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

By Rick ยท 53 replies
Nov 12, 2012
Post New Reply
  1. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 12,961   +2,516

    If you're not hungry for a hamburger or a new OS, you'd be simply pissing away your money in either case...

    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?
    TJGeezer, Wendig0 and shamus087 like this.
  2. ET3D

    ET3D TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,373   +166

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

    Heh. Good one.

    Poor guy. :(
  3. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,957   +214

    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, *******es!
  4. Divvet

    Divvet TS Member Posts: 57   +19

    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.
    TJGeezer likes this.
  5. 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.
  6. ET3D

    ET3D TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,373   +166

    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.
  7. lawfer

    lawfer TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,270   +91

    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.
  8. 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.
  9. hahahanoobs

    hahahanoobs TS Evangelist Posts: 2,040   +678

    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...
  10. hahahanoobs

    hahahanoobs TS Evangelist Posts: 2,040   +678

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

    Khanonate TS Booster Posts: 134   +21

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

    avoidz TS Guru Posts: 460   +56

    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.
  13. treetops

    treetops TS Evangelist Posts: 2,069   +218

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

    Vrmithrax TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,352   +293

    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 :)
  15. TomSEA

    TomSEA TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,713   +855

    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.
  16. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TS Evangelist Posts: 1,264   +436

    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!
  17. Breaking news just in...

    Things run faster on SSD.
  18. hahahanoobs

    hahahanoobs TS Evangelist Posts: 2,040   +678

    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.
    Burty117 likes this.
  19. "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
  20. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,713   +3,688

    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.
  21. 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
  22. ET3D

    ET3D TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,373   +166

    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.
  23. 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.
  24. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TS Evangelist Posts: 1,264   +436

    Why would you do a full shutdown instead of just sleeping the computer. It takes 2 seconds to wake up from sleep.
  25. 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.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...