Post by trog @ 03:19pm 04/01/11 | 135 Comments
Frostbite 2 is primarily developed for DX11. XP & DX9 is _not_ supported, 64-bit OS is recommended. Lots of time to upgrade if you havent!Looking at the latest Valve survey, which aggregates data from millions of gaming PCs around the world, Windows XP is the second most popular operating system used by gamers, with over 25% of the market.
Latest Comments
135 Comments
Show
Follow Us
Advertisement
Log In
Posted 03:23pm 04/1/11
Windows 7 is easily the best OS made by microsoft, and personally I think its even better than OSX.
Why would anyone stick with XP?
Posted 03:28pm 04/1/11
However 2014 is when XP is no longer supported by Microsoft yer?
Posted 03:32pm 04/1/11
Posted 03:32pm 04/1/11
Well now it doesnt work does it.
You could say theres nothing wrong with alot of OS's along the way, or course they still do what they have always done.
I also think they windows 7 runs better on any hardware made in the last 3 years.
It installs in like 20 mins, windows updates finds 95% of drivers, if not 100%.
Posted 03:45pm 04/1/11
I am hoping my next major OS change will be to Linux so I can get myself out of the eternal cycle of giving Microsoft money.
Posted 03:43pm 04/1/11
For gamers though, Win 7 does offer more then XP.
Posted 03:46pm 04/1/11
windows 98 still works, it can run browsers and email clients etc, why use xp at all
oh wait, it's 10 years old, that is a mighty long time in IT
I used to be the same way, I thought I had no reason to upgrade - then I got given a copy of win7 and wondered why I didn't do it years ago
the driver support alone would be a compelling enough reason for me to do it
I even put win7 on all my families PCs when they ask for a new one or a repair etc, everyone loves using it once they're using it
Posted 03:54pm 04/1/11
I would still be using Windows 2000 today quite happily if they hadn't intentionally crippled it so that you couldn't play modern games, by making it not possible to install modern versions of DirectX with lots of f*****g around. I played a lot more games back then so it was much more important to me than it is now.
I've heard Windows 7 has lots of nice bells and whistles but from what I've seen it offers nothing new that justifies the cost of upgrading - both in terms of the dollars for the new license, then migrating over to a new PC, plus the learning curve - at this point in time, for me, in my circumstances.
If/when I get a new PC, I'll consider getting Windows 7 then, but unless there are really compelling reasons for me not to do it at the time, I'll almost certainly be switching to Ubuntu for my primary desktop OS.
Posted 03:55pm 04/1/11
Posted 04:03pm 04/1/11
http://www.umart.com.au/newindex2.phtml?bid=2
I spent more than $149 on coffee in the last month, coffee that kept me going while working for endless hours on the PC which enables my income
$149 to upgrade a machine that probably cost you 10 times that amount, which you probably use for half of your waking hours during most of your working week
I 100% understand what you're saying, I have shared your opinion previously, but really it's time to let go
It isn't just crippling from microsoft, it's hardware vendors that aren't bothering with driver support in XP and rightfuly so - it's so 1999
it's pretty stupid that some people will spend $500+ on a video card but can't justify $150 for a legit copy of windows when windows is far far more important than your super 1337 video card
Posted 04:04pm 04/1/11
After all, both companies support OSX, and there's a lot less OSX users than XP users.
Posted 04:04pm 04/1/11
I guess if you like to waste countless hours trying to get things to work then sure.
I know linux has gotten alot better recently, but compared to how easy Windows 7 and how polished the UI is, its realy worth the dollars, I saw a 3 pack of Windows 7 home premium for like $249.
Anyone involved in IT should have an MSDN subscription anyway.
Posted 04:07pm 04/1/11
with service pack two came a fairly major code rewrite - which was august 2004 if i remember correctly. There was pretty much the same jump between xp vanilla and xpsp2 as there was between win95 and win98, if you ask me.
XP is still a brilliant operating system and commonplace in so many homes and workplaces, to write it off as being old hat would be rather credulous
Posted 04:08pm 04/1/11
As I've discussed in prior threads, if you read Microsoft's license buying the OEM version and using it yourself is in violation of the EULA
In which case you are a pirate, and I will happily refer you to thepiratebay where you can break the same law while saving yourself $149 in the process
A few of us here at work have brand new Samsung phones and their drivers only work properly on 32-bit XP.
Posted 04:10pm 04/1/11
Unless you're a complete Microsoft-groupie company using every piece of s*** software that Microsoft throws out, its significantly cheaper to buy the few bits of decent MS software outright.
Posted 04:11pm 04/1/11
Posted 04:17pm 04/1/11
I just don't see the point in paying MS all that money in an age of open source and web and cloud and freedom and I feel like me stopping giving them money is voting with my feet to encourage them to pursue other strategies.
Aside from DirectX 11, what things can I do with Windows 7 that I can't do in XP? Bearing in mind I spend probably 98% of my non-gaming time in a web browser.
Posted 04:17pm 04/1/11
hahaha what a f***** sales pitch.
Posted 04:20pm 04/1/11
Unless you qualify as a commercial customer?
