Dreamscape is neat, but certainly not necessary. It dose use up some processor cycles if your graphics solution is mediocre.

One that lets me backup folders, not just files types.
Maybe I don't know how to do this.

They are great at collecting upfront money and then abandoning their own products before they are ever completed.

They need to apologize for screwing over windows XP customers.

DX10 only on Vista to bolster vista sales is pure horse spit. Top game manufacturers have even complained that there is no reason why DX10 can't run on XP.

I wish and hope some of the top hackers would figure out a way to make a DX10 add on for XP. I'd email it to gates and his staff myself.

Along with a message that from this point XP customers consider this an open source operating system.

Hm.... my ATI TV wonder that I bought a couple years ago could already play live TV as a background. Doesn't sound like something that much of a great new feature.

"it does use up some processor power if your graphic card is mediocre."

Hah, I am sorry, but I bet to differ. I have a pretty decent core 2 duo CPU, a top motherboard, over 3gb of ram, plenty of HD space, and a decent mid level graphic card. Dreamscene constantly eats up between 25-30% of the CPU in the background.

My other PC is of a older model with less of everything. Yet still being chewed up 30% of CPU.

Dreamscene is eye candy. But not worth the 25%-30% CPU hit. I will stick with the google screen-saver. Thank you very much.

5 years for $400 Ultimate OS that has NO content really worth anything "extra".

How many Microsoft developers does it take to allow video to run in the background? Ha ha ha ha -- this is some funny stuff!!

Most software companies would have spent maybe 1 day to spec, 1 day to code, 1 day to implement. I know it must be very difficult for them to code such a complicated task as displaying video in the background -- ha ha -- I have an idea, just launch windows media player to full screen.

But not Microsoft, they'll take 10 months to release it and then patch it 8 months later.

But this really does demonstrate just how deep Microsoft's internal problems go -- they have become so fat, they can't get anything done in a timely manner. "Quality bar" -- what quality bar is that?? The release it and patch quality bar?

And they wonder why Vista sales are well below expectations and the shareholders watch their stock drop daily.

@Enlighten

Yeah, it is crap that dx10 isn't allowed on XP, but - I'm pretty sure anyway - that there is a reason for this. Everyone is trying to force consumers to drop analog devices in favor of digital/high-deff content. In order to do this you need to have a player that supports it, a video card that supports it, and a monitor/TV that supports it. With this "dx10 only on Vista" move, it kind of forces gamers (who still love their CRT's) to go over to LCD's and whatnot. To me it's a good idea, only because we need to get rid of all low-deff stuff; it's time for everyone to upgrade. But, and this is the big thing, if you want people to upgrade, drop the prices significantly on the stuff supporting high-deff; once everyone is over to HDCP compliant devices, bring the prices back up. AKA: Making the customer believe, with lower prices, this is the way to go.

(also, they are going to start releasing LCD monitors that have 125-145 Hz refresh rate (vs. 60 - 80 Hz) and drop down to 1 ms response time (when/if OLED's come out, they'll have a response rate even faster than that) soon. So if you don't already have one, wait until these come out to throw out the old CRT)

the whole point of DX10 only on Vista is to move on to a new generation. If DX10 was on XP then in 2025 every one would be still using XP. Its not like DX10 makes a big difference

Who needs DX10 games when Vista-only games have already been cracked to run on XP...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...n-xp.html

Boom Badda Bing!

iNetMANN
'And your not'

DX10 won't run on XP because of the diffrent architecture of the graphics subsystem. All drivers had to be rewritten for graphics and sound. No hackers will ever be able to make a stable dx10 run on XP. For one it would require dx10 drivers to run on XP (good luck hackers).

XP will never become open source nor do you want it too. Closed OS's like windows are far superiour to open source OS's like linux in most regards. You can't have the latest greatest technology running on your atari2600... Upgrade

Then it should be good enough for the rest of the world. Frankly, this is as good an opportunity as any for it to regain marketshare.

