Nerd Whine DX10

I heard it doesn't support DX9. Seeing as i'm turning into a legacyfag, i'm shit outta luck.

I want to play this game but the game requires that I run Windows 7 or Vista. I'm not going to switch to a worse operating system just to run a game which will most likely run worse than it would if it were running on XP.

Windows 7 isn't worse than XP.

It sure is a lovely idea for developers to continue catering to idiots using a ~9 year old operating system. I hope more studios continue to drop support for DX9 (and thus XP), really.

Windows 7 is not worse than XP, but Holk already said that.

If it's much slower than XP on a computer with 2 gigs of ram and a 2.4 GHz dual core processor, it's worse. There is no reason why an operating system should run slowly on a computer of those specs. Am I supposed to buy a high end computer to run an operating system?

Look at the game. There's no reason for them to use Direct X 10. Even Crysis, which is still the most beautiful game, looks outstanding on Direct X 9. The difference is little.

You're also disregarding the fact that 58% of people still uses XP, and not because they can't afford it, but because they don't want it.

I think I agree with Irock today.

If it's much slower than XP on a computer with 2 gigs of ram and a 2.4 GHz dual core processor, it's worse.

While you're being rather vague with the processor there, it isn't much slower. Benchmarks done mid-2009 show very little difference in performance between XP and 7. In most of the tests, 7 is slightly, slightly slower. It's also faster in other tests. This slight difference in performance is well worth the added features you get in Windows 7. Going from 7 to XP is incredibly painful for me.

Am I supposed to buy a high end computer to run an operating system?

No, but you might want a decent computer if you want to play Just Cause 2. This sort of relates to a point I'll touch on last.

Look at the game. There's no reason for them to use Direct X 10. Even Crysis, which is still the most beautiful game, looks outstanding on Direct X 9. The difference is little.

It is not exactly possible to just look at a game and say it doesn't need DirectX 10. Using DX 10 or 11 doesn't suddenly mean your game is going to look photo-realistic. For example, you can't look at a DX11 game using tesselation and say, "this game doesn't look better than Crysis! It doesn't need DX11." The DirectX 10 version of Crysis had several features over the DX 9 version that I forget. People made mods of the game so that they could get the DX 10 features while playing the game with DX 9, but I don't think it really worked properly and used up more resources than vanilla DX 10 would.  But then you've got games that don't even need DX 10 and were mostly just trying to advertise the new API (Halo 2).

I also don't think Crysis is the most beautiful game.

You're also disregarding the fact that 58% of people still uses XP, and not because they can't afford it, but because they don't want it.

You're disregarding the fact that not all PC owners play games. Most enthusiasts (gamers) have made the move to Windows 7, excluding the rare user who once heard somewhere that Windows 7 is extremely slow compared to XP and so decided to hop on the bandwagon to try and look like a PC expert.

If it's much slower than XP on a computer with 2 gigs of ram and a 2.4 GHz dual core processor, it's worse.

While you're being rather vague with the processor there, it isn't much slower. Benchmarks done mid-2009 show very little difference in performance between XP and 7. In most of the tests, 7 is slightly, slightly slower. It's also faster in other tests. This slight difference in performance is well worth the added features you get in Windows 7. Going from 7 to XP is incredibly painful for me.

Windows 7 is much slower on my computer to the point where my experience is worse than it is on XP.

Am I supposed to buy a high end computer to run an operating system?

No, but you might want a decent computer if you want to play Just Cause 2. This sort of relates to a point I'll touch on last.

I have a decent computer. I can play most games on the highest settings.

Look at the game. There's no reason for them to use Direct X 10. Even Crysis, which is still the most beautiful game, looks outstanding on Direct X 9. The difference is little.

