Patch does not install in Vista.
Patch does not install in Vista.
Has anyone managed to apply any patch version in Vista? My patch to version 1.1 installed in c:\Windows instead in c:\Program Files\ etc..
I know that windows vista is not supported yet, but I want to know if anyone has solved the problem.
By the way, running version 1.0 in Vista works like a charm and I didn't notice any slowdowns due to Vista, so this is good, and patching is bad .
Yeznick
I know that windows vista is not supported yet, but I want to know if anyone has solved the problem.
By the way, running version 1.0 in Vista works like a charm and I didn't notice any slowdowns due to Vista, so this is good, and patching is bad .
Yeznick
-
- Pixie
- Posts: 145
- Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Not notice any slowdown cuz of vista? vista takes up ALOTTTTT more MB of ram maybe you have like 3gb or something if u didn't notice a diffrence,Personally i have 1.25GB RAM and i noticed a MASSIVE diffrence but i think i didn't try to update my version but i don't remmeber about the version i just remmeber no problems in running game (besides slowness)
So far my experience with Vista tells me this:
(all includes running Aero and Dreamscene constantly)
512 MB Ram works nice with Vista for office tools
1 Gig is necessary if you are doing some work other than office tools on your computer.
2 Gig recommended for gaming, video editing or some other RAM hungry work.
Everything above that is a bonus imho.
And to that guy promoting "badvista" site --> only real competition for Vista OS to any decent developer is WinXP , not any free OS for sure.
(all includes running Aero and Dreamscene constantly)
512 MB Ram works nice with Vista for office tools
1 Gig is necessary if you are doing some work other than office tools on your computer.
2 Gig recommended for gaming, video editing or some other RAM hungry work.
Everything above that is a bonus imho.
And to that guy promoting "badvista" site --> only real competition for Vista OS to any decent developer is WinXP , not any free OS for sure.
One of dumbest things I have EVER heard.Sikon wrote:What was the point of installing Vista in the first place?
I have Vista installed on a computer with 1GB RAM and a terrible graphics card... and it works perfectly, and not to forget to mention, smoothly. Those who speak against Vista either: 1) hate Windows 2) hate Microsoft 3) are Linux worshipers 4) (most common) all 3.
However, to OP: I hope that you still have XP installed for things that still aren't supported by Vista.
I am back and ready to... ready to... post things.
-
- Pixie
- Posts: 145
- Joined: 04 Sep 2006
This is BIG BIG bolony please don't talk shit about things you HAVE NO CLUE ABOUTSauron wrote:One of dumbest things I have EVER heard.Sikon wrote:What was the point of installing Vista in the first place?
I have Vista installed on a computer with 1GB RAM and a terrible graphics card... and it works perfectly, and not to forget to mention, smoothly. Those who speak against Vista either: 1) hate Windows 2) hate Microsoft 3) are Linux worshipers 4) (most common) all 3.
However, to OP: I hope that you still have XP installed for things that still aren't supported by Vista.
"works perfectly" sure the game works perfectly for me with all setups i've tried homm5 in about any windows there is ( including vista,xp,special edition of xp ,windows2003 server)
I've compared performance against EACH OTHER not against what I THINK is a resonable perfomence and the diffrence between performance is soooooooo BIG you have no idea how fast homm5 can really run on something diffrent.
Besides you really don't need to understand that much about computers
Games run faster with more RAM = the memory is faster then HD
VISTA uses more RAM then ANY OTHER WINDOWS
=GAME RUNS SLOWER
VERY VERY SIMPLE.
- Campaigner
- Vampire
- Posts: 917
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
- Location: Campaigner
I have 512MB and Win2k and from what I remember just "uncompromising" browsing of internet with firefox can eat over 2Gigs.Ya5MieL wrote: 2 Gig recommended for gaming, video editing or some other RAM hungry work.
So for real work + Vista + nitty gritty look= 8Gigs look like optimal. Furthermore Vista are still not complete product - they strip out lots of features which originally planned (new file system for example). And these are crucial - without them here is no reason to advance. Aero means nothing.
"We made it!"