Posted 04:23pm 04/1/11
completely wrong, our first 5 x licenses we needed to buy in order to sign up for VLK were cheaper than buying 5 individually from a retailer
all subsequent purchases have also been significantly cheaper
oh noes, add $50 and you can buy the non-oem, non-upgrade version
big deal, it's $200 at the end of the day for what is (for most of us) our primary method of internets and gaming etc
it's f*****g pittance when you think about how often you're using windows.
infact you'd be hard pressed arguing that $300 for the pro version is too expensive, given that an operating system is what makes your computer "work"
most trades require expensive tools, we IT geeks get off pretty damn lightly if you ask me
so there you have it, most of us are system builders
sauce @ http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/01/8730.ars
last edited by teq at 16:23:23 04/Jan/11
Posted 04:22pm 04/1/11
With Australia's consumer protection laws that would never hold up in court. It's so easy to violate EULAs that if they were actually enforced to their full extent almost everyone in the world would be a pirate.
Posted 04:28pm 04/1/11
That's the thing really, isn't it. The OS itself may be - well, clearly is - "better". But if you just look at the OS as a way to run programs, then it doesn't offer much beyond APIs.
Someone might also say "What things can I do with XP that I can't do in Linux?" or vice-versa; and if you've actually used both of them the obvious answer is "You cant run Windows applications like Visual Studio on linux", not minor things like how the taskbar is rendered or how windows are resized.
Posted 04:31pm 04/1/11
Posted 04:31pm 04/1/11
IMO, games needing to cater for older hardware and OS's has been holding back PC games for a while now.
Posted 04:31pm 04/1/11
Go read the Windows 7 OEM EULA. It clearly defines a system builder as someone who
1. Assembles a computer
2. Installs the OEM software
3. Sells the computer to someone else
I dont give a s*** what some dumbarse site has to say about it, Microsoft's OEM license for Windows 7 clearly and explicitly states that someone who simply buys the OEM version and installs it on their own PC is in violation of the EULA.
(Note I'm not talking about "buying the box with the CD and key in it"; that is clearly legal. The EULA covers actually using the product, not buying the physical box)
Posted 04:34pm 04/1/11
they should be happy that a version is gettin purchased at all. oem or whatever
i would rather get 200 from everyone and not have a whinge that im not makin enough money, than 200 from half the ppl and the other half download it
Posted 04:35pm 04/1/11
if you want to be pedantic about it + don't know how to build your machine yourself and care that much about saving $50 - ask a friend who knows how to build a computer to do it for you
no one cares about the EULA anyway, it's hardly a valid argument for not being able to upgrade
like i have already said, the difference is only $50 anyway
you still haven't had anything to say about the price vs. value argument, shall I just take that as an indication that you agree with my statement? :)
Posted 04:37pm 04/1/11
The suggestion was to buy an MSDN license instead of paying retail. MSDN is at least a thousand a year, usually multiple thousands.
Windows 7 Pro Upgrade ~$350
Visual Studio 2008 Standard ~$500
SQL Server 2008 Developer Edition ~$50
Total spend over 3 years, under $1000 per developer or approximately $300 per year.
I have no idea if volume licensing is cheaper, but thats not what was suggested so by definition its impossible for your example to prove me wrong.
Posted 04:39pm 04/1/11
Posted 04:39pm 04/1/11
all he needed to say was "a VLK" instead of "an MSDN subscription" and he was 100% right
VLK is far far cheaper than buying each license individually
I've had MSDN access in the past working for HP and Telstra etc, I'm not a big windows buff but I assumed MSDN and VLK were somehow intertwined, but I'm 99% sure we don't pay anything per year for our licenses, just per key.
Posted 04:42pm 04/1/11
Posted 04:42pm 04/1/11
Posted 04:53pm 04/1/11
Posted 05:01pm 04/1/11
That's a completely different suggestion though (right? I know nothing about Volume Licensing but I presume its on a per-product basis?)
What I was getting at is, that an MSDN subscription gives you access to (depending on the particular package) all or almost all of every version of Microsoft's software. But they charge you handsomely, per year, to do so. In other words, MSDN is really just intended as a simple way of ensuring a developer can use any software he wants.
I often see the suggestion that developers should get MSDN but unless you use a *lot* of Microsoft software, it should be far cheaper to buy the products individually.
If you can volume license Windows 7 vs buy Windows 7 at retail, it makes complete sense that a volume license would be cheaper - why else would a volume license exist. Both solutions should be cheaper than MSDN for most people. I know we looked into volume licensing for Windows 7 and decided against it for some reason, but I dont remember why.
Posted 04:58pm 04/1/11
Posted 05:00pm 04/1/11
If you have to buy a lot of software, its quite important (if boring) knowledge
Posted 05:16pm 04/1/11
My fiancee's XP kept needing to be reinstalled and I was sick of doing it, so I told her about 6 months ago she could either pay $200 to buy the Windows 7 upgrade; and in the meantime I would install Ubuntu. So far Ubuntu is still installed, so I guess we could conclude to the average user, Windows 7 is not worth $200
I do not use Windows on my home PC, so I personally do not have an opinion on the value of the upgrade in that context.
At work we upgraded everyone from XP and 2GB RAM, to Windows 7 and 8GB ram; so at work the killer feature was 64-bit. In that environment, it was certainly worth the money since with 32-bit XP we could not fully utilise the computer's resources.
