DirectX 12

[BFG10K]

Re DirectX being locked to a particular version of Windows:

I think this only matters whenever Microsoft ships a failure OS (e.g. Vista/8). If they ship another Windows 7 then people will happily upgrade. People who stick to the likes of XP don't care about DirectX anyway, and don't care about modern games given many need Vista as a minimum now.

Also since version 10, DirectX is tied to the platform/OS driver model because it handles all of Aero's rendering. I'm not saying it's impossible to back-port, but it would require kernel changes far beyond Microsoft just shipping a new runtime as they did back in the day.

OpenGL in contrast is a runtime model with IHV OpenGL ICDs essentially implementing custom driver stacks, so they can operate independently of the OS.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Re DirectX being locked to a particular version of Windows:

I think this only matters whenever Microsoft ships a failure OS (e.g. Vista/8). If they ship another Windows 7 then people will happily upgrade. People who stick to the likes of XP don't care about DirectX anyway, and don't care about modern games given many need Vista as a minimum now.

Also since version 10, DirectX is tied to the platform/OS driver model because it handles all of Aero's rendering. I'm not saying it's impossible to back-port, but it would require kernel changes far beyond Microsoft just shipping a new runtime as they did back in the day.

OpenGL in contrast is a runtime model with IHV OpenGL ICDs essentially implementing custom driver stacks, so they can operate independently of the OS.

Aren't all current versions of windows based on the NT kernel? Are there enough changes to justify having to get an entirely new OS?

 

[Spjut]

Also since version 10, DirectX is tied to the platform/OS driver model because it handles all of Aero's rendering. I'm not saying it's impossible to back-port, but it would require kernel changes far beyond Microsoft just shipping a new runtime as they did back in the day.

OpenGL in contrast is a runtime model with IHV OpenGL ICDs essentially implementing custom driver stacks, so they can operate independently of the OS.

What is so much better with tying DX12 too to the driver model, rather than doing like OpenGL or Mantle?

If DX12 worked like OpenGL, and thus worked on the older operating systems too, we would surely see DX12 get supported much faster.

 

[Morbus]

DirectX is built for something completely different than OpenGL. There's little comparison between the two. And honestly speaking, very little comparison between DirectX and Mantle either, apart from the graphics libraries...

 

[Homeles]

Are you being serious? Sure DX10 would have been a pain to port to XP. But there is *ZERO* reason 11.1 requires Windows 8. Its microsoft trying to force people to upgrade to an OS that they otherwise would not use. They did they same thing with Windows 7 and DX11. Although in that case Windows 7 was a godsend compared to Vista.

And I have no doubt that DX12 will be Windows 9 only for no other reason then to not support an existing OS.

Interestingly enough, DX 11.1 is available on Windows 7.

- What constitutes a conspiracy theory? Getting access to the next gen directx api means buying out next gen OS as well - honestly that sounds like microsoft standard practise to me 101. MS is like this goliath that has trouble accepting that he's not the only goliath in the room anymore.. and thus still acts the part.

You clearly either did not read my post, or it went over your head.

What is so much better with tying DX12 too to the driver model, rather than doing like OpenGL or Mantle?

If DX12 worked like OpenGL, and thus worked on the older operating systems too, we would surely see DX12 get supported much faster.

I agree wholeheartedly. The fact that DirectX is tied to WDDM, which is in turn tied to the OS, is a flaw. If you have fancy bells and whistles that are only enabled by a new WDDM version, then you should package those separately. Microsoft actually did this with DX 11.1 -- there are features exclusive to Windows 8 (i.e., features that weren't included with the Windows 7 DX 11.1 update), because of WDDM 1.2.

There's no getting around the fact that OpenGL's market share is skyrocketing, thanks to Android and iOS. The closed-source, vendor locked nature of DirectX isn't going to work well for its longevity. The world will (probably) be a better place without it.

But to claim that Microsoft didn't backport DX 10 to Windows XP just so you'd upgrade to Vista is flat out wrong, and there are a lot of people that believe this.

 

[BFG10K]

Aren't all current versions of windows based on the NT kernel?

