Windows 7 allows DirectX 10 acceleration on the CPU

By a HUGE margin as well! One way or another, you will have to come into contact with a Microsoft Windows operating system. I can hand on heart say "I have never needed to use a Linux (or many variations of) or Mac operating system" to use any of the games or software on any of my systems. Can you really say the same of your non-windows operating systems? If you can then you aren't playing the up to date games or successfully communicating with the outside world in Business. Even Apple caught on to that one and asked Microsoft to link in MSOffice for Mac's. Think before you answer as we don't want to go back to the white noise below.

Comment by crazyceo at 5:16pm 29th December 2008

This is what Mesa (an OpenGL-compatible API) did on Linux, back in the 1990s, before good 3D hardware support was available.

Comment by gnagyusa at 11:01pm 16th December 2008

@crazyceo: Windows is probably the least compatible environment you can operate in. Windows' development team readily drops backward-compatibility with prior Windows' releases. Take Windows XP for example. XP has no more support for 16-bit DOS Portable Executables. Instead, it will attempt to run the binary in a Virtual Machine. The VM is horrible and I'll skip the technobabble to simply say it wont work with anything remotely useful. Compounding the issue further, Vista doesn't even have the DOS VM, so you can't even get the poor compatibility that XP had. Also, due to variations in the Windows Installer, a large portion of msi-based installers ( Read: Almost all of them:P ) for Windows 98 and ME will not work on anything NT-based, which leads to the Windows XP "Run in Compatibility Mode" feature . Although, the feature's a gimmick, as you'd know if you ever *had* to use it. All it does is temporarily changes the reported Windows version from NT 5.1 to whichever you chose. It makes no attempts at all to actually simulate that environment so the binary will BEGIN execution, but don't hold your breathe on anything after that:) I could go on and on, but there's no need. You should, by now, see the flaw in your statement. Ohhh, wait, there's one more! This one's near and dear to my heart, as a Web Developer... Internet Explorer! Did you know, from each release of Windows (95, 98, 98se, ME, 2000 and XP) that a standards-compliant website will have visually-identifiable incompatibilities? The SAME website, that is.. Will look different on every single Windows... How's THAT for compatibility heaven? This is not reproducable with Standards-compliant browsers, such as Mozilla.

Comment by michealPW at 6:20pm 5th December 2008

Windows 7 and DX 10 Topic! Idiot.

Comment by crazyceo at 9:25am 4th December 2008

I never said your "answers" were flawed. I said you were. But yes that is my opinion. You quoted no lies, this is also true. Unless quoting yourself counts. I need not point these out as most mouses now have a scroll wheel. My job is done here but where i go next is my choice. As i use Linux, Windows and Mac i have that freedom of choice, but you my Microsoft branded friend must stay where you are put and accept what you are given. Enjoy!

Comment by Attercop at 1:12am 4th December 2008

My answers aren't flawed, just your opinion. I quoted no lies just facts that you went on to try and correct but couldn't. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion but thats all it was. An opinion on Linux quoted in a thread about Windows 7 and DX 10? For the last time before you really do look the idiot you sound, go play in the Linux posts since the Windows posts just seem to upset you.

Comment by crazyceo at 7:03pm 3rd December 2008

I agree. My purpose here was to correct a flawed individual, whose personal agenda created lies and defamation. There are many like him, but i am now satisfied that i have routed the FUD in question and left said individual to reflect on personal failings. I have no wish to start a debate on which OS is "best" as such matters are purely subjective, but misrepresentation of facts must not be tolerated.

Comment by Attercop at 4:45pm 3rd December 2008

Not only is this way off topic but arguing over which is best is fatally flawed. To pick up on a few points. I don't see how linux or any *nix is "lower standard" than Windows. Often its the same programmers making both. To be honest whos work do you trust the most, the guy paid to do a job or the guy with a genuine interest and enjoyment in the task. Sure the second guy might allow a few mistakes by but in general he will do the job "right" because thats his hobby. The guy paid to do it just wants his boss not to sack him. If he has to lay a ridiculous patch over a problem to stop the program crashing when his boss uses it (while not actually fixing the problem) then so be it. Hell if you want to throw money at an OS you still got a choice of alternatives including RHEL and Solaris. The idea that windows has "compatability heaven", with what? Windows...and uuh. Well a few other bits of hardware out there. Christ alive windows doesn't know what hardware is. OK so it can see the Intel x86 CPU speck and the GFX speck as developed by Nvidia and ATI. Oh good god wow. I'm inpressed. How about giving me a CPU that actually taylored for a job please. Either way there was little reason for *nix to be brought up here. Simple as it is M$ need to provide support with their interface for all the systems windows can run on. And to an extent I agree with uus831 but I feel there are more specialised systems out there to do that very job. Systems that are indeed doing that very job as we speak. TBH on see no reason at all to run Windows on a render farm, unless you want to wast money.

Comment by reashlin at 2:26pm 3rd December 2008

"People would love to pay $299 or $399 but they don’t know what they get until they open the box. They start playing around with Linux and start realizing that it’s not what they are used to. They don’t want to spend time to learn it so they bring it back to the store." Isn't that the point? A consumer buys a product, realises the product isn't what he/she wanted and returns it. The consumer thought they were getting a better product and didn't want to settle for a (lets now be honest) much lower standard of operating system than what they are used to. The fact these people are now coming out to try and correct what they are saying is due to all the whining the Linux community come out with. You prove that point all by yourself. You go play with the other 3% of the planet using Linux and I'll happily play in complete compatibility heaven with Microsoft.

Comment by crazyceo at 1:59pm 3rd December 2008

To supplement my comments below, here is a quote from MSI's Andy Tung - on which you based all your comments - confirming that MSI returns are due to people being too scared or stupid to use Linux, and NOT due to hardware incompatibility as you suggested. A point i might add, that was quite absurd seeing as MSI was installing it's own tailored Linux OS on it's own hardware. Nonetheless here's the quote that proves my point: "People would love to pay $299 or $399 but they don’t know what they get until they open the box. They start playing around with Linux and start realizing that it’s not what they are used to. They don’t want to spend time to learn it so they bring it back to the store." You stand corrected, now kindly take your FUD elsewhere.

Comment by Attercop at 11:23am 3rd December 2008

I give you the ASUS CEO's comments and you give me a couple of guys blogging? But let's pretend for a moment that they represent facts and not opinions. Unfortunately for you both blogs quote a long since corrected comment by MSI's Andy Tung, and my link is ASUS' CEO correcting said comment. I probably should have told you that originally but then i would have missed you making an ass out of yourself. Oh well :) http://ostatic.com/177078-blog/asus-ceo-says-linux-netbook-returns-on-par-with-windows

Comment by Attercop at 11:05am 3rd December 2008

It wasn't Asus I read it was the MSI Wind. I hope you liked the other one. You Linux girls really get your hair up when the gloves come off.

Comment by crazyceo at 11:04am 3rd December 2008

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2690&tag=rbxccnbzd1 Try this which is an independent report with Asus, oh and try this one as well:- http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=557&tag=nl.e539 Go blog in your own Linux topics, Oops sorry you wont find many here.

Comment by crazyceo at 11:01am 3rd December 2008

this is just some dell or other system builders grab xtra cash from dumb customers that have no idea what they are purchasing , look this is the one for you you mug buy it it has a big X on it you DUMB ass for the xtra cash you will probably get little or nowt in return in performance increases DONT believe the HYPE save your cash buy some xtra ram it will probably help the pc more .jj7

Comment by kingjohn721 at 8:02pm 2nd December 2008

Top result in a Google search. I quote from the link: "ASUS CEO Jerry Shen says four million EeePC netbooks have been sold this year, with models offering pre-installed Windows versions rolling out in the later quarters. He says ASUS has found the return rates for the Linux and Windows models are similar. He also said that Linux has been quite popular in the European market." Whoops back to the drawing board for your argument.

Comment by Attercop at 6:20pm 2nd December 2008

The complaint to Asus was incompatibility. Funny they don't get the same high volume returns under XP and it only costs a little more. Seems people will pay a little more for a much better product.

