Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: A New Unofficial "Halo 3 PC" Thread
  • Subject: A New Unofficial "Halo 3 PC" Thread
Subject: A New Unofficial "Halo 3 PC" Thread

Hell a better game then any Halo Game Battlefield 2 is receiving the 1.52 update for the game after a year, they're releasing two if the expansions for free. Also It's not that Valve makes poorly constructed games, it's that people find bugs in them and valve releases quite bit of free content on the PC games

  • 08.31.2009 8:57 AM PDT

This is the average H2 Fanboy.
Xfire: JacobGRocks.
50 in H2/H3? Great, but you still fail at this.

Yep, tf2 has a report bugs option, which is why there is a update like almost every day.

And you need vista SP2, it is rock solid like 7, but no one knows about about it because you hear too much apple fanboy stuff: "OMG MS SUX AND APPLE IS TEH ROXXORZ!" And yes, i do use vista every day.

  • 08.31.2009 11:57 AM PDT

Halo Custom Edition: p0lar_bearâ„¢
Favorite Server: Diesel PL 3rd Server - NY

My Maps:
BioHalo v1.1a Singleplayer Map for CE

BUNGIE HAS CUT CUSTOM SINGLE-PLAYER SUPPORT FROM HALO 2 VISTA. COPY, PASTE, AND BOLDFACE THIS INTO YOUR SIGNATURE IF YOU ARE AGAINST THIS CUT.

Posted by: General Heed

Well, a nice solid game wouldn't need so many patches like the poorly constructed Valve games. Take a look at Halo 3. Only 2 patches have ever been released. Halo 3 is a solid well constructed game by Bungie that barely has any patches because it doesn't need that many.

Halo 3 more than likely has tons of holes and exploits in it, hell, a while ago I found a glitch with the laser in Forge that attributes your kill to another person. However, they haven't been found because of the environment Halo 3 runs in; the LIVE service is essentially mafia protection; anyone who doesn't follow the ToS down to the letter gets banned with no refunds. Thus, nobody is exploring the game, adding onto it, finding/abusing bugs, etc. I can guarantee that the game is far from perfect, the LIVE service just hides that from the average end-user.

Also, a patch isn't necessarily just bug fixes. While most patches do fix up exploits and glitches, they also update the engine for new technologies (namely video card drivers), and address community feedback, thus adding new features and content to the engine. Let's take, for example, a personal favorite of mine, Team Fortress 2. TF2 is constantly evolving because of its popularity. While people are finding engine bugs and glitches that get patched, Valve is also recognizing better community ideas and trends, and adding/removing/changing the game's content to adapt. Each class is getting new weapons and abilities over time, new game modes are being added by both the community and Valve, and there are under-the-hood tweaks being done to make the game run better with this new content, as well as cater towards the modders who add to the game.

Posted by: General Heed

Windows Vista is definitely not this generation's Windows ME. Ever since 2003, I got sick of XP and was waiting for something new. 4 years later they finally came out with Windows Vista and I loved it. I really don't see why people are complaining so much about Vista. It's a great system. It doesn't crash as much as XP, doesn't slow down as much, and doesn't get as many viruses.

You may not have had issues getting it to run, however others have had more trouble than it's worth. For example, I had to wait a good while before my video card had stable drivers released for Vista. I'm not made of money, so it's not like I could drop about $150+ for a new, good video card. Though true, it's isn't really Microsoft's fault in Vista's case, and comparing it to ME isn't right, but it still has it quirks and issues that give people enough reason to favor XP over it. Vista is essentially a prettier XP with UAC (protecting you from your worst enemy: yourself?) and Aero, which uses DirectX 9 on the desktop to make windows have a glassy effect and Flip3D to render a window on a plane.

Yes, I've tried Vista. I liked it. I liked Aero. I know my way around Vista. I just prefer XP for my current setup.

Posted by: General Heed

Why would you stick around with Windows 2000? You're like a person that denies new technology and refuses to advance to the future. Instead, you want to stick around with ancient stuff and try to complain about all the problems in the new systems.

Because as I said, I'm not made of money. This particular box was salvaged from a freelance repair job I did for a buddy. I made do with the parts I had, and the specs of the system would have made XP a bad choice for it to do video capture on. So I went with 2k, which is less resource-intensive than XP is, while still using the NT framework.

Posted by: General Heed

Bottom line, Vista is good. XP is old. Get over it. Stop dwelling in the past. Accept that Windows Vista is going to be the basis for all future Windows Operating Systems. If you've seen what Windows 7 looks like, you'll know that it's definitely based off of Vista. In fact, Windows Vista is like the Windows 95 of this generation. A new revolutionary system that will set the foundation for most future operation systems.

