I read the first post and went "OM*G what the *beep*, laugh" :)
For me Windows XP is fine. I've had it since 2002 when I bought the computer and I've upgraded the hardware a few times but never the operating system, other than installing Linux.
Yeah I am not the guy who goes after the latest fashion trends. I am not a sheep who follows all the trends. The System will eventually make it unbearable for me to use Windows XP and then I will have to upgrade but I try to avoid upgrading as much as I can. Yeah I don't play the latest games and this hardware probably can't, if we talk about the shiniest first-person-shooters out there. That's a fair point, but one thing you need to understand is that a lot of people don't need the latest shiny thing, and it's totally fine so you should absolutely not get upset because of that. The first post sounds like the guy is a bit upset about this and that caused a bit of a WT* reaction here, with some laughter.
I think what you will do with this really depends on what kind of games you are going to create. Do you have a budget of millions of dollars and a team of many people? Or are you a lone developer who wishes to some day get something actually done? If you are the latter, then you don't have to worry about people not using the latest hardware and operating system at all. You have other worries like how are you going to finish that game and still have some life left after that.
Create the cutting-edge game all you want but also let me do whatever I want to do with my computer and operating system. If I fall behind the trends then that ought to be my "problem" and not yours :)
In other words do not try to place some "blame" on me - I will take none of it :) and will also consider you a bit rude for trying to put some blame on me :)
[Edited by - reptor on October 18, 2010 5:33:57 PM]
Windows XP: Is it dead yet?
A few days ago I worked on an XP machine again. Nothing fancy, but Firefox worked really well (videos and such), so did office and rest of stuff. So I open the task manager...
68MB memory used out of 1 gigabyte total, dual core 1800MHz CPU. The 7 I use most takes 1.7GB just to boot.
Point being, for everything except AAA quad-SLI OC DDR5 GPU-based epeen boasting, the machine above is just fine.
So now the question becomes, how difficult is it to create something that is worthy of such insane next-gen beast?
Because if it's just about burning cycles, why not use Flash and be done in a fraction of time.
68MB memory used out of 1 gigabyte total, dual core 1800MHz CPU. The 7 I use most takes 1.7GB just to boot.
Point being, for everything except AAA quad-SLI OC DDR5 GPU-based epeen boasting, the machine above is just fine.
So now the question becomes, how difficult is it to create something that is worthy of such insane next-gen beast?
Because if it's just about burning cycles, why not use Flash and be done in a fraction of time.
Quote:Original post by Antheus
A few days ago I worked on an XP machine again. Nothing fancy, but Firefox worked really well (videos and such), so did office and rest of stuff. So I open the task manager...
68MB memory used out of 1 gigabyte total, dual core 1800MHz CPU. The 7 I use most takes 1.7GB just to boot.
You know how modern operating systems work probably so you're probably trying to make a cheap point. The idea is to use RAM as a cache. So if you have 4 GB expect to use 2 GB all the time. Have 2 GB? Expect at least 1 GB allocated.
My laptop has 2 VS2010 instances, FF 4b6 (30 tabs), Adobe Fireworks and a few other programs and I'm at 1.16/2 GB of RAM.
Quote:Original post by EngrChris via IRC
<Sirisian> EngrChris, How much RAM do you have and how much is being used?
<EngrChris> I have 12gb
<EngrChris> Right now I'm using 2.7gb
<Sirisian> Do you have much running?
<EngrChris> folding at home, ff4b, xchat
Newer isn't always better.
One of the games I play a lot, Mount & Blade: Warband,(admittedly far from cutting edge) still has a DirectX7 mode, which I use all the time because it gives me about 2x the framerate that the DirectX9 mode does. So it doesn't look quite as shiny, it's good enough, and the additional speed makes the game far more playable.
One of the games I play a lot, Mount & Blade: Warband,(admittedly far from cutting edge) still has a DirectX7 mode, which I use all the time because it gives me about 2x the framerate that the DirectX9 mode does. So it doesn't look quite as shiny, it's good enough, and the additional speed makes the game far more playable.
Quote:Original post by braindigitalis
My question of course is, when will XP finally be dead and buried in your own opinions, and have you already started developing in anticipation for its demise? Do you already use functions of directx 10 and above exclusively for indie game development, or even for professional game development?
XP will live on for several more years in many environments. You can still find Windows 2000 and even Windows 98/95 if you look hard enough. The gamer environment is not one of them, at least directly. Many games require XP mode, which is free with Windows 7.
