Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why doesn't anyone play this game?
  • Subject: Why doesn't anyone play this game?
Subject: Why doesn't anyone play this game?
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

Posted by: staticx576
Posted by: Btcc22

Except this is quite flawed, because tasks that don't require memory at that point in time will be shifted to the page file and allow RAM to be used elsewhere.

Not all the time.
Posted by: Btcc22
Also, most games during SP will pause when they aren't in the foreground thus pretty much freeing up any CPU time they were using. :)

Thats downright wrong, I am typing this right now with H2V using CPU running just fine in the background.
Posted by: Btcc22
If you can actually play all three games in the foreground at the same time, let me know. ;D

No but they still run in the background, some do at least. ;D

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2558/btcctm6.jpg You know I am right. ;)

Posted by: Ryanman7


I Don't get it. First, btcc is right you can have those minimized and they don't take up a lot of CPU cycles.

Btcc said minimized, I didn't ;)
Posted by: Ryanman7
Second, are you trying to say that my presence makes the OS slower? I'm relatively positive that's not possible.


You know exactly what I am saying, you don't know what you are doing, thats why it is slow.



I didn't mean free up all the cycles they were using, but most. Also I noted SP as most games will pause if they're half decent. Bet you had an MP mode running. ;)

Also, I see your PC is not coping with the three games running in your screenshot. ;)

Oh, and yes, all the time if Windows decides another process requires that memory, which it will if you have two games in the background and one foreground that's RAM hungry.

[Edited on 07.18.2007 5:52 PM PDT]

  • 07.18.2007 5:48 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

I guess 124 FPS isn't coping well. ;) especially with everything maxed.

Admit it you know I am right. Especially when you consider that everything I have running DOES fit inside the ram that I have.

  • 07.18.2007 6:07 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

Posted by: staticx576
I guess 124 FPS isn't coping well. ;) especially with everything maxed.

Admit it you know I am right. Especially when you consider that everything I have running DOES fit inside the ram that I have.


100% isn't coping.

Besides, a 2.9gb [approx] page file would suggest it does NOT fit inside your RAM. ;)

</Playing with Static>

[Edited on 07.18.2007 6:32 PM PDT]

  • 07.18.2007 6:31 PM PDT

Slaying noobs since 2007.

Posted by: fred_mognet
No ur wrong, like i said a hundred time, i looked at ur picture and u still had Halo 1 Active, that is y u had 100% CPU cycles, we all says if it was minimized it will free up resorces and a lotta CPU cycles... (mainly CPU cycles)

Explain the "we all" part again. If you have a strong enough computer, then it's possible to keep it as if it were just sitting at the desktop. And how 'bout, you let Static and Btcc22 talk about this, instead of you and your horrible grammer?

  • 07.18.2007 6:31 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

Posted by: Btcc22

100% isn't coping.

Besides, a 2.9gb [approx] page file would suggest it does NOT fit inside your RAM. ;)

</Playing with Static>


100% is not the same as bad performance ;)

I have a page file even when not running a game ;) It's existance doesnt mean anything.

/right

Maybe you need a refresher course on how vista handles ram, it loads information into your RAM trying to preempt what you are going to do, so it's always full, but it gives running programs the ram if it needs it.


[Edited on 07.18.2007 6:50 PM PDT]

  • 07.18.2007 6:47 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

2.9gb is an awfully big page file if it has no game info loaded into it.

Considering I can get my Vista PF to just over 300mb.

Hate to say it, but 100% means you are going to suffer from degraded performance.

[Edited on 07.18.2007 7:24 PM PDT]

  • 07.18.2007 7:22 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

Posted by: Btcc22
2.9gb is an awfully big page file if it has no game info loaded into it.

I never said, that.
Posted by: Btcc22
Considering I can get my Vista PF to just over 300mb.

I prefer to leave whatever running and not close out everything.
Posted by: Btcc22
Hate to say it, but 100% means you are going to suffer from degraded performance.

I hate to say it but games are designed to use as much CPU to get the most FPS, hence 100% is not equal to degraded performance. I would go to fas as to say 100% is better performance.

[Edited on 07.18.2007 8:34 PM PDT]

  • 07.18.2007 8:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Btcc22
2.9gb is an awfully big page file if it has no game info loaded into it.
If he has a large HDD, why shouldn't he have a large page file? It's just virtual memory. Besides, a recommended page file is 1.5x the total amount of RAM you have. I'd say static's PF setup follows the rule pretty nicely and it will compliment his system pretty well.

Being able to do less paging doesn't mean your PC is any more efficient. A page file that isn't in use doesn't harm the performance of the PC, but when it is needed, it's a very welcome addition of virtual mem. I'd rather have more page file so that I can get more things done, while using up a larger part of my HDD, than have too little virtual mem, and have programs crash or be required to close when I'm maxing out the PC.

  • 07.19.2007 7:39 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

Posted by: McKeegan_WRX
Posted by: Btcc22
2.9gb is an awfully big page file if it has no game info loaded into it.
If he has a large HDD, why shouldn't he have a large page file? It's just virtual memory. Besides, a recommended page file is 1.5x the total amount of RAM you have. I'd say static's PF setup follows the rule pretty nicely and it will compliment his system pretty well.

Being able to do less paging doesn't mean your PC is any more efficient. A page file that isn't in use doesn't harm the performance of the PC, but when it is needed, it's a very welcome addition of virtual mem. I'd rather have more page file so that I can get more things done, while using up a larger part of my HDD, than have too little virtual mem, and have programs crash or be required to close when I'm maxing out the PC.


You're missing the whole point. That page file was in use for the games.

Posted by: staticx576
Posted by: Btcc22
2.9gb is an awfully big page file if it has no game info loaded into it.

I never said, that.
Posted by: Btcc22
Considering I can get my Vista PF to just over 300mb.

I prefer to leave whatever running and not close out everything.
Posted by: Btcc22
Hate to say it, but 100% means you are going to suffer from degraded performance.

I hate to say it but games are designed to use as much CPU to get the most FPS, hence 100% is not equal to degraded performance. I would go to fas as to say 100% is better performance.


I hate to say it, but 100% is a machine not coping whatever way you try to spin it. 100% is running max, and means instructions aren't being processed quickly enough.

Not only that, but the GPU is more responsible for games performance than the CPU. The GPU tends to bottleneck performance more than CPU these days in modern games.

Only so much work for a CPU to do, and a GPU at 100% is good stuff, but not so much a CPU at 100%. Heck, a CPU at 100% could potentially bottleneck your GPU.

[Edited on 07.19.2007 10:57 AM PDT]

  • 07.19.2007 10:54 AM PDT

Slaying noobs since 2007.

I think it would take quite a bit for an 8800 GTX to get bottlenecked by a quad.

[Edited on 07.19.2007 10:59 AM PDT]

  • 07.19.2007 10:58 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

The higher spec the card is, the more likely it is to be bottlenecked by a poor CPU. ;)

It's more than likely going to be the other way around.

[Edited on 07.19.2007 11:03 AM PDT]

  • 07.19.2007 11:02 AM PDT

Slaying noobs since 2007.

I don't usually think of a quad as a poor cpu.

  • 07.19.2007 11:02 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

I never said it was. I was giving examples.

Sounded better than "an awesome fantastic super duper CPU" which probably from the sounds of it, wouldn't be a bottleneck. ;)

  • 07.19.2007 11:04 AM PDT

Slaying noobs since 2007.

And I never said you did. ;)

  • 07.19.2007 11:07 AM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

Posted by: Btcc22
That page file was in use for the games.

Says who?
You are forgetting I am the one who ran this and despite what you want to argue and have it be wrong yet again, all of the games were very playable despite the other two running. That is coping.

