Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Releases Game Advisor For Windows

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the helping-you-feel-inadequate dept.

PC Games (Games) 108

av_2_0 writes "Microsoft has released a web accessible Game Advisor for Windows. This will check your system's configuration, compare it with a knowledge base of around 360 games and tell you if your system is compatible." Requires the use of IE and the install of an ActiveX thingie. My system is apparently faster than 58% of systems checked.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yawn. (3, Insightful)

Godeke (32895) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893548)


Analyzing Your PC...

Unfortunately we were unable to examine
your PC due to technical difficulties.


Well, that was exciting. And no, this wasn't the Slashdot effect as it loaded the ActiveX garbage just fine. It's just once it was here it died a horrible, "browser renders entire surface as white" death.

I guess this is the start of the "Microsoft is serious about PC games" initiative. Frankly, I could give a flying frootloop about the PC games scene these days: for the $500 the top end video cards go for I can pick up *two* console systems and a smattering of games, or one console and go freaking insane with games. Yeah, you can't do RTS or FPS as cleanly on consoles as on PC, but both genre's are in such serious ruts that it doesn't matter. And yes, I am aware how "pretty" PC graphics can be... but I'm there for the game play not the sparklies. I'm perfectly happy to watch the technology trickle down into consoles.

The last straws were the copy protection that demands I stop performing my job as a software developer to play a lousy game (quick hint, the debugger *ins't* so I can hack your freaking game) and the "your DVD isn't a CD, thus you are screwed out of your cash" crap.

Re:Yawn. (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893572)

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason I stopped playing computer games altogether. My computer is not some throwaway toy for me to be entertained with. It's a tool with which I work to feed my family and pay the mortgage. I don't use IE, I don't use ActiveX, and I don't install games. Games screw with the box too much.

You should try it. You get a lot more productive too.

Wait... Is /. a game?

Re:Yawn. (1)

theantipop (803016) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893623)

All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play make Jack a *snore*

Re:Yawn. (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893748)

Did I say no play at all... There are *other* games besides computer games, you know?

Besides, I have like 100 books on my amazon wish list. I'm working my way down.

Re:Yawn. (1)

theantipop (803016) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894660)

It's a joke. Though, maybe I'm on to something.

Re:Yawn. (1)

CsiDano (807071) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895896)

First, the article was aimed at gamers so why would you feel the need to point out your system doesn't have any games, ok so great you have a production only system. I prefer to leave my work at work and play at home, my home computer has nothing to do with my productivity at work. Second that's great so you have a list of books you are reading, are you insinuating that gamers don't read? I read several books a week during my commute time to university. I honestly can't say a computer game has messed up my system, that is a rather broad assertion that games mess up systems.

Re:Yawn. (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13896927)

read in the post I originally replied to: "The last straws were the copy protection that demands I stop performing my job as a software developer to play a lousy game (quick hint, the debugger *ins't* so I can hack your freaking game..."

So, he's using his work box for games. I was addressing that specifically.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Godeke (32895) | more than 8 years ago | (#13897216)

You know, I would *love* to leave my work and work and play at home, but since I'm self employed (both consulting and part owner of a software company) the two are one and the same. I already have a Windows 2003 server, Windows XP Pro, Fedora Core 4 machine at my desk (all hail X-Windows and Terminal Services for allowing two of those to run headless). Oh, and an old notebook at my side here (for travel). My wife's desktop and notebook just down the way, and my son has his machine in the library.

All of this equipment is for work purposes (notebook for travel, server for hosting server products I'm developing against, Linux for testing PHP apps, etc) so I guess I could get *another* PC without my tools and an old fashioned CD for compatibility. Or, I can tell the people who's copy protection thinks my work box is too "hackerish" because it uses a debugger, high end DVD writer and virtual CD software that they lost a sale from a person who buys a *lot* of games. (Just picked up 6 games on Tuesday thanks to a buy 2 get 1 free deal making some release titles resonable in price). I just don't buy many *PC* games because the industry has decided that people that don't buy equipment that suits *them* shouldn't be able to boot their games. I'm not arguing that point, just saying that it is an attitude (along with the insane upgrade treadmill) that lost them sales and recommendations in that market.

And although your comment was directed elsewhere, I have had games "mess up my system" more than once. They enjoy disabling Microsoft's Virtual CD software (which is useful for the MSDN Universal license I have: downloadable ISOs are much nicer when you can just mount them) and they enjoy crashing my debugger more. Uninstalling *doesn't* always restore the functionality either, which is just freaking insane.

