Monday, November 12th 2012

No DirectX 11.1 for Windows 7?

It looks like Microsoft is using the old DirectX limitation trick to push PC enthusiasts to buy its latest operating system. According to a Hardware Info report that cites a post on Microsoft Answers Forum by Microsoft employee Daniel Moth, the company may restrict DirectX 11.1, of which the newest generation of GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA are compatible with, to Windows 8. Windows 7 users will have to make do with DirectX 11. The move could be a little harsh, as each new version of Windows has access to at least two new DirectX versions. Windows XP saw DirectX 8 and 9.x, Windows Vista DirectX 10 and 11. Microsoft DirectX 11.1 adds a few new features to its Direct3D component. In addition to a vendor-neutral stereo 3D platform, it adds a host of 3D API features.

Source: Hardware.info
Add your own comment

94 Comments on No DirectX 11.1 for Windows 7?

#1
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: Prima.Vera
I still don't understand why game companies are not pushing OpenGL 4.3 instead of Dx?? Latest OpenGL is so much faster and more feature rich than crappy Dx11...
Simple, money. Microsoft provides development kits to publishers. As soon as someone does that with OpenGL you will have more OpenGL based games.
Posted on Reply
#2
theubersmurf
by: TheMailMan78
Simple, money. Microsoft provides development kits to publishers. As soon as someone does that with OpenGL you will have more OpenGL based games.
This is why I think operating systems should be free. They provide an artificial ecology of products that are controlled by a single corporation. With the pervasive adoption of Windows, microsoft was able to leverage the widespread adoption of their DirectX API in order to block other companies out of gaming markets, making them less appealing to buyers (notably enthusiasts), though to be sure, apple doesn't do themselves any favors by keeping their OS closed off to OEMs.

This is one of the reasons I want to ditch windows.
Posted on Reply
#3
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: theubersmurf
This is why I think operating systems should be free. They provide an artificial ecology of products that are controlled by a single corporation. With the pervasive adoption of Windows, microsoft was able to leverage the widespread adoption of their DirectX API in order to block other companies out of gaming markets, making them less appealing to buyers (notably enthusiasts), though to be sure, apple doesn't do themselves any favors by keeping their OS closed off to OEMs.

This is one of the reasons I want to ditch windows.
Come up with a better OS that has mass appeal for the average user and then provide development kits (hardware) to publishers to make games for it and you might have an argument. Sadly no "Free OS" does this and never will as it takes money to make money.
Posted on Reply
#4
theubersmurf
by: TheMailMan78
Come up with a better OS that has mass appeal for the average user and then provide development kits (hardware) to publishers to make games for it and you might have an argument. Sadly no "Free OS" does this and never will as it takes money to make money.
The issue of appeal could be dealt with in versions of Linux and BSD if the builders of those OS' didn't seem to want to keep out everyone but those who develop software. "If you're not building packages, then we don't want you." seems to be the attitude of a lot of the people in the Linux community. If they built with the average user in mind, and they could, rather than those who think everyone should be a developer (IDK what they have in mind at times, it seems deliberately obtuse and an effort to prove to everyone how smart they think they are, btw; creating more usable OS would show more intelligence)

The development kits could be handled by a third party, ( and should in all probability) With valve testing the waters in Linux there's the possibility that they'll need to create development kits since there aren't any elsewhere at the moment.
Posted on Reply
#5
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: theubersmurf
The issue of appeal could be dealt with in versions of Linux and BSD if the builders of those OS' didn't seem to want to keep out everyone but those who develop software. "If you're not building packages, then we don't want you." seems to be the attitude of a lot of the people in the Linux community. If they built with the average user in mind, and they could, rather than those who think everyone should be a developer (IDK what they have in mind at times, it seems deliberately obtuse and an effort to prove to everyone how smart they think they are, btw; creating more usable OS would show more intelligence)

The development kits could be handled by a third party, ( and should in all probability) With valve testing the waters in Linux there's the possibility that they'll need to create development kits since there aren't any elsewhere at the moment.
They (Valve) are just messing with Linux to avoid license fees to MS on the Steambox. Don't think for a second Valve is doing anything for the "good" of the community.
Posted on Reply
#6
mediasorcerer
I think ms has fallen headfirst into the fail basket these days, they've made a crappy tablet that no one wants because it tries to do everything but does nothing well,, they've tried to push everyone onto a tablet os on the desktop that's just a major fail, really, what were they thinking??

