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

[DeanoC]

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.

GeforceFX finally get float textures under DX 9.0c so NVIDIA likely want it yesterday.

Kind of wrecks that conspiracy theory

 

[WaltC]

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

I read some comments on the M$ developer site a while back which were pretty clear in stating that the "c" release for DX9 was a minor, not major, change in the API, and that the hold up for M$ was the lack of any ps3.0 hardware from any IHV which would allow them to integrate, test, and fine-tune their API to support the functionality. So, it seems pretty clear as to what the hold up was, at least to me.

Question: what happens if M$ throws a ps3.0-DX9.0c party, gets an RSVP from nVidia stating that nV40 will attend, but nV40 doesn't actually show up for the ps3.0 party after all?....

I would imagine that in such an event we'd have a collision between the wants of the nV PR machine and the desire of M$ not to release even a minor revision to the API unless there is an underlying hardware-support reason to do so...

I'm not suggesting that this is indeed part of the problem, because I don't know. I'm only suggesting that it could be.

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.

Actually, I think the chopped liver here is Intel, and that it will be Intel rushing to get a desktop x86-64 cpu into the channels at or before the time M$ ships XP-64 later this year... AMD is already there with A64 and Opteron. WinXP, remember, will be a late entry into the x86 64-bit OS field, behind several others.

 

[ANova]

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.

It could also be that nvidia isn't ready. They are having difficulty with Far Cry atm. Each of the beta drivers that has surfaced in the last month suffer from artifacting and failure to render certain aspects.

There is no special relationship between Intel and MS behind closed doors. Intel was quite peeved at MS for supporting x86-64 rather then IA-64. In fact Intel asked Apple if they were interested in a deal.

 

[Entz]

There is no special relationship between Intel and MS behind closed doors. Intel was quite peeved at MS for supporting x86-64 rather then IA-64. In fact Intel asked Apple if they were interested in a deal.

Fair enough... but you have to ask the question If Microsoft is not waiting on Intel, what/who are they waiting on? AMD 64 processors are not exactly new and its not like they are not very close to finishing the OS (It is in consumer preview mode already!). Why the delay? Third party drivers?

I honestly do not see Intel having to catch up this round, on the windows side at least (Thanks for the reminder WaltC). Microsoft is killing any major delays for them. If it isn't a conspiracy, Intel got one for free

 

[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

I read some comments on the M$ developer site a while back which were pretty clear in stating that the "c" release for DX9 was a minor, not major, change in the API, and that the hold up for M$ was the lack of any ps3.0 hardware from any IHV which would allow them to integrate, test, and fine-tune their API to support the functionality. So, it seems pretty clear as to what the hold up was, at least to me.

What about PowerVR? It really does seem that they are waiting on Nvidia (For whatever reason) ... buuut ... Its not like there isnt 6800 hardware out there. Im sure if Microsoft asked they would get a truckload.

Was the 6800 hardware only produced a short while ago ( Like Feb/Mar), with nothing before?

Question: what happens if M$ throws a ps3.0-DX9.0c party, gets an RSVP from nVidia stating that nV40 will attend, but nV40 doesn't actually show up for the ps3.0 party after all?....

Now that would be interesting

 

[jvd]

There is no special relationship between Intel and MS behind closed doors. Intel was quite peeved at MS for supporting x86-64 rather then IA-64. In fact Intel asked Apple if they were interested in a deal.

Fair enough... but you have to ask the question If Microsoft is not waiting on Intel, what/who are they waiting on? AMD 64 processors are not exactly new and its not like they are not very close to finishing the OS (It is in consumer preview mode already!). Why the delay? Third party drivers?

I honestly do not see Intel having to catch up this round, on the windows side at least (Thanks for the reminder WaltC). Microsoft is killing any major delays for them. If it isn't a conspiracy, Intel got one for free

from what i understand alot of windows runs slower under 64bit

 

[Entz]

from what i understand alot of windows runs slower under 64bit

That is due to driver problems IIRC. The core OS does run the same or faster. Part of the problem with the drivers is that some companies, Like ATI, won't release full drivers until the OS is finished (Beta ones are OK but not perfect).

There are a few unsupported core applications that are not ready, that may explain the wait (Like the .NET runtime). But you would think they could release that after the OS was ready.

*shrugs*

 

[jvd]

guess we know why its not out then

 

[gokickrocks]

from what i understand alot of windows runs slower under 64bit

That is due to driver problems IIRC. The core OS does run the same or faster. Part of the problem with the drivers is that some companies, Like ATI, won't release full drivers until the OS is finished (Beta ones are OK but not perfect).

