Gaming in Vista with DX10 goodness?

Turns out that Vista's DirectX 10 is not fully backwards compatible with DirectX 9, and Vista does not ship with the components required for all games that utilize DirectX 9.. Therefore, if you get any errors about missing DLL files from games when you try to run them in Vista (such as Medieval 2: Total War), then you'll have to actually download and install DirectX 9!

Just in case you need to do so - here's the link as of Feb 2007: DirectX Runtime Files

News source: Vista Blogging.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The Secret Windows Vista Upgrade - Explained

Next Story

Microsoft refuses to discuss next OS

28 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

ok, who's plays games on a pc anyway, that's what the ps3 is for when they makes pc games run off the disk like i can an a console i'll by pc games.

I guess it's just me that installs all the drivers, direct x and etc when they install an OS..
I didn't even notice what DX version my Vista had, I just d/led the newest one and installed it right away.

oh geez... i said this during the beta. you only need the dx9_d3d_xx.dll files though.

also (not that anyone else would do this) there are two curious looking files in the feb2007 redist:

DEC2006_d3dx10_00_x64.cab
DEC2006_d3dx10_00_x86.cab

isn't this redist for xp+ machines?

This is true, when I downloaded the BF2142 demo it cried about missing some DX9 DLL's I ended up having to get them online for it to work.

I don't quite understand why people are saying they are getting better performance in games tho with them.

I'm sure that this Vista is a wall. i tried it and couldn't play a single DX9 game. Vista is forcing people to either stay with XP or switch to Vista.

I like the features of Vista but Vista doesn't play well with alot of PC's. Gone are the days of being able to simply install the newest Windows OS and be off to the races so to speak. Now you HAVE to buy a new PC to use it for sure.

Vista's usefulness should be indicative by all the technologies that were stripped from it, ie Winfs and the LATE,LATE realse by years.

cannedmeat said,
I'm sure that this Vista is a wall. i tried it and couldn't play a single DX9 game. Vista is forcing people to either stay with XP or switch to Vista.

I like the features of Vista but Vista doesn't play well with alot of PC's. Gone are the days of being able to simply install the newest Windows OS and be off to the races so to speak. Now you HAVE to buy a new PC to use it for sure.

Vista's usefulness should be indicative by all the technologies that were stripped from it, ie Winfs and the LATE,LATE realse by years.

Out of curiosity, how were you planning on using WinFS on your system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS

I actually ran into this issue about 2 days after I installed Vista. Someone on the forums was looking for beta testers for PlasmaBrick (dx9) and the game wouldn't run until I used the dx installer that he packaged with the game.

diference in speed , no , but some games wont start without a few dll from directx9 as i have found out tony hawk american wasteland , resident evil 4 ....

Symphony, the problem is that Vista comes with a version of DirectX 9 from 2004 which is incompatible with just about every game released since mid-2005. Why they couldn't be bothered to include the October/November DirectX 9 update or put the bimonthly updates on Windows Update is beyond anyone's guess. Luckily most games install it anyway, but if you dual-boot between XP and Vista and didn't reinstall the games, you need to remember to install the bi-monthly update yourself in Vista. MS is just weird that way.

I beleave they're just going with that you said yourself, the games install it anyway, MS hopes you don't dual boot and switch to vista fully, in which case, if you do a clean install or upgrade, then the DX9 installed on XP (when upgrading) would stay the same. And if you clean install, you'd re-install the games over, and they'd install the version of DX9 they need.

Now I just wonder if updating to the newest Feb DX9 in Vista will really help performence of games that people keep saying are running poor.

Jesus, i think i'll leave this site. Another stupid "news". :confused:

Vista contains dx9 and dx10. Vista was gold/ready/done/finished in october/november. Some game needs a newer directx, which you should update, so the title:

"Gaming in Vista with DX10 goodness?" ----> "If a game won't run, try updating directx"

Gosh guys, did you hire some editor from inq?

I really thought this was a load of BS when I came across it in the forums, but after I bit the bullet and tried, I noticed large incrases in several games, especially the Source games. That's on my 9800 Pro. Went from an FPS in the high teens, to about 40 with max on, at 1152 resolution.

This short portion of news should not be a front page news. It should have been in a discussion forum but not as news. I don't mean to complain but this tit-bits seems like it's any worthy of news post.

Krome said,
This short portion of news should not be a front page news. It should have been in a discussion forum but not as news. I don't mean to complain but this tit-bits seems like it's any worthy of news post.

I'm sure you'd disagree had you been scratching your head wondering why DX9 games didn't work and don't read the forums, and just have neowin RSS feeds for example.

In regard to your comment;

This short portion of narrow minded opinion should not be wasting database space in news comments or the forums.

Well, we all know Vista was supposed to ship with WinFS, we know that it was supposed to have a new command line prompt, and we know it was supposed to have a lot of new technology that got dropped off to the side of the curb when Microsoft realized that they wouldn't make their marketing goals. So it's not surprising that DirectX 10 doesn't have everything necessary for running DirectX 9 games. This might explain a lot of the complaints coming out over why games aren't running correctly or aren't running as quickly as they previously did under Windows XP.

I think the larger question is whether DirectX 9c and 10 can co-exist together or if Microsoft is going to have to release a 10a with enough of the 9 components to mollify the gaming masses. My bet is on the latter, that they'll have to push something out and quickly as the complaints pile high.

Because DX9 and 10 are so different, they can co-exist, it was already stated in the past from what I can remember.

That aside, every game that I've installed usually comes with the DX version it needs to run, so again, why should MS install DX9 for you? Sure they could, but all those game discs you have already have it, and if needed will install it.

But whatever, games will soon start shipping DX10 patches, and new games later this year will be native DX10 games (maybe not all, but the big name ones will be).

Just make sure you have a DX10 card, oh, and pray that nVidia finally gets working drivers for your 8800.

GP007 said,
Because DX9 and 10 are so different, they can co-exist, it was already stated in the past from what I can remember.

That aside, every game that I've installed usually comes with the DX version it needs to run, so again, why should MS install DX9 for you? Sure they could, but all those game discs you have already have it, and if needed will install it.

But whatever, games will soon start shipping DX10 patches, and new games later this year will be native DX10 games (maybe not all, but the big name ones will be).

Just make sure you have a DX10 card, oh, and pray that nVidia finally gets working drivers for your 8800.

DirectX is COM. By COM definitions, the interfaces cannot be changed, new ones have to be created. Therefore ALL versions of DirectX will co-exist with each other like a big happy family... :)

As for whether the Vista requirements for DX10 are artificial or not, I'm leaning towards yes, but I haven't experimented with Vista much since I'm one of the people Microsoft didn't give a free copy to.