Windows 7, DX10, DX9, etc.

[Comstrike]

Is it expected that Windows7 will have a new DX?

Has DX10 failed to take root as hoped for?

Should one simply stick with DX9 and jump over Vista to the Vista-esque Win7?

[PenrodBarker]

W7 is supposed to ship with DirectX 11. Vista will get DX11 also, either in SP2 or soon after. DX11 is based on DX10, so it's not as big a leap as DX9 to 10.

Many people like to get on the bandwagon and put Visa down, but I love it. Once you turn of UAC it's a breeze and I've had fewer problems with it than with XP. With SP1, performance is the same when comparing XP DX9 to Vista DX9 gaming.

DX10 isn't going to die off upon release of W7, there are still numerous games being developed for it and it will be some time before 11 takes it's place.

I personally haven't seen anything about W7 that makes me want or need to switch any time soon. If people hadn't been such crybabies about Vista, Windows 7 would be Vista Service Pack 3.

[Comstrike]

People had every right to kvetch about Vista, and more power to them.

Heck, my wife's best friend/boss bought a new laptop with Vista, and instantly had to take it back in favor of one pre-loaded with XP, specifically because the biometic payroll clock was not and would not support Vista.

It isn't that Vista can't work, or doesn't for many people. It is that they released a half-baked program that has required two, going on three massive service packs. People expected it to be ****, and it lived down to expectations.

I likely will wind-up with a Vista box late this year, see if I can make DX10 work with the setup I'm building, and if not, downgrade to XP and wait-out the flood of Windows 7 issues. If it looks like Win7 will duck the same level of pain I read about here, then I'll migrate to it.

[PenrodBarker]

Vista has only has 1 SP thus far. SP2 is still in beta. It took Vista one service pack to get to where XP is with 3 in terms of performance.

Every OS has it's problems at launch, none are immune to that. Early adopters will always get bit by that and compain. Loads of people were reluctant to switch from W2K for the same reasons.

What people don't realise is that Vista and W7 are the same at the kernel level. Only a few new features and a UI tweak differentiates them. The beta drivers for W7 are Vista drivers, and everyone raves about how great it is. Sheep. Vista got thrown under the bus for the sake of Microsoft's PR when it didn't deserve it.

[Comstrike]

Vista got thrown under the bus because MS made it easy. It had many real issues, not fake ones, not PR generated ones. XP is older, known, and has three SP's years into its run. In part, I think Vista crashed exactly because people knew there would be issues, MS denied it, pushed too hard, and folks shrugged.

And most folks here know Win7 is basically a massive SP3 for Vista, they can call it what they like. Win7 is being rushed out because Vista has effectively failed. Not in the literal since, but from most PR measures.

I had figured it might be wiser to skip DX10, waiting out the next OS release. Seems that isn't a bad idea. Win7 is basically a re-do, but if it makes things work better, it might be worth waiting even a bit longer to upgrade the OS I use.

[Hurin]

Regarding Vista
A vast portion of Vista issues were experienced by those who bought a new computer with Vista already installed. Early on, manufacturers were throwing on all their bloatware that was "tuned" (and I use that word generously, since it still mangled things) to work on XP, but gave Vista fits. And, as others pointed out (though still seemed to blame this on MS), even reputable manufacturers were shipping Vista on machines for which they didn't yet have decent drivers for all hardware devices.

Yet, if you knew what you were doing, you could install Vista "cleanly" on a new or existing computer, install the newest set of drivers for your hardware, and have a relatively problem-free (even good!) experience pretty early on (as soon as nvidia/amd/creative/etc. released a somewhat decent driver).

The manufacturers eventually figured things out (concurrent with their decision to stop cramming so much problematic bloat-ware on all computers) and driver support improved rapidly. Even before SP1, Vista was not nearly as bad as the echo-chamber folks alleged it to be.

Having said that though. . . I still stuck with XP for gaming purposes until well after LotRO's DX10 capabilities became available. But eventually, Vista did supplant XP as my primary (gaming) OS of choice and it is essentially problem-free in my experience (as problem-free as any OS gets).

But don't just take my word for it. . . this is a great story about how Vista can work great if your computer manufacturer doesn't screw it up before it ever leaves the factory. It's long, but very good. And amply demonstrates just how bad even "big name" manufacturers can be about putting "bloatware" (for which they get paid to install) and known bad drivers on your "new baby." Heh, which is why the first thing I do with any new computer is just format the darn thing and start from scratch. Though, of course, that's not everyone's cup of tea.


