Re: Install D3DX for latest DX9

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

Dear Richard:

I'd like to make three last points and ask one more question, and then I'll
lay this whole thing to rest.

1. I went back and reviewed the release notes for the February SDK update.
You are correct that the D3DX conversion is described in those notes, and you
are correct that I overlooked this information. You may rest assured that I
will very carefully read any future release notes. I stand admonished. You
have provided the "shred" of evidence that I asked for several posts back.

Of course, to get to the release notes, one has to install the update. When
an update causes problems, by the time you've read the release notes, it's
too late. I suppose you could uninstall the update and reinstall an older
version.

Bear in mind that I get my updates through my MSDN subscription. I do not
read descriptions on your downloads page. To best of my knowledge, there was
no description in the MSDN distribution other than that which was contained
in the release notes.

2. As for 2000 support being dropped, I have been unable to find any
discussion in any of the SDK update release notes. I have reviewed those
notes pretty thoroughly, but I suppose I could have missed it. Even if
dropping of 2000 support were in the release notes, one has to install the
release to read the notes, and the installation fails, yielding a circular
problem. I saw no notification in the MSDN propaganda.

3. You and your colleague have made it very clear that developer
redistribution of D3DX updates is extremely important. The Principle of
Minimum Regret says that actions with severely negative consequences should
be made hard to do. For example, "delete *.*" in a command line session
yields an "Are you sure?" prompt. To say that because some users don't use
D3DX, installation of the REDIST should default off, is, to borrow one of
your phrases, rubbish. Make installation the default, and issue a message
that says "This is what can happen if...; are you sure?" if someone tries to
suppress installation.

Finally, the February release notes contain the following description:

"D3DX Is Now a Dynamic-Link Library - Starting with this software
development kit (SDK) release, D3DX is being released as a dynamic-link
library (DLL). Updates to D3DX in the future will continue to ship as
uniquely-named DLLs that exist side-by-side on the system. This allows for
continued improvements to the library without imposing regression risk.
D3DX9.lib is still provided as the import library for the DLL for your
application to statically link against."

Would you please explain to those of us who don't understand, what exactly
do you mean by "...allows for continued improvements to the library without
imposing regression risk"? Under the new regime, end users must receive from
a developer DLLs that are in sync with the SDK under which the developer
produced the software, as opposed to the old regime, under which this
happened automatically. Please compare and contrast the two approaches, with
respect to regression risk. In addition, since SDK updates seem to come out
every other month, is the expectation that many end users will accumulate six
DLLs a year?

Thanks. I have spoken my last on this subject.
--
Jim Henriksen


"Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]" wrote:

> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> "=?Utf-8?B?SmltIEhlbnJpa3Nlbg==?=" <JimHenriksen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> spake the secret code
> <CFB9408F-1BA6-40E0-88BA-D90908D6E9DC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> thusly:
>
> >This change [to D3DX becoming a DLL instead of a static library] was made
> >silently.
>
> Sorry, but this is just absolute rubbish. That D3DX was becoming a
> DLL was announced in advance before the first SDK release where this
> change was made and notice of this change was given in the SDK release
> notes for the release where this change was made. The change was most
> definately not made silently.
>
> >[...] When you say that nobody pays attention, I must ask
> >"to what?".
>
> As was stated, the setup requirements for DirectX applications have
> been documented in the SDK for a long, long time now. That an
> application would normally work without paying attention to these
> instructions has made people lazy and think that they don't have to
> pay attention to setup issues, but that has never been the case,
> they've just been getting a free ride on the OS service packs. It has
> always been a DirectX appliation's responsibility to pay attention to
> setup issues. If you haven't been paying attention to setup issues,
> now is a good time to start because D3DX isn't going back into a
> static library.
>
> >If you're going to pull something like this, you have to
> >let people know.
>
> They did. You weren't paying attention.
>
> >There are many of us who, had we known of your intentions
> >in advance, would have argued vociferously to talk you out of it.
>
> They did. D3DX isn't going back to a static library.
>
> >3. Note that in the installation procedure for SDK updates (at least the
> >ones I get on MSDN CD's), installing the REDIST is by default turned off. If
> >it's something that a developer should always redistribute, this default is
> >poorly chosen.
>
> Not every developer uses D3DX. If you use D3DX, you should be reading
> the release notes on how D3DX changes and evolves in each SDK release.
>
> >4. [SDK no longer supports Windows 2000]
>
> This is also a change that was announced in advance and in the SDK
> release notes. It seems like you don't read them.
>
> Supported platforms are also listed on the download page for the SDK.
> It seems like you didn't read it. The last version of the SDK that
> supports Windows 2000 is December 2004. <http://tinyurl.com/5moqk>
> --
> "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ:
> <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
> Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty
> <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Install D3DX for latest DX9
    ... First, D3DX became a ... DLL so that it could be patched with a security fix, ... D3DX has been changing rapidly in the recent 2-month SDK ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.directx.graphics)
  • Re: change d3dx9 dll version
    ... What version of the SDK are you using? ... Since D3DX is a DLL, you need to use DirectSetup when you deploy your ... you can't deploy that DLL on a target machine at all, ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.directx.graphics)
  • Visual Studio .NET 2003 starts up slowly
    ... I previously had DirectX 8.1 SDK installed on my system, ... the installation, delete them, and also remove the Direct X .cpl file (which ... it STILL loads up slowly. ...
    (microsoft.public.vsnet.ide)
  • Re: SDK installation problem
    ... I've also tried to boot from last successful config but nothing go ... i receive the same message box also when i remove the sdk (from the control ... Marco wrote: ... Try to tun of the AV runtime checking while installation. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsce.embedded.vc)
  • Re: Acrobat DLL Exception (Transforming pdf to tif)
    ... I've not found the SDK for my version. ... Once the installation is complete check for the following entries in registry: ... Dim PDDoc As Acrobat.CAcroPDDoc ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)