# No DirectX 11.1 for Windows 7?



## btarunr (Nov 12, 2012)

It looks like Microsoft is using the old DirectX limitation trick to push PC enthusiasts to buy its latest operating system. According to a Hardware Info report that cites a post on Microsoft Answers Forum by Microsoft employee Daniel Moth, the company may restrict DirectX 11.1, of which the newest generation of GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA are compatible with, to Windows 8. Windows 7 users will have to make do with DirectX 11. The move could be a little harsh, as each new version of Windows has access to at least two new DirectX versions. Windows XP saw DirectX 8 and 9.x, Windows Vista DirectX 10 and 11. Microsoft DirectX 11.1 adds a few new features to its Direct3D component. In addition to a vendor-neutral stereo 3D platform, it adds a host of 3D API features. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Frick (Nov 12, 2012)

Wasn't this known already? It feels like I've read about it before.


----------



## natr0n (Nov 12, 2012)

This is not going to happen being that user base is too large on 7. 

Also, not many games are on DX 11 as it is. 11.1 update will be miniscule.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Nov 12, 2012)

DX should be separated from Windows, just like Internet Explorer 

The only reason to "tie" DX editions down to Windows versions is monopolistic control. 

In other news, EU fines MS to help bail out Greece.


----------



## Drmark (Nov 12, 2012)

Well what else can MS do?  Not like they can roll out the "It ain't vista" to sell millions of copies.  I have yet to see one reason to upgrade.


----------



## Filiprino (Nov 12, 2012)

Hahaha, DX11.1 will go the way DX10.1 went. No one will use it.

OpenGL 4.2 all the way.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 12, 2012)

I am curious about DirectX 12. It will come to Win 7 or not??


----------



## jgrahl (Nov 12, 2012)

ethically wrong, financially right, wtg micro$oft.


----------



## vega22 (Nov 12, 2012)

more reason to help steam and origin switch to linux if you ask me.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 12, 2012)

MS makes me laugh honestly, drivers get broken each Windows version, now making it where DX isnt updated (XP had DX8-DX9C). Most Users wont move to 8 Unless if they have a means of removing the Start Screen, most dont appreciate having to buy a software program just to restore Windows 7 Functionality which worked! Also testing here proved to amount no gain in gaming performance over 7, It actually fell a couple of points.


----------



## SaltyFish (Nov 12, 2012)

natr0n said:


> This is not going to happen being that user base is too large on 7.
> 
> Also, not many games are on DX 11 as it is. 11.1 update will be miniscule.



Hmm... didn't we get this exact same thing a while back with DX10 and XP? I suspect that, desire for backwards-compatibility, and programmer laziness are the three main reasons why that most games are still on DX9.


----------



## Mindweaver (Nov 12, 2012)

Wait.. What? Windows 7 won't get DX 11.1 to play DX 9 console ports?  Well f@ck me..  and the new consoles will use DX 11 at most... Unless they are saying XBox 720 will use DX 11.1, but still it's a whole year for Windows 8 to flop... I'm using Win8 on a laptop and like it in some ways, but hate it in others.. I just found out Saturday that I would have to purchase the $10 Microsoft Media Player Upgrade to play DVD's..  You can get around that by using other players like VLC player, but still the fact that M$ remove DVD playback is still f@cked up..  

@Filiprino - I agree with you and think this will go the way of the DX 10.1.. and believe OpenGL 4.2 for the win!


----------



## Frick (Nov 12, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> MS makes me laugh honestly, drivers get broken each Windows version, now making it where DX isnt updated (XP had DX8-DX9C).



Drivers are the manufacturers responsibility as well as MS. Blame them too.



SaltyFish said:


> Hmm... didn't we get this exact same thing a while back with DX10 and XP? I suspect that, desire for backwards-compatibility, and programmer laziness are the three main reasons why that most games are still on DX9.



Wasn't there actual technical reasons for DX10 not making it to XP?


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 12, 2012)

Only thing they'll achieve with such behavior is to push more users to Linux...