It is not exactly possible to just look at a game and say it doesn't need DirectX 10. Using DX 10 or 11 doesn't suddenly mean your game is going to look photo-realistic. For example, you can't look at a DX11 game using tesselation and say, "this game doesn't look better than Crysis! It doesn't need DX11." The DirectX 10 version of Crysis had several features over the DX 9 version that I forget. People made mods of the game so that they could get the DX 10 features while playing the game with DX 9, but I don't think it really worked properly and used up more resources than vanilla DX 10 would.  But then you've got games that don't even need DX 10 and were mostly just trying to advertise the new API (Halo 2).

What features? Things that impact gameplay?

You're also disregarding the fact that 58% of people still uses XP, and not because they can't afford it, but because they don't want it.

You're disregarding the fact that not all PC owners play games. Most enthusiasts (gamers) have made the move to Windows 7, excluding the rare user who once heard somewhere that Windows 7 is extremely slow compared to XP and so decided to hop on the bandwagon to try and look like a PC expert.

Really? Do you have any statistics?

I use XP because Windows 7 is much slower on my system than XP, which lessens my overall experience.

Windows 7 is much slower on my computer to the point where my experience is worse than it is on XP.

In most benchmarks, a significant difference in performance is not seen unless they're comparing the operating systems on Netbooks. Sort it out.

My friend is running Windows 7 on an old Athlon X2 4400+ with 4GB of RAM and he has, in his time with it since the RC, not noticed any difference in usability. He also plays many games on it at framerates that are at max 2FPS less than what they were on XP. In most cases, performance is identical.

I know several other people on similar setups (dual cores, 2GB-4GB) who find Windows 7 perfectly usable. Perhaps you should consider spending ~$50 on 2GB of RAM. It's very likely your weakest link here.

I have a decent computer. I can play most games on the highest settings.

Well then, running Windows 7 should be no problem for you at all. Should the OS be using too much RAM (it shouldn't be, since it scales to how much you have), you can disable some things to improve performance.  

What features? Things that impact gameplay?

Why would it effect gameplay? No, the additions effect the 'beauty' of the game.

Really? Do you have any statistics?

Nope. Do you have any statistics proving the majority of PC owners play games beyond Bejewelled or Plants versus Zombies?

All I've got is my time at /g/, /v/ and other forums. Most of the people at these places are using Windows 7. Anybody who isn't is very likely a:

...user who once heard somewhere that Windows 7 is extremely slow compared to XP and so decided to hop on the bandwagon to try and look like a PC expert.

I use XP because Windows 7 is much slower on my system than XP, which lessens my overall experience.

If that's the case, you probably wouldn't be able to play Just Cause 2 anyway.

Windows 7 is much slower on my computer to the point where my experience is worse than it is on XP.

In most benchmarks, a significant difference in performance is not seen unless they're comparing the operating systems on Netbooks. Sort it out.

My friend is running Windows 7 on an old Athlon X2 4400+ with 4GB of RAM and he has, in his time with it since the RC, not noticed any difference in usability. He also plays many games on it at framerates that are at max 2FPS less than what they were on XP. In most cases, performance is identical.

I don't care what any benchmarks say or what you say your friend's experience was. Windows 7 runs like shit on my computer.

I know several other people on similar setups (dual cores, 2GB-4GB) who find Windows 7 perfectly usable. Perhaps you should consider spending ~$50 on 2GB of RAM. It's very likely your weakest link here.

I should not have to max out my ram to run an operating system.

Well then, running Windows 7 should be no problem for you at all. Should the OS be using too much RAM (it shouldn't be, since it scales to how much you have), you can disable some things to improve performance.

But I do have problems with Windows 7.

I disabled all the ugly visual garbage I don't need and killed processes I didn't need. It ran just as bad.

Why would it effect gameplay? No, the additions effect the 'beauty' of the game.

So it is not necessary.

Nope. Do you have any statistics proving the majority of PC owners play games beyond Bejewelled or Plants versus Zombies?

Nope, but I have statistics that say 58% of computer users use Windows XP. That's the only real statistic in this, and that's all that matters.

All I've got is my time at /g/, /v/ and other forums. Most of the people at these places are using Windows 7.

I'm sure video game developers look at the people who come out and announce what operating system they have on /v/ to make decisions on what operating systems they want to support instead of using real data.

I use XP because Windows 7 is much slower on my system than XP, which lessens my overall experience.

If that's the case, you probably wouldn't be able to play Just Cause 2 anyway.

I can play Fallout 3 on the highest settings with huge texture mods, Borderlands on the highest settings, Sims 3 on highest settings, Flight Simulator X on pretty high settings, Crysis on medium settings, TF2 on highest settings, Half Life 2 on highest settings, Gmod on highest settings, and every other game I've never had issues with. Do you really believe I won't be able to run Just Cause 2? Even if I can't run it on highest settings, I could run it on some settings. Stop being dumb.

I suspect this game is likely like Halo 2 was; the DX10/Windows 6.x limit being artificial.

I played Halo 2 "vista" on XP

And regardless of PC support, if this game is also on consoles (remember, Xbox 360 and PS3 GPUs are DirectX 9 class GPUs) then I see no reason why it shouldn't support DX9 / XP.

I suspect this game is likely like Halo 2 was; the DX10/Windows 6.x limit being artificial.

I played Halo 2 "vista" on XP

Yes, I already said this was possible. No, I don't think Just Cause 2 uses none of the features of DX 10 and could work perfectly in DX 9 like Halo 2 could. I beat you to the punch here anyway

But then you've got games that don't even need DX 10 and were mostly just trying to advertise the new API (Halo 2).

And regardless of PC support, if this game is also on consoles (remember, Xbox 360 and PS3 GPUs are DirectX 9 class GPUs) then I see no reason why it shouldn't support DX9 / XP.

I don't know about the PS3, but I remember Microsoft going on and on about the 360 running an "advanced version" of DX 9, which had some of the features later added in DX 10. You're also missing the point of these APIs, too. They're basically a set of guidelines that GPU manufacturers follow that makes it easier for whatever game engine to communicate with the hardware in any PC. There are lots of PCs running lots of configurations, and so optimisation is next to impossible. Deviating from these APIs, with so many different GPUs and their corresponding builds is impossible.

That's not exactly true for a 360, which obviously runs with a single hardware setup for its entire lifetime. There's going to be a lot more optimisation possible and many more options available than what you would get while working on a PC game. Basically, you could get the DX 10 features into the game on 360 without much work. When it comes to PCs, it's not so simple.

I don't care what any benchmarks say or what you say your friend's experience was. Windows 7 runs like shit on my computer.

If it runs like shit, your computer is probably shit.

But I do have problems with Windows 7.

I disabled all the ugly visual garbage I don't need and killed processes I didn't need. It ran just as bad.

The point was, if you really could run games at max settings then running Windows 7 should be no problem. If you can't run Windows 7 without your computer falling into a heap, I doubt it could handle Just Cause 2.

Or any game on max settings.

So it is not necessary.

You are the one who went on about "beauty" being a benchmark here. DX 10 makes it easier for visual improvements to be made while using less resources. DX 11 made it easier yet again. It doesn't only make it easier to make the game prettier, though. It makes it easier to make the game all-round.

I really don't blame them for not wanting to port their game to an old API because some people refuse to give up their 9 year old operating system.

Nope, but I have statistics that say 58% of computer users use Windows XP. That's the only real statistic in this, and that's all that matters.

Except it doesn't matter unless you want to argue all PC owners would play Just Cause 2.

I am aware it's mostly anecdotal evidence taken from a small sample, but almost everybody on those boards has made the jump to Windows 7. I've also seen them make statements similar to me ("gamers are using the new operating system") but I've never really bothered to follow the discussion or see if any statistics were shown. They don't, nor do I imagine they have the hardware capable of playing games anyway.

Remember, there was a 5 year gap between XP and Vista. When Vista came out there was a lot of negative press and so many people chose not to adopt. That's a fair bit of time for the XP userbase. It's also a fair bit of time for their hardware to grow old.

Unfortunately, no recent surveys have been made to find what percentage of PC owners play games.

I'm sure video game developers look at the people who come out and announce what operating system they have on /v/ to make decisions on what operating systems they want to support instead of using real data.

I'm sure video game developers aren't so dense to think the PC userbase consists entirely of enthusiast gamers. I'm sure a video game developer is going to think, "If they're going to play our game, they must have a computer that isn't 9 years old. If they don't have a 9 year old computer, they're probably running Windows 7 (because it's just as fast and has many features over XP).

I can play Fallout 3 on the highest settings with huge texture mods, Borderlands on the highest settings, Sims 3 on highest settings, Flight Simulator X on pretty high settings, Crysis on medium settings, TF2 on highest settings, Half Life 2 on highest settings, Gmod on highest settings, and every other game I've never had issues with. Do you really believe I won't be able to run Just Cause 2? Even if I can't run it on highest settings, I could run it on some settings. Stop being dumb.

Most of the games you listed there are extremely easy to run, especially all things to do with HL2 and Fallout 3. If you were to play any of those games with DirectX 10 (Crysis), it would bog down your system a bit more.

However, the point I was trying to make was that if you could run these games on such settings you should have no problem running Windows 7. You can run CPU-intensive games (HL2) perfectly, and you can run GPU-intensive games (everything else) perfectly.

Either you were imagining the huge slowdown in Windows 7, or you can't play these games on max settings. There is some discrepancy here.

Chewey, you're an idiot. Windows 7 runs like shit on my computer and these games run perfectly fine. Windows 7 is shit. Stop telling me I'm wrong when I know from experience I'm right.

Windows 7 runs perfectly fine on computers worse than yours. Sort it out

This topic is boring now.

Windows 7 runs perfectly fine on computers worse than yours. Sort it out

No operating system runs "perfectly fine". I find that XP runs like shit on most computers when compared to other operating systems. But, XP does run better than both Vista and 7.

Man why am included in this. I don't give a shit what has what DirectX, I was just saying that I couldn't play the game a good 4 or 5 posts before BAAAWWW STOP USING OLD OS

You seem to have confused this issue. Replace BAWW STOP USING AN OLD OS with BAWW WINDOWS SEVEN IS SLOW.

Man

I really hate this forum :|

But you keep coming back and having the same argument over and over. It's not a crime to just say nothing.

It sure is a lovely idea for developers to continue catering to idiots using a ~9 year old operating system.

The PS3's GPU is essentially a 7900GTX, a DirectX 9 GPU.

As for Irock's Win 7 problems, that's probably something he's messed up or done wrong. 7 Runs quite smooth on much less powerful netbooks.

As for the memory "hogging", Windows 6.x uses free (free, not in use) memory for caching and prefetching. There's nothing wrong with that.

As for Irock's Win 7 problems, that's probably something he's messed up or done wrong. 7 Runs quite smooth on much less powerful netbooks.

No, it's like that for every Windows operating system. They run fine for a while but gradually become more slow, which is most evident on more mid range and low end computers. I defrag every so often and uninstall the things I don't need, but it's the same song and dance on every version of Windows I use, ever. Obviously other operating systems will eventually slow down, but nothing like Windows.

Windows is built on top of a pile of garbage. Its very foundation *is* garbage.

Spoiler for:

It sure is a lovely idea for developers to continue catering to idiots using a ~9 year old operating system. I hope more studios continue to drop support for DX9 (and thus XP), really.

That's absolutely stupid.

As for Irock's Win 7 problems, that's probably something he's messed up or done wrong. 7 Runs quite smooth on much less powerful netbooks.

No, it's like that for every Windows operating system. They run fine for a while but gradually become more slow, which is most evident on more mid range and low end computers. I defrag every so often and uninstall the things I don't need, but it's the same song and dance on every version of Windows I use, ever. Obviously other operating systems will eventually slow down, but nothing like Windows.

Windows is built on top of a pile of garbage. Its very foundation *is* garbage.

Spoiler for:

My XP install is over a year old now, and is as lightning fast as when I installed it. I notice nothing slower or more sluggish.

Lucky you.