Microsoft cuts Windows 7 features - already

So this raises the question what is mean with 'mandated', because normally you can just run hardware that only supports older DX versions while having newer DX versions installed, vista does run with a DX9 card it just doesn't do DX10 stuff.
So what is meant with 'mandated'? are we talking about the label you can put on your graphics card box to make it say 'window7 compatible'? Is that all? Or is it as you hint about DX11 having no backwards compatibility AT ALL? I think that would be more something to complain about that the opposite like you seem to lament over now.
If it is that then it would be sensible and reasonable to not have it 'mandatory'.

I feel compelled to comment on the logic here. While I agree on teh current graphics environment and market share (and the DX9/10 discussion), who is to say that the market, players and technology looks the same in a few years time.

Fact is, we don't know if Win 7 is out in late 2009 or 2011-12. Regardless, just entering 2008 I think it is same to assume that the fgx chip distribution and software market will look different at teh point of the release.

The conservative guess (Win release in 2011-12) would mean DX9 would have to hang around for another 4 years - not likely if you ask me. And on to CPU/GPU development. By then we would probably have the first mobile chips combining nVidia and Physx along with a new generation of Intel integrated graphics (yeah, they are cooking something).

The logic of looking at Win 7 specs and the current market just isn't there...

DirectX has a limited lifespan as it stands right now anyway. It has always been a fight between DX and OpenGL, in the past DX was a slightly better choice given how poorly the OpenGL API was managed despite basically making you Microsofts whipping boy but now OpenGL is controlled by the graphics chip makers and others in the hardware/entertainment industry so which API do you think hardware and third party drivers will favor? 

Now that you've hopefully answered OpenGL consider that OpenGL 3.0 with its 2 extensions will do everything DX10 can but on every OS currently available on the market so which API do you think software makers will prefer? DX10 which only works on Vista and XP assume someone takes the time to crack it since MS is too lazy and/or greedy to do it or OpenGL which allows for cross platform development for Windows XP, Vista, OSX, and Linux. There's also the fact that OpenGL has a full function sub standard, OpenGL ES, designed for portable devices like PDA's and gaming handhelds while DX for Windows CE is fairly neutered as i remember.

Basically when you add everything up DX is on life support regardless of what Microsoft would like to think or how much money they are willing to waste to try to keep it alive.

Is this actually the beginning of the end for MS dominance ?
I think MS had better avoid a re-edit of the Vista/MeII experience, because if they flounder in the market for a full decade, companies will have had ample time to finally make the switch - weel, assuming there is an actual option to switch to.
Yes, yes, we all know how orgasmically fantastic Linux is (especially since we are regularly reminded about it even in threads that have nothing to do with OSes at all), but given its market share, Linux looks to me a lot like the uncle with a drinking problem who can't admit he has a problem.
If Linux really was as good as it is purported to be by its all-too-vocal supporters, we'd all be using it already. So it's not, but now MS is certainly giving it every chance to get there.
If Win7 becomes the ugly stepchild of the albatross that is Vista, I think that company CEOs just might say "stuff this" and finally generate a massive move to open source OS platforms, just like now they are massively generating a total absence of inertia on Vista installations.
If that does happen, then it will be the swan song for Redmond's monopoly, since businesses do not change their infrastructure every five years, whatever the "analysts" might say. If Linux gets pulled in, it will be there to stay, and MS will have lost a great lead.
Users will probably remain glued to the bling-bling, though, because they like it and it doesn't matter if they have to format their disks every now and then (and say goodbye to their data in the process).
But I don't think MS is stupid enough to mis-evaluate the market once again. Ballmer will be forced to do what is necessary to keep the monopoly machine running in stride, and that should mean dropping the DRM, lowering the requirements and drastically cutting down the list of different versions (server, business and home is all that is really needed).
That said, one can dream, no ?

Okay, now the race is on. How fast will a Linux fanatic come in and bash my comment for whatever reason ? We will see.

I really don't see the point in locking a DX version into a particular Windows version. Maybe Microsoft is taking the hint this time around.

Good News Actually

Indeed people, this are supposed to be good news, Why?
Because I believe if MS says not to DX 11 will should have W7 faster than we think.

To my believe (course w/o any source) we should have w7 around 2009.

No they don't.

They could choose Windows, MacOS X (if you have an Apple box), Linux, *BSD, Solaris to name a few.

Personally I choose Linux of the Ubuntu variety and it does the job nicely. :-)

Rob

Once again that one company is screwing everyone cause they can't just license tech from real GPU makers.
Down with that one company.

They should chop the hell out of it.

An OS should not be bigger than 1gb

The less there is of it the less there is to go wrong, slow down the system, create security holes, or generally piss off the consumer.

One has to wonder why it would take so much umph to render a 3D desktop and why they are so worried DX11 would have any effect on the performance of running their desktop.

I mean.. here we are.. will Geforce 4s and 3s running Desktop Linux with Beryl installed.. gorgeous effects and all.. and then we have Vista.. right..

Honestly, I think it has more to do with the quality of programming than anything else.

into this? Many versions of DirectX were released independent of the OS. BTW: Way to get your ATI mandated dig at NVIDIA.

Is it Intel? Because their integrated graphics are the suck. Graphics that bad should be considered a capital offense!

Just days ago the Inq was claiming that Win7 was not even in the planning stages... now they are already cutting features ??

You guys just make this crap up as you go.

WE WANT WinFS! And those damned swish menues that we were shown in Longhorn 3718/4074! 

We want out music icons to be in little, smooth moving glass blocks and our picture folder to throw pictures across the screen into a fantastically neat order so we can suavely sift through them, we want the REAL sidebar. 

But most of all, give us stability! Push it back for all we care, just make this kernel stable with an OS on its shoulders.

"but now OpenGL is controlled by the graphics chip makers and others in the hardware/entertainment industry"

OGL has always been in their hands; the "open" refers to the fact that it was designed as an extensible architecture that anyone could add to if they wished - OEM changes that were popular eventually made it into the "official" spec. For instance, install nVidia drivers on your XP machine and you have all of the cute hardware tricks DX10 offers, but you just have to implement them through OpenGL instead.

Twaddle of the highest order and once again demonstrating a fundamental ability to either misunderstand or spin a rumour to make sensatioalist new.

If DX11 had of been madetory it would have just meant you would not have been able to buy Windows 7 without DX11, it would have been an integral part of the OS.

DX10 was the same with Vista, there was no way to buy Vista without DX10.

Of course the bit missed by this clap trap is that of course DX9 GPUs work with Vista and would do with W7, they just wouldn't get the additional DX11 features.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?


What about the promise to make the *next* version of Windows take advantage of multiple GPUs? I know I didn't dream it. Technology that's been flogged about for a decade? and Microsnuf still has to accommodate it. In large part, since DX is hardware dependant now, and all of the GFX makers are seeing the shrinks, they don't have time, in this timeline, to do the work for Redmond. IMHO

Ray tracing is the new smoke and mirrors.


and couldnt they just make it easier, like just update and swap in and out some files. doesnt dx9 have the power to do pretty much anything graphically-wise?

OpenGL - can I play Windows games on Linux if they need OpenGL? Is there some way I can do this?

If OpenGL means I am OS-free then I'm all for that. But then why do most games say they need Windows XP to run?