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
Games houses know where the money is.
They still support DX9 and MSFT has done this before, eventually we all upgrade, just a matter of which version too and when but it is certinally not when they think we do.
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.'"
Where does it say the PS4 is getting it? I saw no mention of that.
DX 10 being limited to Vista and newer kept it from being used for a long time, I guess the same will happen to DX11.1 and 11.2. Game companies won't make games that don't run on an OS the majority of the players use (Windows 7).
"...is going to be exclusive to Windows 8.1 and next generation consoles — Xbox One and Play Station 4." When did Microsoft start developing for Playstation 4?
What? Where did that come from?
Undoubtedly it will make the some people angry.
But for anyone that does Windows graphics development and knows something about the underlying system, it's not a big deal. We've known that adding some of these features to Direct3D would require making some changes to the underlying display driver stack (WDDM), which is why D3D 11.2 requires WDDM 1.3 drivers, and WDDM 1.3 requires Windows 8.1. Unless of course you want Microsoft backporting a new version of the display driver stack and breaking your old OSes...
TL;DR: D3D 11.2 requiring Win8.1 can't be helped
So what does DirectX 11.1 and .2 do that's so important that people will abandon Windows 7?
Steam is on Linux too now. Game companies cannot easily ignore that anymore. Unless you're a huge douchebag like EA, Activision etc...
Their best selling point is that you can't buy a new PC with anything but Win8. If you want Windows 7, budget another $100-130 for a home or pro license for 7. And good luck rounding up the drivers.
Game developers surely won't be convinced as most people still run (and will keep on running) the greatest common divisor which is Windows 7.
So I believe very few games will have features unique to DirectX >= 11.1. It just doesn't make sense to invest your money into something most people will be unable to use.
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
My new high-end HP running Win 7-64 with 32GB RAM takes 5 minutes to boot..
I know that HP sometimes make it hard to find the power button on their PC, but that is a bit ridiculous.
If you're running control software similar to what I'm running, it's the cause. My computer went from incredible fast to really slow when I installed my plc and hmi development tools.
The only thing easier to find on the Internet than Windows 7 drivers is porn.
My Win 7-64 with 16GB RAM takes about 20 seconds excluding BIOS, you could try updating drivers / using something like bootvis ( http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/performance/default.aspx )
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
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)
Except that you can get DX10 to run on XP if you try, but DX11.2 appears to actually require features in Windows 8.1. (Guess MS learned from DX10.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's all.
Privacy is terrorism.
My new high-end HP running Win 7-64 with 32GB RAM takes 5 minutes to boot...
Don't blame Windows for that.
Why not?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because there is something else causing it to take so long to boot.
rewriting history since 2109
...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.
From the Microsoft Volume Licensing Brief - Downgrade Rights PDF available here:
Rights to OEM versions of system software are granted in the OEM License Terms. The OEM License Terms for Windows 8 Pro, Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Ultimate, Windows Vista Business, and Windows Vista Ultimate operating systems grant downgrade rights. See the full text of the OEM License Terms for the specific downgrade rights
So please tell me why you need to purchase anything? If you buy a PC with Windows 8 then install Windows 7 and call Microsoft Activation and advise you have downgraded to Windows 7 as allowed as part of the OEM licensing agreement and would like their assistance in activating.
Maybe. Or maybe that something else wouldn't make another OS take so long, which indicates an OS interaction. We can't tell from here.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And also what are you talking about can't buy a PC with anything but Windows 8? I just bought 15 laptops from Dell 2 days ago and all will arrive with Windows 7. Nothing special at all, not even discussed with my account manager their. Last 3 orders since Windows 8 have all been the same.
Just because you walk into whatever department store and only see Windows 8 doesn't mean that the only reality.
They could make games with all those features if they used OpenGL. But it seems most of them love being fully dependent on Microsoft so much that they just don't consider switching to open apis.
What the heck do you have on your Win 7 machine? My 4 year old Win 7 machine takes maybe a minute to boot (on a bad day). Of course, if I leave it in sleep mode, it comes up instantly.
Because that's not normal. I've been running Windows machines for years and never had one take remotely that long to boot. It's not the O/S.
