Recommended Posts

Aaaand no comment on the most critical component, Windows 7 support. Weak performance from Microsoft as per usual.

 

Even if they've got 1:1 support for D3D12 on D3D11 class hardware, limiting themselves to Windows >=8 only gives them 20% share at best. Less if they make 8.1 mandatory for support on 8.x.

For one most gamers are already on windows 8 because it performs much better than windows 7 game wise and second  a lot more people will move to 8 once directx12 comes out.  Just because windows 7 has a larger share doesnt mean they have that many more gamers.  Probably 90% of that share is buisiness. 

 

I hated metro at first but switched because its just better for game play for me.  After being on it for half a year now i cant stand going back to windows 7 lol

With games coming out for DX12 in the 2015 holiday season, spending resources on a Win7 version makes little point. Windows 9 should be out by then. And with XBOX ONE getting DX12 it pretty much means every game will at least have a DX12 mode as well.

What does this mean? It means that gamers can chose to play in DX Something inferior on Win7 OR they can play with better graphics and performance by upgrading to windows 8.1, 9 or newer.

Basically there's no reason for them to make a windows 7 version and every reason not to. Gamers will follow the performance, which means they will upgrade.

Gamers are probably waiting for Windows 9 anyways and that could be a factor why DX12 is nearly a year and a half from launch. They're probably putting their money in a successful Windows 9 launch that (hopefully) satisifies all Metro and lack of start menu haters. :p

For one most gamers are already on windows 8 because it performs much better than windows 7 game wise and second  a lot more people will move to 8 once directx12 comes out.  Just because windows 7 has a larger share doesnt mean they have that many more gamers.  Probably 90% of that share is buisiness. 

 

I hated metro at first but switched because its just better for game play for me.  After being on it for half a year now i cant stand going back to windows 7 lol

 

Windows 7 has 62% share, Windows 8.0 and 8.1 combined has 20% according to the Steam survey. So no, most gamers are on Windows 7, and DirectX 12 is not going to change that, as DirectX 10 has demonstrated in the past.

  • Like 1

For one most gamers are already on windows 8 because it performs much better than windows 7 game wise and second  a lot more people will move to 8 once directx12 comes out.  Just because windows 7 has a larger share doesnt mean they have that many more gamers.  Probably 90% of that share is buisiness. 

 

I hated metro at first but switched because its just better for game play for me.  After being on it for half a year now i cant stand going back to windows 7 lol

 

Lol no. There's FAR more people gaming on 7 than 8. Just look at the steam hardware survey. And i doubt a ton more gamers will be flocking to a new version of windows until microsoft makes one that isn't a massive step backwards for desktop usage.

  • Like 2

Wait for Windows 9 then, it'll probably correct the 'mistakes' made with Windows 8.x. As for the performance between Windows 7 and 8.x in games, it's known there's a performance increase on Windows 8.x, abeit how small the performance increase may be.

 

Basically wait and see. But don't be surprised if they don't develop DX12 for Windows 7.

Let's jot make this a windows 8 desktop discussion. Meanwhile I can game, run desktop apps and photoshop and 3ds max on my windows 8 as or more efficiently as on 7.

As I said, with the XO getting DX12 it will make all PC games have a far more efficient and better looking DX12 mode. Only on windows 8 and up. this will bring gamers to windows 8 and up

MS seemed to hint at the end of this that they are at least considering support for Windows 7.

 

I know it may sound silly to some here, but if MS can make that happen without causing them too much trouble, I think it would be a great thing to do at least from a pr point of view.

 

 

Some here are quite jaded with anything MS does, but if MS was able to do this and show that they can do something unexpected, maybe some of those that are so dead set against MS would come around a bit.

^ I dunno about that. Didn't that backfire with XP for years and years?

Not since the 360 didn't have DX 10 so neither did their dev tools at the time allow you to make the game for both platforms with a single click.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg why there's no comparable situation between the two.

They never managed to push developers over on DX10+ until recently. Now they practically don't have a choice. There's also a much bigger performance gap with DX12.

MS seemed to hint at the end of this that they are at least considering support for Windows 7.

 

I'm pretty sure they just didn't want to say no. They might keep it on hold to see how the situation develops. But, even then a windows 7 versions seems at this point to not even have been worked on, and it requires a lot more work as well. So it'll be at the very least a year behind, meaning it might as well not exist.

Not since the 360 didn't have DX 10 so neither did their dev tools at the time allow you to make the game for both platforms with a single click.

Their dev tools have never allowed you to target different versions of dx with a single click because of API and feature-set changes. So it wouldn't have happened even if the 360 had supported dx10.

Their dev tools have never allowed you to target different versions of dx with a single click because of API and feature-set changes. So it wouldn't have happened even if the 360 had supported dx10.

 

Their dev tools have allowed you to compile the same game for multiple platforms. I never said anythign about different version of DX. that was kind of the point. one click and they compile the game for DX12 Xbox One and DX12 PC in one go. 

^ I dunno about that. Didn't that backfire with XP for years and years?

 

It had little to do with DX and more to do with developers slow to move off of it.  Add to the fact that most PC games based on console ports tended to use DX9 since most of the Xbox 360s API was DX9 with a little DX10 on top.   People shouldn't underestimate the impact console versions of games have on their PC counterparts regardless of what version of DX you have installed.

 

Also, Windows 9 should turn out to be what the desktop purists want, add in a cheap price to upgrade and I don't see why you'd justify sticking to Windows 7.

Their dev tools have allowed you to compile the same game for multiple platforms. I never said anythign about different version of DX. that was kind of the point. one click and they compile the game for DX12 Xbox One and DX12 PC in one go. 

