These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Who still uses Windows XP?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Oxandrolone
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2013-03-10 22:14:52 UTC
For reels people still use XP, its 12 years old ffs.

Living in the dark ages painting pictures on the inside of your caves guys
Lanthanusa
Surfers of the Apocalypse
#102 - 2013-03-11 00:38:38 UTC
Send me $$$$ and i will buy everything you want ,hell i will dual boot in 7 and 8 !Until then i will use my old pc with XP Lol
Galenwade
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2013-03-11 03:15:21 UTC

Windows 8 on my main machine

Windows 7 on the other gaming computer

Windows sever 2011 on the media

windows XP on 1 laptop

Windows vista on the other

and i found my copy of windows XP home and windows 98 ...i just need to build them a home Smile
Setaceous
Nexus Prima
#104 - 2013-03-11 03:30:40 UTC
Galenwade wrote:

Windows 8 on my main machine

Windows 7 on the other gaming computer

Windows sever 2011 on the media

windows XP on 1 laptop

Windows vista on the other

and i found my copy of windows XP home and windows 98 ...i just need to build them a home Smile


I found a copy of 98SE in the office today. Still attached to the book, both still in the wrapper with the unused key attached.......
Spurty
#105 - 2013-03-11 03:39:44 UTC
Why does anyone care about XP?

Game companies have no business caring.

If a new tech appears that doesn't work on XP but pushes the game forwards 10 years in innovation, it'll be unsupported faster than you can say "XP was first distributed on floppy disks. What's a floppy disk?"

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Mistress Motion
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#106 - 2013-03-11 04:03:53 UTC
One sure reason is the same as in Directx versions. If you compare Dx8 -> Dx9 update, i don't think anyone could even dream of what kind of graphics you can make with directx9 nowadays, the difference between them is enormous. Then you start looking at the visual difference in today's dx9 and dx11 games... Well, it's really not that big in the end.

Something similar in for example 16xAA settings, how many people really need that much edge smoothing when they play in 1920x1080 in some 22" screen? That's why budget gfx cards still sell pretty well, as people don't want to spend $400 for a new card which will be "old" in a year anyway. I'm talking about those hordes of "casual" players who are just happy to play their games in barely 40-50fps in medium settings (like me, though Eve runs max 200+fps on this oldish rig).

So, compare XP and Win7, other than DX11, there is not really that much difference for people who watch few movies and play some not-so-new game for 1h/day. XP is rock solid and fast, and everyone read about the problem child Vista when it came. So much of the people decided not to upgrade if it's not absolutely necessary.

I still use XP in my home studio rig, mostly because the old Lexicon audio interface has so horrible win7/x64 drivers, and because of the huge pile of (free) audio plugins only have 32-bit versions. And it's working flawlessly.
Galenwade
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2013-03-11 04:39:48 UTC
Spurty wrote:
Why does anyone care about XP?

Game companies have no business caring.

If a new tech appears that doesn't work on XP but pushes the game forwards 10 years in innovation, it'll be unsupported faster than you can say "XP was first distributed on floppy disks. What's a floppy disk?"



Game companies don't care about graphics they care about sales .
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2013-03-11 04:55:55 UTC
Vicata Heth wrote:
Please only reply to this thread if you use Windows XP as your primary operating system and do not have a pc with Windows Vista or later.

Edit: Considering CCP would have the best access to information like this, it would be nice if they released some statistics about the operating systems the player base uses. It would help 3rd party developers figure out which technologies they can use based on the operating systems the technology supports, and how many EvE players are using operating systems that aren't supported by their preferred technology.


My mom still uses windows xp and this is true story Shocked
Setaceous
Nexus Prima
#109 - 2013-03-11 07:06:18 UTC
Spurty wrote:
Why does anyone care about XP?

Game companies have no business caring.

If a new tech appears that doesn't work on XP but pushes the game forwards 10 years in innovation, it'll be unsupported faster than you can say "XP was first distributed on floppy disks. What's a floppy disk?"

Game companies don't care about XP. They care about customers. Specifically the retention thereof. You can blame XPs failure to die in the world of the private consumers completely on the commercial consumers. If not for them, XP support should have ended in 2010.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#110 - 2013-03-11 09:45:39 UTC
Noriko Mai wrote:
XP here only for games. Main system is Linux. I'll never upgrade to Vista or whatever. If support for XP ends, my only choice will be Linux with ****** graphic settings in EVE CryCryCry


Well there's your problem. Someone probably replied to this already, but I think people simply sticks to XP because they have no clue whatsoever how insanely much better Windows 7 and 8 are.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Kery Nysell
#111 - 2013-03-11 09:52:49 UTC
Read a lot about framerates in the high 60's or even above 200 in this thread ...

You know what's funny ?

The human eye cannot see more than 24 frames per second ... everything above that is basically wasted, computing power used for no actual difference, because your brain simpy cannot process so much images in a single second ...

That's why my "old' GeForce 210 on my old computer with it's framerate of (on average) 25 is largely good enough Bear

...
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#112 - 2013-03-11 09:59:17 UTC
Kery Nysell wrote:
Read a lot about framerates in the high 60's or even above 200 in this thread ...

You know what's funny ?

The human eye cannot see more than 24 frames per second ... everything above that is basically wasted, computing power used for no actual difference, because your brain simpy cannot process so much images in a single second ...

That's why my "old' GeForce 210 on my old computer with it's framerate of (on average) 25 is largely good enough Bear


Your eye may not be able to but I can very easily distinguish between 30 and 60.

PS the 24 fps thing is a myth.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#113 - 2013-03-11 10:06:12 UTC
Kery Nysell wrote:
Read a lot about framerates in the high 60's or even above 200 in this thread ...

You know what's funny ?

