Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: Halo 2 - Vista (UNIQUE)
  • Subject: Halo 2 - Vista (UNIQUE)
Subject: Halo 2 - Vista (UNIQUE)
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I am the only one who thinks its wierd that a pc game has been soley made for one operating system ? Usually games are at least one downgrade beside, take the game F.E.A.R this is the most demanding game on the market yet it still allows windows 2000. The xbox packs the same heat as a 4 year old pc, its such a low spec that how can this affect anything running on different platforms, this is again one of microsoft's ploy to sell us more of there products. Like Bill Gates announcing halo 3 for xbox 360 in a blog, thousands of ppl will have bought one just for that, its microsoft way of selling to a market which doesn't want to upgrade. Having viewed a beta of vista there is no significant differences between O/S just the look.. Again Halo 2 pc will the first pc game to only be made for one operating system. anyone find that strange !?!??!!

  • 02.10.2006 7:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

No, it makes perfectly good sense. They want more money, and I've heard that its going to be DX10, so you will have to upgrade.(not sure about the dx10, but if it is, you will have to upgrade to vista).

Also vista is a much better OS than windows xp from what ive been hearing. It is much less demanding on ram (even though it requests that you have more), and everything should just help it to be optimized to run smoothly.

  • 02.10.2006 9:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Vista contains DX 10 which is 6-8 times better than DX9.

  • 02.11.2006 4:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

We are forgetting this is halo 2 where talking about, it is a not a demanding game. Halo 1 was low spec for the pc and so will halo 2. Its a port of an xbox game, LOW SPEC ppl. If it was a port of a 360 game then i would probz understand it. As for DX10 so what, i have never heard of the need to upgrade ure operating system to play a new game, its the most stupidest thing i have ever heard !

  • 02.11.2006 7:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Yes it will be a demanding game. Halo 1 was no means a "low spec" game. If you had your resolution on 1280x1024 with everything on high, you need at least a gig of ram, and at least an x800 or higher videocard or a 6800 series(to get a good framreate that is). And once again ITS DX10. What is so hard to comprehend about that?

  • 02.11.2006 7:52 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

How many fps do you get? 10?

  • 02.11.2006 8:23 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Operating systems affects 10% of the overall performance, i run COD 2 on DX7 and it runs with no problem. I have heard of hardware upgrades to play new games, never new operating systems. Funny how this has never been the case in previous years.

  • 02.11.2006 8:57 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

75 fps ?

"sniff sniff" wats that i smell.... BS

[Edited on 2/11/2006]

  • 02.11.2006 9:20 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: OmniosSpartan
about 75.........



HAHAHAHA thats biggest load of bull I've ever heard. I had a geforce fx 5700, with 1.5 gigs of ram (pc 3500 may i add, which means its overclocked), and I couldnt get more than 12 fps when my resolution was 1280x1024.

I have 2 gigs of ram now, an ati x850xt pro and I still get around 80 fps. Theres no way you get that many. Download fraps from HERE and take a few screenshots to prove to us that you get 75 fps.


are you sure your not getting it confused with 75 frames per minute?

  • 02.11.2006 9:24 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

or you can press CTRL + F12 In game (it shows from framerate i swear)
Posted by: OmniosSpartan
Posted by: TMH1988
Posted by: OmniosSpartan
about 75.........



HAHAHAHA thats biggest load of bull I've ever heard. I had a geforce fx 5700, with 1.5 gigs of ram (pc 3500 may i add, which means its overclocked), and I couldnt get more than 12 fps when my resolution was 1280x1024.

I have 2 gigs of ram now, an ati x850xt pro and I still get around 80 fps. Theres no way you get that many. Download fraps from HERE and take a few screenshots to prove to us that you get 75 fps.


are you sure your not getting it confused with 75 frames per minute?


mayeb you didnt read the box? Halo is optimized ofr Nvidia GPU's not ATI GPU's

and the screen can be found here

http://photobucket.com/albums/c330/Pwned_You/?action=view& ;cur rent=FPSScree.jpg

  • 02.11.2006 12:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TMH1988
No, it makes perfectly good sense. They want more money, and I've heard that its going to be DX10, so you will have to upgrade.(not sure about the dx10, but if it is, you will have to upgrade to vista).

Also vista is a much better OS than windows xp from what ive been hearing. It is much less demanding on ram (even though it requests that you have more), and everything should just help it to be optimized to run smoothly.


Well ive used the vista demo and what sucks is that its pretty laggy. I hope they fix that up because for me it was lagging when i went to winxplorer

  • 02.11.2006 12:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: OmniosSpartan
Posted by: TMH1988
Yes it will be a demanding game. Halo 1 was no means a "low spec" game. If you had your resolution on 1280x1024 with everything on high, you need at least a gig of ram, and at least an x800 or higher videocard or a 6800 series(to get a good framreate that is). And once again ITS DX10. What is so hard to comprehend about that?


lol thats funny, seeing as i have a FX5500, and run it at that res with everything turned on, with VSYNC, and only have 512MB of RAM.......


Yea Halo 1 is definately low spec, i could play it with an Nvidia 5400, and an ATI 9250 with 256 ram. so halo is low spec

  • 02.11.2006 12:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Windows XP was based on the same programming shell as Windows 2000, thats why most software will work on either system. Windows Vista programming si totally new. Basically Microsoft started over with Vista because of the problems they had with XP. Im currently Beta testing Vista, and I can attest too this. There are several programs for Windows XP that just will not run on Windows Vista. Nero 7 for instance. With what Ive seen so far of Vista it totally kicks ass. Later this year Vista is gonna render XP obselete, and with all the security problems XP had. I say good riddance. Of cousre Microsoft would release Halo 2 for Vista, its there new operating system. Why would they waste money on developing software for an operating system they will cease too support in a few years.

  • 02.11.2006 12:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Everyone is going to upgrade to Vista sometime... so why not do it now?

  • 02.11.2006 2:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Everyone needs to be optimistic. If some hacker wants his halo2 to run on XP then by the power invested in his hacking skillz he will get it to work on XP its that simple.

o and of course he would release his hack to the public for free download off of the internet.

[Edited on 2/11/2006]

  • 02.11.2006 3:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Are you people total idiots or what?

Halo 2 was developed for a 5 year old console with a stripped down Win2k operating system, 733mhz celeron processor and some crappy Nvidia graphics card that equates to a 5200 by todays standards.

Its output was 480i (in other words crap).

Now, I know you kids are real smart and all, but did you ever consider that this game was devd for an old platform? I know that this game wont be that hard on a PC, because it wasnt pretty.

You want pretty? Try FEAR.

I run FEAR @ 1600x1200 on Max settings cept 2xAA. My system has 2 7800 GT CO's unlocked and overclocked past GTX (512/1211 ea)
I have 2 GB Of OCZ Plat 2-3-2-5 @ 1t timings.

That game, is a truly beautiful game. If FEAR can run, as someone else said on Win2k, then I don't see why a crappy game like Halo can't run on it either.

What this is called, is called artificial restrictions, whereas, in order to sell more copies of Vista.

  • 02.11.2006 7:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

The only reason Halo PC requires a fairly beefy system to run properly is because it was ported terribly by Gearbox, every review I saw for the game when it came out mentioned Gearbox's inability to fine-tune the framerate. There was no technology that was in the game that wasn't already introduced in other PC games by that time that would have caused it to run as poorly as it did and still does. It was a low spec game that ended up being high spec because of lazy porting.

Halo 2 also doesn't have any new technology to offer to the table, and with the proper tuning will run easily on most PC's around now.

Needing Vista for it is bull-blam!-. But I'll probably get Vista for free when it comes out anyway, so it doesn't really matter to me. But it's still an inconvience to any other PC gamer out that that doesn't want to dump $200 on an OS. I don't understand why so many people here act like that's a negligible expense... I certainly wouldn't want to pay $200 + $50 just to play a PC game.

  • 02.11.2006 7:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Ok halo is a low spec game if you have all the settings on low...

and for the person who claims that their amazing geforce fx5500 card rocks the crap out of halo, thats total crap. I had a card 1 step up from it and its a piece of -blam!-. My system was better than yours too. I had(and stil have) an amd 64 4000+, and 2 gigs of ram.

There is no way you get 75 fps with that horrible card. Even if it is optimized for nvidia it doesnt make much of a difference. Youd maybe get about 3-5 fps more, not 30-50 fps more. Its open GL based (which is what nvidias are). If you look at games like cs source or half life 2, those are direct 3d based meaning ATI's run better. I have an atix850 and one of my buddys has a 6800 gt, and mine only gets about 5 fps more on average. Are cards specs are exactly the same. 475mhz core, 1100ghz mem speed.

  • 02.11.2006 11:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Runiteshark
Are you people total idiots or what?

Halo 2 was developed for a 5 year old console with a stripped down Win2k operating system, 733mhz celeron processor and some crappy Nvidia graphics card that equates to a 5200 by todays standards.

Its output was 480i (in other words crap).

Now, I know you kids are real smart and all, but did you ever consider that this game was devd for an old platform? I know that this game wont be that hard on a PC, because it wasnt pretty.

You want pretty? Try FEAR.

I run FEAR @ 1600x1200 on Max settings cept 2xAA. My system has 2 7800 GT CO's unlocked and overclocked past GTX (512/1211 ea)
I have 2 GB Of OCZ Plat 2-3-2-5 @ 1t timings.

That game, is a truly beautiful game. If FEAR can run, as someone else said on Win2k, then I don't see why a crappy game like Halo can't run on it either.

What this is called, is called artificial restrictions, whereas, in order to sell more copies of Vista.


All of the above is true.

  • 02.12.2006 5:03 AM PDT