Windows 7 general support drop & no DirectX12

Robert ninja

Anyone else upset about this?

I read that general support will be gone in 6 months but vital security updates and hotfixes will continue to 2020. Doesn't this make W7 crap for gaming builds? I'm hella disappointed it's not getting DX12.

So much for all MC's talk about supporting PC as a gaming platform but I never believed that anyway.

gizmo

I wasn't aware they made an announcement either way on whether DX12 will be supported in Windows 7?

Robert ninja

I just read it here

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/10181/20140711/first-xp-now-windows-reveals-7-support-lifeline.htm
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2452702/dont-panic-yes-windows-7-is-leaving-mainstream-support-but-it-isnt-being-abandoned.html

I noticed the lack of threads about it on other boards... so maybe I'm not reading from credible sources? The general support drop is official, though... and that usually means no new products (like DX12) which come out just about the same time as general support drop of W7... at least from what I've read so far.

gizmo

Robert ninja wrote: »

I just read it here

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/10181/20140711/first-xp-now-windows-reveals-7-support-lifeline.htm
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2452702/dont-panic-yes-windows-7-is-leaving-mainstream-support-but-it-isnt-being-abandoned.html

I noticed the lack of threads about it on other boards... so maybe I'm not reading from credible sources? The general support drop is official, though... and that usually means no new products (like DX12) which come out just about the same time as general support drop of W7... at least from what I've read so far.

Yea the first article just pulls the comment out of mid-air whereas at least the latter makes the same perfectly reasonable supposition as you, that Win7 entering its extended life period and not getting any new features will mean no DX12 on the platform.

Personally I think an even clearer indicator of it not being included is the fact that the full functionality of DX11.1 was only made available in Windows 8. Granted the parts that were missing weren't noticeable to non-developers but regardless, it still doesn't bode particularly well.

Falthyron

Not a big deal to be honest. We have yet to see what DX12 can do and considering Microsoft's troubles with the Xbox One, it is pretty obvious all of their efforts will be put on improving that service before they go near PC gaming. I use Windows 7 and I won't be touching Windows 8/8.1. I am willing to give Windows 9 a chance though (the Alternating-Windows Rule) when it comes out.

There has to be reasons for developers to use DX12 (these reasons being technological and financial). Can't see Microsoft incentivising DX12 to push games on a platform they themselves are struggling to improve. Maybe for the push to Win9, but that's a long way off.

gizmo

It's also worth bearing in mind that Windows 9 is being slated for launch sometime around Q2/Q3 next year and DirectX 12 still doesn't have a release date outside of a vague 2015. At that rate I'd be amazed if we saw Win7 included in the latter's supported platforms.

Shiminay

Made the upgrade to Win 8 cause people were reporting better frame rates in BF4 and I definitely don't regret it (once you install Classic Shell to make it work like a desktop and not a tablet). I had no issue with 7, was a solid platform and 8 continues to be too. I'm curious about what DX 12 will offer, but I think they're not doing themselves any favours if they're saying it's not happening for Win 7 at all - I'm sure whilst people would bitch about it, a delayed release for Win 7 might be a better solution.

They never released DX10 for XP either. Same thing really.

lmimmfn

dont see the issue and even if DX12 was released tomorrow it would be 1-2 years before games would use it unless M$ forces/incentivises devs to use it to improve performance on the Xbone

Falthyron

Shiminay wrote: »

Made the upgrade to Win 8 cause people were reporting better frame rates in BF4 and I definitely don't regret it (once you install Classic Shell to make it work like a desktop and not a tablet). I had no issue with 7, was a solid platform and 8 continues to be too. I'm curious about what DX 12 will offer, but I think they're not doing themselves any favours if they're saying it's not happening for Win 7 at all - I'm sure whilst people would bitch about it, a delayed release for Win 7 might be a better solution.

Would you say you experienced a performance increase in all games, or just BF4? Just curious to know!

ShadowHearth

I will use 7 until I can. I wont be spending 100eu on win8 now when Win9 is coming out next year.

I know Win 8 fixed a lot of **** it had on launch, but I am still perfectly happy with 7.

Shiminay

Falthyron wrote: »

Would you say you experienced a performance increase in all games, or just BF4? Just curious to know!

I can't give a fair answer as I also upgraded to an SSD when I switched over. Cannot recommend an SSD enough if you don't already have one - everything became better.

Falthyron

Shiminay wrote: »

I can't give a fair answer as I also upgraded to an SSD when I switched over. Cannot recommend an SSD enough if you don't already have one - everything became better.

