anyone notice that Vista is actually snappier in opening apps and responds faster after this update? I was really suprised but its definetily welcome! Kudos to MS for this.:)
there were some rummors that this "platform update" contains another things, and not only DX11. but I did not notice any performance difference (c2duo 3.1ghz with 3GB of RAM and R3850 512mb).
Good that you've done coverage of this. It seems that the release of the Platform Update went mostly unannounced and not many news sites seem to have picked up on it.
A lot of people mistakenly think that DirectX 11 is only for Windows 7.
It's good that you're showing that it works just fine on Vista, and more importantly: that there's not really a performance difference between Vista and Windows 7 either (well, on my PC there is, but I have a 320 mb videocard, I think Windows 7 just saves a bit more memory. Probably doesn't matter with a 1 GB videocard).
With DirectX 11 available on Vista, I can now ditch my DirectX 10 code altogether. DirectX 11 runs on all hardware and all OSes that DirectX 10 does, and more. It also supports DirectX 9 hardware now (and the update also makes DX9 hardware available in DirectX 10, but what's the point? You need to rewrite your application to use it anyway, might aswell use DirectX 11). So I'm now down from supporting 3 APIs to only two: D3D9 and D3D11. D3D9 is just there for XP support now. With a bit of luck, Windows 7 will make XP nothing but a bad memory soon, and I can finally go back to supporting 1 API (and you can still run on the same hardware as XP does, a Pentium 4 or Athlon with an SM2.0 or SM3.0 videocard works fine with Windows 7 and DirectX 11).
Those who currently use Vista and aren't fooled into believing 7 is better. There's mostly useless UI tweaks in 7 which can be an annoyance for those who are use to XP/Vista. The only people 'selling' 7 are those who get kickbacks from Microsoft. Both Vista and 7 suck, but if you're still using Vista there's no point in making M$ richer by paying twice for the same lousy OS. Go get Windowblinds 7 for Vista instead of funding Billy's pension.
XP compatibility mode is a waste anyway, I use VirtualPC for that.
Win7 in my experience is too buggy still (does not know when to open start menu submenus, randomly opens on mouse hover, randomly on mouse click) and has almost no differences architecturally from Vista + DX11, and I don't care about its OS X Dock ripoff, if I wanted that I'd get a Mac a long time ago.
My Vista Ultimate x64 will serve for many years to come, I'm not going to use my Win7 Pro licence I got for cheap for a couple of years if not more.
mejobloggs is right, it's a waste of money to get Win7 if you have decent bug-free pretty well working Vista rig. I've got mine because I got huge corporate discount for my preorder, but I won't use it anyway, maybe in 2013 or so... or I'll skip to Win8 and sell my unused Win7 license then, hehe :P
XP mode IS virtualPC, nutsack! But you wont have to use your (or buy a new) XP license for the extra bucks you spend on pro/ultimate edition. And you cant have this nifty seamless mode with just a XP in a virtualPC - only the XP mode does this.
XP-Mode is NOT virtual PC. Is a lightweight version of virtual PC. It will allow to use XP apps like it was 7 apps, but not to launch the XP OS in a window like the full Virtual PC does. It really brings down the need to do maintenance on another windows, but also will not allow any customization or tests. For instance, you can install and run really old apps or games in a Virtual PC, but will not be able to do so in XP-Mode. They are not the same thing, and many advanced users must be aware of this. XP-Mode is there to satisfy enterprise users.
FYIO, I use VMWare to run a bunch of virtual machines, from win2k to linux, and would never run XP-Mode to anything.
(in advance: I'm posting this just to talk about XP-mode, I'm not blaming anyone here, so please be polite if you decide to answer.)
It sounds to me like you haven't actually used XP Mode for yourself.
No offense, but please speak from your own experiences rather than second-hand information. Otherwise, it just sounds like you're "talking out of your ass."
You CAN run the XP OS in a window like the full Virtual PC.
In fact, XP Mode = Virtual PC + Integration.
I run Visual Studio 2008, Office 2003, and NetMeeting from the XP OS ITSELF in the guest XP OS. Of course they can also run from the Windows 7 Start Menu under Start -> All Programs -> Windows Virtual PC -> Windows XP Mode Applications -> whatever you have in the Windows XP GUEST'S start menu (for the most part).
However, if you are logged into the XP Guest, and you want to run an XP Mode app from the Windows 7 host, then it will log you out of the XP Mode guest (similar to using Remote Desktop to access a Windows XP PC).
Your talking about the Compatibility Mode then, yes? (Right click an executable, select properties, chose Compatibility tab, pick a historical from Windows 95 up to Vista, etc...) That works OK in Seven.
The XP Mode is pretty sweet too. Compatibility mode is built-in, but XP Mode is not on the Windows 7 disk, you get it here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/downlo...">http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/downlo... as a separate download. XP Mode does require and launch a Virtual PC guest, but you don't have to run the whole desktop, you can run the app by itself! This version even plays nice with USB ports. I believe that apps have to be in the All Users Program Files Startup folder for them be available to run like that. But it's emulating a fairly low end AMD card, so it's not going to run DX11.
My point was that this XP mode is useless for me since I prefer VirtualPC. They are more or less the same, plus/minus cosmetics. Whatever. To each his own ;)
I think its savage to use anything other than Xp in classic mode with themes turned off and every single eye candy feature disabled..
I would still run win2k except a few applications were no longer supported.
My XP setup is lightning on a p3 500 right through to my 2 Core2Duo systems..
Anyone that's ever done true multitasking (3dsmax, UnrealEd, Photoshop, Goldwave, Visual Studio) all running at the same time would appreciate a bare bones setup like this..
I hope you at least use the XP Start menu. People who revert that for no particular reason should be shot. Having quick access to your most used programs eliminates much need for Taskbar space-eating QuickLaunch shortcuts.
The classic start menu is way more functional and concise. Your point about "having quick access to your most used programs" isn't exclusive since you can easily do the same with the classic (it's just that almost everyone lacks the common sense to bring order to their menu).
A downside of the new menu is that you can't expand Control Panel or Network Connections.
You can have virtually the same "most used programs" functionality with the classic menu if you put shortcuts on the first layer, above "Programs". That method lets you control exactly what's there, and they will stay in the same spatial spot.
I always revert to classic start menu :D Not being able to on Server 2008 r2 is a big pet peeve. Considerig going back to Server 2008 original. DX11 and the classic start menu! win
I looked in the link, and this update seems to be the "real" release, because some sites were publishing tweaks to download the beta "platform update" on vista.
Thanks for the link! but this is the redistributable EXE, and contains the DX for several languages. I don't believe it is necessary once you've done a correct update using WindowsUpdate site. And maybe this file also has DX9 for WinXP users inside it, because in the description it says it is for WinXP as well Win7.
I don't think you understand... It's not the same thing.
The redistributable contains all the versioned libraries, like d3dx9_nn.dll, d3dx10_nn.dll, d3dx11_nn.dll etc, with nn being the version number.
The update this blog refers to will just install d3d11.dll and related files, enabling DirectX 11 (which is NOT included with the runtime, else we'd have DX11 on Vista before this update). It doesn't include the runtime as far as I know. So if you had previously installed the runtime, you may have all the latest files for d3d9 and d3d10, but not d3d11 as it wasn't installed on your system yet.
Do you mean the games perform the same under DX10/DX11 under the same settings or do you mean they perform the same with each being set at their highest settings, with DX11 having more eye candy and stuff?
You missed the whole point of the article: They're testing DX11 on Vista. The comparison then is simply DX11 on 7 vs DX11 on Vista, and performance is equal; they also tossed in a DX10 title (Crysis) to ensure no DX10 performance has been lost with the DX11 update.
No, I didn't lose my point. My question concerns whether or not the test setup, specifically the settings were kept the same or not for DX10/DX11 whether that be in Win7/Vista.