Regarding Windows 7
I tried a few builds of the Beta release, x64.

It was smooth sailing. However, LotRO performance was quite a bit slower for reasons I wasn't able to isolate before I just went back to Vista. Whereas I get 85-90fps in a given area on Vista, I'd get 50fps on Windows 7. However, this does not jive with other gaming tests done by various websites. So it's either a fluke with LotRO, my machine, my drivers, or the fps gauge.

[Comstrike]

Regarding Vista
A vast portion of Vista issues were experienced by those who bought a new computer with Vista already installed. Early on, manufacturers were throwing on all their bloatware that was "tuned" (and I use that word generously, since it still mangled things) to work on XP, but gave Vista fits. And, as others pointed out (though still seemed to blame this on MS), even reputable manufacturers were shipping Vista on machines for which they didn't yet have decent drivers for all hardware devices.

Yet, if you knew what you were doing, you could install Vista "cleanly" on a new or existing computer, install the newest set of drivers for your hardware, and have a relatively problem-free (even good!) experience pretty early on (as soon as nvidia/amd/creative/etc. released a somewhat decent driver).

The manufacturers eventually figured things out (concurrent with their decision to stop cramming so much problematic bloat-ware on all computers) and driver support improved rapidly. Even before SP1, Vista was not nearly as bad as the echo-chamber folks alleged it to be.

Having said that though. . . I still stuck with XP for gaming purposes until well after LotRO's DX10 capabilities became available. But eventually, Vista did supplant XP as my primary (gaming) OS of choice and it is essentially problem-free in my experience (as problem-free as any OS gets).

But don't just take my word for it. . . this is a great story about how Vista can work great if your computer manufacturer doesn't screw it up before it ever leaves the factory. It's long, but very good. And amply demonstrates just how bad even "big name" manufacturers can be about putting "bloatware" (for which they get paid to install) and known bad drivers on your "new baby." Heh, which is why the first thing I do with any new computer is just format the darn thing and start from scratch. Though, of course, that's not everyone's cup of tea.


Regarding Windows 7
I tried a few builds of the Beta release, x64.

It was smooth sailing. However, LotRO performance was quite a bit slower for reasons I wasn't able to isolate before I just went back to Vista. Whereas I get 85-90fps in a given area on Vista, I'd get 50fps on Windows 7. However, this does not jive with other gaming tests done by various websites. So it's either a fluke with LotRO, my machine, my drivers, or the fps gauge.

In literal terms, no Vista wasn't "that bad," but it was bad enough. And if the hardware vendors didn't help, it wasn't entirely their fault MS wanted to shove it out the door.

The entire OS world still looks like a heaping pile still.

[Hurin]

In literal terms, no Vista wasn't "that bad," but it was bad enough. And if the hardware vendors didn't help, it wasn't entirely their fault MS wanted to shove it out the door.

The entire OS world still looks like a heaping pile still.

There were beta and release candidates made available to the device manufacturers. At some point, you have to ship your product. At which point, it's out of your hands.

Where, of course, Apple controls the hardware, the OS, and all major devices. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury. They have to depend on others to be competent and not totally screw things up at the driver, or OEM end (bloatware, etc.).

Some quick notes from others. . .

What people don't realise is that Vista and W7 are the same at the kernel level.

Well, "people don't realize it" because it's not really true. It is true that the kernel wasn't re-written from the ground-up (which is a good thing for compatibility reasons). . . but the kernel isn't the same as Vista's kernel any more than Fedora 6's linux kernel is the "same" as Fedora 9's. . . or Tiger's is the same as Leopard's.

Only a few new features and a UI tweak differentiates them.

Could you not say this about just about every other OS version release? This really seems like an off-hand and pretty unfair generalization. In my experience (and the experience of others who have documented things better), once you start using Windows 7 (I used it for about 60 days), you are constantly surprised by the sheer volume of changes both large and small. But on top of "new features", there's also the "features" of it using less RAM, acclimating itself better to lower-end machines, and just being much more streamlined and "cleaner" in general.

The beta drivers for W7 are Vista drivers, and everyone raves about how great it is. Sheep.

I'm not sure if it's those who are giving Windows 7 and Microsoft a fair shake and divesting themselves of the "bad PR" who are the "sheep" here.

