At PAX Australia we had the chance to sit down with John Mamais, the head of CD Projekt Red’s Krakow studio.
Cyberpunk 2077 - CD Projekt Red on Pushing Graphics Tech Forward
We sit down with Mojang to discuss the upcoming action-RPG Minecraft Dungeons, its humble origins, and focus on combat. The Minecraft way.
Delving Into Minecraft Dungeons with Mojang
We take a swing at where Ubisoft could take Far Cry to next, and it's both closer and further away than you might think...
Where to Next for Far Cry?
At a preview event we had the chance to go hands on with the emotional, harrowing, and stunning The Last Of Us Part II – an experience that left us remembering every face and life we put an end to.
The Last of Us Part II Preview – Harrowing and Unforgettable
Post by trog @ 03:19pm 04/01/11 | 135 Comments
A brief post from DICE developer Johan Andersson has indicated that Frostbite 2.0, the engine that will be behind future Battlefield titles, will not support Windows XP or DirectX 9:
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.



battlefield 3battlefielddicedirectx





Latest Comments
`ViPER`
Posted 03:23pm 04/1/11
Seriously though, theres no reason to be on XP anymore for home use.

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?
Tollaz0r!
Posted 03:28pm 04/1/11
Because it works, why pay to upgrade when there is nothing wrong with what you have?

However 2014 is when XP is no longer supported by Microsoft yer?
teq
Posted 03:32pm 04/1/11
yeah xp is 10 years old now, no more excuses to be stuck on it
`ViPER`
Posted 03:32pm 04/1/11
Because it works, why pay to upgrade when there is nothing wrong with what you have?


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%.
trog
Posted 03:45pm 04/1/11
I'm still on XP because I've had absolutely zero compelling reason to upgrade. A new Battlefield game is not a compelling reason either. (edit: for me)

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.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 03:43pm 04/1/11
I'm just saying that upgrading costs $'s and if there is no real benefit to upgrade, why do it?

For gamers though, Win 7 does offer more then XP.
teq
Posted 03:46pm 04/1/11
by that reasoning trog you had no reason to upgrade to xp from windows 98?
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

trog
Posted 03:54pm 04/1/11
by that reasoning trog you had no reason to upgrade to xp from windows 98?
windows 98 still works, it can run browsers and email clients etc, why use xp at all
Windows XP is a fundamentally different operating system to Windows 98; there were many advantages to upgrading. Except I didn't upgrade from Windows 98 to XP, I upgraded to 2000 first, which was their first really good, solid post-NT operating system suitable for the desktop.

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.
blahnana
Posted 03:55pm 04/1/11
The biggest reason to ditch XP will be the lack of support from MS.
teq
Posted 04:03pm 04/1/11
the cost of upgrading is so far from being a good reason it's not even funny

http://www.umart.com.au/newindex2.phtml?bid=2
Microsoft Windows VistaHomePremium 64bit w 7 UPG(OEM)buy w Hardware Instock $149.00


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
Nathan
Posted 04:04pm 04/1/11
I'm sure Valve and Blizzard will be happy to keep selling games to XP users until its under 10% market share

After all, both companies support OSX, and there's a lot less OSX users than XP users.
`ViPER`
Posted 04:04pm 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.


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.
hardware
Posted 04:07pm 04/1/11
i don't think XP is 10 years old
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
Nathan
Posted 04:08pm 04/1/11
Microsoft Windows VistaHomePremium 64bit w 7 UPG(OEM)buy w Hardware Instock $149.00

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

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

A few of us here at work have brand new Samsung phones and their drivers only work properly on 32-bit XP.
Nathan
Posted 04:10pm 04/1/11
Anyone involved in IT should have an MSDN subscription anyway.

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.
d^
Posted 04:11pm 04/1/11
I can't go back to XP with Windows 7, the window resize function is too good.
trog
Posted 04:17pm 04/1/11
The biggest reason to ditch XP will be the lack of support from MS.
Definitely; that is what killed Win2k for me (because of games) and its looking like I could make it to WinXP end of support (April 2014) without too much hassle
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
I have a legitimate copy of Windows and I don't have a $500 video card (pretty sure it was $150 when I bought my home PC which was maybe 2 years ago now) . I don't see what that has to do with me - I'm saying that my circumstances have put me in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation.
I 100% understand what you're saying, I have shared your opinion previously, but really it's time to let go
I have shared your opinion previously also, but I no longer need to be anywhere near on the cutting edge to use my PC for fun or for work!

