WDDM 1.1 and windows vista


Recommended Posts

The WDDM 1.1 introduced with windows vista which is responsible for reduced memory consumption should be ported to Windows vista also and should not be exclusive to Windows 7. The desktop window manager consumes a lot of memory in windows vista depending upon the number of windows open. this feature would be nice to have in vista. why would Vista users have to suffer MS poor design decision early on with Windows Vista!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would Vista users have to suffer MS poor design decision early on with Windows Vista!

it's not a poor design decision, but a natural thing because WDDM 1.1 requires a DirectX 10 graphics card with higher hardware requirements than DirectX9, that means it was impossible to have WDDM 1.1 in 2007.

Do you remember when Microsoft released Vista with WDDM 1.0 in January 2007? All morons complained because they haven't a DirectX 9 graphics card to activate Aero...

May be the WDDM 1.1 will come with SP3 ?

Edited by jamesVault
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WDDM 1.1 introduced with windows vista which is responsible for reduced memory consumption should be ported to Windows vista also and should not be exclusive to Windows 7. The desktop window manager consumes a lot of memory in windows vista depending upon the number of windows open. this feature would be nice to have in vista. why would Vista users have to suffer MS poor design decision early on with Windows Vista!

It's like putting a 2009 model car engine into a 2006 same model car. just doesn't fit or work like it should if you do make it fit with alot of exsessive work. Why don't they do it well it's just like the life cycle of software. Same reason WDDM 1.0 wasn't ported to Windows XP etc.

why would Vista users have to suffer MS poor design decision early on with Windows Vista

Exactly why Windows 7 is being made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are even complaining about the reletively miniscule ammount of memory desktop management uses in Vista. then you obvioulsy don't have enough memory to be running Vista, buy more and stop whining. When will people learn that free resources are wasted resources that only cost you money to do nothing. The ammount of memory used hasn't really changed anyway, it's just moved from being mainly system to mainly video, making better use of the usually faster video memory with system memory being used for paging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ammount of memory used hasn't really changed anyway, it's just moved from being mainly system to mainly video, making better use of the usually faster video memory with system memory being used for paging.

It certainly has. On a modern high-resolution display a single window can easily use 10MB. In Vista, you would have this 10MB sitting around in both system memory (for use by GDI) and video memory (for use by the composition engine) because the two aren't compatible and because moving data between them is very slow. In Windows 7, only the copy in video memory exists and certain GDI functions have been changed so they can manipulate this directly in the graphics hardware. This means that it uses half the memory, at the expense of operations that involve reading back the memory being substantially slower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WDDM 1.1 introduced with windows vista

I thought WDDM 1.1 was introduced in Windows 7, Vista had WDDM 1.0. To introduce 1.1 into Vista would probably require the reconfiguration of Vista's grahpics systems. Something that large and time-consuming would be a waste of time and give people are reason not to upgrade to the latest version of Windows. If you want upgrades and enhancements then you pay for them in the form of a new version of Windows.

Windows 7 is an evolutionary upgrade and includes the next generation of systems that was introduced with Vista.

To quote Brandon Live...

Something like WDDM or porting DX10 to XP is an entirely different matter. It's not an application, it's basically a major stack of the core OS that goes as deep as the kernel (or lower down to the HAL, in some cases). In the case of WDDM 1.1, there's no point in supporting those drivers if you can't make use of the new features they offer. So even if you ported all the kernel changes down to Vista to support the drivers, you'd also have to port all the changes in the display stack above it, all the way up to the window manager. At this point you aren't talking about Vista anymore, you're talking about Win7.
Edited by bbfc_uk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the same story back and forth

and when WDDM2.0 get released in Win8(probably ? ,since they talked about it before vista release),same story well go around .

went it ? upgrade .

as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The performance difference between WDDM 1.0 and 1.1 is actually relatively small, and will be more noticable on low end machines with smaller amounts of memory. We heard the same moaning about why all of Vista's technology wasn't backported, and the answer is pretty simple:

Microsoft are in this business to make money, and if they keep on backporting all of their new features to older operating systems then they will lose money.

Also, if WDDM 1.1 was backported to vista all we would get would be a whole new raft of moaning about how WDDM 1.1 has too steep hardware requirements.

Sorry to say this, but the answer is simple: If you want WDDM 1.1 then get Windows 7 when it is released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.