DirectX 9.0c December 2005 Version Released

[CivIndeed]

Microsoft has (finally) released directly to end-users an updated version of DirectX 9.0c (December 2005 revision). It is still versioned as "DirectX 9.0c" (unfortunately), but has the additional verbiage of "December 2005" to indicate it is updated with the most recent file and API changes/updates.

For those of you that arent sure whether you have the latest version of of the DirectX 9.0 runtime libraries (or even if you think you do), I highly recommend getting this update. It contains all of the updates previously distributed only through the developer updates through all of 2005 (like those required by Civ 4), as well as Managed DirectX (.NET) updates.

It can be downloaded at:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...FA-0E3C-4837-AFC0-6C67DCAA54BF&displaylang=en

 

[Neon Deon]

"if it aint broke, dont fix it"

Cant remember who said that first

ZY:Will Rogers;someone else. ,)

Anyways, if you are not having major problems with the game, you might let someone else test it for you.

 

[Zydor]

"It it aint broke dont fix it" - Absolutely x 1million. Very wise to let a new release of anything settle before use. Commercial pressures are intense these days, and realities are that things do get released a little too early, so pause a little, especially if you are not having problems - you could end up debugging their problems, when you had none of your own in the first place .....

Be cautious in assuming it contains all the Directx additions required by Civ IV until definitively confirmed. The 9.0c version does give developers the ability to add extensions ahead of full release of later versions - it also means developers can add customised bits for themselves for specific purpose. Therefore it may not be true that all Civ IV extensions are included if they were specific to Civ IV. There are some extensions loaded during the Civ IV release 1/release 1.09 loading, and if you load up another variant without checking you might overwrite those extensions. How vital those extensions are vis a vis this new release, I have no idea, but why do it if you have no problems

Just be aware of that possibility, and if you try this new release, keep in the back of your mind you may have to relaod Civ IV if problems (that is easy, just time - but be aware so you not caught wondering what happened)

Regards
Zy

 

[CivIndeed]

"if it aint broke, dont fix it"

Cant remember who said that first

If it aint smart, dont say it.

I said it first.

But its true enough, no software ever has any bugs, which is why patches are never issued.

One need only look to Civ 4 to see the truth of that statement. Absolutely stable, compatible, and fully functional, right out of the box even!

Thankfully, there is no silly patch available, nor will there be any additional ones, since they are clearly not needed, and obviously would only make the game "worse".

Genius!

Civ 4 is "broke" - it needs "fixin".

Even DirectX 9.0c is "broke", and needs "fixin" (and/or functional enhancements), hence the availability of this update (and previous ones even).

This version of DirectX contains code/files that Civ 4 relies upon (like d3dx9_26.dll), that didnt exist in the previously most recently available end-user version of DirectX (from over a year ago). Certain DirectX related Civ 4 errors (like missing file errors) can in fact be resolved, by installing this latest December 2005 revision of DirectX 9.0c (unless you want to dig out the Civ 4 CD and install an older developer distributed end-user update, or completely reinstall the game simply to get the older version of DX on the Civ 4 CD)

Any more silly aphorisms to offer?

ZY:Will Rogers;someone else. ,)

Will rogers is "broke" dead, and there "aint no fixin 'im".

http://www.willrogers.org/willsays.html

"everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects"

Yes, indeed, as demonstrated here.

Irony, ya gotta love it!

Of course, even more ironic, is the fact that Will Rogers died in an airplane crash in Alaska - and the plane was experimental:

http://www.explorenorth.com/library/aviation/post-rogers.html

"Most experts now believe that a combination of miscalculations in the design and operation of the heavily customized aircraft resulted in the uncontrollable spin that occurred right after takeoff."

Now, if only they had more fully "beta tested" that plane before traipsing about in it.... Perhaps they should have "patched" the plane and its design, before operating it, eh?

If it aint broke dont fix it..indeed. Looks like he paid for his life upholding the "truth" of that silliness.

Anyways, if you are not having major problems with the game, you might let someone else test it for you.

