Microsoft has "no plan" to release DirectX 11.1 for Windows 7 (Updated)

By on November 14, 2012, 3:22 PM

According to a reply from an engineer on Microsoft's Developer Network forum, DirectX 11.1 will be available exclusively for flavors of Windows 8 only. There are apparently no plans to release 11.1 for Windows 7 or Vista. "DirectX 11.1 is part of Windows 8, just like DirectX 11 was part of Windows 7. DirectX 11 was made available for Vista .... but at this point there is no plan for DirectX 11.1 to be made available on Windows 7", the post reads.

Update (11/14): A slight change of plans may be in the works as Neowin reports that some DirectX 11.1 features have been quietly included on the "Platform Update for Windows 7 Service Pack 1" that is part of this week's IE10 preview release, but is limited to WDDM 1.1 drivers on Windows 7.

Although this information comes from Microsoft employee David Moth, it's important to note that Microsoft itself has not provided an official statement on the matter. Having "no plan" doesn't necessarily ensure it won't happen either -- but so far, it doesn't sound good for Windows 7 users.

While Microsoft has often neglected older Windows operating systems when it comes to the latest versions of DirectX, omitting 11.1 from Windows 7 may have caught developers off guard. Microsoft launched Windows 7 with full DX11 support, eventually adding even Vista to the list. Considering this latest DirectX version is incremental -- 11.1 as opposed to 12 -- dropping support for both Vista and 7 feels like an maneuver powered by planned obsolescence more so than absolute necessity.

DirectX 11.1 is poised to make a significant number of changes to the graphics API, but most of the improvements appear to be performance enhancing tweaks. RockPaperShotgun does note one unique feature that DX11.1 brings to the table though: native support for stereoscopy (read: 3D glasses support). This means the small community of gamers willing to don 3D glasses may be doing so in the future without relying on proprietary technologies from GPU makers. Of course, those gamers will need Windows 8 and titles which support the new DX-based 3D standard.

Will the absence of DX11.1 for Windows 7 force droves of users to Windows 8? Most likely not. However, for some gamers, it'll be one more item to consider when it comes time to upgrade.




User Comments: 53

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | Guest said:

Of course there are no plans to release Direct 11.1 for Windows 7 for the same reason they are no plans to release Service Pack 2 for Windows 7. A lame attempt at actually giving people an incentive to upgrade to Windows 8 since they obviously feel there isn't enough already. Which would be accurate in my opinion.

And "for" these same reasons, I have no plans to ever purchase the train wreck commonly known as Windows 8. Looking forward, way forward, to Windows 9. Hopefully, they get their head on straight by that time.

4 people like this | TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Hell, most games out there are still running off of DX9. There's only a handful that use DX11. Why would I worry about 11.1 which apparently only enhances 3D viewing (which I don't do) and implements a few performance tweaks?

I'll wait for 100% of the gaming companies to start using DX11 before I start worrying whether I need 11.1.

Vrmithrax Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Wow, I'm having complete deja vu here... It's Windows XP and DX10 for Vista only all over again. Except this time, Microsoft hasn't even bothered to let Windows 7 mature before trying to force obsolescence on it. I do remember the good old days of heavy-handed pressure to upgrade from XP to Vista, and how Microsoft made sure to release some "DX10 only" titles in an attempt to push more gamers into the move... Amazing how hard that backfired, and how long DX9 stayed as the de facto standard. And now, here we are again, with the MS greed trying to push the world onto a new version of Windows that most don't feel they want or need... I guess history really is cyclical, isn't it?

Sniped_Ash said:

Well I'm announcing that I have "no plan" to buy Windows 8. See what I did there? I made the most obvious response.

And it's true.

R3DP3NGUIN R3DP3NGUIN said:

Of course there are no plans to release Direct 11.1 for Windows 7 for the same reason they are no plans to release Service Pack 2 for Windows 7. A lame attempt at actually giving people an incentive to upgrade to Windows 8 since they obviously feel there isn't enough already. Which would be accurate in my opinion.