Assuming you're old enough to drink (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894353)

Go have a shot of RedRum [redrum.com] .

Re:Yawn. (1)

Albert Pussyjuice (675113) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893806)

"Games screw with the box too much."
Boy, there's a really intelligent statement. How exactly do games "screw with the box"?

"You should try it. You get a lot more productive too."
Not everyone is a spineless twerp like you. I can have games installed on a machine and resist the urge to play them. Apparently, you can't. I hope someone rapes your wife.

others are slower (1)

Outthere057 (566345) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893700)

I thought my computer was slow and this test proved it. It said that 89% of the computers tested were faster than mine. While im thinking about it i probly got some old parts i could put in a box and get closer to being the slowest

Well (1)

groovy_daemon (103445) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893711)

according to M$ my system is in the top 8% and it says "WWOW!!!"

Re:Well (1)

kyle90 (827345) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894289)

I'm in the top 4%. But we all know that it isn't the specs of your system, it's how you use it. [/brag]

Re:Yawn. (2, Insightful)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894072)

So many points stated so well. I'm essentially done with PC gaming for the same reasons as you - overpriced hardware, uninspired design, and not wanting to be bothered with returning a game that I didn't pirate because the latest copy protection tools are incompatible with my "new" DVD drives (Which are one and three years old) so I can't play without using cracks that keep me from playing online.

What I don't understand is WHY Microsoft is trying to push PC gaming. It's not like Apple is competing in that arena, and the whole point of the Xbox seems to have been saving us all from the hell that PC gaming had become, so why are they bothering? Is it just to hinder any screwball antitrust suits that might come from pissed of PC game makers that don't want to do Xbox games?

Re:Yawn. (1)

wcbarksdale (621327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894166)

Microsoft is pushing PC gaming because it's one of the few things you can't do on a Mac.

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13894500)

Actually the gaming situation is significantly better on the Mac than most niche software markets are (outside of graphics and A/V of course).

It's to fight off Linux and BSD (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894367)

What I don't understand is WHY Microsoft is trying to push PC gaming.

Because if you're locked into games for Windows instead of games for GameCube or PS2 or the handhelds, then you're less likely to defect to BSD or Linux for everything else.

Re:Yawn. (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895578)

Because, despite different hardware, Windows has a similar SDK to the 360. By attracting PC gamers, they increase demand for PC games. This increases development. And when those PC game developers look to port to a console, which one is going to be the first?

Re:Yawn. (1)

illumina+us (615188) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894236)

Actually for $500 you can get an XBox 360 and 2-4 games. I built my PC for ~$1,000 and it is going to last me roughly 3-5 years. BTW "Your system is among the top 2% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor."

Re:Yawn. (1)

Blaaguuu (886777) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894326)

If you spend $500 on a video card, then you are a fool...

What a load of crap (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894453)

First off yes consoles are "cheaper" then pc's. Fucking duh. Of course they are, they are invariably inferior to pc's. Yeah even the new 360 and PS3. Remember everyone being excited about the multiple cpu's when PC's were still only equipped with one? But that was a long time ago and now top end gaming PC's have got multiple cpu's and PC's games that support them. At the same time reports are hitting that the new consoles aren't really all that powerfull and still horribly crippled by low memory and the lack of a HD.

Price is still lower but you get less but lets not forget to check the price of the games. I don't know if this is true around the world but in holland games like Kotor and morrowind (released both for console AND pc) typically cost a full 10 euro's more for the console version. Wich is kinda sad since for both games the PC version was clearly better. Kotor because it came with extra content and Morrowind because of the whole user made content bit that is exclusive to the PC. Not to forget that the expansion packs for Morrowind were PC only.

Show me Counterstrike for console please. No not counterstrike itself but usermade modifications for your console. Sure 99% of usermade content probably sucks but the remaining 1% consist of some pure gems wich either are brilliant games in their own right or take an existing game to new levels. That is not including games like MS own flightsimulator wich ofcourse are all about user made content. Or Neverwinter Nights.

Their are of course prices to pay but you paint an extremely one sided picture and fail to completly analyze the costs.

A 1000 dollar gaming machine does not compare to a 300 dollar console. You should compare it to a 300 dollar console + accesories + tv + cheapo internet pc. Wanna bet that all that together comes pretty close to the cost of a full gaming pc? Anyway not everyone is a kid living on his mothers allowance. 500 dollars is all relative. If you think that is a lot never ever look at bills for your gf/wifes clothing.

