Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: Vista No XP Damn
  • Subject: Vista No XP Damn
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Vista No XP Damn

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME GROUP INVITATIONS

The Halo REACH Script (post thoughts in thread)

Writing Lead of Whisper Studios. Check out Heron!

Look... I'm on bungiepedia!

I'm not complaining, but if F.E.A.R. looks much better than an Xbox game and was made for DX9, I'm sure H2V would work just fine on DX9 as well..I mean, the graphics don't even look that much better..

I'm not getting Vista or H2V for a while anyway...Media Center all the way, as well as F.E.A.R. and Crysis when it comes out :)

  • 09.26.2006 2:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I have XP on my laptop, which crashes regularly. I have this program called Virtual Drive, which allows you to make virtual CDs (basically, a digital backup, so totally legal) and run them in virtual CD rom drives. I also have Vet.
If I try to tun a VCD with Vet on, my laptop crashes. Just one of many glitches in XP that, most likely, will never get fixed.

  • 09.26.2006 9:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

the minimum directx is 9.0c, but vista ships with 10. you don't need a dx10 card to run halo2pc, but you will need *i believe* a 9.0c card

  • 09.27.2006 12:07 AM PDT

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME GROUP INVITATIONS

The Halo REACH Script (post thoughts in thread)

Writing Lead of Whisper Studios. Check out Heron!

Look... I'm on bungiepedia!

You need DX10 and Vista to play H2PC..however a game that looks far (Graphically) superior (Crysis) works on a DX9...wierd :-\

[Edited on 9/27/2006]

  • 09.27.2006 12:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: me15ter
Posted by: Minjita
I find it interesting how no-one actually knows how Vista will be. People keep saying 'its probably going to be better'.


Do what you wish, seems you're pretty confident (coughnarrowmindedcough) in your choice, but between an OS running off of outdated base coding, and a newly restructured OS, I'd rather take Vista.


Hmm, making assumptions meiter?

Nothing to do with narrowmindedness. Fact is, Vista wont work with many programs when its released. Your making out Im saying XP is better. Im not.

But others are making assumptions based on either RC1 which still has major problems, or blatently just guessing.

The smart ones will have dual boot. But of course, we will see people come on this forum and moan about this and that, and that they cant get xxxx working with Vista, when it would with XP.

But hey, call me narrowminded for simply giving good advice. You just went down in my estimations.

  • 09.27.2006 2:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Take out the narrowmindedness in meisters reply and you got the truth. XP is outdated, and by the time MS releases Vista it will probably be compatable with 90% of programs out there. *cough*compatiblity mode*cough* MS is dumb, but not dumb enough to the fact where they are making vista to not be compatable with the majority of programs.

You are making some assumptions yourself, saying that it wont be compatable with alot of programs. You dont know yet either.

  • 09.27.2006 6:36 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

*Probably* be compatible. Exactly my point.

The reason I know it wont work with most programs out there? Its 64bit. True 64bit. You seen how many programs still dont work with XP 64bit? Loads. Admittedly not MS's fault, but there will still be many prgrams that wont work with it.

Compatibiliy mode? Hum. Lets see how that works shall we?

The mistake many of you are making is that Im saying XP is better. Im not. I dont doubt Vista will pwn it in many many ways, mostly performance due to support of dual core, etc.

I simply think its wrong to bash people who are going to rely on XP for a while. Theres absoluotly no reason for people to upgrade and spend money because a few people say 'OMFG, vista is going PWN XP!! Wtf are you doing keeping XP? It blows!' etc etc.

[Edited on 9/27/2006]

  • 09.27.2006 7:13 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I don't know where you are getting this "true 64bit" stuff. Its not the 64bit processing that will mess up compatability. Its the changes in the way vista handle commands, and where it stores thing.

  • 09.27.2006 9:51 AM PDT

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME GROUP INVITATIONS

The Halo REACH Script (post thoughts in thread)

Writing Lead of Whisper Studios. Check out Heron!

Look... I'm on bungiepedia!

Posted by: OmniosSpartan
Posted by: MLG Cheehwawa
You need DX10 and Vista to play H2PC..however a game that looks far (Graphically) superior (Crysis) works on a DX9...wierd :-\


Your an idiot, you dont need a DX10 card to play H2PC.

You neeed a DX9.0c card to run Vista, (Nvidia suggests an FX5500+ for Aero).
Where's your proof that you don't need a DX10 card to play Halo 2 Vista?

