G2 and XP 64?

[Corwin]

Well, I've had no replies over at the Dot, so I'll try the experts here. Will G2 work in XP 64? It installed fine, but when I click on the icon to start, I get the famous MS apology, IMMEDIATELY!! Everything else on my rig is WAY over the needed requirements.

[Gorath]

I heard it should run. Maybe you need some compatibility setting?

[Corwin]

I tried that and it didn't work. I suspect it has something to do with the virtual drive it tries to set up. I'm hoping I have no problems with G3. I'm considering trying Vista!! Any news on that??!!

[Gorath]

G2 and G3 GM1 don´t work with Vista.

[Corwin]

Wonderful!! They obviously don't like 64 bit OS!! Don't you think that all games released now should be compatible with Vista? It's going to take over within the next 12 months, I expect!!

[Gorath]

It won´t. It´s still in beta, it´s slower than XP and 2 GB RAM is recommended. It will take 2 or 3 years.

[Corwin]

I have 2 GB Ram!! :) and an AMD dual core 64 bit processor!!

[Gorath]

GameStar posted that Microsoft has confirmed to game developers that games will be 10-15% slower on Vista than on XP.

The only two real advantages I see are DirectX10 and the absence of XP´s 3GB RAM limit. Put 4 GB in and disable the swap file. :D

[Corwin]

I'm still stuck with an OS which won't run the game. Will G3 work on XP 64?

[Gorath]

Probably. I heard 64bit drivers are on the DVD.

[Cm]

If not Corwin is off line while he reformats for xp installation. :) :p

[Corwin]

The game just arrived in the mail, so you'll be hearing from me one way or another!! :)

Edith says: IT WORKS!! :D

[josephwatson]

Bleh...I'm in the states and ordered from New Zealand. My copy's not even shipping out until the 27th :( Glad to hear it works with a 64-bit system, though.

[Corwin]

Haha, sorry, but I'm in Australia and I ordered from the UK, while you ordered from NZ!! Just seems funny to me!! :)

[Londonchris]

G2 and G3 GM1 don´t work with Vista.

Is that right?
What about any other games we play now? are they then useless?
I would have thought vista would at least run older programs.
Don`t much like the sound of this idea.

[josephwatson]

NZ was much cheaper than GB (<$50 U.S. including shipping), but I guess that's why I still haven't received a copy. Ordering from Britain might have been a better choice...

[Gorath]

Is that right?
What about any other games we play now? are they then useless?
I would have thought vista would at least run older programs.
Don`t much like the sound of this idea.
That´s what the Gamestar article said.

Vista requires a very fast PC, is slower for older games and, most importantly, has a completely perverted licensing scheme. You effectively are no longer allowed to upgrade your PC without buying a new Vista.

Avoid it like the plague.

[GothicGothicness]

The slower games are not true, that's ONLY if you don't have enough ram. We tried it and most games runs at about the same speed if you have 2 GB:s of ram.

The DX10 games will perform a lot better, because the vista driver model is better, and DX10 improved a lot over DX9. Though we can't compare since they won't even run on XP :D Some games will have stripped down DX9 versions for XP though.

[Ragnar]

I hope they really improve Vista for the release be cause the way it stands now (Beta 2 running on a 2.6ghz sys w/1g ram) sucks...IMO

[lostnumber]

Would someone mind explaining the upgrading issue with Vista? How the hell could MS sell something like that? Who would buy Vista knowing that they could not upgrade their system without having to buy another license? Does Vista associate a license with a specific HW configuration in order to prevent installing on multiple machines? Would this in turn mean that I would have to purchase a separate copy for each machine in my house? I understand the need to grow profits, but what about retaining market share?

[GothicGothicness]

Is this a trick by Corwin? when I press vote on the poll I am taken to this thread!!!!

[JDR13]

Is this a trick by Corwin? when I press vote on the poll I am taken to this thread!!!!


You mean that you were literally teleported?

[Uriziel]

G3 with 1.12 patch plays rather crappy on Vista Ultimate 64. Noticeably slower and stutters/freezes quite a bit. Oddly enough the same has now happened to my XP 32bit install of G3 since i installed the 1.6 community patch. It is not as bad as Vista, but it does freeze, especially when first starting the game or after a reload.