I am still using 2x 1TB WD Black Drives on RAID0 and I have a Corsair 120gb SSD doing all the OS work. Haven't transitioned to using a SSD for gaming just yet... Maybe for Xmas 2014 the girlfriend might get me one!

Shiminay

I got a 480GB Corsair M500 for €200 delivered, so they're definitely more affordable now.

Overheal

Totally par for the course. I don't pretend to know the technical reasons why but presumably its something about deep level OS stuff and having to support it that stops them from supporting older OSs on newer DirectX releases. As mentioned earlier XP didn't get dx10 and Vista only just barely got dx11, in reality. Windows 7 is reaching 2 years since it fell off the shelf

lmimmfn

Overheal wrote: »

Totally par for the course. I don't pretend to know the technical reasons why but presumably its something about deep level OS stuff and having to support it that stops them from supporting older OSs on newer DirectX releases. As mentioned earlier XP didn't get dx10 and Vista only just barely got dx11, in reality. Windows 7 is reaching 2 years since it fell off the shelf

nah its a sales gimmick, DX releases are just interface updates, they could have had DX10 on XP but used the excuse that they removed gfx card drivers from occupying the kernal/HAL. That was nonsense its just an sdk and you write towards the interface( removal of gfx card drivers had nothing to do with DX itself ).
Would have ment a different implementation on XP of course, so they decided against it and its another way to try and get people to buy their new OS.

DX10 took ages for devs to use, then it was superceeded by 10.1 which AMD only supported and provided a big performance improvement and most games that did use it removed it due to Nvidia deals( HAWK or HAWX2 being one of the main offenders ).
DX11 brought nothing noticable to the table. Witcher 2( DX9 ) looks better than most DX11 games.

Big shift due in the PC market, hopefully finally gaming will move to linux. M$ deserves it with their conflict of interest in consoles.

gizmo

lmimmfn wrote: »

nah its a sales gimmick, DX releases are just interface updates, they could have had DX10 on XP but used the excuse that they removed gfx card drivers from occupying the kernal/HAL. That was nonsense its just an sdk and you write towards the interface( removal of gfx card drivers had nothing to do with DX itself ).
Would have ment a different implementation on XP of course, so they decided against it and its another way to try and get people to buy their new OS.

For a company which has been constantly hamstrung by the need for legacy support across their product range, it's hard to really blame them for not going ahead with an XP implementation. Hell, had Halo 2 not been released exclusively for DX10 and, as a result, Vista, I don't think many would have even cared in the end.

lmimmfn wrote: »

DX10 took ages for devs to use, then it was superceeded by 10.1 which AMD only supported and provided a big performance improvement and most games that did use it removed it due to Nvidia deals( HAWK or HAWX2 being one of the main offenders ).

It took them ages to use because it required a completely separate render path to DX9 and since the consoles were still primarily DX9 based with some DX10 niceties on top, there was very little incentive to go in that direction.

lmimmfn wrote: »

DX11 brought nothing noticable to the table.
Witcher 2( DX9 ) looks better than most DX11 games.

Feature wise? Wrong. However, as with DX10, with the consoles still stuck in DX9 land, PC users saw very few of the benefits since launch.

As for The Witcher 2, support for higher levels of DX mean very little unless you're making proper use of the feature set. With the work they've done rewriting their renderer for DX11 in The Witcher 3, the jump in graphical fidelity is already pretty clear to see.

lmimmfn

gizmo wrote: »

For a company which has been constantly hamstrung by the need for legacy support across their product range, it's hard to really blame them for not going ahead with an XP implementation. Hell, had Halo 2 not been released exclusively for DX10 and, as a result, Vista, I don't think many would have even cared in the end.

Linux has no problem with legacy support and i think youre really overestimating Halo 2 on PC and its impact. I cared, i had to go out and buy a POS OS even when i knew it was a POS. wont be making that mistake again.

gizmo wrote: »

It took them ages to use because it required a completely separate render path to DX9 and since the consoles were still primarily DX9 based with some DX10 niceties on top, there was very little incentive to go in that direction.

exactly, PS3 was a customised openGL version, only the xbox and PC shared DX, so xbox holding PC back. My point was and is DX12 wont be adopted for ages.

gizmo wrote: »

Feature wise? Wrong.

no, not feature wise( because i has features ), visual fidelity wise, its an improvement but wouldnt make me spend 70-100euro on an OS for it even if i was running a 500euro GPU. It brought nothing, it was supposed to improve cpu/gpu performance but failed miserably.

