An Enahncement to the pSX Emu Speed (I guess)

[th3c0r3 (left the forum)]

I was messing around the pSX emu files for about a month. I found that it requires the d3dx9_26.dll (one of direct3d dlls) to work. While I was searching for that file I found a new version (d3dx9_30.dll). Theoritically it is better than the d3dx9_26.dll file since it has updated (and enhanced routines). So, I decided to try it. I renamed the d3dx9_30.dll to d3dx9_26.dll and put that file in the pSX emu 1.8 folder. I executed the emulator and yay it worked (that is cause of the backward compatability in terms of software developers ). I have noticed that the delay into loading some games have been decreased. Anyway, you do not know till you try .
You can find the file in here just do the renaming:
www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?d3dx9_30
P.S. By providing the dll file I do not violate any rules, since the file is distributed freely for the windows operating system users (and that is the case of pSX emu).

[Truth Unknown]

Actually if you use the latest version of DirectX 9 its better. pSX Author offered the single file for a alternative for installing a updated version DirectX 9 which cant take awhile to download.

[pSX Author]

th3c0r3 said:

I was messing around the pSX emu files for about a month. I found that it requires the d3dx9_26.dll (one of direct3d dlls) to work. While I was searching for that file I found a new version (d3dx9_30.dll). Theoritically it is better than the d3dx9_26.dll file since it has updated (and enhanced routines). So, I decided to try it. I renamed the d3dx9_30.dll to d3dx9_26.dll and put that file in the pSX emu 1.8 folder. I executed the emulator and yay it worked (that is cause of the backward compatability in terms of software developers ). I have noticed that the delay into loading some games have been decreased. Anyway, you do not know till you try .
You can find the file in here just do the renaming:
www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?d3dx9_30
P.S. By providing the dll file I do not violate any rules, since the file is distributed freely for the windows operating system users (and that is the case of pSX emu).

Please do NOT rename d3dx9_30.dll to d3dx9_26.dll - it WILL cause problems... you have been warned.

[Gamesoul Master]

Ouch... that sounded so ominous too...

But serious, it just doesn't sound right to do something like that. I like Truth Unknown's take on it. Why mess with something when getting the full update is so much better. Besides, it's *always* best to have the latest version of DirectX, and it's very rarely a good idea to ever rename a file to be read as something it's not.

[th3c0r3 (left the forum)]

Three on one that is not fair . First, Truth Unknown I would like to tell you that even if you update the DirectX to the latest version, the pSX emu would still use the d3dx9_26.dll. The issue that you have installed the DirectX and the pSX emu does not complain about it, that is cause the emu has found the d3dx9_26.dll using PATH environmental variable (in terms of software developers again ). I changed the file from d3dx9_26.dll to d3dx9_30.dll cause I know about the BACKWARD COMPATABILITY of the d3dx9_30.dll, Gamesoul Master . pSX Author, thanks for replying man, you have developed the best emu out there. If it was not for some bugs, I would say that no emu out there can stand a chance against the pSX emu. I would like to ask, why did not you choose the d3dx9_30.dll instead of d3dx9_26.dll, I mean after all it is enhanced and updated. You told me that you do not want me to change the file, why is that??? You can explain in terms of programmers .

[Truth Unknown]

There's no telling what the MSDX developers have changed added or removed compared to the 26 DLL. This will break some things and if your doing this to the windows system files directory will break other DX releated software.

[Gamesoul Master]

To sort-of explain that... you never know, even with "backward compatibility", if something was changed that they may have not noticed, and that as a result could affect how the emulator operates. It may be fine, or you may eventually notice that a problem occurs. There is no guarantee that it is indeed *100%* backwards compatible in the ways that pSX needs it to be. That's my take on it.

[MotM]

Enhancements or not, it won't matter since pSX won't have to deal with more complex graphics rendering. Maybe the newer version works better for you because of your hardware. I don't have any problems with what I got now... me not going to change files to feel like a developer

[th3c0r3 (left the forum)]

Wow, I feel like im having a Galileo discussion about the four moons of jupiter . Truth Unknown, why do you think they made four new version after the version used by pSX emu??? Do they have much time to waste??? Did you even try the file??? By the way, if the pSX emu did a malfunction it will be carried mostly by the operating system or cause the emu to crash. That is the worst case scenario. Anyway, If this reliefs you, im CRAZY and my talk is non-sense ;D.

[Ultima]

A better question is why Microsoft would continue to release a older versions of the DLL along with the newer versions. If backwards compatibility were a 100% guarantee, then they wouldn't have named the DLLs in the fashion they do -- they'd happily overwrite the older version with the newer ones. The compatibility layer in Windows XP isn't a guarantee, right? Latest does not necessarily equate to greatest.

No one said Microsoft has time to waste, but are you saying they have a perfect track record with everything? One of their recent hotfixes had issues for which they had to release an updated version to correct, so what's to prevent it from happening with this DLL as well? That's not even the brunt of the argument, as the DLL itself probably doesn't have bugs, but when used in a way that it's not intended for, something bad can, and likely will, arise.

