[colebygr]

DirectX 10 work on win98SE i don't any one here no i like for it to work on windows 98 or some can make it work on win98

[lockedon]

There is no Direct X10

[colebygr]

it is comeing with windows vista or sooner

[wizardofwindows]

ill do it for 5 bucks just send me the source code lol

[Jlo555]

Do some searching on google, and you'll find that there's a chance of DirectX 10 not even working on windows 2000 or XP, due to how Microsoft is rebuilding the whole DirectX structure. As for DirectX 10 being compatible with windows 98SE by default, all I have to say is ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Are you crazy? I can guarentee you that Microsoft will cut support for directx on 98SE as soon as Vista comes out. It's not a matter of whether 98SE is a good OS for the latest and greatest in 3D gaming, IMO, it could certainly handle directx 10. This is where we need someone to force directx 10 to work on 98SE systems. If you guys were able to force install WMP10 or Office 2003, I think this is possible. As for right now, just thank God that the latest version (DirectX 9.0c) works perfectly on 98SE. I think by next year, compatibility on 98SE with new applications/games etc will be cut down so far, it'll feel like Windows 3.1 in 1998, all over again (speaking from personal experience.) Translation: Us 98SE users are screwed once Vista arrives in 2006.

[wizardofwindows]

never surrender 98se lovers the battle rages on.

[Chozo4]

From what I've been reading, I would not even suggest DirectX10.

Microsoft will be cutting backwards compatibility with Directx-10. Meaning it will only support Directx10 apps. They might add some sort of legacy directx emulation but that would end up being slower than a non-10 version being used.

Here are a few articles that support that.

http://www.theinquir.../?article=25902
http://news.softpedia.com/news/DirectX-10-...ends-7762.shtml

This post has been edited by Chozo4: 30 September 2005 - 09:10 PM

[Jlo555]

This reminds me of the switch between DOS-based os's and NT based ones for gamers. The newest games were developed for win2k/xp, while older games (half-life for example) wouldn't run at all. The future of gaming with windows looks dim. I can only imagine what the open source supporters are doing with their windows directx 3d gaming emulator (Cedega/WineX.) The developers of Cedega will have heart attacks if they read those articles. I see myself being forced to upgrade to Vista if I want to play the latest Grand Theft Auto at some point in the future.

[Chozo4]

Jlo555, on Oct 1 2005, 01:35 AM, said:

The developers of Cedega will have heart attacks if they read those articles.  I see myself being forced to upgrade to Vista if I want to play the latest Grand Theft Auto at some point in the future.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could the DX emulators probably juggle both versions around? It would be extra work of course but I'm sure they would find some way to add a user-selectable toggle between dx9 and dx10+ for each game.

This post has been edited by Chozo4: 01 October 2005 - 07:45 AM

[Jlo555]

I'm not sure about that. I'd say that it's definately possible, but I think that the programmers would have to completely rebuild Cedega to comply with dx10.

[Chozo4]

Jlo555, on Oct 1 2005, 03:15 PM, said:

I'm not sure about that.  I'd say that it's definately possible, but I think that the programmers would have to completely rebuild Cedega to comply with dx10.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, then perhaps we should support them with a few gallons of coffee every hour or so and crack the whip a few times to get that underway. I'm sure once Directx10 comes out and ages a bit the demand for DX10 support will be quite overwhelming.

[Jlo555]

I'm sure directX 10 will eventually become very popular among all of the gamers. But with Cedega, it took Transgaming years to develop (and redevelop with every version of directx) the program, and by the sound of things, it'll take them another couple of years after dx10 comes out to rebuild once again.

[azagahl]

DirectX 10 will only be on Windows Vista.

Vista won't be out until 2006. Vista-only games will be years away.
So DX10 support on 98 SE won't matter until around 2010.

This is all assuming DirectX 10 actually works, and isn't screwed up and ditched along with other Vista technologies like WinFS and Gonad.

[Link21]

It will be a good thing that DirectX 10 won't support POS Windows 98/ME. However, it should support Windows XP because Windows XP is still a quality operating system that deserves to be kept around for a long time even after Vista is released!! So if DirectX 10 only supports Windows Vista when it comes out, people running Windows XP or Windows XP x64 will have every right to complain about Micro$oft forcing people to upgrade all the time!! The same IN NO WAY can be said about people still running POS Windows 98/ME!! Honestly, the industry should have done everything it could have to make Windows 2000/XP the standard OS platform and almost all software designed to require a Windows 2000/XP core to run. Windows 2000 deserved to be kept around for a long time after XP was released because it is still a quality OS. But when Vista is released, I think it is fair to say that Windows 2000 will only have extended support while Windos XP continues it's mainstream support for a while longer.

DirectX 9 shouldn't have supported POS Windows 98/ME!! DirectX 9 should have been Windows 2000/XP/2003 only!! If Microsoft decided to make DirectX 9 for only Windows XP, people running Windows 2000 would have every right to complain about Microsoft forcing people to upgrade all the time because Windows 2000 was still a quality and plenty new OS at the time. But the whole industry should have made a serious attempt to trash Windows 98/ME right after Windows XP was released. The same can't be said about Windows XP once Vista is released because Windows XP is still a quality OS that deserves to be kept around for a while after Vista is released. Same should have held true for Windows 2000 once Windows XP was released, although Windows XP was released only 20 months after Windows 2000 was released, so Windows 2000's mainstream support would survive less long based on that fact. But Windows XP has been around longer than any other desktop MS OS, so it's mainstream support will be longer just because of that.