The Archives | Collection of H3&WoG files | Older albeit still useful | CH Downloads
PC Specs: A10-7850K, FM2A88X+K, 16GB-1600, SSD-MLC-G3, 1TB-HDD-G3, MAYA44, SP10 500W Be Quiet
The Archives | Collection of H3&WoG files | Older albeit still useful | CH Downloads
PC Specs: A10-7850K, FM2A88X+K, 16GB-1600, SSD-MLC-G3, 1TB-HDD-G3, MAYA44, SP10 500W Be Quiet
Sure ..... You can make windows games and aps under GNU/linux you know that ? You do not need windows to make aps run under windows ....Ya5MieL wrote:So far my experience with Vista tells me this:
And to that guy promoting "badvista" site --> only real competition for Vista OS to any decent developer is WinXP , not any free OS for sure.
Ever heard of idsoftware ? .... I guess they are not decent developers for you ?
And how much of their profit do they get for making linux version?.. 1%? 0.1%, 0.01%?
ID is PC games developer, be happy that they are good souls that ported the game for linux . Without production for windows, there would be no id company at all.
Don't get me wrong, Win is not very good OS, but unfortunately its all we got, and all we will have for quite some time. (hope that changes someday)
ID is PC games developer, be happy that they are good souls that ported the game for linux . Without production for windows, there would be no id company at all.
Don't get me wrong, Win is not very good OS, but unfortunately its all we got, and all we will have for quite some time. (hope that changes someday)
If they used cross-platform APIs like SDL and OpenGL instead of Microsoft's proprietary DirectX, there would be no need to port anything. Releasing a Linux version would require no effort at all.that ported the game for linux
Prove it. I have posted the link to a site that outlines what's wrong with Vista. Now, it's your turn: what's wrong with free operating systems?only real competition for Vista OS to any decent developer is WinXP , not any free OS for sure.
There are damn good reasons to disagree with Microsoft's marketing policies, especially when they deliberately cripple their software allegedly for the users' own good.1) hate Windows 2) hate Microsoft
This is so juvenile, I'm not even bothering to comment.3) are Linux worshipers
5) Concerned that their computers are rapidly becoming someone else's property - and that "someone else" is bent on restricting users' freedomes even further.Those who speak against Vista either
This is true. Windows XP uses the NT architecture, which is more modern, stable and secure than that of Windows 98 (where security and stability are nonexistent).WinXP requires more RAM but is better.
Therefore, users had a real reason to convert to XP: the system worked better.
This is not the case with Vista. Many old Windows applications don't work in Vista at all, and there are no real architecture improvements. WPS was cut, the development of WinFS was ceased, and two major improvements originally planned as Vista-only - namely, IE7 and .NET 3.0 - were eventually backported to XP, leaving even fewer reasons to upgrade.
Most of the improvements that remain are limited to the "eye-candy" category. But even here, Vista falls flat: its 3D desktop effects are more limited than those of Mac OS X or Beryl.
So, we have a system that isn't much better than XP, which supports fewer Windows applications, consumes more system resources, is ridden with technologies that restrict users' freedom, and has a new license agreement that basically authorizes Microsoft to do whatever they want with your PC. If that is the case, why upgrade at all?
Problem with Linux and other open-source Os is the fact that most of users are not programers and are unable to tweak the system for their own wishes.what's wrong with free operating systems?
Linux is good if you know programming, but an totally un-wise choice if you are a normal user. And a normal user will gladly give money for something that has hand-holding then for something that doesn't.
You act as if this was intended for you.This is so juvenile, I'm not even bothering to comment.
For normal users, that is for better. For professional, there is Linux and Mac OS.5) Concerned that their computers are rapidly becoming someone else's property - and that "someone else" is bent on restricting users' freedomes even further.
Most of old Windows applications will work with it after a year or so. Until then, it Vista is used for testing purposes.This is not the case with Vista. Many old Windows applications don't work in Vista at all, and there are no real architecture improvements. WPS was cut, the development of WinFS was ceased, and two major improvements originally planned as Vista-only - namely, IE7 and .NET 3.0 - were eventually backported to XP, leaving even fewer reasons to upgrade.
About system absorbing:
I am testing Vista on a not to strong PC with next-gen games. Guess what: they work perfectly.
If you really have problems, you can either:
1. buy more RAM
2. turn off Aero
3. sycrifice some of your USB-flash memory to speed it up
Also, we have gone off-topic here.
I am back and ready to... ready to... post things.
Sauron wrote:Linux is good if you know programming, but an totally un-wise choice if you are a normal user.
No. No at all.Sauron wrote:For normal users, that is for better. For professional, there is Linux and Mac OS.
