A) Most people don't really want extremely flashy desktops that take a lot of GPU "oomph" to do. They want simple and functional and when and only when the graphical flair provides simple and/or functional should it be used. This idea of video card purchase just to make your desktop work is insanity.
No. People think Aero when they think Vista, and they think Aqua when they think of OSX. People want this.
Oh and $180-$280 is a high end video card for 98% of people. Only well-off and extreme hardcore gamers people purchase one or more of the $500 cards, because people know that the price isn't worth it and it WILL come down. To most consumers a high end video card is the $300 range, mid range is more like $90-$200 and low end is basically as cheap as you can find to about $90 again. I build PCs for all sorts of people and these are the types of price ranges I see.
Me too. And If you are spending under 90 you might as well just stick with integrated. And your ranges don't make sense ... $300 is high end, and mid range is $90-$200? Well what the heck is a $240 card? Seems we agree that high starts around 300... which means my cutoff around 280 for mid makes sense. As for low, you set it at 90, while I set it at 180. I concede my low was a bit high. I'll revise that down to $120. But anything less than that and you might as well stick with integrated, unless you are buying used/clearance and getting a great deal on an nvidia 6600GT or something.
B) How is the experience seriously weakened? Because to the end consumer who knows what looks good and what doesn't people see that if they play DX9 it runs smoother and looks practically identical. In DX10 it runs slower and ...looks practically identical. You can say it is a "seriously weakened experience" as many times as you like but until that matches up with the real world for the consumer they aren't going to care 2 craps about what you or MS say about DX10 and how amazing it is.
GPU multitasking requires using more than one application. Playing a single game is not the issue. Its when you've got multiple video clips going in final cut with an itunes visualization playing in the background. (check out OSX sometime.) XP just can't do that without stuttering around like a clutz. You don't even need a high end card to do it.
C1) Again, the desktop should not be a GPU taxing application. This idea that you have about needing DX10 for the desktop is completely out of sync with what normal people want. I gauruntee you that nobody is spending a few hundred on video card with DX10.x compliance just to get a few extra nifty effects for their desktop. People don't want to pay for this stuff. (edit: in bold)
The future is now. The desktop *is* a modestly GPU taxing application. And its what people want. Half the consumer backlash against vista is all the vista capable PCs that can't do aero properly. And even if you don't think its a big deal today, its definately where we are headed. Sooner or later we have to make this transition. OSX has done it. Linux has done it. Its about time Windows caught up.
As to being willing to pay? To an extent you are right, but the latest intel integrated graphics today are already on par with midrange cards from a few years ago in a lot of respects. That trend will continue. And remember its not that your desktop needs shader model 4, bump mapping, etc... it just has basic needs like transparency, blending, layering...
The reason XP stutters is that it can't divy up a gpu's time the way it can divy up a cpu's time. gpu multitasking doesn't require a state of the art card. It just requires an os kernel and graphics system that CAN do it. Consider that OSX can do it with non-directX10 capable cards -- its not a feature of the card. Its a feature of the OS.
C2) Once again I think you will find most people don't want this, you seem to realize that though so I am glad we are on the same page for this one. DRM is a great theory but the implementations of it to date have been atrocious.
Agreed. I mentioned DRM for completeness.
C3) This is what most people think of DX10 and it is why its hard for them to justify the upgrades necessary to utilize it.
Think back to 1995. At the time we had DOS games and windows 3.1. But of course, you couldn't multitask at all. Win3.1 was unusable as a gaming platform because drawing through the win32 GDI api was dog slow. So games were written to run in dos mode, you couldn't put the game in a window and check your email, etc.
Then Win95 came out, and it supported directX so games could get at the video hardware and it supported pre-emptive multitasking which was critcical for writing a very time/timing sensitive application like a game... but there was still a huge problem. Games still ran faster in dos with less resources. DirectX and preemptive multitasking was good, but you still had windows running in the background sucking up cpu cycles and holding onto a big chunk of RAM. So it was slower, and gamers didn't see any improvement in graphics.
Sound familiar?
Vista is Windows 95 all over again. New platform, that needs new drivers, backwards compatible with the previous version, but a lot of stuff isn't 100%. It has all these capabilities, but uses more resources and runs games slower....
Trust me. Suck it up. In 5 years we'll be looking at XP like we look at Windows 3.1/DOS, and it will be difficult to imagine someone saying, I can't beleive people couldn't see that the windows gaming was the future, that we absolutely had to dump the DOS mode single tasking model in order to get where we are today. I can't imagine not being able to alt-tab out a game to check email, check on a runnng torrent, jot a note down, or whatever.
But in 1995 the gamers rejected windows 95 and just wanted developers to keep doing DOS games. They were faster and needed fewer resources. Why would Microsoft do this? Consumers would never upgrade! Gamer's would always prefer DOS! We can see how that turned out.
C4) This is a practical feature....for developers. You will find that most consumers won't upgrade for this reason alone and probably feel that they aren't going to shell out extra cash to help wipe away the poor forward thinking of the industry. No worries in a couple of years most of these folks will upgrade on their own schedule and life will be good...but it still isn't a compelling reason for consumers to upgrade.
Agreed. Again mentioned for completeness. Its an important feature of directX10 even if its not somehting consumers will know or care about.
-cheers!