Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
PC Games (Games) Operating Systems Software Windows

Vista Games Cracked to Run on XP 376

Posted by Zonk
from the now-they-have-a-market dept.
Next Generation is reporting that Vista PC games have been cracked to run under XP. Hacking groups who apparently wanted to play new titles like Shadowrun and Halo 2 with driver support have taken it upon themselves to open up the playing field a bit. "The news is sure to irk Microsoft who may now face an increased delay in some consumers adopting Vista at this early stage. However, it shouldn't come as a surprise. Earlier this month Falling Leaf Systems said in a press release that it believed Microsoft was deceiving consumers by stating that the titles would only work on Vista, and announced its intentions to release compatibility software to disprove the claim. 'Microsoft has, in typical Microsoft fashion, decided to launch their forced migration onslaught in full force with the release of two games that will only run on Windows Vista,' said Falling Leaf Systems CEO Brian Thomason in the press release." Relatedly, Mitch Gitelman of the (now closed) FASA Studios has taken exception to negative reviews of Shadowrun.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista Games Cracked to Run on XP

Comments Filter:
  • by seanadams.com (463190) * on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:05AM (#19649695) Homepage
    I once bought a set of OrCad software for $13K, but even after several calls to tech support I could not get the parallel-port security dongles to work properly. I even got a replacement set of dongles from them and it still didn't work reliably. So I downloaded a crack for it, and then everything was fine.

    When you have to download a pirated version just to use the software you've legitimately paid for because of artificial limitations like this, it doesn't exactly install a lot of goodwill in the customer. I never purchased anything from Cadence again, and don't intend to.

    If enough of us refuse to buy software, music, or movies from companies that deliberately frustrate their paying customers, then they will either change their strategy or they will deservedly go out of business.
    • by danbert8 (1024253) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:09AM (#19649747)
      This angers me as well, especially when the product box is wrong. For example, I bought a Streamzap PC remote which claimed to work with Windows XP (all versions), but somehow that didn't include XP x64 edition. I might add that Streamzap does not reply at all to support questions that involve XP x64.
       
      This brings up an interesting question of if this hack works with XP x64.
      • by mpe (36238) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @12:28PM (#19651025)
        This angers me as well, especially when the product box is wrong. For example, I bought a Streamzap PC remote which claimed to work with Windows XP (all versions), but somehow that didn't include XP x64 edition. I might add that Streamzap does not reply at all to support questions that involve XP x64.

        Why could you not return it for a refund?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by danbert8 (1024253)
          I suppose I could have, but it did work with my Ubuntu installation, so I ended up keeping it. It would have been better to have support with both operating systems though. (And people complain about the hardware compatibility in Linux, I have trouble getting things to work in Windows)
    • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:15AM (#19649855) Homepage Journal

      If enough of us refuse to buy software, music, or movies from companies that deliberately frustrate their paying customers, then they will either change their strategy or they will deservedly go out of business.
      Well, this doesn't really apply in markets where there is a monopolist running things. MSFT can do things like this and get away with it precisely because they own more than 90% of the desktop OS market. Your only other choice is to run an alternative platform, like Mac OS X or Linux, neither of which are particularly good platforms from a gamer's perspective.

      IOW, the fact that Microsoft gets away with 'forced upgrades' and the like is all the proof you need that they should have been broken up following the DOJ anti-trust trial, per the orders of Judge Jackson.

      • by teflaime (738532) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:37AM (#19650175)
        Max OS X and Linux would be fine platforms for gaming if 1) they wrote more games for them and 2) OpenGL were to keep pace with whatever DirectX is supposed to be offering...my disclaimer here is that I don't know if OpenGL is keeping pace or not. I was told at a con by a game developer that he didn't think OpenGL was keeping pace and thats why he didn't like programming for Macs. I hate programming, so I haven't bothered to learn if this is really true, or just lazy programmer FUD to hide their laziness.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by shotgunsaint (968677)
          I'm not much of a code slinger either, but from what I understand of the subject, DirectX is much easier to develop for, while Open GL is faster performance-wise. Anyone care to prove me wrong or right?
          • by Spudds (860292) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @01:57PM (#19652559)
            I've fiddled with both.

            In terms of usability and ease of use from a programmer's perspective, the two libraries are practically identical. It is fairly trivial to create an abstraction layer that provides common functionality between the two libraries.

