backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 128 comment(s) - last by bes.. on Jun 5 at 5:49 PM
Master Chief spills hot coffee on self; needs extra time to recover

For those of you who have been waiting for the PC version of Halo 2, looks like you will have to wait a little longer – that is, if you’re able to tear yourself away from the Xbox 360 Halo 3 beta. Microsoft has once again pushed back the release date for the Windows Vista edition of Halo 2 to May 31.

Halo 2 Vista was originally set for release on May 8, but Microsoft decided to push it back in order to make some important improvements to the install experience and to touch upon other technical issues. 

"Halo 2 for Windows Vista did not release to retailers on May 22, as previously announced, and will now ship from manufacturers on May 31," a Microsoft representative said. "Shadowrun will be the first game to debut the highly anticipated Games for Windows Live system on May 29. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused our customers."

Interestingly enough, reports are now surfacing that nudity is the cause for Halo 2 PC release. In an email statement received by Next-Generation, Microsoft said, “It has come to our attention that an unfortunate, obscure content error which includes partial nudity was included in our initial production of “Halo 2” for Windows Vista. As such, we have updated the initial game packaging at retailers with a label, so customers are aware before purchasing the game. Additionally, we’ve developed an online update which can be downloaded from www.halo2.com to remove the content. At Microsoft we take the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) guidelines very seriously and hold ourselves to high standards, with our customers always in mind.”

While Microsoft is officially calling it a delay, some stores have already received shipments and are selling copies. Stores such as Circuit City and other retail chain websites list the PC shooter as currently shipping and available for in-store pickup.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
XP
By kyleb2112 on 5/25/2007 4:26:49 AM , Rating: 3
Damn, I was hoping they'd got a clue and decided to include XP.
So...ignoring half your customers is cool, but god forbid we see a boob amidst the carnage.




RE: XP
By Noya on 5/25/2007 4:47:01 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
So...ignoring half your customers is cool


Half? I didn't realize 50% of gamers have switched over to Vista yet?

Wasn't the Halo series always for console lovers anyway?


RE: XP
By BladeVenom on 5/25/2007 1:17:11 PM , Rating: 3
Last month reports were that Vista was only on about 3% of computers.


RE: XP
By tgc2100 on 5/25/2007 3:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
fix for DX10 on XP, in case no one knows yet. I've posted it already, but it's way further down. So just in case no one reads all the posts to get there, here ya go.

http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/

You can also pre order Halo2 from them, and it comes with the fix for XP


RE: XP
By hannibal da mekanikabull on 5/29/2007 8:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Last month reports were that Vista was only on about 3% of computers."

So in just a few short months, the new (and mostly unnecesary) OS from MS is already more used than the entire MAC platform? LOL


RE: XP
By kyleb2112 on 5/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: XP
By Munkles on 5/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: XP
By Aikouka on 5/25/2007 9:13:34 AM , Rating: 5
1. You're talking about games here. What would run Halo 2 at a decent framerate would run Vista fine. Also, consumers will always be idiots and install an OS or a piece of software on a machine that is really too slow to run it. I remember working IT and seeing a laptop come in... I think it was an old Pentium sub-100Mhz laptop that they installed Windows XP on. They said their laptop had problems... well, I think the problem is pretty obvious. Trying to run Windows XP on a laptop that retailed with Windows 95 isn't exactly the best combination.

2. I don't know where people get the idea that Vista makes tons of games incompatible. I haven't had a single game not run or fail during a point because of something in Vista. Also, the drivers are fairly solid, albeit some will say they're still a tiny bit slower. But if I really care about 85 fps vs 80 fps... well, that's a bit too nit picky for me.

3. Exclusives sell. If that's the case, why should their be any PS3 exclusives when it has the lowest adoption rate of all the next-gen consoles (not to say it's 0%, but it's still the lowest :P). Exclusives sell.


RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: XP
By Munkles on 5/25/2007 10:16:44 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
1 we are talking about a game made for xbox hardware, that is also many years old. would the xbox run vista fine, no it would be wasted by vista's requirements. halo 2 will not need the amount of power that vista needs, any decent,( i use the term liberally here) would be able to run halo2 except for it being vista exclusive.


Yes Halo 2 was originally developed for the Xbox, but performance issues abounded! Also were not talking about running the game at 480p, were talking about (at least in my case) 1600x1200, which takes sizeable hardware adjustments. Bungie also stated that they had to change, dump or massively alter the game from what they originally wanted because the xbox simply wasnt powerful enough. With the current release that DX10 systems will have prettier fx here and there its all the more reason to say its going to be prettier than the original.

quote:
2.I do, I have vista and it has many more problems than my xp machines running the same games. and also I do care about 5 fps diffenence, especially on newer games that take so much more to fun, that can make or break the setting you want to run at.


