Just Cause for Upgrading to Vista, 7 for DirectX 10

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]The_Trutherizer[/nom]Hell's bells! I find it tasteless that most people are clamoring for DX10 goodness to be made standard now, when I've been hoping they would do that right from the start and it's way overdue now and I despair to think how much time it will take before DX11 becomes minimum spec.[/citation]

Hang on a second. Give the guys a chance. DX11 has only just come out and this game has most likely been in the planning and development for an excess or 2 years, maybe even 3. So I still say hats off to them and lets hope its a good game because that would be the best advert for DX10 and the future of DX11.

It will always take a fair amount of time (around 18 months) for developers to start really using the latest DX.. as there are so many issues to sort out in the background first. Its not a case of developers suffocating future development either as almost all developers stated that DX10 was a pig to utilize with the then current hardware. Lets hope they get it right with DX11 and then maybe, just maybe we'll see some games that will just not be able to be ruined for the console market.
 
This just goes to show that the people who write these game requirements are frickin' idiots. I'm not talking about DX10; but, the joke of an ATI 2600 compared with the minimum of an Nvidia 8800. Can we really take most of their requirements seriously with such a disparity? Did anyone who knows anything about hardware write that; or did the box designer pull that out of his arse? That's like saying you need at least a Phenom X3 720 from AMD, but oh, a Celeron 440 from Intel will work too. Maybe I'm too cynical; but, I am tired of all the B.S. from game companies. Microsoft wanted us to buy Vista to play Halo2, and the graphics in that were nothing DX9 couldn't chef up.

I like Windows 7 and am using it now. But has anyone kept track of all the stuff we've LOST along the way? I like using analog video capture in Windows Movie Maker. We lost that in Vista. Heck, we lost the whole Movie Maker app in Win 7 (yes, I know all about Windows Live MM etc). Don't be surprised if all the stuff we used to get for free becomes ad-hoc, ala carte, EXTRA COST, add-ins for the next version of window. Sorry to get off topic; but, DX10 game requirements?.....I bought that B.S. with Crysis, and yes, the sun's rays are prettier in DX10; but, I get 10 more fps playing the same game in good 'ole XP. I've had it with the treadmill of forced upgrades. Excuse me, I'm off to play freecell now.
 
[citation][nom]Ramar[/nom]Thank GOD. Yes, something like 40% of gamers are still on XP. That's because NOONE WILL FORCE THEM TO UPGRADE. Does noone remember the great games of yesteryear that forced an upgrade and pushed technology forward?[/citation]

That is different, things like forcing people to but a 3D Accelerator or a sound card improved games but that was the only option, there is nothing to stop DX10 being ported to XP except Microsoft's greed


[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]They could have decided to go the OpenGL way - that would allow DX10-like effects, on any OS.Moreover, there would have been no performance reduction on Linux+Wine...[/citation]

/Agree totally

Microsoft refusing to make version of DX10 for XP is simple greed (Tho I hear some ppl on the net have ported it so this game will be playable on XP anyway lol)

Don't forget when you talk about XP being outdated etc that for business use XP Pro is far superior to Vista Business or Windows 7 Pro so XP will still be with us for some time 😛
 
Atleast its a dx10 so we are sure it is no console port, and even supports dx10.1 tes way cool...

Looking forward to this :)
 
[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]sry to tell you but that`s quite dumb, you strugle with 2 windows OSs on your pc and on top of that you throw a linux one too ... talking about being unefficient, each time you need to do smth on your pc you`ll have to reboot. But what the hell sounds cool on the nets about having 3 OS.[/citation]
Thats not true. You mostly can just run windows 7 and use XP or XPmode in case of compatibility issues. And running linux for education/work purposes is not problem either.
I dont run linux on my home machine yet, because I dont realy need it but i would do so if applications and games I use run under linux.

I am working in IT, like to use windows 7 at home, but prefer to work(support) unix/linux systems more as they are more reliable and less troublesome for business applications then same applications running under windows.