Hackers and crackers are already trying to do just that.
An example is mentioned here - http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...-os-x.html

from what i recall, they already had some degree of success in xp, but there is some way to go yet.
Microsoft need to get their act together - i hope that for windows "seven" they re-code vast swathes of windows and make it worth buying on its merit alone, rather than being bundled with new pc's. Microsoft certainly have the capacity and the money to kick apples ass back to the stone age, but they seem either far too cautious or far too in-efficient to get things together.
Lets hope they let their hair down and do something amazing...

1) DX10 is fundamentally coded into the heart of the OS and relies on some parts of Vista that are elsewhere in the OS. Part of DX10 is coded into low-levels of the OS, unlike DX9. Thats the main reason why DX10 cant come to XP. Now what is pure horse spit is claiming that Windows Live (the counterpart to Xbox Live) can only run on Vista when it doesn't rely on DX10, and therefore kept Halo 2 from being available for XP.

2) Waaaaaay too many users still use XP for it to be open-source yet. Doing so would open up every single vulnerability that the computer has and would render millions of PCs vulnerable to all sorts of new viruses that would not be patched quickly enough. Plus, what are the benefits any more of having an open-source XP? So that you can try and code in DX10? Now why would MS do that? Better to simply allow people to activate the OS for free on any CD key so that the OS becomes a free product. But that won't happen until MS stops selling OEM copies of XP, which wont happen until 2008 at the earliest.

hey, an apology makes us all feel good about ourselves, right?!?
stop apologizing and say after me (geez apologizing is a word?, i rock!)
"i will not release beta software and claim that it is good;i will not release beta software and claim that it is good. i will not put profit ahead of the needs of millions of people who might buy our product, and find that it is not only lacking, but causes huge loss of productivity and a significant loss of enjoyment of life"
say that 50 times, on larry king live, and i might believe you

It's too bad that they make Dreamscene exclusive to ultimate. It's nothing special, considering that the free and open source VLC player does video desktop, uses around 10 megs of ram, and 1% cpu usage. I'd expect a bit more from ultimate.

Perhaps they should make a proper "looks and feels like XP mode" as a vista feature. There was nothing wrong with XP, but MS felt the need to change the interface to act more like osx. WHY, MICROSOFT, WHY?!? *sobbing*

Vista Ultimate has the entertainment features of Vista Home Premium and the business features of Vista Business. So Vista Ultimate has many features that no other single edition has. This is very convenient for people that use the same computer for work and play, but Microsoft charges a premium for that convenience.

If you didn't need any business features you should have bought Vista Home Premium and stop whining about an animated background.

"(also, they are going to start releasing LCD monitors that have 125-145 Hz refresh rate (vs. 60 - 80 Hz) and drop down to 1 ms response time (when/if OLED's come out, they'll have a response rate even faster than that) soon."

LCDs don't have refresh rates. OSes will say they do, but trust me when I say... They don't. Grab a CRT monitor and put it on 60 Hz refresh rate and put a "60 Hz refresh rate LCD" right next to it. Look at the wall just above the monitors. In your peripheral vision you'll notice the CRT monitor flickering like mad - however your LCD will appear normal.

LCDs don't have refresh rates. Response time - yes, Refresh rates - no.

Why would anyone want a video to be running on the desktop? Who really cares about the visual enhancements with Vista?

Am I the only one that uses a computer to run applications? I only see the desktop when I close everything that is already open, so I can start something else.

u cant run dx 9 on windows 98, why should you expect all new dx versions to run on XP? Technology progresses people, cant always make new things run on old technology cant expect it to either.
@ inettman none of the cracked games us dx10, if they did you couldnt make them run on xp, unless they supported dx9 in which case you will lose all the advanced graphics dx 10 brings.

I have it... its ok. Thats it. Dreamscene can be cool... but at the end of the day, really annoying. Fun to show off tho!

Remember 64bit games... farcry looked so much better with the 64bit patch for xp64 and it got 1% better framrate. I just hope that when crysis comes out it will satisfy me with no drop in FPS (hopefully an increase) and will look 10x better then DX9 :) with an 8800gts-320mb

This has nothing to do with Vista, and your comments don't have enough background on the subject.

Have you already measured flicker frequency's of panels? Maybe, you should. A lcd that has a refresh rate of 60Hz will still have a flicker frequency of 60Hz, but the amplitude in dB will be much smaller than for a CRT. (but it is true that refresh rate is not the correct term but Pixel clock frequency)

Concerning OLED, now it is mainly orientated to cell phones or notebooks where the effect of the battery life is important and the manufactuirng constraints of big samples avoided.

For your comments on response time, it is useless, all manufacturers fight on this point because they can show they are better (and still they are all lying: they allways give you, or the RT for black to white, or an average RT for Grey to Grey). Just a little question for you: what is the use of a Response time of 1ms when the panel is refreshed every 10ms (if it is at 100Hz)?

A guy that measures LCDs for a living.

What crab is he talking about.What stupid EXTRA are those.

Use VLC, enable wallpaper mode, and you get the same thing but VLC uses 2-3% cpu max. Works just fine in XP and Vista both.
On another note, I don't remember ever being satisfied with something that came bundled with any version of Windows. I've always looked for 3rd party applications because the basis for most MS apps is either IE or WMP which are both very crippled and bloated compared to other apps. Why be disappointed that Microsoft isn't in a big hurry to release software I don't want to use anyway...Visual Studio is about it for quality MS apps, and then only with ReSharper. Everything else has some 3rd party alternative that is simply better in every respect, and they are often free.
IE -> Firefox, Opera, maybe Safari
WMP -> Mplayer, VLC,
Office -> OpenOffice
Notepad -> ConTEXT

I can't understand why people are angry that Microsoft released a new OS to eventually replace WinXp. Apple has done the same thing, but it is a GOOD thing to most Apple users ... and they CAN'T WAIT to upgrade. If Microsoft didn't upgrade Windows and release Vista to provide something new, even if it is mostly just visual, then how can they compete? Sure... Windows XP is "good enough," but how long would that be true? Would you want to STILL be using WinXP in 5 years... 10 years... whatever? I know I wouldn't ..

My Amiga's OS isn't very much different than modern OS'es. So, I guess it was good enough and I should still be using it? Nah ...

I have already upgraded to Vista Business x64, and I have no desire to go back to Windows Xp. I still have Windows Xp on my laptop, and I really just don't care to use it.

It's probably a good thing you don't have Vista on your laptop. You'd probably "just not care to use it" even more. I have 3 desktops & a laptop on a home network. One desktop is Vista Ultimate based. It runs fine. The eye candy is nice. Aeroglass is very pretty. But it sure don't boot up or shut down like an XP based system. Very slow indeed. (comparatively) Vista is a very resource hungry operating system, with poor driver updates. Yes the drivers work fine, but only when you can get them. I probably am just very paranoid, but I get the distinct feeling that M.$. is trying to shove DRM down our throats, & Vista is the thin end of the wedge. Maybe just the paranoid people are angry? Lol.

but now he's no longer the richest man in as taking a back seat in company operations maybe that will change. I am by no means an M$ fan but i'm not a jealous hatter either.

My hate for Apple (mostly MACs) is because I hate there locked down OS (only runs on apple hardware). Me being and other PC enthusiast hate this idea because we like to add an change components at will. With a Mac setup up it's buy a hole new PC or nothing. Money is not the issue I probably speed more money in a year on my pc then a top of the line mac costs, but I like to add the stuff I want and when I want and don't want to be locked into other junk I don't use.

@Wicked

Letting XP be free to use would be wonderful. The DX10 drivers would appear shortly after since DX10 is not tied to the name of the OS. All that needs to be done is to code the API library that programs call so that the DX10 functions are executed completely in the DX10.DLL. With this solution you can theoretically have DX10 running under Linux, Win9x and XP.

Of course MS will never allow a DX10.DLL since it would undermine the Vista OS. They also will never release XP from it's license restrictions. Each "free" copy of XP activated from your universal key would be an unsold copy of Vista in the eyes of Bill G.

Dreamscene looks good provding you have a good enough video clip..had to turn it off after 5 mins as I had a porn vid on my desktop and I kept falling off the chair due to the extra weight :)

I have always wondered if that is how it worked.

I would love to know how to get more information on exactly what you are talking about since someday I will have to get rid of my (awesome) and 4 year old crt.

