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
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 26th Dec 2005 13:00
Link
So I wanted to try the demo. Won't let me install. It says it requires XP or higher, and does not support 2000. Oh I'm extremely pissed off.


Deadly Night Assassins
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 26th Dec 2005 13:03
Link
Look like that's goin to start becoming the norm - the Nintendo WiFi dongle won't work on another other than XP too...

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 26th Dec 2005 13:07
Link
Don't they realize its hurting themselves? Or do they expect me to install XP just to use something? I think this will only get worse with the release of Longhorn.


Deadly Night Assassins
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 26th Dec 2005 13:39
Link
2000 was never designed for games anyway, so you cant really complain.

Quote: "Don't they realize its hurting themselves?"

I dont think they are hurting themselves.

Quote: "Or do they expect me to install XP just to use something?"

Precisely - XP is much better that all previous OS's

Quote: "I think this will only get worse with the release of Longhorn."

Probably - but according to some PC magazine, Longhorn wont be out until 2007 - so there is plenty of time to save money to get it.

Blog:http://spaces.msn.com/members/BouncyBrick/
Web Site:http://www.nicholaskingsley.co.uk
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 26th Dec 2005 23:36
Link
tbh you're not missing a lot.

aoe 2 = aoe with better grahics
aom = aoe 2 with better graphics

i always said aoe3 would be aom with better grahics, no one believed me, but it turns out i was right

major dissapointment

Back to top
Profile PM Website
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 26th Dec 2005 23:38
Link
But not if you didn't have the previous ones...

Blog:http://spaces.msn.com/members/BouncyBrick/
Web Site:http://www.nicholaskingsley.co.uk
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Halo Man
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2005
Location:
Posted: 26th Dec 2005 23:49 Edited at: 27th Dec 2005 18:00
Link
You can get Empire Earth I, which is pretty much the same as Age of Empires...i'm not sure if it runs on Windows 2000 though

Current Project: Fireworks Creator
Back to top
Profile PM
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 27th Dec 2005 01:24
Link
I have aoe2, borrowed aom from a friend and didn't like it. aoe2 runs fine on win2k. I have no intention of ever buying longhorn nor installing XP.

Quote: "Precisely - XP is much better that all previous OS's"

I still like 2k better, much more reasonable requirements. Ever try to run XP on a machine with less than 512mb? You're limited to basically playing solitare as thats all the free memory you'll have left. I got 2k running on 80mb of EDO with a p133 and its no slower than XP with 512mb ram.


Deadly Night Assassins
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 27th Dec 2005 01:47
Link
Quote: "Ever try to run XP on a machine with less than 512mb? You're limited to basically playing solitare as thats all the free memory you'll have left."


XP typically takes up less than 64 megabytes in the background alone if explorer windows are closed. I ran a 128mb PC with it for a long while; sluggish, but it worked. 256 is fine for gaming (unless the game requires more, obviously).

Quote: "You can get Empire Earth I, which is pretty much the same as Age of Empires..."


Vastly different games.


Arr
Back to top
Profile PM
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 28th Dec 2005 01:53
Link
Longhorn has been called Vista for quite a while, and it's still scheduled for 2006.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 28th Dec 2005 02:07
Link
XP sucks, the only reason why people believe other wise is because microsoft REFUSES to make the propper adjustments to older windows platforms. This is standard buisness practice anyways, you don't want people to get away with not spending more money. 98 was fine, no serious bugs that couldn't be fixed. But have you ever run 98 on to-date computer specs? It loads faster, and what can run, runs smoother then xp. But because 98 isn't in microsofts high sites, there isn't much that can run on the system anymore.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
dark coder
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 28th Dec 2005 02:17
Link
i found my old 98system would freeze/bsod quite regulary and after upgrading it to winxp all of my previous problems were non existant, so now my pc rarely crashes but msn likes annoying me by not refreshing when i wnt to use it.

Halowed are the ori.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
The admiral
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2002
Location:
Posted: 28th Dec 2005 03:01
Link
I disagree i have been pretty impressed with xp and im not easily bought either. The main reason they say xp or higher is because it has all the plug n play functionality plus supports every game related dll etc needed to make their games. aoe3 is not just better graphics there is quite a bit of new stuff in there if you even bothered to play it.

