Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

25 Games Tested in Vista

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the games-for-working dept.

PC Games (Games) 102

mikemuch writes "Jason Cross at ExtremeTech has installed more than 25 PC Games in Windows Vista and reports back with his experiences with each. For the most part, the OS handled games with aplomb, but on the whole ran them slightly slower than XP, and some required logging in as administrator to install them. These and other minor issues were the result of immature drivers. It was hit or miss whether games would appear in the Games Explorer correctly with box art, and GameTap doesn't work yet at all."

cancel ×

102 comments

Shock, Horror, Surprise... (0, Troll)

OneSmartFellow (716217) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902094)

Some old software doesn't work in M$ latest OS.... film at 11.

Re:Shock, Horror, Surprise... (4, Insightful)

Gabrill (556503) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902126)

Yes, but at this point, EVERYTHING, is old software. I'm not going to pick up Vista until games work BETTER in Vista than XP.

Re:Shock, Horror, Surprise... (1, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902846)

After unexpectedly having to go out and buy a new computer on Sunday (long story), I ended up bringing one home with Vista "Home Premium". Having to complete a project before Super Bowl kickoff, I booted up and my heart dropped when I saw how rough Vista is with common hardware, drivers, etc. After I installed the latest Daemon Tools and the computer refused to boot OR restore Vista, I wiped the disk and went back to XP Pro. Even Vista's "Out of Box Experience Assistant" caused a fatal error (I'm serious).

Let me put it this way: the out of box experience left a lot to be desired.

Re:Shock, Horror, Surprise... (1)

richy freeway (623503) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903012)

Weird, daemon tools has been running fine in Vista since at least RC2 (I think). I've got it sat here in my system tray as we speak.

Re:Shock, Horror, Surprise... (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903684)

Let me guess; Onboard video and 512MB of RAM. Right?

Re:Shock, Horror, Surprise... (2, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17912264)

No.
2 gig RAM and onboard video. It's a E4300 Core 2 duo on a very decent motherboard. Intel 945 graphics.

I'm planning to put a good video card in the box tonight. Sunday, I just needed to finish a bit of work.

I'll try Vista again, when I hear a lot of people saying good things about it. For now, I'll stay with XP Pro, which I like very much for media production.

And Daemon Tools does indeed run in Vista. It's Vista that was at fault with my original story. I have no reason not to think Daemon Tools will run fine and run fine under Vista, but the installation process through Vista for a loop and caused it to crap the bed. It also wouldn't recognize my brand new Linksys G w/Speedbooster wifi PCI card, and Linksys doesn't have a special driver for that adapter for Vista yet. Their website says "coming..." So is the problem Linksys or that Vista doesn't support such a common piece of hardware?

After 5 years hearing about Vista, I thought I'd be knocked out. My "out of the box experience" (I love that expression after last weekend) was much better when Windows XP was brand new than with Vista Home Premium and a computer that's supposedly made to run Vista. I have never knocked Microsoft, but if someone asked me, I would not recommend Vista if they needed to get work done right away.

That won't happen for a while... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903954)

Everything, drivers-wise, is pretty much a userspace driver unless it's supplied by MS directly in Vista.

It's slower than XP.
It's more resource intensive than XP.

You're going to find that you're going to have to throw more muscle at it to get performance out of it.

After having seen it in use and "used" it for the last four months, I can say that I've little use
for it- much less than XP, and I've little use for XP to begin with. You can wait for it to be
a better performer than XP, but you're likely to wait until there's no more support for XP in the
hardware. Then you'll be forced to make a choice, do without, use Linux, or use Vista.

Re:That won't happen for a while... (1)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17909696)

It's slower than XP.
It's more resource intensive than XP.


For what its worth that's what I thought after installing RC1 on my Thinkpad T43. It seemed very, very slow especially with office and such. I recently installed the RTM business version, and it seems that it is at least as performant as XP now. You might give it a try.

Re:Shock, Horror, Surprise... (1, Informative)

heffrey (229704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902144)

Hardly surprising that the games were slower on the Vista machine which uses a different (slower) processor!

Yet more high quality reporting from Slashdot.....

Re:Shock, Horror, Surprise... (1)

heffrey (229704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17918120)

Got to love the moderation here on slashdot.

Am I missing something: are "criticism" and "flamebait" really the same things?

DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (5, Insightful)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902118)

Provided that MS is able to get developers to switch to DX10, nobody will notice how much slower Vista is for modern gaming once they are rendered incapable of running current titles under anything BUT Vista. Vista's sluggishness is only an issue whenever XP can compete in the same arena. Sadly, DX10 won't fix any current driver issues.

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17902620)

If the Wine project ever gets their DX10 implementation completed, it'd show everyone pretty clearly how slow Vista is compared to every other platform: XP, 2000, Mac, Linux, etc. Supposedly, they're planning on a complete implementation by the end of the year thanks to their switch to WGL, but I don't really know the details.

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (2, Interesting)

Mongoose (8480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903520)

Yeah, it's pretty neat. Once they can port their D3D to their WGL basically they can port DX10 to anything they can port the WGL to... in other words you can run DX10 on Windows XP. I think it's a great stick in the eye for an overly controlling company in the industry. Thanks to the move to shaders it gets easier and easier to shift/translate D3D to OGL. I'm getting 30-50 FPS in Oblivion running Wine on Ubuntu x86_64 already.

64-bit? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17910902)

I know you can run Wine on x86_64, but I don't think Wine actually supports Win64 yet. Wake me up when it does, though -- that's one of a very small number of things that keeps me booting Windows for games.

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (1)

mgiuca (1040724) | more than 7 years ago | (#17915472)

Wow... I kind of figured since DX10 was only for Vista it would be a long time till we saw it in Wine. One major reason why I've been dreading the release of Vista (since I absolutely refuse to upgrade for DRM and licensing reasons, it means I'll miss a lot of games in the meantime. Which is why I chuck a fit every time I read someone saying "If you don't like Vista, don't upgrade! It's simple!")

