Viewing Thread:
"PC the best console yet!!"

!! PC the best console yet!!
because name a console that does all the games like ECT, grand theft auto 1,2,3,london , resident evil 1,2,3 what do u think??? cos i think PC the best . because i think the Xbox wont do this nor will gamecube or will it?? its done the resident evil.1 better will it do number 2 like it? (i hope u can understand this)

Dave RJR wrote:
> If a 450Mhz PC can run every game out there today with no slow down,
> why do game manufacturers keep writing down on the box the
> recommended/min spec which is often a top line P2 or a P3. Even if
> your computer is bang on the Min spec needed, I have found such games
> to run slow at best. Really you need to be at least a few steps above
> the Min. Spec from my experience. Therefore how do you cope with a 450
> P2, just with extra Ram fitted?

I dont have min spec.. only the processor is of the min spec, memory exceeds minimum specification.. also, I don't use maximum screen resolution, usually plumping for either 1024x768 or 1024x1028, and have 16-bit colour depth.

I generally find most people who have trouble running games, are also people who like to play around with their system settings, try out different setups, etc... Whic is cool, Its something I used to do quite a lot,and it taught me a lot about how things work, what things are useful, and what are a waste of time, but these days, I have the setup I like and I stick with it... I dont bother trying to overclock, turn on every Windows settings, etc.. I don't feel the need to change things.

I'm sure people with better settings get far superior performance out of their systems, and I am intending to upgrade myself next year...

I do find that the younger deszins of these forums feel the need to stay absolutly up to date with whatever the latest technology is, and if thats the case, then it is understandable that PC's would be considered extreamly expensive...

Personally, I tend to upgrade as I need to, because there is a new graphics card out, I don't feel the need to own it if the one I have handles my software adequtely, bear in mind that I'm using a PS2 as my bentchmark for software spec quality, obviously it wouldnt hold a candle to X-Box titles.

I would have thought a gamer would be pleased to hear that PC gaming was'nt as expensive as they thought, that it was possible to buy a machine and for it to still be valid years later?

> Ram Vs PS2 memory cards. I would agree that some types of Ram are
> cheap - the new stuff is very good value. However, the memory card is
> not Ram. It is used to save data onto. Plus, you don't need to open up
> the PS2 to plug a new memory card in. But the 2 things are different -
> so comparing them is not really right.

I wasn't making a literal comparison, since PC's come with HDD, with internet access readily avalible, and with floppydrives still an old standard (and these days most seem to come with CD-RW), so saving of a computer is a buit in function, where you need to spend money to save on a console...

You do need to open the box to install memoery, but it is a very basic operation (plug it into the slot) and its something you only do once... I dont need to remove my memory on Ive used up all the space...

I was referring making the comparision more as an expample that my system upgrades havn't cost me any more than buying a memory card...

Its really not Ram Vs. PS2 memory cards, I'm not in a competition with you to decide the better system, I've already repeatedly stated that I think both computers and consoles are fantastic?

> Mac & Linux. The Mac (and I suspect pc's running Linux) are in the
> same scenario as the pc running windows. Mac OS which runs on the
> Power Mac's/iMac's is subject to updates just like Windows on the PC.
> I use Mac's and PC's and while I don't hate any of them, I would say
> to anyone disappointed with their current pc's and who are considering
> to changing to the Mac because of Windows upgrades's, etc - don't do
> it. Apple and third party manufacturers update and patch for the Mac
> as much as they do for the pc.

I was referring to your objection to stability? I dont understand your problem with OS upgrades? I can instal the Windows I have on CD and play games without any problems... I get upgrades because I Want newer versions of Explorer, Media Player, and usually these days they are for fixing internet security holes... Theres no point in comparing this to consoles, its like saying the PS2 is better because Adobe Photoshop7 isnt as good as V6?


> Broken PC Vs broken PS2. It is very true, some the first PS2's had
> problems. But I guarantee that people would find it more easy to
> replace or repair one of these than a faulty pc. I have found over
> the years that pc manufacturers and anyone who sales them just want
> your money and offer poor after sales service. The PS2 and other
> similar equipment is seen as domestic like a tv or DVD player. Such
> things are sorted much better (although not always good or quick
> enough).

I was'nt making a literal comparison between damaged PC hardware and damaged PS2 hardware? It was trying to explain that consols are themselves not beyond screwing up...