The admiral
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 28th Dec 2005 17:24 Edited at: 28th Dec 2005 17:24
Link
yep, your were bought.

Look at it from a new perspective. Plug n Play is nothing. 98 supports a lot of drivers, if you install them. So that also means that 98 was ignored on the plug n play aspect ON PURPOSE.
And game DLL's. What is your argument? The DLL's were made for XP. It isn't that XP supports them, it is that they support XP.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
The admiral
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2002
Location:
Posted: 28th Dec 2005 23:02
Link
No plug n play means no installing of drivers !!!!! xp just does everything without having to do any extra work it can even restore back to a certain point in time. Ya but I bet you get more functionality from xp dlls and to chop it all off its much easier to develop for one system rarther than many end of disscussion.

The admiral
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
JoelJ
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Sep 2003
Location: UTAH
Posted: 29th Dec 2005 00:41
Link
Quote: "Ever try to run XP on a machine with less than 512mb? "

yes, i have one here with 128mb of ram, you can disable all the cute little themes and everything, no problem

and as said before, Win2k was never inteded to play games, and when I used to run games on my brother's computer when he ran 2kpro, most of the time, they sucked.

Appointed by Jimmy as "MR. GAME REVIEW WIZARD GUY"
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Anlino
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Jun 2005
Location:
Posted: 29th Dec 2005 00:43
Link
Plug and play was supported even back in the windows 98-days. That didn't come firstly with XP. And i don't think that XP Sucks. Noone of Microsofts softwares sucks, elseway wouldn't they have sold more than any software in the world.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 29th Dec 2005 07:55 Edited at: 29th Dec 2005 07:56
Link
First, microsoft is a MONOPOLY, that means that no company has a CHANCE of selling software to compete with microsoft because microsoft has a lot of ties, Mac has held on due to the sher fact that it had a firm ground before hand. And microsoft sold software because it teamed up with IBM, which didn't care about Microsoft in the first place, and people TRUSTED IBM, not that the software was good, but it came from a company that wasn't about to go bankrupt.

Second, Plug n' Play DOES install drivers, although I am not certain if it is merly a driver cashe but that is 98 technologys. Windows 2000 just took it a step further and removed the "found new hardware" screen. No Big Deal. If the hardware sends it over, then that is just a small 5mb patch, all you need is to put a listener on the USB Ports.

Third, XP still uses more memory, resources, and just about anything it can get it's hands on then 98. I turn all those options off, go into Services and turn all of THAT crap off, and it still runs slower then 98. This is a fact shows a concept that people have been ignoring for ages. If it works and does what you need, don't rebuild it to use more and get little back. Some games could run on the old 00 Engines, and be faster then they are now. Some actually use all the new physics, lighting, high models well and deserve their new engines. But XP doesn't do anything except make money.

Forth, yes 98 sucks, I know that, but does DBP v .1 suck? How about DBP v 5.8? The difference is that DBP has been FIXED, PATCHED those fancy words. Windows has just been rebuilt over and over again. And that only leads to software bugs. the patches are in the HUNDREDS and they haven't fixed every crevace yet. Now they want to make a NEW engine with MORE bugs? Truely, does it make sense? Is XP sooo obsolute that they need more crap to fill my hardrive with? That is the goal of Vista, use more system resources, look purdyer, and make microsoft money.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
SirFire
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2005
Location: North America
Posted: 29th Dec 2005 11:37 Edited at: 29th Dec 2005 11:39
Link
Quote: "I have no intention of ever buying longhorn nor installing XP."


I agree whole-heartedly sir!

First it was called Palladium, then Longhorn, now Vista, where will the madness end!?!?!

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 29th Dec 2005 11:49
Link
Project: Pallidum
Code Name: LongHorn
Official Name: Windows Vista

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 29th Dec 2005 15:40
Link
Uh it was never called Pallidum. Pallidum is Microsofts next-gen security platform (the first stages of which will be built into Vista).

XP is the most stable version of Windows to date, fact. You can't say that XP sucks because it gets patched a lot, thats one of the best things about Microsoft. They offer patches almost every week. Every other operating system would have to do the same if it was used as much, or targetted as much as Windows is.

