06-15-2018, 01:45 AM
(06-15-2018, 01:17 AM)Rekrul Wrote: In the context that Windows 7/8/10 don't come with DX9 on them and to install it, a user would have to run a special third-party program to forcibly uninstall DirectX, since MS never intended for it to be uninstalled, then manually search out a copy of DX9, download it and install it. All of which is well beyond the abilities of the average user. Hell, the average user doesn't have a clue what to do with a program that comes as a Zip file instead of an installer. I'd be surprised if you could find ten average users today who even know what DirectX is, let alone what version they have on their system.
It's also doubtful that a Vista user would have DX9, as DX10 was released right around the same time as Vista. Even if they did originally have DX9, it would have probably been updated long ago during one of the update cycles.
The point is that is very doubtful that any of the systems capable of running the newer/development versions of PCSX2 would have DX9 installed on it. Which is what made me curious about why it was still supported.
Except many games on Steam and Origin came with it and it was required to run, multiplatform games were even discussed as they ere being held back as they had to cater to the DX9 in consoles.
You seem to have a low idea of a "average user" my parents for example were using a 2006 pc till last year when I built them one for Christmas, my dad was using winzip and such around 2001, and was using pcs in the early 90s (or 80s if you count the home computers that mostly were for games)
What it seems to boil down to though is you think a system/hardware capable of DX11/10 can't/wont use DX9 which isn't the same as not having DX9/using it.