As long as pSX Author doesn't build against d3dx9_30.dll, it's not supported. You're absolutely right, if something happens, it might just end up with a simple crash that's isolated to you. But when reports about some unexptected behavior come flying in from people who are running on the unsupported DLL, it becomes a different ball game, and we get involved. How are we supposed to know this is the reason? Most people don't and won't bother reporting something like this because they'll be (forgetting and) thinking "oh I have d3dx9_26.dll, it's not the problem."

In short, if you really wish to do this, so be it, but don't expect support to be able to help you with your issues if they do arise.

[th3c0r3 (left the forum)]

Ok Ultima, about why Micr$oft would keep all of the versions on their systems that is because of many reasons and policies. For ex, some programmers do a check on the version of the of the D3DX dll to ensure that the new version is the one there. So, if someone switched the files (doing my trick) it won't work. It will prompt that the version of the D3DX is not compatible with the software. The check was to impose that an old version is not workable. The latest means the least one with errors and most enhanced ((Most of the time)). If the new version of any dll or exe is unstable they will mention it. I believe that Micro$oft suck for all of their products especially WindowsOS. You may ask why im using WindowsOS at the first place??? There are so many reason why im using it but I won't discuss it in here. The dlls can also have bugs. The human factor is what is this all about. To sum it all, I guess you are right about the support thing. People would forget that they have switched the files (even if the probability of having a problem is one percent or less). I just wanted to share this peice of information. Trash this topic if you want Ultima.

[Ultima]

Adding new code means adding more possibility for screwups. They might fix old problems, but they do introduce new bugs as well. As someone who *seems* to understand programmers (you did say pSX Author could "explain in terms of programmers"), you should know this well enough. As good a programmer as anyone can be, it's very easy for oversights or unforseen situations to wreak havoc in seemingly "safe" code.

You don't need to include old versions to be able to check the internal version number of a DLL, so it doesnt come into play about why Microsoft would choose to keep old versions included if newer versions work perfectly or better. Microsoft can't/won't release things they know are unstable because it affects such a wide userbase, but the stability of new DLLs were never in question here. It's about how new versions might behave unexpectedly with pSX.

I don't remember, and still don't see, where I questioned why you're using Windows (why would I?), and I'm not sure why you're inviting me to trash the topic, but I never intended on (and won't be) doing so, as I don't see any rules being broken.

I know you're just sharing information, and it's well appreciated, but we're just saying that you throw out any remote guarantee of stability and support by switching the DLL.

[Gamesoul Master]

admin said:

Please do NOT rename d3dx9_30.dll to d3dx9_26.dll - it WILL cause problems... you have been warned.

How can there be any argument past *that*?!? When the author of the emulator (and also the best programmer here) says that it'll cause problems, IT'LL CAUSE PROBLEMS! This topic needs to be locked, because there is absolutely no good coming of it.

[th3c0r3 (left the forum)]

First of all, I have requested pSX Author clarification for the d3dx9_26.dll issue cause I was surprised to see that he does not want me to use d3dx9_30.dll instead of d3dx9_26.dll. I asked him to explain (in terms of programmers) cause I have something on my mind I was trying to figure out. If im right I would say he has multi-talents .

For the second part, you did not get my point. I was saying that the old versions of D3DX are kept on microsoft servers for support of old software. For ex, someone has included the d3dx9_27.dll in their program and called the function to check that the avaiable dll is d3dx9_27.dll. This check is a critical procedure since the programmer does not want anybody to use an older dll (say d3dx9_24.dll) instead of d3dx9_27.dll (by doing my trick). What im trying to say is that new version have more enhancment (and routines) and many bug fixes. So, if I replaced the d3dx9_26.dll with (say) d3dx9_24.dll. It will somehow cause trouble. You get my point.

Anyway, I do not want this discussion to go on and on. I do not wanna go into the concepts of software engineering either. So, I will end it in here.

--------------------------No Further Comments--------------------------

[Ultima]

th3c0r3 said:

I was saying that the old versions of D3DX are kept on microsoft servers for support of old software.

And that's exactly the point. Certain software might require/need old versions of the DLL. You talk about checking for a minimum DLL version, but what about checking for an exact DLL version? What if there was some change between d3dx9_26.dll and d3dx9_30.dll that was detrimental? I'm not only talking about hosting the old versions of the DLL on their servers, I'm talking about them installing old versions in each monthly revision of DirectX. Anyway, I agree, this conversation is probably going nowhere, so that's about all I'm going to say. And no, I'm still not going to lock it as there's nothing wrong with the thread.

Edit: For clarification, I only pointed out the thing about you telling pSX Author that he could talk in programmers' terms because it's my reason for believing you'd understand the point following the quoting -- I wasn't questioning why you said that