Posted 05:09pm 04/1/11
Posted 05:18pm 04/1/11
Posted 05:51pm 04/1/11
To get back on topic I explicitly split the response up; a few hundred to upgrade a work PC (where one can easily factor in revenue generated by said equipment) is completely different to a few hundred used to upgrade a home PC used for games.
That you think Windows 7 is a no-brainer on a work PC is completely reasonable.
Posted 05:50pm 04/1/11
the same computer has made me literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, $200 so it's up to date is the least I could do for it
I should really buy it dinner by this stage in our relationship
Posted 05:53pm 04/1/11
3 User Home premium upgrade pack for $227, thats roughly $75 each.
http://www.microsoftstore.com.au/shop/en-AU/Microsoft/Windows-7-Home-Premium-Family-Pack-Upgrade
thers another link to buy it direct from microsoft, $249
Yes Ubuntu works and its free.
Yes Windows XP works and you already own it.
Windows 7 is a far superiour OS to both XP and ubuntu, and even OSX, in so many ways that I wont even bother to get into here that its worth the $80 odd dolars to upgrade.
last edited by `ViPER` at 17:53:34 04/Jan/11
Posted 05:57pm 04/1/11
I want to upgrade for the sake for being relevant but that's the only reason, my brother has win 7 and I can't pick out a single thing that makes it appealing, pretty much everything pisses me off.
Then again I'm using a 98SE type setup on XP /shrug.
Where is it $80 single user? That sounds alright.
last edited by CHUB at 17:57:11 04/Jan/11
Posted 05:54pm 04/1/11
Posted 05:57pm 04/1/11
Posted 05:57pm 04/1/11
From your posts, you seem like a command line warrior/techy type person and ubuntu would make sense for you.
Posted 05:58pm 04/1/11
Posted 06:01pm 04/1/11
apart from that, maybe the 64 bit os is good for developers etc.
Posted 06:12pm 04/1/11
1. Speed, from my personal experience its the best running Microsoft OS, even on older hardware, up to about 5 years old.
2. Taskbar - Reduced clutter on the taskbar, auto preview of the window on hover.
3. Moving windows around, can just drag a full screen window without minimising first realy handy with multiple monitors, windows auto maximise when dragged to a corner.
4. Drivers, very rarely have to load drivers for anything, Install the Os, run windows update, done.
5. Backup software builtin, can do a full backup and restore from full backup is realy easy too.
Im sure theres others that I cant think about, or are hard to write down, just small UI features that alone arent anything major but together make for a better OS.
When I got back to XP it just feels so old.
Posted 06:23pm 04/1/11
That's a fair description, though if I look at my desktop only two of my windows are shells right now.
I regularly use:
Chrome
Thunderbird
Xchat (IRC client)
Gwibber (twitter client)
Media Player
Remote Desktop
SSH
Unix toolchain to go through logfiles
All of this is software available, more or less, on Windows too. I used Windows for many years before deciding that since I was using the same software on both, I might as well jump ship.
Things that are actually better for me in Linux than Windows, most important to me first:
- The Windows console ("DOS prompt") User Interface is absolutely terrible (and I'm not even going to get into the cmd.exe's command semantics) - Cygwin may give you UNIX commands but its still the same terrible DOS box for input. I can totally understand why techy Windows users would not understand command-line warriors, given how terrible the environment within Windows is
- virtual desktops built in and understood by the OS
- select text in one app, middle-click to paste saves a lot of time (no keyboard ctrl+c ctrl+v required)
- Drivers; I know Windows 7 is supposed to be better in this regard but if you buy your hardware for its Linux compatibility (and not the other way round) you will get a PC that fully works after the CD install.
- updated less often; far less reboots. Ubuntu is a tool, always ready to work when I am. No logging in and finding all my applications are closed because it was patch Tuesday last night.
- zero risk of viruses
My partner on the other hand is your typical home PC user, also using Ubuntu. Her applications consist of:
- Chrome
- Open Office
- Rhythmbox, for syncing with an iPhone
- Whatever the builtin photo app is called
Its hard to see what advantage Windows would offer here either.
Posted 06:32pm 04/1/11
Those you don't get Windows 7 don't deserve to play Battlefield 3.
Posted 06:34pm 04/1/11
duno what the big issue with it is :/
xp is 1million times better than vista and win7 is 1million times better than xp
Posted 06:45pm 04/1/11
Bingo. There is still zero reasons for me to make the upgrade, probably will eventually when I'm richerer.
Posted 06:51pm 04/1/11
Posted 07:19pm 04/1/11
Posted 07:35pm 04/1/11
This is AWESOME news!!!
Now everyone will be forced to run the details as they were designed to.
People who have DX10+ capable cards who go back to using DX9 so they can disable atmospheric effects and gain a better line of sight is in my eyes, cheating.
You know who you are....
Posted 07:35pm 04/1/11
wasn't directed at you
In my experience though people certainly do have a different view of hardware and software when putting a new system together
I know I certainly did, I would happily spend $1500 on a new machine but I hated paying $200 for what I didn't really see as anything of value
Mostly because software isn't tangible I guess
Posted 08:16pm 04/1/11
Windows 7 is brilliant. It just works. I can't even remember the last time I thought about needing a driver for anything. Oh hang on, check that, my Logitech wheel needed its own software for some games. But that's the one exception.
