plagiarize
Banned
why? I mean, what DX11.1 features are worth going to that effort for? why is everyone acting as if this is more than just an incremental update mostly focused around metro apps?
Direct X 11.1 is Windows 8 exclusive, no plans to retrofit
- Thread starter nickcv
- Start date
why? I mean, what DX11.1 features are worth going to that effort for? why is everyone acting as if this is more than just an incremental update mostly focused around metro apps?
That too.
No, it really doesn't. If you spend 30 minutes using it, you'll quickly be adjusted to all the new quirks Windows 8 has to offer.
Explain how you can't do what you did on Windows 7, or why you can't distribute something you made outside of the Windows store. We're talking about Windows 8 here, not RT.
plagiarize
Banned
Durante actually has an answer to this. Durante made a mod for a game running on Windows 7 to force it run in a PCs native resolution rather than at a 1280 x 720 internal framebuffer. he could not do that for any game running in Metro on Windows 8. it remains the one inarguable complaint about windows 8 I've heard. hopefully such mods won't be necessary going forwards and then it won't be an issue, but if it is... what happened with Dark Souls PC cannot happen on Windows 8 to a game running in metro land. no community fixes for such titles.
For games running in Metro. There aren't really that many at this point in time and I don't see it becoming much larger in the future. I think we all know that publishers would rather go to Steam than the Windows 8 App Store, reaching a much larger audience.
bigtroyjon
Member
He spent most of his career at MS working on Office.
Salacious Crumb
Junior Member
I'm adjusted to all the quirks of Win8 RT and it still sucks. Thankfully Start8 exists and I can ignore RT all together.
alexandros
Banned
Because cutting features is exactly what many people here predicted Microsoft would do in order to pressure developers into developing for Metro and leaving the desktop behind.
Mavromatis
Member
I like Windows 8 and tired of saying this but it's the price I pay for not being labeled as a troll.
I'll give you an example of what I can't do in Windows 8, drag and drop, disabling UAC, running an Administrator account, multitasking without sacrificing some part of the screen. I can't do these since I want to use Metro apps, of course I may ignore Metro apps and use Desktop but I want to use them.
xemumanic
Member
Yeah, the same ones who modded DX10 into XP, right?
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Awww nothing left to bitch about.
Face it Tiger..
Banned
It's not about DX 11.1, It's about the future of DX.. namely DX 12 or 13.. with grande upgrades to the pipeline, it's no bueno for us Win 7 users.
SMT
this show is not Breaking Bad why is it not Breaking Bad? it should be Breaking Bad dammit Breaking Bad
Modders mod anything just for the hell of it.
The rule of avoiding even numbered consumer-targeted Windows releases still holds!
Win 2.0 - blech
Win 3.1 - good
Win 95 - oh god
Win 98 - solid
Windows ME - kill it with fire
Windows XP - noice
Windows Vista - why.jpg
Windows 7 - GOOD WORK
Windows 8 - ehh
Windows 9 - ?????
Win 2.0 - blech
nobody remembers it
Win 95 - oh god
Win 98 - solid
Windows ME - kill it with fire
Windows XP - noice
Windows Vista - why.jpg
Windows 7 - GOOD WORK
Windows 8 - ehh
Windows 9 - ?????
Windows 2000 not in here because it's part of the NT branch
this post is not very serious
Dreams-Visions
Member
Excellent.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
*sigh*
Apparently the guy who said the original comment didn't have anything to do with the Windows team at Microsoft. He was just one of Microsofts 100,000 employees who was posting on a social forum, and had no real information regarding this. In reality, they probably never planned to have DX11.1 exclusive to Windows 8 in the first place.
I can see both sides of the story.
Here is the thing though. It is 2012 almost 2013 and I have yet to see a single game designed ground up only for dx 10 and higher. It will be years before we see games that require a minimum of dx 11.1.
Dx 10 was introduced in 2006 with vista. Dx 11 in 2009 with windows 7. So in my opinion I could really care less at this point in time. By the time dx 11.1 matters in terms of being able to play a game we will be on windows 10.
Here is the thing though. It is 2012 almost 2013 and I have yet to see a single game designed ground up only for dx 10 and higher. It will be years before we see games that require a minimum of dx 11.1.
