MS Forcing Vista on people


S

SAMF2000

While many people can choose to buy Vista or not, the idea of making
Games only work with Vista is almost criminal. A game such as Halo 2
for the PC Which MS Knew everyone wanted, was made only for Vista...
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

No one is being forced at all.
Stay with the older version at least until you need Windows Vista or
Windows Vista comes with a new computer.
While it would be nice if all software was backwards compatible, it is
not always practical or possible.

I have never used any version of Halo.
However it should be expected that hardware and software developers
will make use of newer features available in a new operating system.
Expect to see more hardware and software from various manufacturers
incompatible with Windows XP and older operating systems.
 
A

Andy

SAMF2000 said:
While many people can choose to buy Vista or not, the idea of making
Games only work with Vista is almost criminal. A game such as Halo 2
for the PC Which MS Knew everyone wanted, was made only for Vista...
There's a crack so you can play it on Halo 2 Single Player on Windows XP if
you're really DYing to play this 3 year old game that quite frankly I found
quite un-stimulating for a FPS. I've heard multiplayer is fun, but I'm more
into Shadowrun for multiplayer right now. Get Halo 1 PC, there are mods to
play on Halo 2 multiplayer maps, and I like the story in Halo 1 better than
the Halo 2 story.

You might see it as "Forceing" people to upgrade, but I gotta tell you if
you think Halo 2 is a good enough reason to upgrade your OS, you might
re-consider your decision, there are better games out there. (I shouldn't
have to drop names, but Bioshock, Half-Life 2 Ep. 2 should be out soonish.)

-A
 
T

TheNetAvenger

Halo2 multi-player uses new 'Live' features that integrate with the XBox
network. All of these features were designed for and built on Vista
architecture and technology.

So in theory Halo2 single player can run on XP and be hacked to run, but you
can't do the multi-player.

This was not some 'evil' plan to force people to upgrade to Vista, this was
building the software on the new and best technologies. Just like Halo3 will
not run on the original XBox. ;)
 
A

Andy [Ex-MSFT]

TheNetAvenger said:
Halo2 multi-player uses new 'Live' features that integrate with the XBox
network. All of these features were designed for and built on Vista
architecture and technology.

So in theory Halo2 single player can run on XP and be hacked to run, but
you can't do the multi-player.

This was not some 'evil' plan to force people to upgrade to Vista, this
was building the software on the new and best technologies. Just like
Halo3 will not run on the original XBox. ;)
At one point I might of agreed with you TNA, but I gotta say there is
NOTHING in Halo 2 that requires Vista. It's a DirectX 9 game, the Live for
Windows support runs off native XNA code (as does the game), there's nothing
in Halo 2 that requires Vista.

Microsoft released Halo 2 on Vista to encourage/force people to upgrade to
Vista. Sugar coat it however you want, but thankfully there are much better
games out there than Halo 2. (Halo 1 with Halo 2 map packs is better than
Halo 2, and it has a better story)

Halo 3 could run on the original XBox, but why do that when Microsoft no
longer supports the original XBox? For a "Net Avenger" you sure aren't being
very heroic here.

-A.
 
T

TheNetAvenger

Just was going back through some old messages, and noticed your replies.

You know very little, yet act like you are an inside expert. Strange.

Live for XP was not planned, and was one reason why Vista was required for
Halo2. As the Vista version of Live used 'features' from the new WCF and
Vista network stack, it was not JUST marketing for the Live components to
require Vista.

Even if a person factors in the performance differences, moving Live to XP
will be risky for MS, as the latency and CPU usage incurred could cause
problems in games like Halo2 because it no longer has the integrated IPv6
stack, and instead is having to work through the hybrid network stack on XP.

You also don't seem to understand the WDDM very well, as this was also a
factor for the bungie team, as they could still use DX9 but 'assume'
features of the Vista subsystem would be doing its job, like pre-emptively
multi-tasking the GPU between rendering, physics calculations, and also
handing higher quality textures to the game even if the user's VRAM was
small. So by focusing on Vista, they didn't have to optimize or self yeild
the GPU for good FPS as the OS 'Vista' would do the work for them. So even
if the game is only using the DX9 libraries, if you are targeting Vista, you
have a LOT more latiture in what you can push your game to do and whether
you have to worry about VRAM sizes or GPU locking. This makes the
development process 'DIFFERENT' from targeting a DX9 game at XP,
considerably.

Sure Halo3 could be made for the original XBox, but then they would have to
remove 90% of the features and graphics quality. Do you not understand the
hardware requirements to push the levels of detail, AI, physics, and audio
that is in Halo3 would drop an XBox to its knees, let alone the fact that
its hardware won't even support the features? Take even something as simple
as a freaking texture, the texture size for the Original XBox was tiny in
comparison to the size of textures allowed on the 360.

