HALO 2 for PC a reality.... but only on Vista

Hoh yeah I'm gonna pay a £100 upgrade for a game developed for an obsolete console, that will be two years old by the time Vista comes out!
Stupid MS. They're gonna loose money for this, no-one is gonna upgrade for the sake of playing Halo 2, so they're gonna sell far less copies of the game. By the time most people upgrade to Vista, the RRP of the game will have dropped by at least half.
 
They can go **** themselves, I'm not even eagerly anticipating it anyway.
 
Heh, they can kiss my ass. Not that I care, I've got it for Xbox anyway...but hell, poor PC gamers. Well, you ain't missing out on much so not to worry really.
 
I just don't understand why Halo 2 needs Vista; if it's not graphically next-gen on release I'm going to be ****ing pissed. There's nothing in Halo 2 that can't be done on a modern PC with half its CPU behind its back
 
Capitalism to the max yao!:D
But guys.. Why're you surprised? Look at all the stupid decisions MS has made lately..
This..
No DX system backwardscompatability in DX10(I.e. games running on say DX8-9 will have to be software emulated, they'll run, but alot slower.)..
I wonder what their next move will be.:D
 
pomegranate said:
Hoh yeah I'm gonna pay a £100 upgrade for a game developed for an obsolete console, that will be two years old by the time Vista comes out!
Stupid MS. They're gonna loose money for this, no-one is gonna upgrade for the sake of playing Halo 2, so they're gonna sell far less copies of the game. By the time most people upgrade to Vista, the RRP of the game will have dropped by at least half.
Click to expand...

summed up very well.
oh well...if this is true, im happy as it means less $$$ for Microsoft but yeah...good ol' Billy won't be going poor anytime soon even if Halo2 for the PC doesn't sell :(
 
Wtf? Will I have to buy single player and multiplayer apart? D:
 
im buying Vista anyway
but its lame to be a " Only Vista " Game, unless it use some DX10 stuff
 
B*llocks, I`ll get the pirate version that can be run on XP that will probably come out before the official release date anyway :p

Well done microsoft, your losing yourself money.
 
This isn't that great of incentive to upgrade to vista. What is so special about this new OS anyway?
 
I was planning on upgrading to Vista anyway, but f*ck M$, seriously, f*ck them up their stupid asses. I WILL NOT buy Halo 2 for PC, I'm going to download it illegally, just to spite them. Hell, I might even get Vista illegally since they're being such dicks about it.


I swear, some days I wish I knew Linux
 
weskerQ8 said:
We all will upgrade our pcs for vista..
Click to expand...
Illegally or not is another matter.

Me? I think I'll be pirating, despite being legal up until now. Microsoft really know how the **** to handle themselves eh?
 
Icarusintel said:
I was planning on upgrading to Vista anyway, but f*ck M$, seriously, f*ck them up their stupid asses. I WILL NOT buy Halo 2 for PC, I'm going to download it illegally, just to spite them. Hell, I might even get Vista illegally since they're being such dicks about it.


I swear, some days I wish I knew Linux
Click to expand...

The more I think about it, the more I think shelling out for a bigger HD for my laptop so that dual-booting Linux and Windows (still need my games) would be a good idea. Then I remember that I would be stuck like a pig to get the right drivers for my laptop under Linux thanks to Sony's lack of support. But I'm getting off track, so...

**** MS!
 
I was planning on upgrading to vista anyway. But either way i'm not getting Halo 2. When i played it for the Xbox it really did BORE the hell out of me. I actually felt bored when playing it.
 
This is why I won't buy Windows Vista:


http://theboard.zogdog.com/index.php?showtopic=10352


A little taste:


Bug5.jpg



If that game takes 706MB then I can guranteed that you will need at least 2gigs to play Halo 2 and probably the same 2gigs to play any old DirectX9/8 games since they will be emulated which slows down the performance immensely. I had people tell me that this is only going slow because it's a beta. NONSENSE. I have seen XP betas from a year before release and they ran almost at the same speed of the released version. The final Vista WILL run this slow. Read my review of the December beta in the link above. Thats before I took the DVD and tossed it into the trash.
 
Wow you arn't to bright are you?
1)The Developers are responsible for Memory Managment.
2)All memory required WILL DOUBLE becuase of the move from 32bit to 64bit. With 64bit memory addresses double in length. If you double the length you double the size they take up in RAM.

Plus how do you know it will run that slow? Vista isn't coming tommarow. They have lots of time to make it work faster. Just because the XP beta ran as fast as the full version MEANS NOTHING. This move is like going from 3.1 to 95. They are introducing code written from the ground up, going to 64bit, adding a hell of alot more security(everythings based around it), and is overall going to be a much better OS.
XP was a move from 32bit computing to uuhhh 32bit computing just with an upgraded interface and made to handle networks, USB devices, and such better.
Vista has a far bigger job to do.

Also where the hell did you get 706 from? Lets see, System Cache is using 460,000(My XP is using 260,000 and considering if Xp was 64bit it would need less than that, Vista holds off pretty well, and I expect less for the final release). So the available ram plus system cache = 1006864. Everything else combined i using less than 46Megs of Memory.....

Now why is that Commit Charge so high, lets see here:

"Windows NT REQUIRES "backing storage" for EVERYTHING it keeps in RAM. If Windows NT requires more space in RAM, it must be able to swap out code and data to either the paging file or the original executable file."

I'd assume the same for Vista.

Which means that:
457 of that Commit Charge is coming from the OS. Since this is 64bit computing address double, so if your going to really compare it to XP you should have that as about: 228 which is pretty nice actually.

Since you are running a grand total of 44 processes, I am going to assume you are running quiet a few other things with that program to add even more to the commit charge.

So really that game does not take that much memory as you said. Infact it is taking less than 40 megs of actualy RAM which is only 20megs for a 32bit system which sounds about right.


So how about this, you go to view select columns and show the Virtual Memory Size for all programs then take a screenshot of the process menu then post that, that way we get the amount of Ram and Virtual Ram taken up and we can really see how much ram and virtual ram that little program is taking up.
 
DigiQ8 said:
im buying Vista anyway
but its lame to be a " Only Vista " Game, unless it use some DX10 stuff
Click to expand...

ya but you need to buy a new videocard to experience DirectX10...the joy of monopolies.
 
Not interested in Halo 2 anyway, but I assure they just put back their sales an entire year.
 
I m getting Vista and a copy of Halo2........


SAY WHAT ????
 
Minerel said:
Wow you arn't to bright are you?
1)The Developers are responsible for Memory Managment.
2)All memory required WILL DOUBLE becuase of the move from 32bit to 64bit. With 64bit memory addresses double in length. If you double the length you double the size they take up in RAM.

Plus how do you know it will run that slow? Vista isn't coming tommarow. They have lots of time to make it work faster. Just because the XP beta ran as fast as the full version MEANS NOTHING. This move is like going from 3.1 to 95. They are introducing code written from the ground up, going to 64bit, adding a hell of alot more security(everythings based around it), and is overall going to be a much better OS.
XP was a move from 32bit computing to uuhhh 32bit computing just with an upgraded interface and made to handle networks, USB devices, and such better.
Vista has a far bigger job to do.

Also where the hell did you get 706 from? Lets see, System Cache is using 460,000(My XP is using 260,000 and considering if Xp was 64bit it would need less than that, Vista holds off pretty well, and I expect less for the final release). So the available ram plus system cache = 1006864. Everything else combined i using less than 46Megs of Memory.....

Now why is that Commit Charge so high, lets see here:

"Windows NT REQUIRES "backing storage" for EVERYTHING it keeps in RAM. If Windows NT requires more space in RAM, it must be able to swap out code and data to either the paging file or the original executable file."

I'd assume the same for Vista.

Which means that:
457 of that Commit Charge is coming from the OS. Since this is 64bit computing address double, so if your going to really compare it to XP you should have that as about: 228 which is pretty nice actually.

Since you are running a grand total of 44 processes, I am going to assume you are running quiet a few other things with that program to add even more to the commit charge.

So really that game does not take that much memory as you said. Infact it is taking less than 40 megs of actualy RAM which is only 20megs for a 32bit system which sounds about right.


