Bioshock not working. DX11?

mushroomboy said:

crimson said:

mushroomboy said:

They have everything to do with it, they ship a stripped down version of DX9. If you don't like how or why they do it then you should probably ask MS. I have a fresh install of Win7 on my computer now and the files that come with it are d2d1.dll d3d8thk.dll d3d9.dll d3d10.dll d3d10_1.dll d3d10_1core.dll d3d10core.dll d3d10level9.dll d3d10warp.dll d3d11.dll All those files are DX files in sys32, but since you don't have the added files such as d3d9_41.dll ect you don't have the full library which means it's a stripped DX9, which means they ship it with a stripped DX9. Why? Maybe they just had it in for testing and didn't bother to intagrate the full DX9. Maybe they had space issues and didn't put everything in because of that? They could have possible compiled the OS with a size projection and got it smaller than they anticipated. Who knows, but it's stripped down so you need the updates for DX9.

Yes. But what relevance does this have to the updated version of DX9? So either they don't have DX9 installed or they have a stripped down version of DX9 installed. Either way, DX9 old version or updated version doesn't seem to be installed. In fact, it's unclear what is installed. What does DX11 look like. Are you saying those files that you mentioned aren't part of DX11? What are you basing all this information on? IOW where did you find out DirectX9 is in W7 or where did you find out a stripped version of it is installed?

Well I've been dealing with libraries and dependencies probably a lot more than you, I run linux and that has a much more interlaced setup with libraries. When I say stripped you can also say core libraries, enough for compatability and to run the bare requirements for DX9.

DirectX Problem

There is another thread with the issues, if you knew how the OS runs and the different levels of security you'd understand where to look for the different files. Every file has it's place in the Windows dir, if you have dealt with modifying windows (or any OS based off a kernel with run levels) you would know the different file setups and what they actually do for the OS. So in short I know because I program, that's why I know. It's not unclear, it's very clear... I said it's stripped down, meaning it will run DX9 but the BARE REQUIREMENTS. Go get a compiler and make a program to do all the base DX9 calls and build it then run it.... it runs!!! There is a huge difference between the DX9 that first came out and the DX9 that runs COD4. When I mean differences I mean the functions calls. See DX9 is really just a library of functions for video, if it's not updated and a program calls functionX you get epic failure. That happens when you run the core DX9 instead of the updated. Now if you run a program that was built when DX9 first came out it might call functionA instead of functionX. FunctionX is newer and looks better, but is only in new games as it is only in the new updated DX9.

I know this sounds mean, but people should stop assuming something isn't their just because you get the error "blah blah won't work".

My original conclusion was that DX9c was not installed and that DX11 wasn't backwards compatible. As it turns out, the other post stated that core versions of DX9, DX10, and DX10.1 are installed. This is probably then the case. But still waiting on a response on how they came to this conclusion. What the basis they used to determine this. Perhaps MS specifically stated the core files are installed or perhaps there is some solid way of telling.

Because when your developing a new operating system your worries aren't going to be putting on every DX9 runtime. Really all you want is the core DX files just to see if everything works with it, and then ship it out. If you already have a package for the new runtime libraries then why add it? it's like making a game expansion. Why would you make a cd that installs the game and the expansion when you already have 1000x copies out? Just make an expansion CD and ship that out, if you want to do a bundle that comes later your current concern is the expansion. Win7 is really just a re-done Vista, in fact it's where Vista should have been. So why would they worry about all the extra run time libraries when they have an OS deadline. If you've ever worked on a project like that you have A) your boss yelling at you, B) your employees yelling at you to get your part done, and B) customers yelling at everyone because they want it NOW. So making sure every runtime library is in the DVD is the least of your concern. You really just want to make sure it works.

Now you say that's inconvenient for the customer right? Well next thin you have is the new DX9d that comes out, well you'll have people bitching as to why the new Win7 CDs aren't shipped with it. Why? Because then they'd have to recall every disc, throw them away, and then make 1000x new discs just to make you happy. It's called corporate **** and saving money. You have a DX9c package out, don't make a new one just use the old one.

[edit] Why don't the new Bioshock CDs come with the latest up to date DX9c files? So if I get a new Bioshock CD and install DX9c and a new game that comes out requires the august update, shouldn't the latest bioshock CD have that august update? NO! It's called business and marketing. You can't expect everything to come in one neat package, that costs more money and then that makes the product price go up.

I can't even try Bioshock, as when I've installed it off the *original* DVD it simply refuses to accept the serial in the package.

That's the second time I've bought a game and it won't work at all claiming I have a pirated copy, wrong serial or something.

The last time I just found a cracked exe and used that to play the damned game but this time I won't do it, I'll just never buy their games again.

They do it because of marketing!!! if you really read the thread you'd understand it's CHEAPER to release a core version and make the customer upgrade. CHEAPER CHEAPER CHEAEPER!!!!

[edit] They don't really give a RATS about DX9c, it's old, the new focus is DX10/11. So why spend the money on something that they want to phase out. My whole point on all of this is what!? CHEAPER!!!