Opinions on games dropping Windows XP support.

[spinFX]

I am still running XP but within the next week or so I am getting 7, I hope it's alot like XP. Unfortunately, I know it's going to be nothing like it.

Why do companies assume new = improved, leave everything were it is and nobody will have to learn a whole new system.

(Looking at you facebook, STOP IT! Or I swear to god I will get pissed off and do nothing about it!)

Yeah Win7 is basically XP with some of the good features from Vista. Not a hard changeover at all. In fact you can get a few registry edits that make it even more like XP.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I still use XP because i prefer the interface over Vista and 7, so i'd be rather irritated if games dropped XP support.

Well I like the MS DOS interface to windows XP, and I am pissed that they are no longer supporting DOS!


Yes, that is a joke. But this is basically what the quote is saying. Windos XP have been supported for way to long, because Vista sucked.

So I don't mind the dropping of support for it.

 

[Delusibeta]

It's official. There's more Steam users that use Windows 7 64 bit (32%) than use Windows XP 32 bit (28%). Source [http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey]. I hearby declare the floodgates to DirectX 10 and higher games open.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

If they stop supporting XP that's going to tear up the PC gaming "master race" to hell as there are games that won't run on Vista/7, don't care if it's regular 32 bit or 64 bit.

 

[Flames66]

People still supporting XP would be like if people still supported the GameCube or Xbox. Hell, I think people should be thankful for the fact it lasted as long as it did. I'm just pissed W2000 didn't last long at all.

I'm on Windows 7 at the moment but I am considering going back to XP. 7 is lacking so many features that XP could do quite easily.

 

[RIOgreatescapist]

Good ol' xp has never failed me.

 

[RicoADF]

People still supporting XP would be like if people still supported the GameCube or Xbox. Hell, I think people should be thankful for the fact it lasted as long as it did. I'm just pissed W2000 didn't last long at all.

Was accutaly going to make an analogy using the PS2 and PS3, basicaly:

It would be like asking to play PS3 games on a PS2 and why they don't support them, its becuase of the better hardware...

Ya know... I better worded that in my head.

Actually alot of games come out on both, not all but alot. Doesnt bother me as I have Vista, however its a shame and from a marketing standpoint they'll lose alot of sales from people who refuse to leave xp.

 

[Sallix]

It needs to go. DX9 and lower is holding back developers from what I've heard.

 

[Lyx]

It's funny how much proponents of dropping support blindly believe what MS says, and often don't even know the technical backgrounds. An operating system is there to:

1. manage hardware
2. manage applications
3. provide a userinterface for those things
4. provide some common middleware which technically isn't part of the "OS", but via prebundling ensures high spread

Notice that only 1 and 2 may require a fundamentally different OS. 3 and 4 are basically just applications like everything else.

Now, lets look at microsofts history:

1. Generation: Misc DOS OSes. These mostly did only 1 and 2, so any new version would mean a fundamentally changed (though, only in a minor way) OS. Thing is, even here microsoft already made people reinstall the whole OS, even though technically replacing a few files of an existing OS (an "Update") would have been enough. It could still charge full price for it. But for marketing reasons, MS didn't do this - it needed to give you the illusion that a new version is an entirely new OS, which you can only use by completely replacing the past one. The good news: FULL BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY inside this generation!

2. Generation: Windows before 9x. Technically was an application running on top of DOS. One could even install multiple versions of windows next to each other, and launch them like any other DOS-application. Here too microsoft needed to give you the illusion that installing a new version of this generation was a complete new OS, even though just a few files did change from version to version. Shit like registry and decentral storage of settings wasn't invented yet. The good news: FULL BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY inside this generation!

3. Generation: Windows 9x (that is 95, 98, 98SE, ME). Here things started to go shit, but not too shitty. We get the registry, and microsoft pushes minor updates (mostly just regarding HW-support) as entirely new operating systems. In short, if you wanted certain system libraries to support newer hardware, you had to buy an entirely new OS, even though the OS would stay mostly the same and the difference would just be availability of some drivers, adapted syslibs and a different bootscreen. Win9x used tech that still relied on DOS, but it was abstracted away much more. BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY inside the same generation began to suffer because of this, but still mostly remained okay.

4. Generation: Windows NT4. Completely new OS architecture that no longer relied on DOS. This is perhaps the biggest overhaul microsoft did so far. This indeed was a full completely new OS, created from scratch by MS and IBM - it was the only time MS ever did something like this.

4,5th Generation (2000, 2003, XP, Vista, Seven): Take NT4 and make it ready for something else than servers, add multimedia capabilities, good, comfortable but not bloated OS management software, and you get windows 2000 - perhaps the most sane OS-version MS ever did for its time. 2000 was a refined, polished and finished version of what NT4 started.

BUT, microsoft decided that it needs to give you the illusion that newer OSes are still needed - that they aren't "done" yet, and do not just require updates to stay compatible with new HW. So, they made a fancy new GUI-Style, added a hyperthreading patch (while not making the patch available for 2000), and sold it as.... XP. Some subsequent updates would only be made available for XP, even though they technically could run just fine on 2000. All with the goal to deceive you into believing, that XP actually is needed to do those things (when in fact, MS just didn't allow you to do it on 2000 out of their own choice).

BUT, the good news was: XP would stay the current OS for a long time, and be supported with updates for a long time. MS' sales didn't drop either. So, practically, you for the first time got an OS, that you could KEEP and adapt to newer tech via updates, instead of switching to a new OS for no reason.

But, this meant that in many cases YOU could decide which middleware and updates you'd accept. Thats not MS-style. MS had an agenda about which middleware (so, software that technically isn't part of the OS) it wants to force down your throat, no matter if you want it or not. So, MS took XP, added all that middleware, again made a new fancy GUI, added a few minor HW-patches, and only made the next directX version run on that new OS (even though, there technically was no need to do that) - and called that Vista - again giving you the illusion that this is an entirely new OS, even though it was just XP + new GUI + more middleware + exclusive minor hw patches + refusal to let DX10 run on XP.

Then, after they accumulated a truckload of hotfixes for Vista, they took this service pack, changed the default GUI-Theme a bit, added some confusing startmenu and explorer widgets - and called it Windows Seven.

So, just so you know, MS only ever created two completely new OSes - DOS and NT. Everything else was just applications, updates and artificial restrictions sold to you under the disguise of "new OSes". They could just as well charge for the individual kinds of updates and let you install those on your current OS. The only reason they don't do this, is because they don't want to let you choose. They want to decide which middleware and applications gets preloaded on your computer. Thats why you "need" to buy new "OSes".



Oh, and by the way, lets take a look at the competitors:

Linux: There is exactly one OS. Everything else are updates. And yet, it has no problem running modern hw.

Mac: Don't know the full story, but since OSX, there is only OSX - everything else is (charged) updates.

-----

So, for all those who claim that one cannot expect an N years old OS to run something, or that the same happened for 95/98/ME, etc - do your homework before making such claims, because they're false.

The only reason why people need Win7 for some future games, is because of DX10. The only reason for that in turn, is that MS artificially restricted DX10 from running on XP. And the only reason for that in turn, is that they want to decide which middleware is installed on your machine - it has nothing to do with the "OS".

 

[Vern]

I liked Windows XP, but I realized that the OS has been out for 9 years at this point. Asking for compatibility for it would be like asking them to make games compatible with Windows 3.1 in 2001. It's the same lifespan for the OS, and I'll admit XP is leaps and bounds well beyond 3.1, it still had a 9 year lifespan and that's pretty damn good for an OS. I do miss XP because with a bit of work you could make pretty much any game released since 1990 work on it, whereas with a 64 bit OS you're often times SOL. And I refuse to believe the 'compatibility mode' setting has ever done jack shit. But going forwards I can't see any reason to continue developing for a decade old OS, but really support for 32 bit .exe's and some DOS support would be nice on 64 bit systems.

 

[jamesworkshop]

It's funny how much proponents of dropping support blindly believe what MS says, and often don't even know the technical backgrounds. An operating system is there to:

1. manage hardware
2. manage applications
3. provide a userinterface for those things
4. provide some common middleware which technically isn't part of the "OS", but via prebundling ensures high spread

Notice that only 1 and 2 may require a fundamentally different OS. 3 and 4 are basically just applications like everything else.

