80 quid just to continue playing CS?

[Uzi]

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

Now I know Steam is only really viable on WindowsXP systems, it leaves me
with the prospect of having to decide whether its worth spending another £80
on upgrading my O/S in order to continue playing CS.

I've heard Gabe Newell say in interviews how much they, at Valve, feel in
respect for the people who've bought and played their games and made them so
popular.
I'm wondering if that includes non WindowsXP users, the gamers who bought
all the half-life games but now don't have enough money spare to upgrade to
Windows XP?

Ok Valve, why not program Steam using the API's already tried and proven and
installed on all Windows
systems, like MFC, DCOM, DirectX, ActiveX, Java or plain and simple
msvcrt.dll with Winsock2.dll?
That would show more loyalty to your customers.

Don't get me wrong ..I have no problem with upgrading if I actually need it,
but just for Steam?
Sounds like one giant Cash Cow ready to be milked.
I'm going to leave it.

Uzi

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

Yea yea we know you are upset. Go and play something else instead.

W

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

Uzi,

I ran Steam no probs about 3 months ago on a Windows 2000 machine for a
little while, although the rest of my experience has always been on
Windows XP.

I would recommend upgrading your OS to at least win 2000. Win 98 only
uses upto 128mb of RAM so anything above that in your box is unused.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

"john henry bonham" <with@he.ld> wrote in message
news:41231ea8$0$58821$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> Uzi,
>
> I ran Steam no probs about 3 months ago on a Windows 2000 machine for a
> little while, although the rest of my experience has always been on
> Windows XP.
>
> I would recommend upgrading your OS to at least win 2000. Win 98 only
> uses upto 128mb of RAM so anything above that in your box is unused.

Lol, thats bollocks - there is an issue that anything over 756mb would be
wasted, but is easily resolved by a setting in an ini file - see google for
details.

--
NickyD

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

In article <2oh49lFant1fU1@uni-berlin.de>,
nicky_bikerKILLTHISBIT@hotmail.com says...
>
> "john henry bonham" <with@he.ld> wrote in message
> news:41231ea8$0$58821$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> > Uzi,
> >
> > I ran Steam no probs about 3 months ago on a Windows 2000 machine for a
> > little while, although the rest of my experience has always been on
> > Windows XP.
> >
> > I would recommend upgrading your OS to at least win 2000. Win 98 only
> > uses upto 128mb of RAM so anything above that in your box is unused.
>
> Lol, thats bollocks - there is an issue that anything over 756mb would be
> wasted, but is easily resolved by a setting in an ini file - see google for
> details.

Actually 98 standard had problems with more than 128MB (or some other
number), but 98 Second Edition had a fix for it and could use a LOT more
without problem.

In most cases, a home user will never use more than 512MB of RAM, even
playing CS.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

NickyD wrote:
> "john henry bonham" <with@he.ld> wrote in message
> news:41231ea8$0$58821$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>
>>Uzi,
>>
>>I ran Steam no probs about 3 months ago on a Windows 2000 machine for a
>>little while, although the rest of my experience has always been on
>>Windows XP.
>>
>>I would recommend upgrading your OS to at least win 2000. Win 98 only
>>uses upto 128mb of RAM so anything above that in your box is unused.
>
>
> Lol, thats bollocks - there is an issue that anything over 756mb would be
> wasted, but is easily resolved by a setting in an ini file - see google for
> details.
>

o cool, thx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b8d2a8e26a7e9c7989712@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <2oh49lFant1fU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> nicky_bikerKILLTHISBIT@hotmail.com says...
> >
> In most cases, a home user will never use more than 512MB of RAM,
even
> playing CS.
>

I use over 700MB while CS is running, although I do have XP set to
never swap it's core to disk

 

[Ian]

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:57:09 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:

>In article <2oh49lFant1fU1@uni-berlin.de>,
>nicky_bikerKILLTHISBIT@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "john henry bonham" <with@he.ld> wrote in message
>> news:41231ea8$0$58821$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>> > Uzi,
>> >
>> > I ran Steam no probs about 3 months ago on a Windows 2000 machine for a
>> > little while, although the rest of my experience has always been on
>> > Windows XP.
>> >
>> > I would recommend upgrading your OS to at least win 2000. Win 98 only
>> > uses upto 128mb of RAM so anything above that in your box is unused.
>>
>> Lol, thats bollocks - there is an issue that anything over 756mb would be
>> wasted, but is easily resolved by a setting in an ini file - see google for
>> details.
>
>Actually 98 standard had problems with more than 128MB (or some other
>number), but 98 Second Edition had a fix for it and could use a LOT more
>without problem.
>
>In most cases, a home user will never use more than 512MB of RAM, even
>playing CS.

And Billy Gates once said 640K ought be enough for anybody!