Would that refer to testing the game, or testing December 2005 DirectX 9.0c?

For some reason, im thinking this latest version of DX received far greater testing before release, than Civ 4.

And it shows.

And of course, System Restore is VERY hard to use.

Anyways, its probably best to let someone else post for you.

Next.

 

[Zanmato]

This is a developers kit update and there a pointless installation if you don't have the DirectX SDK. It updated nothing on my machine according to the DxDiag file, didn't change any core DirectX file/driver. Just skip it and wait for v9.0d or v10 which is in beta at the moment.

As the previous posters suggest, just leave it be. But thanks for bringing to our attention.

 

[CivIndeed]

"It it aint broke dont fix it" - Absolutely x 1million. Very wise to let a new release of anything settle before use.

Like say, the new release of Civ 4? Yeah, i guess everyone should wait until, oh, mid 2006 before purchasing and using Civ 4. Best to let it "settle" before use. Good idea.

So, let me see if i get this right - its ok to use the new release of Civ 4, but its not ok to use an updated revised patched version of DirectX 9.0c, that could help the new release of Civ 4 (and other game software) work/work better?

Somehow, im thinking, some sort of weird alternate reality "reverse logic" is at work here. Or sheer lack of cogitation.

Oh, the genius.

Commercial pressures are intense these days, and realities are that things do get released a little too early, so pause a little, especially if you are not having problems - you could end up debugging their problems, when you had none of your own in the first place .....

Funny you should mention "realities"....(see above)

I also hear that cogitative pressures are intense these days as well...

Be cautious in assuming it contains all the Directx additions required by Civ IV until definitively confirmed.

Yes, because Micosoft clearly is mistaken about the nature and contents of their own DirectX 9.0c December 2005 update:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...FA-0E3C-4837-AFC0-6C67DCAA54BF&displaylang=en

"Additional Information

The DirectX redist installation includes all the latest and previous released DirectX runtime. This includes the bi-monthly D3DX, XInput, and Managed DirectX components."

Yes, you know, that reading stuff, its really hard.

Not to mention you can decompress the install .exe and notice the cabs named "Feb2005", "Apr2005", "Jun2005", "Aug2005", "Oct2005", and "Dec2005", etc. (For the record, Civ 4 ships with the "Jun2005" update)

Of course, you probably should have even the slightest clue what you are talking about before making such silly asinine statements, but hey, clearly, that doesnt seem to prevent the ignorant from such...

The 9.0c version does give developers the ability to add extensions ahead of full release of later versions - it also means developers can add customised bits for themselves for specific purpose.

This isnt 9.0c - this is 9.0c December 2005.

Additionally, the "Extensibility" aspect of DX did not originate with 9.0c, nor even with 9.0. Of course, if you had a clue what you were talking about.....

Therefore it may not be true that all Civ IV extensions are included if they were specific to Civ IV.

It is true. Again, it would be helpful if you were less ignorant...

Developer code is NOT part of the DX runtime distribution and is never packaged with it. You dont just get to make your own code as a developer and then throw it into the MS DX runtime package. That isnt how it works.

The new DX "extensions" (new functionality enhancements and fixes) provided in the latest distributions of DX, are Microsoft coded and provided. These are part of DirectX itself. They are not developer coded or provided.

If you dont know, all you have to do is look (or read). Read the download page. Examine the contents of the the redistributable package included with the game CD (in the Direct9 folder), versus that of this one.

Oh, and if you can find a package of the DX runtime that contains non-MS code, you let me know. I'll be waiting. Let me know how those digital signatures in the MS DX packages dont get corrupted in such a supposed scenario as well.

There are some extensions loaded during the Civ IV release 1/release 1.09 loading, and if you load up another variant without checking you might overwrite those extensions.

Really, what are these "extensions"? Can you name them? Do they have file names? If so, can you name them?

How vital those extensions are vis a vis this new release, I have no idea, but why do it if you have no problems

Yes, its clear you definitely have "no idea". Clearly, that doesnt prevent you from expressing yourself.

