This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Microsoft High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Microsoft Windows: Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Computer graphics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

There doesn't seem to exist any lit of which hardware is compatible with which version of DirectX. This is especially unfortunate for older hardware. Sure, everyone knows which *current* sound card is capable of the *current* version of DirectX - but what defines "current" in a few years, actually ? In one or two or even three years no-one is able to tell anymore. Because everyone is so much focused on he *current* version.

As an example, I'm currently trying to find out wich sound cards are compatible to DirectX 9.0c , since I'm still using my PC on which Windows XP runs on. As a result, I cannot use sound card which use DirectX 10 or 11.

But - there is seemingly ablsolutel *no* Wikipedia article telling me to which version of DirectX for exampl the Creative Audicy cards are compatible to. Or the even older PCI128 cards, by the same manufacturer.

This is just an example. Since theredon't exist any compatibility lists, it is simple not possible to know what hardware is compatible to which vrsion of DirectX - except always the "current one", of ourse.

I find this especially irritating, since all computer-related topics within Wikipedia are so much overflowing with details that someone who just wants to use a computer as a working too just isn't interested in. I recently saw a version list of the PDF reader called "Foxit Reader" on the German-language Wikipedia article for it which list *all* version numbers. If the authors were putting the same dedication to details on articles redarding culture, Wikipedia would be a much better read I thought. I write this because I'm irritated that this dedication for details isn't "used" in the case of DirectX as well. If peple re able to write down all kinds of version histories of programs, why - then - aren't they able to produce compatibility lists, too ? For geeks to which even the smallest version number of a kernel is interesting it would be feasible, I thought, to produce a list of which hardware component which is ctually listed here in Wikipedia is compatible with which version of DirectX.

Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DirectX is a package for your operating system. It is an interface between the drivers for peripherals and the user. The computer must get to know and talk to them and hence the role of

what they call "peripheral driver"s.

• English language is one the best language to use on this Wikipedia. If you can contribute you can register.

Bogdan

Hi,
I'm just wondering about the accuracy of describing the game development APIs released by Microsoft as "multiplatform". I'm not entirely familiar with all the game development APIs released by Microsoft, so i may be incorrect here.

But I am familiar with computer platforms and also what the word "multiplatform" indicates and what platforms Microsoft targets and I am certain that these two are not coherent. I think using the term is inaccurate and misleading in the context of an article on development APIs.

I would suggest that the platforms targeted could be listed (or at least referenced), so that the introductory paragraph is at least precise, if not accurate (according with a "neutral point of view").
Thanks,
Steve
78.16.153.86 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are "multiplatform" in the sense that they will work with different versions of Windows and on some "compact" OSes, such as Windows CE. Also, the Xbox (and 360) use a superset of the DirectX API, so they could be considered multiplatform in that sense as well. But they're not globally multiplatform across all operating systems, such as Mac OS, Linux, PS3 or Wii. But that is clarified later in the article. Calling them "multiplatform" is not inaccurate just because it leaves out some platforms. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be "omniplatform"(probably a neologism) then...

I would like to call DX an "oligoplatform"(another neolog issue, *sigh*) API, and even then one could argue that the Xbox is nothing more than an IBM-compatible PC in a fancy chassis with a fancy set of input devices, so that DX is still "monoplatform". I think that's what the IP poster had in mind. Comments? - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 10:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Windows CE, the CE DX is probably a "subset"(euphemism alert) so small that one can't see DX and CE DX as the same thing. They may have similar interfaces but they are like a Fiat and a Ferrari. Hardly the same product. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 10:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the following direct quote from the MS site shows, DirectX 10 is not "Windows Vista exclusive", as claimed in this WP article and many other websites:

