Why is it taking MS so damn long to get DX9c out the door?

[Guden Oden]

A: why does it have to take "months" to get it released, and B: why the hell isn't it out ALREADY?

MS couldn't get a piece of software out on time if their survival depended on it. XP SP2 is what, six months plus delayed? Longhorn is already YEARS behind schedule (even though it will be mutilated to stop it from being even later), hell, even XP for AMD64 is totally super-late despite it doesn't really need much except a recompile. What the F**K is going on in that company??? Why can't they bloody get anything DONE???

Is it just because they're the dominant force and have become indisposable to this industry that allows them to show this level of incompetence, or what's wrong? It's not as if they lack either programmers or R&D budgets or anything.

 

[IgnorancePersonified]

I think there's been a bit of a reinvention process going on...you know after the 'Worlds most Secure Operating System Ever" claim by big bill. Guess after releasing shody crap for so long they may feel the need to really test thier stuff before it gets beta tested by the world. Dunno but.... just noticed the other day the command line options for something as simple as the shutdown command have changed and the ping command returns a different message when a hostname is not found

 

[jvd]

I would venture that they are trying to stop the bloat ware that has been going on for many years. HOpefully we will see a slim longhorn that is stable from the start with very few holes because of this .

As for dx 9.0c i guess its becasue there hasn't been hardware to test the code on ?

 

[radar1200gs]

DX9.0C will be made available as part of XP SP2 initially, so until SP2 is released, no DX9.0C.

 

[DeanoC]

Finding bugs?

Dx9.0c has lots of things that need testing to get a stable implementation. The entire vertex processing model has had to be changed for object instancing!

You don't want regression bugs slipping in. Better late than buggy.

 

[Guden Oden]

Umm, Deano, it's not as if they haven't had the chance to look for bugs for months upon end now. They have the refrast to test their vertex processing on, and even if they need genuine silicon, the NV40 has been available in prototype format for quite some time. How long does one have to "test for bugs" anyway? Come on, it's just an API with a limited set of function calls, not an entire friggin operating system.

 

[anaqer]

Was M$ ever on time with it's releases? :?

 

[see colon]

i'm much rather MS turn into a good company like apple, so they can sell me the same operating system 3 times before a reasonably stable version with a decent feature set comes out.
c:

ps- and yes, i'm being feces-us. just showing that the second largest player in the consumer OS market isn't perfect either.

 

[DeanoC]

Umm, Deano, it's not as if they haven't had the chance to look for bugs for months upon end now. They have the refrast to test their vertex processing on, and even if they need genuine silicon, the NV40 has been available in prototype format for quite some time. How long does one have to "test for bugs" anyway? Come on, it's just an API with a limited set of function calls, not an entire friggin operating system.

What about making sure it works on non NV40 SM 3.0 hardware ? Also just because hardware is available doesn't mean the drivers are...

I think you underestimate how much has changed, lots of little things have changed.

Its also tied up with Dx9 SDK Summer Update 2004, so its not as simple as release when its ready but when several other projects are also ready (XP SP2 and the SDK have other things to slow them down).

 

[Sxotty]

You know what I wish.

MS would release a slimmed down verion like jvd said then give purchasers free downloads of all the crap that they might or might not want.

Perhaps this would get all the lawyers off their backs as well b/c then people would have to show they wanted that crap from MS by downloading it instead of having it pressure on them

 

[anaqer]

OTOH, there just ain't too many cards in dire need of DX9.0c floating around after all...

 

[tazdevl]

MS should take all the time they need. I'd rather have them work the bugs out than put out a series of patches after release.

FYI DX9.0C has been included in the SP2 builds since 2126 I believe. RC2 should be out next week, build 2148. Should be pretty stable.

Not like there are a ton of games out there that support SM 3.0. The X800 doesn't need it. So why the rush? Game devs have had 9.0c for a while, it isn't holding up development.

 

[Humus]

Re: Why is it taking MS so damn long to get DX9c out the doo

hell, even XP for AMD64 is totally super-late despite it doesn't really need much except a recompile.

