Slashdot Mirror
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
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
I use Linux so I'm no longer an authority on Windows, but why switch? Can't you just use Windows 7 for a few years? You don't have to get a new computer or update your OS just because something new has come out. If Windows 7 works for you keep using it.
In Linux land gnome 3 was a terrible interface. However each month developers came out with tweeks, applets and extensions that made it useful for users. I just kept using XFCE, but the point is don't worry about Windows 8. Either it will become workable, or it will be replaced by Windows 9.
Windows XP didn't hit it's stride until SP2, so relax. Use what you are using and wait it out.
It could also be that this version of Direct X is Windows 8 specific. I don't use Windows, but is it common to have that small 'a' subscript in a release. It sure seems odd to me. Like it is some kind of sub-release targeted ad a specific sub architecture of Windows.
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/
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.