Microsoft already trimming Windows 7 features, DirectX 11 on the outs?

It might be a bit early for us to be talking Windows 7 feature cuts, but that said, isn't it a bit early for Microsoft to be talking Windows 7 feature cuts? If The Inquirer's "reliable sources" are to be believed, Microsoft is giving DirectX 11 the boot from its next version of Windows to keep hardware requirements down -- apparently the DirectX 10 requirements of Vista were enough of that sort of trouble for one decade. Obviously there's no official word on Microsoft at the moment, so we'll reserve judgment for the time being -- and hey, maybe no DirectX 11 wouldn't ruin our year -- but with the endless quantity of features cut from Vista still fresh in our memory, this is certainly not an encouraging sign if true.

[Thanks, Isaac]

[Pismodude @ Feb 9th 2008 4:15PM]

Ugh.

[Tiptup300 @ Feb 9th 2008 8:16PM]

M$ has to eventually just STOP allowing single core processors sometime. They are slowing down progress.

Its fir the greater good.

[computer.dude.28 @ Feb 9th 2008 10:18PM]

Just because YOU have a mult-core processor doesn't mean EVERYONE does. I have a dual core, but I'd bet that more than half of the world still runs single-core.

[John @ Feb 10th 2008 4:13AM]

@ computer.dude.28

Since operating systems are typically supported into the life of their successors, an individual still running a single-core processor could continue to run with their current OS. XP is still supported and Vista will likely be supported to a point in the life of its successor. If someone wants to continue running their older, single-core processor, they'll still have options for awhile yet.

Now this is a bit extreme but their does come a point when it's time to upgrade - even if you don't care about the latest and greatest OS and hardware. Just because my 12 year old Dell XPS (Pentium I @ 200 MHz; Win95) is still running does not mean I should expect Microsoft to still support the hardware with their new OS.

[Nick Catalano @ Feb 10th 2008 10:11AM]

Guys, guys, there is nothing wrong with 1 CPU. For a lot of applications 1 extremely fast core beats out a multi-core processor any day of the week for things like gaming, video rendering, etc. In fact, I am debating getting rid of my dual core and getting a very fast AMD single core processor (it seems to be the same price as a slower dual core, and I need raw power more than I need multitasking.)

Requiring more than one core just means that MSFT cannot design a good process management system into their system to account for less cores than there are processes. What they should be requiring is a 64 bit chip.

[shiba @ Feb 10th 2008 11:29AM]

@Nick

I'd double check your sources on that one. While its true that if an application is not written to support multi cores (Which is pretty much nothing in the video editing world, and its its starting to catch on in gaming, the two examples you listed) then a faster single core should beat the slower dual core. But you'll never see this happen, because all the dual/quad cores out right now are so efficient that they still beat the single cores. They have much bigger L2 caches/faster FSB. Not to mention the program could end up with a dedicated core, while the other core(s) keep the rest of the system running, making things even more efficient. I'd double check your sources on any benchmarks you read that told you this information because its plain wrong. If you really want to get rid of your dual core I'll gladly take it. Check the CPU charts over at Toms Hardware for a start. You won't see any single core CPUs till wayyyyyy near the bottom of any of those lists.

[416Hammy @ Feb 10th 2008 12:34PM]

Microsoft won't jeopardize all of their big corporate contracts by forcing multi-core. Microsoft cares more about that than it does making your Crysis look pretty.

[Tiptup300 @ Feb 10th 2008 8:09PM]

heh heh, I'm running a celeron single core processor thats equivalent to the P3, that doesn't mean I don't believe in progress.

[Tim @ Feb 9th 2008 4:35PM]

Bleh, more Microsoft.

[RyanTV @ Feb 9th 2008 4:18PM]

I personally think that a DX11 requirement is a good thing to drop for core operating system function. They really need to trim the fat on their OS.

The biggest gripe that I (and most other people I know) have with Vista is that it virtually takes an excellently spec'd machine and turns it into a bottle of molasses.

My company has over 30,000 windows based machines and none of us in the IT department can justify even thinking about 'up'grading to Vista due to its stout minimum requirements.

[sjdurfey @ Feb 9th 2008 4:38PM]

have you even attempted to run Vista? my freaking desktop from 2 years ago runs it just fine with crappy on-board video and an ancient AMD 3800+ just fine. i also have 3gb of ram, so im sure that makes some difference.