Thats funny, ive been running Vista for almsot two years now including the various beta's Ive been through and NEVER had it crash on me, lock up or otherwise just say f-no im not doing that. Even with rough drivers.

quote:
3. i don't agree with exclusives, so there shouldn't be the any ps3 exclusives. also things sell better when they are compatible with more things. And a better comparison would be saying you have games that are exclusive to different versions of the ps3. being the 20 or 60 gig and what not. I miss the days when you could play atari and colecovision games on either console


You may not agree with exclusives but they exist and they work. Without exclusives, or at least the promise of exclusives the ps3 would have no footing to stand on. Nor wood the 360. People would simply migrate to the cheapest alternative... not the BEST option for their situation.


RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/2007 10:30:23 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yes Halo 2 was originally developed for the Xbox, but performance issues abounded! Also were not talking about running the game at 480p, were talking about (at least in my case) 1600x1200, which takes sizeable hardware adjustments. Bungie also stated that they had to change, dump or massively alter the game from what they originally wanted because the xbox simply wasnt powerful enough. With the current release that DX10 systems will have prettier fx here and there its all the more reason to say its going to be prettier than the original.

halo 2 vista is not dx 10, so any dx 10 statement about that making it better is only applicable to those with dx10 cards. most won't get them until they either have enough dx10 games to make it worth it, or the cards lower in price a whole lot. Still wouldn't stop it from running on xp being as it is predominately a dx9 game. and still halo 2 ran on the xbox a system massively outdated years ago.(even if it had problems) even with upgrades to the game it doesn't require vista to make it work.
quote:
Thats funny, ive been running Vista for almsot two years now including the various beta's Ive been through and NEVER had it crash on me, lock up or otherwise just say f-no im not doing that. Even with rough drivers

Great that vista hasn't ever crashed for you, don't know how that is classified as funny, but you are not the only person in the world. and others do have problems with vista. just because i haven't ever gotten a computer virus doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.
quote:
You may not agree with exclusives but they exist and they work. Without exclusives, or at least the promise of exclusives the ps3 would have no footing to stand on. Nor wood the 360. People would simply migrate to the cheapest alternative... not the BEST option for their situation.

and once again the operating system vista wouldn't be the best choice for halo2. it would also still not be on the ps3 or wii. so it would retain alot of it's exclusivity.


RE: XP
By Munkles on 5/25/2007 10:47:12 AM , Rating: 5
rdee,

You make a lot of good points, but MS has to make the line of demarkation somewhere. If not with one of their flagship titles then where? Im not saying make it Vista only based off of better performance of DX10 necessity. Im saying make it Vista only because at the very least "gamers" need to get with the times. I HAVE a DX 10 card, and now just about anyone can for $200+ which isnt unreasonable.

I know Vista isnt prefect but a LARGE part of the issues people have with it are directly related to immature drivers not to the structure, functionality, or layout of the OS. So what ive been trying to say, is that since Hardware manufacturers and vendors have been LAZY in getting good drivers to market a couple really good, high-selling vista only games is whats needed. Since games utilize just about every component of a system, the manufacturers will have to make better drivers is they want people to take them seriously compared to their competition. Make sense?

For your final point, exclusivity vs ps3/wii has nothing to do with it at this point IMHO, its more about giving people one more reason to adopt Vista, and by proxy forcing better drivers out of Nvidia/ATI/Crativelabs.... etc.


RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/2007 10:55:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
its more about giving people one more reason to adopt Vista

I agree with that completely. I also think that microsoft shouldn't be the one to make the line of debarkation. If halo 2 wouldn't run on xp because it needed directx10 i would have no problem with that. i think that is what they should have done if it was about gamers getting with the times. but it isn't it is about selling as many copies of vista as possible. not for vista's selling points, that being dx10, but to make as much money as possible.


RE: XP
By Aikouka on 5/25/2007 2:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
In regard to your comment on requiring DirectX 10. If Halo 2 did require DirectX 10, wouldn't the comments then simply shift to the other argument that gamers have... that DirectX 10 shouldn't be exclusive to Vista? I won't get into that argument as I'm quite sure there are some vibrant opinions on it, but what I'm trying to get at is that regardless of the current limitation, any limitation will cause people to complain.

To jump back a couple comments up. I'm not too sure what problems you're having with Vista, but in both of my home-built machines, I haven't seen a single issue. Personally, I usually attribute stability issues to how cheap the computer is. You buy the stereotypical $300 eMachines PC... well, they had to cut corners somewhere. I think the only bad issue I ever had was also present in Windows XP and was a bad issue with nVidia's G80 drivers. Certainly made it fun in WoW whenever I entered an Arakkoa village and both monitor's video feed sudden dropped and I was greeted with a nice black screen and an unresponsive computer.