Posted by: Btcc22

I hate to say it, but 100% is a machine not coping whatever way you try to spin it. 100% is running max, and means instructions aren't being processed quickly enough.

I hate to say it, but how games work is flying completely in your face. Games try to use as much CPU time as they can so a game running at %100 CPU will be able to process more information than one running less than full cpu time.
Posted by: Btcc22
Not only that, but the GPU is more responsible for games performance than the CPU. The GPU tends to bottleneck performance more than CPU these days in modern games.

A slow CPU will always bottleneck a great GPU. Just the degree depends on what settings you are running the game at.
Posted by: Btcc22
Only so much work for a CPU to do, and a GPU at 100% is good stuff, but not so much a CPU at 100%. Heck, a CPU at 100% could potentially bottleneck your GPU.

see above about what a CPU at 100% is good.

  • 07.19.2007 11:30 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

a game running at %100 CPU will be able to process more information than one running less than full cpu time.

You're suggesting a game uses 100% CPU just because it can? As if it just perhaps needs 10%, then processes garbage with the other 90% just to have 100% usage?

You know, even if there's nothing extra that needs doing, it'll use up cycles to process garbage, and hold back ones that need processed? If it's at 100%, it means there's more instructions to process that it can handle whilst keeping up good speed.

What part about that don't you understand?

I can tell you either way that HPC, UT and H2PC do not use up 100% on their own, so your argument is moot. Even if you were right, you've gone off the point of discussion.

Says who?

Also, what other tasks appear to be running that could create a 2.9gb page file? None!

A slow CPU will always bottleneck a great GPU

It's however more likely to be the GPU to cause a bottleneck in a game's performance.

Heck, a CPU at 100% could potentially bottleneck your GPU.

see above about what a CPU at 100% is good.

Hope you're not trying to run anything except the game then. You know like Xfire, music, TS, IRC etc.
</Sigh> :)

[Edited on 07.19.2007 3:05 PM PDT]

  • 07.19.2007 2:54 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

Posted by: Btcc22

You're suggesting a game uses 100% CPU just because it can? As if it just perhaps needs 10%, then processes garbage with the other 90% just to have 100% usage?

Don't act stupid. Garbage data? Are you seriously losing so bad that you suggest that the game process useless data? If the game is only using 10% of the total CPU power there is always room for more data aka detail to be added, it's called scaling.

Posted by: Btcc22
You know, even if there's nothing extra that needs doing, it'll use up cycles to process garbage, and hold back ones that need processed? If it's at 100%, it means there's more instructions to process that it can handle whilst keeping up good speed.

Again, it's stupid to suggest that a game process garbage data.

Posted by: Btcc22
What part about that don't you understand?

It seems like you are arguing something that makes no sense, so why would I have a clue about what you are talking about?

Posted by: Btcc22
I can tell you either way that HPC, UT and H2PC do not use up 100% on their own, so your argument is moot. Even if you were right, you've gone off the point of discussion.

Check your CPU usage next time you have halo pc running, it maxes out at 90-100% all the time, however it's not multithreaded so it doesnt take advantage of both cores.

Posted by: Btcc22
Also, what other tasks appear to be running that could create a 2.9gb page file? None!

I swear you are arguing something that has NO bearing about anything. Halo 2 Vista, UT 2004, and Halo PC ALL FIT IN 2 GB of ram, get over it. Hell I dont't even see why you are arguing this, it's like you have nothing else and are acting like ZOMG A PAGE FILE YOUR COMPUTER SUCKS.

Posted by: Btcc22
It's however more likely to be the GPU to cause a bottleneck in a game's performance.

It depends on the game, older games are more likely to be CPU bound as current GPUs(read 8800 GTX) have more than enough GPU power to run anything at hundreds of frames per second.

