Modern gaming - windows XP or windows 7?


Recommended Posts

Weird. It's running just fine here.

post-374862-0-54542500-1308854057.png

Again he was asking about modern gaming, not a game from 1997, but are there any others that are supposedly unplayable?

Isn't DosBox an emulator?

XP belong to pentium Era ,

we are in Core Era for god sake!!!!

My quadcore cpu runs great on XP :D

beside you would get Zero Software Support in the near future.

Microsoft said that last time, but extended the support again. As long as 50% of windows users and 80%+ of business are on XP, support will not cease. Just look at IE6.

Is Crysis 2 not a modern game? That was 9.0c only on release. Most popular games target consoles, thus there's little impetus to implement features that only a small minority can take advantage of.

Why are you so intent on holding on to the fact that Crysis is DX9 only? I can name 10 new games that support DX10/11 for every one you can say only supports DX9.

By the way, XP SP3 was released in 2008. That added many features. And Directx is updated on a monthly basis (including 9.0c).

What new features did SP3 add?

There's no guarantee of that. Why do you think Microsoft went to all the trouble of including an XP mode in some editions?

There are many reasons why they have XP Mode. Mainly to get people off the idea that they need XP namely for legacy software which is not what the OP asked for.

As long as XP has over 50% of Windows users, and businesses continue to use it, there will be support, including from Microsoft.

Wrong. Most new systems from OEMs do not include XP drivers let alone XP as an option. Support is dwindling. Also, Microsoft support for XP has officially ended for consumers as of 2009.

You can run DX10 on XP unofficially, but to be honest, there's little point at the moment because [game] support for it is limited.

Yay for workarounds. :rolleyes:

If you were going to get a gaming machine for today and the future... which OS would you pick?

I've been someone out of PC gaming for a while now, preferring to play older games on a Netbook that has served me well. However, it just isn't powerful enough to play some of the games that I'd like to play, such as the sequals to the X franchise and so I'm looking at picking up a new PC in the future with gaming in mind. And not just older titles, I'd like it to be powerful enough to run any game today.

This is largely a hardware issue, granted, but the OS itself will come into it. Is windows XP still supported on new games releases? A quick web search on Dungeon Siege 3 shows that game supports it (I'm fond of the original Dungeon Siege and still have that). Or do other forum members swear by Windows 7?

I actually still like playing Ghost Recon and on Steam it says only works on XP. I haven't tried in Windows 7, but that being said, if you REALLY like a lot of original games, then maybe best to stay with XP, but in general Win7 will be your better choice. You could also dual-boot, or if you have a lower-spec machine, put XP on it, and Win7 on your REAL gaming machine.

Weird. It's running just fine here.

post-374862-0-54542500-1308854057.png

Again he was asking about modern gaming, not a game from 1997, but are there any others that are supposedly unplayable?

Hey guess what, he mentioned moonstone, which is an old game that doesn't run natively in Windows 7, neither does dungeon keeper, strange that because both run NATIVELY in windows XP.

I mean it's odd because I've got deuterous running in windows xp too... Oh no wait, I don't, I've got it running on a program emulating functions and calls of an atari which is running on the host os, which isn't the host OS running it all, it's being interpreted on-the-fly, which is quite slow and sloppy.

Is Crysis 2 not a modern game? That was 9.0c only on release. Most popular games target consoles, thus there's little impetus to implement features that only a small minority can take advantage of.

Which also runs on Windows 7, meanwhile you're ignoring the games that are available now that do take advantage of the advanced features, along with ignoring anything that may come out down the road. (And as posted above, there's already one that's DX10 only.)

By the way, XP SP3 was released in 2008. That added many features. And Directx is updated on a monthly basis (including 9.0c).

Yes, as an MSDN subscriber I'm well aware of the release cycles. SP3 was released in 2008. XP itself was not. 2001. It's still XP. A service pack is a collection of patches. It's not a new OS. It's still version 5.1, or 5.2 if you're on x64/2K3.

There's no guarantee of that. Why do you think Microsoft went to all the trouble of including an XP mode in some editions?

XP mode is a virtual machine, and hardly suited for gaming. I've also yet to run into any game that doesn't run under 7 that did in XP.

As long as XP has over 50% of Windows users, and businesses continue to use it, there will be support, including from Microsoft.

Until 2014. Then there is no support from Microsoft. At all. And chances are, no third party support either. (Oh, and IE6 isn't supported either.) Be like begging them to write a driver for your new video card so it runs in Windows 95. Good luck with that.

You can run DX10 on XP unofficially, but to be honest, there's little point at the moment because [game] support for it is limited.

You mean the Alky Project? I don't think so. Not even stable or feature complete, let alone having a random third party messing with the guts of the OS? No thanks.

Isn't DosBox an emulator?

Yes it is. He's showing the game running on Windows 7. The native Windows build isn't that great, didn't even properly support Direct3D out of the box. What benefits are you going to achieve with the native Windows version? That's one example, I can fire up dozens of games I have installed right now from the same era that do work properly. Gimp your system for one relic of a game? That's absurd. And as he pointed out... 1997 isn't exactly modern gaming.

Hey guess what, he mentioned moonstone, which is an old game that doesn't run natively in Windows 7, neither does dungeon keeper, strange that because both run NATIVELY in windows XP.

Are you kidding me? Moonstone is a MSDOS game. DOSBox and be done with it, or is someone going to suggest Windows 95 next because hey, it runs on MSDOS for "modern" gaming too?