I certainly do understand why you don't get Microsoft's Vista-only decision for Halo 2 as there is no clearcut physical limitation-based reason. Personally I think Halo 2 is a poor choice for trying to push Vista (I bet they'd have much better success if it was Gears of War for the PC), so I'm wondering if they're simply trying to strengthen Vista's Gaming section. Since Vista has the whole games window where it provides a launcher for any installed game and even more features of it's a "Game for Windows" game. Since it's published by Microsoft, they can control where it goes, unlike a game published by EA.


RE: XP
By NotAok on 5/25/2007 8:43:24 AM , Rating: 5
your comparison sucks, a 5 year old computer is nothing like a 5 year old operating system. XP is fine, no reason to upgrade.


RE: XP
By Omega215D on 5/25/2007 9:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
The point of Vista and DirectX 10 being tied to it, according to the MS developer interviewed in MaximumPC, is to break away from legacy coding.


RE: XP
By EODetroit on 5/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: XP
By psypher on 5/25/2007 10:22:50 AM , Rating: 4
ok, so if you are looking at just benchmarks, vista is not better. However, i have vista on my laptop and XP on my desktop and i'll tell you what, i prefer my laptop hands down over my desktop nowadays... vista is just a more friendly environment to work in. speed isn't an issue. I have pretty decent hardware in my laptop. I use it mainly for work, which means i use Access and SQL a lot. I even love the new version of office as well...

when it comes down to it, vista is the future. it is way easier to use, especially for people that aren't great with computers. Example: I bought my mother a copy of vista and upgraded her computer. I now recieve about a quarter as many phone calls asking for help to fix her machine. And most of her calls nowadays are just asking me to teach her how to scan something again (she'll never figure it out...)

Thank you microsoft for reducing the number of tech support related phone calls i recieve from my mother!


RE: XP
By goku on 5/26/2007 5:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
maybe because cause she knows it's hopeless to ask you for help with vista, probably because she's heard from her friends that any issues you have with vista are due to vista itself.

I.e program compatibility or just plain slowness. I used vista on a brand new laptop and I can tell you, it isn't quick by any means, the only reason I'd use vista is because support will eventually dry up for older OSs which IMO is a shame since a lot of them still could offer a decent experience.

Windows 2000 is by no means dated but unfortunately people won't support it anymore because it's simply easier to work for the latest platform. It'd be nice if they'd just allow the install of programs onto 2000 and just not offer support in the first place..


RE: XP
By TomZ on 5/26/2007 8:55:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Windows 2000 is by no means dated...

That's funny - I would say that Windows 2000 is absolutely dated. LOL.

Seriously though, Windows 2000 is complete garbage compared to XP and especially Vista. Running Windows 2000 today is kind of like driving a 1983 Ford Escort. Just because the damn thing still runs doesn't mean that it should be on the road.


RE: XP
By mr toasty on 5/27/2007 8:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
I run Windows 2000

How the hell is 2000 garbage? I've used XP, and in my opinion it's like windows 2000 with a cartoony, i-know-whats-good-for-you-even-if-you-don't-like-it -i'm-going-to-do-it-anyways interface.

The only programs I've ever had a problem with are ones from Microsoft anyways. No support for IE7, Live Messenger or Movie Maker. I know it's not that it would be a problem to implement, I get the feeling that they're going out of their way to support only XP and above. Why else would Firefox 2.0 still work (and support for Windows 98 is supposedly there for 3)


RE: XP
By Milliamp on 5/28/2007 6:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
Amen


RE: XP
By psypher on 5/27/2007 9:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
you sir must have bought a very slow laptop... My mother has a P4-d 3.2 i believe with a gig of ram... not exactly a speed demon... at least not by today's standards with cheap C2D's and 2gig kits of ddr2 for under $100.

the reason she almost never has a tech question is because for things like email, web browsing and word (the things that 97% of all non-gamers, non-techies use their computers for) vista just works, and it works well, fast and is VERY intuitive.

As far as us tech geeks, i routinely use my machine with vista x64 for large database work and critical projects constantly. I have way more issues doing my work with my XP box. Vista just works. And to tell you the truth, even though vista is a decently expensive upgrade (not really), my company was more than happy with my purchase since my downtime has been reduced since i have started using vista. and when you bill more than the cost of the software in an hour, it is a no brainer purchase.


RE: XP
By hannibal da mekanikabull on 5/29/2007 8:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
running both right now, dual boot. I guess I am a half a moron?

putz


RE: XP
By OxBow on 5/25/2007 9:30:39 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, I do use computers that are five years old. I finally retired one that was 10 years old last month, It was still running Win95 just fine. Heck, I still have a couple old DOS programs that I pull out once in a while.

Seriously, for what most people do on their computer, most of the machines sold these days are way overkill. Surf the web, check e-mail, write a letter, layout a spreadsheet, that's about it. I enjoy new technology, but just because something new has come out doesn't mean I'm going to go screaming out the door to buy it and take it home.

I haven't seen anything in Vista that makes me want to migrate, and a lot of things that make me think it would be best to hold off or just ignore it. The system requirements are outrageous for an OS and just serve to sell more new hardware. Next time I buy a computer, I'm seriously going to look at Linux or osX.


RE: XP
By Munkles on 5/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: XP
By Munkles on 5/25/2007 10:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
I NEVER made the claim that it would preform better in Vista rdeegvainl! You should re read my posts if you think I did! Im simply saying the adoption of Vista is necessary. Even if only to get end users better protection, a more stable enviroment to work in and to get hardware vendors to work on their drivers.

I understand that its difficult too learn how to program for a totally new api, but thats no excuse devs have had WAY too long with Vista to not have sufficient drivers out.

I think its interesting that the only argument AGAINST Vista thus far is performance related which is EASILY fixed with good drivers. Noone wants to shell out for a new OS, that I understand and noone wants to learn something new but baselessly attacking an OS.... is childish.


RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/2007 10:40:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Im simply saying the adoption of Vista is necessary.


Why is it necessary for halo 2? that is what it is all about. stop sounding like a microsoft rep trying to sell their newest and most expensive OS and stop skirting the issue at hand. It isn't about programing, or about the whole vista experience. not about a more stable enviroment. The whole driver issue isn't the matter either. i have no doubt that halo2 at least will run well in vista.
It isn't about anything other than microsoft deciding that they are only making it for VISTA.
Can you tell me what halo2 NEEDS that vista HAS and XP does not have?
Cause there is only one thing that fits that description. Microsofts approval.


RE: XP
By EODetroit on 5/25/2007 11:07:49 AM , Rating: 1
rdeegvainl, do you work for Microsoft, or do you work for a company with Microsoft as a client?

Microsoft FIRED its rep to CDW because CDW didn't sell enough copies of Vista despite the fact that it was totally out of his control. If MS would do what, who knows what else they'd try to sell more copies... like telling people to post this crap on Dailytech.

quote:
Im simply saying the adoption of Vista is necessary.

Why? So Bill can pay his property taxes? The truth is Vista is entirely UN-necessary right now, especially for gamers. Halo 2, which its own game developer freely admits is a big piece of crap, changes nothing.

Obviously Vista is the un-avoidable future of Windows, and all games starting development now are keeping Vista in mind. But those games won't be around for years, only a fool would upgrade now instead of then, because there's no real benefit for the current and soon upcoming crops of games, and it always makes sense to wait until you need a new Windows OS before you actually "upgrade" to it.


RE: XP
By EODetroit on 5/25/2007 11:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
Post should be directed at Munkles, not rdeegvainl, no edit and didn't catch it in preview :-/. Sorry about that.


RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/2007 11:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
ahh i understand now. disregard the below post i made.


RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/2007 11:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
no i do not work for microsoft. I think that examples of behavior like you outlined are wrong.
I am not advertising vista or microsoft. I don't know where you got that idea from. If it was the quote you selected, that was what i was arguing against. I was replying to someone who said that.


RE: XP
By EODetroit on 5/25/2007 11:14:20 AM , Rating: 1
I can thought of another argument against Vista in two seconds flat:

Vista costs money, while my current OS is already paid for, and works better.

Here's another:

Reinstalling an OS is a pain even when it goes smoothly, and since there's no benefit to using Vista, its a better use of my time to NOT upgrade.


RE: XP
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/25/2007 1:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
Installing a new OS, isn't that big of a deal. Especially for anyone who posts here. I just copied everything to my RAID, and nuked my Boot drive (Raptor). Loaded Vista and was on my way in 25 minutes. The Vista install and setup took me a grand total of 20 Minutes, with 5 minutes of configuration.


RE: XP
By EODetroit on 5/25/2007 1:43:13 PM , Rating: 1
How long did it take you to reinstall all your apps and utilities after Vista was technically "installed"?

Unset overclock back to default
Latest Drivers for everything
Winzip
Winrar
Antivirus
Gimp
Acrobat reader
ffdshow
Firefox
All your real apps, games, etc
Re-overclock

That's a full day's work, if not two days. 20 minutes my ass.


RE: XP
By glennpratt on 5/25/2007 2:29:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Unset overclock back to default

Why? If your overclock isn't stable, why are you using it?

quote:
Latest Drivers for everything

For alot of people there are two things, motherboard chipset driver and video driver, hell with my computer I can get them in one download.

quote:
Winzip
Winrar

7zip covers everything these do, better and open source. Takes less then 1 minute to download and install.

quote:
Antivirus

AVG Free - 10 minutes tops

quote:
Gimp
Gimp, inkscape, paint.net, just load up all those downloads for the latest versions at once, 10-20 minutes.

quote:
Acrobat reader

Foxit for me, 1 minute.

quote:
ffdshow

Again, tiny program, 1 minute install.

quote:
Firefox

5mb, 1 minute easy.

quote:
All your real apps, games, etc

Install as you need. Do you install all your games and then go play them? What a waste of time.

quote:
Re-overclock

Again, why?