Dx 10 was introduced in 2006 with vista. Dx 11 in 2009 with windows 7. So in my opinion I could really care less at this point in time. By the time dx 11.1 matters in terms of being able to play a game we will be on windows 10.
It's like even-numbered Star Trek movies or something.
There are already a number of DX10+ games
Just Cause 2, Battlefield 3, F1 2012, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Sleeping Dogs, War of the Roses, ARMA 3, Company of Heroes 2, Hitman: Absolution, and even Black Ops II are DX10+
xemumanic
Member
alexandros
Banned
Not good enough. Why are features still being left out?
I love how Halo 2 took advantage of ONE Windows Vista exclusive feature, which was being able to use load into larger chunks of memory at a time or something, in ONE level of the game. All that had to be done to make that level load on Windows XP was to change an integer from 512 to 256 I think, and the whole thing ran fine on XP. I bet a couple similar circumstances are incoming with DX11.1.
xemumanic
Member
Probably/maybe because they aren't applicable, metro-related, and/or are kernel dependent.
Now, I'm not saying this is fact, but I'm also not automatically assuming a conspiracy either. That's your department.
Crysis 3. Time to get out of that cave.
alexandros
Banned
I'd like something more than a simple assumption though. Specific technical reasons, something that developers and programmers could actually check for its validity. If the reasons are arbitrary, this is still an issue.
Possibly WDDM 1.2
xemumanic
Member
That's what you've been doing for MONTHS. Why am I wrong to do so, and you're not?
alexandros
Banned
I didn't say you were wrong to do so, how did you come to that conclusion? Both are reasonable assumptions as far as I'm concerned, I just stated my personal preference.
xemumanic
Member
This thread should probably be closed due to the other one.
What other one? These threads are always a joy to read.
Your entire existence in literally every Windows 8 thread is based in false assumptions, completely baseless assertions, and a total lack of experience with the product itself.
And now you're trying to get specific technical details out of people who are literally in no place to possibly know? In order to disprove yet another baseless assertion formed entirely in confirmation bias where you latch onto every single argument fragment in order to act like you're justified in your beliefs?
Unbelievable.
Coming for you that is a full on LOL.
alexandros
Banned
Indeed. If you had taken the time to read my comment, you would have understood that I wanted that information a) from Microsoft in order to be b) evaluated by developers. Here's the specific quote, since you didn't take the time to find it yourself:
So, either you didn't even read my post or you chose to ignore the part that didn't suit your argument. Tsk, tsk.
Same goes for you. Here's what I said earlier:
Meanwhile, Jon Dvorak is wondering whether Microsoft is planting Windows 8 comments:
Heh, fancy that.
As we all know, Dvorak is one of the brightest commentators of all time.
Are you suggesting that I'm a "plant", or that others in this thread or threads like this are? If you're going to make accusations, come right out and say them.
Are you suggesting that I'm a "plant", or that others in this thread or threads like this are? If you're going to make accusations, come right out and say them.
alexandros
Banned
I'm saying that I've observed similar behavior, specifically the name-calling thing that Dvorak mentions (you have already admitted to being a Microsoft employee so this doesn't concern you). Adults should be able to have a discussion without resorting to that crap. Maybe calling those people out in this indirect fashion will convince them to scale it back a bit and try to communicate in a normal, rational fashion. It shouldn't be too hard, yes?
I'm sceptical of Microsoft's motives and I will remain so until I hear from someone qualified that there are technical reasons for ommiting DX 11.1 features.
I'm sceptical of Microsoft's motives and I will remain so until I hear from someone qualified that there are technical reasons for ommiting DX 11.1 features.
One of the biggest "technical reasons" that no posters on message boards with 0 experience in software/game development ever considers is:
It's fucking hard, expensive, unpredictable, and takes a long time
I don't have any direct insight into the decisions behind this specific thread's impetus, but considering everything that we do know:
- DirectX 11.1 is a very minor update mostly without major new features
- The one major new feature (stereoscopic 3D support) is one that no one gives a shit about
- The vast majority of changes in DX 11.1 were required in order to enable metro apps and things like desktop/metro transitions to function
- There will be next to zero developers who actually take advantage of it any time soon, even if it was made available for Windows 7, just like barely anyone is using DirectX 11 today, 3 years after its release.