Switching gears like that is confusing since my post was about XP (and dx9) versus post-XP (and dx10) and how MS didn't see people jumping ship from dx9 because it didn't work on the platforms where gamers were (XP or 360). In any case, even if the 360 had had dx10 support, PC developers would largely have continued to target dx9 because developers target where the users are, not the other way around.

 

For multi-platform developers it seems a little muddier to me. Development efforts are never really a single click even if you setup the tool-chain to cross compile for all of the major platforms. Not bothering to selectively optimize for the platform generally leads to poor performance. Examples of that are numerous in the previous generations even for games that were cross platform between MS consoles and PC (for example: RE4, Beyond good and evil). A scenario with dx10 support for 360 would have led to development effort where you either chose to homogenize and support dx9 only for your PC builds or maintained two separate dx9 and dx10 builds. I'm sure there would have been some developers who would go the latter path, but I still don't think it would have been common considering that game developers have limited resources, in those years post-XP had a little user-base and shotty hardware support for the longest time, and targeting separate PC XP and PC post-XP builds just adds more work into the mix. What are the incentives or developers to do the separate build in those cases? Seems to me it would have been a poor choice of resources at the time.

 

EDIT: actually, I think the confusion was only my fault. I was much too vague in my own post. So I don't think the switching gears part makes sense anymore :-p

 

 

It had little to do with DX and more to do with developers slow to move off of it.  Add to the fact that most PC games based on console ports tended to use DX9 since most of the Xbox 360s API was DX9 with a little DX10 on top.   People shouldn't underestimate the impact console versions of games have on their PC counterparts regardless of what version of DX you have installed.

 

Also, Windows 9 should turn out to be what the desktop purists want, add in a cheap price to upgrade and I don't see why you'd justify sticking to Windows 7.

Developers are slow for a reason -- lack of dx10 support on the platforms where users are is a good reason for them to be slow. I make an argument above (in this post) for how I think it would have played out if the 360 had DX10 support. I personally don't feel it would have been much different because at the end of the day, developers would have targeted dx9 on PC regardless since most PC gamers were there, and there really wasn't a good incentive at the time for them putting effort into developing an additional dx10 version for PC given the lack of users.

 

I would say if users migrate to Win9, there's no good reason for developers to not target dx12. I think It's a bit too speculative at this point though.

Switching gears like that is confusing since my post was about XP (and dx9) versus post-XP (and dx10) and how MS didn't see people jumping ship from dx9 because it didn't work on the platforms where gamers were (XP or 360). In any case, even if the 360 had had dx10 support, PC developers would largely have continued to target dx9 because developers target where the users are, not the other way around.

 

For multi-platform developers it seems a little muddier to me. Development efforts are never really a single click even if you setup the tool-chain to cross compile for all of the major platforms. Not bothering to selectively optimize for the platform generally leads to poor performance. Examples of that are numerous in the previous generations even for games that were cross platform between MS consoles and PC (for example: RE4, Beyond good and evil). A scenario with dx10 support for 360 would have led to development effort where you either chose to homogenize and support dx9 only for your PC builds or maintained two separate dx9 and dx10 builds. I'm sure there would have been some developers who would go the latter path, but I still don't think it would have been common considering that game developers have limited resources, in those years post-XP had a little user-base and shotty hardware support for the longest time, and targeting separate PC XP and PC post-XP builds just adds more work into the mix. What are the incentives or developers to do the separate build in those cases? Seems to me it would have been a poor choice of resources at the time.

 

EDIT: actually, I think the confusion was only my fault. I was much too vague in my own post. So I don't think the switching gears part makes sense anymore :-p

 

 

Developers are slow for a reason -- lack of dx10 support on the platforms where users are is a good reason for them to be slow. I make an argument above (in this post) for how I think it would have played out if the 360 had DX10 support. I personally don't feel it would have been much different because at the end of the day, developers would have targeted dx9 on PC regardless since most PC gamers were there, and there really wasn't a good incentive at the time for them putting effort into developing an additional dx10 version for PC given the lack of users.

 

I would say if users migrate to Win9, there's no good reason for developers to not target dx12. I think It's a bit too speculative at this point though.

 

 

There's always a delay on users shifting to a new system, but regardless, to take full advantage of a new version of DX you'd need a new GPU, odds are that the people who would bother to upgrade the video card to stay up to date are also the ones who would upgrade their OS to the newest version.   Or when you buy a new PC in general you're upgrading both.  DX10 at the start wasn't what MS fully intended it to be, really DX11 is what DX10 should've been from what I remember.  NVidia had a hand to plan in this as well, MS changed some things in DX10 around the spec to help NVidia out while at the time ATi was ready and fully supported it like it was meant to be.  It's also why, iirc, ATi/AMD was the first to have DX11 cards out while NVidia lagged behind a bit. 

 

After it's all said and done, I don't see the lack of Windows 7 support as a negative, specially not if Windows 9 shapes up to be how people expect.  Even those who where on the fence with Windows 8 seem to like it now with 8.1U1 and the changes it brought.    The big thing in all this is the fact that DX12 will for the first time have a wider reach compared to before, hardware is a given, while current DX11 cards might not get 100% of the features,  even the performance advantages makes it worth it.  There's also the XB1 factor and mobile now to, as they said, with DX12 on XB1, PC and WP it makes the porting process easier/quicker and so on.  With the right tools/SDK and so on even with no Windows 7 the adaption rate for DX12 will be higher than before, once it's on the XB1 it'll be used regardless for one thing, and with mobile there's also another area were it'll be used to, porting between XB1 and WP8.1 for example or WP9, whatever version ends up with it. 

 

That's not to say they won't do a version for Windows 7, but if they do it'll come after all the rest, at best we're talking 2H15 or early into 2016.  By then who knows what could happen?

  • Like 1
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. They are seeking a better life too. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!