others where developers don't have to pay for licencing as long as they use it to develop on windows platforms. How about asp.net? People can make robust web applications for free as long as pages are hosted on windows servers.

Why should microsoft be blamed for working so hard on creating tools and environments where developers feel welcome?

People can always go for linux or OpenGL, too bad OpenGL can't match DirectX 10 or not as many options exists for developers to choose non-windows enviromnets. Blame linux supports for not willing to spend as much as microsoft on matching techonologies like DirectX.

why should microsoft spend millions and then make it open source so people can run it on linux?

It's funny how people acuse microsoft of monopolizing for not making DirectX openly available for all operating systems. Why don't you spend those millions and then give it for free.

Open source is something everyone supports but no one wants to do; at least 100%. Why isnt IBM or other big companies not spending at least Billions to make more tools such as directX so we can all get it for free on linux?