Microsoft Makes Direct X 11.1 a Windows 8 Exclusive
BluPhenix316 writes "Microsoft has made Direct X 11.1 a Windows 8 Exclusive. I think this is merely an update to make Direct X more integrated with Windows 8. Is this going to be the trend? To lock you into the OS updates so Windows 7 doesn't last as long as Windows XP has?"
The update is pretty minor, but it does add Stereoscopic rendering, and there seemed to be an implication that no new DirectX updates after this will be made for Windows 7.
and we won't have to put up with this anymore.
As per the subject, this just adds to the reasons for using OpenGL
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
If a company releases a new product, they have to add new features to get you to buy it. Why add features to a product people have already bought when they're trying to push the new shiny?
The real story would be if they didn't continue with security updates and bug fixes, but I doubt that's the case.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
The big game-companies and the indies know that only newly bought pc's and laptops will have win8. Nobody else is going to make the switch and I assume a majority of new buyers will 'downgrade' to win7. So they won't develop for it. Maybe they use the api as a extra option, but they all will make sure their games run on win7. Because win8 is going to be the new ME/Vista. Nice on tablets, but keep that crap away from my desktop.
Supposedly the big draw for Vista was the coming of DX10 and all that entailed. Side by side comparisons of DX9 vs DX10 were so minor the magazines (yes, those still existed in 2006) had to draw red circles around the detail, they made wireframe renders of DiRT so you could see all the extra triangles in the flags and water... that you couldn't see without the help, along with paragraphs explaining how what you couldn't see was so high tech.
I certainly can't tell the difference between DX10 and DX11, and 11.1a has got to be so minor as to be ignored by developers -- why would you want to alienate your customer base like that? Like microsoft, they're in the business to make money too. Whatever gains were had with the tessellation improvements in DX10 were offset by the improvements in technology; it's just too hard to tell the difference between DX versions these days.
Has rendering technology finally matured?
moox. for a new generation.
Isn't this basically what they did back with Vista and 7? After the legacy-support nightmare (from Microsoft's perspective) that was XP I expect Microsoft is tired of supporting old software on old systems. I can't say that I blame them -- at some point you just have to draw a line in the sand and say "I'm not supporting 5.25" floppies anymore."
We can argue about exactly when they should stop supporting old OSes, but at some point it makes sense to move resources from your old product to your new product.
I'm hardly a Microsoft fan, but I don't expect them to just keep churning out new software for their old products. Why should they support older versions of Windows for new versions of their software?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
The baseline requirement in nearly all games being released today is still DX9, because that's what XP supports. MS absolutely failed in trying to leverage gaming requirements as a means to pawn off unwanted upgrades on users. Because of that previous failure, DX10/11 still feels new to most people and they won't be demanding upgrades for it anytime soon. In the meantime, the delay in new DX feature adoption gives OpenGL-based open source/indie game developers time to catch up, just as before. And more OpenGL means less dependence on Windows as a whole, so this is a win-win-win situation.
Just like tying new IE releases to Windows upgrades. Chrome, Firefox, etc. cannot thank MS enough for that.
It's not just about visuals, it's also about performance. It is now much cheaper (GPU utilization wise) to do today what was done yesterday. Also, keep in mind that a lot of games don't have that great of visuals because they limit themselves to match consoles. The Call of Duty franchise is a perfect example of this. Anyway, take a look at this to see what is new. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh404562(v=vs.85).aspx Also, this is what games could be doing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duSIE2TkpH4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_Model#WDDM_1.2
Sounds like a key feature of DirectX 11.1, the stereoscopic 3D rendering, is a feature of WDDM 1.2 and given WDDM 1.2 is only available in Windows 8, that kinda ties DirectX 11.1 to it as well.
Windows 7 uses WDDM 1.1. Could Microsoft safely update this to version 1.2 such that DirectX 11.1 could be made available for it as well? Probably (Microsoft developed it all, so there's no reason why they couldn't). Would it be a worthwhile investment for them to do so? Probably not; they're having enough trouble getting people to want to use Windows 8 as it is - forcing people to shift to it in any way possible, no matter how slimey, is not above them.
I doubt it'll matter much though - you'd have to be particularly crazy to develop a game that requires DirectX 11.1 any time soon. especially given the backlash against Windows 8.;
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
Honestly, the only thing important to DirectX 11.1 besides some optimizations is a standardized way to support 3D instead of proprietary nVidia 3D vision and AMD HD3D. And if you don't care about S3D, then 11.1 is a non issue. Sounds like a bunch of FUD to me. Regardless, until you see a bunch of DirectX 11.1 exclusive games and DirectX 11 support is dropped (which will never happen), people are ranting about nothing.
