"The Death of PC Gaming"

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: michal1980
...Talk of noobs and such was here...

I normally try not to divert off on tangents, but I'm getting really tired and irrate when it comes to this garbage.

Why must people like you refer to people as "noobs" constantly like you're in some sort of higher social order? Do you really think you're that much better because your opinion is different than others?

Get a clue, you're not some "god" who can refer to his peons as "noobs".

Now, I'm going to dethrone you, god.

Originally posted by: michal1980
What developer designs there game to only run on that?
answer: Only a stupid one. Most games will be targeted for on-board graphics with 512mbs of ram, with some cpu.

Who develops games targetted for an on-board graphics processor? So, I should be able to take a typical game and run it on an Intel on-board graphics processor? I think I could draw the frames myself faster and with better graphical prowess in MS Paint than the Intel eXtreme Graphics could.

A lot of developers aim their "true vision" of games at high-end machines. Yes, they make it so you can run it on lower-end hardware, but you've got to sacrifice so much in the way of in-game aesthetics that they don't recommend it. For example, just look at those F.E.A.R. screenshots and the difference in quality settings. The developers envision their creation at the high-end spectrum not the low-end.

Originally posted by: michal1980
What stupid tree did you fall off of that made you think an operating system thats 5-6 years newer. would require LESS memory, LESS CPU, LESS harddrive space?

I don't recall anyone stating that Vista should require less of anything. Although I think they're complaining that 4x to 8x the typical configurations for playable situations in games is attrocious. Personally, I still believe that 2GB will be just fine in Vista, which is what I run in Windows XP. Also, just because something is newer doesn't mean that system resource requirements should go up. Just because our PCs get faster, doesn't mean the software has to require more of that increased power.

So, now let's take a look at what has changed over the past 5 years when it comes to software development. Well, we have the introduction of C# and the rest of the .NET languages. Well, too bad the "core" of Windows is written in Assembly and C. Maybe the external applications that aren't even required are written in C#. C# isn't a language that when compiled forces applications to require a lot more resources. I could have easily have written a program 5 years ago, used it and then recompiled it today (possibly after porting to a newer language) and seen no difference in overall resource requirement. So what's the big difference anyway? The fact that the guy's running a Release Candidate using the purdy looking resource-hogging interface and all those fancy, worthless widgets. Wow, looks like we have a winner .

So, in other words, the advancement in time does not correlate at all to software development requiring more resources. They're using them on purpose. Software is becoming bloated because that's what users want. They want the Fisher Price "My First Operating System" look. They love it and not even God knows why.

Originally posted by: michal1980
Do you noobs think everything should run on a 486, with 4megs of ram, and a 400mb harddrive?

Duh, everyone knows that the new-age Operating Systems require at least the DX model of the 486. We need our built-in math coprocessing!

Originally posted by: the Chase
And yeah there ARE a lot of nOObs in here.

You're the one who posted this thread trying to pass the drivel off as cold-hard irreputable facts... now you're putting yourself on a pedistal along with the now-fallen god over there? Will wonders never cease.

 

[michal1980]

If I was a game developer for most games I would aim to have that game run on onboard hardware, or some min spec video card.

So that the game can reach the largest group possible.

If it doesn't look good, then upgrade.

And while software is getting bloated... The hardware is catching up.

And very few on this board will have a problem running games under vista. Yet they make the biggest stink about it.

And then rip the software apart. Vista is in a release candiate running high-end games 10-20% slower, on beta drivers, in a beta enivorment.

When the actual thing hits gold, I would put money on the fact that if nvidia and ati have done good driver homework. that speed difference between xp and vista will be 0-10%.

Just look at the difference in gaming from some of the early public beta's and the RC's.

the difference went from 20-40% slower to the now 10-20%.

-----

And my debate here isn't weather or not software SHOULD have the same requirments as versions before it.

But rather, why do we even EXPECT it too. Or take it futher, some people here are DEMANDING it.

How quickly they forget, how fast pc speeds will catch up, and then blow past the o.s. requirments.

In 1-2 years how much ram will the pc come with? my bet is it will be just the cheapest of cheap pcs that come with 512mb, most 80-90% will come with 1gb or more. Howmany pcs will be dual core? my beat about 100%.

