Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Makes Direct X 11.1 a Windows 8 Exclusive

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the year-of-the-linux-desktop dept.

Microsoft 553

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.

cancel ×

553 comments

Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (5, Interesting)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962511)

and we won't have to put up with this anymore.

Re:Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (-1, Flamebait)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962655)

Linux sucks as a desktop os

Re:Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962729)

Linux Mint 14 ROCKS as my desktop.
Linux user from VER.1.1

Re:Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962805)

Omg VER 1.1!

Mint 1.1? kernel 1.1? You're a tool regardless.

Re:Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (1, Interesting)

jiriw (444695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962761)

What do you need a good [b]desktop[/b] OS for to play a game? It's only useful for support features as a console menu is useful to console games. As long as the graphics drivers are stable, featurefull and fast, there is enough support in your OS to start the game, do some configuring and maybe some support apps on the side, you should be good to go. Both Windows OS and a fully kitted out X are overkill.

Re:Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962955)

because some of us don't want separate devices for every task and we like the enhancements powerful hardware brings to them? We've been using one machine for a lot of things since 1993 and we'd like to continue doing so.

Re:Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (2, Informative)

corychristison (951993) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962807)

Linux sucks as a desktop os

... have you ever actually used Linux as a "Desktop OS"? All* of them?

If you've just "tried" one, then you really have no room for an opinion.

* by 'all' I mean the variations in desktop UI's... KDE, Gnome, MATE, XFCE, Fluxbox, Windowmaker, and so on and so forth.

Re:Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (2, Interesting)

humanrev (2606607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963007)

Sounds like a lot of time and effort expended into getting what you were already used to with Windows.

I tend to agree with him. I have yet to find a Linux DE that has the right balance between having too many options (KDE) or too few options (GNOME), while still having a modern GPU accelerated desktop which looks slick (Windows 7). Besides, the advantage is my wife can use my computer efficiently because it looks pretty much the same as her computer (and no she could never run a Linux distro - she's a teacher, schools use Microsoft Office, and I don't want to cause added stress by making extra work for her).

Re:Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (0, Flamebait)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963049)

> having too many options (KDE)

This is a nonsense argument.

Stick with being a prisoner of Microsoft.

>treating your wife as if she's dumb.

You're sexist too. Wonderful!

--
BMO

Re:Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (0)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963099)

I have actually, and i found linux to be extremely frustrating. Running into dependency issues right and left is what annoyed the hell out of me, that and it just wasnt as good of an experience. Poor quality applications, very thin selection of good programs. Everything was counter culture, which i'm all for, but if you cant use a lot of mainstream applications/services than whats the point of linux on the desktop?

How to get rid of all Windows boxes, forever? (3, Interesting)

h00manist (800926) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963053)

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.

Re:Let's hope Steam on Linux gathers... steam (0)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962697)

good one

Careful what you wish for (5, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962703)

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.

Re:Careful what you wish for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962767)

Why would that worry anyone?

Re:Careful what you wish for (5, Informative)

nschubach (922175) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962881)

Why would you worry about which version has your graphics drivers? Ubuntu, which will be the only distro for the near future with Steam support, will have the major drivers available. If you choose to use another, it's up to you to get it to work until they decide to branch out to another distribution.

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/steamd-penguins/ [valvesoftware.com]

Why Ubuntu? There are a couple of reasons for that. First, we’re just starting development and working with a single distribution is critical when you are experimenting, as we are. It reduces the variability of the testing space and makes early iteration easier and faster. Secondly, Ubuntu is a popular distribution and has recognition with the general gaming and developer communities. This doesn’t mean that Ubuntu will be the only distribution we support. Based on the success of our efforts around Ubuntu, we will look at supporting other distributions in the future.

Re:Careful what you wish for (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963003)

Right, but Ubuntu will only have drivers for certain GPUs. If yours isn't one of them, forget it.

