Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Age of Empires 3

Author
Message
Undercover Steve
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Little Canada(Washington)
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 07:44
Guess what! More resource use.. *SHOCK*!!! Well it just so happens, that when you gain more features, it takes more space. And I had a 512mb pc when Xp was released, because they announce the requirements in advanced, meaning I could get a better pc! And the reason you cant emulate, is because they are fricking based off of other systems, they arent near the same, in other words, THE REASON TO WHY 98 IS FASTER, IS BECAUSE IT HAS LESS POWERFUL FEATURES, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE SPECIAL UPDATES. There is a reason they make new versions. Money, and to get money, they have to make the customer happy, and to make the customer happy they have to update the software better, and make it more reliable and such. Explained, or "did I not read your posts"? Seriously, your arguements arent well balanced, and you seemed to change your opinion 4 times, or state it differently (and change it slightly)...

We have fallen Into an abyss! Dear God captian! There all Bars.
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 08:59
Uhuh... keep talking...

emulate, that is a nice word, last I heard it was used to descibe software that ran software not made for a specific os. Like linex's windows emulator.

actually, the reason 98 is faster is because of a little thing called... IT IS FREK'N OLD! So OF COURSE it runs faster.

And no, I don't change my argument, I just try presnting it in different ways until one person looks and says... OHHH, that is what you ment. I don't go that deep, so I say emulate, patch, fix, whatever sounds right at the moment, I can't tell the difference, and you all don't care anyways.

I had this same problem in the evolution thread, mouse kept turning my argument into some contorted aboration. I never said that animals were super smart, only that they have a level of inteligence. I could probally find others, but the point is I spend more time trying to convey my point then actually arguing it.

Merranvo, Teh S \/|03|2 7I<><>I3
Anti-Noob Justice League, what's that?
DARKGuy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Nov 2003
Location:
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 09:48
98, compared to XP, is buggy.
98, compared to XP, is old.
98, compared to XP, is outdated.
98, compared to XP, has less fancy useless stuff.
98, compared to XP, is less bloated.
98, compared to XP, in Able-to-run-XP systems, is faster.
98, compared to XP, is less stable.

THOUGH, "M 3 I2 I2 4 7I V 0" here has a point - programs and games are actually faster in 98 than XP... I noticed an increased FPS speed change running Diablo II in my 933Mhz/256Mb RAM/16Mb video computer, in XP, it was unplayable at 800x600... had to play it at 640x480 (which is nice anyways) but in 98 it went really good... I guess it's because of the less bloat in memory that 98 takes, but, let's face it, in my old 133Mhz/64Mb RAM/8Mb video, I would have wished to have this actual computer, so I'd do wonders... but it didn't existed back then - same will happen with XP in a few years... and 98 will end up like Windows 3.1... (which I hope doesn't).

Anyways... wasn't this an AOE3 thread? xD

David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 12:00
Quote: "98, compared to XP, in Able-to-run-XP systems, is faster."


Yeah - so was Windows 3.1 when I put in on an XP system

Kangaroo2 BETA2
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Aug 2003
Location: Somerset / UK
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 12:28
Just thought I'd point out that most "XP Only" games can be patched to work in 98SE. My mate Pete loves 98SE and hates XP, and plays Doom III, San Andreas and Civ 4 under 98 after applying cracks, and they work 100% fine.

I like XP, and use it on my main PC. I wouldn't object at all if there is a game with a physical reason why it won't run on 98, thats absolutely fine by me, technology moves on and all. But what I DO object to is games having a simple lockout to make them not run in XP becasue Microsoft asked them too - its an underhand way of making people upgrade.

The fact that these games will easily run in 98 with just a simple few kb of crack means that they have just had a lockout added for no good technical reason, simple as that. And that's wrong.

I repeat (before I get flamed) that some games will not run in 98 for good reasons. However that is not the case for many major games


Preorder EA here:http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=67575&b=8&p=0
+ Model Pro out now in Program Announcements!
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 12:43
Indeed - Quake 4 will supposedly run on W98

Kangaroo2 BETA2
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Aug 2003
Location: Somerset / UK
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 13:04
Yes I'd imagine it will - its the same (or very similar) engine as Doom III I believe.

It seems common sense to me that any direct x based game wil natively run in 98se, and these imposed os limitations are just that, imposed

It has been suggested that the reason minimum system specs go up so highly with new operating systems is partly imposed too, to make the os look like more of a major leap than it is, and perhaps even in a deal between Microsoft and Intel. That could be conspiracy theories, but it does seem to me that XP takes up a lot more system resources, ram and hard disk space than any Operating System ever should...

Again, before I get flamed I'll add that I like the latest versions of XP and find them very stable. It still annoys me though


Preorder EA here:http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=67575&b=8&p=0
+ Model Pro out now in Program Announcements!
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 17:24
It would help if they had started with decent multi-tasking system

Kangaroo2 BETA2
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Aug 2003
Location: Somerset / UK
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 18:02
yes. More like Amiga OS would work better


Preorder EA here:http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=67575&b=8&p=0
+ Model Pro out now in Program Announcements!
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 20:07
@Kangaroo2 BETA2:
Okay, now that REALLY annoys me, here I am thinking that Modern Games are actually using SOMETHING in XP so that they won't work, and now I learn that it is actually Microsoft BRIBING companys? That is worse, much worse.

@DARKGuy:
Thank you for seeing what I am saying, I think KillSwich may have also understood what I was trying to convey by the end, but as more people get into this argument, more people missunderstand what I say... why do I even bother.


Personally, I would trade stability for usablility. And most of the time, 98 only crashed when I tried running programs that it couldn't handle. Like running a 150mb software when I had 96mb of ram, so I am at good feelings to 98.

Merranvo, Teh S \/|03|2 7I<><>I3
Anti-Noob Justice League, what's that?
Kangaroo2 BETA2
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Aug 2003
Location: Somerset / UK
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 21:19
"That is worse, much worse."

Yes I agree. As I said, if there was a technical/physical reason why they wouldn't work, I wouldn't object at all. But the fact that friends of mine run these games in 98 proves that there has to be something underhand going on...


Preorder EA here:http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=67575&b=8&p=0
+ Model Pro out now in Program Announcements!
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 21:57
Perhaps the EU should look into it.

Kangaroo2 BETA2
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Aug 2003
Location: Somerset / UK
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 22:20
That would be awesome! Microsoft have had their hands slapped quite a lot recently due to nasty busienss practice. I don't mind them being the biggest/richest company in the world, but they should use ethical business practices. Forcing people to upgrade for anything other than true innovation is a very poor show indeed.


Preorder EA here:http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=67575&b=8&p=0
+ Model Pro out now in Program Announcements!
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 22:35
Google are so similar to Microsoft when it comes to buisness practices, but no-one moans about them.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
Kangaroo2 BETA2
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Aug 2003
Location: Somerset / UK
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 22:50
I do, a lot. I don't like lots of what they are imposing on the internet. I feel that Google should really have stayed as a simple and efficient search tool.

For some reason though, I have always lked Yahoo as a company and never minded when they expanded into other stuff.

That said I like a lto of the new serach options in google, such as the translation, currency conversion, caluclator, dictionary etc, although they are nothing that other websites didn'yt do in the first place...


Preorder EA here:http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=67575&b=8&p=0
+ Model Pro out now in Program Announcements!
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 23:51
Quote: "but as more people get into this argument, more people missunderstand what I say... why do I even bother."


Oh, please. Like was said before, your only method of "winning" the argument is by saying other people don't understand what you're talking about.

Quote: "Personally, I would trade stability for usablility. And most of the time, 98 only crashed when I tried running programs that it couldn't handle."


XP has *NEVER* crashed on me--- not event a SINGLE time, and I've used it since 2002. I had '98 when it was first released, and while it was stable initially, it *always* ran into performance and crash issues after about 3-4 months. Reinstalling '98 on my machine every quarter was a requirement for my use.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Microsoft releasing a superior operating system then making sure current versions of their software don't work on yesterday's OS'. That happens with every other facet of software dev.

Coding Fodder
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere in my cerebralcortex
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 01:05
Yah so I have AOE3 and XP but I was really hoping to read a dicussion about the game because we already know XP ROCKS!!. ie never gives me any trouble.

Does any know if AOE3 only allows one profile per computer. I can't find how to make another name.

Something really catchy that makes people stop and think about the meaning of life and say to themselves "My but thats clever"
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 01:06
Coding Fodder
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere in my cerebralcortex
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 01:16
My little bro uses my machine now and then. I sometimes discover, in the midst of a game that I have 2 cards in my deck because he... well who knows what he was thinking.

