PlayStation 4 and DX11?From since PlayStation uses DX?

Grand Master, you can't even read plain English, yet you have to come up with a grand conspiracy theory where roughly 20-fold performance gain from last Direct3D 9-era graphics cards to current feature level 11_1 cards does not even exist... beats me completely. I said "Direct3D 11 hardware" - you do understand that both PS4 and XBOne are based on a custom AMD Radeon HD7700 series graphics core employing the same GCN 1.0 architecture... do you?

Grand Master, you can't even read plain English, yet you have to come up with a grand conspiracy theory where roughly 20-fold performance gain from last Direct3D 9-era graphics cards to current feature level 11_1 cards does not even exist... beats me completely.

Whats the association of fart and forehead?

Whats the association of fart and forehead?

I just Googled it and the only association is your post above... maybe it's somehow related to your thought process?

I just Googled it and the only association is your post above... maybe it's somehow related to your thought process?

LOL!Are u kidding me?Come on i just jested.Of course there is none at all!Your earlier post:you can't even read plain English was something like this.If my english isnt flawless at all that doesn't prove anything about my theories.

Microsoft have actually been overly good at providing support for their older versions. If they were like any other software company, Windows 7 would have been dropped on it's ars* as soon as Windows 8 was released. Microsoft have gone to more like what Apple do and have smaller changes with each OS, at a much cheaper price to upgrade, but have them more often. This is probably fair, although support for older OS's would become untenable over time. I do find it funny that people are obsessed with getting that one extra frame per second in games and new drivers etc, then sat they won't update Windows, even if it is a free update. Even on this forum there have been a couple of people saying they won't update to 'Update 2' because they see no point. They are probably obsessed with getting the latest beta driver though 😉. It's partly an image problem with Microsoft. People expect 10 years worth of service out of their OS, but then they insist on getting the latest model phone because their 12 month old phone is out of date. That phone upgrade would probably cost more than what Microsoft are charging these days. It's not as if they are charging for each OS update either, you can actually go from Windows 8.0 to Windows 9 without paying a cent, as Windows 8.1 was a free update, updates 1, soon to be released 2, and the future 3 are free updates, and the progress from update 3 --> Windows 9 is free. Quite reasonable really. It's unreasonable to expect Microsoft patch old OS's to support new hardware. Realistically, I'm talking about the average typical user here, not the more power users, people on Windows 7 typically just run the same hardware on their computer from the day they get it to the day they throw it away, even moreso with laptops. Bottom line is, if you have a modern computer, you should really run a modern OS. It would be quite stupid to get a i7-4790K, top of the range Z97 motherboard, SLI/Crossfire top end cards etc, then run Windows 7, or even Windows 8.0, with no intention of running Windows 8.1 U1, yet people do it. The same people with angst that their phone provider hasn't updated their phone to Android 4.4.4 yet...

You make some great points and I agree with you. Here is the thing if Power users are using Windows 7 and they are not having any issues with it then why would they upgrade? I may even change my mind and go to Windows 8.1 because I am using a Windows 8.1 based tablet and I am liking it.

Here is the thing if Power users are using Windows 7 and they are not having any issues with it then why would they upgrade?

They may find something they like. I feel like people, especially here on Guru3D/Tech sites (Not you specifically) are really incapable of seeing things outside their gaming world. Like god forbid someone uses a computer differently then they do. Or god forbid Microsoft is actually making changes to the OS that doesn't specifically cater to some small demographic of power users. Using a Surface on Windows 8.1 is probably one of the best productivity advancements that I've had in computing in a very long time. If four years ago you'd ask me if I wanted a tablet with Windows on it I'd tell you hell the **** no. Windows was simply not designed for tablets. But now after an update to the start menu it's simply the best tablet experience I've had and I've had both an Android/Ipad. The interface actually allows me to get work done instead of being an annoying skeuomorphic clunky cluster**** on my screen. I don't know what Microsoft has plans for with Windows 9, but I know the changes they've made so far have appealed to the way I work. I experience no discomfort what-so-ever with 8.1 on my gaming machine. If anything the OS feels snappier, safer and more reliable than Windows 7. On the flip side 8.1 has greatly improved the way I interact with a tablet/computing device at work. The interface makes sense for phones and even for TV's. Microsoft isn't competing with OSX anymore, they are competing with Android and iOS. They can't just sit around and maintain early 90's design standards. The way people interact with computers is evolving and if Microsoft doesn't evolve it's interface with it, it will die.

