Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Microsoft

DirectX 9 Finally Out 227

T-Kir writes "Microsoft has finally released DirectX 9... although we'll have to wait until the games that fully exploit it are released, at least those with high end cards (aka Radeon 9700+) will be able to unlock more of the advanced features. Now all we have to wait for is OpenGL 2.0!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DirectX 9 Finally Out

Comments Filter:
  • It will support the new cards well, but what about the older cards, ie. Voodoo 3,4 and 5?

    btw 1st post.
    • Re:Old card support? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
      It will support the new cards well, but what about the older cards, ie. Voodoo 3,4 and 5?

      You got an expensive doorstop there.

      I couldn't get Tombraider Chronicles to run on my Voodoo 3, so I don't think it is very likely you are going to find Direct X 9 support from anywhere. OK you might get something to run, but you can be certain Lara hasn't tested it.

      However, if you could afford one of the cutting edge 3dfx cards when they were new you can certainly afford a replacement nvidia board of the same vintage, they have them at frys for $50. OK so they won't run as fast as the latest GForce but neither would the Voodoo.

      Incidentally, I discovered that the chronic unreliability problem of my '98 machine went away as soon as I swapped out the voodoo for a GForce...

    • Re:Old card support? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Curien ( 267780 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:51AM (#4940231)
      You've got it backwards... DirectX doesn't support cars, cards support DirectX (hereafter, "DX"). When we say, "The Radeon 9700 is a DX9 card," what we mean is that the Radeon 9700 can support all of the DX9 features *in hardware* (in the DX HAL ("hardware abstraction layer"). The GeForce4 is a DX8.1 card, meaning that it can support all of the DX8.1 features *in hardware*, but if you install DX9 on your system nothing horrendous will happen. All that will happen is that when a program tries to use DX freatures that your card doesn't support, DX will simply implement those features in software (on the HEL ("hardware emulation layer")), which is slower. But when a game just uses DX8.1 features, it'll still run on the HAL.

      So, assuming that there aren't any bugs in the new version of DX, upgrading isn't harmful. And no, the Voodoo 3, 4, and 5 aren't going to support many of the new features in hardware. But that doesn't mean you can't install and play DX9 games -- it just means they'd run like ass.
      • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @10:50AM (#4940411) Journal
        "DirectX doesn't support cars, cards support DirectX (hereafter, "DX")."

        That sounds like one of those "In Soviet Russia..." jokes.
      • Re:Old card support? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkidd@viatex[ ]com ['as.' in gap]> on Sunday December 22, 2002 @11:03AM (#4940448) Homepage
        When I was running a Voodoo3, I couldn't run crap once I upgraded to DX 8.1 (though IIRC, RX 8.0 was fine). Due to the wonderful way DX works, I had to reinstall Win98 (yeah yeah I know) to ditch it. I then found Voodoo Files [voodoofiles.com] where, somehow, people were still writing/hacking/whatever new Voodoo drivers. I downloaded some recent ones and viola - DX 8.1 worked - minus things even the HAL couldn't even do at that point. My best guess was that something in DX 8.1 did something the last official 3dfx drivers really didn't like, so DX wouldn't get along with them at all - but newer, obviously unofficial ones did.

        So if you want to upgrade to DX 9 I'd say hit up Voodoo Files first. By that token though, I don't think DX 9 will go any faster for you and you in all likelihood won't be able to run any of the "new" features, but it's better than nothing. Might help put off that upgrade for a little while.

        I'd love to know how people are making these new drivers, though.

        • There is a program called Direct X buster that will totally remove DX fom your system, so you can reinstall it without reinstalliung your OS.
          It saved my ass last time DX corrupted my system.
      • "You've got it backwards... DirectX doesn't support cars, cards support DirectX (hereafter, "DX")"

        Well in Soviet Russia, Direct X supports the cards.

        (I have an impending sense of being modded down for another tired Soviet Union joke, but i couldn't resist)

      • by strictnein ( 318940 ) <strictfoo-slashdot AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday December 22, 2002 @08:00PM (#4942303) Homepage Journal
        DirectX doesn't support cars

        Does it support cdrs?

        (for those who read slashdot daily... yes, I did indeed rip off that lame attempt from humor from a post a day or two ago)

        =)
      • DirectX doesn't support cars

        Hmm... well, I knew that, but I guess some people might not... Thanks for clarifying!

  • isn't going to be available for the NV30, will it? I don't think it will, because all the Tom's articles I've seen about it only discuss it supporting OpenGL 1.?2?
  • anyone know if my AIW 7500 is compatible?
    • Re:radeon AIW 7500 (Score:5, Informative)

      by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @10:39AM (#4940379)
      The Radeon 7500 will work under DirectX 9.0, but due to the design of the chipset on the Radeon 7500 the majority of the desireable features of DirectX 9.0 won't be available to your card.

      You need a card that takes full advantage of DirectX 9.0; the ATI Radeon 9500/9500Pro (just released) and Radeon 9700/9700 Pro (which has been around for a couple of months) will fully take advantage of DirectX 9.0, especially if you install ATI's CATALYST 3.0 display driver that works with Windows Me, Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

      Unfortunately, nVidia's GeForce4 Ti4xxx series chipsets won't take advantage of DirectX 9.0 features; that will have to wait for the GeForce FX that will ship in the first quarter of 2003.
      • Although I can't be bothered to search for the link (it was on Anandtech or Toms Hardware), but apparently the ATI cards incorporate the DirectX version in their names.. hence the 9xxx cards were designed with DirectX 9.x in mind (hardware manufacturers have had the spec for months), and the Radeon 8xxx series was designed with DirectX 8.x... etc.

        nVidia on the other hand started messing things up with the MX's, Ti's and Pure versions (let alone the FX, what next? FX2 or FX Part Deux?)... let alone any correlation to new or existing graphics technologies... i.e. they're just there to confuse Joe Public into thinking a GeForce 4 MX is better than a GeForce 3 etc.

      • I picked up an AIW 7500 not long ago myself, and was very much disappointed with it's 3D performance. It wasn't much better than the 32 meg Voodoo3 it replaced (4-year old PCI card). I wound up putting the ATI in my Linux media box (MPlayer works nicely with the TV/S-Video outputs).

        I believe the problem is that the 7500 doesn't use the Radeon chipset, rather it's a Rage 128 that's been relabeled (that's my understanding -- I could easily be mistaken).

        So I finally broke down and got the ti4600, and am extremely happy with it (I run two monitors, so replacing two Voodoo3's with one new card was pretty neat). Of course now my CPU seems just that much slower, not to mention I now have almost as much video RAM as system RAM...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:36AM (#4940190)
    First FreeBSD 5.0-RC2 and now DirectX 9.0. If I had a FreeBSD box running DirectX I would shit my pants.
  • by Compact Dick ( 518888 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:37AM (#4940191) Homepage

    Are there any bombs in the EULA? Or the latest version of Magic Lantern?
    • by pommiekiwifruit ( 570416 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:46AM (#4940217)
      I love the new microsoft EULA :-) To fix the security bug of the week, e.g. the bugs in MP3 that let anyone take over your machine, you have to download a patch. When I used Windows Update to download the patch you have to accept the EULA. The EULA comes up with the buttons "Don't accept" and "Cancel".

      "Accept" is greyed out! While it may be true that a sane person might sometimes query accepting Microsoft's terms, it does seem a bit rich that you can't download the patch even if you do. Also the license includes Javascript and HTML as text. I wonder if this is due to a hypothetical previous patch turning stuff off for safety? Can I be bothered tracking it down at this time of year, when there is such wonderful televi... hmm.

      • by jon787 ( 512497 )
        I had the same problem getting the windows .net server release candidates.

        Just look at where the form submits to and right your own basic form that will do the same thing, their site doesn't check referrer strings for submitting forms :)
      • by fraxas ( 584069 )
        Some MS licenses from windowsupdate won't let you accept them until the entire license is downloaded (even the parts at the bottom that nobody reads).

        Some of them require that you read the whole thing too (i.e. page down to the bottom).