Comment by crazyceo at 5:24pm 2nd December 2008

michaelPW is spot on, and the only "operating system incompatibility" ASUS are talking about is noob morons booting Ubuntu then panicking when they can't find Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office. Anyone incapable of using Linux should swiftly return to the World of fountain pens and envelopes. And anyway what sort of idiot pays £50-200 for Windows in the credit crunch when you can get the same for free? Probably the same sort of idiots who shop at Waitrose.

Comment by Attercop at 3:12pm 2nd December 2008

I only asked the Linux chap if he was kidding!

Comment by crazyceo at 1:44pm 2nd December 2008

The reasons for CPU rendering are; 1. DirectX currently doesnt support software rendering except if you use the DirectX 9 Reference Renderer, which is not distributable. Only for development. So, if i want to develop a CAD application, how can i run on systems without 3D Card? Well, one way is to use GDI, the other is to use a plugin software renderer into directx, and since microsoft doesnt provide one, you have to purchase if from 3rd party. Thus, this limitation makes directx only suitable for games etc, where a GPU is definitely required. In order to cater for all types of application, and dump the GDI API, there is a need to make DirectX run well on GPU or CPU as a fallback. Of course Crysis runs slow (Its heavy 3D), but general apps like CADs, architecural programs will still be faster. In fact Direct2D runs faster than GDI and GDI+. 2. Its for server rendering. It is difficult to perform rendering on a cluster of servers if the DirectX api requires that the all the servers have a GPU! Even if that is possible (higher energy cost!), threading/multitasking a GPU is still difficult. Having a software renderer means, i can use a cluster of servers and send my render stuff over and get rendered by the CPUs easily.. 3. Its time to dump GDI and GDI+. GDI is hardware acclerated,but GDI+ is not. So, you wont get antialiased stuff in GDI if you want hardware acceleration. And, if you use GDI+ it is painfully slow. To overcome this, use a commong API set, the DirectX, which is capable of running sw or hw mode wherever possible, and get all the goodies of speed and antialiasing etc. I hope, now it is clear that software rendering is probably never meant for gaming, its for general purpose application. The Crysis demo was probably to show that the renderer is 100% fully compliant with the rendering standard....

Comment by uus831 at 8:44am 2nd December 2008

The reasons for CPU rendering are; 1. DirectX currently doesnt support software rendering except if you use the DirectX 9 Reference Renderer, which is not distributable. Only for development. So, if i want to develop a CAD application, how can i run on systems without 3D Card? Well, one way is to use GDI, the other is to use a plugin software renderer into directx, and since microsoft doesnt provide one, you have to purchase if from 3rd party. Thus, this limitation makes directx only suitable for games etc, where a GPU is definitely required. In order to cater for all types of application, and dump the GDI API, there is a need to make DirectX run well on GPU or CPU as a fallback. Of course Crysis runs slow (Its heavy 3D), but general apps like CADs, architecural programs will still be faster. In fact Direct2D runs faster than GDI and GDI+. 2. Its for server rendering. It is difficult to perform rendering on a cluster of servers if the DirectX api requires that the all the servers have a GPU! Even if that is possible (higher energy cost!), threading/multitasking a GPU is still difficult. Having a software renderer means, i can use a cluster of servers and send my render stuff over and get rendered by the CPUs easily.. 3. Its time to dump GDI and GDI+. GDI is hardware acclerated,but GDI+ is not. So, you wont get antialiased stuff in GDI if you want hardware acceleration. And, if you use GDI+ it is painfully slow. To overcome this, use a commong API set, the DirectX, which is capable of running sw or hw mode wherever possible, and get all the goodies of speed and antialiasing etc. I hope, now it is clear that software rendering is probably never meant for gaming, its for general purpose application. The Crysis demo was probably to show that the renderer is 100% fully compliant with the rendering standard....

Comment by uus831 at 8:44am 2nd December 2008

Asus already tried it with their eee range and couldn't get it out with XP quick enough. The only people going to new versions of linux are existing linux users. Here's a little fact for you, out of all the Asus eee range returns 75% were Linux down to operating system incompatibility, that isn't me talking crap, that is from Asus themselves. Makes me laugh when the Linux bandwagon come on trying to make a point in Microsoft topics.

Comment by crazyceo at 10:26pm 1st December 2008

This is not at all to increase the performance of gaming. In fact, this would dramatically decrease the performance. Read more into the architecture of the PC to find out why that is. (Think bandwidth, total data throughput. In lamens terms, too much data being "moved around" in the computer, creating latency.) This is to allow all those OEM PCs to get out of the "hot water" they're in for selling PCs with the Vista sticker that couldn't run Vista with Aero. Now, this is old technology. UNIX-like operating systems with the X Window graphics subsystem have been doing this since 1988!!! That is why Ubuntu (GNU/Linux, a UNIX-like OS,) for example, can use all the Vista-like graphical effects on the same computer you couldn't get Vista to work on! The fact that Ubuntu's market share has grown so dramatically so fast is entirely because of this... People that baught PCs with Vista on it with NO aero could simply throw in Ubuntu and get all the effects of Aero and much more that Aero isn't even capable of. Search YouTube for "Ubuntu Compiz" to see for yourself:) This, my friends, is what Microsoft is trying to nip in the bud with Windows 7. The era of the GNU/Linux Desktop is soon upon us:)

Comment by michealPW at 5:30pm 1st December 2008

Thanks for the honest and thoughtful explanation. I understand fully were you are coming from.

Comment by crazyceo at 1:43pm 1st December 2008

Well OK they are building the technology for 7. But my point still stands that it is about M$ ensuring that basically any PC. Especially by 2009/2010 or whenever 7 is released I can't see there being [m]any computers without a decent dual/quad core CPU in and then the CPU will have the extra to run these additional graphical elements. My origional point was that they are not trying to implement a "Boost" to the normal GFX card. Lets not get into the decision of Linux, XP Vista etc. but to clarify I run quite a few things. Yes Linux is my "primary" OS of choice. But that is mainly because I re-install so damn often having to work around M$ is just painful. However I am a strong advocate oF Vista and can't see why so many people want to hold on to XP. Indeed I can't see why so many people think there is a "competition", the different OSs are made for different purposes, they are good at different things. My use of M$ is mainly out of habit and I find it easier to type that Microsoft or even MS. I also just laugh at how much money they have.

Comment by reashlin at 12:42pm 1st December 2008

For the record, I got the tip-off about WARP from a friend who works in software development and I wrote the story based on the MSDN article. This is the first time I've seen that story on iStartedSomething, although it's also a good story and has some more detail on the results than we published - kudos to them for finding this out before us. I see some other knuckle head has posted in their comments section that we've ripped them off, though, so I felt the need to clarify this. We're not in the business of ripping off other sites, and we always acknowledge our sources - you only need to see our other stories from other sources to see that this is true. The accusation of plagiarism is, frankly, both ridiculous and insulting.

Comment by hardwidge at 10:59am 1st December 2008

@crazyceo actually it will timebomb before that... MS might not have told but the beta (i believe you are the PDC....) is time bombed to go in reduced functionality mode in Jan 09... so yeah "In fact, the pre-Beta M3 bits delivered at PDC 2008 and WinHEC 2008 are time-bombed, and set to expire in January 2009. The expiration date remains in place independent of the slmgr method to prolong the initial grace period of Windows 7 Build 6801, or using valid or leaked product keys to activate the bits, or one of the cracks that have started to circulate."

Comment by darkassain at 6:15am 1st December 2008

No one is still going on about Vista. Vista is working just fine. This topic is related to Windows 7 and DirectX 10. Microsoft are setting a minimum standard that they would like all PC's to be up to. Given that my Windows 7 Beta says it will close August 2009 then we have a while before you need to ready. Unless of course you still want to run XP, Linux or whatever it is you run. By the use of the $ I assume you don't like Microsoft very much? Don't worry only 95% of the planet use Microsoft operating systems, you can go play with the other 5% if you like and see how far you get.

Comment by crazyceo at 8:02pm 30th November 2008

Thats exactly my point. Intel don't need help from M$ with larrabee. M$ however do need help with ensuring all computers that have the "compatable with vista" sticker on them can do everything Vista can do. Those computers with onboard GFX may see a welcome boost to Aero with this technology. The use of Crysis as a demo is just M$ saying look what it can do. If they just released a demo of Aero running people would laugh at them for it not being a story at all.

