FireStarter Demo

GSC Game World has released a playable demo for FireStarter, their still-gold action-packed first-person shooter. The demo offers solo and multiplayer action, as well as a benchmark, all for a 64 MB download. Mirrors are available on 3D Gamers, ActionTrip, Boomtown (registration required), Computer Games Online, Filerush, Gamer's Hell, Loadedinc (registration required), NWSGaming.Com, and Worthplaying.
View : : :
86.
 
Re: Windows XP? Oh, HEEEELLLLLLLL NO!
Dec 8, 2003, 21:27
86.
Re: Windows XP? Oh, HEEEELLLLLLLL NO! Dec 8, 2003, 21:27
Dec 8, 2003, 21:27
 
As usual I'm quoting from a number of posts.

As for complaining that a game doesn't support 98, you might as well complain that games don't support DOS, or that GC games don't support the N64.

The problem with this analogy though is that the GC is a fundamentally different architecture (both in terms of hardware & software) than the N64. Same with DOS vs Windows (DOS is 16 bit real mode, whereas Windows 9x & greater is 32bit protected mode).

Different operating systems have different functions, and in order to do some things you need to either abandon the old, or waste time writing workarounds for it.

Really? Like what specifically? The thing is that WinXP (or 2K), while more stable due to architectural design choices (such as the abandonment of compatitibility with legacy hardware/software) it is still a 32bit OS running on x86 architecture. And so is Win9x. I am not aware of any fundamental difference that prevents code written for a 32 bit windows platform to run under Win9x. Exception: when Microsoft denounces Win 9x and thus support for it ceases, but this isn't a case of it can't be done, but rather that MS is pushing consumers to a new platform for economic reasons). Note I'm not trying to start a MS bashing type debate (like those that are oh so trendy on /.), but rather just pointing out that the reasons we seem to upgrade have little to do with technical limiations of current OS's, and more to do with being "pushed" in the direction of newer and (I use the term loosely) "better" OS's.

Bottom line XP is way to expensive for the performance improvements it brings! If you get it with a nes PC then no need to go back to 98.

Exactly. Why should I spend the $150 to "upgrade" when the only real thing XP brings is stability? (which IMO is something that should just be a given, if you purchase an OS it should work)

Yes, I was about to say the same thing. XP becomes happy at 512

But why should I be forced to upgrade to get stability? I can understand if you want greater performance upgrades are necessary, but stability isn't a perk, it's an expectation of the systems we buy (or at least, it should be).

An analogy: if you buy a TV, and then later decide that you want picture-in-picture, or high-definition reception, etc, then you'd go out and buy a new TV to get the new features. And this is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, if you bought a TV, and the thing simply didn't work, yeah you'd buy a new TV, but you'd never buy from the same manufacturer simply because you'd feel like you got screwed. Why is it that we have the expectation of quality in tangible products like TV's, cars, etc, etc, but not in software?

And spare me the "but software design is such a complex process" argument. I'm a comp sci major, so I can appreciate this point, but that doesn't excuse sofware manufacturers from releasing updates that address stability for free.

</rant> hehe


PZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Reading: J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" -- Last Read: Kenneth Lux's "Adam Smith's Mistake: How a Moral Philosopher Invented Economics and Ended Morality"
This comment was edited on Dec 8, 21:28.
PZ
------------
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
2.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
5.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
6.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
7.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
13.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
8.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
    C'mon now
10.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
     Re: C'mon now
39.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
3.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
4.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
9.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
11.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
15.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
16.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
24.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
12.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
17.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
14.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
18.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
19.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
21.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
22.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
20.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
23.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
25.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
26.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
48.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
82.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
84.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
27.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
28.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
31.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
29.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
32.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
38.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
51.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
30.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
33.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
34.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
36.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
85.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
 86.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
   Re: Windows XP? Oh, HEEEELLLLLLLL NO!
40.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
41.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
42.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
46.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
50.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
52.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
43.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
44.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
45.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
47.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
49.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
53.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
54.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
55.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
57.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
58.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
  Re: MP
59.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
   Re: MP
68.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
    Re: MP
69.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
     98 to XP
70.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
      Re: 98 to XP
61.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
63.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
71.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
72.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
     Re: No subject
74.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
      Re: No subject
75.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
       Re: No subject
73.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
     Re: No subject
88.
Dec 9, 2003Dec 9 2003
      Re: No subject
89.
Dec 9, 2003Dec 9 2003
       Re: No subject
65.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
56.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
60.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
62.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
64.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
66.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
79.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
80.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
    HI
81.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
     Re: HI
67.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
76.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
77.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
78.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
83.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
87.
Dec 8, 2003Dec 8 2003
90.
Dec 9, 2003Dec 9 2003
91.
Dec 9, 2003Dec 9 2003
92.
Dec 9, 2003Dec 9 2003
93.
Dec 9, 2003Dec 9 2003
94.
Dec 9, 2003Dec 9 2003
95.
Dec 9, 2003Dec 9 2003
96.
Dec 9, 2003Dec 9 2003
97.
Dec 12, 2003Dec 12 2003