    • If you've been agreeing with them to date you're already OK with the idea that the software could wipe your system and electrocute your dog without setting Microsoft back more than $5, so I don't know what else you want.

      As to spyware, it's not exactly like any software house has to be complicit to get it on your system if you use the Internet and download programs. Read here [securityfocus.com] for details.

    • A properly equipped van parked in your driveway can intercept the broadcast coming from your video tube. They then can record it for future replay at a time and place of their choosing.

      Unless you encase your computer room in conductive, charged, chickenwire a'la Faraday.
  • by tempfile ( 528337 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:41AM (#4940200)
    Microsoft, with its money and power, is able to deal with hardware manufacturers, to receive specs of planned features early and to develop API for those extremely quickly.

    This is the reason why Windows and DirectX will always have a huge advantage over every independent implementation, be it MesaGL or something else. Programmers can be sure that MS will implement every new interesting feature of coming graphics hardware quickly, so that they can make use of it. Therefore, DirectX is the obvious choice.
    • by Blaskowicz ( 634489 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:47AM (#4940221)
      Microsoft, with its money and power, is able to deal with hardware manufacturers, to receive specs of planned features early and to develop API for those extremely quickly

      Hmm... The major Hardware manufacturors (and software developers) are members of the OpenGL ARB :

      http://www.opengl.org/developers/about/arb.html

      The OpenGL Architecture Review Board (ARB), an independent consortium formed in 1992, governs the OpenGL specification. Composed of many of the industry's leading graphics vendors, the ARB defines conformance tests and approves new OpenGL features and extensions. As of June 2002, voting members of the ARB include 3Dlabs, Apple, ATI, Dell Computer, Evans & Sutherland, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Matrox, NVIDIA, Microsoft, SGI, Sun. Other companies and organizations are encouraged to join the ARB as non-voting participants by signing the ARB Participant Undertaking (PDF, Word format, Postscript format), so they are covered by participation and disclosure terms similar to the ARB member agreement signed by voting Members. Prospective participants should talk with the OpenGL ARB Secretary (email to arb-secretary 'at' sgi.com) to discuss their reasons for joining and their projected level of committment to the group, and to find out how to submit the Participant Undertaking. Participants may apply for ARB membership when new slots are opened up. A partial list of participants includes Alt.software, Crytek GmbH, Discreet, Empire Interactive, Ensemble Studios, Epic Games, GLSetup, Id Software, Imagination Technologies (PowerVR), Intelligraphics, Micron, NEC, Obsession Development, Quantum3D, RAD Game Tools, Raven Software, S3/Diamond Multimedia, SiS, Spinor GmbH, Tungsten Graphics, University of Central Florida, Verant Interactive, and Xi Graphics.
    • It is hardly any surprise that Microsoft developers with access to specs support the hardware earlier than opensource developers without access to the specs.
    • by danheskett ( 178529 ) <danheskett@NoSpam.gmail.com> on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:51AM (#4940235)
      Let's imagine for a minute that you are a hardware maker. You have of course limited resources, and want to sell as many of your cards as possible.

      You have a small handful of hardcore engineers who know how the product works.

      Now, contrary to your belief its more than just getting "specs", though specs are a big part of the equation. Basically what is needed is access to the engineers who are designing the hardware. The software people and hardware people need to be able to relate on a 1:1 level for a lot of this very sophisticated stuff to happen. Basically, you can figure out how to draw a pixel on the screen with a straightforward spec, but doing this advanced AA, shading, vertex manipulations etc *very* fast requires a lot of collobration.

      So given everything here, if you are a hardware vendor, who would you spend time helping? Microsoft, of some people who have a page on Sourceforge?

      The problem is that there are lots of free implementations - "MesaGL or something else". A simple spec is not all that is needed. To really do this right, you need access to the designers. If I were a hardware vendor, I wouldn't let my engineers waste time working with most of these free projects. On top of that is the issue of how much "IP" of the hardware vendor goes into the source of the library. The graphics world is vastly competitive, and any edge is going to be exploited fully.

      I cant say I blame the hardware people for ignoring or mostly ignoring these open projects. There are times for hobbyists/amatuers/volunteers, and there are times for full-time dedicated professionals. Now, whats probably a better idea is that some of implementations could get together and unify their projects and create a single project that has enough to clout to get in with the hardware people. But DirectX will be the obvious choice for a long time to come.
      • Let's imagine that you have a new feature that doesn't exactly play with Microsoft's strategic direction of the week. You're frozen out.

        Really, that's the issue, here. Who's in the driver's seat. If you're *just* DirectX, then Microsoft is in the driver's seat, and you're maybe in the passenger's seat or back seat, but maybe you're back in the trunk or the trailer. Right now ATI and nVidia get to ride in the car with the driver, and they have some say about the hardware features that DirectX expresses.

        Playing nicely with OpenGL and Open Source gives graphics makers a chance to differentiate their product. Maybe it's an extension, not OpenGL base, but at least OpenGL has the extension mechanism, and you're not petitioning Microsoft to grant your feature. Open source is not even a bad move, for some niche products, since many of those run on Unix/Linux, anyway.

        Of course a graphics maker must play ball with Microsoft these days. But there are good business reasons to also keep a finger in the Open Source corner, too.
      • The problem is that there are lots of free implementations - "MesaGL or something else".

        Really dan? Show me the "something else". Mesa is practically the OpenGL standard on Linux/BSD and it would take any group many years to create something with all the capabilities of Mesa. I'm not aware of any other Open Source alternatives, and some quick googling doesn't show up anything. I gather that even the recent DRI framework added to Xfree86/Linux used Mesa as a part of its OpenGL rendering.

        Sorry dan, but this and the "page on sourceforge" comments are just FUD. You have a point about the situation with hardware manufaturers, but you may be surprised at how organized a lot of Open Source projects are.

    • "(sic) blah blah blah. . .
      Therefore, DirectX is the obvious choice."

      ooooh, Shiny! I agree!
  • ATI (Score:5, Informative)

    by damiam ( 409504 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:42AM (#4940206)
    Note that ATI has also released its Catalyst 3.0 [ati.com] drivers with full DX9 support for those cards which can handle it. Those demos look sweet.
    • It appears Catalyst 3.0 have only been released for the 9500/9700 so far. They have not been released for other versions of ATI cards (IE: 7500 and 8500). FOr these 'older' cards, the latest Catalyst release is still 2.5
      • Actually, scratch that. They are, but they are uncertified, whatever that means. I really should drink a cup of coffee before commenting.
        • "Uncertified" means MS has not certified it in the WHQL "Windows Hardware Quality Lab?".

          It means you probably can play with clock settings, more monitor frequency settings, and more manual settings. Good stuffs in general.

          I always choose non-WHQL-certified drivers because almost all the time they have more features.
    • Warning (Score:2, Informative)

      by bayankaran ( 446245 )
      I just installed the new DirectX 9 and upgraded the ATI driver for Radeon8500 (there is no real advantage for DirectX 9 with Radeon8500). The system got completely screwed up. I had to reinstall everything.

      After installing the ATI drivers the system restarts...here it hangs. Be careful while doing this...there is some problem with DirectX and ATI Radeon drivers.
  • by Schik ( 576085 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:43AM (#4940209) Homepage
    Download the latest drivers [ati.com], then download the demos [ati.com]. They're nothing short of incredible. The Animusic one is spectacular.
  • New things in DX9 (Score:5, Informative)

    by MagPulse ( 316 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:48AM (#4940226)
    High-level shading language

    It has a language very close to Cg but that is integrated with VS.NET, meaning you can debug it just like C code. Here's a newsgroup thread [google.com] where MS says they are working to keep it close to Cg, but it won't be 100% compatible.

    Managed support

    If you're programming in C#, Managed C++, or any other managed language, you can now use DirectX 9 directly.

    Links

    Converting to DirectX 9 [microsoft.com]

    DX9 client stand-alone download [microsoft.com]

    DX9 SDK download [microsoft.com]
  • by Knunov ( 158076 ) <eat@my.ass> on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:49AM (#4940228) Homepage
    Using the DX9 Network Setup program is already bogged.

