Direct X 11.1 - Windows 8 only...

It'll be years before more than a token game or two even uses it. By then Windows 10 will be out.
 
drako said:
It'll be years before more than a token game or two even uses it. By then Windows 10 will be out.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. We probably won't see anything using it any time soon.
If for some crazy reason we do, at least Win8 is cheap.
 
It's the same bullshit they pulled with Vista and XP. You want DirectX 10? Move to Vista! Stunts like that are the only way they can get gamers to migrate to the new OS. I can't stand it but if a new game comes out that I really want I'll probably get Windows 8. Right now I have no interest in Windows 8. Normally I'd be all over a new OS but not this time. It's a tablet OS that masquerades as a desktop OS.
 
I still believe that Vista was DX10 because XP simply was too old and they couldn't jam it in there, but never ever could anybody try to make me even consider that Windows 8 could have something in it that makes 11.1 technically impossible to put on Windows 7.

This is not the first time MS have done an Apple, more like the eighth, and there will be many more. They got a taste for making money with the 360 and it's just going to continue.

Let's be strong, Windows 7 friends. Let's make it the new Windows XP it was born to be.
 
Perhaps it's a desktop OS that masquerades as a tablet OS.

Re: DX11.1 — no big loss. The only significant user-facing feature in D3D11.1 is stereoscopic 3D support. As a result of DX11.1 being 8-only, no one will implement native 3D support with 11.1 within the next five years. If it weren't 8-only, we'd probably see implementations sooner than that.
 
I have Win 8 right now and I think this is bull.

Until a new wave of consoles hits there's not going to be many games pushing past DX9/10 much less 11 and 11.1 anyway.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
What makes it only able to run on win8?
Click to expand...

Microsoft has no doubt built something into Windows 8 that can't be updated or added in Windows 7. Or at least, that's what they'll claim. They said the same thing about Windows XP and DirectX 10. I'm not a DirectX developer but it may have been true given the age of Windows XP at the time. I'm not so sure in this case. It may or may not be true but it's more by design than anything. Microsoft needs a way to compell you to upgrade. This is one way they'll do it.

MrLonghair said:
I still believe that Vista was DX10 because XP simply was too old and they couldn't jam it in there, but never ever could anybody try to make me even consider that Windows 8 could have something in it that makes 11.1 technically impossible to put on Windows 7.

This is not the first time MS have done an Apple, more like the eighth, and there will be many more. They got a taste for making money with the 360 and it's just going to continue.

Let's be strong, Windows 7 friends. Let's make it the new Windows XP it was born to be.
Click to expand...

I hate this type of attitude. The Windows 2000 4 life! and XP for LyFe! crowds are all basically stuck in the past and don't want to move on. With those OSes I felt there was no technical reason not to move on giving that you had the ability to more or less use the same ancient interface with each subsequent version that you had on the last. On a technical level there was every reason to move on. Windows 8 doesn't seem like that big a change outside of the terrible interface. And again it seems ideal for mobile devices but not the desktop. At least not without some kind of touch screen interface to manipulate it.

At some point they may take it even further. Other reasons from Microsoft or someone else will compell an upgrade and the above unwillingness to change will present a clear problem and hold those people or at least some of them back. An example: AMD and NVIDIA don't support Eyefinity / NV Surround on Windows XP. I can't see any reason other than, they don't want to. But it's a reason to move on. No doubt Windows 7 will suffer similarly at some point.

wonderfield said:
Perhaps it's a desktop OS that masquerades as a tablet OS.

Re: DX11.1 — no big loss. The only significant user-facing feature in D3D11.1 is stereoscopic 3D support. As a result of DX11.1 being 8-only, no one will implement native 3D support with 11.1 within the next five years. If it weren't 8-only, we'd probably see implementations sooner than that.
Click to expand...

We simply don't know that. And as I stated above, additional reasons for the gamer and enthusiast to upgrade may present themselves as support for Windows 7 fades.
 
wonderfield said:
Perhaps it's a desktop OS that masquerades as a tablet OS.

Re: DX11.1 — no big loss. The only significant user-facing feature in D3D11.1 is stereoscopic 3D support. As a result of DX11.1 being 8-only, no one will implement native 3D support with 11.1 within the next five years. If it weren't 8-only, we'd probably see implementations sooner than that.
Click to expand...

Depends on the console's support for DX 11.1 I think. I would think that we would get DX 9 support as well as with DX 11, since a lot of the market still have it. Would also be interesting (though more as a nieche if Occulus Rift starts supporting DX 11.1 stereo 3D).

There is more interesting things with DX11.1 also:

Create larger constant buffers than a shader can access; "Direct3D 11.1 allows you to create constant buffers that are larger than the maximum constant buffer size a shader can access."

How it will affect you: This will shift a lot of processing power away from the more-often-than-not FPS limiting CPU, and more it onto the GPU, which should mean we can can throw the more powerful graphics cards at the computer and not be slowed down by a CPU drowning in information.
Click to expand...
http://forums.turnedon.com.au/topic/250-dx-111-details-and-what-it-means-for-gamers/

Bottleneck removal is always nice to have. :)
 
I'm not sure that the author actually understands what constant buffers are used for.
 