Posted 08:45pm 04/1/11
This. I had an old A10 laptop, windows 7 ran better on it than XP did. The only problem was there weren't any drivers for the video chipset under windows 7.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's better than OS X though, nor is OS X better than windows 7. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
One thing about windows 7 I hate though and wish I could get back from XP is the old start menu where if you have a tonne of programs installed it would expand out into multiple columns instead of having to scroll. What the hell is this scrolling through menus s***? This isn't 1980 Microsoft, people have wide screen monitors now.
Posted 09:25pm 04/1/11
Hah, I said the same thing about Vista. Got the impression that it was made that way just for the sake of making Windows appear to be significantly different.
Your logic works in opposite to mine. If you've just spent fifteen hundred to get a decent computer, you should more than ever not want to cop another two hundred if there's a viable alternative. :P
Posted 09:30pm 04/1/11
Posted 09:53pm 04/1/11
The point is you are being forced to upgrade or be unable to use the new software. Would you be of the same opinion if they changed all the petrol stations to only carry some new special fuel and you were forced to spend, not $100 on an OS but $70,000 on a new car capable of running the new fuel otherwise you get to ride a bike everywhere?
If you say it's not the same, you're living in a dream world.
Posted 10:16pm 04/1/11
What does that have to do with no XP support for BF3? Nothing!
Posted 10:18pm 04/1/11
Thats a very unrealitsic analogy by the way. You have to move forward at some point, when your car breaks down and costs more to fix it than it's worth, you buy a new one. The game developers are probably trying to move forward with their ideas/programming etc etc and are being hamstrung by older tech like XP and it's inability to handle DX10/11etc etc. If you thought like that you'd still be using DOS ffs. Why don't you use DOS?...
Posted 10:20pm 04/1/11
Posted 10:22pm 04/1/11
not the same, not by a long shot
no one is even saying windows is expensive, it's $150 every 5 - 10 years?
if microsoft started charging 70k for it not even the legit users would bother, they'd just swap the linux or pirate it
if petrol companies changed the fuel people would adapt like they always do, or they'd steal (ie download) the new car they need
Posted 10:33pm 04/1/11
Posted 10:42pm 04/1/11
I am :). I feel it is largely a rort by microsoft that they get away with due to having the monopoly.
Posted 11:11pm 04/1/11
Posted 11:12pm 04/1/11
Posted 11:52pm 04/1/11
Posted 12:01am 05/1/11
You know whats a rip, Microsoft Office, thats one piece of software that just isnt worth the cost.
Posted 12:18am 05/1/11
Posted 01:18am 05/1/11
No, because people tend to be a d*** about it and smugly state that anybody who doesn't have "that kind of money" (such an insignificant amount oh my) must be some kind of stupid head worthy of mockery, which I am mighty sick of hearing.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market.
Interestingly, and I don't begrudge them this, I've never paid for a Microsoft product such as Windows and Visual Studio, as they've always given them to me for free when I was a student, as that decreases the chances of me learning to operate and produce in and for an environment outside of their own. This is part of why they retain a monopoly, and I believe they charge so much for their products simply because they can due to maintaining this monopoly, not because the products are worth that in production costs.
You may have noticed, the Microsoft execs have done reaaaaaaaaaal well for themselves. Suggests the company is selling their products for significantly more than they are worth in actual production costs, and there would be alternatives if not for the power and practices of the monopoly.
I know the above is near gibberish and repetitive, I am very very tired.
Posted 07:33am 05/1/11
As I said, I choose my hardware for its Linux compatibility - which for graphics means Nvidia. It takes 3 or 4 clicks within Nvidia's configuration app to turn on multiple monitors. I have only ever heard bad things about ATI + Linux. (In case you were wondering, Intel's built-in graphics in laptops tend to work well too)
By comparison, my DVB-T USB stick isnt recognised by Windows 7's driver manager - I have to hunt around online for the driver, if I can even remember who makes it. It works out of the box on Ubuntu - though again, this is because I have explicitly purchased supported hardware. (I am sure there are probably just as many DVB-T USB sticks that linux does not support at all.)
I forgot to mention the other reason I find better for me, which is its software management. The single unified mechanism by which all software is installed and updated in Ubuntu is wonderful compared to the disjointed model of Windows. Moving to a fresh PC installation is a snap, and keeping my existing PC's completely updated is trivial.
Posted 10:13am 05/1/11
$150 back in the day was a great price for what you got out of Windows! But now the operating environment for most users for most tasks is in the browser. So it seems like less of a good deal, and it's why I'm looking at Ubuntu - and it's why, I think, software developers should be going for accessibility and creating as many cross-platform applications and supporting things like DirectX 9, because it seems inevitable that the target market of Windows is slowly by surely going to shrink.
Posted 11:15am 05/1/11
hahahahaha
THIS JUST IN, COMPANIES ARE OUT TO MAKE MONEY - MORE AT FIVE
anyone whinging about the price of windows is a f*****g idiot, plain and simple
think about how many hours you use it and then divide that by the price they're asking - it's damn good value when compared to anything else you do with your computer
even if you go fork out $300 for the pro version of win7 so you can have RDP, say you only use it 10 hours per week (and lets face it, it's probably more like 20+)
10 hours per week over 12 months = 520 hours / $300 = $1.70 per hour
not one single person has an argument against the cost to benefit ratio outlined by the teq
seriously, whinge more you big girls - I use OSX exclusively at home but even I couldn't argue that $300 is too expensive for what could be the most essential part of your PC
wut?
why would anyone keep developing for something that is nine years old?
there are actual limitations for what directx9 can do, it wasn't written with todays generation of video cards in mind
it's like going to ford and saying hey you guys, stop creating better motors for your new cars, we don't want to spend the money because our old car still works
good for you, is what they'd say - because they have customer who want all the benefits of the new motor, because it gives better economy, more power, less breakdowns etc
it's retard to expect that direct x9 support is maintained even as long as it has been
windows is going to be with us for a long long time to come
last edited by teq at 11:15:04 05/Jan/11
Posted 11:20am 05/1/11
Eventually once support drops off and more applications they use require an upgrade, there will be a benefit. But you seem to be arguing under the misconception that everyone has the same needs and requirements as you.
FWIW i use Win 7 x64 on my home, work and laptop PCs and wouldn't ever go back to XP, but I can understand why other's don't yet feel the need.
Posted 11:21am 05/1/11
Posted 11:30am 05/1/11
Look at Unreal Engine these days, it runs on such a massive range of hardware and still looks awesome in it's best configurations. There's nothing else that touches it on iOS at the moment.
Crytek used to be the high-end only specialists with engine tech, but even they've now increased the scope of their development to cover the consoles.
So what would be the motivator driving DICE towards narrowing their platform compatibility? It might be cheaper initially, but it could really narrow the eventual target audience.
Posted 11:30am 05/1/11
You'll never convince me that 10% of a budget for your new computer is too much for the most important part of a system
how is it difficult to grasp that the operating system is so monumentally important?
why spend a few hundred bucks on a hard drive and video card but skimp on the software to drive both of them? my mind - she boggles
only one quarter? oh well that remaining quarter will catch up with the rest of the world eventually
it's not like windows 7 was just dropped on people all of a sudden, this has been coming for years and years, hell they even offered people $50 versions as an incentive
all I'm hearing ITT is whinging that software is expensive and like I've already said, I think it's because software isn't tangible so people don't feel like they're getting good value when in reality it's probably the best value of all your system components.
Posted 11:34am 05/1/11
I've posted 2 links to the 3 Pack upgrade bundle which is $249. Assuming people already have XP, then its $80 to upgrade, I assume alot of people would have multiple PC's in there house or have friends/family that would want to upgrade aswell.
Dont get me wrong, XP in its current Form with SP3 and IE8 etc is a great operating system, pretty fast and pretty stable, its just that Windows 7 is in my experience, Faster, more stable, Has a Better UI, Supports Directx 11, Has better inbuilt driver support and yes, its prettier.
Posted 11:37am 05/1/11
Thats assuming that those 25% would want to play the latest games. One could assume that someone still on windows XP would be more likely to have an older PC and therefore less likely to play the latest games, so its not realy 25%.
I can only assume that they are trying to write a new game engine, and supporting Directx 9 is causing them issues, so they have decided to drop support for it.
Posted 11:38am 05/1/11
This is because there is just no need for it at the moment. The driving reason for most of us to spend money on PCs is for better performance in games and that need has slowed drastically over the past 5 or so years because of the success of the console market.
Since the launch of the Xbox 360, PC performance requirements have reached a plateau as developers create their games with a lowest-common-denominator in mind. You might be able to get some slightly higher visuals with a top-end PC, but you can still run it with more than acceptable performance on a 4 year old rig.
There has been no real need for the average PC gamer to spend much money or either hardware or software. Many of us instead have channelled those funds into other areas of entertainment.
Posted 11:42am 05/1/11
if you aren't running a new-ish computer then you probably can't run the game anyway, how can anyone expect a game developer to release a game that looks inferior to its competitors just beause they wanted to support a super old version of DirectX
If they want their game to be the best they have to take advantage of new tech, that means using DX11 and excluding some very very old computers from their target market
running xp is the last of your worries if your machine is actually 5 or so years old, it wouldn't run the games even if you did fork out for win7
this isn't about some company trying to force you to upgrade, this is just a natural evolution of hardware, software and entertainment in general.
Posted 11:44am 05/1/11
personally i think you are overstating an o/s's importance to the average user (you're own mileage may vary). 99.9% of my computer time is spent in apps that can be run on pretty much any operating system. the 0.1% of my time in the actual o/s doing file copying/moving/deleting or swapping between apps or whatever is so minuscule that i really don't care that much if the window that it's done in is semi-transparent or not.
Posted 11:50am 05/1/11
Blizzard constantly point out in various things how they focus on making their games scalable so they can run on any computer, because - not being complete muppets - they realise this is an integral part of making a PC game that sells well. It needs to work on as many PCs as possible. Valve presumably do the same (see: Counter-Strike) As Dan points out, the natural evolution of needing a new PC every 1-2 years back in the day has slowed significantly. I and many others are running older PCs (2-4 years old), especially in some of those massive markets like SE Asia where PC gaming is still a Big Deal.
I certainly don't feel like they're forcing me to upgrade; I feel like they're being silly and cutting themselves out of a very, very significant chunk of an already-small market.
