|
|
| Page 35 of 129 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:00 Post subject: |
|
 |
Oh, btw.
32% Win XP?
Yeah, well 29% Win 7 64 bit so "meh" to that argument.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| illz55 wrote: |
I'm not one of the developers, so I can ignore them as I wish. You sure you tried DirectX9 mode and turning graphics settings down like Texture Quality? There is NO WAY it doesn't work on Windows XP just because of some OS limitations. I still think you're just one of those people who expect modern games to work ideally on outdated PCs with outdated operating systems. Even if XP is 30% on Steam, I'm glad the developers focused on the other 70% who have moved on and providing the very best experience for those with modern PCs. |
I haven't had any issues running in XP with the DX9 code. I had problems figuring out why it didn't work on my Win7 box for awhile but that was a bizarre steam issue.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Gun wrote: |
I haven't had a single crash with this game after playing it for last 3 days.
And i disagree with you other observations as well. |
I stopped reading when he mentioned Windows XP. I can't take anyone serious who still uses Win XP in 2010.
It is an almost 10 year old OS people. I know change is freightening and new things are always a pain in the ass to learn, when the 'old things work so well', but face it: They dont, and they will work even less in the future. So maybe, JUST maybe it would be time to jump ahead a good 10 years and live in the present.
Also expecting companies to stay compatible with that is outright ridiculous. Why don't you just ask for them to make CIV 5 work under DOS as well?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| Reklis wrote: |
Oh, btw.
32% Win XP?
Yeah, well 29% Win 7 64 bit so "meh" to that argument. |
I was actually a tad surprised so many people were running the 64 bit version of Win7 on Steam.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| csebal wrote: | | Big_Gun wrote: |
I haven't had a single crash with this game after playing it for last 3 days.
And i disagree with you other observations as well. |
I stopped reading when he mentioned Windows XP. I can't take anyone serious who still uses Win XP in 2010.
It is an almost 10 year old OS people. I know change is freightening and new things are always a pain in the ass to learn, when the 'old things work so well', but face it: They dont, and they will work even less in the future. So maybe, JUST maybe it would be time to jump ahead a good 10 years and live in the present.
Also expecting companies to stay compatible with that is outright ridiculous. Why don't you just ask for them to make CIV 5 work under DOS as well? |
But you can't really blame people for not going off XP. Firstly MS has continued to support XP waay beyond it's lifetime due to corporations bitching about it. If security support had been discontinued you'd have seen more people go to Vista/Win7. Secondly Vista pretty much sucked ass no matter how you sliced it. So it was pretty hard to recommend to people to switch to Vista. I sure as hell didn't go to Vista.Thirdly, XP just 'worked'. Sure you didn't get things like DX10 support and such, but 99.999% of the time XP was and is just fine. So why go off of XP.
I will say that the math has skewed siginficantly with Win7's release. It's much harder now to recommend staying on XP unless you absolutely have to.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| satoru wrote: | | Reklis wrote: |
Oh, btw.
32% Win XP?
Yeah, well 29% Win 7 64 bit so "meh" to that argument. |
I was actually a tad surprised so many people were running the 64 bit version of Win7 on Steam. |
No point in running 32-bit
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| satoru wrote: | | Reklis wrote: |
Oh, btw.
32% Win XP?
Yeah, well 29% Win 7 64 bit so "meh" to that argument. |
I was actually a tad surprised so many people were running the 64 bit version of Win7 on Steam. |
I agree. I think it's time people payed respect to Microsoft and all the OEM partners who know when to install 64-bit variants of Windows 7 on modern CPUs. Of course, customers are making wise choices too it seems. I actually waited a while to switch to Windows 7 myself, but now that I have, I am amazed at how good the transition has been. Granted, I did read the TweakGuides companion for Windows 7, but only in brief to get all the configuration and setup for the OS down to exactly how I wanted it. Windows 7 is probably the most n00b-friendly OS ever while also being robust enough for every power user and enthusiast too.
Using XP? Switch to Windows 7 (64-bit) as soon as possible and move up to modern CPUs, DDR3, and DX11 GPUs. They should last a while, unlike Vista, DX10, and Dual-core CPUs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:13 Post subject: |
|
|
Look at that survey and tell me what you see next to that 32% of yours, a big freaking red number of about 2% reduction A MONTH. Sure, it is 32% for now, but it will only be less than 10% this time next year and guess what, the game will still be around. So sure, it is wise to aim for the technology that was already old when CIV3 was created and is absolutely ancient today.
When they make a new FPS that requires state of the art hardware to run do you whine about it? NOPE. You go out and buy a shiny new GFX card. When it is about replacing a 10 year old OS, then you absolutely HAVE TO MAKE A STAND and run to the forums to cry.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| FISKER_Q wrote: | | satoru wrote: | | Reklis wrote: |
Oh, btw.
32% Win XP?
Yeah, well 29% Win 7 64 bit so "meh" to that argument. |
I was actually a tad surprised so many people were running the 64 bit version of Win7 on Steam. |
No point in running 32-bit |
I suppose. But in my estimation, it doesn't seem that most people would even get much of an advantage to running in 64 bit. Not many apps run in 64 bit so you're not seeing much benefit there. Maybe if I was a heavy Photoshop user that needed lots of RAM or some other specialized CAD applications, I could see the benefit. But even for most gamers, games don't generally run in 64 bit mode, so what's the point?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| satoru wrote: | | FISKER_Q wrote: | | satoru wrote: |
I was actually a tad surprised so many people were running the 64 bit version of Win7 on Steam. |
No point in running 32-bit |
I suppose. But in my estimation, it doesn't seem that most people would even get much of an advantage to running in 64 bit. Not many apps run in 64 bit so you're not seeing much benefit there. Maybe if I was a heavy Photoshop user that needed lots of RAM or some other specialized CAD applications, I could see the benefit. But even for most gamers, games don't generally run in 64 bit mode, so what's the point? |
I'm sure there weren't many Windows-only games when Windows 95 came out either.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:17 Post subject: |
|
|
because most people have 4gb of memory? lol
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| satoru wrote: | | FISKER_Q wrote: | | satoru wrote: |
I was actually a tad surprised so many people were running the 64 bit version of Win7 on Steam. |
No point in running 32-bit |
I suppose. But in my estimation, it doesn't seem that most people would even get much of an advantage to running in 64 bit. Not many apps run in 64 bit so you're not seeing much benefit there. Maybe if I was a heavy Photoshop user that needed lots of RAM or some other specialized CAD applications, I could see the benefit. But even for most gamers, games don't generally run in 64 bit mode, so what's the point? |
A lot of popular software does have 64-bit variants out now and this trend will continue. In addition, as snoop just pointed out, you need 64-bit to utilize large amounts of RAM as many PCs now have. Otherwise, I think it's more about future-proofing than present day benefits really. In that sense, the OEMs are being wise and I think Microsoft is pushing 64-bit heavily on the B2B side of things. They want 64-bit to become the defacto standard as soon as possible, phasing out 32-bit, in turn, forcing developers to use 64-bit in production.
Last edited by illz55 on Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34200
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:19 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:32; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| satoru wrote: |
But you can't really blame people for not going off XP. Firstly MS has continued to support XP waay beyond it's lifetime due to corporations bitching about it. If security support had been discontinued you'd have seen more people go to Vista/Win7. Secondly Vista pretty much sucked ass no matter how you sliced it. So it was pretty hard to recommend to people to switch to Vista. I sure as hell didn't go to Vista.Thirdly, XP just 'worked'. Sure you didn't get things like DX10 support and such, but 99.999% of the time XP was and is just fine. So why go off of XP.
I will say that the math has skewed siginficantly with Win7's release. It's much harder now to recommend staying on XP unless you absolutely have to. |
I agree that Vista wasnt the bigges success on earth, but - having used it for a long time - i must also say, that it sufferent from bad marketing and word of mouth propaganda more than actual problems. It was 'new' and the initial versions were a bit rough as well, took a few service packs to get things going, not to mention that it was heavier on resources than the XP, but it did work rather well, as long as you had the PC to go with it.
Nonetheless, i never said a bad word to those who stayed on XP even though I encouraged people to try vista for themselves and not believe everything they hear.
With Win7 however, there is no excuse to stay on XP any more. None whatsoever. My mother has a relatively low end PC that runs Win 7 just fine and face it. The only reason MS kept supporting XP for such a long time was not gaming kids, but the companies that didnt really want to change to a new OS, especially after all the bad press Vista got.
So whatever excuses people had to stay on the XP were rendered obsolete when win 7 was released. Thats why i said what i said and yes.. XP RTM will be 10 years old next may, so its well in its 10th year already.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| snoop1050 wrote: | | because most people have 4gb of memory? lol |
64 bit gives you 2 advantages
1) Allowing a process to go over 4gb
But again what are you running that needs THAT much memory. Unless you're doing something relatively specialized like CAD, programming, Photoshop, video manipulation, etc your memory footprint on the system won't be that huge on a per process basis.
2) Allowing your system memory over 4GB
Do you even ever hit such a limit? I'd be surpised if many people did. You would have to have a lot of memory heavy applications open to even reach the 3.5GB limit in 32-bit let alone go over 4GB of total memory usage. Yes you can access more than 4GB on 64 bit, but realistically do you ever even come close to reaching such a limit?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:25 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I've won my first ever game of Civilization, by complete fucking accident and much to my surprise! 
Prince/Epic speed as Egyptians - I went into it planning for a wonder focused cultural victory. By the end of it however I had dominated my entire continent, and taken Mecca from the Arabs right under their noses via a cunning naval bombardment and landing strategy that looked pretty fucking D-Dayish 
The AI doesn't seem to understand how to defend against naval bombardment - I had 2 destroyers and a wooden ship bombarding a city, the city defended itself by targeting the wooden ship (which was doing the least damage out of all of them). It felt a little cheap, but I had the AI out-tech'ed anyway (he was still using Rifleman while I had upgraded to Infantry).
The bitch of it is I was 5 turns away from Atomic Theory. Wanted to get some A-Bomb action on. 
Anyway, took Mecca and didn't realize that was the last capital city in original possession. In reality the Arabs did most of the work for me - they stopped my invasion of Washington (the fucking irony eh? ), kicked me off the continent, and totally raped Washington, Ghandi, and Napoleon.
I'm not sure how they expect you to achieve a cultural/scientific/diplomatic victory - the AI is way too aggressive to allow it. If you don't push them back and puppet their cities they'll eventually out tech you. What's the strategy there?
Man that was fucking epic. I'd say the game lasted about 15 hours. What a fucking rush!
My I Win Screenshot! 
I can never be free, because the shackles I wear can't be touched or be seen.
i9-9900k, MSI MPG-Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon, 32GB DDR4 @ 3000, eVGA GTX 1080 DT, Samsung 970 EVO Plus nVME 1TB
Last edited by Immunity on Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:30; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| satoru wrote: | | snoop1050 wrote: | | because most people have 4gb of memory? lol |
64 bit gives you 2 advantages
1) Allowing a process to go over 4gb
But again what are you running that needs THAT much memory. Unless you're doing something relatively specialized like CAD, programming, Photoshop, video manipulation, etc your memory footprint on the system won't be that huge on a per process basis.
2) Allowing your system memory over 4GB
Do you even ever hit such a limit? I'd be surpised if many people did. You would have to have a lot of memory heavy applications open to even reach the 3.5GB limit in 32-bit let alone go over 4GB of total memory usage. Yes you can access more than 4GB on 64 bit, but realistically do you ever even come close to reaching such a limit? |
My system can easily use 6GB on various desktop software and a single memory-intensive game, the rest is then used for features such as superfetch.
Memory is similar to storage, the more you have, the better, even if it's only Virtual Memory is you only got 2GB of physical memory, there is simply no point in running 32-bit as it provides no advantages, even if you don't use the increased memory limit(Though i can certainly say you do).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| satoru wrote: | | snoop1050 wrote: | | because most people have 4gb of memory? lol |
64 bit gives you 2 advantages
1) Allowing a process to go over 4gb
But again what are you running that needs THAT much memory. Unless you're doing something relatively specialized like CAD, programming, Photoshop, video manipulation, etc your memory footprint on the system won't be that huge on a per process basis.
2) Allowing your system memory over 4GB
Do you even ever hit such a limit? I'd be surpised if many people did. You would have to have a lot of memory heavy applications open to even reach the 3.5GB limit in 32-bit let alone go over 4GB of total memory usage. Yes you can access more than 4GB on 64 bit, but realistically do you ever even come close to reaching such a limit? |
Well, it can be attributed to future-proofing and I think part of it is the idea of just having more is automatically better in the minds of many consumers. Regular joe likes to hear that he's getting 6GB of RAM when his old PC had only 2GB and I've noticed even so-called enthusiasts, geeks, and power users seem to love boasting about 12GB+ of DDR3 @ 2000MHz etc.
I also think it's up to users to try and hit their memory ceiling. There are plenty of uses for huge amounts of RAM and multi-threading, the first of which is simply running many programs at once without a slowdown. A lot of consumers have a habit of installing more and more software and running stuff all the time. Meanwhile, power users can run WoW on one monitor and play another game or do something else on a second monitor. Meanwhile, 64-bit OS goes hand-in-hand with 4GB+ of RAM, so it just makes sense to couple the two when you sell systems.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| FISKER_Q wrote: | | satoru wrote: | | snoop1050 wrote: | | because most people have 4gb of memory? lol |
64 bit gives you 2 advantages
1) Allowing a process to go over 4gb
But again what are you running that needs THAT much memory. Unless you're doing something relatively specialized like CAD, programming, Photoshop, video manipulation, etc your memory footprint on the system won't be that huge on a per process basis.
2) Allowing your system memory over 4GB
Do you even ever hit such a limit? I'd be surpised if many people did. You would have to have a lot of memory heavy applications open to even reach the 3.5GB limit in 32-bit let alone go over 4GB of total memory usage. Yes you can access more than 4GB on 64 bit, but realistically do you ever even come close to reaching such a limit? |
My system can easily use 6GB on various desktop software and a single memory-intensive game, the rest is then used for features such as superfetch.
Memory is similar to storage, the more you have, the better, even if it's only Virtual Memory is you only got 2GB of physical memory, there is simply no point in running 32-bit as it provides no advantages, even if you don't use the increased memory limit(Though i can certainly say you do). |
I'd be curious to know what you run to reach the 6GB limit. I've done it a few times but only when I was loading some idiotic excel spreadsheet from hell, or that one time some moron created a power point presentation will all BMP images. Fun times.
Otherwise just running a few office apps, my browser, email and a game i barely ever break 3gb.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:32 Post subject: |
|
|
Fixed that for you.
And about my request... anyone?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:32 Post subject: |
|
|
I suddenly found out why some visit PC Section here  The fun is guaranteed
So is the cracked version out yet? My sister want to play new Civ She's all time Civ fan Me not so much...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:33 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| illz55 wrote: | | satoru wrote: | | snoop1050 wrote: | | because most people have 4gb of memory? lol |
64 bit gives you 2 advantages
1) Allowing a process to go over 4gb
But again what are you running that needs THAT much memory. Unless you're doing something relatively specialized like CAD, programming, Photoshop, video manipulation, etc your memory footprint on the system won't be that huge on a per process basis.
2) Allowing your system memory over 4GB
Do you even ever hit such a limit? I'd be surpised if many people did. You would have to have a lot of memory heavy applications open to even reach the 3.5GB limit in 32-bit let alone go over 4GB of total memory usage. Yes you can access more than 4GB on 64 bit, but realistically do you ever even come close to reaching such a limit? |
Well, it can be attributed to future-proofing and I think part of it is the idea of just having more is automatically better in the minds of many consumers. Regular joe likes to hear that he's getting 6GB of RAM when his old PC had only 2GB and I've noticed even so-called enthusiasts, geeks, and power users seem to love boasting about 12GB+ of DDR3 @ 2000MHz etc.
I also think it's up to users to try and hit their memory ceiling. There are plenty of uses for huge amounts of RAM and multi-threading, the first of which is simply running many programs at once without a slowdown. A lot of consumers have a habit of installing more and more software and running stuff all the time. Meanwhile, power users can run WoW on one monitor and play another game or do something else on a second monitor. Meanwhile, 64-bit OS goes hand-in-hand with 4GB+ of RAM, so it just makes sense to couple the two when you sell systems. |
Hahah run WoW AND play another game at the same time?! And I thought my auction runs were boring as shit I was just doing it all wrong.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| cheat2win wrote: |
Fixed that for you.
And about my request... anyone? |
What did you do? You know requesting is forbidden here?!
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| ShadowB wrote: | | Uhhh, guys, could you take the off-topic OS chat elsewhere? |
True we're deviating a bit. Let's get back on track. Please pick from the following topics:
To Bitch about the Euro release is not here yet Press 1
To Bitch about how there is no scene release yet Press 2
To Bitch about how the game sucks Press 3
To return to the main forum press alt+f4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| satoru wrote: | | FISKER_Q wrote: | | satoru wrote: |
64 bit gives you 2 advantages
1) Allowing a process to go over 4gb
But again what are you running that needs THAT much memory. Unless you're doing something relatively specialized like CAD, programming, Photoshop, video manipulation, etc your memory footprint on the system won't be that huge on a per process basis.
2) Allowing your system memory over 4GB
Do you even ever hit such a limit? I'd be surpised if many people did. You would have to have a lot of memory heavy applications open to even reach the 3.5GB limit in 32-bit let alone go over 4GB of total memory usage. Yes you can access more than 4GB on 64 bit, but realistically do you ever even come close to reaching such a limit? |
My system can easily use 6GB on various desktop software and a single memory-intensive game, the rest is then used for features such as superfetch.
Memory is similar to storage, the more you have, the better, even if it's only Virtual Memory is you only got 2GB of physical memory, there is simply no point in running 32-bit as it provides no advantages, even if you don't use the increased memory limit(Though i can certainly say you do). |
I'd be curious to know what you run to reach the 6GB limit. I've done it a few times but only when I was loading some idiotic excel spreadsheet from hell, or that one time some moron created a power point presentation will all BMP images. Fun times.
Otherwise just running a few office apps, my browser, email and a game i barely ever break 3gb. |
I think it's difficult to actually tell how much RAM is actively being used via the Task Manager alone. Windows 7, by design, grabs a shitload of RAM whenever the OS thinks some software may require it or it's simply not being used but the OS can use it for Superfetching or other internal processes or services. I once had explorer.exe use up 4.7GB of RAM even though all I was doing is copying files from my External to my internal HDD and also running some other file operations in Foobar, and watching a video. I doubt it was actually utilizing all that RAM at one time, but that's how much was grabbed by explorer.exe. I think having more RAM is better but there's little reason to go over 6GB these days.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2010 20:38 Post subject: |
|
|
wake me up when theres a release .
| Sin317 wrote: | | while you can't "turn gay", you can cut off your balls. believe me, you'll never think of women again. |
| zmed wrote: | | Or just a defense mechanism. If you fart, you'll most definitely smell it so your brain tells you it ain't bad as strangerfarts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 35 of 129 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
