I keep 98se and 2K around, on my backup PC, though GC2 is not really for that PC. It is for my older games, including some for MS-DOS.

Otherwise, I am using XP Pro SP2 Retail, and XP Pro 64 OEM, with SP2 installed on my main PC (dualboot).

***sarcasm approaching***

I am glad you don't run stardock. I must admit I don't like it when I brain fade and get a snap from kryo when i think i am trying to help, but really consider what you're saying here...

At the minimum, if you hole up with the "select group" of testers, you lose any input whatsoever from dolts like me. While this sounds like a problem, in reality it's dolts like me that buy the game. I am ECSTATIC that I can have anything to do with betas. This forum means that this company actually gives a crap about me, joe average gamer who works 50-60 hours a week for a living. My opinion actually gets READ. Try that anywhere else.

And that crap about "displaying your technical failures" reducing my confidence ?
BULL****. When I read of a problem, then of a solution... ( or in the rare instance of having to do two versions because there is not a satisfactory workaround, which is outright bravery in my book ) ...I see genious. I see people doing what I certainly can't. Cari's last dev journal was as good as alphabet soup to me from a technical standpoint, but If you can't see the effort, the respect, and the care for her work as she writes it, I pity you.

I like the way they do things. They act Human over there, flaws, frustrations and all. and I must say... The day they change their beta program to what you suggest is the day they drop off my radar as just another company after my money. ( CIV 4 ring a bell... )

Repectfully submitted-No flames intended-opinions stated are my own-had to be said.

Tried the newest beta put out here by Cari... same graphics issues. I notice them on the race selection screen where they show a preview of your ship. After reading what Brad posted regarding DirectX SDK... are you guys going to implement this and if so, when?

I think it's 'safe' to assume that just about all of us are running on XP, at least, so I guess those unfortunate few might have to finally upgrade as some of us had to do throughout all of this, eh? Sorry guys, but if I had to invest over 400.00 for hardware, a couple hundred for a new OS shouldn't hurt so much.

Not true. The majority of players will point mostly at UI issues, and comprehension/learning issues. Those can be posted to the regular forums, no prob. Part of the point is that a lot of *useful* reports may get lost in the overwhelming number of not-so-useful or misunderstood-rules or inexperienced-player reports.
Sure it's great to be "part of the team", but ultimately that hurts the game more than actually helps it - that's basically what he said. Now if you have the game in mind as a priority, I'm sure you'd agree with him.



But not only. Everyone's entitled to have an opinion, be it with the game in mind, or the contributing factor. In the end though, the game is what really matters to everybody.



Glad to hear that, but in the end your well-being doesn't impact me as much as a solidly tested game.



Again, you're not the only person here. The fact is all these reports *are* damaging. The constant appearance of new issues too. Private betas wouldn't have this problem - and that was the point.



Or a problem that wouldn't have been public if it had been screened by testers in private? Some problems would be detected by even an inexperienced tester, so you wonder how they released *even a beta* without apparently running it first.



Is that a valid argument even?! Can you work on an oil rig?



Then I guess some people will pity you.



Hope you take it the same way.

Public beta testing has the advantage that you get a wide variety of mindsets playing the game looking for potential problems. It's usually never the case then that all your testers can't see the forest for all the trees

No, it's not safe. And I have a perfectly shiny XP Pro CD lying around, I just don't see a single reason to install it over a perfectly running 2000 system. Rule number one of IT: Never change a running system. Especially not when it comes to MS operating systems, just look at all those poor souls that are already forced to use Vista. Or would YOU upgrade your good ol' XP sytem to Vista, because Stardock finds out that DirectX10 fixes all problems? (Ok, sorry, upgrading to Vista to fix problems, I just rolled of my chair with laughter, but still... )

Personal views aside, there is a very plain, simple reason for NOT making the patch XP exclusive: The back of the box clearly states "Requires Win98, ME, 2000, XP". So unless you update SDC to check the operating system, so it only installs the latest compatible version, you'll have a lot of legitimate, angry customers. And believe me, the moment you make that patch, they will suddenly crawls out of every hole. Witnessed it myself when we tried to update our software to Win2000 as minimum.


And even IF you have SDC check, they WILL complain that they bought the game on the basis of the system requirements (and low requirements were always one of the top priorities of Stardock IIRC) and now can't access the latest patch.


What to do?

Good question. But 'forcing' users to upgrade a system just to be able to patch the game is really no solution. Distributing both version is slightly better, but that means MAINTAINING two different versions, since all following patches (and expansions) will have to accomodate this workaround.

Please, don't take this as complaining or whining. If there's something that I can do to help with this problem, I will. I'm even installing the latest beta this instant, although I wanted to wait until the final patch. Either way, problems or not, I'll report back.

You lucky dog you! I noticed you're running an Intel vs. AMD so this might be why there's no graphics corruption. Still, AMD AND Nvidia will remain the 'top dogs' in my book... even if they are a bit 'slow' out of the gate. Any new info regarding all of this?

The back of the box also clearly states, "Minimum Requirements: Pentium III 800MHz or equivalent processor. 32 MB DirectX 9.0c compatible video card. Recommended Requirements: Pentium 4 1.8 GHz or equivalent processor. 128 MB DirectX 9.0c compatible video card."

Many of us meet (or as in my case, exceed) even the recommended requirements, have entirely up-to-date drivers, yet still are experiencing very real graphical problems and/or slowdowns and/or crashes.

Should we be forced to suffer these problems for the sake of allowing some users to maintain an OS that is now two versions out-of-date? (Though I must admit, the same argument could be applied to those of us refusing to upgrade from XP to Vista.)



Just as you do not wish to be forced to upgrade your OS, I (and other users) do not wish to be forced to change hardware (which in this case, it appears, would mean changing CPU). This is no better a prospect for us than is changing from Windows 2000 to XP for you.



And if they maintain status quo so as not to "anger" the Windows 2000 users, they will most certainly "anger" those of us with the hardware based issues. I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate that there may be more of us experiencing the hardware related glitches than there are customers maintaining older OS's. I may very well be mistaken.



I would concur that the best way to avoid alienating either group of customers is to provide two parallel versions of the game. One solution that had been mentioned before the discovery of the SDK solution was to provide a toggle to select between the original and the new graphics engine. This is a similar solution.

But, I would have to disagree about the need to maintain two versions for all future patches. It could be implied that the minimum and recommended system requirements really only apply to the version that actually comes "out of the box." Any patches that are downloaded and applied are done at the discretion of the end user, and the supplier is not obligated to hold to previously stated system requirements. Indeed, each patch can (and should) have its own explicitly stated system requirements. It could be such that a patch that is released may allow for two versions, but carry a specific disclaimer that this is the final patch that would include such accommodations and that future patches will not include support for certain system specifications (OS or hardware).



I am posting a response not to criticize, but to state that the problem is not as plain or simple as it may seem. My regards go to Pndrev for a thoughtful post, I just thought that I would add a perspective from the "hardware" viewpoint.

All I have to say to this comment is

Fantastic news indeed!   

I could just about hug you.


Formis6: Thank you for a well formulated reply. I guess we could argue endlessly who has more right to be annoyed, hardware or software.



Admittedly, I wrote this with software upgrades in mind, but of course, the same point holds for 'forced' hardware upgrades.

No matter. The problem (or at least the one that lead to the discussion) seems to be solved and we're happy all around.

If you seek a narrow minded, single purpose game, then by all means, create a crack staff of dedicated beta testers. Perhaps they should adopt similar programs to many of the gaming companies out there... Fix a few bugs, make a patch and move on to the expansion pak or next game. As for "part of the team", I don't see it that way. THEY are the team. I just get to look at what there doing and where they're going by doing this, and have the chance to give some input to it. As a player, you're worried you r game may not be all it can be. As developers, they have alot more then that to consider, part of which is sales 101, make the customer feel special, wanted, appreciated. And I resent that you somehow think my being involved will ruin the game, or make the updates less than they should be, or that any one of us would have that kind of detrimental impact.



Says you. The game is not all that matters to everybody. If it was, nobody would be reading this, they'd be playing the game, cuz that's all that mattered.



It's nice that you consider games more important than people and all, but again, you imply that somehow I'm not up to snuff on all this beta stuff, and that the update will suffer because I'm involved. Let me apologize to you all now then. "I'm sorry your update wasn't as good as it should be because I got involved."



Thankyou for letting me know I am not alone. It's comforting to know I don't play in solitude. And you're right, private betas would not have the problem of finding new problems. They would be found after the update was released by all us normal folk. Which is pretty much how it's done everywhere else. Which is why I originally took exception to all this... anybody else gettin' dizzy ???



To quote a somewhat famous caveman.... um... WHAT??? You complain about inexperienced people testing betas, and then say this??? make up my mind, will ya ...



Why, yes I could. As for "argument", to appreciate someones ability in a given area is a bad thing how ??? I don't want to code. Never have. Doesn't mean I don't understand or appreciate someone who can/does. There is absolutely no point to your statement. Try to keep things in the context they're presented in, and understand the difference between argument and compliment.



You had me going for a minute there... I thought you were actually trying to say something, but in the end it's all about hurtin' somebodies feelings. Hold on a sec, gotta wipe a tear...

I like how they do things here. Have since day 1. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that I can test yer beta. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that I like things the way they are. As for pity, I don't even waste any on me, so I can hardly expect anyone else too.



I love a good argument. This didn't happen to be one... but I like them all the same.

One final thought... "Collectively we are more intellegent than we are Individually..."
More eyes, more minds, more....ons... we all matter.

When trading techs with any civ and the civ you are trading with has no money, the pop up window says that my civ has no money to trade with instead of the civ's name that i'm trading with.