RE: XP
By cinder on 5/25/2007 3:06:59 PM , Rating: 1
Took me about 40 minutes to get EVERYTHING reinstalled on my Vista machine. I did have the XP partition though so it made lots of stuff easy to copy.


RE: XP
By solgae1784 on 5/25/2007 10:36:05 AM , Rating: 2
Your info is somewhat outdated there. Vista drivers has now gotten quite mature enough that there's barely any performance difference between XP in terms of DirectX gaming. The only time where Vista somewhat falters is on OpenGL since Microsoft dropped native support on it, so basically ATI/NVidia had to start from scratch.

Having said that, since Halo 2 is actually a DX9 game with no DX10 features used, the only thing that makes it a Vista-exclusive is a tray-and-play feature, which allows you to play the game while it is being installed on the background. I think someone will hack away to make it run on XP sooner or later. But don't get your hopes up.

Xbox only has to run games in contrast to PC, and that's where the supposedly 'old' specs on xbox shine on it compared to regular PC components. Also, the max resolution it can run is 640x480, whereas the PC can go as high as 1900x1200, with higher details. And let's not forget the fact that Xbox version of halo 2 have texture loading problems, so the cutscenes look butt ugly.....and of course, having a slower dvd drive makes it worse.


RE: XP
By solgae1784 on 5/25/2007 10:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
Also, I have a feeling that Game for Windows Live would only work well with vista, so even if someone makes it to run on XP, you won't be able to play online since it requires at least a silver live account in order for you to play.


RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/2007 10:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
If my information is outdated about, considering i'm using vista myself, then the problem IS vista. most likely it's resource hungry nature.


RE: XP
By ChronoReverse on 5/25/2007 1:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
That is incorrect. Vista has the same support for OGL as XP does (actually the "native" support is slightly better even). However, it is, just as in XP, up to the manufacturers to actually write a driver.

ATi's OGL driver is actually coming along fairly well now. Not sure about the Nvidia situation.


RE: XP
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/25/2007 10:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
No problem with any of my games on Vista. Heck, even Starcraft works on it natively, without even running it as administrator.

That said, my Vista machine (Ultimate 64-bit) will take your XP machine to the cleaners. Because Vista can better utilize my newer hardware. (4GB Ram now) Although with the price of RAM dropping so quickly, I might increase that. But, in case anyone here hasn't noticed, but if you have Vista, and you have greater than 2GB of ram, and you own a copy of Command & Conquer 3, go check how much RAM it eats while playing. I checked mine, 2.4GB. Of RAM, just for that 1 game. Games are becoming more resource hungry, and machines will need to be upgraded. Not like RAM isnt dirt cheap anyways.

Go check out newegg. A quick look at their front page lists DDR-800 2x1GB Sticks for 80.99.

Insane pricing.


RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/2007 10:51:26 AM , Rating: 3
Your system would take my xp system to the cleaners, that i do not doubt. But I cannot afford your system either.
I still play C&C 3 with no problems.


RE: XP
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/25/2007 1:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
True enough. I can play CNC3 on my laptop. Which only boasts Vista-32, an X1300 Mobility card, and 2GB of 667 Ram. Can't crank the graphics settings but its playable if scaled down.

I just bought a 37" Westinghouse LCD Panel
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

Gonna hook mu desktop up to it tonight to see if I can play CNC3 on it...... /drool


RE: XP
By nah on 5/25/2007 1:37:29 PM , Rating: 3
there is peformance degradation with vista---I ran the built in benchmark with winrar3.7 b5 and found out that performance degrades from 536 KB/s to 371 KB/s from XP SP2 to Vista Ultimate (with Aero)--this is my 3rd computer--a P4 3 Ghz with 2 GB of dual DDR2 533 RAM,a Radeon X800XT. Also some minor issues exist--in Vista things like copying large files from DVD to HDD take more time, when you remove a removable drive the window does not automatically close like XP, you have to manually close it---minor annoyances that sometimes grate

the perf issues are lesser in my Core2D with 2 GB of DDR2 800 and GF 7900, but they are still there--

By the way, even a 3 year game like Doom 3 gobbles up nearly a gig of RAM--load it and see


RE: XP
By EODetroit on 5/25/2007 1:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
Try playing Enemy Territories. Its a free download... go ahead... try it.