The games are also different. Good luck finding an EQ2 or WoW on the console. Good luck with usermade games like Flightsim or NWN too. Then again good luck finding pure arcade titles on the PC.

Console games are easier to get running. Then again if you got troubles getting games to run on your pc what are you doing on slashdot?

Copy protection is a bitch at times but there is always away around it. Perhaps I have just been lucky.

I wonder what exactly the reason for this "test" is by MS. It is MS so there must be a motive. Could it be that they are trying to figure out exactly what kinda hardware is the norm for gamers? So that future games by them can be better tailored to the hardware available?

Both MS and Sony have a clear interest in making people game on their own propietary systems rather then the far more open PC. MS and Sony get paid when a game gets developed for their respective consoles. They get 0 for a game developed for pc. Yet both got really big titles that are exclusive to the PC, think MMO games wich MS is trying once again. Is Everquest just sony's way of testing the water until a future console is ready to run a MMO like and they will then drop the PC? EQ2 and SWG both like 1gig of memory so unless the new PS3 can perform some kind of miracle it will not be able to run the games as is. It used to be true that consoles needed less ram because they ran at far lower resolutions but with HD-tv this is becoming less true.

At the moment PC vs Console is not a matter of price. Yes a console alone is cheaper but you would still need the costs of a pc to be able to rant on /. on how much cheaper your console is. While I don't need a console to rant on how much bull that is.

It is a matter of different types of gaming. Sure I am tempted to the darkside by reviews of Jade empire and some other titles but am not willing to give up high resultions and user mods. My games also tend to need more buttons then a console has available. Then again games like Brothers in Arms show us that the two markets are getting closer. Nobody could call that game a dumb platformer or claim that it is insanely complected with keystrokes only an emacs user could love.

But as long as both MS and Sony see a market in PC games I think PC games are safe. For a lot of smaller developers with more risky titles the PC's freedom means they don't have to make huge licensing costs AND can easily release patches AFTER release. Sure games witch need to be patched are a horror BUT at least the PC has this option and it means significant savings for a developer to be able to do part of the costly and lengthy QA with paying customers. Either you as a customer help with QA or you will never see some titles.

PC vs Console, an other one in the long line of vi vs emacs, linux vs windows, etc vs etc.

Re:What a load of crap (1, Insightful)

Godeke (32895) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894899)

Dude... Valium may be in your future.

Of course PC games are "safe"... as I said, FPS and RTS live and die by the PC. MMORPG is a stronghold as well. Mods are a great thing too. My point is why bother when for a fraction of the price and *none* of the hassle I can have a lot more fun. I own a library of PC games, but I fish them out of bargin bins... if the $10 "Medievil Total War Battle Collection" had not booted, I can just dump in on a buddy.

Normally it isn't worth the hassle when I can plunk down in my comfortable chair and enjoy a console game.

But enough about me... remember, Valium is only available by prescription.

Speaking of one sided pictures... (1)

KeeperS (728100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13896824)

While you've got a very nice rant laced with thinly veiled insults, the point has completely sailed over your head.

PCs do have certain advantages over consoles. They have better graphics, more modding capability, and the keyboard and mouse. Graphics are nice, but they're hardly a deal breaker. Dealing with lower resolutions isn't the horror you make it out to be. Modding capability is a great plus. The keyboard and mouse are great for some genres and horrible for others.

The thing is, while you can deny it until you're blue in the face, consoles also have their own advantages over PCs. Price, ease of use, and a greater selection of games are the big ones. Even buying a brand new $400 XBox 360 console at launch with "accessories + tv + cheapo internet pc" is going to be cheaper than buying a gaming PC. Most people already have the TV and internet PC anyway. I'd rather spend my gaming time playing games instead of messing with drivers and configuration settings.

Which set of advantages you prefer is a matter of personal preference, but don't pretend that PCs are superior in every way.

Re:Yawn. (2, Informative)

storem (117912) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895009)

This must be one of the worst tools ever experienced. First it's kind of a CPU whore; goes on being nothing more then a white page, finally crashes IE... Maybe I should try from within Firefox :-)

To remove the ActiveX: delete the "Measurement Services Client v3.7" file from "C:\WINDOWS\Downloaded Program Files".

Re:Yawn. (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895314)

"for the $500 the top end video cards go for" ... "I'm there for the game play not the sparklies." I can't reconcile these two statements. It seems to me your problems (except for the shitty copy protection issues prevalent in pc games.. on the other hand, try and run that debugger on the xbox without resorting to dealing with copy protection =P) might be solved if you just buy a reasonably priced video card.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Jackmn (895532) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895918)

That's not an option with newer games.

Try running Day of Defeat: Source and keeping the framerate above 60 FPS with a standard video card and a decent processor.

You can't. You can turn off HDR, dynamic lighting, bumpmapping. You can turn your resolution down to 800x600 and shut texture quality down to minimum. It doesn't matter what you do. With an average setup the framerate will constantly drop to 30 FPS, maybe even hitting 25.

The same goes for most newer games. Quake 4 is a good example.

Haha, I win! (1)

PopeOptimusPrime (875888) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893553)

Your system is among the top 12% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor. Woohoo Radeon 9600 Hmm it's good to know what a $1000 one year old box can do.

Re:Haha, I win! (2, Funny)

usrusr (654450) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893653)

have you seen the gauge thing on the left side?

according to microsoft my system's performance is "WWOW!!!", i wonder how this translates into bogomips. or does that just mean "able to run Windows + WoW"?

Re:Haha, I win! (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893759)

heh, mine just says Purrrr.

Re:Haha, I win! (1)

Quarters (18322) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893785)

Your system is among the top 7% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor. Suck it, biyatch! I p0wn!

Re:Haha, I win! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13893959)

I think my machine is setting the high bar :)

Your system is among the top 1% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor.

Re:Haha, I win! (1)

prezkennedy.org (786501) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894696)

I paid $700 to be in the top 19%... I pwn j00!

Re:Haha, I win! (1)

Zaplocked (925208) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893846)

yum, top 2%. I wish you could see the stats of the top guy.

Re:Haha, I win! (1)

UnclePow2223 (869564) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894651)

Re:Haha, I win! (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894775)

I smell something fishy...

First, your proc. It's a nice proc, but not substantially better than my AMD 3500+. Sure, my proc only clocks at 2.2ghz, but it does more per cycle than the P4 ultra-pipeline archetecture.

Next, your video card. Your 9800 is ancient compared to my 6600GT. I upgraded from your card to mine and noticed a huge jump in gaming performance.

Our systems match on RAM and hard drive; you have a Raptor too, I assume.

Yet, my system rated in the top 9% while yours rated in the top 4%.

Obviously, they are leaning heavily on P4s and ATI.

Re:Haha, I win! (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894909)

6%, AMD 3400 & ATI 9700 PRO.

Re:Haha, I win! (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894979)

Makes no sense. I have a better proc and a better GPU and still rate lower.

They have to be favoring ATI over Nvidia

Re:Haha, I win! (1)

UnclePow2223 (869564) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895479)

Yeah, actually I was laughing pretty hard when I saw the score. I assume they give more points the bigger your numbers are. But also, I have my video card overclocked (432 MHz core/367 MHz RAM) and soft modded to an XT. A friend of mine has an awesome gaming comp he just built a few months ago that would spank my system but still scored 4% as well. I built my system back in the summer of 2003, and it was absolute top of the line back then. I wouldn't say there is necesarily a bias, it just cares more about speed and quantity. This just goes to show that we need to leave this kind of benchmarking to the Futuremark guys. Supposedly this benchmark is based on theirs, but I think Microsoft sprinkled in a little to much of their dark magic. All the gaming community can really do is deny this as a reasonable, trustworthy benchmark app.

Neat. (1)

Renobulus (470573) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893555)

"Your system is among the top 24% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor"

Wow, thats on my work PC. :) Should be interesting to see what happens when I get home.

obviously (1)

elzurawka (671029) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893600)

"Internet Explorer 6 required Windows XP Game Advisor requires the use of the Windows 98/ME/2000/XP operating system and the Internet Explorer 6 browser. " Well, i didnt see that one coming.

Internet Explorer 6 required (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13893620)

Internet Explorer 6 required Windows XP Game Advisor requires the use of the Windows 98/ME/2000/XP operating system and the Internet Explorer 6 browser.
No thanks.

FYI (2, Informative)

theantipop (803016) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893635)

This thing is at least three months old. I don't know if they changed something since then, but I'm not willing to fire up IE to install the control to find out.

IE-centric (1)

0rionx (915503) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893643)

This utility doesn't work with Firefox! Yaaarrgh!

Now why on earth would Microsoft want to make us use IE?

Re:IE-centric (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895615)

Because ActiveX widgets (somewhat fortunately for security reasons) don't work on much else?

Top 6%!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13893725)

I guess this is the part of the thread where it turns into "mine is bigger than yours".

Re:Top 6%!! (1)

asretfroodle (811847) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893907)

Not really...
64% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.

I suck :/

Re:Top 6%!! (1)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895660)

I call shenanigans.

In a example window they told a person to upgrade his videocard, it was a Nvidia.

Only because the developer preferred ATI.

Yuck.

I was DQ'ed right off the bat (4, Funny)

g1zmo (315166) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893770)

Internet Explorer 6 required

Windows XP Game Advisor requires the use of the Windows 98/ME/2000/XP operating system and the Internet Explorer 6 browser


This game sucks.

Re:I was DQ'ed right off the bat (2, Funny)

Aranth Brainfire (905606) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894035)

DQ'd? Dairy Queened? ...DC'd? Disconnected?

Re:I was DQ'ed right off the bat (1)

Meagermanx (768421) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894218)

Disqualified.

Seriously? (1)

sH4RD (749216) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893772)

What kind of "gamers" test this thing? My crapbox from 2001 gets this:

39% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.

That's sad.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13893790)

I'm in the top 6%.

I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13893831)

I'm in the top 100%.

I feel all "special bus" inside.

*Goes and puts on helmet*

Re:Seriously? (1)

tez_h (263659) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895252)

What kind of "gamers" test this thing?
Given that the Advisor ranks your system, it's apparent that it doesn't really test compatibility, it tests adequacy. If you've got an SLI system, are you really going to be worried whether your system will be fast enough once you've got DirectX 9.whatever installed? Unlikely.

The kind of gamer who will try this out is the one that's wondering whether Microsoft thinks that his PentiumII can run DoomIII.

-Tez

And why exactly... (1)

Hakubi_Washu (594267) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893781)

...do some of the more modern games still go steady below 15 fps if "Your system is among the top 3% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor."? Crap :-P

Re:And why exactly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13895473)

Most people have really lousy video cards, so your numbers are going to look high. I have what I'd consider a 'low end' card for real gaming and I got top 4%.

Run without anti-aliasing on. If you're focusing on the game you won't notice the difference and you should be able to stick to 60fps on just about anything. However, in most cases you can max out anisotropic filtering and not lose more than a couple fps, so I'd reccomend running that at full.

Re:And why exactly... (1)

Hakubi_Washu (594267) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895563)

That is indeed what I usually do, as my 9800 Pro isn't quite top of the line anymore. I still want 1xAA and I need to use 1280x1024 (LCD), which is a big performance killer, apparently. I could just run lower and use the resolution "adaption" as AA, I guess :-P

Preparing For An Exit From The Console Market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13893796)

With things going badly for the Xbox/360 to put it gently, all signs like this one point to an exit from the console market for Microsoft.

What exactly that exit strategy is seems to be very unclear. Or if they do actually have an actual strategy seems to be uncertain. It seems like Microsoft is trying to lure console developers to make more games for home peecees since that market is in a heavy decline outside of MMORPGs.

Trying to turn x86 hardware into a standardized platform like consoles is like trying to get Linux apps to be as consistent Mac apps - it ain't happening.

How does it compare? (1)

TroZ (160902) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893810)

How does it compare to http://www.srtest.com/referrer/srtest [srtest.com] which seems to run on any browser with activex or java (assuming a windows os is required)?

Not at all? (1)

Hakubi_Washu (594267) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893818)

Because it offers a general "speed" value (that seems contrived at best, My system is amongst the top 3%, yet I still experience quite a lot of low frames situations in modern FPSs) instead of evaluating for specific games...

Re:How does it compare? (1)

HaydnH (877214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895152)

That sites hilarious! Just tried it from my work pc and failed on the video card spec... and at the bottom it says "Want to make this game really fly? Check out the products below" - it recommends I buy a Logitech® Cordless Rumblepad(TM) 2... that'll help!

As an added bonus... (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893862)

It secretly check whether your copy of windows is legal?

Internet Explorer 6? (1)

PGC (880972) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893865)

So I tried it , and it said : Internet Explorer 6 required Windows XP Game Advisor requires the use of the Windows 98/ME/2000/XP operating system and the Internet Explorer 6 browser. So I closed firefox, dusted off my IE6 and tried it again ... and whaddayaknow... Internet Explorer 6 required Windows XP Game Advisor requires the use of the Windows 98/ME/2000/XP operating system and the Internet Explorer 6 browser.

Re:Internet Explorer 6? (1)

PGC (880972) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893896)

MMh... I guess I have to use
for newline ... anyhoo ... after the third try it worked... and apparently 85% of the systems out there are faster then my top-notch gaming rig.

damn ... its still as good as new ... only 5 years old :S

Crap (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893919)

82% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.

