Just Cause for Upgrading to Vista, 7 for DirectX 10

[ezz777]

[citation][nom]razor512[/nom]Why is it that professional apps are able to do this but microsoft cant do it with windows?[/citation]

Just a guess - as i'm not completely familiar with the feature set of your two versions of maya - but most professional apps don't go through the sort of code optimisation O/Ss would go through. Hence it takes a few release iterations to fully optimise. I know our company looks to release stable first - then improve performance in further releases. I doubt MS has as much scope for improvement in their OS kernels.

 

[randomizer]

And, in no way at all does Win7 limit personalization.

Correction: In no way at all does Win7 limit personalisation compared to XP. I wouldn't go as far as saying it doesn't limit personalisation at all.

 

[razor512]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Correction: In no way at all does Win7 limit personalisation compared to XP. I wouldn't go as far as saying it doesn't limit personalisation at all.[/citation]


microsoft got rid of the classic start menu, a menu that only takes a few kb of space, they could have easily left it in there while with windows xp, you can get either the vista look or windows 7 look through free 3rd party apps at the cost of system resources (but in vista and 7, the extra eye candy waste resources also)

for me, I like the classic windows 2000 style start menu, it is better as it makes use of the screen space I have. while in windows 7, it tries to take up only a small portion of the screen which requires you to do a lot of scrolling in order to find a program you are looking for, and not everyone likes using the search tool, it is just extra button presses.

in xp, with the windows 2000 start menu, I can have all of my programs show up in 1 view and the ones I use most often will show up first and if the app I want is not there, then I button to expand it and see every program in there, this is more efficient than having like a start menu with 80 program entries and you being limited to a 600-800px high and 200-300px wide bar and having to scroll through.

 

[Belardo]

600-800px high and 200-300px wide bar and having to scroll through

Just rename and re-organize the programs menu.... duh. Stick all internet programs in "internet" All games into a folder called "games", etc. In Win98, XP and Win7... my start menus is always on the small side.

Not hard to do. And I prefer the start menu in Win7 over XP.

 

[Guest]

what a bunch of MS tossers.
DX does not need to be upgraded.

 

[jezzarisky]

First of all those who haven't watch game play from Just Cause 2 and just assuming it's crap because the first one was, please check it out (it looks amazing!) DX10 and DX9 do look similar certainly but without the computers pushing new graphical technology there won't be much improvement from the 360 to whatever comes next. It's already done a number on the stagnation of good PC games, holding on to XP is in the same boat(for gaming reasons that is). As for OpenGL; 3.0 was a pretty big disappointment but I do agree with open source over microsoft most of the time.

 

[Guest]

Point taken but i feel more safe for me to be the first line of defence in front of attacks instead of my OS doing it for me, and if you are such a computer geek as you say you are i belive you`ll pass 1 year with a windows PC without AV and not get once a virus in your PC, i know you can do it because i did.

Yea, your right about being able to keep my own system safe regardless of what OS I'm running. I just like having a system running with a firewall and knowing very few people are actually out to get me. I really wonder what we'll all be using for operating systems 10 years from now. Maybe we'll see a Linux/Windows Hybrid OS that'll combine both kernels into a monolithic design with compatibility layers to provide backwards support.

 

[athreex]

[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]

lol..Dude at least drowned's threesomed OS computer is more efficient than you at spelling something that is not efficient. umm...you need to be more efficient at spelling: something not efficient is called inefficient, but apparently you're unefficient at this things. Also, you're still struggling to spell struggle instead that strugle of yours. Conclusion: build a multiple OS computer.

 

[techguy378]

[citation][nom]anamaniac[/nom]We've put DX10 on XP...[/citation]
Hacked or reverse engineered Windows system components will make your operating system unstable. DirectX 10 does NOT run on XP unmodified. On a non business computer there is no reason not to upgrade to the latest version of Windows the day it is released. Unlike XP, it's extremely rare for an application to crash Windows Vista or 7.

 

[bad_code]

[citation][nom]hairycat101[/nom]Were you excited for THIS game or A game that uses the high end graphics? Are you a JC fan? The first JC game sucks.[/citation]

Just something that would actually cater to PC gamers more and make use of the power that PC's have. Seems it is catering more to consoles though. Probably just another bad port to PCs again. Can't believe there is no multiplayer support.

 

[jfem]

[citation][nom]jgiron[/nom]get back in touch with reality, not everyone can afford the upgrade. I still run WinXP but I am happy to see new games supporting new technology and moving forward. Once my financial situation gets better I plan on the upgrade.[/citation]
I agree and no matter how many people vote this kind of comment as useless, they cannot deny the idea that more than 43 percent of gamers still use XP and that's the reason why this article is newsworthy.

 

[Belardo]

Just buy an xbox or PS3... then no need to buy a $400 graphics card.