Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Tech Bits

View
13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

13. Re: 2k vs Xp Mar 29, 2006, 05:13 JAGUART
 
2K was never a gaming platform. Hell it wasn't even marketed to consumers. You can draw similarities to 2K, but it was XP that was a boon for consumers.

Halo 2 finally, ONE game isn't enough to make me switch. until then, I'll tinker with it at work, but it won't touch my home computer till things stabilize

You're not a gamer. At All.

Public opinion version .12b Alpha build 2

This comment was edited on Mar 29, 05:20.
 
"I like to play female characters in MMORPGs to trick men into homosexual chat." - space captain, June 18th, 2009.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. No subject Mar 28, 2006, 00:28 VoodooV
 
XP is useless fluff only if you had 2K and thats true even today. If you have 2K, there is NO reason to upgrade unless you're buying a new PC. yeah, if you're still running on 98, XP is awesome, but please, most people had started to move over to 2K, so the change was already happening when XP came out. when push comes to shove to your standard no frills gamer, there is no diff between 2k and XP, and thus, no reason to upgrade. Sure XP is the gold standard now, only because its been out for a long time now and people have had time to migrate to it and hardware caught up to it, we all bitched at one point about the, then, steep requirements for XP

Bottom line is that Gamers won't upgrade until they start to see more and more games that say Vista is supported on the system requirements. As much as I would like to play Halo 2 finally, ONE game isn't enough to make me switch. until then, I'll tinker with it at work, but it won't touch my home computer till things stabilize

XP is to 2K, the same way 98 was to 95. XPSP2 is to XP the same way 98SE is to 98. So if they follow true to form, Vista will be the new 95, it will inevitably be replaced by something that is essentially the same thing under the hood, but updated...which is exactly what 98 was to 95

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Heads Roll at Microsoft Mar 28, 2006, 00:24 FourPak
 
lol, morale must be great there right now.

the MS Office Business Division guy is in charge of the Operating System division engineers!? ahahaha!


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Vista's late? Pregnant? Mar 28, 2006, 00:17 FourPak
 
run it and run it well aren't the same of course, you can run XP in 32M w/ 1M onboard video ram and a 566mhz celeron but it sux. (i had to do it recently in an emergency, ack!)

and while many MacGyver's here could build uber vista whizbang systems for $1.95 with a ball of twine, some duct tape and a roll of chicken wire, normal people are gonna be compelled to fork out a $grand or more for a new "good" system, one that offers 0 benefit over what they have now, but has "Vista" on the startup screen, so it must be better.

Still, Bill dictates what we must own, and so it shall be.

form over function,
style over substance,
better to look good than to be good,
image is everything.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Vista's late? Mar 27, 2006, 21:38 Zathrus
 
RAM for Vista has moved up to 2 gigs minimum.

WTF are you talking about? That was from a Inquirer story that is based off complete and utter speculation. Oh, and 2G of RAM? Wow! That's all of $200.

you're still talking about 5 grand at least for a system good enough to run it WELL plus games.

Uh... right. Whatever. I could build a system for <$1K today that would run it well. A year from now? Complete non-issue.

That said, I sure as hell wouldn't buy it when it comes out. Wait for other fools people to shake it out, and see if the DRM is as god awful as it sounds or is as toy as XP's activation.


Meanwhile, War continues his unabashed ignorance of all things relating to computers... do you happen to live in Tuttle, Oklahoma?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Vista's late? Mar 27, 2006, 20:48 Halsy
 
RAM for Vista has moved up to 2 gigs minimum. Ok so scratch 2 grand for the HDCP monitor, you're still talking about 5 grand at least for a system good enough to run it WELL plus games.

Vista is pure bloatware.


"You gotta keep on keepin' on, brother!"
- Joe Dirt
 
"And then, suddenly and without warning, it turned into a real-life case of hungry, hungry hippos."
- Stephen Colbert
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Vista's late? Mar 27, 2006, 20:31 Orogogus
 
You don't need an HDCP-compatible monitor to run XP, you just need it to watch protected movies on your PC. If you don't do that, any old monitor will do.