Just be aware of that possibility, and if you try this new release, keep in the back of your mind you may have to relaod Civ IV if problems (that is easy, just time - but be aware so you not caught wondering what happened)

No, its not a possibility. But, then youd have to know what you were talking about in order to know that, and you clearly dont.

It would be better if you simple remained quiet rather than injecting asinine ignorance when inappropriate.

Next.

 

[MrCynical]

CivIndeed, regardless of your opinions on the condition and testing of Civ 4, I at least have no intention of getting this version of DirectX yet. There is a lot of truth in "If it ain't broke don't fix it", and at the moment the DirectX is not broke. Everything on my computer (including Civ 4) is currently running smoothly, so why on earth should I change to this? At best it will do nothing, and at worst things could stop working. I fail to see why you therefore consider it smart to fix it, since from a purely practical point of view it isn't broken.

As for your rather silly and tasteless plane crash analogy you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. He was killed in an experimental plane, not an old and much used design. By the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" approach he was definitely flying a "fixed" plane, rather than one that was known to work (and so wasn't broken). This particular phrase has little to do with testing, so dragging it into the subject was fairly pointless, but the plane he used evidently WAS broken and so needed to be fixed.

I'm all for letting other people test it for you (The DirectX, not Civ 4, as is blatant from the context). One day something may cease to work, and then I will try upgrading the DirectX, but at the moment I have nothing to gain, and possibly something to lose by doing so.

As to your comments about it being illogical to get a new version of Civ 4, but not DirectX, you are missing a couple of crucial points. Civ 4, whatever it's condition (and I've had few problems) will not affect existing programs and is easily removed. This is not fixing something, this is getting something new. It was a game I wanted, and so I was willing to take a chance on it not working to get it early. DirectX 9.0c whatever, is not something in it's own right, it is a change to something which for me is currently working. It is therefore far more illogical to upgrade the DirectX than to get Civ 4.

 

[Oggums]

Apparently, CivIndeed has never updated anything from Microsoft before, immediately upon release.

Lesson of the day:
Does it say Microsoft?

Yep. So, you wait and see.

Thankfully, there are people (newbs) like CivIndeed to test it out first, so we PC veterans don't have to bother with screwing up our working systems.

 

[CivIndeed]

This is a developers kit update and there a pointless installation if you don't have the DirectX SDK.

Strange, it doesnt even list the DirectX SDK as a requirement on the download page. Perhaps because it isnt one, and you dont know what you are talking about?

You really have to love insistent ignorance.

Not, it is not a "developer kit update". It is an end-user runtime distribution update, that, additionally, developers can include this with their games so that users have this latest version of the runtime installed when the game is installed. Reading works.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/directx/default.aspx

"Get the Latest DirectX Here
DirectX (December 2005) improves the graphics, security, and performance of your operating system. Download and install this update for your Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows Server 2003, or Windows XP-based system."

Reading really does work. Really.

It updated nothing on my machine according to the DxDiag file, didn't change any core DirectX file/driver.

Thats quite possible - you may have already had the December 2005 9.0c runtime update (released a few days ago) installed through some other vector (unlikely). However, though, that isnt the case with you.

Your confusion comes from the fact that you dont know how to read the dxdiag.txt file, and that it doesnt list all of the DX files, nor does it provide specific information about upgrading from a previous version of DX or the DX install process.

Had you properly examined the dxdiag.txt file, you would have noticed that the most of the Managed DirectX files have a december 2005 datestamp.

And of course, unfortunately, it doesnt even list the important D3DX9_24.DLL or D3DX9_25.DLL or D3DX9_26.DLL or D3DX9_27.DLL or D3DX9_28.DLL files that new games like Civ 4 require to work (D3DX9_26.DLL specifically).

(Go ahead, search for those files. Check the date of say, D3DX9_28.DLL.)

Not listing all of the DX files in DXDIAG is Microsoft's fault, however, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know such things.

But you dont.

Just skip it and wait for v9.0d or v10 which is in beta at the moment.