The industry should have made a move three years ago to trash Windows 98/ME when it comes to support for semi-resource intensive 32-bit computing or higher. In NO way should people have the right to say that the whole industry is doing a nod to MS by doing that. If the whole industry made a move to only support Windows XP and not Windows 2000 three years ago, then people would have a right to complain about doing MS a favor and forcing people to upgrade. But phasing out support for POS Windows 98/ME should have been forced upon the hardware and software manufacturers because they are POS operating systems!!

[Jlo555]

It's stupid comments like that which lead to older OS's getting less support. It's easy to say that Windows 98 is an old POS if you haven't used it in 5 years. Although, it's easy to say that about Windows Me no matter what. I'm going to make an educated guess that you are an XP user who used 98 in 1998, and you most likely used Win98 Gold, not SE, with no unofficial service pack and a limited amonut of updates from MS. But your arguement is simply "windows 98 is an old POS." Mine is:
1. Windows 98SE can now be dramatically improved using the unofficial service pack.
2. There are a ton of updates from Microsoft made for Windows 98 (some of them are pretty new actually.)
3. My windows 98 computer runs perfectly and has been for about 4 days now without rebooting, and hasn't crashed since the clean install.
4. I'll agree that Windows Me is a POS. I installed that on my computer a few days ago and the installation didn't make it past the ATI driver setup before things went bad.
So, yeah, Windows 98 is old, so is XP. 98SE has been out for 5 years, while XP has been out for nearly 4. Wow, it's a freakin' dinasour!!

[Link21]

Jlo555, on Oct 5 2005, 08:14 PM, said:

It's stupid comments like that which lead to older OS's getting less support. It's easy to say that Windows 98 is an old POS if you haven't used it in 5 years. Although, it's easy to say that about Windows Me no matter what. I'm going to make an educated guess that you are an XP user who used 98 in 1998, and you most likely used Win98 Gold, not SE, with no unofficial service pack and a limited amonut of updates from MS. But your arguement is simply "windows 98 is an old POS." Mine is:
1. Windows 98SE can now be dramatically improved using the unofficial service pack.
2. There are a ton of updates from Microsoft made for Windows 98 (some of them are pretty new actually.)
3. My windows 98 computer runs perfectly and has been for about 4 days now without rebooting, and hasn't crashed since the clean install.
4. I'll agree that Windows Me is a POS. I installed that on my computer a few days ago and the installation didn't make it past the ATI driver setup before things went bad.
So, yeah, Windows 98 is old, so is XP. 98SE has been out for 5 years, while XP has been out for nearly 4. Wow, it's a freakin' dinasour!!

It's not just the age of the OS which matters. Anything Windows 9X is a POS when it comes to semi resource intensive or greater 32-bit computing and multi tasking. I always hated Windows 9X. Look, Windows ME was released right around the same time when Windows 2000 was released. But I think Windows 2000 should still be supported by hardware and software manufacturers for a long time because Windows 2000 is still a good OS. Windows 98/ME shouldn't be supported not because of their age, but becuase of their age and that they suck. Windows 2000 is over 5 years old, but it deserves to be supported for a long time because it is a quality OS. Windows 98/ME are not no matter how you look at it.

It's not just the age of the OS that matters when it comes to supporting it. I am all for continuing to support older OS's released a while back, as long as they are based on the same core and still a good OS. Windows 98/ME are completely different than Windows 2000/XP. Developers should stick to one based OS core, to ease the task of writing software. Imagine how things would be if developers had to write software compatible with Linux, MAC, and Windows 2000/XP using the same files and installer.

[georgethetee]

I too find win98se with the latest upgrades a fantastic OS, all that I want or need from an OS. I do fear it would be a total disaster without the great support which the guys on this site provide. MS are not very loyal to their purchasers.

I will never buy Vista. I will keep 98se for all my uses and if necessary get a XBOX 360 for gaming. Sure, MS still win, but they dont rip me off so much. In fact, Xbox was a loss-leader and the 360 may end up being too. Which makes its buyers winners

[azagahl]

>I will never buy Vista.

Me neither, I think XP and Vista will probably be quality OS's, although you still need tools to cut down all of the bloat and security holes. The real problem, though, is the user-hateful and intrusive DRM and activation. That's why I still use 98 SE.

>I will keep 98se for all my uses

No need to stick with one OS; there are a lot of other choices like Win2K and Linux. I use 64-bit Linux a lot.

[Jlo555]

Well, Link21, I guess you are entitled to your own opinion about OS's and such, but why don't you try 98se with every single little update and the service pack, and do some hard core usage on it, and see how it runs. You sound like you (if you did use 98se) had some bad experiences with it a long time ago. But what about today, with all of the updates and the service pack. It's easy to say that the DOS kernel is an obsolete unstable, piece of s***, and I would of course, agree with you on that. That's why we have the 98se supporters to create patches to make the entire OS more stable. The latest and greatest NT kernel is pretty stable, even though I have seen the dreaded 2000 and XP BSOD. NT OS's don't need a bunch of extra patches to make them run more stable, (however they do need a ton of security patches to fix all of windows XP's "vulnerabilities") but 98se does. And after these patches are installed, the OS runs pretty **** good. About as good as win2k IMO, as long as the hardware is stable. The fact is, 98se is STILL a good OS and millions of people worldwide STILL use it, including a ton of businesses, (ex: my dad's office.)

[miko]

still calling it POS with every utterance, you need serious help.

that and your in the wrong forum. go home to your first 98's a POS topic = http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=44398

leave us 98se users who actually want to make use of the OS (and follow this topic) alone and take your hate elsewhere outside the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME Support forum.

what a small life to constantly bile over what others do.

(please someone get rid of this guy from this sub forum if possible, it's getting well beyond boring and annoying http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...2610&pid=400297 )