Re:Careful what you wish for (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963129)

... so the makers of those GPUs get rewarded with money. Others may see some benefit in providing Linux source drivers to get some of this money. It needs to start somewhere, and the big problem up until this point, is there wasn't enough reason to. With so much being web-based now, Microsoft trying the Apple-style lock-in on the desktop, and now this, there's never been a better time.

Well there's 11.1 reasons to use OpenGL (5, Insightful)

Dan B. (20610) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962529)

As per the subject, this just adds to the reasons for using OpenGL

Re:Well there's 11.1 reasons to use OpenGL (2)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962787)

Great. Now if only the big studios will make the switch.

Indie developers have been using OpenGL for ages. Windows will continue to be the gaming platform of choice so long as Call of Duty and Madden continue to push the version of DirectX necessary.

It's not surprising move though. I believe Microsoft started this with XP (DirectX 9c?), and have been doing it since. There were no negative repercussions then, and I honestly doubt there will be with DirectX 11.1.

Of course, if Windows 8 utterly tanks, as it probably will in the desktop and enterprise market segments, the point is moot. Microsoft will go straight to Windows 9 and DirectX 12 (and pull the same sort of thing there).

Re:Well there's 11.1 reasons to use OpenGL (5, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962941)

Solution: don't buy from the big studios. Send them an email telling them that you aren't buying, and tell them why. Inform them that the indies are supplying your needs, with OpenGL compatible games. Problem solved.

Re:Well there's 11.1 reasons to use OpenGL (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962993)

Yes and watch as they laugh at you and continue to sell millions of copies to gamers who don't give a shit whether their game is using OpenGL or not.

Re:Well there's 11.1 reasons to use OpenGL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41963035)

Why would anyone serious buy something from them anyway? All they do is cater to casuals.

Re:Well there's 11.1 reasons to use OpenGL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41963097)

I played Dwarf Fortress before it was cool.

Re:Well there's 11.1 reasons to use OpenGL (1)

humanrev (2606607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963043)

But big studios make all the fun games. Sure, indie developers make standouts from time to time (Amnesia, Braid, etc), but I like Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dishonored. These are way too involved for an indie group to make. And since it's not going to make one lick of difference if I send them an email or not, I'd rather just do what's necessary to play them since we only live once anyway.

Re:Well there's 11.1 reasons to use OpenGL (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962809)

Yeah the only problem is getting developers to support it, and after the 3.x fiasco, with all hands on the tiller plenty of developers are still swearing it off. Though it does seem to be changing with the 4.x version. But it has it's own image to repair among the community first.

Re:Well there's 11.1 reasons to use OpenGL (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963105)

Vista couldn't do it with major overhaul and upgrade to DX9 in form of DX10 which was Vista exclusive.

DX11.1 improvements are miniscule in terms of actual upgrades to DX11. Win8 is almost as bad in comparison to 7 as Vista was to XP.

I don't really see this working as a reasonable reason for the switch. If it was, we'd have seen the jump back in Vista times.

What do you expect? (4, Insightful)

RobinH (124750) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962541)

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.

Re:What do you expect? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962663)

What do I expect? I expect to be treated with respect. If Microsoft wants me to buy their new shiny, they can make it so I want to buy the new shiny. Dashing my expectations with regard to supporting their existing products does not motivate me to spend more money on their newest products. Quite the opposite.

I don't consider upgrades to Direct X to be "new features" even if they are, in fact, new features. I'd be just as likely to call security updates and bug fixes new features. Regardless of the reasonableness of my expectations, those are my expectations, and if Microsoft wants me as a Windows 8 customer they will have to be a little more considerate of my expectations regarding Windows 7.

Re:What do you expect? (-1, Flamebait)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962905)

W8 is shaping up to be another Me, or Vista. M$ is doing everything it can to force it down peoples' throats.