Comment by reashlin at 3:08pm 30th November 2008

-3 in Cumbria

Comment by bluetuba at 9:53am 30th November 2008

it's cold out...

Comment by Xonerater at 9:47am 30th November 2008

AMD couldn't find their ass with both hands! This has nothing to do with Microsoft helping Intel. A) Intel don't need the help. 2) Microsoft don't need the alliance. and c) AMD need to look after themselves since everything they do in recent times has been a complete cluster f**k. Just ask their shareholders if they now think they backed the right horse! Especially if they bought the shares at $40 when they currently sit at $2.36.

Comment by crazyceo at 11:01pm 29th November 2008

Actually given M$ are in the poohouse over the requirements for a system to be able to run Vista ATM it would make sense for them to ensure that if a computer does not have dedicated GFX that at least it is able to render Aero et al. And yes it is likely that the CPU would slow the entire GFX pipeline down. Trying to "boost" a GPU speed by adding a slower one is a stupid idea. However the Idea that it could be linked to intel to boost larrabee is possible, I doubt it though as AMD would be able to kick up a royal legal stink if M$ were shown to be aiding Intels success.

Comment by reashlin at 8:44pm 29th November 2008

And I thought my posts here where stupid and immature. Thanks mate, I've moved up one notch!

Comment by crazyceo at 1:40pm 29th November 2008

Yes, God forbid a PC technology magazine to write about technological PC developments. I suppose the BBC, ITN, Sky News and all the British press have been plagiarising [note the spelling] the Hindustan Times by reporting events in Mumbai. Curses upon those plagiarising news channels and newspapers...

Comment by antonyg at 12:04pm 29th November 2008

Er..... couldn't both articles have lifted the same data and quotes from the MSDN page?

Shame there's no 'delete comment' button, eh?

Comment by cjagusz at 11:35am 29th November 2008

If this boost on board graphics then it might be handy for media work, saving people money on new graphic cards. But with the CPU taking on extra work would it not slow down the overall performance?

Comment by marcus at 9:42am 29th November 2008

Nice article, too bad your completely stole it. You cant put a simple link with credit to the author. i visited the link. its not the same article. its the same subject matter but not the same article. i can write about an apple and so can you but neither of us are plagarists. i think this could be real good when we wanna sit back and play some mechwarrior 4 on our thinkpads.

Comment by thegreat0mi at 7:10am 29th November 2008

Nice article, too bad your completely stole it. You cant put a simple link with credit to the author. Thats about as low as you can get. ORIGINAL article here: http://www.istartedsomething.com/20081126/direct3d-warp10-to-enable-you-to-play-dx10-crysis-using-software-renderer-only-albeit-slowly/

Comment by mmmbacon at 3:45am 29th November 2008

let the cpu do its job and let the gpu do its its easy dont faf about with it . just another reason to push up prices with no or none improvements to the overall sys cann it intel its bad enough msn dominating the os inside the pc without you lott trying it with the hardware .jj7

Comment by kingjohn721 at 11:38pm 28th November 2008

it seems less useful for games, more helpful for low end graphics acceleration. which frankly responsibility should lie at the feet of the chipset makers. intels integrated is pathetic compared to AMD and nvidia's. intel is by far and away the CPU and integrated graphics leader, which kind of explains why microsoft think this is neccesary, most people's integrated cant do the job anymore

Comment by vulcanproject at 10:06pm 28th November 2008

I sure hope larrabee can at least boost the rendering to 10 FPS on Crysis at 800 x 600. :) Seriously though, I like the idea of Larrabee and it would be great if it eventually brought us ray traced games.

Comment by feathers633 at 6:19pm 28th November 2008

I don't think that this is just to allow high end quad core machines just to run aero or it's successor without a graphics chip....particularly when you consider that both Intel and AMD will soon have graphics chips integrated into the cpu...seems kind of pointless....I still think this is being developed to assist Larrabee.

Comment by technogiant at 5:14pm 28th November 2008

It would be good to enable micro pc's without the need for graphics chips but I think they have alot more in mind than that or they wouldn't be benchmarking it with the latest quad cores and the most graphically demanding game.