It's bullish attitude to an os that used to stand next to osx as being the "liberated" system of computing open choice-yet now its cracking down on options left right and centre, and, i feel quite pissed at them frankly, if they fail, serve them right for taking the piss!!!

Win 8 is a joke, and now this hehe, what a pack of control freaks, not that anyone needs dx11.1 anyways.

Call me out with the "hater" meme if you want[not really the same as common sense tho is it?].
Posted on Reply
#7
Conti027
Meh.. all i have is a meh.

I'll probably get windows 8 sometime in the future but DX11.1 isn't want pushed me to get it.

Its Microsoft just doing there thing. I don't understand why People have to act like huge PC elitist snobs.
Posted on Reply
#8
theubersmurf
No, I don't think valve is charitable or working for the good of the community, but they may come up with one in order to foster development on the platform.

Though I can imagine it coming with the "By accepting the terms of the SDK's EULA, you also agree to distribute your game through Steam." kind of crap. I love people's impression of Valve as good guys, when they're just as profit motivated.

But the point is, if there were installers rather than having to use the Konsole, and more bells and whistles it would have legs, which the Linux community could do if they weren't so busy congratulating each other on their intelligence. And that Development kits could be made by Canonical or other companies invested in Linux if they thought it would foster sales to, say, game developers.
Posted on Reply
#9
mediasorcerer
Don't get me started on valve, please, i'm nearly over steam for good atm.
Posted on Reply
#10
theubersmurf
by: mediasorcerer
Don't get me started on valve, please, i'm nearly over steam for good atm.
I haven't had it installed for months.
Posted on Reply
#11
jgrahl
As a windows PC gamer, it started with win 3.1 in 1992 for me

- upgraded to win 95, 3 years later

- upgraded to win 98, 3 years later

- upgraded to win XP, 3 years later

- upgraded to vista, 5 years later, then reverted back to XP

- upgraded to win 7, 4 years after vista, 9 after XP. Yes, I waited a while to buy it.

- 3 years later, no reason to upgrade to win 8 unless a new game comes out that requires win 8 and I require myself to play it.
Posted on Reply
#12
repman244
I really really wish that linux would be usable for me one day, right now I'm stuck with Windows because of programs.
But I think it will take a lot of time before we get there...sadly.
Posted on Reply
#13
Major_A
It doesn't matter. Even midrange video cards can handle most AAA games now. 5-6 years ago this wasn't true but since the stagnation of gaming development (probably due to consoles and overall costs) not very many studios are pushing the limits. With all that said the only DX 11.1 stuff we'll see any time soon will be developer demos. Concluding with MS can kiss my hairy sack if they think that will get me to switch to Windows 8 aka the OS formerly known as Windows.
Posted on Reply
#14
Syborfical
Oh No's you have to upgrade to Windows 8 for Direct X 11.1

There are like 30 games that use Direct X 11 and most of them suck.
They may look great but are not fun at all. I still play dos games because they are fun.

There are how many games that use Direct X 11.1 ...


I like what Microsoft is doing here alienating and pissing off users. They are trying to be apple with out the extreme fanbois to back them up.

Its no making Direct X 11.1 available on windows 7 actually a good thing...

