Hi Dark, Responses throughout again.
*snip* > one of my intrinsic problems with this upgrade business is to do with > practical good and also practicality of how many computers one can actually > own. > > i do not actually have the space for more than one desktop, plus laptops have > a shorter life generally. Virtual xp is always a solution next to a main os, > but how well that runs I'm not sure over all. > *snip* These days, with SSD's and the like, laptops have comparable life-spans to desktops. And, since several options proposed do *not* involve having multiple machines, I fail to see the problem here, either. *snip* > As regards windows 7 generally however, one of my main issues with this > debate is that programmers take a look at a new system and say "wow, look at > the specs, look at the hardware, support for this that and the other etc" > > Myself, i don't give a monkey's rear how much ram a computer has, what > programs it runs what processor it has etc, it's all a question of what can I > do with it. This is also wy i cryticize post xp windows and microsoft's over > all approach to interface generally, since frankly having used windows 7 on > several machines I do not agree with dallas point, and while classic shell > might be an option, well why should I move from an interface I'm comfortable > with, that I can personally customize to one I must jigger with in order to > work? and that's not just in the programs either. > *snip* No one here has said anything about RAM or any other hardware specs, so that argument is coming out of left field. Generally speaking, i don't care that much about hardware specs either. It is the usability of the machine that is the main concern. People have given you quite a few good reasons to upgrade in this thread, you just aren't listening, because your mind is already made up, and you aren't really considering other possible scenarios. If in a couple of years you're still running XP and a newly discovered security exploit leaves you high and dry, then that is the risk you are choosing to take. If you still go out and purchase another XP machine after that, then you've got no one to blame but yourself. *snip* > if there were hundreds of great new games which required windows 7, well I'd > likely have a good reason to, but that is simply not the case, which is quite > ironic given that I did make a similar switch from windows 98 to xp back in > 2002 for precisely that reason. > *snip* Back then, there wasn't a contingency of users trying to keep developers from moving on to XP, hence you were forced to change. I propose developers do this again to help move things along. *grin* *snip* > From a pure usability perspective, mac is probably a better option than post > xp windows at the moment, however legacy support is a severe issue, > particularly with developers who continue to essentially write for xp, and > even more specifically when there are comparatively few audio games on mac. > *snip* Since on a Mac you can have a native install of XP or any other version of Windows you like since, I fail to understand this argument. By having a Mac with a *native* install of XP, or Win7, or whatever you want, you have the best of both worlds in a machine that you will probably be able to use for years and years to come. A modern OS for debs who are moving forward, and an XP install for your old titles. *snip* while I do appreciate the issues that developers have, at the same time there is an element of give and take needed I think, which is exactly why I suggested developers aide in this situation, eg, by writing a guide on virtual xp emulation with download for mac and windows 7, for trying to do something about dosbox and vb6 etc, since at least for some people sticking with xp it is a bit more than simple bloodymindedness, and if developers do indeed want more people to shift to newer os so that they can take advantage of all this stuff, maybe this is something that they can help with. > *snip* As I said, for our part, we're moving our games forward to modern OS's. I think asking developers to give up what they are working on to solve your problems is a bit much, especially when there are simpler solutions already available than what you are proposing be done. Windows 7 with a classic shell, XP on a dual boot system, Mac/Windows dual boot system, etc. Many of your arguments are based on incorrect or long out-of-date assumptions, much like your assertion in previous discussions about iTunes music, etc. You have several folks here explaining to you that things don't need to be the doom and gloom you say, and giving you several possible options to the problems you raise. If sticking with XP is what you want, by all means stick with it, but understand that you can't rely on others to bail you out if that decision backfires…whether that means that you start missing out on games that won't run on XP, your security is compromised by a new exploit, etc. The best, most practical, solution is to use XP in a dual boot or VM scenario as an OS exclusively for using old software, and use something modern for everything else. At least on the Mac, these things are extremely easy to do. --- Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