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 Home Server; Windows ME; Windows Server 2003; Windows Server 2003 R2 (32-Bit x86); Windows Server 2003 R2 Datacenter Edition (32-Bit x86); Windows Server 2003 R2 Datacenter x64 Edition; Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition (32-Bit x86); Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition; Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition (32-bit x86); Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard x64 Edition ; Win9dows Server 2003 R2 x64 editions; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 x64 Edition; Windows Server 2003 x64 editions; Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition (32-bit x86); Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition (32-bit x86); Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition (32-bit x86); Windows Server 2003, Web Edition; Windows Server 2008; Windows Server 2008 Datacenter; Windows Server 2008 Datacenter without Hyper-V; Windows Server 2008 Enterprise; Windows Server 2008 Enterprise without Hyper-V; Windows Server 2008 Standard; Windows Server 2008 Standard without Hyper-V; Windows Small Business Server 2003 ; Windows Vista; Windows Vista 64-bit Editions Service Pack 1; Windows Vista Business; Windows Vista Business 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Business N; Windows Vista Enterprise; Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Home Basic; Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Home Basic N; Windows Vista Home Premium; Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Service Pack 1; Windows Vista Starter; Windows Vista Starter N; Windows Vista Ultimate; Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition; Windows Web Server 2008; Windows XP; Windows XP 64-bit; Windows XP Home Edition ; Windows XP Home Edition N; Windows XP Media Center Edition; Windows XP Professional Edition ; Windows XP Professional N; Windows XP Professional x64 Edition ; Windows XP Service Pack 1; Windows XP Service Pack 2; Windows XP Service Pack 3; Windows XP Starter Edition; Windows XP Tablet PC Edition[1] --Espoo (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says 9.0c, not 10. - Josh (talk | contribs) 13:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says DirectX 10.0 6.00.6000.16386 Windows Vista exclusive November 30, 2006 --Espoo (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Microsoft page is the one that's talking about 9.0c. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be seriously making the argument that a vaguely-worded download page is right, but the entirety of the Internet, and Microsoft's own documentation on the matter, are all wrong.... -/- Warren 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the supported OS list for the web based installer that pdates to 9.0c and previous versions of DirectX. Where does DX10 come in the picture? --soum ^talk 17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i got to that download page by clicking on download on this DirectX 10 page and stupidly forgot to look at it carefully, where it in fact says "Version: 9.22.1284". Maybe i should just delete this whole embarrassing discussion tomorrow? --Espoo (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

games will probably start being developed in ogl, damaging microsoft's monopoly. vista only ftw :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.12.229 (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be worth mentioning in the article that there is actually a version of DX10 for XP, made possible by vendor pressure to remove the VRAM virtualisation requirement from hardware. See http://www.techmixer.com/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp/☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 09:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table which explains DirectX versions says this for DirectX 9.0c:

The December 13 '04 is last 32-bit only version sufficient for Windows Me and Windows 2000 32-bit, that are two last parallel activation-free Windows systems.

It is not clear to me what this means. Does it mean that Windows Me and Windows 2000 do not need (in other words - have no benefit from) a newer DirectX 9.0c revision than Dec04 at all? If that is true, the above statement should be improved to clearly state this fact.

Nihad Hamzic (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of de-linking your quotation. If you were trying to create emphasis, try {{cquote}} next time. As for the content of the quote, I also have no idea what that line is trying to say. In fact it looks like OR to me, given that the reference provided is merely pointing to downloads. I would go ahead and remove that comment in the near future unless someone is willing to clarify and properly source the statement. To answer your question about Windows 2000, that isn't the case, because the games themselves link to specific versions of the runtime -- games developed after Dec '04 would require the installation of newer DirectX revisions in order to run on any Windows platform, and assuming they run at all on Win2k. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

32-bit vs 64-bit DX is needed to avoid 32-bit users from dowloading two times bigger version with 64-bit overhead. 91.94.57.203 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the newer runtimes ship with additional 32-bit D3DX, XAudio and other libraries which current games makes use of. By stating an old version is sufficient, users may be fooled and may download only that version. Also, what have the words "activation-free" got to do with any of this? --xpclient ^talk 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But at least this old version is totally and perfectly free from 64-bit things that have no benefit especially for Windows Me and in less extent for Windows 2000 systems, that are last ever activation-free parallel systems. No Me-only especially, and no 2000-only in lesser extent (excluding 64-bit Itanium Windows 2000) software needs this 64-bit overhead. Information about no-activation status of Me and 2000 is useful for all activation-escapers that want to have the newest and greatest Windows without activation ever released. 87.96.25.208 (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the page (8/18/2010) claims that the version dated 2/5/2010 is "the last build for Windows 2000", but the download page linked to does not list Windows 2000 among the supported operating systems. If this is in fact the last version that works on 2000, shouldn't there be a source for this claim? John lindgren (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2010 full installer works for sure in W2k, just test yourself. The June 2010 full installer does not work anymore. On the contrary, the DX web installer claims support for W2k but it does not work. --Denniss (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Since Windows 2000, DirectX has shipped as a part of Windows, but these bundled versions are rapidly outdated and often require updating anyway." Wait a minute but hasn't DirectX also shipped as part of Windows 95 and 98? Also, any software will become obsolete and require updating so this line is not really needed.