And "for" these same reasons, I have no plans to ever purchase the train wreck commonly known as Windows 8. Looking forward, way forward, to Windows 9. Hopefully, they get their head on straight by that time.

Of course there are no plans to release Direct 11.1 for Windows 7 for the same reason they are no plans to release Service Pack 2 for Windows 7. A lame attempt at actually giving people an incentive to upgrade to Windows 8 since they obviously feel there isn't enough already. Which would be accurate in my opinion.

And "for" these same reasons, I have no plans to ever purchase the train wreck commonly known as Windows 8. Looking forward, way forward, to Windows 9. Hopefully, they get their head on straight by that time.

I'm just going to take a guess here, but if its the Metro layout everyone hates about WIndows 8. Why does everyone assume it wont be in Windows 9? I do recall that MS is changing majority of their product line to suit the metro interface.

m4a4 m4a4 said:

...and how long DX9 stayed as the de facto standard.

I hope you are remembering that current consoles do not support anything higher than DX9. That is the big reason as to why it's still the most used version of DX.

Guest said:

Lol.

first, the haters are not buying/using windows 8 because of the "fugly metro".

now, they won't be buying/using windows 8 because dx 11.1 is not released for windows 7.

tomsea got it right.

...most games...are still running...DX9...

...only a handful...use DX11...

...why...worry about 11.1 which apparently only enhances 3D viewing (which MOST don't do) and implements a few performance tweaks?

...wait for 100% of the gaming companies to start using DX11 before...start worrying THE need FOR 11.1.

vista was never adapted not because of the backlash (dx10 titles only) but because it was not mature enough at that time.

7 improved on vista hence a more solid OS.

I used xp because I liked it. upgraded to sp1, sp2, sp3.

I used vista because I like it.

I used 7 because I like it.

I am using 8 because I like it..and it still runs my favorite game: ms-pacman and pacman (via dosbox)

Vrmithrax Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

...and how long DX9 stayed as the de facto standard.

I hope you are remembering that current consoles do not support anything higher than DX9. That is the big reason as to why it's still the most used version of DX.

Oh yes, that's definitely the primary reason why it's so common. But it amused me a bit how hard Microsoft tried to push that DX10 technology and say it was the future, then released a few DX10 titles (wasn't one of the HALO games DX10?) and tried to convince anyone who wanted to game on the PC that they just *HAD* to upgrade... All while the majority of Windows users were still on XP, and Microsoft's own Xbox couldn't handle DX10... But hey, facts shouldn't get in the way of you dropping your money into their coffers, right? Heh

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Hell, most games out there are still running off of DX9. There's only a handful that use DX11. Why would I worry about 11.1 which apparently only enhances 3D viewing (which I don't do) and implements a few performance tweaks?

I'll wait for 100% of the gaming companies to start using DX11 before I start worrying whether I need 11.1.

I'm not sure that 71+ of the most popular games along with it being the direction of the industry qualifies as "only a handful"

"Wow, I'm having complete deja vu here... It's Windows XP and DX10 for Vista only all over again"

Maybe there will be another smashing success version of the "Alky project" from Falling Leaf.....or not

fyrfaktry fyrfaktry said:

Good grief people! A Win 8 upgrade is $14-freaking-99. You can't even buy a super-sized big-mac meal for that anymore (well maybe)...

veLa veLa said:

I'm perfectly happy with the copy of Windows 7 I have been using for years. I see no reason to go out and buy a new copy of Windows 8 when it's practically the same OS with sort of UI-pack. I bet I could download a fake metro copy cat and turn 7 into 8 like magic.

Guest said:

My windows 8 boots in <10 sec on a ssd

Metro is superior to the start menu

The desktop appears when you click on the desktop icon or even iexplorer or office. Metro is not pervasive; it is actually slick. Smaller, faster, cheaper. What more can you ask for. A dinner and a movie for two will cost twice as much as windows 8.

