What's the point in releasing DX11 when games aren't even being coded properly in DX10 yet?

silkstoneWhat's the point in releasing DX11 when games aren't even being coded properly in DX10 yet?

so they can skip 10?

its going to be easier to code for, so the same fail wont happen again.

From what iv'e gathered in this thread and researching it, they'er going to make it so any card can run a DX11 game - they automatically just disable features you dont support (think very high greyed out in DX9 in crysis)

AsphyxiAok, so yes I agree with the whole OEM plan however, everything else sounds exactly opposite from what I have heard. I've been hearing about Windows Vienna before Vista ever came out and the whole "blackcomb" project. Also, from reliable sources on here, they say 7 has been in the works longer.

blackcomb and vienna are codenames as are "Neptune" and "Odyssey"(what ended up being combine into whistler)

ms has a weird prosess for developing stuff sometimes they endup totaly re-thinking a product and yet keeping the same name, win7 if based off xp/2k (older the longhorn/vista) it wouldn't use a similar/nearly identical driver model to vista.

What i understand happened was that they desired they wanted to change directions for security and how the os works internally to be more unix like, this slowed dev on blackcomb/vienna down, but insted of renaming the orignal project they just "Branched" vista off to get something done quicker(look at the ammount of stuff that was removed to get vista out when it came out, like winfs)

vista isnt a newer code base then win7, its part of 7's evolution, look at the windows version numbers for evidance of this.

windows 7
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
build 6.1.7000(higher when it comes out but 7000 is what most people have AFIK)

windows server 2008
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows#Windows_Server_2008
build 6.0.6002

vista sp1 and up use the same code base/kernal version as server 2008

if 7 was a new/diffrent code base it wouldnt share the same numbering scheme as older windows versions

oh and for a little extra info

windows nt 4.0=nt 4.0(cant remmber extended build number of the last build of nt4)
windows 2000=nt 5.0.3700.6690
windows xp=nt 5.1.2600.5512
windows 2003=nt 5.2.3790.3959

trying to say any of these os's isnt based on the older one is silly, as is saying any version with a lower/older build number is "newer" then later build numbers, i remmber hearing about "blackcomb" back in the windows 2k days, god that was a long time ago, i think blackcomb and vienna stick out in peoples minds and sound cool, and thats part of why the names leaked so early.

ms has a few times started projects to slim windows up, but has alwase ended up abandoning them because it breaks compatibility with to many older apps and would take more resources to add that compatibility back to the core os, and MS will NEVER do a split with older windows app support like apple did with osx vs os9 one of ms's biggist selling points for buisness is that they can hold onto the same apps and hardware an insainly long ammount of time without having to replace anything.
as we all know, this effects the home user market as well, alot of people dont ever want to have to buy a new webcam, scaner, printer, or hell in many cases even crappy old software, i know people who still run office 95/97 dispite the fact that they are horribly out dated, when you try and get them to upgrade they dont wana spent the money, when you offer openoffice or the like, they dont wana bother because its to much work to learn where the buttons are(or some such excuse)

I think with the next big windows(after 7) ms may get smart and go minwin style and do lagacy app support via a virtual machien and allow people to just download/install prebuilt virtual machiens with older windows versions on them, so the person can just install their old apps on the windows they where built for without having to have support for said apps as a core part of the os(it would remove alot of old lagacy code and thus bugs/slowdowns if they get out the ancient app support wouldnt it?)

blah, you got me to make another huge post!!!!(see what happens when you get me talking about something im intrested in?)

Musselsso they can skip 10?

its going to be easier to code for, so the same fail wont happen again.

From what iv'e gathered in this thread and researching it, they'er going to make it so any card can run a DX11 game - they automatically just disable features you dont support (think very high greyed out in DX9 in crysis)

that and the fact that at least as i understand it, the newer dx11 features that are requiered SHOULD be fully emulatable in hardware on any gpgpu capable card(opencl) so that would mean that yes there would be a perf hit, but most cards gamers have today would beable to run dx11games in dx11 mode(woot?)

now I am just hoping the ogl3 hits soon and we can see some compitition, as i understand it ogl is also trying to move along the same lines, making things easyer for programers, the one BIG thing ogl brings is that its NOT MS so it can run on ANY OS, also alot of things can be run in software mode, where older dx versions you cant run much in software mode :/

FryingWeeselblackcomb and vienna are codenames as are "Neptune" and "Odyssey"(what ended up being combine into whistler)

ms has a weird prosess for developing stuff sometimes they endup totaly re-thinking a product and yet keeping the same name, win7 if based off xp/2k (older the longhorn/vista) it wouldn't use a similar/nearly identical driver model to vista.

