Time for an upgrade: DirectX 12 won't be available on Windows 7 - Sensationalist Headlines

Once again microsoft fucks over its older OS users by locking DX behind its newer versions.

[QUOTE=AJ10017;46497946]Once again microsoft fucks over its older OS users by locking DX behind its newer versions.[/QUOTE] are you actually using XP/2000

[QUOTE=.Lain;46497977]are you actually using XP/2000[/QUOTE] My main computer is windows 7 64 bit

Windows 7 just turned 5 last month, and Windows 8 will turn 3 next August. I honestly have no problem with them making DX12 available only on Windows 10. It also ties in with Microsofts new business model of "one platform, one product family". Which must be working for someone because MS shares have risen 45% over the last 18 months and it's now the second most valuable company on the planet.

[QUOTE=damnatus;46495289]If the games on it will be unoptimized bullshit, I'm not switching, thank you[/QUOTE] From my understanding, DX12 games should run fairly decent in comparison to DX11 games even if they're unoptimized because DX12 allows games to interact more directly with the hardware. I don't have the link off-hand but I read an article fairly recently that said there would be two DirectX updates. One for DX11 which will stay a high level API and then DX12 which will be low level. DX12 will take a lot more expertise to use but for those who can properly utilize it, it will allow another level of optimization. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46495422]Windows 8 is actually amazingly well on Steam considering its worldwide performance. 30 percent of the Steam market isn't bad by any standard.[/QUOTE] It's quite bad considering Windows 7 is at 60% and Windows 8 is right at the end of its lifespan with Windows 10 coming. [QUOTE=TheTalon;46496437]DirectX 10 is unavailable for XP, upgrade to Vista for it. DirectX 11.1 isn't available for Win7, update to Win8 for it. And now DirectX12 isn't available unless you get the new OS, too. Same ol Microsoft Fucking sick of DirectX anyway, it's really kind of holding video hardware back[/QUOTE] Foda's explanation makes sense: [QUOTE=Foda;46492473]Just so everyone is clear about the technical issue with this, it is probably very difficult for MS to backport WDDM 2.0 to vista/7 due to how low-level it is. Win8+ introduced significant changes to how hardware acceleration works on the desktop and displays. [quote]Direct3D 12 API, announced at Build 2014, will require WDDM 2.0. The new API and driver model will do away with automatic resource-management and pipeline-management tasks and allow developers to take full low-level control of adapter memory and rendering states. WDDM 2.0 allows multithreading parallelism in the user-mode driver and completely removes kernel-mode driver from the DXGI infrastructure, resulting in lower CPU utilization.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] If this is the case it's actually understandable, if irritating for people who want to stick with Win7 or won't be able to afford to switch.

It will be a long time for DX12 to be the minimum DX to be required to launch a game or to play it. And by long I assume by the time you upgrade from Windows 7 from your primary gaming OS Like the case for BF3 not supporting DX9 and under.

Fuck it. I don't care any more.

[QUOTE=damnatus;46496435]Because it does the job and new features of win 8 aren't worth the switching process. Seriously, what do I miss not being on win 8? Nothing.[/QUOTE] You miss DirectX 12.

[QUOTE=negerkuk;46496166]I never understand people who run older versions of software. I'd understand if Windows 8.1 was bad but it isn't and its perfectly usable (even more so than Windows 7).[/QUOTE] Not everyone has money to run out and buy the latest and greatest every 2 years.

[QUOTE=negerkuk;46500699]You miss DirectX 12.[/QUOTE] Until I see a sufficient amount of games actually utilizing DirectX 12, I'm not sure that I'm really missing out on much. From what others have posted, it sounds more like an efficiency and performance upgrade, really. Nothing very shiny or new.

[QUOTE=tirpider;46500821]Not everyone has money to run out and buy the latest and greatest every 2 years.[/QUOTE] 8 was a $40 upgrade from 7, and 8.1 was a free upgrade for 8.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;46494214]Wait, why are there people on 8 that haven't downloaded the free 8.1 update yet? It makes the whole thing much better.[/QUOTE] People who probably have no idea about it somehow, or never go to the store. If you do not have it its a giant box saying download 8.1 in the store, first thing you see really. I had windows 8 on my desktop but a few games did not want to work with it, found out it was actually my hard drive going bad but went back to windows 7 on that. Put 8 on my laptop and I honestly can not wait for windows 10. I never understood the hate for 8. Like yea I understand metro, its new and different and that scares some people or that its harder to use with a mouse, which is stupid and there are plenty of programs to re add the old start menu. Windows 8 has a lot of upgrades and speed improvements, is it worth the 100 something dollars? Maybe not, but I paid 15$ for it and its well worth that.

if win 10 isnt too expensive ill get it

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46500954]8 was a $40 upgrade from 7, and 8.1 was a free upgrade for 8.[/QUOTE] I don't have $40 for an un-necessary computer upgrade. In-fact, I just bought this win7 computer less than a year ago. It was ~$200 and I had to save for a couple of months to get it. $40 doesn't seem like much to some, but that is food money for me.

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46500954]8 was a $40 upgrade from 7, and 8.1 was a free upgrade for 8.[/QUOTE] It was a $15 upgrade for me, for like 2 months after release I thought.