I guess my tablet PC sucks as a gamebox. Likely due to the intel graphics card.

obligatory... (1)

Down8 (223459) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893956)


My System Specifications
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) XP/MP/4 1830MHz
Display Card ATI RADEON 9600 Series
Memory 512MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Free Disk Space 35.85GB
Display Card Memory 128MB
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.6571
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card NVIDIA(R) nForce(TM) Audio

To save your system specifications for later visits, create a free
  Game Advisor Account

My System Performance
36% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.
Better than I expected.

-bZj

Re:obligatory... (1)

Shrubbman (3807) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894484)

Looks familiar there Down8.

And mine (after only grudgingly loading up IE):

My System Specifications
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) XP/MP/4 2107MHz
Display Card ATI RADEON 9600 Series
Memory 512MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows 2000
Free Disk Space 23.71GB
Display Card Memory 256MB
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.6561
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card SB PCI

To save your system specifications for later visits, create a free
  Game Advisor Account

My System Performance
34% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.

Re:obligatory... (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894654)

Looks like your video card is the culprit there. Maybe your system ram too, probably to a lesser extent.

I've got a xp2800+, 1024MB ram and a 6600gt 128mb. 22% rank higher than mine.

Woot (1)

Glacian (674566) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893967)

In the top 3% of computers scaned, i give it 3 hours till the rest of the slashdot crowd runing windows(?!?) heads over and pushes me down to top 60%.

Re:Woot (1)

Glacian (674566) | more than 8 years ago | (#13893993)

Just in case you were wondering. Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2413MHz, Display Card NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX, Memory 2048MB, Operating System Microsoft Windows XP, Free Disk Space 265.58GB, Display Card Memory 256MB, Display Driver Version 8.1.8.5, DirectX Version 9.0c, Optical Drive CD/DVD, Sound Card SB X-Fi Audio [A000]

Top 1% (1)

Dixie Flatliner (850959) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894013)

I'd better be with an X2 and a GTX...
Incidently, this isn't Microsoft per se, it's just the super striped down Sysmark plugin from Futuremark, and we all know how reliable 3DMark is....

Blue screen here (2, Insightful)

PunchMonkey (261983) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894074)

First blue screen I've seen on this 3-month old system... some complaint about sbp2port.sys. Two in a row as I thought the first time might have been a freak occurrence.

Oh well, now I'll never know if I pass or fail.

Re:Blue screen here (1)

FLEB (312391) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894186)

Sounds like a faulty driver for something you normally never use.

Re:Blue screen here (1)

sheared (21404) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894227)

Same here. Something about an IRQ when searching for a driver. Two times in a row.

Re:Blue screen here (1)

werewolf1031 (869837) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895373)

PunchMonkey, sounds like you either had a file corrupted upon installation (happens frighteningly often in XP), or the file was corrupted post-installation, such as an older pre-XP application over-writing it. Go here [microsoft.com] for more info, it'll tell you how to proceed depending on your Windows version.

sheared, you clearly have an IRQ conflict, ie. multiple devices using the same interrupt request. Reboot, go into your BIOS, and double-check all device IRQs, especially check video and sound IRQs. Most BIOSes allow you to manually set the IRQ, pick one that's not on use. Note that on some mobos, it's quite acceptable to have two devices sharing a single IRQ; consult your documentation, and also search the 'Net for help if that's the case.

Re:Blue screen here (1)

theantipop (803016) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895890)

Oh well, now I'll never know if I pass or fail.

Sure you will. Unfortunately, you failed.

I didn't know about graphics cards before (1)

The NPS (899303) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894099)

"82% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system." The little dial says zzzz.... I've got 2 Ghz and 1 gig of ram, but an integrated graphics card. My Dell pizzabox is worthless.

Please! Please! (1)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894105)

I want to install an ActiveX control to allow systems stats and other data to be gathered and sent to the mothership too!

Couldn't believe I made top half (1)

bofkentucky (555107) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894129)

PIII-S 1.4 512MB Ram GF3Ti200

this is pretty old (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13894176)

Now Im not sure whats goin on here, But this has been out for at least 3 years now. Which explains the crappy machines getting high rankings, most of the scans were done eons ago.

you sure about that? (1)

lazychris317 (751330) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894317)

the question should be "Do i really want microsoft getting int omy computer to find out my hardware?" i dont know about you guys, but theres something about that idea that i dont like.

Re:you sure about that? (1)

0rionx (915503) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894414)

I agree, it seems all too convenient.