I do think your're right that one of Windows flaws is that each new system is essentially a rebuilt version of the previous newest system. I think Microsoft would be much better off rewriting the entire thing, but retaing support for all the stuff that Windows currently supports (of course, this'd be a pain in the arse so it'll never happen).

At least with Windows you don't need to recompile your whole kernal just to add a driver, or need a degree in C just to use and run programs like some other operating systems *cough*LINUX*cough*.

I'd really like to see how people who bash Windows do with a copy of Linux for 6 months with no support.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 29th Dec 2005 17:04
Link
Indeed - they'll be drooling wrecks afterwards...

Blog:http://spaces.msn.com/members/BouncyBrick/
Web Site:http://www.nicholaskingsley.co.uk
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 29th Dec 2005 17:21
Link
I never made a claim that linux was great. It's got some nice things, but I don't think it could ever be a dominant OS in the market.


Deadly Night Assassins
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 29th Dec 2005 19:06
Link
I never said you did , I just like to take every oppertunity I have to bash Linux.

Do I smell ironey?

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 30th Dec 2005 08:19
Link
Quote: "First, microsoft is a MONOPOLY"


No it's not.

Quote: "But XP doesn't do anything except make money."


I guess I'm just hallucinating the upgraded features, vastly increased stability and reinvented core then.

Quote: "Windows has just been rebuilt over and over again. And that only leads to software bugs."


Windows has not been rebuilt over and over; Vista is only the third real overhaul of the core system ever, or arguably the second, seeing as XP's shift from the 9x core to the NT core was based on technology already tested in 2000.

Rebuilding software is not what leads to numerous bugs, building further on flawed or outdated software is what is.

Quote: "Truely, does it make sense?"


Yes. The core service and graphics layer have both been vastly improved from XP, quite evident even in the now antique private beta. New eras call for new technology.

Quote: "Is XP sooo obsolute that they need more crap to fill my hardrive with?"


If you don't want it, you don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to.

Quote: "That is the goal of Vista, use more system resources, look purdyer, and make microsoft money."


Ninety-nine percent of end users won't complain if their operating system looks better. Furthermore, the goal of every product from every corporation is to make money; that is the purpose of corporations.


Arr
Back to top
Profile PM
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 30th Dec 2005 19:33
Link
Quote: "If you don't want it, you don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to."


Except for the fact that Microsoft has a little gig going on, they continually make each version of windows have features that can be fully added to other versions, but dont. Or in other words, they make software compatable with only the newest version. As can be seen with this thread, but the pathetic part is that the reverse compatablility doesn't even work with everything.

Quote: "I guess I'm just hallucinating the upgraded features, vastly increased stability and reinvented core then. "

Yes, you are.

Quote: "Ninety-nine percent of end users won't complain if their operating system looks better."

Only the people who have 100% compatable computers, but as for everyone else who knows where the slowdowns come from, complains.

But beyond that, why should windows continue to use more of our system memory then it needs? I'd say that 90% of everyone doesn't even use the extra services that INSIST on running in the background. And even without them, windows still uses a lot of memory.

So the real question SHOULD be how much can 98 be upgraded? And even though I know that you all will say it can't be, that is only because you never look at the past. People could use the 00 Game Engines to make some wonderful games and have almost no loading time with current hardware configurations, but they don't.

Windows is more like the standard setter, whatever windows needs, computers get, and windows doesn't do as much to lower it's system toll. Windows 98 need 16mb to run, Windows XP requires 128. Until windows actually OPTIMIZES their software to use only what it needs, run only what needs to run, and stop making universal software CAUSE WE DON'T NEED IT. And to explain that, Windows is designed to run for every possible need. And it CONTINUES to try and function as all of these things even when it is not any of them.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 30th Dec 2005 19:46
Link
Quote: "At least with Windows you don't need to recompile your whole kernal just to add a driver, or need a degree in C just to use and run programs like some other operating systems *cough*LINUX*cough*."


