HALO 2 Forcing Microsoft VISTA purchase!

[ravinhood]

Well Ole Bill is getting bolder in his old age. Used to we had choices. Lol now, it's MS VISTA or the HIGHWAY.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=711

I wouldn't mind these OS upgrades if ALL games worked on them. But, XP is the worst of them all for older games working, especially old DOS game and many Win95 games. I read a little about the VISTA OS, I don't see anything very impressive about it. Looks more like a GRAPHICS facelift (is microsoft jumping on the graphics facelift bandwagon now) and a few new streamlined features that really I can do without.

[Hertston]

I just don't get this. By the time we get Vista, Halo 2 will have been available on X-Box for 2 years - who on earth is going to fork out on a new O/S so they can play it on PC?

M$ should have got their hands on a decent franchise, like Call of Duty or Battlefield if they wanted to pull this crap.

[oi_you_nutter]

its a desperate way to gain some publicity and sales for Vista, the next version of Windows that way behind schedule

if you want to lay Halo2 get MS Vista and that means you probably need to buy a new PC
therefore if you want to play Halo 2, get an Xbox

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I read a little about the VISTA OS, I don't see anything very impressive about it. Looks more like a GRAPHICS facelift (is microsoft jumping on the graphics facelift bandwagon now) and a few new streamlined features that really I can do without.

If you only read a "little" then read more [;)]. The new search and catalogize features alone will justify the upgrade for me. While I can see that not everybody needs this for his 5 word documents and 50 digital photos I certainly need it.

Most of the new search and catalogize features are not exactly new to the world of computers but finally they are integrated into the OS.

The updated and more enhanced Windows Backup along with the new Sync features are also worth a lot.

I can certainly do without all that new sidebars and gadget stuff though.


To say it´s only a graphics facelift is not really justified. It certainly looks different then XP, but honestly, not that much [;)]


Anyway, MS is not forcing you to play Halo. So you don´t need to buy Vista if you don´t want to [;)]

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

I just don't get this. By the time we get Vista, Halo 2 will have been available on X-Box for 2 years - who on earth is going to fork out on a new O/S so they can play it on PC?

M$ should have got their hands on a decent franchise, like Call of Duty or Battlefield if they wanted to pull this crap.

The Halo franchise is not decent? This thing sold gazillions of copies.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I wouldn't mind these OS upgrades if ALL games worked on them. But, XP is the worst of them all for older games working, especially old DOS game and many Win95 games.

<Blink>

I've run every M$ OS from Dos 2.11 onwards and XP is without doubt the only one where practically every old game can be gotten to run on - unlike all it's predecessors.

In fact if you looked at all the OS available anywhere on any platform and would have to answer the question : "On which os/platform can I get the most games running ?" the answer would be XP.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

The Halo franchise is not decent? This thing sold gazillions of copies.

It's an X-Box port! Sure, it sold well enough on PC too, but nothing like CoD or Battlefield... but the "gazillions" were console sales. Half of the people I know who have an X-Box bought one to play Halo.

As I said, Halo 2 will be two years old by the time we get Vista. Its rumoured Halo 3 (for X-Box 360) is already ready to roll and just waiting for the time of best "market impact". Halo 3 for PC/Vista would make sense (particularly with kick-ass large numbersmultiplayer functionality added), but Halo 2?

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I wouldn't mind these OS upgrades if ALL games worked on them. But, XP is the worst of them all for older games working, especially old DOS game and many Win95 games.

<Blink>

I've run every M$ OS from Dos 2.11 onwards and XP is without doubt the only one where practically every old game can be gotten to run on - unlike all it's predecessors.

In fact if you looked at all the OS available anywhere on any platform and would have to answer the question : "On which os/platform can I get the most games running ?" the answer would be XP.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Exactly.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Hertston
Half of the people I know who have an X-Box bought one to play Halo.

Right, and that's why it is a nice marketing gag to "combine" Halo 2, who knows by the time Vista sees daylight even Halo 3, with the new OS. If Halo made people buy a X-Box, then why shouldn´t it make them buy a new OS [;)], maybe even a PC+Vista combo if they formerly only had a console.

[ravinhood]

The Halo franchise is not decent? This thing sold gazillions of copies.

On Xbox, I doubt it will have nearly the flare and support on the PC.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

If Halo made people buy a X-Box, then why shouldn´t it make them buy a new OS [;)], maybe even a PC+Vista combo if they formerly only had a console.

Yes... but it made people buy an X-Box because at that time there was nothing else of anything like the same quality available for a console. That's not the case now, and if anybody is looking for a choice to play the latest incarnation of Halo it would be an X-Box 360, not a PC/Vista combo. Still, I suppose M$ win both ways in that case!


Ah... I've sussed it now. The reasoning is not that those wanting to play Halo 2 will upgrade to Vista. Its that, if they are going to have to buy both Vista and the Halo 2 itself to play it, they might as well not bother, and just buy an X-Box 360 and Halo 3 instead! Like the rest of us, they'll probably have to get Vista at some stage, anyway.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: Hertston
Half of the people I know who have an X-Box bought one to play Halo.

Right, and that's why it is a nice marketing gag to "combine" Halo 2, who knows by the time Vista sees daylight even Halo 3, with the new OS. If Halo made people buy a X-Box, then why shouldn´t it make them buy a new OS [;)], maybe even a PC+Vista combo if they formerly only had a console.

Yea, it's business... these people are business persons first... get used to it [:(] There are no gamers running the mainstream software and computer industry anymore (except in the innovative small companies that we know and love, like Matrix, HPS, Mad Minute etc etc). They may take advantage of youthful enthusiasts (temporarily) to design and program their products, but the driving force is the almighty dollar.

It doesn't surprise me at all to see MS using every trick imaginable to force you to buy their O/S upgrades. Microsoft may be HUGE, but it's empire is based on conning (or forcing) customers to buy upgrads to their products. Increasingly, it gets harder and harder to make that sale. How many features can they add to "Word" to get customers to spend $150 for an upgrade? I've been satisfied with my word processor for years, but I get forced to buy upgrades, not for the features, but because they change file formats and force you to buy if you want to stay compatible with everyone else.

The same goes for their entire line...how can we force people to continue to buy expensive upgrades?

Is there any surprise that when MS gets into the game business that the standard corporate model would continue to be played out?

Of course, by focusing on Matrix and HPS titles that run easily on about everything, I avoid the whole "must have latest thing, will buy new computer and install new O/S version just to play" syndrome. If you have to be out there on the cutting edge of gaming, then that is the price you will have to pay. Only you can decide if it's worth it.

No sense getting all upset about Microsoft though... "it's in their nature". I expect nothing different from them.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I wouldn't mind these OS upgrades if ALL games worked on them. But, XP is the worst of them all for older games working, especially old DOS game and many Win95 games.

<Blink>

I've run every M$ OS from Dos 2.11 onwards and XP is without doubt the only one where practically every old game can be gotten to run on - unlike all it's predecessors.

In fact if you looked at all the OS available anywhere on any platform and would have to answer the question : "On which os/platform can I get the most games running ?" the answer would be XP.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Well I can't say the same, I get more old dos games to run on 98SE than I do on XP. Mainly the problem with XP is the sound. I can get several games to run on XP but no sound, I don't have this problem with 98SE. And I'm not talking about using 3rd party programs like DOSBOX, I'm talking about XP solo without any help. It just doesn't run that many DOS games by itself.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I wouldn't mind these OS upgrades if ALL games worked on them. But, XP is the worst of them all for older games working, especially old DOS game and many Win95 games.

<Blink>

I've run every M$ OS from Dos 2.11 onwards and XP is without doubt the only one where practically every old game can be gotten to run on - unlike all it's predecessors.

In fact if you looked at all the OS available anywhere on any platform and would have to answer the question : "On which os/platform can I get the most games running ?" the answer would be XP.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Well I can't say the same, I get more old dos games to run on 98SE than I do on XP. Mainly the problem with XP is the sound. I can get several games to run on XP but no sound, I don't have this problem with 98SE. And I'm not talking about using 3rd party programs like DOSBOX, I'm talking about XP solo without any help. It just doesn't run that many DOS games by itself.

Which is why you need to set up a dual boot system with multiple operating systems installed - then you can have your DOS or WIN 98 session running for those older games. Of course, I'm with those who keep their old systems when they upgrade and have a dedicated DOS or even WIN 3.11 machine for the old stuff (I just don't have the room to keep multiple computers set up and running [:D]).