"How can we get people to voluntarily give us detailed information on their personal computers for our marketing department to use?"

"Hey, just call it a 'benchmarking utility' and tell them that their computer is the most godly gaming rig to ever grace the Earth, and they'll never suspect a thing!"

Performance spread (4, Interesting)

Daniel Wood (531906) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894444)

Just to give you guys an idea of the performance spread:

System 1: (Game Box)
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2549MHz
Display Card NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
Memory 2048MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Free Disk Space 102.48GB
Display Card Memory 256MB
Display Driver Version 7.8.0.3
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card Realtek AC97 Audio
Your system is among the top 2% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor.

System 2: (File Box)
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 1809MHz
Display Card ATI RADEON 9500
Memory 512MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Free Disk Space 219.49GB
Display Card Memory 128MB
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.6505
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card Realtek AC97 Audio
Your system is among the top 14% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor.

System 3: (Bittorrent Box)
Processor Intel Pentium M 1000MHz
Display Card Intel(R) 82845G/GL/GE/PE/GV
Memory 512MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Free Disk Space 94.6GB
Display Card Memory 1MB
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.3762
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card Realtek AC97 Audio
93% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.

Re:Performance spread (2, Insightful)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894999)

As a comment, read below....

System 3: (Bittorrent Box)
Processor Intel Pentium M 1000MHz
Display Card Intel(R) 82845G/GL/GE/PE/GV
Memory 512MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Free Disk Space 94.6GB
Display Card Memory 1MB
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.3762
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card Realtek AC97 Audio
93% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.

Well, why arent you using something with a smaller profile on that machine other than Windows? If you're gonna use it as a BitTorrent box, might as well plop Linux on it and run Azureus through the web interface. Hmm, now that might be a good idea. 2 Cables running to that box: Power and ethernet. Put on there VLC server and you could stream movies from that machine.

I guess Slashdot is a place everybody just bitches about Windows (and Microsoft) rather than actually put Linux or the BSD's to the test and just plain USE THEM. And people wonder why /. pulled the browser OS text file a few years ago (hint: it was an embarrasement).

Performance spread, my ass (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895858)

Desktop 1: Your system is among the top 21%
Processor Intel Pentium 4 2800MHz
Display Card NVIDIA GeForce 6600 (@ 525/1050)
Display Card Memory 128MB
Memory 1024MB
Sound Card SB Audigy 2 Audio [FF40]

Desktop 2: 94% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher
Processor Intel Pentium II 350MHz
Display Card ATI AIW 3D RAGE PRO TURBO
Memory 384MB
Display Card Memory 1MB
Sound Card N/A (Yamaha onboard audio)
Note: I just replaced the GF2 MX for this AIW, I could play smaller UT2003 DM maps on this box!

Laptop 1(HP Omnibook Xe3) 92% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher
Processor Intel Celeron (M8) 897MHz (WTF? It's a 900MHz PIII)
Display Card S3 Graphics Savage/MX
Memory 256MB
Display Card Memory 8MB
Sound Card ESS Allegro

Laptop 2 (Armada m300): 94% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher
Processor Intel Pentium III 599MHz
Display Card ATI RAGE LT PRO
Memory 256MB
Display Card Memory 4MB
Sound Card ESS Maestro 2E

Too bad I can't test yet another box, it's a P3 1000 with a GF2.

Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13894508)

Zonk uses Windows? That explains a lot...

Good to know.... (2, Funny)

friedmud (512466) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894527)

"Your system is among the top 4% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor."

Atleast I can show my wife this when she see's next months credit card bill and there is another $1600 added to it....

Friedmud

I can't use this... (1)

ludomancer (921940) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894581)

I can't use this thing without feeling like I'm just helping Microsoft out with their marketting research...

My system... (1)

ZaSz-RH (923115) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894672)

Oh damn, "85% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system."

Data Collection (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | more than 8 years ago | (#13894977)

Well at least they asked us this time before mining data for commercial purposes.

No one here actually thought this was an aid for gamers did they???

Top 22% (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895031)

With a 6600GT a 2600+ and a Gig of ram.

That stuff is all about 1-2 years old.

Maybe it's true the hardware pushthrough is slower these days.

I certainly don't feel the need to upgrade, I just got Fear running in 1280 it's sexy.

Bottom 6%; Top 21% (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895744)

Your system is among the top 21% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor.

P4 2.6 @ 2.8
MSI 6600 Diamond @ 525/1050
Gig of noname RAM.

It's about 2, maybe 2.5 years old now (except for the gfx card), runs Quake 4 just fine. Didn't have time to play FEAR yet.