Uhm, that requires a heck of a lot more work that just a simple recompile.

 

[Quitch]

Or perhaps they're not delaying, or stalling, or doing any of those things and their initial release estimate was just too optimistic? I'm surprised anyone announces release dates, whenever they're put back or missed people leap on the company for missing them, as though somehow it should be the date, and not the actual work itself, which determines the time of release.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Where is the need for dx9c to be out now? No games I know of are needing it that I know of, mebbe they're just waiting.

 

[BRiT]

Or perhaps they're not delaying, or stalling, or doing any of those things and their initial release estimate was just too optimistic? I'm surprised anyone announces release dates, whenever they're put back or missed people leap on the company for missing them, as though somehow it should be the date, and not the actual work itself, which determines the time of release.

Try telling that to the marketting and management department of my work. Often times the release date is set in stone before we, the engineers, even gather the requirements for the projects. *sigh*

 

[digitalwanderer]

Try telling that to the marketting and management department of my work. Often times the release date is set in stone before we, the engineers, even gather the requirements for the projects. *sigh*

Yeah, but why bother consulting the engineers about the release date? They just keep whining stuff like, "that's physically impossible!" and "think about my poor family and the 90+ hour weeks we'd have to do for MONTHS to even come close!"....they just don't understand how things work in the business world.

 

[WaltC]

Re: Why is it taking MS so damn long to get DX9c out the doo

A: why does it have to take "months" to get it released, and B: why the hell isn't it out ALREADY?

MS couldn't get a piece of software out on time if their survival depended on it. XP SP2 is what, six months plus delayed? Longhorn is already YEARS behind schedule (even though it will be mutilated to stop it from being even later), hell, even XP for AMD64 is totally super-late despite it doesn't really need much except a recompile. What the F**K is going on in that company??? Why can't they bloody get anything DONE???

Is it just because they're the dominant force and have become indisposable to this industry that allows them to show this level of incompetence, or what's wrong? It's not as if they lack either programmers or R&D budgets or anything.

First, remember that in your patience possess you your DX9.0c.... Being impatient will cause you misery, but won't put it into your hands a day sooner.

Second, just what good do you think it would do M$ to release it if there's no actual hardware to support it? If there's no hardware to support it, game developers themselves won't be supporting it, so why should Microsoft be in any more of a "rush" than they are?

There are two considerations here, I think:

(1) Developers aren't going to support API functionality that is not supported in a decently large installed hardware base (prototype-only quantities simply don't register on the scale.)

(2) What hardware in nV40 is there that merits DX9.0c support? I'm not talking about all of the PR gossip that's been circulated, but about the actual capabilities of the chip itself. Presumably that's what M$ is working on right now, I would imagine. If the hardware support requiring 9.0c above 9.0b isn't very exciting in reality, then DX9.0c might well be introduced with a whimper instead of a bang.

It seems to me that the target of your impatience, if you must have it, should be nVidia, and you sentiments should be: "Why the hell isn't nV40 out ALREADY? nVidia couldn't get a piece of hardware out on time if their survival depended on it. What the F**K is going on in that company??? Why can't they bloody get anything DONE???"

I think that if you rephrased your question slightly in this direction, you just might stumble on to something pertinent as to M$'s 9.0c release schedule...

 

[Entz]

Well if they are going to be slow about it at very least they should release the completed Managed SDK documentation. Its only been like 2 years

[conspiracy mode]

Perhaps one of the reasons we do not have DX 9.0c is because Nvidia asked them not to release it. Its not like there is a great of hardware around that can use it. Say Microsoft releases DX 9.0c, FarCry SM3.0 patch comes out... All 100 people in world that have 6800's can use it. That wouldn't look too good for old Nvidia.

Same with 64bit windows. I have a feeling Microsoft is waiting on Intel this time. I wouldn't be too suprised if we get a final release announced the day after a 64-bit Intel processor ships. AMD is chop liver.

 

[ET]

Microsoft is on a "one DX update a year" schedule. That goes for the SDK, and it seems that they prefer the runtime to coincide with the SDK. So they seem to be on schedule to me.