Rex soft clouds warning

[dc10boy]

I bought Rex soft clouds today from FSpilotshop.I attempted to install the product and the installer said it was not compatible with my operating system XP 64 bit.Now I'm going through the support circus, trying to get a refund for a product I can't even install.Nowhere in the specs did it say it was incompatible with XP64.
Stan

[orionll]

The FSPilotShop page I'm looking at (http://www.fspilotshop.com/rex-soft-clouds-for-fsx-p3d-p-5331.html) lists both "Windows Vista SP2 or greater" and "Microsoft .NET Framework 4.5" under "Minimum System Requirements". Here's an annotated screenshot. (http://i.imgur.com/7KKTku7.png)

[dc10boy]

I would have thought XP 64 bit to be "Greater" then Vista.

[imn2sims]

I would have thought XP 64 bit to be "Greater" then Vista.

......and that's where you went wrong........."Greater in this context means "Newer" not "Better". Still, sorry you can't use it but not REX's fault.

Steve

[zswobbie1]

Maybe a time frame of OS's?
XP, Vista, W7, W8, W10.
Greater means +1
Different versions of the same product,such as 32bit or 64bit are just different versions, not greater, or lessor, as the case might be.

Big oops, I hope they'll sort you out.

[ncooper]

What does the "warning" in the thread title refer to?

[DaveB]

What does the "warning" in the thread title refer to?

That Soft Clouds isn't supported in WinXP. dc10boy didn't realise that 'greater than Vista' meant that WinXP (which was a better OS!!) wasn't supported so posted this as a warning. He's now aware.

ATB
DaveB:)

[dc10boy]

The warning was to let other XP users know, so they would not make the same mistake I did.The product will not install at all in an XP 64 bit system.This took me by surprise as I have never encountered this problem until now.

[Jafo]

The warning was to let other XP users know, so they would not make the same mistake I did.The product will not install at all in an XP 64 bit system.This took me by surprise as I have never encountered this problem until now.
You are going to encounter it more and more.
XP is essentially defunct as it is several generations of OS old...and worse still...XP 64bit was very under-supported from day one.
Yes, Vista was released too soon...but 7 was essentially Vista released at the right time [of dev].
Meanwhile, 8 and its bastard cousin 8.1 are claimed to be 'current' but have more in common with Win ME than anything else....
...and 10 [they skipped 9 to keep distance from 8] is only a few months from RTM [so if you get eager and dump the dinosaur....don't go to the Dodo....wait for 10] ...;)

[dc10boy]

Thanks Zswobbie, I wasn't sure of the chronology there.I thought XP64 came after Vista.
I've got to get around to building an I7 Windows 7 beast.

[Lewis-A2A]

Thanks Zswobbie, I wasn't sure of the chronology there.I thought XP64 came after Vista.
I've got to get around to building an I7 Windows 7 beast.

You might want to hold of on the beast for now, some good reports coming from windows 10 so far, so you might end up when the time comes going i7 - win10. Win7 is currently on extended life support also, technology moves faster than all of us :dizzy:

[Jafo]

You might want to hold of on the beast for now, some good reports coming from windows 10 so far, so you might end up when the time comes going i7 - win10. Win7 is currently on extended life support also, technology moves faster than all of us :dizzy:

Though if you can get a cheap 7 or even 8 .... 10 is to be a free 'upgrade'. [just isn't to be for XP [or Vista]]

10 would be the 'creature of choice' even though it's plug-ugly, with graphics reminiscent of 2-bit Dos [except worse].

However it's the kernel that 'runs' the games....not the GUI ...;)

[DennyA]

There's no reason to go Windows 7 over Windows 8.1. Win 8.1 has many optimizations, bug-fixes, etc. over Windows 7. The driver model didn't change, so almost all hardware that's Win 7 compatible runs 8.1 as well, and generally runs it better thanks to the smaller memory footprint and optimizations. Plus there are other improvements, such as much better multi-monitor support. And, free upgrade to Win 10.

If you hate the Windows 8 Start menu, the $4.99 utility Start8 (or one of the many free equivalents) gives you an improved Win XP/Win 7-style Start menu. I use it on my desktop gaming PC. With Start8 in place, you almost never have any significant user experience differences from Win 7. (Just a few settings items.)

Running Windows XP, either 32 or 64, is somewhat dangerous nowadays if you're on an Internet-connected PC, since security updates have ended for the 13.5-year-old OS.

On the topic of REX Soft Clouds, if you have a compatible machine, they definitely do look good. :)

[DennyA]

10 would be the 'creature of choice' even though it's plug-ugly, with graphics reminiscent of 2-bit Dos [except worse].

Hyperbole much? :-) I used DOS and this isn't what DOS looked like...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Windows_10.jpg

[Jafo]

Hyperbole much? :-) I used DOS and this isn't what DOS looked like...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Windows_10.jpg

No it doesn't, I agree....with Dos you could get better icons....;p

[Jafo]

http://www.cleanposts.com/images/6/69/Dt20120908.jpg

This is Dos.
So is this....
http://www.bruchbach.de/long1.jpg

[Jafo]

If you hate the Windows 8 Start menu, the $4.99 utility Start8 (or one of the many free equivalents) gives you an improved Win XP/Win 7-style Start menu. I use it on my desktop gaming PC. With Start8 in place, you almost never have any significant user experience differences from Win 7. (Just a few settings items.)



Start8 and Mordernmix, both proggies are from Stardock [the company/site for which I'm an Admin - Wincustomize.com], and yes, with both of these [$5 each] you can CORRECT Microsoft's glaring failure that was the Win 8 GUI, and replicate the functionality of 7. The reason MS chose '10' as the next title was the conscious admission they needed to distance themselves from 8 - the best failure of an OS release they'd had since the glory days of Win ME.

At any time the data re 8 uptake/adoption was the worst in their history and so many 'defenders' said it was due to the economy - which was bollocks since 8 was a low-price upgrade in spite of which too few took them up on. If it weren't for OEM it would have been ridiculously worse.

DennyA is right re it being a better 'OS' - but only under the skin. On some older hardware it's potentially a faster OS than the [relatively] low-demanding XP due to refinement, but the removal of 7's 'bling' was a total failure on anything other than their failure of a mobile phone format.

The one true statement about Windows 8 is that it provided Stardock with a very healthy income providing after-market fixes [that MS SHOULD have at least provided as options in-house]...;)