Direct X version Nov 2007

[u2kforever]

I download a 400MB direct X 2007 file from the main site, but it says its corrupt when trying to install it?

Any secondary links or options

[Ponch]

I don't know what you call the "main site" but DX-november from M$ is 64MB, not 400. Check again.

[galahs]

I'm not sure if the latest DriectX updates actually improve anything on Windows 98

Either way, you must have the December 2006 DirectX 9.0c or earlier installed first, then you can update it with the latest DirectX 9.0c releases.

Releases later Dec2006 will fail to clean install on Win98 as they have been stripped of Win9x components. Newer releases can only be used to update existing installs.

Either way just go here:

http://www.mdgx.com/dx.htm

Edited February 27, 2008 by galahs

[RetroOS]

I download a 400MB direct X 2007 file from the main site, but it says its corrupt when trying to install it?

Any secondary links or options

What you downloaded is the Software Developer Kit (SDK).

Unless you are a programmer who uses DirectX, this will not be any use to you...

[Offler]

if you want to install last version of DX9.0c from november 2007 you need at least first DX9 release installed.

while windows XP and later have DX9c installed you dont need do this on XP.

this kind of "requirement" is quite strange. DX9.0c from november is not a standalone installation, but last available patch for DX9 installed on any system...

but older DX9 builds (which supported win9x) can be surely installed and later upgraded with DX9.0c from november 2007, althougt some files shall not be installed, but can be extracted manually (*.dll). Also DX Managed code (based on NetFramework) shall surely improve DX9 performance when using newest DX9 - thats the best benefit when installing NOV2007.

but some people dislike netFramework - mostly it is useless, but i found that it can in some cases help improve system performance for games. (measured by 3dmark 2001 and 2003, with and without framework 2.0 installed and with various versions of DX9)

i recomend to install first release of dx9 on win98, then NET 2.0 and at last DX9.0c from November 2007.

DO NOT INSTALL NET FRAMEWORK FROM GRAPHICS DRIVER CD, NOR DX9. install them separately. and avoid NET 1.0 and NET 1.1... i am just desperate that NET 2.1 cannot be installed on win9x

Edited February 27, 2008 by Offler

[SecondEditor]

DX 9c 07nov (i already installed on my sys "worked", but older version was on sys)

ftp://greyone.tulatelecom.ru/pub/windows/...2007_redist.exe

ftp://files.3dnews.ru/pub/soft/tweakos/mi...2007_redist.exe

ftp://ftp.yaroslavl.ru/pub/windows/driver...2007_redist.exe

probably working without any previous version. ( about 67 MBs)

Edited February 27, 2008 by SecondEditor

[bristols]

DX Managed code (based on NetFramework) shall surely improve DX9 performance when using newest DX9 - thats the best benefit when installing NOV2007.

.....

i recomend to install first release of dx9 on win98, then NET 2.0 and at last DX9.0c from November 2007.

Agreed. The "first release" of DX9 that I install is the October 2005 DX9.0c release. This (I believe) was the last DX9 release that did not take advantage of DX Managed code (and so it does not benefit from having .NET Framework installed). Then I install .NET Framework and after that the latest DX9, as you advise.

DO NOT INSTALL NET FRAMEWORK FROM GRAPHICS DRIVER CD, NOR DX9. install them separately. and avoid NET 1.0 and NET 1.1... i am just desperate that NET 2.1 cannot be installed on win9x

Why do you think we should avoid using .NET 1 and 1.1? On older machines I avoid installing .NET 2 - it seems to be a big install with few benefits over .NET 1/1.1. Maybe I've missed something, so please explain.

Edited February 27, 2008 by bristols

[Offler]

well, what is an old machine...

as long i know Net 1.0 is the very first release, version 1.1 is same app with bugfixes. Net 2.0 is newer one but does not contain bugfixes - these are available in Net 2.1, which i have not installed on my system yet, and maybe there is no way to do that.

i am quite sure that framework 1.0 is responsible for many performance trouble. Version 1.1 is little bit better, but not much. With .NET2.0 i was confident for the first time until i was trying this kind of interface. its installation had no performance or stability side effects, althought service pack for it reveals that it is indeed quite buggy...