            However, from my experiences and (limited) knowledge of both libraries, DirectX does have more features and does develop at a quicker pace than OpenGL. DirectX is owned and developed by one single proprietary entity with greed as incentive for a quick development pace (negative tone unintentional), whereas OpenGL is an open standard with an organization body to oversee it's development, which tends to be slower (read: more calculating and cautious about what they add/keep out of the library).

            That being said, OpenGL doesn't aim specifically at games (which is DirectX's primary intention), but aims to be a general Graphics Library. It's used for other things besides games, such as medical software.

            The performance of the libraries depends on a huge number of different variables; OS, graphics card/driver, aptitude of the programmers to utilize the specifics of each libraries' strenghts, etc.
        • by Sparr0 (451780) <sparr0@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:55AM (#19650485) Homepage Journal
          OpenGL is keeping *AHEAD* of Direct3D. We had Shader Model 4.0 (Geometry Shaders, aka "DX10") months before DX10. OpenGL has SM4 on WinXP, and D3D9 doesn't. That alone should provoke developers into switching. For years the argument has been about ease of programming and integration, but now OGL has concrete feature superiority over D3D on the most prevalent gaming platform in the world.
          • by suv4x4 (956391) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @12:26PM (#19650981)
            OpenGL is keeping *AHEAD* of Direct3D. We had Shader Model 4.0 (Geometry Shaders, aka "DX10") months before DX10.

            The highlights of DX10 aren't the shaders. The same shaders are avasilable in 9L. It's about the rebuilt lighter API, multithreading and graphics memory swap file.

            OpenGL doesn't have the latter two AFAIK.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by mrchaotica (681592) *

            So, all of those things are supported without extensions? Or are they still prefixed with NV or EXT, which doesn't really count as "support?"

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            I fail to see how it has any superiority, when the extensions you are mentioning are all IHV unique and the implementations are different across the board. Hell, you could do a ton of things that geometry shaders allow in directx 9 (and opengl), but the algorithms are forced to run on the CPU.

            BTW, OpenGL 3.0 is the version that is supposed to bring opengl to par with directx10, by adding support for things like geometry shaders and refactoring of the api. If you are interested, you can read more about it
          • Why not OpenGL? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by CarpetShark (865376) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @12:39PM (#19651217)
            Why exactly did Direct3D take off, anyway? Other "standards" of MS's have failed. OpenGL was already a success, in the high-end world. Was it just too high-end 3D for the low-end-3D game devs back when D3D started out? Maybe they've gradually grown up with D3D now, and are more comfortable with it?

            D3D used to have a more high-level layer than OpenGL, I think (right?), but no one used it because it was slow. Was that at least a factor in drawing people in, even if they had to move to more low-level stuff to get performance?

            Or is it did hardware manufacturers go with D3D for some reason, and everyone else had to follow? It did seem like Quake was the only thing forcing gaming gfx card manufacturers to implement OpenGL for a while there. That might even be more the case now (I'm not sure; haven't used windows in a LONG time).

            Is there something about OpenGL implementation that's harder? Does it make it easier to identify cards with crappy performance, or something?
            • Re:Why not OpenGL? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by PitaBred (632671) <slashdot@pitabre ... rg minus painter> on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @12:59PM (#19651579) Homepage
              Direct3D focused on games, while OpenGL stayed in the "high-end" world like you said, catering to CAD systems and big-time rendering when gaming was in it's rapid growth stages. Not to mention I'd bet that MS paid a lot of developers to use their API. DirectX also contains a very good interface to, well, interfaces, which may have persuaded some shops to go with DX over OpenGL, which is only a graphics API.
            • Re:Why not OpenGL? (Score:5, Informative)

              by GreggBz (777373) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @01:09PM (#19651737) Homepage
              There are pros and cons to both. DirectX is not a bad API, in fact, it's rather good.

              I think the integration of DirectDraw, DirectSound, the input, etc.. helped. All in one is good when developing games. It allows you to focus on the game, not any technology or compatibility hurdles. Also, it's now much easier to develop in. Very easy actually. Say what you will about Microsoft, but their development tools, particularly those associated with DirectX have been very good.

              Also, while Direct3d and OpenGL accomplish the same things, they are very different. OpenGL is a state machine, with a standard API. Direct3D directly bangs the hardware with a minimal driver, maintained by the manufacturer. You could argue that it's faster, in practice, sometimes it is and sometimes it is not.