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 12, 2012)

Mindweaver said:


> Wait.. What? Windows 7 won't get DX 11.1 to play DX 9 console ports? :



Dude Don't jump the gun.



btarunr said:


> Microsoft employee Daniel Moth, the company *may *restrict DirectX 11.1





RejZoR said:


> Only thing they'll achieve with such behavior is to push more users to Linux...



That won't happen. The choice is stick with Windows 7 and play games just fine under DX10, DX10.1 or DX11 with virtually the same level of detail or run to Linux with a limited support for old games. Which sounds more attrative to gamers?


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 12, 2012)

Just wait for Steam to hit Linux...


----------



## zAAm (Nov 12, 2012)

jgrahl said:


> ethically wrong, financially right, wtg micro$oft.



+1

As a consumer you still have a choice. If you don't want to move to Win8, don't buy titles that only support DX11.1? It's not like you signed a contract with Microsoft that forces them to provide legacy support...  It's all economics...


----------



## dir_d (Nov 12, 2012)

This article is speaking half truth. Another article stated that DX11.1 needed WDDM 1.2 which is only in windows 8 and is tied into the kernel. It would make perfect sense why DX 11.1 was not offered to windows 7. Also DX11.1 offers some pretty good advantages and will be used when the next generation of consoles comes out.


----------



## DRDNA (Nov 12, 2012)

lol Microsoft is funny...they will implement DX11.1 into Win 7 as Win 7 Came with DX11 and its  2nd DX update will be DX 11.1 no doubt there at all for me. It may be a little late to the game for Win 7 users but they will get their just reward of 11.1. YOU WILL SEE...


----------



## semantics (Nov 12, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> Just wait for Steam to hit Linux...


And the flood of 1 game a year that supports linux to hit steam for linux. You act like steam spurred AAA titles for windows.


----------



## Frick (Nov 12, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> Only thing they'll achieve with such behavior is to push more users to Linux...



I don't think so.


----------



## dj-electric (Nov 12, 2012)

Dear microsoft 
F*ck you. Have a nice day


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Nov 12, 2012)

I will stick with W7 and DX11.... DX11.1 isn't worth the wasted efforts that W8 entails. so but I don't need that start button to be 1/3 of my screen


----------



## Totally (Nov 12, 2012)

What the big deal? DX releases after 10 are just incremental supersets


----------



## Animalpak (Nov 12, 2012)

if all you are sure it is not true ... So DAFQ is this news ???


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 12, 2012)

Clearly this is another reason to leverage OpenGL 4 as well as subsequent releases.


----------



## Frick (Nov 12, 2012)

It's interesting that every argument made here has been made before.. With XP and DX10.


----------



## mtosev (Nov 12, 2012)

great excuse for ppl to get win8


----------



## SaltyFish (Nov 12, 2012)

Frick said:


> Wasn't there actual technical reasons for DX10 not making it to XP?





dir_d said:


> This article is speaking half truth. Another article stated that DX11.1 needed WDDM 1.2 which is only in windows 8 and is tied into the kernel. It would make perfect sense why DX 11.1 was not offered to windows 7. Also DX11.1 offers some pretty good advantages and will be used when the next generation of consoles comes out.



I think Microsoft said something about WDDM being the reason why XP didn't get DX10, but the partial DX10 XP hack floating about says that might not be entirely true. After that "Internet Explorer is integrated onto Windows so you can't remove it" lie to the EU, I don't really think it's WDDM and Microsoft just wanted yet another way to get people off XP.

Haven't the next generation of consoles already have their hardware planned out? If not, then I can see MS trying to get DX11.1 on its next console to attempt market adaptation of it. But for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post, I don't think it'd work anyway.


----------



## INSTG8R (Nov 12, 2012)

Like someone else stated 11.1 will be about as "widespread" as 10.1 was. I don't think we'll be missing out on much. I doubt Dev's will be jumping all over an incremental update and will just hold out for DX12.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 12, 2012)

dir_d said:


> Also DX11.1 offers some pretty good advantages



Source? I can't find anything in the API documentation that looks really useful


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 12, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> Source? I can't find anything in the API documentation that looks really useful



I'm about to go out for an hour so I don't have time to read through the entire article, but let me google that for you! 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh404562(v=vs.85).aspx


----------



## trickson (Nov 12, 2012)

Who really gives a crap? I mean DX11.1 will have to be on the video card as well right? What I mean is if you have a DX11 card and DX11 OS then getting a OS that has DX11.1 really doesn't mean shit if you have a DX11 card. I do not know and really do not care. Just how many games are out that even use DX11 right now? Hardly enough and buying a video card and OS that has DX11.1 would be just as useless IMHO.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I'm about to go out for an hour so I don't have time to read through the entire article, but let me google that for you!
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh404562(v=vs.85).aspx



Yh and how many games will take advantage of that?  


--

Come on guys, this is just some random employee saying what _might_ happen.

Until I get concrete evidence this is happening I won't take this thread seriously. I want facts not if, buts, maybe, coulds, shoulds, perhaps..otherwise I'd read Fudzilla. Even if it was three on hypothetical level it wouldn't affect my gaming experience on Win 7 one bit.



trickson said:


> Who really gives a crap? I mean DX11.1 will have to be on the video card as well right? What I mean is if you have a DX11 card and DX11 OS then getting a OS that has DX11.1 really doesn't mean shit if you have a DX11 card. I do not know and really do not care. Just how many games are out that even use DX11 right now? Hardly enough and buying a video card and OS that has DX11.1 would be just as useless IMHO.



Agreed.

And not only that you'll lose frame rate enabling the enhanced features for a visual experience you won't notice.


----------



## semantics (Nov 12, 2012)

DX 11.1 will matter if xbox 720 runs it imo, but i doubt it.


----------



## dj-electric (Nov 12, 2012)

nah, just a gimmick for now. A gimmick M$ use to pull f*ckers in


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I'm about to go out for an hour so I don't have time to read through the entire article, but let me google that for you!
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh404562(v=vs.85).aspx



That's the page I'm referring to. 

What's useful there?


----------



## Dos101 (Nov 12, 2012)

This isn't like the move from DX10 from DX9 where MS blocked it on XP. This is only a minor update to DX11. Plus, an employee saying that MS "may" not support 11.1 on Windows 7 is nothing close to being an official statement.


----------



## Tester007 (Nov 12, 2012)

Fuck MS for keep trying to sell shit like Win8. Hope Valve will finish making their Steambox soon.


----------



## dir_d (Nov 12, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> Source? I can't find anything in the API documentation that looks really useful



This is all i got for now, heard some other rumors but trying to find proof http://twitter.com/repi/status/114017754201325569 Which seems like a win8 will out perform win7 in games once this can be utilized.


----------



## raptori (Nov 12, 2012)

heh like the 0.1 gonna make difference in anything useful ,it not worth going to win 8 .


----------



## xBruce88x (Nov 12, 2012)

Considering the similarities with the two operating systems, I'm sure someone will release a modded version of 11.1 for Win7

also... this seems a repeat of DX10 vs 10.1


----------



## Isenstaedt (Nov 12, 2012)

It doesn't matter. Most games still support dx9 and they still look awesome. As far as I know right now only Battlefield 3 doesn't support dx9. But we all got dx11 cards nowadays.


----------



## shb- (Nov 12, 2012)

I think very few will move to linux. Those endless distros have a long way of improving usability and getting closer to windows or mac os. The kernel is strong, no doubt there, but the rest is just crap.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 12, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> That's the page I'm referring to.
> 
> What's useful there?



These changes looks significant, but the rest looks rather dull.



> Use HLSL minimum precision
> Starting with Windows 8, graphics drivers can implement minimum precision HLSL scalar data types by using any precision greater than or equal to their specified bit precision. When your HLSL minimum precision shader code is used on hardware that implements HLSL minimum precision, you use less memory bandwidth and as a result you also use less system power.





> Use UAVs at every pipeline stage
> Direct3D 11.1 lets you use the following shader model 5.0 instructions at all shader stages that were previously used in just pixel shaders and compute shaders.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 12, 2012)

Completely Bonkers said:


> DX should be separated from Windows, just like Internet Explorer
> 
> The only reason to "tie" DX editions down to Windows versions is monopolistic control.
> 
> In other news, EU fines MS to help bail out Greece.