Do any folks here join up and play games like we did aoe2 back when I knew what the irc channel was? not sure where that went at all

Something really catchy that makes people stop and think about the meaning of life and say to themselves "My but thats clever"
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 03:26
Quote: "Oh, please. Like was said before, your only method of "winning" the argument is by saying other people don't understand what you're talking about."

Or more as, the only way for you to defend yourself against being wrong. Your rebuttle, Jeku was **** (for lack of words). You basically said that I was saying that I don't want to upgrade, even though many times I did say I had XP and was not satisifed with it.

Quote: "XP has *NEVER* crashed on me--- not event a SINGLE time, and I've used it since 2002. I had '98 when it was first released, and while it was stable initially, it *always* ran into performance and crash issues after about 3-4 months. Reinstalling '98 on my machine every quarter was a requirement for my use."

I have had an XP crash! The old screen looks better .
But 98 crashed only on extream cercimstances, and most of the time I was SOO in debt with virtual memory (swap at that time) that I didn't blame it. If you had bad 98 problems, blame yourself, I never did.

Quote: "There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Microsoft releasing a superior operating system"

Problem is, it's not. If I made a engine that had every possible feature, and it ran at 5FPS, is that a superior engine? Yes, it is relivant, XP may have more glitter, but it runs slower then 98.

Merranvo, Teh S \/|03|2 7I<><>I3
Anti-Noob Justice League, what's that?
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 04:07 Edited at: 2nd Jan 2006 04:07
I too had 98 and had tremendous amounts of problems with it. Saying that you don't blame it because you were using your swap file is no excuse - a stable OS shouldn't crash. You even say in 'most' circumstances that was the case - what about the other times?

If your not satisfied with XP then quite simply you don't get OSes. There's no way you can use XP then go back to 98 - I couldn't. Even if you object to the purty interface then you can set it to an older looking style.

I'd much rather having a slower running system than one that I had to restart every 10 minutes beacuse it keeps crashing (which was quit literally the case with my pre-XP computer in the summer months).

XP doesn't even run that slowly. Right now I'm on a 1.7 GHz Celeron D laptop with 512 MB of RAM 128 MB of which is shared with the on board GPU. It doesn't run slowly at all! I can play Dawn of War, Pariah and Cossacks on here just as quickly as on my desktop, albiet with lower quality graphics.

I've never seen an XP computer which is slower than a 98 machine. If you fin your computer is slow then maybe you should have a look at all the tasks you're running in the background, along with spyware and viruses - you'll be surprised how much quicker everything is with those annoying little things gone.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 06:17
Quote: "Problem is, it's not. If I made a engine that had every possible feature, and it ran at 5FPS, is that a superior engine? Yes, it is relivant, XP may have more glitter, but it runs slower then 98."


That, my friend, is proof that you probably won't make it in the computer science field (if, in fact, that is what you're studying). To say that XP is merely '98 with "glitter" is so ignorant there's really no point in arguing it.

In that case DirectX is just GD with "glitter", sound cards are just PC speakers with "glitter", Ferraris are just Pintos with "glitter", plasma TVs are just tube TVs with "glitter", etc. etc.

Want some more examples?

If you're so unhappy with XP then you should do the following:

- sell it
- write the companies who are "in bed" with MS because they're not releasing '98 drivers, and tell them that you're angry
- write your local politician that they should investigate MS (again) for said practices (which aren't even illegal, but hey, you're free to do whatever you want)

To complain about being "forced" with a gun to your head that you have to use XP is moot on a board that's supposed to represent the cutting edge of technology. Gaming, in case you didn't know, is what pushes the major speed increases in computers.

Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 07:02 Edited at: 2nd Jan 2006 07:03
Did I SAY XP was only 98 with glitter?
no, I said that it had more fancy features then 98. you either need to
a. Go to sleep and hope that you can comprehend what is being said tomorrow.
b. Read a Book and come back when you have something inteligent to say.
c. Don't come back at all if you are not able to give me a reply that makes sense.

I KNOW that 98 != XP and I know that XP>98 when it comes down to stablility and features. But you keep posting... STUFF, that is just... really... Crap.

And stop it with the retarded side remarks, "not releasing 98 drivers" first you said that HP wasn't microsoft, now you are implying that it is MS' fault I don't have the dirvers. The Drivers EXIST, they just arn't on my CD. If any argument is weak, it is yours.