We probably differ in definition of normal user. Linux is easier to mod or even to control which is true for normal people as well. - You don't need to be programmer for using it - but it's a different gravy.
May seems so on first sight but that is deceptive feel. For no one is better to loosing its privacy. Security at first place - you cannot rely on fact that Microsoft cannot intelligently (mis)use its database when it has it against individuals - because misusing is is also to put knowldege gathered in this way in business manner. Which is doing.
Of course. And yes, we should get back on topicSauron wrote: Most of old Windows...
"We made it!"
The Archives | Collection of H3&WoG files | Older albeit still useful | CH Downloads
PC Specs: A10-7850K, FM2A88X+K, 16GB-1600, SSD-MLC-G3, 1TB-HDD-G3, MAYA44, SP10 500W Be Quiet
The Archives | Collection of H3&WoG files | Older albeit still useful | CH Downloads
PC Specs: A10-7850K, FM2A88X+K, 16GB-1600, SSD-MLC-G3, 1TB-HDD-G3, MAYA44, SP10 500W Be Quiet
This just so not true ...Sauron wrote:Problem with Linux and other open-source Os is the fact that most of users are not programers and are unable to tweak the system for their own wishes.what's wrong with free operating systems?
Linux is good if you know programming, but an totally un-wise choice if you are a normal user. And a normal user will gladly give money for something that has hand-holding then for something that doesn't.
.
There are many distros that are good for newbies and where you can do everything by clicking and through wizards etc... .... Suse , Mandriva, or Kubuntu just to name a few ...
BTW My girlfriend runs GNU/Linux Kubuntu and she is not a programer ... Actually she does not know much about computers.... but the point is that she likes it more then windows .... She is happy that she has an office suite that she can browse web and watch movies listen to music just like in windows ..... but then again she is not forced anymore to do viruses scans and DOES NOT ASK ME for help when windows gets damaged just because Linux runs over half year at her home and nothing went wrong ....
How much profit well they did not port the game .... id makes games by using OpenGL api so by definition they are cross platform. It's not big efford to realese a binary for linux.... they just realese the windows version and then after a month you can download for free a patch from their website for mac or linux ..... It's hard too tell how many people of those who bought the windows version did so for the sake of linux gaming ....Ya5MieL wrote:And how much of their profit do they get for making linux version?.. 1%? 0.1%, 0.01%?
ID is PC games developer, be happy that they are good souls that ported the game for linux . Without production for windows, there would be no id company at all.
)
As for the profit .... well I actually would buy a linux version of HoMM5 ... or a windows version if there was a free linux binary .... and I did not boy this game yet BTW and refuse to do so if they will not support my OS of choice ....
I think they can live without your money (or money of all ppl that have linux), on the other hand they can't survive if windows users stop buying the game.
This thread is getting out of hand.. it seems we are all happy with OS that we curentlly have (be it Win, MacOS, Linux or something else), so no point in arguing at all. If you are happy with something, dont change it.
To conclude the thread question, Heroes will surely work on Vista (albeit slower than on XP), and patches installed normaly for me (including no-cd ones)
This thread is getting out of hand.. it seems we are all happy with OS that we curentlly have (be it Win, MacOS, Linux or something else), so no point in arguing at all. If you are happy with something, dont change it.
To conclude the thread question, Heroes will surely work on Vista (albeit slower than on XP), and patches installed normaly for me (including no-cd ones)
This is my last post in here..
I really don't remember when i was saying anything about DirectX vs OpenGL. It was about Win Vista perspective in gaming area which is still miles ahead of any free OS.
Games are created for profit, profit is in the Windows. Hypotethical situations "wouldnt it be better if they used OpenGL" are irrelevant since the FACT is that they DON'T use it in a considerable percentage and thats all that matter.
Keep your OS, and play 1/10 or less of the games that are available.
Losing the ability to play 90% games for ability to say that i use Better OS is simply not a good trade.
I'm out of this pointless debate.
I really don't remember when i was saying anything about DirectX vs OpenGL. It was about Win Vista perspective in gaming area which is still miles ahead of any free OS.
Games are created for profit, profit is in the Windows. Hypotethical situations "wouldnt it be better if they used OpenGL" are irrelevant since the FACT is that they DON'T use it in a considerable percentage and thats all that matter.
Keep your OS, and play 1/10 or less of the games that are available.
Losing the ability to play 90% games for ability to say that i use Better OS is simply not a good trade.
I'm out of this pointless debate.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 44 guests