    Here [microsoft.com] is a direct link to the redistributable setup file (i.e. the .EXE file)

    I'm getting about 100KBps right now. The file is a tad over 30MB. My DL is currently at 99%, so I suppose this is safe to post now :)

    Knunov
  • by snitty ( 308387 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:51AM (#4940232) Homepage
    As a mac user I have to wonder: Is direct X really better than OpenGL. I have heard that it is more difficult to program than OpenGL, but as I have never seen the code I can't substantiate it. From people who have programmed both; which is easier to program, which can output better graphics more easily?
    • by danheskett ( 178529 ) <danheskett@NoSpam.gmail.com> on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:56AM (#4940241)
      Depending on who you ask DirectX and OpenGL are somewhat closely matched. I know a lot more people who like DirectX than who like OpenGL, but thats ancedotal.

      What is fact is that OpenGL does a tiny fraction of what DirectX does. DirectX incorporates the graphics tools, as well as sound, input, networking and other useful constructs. This can't be overlooked. There are many projects that are seeking to provide this, but clearly, DirectX is a pretty complete package today.

      Even if OpenGL was 100% better than DirectX, people would still use DirectX a lot because of its supporting tools.
      • Bad match. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        A better comparison would be between Direct3D and OpenGL, with SDL up against all other parts of DirectX.
      • i believe that directx is geared towards the consumer. like you said, it is more than just video but also network, sound, and input.

        opengl, on the other hand, is geared for professional applications especially 3d. look at the pro graphic cards like firegl and quadro, they are supporting opengl. and most pro apps like maya, softimage, and lightwave require opengl and do not support the regular consumer video cards even though it may be faster and supports directx.

        so i don't think that directx and opengl are closely matched. they are made for different applications and each is doing very well in their respective fields.
        • opengl, on the other hand, is geared for professional applications especially 3d.

          Yup. DirectX can't handle quads.. only triangles. DirectX can't handle NURBs (although I think that was one if the things DX9 is supposed to remedy). Quads and NURBs are the reasons professional 3d packages use OGL instead of DirectX.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Well, I program with OpenGL, i've seen code for directX, and i knew then that DX had a huge amount of code for doing non-graphics related stuff, but when it come to graphics, opengl wins hands down, mostly because of the simplicity of implememting different rendering techniques and the way polygon creation is set up
      • All I know is that in Unreal Tournament (a game designed for DirectX), when I enable the "experimental" OpenGL mode my framerate doubles, if not more.
        • If it doubles its probably because whatever video card you have is better supported under OpenGL than DirectX. That's way to much of a performance jump. Chances are under DirectX a hardware feature is not supported and has to be rendered by software - which is vastly slower. Chances are also good that this feature is available to OpenGL - hence the drama.
      • What is fact is that OpenGL does a tiny fraction of what DirectX does.

        And do you say that DirectX sucks because "Direct3D only does 3D"? No. You use a bunch of libraries of varying quality because MS has marketed them under a single name ("DirectX")? I suppose if you use OpenGL, you cannot use OpenAL?

        Hell, I can fix that right now. I name the combination of SDL, OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL_ttf, SDLSprite and SDL_image "HyperX". Voila! By your criteria, now HyperX is better, because it does more!
    • by Anonymous Coward
      First off, DirectX is a suite of multimedia APIs- Direct3D, DirectDraw, DirectSound, DirectSound3D, and DirectPlay.


      Comparing Direct3D and OpenGL (which is probably what you want to do): Direct3D is by far much more advanced, supporting more functions + features that OpenGL's out of date API doesn't. Programming-wise, I have no idea how they compare.

    • In the areas where OpenGL and DirectX overlap, DirectX is quite a lot better. The benefit of Microsoft controlling standards, as opposed to the community, is that Microsoft can make decisive changes or updates to DirectX as it chooses. OpenGL, on the other hand, has to go through committee, which takes time.