Fortunately I think Frostbite v2.0 is still a year away or so - so maybe that 25% figure will shrink substantially. But what I fear happening is that they'll release this for DX11 only, wonder why their PC sales have dropped by 20%, and then decide that PC games is just too small a market for them to bother with any more, and continue the consolification of what was once one of the greatest PC games ever made (BF1942). That is what I am worried about.
Posted 11:54am 05/1/11
Yes, A natural evolution that has slowed up on its hardware demands over the past 5 odd years, therefore not requiring the newest,fastest software as quickly.
What is so hard to understand here teq?
Posted 11:58am 05/1/11
Black Ops system reqs:For a bit of perspective, this is all hardware that pre-dates ET: Quake Wars. The life you can get out of PC hardware for gaming right now is unprecedented.
Posted 11:58am 05/1/11
what's hard to understand is the whinging about how expensive it is
a) no one is forcing you to upgrade (don't play the game if you don't want to upgrade)
b) it's not expensive, not even remotely expensive
c) you don't have to use it, there are free alternative
d) what's that you say, the free alternatives don't support games? oh damn
e) it's been a long time between XP and Win7, Microsoft aren't just holding their hand out demanding cash
f) it's always been like this, it's just longer between system upgrades now
you can't use windows XP for ever, it's been out of support for a while now
you are eventually going to have to swap to something newer, be it OSX, Linux or Win7 - WinXP was never going to last forever
Posted 12:03pm 05/1/11
All I see is people who dont feel the need to shell out 100+ because they dont NEED TO. Thats a far cry from whinging about its expense.
You may be the greatest person ever at missing the point teq.
Posted 12:11pm 05/1/11
I still play GTA4 MP quite a bit and now that I have an awesome PC that can run it at all full settings and resolution just fine and it looks amazing but I really wish there was the ability to use anti-aliasing as well. But because Rockstar really wanted to keep it dx9 compatible they apparently had to choose between HDR lighting and anti-aliasing and went with HDR lighting in the end. So it does happen that people not upgrading can also stop advancements being used in games so those people can still be supported.
Also, the whole modern warfare thing is done enough, I want another awesome WW2 Battlefield like 1942 (but all new graphics sexified) already!
Posted 12:39pm 05/1/11
you justified my point in the first line then told me im missing the point in the third, bravo
why not upgrade if price isn't the issue?
is it just the fact that you have to spend hours reinstalling all of your apps etc?
my mind, she boggles
Posted 12:42pm 05/1/11
Posted 12:42pm 05/1/11
that explains quite a bit
Posted 12:56pm 05/1/11
My PC is entirely capable of running any new game thrown at it at max settings (except Civ 5 lawl), so it's not just a case of old machines.
This argument boils down to: "You've already spent a s***load of money, that's the perfect reason to then spend more" - I'm going to respectfully call it retarded. :)
Posted 12:54pm 05/1/11
once win7 becomes pretty much required for my gaming I'll happily pay the money to upgrade, and happily reinstall everything.
Oh and congrats for understanding your own point. I obviously mean the other point in this thread that is almost screaming at you, which is that the upgrade isn't NEEDED, not that its expensive/cheap/ people whinging blah blah
Posted 01:16pm 05/1/11
Unless you wanna play games.
Yes Mac can play SOME games, but its probably easier to go to Win 7 than to OSX, and probably alot cheaper
Thats a pretty silly comment, if anything, Microsoft have extended Support for Windows XP, and Provided significant upgrades for Free for 9 years now, Windows XP has been a friggan bargain.
Ignoring Windows Vista, which was pretty much windows 7 beta, Microsoft have given you nearly 10 years to upgrade, while providing upgrades (SP1 SP2 SP3) for free the whole time.
Posted 01:29pm 05/1/11
Microsoft are s***ting themselves about the desktop situation; they are flailing around like a dying octopus trying to hit on anything they think will make them money (I just read this annoying article about them trying to 'take on' appletv and google in the home tv space, snore). They know Apple are starting to eat their lunch in the mom and pop PC market with Macbooks and are getting terrified of the vertical integration they offer. I have no doubts they're looking at Steam and have noticed their recent launch of Mac support for games as well.
So I sort of feel like you guys are buying into a dying platform more than I feel worried I'm missing out on anything new and shiny :)
Posted 01:55pm 05/1/11
If you're stuck in your Windows XP ways then DICE and EA are predicting either you're probably not going to be a customer or are just going to whinge but bite the bullet and upgrade anyway.
It's not about whether people are happy with their current ten year old OS or not it's about how many sales big games companies will lose if they try to fully take advantage of the new hardware features in DX11 without having to worry about how to shoehorn their code and assets to be compatible with the old API.
Edit:
Vista and 7 aren't evolutionary leap from Windows XP for web browsers and email, but in terms of graphics hardware they are. The only reason we've seen title after title of combined DX9 & DX10/11 support is because the current console generation is stuck in the DX9 world. If the xbox 360 had support for DX10 I reckon windows XP support would have been dropped a lot sooner what with PC gaming dying and all that.
Posted 01:46pm 05/1/11
I remember when game devs had brains, used opengl and released binaries for just about every OS so anyone could run their game if they were capable of making it work on that particular OS, with windows being the easiest obviously.