DirectDraw is used to render the Aero and Metro interfaces.  Their design is intrinsic.


Unless the D3D 11.1 changes are something specific to Metro/Windows Store, I think the update will be retroactive to Vista and 7.




Isenstaedt said:


> It doesn't matter. Most games still support dx9 and they still look awesome. As far as I know right now only Battlefield 3 doesn't support dx9. But we all got dx11 cards nowadays.


There's a lot of games that have dropped support for DirectX 9.  Dirt: Showdown, F1 2012, Just Cause 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter, Renegade Ops, to name a few.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 12, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Unless the D3D 11.1 changes are something specific to Metro/Windows Store, I think the update will be retroactive to Vista and 7.



I'm not sure about that. I think Bonkers has a point. Microsoft has done this in the past and it was a push to adopt the new OS. Apple tends to do this as well and it's a method that works pretty well and I think Microsoft knows that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 12, 2012)

It wasn't to push a new OS, it was to remove compatibility bits that were bogging the API down.  Remember, Vista/7/8 literally have two versions of DirectX running in parrallel (DirectX Legacy and DirectX 10/10.1/11/11.1).  To make DirectX 10 work on XP, they would have had to essentially upgrade the entire OS to be Vista.  That's why they didn't, and still don't, have DirectX 10 support on XP.  Most developers still elect to support it, however.


----------



## matar (Nov 12, 2012)

No true windows 7 will get DX11.1
But not DX12.


----------



## theubersmurf (Nov 12, 2012)

Completely Bonkers said:


> DX should be separated from Windows, just like Internet Explorer
> 
> The only reason to "tie" DX editions down to Windows versions is monopolistic control.
> 
> In other news, EU fines MS to help bail out Greece.


What you mean is, we should use the already open; OpenGL standard, rather than having relinquished control to a corporation in the first place.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 12, 2012)

I still don't understand why game companies are not pushing OpenGL 4.3 instead of Dx?? Latest OpenGL is so much faster and more feature rich than crappy Dx11...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 12, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> I still don't understand why game companies are not pushing OpenGL 4.3 instead of Dx?? Latest OpenGL is so much faster and more feature rich than crappy Dx11...



Simple, money. Microsoft provides development kits to publishers. As soon as someone does that with OpenGL you will have more OpenGL based games.


----------



## theubersmurf (Nov 12, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Simple, money. Microsoft provides development kits to publishers. As soon as someone does that with OpenGL you will have more OpenGL based games.


This is why I think operating systems should be free. They provide an artificial ecology of products that are controlled by a single corporation. With the pervasive adoption of Windows, microsoft was able to leverage the widespread adoption of their DirectX API in order to block other companies out of gaming markets, making them less appealing to buyers (notably enthusiasts), though to be sure, apple doesn't do themselves any favors by keeping their OS closed off to OEMs.

This is one of the reasons I want to ditch windows.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 12, 2012)

theubersmurf said:


> This is why I think operating systems should be free. They provide an artificial ecology of products that are controlled by a single corporation. With the pervasive adoption of Windows, microsoft was able to leverage the widespread adoption of their DirectX API in order to block other companies out of gaming markets, making them less appealing to buyers (notably enthusiasts), though to be sure, apple doesn't do themselves any favors by keeping their OS closed off to OEMs.
> 
> This is one of the reasons I want to ditch windows.



Come up with a better OS that has mass appeal for the average user and then provide development kits (hardware) to publishers to make games for it and you might have an argument. Sadly no "Free OS" does this and never will as it takes money to make money.


----------



## theubersmurf (Nov 12, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Come up with a better OS that has mass appeal for the average user and then provide development kits (hardware) to publishers to make games for it and you might have an argument. Sadly no "Free OS" does this and never will as it takes money to make money.