If my english isnt flawless at all that doesn't prove anything about my theories.

I said you are unable to read three consecutive words "Direct3D 11 hardware". I said nothing about your English. And you don't have any theory either.

I said you are unable to read three consecutive words "Direct3D 11 hardware". I said nothing about your English. And you don't have any theory either.

Oh really?So it was a misunderstanding by me.Sorry.

Microsoft have actually been overly good at providing support for their older versions. If they were like any other software company, Windows 7 would have been dropped on it's ars* as soon as Windows 8 was released. Microsoft have gone to more like what Apple do and have smaller changes with each OS, at a much cheaper price to upgrade, but have them more often. This is probably fair, although support for older OS's would become untenable over time. I do find it funny that people are obsessed with getting that one extra frame per second in games and new drivers etc, then sat they won't update Windows, even if it is a free update. Even on this forum there have been a couple of people saying they won't update to 'Update 2' because they see no point. They are probably obsessed with getting the latest beta driver though 😉. It's partly an image problem with Microsoft. People expect 10 years worth of service out of their OS, but then they insist on getting the latest model phone because their 12 month old phone is out of date. That phone upgrade would probably cost more than what Microsoft are charging these days. It's not as if they are charging for each OS update either, you can actually go from Windows 8.0 to Windows 9 without paying a cent, as Windows 8.1 was a free update, updates 1, soon to be released 2, and the future 3 are free updates, and the progress from update 3 --> Windows 9 is free. Quite reasonable really. It's unreasonable to expect Microsoft patch old OS's to support new hardware. Realistically, I'm talking about the average typical user here, not the more power users, people on Windows 7 typically just run the same hardware on their computer from the day they get it to the day they throw it away, even moreso with laptops. Bottom line is, if you have a modern computer, you should really run a modern OS. It would be quite stupid to get a i7-4790K, top of the range Z97 motherboard, SLI/Crossfire top end cards etc, then run Windows 7, or even Windows 8.0, with no intention of running Windows 8.1 U1, yet people do it. The same people with angst that their phone provider hasn't updated their phone to Android 4.4.4 yet...

Back in the day, we had things called "Service Packs". that is the equivalent of "Update 1" and "Update 2". They are right not to charge for them, Service Packs have, and should always be, free. I don't see why a Windows 7 user has to be running the very latest Windows to be "up to date" ? I didn't ask Microsoft to do a new version of Windows this soon after Windows 7 ? I didn't ask Microsoft to first shaft people with Vista/DX10, and then Win8/DX11.2. I have Win7 Ultimate, and i'm going to use it. No, i'm not going to buy Win8, and there's a good chance I won't be buying Win9 either. By the time Win10/WinX comes out, SteamOS might have taken off (i'll give it a chance). MS has turned Office into a rental suite, a la Adobe CC suite. You'll have the latest version of the software at your disposal, whether you want/need it. New version not compatible with old versions ? Stop renting the software package, files are useless. The new file extensions are there so when Businessman A send a new file to Businessman B, he can't open it, and instead of asking for a compatible file to be re-sent, he goes and gets the latest Office, to be "up to date" and do the same thing to Businessman C and D, who also go out and get the latest Office suite...et cetera. What happens the day Windows becomes "rental based" or ad-based (ooh, that ones coming soon 🙂). FWIW, I don't change phone that often, i'm still on my single core smartphone, that still works. Windows 7 is a modern OS. Just because microsoft popped another vesion out because they could, doesn't mean 7 is obsolete. far from it.

Well its far away several years in my point till DX12 become common.As u see still lots of games uses DX10 or even DX9 API.Of course im not developer but my personal believe is that new DX versions didnt bring that much (if at all) to the table.I mean its rather a dirty trick to force people buy new hardwares or new versions of Windows.For example witcher 2 is a DX9 game just look at the graphics of the game and power of the UberSampling.Please correct me if im wrong.

