FFXIV For Windows...

i would install windows 7, but can i boot 3 OS on the same computer? i could buy another HD.

I currently have Vista + XP on 1 HD

I'm personally not moving to Seven until I get a new computer, even if my current one is fairly recent. Also my external RAID0 don't have Win7 drivers yet (didn't try Vista ones, but I'd rather wait for "officially updated" drivers, not messing with my data), and some games I'm playing won't (and will certainly never) work on Seven. (mostly doujins games)

Edit : Yes you can boot 3 OS on the same computer (and even more)

Ditch at least Vista for 7? 7 is *supposed* to have perfect backwards compatibility but this is M$ we're talking about here. Depending on how decent 7 is, I might have plans in the future to have a desktop with both Win7 and Ubuntu 9.04 on it.

So like, everyones main argument is that they wouldn't be stupid enough to exclude all the XP customers by releasing it on Vista/7 only. But considering the age of XP, wouldn't that be kinda like saying they wouldn't be stupid enough to exclude all the PS2 customers by releasing it for PS3 only?

I mean, I'm pretty sure there's a pretty high %'age of people that have a PS2 but don't have a PS3, so the argument fits.

I like analogies:

Not releasing FFXIV to XP is like getting nothing in FFXIV for playing FFXI. Oh wait.

Did anyone actually read my quote before other than Anti or was it tl;dr?

I'll cut it down for you... ok I realised I can't so I'll make points of things:

Lol, yeah... the PS2 = Windows XP analogy is pretty spot on. I'll only start complaining if it requires hardware that hasn't been released yet. "What!? I need an Intel 32 Core i18 Duo?! and 8 ATI Radeon XM7990s?!" /table flip!

Difference here is that making a game for the PS2 would "gimp it", while having a game that support DX9 and DX10 doesn't affect anyone, we've seen that already with others games and it doesn't cost much either.

I mean I can't even understand people being against this, how allowing people to use DX 9 would affect you ? It simply doesn't. If you have Vista/7 + a good graphic card, then just go with DX10. If you on XP, use the DX9 version. The wider are the available choice, the more consumer SE can get.

That's debateable, allowing it for XP compatability could very well gimp it in a similar manner as PS2 would further down the line. I'm not gonna be the one to debate it though, 'cause I don't know enough about it and I don't care. SE will do what ever they think is best, and I'll do whatever I need to be able to play the game.

Adding in DX9 support instead of going with DX10 and DX11 is just like supporting Windows XP if you think about it. It's old technology. There hasn't been a DX9 card released in 3 years or so. So again, moot point, because there is no DX9 card on the market that is going to play this game.

/em puts on his tablecloth cape and runs around his house some more.

Ninja Edit!: Also, we all realize that Windows 7 doesn't use DX10, it uses DX11, right? We're on the verge of a new level of DX, lotta cool stuff in 11 that got cut from 10. It's not a crappy non-update like 10 became, it's a full new set that is so radically different that it has to emulate DX10 and previous in code. (sorta). It does this emulation with aplomb though, with calculations to spare! It is just that efficient.

It doesn't in any way really. I mean we have example already. Crysis, World in Conflict, all these game run under DX9 and DX10. Runing DX10 just enable you to have more details etc... The things people will never use until their graphic card is powerful enough.

I kinda laugh when I see all these failgamer with their 9400GT thinking they'll be able to play DX10 game just because their card support DX10.

We're talking about a MMO here, what's people wants first is a decent framerate rather than some fancy shaders effects. The point having a nice game if nobody can run it above 15fps ? Not to mention that so far, all MMO that require customers to have a powerful rig in order to play decently have failed. (sup Age of Conan lol...). Aion is working well, why ? Using cryengine 1, which is as old as Farcry 1, lot of people can run it, and if your computer is powerful, you can still enjoy a nice game. Same goes for WoW, it can be run with a $100 computer, but yet if you own a recent computer you'll be able to high "decent" graphics (in b4 WoW sux blabla).

If SE release a game that require at least an i7 920, a freaking $300 video card ($300 at the time of the release), Vista or Seven, they'll lose lot and lot of potential customers.

I was about to say I don't even know what video card I have, but then I ran dxdiag, and apparently I have an Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT... Which considering what I paid for my PC and what the rest of the stats are, is probably crap and won't be able to run XIV anyway. That's why I'm waiting for Karu to buy me a PS3 already.

9800GT should be able to run XIV (low detail / low res tho :d), because if a 9800GT can't even run it at low detail, then who the *** is gonna run it :s

A 9800GT is a decent card. The last 2-3 generations of Nvidia chips have basically been respins of that exact card. You have a DX10 card that is fairly powerful. But again, a year from now, when DX11 hardware is here and going on it's second respin, you and me will both have failcards. ^^

Also, in regards to DX9: Building in backwards compatibility for a DX subset takes time, manpower, and causes code increases. Some of those can be eliminated, or at least toned down... but the time it takes to essentially compile 2 separate versions of the game can't be worked around.

I think what SE is shooting for at first is mainly super high end PCs, and PS3s. Then several years later, shifting the playerbase to PC and PS3 in a 50/50 ratio. much like we have now on FFXI. (or at least, this is what I've been told.)

As the years roll on, more and more people will pick up the game on PC, simply because even grandmas PC will be able to play it. And the PS3 will begin to be eclipsed by the PS4 in say, 5-7 years.