Also, this particular line in the version table is confusing, "The December 13 '04 is last 32-bit only version sufficient for Windows Me and Windows 2000 32-bit, that are two last parallel activation-free Windows systems". The reference stresses the 32-bit vs 64-bit point. Also, the October 2006 SDK was the last one to target Windows 9x as clearly mentioned on the December 2006 SDK Download page. Neither is the activation free statement related to DirectX. So I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.212 (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it looks like Win98 shipped with DX5. I don't see any references for DX shipping with Win95 though. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source[2] Win95 did not ship with DX, but Win95 OSR2 did. X_X Well at least now we have it sorted out. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of June 25, 2008, only the ATI Radeon HD3xxx and HD4xxx series of GPUs are compliant

while Nvidia has thus far failed to support DX10.1 on any of its cards.

Nvidia failed, deliberately choose to not support it or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.192.188 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dx10.1 is also a part of dx11, and thus nvidia will eventually support it unintentionally. Markthemac (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

= Must be their DX 10.1 article everyone now its' compatible with DX11 SEE THIS LINK.. http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/10/ati-dx11-40nm-gpus-on-track-for-a-2009-launch.ars

Although it is not clear from the table displaying DirectX (DX) history just what Direct3D (D3D) features are introduced for each version of DX, I have learned elsewhere that the key difference, for example, between DX9.0b and DX9.0c is support for Shader Model 3.0 (SM3.0).

If you understand D3D features and the different role that video hardware, video drivers and the DX API software plays then please include a paragraph or two in this article to educate readers. I am not the only one who does not understand this and I hope you will agree that this article is a very good place to include such a clarifying explanation.

Some specific questions or common scenarios that you may want to consider:

• A PC has a video card that predates DX9.0c. Maybe it only advertises (refer to ATI & nVidia) support for DX9.0b and yet the latest video card drivers have been installed. The DX9.0c software installs successfully during some windows update. Does this mean that such a machine now (somehow) supports all DX9.0c features such as SM3.0 ?
• If so is each feature being supported in video hardware, video driver or API sofware?
• Game titles that specify DX9.0c may still play on a machine even though the video card does not specify support for DX9.0c. Is that sheer luck or has one or more of driver/API/game code/OpenGL come to that system's rescue and implemented an albeit gimped level of support for whatever D3D feature is required or utilized by the game?
• As busy as the history table is does any one else agree that some bullet-style digest-summary of key features should be included for each DX version?
• Can you also explain what one should look for the in the dxdiag diagnostic report to either eliminate or pinpoint the video hardware and firmware as a possible root cause of a problem.

I plan to research answers for my specific situation at various web forums ( e.g. THW forum). The above suggestion is not intended to help me with my specific query but rather to highlight a possible area for improving this wikipedia article. I found this article on studying a system kernel dump to be insightful and have enabled kernel dumping to better diagnose any future crashes that I might experience. If I arrive at a clear understanding before a regular contributor reads this discussion and makes an edit then I may take a stab at the above explanation myself.

Cheers! Najevi (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2008 SDK has been released and it contains some D3D11 functionality: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=5493F76A-6D37-478D-BA17-28B1CCA4865A&displaylang=en --Hexadecimal (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These new APIs are positioned as DirectX APIs. Article needs to cover these. And are going to be available on Vista as well. - xpclient ^Talk 10:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One big difference between DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 is "polling" vs "interrupts". For example, after the DirectX API (any version) sends a command to your graphics card: 1) DirectX 9 will poll the card to check things like: "has the current command has finished" or "is the card is able to accept more graphics commands", etc. 2) DirectX 10 will wait for interrupts from the graphics card (thus releasing your CPU to do other things). This is at least true with PCIe cards. Does anyone know if DirectX 9.0c (which is constantly being tweaked) will ever see polling replaced with interrupts? --Neilrieck (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a screen capture of the DirectX Diagnostics Tool which shows DirectX version 11. It can be found here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:DirectX_11.png If anyone feels the need to use it please do. Thanks. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is DirectX 9.0x? Please add details to the article.-96.233.26.186 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'x' stands for any version-number character. So DirectX 9.0c means: DirectX 9.0 + 9.0a + 9.0b + 9.0c. Same thing as with Windows 9x (Windows 95, 98 and sometimes also ME). --DanielPharos (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Alternatives section contradicts almost completely when looking at the comparison page between DirectX and OpenGL. I know the article is Microsoft based and the comparison page is made by non-Microsoft fans, just by looking at it. Shouldn't they be more comparable or at least not contradict each other? In the Alternatives section it's made clear other API's are "more complete than others" and "with comparable features", is it just me or seems this biased towards DirectX? While when you look at the comparison page "Direct3D is at least comparable to OpenGL", which doesn't sound very positive towards DirectX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.198.182 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only Allegro and SDL can be called alternatives to DirectX. OpenGL, OpenAL etc. are alternatives to the core components respectively. In my opinion they should not be mentioned in this article at all, as they are for the most part irrelevant to the article. OpenGL should be mentioned in the Direct3D article and vice versa. Mentioning them here is redundant and off-topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.165.21 (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo originally resembled a deformed radiation warning symbol. Controversially, the original name for the DirectX project was the "Manhattan Project", a reference to the US nuclear weapons initiative. Alex St. John, the the games evangelist at the time DirectX was conceived, claims that the connotation with the ultimate outcome of the Manhattan Project, the nuclear bombing of Japan is intentional, and that DirectX and its sister project, the Xbox (which shares a similar logo), are meant to displace Japanese videogame makers from their dominance of the industry.[23] However, this meaning is publicly denied by Microsoft, which instead claims that it is merely artistic design.[23]

