direct2D

This is a discussion on direct2D within the Game Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; Introducing Direct2D Does anyone know if this will work under vista or XP too?...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    330

    direct2D

    Introducing Direct2D

    Does anyone know if this will work under vista or XP too?

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    99
    Vista SP2 with the platform update, Server 2008 and up, and Win 7.
    Direct2D (Windows)

  3. #3
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,627
    Vista, yes, XP, no. That much Microsoft has admitted. No plans for XP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    82
    Windows 7 has demolished XP and Vista, even in the enthusiast corners with the exception of stubborn fools who refuse to take the time to understand the way things are and do change. (The hXc nerds that still rant on about CLI being the 'cool way to do things.')

    If Microsoft had their way the new architecture would replace everything that exists on the market right now. Point is, don't expect Microsoft to bother themselves with something they don't even like (XP), they're way too happy with the new OS model... (Vista/Win7) so are quite a lot of programmers. WASAPI ftw!!!

    If you haven't heard it yet, better you hear it now, anything starting at XP and older just became legacy, and Vista is quickly becoming the 'forgotten step child.'

    Personally, I think it's a good thing, the API is a lot more friendly and MSDN documentation is off the hook with eliteness.

    :]
    Last edited by since; 12-09-2009 at 11:43 AM.

  5. #5
    dra
    dra is offline
    Weak. dra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    166
    Direct2D is built on top of DirectX 10 (which isn't supported on XP), so no it won't work =/

  6. #6
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Point is, don't expect Microsoft to bother themselves with something they don't even like (XP),
    Where do you get your info? From what I know of the W7 devs were told that their product was competing with XP, not Vista. Why would MS hate one of their most successful OS's to date (prob save for Win2K)? What MS prob hates is the fact that XP is so good that many are still refusing to switch to W7 just yet but that doesn't mean they hate the OS in general.

    Direct2D doesn't support anything that you cannot already do with Direct3D except provide a somewhat simpler interface to it. 2D in Direct3D is a cakewalk.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 12-10-2009 at 10:29 PM.

  7. #7
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,627
    Cakewalk? That's taking it a little too far, methinks. More like it's easy for those who know 3D.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #8
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by since View Post
    Personally, I think it's a good thing, the API is a lot more friendly and MSDN documentation is off the hook with eliteness.

    :]
    Yeah ok fanboy. Apparently you don't actually develop for windows professionally. There are serious capability issues with Windows 7. They broke large portions of existing code that was fully API compliant in pursuit of DRM. The messed up thing is what they implemented didn't really strengthen DRM, it just made legitimate application developers have to rewrite their code.

    And sorry to burst your bubble, but XP still dominates the marketplace. Developers will not stop supporting it for many years to come. Don't get me wrong, Windows 7 is leaps and bounds better than Vista, but there is really no compelling reason to switch to it from XP, particularly in this economy where funds are tight.

    Microsoft needs to realize that they need developers on their side, which means expanding capabilities for an OS, not artificially reducing them, as is the case with DRM.
    Last edited by abachler; 12-11-2009 at 09:06 AM.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  9. #9
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,627
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    ...Don't get me wrong, Windows 7 is leaps and bounds better than Vista, but there is really no compelling reason to switch to it from XP, particularly in this economy where funds are tight.
    o_O
    That is ridiculous, I say. Windows 7 is much better than XP.
    I see no real compelling reason to switch from Vista to W7, but from XP is another story.
    From business perspective, there is a lot more security.
    From a private perspective, there is a lot more user friendliness and prettier UI among other things.

    What we tend to forget is that when switching from XP to W7, we get everything from Vista, as well. Vista was flawed, but W7 basically fixed that.
    Well, some of it anyway. It's still flawed. But so is XP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    I wrote an earlier reply but I feel my reply as well as some of the recent ones in this thread are diverging from the topic at hand. Let's try to get back on track. If we want to debate the finer details of XP, Vista, and W7 perhaps starting a thread in GD would be appropriate.

    I do apologize to the OP for allowing this thread to get off topic.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 12-12-2009 at 12:02 AM.

  11. #11
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,627
    I say, feel free to actually split the topic from this one. No harm to the conversation or the original thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21