The community Taskforce initiative has now come to a close.
Thanks to everyone who made thoughtful and genuine contributions to the website.
All submissions will be kept publically available for the forseeable future for reference purposes.

This website is part of the community Taskforce initiative

Submission details

promote
-12 +15/-27 votes
demote
change vote

Screensavers all require Direct3D?

Submitted by TheDub on December 17, 2008 to Usability

Windows 95 featured a screen saver that was a 3D maze, Windows 3.1 featured screen savers that even looked 3D. Windows 7 however requires a Direct3D capable card just to display the ribbons screen saver? Is this a joke? The only screen savers that work without Direct3D is the photo sideshow and blank. I know almost everyone has a 3D card now but seriously? Vista has the ribbons screen saver, for those who have not seen it check it out, it does not need a 3D card and this really seems like a pointless purposely implemented limitation.

I'm pretty sure Windows 95 also had the 3D text screensaver... why does it just now suddenly require Direct3D?

**UPDATE**
Just to give everyone a better idea of what I mean I included a shot of the 3D Text screensaver in XP and 7. Both were running under identical Virtualbox environments. Notice how XP can easily handle a silly screensaver with no 3d acceleration but 7 can't. That is why I think its a bogus limitation.

Remove this purposely implemented limitation (at least as far as I can tell its on purpose). I know most consumers have 3D cards now but its just the whole idea that its been broken without justification.

Low

Low

Not fixed

Discussion (8 comments)

.Chris wrote on December 17, 2008, 9:58pm

Damn, Come on microsoft, quit foceing us on this crap.

alphanerd wrote on December 18, 2008, 1:24am

Warp10 baby!

tino wrote on December 18, 2008, 2:44am

They require Direct3D because they are Direct3D apps. Drawing polygons and effects does require hardware acceleration. I doubt that WARP is fast enough.

TheDub wrote on December 18, 2008, 7:04am

They were not in the past and shouldn't be now. Besides aren't most screen savers (add on ones I should say) OpenGL? Anyways I think its a purposely implemented limitation. If they did not require Direct3D in vista and xp why do they suddenly need it now? Did they rewrite all of them for 7 to specifically require 3D hardware?

TheDub wrote on December 18, 2008, 7:10am

Just to be sure I fired up XP in the same version of Virtualbox, with the same vbox driver, on the same host and XP is able to render the screensavers with no issues at all. Again most people have 3D hardware but purposely implemented limitations such as the one above are wrongful and should not exist.

alphanerd wrote on December 18, 2008, 11:36pm

If Warp can run Crysis in DX10, then why can't it run a silly screensaver?

TheDub wrote on December 20, 2008, 7:35am

Are people really voting this down? Purposely implemented limitations is a good thing?!

TheDub wrote on December 20, 2008, 8:42am

Changed problem description.
Added new image attachment.

Paralityk wrote on December 20, 2008, 12:28pm

WARP!!!

You might also be interested in...