Looks as though somebody doesn't know how to use linux. Unless you stumble into weird non-standard hardware devices, there's no chance in hell of having to recompile the kernel to install a driver

Heck, I installed a new soundcard driver a few weeks back. Point-and-click install. That was it. Worked perfectly from the off. I bet you've never even used Linux

Quote: "Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all."
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tpfkat
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2005
Location: lancashire/uk
Posted: 30th Dec 2005 19:51
Link
new technologies,i have xp and its very stable.i dont begrudge paying out for the newer os becuase its better and stuff runs on it.
people spend more money on games,if microsoft stopped selling new versions then what would we do,windows has become the standard os.

as for buying a new version rather than just updating 98,isnt that what they are doing,taking old os and improving it,giving it a new name is microsofts right,even though they have a bad rep you still have to buy the newer version else be left behind...theirs nothing anyone can do.
linux brought out their os like windows but whats the point.....nothing would run on it even though its free.

why did tgc not just upgrade dbc instead of making dbpro?????
im not going to say i know much about the actual software but windows has improved so much that people who dont know what they are doing can install software and hardware so they must be doing somthing right.

the programmer formarly known as thicko.
Back to top
Profile PM
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 30th Dec 2005 20:23
Link
cant we all just get along and simply go back to Amiga OS?


Deadly Night Assassins
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tpfkat
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2005
Location: lancashire/uk
Posted: 30th Dec 2005 20:27
Link
yay...workbench,pretty cool.

the programmer formarly known as thicko.
Back to top
Profile PM
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 30th Dec 2005 20:28 Edited at: 30th Dec 2005 20:30
Link
Actually 98 runs off of dos, when the NTFS came out there was a Massive leap in system requirements. Which leads me to believe that the new NTFS system uses more then we get.

Mainly, I would be exceptionally happy if windows XP would just be an os. That is my main gruge against it. So much system resouces are used up running things that I will never use.

My second grudge is the obvious scam Microsoft has, every version of windows can run things that the predicessor can't. So eventually, I will HAVE to get Vista. And that pisses me off. 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.

Amiga? Couldn't it be called Amigo? Amiga makes it sound like it comes in a pink box with fluffy feathers.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
The admiral
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2002
Location:
Posted: 30th Dec 2005 23:03
Link
You cant expect them to keep wasting time and money upgrading old things like 98 just to please a few people upgrade your software and get over it it wont kill you really.

The admiral
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 30th Dec 2005 23:40
Link
Admiral, you didn't even read any of what I wrote, so please don't post until you understand the argument.

I have been saying that XP chews system resouces up like no tomorrow, and 98 doesn't (On new computers). If you update 98 you will have more free resouces thus faster game play.

And I have XP, as I also said (if you interpret) and I probally will end up getting vista, but the reason is only that Microsoft makes each version of windows so that IT can run things that it's predecessor can't. Not because it is not capable, but to FORCE people to buy the upgrade. Dirty little scammers.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tpfkat
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2005
Location: lancashire/uk
Posted: 30th Dec 2005 23:53
Link
why not use an optimizer to turn things you dont want off.
i have xp smoker and it does a good job.

i think as systems get faster and more powerful that its inevitable that the os will get bigger.

merranvo: i understand what your saying but from a nuetral point of veiw ( i dont love or hate windows).....it does exactly what it says on the box,all my software ie games and stuff runs perfectly under xp so if its using resources up then i dont really notice.
unfortunatly everyone is out to make money even the incredibaly rich still want to make more but i think that its now custom to make new items instead of revamping old ones. i also disagree that microsoft do not force people to buy the new versions.......if you want to play an x box 360 game you have to buy an xbox 360..if you want to play a modern pc game you will probably need xp or the new vista,noones forcing you to do anything. and if microsoft took the basic 98 and revamped it you would still have to pay to get the updates,so whats the real difference except that with a new version of windows if you had to reinstall after wiping your drive you would only need 1 disk.......if you were continually upgrading an old version you would need all the upgrade disks and the original version to get it back upto the new updated version......now you ll probably say " but what if they just released the updated version as the full thing only needing the one disk??".............isnt that in essence what xp and vista are??? and you would still have to pay for all the updates for the same old software.
just a thought.

the programmer formarly known as thicko.
Back to top
Profile PM
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 00:11
Link
@David R

To date I've used the following operating systems:

Linux: GoblinX, Slaxs, Knoppix, Debian, Mandrake (and more, but I can't remember them all)

BSD: Dragonfly BSD

Solaris

And you hit the nail on the head. Linux is so much harder to use than Windows that I'll fully admit to not know how to use it properly. A modern OS shouldn't need a user to use the command prompt at all.