For companies like Dell it's a selling point to be able to offer Windows 7 as a option. Even they aren't stupid enough to let that opportunity go unused.
call Microsoft Activation and advise you have downgraded to Windows 7 as allowed as part of the OEM licensing agreement and would like their assistance in activating.
Have you read the OEM licensing agreement?
You can only 'downgrade' if you purchase Windows 8 Pro, which is, a) Not always an option on consumer machines, b) Much more expensive.
Ref: http://www.microsoft.com/OEM/en/licensing/sblicensing/Pages/downgrade_rights.aspx
No sig today...
If he means to finish booting and stop being slow, then he's justified in blaming Windows 7.
I did a comparison between it and the current distro of Kubuntu at the time it came out. I was initially amazed that it matched Kubuntu's time to desktop, at about 1:30 (+/- 15 seconds), then noticed it was slow, and kept hammering the hard drive until about 5:00. Kubuntu was done hitting the hard drive and being slow at the 1:30.
That was a new boot, without anything on it. Due to the fragmentation on the file system, it takes a lot longer to boot now (I have not recently measured it multiple times, but >2:30). Kubuntu takes a bit longer, but less time (+30 seconds perhaps)
Mind you that was a Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz, with I think 4GB of RAM and a fast hard drive (not an SSD) a few years ago.
They could make games with all those features if they used OpenGL. But it seems most of them love being fully dependent on Microsoft so much that they just don't consider switching to open apis.
The last thing game developers want is to make it easier to create native variants of their games for OSX and Linux.. That would be silly.
My ChromeBook is fast, my older HP running Ubuntu is fast. My new high-end HP running Win 7-64 with 32GB RAM takes 5 minutes to boot...
Try turning off the "Run RAM diagnostic on startup" option...
No sig today...
You're doing something wrong, if it takes five minutes for your Win7 system to boot.
My system running Win7 with Samsung 830 SSD and 16gb RAM (no point going to 32gb unless you want to accept the much lower memory timings that come with it) and it takes about fifteen or twenty seconds to get to desktop.
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
Forced upgrade? Huh? I'm still running Win 7 on one machine and Win XP on my streaming box. Not feeling any "forced upgrade". I can still buy plenty of new software and games, and I'm sure that will continue when 8.1 is released. In what way am I "forced to upgrade"?
.
First Microsoft releases an awful version of Windows (8.0), then Microsoft backtracks (temporarily?) and restores some useful functionality that was removed (emphasis on some).
The question remains, how long before Microsoft has another dose of stupid, and re-removes the Start button and boot to desktop. Strategically, it is what they want to do, so you know they will keep trying to do it.
Except that you can get DX10 to run on XP if you try
no you cant, making HALO run doesnt not mean that it was a dx10 game
but DX11.2 appears to actually require features in Windows 8.1. (Guess MS learned from DX10.)
no it doesnt
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Give up and look at his posting history. He's a troll that delights in deliberately appearing to be stupid.
But... windows is meant to be easy to use, only linux users have to jump through hoops to optimize the boot process and and....
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Strap that JATO unit to your pack as you fall off a cliff, Microsoft. Already my next home machine may very well be an Android tablet. I sure as hell won't be buying a computer (or any games for that matter) that require this. Not supplying it for my Windows 7 machine will just help learn to live without it even faster.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
You mean this is the year of Linux on the desktop????
DirectX is an API, not a standard. It doesnt even have a spec doc like OpenGL does.
I think people has misconception of how works Direct3D 11. Nowadays, it just Direct3D 11 with 'feature level' : 9.1 (targeting Direct3D 9), 9.2, etc to 11.1 and 11.2). Thinks a bit like OpenGL 4.1, 4.2 etc..., just some 'extensions'
The thing is that you can write Direct3D 11 apps running on a Direct3D 9.0 hardware (minus the new features like geometry shader). A bit achievement from Direct3D 10 where only Direct3D 10 only worked for Geforce 8 or better (and AMD Radeon HD). Now it could works with very old hardware and still working on latest hardware/
Forward to Direct3D 11.1 from Windows 8: It added a couple of features that nobody really uses (3D stereoscopy) and now they added Direct3D 11.2 with tiled extensions (sounds for PowerVR or Adreno chipset for Windows RT tablets). On OpenGLES, it is called GL_QCOM_tiled_rendering. MS wanted to have that on DirectX, so they add to create a new profile '11.2'
The programmers were able to write Direct3D 11 games for 'Windows Store' and 'Windows Desktop' (for Vista or superior, using the 2010 SDK) as because and new 11.1 and 11.2 minor changes will be able available for 'Windows Store' because it also targets tablets and especially GPU that supports tiled rendering (PowerVR).:
So now, it is sure that DirectX new features are now exclusive for Windows Store apps, and there will be no more update of DirectX for apps targeting Windows Desktop (the SDK was not updated since 2010 for desktop).