Well yes...just like all versions of Ubuntu use the Linux kernel. But that doesn't mean there aren't major changes underneath.

Are there enough changes to justify having to get an entirely new OS?

In the case of DX10, absolutely. XP would have to be ripped apart to the point where it might break legacy apps for people that don't even care about DirectX.

As for the others, it depends. Vista got DX11 through a platform update, for example. And in the case of 8.0 -> 8.1 -> 8.1.1 it doesn't really matter because it's a free upgrade.

 

[BFG10K]

What is so much better with tying DX12 too to the driver model, rather than doing like OpenGL or Mantle?

The driver model is needed to support the needs of DWM.

DWM - which renders the UI/desktop - is essentially a full screen Direct3D application.

 

[Spjut]

The driver model is needed to support the needs of DWM.

DWM - which renders the UI/desktop - is essentially a full screen Direct3D application.

Ok, but what I don't understand, why continue doing so?

Once Microsoft's gurus sit down and writes a new DirectX, what's preventing them from making it work like OpenGL or Mantle, instead of making it dependant of WDDM?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Ok, but what I don't understand, why continue doing so?

Once Microsoft's gurus sit down and writes a new DirectX, what's preventing them from making it work like OpenGL or Mantle, instead of making it dependant of WDDM?

This is basically the reason why people think microsoft is doing it out of greed.

 

[Jodell88]

OpenGL in contrast is a runtime model with IHV OpenGL ICDs essentially implementing custom driver stacks, so they can operate independently of the OS.

Only on Windows and Linux. Apple updates OpenGL on their own with new versions of the Operating System.

 

[Homeles]

This is basically the reason why people think microsoft is doing it out of greed.

No, most people don't even get remotely close to that far. They just assume that you can simply copy and paste code and magically put DirectX 10/11 on XP, and Microsoft won't do it because they want more money. They have utterly no understanding of the technical reasoning behind it.

 

[3DVagabond]

No, most people don't even get remotely close to that far. They just assume that you can simply copy and paste code and magically put DirectX 10/11 on XP, and Microsoft won't do it because they want more money. They have utterly no understanding of the technical reasoning behind it.

Oh Really? Is that what most people think? What most people know is that Microsoft will take advantage of their position in the market place to exploit us. They've proven that. As long as we are tied to DX for gaming we are at Microsoft's mercy. Hopefully we are starting to see the erosion of their virtual monopoly.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I am not defending MS, especially since the Win 8 release, but really mantle (GCN only hardware) and physX (nvidia only) are really the same thing. They all enhance the competitive position of the respective company that is promoting them. That is not even necessarily a bad thing, it is just business. I just dont think it is fair to portray MS as some evil empire while other companies are pictured as great benovelant entities out only to enhance PC gaming.

 

[3DVagabond]

I am not defending MS, especially since the Win 8 release, but really mantle (GCN only hardware) and physX (nvidia only) are really the same thing. They all enhance the competitive position of the respective company that is promoting them. That is not even necessarily a bad thing, it is just business. I just dont think it is fair to portray MS as some evil empire while other companies are pictured as great benovelant entities out only to enhance PC gaming.

You said most people just assume that you can simply copy and paste code and magically put DirectX 10/11 on XP. I'm saying that is not what most people think. You are falsely representing people's position to make it sound ignorant. Microsoft isn't even supporting the latest DX11 features in Win7, never mind XP.

 

[Red Hawk]

Microsoft not decoupling Direct3D from the development of their operating systems probably comes from a combination of such a thing being costly and a new DirectX makes a nice selling point for a new OS. It's not something Microsoft does just to push their new OSes, but they're not in any rush to change it.

 

[3DVagabond]

Microsoft not decoupling Direct3D from the development of their operating systems probably comes from a combination of such a thing being costly and a new DirectX makes a nice selling point for a new OS. It's not something Microsoft does just to push their new OSes, but they're not in any rush to change it.

I agree that DX being "coupled" to the OS was not done nefariously. I do believe that it has now become a convenient excuse though and is used to push a newer version of Windows on us when we wouldn't buy it any other way.

