[rabb1t]

Some very interesting stuff on DX11 in this article at Tom's Hardware about OpenGL vs. DX.

Fur rendering? Yes please.

Also, it will go down into Vista as well, whereas previous rumors were it would force an upgrade to Windows 7. Looks like that's no longer the case. (Though many may want Win 7 over Vista for other reasons.)

[peppy13]

Originally Posted by rabb1t

Some very interesting stuff on DX11 in this article at Tom's Hardware about OpenGL vs. DX.

Fur rendering? Yes please.

Also, it will go down into Vista as well, whereas previous rumors were it would force an upgrade to Windows 7. Looks like that's no longer the case. (Though many may want Win 7 over Vista for other reasons.)

Question 1

What the hell is Win 7? Yet another Windows OS? Why is there a need for one so soon after Vista?

Question 2

DX11? Sounds like another marketing scam. i.e DX10.

[rhagz]

Windows 7 isn't due out until 2010.

And people will say it sucks and go back to Vista when it does come out.

[Renekal]

There are rumors floating around that's it'll be showing up middle of '09.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...462&Ite mid=1

http://www.internetnews.com/software...9+Delivery.htm

[Giftmacher]

Originally Posted by peppy13

Question 1

What the hell is Win 7? Yet another Windows OS? Why is there a need for one so soon after Vista?

Why is there ever another MS OS? To fill their coffers of course. Personally, I think it'll arrive later rather than sooner, as Vista was pretty late itself and I can't see Win7 happening any faster. The only way I see Win7 putting in an early appearance is if MS want to repair the damage Vista caused by dropping DRM... and I've got a funny feeling pigs will fly first.

Originally Posted by peppy13

Question 2

DX11? Sounds like another marketing scam. i.e DX10.

I don't think it's a marketing scam, if it were Win7 only then yes but otherwise it's just another iteration in the DX line.

Gift.

[Vryce]

Vista was a failed project. Several features that were planned for it were scrapped. It launched unfinished. Since launch its gotten better. However, if you haven't upgraded to it yet, I'd say hold off till Win 7.

Vista : Win 7 :: WinME : WinXP


As for DX11. Too early for me to care. DX10 still hasn't been fully utilized.

[rhagz]

Vista is nothing like ME. It completely changes the way the OS works and will be the basis for future versions.

[rabb1t]

While true, many of the features originally planned for Vista didn't make it and they had to be cut and left for Win 7.

Both Win 7 and DX11 have been in development nearly as long as Vista and DX10. Both were not a surprise and have been in the works for a very long time.

What is a surprise is that, due to the dislike for Vista, the timetable for Win 7 has been greatly accelerated and they are trying to get it out ASAP instead of it's originally scheduled 3 years post Vista launch. (That's supposedly the new plan, a new OS every 3 years, which just boggles my mind. ) Originally DX11 was going to be a Win 7 only thing, much like DX10 was a Vista and forward thing. However, partly due to the dislike for DX10 being Vista only, they have tweaked it so DX11 will also be available on Vista.

Originally Posted by rhagz

And people will say it sucks and go back to Vista when it does come out.

Extremely unlikely since they are already testing it behind closed doors and it is getting much love from those who dislike Vista. The like for Win 7 + dislike from those same people at Vista is why the timetable is being pushed forward.

Originally Posted by Vryce

However, if you haven't upgraded to it yet, I'd say hold off till Win 7.

Yeah, with the rumors that they are trying to bounce Win 7 into '09 I'm beginning to wonder at this point if I'll ever see Vista. I'm hoping to upgrade shortly after I get re-established, which currently is looking more like Q1'09 than Q4'08 (for my upgrade time), and I'm beginning to wonder if Win 7 will be pushed so far forward I wind up just holding off a few more months for it.

DX10 still hasn't been fully utilized.

I believe that DX9 still isn't being "fully utilized". But as for adoption rate, yeah, most still aren't developing for DX10 due to the low adoption rate. However, if you peep the article, you can see that DX11 includes / improves on many DX10 features, and with then 2 updates out, developers will likely start to seriously look at DX10 effects.

It will still likely be 2010 before we see DX10 hitting mainstream, but we should probably see many newer games taking advantage of it during '09.

[rhagz]

An OS every 3 years isn't a 'new plan', it's been the timetable since Windows took off in the 90s.

3.1 in 92, 95, 98, XP in 2001. Vista was the exception taking 6 years. Of course that's likely what hurt it more than anything. XP had so much time to mature and be supported that people didn't want to change. But the last thing the internet needs is yet another 'vista sux' thread.

[rabb1t]

Maybe it's just me, but I think a cycle of anything faster than 5 years is a bad idea. Three just doesn't sound like enough time for people (developers) to get used to it and put out good product. It certainly doesn't help the industry (game or general application) to constantly confuse people who are developing for your platform by changing things around.

Unless, of course, all of these changes are to add features they want. I have no idea, I'm not a coder.

[Fozzik]

Actually, the cycle of releases pretty much held true during the XP era as well. Windows XP SP2 was supposed to be a new OS release, but Microsoft decided it would be adopted easier and more fully if they called it a service pack.

I think I like that model much better. They should plan to do major releases every six years (and actually take that time making a product that has more functionality and is more useful) and just release an "expansion" (Service Pack) after three years. Vista's problem wasn't just that it took a long time, it was that they had a whole bunch of development going in every which direction and then pretty much completely scrapped it all and built an OS in that last year and a half or so. A lot of the things they did end up doing weren't implemented very well and a lot of the originally promised "features" were left out simply because they felt a time crunch (sounds kind of familiar).

[peppy13]

Originally Posted by Fozzik

Actually, the cycle of releases pretty much held true during the XP era as well. Windows XP SP2 was supposed to be a new OS release, but Microsoft decided it would be adopted easier and more fully if they called it a service pack.

I think I like that model much better. They should plan to do major releases every six years (and actually take that time making a product that has more functionality and is more useful) and just release an "expansion" (Service Pack) after three years. Vista's problem wasn't just that it took a long time, it was that they had a whole bunch of development going in every which direction and then pretty much completely scrapped it all and built an OS in that last year and a half or so. A lot of the things they did end up doing weren't implemented very well and a lot of the originally promised "features" were left out simply because they felt a time crunch (sounds kind of familiar).

Thats what they should with Vista. Make win7 service pack 4 or something. yeah.

So in the graphics card world, who is talking about DX11? What cards are going to support it? Will existing cards that support dx10 handle dx11?

[Renekal]

Theres a pretty good run down of things here:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/opengl...iew-31330.html

[rhagz]

Originally Posted by peppy13

Will existing cards that support dx10 handle dx11?

No. It will be a new generation of cards just like with every new version of DX.