DirectX for Windows Desktop (games for Steam etc..) is dead for 3 years already. It is now just an API for Windows Store apps . Also making a requirement to Direct3D 11.1 or 11.2 only games is stupid for a developer, since he probably want to support at least 9.1 profile
I need a Sino-Logic 16. Sogo-7 data-gloves, a GPL stealth module...
put on his machine. I say this because my work machine takes around 5 minutes to boot into Windows 7 and when it runs it constantly hammers the hard drive. Unfortunately they have us install slow ass anti-virus(IE not Avast), log into the domain and some help desk program.(Which is especially worthless since if something needs fixing on my machine I end up fixing it anyway.) I wonder if Linux works better simply because there's less garbage on it.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I have a [high-end pc for 3 years ago] with only 8gb ram and for the entire first year win7-x64 booted in just under 30 seconds, from power-on to desktop (and a usable desktop at that)
Over the years I've gained more crap that starts on login so I'm up to 1.5 minutes now, but still no where near 5 min.
My C isn't even a SSD but spinny rust, and it's "only" an i7 920 at 2.66 - pretty slow by todays standards.
Not to mention, holy crap I haven't had to reinstall in 3 years! That's pretty shocking after XP.
As someone that started out with 68k macs, then switching to linux full time in 96, Win7 is actually the first MS OS I don't despise having to use.
I'm pretty confident to say 7 is quite fast and stable for a long time for us power users.
I am also just now deploying the first batch of 7 boxes at work, where we have no choice (industrial control here as well, so I feel your pain), to my test subjects / beta test team.
Curious to see how long it will last under non-computer-user type use at work and all the normal problems which result. Another huge plus is the new Group Policy controls that come with the new v2 profiles since Vista.
Linux is a vanishingly tiny market for games. OSX is a bit bigger. Consoles are a lot bigger. What games developers want are games engines that can be easily portable between Windows and at least one major console.
The XBox (all of them), as name implies, uses DirectX APIs. If you write your game to use DirectX then it becomes almost easy to port it from Windows to XBox or vice versa. Graphics, audio, controls - all of it can remain basically the same. That's a big appeal to developers, and a strong reason to use DirectX.
The PS3 uses not-OpenGL. It's a PS3-specific API, but it's based on OpenGL, so porting is a little trickier but still practical.
My Win7-64 with 6GB of memory takes under 30sec to boot.
There was a DX 10?
"The wisdom of the Patriarchs was that they *knew* they were fools." --Master Foo
It's pretty hard to get excited about a DirectX release these days. We all saw the comparison screenshots between DX9 and DX10, and later DX10 and DX11. We saw the ever-so-slight improvements in texture mapping, reflections, shadows, etc. Hasn't the rise of the indie game taught Microsoft anything? It's the gameplay, stupid, not your incrementally more realistic rendering of hair. Not that I object to that kind of thing, but as a selling point for the train wreck that is Windows 8? Get real.
OpenGL is a graphics API. It competes with Direct3D. Direct3D is a subset of DirectX. DirectX includes a whole lot more in addition to graphics.
And this will force me to buy a product no one wants....
The harder you squeeze the rebel alliance, the more they they slip through your fingers. .....
Exactly right. Based on numbers provided by Steam, DirectX10 is currently the majority of what players hardware supports. So guess what developers are targetting? Sure some AAA studios are going all out but a lot of the smaller developers are still putting out DirectX9 games.
Highly unlikely. The only significant advantage appears to be the ability to load textures into system RAM instead of only GPU's RAM.
Problem: most games do not need any more then your mid-end discreet GPU already has. Most require far less, as most games are optimized for older console generation and don't really have high res textures. Those that come with PC only "high res texture packs" still usually fit fine inside average discreet GPU's memory.