[caleb @ Feb 9th 2008 4:53PM]

"Just fine" huh? Sounds like a great justification for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in licenses to upgrade their 30,000 corporate systems (not to mention the labor costs involved). Just think how much more awesome those systems will be now that they can run DX 10.

[Dan @ Feb 9th 2008 4:55PM]

@sjdurfey
Have you ever worked IT? 2 years is a new system in the IT world. I work IT part time at my school, and I can't justify people upgrading to vista. Software compatibility is still a challenge, and the OS is unfamiliar. There are a lot of quirks and because of the lack of users getting solid fixes is very difficult. I can think of four instances in my last 3 hours of shifts at work where we had programs that were written for XP that would not work 100% with vista (Yes even in compatibility mode- many will not even install without compatibility mode) and two Vista compatible programs that did not work 100%. Unless you are very computer savvy, and have the need for the extra memory allocation or a specific feature- its just not a good idea.


That being said vista is getting a lot better very quickly. And Whats the deal with Mac users replacing 1500 computers every 2 years and getting on a high horse about how they always work better? The computer looks exactly the same- and you do the exact same things (word processing email and internet) how does Jobs dupe you into thinking that because he released a new OS you need to buy a new computer to keep up?

[Blaine Oliver @ Feb 9th 2008 5:01PM]

To be honest, i spend £300 on upgrades, from a 4 year old pc, and there only game improvement on my vista machine, the actual vista performance is hardly any different, my vista loads quicker than my xp ever did, stays quick booting rather than my xp and looks nicer, so for those who want more security vista is a good move.

[YoJIMbo @ Feb 9th 2008 5:16PM]

@Dan

Leopard works just fine on older macs latter G4 or better. (and is faster in some ways on the older machines due to streamlining). Apple generally requires far less of a hardware upgrade compared to Windows Releases (this is often due to the fact that Apple machines are always speced with med-end to high-end components only).

If you work in IT, then you know that percentage wise, you have less people crying to you over OS X issues.

[Drew @ Feb 9th 2008 5:38PM]

@YoJIMbo

Apple's machines have higher quality parts in them than most windows machines, because your going to be spending (or at least you were) twice as much on it. The reason the windows machines are less is because they don't lock all the hardware down to begin with. And it requires less upgrade, because it has the more HQ and faster parts.

[sjdurfey @ Feb 9th 2008 5:41PM]

@Dan

i stand corrected then. ive never worked in IT. the only large scale IT project ive seen is at my current university, and every computer is no more than 2 years old. i was just merely trying to point out this stigma that you need a top of the line computer to run vista properly, which isnt true at all.

[Tech^Cellfish @ Feb 9th 2008 6:06PM]

I agree. And most corporate computers don`t need and don`t have DX10 capable hardware.

[PeterF @ Feb 9th 2008 7:06PM]

@YoJIMbo
They don't require a big hardware upgrade for every release because they release a new one every year which only would qualify as a Service Pack if the updates were in Windows, yet they charge you for it!
You are paying money for service packs, with Windows, they are free, and you can either keep the money or buy new hardware.

[LongshotX @ Feb 9th 2008 7:27PM]

Are you trying run Vista Ultimate on an E-Machine? What are you talking about? My copy of Vista is very snappy and thats with 1.5 GBs of ram, a PCI Express ATI x700, and a 3 Ghz Pentium D. The big issue with Vista is drivers. They are the culprit.

[Johan S @ Feb 9th 2008 7:58PM]

I think the problem is Vista needs high end hardware, but Microsoft acts like it doesnt.

[blinkcowz182 @ Feb 9th 2008 8:01PM]

@PeterF

Yeah except these "service packs" you speak of add hundreds of new features and new versions of applications. I wish Windows users would quit trying to make it sound like 10.4 and 10.5 are similar just because they same base number. 10.4 to 10.5 is like going from XP to Vista (without the problems). Apple releases"service packs" OS updates as 10.5.1, 10.5.2 which are obviously free. So in 6 months Apple will have sent out at least 2 service pack updates, it'll be over a year before Microsoft finally get SP1 out the door since Vista's release. Get your facts straight.

[caleb @ Feb 9th 2008 9:52PM]

Also, by this rationale XP (v5.1) is just a service pack to Windows 2000 (v5.0).

Come to think of it, what feature did XP introduce over 2000? The only feature I can think of that I use on a regular basis is Remote Desktop. I'm sure there are other things, but none seem all that spectacular.