Eh, no big deal. I have 8 but even I don't see any companies actually pushing 11.1 into gaming any time soon. Maybe as mentioned above if the consoles implement it we could see it in a year or two, but if not it could be a feature that is more common on the next version of windows (assuming they still call it windows by then) and 8 will have support.
 
I'll just play any DX 11.1 game I happen to get in DX 11 instead, until MS releases a proper desktop OS (start menu and Aero is all I, and most other W8 haters are asking for). Sad part is I have Windows 8 through my technet subscription but I will not use it as my primary OS. Running great on my HTPC though.
 
This doesn't make sense. DX11 is on Vista and Win 7. DX 11.1 surely has to be an extension of DX11 rather than a completely new, groundbreaking, etc etc API. So why would we be able to run DX11 on 7/Vista but not 11.1?

Sounds like bullshit to me.
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
Here's what DX 11.1 does:
http://www.turnedon.com.au/articles/news/new-dx-111-features-r112

I don't think you'll need DX 11.1 in games for a long time to come, unless the new consoles support it. Then you might want to have it, if it brings extra features from all the console ports.
Click to expand...

Consoles are unlikely to even support that. Console development takes years of planning and once they choose the hardware its basically set in stone.

Frankly I would worry less and less about DX overall , very few games actually use it to the max and very few PC games truly even push a system these days.
 
Godmachine said:
Consoles are unlikely to even support that. Console development takes years of planning and once they choose the hardware its basically set in stone.

Frankly I would worry less and less about DX overall , very few games actually use it to the max and very few PC games truly even push a system these days.
Click to expand...

They might use it actually. The Xbox 720 is rumored to use a AMD 7000 series GPU, which then have support for DX 11.1. Unconfirmed "leaked" slides suggests so too. I wouldn't put it past M$ using DX 11.1 in their new console, considering all the new products these days supporting 3D. They might also even use a modified Win8 kernel for their new console. Here's a slide from the "leaked" documents for Xbox 720:

Slide10.jpg

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62038
 
slow adaption for a game to technology that is out today.
windows 8 is pretty much a superb OS.
snappy and fast for my use.

gaming is a 5 year slow adaption until consol gaming goes dx11 we wont hear about it much.
besides the major difference is often much faster a optimized game is anyway as the visual difference between dx versions often is not that big if any.

cant imagine using windows 7 again.:)
 
Which developer is going to bother with DX11.1 over 9/10/11 and cut out 99% of the market over a few not so great/replacable features? :p
 
Dan_D said:
Normally I'd be all over a new OS but not this time. It's a tablet OS that masquerades as a desktop OS.
Click to expand...
I feel the same way but after spending a few days with a Win8 vm and this as a way to bypass that Start Menu my overall disdain for it is pushed to the side.


Tamlin_WSGF said:
I don't think you'll need DX 11.1 in games for a long time to come, unless the new consoles support it. Then you might want to have it, if it brings extra features from all the console ports.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the next Xbox does support 11.1...in fact I'll be glad if it does. But I'll probably only get the next Playstation and Wii U.
 
Dan_D said:
It's the same bullshit they pulled with Vista and XP. You want DirectX 10? Move to Vista! Stunts like that are the only way they can get gamers to migrate to the new OS. I can't stand it but if a new game comes out that I really want I'll probably get Windows 8. Right now I have no interest in Windows 8. Normally I'd be all over a new OS but not this time. It's a tablet OS that masquerades as a desktop OS.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa...hold up second.

First of all Win 8 is pretty much just a reskin of Win 7 which is more suitable for touch devices, do I agree with that direction? Not really. Does it make Win 8 bad? Not particularly.

DirectX backwards compatibility broke between XP and Vista because the Driver model changed significantly between the 2, a lot of people had the same opinion you have on this and the fact is that many attempts were made to make DX10 available on XP and none of them worked.

I don't particularly like the idea of breaking backwards compatibility, but if the upside is that we can provide a more efficient pipeline for rendering then I'm all for it. DX10 while handled badly due to shoddy drivers on Vistas launch and bad adoption was a much needed step in the right direction and now DX10/11 have had time to mature we're seeing the benefits.
 
kuyaglen said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the next Xbox does support 11.1...in fact I'll be glad if it does. But I'll probably only get the next Playstation and Wii U.
Click to expand...

It would be weird if they didn't, considering that if they choose AMD's 7000 series, they will have DX 11.1 capable GPU's and its M$ who makes DX to begin with.
 
Eh, I have Windows 8, albeit I regret installing it. Probably when my new HD arrives, I'll debate on going back to Win 7.

As for DX 11.1, probably MS will put out a new game that will only run on it. Similar to Halo 2 coming out on Vista, it might be Halo 3 on Win 8. It really doesn't bother me too much.

They need to have Win 9 go back to a useable interface with Win 8 compatibility and features for the computer market, and not push towards a horrible Metro interface. There's just not a popular enough game to force an upgrade otherwise.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Whoa whoa...hold up second.

First of all Win 8 is pretty much just a reskin of Win 7 which is more suitable for touch devices, do I agree with that direction? Not really. Does it make Win 8 bad? Not particularly.
Click to expand...

The core OS may be great. I'm sure it's fine. But the interface isn't really ideal for a desktop OS. That is what could make it bad. I have little interest in it because I don't agree with the direction. Will I get it? At some point I'm certain I will.

PrincessFrosty said:
DirectX backwards compatibility broke between XP and Vista because the Driver model changed significantly between the 2, a lot of people had the same opinion you have on this and the fact is that many attempts were made to make DX10 available on XP and none of them worked.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't believe anyone outside of Microsoft has enough information on this to say. We know Microsoft said that it wouldn't work but that doesn't mean they tried hard to make it happen. Driver model changes have little to do with DirectX. If the driver is written right and the hardware supports it all you need is DirectX support on the OS side. That's the area where it was broken. Could Microsoft have made DirectX 10 work on Windows XP? Who knows? But not having DirectX 10 support was about the only compelling thing about Windows Vista from a gaming standpoint.

Later on when Eyefinity / NV Surround were introduced without support under XP that just became another. That wasn't Microsoft's fault but rather video card companies not wanting to invest in making those drivers and features work in a 10 year old OS. I believe even SLI is unsupported with Windows XP At this point. It doesn't make sense for them to support high end features like that on a 10 year old OS. Most people that buy high end hardware tend to replace their operating systems with newer versions relatively fast. My only point in bringing this up is to let people who cry "Windows 7 4 LyFe" that at some point choosing to stick with an ancient OS will cost you down the line. It will eventually block features. DirectX 11.1 or lack of support for it is possibly the only one Microsoft will ever impose but eventually NVIDIA and AMD won't support it either.

PrincessFrosty said:
I don't particularly like the idea of breaking backwards compatibility, but if the upside is that we can provide a more efficient pipeline for rendering then I'm all for it. DX10 while handled badly due to shoddy drivers on Vistas launch and bad adoption was a much needed step in the right direction and now DX10/11 have had time to mature we're seeing the benefits.
Click to expand...

My point is that while Windows XP to Vista's transition may have been needed for DirectX 10 support, I doubt the same is true of Windows 8. Microsoft is most likely forcing the issue because there isn't a compelling reason to adopt a version of Windows which is at it's core the same as the last one with an interface few people want on the desktop. I'm all for change so long as the change is positive. If Windows 8 didn't have such a crappy interface I'd have been running it since the beta's and I'd have it on virtually all my machines by now.
 
Don't care, I like Windows 8 and have it installed on all my PC's and laptops now since I upgraded for $15/machine.
 
I might start caring when PC actually gets some titles that don't have DX10/11 features simply added onto a DX9 core build.
 
kuyaglen said:
I feel the same way but after spending a few days with a Win8 vm and this as a way to bypass that Start Menu my overall disdain for it is pushed to the side.
Click to expand...

Which begs the obvious question... why bother with 8 at all? Unless you have limited RAM or like to run benchmarks on OS font rendering.

I'm not a hater of 8 really, I just haven't seen a single compelling reason to "upgrade". Bullshit stunts like this just make me even more convinced that 8 has nothing significant to offer, so they're reduced to fabricating bullet point features like DX11.1.
 
Litfod said:
Which begs the obvious question... why bother with 8 at all? Unless you have limited RAM or like to run benchmarks on OS font rendering.

I'm not a hater of 8 really, I just haven't seen a single compelling reason to "upgrade". Bullshit stunts like this just make me even more convinced that 8 has nothing significant to offer, so they're reduced to fabricating bullet point features like DX11.1.
Click to expand...

I couldn't help but think this as well. It has an interface that few people wanted and aside from that it really has nothing technical going for it. So bullshit like this is fabricated to push us this direction.
 
Litfod said:
Which begs the obvious question... why bother with 8 at all? Unless you have limited RAM or like to run benchmarks on OS font rendering.

I'm not a hater of 8 really, I just haven't seen a single compelling reason to "upgrade". Bullshit stunts like this just make me even more convinced that 8 has nothing significant to offer, so they're reduced to fabricating bullet point features like DX11.1.
Click to expand...

I just went to Windows 8 from XP..it's a good upgrade from XP in terms of performance (my PC now runs faster than it did before), but like yourself I don't see much reason to go from Windows 7 to 8.

I initially hated it, but the Metro interface can be pissed off out of it with just one click of the "Desktop" tile, which pleases me.
 
wonderfield said:
Remember that Direct3D has feature levels.
Click to expand...

But extra stuff cost time and money, so if only a small part of your audience can appreciate them, and the majority can't there isn't much incentive to use them. It's why games lack things like Eyefinity/Surround support etc.
 
Dan_D said:
It's the same bullshit they pulled with Vista and XP. You want DirectX 10? Move to Vista! Stunts like that are the only way they can get gamers to migrate to the new OS. I can't stand it but if a new game comes out that I really want I'll probably get Windows 8. Right now I have no interest in Windows 8. Normally I'd be all over a new OS but not this time. It's a tablet OS that masquerades as a desktop OS.
Click to expand...

I got win 8 for £15. bargain and worth a punt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top