This claim, while sourced, seems a little far fetched to me, at least the Xbox part. DirectX was released in 1995. The Manhattan Project name was presumably conceived and abandoned before then. The Xbox was annouced in 1999 and released in 2001. Also according to the Seamus Blackley article "In February 1999, Blackley joined Microsoft. Originally hired to work on DirectX, he co-wrote the initial Xbox proposal, and helped assemble the team that designed and built the device. He then evangelized the Xbox to game developers around the world.". It seems rather unlikely the Xbox was really anything but a very far fetched dream at the time (1994-1995) when the Manhattan Project was conceived, if that. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page mentioned that: The last build for Windows 98 and Windows Me is the redistributable from December 13, 2006.

However, the redistributable of December 13, 2006 is not compatible with Windows 98 and Windows ME according to the supplied link: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=77bc0499-19d0-46b6-a178-033d9e6c626b

Therefore, the last build for Windows 98 and Windows Me should be the distributable of October 10, 2006: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=013c0f78-3c9b-44dc-b8be-46783bcac3cb

Please kindly check and confirm, thanks.

OC Oc dt (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reference citation/clairification needed in Article's History Section, Paragraph 3)

I believe that the description here is applicable: http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/video-faq/54-What-is-DCI.html

-TodWulff 20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So DirectInput is deprecated with XInput (for XBox360 controllers) and WM_INPUT as replacement for mouse and keyboard. But what is supposed to replace access to ALL the other controllers out there? I know Microsoft is telling in the docs to use XInput and WM_INPUT, but did they actually say deprecated? There is nothing able to replace it for common controllers as far as I can see? Georg Rottensteiner (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[14] and [15] (on 9th May 2010) are links to thepiratebay.org... What???? we need to download torrent from a pirate site to obtain new version of directX? Let's put a better alternative if any...

[9] is the same as of Sept 2010. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.178.2 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PirateBay is not inherently a pirating site, many free, creative license and open source works can be found there. It just happens that most of the downloads are copyright infringing. 110.175.254.120 (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MIME type is missing, if x files even have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.21.10 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what X files do you mean? Files with .x extension?? Naki (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DirectX consists of many files of different types. Many are DLL-type (MIME type "application/x-msdownload") libraries. "The" DirectX MIME type does not exist.

If you're looking for The X Files, then it would probably be "truth/outthere". Just guessing tho... :p - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 14:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful for reference that the "DirectX - bimonthly updates" was subdivided to show the individual updates. There are many versions of the 9.0c SDK available that identifying the correct one can be problematic. I'm not sure that doing so is realistic, just a thought. 67.167.106.3 (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/chuckw/archive/2010/09/08/not-so-direct-setup.aspx

October 2006 is the last version for 98se/me, not December 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.10.66 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that information regarding the availability (or the reverse) of each version of offline install would be interesting to cover. I have done a lot of search for above the normal 9.0c redist package and there seems to be a lack of information regarding not being available (I think some games may come with a more recent version as part of the install requirements). 79.168.4.160 (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit confused about the components and searched for the status of them on the other wiki sites.

active components:
- Direct3D
- DXGI
- Direct2D
- DirectWrite
- DirectCompute
- XAudio2
- DirectXMath (MSDN - DirectXMath)
- XInput (for XBox 360 Controller)

- DxDiag
- DirectX Media Objects
- DirectSetup

deprecated:
- XACT (since Windows SDK for Win 8 DevPrev no longer supported on Windows?)
- DirectSound (replaced by XAudio2)
- DirectX Media (key part moved to DirectShow)
- DirectShow (removed 2005 from DirectX and moved to Microsoft Platform SDK)

- DirectDraw
- DirectInput (replaced partly by XInput)
- DirectPlay
- DirectMusic

So thats a little bit different to the components on the actual site. Should this changed like above?

