DirectX 11 coming to Vista

As with Windows Vista, the newest version of Windows brings with it a newer version of Microsoft's DirectX. Windows 7 was released with Direct X 11 support, and it was initially thought that Direct X 11 support would remain a 7-only technology.

Reports indicate that a platform update is being pushed via Windows Update that will enable DirectX 11 support on Vista PC's. With an impressive lineup of Direct X 11 games announced which includes Crysis 2 and The Lord of the Rings Online, Vista users will be happy to know that they can go out and purchase a Radeon 5870 and use it to its full potential.

Windows XP users cannot use any DirectX version above 9.0c, as their OS does not support WDDM.

Microsoft has previously assured Vista users that they would not be left in the cold, this move is indicative of such a commitment.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

L4D2 Realism mode: Glows dropped, one-hit-kill Witch

Next Story

Adobe calls out Apple for lack of iPhone Flash support

48 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Now all we need are DX11 applications.

Especially the kind that have improved image quality AND improved performance.

About WDDM, Vista's version really blows compared to Windows 7, read the 'Engineering Windows 7' blog about graphics performance. And then keep an eye on Vista's 'dmw.exe' memory usage to confirm it.

Bad assumption and bad summary...

DX11 when announced was stated to be available for Vista and Win7.

It has always been planned for Vista to support DX11, without exception. So this is NOT a suprise, and is a bit dated as the updates have already been available for Vista for some time now in full DX11 RTM form.

Win7 'features' DX11 as 'built-in' but DX11 is NOT nor ever was to be exclusive to Win7. It is almost embarassing that this is not more widely known, or the authors couldn't have did a quick Whitepaper search to fact check these errors.

(DX11 technology also brings the PC DirectX and XBox 360 DirectX feature sets closer to being the same, as the XBox 360 DirectX feature set already featured some of DX10 and DX11 features, from the first unified shader GPU to DX11 technology like tensellation.)

The reason DX10 was not supported on pre-Vista versions of Windows is due to the WDDM and WDM driver requirements that hand over GPU scheduling and GPU RAM virtualization to the OS, that DX10 'counts' on being in place for games - that is why hacks to get DX10 to run on XP were a failure as large textures and other GPU scheduler featurs of DX10 would fail hard on the XP driver model (XPDM).


Vista should be thrown in the darkness as Windows ME had. Although it was in some what kind of better than XP in some games because of Direct X 10 (Not that it had better FPS, but it look prettier because of prohibition).

I consider Windows 7 faster than Windows XP, because of its shut down and boot time options, that has improved a lot in comparison within laptops.

Plus, Windows 7 is newer, and should reign in the following 4 - ? years.

No Vista shouldn't, Vista is nothing like WinME not even close. Vista is a pioneer, it brought the changes necessary to make the transition to Win7 go so smooth. If Vista never existed like so many wished, I can guarantee the shift to 7 would not of been so pleasant. All Vista proves is how powerful the media really is and their abilty to shape our opinions (or how easily we can be manipulated).

Win7 should last about the same amount of time as Vista did which is about ~3 years. The amount of time Vista lasted doesn't equate to how crap it was (as many will argue) because the standard Windows life cycle for a current product is about 3 years...XP was never intended to last as long as it did but because MS screwed up Vista's development they were left with little choice. Also you can see why Windows life cycle is so short, as what happened with XP would of happened with every new Windows release (i.e. people would stuggle letting go of it).

eilegz said,
what about porting it to windows xp? i think that windows xp its more relevant than windows vista


Just about any operating system is more relevant than vista.

James Riske said,
Just about any operating system is more relevant than vista.

It seems your only purpose in life is to go on the Neowin news page and bash Vista. You're a sad case.

eilegz said,
what about porting it to windows xp? i think that windows xp its more relevant than windows vista

Read the article. Backporting DX11 to XP is impossible as XP lacks WDDM technology. Also, don't listen to James Riske. He's just an idiot troll.

aarste said,
Vista should be long forgotten now that we have 7.