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.
Sc00bs
Posted 04:17pm 04/1/11
Lots of time to upgrade if you havent!

hahaha what a f***** sales pitch.

blahnana
Posted 04:20pm 04/1/11
trog your link mentions that you're already outside of support.

Unless you qualify as a commercial customer?

teq
Posted 04:23pm 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.


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

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


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

Can I buy OEM?

Yes, you can. Microsoft licenses OEM software to "system builders," which the license defines as "an original equipment manufacturer, or an assembler, reassembler, or installer of software on computer systems" (emphasis added). You can install software on computers, right?

When asked, Microsoft says that OEM software is not intended to be installed by end users. Off the record, Microsoft spokespeople have told me that the big concern in Redmond is for Joe Newbie. They don't want inexperienced users buying OEM software, but the fact of the matter is that anyone can buy OEM versions of Windows.

Truth be told, Microsoft is not opposed to the practice. Rather, the company says that people who purchase OEM software will simply be expected to abide by the terms of the licensing agreements.


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
SwissCM
Posted 04:22pm 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


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.
Nathan
Posted 04:28pm 04/1/11
Aside from DirectX 11, what things can I do with Windows 7 that I can't do in XP?


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.
Midda
Posted 04:31pm 04/1/11
I guess the plebs still using XP will have to get with the times!
Winston
Posted 04:31pm 04/1/11
I'm glad this game will be DX11.

IMO, games needing to cater for older hardware and OS's has been holding back PC games for a while now.
Nathan
Posted 04:31pm 04/1/11
so there you have it, most of us are system builders


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)
Sc00bs
Posted 04:34pm 04/1/11
f***** boohoo.

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
teq
Posted 04:35pm 04/1/11
judging by the number of "build me a computer" threads, it's fair to say there are lots of people on QGL who fall into the system builder classification

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? :)
Nathan
Posted 04:37pm 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


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.
RockitMan
Posted 04:39pm 04/1/11
Only time i ever consider upgrading is if I'm buying an entirely new PC. No way I'm formatting and reinstalling everything just to upgrade an OS that does the job for me already.
teq
Posted 04:39pm 04/1/11
ok so lets go back to the original statement by viper

Anyone involved in IT should have an MSDN subscription anyway.


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.
Sc00bs
Posted 04:42pm 04/1/11
o0o000oo0 show down of microsoft license knowledge

natslovR
Posted 04:42pm 04/1/11
That steam survey is great. Pretty much as many people have µTorrent installed as iTunes :-)
demon
Posted 04:53pm 04/1/11
dunno why everyone gets so hot about operating systems... who gives a rat's arse what anyone else uses if your happy with the one you use. i use win7pro64 at work n xppro at home... i don't have a problem with either o/s but i am not gonna shell out for win7 at home till i need to. ie: until something breaks that i can't fix without going to win7. games like bf3 aren't a good enough reason for me.
Nathan
Posted 05:01pm 04/1/11
all he needed to say was "a VLK" instead of "an MSDN subscription" and he was 100% right


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.
infi
Posted 04:58pm 04/1/11
I'm still on XP [at work] because I've had absolutely zero compelling reason to upgrade.
Nathan
Posted 05:00pm 04/1/11
o0o000oo0 show down of microsoft license knowledge

If you have to buy a lot of software, its quite important (if boring) knowledge
Nathan
Posted 05:16pm 04/1/11
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? :)


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.
kirkoswald
Posted 05:09pm 04/1/11
yeah so whens bf3 coming out anyway ? or when is it going to be announced??
hardware
Posted 05:18pm 04/1/11
kirksoftdrinkwald, we don't talk about games in a games thread on a games forum, we just bicker.
Nathan
Posted 05:51pm 04/1/11
You've been watching too much American TV.

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.
teq
Posted 05:50pm 04/1/11
oh well, I'm not cheap and therefore don't care about spending $200 so my win7 computer runs legit with no problems
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
`ViPER`
Posted 05:53pm 04/1/11
http://www.ht.com.au/part/X5069-MS-Windows-7-Home-Prem-Upgrade-DVD-Family-Pack-3-User/detail.hts

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
CHUB
Posted 05:57pm 04/1/11
$100+ is a bit of a c*** for people that are happy with XP/linux.

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.

