Filed under: Games, Video, Features, Microsoft
Windows 7 and DirectX 11 - not just good news for gamers!
Let me begin with some common knowledge to put us on some common ground. Vista sucks. By association, DirectX10 sucks. In fact, you might not even know what DirectX is -- and you would be forgiven!
DirectX is the piece of software that sits between your computer, and your video games. If you don't play games, you won't have heard of it. When you play a game on your PC it goes through DirectX. And until now, that's all DirectX did.
It's true: DirectX 10 premiered some nice new technologies. But because they were only available on Vista, which as we all know sucked more than a Hoover with a fresh, high-suction bag, DirectX 11 will be the first time most of us get to experience these new, funky technologies.
The buzz surrounding Windows 7 is vital, both to shift new computers and to encourage multimedia developers to produce new new games, or in some cases to ensure new software revisions are churned out (I'm looking at you, Adobe... give us CS5 already!) In fact, things have been so bad, so stagnant under the flatulent reign of Vista and DX10, that Apple users have been seriously considering the possibility that they're the leading multimedia platform.
Of course that's about as likely as Jobs beating Ballmer in a no-holds-barred mudwrestling match to the death (for those pondering the outcome of this rather nasty mental image, the brick-like bludgeoning qualities of the Xbox are far superior to the iPhone's sleek curves -- Ballmer would win, easily). No, Windows and DirectX were merely resting! Taking a break! Definitely, certifiably not dead. With the release of Windows 7 and DirectX 11 gamers and power users finally have a reason to upgrade from XP and DX9! And those of you that upgraded to the worst operating system since Windows Me -- Vista, you poor sods -- why not come along for the ride too?
As I alluded to earlier, it's not just gamers that gain from DirectX11 and Windows 7. With the inclusion of DirectCompute -- a shiny new technology -- applications will be able to utilise your graphics card's spare processing power for purposes other than gaming. Your graphics card, so often left idling, ticking-over during every-day use, will effectively turbo-charge your computer. Instead of your CPU handling all of the new-and-glossy bits of Windows 7, or slowing down to a standstill while you encode your hilarious lolcat videos for the delectation of your five adoring YouTube fans, your GPU (graphics processor) will kick into action and take on the bulk of the work. Neat.
But to finish off, for the real gamers out there -- because I know you're there in the wings, watching, waiting for Modern Warfare 2 -- check out this six-screened, 25-million-pixel, DirectX 11-powered, Windows 7-enabled geekgasm of a gaming setup, as originally covered by Anandtech.
Of course that's about as likely as Jobs beating Ballmer in a no-holds-barred mudwrestling match to the death (for those pondering the outcome of this rather nasty mental image, the brick-like bludgeoning qualities of the Xbox are far superior to the iPhone's sleek curves -- Ballmer would win, easily). No, Windows and DirectX were merely resting! Taking a break! Definitely, certifiably not dead. With the release of Windows 7 and DirectX 11 gamers and power users finally have a reason to upgrade from XP and DX9! And those of you that upgraded to the worst operating system since Windows Me -- Vista, you poor sods -- why not come along for the ride too?
As I alluded to earlier, it's not just gamers that gain from DirectX11 and Windows 7. With the inclusion of DirectCompute -- a shiny new technology -- applications will be able to utilise your graphics card's spare processing power for purposes other than gaming. Your graphics card, so often left idling, ticking-over during every-day use, will effectively turbo-charge your computer. Instead of your CPU handling all of the new-and-glossy bits of Windows 7, or slowing down to a standstill while you encode your hilarious lolcat videos for the delectation of your five adoring YouTube fans, your GPU (graphics processor) will kick into action and take on the bulk of the work. Neat.
But to finish off, for the real gamers out there -- because I know you're there in the wings, watching, waiting for Modern Warfare 2 -- check out this six-screened, 25-million-pixel, DirectX 11-powered, Windows 7-enabled geekgasm of a gaming setup, as originally covered by Anandtech.
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Neoprimal said 2:30PM on 10-23-2009
If Vista sucks that badly then you suck even more....like, a brand new Dyson.
Honestly, when will bloggers kick the "Vista sucks" thing? Vista was a memory hog, that's it! And this was somewhat alleviated with SP1. People with more than 2GB of RAM had way less issues than people who didn't.
And for the record, DX10 wasn't horrible either, but game devs can't make DX10 only games because that risks alienating all the people on XP so they made mostly DX9 stuff. MMORPGs are also guilty of maintaining compatibility over making their product look or perform better so no one really took advantage apart from the games that are demanding from the get go like Crysis and other FPSs. We'll see a lot more from DX11 not because it kicks so much more ass than DX10 but because 7 is way less demanding and more people will be moving from XP to 7.....
Reply
Sebastian Anthony said 2:52PM on 10-23-2009
Hm, DX10 was only available on Vista, which is probably what hindered its adoption as a serious game-development platform.
I think Vista just mixed things up a little too much. People knew where they were with XP, and Vista introduced a lot of technology (and caveats) that a lot of people didn't (seem) to want.
Vista was certainly 'OK' for gaming, but was it better than XP? Surely you know that for gaming it's all about the tiny differences -- about getting the EDGE!
The tiniest discrepancy/flaw/memory leak can cause uptake to be abandoned by the masses. Sadly, Vista had a few discrepancies!
Neoprimal said 4:15PM on 10-23-2009
I agree with you Sebastian, but people tend to forget that the OS is not like a car. New car with better engine = faster, however, New OS with new more demanding software on new hardware is actually generally slower. This is a case where external forces are interacting with the hardware and the core software. Programs written primarily for vista and 7, which want to use upwards of 2GB of RAM probably operate better on these systems than on XP. This is just how the software world works. XP was written for a specific era of hardware...new hardware is going to rock it, obviously.
7 has somewhat changed this, but I assure you that, say, a C2Q with 4GB of RAM is going to perform better in XP than Vista or 7, which is why gaming ruled on XP vs. Vista. Vista, unlike 7 however, has extra resource overheads that made it even slower than 7 when running programs and games.
Ultimately, there's a turning point where newer tech converges with the software built into the OS to take advantage of speed and power within it.
For example, currently I7 cpus run 7 MUCH faster than XP because of the technology built into the CPU and Bios of motherboards that accept this CPU.
And you're right again, Vista had issues - but having issues is a little different than just declaring Vista to be a dud or "to suck like a Hoover with a new bag".
Sebastian Anthony said 4:37PM on 10-23-2009
Hm, I did use some fairly harsh wording -- but perhaps that's my gamer background coming out.
For gaming, there isn't really any borderline stuff -- it's either the best, or not the best.
Ergo, Vista sucked compared to XP! I'm sure Vista had plenty of situations where it didn't suck -- merely performed less-well -- but that would be a different entry entirely :)
andjohn said 12:54AM on 10-25-2009
Don't be hypocrite. Vista is really suck.
Under the exact same hardware (regardless mid or high specs), Vista's graphics performance is always slower than XP
During 3D benchmark (3DMark03/05/06), my 4GB RAM (c2d, 8800gtx) always get smaller fps on Vista compared to XP.
If XP could support DX10, I believed the 3D Vantage would have higher fps than that crap Vista
mko said 2:53PM on 10-23-2009
Idea for getting a new OS for new DirectX sucks.
Especially since you can't make a in-place upgrade from XP.2
Reply
Sebastian Anthony said 2:58PM on 10-23-2009
If you're a gamer, seeking DX11, dual-boot is still an option (and the Win7 installer makes it very easy -- I think it's automatic even).
Also, a fresh install is never a bad thing, if you're seeking optimum performance for games (or 'poweruser' applications like Photoshop.)
The Windows 7 install is pretty quick, incidentally!
mko said 4:01PM on 10-23-2009
I tried Windows 7 installation.
Installer said my 14 gb disk space (I did not felt like formatting 300gb partition) was bellow recommended space so I aborted.
Also I hate automatic installers. But I believe there is a advanced user button somewhere
acme said 4:43PM on 10-23-2009
No self respecting power user would upgrade anyway, clean install is the only way to do it
Sebastian Anthony said 4:47PM on 10-23-2009
*salute*
Tech-Mike said 4:16PM on 10-23-2009
Vista did/does suck for gaming....it was slower and even crashed out of Crysis and Need For Speed Carbon / Undercover whereas XP Pro Sp3 did not...same machine : AMD x64 Dual 5000+ , 4GB RAM , nVidia 8800 GT , 500w PS.
Reply
Zachary Waldowski said 4:35PM on 10-23-2009
I love Windows 7; I use it solely for playing games on my unibody MacBook Pro... however, I think the author forgets the bludgeoning power of a computer made out of metal.
Reply
Sebastian Anthony said 4:46PM on 10-23-2009
I used to break Mac Airs with just my forehead! Haiii-YAH!
Fred said 10:53PM on 10-23-2009
Just an fyi, Eyefinity is not a Windows 7 or DX11 tech. It's based on ATi's new 5000 series cards...
Reply
Sebastian Anthony said 10:58PM on 10-23-2009
Correct, but I think all the examples have been on Windows 7 systems -- at least the screenshots would suggest those 6-screen setups are being configured on Windows 7.
Will Eyefinity work on XP and DX9 then?
Fred said 5:23PM on 10-24-2009
No. Here is a link to the Eyefinity info, direct from ATi:
http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI1NDE2Nzk2NjBpOFVuVWt6c0RfMV81X2wuanBn
Requires Vista, Win 7 and eventually linux.
Wes said 3:25PM on 10-25-2009
I can't take you seriously as a writer when you write such blatant fallacies such as these:
"Vista sucks. By association, DirectX10 sucks."
On what marking scale does Vista suck? In my personal experience (playing media, social networking, programming, gaming, et cetera) I've found that Vista has performed beautifully, and it was a much more intelligent Operating System than XP. As an added bonus, the x64 version of Vista wasn't hacked together like it was for XP, so I could use all my RAM.
"If you don't play games, you won't have heard of [DirectX]."
Anyone who understands computers even a little bit will know about DirectX, and it is certainly used for more than gaming.
"In fact, things have been so bad, so stagnant under the flatulent reign of Vista and DX10, that Apple users have been seriously considering the possibility that they're the leading multimedia platform."
That's quite the statement to make, and I'd certainly like to see where you got this information from.
Reply
Sebastian Anthony said 3:37PM on 10-25-2009
Thanks for the response!
Ask your mother or your father if they've heard of DirectX. Or your grandparents. Or a guy or girl that works with a word-processor for 9 hours a day -- ask them if they know what DirectX does.
This isn't a site for hardcore gamers or gadgeteers -- there are other sites, if you want that kind of thing.
Wes said 8:21PM on 10-25-2009
No, my mother would not have heard of DirectX, but then again she doesn't know a thing about computers. Now just because this site isn't for hardcore gamers doesn't mean that you are able to spread false truths in your articles.
Reply
Sebastian Anthony said 8:24PM on 10-25-2009
Come on, you can't call it false if you can't provide a valid counter-claim.
When have you EVER heard DirectX advertised beyond game box art?
I mean, even 'acceleration' for things like Photoshop/Flash is relatively new (and even then, it uses OpenGL and not DirectX?)
There is a shockingly small number of 3D applications outside of the game genre -- and even the few 3D bits that aren't games that... most of those don't even use DirectX (OpenGL/SDL are easier (maybe?))