Its about time for developers start using DX10/11 and get rid off dx9 for top titles. DX10 and 11 is almost same and require just minor changes (DX11 is just enhanced version of DX10 adding more functionality but having most of code backward compatible) opposite to DX9 that require separate code.

And as already said DX10 os and HW is there for years, most of new PCs sold in past 2-3 years have DX10 capable hardware (perhaps except some integrated solutions but none expect to play games on those).
 
[citation][nom]jamesedgeuk2000[/nom]Don't forget when you talk about XP being outdated etc that for business use XP Pro is far superior to Vista Business or Windows 7 Pro so XP will still be with us for some time[/citation]

Business do not upgrade regularly their OS, not because they do not like new OS but because it is usually too costly for them to upgrade all their computers and all software installed on them every few years.
At work (IT company) we are still using software only compatible with IE6 ... so we use IE6 !!! :-(
Not that IE6 is better but the company just do not want to switch to a new browser and have to pay big money to upgrade the other software.

 
agree with you keefasuz. how can they compare 8800 and 2600 in the minimum specs? also, i can bet someone will crack this to run on xp even before the game got released
 
so years after directx 10 is released, after directx 11 is mainstream to half the graphics market ... NOW they make directx 10 games?

So when should I expect my rotary phone modem?
 
it was time .... remember game like Swat 4?????? it needed XP to play .. i had to upgrade from my really stable Win 98 in order to play .... glad to hear that at least one game will start to not support XP
 
[citation][nom]weilin[/nom]It's interesting how they consider the 8800 to be equal to the 2600, Also, For recommended spec, they ask for are GTS 250... I wonder if they know that they may be stating basically the same chip twice...[/citation]
It's less about the power and more about the features. ATI's HD series had a lot of features built in that Nvidia didn't bother with until they were forced. And yes, I'm sure they're aware that they're stating the same chip twice, but the clueless consumers reading the back of the box aren't. If everyone was aware, they wouldn't have to bother putting sys req's on the back of the box in the first place.
 
I knew this would happen one day. But they can keep this lame game. Microbloat tried this crap when Vista first released and lied saying they could not put DX 10 into XP. Well the game sales quickly died for the DX 10 games that MS bought off to support DX 10 only and it has been a DX 9 love fiest ever since. They probably hid the fact XP ran DX 10 better than the bloated Vista OS.
Again, FU microbloat and your Swiss Cheese spyware OS.
 
I love this,
"Keyboard and mouse (Xbox 360 controller optional)"
This is just a hack port job with DX 10 jammed into it, I wonder how much Microsux paid them to this.
 
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]They could have decided to go the OpenGL way - that would allow DX10-like effects, on any OS.Moreover, there would have been no performance reduction on Linux+Wine...[/citation]
Right on, good point. Microsux would not like that and would have to spank the game company with lawyers and other underhanded techniques. MS is a convicted monopolist by the way.
 
[citation][nom]cloakster[/nom]Other than saying that an 8800 is equivalent to a HD 2600, i see nothing wrong with this.[/citation]

You misread the box, like several others posting here. They said that was the minimum requirement from AMD, not that it was equivalent to the 8800. If you remember, ATI was very late with dx10, and the only "lower" chips ATI made were the 2350 and 2400; both of which appear to be about half of what the 2600 was (and probably could not play a dx10 game worth a flip). You guys should think about it a bit more before jumping to conclusions.

it's pretty funny that people think a game developer would print something on their box indicating that one card is equivalent to another. I'll keep my eye out for Eidos to compare Ford and Honda on their next software package.
 
Meh, I'm going to upgrade for basically one game that I had no idea existed until just now. I got all my OS's on the cheap from my university so I have Vista on one desktop that's a little older, Vista came on my laptop, and then when I got around to building my major gaming PC, 7 wasn't out yet and I had a WinXP Pro disc just laying around. So weighing my options, free WinXp that is working wonderfully, or 150$ for a pretty upgrade with the ability to play "Just Cause 2" that doesn't LOOK much better than that 2.5 year old game that everyone likes to benchmark with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom