OT: DirectX 9.0b

OK... well, given that I donwloaded and installed DX9.0a only a couple weeks ago and now a few days ago they've released DX9.0b, I'd like to know from those of you who may already have installed it if it's worth the trouble... I mean, I'm downloading it right now, but would you say it's absolutely necessary to install it (i.e., does it fix some terrible problem Dx9.0a had and noone had noticed, or something like that)? -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > OK... well, given that I donwloaded and installed DX9.0a only a coupleweeks ago > and now a few days ago they've released DX9.0b, I'd like to know fromthose of > you who may already have installed it if it's worth the trouble... I mean,I'm > downloading it right now, but would you say it's absolutely necessary toinstall > it (i.e., does it fix some terrible problem Dx9.0a had and noone hadnoticed, > or something like that)? I think it protects against some obscure attack vulnerability or other. I installed it - no problems. Elrikk

It fixes yet another one of MS's infamous vulnerabilities. Installing it is no prob. You can d/l the whole redistro, but there are 2 simpler options: an online upgrade (which, like the redistro, can't be undone) and a <1Kb patch, which can be undone. I installed it, no probs. "machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > OK... well, given that I donwloaded and installed DX9.0a only a coupleweeks ago > and now a few days ago they've released DX9.0b, I'd like to know fromthose of > you who may already have installed it if it's worth the trouble... I mean,I'm > downloading it right now, but would you say it's absolutely necessary toinstall > it (i.e., does it fix some terrible problem Dx9.0a had and noone hadnoticed,

Quoted text (9 lines)

> or something like that)? > > -- > __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke > \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru > _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com > '-_____|( > > remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:02:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

>It fixes yet another one of MS's infamous vulnerabilities. > >Installing it is no prob. You can d/l the whole redistro, but there are 2 >simpler options: an online upgrade (which, like the redistro, can't be >undone) and a <1Kb patch, which can be undone. > >I installed it, no probs. > >"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> OK... well, given that I donwloaded and installed DX9.0a only a couple >weeks ago >> and now a few days ago they've released DX9.0b, I'd like to know from >those of >> you who may already have installed it if it's worth the trouble... I mean, >I'm >> downloading it right now, but would you say it's absolutely necessary to >install >> it (i.e., does it fix some terrible problem Dx9.0a had and noone had >noticed, >> or something like that)? >> >> -- >> __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke >> \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru >> _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com >> '-_____|( >> >> remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying >

got 25 fps more with Radeon 9700 Pro on F1C Suzuka test day (now 120 fps) (athlon 2800+) DOK

You got 25 fps more with 9b than 9a? "DOKK" <DOKK@> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:02:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >It fixes yet another one of MS's infamous vulnerabilities. > > > >Installing it is no prob. You can d/l the whole redistro, but there are2

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >simpler options: an online upgrade (which, like the redistro, can't be > >undone) and a <1Kb patch, which can be undone. > > > >I installed it, no probs. > > > >"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> OK... well, given that I donwloaded and installed DX9.0a only a couple > >weeks ago > >> and now a few days ago they've released DX9.0b, I'd like to know from > >those of > >> you who may already have installed it if it's worth the trouble... I

mean, > >I'm > >> downloading it right now, but would you say it's absolutely necessaryto

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >install > >> it (i.e., does it fix some terrible problem Dx9.0a had and noone had > >noticed, > >> or something like that)? > >> > >> -- > >> __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke > >> \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru > >> _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com > >> '-_____|( > >> > >> remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying > > > > got 25 fps more with Radeon 9700 Pro on F1C Suzuka test day > (now 120 fps) (athlon 2800+) > > DOK

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:k78Va.43644$[email hidden]: > You got 25 fps more with 9b than 9a? > I would guess it was more like he WASN'T getting the full performance from his hardware while he had dx9a because of driver conflicts. Something about installing 9b corrected a problem 9a would have also given similar performance if his system had been 100%. Since b is considered a security fix rather than a feature or performance update, perhaps his slow fps was due to a background program hogging his system resources. dave henrie

"Steve Smith" said: > Installing it is no prob. You can d/l the whole redistro, but there are 2 > simpler options: an online upgrade (which, like the redistro, can't be > undone) and a <1Kb patch, which can be undone. Now you tell me!!! -- ed_

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:51:44 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You got 25 fps more with 9b than 9a? > Yes, strange isnt it? DOK

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:51:44 GMT, "Steve Smith" >You got 25 fps more with 9b than 9a? Yes, strange isnt it? DOK

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:34:51 GMT, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in >news:k78Va.43644$[email hidden]: > >> You got 25 fps more with 9b than 9a? >> > I would guess it was more like he WASN'T getting the full performance >from his hardware while he had dx9a because of driver conflicts. Something >about installing 9b corrected a problem 9a would have also given similar >performance if his system had been 100%. > Since b is considered a security fix rather than a feature or >performance update, perhaps his slow fps was due to a background program >hogging his system resources. > >dave henrie

I would think so myself, except that i didnt change anything else. So maybe driver conlict, i dont care, it now runs even smoother, i dont care why ;-) DOK

Tha's why I asked! ;o) "DOKK" <DOKK@> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:51:44 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >You got 25 fps more with 9b than 9a? > > > > Yes, strange isnt it? > > DOK

Tha's why I asked! ;o)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:51:44 GMT, "Steve Smith" > >You got 25 fps more with 9b than 9a? > Yes, strange isnt it? > DOK

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:02:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It fixes yet another one of MS's infamous vulnerabilities. > >Installing it is no prob. You can d/l the whole redistro, but there are 2 >simpler options: an online upgrade (which, like the redistro, can't be >undone) and a <1Kb patch, which can be undone. >Do you really mean <1KB, or is it acutally <1MB? -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

It's a little more than 900 kilobytes. "machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:02:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >It fixes yet another one of MS's infamous vulnerabilities. > > > >Installing it is no prob. You can d/l the whole redistro, but there are2

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >simpler options: an online upgrade (which, like the redistro, can't be > >undone) and a <1Kb patch, which can be undone. > > > Do you really mean <1KB, or is it acutally <1MB? > > -- > __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke > \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru > _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com > '-_____|( > > remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

On this day of our lord, Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:34:51 GMT, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> quilled: > Since b is considered a security fix rather than a feature or >performance update, perhaps his slow fps was due to a background program >hogging his system resources. > >dave henrie MS website says "security fix" and "performance enhancing".

> MS website says "security fix" and "performance enhancing". Wow!!!!! That's like the weather man saying it's going to be sunny, and it not raining! (In the UK). R.

I think performance and security are two completely separate issues, not two sides of the same coin as you are implying. --Cesar On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:16:17 +0100, "Richard S Beckett" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> MS website says "security fix" and "performance enhancing". > >Wow!!!!! > >That's like the weather man saying it's going to be sunny, and it not >raining! (In the UK). > >R. >

I just put the latest NVidia driver on, and upgraded from dx 8.1 to 9.0b. Erm... Nothing much happened. I did notice that I get less of a frame rate drop in the parts of the circuit where the frame rate drops, but I didn't get higher frame rates anywhere. Overall, erm...well, my pc still works. R.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:33:29 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It's a little more than 900 kilobytes. >Ah well, then that's the same one I could find... -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying