Anyone See The Xbox One Reveal Yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

PCs = modded games
Console = no modded games

---

I had modded games on my xbox its called modio if you can still find it

I've been up for long time btw lol sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crepers86

I had modded games on my xbox its called modio if you can still find it

---

I think he meant comparatively the number of mods for consoles compared to is almost nonexistant. Plus it's a pain in the butt on consoles, you can get banned for modding a single player game and it's mostly just texture and save mods.

So much easier and more on PC that they sometimes become their own games like Gmod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

There are many. One of the biggest is drivers. Another is how resource hungry it is. It performs slower than XP (6 years it's elder) for general tasks and gaming. For example, my parents crappy old laptop had Vista on it, it took around 7 min from power on to when you could log on and then another 3 after you logged in before you could do anything. I installed 7 on it and it's on, logged in and able to be used in under 5. The embedded digital rights management was another.

Why do you think when XP came out in 2001 they didn't put out a new OS until late 2006 (2007 for regular users)? But then from Vista to Windows 7 there was only a 2 year gap? From a regular user standpoint I would see how it would be okay but from an IT standpoint (which is the field I work in) it's a freaking nightmare. I have never heard of a business switching from XP to Vista, only from XP to 7. In the classes I take we don't even talk about it, we cover XP and 7 with a little bit of 8 thrown in. There isn't even a class I could take on it if I wanted to. The percentage of companies using it is so marginal that it doesn't make sense to have a class for it.

But like I said, to a regular user it wouldn't be an issue. If you like tinkering under the hood it's a mess. But yeah, resource hungry, driver issues, overpriced, the UAC, driver issues, needlessly complex menus to do simple tasks (when screwing with system settings I would usually just abandon the GUI and use command prompt), and oh yeah...driver issues.

There is a reason Microsoft continued to sell XP after they said they would stop and a reason they still support it today.

---

Can't say I've ever had any issues with speed. My games and programs have always loaded quite quickly, but that's also dependent on ram/processor, as well as OS. Resource hungry? Can't say that it is, but that might be that I have enough ram that it doesn't matter. Mind you, I also tend to do a lot of resource intensive things. About the only time I can get my computer to start having problems is when I start rendering a 1000x1000 image. About the only resources issues I ran into had to do with my video card. Primarily a drop in fps back when I was running skyrim on ultra. Since I stopped doing that, I haven't had issues. UAC? Disable it. Complex menus? The default, yeah. Just switch it to classic.

Who knows? Maybe it's just the build I have.

Support for XP ends in April of next year, by the way.

I've messed with 7, and I quite honestly can't see very many differences, beyond aesthetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal

Now I mean this in the nicest way but since you want to basically call me out, I'll say something simple and I was hoping to avoid having to say.

My nephew who's 12 notices the issues in Vista, so if you can't then why even bother to explain? You obviously don't have enough computer knowledge to see the bugs/issues it has, so why am I going to waste my time with trying to explain to you? Google it if your curious, because I'm not going to waste my time on something pointless.

Edit:
mackynz told you some of the issues, and reiterated my point about it being a horrible OS from the knowledgeable standpoint.

---

I do all my own work on my computer and around the house. I'm also the one that fixes most of the issues with the computers. If I need to do any tweaking to get a game running, I do it. I do my own repairs, hardware upgrades, the rare virus removal, etc.

Prior to me having to ask, all you said were quote "crashes and glitches". I haven't encountered any of these with enough frequency to say that they were anything but hiccups. UAC, driver issues, etc, etc, aren't crashes and glitches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

I think he meant comparatively the number of mods for consoles compared to is almost nonexistant. Plus it's a pain in the butt on consoles, you can get banned for modding a single player game and it's mostly just texture and save mods.

So much easier and more on PC that they sometimes become their own games like Gmod.

---

Right. I know that consoles themselves can be modded, but I'm not entirely sure about the game itself, which is mainly what I was talking about. All my consoles are vanilla and the games I mod are on PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crepers86

I had modded games on my xbox its called modio if you can still find it

---

Basically, with PC game mods, you can just about turn the game into something completely different. Using Skyrim, for example, there are thousands of mods that do everything from: update textures, adjust the lighting, add new skills/magic, add new companions, add new items (food, armor, alchemy reagents, etc). There's even a mod to turn the dragons into Macho Man Randy Savage complete with voice.

Win7 is what Vista should have been. Vista certainly has resource issue. It couldn't even recognize all my RAM. And I had 4 Gig at the time.

I installed Win7 on the same machine and everything was faster. Especially my games. The OS alone jumped my games FPS rates by 10 FPS. That was pretty significant at the time.

The only thing I don't like about Win7, which persisted from Vista, is the Control Panel sucks. I had to enabled GodMode to see all the things I needed without having to navigate a seas on screens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Can't say I've ever had any issues with speed. My games and programs have always loaded quite quickly, but that's also dependent on ram/processor, as well as OS. Resource hungry? Can't say that it is, but that might be that I have enough ram that it doesn't matter. Mind you, I also tend to do a lot of resource intensive things. About the only time I can get my computer to start having problems is when I start rendering a 1000x1000 image. About the only resources issues I ran into had to do with my video card. Primarily a drop in fps back when I was running skyrim on ultra. Since I stopped doing that, I haven't had issues. UAC? Disable it. Complex menus? The default, yeah. Just switch it to classic.