Don't let this hold you back on games. As the Valve OS study points out, gamers are updating and it is a dying breed. Target whatever operating system you want.
If you have a very broad audience and you want maximum compatibility (eg: The Sims, Peggle, other casual games) then you probably ought to keep XP compatibility for a few more years. When writing your own games, or writing games targeting more hardcore gamers, you can safely assume newer systems.
Quote:Original post by SirisianNot entirely a cheap point, though. Cache the way you describe it is how Windows XP works as well. In everyday use, my Windows XP system has 2.5 to 2.8 GB of "system cache" once a few programs have been run and a few files have been accessed. This is of course "free" memory. It is only used as page cache rather than being unused.Quote:Original post by Antheus
68MB memory used out of 1 gigabyte total, dual core 1800MHz CPU. The 7 I use most takes 1.7GB just to boot.
You know how modern operating systems work probably so you're probably trying to make a cheap point. The idea is to use RAM as a cache. So if you have 4 GB expect to use 2 GB all the time. Have 2 GB? Expect at least 1 GB allocated.
The cache in XP is far from being optimal in performance, but it's not that it isn't existing.
Windows 7 on the other hand, works much more like Adobe Reader Speed Launcher or Office speed launcher in that it proactively loads a lot of crap whether you need it or not. Which would generally be a good thing for many users, if it was somewhat less "smart".
However, Windows is of course far too intelligent and you as user are far too stupid to decide what you need. Which means Windows has to decide for you, and so you may quite possibly end up loading a gigabyte of crap that you never use, and it might quite possibly purge a file that you want to access again the next minute to make room for some crap that Windows deems more important (such as Windows Live Uploader or Windows Media Player).
Quote:Original post by RycrossI know this misconception is mostly Microsoft's fault, but I really wish it would die. You can use DirectX 11 on DirectX 10 GPUs. DirectX 11 has the concept of feature levels. When building your device, you simply set the feature level to D3D10_FEATURE_LEVEL_10_0, and then avoid using DirectX 11 features.
Ahh ok. I change my vote then. It is not too soon to be moving to DX11. =)
Quote:Original post by phantomLoads and loads of people use XP and in many areas this will probably be the same for years... look at how IE6 clings on when even MS want it to die.Quote:Original post by y2kiah
Seriously though, give it a few more years and market share will largely shift away from XP.
If you target the more 'hard core' gamers then XP is already in a minority; as per the last Steam Hardware Survey Vista and Win7 hold approx 66% of the market and growing nicely.
If you were starting a game today, didn't plan to bring it out for at least a year and weren't targeting "casual gamers" then I would say you would be foolish to use anything but the DX11 API on Windows.
But you need to look at your intended demographic and see what they use. The fact loads of grannies are still on XP probably doesn't matter - it depends if you are writing a casual game or something aimed at any kind of gamer.
My gut instinct would be to ditch XP support unless you want this to be something people will install on their work PCs to play at lunchtime.
Quote:Original post by samothIsn't the point it loads the 'crap' it knows you frequently use, adapting to what it can reasonably guess you might do?
However, Windows is of course far too intelligent and you as user are far too stupid to decide what you need. Which means Windows has to decide for you, and so you may quite possibly end up loading a gigabyte of crap that you never use, and it might quite possibly purge a file that you want to access again the next minute to make room for some crap that Windows deems more important (such as Windows Live Uploader or Windows Media Player).
And, those resources would be ditched when something you explicitly want to run needs them? Or are you only complaining about boot-up times?
Someone said it here before - Support for DX9 won't disappear even though most gamers today have Vista or Win7. Studios won't remove support for DX9 until XP is really dead for fear they might lose a large *potential" user-base.
Games can find their way to people that are not hardcore gamers and ride the hardware upgrade train like crazy.
Another point - Although I have quite the respect for Valve, I take whatever they say with a grain of salt.
You can't really trust a company that at one point says they basically hate Sony and its platform (PS3) while in this day and age they decide to adopt it and develop for it, sharing and coordinating with Sony.
Games can find their way to people that are not hardcore gamers and ride the hardware upgrade train like crazy.
Another point - Although I have quite the respect for Valve, I take whatever they say with a grain of salt.
You can't really trust a company that at one point says they basically hate Sony and its platform (PS3) while in this day and age they decide to adopt it and develop for it, sharing and coordinating with Sony.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