Bottom line: not everyone has rich parents that can buy them the latest and greatest hardware. I'm not making enough money to keep up with the Joneses, and with the current state of the economy, finding a higher-paying job is hard. But, I'm content for the most part with what I have.

[Edited on 08.31.2009 2:32 PM PDT]

  • 08.31.2009 12:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag: tr126
  • user homepage:

Posted by: General Heed
Vista was kind of a big leap from XP and you had to learn a bit about how to use Vista. And that's why people who are too lazy to accept new things and get used to it complain all the time about Vista. Everyone always picks the tiniest problems in Vista and blow it out of proportion. As for Windows 2000, it wasn't that bad, I still have a Windows 2000 computer. Except it's in storage getting all dusty now. Why would you stick around with Windows 2000? You're like a person that denies new technology and refuses to advance to the future. Instead, you want to stick around with ancient stuff and try to complain about all the problems in the new systems.

Bottom line, Vista is good. XP is old. Get over it. Stop dwelling in the past. Accept that Windows Vista is going to be the basis for all future Windows Operating Systems. If you've seen what Windows 7 looks like, you'll know that it's definitely based off of Vista. In fact, Windows Vista is like the Windows 95 of this generation. A new revolutionary system that will set the foundation for most future operation systems.


Vista was a leap from XP? Vista will be the basis for all future operating systems? Are you daft? I'm not going to shell out hundreds of dollars just to, upgrade to a new system because I dont have the richest parents in the world that can buy me everything I want when I want it, hell I've wanted a new complete build for the past 5 years but all I've got is minor upgrades. I'm still using a CRT, that runs 4:3 and a 8 year old motherboard. I installed vista thinking "yeah this is gonna be sweet! i can do so much" and my comp literally -blam!- itself trying to run Vista, which is why I switched back to XP.

  • 08.31.2009 1:45 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!

Posted by: tr126
Posted by: General Heed
Vista was kind of a big leap from XP and you had to learn a bit about how to use Vista. And that's why people who are too lazy to accept new things and get used to it complain all the time about Vista. Everyone always picks the tiniest problems in Vista and blow it out of proportion. As for Windows 2000, it wasn't that bad, I still have a Windows 2000 computer. Except it's in storage getting all dusty now. Why would you stick around with Windows 2000? You're like a person that denies new technology and refuses to advance to the future. Instead, you want to stick around with ancient stuff and try to complain about all the problems in the new systems.

Bottom line, Vista is good. XP is old. Get over it. Stop dwelling in the past. Accept that Windows Vista is going to be the basis for all future Windows Operating Systems. If you've seen what Windows 7 looks like, you'll know that it's definitely based off of Vista. In fact, Windows Vista is like the Windows 95 of this generation. A new revolutionary system that will set the foundation for most future operation systems.


Vista was a leap from XP? Vista will be the basis for all future operating systems? Are you daft? I'm not going to shell out hundreds of dollars just to, upgrade to a new system because I dont have the richest parents in the world that can buy me everything I want when I want it, hell I've wanted a new complete build for the past 5 years but all I've got is minor upgrades. I'm still using a CRT, that runs 4:3 and a 8 year old motherboard. I installed vista thinking "yeah this is gonna be sweet! i can do so much" and my comp literally -blam!- itself trying to run Vista, which is why I switched back to XP.


If the reason you won't switch to Vista is because you're hardware can't handle it, then why did you switch to XP from an older Windows system like Windows 98? Windows XP is a pretty big leap from Windows 98 in terms of hardware requirements. If you switched once, you can switch again. And what I said about Vista being the basis for future systems is true. Windows 7 proves that statement.

  • 08.31.2009 3:30 PM PDT

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/dragonsig.jpg

Posted by: General Heed
If the reason you won't switch to Vista is because you're hardware can't handle it, then why did you switch to XP from an older Windows system like Windows 98? Windows XP is a pretty big leap from Windows 98 in terms of hardware requirements. If you switched once, you can switch again. And what I said about Vista being the basis for future systems is true. Windows 7 proves that statement.


Windows 7 is essentially what Vista should have been. It was rushed. Take a look through the long lists of features and improvements of Windows 7 and tell us that those things couldn't have been done on Vista had they not released it so early. It sure would have decreased the amount of doubts that people have about the OS. One improvement on an OS doesn't prove your theory correct.

[Edited on 08.31.2009 4:10 PM PDT]

  • 08.31.2009 3:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Oh right so because my 10 year old computer that has a 700mhz Cryix cpu can run windows 95 it can also run windows 7?
Get out of here you don't know a single thing about hardware and requirements.
The truth is windows seven requires 1GHz minimum on the CPU and 1GB for RAM.
But wait you said old hardware can run any newer software well try explaining why my 4GB hard drive cannot install windows 7...hmm i know its because windows 7 needs 16GB's hard drive space for installation and paging file space.
Windows XP is not as big a leap from windows 98 and windows 7 being a leap from windows 98.
And for basis of future operating systems?
Im pretty sure it works this way, windows bases itself of OSX, OSX bases itself off linux and linux bases itself off windows.
It's literaly a case of which came first the chicken or the egg.

[Edited on 08.31.2009 4:21 PM PDT]

  • 08.31.2009 4:20 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!

Posted by: Col Cobby
Oh right so because my 10 year old computer that has a 700mhz Cryix cpu can run windows 95 it can also run windows 7?
Get out of here you don't know a single thing about hardware and requirements.
The truth is windows seven requires 1GHz minimum on the CPU and 1GB for RAM.
But wait you said old hardware can run any newer software well try explaining why my 4GB hard drive cannot install windows 7...hmm i know its because windows 7 needs 16GB's hard drive space for installation and paging file space.
Windows XP is not as big a leap from windows 98 and windows 7 being a leap from windows 98.
And for basis of future operating systems?
Im pretty sure it works this way, windows bases itself of OSX, OSX bases itself off linux and linux bases itself off windows.
It's literaly a case of which came first the chicken or the egg.


Actually, I read an article online that a guy got Windows 7 to install on older systems like the one you specified. Here are 2 links to the articles:

http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/windows-7-runs-on-a-pentiu m-ii-with-96mb-ram-20090622/

http://www.pcworld.com/article/166992/windows_7_hits_a_new_lo w.html

So yeah, you're hardware can support Windows 7. You probably wouldn't want to try playing Halo 3 on that hardware though.

When I said basis for future operating systems, I actually meant future Windows operation systems. Windows is somewhat based off of Mac OS but Windows is still an original operating system. OSX is not based off of Linux. It's based off of Unix from the 1970's. Linux is based off of Windows and other OS's are based off of Linux. But most OS's today can trace its roots back to UNIX. But Windows 95 was considered revolutionary for a reason.

  • 08.31.2009 4:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Just because the guy managed to get windows 7 running on old hardware does not mean it will work on ALL old hardware.
This cpu i mentioned is so damn old the gold plate on the top would be of more value than the actual cpu and besides, your describing it as if it would be the same as a Intel CPU or a IBM cpu it is not.
Completely different architecture.
For your information.
Windows is based of DOS.
DOS will be the main influence in windows in the future not vista.

  • 08.31.2009 5:05 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!

Posted by: Col Cobby
Just because the guy managed to get windows 7 running on old hardware does not mean it will work on ALL old hardware.
This cpu i mentioned is so damn old the gold plate on the top would be of more value than the actual cpu and besides, your describing it as if it would be the same as a Intel CPU or a IBM cpu it is not.
Completely different architecture.
For your information.
Windows is based of DOS.
DOS will be the main influence in windows in the future not vista.


You're CPU specs sound comparable to a Pentium 2. That guy got Windows 7 to work on a Pentium 2. The point is, you possibly could get Windows 7 to run.

And actually you're wrong. DOS was discontinued after Windows ME. Starting with Windows XP, all future Windows Systems would be based off of the Windows NT kernel. So DOS is no longer the future. That's why you can't play DOS games in Windows Vista anymore. It no longer uses DOS. The command prompt is not DOS. So Windows NT would be the basis for the future. But that might be changing soon. Windows NT will become obsolete completely in the future like DOS became obsolete. Microsoft will eventually develop a new architecture for future Windows Systems. In other words, DOS no longer influences any part of Windows. It hasn't been an influence at all since Windows XP.

  • 08.31.2009 5:37 PM PDT

This is the average H2 Fanboy.
Xfire: JacobGRocks.
50 in H2/H3? Great, but you still fail at this.

1. The last dos based windows was ME. win2k, nt4, xp, vista, and 7 are based on the far more stable NT kernel. And you can play dos games with vista, but you need xp drivers so you can do fullscreen.
2. Windows 7 probably wont run on a old p3 notebook i have sitting somewhere in my room with XP, it only takes up to 512 megs of sdram (YES, SDRAM!).
3. I use vista, but only because it is more secure than xp.
4. Who needs 7 on older hardware, there is already kubuntu, which i ran with ok performance on a old p3 compaq.
5. The only osses vista is basis for are Win2k8 and Win7.

  • 08.31.2009 6:25 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!

Posted by: JacobGRocks
1. The last dos based windows was ME. win2k, nt4, xp, vista, and 7 are based on the far more stable NT kernel. And you can play dos games with vista, but you need xp drivers so you can do fullscreen.
2. Windows 7 probably wont run on a old p3 notebook i have sitting somewhere in my room with XP, it only takes up to 512 megs of sdram (YES, SDRAM!).
3. I use vista, but only because it is more secure than xp.
4. Who needs 7 on older hardware, there is already kubuntu, which i ran with ok performance on a old p3 compaq.
5. The only osses vista is basis for are Win2k8 and Win7.


Vista could still be the basis for OS's after Windows 7. Probably the visuals in Vista such as Aero will continue to be used after Windows 7 for quite sometime. Kind of like how the Windows 95 shell/visuals were used in all Windows systems up until Windows 2000. And even in OS's today, except for Windows 7, you still have the option to revert to the classic shell/themes which is clearly based off Windows 95. So Vista won't fade away. Maybe 10 years later, people will realize the role that Vista played in their future OS's.

  • 08.31.2009 6:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: General Heed
Vista could still be the basis for OS's after Windows 7. Probably the visuals in Vista such as Aero will continue to be used after Windows 7 for quite sometime. Kind of like how the Windows 95 shell/visuals were used in all Windows systems up until Windows 2000. And even in OS's today, except for Windows 7, you still have the option to revert to the classic shell/themes which is clearly based off Windows 95. So Vista won't fade away. Maybe 10 years later, people will realize the role that Vista played in their future OS's.

You could say that 7 will become the basis of future OS's because 7 is pretty much Vista but fixing the mistakes they made. If 7 was released as a service pack, then yes, Vista would have a significant role in future OS's but 7 will be the most likely choice to continue to build on. They will see Vista as a failure in 10 years as it was the most unstable and hardware demanding OS every to be there. Vista was a mistake. 7 fixes the mistake.

  • 08.31.2009 7:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Use what you've got/like if you can't afford to upgrade.

Use Windows 7 if you're able to.

End debate.

  • 08.31.2009 10:42 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Col Cobby, a computer with those specs is a hair short of useless, no matter what OS it's running.

To the rest of you, if you don't have hardware powerful enough to game on Vista, you're living in the past. If it's RAM, that's like $50 bucks for 4 more gigs on Newegg. If it's a video card, just shell out the $70-ish for a decent one. If it's a processor, upgrade it with whatever's good for gaming and fits in your socket. If you're still running PCI or AGP, or not using a multi-core processor, you should have upgraded years ago.

Hop to it and stop the damn whining.

  • 09.01.2009 12:23 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

~t3h m00kz

I'm sorry, but XP > Vista by far, the way 98 > ME by far.

I will admit, Vista has some nifty features that I do like, the search function is fast, but overall the system suffers compatibility and memory usage issues.

Microsoft porting Halo 2 to the PC was a great idea, but the quality of the port was mediocre at best. While the mouse/keyboard movement/graphical upgrades and most importantly the server browser were a nice addition, the GUI and system requirements were atrocious. The editing kit is a joke.

I do like it to an extent however, which is why I have a Vista/XP dual-boot setup. However most of my computer usage takes place on XP.

  • 09.01.2009 12:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The computer i mentioned was a example, i currently use a far more powerfull computer consiisting of:
Intel E6750
3GB DDR2@800mhz
and a 8800GTS i also happen to run vista.
In all honesty i find windows xp far more rough than running vista.
Just a shame this website is filled to the brim with fanboys who will not look up information before trying to make points.
I went to college to learn exactly about this and came back with a check full of certificates one of which involved computer engineering.
I only mentioned the cryix setup because Heed up there was so ignorant on the facts about hardware upgrades and future software.
Just because a system can run old software does not mean it is future proof, soon software will come out that will challenge even the most high end computing set ups of today the same way software today would challenge the most powerfull systems of the time halo PC was released back in 2003.

  • 09.01.2009 2:53 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: t3h m00kz
I'm sorry, but XP > Vista by far, the way 98 > ME by far.

I will admit, Vista has some nifty features that I do like, the search function is fast, but overall the system suffers compatibility and memory usage issues.

The first part is true to some extent, but not as bad as Apple would like you to believe. I have quite a few old games that run fun on Vista (Red Faction, anyone?). As for memory usage issues, my compy's idle uses only 30% of my 3GB of RAM. When running a game, it only approaches 70%, and almost never goes over. Hell, I was able to play CS:S while installing The Sims 2 on this machine without a single performance hit (and that was when I was still using my onboard GeForce 6150 SE). So, I'm not seeing those memory usage issues you're blathering about.

Posted by: t3h m00kz
Microsoft porting Halo 2 to the PC was a great idea, but the quality of the port was mediocre at best. While the mouse/keyboard movement/graphical upgrades and most importantly the server browser were a nice addition, the GUI and system requirements were atrocious. The editing kit is a joke.

No, the port was aweful at best.

Posted by: t3h m00kz
I do like it to an extent however, which is why I have a Vista/XP dual-boot setup. However most of my computer usage takes place on XP.

Really? Like, fo srs? Cause I can't imagine going back to XP.

[Edited on 09.01.2009 10:28 AM PDT]

  • 09.01.2009 10:27 AM PDT

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/dragonsig.jpg

A decent video card? If you're gonna shell out $70, save up an extra $40 and buy a more powerful Video card, such as the Radeon HD 4850 or HD 4770.

  • 09.01.2009 11:56 AM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!

Posted by: t3h m00kz
I'm sorry, but XP > Vista by far, the way 98 > ME by far.

I will admit, Vista has some nifty features that I do like, the search function is fast, but overall the system suffers compatibility and memory usage issues.

Microsoft porting Halo 2 to the PC was a great idea, but the quality of the port was mediocre at best. While the mouse/keyboard movement/graphical upgrades and most importantly the server browser were a nice addition, the GUI and system requirements were atrocious. The editing kit is a joke.

I do like it to an extent however, which is why I have a Vista/XP dual-boot setup. However most of my computer usage takes place on XP.


Halo 2 Vista had ridiculous requirements for people running older pc's.

My laptop had an Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.5 Ghz with 4 GB RAM. I am able to run Halo 2 PC, Windows Media Player, Windows Movie Maker, and Google Chrome on Windows Vista without any significant memory problems or slowdowns. In fact, I've had this laptop for almost a year and it still runs like new. A lot faster than my old Windows XP laptop which is too slow to even run Windows Media Player smoothly.

If I want to use Windows XP again, instead of dual-booting, I'd much rather just run XP in Virtual PC 2007 on my Vista laptop. As for the first part of your argument, I mostly disagree with it. Here is my version of your first argument:

Vista > XP by far, the way 98 > ME by far.

  • 09.01.2009 12:05 PM PDT

This is the average H2 Fanboy.
Xfire: JacobGRocks.
50 in H2/H3? Great, but you still fail at this.

If you dualboot xp, it is way better than in vpc as you can play games in a dualboot. :-).
If you know what you are doing, it isnt hard.
And the only compatability issues i have with vista are x64 related issues (no 16 bit installers) which also affect xp 64, heck, xp 64 is worse than vista in compatability.
Oh, and if your old one was too slow to play WMP, than you are either on a pentinum ii or a VIA c3/c7.

  • 09.01.2009 12:13 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: Delphi 26
A decent video card? If you're gonna shell out $70, save up an extra $40 and buy a more powerful Video card, such as the Radeon HD 4850 or HD 4770.

If you have the budget, of course.

  • 09.01.2009 2:22 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!

Posted by: JacobGRocks
If you dualboot xp, it is way better than in vpc as you can play games in a dualboot. :-).
If you know what you are doing, it isnt hard.
And the only compatability issues i have with vista are x64 related issues (no 16 bit installers) which also affect xp 64, heck, xp 64 is worse than vista in compatability.
Oh, and if your old one was too slow to play WMP, than you are either on a pentinum ii or a VIA c3/c7.


Actually, it was an Intel Celeron 2.4 Ghz with 256 MB RAM running Windows XP Home Edition.

  • 09.01.2009 3:16 PM PDT

This is the average H2 Fanboy.
Xfire: JacobGRocks.
50 in H2/H3? Great, but you still fail at this.

lolz, my 800mhz p3 with 256 megs of ram and wmp9 can play video smoothly.

[Edited on 09.01.2009 4:11 PM PDT]

  • 09.01.2009 4:10 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!

Posted by: JacobGRocks
lolz, my 800mhz p3 with 256 megs of ram and wmp9 can play video smoothly.


lol that old XP laptop i have should be able to run wmp9 and 10 pretty smoothly but for some reason it just doesn't. I thought it had a virus but virus scans came up empty. That's when my Windows XP experience started going downhill. I was even forced to downgrade one of my other Windows XP computers to Windows 2000. I never liked XP again since then. I finally cheered up when Windows Vista came out. And since then, I never complained about Windows again. And my thoughts about switching to the Mac disappeared.

  • 09.01.2009 4:31 PM PDT