Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: should Halo 2 PC.......
  • Subject: should Halo 2 PC.......
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: should Halo 2 PC.......

WAT is this i dont even


Posted by: General Heed

Posted by: Btcc22
Halo 2 doesn't even use DX10 and if it did, it still wouldn't be an excuse not to work on XP. I thought this argument was laid to rest a couple of years ago.

DX10 wasn't held back from XP because of it being an obsolete OS, it's because they wanted something that'd make Vista look worthwhile. They tried to pull the same trick with IE7 initially and later realised that they couldn't just leave XP with IE6. With a market share of ~50%, XP still isn't obsolete several years after the release of H2V.


At the time DX10 became available, Windows XP was almost out of its mainstream support phase. It's the same reason Windows Defender or Microsoft Silverlight wasn't released for Windows 2000. Windows XP was pretty much obsolete by the time DX10 was released.

If Microsoft really held back DX10, H2V, and attempted to hold back IE7 from Windows Xp for the purpose of promoting Windows Vista, then why didn't they hold back DX11 or IE9 from Windows Vista? Surely Microsoft would want to promote Windows 7 and make it look better right? Well the reason why they didn't do that is because Windows Vista is not obsolete yet nor is it even close to being obsolete. Windows Vista still has years of mainstream support unlike Windows XP at the time Halo 2 PC was released. That's why DX10 wasn't available for Windows XP.

The fact that Windows 7 exists is proof that Windows Vista won't be obsolete for awhile. In case you haven't noticed, Windows Vista is 100% forward-compatible with Windows 7 exclusive programs like Windows Media Player 12.

Windows 7 is pretty much the same as Windows Vista with a few minor graphical differences. And by minor, I mean really subtle differences. Only the taskbar and startup screen are the only notable differences. Windows 7 even has the same startup sound as Windows Vista. Essentially, Windows 7 is just Windows Vista. All Microsoft did was change the name of Windows Vista and tried to sell that as a new OS.

Whoever hates Windows Vista but likes Windows 7 are hypocrites. They are the same. If you like one, then you like both. If you hate one, then you hate both. You can't like one or the other. It's like choosing between a two sheets of copy paper. They're the same.

NO JUST NO. It may be the same shell but 7 is a much better optimized os with less bugs and less problems. It may have the same features but underneath the hood its completely different. I had vista was slow as -blam!- and sucked. I have 7 now its quicker and i dont bsod all the time.

  • 08.29.2010 9:47 AM PDT

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

The speeds were similar on my old Compaq F700 (before it broke). 7 isn't much faster, look up a benchmark for proof.
And this is coming from a user who has used both OSes since the original RTM release.

  • 08.29.2010 9:52 AM PDT

WAT is this i dont even


Posted by: JacobGRocks
The speeds were similar on my old Compaq F700 (before it broke). 7 isn't much faster, look up a benchmark for proof.
And this is coming from a user who has used both OSes since the original RTM release.
gave me higher fps ratings in most games with the same hardware. Also you are not noticing a speed difference on something that outdated everything probably runs like crap on that. You will see a difference once you get modern hardware. 4 gigs of ddr3 quad core cpu etc

  • 08.29.2010 10:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Gandalf: I'm new. And a wizard.

Sapphire just got even more awesome.

Posted by: mount420: You are late.
Posted by: jaythenerdkid: A wizard is never late.
Posted by: THORSGOD: Nor is he ever early. He arrives precisely when he means to.

Posted by: JacobGRocks
The speeds were similar on my old Compaq F700 (before it broke). 7 isn't much faster, look up a benchmark for proof.
And this is coming from a user who has used both OSes since the original RTM release.


Trust me, 7 is a fair bit faster. This coming from a guy that fixes/builds/maintains PCs for a living, I know the feel of different OS environments (on identical machines).

[Edited on 08.29.2010 10:04 AM PDT]

  • 08.29.2010 10:03 AM PDT

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


Posted by: jordan15b

Posted by: JacobGRocks
The speeds were similar on my old Compaq F700 (before it broke). 7 isn't much faster, look up a benchmark for proof.
And this is coming from a user who has used both OSes since the original RTM release.
gave me higher fps ratings in most games with the same hardware. Also you are not noticing a speed difference on something that outdated everything probably runs like crap on that. You will see a difference once you get modern hardware. 4 gigs of ddr3 quad core cpu etc

And I have modern hardware and have seen little difference. With 8gb ram, gtx 260, and 3.7 ghz dual core.