The OP above said that Windows 7 is being "rushed out" to save MS's bacon. . . well if that's the case, then MS has been "rushing" every other OS release (but Vista) in recent history:

Windows 95 - 8/1995
Windows 98 - 6/1998

Windows 2000 - 2/2000
Windows XP - 10/2001

Windows XP - 10/2001
Windows Vista - 11/2006

Windows Vista - 11/2006
Windows 7 - 4Q/2009

Three years, in context, is rushing? It seems to me that the real story is how long Vista took (it was delayed several times). And by the "rushing" standard, Windows 2000 must have been a horrific failure given that Windows XP was "rushed" out to replace it after only twenty months!

You guys even seem to have good heads on your shoulders and are more aware than the average tech consumer. . . but it's still unnerving to see how much the "echo chamber" memes get into our discussion (it's "rushed" etc. . . just a "few features"). And it's always interesting to me that such memes never redound to the benefit of MS. Even when they're doing something right, things will get twisted to paint them or their product in the worst possible light even as they're being damned by faint praise.

[Comstrike]

There were beta and release candidates made available to the device manufacturers. At some point, you have to ship your product. At which point, it's out of your hands.

Where, of course, Apple controls the hardware, the OS, and all major devices. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury. They have to depend on others to be competent and not totally screw things up at the driver, or OEM end (bloatware, etc.).

Some quick notes from others. . .


Well, "people don't realize it" because it's not really true. It is true that the kernel wasn't re-written from the ground-up (which is a good thing for compatibility reasons). . . but the kernel isn't the same as Vista's kernel any more than Fedora 6's linux kernel is the "same" as Fedora 9's. . . or Tiger's is the same as Leopard's.


Could you not say this about just about every other OS version release? This really seems like an off-hand and pretty unfair generalization. In my experience (and the experience of others who have documented things better), once you start using Windows 7 (I used it for about 60 days), you are constantly surprised by the sheer volume of changes both large and small. But on top of "new features", there's also the "features" of it using less RAM, acclimating itself better to lower-end machines, and just being much more streamlined and "cleaner" in general.


I'm not sure if it's those who are giving Windows 7 and Microsoft a fair shake and divesting themselves of the "bad PR" who are the "sheep" here.

The OP above said that Windows 7 is being "rushed out" to save MS's bacon. . . well if that's the case, then MS has been "rushing" every other OS release (but Vista) in recent history:

Windows 95 - 8/1995
Windows 98 - 6/1998

Windows 2000 - 2/2000
Windows XP - 10/2001

Windows XP - 10/2001
Windows Vista - 11/2006

Windows Vista - 11/2006
Windows 7 - 4Q/2009

Three years, in context, is rushing? It seems to me that the real story is how long Vista took (it was delayed several times). And by the "rushing" standard, Windows 2000 must have been a horrific failure given that Windows XP was "rushed" out to replace it after only twenty months!

You guys even seem to have good heads on your shoulders and are more aware than the average tech consumer. . . but it's still unnerving to see how much the "echo chamber" memes get into our discussion (it's "rushed" etc. . . just a "few features"). And it's always interesting to me that such memes never redound to the benefit of MS. Even when they're doing something right, things will get twisted to paint them or their product in the worst possible light even as they're being damned by faint praise.

Trying to compare 2000 with XP is problem though. 2000 was not intended for consumer use, XP was basically a consumer face on 2000/NT. And as for the 95/98 leap, you might want to adjust those numbers for 95/98-SE. Then maybe also note how many times 95 was delayed because they couldn't get it to work right. Or the flawed method of using virtual dos to run perfectly good programs in 95, then again in 98, and now again in Win7.

And what about Windows ME, which we all know did sooooo well.

By rushed, people mean that it simply isn't ready. That seems to make no difference to MS, much as many MMOs like to cram trash like AoC out before it was ready or worked.

MS did not "have" to ship their product, they just "did." Now, worse than ever, people simply distrust the company and its product, even if we are stuck using it most of the time.

Getting back to topic, didn't Vista (Windows MEII) do worse than XP in running LOTRO, when it launched? Took them an SP before we saw things run as quick on average?

[Hurin]

Trying to compare 2000 with XP is problem though. 2000 was not intended for consumer use, XP was basically a consumer face on 2000/NT. And as for the 95/98 leap, you might want to adjust those numbers for 95/98-SE. Then maybe also note how many times 95 was delayed because they couldn't get it to work right. Or the flawed method of using virtual dos to run perfectly good programs in 95, then again in 98, and now again in Win7.