Re:What do you expect? (2)

Spaseboy (185521) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963001)

Well, you can always switch to Linux or Mac, I hear both of those are more much responsive than Microsoft when it comes to meeting expectations about what a customer wants. /sarcasm

Re:What do you expect? (1)

Spaseboy (185521) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962943)

It goes beyond adding features; it's also about allocating resources to build compatibility for multiple versions of the OS, test on multiple versions and support multiple versions. "The new shiny" is not the issue. Windows 8 is Microsoft's upgrade path, if you want to continue to be current, you upgrade. Windows 8 has not made Windows 7 obsolete, it just means you need to be happy where you are.

Re:What do you expect? (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962953)

Windows hasn't released a "new product" in about a decade now. All they have released are "upgrades". And, they charge for every upgrade.

WINE (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962547)

Wine has a Direct X implementation. Wouldn't it be hilarious if they Wine on Windows [winehq.org] working well enough to make older versions of Windows able to run modern Windows applications?

Re:WINE (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962711)

No

Re:WINE (1)

corychristison (951993) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962723)

I see no reason it couldn't work, provided they had the resources (developers and testers).

The only down side is Microsoft has the advantage here with their usual "lets create and use undocumented system calls to make this really hard to reverse engineer" tactic.

I love the WINE project for their effort but there will come a time that businesses will simply start development with cross platform in mind. With projects like wxGTK, Qt, and OpenGL making that process easier I see no reason why they wouldn't utilize them.

Exclusives (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962549)

Buy Windows 8 now, so you can play DirectX 11.1 Games with Games for Windows Live and Xbox 360 controllers as the only input method.

Vista and DX10 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962551)

Microsoft used the same trick to market Vista to gamers with DirectX 10.

Re:Vista and DX10 (1)

deniable (76198) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962605)

Yes, they did and an early exclusive was 'Shadowrun'. Upgrade to Vista to run a half-baked tactical shooter knock-off of a property they got with the FASA interactive purchase.

Doesn't matter (5, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962561)

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.

Re:Doesn't matter (-1, Flamebait)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962675)

Windows 8 is fucking good. No one is downgrading, and if they are, they're stupid

Re:Doesn't matter (1, Flamebait)

reboot246 (623534) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962917)

I have mod points, but I didn't see an option for "Idiot".

Oh really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962567)

This is a single Microsoft employee who is referring to "plans" in a division he admittedly isn't in, right?

I still can't tell the difference betwen DX9 and10 (3, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962571)

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?

Re:I still can't tell the difference betwen DX9 an (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962645)

Rendering technology has been pretty mature for a few years now. Still some possibility it might start changing again, but on balance my guess is that we have reached stability.

Re:I still can't tell the difference betwen DX9 an (5, Informative)

SOOPRcow (1279010) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962669)

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 [microsoft.com] Also, this is what games could be doing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duSIE2TkpH4 [youtube.com]

Re:I still can't tell the difference betwen DX9 an (3, Informative)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963137)

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.

Re:I still can't tell the difference betwen DX9 an (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962989)

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.

Re:I still can't tell the difference betwen DX9 an (1)

Nationless (2123580) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962999)

Rendering technology is waiting for the next generation of consoles. Devs are scared of doing pc-exclusive "super-graphics" because it will be PC-only and that market is mired in doubt of piracy and confusing sales numbers thanks to the myriad of digital options which aren't listed in the regular sales numbers.

Nothing radical will happen in the near-future apart from input methods such as Oculus Rift.

Re:I still can't tell the difference betwen DX9 an (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41963073)

I would guess it's the developers who can tell the difference. Have you ever heard anybody say, "Gee my machine is so much faster now that it supports SSE3!"? No, but you bet people use those instructions.

Yes, there is an incentive to stick with older more compatible versions of DX, but that's the same as always- the old compatible version vs. the newer [faster|easier|secure] version.

ALL GAME DEVS! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962585)

WE WILL NOT BE USING WINDOWS 8!