  • 08.29.2010 12:35 PM PDT

WAT is this i dont even


Posted by: JacobGRocks

Posted by: jordan15b

Posted by: JacobGRocks
The speeds were similar on my old Compaq F700 (before it broke). 7 isn't much faster, look up a benchmark for proof.
And this is coming from a user who has used both OSes since the original RTM release.
gave me higher fps ratings in most games with the same hardware. Also you are not noticing a speed difference on something that outdated everything probably runs like crap on that. You will see a difference once you get modern hardware. 4 gigs of ddr3 quad core cpu etc

And I have modern hardware and have seen little difference. With 8gb ram, gtx 260, and 3.7 ghz dual core.
its not a big difference nobody said it was a BIG difference. The BIG difference from vista and 7 is the fact that 7 crashes alot less and is just less buggy

  • 08.29.2010 12:42 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: jordan15b

Posted by: JacobGRocks

Posted by: jordan15b

Posted by: JacobGRocks
The speeds were similar on my old Compaq F700 (before it broke). 7 isn't much faster, look up a benchmark for proof.
And this is coming from a user who has used both OSes since the original RTM release.
gave me higher fps ratings in most games with the same hardware. Also you are not noticing a speed difference on something that outdated everything probably runs like crap on that. You will see a difference once you get modern hardware. 4 gigs of ddr3 quad core cpu etc

And I have modern hardware and have seen little difference. With 8gb ram, gtx 260, and 3.7 ghz dual core.
its not a big difference nobody said it was a BIG difference. The BIG difference from vista and 7 is the fact that 7 crashes alot less and is just less buggy


Yes, Windows 7 crashes a lot less than Windows XP. But as for Windows Vista, I have not noticed any crashes to begin with. So it's not possible for Windows 7 to crash less than 0. Therefore, Windows 7 crashes just as much as Windows Vista.

To another person from an earlier post. Of course Microsoft wants you to upgrade to a new OS after it's out of mainstream support. Once an OS is out of mainstream support, it's considered obsolete. Windows XP is almost 10 years old. I consider that to be obsolete in the software industry. And to say that Windows XP is a perfectly fine operating system is extremely subjective. One could argue that Windows 2000 was perfectly fine and that Windows XP was unnecessary. You see, when an OS is out of mainstream support, it's not receiving as many updates as an OS that is in mainstream support. Therefore, your system becomes more vulnerable to security problems as it's less of a priority now for Microsoft than Windows Vista or Windows 7. Therefore, it would be in your best interest to upgrade to a new OS.

  • 08.29.2010 6:18 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

Posted by: General Heed
-snip-


This debate is losing focus although but in my closing words I'd like to point out that you've now agreed with my earlier posts where I claimed that MS withheld products and features to encourage users to shell out for a new O.S. That's quite the turnaround from your earlier arguments.

I'll recap quickly to make my references clear:
Posted by: Btcc22
DX10 wasn't held back from XP because of it being an obsolete OS, it's because they wanted something that'd make Vista look worthwhile.


Posted by: General Heed
If Microsoft really held back DX10, H2V, and attempted to hold back IE7 from Windows Xp for the purpose of promoting Windows Vista, then why didn't they hold back DX11 or IE9 from Windows Vista?


Posted by: General Heed
Of course Microsoft wants you to upgrade to a new OS after it's out of mainstream support.


Let's keep in mind that they define the support life cycles so your statement may as well read, "Of course Microsoft wants you to upgrade to a new OS". This formed the basis of my entire argument.

Anyway, back to the original discussion; H2V. I'll start off with this quote:
Posted by: General Heed
I think there actually is a technical reason why Halo 2 PC is a Windows Vista exclusive. DirectX 10 at the time was only available on Windows Vista. Now I'm not sure if Halo 2 PC was a DirectX 10 game...


I'll ignore the obvious problem with that snippet and get straight into the meat. The game makes zero use of Vista exclusive features hence the rapid production of an XP patch to circumvent the Vista check. Not great for a game that was claimed to make use of Vista's features to provide a better experience as opposed to some arbitrary (read: marketing) decision to exclude the vast majority of gamers. Heck, I can't think of a single mainstream game that's felt the need to cut XP out of the picture and they somehow still manage to make use of DX11/10. That's probably because they didn't feel like committing financial suicide.

As an interject, did you know XP's support is set to last 2014 in comparison to Vista's current 2012? If Bill Gates' opinion on Vista has any influence over the support cycles then things aren't looking good.

On a final note (I mean it this time), my original post was stating that I had been given the impression by Ultamate Power's [sic] past posts that he had never played Halo 1 and thus could not give a balanced opinion on the series. You responded with "No, i agree with him somewhat. Although I don't think Halo 2 is the best. I think Halo 3 is the best" which didn't make any sense in the context of my post, although if you were to read 'posts' as 'post' I can see where the confusion may have stemmed from. Just thought I'd point that out! :)

Given all the edits, I doubt this post is going to be very well structured so I apologise if it's hard to follow.

/out

[Edited on 08.29.2010 10:08 PM PDT]

  • 08.29.2010 10:03 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: Btcc22
Posted by: General Heed
-snip-


This debate is losing focus although but in my closing words I'd like to point out that you've now agreed with my earlier posts where I claimed that MS withheld products and features to encourage users to shell out for a new O.S. That's quite the turnaround from your earlier arguments.

I'll recap quickly to make my references clear:
Posted by: Btcc22
DX10 wasn't held back from XP because of it being an obsolete OS, it's because they wanted something that'd make Vista look worthwhile.


Posted by: General Heed
If Microsoft really held back DX10, H2V, and attempted to hold back IE7 from Windows Xp for the purpose of promoting Windows Vista, then why didn't they hold back DX11 or IE9 from Windows Vista?


Posted by: General Heed
Of course Microsoft wants you to upgrade to a new OS after it's out of mainstream support.


Let's keep in mind that they define the support life cycles so your statement may as well read, "Of course Microsoft wants you to upgrade to a new OS". This formed the basis of my entire argument.

Anyway, back to the original discussion; H2V. I'll start off with this quote:
Posted by: General Heed
I think there actually is a technical reason why Halo 2 PC is a Windows Vista exclusive. DirectX 10 at the time was only available on Windows Vista. Now I'm not sure if Halo 2 PC was a DirectX 10 game...


I'll ignore the obvious problem with that snippet and get straight into the meat. The game makes zero use of Vista exclusive features hence the rapid production of an XP patch to circumvent the Vista check. Not great for a game that was claimed to make use of Vista's features to provide a better experience as opposed to some arbitrary (read: marketing) decision to exclude the vast majority of gamers. Heck, I can't think of a single mainstream game that's felt the need to cut XP out of the picture and they somehow still manage to make use of DX11/10. That's probably because they didn't feel like committing financial suicide.

As an interject, did you know XP's support is set to last 2014 in comparison to Vista's current 2012? If Bill Gates' opinion on Vista has any influence over the support cycles then things aren't looking good.

On a final note (I mean it this time), my original post was stating that I had been given the impression by Ultamate Power's [sic] past posts that he had never played Halo 1 and thus could not give a balanced opinion on the series. You responded with "No, i agree with him somewhat. Although I don't think Halo 2 is the best. I think Halo 3 is the best" which didn't make any sense in the context of my post, although if you were to read 'posts' as 'post' I can see where the confusion may have stemmed from. Just thought I'd point that out! :)

Given all the edits, I doubt this post is going to be very well structured so I apologise if it's hard to follow.

/out


You still never answered my question about why IE9 and DX11 were not held from Windows Vista and made Windows 7 exclusives. If what you say is true, then IE9 and DX11 should not even be on Windows Vista, not when Windows 7 is available.

Also, Windows XP is in EXTENDED Support Phase until 2014. Windows Vista is in MAINSTREAM support until 2012. Mainstream support and extended support are totally different things. The difference is the reason why everything was not added to Windows XP. When an OS is in Extended Support Phase, it is only eligible to receive security updates, nothing else. But since Windows Vista is in Mainstream Support, it can receive updates like DX11 and IE9.

You completely ignored most of my post when I said that "of course Microsoft wants you to upgrade to a new OS". They have a very good reason to want people to upgrade. It's because once an OS is out of Mainstrwam support, it is not longer a priority for Microsoft, thus causing potential vulnerabilities in that OS. Are you Windows XP users still complaining about viruses? Well guess what, Windows Vista is less vulnerable to viruses than Windows XP is. The irony is that most viruses meant for Windows XP are not compatible in Windows Vista. So people who complain older programs aren't compatible with Vista get the benefit of less viruses.

So I will say this one more time. It is in your best interest to upgrade. An OS without updates for long periods of time will become very vulnerable to security threats. Windows Vista will be in mainstream support until 2012. After 2012, it will go into extended support phase until at least 2017. So you're wrong about the support. That kind of shows that you don't do your research.

To ask Microsoft to put Windows XP back into mainstream support is the most selfish and stubborn thing ever. Do you people forget about Windows 98? At first people refused to upgrade to Windows XP from Windows 98 for the exact same reason that people refuse to upgrade to Vista. But eventually those Windows 98 fanboys upgraded and became Windows XP fanboys. Eventually you'll all come around. I don't have to argue that at all. It will happen eventually. It always does. MS-DOS to Windows 95, Windows 98-XP, and so on. There's always a small group of stubborn people that refuse to upgrade.

You have yet to provide actual facts about what makes Windows XP better. Your arguments are mere complaints about Microsoft ending support for Windows XP. There is absolutely nothing better about Windows XP compared to Vista. Most likely you're just too stubborn to change.

It's Windows 98 all over again...

  • 08.30.2010 6:46 PM PDT

Posted by: Gandalf: I'm new. And a wizard.

Sapphire just got even more awesome.

Posted by: mount420: You are late.
Posted by: jaythenerdkid: A wizard is never late.
Posted by: THORSGOD: Nor is he ever early. He arrives precisely when he means to.


Posted by: General Heed



Also, Windows XP is in EXTENDED Support Phase until 2014. Windows Vista is in MAINSTREAM support until 2012.



It wasn't originally going to be 2014... it is now because of what a load of crap Vista turned out to be... I can almost guarantee you that Vista won't be supported as long as XP has been.

Can't really be bothered to debate the rest of your post right now, stuff to do.

  • 08.30.2010 7:05 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Btcc22
  • user homepage:

Quick response to your points:

I don't complain about the security of XP because I don't have any issues.

I'm so stubborn I have a PC to my left that runs Vista, as I've already told you.

I know XP is in extended support and I never indicated otherwise.

Saying that Microsoft intentionally made H2PC Vista only for our own good is absurd. At a technical level the game was compatible with Windows XP. No company would intentionally chuck money down the drain. As said by myself and others, they did it to shift more copies of Vista. There's no debating that.

Nobody asked for XP to go back into mainstream support and it's not a small, stubborn group. It's ~55% of the market and ~61% of the Windows market 10 years and two releases later. Does that not tell you something? This is an unprecedented situation in the history of Windows. For your Windows 98 analogy to hold any water, 98 would have needed to have 55% share in 2008. It was roughly 0.05%. Yup, less than half a percent.

XP was in mainstream support when DX10 was released so your point about Vista and DX11 is moot. They were hardly going to seen to be ditching support for a relatively new operating system. People would be slightly wary of Windows 7 if they thought they were going to ditch buyers in a few of years.

Once again, they set the support cycles and it's not because it's in your best interests, it's because they want you to upgrade. I'll paraphrase my earlier sentiments; they decide when it is and is not in your best interests to upgrade. It's in their best interests to tell you that it's in your best interests. They're a business. Money comes first. I can't break it down further.

This is my final post on the matter as all I can do is refer you back to my earlier posts. Some of your posts are going off on a tangent or making unsubstantiated claims.

[Edited on 08.30.2010 7:21 PM PDT]

  • 08.30.2010 7:07 PM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: Btcc22
Quick response to your points:

I don't complain about the security of XP because I don't have any issues.

I'm so stubborn I have a PC to my left that runs Vista, as I've already told you.

I know XP is in extended support and I never indicated otherwise.

Saying that Microsoft intentionally made H2PC Vista only for our own good is absurd. At a technical level the game was compatible with Windows XP. No company would intentionally chuck money down the drain. As said by myself and others, they did it to shift more copies of Vista. There's no debating that.

Nobody asked for XP to go back into mainstream support and it's not a small, stubborn group. It's ~55% of the market and ~61% of the Windows market 10 years and two releases later. Does that not tell you something? This is an unprecedented situation in the history of Windows. For your Windows 98 analogy to hold any water, 98 would have needed to have 55% share in 2008. It was roughly 0.05%. Yup, less than half a percent.

XP was in mainstream support when DX10 was released so your point about Vista and DX11 is moot. They were hardly going to seen to be ditching support for a relatively new operating system. People would be slightly wary of Windows 7 if they thought they were going to ditch buyers in a few of years.

