Talk:DirectX/Archive 1

DirectX 9 April update
DirectX April 2006 update is out, anyone to write about it? Sedimin 09:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Microsoft is racist and hates version numbers :(

DirectX 10
DirectX 10 beta is available in build 5238. --SuperWiki 01:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

DirectDraw death?
About "Since version 8.0 DirectDraw is integrated in Direct3D." While this is what Micorosoft claims, they pretty much nuked DirectDraw. There is some DirectDraw functionality in Direct3D (DirectX Graphics), but most of the API is totally gone. I think we should take this text out. Any objections? If not, I'll remove it. -Frecklefoot 20:59 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * How about change the sentance to something like: "since version 8.0 some functionality from directdraw have been integrated into direct 3d". It should be mentioned that directdraw isnt a part of directx in recent versions. -User:Modster 21:09 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * How about, "deprecated since version 8.0?" In the DirectDraw article it is mentioned that it is no longer available directly in DirectX. -Frecklefoot


 * DirectDraw is no longer being updated since before version 8. All existing DirectDraw calls are valid and working in future versions, but you must access alternate documentation to use them, as Microsoft is pushing to move all 2D into a 3D realm so the power of current GPU's can be used to they're fullest.  This is accomplished through D3DXSprite interface.  I'd recommend dropping DirectDraw down to a subnote, and explaining the history.  Gamedev.net info.  --ORBIT 12:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RenderWare
"developed by Criterion, which was then bought by Electronic arts"
 * I don't think this is correct, can someone prove me wrong? Mintguy


 * It is not correct. It was developed in-house at MS. Alex St. John has written on this, and about the 'missing directx' pieces on a number of occasions. Secondly, the company in question is Criterion, RenderWare is their main product.


 * That's pretty much what I thought, i'll remove it, and post a note to the user. Mintguy


 * Oops, soory, I didn't check the details. RenderMorphics was the company, and it was bought by MS to develop D3D inhouse. I acted before checking because I was showing a friend how good Wikipedia was. I'm mainly busy on the Swedish Wikipedia otherwise.

No, Microsoft bought RenderMorphics, not RenderWare. At that time, there were the "British Three", three good 3D libraries being used by some games: RenderWare, RenderMorphics and BRender. However, most advanced games did their own software rendering, and did not use any general purpose libraries (DOOM, Unreal, Duke Nukem, etc). The first version of DirectX was based on RenderMorphics, which was somewhat retained-mode. To make it more immediate-mode, they exposed some of the internal datastructures of RenderMorphics, which resulted in the ill-fated execute buffers. After this, Chas Boyd (who should be a prominant part of this article!) and his team began completely redesigning and rewriting Direct3D. He also invovled game developers and engineers from nVidia and ATI in these plans. So, there is still quite a bit of history here that isn't being told. DonPMitchell 17:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugly section
I couldn't stand it anymore, and I removed the below section. If someone wants to beautify it and add it back in, be my guest. I just couldn't stand it anymore.

Tutorial Sites
To keep these relevant to the Version of DirectX and the selected programming language the versions and programming language of the various tutorials are shown.

For languages: C# (v9 Microsoft Visual Studio) ' For C++ and Visual Basic (v8.1, v9 Microsoft Visual Studio)  For C++ (v9 Visual Studio) 
 * Microsoft's tutorials
 * Craig Andera's Writings
 * kuhnstall Tutorials
 * Drunken Hyena's Tutorials
 * http://www.ultimategameprogramming.com/DirectX1.htm

Forums on Direct X

 * Microsoft DirectX newsgroups

Reference Sites

 * "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" by Rich Thomson Download the excellent graphics on the directx Pipeline Poster from this site!
 * http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/directx.aspc (for C#)
 * DirectX vs OpenGL

Books on DirectX

 * Microsoft® DirectX® 9 Programmable Graphics Pipeline

Resource Sites 3d Graphics

 * SIGGRAPH eduction

Why moved?
Why was the article moved from DirectX to Microsoft DirectX? --Mrwojo 20:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have the same question. Does someone else make a DirectX? (Answer: No). If no one provides an explanation, I vote we move it back in the next few days.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 20:23, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Mrwojo 20:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Crop the logo
Anyone want to take a shot at cropping the logo? We don't need all the extra blackspace at the bottom--its not part of the logo. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 21:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. You might have to shift+reload to see the new image (I was seeing an oddly squashed version for a minute there). --Mrwojo 22:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

9.0d or 9.1 coming soon?
Does anyone know if DirectX 9.0d is coming soon? Will it be 2000/XP only or will it still support 98SE/ME? Or will the next DirectX version be 9.1? --KelisFan2K5 22:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Try asking on the DirectX SDK newsgroup.  &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * DirectX 9.0C Has had 4 update's in the past year with 9.0C Febuary coming out on 18 Feb 2006.