Yay, someone else who doesn't get it.

Without Vista, we wouldn't have 7, at least not the 7 we know.

FrozenEclipse said,
Yay, someone else who doesn't get it.

Without Vista, we wouldn't have 7, at least not the 7 we know.


True, without vista, microsoft wouldn't have had any reason to make the next operating system actually usable and worthwhile.

James Riske said,


True, without vista, microsoft wouldn't have had any reason to make the next operating system actually usable and worthwhile.

Nope, still not it.

People just don't understand what MS did with Vista and are quick to blame MS when 3rd party developers can't be arsed making proper drivers. Vista is a damn good OS and it's light years ahead of aging XP, not to mention it's far more secure then XP as well. What really annoys me is how people praise 7 as the second coming and Vista as a pile of crap, when in reality most of the new tech in 7 was pioneered by Vista. I'm not saying Vista is perfect, it does have it's fair share of issues but still it is hardly the steaming pile of %$^# people claim it is...ok had my rant now :P

Vista is irrelevant now.

When Vista came out XP was still needed because Vista was a turkey filled with major problems. Now with the release of Windows 7 and it not suffering from even a fraction of Vista's problems means that Vista is not even needed as a back up like XP was.

Foub said,
Vista is irrelevant now.

When Vista came out XP was still needed because Vista was a turkey filled with major problems. Now with the release of Windows 7 and it not suffering from even a fraction of Vista's problems means that Vista is not even needed as a back up like XP was.

I'm sure there are a lot of people out there running vista... but I couldn't agree more. Vista is like that chapter everybody will try to skip.

No.

Vista was a big change, a change which was needed. It happened, hardware and software got broken, and Microsoft have done what they could with Vista. At the end of the day, Vista was perfectly fine, it was the third party support which messed everything up.

Vista is at SP2 and the hardware support is on par with Windows 7. Vista made Windows 7 what it is today, and Windows 7 is great, and we shouldn't put Vista or Microsoft down for it.

Vista was no Windows ME. Vista was very much like XP when it was first released. The changes from the 9x kernel to the NT kernel left many software incompatibilities with both hardware and software and I remember my P3 250Mhz with 64MB RAM felt really "heavy" compared to Windows 98 and Windows 2000. And a lot of people said XP was a failure back then.

History as taught us that change is hard, change which is needed and we have to adapt to that, the same logic applies to hardware companies and software companies. Microsoft cannot make everyone happy, and it's mostly down to those third party developers/companies who determine how well things run.

For example, Microsoft allowed different companies to work on campus at Microsoft and work closely with their developers, so Microsoft were committed to making it a easy ride.

Another example is Linux. I love Linux and what it stands for, but it's a perfect example of what can happen with little to no hardware support from hardware vendors.

People need to think with an open mind and think outside of the box rather than jump up and down and blame Microsoft for every thing.

That was a sorry excuse then and it still is a sorry excuse.

If really was just "I hate Microsoft." than where are all of the articles decrying Windows 7?

Face it, Vista was a turkey. Plain and simple no matter how some try to spin it.

I'm running Windows 7 on a netbook with no real problems. You couldn't run Vista on the same system as well as Windows 7 runs.

Foub said,
That was a sorry excuse then and it still is a sorry excuse.

If really was just "I hate Microsoft." than where are all of the articles decrying Windows 7?

Face it, Vista was a turkey. Plain and simple no matter how some try to spin it.

I'm running Windows 7 on a netbook with no real problems. You couldn't run Vista on the same system as well as Windows 7 runs.

Fail.

Vista was necessary to create the 7 that we all love to use. Vista had growing pains, as most OS's do, but at SP2 it's a fine OS, and without it, the 7 we know wouldn't exist. It makes no sense to trash Vista and praise 7.

Tony. said,
No.

Vista was a big change, a change which was needed. It happened, hardware and software got broken, and Microsoft have done what they could with Vista. At the end of the day, Vista was perfectly fine, it was the third party support which messed everything up.

Vista is at SP2 and the hardware support is on par with Windows 7. Vista made Windows 7 what it is today, and Windows 7 is great, and we shouldn't put Vista or Microsoft down for it.

Vista was no Windows ME. Vista was very much like XP when it was first released. The changes from the 9x kernel to the NT kernel left many software incompatibilities with both hardware and software and I remember my P3 250Mhz with 64MB RAM felt really "heavy" compared to Windows 98 and Windows 2000. And a lot of people said XP was a failure back then.

History as taught us that change is hard, change which is needed and we have to adapt to that, the same logic applies to hardware companies and software companies. Microsoft cannot make everyone happy, and it's mostly down to those third party developers/companies who determine how well things run.

For example, Microsoft allowed different companies to work on campus at Microsoft and work closely with their developers, so Microsoft were committed to making it a easy ride.

Another example is Linux. I love Linux and what it stands for, but it's a perfect example of what can happen with little to no hardware support from hardware vendors.

People need to think with an open mind and think outside of the box rather than jump up and down and blame Microsoft for every thing.

Finally, someone with a brain! I agree completely with you I've been trying to say this for ages but everytime I did I was instantly labeled a blinded Vista fanboy...

James Riske said,
Spoken like a true fanboy.

Case and point. It's amazing how so many can't accept the truth and won't let go of the lies, the media has trained you well.

Tony. said,
No.

Vista was a big change, a change which was needed. It happened, hardware and software got broken, and Microsoft have done what they could with Vista. At the end of the day, Vista was perfectly fine, it was the third party support which messed everything up.

Vista is at SP2 and the hardware support is on par with Windows 7. Vista made Windows 7 what it is today, and Windows 7 is great, and we shouldn't put Vista or Microsoft down for it.

Vista was no Windows ME. Vista was very much like XP when it was first released. The changes from the 9x kernel to the NT kernel left many software incompatibilities with both hardware and software and I remember my P3 250Mhz with 64MB RAM felt really "heavy" compared to Windows 98 and Windows 2000. And a lot of people said XP was a failure back then.

History as taught us that change is hard, change which is needed and we have to adapt to that, the same logic applies to hardware companies and software companies. Microsoft cannot make everyone happy, and it's mostly down to those third party developers/companies who determine how well things run.

For example, Microsoft allowed different companies to work on campus at Microsoft and work closely with their developers, so Microsoft were committed to making it a easy ride.

Another example is Linux. I love Linux and what it stands for, but it's a perfect example of what can happen with little to no hardware support from hardware vendors.

People need to think with an open mind and think outside of the box rather than jump up and down and blame Microsoft for every thing.



You're right. But we need to state the problem with Vista. It was very heavy for computers in that era. 1 GB of RAM to execute Win Vis Home Premium was like needing an Alienware Computer.

Plus, as you said of XP, it was attacked due to its compatibility issues. But, what happened? Vista was to appear Betweern 2004 - 2005, but Microsoft started to pack XP with lots of things and stuff that Vista had, instead of changing their OS (Which they did, only if you consider Win XP Media Center).

What was exactly Vista was the Build 59xx (I don't remember very well) which was the original Vista that was planned for 2004 - 2005. But they decided to wait so they could launch the first OS to pressure PC manufacturers to new limits.

Now, what is exactly the problem? Yup, is as you said, Third party crapware and etc. My Vista laptop (Dell XPS M1530, with its max. capabilities except processor which is 2.4) booted a formatted Vista SP1 in 23 secs. The problem was when I installed the up to date drivers. Vista SP1 started booting in 30 ~ 34 secs. It was a pain in the ass.

The other thing that made Vista hated was "This program has stopped working", which made always people look back at XP. (People got this message, including me, as soon as they entered for their first time in their desktop after buying an OEM PC).


Now that I've tested Win 7 since new year, and I-m running RTM now, I must daresay that Windows 7 will be Microsoft's new XP system. This is because it's minimum requirements are intact and it's faster than it's predecessor, which is the first time that you see this in a Windows OSes.