Please don't respond to my posts again until you have a clue.
-TheNETAvenger
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Andy [YaYa]

TheNetAvenger said:
Just was going back through some old messages, and noticed your replies.

You know very little, yet act like you are an inside expert. Strange.

Live for XP was not planned, and was one reason why Vista was required for
Halo2. As the Vista version of Live used 'features' from the new WCF and
Vista network stack, it was not JUST marketing for the Live components to
require Vista.

Even if a person factors in the performance differences, moving Live to XP
will be risky for MS, as the latency and CPU usage incurred could cause
problems in games like Halo2 because it no longer has the integrated IPv6
stack, and instead is having to work through the hybrid network stack on
XP.

You also don't seem to understand the WDDM very well, as this was also a
factor for the bungie team, as they could still use DX9 but 'assume'
features of the Vista subsystem would be doing its job, like pre-emptively
multi-tasking the GPU between rendering, physics calculations, and also
handing higher quality textures to the game even if the user's VRAM was
small. So by focusing on Vista, they didn't have to optimize or self yeild
the GPU for good FPS as the OS 'Vista' would do the work for them. So even
if the game is only using the DX9 libraries, if you are targeting Vista,
you have a LOT more latiture in what you can push your game to do and
whether you have to worry about VRAM sizes or GPU locking. This makes the
development process 'DIFFERENT' from targeting a DX9 game at XP,
considerably.

Sure Halo3 could be made for the original XBox, but then they would have
to remove 90% of the features and graphics quality. Do you not understand
the hardware requirements to push the levels of detail, AI, physics, and
audio that is in Halo3 would drop an XBox to its knees, let alone the fact
that its hardware won't even support the features? Take even something as
simple as a freaking texture, the texture size for the Original XBox was
tiny in comparison to the size of textures allowed on the 360.

Please don't respond to my posts again until you have a clue.
-TheNETAvenger
Warning: Clue still missing, but wanted to respond anyways.

Mr. TNA,

As I've said before, I don't really see that Halo 2 uses some uber network
code that only Vista can run. There are IPv6 drivers for XP, could Microsoft
patch their OS to support all these wonderful words you posted that I have
no idea what you're talking about? I think they could. The way I see it, as
a consumer with a bit of technical knowledge, Micorosoft launched Windows
Live on Vista to force people to upgrade. Some of your explinations make
sense, but I do not accept that Micorosoft can't run all this stuff on XP.
(sorry for the XNA code comment, a buddy of mine explained that too me, made
sense at the time, i'll have to double check with him)

I may not have a clue, but I don't think I need your kind of clues to enjoy
a video game, and I don't enjoy Halo 2, maybe I have to appreciate all these
VRAMs and DX9 libraries, etc to really comprehend whatever you are talking
about, but my god why would I want to learn all that stuff just so I can
play a game like Halo? Why would I want to play Halo, Halo really is a
mediocre FPS.

My point, and I understand that you don't agree with me, and that is 100%
FINE, believe me... Here's my point...

"Graphics (and I guess in this case, network code) do NOT make good
gameplay."

My favorite game to this day is a tossup between Civilization 2 for the
Atari ST, Guitar Hero for PS2, and System Shock 2 for XP (doesn't run very
good on Vista). I don't need all this stuff you're talking about, I don't
play games much against other people online, but I'm not against the idea,
and as for textures I usually don't pay any attention to them so long as the
gameplay is fun and interesting. Halo 2 PC depressed the hell outta me not
because the background textures looked zoomed in on and un-smoothed, but
because the story was pathetic. I gave it points for multiplayer though,
once I got the game to connect for more than 10 seconds without kicking me
off.

If Microsoft really wanted Windows Live to make an impression they should of
launched more games by now and at least had some anticipated PC games come
out backing Windows Live. There's just nothing interesting there, and if a
company doesn't want to take a small investment to ensure the game works
with both XP and Vista, well thats their loss. Vista is making a huge
splash, good for them, but XP is still out there. I think at this point
you're just shooting yourself in the foot if you don't support both.

That said, i'm glad they changed the head of Games for Windows recently
(someone stepped out, someone else stepped in), maybe we'll see some
improvements in the coming months.

Also, what's with all the hate dude? No need for name calling, if you'd like
to trade blows, email me sometime and we can go boxing or surfing or
something. I also stand by my comment that Halo 3 could run on XBox 1. and I
don't think they'd have to cut out 90% of the game. In fact gameplay wise I
bet you could get an identical experience from XBox as you get from XBox
360. No, you won't get the same graphics, and multiplayer may not be 99.98%
perfect (whatever), but I bet you could get an identical version gameplay
wise. Would you want to do that? Does Bungie "need" to do that? No, all the
Halo fanbois have their XBox 360s already, so they are in the majority, no
need to support the left behind xbox.

-A.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top