Now, lets look at microsofts history:

1. Generation: Misc DOS OSes. These mostly did only 1 and 2, so any new version would mean a fundamentally changed (though, only in a minor way) OS. Thing is, even here microsoft already made people reinstall the whole OS, even though technically replacing a few files of an existing OS (an "Update") would have been enough. It could still charge full price for it. But for marketing reasons, MS didn't do this - it needed to give you the illusion that a new version is an entirely new OS, which you can only use by completely replacing the past one. The good news: FULL BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY inside this generation!

2. Generation: Windows before 9x. Technically was an application running on top of DOS. One could even install multiple versions of windows next to each other, and launch them like any other DOS-application. Here too microsoft needed to give you the illusion that installing a new version of this generation was a complete new OS, even though just a few files did change from version to version. Shit like registry and decentral storage of settings wasn't invented yet. The good news: FULL BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY inside this generation!

3. Generation: Windows 9x (that is 95, 98, 98SE, ME). Here things started to go shit, but not too shitty. We get the registry, and microsoft pushes minor updates (mostly just regarding HW-support) as entirely new operating systems. In short, if you wanted certain system libraries to support newer hardware, you had to buy an entirely new OS, even though the OS would stay mostly the same and the difference would just be availability of some drivers, adapted syslibs and a different bootscreen. Win9x used tech that still relied on DOS, but it was abstracted away much more. BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY inside the same generation began to suffer because of this, but still mostly remained okay.

4. Generation: Windows NT4. Completely new OS architecture that no longer relied on DOS. This is perhaps the biggest overhaul microsoft did so far. This indeed was a full completely new OS, created from scratch by MS and IBM - it was the only time MS ever did something like this.

4,5th Generation (2000, 2003, XP, Vista, Seven): Take NT4 and make it ready for something else than servers, add multimedia capabilities, good, comfortable but not bloated OS management software, and you get windows 2000 - perhaps the most sane OS-version MS ever did for its time. 2000 was a refined, polished and finished version of what NT4 started.

BUT, microsoft decided that it needs to give you the illusion that newer OSes are still needed - that they aren't "done" yet, and do not just require updates to stay compatible with new HW. So, they made a fancy new GUI-Style, added a hyperthreading patch (while not making the patch available for 2000), and sold it as.... XP. Some subsequent updates would only be made available for XP, even though they technically could run just fine on 2000. All with the goal to deceive you into believing, that XP actually is needed to do those things (when in fact, MS just didn't allow you to do it on 2000 out of their own choice).

BUT, the good news was: XP would stay the current OS for a long time, and be supported with updates for a long time. MS' sales didn't drop either. So, practically, you for the first time got an OS, that you could KEEP and adapt to newer tech via updates, instead of switching to a new OS for no reason.

But, this meant that in many cases YOU could decide which middleware and updates you'd accept. Thats not MS-style. MS had an agenda about which middleware (so, software that technically isn't part of the OS) it wants to force down your throat, no matter if you want it or not. So, MS took XP, added all that middleware, again made a new fancy GUI, added a few minor HW-patches, and only made the next directX version run on that new OS (even though, there technically was no need to do that) - and called that Vista - again giving you the illusion that this is an entirely new OS, even though it was just XP + new GUI + more middleware + exclusive minor hw patches + refusal to let DX10 run on XP.

Then, after they accumulated a truckload of hotfixes for Vista, they took this service pack, changed the default GUI-Theme a bit, added some confusing startmenu and explorer widgets - and called it Windows Seven.

So, just so you know, MS only ever created two completely new OSes - DOS and NT. Everything else was just applications, updates and artificial restrictions sold to you under the disguise of "new OSes". They could just as well charge for the individual kinds of updates and let you install those on your current OS. The only reason they don't do this, is because they don't want to let you choose. They want to decide which middleware and applications gets preloaded on your computer. Thats why you "need" to buy new "OSes".