When someone says "They're testing DX11 on Vista," what settings are they comparing the DX10 counterpart to? Did any of the DX11 features get turn on and compared? Obviously this would be unfair as DX10 won't have the features.
Your question pointsa to the fact youhave no clue what your talking about..in fact it sounds as if you are trying to sound smart and all when infact the question is at best annoying and at worst ignorant.
Actually after thinking about it, you do seem to have missed the point of the article. They're comparing Vista DX11 against 7 DX11, not Vista DX11 against Vista DX10.
Your question is strange. Why would they test with different parameters? The game parameters are exactly the same under Vista or 7 since both platforms support the exact same DirectX features once Vista is updated to DX11.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
Back to Article
poohbear - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
anyone notice that Vista is actually snappier in opening apps and responds faster after this update? I was really suprised but its definetily welcome! Kudos to MS for this.:)hclarkjr - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
i installed it and did not notice any difference at all. i am running vista ultimate 64 bitmarc1000 - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
there were some rummors that this "platform update" contains another things, and not only DX11. but I did not notice any performance difference (c2duo 3.1ghz with 3GB of RAM and R3850 512mb).Scali - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
Good that you've done coverage of this. It seems that the release of the Platform Update went mostly unannounced and not many news sites seem to have picked up on it.A lot of people mistakenly think that DirectX 11 is only for Windows 7.
It's good that you're showing that it works just fine on Vista, and more importantly: that there's not really a performance difference between Vista and Windows 7 either (well, on my PC there is, but I have a 320 mb videocard, I think Windows 7 just saves a bit more memory. Probably doesn't matter with a 1 GB videocard).
With DirectX 11 available on Vista, I can now ditch my DirectX 10 code altogether. DirectX 11 runs on all hardware and all OSes that DirectX 10 does, and more. It also supports DirectX 9 hardware now (and the update also makes DX9 hardware available in DirectX 10, but what's the point? You need to rewrite your application to use it anyway, might aswell use DirectX 11). So I'm now down from supporting 3 APIs to only two: D3D9 and D3D11. D3D9 is just there for XP support now. With a bit of luck, Windows 7 will make XP nothing but a bad memory soon, and I can finally go back to supporting 1 API (and you can still run on the same hardware as XP does, a Pentium 4 or Athlon with an SM2.0 or SM3.0 videocard works fine with Windows 7 and DirectX 11).
JimmyJimmington - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
People still use Vista?PeZzy - Sunday, December 6, 2009 - link
Those who currently use Vista and aren't fooled into believing 7 is better. There's mostly useless UI tweaks in 7 which can be an annoyance for those who are use to XP/Vista. The only people 'selling' 7 are those who get kickbacks from Microsoft. Both Vista and 7 suck, but if you're still using Vista there's no point in making M$ richer by paying twice for the same lousy OS. Go get Windowblinds 7 for Vista instead of funding Billy's pension.Akumajou - Monday, November 9, 2009 - link
they have not seen the commercials from Apple...I'm sticking to Win XP SP3 custom until I plunge into Windows 7
mejobloggs - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
Why wouldn't you use Vista? As seen in the benchmark, performance is exactly the sameIf you have Vista it's a waste of money going to 7
CZroe - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
As if DX11 performance is the ONLY factor? How about XP compatibility mode?Pirks - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
XP compatibility mode is a waste anyway, I use VirtualPC for that.Win7 in my experience is too buggy still (does not know when to open start menu submenus, randomly opens on mouse hover, randomly on mouse click) and has almost no differences architecturally from Vista + DX11, and I don't care about its OS X Dock ripoff, if I wanted that I'd get a Mac a long time ago.
