Getting SEV to work with linux

AstralWanderer · #1 December 31st, 2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
Malfador has never gone for the latest graphics tech. SE5 requires only DX 8.1, and it came out well into the DX 9 era. I doubt SE6 will even require DX 9...

A couple of years from now, DX10 may well be compulsory with DX9 support going the way of OpenGL.

DX10 is Microsoft's big carrot/stick for forcing Vista adoption (and all the DRM-goodness that will allow MS to screw the MPAA/RIAA) so it is likely that they will ramp up the pressure for its adoption, moving from persuasion to coercion.

Fyron · #2 December 31st, 2006, 04:06 PM

But if most people do not migrate to Vista in a timely manner, as has happened with all previous incarnations of Windows, we've got a wide window of usability for DX8/9... MS is working on a DX9 compatibility layer for Vista though, so it probably won't be a carrot on a stick issue in reality.

Hugh Manatee · #3 December 31st, 2006, 05:31 PM

question, could you put out a game with it's own O/S? like when it installs it makes it's own partition on your HD and has it's own set of drivers and such, effectively bypassing dx10 and vista's compatibility issues? Like say it was one of the smaller linux distros with enough functionallity to install itself, launch the game, and detect and debug the drivers for all the devices? Maybe with a built in web browser and some basic tools....

Suicide Junkie · #4 December 31st, 2006, 05:51 PM

Or why not just a bootable CD?
With a decent amount of RAM, you don't even need a harddrive except to store savegames and preferences, and a USB stick covers that too...

Either a cheap 64meg one for savegames, or a big 2gig one and have the game come on the bootable USB drive.

Its an easily portable game and a security dongle all in one.

The downside is no alt-tabbing out to chat while you play.

Atrocities · #5 December 31st, 2006, 06:09 PM

I have been thinking about buying a 1.0 gig USB jump drive. I am just afraid I might loose it.

Baron Munchausen · #6 January 1st, 2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Hugh Manatee said:
question, could you put out a game with it's own O/S? like when it installs it makes it's own partition on your HD and has it's own set of drivers and such, effectively bypassing dx10 and vista's compatibility issues? Like say it was one of the smaller linux distros with enough functionallity to install itself, launch the game, and detect and debug the drivers for all the devices? Maybe with a built in web browser and some basic tools....

What an interesting idea. You do know that in the early days of Pagemaker for MS-DOS it included a custom version of GEM Desktop because "Wind'ohs" was so cruddy at the time. So there is a sort of precedent for a custom OS with an application. The problem now is that hardware is many times more complex than in the days of MS-DOS and you'd need to get custom drivers for God-knows how many video and sound cards. Linux can only have drivers that are available with source. Since many companies are not willing to release source and possibly give away their 'technical secrets' MS now has a stranglehold on much of the PC industry because of their control of drivers.

And then there is Direct X, which saves many game developers a lot of time and effort to develop basic graphics libraries. Spending the time to develop a substitute would be a very large hurdle to get over.

Phoenix-D · #7 January 1st, 2007, 03:46 PM

Linux can have drivers without source. Its more of an issue of the companies not being interested in making Linux drivers, and the community having to build them from scratch by reverse engineering.

There are equivalents to all the DX functions, but they aren't always as robust (OpenGL, OpenAL, etc)

AstralWanderer · #8 January 3rd, 2007, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
But if most people do not migrate to Vista in a timely manner, as has happened with all previous incarnations of Windows...

The key word here is but. WinXP requires online activation so all MS has to do is close down the XP activation service to force users to move to Vista. Even those with currently activated copies of XP will then need to purchase to cover against the day when it demands re-activation (with one hardware change too many).

As such, continued reliance on Windows (and continued development) risks gamers being forced onto an upgrade treadmill very much under Microsoft's control.

Fyron · #9 January 3rd, 2007, 12:42 AM

AstralWanderer said:
WinXP requires online activation so all MS has to do is close down the XP activation service to force users to move to Vista.

You have to be extremely paranoid to think that MS would stop activation of XP before the planned product life cycle is up. We have at minimum 5 years after they stop selling licenses (which they have not stopped yet). Windows 2000 had several extensions to its support cycle due to customer demand (mostly from the volume license customers), so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that XP will as well.

As such, continued reliance on Windows (and continued development) risks gamers being forced onto an upgrade treadmill very much under Microsoft's control.

No, it doesn't. This is all just typical Internet fud with little basis in economic or legal reality. There is no way MS could or would pull off such a ridiculous kill switch operation.

AstralWanderer · #10 January 3rd, 2007, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
You have to be extremely paranoid to think that MS would stop activation of XP before the planned product life cycle is up.

Why? It carries an obvious financial benefit for them and as Vista's DRM-heavy architecture has shown, Microsoft has relatively little concern for end-users.

Of course, you don't need to take my word for it - Microsoft's own FAQ has the less-than-100% reassurance "Microsoft will also support the activation of Windows XP throughout its life and will likely provide an update that turns activation off at the end of the product's lifecycle" If it was their intention to provide a cast-iron guarantee, why use such vague wording?

Quote:

parabolize said:That would only force them to either kill WPA or not use XP. It would not force anyone to use Vista.

Knowledgeable and technical users could use hacks to disable WPA. The vast majority of computer users wouldn't fall into this category.

It certainly would be a PR-disaster for Microsoft but so, arguably, was the introduction of product activation. Given the higher prices charged for Vista and the tighter licensing, the financial benefits are greater and the limited scope for future growth (most people who would/could run Windows already doing so) means that Microsoft's future finances depend more on upgrades, voluntary or not.