Playing Win10 games on Win7

[Alley Cat]

I meet the system requirements for "Sea of Thieves" on my custom built gaming desktop.  My video card has DX 11, listed as a requirement for the game.

 

But I want to continue using Windows 7, I had nothing but a crap experience with Win 8.1 then 10, on my laptop.  I really hate Win 10.

 

Why wouldn't it be possible to run SoT on my desktop?

Can I fool an installer than I am running Win 10 ?

 

[eddman]

What installer? This game is available through windows store only. There is no store on windows 7.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

As stated above...it requires Windows 10.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

yep, the reason for the Window 10 requirement is because it will only be available through the Windows 10 store, it will not be on steam or anything sadly

 

may i ask what it is about 10 that you don't like though?

 

There have been MANY improvements in the past couple build releases and it is becoming very solid. Even the UWP apps are becoming usable now. The Mail app actually syncs properly and runs smoothly (which i can't even say about office outlook) for example.

If it is simply the start menu you do not like there are several apps, some even free, that restore the Windows 7 style menu.

For Paid solution StartIsBack seems like the best to me (used it back on window 8 myself). It's pay-for but it's only $3

If you prefer a free solution Classic Shell can't be beat 

 

[Skiver Veteran]

Unfortunately, you can't run on older unsupported OS's and expect developers to work on backwards compatibility for older OS's, it would put dev costs through the roof!

[Yogurth]

4 minutes ago, Skiver said:

Unfortunately, you can't run on older unsupported OS's and expect developers to work on backwards compatibility for older OS's, it would put dev costs through the roof!

That isn't the reason here. Microsoft is a publisher and they are pushing the Store just like they did with all their new games since the Windows 10 release.

[Skiver Veteran]

2 minutes ago, Yogurth said:

That isn't the reason here. Microsoft is a publisher and they are pushing the Store just like they did with all their new games since the Windows 10 release.

So what you're saying is, the development path for all of their new games is to publish via their store? I'm pretty sure that's near enough exactly my point. Their dev standards is to publish via the store, in order to support older OS's like Win 7 then they'd either need to abandon that path which would also affect their ability to roll out fixes and patches as it's an existing medium that supports both their games and apps OR they'd need to also develop a completely different method of install/delivery.

 

 

[Yogurth]

16 minutes ago, Skiver said:

So what you're saying is, the development path for all of their new games is to publish via their store? I'm pretty sure that's near enough exactly my point. Their dev standards is to publish via the store, in order to support older OS's like Win 7 then they'd either need to abandon that path which would also affect their ability to roll out fixes and patches as it's an existing medium that supports both their games and apps OR they'd need to also develop a completely different method of install/delivery.

 

 

Compared to engine/assets/network development, which for most publishers are OS version agnostic, patch and install engine have insignificant development cost. Microsoft is simply pushing the Store via their games, not the underlying game tech.

[Skiver Veteran]

28 minutes ago, Yogurth said:

Compared to engine/assets/network development, which for most publishers are OS version agnostic, patch and install engine have insignificant development cost. Microsoft is simply pushing the Store via their games, not the underlying game tech.

It's still irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether it's 10% or 90% of the development cycle, it still counts as time and effort. If a game has more than one installation method then you effectively have to QA your product twice because you have to be sure that the install works and those assets, the engine etc all function correctly after install. 

 

The more variables you need to support whether that be install method, Operating System or whatever else the harder the development work actually is.

 

This is not something specific to Microsoft, it's the same for every dev team out there. They pick a standard and that's what's supported, the only difference is that MS have their own delivery method rather than you're typical EXE. If steam decided to change it's client to only support Win 8.1 and 10 and blocked anything earlier, would you be having the same argument?

[Yogurth]

56 minutes ago, Skiver said:

It's still irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether it's 10% or 90% of the development cycle, it still counts as time and effort. If a game has more than one installation method then you effectively have to QA your product twice because you have to be sure that the install works and those assets, the engine etc all function correctly after install. 

 

The more variables you need to support whether that be install method, Operating System or whatever else the harder the development work actually is.

 

This is not something specific to Microsoft, it's the same for every dev team out there. They pick a standard and that's what's supported, the only difference is that MS have their own delivery method rather than you're typical EXE. If steam decided to change it's client to only support Win 8.1 and 10 and blocked anything earlier, would you be having the same argument?

No, what You say is utterly irrelevant to the profit of the company, the larger the install base the larger the profit, plain and simple. Microsoft is cutting off 60% of revenue purposely, not because they don't like the money but because they want the Store to become a relevant player. We saw what happened to each and every Windows 10/Store exclusive game, all failed and Microsoft is still incapable of accepting the reality and are burning cash this way.

 

Valve is not run by idiots to lock themselves down out of the ~60% of the PC gaming market, nor are the developers not owned by Microsoft.

[Skiver Veteran]

52 minutes ago, Yogurth said:

No, what You say is utterly irrelevant to the profit of the company, the larger the install base the larger the profit, plain and simple. Microsoft is cutting off 60% of revenue purposely, not because they don't like the money but because they want the Store to become a relevant player. We saw what happened to each and every Windows 10/Store exclusive game, all failed and Microsoft is still incapable of accepting the reality and are burning cash this way.

 

Valve is not run by idiots to lock themselves down out of the ~60% of the PC gaming market, nor are the developers not owned by Microsoft.

Can't argue the logic about userbase, but I also don't blame MS for their choices, they have a development plan and to abandon it now 

 

I do not understand why so many people are running Win 7/8(.1), granted I'm only ever really using a computer at work so I don't know or understand any issues related to the gaming world but I cannot imagine it is bad enough to warrant not moving to it.

 

 

[Mando]

On 2/14/2018 at 8:06 PM, Alley Cat said:

Why wouldn't it be possible to run SoT on my desktop?

Because the makers  have stated it only supports W10, its their title, their choice mate.

 

Can I fool an installer than I am running Win 10 ?

No.

 

[Alley Cat]

On 2/14/2018 at 12:25 PM, Brandon H said:

yep, the reason for the Window 10 requirement is because it will only be available through the Windows 10 store, it will not be on steam or anything sadly

 

may i ask what it is about 10 that you don't like though?

 

There have been MANY improvements in the past couple build releases and it is becoming very solid. Even the UWP apps are becoming usable now. The Mail app actually syncs properly and runs smoothly (which i can't even say about office outlook) for example.

If it is simply the start menu you do not like there are several apps, some even free, that restore the Windows 7 style menu.

For Paid solution StartIsBack seems like the best to me (used it back on window 8 myself). It's pay-for but it's only $3

If you prefer a free solution Classic Shell can't be beat 

 

I do not like Live Tiles, some core part of Win 10 is making my laptop feel like a 486.  Launching anything can take upwards of 60 seconds to launch.  The Charms Bar pops up when I do not want it. Certain apps suddenly  get auto installed and I get notifications that is unwanted and was set to not show up.  Telemetry goes wild once in a while, uploading something back to Microsoft.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

13 hours ago, Alley Cat said:

I do not like Live Tiles, some core part of Win 10 is making my laptop feel like a 486.  Launching anything can take upwards of 60 seconds to launch.  The Charms Bar pops up when I do not want it. Certain apps suddenly  get auto installed and I get notifications that is unwanted and was set to not show up.  Telemetry goes wild once in a while, uploading something back to Microsoft.

a lot of that was windows 8. windows 10 doesn't have a charms bar. I'd recommend giving it a chance again, a lot has changed.

In the windows 10 start menu you can remove all live tiles if you want and just have the app list, it doesn't take up the full screen either; and again if you don't like that then there are always great start menu replacements like the ones i mentioned above.

 

system requirements for 10 are lower then even 7 so it runs on most machines great. app launching slower may have been true for you on 8 but that should not be the case on 10 as well I would think.

 

I have not experienced the telemetry issue on 10 but I do understand about apps auto installing; that only happens with a new build update though so it's not often enough to be annoying personally. 

[spaceelf]

On 2/16/2018 at 8:30 AM, Brandon H said:

app launching slower may have been true for you on 8 but that should not be the case on 10 as well I would think.

I could see it if people never defrag their HDs.  That's supposed to be 'automatic' in Windows but in my experience...not even close to good enough.

 

Honestly, slow HDs are the only real problem area I've had with win10, since the large updates really take way too long.