Win7 works on Intel 915GM chipset, Win8 doesn't

[cluberti]

Based on the fact that the Intel GMA 915 only supports XPDM, which means that it lacks the hardware to effectively render large-scale accelerated resolutions (the GMA x3000 series was the first to support all graphics functionality fully in hardware without relying on the CPU to do most of the work, which is why the 900 series does NOT support the advanced features in DX8.1 or higher and in the WDDM driver set). Windows 7 and older versions of Windows still have support for the older, non-fully accelerated desktop composition if the video driver loaded doesn't support full acceleration of the display, but this support was removed in Windows 8 hence you're not going to get anything larger on a non-WDDM driver past about 1600x1200.

At some point, having hardware released that follows a driver model from 15 years ago on an OS that is from the second decade of this century isn't "shafting the customer", it's simply being able to recognize that you get what you pay for and people with devices running GMA 915s didn't pay for a modern graphics chip, thus it doesn't run like one. If you want to run with full resolution support, stick with Windows Vista or Windows 7. If you want to run Windows 8 on a larger resolution display, upgrade the hardware to something that will support a fully-accelerated display at such resolutions.

 

[jeremyenos]

I may not have been clear on what I'm trying to accomplish. I'm not attempting to run greater resolutions than I was previously running in Windows 7 or XP. I just want to run it's *native* resolution- 1400x1050 or whatever, instead of 1024x768. It's an arbitrary limitation of the Windows default display driver, and has nothing to do with what GMA 915 is capable of. I'm not asking any more of it than I was before.
So asking for the next Windows release to display MS Word at the same resolution that the previous release did on the same hardware is a reasonable request. Forcing a new hardware purchase unnecessarily is definitely shafting the customer.

 

[cluberti]

Display resolution is a function of the driver, not Windows. Unless you're using the built-in display driver, of course, which is indeed limited because it's meant to be a "safe mode" driver, for fallback if no other working driver exists. You aren't going to get it to run at anything higher than that, unfortunately. You're being "forced" to purchase new hardware because the one you have isn't even fully DX9-compatible, and the display in Windows 8 requires a WDDM (and thus fully DX9 compliant) driver, which requires the hardware to fully support all of DX9. Prior to the 950 chipset, the hardware does not fully support all of the DX9e functionality without CPU emulation of certain hardware, thus the 915 drivers are still XPDM (DirectX 8 support). So, yes, you will have to purchase hardware that can do things from at least the Vista timeframe (2006) to run an OS that's from 2012, sorry. I'm not trying to be glib, but the reality is the desktop is designed to be run via DirectX instead of the old GDI implementation, and this started in Vista (DirectX 10, by the way).

The fact that you keep saying that this "has nothing to do with what GMA 915 is capable of" means you lack some understanding about how the display subsystem works - if your hardware is not capable of doing at least DX9e/Direct3D 9 acceleration in hardware, you're not going to get your display chip working properly in Windows 8 and will have to rely on the safe mode/Microsoft VGA driver. The Intel GMA 900 chipsets do not support these hardware requirements, and thus must offload most processing to the CPU to emulate. This means subpar/substandard performance and resolution until you put something in there that does support Direct3D 9 in hardware.

So, tl;dr, yes, actually, it does have something to do with what GMA 915 is capable of. Whether you like it or not, GMA 915 is a pretty limited GPU design, and doesn't hold up to doing what Windows 8 would require of it to function properly at any sort of reasonable resolution. You're not being shafted to be expected to bring hardware to the table that will do what the software requires of it, and it's not like you aren't told this beforehand by both the software vendor and the hardware vendor. If you don't want to upgrade hardware, stay on the current software that works.

Microsoft:

Windows 8

[FONT=WOL_Reg]If you want to run Windows 8 on your PC, here's what it takes:[/FONT]

• [FONT=WOL_Bold]Processor:[/FONT] 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2 (more info)
• [FONT=WOL_Bold]RAM:[/FONT] 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)
• [FONT=WOL_Bold]Hard disk space:[/FONT] 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
• [FONT=WOL_Bold]Graphics card:[/FONT] Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver

Intel:

Windows Vista* supports two different graphics driver models: the Windows* display driver model (WDDM) and the Windows XP* driver model (XPDM or XDDM). WDDM drivers offer a 3D graphical user interface experience to users. The XPDM driver interface visually resembles the Windows XP user interface but does not support Windows Vista premium features like the Microsoft Aero* user interface.
Only XPDM drivers** are available for the following older Intel® graphics controllers:

• Mobile Intel® 915GM/GMS, 910GML Express Chipset family

 

[stringjunky]

Given the pace of change in IT, I think it's unreasonable to expect the IT industry to maintain backwards compatibility beyond 10 years if it's possible. I expect my machines to be good for about 5 or 6 years, when technology has advanced sufficiently to warrant upgrading to new devices and they are pretty much getting worn-out anyway after six years daily use.

 

[jeremyenos]

Been using the VGA Windows driver for a year. Is it DX9 compatible? How am I possibly using it?
DX9 is *not* required to achieve native resolution, which is all I'm trying to do, and I am already aware my hardware is capable of it as it was designed for it. That resolution is not a DX9 feature.
Post all the arbitrary cut off decisions you want- those are precisely what I'm complaining about. I have no specific usage requirement for all or any features of DX9. While they may well be necessary to achieve 30 FPS of Aero whooshing windows about in a 3D, they damn sure aren't required for me to achieve a native resolution. They can post a performance disclaimer or something- just allow the native X by Y resolution to be set. The case that this is a technical impossibility and not a human decision at some point is nonsense. Heck, they could have made a safe mode driver that had different resolution support. That can be done, and has been done in the past... posting more Win 8 spec requirements doesn't change that fact.

As to the shafting- XP support no longer exists. I'm sympathetic to that and understand it. I'll buy the subsequent (and supported) versions that keep me relevant and secure. But forcing a new hardware purchase arbitrarily just to support rubbish graphics features I don't use anyway while the rest of the performance is perfectly satisfactory for me is shafting. It's old- I get it. Can it run Win8? Yes. It handles Win8 in fact better than Win7 or Vista in terms of performance. The *only* thing holding back full function I purchased with the hardware (the native resolution limitation) is totally arbitrary. That's it.

 

[Berton]

I have the best view on a 21.5" monitor with 1440x900 but then I'm not a gamer and don't need all the data that could possibly be fit on the screen. Or maybe I should go with the 25" monitor I was just given instead of her moving halfway across the country.

 

[cluberti]

Windows 8 runs better than Windows 7 on the same hardware - how do you think it got that way? By removing old code that wasn't deemed necessary or efficient, and updating code that was worth salvaging but needed some help. Top it off with some new code as needed, and you get an OS that runs better on the same hardware than the one it replaced.

GDI is old, slow, and uses far more resources than using DirectX to accelerate the display does. So, GDI-based display drivers are gone (aka, XPDM support). That "useless" code is actually far better than GDI for drawing and scaling to large-format displays (especially HD, QHD, UHD, etc), thus it is used to run the display.

I'm sorry you fail to understand how this works, but you seem to not realize that you feel you're getting shafted because support for something very old has been removed while at the same time extolling that Windows 8 runs better than Windows 7 did on the same hardware and not realizing the irony of how something like that happens.

 

[Itaregid]

It's an arbitrary limitation of the Windows default display driver

Not arbitrary at all. Windows default display driver has one purpose, to support "basic" graphics BEFORE the custom drivers are loaded. And note all graphics cards (or integrated) and monitors are designed to have that same "basic" support too. Otherwise, how could we install an OS, boot into the BIOS Setup Menu, or run in Safe Mode?

It is WRONG to expect legacy hardware (or software) support to last indefinitely. When corporations (Microsoft's biggest user base, by far) demanded such legacy support with XP, Microsoft was forced to cut back on security to provide that support. Then look what happened? The badguys took over - almost unheeded and MS got the blame.

Hardware technologies advance so OS technologies must advance to support it. And that's the order, BTW. Note hardware supported 64-bit many years before 64-bit operating systems became common.

While none of us want to retire perfectly good hardware before its time, that is just a fact of life with high-tech stuff. How many of us have retired perfectly good CRT monitors and TVs for fancy new flat LCDs? VCRs for DVD and BluRay? Cassette players for CD players? CD players for MP3 players? Even hard drives for SSDs?