[QUOTE=tirpider;46500998]I don't have $40 for an un-necessary computer upgrade. In-fact, I just bought this win7 computer less than a year ago. It was ~$200 and I had to save for a couple of months to get it. $40 doesn't seem like much to some, but that is food money for me.[/QUOTE] Then you're not going to be able to play DirectX 12 games anyway by the sound of it.

[QUOTE=negerkuk;46501072]Then you're not going to be able to play DirectX 12 games anyway by the sound of it.[/QUOTE] Never expected to. The whole thing about the money was in regard to your not understanding why some folks run old software. I provided an answer for you so you can stop wondering about it now. And it isn't just the OS that is a cost. I am certain that DX12 games will require some sort of new hardware in order to make them worthwhile. So add another $?00.00 to that for whatever video card is in fashion when all this is a reality. I dig the video games, but not enough to not eat for them. I can't imagine I am alone in that.

Windows 10 better be exclusively 64bit. I'm tired of trying to look for 64bit compatible software. 64bit is more popular and better, why does 32bit still exist? Even in Windows 8/8.1?

[QUOTE=ThePanther;46501304]Windows 10 better be exclusively 64bit. I'm tired of trying to look for 64bit compatible software. 64bit is more popular and better, why does 32bit still exist? Even in Windows 8/8.1?[/QUOTE] for computer manufacturers who want to make 200 dollar budget laptops with 1ghz cpus in them

[QUOTE=tirpider;46501127]Never expected to. The whole thing about the money was in regard to your not understanding why some folks run old software. I provided an answer for you so you can stop wondering about it now. And it isn't just the OS that is a cost. I am certain that DX12 games will require some sort of new hardware in order to make them worthwhile. So add another $?00.00 to that for whatever video card is in fashion when all this is a reality. I dig the video games, but not enough to not eat for them. I can't imagine I am alone in that.[/QUOTE] I fully understand that, it just seemed a lot of people in here were piping in about not being able to play the latest and greatest video games without the latest and greatest operating system Granted, if the upgrades don't do much visually there isn't much point in them.

Oh fuck right off, it's Vista all over again. DX10 was the carrot they danged in front of everyone to buy into that turd, and the stick they used against everyone that wanted to stay with XP.

Make Windows 10 worth it, and a bit of a cheaper price and then we can talk Microsoft..

[QUOTE=AJ10017;46501360]for computer manufacturers who want to make 200 dollar budget laptops with 1ghz cpus in them[/QUOTE] From my understanding 64-bit still includes performance increases at the expense of a bit more overhead even for a slow cpu. (If I'm understanding it correctly the increase in overhead is the memory footprint.) [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46501488]Oh fuck right off, it's Vista all over again. DX10 was the carrot they danged in front of everyone to buy into that turd, and the stick they used against everyone that wanted to stay with XP.[/QUOTE] If you read the thread you'd realize that it's a matter of an architecture change. It would require widespread behind the scenes changes for Windows 7 to support it. I'm unsure on Windows 8 but it very well could be the same thing there.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;46501557]From my understanding 64-bit still includes performance increases at the expense of a bit more overhead even for a slow cpu. (If I'm understanding it correctly the increase in overhead is the memory footprint.) ...[/QUOTE] It's pretty much a wash, you get a slight increase in memory usage due to the doubled pointer length, but in return you get a better calling convention (For those playing at home, means that when a program calls a function, it can keep more arguments in the CPU vs. system memory) and guaranteed SSE2 support. Even a crappy laptop with 2GB of RAM will benefit from those features, and then apps can access more virtual memory.

I'm sorry to be the one to spoil your fun debating Windows versions but... [QUOTE]The news is based on a video of AMD Chief Gaming Scientist Richard Huddy speaking at the PDXLAN event. During the video of his presentation (which has since been removed from YouTube) Huddy plainly says that Windows 7 will not support DirectX 12. However, AMD has told GameSpot that Huddy simply "misspoke."[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.gamespot.com/articles/amd-misspoke-saying-directx-12-won-t-work-with-win/1100-6423617/[/url]

i moved to 64bit to play the new cod 40GB download, takes days finally play, it runs like shit uninstall the 35€ game i bought from g2play thanks god i didn't bought it full price

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46497009]It's not DirectX holding the video hardware back, that'll keep progressing until it physically cannot any more. It's DirectX not taking proper advantage of the hardware updates because that would require faster releases and more work on compatibility. GPUs have been getting faster and using more specialised hardware for a while. DX eventually catches up and optimises algorithms for this new hardware when a new Windows comes out. They need to be careful about adding features to a released DX as it could cause confusion when it doesn't work on slightly older hardware.[/QUOTE] I meant more or less video cards need a translator, DirectX, and that slows everything down a bit. It would be better if everything could just straight up talk to each other, sort of like what Mantle does. If that analogy makes sense.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46495422]Microsoft should honestly just push it out as an update (Windows 8 is losing support in not so long) - everyone who has "install automatically" will get it, people who didn't want it can choose "don't install automatically".[/QUOTE] But the Windows 8.1 update isn't a patch; it's like a standalone OS that does an upgrade install. I don't think Windows Update is capable of doing anything like that automatically.

Windows 7 is still a fine OS, 8.1 takes alot of getting used to but it works alright.

At least the general tone from people who have used Windows 10 so far have been pretty positive, so upgrading will probably be a better option overall. Rather than Microsoft holding DX10 and Halo 2 hostage with Vista.