As long as XP has over 50% of Windows users, and businesses continue to use it, there will be support, including from Microsoft.

You can run DX10 on XP unofficially, but to be honest, there's little point at the moment because [game] support for it is limited.

do you know that upto 80% of bushiness are going to switch in year term (the thread is here somewhere btw)

beside XP marketshare is at 38% now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

more and more games going DX10+

making Crysis 2 Dx9 was slippy slop .......

expect the devs to cut DX9 support , soon enough

XP + Modern gaming = cannot compute

another example of no DX9/XP(ired)

Shattered horizon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Horizon

I'm pretty sure the total processing power of a modern computer compensates for some overhead which is all an emulator adds. :rolleyes:

Syndicate wars runs smoothy on a 500Mhz single core yet still lags in dosbox on a Q6700.

Hey guess what, he mentioned moonstone, which is an old game that doesn't run natively in Windows 7, neither does dungeon keeper, strange that because both run NATIVELY in windows XP.

Moonstone was released in 1991 for MS-DOS. DOSBox. Next?

What decade are you living in dude? :laugh:

I've got it installed in dosbox on linux and windows 7, on 640x480 graphics mode, it lags, not to mention there is a bug after a while where the mouse cursor freezes and you have to terminate dosbox.

I've got it installed in dosbox on linux and windows 7, on 640x480 graphics mode, it lags, not to mention there is a bug after a while where the mouse cursor freezes and you have to terminate dosbox.

Then throw on VirtualBox and MSDOS. Still doesn't mean anything for modern gaming, I don't know why people keep on throwing relics from the last century into the mix.

I've got it installed in dosbox on linux and windows 7, on 640x480 graphics mode, it lags, not to mention there is a bug after a while where the mouse cursor freezes and you have to terminate dosbox.

Boo hoo. What do I care if you want to live two decades in the past? Might as well use an OS to match. Whatever man. :laugh:

Then throw on VirtualBox and MSDOS. Still doesn't mean anything for modern gaming, I don't know why people keep on throwing relics from the last century into the mix.

their brain had bluescreen of death in 31/12/1999 11:59PM

they didn't reboot as of yet , so don't blame them

:rofl:

Boo hoo. What do I care if you want to live two decades in the past? Might as well use an OS to match. Whatever man. :laugh:

Hey, I've got a great idea that goes with your style, **** everyone not on 100Mbps broadband! They're living in the past, let's make it so all websites only work with 100Mbps+ connections and IPv6, sod anyone on slower broadband or 56K or those without IPv6... </s>

Hey, I've got a great idea that goes with your style, **** everyone not on 100Mbps broadband! They're living in the past, let's make it so all websites only work with 100Mbps+ connections and IPv6, sod anyone on slower broadband or 56K or those without IPv6... </s>

Except..no. Not even the country averaging the fastest broadband speeds reaches three quarters of 100Mbps. Pretty sure most PC users are using something newer than XP ;)

Hey, I've got a great idea that goes with your style, **** everyone not on 100Mbps broadband! They're living in the past, let's make it so all websites only work with 100Mbps+ connections and IPv6, sod anyone on slower broadband or 56K or those without IPv6... </s>

If you want to live in the past like Flawed then fine but don't expect everyone else to think the same. XP is a decade old, lacks support for more than 4GB of RAM (PAE is nothing more than a hack), lacks support for x64 processors (XP 64-bit supports practically no hardware let alone todays hardware), lacks DX10+ support (The Alky Project can seriously **** up your system) and completely lacks support for ALL of todays hardware.

So tell me, why bother recommending XP for a MODERN system for MODERN gaming?

Hey, I've got a great idea that goes with your style, **** everyone not on 100Mbps broadband! They're living in the past, let's make it so all websites only work with 100Mbps+ connections and IPv6, sod anyone on slower broadband or 56K or those without IPv6... </s>

Aside from being absurd (and a poor analogy) the old games still are playable under Windows 7. It's primarily the old old OLD MS-DOS stuff that needs emulation now, and frankly, so what? It still runs, and it's not like you're going to see something new come out down the road that has a "Requires MS-DOS 5" sticker on the box. Throw on the fact that some MS-DOS games will require DOSBox or a VM anyway, as if the game required a particular extended memory manager to run, it's guaranteed that it will not run under XP or 7. Ever.

The OP was asking about modern gaming, not which OS was the best for some old junk I found on a 5.25" while cleaning out the attic one mid-summer afternoon.

It's like saying in an old geezer voice: "Why won't this here 8-track fit in my new car"

Gee thanks for that, I still have some Aerosmith 8-tracks somewhere in storage *sniff*

You guys suggesting XP are just plain dumb. This isn't a question. Get Windows 7.

Except for the fact that he specifically mentions an older game . . .

If it runs then fine, use Win7, but some games just don't correctly. I suggest Win7 whenever possible, but in a few situations, it's just not the BEST solution.

Hey guess what, he mentioned moonstone, which is an old game that doesn't run natively in Windows 7

Except for the fact that he specifically mentions an older game . . .

I think some people need to re-read the thread; at no point did the OP say he still wants to play Moonstone, he was merely saying that having to make boot floppies for games in the 95 era was one of the drawbacks at the time...

*snip*

I'm a fan of Windows XP - the third OS that Microsoft really got right in my experience (the other two being Windows 95* and Windows 2000)

*snip*

*Messing about with config.sys and autoexec.bat and custom startup disks to get Moonstone - and others - working - excepted!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!