But... windows is meant to be easy to use, only linux users have to jump through hoops to optimize the boot process and and....
If you're installing Windows from scratch, you probably don't have to do anything to optimize the boot process. Sure, there are a couple tweaks you can use to minimize memory usage by shutting off unneeded processes, but none of that is actually necessary.
On OEM systems, you do sometimes have to get rid of a bunch of pre-installed crap to get things to boot in a reasonable amount of time, especially since most of these systems don't have SSDs. But this isn't really a fault of Windows per se – if Linux were the standard, OEMs would load it down with a bunch of crap, too (since they get paid by the crapware vendors to do this). There are programs designed specifically to remove all of this junk from a new OEM system without having to manually wade through it all. You certainly don't have to go to the command line to do it.
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.
AMD chips have much better Video FULL 64 bit and more MB choice at about the same price.
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.
My ChromeBook is fast, my older HP running Ubuntu is fast. My new high-end HP running Win 7-64 with 32GB RAM takes 5 minutes to boot...
I'm hoping that you get the boot time improved... But aside that, and just out of curiosity, for what purpose did you grab that monster? 32GB RAM sounds good for running very complex particle simulations or multiple virtual machines.
New desktop touch screen monitors nearly ready. They come with a hammer and a box of nails so you can simply nail it to any desk for stability. A glue version is also planned for the metal desk. The replaceable clear plastic sheet to protect it from fingerprints is optional.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
This. Why does every app have to ship their own DirectX runtime libraries? Can't they be included with Windows?
How is the issue handled with OpenGL?
And I've got a host of Steam games and Indie titles to play. Nice try though.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
99% of the new AAA games for windows are only rehashes of older ones
What video game released in the past decade isn't a rehash of another game? Even the Katamari series, which reviewers praised for its innovation, is just the obvious adaptation of the 1982 arcade game Bubbles to a 3D platformer environment.
They have new competition from browsers and mobile os's. They can't afford to NOT adopt a go forward model. If operating systems are supposed to compete with browsers -- then they will need to adopt an update model like browsers, or mobile oses. If you are going to whine then perhaps you ought to hold Mozilla and Chrome to the same standards and demand they backport previous features like webrtc, h264 etc. It's substantially more effort and slows things down. The one thing Microsoft can't do is slow down, they need to speed up if they have any hopes of remaining relevant. I for one would like to see a unified microsoft release stack that was operating system, .net framework, ie, direct x, etc. released bi-yearly or perhaps even quarterly.
Well, be using OpenGL they get all this plus easy portability to OSX, Linux, Android, iOS and any consoles providing somethig close to an OpenGL implementation (most of them). But Microsoft offers some tasty cookies (features) to lead people to DirectX and many gamedevs can't be bothered to implement the same features themselves in OpenGL.
If gamdevs formed an alliance, implemented features useful to gamdev on top of OpenGL and released them as a free library everybody (except Microsoft, bye-bye lock-in) would benefit.
80% of computers use Intel's horrible integrated video chips. Unless you make Crysis you can't ignore this market.
http://saveie6.com/
They did the same bit to get people to move from XP to 7. And everyone lost their minds then, too. Why would anyone expect things to be different this time?
We should all know by now that this is part of Microsoft's business plan. Get you to keep buying the same product over and over.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/DirectX-10-for-Windows-XP.shtml
http://www.afreecodec.com/windows/top-windows-software/directx-10-for-windows-xp-404947.html
you can run crysis in dx10 mode in xp with it
i run win7 though so dont need it
...but are you using your browser from within Metro? I bet most people don't.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
With Windows RT 8.1, Microsoft actually took measures to lock out the jailbreak that allowed running unsigned--and Desktop-based--code on Windows RT. I think that this more than anything shows what you're talking about: Microsoft severely cares that you're using their device designed to showcase Metro to run desktop applications.
By the way, we already have good progress on jailbreaking RT 8.1.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Get over it. Really, at this point I have to imagine it's not that you're still bothered by this, but just having a reflex where every time Windows 8 is brought up in conversation, you feel the need argue all your perceived weakness of the operating system just out of habit. Please stop, it getting a little old. If removing the start button from windows totally ruined your world, you were doing something wrong.