If 98 was as unstable as you said it was, then guess what... Any games on the 98 platforum wouldn't have sold, EVERYONE KNOWS that after 4 months your system would be sooo unstable that it would crash all the time. Guess what, it doesn't.



And to explain what I said last time, which you WILL COMPLETELY IGNORE
XP RUNS SLOWER THEN 98.
98 CAN RUN MODERN PROGRAMS (And according to Kangaroo Beta 2, there is only a small section of code IN THE GAMES that prevents this).


KillSwitch, ignore my utter repusliveness at Jeku, who is ignoring the point of everything that is being said.

It's not that i object to the utter waste of resources to build the fancy interface. I object to the fact that I need more ram to run my games then I needed before. Vista is only going to use more RAM, and I am looking for a way out of buying more RAM, if I am not going to see any increased proformance out of any of it.

I've managed to install 98 on my computer, get a few temp drivers off the interent (while XP). And I can get everything up but the modem or ethernet drivers and worse yet, I don't have the ATI Drivers, I know they exist (Installer only says it can't find them).

I am not certain why you all had such problems with 98, but seriously, I rarly crashed, most of my crashes occured while comming out of the gamming programs. Thats why i refered to the swap, I thought the suddent freeing of resources overloaded the thing. But while gamming, no, it all worked great.

Merranvo, Teh S \/|03|2 7I<><>I3
Anti-Noob Justice League, what's that?
tpfkat
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2005
Location: lancashire/uk
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 10:44 Edited at: 2nd Jan 2006 10:46
sorry merranvo: but your the one thats posting crap, you dont like xp....fine,but the reasons for not likeing it clearly dont cut with the rest of us.i think microsoft are a bunch of money grabbing w£$"£rs but i knew that many years ago so i made the decision to stay with microsoft,anyone with half a brain would know that using windows is an ever evoluting cycle,so for someoone who had 98,right up to xp to say they are sick of it and say things like " xp slows everything down" sorry mate but clearly you havnt done your home work, xp might be slow on your system which clearly is only capable of running 98 but it runs great on mine and it runs all the software without a hitch, ive never had it crash or lockout.
and you say that if anyone had a crash with 98 it was their own fault,well i say the same for xp, if you dont know how to maintain it so it runs nice an smoothly then thats your fault,maybe actually learn what xp can and cant do.

sorry but it just annoyed me when you told jeku what he was saying was unintelligent,when clearly you are the one typing babble.
have you written an os that everyone can use to avoid using windows and it will run every peice of software......no ....then theirs absolutetly nothing you can do except learn to use xp properly.
it annoys me that people think an os is just a peice of software that once installed you should do nothing to it , then cry later when its not doing waht they want it to do.
and of course you need more ram to run modern games, they need it for a reason like better graphics ,better physics and suchlike.

the programmer formarly known as thicko.
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 19:53 Edited at: 2nd Jan 2006 19:57
Thicko, I am yelling at jeku because whenever he posts a message, it has nothing to do with what I am saying, and to me, it is so far off that I think he was doing it on purpose.

Quote: "I would be running 98 right now if HP didn't remove the 98 hardware drivers from the driver cd, and some software doesn't work under DX 98."


Quote: "Your complaints about upgrading have been on EVERY computer owner's mind at least once."

And this is something that makes no sense. I specifically said many times that I did have XP, Heck, if I can't install 98 drivers, what DO I have? Many times I said "98 is faster then XP" so this has no relevance.

Quote: "
Your arguments are still weak, man. You can't just magically patch '98 to be XP. They are built on COMPLETELY different bases."

Although I thought my intent was clear, only to get 98 to be able to RUN the programs, not patch it. But Jeku's constant "Superior Being" Theory, where he instantly knows what a persons is talking about, that is annoying.

(Look at every one of his posts, somewhere he says that I am losing the argument, and that he read the posts, and I need to quit saying that he either a. did not read the post, or b. did not understand the posts)

I HAVE been known for misscomunication. If I say that you don't understand what I am saying, don't look at me cross eyed and say "I understand perfectally". Forget what you "think" and try to understand what I try to present.

I am not good at self-analysation, but I can say, that the only reason I keep replying is because so many people don't understand what I am saying. This isn't really an argument, if it is, what HAVE we been arguing? Read the posts and tell me that.