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.
Where is it $80 single user? That sounds alright.


last edited by CHUB at 17:57:11 04/Jan/11
Nathan
Posted 05:54pm 04/1/11
If Windows 7 was actually superior to Ubuntu for my purposes, I would have bought it at release.
ravn0s
Posted 05:57pm 04/1/11
i bought win 7 for $60 off that microsoft student site beginning of last year. its been sitting here on my desk until i upgrade to a new pc which im doing very soon
`ViPER`
Posted 05:57pm 04/1/11
If Windows 7 was actually superior to Ubuntu for my purposes, I would have bought it at release.


From your posts, you seem like a command line warrior/techy type person and ubuntu would make sense for you.
trog
Posted 05:58pm 04/1/11
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.
I would like to hear some more about all those far superior ways, because I certainly haven't seen anything watching over people's shoulders that has made me wish I was using it over what I'm doing now.
fade
Posted 06:01pm 04/1/11
its purrrty.

apart from that, maybe the 64 bit os is good for developers etc.
`ViPER`
Posted 06:12pm 04/1/11
I would like to hear some more about all those far superior ways, because I certainly haven't seen anything watching over people's shoulders that has made me wish I was using it over what I'm doing now.


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.
Nathan
Posted 06:23pm 04/1/11
From your posts, you seem like a command line warrior/techy type person and ubuntu would make sense for you.


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.
Ozzy
Posted 06:32pm 04/1/11
I'm a 30 yr old gamer and thought nothing could beat XP, I took a gamble and got windows 7. OMFG it's good, If you a 30+ yr old gamer, let go of your retroness and get into windows 7.

Those you don't get Windows 7 don't deserve to play Battlefield 3.
Sc00bs
Posted 06:34pm 04/1/11
win 7 has been awesome so far to me aswell.

duno what the big issue with it is :/

xp is 1million times better than vista and win7 is 1million times better than xp
Nerfington
Posted 06:45pm 04/1/11
$100+ is a bit of a c*** for people that are happy with XP/linux.

Bingo. There is still zero reasons for me to make the upgrade, probably will eventually when I'm richerer.
Sc00bs
Posted 06:51pm 04/1/11
there is always other ways of gettin win 7 without paying $100 +

Nerfington
Posted 07:19pm 04/1/11
Such as?
HERMITech
Posted 07:35pm 04/1/11
Frostbite 2 is primarily developed for DX11. XP & DX9 is _not_ supported

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....
teq
Posted 07:35pm 04/1/11
I have a legitimate copy of Windows and I don't have a $500 video card (pretty sure it was $150 when I bought my home PC which was maybe 2 years ago now) . I don't see what that has to do with me - I'm saying that my circumstances have put me in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation.


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
euphoria
Posted 08:16pm 04/1/11
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.
fail. Windows 7 is better in this regard. I've tried various flavours of linux and every single one was an absolute nightmare to try get multiple monitor support using an ati vid card. Trawling through crappy forums, trying one config after another, what a waste of time.

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.
Whoop
Posted 08:45pm 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%.

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.
Nerfington
Posted 09:25pm 04/1/11
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.

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.

wasn't directed at youI 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

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
Skitza
Posted 09:30pm 04/1/11
No one is forcing you to upgrade to Windows 7. Don't like it, don't upgrade. Just don't b**** and moan when you can't play your fav new gaemz maen cause you can't keep up with the times. Seriously b****AndMoan++;
Whoop
Posted 09:53pm 04/1/11
No one is forcing you to upgrade to Windows 7. Don't like it, don't upgrade. Just don't b**** and moan when you can't play your fav new gaemz maen cause you can't keep up with the times. Seriously b****AndMoan++;

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.
Reverend Evil
Posted 10:16pm 04/1/11
I love Win 7. I've never had it bluescreen or s*** itself and I have it running 24/7. Although XP was good it was nowhere as reliable as Win 7. I bought two copies from CA's for about $150 each back in the day and I would definitely call it a great purchase. I used to be one of those people that always downloaded the OS, from Win98 to Win2k. But when Vista came along I thought, f*** it, I'm gonna buy the 64 bit version. Just made sense seeing as I'm always using the PC and also didn't have to worry about MS f*****g over my windows.

What does that have to do with no XP support for BF3? Nothing!
Skitza
Posted 10:18pm 04/1/11
I have a car and a bike so IDGAF :)

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?...
Nerfington
Posted 10:20pm 04/1/11
I wasn't b****ing, I was responding to the people who's stance was "anybody who doesn't upgrade is a douche who should spend more money like me even if they feel they don't need to" as I found that attitude annoying. :)
teq
Posted 10:22pm 04/1/11
If you say it's not the same, you're living in a dream world.


