PDA

View Full Version : Vista and DX7, 8 and 9 support?


Lars-Erik
01-15-07, 01:03 PM
Read somthing on a forum about Microsoft dropping backwards DX support in Vista. They will emulate DX9 (slowdown) and drop DX7 and DX8 (no more games like NFS3, NFS5 and stuff). Can this be for real=

Havn't they annoyed enough people with the messed up IE7 userinterface

How do they expect all home user to upgrade if all their old games will either run slow or not at all? Or are they gambling on them not noticing until AFTER they have upgraded (and then they can't go back)?

fatal1ty
01-15-07, 01:58 PM
Read somthing on a forum about Microsoft dropping backwards DX support in Vista. They will emulate DX9 (slowdown) and drop DX7 and DX8 (no more games like NFS3, NFS5 and stuff). Can this be for real=

Havn't they annoyed enough people with the messed up IE7 userinterface

How do they expect all home user to upgrade if all their old games will either run slow or not at all? Or are they gambling on them not noticing until AFTER they have upgraded (and then they can't go back)?


Read the interview with Carmack on Vista... he thinks it's a scam that MS is pushing DX10 only in Vista too. There is no reason to move to Vista except DX10... so why bother?

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84080

Lars-Erik
01-15-07, 02:31 PM
The real stupid thing is that MS has used all means to make game producers moved from OpenGL to DX. Now they "scrap" all old games using DX9 an older in thanks. While old games made with OpenGL will still work. Never trust MS !!!!

treznorx
01-15-07, 02:39 PM
I disagree, part of the complexity in delivering a new O.S is to maintain backwards compatability. It is in fact true for processor design as well, even the new 64 bit processors have to maintain compatability all the way back to the first 8088 microprocessors. Putting Direct X support in for all previous releases would prevent the best user experience in vista. However, most direct X releases are supersets of Direct X, meaning 10 contains everything available in 9, Of course they will not release Direct X 9 for Vists when everything in 9 is in 10.

Lars-Erik
01-15-07, 03:05 PM
I disagree that again. I (any many others) have bought expensive games that run in DX7 and DX8. Shall we just throw that money away because we truset MS when they said DX is the best. If we had bouth OpenGL games instead then there had been no problem. How much space would it cost to maintain backwards compability - compared to all the space MS waste on other things?

After the messup of Office and IE7, and now this I'll NEVER trust MS again.
And I hope game producers will offer OpenGL on new games to give us a choice :-(

(and that someone make a hack to make older DX7 and DX8 games run, like they did with Glide to make Glide games run nicly under OpenGl :-)

pkirby11
01-15-07, 04:59 PM
Man, nothing like reading garbage from MS haters. I've wroked with a full version of Vista Ultimate and games that use DX7 and DX8 works just fine on it. Think about it, why would MS do that? Most of you just don't want to find a reason to give MS more money. Vista is great so far, yes it sucks that you need to upgrade just for DX10 but hey what ever. If that's what it takes to make some of the amazing DX10 games coming out now fine by me.

This whole thread doesn't seem like a question or concern but just another reason to bash Microsoft. Ohh well people will be people.

Lars-Erik
01-15-07, 05:29 PM
But don't you think most games will support DX9 as well. Most DX9 games also run on DX8 systems (ok, with DX9 installed, but only DX8 hardware). And don't you think someone will write a wrapper (translating DX10 to DX9 or something). OK, either way you will loose things, but the main thing is to be able to play.

jolle
01-15-07, 05:44 PM
Pretty much every game the next couple of years will support DX9, thats fairly certain.
Today, years after DX9 came to the market, we still have a fairly widespread DX8 support in games.
The few Vista exclusive games will also support DX9 for that matter (atleast afaik).
Its just not economically sound to develop a DX10 only game the next few years, too small a target audience.

Wrapping DX10 wont happen, the performance would be abysmal (the longer shaders would have to be broken down into multiple passes, if its even possible), and the DX10 paths are created for substantially more powerful hardware as it is.
But there will be DX9 support so it doesnt really matter, Crysis looks pretty stunning in Dx9 for example.

Quick420
01-15-07, 06:24 PM
I miss opengl support too.It seems to run faster on Nvidia hardware than d3d,games with opengl support are almost extinct:(

treznorx
01-15-07, 06:33 PM
My main point above should have been that vista will always support direct x 7, 8, and 9, because direct X 10 contains 7,8,9. Direct X 10 adds features it does not remove support for older Direct X versions.

Grestorn
01-16-07, 05:09 AM
My main point above should have been that vista will always support direct x 7, 8, and 9, because direct X 10 contains 7,8,9. Direct X 10 adds features it does not remove support for older Direct X versions.

Not quite right. DirectX9(L) includes and supports DX 1 through 8. And since DX9L is included in Vista, all those games using DX1-9 should work just fine under Vista (if the copy protection isn't in the way).

D3D10 does NOT include any previous version. That's one of its major advantages, it's a complete new beginning not containing any old API's just for compatbilities sake.

It's extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to write a "wrapper" for D3D10 to be mapped to OpenGL or DX9. I don't dispute that this is a welcome side effect for MS to push Vista. But did anyone really blame MS for not back porting DX 6 to Windows NT?

Princess_Frosty
01-16-07, 10:03 AM
Vista comes with DX10.0 and DX9.0L

DX9.0L is vista's version of DX9.0c and all the versions before that, it makes use of the new video API in Vista and so has some of the speed benefits over DX9.0c in that theres less CPU overhead per object.

Unfortunately for most (or at least right now) most people won't see the benefits of this because the extra overhead of Vista causes a fairly hefty slow down in games to begin with (15-20% on average it seems)

F_L_C
01-16-07, 11:20 AM
Unfortunately for most (or at least right now) most people won't see the benefits of this because the extra overhead of Vista causes a fairly hefty slow down in games to begin with (15-20% on average it seems)

That seems like bullsht. How did you get those numbers? Certainly it can't be that bad.

jolle
01-16-07, 11:55 AM
That seems like bullsht. How did you get those numbers? Certainly it can't be that bad.
If the source is benchmarks, then it would prolly be due to early poor drivers.
Ive heard those claims here and there, doesnt seem to be much backing it tho.

Princess_Frosty
01-16-07, 01:16 PM
That seems like bullsht. How did you get those numbers? Certainly it can't be that bad.

Thats not a technical average, just what appears to be the difference from what I've experienced and what others have said.

Some games might run better for all I know, it's different per game. The biggest difference is that Vista is using more CPU/RAM rather than the video card so if you have a slow CPU and it's the CPU thats limiting your frame rate (source engine is a good example for most) then the FPS hit will be more significant, if you're running a new Core 2 Duo or quad core, chances are CPU speed wont matter.

Vista runs a lot more services and sub-services than XP does, even with just a stock install (before you've installed all your anti virus etc)

F_L_C
01-16-07, 01:33 PM
And just like xp, Vista can be stripped-down to what is only needed. When Vista hits the masses, there will no doubt be equivalents of tweakxp all over the internets. Driver performance should improve over time and I'm betting that Vista (even w/ the fancy 3D desktop) will be faster than xp in the long run.

Princess_Frosty
01-16-07, 01:56 PM
And just like xp, Vista can be stripped-down to what is only needed. When Vista hits the masses, there will no doubt be equivalents of tweakxp all over the internets. Driver performance should improve over time and I'm betting that Vista (even w/ the fancy 3D desktop) will be faster than xp in the long run.

Well yes, just like XP you can step through all the services, find the ones you don't need and disable them.

For example I have the firewall turned off, the printer spooling, the security center since I don't use any of that (actually this is a lie, I DID have this all turned off until my Core 2 Duo arrived and I reinstalled, turning them off now wouldn't really benefit anything)

namuk
01-17-07, 12:06 PM
well thats good to no that vista will support below dx9 i have loads of old games ..

it pissed me off going to xp and some games will not run ..

also whitch version will games run 32bit only .. or will 64bit version do it? cause i may get the 2 version ultimate i.e 32/64 this is the one you do not need to reactivate every time you upgrade..