The issue of appeal could be dealt with in versions of Linux and BSD if the builders of those OS' didn't seem to want to keep out everyone but those who develop software. "If you're not building packages, then we don't want you." seems to be the attitude of a lot of the people in the Linux community. If they built with the average user in mind, and they could, rather than those who think everyone should be a developer (IDK what they have in mind at times, it seems deliberately obtuse and an effort to prove to everyone how smart they think they are, btw; creating more usable OS would show more intelligence)

The development kits could be handled by a third party, ( and should in all probability) With valve testing the waters in Linux there's the possibility that they'll need to create development kits since there aren't any elsewhere at the moment.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 12, 2012)

theubersmurf said:


> The issue of appeal could be dealt with in versions of Linux and BSD if the builders of those OS' didn't seem to want to keep out everyone but those who develop software. "If you're not building packages, then we don't want you." seems to be the attitude of a lot of the people in the Linux community. If they built with the average user in mind, and they could, rather than those who think everyone should be a developer (IDK what they have in mind at times, it seems deliberately obtuse and an effort to prove to everyone how smart they think they are, btw; creating more usable OS would show more intelligence)
> 
> The development kits could be handled by a third party, ( and should in all probability) With valve testing the waters in Linux there's the possibility that they'll need to create development kits since there aren't any elsewhere at the moment.



They (Valve) are just messing with Linux to avoid license fees to MS on the Steambox. Don't think for a second Valve is doing anything for the "good" of the community.


----------



## mediasorcerer (Nov 12, 2012)

I think ms has fallen headfirst into the fail basket these days, they've made a crappy tablet that no one wants because it tries to do everything but does nothing well,, they've tried to push everyone onto a tablet os on the desktop that's just a major fail, really, what were they thinking??

It's  bullish attitude to an os that used to stand next to osx as being the "liberated" system of computing open choice-yet now its cracking down on options left right and centre, and, i feel quite pissed at them frankly, if they fail, serve them right for taking the piss!!!

Win 8 is a joke, and now this hehe, what a pack of control freaks, not that anyone needs dx11.1 anyways.

Call me out with the "hater" meme if you want[not really the same as common sense tho is it?].


----------



## Conti027 (Nov 12, 2012)

Meh.. all i have is a meh.

I'll probably get windows 8 sometime in the future but DX11.1 isn't want pushed me to get it.

Its Microsoft just doing there thing. I don't understand why People have to act like huge PC elitist snobs.


----------



## theubersmurf (Nov 12, 2012)

No, I don't think valve is charitable or working for the good of the community, but they may come up with one in order to foster development on the platform.

Though I can imagine it coming with the "By accepting the terms of the SDK's EULA, you also agree to distribute your game through Steam." kind of crap. I love people's impression of Valve as good guys, when they're just as profit motivated.

But the point is, if there were installers rather than having to use the Konsole, and more bells and whistles it would have legs, which the Linux community could do if they weren't so busy congratulating each other on their intelligence. And that Development kits could be made by Canonical or other companies invested in Linux if they thought it would foster sales to, say, game developers.


----------



## mediasorcerer (Nov 12, 2012)

Don't get me started on valve, please, i'm nearly over steam for good atm.


----------



## theubersmurf (Nov 12, 2012)

mediasorcerer said:


> Don't get me started on valve, please, i'm nearly over steam for good atm.


I haven't had it installed for months.


----------



## jgrahl (Nov 12, 2012)

As a windows PC gamer, it started with win 3.1 in 1992 for me

- upgraded to win 95, 3 years later

- upgraded to win 98, 3 years later

- upgraded to win XP, 3 years later

- upgraded to vista, 5 years later, then reverted back to XP

- upgraded to win 7, 4 years after vista, 9 after XP.  Yes, I waited a while to buy it.

- 3 years later, no reason to upgrade to win 8 unless a new game comes out that requires win 8 and I require myself to play it.


----------



## repman244 (Nov 12, 2012)

I really really wish that linux would be usable for me one day, right now I'm stuck with Windows because of programs.
But I think it will take a lot of time before we get there...sadly.


----------



## Major_A (Nov 12, 2012)

It doesn't matter.  Even midrange video cards can handle most AAA games now.  5-6 years ago this wasn't true but since the stagnation of gaming development (probably due to consoles and overall costs) not very many studios are pushing the limits.  With all that said the only DX 11.1 stuff we'll see any time soon will be developer demos.  Concluding with MS can kiss my hairy sack if they think that will get me to switch to Windows 8 aka the OS formerly known as Windows.


