Thread: Found out why Oblivion slowed down

I had something similar happen the last time I installed the DirectX dev stuff. Sucks. Are these DirectX debug settings you speak of in dxdiag or somewhere else?

This is something I've actually been looking for - debug runtimes - especially for DirectShow. But I couldn't find them.
I guess you got the debug from the latest DX SDK?

Just our luck with Microsoft.
Old, useless things stay, and useful things disappear and a slew of other crap shows up, and out of that, 70% fails, and what remains may not be what one wants.

Originally Posted by Bubba

I'm just dissatisfied with the new directions they are taking. Probably doesn't matter since my opinion does not count for much in the grand scheme of things.

I can't help but agree...

Originally Posted by Bubba

If C# can really do retail level games then great but did they really have to invent C# to gain cross-platform ability with the XBox? Somehow I think not.

In a way yes, because .Net was introduced as a cross-platform framework that could span across any number of platforms, being this how it was sold to us some 8 years ago during the beta stages. Ah!

What I doubt however is that XNA can compete on those platforms where there are already alternatives and a long standing game development culture, like in Windows. I also sincerely doubt XNA/C# capability to compete on what really matters, performance.

You know what really, really, annoyed me about XNA? When I learned it could only support C#. It may not seem much at first glance, but this puts an end to yet another marketing ploy about .net; that VB.Net and C# only differed in syntax. Both languages used the same interpreter and could be used without any gain or loss of functionality. Obviously, this is not true.

And I also doubt .Net in general on what comes to... why? Why exactly we need it? In my view, we really don't. There is absolutely nothing in .net that can't be achieved by other means without having to install a monolith framework. But that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

And I also doubt .Net in general on what comes to... why? Why exactly we need it? In my view, we really don't. There is absolutely nothing in .net that can't be achieved by other means without having to install a monolith framework. But that's just my opinion.

I agree 110%, I think that Microsoft are really trying to pioneer the way -- through brute force, hoping to get a break sooner or later. I've got nothing against them (they provide millions of jobs -- often indirectly), it just seems far less "black and white" as it used to be.

Originally Posted by zacs7

I agree 110%, I think that Microsoft are really trying to pioneer the way -- through brute force, hoping to get a break sooner or later.

I have no doubts the .Net framework spawns of the willingness of Microsoft to stop supporting Java. And I think it is exactly Java, that Microsoft is answering. After all what is .Net that Java isn't? Nothing! Please someone tell me otherwise.

This framework has been under development for almost 20 years now. But Java predates that. So it isn't even a matter of Microsoft pioneering anything.

The framework alone is a good thing. I cannot deny that. Offering an alternative to old and always badly designed MFC is a good move in my book. But that's a framework like so many others (Java's included). What I hold a grunge is the fact they turned it into a purely business decision by diluting even more the world of windows programming with the addition of new unnecessary programming languages and at the same time barred access to the framework from outside languages. It really annoyed me

Microsoft has an uncanny ability to make incredibly good business decisions (for them and them only) that only a blind shareholder can't throw a party on. Net is exactly one of those decisions. I have to take my hat. I can only imagine the gloating look on their faces as they realize they have a credible Java alternative and at the same time can draw into the platform C++ companies and their programmers with the completely irrelevant and redundant C# programming language.

Why is this successful? Because quiet frankly many companies can't tell a monitor from a computer, the media loves hype, and there's a breed of sharks called consultants that breed like rabbits.

[/rant]

Indeed. One thing that dotNet may be better than Java is interoperability, I guess.
Several languages can communicate via the framework, but I guess that point is kindof moot because the only thing that differs between the languages is how the syntax is done. They all share the same functionality in the framework.

Java can be compiled into machine code. Can C# do that too?

No, any managed language is strictly interpreted, but compiled into machine code on-the-fly.

Originally Posted by Elysia

No, any managed language is strictly interpreted, but compiled into machine code on-the-fly.

On-the-fly means it's not compiled then. It simply means it is basically a processor emulator.

Yep.
Microsoft likes to claim that managed code is faster than native because it's compiled into machine code dynamically as it's executed. They claim that since it's dynamic, it can generate code that is most efficient to the client machine it runs on.
However. I don't agree. It's interpreted and will therefore never be as fast as native languages. Plus the overhead of the library which isn't little.