I left those factors out because I don't really see where they fit into either of our (larger) points. The point was that three years isn't "rushing" where Windows 7 and Vista are concerned. Nothing above really addresses that.

And what about Windows ME, which we all know did sooooo well.

Again, if your point is just that MS makes mistakens. . . okay. But I mentioned those release dates to demonstrate that three years between OS releases is not "rushing."

By rushed, people mean that it simply isn't ready.

But in this case, it was alleged that Windows 7 was being "rushed" to fix the mess that Vista left behind. But so far everyone has been quite impressed with Windows 7. . . so if "rushed" is synonymous with "not ready". . . you can see where things get tricky here.

MS did not "have" to ship their product, they just "did."

I think you'd disagree if you were in a position of authority for MS and beholden to market pressures, holiday release pressures, shareholders, market share issues, and the overall sense that you can't really wait for nvidia/amd/intel/etc. to get off their butts and get a sense of urgency where drivers are concerned. Especially because nvidia especially was known to be dragging their feet until the OS was officially released (there is some thinking that they were in a bit over their head or overwhelmed since the G80 architecture coincided with the Vista release). I guess my point is: If they were going to wait on all the third party driver manufacturers to get their **** together before MS could ship their own product, MS would have been waiting far too long. It's just not feasible. Windows 7 doesn't have this problem because it uses the Vista driver model. But when the driver model changes in the future, I'm sure we'll be right back to the same sad (but probably unavoidable) state.

Now, worse than ever, people simply distrust the company and its product, even if we are stuck using it most of the time.

I'd posit that this is because many people don't understand the complexities involved in what MS is forced to do in the PC market. Whereas their "competitors" aren't nearly as besot with such challenges. When was the last time you heard about Apple having to worry about their new OS crashing all the time because a video card manufacturer refuses to pull their head out?

Getting back to topic, didn't Vista (Windows MEII) do worse than XP in running LOTRO, when it launched? Took them an SP before we saw things run as quick on average?

Yes, it was quite a bit worse. I wrote up a thread comparing performance but I think it was a victim of the forum purge that happened a few months back. But SP1 had less to do with the improvement than did better drivers over the ensuing first six months to a year of Vista's public release. Especially for nvidia users. There was also a hotfix released (that was eventually included in SP1) that fixed some reliability issues with SLi, etc.

It's cliche now to say that no MS operating system is worth a darn until SP1. To some extent there is truth to it. But, I guess all I can say is that Vista wasn't nearly as bad as the bandwagon claims, even before SP1.

Best,

H

[Comstrike]

Your looking for retorts to points I'm not interested in.

My bottom line is that MS could, and should be capable of putting out an OS without the hassle which results in the PR meltdowns. They've made it part of the popular culture to expect every new release to be a mess to deal with. They maintained two tracks for their OS' for years, so no, you can't include 2000/XP into the mix, or then selectively exclude ME, or ignore the mess they create with almost every single release.

Yes, Win7 is getting higher marks, by comparison, to Vista, which is basically the same thing in a different box. And yes, they are pushing Win7 out in a hurry, because they are losing market share, Vista is a joke....and I mean that it is actually a joke, not in the comparative sense, and they can't just declare it a service pack, lest they basically codify the popular doctrine that MS can't get it right until the second or third try.

Now, will this new Win7 RC be close enough to gold to get meaningful ideas of how LOTRO plays on it?

[PenrodBarker]

Now that's an entirely different question than what you started off with. Ever heard the saying "Standing on the shoulders of a giant"? That's what W7 is doing. It gets all the benefit of mature drivers and problem fixes as Vista has now, but none of the negative reputation.

The W7 kernel is the same as Vista SP1's kernel, albeit with some further optimizations. But on the fundamental level they are still the same operating system, and is not anything that couldn't be done in Vista with future service packs.

But I would imagine W7 performance would be the same, if not marginally better than XP SP3, since Vista SP1 already is:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2302500,00.asp

[Comstrike]

Now that's an entirely different question than what you started off with. Ever heard the saying "Standing on the shoulders of a giant"? That's what W7 is doing. It gets all the benefit of mature drivers and problem fixes as Vista has now, but none of the negative reputation.

The W7 kernel is the same as Vista SP1's kernel, albeit with some further optimizations. But on the fundamental level they are still the same operating system, and is not anything that couldn't be done in Vista with future service packs.