If Wine can show DX10 working on Unixes, then it'll prove that it's "necessarily-Vista-kernel-entrenched" as they claimed it was. And, lol, as another commenter pointed out below, it'd be hilarious if Wine let you run DX10 games in Windows XP. I swear, those guys are going to be the salvation of all the other platforms.

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917382)

DX10 seems to be mostly a marketing trick to cheat WinXP users out of Shader Model 4.0 functionality in their cards. That should be trivial to get working in wine and cedega. Just calling the appropriate matching opengl functions. *FAR* less complex than the real work involved in getting "original" directx functionality working like directplay.

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (1)

mgiuca (1040724) | more than 7 years ago | (#17918298)

Hm.. well let's hope so. In any event, I think this game (the IT game) is all about interoperability. You can pretend do be about interoperability for so long (as MS does), but when your business model is about preventing interop, you're eventually going to lose. Wine will make that happen, sooner or later.

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (3, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904996)

Great, then can I use a Win32 Unix Emulator on XP to run Wine to run DX10 games?

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (1)

lavid (1020121) | more than 7 years ago | (#17905244)

The short answer to your question: yes. There are talks of porting DX10 to Windows2k/XP http://www.winehq.org/?issue=320 [winehq.org] Given the wine libraries are used in ReactOS, this shouldn't be too difficult. Who knows, maybe more people will take an interest in WINE or maybe move to Linux for gaming.... Unfortunately WINE still has a while to go before it's a complete alternative.

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#17905888)

And they'll run faster!!!!

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17907226)

I wish them luck, but they haven't finished implementing DX9 yet.

Faster than Lunix!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17903550)

I noticed all the games on the list run way faster in Vista than they do with Lunix. Oh wait... you can't run games on Lunix! Is a text editor a game?

Re:Faster than Lunix!!! (1)

lavid (1020121) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904268)

First of all, what is Lunix? Second of all, there are plenty of games which run natively on Linux (Doom 3, one of the UTs, blabla). Fifth of all, many games run on Wine and, if not on Cedega, both of which are free to some extent (Cedega CVS is installable via a sh script). I'm not going to go on... unless you're actually talking about Lunix... which I know nothing about.

Re:Faster than Lunix!!! (1)

sholden (12227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17905012)

First of all, what is Lunix?
It's an OS for the C64. And none of the things you mentioned run on it.

Re:Faster than Lunix!!! (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917400)

That might be funny if linux native games didnt run faster over 90% of the time, and even emulated windows games run faster in some cases (WoW and BF1942 spring to mind). I know many a WoW player who has switched to Linux *JUST* to get a 20% framerate boost in the only game they play.

Re: Drivers (1)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903590)

Since you're the first one in this article I've seen refer to the drivers that these games install, I gotta ask:

WTF?

I get why a video card needs to install drivers, and I can see where a game would only run on maybe DX9+, so that if you have DX8.??- then it should check that and report to you, and ask you to install DX9+ before you continue.

BUT WHY WOULD A VIDEO GAME INSTALL ANY DRIVERS? A game should process the bits from the disk and the bits from the controller and display some other bits on the screen in an entertaining manner. End Of Story.

Now that I have cleared my mental vocal box, my mental ears (and the real ones too) are waiting to receive enlightenment so that I may understand and encompass this new thought process.

Re: Drivers (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904028)

Starforce copy protection uses a driver for some damn thing.

Re: Drivers (1)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904104)

Ah, but that is not the game, surely. I thought that was the game vendor trying to lock you into a method or pattern, not the game requiring that lib to translate bitA and bitB to produce bitC

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903672)

And right now, what reason do developers have for switching to DX10? Minimize their potential market? That's not how they work. While MS owned properties such as Ensemble might go DX10 only, for the next 2-3 years, at least, DX9 will still rule.

Re:DX10 will eliminate this problem for MS (1)

Tuidjy (321055) | more than 7 years ago | (#17907140)

I use my XP box for two things - playing games and writing programs for Windows Mobile. I will not switch to Vista until I'm unable to play the games I want on XP. I assume that they are people who will be unable to switch to Vista simply because they don't have the hardware for it. It would be madness for game developers to release DX10 only games if it will reduce their customer base.

I hope Stalker, Crysis, Bioshock, etc... work well in DX9. I am pretty sure strategy games will not become DX10 exclusive anytime soon.

tough road (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17905746)

According to John Carmack, DX10 isn't a huge leap forward and there is no reason to do DX10-only games anytime soon. Assuming he is correct, we will see DX9 games for at least another year, possibly longer since it seems likely that most DX10 games will be backwards compatible because of the huge XP install base that can't upgrade to DX10. I have a feeling we will see XP become known as the performance-gamer platform as more people realize how slow Vista is, the only people who will game on Vista will be those willing to sacrifice performance for a little extra eye candy. In other words, gamers will reject Vista. If you check out most gaming forums you will see that this is already starting to shape up.

Think before you upgrade (4, Informative)

GFree (853379) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902124)

Article's pretty good. It's definitely true that performance will be (slightly?) under what you'd experience in XP. It's up to you whether you wish to pay money for an operating system that, for now, actually provides less performance than XP.

BTW, clicking on the "Print" link in the Options under the first page will show all pages as one. Useful if you don't want to click next all the time.

Cedega (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17902142)

But how well did they run in Cedega?

Logon as aministrator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17902168)

Logon as admin is probably to install components from DirectX, such as D3DX - you need the same version of the D3DX dll as the developers had.

Re:Logon as aministrator (1)

Keeper (56691) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902876)

More likely the install attempts to write to HKLM and/or HKCU. The relevent dx dlls should already be present in the base Vista install.