Don't make the same mistake you all did with windows vista and the last time microsoft pulled this exclusive directx shit. Game devs who bought into that shit.... You all lost a fuckton of money last time. Don't do it again just because microsoft is fucking stupid.

I won't be installing windows 8. And more importantly i won't be SUPPORTING windows 8 for anyone. It's a piece of shit and a giant step backwards and i'm not going to waste my time.

Everyone needs to wait for windows 9 or whatever it will be called. After microsoft gets a clue and throws ballmer to the curb too. Stupid crackmonkey.

Re:ALL GAME DEVS! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962687)

WE WILL NOT BE USING WINDOWS 8!

I'm already using Windows 8. Yes it works fine you luddites. Speak for yourself, thanks.

Standard Operating Procedure (4, Insightful)

Yarhj (1305397) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962589)

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.

Re:Standard Operating Procedure (2)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962689)

> 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.

We're arguing that windows 7 is not an `old os` and that its unrealistic to expect people who've bought a computer 2 months ago to now buy another one, or pay for an upgrade they don't want just to take advantage of a new graphics subsystem which would work perfectly well under Windows 7. If people voted with their feet and refused to buy windows 8 you'd see this backported before Christmas.

I only hope this spurs support for OpenGL (as used on every mobile device which supports 3d) and Linux.

Re:Standard Operating Procedure (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962937)

SOmeone get this idiotic $hill fuckass off this site. Downmod this fucking troll.

So? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962603)

Anything out there requires it?

Nope?

Non issue

Unless the new os sees adoption developers won't care

So? (2)

Bogtha (906264) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962613)

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?

Re:So? (1)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962647)

Windows XP support will stop in 2014. It seems strange that Win 7 updates to DirectX would stop in 2012.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962871)

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.

Re:So? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962969)

Fuckoff M$ $hill Get the fuck off this linux site. We only support FOSS and and we take what is not open source.

Because 7 came out three years ago (0)

Rix (54095) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962727)

If they were providing 8 as a free update, you might have a point, but who is really going to be shelling out $100 for it?

Re:Because 7 came out three years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41963131)

You can upgrade for $40

Re:So? (1)

klingers48 (968406) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963015)

There is a certain understandable level of expectation from customers for a certain number of years' worth of support when they lay down cash.

14 years for Windows XP? Maybe a little excessive... But Windows 7 is only 3 years old. We shouldn't have to be obligated to follow market-driven, uncomfortable and paradigm-shifting upgrade cycles that are largely unnecessary for our own needs (with all associated unnecessary time and financial costs) on a timetable that short just to get functional upgrades to graphics APIs that only class as a point-release.

The whole thing just seems a little grubby to me.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41963109)

I generally agree. 3 years seems like a reasonable window for new features, and then maybe 5-7 years for security support.

Unfortunately MS kind of set themselves up for this; they kept building on and supporting XP for so long, they've set this expectation almost industry-wide that software companies will provide support/security/etc forever. Do you remember the upset when Mozilla announced they'd stop supporting Win2000 in Firefox? What was it, 2010 when that happened?

Metro or whatever the fuck that shit is called now (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962617)

Well it is going to take a lot of force to get people to accept that shitty new interface.

Didn't work with Vista (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962633)

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.

slashdot is retard central (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962649)

"Microsoft has made Direct X 11.1 a Windows 8 Exclusive."

That would be "a Windows 8 exclusive", you illiterate fuck.

"I think this is merely"

Who gives a shit what you think about something you couldn't really know for sure about? Except fellow dumbasses, which means Slashdotters.

"a update"

That's "an update", you illiterate fuck.

"to make Direct X more integrated with Windows 8."

MicroDollarSign is so eevil for doing that!!!1111!

"Is this going to be the trend?"

What, MS updating a component of the OS to take advantage of new core features of the OS? Hmm, gee, maybe.