XNA
xna is NOT an api replacing dx, its a framework, an overlay over directx and hlsl, its not going to replace dx. i am deleting that stuff on xna coz its wrong --GregLoutsenko 12:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WGF
I think the article is confusing Windows Graphics Foundation (the next version of directx) and Avalon (the new UI API). The latter will be released for XP, whereas the former won't be. I'm editing out the part about WGF being released for XP.

More History
Is it just me, or is anyone else confused as to where DirectX got stuck with major version 4 and can't seem to get rif of it. In the table, it list's each Version Number. They all have a major verison of 4 and the minor versions are the actual DirectX versions. But there is no where in this article that explains why this is. I have no idea, do you? If so, help us out a little! Did it launch with Windows NT 4.0, so they slapped that in front or what?


 * If I recall correctly, major version 4 meant was for system files in the win9x lineage, whilst major version 5 was for the nt line... 24.17.101.107 05:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

DeFactoStandard
OpenGL was the 3D API before ever DirectX was ever a project. It is currently present in EVERY operating system, while DirectX is only present on some incarnations of Windows.

So I think, OpenGL is, and was, a de facto standard long before DirectX appeared in scene.

&mdash;Claunia 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply being present surely does not make something a de facto standard, it must be dominant in terms of actual usage. After all, most browsers still support Gopher, but that doesn't make it a de facto standard.  OpenGL is not dominant enough in the games industry to qualify, IMO. 60.234.129.57 19:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Formatting in Release History section
In the release history table, the logo cell is overlapping into the next cell, causing the vertical bar (column separator) to get positioned on top of text. I am using IE7B2. If this is not a browser specific issue, please modify the table to take care of this formatting issue. --Soumyasch 07:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Backward compatibility
Someone seems to have posted factual errors by using a strange definition of backwards compatible, see this section for the definition of backwards compatable used to fix this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatible

Not an integrated development environment
I've removed   from the article, because I'm fairly certain that DirectX is not an Integrated Development Environment. (I've never used Visual Studio, so I don't know if it has any special support or plug-ins for programming DirectX apps. If it does, maybe that's what User:J.sweeton@wnri.com was thinking of when he added that category.) —Chris Chittleborough 14:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct, DirectX is not a IDE. More of a gaming library (graphics, sounds, etc.). DirectX is available as a SDK (software development kit), so you would need a separate IDE. &mdash;Pelladon 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't realize that I had done that. Good eye. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 03:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

XBox 360?
Why was this listed next to DirectX 9.0c? The X360 uses a very different API, with a lot more in common with WGF 2.0.
 * I vote that the x360 refrence is removed --Amckern 16:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Xbox 360 is running on a custom versio nof DirectX 9.0c, with some similarity to WGF 2.0, I think it's more common to DX9 since the hardware doesn't support SM 4.0.


 * If the 360 only runs DX9.0c why is it listed as supporting DX10.


 * the 360 does indeed support many features of DX10, that are not in DX9, if it were up to that fact, I would also say it supports DX10, even though its not fully supported--24.16.3.107 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

DirectX 9.0L
There doesn't appear to be anything about the next XP and below version of DirectX, 9.0L. It brings support for Shader Model 4.0, and it'll be the only way to use some of the newer features in 3D cards that upcoming games like Crysis on an XP and below based system. Personally, I'm not that aware of the situation regarding it, but surely someone else can shed some light and update the article accordingly? Gaz 20:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * DirectX 9.0L is not for XP, and it doesn't support SM 4.0. It's Vista only - the Aero Glass interface runs on it, for example.


 * Really? I had no idea. Seeing as DirectX 9.0L is going to be the final revision of the DirectX 9 API, and DX 10 is a rather large code rewrite, I assumed that DX 9.0L was gooing to be for XP... Oh well, thanks for the info anyway. Gaz 12:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * DirectX 9.0L will be for XP, and add SM 4.0. This'll be done to avoid huge drop-off in sales of Vista-ready games like Crysis. Source: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110

Incorrect 9.0L is for Vista only. - RoyBoy 800 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But it's not 9.0L now, its official number is 9.0Ex, and apparently it's included in Vista. I haven't found anywhere to download 9.0Ex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

DirectX 10 exclusively available to Windows Vista?
At the very last line of The Future of DirectX, there's a line that states: DirectX 10 is available exclusively to Vista, which means that computers that aren't running Vista will not be able to run later games which require DirectX 10.