The human eye cannot see more than 24 frames per second ... everything above that is basically wasted, computing power used for no actual difference, because your brain simpy cannot process so much images in a single second ...

That's why my "old' GeForce 210 on my old computer with it's framerate of (on average) 25 is largely good enough Bear

Ouch, someone needs to check their facts. Myth based on the fact that standard TV frame rate doesn't seem to stutter. But this is because of motion blur. Try capping the frame rate in CS 1.6 to 25 FPS. You will have a bad time playing I can tell you. Even at 50 FPS you can still see the stutter. (At least I can)

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#114 - 2013-03-11 13:15:23 UTC
Jacob Holland wrote:
XP SP3 on my main machine.

Unfortunately my laptop is incapable of running XP and therefore is an unstable pile of crap on 7.



Weird, what'd you do that broke it?

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#115 - 2013-03-11 14:22:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Kery Nysell wrote:
Read a lot about framerates in the high 60's or even above 200 in this thread ...

You know what's funny ?

The human eye cannot see more than 24 frames per second ... everything above that is basically wasted, computing power used for no actual difference, because your brain simpy cannot process so much images in a single second ...

That's why my "old' GeForce 210 on my old computer with it's framerate of (on average) 25 is largely good enough Bear

Ouch, someone needs to check their facts. Myth based on the fact that standard TV frame rate doesn't seem to stutter. But this is because of motion blur. Try capping the frame rate in CS 1.6 to 25 FPS. You will have a bad time playing I can tell you. Even at 50 FPS you can still see the stutter. (At least I can)



Fun fact, TVs frame rate is based off, historically, a multiple of the mains electrical frequency. This is to prevent flickers from the studio lighting.

They have less blur than most movies (excluding ones in HFR, like the Hobbit), but people have been 'trained' to think they look worse.


For /most/ people, 60fps is about the max you can, realistically, get on a computer.

That's because most LCD monitors refresh at 60 hertz (60 times a second). Before someone brings it up, yes, some monitors refresh faster. But they're more expensive than the bog standard ones you get.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#116 - 2013-03-11 18:59:16 UTC
only morons still use XP. W7 is the best edition of windows pretty much ever.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Othran
Route One
#117 - 2013-03-11 19:11:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Othran
Denidil wrote:
only morons still use XP. W7 is the best edition of windows pretty much ever.


Heh and only idiots generalise in the way you just did Roll

Windows XP support ends 8 April 2014. I'm sure CCP are well aware of that date and will be looking to change the minimum OS requirements for Eve soon after.

Edit - oh and in case you're wondering XP's share of (Windows) desktops (worldwide) is 39%. Windows 7 is still only 44%.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#118 - 2013-03-11 19:44:02 UTC
Emiko P'eng wrote:
I still use XP both at home & work.

I do have a Windows 7 PC which according to the 'Windows experience' thing it is supposedly 7.4

But UAC drove me mad after 10 minutes, plus none of the programmes I use at work run in any compatibility mode or otherwise.

Even Microsoft Application Compatibility Toolkit 5.6 was a pile of crock at trying to sort out the compatibility problems.

So it booted in 30 seconds due to a SSD.

But Playing with 2 EVE accounts was no different apart from the infuriating UAC

So currently the Windows 7 PC is stuffed in the back room awaiting disposal!

And I am back on my AMD64 4600+ with XP



you do know you can type UAC in the start menu and deactivate it right?

Compatibility wise, whatever anyone says here its bullshit, there is yet not a single piece of software I cannot run on win 7, even OLD DOS stuff runs fine with DOSBOX
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#119 - 2013-03-11 19:59:04 UTC
Kery Nysell wrote:
Read a lot about framerates in the high 60's or even above 200 in this thread ...

You know what's funny ?

The human eye cannot see more than 24 frames per second ... everything above that is basically wasted, computing power used for no actual difference, because your brain simpy cannot process so much images in a single second ...

That's why my "old' GeForce 210 on my old computer with it's framerate of (on average) 25 is largely good enough Bear



Ahem... bullshit

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Given a human eye has several cones and this are not synchronized the real eye FPS as a whole its very easily above 100 fps.

Personally I can very easily distinguish between 60fps and 120 fps.

Also Plasma TVs in a sense run at 600fps, and given their larger size that means they do require a larger fps.

on one more note, I want to see what your pc running at max graphics at 1080p in jita or alike, and I bet it runs very "smooth" in the CQ... (not like many people run that crap anyway tho)
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#120 - 2013-03-11 20:08:50 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
Kery Nysell wrote:
Read a lot about framerates in the high 60's or even above 200 in this thread ...

You know what's funny ?

The human eye cannot see more than 24 frames per second ... everything above that is basically wasted, computing power used for no actual difference, because your brain simpy cannot process so much images in a single second ...

That's why my "old' GeForce 210 on my old computer with it's framerate of (on average) 25 is largely good enough Bear



Ahem... bullshit

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Given a human eye has several cones and this are not synchronized the real eye FPS as a whole its very easily above 100 fps.

Personally I can very easily distinguish between 60fps and 120 fps.

Also Plasma TVs in a sense run at 600fps, and given their larger size that means they do require a larger fps.

on one more note, I want to see what your pc running at max graphics at 1080p in jita or alike, and I bet it runs very "smooth" in the CQ... (not like many people run that crap anyway tho)


the old "how many frames can you see" argument.

truth is.. both parties are right

most people cannot see directly above about 50-70hz depending on the person, but with computer games you can still perceive the difference because the physics engine has the properties of a Riemann sum where N=FPS and the human eye can detect arc errors as minor as 1 arcsecond.

So can we stop the pissing context between the two camps with: You're both right and both wrong. Now shaddap :P

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.