Once you get passed the whole windows user mentality of "omigawd osx sux0r lolol u cant play games haha ololol" OS X is really easy to use for browsing the net, doing emails & editing those home movies. iMovie s**** all over windows movie maker for one thing. Pity Apple gear is so over priced for what it really is though. For the price of a core 2 duo in a macbook pro, you could have a core i7 in a dell and lets face it, people like cheap s*** even if it breaks within a year or two (not saying dells do, just in general).
What about all us PC gamers who suffer s*** graphics, s*** physics and lame controls because the devs have shoehorned their code into fitting the hardware requirements of a console? Same thing really.
Posted 01:51pm 05/1/11
Well Windows Media centre 7 is a friggin awesome HTPC platform, better than anything you get from linux and apple.
Yes linux can do HTPC stuff with specific hardware that works, I read that HTPC article on ausgamers last year, and thought it looked like so much work when Windows 7 media centre is easier and ends with a better result, AND YOU CAN PLAY GAMES ON IT !.
Name another single device that can.
1. Be a DVR and record from EPG etc.
2. Played ANY type of content (not locked to itunes etc)
3. Can play games with the addition of a Wireless Xbox controler
Linux HTPC can probably do 1 and 2 and is harder to setup, but not 3, Apple TV can only play content from itunes, and isnt a DVR
The only device I can think of is the PS3 with the playtv addon, havent used it personally, but apparently its pretty good.
Mate, Windows aint going anywhere soon, and if it does, it isnt going to be replaced by ubuntu/linux, Mac is the only serious competitor in the desktop space for the forseable future.
Posted 02:05pm 05/1/11
What's interesting is that Dice are happy to give up 25% of potential customers because they couldnt be bothered to make a DX9 rendering path alongside the DX11 renderer, while Valve and Blizzard are putting out OSX versions of their software to reach for the extra 10% customer base
Its perplexing given what we know about the games industry nowadays; art is expensive and software development is relatively cheap (in terms of man hours).
Since its relatively cheap (vs total product cost) to spend additional money to support additional platforms, its unusual that Dice would then go and do the complete opposite.
Posted 02:23pm 05/1/11
It's probably just a case that the development costs of a DX9 compatible version are high enough that the ROI isn't enough. Dropping XP support is just an evolutionary step for game developers and since they are probably the #1 reason for advancements in hardware in the home PC space, it's inevitable they would have a hand in making people upgrade.
Forcing people away from XP means two significant advantages I can see. Firstly DX10/11 support and secondly 64-bit architecture for their games as most hardware sold in the last 3-4 years is 64-bit but people would run 32-bit XP on it (and there is no cost to get 64-bit media for Windows 7).
Posted 02:24pm 05/1/11
Posted 02:25pm 05/1/11
I think you're overstating that percentage figure.
BF3 is slated for PS3, 360 and PC so if I pulled some generous guesstimate numbers out of my arse of 40% xbox, 40% playstation and 20% PC, in reality it's closer to 5% of potential customers.
Posted 03:59pm 05/1/11
Makes it seem even crazier from that point of view.
Posted 04:04pm 05/1/11
Posted 04:28pm 05/1/11
edit: actually i think it was a diff game and not bc2.
last edited by ravn0s at 16:28:25 05/Jan/11
Posted 04:23pm 05/1/11
1. Dice decided it was time for you to upgrade
2. How often do you upgrade your OS that it's become a pattern?
Personally I've installed XP and Win7, there was no ME or Vista in between
so that pattern is fairly short
one upgrade in 10 years ... at $300, that's $30/year or 12 cents per day.
Posted 05:12pm 05/1/11
Some people do it just to keep up with the joneses and say they have the latest OS. I've got a legit copy of 95, 98, XP, 2k, Vista & 7. 95, 98, XP and 2k I got with new PC's, Vista and 7 I got because I'm an OS whore and I wanted to complete the set :p
Posted 05:20pm 05/1/11
Press windows button, type the name of the program you want to launch, press enter.
Posted 05:21pm 05/1/11
Posted 05:28pm 05/1/11
Posted 06:10pm 05/1/11
Posted 06:43pm 05/1/11
Please continue.
Posted 12:35am 06/1/11
Naughty PC gamers are still going to use RivaTuner to make everything run/look like DX3 dude.
texture hacking will never go away :(
I'm liking Win7_64bit... though I *really* didn't like having to update my intel e6850 Dual Core 3gig to an Intel x9650 Extreme Edition Quad core to get Battlefield Bad company to perform the same way under Win7 that it already did with the old CPU in XP... in DX9 mode. It's pretty good under DX11 with the NVidia 460 card, but not that great a leap forward in prettiness that would make me update this PC for an extra 30FPS.
That said - games in DX 11 are puuuurdy... though there's one thing that bites me.
Take a look at the BC2 DX_11 picture here - and see if you can see the enemy:
TIP - he's in the bushes right in front of you.
We're back to the old 3DFX/TNT problem days with this game title atm. The guys with the latest Dx_11 technology can't always see threats from XP DX9 users because of the visuals being so highly detailed.
I'm going to dual boot my machine soon. XP for BC2/Vietnam (and a constant 100+ FPS), and Win7 for... erm... work stuff I guess :(
When BF3 comes along I'll consider throwing a few grand at a kickass rig that's somewhat futureproof.. though I'll play the game for a bit first on a mate's PC at a lan to see if that cash is worth it.
