I'm hanging onto Windows XP for a while yet. I tried playing the retail version of Sacred Underworld on a 32-bit Windows 7 PC recently and the framerate was terrible.

On the upside, when I played it again on a Windows XP PC, it made the fluidity of the game seem so much better.

No, for those we have the "enthusiast and/or plain mad" category.

The BBC made computers?

Theres your problem. go 64bit 32bit is there only for places that don't get processors newer than 2003 and businesses
look up ARM ;)

Windows 8 (6.2) isn't here yet, and Windows Vista (6.0) isn't that popular now, so yes, Windows 7 (6.1) should be a priority. The differences aren't that big between theses systems, and they have the biggest market share. Not all GOG library is Seven compatible, but I don't look at it as neglecting. It's probably easier, as a first step, to add XP support at first:
- Win 9X games were only one generation before, and work as already be done for years to identify and solve most incompatibilities between Win9X and Win2000/XP;
- DOS games works with dosbox - so it's mostly configuration with nearly no difference with Vista/7;
- XP games just works - DRM issues aside.

That said, I would really be disappointed if XP support was to be dropped soon. Stopping it would now mean more that just leaving an obsolete OS behind: it would means more dependence for specific Microsoft API, and more fragility to radical OS changes. If a Dosbox game isn't installable on XP, will it be installable in Windows 8? Or Windows 9? Or Windows 10? If the new paradigm in W8 is a failure and MS abandons it, does GOG have the resources to speedily rewrite every installer for W9? Specializing that much is a step away for starting support for others systems - I don't really want to install the latest version of .NET every time I buy a GOGame.

For newer games (post XP), it's of course logical to just provide them for most recent systems, but for older ones, I don't know if GOG can afford to lose XP/MacOS/Linux/BSD users, even if it isn't the majority. Even for Windows users, you can't expect all to have the most recent hardware / software: GOG sells games worldwide, even where internet connexions aren't that reliable and PC don't have the latest CPU & GPU.

---

It depends of the emphasis of the game: more content or shorter game with slightly better special FX.

Making higher resolution content does cost more, in terms of time, storage, and puts more load on the computer (you needs RAM and CPU/GPU to animate all that).
With multiple textures for each object (color/transparency/bump/normal/specular/etc. maps), it's a lot of data to move around. With higher mesh density more work is needed for modeling just to not look wrong (an high-res table without anything on it won't suffice).

Yes, the devs won't be re-creating pretty effect handled by DirectX 11, but if you really want to upgrade the graphics, it won't be cheap. And is that really cheaper to create a bug-infested new engine for DirectX 11 rather that using a well tested DirectX 9 one?

Vectors models with hidden surfaces, filled surfaces, gouraud shaded models, textured surfaces, bump-mapping, etc. yes it's was cool and impressive evolutions, but I'm hard pressed to see ANY improvement in latest games. For years, it has been the same choice between overly shiny 3d worlds populated with inexpressive clones, or green-brown tainted 3d worlds populated with inexpressive clones, both with distracting effects (Lens flare in a /medieval/ setting? Really?)

I'll have to give it a try the next time I install Windows 7 64-bit. I'd steered away from it because Microsoft's compatibility site gave me the impression that more legacy games were having problems with 64-bit versus 32-bit Windows 7.

Consider you no longer have to pay for the DX9 branch WHAM there goes all that extra expense your now PAYING LESS to produce the game.
18-36 months from now you have the new unreal engine hell the new ID engine will have halfway through development and you know how late those things are in a console generation!

Current DX11 games are held back by DX9 being the lead platform they take the DX9 models and uprate them not the other way round now consider the first gen games for the next xbox where DX11 is the lead platform your already producing those high detail models rather than upgrading DX9 your now spending cash redoing the models to work in DX9 for PC FOR A SMALL PART OF YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE. How do you save your money now? Drop DX9
That site hasn't been updated since launch most DRM drivers are now ported.

I'm glad to hear that because I've got quite a few games that are on that list. Just haven't had the time to go and test them all... and my Windows XP PC is doing its job well so I haven't had much incentive to experiment either.