Re:Logon as aministrator (1)

miscz (888242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903406)

I tried to run games in Vista from my old XP partition and games complained about missing dx dlls.

More Vista Less Xbox Microsoft! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17902174)

With the exception of the driver issues, it looks like Microsoft is really making Vista gaming their primary focus and letting the Xbox stuff fade away. With Vista they don't have to worry about trying to compete in the hardware design and manufacturing area where they have had huge problems with vastly more expensive manufacturing costs compared to others, having to pull the plug early on the first Xbox hardware, and the well known and very costly Xbox 360 defect problems that are still going on.

It looks like Microsoft is really trying to get the current Xbox developers who are already for the most part PC developers to make their games Vista exclusive. What token support the Mac had from game companies is now pretty much gone with pretty much just Blizzard and their mercy Mac versions of their games and a scattering of PC ports. Linux continues to flounder around and failing to offer a stable and viable platform for game developers to target.

Killing of the Xbox mess would go a long way to healing the rift the console created with PC gamers when Microsoft started to get PC developers to focus on the Xbox first or exclusively. Most PC game developers sound like they don't really want to be writing for a console and would prefer sticking with the x86 desktop platform. Just look at what companies like Id, Valve, and Bethesda say about console development.

The billions Microsoft is wasting on trying to compete in the console world could be put to much,much,much better use revitalizing the shrinking PC game market. It's been six years or so and with billions down the drain the new Xbox is selling about as badly as the first Xbox. Microsoft needs to put that money to better use. PC game developers are where it should be going. Make Vista gaming as simple as healthy as the console market currently is.

Re:More Vista Less Xbox Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17902242)

The problem with the pc game market is it has become basically the ghetto of game development. It is pretty much made up of developers who aren't able to land deals with publishers for the much more lucrative console market. It is no accident that the pc game market is shrinking, pc game developers are pumping out crap for the most part. Microsoft trying to reverse the downward spiral that the pc game market has been in for the past five to ten years would be a gigantic undertaking.

Re:More Vista Less Xbox Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17903100)

You're so wrong, id software's John Carmack has openly said their main development platform is the Xbox 360. PC gaming is very, very expensive and you also have to deal with driver issues, incompatibilities, viruses, spyware and whatnot. Those things do not exist in consoles, and now that consoles are serious about online (specially Microsoft consoles) who needs a PC to game?

No, Vista requires the XBox 360! (1)

DelawareBoy (757170) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903706)

At least for the Media Center. Currently, Vista's only Media Center Extender that works IS the Xbox 360. Older extenders won't work at all, since they can't handle HI-DEF.

I seriously doubt Microsoft is ditching the XBox 360. I think they're -counting- on it as the "spokes" in the Vista Media Centers's "Hub" in an effort to dominate consumer electronics. Not sure how well they'll do.. Hardly anyone knows everything that the Media Center can do. MS is too focused on odd marketing campaigns, rather than something straight to the point, like Apple.

Re:More Vista Less Xbox Microsoft! (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17911158)

Most of the wrong things you said have already been addressed by other comments, but where'd this piece of FUD come from:

Linux continues to flounder around and failing to offer a stable and viable platform for game developers to target.

Erm... what?

If this means "stable" as in, stable API, so that developers aren't always scrambling to keep up with the distro of the month, then I really don't get it. I can pop in my ut2004 cds and run the Linux installer on the disk on a brand new Ubuntu -- or Gentoo, or Debian Etch -- and it will work -- even a 64-bit Ubuntu. In fact, with the latest patch -- actually, I'm not sure how long they've had this, but my ut2004 is native 64-bit, which is more than I can say for XP.

I mean, you could say that the kernel isn't making it easy for binary blobs, like the nvidia drivers, and you'd probably be right -- and yet, even this is a no-brainer. It's been at least a year since I had any issues whatsoever -- I wish nVidia could open up their driver source, but short of that, they seem to be absolutely on top of their Linux drivers, even 64-bit -- which is more than you can say for their Vista effort.

If by "stable", you mean "not crashing", my Linux used to crash -- when my box was overclocked. It hasn't crashed since I turned off that overclocking -- months ago. And I'm running all kinds of experimental stuff -- Gentoo, Reiser4, my own custom kernel hacks -- and Linux has been at least as stable as XP when it comes to gaming, which is to say that I haven't seen either crash in longer than I can remember.

I'm really not sure what you mean by "viable" -- if you can make a Mac port, you can make a Linux port. If you mean that there aren't enough gamers on Linux, developers can easily rectify that -- do cross-platform development (which isn't hard at all, it can be as simple as recompiling) and market your Linux port. It really isn't that hard -- see ut2004. And after all, id software may be more generous than other shops (with their GPLing of old stuff), but they aren't stupid -- from what I can tell, they basically have one guy who's in charge of the Linux port, and that's really all it takes -- and now we have Doom 3 and Quake 4 for Linux.

The only way that statement makes sense is if you've drunk the DirectX 10 kool-aid, but at the moment, I bet my Linux performs better than Vista for the games I can play on it, so no one in their right mind (who doesn't already work for Microsoft) will make a dx10-only game.

PC:Games machine (0, Offtopic)

mrthoughtful (466814) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902218)

The only reason I have Windows (well except for testing production websites in IE) is for games. We use Mac OS X for our workstations (lower support cost, higher productivity) and Linux for our Servers. For me, gaming is moving onto handhelds, consoles and cardboard. Vista? Maybe sometime in a year or two.

Re:PC:Games machine (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17902322)

"We use Mac OS X for our workstations (lower support cost, higher productivity)"

Shall we pull your other finger now?

Schizophrenic about his hardware (4, Insightful)

Flodis (998453) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902298)

Asus A8R32-MVP with *** Socket AM2 ***? using DDR memory. And an FX 60? He obviously has a 939-system. How far can we trust this guy to have opinions on drivers and stuff?

Let me in on the ... (1)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902734)

whatever it is.

"Asus A8R32-MVP with *** Socket AM2 ***? using DDR memory. And an FX 60? He obviously has a 939-system. How far can we trust this guy to have opinions on drivers and stuff?"

I don't understand what the issue is. Please explain. I am not up on this terminology or equipment models...

I am assuming that the system as described is not possible. This would, of course, invalidate the results.

Re:Let me in on the ... (3, Insightful)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902798)

The mobo is a socket AM2, an AMD socket with 940 pins. The processor is a 939 setup (939 pins.) This may not seem as though it wouldn't work, but the AM2 setup rearranges the way the pins are aligned such that only an AM2 processor fits in it. So yes, the described system is not possible. Even if it were possible, surely there are better mobo choices, it's memory is DDR 400 for goodness sakes.

Re:Let me in on the ... (1)

Flaming Foobar (597181) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902946)

Even if it were possible, surely there are better mobo choices, it's memory is DDR 400 for goodness sakes.

I believe you can also only use DDR2 memory with AM2 processors.

Also, from TFA: >>In fact, performance is really quite impressive. Our 3DMark06 score at default settings was 8052, where we score 8830 in our original GeForce 8800 GTS review. That system used a Core 2 Extreme-based test system that, all other things being equal, should outperform the Athlon 64 FX-60 we're testing Vista with here.>>

In other words, they ran 3dMark06 on two completely different setups and got different results. Geez.

Re:Let me in on the ... (1)

Flodis (998453) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903164)

In other words, they ran 3dMark06 on two completely different setups and got different results. Geez.
I'm of the opinion that it could be more significant than this... I mean, are we supposed to beleive this guy actually found the QueryPerformanceCounter BIOS issue when he doesn't know the equipment he's using?

On one hand, it could be a typo. On the other hand, this mistake is a bit too obvious if you know your hardware...

In any case, most people wouldn't care about the QPF/BIOS unless it kicked them in the balls, so by being so detailed about it, the article is clearly making a point: "I know my stuff". Supposedbly trying to build some credibility for the later agenda - which seems to be pushing gaming on Vista.

Am I making more sense now?

Re:Let me in on the ... (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904494)

I am unsure of memory compatability between AM2 processors and DDR 400, but it still remains that both his specs and the motherboard's officially state DDR 400, so it would seem that the AM2 socket itself can use DDR 400. But the processor he lists is a socket 939, which I know does not support DDR2. I agree with the gggp that this is atleast worthy of suspicion, to take it with a grain of salt I suppose.

Not sure what the 2 different setups = 2 different results comment was about, though I would still say in all fairness to the scientific method, the tester shouldn't have bother metioning it. Aside from the fact that it introduces an uncontrolled variable, which I shouldn't complain about as it's very common in many tests (it's just so hard to get a wide array of harware that doesn't require different supporting components,) they said it best with "Much of that is due to the difference in CPU speed" : different processors is probably one of the worst things you could leave as an uncontrolled variable. There's just so many possible differences between AMD and Intel, even when considering 'only' Core 2 Extreme and the FX brand. For example, the Core 2 Extreme 'line' has both duo and quad core processors, different sockets (and therefore even different FSB) none of which is stated in the article. It really was just an off-hand comment that shouldn't have been included, since as far as I can tell it wasn't used in the real tests. If I am mistaken in my reading and those really were what were used to make the comparison then, from the standpoint of the validity of tested results, this article is laughable! Its observation's maybe totally correct but they are just observations, not standardized, quantified tested results, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt. But all this paragraph is irrelavent to my previous post, which was about clarifying why the test results of a system would be suspect.

Personally, as a gamer, I still wouldn't touch Vista with a 10-ft pole, no matter the results...

Re:Let me in on the ... (1)

Flodis (998453) | more than 7 years ago | (#17905128)

The mobo is a socket AM2, an AMD socket with 940 pins.
Just to clarify, the Asus A8R32-MVP is socket 939 [asus.com] , just like the rest of the components named. That's why I reacted to TFA calling it an AM2-system - and in the heading of the specs table at that.

Re:Let me in on the ... (2, Informative)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17905326)

The mobo is a socket AM2, an AMD socket with 940 pins. The processor is a 939 setup (939 pins.) This may not seem as though it wouldn't work, but the AM2 setup rearranges the way the pins are aligned such that only an AM2 processor fits in it. So yes, the described system is not possible. Even if it were possible, surely there are better mobo choices, it's memory is DDR 400 for goodness sakes.
(emphasis mine)

The motherboard (ASUS A8R32) is a Socket 939 motherboard. You can tell from the "A8" in the model name... that refers to the socket type. All of ASUS' K8- and A8- series motherboards are Socket 939. Likewise, all of ASUS' Socket AM2 motherboards have "M2" in the model name. My own motherboard is an M2N-E, for example. You can decode that as "AM2 socket, NVidia chipset, configuration type E". In this case, it's a passive chipset heatsink, 6 SATA, no IDE, no onboard Firewire, etc. etc. They also have M2V motherboards, which can decode as "AM2 socket, Via chipset".

Re:Let me in on the ... (1)

WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) | more than 7 years ago | (#17906164)

Might want to be careful about the K8- comment. I have a Socket-754, PCI-E, nForce4-4x K8N4-E SE sitting right at my feet ;)

Schizophrenic about hardware? Yepp. (0, Troll)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903112)

I guess you could say that.
Your sentence: "Asus A8R32-MVP with *** Socket AM2 ***? using DDR memory. And an FX 60? He obviously has a 939-system. How far can we trust this guy to have opinions on drivers and stuff?" - especially the first half - is the exact reason why I - and I consider myself a PC hardware expert - am fed up with BTO and self assembly PCs. Back in the day (only 3 years ago) you could say "AMD + Socket A" and know that your hardware would work.

Now, 5 additional sockets later (adding up to something around 13 (thirteen!) different PC CPU sockets!), even the AMD side of PC hardware is getting difficult to overlook for *everyone* but the most persistant hardware config freaks. I'm totally fed up with this mess and so super-happy that I started down the Mac OS X road just 2.5 years ago. Buy computer, unpack, plug in, switch on, works! That or some cheap ass PC notebook and Ubuntu Linux - anything else is just plain silly nowadays imho.
And people say self-assembly is cheaper ... Yeah shure.

Re:Schizophrenic about hardware? Yepp. (0, Troll)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903650)

Yes it is cheaper. OH NO! I have to pick the right memory and the right socket! OH GOD THAT IS SO FUCKING HARD I NEED SOME DIVINE INTERVENTION!..

That or I could just compare the socket and move on with my life and get a better computer cheaper with less bloatware on it.

Not always cheaper (1)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903902)

I don't think it's always cheaper - it depends on what you're buying and what you already have. Initially I think it's more expensive. However, over time I think it ends up saving you money if you decide to stick to bleeding edge and leaving some components in the box, such as the CD/DVD drives, hard drives, audio card, etc. I had two or three cycles where I basically just upgraded the motherboard, cpu, ram, and video card for about $1000 (P3 to P4 upgrade) and the only reason I had to upgrade the memory was because I went from RAMBUS to DDR. So I had bleeding edge for $1000 versus $3000 for a comparable Alienware or Voodoo machine.

Of course, now that everything has moved to SATA and PCI Express with $1000 high end processors, it's very debatable. You basically have to upgrade everything all over again, save maybe the network and audio card.

I'm really leaning toward buying a Mac as my next desktop, or just eliminating my desktop all together as I use my laptop more than anything.

Re:Not always cheaper (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17905354)

For me it has always been cheaper. Recently I had to do a complete rebuild. I started with nothing. I could have bought a dell for 1700 to get comparable components. I got mine with the case I wanted, with the Mobo I wanted, with the expansions I wanted, with the power supply I wanted all in the form factor I wanted for 1500. Yes, in some cases it will be more exspensive, but you get a level of custimazation that you cannot get from dell or even alien ware or voodoo. Though I do like voodoos cases.

Re:Schizophrenic about his hardware (1)

mikemuch (870535) | more than 7 years ago | (#17923566)

This has been fixed in the article.

Sports sims (0)

frying_fish (804277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902310)

The only thing holding me back from sticking vista on currently is the lack of ability to use the joytech ps2 controller adaptor correctly. In vista it is detected as a HID game controller, but won't work with games such as Pro evolution soccer 6. However it does work with Project 64. Once this is resolved I will be sticking vista on my dual boot, but for now its still XP.

Um, yeah, about that Games Explorer thing... (5, Interesting)

kailoran (887304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902318)

...I was wondering where it gets the box art from, and how.
All I did was run some old game (UT99 iirc) without installing anything, and lo and behold it got added to the games explorer. Now, it's not such a bad thing in itself, but who did Windows send the information on what I've just played? How is it even detecting that a game has been run? Is it screening all DX apps and sending a checksum of the executable somewhere?

Re:Um, yeah, about that Games Explorer thing... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17902502)

What? You mean your firewall didn't report an application trying to open a connection and pass information to another machine? Oh, wait, this is *windows* we're talking about. Of course it didn't.

I don't think "secure" means what microsoft thinks it means.

Re:Um, yeah, about that Games Explorer thing... (5, Informative)

erroneous (158367) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903210)

Yes and No.

It's done by reading a local Game Definition File which will - in Microsoft's vision of the future - be created by the developer and included in the game install.

However for games without such a file - presumably including all legacy games - Vista will dial the mothership and request the data using "Windows Metadata Services".

See http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb173447. aspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Um, yeah, about that Games Explorer thing... (1)

kailoran (887304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904606)

Is there a way to turn this off? (other than filtering at the firewall level, obviously)

Re:Um, yeah, about that Games Explorer thing... (2, Funny)

Shabbs (11692) | more than 7 years ago | (#17905100)

Holy crap! So, when you're surfing the pr0n, do icons for BangBros and what not get added to the "Pr0n Explorer"? ;)

Re:Um, yeah, about that Games Explorer thing... (2, Funny)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 7 years ago | (#17905964)

Now that would be funny to see as an add-on to the Explorer interface.

Start -> Porn Explorer :)

Re:Um, yeah, about that Games Explorer thing... (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17912888)

Just as a little bit more information on when WMS is sending back anything: Vista actually has a pre-installed database of games through the built-in system compatibility database; known games are identified via executable and the database applies a fix called "GameUX" to them. GameUX is what's triggering WMS to pull stuff up via the internet and to add the game to the Games Explorer. Presumably this could be entirely pre-loaded in to Vista, but I'd imagine MS went for the WMS approach to save space and deal with the fact that ratings change.

Linux has more than 25 Games... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17902512)

HAH!

admin access (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 7 years ago | (#17902744)

... and some required logging in as administrator to install them.

I've got no problems having to install apps/games using an admin account. I think that's a good thing, stopping kids from installing crap for one thing, and a lot of setups will actually prompt you for admin-level credentials if you're not already running with them. But you shouldn't have to run them as admin to use them - Palm f'n Desktop, for example. :(

Similar review at Firingsquad (2, Informative)

elh_inny (557966) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903356)

There will be plenty of similar reviews, but I recommend the article at Firingsquad.com,
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero _glass_performance/ [firingsquad.com]
which shows that Vista, with the most CPU/GPU?Mem intensive Aero GUI enabled, is not negatively impacted as far as gaming performance is concerned.
Everyone just assumes that Vista is going to be a bloatware, but according to the numbers, it is going to be a great OS for gaming as far as the performance goes.
If you add nice GUI, taking advantage of the powerful GPU, that you, as a gamer, already have, security enhancement etc, it looks like a pretty decent OS for gamers.

Re:Similar review at Firingsquad (1)

benzapp (464105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904000)

It's pure FUD. Especially if you install the 64-bit version on a dual core proessor and have more than 2 gigs of ram, Vista is significantly faster than XP (although I've never tried XP x64).

I'm very happy with my installation of 64-bit Vista. It hasn't crashed once, every program except Adobe Creative Suite 2 works fine (it's a warez copy though, so who knows...) And best of all, it is much more responsive, even with many background apps running simultaneously.

And, with Virtual PC being free... I have XP Pro installed for kicks for those situations where I'll need it.

Re:Similar review at Firingsquad (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904834)

Can I ask what your experience with drivers (ie, ati, audigy, plugging in webcams/external harddrives/digital cameras), and running day to day software (opera, messenger, things that weren't specifically compiled for 64-bit Windows) runs? I have a Core 2 Duo, and should be receiving my copy of Home Premium next week. I've been running the 32-Bit RC2 and it's been great, but I'm wondering whether I should instal the 64-bit or the 32-bit version

MOD PARENT UP (1)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 7 years ago | (#17908640)

The previous post is not a troll... It's definitely Blatant mod abuse.

Vista and gaming (4, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903564)

Here's the sad thing... I've griped about M$ forever, but I still run their OS because I play computer games. A lot. I know you can do wonders with various Linux tools, but there's something nice about not fussing with that sort of stuff to just play some games after work. Vista, with all its "features," is about to push me to something else in a hurry. Especially if the performance enhancements that are supposed to come down from on high with DX10 don't really meet expectations. Never leaned so far toward a Mac before in my life (the only game I play these days will run on that natively).

Re:Vista and gaming (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17908140)

I felt exactly the same way last week so I started piddling around with some Linux distros: Fedora, Ubuntu, and Debian. I enjoyed an exciting round of Kolf but otherwise couldn't get anything good to run. I couldn't even figure out how to install NVidia drivers on Ubuntu. It's a good thing I took several Linux classes in college or I wouldn't have even gotten as far as that. Cedega looked like a probable solution but I hate the concept of having to subscribe monthly to play games I already bought.

Nuts to Linux. It ain't ready. I'm sticking with XP at least until Vista SP1.

Re:Vista and gaming (1)

technos (73414) | more than 7 years ago | (#17908564)

Windows XP isn't end-of-life yet, and will continue to be useful for gaming well past it. There is very little point upgrading right now, and if sales don't start taking off for it very soon there will be little point for game companies to go DX10. Lots of games published today continue to run as far back as Windows 98, after all.

Worry about it in a year or two, when the fact you're running Windows XP becomes a security headache, or it becomes time to upgrade the machine.

On the other hand; If the game you're worried about is World of Warcraft, go ahead and find something else. It runs great on any reasonable Mac, or if you want to go the free software route, great on Linux with Cedega. (I understand it's also supported under Crossover these days). In a year of WoW under Debian Sid/Cedega I haven't had but an hours extra trouble out of it over Windows, and nothing serious at all. (Just remember: If you use Ventrilo, it's a pain under Cedega/Wine/etc. Teamspeak works great though! Even works easily on my Bluetooth headset.)

Re:Vista and gaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17908756)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Vista is a GREAT opportunity for open source to come up with a "gaming OS". Take games off of Vista, and I think you'll see significantly less Windoze sales to home users.
Gamers either can figure out how to install Linux by themselves or know someone who can. They can be the vanguard of the movement off of expen$ive OSes.

No HAL = No surround sound for WoW (1)

rc51co (948524) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903618)

I guess he just didn't notice details like the fact that surround sound won't work in World of Warcraft (and plenty of others) with his Audigy 2 soundcard on Vista, thanks to Microsoft's removal of the Hardware Abstraction Layer.

Re:No HAL = No surround sound for WoW (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17905006)

If you'd read the article you'd see he talks extensively (relative to the article's size) about it. Don't guess. You suck at it.

Re:No HAL = No surround sound for WoW (1)

oc255 (218044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17908970)

All I saw was

Creative is working on a solution called the ALchemy project. It's a simple app that scans your game directories and puts a new directsound3d.dll and .ini file in there that basically interrupts DirectSound calls and translates them to OpenAL, which bypasses the Vista audio stack and allows for full hardware 3D sound acceleration.
Which didn't pop up as "HAL surround sound in my book". Why the hate from the AC to the GP?

Anyway ... this app that scans for dll's and replaces them? Is this good? Is this not a massive workaround? Ugh. I haven't made up my mind, I hope someone says to me something like "this is just temporary until Vista is out for a while". This just seems like a horrible solution.

As far as Creative in general, I took my X-Fi out after driver hell and have vowed to skip on the Creative hype machine forever. GPU is where it's at, sound is easy. My own fault for buying into the X-Fi. I saw no amazing audio clarity but instead EQ tricks and cheap "3d sound" changes that were changes to the audio for the sake of change. Sorry for the negativity.

My gaming experience with Beta 2 RC1 (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903642)

When I tried Vista Beta 2 RC1 I put a few games through the paces. I was quite impressed to see WoW work flawlessly with NVidia's beta drivers, though the framerate was definitely about 10% slower than on XP. I couldn't run Guild Wars at all, though this incompatibility is known by the developers and they're working on it. I also tried Half Life 2 which displayed really freaky polygonal artifacts - clustered red polygons on the torsos of NPCs that looked like throbbing tumors.

Finally, I tried DOSBox with many old games which all worked great, except that I couldn't figure out how to save a customized version of the text config file so I had to mount virtual hard drives manually from the command line every time.

I'd be using Vista right now if the game compatibility was up to snuff. I use my PC for gaming more than anything else and I find dual boot a real hassle. Considering the class action lawsuit swelling against NVidia for their inability to release drivers on time I see no compelling reason to become an early Vista adopter. I'll probably wait for SP1 like I did with XP.

Re:My gaming experience with Beta 2 RC1 (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 7 years ago | (#17906282)

So DOSBox works fine? Awesome. Have you tried using it with the D-Fend frontend?

Re:My gaming experience with Beta 2 RC1 (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17906712)

Not in Vista, though I assume it would have the same problem since all it does is modify the txt file. I think users only have access to save files in the Documents folder. What a hassle.

Re:My gaming experience with Beta 2 RC1 (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 7 years ago | (#17906744)

Even with admin privs? That's bizarre.

Re:My gaming experience with Beta 2 RC1 (1)

Chazmyrr (145612) | more than 7 years ago | (#17907544)

If you're using UAC and a program modifies files under the Program Files directory, file access may be redirected to shadow copies in your profile.

It's a decent idea and mostly it works well, but some apps have problems with it. Disabling UAC solved almost every problem I had with any applications. I probably could have worked around most of them, but I have one app that I absolutely need and absolutely will not work with UAC enabled.

Re:My gaming experience with Beta 2 RC1 (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17907744)

I had only created one user in Vista and I don't remember whether I had admin privs. However, whenever I made changes to system configuration the screen went grey and I was prompted by a dialog with an OK button with a shield icon. I took this to mean that either I was admin or I had the capability to do administrative tasks without entering another password.

Nvidia / Vista class action lawsuit (1)

jools33 (252092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903846)

Well the chap at http://www.nvidiaclassaction.org/ [nvidiaclassaction.org] is so upset with the Nvidia 8800 drivers that he has set up this site for all aggrieved to register for a class action suit. I find it very hard to reconcile the "25 games all working fine" articles with the existence of the class action lawsuit website- which arose as a result of literally thousands of complaints at the Nvidia website. Now given the fact that Nvidia is the only company offering a DX10 compliant graphics card - I would hold this article under some suspicion... Someone here is lying / or at least bending the truth in some way.

Re:Nvidia / Vista class action lawsuit (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17911870)

What did that guy really expect? That his first-gen hardware wouldn't have bugs that needed working out? The 8800 was released before Vista was even released on shelves, of course there will be bugs... Any idiot can tell you to avoid Vista until atleast Service Pack 1. Who seriously expects a brand new piece of technology to work flawlessly?

Great (1, Interesting)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 7 years ago | (#17903876)

Great, WoW runs on Vista.

I'm still not going to buy it...

Try downgrading your PC (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17904050)

Well, try running WoW (or any other game for that matter I suppose; I only tried WoW) with 1 GB DDR2 under Vista. On my machine, WoW runs on almost full details with ~25 addons at around 40 fps in supression room in BWL (hardware intense environment - lots of particles, many objects on the scene, etc.) under XP. WIth Vista, I get ~20 fps in an easy to process environment. Faulty drivers? Nah, don't think so.

That alone convinced me, even though my uni is MSDN e-academy subscriber and I can get Vista Bussiness for free. And Aero isn't really impressive if you saw beryl/xgl.

New driver model (4, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904242)

This is unconfirmed info, so take it with a grain of salt, but I've heard two things about Vista's Direct3D that could cast some light on the slight performance loss.
  1. By default, Vista tries to use DirectX 10 when running a 3D program. DX10 is not backward compatible, so Vista also includes DX9. However, if a game needs DX9, Vista will waste some resources trying DX10
    Workaround: set Compatibility Mode - XP. I found that gave me a significant increase (maybe 10% or so) in frame rates, and decreased startup times..
     
  2. As with, for example, the nVidia proprietary driver for Linux, Vista uses as little kernel-mode driver as possible and runs the real code - the stuff that puts a load on the CPU, not the GPU - in user-mode. (The reason in Linux has to do with keeping the kernel-mode code OSS while still having full proprietary capability, while in Vista the change was made for stability reasons.) This causes a small but noticable (I usually hear 5%-8%) performance loss, as the user-mode code goes through the kernel-mode driver before reaching the hardware.
    The only workaround for this with current hardware would be using XP (or other non-WDDM) drivers... probably not worth it. However, cards and drivers optimized for DX10 may negate this issue. The idea behind DX10 isn't to do anything DX9 revision C couldn't; the idea is to do it much faster, and to take advantage of WDDM (Windows [Vista] Display Driver Model).

In any rate, I game in Vista, and if my framerates are slightly worse, they are plenty good enough... and well ahead of, for example, Wine (though there's something awesome about playing even a DX8 game like WarCraft 3 in Linux/BSD).

Re:New driver model (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904844)

In any rate, I game in Vista, and if my framerates are slightly worse, they are plenty good enough... and well ahead of, for example, Wine (though there's something awesome about playing even a DX8 game like WarCraft 3 in Linux/BSD).
Psst... I'm playing DX9 games like GuildWars in Linux...

Re:New driver model (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 7 years ago | (#17908774)

Ah... the only DX9 game I play regularly is EVE, and last I checked (a good while ago) that was firmly on the "doesn't work" list. I should take a look again, though.
I actually used EVE for benchmarking (although my info comes from a variety of sources). The DX9 workaround in particular I found while trying to figure out why EVE was blanking the screen for 4 seconds during screen loads (this wasn't a powerful machine, and it was an old beta of Vista, but still didn't seem right... and wasn't.)

Incidentally, you ARE using Wine, right? The commercial variants would actually cost me more than a valid Windows license (the joys of being a CS major).