And no one bought that any more than they'll be buying 8.
Instead of worrying about DirectX, you can worry about which versions of which distro has a driver for your graphics hardware.
But sure, the grass is always greener and all that.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
In other news, Google releases android 4.2 with a new camera, a new keyboard, and smoother rendering. They aren't porting any of these features back to 2.3 or 4.0. Is this what it's come to?
Linux has incorporated btrfs into the 3.x kernel and isn't porting it back to the 2.4 kernel. Is this what it's come to? Etc. etc. etc. Yes, this is Slashdot, but the MS bashing was played out sometime around 2006. If you're going to pick on them, at least pick something legitimate and don't whine about them not backporting features ad-infinitum.
WDDM 1.2 has something called a composer that schedules between CPU and GPU tasks with directX 11.1 on top. It is a major performance improvement and great for power saving features.
Unfortunately, it can't be backported to Windows 7/XP as they would no longer be Windows 7 and XP anymore as it is a kernel rewrite. IT would break corporate software which is why they love using obsolete platforms for decades as it never changes.
Well no wonder IE 10 is not available on Windows 7. All that hardware acceleration has to be redone and fine tuned for a WDDM without a composer.
http://saveie6.com/
This is part of the new wall protecting Microsoft's new playland it's creating to squeeze unsuspecting customers dry and competition out of the market.
Because they'll have to.
Windows 8 is a toilet (remember, it's the "other version" every "every other version of Windows sucks") and they're forcing obsolescence on Windows 7 far too early.
It is more complicated than that. DirectX requires WDDM which is aero and 3D composition GPU support starting with DX 10. WDDM 1.2 is not compatible with any other kernel. A rewrite would be needed that would make WIndows 7 not Windows 7 anymore and break video and CAD software and piss off the corporate users.
DirectX 11.1 uses this in an abstraction layer.
This is why IE 9 is not available for XP. It has nothing to do with MS forcing users to upgrade. Its smooth graphics and font rendering require all that to make it smoother than FF or Chrome which rely on DirectX 9. IE 10 as a result is Win 8 only at the moment until it is rewritten for the older WDDM 1.1 and DIrectX11.
http://saveie6.com/
Has rendering technology finally matured?
It's the game developers that have matured. The technology hasn't changed that much -- but the developers have gained experience and understanding. They aren't willing to jump to the latest version just because it's the latest version anymore. They have some business sense now; Which is why the Windows 8 app store looks like a barren desert. Developers know they won't make money there. Same with game developers -- they go where the money is, not where the marketing is. So when you're looking at DX10 versus DX11; The API doesn't make much difference in performance, so why not stick with something supported by more video cards out there, and better optimized in newer video cards anyway?
The developers have matured -- they have a business sense now, not just technical proficiency. DX11.1 can bite their shiny metal ass. Nobody will be developing on it for years to come.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
If you have programmed shaders before you know that new APIs make absolutely no difference in advancing graphics since any graphics effect that has and will ever exist can be programmed using even ancient shader models like GLSL version 2. New APIs serve only to lock users into their own API artificially, even though the graphics capabilities already exist and will be the same for a long time to come. Using shaders, a programmer can do anything using graphics, even things that don't exist yet. All of the effects advancements like SSAO (screen space ambient occlusion) and raytracing are advancements in algorithms that can be easily written in any existing shader language. A new DirectX API version in my opinion is completely useless and only serves no purpose other than to try to get people to buy Windows 8. Programmers don't need a new API to make better graphics, they need creativity and ingenuity using existing shader languages which will never need to change.
Linux sucks as a desktop os
Microsoft always does this bait and hook game. Already XP can't run IE9, and sites are stopping support for IE8. There's no option, accept Microsoft doesn't maintain support for their OS without forced upgrades, or just don't use it. There are some options.
The thing many people are waiting for I think is some simple way to stream win32 API suport to run any win-app you want, on demand, from one single box sitting on the network. Then get rid of every Microsoft product in sight.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
As someone who has been using Win8 RC since about August, throwing the whole desktop on the GPU isn't quite as good as I had hoped. My example is as follows. My hardware specs are AMD FX-6100 @ 3.7GHz, Radeon HD 7850, 16GB RAM(1600). When running iTunes/Winamp visualizations on one monitor (windowed or full screen) the GPU usage skyrockets (as per Open Hardware Monitor) and the entire UI on both screens becomes less than a slide show. CPU usage rests at about 10%. Now whenever you run a mildly GPU intensive task in a window your system basically becomes completely unresponsive. My GPU is not the best out there but the majority of systems out there ship with much less, I can't feel a bit less then ambitious that this won't effect most people negatively overall.
As for your claim that it would require a "kernel rewrite" I have to say I'm impressed. Apparently you know the implementation of the system which apparently up to now was believed to be closed source. I am curious how you know how the kernel would have to be "re-written" when according to the version numbers they just went from 6.1 to 6.2.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Early on in DX10 times, it was the exact opposite. Switching to DX10 renderer cost around 10-30% performance over what you would get on DX9.
It wasn't until DX11 and win7 that we started to see games that would actually have proper support that didn't come with a massive performance hit when switching from DX9 to DX11. And even so, DX11 still generally is a net fps loss because of the extra features that put extra load on the hardware. Load that isn't there in DX9.
Yes, and this is why games are still being made DX9 compatible. It wasn't until Windows 7 gained some traction that DX10 actually became viable though even today making a DX10/11 only game is not a good prospect given the spectacular failures of DX10 only games.
DX 10/11 will be around for some time unfortunately.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
They did the same thing with Windows7 and DX10.. The result? Game publishers didn't write DX10 games for a LONG time, and if they did the games would work in DX9 or 10 via a settings change. There are still games out there that don't support DX10. Way to go MSFT... how many times can you shoot yourself in the foot before you finally bleed out?
What, are you new here?
That is NOT how we react to Microsoft stories,
First of all, you didn't use the proper "M$" when referring to Microsoft, and on top of that you tried to be reasonable and did not bring up throwing chairs or monkey boy or Bob or even mention BSDs one time.
And not a single cuss word.
I'm not sure you and Slashdot are a good fit.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's about as stupid as the whole HTML5/JavaScript thing in the name of cross-platform compatibility. The solution isn't to keep piling on more and more layers of abstraction. Each layer represents new compromises and needless expense. Just because a few college kids one day said "you know what would be cool...?" doesn't make it a good idea. I'm as much a fan of being able to make my toaster boot Linux as the next guy, but some things are better left as hobbies. Stop the god damn partisanship, stop the damn religious wars, stop the damn profiteering and develop a set of standard APIs that may be implemented and run as close to metal as is practicable while allowing the flexibility to utilize whatever tools, technologies, and languages desired. VMWare, Sun's JVM and Microsoft's CLR were excellent starting points. Now where the hell is the synthesis, what happened to the next generation?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Steve Sinofsky, the "brains" behind Windows 8, has just been given the boot.
Gee... one wonders why.
http://allthingsd.com/20121112/breaking-windows-head-steven-sinofsky-to-leave-microsoft/
Maybe it's because 8 is a stinker and they have to deep discount the so-called upgrade to 15 bucks just to get people to try it?
--
BMO
What, are you new here?
That is NOT how we react to Microsoft stories,
First of all, you didn't use the proper "M$" when referring to Microsoft, and on top of that you tried to be reasonable and did not bring up throwing chairs or monkey boy or Bob or even mention BSDs one time.
And not a single cuss word.
I'm not sure you and Slashdot are a good fit.
How about ...
It is more complicated than that thanks to the retarded monkeys at M$ that they call developers. Inferior to OpenGL, DirectX requires WDDM (an evil scheme to implement DRM to satisfy Hollywood, destroy the western economy, and is also shown to cause cancer in rats in some studies) which is aero and 3D composition GPU support starting with DX 10. FUCKING WDDM 1.2 is not compatible with any other kernel except SCO Xenix aka Openserver that Balmer stole and renamed Vista .... A rewrite would be needed that would make WIndows 7 not Windows 7 anymore and break video and CAD software and piss off the corporate users which was done on purpose to make M$ more money and to satisfy Sinsosky's Saddist fetishes.
DirectX 11.1 uses this in an abstraction layer brilliantly thought through by Balmer throwing a chair at a Window at a Windows and seeing the hole giving a visual metaphor of how much the aero glass needed the abstraction by the ratio of the hole size.