As I know many people that gave linux a go when the steaming pile of crap vista was released. And I know many more people that are looking into linux as they hate the MetroSexual interface. Windows 8 doesn't bring many new features to the table that excite people like windows 7.
Posted on Reply
#15
TRWOV
No issue. DX9 is the current baseline, when DX11 becomes the baseline we'll all be rocking our AMD FX Reclaimer CPUs with 16 hexacores (6 cores per module) and running Windows 10 with DX13. :D
Posted on Reply
#16
eidairaman1
by: FordGT90Concept
It wasn't to push a new OS, it was to remove compatibility bits that were bogging the API down. Remember, Vista/7/8 literally have two versions of DirectX running in parrallel (DirectX Legacy and DirectX 10/10.1/11/11.1). To make DirectX 10 work on XP, they would have had to essentially upgrade the entire OS to be Vista. That's why they didn't, and still don't, have DirectX 10 support on XP. Most developers still elect to support it, however.
so what made going from DX 8 on XP to DX 9 So easy? Its an excuse to not code DX honestly.
Posted on Reply
#17
[H]@RD5TUFF
This is shenanigans there is no reason other than greed for this to occur, a ass holeish attempt to prop up sales of Windows 8. :shadedshu:shadedshu:shadedshu:shadedshu:shadedshu:shadedshu:shadedshu:shadedshu:shadedshu:shadedshu:nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#18
xenocide
by: eidairaman1
so what made going from DX 8 on XP to DX 9 So easy? Its an excuse to not code DX honestly.
You have it backwards, the upgrades from 7-8 or 8-9 were an excuse not to code something efficiently, they just stapled new functionality onto the API. DirectX was developed to be a lightweight API for 3D graphics, and over the years as they stuck updates onto it, it became bulky and inefficient. When they started working on DX10, they realized this and decided to essentially rebuild it from the ground up, a return to form. In the process they made huge drastic changes, but realized they needed continued support for older iterations, so it runs DX Legacy, along with DX10/10.1/11. DX10/11 has the ability to run games a lot more efficiently than DX9-as showcased by Civ V and WoW, but since most games are console ports they are just tossed together on DX9 since that's what the console GPU's support.
Posted on Reply
#19
micropage7
would DX 11.1 like DX 10.1 that run for short period then replaced with newer DX
Posted on Reply
#20
xenocide
by: micropage7
would DX 11.1 like DX 10.1 that run for short period then replaced with newer DX
All it really seems to do is add native support for Stereoscopic 3D and some extra power-saving functionality, nothing game changing.
Posted on Reply
#21
[H]@RD5TUFF
by: xenocide
All it really seems to do is add native support for Stereoscopic 3D and some extra power-saving functionality, nothing game changing.
True, but 0 reason why it shouldn't be on Windows 7 other than Microsoft being a bunch of money grubbing ass hats.
Posted on Reply
#22
micropage7
11.1 from the number version is like add some features and like that, but not the major or newer architecture so i guess better wait for DX 12 in the future
Posted on Reply
#23
xenocide
by: [H]@RD5TUFF
True, but 0 reason why it shouldn't be on Windows 7 other than Microsoft being a bunch of money grubbing ass hats.
It will most likely be on Win7. It makes no sense to do a measely revision exclusive to a whole new operating sytem. If Microsoft were as money grubbing as people make them out to be we'd see a new version of Windows drop every year like a CoD release, and it would cost almost twice as much, and have minimal changes. To go along with that they'd upgrade to a new version of DX by adding like 1 new thing to it, and let DX get as bloated and shitty as humanly possible.

They are yet to really do any of that stuff, so they are alright in my book.
Posted on Reply
#24
Isenstaedt
by: mediasorcerer
Don't get me started on valve, please, i'm nearly over steam for good atm.
by: theubersmurf
I haven't had it installed for months.
Posted on Reply
#25
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
by: eidairaman1
so what made going from DX 8 on XP to DX 9 So easy? Its an excuse to not code DX honestly.
Nothing major changed at least in regards to the OS. The changes were mostly in the API and hardware.

DirectX 9.0c to DirectX 10 was akin to Windows 95 to Windows NT. They're both the same operating system but vastly different in execution.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment