Exactly. The name of the game is efficiency, my man. Making a computer do more with less is very useful, because it means I can run a game at a higher detail setting than you can with the same system specs.
I don't know why DX is dangerous to install on WinXP. I'm no techy, and I certainly don't understand the basics of DX's code. I trust what the developers say, though. And, why in the world would you think it'd be any easier? DX is a 4 year old game. It was made before a lot of concepts XP is built on were even being considered.
CC, I don't blame everything on WinXP, but when you run the same program as me, and it runs slow as hell, even though you have a more powerful computer, it begs the question: "What piece of software is getting in the way?" Of course, there's the usual stuff, that maybe it's a DirectX problem, or maybe the Demo had a bug they never bothered to fix, or perhaps you're running the game on maximum graphics settings, but it seems a bit like an OS problem to me. I can run NWN on maximum detail settings at about 20 FPS, and my computer is slower than yours. Also, I prolly have a lot more software running to interfere with NWN. It just looks like WinXP is the culprit. NWN isn't poorly made, you just have to remember, in order for a game to support Windows XP, it has to be specifically MADE that way. NWN was in development for 6 years, so by the time they finished, the developers prolly said, "ztype it, we'll just let it be unstable on WinXP and fix it in the expansion pack. Most people that would play the game run Win98 anyway," because you can't deny the fact that most gamers use Win98, and you can't deny the fact that WinXP is very different from Win9x. You can't just wave a wand and make a game compatible with a totally different operating system--that's why it takes so long for Mac ports of games to become available.
I'd like to clear something up: I don't have anything against Windows XP, or people that use Windows XP, so don't take what I say as an insult. I'm simply stating that Windows XP is not an operating system I'd like to use, because it's less stable than Win98 (At the moment. I'm sure MS will release updates that fix most of the WinXP issues, and I might consider upgrading then, but probably not), and because as a platform for running games, it's not good. It hogs resources, which slows games, and makes them less fun (I personally don't like waiting a bazillion years for a map to load). Also, since it's one of the first OS' that is not built on a DOS platform, it doesn't support games built for a DOS platform as well. And don't make any mistake, DX and NWN, as well as older games like Wolfenstein 3D and Ken's Labyrinth (Which I still play occasionally) get wonky when they come across Windows XP gibbering some foreign language and making complex hand gestures. I'm sure Windows XP has its good points (As I've said before, NTFS), and it also has its bad points, just like Win98 has its good points and bad points, and OS X has its good points and bad points, and Linux has its good points and bad points. When comparing the different OS', I see Win98 as having the most overwhelming good points and miniscule bad points. I don't mean this as an insult to any other operating system.
Now, saying NWN is a poorly made game, on the other hand, is a direct insult to the game and, by association, those who play it. NWN is not poorly made, and you should know that. It's won a bunch of game of the year awards, and those websites that didn't award it that put it in the top 5. Most of the cons pointed out in reviews have been resolved with the patches Bioware has released, and even without the patches, the reviewers gave NWN a high score (At gamespy.com, 1 point off Warcraft 3, which I personally think is because War3 is an established franchise. I could be wrong, but you gotta admit that War3 being an established franchise and from a well known developer is going to soften people's opinions of the game). NWN is a well done game (with its faults, I'll be the first to admit), and it's one of the best RPGs I've played. Also, even though the singleplayer campaign is over 200 hours long (Longer on the harder difficulties), I'm playing through it again a couple more times. That's saying a lot.
I'd like to point out that Windows 95 uses the same base as Win98, which is why they are referred to as the combined Win9x. Dooffy, saying that games made for Win95 wont work on WinXP is the same as saying games made for Win98 wont work on WinXP. A game wont work on WinXP unless it was made for it, or if it doesn't use any particularly odd or strenuous functions that might assault an OS' sensibilities. For example, Half-Life, because it is, in essense, a simple game, will run on almost any Windows operating system. However, Deus Ex has problems because it uses a fairly complex system, as well as taking full use of a lot of built in Windows functions, so it wont work well with WinXP. I bet it wont work with ME, either, and probably 2000 (Not sure about 2k. It might work okay there). If a game is simple in design it can get past a lot of errors, because the developers have more time to fiddle with stuff, and make it more compatable with OS' it isn't familiar with. This is also why Mac ports of Half-Life are already out, while DX ones take longer.
TS, your question was never really answered, but I'd say Unix would be a much more difficult to use OS. I've never used it, but since it's made essentially for running servers, I'd say it'd take a bit of getting used to. Also, Winamp3 does hog resources. It's probably not noticable on newer machines, but I bet with XP's handy resource tracer you could see how much of your system the two use. I'm actually going to try and download it now that I've upgraded my computer, because it was pretty cool (And has some advantages over Winamp2).
Anyway, this ends my spiel. Really, it's a moot point. If you think Windows XP is the right OS for you, that's your opinion. I personally think Win98 is much easier to use and much better for what I use it for. I can't change anyone's mind about it though. It's your own opinion.
Banshee: I understand that, but if you look at my post, the first part, the part about Windows XP, was a reply to someone else's post, and the second part was my comment on the original topic. I'm fixing everything now and posting my reply back to the post it's supposed to be on. Everything's fine now. QUICK_EDIT
Kane, the original topic was about a remake of C&C. What does windows has to do with it? Since it went so much offtopic, I splitted that.
Even with the ram you judge necessary, win98 will always run programs faster than XP, because it doesnt affects only RAM, but processor as well as win XP is full of trash to process too...
what does that "code" and your commant have in relation? QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2003 3:16 am Post subject:
lol... In the moment, the topic had its name changed... so it was a sort of reply to that which was replied by Kane in the following message. QUICK_EDIT
lol, I'm not scared of WinXP. I don't use WinXP for the same reason I don't use OS X or WinME or Linux. I just don't think they're worth the trouble of installing. QUICK_EDIT
well ur gona have the prob on spending ages o n upgradin ur old comp year after year, or maybe month after month cos all the comps r gona come with xp rdy installed, and if u cant b botherd installing other OS's u wsurley cant b botherd to unistall xp and install 98 _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:32 pm Post subject:
This is one of the thousands reasons that I buy the pieces of the my computer and I assemble it myself and install the operational system I want to and customize it in my own way. Initially, this can become a little more of a headache, but the final result is definitelly much better. QUICK_EDIT
Not wanting to start/continue/ressurect an arguement Kane but what you're saying about XP is not from everyones experience with the OS, I respect that you prefer Win98 and have many good reasons for that choice but in my opinion XP is as if not more stable than Win98 ever was (maybe that's down to my system configuration), my games are running faster (I can run Unreal Tournament 2003 on 1024x768 with full detail whereas on Win98 it was 800x600 with almost full detail), Deus Ex still hasn't been the slightest bit clunky with me as yet (neither has the first Unreal Tournament for that matter and that uses pretty much the same engine). Personally I think XP is as easy to use as Windows 98 if not easier (things like integrated cd-burning and clear-type font smoothing have been revelations for me), it doesn't dumb anything down it just rearranges stuff but you can switch it all back anyway, you have just as much control over your system as with Win98 you just have to learn the new places to look. If you don't like the look of the XP interface you can change just about every element back to a win9x style so that's not an issue either.
This isn't meant to present an arguement for anyone, I'm just stating my points for the record just as Kane did earlier. QUICK_EDIT
Dooffy, if I bought a computer with XP on it, I'd downgrade it to Win98 because I like it better. The reason I can't be bothered upgrading to WinXP is because I like Win98 more, so I'm not going to upgrade my OS for no apparent benefit. If WinXP had some huge advantage over Win98, I'd use it, but it doesn't (that I can see), so I wont.
OOAK, that's great if WinXP is working out for you. My experiance is that hardware configuration plays a huge role in whether an OS works or doesn't, and maybe it's just my specific configuration that WinXP doesn't like, or your configuration is really compatible with XP, but, when I used it, it was crap compared to my old Win98. I found myself running back to good ol' 98 within a week.
Hellfire, at the risk of sounding critical, I absoultely HATE it when people say they don't like a company. What did MS ever do to you? MS has been making quality software, which is widely respected and used, for years, and they've been working hard as hell to appease customers, and then people start bitching and whining about every little bug, and every little tiny insignificant mistake. Give MS the same latitude you give any other software company. Just because they're bigger and more successful is no reason to be extra critical of them. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 12:45 am Post subject:
respected as a full of bugs quality that charges a very high price for the name "Microsoft" in its products. Linux costs R$10 here while Windows XP Home costs more than R$500. Any other comments? QUICK_EDIT
They aren't full of bugs. Microsoft software is HUGE, you have to remember, and generally pretty complicated. They have to make a massive piece of software compatible with every possible system configuration they can think of, and hackers don't help it by forcing them to constantly change their software to include anti-hacking measures. Plus, they have to keep changing their software to meet the needs of customers, and sometimes they have to make a choice that screws a small group of customers. It's a decision they have to make, but people still get bitchey.
Sure, MS software is more expensive than other stuff, but it's also got a lot more to it. It takes longer to make and more programmers work on it, and it's bigger, usually. Linux can afford to be cheap because it isn't as complex as Windows, and doesn't take so much time, not to mention it's simple so it's not likely to have trouble being compatible with different hardware configurations. The price is also a bit inflated because of piracy... they have to make up their losses by raising the price. It's like someone stealing from a store, and the store raising prices to compensate for the loss. The high price isn't just for the name "Microsoft." It's also for all the added functionality you get. QUICK_EDIT
I think he just means in principle, should XP2 come out would Kane try it. Doofy, I don't think its possible to be scared of an OS, everyone has their own choice and reasons behind that choice. Me and you like XP, Kane likes Win98 that's all there is to it. QUICK_EDIT
and XP2 is what microsoft is supposedly working on now, it might noyt b called xp2, but its made for the cry babies liek kane and banshee who dont like XP cos its diffrent from what there used 2. its supposed to look just like xp but have all the old stuff for 98 or sumthing _________________ QUICK_EDIT
you mean Longhorn? I've heard about that but its still deep in the beta/alpha/whatever development stage its still in and for god's sake Doofy we're talking about VERSIONS OF WINDOWS here! Why the hell are you getting so worked up about it? Banshee and Kane have their opinions about XP and they're entitled to them and nothing you can say will change that! QUICK_EDIT
longhorn is your xp2 Doofy, its the successor to Windows XP afaik (I've read about it and seen a few shots). Its like the upgrade from win95 to win98, nothing major visually (although I don't know about many 'under-the-hood' enhancements QUICK_EDIT
not off the top of my head, what i do know i read from magazines but I don't have access to a scanner either. I'll post the text from the article up when i get home if you want QUICK_EDIT
Chief Software Architect Bill Gates, speaking at Microsoft’s annual analyst briefing in July 2002, said that Longhorn promises to be the greatest breakthrough to date for information workers, tightly integrating how applications, Web services, and the operating system (OS) store, present, and manipulate data. Based on the descriptions provided by Microsoft executives, Longhorn will include major additions and changes to the Windows codebase to accommodate the following:
A new file system based on the "Yukon" data engine being developed by the SQL Server team.
Increased security based on new software code-named Palladium. (New hardware will also be required. For more information, see "'Palladium' Plan for Trustworthy OS Revealed" on page 10 of the Aug. 2002 Update.)
Improvements to graphics subsystem that exploits 3D graphics to substantially improve the display of both text and graphics.
-- Noooo!!!! THE PALLADIUM IS NO MYTH! IT'S TYRANNY WILL KNOW NO END! Farewell sweet, sweet privacy. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:03 pm Post subject:
I've been using windows XP in my university today and I got surprised by the performance. The computer I used was a Duron 950Mhz with 128mb RAM. Windows XP took ages to load (and had problems several times when logging in the network. But, once logged in, the programs loaded faster than in the old comps (maybe it's because the disk data is not as fragmented as here). But I still prefer windows 95, since it loads much faster and doesnt have problems when logging the network... The old computers I used to use there were athlon 850mhz with 64mb ram... maybe these diferences also helped. I still prefer the simple win9x interface too... but XP is not as bad as I expected.. QUICK_EDIT
wtf, networking is so muc heasier with xp, it was probably the LAN wire in ur comp, that happens all the time at my school _________________ QUICK_EDIT
that could be problematic to a lot of people, but I'm sure some ppl will find some ways round it. Remember that Product Activation and Service Pack 1 were 'supposed' to be full-proof security measures.... QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2003 1:17 pm Post subject:
you will still find guides saying how to bypass it... But it's really said that they gonna appeal with a spyware chip... What about boycottting products with this crap chip? QUICK_EDIT
Bypassing one chip is easy because all they could make it do is run the current or if it does handle some other function you use old parts. I love downwards compatibility. I do lots of this kind of stuff you can find chips out there that can replace it or you can just prop a fire wall up and not allow them to send a signal out, and use and old crap comp to dl your warez. _________________
All hail me
QUICK_EDIT
This stupid "Palladium will let MS spy on you" crap has been disproven multiple times. Microsoft CAN'T use Palladium to spy on you. It's used to protect certain copywrighted software, and to prevent against hacking and viruses. Nothing more. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2003 4:28 am Post subject:
great shit... we already have norton for that... and there are always ways to bypass this chip that may also affect online games as well as firewall does sometimes... QUICK_EDIT
Yea, but the chip protects HARDWARE, Norton doesn't. The chip protects against modifications to BIOS chips in your hardware, as well as modification to the master boot record, and stuff like that. Norton detects viruses in your boot record, and that's it. QUICK_EDIT
This chip wont last long a hacker will either bypass it or find a use for it. Like it's hidden spyware that no one wants you to know about. _________________
All hail me
QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:44 pm Post subject:
There are some ways to protect your bios from being replaced. As for the master boot record, Norton detects and eliminate the virus from there... QUICK_EDIT
Keep in mind, Banshee, that there's more than one BIOS chip. People overlook the ones that are on their video card, etc.
And, yes, hackers will eventually figure out a way to bypass it, but it's the same with every security measure. Security is upgraded, defeated, upgraded, defeated, again and again. QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