Loading stuff into system RAM is required for the unified architecture of XBone to have any advantage. For systems with APU's this will let PCs use that hardware better and get performance advantages similar to consoles. In theory ;)
Quite how well it will work on existing systems with graphics memory sitting on the wrong side of the PCIe bus is an open question. Neither am I convinced console game makers will rely on this to simplify porting to Windows, since it won't actually work on most existing hardware.
If you target DX11.3 you have a smaller fragment of the market. Makes sense.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Vanishingly tiny? what does that even mean? Linux gaming is growing by leaps and bounds right now. I can go buy OTS hardware, pop Linux on it and be playing AAA games on it in hours.
Good-bye
It's going to fail for the same reason it failed last time: Windows 7 won't magically go away overnight. DirectX is something users don't care about, nor do they need to. They don't care which version of DirectX they're using so long as their games run. Developers care about DirectX because they need to know what version(s) to target. The problem here is that, as with XP in it's day, Windows 7 is going to be a large chunk (probably even the majority) of the market for at least a year after Windows 8.1 comes out. Console game makers will be able to target whatever's on the console, but PC game developers can't just write off the majority of their market and say "Sorry, can't run our game.". That makes base DX11 the latest version PC game makers can safely target, or DX9.0c if they feel they need to keep the XP market (obsolete it may be, but ~36% of the desktop market it still is).
And if your games all require base DX11, why as a user would you feel any pressure to upgrade to get 11.2?
80% of computers are also rarely if ever used for gaming and have little if any need for directx beyond 9.
I don't think they are. I don't think they care. The answer is to slowly turn up the temperature until their home / small business customer base starts moving to: Win 8/9, Windows 8 hardware, Windows 8 (metro) applications.
There's a lot more wrong with 8 than merely removal of the start button. Begin with them deciding to design a desktop OS around the notion that everyone in the universe has a touchscreen interface. I don't have one on my desktop, I don't /want/ one on my desktop.
metro is just crap, which is why I specifically ordered windows 7 pro w/my shiny new haswell/780m notebook.
I order Windows 8 so that I can get three more years of "extended support", but I make sure to specify Classic Shell so that the environment formerly known as Metro is segregated in the ghetto where it belongs.
Did Microsoft take out the "slipstreamed security updates" functionality in Windows Vista or something?
Purposefully is not really the right word. There are huge tradeoffs for maintaining long term comparability. It restricts what a company can do and how best to take advantage of their system. Microsoft's big problem is a customer base that is mostly satisfied with lower performance They are buying ever cheaper hardware, they are buying less of it and replacing it with cell phones and tables, and they care keeping their PCs longer. Microsoft needs to make end users dissatisfied and to do that they need applications to be pushing against hardware limits.
So I'm not sure what problems you think Microsoft has but it is unclear given the alternatives how Microsoft is harmed by reducing backwards computability. Apple is obviously far far worse.
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.
True, Microsoft hasn't used the "point one" branding for a service pack since Windows 3. But I seem to remember the Mojave ad campaign to promote Windows Vista SP1.
My point comes down to this, anyone reviewing Window 8 should do so with a touch screen. Never install in a desktop. If you are doing a gaming computer, wait for MS to find a better balance between desktop use of their OS and the portable design, which metro is intended for.
In other words, Windows 8 was intended to get PC gamers to buy a touch laptop and an Xbox One instead of a desktop PC.
RAM doesn't help you boot faster, but 32 GB helps it running super fast after that by caching everything. IMO 32 GB is probably overkill for four or less cores (you didn't say how many cores the HP has), though 16 can get a bit tight some times and 32 isn't that expensive. I use suspend to RAM on my workstation and only reboot for rare kernel upgrades (OS is Scientific Linux) or hardware changes. For windows, I you'd be looking at a minimum of a monthly reboot on patch Tuesday, but that's not too bad. Maybe I'm strange, but I get a bit irritated when people post boot speed as the only metric for performance. It's about fifth on my list of performance concerns after raw compute power, responsiveness, application startup from cache and multitasking ability.
I think MS is seriously underestimating the reluctance of its base to move off Win7 to Win8 (or even 8.1).
