XP->Vista introduced a new driver model. D3D10/11 still could've been implemented for XP if they cared about supporting it though... e.g. GL4 exposes all the D11 functionality on XP...

I'm sure it could have been, but there's a lot more than marketing going on there. Agree on 11.1 restrictions being a bit silly, even if it's not just marketing either (new WDDM and DXGI versions).

Marketing isn't the right word for it. There are multiple. "Agenda" is one for it.

It is perfectly fine to introduce new models and break compatibility once in a while. The driver model change in Vista was sorely needed. When something really need improvement, it should be improved.

But their current actions betray an agenda, not them seeing a need for improvement. They are practically strong arming you into upgrading. Sure, it is always easier to not back-port changes, but I'm sure the current management would even prevent those back-ports is possible. They need to sell Windows 9. They need to reach with again numbers like in the glory periods, even though with current PC sales trends that is not possible even if Windows 9 is the best Windows yet. I have Windows 8 and it is a piece of crap, especially for gaming and engine development. Whatever support for miss-behaving fullscreen applications was in the OD previously, "Metro" gutted it. I often need to log out because the desktop app can't handle a full-screen app doing stupid stuff. Well, at least I could never crash the GPU driver like I could under 7 :).

But being tied down to a version of a software sucks. I'm not die hard by principle, but I'll probably end up the last DirectX 9 user in the world. Every time I try to port stuff and do dual maintenance, something does not work.

Anyway, screw stubborn principles. I'm upgrading right now to Windows 8.1. The reason I did not update until now was I that mistakenly believed you needed an account for it. I was just about ready to create my account, when I happily noticed it would let me download the update without it.

I have over 40 account that are all important. Does anybody else have problems with modern social media and services presence and the number of accounts you need?

Anyway, screw stubborn principles. I'm upgrading right now to Windows 8.1. The reason I did not update until now was I that mistakenly believed you needed an account for it. I was just about ready to create my account, when I happily noticed it would let me download the update without it.

Done. After over a year or so with Windows 8, I am no longer excited about the return of the start menu. It is actually worse than before, because it is not useful. I had the Win key before, does the same thing, but wasted screen estate.

And WTF did the installer do? I have +10 GiB of free space now on my Windows partition.

Anyway, back on topic. Is it possible to try out Mantle? Could anyone not working for software partners get their hands on it?

XP->Vista introduced a new driver model. D3D10/11 still could've been implemented for XP if they cared about supporting it though... e.g. GL4 exposes all the D11 functionality on XP...

I'm sure it could have been, but there's a lot more than marketing going on there. Agree on 11.1 restrictions being a bit silly, even if it's not just marketing either (new WDDM and DXGI versions).

I'd say that it is marketing reasons. D3D10 may have been dependent on the new driver model, but that opens the question: "why not implement the new driver model on XP?" Whichever way you cut it, it's excuses all the way down. Microsoft want to sell more copies of their new OS, games are a big market, by artificially tying D3D version to OS version only gamers with the new OS will get the latest-and-greatest, therefore more games will want to buy the new OS, therefore Microsoft will sell more copies of the new OS. Which was all quite transparent back then and remains so now.

I do think that MS THINKS that tying D3D to Windows version will sell more games. But to be honest I think for the most part it just slows adoption of the newer APIs by devs. D3D11 is really nice, and can support a huge range of hardware, and his been around a long time, but only recently has it become 'the standard'. These antics by MS do more harm to them in the long run IMO.

This is my opinion as well, and I think that strategy likely ends up forcing many people away from directx entirely. If directx 12 turns out to be exclusive to windows 8+ then it’ll be useless to me as a developer. I’m still using windows 7 and so is a large portion of the market, so no matter what improvements they add in 12, it’ll be a choice between abandoning a really significant percentage of potential users or sticking with an earlier version of directx or OpenGL. (not a hard choice)

I do think that MS THINKS that tying D3D to Windows version will sell more games. But to be honest I think for the most part it just slows adoption of the newer APIs by devs. D3D11 is really nice, and can support a huge range of hardware, and his been around a long time, but only recently has it become 'the standard'. These antics by MS do more harm to them in the long run IMO.

I think Ms thinks that tied version to OS will cause them to sell more versions of Windows. I don't know if they really want to sell more games that do not go though the Windows Store.

Ms has a weird conflict of interest. They want DirectX not only to remain relevant, but lead the entire industry as it pretty much did in the past. But they want you to buy apps in Windows Store or games on the Xbox. If it weren't for the privileged position granted by DirectX, I doubt Ms would really care at all about PC gaming.

I'll be the lone wolf here.

Isn't it easier and (at least for the API Creators) more beneficial to have your new Graphics API work on your new OS that most likely supports newer hardware? And, in theory, does things more effciently than the last OS?

XP->Vista introduced a new driver model. D3D10/11 still could've been implemented for XP if they cared about supporting it though... e.g. GL4 exposes all the D11 functionality on XP...

I'm sure it could have been, but there's a lot more than marketing going on there. Agree on 11.1 restrictions being a bit silly, even if it's not just marketing either (new WDDM and DXGI versions).

I'd say that it is marketing reasons. D3D10 may have been dependent on the new driver model, but that opens the question: "why not implement the new driver model on XP?" Whichever way you cut it, it's excuses all the way down. Microsoft want to sell more copies of their new OS, games are a big market, by artificially tying D3D version to OS version only gamers with the new OS will get the latest-and-greatest, therefore more games will want to buy the new OS, therefore Microsoft will sell more copies of the new OS. Which was all quite transparent back then and remains so now.