General Discussion

---

Originally posted by Sunrider
I'm currently using an XP machine and it only has about another year or so of life left in it (despite all the upgrades I've made). However, I don't think I'm going to go to Vista or Windows 7.

Its not because I want to "break the mold" or whatever, but I don't like the continuing DRM software that we're seeing more and more of these days. I'm a Law student and studying law and being a gamer has given me a lot of insight into how these things work... and if there is one side that the law hasn't caught up with yet, its technology, and these DRM software seem to violate a lot of different things. Particularly privacy.

It seems that as we continue forward with our tech, that we give up more and more of our privacy to be "secure" and these companies, such as Microsoft and EA, would rather have their dollars "secure" then care about the consumer's privacy, and as we've seen with Spore the only people who are hurt by DRM software are the people who pay for the product.

Piracy is an idea that seems to be absolutely blown out of proportion just to make the consumer worry about pointless shit, and it seems that these numbers keep multiplying just to give developers of software a pure reason to invade our, the paying consumers, privacy.

I can understand verifying a product key when a program is installed, or verifying the authenticity of a program when you go to update from official website, but to constantly send out information on a weekly or bi-weekly basis is wrong. Not only that but we don't know what they're sending out and their is no way to disable the DRM without disabling the use of the program.

In short the next computer I buy I'm loading Linux on it.

---

Not to derail this thread in too large a margin but I don't own a game that I haven't also downloaded a NO-CD shortcut in order to forgo diskswapping and protection issues.

I buy the games but always download any hacks I deem necessary.

I understand if you are going Linux out of principle but if you want to avoid privacy concerns a little intervention on your part (as in all things where privacy is concerned i.e. SS# at doctor's office) will go a long way. Not that you should have to of course :)

Originally posted by Wharmaster

Xp pro here. Will eventually have to go to some form of vista for large memory awareness, however.

No, DX 10 can't really function under XP. "taking DirectX 10 back to XP would be equivalent with rewriting the operating system's kernel in order to be similar to Vista's."

By the time you got done, you would basically have a little gimped Vista. There's really no point in even trying.

I'm no expert on this matter, but my guess is micro$oft wont write dx10 code for XP because they want gamers to move to vista, which will help to support it.  It makes sence though, the cost of development plus the loss of vista sales by enabling gamers to use DX10 on XP = piling up a bunch of money and burning it.  Some people say there are features in DX10 that make it almost impossible to work on XP, but who knows for sure besides microsoft?

XP 64 here

cant stand vista, linux doesnt game (though i have it on my laptop)

XP for gaming.

Ubuntu for everything else.

I'm a PC and I run Vista Home Premium 64 bit, lol. For my needs it works for me. I use it mainly for gaming, the internet, and I have it hooked up to my XBOX 360 for media center. I guess I could have gone with xp media center, but Vista does have DX 10. So in the long run as I said before, it works for me.

windows server 2008. it's vista without the bloat.

Originally posted by heremypet

Originally posted by Wharmaster

Xp pro here. Will eventually have to go to some form of vista for large memory awareness, however.

No, DX 10 can't really function under XP. "taking DirectX 10 back to XP would be equivalent with rewriting the operating system's kernel in order to be similar to Vista's."

By the time you got done, you would basically have a little gimped Vista. There's really no point in even trying.

 

I'm no expert on this matter, but my guess is micro$oft wont write dx10 code for XP because they want gamers to move to vista, which will help to support it.  It makes sence though, the cost of development plus the loss of vista sales by enabling gamers to use DX10 on XP = piling up a bunch of money and burning it.  Some people say there are features in DX10 that make it almost impossible to work on XP, but who knows for sure besides microsoft?

Look, I'm no fan of Microsoft, but not every tin-foil hat theory is correct.

Vista is required for DX10 because of the way it works....the XP kernel is incompatible with DX10's instructions.

In order to make DX10 work on XP, the kernel would have to be re-written entirely. I don't know how to say this in any simpler terms.

Xp for 2-3 years, now using 64 bit vista (a god send compared to xp 64 bit); once I get another hard drive I think im gonna dual boot ubuntu again.

Currently I have 2 internal hard drives, running Windows XP for most purposes including gaming, surfing the web, and Java/C++ programming. Dual boot Ubuntu on the other hard drive, which I mostly use for C/Perl programming.

Only thing holding me back from upgrading to vista is the dread of having to reinstall all of the software I have on this computer. Otherwise I would to take advantage of DX-10 and all of my Ram, because I can get Vista Ultimate for free