Just was going back through some old messages, and noticed your replies.
You know very little, yet act like you are an inside expert. Strange.
Live for XP was not planned, and was one reason why Vista was required for
Halo2. As the Vista version of Live used 'features' from the new WCF and
Vista network stack, it was not JUST marketing for the Live components to
require Vista.
Even if a person factors in the performance differences, moving Live to XP
will be risky for MS, as the latency and CPU usage incurred could cause
problems in games like Halo2 because it no longer has the integrated IPv6
stack, and instead is having to work through the hybrid network stack on XP.
You also don't seem to understand the WDDM very well, as this was also a
factor for the bungie team, as they could still use DX9 but 'assume'
features of the Vista subsystem would be doing its job, like pre-emptively
multi-tasking the GPU between rendering, physics calculations, and also
handing higher quality textures to the game even if the user's VRAM was
small. So by focusing on Vista, they didn't have to optimize or self yeild
the GPU for good FPS as the OS 'Vista' would do the work for them. So even
if the game is only using the DX9 libraries, if you are targeting Vista, you
have a LOT more latiture in what you can push your game to do and whether
you have to worry about VRAM sizes or GPU locking. This makes the
development process 'DIFFERENT' from targeting a DX9 game at XP,
considerably.
Sure Halo3 could be made for the original XBox, but then they would have to
remove 90% of the features and graphics quality. Do you not understand the
hardware requirements to push the levels of detail, AI, physics, and audio
that is in Halo3 would drop an XBox to its knees, let alone the fact that
its hardware won't even support the features? Take even something as simple
as a freaking texture, the texture size for the Original XBox was tiny in
comparison to the size of textures allowed on the 360.
Please don't respond to my posts again until you have a clue.
-TheNETAvenger
"Andy [Ex-MSFT]" <android8675@MAPSONhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:984C7994-4F01-4054-9050-4102BDA123CE@microsoft.com...
>> "SAMF2000" <SamuelF566@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1184010291.173783.87750@r34g2000hsd.googlegro ups.com...
>>> While many people can choose to buy Vista or not, the idea of making
>>> Games only work with Vista is almost criminal. A game such as Halo 2
>>> for the PC Which MS Knew everyone wanted, was made only for Vista...
>
> "TheNetAvenger" <thenetavenger@thenetavenger.net> wrote in message
> news:uDrQp9z0HHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Halo2 multi-player uses new 'Live' features that integrate with the XBox
>> network. All of these features were designed for and built on Vista
>> architecture and technology.
>>
>> So in theory Halo2 single player can run on XP and be hacked to run, but
>> you can't do the multi-player.
>>
>> This was not some 'evil' plan to force people to upgrade to Vista, this
>> was building the software on the new and best technologies. Just like
>> Halo3 will not run on the original XBox. 
>
> At one point I might of agreed with you TNA, but I gotta say there is
> NOTHING in Halo 2 that requires Vista. It's a DirectX 9 game, the Live for
> Windows support runs off native XNA code (as does the game), there's
> nothing in Halo 2 that requires Vista.
>
> Microsoft released Halo 2 on Vista to encourage/force people to upgrade to
> Vista. Sugar coat it however you want, but thankfully there are much
> better games out there than Halo 2. (Halo 1 with Halo 2 map packs is
> better than Halo 2, and it has a better story)
>
> Halo 3 could run on the original XBox, but why do that when Microsoft no
> longer supports the original XBox? For a "Net Avenger" you sure aren't
> being very heroic here.
>
> -A.
Linear Mode