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
Enska
Posted 10:33pm 04/1/11
Meh, If BF3 is good I'll upgrade. like I said in another thread I cbf as all I care about is dx11 and noone does it well yet ( that being dx11 AND a decent f*****g game)
Nerfington
Posted 10:42pm 04/1/11
no one is even saying windows is expensive, it's $150 every 5 - 10 years?

I am :). I feel it is largely a rort by microsoft that they get away with due to having the monopoly.
FraktuRe
Posted 11:11pm 04/1/11
What monopoly? There are two viable alternatives, one of them free.
teq
Posted 11:12pm 04/1/11
can you quantify expensive for us nerf?
Enska
Posted 11:52pm 04/1/11
A loaf of bread and 2L of milk.
`ViPER`
Posted 12:01am 05/1/11
I reckon even $150 for an OS as polished as Windows 7 is pretty good.

You know whats a rip, Microsoft Office, thats one piece of software that just isnt worth the cost.
teq
Posted 12:18am 05/1/11
there's no need to buy office anymore, google hooked us up
Nerfington
Posted 01:18am 05/1/11
can you quantify expensive for us nerf?

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.

What monopoly? There are two viable alternatives, one of them free.

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.
Nathan
Posted 07:33am 05/1/11
I've tried various flavours of linux and every single one was an absolute nightmare to try get multiple monitor support using an ati vid card.

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.
trog
Posted 10:13am 05/1/11
I reckon even $150 for an OS as polished as Windows 7 is pretty good.
What do you get for $150? The Home version? I wouldn't buy that because it doesn't have remote desktop. Plus I assume that is the OEM price, lets not forget full retail is much more expensive and (as Nats points out) what you really should be buying unless you're buying it with a new PC.

$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.
teq
Posted 11:15am 05/1/11
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


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

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.


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
Dan
Posted 11:20am 05/1/11
not one single person has an argument against the cost to benefit ratio outlined by the teq
Except for the ones that already have their needs met by their existing OS, which this entire thread is about.If there is no perceived benefit to them, then any cost is arguably too much, particularly once you include the hassle of reinstalling.

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.
trog
Posted 11:21am 05/1/11
why would anyone keep developing for something that is nine years old?
because it is deployed on fully one quarter of all gaming PCs that run Steam, which is probably a good sample of the market
Dan
Posted 11:30am 05/1/11
because it is deployed on fully one quarter of all gaming PCs that run Steam
Yeah, I think this is the more interesting discussion to be had. Why is it that DICE would want to write themselves out of 25% of the market? Obviously it might be weighted a bit differently by the time the game launches, but it's still an odd move while developers everywhere else seem to be striving for much wider platform accessibility.

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.
teq
Posted 11:30am 05/1/11
then any cost is arguably too much


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

because it is deployed on fully one quarter of all gaming PCs that run Steam, which is probably a good sample of the market

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.
`ViPER`
Posted 11:34am 05/1/11
What do you get for $150? The Home version? I wouldn't buy that because it doesn't have remote desktop. Plus I assume that is the OEM price, lets not forget full retail is much more expensive and (as Nats points out) what you really should be buying unless you're buying it with a new PC.


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.
`ViPER`
Posted 11:37am 05/1/11
Yeah, I think this is the more interesting discussion to be had. Why is it that DICE would want to write themselves out of 25% of the market?


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.
Dan
Posted 11:38am 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?
Many of the people still using XP aren't likely running a brand new computer, or even had any significant upgrades recently.

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.
teq
Posted 11:42am 05/1/11
so would you still be using a console from 2001 or would you think that investing in an xbox 360/ps3 is a good investment?

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.
demon
Posted 11:44am 05/1/11
how is it difficult to grasp that the operating system is so monumentally important?

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.
trog
Posted 11:50am 05/1/11
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
Shouldn't that tell you that the 25% of the PC, game-playing market is quite happy on XP and is resisting the change? I think they've got all the easy conversions. This isn't like Win98->XP where it was an evolutionary leap.
so would you still be using a console from 2001 or would you think that investing in an xbox 360/ps3 is a good investment?
Fun fact, I have both an Xbox and an Xbox 360. Xbox 360 broke a few weeks ago; I barely use it. Xbox I used almost every day for XBMC (until recently when I got a WD Live HD)
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
I'm happily playing SC2 and L4D2 and my PC is practically ancient. Doesn't look quite as good as on my flatmates newer PC but its perfectly good enough and playable.

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)
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.
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.
Enska
Posted 11:54am 05/1/11
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.


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?
Dan
Posted 11:58am 05/1/11
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
The state of PC gaming isn't the same as it was in the early 00's you don't get left behind if you don't have a complete PC overhaul every 2 years.

Black Ops system reqs:
* OS: Windows® Vista/ XP / 7
* Processor:Intel® Core2 Duo E6600 or AMD Phenom X3 8750 or better
* Memory: 2GB
* HDD:12GB
* Video: Shader 3.0 or better 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600GT / ATI Radeon® X1950Pro or better
* Sound: DirectX 9.0c-compatible
* DirectX: 9.0c
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.
teq
Posted 11:58am 05/1/11
What is so hard to understand here teq?


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
Enska
Posted 12:03pm 05/1/11
I'm sorry? who Is whinging about it being expensive? (lol besides nerf)
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.
kos
Posted 12:11pm 05/1/11
I completely understand what trog and others are saying about not changing because they don't need to but I do have one complaint...

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!
teq
Posted 12:39pm 05/1/11
I'm sorry? who Is whinging about it being expensive? (lol besides nerf)
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.


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
trog
Posted 12:42pm 05/1/11
why not upgrade if price isn't the issue?
Because (really? I'm still doing this?) it's not just about the price. For me, it's a function of the price, the inconvenience, but most of all, the fact that I no longer want to be stuck in the pattern of continuing to pay to upgrade software when Microsoft decide it is time for me to do so, now that their monopoly on software has been more or less demolished by the web.
ravn0s
Posted 12:42pm 05/1/11
my mind, she boggles


that explains quite a bit
Nerfington
Posted 12:56pm 05/1/11
I wasn't complaining that the MS execs make money, I was pointing out at the abnormal (richest person in the world) type money that they make, to highlight how much of a monopoly they have and how they are able to overcharge for their products because of it (if they didn't have the monopoly, they'd be selling closer to costs).

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.

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

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. :)
Enska
Posted 12:54pm 05/1/11
Because I don't need to teq. Pretty sure thats the third time I've said that now.
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
`ViPER`
Posted 01:16pm 05/1/11
now that their monopoly on software has been more or less demolished by the web.


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

continuing to pay to upgrade software when Microsoft decide it is time for me to do so


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.
trog
Posted 01:29pm 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
Right, so we're back to square one. Which is if you want to sell games, you make them for what operating system people are using. At the moment, only roughly 75% of their target market for PC games are available. Etc.
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.
The timing is irrelevant - whichever way you look at it and no matter how you break the numbers down, it is vendor lock-in of the most serious type. They have gotten away with it so far because there just hasn't been a viable alternative.

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 :)
Dazhel
Posted 01:55pm 05/1/11
This isn't the first DX10+ exclusive (Halo 2, Stormrise, Shattered Horizon, Just Cause 2), and all of these arguments are old.
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:
This isn't like Win98->XP where it was an evolutionary leap.


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.
Whoop
Posted 01:46pm 05/1/11
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.

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.

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.
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).

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.
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.
`ViPER`
Posted 01:51pm 05/1/11
(I just read this annoying article about them trying to 'take on' appletv and google in the home tv space, snore


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.

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 :)


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.
Nathan
Posted 02:05pm 05/1/11
+1 to what Dan said.

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.
TicMan
Posted 02:23pm 05/1/11
Have not read all of thread*

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).
Whoop
Posted 02:24pm 05/1/11
Maybe because Valve and Blizzard have a constant stream of money from Steam and Wow, and can afford to pay for the devs to work on different rendering engines.
Dazhel
Posted 02:25pm 05/1/11
What's interesting is that Dice are happy to give up 25% of potential customers


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.
Nathan
Posted 03:59pm 05/1/11
Sure, but those other platforms dont use DX11. They use DX9 (360) or OpenGL (PS3)

Makes it seem even crazier from that point of view.
trog
Posted 04:04pm 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.
I mean PC customers (see above)
ravn0s
Posted 04:28pm 05/1/11
doesnt bc2 have twice as many pc players than xbox and ps3 combined? i can see bf3 continuing the trend.

edit: actually i think it was a diff game and not bc2.

last edited by ravn0s at 16:28:25 05/Jan/11
teq
Posted 04:23pm 05/1/11
but most of all, the fact that I no longer want to be stuck in the pattern of continuing to pay to upgrade software when Microsoft decide it is time for me to do so


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.
Whoop
Posted 05:12pm 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.