Who knows? Maybe it's just the build I have.

Support for XP ends in April of next year, by the way.

I've messed with 7, and I quite honestly can't see very many differences, beyond aesthetics.



I do all my own work on my computer and around the house. I'm also the one that fixes most of the issues with the computers. If I need to do any tweaking to get a game running, I do it. I do my own repairs, hardware upgrades, the rare virus removal, etc.

Prior to me having to ask, all you said were quote "crashes and glitches". I haven't encountered any of these with enough frequency to say that they were anything but hiccups. UAC, driver issues, etc, etc, aren't crashes and glitches.



Right. I know that consoles themselves can be modded, but I'm not entirely sure about the game itself, which is mainly what I was talking about. All my consoles are vanilla and the games I mod are on PC.



Basically, with PC game mods, you can just about turn the game into something completely different. Using Skyrim, for example, there are thousands of mods that do everything from: update textures, adjust the lighting, add new skills/magic, add new companions, add new items (food, armor, alchemy reagents, etc). There's even a mod to turn the dragons into Macho Man Randy Savage complete with voice.

---

All of it can be categorized under those two. Glitches = bugs, bugs = programming error, lack of knowledge with programming, i.e. driver issues, eating resources. I didn't want to go into detail. I just did a general sum of it all as most people that knew what I was talking about would know what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasonC2K

Win7 is what Vista should have been. Vista certainly has resource issue. It couldn't even recognize all my RAM. And I had 4 Gig at the time.

I installed Win7 on the same machine and everything was faster. Especially my games. The OS alone jumped my games FPS rates by 10 FPS. That was pretty significant at the time.

The only thing I don't like about Win7, which persisted from Vista, is the Control Panel sucks. I had to enabled GodMode to see all the things I needed without having to navigate a seas on screens.

---

I suspect you had Vista 32x. It doesn't reconize all the ram which is an issue inherent to the 32x operating system in general. Vista 64x doesn't have this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

I suspect you had Vista 32x. It doesn't reconize all the ram which is an issue inherent to the 32x operating system in general. Vista 64x doesn't have this issue.

---

Vista 64-bit still eats resources, but it recognizes the proper amount of ram, 32-bit XP had the issue with not seeing 4gb of ram, but the 64-bit was fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Can't say I've ever had any issues with speed. My games and programs have always loaded quite quickly, but that's also dependent on ram/processor, as well as OS. Resource hungry? Can't say that it is, but that might be that I have enough ram that it doesn't matter. Mind you, I also tend to do a lot of resource intensive things. About the only time I can get my computer to start having problems is when I start rendering a 1000x1000 image. About the only resources issues I ran into had to do with my video card. Primarily a drop in fps back when I was running skyrim on ultra. Since I stopped doing that, I haven't had issues. UAC? Disable it. Complex menus? The default, yeah. Just switch it to classic.

Who knows? Maybe it's just the build I have.

Support for XP ends in April of next year, by the way.

I've messed with 7, and I quite honestly can't see very many differences, beyond aesthetics.

---

I'm saying that compared to 7 Vista uses more resources. For people like you and me that's not an issue, I have 16GB of RAM so I can run multiple VMs, so it's not a problem. 99% of what my computer does while I'm using it is nothing unless I'm playing Crysis 3 on ultra, then things slow down a touch. But someone on say a laptop with limited resources will have noticable slowdown.

You can disable the UAC, but it does serve some purpose. And you misunderstood what I meant by complex menus. Having the control panel look different is no problem at all. It's when you're trying to get to things farther down than that. I just made my own MMCs so I didn't have to deal with it as much. Having to use the Vista GUI in Server 2008 is probably the thing I dislike most about it. And I didn't realize they extended the support cut off for XP again haha. Time to delay the Win7 rollout at work some more.

And as far as not seeing many differences aside from aesthetics, if you are actually looking and this is the case then you aren't looking very hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

I do all my own work on my computer and around the house. I'm also the one that fixes most of the issues with the computers. If I need to do any tweaking to get a game running, I do it. I do my own repairs, hardware upgrades, the rare virus removal, etc.

---

Me too! And at work since it's my job. But you brought up the good point of tweaking a game to get it running. That's another problem with Vista (Although 7 also has a lot, but less issues with it. Microsoft really dropped the ball) backwards compatibility is usually sketchy to noexistant for really old games. But even some 'newer' games like say Republic Commando have to be run on lower settings or they crap the bed. If you go too far back you end up having to use the DOSbox emulator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal

Vista 64-bit still eats resources, but it recognizes the proper amount of ram, 32-bit XP had the issue with not seeing 4gb of ram, but the 64-bit was fine.

---

And yes, 32-bit Windows cannot see more than 4GB of RAM whereas 64-bit can support up to I think it's 128GB. 64bit also uses a bit more ram. That being said, if you aren't really doing much but screwing around with the OS it's completely possible to run Win7 64-bit with only 1GB of RAM.