Much like most conspiracies, it's probably bullshit with a much easier explanation behind it: Software development is hard, resources are limited (yes, even for Microsoft), and there has to be a damned good reason to dedicate expensive engineers to a large undertaking before it happens.
For DX 11.1 as a whole, there is no good reason other than "just for the fuck of it".
Also, there's this:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/chuckw/archive/2012/11/14/directx-11-1-and-windows-7.aspx
And while I'm sure people will jump on this as "see they're giving it!!!", plans can't change like this overnight.
I'm not making excuses or justifying the decision not to do it, I'm explaining why there has to be a damn good reason to do it. And as you can see from the end of my last post, it's fairly clear that there is a good reason to do some of it, which is why some of it is happening.
Technical limitations are not the only good reason not to do something.
Technical limitations are not the only good reason not to do something.
alexandros
Banned
Understandable. However, to me this fact seems contradictory to this:
I mean, don't you see how this seems strange? How can a very minor update be that hard and expensive to implement? That's why I'd like to know if there are technical reasons.
Agreed.
I wouldn't know about that stuff so I'll gladly take your word for it.
It depends on what API the next Xbox will use. If it's DX11, then I agree. If it's DX11.1, then it will be used extensively by most development companies targeting a multiplatform release. Only time will tell.
scorpscarx
Member
god Windows 2000 pro was sooooooo good.
Just because it's a minor update to DirectX doesn't make it trivial to port to a completely different operating system.
Do you realize how many things can change when you have literally thousands of people working for 3 years on the biggest overhaul in decades of one of the most complex operating systems in the world? There could be countless dependencies between every minor change to DirectX and those specific operating system changes.
It's what the guy said in the original MS Answers page that started this story - DirectX 11.1 is a part of Windows 8. It was intentionally, fundamentally, inherently designed with Windows 8 in mind, almost exclusively to support new Windows 8 features and capabilities. Heck, the team would probably have to do weeks if not months of deep investigations to simply understand if it would be feasible to back-port the entirety of DX 11.1 to Windows 7, if you were to entirely ignore the question of "why?"
Again, I'm not trying to say it shouldn't be done because it's hard. I'm saying that, because it's hard, there has to be a good reason to do it. Bringing DX11 back to Vista was a no-brainer because there are still tens if not hundreds of millions of people using Vista, and DX11 was primarily intended for significant performance improvements and new features for games - something that those tens/hundreds of millions of Vista users care about. If there were genuinely great reasons for DX 11.1 on Windows 7, the same thing would have undoubtedly happened. And, to some extent, that is exactly what's happening according to the link I shared above.
Do you realize how many things can change when you have literally thousands of people working for 3 years on the biggest overhaul in decades of one of the most complex operating systems in the world? There could be countless dependencies between every minor change to DirectX and those specific operating system changes.
It's what the guy said in the original MS Answers page that started this story - DirectX 11.1 is a part of Windows 8. It was intentionally, fundamentally, inherently designed with Windows 8 in mind, almost exclusively to support new Windows 8 features and capabilities. Heck, the team would probably have to do weeks if not months of deep investigations to simply understand if it would be feasible to back-port the entirety of DX 11.1 to Windows 7, if you were to entirely ignore the question of "why?"
Again, I'm not trying to say it shouldn't be done because it's hard. I'm saying that, because it's hard, there has to be a good reason to do it. Bringing DX11 back to Vista was a no-brainer because there are still tens if not hundreds of millions of people using Vista, and DX11 was primarily intended for significant performance improvements and new features for games - something that those tens/hundreds of millions of Vista users care about. If there were genuinely great reasons for DX 11.1 on Windows 7, the same thing would have undoubtedly happened. And, to some extent, that is exactly what's happening according to the link I shared above.
alexandros
Banned
It's a quite plausible explanation. In the absence of more information on the matter, I think your argument is valid. I don't agree with it, I believe Microsoft could easily port DX11.1 if they wanted to, but that's just my personal opinion.
You can think what you want how do you know that to be the case?
You don't?
No point talking about it then.....
Still my favorite version of windows to date. From the day i first installed it to the day i replaced it with XP it had NEVER crashed. I can't even say that about Windows 7.
alexandros
Banned
That's... pretty much a complete antithesis to the whole concept of a discussion forum. A place where people express their opinions and discuss them with others. Maybe you were looking for a news website?