Any visual effect that you can think of can be faked/rendered pretty reliably using only the DX9 toolset. With the exception of some advancement in ray tracing, gone are the days where you will see some large visual impact from a newer version of DirectX. DX10 focused mainly on unification of hardware requirements (essentially allowed developers to maintain one version of software without worrying too much about it not being compatible with a particular hardware architecture). DX11 did some things with multithreading and tessellation, but nothing that was going to have a large impact. DirectX 12 brings low level hardware access and significantly improved CPU threading. Whether or not these will have an impact on performance that drives an increase in IQ is unknown. Currently Intel/AMD have been focusing their development efforts on power consumption (when it comes to CPUs). Processors are starting to become the bottle neck in minimum framerate situations, when heavy AI algorithms are being processed or heavy physics simulations, etc. Hopefully DX12 will allow extra headroom there and raise minimum framerate up by a lot in those type of scenarios. Adoption of DX12 should occur more quickly due to API level support on the Xbox SDK. DX11 hardware being able to support the majority of DX12 features helps as well. And you better bet that Microsoft is going to be pushing devs heavily on it's adoption because it closes the performance gap between the Xbox and the PS4. Anyway I don't expect DX12 to bring about a revolution or any future version of DX to do so. But I do expect it to help devs create more complex scenes and maybe get some more performance out of stagnating processor designs.

Back in the day, we had things called "Service Packs". that is the equivalent of "Update 1" and "Update 2". They are right not to charge for them, Service Packs have, and should always be, free. I don't see why a Windows 7 user has to be running the very latest Windows to be "up to date" ? I didn't ask Microsoft to do a new version of Windows this soon after Windows 7 ? I didn't ask Microsoft to first shaft people with Vista/DX10, and then Win8/DX11.2. I have Win7 Ultimate, and i'm going to use it. No, i'm not going to buy Win8, and there's a good chance I won't be buying Win9 either. By the time Win10/WinX comes out, SteamOS might have taken off (i'll give it a chance). MS has turned Office into a rental suite, a la Adobe CC suite. You'll have the latest version of the software at your disposal, whether you want/need it. New version not compatible with old versions ? Stop renting the software package, files are useless. The new file extensions are there so when Businessman A send a new file to Businessman B, he can't open it, and instead of asking for a compatible file to be re-sent, he goes and gets the latest Office, to be "up to date" and do the same thing to Businessman C and D, who also go out and get the latest Office suite...et cetera. What happens the day Windows becomes "rental based" or ad-based (ooh, that ones coming soon 🙂). FWIW, I don't change phone that often, i'm still on my single core smartphone, that still works. Windows 7 is a modern OS. Just because microsoft popped another vesion out because they could, doesn't mean 7 is obsolete. far from it.

How is this any different than the 2-3 year gap between 3.0 and 3.1, 3.1 and 95, 95 and 98, 98 and XP? They didn't add SP's then to bridge those gaps in features. You bought Windows 7 and received it as is. Microsoft provided support and maybe even added some features via free SP's. They aren't going to add major support to future features because they feel generous. DX is a core part of Windows. A large number of systems are rewritten and modified in order to support a new version of DX on modern versions of Windows. And seriously Windows 8 Pro was $40 on it launched. You use Windows every single day (presumably). $40 every 3 years to allow me to do everything I do is like nothing.

I said you are unable to read three consecutive words "Direct3D 11 hardware". I said nothing about your English. And you don't have any theory either.

It's Direct3D 11 capable Hardware if you want to be pedantic about it. Its not as if DX is the only code its capable of running ? A lot of people don't have very good English, reading or written. Giving them grief about it doesn't help, quite the opposite.

It's Direct3D 11 capable Hardware if you want to be pedantic about it. Its not as if DX is the only code its capable of running ? A lot of people don't have very good English, reading or written. Giving them grief about it doesn't help, quite the opposite.

Very noble of u sir.