Guest said:

Hmmmm, I'm gonna ask captain jack sparrow what to do.

pmcardle said:

My windows 8 boots in <10 sec on a ssd

Metro is superior to the start menu

The desktop appears when you click on the desktop icon or even iexplorer or office. Metro is not pervasive; it is actually slick. Smaller, faster, cheaper. What more can you ask for. A dinner and a movie for two will cost twice as much as windows 8.

Mine boots in 13 seconds on an SSD. I couldn't agree with you more. If I want the same feel as W7 I toggle to the desktop. My only beef with Metro is it's always full screen which is a bit much on a 30".

Guest said:

For now, games runs slower on win8, so why a gamer to "upgrade"?

1 person liked this | Guest said:

[link]

from techspot:

From a performance standpoint Windows 8 appears to offer a solid foundation from the get-go. Although there are only a few select areas where it is faster than Windows 7, we are pleased that it's able to match it everywhere else.

Looking beyond benchmarks, Windows 8 appears more polished than Windows 7, even if you plan to live on the desktop and aren't too fond of the Start screen, general usage is smoother and appears to be faster on Windows 8, which I found most noticeable on our somewhat underpowered Athlon II X4 system. If anything, it's a great start, now the Metro/Modern style will have to prove itself as a cross-platform OS that marries desktop, laptop and tablet PCs.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Of course there are no plans to release Direct 11.1 for Windows 7 for the same reason they are no plans to release Service Pack 2 for Windows 7. A lame attempt at actually giving people an incentive to upgrade to Windows 8 since they obviously feel there isn't enough already. Which would be accurate in my opinion.

And "for" these same reasons, I have no plans to ever purchase the train wreck commonly known as Windows 8. Looking forward, way forward, to Windows 9. Hopefully, they get their head on straight by that time.

Of course there are no plans to release Direct 11.1 for Windows 7 for the same reason they are no plans to release Service Pack 2 for Windows 7. A lame attempt at actually giving people an incentive to upgrade to Windows 8 since they obviously feel there isn't enough already. Which would be accurate in my opinion.

And "for" these same reasons, I have no plans to ever purchase the train wreck commonly known as Windows 8. Looking forward, way forward, to Windows 9. Hopefully, they get their head on straight by that time.

I'm just going to take a guess here, but if its the Metro layout everyone hates about Windows 8. Why does everyone assume it wont be in Windows 9? I do recall that MS is changing majority of their product line to suit the metro interface.

I keep asking that every time I hear someone blindly bash Windows 8 and those that like it as a way to indirectly tell themselves they made the right decision and not the world.

See, what they are afraid of is the change, really. There's nothing you can't do in Windows 8 you can in Windows 7. The Start Screen at first certainly feels as if you're just waking up and someone suddenly slaps you in the face. The change is inconsistent as it is abrupt, but it all disappears once you get it, which, on average is a day or two of usage.

The thing, however, is this: what people should be truly afraid of is that Microsoft believes, absolutely 100%, in Metro. What that means is that Windows 9,10,11, etc. will never ever be the same.

Now, I'm not one of those that say "Well, too bad, get used to it." No. I believe in the "right tool for the job." If Windows 8 isn't yours, then it isn't. But I will say this: if you want the benefits, better get accustomed, 'cause it sure as hell ain't coming back.

Or you could be one of those that still use XP, the tech world equivalent of a horrible fashion statement.

Guest said:

If only openGL equal to or better than DX... *nerd*

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

If only openGL equal to or better than DX... *nerd*

OpenGL is almost equal to DirectX.

The "almost" is not so much the API's fault, but the lack of support. Drivers and games are built, and optimized for DirectX. It will always be this way.

Gaming on Linux will never be a thing, not because Linux is not capable of becoming a viable gaming platform, but because partners like Nvidia and game publisher don't put effort into developing for a platform with 1% marketshare, especially when the other 90+% is DirectX ready.

(This is not counting, by the way, Xbox 360s--who to this day only use DirectX 10--of which there are more than Linux PCs and PS3s [who use OpenGL ES] combined.)

It's sad because the problem <I>is</I> easy to solve; it's just that the solution is hard to implement.

psycros psycros said:

The author could have used only the first four words of that headline and it would've been totally accurate.

killeriii said:

...and how long DX9 stayed as the de facto standard.

I hope you are remembering that current consoles do not support anything higher than DX9. That is the big reason as to why it's still the most used version of DX.

There's only one console that supports DX-anything. And, big suprise, it's Microsofts Xbox.

I'm waiting for the "Next" Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to start innovating again. Getting tired of Apples regurgitated products and Microsofts money grabs.

Just wait for Windows 9, when M$ will completely lock-down programs running on their OS (kinda like Apple does with iOS). They'll probably offer Windows 9 upgrades for free. At that point, they will be making money off every program you run on your computer.

Sooner or later, I may have no choice but to upgrade. Until then, I'm sticking with 7 (DX11 limited as it may be).

3 people like this | Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

God damned Emos and their metrosexual UI screwing with my DirectX upgrades .

Khanonate said:

I'm still using and gaming with XP.

1 person liked this | Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I'm just going to take a guess here, but if its the Metro layout everyone hates about WIndows 8. Why does everyone assume it wont be in Windows 9? I do recall that MS is changing majority of their product line to suit the metro interface.

Because people forget one thing, that there was a time when there was no 'start button' ....... most of the people from DOS era (at least ones I know) hardly bothered with start button when it came around in Win95. Probably because there are other ways to open/close apps which at least for me a lot faster than grabbing the mouse and double clicking on an icon. That is why even Metro isn't that much of an issue for me.

3 people like this | captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Good grief people! A Win 8 upgrade is $14-freaking-99. You can't even buy a super-sized big-mac meal for that anymore (well maybe)...
If you're not hungry for a hamburger or a new OS, you'd be simply pissing away your money in either case...

Mine boots in 13 seconds on an SSD. I couldn't agree with you more.
Why is everybody giving all the credit to lower boot times to the OS, rather than the SSD?

Hell, XP would boot fast on an SSD.

Really, it wouldn't be the end of your world, or anyone else's, if it took twice that long.

At the end of the day, don't you think that sitting around with a stop watch measuring boot time, then bragging about is well, really obsessive?

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Funny how every mention of Windows 8 turns a comment section into a slugfest.

The author could have used only the first four words of that headline and it would've been totally accurate.

Heh. Good one.

I'm still using and gaming with XP.

Poor guy.

4 people like this |
Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

I wrote something similar when Vista was released.

Why do Microsoft enjoy so much to make the software developers lives hard?

So back then we where required to have both a DX9 & DX10 codepath if we wanted to release a game that would run on both XP and Vista.

And now we need three codepaths, one for XP (DX9) one for Vista/7 (DX11) and one for 8 (Dx11.1)

Know what we will get in the end?

Games supporting only DirectX 9, because that is the easiest and cheapest to implement, the lowest common diminator...

Thank you Microsoft for driving software development so much forward, jackasses!

1 person liked this | Divvet said:

If only openGL equal to or better than DX... *nerd*

OpenGL is almost equal to DirectX.

The "almost" is not so much the API's fault, but the lack of support. Drivers and games are built, and optimized for DirectX. It will always be this way.

Gaming on Linux will never be a thing, not because Linux is not capable of becoming a viable gaming platform, but because partners like Nvidia and game publisher don't put effort into developing for a platform with 1% marketshare, especially when the other 90+% is DirectX ready.

(This is not counting, by the way, Xbox 360s--who to this day only use DirectX 10--of which there are more than Linux PCs and PS3s [who use OpenGL ES] combined.)

It's sad because the problem <I>is</I> easy to solve; it's just that the solution is hard to implement.

Shows how much you read the news, I think you will find NVidia, AMD, and Intel have all been working quite hard on the Linux OpenGL drivers, and as bench marks have proven, in some cases OpenGL has now surpassed Direct X. Steam coming to Linux WILL make it a viable gaming platform.