The upgrade we're discussing here is from Win8 to 8.1.
Win7 users can upgrade or not as they please; the point here is that Win8 users can -- and frankly *should* -- upgrade to 8.1. Win 8.1 is really what Win8 should have been in the first place.
Win8 has had its share of criticism, and yes a lot of it has been deserved. 8.1 is a good effort to resolve some of that criticism. They haven't sorted everything, and if Win7 users still want to stick with Win7, I can well understand it. But Win8 users really should move to 8.1; It's a free upgrade from Win8, so there's really no reason not to upgrade.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Well, be using OpenGL they get all this plus easy portability to OSX, Linux
Citation needed that the market for OS X and GNU/Linux versions of a game combined exceed the market for an Xbox 360 port.
Android, iOS
Portability to Android and iOS doesn't help if your game is in a genre that uses discrete buttons rather than point-and-click interaction. iOS has no official game controller API until iOS 7 comes out, and iOS 7 won't run on any iPod touch sold more than eight months ago. And until this month (June 2013), Android had only one well-known device that came bundled with a controller, namely the Xperia Play by Sony.
I only use Windows for an IM application and gaming (not even gaming now, but I'm hoping to do some trickery with KVM and PCI passthrough). When games become significantly better in W8 than in W7 I may have to fork out some cash. Kind of a sneaky tactic of MS to tie it to an API upgrade, but I'm getting updates for W7 for free, so it's maybe fair that I should upgrade to W8 sooner or (very much) later. I wish I had bought a copy when it was on special offer. I assume that games will run well on W7 for years to come, so it doesn't even justify a "meh"
PS4 will use FreeBSD for it's OS code base. Where is there proof that it will still use DirectX?
I would think Microsoft would have a problem with a DirectX clone/port/emulation.
You and the grandparent hit it on the head. Ever since Dx10 they've been (failing miserably at) using DirectX to strongarm people into buying their latest Numerically Superior Product "or else".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
your logic still appears to be faulty.
rewriting history since 2109
It means of no commercial significence. But you're right, it is growing - and growing with very impressive speed. In large part due to Valve's show of commitment. Give it more time, and the situation may change.
If Valve do go ahead with their rumored project to release some sort of linux-powered console tied into Steam, everything changes overnight. Linux becomes a serious gaming platform. The only issue remaining would be convincing games publishers their games are safe from piracy - but they seem happy enough releasing on PC right now, and I've yet to find even one Windows/PC game that could not be obtained from bittorrent somehow.
What games developers want are games engines that can be easily portable between Windows and at least one major console.
...and what PC gamers want is a great PC game, not a crappy console port. It's somehow comforting to know that DirectX is only an advantage for people developing games I have no interest in playing.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
It's mostly just part of Microsoft's strategy to increase Windows 8's value over previous versions of Windows. I'm quite sure that there wouldn't be too big technical obstacles to bring DirectX 11.2 (and Internet Explorer 11) to Windows 7.
But the Start button is coming back.
Why sell to one market when, for a very slight increase in development costs, you can sell to two? It just makes commercial sense.
Drivel. Windows was built from a crap DOS into what it is today filled with backwards bug compatibility and a complete lack of real security.
There have been realtime OSes on PC hardware long before DOS/Windows. It didn't take Microsoft to "make it happen." But if all you know is Microsoft, then you will always believe they did it first and are the only ones who do.
True, but it wont serve the same function as the old start button. I assume those that grumble about its absence are doing so because they used to make heavy use start menu/launcher, which is not returning. The new button will take you to the metro Start screen, which is more or less a full screen replacement of the old start menu that these people miss. So ya, there will be a button there, but I doubt whether the simple addition of a button which is the equivalent of hitting the Win key will make these guys happy.
I wonder if DX11.2 really requires Win8.1 in any meaningful way or if a few nops in the installer could bring it to win7.
300kb/s transfer times on gigabit network. I don't know how they balls'd up something as simple as transferring a file but they did.
Or when you copy something like 3000 files at a time the computer would sit there for what seemed like most of the day counting the number of files and calculating the time to completion before actually starting the transfer.
No people don't look at the old Vista just like they don't look at the old Windows XP. Remember the days when Windows XP actually didn't support WiFi or have a Firewall? Vista pre-servicepacks was crap on ALL hardware even with good drivers.