Once again, they set the support cycles and it's not because it's in your best interests, it's because they want you to upgrade. I'll paraphrase my earlier sentiments; they decide when it is and is not in your best interests to upgrade. It's in their best interests to tell you that it's in your best interests. They're a business. Money comes first. I can't break it down further.

This is my final post on the matter as all I can do is refer you back to my earlier posts. Some of your posts are going off on a tangent or making unsubstantiated claims.


My Windows 98 analogy was not to be compared to Windows Vista. It was compared to Windows XP when it first came out. When XP first came out, it's not like it instantly won the hearts of everyone. Many people stayed with Windows 98 at first for a few years after Windows XP came out. But slowly, people began to upgrade. Much like all of you will. Don't say you'll still be using Windows XP 30 years from now. I know you will all be rid of XP by then. 10 years and XP will probably be at less than 10% marketshare.

The support cycles were not set just because of Windows Vista. In fact, they were set long ago, before Windows XP. They were set because Microsoft does not want to support obsolete software. Do you really think there's still any point in providing mainstream support for MS-DOS or Windows 95 at this point? I don't think so. Windows XP has been out for a long time. It's been out longer than any other Windows OS in the past. I think it's time to upgrade.

I'm actually one of the many people that refused to upgrade to Windows XP at first. The reason was that it ran slowly on my Windows 98 computer and took up way too much system resources. But I had no choice but to upgrade eventually. Now so far, the only argument I hear about Windows Vista is that it takes up too much system resources and runs slowly on Windows XP PC's.

Look all I ask is you provide one good reason why Windows XP is better and why Windows Vista is a bad operating system. And please don't say it runs slowly on your old XP computers. That's a terrible argument and was used against Windows XP 10 years ago.

  • 08.30.2010 7:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Something smells fishy...

I don't believe Microsoft was very proud of Windows Vista. Microsoft couldn't have been content with Vista as its new poster child so to speak. I mean honestly, why else would Microsoft release a new operating system (Windows 7) 2 years, 8 months, and 8 days later.

Windows 98 retail was released on June 25th, 1998. Microsoft didn't release Windows XP retail until October 25th, 2001. The difference between the two release dates were 3 years and 3 months.

Also, between the release dates of Windows 95 (8/24/1995) and Windows 98 (6/25/1998) there was just about a 3 year difference.

The average difference between the release dates of Windows 95 and 98 and 98 and XP was 3.54 years. While the difference between the release dates of Windows Vista and Windows 7 was 2.6 years.

3.54 years and 2.6 years have a difference of 1 year plus a month and a half. Thus Microsoft released Windows 7 after Windows Vista a little over 1 year sooner than usual.

Considering three out of five of Microsoft's major releases Windows 95, 98, and XP were on average officially released 3.54 years apart, I believe Microsoft released Windows 7 sooner then usual purposefully.

Windows Vista just didn't meet Microsoft's standards.

  • 08.30.2010 9:36 PM PDT

Posted by: Gandalf: I'm new. And a wizard.

Sapphire just got even more awesome.

Posted by: mount420: You are late.
Posted by: jaythenerdkid: A wizard is never late.
Posted by: THORSGOD: Nor is he ever early. He arrives precisely when he means to.

Alright... let's see... what've we got here? *Rubs hands together*

Posted by: General Heed

When XP first came out, it's not like it instantly won the hearts of everyone. Many people stayed with Windows 98 at first for a few years after Windows XP came out. But slowly, people began to upgrade.


True.

Posted by: General Heed

Much like all of you will. Don't say you'll still be using Windows XP 30 years from now. I know you will all be rid of XP by then. 10 years and XP will probably be at less than 10% marketshare.


Upgrade to 7? Yep. Everyone that has XP will skip past Vista, straight to 7, possibly past that if they're slow to upgrade (provided the next OS is not another Vista), for reasons I'll get to in a minute. 30 years from now, we definitely will not be using XP, Vista or 7. They will be obsolete, very likely they will not supported at all. 10 years, and XP most likely won't be supported. I'm sure market share would be less than 10%, Vista would be pretty well nothing, 7 probably around 20 more or less (I wouldn't call 7 a "complete" OS, just a "fixed" Vista). The computing industry goes through HUGE changes in 10 years, keep in mind.

Posted by: General Heed

The support cycles were not set just because of Windows Vista. In fact, they were set long ago, before Windows XP. They were set because Microsoft does not want to support obsolete software. Do you really think there's still any point in providing mainstream support for MS-DOS or Windows 95 at this point? I don't think so.


Duh. Lol.

Posted by: General Heed

Windows XP has been out for a long time. It's been out longer than any other Windows OS in the past. I think it's time to upgrade.
Yep, I'm XP has been supported longer than any other OS (don't quote me on that), but it has been support for a VERY long time. Why was it's support time extended beyond "extended"? Vista is the answer.

Posted by: General Heed

I'm actually one of the many people that refused to upgrade to Windows XP at first. The reason was that it ran slowly on my Windows 98 computer and took up way too much system resources. But I had no choice but to upgrade eventually. Now so far, the only argument I hear about Windows Vista is that it takes up too much system resources and runs slowly on Windows XP PC's.

Look all I ask is you provide one good reason why Windows XP is better and why Windows Vista is a bad operating system. And please don't say it runs slowly on your old XP computers. That's a terrible argument and was used against Windows XP 10 years ago.


Ok. I'll tell you, since Btcc doesn't seem to be coming back. I won't give you just one good reason either. Slow/high resource consumption is just one of the many main reasons.

-Huge compatibility issues with devices/hardware, massive lack of driver support: Of course, with a pre-built, big brand-name PC, this isn't much of an issue, unless you have some external devices, it is. If you happen to have external devices that worked on XP... watch out. Fair chance they won't work. Vista could be a nightmare for system builders thanks again to a lack of drivers (for internal PC hardware). On a side note, I personally have been in this situation many times.

-Massive security flaws: When you compare XP's secuity to Vista's, a good analogy would be XP being a reasonably solid brick wall (If you know what you're doing, you could probably even run a fully updated XP without an AV and have little risk), and Vista being A barely-standing wall full of holes, and bricks lying around everywhere.

-The User Account Control system: Look, this doesn't really count, but it needs to go in, imo. Those messages that pop up asking you confirm every action and change you take are so freakin' annoying, and are not easy for the average user to turn off. It is completely pointless, and a sinch for malware & spyware to bypass. Glad it's easy to turn off for most people in 7 (and sooo much quicker/easier for me).

-Application compatibility: At Vista's release, many common applications had issues with the OS. Not so much an issue now, after a few years, but still pretty major with smaller apps.

-The cost: Still cracks me up. Expensive for all the issues it has.

Aww, can't finish right now... I'll be back! <.< >.>

EDIT: Actually, never mind. I'll just stop here. I'd rather not be banned. This debate has gone on long enough, I don't even remember the original topic. Needs a lock.

Heed: If you would like to continue this, take it to a PM, thanks! =)


[Edited on 08.31.2010 6:12 AM PDT]

  • 08.31.2010 6:08 AM PDT

Bring Back Rocket Race!!!


Posted by: Vadam930
Alright... let's see... what've we got here? *Rubs hands together*

Posted by: General Heed

When XP first came out, it's not like it instantly won the hearts of everyone. Many people stayed with Windows 98 at first for a few years after Windows XP came out. But slowly, people began to upgrade.


True.

Posted by: General Heed

Much like all of you will. Don't say you'll still be using Windows XP 30 years from now. I know you will all be rid of XP by then. 10 years and XP will probably be at less than 10% marketshare.


Upgrade to 7? Yep. Everyone that has XP will skip past Vista, straight to 7, possibly past that if they're slow to upgrade (provided the next OS is not another Vista), for reasons I'll get to in a minute. 30 years from now, we definitely will not be using XP, Vista or 7. They will be obsolete, very likely they will not supported at all. 10 years, and XP most likely won't be supported. I'm sure market share would be less than 10%, Vista would be pretty well nothing, 7 probably around 20 more or less (I wouldn't call 7 a "complete" OS, just a "fixed" Vista). The computing industry goes through HUGE changes in 10 years, keep in mind.

Posted by: General Heed

The support cycles were not set just because of Windows Vista. In fact, they were set long ago, before Windows XP. They were set because Microsoft does not want to support obsolete software. Do you really think there's still any point in providing mainstream support for MS-DOS or Windows 95 at this point? I don't think so.


Duh. Lol.