This line is very striking and questionable that just demands for a reference or source. Furthermore, to avoid confusion, I have changed the word "games" to "applications" as games are not the only software that will use the DX10 SDK.

--BirdKr 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true; Vista requires DirectX 10, and DirectX 10 requires Vista. Any app that requires DX10 means it's a Vista-only game.  Essentially, by the way, we're talking about games, and IMO "games" is a better term to use than "apps" in this context.  Tempshill 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought 10 was XP also... better check my MS blogs again soon :). RN 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently a number of apps which are not games use DirectX, including Direct3D and other parts. I see no reason to assume this trend won't continue. While games will likely be the first normal apps to really start to use DX10, this doesn't change the fact that games (and benchmarks) are not the only things using DX. N.B. Benchmarks will probably be the first apps to use DX10 but they aren't really normal apps IMHO (although this does demonstrate the fact that apps other then games use DX10). BTW, I have seen numerous reports suggesting DX10 will be Vista only. Of course, MS could change their mind. Nil Einne 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not particularly sure what you mean Vista requires DX10. Vista will comes with DX10, I assume. However you will get along perfectly well without hardware (especially a 3D card) that supports DX10. Of course, once apps start to require DX10, then you will obviously need hardware if you want to use said apps. But this is likely to take quite a while since it is unlikely anyone would lock themselves out of a large portion of the market so soon. And again, it's only assuming you want to use said apps and won't matter if you don't. Nil Einne 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there should there be a mention of the unofficial port of directx 10 to Xp by the Alky Project. It's still in it's alpha preview according to the offical site http://www.techmixer.com/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp/ i believe this maybe noteworthy75.51.188.162 (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't we talk about the controversy surrounding DX?
i'm reffering of coarse to the fact that microsoft only pipe loads of resources into it because it means less development on competing platforms, locking many people into windows.... this is considered monopolistic by many but there's not a word of it in the article...


 * I don't know what your above statement means (clarify?), but if you can find a source for it, go ahead and add it (and cite your source). We have to be careful not to include original research.  Also, please sign your posts (  or ~ ). &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd add that there's already a statement in the article that some people think DirectX is an example of the embrace, extend, extinguish model, so I think you're covered. Tempshill 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

MCI
A mention should be done of Media Control Interface, but I am not sure where.

History Section
What the hell is this section? It is badly written, non-factual and looks like crap. Can someone enlighten me please? I am going to go back into the History archives, find the last decent one and replace this section.

Any problems with this, please let me know here or on my talk page.

Stuart Steedman 13:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Last pure 32-bit DirectX
DirectX from December 13 2004 was last pure 32-bit only distribution - look here, its requirements matches only 32bit OSes. Next bimonthly update from February 9 2005 has 64bit mention in requirements - look here:

Please download both DirectX, and you see using CAB viewer, that DX from December 13 2004 doesn't include 64-bit related filenames, while next update released two months later contains at least one 64-bit related filename.

DirectX from December 13 2004 requirements:
 * Supported Operating Systems: TabletPC; Windows 2000; Windows 2000 Advanced Server; Windows 2000 Professional Edition ; Windows 2000 Server; Windows 2000 Service Pack 2; Windows 2000 Service Pack 3; Windows 2000 Service Pack 4; Windows 98; Windows 98 Second Edition; Windows ME; Windows Server 2003; Windows XP; Windows XP Home Edition ; Windows XP Media Center Edition; Windows XP Professional Edition ; Windows XP Service Pack 1

DirectX from February 9 2005 requirements:
 * Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 2000 Advanced Server; Windows 2000 Professional Edition ; Windows 2000 Server; Windows 2000 Service Pack 2; Windows 2000 Service Pack 3; Windows 2000 Service Pack 4; Windows 98; Windows 98 Second Edition; Windows ME; Windows XP; Windows XP 64-bit; Windows XP Home Edition ; Windows XP Media Center Edition; Windows XP Professional Edition ; Windows XP Service Pack 1; Windows XP Service Pack 2; Windows XP Tablet PC Edition

Please don't delete this mention in release table - it is informal for 32-bit users which last version of DirectX is still 32-bit only. 64-bit DirectX began to be bigger than 50 MB, while pure 32-bit version of DirectX has only nearly 30 MB.

