Slashdot Mirror
You Will Get DirectX 11.2 Only With Windows 8.1
SmartAboutThings writes "Microsoft has just announced the next version of DirectX, 11.2, on its website. But the real 'problem' is that it is going to be exclusive to Windows 8.1 and next generation consoles — Xbox One and Play Station 4. This is not news, as DirectX 11.1 was exclusive to Windows 7 & 8. But is this going to help Microsoft convince people to ugprade or will make them angry?"
Increment updates do not justify an upgrade...especially to a downgrade such as win8
Does Windows 8 have a selling point other than "touch"? Nobody's going to downgrade to Windows 8.1 just to get a game console graphics API.
Direct X is for games. And people who want to play their games will give up all sorts of important things in order to play them.
Recently, the always-online and amazingly intrusive Microsoft eye have caused Microsoft to back off on some things and that's encouraging, but the behavior is obvious and Microsoft wouldn't try it if they didn't think they could get away with it.
"Oh, I hate Windows 8...I'll never use that... oh? What's that? The next release of my favorite game? Only on Windows 8? I hate Windows 8... oh well... Windows 8 'just so I can play my game.'"
Well, it's true that I don't play a lot of games these days. I spend a lot more time pursuing my goals in life, so I don't have hours and hours to just sit down and immerse myself in all sorts of high end games. I tend to stick to a few that I like and play them from time to time, and DX 11.2 isn't required by any of them, or even the new title(s) that I'm interested in which are still WIP.
Other than that, I spend the vast majority of my time on Linux with KDE 4. Even moreso with Minecraft working on multiple platforms due to Java. The only new title I'm currently interested in is Planetary Annihilation, which if I recall correctly, will support a Linux port. So I guess my care-o-meter about this announcement is somewhere around zero.
I will say this, though. The user interface style that was developed, with a task bar and normal start-menu (not this metro start screen crap) was developed and refined over a period of 20+ years or so now. It's available across many operating systems and kernels. It's there because it works rather well. If you ask me, this touch-centric crap that Microsoft is pushing isn't much good beyond tablets and phones, where your primary mode of interface is your finger on a screen.
So, tablets and phones came along and a new interface style was designed that worked better with almost-exclusively touch-screen interface devices... Then Microsoft decided that *everything* should use this interface. I'm not interested in relearning how to use my Desktop's or Laptop's interfaces. Screw Windows 8. If I found a part of my computer's user interface to be highly inefficient, requiring a redesign to solve the problem, I'd be very aware of it. I hate wasting time. But the stuff before Metro in most cases doesn't give me that impression. Metro does.
So there's my possibly subjective rant. But hey, the article asked.
My new high-end HP running Win 7-64 with 32GB RAM takes 5 minutes to boot...
Don't blame Windows for that.
rewriting history since 2109
Pretty much this. If you need to make big, structural changes to an OS, backporting it is gonna cause all sorts of problems. Can you imagine if they produduced a service pack upgrade for XP, or an older version of Windows and broke compatibility with tons of classic games? There'd be uproar. And that's not even considering the corporate sector. Basically, breaking existing functionality is generally a bad move, and MS isn't quite that stupid yet.
I think MS is seriously underestimating the reluctance of its base to move off Win7 to Win8 (or even 8.1).
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
...that doesn't want to upgrade to 8.1? It's a free upgrade and, as far as I'm aware, doesn't make any changes for the worse. The only thing I can think of is "local searches are sent to Bing," but since that's easily disabled, I can't think of a reason not to upgrade if you're already running on 8.
The sames things were said about Vista and 7.
Frankly, I was less than 2 months into 7 that I looked back and realized I had been stupid to skip Vista purely on "it's new and different" grounds and similarly to wait until 2011 to go to 7. Both were huge improvements on XP. Vista got a bad rap because shithead low end hardware (and a few cases software) makers wouldn't fix their drivers in a timely manner. Since 7 could mostly use Vista drivers when it came out, it was perceived as better despite really just being a cleanup and consolidation of good choices in Vista. Windows 8.1 will be the same thing.
I would be using Windows 8 on more hardware, but Intel decided to f*ck everyone on Atom / GMA based touch devices who bought hardware released even the same year as Windows 8 if it didn't include their Windows 8 hardware tax. Basically, the problem is consistently not Microsoft, but the hardware OEMs who produce crap or poor support. Microsoft's own internal studies are showing somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of BSODs on XP/Vista/7 were not due to the OS, but directly due to graphics drivers. With Vista and 7 they created a framework for being able to control and reboot the GPU drivers and BSODs have massively dropped. Frankly, more Microsoft KB articles and help fields should point the fingers at software and hardware manufacturers when applicable. They've always been way too nice and softballed the error sources.
last time they pulled that stunt with DX10 and vista, game developers began switching to openGL instead of using DX10. what makes them think game devs will use the latest DX that no players are using this time around? Any serious gamer knows enough about computers to not use windows 8
You're confusing the UI with the underlying OS. MSFT continues to improve the OS itself, but at the same time they, for some crazy reason, feel it necessary to radically modify the UI every time they have a new release. Not only is this annoying to their dwindling home users, it adds training expenses and delays to it's corporate adoption. On top of that the Metro UI is basically the antithesis of productivity.
DirectX is an API, not a standard. It doesnt even have a spec doc like OpenGL does.
My point comes down to this, anyone reviewing Window 8 should do so with a touch screen.
No. No I will not and it is because Win8 is being sold as a desktop OS. I don't have, want, or need a touchscreen for my desktop OS so you are 100% wrong in asking that we change our work flow, that has been polished over many years with a keyboard and then mouse interface, to what amounts to a mobile UI.
Further this move is yet another force play by MS to push their mobile UI on to us desktop users. Which they are doing for a number of self interested reasons that offer desktop users nothing in return.
Yes I have heard that Win8 boots faster. Seriously? That is the only tangible thing that I've seen other than some questionable performance gains from whatever other code updates have been done beyond the UI. And I hate to break it to MS, and its shills and fanboys, but I've had an SSD for years now and boot times are not an issue.
It is clear that with the 8.1 update, something MS has not done since Windows 3 (wow!) that they are trying to "fix" their self created problem. However they only went part way because were they to actually fix the whole problem they would be undoing their whole plan that benefits them alone.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
But it's NOT ABOUT THE UI with windows 8. The UI issues are merely a mix of incompetence and misdirection.
Windows 8/WinRT is all about moving people from the desktop to Metro. From general-purpose computing to 'App Store computing'
Microsoft are following Apple, pushing as many people as possible into a world where all code must be signed, approved, censored, and taxed at 30%+ by the platform holder. And to do that, they will gradually limit the usefulness of the desktop.
It's amazing how much DX9 stuff we still see.
I imagine that companies that ship DirectX 9-compatible game engines are trying not to exclude some PC owners from their market. These potential customers own PCs with Windows XP, PCs with older video cards that don't support all the new features of DirectX 10 let alone 11, and PCs with no video card at all whose integrated graphics can't easily make use of new DirectX features.
This question has been asked on slashdot with literally every release of Windows that I can remember back to at least 95. Yes, people will complain, no it won't hurt Microsoft's sales. No, people won't stop buying their product because getting a major new feature requires you to upgrade the whole OS. I eagerly await this exact same thread two years from now.