timeframe on dx11

[Mike Reitmeyer]

Although I haven't figured it out completely, there will most likely be 2 executables shipping once we have the update. One will be DX11 and one will be DX9. Those still using Win XP will have to use the DX9 version as XP doesn't support DX11. This will also allow me to add in some of the newer windows features like touch controls in the DX11 version, since the functions for those don't work in XP.

 

[LeRoy3rd]

Keep fighting the fight, Mike.

 

[Shaneus]

From Farsight

"The Pinball Arcade Creating the Xbox version got most of the work done, since the xbox essentially runs directx11 with slight differences, it won't be much longer."

When will we get it.Your guess is as good as mine.
Would be a nice Christmas present that is for sure

Holding my breath, I am not.

 

[Kratos3]

Although I haven't figured it out completely, there will most likely be 2 executables shipping once we have the update. One will be DX11 and one will be DX9. Those still using Win XP will have to use the DX9 version as XP doesn't support DX11. This will also allow me to add in some of the newer windows features like touch controls in the DX11 version, since the functions for those don't work in XP.

Are people seriously still running XP?

 

[EldarOfSuburbia]

From August, the most recent survey I can find:

http://www.kaspersky.com/about/news...l-Run-Windows-XP-Kaspersky-Lab-Statistics-Say

 

[Mike Reitmeyer]

Are people seriously still running XP?

A few months ago I added touch support and then got messages about the game crashing on XP. So yes, some people still have it.

I can't stop supporting it because if someone had XP and bought tables, it would be unfair if an update caused them not to be able to play anymore.

 

[superballs]

A few months ago I added touch support and then got messages about the game crashing on XP. So yes, some people still have it.

I can't stop supporting it because if someone had XP and bought tables, it would be unfair if an update caused them not to be able to play anymore.

Allowing someone to run XP is like allowing a child to eat way too much candy...seems nice at first...but in the end...too much candy just gets your banking information stolen.

 

[pm1109]

Are people seriously still running XP?

My work still uses it.
Horrible experience

Even Windows 7 is starting to get old.

Can't wait for Windows 10

 

[rehtroboi40]

Are people seriously still running XP?

Well, XP was perhaps Microsoft's best operating system ever. (My desktop has win7 and my laptop win8). IMO, 7 is almost as good, 8 is not bad/not great, but better than Vista.

Some people probably use XP because they bought a lot of games with it, and few of those are compatible with anything but XP. Therefore, I can understand why people would stick with XP.

 

[LeRoy3rd]

? I have win 8, and I've never had a program that worked in XP NOT work in 8. This includes DOS games from the '90s.

 

[EldarOfSuburbia]

People stick to XP because it works and either they can't afford to upgrade, or their system isn't powerful enough to upgrade.

Business owners in particular are especially cheap when it comes to upgrading. It's not just the cost of new OS licenses, and probably new hardware, it's the potential cost of new licenses for all the other software they run, and all that entails.

 

[Jeff Strong]

I use XP on my arcade cab PC because 1.) it's an old PC and can't handle anything else, and 2.) I only use the PC for running old emulators and so it's perfect for that.

 

[Kratos3]

I thought Microsoft had stopped supporting it.

 

[superballs]

Well, XP was perhaps Microsoft's best operating system ever. (My desktop has win7 and my laptop win8). IMO, 7 is almost as good, 8 is not bad/not great, but better than Vista.

Some people probably use XP because they bought a lot of games with it, and few of those are compatible with anything but XP. Therefore, I can understand why people would stick with XP.

Umm, it was the best they had at one point. 7 is vastly superior. 98 and NT 4 were the best at one point as well. 32-bit games will run on 64-bit OS's and only take some compatibility settings or admin rights (or disable UAC) to work. 16-bit games were dodgy in XP as well. A lot of DOS games could be coaxed into working, but the second a DOS game required direct hardware access (something the NT family disallowed, and forced all hardware to access hardware through an abstraction layer), it's no go in XP as well.

Those games will work in DOSBOX however and aren't too too hard to set up as long as you can follow instructions (anyone can...just a question of being willing to). DOSBOX is so effective you can actually early versions of Windows (the DOS shells, not the full OSs, so 1,2 and 3) into it. Most old games sold on Steam or GOG actually come preconfigured in DOSBOX.

People stick to XP because it works and either they can't afford to upgrade, or their system isn't powerful enough to upgrade.

Business owners in particular are especially cheap when it comes to upgrading. It's not just the cost of new OS licenses, and probably new hardware, it's the potential cost of new licenses for all the other software they run, and all that entails.

Very few times does this approach actually make good financial sense. Most software gets updated and ends up slowly losing compatibility with older OSs (the software that the company I work for finally dropped win2000 support a couple years back and we were constantly having pissing contests with businesses that refused to upgrade).

Eventually support for these drops. XP had a nice lifespan, but people got too used to it. XP needs to be taken behind a shed, given a bowl of it's favorite food, and then be humanely taken out while enjoying it's last meal.

There are exceptions such as in house developped software where the person who created it has moved on and it's required for business operations...but at that point...there needs to be a cheap dedicated machine set up to run those tasks and a solution put in place to relegate that software's usefulness.

It's always great when saving a few hundred dollars on an upgrade ends up costing a company thousands in the long run. I still see this all the time...fortunately most of the clients I routinely deal with have learned over the years to make timely upgrades and keeping themselves on the upper side of the technology curve keeps their business and money flowing uninterrupted more times than not.

 

[mpad]

I thought Microsoft had stopped supporting it.

Yeah how cool is that?!
Noch real Argument against it...

 

[Jeff Strong]

I thought Microsoft had stopped supporting it.

That doesn't stop it from continuing to run just fine.

 

[soundwave106]

? I have win 8, and I've never had a program that worked in XP NOT work in 8.

I have -- 16 bit programs basically don't work in any 64 bit environment anymore. So all those things I made in Turbo Pascal "back in the day" are useless in Win7 64. In my case, that's not really an issue (if I really wanted to run those, which I hardly ever do, there's always Windows XP Mode or DOSBox).

Where people do get screwed is if they have any old driver dependent hardware that is absolutely necessary for some reason, but has not made the transition to Windows 7. In this case, one might be forced to stick with XP (on an isolated, non-Internet connected box ideally) as it's trickier sometimes to set up direct drivers on an emulated box.

Another situation that I have heard of arising -- more with business apps than user programs -- is old custom applications that break either due to obscure COM libraries bombing or some UAC incompatibilities. Usually the compatibility mode features allow the program to work, and if not, the emulators will take care of it. But there are a few exceptions.

Businesses in particular tend to be slow to update sometimes. My workplace still has, believe it or not, a fairly significant amount of Visual Basic 6 applications. That's a 16 year old development environment that originally targeted Windows 95, 98 and NT 4. I have heard that this actually is not unusual... so small wonder that Microsoft has bent over backwards to keep VB6 runtime support in their Windows environments so far. It's easy to see why. When you are talking about VB6 apps with years worth of development cycles (yes they do exist), it's not going to be easy to tell some companies that they *have* to spend n years and $$$ in programmer salaries, to merely rewrite a functionally equivalent application, in order to get their new OS. The ROI doesn't look good unless there's a helluv a good reason, Microsoft can't just barge into companies and say "pay lots of money to us for a shiny new OS even though your core applications that keep you running will blow up".

I actually think Microsoft does a good job keeping things backward compatible TBH. But they can only go so far.

 

[mpad]

Wow so the cliche is true. There are a lot of IT guys playing pinball.

 

[mpad]

Although I haven't figured it out completely, there will most likely be 2 executables shipping once we have the update. One will be DX11 and one will be DX9. Those still using Win XP will have to use the DX9 version as XP doesn't support DX11. This will also allow me to add in some of the newer windows features like touch controls in the DX11 version, since the functions for those don't work in XP.

And cool to hear from you Mike!

 

[Jeff Strong]

Where people do get screwed is if they have any old driver dependent hardware that is absolutely necessary for some reason, but has not made the transition to Windows 7. In this case, one might be forced to stick with XP (on an isolated, non-Internet connected box ideally) as it's trickier sometimes to set up direct drivers on an emulated box.

That's a good point. For instance, I have a digital camcorder that I paid around $450 for back in 2005 and it's still fairly nice quality, but it simply will not work on anything beyond XP due to the manufacturer never putting out new drivers.