So how about this, you go to view select columns and show the Virtual Memory Size for all programs then take a screenshot of the process menu then post that, that way we get the amount of Ram and Virtual Ram taken up and we can really see how much ram and virtual ram that little program is taking up.
Click to expand...



Apparently your not to bright yourself. I was using the "32-Bit" version alongside a "32-Bit" computer...

Where did I get the 706MB from? Hmm lets see maybe because the OS with the cheap game was using 706MB of ram? Stop making excuses for why it's running so bad. The dang thing has been in development for almost 5 years now. It should run better then it is. If you think it runs so good then you try it out. Then come back on here and apologize to me for not understanding that I am correct. You can do the same come December when you purchase it and it runs like poop on your computer.
 
boglito said:
Yet another very good reason for me to continue pirating this piece of shit microsoft passes off as an os.

.bog.
Click to expand...
Go build your own then:borg:
 
Last One In said:
Go build your own then:borg:
Click to expand...

Nah I can't be arsed.

If developers want my money they can only get it by one of two ways.

1. Make quality products.
2. Force me to give them money.

MS obviously are shooting for option 2.

(Btw, my main reason for not wanting to pay for windows is the fact that they make a bare-bone os that lacks vital functionality. Namely antivirus and antispyware. MS do produce these things but reportedly they will only be available at a yearly fee. If this should turn out to be incorrect and vista indeed does include proper antivirus and antispyware then I will reconsider my opinion of the product based on overall quality. However, trying to force people to needlessly upgrade for a game that seems to run fine on a "pentium 3" 733MHz with 64MB of ram and a "geforce 3" gpu does not make me more positive to ms' business ethics.)

.bog.
 
dream431ca said:
ya but you need to buy a new videocard to experience DirectX10...the joy of monopolies.
Click to expand...
err, we've been 'focred' (omg those scoundrels !) to upgrade video cards to support the new versions of directx for a long time, why is it suddenly different now ? it has nothing to do with microsoft too (the old hardware simply isn't able to run those versions of directx), dx10 will be released on xp.

gosh, you guys are so freaking clueless.
 
destrukt said:
err, we've been 'focred' (omg those scoundrels !) to upgrade video cards to support the new versions of directx for a long time, why is it suddenly different now ? it has nothing to do with microsoft too (the old hardware simply isn't able to run those versions of directx), dx10 will be released on xp.

gosh, you guys are so freaking clueless.
Click to expand...

As far as I heard, XP will not have DX10..unless you can prove to me otherwise.
 
Vista does have DX10. In fact they already unvieled Microsoft Flight Simulator 2006 running on DX10. The funny part though was it was lagging real bad in the video. You can check it out in the CES 2006 Microsoft Press Video. Also Vista only emulatres DX9 and 8 and will not run them very well from what I heard since it's not fully supported. You can find that article on Google.
 
dream431ca said:
As far as I heard, XP will not have DX10..unless you can prove to me otherwise.
Click to expand...
either way, my point still stands, you can't expect old tech to always be up-to-date. i'll try and find the article where they spoke about dx10 on xp.

what's the name of that law, i was thinking moore's but it's another one . .
 
Kschreck said:
Vista does have DX10. In fact they already unvieled Microsoft Flight Simulator 2006 running on DX10. The funny part though was it was lagging real bad in the video. You can check it out in the CES 2006 Microsoft Press Video. Also Vista only emulatres DX9 and 8 and will not run them very well from what I heard since it's not fully supported. You can find that article on Google.
Click to expand...

Emulates DX8 and DX9?? That's news to me. Thanks for the heads up.
 
I'm going to use Vista. But only because Windows hasn't done anything to tick me off...yet.

As for Halo 2...meh
 
destrukt said:
either way, my point still stands, you can't expect old tech to always be up-to-date. i'll try and find the article where they spoke about dx10 on xp.
Click to expand...

You took my point completely out of context. I was just refering to the forum member that you will have to buy a new card for DirectX10. And what your saying is that I'm complaining that we have to buy new hardware....that's not what I said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
TechnoHippyChic
If you post it, they will come...
2
Replies
63
Views
6K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
B
Valve offers more core virtual reality technologies to device manufacturers
Replies
0
Views
23K
Barnz
B
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top