Sorry, I thought I saw the Minimum System requirements somwhere, and "DX10 and Vista" was on them. I didn't know no official release by Bungie has been made yet.

Also, I never said "You need DX10 to use Vista" either.Please go back to New Mombasa.How mature.

  • 09.27.2006 11:30 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Please, dude, you need to pay close attention to it. Don't make assumptions.

Halo 2 is for Vista only and I'm glad it is. I don't really care that DX10 isn't necessary, it's all about progress. You won't need a DX10 card to play H2 Vista, DX9 cards will work fine and considering they're superior to a crappy outdated six year old console H2 will look superior to the Xbox version even with just DX9.

People need to know it's not all about people buying Vista in order to play a game, it's about progress. Hell, if there wasn't a good reason, I'd still buy Vista to play it anyway.

  • 09.27.2006 11:59 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Minjita
Hmm, making assumptions meiter?

Nothing to do with narrowmindedness. Fact is, Vista wont work with many programs when its released. Your making out Im saying XP is better. Im not.


Posted by: Minjita
The mistake many of you are making is that Im saying XP is better. Im not. I dont doubt Vista will pwn it in many many ways, mostly performance due to support of dual core, etc.

I simply think its wrong to bash people who are going to rely on XP for a while. Theres absoluotly no reason for people to upgrade and spend money because a few people say 'OMFG, vista is going PWN XP!! Wtf are you doing keeping XP? It blows!' etc etc.


Posted by: Minjita
I find it interesting how no-one actually knows how Vista will be. People keep saying 'its probably going to be better'.

The few people I know with the beta version hate it.


Im keeping XP. If you want to get vista on the release, more fool you unless your well off. Just make sure you keep XP installed on a dual boot. Theres many programs that wont work with it for a while. Be it the fault of microsoft or the program maker.

Besides that, Ive just heard its £150 odd for the BASIC version. F.O. if Im paying that. Theres sod all point in having a wider range of versions if the most basic is out of range of many people.


=====><=====

Second point: assumptions is a tricky term. It's a common occurence with something yet-to-be-released. For example: people assumed the PlayStation would fail totally, utterly and completely.

Likewise, while this is not my argument, you're also assuming that many programs WON'T run on Vista. Not to start a flame war, and please don't take any of this personally, but wouldn't you be making an assumption, then, that companies aren't going to be making new specifically-for-Vista programs? Wouldn't you be making an assumption, then, that M$ has no such backwards-compat abilities? Wouldn't you also be making blatant guesses?

Everything is a guess until we see the final product.

[Edited on 9/27/2006]

  • 09.27.2006 1:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: me15ter
Everything is a guess until we see the final product.

Oh snap! That wonderful sentence is sig'd!

  • 09.27.2006 1:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Indeed mieter. But your getting pedantic, like many of your other arguments.

Fact is, theres still so many things that wont work with 64bit. And no sign of anything coming.

And all those quotes you did? They prove what exactly? That I think Vista will have problems on release (prove me wrong when it comes out, but you wont will you?).

It saddens me when people take things out of context just to make it look like they are the better.

Meiter, you missed my quote where I said I think Vista is most likely to be better for various reasons.

Funny that eh?

But you said exactly my point.


Second point: assumptions is a tricky term. It's a common occurence with something yet-to-be-released

Indeed. What Im angry at is what I said before. People telling others they HAVE to get vista, because they are stupid not too. XP is abolsoutly fine for many, maybe even most computer users.

This will change as time goes on, and Vista gets established.

Yes Im making assumptions. But totally reasonable ones. Which are:

Vista wont work with every program right away.

There will be issues with Vista (if microsoft get it perfect first time that'd be great, but lets be realistic) that will take time to resolve.

Backward compatibility. 95 didnt have it all. 98 didnt. 98SE didnt. NT didnt. XP doesnt. And Vista is being built from ground up. So no, I dont think all programs will work. Thats what I call a reasonable assumption.

Dont forget Vista is being built from the base up. Its impossible to test it even on a tiny amount of a hardware configurations out there. Anyone with XP would be wise to do dual boot in case of problems.

Next time you use a load of quotes against someone, use them all and dont make daft assumptions.

[Edited on 9/28/2006]

  • 09.28.2006 6:38 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

If thats the case, and it works, brilliant. If it makes early games work properly (they never do under XP, and my need for syndicate wars hasnt diminished) I might even get it sooner than anticipated.

But I havent heard anything about what you mentioned. With luck, its as you say.

We shall have to wait and see, but I stand by what I have said already.

[Edited on 9/28/2006]

  • 09.28.2006 8:12 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I does run isolated kernels for things like the desktop and programs, but I don't think it will create an xp environment, or 98.

  • 09.28.2006 8:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

[too lazy to quote Minjita...waste of space. No offense, Minjita, but your post, while delicious and in some instances valid, was LONG.]

*sigh* I guess I didn't make it too clear after all. My apologies. My point, though, is thus: At the very offset, you were obviously (from the above quotes) implying that Vista was the lesser between XP and Vista. Yet later on, you completely contradicted yourself, doubling back and citing dual-core support.

Oh, again, no offense, but if you had read my post carefully, I intentionally didn't omit your bit about Vista being the greater in terms of "dual core support, etc."

I'm not trying to prove that Vista will be perfect on release, that'd be just plain retarded. While my post was admittedly confusing, how you derived that out of my posts is a mystery to me.

Secondly, yes, I think we can firmly establish that everyone here is making assumptions. Including you. Including me. Including Recon. How this detracts from either of our arguments is beyond me, except that yes, I am making assumptions like you mentioned. You're no different with your assumptions.

Either way, you're beginning to drag this out a bit too much. Again, not to sound belligerent, but you're beginning to look far too much into things and trying to find things when they really don't exsist in my posts. Sometimes, a cigar really is just a cigar. ;)

=====><=====

To Recon, yeah, I've heard about it as well, I think either from PC Mag or Ars Technica, I read an article somewhere detailing some method of Vista being able to run programs designed for XP or even earlier.

[Edited on 9/28/2006]

  • 09.28.2006 1:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I have a crappy little ten-year-old game called Recoil. It was designed to run on 98.
As I stated earlier, my laptop runs XP. My desktop computer, which is also what I use to run Halo and many other games, runs 2000.
Recoil runs on XP (in compat mode for 95), not on 2000. Please explain.

  • 09.28.2006 7:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

vista sucks right now because there is going to be to many bugs like there was when xp first came out and halo 2 doesnt realy have a powerful engine like source so your basicaly double screwed

==
II II
II =II
II I= Ep!Demic counter strike rulez cz

  • 09.28.2006 8:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

please go home ---> http://www.bungie.net/Forums/topics.aspx?forumID=10


don't post if you don't know what you are talking about.

  • 09.28.2006 8:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Pet0sh
um yes....DX9 vs. DX10 anyone? I don't see how that could be an easy switch. That's basically like asking for halo 3 on original xbox. I know it's not quite the same, but that's the gist of it.


lmao, you got it all wrong man. DX10 isn't that large of a jump. Yea, it adds a couple of cool affects in but nothing dramatic. Most of that Crysis you saw was running on DX9...and it looks 100xs better than Halo2 vista thats using DX10. It could easily be made for XP but microsoft wants money, I have no problem with that. I am just letting you know, DX10 isn't all that. I plan on getting it and H2V.

  • 09.29.2006 1:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

At Meiter:

I would quote you, but your posts are long too, so pot calling kettle black.

Point one. You should have put the bit about me saying Vista would be better than XP in bold, like all the other cherry picked bits you did.

Point two. Where did I say that you said it would be perfect?

Point three. Assumptions indeed. But what I disagree with, is your assumption that Im narrow minded. We all make reasonable assumptions, but that was simply stupid.

Point 4. Its takes 2 to drag it out.

Now, all Id like is for the various people to stop spouting this 'XP is utter cack and it needs replacing'. No it doesnt. Not for everyone. Its perfectly usable until the security holes start appearing (ok, more so than normal).

Im done.

[Edited on 9/29/2006]

  • 09.29.2006 3:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: l Spark l
Posted by: Pet0sh
um yes....DX9 vs. DX10 anyone? I don't see how that could be an easy switch. That's basically like asking for halo 3 on original xbox. I know it's not quite the same, but that's the gist of it.


lmao, you got it all wrong man. DX10 isn't that large of a jump. Yea, it adds a couple of cool affects in but nothing dramatic. Most of that Crysis you saw was running on DX9...and it looks 100xs better than Halo2 vista thats using DX10. It could easily be made for XP but microsoft wants money, I have no problem with that. I am just letting you know, DX10 isn't all that. I plan on getting it and H2V.


He is wrong, but so are you. DX10 is a huge leap forward from dx9. However, its done in a way that allows dx9 things to be easily converted.

  • 09.29.2006 8:36 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4