I'm not rushing out to buy it, but I don't see any reason not to get it when I get my next PC (in 2 years or so).

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Vista's late? Mar 27, 2006, 20:20 Ray Singh
 

You'd need to drop 7 grand on a system just to have it run decently

uhh, no, uh oh 512 ram GEEZ

3 gigs of space ouch!!! since most harddrives are what 300 gigs?

a dx 9 video card, cost what $50

close to 7 grand...

all I don't have is the (HDCP)-compatible monitor.

I'm not endorsing Vista, but the requirements don't look that ridiculous.

* CPU: x86-compatible 32-bit or x64-compatible 64-bit microprocessor(s) (Dual-core systems will be supported on all editions except Starter, and multiple physical processors are supported on Business, Enterprise and Ultimate editions)
* Motherboard: ACPI-compatible firmware is required.
* Memory: At least 512 megabytes of physical memory. Microsoft is also encouraging the use of ECC memory to improve stability.[2]
* Graphics Card: A DirectX 9–compatible GPU that is capable of supporting Windows Vista Display Driver Model (WVDDM) (only needed for aero glass) and has 64 megabytes of VRAM at minimum.
* Hard Drive space: At least 3 gigabytes for installation files, possibly more, depending on the edition of Windows Vista.
* Display: Copy-restricted high-definition digital content, such as next-generation HD DVD movies, will be displayed at a reduced resolution of 480p (DVD quality) or 540p, unless viewed on a High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP)-compatible monitor. Very few existing displays and no retail video cards are compliant with this standard. [3][4][5]


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. No subject Mar 27, 2006, 19:44 JAGUART
 
I bought XP right when it came out, and never regretted it.

Vista is another story. I see absolutely no reason to buy this, esp since I turn off all of XP's eye candy now for increased performance. When you look at a list of published "reasons to upgrade to Vista" not one of them is important. I have yet to hear any argument why Vista is the way to go.

The Digital Rights Management content of Vista will make things difficult for the more creative users out there.
 
"I like to play female characters in MMORPGs to trick men into homosexual chat." - space captain, June 18th, 2009.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Vista's late? Mar 27, 2006, 19:40 War
 
>XP was a major leap forward from NT/98. Vista is solely about eye candy.

To coin a phrase:
"Gee, I recall people saying the exact same thing about XP in 2000 and 2001.

Funny that."

>If game devs ever start making games Linux compatible with any regularity

That's what the Linux guys have been saying since Linux started.

Has it happened? No. Is it going to happen? Considering the XNA and all the tools, no.

Developers are already going to have troubles porting to PS3, they won't bother with a worthless, piss-poor piece of crap open source software whose supporters are reduced to whining to the EU court to avoid blowing up. I wouldn't be surprised if even Carmack says he doesn't have time to shit in Linux's tray.

Oh, and the EU court ruled that Linux "is no competition" to Windows. Funny that, too.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Vista's late? Mar 27, 2006, 18:48 Halsy
 
XP was a major leap forward from NT/98. Vista is solely about eye candy. The system requirements are friggin' ridiculous. You'd need to drop 7 grand on a system just to have it run decently, nevermind gaming on top of that.

Most consumers have no idea about the system reqs for this piece of bloatware. When they find out, they won't be adopting early. I can see this thing picking up steam in 2 or 3 years time - and even longer for the corporate world - but certainly not untill then.

They're certainly doing Linux a huge favour. If game devs ever start making games Linux compatible with any regularity MS is up shit creek without a paddle.


"You gotta keep on keepin' on, brother!"
- Joe Dirt
 
"And then, suddenly and without warning, it turned into a real-life case of hungry, hungry hippos."
- Stephen Colbert
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Vista's late? Mar 27, 2006, 16:23 Zathrus
 
No one is going to buy it anyway.

Gee, I recall people saying the exact same thing about XP in 2000 and 2001.

Funny that.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Vista's late? Mar 27, 2006, 16:01 Halsy
 
Whatever. No one is going to buy it anyway.


"You gotta keep on keepin' on, brother!"
- Joe Dirt
 
"And then, suddenly and without warning, it turned into a real-life case of hungry, hungry hippos."
- Stephen Colbert
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo