I have never had a problem with XP that I didn't cause directly. (Bad msconfig settings, for example.) I doubt I'll upgrade anytime soon, since I don't really game more than a few hours a week on my PC anyways.
No Windows XP Support for Just Cause 2
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
, yay no upgrading
It's called "technological progression" and it's necessary for the industry. There is very little sense in holding onto an operating system that's nine years old.ethaninja said:
For reference, that's when the PS2 and original Xbox came out and nobody is complaining about the existence of the PS3 and Xbox 360. Technology moves on and the user base needs to do so as well.
No. It. Can't.Populus89 said:
Every "Install DX10 Windows XP" package I've seen has been nothing more than a wrapper that does a translation to OpenGL/DX9 functionality. Which means it's a hack and from the samples I've seen, not very good ones at that. Besides if these wrappers worked so well, why aren't they in use more often? Why would people even complain about DX10+ support? After all, if these wrappers work so well, this game should run with no problem on XP right?
If you're going to throw out the Halo 2 card, please know what [http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-games/halo-2-pc/4507-9696_7-31733050.html] you're talking about. [http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/halo2.aspx] Notice the system specs in the first link, where it says DirectX version? Right 9.0c NOT 10. Yeah they made it "Vista only" and I agree that was a very cheap ploy on their part to sell more copies of Vista (which by the way I thought was just fine, -if- you have a beefy system). It's entirely possibly they were using DirectX 9EX, which is a Vista specific version of DirectX 9 (I code with DirectX on a daily basis, so I have some idea). It was altered to run on XP, but not because XP can support DX10.
In the second link, on Microsoft's own page, they have the supported video card list... What's this? It can run on a Radeon x700?? But that card doesn't support DX10. [http://ati.amd.com/products/radeonx700/specs.html]
If you're going to throw out "facts", do a little research first.
for the game requirements you need at least a perfectly capable pc for running vista or W7... omg you cant play a new game on a 9 years old OS!
Im guessing those percentages will drastically change from general market to gaming market and current games capable market.Populus89 said:
edit:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.176462-What-do-YOU-use
in a more gaming related universe i just skimmed through the first page and it seems to prove my theory, no poll though.
DX10 or DX9, if you have the hardware, Just Cause 2 (or any cross-platform release) will look better than it's console counter-part.Cupp4joe said:
For everyone yammering on about obsolescence, and insinuating the XP diehards just complaining about needing to "upgrade": Our computers are perfectly up to date (for the most part), only our Operating System is old. The folks this decision angers have machines perfectly capable of playing this game, but the ineffable wisdom of Microsoft determined that DX10 support would be a Vista exclusive.
It's easy to see why this was done - they were trying to push sales for Vista in the gamer demographic. It's equally easy to see why it was for the most part a complete failure - DX10-only games were practically non-existent and the ones that first came out were filthy lies (since they were X-Box ports, and therefore were not designed with DX10 in mind), and the games that offered both invariably didn't really look all that much more impressive running in DX10 mode.
And that's why a lot of us still haven't upgraded: DX10 doesn't have a killer app - upgrading to Vista just to get 'official' access to DX10 didn't make much sense since that was literally the only feature Vista had that interested gamers and it was rather unimpressive. Made the performance hit from Vista's sloppy coding and wonderful bugs you would have had to deal with kind of a deal breaker.
Windows 7 at least has managed to take what Microsoft started with Vista and actually make it good, but many of us gamers are leery of adopting it for the same reasons that corporations still largely haven't - all of our stuff was designed to run in XP, and while most of it would probably still work without hassle, upgrading to a new OS is not a picnic, especially when you have a bloody ton of software already installed and working perfectly fine.
But hey, maybe Just Cause 2 does things with DX10 that make it worth it and justify leaving out the bulk of the PC market. That's the developers perogative, and we shouldn't really get mad at them for that - we should be mad at Microsoft for lying through their teeth to their customers about why DX10 was a Vista exclusive, and for keeping it one.
I'll be curious to see if the jury-rigged DX10 implementation that certain individuals created for XP would render Just Cause 2 playable, but I'm hardly going to buy it to find out, and I'm certainly not going to go through the immense headache of upgrading just to play one game. When everything I want to play starts requiring DX10, then I'll consider switching. Until then, why the hell would I want to upgrade? My system runs wonderfully and I just upgraded most of my components - I need a new OS like I need a hole in the head.
Consoles are fixed points - there's a real limitation to what developers can make them do because the hardware remains constant until the next generation is released. PCs are sliding windows - games are designed with certain 'ranges' of machine in mind, rather than one specific set of hardware, but the range can run anywhere from less powerful than current generation consoles to significantly more powerful, and the PC as a platform is constantly advancing, so the average 'window' developers shoot for keeps getting pushed forwards.
Ergo, better looking games, if one has the hardware to run them as intended.
It's easy to see why this was done - they were trying to push sales for Vista in the gamer demographic. It's equally easy to see why it was for the most part a complete failure - DX10-only games were practically non-existent and the ones that first came out were filthy lies (since they were X-Box ports, and therefore were not designed with DX10 in mind), and the games that offered both invariably didn't really look all that much more impressive running in DX10 mode.
And that's why a lot of us still haven't upgraded: DX10 doesn't have a killer app - upgrading to Vista just to get 'official' access to DX10 didn't make much sense since that was literally the only feature Vista had that interested gamers and it was rather unimpressive. Made the performance hit from Vista's sloppy coding and wonderful bugs you would have had to deal with kind of a deal breaker.
Windows 7 at least has managed to take what Microsoft started with Vista and actually make it good, but many of us gamers are leery of adopting it for the same reasons that corporations still largely haven't - all of our stuff was designed to run in XP, and while most of it would probably still work without hassle, upgrading to a new OS is not a picnic, especially when you have a bloody ton of software already installed and working perfectly fine.
But hey, maybe Just Cause 2 does things with DX10 that make it worth it and justify leaving out the bulk of the PC market. That's the developers perogative, and we shouldn't really get mad at them for that - we should be mad at Microsoft for lying through their teeth to their customers about why DX10 was a Vista exclusive, and for keeping it one.
I'll be curious to see if the jury-rigged DX10 implementation that certain individuals created for XP would render Just Cause 2 playable, but I'm hardly going to buy it to find out, and I'm certainly not going to go through the immense headache of upgrading just to play one game. When everything I want to play starts requiring DX10, then I'll consider switching. Until then, why the hell would I want to upgrade? My system runs wonderfully and I just upgraded most of my components - I need a new OS like I need a hole in the head.
Bwa ha ha ha! What do you mean, start looking as good as the console versions? PC versions of multi-platform releases almost invariably are the best looking versions, because the PC as a platform has potentially MUCH better hardware. This is pretty much one of the universal constants - if you have the machine to run it, the PC version will look better. Developers will tell you as much.Cupp4joe said:
Consoles are fixed points - there's a real limitation to what developers can make them do because the hardware remains constant until the next generation is released. PCs are sliding windows - games are designed with certain 'ranges' of machine in mind, rather than one specific set of hardware, but the range can run anywhere from less powerful than current generation consoles to significantly more powerful, and the PC as a platform is constantly advancing, so the average 'window' developers shoot for keeps getting pushed forwards.
Ergo, better looking games, if one has the hardware to run them as intended.
This is starting to become a trend, meaning I might have to seriously consider a dual boot system as a lot of programs I run don't work in Vista/7. I like XP as I can get all my oldies working without too much difficulty. And I've seen the number of problems with Vista from my housemates computer and I don't really know what to think about Windows 7 as I've not used it, nor do I hear much about it from friends.
The thing is, my XP system runs better than most Vista/7 systems anyway. The hardware is all there, I get a better frame rate in some games compared to Vista/7. Just DX10 is Microsoft's way of trying to egg people on upgrading, yet I see no real decent visual appearances between DX9 or DX10 anyway.
And anyone bashing on about the 9 year old OS: It works fine. Actually it works more than fine, I'm comfortable with it and I have chosen to stick with it until I feel the alternatives are better or I can be swayed with a decent reason.
