News Just Cause 2 won't run on XP

The incredible improvements in the processing power of modern graphics cards, other PC hardware and drivers now, compared to when XP was first released, totally cancel out any valid reason to remain on XP even if you manage to get 2 extra frames per second in a particular game in XP.

 

The difference can be more than 2 frames - e.g. in this test XP managed 53 frames in Crysis compared to 48 for Vista/Win 7.

However saying that more powerful hardware justifies more sluggish software makes as much sense as hiring a builder to extend your house and then an arsonist to burn it down.

 

I'm still running XP which means I won't be buying this game, even though i loved the original. I still can't see enough reason to upgrade OS. When it's time to upgrade the hardware - sure. But for the time being there is nothing that Win 7 can offer me that i don't get with XP.

 

The modern 'sluggish' software is 'sluggish' for a reason. It contains more features (including kernel security) that benefit the user.

It's like saying you won't buy a modern cellphone because it's operating system is 20 times bulkier, it requires more RAM, and the phone boots 20 times slower than a cellphone from 15 years ago. Even if you are going to benefit from all the modern applications and features (including the eye candy) that were not available in the past.

You wouldn't run a modern cellphone OS on 10+ year old hardware.

The objection about requiring more RAM and other hardware for newer PC operating systems is also backwards.

 

how about a little bit newer test that has 7 Vista and XP basically even. http://www.hardwareheaven.com/articles.php?articleid=137&pageid=10

 

I understand the desire of people like AstralWanderer to enjoy the simplicity and efficiency of W98 etc, particularly as he seems very knowledgeable about tweaking and controlling the OS way past the knowledge of 99% of Windows users.

The rest of us - i.e., the buying majority of the market, to whom OS makers cater - continue to appreciate the increased ease of use afforded by updated GUIs and the increased stability of 7 over Vista in particular. There are a whole host of other reasons I prefer 7 over XP and I'd add that increased hardware capability entirely justifies more taxing software - the entire reason I keep my computer upgraded is so that it can handle the increased demands of software. It's the same with my phone - my first Nokia could barely handle Snake II, but my iPhone runs an OS (technically a POS) that can run many hundreds of thousands of custom-designed programs that can do a million things the Nokia could not. In much the same way, for the average user - maybe not for the author of W98 For Dummies - Windows 7 can do many things W98 cannot. For sure, if software was exhaustively re-coded and optimized, maybe I wouldn't need hardware specification increases. But that would increase the cost of the software in comparison to the reduced cost of hardware. I'm just about happy with the balance as it is.

It's no surprise that game makers go where the money is, and if you won't buy a new OS, what reason do they have to believe you'll buy their games?

 

It will take a much better game than just cause to get me to switch from xp although eventually
I will but am in no hurry. Just for the record the 25 million or so steam accts the biggest percentage still use xp so nobody else is in a hurry to jump to win7 either.

 

Except of course for the fact that Windows 7 is the only OS in existance that properly supports both SSDs and gaming.

About windows 7 using some more ressources than windows xp (or hell, since some people mentioned it windows 98), who cares? ever looked at how much faster hw got in the last 10 years?

 

Oh well, I guess that'll be one thing you can't do on XP that you can do on 7.

To add to the... oh yes... no things you previously couldn't do on XP that you can do on 7.

 

Times change, tech changes, OS's change that's just the way it is. It's an amazing feat that XP is still going so strong (more thanks to Vista's lacklustre take up)

It's inevitable more and more games wont be compatible with XP as we move forward, although I think it will be in slow progressions, as XP has such a high user base still.

 

True enough, but is one game I am interested in worth AU$470 (since realistically that's what the OS would cost me)?
No. Not even close.
Don't get me wrong, I know the industry has to move forward, a lot of the advances we have seen wouldn't have been possible if everything still had to run under Windows 95, but for me as a user, I have not seen enough reason to splash out such a large sum of money when I am happy with the current OS. Once my hardware is outdated and I need to upgrade, sure I will defnately move on but for the time being XP suits my needs, and if that means I don't play Just Cause 2 until 1-2 years down the track, it won't be that much of a loss to me.

 

Actually, i dont care about the cost, it just the way it is. Ive gone from xp to Vista 64-bit and im happy about it, after a bad start vista can do the trick for you, or it did it for me anyway.
What i dont understand is why some people upgrade their entire system spending a lot of money on topnotch hardware and still refuse to change OS, it dosent cost that much extra anyway when youre in the spending corner.

OS will surely have a much shorther lifetime than xp had thats a fact, and i dont care if i have to spend money on a new OS every 3-5 years, its just development. I spend so much money on upgrading anyway that the extra cost of a new OS dosent matter in the big picture. Can it do the things i want/need for the next 3-5 years, in my mind its money well spend and time to move on.

 

Anyone else reckon Ebo is from MS PR department?

 

astral 5 fps isnt any better than 2

min fps is what matters in a game like crysis and if your above 30 all the time your good

if you had 33 on xp and 27 on win 7 i might grant you that one.

Problem is if you have such low fps its time for an upgrade anyway.

most peoples performance issues come down to 1 problem and that is hard drive. SSD vs normal hard disk even the fastest the change is massive. ( xp doesnt support SSD trim so you cant even go SSD)

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/xbox-360/2006/10/09/Just_Cause_Review/1

 

In that test it represented a 10% improvement and would likely have allowed for higher graphics settings (e.g. better AA) while still remaining playable.

Sorry, but that is utter balderdash.

TRIM may not be built into XP as it is in recent releases of Linux or Windows but it can be implemented via third party utilities, until it is incorporated into the ATA specification. Once that happens, it should be a case of downloading updated ATA drivers for your OS of choice.

Thanks for the link (though that site has the boneheaded idea of using Flash to display graphs - due to privacy/security concerned I don't have Flash installed so can't view them). It does however use the 64-bit version of XP which has its own peculiarities (e.g. Patchguard scanning the kernel 10 times a second, different graphics drivers) so shouldn't be considered the same as 32-bit XP.

 

When I start Just Cause 2 then nothing happend what i do plzz tell me im using xp3 and i check vista to but same problem