Any visual effect that you can think of can be faked/rendered pretty reliably using only the DX9 toolset. With the exception of some advancement in ray tracing, gone are the days where you will see some large visual impact from a newer version of DirectX. DX10 focused mainly on unification of hardware requirements (essentially allowed developers to maintain one version of software without worrying too much about it not being compatible with a particular hardware architecture). DX11 did some things with multithreading and tessellation, but nothing that was going to have a large impact. DirectX 12 brings low level hardware access and significantly improved CPU threading. Whether or not these will have an impact on performance that drives an increase in IQ is unknown. Currently Intel/AMD have been focusing their development efforts on power consumption (when it comes to CPUs). Processors are starting to become the bottle neck in minimum framerate situations, when heavy AI algorithms are being processed or heavy physics simulations, etc. Hopefully DX12 will allow extra headroom there and raise minimum framerate up by a lot in those type of scenarios. Adoption of DX12 should occur more quickly due to API level support on the Xbox SDK. DX11 hardware being able to support the majority of DX12 features helps as well. And you better bet that Microsoft is going to be pushing devs heavily on it's adoption because it closes the performance gap between the Xbox and the PS4. Anyway I don't expect DX12 to bring about a revolution or any future version of DX to do so. But I do expect it to help devs create more complex scenes and maybe get some more performance out of stagnating processor designs. How is this any different than the 2-3 year gap between 3.0 and 3.1, 3.1 and 95, 95 and 98, 98 and XP? They didn't add SP's then to bridge those gaps in features. You bought Windows 7 and received it as is. Microsoft provided support and maybe even added some features via free SP's. They aren't going to add major support to future features because they feel generous. DX is a core part of Windows. A large number of systems are rewritten and modified in order to support a new version of DX on modern versions of Windows. And seriously Windows 8 Pro was $40 on it launched. You use Windows every single day (presumably). $40 every 3 years to allow me to do everything I do is like nothing.

:) I could have gotten Win8, I even thought about it a lot. then I saw the ungodly, unneccessary mess they made of the interface, and I thought "Why should I pop another few hundred Euros on an OS I do not want ?" Do you remember how much Win7 Ultimate cost ? It was a couple of Hundred Euros iirc (and we still didn't get all the stuff they promised...) WinXP Pro cost me over 200 pounds, and I had to get it from the UK to have it in English! I stayed on XP during the whole Vista debacle, and jumped with Win7. I'll wait and see what Win9 is about, but I wouldn't put it past them to do something wholly stupid to put off another generation of users...

MS has just started following the latest trend. That trend is to make versions of a product that has a very short half live. Win 7 ultimate was over 200 pound in the uk and i doubt many people bought it without cringing at the price. Mine cost me well over a 100. So no wonder why people don't want to upgrade to a newer product. If price=quality then people will always want that to last a lot longer than MS wants them to. Most people don't even care or even know what they are buying into, only the new users coming along now will be on 8x or those on here who got it cheap. I got 8 as well but went back to 7. Only a forced move to dx12 will make me get a new OS now and that's only if dx12 is worth all the hype.

MS has just started following the latest trend. That trend is to make versions of a product that has a very short half live.

In what way are they doing this?

is it really that hard to make windows 8 with all the bs and useless extras hidden away i rage everytime i get a win8 laptop desktop brought to me i cant find anything on them lol

"Microsoft is basically "done" with Windows 8.x. Regardless of how usable or functional it is or isn't, it has become Microsoft's Vista 2.0 — something from which Microsoft needs to distance itself, perception-wise. At this point, Microsoft is going full-steam-ahead toward Threshold and will do its best to differentiate that OS release from Windows 8." lollllll *palmface*

It goes without saying I love PCs and am somewhat of a Microsoft fan-boy. I personally like Windows 8.1 and find little issue with it. With that said over the past 7 years; with a few exceptions; I really don't think Microsoft has been bold enough in just about anything they have done. In my eyes they are treading water in most of their larger areas of business. They are always a step behind. I think some fresh blood in the higher ranks might help.

In what way are they doing this?

They want to catch up to Firefox and co. By 2020 we will be on Windows 20, just bangin em out, not even caring for the people who buy the OS's and defiantly not listening to what people want.