RE: XP
By knar on 5/25/2007 12:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
for people who are saying the Halo2 was designed to run on the original xbox...remember that running a game at 480i or 480p is not the same as running it at 1600*1200 or even 1024*768....running at 480i/p is like gaming at 640*480....yes alot of video cards today can do that...running a game on a higher res require more porcessing power...and aobut the vista has lower performance.....its not a playable vs unplayable difference in almost all cases...its a few frames....but when you running at 100FPS do you really notice the difference?? also, im assuming that they didnt just port the game over. im assuming they did improve texture quality as well as shading. Also keep in mind that console OS are designed with one thing in mind GAMING! a windows OS (xp or vista) is a multi-perpouse platform so it has more overhead which is why games run the same on computer with higher specs than a console. Back to the vista exclusive issue... Vista alone is a great OS...instability in vista occurs when people install software that is not vista compatable. Drivers are another issue although they are getting better. IMO vista is a better OS than XP...and think back to when XP first came out...it had problems as well but people finally upgradedbut XP was not without its share of problems


RE: XP
By TedStriker on 5/25/2007 10:43:59 AM , Rating: 3
My PC is around 5yrs old and I'm a gamer. Play just about every FPS and RTS out there. I don't get insane frame rates, but so long as I get 20 - 30 it's enjoyable. I 've been succesful in online league play too.

no reason for me to buy all new hardware and upgrade to a new OS when what I have now works perfectly fine.

MS making Halo 2, and probably other upcoming games, Vista only just seems like a desperation move to try and get more people to upgrade since XP works fine and there's little else to sway consumers. They need to try using better games to entice people though. Played Halo 1 on my PC and wasn't impressed with it. the first few levels were great, but the rest of the game was just a wash and repeat of the same content, felt more like a chore to finish it.


RE: XP
By NotAok on 5/25/2007 10:45:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its for the GAMER

how so? If I'd switch to Vista right now I can guarantee it would take a hit on my games. It makes no sense to me to switch to an operating system that offers very little benefits over XP and yet requires more resources to run.
quote:
get the most out of their cutting edge hardware.

And cutting edge hardware isn't even necessary for gamers. My machine is under $1,000 and just recently I completed STALKER with my settings on high at 1680 x 1050 and now I'm playing Two Worlds on high settings too. Cutting Edge hardware is for those who want insane benchmarking scores and bragging rights, about it. A mid-range system will do just fine.

quote:
and someone who expects to run Halo 2 with all the bells and whistles had better have both a rig, and OS that are capable of that.


The rig i understand, but the operating system? Come on man, now you're just talking crap. Halo 2 would've run better on XP had they made it for it. MS clearly did it to push vista sales, no other reason.


RE: XP
By Munkles on 5/25/2007 11:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
You perfectly illustrate my point. The benefit we SHOULD be getting from Vista is GREATLY reduced because there is nothing to take advantage of it, because of people like you who refuse to upgrade, and because you refust to upgrade devs are slower to program content which REQUIRES the better hardware.

People can piss n moan all they want about how XP gets better performance, but thats only true because of immature drivers and is usually just an excuse to let people remain delusional that their 9800 pro doesn need an upgrade.


RE: XP
By rdeegvainl on 5/25/2007 11:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, halo2 doesn't take advantage of vista's finer points. There is nothing that Vista has and XP doesn't that halo2 NEEDS. If they made the whole game in dx10 then i would agree, but such is not the case. And it isn't the consumers responsibility to upgrade. it is the dev's job to make content that takes advantage of the upgrades (not just making it exclusive to the upgrade) to give the consumer a reason to upgrade.


RE: XP
By NotAok on 5/25/2007 2:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
You have it backwards my friend. I should not have to purchase high end hardware in order to push developers to make more demanding games. Developers should be making high end stuff that makes me want to upgrade. If my system that costs me under $1000 to build can run anything on the market then why would I go and spend $3,000 just to have top of the line?? Seems pretty dumb to me.


RE: XP
By TomZ on 5/26/2007 8:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's called "the chicken and the egg" - there is a mutual dependency between people investing in higher-end machines and software publishers investing in higher-end content. Seems pretty simple to me.


RE: XP
By Belard on 5/25/2007 6:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
Even Vista doesn't use 4GB of ram properly unless you buy/install the 64bit version. And when it comes to games, Vista still plays them ALL slower than XP... and Vista64bit is even SLOWER than Vista32bit.

These benchmarks are with Dual and quad core CPUs - so your statement about "wasted on XP" is not 100% true.

Point is: Vista offers NO actual benifits over XP. DX10 COULD work on XP, if M$ wanted to do so. M$ has NO problems making DX9 work on Windows98, which is vastly more different from XP, when compared to XP<>Vista.

Dx10 for future games and "locking out" current customers is marketing. Its screwing their customers. Halo2's graphics is still not AWSOME... doesn't surpass the abilities of DX9. There are games that are better looking and more advanced than Halo/Halo2... that run just fine with DX9/XP.

- Vista is NOT the most solid OS either, or secure. Its kinda ugly compared to XP, but oooooh - its transparent!

- Much of vista's problems is the heavy DRM, checking 10+ times per second to make sure the OS, CPU, mobo, video card and their drivers are "legit", etc.

Microsoft should be sued for not supporting XP with DX10, as they did with DX9 for Win98 & Win2000.

