New DirectX every two months..what is the diff?

[bourgeoisdude]

OK this is just too confusing. I finally understand the DirectX 9.0 vs 9.0a vs 9.0b vs 9.0c thing. Now I've been wondering what these minor refreshes are all about--August 2005 9.0c version, December 2005 9.0c, February 2006 9.0c, and now an Aprill 2006 End-user runtime of 9.0c.

What is the difference in these? Why can't MS call them 9.0d, 9.0e, 9.0f, and 9.0g to avoid this confusion?

I download the "latest" 9.0c only to find out by installing a new game that there is "a newer DirectX 9.0c". Am I the only one who's lost? Anyone who can, please shed any light that you can about this.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

They update it to fix hardware/sfotware conflicts.

Not a new version of DX9 persay, thus not warranting a new letter, just a refresh to fix bugs for people who have them. If you're not experiencing DX issues that report to you, then you likely don't need the newer versions with the tweaks.

 

[bourgeoisdude]

That's what I thought, but how come Star Wars: Empire At War REQUIRES December 2005 DirectX 9.0c or later. It refused to run with my August 2005 version.

 

[SyPheR]

Well, It's a nice thing to know that if you are into gaming direct x 10 is allready around the corner at the end of this year. So I think direct x 10 will take away all your confusions. The crytech 2 engine will show you a game called Crysis and it will totally rock your sences if you are into gaming so why the rush? I'm still waiting for the first direct x 10 compatible cards to arrive and offcourse.... I think there will also be a direct x 10 b c and d version but who cares. It's all good

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Perhaps there's an issue with older versions of DX9.0C and Star Wars.

Might not even be graphical as DX also has it's fingers in sound and networking amongst other things (keyboard, mouse, etc).

 

[ltcommander_data]

It's kind of off topic, but I've always wondered why DirectX 9.0c only received a "c" despite going from SM2.0 to SM3.0. Afterall, DirectX 8.1 received a seemingly more significant decimal number while I think that what it really changed was only to SM1.4. I always had a sneaking suspicion that it may have been a by-product of the Microsoft-ATI Xenos relationship. Making 9.0c seems less significant (it's of course debatable how significant it is) would have benefited the perception of ATI's R4xx generation capabilities.

On another note, I don't suppose you know what DirectX9.0L will bring? (Again, another letter instead of a number). It'll obviously try to provide a bridge with DirectX 10, but adding SM4.0 and geometry shaders would seem to be too drastic a shift and would further take away what shine Vista has left. A final house cleaning release seems possible, but would make DirectX9.0L seem pointless to develop hardware for. Incidentally, I wonder if any of the current graphics cards support 9.0L. They certainly haven't advertised it, but it anyone would have it, it would be ATI's RV560 and RV570 since they are actually new core designs.