Would K3 come out for Windows Vista?

[Clone L68362]

Well, talk of the next OS, Windows Vista, is going around, and a possible release date of later this year means that new games are going to be coming out. Halo 2 for PC, for example has been announced. Since we haven't hear anything about K3 yet, I think it's likely that by the time it's announced, it might be announced for Vista. What do you guys think this could mean?

 

Here's the main page for Vista, if you don't know about it:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.aspx

 

Wikipedia is probably more helpful actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista

[Char Ell]

Since we haven't hear anything about K3 yet, I think it's likely that by the time it's announced, it might be announced for Vista. What do you guys think this could mean?

If you're asking whether or not KotOR 3 would be released for Windows Vista only; the answer is no, it won't.

 

If you're asking whether or not KotOR 3 will run on Vista; it all depends on when KotOR 3 is made and released. I think it most likely LucasArts would support the game on Windows Vista as well as Windows XP and probably some earlier Windows versions as well.

[TheOneMan]

If you're asking whether or not KotOR 3 would be released for Windows Vista only; the answer is no, it won't.

 

If you're asking whether or not KotOR 3 will run on Vista; it all depends on when KotOR 3 is made and released. I think it most likely LucasArts would support the game on Windows Vista as well as Windows XP and probably some earlier Windows versions as well.

 

I could see Window's XP, but as of this year, IIRC, Microsoft will stop supporting '98 and 2000/ME addition's. So I think only XP/Pro/Media Center/Vista/Lornhorn?

[Char Ell]

I could see Window's XP, but as of this year, IIRC, Microsoft will stop supporting '98 and 2000/ME addition's. So I think only XP/Pro/Media Center/Vista/Lornhorn?

Perhaps you're right. But as I said I think it will depend on KotOR 3's release date. Microsoft will stop support for Windows 98 and Windows ME on 2006 June 30. I think if KotOR 3 is released this year then LucasArts would support it on Windows 2000 and higher and possibly Windows 98. I think the decision whether or not LucasArts would support the game on Windows 98 would be based more on hardware requirements, meaning if the game's h/w reqs don't jive with what Windows 98 supports then LA won't list Win98 as a supported OS.

 

If KotOR 3 is released in 2007 then I think it would only be supported on Windows XP and Windows Vista.

[Prime]

XP will be supported by the gaming community for a long time to come.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

I guess it depends on how long it takes for this game to come out.

[Master Dakari]

Chances are that - as said above - it will all depend on when the game is released. Also, if it is released for Windows Vista, it will also be compatible with Windows XP. They will understand that not everyone is going to hit the store shelves to buy the new OS as soon as it is released. OSs tend to take a long while to catch on and become mainstream. Even with XP the basic Windows platform, there are still many many people using '98.

 

Oh, and a cautionary word...Does anyone remember the memory-suage jump made from '98 to XP; well, expect even more of the same jump from XP to Vista. Someone I used to know checked this out with one of the Betas, and it was ridiculous.

 

Personally, if they would make an install wizard and automated Windows-emulator for Linux, I would make Linspire my primary desktop OS. But until that happens, I'm sticking with Windows.

[Aurora Merlow]

I think it will probably run on Vista, but we don't even know for sure they're making another one yet, let alone what its going to run on

[Jeff]

XP will be supported by the gaming community for a long time to come.

Hopefully, but not in the case of Halo 2 for PC...

[Char Ell]

^^^

Microsoft's monopolistic madness never ceases to amaze me...

 

To use a wildy popular game to force upgrades to their latest OS... It just makes me think they haven't learned anything from all the anti-trust hassle M$ recently went through.

[Sabretooth]

Ummm... considering the fact that KotOR III is not even announced yet, I believe the chances of it getting a Vista release are very, very high. In fact, I believe that once Microsoft brags about Vista's game-enhancing features, every major game dev will start sucking up to Vista.

[Meatbag]

Reminds of me this friend of mine who thinks that the only variable in computers is the OS, and has no idea that technical things made a difference. I was running this on 98 till last year, another comp in my house still is on 98.

If K3 is released only for Vista, that will mean that marketers at the K3 company are stupid. Vista will become a popular thing not so soon. XP is currently everywhere.

[Prime]

In fact, I believe that once Microsoft brags about Vista's game-enhancing features, every major game dev will start sucking up to Vista.

It depends on how quickly Vista penetrates the market. If it is slow, the developer switch to it will be slow.

[The Source]

Well, talk of the next OS, Windows Vista, is going around, and a possible release date of later this year means that new games are going to be coming out. Halo 2 for PC, for example has been announced. Since we haven't hear anything about K3 yet, I think it's likely that by the time it's announced, it might be announced for Vista. What do you guys think this could mean?

 

Here's the main page for Vista, if you don't know about it:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.aspx

 

Wikipedia is probably more helpful actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista

It depends on the file system that KotOR 3 and Vista will use. I am not sure if you knew this, but Windows XP is a NTFS filing system. Earlier versions of Windows fell into FAT16 and FAT32. If KotOR 3 is made for NTFS, and if Microsoft didn't change their filing system, then I see that there will be no problem. However, there is another filing system that has been in production for a few years. FAT64 <--- Hoewver, it had another designation, which I cannot recall at the moment. NTFS for Windows XP could be based on a 64bit system. I think that is where we are now. I know the new computers that have come out for the past four years have been using the 64Bit system. However, I don't know if it has 100% taken over the market. Lucas Arts will probally make it compatible with all systems.

[Master Dakari]

NTFS for Windows XP could be based on a 64bit system. I think that is where we are now. I know the new computers that have come out for the past four years have been using the 64Bit system. However, I don't know if it has 100% taken over the market. Lucas Arts will probally make it compatible with all systems.

 

No, not everything is 64-bit. Intel is still big on the markets, so likewise is 32-bit processing. And software, for a long time to come, will still be written to run smoothly on 32-bit systems. Not all software developers are as monopolistic as Miscrosoft, and most can understand the wants and needs of their consumers.

 

But like I said before, I would love to be able to use Linspire primarily. But, the market is almost completely controlled by M$. Even if you run to linux in order to escape it, you will still run back to it for its components. There's nowhere to go. And even distros like Linspire have adopted some of Microsoft's business strategies (Linspire's being their money-grubbing CNR-Warehouse).

 

So, the mess is everywhere. Sure, we have all right to gripe and moan about it all day. But eventually we're just gonna have to suck it up and take it like a frat boy on rush night.

[Char Ell]

It depends on the file system that KotOR 3 and Vista will use. I am not sure if you knew this, but Windows XP is a NTFS filing system. Earlier versions of Windows fell into FAT16 and FAT32. If KotOR 3 is made for NTFS, and if Microsoft didn't change their filing system, then I see that there will be no problem. However, there is another filing system that has been in production for a few years. FAT64 <--- Hoewver, it had another designation, which I cannot recall at the moment. NTFS for Windows XP could be based on a 64bit system. I think that is where we are now. I know the new computers that have come out for the past four years have been using the 64Bit system.

I think there is some confusion in terms here. The compatibility concern won't be with the Windows filing system but rather with 32-bit processing vs. 64-bit processing. As Master Dakari states not everything is 64-bit and as far as I know game designers haven't even started releasing games for 64-bit processors. I really think the 32-bit/64-bit CPU concern will be a non-issue for games for at least another year.

[Buzz1978]

I really think the 32-bit/64-bit CPU concern will be a non-issue for games for at least another year.

 

Why should it become an issue anyhow? 64 Bit doesn't mean more speed, it means more precision and a precision that isn't of much use in computer games. Right now there are still more games being published on a couple of CDs rather than a single DVD - publishers don't like to cut off a part of their audience unless there's a good reason to it and the part is really small.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Actually 64-bit OS's do offer better speed, as a CPU can process more data per cycle and handle more memory. But 64-bit floating-point numbers would be a huge advantage for games, just look at the FarCry and HL2 for 32 and 64-bit versions. HL2 looks insanely realistic at 1280x720, 6xFSAA, 16xAN, Full HDR, Full Surface Reflection, and the high-res texture mod

 

As for K3 on Vista, part of me wants to see at least a version of it for Vista, mainly because I've been looking at the DX10 SDK lately and I know it, along with any other game on Vista, would look awesome because of the new shaders and various other goodies that'll be included with DX10

[Buzz1978]

Actually 64-bit OS's do offer better speed, as a CPU can process more data per cycle and handle more memory.

And how is that? How is a 64-Bit OS supposed to handle 64-Bit values not only at the same speed as 32-Bit values but actually faster? And the "more allocatable memory" matter is a non issue for a couple of years.

 

But 64-bit floating-point numbers would be a huge advantage for games, just look at the FarCry and HL2 for 32 and 64-bit versions.

Ok, I stand corrected for "little use" statement ... partly. Both the Farcry and the HL2 engine are a couple of days older and we just don't know what they actually changed for the 64Bit versions.

 

HL2 looks insanely realistic at 1280x720, 6xFSAA, 16xAN, Full HDR, Full Surface Reflection, and the high-res texture mod

But nothing you can't have on a 32Bit-system...

[Char Ell]

And how is that? How is a 64-Bit OS supposed to handle 64-Bit values not only at the same speed as 32-Bit values but actually faster? And the "more allocatable memory" matter is a non issue for a couple of years.

Because a 64-bit processor can process twice as much data in a clock cycle as a 32-bit processor. That's what I always thought. It's kind of like digging a hole with 6-inch shovel versus a 12-inch shovel. Say it took 100 shovel loads to dig your hole with a 6-inch shovel. If you use the 12-inch shovel right you can dig your specified hole in only 50 shovel loads. But of course proper programming will always be required in order to take full advantages of new processor types.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

^^^^

That, plus the new 2 Gb sticks of RAM that are emerging, and AMD's new M2 socket will make sure that 64-bit systems will outperform 32-bit systems in the very near future. In fact, the 64-bit support and DX10 are the only things that I'm looking forward to in Vista, as DX9.0c and the 64-bit support of XP Pro x64, quite frankly, suck, there's only a minimal gain in OS performance and all the DX games for it are a little bit buggy, in fact, Valve (the HL2 developer/publisher) is the only company to put out a 64-bit game that's close to bug-free (there's actually less bugs in the 64-bit than the 32-bit).

 

But nothing you can't have on a 32Bit-system...

Actually, I couldn't have all that enabled and get the FPS I'm getting now (120 FPS avg).

[lukeiamyourdad]

There's virtually no risk to see KotOR 3 being a Vista exclusive.

Microsoft doesn't own LucasArts and the folks at LA are still smart enough not to pull a "Halo2 for PC". That is unless MS gives them lots of money. Even so...I don't see why MS would do that.

Hitting the largest possible audience for the largest possible profit gain will be LA's goal, not pleasing Mr. Gates.

[Buzz1978]

Because a 64-bit processor can process twice as much data in a clock cycle as a 32-bit processor.

Might be... But if that's the case then 64-Bit-calculations are actually the *same* speed as 32-Bit-calculations on a 32-Bit-CPU (same architecture) and none faster. Like I said: precision not speed.

 

It's kind of like digging a hole with 6-inch shovel versus a 12-inch shovel. Say it took 100 shovel loads to dig your hole with a 6-inch shovel. If you use the 12-inch shovel right you can dig your specified hole in only 50 shovel loads.

That's pretty naive, sorry. This way the CPU could handle two 32-Bit-shovel-loads instead of one 64-Bit-shovel-load in one clock cycle processing 32-Bit-data twice as fast... Obviously this is not the case. What good is the size of the hole, anyway? If you want to add two shovel loads ... I mean variables, you still need the same number of shovel actions ... I mean clock cycles. The advantage of having bigger shovels is that you can handle bigger shovel loads without the danger of dirt falling off ... I mean overflow.

But if the dirt... I mean data fits on 32-Bit-shovels as well, then there's really no difference.

 

The primary difference between 32-Bit and 64-Bit (like 16 vs 32 before, are you guys too young to remember that?) is the size of the registers in the cpu. The CPU handles data words and at best (for you) doesn't care which size they are. But 64-Bit-data takes up twice as much room in the cache and RAM however... And if there are any optimizations for 32-Bit-processing (like... well... handling two 32-Bit-shovel-loads on a 64-Bit-shovel at the same time maybe? Hmm, very unlikely...) then 64-Bit-processing can't be nearly as fast.

 

That, plus the new 2 Gb sticks of RAM that are emerging, and AMD's new M2 socket will make sure that 64-bit systems will outperform 32-bit systems in the very near future.

Don't you realize it? The Athlon64 is the way better performer than the AthlonXP in a pure 32-Bit-environment... Do you really believe this has anything to do with it being 64-Bit instead of 32-Bit?

[Char Ell]

Might be... But if that's the case then 64-Bit-calculations are actually the *same* speed as 32-Bit-calculations on a 32-Bit-CPU (same architecture) and none faster. Like I said: precision not speed.

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me. Precision? What does that have to with this? If you had said volume or quantity then this probably would have made more sense. So if a 64-bit CPU has the same clock speed as a 32-bit CPU then theoretically speaking the 64-bit CPU can process 2x as much data as the 32-bit CPU in a set time period. I have already acknowledged that proper programming must be in place in order for this to be realized.

The primary difference between 32-Bit and 64-Bit (like 16 vs 32 before, are you guys too young to remember that?) is the size of the registers in the cpu. The CPU handles data words and at best (for you) doesn't care which size they are. But 64-Bit-data takes up twice as much room in the cache and RAM however... And if there are any optimizations for 32-Bit-processing (like... well... handling two 32-Bit-shovel-loads on a 64-Bit-shovel at the same time maybe? Hmm, very unlikely...) then 64-Bit-processing can't be nearly as fast.

If this is the case then why did CPU manufacturers ever decide to go from 16-bit to 32-bit? You sound like you know what you're talking about but then again seems to me that you're talking gobbley gook.

Sure, if a 2.0 GHz 64-bit CPU is only receiving 32-bit chunks per clock cycle then it's not going to be any faster than a 2.0 GHz 32-bit CPU. But if a 2.0 GHz 64-bit CPU receives 64-bit data sets to process per clock cycle then it should be twice as fast as a 2.0 GHz 32-bit CPU.

[Buzz1978]

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me. Precision? What does that have to with this?

With 64-Bit instead of 32-Bit you can handle integer-values with 2^32times the size or floating-point-values with 2^32times the precision. You just boost the adress range, nothing else.

 

So if a 64-bit CPU has the same clock speed as a 32-bit CPU then theoretically speaking the 64-bit CPU can process 2x as much data as the 32-bit CPU in a set time period.

But only under the assumption that all processed data is 64-Bit instead of 32-Bit. The number of "actions" (calculations, data transfers...) remains the *same*!

 

If this is the case then why did CPU manufacturers ever decide to go from 16-bit to 32-bit?

2^16=65536; 2^32 is about 4 Milliards (Billions for you non SI prefix users); 2^64 is about 18 Trillions (Quintillions for you non SI prefix users)

The step from 16 to 32 Bit was a revolution, the step from 32 to 64 Bit is evolution at best. It definitely serves a purpose in some applications but there's no need to boost up everything to 64Bit now, only because there's the option to do so.

 

But if a 2.0 GHz 64-bit CPU receives 64-bit data sets to process per clock cycle then it should be twice as fast as a 2.0 GHz 32-bit CPU.

Nope. If both CPUs share the same archicture (which isn't the case in RL) then the 64-Bit CPU processes 64Bit-data as fast as it processes 32Bit-data and right as fast as the 32Bit-CPU processes 32Bit-data. The *only* difference is that the 64Bit-CPU is capable to process 64Bit-data at all. This may sound like a rerun, but 64 vs 32 Bit is *all* about adress range and therefore precision in FP calculation or domain in integer calculation and *nothing* else.