----------



## Syborfical (Nov 13, 2012)

Oh No's you have to upgrade to Windows 8 for Direct X 11.1

There are like 30 games that use Direct X 11 and most of them suck.
They may look great but are not fun at all.  I still play dos games because they are fun. 

There are how many games that use Direct X 11.1 ...


I like what Microsoft is doing here alienating and pissing off  users. They are trying to be apple with out the extreme fanbois to back them up. 

Its no making Direct X 11.1 available on windows 7 actually a good thing...

As I know many people that gave linux a go when the steaming pile of crap vista was released. And I know many more people that are looking into linux as they hate the MetroSexual interface.  Windows 8 doesn't bring many new features to the table that excite people like windows 7.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 13, 2012)

No issue. DX9 is the current baseline, when DX11 becomes the baseline we'll all be rocking our AMD FX Reclaimer CPUs with 16 hexacores (6 cores per module) and running Windows 10 with DX13.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 13, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It wasn't to push a new OS, it was to remove compatibility bits that were bogging the API down.  Remember, Vista/7/8 literally have two versions of DirectX running in parrallel (DirectX Legacy and DirectX 10/10.1/11/11.1).  To make DirectX 10 work on XP, they would have had to essentially upgrade the entire OS to be Vista.  That's why they didn't, and still don't, have DirectX 10 support on XP.  Most developers still elect to support it, however.



so what made going from DX 8 on XP to DX 9 So easy? Its an excuse to not code DX honestly.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Nov 13, 2012)

This is shenanigans there is no reason other than greed for this to occur, a ass holeish attempt to prop up sales of Windows 8. shadedshushadedshushadedshushadedshushadedshu


----------



## xenocide (Nov 13, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> so what made going from DX 8 on XP to DX 9 So easy? Its an excuse to not code DX honestly.



You have it backwards, the upgrades from 7-8 or 8-9 were an excuse not to code something efficiently, they just stapled new functionality onto the API.  DirectX was developed to be a lightweight API for 3D graphics, and over the years as they stuck updates onto it, it became bulky and inefficient.  When they started working on DX10, they realized this and decided to essentially rebuild it from the ground up, a return to form.  In the process they made huge drastic changes, but realized they needed continued support for older iterations, so it runs DX Legacy, along with DX10/10.1/11.  DX10/11 has the ability to run games a lot more efficiently than DX9-as showcased by Civ V and WoW, but since most games are console ports they are just tossed together on DX9 since that's what the console GPU's support.


----------



## micropage7 (Nov 13, 2012)

would DX 11.1 like DX 10.1 that run for short period then replaced with newer DX


----------



## xenocide (Nov 13, 2012)

micropage7 said:


> would DX 11.1 like DX 10.1 that run for short period then replaced with newer DX



All it really seems to do is add native support for Stereoscopic 3D and some extra power-saving functionality, nothing game changing.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Nov 13, 2012)

xenocide said:


> All it really seems to do is add native support for Stereoscopic 3D and some extra power-saving functionality, nothing game changing.



True, but 0 reason why it shouldn't be on Windows 7 other than Microsoft being a bunch of money grubbing ass hats.


----------



## micropage7 (Nov 13, 2012)

11.1 from the number version is like add some features and like that, but not the major or newer architecture so i guess better wait for DX 12 in the future


----------



## xenocide (Nov 13, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> True, but 0 reason why it shouldn't be on Windows 7 other than Microsoft being a bunch of money grubbing ass hats.



It will most likely be on Win7.  It makes no sense to do a measely revision exclusive to a whole new operating sytem.  If Microsoft were as money grubbing as people make them out to be we'd see a new version of Windows drop every year like a CoD release, and it would cost almost twice as much, and have minimal changes.  To go along with that they'd upgrade to a new version of DX by adding like 1 new thing to it, and let DX get as bloated and shitty as humanly possible.

They are yet to really do any of that stuff, so they are alright in my book.


----------



## Isenstaedt (Nov 15, 2012)

mediasorcerer said:


> Don't get me started on valve, please, i'm nearly over steam for good atm.





theubersmurf said:


> I haven't had it installed for months.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 15, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> so what made going from DX 8 on XP to DX 9 So easy? Its an excuse to not code DX honestly.