P2 350 w/ 384 megs of RAM and an ATI AIW-Rage Pro

meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13895070)

60% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system. Then again, that's an Inspiron 8200 is sore need of replacement.

Load Of Rubbish (1)

thelonestranger (915343) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895196)

What a load of rubbish. It claims my laptop cant play Half Life 2. Thats funny because I've played it through start to finish on it with no problems. Sure I had to use a lower resolution and I didnt get all of the flash special effects but I was still able to play it.

Re:Load Of Rubbish (1)

thelonestranger (915343) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895208)

And it also says I cant play Final Fantasy XI but says that I can play the addon pack Chains of Promathia? Huh?

Worthless (1)

werewolf1031 (869837) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895333)

The ActiveX applet does not put your system through a battery of Direct3D, DirectDraw, or DirectSound tests to determine its real-world performance. It merely scans your system's specifications, and "guesses" how fast it "should be" based on those specs. Nothing more.

Hell, the now-ancient DXDiag utility is more useful than this for determining system capabilities.

Utterly pointless. Don't waste your time.

My Puter rox0rs (1)

StonedRat (837378) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895439)

"Your system is among the top 3% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor."

I so rule. No wonder the chicks love me.

AMD64 3500+
Radeon x800Pro
1204MB RAM

First Percentile (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13895758)

Your system is among the top 1% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor

Well... that's what the scan would have said if my current Linux box actually ran Windows!

Is this some market survey by Microsoft in an attempt to determine how much cruft their games can handle? To this day I will never understand the amount of resources PC games require.

I find Games are now taking up over 500MB of RAM regularly. OK Texture resolutions are increasing, but has noone heard of streaming technology? Console games manage to have higher res textures, using a lot less RAM. What's going on here?

CPU usage. Again, console games seem to get much more bang for their buck here. OK PC games run on top of an OS, but so do hardcore number crunching research experiments. I had thought that with all the latest graphics card technology, the heaviest calculations were being offloaded more and more to the GPU. Where are all these cycles going, because wherever they're going, the fun/cycle ration seems to be going down.

Disk usage. OK WTF. I've bough games that ship on 1 CD and take up 1GB of Hard Disk. Games seem to be taking up GB of space by default nowadays. It's getting to the point that an 80GB hardrive simply won't be able to take 20+ games. Where the hell is are all the bits going? And why am I still running things off the CD?

Anyway, I thought I'd bring up these points given that as the years go by, PC games seem to have accumulated cruft at a much higher rate than console games. In order to stay competative, I hope PC game developers start trimming down their apps a little. It would be nice to have a modern game install, start, play and close without grinding the entire (high performance) system to a halt.

Re:First Percentile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13896217)

"I find Games are now taking up over 500MB of RAM regularly. OK Texture resolutions are increasing, but has noone heard of streaming technology? Console games manage to have higher res textures, using a lot less RAM. What's going on here?"

I don't know if you've ever looked at a console game, but they really don't have texture quality anything like a recent (non console port) PC game. Of course, they don't need to, they effectively run in 640x480.

"Disk usage. OK WTF. I've bough games that ship on 1 CD and take up 1GB of Hard Disk. Games seem to be taking up GB of space by default nowadays. It's getting to the point that an 80GB hardrive simply won't be able to take 20+ games. Where the hell is are all the bits going? And why am I still running things off the CD?"

Copy protection. Nothing else comes off the CD.

"CPU usage. Again, console games seem to get much more bang for their buck here. OK PC games run on top of an OS, but so do hardcore number crunching research experiments. I had thought that with all the latest graphics card technology, the heaviest calculations were being offloaded more and more to the GPU. Where are all these cycles going, because wherever they're going, the fun/cycle ration seems to be going
down."

Fair enough. I hear this is more about the amount of optimisation that happpens in console games, but maybe someone who's ported a game has a better answer. I don't think the OS comes into it much, after all Windows idles at about 1% CPU usage on my system, though it does use lots of the RAM up.

Wow- er, I mean WWOW... (1)

Doomstalk (629173) | more than 8 years ago | (#13897312)

I'm not sure how my system ranked as high as it did. I've got a lot of RAM (1.2GB) and HDD space (350GB in total), but the rest of my system is pretty mediocre: Athlon XP 2400+ and a Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB. It'll pay most games at decent speed, but it's definitely not a cutting edge gaming machine. Somehow I've managed to be in the 80th percentile of their database. I'm guessing they've either seen a lot of crappy computers, or their algorithms just suck.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?