I readded these links:


 * Direct link to last pure 32-bit DirectX 9.0c from December 13 2004
 * Direct link to first 64-bit capable DirectX 9.0c from February 9 2005

because they are important for Windows Me users to point at last DirectX that is still fully usable to them without any 64-bit overhead. Please don't delete them. Wikinger 16:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

DirectX 10.1 information
The advent of leaked R600 information mentioned a draft 10.1 version of directX. Has there been any official information on this directX 10.1 that we could describe within wikipedia? --Kaddar 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Microsoft has talked about their future plans for DirectX in a broader sense at WinHEC and other official venues. -/- Warren 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

DirectX only available for MS customers running genuine Microsoft Windows
Both the SDK and the runtime are only available to customers running genuine Microsoft Windows, the download requires WGA validation


 * You actually need WGA validation to download the SDK? That's a bit of a bummer - a few years ago, I always used to download the big Microsoft files on a Linux machine at college, as I didn't have access to a broadband connection at home. Guess Microsoft didn't think about that (or more likely don't care). 217.155.20.163 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rel history table
I have deleted the image section of the mentioned table, as it was rather pointless, and was overlaying on the version numbers.
 * I have added a gallery for it. Just for logo remembrance :P. :) --SkyWalker 21:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation Please
Can anyone please explain what the first line "DirectX is an interactive binary preprocessor applied to an interactive multimedia protocol." means? Thanks. --59.167.96.250 07:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, and I've been using DirectX since it was launched! I changed it back to a previous version, which is much clearer. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Installing DirectX under 98lited Windows
Installing DirectX (any version) under 98lited Windows requires at least temporary presence of PC Health while installing. Otherwise DirectX refuses to install, finishing installation attempt with error message "DirectX did not copy a required file". Before and after installation of DirectX PC Health can be uninstalled.83.19.52.107 13:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Directx9.jpg
Image:Directx9.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I added rationale analogous as in DirectX 10.00 logo. 83.5.79.3 11:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference #4 ("DX10 on vista?")
I read that link, and it seems to be nothing more than some guy thinking out loud, not an actual source of information. It doesn't even qualify as a rumor, just a hope. If nobody replies in a few days, I'll go ahead and wipe the related text.

Link in question: Prgrmr@wrk 23:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed it. Prgrmr@wrk 14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to directx
I just wanted to tell you guys that the link to microsoft.com/directx has stopped working. I don't know what to update it with either... --90.227.222.77 07:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's working now... --ReCover 15:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Windows 95 DirectX
I would like to add the following link:


 * Direct link to last version supported by Windows 95 (DirectX 8.0a) from February 15 2001

so that Windows 95 users can locate the last version available to them, as users of Windows 98/Me users currently can. There's a stern warning about adding new links, so I'm dutifully asking permission first. DOSGuy 06:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, please add all new comments to the very bottom of the page. I, for one, vote against it.  We're really not in the business of being an archive for old stuff (plus, I don't see a link for a Win98 version of DirectX).  You can wait for others to chime in. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Windows Me/2000 DirectX links are sufficient and enough, because Me/2000 are both last existent systems without activation, and simultaneously they are both 32-bit only. Thus if newest 32-bit only DirectX is sufficient to newest activation-free systems, then it is a strict minimum needed to users that want to be free from activation and most recent at once, while being free from any 64-bit overhead useless to them. Wikinger 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added my comment to a relevant section. There is a link for the last version compatible with Windows 98/Me (the "last pure 32-bit DirectX"), so Windows 95 is the only version of Windows that doesn't have a link to its last compatible version. I see no reason to exclude Win95. DOSGuy 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Windows 95 can be safely excluded, because with "setup /nm" option Windows Me can be installed even on 386. Additionally, with 98lite Windows Me can be boosted to 98micro profile that is equal to Windows 95. Wikinger 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's good for Windows Me users I guess, but what about Windows 95 users? DOSGuy 07:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They has inferior variant of Windows 9x such as 95 and 98. Let's they switch to Windows Me that is superior variant of Windows 9x and is last ever Windows without activation. Wikinger 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a help site. Write as if nobody is running the operating system being written about. We do not care about activation, or which is superior. SchmuckyTheCat


 * That's very bad. Activation is a very beginning of evil which was described in The right to Read story by Richard Stallman, and due to this, final control-free releases of software should be mentioned. Wikinger 16:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an advocacy site either. SchmuckyTheCat

Okay, I don't know what activation has to do with anything. Let's try to stay on topic here. There are two links to non-current versions of DirectX. The first link is the last "pure 32-bit" version of DirectX, which presumably is a matter of historical interest, and happens to also be the last version that users of Windows 98/Me can have. Version 9.0c (though not necessarily this monthly update) also happens to be the last version usable by users of Windows 2000, and 32-bit versions of Windows XP and 2003. The second link is the first 64-bit version of DirectX, which is also a matter of historical interest, and version 9.0c (though not necessarily this monthly update) is the last version usable by 64-bit versions of Windows XP and 2003. Windows Vista comes with the current version, DirectX 10, which has no download. Windows 95 ends up being the only OS that doesn't have a link to a usable version of DirectX.