Nothing major changed at least in regards to the OS.  The changes were mostly in the API and hardware.

DirectX 9.0c to DirectX 10 was akin to Windows 95 to Windows NT.  They're both the same operating system but vastly different in execution.


----------



## DannibusX (Nov 15, 2012)

Funny, all the comments about Microsoft locking down developers with an API.

All those silly DirectX PlayStation and Nintendo games.


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 15, 2012)

Gay... and typical of M$... moving on...


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 15, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> Gay... and typical of M$... moving on...



moving on with your money...ok


----------



## Lazzer408 (Nov 15, 2012)

Are games even taking FULL advantage of DX10 yet? I've seen DX10 demos that look much better then current games.

I see a trend. By the time the hardware is fast enough to support rendering what the current DX version claims it can do, another DX version comes out. Guaranteed profits I guess.


----------



## irlandezul (Nov 16, 2012)

Not many games use Direct X 11.1 ...


----------



## w3b (Nov 16, 2012)

I think the .1 gives away how incremental an update this is (and thus how unimportant it really is, save a crude attempt to get those that want 'the latest and greatest' to upgrade).

Win 7 still does everything fine so (as I've stated elsewhere) I won't be moving up anytime soon (watching paint dry is still more enjoyable than installing an OS and the rest of the software/clutter I use). :shadedshu


----------



## Ikaruga (Nov 19, 2012)

Is this Dx11.1 preview for Windows 7? (x32, x64 download links)


----------



## Drone (Nov 19, 2012)

Totally said:


> What the big deal? DX releases after 10 are just incremental supersets



I agree. What applications require 11.1 or even 11 anyway? I'm sure average Joe, housewives, and even companies wouldn't give no shit about this and they'd be absolutely right.


----------



## Ikaruga (Nov 19, 2012)

Drone said:


> I agree. What applications require 11.1 or even 11 anyway? I'm sure average Joe, housewives, and even companies wouldn't give no shit about this and they'd be absolutely right.



Could come handy for future IGPs for 3D support, and watching some movies is perhaps what average Joe would do, don't you think?


----------



## baggpipes (Nov 19, 2012)

Why all suprised? MS has been doing this for years with DirectX... To get 10 you needed vista...


----------



## xenocide (Nov 20, 2012)

baggpipes said:


> Why all suprised? MS has been doing this for years with DirectX... To get 10 you needed vista...



The difference was that from DirectX 9.0c to DirectX 10 was a huge overhaul of the API, so that one actually made sense, since Windows XP -> Vista was a pretty large overhaul of Windows.  This is just as _revision_ to a version of DirectX that is already running on Windows 7.  It would be like if they said in order to get DirectX 9.0c you needed to get Vista, otherwise you're stuck with DirectX 9.0b.  I also wouldn't say Microsoft has been doing this for _years_ considering they have only done it once--with good reason.  Vista and 7 feature the same DX support.


----------



## darkangel0504 (Nov 21, 2012)

I am already using win 8


----------



## patrico (Nov 30, 2012)

if its anything like the dx10.1 upgrade it seems like marketing bull to me


----------



## DRDNA (Feb 27, 2013)

DRDNA said:


> lol Microsoft is funny...they will implement DX11.1 into Win 7 as Win 7 Came with DX11 and its  2nd DX update will be DX 11.1 no doubt there at all for me. It may be a little late to the game for Win 7 users but they will get their just reward of 11.1. YOU WILL SEE...



hate to say I told you so.         KB articles:KB2670838

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2670838


----------



## digibucc (Feb 27, 2013)

DRDNA said:


> hate to say I told you so.



i'm sure


----------



## Prima.Vera (Feb 27, 2013)

UE should fine MS again.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 27, 2013)

I thought that this thread was dead.


----------



## digibucc (Feb 27, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> I thought that this thread was dead.



the thread was discussing different possibilities. when the true one was confirmed, it was updated. look at the post that resurrected it. when it's a direct update to the topic imo it's ok to res a thread that's less than 6 months old.


----------



## suraswami (Feb 28, 2013)

Will BF3 update to DX 11.1?


----------