"To lock you into the OS updates so Windows 7 doesn't last as long as Windows XP has?"

Ya, because wouldn't it be so great if 7 got to be as long in the tooth some day as XP has today. Brilliant.

Few titles will use DirectX 11.1 then (1)

GoodnaGuy (1861652) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962661)

From a commercial point of view, when you release software on windows, you want to be able to target the most people possible. As most people won't have windows 8 for a while, no ones going to develop for it. Personally I am still using XP on my home computer and have found no problems with it. I bet theres quite a few people still on XP. Most software still runs perfectly well, plus its hardware requirements are lower.

New WDDM version is the reason (5, Insightful)

humanrev (2606607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962671)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_Model#WDDM_1.2 [wikipedia.org]

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.;

Re:Mod parent up (3, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962793)

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.

Re:Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41963095)

IE 10 will be released for Windows 7. A preview/alpha/beta is suppose to be released this month.

Since you seem to know something about WDDM, I have a question. Microsoft had plans for WDDM 2.0. 5 years later we're still at 1.2 and I see no recent documents about 2.0 from Microsoft. Were 2.0's changes pushed into 1.2?

Re:Mod parent up (4, Interesting)

Nikker (749551) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963135)

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.

just like dx10/vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962677)

Microsoft didn't back down on the decision to backport DX10 to WinXP, so I doubt there's much hope here...
Just like they wanted people off of WinXP, the desperatly want people to migrate to Win8 (one was push, the other was pull, but the net result is the same).

Stereoscopic 3D (4, Insightful)

dagamer34 (1012833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962679)

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.

Re:Stereoscopic 3D (0)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962779)

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.

You say "ranting about nothing" and I say that we're ranting about an arbitrary choice, not driven by technical considerations
XP has been lingering for so long that Microsoft is probably shitting itself at the possibility that Win7 is going to be the next XP.

It's all part of a larger trend with Microsoft and their attempts to force the upgrade cycle when consumers are not interested.
This is good for Microsoft, not so good for us.

Re:Stereoscopic 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962843)

Not to mention modern graphics cards will do this all in hardware without taxing your CPU. So there is literally no need for software to do this.

Re:Stereoscopic 3D (1)

humanrev (2606607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963139)

I'm not sure you understand. The whole point of DirectX is that it allows for a standard API that graphics card vendors and developers can rely upon. This way, you don't have to make dedicated NVIDIA or ATI or Intel code paths to deal with the specific implementation of those vendor's features (something that's STILL an issue with OpenGL extensions).

NVIDIA and ATI have their own proprietary implementations of stereoscopic 3D, and this can be a headache for developers. So, if DirectX takes control over the stereoscopic 3D API, developers can then target DirectX 11.1's implementation of stereoscopic 3D and all NVIDIA and ATI have to worry about is how to modify their drivers to make it work on their GPUs.

Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962681)

Well that seals the deal on games being made for DX 11.1 for the next 8 years like we had with developers targeting DX 9.
Locking up DX 10 for Vista only didn't do anything to push people to buy Vista, and this isn't going to get people to move to Windows 8.

They did it with Vista, too (3, Informative)

Rix (54095) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962691)

And no one bought that any more than they'll be buying 8.

Nothing to see here... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962725)

I hate Windows 8 so much...

slashdot is retard central (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962781)

Mod parent up +1 Insightful, because you all have the brains up Figaro the parrot.

Have better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962733)

Until it gets as fast as opengl is with the latest drivers, why should we care? Everyone now uses engines that compile on to multiple platforms. Taking DirectX out of the picture makes maintaining those engines easier.

Right... like every vendor (5, Insightful)

saleenS281 (859657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962735)

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.

Re:Right... like every vendor (-1, Redundant)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962923)

If you're going to pick on them, at least pick something legitimate and don't whine about them not backporting features ad-infinitum.

On the whole, Microsoft releases a new (major) version of the Windows operating system every five years, with occasional offshoots like Windows ME, CE, etc., branching off of that. XP lasted longer than usual, and Vista pretty much exploded on the launch pad, forcing Microsoft to rush Windows 7 out. Windows 7 was only released 3 years ago and already they've released a new OS. It happened faster than usual, and it's getting a ton of push-back from everyone. Corporations are still just now starting migration off of XP.

In the Linux world, backporting of features continues for about five years as well -- with support gradually dropping off, first with new kernel features, then backwards compatibility, and finally security patches. Microsoft seems to be almost strong-arming people into adopting the latest operating system despite a lack of any "killer app" features -- they're saying now there will be no more service packs, no rollups, and no new features, for an operating system that just turned 3.

Sorry, but this isn't "MS bashing", this is someone looking at the competition -- Apple, who supports most of their products for almost a decade after they are first released, from the iPhone to the Mac mini -- the patches keep coming. Linux who maintains support for older kernel branches for a considerable period after -- and even then, with the source code available in theory you could support it yourself. Then there's Microsoft: "Upgrade or die!" I think a lot of people have a legitimate reason to pick on Microsoft...

Because it looks to me like Ballmer's under a lot of pressure to lay a golden egg and prove himself; Gates departed after Vista was released and Windows 7 is basically the same thing. Now look at Windows 8 -- "Metro" UI, new logo, massive marketing campaign, a locked-in app store, and a short list of bona fide new features... how can anyone not see they might as well be calling this BallmerOS? If it fails like Vista did, he'll have no credibility as an executive.

So they're pulling every dirty trick they can to force people to upgrade -- Ballmer needs good sales numbers or the first cost-cutting measure after it bombs will be his paycheck. And frankly... I don't think Windows users deserve to be treated like that just so one guy can prove himself. They should either put out a quality product, or wait until hardware and feature set makes a fork to a new version a logical development.

But then, what would I know... I'm just an engineer, not a politician or an executive.

Re:Right... like every vendor (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963057)

MS doesn't release every 5 years, it's releases every 3. 8 is not early, it's on the exact same cadence they've had for 2 decades minus the misstep that was Vista. Vista was the exception because they bit off more than then could chew and realized they had to back off what they were originally trying which cost them another year and a half on the release.

Dos 1.0 - 85
2.0 - 87
Windows 3.0 - 90
3.1 - 92
95 - 95
98 - 98
2000 - 2000
XP - 2001


Now you're comparing them to Apple? HAH! They've NEVER backported a new feature to a previous release. They have never supported an OS for a decade, are you insane? 10 years ago OSX 10.2 was the newest version. There hasn't been a patch for that OS since 2003 - 2 years of support. Put the crack pipe down.

As for Windows 7 - they said no service pack, that in NO WAY means they won't continue supporting it. It simply means they aren't doing roll-ups. You are clueless.

They've taken more pages from the Apple Bible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962753)

They axed most desktop gadgets with over a half a year left before 8, and have axed all gadgets shortly before 8 launch. They are really doing all they can to force adoption of 8 and frankly, they can kiss my butt. I do NOT want a touchscreen interface before I have a freaking touchscreen monitor.

screw um. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962801)

This is like the same reason I never bought another Black Berry. Not long ago I paid 500 bucks next update was not for my phone.
Screw them when they do this shit. I move on.
Wait till your smart TV dont get one.

It means DirectX 11.1 is dead (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962823)

Shit games today still require DirectX 9. Why? MS didn't want to port DirectX11.

IN actuality there are hardcore technical reasons like WDDM (the composer) being only available in WIndows Vista or higher. MS did port DirectX11 to Vista eventually as game studies still use the decade old DirectX 9. ... just sad considering games need to be cutting edge. WDDM 1.2 is not available for WIndows 7 but WDDM 1.1 is. YOu could theoretically port Direct X11.1 to Windows 7. It just requires more work if MS is serious about developers using it? Otherwise they might just finally upgrade to DIrectX11 and stay there.