Posted by: General Heed

Windows XP has been out for a long time. It's been out longer than any other Windows OS in the past. I think it's time to upgrade.
Yep, I'm XP has been supported longer than any other OS (don't quote me on that), but it has been support for a VERY long time. Why was it's support time extended beyond "extended"? Vista is the answer.

Posted by: General Heed

I'm actually one of the many people that refused to upgrade to Windows XP at first. The reason was that it ran slowly on my Windows 98 computer and took up way too much system resources. But I had no choice but to upgrade eventually. Now so far, the only argument I hear about Windows Vista is that it takes up too much system resources and runs slowly on Windows XP PC's.

Look all I ask is you provide one good reason why Windows XP is better and why Windows Vista is a bad operating system. And please don't say it runs slowly on your old XP computers. That's a terrible argument and was used against Windows XP 10 years ago.


Ok. I'll tell you, since Btcc doesn't seem to be coming back. I won't give you just one good reason either. Slow/high resource consumption is just one of the many main reasons.

-Huge compatibility issues with devices/hardware, massive lack of driver support: Of course, with a pre-built, big brand-name PC, this isn't much of an issue, unless you have some external devices, it is. If you happen to have external devices that worked on XP... watch out. Fair chance they won't work. Vista could be a nightmare for system builders thanks again to a lack of drivers (for internal PC hardware). On a side note, I personally have been in this situation many times.

-Massive security flaws: When you compare XP's secuity to Vista's, a good analogy would be XP being a reasonably solid brick wall (If you know what you're doing, you could probably even run a fully updated XP without an AV and have little risk), and Vista being A barely-standing wall full of holes, and bricks lying around everywhere.

-The User Account Control system: Look, this doesn't really count, but it needs to go in, imo. Those messages that pop up asking you confirm every action and change you take are so freakin' annoying, and are not easy for the average user to turn off. It is completely pointless, and a sinch for malware & spyware to bypass. Glad it's easy to turn off for most people in 7 (and sooo much quicker/easier for me).

-Application compatibility: At Vista's release, many common applications had issues with the OS. Not so much an issue now, after a few years, but still pretty major with smaller apps.

-The cost: Still cracks me up. Expensive for all the issues it has.

Aww, can't finish right now... I'll be back! <.< >.>

EDIT: Actually, never mind. I'll just stop here. I'd rather not be banned. This debate has gone on long enough, I don't even remember the original topic. Needs a lock.

Heed: If you would like to continue this, take it to a PM, thanks! =)


very well.

  • 08.31.2010 12:23 PM PDT

somewhere in the heavens...they are waiting. I love the Marathon Trilogy.
Halo CE will always be the best game in the Halo franchise. What a perfect game.
(Proud LONGTIME owner of the PC and Xbox versions of Halo CE)


Posted by: General Heed

Halo 1's multiplayer was terrible compared to newer games.


Impossible.

  • 09.02.2010 12:27 AM PDT

Why are we still complaining about this.....

1. Halo PC is dated and tired...and yes the multiplayer sucks!

2. So what if you have to shell out money for a new OS to play
H2V...last time I checked, people pay good money for
consoles, just for a few silly games, at least with a new OS
you can also experience newer apps and support you didn't
have before.

3. Halo 2 Vista is a descent port, and anyone with technical
knowledge, can re-work the tool set and create very
interesting things for the game that you weren't supposed to
be able to.

4. Yes H2V does not have cross platform or Co-op over Live...
Is that something you really really need? I'd rather play
system link and forgo any connection issues on either end
that usually end up quitting both from playing.

5. IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT, THEN DON'T BUY IT OR PLAY IT!!! It's
time to face facts and move on...not endlessly spam, doing
nothing to help out issues with the port, that is if you
feel there are all that many.

6. There is no evidence to support that any Halo game is
superior to another. To say so, is simply an opinion, not
fact. Each title uses newer tool sets, and experience is
gained...therefore each title will always be different.
Though I liked H2's multiplayer best, it doesn't mean that
it is.

Sorry for the rant, but this stuff bugs me. In fact, I think we all need lives and stop buying to much into this crap and whining like babies...it is only a game after all?

  • 09.02.2010 7:51 AM PDT

Halo: CE Anniversary Achievement Idea
C-C-C-CANNON BREAKER!
Let Sgt. Johnson die on Halo.

Posted by: jordan15b
halo2 vista runs on 7 btw. id never buy the horrible -blam!- that is vista


Actually, I really like my version of Vista. It really just depends which version you buy.

  • 09.02.2010 12:02 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2