Guest said:

No need to get into flame wars and prove your position, some people are happy with XP, Windows 7, Windows 8, Linux, OS X or whatever. My personal opinion is that Windows 8 is not worth the upgrade for me. My upgrade will be to Linux which may work well for you as well however you are free to choose whatever path you want.

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

And now we need three codepaths, one for XP (DX9) one for Vista/7 (DX11) and one for 8 (Dx11.1)

XP is dying as a gaming platform (and is better supported by OpenGL anyway) and DX11.1 isn't as different from DX11 as DX10 was from DX9, so I think that the situation is getting better for developers. Sure it's a stupid decision which means that many won't support 11.1, but those who would like to support it would have a lot easier time (and I mean A LOT) than supporting both DX9 and DX10.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

If only openGL equal to or better than DX... *nerd*

OpenGL is almost equal to DirectX.

The "almost" is not so much the API's fault, but the lack of support. Drivers and games are built, and optimized for DirectX. It will always be this way.

Gaming on Linux will never be a thing, not because Linux is not capable of becoming a viable gaming platform, but because partners like Nvidia and game publisher don't put effort into developing for a platform with 1% marketshare, especially when the other 90+% is DirectX ready.

(This is not counting, by the way, Xbox 360s--who to this day only use DirectX 10--of which there are more than Linux PCs and PS3s [who use OpenGL ES] combined.)

It's sad because the problem <I>is</I> easy to solve; it's just that the solution is hard to implement.

Shows how much you read the news, I think you will find NVidia, AMD, and Intel have all been working quite hard on the Linux OpenGL drivers, and as bench marks have proven, in some cases OpenGL has now surpassed Direct X. Steam coming to Linux WILL make it a viable gaming platform.

OpenGL and DirectX are set of APIs; for lack of a better analogous term, they are "languages." They can't be better than one another at this point; that's like saying a word said in English is better than a word said in Spanish. Both languages are mature enough for each to have respective advantages in certain areas, but for the most part they are equal.

The biggest advantage DirectX has over OpenGL is support. Nvidia is aiding Valve at optimizing their (beta) drivers for the upcoming Steam (beta) launch on Linux, and suddenly AMD and Intel are also "working hard"? Show me your source? As you'd know if you followed any news, Linus Torvalds himself has been quite expressive towards Nvidia. Why? Because they have never cared about Linux. Steam is not Linux's savior, it's simply a program that acts as a conduit to a website that sells games (who happens to be owned by a company that makes their own); leaving the social aspects aside, that's all it does. Publishers are the key to all of this, not the salesman. Truth is, there's simply little to no ROI if you invest in Linux for gaming, and the sole reason for that is that other OEMs and game publishers are targeting 90+ % of the world first.

You could argue (as I've heard others argue) that since Linux is free, that 1% could potentially increase rapidly. True. But you have to ask yourself this: why would <I>anyone</I> do that? Assuming gaming on Linux becomes a thing, why would anyone dual-boot Ubuntu and Windows 7/8 for gaming? Drivers will always come last to Linux, per Nvidia's track record.

Games, even with publishers on board, will always come last to Linux. It's because of that, you know, 90% Windows market thing. Even when they do come, which OS you think will receive the updated drivers first? Linux? No.

But fine, leaving all that aside, assuming people get Linux for gaming, <I>why would anyone dual-boot Linux for gaming</I>? There are certainly not as many (quality) programs on Linux as there on Windows to justify the back-and-forth; or you mean to tell me people will simply dual-boot Linux to, sort of, join a cause? What happens when you need to get some work done, you'll go back to Windows? Why, then, would you do that if you can <I>already</I> wok and play on Windows? You see where I'm going?

There's simply no incentive.

I could show you many, many more logical reasons as to why gaming on Linux won't be a thing, or, perhaps, I could simply show you this.

Guest said:

He is not bragging. People say that win 8 is not better but it is. Instant-on is an amazing user experience. It will eventually be standard and taken for granted. The genie is out.