I'll restate a fact for you. There is no reason DX10 can't run on XP. Game manufacturers and even microsoft has stated it. It was made to bolster vista sales to gamers, microsoft claims they wanted to differntiate the OSes. But that has nothing to do with the capability XP.

Vista is the windows ME 'screw the customers' campaign crap all over. ME was not better than 98SE and vista is not better than XP64. Vista only has a couple of nice improvements such as the hard drive improvements (again no reason for that not to be on XP).

WOW, I may shock some of you here it seems. XP was re-written in 64 please read: http://www.microsoft.com/windo...top10.mspx

Another shocker I guess 'They Are Still Selling It!!!'

'Michael' - "If DX10 was on XP then in 2025 every one would be still using XP." Whats wrong with that? A a new operating system just to have one? why? I guess if vista 2 comes out this year I should get that too

'DG'-" u cant run dx 9 on windows 98, why should you expect all new dx versions to run on XP?" the difference is 98 sucked for gaming XP doesn't I did say substantial. And winME is like vista, both were suppose to give a huge entertainment boost and didn't.
'DG'-"Technology progresses people, cant always make new things run on old technology cant expect it to either."
But it hasn't... Eyecandy isn't progression and I'll repeat this again XP64 was recently released and is being sold. And P.Freaking S. that old tech is better than the new. It runs faster and cleaner. What we need is them to finish a product that they started.

Ever get tired of companies concentrating more on sale and the packaging than finishing the product? And be told "We have your money and we'll fix it when we want too" or the final stance with no apology "We no longer support your version, buy the new one everything is fixed in there" shake yourselve and show some back bone. Your reward for being a loyal & patient customer is a service pack.

Vista and XP should be a choice for the consumer because it's not leaps and bounds different or better.

The fair thing for microsoft to do is put out DX10 as a purchasable service pack because I agree it wasn't promised to us. But if you really believe Halo 3 can't work on XP because vista has magic going on inside of it that can't be done on XP I have swamp land to sell you.

Anyone loving here loving vista.. I have nothing to say about that but great for you. But it's not fair for microsoft to sell a product never finish it and fabricate reasons to force you to buy the new operating system.

"Michael"-"the whole point of DX10 only on Vista is to move on to a new generation." If this was true the we wouldn't have a 32 bit version.
"
"DG"-"Technology progresses people"

To follow your point what if:
They discontinued vista today and released vista 2 and it only runs on quad core pc's because that is the new generation.

Halo 4 and ALL games will only be released on vista 2 and DX11 dispite the fact that vista is shown to be better performance wise and stability and could run the game. I guess you guys are saying just roll over and take it?

"blessman" - "DX10 won't run on XP because of the diffrent architecture of the graphics subsystem." LOL what subsystem is that? please post the various subsystems and this was shown not to be able to work in XP.
"wicked"-"Part of DX10 is coded into low-levels of the OS, unlike DX9." please post this informations source.

DX9.0L is a microsoft compromise. They are stuck and if they are given pressure I know they'd crack off of their stance. THIS IS WIN ME all over, instead microsoft is trying to fabricate and bolster the requiremnt for new business sales and shoving DRM up your arses.

When you read their sales pitch it's clear to me we should have DX10 on XP64 according to microsoft.

Okay so 'Michael', 'DG' and others help me understand. Here are two CURRENT quotes for this recently release and currently sold operating system (which was also worked on along side of vista):

"video game developers are at work right now building exciting 64-bit native games to help push these limits even further"

DX10 is pushing the limits even further, isn't it?

"64-bit native games hold the potential for significantly faster graphics rendering, producing photo-realistic immersion and rapid-fire play without annoying delays. These improvements, along with other benefits of 64-bit architecture, should enable artificial intelligence and 3-D games that were not possible in the past."

DX10 is supposedly pushing the envelope to photo realistic games, am I correct?

Please read the 'Gaming enthusiasts section'
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/benefit.mspx

* Please tell me where I am wrong?
* More importantly does that sound like a 'dead' operating system.
* Post facts/source - I want to be enlightened by you all.

Thank you

Language support available to buyers of wvu only? Really? Soon they'll charge extra for the GUI.... d'oh... they do that already...

Why?

I'm running Dreamscape on two monitors and im using 5% of my processor at most.