My Vista Ultimate x64 will serve for many years to come, I'm not going to use my Win7 Pro licence I got for cheap for a couple of years if not more.
mejobloggs is right, it's a waste of money to get Win7 if you have decent bug-free pretty well working Vista rig. I've got mine because I got huge corporate discount for my preorder, but I won't use it anyway, maybe in 2013 or so... or I'll skip to Win8 and sell my unused Win7 license then, hehe :P
Griswold - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
XP mode IS virtualPC, nutsack! But you wont have to use your (or buy a new) XP license for the extra bucks you spend on pro/ultimate edition. And you cant have this nifty seamless mode with just a XP in a virtualPC - only the XP mode does this.Oh, its the clown pirks... why did I bother?
marc1000 - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
XP-Mode is NOT virtual PC. Is a lightweight version of virtual PC. It will allow to use XP apps like it was 7 apps, but not to launch the XP OS in a window like the full Virtual PC does. It really brings down the need to do maintenance on another windows, but also will not allow any customization or tests. For instance, you can install and run really old apps or games in a Virtual PC, but will not be able to do so in XP-Mode. They are not the same thing, and many advanced users must be aware of this. XP-Mode is there to satisfy enterprise users.FYIO, I use VMWare to run a bunch of virtual machines, from win2k to linux, and would never run XP-Mode to anything.
(in advance: I'm posting this just to talk about XP-mode, I'm not blaming anyone here, so please be polite if you decide to answer.)
killerb255 - Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - link
It sounds to me like you haven't actually used XP Mode for yourself.No offense, but please speak from your own experiences rather than second-hand information. Otherwise, it just sounds like you're "talking out of your ass."
You CAN run the XP OS in a window like the full Virtual PC.
In fact, XP Mode = Virtual PC + Integration.
I run Visual Studio 2008, Office 2003, and NetMeeting from the XP OS ITSELF in the guest XP OS. Of course they can also run from the Windows 7 Start Menu under Start -> All Programs -> Windows Virtual PC -> Windows XP Mode Applications -> whatever you have in the Windows XP GUEST'S start menu (for the most part).
However, if you are logged into the XP Guest, and you want to run an XP Mode app from the Windows 7 host, then it will log you out of the XP Mode guest (similar to using Remote Desktop to access a Windows XP PC).
killerb255 - Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - link
My previous post was directed @marc1000, not anyone else.9nails - Sunday, November 1, 2009 - link
Your talking about the Compatibility Mode then, yes? (Right click an executable, select properties, chose Compatibility tab, pick a historical from Windows 95 up to Vista, etc...) That works OK in Seven.The XP Mode is pretty sweet too. Compatibility mode is built-in, but XP Mode is not on the Windows 7 disk, you get it here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/downlo...">http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/downlo... as a separate download. XP Mode does require and launch a Virtual PC guest, but you don't have to run the whole desktop, you can run the app by itself! This version even plays nice with USB ports. I believe that apps have to be in the All Users Program Files Startup folder for them be available to run like that. But it's emulating a fairly low end AMD card, so it's not going to run DX11.
Pirks - Saturday, October 31, 2009 - link
My point was that this XP mode is useless for me since I prefer VirtualPC. They are more or less the same, plus/minus cosmetics. Whatever. To each his own ;)To Grisworld: fuck off dumbo.
Hxx - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
LOL, no everybody on the planet uses 7.Hxx - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
sarcasm aside, 7 is indeed pretty cheap...for students that is... got my copy of 7 full pro for 30 bucks.AnnihilatorX - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
Why does the island country of Great Britain always get ripped off. We pay £30 as students here!MadMan007 - Saturday, October 31, 2009 - link
Someone has to pay for those EU fines.MadMan007 - Saturday, October 31, 2009 - link
Someone has to pay for those EU fines.Zingam - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
Coz you are a rich colonial super power!silverblue - Monday, November 2, 2009 - link
Sure... 100 years ago :)Hxx - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
transfer prices, inflation, currency exchange rates.... many reasons.ElDonPedros - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
I think its savage to use anything other than Xp in classic mode with themes turned off and every single eye candy feature disabled..I would still run win2k except a few applications were no longer supported.
My XP setup is lightning on a p3 500 right through to my 2 Core2Duo systems..
Anyone that's ever done true multitasking (3dsmax, UnrealEd, Photoshop, Goldwave, Visual Studio) all running at the same time would appreciate a bare bones setup like this..
CZroe - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
I hope you at least use the XP Start menu. People who revert that for no particular reason should be shot. Having quick access to your most used programs eliminates much need for Taskbar space-eating QuickLaunch shortcuts.AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, November 1, 2009 - link
The classic start menu is way more functional and concise. Your point about "having quick access to your most used programs" isn't exclusive since you can easily do the same with the classic (it's just that almost everyone lacks the common sense to bring order to their menu).A downside of the new menu is that you can't expand Control Panel or Network Connections.
You can have virtually the same "most used programs" functionality with the classic menu if you put shortcuts on the first layer, above "Programs". That method lets you control exactly what's there, and they will stay in the same spatial spot.
MamiyaOtaru - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
I always revert to classic start menu :D Not being able to on Server 2008 r2 is a big pet peeve. Considerig going back to Server 2008 original. DX11 and the classic start menu! winmarc1000 - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
I looked in the link, and this update seems to be the "real" release, because some sites were publishing tweaks to download the beta "platform update" on vista.I just wanted a confirmation, tough. Thanks.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
Yes, this is the real one. Although it looks to be the same as the last beta from earlier this month.marc1000 - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
Thanks! I already installed it. Quite a small download, compared to previous DirectX installers...Scali - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
It only contains the basic Direct3D11 libraries.It doesn't contain the runtimes.
You may have to reinstall the August 2009 runtime (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa...">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta...-b7b1-44... in order to get all the updates for DirectX 11 (including compiler and all).
marc1000 - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
Thanks for the link! but this is the redistributable EXE, and contains the DX for several languages. I don't believe it is necessary once you've done a correct update using WindowsUpdate site. And maybe this file also has DX9 for WinXP users inside it, because in the description it says it is for WinXP as well Win7.thanks anyway!
Scali - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
I don't think you understand... It's not the same thing.The redistributable contains all the versioned libraries, like d3dx9_nn.dll, d3dx10_nn.dll, d3dx11_nn.dll etc, with nn being the version number.
The update this blog refers to will just install d3d11.dll and related files, enabling DirectX 11 (which is NOT included with the runtime, else we'd have DX11 on Vista before this update). It doesn't include the runtime as far as I know. So if you had previously installed the runtime, you may have all the latest files for d3d9 and d3d10, but not d3d11 as it wasn't installed on your system yet.
The0ne - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
Do you mean the games perform the same under DX10/DX11 under the same settings or do you mean they perform the same with each being set at their highest settings, with DX11 having more eye candy and stuff?johnsonx - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
You missed the whole point of the article: They're testing DX11 on Vista. The comparison then is simply DX11 on 7 vs DX11 on Vista, and performance is equal; they also tossed in a DX10 title (Crysis) to ensure no DX10 performance has been lost with the DX11 update.The0ne - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
No, I didn't lose my point. My question concerns whether or not the test setup, specifically the settings were kept the same or not for DX10/DX11 whether that be in Win7/Vista.When someone says "They're testing DX11 on Vista," what settings are they comparing the DX10 counterpart to? Did any of the DX11 features get turn on and compared? Obviously this would be unfair as DX10 won't have the features.
Just curious that's all.
JEDIYoda - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
Your question pointsa to the fact youhave no clue what your talking about..in fact it sounds as if you are trying to sound smart and all when infact the question is at best annoying and at worst ignorant.The0ne - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link
I said sorry nerd boy lmao can't appreciate that eh...ayqazi - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
Do not feed the troll.AznBoi36 - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
It's an apples to apples comparison of DX11 on Vista vs W7. So far no performance difference.The0ne - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
Oh, I did misread the post. Sorry for the mistake lol.ZoZo - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
Actually after thinking about it, you do seem to have missed the point of the article. They're comparing Vista DX11 against 7 DX11, not Vista DX11 against Vista DX10.ZoZo - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
Your question is strange. Why would they test with different parameters? The game parameters are exactly the same under Vista or 7 since both platforms support the exact same DirectX features once Vista is updated to DX11.