Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:46 UTC, submitted by netpython
Permalink for comment 255254
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-26
Let us not forget, it is also not their first time at such foolishness. If DX10 genuinely requires features only included under Vista, then o.k. - maybe they shouldn't be *forced* to include additional extensions, wrappers, etc. for the sake of an older product line.
However, if they are doing OS version checks, and then purposely locking-out older versions - even if that OS is capable - then that is wrong.
It has happened before: Windows live messenger (8.0) runs fine on W2k, once you grab your hex editor and change it's version check. Same to some screensavers and the like.