Tony. said,
No.

Vista was a big change, a change which was needed. It happened, hardware and software got broken, and Microsoft have done what they could with Vista. At the end of the day, Vista was perfectly fine, it was the third party support which messed everything up.


Well said, couldn̢۪t agree more.

i already have DX11 on my Vista laptop at work... the update was released a week or two ago.

was this article only for the release on Windows Update?

Generalization, yes, but also a matter of odds. Business users and mom & pop who buy a PC from the store are much more likely to have a legit version of Windows.

There are a bunch of hardcore gamers out there that know about DirectX 11 and yet are too lazy to install Windows 7 over their Vista. Oh wait, is there?

Anyway good for those who can't afford Win7 yet, though there's no excuse with the student promotion going on!

What days are those? Windows NT 4.0 never had full DirectX support. Windows 95 got cut off from DirectX updates before Windows 98 did, Windows 98/ME got cut off LONG before Windows 2000 or XP did/will.

sphbecker said,
What days are those? Windows NT 4.0 never had full DirectX support. Windows 95 got cut off from DirectX updates before Windows 98 did, Windows 98/ME got cut off LONG before Windows 2000 or XP did/will.

For example, Windows 95 supported DirectX 2.0a (Windows 95 OSR2), and the last supported release was... DirectX 8.0a.

You can read a release summary with compatibility notes here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#Releases

I see they are really trying to kill off XP in different ways...lol. This is a nice move on their part - I remember reading it was not going to be ported to Vista.

darkmanx21 said,
I see they are really trying to kill off XP in different ways...lol. This is a nice move on their part - I remember reading it was not going to be ported to Vista.


They never said that. In contrary. Many things will be ported to Vista.

GP007 said,
XP should die. It's too damn old.

Im start thinking that Vista will die early than XP, the same happened with windows-me, that unofficially was forgotten in a dirty corner years before that MS decided to discontinue windows98.

Magallanes said,
Im start thinking that Vista will die early than XP, the same happened with windows-me, that unofficially was forgotten in a dirty corner years before that MS decided to discontinue windows98.

XP will outlive vista because businesses dont need to spend money to upgrade and XP still does all they need
in terms of most home users its the same there to, email/web/the basics are all they need

that being said, W7 is far superior and a much more enjoyable experience, but people cling to XP in fear of change

Neoauld said,
XP will outlive vista because businesses dont need to spend money to upgrade and XP still does all they need
in terms of most home users its the same there to, email/web/the basics are all they need

that being said, W7 is far superior and a much more enjoyable experience, but people cling to XP in fear of change


Dell has already announced they will drop XP driver support on new models soon. As other companies start to drop support for XP or chose to develop new applications using the Vista/7 platform enhancements XP will be replaced.

Magallanes said,
Im start thinking that Vista will die early than XP, the same happened with windows-me, that unofficially was forgotten in a dirty corner years before that MS decided to discontinue windows98.

nah

windows 7 is continuation of vista

me was the last of breed

Eh? Dx11 has always been coming to Vista, we have know this since the moment it was announced ages ago. After the massive backlash over making Dx10 Vista only, making Dx11 7 only would of been a bad move for MS. I suspect XP will even outlive 7, it still has a cult following and I doubt that many business are in a hurry to jump to 7 (despite all the rave reviews). However, wait and see till 7 SP1 comes out, might see a bigger shift to 7 then in the business world maybe. That is my 2 cents take with a grain of salt.

cool, although I got this a few days ago via updates.......crap, doesn't matter to me I guess, got an older Radeon 1gb 4670 card....oh well.............lol

This isn't a surprise since Vista and 7 share the WDDM, though 7's 1.1 version is better on resources. Still, good news for those not in a rush to upgrade to win7 yet.

Now to just wait for DX9 to start to die so we can get true DX10/11 coded games.

GP007 said,
Now to just wait for DX9 to start to die so we can get true DX10/11 coded games.

The way things are going with PC game development, we'll have to wait for the next generation Xbox for that.