The thing is, my XP system runs better than most Vista/7 systems anyway. The hardware is all there, I get a better frame rate in some games compared to Vista/7. Just DX10 is Microsoft's way of trying to egg people on upgrading, yet I see no real decent visual appearances between DX9 or DX10 anyway.
And anyone bashing on about the 9 year old OS: It works fine. Actually it works more than fine, I'm comfortable with it and I have chosen to stick with it until I feel the alternatives are better or I can be swayed with a decent reason.
Hmm sucks for them, but lets face it, why would anyone be using XP anymore if they have a computer capable of running this?
Question to the XP users:
When will you upgrade? It's only going to get older, and older, and have less support. So what's the tipping point then? The next Windows OS? Seriously, you are going to have to upgrade eventually. I don't see what you're complaining about. I went from XP to 7 and it was a smooth transition. If you can't be bothered to upgrade your OS, why should developers be bothered to support your OS?
Seriously though, Windows 7 is great, and I love it, And i don't miss XP one bit. I don't even think i had one thing that won't run by default or in a compatibility mode. So there really isn't a reason to not move. Unless you're using an old Autodesk product. (Autocad specifically).
When will you upgrade? It's only going to get older, and older, and have less support. So what's the tipping point then? The next Windows OS? Seriously, you are going to have to upgrade eventually. I don't see what you're complaining about. I went from XP to 7 and it was a smooth transition. If you can't be bothered to upgrade your OS, why should developers be bothered to support your OS?
Seriously though, Windows 7 is great, and I love it, And i don't miss XP one bit. I don't even think i had one thing that won't run by default or in a compatibility mode. So there really isn't a reason to not move. Unless you're using an old Autodesk product. (Autocad specifically).
Okay... Anyone in the "Oh, just upgrade, already" camp? Read what Gildan Bladeborn said in post 92; he said it better than I would, anyway.
Now, I have a machine which is pretty close to the top of the line. Unfortunately, I assembled it a bit before Windows 7 came out, so it's dual-boot Vista 64-bit and Windows XP 32-bit.
Why? Because I still have software- perfectly good, functional software- that I use that cannot run under Windows Vista 64-bit. Because the command-line interface and emulation of older systems seem to work better under XP. Because there are some things I like to keep isolated as though they were on a separate system. And because XP is still a pefectly fine OS for most purposes, and the ways in which it are not are largely the fault of Microsoft's behavior post-release, not the OS itself.
DirectX 10 is the shining example. In short, they could have released 10 to Windows XP, but that wouldn't act as a club to batter people into buying Vista.
I will say, in fairness, that Vista-64 hasn't been bad to me at all, except for those few pieces of software it won't run. But there have been plenty of horror stories, stories that have kept a lot of people using XP, which as I've noted, works just fine for most purposes.
Berating people for still using old reliable XP is a little like berating someone for still using their old iron hammer since now nails have been released that shatter if they're hammered with a hammer that's made of anything other than titanium. The hammer is still perfectly functional; the hammer isn't the problem, except in the mind of the guy who wants you to buy a new hammer.
Now, I have a machine which is pretty close to the top of the line. Unfortunately, I assembled it a bit before Windows 7 came out, so it's dual-boot Vista 64-bit and Windows XP 32-bit.
Why? Because I still have software- perfectly good, functional software- that I use that cannot run under Windows Vista 64-bit. Because the command-line interface and emulation of older systems seem to work better under XP. Because there are some things I like to keep isolated as though they were on a separate system. And because XP is still a pefectly fine OS for most purposes, and the ways in which it are not are largely the fault of Microsoft's behavior post-release, not the OS itself.
DirectX 10 is the shining example. In short, they could have released 10 to Windows XP, but that wouldn't act as a club to batter people into buying Vista.
I will say, in fairness, that Vista-64 hasn't been bad to me at all, except for those few pieces of software it won't run. But there have been plenty of horror stories, stories that have kept a lot of people using XP, which as I've noted, works just fine for most purposes.
Berating people for still using old reliable XP is a little like berating someone for still using their old iron hammer since now nails have been released that shatter if they're hammered with a hammer that's made of anything other than titanium. The hammer is still perfectly functional; the hammer isn't the problem, except in the mind of the guy who wants you to buy a new hammer.