Sage advice, coming from the ignorant. Yes, dont update now and get the latest DirectX runtime version available to consumers. That would obviously just be silly.

As the previous posters suggest, just leave it be. But thanks for bringing to our attention.

As previous posters have made clear, in addition to this post, the ignorant often feel compelled to share their ignorance in interesting ways.

Next.

 

[Neon Deon]

Ahhh flame wars you have to love em.

Hi CivIndeed,

You seem to be quite angry with Firaxis. I hope you can work that out.

Do you work for the National Enquirer?

The reason I ask is that you seem to have quite an affinity for taking things out of context.

IE:

Cant remember who said that first

ZY:Will Rogers;someone else. ,)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now had I said this next line (which I did not):

Will Rogers coined the phrase “if it aint broke then don’t fix it”.

Then by all means roast me over an open spit with this witty reply.


“ “everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects"

Yes, indeed, as demonstrated here.

Irony, ya gotta love it!

Of course, even more ironic, is the fact that Will Rogers died in an airplane crash in Alaska - and the plane was experimental:……..”

Please read Civ’s above post to get the entire quote.



CivIndeed did your version of the game not come with direct x 9c?

BTW Civ:

Based on your opinion or internet surfing capabilities:

What percentage of 3D game programs produced in the last 3 years doesn’t have a patch?

 

[Zanmato]

Go ahead, search for those files. Check the date of say, D3DX9_28.DLL

Fine ok, it has been updated. Clearly, I was wrong. Therefore, I am ignorant, no. I made a mistake so many thanks for pointing that out to me, CivIndeed. I shall read things more throughly in the future and thanks for letting me know how it check these things in the future.

Although the more specific file that Civ4 uses ie. D3DX9_26.DLL according to you, hasn't been updated since May 2005 so clearly I am not the only one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Thanks again. That's all I will say on this thread because I would like to talk to people who are clearly more mature than you.

 

[Underseer]

If it aint smart, dont say it.

I said it first.

But its true enough, no software ever has any bugs, which is why patches are never issued.

[...]

While I agree that in general it's a good idea to update rather than not, your post is so dripping with arrogance I simply don't see the point in reading any further. If you want people to read your entire post, it helps to not come across like an indignant 14 year old. You may find more people taking you seriously that way.

PS -- does anyone know what the deal is with the version number? That's seriously weird.

 

[Novotny]

its civindeed. The last thread of yours that I noticed got locked, I imagine this one will too. Will you please go back on the medication?

 

[PsyhotiC]

i already posted that and here's another link for that update
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148039

p.s. I recommend it too

 

[CivIndeed]

CivIndeed, regardless of your opinions on the condition and testing of Civ 4, I at least have no intention of getting this version of DirectX yet.

Well, because obviously, the condition of the Civ 4 code directly effects the condition of the DX code. ....

Ironically, if you installed Civ 4, you installed an updated (though not the most recent update) version of DirectX 9.0c: the June 2005 Update.

Clearly, considering your very thoughtful and conservative "update approach", im sure you didnt unwittingly install DirectX 9.0c June 2005 Update that comes with and is required by Civ 4, and you are not running the game.

No intention indeed. (yet, there it is, already installed)

There is a lot of truth in "If it ain't broke don't fix it", and at the moment the DirectX is not broke.

Sure it is - hence the updates. If you think every last version and revision of DX is simply to add new functionality, thats quite amusing, and quite ignorant. You see those D3DX9_2x.DLL files? Those are all increasing updates to the D3DX graphical library extensions file. They contain fixes, changes and enhancements from revision to revision.

Of course, you realize that before you installed the game, you had a "broke" version of DX that the game updated to the DirectX 9.0c June 2005 Update version, right?

Everything on my computer (including Civ 4) is currently running smoothly, so why on earth should I change to this?

For the same reason you unwittingly installed the DirectX 9.0c June 2005 version? You obviously arent as concerned about updating DirectX code as you claim to be, otherwise you would know that is the case. You might as well give this silly "fight against the updates" up - you clearly have already lost it.

Smoothly isnt a technical term, and is apropros of nothing regarding the objective technical state of the operations of your PC.

You should upgrade because its a cumulative update containing all the versions of the D3DX extension library for the last year, including new previously unavailable fixes, changes, and functionality to D3DX, as well as other updates fixes and changes (it even contains the June 2005 Updates included in the version of DirectX 9.0c that you unwittingly already installed).

At best it will do nothing, and at worst things could stop working.

Well, if providing fixes, changes, and additional functionality are "nothing", thats news to me.

No no, at worst, the Unified Alien Cabal could in fact use your PC as an invasion point.

At which point, you simply use System Restore, and rid your PCverse of the alien threat.

You do know what System Restore is, right?

I fail to see why you therefore consider it smart to fix it, since from a purely practical point of view it isn't broken.

"I fail to see...". Indeed. If you cant understand that in fact, DX is "broken", hence the updates, well..you probably wont understand much else.

Since you "smartly" already unwittingly installed the DX June 2005 Update, you can "smartly" and knowingly install the December 2005 Update. You know, what with the careful conservative attention you clearly give to updating or installing code...

As for your rather silly and tasteless plane crash analogy you seem to have the wrong end of the stick.

It wasnt an analogy.

He was killed in an experimental plane, not an old and much used design.

Since im the one that provided the info, i think i might know that the plane was experimental, eh?

Reading works.

By the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" approach he was definitely flying a "fixed" plane, rather than one that was known to work (and so wasn't broken).

Except that it was "broken". Reading works. The design was flawed in several ways, and combined with operator error, resulted in the crash.

The very fact that it is an experimental plane, means there are assumed/known flaws.

This particular phrase has little to do with testing, so dragging it into the subject was fairly pointless, but the plane he used evidently WAS broken and so needed to be fixed.

It has little to do with much else other than the ignorant sillies and paranoid updaters continuing their sad existences by regurgitating something they once heard some other silly say...

Yup, and it weren't fixed, and it crashed, and he died. Pretty ironic for someone claimed to be attributed with originating the "if it aint broke dont fix it" aphorism. (is this a chorus?)

I'm all for letting other people test it for you (The DirectX, not Civ 4, as is blatant from the context).

Yes, because it always makes the most sense to use new software immediately without letting other users test it first, but then insist that other people test the revised and fixed software.

You do realize how illogical and inconsistent that is, right?

Shouldnt you be advocating that other people test Civ 4 a lot more for you, considering Civ 4 is much "newer" relative to its original release date than DirectX 9.0c December 2005 is relative to the original release of DirectX 9.0?

Surely you dont think new version releases are somehow inherently less buggy than revisions to revisions of non-new software releases?

Besides, you are already "testing" DirectX 9.0c June 2005 Update. Hows the testing going?

One day something may cease to work, and then I will try upgrading the DirectX, but at the moment I have nothing to gain, and possibly something to lose by doing so.

You have plenty to gain - increased support and compatibility with all of the changes and improvements made to DirectX over the last year, especially the many different releases of D3DX9D.DLL that different games require, and the latest version of the Managed DirectX code (you know, for all the really super cool .NET Framework based games out there).

In terms of something to lose, you have nothing to lose, as the huge vast majority of the DirectX codebase remains unchanged, with (aside from Managed DirectX) essentially just a tiny fraction being added/changed for games that use the latest D3DX code (it is after all, a revision to a revision of a version).

Of course, that whole "System Restore" thing is just very hard to use..

As to your comments about it being illogical to get a new version of Civ 4, but not DirectX, you are missing a couple of crucial points.

Like the fact that you already are using an updated version of DirectX 9.0c (June 2005 Update) that is required by the game to run?

"Points", like that, right?

Civ 4, whatever it's condition (and I've had few problems) will not affect existing programs and is easily removed.

Wont effect existing programs eh? When the users system reboots consistently when the game is loaded or being played, it affects existing programs. When the game has a memory leak that gobbles up RAM, and other programs run significantly more slowly, or potentially/actually not at all, it affects other programs.

When it ship with (and still retains in its outdated insecure version of PYTHON24.DLL) security vulnerabilities that allow a complete system takeover with arbitrary code execution, it affects other programs.

This is not fixing something, this is getting something new.

Its true enough, Civ 4 itself doesnt fix anything else on the system, and quite arguably causes other programs/aspects to "break".

However, the argument is moot. The Civ 4 install process installs a relatively newer version of DirectX 9.0c distributed through the DirectX SDK from earlier this year. It has to be installed in order for the game to even run. You already have, at the very least, DirectX 9.0c June 2005 update installed.

In other words, you had to "fix" DirectX (the operating system) by installing a newer version of DirectX 9.0c (June 2005 revision, included on the game CD) just to even be able to get the game to run, so Civ 4 does in fact "affect other programs" through its installation/requirement of DirectX 9.0c June 2005 (or later).

If you are running Civ 4, you have already "affected other programs" by either allowing the Civ 4 install process to install DirectX 9.0c June 2005 Update, or you (or another program) installed it.

Obviously, you didnt know that, or simply didnt think about it at all, before posting this silliness.

Certainly, if its ok for you to unwittingly and unknowingly install the DirectX 9.0c June 2005 Update, certainly you can install DirectX 9.0c December 2005 Update (informed or otherwise).

It was a game I wanted, and so I was willing to take a chance on it not working to get it early.

You got a very unfinished game, and, clearly unbeknownst to you, an operating system update with DirectX 9.0c June 2005 Update.

DirectX 9.0c whatever, is not something in it's own right, it is a change to something which for me is currently working.

Of course its "something in its own right" (whatever that means), hence the name "DirectX". Additionally, it comes as a complete download and installation package available through Microsoft/Windows Update, Microsoft Downloads, and through developer/game distributions of games/software.

Again, you already (unwittingly) installed an updated version of DirectX 9.0c in order to get the game to run.

It is therefore far more illogical to upgrade the DirectX than to get Civ 4.

Then i suggest you use a System Restore to rid your system of the "horrible untested and unwanted" DirectX 9.0c June 2005 update - you know, for the "logic of it".

Next.

 

[Neon Deon]

Yay! CIv is back!

Civ,

There is a big difference between updating just because it is new and updating because it is required to run a program you want to use.

 

[CivIndeed]

Apparently, CivIndeed has never updated anything from Microsoft before, immediately upon release.

Sure i have, assuming that i purchased said software/hardware product at some point significantly past its original release date such that updates are available. Of course, I've also installed Microsoft software immediately upon release, and even PRIOR to release (thats generally called "Beta Testing", and is something Firaxis might want to take special note of).

Microsoft software is not perfect, nor is anyone elses. Hence why there is a DirectX 9.0c December 2005 update, that supercedes the DirectX 9.0c June 2005 Update, that supercedes the April and February 2005 Updates, and so on, back to dawn of DirectX 9.0, and even to the original version of DirectX. Ayup.

"Lesson of the day:
Does it say Microsoft?"

Yep. So, you wait and see.

Its good to see someone else advocating reading, with the requisite skills.

Thankfully, there are people (newbs) like CivIndeed to test it out first, so we PC veterans don't have to bother with screwing up our working systems.

Because all the smartest people (like yourself) clearly waited to buy Civ 4 until the middle of 2006, when patch version 1.2x is going to be released (and the price lowers significantly), and the game will finally be "reasonably consistently playable according to its own intended design and with just a few bugs left". Right.

Which is why im sure you dont have Civ 4 installed and arent bothering on playing it until the silly (but oft cited) "third revision rule" takes effect on a minimum.

So tell me, hows that DirectX 9.0c June 2005 version "testing" coming along?

You "veteran" you.

Next.

 

[MrCynical]

Why do you assume that I was unaware I installed a new version of DirectX when I installed Civ 4? I was perfectly well aware of this, as anyone who bothers to pay attention to the installation would. Retunring to the phrase being debated, the DirectX could therefore be regarded as broken, since it would not operate Civ 4, and was therefore worth upgrading. Whether you feel 'smoothly' is a suitable term for how my computer is running or not, I have no current problems with it, and nothing I currently want to install which requires the December version of DirectX. In the future a new game may require it, and so I will update the DirectX at that point, with the added advantage that it has been tested by plenty of people like you. I have no objection to upgrading it, but it seems pointless until necessary.

I am perfectly well aware that DirectX is not perfect and so constant updates are produced. Yet again I state, everything works fine already, so what precise improvements can I expect from this update? As for it being impossible for it to do any harm, I know from past experience this is untrue. I have good reason to be sceptical of unecessary updates. I cannot expect improvements to game performance and your previous thread did nothing to convince me that there is a security issue. (If there is a security issue you shouldn't be posting it on a public forum in any case, report it to Firaxis and keep quiet about it). I haven't heard of anyone having security problems due to Civ 4, and thanks to your previous thread I think any hackers would probably have tried it by now if a real problem existed.

You were using the plane crash as an analogy, even though it was a real event, and I referred to it as an analogy for that reason. IIABDFI (got bored of typing it) doesn't mean that things that are broken shouldn't be fixed (or indeed tested to see if they're broken).

As for the 'something in it's own right' which so baffled you, this refers to the fact that DirectX on it's own is of no use to me. It exists purely to serve other programs, and if it is functioning in this role there is no need for change.

As for whether I know what a system restore is I'm perfectly well aware what it is, and that it is something to be avoided! As for your suggestion of using it to remove the previous update you are sarcastically using "If it ain't broke don't fix it" yourself. The status quo is fine, and downgrading isn't any better than upgrading as far as this phrase is concerned.

 

[Neon Deon]

Civ????

Oh Civ...........

I was wondering if you could show me how to run CIV IV on directx9b?

 

[CivIndeed]

Fine ok, it has been updated. Clearly, I was wrong.

I appreciate your concession. Its a rare thing indeed in most interactions, internet based or otherwise.

Therefore, I am ignorant, no.

Ignorant in the sense of not knowing something, yes. Ignorant as some sort of general claim for the purpose of insult, I dont know.

I made a mistake so many thanks for pointing that out to me, CivIndeed.

No problem.

I shall read things more throughly in the future and thanks for letting me know how it check these things in the future.

Great.

Although the more specific file that Civ4 uses ie. D3DX9_26.DLL according to you, hasn't been updated since May 2005 so clearly I am not the only one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Well, obviously, its not the only DX file that Civ 4 uses, its just the specific file (D3DX9D.DLL, though they change the actual external file name for linking purposes) that keeps consistently getting updated in these 2005 Updates.

And yes, the D3DX9_26.DLL has not been updated since the June 2005 Update, and is highly unlikely ever to be, because thats the external file named created for the purpose of linking, of the D3DX9D.DLL file. In fact, all of the D3DX9_2x.DLL files are revisions of the same D3DX9D.DLL file, with different external file system names for the purpose of linking and usage dependencies of software (games).

When they (Microsoft) change the code/functionality in the D3DX9D.DLL file, they are very purposely giving it a different external designation such that programs that rely on specific behavior/functionality in specific revisions, dont "break".

Sort of similar to the "Side By Side DLL" (SxS) functionality in say Windows XP. I'm sure Microsoft would have perhaps preferred to use/push that methodology, but since DirectX installs on many different Windows OS versions, several of which dont have SxS functionality built into them, they resorted to this obvious logical alternate methodology instead.

Thanks again. That's all I will say on this thread because I would like to talk to people who are clearly more mature than you.

Yes, it always the mature people that make clearly uninformed yet dmismissively authoritative claims and assertions.

(You did concede, which does get you some "maturity points" back.)

However, you then reverted to the "getting the last word in before you claim you are running away never to return" silliness, which of course, gets you maturity demerits. Back to utter maturity negativity you go.

For someone very supposedly concerned about "maturity", you sure do display a lack of it.

Kids these days.

Next.