1. Forum
  2. FidoNet
  3. ECHOLIST

  • DirectX 9.0c software versus Video HARDWARE DIRECTX 9 or 10+?

    From greegor47@gmail.com@1:124/5013 to All on Fri Jan 4 00:53:40 2019
    X-Received: by 10.66.80.41 with SMTP id o9mr7611378pax.4.1357278819655;
    Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:53:39 -0800 (PST)
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Received: by 10.49.116.135 with SMTP id jw7mr8693102qeb.10.1357278819249; Thu,
    03 Jan 2013 21:53:39 -0800 (PST)
    Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!fee der.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!f6no8917461pbd.1!news-out.google.com!s 9ni79141pbb.0!nntp.google.com!b8no2031281pbd.0!postnews.google.com!d10g2000yqe. googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:53:39 -0800 (PST)
    Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
    Injection-Info: d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.189.229.221; posting-account=5SXNEQkAAAC6SFadCHPE9O-jLMHq7h-Y
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.189.229.221
    References: <5a5d2214-342b-4c2c-a655-ea2e21bbb34c@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
    <k98e4q$me4$1@dont-email.me> <k98js2$tbv$1@news.mixmin.net>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
    Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152;
    .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
    Message-ID: <a203cb57-527f-47bb-98c2-766cfbe70872@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> Subject: DirectX 9.0c software versus Video HARDWARE DIRECTX 9 or 10+?
    From: Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
    Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 05:53:39 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:4032 alt.os.windows-xp:5437 microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2477 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30925 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:106312

    OK, I'm firmly convinced that for Win XP, DirectX 9.0c is the
    latest installable DirectX module.

    But I got a casual (easy) game collection CD for the holidays
    that is for Windows XP, but requires DIRECTX 9.0
    in the video card and didn't like the 9.0c SW module.

    I also looked into video cards to possibly upgrade
    enough to run W7 or W8 fairly well and noticed
    that various video cards have DIRECTX 10 or ? in them.

    Apparently this opens the door to having Direct X 10 or 11
    on a Windows XP computer.

    Why would DIRECTX 9.0 in a vid card work better
    than the DirectX 9.0c software module for a game?

    Is there a lot of other software that runs on WinXP
    but can even use DIRECTX 10 (in video hardware)?

    It's not like these are slow computers where
    software DirectX runs slow or anything...

    Is hardware DIRECTX 10 or 11 fairly common
    for on board video in newer mother boards?
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
    * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)
  • From nospam@needed.com@1:124/5013 to All on Fri Jan 4 01:35:18 2019
    Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.PO STED!not-for-mail
    From: Paul <nospam@needed.com>
    Newsgroups: alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Subject: Re: DirectX 9.0c software versus Video HARDWARE DIRECTX 9 or 10+? Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 01:35:17 -0500
    Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
    Lines: 68
    Message-ID: <kc5t6v$bdl$1@dont-email.me>
    References: <5a5d2214-342b-4c2c-a655-ea2e21bbb34c@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
    <k98e4q$me4$1@dont-email.me> <k98js2$tbv$1@news.mixmin.net> <a203cb57-527f-47bb-98c2-766cfbe70872@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Injection-Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 06:35:12 +0000 (UTC)
    Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="49666b89f6c025f7ed14a9e005bfcf3b";
    logging-data="11701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+Y224Wi9hFW8p91d2JayM4LcDvSZwziA="
    User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
    In-Reply-To: <a203cb57-527f-47bb-98c2-766cfbe70872@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:vPArDYMDQMtBGOHQtwqjqq2t89A=
    Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:4034 alt.os.windows-xp:5439 microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2479 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30927 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:106314

    Greegor wrote:
    OK, I'm firmly convinced that for Win XP, DirectX 9.0c is the
    latest installable DirectX module.

    But I got a casual (easy) game collection CD for the holidays
    that is for Windows XP, but requires DIRECTX 9.0
    in the video card and didn't like the 9.0c SW module.

    I also looked into video cards to possibly upgrade
    enough to run W7 or W8 fairly well and noticed
    that various video cards have DIRECTX 10 or ? in them.

    Apparently this opens the door to having Direct X 10 or 11
    on a Windows XP computer.

    No, it does not.