And how many with the 'new' intel graphics accelrator? tons, other on-board tons more.

Now is it good that most pc's come with on-board graphics, - Nope. but if you want a game that will sell millions, you better code for the lost common standard.

-------

for example, my g/f likes Sims, her old pc was a socket a sempron with 512mb of ram, and a 9600.

not crappy, but sims ran great on it. Sims two came out and it looked a bit better then sims 1, but not huge, and ran wayyy slower.

her new pc has a p-d 805, a 6800gs, and a gig of ram, sims one looks the same, but sims 2 looks like a whole new game.

So yes your creative vision will be comprimised by having to run on old hardware. But you will still sell a game.

 

[Aikouka]

There's three separate sections to your post, so I'll address them all separately (I think ).

Section 1: Legacy Support

There comes a time in life when you've got to cut the metaphorical umbilical cord. Sure, there may be users out there with Intel eXtreme Graphics, but if anyone purchases a computer with Intel's greatest graphic offering, they realize that they aren't going to be "fraggin' like the pros." Game engines cannot be expected to support the huge spectrum between the Intel eXtreme Graphics and say... the Quad-SLi GeForce 7950GX2.

Here's an allusion to the console world to what you're suggesting:

Here's Bill. Bill's a programmer at Sony Computer Entertainment Incorporated (SCEI). Bill's working on the latest and greatest video game for the Sony Playstation 3. Bill's boss, Ted, comes in and confronts Bill, "Now, Bill, I know you've been working hard on that game, but I'm afraid you've lost touch with our lesser customers. We've decided to allow the upmost compatability and we need you to make that game compatible with the Playstation and the Playstation 2. So, that means you'll have to make it fit on CDs instead of filling up that dual-layer Blu-Ray disc with garbage no one needs." Then Bill and Ted went on an Excellent Adventure and the rest is history.

Relating to the aforementioned story... would you ever expect this to happen? Heck, even remove the ludicrous inclusion of the dead Playstation console and just include Playstation 2. No, there's absolutely no incentive to develop the software for a legacy system when the software requirements would specify that it has to run on Playstation 3 hardware.

The concept of recommended hardware ends up being derived somewhat from the final product. The final product is developed around software requirements (high-level or low-level requirements). These requirements state what the program must be able to do and what it should not do.

You cannot expect someone to hamper their game development and spend tons of extra dollars in the design and implementation phase just because there exists a set of users that have hardware that doesn't meet a minimum specification. It isn't logical from a business standpoint or a logical standpoint. In fact, if someone was cheap enough to buy such a lackluster system/component... who's to say they're even willing to spend $50-60 on a new game? The price of 3 games will get you a decent video card!

Yes, software is becoming bloated. The idea of "one application to rule them all" is coming into effect where users expect to open one piece of software and have it do everything and anything in the spectrum that the software originates. Or sometimes, an application comes in a bundle with other applications from that developer that will assist (but usually hinder) the consumer.

Section 2: Hardware Requirements

The reason people expect it to not jump enormously is because the software itself isn't really changing in its operation. A large chunk of the newer features of Windows Vista were removed. I'd say the most notable being WinFS. So, this makes Vista simply a more secure OS with a prettier interface... then people will ask why something that fundamentally hasn't changed much should require much more.

For example, Windows 98 vs Windows ME... the hardware requirements barely changed at all with this "upgrade." Windows 98 vs Windows XP, the hardware requirements went up fairly substantially. This was a totally different release from Windows 98. It featured a purdy interface and boasted higher levels of security. Users migrating from 2000 didn't see much hardware change, especially if they turned off Luna.

Yet again, you're assuming that people who buy machines with integrated graphic processors are those hardcore/diehard gamers. There's very little chance that someone with an IGP (unless we're talking a DTR laptop that technically has integrated graphics) from Intel is a gamer. So why would a software company write a piece of software for a minority in their sector that may be a majority in the grand scheme of things? They won't.

Section 3: The Ball-n-Chain

Well, I'm going to put this in a timeline for you and highlight what part you need to notice:

01) Girlfriend has PC.
02) Girlfriend gets Sims 1.
03) Girlfriend has fun.
04) Girlfriend seems Sims 2.
05) Girlfriend goes "OMG! I WANT"
06) Michael1980 is forced to purchase Sims 2.
07) Girlfriend gets Sims 2.
08) Girlfriend tries to play Sims 2 much to her dismay.
09) Girlfriend gets a new computer so she can play Sims 2
10) Girlfriend is happy until Sims 3.

Okay, now you see my bolded statement. Here's the turning point that you're trying to argue against. She couldn't play the game.. the game wasn't developed to target her level of hardware. So guess what, she upgraded her computer to meet her demands, the developer did not downgrade their software to meet her demands. This is how it is and how it should be.

The way I see it, they sold a game without ruining their vision of what it should be .

 

[michal1980]

I'll agree with what you have to say for the most part.

I see windows vista as a much bigger update then ME was to 98. Probably not as big as xp to 98. But more so that big of a leap, then ME was.

My G/F play sims 2 on here old pc for over a year before the pc was udpated.

The reason? for the most part she did not nocited her pc's slowness, until it was compared face to face to my pc when we moved in toghter, and only then did she want something faster.

While I might have been over the top with the Intel graphics being the min spec they should program for. If you look at the back of the box of most/alot of games, the grahpical requirements are compared to the cards we are using 'laughable'. But I know people with 2-3 year old pcs, running something slightly better then the on-board graphics chip, playing the latest games.

And a comparision between a ps3, and a ps, or ps2 is unfair. But perhaps more relativant to my bigger point.

And that is, I'm sick of people complaining, that new software, will require new hardware to run at full beauty.

Just like people ripping vista for requiring, what in my eyes are slight difference in hardware then windows xp.
------------------------------------------------------

I also think that m$ is jacking up the requirments so that people buying a min spec machine will still have a very useable expenrnce, not just a halfbaked pc.

 

[Aikouka]

Of course 98 to ME wasn't a big upgrade. It was actually more of a downgrade .

Michal, it's safe to say that if someone plays a game on their computer and they don't notice the difference... then they'll be satisfied with a lot, because they're not a "gamer." Your typical gamer notices such things because they're attuned to a certain level of performance.

Sure, people with older video cards can run the latest games, but they're going to run them with diminished graphics and/or a shoddy FPS rate.

The comparison between legacy support for older consoles was quite valid. It's the difference between what I've always referred to as "new tech" and "old tech." Most people aim for "new tech" while trying to aim for compatibility with the "old tech." They don't guarantee that they will hit their target though .

I think people complain more about it out of a state of necessity. Is the "My First Operating System" interface even necessary, or is this just a ploy like the current ideal that some gamers hold where graphics hold supreme over gameplay.

I'd actually be glad that people stopped buying crappy PCs to run operating systems on. Hell, I'd jump for joy if Vista literally refused to install on low-end machines. When I was in college, I worked for the IT department and we used to service student machines that were convoluted with malware. Someone literally brought us an old Pentium 1 laptop with 96 MB of ram running Windows XP with the Luna interface turned on. It took nearly two days to run a virus scan on that machine and then I think the OS ended up becoming corrupted with files disappearing lol. God, I worked on so many garbage machines.

Really, the point is that PC gaming won't die. Ever so often, they start to raise the bar more when it comes to the presentation (whether it be graphics, physics or gameplay) and users may be forced to upgrade. It is possible to use the "latest setup" for a good 4 years before you upgrade, which is fairly similar to consoles.

 

[BladeVenom]

Don't buy Vista until you have to. It's going to be awhile before most games require DirectX 10. By that time memory prices will be a lot cheaper, and so will DirectX 10 graphics cards. The new licensing scheme also makes it a good idea to wait until you have to have it, since you can only transfer it once. Besides DirectX 9 games run better in XP, and XP needs less memory.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: michal1980

Originally posted by: the Chase

Originally posted by: michal1980
theres alot of noobs in here.

M$ came out that you can upgrade your pc, They said your retail copy can only be transfered to 1 differenct pc.

If you change all your hardware, just call them up and they will re-activate it for you.

Again, ALOT of NOOBS in here.

They also said that the changes to even the same pc that will trigger re-activation will be much less. The most important will be the mobo, and the harddrive vista is installed on.

As for death of gaming...