I'm not just going to throw away $3k eh
last edited by koopz at 00:35:49 06/Jan/11
Posted 01:10am 06/1/11
Posted 01:30am 06/1/11
So basically, I see it vice-versa.
Posted 08:21am 06/1/11
lolz
Posted 09:31am 06/1/11
Realy??
I run an E8400 (3ghz Dual Core) with 4gb ram on Win 7, only difference is I use 32bit and I only have an 8800gt, and BC2 Runs flawless, I dont know what framerate, cause I dont care, but It looks smooth as.
Posted 09:55am 06/1/11
your e8400 beats my old e6850 by quite a bit. It's something that's been confusing consumers for a long time I guess. Not all Intel 3gig CPUs are the same eh. BC2 makes full use of more cores - which keeps things running smooth when things get heavy.
The only difference that I've noticed between BC2 under Win732 and Win764 is that in 64bit I can alt-tab out of the game, look at the rcon program, check an email, talk to someone on MSN, etc and alt-tab back in instantly - so long as I'm running the game in DX11.
In DX9 it sit there for 10 seconds doing bugger all (which is an eternity) and it prone to crashing.
no crashing is good ;)
Posted 11:24am 06/1/11
Didnt even realise to be honest, I was going to upgrade the GC this year anyway, retire the 8800gt to the Media centre.
Posted 12:11pm 06/1/11
I really don't think so. My grandma bought her pc 10 years ago and probably wont ever upgrade.
Posted 12:38pm 06/1/11
The 8800 is a DX10 card, so 'auto' would be it'd be running in DX10 mode.
Posted 12:42pm 06/1/11
Both my old man and stepmum have steam accounts that are filled with s*** like bejeweled, peggle etc.
They both run vista as thats what came preloaded on their pc's.
Posted 12:44pm 06/1/11
Posted 12:55pm 06/1/11
Posted 09:09pm 06/1/11
good point Midda
I'd prolly force an 8800gt in DX9 mode in the BC2 game .ini for more frames but if you're happy with what you've got then so be it Viper ;)
still, I had an old e6850.. it needed all the help it could get in BC2
I'd be curious to know what kind of frames you currently get though. http://playclaw.com have a free 2 week trial that allows you to show this kind of helpful info if you're keen.
I'm guessing you get ~30-50.
Posted 09:21pm 06/1/11
i dont get this koops, my 6850 had no problems with bc2 (the demo anyway)
would get smooth game play the whole time, never any slow down
just with a gtx265, so nothing fancy with the video card either (and windows 7 64bit)
Posted 10:13pm 06/1/11
Posted 10:14pm 06/1/11
Posted 10:34pm 06/1/11
just don't b**** and moan when you can't play a game because some part of your system is out of date (and yes the OS is part of your system, it's the operating bit)
you dont hear me whinging that I can't play Settlers on my AMSTRAD 486DX with SB Audigy brew (turbo button to boot)
/thread
Posted 09:36am 07/1/11
yeah the Nelson Bay map ran flawlessly in the beta, and still does in the current version of the game. (though I found it odd that the networking issues that were reported with the game didn't come along until the game went retail. Yes Punkbuster - I'm looking at you. Just had to throw that in :)
What really makes this game grind on an older PC is (not surprisingly) large and detailed maps, and this was as obvious as a octopus in your pants once the latest Map Pack 7 came along. My 260 died at this time so I grabbed a 460 and overclocked her (800 woot!) but it made very little difference. The older maps (Laguna Alta, Arica Harbour, White Pass, etc) ran at a respectable 60-90FPS at all times on my old e6850.
Map Pack 7 for Battlefield BC2 is excactly what it sounds like - new maps.. though what separates this game upgrade from all the previous updates is the sheer size and complexity of the content of these environments. Cold War (the new snow map) features more destructible buildings than any other map release thus far in BC2.If you load up a program such as Playclaw you can observe the CPU load in this map is always reporting at 100%, whereas on the the earlier maps that had far less detail, your e6850 cpu will sit there comfortably at around ~80%. Again, users running older PCs with XP don't notice this as they're not taxed a quarter of their available system resousces by the OS running in the background.
The other 3 maps in the map pack are Oasis, Harvest Day and Heavy Metal. Again, they've more destructible environments than the average BC2 maps, and chug on an e6850 compared to the earlier, simpler maps.
In a nutshell - as the game has gotten older, more content has come out for it that lifts the min specs required to run it. Still, we're PC gamers. This isn't something that's new to us. I don't want to open up the whole 'console vs pc' argument again, though I can see why the maps aren't even more detailed.
There's no in built FPS display in the program, so it's not surprising that most gamers are running around at 20-40FPS and think that's the norm. Personally, I'm getting a little tired of players typing up 'LAG!' all the time, when at that moment it's obvious to the rest of us that the server isn't lagging and their system is struggling on the new maps when the action is getting thick and furious.
Anyways.. after a quad core CPU upgrade she's all running nicely.
oh yeah.. the Vietnam addon has next to nothing in terms of destructible environment damage. After playing the addon for a week and then going back to some vanilla BC2 you *really* notice the difference in performance (if you're running an older system with Win7/Vista)
Give it a try and see yourself :)