              OpenGL is more abstract, and has a set of functions that can be used through it's API, and it is then up to the hardware manufacturer to create a layer of communication (the driver) between the hardware and the OpenGL state machine. OpenGL drivers are more portable, but harder to make efficient. I think this is overall a little more robust. Functionality wise, they are both very close. I consider this almost irrelevant, because there are so many features in both, that game programmers have a hard time keeping up, and particularly are weary of using the bleeding edge. I've learned to program in DirectX and only a little in OpenGL. I can't say I have a clear favorite though.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by powerlord (28156)
              OpenGL was actually in the lead, and then got hamstrung by MicroSoft.

              MS, SGi, and HP designed a standard called Fahrenheit [wikipedia.org] for a new low level API that OpenGL and DirectX would plug into, where they would both write to a "Low Level API". And then applications would just right to whatever they wanted, making the OpenGL/DirectX war a moot point.

              MS screwed SGI (surprise), and released DX7, were drastically late on releasing the low level API, finely released it as an "unsupported component" and never released
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by jellomizer (103300) *
              It was during the 90's where people didn't care about CrAzY things like software source portability, strong security, stability. They wanted the best performance no matter what. Hense Direct X. Which is an API that Bypasses most of Windows offering highest performance with minimun overhead. No honest and moral developer would try to make an API that bypasses so much of the OS, because of Risk of breaking things badly, as well problems of moving from one version of the OS to the Next. Microsoft could get
    • by bigbigbison (104532) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:47AM (#19650333) Homepage
      I can't tell you how many games I've bought that I've put in at least 3 different computers with different brands of dvd drives and none of them could read the disks because of securom copy protection. In every case I've gone p2p and found hacked versions. It is a sign of how good their "copy protection" is when someone who has bought the games can't install them but the pirates have no problem ripping them.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      have to download a pirated version just to use the software you've legitimately paid for because of artificial limitations
      If enough of us refuse to buy software, music, or movies from companies that deliberately frustrate their paying customers, then they will either change their strategy or they will deservedly go out of business.
      The problem is if we refuse to buy from them, they will complain to the RIAA/MPAA that we are pirating. More pirates means more DRM.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CelticWhisper (601755)
        However, if we're already refusing to buy from them, more DRM means essentially nothing to us. In fact, it may even help in that those companies too short-sighted to see that DRM will not stop copying are just going to piss away more and more of their money on useless copy-crippling, eventually either going bankrupt or learning the hard way to play nice.
    • by robbiethefett (1047640) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @12:31PM (#19651075)
      I'm currently a student of mechanical engineering with a heavy emphasis on CAD. You'd think the big companies like AutoDesk would prefer to make it easy for students to learn the software's ins and outs by offering a nice student discount, or maybe some sort of "student edition" of the program. Have you priced a Pro E solution? it's ridiculous! The thing i find insane about the whole deal is that the heavy anti-piracy measures taken are extremely frustrating to get past--however not impossible, but there is no real logical need for them in the first place. I mean, sure the per-license cost is extremely high, but the price of the software is a drop in the bucket for most shops when compared to the price of just a single machine. My school just purchased a rapid prototype machine (which is really freaking cool, btw) that cost $30k, not including the ABS material needed to use the damn thing. Basically, my point is this: no one is pirating AutoDesk software to use in a production environment. A quick torrent search shows that there are, in fact, many people pirating the software. So the question now is whom? The short answer is: students. When i graduate i plan on working as a draftsman for a while before opening up my own shop, at which point i will purchase a fully-licensed Pro E solution. How many hundreds of dollars more will i be paying for this software to offset the cost of AutoDesk paying software engineers to keep students from using it for doing homework? I'll end this little tirade with a question: if the main purpose of a software suite is to engineer and manufacture parts in a professional environment, is there any real value taken away from the makers of the software if said software is pirated and used for anything other than a production environment? Are teenagers without access to a plotter, let alone a CNC machine really eating away at profits?
  • by bc90021 (43730) * <bc90021@@@bc90021...net> on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:09AM (#19649751) Homepage
    Doesn't falsely indicating that games only run on their new OS violate the terms of their agreement with the DOJ?
    • There's still no full functionality(Windows Live and Achievements), so we can't disprove Microsoft's claims entirely. Granted, I couldn't imagine a reason under the sun for it, but the Justice Dept. may have less knowledge in technology, and Microsoft has so many more brains to work out an excuse.
    • by Cerberus7 (66071) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:13AM (#19649819)
      The games don't run on their new OS, by design. Even if it's something as simple as "check if OSVER=Vista" or what have you, that means the game won't run on anything but Vista. It's not illegal, it's just a load of crap, as those who are working against said crap are proving.
      • by HTH NE1 (675604)
        I've done similar things on another platform to get Final Cut Pro to run on a Blue & White G3 upgraded with a G4 processor. The installer refused to install on a system that had no AGP slots, and if the application got installed anyway, it also refused to run by the same condition. A little patch here and a plist edit there and it ran fine. The occasional software update also required reapplication of the plist edit.

        Oh, I had another system that could run it, but I needed more internal disk storage t
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by k1e0x (1040314)

      Doesn't falsely indicating that games only run on their new OS violate the terms of their agreement with the DOJ?
      I hope so.. but Microsoft DOES now make regulare campaign contrubutions..
  • Console Emulators (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joebert (946227) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:11AM (#19649771) Homepage
    I can play games from every videogame console I've ever had on a PC through emulation, why wouldn't I be able to play a game that runs on the same hardware ?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Aladrin (926209)
      I take this to mean that you haven't purchased a console in quite a few years. DreamCast emulation is still spotty at best, and PS2 emulation is crap. Even PS1 emulation still has issues. GBA works great, but DS? Not a chance. Nor PSP.

      As for "why wouldn't I be able to play a game that runs on the same hardware", take a look at Wine. At best, playing Windows games in Linux is slower and glitchy. At worst, impossible. They're still making great strides at it, but they aren't there yet.
      • Re:Console Emulators (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Sparr0 (451780) <sparr0@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @12:01PM (#19650583) Homepage Journal
        At best, playing Windows games in Linux is faster(1) and more stable(2).

        1) BF1942 and World of Warcraft are two examples. Linux' superior underlying architecture (disk access, memory management, filesystem stuff, etc) more than offsets the few percent performance loss in API call translation. Myself and many others get 5-10% higher framerates and lower load times in a number of Windows games when running them in Linux.

        2) I love seeing in my debug log "The game would have crashed here in Windows.", and the game keeps running just fine in wine or cedega.

        Plenty of Win95 and Win98 games don't run on anything newer than Win2000. Plenty of WinXP games don't work on Vista. Every week MORE Windows games work in Linux. Continue that trend long enough and Linux is going to have better Windows compatibility than Windows does.
    • by Hatta (162192)
      Indeed! You can play Shadowrun [wikipedia.org] under XP or Linux [zsnes.com] today if you wish.
  • this is trivial (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kuciwalker (891651) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:11AM (#19649777)
    All you do is remove the OS check in the exe. It's no more difficult than a no-cd. And because of that, it won't be possible for any DX10-only games.

    (And as I understand it, you can't just port DX10 to XP - its functionality requires the new display driver model in Vista.)

    • You _could_ port DX10 to XP, but you'd have to emulate some of the functions (due to the previously mentioned change in driver model) and it would be randomly incompatible and randomly slower than the real thing. Maybe after a few years of dedicated work it would be usable, but by then XP would probably be just a memory.

      Much like trying to add DX9 support to wine for linux.
      • Randomly slower (Score:2, Informative)

        by phorm (591458)
        Well, from everything I've seen and heard, video tends to be "randomly slower" on Vista anyhow. My co-worker's dual-SLI cards ran like crap on Vista compared to XP, even with the latest drivers. One of my clients was complaining that his DVD playback was laggy and rough in Vista as well. Numerous complains have abounded in regards to poor game/video performance in Vista compared to XP. With that in mind, a little of such going the other way wouldn't be terrible. If I can run DX9 games in Cedega/Wine without
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by H3lm3t (209860)
      As I understand it, they're working on that [blogspot.com] as well:

