Jump to content

Doug Williams

Members
  • Posts

    1,543
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Doug Williams

  1. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For games like DOOM III, Team Fortress II, Half Life II, IL-2 Stormovik, Max Payne, etc. we will need all the speed we can possibly get, I don't want to give up anything I don't have to. Of course, Athlons will be faster by then, as well. But why would I want to waste performance and deal with the virtually guaranteed bugs of XP? Answer: I don't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    But, like I said earlier, if XP is optimized for the Pentium 4, those games you mention may actually run faster on XP than they will on W98 for those with Pentium 4 processors.

    Why am I arguing this? I don't have a P4 or an Athlon. :confused:

    I'm gonna go play CM now, which runs plenty fast on my PIII 866/Geforce 2 system.

  2. Lee said:

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The same could be said for games which are optimized for the Athlon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Which games are optimized for the Athlon?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And Windows XP? It will run native Windows 95, 98 and ME games in emulation

    mode, that equals a performance hit, uggh. I'll stick with Win 98 and keep the extra speed, thank you very much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Ahhh, but if XP is optimized for the P4, there may not be any performance hit (for P4 users anyway). By the time XP is released, the P4 will most likely be 2 GHz+, FSB speeds will be faster, Geforce 3 video cards will be common, etc., so today's games will run plenty, plenty fast, I imagine.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And game companies will continue to make games for a long time in the native Win 9x format because that's what every gamer out there is going to be using for quite awhile. A couple years from now, after MS has worked out a bunch of the bugs and gotten rid of that disgusting plan they have to only allow you to install XP on one system without having to pay extra, then I'll consider moving to XP, but not until then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That sounds like a good plan. I'm still using W98 myself.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And while we are discussing Operating Systems, anyone who is thinking of getting a new system, I would recommend you ask to have windows 98 or 98SE installed in your system, instead of Windows ME. All of the knowledgeable users I have talked to say Win ME is much less stable than Win 95 or Win 98. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I was thinking of installing ME, but really didn't see much advantage to doing that. ME, from what I understand, is basically W98 with some added features (native zip support, etc.) I haven't heard about any ME instability problems, so if I was buying a new system, I would probably want ME, unless you could point us to some web article by a trustworthy source that can tell us otherwise. I find that most "knowledgeable users" are just opinionated (like me). ;)

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And lets remember that any of the top systems that have been mentioned here are more than fast enough to make CM smoke, so the point is moot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You are exactly right.

    Heinz had a good point. Intel will probably soon be switching sockets, which will hurt the upgradeability of the current P4s.

  3. This issue (AMD T-Bird vs Pentium 4) was briefly addressed in the latest (June) issue of Computer Gaming World, page 110. A reader wrote in stating he was going to buy a system from Alienware (maker of high-end dedicated gaming systems), and asked if he should get an AMD 1.2 GHz CPU or a Pentium 4. Instead of answering the question themselves, CGW contacted Alienware and got an answer from them.

    I quote:

    "Alienware has extensively tested both processors, and as a result, both processors are very stable and compatible with all your current games. But Intel's Pentium 4 will eventually outperform even the fastest AMD processors currently available as soon as games optimized for it are released. The Pentium 4 also uses the fastest Front-Side Bus of all the processors that are available now, 400 MHz. Another good thing to keep in mind is that the Pentium 4 has been optimized for Microsoft's upcoming Windows XP, which means even more potential for extra power from the processor."

    -Doug

  4. Cubbies Phan,

    Hey! I finally made somebodies sig file! :cool: I'm da man!

    I can't really take too much credit though, that "Intel compatible" comment has been around a long time.

    Seriously though, I can see the reasons for buying AMD chips. As was said earlier, Intel just feels "safer" somehow. The current fastest AMDs may be faster than the current P4s for most applications, but that will likely change. We will most likely see 2 GHz+ P4s before the end of this year. AMD, as they always do, will play catch up for a while, until their chips equal or exceed the P4. Then Intel will come out with the P5, and so on, ad infinitum. Competition is good (for us, the consumer, anyway). Too bad Cyrix bailed out.

  5. Nope, I wasn't being patronizing, merely stating a fact, as jshandorf proved. As for a laptop, well, that's another matter.

    I suppose it does make sense, from a business standpoint, to code games (especially wargames) with low end systems in mind, but it would be nice to be able to have some additional features (more polygons or something) for those of us with 21st century 'puters. ;)

    Bah, this has all been discussed before, and I'm sure Steve and Charles know what is best.

    As for the movies, if they have the time, I say put them in. It does seem to set the mood for the game.

  6. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Looks great! And the Finns are there. And, most important for me, a technically handicapped man, the minimum video requirement is 8MB. Somebody get me a tissue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    People are still playing CM on 8 MB video cards? Cmon guys. I don't want to sound elitist, but, if money is tight, brown-bag lunch for a month. That should save you enough money to buy a decent 32 MB video card.

  7. Manx,

    Excellent. Tiger's work is always outstanding. Your speed with posting mods is equally excellent.

    I'm not as big a "grog" as some here, so I really don't know if the Americans commonly used camo paint on their tanks/vehicles or not. Most (all?) of the pics I've seen of American WW2 AFVs were non camoed. I understand the Germans made extensive use of camo paint on their vehicles. How about the British?

×
×
  • Create New...