[Sam Winter @ Feb 9th 2008 10:31PM]

@PeterF

You are an idiot. Apple only charges for major 10.X releases such as 10.5 Leopard. Meanwhile, smaller service packs come every few months as 10.X.1, 10.X.2, 10.X.3, etc. The difference with MS is that Apple releases new systems much faster. Just because new editions come faster and are still called Mac OSX with a codename does NOT MEAN that they are "service packs". The last two editions of OSX, 10.4 "Tiger" and 10.5 "Leopard", were especially major upgrades. You are going to sit here and call Vista a totally new OS from XP and yet call 10.4 Tiger or 10.5 Leopard a service pack? That just shows your ignorance of Mac OSX and your bias of M$

[Sam Winter @ Feb 9th 2008 10:32PM]

@PeterF

You are an idiot. Apple only charges for major 10.X releases such as 10.5 Leopard. Meanwhile, smaller service packs come every few months as 10.X.1, 10.X.2, 10.X.3, etc. The difference with MS is that Apple releases new systems much faster. Just because new editions come faster and are still called Mac OSX with a codename does NOT MEAN that they are "service packs". The last two editions of OSX, 10.4 "Tiger" and 10.5 "Leopard", were especially major upgrades. You are going to sit here and call Vista a totally new OS from XP and yet call 10.4 Tiger or 10.5 Leopard a service pack? That just shows your ignorance of Mac OSX and your bias of M$

[iPriest @ Feb 10th 2008 10:26AM]

@ Peter F

Apple doesn't release every year an upgrade, it might seem like a year to you because it takes MS ages to actually finish an upgrade. Do not call a OSX upgrade a serive pack, because if that's the case Vista is a service pack as well as most of the features intended for vista where left out to actually get Vista to market and provide income for MS. Windowsusers just get fucked by MS who let's them work for years on an Windows version without fixing the bugs or improving the OS.

Leopard runs still fine on Macs that where purchased at the same time when the first version of XP was released. That is something MS can't offer to their userbase. But there is some logic in that as MS has deals with PC manufacturers. They scam windowsusers by forcing them to buy new systems while most of those users could easily be using their old machines if MS did the effort to provide real service to their customers.

[Drew @ Feb 10th 2008 10:31AM]

@caleb
Windows XP added an integrated firewall for one thing. Also a better GUI. That is just about all I can think of though

[Eric M. @ Feb 9th 2008 4:19PM]

A bit early to be talking about feature cuts especially since no features have even been announced so how they can already be cut? If this is true though why not create Directx11 and make it an addon instead of a mandatory feature?

Better to simply have it as an upgrade for PCs that can handle it, then you skip out on all the backlash Vista is getting although it isn't as bad as people suggests - I'm pretty happy with mine.

[Fernando @ Feb 9th 2008 4:20PM]

wtf? already? but DirectX 10 is enough for now, imo.

[TheGuy @ Feb 9th 2008 4:25PM]

Good enough? DirectX 10 hasn't even proven to be as good as DirectX 9 yet.

[Fernando @ Feb 9th 2008 5:35PM]

enough hassle for microsoft I meant

[Kris @ Feb 9th 2008 4:21PM]

This article is complete crap. Microsoft hasn't even finished coming up with all of the new items. How can they cut something out that was never in there to begin with?

[Ellianth @ Feb 9th 2008 4:37PM]

What's the matter engadget? Not getting enough page views?

[L. M. Lloyd @ Feb 9th 2008 4:21PM]

So let me get this straight. One of the biggest criticisms that this site and others have had about Vista is that it runs slow on old hardware, and tried to ram DX10 down everyone's throat, but when Microsoft listens to their customers and starts designing their next OS to be more friendly to older systems, that is a bad thing? Talk about being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Pismodude @ Feb 9th 2008 4:29PM]

I'm pretty sure they could be different people... Or do we all need to agree one way or the other to make their job easier?

[Blaine Oliver @ Feb 9th 2008 6:37PM]

Finally a guy who speaks some sense.

[Tyson Williams @ Feb 9th 2008 4:21PM]

Why not just keep directx10 and make 11 an optional upgrade?

[steve @ Feb 9th 2008 4:21PM]

The inquirer has reliable sources?

[blarvh @ Feb 9th 2008 4:27PM]

Why would DX11 be like DX10 and require a new OS?
Wasn't the reason DX10 doesn't work because it is built on a whole new framework?
Why would they make another radical remake if almost all other DX versions were just software changes.

[blarvh @ Feb 9th 2008 4:31PM]

Edit: Wasn't the reason DX10 won't work with XP because it's built on a whole new framework?


Possible placement of a Edit link/button:
Edit Reply

or

blarvh - Edit
@Feb 9th 2008 4:27PM

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 10th 2008 3:07AM]

That's what Microsoft would like you to believe. All it requires is the hardware as proven in many a Crysis installation.

It's all about money. If you could run DX10 games on your Windows XP box less people would upgrade to a system with more restrictions and a heavy hand. By teasing you with some magical hoopla that says certain software is needed to run a game better and that previous software is incapable of doing such feats, you abuse your monopoly stranglehold on the software industry and force everyone to fork out more cash.

It's software. For me to tell you that I couldn't patch in a feature in my old software, I'd be completely and utterly lying to you. Plain and simple.

[dudeInAmerica @ Feb 9th 2008 4:27PM]

Time to research Ubuntu when this XP support runs out.

Cant do vista in its current state. My computer makes a loud sucking sound.

[ethana2 @ Feb 9th 2008 7:00PM]

Research now so you know what you're getting into later. Random stuff like if you have an X-Fi graphics card or DirectX 10 games (WINE doesn't have good directX 10 support yet, but they're working on it), ...the X-Fi is just now getting properly supported...
[e-mail]
~I'll give you all the help I can. I switched about 7 months ago, never looked back.

[Ghen @ Feb 10th 2008 7:45AM]

I'm pretty sure anyone who can splurge on an X-Fi card and is still using windows should have less problems with Vista than Linux. Most of the unresolvable issues seem to stem from not enough $$ put into the computer. Resolvable issues like shutting off the cancel/allow prompt are just a checkbox away.

So basically, if your computer can't run Vista it should run Linux decently because you're on older hardware that has had more time to be supported. You also probably don't have a DX10 card so the WINE issue is not an issue.

[Fuzzmanmatt @ Feb 9th 2008 4:31PM]

So dumb... Apple introduced Leopard, which required more RAM, a faster processor, a better graphics card, and all around better hardware, and people were like "hey, this is cool, I'll get a new iMac that can handle Core Animation and it'll be neato!" When Microsoft even suggests that they're going to do something like DX11 people who have been using the same machine that they bought new with 98 on it are bitching up a storm. There are those of us who are okay spending $2000 every few years to get a great machine that does all the coolest stuff, and then there are those that don't want to spend the money, but still want to play the game. Replace that Packard Bell with something nice and new or stop bitching, 'cuz I'm getting a headache.

[adam @ Feb 9th 2008 4:40PM]

There was no need to reference Apple in your comment, are you trying to start yet another fanboy quarrel?

And no, Leopard doesn't require a "new machine." It'll run on G4, G5, and Intel processors, with just 512 MB ram.

Windows 7 needs to be good, Vista has already damaged Microsoft's reputation enough. I had Vista on a Toshiba laptop it took me twice as long to get something done as it would with XP. Downgraded to XP and I was much more happier... Although, I really can't stand having to search for drivers all the time - that's one thing that I really enjoy with Apples.

[Yours Smugly @ Feb 9th 2008 5:15PM]

@ Fuzzmanmatt: What? Leopard puts very small demands on hardware vs. Tiger compared to Vista vs. XP. My rev. A MacBook with its crappy integrated Intel graphics runs Leopard smoother than Tiger.

[Tony @ Feb 9th 2008 6:16PM]

"Although, I really can't stand having to search for drivers all the time - that's one thing that I really enjoy with Apples."

Is that because you have no choice with what hardware you use?

[ethana2 @ Feb 9th 2008 7:03PM]

Drivers. Heh, I remember those.

This is why we keep it all in the kernel. Of course, there are times when we have to let the restricted driver manager do it's thing, but besides the resent, it's pretty painless.

[Rob Conway @ Feb 10th 2008 8:47AM]

@Fuzzmanmatt

That's simply just not true. I own a PowerMac G4 1 Ghz Dual Processor with 1.5 GB RAM and a whopping 64 MB video card. Leopard runs fine. And it ran fine before the updates (10.5.1 and 10.5.2) came out. That's a seven year old machine. I'm not arrogant enough to say that no one had any trouble with leopard, but to say that you need a new machine to run it is just a lie.

I did buy a new iMac but not at all because of the OS. My trouble was with the music production program I use. The processor wasn't capable of handling it without crashing. And no, Leopard didn't crash just the music program.