So Microsoft but software requires OS upgrades before people switch. People switch only when software requires. It is a catch-22 and of course software makers want to keep the Windows 7 loyalist crowd who will be even more angry and resistant to change in a decade than the XP crowd. God forbid.

Re:It means DirectX 11.1 is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41963031)

Shit games today still require DirectX 9. Why? MS didn't want to port DirectX11.

IN actuality there are hardcore technical reasons like WDDM (the composer) being only available in WIndows Vista or higher. MS did port DirectX11 to Vista eventually as game studies still use the decade old DirectX 9. ... just sad considering games need to be cutting edge. WDDM 1.2 is not available for WIndows 7 but WDDM 1.1 is. YOu could theoretically port Direct X11.1 to Windows 7. It just requires more work if MS is serious about developers using it? Otherwise they might just finally upgrade to DIrectX11 and stay there.

So Microsoft but software requires OS upgrades before people switch. People switch only when software requires. It is a catch-22 and of course software makers want to keep the Windows 7 loyalist crowd who will be even more angry and resistant to change in a decade than the XP crowd. God forbid.

You mean "Shit, games today ..." and not "Shit games today ..." right? It's pretty much all games, particularly the good ones, requiring DirectX 9 because it makes no sense to write something with a minimum requirement of Vista or Windows 7. You code for XP, and since that's pretty much identical to Win2K, your primary development platform is MSVC 6.0 on Win2K if you really know what you're doing.

Surprise... (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962833)

Sounds like deja vu with past Windows releases... this same exact thing has happened several times in the past.

Only now, Linux is catching up in big ways with the help of both Valve and nVidia, so how much longer will having the latest DirectX version even matter as a selling point for the the latest version of Windows?

Enjoy it while you still can, Microsoft.

Well, I'll be... (1)

RLU486983 (1792220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962837)

I have to upgrade my DirectX 9?!?

Part of the Wall (2, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962839)

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.

Hear that sound? (0)

mauriceh (3721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962863)

That is the gentle rustling noise that a snowball makes.

See, it is rolling down the hill.

Steam.. Games on Linux.. M$ forcing users to upgrade to Win8, users leaving Windows and using Linux for the gaming experience..

Uh-oh!
That snowball is getting bigger pretty fast.

They'll Relent (3, Insightful)

epp_b (944299) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962869)

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.

Good buy ATI HD 4000 users (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962919)

ONly ATI 5600 series or high card from 2010 are required! THat is a bumb considering some ATI HD 4870 SLI users who blew big $$$ for their gaming rigs just 2 years ago are shit out of luck with Windows 8.

Now I know why as only very recent cards support 11.1 shaders.

Not a big deal. (1, Insightful)

c1t1z3nk41n3 (1112059) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962965)

Gamers tend to upgrade a lot more often than other people to begin with and the Windows 8 upgrade is only 40 dollars. I don't really see a problem here.

Re:Not a big deal. (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963047)

That'll be why most games are still DX9 so they can run on XP.

Yet again, Microsoft can't see any rational reason for people to 'upgrade' to Windows Metro, so they're trying to force them by arbitrary restrictions on DirectX. Yet again, it will ensure that games don't use the new version until about Windows 11.

Uh, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41963033)

Is this going to be the trend?

You do know that they already did this in 2007 or so with DirectX 10 and Vista, right? Summary sounds unaware of this fact.

(And it failed then too.)

The Difference Between OpenGL and DirectX (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41963041)

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.

Who Cares? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963077)

I still haven't even got software that requires DX10. Why do I care what some future version of DX that I don't and probably never will use only runs on a shitty gimmick OS?

Crap they're learning from Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41963115)

My ~2007 macbook works fine except apple keeps trying to squeeze me into buying new hardware (not just software!) -- looks like M$ learned some of their tricks

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...