Maybe the links should be removed altogether, since I'm not really sure why they are there. There can really only be two reasons: historical interest, or to provide useful links to Windows users. If they're for historical interest, then the last version usable by Windows 95 is historically interesting and completes the set. If the point is to provide useful links to Windows users, then the last version usable by Windows 95 completes the set and allows all Windows users to download a usable copy of DirectX. By either criteria, there is only one download missing from the group. I vote that we either remove the two existing links for not being justifiable or, if they are justifiable, add the only download that is missing from the list and complete the useful resource. DOSGuy 01:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Activation is an external controlling mechanism authorized directly from Redmond that is introduced since Windows XP, which many users can avoid by using Me/2000 series of Microsoft software that is newest ever activation-free generation of Microsoft software at all. Vista is even worse - it permits display to be externally authorized directly by Redmond. These DirectX links are for saving 32-bit users of activation-free 32-bit Me/2000 series from any 64-bit overhead. First 64-bit version of DirectX serves as validation of fact that preceding version of DirectX was really last 32-bit one. Of course DirectX was released bimonthly, and distance between these two releases has too two months. Windows Vista users can always easily find DirectX directly from http://www.microsoft.com/directx site. Windows 95 and 98 users has no justification to stick with these old systems, because these systems lacks support of large disk drives that can be as big as 128 gigabytes in FAT-32 filesystem, while Me/2000 series supports these disk sizes easily. Wikinger 13:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Windows 95 an 98 users have no justification to stick with those operating systems? Reasons for Win 95/98 users to not upgrade include: 1) not meeting the hardware requirements of later versions of Windows; 2) having older hardware that runs faster using Win95/98 (like this Pentium II laptop that desperately needs a downgrade to Win98 or lower); 3) not owning or being able to buy a copy of Windows Me, which is discontinued; 4) having a personal preference for the operating system they're already using and not wanting to change (nostalgia); 5) historical interest; 6) why should I? I'll use Windows 95 whether Microsoft, Wikinger, or anyone else likes it or not! (No offense) This is just getting silly. I gave two valid reasons why the link to DirectX 8.0a should be included, and the only dissenting reason against adding it seems to be some obsession with the evils of Windows activation. Unless someone has a reasonable argument against, I'm going to add the link. DOSGuy 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lack of justification of sticking with Windows 95 an 98 exists, because Windows Me can be used even on 386 that doesn't meet its hardware requirements on large enough hard disk by installing it using "setup /nm" option, and even if hard disk free space is too small, 98lite can be used to force Windows Me to create its installation under 50 MB in 98micro mode. Windows Me can too run much faster on older hardware in 98lite 98micro mode. Used original of Windows Me can be bought from second hand. Windows Me has interface identical to 95 and 98, and simultaneously has interface different from 1.x, 2.x, 3x, and XP/VISTA, thus nostalgic look of 9x line is retained in Windows Me. Historically Windows Me is best ever representative of 9x code. Wikinger 16:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * None of which is important to this article. SchmuckyTheCat

DirectX 10.1 and Xaudio
I seem to recall that the biggest feature of DirectX 10.1 is Xaudio 2. Can someone confirm that so we can add it? -(Ofunniku 07:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

A new link i found
Hi guys. I found a new link for DirectX yesterday. It is probs the best tutorial i have seen. the site is http://www.directxtutorial.com/

Drnoitall.hello 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DirectX 7 logo.png
Image:DirectX 7 logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DirectX 8.0 logo.png
Image:DirectX 8.0 logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong DX7 & 8 Logo
The right DX7 logo can be found here: http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/bienkowski/dx10/DX_7_Logo.png

The right DX8 logo can be found here: http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/bienkowski/dx10/DX_8_Logo.png

172.142.82.43 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Last DirectX for Windows 98
http://erpman1.tripod.com/w98meupd.html - this site says: The DirectX 9.0c December 2006 Redist. download is the very last download to have the latest DirectX components for Windows 98 & ME. DirectX Redistributable downloads created from 2007 and beyond will only include DirectX components for Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003 & Vista OSes. 193.83.11.26 (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Updating DirectX
Is DirectX always backwards compatible? I have problems all the time, especially with 9.0c to 8.1. I don't know whether my PC is stuffing up or something.

Also, if you install, say, DirectX 6 followed by DirectX 9, then will the DX6 components still be available despite being overidden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.247.157 (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Direct X 11?
What are some of the future goals of DX11? --24.249.108.133 (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dxdiag.png
Image:Dxdiag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)