I've kept my old DOS 6.0 diskettes sheltered away "just in case" I ever want to do it, of course, but I'm generally too happy with the current games to really get that distressed about not being able to run even old favorites like GNBA.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I wouldn't mind these OS upgrades if ALL games worked on them. But, XP is the worst of them all for older games working, especially old DOS game and many Win95 games.

<Blink>

I've run every M$ OS from Dos 2.11 onwards and XP is without doubt the only one where practically every old game can be gotten to run on - unlike all it's predecessors.

In fact if you looked at all the OS available anywhere on any platform and would have to answer the question : "On which os/platform can I get the most games running ?" the answer would be XP.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Well I can't say the same, I get more old dos games to run on 98SE than I do on XP. Mainly the problem with XP is the sound. I can get several games to run on XP but no sound, I don't have this problem with 98SE. And I'm not talking about using 3rd party programs like DOSBOX, I'm talking about XP solo without any help. It just doesn't run that many DOS games by itself.

I think that may be due to your particular soundcard and has nothing to do with XP itself - and I fail to see why the help of a free utility like dosbox would invalidate my claim that XP is the OS you get the most games to run on - bar none.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

ORIGINAL: sterckxe



<Blink>

I've run every M$ OS from Dos 2.11 onwards and XP is without doubt the only one where practically every old game can be gotten to run on - unlike all it's predecessors.

In fact if you looked at all the OS available anywhere on any platform and would have to answer the question : "On which os/platform can I get the most games running ?" the answer would be XP.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Well I can't say the same, I get more old dos games to run on 98SE than I do on XP. Mainly the problem with XP is the sound. I can get several games to run on XP but no sound, I don't have this problem with 98SE. And I'm not talking about using 3rd party programs like DOSBOX, I'm talking about XP solo without any help. It just doesn't run that many DOS games by itself.

I think that may be due to your particular soundcard and has nothing to do with XP itself - and I fail to see why the help of a free utility like dosbox would invalidate my claim that XP is the OS you get the most games to run on - bar none.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Exactly, again [;)]

[ravinhood]

Because I don't use any 3rd party programs to get dos games to run on Win98SE So DOSBOX invalidates that WINXP runs dos games by itself, cause it don't for the most part. So you can "exactly" all you want Schwanebeck doesn't change the FACT WinXP doesn't run dos games without DOSBOX very often.

[Marc von Martial]

No sense getting all upset about Microsoft though... "it's in their nature". I expect nothing different from them.

After all they, yes MS, made the computer world what it is today a "relative" hazzle free platform. And no, I´m not a Ms junky, I own a Mac too, and love it. Without Bill Gates and his so often blamed business we would be still in the "stoneage", yes even all that free and alternative stuff would not be in any range of what we are now. Yep, he makes the big bucks, but I am the least to say he didn't earn them. Same goes for Steve Jobs, the other big player.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Because I don't use any 3rd party programs to get dos games to run on Win98SE So DOSBOX invalidates that WINXP runs dos games by itself, cause it don't for the most part. So you can "exactly" all you want Schwanebeck doesn't change the FACT WinXP doesn't run dos games without DOSBOX very often.

Well Senior ravihood, I never had any problems so far to run any old DOS game on my XP setup. Including "Kampfgruppe" of old SSI fame. I just put in that ancient IBM DOS disk on and simply play it.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

No sense getting all upset about Microsoft though... "it's in their nature". I expect nothing different from them.

After all they, yes MS, made the computer world what it is today a "relative" hazzle free platform. And no, I´m not a Ms junky, I own a Mac too, and love it. Without Bill Gates and his so often blamed business we would be still in the "stoneage", yes even all that free and alternative stuff would not be in any range of what we are now. Yep, he makes the big bucks, but I am the least to say he didn't earn them. Same goes for Steve Jobs, the other big player.

Yep, like I said, it's just business. You can't take it personally. They have contributed the good and the bad though, MS drove a lot of software companies out of the marketplace, destroyed competition, and generally resulted in the greatly increased prices for software that we see today. If Windows had a viable competitor, XP would be selling for $69.95 and MS Office for $149.95 (or less). I remember the days when that was the price structure.