> At the end of the day, if you need web access, and/or do work at home,
> you will need a PC of some sort to do it. PC's are good for doing
> various tasks like that, but they are certainly not perfect in design.
> I would still prefer to play games on the console, but it does seem
> expensive and a bit messy to have both. But I will put up with that to
> avoid using the PC for the majority of games. In the future consoles
> could be PC's in a box. MS are certainly going that way, and Sony has
> also said that the PS3 may use a full GUI to manage data - just like a
> PC.

That PS2 ans X-Box are becomeing home computers again is a topic that been covered before (Ive written 2+ topics on the switch between the Consoles of the 70's to the home computers of the eighties to the consoles of the ninites and now the home computers of the 21C)

I'm not knocking consoles... it every post here I've gone out of my way to explain that. I'm not trying to threaten your PS2 or to upset you. Games genuinly do work fine on my system, maybe I've got some magical PC that always stays up to date, hardware technology is upgrading faster thanits related software needs, mabey advertising is telling you you need new and better stuff, when what you have is fine, maybe you've been misinformed, I don't know, I'm just trying to explain how things are for me.

If a 450Mhz PC can run every game out there today with no slow down, why do game manufacturers keep writing down on the box the recommended/min spec which is often a top line P2 or a P3. Even if your computer is bang on the Min spec needed, I have found such games to run slow at best. Really you need to be at least a few steps above the Min. Spec from my experience. Therefore how do you cope with a 450 P2, just with extra Ram fitted?

Ram Vs PS2 memory cards. I would agree that some types of Ram are cheap - the new stuff is very good value. However, the memory card is not Ram. It is used to save data onto. Plus, you don't need to open up the PS2 to plug a new memory card in. But the 2 things are different - so comparing them is not really right.

Mac & Linux. The Mac (and I suspect pc's running Linux) are in the same scenario as the pc running windows. Mac OS which runs on the Power Mac's/iMac's is subject to updates just like Windows on the PC. I use Mac's and PC's and while I don't hate any of them, I would say to anyone disappointed with their current pc's and who are considering to changing to the Mac because of Windows upgrades's, etc - don't do it. Apple and third party manufacturers update and patch for the Mac as much as they do for the pc.

Broken PC Vs broken PS2. It is very true, some the first PS2's had problems. But I guarantee that people would find it more easy to replace or repair one of these than a faulty pc. I have found over the years that pc manufacturers and anyone who sales them just want your money and offer poor after sales service. The PS2 and other similar equipment is seen as domestic like a tv or DVD player. Such things are sorted much better (although not always good or quick enough).

At the end of the day, if you need web access, and/or do work at home, you will need a PC of some sort to do it. PC's are good for doing various tasks like that, but they are certainly not perfect in design. I would still prefer to play games on the console, but it does seem expensive and a bit messy to have both. But I will put up with that to avoid using the PC for the majority of games. In the future consoles could be PC's in a box. MS are certainly going that way, and Sony has also said that the PS3 may use a full GUI to manage data - just like a PC.

Dave RJR wrote:
> If you have a 1998 PC-then you have a P1 or P2 if you were lucky. If
> you are running some of these very large games, you would be
> struggling on a 1998 PC with just extra RAM fitted. P1 and P2's are
> not much good now. I have a 400Mhz P2 with 6Gb HD and 8Mb Video.
> Operation Flashpoint hardly moves on it - and that is not a
> particularly demanding game by todays standards.

I have a P2 450... It doesnt really have any trouble at all... It is 5 odd years old, but I don't have any stutter in game like GTA3? ... I don't play around with the settings much... its just the way I like it.


> Most people don't want to keep adding or updating their pc every
> couple of years. Most don't even know how to open the box.

I'm not trying to make any specific point, though, I suppose I could say that I picked up a machine at the time when the PS1 was most popular, and can still run >PS2 games, years after that was released... That upgrading a whole machine... apart from which, theres little difference between buying a memory card to buying extra ram? So thers negligable stess dofference between systems?

> *There are also some people who actually use their computers for other
> stuff like work. If that require's big software which gets updated
> every year (ie, graphics), you are locked into hardware + software
> upgrades to support that software upgrade path as well.

I use my PC for work... it does'nt really require yearly upgrades, most home users seem to upgrade their software when they buy new machines, (since you get Windows and often office as part of the package) and stick with it for the duration... Although another answer is... so?

> **As for WinXP_Service Pack1 being just a business update, well even
> if it is - there are plenty of other examples of less then perfect
> upgrade's. We had several pc's falling over when we first got Win98.
> MS said that they had no plans for any updates - and tried to brush
> the probs under the carpet. But Release 2 did come out, and it did
> address the issue's that MS didn't want to admit were there in the
> first place. I find WindowsME a bit ify too. Thats the sort of
> stability we can do without thank u very much.

Like I say... Sony had to recall their consoles, MS recalled theirs... These campies were working with very specific hardware specs, These things happen.. if you don't like it, use Linux? Buy a Mac, etc...

PC's definitly arnt perfect, and I really don't think they pretend to be, but they are good a what they do... If you prefer console gaming, stick with consoles, if you prefer PC games, stick with the PC.

Although the gamers who seem to be having the most fun are those who care less about the platform and more about the games. Less about the views of reviewers, more about how much fun they have playing the game.

Multiple formats are a blessing more than they are a curse, The industry would lose out immensly if the PC, PS2, X-Box or GC went the way of the Dreamcast... They all bring unique perspectives on gaming, even playing the same game (e.g Quake, GTA3, etc) can be uniqely differnt experience on different systems.

Theres always a lot of heated debate about where a system fails or succeeds... but right now, their only real strength and weakness is that all systems need on each other.

Dave calm down mate. If people want to upgrade their PC's to play the most recent game, why should you care? In the end you either don't want to upgrade, or you do, pick one and stop bloody moaning about the other.

ok yea pcs are great but we have had 3 topics two called the same and all saying the same thing cant you think of something a bit more origonal

if chief 117 or whatever see this below, thats how ya post

If you have a 1998 PC-then you have a P1 or P2 if you were lucky. If you are running some of these very large games, you would be struggling on a 1998 PC with just extra RAM fitted. P1 and P2's are not much good now. I have a 400Mhz P2 with 6Gb HD and 8Mb Video. Operation Flashpoint hardly moves on it - and that is not a particularly demanding game by todays standards.

If you have seriously added more power to a 1998 pc, you would have gone for a P3 or P4 - but that would have reqd a motherboard change out. You may of kept your old video card, but I suspect that was changed as well - since video cards from 1998 would have much less on board VRAM (say upto 4 or 8Mb?) and would be fairly slow now (PCI card?). Modern video cards are much faster (AGP) and can have loads of VRAM on board (16, 32Mb, etc). Some (if not many) games and other packages require a certain amount of VRAM to operate. Not a problem for todays VRAM packed cards, but a concern for older hardware.

Most people don't want to keep adding or updating their pc every couple of years. Most don't even know how to open the box.

*There are also some people who actually use their computers for other stuff like work. If that require's big software which gets updated every year (ie, graphics), you are locked into hardware + software upgrades to support that software upgrade path as well.

**As for WinXP_Service Pack1 being just a business update, well even if it is - there are plenty of other examples of less then perfect upgrade's. We had several pc's falling over when we first got Win98. MS said that they had no plans for any updates - and tried to brush the probs under the carpet. But Release 2 did come out, and it did address the issue's that MS didn't want to admit were there in the first place. I find WindowsME a bit ify too. Thats the sort of stability we can do without thank u very much.

Dave RJR wrote:
> Is that on the original CPU, video, CD/DVD drive, original amount of
> Ram fitted? If original, what is it?

As I've already said, I've upgraded my ram twice... adding 128MB each time, at a cost of 13 quid each... cheaper than buying memory cards? :)

Dave RJR wrote:
> This is why I don't want to play games on a pc.
> MS has released an upgrade to Windows XP. Service pack1 is now
> available, but XP has not been around very long and they are on the
> upgrade path already. Some may say it's to correct problems. But if
> this is the case, why didn't MS get it right in the first place.

Service Pack one mainly contains the software they were required to produce post their court case e.g the ability to replace Explorer as the browser of choice...

Its a business upgrade rather more than a bug fix, many companies wait until the service pack one release before they upgrade their software...

As for getting it right the first time, didnt Sony need to replace many of their launch PS2... can't they even get hardware... and specific hardware to work first time? :)

Armatige Shanks wrote:
> Covering the same point again.. I run the latest games, at a 1024x768
> res on my 1998 PC?

Is that on the original CPU, video, CD/DVD drive, original amount of Ram fitted? If original, what is it?