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
SwissCM
Posted 05:20pm 05/1/11
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.

Press windows button, type the name of the program you want to launch, press enter.
teq
Posted 05:21pm 05/1/11
yeah that is basically 100% jacked from OSX, but it's damn awesome and I love it too
DirtyApe
Posted 05:28pm 05/1/11
I remember paying for my OS back in the day. But lucky for me my work gets me a copy and I don't pay a cent. Sucks to be you.
Mordecai
Posted 06:10pm 05/1/11
My answer is this: If you want to play BF3 upgrade if you haven't already. If you don't want to play it because they don't support your OS of course then don't complain. Its like an exclusive on one of the consoles, if you want to play it you have to own the console.
Mantra
Posted 06:43pm 05/1/11
I love the internets...

Please continue.
koopz
Posted 12:35am 06/1/11
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....


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
euphoria
Posted 01:10am 06/1/11
All this crapping on about 25% of the market being left out is ignoring the quite likely possibility that many of those 25% of users are people who buy casual games on Steam.
Enska
Posted 01:30am 06/1/11
I'm sorry but I'm more inclined to believe that those people (casual gamers) would be more likely to have win7 as opposed to an OS that hasn't been sold on a ready-made pc for a good 3-4 years now.
So basically, I see it vice-versa.
Spook
Posted 08:21am 06/1/11
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 :)


lolz
`ViPER`
Posted 09:31am 06/1/11
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


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.
koopz
Posted 09:55am 06/1/11
Viper the 8800 isn't a DX11 card. Your config is set to 'auto' for DX by default so you're running the game in DX9 dude.

I run an E8400 (3ghz Dual Core) with 4gb ram on Win 7, only difference is I use 32bit


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 ;)
`ViPER`
Posted 11:24am 06/1/11
Viper the 8800 isn't a DX11 card. Your config is set to 'auto' for DX by default so you're running the game in DX9 dude


Didnt even realise to be honest, I was going to upgrade the GC this year anyway, retire the 8800gt to the Media centre.
eski
Posted 12:11pm 06/1/11
I'm sorry but I'm more inclined to believe that those people (casual gamers) would be more likely to have win7 as opposed to an OS that hasn't been sold on a ready-made pc for a good 3-4 years now.
So basically, I see it vice-versa.


I really don't think so. My grandma bought her pc 10 years ago and probably wont ever upgrade.
Midda
Posted 12:38pm 06/1/11
Viper the 8800 isn't a DX11 card. Your config is set to 'auto' for DX by default so you're running the game in DX9 dude.

The 8800 is a DX10 card, so 'auto' would be it'd be running in DX10 mode.
Enska
Posted 12:42pm 06/1/11
She also probably wont ever have a steam acc eski, come on.

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.
eski
Posted 12:44pm 06/1/11
I still maintain that most mum and dad/casual gamers don't upgrade their hardware very often and are thus more likely to be running an older machine.
Enska
Posted 12:55pm 06/1/11
I understand that, But imo there's alot of people that are casual gamers, who dont upgrade at all but simply buy new pcs and will be playing on whatever OS the dude at the shop puts on it.
koopz
Posted 09:09pm 06/1/11
The 8800 is a DX10 card, so 'auto' would be it'd be running in DX10 mode.


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.
Spook
Posted 09:21pm 06/1/11
still, I had an old e6850.. it needed all the help it could get in BC2


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)
Crakaveli
Posted 10:13pm 06/1/11
I really don't think so. My grandma bought her pc 10 years ago and probably wont ever upgrade.
Your grandma must be spewin that battlefield 3 aint comin for xp.
Crakaveli
Posted 10:14pm 06/1/11

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 ;)
I get better frames in dx10 mode than i do in dx9 on my 4850. Just sayin'.
teq
Posted 10:34pm 06/1/11
basically, if you don't want to upgrade that's fine - no one is forcing you to do so
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
koopz
Posted 09:36am 07/1/11
i dont get this koops, my 6850 had no problems with bc2 (the demo anyway)


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 :)
Commenting has been locked for this item.
135 Comments
Show