@Merranvo

I really like the way you bash windows when you're on a forum for a game-based langauge which requires that OS to run. Also I'm sure when Windows 98 came out people were moaning that 16 MB of RAM was too much to ask for. Computer hardware improves every 18 months, I find it hard to find a computer (off the shelf) that doesn't have a MINIMUM of 256 MB of RAM, while 512 MB is hardly rare and 1+ GB is becoming all the more commen. Vista will push the hardware of a lot of its contemporary computers, but not the computers of the future.

Finally OF COURSE Microsoft don't add new features to old OSes. That's the WHOLE POINT of a new version - new features. They're a corporation for gods sake, not a charity. It makes no sense for them to spend millions developing a new OS just for all the stuff to be ported back to older OSes. And for your information a lot of the features Vista includes will be ported to XP - so that there is a wide enough user base to incite developers to use them.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 00:56
Link
Quote: "and if microsoft took the basic 98 and revamped it you would still have to pay to get the updates,so whats the real difference except that with a new version of windows if you had to reinstall after wiping your drive you would only need 1 disk"

98 would run faster and have less system resouces used.

Linex is designed with you in mind. Actually the idea was that the user creates her/his own interface. Not that you use the command prompt.

Quote: "I really like the way you bash windows when you're on a forum for a game-based langauge which requires that OS to run."

Is that wrong? Why can't older versions run DBP anyways? I Know THAT, but the question is why can't they run it? Why does XP only have the capability, even though the other NTFS' can do just about everything XP does, with the right patch.

Quote: "Also I'm sure when Windows 98 came out people were moaning that 16 MB of RAM was too much to ask for."

I said that.

Quote: "Computer hardware improves every 18 months"

Actually it is sooner, Processor Speed Doubles every 18 months.

Quote: "I find it hard to find a computer (off the shelf) that doesn't have a MINIMUM of 256 MB of RAM"

When XP first went out, most of those computers had 128MB. And that barely ran the OS. A few had 256, and hardly any had 512 or 1024.

Quote: "Finally OF COURSE Microsoft don't add new features to old OSes."

And you also miss the point. I don't give a crap about updating 98, But as long as windows insists on using more then needed, updating an older version looks a lot better then using a new version that uses 8 times as much.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 01:02 Edited at: 31st Dec 2005 01:03
Link
Edit:

You're right about the processor speed thingy, that's what Moores Law says - however I'm sure it's applicable to all aspects of computer hardware? (The actual law being a doubling of the clock speed, in the processor example).

Quote: "When XP first went out, most of those computers had 128MB. And that barely ran the OS. A few had 256, and hardly any had 512 or 1024"


Exactly, eventually there is hardware avaliable to run the OS extremly well!

I still don't think your point abotu XP a resource hog is valid. With no programs running in the background (just now) my system used no more than 190 MB of RAM, out of 512MB avaliable. 2% was the max CPU usage. That's perfectly reasonable! I have a pretty outdated machine, and I still manage to play BF2, Quake 4 and Doom 3 - XP can't be hogging that much in the way of resources!

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 01:21
Link
Actually RAM comes out faster then the processors. But that is not the point.

Quote: "Exactly, eventually there is hardware avaliable to run the OS extremly well!"

And that is why I feel like updating 98 is worth while. Look at it, much faster then windows and uses less. Windows XP has crashed on me, but more times then not, it just stalls. 98 has crashed on me, but I never experianced stalling (Yeah, and I couldn't run anything).

We all know that Vista is going to take a big chunk out of your RAM when it comes out, that is the way microsoft works. And what was once a workable gamming computer, doesn't work anymore.

And that is what happened with my LOVELY 98 computer when I had to upgrade to XP due to the incompatablility errors. This nice computer could no longer run anything it could before without massive slowdowns. Eventually I got a new computer, A lovely 1.4Ghz, with 128MB of ram. This couldn't run anything either, even though it costed nearly $600, now adays you can get a 3.2Ghz with 1GB and a 128MB Graphics card for the same price.

The moral, Each version of windows uses more then we have. After all the hardware catches up, it works okay, but it is too demanding.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 01:24
Link
Very true. Although you're still not getting the whole upgrade thing. XP is Windows 2000 updated, and is also the successor to Windows 98, although its not a direct update. XP is newer, it uses more because it has new, better features.

If you really want '98 Upgraded' have a look at Windows ME - it's so horrible it makes me shudder whenever I see that bootup screen. ME is 98 updated.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 02:31
Link
Yeah, i know that, I personally think Microsoft did that on purpose, to make people WANT the new NTFS systems. But I more so want a patch, if things work out, the patched 98 would run faster and use less memory then Vista, and still beable to run top notch gaming.

Although it is kinda redundant. I know that a patch will cause 98 to become even more unstable. But hey, if it doesn't crash when I am beating the crap out of the enemy, I don't care.

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 05:06
Link
Quote: "Admiral, you didn't even read any of what I wrote, so please don't post until you understand the argument."


Wee! That made me laugh. Now here's a mirror, kid.

Given your long history of trolling you're not getting off to a great fresh start, are you?


Arr
Back to top
Profile PM
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 05:15
Link
Do I WANT a fresh start?

I really don't think participating in heated disscussions as trolling. Besides, I always read the posts everyone else makes, sometimes I missread them, but I always read them.
Admirals reply was completly off the true subject, and if he read the post, he would know that.

Threads to Remeber...
[add some threads]

Merranvo, Teh S \/|03|2 7I<><>I3
Anti-Noob Justice League, what's that?
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 10:17
Link
Quote: "My second grudge is the obvious scam Microsoft has, every version of windows can run things that the predicessor can't. So eventually, I will HAVE to get Vista. And that pisses me off. 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."


Whether or not HP supports 98 or not isn't up to Microsoft. You DO know that they're different companies, don't you?

Your arguments thus far have been pretty weak. I'm one of those guys that chooses to purchase the new Microsoft OS' about a year after each one is released, and I've been doing so since Windows 3.0. Your complaints about upgrading have been on EVERY computer owner's mind at least once.

If you have a PC, for example, you need to put at least $500 into it every year to keep it up-to-date. Do you blame ATI when they release the 256 or 512MB video cards when you still have a measly 64MB card? Do you blame Intel for releasing the 4GHz CPU when you're still running on a 3.5GHz?

How about Maxtor--- do you get irate when they release a 120GB hard drive for the same price as your 60GB you purchased the year before? Believe me, everyone feels that pang of "WTF-- I wasted $150 on this hard drive!".

But it's reality. Like Ian T said--- MS isn't forcing you to upgrade. Even though they stopped patching 98, you don't HAVE to upgrade to XP. If HP doesn't release the drivers, then DON'T BUY HP HARDWARE. It's that simple. You can stay with what you have and keep using your 56k modem if you don't want to keep up with the times. But don't be a whiner when 99% of the rest of us go out and upgrade Vista, buy an Xbox 360, and get a 60GB video Ipod just because your crap is outdated.

And yes--- I *did* read all of these posts in this thread, so you can't use that as an argument against me.


Automaton Games website has been revamped! Check it out!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
tpfkat
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2005
Location: lancashire/uk
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 10:35
Link
i think its a silly argument,i checked the speed of my pc and windows doesnt seem to hogging anything,i put it on my 400mhz laptop last night and no problems there.
if you dont want to update your computer then dont update it,if you want to update it then do so...its quite simple really.
tgc could have written dbpro to run on 98....but what would be the point,its a cutting edge os and so it can run cutting edge software.

its the only os that can run practically everything and works well with the hardware i choose to go inside......im afraid i cant see the point of this argument any more,your willing to spend money on all this programming software and games but not for the os........it makes me wonder.

the programmer formarly known as thicko.
Back to top
Profile PM
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 22:15
Link
[read first]
Yes, I have XP.
Yes, I Turned Off Visual Styles.
Yes, XP Is a Resource Hog.
And I was forced to buy XP because microsoft has it setup so that only XP can run anything.
[/read first]

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

If you have a PC, for example, you need to put at least $500 into it every year to keep it up-to-date. Do you blame ATI when they release the 256 or 512MB video cards when you still have a measly 64MB card? Do you blame Intel for releasing the 4GHz CPU when you're still running on a 3.5GHz?

no. And that is the most retarded thing I ever heard. Blame companies for making BETTER hardware? Hardware that will SPEED UP my system? But install XP on a 96MB computer and tell me how well it runs, Install the Virus Scanner, the (Not the XP Standard) FireWall, the Drivers, all the stuff that ran well on a 98.

And to reiterate. I have no complaints about upgrading. Upgrading is good. I have complaints about Windows, and the fact that it uses more system resources then it's last version, okay, some versions are whack, but those are obvious mistakes.

Forget updating 98, just get XP to run in dos! Even LESS resources. (Okay, that is crazy, but mabey NOW you will understand what I am saying)

[Causes MissComunication]
I know HP isn't, but the CD had the drivers for XP only, so I can't DOWNGRADE to 98, which is what I wanted. Much more free resources then XP. Idea was to have 98 in a partion on my 80GB HD. 98 did run faster then XP, but I didn't have the drivers, (The HP Driver CD would load the 98 driver installtion, but crash and say that the drivers wern't found).

But what is annoying, is the fact that XP came out on a computer that can barely run it, And it still hogs a good portion of memory. So the idea is if 98 is low power, just PATCHING it to run XP programs would result in a low power os that doesn't drain your resouces. Of course it would be potentionally more unstable then 98 it self, probally crash all the time...
[/Causes MissComunication]

Merranvo, Teh S \/|03|2 7I<><>I3
Anti-Noob Justice League, what's that?
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tpfkat
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2005
Location: lancashire/uk
Posted: 31st Dec 2005 23:29
Link
merranvo:"And I was forced to buy XP because microsoft has it setup so that only XP can run anything."

why wasnt it the game makers that forced you,they could write the software to run on a linux system,all round it is all the companys to blame,os makers and game makers. but while their is a market for it making billions then why stop doing it,money is what makes companys advance the technology,without it we would still be using dos or worse,xtree,i understand what your saying but unless you can write an os that is compatible with popular software then theirs absolutley nothing you can do so go with the flow.......xp smoker shuts down unwanted background noise in windows xp.

the programmer formarly known as thicko.
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 00:29
Link
Merranvo - Your arguments are still weak, man. You can't just magically patch '98 to be XP. They are built on COMPLETELY different bases. For example, the XP and 2000 OS' contain an abstraction layer that stops software from destroying your system files. Admittedly this doesn't appear to work all the time, but that's the key to making it 1000x more stable than '98. You're looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses, dude. '95 and '98 were not THAT great.

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


Automaton Games website has been revamped! Check it out!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 00:32 Edited at: 1st Jan 2006 04:18
Link
Quote: "I wonder what people think I'm saying... Obviouly text isn't a good medium of communication. Nor am I."


Where does that say you aren't reading my arguments. It says that what I type is not getting across right. And this is a frequent mishap. People see what people want to see. I guess you see what you want to see... don't ask me what that is, I don't take physcology.

And this whole time I have been trying to RE-Prosent my argument. That is what is annoying, all my arguments get turned into some idea that is not my own.

I know that XP is a completly different platform, that it doesn't run off of dos like 98. I know that 98 sucks, I CLEARLY said that.



Here, In simple Idiot Terms.
Make an XP Emulator that runs off of 98, so that less resources are used.

Merranvo, Teh S \/|03|2 7I<><>I3
Anti-Noob Justice League, what's that?
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 00:34
Link
so uh.... aoe3....

Back to top
Profile PM Website
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 1st Jan 2006 01:44
Link
Is a very good game - haven't managed to get anywhere with the single player game, but the multi-player part is great.

Blog:http://spaces.msn.com/members/BouncyBrick/
Web Site:http://www.nicholaskingsley.co.uk
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-16 09:42:55
Your offset time is: 2024-11-16 09:42:55