It used to be people bought a whole new computer when I new version of Windows came out. It's not like that anywhere near as much now though. Windows isn't driving the industry like it used to. They need to use other tactics to sell their latest software to us.

 

[Homeles]

You said most people just assume that you can simply copy and paste code and magically put DirectX 10/11 on XP. I'm saying that is not what most people think. You are falsely representing people's position to make it sound ignorant. Microsoft isn't even supporting the latest DX11 features in Win7, never mind XP.

No, that's what I said, and there's no misrepresentation there at all. Your average gamer, enthusiast, IT guy, etc., is completely oblivious to the technical limitations that resulted in DX 10 being unable to be backported to XP.

We all know Microsoft has exploited people in the past. If you can't get over the fact that this particular circumstance -- DX 10 -- wasn't intentionally exploitative, then there's no point talking to you.

 

[3DVagabond]

No, that's what I said, and there's no misrepresentation there at all. Your average gamer, enthusiast, IT guy, etc., is completely oblivious to the technical limitations that resulted in DX 10 being unable to be backported to XP.

We all know Microsoft has exploited people in the past. If you can't get over the fact that this particular circumstance -- DX 10 -- wasn't intentionally exploitative, then there's no point talking to you.

There's a difference between not understanding what it takes, which you are right about, and assuming it's just a matter of copy and paste. Most people don't think you can simply copy and paste DX code from Vista into XP. Saying so makes it sound like people are just too stupid to explain things to. Most people are not. They can grasp information just fine.

What about latest DX features in Win7? Is there a technical reason why Win7 can't support the latest DX features?

 

[RampantAndroid]

What about latest DX features in Win7? Is there a technical reason why Win7 can't support the latest DX features?

Win8+ came with further WDDM changes. I stated that before as a likely reason.

 

[PPB]

When there is a need for something, everything happens faster. Even DX11 did not take long to be used. DX11 was there the moment the first DX capable cards were sold (AMD 5000 cards), and the first game came soon after with Dirt 2.

With Mantle exposing the problems of DX, I'm sure it won't take all that long. DX9 was also used quite quickly. DX10, on the other hand, took a long time and never did become widespread.

We'll have to wait and see about Dx12.

But there isnt need of anything, according to the fudsters, dx 11.2 is all you need (and a nv gpu,obviously).


Just another 180 turn/goalposts moved from the same usual suspects. Low level apis are only good if there isnt some red company involved. We got that cñear since the mantle thread.

Warning issued for inflammatory language.
-- stahlhart

 

[omeds]

Who says DX11.2 is all you need? DX still requires further changes to bring it on par with Mantle, but its certainly a lot better than DX11 vanilla.

 

[norseamd]

dx 11 was not used on very many games because of the limitations of consoles. wish it was used more. most just use dx 9. the witcher 2 and skyrim were promoted by the developers as being developed for dx 11 but they never were.

wondering how windows 9 and dx 12 will turn out. honestly wish more people would use open gl. hope steam os makes linux more successful

 

[norseamd]

but its certainly a lot better than DX11 vanilla.

how is it better?

just wondering

 

[RampantAndroid]

But there isnt need of anything, according to the fudsters, dx 11.2 is all you need (and a nv gpu,obviously).


Just another 180 turn/goalposts moved from the same usual suspects. Low level apis are only good if there isnt some red company involved. We got that cñear since the mantle thread.

Who says DX11.2 is all you need? DX still requires further changes to bring it on par with Mantle, but its certainly a lot better than DX11 vanilla.

Most of the people in the AMD thread (including myself) ACTUALLY questioned AMD's motives, adoption rate of an API that only works on a VERY small percentage of cards out there, and fragmentation of the market given that Mantle isn't on Linux or Unix yet, and we already have DX and OGL.

It doesn't help that AMD doesn't really support DX11.2 either (last I looked this was true.)

 

[norseamd]

would be nice if amd finally makes mantle open when all the bugs are worked out. i support them keeping it closed until it is up and running. after that it should be open. they should not make the same decisions as intel and nvidia