I just dont understand this whole thing of using NT and DX3. I guess if he wanted to just give us all a good laugh, then he succeeded, but why does your home pc have NT on it?

And if your really poor, why dont you just go and download win2k cd off the web like everyone else, hehe.

Possibility

This back-n-fourth over why he is using directX 3 is really getting old. For gods sake give the guy a break and let him be with his dx3 & nt!

aka John M.
Never give up. Never surrender!

I know that I shouldn''t have NT but the salesman was rather convincing that NT is better than 98 and I didn''t know about the DX limitations OK? Next year I''ll get a new computer and then I''ll know better. I asked to get the OS changed but that would be very expensive. The idea with the off-screen surface isn''t bad but I think DX3.0 doesn''t support surfaces wider than the primary surface. Thanks for the help guys. I''m using the blt() function with a clipper at the moment and it works fine but bltFast() is supposed to be 10% faster so it would be nice to use.

And NT4.0 quite definatively only supports DX3.0. Anybody know why that is? Could Microsoft not release DX7.0 or 8 for NT4.0? Is that impossible because of the technology that NT is built on (works in win2000 which is NT based) or are Microft just greedy fools that want us to have to buy win2000 rather than stay with NT4? If anybody knows I would be interessted to know.

It''s mainly technological. One reason why NT is more stable than 9x is because you can''t get direct access to memory from a user program. DirectX is there to aid direct access to memory, hence the name. Obviously they couldn''t find a way to work around this obvious clash of interests cleanly and safely, so they didn''t bother. I''m sure that it would be possible, if they''d really wanted to do it, but the existence of Win2000 and the fact that NT was never considered a gaming OS means that they really had little incentive to undertake such a task.