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

Silly rabbits. DX9 lives on because of consoles. Next gen consoles should change this. DX11 is fine until Windows 9 is released. I can wait...

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

Hell, XP would boot fast on an SSD.

And my Dodge Omni would fly with a Corevette crate engine.

Khanonate said:

Funny how every mention of Windows 8 turns a comment section into a slugfest.

Heh. Good one.

Poor guy.

No, I'm not! Still happy with it.

avoidz avoidz said:

He is not bragging. People say that win 8 is not better but it is. Instant-on is an amazing user experience. It will eventually be standard and taken for granted. The genie is out.

Is 30 seconds to start up such a big problem that there's been a clamor for faster start times? And if it's such an "amazing user experience", how come so many people had to google just to find out how to close one of those stupid full screen apps? How is that better than a visible red X? Windows 8 is for tablets, not desktops.

treetops treetops said:

So when we buy windows we only get support\updates for 3 years?

Vrmithrax Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

So when we buy windows we only get support\updates for 3 years?

Welcome to Microsoft's profit-driven agenda... At least with XP, we had 5 years before Vista and DX10 exclusivity was shoved down our throats.

But, to be fair, XP is still somewhat supported - my old gamer rig in the corner of my office regularly gets updates. Windows7 will continue to have support for the near future, how long just depends on where Microsoft draws the line in the sand and decides to change the heavy-handed upgrade nudging into a full-on body slam approach

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Seeing as people are tossing out start-up times out as basis for an upgrade point, I use Win 7 SP1, it's loaded on an SSD and my boot time is 13 seconds.

I think any OS is going to have stellar boot times if loaded on an SSD (and if you trim the boot apps to a minimum). For me, boot time is not even part of the Win 8 upgrade consideration.

Lionvibez said:

I always laugh when I see the boot times argument brought up.

This isn't windows 98! do you shutdown your pc and boot it up everyday?

I haven't had a need to do that since window XP.

On or sleep or hiberate and that's it.

You guys must have some unstable computers if you need to shut it down all the time!

Guest said:

Breaking news just in...

Things run faster on SSD.

1 person liked this | hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

I think M$ will change their minds when they see the sales of Windows 8 go flat. Either way I don't care. It's too small of an update. 3D is not a selling point, because 3D is garbage.

Guest said:

"My windows 8 boots in <10 sec on a ssd"

"Mine boots in 13 seconds on an SSD. I couldn't agree with you more"

Alright, my pc using win7 home premium 64bit boots in 13-15 seconds on a HDD.. Funny to hear those comment, the main factor why your win8 boot faster isn't because you're using win8 rather because your SSD

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

You guys must have some unstable computers if you need to shut it down all the time!
Why are you insinuating our PC's must be unstable, if we choose to shut it down each night? I never have used standby and don't care for hibernation. I either keep my PC running 24/7 or I shut it down.

Guest said:

If we choose to shut it down, doesn't mean our computer is unstable. If you think that way, that means there's something unstable within your head

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Thanks for the update. As often happens, turns out it's much ado about nothing. Windows 7 will get the DX11.1 updates like Vista got the DX11 updates, I.e., most of them except what requires a new driver model.

Guest said:

I have a feeling that Microsoft won't do this mistake again in next Windows, they will jump full version numbers even with "minor" enhancements.

Lionvibez said:

Why are you insinuating our PC's must be unstable, if we choose to shut it down each night? I never have used standby and don't care for hibernation. I either keep my PC running 24/7 or I shut it down.

Why would you do a full shutdown instead of just sleeping the computer. It takes 2 seconds to wake up from sleep.

Guest said:

It's not about dual booting between Windows and Linux, it's about dumping Windows and only running Linux. With Steam releasing a Linux client and some games for Linux, this is more of a reality. Will it take off quickly, most likely it will take time however I'm sure some companies will do some test runs and if it makes money they will continue, if not, they won't support it. It's all about the money and yes most of it is in Windows but doesn't mean it has to stay there.

Guest said:

I think you are lying or you think user selection screen is considered fully booted.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.