• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

DirectX 9.L = DirectX10

R

Rodster

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
155 (0.02/day)
Good news for those like me who has no desire for Vista.

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110

DirectX 9.L will be a DirectX 10 for Windows XP

Apparently

By Fuad Abazovic: Monday 16 October 2006, 09:45
Click here to find out more!
WE MANAGED TO glean a few facts about the upcoming DirectX 9.0 L we told you about here.

DirectX 9.0 L is simply a renamed and refurbished DirectX 10 for Windows XP. It will make DirectX 10 games to work on Windows XP.

And games such as the upcoming Crysis won't work on the existing DirectX 9.0 c. they need a DirectX 9.0 L

One of the biggest issues is the fact that Nvidia or ATI won't have any mainstream or entry-level cards until at least mid- to end of Q1 2007. This suggests that if Vista tips up around the beginning of the year, gamers will be turned off by it.

Electronic Arts, the publisher of Crysis, wants to sell hundreds or thousands, even millions of copies and we doubt that Nvidia can produce and sell that many Geforce 8800 GTX and GTS cards.

It will be interesting to see whether the Windows XP Crysis will be different from the Vista ones.
 
Yeah i bet Direct X 10 has like 20more features while the 9.L has reduced feature like probably 10. Well...that's microsoft style.
 
Rodster: GOOD READ!

:)

* Interesting & GOOD TO KNOW type of stuff...

APK
 
DX9.0L will be using software to decode DX-10 effects so if you don't have a high end system, you'll not get near the experience you would using true DX-10. But this is good news for anyone with a high end PC.
 
I hope MS creates a "full installer" with the new DirectX. They should call it 9.1 and not 9.0 L. Reason: So many people have DirectX problems due to ungrades, service packs, bad software written for earlier DirectX and forcing DLL's onto the machine.

The result is that someone can have an "impure" directX installation.

And the problem is that no existing DirectX installer properly "overwrites" and "forces" a full installation of DirectX. I have a case of this illness. I have a machine with DirectX 9.0c but with come 9.0 DLL's stuck in there. AWEFUL. No reinstallation of 9.0c helps. It just reports (already installed). But it isnt installed correctly!

The NEW INSTALLER for DirectX *must* have a force install, to overwrite all existing DLLs and re-register in the registry.
 
Thats very good news... No vista = good.
 
Yes thats good .. at least you can run DX10 games in Xp
 
It would be stupid of an software company to not allow XP to run future games for at least the next 2-3 years. There are too many people who will not either upgrade to Vista, or have hte hardware for DX-10 for at least that long. We should be safe for awhile.
 
Remember that the DX9 API "method" of talking to the GPU is different from DX10. That means that DX9L introduces DX10 features, but does not mean a DX10 game would run on DX9L. A game would need to be compiled to DX9L code. Since DX9L has a greater "CPU overhead" than DX10, then a DX10 card running DX9L code would be somewhat slower than running the same program under native DX10 code. By how much? I don't know. It might be a very small effect... but it could be significant depending on the type of graphics processing/rendering being done.
 
Last edited:
Excellent news! I figured it would be something like that for the newer games. At least I have a farily high end system, as soon as I get my f'n cpu problem fixed.
 
OTHER NEWS.... Bad news...

Apparently there has been a misunderstanding about DirectX 9.0L. It is NOT a new version of DirectX for XP, but, a version of DirectX 9.0 "L for Longhorn". ie. they are making a new Vista version of DirectX 9.0 to allow better compatibility with games.

This picture might change again. (I hope so!)
 
I've been saying it for literally years. I saw what DX10 was going to be like a good 5 years ago, and despite what M$ said, it was obvious a DX10 for XP would be inevitable simply because theres not only no technical reason why XP cant have a DX10, but also the whole community, game savvy or not, was calling for DX10 in XP. M$ if nothing else HAD to bow to peer pressure as games developers, graphics manufacturers, and a whole hoast of other smaller parties for this and that wouldnt stand for it. They want to make money, and they sure as hell wernt about to let M$ severely cripple their profits and audience they can appeal to.

Chances are a DX10 will be arriving for XP, if not, some rather adept coders will no doubt rip the DX10 apart that will supposedly ship with vista and change it to work with XP.
 
I'm probably going to sound dumb but, I recently bought a 7900GT and am kinda scared of DX10. Would I be able to use it or do I need a new gfx card?
 
Microsoft seems to be borrowing something from the leaf of the Apple Tree so to speak. When OS X came out a lot of programs that where OS 9 would not run on OSX correctly. You could run OS X on some older hardware but it cased a lot of people to get a new MAC. Which means more $$$. Vista will be the same but for Microsoft.

I can see a lot of people forking out $$$ for vista for there current machine. When programs won’t run correctly or games run slowly they will buy a new pc with another copy of vista. Which means more $$$.

I personally think M$ is shooting them selves in the foot with vista.
You could run direct X 8 on windows 98+, 9 on 2000 and XP, and 10 only on vista? Wtf? Why not dictate to the public and tell them to get a new CPU type while at it?
Will you need a new OS to run direct x 11?


What gamers out there is going to speed ( this is in AU $) $400+ on a new graphics card and $200+ on an OS ? Not many. This will either mean a lot of gamers will stop gamming on the PC. Some games developers will lose out on $$$ or people will convert to Linux. ( although its more fun getting games to work on Linux than playing them most of the time!)Or the gamers will get a Console. And what company has a share in the console market? M$!!!
 
only xp? will 9.0l work in 2000? maybe 98se?

I was wondering if maybe the DX9.0L would work on win2k or even 98se? prolly sounds like a noob question, sry whatevs.
 
Sorry guys, this is just a bunch of old news :p.
On October 16th, Malware posted this.
On October 17th, Darksaber posted this.
Aren't you happy to have such alert staff members?
 
I'm confused, so is DirectX 9.0L DirectX 10 for XP, or DirectX 9 for Vista?
 
It DX9 for vista, because DX10 is not backwards compatible....hence I would like to see how some one is going to hack this on XP when you have to have 2 separate vers running at the same time.
 
DX9.0L is DX9.0 version for Vista. Means to run DX9.0 game on Vista. I don't know whether Vista need DX8.0L to run DX8.0 game on Vista?

Regards,
Arto.
 
DX9.0 is compatible with backward versions like DX7 and 8. So for DX9.0L i don't see why it wouldn't support them? In short vista is able to run DX10 itself or DX9.0L with 7 and 8. Just hope M$ would integrate DX9.0 within DX10 so gamers using vista would be able to run DX7/8/9 games rather then installing DX9.0L just to play them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top