Subj : DirectX 9.0c software versus Video HARDWARE DIRECTX 9 or 10+?
To : All
From :
[email protected]
Date : Mon Jan 07 2019 01:32 am
X-Received: by 10.66.85.168 with SMTP id i8mr10600497paz.21.1357540327555;
Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:32:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.38.194 with SMTP id i2mr10125456qek.30.1357540327237; Sun,
06 Jan 2013 22:32:07 -0800 (PST)
Path:
eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!fee
der.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!b8no4711921pbd.0!news-out.google.com!s
9ni88763pbb.0!nntp.google.com!b8no4711916pbd.0!postnews.google.com!z8g2000yqo.g
ooglegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups:
alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi
crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 22:32:07 -0800 (PST)
Complaints-To:
[email protected]
Injection-Info: z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.189.229.221;
posting-account=5SXNEQkAAAC6SFadCHPE9O-jLMHq7h-Y
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.189.229.221
References: <5a5d2214-342b-4c2c-a655-ea2e21bbb34c@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
<
[email protected]> <
[email protected]>
<a203cb57-527f-47bb-98c2-766cfbe70872@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
<
[email protected]> <
[email protected]>
<9a872716-2622-4b52-9850-43a14c00b4ab@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
<
[email protected]>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152;
.NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Subject: DirectX 9.0c software versus Video HARDWARE DIRECTX 9 or 10+?
From: Greegor <
[email protected]>
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 06:32:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:4040 alt.os.windows-xp:5449
microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2484
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30932
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:106370
> While WDDM has some backward compatibility
> defined for it, there's nothing to say ATI/NVidia have to support
> XDDM forever on new designs. They could drop it at any time,
> simultaneous with stopping WinXP driver support.
If they want to abandon the population of XP users, then
used hardware and support archives would take up the slack.
Durable goods like computers should not be obsoleted and
scrapped/landfilled because they're 3 years old, or because
a big OS vendor wants to DRIVE obsolescence of hardware
without regard to speed benchmarks.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
* Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)
