Curse

Ephraim Floreaux · May 21, 2008, 10:37 PM // 22:37

Hello everyone, quick question.

I'm getting a laptop soon but I don't want the awful piece of crap that is Vista and instead want XP, which is fine but...

Since GW2 doesn't require DX10, does that mean I can go with my shiny beloved XP instead of the crap that is Vista?

Brianna · May 21, 2008, 10:46 PM // 22:46

Yep, you can use XP, just have to run the DX9 switch for GW2, will be just fine.

isamu kurosawa · May 21, 2008, 11:07 PM // 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

Yep, you can use XP, just have to run the DX9 switch for GW2, will be just fine.

And where did you get such information on a game that has yet to be released?

In all likelyhood due to the time gw2 entered development, along with anets intentions to make the game compatible on a majority of systems the game will most likely be deisgned for dx 9.0c anyway.

Brianna · May 21, 2008, 11:11 PM // 23:11

It's obvious.

GW2 will support DX10, but it will also be able to support DX9 for trouble shooting purposes and people with older computers.. I think somewhere Gaile even said herself it will support DX10.

Did I honestly have to explain that? You should already know how A-Net makes the game to be able to run on lower-spec systems, (Hence why GW1 still supports DX8).

Ephraim Floreaux · May 21, 2008, 11:13 PM // 23:13

Thanks for all the help.

Thank the Good Lord's little mercies I won't have to put up with Vista.

Rainbow Ftw · May 21, 2008, 11:58 PM // 23:58

Vista is fine if you have machine that can handle it.

Cyb3r · May 22, 2008, 12:05 AM // 00:05

vista is fine if you don't got the stuff that isn't decently supported period

Edge Martinez · May 22, 2008, 04:23 AM // 04:23

Vists pwns in my opinion, and I was very reluctant to get it.

Brianna · May 22, 2008, 04:24 AM // 04:24

I enjoy it on 64 bit as well, but to each their own.

Lord Sojar · May 22, 2008, 04:25 AM // 04:25

64bit vista with SP1 is fine. Don't be afraid of it.

isamu kurosawa · May 22, 2008, 12:25 PM // 12:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

It's obvious.

GW2 will support DX10, but it will also be able to support DX9 for trouble shooting purposes and people with older computers.. I think somewhere Gaile even said herself it will support DX10.

Did I honestly have to explain that? You should already know how A-Net makes the game to be able to run on lower-spec systems, (Hence why GW1 still supports DX8).

A majority of players will not have dx10 so there is no way the method of running the game on a pre vista machine will be to manually use a -dx switch. most people have trouble udnerstanding how to use -image or even -dx8. Making a switch an official method of running the game on an xp machine would be foolish.

Did I honestly have to explain that?

zamial · May 22, 2008, 01:43 PM // 13:43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ctX_10_support

Not to mention the countless Dev comments about this. I am to lazy to dig through the thousands of Gaile's posts to show you.

GW2 IS DX10 with backwards compatibility to DX9.

Also there are those of us here that really do like vista, vista is a superior OS. The only thing it does not let you do is pirate. Not to mention Windows7 Is due to launch next year.

I of the Main advantages Of the 64bit version of vista, is not so much JUST vista but when used in conjunction with Server 2008. Server 2008 addresses an issue that dates aaaaalllllll the way back to windows for work groups 3.31(the 1st server OS). With server 2003 R?-workgroups 3.31 the file transfer packet size HAS ALWAYS BEEN 10mb. Server 2008 addresses this by Increasing the packet size to 1Gb. Unfortunately all you vista haters will not be able to utilize this functionality as you will need vista 64 or a newer 64 OS in order to use this and a 1Gb Nic card.

cebalrai · May 22, 2008, 03:35 PM // 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ephraim Floreaux

Hello everyone, quick question.

I'm getting a laptop soon but I don't want the awful piece of crap that is Vista and instead want XP, which is fine but...

Since GW2 doesn't require DX10, does that mean I can go with my shiny beloved XP instead of the crap that is Vista?

What's ur beef with Vista?

Quaker · May 22, 2008, 03:49 PM // 15:49

As a Vista user, I'd say that some people can have problems with Vista. Most of these problems have to do with compatibility problems with older apps and devices. While I can see why people would want to stick with XP, this does not make Vista "a piece of crap" and there is really no need to justify wanting to keep Windows XP.

Quote:

A majority of players will not have dx10 so there is no way the method of running the game on a pre vista machine will be to manually use a -dx switch. most people have trouble udnerstanding how to use -image or even -dx8. Making a switch an official method of running the game on an xp machine would be foolish.

It's likely that any switch would be readily accessible under the Graphics settings, instead of a command line switch. Probably a check box that defaults to dx9.

One thing to keep aware of if you want to put XP on a laptop that comes with Vista - make sure you can get all the required drivers for XP. I recently tried to install XP on a Sony laptop (for a friend), but had to give up (ran out of time) because I couldn't find any sound drivers for it that weren't supplied by Sony and would only install under Vista (although, from the description, they may have worked in XP)

Kattar · May 22, 2008, 03:54 PM // 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

What's ur beef with Vista?

Same as everyone else's, I'd say.