    The door remains firmly shut on WinXP users.

    They get DirectX 9.0c, as their named standard.

    DirectX 10 and 11 are an architectural change. As to
    which element does what when it comes to graphics. The
    WinXP OS is not prepared for this (and, it was done
    on purpose, just to stick a knife in the ribs of
    WinXP users).

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2116/2

    "Virtual Memory

    Microsoft is taking tighter control of graphics memory
    with it's new driver model, and thus is able to provide
    virtual memory support for the graphics memory subsystem.
    What this means is that games no longer need to worry
    about running out of graphics memory.
    "

    WinXP doesn't know anything about that.


    Why would DIRECTX 9.0 in a vid card work better
    than the DirectX 9.0c software module for a game?

    Is there a lot of other software that runs on WinXP
    but can even use DIRECTX 10 (in video hardware)?

    It's not like these are slow computers where
    software DirectX runs slow or anything...

    Is hardware DIRECTX 10 or 11 fairly common
    for on board video in newer mother boards?

    Enjoy your WinXP. Enjoy your DirectX 9.0c for as long
    as drivers are offered to make it possible with modern
    video cards.

    Once WinXP is off life support, the video card manufacturers
    will not feel inclined to continue DirectX 9.0c support.
    It costs them money to continue to regression test that
    everything still works in WinXP, so the day after WinXP support
    is dropped by Microsoft, ATI and NVidia will be "dancing in
    the streets" as they eject WinXP support from their buildings.

    If you like your old DirectX 9.0c video games, make sure
    you've bought a card (by now) to play them with.

    Paul
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
    * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)
  • From jaejunks@nah.meh@1:124/5013 to All on Fri Jan 4 21:50:00 2019
    Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.PO STED!not-for-mail
    From: JJ <jaejunks@nah.meh>
    Newsgroups: alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Subject: Re: DirectX 9.0c software versus Video HARDWARE DIRECTX 9 or 10+? Followup-To: alt.os.windows-xp
    Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 02:50:00 +0000 (UTC)
    Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
    Lines: 23
    Message-ID: <XnsA13F64C85C2D5jj@0.0.0.55>
    References: <5a5d2214-342b-4c2c-a655-ea2e21bbb34c@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
    <k98e4q$me4$1@dont-email.me> <k98js2$tbv$1@news.mixmin.net> <a203cb57-527f-47bb-98c2-766cfbe70872@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <kc5t6v$bdl$1@dont-email.me>
    Injection-Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 02:50:00 +0000 (UTC)
    Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f8ea35d8958493b8650c0b3ef1b6a34b";
    logging-data="32084"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wZBxVV0zX5l10OQSyc283x5+nayfnEZU="
    User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
    X-Face: \*\`0(1j~VfYC>ebz[&O.]=,Nm\oRM{of,liRO#7Eqi4|!]!(Gs=Akgh{J)605>C9Air?pad{sSZ09u +A7f<^paR"/NH_#<mE1S"hde\c6PZLUB[t/s5-+Iu5DSc?P0+4%,Hl
    Cancel-Lock: sha1:A75cto+2REN2VB4QtVANWjNyz3U=
    Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:4036 alt.os.windows-xp:5441 microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2481 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30929 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:106333

    Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
    DirectX 10 and 11 are an architectural change. As to
    which element does what when it comes to graphics. The
    WinXP OS is not prepared for this (and, it was done
    on purpose, just to stick a knife in the ribs of
    WinXP users).

    Enjoy your WinXP. Enjoy your DirectX 9.0c for as long
    as drivers are offered to make it possible with modern
    video cards.

    Once WinXP is off life support, the video card manufacturers
    will not feel inclined to continue DirectX 9.0c support.
    It costs them money to continue to regression test that
    everything still works in WinXP, so the day after WinXP support
    is dropped by Microsoft, ATI and NVidia will be "dancing in
    the streets" as they eject WinXP support from their buildings.

    If you like your old DirectX 9.0c video games, make sure
    you've bought a card (by now) to play them with.

    Hopefully, VirtualBox can emulate DX9 functions from a DX10+ card. Or,
    can it do it already? I don't have a DX10 card.
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
    * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)
  • From greegor47@gmail.com@1:124/5013 to All on Sun Jan 6 04:04:10 2019
    X-Received: by 10.66.73.194 with SMTP id n2mr316638pav.7.1357463051060;
    Sun, 06 Jan 2013 01:04:11 -0800 (PST)
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Received: by 10.49.58.140 with SMTP id r12mr9824502qeq.35.1357463050990; Sun,
    06 Jan 2013 01:04:10 -0800 (PST)
    Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!fee der.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!b8no14229072pbd.0!news-out.google.com! s9ni85391pbb.0!nntp.google.com!f6no4552303pbd.1!postnews.google.com!s14g2000yqg .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 01:04:10 -0800 (PST)
    Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
    Injection-Info: s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.189.229.221; posting-account=5SXNEQkAAAC6SFadCHPE9O-jLMHq7h-Y
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.189.229.221
    References: <5a5d2214-342b-4c2c-a655-ea2e21bbb34c@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
    <k98e4q$me4$1@dont-email.me> <k98js2$tbv$1@news.mixmin.net>
    <a203cb57-527f-47bb-98c2-766cfbe70872@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
    <kc5t6v$bdl$1@dont-email.me> <XnsA13F64C85C2D5jj@0.0.0.55>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
    Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152;
    .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
    Message-ID: <9a872716-2622-4b52-9850-43a14c00b4ab@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> Subject: DirectX 9.0c software versus Video HARDWARE DIRECTX 9 or 10+?
    From: Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
    Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:04:11 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:4038 alt.os.windows-xp:5447 microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2482 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30930 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:106363

    http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/NOTEBOOK/GRAPHICS/ATI-MOBILITY-HD-5400/Pages/hd- 5450-specs.aspx

    This DIRECTX 11 card has DRIVERS for WinXP and W7.

    If the DIRECTX 11 hardware and firmware can't
    be used in WinXP then what does the driver
    do with it?

    Would a game application actually prefer
    DIRECTX 9 hardware/firmware to the
    DirectX 9.0c software module?

    I see a card that has shaders and stuff for DIRECTX9.
    Would the DirectX 9.0c software module USE that stuff?

    http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/other/Pages/x1300-specification s.aspx

    I found when studying upgrade options that
    back when the upper CPU chips were $500
    or $600 each, upgrading seemed less worthwhile
    but now those same chips are $10 to $30
    like the high end ones with hw Virtualization.

    When a CPU that used to go for $600 sells
    for $30, upgrading isn't so far fetched.
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
    * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)
  • From nospam@needed.com@1:124/5013 to All on Sun Jan 6 05:17:24 2019
    Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.PO STED!not-for-mail
    From: Paul <nospam@needed.com>
    Newsgroups: alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Subject: Re: DirectX 9.0c software versus Video HARDWARE DIRECTX 9 or 10+? Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:17:23 -0500
    Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
    Lines: 71
    Message-ID: <kcbivh$sv7$1@dont-email.me>
    References: <5a5d2214-342b-4c2c-a655-ea2e21bbb34c@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
    <k98e4q$me4$1@dont-email.me> <k98js2$tbv$1@news.mixmin.net> <a203cb57-527f-47bb-98c2-766cfbe70872@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <kc5t6v$bdl$1@dont-email.me> <XnsA13F64C85C2D5jj@0.0.0.55> <9a872716-2622-4b52-9850-43a14c00b4ab@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Injection-Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 10:17:21 +0000 (UTC)
    Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6feb1f416e69bebb8386f4f952c275a8";
    logging-data="29671"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VhfU3FF8L7td270u5SBbPk/MKXip9RPc="
    User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
    In-Reply-To: <9a872716-2622-4b52-9850-43a14c00b4ab@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:6YnTCoxHRodDLbHh68FeiQtmWnM=
    Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:4039 alt.os.windows-xp:5448 microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2483 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30931 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:106364

    Greegor wrote:

    http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/NOTEBOOK/GRAPHICS/ATI-MOBILITY-HD-5400/Pages/hd- 5450-specs.aspx

    This DIRECTX 11 card has DRIVERS for WinXP and W7.

    If the DIRECTX 11 hardware and firmware can't
    be used in WinXP then what does the driver
    do with it?

    Would a game application actually prefer
    DIRECTX 9 hardware/firmware to the
    DirectX 9.0c software module?

