Will Longhorn runs on top of DirectNext (if not mistaken, is the future version of directx that the graphics are processes totally by the GPU - correct me if i am wrong!)?
Or it will be released later when longhorn had been released?
I am kind of interested with directnext, and want to know the progress of it on the longhorn side. Any tips for me?
Currently Longhorn's DCE feature (Desktop Composition Engine) runs on top of DirectX 9, which provides more-or-less full hardware rendering capabilities to LH's GUI when enabled. However, because a large amount of the code is un-optimized, it still requires
powerful hardware to run the presentation effects you might have seen in the 4015 or 4018 videos.
Because of this, a lot of the demonstration boxes which you'll see being used at events like PDC and WinHEC use Quadro FXs; purely because they have the power to run the presentation effects without a drop in framerate.
When Longhorn goes final, the DCE code will have transitioned over to "DX .NET" / "DX10".
Wow! Quadro FXs. I am using ATI Radeon 9600 Pro Ultra, but i am using only 256MB DDR, that is why my pc is very slow. Thanks for the reply
Is it DirectNext or DirectX.NET? I am quite mix up with the term!
To be honest I haven't actually heard the term DirectNext being used in relation to DCE or Longhorn; DX .NET is one that I've heard used once or twice by the Avalon developers.
This is a great question, as a System Builder I want to know if the $200+ video cards we are installing today will run Longhorn. As no Microsoft guy has jumped in here, I’m thinking it must be all about Managed code, and ActiveX’s journey to Managed code….
After added another 512MB DDR to my PC, my longhorn runs faster, and less hang!
I think it is called DirectX NEXT, maybe they called it Microsoft XNA now. It should be have some connection right! Maybe, not sure until someone from the DirectX team confirm that
Given how much public confusion arises from Microsoft Code names, imagine how much internal confusion there is!
Some projects have 2 or 3 names that they go by. Sometimes it's an old code name (such as Everett for VS 2003), the official name (VS2k3), or non-official version number (VS7.1). Of course, by the time we RTM we have an official external name (VS 2003 in our
case) but that doesn't kill off the multitude of internal names for the project.
So if you think you've got it bad!
Those who speak of the "conversation” are conspicuously silent on this question.
It would be interesting the system specs required.
Hopefully it would run on Pentium III (500+) and TNT2's - it may be considered low spec now but it is adequate to run Windows XP (even more so if you have plenty of RAM).
They could have also been a significant investment. Older computers should really be still used for some tasks, if not then they should somehow be recycled or given to third-world countries - not put on a land fill.
The Longhorn experience will be tiered to your hardware capabilities; the MINIMUM requirements will probably be 1Ghz CPU, and a 32mb graphics card.
For the DCE presentation effects, you'll be looking at like Geforce FX-level; probably 5600 and above.
What it will DEFINITELY need for DCE is a DX9 compatible GPU, so if you're still fitting Geforce 4s, then don't expect to be able to play with DCE on those boxes.
You mean DirectX. ActiveX is (I think) a wrapper for COM+ objects (I was always a VB man, so I never played with COM+ except through ActiveX controls).
128bit graphics cards are norm today, so maybe 512 by 2006. The GPU will play a major role in Longhorn, and by 2006 DirectX9 will be history. I wish one of the Longhorn Evangelists would join this “conversation”. There is a guy who does the Intel ICC tour,
when asked a question about future development he is fond of saying; “I can tell you, but then we’ll have to kill you”.
Yes, I get X'ed up sometimes! Someone from the Longhorn team should jump in here, they don't have to spill all the beans, just throw us a few M&M's...
Hi there. Sorry for not jumping in earlier on this one.
The Avalon capabilities currently make use of DirectX 9 as it presents a stable stack to rely on and develop. If the hardware is not available then we fall back to software rendering and clearly we want to offer an adequate user experience in that scenario.
As for hardware requirements it is difficult to give precise recommendations at the moment, we hope to do so as we get closer to beta but final decisions may not happen until we get closer to final release.
Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.