Re:New driver model (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17909042)

Incidentally, you ARE using Wine, right? The commercial variants would actually cost me more than a valid Windows license (the joys of being a CS major).
Cedega, but that's only because Wine doesn't support 32-bit mouse curors. In order to get the cursor to display in GuildWars, you need to do a minor hack to Wine's mouse.c library to force it to use the X cursor instead of allowing the game/program to specify its own. Other than that, though, GuildWars does run on Wine in Win2K or WinXP mode using DirectX 9 libraries/rendering. Wine really has come a long way recently.

biased is an understatement (1)

matchewg (669643) | more than 7 years ago | (#17904896)

If you look at the tom's hardware article: (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/17/gameplay-o nly-gets-worse-with-vista/)
it is quite clear that this article is way off from the truth, or the author had a stroke of luck when running vista. The performance on vista for games is abysmal to say the least.

Re:biased is an understatement (2, Insightful)

praxis (19962) | more than 7 years ago | (#17912362)

"The performance on vista(sic) for games is abysmal to say the least"

That's a false statement. I play Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, Never Winter Nights 2, Paradise, and Civilization 4 on my Vista machine. Every single one of those games runs the same or better as when the machine was running XP.

Perhaps you'd like to qualify your statement more. "The performance of X game with Y hardware on Vista is abysmal", might be a true statement. Making a blanket statement like that, where there are counter examples is just plain irresponsible.

How can we market your satisifaction, mister? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17913932)

Vista runs applications an average of 10% faster than XP:
whereas XP in-turn was approximately 20% faster than Windows ME,
whereas Windows ME in-turn was approximately 10% faster than Windows 98 Second Edition,
whereas Windows 98 Second Edition was approximately 15% faster than Windows 98,
whereas Windows 98 was approximately 20% faster than Windows 95 OS Release 2,
whereas Windows 95 OS Release 2 was approximately 10% faster than Windows 95,
whereas Windows 95 was approximately 45% faster than Windows 3.11 Windows For Workgroups,
whereas Windows 3.11 Windows For Workgroups was approximately 10% faster than Windows 2.0 Standard non-386 Enhanced-Mode Windows,
whereas...

Vista is approximately 200% faster than Windows 2.0, on the same hardware although different class.

However... Calc.exe from Windows pre-3.11 still runs as quick as my fingers can input the arguments, and in reality Calc.exe is 200% faster than the same run on Windows Vista. Windows pre-3.11 is an environment unencumbered with media restrictions of active policy enforcement and political espionage (DRM).

Games Had Better Work... (1)

macserv (701681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17905106)

As far as most Windows-using folks I know are concerned, the one big reason they use the Microsoft OS instead of a Mac is because the games they want to play aren't available for Mac OS X. Not like it would cause a mass exodus or anything, but it would be more ammo for your average Mac evangelist.

Re:Games Had Better Work... (1)

mjolnir_ (115649) | more than 7 years ago | (#17906210)

I was playing Battlefield 2 on my MacBook Pro quite happily, booting into XP for games. I have read that plenty of people have played PC games without rebooting, using Crossover or Parallels or the like...

Requiring admin rights to install? (1)

ebingo (533762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17905408)

I haven't read the article yet, but wouldn't it be normal behavior to require administrative rights to install software on a computer? In my opinion, what isn't acceptable is to require these rights to play the game.

Slight performance decrease? (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 7 years ago | (#17906836)

Ok, anyone who's read my opinions on Vista knows I'm no fan of the OS. But judging by every benchmark I've ever seen this conclusion is wrong.

Our 3DMark06 score at default settings was 8052, where we score 8830 in our original GeForce 8800 GTS review. That system used a Core 2 Extreme-based test system that, all other things being equal, should outperform the Athlon 64 FX-60 we're testing Vista with here. So yes, there is a performance difference, but it's not nearly the 10% it looks like: Much of that is due to the difference in CPU speed.

The long and short of it is that Vista gamers can expect to generally lose a small amount of performance until a few months have gone by and the drivers can be better optimized. I expect this to happen pretty quickly, and for Vista performance to be comparable to Windows XP performance, overall (with some games up to 5% slower, some up to 5% faster).
Part of that I can accept. I'm sure it will improve in performance with better drivers in the next few months (not enough to interest me) but come on... a Core2Duo system a mere 10% faster than an aging socket 939 system? I haven't seen any benchmark anywhere in which even the slowest Core2Duo processor didn't beat out a socket 939 by significantly more than 10%. Then again, they're calling a socket 939 system an AM2. What do they know.

Anyhow, I would have to say that if their socket 939 system is running *only* 10% slower than the Core2Duo machine, Vista would actually have to be increasing performance.

That's my take on it anyway.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

FUPB (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916456)

I was unceremoniously kicked from the server before even getting into the game, with a note that Punkbuster had inadequate OS privileges.

You know what? GOOD. PunkBuster is crap. My BF2 CD key was banned less than one week after I bought the game for supposedly running some sort of hack. I tried protesting, but PB said "we have clear evidence that you were using a hack," although they wouldn't elaborate AT ALL as to what sort of evidence it was, or what sort of hack it might have been, and they said the only solution would be for me to buy a new copy of the game, which is utter bullshit. The only thing I can think of is using DaemonTools to mount an image, but that doesn't affect gameplay.

At any rate, EA wouldn't give me a new CD Key either, because they claimed "Punkbuster is a third party application and we have no control over their decisions. Additionally, you can still play on servers without Punkbuster." Ok, so you hand over total control of your game to a third party? WTF sense does that make? Second, you expect me to want to play on a bunch of hack-infested servers? It was hard enough finding a playable server with a ping under 200 that didn't ban me for having a "high" ping, let alone one without PB.

So I hope Vista sinks the whole PB franchise. It's a shitty "solution" and a cop out for game publishers who don't want to take responsibility for their design flaws. That would be the only benefit to Vista that I can think of thus far.

Pardon my french, but I really hate those bastards.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...