Brianna · May 22, 2008, 04:26 PM // 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by isamu kurosawa

A majority of players will not have dx10 so there is no way the method of running the game on a pre vista machine will be to manually use a -dx switch. most people have trouble udnerstanding how to use -image or even -dx8. Making a switch an official method of running the game on an xp machine would be foolish.

Did I honestly have to explain that?

Err, suppose it detects what version of DirectX so you don't have to do that? Who knows, but it's already been proven now (Thanks zamial) that GW2 will have DX10, so I don't see what the problem is.

And, assuming A-Net knows what they are doing, the community will not have to piss around with switches, and such. Definitely speculation on how that will work, but like I said I'm sure they know what they are doing.

zamial · May 22, 2008, 08:09 PM // 20:09

To the nay sayers of Vista,

Vista has a large footprint, why do you expect that you can load it and run it on a xp machine? If ya want a Porsche buy a Porsche, do not expect a old '85 gremlin with a Porsche engine to run right, It is an unreal expectation.

Vista, more specifically Server 2008 in conjunction with the 64bit version of Vista, addresses an issue that most people have no clue about. Since Windows for Workgroups 3.31 up to Server 2003 R3, the packet transfer size has been 10Mb. With Server 2008 and Vista64 the transfer packet size is increased to 1Gb. Not to worry those of you that will never upgrade, Server 2008 also can detect if you are on a non-64bit Vista version or newer and will send you 10 Mb packets.

M$ has also made a company policy that they will only support the latest OS and the previous version. Historically they have granted a 6 month extension of this policy, so that corporations have the opportunity to "upgrade". After that point if you require any M$ support you will have to pay for each instance.

Next year Windows7 is scheduled to launch.

I suspect that Those of us that did upgrade to Vista will have an easier time adjusting to Windows7.

Vista also has way better security than Xp. To date the only people that have a legitimate gripe against Vista are the software, music and video pirates. Root kit stops piracy. Since you are a thief your gripe is null.

While I am not a fan of this it still aids in keeping people honest. I personally will never get rid of my XP machine but it has been stripped down and is no longer online.

I am moving into the future, if you put down the rocks and sticks to come along is truly irrelevant to me.

Good Luck.

Disclaimer:
This is not meant as a sales pitch or as I am a "fan boy" of M$. I actually have no respect or love for the Gate's empire. This is only here as information. Feel free to Quote this on other forum posts that are typically anti-Vista. BTW I am a network admin at a fortune 500 company.

Brianna · May 22, 2008, 08:48 PM // 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamial

To the nay sayers of Vista,

Vista has a large footprint, why do you expect that you can load it and run it on a xp machine? If ya want a Porsche buy a Porsche, do not expect a old '85 gremlin with a Porsche engine to run right, It is an unreal expectation.

Vista, more specifically Server 2008 in conjunction with the 64bit version of Vista, addresses an issue that most people have no clue about. Since Windows for Workgroups 3.31 up to Server 2003 R3, the packet transfer size has been 10Mb. With Server 2008 and Vista64 the transfer packet size is increased to 1Gb. Not to worry those of you that will never upgrade, Server 2008 also can detect if you are on a non-64bit Vista version or newer and will send you 10 Mb packets.

M$ has also made a company policy that they will only support the latest OS and the previous version. Historically they have granted a 6 month extension of this policy, so that corporations have the opportunity to "upgrade". After that point if you require any M$ support you will have to pay for each instance.

Next year Windows7 is scheduled to launch.

I suspect that Those of us that did upgrade to Vista will have an easier time adjusting to Windows7.

Vista also has way better security than Xp. To date the only people that have a legitimate gripe against Vista are the software, music and video pirates. Root kit stops piracy. Since you are a thief your gripe is null.

While I am not a fan of this it still aids in keeping people honest. I personally will never get rid of my XP machine but it has been stripped down and is no longer online.

I am moving into the future, if you put down the rocks and sticks to come along is truly irrelevant to me.

Good Luck.

Disclaimer:
This is not meant as a sales pitch or as I am a "fan boy" of M$. I actually have no respect or love for the Gate's empire. This is only here as information. Feel free to Quote this on other forum posts that are typically anti-Vista. BTW I am a network admin at a fortune 500 company.

Hmm I have to agree again, Vista 64 bit rocks. It's not Vista that is slow, it's people's machines, XP takes up less resources because it's older, time to go shopping people.

bhavv · May 22, 2008, 08:48 PM // 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

What's ur beef with Vista?

After his beef he ate some noobcake for dessert.

Abedeus · May 22, 2008, 08:56 PM // 20:56

Vista:
- Slow
- High requirements, offers nothing worth it
- The main advantage, Aero interface, was already in use on other PCs and can be used in XP
- Doesn't work with older machines, too old procs' and graphics
- A lot of existing ones don't work, cause there are no good drivers
- DOS things and epic games work worse than on XP
- The longer it works, the slower it gets
- Some xp games dont work too...
- Good programs don't have licenses under vista.

And that's it. Oh and that Vista's support ends in 2012, XP's in 2014. And Windows 7 comes out not-so-long-from-here. Vista is like a beta version of W7...

Everything and more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista