Stardock: PC Gaming Is About To Break Free of 'Poisonous' Decade-Old Standards - Polidicks

[QUOTE=danharibo;40256680]You don't know much about how Windows handles 32-bit compatibility (the only programs that suffer any kind of performance penalty on 64 bit are 32-bit ones), the performance hit to 32-bit applications is negligible. I like how he's complaining about XP not supporting DX11 holding back the industry, they are free to use DX11 level features in OpenGL on Windows XP.[/QUOTE] If only Microsoft didnt have a monopoly on desktop OS's

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40253451]You can run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit OS. I don't think Microsoft [I]selling[/I] 32-bit OSs is the problem, though. They pretty much only do it because Atom is 32-bit, and even then the editions that run on these CPUs support DirectX 10/11 - even if on-die GPU doesn't. It's not like developers would be targeting the Atom platform anyway. The big problem is Windows XP, that still - 12 years after release - has some 40% of the PC market, and Microsoft should really have ported DX11 to it.[/QUOTE] thing is window XP uses WDDM1.0, while DX10 requires WDDM1.1 and DX 11 requires WDDM1.2 but I think it was downported to use WDDM1.1 aswell

[QUOTE=SouthParkMGT;40255514]360's hardware has nothing to do with it. What I'm saying is for their own gaming platform, MS slows down the PC gaming evolution as platform by making x86 and DX9 still popular.[/QUOTE] If Microsoft could get people off windows XP and on to a newer version, I promise they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Moved to a 64-bit win 7 before BF3 came out, never regretted it. Seriously most old games run fine with some tweaking or have ports, and those that don't, Dosbox and Virtual PCs work great. The only reason I will ever go back from 64-bit is for when I build my windows 98 nostalgiatrip PC.

[QUOTE=SouthParkMGT;40255514]360's hardware has nothing to do with it. What I'm saying is for their own gaming platform, MS slows down the PC gaming evolution as platform by making x86 and DX9 still popular.[/QUOTE] x86 will be popular as long as PCs exist because of the sheer amount of x86 exclusive programs. There is no reason not to use it. While RISC architectures have some advantages over CISC (like x86) modern processors use RISC internally and just convert instructions on the fly. Otherwise they could never get the awesome performance we are getting today. I don't even know what you'd rather use? ARM? PowerPC? IA-64? DX9 on the other hand is popular because of 1. consoles and 2. Windows XP. Only the former of which is MS's fault.

[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;40252252]Stardock is a few miles down the road from me c: After college, I want to try to get a job there as a concept artist[/QUOTE] Just make sure you're not a woman or allergic to bees and you'll be fine. [QUOTE=viperfan7;40256988]thing is window XP uses WDDM1.0, while DX10 requires WDDM1.1 and DX 11 requires WDDM1.2 but I think it was downported to use WDDM1.1 aswell[/QUOTE] XP doesn't use WDDM at all, that's a Vista/7/8 thing. The reason Microsoft didn't port DX10/11 to XP is because it's [b]really old[/b], people still on XP era hardware aren't going to be playing new games, there's no reason to basically rebase XP on the Vista kernel just to give them a newer version of DirectX.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;40252027]I'm on the fence about this. While it'd be good for development and whatnot, I still play, or go back to games that are supposedly incompatible with win64[/QUOTE] Dual boot