This is why IE 9 is not available for XP as MS thought Windows XP too good to make a decent OS. It has nothing to do with MicroShaft forcing users to upgrade. Its smooth graphics and font rendering require all that to make it smoother than FF or Chrome which rely on DirectX 9. IE 6 still has the best so far as Sinsosky's just orgasmed thinking of the webmasters who have to support it!! IE 10 as a result is Win 8 only at the moment until it is rewritten for the older WDDM 1.1 and DIrectX11 which will destroy the whole internet and require each SSL certificate user to purchase a SQL License ala Oracle RDMS style with an oath to sell their children into slavery. ... then the talent agent sat there for the longest time. He said hmm that is an interesting product what do you all call it?
Balmer: THE ARISTROCRATS!!!
Ok how was this? Can I get my slashdot card back now?
http://saveie6.com/
I guess they never learn. A major reason DX9c games are still getting published is that DX10 wasn't compatible with XP. Now they repeat the same scenario, or at least it sounds like it. They might think this drives customers to Win8 but in reality it only drives developers to stay in DX10/Win7.
I was actually excited when I first saw DirectX 10 screenshots. You actually get foliage with DirectX10, especially in the third set. (Check out the mountains in the back.) Pity that Vista's poor uptake meant nobody besides Crysis or Hellgate: London did much with with it.
DirectX 11 was even more impressive--tesselation essentially gets you a hojillion transformable polygons for free. Check out the crowd animated entirely in GPU hardware.
If you really can't tell the difference, just rejoice, quietly, that all of your gaming needs were met nine years ago. You'll never be tempted to buy a new video card for that XP rig.
DATABASE WOW WOW
They have to say that. Can't let anyone know they sent him on an Elop mission. I wonder whose board of directors is about to get a nasty surprise.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
And yet in your example, the developers still felt the need to clearly label in ALL CAPS which one was which.
moox. for a new generation.
I don't really see a problem here.
Clearly you haven't tried Windows 8 yet.
Hell, I'm an MSDN subscriber, so I have access to a number of license keys for personal use, but after my experience with Win 8 at work a few weeks back (in the span of 30 minutes, I managed to crash it twice, forcing a reboot both times, and realized that it clearly wasn't made for a mouse when I kept seeing suggestions that I "tap here to do X"), I have no intention of "upgrading", let alone suggesting that others should pay them $40 to do so. Call me when Win 9 is ready. In the meantime, I'm sticking with what I have.
Wrong. There are still hundreds of millions of users with perfectly good computers that are running XP. They don't want to upgrade and migrate all their data and settings. They don't want to pay for new software that will let them do the things they do already. Hell, the feature touted in the thread summary (stereoscopic rendering) is already on Windows XP in OpenGL (and has been forever, including lots of effects that Microsoft forced you to get Vista for). Requiring an OS upgrade for simple features has nothing to do with technology (since OpenGL has no problem) - it is all about bilking you for more money.
According to StatCounter XP usage is now tying MacOSX and Vista usage! Look under United States and add November statistics to do the calculation?
XP is a security nightmare. THe only place where XP and IE 6 are huge is CHina. Outside of that market it is dying. It is time to move on and stop fearing change. XP security is really bad just like IE 6 which came with it as the grandparent stated was from a different era where a good password is all you needed and oh stay out of websites you do not know etc.
Today, you get hacked by just having flash out of date or java installed through an infected ad network. I setup a new install of WIndows 7 just the other day and someone hit the blue E and BAM msn.com had an ad. Had to re-image the damn thing. XP lacks ASLR, DEP (except on a few services), and heap-spray protection. ASLR = random address layering (out of order). All you need to do to hack an XP box is know which ram addresses core dll files use. You can do this as a regular user.
Just insert some code by overflowing a buffer or integer in XP and BAM your code is running as admin, even if the code started as a regular user. Dep and ASLR with Windows 7 can stop this. VC10 has bounds checking when a program crashes to prevent loss of control ... again does not work on XP. XP does not seperate processes and priveldges and even impersonates administrator and hardware devices ... wow.
XP
- can't scale beyond 2 cores efficiently
- SATA driver can't multitask with command queing
- Swaps like a mofo due to a terrible paging algorithm (double pennalty if you use the default SATA driver) even if you have plenty of ram
- Slower and shitty graphics due to not supporting WDDM and a compuser below DirectX11 and the hardware. This makes your computer more stable
- Driver BSOD protection
- No UEFI support
- No Trim SSD Support
- No modern browser support after 2014 (Chrome and FF will drop it)
I assume if you work in IT (like most slashdotters) that you are under 30 and are used to behavior that dictates run unupdated ancient platforms but DO NOT TOUCH IT. THose of use over 35 remember doing it every 2- 3 years like your phones.
It is irresponsible and dangerous to run XP today and especially after next year. It is time to move on my friend. It is 2012 now. Your PC is not an appliance like a fridge if it is internet enabled. We wont support you anymore and it wont be our problem for not supporting IE 6- 8 and XP. That problem is yours.
http://saveie6.com/
Just like what happened to IE 10.
Initially Microsoft only let users of Win 8 to enjoy IE 10, shutting out millions and millions of Win7 users.
Only now, rumor has it that M$ gonna let Win7 users use IE10 - http://slashdot.org/submission/2350635/ie-10-for-win-7---would-it-be-a-little-bit-too-late- - but it would be too late.
The same thing may happen here.
Only after Linux gathering massive Steam (pun intended) Microsoft gave up and allowing DirectX 11.1 to run on Win7 - and it will too, be too little, too late.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
A desktop, any desktop, is for using, not for admiring the same bloody animation over and over again. I use windows for gaming but have EVERYTHING turned off except the font options. Aero was disabled years ago. And I just tested it but my start menu shows instantly. A second? I would already be killing Ballmer with a rusty spoon if it took a tenth of a second. My life is worth more to me then wait a second everytime I want to do something.
You are aware that all these startup animations and such are completly useless?E17 had to articiially slow the loading process on Linux to be able to show off its animation effect of the loading screen. Nice... and disabled. What the fuck is the logic behind that?
My PC is not a movie prop. It doesn't have to look the part, it has a task to do and it should do its task as quickly as possible. Maybe if you disabled all the bling, your PC wouldn't need a full second to load a start menu.
Is your life that devoid of meaning that it needs the soothing animation effect to make it tolerable? It is like people who complain about a tearing effect when they move a window around... who the fuck cares? I select a window, drag it to where I want it and I want it done as fast possible and not as nice as possible. I guess there are people who really do have all the compiz options on for more then the 1 minute it takes to get utterly tired of them.
Maybe I am just wrong in thinking an OS is about its applications, not about its bling.
Considering the Windows 7 guy was fired and the Windows 8 and Office girl was promoted, I am starting to feel very alone.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I second the above. I work at a rather successful game company and on Windows we target, no joke, Win98. We make family friendly games and our target is, as you might have guessed, the entire family. Since most people aren't hardcore their systems are average on years old hardware at best, and while many families have hand-me-down boxes and laptops now those are running *even* older hardware. If our games run like crap on someone's ancient box they won't blame the box, they'll blame us, and then not play our games.
So yeah, we could *totally* make use of "the shiny" but to grow our user base that's just not something we can afford. It's how everything's going...id software's id tech 5 is scalable, Unreal Engine 3 is surprisingly scalable, Unity can target mobile platforms AND desktops, it's everywhere. I'm glad that some companies are dedicated to using "the shiny" but as we've all seen it's gameplay that matters, not graphics, and typically when you pump up one the other suffers.
"Just a fox, a whisper."
The best summary is from Rock, Paper, Shotgun:
It's been a while since Microsoft pulled the "oh no, this new version of DirectX couldn't possibly work on earlier versions of Windows" scamgasm, but as the relatively friendly age of Windows 7 is overshadowed by the dawning of the firm's desperate desire to make Windows 8 a cross-platform goliath/software shop, an old habit has returned.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/12/old-dog-old-tricks-ms-locks-directx-11-1-to-win-8/
(reposting because /. stupid UTF-8 non-support mangled the quote the first time)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
People seem to forget that Steam is just a platform to sell games, an online store. It doesn't port your games. So Valve putting Steam on Linux means very little, unless companies start porting their games to Linux.
For that to happen, there will have to be a worthwhile amount of sales for existing Linux titles. Publishers will need to see that the cost of the port will be worth it. Remember it isn't as simple as "Just use OpenGL and you can port it!" Each platform takes work and QA and that means money. They have to see an ROI to want to fund it.
Valve can like Linux all they like, if people don't buy games on Linux, and publishers don't port games to Linux, it won't matter. Valve is worried because they think people might start buying form MS instead of Valve. They make a lot of money doing very little. Steam lets the be highly effective middlemen and make a killing at it. They are worried the Windows Store will threaten that.
Game publishers are much less likely to care. They just want people to but their games in large numbers, they don't care how the people choose to do that.