      "As a fitting start to this blog, I'm proud to release a preview of our Alky compatibility libraries for Microsoft DirectX 10 enabled games. These libraries allow the use of DirectX 10 games on platforms other than Windows Vista. No longer will you have to upgrade your OS and video card(s) to play the latest games."
      • Bah (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ichigo 2.0 (900288)
        Many people bring up "Alky" as some kind of solution to the DX10 problem, but always forget that it's essentially a wrapper that converts DX10 commands to OpenGL. What this means is that it will always be slower than DX10 on Vista, and that it will be dependent on the quality of OpenGL drivers on WinXP. Then there's the question if OpenGL even has anything comparable to geometry shaders yet, so they might have to emulate those with software. Another problem is the increased overhead, so you'll need to spend
        • Re:Bah (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Laur (673497) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @01:21PM (#19651941)

          What this means is that it will always be slower than DX10 on Vista...Another problem is the increased overhead, so you'll need to spend much more on hardware to get a similar experience that a slower system gets in Vista.
          You make this assertion with absolutely no proof to back it up. If you haven't noticed, generally speaking Vista is noticeably slower than XP at doing the same tasks (surely you've heard of the differences in their hardware requirements?). Therefore, it is by no means certain that XP + some performance overhead will be slower than Vista with it's already increased performance overhead.

          and that it will be dependent on the quality of OpenGL drivers on WinXP.
          These are provided by the card manufacturers, and from what I know are excellent.

          Then there's the question if OpenGL even has anything comparable to geometry shaders yet
          They do.

          Even if you wanted to solve this by throwing more powerful hardware in your rig, it would only be possible for a year or so, as NVIDIA/AMD will not be interested in providing driver support for XP in future GPUs.
          XP has been around for six years, and has a massive installed base. Furthermore, the shift to Vista is not happening at all quickly. XP support will be around for a good long while. From what I've heard, Vista is the one with driver issues.
  • I am curious, if that the games are being shipped out as "Vista only" in an attempt force people to upgrade. Can they get in trouble for that if it is shown it is only being done to force consumers instead of giving a choice?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      There is always a choice. In this case the choices are simple:
      1. Buy vista and play game.
      or
      2. Don't play game.

      If option 2 causes such grief and anxiety that it may become life threatening and therefore is not a choice, then don't buy Vista and let natural selection run it's course.
  • DirectX 9 Only (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IndieKid (1061106) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:15AM (#19649857) Journal
    The hacks from the article only work because these games still support DirectX 9 and DirectX 9 is available under XP. I'm guessing it will be an entirely different challenge to get DirectX 10 running under XP, which will obviously be required when games no longer support DirectX 9.
    Admittedly, it will be a while before we see games that are DirectX10-only, but I doubt Microsoft will be getting too worried yet.
    • If the games ONLY get released for Microsoft Windows (Vista or not), can't the community pressure them to run on other platforms? "This software requires Microsoft Windows version yadda yadda" was acceptable 10 years ago, but we're in 2007 and now we have Mac OS, Linux, Freebsd. And there are very good cross-platform libraries for game developing: Irrlicht, OGRE3D, SDL, OpenGL... why choose DirectX? Isn't that monopolic practices? Forcing the public to purchase an expensive third party product (Windows) in
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by IndieKid (1061106)
        I'm fairly sure ID software are continuing to support games on other platforms (via OpenGL).

        EA even recently stated they would be releasing a bunch of games for the Mac ( http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/11 /1856212&from=rss [slashdot.org]), so the 'Games for Windows' strategy is hardly producing the monopoly I'm sure Microsoft are hoping for (although in the Windows domain it may help drive Vista adoption at some point for the above reasons).
  • Test case done (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bullfish (858648) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:16AM (#19649861)
    All they now have to do is wait for some good games to come out for vista and they are all set to run them on XP. Really Halo 2 is a how many years old xbox game? And Shadowrun benefits from being vista-only how?

    Good for the hackers. There is no compelling reason to move to vista from an existing set-up, and neither of these games would compel anyone either. Stupid that you have to go to these lengths to run software. Stupid that MS would not catch on to the notion that it takes more than gloss like aero to get people to upgrade.
  • by TheWoozle (984500) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:28AM (#19650039)
    I don't think that these cracks are helping...if anything, they are enabling people to go ahead and buy a product that is intentionally broken.

    If there was a carmaker that wired a lock on the gas cap that would only open when it read a coded pulse from gas pumps at Exxon stations, the carmaker would go out of business quickly.

    Yet, when it comes to software, instead of people refusing to do business with a company like Microsoft they just buy the software anyway if they can get around the restrictions.

    Consumers need to grow a pair if they want things to change.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dunbal (464142)
      If there was a carmaker that wired a lock on the gas cap that would only open when it read a coded pulse from gas pumps at Exxon stations, the carmaker would go out of business quickly.

      Ahh, but if the biggest car-maker had signed an agreement with the biggest gasoline distributor(s) to do this, they'd end up putting everyone ELSE out of business. Get it?

      I don't agree with it, but it's sort of the whole point of the publishers and Microsoft's DRM (and other little
  • But it's a pretty damned good game on the platform it was created for, the console. The gameplay is top-notch stuff. I've played my way through a vast number of FPS games since Doom, and Shadowrun is ranking up near the top in terms of multiplayer gameplay.

    But it's a raw deal on the PC. The control system is setup for a controller, not kb/m, so instead the kb/m controls are dumbed down. This is not that PC players are used to. The balance is there, the two platforms play on pretty equal footing, but only be
    • by Aladrin (926209)
      I rented it for the 360 and it wasn't what I thought at all. I liked the idea of combining 'magic' (advanced tech?) with gunplay, but after going through the tutorial, I quickly realized there was no story at all. I sent it back at that point, and while it may have gotten better, it would never have gotten to the point where I'd enjoy playing it.

      What does this have to do with anything? Crappy marketing. They used the name to attract players, but didn't bother to make it clear that it wasn't the kind of
  • by niceone (992278) * on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @11:40AM (#19650213) Journal
    Yeah you irk 'em. Irk 'em good.
  • Chances are you can get it to run under Wine. (Well a little hacking may be required)

    I stopped working on Direct3D 9 for wine about 18 months ago and we were getting there then. Since then Stephan and the chaps have done a great job and Wine is giving Cedega a run for it's money. and the best bit is you get the source code to wine so you have to opotunity to get games that don't work, working.
    • by delt0r (999393)
      I stoped using Cedega a while back, because it was just easier to get most games going under pure Wine.
    • by Hatta (162192)
      Chances are you can get it to run under Wine.

      Does this hold true for macromedia freehand mx?
  • The Apple /// failed because it was:

    (a) too much like an existing product. Ran a 6500-series chip like the Apple //, used the same peripherals, had roughly the same capabilities.
    (b) not enough like an existing product. Was incompatible with Apple // software, had no new support base, was more expensive without adding much.

    Vista, as originally designed, was a technical marvel. I would like Microsoft to keep pushing toward that, which is what Microsoft engineers want. The MBAs and marketing team think differe
  • by A_Non_Moose (413034) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @12:08PM (#19650699) Homepage Journal
    or possibly lack thereof.

    IIRC, NT4 maxed out at DX3 and "could not go any higher" according to the wisdom at the time, but it
    was possible to graft DX5 onto it and it worked quite well as I recall.

    Look at games such as "Slave Zero" (picture Carmageddon, only giant robot instead of a car) that were
    so tied to Win98's directX calls that it usually did not function under other WinOS's.
    Some enterprising hacker replaced the 98 DX calls with more generic functions and it worked great.

    Vista exclusive games (DX10 Only) will be out sooner or later, and I'm sure that eventually it will overcome
    the 5+ year's momentum that XP has, but I think it'll be very slow going.

    The intent of game makers is to sell games, and locking out 90% of thier target markets is suicide.
    (DX8/9 compatability at the very least will be around for a while, I'd think.)

    Same with Microsoft, its intent is to sell Vista anyway it can, but unlike games you want/don't have, you
    are likely running a WinOS of some stripe (gaming requirement, almost). The lack of want/need of a new
    os, lack of games that won't run on XP (yet), resistance to change and XP "just working" (for the most part)
    and/or just the way you like it setup makes for some heavy resistance.

    The realy trick/story will be DX10 working under XP, or, DX10 game that have been changed like Slave Zero
    to work under DX9 with few, if any problems.
  • Just Goes to Show (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @12:33PM (#19651129)
    All this just goes to show that there really is nothing special about Vista, and the only reason to upgrade to it are artificial barriers created to try and force you that way. Your software is fully capable of running just fine on XP into the foreseeable future, but Microsoft wants your money, and Hollywood wants you forced into the worst DRM infested system yet foisted on us.
  • .Huh? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Vexorian (959249) on Tuesday June 26, 2007 @01:15PM (#19651847)
    So I guess what's "news" is that apparently some people were not expecting it to happen?

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...