But I would imagine W7 performance would be the same, if not marginally better than XP SP3, since Vista SP1 already is:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2302500,00.asp

Actually I started off by asking if there would be a new DX in Win7, and the answer was yes. I asked if DX10 had failed to take root as hoped for, and it seems it hasn't, but that point I tossed out to the field since I expect the answer to be subjective. Finally, I asked if maybe I should skip DX10 and wait out the inevitable issues with Win7. Which so far I seem well advised to do so.

I wouldn't call Vista a "giant," given the reception it has gained. Sure, folks can make it work, they have improved on it with SPs, and the skeptical views people had were warranted. They released a product which had no hardware support, which you can blame on the hardware makers, but they'd correctly point the finger back at MS. And yes, as you yourself say, Win7 is basically the same, and could have been as easily done as a major service pack. The point to be noted there, is that Win7 is just that, a SP. They are calling it Win7 as they hope to cover their past mistakes.

I wonder if it does come out in Oct. if RoR will support DX11?

[Hurin]

What a crazy thread. The OP says more in each of his post than those who were ostensibly visiting the thread to answer his questions. . . and all of it seems intended to derail his own thread.

Win7 has DX11. DX11 will not require new hardware (unlike DX9 --> DX10)

DX10 is well-supported. It has its benefits. But most games will also run in DX9. So I'm not sure if that answers your question since I'm not sure what the question actually is. Personally, now that I'm used to DX10 shadows, I really dislike playing LotRO without them.

Skip Vista and go to Win7? I would if I were going to have to pay for a copy of Vista. At this point, I'm going to assume that the performance hit LotRO took with Win7 will be remedied by the time Windows 7 goes live. I'm tempted to try the RC just to see if it has already been fixed.

Anyways. . . I'm bowing out of rest of the discussion. If people want to call three years "rushed" and change the connotations of that word from sentence to sentence, there's not really much discussion to be had. It's all cute word games and bitterness. Windows 7 is no more a "service pack" than Leopard was a "service pack" for Tiger, or Fedora 9 a "service pack" for Fedora 8. At some point, three years down the road, it's completely normal and natural to release a new version of the operating system. And if you were to actually try Windows 7, I think you would find that it warrants the new moniker and status as its own OS. That is, if you could stop wanting to be oh-so-angry at MS for a few minutes.

[Comstrike]

What a crazy thread. The OP says more in each of his post than those who were ostensibly visiting the thread to answer his questions. . . and all of it seems intended to derail his own thread.

Win7 has DX11. DX11 will not require new hardware (unlike DX9 --> DX10)

DX10 is well-supported. It has its benefits. But most games will also run in DX9. So I'm not sure if that answers your question since I'm not sure what the question actually is. Personally, now that I'm used to DX10 shadows, I really dislike playing LotRO without them.

Skip Vista and go to Win7? I would if I were going to have to pay for a copy of Vista. At this point, I'm going to assume that the performance hit LotRO took with Win7 will be remedied by the time Windows 7 goes live. I'm tempted to try the RC just to see if it has already been fixed.

Thank you, that was what I wanted to know about, not why Vista wasn't so bad.

Anyways. . . I'm bowing out of rest of the discussion. If people want to call three years "rushed" and change the connotations of that word from sentence to sentence, there's not really much discussion to be had. It's all cute word games and bitterness. Windows 7 is no more a "service pack" than Leopard was a "service pack" for Tiger, or Fedora 9 a "service pack" for Fedora 8. At some point, three years down the road, it's completely normal and natural to release a new version of the operating system. And if you were to actually try Windows 7, I think you would find that it warrants the new moniker and status as its own OS. That is, if you could stop wanting to be oh-so-angry at MS for a few minutes.

It was rushed!

[lbcadden3]

Vista has always worked fine.

Application and driver developers did not listen when Microsoft told them that Vista programming was different and would break thier stuff. fail = adobe, nvidia, etc, etc.

And Microsoft lowered the system requirements for Vista certification to make large OEMS happy. fail = Micrsoft





Only use windows for games (mainly this one), Ubuntu FTW

[radiohedwig]

OP should jump back on his bandwagon, or buy a Mac since that's what most people consider problem free and not "rushed." Nope, no one ever has a problem with macs.

[Mykkul]

Right now the Windows XP integration/shell with Win7 isn't much to write home about (its geared for business apps more than anything, and not gaming support)

If they do streamline that, and get the regular OS tweaked enough, I'll definitely migrate....right now I have two machines, one Vista, one XP.

But DX 11 will be supported by Win 7 and Vista....just won't be able to put it on XP. And it is backwards compatible with 10...but I don't see enough bells and whistles on 11 yet to buy a video card that supports it when they become available. Will that change? Who knows. But thats the computer world for you...some of the DX's were wham bam time for the next version already....others, like 9, hung around for what seems like an eternity...the longer it hangs around, the more comfortable developers get with it, and the more they can do with it....10 has some nice bells and whistles, but developers still don't have that full swagger they gained from working with 9 for so many years.

[Cabbus]

Vista has only has 1 SP thus far. SP2 is still in beta. It took Vista one service pack to get to where XP is with 3 in terms of performance.

Every OS has it's problems at launch, none are immune to that. Early adopters will always get bit by that and compain. Loads of people were reluctant to switch from W2K for the same reasons.

What people don't realise is that Vista and W7 are the same at the kernel level. Only a few new features and a UI tweak differentiates them. The beta drivers for W7 are Vista drivers, and everyone raves about how great it is. Sheep. Vista got thrown under the bus for the sake of Microsoft's PR when it didn't deserve it.

I agree with this. Vista works great for me also. There are a lot of lies spread about it by people who have never even tried it.

[Comstrike]

I agree with this. Vista works great for me also. There are a lot of lies spread about it by people who have never even tried it.

And there are a lot of tech-heads that can push through the issues without breaking a sweat, where most people would consider them the problem they complain about. So no, people aren't lying, nor are they grabbing their virtual crotches to brag about not having issues.

Disasters like Vista aren't simply popular urban myths.

[Brickle]

Win 7 RC out performs on my Dell XPS 420 system than Vista64. Period.

As for calling people sheep; please check the fact on kernel similarities and what all that means to the WHOLE OS.

Win 7 runs LotRO wonderfully and looks amazing.

Thanks for reading.

[PenrodBarker]

Yes, I have the audacity to call people sheep because they want to heap praise on W7 that it doesn't necessarily warrant. They say it's faster and more memory efficient, but my experience so far hasn't proven this to be the case. I'm dual-booting W7 and Vista on my rig and so far startup and shutdown times are the same, as is memory usage. Gaming performance is no better either. When coming out of sleep, W7 refuses to see my USB keyboard. I'm not alone, others are having similar experiences as well. But so many seem incredulous that such a thing could be possible, but can't come up with a valid explaination as to why it could be.

[skataneric]

i just installed win7 and it seems a bit more responsive and snappier then vista was.

gaming seems about the same.

[DPRIJADI1]

my testimony :

Playing LOTRO in Windows 7 32bit / 64bit (4gb ram) DX10 , compared with Window XP-SP3 32bit DX9

In XP-SP3 (DX9) I get more Frame-per-second (around 60-80) with 1920x1080 resolution Ultra High setting. but its not that smooth, entering new area or turning around will initiate a few milisecond (but noticable) hitch , i think its when the GPU load new texture to memory..

in Windows 7 DX10 i get lower Frame-per-second (around 30-40) with 1920x1080 resolution Ultra High Setting and DX10 fluff enabled. But it is smooth and there is no hitch when i enter new area/turning around..

Maybe DX10 got better memory management ? i dunno but as of now i prefer Windows 7 DX10 for my LOTRO experience..

.. and i keep my Win XP on dual boot configuration, to play old games thats problematic in Win 7..

[Aranthorn]

Is it expected that Windows7 will have a new DX?

Has DX10 failed to take root as hoped for?

Should one simply stick with DX9 and jump over Vista to the Vista-esque Win7?

Windows 7 is currently a Release Candidate and comes with DirectX 10. I believe that DirectX 11 encountered some "technical difficulties" in being ready for the RC. DirectX 10 is also built in on Vista. So if you get Vista or Windows7 DirectX 10 comes along for the ride.

DirectX 10 will never be available for XP or earlier.

My biggest issue with Vista is that Microsoft unnecessarily renamed EVERYTHING in it. It serves the same function but some computer illiterate malcontent decided they would play the name game with new names. That issue remains in Windows7. Maybe when we get to Windows 8 or 9, Microsoft will change the names back to what they should be. Just in time to confuse everyone that starts out using Vista or Windows7.

I'm firmly committed to Fedora 10 x64. I have had a Redhat 6.2 system that was online and operational, without a reboot for over a year. Microsoft and Apple have never yielded similar results.

The only reasons I keep Windows are for this game and Asheron's Call. The other games I play are ported to Linux or were native to Linux. Turbine and other gaming companies like it will realize the shift much too late to stay in business.