The sooner M$ dies in PC gaming the better, and take that POS GFWL with it finally.

gizmo

lmimmfn wrote: »

Linux has no problem with legacy support and i think youre really overestimating Halo 2 on PC and its impact. I cared, i had to go out and buy a POS OS even when i knew it was a POS. wont be making that mistake again.

That's because Linux doesn't have the catalogue of software or services that Microsoft needs to continue to support, on top of the fact that its continued existence is not dependent on selling new software.

As for Halo 2, I wouldn't consider it an over-estimation given the column inches across various tech and gaming news sites it received at the time, the outrage from gamers and the fact that some folk even went out and changed OSes so they could play it. In the grand scheme of things it was only one game but it was still Halo and served as a focal point for criticism of MS' efforts to get gamers to upgrade to Vista. Conversely no one gave a **** about their attempt at Shadowrun.

lmimmfn wrote: »

exactly, PS3 was a customised openGL version, only the xbox and PC shared DX, so xbox holding PC back. My point was and is DX12 wont be adopted for ages.

Using that logic you could argue that developers could have just used OpenGL implementations on the PC thus avoiding the feature set limitation of earlier versions of DX on the 360.

DirectX 12 will be an interesting one though because, like with DX9, it will be relatively close to what will be available in the XBox One so, technically speaking, it will be in developers best interests to design their renderers around it. By the time it's released we should also be past the initially cross- generation games hump so no one will be held back by previous gen hardware.

The only thing that would get in the way is if DX12 is tied to Win7 and with it still having over 50% of the market share in the gaming space (at least according to the last Steam summary) I can see some developers/publishers reluctant to limit their potential sales base.

lmimmfn wrote: »

no, not feature wise( because i has features ), visual fidelity wise, its an improvement but wouldnt make me spend 70-100euro on an OS for it even if i was running a 500euro GPU. It brought nothing, it was supposed to improve cpu/gpu performance but failed miserably.

Again, this is incorrect. Just because developers chose not to use the new features which could have improved graphical fidelity doesn't mean they didn't exist. As most PC gamers are quite aware, the last generation of engines didn't exactly utilise multi-core setups properly, yet one of the biggest changes in D3D11 was the improvements on the multi-threaded rendering side that went nearly completely unused on the PC. On top of that we had Shader Model changes and new support for hardware accelerated Tessellation however as already stated, the lack of support of these on older hardware and consoles meant we never really saw them used.

Mr. CooL ICE

Betcha they will release Halo 3 for Windows 9 and expect to have us by the balls.

gizmo

LordChessington wrote: »

Betcha they will release Halo 3 for Windows 9 and expect to have us by the balls.

Well there's always the possible port of the Master Chief Collection. :pac:

Nody

gizmo wrote: »

The only thing that would get in the way is if DX12 is tied to Win7 and with it still having over 50% of the market share in the gaming space (at least according to the last Steam summary) I can see some developers/publishers reluctant to limit their potential sales base.

If Win 7 don't get DX12 I'd not expect any relevant DX12 features (beyond MS paid games) to include them in any noticeable way. It's the same reason why a new DX don't really bother me because even if they make Win8 or higher so many people will not upgrade and as you note the game developers will not want to limit their sales so it will only matter by mid next gen on my PC (when we're talking about DX15 being rolled out)...

jumbobreakfast

This will determine what platform developers will focus on: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=pc

windows 7 is most popular by far at 52% (actually ~65% if you include Win 7 32bit)

Overheal

True, nothing will change from trends seen from XP. Same thing: XP capped to Dx9, to perpetuate the retirement of the OS. That didn't happen.. Expect Windows 7 to go bit more gracefully than XP did, but not by much. That will be assisted more now because now it's just the last few companies that are migrating off of legacy 32-bit software (and even last year I still had customers seeking 32 bit OSs because either thats what they were told they needed or there was "a genuine reason" for it, as told by their software people, for whatever home-baked APIs they were doing to conduct business)

Cutting Nokia and 18k jobs http://news.msn.com/science-technology/microsoft-to-cut-18000-jobs-this-year-as-it-chops-nokia Hopefully in their new business plan future they ensure a more seamless change from 7->9 than XP to 7 was, which would greatly help them with the company's upgrade issue; not just a question of 'progress' but of them being able to sell more OSs because people are actually inclined to switch. Tell someone they have to format their infrastructure to get from XP to 7 and they will be resistant you know?