Ant wrote on Sep 24, 2017, 12:33:

MattyC wrote on Sep 24, 2017, 06:29:

Ant wrote on Sep 23, 2017, 19:17:
I still use ancient hardwares as shown in my http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/MyComputerStuff.txt (primary 64-bit W7 HPE SP1 box).

How is that Powerbook holding up? I still have an ancient dual processor G4 1GHz Quicksilver Power Mac that I got for ~$20 when my university was upgrading their labs. It moves quite well for its age. Uses a ton of power, but it can run Classic and I was always a fan of that case design, so I keep it just because.

It still works as of early 2017, but I rarely use it since it's SO old. I tried to install Linux on it, but it is slow and crashes a lot. Also, its internal wireless only does WEP. I am trying to find a good use for it.

I have heard Mint plays fairly nice with them, but I just stick with OS X. The wireless thing is a complete pain, even if it is understandable given their age.

I mostly just use mine to play old games like SimCity 2000 (the best version!), Marathon, and the like. I also do some programming on it when I don't want to be distracted by bagillion things I could do instead on my desktop.

I personally don't do anything with it, but mine came with a copy of Pro Tools and I have friends who sometimes want to use it for that (though I couldn't say why).

MattyC wrote on Sep 24, 2017, 06:29:

Ant wrote on Sep 23, 2017, 19:17:
I still use ancient hardwares as shown in my http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/MyComputerStuff.txt (primary 64-bit W7 HPE SP1 box).

How is that Powerbook holding up? I still have an ancient dual processor G4 1GHz Quicksilver Power Mac that I got for ~$20 when my university was upgrading their labs. It moves quite well for its age. Uses a ton of power, but it can run Classic and I was always a fan of that case design, so I keep it just because.

It still works as of early 2017, but I rarely use it since it's SO old. I tried to install Linux on it, but it is slow and crashes a lot. Also, its internal wireless only does WEP. I am trying to find a good use for it.

Midnight wrote on Sep 24, 2017, 10:39:

LaxerFL wrote on Sep 24, 2017, 03:54:
Of all the "Launcher" type clients I've had to put up with, Battle.net is the LEAST annoying, IMHO.

Agreed. One particularly neat feature is that you can still install a blizzard game simply by copying the game's folder from one PC to another. Launching the game will then install B.net and you'll have to login to actually play the game, but it's still much easier than all the alternatives.

See, I really hate these launcer client requirements. I just want to launch the games without them. Bah! I am old school!

Yeah they've reworked Battle.net launcher... I specifically launch Overwatch which opens Battle.net with the OW splash page loaded, and I can click 'Play'. When I'm done, I close the game and exit Battle.net from the system tray. For whatever reason, I cannot launch Battle.net by itself...

This comment was edited on Sep 24, 2017, 11:36.

LaxerFL wrote on Sep 24, 2017, 03:54:
Of all the "Launcher" type clients I've had to put up with, Battle.net is the LEAST annoying, IMHO.

Agreed. One particularly neat feature is that you can still install a blizzard game simply by copying the game's folder from one PC to another. Launching the game will then install B.net and you'll have to login to actually play the game, but it's still much easier than all the alternatives.

Ant wrote on Sep 23, 2017, 19:17:
I still use ancient hardwares as shown in my http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/MyComputerStuff.txt (primary 64-bit W7 HPE SP1 box).

How is that Powerbook holding up? I still have an ancient dual processor G4 1GHz Quicksilver Power Mac that I got for ~$20 when my university was upgrading their labs. It moves quite well for its age. Uses a ton of power, but it can run Classic and I was always a fan of that case design, so I keep it just because.

Of all the "Launcher" type clients I've had to put up with, Battle.net is the LEAST annoying, IMHO. I am using it to play D3 and OW on a laptop with integrated graphics (granted it is almost brand new laptop and has Intel's latest/greatest graphics solution) and I see no real performance hit.

I also LOVE some of the extra features the client has, like Live Streaming directly to Facebook Live! All I had to do was link my Facebook account and press F1 from inside any game launched from the client and it uses my webcam to show me in the lower left corner as it posts my game play in real time to FB Live! There is a noticeable performance hit when streaming but really how much can I ask of a laptop?!?!?

I have ZERO problems with Battle.net and since Blizzard makes like 80% of all the games I love, I use it every day.

Lax

Cyanotetyphas wrote on Sep 23, 2017, 21:04:
Battlenet client did have some terrible problems maybe 6 mo- 1 year ago with hardware acceleration on their stupid flash shit they force on each games tab.

Its come a long way though, I don't see the performance hit anymore and its way more stable. I still don't let it sit in the background unless I'm using it, but I stopped having issues.

The only one I really remember is needing to turn off "Use browser hardware acceleration" under advanced settings. Otherwise it has been far less painful than even Steam was when it rolled out. I am still not sure it was needed, but I haven't seen any other performance issues.

Battlenet client did have some terrible problems maybe 6 mo- 1 year ago with hardware acceleration on their stupid flash shit they force on each games tab.

Its come a long way though, I don't see the performance hit anymore and its way more stable. I still don't let it sit in the background unless I'm using it, but I stopped having issues.

NewMaxx wrote on Sep 23, 2017, 18:42:
GamersNexus also did some benchmarks a while back and the Battle.net client caused significant performance issues when running on Ryzen. Of course, Ryzen has had lots of strange issues like that (early Ryzen chips have been RMA'd for those that didn't know) with its host of teething problems (mostly memory-related and mostly alleviated with BIOS updates) but nonetheless worth noting the first point in this post.

Most would never know or experience the issue with the AMD Ryzen chips being rma'ed. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/254750-amd-replaces-ryzen-cpus-users-affected-rare-linux-bug

NewMaxx wrote on Sep 23, 2017, 18:42:
GamersNexus also did some benchmarks a while back and the Battle.net client caused significant performance issues when running on Ryzen. Of course, Ryzen has had lots of strange issues like that (early Ryzen chips have been RMA'd for those that didn't know) with its host of teething problems (mostly memory-related and mostly alleviated with BIOS updates) but nonetheless worth noting the first point in this post.

I don't have AMD anything. I still use ancient hardwares as shown in my http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/MyComputerStuff.txt (primary 64-bit W7 HPE SP1 box).

GamersNexus also did some benchmarks a while back and the Battle.net client caused significant performance issues when running on Ryzen. Of course, Ryzen has had lots of strange issues like that (early Ryzen chips have been RMA'd for those that didn't know) with its host of teething problems (mostly memory-related and mostly alleviated with BIOS updates) but nonetheless worth noting the first point in this post.

Ant wrote on Sep 23, 2017, 15:59:
Thanks. Its battle.net software is bloated, annoying, buggy, etc. when I used it last year for its Overwatch free weekend #1.

It's got a smaller memory footprint than origin(60MB) and steam now(80MB in beta), just under 40MB and the last 8mo or so have seen huge improvements in stability and proper thread handling during idle.

Sacrifice wrote on Sep 23, 2017, 15:57:

Ant wrote on Sep 23, 2017, 13:07:
Has it changed and improved since last year's free weekend to revisit? It was decent, but I hated its battle.net thing.

They've tweaked some characters and added some maps, but the gameplay hasn't changed drastically.

Battle.net is Blizzard's online gaming platform. It is like Steam, but only for Blizzard games. What didn't you like about it? I mean, other than having to run another platform, I find it works decently and is not instructive.

Thanks. Its battle.net software is slow, bloated, annoying, buggy, asking too many different firewall allow requests, etc. when I used it last year for its Overwatch free weekend #1.

Ant wrote on Sep 23, 2017, 13:07:
Has it changed and improved since last year's free weekend to revisit? It was decent, but I hated its battle.net thing.

They've tweaked some characters and added some maps, but the gameplay hasn't changed drastically.

Battle.net is Blizzard's online gaming platform. It is like Steam, but only for Blizzard games. What didn't you like about it? I mean, other than having to run another platform, I find it works decently and is not intrusive.

This comment was edited on Sep 24, 2017, 10:35.

Has it changed and improved since last year's free weekend to revisit? It was decent, but I hated its battle.net thing.