Flaming Rant about Doom 3 & Microsoft - Conspiracy Insid

[Raijin Z]

My personal gripe with Windows XP is that you have to activate the software when you first purchase it, then after you've replaced four (six with Professional) pieces of hardware in your machine.  Big Brother Bill doesn't need to know what I'm doing with my computer at all times.  For that reason, I'd rather have Windows 2000.  It's the same architecture, without Bill's invasion of privacy or his lame-o animal assistants.

 

STEAL WINXP PROFESSIONAL. No activation, EVER. Christ, all people ever do is bitch about this without doing their homework.

[Jess Ragan]

I think you mean Windows XP Corporate Edition. My friend bought a copy of that from Kadamose a few months back.

 

JR

[KaineMaxwell]

Well, here's another fan of 98SE (well, as much of a fan as I can be of a Microsoft OS). Why? It's the first OS I've had from Microsoft that actually worked worth a damn.

 

Got copies of Win98se when I attended Chubb Institute and haven't been happier with Windows.

[Blackjack]

Ever since I got XP my computers been weeding out games it thinks is too old and out of date. I can't play a lot of my old games.

 

My god what do you mean by this? If I don't use a program for so long, XP will delete it automatically....... no way!?

 

I don't like the sound of that.

[Scooterb23]

I think what he means is the fact that Win XP is less compatible with older software / hardware that Win98 and such...

 

So some of your old Win 95 (and even some of my Win 98 games) simply will not work in Win XP.

 

There is a compatability mode to try to run the games in, but that's 50/50 whether it will work.

[goatdan]

Hey,

 

I think I have a unique perspsective on this, as I am currently managing the migration of 1400+ computers of various builds with various software to an XP image at my job. Before I started working with this image, I was completely against XP and the biggest fan of Windows 98. In fact, I would have still been using 98 if the computer I had it on hadn't died and good ol' Microsoft followed that by refusing to send me new media to reinstall it, even though I legally owned it.

 

But anyways, here are some quick opinions on everything:

 

First off, I don't trust AMD processors at all. With the numbers of PCs that I own, AMD processors die out quicker and more often than Pentiums, and they run much much slower. I would rather run XP on a PII 400 box than a AMD 1 Ghz machine. We have machines with both models, and in side by side comparisons the PII's run a HELL of a lot faster. All of the other techs that I work with have come to the same decision on them as parts.

 

Secondly, there is a LOT of stuff being built into chips nowadays that simply can't be used. My laptop has a P4 with hyperthreading, although currently nothing supports hyperthreading. The 64 bit chips are out there, but there isn't an OS that takes advantage of them to make a difference yet. Especially on those, Microsoft and Intel work together on a lot of stuff and Microsoft I'm sure is delaying releasing that 64 bit version of XP simply because Intel doesn't have a solid line-up yet.

 

XP as an operating system is the best that Microsoft has ever released... so far. Service pack 2 comes out on the 16th or 26th (depending on what MS rep you talk to, I've now seen both dates quoted.) From the preliminary stuff that we've seen of it, it has the ability to make XP a lot more secure but the potential to blow it up. We have it on a bunch of test-boxes at work, and it causes them to blue-screen a lot more than it would be hoped. We have already scheduled all of our techs for a week of emergency repairs after the release has occured. Oh, and 98 was the second best operating system ever, but was horrible for networking.

 

XP can successfully be installed and ran on any computer that is at least a PII 400 with 128 megs of RAM. I wouldn't recommend putting it on a machine less than 733 if you can avoid it though. It is a bit of a resource hog sometimes.

 

XP does have problems running older games... but so did 98 and _especially_ 2000. Microsoft was forced to put DOS support back into XP -- it was removed for 2000 -- because there were a lot of programs that do not need to be recoded.

 

The biggest change in computers in the last ten years is happening right now -- the new PCX technology is finally taking computers to the point that they can again continue to get faster -- whether that is needed or not is debatable. Here's what I mean:

 

Until PCX motherboards, you could take a processor and make it process super fast, take a hard drive and make it read data really fast and take a stick of RAM and make it accessable really quickly. What you couldn't do is pass data between them fast enough that it really mattered. IDE cables and the motherboards themselves can only handle so much of a data load -- and that data load hovers right around 2.55 GHz if I recall. After that, you have the problem comparable to a super large drain going into a small pipe. The drain may be able to fit in a ton of water at once, but it will only move as fast as it can pass through the pipes.

 

Essentially, the new motherboard / Serial ATA cables / etc stuff is improving the data transfer speed of the board by a LOT -- or making the pipe big enough to handle all of the drain at the same time. This means that computers will be getting faster again quickly... which is kind of unfortunate since the 2.4 GHz processor for my home machine that I bought nearly two years ago is still so near the cutting edge. On the other hand, a LOT of consumers have seen that XP is good enough and the computers are fast enough that there is not a huge need to upgrade immediately. It will be interesting to see how quickly new users upgrade to the PCX technology over the next few months / years, especially since you won't be able to put AGP video cards in their slots so a lot of people, myself included, have to face the prospect of ditching their $150+ graphics card to update their system.

 

Lastly, Doom3 is an amazing step in game technology and I personally think is not a system resource hog at all for what you get out of it. The realism is dead on, and it is playable on on graphics cards that are a few years old. Considering the huge jumps that this game has made, I think it is worth it.

 

....

 

For the most part, what I said above are personal opinions or observations that I have made from working around these machines. Feel free to disagree. I'm pretty interested in all of this stuff, as I'm sure you can tell

[hex65000]

I too am a Win98SE user. My reasons are varied:

- Old 8 / 16 bit apps are better behaved. I actually have some software of my own that do direct port read/writes. Win 2k or better just don't work under these circumstnces.

- Old scanner that I'm not giving up. I have a UMAX SCSI scanner that has no drivers for the NT-class OSes. I talked to the company well over 5 yrs ago and when I told them I wanted win2k drivers they effectively told me to buy a new scanner. Which I refuse to since this one still works just fine. When it dies, then I'll get a new scanner.

 

I do run 2k on one of my machines, but it's an old dual processor P3-500. XP is staying out of my life as long as possible. I would suggest running 2k if you can for Doom 3.

 

My vidcards are too wimpy for Doom currently. Perhaps later I'll pick it up.

 

Hex.

[ Still loves his wimpy Kyro 2... ]

[Raijin Z]

Hmph, I've used Win9X drivers for ancient hardware in Win2K before.

 

Also, UMAX IS A MOTHERFUCKER when it comes to drivers and software. If you connect to their FTP server manually, you can download various versions of Vistascan that they say aren't available for DL. I do remember seeing SCSI packages while I was looking for Vistascan for my 1220U.

[goatdan]

I too am a Win98SE user. My reasons are varied:

- Old 8 / 16 bit apps are better behaved. I actually have some software of my own that do direct port read/writes. Win 2k or better just don't work under these circumstnces.

 

I wouldn't agree with that. We have systems at work that are running programs in Windows XP that are well over 20 years old right now and they are doing the exact same port read/writes. The support for these types of programs was put back into Windows XP because it wasn't there for 2000, but it most certainly does work.

 

I do run 2k on one of my machines, but it's an old dual processor P3-500. XP is staying out of my life as long as possible. I would suggest running 2k if you can for Doom 3.

 

Just out of curiousity, why are you keeping XP out of your life as long as possible? Is it just to keep from purchasing another OS or is there more to it than that? I really don't understand your opinion that people should continue to run 2000 to play Doom 3. Doom 3 was optimized to run in the XP environment, and while the two OSes aren't too different, I just don't see any benefit to running Doom 3 in an older OS.

[Raijin Z]

2K uses less memory in general than XP.

[Hydian]

XP is a hog. They built so much crap into it that is unneccesary at best or a gaping security hole at worst that it isn't funny. The nice thing with Win98SE is that it has a smaller footprint and, yes, it can be completely stable and noticably faster than XP once you rip internet explorer out of it (believe it or not, it can be done and I don't mean deleting the icon.) I ran 98SE for several years without any problems that way, only "upgrading" to win2k when I did hard drive upgrades on the machines.

 

Currently, I'm running win2k on my gaming machines and it is fine. My work laptop is running XP and it runs fine too even if most of the new "features" only serve to annoy me. I'd like XP a lot better if they removed all of the unneeded crap though. I don't need a crappy CD burning program, IE, windows messenger, outlook, etc but I'm forced to run them anyway. Being able to make it so I don't have to look at the icons doesn't remove the sercurity holes or the footprint that these applications have either, so that isn't a solution.

 

When I set up the replacements for these machines (real soon with luck) I'll be putting XP on them simply because there is little advantage in running anything older.

[HawgWyld]

The nice thing with Win98SE is that it has a smaller footprint and, yes, it can be completely stable and noticably faster than XP once you rip internet explorer out of it (believe it or not, it can be done and I don't mean deleting the icon.)

 

Yep, there's a little program out there called IEradicate which, as the name suggests, ditches that miserable little browser completely. And, the program is completely free.

 

Another essential item for 98SE is one of those free registry cleaners. The registry is the source of a hell of a lot of problems, and smashing invalid entries both speeds up the OS and makes it more stable.

[goatdan]

2K uses less memory in general than XP.

 

2K is built on the same kernal that XP is built on. When the OS is doing certain things, it does use more memory to perform them (such as the unnecessary fades when logging off), but it doesn't affect games in general.

 

XP is a hog.  They built so much crap into it that is unneccesary at best or a gaping security hole at worst that it isn't funny.  The nice thing with Win98SE is that it has a smaller footprint and, yes, it can be completely stable and noticably faster than XP once you rip internet explorer out of it (believe it or not, it can be done and I don't mean deleting the icon.)  I ran 98SE for several years without any problems that way, only "upgrading" to win2k when I did hard drive upgrades on the machines.

 

I guess it depends from what standpoint you're looking at the stuff. Compared to Windows 2000, XP is a lot more user friendly. I'm not denying that there is extra stuff in there (see unnecessary fade comment above) but it doesn't normally eat up system resources unless you are using them...

 

Currently, I'm running win2k on my gaming machines and it is fine.  My work laptop is running XP and it runs fine too even if most of the new "features" only serve to annoy me.  I'd like XP a lot better if they removed all of the unneeded crap though.  I don't need a crappy CD burning program, IE, windows messenger, outlook, etc but I'm forced to run them anyway.  Being able to make it so I don't have to look at the icons doesn't remove the sercurity holes or the footprint that these applications have either, so that isn't a solution.

 

Why are you forced to run any of those things? With the exception of IE (which is now built into the operating system and is unremovable), everything can be removed if you want it too, and you aren't forced to run anything... unless your drives are so small that you can't store the data that it takes to run the other things, I don't see this being a problem for many people. Messenger is the only one that runs itself automatically which is annoying, but can be overcome through hacks if you want to.

 

To remove Outlook, just go to Control Panel > Add Remove Programs > Outlook / Outlook Express and click on the "Remove" button.

 

As for security holes, it is all relative -- If you are working on a network, Windows 98 is vastly more insecure and harder to manage. From a strictly backend standpoint, XP and 2000 are both a million times easier to manage in a network and a million times more secure. If operating individually, it's true that 98 is probably much more secure. I really liked 98 and still think it was Microsoft's second best OS. The problem with 2000 is the fact that it doesn't have any of the legacy support (for DOS 8/16 bit applications) that XP, and for that matter 98 do.

 

While I usually don't champion any particular operating system, with regards to Doom 3 you can't run Linux right now, and I don't see any real advantage in going with an older OS to play the game.

[Hydian]

I always used 98lite to remove unneeded junk (and generally replaced the explorer shell with a decent shell like Litestep.) It supposedly works with 2k as well, but I've never tried it as it's a losing battle anymore.

 

As far as security, IE being a part of the OS is the source of a vast majority of security holes. Being able to strip that out (even if you officially can't) shuts down most of the exploits floating around out there and a decent dedicated firewall pretty much nails the rest.

 

For removing stuff from XP...it really isn't possible without major shell and registry hacking which is why SP1 gives you the option to hide the icons, but does not give you the option to actually remove the "features". These "features" existing is a major part of why SP2 is needed to close up the holes (and in the process is going to break a lot of stuff.) There are versions of XP without those "features" but Microsoft refuses to release them here.

[Raijin Z]

IE isn't so integral to Win2K. Here's but one method of chucking its ass to the curb.

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~vorck/

[AtariDude]

My PC runs just fine on Windows 98SE. I do use XP at work and find it to be stable but I don't think my PC would be capable of running XP well so if I decide to get DOOM3, I will probably have to buy an X-Box to play it.

[NovaXpress]

I just upgraded to XP the other day (got a free copy for my work  ). From what I can tell, XP is faster at booting, but does crash more often than Windows 2000. I'm sure it's fine as long as you only Microsoft programs. But try using some third party stuff and expect lock-ups.

I've never had a crash which even necessitated a reboot with XP Pro. There are quite a few older apps (especially emulators) which won't work at all with XP Home.

 

If I had 2K I'd stick with it. XP Home doesn't really offer anything more aside from a pretty interface and crashes when you try to run older apps. XP Pro is far more flexible, but I don't see any particular reason to choose it over 2K at this time.

[Raijin Z]

Well, if you didn't pay for it, the choice is much less complex. Do you want better network support at the cost of a bit of ram? If so, then go with XP Pro. The interface can be changed to match 2K, and you can save memory and CPU time by doing that, but when you do, it also changes the interface more than just cosmetically.

[NovaXpress]

I wasn't the one who purchased it, so the choice was indeed easy. They also paid for the cost of doubling my RAM, which I insisted upon. I don't see any real benefits for what I do on XP Home other than the compatibility issues. I haven't had a single system-freezing crash on Pro. But for anyone who doesn't have a company buy your software, 2000 seems to still be the best bet.