Most gamers upgrade their videocards at least yearly in their PC. We will all have bought, or started to consider buying, a new videocard between here and the end of next year. I'm sure it will run on todays top of the line cards, even if it is at incredibly low settings. You'll be able to pick up todays high-end cards for next to nothing in a years time. T

Meh, I do 3D animation, so good chance I'll upgrade my card when I have the money anyway. Not sure I'll need any more than 8GB of ram for a while, and doesn't upgrading the CPU basically mean just getting a whole new rig? (CPU is about all that matters for rendering, which is something I'd like to get done as fast as possible)

The simple answer is $. Take Valve for example, they won't put their new games out onto PS3 for whatever reason. They have a game already because they're putting it on 360 and PC and all they have to do is change the code and distro. But they won't. For them, it's not worth the time and effort for the money that could be gained.

If Windows 7 was ***it would be on XP.

SE have said they will be publishing on the latest OS and DX (see my previous post).

If people don't have a PC to play it on, they can use a PS3.

Blazza, CPU upgrades aren't as daunting as they once were. The whole "building" of a PC has become almost idiot proof. You can save alot of dosh by building a decent PC and simply replacing bits and pieces as they age. CPU upgrades are one of the easiest upgrades as well, simply pop out the old chip, and slide in a new one. No driver or software issues at all. It simply works.

P.S. If you want any advice on upgrade paths or vendor specifics, let me know. It's kinda what I do in my free time.

Not really Chupa the latest i7 chipsets need the latest mobo's as well.

True, but he could always plop a 3.4GHz quad core chip in there, or if he has an AMD system... well... do they ever change sockets? o.O

Edit: I remember the 940/754 socket fiasco... Maybe there is a good reason why AMD never changes sockets lol. I have a feeling that we'll see a socket F variant on the desktop scene with the Phenom III series though... Just a feeling.

Edited my Edit...: Also, I'd steer clear from the i7 and i9 series for a bit. Internally, even intel seems confused on their sockets. i5 series it seems requires a separate socket from either i7 or i9... Hopefully on the tock cycle coming up in 4th quarter, or at least before 2H10 they stabilize the sockets and naming conventions. The random number generator they seem to have for the CPUs is beginning to confuse even me. :\

well I'm currently running a LEGAL copy of Windows 7 RTM. I love it, if square does makes this game DX10 only, which I doubt, XP users should just give 7 a try.

Amen for Windows 7! XP users that are on the fence... Please try it out. It's free on the Microsoft website for 1 whole year. It'll even run on 5 year old systems like melty butter. If you're still on the fence after using 7 for even a week... well, you remember those stories your grandparents used to tell you about "they don't make em like they used to" and "back in my day"? Congratulations, you're old now. ^^

Considering my chosen profession (which I'm still in Uni for, but whatever), it's amazing how much of a noob I am when it comes to computers. If I upgrade from Vista to 7, doesn't that mean I have to reinstall, and doesn't that mean I have to format my harddrive?

Also, apparently my CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9400 @ 2.66GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.7GHz

So like, that's a 2.7 GHz quad core right?

Oh, and it also says I'm already running DirectX 10... so yeah O_O

(totally hijacking this thread and turning into "What can Blazza do with his PC")

FFXIV's Engine was built 4 years ago, I doubt it'll use Direct X10 at all. Though 4 years is a long time, and I wouldn't write anything off as "Fact" just yet.

Multi cores are kind of misunderstood by the vast majority of people, It does not Equal x number of Processors, it's simply an architecture that allows, code threading willing, the ability to reach such levels, Something few, if any game developers have done. Many games even today rely mostly on one core, relegating certain, low priority tasks to the other core(s). The Day developers can thread perfectly for Multi Core systems, prepare for an orgy of technological wizardry and visual fidelity the likes of which haven't even been imagined.

Blazza, since you are running Windows Vista, the upgrade path to 7 is pretty cut and dry. You don't have to reinstall anything. You can do an upgrade when you get ahold of the retail version. The Q9400 is a very nice CPU already. You should be set for awhile. And yes, lol, you are already running DX10 since you are running Vista. It is the native DX version for that OS. And yeah, you have a quad core, so you technically have 4 CPUs in there. The only bad thing is, not all software is capable of taking advantage of 4 simultaneous CPUs. Sounds like you have a decent PC though Blazza.

zicdeh is perfectly correct in stating that hardly any application uses more than 1 core,very few uses 2 and almost nothing uses more. Although threading is going to be used in alot more apps and games as VS2010 has a much greater and easier to use threading tools. This being imo the start of proper use of threading, i so hope. without it you can add as many cores as you like in your machine and you will only lose performance not gain it without proper use of threading

Don't take this as me thinking you're wrong, but if this is the case (which I've heard several times that it is), why does my CPU monitor generally show all 4 cores as being in use?

I'm assuming that Maya uses all 4 cores for rendering as they all max out to 100%, but even other applications that aren't quite as taxing on the CPU will show all 4 cores as being active.

In particular, Video Editing software and 3d rendering software have been built to take advantage of every ounce of performance they can squeeze from PC's of the generation in which they came out. I remember back using old 387MGZ just trying to render my final in 3DSMax took almost 90 hours. For my examples I am speaking mostly for Games, as my experience with other applications is rather limited, at least limited so much that I won't even make assumptions. When it comes right down to it, it's all about Optimization, and each piece of software is going to be different.

Generally all your cores will be used when Multitasking to an extent, however the entire potential remains mostly untapped, which just means less upgrading down the line as developers and software engineers find ways to unlock that power. I am by no means saying that Multi core is useless, if that's how it might sound, I'm speaking in an optimistic manner, that there is much room for growth still, even in the previous generations technology.

Even further off topic than we already are, my last project there were two of us rendering non-stop for a week, and we still only got about half of it done... I'll post it on youtube in about a year once I've finished it off. But yeah, I'd love it if my final only took 90 hours to render :D

OpenGL only.
Enjoy your inferior Direct3D.

Isn't that a 10 year old argument that's no longer relevant? I just remember I used to use OpenGL on Lightwave 7 back in 2000.