Comment by technogiant at 4:49pm 28th November 2008

This has f**k all to do with gaming machines. You really arn't smarter than M$ by realising that a 7fps boost in crysis is pretty pointless. Actually the fact that the CPU got 7fps in Crysis is pretty damn impressive. This is so that computers sold by dell and HP with quad core processors, 3GB RAM and onboard graphics actually can run Aero (and its successor). Actually you would find that Allowing the CPU to "help" the GFX card would slow your framerate down.

Comment by reashlin at 4:56pm 28th November 2008

With the advent of smaller self contained efficient pc's, this would help those without the dedicated cards. Didn't we read here a few weeks ago about Intel developing a new breed of uATX boards? Maybe all that was with this in mind. I wonder whether this would also help with HD playback? Small and quiet mediacentre pc's I assume would get a clear benefit from this.

Comment by crazyceo at 3:00pm 28th November 2008

"runs quicker than intel's integrated DX10" Will be able to run aero interface without requiring a GTX 280 or 4870 x2

Comment by feathers633 at 2:12pm 28th November 2008

.... have missed the point entirely.

Comment by cjagusz at 2:00pm 28th November 2008

Just imagine it, a GTX 280 with an extra 7.36 frames per second boost on crysis via 8 core i7 and timeWarp. It's nice to see that MS haven't been wasting their time with the Windows 7 development. Perhaps they will also create a cpu physics renderer that can utilise 16 x i7 cores running PhysX 90% slower than CUDA physics?

Comment by feathers633 at 1:24pm 28th November 2008

Will this now give rise to "super multi mega hybrid SLI" using a 9800GTX, 9300mGpu and an i7? might give you an extra 2-3Fps in Crysis :-p

Comment by Scawp at 1:10pm 28th November 2008

If they can change the programming correctly, surely this could be used for boosting the speeds in the most demanding games, even if it boosts these games by a few %, a boost is still a boost. if this does work out to the experience boost, this may push me to upgrade to a dual CPU i7 system sooner.

Comment by papalarge123 at 12:38pm 28th November 2008

and as if by coincidence larrabee will be out about the same time as windows 7

Comment by technogiant at 12:33pm 28th November 2008

GPU manufacturers don't have much to worry about with Warp FPS of 7.36 on an 8 i7 CPU. Such low frame rate is nothing to shout about and it really shows how ineffective the software rendering is if even an 8 core cpu is insufficient. Sure you could say that Crysis is very demanding but even an 8800gt can render the game at playable FPS on medium setting at 1280. So I would say that warp is really just a time warp back to the days before 3d acceleration.

Comment by feathers633 at 12:07pm 28th November 2008

cpu doing gpu tasks and gpu's doing cpu tasks sounds like a blast from the past. What happend to specialising. Could be good for laptops you can often upgrade the cpu but you stuck with the gpu in a laptop but i would have thought even a 8800 series card would run rings round even a i7 in dx10 tasks

Comment by Cool_CR at 11:59am 28th November 2008

Won't this enable larrabee to simply run direct x 10 gamei software and reduce compatability issues? I'm no IT expert but thats what crossed my mind.

Comment by technogiant at 11:46am 28th November 2008

• One top four motherboard maker will die, says MSI
• AMD plans supercomputer with 1,000 GPUs
• Nvidia announces GeForce GTX 285
• Creative takes wraps off Zii processor architecture
• Nvidia announces stereoscopic 3D glasses
• BFG unveils hand built Phobos gaming PCs
• UPDATED: LiveJournal announces mass layoffs
• Top 10 PC games chart
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 gets 500GB on single platter
• Creative reveals new Zii processor

These are the most popular news articles over the past seven days.

• Phenom II overclocked to 6GHz
• GeIL unveils Cyclone RAM cooler
• Rumour control: GeForce GTX 260 GX2 in January
• Nvidia cuts price of 216 SP GeForce GTX 260
• VIDEO: PC version of Mirror’s Edge features hardware PhysX
• Get Half-Life for less than a dollar on Steam
• IBM plans to build virtual human brain
• RivaTuner 2.20 adds SLI and CrossFire support
• VIDEO: ArmA II trailer released