Loved XP, great OS, lasted ages, but now is the time for Win 7 64bit, and it's even more rock solid.

Home premium is $100 OEM from NewEgg  $140 for pro if you must.  It's silly to make up weak excuses for not upgrading.  Financial hardship is the only excuse and if you're on high speed internet and have time to putz around on gaming forums, I question the hardship angle and have to wonder about your priorities.  Mine are having a solid gaming rig and playing the heck out of quality games.  If you're a starving student, maybe you shouldn't be playing so many games and visiting gaming forums - focus on school so you can afford better hardware some day - get a summer job.

I don't want quality gaming held back because of people's silly attitudes (MS is the devil!  really!) or desire to stay in the tecnnological stone age.  MS will eventually rescue the rest of us by obsoleting XP entirely but it's a ways down the road.

PC gaming suffers in so many ways.  Need sales, have to sell to people with ancient hardware.  Need to push tech but can't due to 10 year spread on hardware.  Should be pushing 64 bit but can't due to MS haters thinking they should magically get OS software out of thin air or for free.  You'll pay $60 for 1 premium game, more for a console game, and then cry about $100 for the OS that runs everything and lasts for years of 24/7 operation with free maint updates forever.

If any of the hardship types out there happen to be cigarette smokers paying $60 per carton of cigs...just don't even speak, instead congratulate yourself for being a moron who pays out the nose to kill themself.

I WISH game devs would push harder on the tech and requirements.  64bit processors have been around for ages now.  Dx10/11 have been around long enough.  Neither are used much.  Every time a new game comes out and there's no Dx 11...or even Dx10 support I'm like...you gotta be kidding.

Oh well, maybe in another 5-10 years people will catch up to 64 bit and Dx11 will be in widespread use.

Lastly, I really wish people wouldn't mention games on Linux.  Linux is < 1% marketshare for OSes, not all of which are gamers.  Developing for that is a complete waste of time.  If so many people are too pitiful to bother upgrading Windows, they surely couldn't handle Linux, an OS for IT geeks and enthusiasts.  Mac is nearly as bad, so give that a rest too.

What about the /3GB switch?  It does contribute to system instability outside a game, but within it, people running WinXP can access 3GB RAM if they have it available.  I've done it myself with some of the heavy duty mods for Civ IV.  I'm not suggesting this is a substitute for 64-bit, but it might be at least a temporary solution for modmakers who want larger maps in FE.  I'd gladly play them using that switch.

One thing to keep in mind is that people's job security is threatened whenever they must learn something new, and this influences public opinion. Power users may hate a feature that makes a task ten times easier because they have become so good at doing it worse way. Eventually, however, the better way will improve the industry because more people will be enhanced by the new method than hindered.

Microsoft seems to be taking steps to force people to adapt to new systems, whether they want to or not, and it makes people uncomfortable.

For example, Windows 8 forces users to log in using their Windows Live ID. This is guaranteed to piss people off. On the other hand, it guarantees to the software developer that they will have Windows Live features like Skydrive available. In Windows 8, a programmer can backup a user's settings to Skydrive and automatically sync them with all the other computers a user has. Yes it's annoying, but it's small compared to the convenience of every program guaranteed this capability automatically. Developers can also use Live ID's authentication with their own services too. It's entirely possible to log into your PC and have Steam, Impulse, and whatever else be authenticated securely and automatically, without needing individual credential systems for each app to introduce new security issues. The technology is available today, but won't be used by developers until MS can force the 95% to get off their backsides and upgrade.

Software developers are also having better design crammed down their throats, whether they like it or not. For example, right now all monitors have pixels that are 1/72 of an inch squared. There is nothing preventing manufacturers from building super-high DPI monitors (think Apple's Retina display for your desktop and games) other than the fact that legacy programs were visually designed assuming 1/72" pixels. Anything else would make legacy programs render large and blocky, or small and unreadable.

Microsoft released an amazing framework called WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) that fixes this problem. WPF forces vector graphics for all of its rendering. When you zoom in on a WPF application, the text and graphics look clearer, whereas with older technologies it just looks blocky and crap. WPF also uses "logical pixels" to lay out applications. When a developer creates a button 30px by 90px, it actually calculates how many "physical pixels" it should render based on the specs of your monitor. That button will be the same size on every screen. WPF applications will look beautiful on a super-high DPI monitors, whereas old applications will be distorted, blocky and look like crap.

All Metro-Style apps are forced to use WPF or HTML5. I bet that, eventually, desktop apps will be forced to use some new technology too. Metro-Style apps are also more secure because users have to grant explicit permission for apps to use certain features. The new app store also benefits users by enforcing compliance with Microsoft's security and quality standards, for all the apps distributed there.

In summary, the dilemma Stardock faces when contemplating 64bit-only applications is really part of a larger problem. As Voqar said, Win7 may be the new XP because it's so stable that people won't see a reason to upgrade. Developers will make applications for the widest compatibility, and everyone will miss out on new possibilities because their current OS is "good enough".

Short-term discomfort at a massive scale is the only way to force people to use better systems. If everyone started using Windows 8 as soon as it was released, then creative developers could take full advantage of all the cool stuff it offers under the hood.

(For fairness, I should add that I have an unrealistically positive opinion of Microsoft. Most people have unrealistically negative opinions of MS.)

Edit: final note on metro...

The start screen is cool for launching desktop applications, but it's hard to say whether the metro apps themselves will be great or terrible. The Windows beta doesn't have any big scale metro apps. They are all just Wikipedia readers and dumb little games like you would find on the iPhone store. Anyone who says "metro is lame" is being premature because no developers have sunk their teeth in yet, and anyone who says "metro is great" is also premature for the same reason. Only time will show it's merits.

Thanks, Godplex, for the detailed and rational explanation regarding some of Win8's liabilities and assets.  Your calm, solid, and patient explanations add something valuable to the discussion (and particularly help those of us who are non-techies).  I personally expect to dislike Win8; and I will probably decide to "upgrade" soon to a 64-bit Win7 . 

But, again, I appreciate the thoughful explanation, that you took the time to offer, in your replies #76 and #82 above.  Thanks!       

Sorry, but that's not fair to XP users. 32-bit users are what is holding the market back, to which XP users are a part of. In addition, 32-bit users still make up the wide majority of the market (all my friends stil use 32 bit with the excpetion of 1), so it's in the interests of software developers to make their product compatable with 32-bit. Naturally, this in turn reinforces 32-bit users from upgrading as the new software being released still only requires 32-bit, adding to why they do not need to upgrade.

Two solutions:

1) Force 64-bit. Developers may try this at their own peril. It's a gamble because if not enough of the market can run their program, then they'll take a loss on their product...or even go bankrupt.

2) Acknowledge that 32-bit is still main stream. Developers will have to think smarter...as efficiencies in code will be needed to have their software do more with the 32-bit platform. The last time this phenomina occured was in the days of DOS. Ah DOS, how I miss you. The platform required developers to be extremely efficient at code in order to sell a good product. Most of the best games still come from that age too.

Personally, I'm for the second option. Why should users have to pay (upgrading their computers and OS) for developers to put out sloppy coded products?

The problem lies in the distance between your command above, and the desires of those who are happy with 32-bit.  I suspect that's the stretch of road paved with the money the latter won't spend on 64-bit games.  It's entirely up to each company how far they want to push the envelope in exchange for whatever loss of revenue they incur.

Fallen Enchantress is the end of the line for supporting 32-bit OSes.  I'm not willing to keep the # of monsters or map sizes gimped to support those who can't be bothered to get a decent machine.

Are you planning to continue support for 64-bit WinXP, Brad? 

Well it seems the major factor here is the economy, so perhaps Bill and President Obama should be the ones to adress this 32 64 bit address problem?

I'm just saying. I run win7 64.

Also ex milatary Love the USA so please no attacks

Win8 also has a local account option, so this is incorrect.

You CAN log in with a Microsoft account and it's recommended, you aren't forced to.