Quote: "it annoys me that people think an os is just a peice of software that once installed you should do nothing to it , then cry later when its not doing waht they want it to do."

Uhh, yeah, and where did I say that? I constantly defrag, diskcheck, and even then, change the WiFi hex. Even when I uninstall a program I huntdown all traces of that program to fully get rid of it. Of course sometimes it helps if the program isn't a bloody virus that keeps itself attached to your system (Evil Data Mining Software Companies).

Quote: "and of course you need more ram to run modern games, they need it for a reason like better graphics ,better physics and suchlike."

Exactally, and why do I want to waste it on the OS? That is what I have been saying. Microsoft has a knack for making each OS use more ram the then previous. If 98 could run XP programs (proven), then you could buy less ram and run more powerful games.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 22:14
Quote: "no, I said that it had more fancy features then 98. you either need to
a. Go to sleep and hope that you can comprehend what is being said tomorrow.
b. Read a Book and come back when you have something inteligent to say.
c. Don't come back at all if you are not able to give me a reply that makes sense."


Hah--- you are too funny. Are you mixing medications by any chance?

Since you so obviously love to insult those who disagree with you, there's really no point in posting.

Just because someone tells you that all games can run in '98 but there's just a small section of code that disables it, does NOT mean it's true. Do you really think every single modern game that doesn't work in '98 is in bed with MS? Take off the tinfoil hat.

OK, so I see that you struggle with my arguments, as you clearly can't link them with your ignorant phrases, so from now on I'll copy and paste, mmkay?

Quote: "Quote: "and of course you need more ram to run modern games, they need it for a reason like better graphics ,better physics and suchlike."
Exactally, and why do I want to waste it on the OS? That is what I have been saying. Microsoft has a knack for making each OS use more ram the then previous."


Have you ever used Linux? How about Mac OS? You should look up Moore's Law and read about it--- it's very interesting. Things require more power to run. XP has a TON of backend things that improve its stability over 98, stuff that you really don't know anything about (from your statements), and THAT is one of the reasons why it takes up more of your system resources. Same with Linux and Mac OS.

Quote: "If 98 could run XP programs (proven), then you could buy less ram and run more powerful games."


Because 98 can run a few games doesn't mean it's proven that it will run everything. And in case you didn't know the new games require more RAM than the old ones, so running GTA San Andreas on a Win 98 with 16MB of RAM is just not going to happen. Seriously, you really need to read up on computer science theory. It's interesting. That entire argument is moot. If you don't believe me, then try it. Really.

Quote: "Although I thought my intent was clear, only to get 98 to be able to RUN the programs, not patch it. But Jeku's constant "Superior Being" Theory, where he instantly knows what a persons is talking about, that is annoying."


Perhaps you need to talk more clearly than. And here I'm being clear. You CAN'T RUN ALL XP SOFTWARE ON '98. Is that black and white for you?

Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 23:22 Edited at: 2nd Jan 2006 23:24
Uhh, jeku, what are you trying to say now?

Quote: "So running GTA San Andreas on a Win 98 with 16MB of RAM is just not going to happen."

It takes 16mb to RUN 98. I had intended to DOWNGRADE an XP machine.


Quote: "Perhaps you need to talk more clearly than. "

Than what? Let's look at your previous posts.
Quote: "Oh, please. Like was said before, your only method of "winning" the argument is by saying other people don't understand what you're talking about."

Quote: "And quit saying we're not reading your posts. It's ignorant and a cheap way to make yourself feel good about losing this argument :-P"

Directed at
"I wonder what people think I'm saying... Obviouly text isn't a good medium of communication. Nor am I."

This doesn't look like you WANTED me to be clearer.


Quote: "XP has a TON of backend things that improve its stability over 98, stuff that you really don't know anything about (from your statements), and THAT is one of the reasons why it takes up more of your system resources. Same with Linux and Mac OS."

You said that XP never crashed on you, you also said that you would upgrade to vista. Vista Computers are expected to come out with 512MB as a minimum. Where is the 'new' gain?

Also, the argument was never about stability, it was about excess usage of resources.
I have visual styles turned off, what is the point of themes.
I have Remote Acess turned off, and this computer does not share resources, what is the point of Server, Terminal Services?
I never use help, what is the point of Help and Services?

I admit, I do not know to what extent each of these services operate, but they are interdependent on each other, non-cohesive, instead of having a web, the whole thing should be a single thread, operating effeciently, seprately, blah.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 23:41 Edited at: 2nd Jan 2006 23:42
Quote: "It takes 16mb to RUN 98. I had intended to DOWNGRADE an XP machine."


You just said you could use less RAM and play more games on a 98 machine! You have a short memory, dude. And you're accusing me of not reading your posts!?

Quote: "You said that XP never crashed on you, you also said that you would upgrade to vista. Vista Computers are expected to come out with 512MB as a minimum. Where is the 'new' gain?"


Last time I checked Vista was not released yet. My current computer has 1GB of RAM so I can play GAMES better like HL2, Doom 3, etc. There's no reason for me NOT to upgrade to Vista (aside from the $300+ price of the upgrade, but that's a whole other argument )

XP hasn't crashed on me, and I love it. It doesn't mean I have no need to upgrade to Vista. I don't know if you know this, but I am a programmer at EA--- it is my JOB to stay ahead of the current trend. Vista is the new OS that is coming whether you appreciate it or not. If you think it's a waste of money, go ahead and keep XP as long as you can.

Quote: "Also, the argument was never about stability, it was about excess usage of resources."


Hey, you're the one who brought in the entire crash sub-argument. You went on about how XP crashed on you once, and 98 has been great for you.

Quote: "I have visual styles turned off, what is the point of themes."


Same here---

Quote: "I have Remote Acess turned off, and this computer does not share resources, what is the point of Server, Terminal Services?
I never use help, what is the point of Help and Services?"


Like I said before, there is a LOT more to XP than what you have listed there. It would fill an entire textbook with the differences, but I'm not a professor.

Quote: "the whole thing should be a single thread, operating effeciently, seprately, blah."


Again, does not make sense. As far as I know, there hasn't been an OS in decades that runs on a single thread. So you're against multi-tasking now? Multi-threading and multi-tasking are completely separate topics.

Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 2nd Jan 2006 23:51
Jeku, you're a mod - can't you just newbie slap this guy?

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 01:03 Edited at: 3rd Jan 2006 01:05
:-

Quote: "You just said you could use less RAM and play more games on a 98 machine! You have a short memory, dude. And you're accusing me of not reading your posts!?"

You remarked of using 16 ram??? XP costs 128 ram, if you use 98, then you have 112MB free. That was the idea. As vista is comming out with 512 as default, I can assume that you are using 256MB apox. Now this presents a more interesting view, you save 240MB of ram by using 98.

Quote: "Again, does not make sense. As far as I know, there hasn't been an OS in decades that runs on a single thread. So you're against multi-tasking now? Multi-threading and multi-tasking are completely separate topics."

Please remind me to FINALY fully study Computer Science, I think I just said something but don't know what I said.



I can't really explain what I want to say. All I know is that having things running off of each other in a web, and each peice not using everything in one thing, is less effecient.

And that small list were a few services that were running that I believed had no reason to run, expecally the server service. But they are connected to each other so I can not turn them off.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 01:42
some suggestions:
In XP, right click an exe and go to properties, change the compatibility mode to match that applications target OS. Like Windows 98 for example.

RAM is dirt cheap, buy some.

Sorry, but i read 3/4 of the posts and couldnt take it any more. Some of you may remember me saying I'd never get XP and would stay with 2000 pro until the next OS after XP... Well that changed and I am now running XP Pro on this fairly new monster pc of mine, and thank goodness I did take the plunge. My feelings towards XP changed when, for the last 6 months or so, I have been doing freelance coding for this company, and the development machine I use there is a new Dell with XP pro. After a while I realized that is really just an improved version of 2k and its alot prettier. SP2 for XP is what sealed it for me, prior to sp2 I would never touch xp to this day. Long story short, os's will progress with technology and yes they will demand more resources but that is a natural progression in all facets of technology. Could you imagine still using 56k dial up (sorry to those who are still stuck there) when the size of file downloads/game demo's etc are in the hundreds of megs? Could you still use 200 meg hard drives nowadays when games and apps are being distro'd on dvd's because they need 5 gigs free space to be installed? Nope. Everything progresses, hopefully for the better.

SORRY UR NOT COMEDIAN
Undercover Steve
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Little Canada(Washington)
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 02:01
Cattlerustler and Jeku summed up anything I had to say to Merravo or whatever his name is..

We have fallen Into an abyss! Dear God captian! There all Bars.
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 03:27
@Merranvo - Sorry to bump this again, but I'll leave it at we'll just agree to disagree

@Killswitch - If I was going to noob slap someone for disagreeing with me then I shouldn't be a mod

Undercover Steve
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Little Canada(Washington)
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 04:02
No, he was insulting you

We have fallen Into an abyss! Dear God captian! There all Bars.
Megaton Cat
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 04:20 Edited at: 3rd Jan 2006 04:20
Quote: "If I was going to noob slap someone for disagreeing with me then I shouldn't be a mod"


Obviously you've never seen Mouse(Ian) in action.


The cat era has begun.
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 4th Jan 2006 01:02
Quote: "Obviously you've never seen Mouse(Ian) in action"

Ain't That True!


Quote: "@Merranvo - Sorry to bump this again, but I'll leave it at we'll just agree to disagree"

Yeah, it is a pointless argument that goes on in circles; No body can 'truely' win because 90% of it is prefrence. Although I am glad that you understood what I was saying.

Quote: "RAM is dirt cheap, buy some."

I would love your job, to be able to say that. $300 for a decent 1GB, and don't say ebay. Items that are 1 dollars are typically new items, by closing time the item is already 3x its worth.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
DARKGuy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Nov 2003
Location:
Posted: 8th Jan 2006 03:02
Kaaay well...

My experienes with 98 were awesome in the times of migrating from Windows 95 to 98 (which was a nice change). Everything went fine even when NT was around. It all came down to hell when Windows 2k came out... then apps started to throw their native errors about needing 2K/XP (and it was annoying). Then it all started to crash with my trivial tests trying to make those apps and games run in 98 with no avail. Yeah, it was fast and cool back then in my 300Mhz (not to mention the nVIDIA drivers I had back then for 98 worked WAY BETTER in that comp rather than in my mom's one with XP... lol!) but, it wasn't nice when I wanted to use something and it said it needed 2k/XP.

Merranvo, I understand your point, but you will never find cracks for -every- type of app/game that will make it run in 98... mostly because 98 is slowly sinking in the forgotten pit, and thus the crackers that do that stop doing cracks for making them work. It's all based on popularity: Why to crack something only 5/100 people will use? that's not a way to become famous, not to mention the hard work cracking it.

Of course, I was really p*ssed when I found that after getting Slave Zero (which is an awesome game by the way) it won't run in XP... it took me some time to find a suppossedly "buggy" crack that made it work in XP... okay, the game runs fine and all... but I don't have 98 anymore, and would have loved to play it in 98 - more speed .

Programming and doing stuff in 98 was a kind of a pain too. I used to program some stuff in VB 6.0 back then (and still do) and it was stupid to reset the comp, wait a scandisk and then come back, with your project unsaved (stupid VB) just because I couldn't get it out of a bad trial-and-error Winsock command sequence. Playing some games was tricky too - VESA mode games when alt+tabbed did crash and sometimes they could even crash Windows in the process: Not very good. Also, sound card and MS-DOS games were a bad mix together if the drivers weren't MS-DOS/Windows multitasking-compatible... I still remember the damn error when you alt+tab, or close a program when it crashes "auto-detecting" your sound card, and then it says "This device is being used by another process" so there goes, another restart.

XP has some downsides on this too - if you have an awesome sound card and want to play some old game (say, Lands of Lore (which is annoying to play under DOSBox, ew! sluggish as hell), Tyrian 2000 or Stargunner) with a real good sound... XP doesn't detects it, or the game ends up with a runtime error... the VESA driver doesn't work, joystick isn't emulated right... etc. But then again it's based on popularity: Who plays old games anyways?.

Technology is gonna change we like it or not. I know I won't get Vista because my computer hardly runs nice with XP, but you'll see, in one, two, or three years, I'll be upgrading, beause I'll get a better computer for using it, or I may stay with XP, after all... it's my ideal OS... tweaking it right .

