Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

DirectX 8.1 SDK

85 views
Skip to first unread message

ManjuG

unread,
May 28, 2008, 3:20:00 AM5/28/08
to
Can I download DirectX 8.1 SDK from somewhere?

Kerem Gümrükcü

unread,
May 28, 2008, 12:59:33 PM5/28/08
to
Hi Manju,

i dont know why you are looking for the old version,
but you can get exras from here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=965D6C6D-5CE9-44C4-B1A7-EC938CF1CEBF&displaylang=en

I recommend to download the latest at microsoft:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/directx/default(en-us).aspx

It comes with the most advanced and up2date dx technologies,...

Regards

Kerem

--
-----------------------
Beste Grüsse / Best regards / Votre bien devoue
Kerem Gümrükcü
Microsoft Live Space: http://kerem-g.spaces.live.com/
Latest Open-Source Projects: http://entwicklung.junetz.de
-----------------------
"This reply is provided as is, without warranty express or implied."
"ManjuG" <Man...@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:EB12A2CB-E655-48A7...@microsoft.com...

Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]

unread,
May 28, 2008, 5:57:59 PM5/28/08
to
Why do you feel you need the DirectX 8.1 SDK instead of getting the current
DirectX SDK (March 2008) release?

--
Chuck Walbourn
SDE, XNA Developer Connection

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


Calabrese@discussions.microsoft.com Dave Calabrese

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 12:16:01 PM7/30/08
to
I was personally also looking for the older SDK as the latest (March 2008)
does not come with DirectX 8, and the game engine we are working with does
not appear to have support for DirectX 9, and hence will not compile without
the DirectX 8 SDK.

Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]

unread,
Aug 20, 2008, 7:44:00 PM8/20/08
to
As the DirectX SDK readme says, if you need DX8 headers, you have to go with
August 2007 or earlier. If you need D3DX8 or other DX8-era supporting tools,
you have to go back further than that.

Really you should consider moving to DX9 since it is (a) near universally
supported across all versions of Windows, (b) better tested with respect to
drivers on all recent and modern hardware, and (c) DX8 has been deprecated
for something like 6 years at this point.

Sam

unread,
Aug 20, 2009, 11:13:01 PM8/20/09
to
This is the most interesting question I have ever seen - why I need that? I
do not want, but the software I bought was built with it and, the latest
version does not work at all. I do not know why MS did things like this.

It is not the first time I search for old versions, and my HD was full of
different versions of SDK.

Can you make our already miserable life easier?

Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]

unread,
Aug 21, 2009, 8:24:43 PM8/21/09
to
DirectX 8.1 was released in November 2001, with DirectX 9.0 released in
December 2002. A lot has happened in the intervening 8 years and 25+
releases of the DirectX SDK.

If the latest version of the DirectX SDK is missing components your older
code needs, you can try the August 2007 DX SDK as the last release to
contain many of the deprecated DirectX 8.x era components. If that isn't
sufficient, you can try to find an unofficial source for DirectX 8.1 SDK.

DirectX 8.1-era software should continue to run as already built on modern
versions of the OS (barring other appcompat issues like 16-bit code on an
x64 OS). The majority of these old interfaces are still supported on Windows
Vista and Windows 7, although the deprecated ones do not offer x64 native
code support as they only ship for compat with older 32-bit programs. The
only major exceptions to this would be use of Direct3D Retained Mode,
DirectPlay Voice, or the DX7/DX8 VB interfaces which were removed from
Windows Vista and subsequent releases of Windows.

--
-Chuck Walbourn
SDE, XNA Developer Connection

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warrenties, and confers no rights.

Girl@discussions.microsoft.com Gadget Girl

unread,
Sep 16, 2009, 5:33:01 PM9/16/09
to


"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" wrote:

I don't understand why software developers who support all manner of
Microsoft technologies should be quizzed on why we ask for something as
simple as an old sdk. Of course, new applications are designed using new
technologies. But it isn't feasible to do this for every old application in
the world. If I make my customer happy with one of his old applications that
uses DirectSound in a laboratory setting, isn't he more likely to listen to
me when I advise him to purchase a server farm with Microsoft technologies as
the base. How likely are Microsoft customers likely to listen to Microsoft
when as a misguided policy it pretends like the new techology is fully
dressed? The emperor has no clothes, the little child said.

As it is, I will spend my week rewriting a dll that will compile in an old
version of Visual Studio (6.0) just to save my customer $350,000 in software
development costs on the "new" technologies.

Sandy


ibew4449

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 11:42:01 AM12/6/09
to

ibew4449

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 11:46:01 AM12/6/09
to
I am trying to run a CD, but I get an error message stating that the program
requires Direct X 8 or better. I have the Direct X SDK already installed.
Appanteraly the program is not reconzing the driver.

Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 8:55:47 PM12/7/09
to

This is usually because the program's installer has a poorly written version
check. Since your system has DirectX 9.0 in it, it is failing because it
only works if it reports 8.0. You could try one of the application
compatibility modes by creating a shortcut for the installer and setting up
one of the layers to see if that tricks it into working.

--

--
-Chuck Walbourn
SDE, XNA Developer Connection

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

0 new messages