Talk:DirectX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DirectX article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Accuracy of Introduction Paragraph

Hi,
I'm just wondering about the accuracy of describing the game development APIs released by Microsoft as "multiplatform". I'm not entirely familiar with all the game development APIs released by Microsoft, so i may be incorrect here.

But I am familiar with computer platforms and also what the word "multiplatform" indicates and what platforms Microsoft targets and I am certain that these two are not coherent. I think using the term is inaccurate and misleading in the context of an article on development APIs.

I would suggest that the platforms targeted could be listed (or at least referenced), so that the introductory paragraph is at least precise, if not accurate (according with a "neutral point of view").
Thanks,
Steve
78.16.153.86 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they are "multiplatform" in the sense that they will work with different versions of Windows and on some "compact" OSes, such as Windows CE. Also, the Xbox (and 360) use a superset of the DirectX API, so they could be considered multiplatform in that sense as well. But they're not globally multiplatform across all operating systems, such as Mac OS, Linux, PS3 or Wii. But that is clarified later in the article. Calling them "multiplatform" is not inaccurate just because it leaves out some platforms. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DirectX 10 on Windows XP?

As the following direct quote from the MS site shows, DirectX 10 is not "Windows Vista exclusive", as claimed in this WP article and many other websites:

Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 2000 Advanced Server; Windows 2000 Professional Edition ; Windows 2000 Server; Windows 2000 Service Pack 2; Windows 2000 Service Pack 3; Windows 2000 Service Pack 4; Windows 98; Windows 98 Second Edition; Windows Home Server; Windows ME; Windows Server 2003; Windows Server 2003 R2 (32-Bit x86); Windows Server 2003 R2 Datacenter Edition (32-Bit x86); Windows Server 2003 R2 Datacenter x64 Edition; Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition (32-Bit x86); Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition; Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition (32-bit x86); Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard x64 Edition ; Win9dows Server 2003 R2 x64 editions; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 x64 Edition; Windows Server 2003 x64 editions; Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition (32-bit x86); Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition (32-bit x86); Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition (32-bit x86); Windows Server 2003, Web Edition; Windows Server 2008; Windows Server 2008 Datacenter; Windows Server 2008 Datacenter without Hyper-V; Windows Server 2008 Enterprise; Windows Server 2008 Enterprise without Hyper-V; Windows Server 2008 Standard; Windows Server 2008 Standard without Hyper-V; Windows Small Business Server 2003 ; Windows Vista; Windows Vista 64-bit Editions Service Pack 1; Windows Vista Business; Windows Vista Business 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Business N; Windows Vista Enterprise; Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Home Basic; Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Home Basic N; Windows Vista Home Premium; Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Service Pack 1; Windows Vista Starter; Windows Vista Starter N; Windows Vista Ultimate; Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition; Windows Web Server 2008; Windows XP; Windows XP 64-bit; Windows XP Home Edition ; Windows XP Home Edition N; Windows XP Media Center Edition; Windows XP Professional Edition ; Windows XP Professional N; Windows XP Professional x64 Edition ; Windows XP Service Pack 1; Windows XP Service Pack 2; Windows XP Service Pack 3; Windows XP Starter Edition; Windows XP Tablet PC Edition[1] --Espoo (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It says 9.0c, not 10. - Josh (talk | contribs) 13:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It says DirectX 10.0 6.00.6000.16386 Windows Vista exclusive November 30, 2006 --Espoo (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Microsoft page is the one that's talking about 9.0c. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You can't be seriously making the argument that a vaguely-worded download page is right, but the entirety of the Internet, and Microsoft's own documentation on the matter, are all wrong.... -/- Warren 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats the supported OS list for the web based installer that pdates to 9.0c and previous versions of DirectX. Where does DX10 come in the picture? --soum talk 17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, i got to that download page by clicking on download on this DirectX 10 page and stupidly forgot to look at it carefully, where it in fact says "Version: 9.22.1284". Maybe i should just delete this whole embarrassing discussion tomorrow? --Espoo (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
games will probably start being developed in ogl, damaging microsoft's monopoly. vista only ftw :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.12.229 (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be worth mentioning in the article that there is actually a version of DX10 for XP, made possible by vendor pressure to remove the VRAM virtualisation requirement from hardware. See http://www.techmixer.com/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp/☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 09:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The last revision of DirectX 9.0c for Windows 2000

The table which explains DirectX versions says this for DirectX 9.0c:

The December 13 '04 is last 32-bit only version sufficient for Windows Me and Windows 2000 32-bit, that are two last parallel activation-free Windows systems.

It is not clear to me what this means. Does it mean that Windows Me and Windows 2000 do not need (in other words - have no benefit from) a newer DirectX 9.0c revision than Dec04 at all? If that is true, the above statement should be improved to clearly state this fact.

Nihad Hamzic (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of de-linking your quotation. If you were trying to create emphasis, try {{cquote}} next time. As for the content of the quote, I also have no idea what that line is trying to say. In fact it looks like OR to me, given that the reference provided is merely pointing to downloads. I would go ahead and remove that comment in the near future unless someone is willing to clarify and properly source the statement. To answer your question about Windows 2000, that isn't the case, because the games themselves link to specific versions of the runtime -- games developed after Dec '04 would require the installation of newer DirectX revisions in order to run on any Windows platform, and assuming they run at all on Win2k. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
32-bit vs 64-bit DX is needed to avoid 32-bit users from dowloading two times bigger version with 64-bit overhead. 91.94.57.203 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
But the newer runtimes ship with additional 32-bit D3DX, XAudio and other libraries which current games makes use of. By stating an old version is sufficient, users may be fooled and may download only that version. Also, what have the words "activation-free" got to do with any of this? --xpclient talk 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
But at least this old version is totally and perfectly free from 64-bit things that have no benefit especially for Windows Me and in less extent for Windows 2000 systems, that are last ever activation-free parallel systems. No Me-only especially, and no 2000-only in lesser extent (excluding 64-bit Itanium Windows 2000) software needs this 64-bit overhead. Information about no-activation status of Me and 2000 is useful for all activation-escapers that want to have the newest and greatest Windows without activation ever released. 87.96.25.208 (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some corrections

"Since Windows 2000, DirectX has shipped as a part of Windows, but these bundled versions are rapidly outdated and often require updating anyway." Wait a minute but hasn't DirectX also shipped as part of Windows 95 and 98? Also, any software will become obsolete and require updating so this line is not really needed.

Also, this particular line in the version table is confusing, "The December 13 '04 is last 32-bit only version sufficient for Windows Me and Windows 2000 32-bit, that are two last parallel activation-free Windows systems". The reference stresses the 32-bit vs 64-bit point. Also, the October 2006 SDK was the last one to target Windows 9x as clearly mentioned on the December 2006 SDK Download page. Neither is the activation free statement related to DirectX. So I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.212 (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok it looks like Win98 shipped with DX5. I don't see any references for DX shipping with Win95 though. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
According to this source[2] Win95 did not ship with DX, but Win95 OSR2 did. X_X Well at least now we have it sorted out. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)