Thank you for an example of your trolling.
Improved multi-monitor support
Improved Task Manager
Improved thread scheduling
Lower resource usage
That's off the top of my head.
My ChromeBook is fast, my older HP running Ubuntu is fast. My new high-end HP running Win 7-64 with 32GB RAM takes 5 minutes to boot...
How much spyware/malware do you have on that HP Win7? That's about the only reason why I can think of for a computer to take anything more than 2 minutes.
I'm cleaning up my cousin's computer (Win 7-32) and it has a bunch of spyware on it. Still boots in about 2 minutes and this laptop originally came with Vista so it's probably from 2008.
I think you completely missed the entire topic of discussion here....No one was complaining about upgrading from Win 8 to Win 8.1...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
8.1 is a free upgrade to those running 8.0. This is a non-issue.
And you get it wrong again.
rewriting history since 2109
It doesnt even have a spec doc like OpenGL does.
It might not be an open standard but Nvidia, AMD, Imagination Technologies and Qualcomm aren't reverse engineering the API to deliver DirectX GPUs so clearly there is a spec doc somewhere available.
It's the fact that it's full screen that is the problem. I intensely dislike modal interfaces for tasks that are not logically modal, and I hate the context switch, and I really hate that I need to either memorize or use a multi-monitor system to be able to follow instructions on an email message I have opened that include "hit start and type foo". I do think the start screen is better for touch on tablets but when I use a mouse I want something that is not a context switch. It really is my biggest complaint with Windows 8 that does not appear to be addressed by 8.1. The start screen is the one thing that won't even go into the 50/50 splitscreen view.
My biggest complaint which is addressed is that search wasn't unified by default -- I don't want to have to memorize whether something is an "application" or a "setting". There's clearly still work to be done on search results though.
Game makers know the sales numbers for windows 8 and are not going to bother with DX-11.2. No to mention that any console port is going to only use DX-11. So there is no point.
The removal of the start menu/metro being a hot corner, and allowing boot to desktop was necessary.
I could live with the Metro interface being the new start menu. Not a big problem for desktop users.
http://www.accountkiller.com/en/delete-slashdot-account Stop visiting Slashdot.
Or, if said customers have any brains, switch to OSX / iOS / Android / other forms of Linux.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Their home / small business customer base is already rapidly switching to iOS and Android. That's part of what's driving their urgency. Their belief is that in 2013 Android and iOS aren't mature enough yet for the more demanding 2/3rds to switch completely. That might not be true in 2017 so better to force the switch in Windows 8 now then fight that battle against Android in 2017.
As for the Linux desktop. They are opening themselves up to a bigger establishment of the Linux desktop at the low end. OTOH the Linux desktop hasn't been so disorganized in its entire life. The pieces are there but it could take a year or two get structures back in place for unified large scale desktop projects that would command community focus. That's likely enough time. 6 mo was plenty in the case of netbooks.
Their home / small business customer base is already rapidly switching to iOS and Android. That's part of what's driving their urgency. Their belief is that in 2013 Android and iOS aren't mature enough yet for the more demanding 2/3rds to switch completely. That might not be true in 2017 so better to force the switch in Windows 8 now then fight that battle against Android in 2017.
Right, so customers with any brains better start looking for non-Microsoft future rather than be "driven" by a company without a drive.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I don't know that Microsoft doesn't have any drive. Spend some time at: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/, they have some very cool ideas. Even for Windows-8 I think the idea of ubiquitous computing is rather cool. Not having drive would be standing by and letting the switch to Android happen. What Microsoft is doing is stepping up and leading their platform. They win, they may lose but they are fighting.
DirectX is an API, not a standard. It doesnt even have a spec doc like OpenGL does.
And yet its the standard that the majority of games use.
Go figure. Your definition doesn't match reality, I guess.
Let's be fair, DirectX is a hell of a lot more than just graphics. ... but still being fair, there are things like SDL that do the jobs OpenGL itself doesn't.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Supporting it is useless if by "supported" you mean "works, at 15 seconds per frame."
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Ok, enjoy being "driven" by a corporation that has no interest in the well being of any particular customer. Hopefully sensible people are driving their own business on their own terms.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.