For Now, DirectX 11.1 Will Only Be for Windows 8

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess I won't be using DX11.1 for a while. I'm not going to upgrade to a worse OS just to have a tiny upgrade in visual quality (if it's even noticeable).

By the time Microsoft sorts their crap out, Linux might actually be a viable gaming OS. I really hope Valve's work with Steam gives Microsoft some real competition.
 
Dev Studios are hardly pushing DX11 features, will be at least couple of years before they even think about DX11.1 (hint: when will consoles support DX11.1? that's when we can get serious talks going about DX11.1)
 
[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]I guess I won't be using DX11.1 for a while. I'm not going to upgrade to a worse OS just to have a tiny upgrade in visual quality (if it's even noticeable).By the time Microsoft sorts their crap out, Linux might actually be a viable gaming OS. I really hope Valve's work with Steam gives Microsoft some real competition.[/citation]

How is it a worse OS?

DX11.1's main advantages aren't just visual quality, but performance as a more optimized version of DX11.

What does MS have to sort through that Linux devs don't?
 
Hmm yah making DX10 a Vista exclusive didn't cause me to choose Vista. and this certainly won't cause me to choose Win 8. And, forcing me to upgrade by tying DirectX versions to the latest Windows version doesn't make me, or anyone else, a happy customer.

Microsoft needs to remember why DirectX was developed the way it was to begin with: Windows was bad for gaming, Microsoft knew it, so they made a subsection of it that bypassed all the game-sluggish parts of Windows that offers a DIRECT path for developers to take advantage of. Give developers the tools they need and want to work with - abd keep Windows out of DirectX as much as possible.
 
[citation][nom]Marcus52[/nom]Hmm yah making DX10 a Vista exclusive didn't cause me to choose Vista. and this certainly won't cause me to choose Win 8. And, forcing me to upgrade by tying DirectX versions to the latest Windows version doesn't make me, or anyone else, a happy customer.Microsoft needs to remember why DirectX was developed the way it was to begin with: Windows was bad for gaming, Microsoft knew it, so they made a subsection of it that bypassed all the game-sluggish parts of Windows that offers a DIRECT path for developers to take advantage of. Give developers the tools they need and want to work with - abd keep Windows out of DirectX as much as possible.[/citation]

As others have stated, enough with this forcing bs. MS isn't forcing anyone to upgrade just because of DX. It took almost ten years for Windows XP's lack of native DX 10 to 11 support to actually be a problem and even then for people whom care, there are unofficial ways of getting DX10.1 functionality in XP (IDK if we've gotten DX11 working that way or not) and that alleviates the issues. Then we have Vista that isn't ten years old and it still got DX11 compatibility once MS had it ready for Vista.
 
I'll say it: Windows 8 sucks ASS on the desktop. While I appreciate the updates to the core os, the start screen feels tacked on, and the removal of the start button from the desktop was a huge mistake. Better for MS to patch in that start button, or I won't be updating the OS on any nore pc's until I get some better options.
 
That's really putting the squeeze on desktop users. Win8 is a good OS, and I can see that it will indeed work just find for desktops, but many people will remain convinced that 7 is better for this purpose. New games? - What now? Will users need to run a dual-boot configuration for win8 just to play games with the latest graphics tech? I guess only time will tell.
 
So where is the insanely huge list of games for dx11.1 ? Ohh forgot the consoles including ms's own xbox 360 6 year ancient tech keeps most games at last mid decade dx9, failed attempt MS.
 
[citation][nom]thrasher32[/nom]I'll say it: Windows 8 sucks ASS on the desktop. While I appreciate the updates to the core os, the start screen feels tacked on, and the removal of the start button from the desktop was a huge mistake. Better for MS to patch in that start button, or I won't be updating the OS on any nore pc's until I get some better options.[/citation]

Why don't you put the start menu back in if you care about it so much? It can take less than two minutes to download and install a third party start menu program (many of which are free and can also disable the Metro start-up screen). You probably do the same for games, internet browsers, and most other software, so why is it suddenly a horrible thing to do with the start menu when the Metro menus actually do pretty much everything (and more) that the start menu can do anyway?
 
Well, Tom's is behind the times like usual. Microsoft has since caved and now parts of DirectX 11.1 will be ported to Windows 7!
 
As much as i like Microsoft and Windows 8. They should not make 11.1 just exclusive to Win8. Its these sort of things that makes consumers frustrated. Granted I have Win8 so this won't effect me but still though. Microsoft has competition from every front. On another topic, yet similar to Windows platform.

People really need to let the start menu debate go. That's like buying a nice looking car but the user is complaining about the missing emblem on the car. Give it a break already.
 
[citation][nom]mariojp[/nom]As much as i like Microsoft and Windows 8. They should not make 11.1 just exclusive to Win8. Its these sort of things that makes consumers frustrated. Granted I have Win8 so this won't effect me but still though. Microsoft has competition from every front. On another topic, yet similar to Windows platform. People really need to let the start menu debate go. That's like buying a nice looking car but the user is complaining about the missing emblem on the car. Give it a break already.[/citation]
FAIL
 
MS tried this before with DX 10 on 7/vista, but not on XP, to force XP gamers to switch to the new OS. It didn't work in my case, and it isn't going to work now. I'm keeping my XP for a long as I can. Sure, I'd like to have whatever improvement are in dx 10 and 11, but switching the OS just for that alone isn't worth the effort to me.
 
