The reason it's not already in Vista is that it requires that the games support it. I'm guessing it will be part of the GFW thingie, and so not all games will support it.

and I am sure the GOBS of memory and CPU usage vista is taking up liek a fat pig from the entire system on all levels to do the same task as windows xp like run a simple DX9 GPU and game

is helping your weak system run the low system requirements of a unreal engine 3 game like gears of war that runs on a cracker jack toy PC or a console with only 512mb of ram total.


Why do you think Spore and most other games have large system requirements to run the same game as XP?


Spore's system requirements
82 Comments by Alexander Sliwinski Jun 10th 2008 5:30PM
Filed under: Mac, PC, Simulations



We're not exactly sure how long it's been up on the official Spore site, but below we've posted the basic system requirements for running the sim-everything title on PC and Mac. The "recommended" (read: real) requirements are not currently listed on the site. For the super-breakdown of supported graphics cards and other nit-picky details, check out the Spore site.



Windows XP:

2.0 GHz P4 processor or equivalent
512 MB RAM
A 128 MB Video Card, with support for Pixel Shader 2.0
At least 6 GB of hard drive space
Windows Vista:

2.0 GHz P4 processor or equivalent
768 MB RAM
A 128 MB Video Card, with support for Pixel Shader 2.0
At least 6 GB of hard drive space




vista is a poorly cooded fat pig of an Os that either need to be fixed Or shot.

Oh and that ram bump does not even take into account all the other crap vista loads up that is not needed.

@Cube: Dude. English. Unless you live in like, Germany or something. I kinda speak German too if English isn't your native.

Kinda.

Sides, the Graphics card was flappy whappy anyways, trying to run Gears on High. If that's what your...ranting...about......

Like I've said, I haven't experienced any problems with the Vista laptop my mom owns, and neither has she, and it's an HP. The closest thing was the internet, but that's because my mom keeps turning the receiver off, so yeah.

yeah Vista sucks and it's a good idea for the game manufacturers to support other operating systems like Linux at last.

If there is one thing that I don't need or want is Microsoft deciding that it wants to upgrade non-Microsoft software for me. I don't trust Microsoft as it is. If I'm concerned about upgrades, I'll let the game do it the next time I fire it up, or I'll check the web site occasionally.

@Cube & linuxguy: Real men prefer Slackware and compiling from source!

And have you windows users learned yet that when microsoft claims to make something more "user friendly" that they're just going to cock it up and make it more frustrating for the user while locking out the competition?

@ Alexradl "Thanks, but ubuntu (amoung others) already updates all of my programs and applications for me automatically."


Yes, But we are on about updating 'games' here.

Does Ubuntu do that? oh, no games for Ubuntu, hard luck!

Could be worse, they could just release Windows Palladium (NGSCB) and just end piracy forever.

Hahahahahah, you mean like it "helpfully" updates all my MS software at work? Then restarts the machine without so much as a "Would you like to save?" dialogue.

I'm sure it will be only "Certified" games and patches that will be updated, further fracturing game playing on PC.

By the way, Microsoft? Since you're ripping off (but only half implementing) another Open Source feature, why not download the source you need and compile it. It will be better than the bloated Ram-sucking monster you'll create!

Glad I'm still happy with my XP machine. Microsoft's little "features" are more often than not, bullshit. I can see it now, entire minutes of my life wasted by weaving my way through virtual red tape just to turn off yet another grand Windows feature that will probably just go ahead and turn itself back on at some point anyway. Such a nuisance.

Pro Tip: There are unused icons on your desktop

This could be a nice feature, perhaps games could check themselves like some do already, then report it to the overlord M$ one.
I'd rather they just get on with fixing / replacing the OS though: Amazing how many games lost performance / compatibility with the new 'game-friendly' Vista. As for the non-gaming aspects... yeesh.

Man, I can barely stand it when Vista chirps at me to update *itself*, let alone the rest of my shit. Maybe I'm alone on this one but I don't update *anything* unless and until it breaks.

@topcow

I actually agree with you but at the same time (due to ambivalence) agree with everyone else. Vista IS EXTREMELY bloated but overall I prefer my x64 install of Vista to XP. (32bit Vista can go suck my anus however...)

Why? Granted it wastes a whopping chunk of my RAM (but I have 4gb so I'm not TOO bothered) but I actually find it to be more 'backwards compatible' than XP. Despite huge claims of incompatibility with Vista circulating round the internet I have yet to have a problem installing anything on Vista (at least no problems common sense couldn't work out). Hell I was just enjoying the wonders of System Shock 2 10 minutes ago.

That said I abso-f**king-lutely hate how Vista challenges my obvious authority in performing system changes etc by prompting my confirmation of EVERYTHING I SODDING DO.

Basically put the best way to deal with things:
Step 1: Install Linux.
Step 2: Install XP and Vista on a spare harddrive.
Step 3: Marvel at the best of 3 worlds.

(alternative method)
Step 0: Add the power of Mac to your PC and build a Hackintosh. All the benefits of Mac with all the cheap power of a PC.

This method is good for the next 7 generations of OS just add the most up to date version numbers names etcetera.

Oh, and get an extra job to pay for it all. The best solutions are always needlessly complicated and expensive because no one person can ever get the damn thing right.

Vista games explorer is hardly friendly and never lists all of my installed games. I mean you can't delete any games in their you don't want, only hide them? I know there's Vista Game Explorer Editor but I don't want to have to use a third party application to fix Microsoft's fuck up. Windows 7 is looking like what Vista should have been but still looks like it will come up short. Doesn't Microsoft ever think of asking their customers what kind of features they want, or do they just plow ahead blindly? It would seem Vista Episode 2 is something they would want to avoid at all cost.