Find game developers and GPU manufactures that can state "DX10 can't run on WinXP because of the limitations of WinXP" - I don't think that is going to happen. In a world were we can run emulations of PS1/PS2 - Arcade games and even Virtual computers (Mac on PC, visaversa) DirectX can be made to run on XP just fine, or worse.... far better than Vista. That makes sense... DX9 is faster on WinXP... There would be even LESS people adapting to Vista if DX10 was a big jump faster on XP.

Perhaps if Microsoft had skills as the worlds largest OS marker to actually make Vista run faster and better than XP - then these issues would not exist.


RE: XP
By TomZ on 5/26/2007 8:38:31 PM , Rating: 1
I think it's funny that you complain about the performance of Vista, but the go on to suggest that DX10 could be supported in XP using software emulation. Hilarious.

Microsoft pretty clearly stated that DX10 wasn't going to be available because of its dependencies on WDDM and the subsequently high development and support costs. And besides, why should Microsoft continue to put more features into XP? They are better off getting paid for their development, i.e., by adding features to Vista that add value for that, so they can get paid for that work. People like you want everything for free. That's really the core issue.


RE: XP
By wallijonn on 5/29/2007 11:38:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
someone who expects to run Halo 2 with all the bells and whistles had better have both a rig, and OS that are capable of that.


That is the crux of the matter: that one needs a whole new system to play ONE new game.

It may play out this way: developers won't write DX10 only games because there isn't a large enough DX10 base, there wouldn't be enough profit since they need to sell at least half a million copies to make a decent profit. Which will slow down the complete adoption of DX10.

I get the feeling that MS is betting on people not buying a whole new system and instead they will buy an XBox 360 instead. Which will mean less games on the PC because, again, developers will code for the system with the largest installed user base.


RE: XP
By Volrath06660 on 5/25/2007 10:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
You do not like to get scr^@&(! over by hardware........yet you are considering Apple?! You can build a system from Newegg and Tigerdirect more powerful than any Mac sent out from their factories for a fraction of the cost.....I speced a PowerPC two months ago at $4000+ (of which they were charging $1100 for 2 gigs of DDR2 667 mind you) and then built a system with just hardware parts from Newegg that owned it for less than half the cost. And for an OS, you are PAYING to get a SKIN over Unix, which is a FREE OS!!!!!

I laugh at Apple users who think they are avoiding getting owned by a big name brand........


RE: XP
By GotDiesel on 5/25/2007 2:28:58 PM , Rating: 3
I've been using a 64bit OS for the last 3 years and very pleased with it.. it's just not windoze.. LOL


RE: XP
By TomZ on 5/26/2007 9:00:23 PM , Rating: 1
So how many of the games that are being discussed here are you able to run on your alternative OS? LOL.


RE: XP
By random123 on 5/28/2007 4:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
Er haven't had a game not work so far, only problem with 64 bit XP is some products don't have drivers, and 16 bit apps wont run and thats the only problems I've had so far. Also shouldn't XP/vista 32 bit address up to 4 gig memory anyway and 64 bit if you have more?


RE: XP
By TomZ on 5/29/2007 12:26:32 PM , Rating: 1
The OP said that he/she wasn't running Windows.


RE: XP
By CrimsonFrost on 5/25/2007 2:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
Amen brotha! I approve this statement :)


RE: XP
By Fubar0606 on 5/25/2007 1:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but the whole Idea is that HALO Microsoft's "baby" is supposed to premier on PC to boost sales to there bastard Child, windows Vista hahaha I love making windows sound like a slut. "It was a late night and Bill gates hadn't seen a women in months. his CD drive looked so tempting..." man I sound like a newb, but last day of school man!


RE: XP
By tgc2100 on 5/25/2007 3:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
I should probably get around to reading all of the posts, but it's already pages and pages. Just in case someone hasn't posted it yet there is a fix for Halo 2 and other DX10 games for XP.

http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/

you can even preorder Halo2 from them and it comes with the fix for XP


RE: XP
By tuteja1986 on 5/25/2007 10:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wait this game was on sale like in JB Hifi in Australia/sydney/townhall.


RE: XP
By OblivionMage on 5/29/2007 9:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, they made it only for Vista to support thier new operating system. I would be thousands that any major corporation would do that. I am not really sure why people are so angry?


Wait, what?
By KaiserCSS on 5/25/2007 3:51:07 AM , Rating: 4
Hold up a sec... since when did Halo 2 sport nudity? I mean, perhaps Cortana might be a bit iffy, but what in the world did they add for H2 Vista?

For the sake of laughs, I must know who or what appears nude, and who the hell decided to throw that in the game.




RE: Wait, what?
By Christopher1 on 5/25/2007 4:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
That's a good question. From what I have seen, there is no nudity in Halo 2, of course I have only played it sparingly at a local Best Buy.

Where is this nudity? And why, in a game that purports to take place on alien planets with troops, would there be any nudity?


RE: Wait, what?
By TedStriker on 5/25/2007 1:11:27 PM , Rating: 3
None of the aliens are wearing any clothes....


RE: Wait, what?
By Bruce 1337 on 5/25/2007 7:04:58 AM , Rating: 5
It's probably just a rumor Microsoft is using to drum up some sales.

I can just imaging hundreds of teenagers running out to buy Halo 2 and then immediately searching the web for the Hot Plasma mod.


RE: Wait, what?
By hannibal da mekanikabull on 5/29/2007 4:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
yup, prolly true


RE: Wait, what?
By Archmaille on 5/25/2007 7:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'd have to assume that it is probably a glitch from the sounds of things. Something to where at the right angle, or at the right place on a certain map some of the units armor can be seen through... not like someone purposely designed it that way but it probably just shows the unit model without its armor/clothing.


RE: Wait, what?
By MonkeyPaw on 5/25/2007 7:47:06 AM , Rating: 2
I think it is Cortana. Really, it's the only possibility, unless the Flood's clothes were just a bit too tattered.


RE: Wait, what?
By killerroach on 5/25/2007 8:29:20 AM , Rating: 4
Since when does it matter? Partial nudity can appear in a T-rated game, last I knew. Since Halo 2 is obviously not a Teen-rated game, but rather a Mature one, I don't see what the big deal is, unless there is some sort of sex thing (which some people might get bent out of shape over). Sounds more like either a publicity stunt, Microsoft running scared, or their port wasn't completely ready and they jumped at the most convenient excuse, one or the other.

That being said, I think I'll stick with HL2, FEAR, and Far Cry... all better shooters that will probably all run better on my system, even in Vista (and even considering Halo 2 PC isn't sporting much in terms of enhanced visuals).


RE: Wait, what?
By Goty on 5/25/2007 10:30:02 AM , Rating: 3
It's definitely ready. Shipments had already gone out to certain retailers and some are even selling copies now. If it wasn't ready, a measly 8-9 day delay wouldn't be enough to fix it.


RE: Wait, what?
By cheburashka on 5/25/2007 4:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the nudity in question. I guess since MS doesn't approve I must qualify this with NSFW and 18+ warnings or whatever. It's just a dudes ass in a special type of error message you will probably never see.
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/5082/untitleddf...


RE: Wait, what?
By jajig on 5/26/2007 1:58:35 AM , Rating: 2
There's no pint in upgrading to vista and buying the game now!


RE: Wait, what?
By TomZ on 5/26/2007 9:03:57 PM , Rating: 1
Geez, I sure wish I hadn't clicked on that link...what was I thinking - please don't post links to pictures of male nudity on this site! LOL.


Uh....
By IceTron on 5/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Uh....
By Mojo the Monkey on 5/25/2007 4:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
while i agree with the general sentiment about us being too sensitive with natural body images amidst a backdrop of wanton violence and destruction...

...isnt the "combine" from Half-Life? Did you mean the flood?


RE: Uh....
By oDii on 5/25/2007 5:35:38 AM , Rating: 3
Subconsciously, he knows Half-Life 2 is a better game...


RE: Uh....
By Archmaille on 5/25/2007 7:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
Dang straight! HL2 is the only FPS game that I can stand to play, and it's actually quite addicting.


RE: Uh....
By jtesoro on 5/25/2007 9:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
And HL2 Episode One dropped in price to $9.99 in Steam. I practically swore off the execution of the site before (slow, etc.), but I'm pretty sure I'll bite after I reinstall HL2 soon.


RE: Uh....
By GotDiesel on 5/25/2007 2:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
America was doomed a LONG time ago buddy... didn't need a game to realise that did you ???


Why buy Halo 2 for Vista in the first place.
By BZDTemp on 5/25/2007 7:09:19 AM , Rating: 3
Most likely it will be cheaper to get a 2nd hand XBOX with a bunch of games one of which could likely be Halo 2.




RE: Why buy Halo 2 for Vista in the first place.
By Archmaille on 5/25/2007 7:18:42 AM , Rating: 1
That would require buying an Xbox, sure I spend about $1,500 a year in upgrades to my computer, but it gets more done than just gaming.


RE: Why buy Halo 2 for Vista in the first place.
By NotAok on 5/25/2007 8:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
$1,500 in upgrades a year?! how is that even possible. I could build a new high-end gaming rig every year with that amount of money, upgrades alone shouldn't come close to that


By adam92682 on 5/25/2007 11:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
Just 2 8800 ultra's alone would be more than $1500


By Goty on 5/25/2007 7:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
There's also the fact that Halo2 runs like crap on the XBOX. (Texture loading problems being the biggest issue)

Also, a lot of people would rather play the game with a mouse and keyboard rather than with a controller.


doomed
By zam786 on 5/25/07, Rating: 0