Lets think about what you guys are talking about
4gbs, top of the line video card, and top of the line cpu.

What developer designs there game to only run on that?
answer: Only a stupid one. Most games will be targeted for on-board graphics with 512mbs of ram, with some cpu.
Vista will even give your pc a score card for preformance. AND will adjust game settings to match that performance. So that your highest end game will run on your lowest end crap.

Why? so that they can sell more copies of the game. Now if you want 400fps, at some resolution thats crazy high, with 32x aa, and AF, and all eye-candy at insane. They geuss what? you spend the cash to get it.

----------

As for windows Vista required more memory/cpu/harddrive space then windows xp...

What stupid tree did you fall off of that made you think an operating system thats 5-6 years newer. would require LESS memory, LESS CPU, LESS harddrive space?

Do you noobs think everything should run on a 486, with 4megs of ram, and a 400mb harddrive?

If you are getting that old that you cannot see that as technology advances you need more for the latest and best, then its time to watch matlock on your 1970s sony round tube tv, and change the channels with some pilars, while adjusting your rabbit ears. Because any more technology for you is dangerous.

Yeah hardware change= new computer= 1 transfer used= another mobo/HD change?= new copy of Vista.

And yeah there ARE a lot of nOObs in here.

Ya grab a mirror..

another mobo/HD Change? Call M$ get new activation key. DONE. 5 mintues of your time.

Not with Vista. Read and then re-read the EULA for Vista.

@Aikouka- I'm not putting myself on a pedestal- just throwing a stone back at someone that called me a noob and is wrong about what he is calling me a noob about.

And I didn't post anything claiming that PC Gaming was 100% going to die. I said the article summed up my position on being turned off from the hardware upgrades/Vista licensing/and bf2142 spyware.

Edt- just reread my 1st post. I tried to pass this drivel off as cold-hard irreputable facts? I don't understand where you got all that from my post.

 

[imported_RedStar]

Hardware will always continue to change as will the software. When i started gaming i could buy an amazing tandy 1000 for about 2500$ cdn (here you got no HDD, a few hundred k of ram, monochrome monitor and two 5 1/4 drives. And, the games i played? stick graphic games like Jet (i was amazed by Colony when it came out --3d sticks .

you know what? I have had no trouble in averaging 2500$ cdn for a new system every 4 years with some minor upgrades in between. (by the way...software was incredibly expensive back in the dark days)

People have been predicting the demise of PC gaming since consoles came out. Before that, no one really thought PC gaming would take off. It took years, for example, for sound functionality to be added to the PC as a standard feature.

The question is really about where you are on your own upgrade cycle. If you just upgraded now..then there is no rush to upgrade. For me, it has been 5 years ...so i have no trouble stepping up right away to get today's new tech (realising there is always better stuff on the horizon)

PC gaming forever!! (well until we finally get to the holodeck)

 

[new22003]

I have one of those tandys (it still works fine). A tandy 1000 EX, no hd, single 5 1/4 drive and 256 ram. It is a kings quest and space quest playing machine. It has amazing tandy 16 color graphics displayed through an awesome RGB monitor. It was also very expensive in its day. More than my current dell XPS.

Bottom line, most people need to have, and will have computers in the home for multiple uses. Most people will upgrade to vista in the next year or two. Vista will be streamlined and the graphics drivers wont be betas. Its not going to take $2000 just to game on a pc (99% of pcs sold are multiple use so you cant attribute all the costs to gaming anyway). If you are going to have a computer to post on anadtech forums you might as well spend the few extra bucks and get a graphics card.

You will be able to buy off the shelf pcs for $600-1000 and add in a $200 graphics card just like today and have a great gaming experience. If 2 gigs or 4 gigs of ram becomes the standard prices will drop like a rock on 1 gig sticks.

The sky is not falling, the sky is not falling.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Don't buy Vista until you have to. It's going to be awhile before most games require DirectX 10. By that time memory prices will be a lot cheaper, and so will DirectX 10 graphics cards. The new licensing scheme also makes it a good idea to wait until you have to have it, since you can only transfer it once. Besides DirectX 9 games run better in XP, and XP needs less memory.

I'd rather buy it now as I'm planning on building an entirely new computer. This saves me the downtime of reformatting a perfectly good Windows MCE installation (and buying said Windows MCE license as MCE is cheaper for an OEM license ) when I could just forgo the intermediate step and buy Vista now.

Originally posted by: the Chase
@Aikouka- I'm not putting myself on a pedestal- just throwing a stone back at someone that called me a noob and is wrong about what he is calling me a noob about.

And I didn't post anything claiming that PC Gaming was 100% going to die. I said the article summed up my position on being turned off from the hardware upgrades/Vista licensing/and bf2142 spyware.

Edt- just reread my 1st post. I tried to pass this drivel off as cold-hard irreputable facts? I don't understand where you got all that from my post.

Rename your articles better then. I read every post in here and it pointed your position toward the article itself, which is titled "The Death of PC Gaming"

Originally posted by: RedStar
The question is really about where you are on your own upgrade cycle. If you just upgraded now..then there is no rush to upgrade. For me, it has been 5 years ...so i have no trouble stepping up right away to get today's new tech (realising there is always better stuff on the horizon)

Very much agreed. I'm about ready to upgrade as I've missed my preferred 1 year mark (I'm too anal over speeds.. I was complaining about how fast my Athlon 64 X2 was a couple months after I got it ).

 

[R3MF]

this is an overreaction.

i won't be buying a G80, i'll buy a G81 made on a 0.65u process whch will run much cooler i reckon.
even then, there will be 8600 and 8400 vraiants which will work fine, games are never made to exclusively target extreme hardware.

my current rig (see sig) works fine on a Silverstone 300W passive PSU, so i believe the power thing to be overblown too.

i do hope that apples move to x86 will make them natural allies of Linux via OpenGL and encourage more cross-platform game titles however, but that isn't an end to PC gaming, it is an expansion.

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: the Chase
...I think I'll take up fishing or actually go outside once and awhile.

I took up triathlon myself, but yeah, I'm done with gaming too. The return (game enjoyment) is meager for such a monstrous investment (cost of system to play on).

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: the Chase
...I think I'll take up fishing or actually go outside once and awhile.

I took up triathlon myself, but yeah, I'm done with gaming too. The return (game enjoyment) is meager for such a monstrous investment (cost of system to play on).

Heh- I'll have to work up to the triathlon slowly...

What would be sweet to see is more game devs. putting out games for the Linux OS. At least one can dream.

 

[michal1980]

I read, read, and read again, then read tons of posts about the vista elua.

I'll give you this much. its vague beyond belife, it says you can transefer windows from one device to another.

but device has no defination...

like I said before, i'd put money down, on the fact that no matter how many times you upgrade, you will be allowed to re-activate it.

the 2 decvice thing too me reads more like, if you install it on pc1, and move it to pc2, it will automagically activate itself. if you move it too pc3, it won't be magically activitaed and you have to call and explain your case

 

[BladeVenom]

New device = different motherboard.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: michal1980
I read, read, and read again, then read tons of posts about the vista elua.

I'll give you this much. its vague beyond belife, it says you can transefer windows from one device to another.

but device has no defination...

like I said before, i'd put money down, on the fact that no matter how many times you upgrade, you will be allowed to re-activate it.

the 2 decvice thing too me reads more like, if you install it on pc1, and move it to pc2, it will automagically activate itself. if you move it too pc3, it won't be magically activitaed and you have to call and explain your case

You don't actually have to read web forums about it, you can look at the EULA for yourself...

http://download.microsoft.com/documents...10381d-6fa8-47c7-83b0-c53f722371fa.pdf

this is the part that has people all concerned:

15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.

a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may
reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device
becomes the ?licensed device.?

edit: For reference, I didn't know what Windows Anytime Upgrade was, so I looked it up. It appears to be a an interface that allows you to upgrade to a higher version of Vista than what you currently own directly from the control panel.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060301-6295.html

edit2: Hopefully you are correct about an install on PC3 simply needing a quick phone call, but at $400 a pop for the retail version of Vista Ultimate is that a something that you want to leave to chance? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the day Vista goes retail (or even before) someone like Paul Thurrot will install it on three different machines to find that out.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: michal1980

Originally posted by: the Chase

Originally posted by: michal1980
theres alot of noobs in here.

M$ came out that you can upgrade your pc, They said your retail copy can only be transfered to 1 differenct pc.

If you change all your hardware, just call them up and they will re-activate it for you.

Again, ALOT of NOOBS in here.

They also said that the changes to even the same pc that will trigger re-activation will be much less. The most important will be the mobo, and the harddrive vista is installed on.

As for death of gaming...

Lets think about what you guys are talking about
4gbs, top of the line video card, and top of the line cpu.

What developer designs there game to only run on that?
answer: Only a stupid one. Most games will be targeted for on-board graphics with 512mbs of ram, with some cpu.
Vista will even give your pc a score card for preformance. AND will adjust game settings to match that performance. So that your highest end game will run on your lowest end crap.

Why? so that they can sell more copies of the game. Now if you want 400fps, at some resolution thats crazy high, with 32x aa, and AF, and all eye-candy at insane. They geuss what? you spend the cash to get it.

----------

As for windows Vista required more memory/cpu/harddrive space then windows xp...

What stupid tree did you fall off of that made you think an operating system thats 5-6 years newer. would require LESS memory, LESS CPU, LESS harddrive space?

Do you noobs think everything should run on a 486, with 4megs of ram, and a 400mb harddrive?

If you are getting that old that you cannot see that as technology advances you need more for the latest and best, then its time to watch matlock on your 1970s sony round tube tv, and change the channels with some pilars, while adjusting your rabbit ears. Because any more technology for you is dangerous.

Yeah hardware change= new computer= 1 transfer used= another mobo/HD change?= new copy of Vista.

And yeah there ARE a lot of nOObs in here.

Ya grab a mirror..

another mobo/HD Change? Call M$ get new activation key. DONE. 5 mintues of your time.

Call ms, give them key, indian looks up information, says "youve transferred your license twice, i cannot help you" and hangs up, you cuss and go buy a new copy of Vista, because THATS THE WAY IT WORKS NOW!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: michal1980

Ya grab a mirror..

another mobo/HD Change? Call M$ get new activation key. DONE. 5 mintues of your time.

Call ms, give them key, indian looks up information, says "youve transferred your license twice, i cannot help you" and hangs up, you cuss and go buy a new copy of Vista, because THATS THE WAY IT WORKS NOW!

I think perhaps there is a communications gap here? Windows Vista Licensing in a Nutshell Read what Brandon wrote in the replies section- "Hardware changes = reactivation. Transfer from one PC to another = one time only.

No matter what hardware changes you make, you can still reactivate it (either automatically or by calling MS)." You just have to explain it is a hardware upgrade and not a transfer. Even if you gut the system and replace everything, you can call it a hardware upgrade for reactivation purposes. It is just a phone call away.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: michal1980

Ya grab a mirror..

another mobo/HD Change? Call M$ get new activation key. DONE. 5 mintues of your time.

Call ms, give them key, indian looks up information, says "youve transferred your license twice, i cannot help you" and hangs up, you cuss and go buy a new copy of Vista, because THATS THE WAY IT WORKS NOW!

I think perhaps there is a communications gap here? Windows Vista Licensing in a Nutshell Read what Brandon wrote in the replies section- "Hardware changes = reactivation. Transfer from one PC to another = one time only.

No matter what hardware changes you make, you can still reactivate it (either automatically or by calling MS)." You just have to explain it is a hardware upgrade and not a transfer. Even if you gut the system and replace everything, you can call it a hardware upgrade for reactivation purposes. It is just a phone call away.

Yeah and Paul Thurrott told me he would invite me over for a BBQ cookout next weekend if I bought 3 or more copies of Vista at launch.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: michal1980

Originally posted by: the Chase

Originally posted by: michal1980
theres alot of noobs in here.

M$ came out that you can upgrade your pc, They said your retail copy can only be transfered to 1 differenct pc.

If you change all your hardware, just call them up and they will re-activate it for you.

Again, ALOT of NOOBS in here.

They also said that the changes to even the same pc that will trigger re-activation will be much less. The most important will be the mobo, and the harddrive vista is installed on.

As for death of gaming...

Lets think about what you guys are talking about
4gbs, top of the line video card, and top of the line cpu.

What developer designs there game to only run on that?
answer: Only a stupid one. Most games will be targeted for on-board graphics with 512mbs of ram, with some cpu.
Vista will even give your pc a score card for preformance. AND will adjust game settings to match that performance. So that your highest end game will run on your lowest end crap.

Why? so that they can sell more copies of the game. Now if you want 400fps, at some resolution thats crazy high, with 32x aa, and AF, and all eye-candy at insane. They geuss what? you spend the cash to get it.

----------

As for windows Vista required more memory/cpu/harddrive space then windows xp...

What stupid tree did you fall off of that made you think an operating system thats 5-6 years newer. would require LESS memory, LESS CPU, LESS harddrive space?

Do you noobs think everything should run on a 486, with 4megs of ram, and a 400mb harddrive?

If you are getting that old that you cannot see that as technology advances you need more for the latest and best, then its time to watch matlock on your 1970s sony round tube tv, and change the channels with some pilars, while adjusting your rabbit ears. Because any more technology for you is dangerous.

Yeah hardware change= new computer= 1 transfer used= another mobo/HD change?= new copy of Vista.

And yeah there ARE a lot of nOObs in here.

Ya grab a mirror..

another mobo/HD Change? Call M$ get new activation key. DONE. 5 mintues of your time.

Call ms, give them key, indian looks up information, says "youve transferred your license twice, i cannot help you" and hangs up, you cuss and go buy a new copy of Vista, because THATS THE WAY IT WORKS NOW!

Heh- Yep. If you're lucky you might get a "thanks for calling Microsoft activation center" before he hangs up on you.

 

[tuteja1986]

Dude i can tell you personally that Activiation on Phone hasn't changed one bit , i use to work for Call center in Sydney and they do craploads of IT company support. They even did Microsoft XP Activation phone support for people in Australia... Anyways my buddy still works that place and he is one of thoes dude that take call for Phone Activiation. tells me nothing has changed... SAME FREAKEN PROCESS :! CALL EM UP AND TELL ME your cd key and they will give the code. The only reason they have this stupid thing in UAL was for legal reason "COVER THEIR BUT" ... they aren't enforcing it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: the Chase

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: michal1980

Ya grab a mirror..

another mobo/HD Change? Call M$ get new activation key. DONE. 5 mintues of your time.

Call ms, give them key, indian looks up information, says "youve transferred your license twice, i cannot help you" and hangs up, you cuss and go buy a new copy of Vista, because THATS THE WAY IT WORKS NOW!

I think perhaps there is a communications gap here? Windows Vista Licensing in a Nutshell Read what Brandon wrote in the replies section- "Hardware changes = reactivation. Transfer from one PC to another = one time only.

No matter what hardware changes you make, you can still reactivate it (either automatically or by calling MS)." You just have to explain it is a hardware upgrade and not a transfer. Even if you gut the system and replace everything, you can call it a hardware upgrade for reactivation purposes. It is just a phone call away.

Yeah and Paul Thurrott told me he would invite me over for a BBQ cookout next weekend if I bought 3 or more copies of Vista at launch.

While I understand the cynicism, and even feel it is often warranted, I think you are likely to find you are sadly among the many who end up looking quite foolish when all is said and done. For precedence google the release of XP, and all the mis/disinformation the anti-MS crowd disseminated beforehand.

Is it just not cool to be OK with Windows if you are a "techie" or what?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Is it just not cool to be OK with Windows if you are a "techie" or what?

Didn't you get the memo? We're all supposed to hate "M$" and spend three hours trying to emerge --from-basement --run-mass-pr0n-downloader --noshave --noshower --nofun

- M4H

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Is it just not cool to be OK with Windows if you are a "techie" or what?

Didn't you get the memo? We're all supposed to hate "M$" and spend three hours trying to emerge --from-basement --run-mass-pr0n-downloader --noshave --noshower --nofun

- M4H

Missed that one. I did get the one about purchasing and worshipping the penguin statue though.

 

[the Chase]

Well I hope you are right DAPUNISHER. I wasn't into the gaming scene as much (or at all?) when XP was released so I'll take your word on the history. I guess well see how it plays out over the next months. Now I've got to go mail the R.S.V.P. back to Paul letting him know I can't make it....