I would if I bought a 7 license, but $300 for a retail version... So it's mostly XP with Parallels. In Vista/Seven like in Ubuntu, animations are fun (Compiz cube and elastic windows...), but beyond the basic desktop acceleration, it's a distraction and eats resources.

I do have to deal with Vista or Seven sometimes (fixing badly infected computers), and I still hate the confusing config panel with Network settings scattered all over the place. Ubuntu isn't that much better but Apple seems to understand a little more what an intuitive interface means.

A lot of companies didn't the XP->Vista upgrade because of the various issues at launch and beyond. Where I worked last year the choice was to switch to Linux...

Well... I just keep my computers as long as they works. Amiga 500 -> Amiga 1200 -> PowerMac 7200 -> Amiga 4000T -> Windows 95 Laptop (second hand) -> Windows 2000 Laptop (second hand) -> Windows XP mini-tower (second hand) -> iMac24... The two laptops and the PowerMac are dead, the Amiga are still ok, I gave the mini-tower (with a Ubuntu/XP dual boot setting) and got the iMac last year (dual boot + Parallels, upgraded now to 8GB RAM).

When Windows 8 is selling and bundled with new computers, that the focus shifts from Window XP, ok, but now? With Seven retail costing like 30-50 GOGames?

confusing network settings in CP? right click the network icon in the bottom right choose network and sharing centre and it's all there on one screen!
30-50? 20 at 9.99 is 200 nearly and that gets you win7 well and truely gets you it. Oh but you want the unneeded pro/ultimate version which has stuff most people will never need/use

The problem is using multiple APIs, with no return, and the problem is the newer API won't gives more satisfaction to players.

Seriously, aren't GFX card and API evolution doing a disservice to PC gaming? CPU speedup is slowing down, and a lot of resources is diverted for details that most people won't even see. The cost of production is huge, and games are less and less interactive. If every game has to be written for the newest card, when will any game really optimized for any card? Looking at recent productions, the problem isn't into the details or fx or whatever, the problems is in the lack of time taken to do something useful with it. What is the point of a graphic upgrade for a RPG if everybody looks the same and you can't even select your character gender at start.

You can drop DX9 and use DX11, ok, it's a choice. It would be an incentive to upgrade the OS to have good games using it. But if you do use DX11, you still have to be careful and only stick to what is needed, or the result won't be any better that with sticking strictly to DX9 and using DX11 compatibility features. I don't care if the water is reflecting the moon if the framerate drops to 10 FPS after ten minutes of play for no apparent reasons.

For consoles, the target is fixed, you know the limits and work within them. Better, you have time to adapt, to innovate, to fully understand any particularity. For PC, it's always the race for the next shiny thing, who results in the next should-have-been-awesome unplayable game. How many games works correctly out of the box theses days? Clearly not a lot of developers fully understands the before-last year technology.

There are multiple places for Firewall settings (standard + advanced), File sharing, Adapter Settings, Group settings, etc. and the navigation isn't that intuitive. In CP, the Firewall is a separate entry that the network settings. I feel I need more clicks to change the same setting that in previous versions, and I don't like having the wizards mixed with direct settings: why clicking on a blue link gives a wizard, clicking on another changes the page to enter another panel, and clicking on another gives a series of options and check-boxes? Too many different things on each screen, not two screen are organized the same, perhaps just a matter of taste, but I call it a mess.
OK, Home, at $200+ can be used to play. It still a lot.

I found that previous Home edition where quite limited in network possibilities (like refusing to save a password for a local FTP server, not usable with domains, and having an incoming connexions limit making it unusable for any server usage even on a home network), so I'm a little wary of Seven Home.

Windows XP Mode, only for Seven Pro and up, would be useful to guarantee a smooth transition.

No, because it's quite useless. Get VirtualBox and use your current XP license instead, it'll serve you better than XP Mode can, especially if you're planning to use it with games.

Heck, you can just import it from the US (it's around $100) or from the UK (75 GBP).

As for the saving FTP passwords, that's not true, nor is having a incoming connection limit. The only issue would be with joining a domain, which is not supported, but if you have the money to have a domain enabled network then you can afford the Professional version (and if it is for work, they'd either have to approve your machine joining the network, or pay for the OS themselves).