    I see a card that has shaders and stuff for DIRECTX9.
    Would the DirectX 9.0c software module USE that stuff?


    http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/other/Pages/x1300-specification s.aspx

    I found when studying upgrade options that
    back when the upper CPU chips were $500
    or $600 each, upgrading seemed less worthwhile
    but now those same chips are $10 to $30
    like the high end ones with hw Virtualization.

    When a CPU that used to go for $600 sells
    for $30, upgrading isn't so far fetched.

    "Certified drivers for Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP"

    Presumably, not the same driver. The driver would work with
    things usable by the target OS.

    If it didn't support DirectX 9, there'd be no point listing
    a Windows XP driver.

    Using another card as an example...

    http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-press-release-2009sep22.aspx

    "superior performance in the latest DirectX 11 games, as well as in
    DirectX 9, DirectX 10, DirectX 10.1 and OpenGL titles"

    I don't know if I can come up with a search term specific
    enough to find a table with that information in it.

    WinXP uses an XDDM driver, while the later OSes have some
    flavor of WDDM driver.

    Notice they do mention backward compatibility so that
    WDDM can support older titles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WDDM

    "The WDDM specification requires at least Direct3D 9-capable video card
    and the display driver must implement the device driver interfaces for
    the Direct3D 9Ex runtime in order to run legacy Direct3D applications;
    it may optionally implement runtime interfaces for Direct3D 10/10.1
    and higher."

    But the driver for WinXP would be XDDM. It means it is quite possible
    the hardware has to support more than one variation in its interface.
    It also means, you could run into a video device, that no longer
    has support for XDDM. While WDDM has some backward compatibility
    defined for it, there's nothing to say ATI/NVidia have to support
    XDDM forever on new designs. They could drop it at any time,
    simultaneous with stopping WinXP driver support.

    (Ref here) http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/E/7/7E7662CF-CBEA-470B-A97E-CE7CE0D98D C2/GraphicsGuideWin7.docx

    Paul
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
    * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)
  • From greegor47@gmail.com@1:124/5013 to All on Mon Jan 7 01:32:08 2019
    X-Received: by 10.66.85.168 with SMTP id i8mr10600497paz.21.1357540327555;
    Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:32:07 -0800 (PST)
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Received: by 10.49.38.194 with SMTP id i2mr10125456qek.30.1357540327237; Sun,
    06 Jan 2013 22:32:07 -0800 (PST)
    Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!fee der.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!b8no4711921pbd.0!news-out.google.com!s 9ni88763pbb.0!nntp.google.com!b8no4711916pbd.0!postnews.google.com!z8g2000yqo.g ooglegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 22:32:07 -0800 (PST)
    Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
    Injection-Info: z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.189.229.221; posting-account=5SXNEQkAAAC6SFadCHPE9O-jLMHq7h-Y
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.189.229.221
    References: <5a5d2214-342b-4c2c-a655-ea2e21bbb34c@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
    <k98e4q$me4$1@dont-email.me> <k98js2$tbv$1@news.mixmin.net>
    <a203cb57-527f-47bb-98c2-766cfbe70872@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
    <kc5t6v$bdl$1@dont-email.me> <XnsA13F64C85C2D5jj@0.0.0.55>
    <9a872716-2622-4b52-9850-43a14c00b4ab@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <kcbivh$sv7$1@dont-email.me>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
    Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152;
    .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
    Message-ID: <e76f0280-430f-4ca3-9060-84143a0f0020@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> Subject: DirectX 9.0c software versus Video HARDWARE DIRECTX 9 or 10+?
    From: Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
    Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 06:32:07 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:4040 alt.os.windows-xp:5449 microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2484 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30932 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:106370

    While WDDM has some backward compatibility
    defined for it, there's nothing to say ATI/NVidia have to support
    XDDM forever on new designs. They could drop it at any time,
    simultaneous with stopping WinXP driver support.

    If they want to abandon the population of XP users, then
    used hardware and support archives would take up the slack.

    Durable goods like computers should not be obsoleted and
    scrapped/landfilled because they're 3 years old, or because
    a big OS vendor wants to DRIVE obsolescence of hardware
    without regard to speed benchmarks.
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
    * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)