[citation][nom]JacekRing[/nom]Instead of comparing it to an emblem. I would say it's more like missing the turn signal knob, the headlights knob, the windshield wiper knob, the radio buttons, the AC controls, the steering wheel, etc. And replacing it with a single touchscreen interface that does everything.[/citation]

Windows 7 supports touch on a tablet but it never caught on because it was just a desktop. windows 8 it is still a desktop with a full screen added. so yes it is a missing emblem.
 
[citation][nom]mscansuckit[/nom]MS tried this before with DX 10 on 7/vista, but not on XP, to force XP gamers to switch to the new OS. It didn't work in my case, and it isn't going to work now. I'm keeping my XP for a long as I can. Sure, I'd like to have whatever improvement are in dx 10 and 11, but switching the OS just for that alone isn't worth the effort to me.[/citation]


This just shows how little you know how Operating systems works.
 
Good way for Microsoft to keep developers from using DX11.1. In other news game developers say it will take a while to figure out windows 9's DX12 due in part to DX11.1 was never used in window 7. One analyst suggest this may be a strategist to allow their consoles time to catch up with PC game.
 
[citation][nom]beetlejuicegr[/nom]i have an Intel i5 2500k oced to 4ghz, ati 5870 oc, 8gb ram ddr3 1866mhz, samsung 830 128gb..and i was really happy with my windows 7..then i installed windows 8 and i have to admit, apart from metro likeness or not, that they are way faster. What do i mean? i didn't expect to see a difference in performance on the OS by jumping to windows 8 and when i prepared everything i must say! you can see a huge difference in speed, on loading programs games and switching to desktop/metro etc.At least the memory management is way way better, couldn't believe it was possible for example,when you right click "my computer" and select "manage" ..how long does it take to load the management console?At windows 7 it takes some noticeable time (compared to other tasks) however at windows 8 its almost instant!I had some strange freezes on various games (more like lagspike feels ) and i knew it was from overclocking (some games don't like OC ). At windows 8 it is almost unnoticeable.Now DX11.1 , is most welcome, not because it will make people upgrade blablabla but because of the "With DirectX 11.1, WARP was enhanced with (among other things) support for DirectCompute and hence it is one of the accelerators for C++ AMP"Meaning , smaller PCs with just onboard intel or amd apu will perform way way better than on windows 7! for example netbooks and now that i think about it, it's time to test win8 on our netbook ^^[/citation]

You're correct. Anyone who disagrees with you hasn't put in serious time with windows 8, or their brain is tiny.
 
Microsoft (as stated) have tried this tactic before and it never helped Vista. If nothing, all this does is make Microsoft look even more desperate. But as of today most games are still DX9c with a few DX10 and DX11 titles and those games supporting DX10/11 will still work with DX9c and most folks will not be able to see much of difference. And as far as performance DX10/11 has always been slower because it adds more processing overhead to support those features specific to DX10/11. As far as what's new in DX11.1 ... not much, nothing worth a huge development investment and still covered by OpenGL 4.x sooooo...

I honestly just don't understand Microsoft, it's as if they just want to continue to piss of software engineers (myself) and get them to move over to other platforms/technology. Maybe this is actually Microsoft's goal - "keep all software development in house" to be done by Microsoft employees and only Microsoft employees/engineers. It's an interesting idea, but not exactly sure how this "new goal" will help Microsoft?
 
[citation][nom]JacekRing[/nom]They did the same thing with DX 10 when vista came out in 2006. Most game still don't take advantage of DX 10, and it's been 6 years. So I'll worry about DX11.1 6 years from now, when they actually start releasing games that will utilize it. But by then I will have skipped win8 and be running win9 or maybe win10.[/citation]

Exactly! When (if ever) there will be DX11.1 games, we will have windows 10 or 11. How many of you remember games that needed dx10.1 to run... hmm... cant remember any. Games will be DX9 games at least one or two more years, after that maybe dx10 or dx11... maybe not even then. It takes many many years for game developers to use new DX version because they know how many computers there are who run dx9, dx10, dx11... and untill XP is out, most computers are still on dx9 level... And even after that, many computers can not do better than dx9 and even if they do, there are those console ports with dx9 basics and some clued dx10 or dx11 tricks.
 
[citation][nom]dameon51[/nom]You're correct. Anyone who disagrees with you hasn't put in serious time with windows 8, or their brain is tiny.[/citation]

I have put in some serious time with Windows 8, I'm a software engineer and MSDN Ultimate subscription (yes the $11,300/yr one where I get everything and anything Microsoft). I don't consider my brain "Tiny" as I've been paid well to write software for over 30+ years. But since neither you nor "beetlejuicegr" actually provided an technical details of DX11.1 implementations and even admit to "lagspike" and "strange freezes" ... this is good how? So your suggesting we all agree with someone (beetlejuicergr) that can't even get a stable overclock working with Windows 8??

But anyway, back to specific details on DX11.1 with it's "enhanced WARP support". Do you even know what WARP is? It's a software rasterizer -- it's used for situations where there is no hardware acceleration available (either physically or supported by the driver) - WARP is a software fallback and is definitely NOT the desired usage (for performance situations).

As for Windows 8 and why people "think" it's faster:
1. Startup is now more threaded, meaning stuff is still load after you get to the start screen
2. There is no Aero, no shading on any window, everything is FLAT 2D, almost no gradients anywhere
3. Fresh new installs always "feel" faster, this has been true for every new version of Windows OS, start to load up the registry and add more and more applications and it slows down

Anyway, the market will bare out the success or failure of Windows 8, so far it's "true usage" (not the meaningless pre-sales, and pre-installed sales numbers) is far far far less than Vista, and Vista was a pretty bad news for Microsoft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom