   VB.NET and DX SDK versions
  What is the latest SDK that has VB.NET code samples? I have Visual Studio 2008. The DX SDK Nov 2008 only had C++ samples, and with the most recent SDK (Mar 2009) we're beyond DX9 entirely from the look of it. Any links to DX9 tutorials for VB.NET are appreciated; most examples I found are in C#/C++.   
  I think the one that came before November 2007 was released. Not that you should be using MDX anyway; consider XNA or SlimDX instead.   ;  Could you explain the differences there? Isn't XNA also effectively a managed wrapper for DirectX? What is the issue with MDX?I've got all three installed, but the problem is none of the code samples seem to be in VB; even for new projects the XNA templates (XNA Studio 3.0) are C# only. I'm coming from VB6 here trying to work with Direct3D seriously for the first time, but a tutorial for VB.NET would really help (haven't been able to find one online). Also, there seems to be a lot of new stuff coming out so I haven't been able to sort it all out, but I figure for WinXP the best bet is the latest version of DX9.I'm not familiar with interop on the .NET framework, but usually my strategy was to use VB as the primary language and import modules using C++ with inline ASM for optimized code sections when the managed code was too slow. That's a secondary objective though; it seems using XNA, particularly with some new built-in math functions, could be the way to go. It does appear on the surface that VB can be used as effectively as C# for most of the high level coding, assuming I can get some sample code to get started.Any suggestions?   ;  The main difference is that MDX is dead and buried.  Notice how you have to download the November 2007 SDK just to get the assemblies, as they're no longer included in recent releases.  SlimDX and XNA on the other hand are actively updated and both have a rapidly growing userbase/community.There are some big differences between SlimDX and XNA. SlimDX is meant to be a lightweight managed wrapper around all versions of DX.  It currently covers DX9, DX10, DX10.1, and has preview features of DX11 (SlimDX guys: feel free to smack me if I'm getting any of this wrong).  In general it very closely resembles the native API it's wrapping.  It is PC-only.XNA on the other hand, is a lot more than just a managed wrapper of DX9.  It does include this wrapper on the PC-side of things, but that is not the purpose of the framework.  Instead it's a more generalized game-creation framework, where a managed wrapper of D3D9 is provided to allow access to high-performance graphics on the PC. However this wrapper is not like SlimDX's, which closely matches the native API.  Instead it provides some abstractions and hides some features in order to make some things easier to use, and also to maintain compatibility with the Xbox 360.  As far as working with VB.NET, both SlimDX and XNA are both just a series of managed assemblies so they should work fine with any .NET language.  I can't confirm this for SlimDX, but I do know that some people have got it working with XNA.  I'm not too familiar with SlimDX so I can't speak about it too much, but as far as XNA C# is the only officially supported language so there is no official VB.NET samples or documentation.  VB.NET also doesn't work at all on the Xbox 360, since it uses assemblies that are not available on the 360's version of the .NET Compact Framework.  This has led to a situation where 99.9% of the community is working with the same language (C#).You may just want to consider learning C#.  I know that right now you're probably comfortable with VB and would like to avoid learning a new language, but honestly I think you'll be at a disadvantage by sticking to only one language.  Knowing C# can only make you a better programmer, and it will ensure that you can understand and use the wealth of available community content with no problems.  It might seem hard at first, but after a little while it gets very easy to go back and forth.  A little over the year ago I worked with C++ almost exclusively, and when I got a job working on a VB6 app I thought I was doomed.  Now I go back and forth between C++, C#, and CB6 with no problems.   ;  You are probably right. The same arguements I hear that VB and C# are essentially the same basically means that other than syntax differences, there really is no reason not to use it. VB.NET isn't particularly easier than C#, even coming from VB6. They are both quite a bit faster for me to program than C++ where the linking usually causes me problem. I think with the option of unmanaged C# code when necessary, it probably captures the best of both.   