Oh, and by the way, lets take a look at the competitors:

Linux: There is exactly one OS. Everything else are updates. And yet, it has no problem running modern hw.

Mac: Don't know the full story, but since OSX, there is only OSX - everything else is (charged) updates.

-----

So, for all those who claim that one cannot expect an N years old OS to run something, or that the same happened for 95/98/ME, etc - do your homework before making such claims, because they're false.

The only reason why people need Win7 for some future games, is because of DX10. The only reason for that in turn, is that MS artificially restricted DX10 from running on XP. And the only reason for that in turn, is that they want to decide which middleware is installed on your machine - it has nothing to do with the "OS".

Have fun rewriting XP's entire driver kernel, then give it the same 64bit capabiltities the x64 windows 7 has, then rewrite XP so it now has a unified DDI

wait then it would be an entirley new OS

 

[TheHecatomb]

I'm fine with it. I mean, come on. Windows XP was revolutionary at it's time, but it also came with software losing Windows 98 support. And 98 was only 3 years old. Windows XP is now 9 years old.

Heads up; Windows 98 came in 1998, was replaced by Windows 2000 in (you got it) 2000, which was replaced by Windows XP in 2001, then no new OSses were introduced until 2007. See the gap there? Windows XP has had a great run guys, that's for sure, but it's outdated. Face it.

 

[Talshere]

As someone who runs XP its VERY VERY BAD

When I get windows 7, I will cease to care.

 

[Lyx]

Have fun rewriting XP's entire driver kernel, then give it the same 64bit capabiltities the x64 windows 7 has, then rewrite XP so it now has a unified DDI

wait then it would be an entirley new OS

1. Whats up with that useless fullquote?
2. No, it wouldn't. You don't know much about windows, don't you?
3. What do you think Vista/Seven was built on top of, hmm? Google it

 

[Lordmarkus]

It's a bit sad since it's the most used operating system according to Steam, but come on. Win XP is fucking 9 years old and add to that Windows 7 is excellent. Not Mac excellent but still really good.

And if someone is afraid that they can't play old games they should stop now. There are plenty of emulators and otherwise, just build a very cheap computer and install XP on it.

I liked Windows XP, but I realized that the OS has been out for 9 years at this point. Asking for compatibility for it would be like asking them to make games compatible with Windows 3.1 in 2001. It's the same lifespan for the OS, and I'll admit XP is leaps and bounds well beyond 3.1, it still had a 9 year lifespan and that's pretty damn good for an OS. I do miss XP because with a bit of work you could make pretty much any game released since 1990 work on it, whereas with a 64 bit OS you're often times SOL. And I refuse to believe the 'compatibility mode' setting has ever done jack shit. But going forwards I can't see any reason to continue developing for a decade old OS, but really support for 32 bit .exe's and some DOS support would be nice on 64 bit systems.

Amen to that. My childhood adventure games are looking with sad eyes on me. Damn you 32-bit installs incompatiblity!

 

[jamesworkshop]

Have fun rewriting XP's entire driver kernel, then give it the same 64bit capabiltities the x64 windows 7 has, then rewrite XP so it now has a unified DDI

wait then it would be an entirley new OS

1. Whats up with that useless fullquote?
2. No, it wouldn't. You don't know much about windows, don't you?
3. What do you think Vista/Seven was built on top of, hmm? Google it

1. lazyness
2 and 3 your car still uses the same gearbox design but it's far beyond being the orginal car, it still has 4 wheels is it still not an entirly new car

is a new V12 going to fit in that

Prince of Persia 3D from 1999 was made in the same engine as fallout 3, will your computer from 1999 run fallout 3, i don't think a 233Mhz Pentium is going to cut it

 

[Squeaky]

I wish i had XP its a much better OS than 7 and i could play alot of classics unfortunatly technology progress and it probly isnt a decission they've taken likely. Still sucks for everyone that doesnt like 7/Vista or cant afford to upgrade ;'(

 

[Anah'ya]

... MS will drop support for XP in 2014, right? So there's no point in game developers officially supporting it any longer than that. You leave the sinking ship before you bump into issues.

On the other hand: Just because the do not support XP officially does not mean a game won't run on XP.