Yes Dig, there is a DX 9.1

[TheTaz]

And DX 9.2 for that matter...

Okay... so it's the "SDK Package" versions that ship with the DX 9.0b runtime... But I wanted to see you have a stroke! -> :argh:

Linkypoo (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13974)

Hehehehe! :D


Taz

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by TheTaz
And DX 9.2 for that matter...

Okay... so it's the "SDK Package" versions that ship with the DX 9.0b runtime... But I wanted to see you have a stroke! -> :argh:

Linkypoo (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13974)

Hehehehe! :D


Taz
Nice try, but this is about the 3rd time this morning that's been tossed in me face already. ;)

Besides, it's just too pleasent of a morning to ruin with unhappy thoughts. :)

[TheTaz]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Nice try, but this is about the 3rd time this morning that's been tossed in me face already. ;)

Besides, it's just too pleasent of a morning to ruin with unhappy thoughts. :)

Well Shiz! I'm on the West Coast... I just got up... gimmie a break! :p

Oh well.

I love that new "argh" Smilie tho. (Well it's new to me).

heh.

Regards,

Taz

[digitalwanderer]

Well then, good morning and welcome to a few hours ago... ;) :p

[zoomy942]

i think microsoft tries to make things as confusing as possible!

[Skuzzy]

Hate to burst your bubble Taz, but that article is a crock.

When MS released the SDK for 9.0b last year, they left an expiration flag in one of the SDK API managers. The current release of the 9.0b SDK contains a patch to correct that problem. It is still called 9.0b and the installation version has not changed.

[Kev1]

So DX 9.0 is really DX 9.1, and DX 9.0b is really DX 9.2. Got it.

:retard:

[zoomy942]

and 9.0hbg is really 9.254 and 9.0zzz is really 9.3678+3. i got it now. its all coming together

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by zoomy942
and 9.0hbg is really 9.254 and 9.0zzz is really 9.3678+3. i got it now. its all coming together
Good! Now who's ordering the pizza? :eek2:

[cthellis]

I can't. Zoomy just exploded my head.

[zoomy942]

i'm still looking for the pieces of my head. i hope they didnt get mixed with yours. maybe directx 101.785 will be able to help.. AAAHHHHHH!!!!!!

[TheTaz]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hate to burst your bubble Taz, but that article is a crock.


Meh... I didn't take the article seriously.

It was just an opportunity to poke at Dig! :POKE:

hehehe.

Taz

[Skuzzy]

Oh well heck, if you are just poking at him, I 'll distract him while you sneak up and nail him. :D

[Clay]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Oh well heck, if you are just poking at him, I 'll distract him while you sneak up and nail him. :D
Eww...I don't think Digi swings that way bub. :D

[Skuzzy]

Max,..you are twisted. And I mean that in a good way. hehe :D

[Clay]

Heh heh...I couldn't resist...you set it up there like a big fat softball on a tee. :rofl

[GlowStick]

am i the only one who feels the inq is makeing it up?

[AlphaWolf]

Neowin: Where they continually nick INQUIRER stories and obviously can't write for toffee. µ

Pot meet kettle.

[Skuzzy]

Well GlowStick, I believe I called the story a "crock". Does that count? :D

[sxotty]

I guess microsoft took a look at the video card naming scheme by ATI and Nvidia and decided they too needed to make things much more confusing.

[Unit01]

Originally posted by AlphaWolf
Pot meet kettle.

LOL:D

[Demirug]

Update:

I can understand how this could be confusing, particularly as a number
of web sites have taken a posting leaked from the beta forums as the
plan of record... Let me explain the method we use to set the version
numbers of the runtime and where we're heading:

Our versions of the runtime have the following form:
Major.Minor.Letter
ie. DirectX 9 . 0 b

The Major changes for significant runtime changes, e.g. fundamental
architectural changes and API rewrites.
The Minor changes for large feature additions, e.g. the addition of 1.2,
1.3 and 1.4 shader models to 8.1 from 8.0
The Letter changes for feature enablement already exposed in API, bug
fixes, performance updates, etc.

Also, stop thinking of the runtime and the SDK as one thing, ie. the
runtime shipped in "DirectX SDK Update (Summer 2003)" is 9.0b. This was
the latest released runtime (ie. you could get this runtime, including
the developer runtime, publically whilst the SDK was still in beta).
This enables us to release the SDK on a significantly more frequent
basis than runtime changes; indeed this is a current thought as it gives
us a lot more flexibility to respond you're your needs. We are still
trying to find a reasonable (hopefully shorter ) naming convention for
the SDK.

Some of the confusion may be due to us shipping support for 3.0 shader
models in the DirectX 9 runtime. This was specifically to reduce the
amount of churn in the API. When some 3.0 hardware is produced we'll
evaluate how close the API fits the hardware (there's always some
tuning), and we may need to release an update - but remember the
definitions, this would most likely be a "letter" change runtime
release, not a "minor".

There is no DirectX 9.1 or DirectX 9.2 external release, nor are they
currently planned. We will remove any internal-only project names that
have slipped into the documentation and tools to help avoid potential
confusion in the future.

I hope this clarifies and if anyone needs further explanation please let
me know directly.

Cheers, Mike

http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A2=ind0402a&L=directxdev&D=1&F=&S=&P=5060

[Quitch]

Dig needs to be banned for a few days, for his own good :)

[Soylent]

No DX 9.1 nor 9.2 - not now and (probably) not never (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14001)... Well the inq seems to be as confused as everyone else...

[TheTaz]

Originally posted by Soylent
No DX 9.1 nor 9.2 - not now and (probably) not never (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14001)... Well the inq seems to be as confused as everyone else...

Heh.

I really don't care if there is or isn't a DX 9.1, or if there ever will be one.

I just like watching Dig go ballistic over the topic.

:D

(popcorn)

Taz