What i understand happened was that they desired they wanted to change directions for security and how the os works internally to be more unix like, this slowed dev on blackcomb/vienna down, but insted of renaming the orignal project they just "Branched" vista off to get something done quicker(look at the ammount of stuff that was removed to get vista out when it came out, like winfs)

vista isnt a newer code base then win7, its part of 7's evolution, look at the windows version numbers for evidance of this.

windows 7
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
build 6.1.7000(higher when it comes out but 7000 is what most people have AFIK)

windows server 2008
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows#Windows_Server_2008
build 6.0.6002

vista sp1 and up use the same code base/kernal version as server 2008

if 7 was a new/diffrent code base it wouldnt share the same numbering scheme as older windows versions

oh and for a little extra info

windows nt 4.0=nt 4.0(cant remmber extended build number of the last build of nt4)
windows 2000=nt 5.0.3700.6690
windows xp=nt 5.1.2600.5512
windows 2003=nt 5.2.3790.3959

trying to say any of these os's isnt based on the older one is silly, as is saying any version with a lower/older build number is "newer" then later build numbers, i remmber hearing about "blackcomb" back in the windows 2k days, god that was a long time ago, i think blackcomb and vienna stick out in peoples minds and sound cool, and thats part of why the names leaked so early.

ms has a few times started projects to slim windows up, but has alwase ended up abandoning them because it breaks compatibility with to many older apps and would take more resources to add that compatibility back to the core os, and MS will NEVER do a split with older windows app support like apple did with osx vs os9 one of ms's biggist selling points for buisness is that they can hold onto the same apps and hardware an insainly long ammount of time without having to replace anything.
as we all know, this effects the home user market as well, alot of people dont ever want to have to buy a new webcam, scaner, printer, or hell in many cases even crappy old software, i know people who still run office 95/97 dispite the fact that they are horribly out dated, when you try and get them to upgrade they dont wana spent the money, when you offer openoffice or the like, they dont wana bother because its to much work to learn where the buttons are(or some such excuse)

I think with the next big windows(after 7) ms may get smart and go minwin style and do lagacy app support via a virtual machien and allow people to just download/install prebuilt virtual machiens with older windows versions on them, so the person can just install their old apps on the windows they where built for without having to have support for said apps as a core part of the os(it would remove alot of old lagacy code and thus bugs/slowdowns if they get out the ancient app support wouldnt it?)

blah, you got me to make another huge post!!!!(see what happens when you get me talking about something im intrested in?)

Thats what I've really been trying to say is that Vista was just the "crappy" thrown together os to get ready for 7. Now I'm not knockin' Vista as I think it has become a pretty solid OS as far however, Win7 even in beta just runs better than Vista. Vista is a lot bulkier and clunkier. SP2 will add good stuff, but thats just that, add stuff. I'm sure it will run smoother but out of the box 7 just runs damn good. There's no denying that.

What I would like to see microshaft do is move to a unix based OS and then have virtual machines to run the NT based programs sorta like wine but with Microsoft support and kernel engineering. Apple has done it why not MS? Everyone knows the NT kernel is a piece anyway.

the thing is, vista and win 7 were both started at the same time.

Vista was meant to come out earlier than it did, but beacuse it hit delays (cough, 90% of PC's on the market having no 3D acceleration) its closer to 7 than it should have been.

yeah when most pc's on the market have intel GMA you cant exectly expect to run a 3d accelerated GUI on it :P

AsphyxiAThats what I've really been trying to say is that Vista was just the "crappy" thrown together os to get ready for 7. Now I'm not knockin' Vista as I think it has become a pretty solid OS as far however, Win7 even in beta just runs better than Vista. Vista is a lot bulkier and clunkier. SP2 will add good stuff, but thats just that, add stuff. I'm sure it will run smoother but out of the box 7 just runs damn good. There's no denying that.

What I would like to see microshaft do is move to a unix based OS and then have virtual machines to run the NT based programs sorta like wine but with Microsoft support and kernel engineering. Apple has done it why not MS? Everyone knows the NT kernel is a piece anyway.

after comparing server 2008 and windows 7, honestly 7 is NOT faster, it is NOT more stable, it is NOT less "clunky" as you put it, its more "macish" thats about it, to me the gui changes in 7 feel thrown togather like they are rushing to replace vista to get away from the stigma the name vista has with the uninformed avg user.

vista pre sp2 was bad, but IMHO xp pre sp2 was bad, and still isnt an os i would personally consider installing for my own use.

some of the stuff ms removed like classic start menu really annoys sysadmin types like myself who really dont like, having to install 3rd party apps to get back a simlar function to what we prefer to deal with is not going to get us to move to a new os.

the performance difference was SMALL and in-fact didnt do much at all, since 2k8 dosnt got the excess services that vista has by default i dont gotta disable/tweak as many services.

basickly i see server 2008 sp2 as being greater then windows7, even the non-public beta/rc versions i have downloaded weren't any better, and infact didnt give me back what I need to really make the os a joy to use.

blah, wish ms would just dump most of the legacy code and add it back via virtual machiens...also allowing custom gui's would be nice(like windowblinds/talisman/astonshell)