There are a few unsupported core applications that are not ready, that may explain the wait (Like the .NET runtime). But you would think they could release that after the OS was ready.

*shrugs*

ati released the 64bit catalyst awhile back and they worked fine, at least on my setup...

i honestly did not notice a change in speed, but then again i was not able to play any games...what i did notice was the whole windows 98 theme that you were never allowed to change

problem is with the apps and the lack of 64bit support as of now...especially when it comes to games that do cd checks for security purposes which wont load at all (it will always say its missing the cd even though it is able to autorun and the splash screen to the game shows up )

 

[davepermen]

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.

everyone is allowed to rant from time to time..

but it looks like you have no clue what it really takes to do this job. microsoft is quite on schedule actually, and they do a great job by not rushing anything. we have good stuff right now, for all what we need more or less. everything else is available as beta, and gets intensive testing.

testing dx9.0c takes big effort. the api may be simple, but all sort of combinations can result in very complicated situations, wich can lead to bugs, and have to get layed out first.

sp2 is a huge effort (your lovely "recompilation"), and they have to test and validate EVERY component, and rewrite about everything after these tests, to make it proper work with new and old stuff.

win xp 64 is similar to sp2, a full rewrite of the complete os, and takes due to that huge effort to check for compatibilities, validate that all works as expected.

longhorn is on schedule. as it is not just an xp with new theme, it takes much time.

but i guess you'll learn that all by yourself one day. you would have enough time to do right now, as you "have to wait for m$ to get their sh** done" anyways.

 

[hstewarth]

I agree with davepermen in the most part, except for the fact that it maybe a big rewrite - even the 64 bit stuff is not a rewrite because Microsoft has been doing 64 bit for years with Alpha's and Itaniums..

As for DX9.0c, they are waiting for SP2 and releasing an OS is a lot different than an application or even a device driver. They must make sure it didn't break anything including 3rd party application.

Give it time and it will be there, plus they may be waiting on some other hardware enhancements to be release - specific PCI Express.

 

[rashly]

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

longhorn is on schedule. as it is not just an xp with new theme, it takes much time.

no it's not. it has been delayed almost a year. and forget about longhorn server, that's expected in 2007 now (m$ originally said 2006).

 

[WaltC]

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

no it's not. it has been delayed almost a year. and forget about longhorn server, that's expected in 2007 now (m$ originally said 2006).

Well, projected schedules are not written in granite. It's not like the CEO's of these companies got up swore oaths on the blood of their families as to the timetables they originally published, is it? AMD was late with Opteron, Intel late with Prescott, and Apple--heh...--won't be hitting 3GHz "anytime soon" after all. Should all of these companies be sacked and burned as well?

If people don't understand that projections for future product deployment of products not yet developed are speculative and flexible, they don't understand anything about such roadmaps, do they?

 

[ANova]

I agree with davepermen in the most part, except for the fact that it maybe a big rewrite - even the 64 bit stuff is not a rewrite because Microsoft has been doing 64 bit for years with Alpha's and Itaniums.

IA-64 is completely different from x86-64.

 

[Rugor]

I'm going to hold to the theory that DX9.0c is not shipping yet because A) it's contingent on SP2, and B) it doesn't matter yet because there is no SM3.0 capable install base yet.

I also doubt that NV could have shipped MS a truckload of NV40 based cards at any time before the very recent past as I don't believe there was a whole truckload in the entire world until very recently. I still don't think there are very many even now.

 

[KimB]

Except would Microsoft need a "truckload" of NV40's to test the API? nVidia has to use many NV40's to do driver testing, but we're not talking about driver testing here.

 

[Quitch]

I very much doubt MS is holding something back because it isn't in use yet. DX is always ahead of the hardware and software.

 

[davepermen]

Except would Microsoft need a "truckload" of NV40's to test the API? nVidia has to use many NV40's to do driver testing, but we're not talking about driver testing here.

no, we're talking about api testing. the driver is the backpart of it, and can get replaced anytime. the front part should work right from the start, with no bugs, for ever.

an api is not a simple thing. espencially not such an os-close api, that has to interfer with a lot of the hw, the os, etc.

 

[KimB]

Which still shouldn't require a whole lot of hardware to test it. The interface will be identical for most any hardware. It's only a few NV40-specific things that need to be tested, and that only to ensure that it's possible for the interface and specifications to work with nVidia's hardware. nVidia can do the rest of the work through drivers.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Which still shouldn't require a whole lot of hardware to test it.

But the problem is that even though it "shouldn't require a whole lot of hardware to test it" there doesn't appear that there is ANY nV40s around to test it on....they've all been allocated to review sites to help stretch out the paper launch.