Mcmatze (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't mention about support for older DirectX versions. Please can you find out some pieces of information about the support for older DirectX versions? (For example, Windows 8.1 has DirectX 11.2 but will it support older DirectX versions such as DirectX 6.0?) Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have some info but I have to scramble a lot to find my sources again. Basically, any computer program can work with the version of DirectX that it needs or with its newer versions. Some legacy DirectX components are deprecated in the newer version but you can install them via Turn Windows Features On or Off. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on ChamithN on 01 September 2015, revert will make things worse, so i think you could provide the best edits, or provide the more improved name, not as "Graphics card that support DirectX 9 needed to support Aero"? -- Akmaie Ajam (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned on my talk page, 4.09.00.0900 (RC4) is a version of DirectX, therefore, saying "Graphics card that support DirectX 9 needed to support Aero" contradicts the meaning as it's not a graphics card, but a version. And I have no idea what Akmaie Ajam is trying to imply because his statement is utterly vague and probably unverifiable. -- Chamith (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For something that is so important for windows based computers this wiki is much too superficial. Especially the part of DX12. One little example: to what extend does DX12 suppport parallellism? According to a source which I found DX12 doesn't even support more than 4 CPU-cores. An elobartion on DX12 vs. Vulkan would be nice and in my opinion it should be noted that there is evidence (not proof) that DX12 was based upon Mantle. Look at this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBBu9COWwAAPzZB.jpg:large It might be that the text of the manual has changed by now but this was the text one year ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.132.75.218 (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to contribute to the article if you feel information is missing, so long as you properly cite your sources. Any potential sources of information can be discussed here on the talk page (typically not required if it is non-controversial) - what was your source about the four-core limit which you discussed? Also, original research is not permitted on Wikipedia (in regards to the image you linked to). Cheers,  NeoGeneric 💬  14:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DirectX 8.0a does not support software rendering support according to DirectX 8.0a SDK Documentation. It only supports "pluggable software device" like DirectX 9.0. DirectX 7.1 is the last version having RGB software rendering support. Ironically, .NET Framework 3.0 or greater shipped with a pluggable DirectX 9.0 RGB device RGB9RAST for WPF compatibility runs well on Windows 98 or later, while WPF only supports Windows XP SP2 or later. Windows XP Built-in Screensavers, rewritten from previous OpenGL 1.1 to DirectX 8.1, are also statically-linked with a pluggable software device.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DirectX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601055118/http://www.shacknews.com:80/featuredarticle.x?id=283&page=2 to http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=283&page=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://xyzzy-links.blogspot.com/2007/08/directx-101-requires-no-new-gpu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DirectX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011093027/http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/55995/games-interview-xbox-supremo-allard-on-the-future-of-microsofts-console-part-ii.html to http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/55995/games-interview-xbox-supremo-allard-on-the-future-of-microsofts-console-part-ii.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shacknews.com/article/46338/alex-st-john-interview
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007012704/http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/E/4/1E455D53-C382-4A39-BA73-55413F183333/Windows_Developer_Preview-Windows8_guide.pdf to http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/E/4/1E455D53-C382-4A39-BA73-55413F183333/Windows_Developer_Preview-Windows8_guide.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3d11/direct3d-11-4-features#fences-for-multi-device-synchronization-and-interop-with-direct3d-12

Although not sure if that was intentional due to the main references talking about D3D 11.x etc Daesin (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2002 DirectX9 launch date doesn't have a citation, so I was curious if it was accurate. It was! Here's what I found if someone wants to add the citation.

[3]https://web.archive.org/web/20030207073126/http://www.microsoft.com/windows/directx/default.asp

[4]https://web.archive.org/web/20021221122547/http://www.microsoft.com:80/windows/directx/downloads/drx90.asp

Hope that helps! MayImilae (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This issue the numbers on wrong position can you help me fix it point numbers example 12.1 12.2 Bearcoolreal94 (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]