My blood boils everytime I see some game or app that requires 512Mb RAM, a GeForce 47356366352 FX 7564333+++ and like 40Gb of disk space (I'm being exaggerated) ... and I hate it, I hate to see why everything advances so fast and I don't have neither the whealth or the possibilities to upgrade, no matter how much I want to, but I have to just live with it. Sadly, this is no real world, and we can't improve here - we're ruled by electricity, the big companies, and the capacity of our limited hardware - . It isn't the same to look at Arnold and say "I want to have arms like his" and start doing excercise and all that stuff in years, than to see Quake 4 and try to make it run in a 300Mhz... no way. Luckily, we can change our "hardware" and "software", but the computer, without our help, it can't by itself.... what I'm saying here is a way of saying you can't push the computer to be what you want unless you help it to be.

Of course, there goes people who say "go buy some RAM, a new video card, and a new motherboard - oh, while you're at it, also get a new mouse, that one sucks" and people in some other forums where my mom once went asking why Lineage II crashed on her comp (she mistakenly put her video card on there, which wasn't the real problem) and they all were bashing her on there telling her to buy a new video card - when she plays just fine now without any needed upgrade.

One thing is to have a job, save up some money and buy stuff for your computer. Other thing is to not be able to have a job (by various reasons: age, location, family, your pet, aliens, etc.) or at least a non-fixed job, HARDLY get some money you can save up for your comp (if you don't end up spending it in something you need), for someone with a nice life to tell you to buy something it's unthinkable for you. For someone who earns $1k monthly, a $150 video card would be nothing, but for the ones who can't earn that much, every drop of their sweat counts for the effort of trying to save up that much. Gotta think in both sides.

Without anything more to say... here I leave this.

Ooska
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2004
Location:
Posted: 8th Jan 2006 03:41
Civilization kicks Age of Empires

Read Ender's Game. And all its sequals.
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 8th Jan 2006 07:01 Edited at: 8th Jan 2006 07:15
Why did you resurect this?

But 98 isn't really dead... I did a search on ebay for 98, people are making a lot of money, well around $60 a sale, but that is almost retail price!

People get names for themselves by doing HARD cracks. If it isn't a challange, then no one remebers. But in the end run, no one remebers them anyways.

Quote: "Who plays old games anyways?"

I DO!!!

Well, I particularly hate the ones that are made random. I've played a few of those and never finished because, well, it was boring and annoying. I could never remeber where I went last, or how to get where.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
tpfkat
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2005
Location: lancashire/uk
Posted: 8th Jan 2006 11:06
i play old games too..on xp.
merranvo..1gig of ram on ebay is around £25.00 ( $50), i know this coz i got 2 gig in my machine.its not the best on the market but it does a bloody good job in my machine.

the programmer formarly known as thicko.
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 10th Jan 2006 21:16
old games were the best. more focus around gameplay rather than graphics.


Deadly Night Assassins
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 12th Jan 2006 02:48 Edited at: 12th Jan 2006 02:51
@Phaelax: I disagree with you there, game play is similar to moderngames. As for puzzel solving, or shooting things, or fighting... it really is much the same.

Old games had more "laugh" elements in them, more of things that are out of place, doesn't really contribute to game play, but makes the game "cuter".

Old games sometimes had better stories, and sometimes had cool bosses. But the idea now adays is realism, and bosses need realistic stuff which makes them look worse. And stories are often made in glitchy ways.

Old Games were often longer, you had more to do, more to kill, more territoy to cover in an old game then a new one.

Old Games had unique ideas, unlike now adays, every game is basically the same. (As for what you can/can't do). Some good uniques come out every couple years, but not like it was before. Then again some of those ideas have been encorped, and some just rejected.

Unfortunatly Old games sometimes had "random" levels. This was particulary annoying. I haven't played a whole lot, but one of the worst was Wolf3D. I actually had to get a pad of paper out and carefully draw each level out.

2D randoms are okay, because I kinda can only go in 1 direction. Except sometimes it is completly random, and I get lost, eventually, though, on a 2D I some how get to where I need to go.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 12th Jan 2006 14:53
i don't recall wolf3d having any random levels?
I guess older games seem better to me cause they contained newer concepts and styles at the time. Since there's only so many types of gameplay to develop, new stuff is like a redesign of a past concept that we've all seen before. If you know what I mean.

On a side note, I just found earthworm jim for sega at the thrift store yesterday. a classic in my opinion.


Deadly Night Assassins
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 12th Jan 2006 21:54
I meant that the levels were basically a labrinth. Kinda random-like.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-16 11:54:28
Your offset time is: 2024-11-16 11:54:28