Well here's hoping. Because on the surface this seems like one of those "you guys really have to do so little to make this happen" situations, and if as they say D3D12 is really just a superset of D3D11 functionality, it may even be so in reality too. It will be a good barometer of how genuine their commitment to this is.

Now, this doesn't mean that WDDM2 needs to be back ported; I could see a situation where D3D12 sits on top of the WDDM version on Windows which means D3D12 is still limited to the exposed feature set of that OS; Win7 = D3D12_FEATURE_LEVEL_11 at most, Win8 = D3D12_FEATURE_LEVEL_11_1 and so on. I think most people would accept that as a pragmatic way forward (although I'd like to see things like multidrawindirect appear as that is useful to have in the pocket) even if the WDDM submission part takes a bit longer on the older OSes/versions.

I very much doubt that they could bring D3D12 to Win7 without back-porting the new driver model. The new API has some pretty radical changes in terms of how programs and drivers handle memory allocation and command buffer generation, and as far as I know these things are closely tied to the Windows driver model. From the slides it also looks like the interactions between the D3D runtime and driver have also changed.

I very much doubt that they could bring D3D12 to Win7 without back-porting the new driver model. The new API has some pretty radical changes in terms of how programs and drivers handle memory allocation and command buffer generation, and as far as I know these things are closely tied to the Windows driver model. From the slides it also looks like the interactions between the D3D runtime and driver have also changed.

That sounds right to me too - it will be all or nothing, otherwise the OEMs would need to maintain multiple versions of their drivers for Win7. Still, I hope there is a way for them to get the driver model ported to Win7 - they did it with WDDM1.1, so it isn't outlandish to think it could be done again for whatever this new model is called.

then again, if their target really is end of 2015, does win7 really still matter that much by then? win8 will even have a startmenu by then. or win9. or what ever it'll be called.

then again, if their target really is end of 2015, does win7 really still matter that much by then? win8 will even have a startmenu by then. or win9. or what ever it'll be called.

Well that's the clincher, isn't it?

If Windows 8.2 or 9, or whichever version DX12 may be limited to, turns out to be good enough on it's own merits, then it becomes academic. People will likely upgrade anyway, as happened with Windows 7.

If it turns out to be a pile of steaming poo and if it turns out that MS end up using DX12 to try to force upgrades, people won't be happy.

This isn't about a Start menu, by the way. The Start menu can be nuked from orbit for all I care; so long as whatever replaces it does a good job is all that matters. The Windows 8 Start screen doesn't do a good job. This isn't "love me, love my Start menu", this is "the Start screen is a turd by any criteria".

except it isn't.. it's great. i use it daily. and have to use win7 daily, too. productivity increased massively once the startscreen is embraced.

but the hate on it is huge, of course.

but it looks like they focus on pleasing all the haters now, instead of progressing. and thus, making win7 unimportant as, by then, everyone can just upgrade.

1.5 years from now, that's a long time.

/me expects this to escalate now into a 'i hate win8' thread instead of using logic and common sense.

so, just in case. your statement is wrong. by all my criteria, start screen is not a turd. invalidating your generic statement.