System specs: XFX nForce 680i LT SLI, Q6600 running @ 3.1ghz, 4gb PC6400, XFX dual 8800gt's with 97 cores(don't think these are publicly available yet....essentially 9800's) 65gb solid state boot drive(got a 128gb here but have been too lazy to install/test it yet lol. I need to RAID these puppies) 4 500gb sata 7200rpm HDD's(various manufacturers), POS blu-ray burner<------god i hate this POS!, 20x Plextor DVD burner<----- <3 Thermaltake Kandalf LCS case, which is large enough to house a family of 4. I'm only watercooling the CPU and vid cards ATM, and with mobo temps below 32C and drives about 34C i don't see the point in cooling anything else.

The point of listing the system specs.......the slow downs/stuttering/freezing is NOT because of a weak system lol. Plays the same with a single XFX 8600gt.......go figure. So much for the 8800 hype.

Whatever licensing crap MS comes up with is already moot. You can get a cracked copy easily online.

[Bartacus]

@Uriziel How the hell do you get such a system? Do you work at a computer store? Specialy those solid state boot drive you have, is quite amazing.
Btw, don't you mean that you have either an 8800GTS on a 92 core or the new 9600GT? The latest are strangely enough only bad for the texture fill rate if you believe nvidia's site.

[Uriziel]

I test stuff for a living long before it is public. I know I know, shitty job but I need the money :D

The vid cards are basically 9800gt's. The 9800's have a dif cooling system. Don't sweat the solid state drive coz everyone will have them in a year or two and they are sweet.

I find it amusing that Anand is just now starting to test 9600's =)) or at least just recently can talk about it. We started testing the 97 cores months ago and the performance is staggering compared to the 92 cores. If nVidia vendors didn't have such a stockpile of the old stuff ATI would be truly and utterly fooked for at least two years. The 92 core was a huge leap and the 97 core is another quantum leap. (subtle hint: a single 97 core card trounces the latest 3870 crossfire setup by such an insane margin it is pitiful.....imagine SLI) But that is all really a moot point since most games can't really stress either core or the latest ATI crap. If you are wanting to upgrade and see some real performance ingame, get a solid state drive ;)

BTW the comp stats are my personal home system, which is weak compared to the stuff I work on. The new frontside busless stuff is ungodly. Wait about upgrading until late this year when it is public ;)

Oops, small edit: The 97 core cards I'm testing in my system are essentially 9800's but with DDR3 instead of DDR4. My sh!thead boss took the DDR4 versions to test in his system :-<

[Uriziel]

Sorry, I hate to bump an old thread, but making a new post would lose context.

Because of family problems I had taken an indefinite leave of absence from work in March, and only occasionally even had contact with them. However today Chris gave me a call asking me to continue testing the GT cored cards I had worked on before. Now granted, I am getting old and a lil insane and even have heard of the Nvidia GT cores since leaving.........but I ain't never tested them, and told Chris I had no test data on them. He simply laughed, which kinda pissed me off to be honest. Anywho, long story short, the dipwads had lied to me. I guess I should take a step back for a second....

When I was testing the "97" cores, the fookers had lied to me.....they were what is now known in public releases as the GT200. And DAM they were sneaky! They had me start the test on what is now in a 9800 and we got tons of data...impressive data. Then Chris et. al. had me hold off a day or two while they tweaked some things. BS! the tweak was changing to the GT200 cores. And I know they laughed their asses off when I came back with MUCH better performance data, and congratulated them on what I thought were code tweaks. I'ma gonna kill'm!

Because of my sudden departure, they never got a chance to expose their lil joke and rub my face in it. Anyway, the call was to ask me to help test some very new stuff, and I believe Chris after bitching him out. I had to refuse the testing offer because of my family, but he claimed it was to test a 8 cored(dual quad core GPUs) card built on 45nm process....of the GT200 chip. The 45nm process would allow quad cores where there is now one.....and it should run cooler. The test card is dual GPU's equaling 8 cores. A second test card is a single quad core, which I assume is Nvidia's counter punch to dual ATI 4850x2 in crossfire config.

My guess is if that dual quad GT200 ever sees the public light of day, it will take prolly 250-275 watts just to power the dam vid cards :O On a 65nm process it would take.........OMFG wattage!