Halo 2 on PC will allegedly require Vista:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4698072.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4698072.stm)
What I think isn't printable!
QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Feb 9 2006, 06:16 PM
What I think isn't printable!
Thank God for emoticons.
:ranting:
ah well, good job I didn't think much of halo on the ol' xbox then :whistle:
my 2c
micro$oft didn't get where they are by playing fair...and they aren't likely to get fairer...
We'll all have Vista at some stage I reckon. No, not you Doggers, not you! :D
But one dose of the Master Chief was enough thanks. :eyebrow:
I bet Vista will be 'available' before Halo 2 PC ;)
this month beta2 will come out.
I already have beta1 but i don't like it and it is asking much from your pc :blink:
Now hoping microsoft is making a visit soon to our company so that i can try out beta2 :whistle:
oh the mother TANGOers lets all spend loads upgrading..........not
Micro$lop can TANGO right off. The last version on windoze i bought out of my own pocket was v3.1. I can't see that state of affairs changing anytime before, oh say, the heat-death of the universe...
I am so very tried of M$.
Is it just me... or isn't an OS supposted to be a frame for other applications? Needing to upgrade your gfx card just to run an operating system (okay, so much shit built into it that an OS is not a sufficient term) really annoys me.
QuoteOriginally posted by delanvital@Feb 9 2006, 10:40 PM
I am so very tried of M$.
Is it just me... or isn't an OS supposted to be a frame for other applications? Needing to upgrade your gfx card just to run an operating system (okay, so much shit built into it that an OS is not a sufficient term) really annoys me.
[post=111948]Quoted post[/post]
Seriously, what's the alternative, given that almost everything is made with whatever flavour Windows is in vogue, in mind? Will games run on 'whatever' for instance?
QuoteOriginally posted by Doorman@Feb 9 2006, 10:43 PM
Seriously, what's the alternative, given that almost everything is made with whatever flavour Windows is in vogue, in mind? Will games run on 'whatever' for instance?
[post=111949]Quoted post[/post]
I have tried 'breaking out of the MS dominance earlier when OS/2 Warp hit the shelves. I was quite happy about it, but had to give it up later on. So no, there is no alternative. But that does not make it right, nor me less unhappy about it <_<
os/2 was a great operating system. Its just a shame it was so bleedin difficult to run games in it.
QuoteOriginally posted by delanvital@Feb 9 2006, 11:10 PM
But that does not make it right, nor me less unhappy about it <_<
[post=111950]Quoted post[/post]
I agree entirely but we're bolloxed. :( Personally I have nothing against Microsoft except the fact there is no choice. That can't be right.
QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Feb 9 2006, 11:41 PM
os/2 was a great operating system. Its just a shame it was so bleedin difficult to run games in it.
[post=111951]Quoted post[/post]
Yeah it was great. Way ahead of its time
QuoteOriginally posted by delanvital@Feb 9 2006, 11:52 PM
Yeah it was great. Way ahead of its time
[post=111953]Quoted post[/post]
Forgive my ignorance, but if it was way ahead of it's time why couldn't you play games on it? :dummy:
there are a few alternatives... Mac OSX and Linux are two, and linux is free to try, so we should at least be trying it out. I intend to make my next pc a linux pc. windows will be a last resort for games/apps that require it, but most of the stuff I do should in theory work under linux reasonably well... :huh:
err guys....
this is a pointless discussion...why are'nt you gaming?
QuoteOriginally posted by Blunt@Feb 10 2006, 12:39 AM
err guys....
this is a pointless discussion...why are'nt you gaming?
[post=111958]Quoted post[/post]
Er...where? Everyone's gawn ta bed!
Most Linux distributions are free and the "techy only" aspect was removed years ago.
The problem is the game support. Yeah, you can get the server files for most games for Linux, but the game binaries themselves are like the excrement of the proverbial rocking horse.
I'm afraid the "forward thinking" aspect of gaming support loses out to the old $ or £ sign.
Blame the PC distributers, they are the ones that package M$ OS with everything.
Everyone "out of the know" assumes that because Linux is free, it is a buggy unsupported OS which is second rate.
The opposite is true, it is the most supported, updated, professional, powerfull and cheap operating systems to run.
But after all that, Halo2 is M$ and so M$ is making sure that the hype produces £'s of income once the pleborians get a whiff.
(http://home.btconnect.com/liberator/2cents.gif)
------------------------------
And there's another new smiley for you, damn the subtlety.
I never thought all that much of Halo or halo 2. I played the first few levels of Halo on XBox, quite liked it, bought it for PC, and discovered that compared with the majority of PC FPSes it was only mediocre. It only seemed so good on XBox because good console FPSes are few and far between. I wasn't thant impressed with Halo 2 either, and given the price of the XBox nowadays compared with buying, say, Windows XP, wouldn't it be cheaper to just but a XBox and play Halo 2 on that?
If this is an attempt by Microsoft to squeeze more cash out of people then I don't think it's gonna work. But given the min/recommended specs of Vista I suspect we're going to get the same situation we had with XP when it first came out, where games started listing one set of specs on the back of the box for 95, 98, ME, 2k, and a different set for XP. Vista supposedly is going to include all this cool integrated stuff to make my gaming experience easier and faster, but i'll be very surprised based on the specs Vista requires if they manage to make any of my current games run faster than they do on my XP install.
QuoteOriginally posted by Doorman@Feb 10 2006, 12:06 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but if it was way ahead of it's time why couldn't you play games on it? :dummy:
[post=111954]Quoted post[/post]
Ahead of its time in other aspects. The multitasking part was excellent, the system was very stable and if you used an application made for it, it was very efficient. No 640Kb limit was also nice. AFAIK it was a joint development between IBM and Microsoft? Originally?
That said, driver support was an issue and the "emulated" support for programs made for Windows was not that good <_< So, you could not play games on it succesfully because you would have to "emulate" Windows which meant booting it partially and having some compatibility issues, or just boot Windows only on which the game would run better anyway <_<
I'm not sure how my memory works here, but I think I recall having performance issues with Halo PC and being mightily pi***** off that my 3GHz PC with a 256Mb 9800pro underperformed the XBox's 733MHz processor and some kind of nvidia card at 250MHz.
Quite why Halo2 will require a ninja PC is beyond me.
Also, I'm with Doorman in that I have absolutely no interest in this overhyped piece of trash excuse for a video game. If memory serves, all my XBox-owning friends were annoyed with it, as it cuts off in the middle of the story with a damp squib of an ending. I can just play HL2 if I want all that.
edit: oh, and the xbox only has 64Mb RAM I think. Though I guess it can get away with it since it's not running Vista.