Posted by: Btcc22
Hope you're not trying to run anything except the game then. You know like Xfire, music, TS, IRC etc.
</Sigh> :)

You know what, I always leave firefox, trillian(chat), foobar2000(music), ventrillo, at least one instance of remote desktop, and other assorted programs running and have noticed no ill effects except when firefox decides to use many hundreds of megs of ram since it handles it poorly.
;)

You seem to be forgetting I am the one running this and I can tell you that all of the games were very much playable regardless of what you want to argue.

I win yet again.

  • 07.19.2007 5:03 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

it's called scaling

Only ever to a certain extent. If your PC can't scale to max, I guess it isn't coping. ;) What do you think a CPU will scale? AI? Physics?

Don't act stupid. Garbage data? Are you seriously losing so bad that you suggest that the game process useless data?

I was asking if YOU were implying a game was processing garbage, not that I was saying it did.

Check your CPU usage next time you have halo pc running, it maxes out at 90-100% all the time, however it's not multithreaded so it doesnt take advantage of both cores.

About that:
http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=staticimglz8.jpg

(Running on core 1, with everything else on core 0.)

It depends on the game, older games are more likely to be CPU bound as current GPUs(read 8800 GTX) have more than enough GPU power to run anything at hundreds of frames per second.

I said modern games.
You know what, I always leave firefox, trillian(chat), foobar2000(music), ventrillo, at least one instance of remote desktop, and other assorted programs running and have noticed no ill effects except when firefox decides to use many hundreds of megs of ram since it handles it poorly.

Said it in the context of CPU usage, not RAM.

Halo 2 Vista, UT 2004, and Halo PC ALL FIT IN 2 GB of ram,

But with everything else that loads into RAM too?

I swear you are arguing something that has NO bearing about anything.

Disk activity as opposed to memory reading can reduce performance greatly.

You seem to be forgetting I am the one running this and I can tell you that all of the games were very much playable regardless of what you want to argue.

I never said they weren't playable. I bet they were. I said it wasn't coping as well as you claimed and you'd be suffering from degraded performance (not as good as they'd run if your CPU was quicker).

I win yet again.

Hardly.

[Edited on 07.19.2007 5:34 PM PDT]

  • 07.19.2007 5:29 PM PDT

Slaying noobs since 2007.

Posted by: Btcc22
http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=staticimglz8.jpg

(Running on core 1, with everything else on core 0.)
I saw some jaggies!

  • 07.19.2007 5:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: CVScorp
Oh, and Vista does NOT boot slower. Quite the opposite in fact. I get a login prompt and desktop screen much faster on my Vista system than I do on my XP system. Of course I DO have a system designed to actually RUN Vista.

I worked on someone's new Toshiba laptop yesterday that was running Vista. It booted VERY slowly. The reason why? It only had 512M of RAM. Did it run with that? Yes, but again it ran really slow. I don't know why retailers sell systems with Vista on them without the proper amount of resources. It's things like that that make people think that Vista is a slow crappy OS.

So that shows that with the proper resources Vista is a good operating system and actually out performs XP.


My Questions are... Are you comparing XP when you freshly installed it? Do you have a timer? do you have a ready-boost system in place?

When I first installed XP it took 15 seconds to get to the welcome screen. It takes around a minute or more now, because I didn't maintain it well and I haven't reformatted in ages. Honestly if you can get Vista to boot up in 15 seconds then more power to you : D

  • 07.19.2007 6:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Static... the only thing I can say about the discussion between you and Btcc is that when your cpu is running at 100% you are not running it perfectly. It might be playable, it might be great, but the fact remains your computer is going all out and struggling to run all of that. Quad core helps a ton.... but you're still pushing the PC past it's limit to where it's slowing something down. Either that or you somehow got the PERFECT applications to run your CPU at EXACTLY 100%. Which I doubt.

  • 07.19.2007 7:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Amist all the arguing there is an answer: It sucks.

  • 07.19.2007 7:27 PM PDT