      In OpenGL games, you have to support OpenGL extensions to get anything that isn't directly supported by the OpenGL spec - which, at this point, is quite a lot. In order to do that, you have to go through the entire list of available extensions, check to see which ones you want, check to see which you have, enable the features that require the extensions you have, and disable the features that require extensions you don't. And if two manufacturers (ATI and NVidia) implement the same thing two different ways, you have to support both extensions to get anything depending on that to work.

      As far as programming goes, DirectX used to be horrible, but it is now a lot better, easier to use, and faster to develop, in and of itself. Add in the complexity above, and, well, it's pretty obvious who's winning.

      Don't get me wrong, I wish OpenGL would come out on top, but at the moment, DirectX just rocks my boxers, and that's all there is to it.

      --Dan
  • by ancarett ( 221103 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:57AM (#4940243)
    From the DirectX 9.0 FAQ [microsoft.com]:

    Due to enhancements in the way DirectPlay functions, it is strongly recommended that all users who want to join or host multiplayer games upgrade to DirectX 9.0. A user with earlier versions of DirectX may have trouble joining or hosting games, or my see a significant performance reduction when playing with users who have 9.0 installed.
  • exploit? (Score:5, Funny)

    by runderwo ( 609077 ) <runderwo&mail,win,org> on Sunday December 22, 2002 @09:57AM (#4940245)
    although we'll have to wait until the games that fully exploit it are released
    Heh heh...oh yes, "exploit" all right. I can't wait until DirectX 9 is fully exploited, preferably giving me a system-level shell.
  • by NeoSkandranon ( 515696 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @10:10AM (#4940276)
    I'll be excited when
    1) there are DX9 games available
    2) a DX9 compat. card can be had without forking over a majority of my month's paycheck
    • "2) a DX9 compat. card can be had without forking over a majority of my month's paycheck"

      Yea and by that time, you'll have one and want a card that is DX 11 or DX 12 compliant that won't cost a month's paycheck.
    • Two answer your two points:

      1. Microsoft's Asheron's Call 2 will be the first game to use DirectX 9.0 features. There are a number of upcoming games that will very likely use DirectX 9.0; I wouldn't be surprised that we see a patch for Neverwinter Nights to include DX9 support and EverQuest 2 will also include DX9 support.

      2. The only reasonably-priced card that will support DX9 is are the cards from ATI OEM's that use the Radeon 9500 moniker; ATI's own Radeon 9500 Pro and Radeon 9700 Pro cards will support DX9 if you install the ATI CATALYST 3.0 display driver for Windows Me, Windows 2000 and Windows XP. I think that nVidia will have GeForce FX variants with full DX9 supports from low-cost to top-end models by the late Spring 2003.
  • dx versus opengl (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    why do ppl always compare dx against opengl? they are two quite different things. + opengl is graphics api + directx is api for graphics,sound,network,input devices. you should compare SDL [libsdl.org] or maybe allegro (dont remember the link) against dx but not a graphics api!
  • All well and fine, but what do I do about "7th Legion"? It seems to require Direct X 5 and the graphics look weird under Direct anything else...
  • You'll have to wait a few years before there more than a handful of games that take advantage of it.
  • by Bob-o-Matic! ( 620698 ) <robert.peters@gma i l . com> on Sunday December 22, 2002 @10:51AM (#4940421) Homepage
    HOLY SHIT!!!

    Honey-- I told you not to turn off the antivirus autochecker!!

    All kidding aside, I downloaded the demos and screensavers (If you upgraded from the DX9 Beta you have to reinstall all the demos), and I for one am astounded! I NEVER use screensavers at home, but will now... with the lights off, and some Pink Floyd...

    I wish ATI will release an "aquarium" themed screensaver or demo... something with jellyfish would be awesome! I mean, just replace the bacteria, right?
  • License Changes? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @11:40AM (#4940498) Homepage Journal
    Anyone know how MORE restrictive its licensing will be? Given Microsoft's track record of tightening its grip on each and every release/update of all its software.

    Not intended to start a flame war, I'm just curious.. as the last update of media player we weren't able to install, due to the 'added' bits, as they violated some of our privacy polices.. the license latest service pack for Win2000 is still being evaluated.

    In the end, at the rate they are going we may have to go OSS for these reasons alone. ( which is fine by me )

  • exploit? (Score:5, Funny)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @11:49AM (#4940538) Journal
    although we'll have to wait until the games that fully exploit it are released

    Exploit is an interesting choice of words when used to describe any aspect of Windows...

    Perhaps CmdrTaco is hard at word on the DX9 version of CodeRed...

    Sure, you might get Rooted, but at least the defacing will look purty.
  • Is directX9 how Billy G. will attempt to get Digital Rights Management [cryptome.org] onto my computer? Tie a bunch of really kewl games/graphics features to a "protection" mechanism that makes a colonoscopy look like a walk in the park? I really need to be protected from all that content I've purchased.
  • Had to uninstall it (Score:2, Informative)

    by rikkards ( 98006 )
    I installed DX 9 (but made a restore point prior to installing it) and found that with Age of Kings that I was getting a black screen on 1280x1024 resolution. So I had to go back.
  • Works good (Score:2, Interesting)

    Installed with an ATI 7500 Mobility...

    Unreal is definately smoother... No doubt in my mind.

    So it works good for me... seems they cleaned up the code or something.
  • DirectX 9 is now available from Microsoft but in very large files. Icarus Independent now offers an alternative here at the DevZone. [icarusindie.com] Download as much or as little as you need. Each section of DirectX 9 is neatly zipped up in it's own file.

    If the download is still a bit daunting head to here [icarusindie.com] and request the DirectX 9 SDK be included on a Content CD which costs only $2 per 650MB plus shipping which is typically less than $2 within the US.

    Ben
  • OpenGL (Score:2, Funny)

    "Now all we have to wait for is OpenGL 2.0!" Isn't that like saying, "Now all we have to wait for is God to ride down on a cloud and hand deliver it to us!"
  • DirectX 9 Problems (Score:4, Interesting)

    by neosiv ( 320921 ) on Sunday December 22, 2002 @02:11PM (#4941072)
    I installed this yesterday, mostly because Microsoft's Impossible Creatures wanted it installed. Later I tried running a networked game of Dungeonsiege but it would crash when I tried start it. My guess was that DirectX 9 broke the networking module. To test my theory I went back to a restore point before DirectX 9 and sure enough directX networking was working again. I have XP installed, I'm not sure if anybody else has seen this. Maybe it is just an issue with my config.
    • 1) Impossible Creatures DOESNT need DX9... I played it fine on DX8, no problems, no visual glitches. Unless you have a radeon 9500 or 9700, you're not going to notice anything, and if previous posters are to be believed, having a non-DX9 card will actually make it slower. I cant confirm this, only reposting what others have said.

      2) If you'd read the other posts, you'll notice that BOTH/ALL computers in a networked game need DX9 in order for it to function properly on a network.

      Its amazing the crap that gets modded here, especially up to a 4.
  • by Rai ( 524476 )
    And what DRM nonsense will this release include?
  • Next week by Tuesday before lunch?

  • So I downloaded the Gun Metal DX9 demo from nvidia, it says unsupported card on my ATI 9700.

    Strange, ATI 9700 is the only DX9 card out. Also ATI's Demos and Screen savers will run on any DX9 card. Seems NVIDIA is up to the tricks again.

    Bad enough, games come out with "Made to be played on Nvidia" or some other crap.
  • It's 2002. Out of the box, Quake 2 and even Quake World will just work with your computer as long as you have drivers for your card from your card provider. Why? Because OpenGL is so standardized, that you can keep running your games years later. What else offers this security? Only consoles. I can still play Metal Gear on my NES as easily as Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty on my PS2.

    What happens when I try to run a DOS VGA game? A DOS CGA game? A DX 1 game? Not much...

    Microsoft says they've tried to keep things compatible, but I've yet to see Windows DX games which work after multiple DX major version upgrades (3-5+) without some patching. Just another reason to console game :)
  • I'd like to see the word "rich" forcibly removed from marketers' vocabularies.

    DirectX supports "rich audio". What is THAT?

If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.

Working...