PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
edited June 2004
It doesn't happen anymore, but it used to start downloading CZ at seemingly random intervals without telling you, then ignore you when you told it to stop (note: this may not have happened to some people). Thankfully, Valve eventually made it so that you have to buy CZ before it starts downloading it, and it's not a problem anymore.
We and our newer computers don't have many problems with steam, but the rediculous system requirements alienate a lot of players. when the cpu required to make HL playable goes from <i>233mhz to 1ghz (and don't think you'll get a good framerate at 1ghz), something is wrong. If you use FAT32, Steam isn't even worth trying, you will have nothing but problems. </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Once again, what a load of crud. Heck just to spite such \/il3 (vile) and d35pi<4bl3 (despicable) lies, I will run steam right now. Yes, on my 866, and I will get a beautiful framerate.
I seriously hate it when people claim this and expect that just because it doesn't run on their machine, they ASSUME it applies to everyone. True, <i>perhaps</i> I am being hypocritical about this, and that maybe somehow I am the exception however: The same rules that are applied to turning Scientific Theory into Scientific Law can be applied here. I.E. proving something does not necessarily mean it is fact, however <b>disproving</b> it is a certain way of showing that it is NOT fact. In other words, I can't prove steam to always work, and truly it doesn't, however I can DISPROVE his assertion that it doesn't work on any machine under 1GHz, because well... it is untrue. See: Cold's trash compactor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>700mb files are not easy on 56k modems either.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This I can agree with though. (However I have a cable modem so I suppose I should <b>SU</b>-<b>M</b>y-<b>F</b> on this subject.)
**EDITED Because I sound too aggressive, which I am not trying to be. I am just righteous when it comes to how pathetic my computer is.
We and our newer computers don't have many problems with steam, but the rediculous system requirements alienate a lot of players. when the cpu required to make HL playable goes from <i>233mhz to 1ghz (and don't think you'll get a good framerate at 1ghz), something is wrong. If you use FAT32, Steam isn't even worth trying, you will have nothing but problems. </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Once again, what a load of crud. Heck just to spite such \/il3 (vile) and d35pi<4bl3 (despicable) lies, I will run steam right now. Yes, on my 866, and I will get a beautiful framerate.
I seriously hate it when people claim this and expect that just because it doesn't run on their machine, they ASSUME it applies to everyone. True, <i>perhaps</i> I am being hypocritical about this, and that maybe somehow I am the exception however: The same rules that are applied to turning Scientific Theory into Scientific Law can be applied here. I.E. proving something does not necessarily mean it is fact, however <b>disproving</b> it is a certain way of showing that it is NOT fact. In other words, I can't prove steam to always work, and truly it doesn't, however I can DISPROVE his assertion that it doesn't work on any machine under 1GHz, because well... it is untrue. See: Cold's trash compactor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>700mb files are not easy on 56k modems either.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This I can agree with though. (However I have a cable modem so I suppose I should <b>SU</b>-<b>M</b>y-<b>F</b> on this subject.)
**EDITED Because I sound too aggressive, which I am not trying to be. I am just righteous when it comes to how pathetic my computer is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 700mb files? Wasn't any different on WON to d/l a patch.
I remember making my PC run for 9 hours while I was either asleep or at school just to patch from Fresh-Install Half-Life to patched at the time Half-Life on WON. And WON STILL at the time was terrible- dropping me for no reason, crashing for no reason. I got 10x as many problems on WON as steam. I think people have just forgotten how bad WON was until you got a good modem.
<!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+Jun 17 2004, 10:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Jun 17 2004, 10:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 700mb files? Wasn't any different on WON to d/l a patch.
I remember making my PC run for 9 hours while I was either asleep or at school just to patch from Fresh-Install Half-Life to patched at the time Half-Life on WON. And WON STILL at the time was terrible- dropping me for no reason, crashing for no reason. I got 10x as many problems on WON as steam. I think people have just forgotten how bad WON was until you got a good modem. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, although large downloads on a 56k may suck, I guess it is hardly steam's fault that that person has a 56k...
9 hours, you think that one is bad? I had to leave this computer on for four days trying to get a 1.5 GB file over a P2P network where the people I was downloading from would leave and come back over the course of the day... making the download rate extremely unstable. That really sucked.
PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold-NiTe+Jun 17 2004, 08:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold-NiTe @ Jun 17 2004, 08:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Once again, what a load of crud. Heck just to spite such \/il3 (vile) and d35pi<4bl3 (despicable) lies, I will run steam right now. Yes, on my 866, and I will get a beautiful framerate.
I seriously hate it when people claim this and expect that just because it doesn't run on their machine, they ASSUME it applies to everyone. True, <i>perhaps</i> I am being hypocritical about this, and that maybe somehow I am the exception however: The same rules that are applied to turning Scientific Theory into Scientific Law can be applied here. I.E. proving something does not necessarily mean it is fact, however <b>disproving</b> it is a certain way of showing that it is NOT fact. In other words, I can't prove steam to always work, and truly it doesn't, however I can DISPROVE his assertion that it doesn't work on any machine under 1GHz, because well... it is untrue. See: Cold's trash compactor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>700mb files are not easy on 56k modems either.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This I can agree with though. (However I have a cable modem so I suppose I should <b>SU</b>-<b>M</b>y-<b>F</b> on this subject.)
**EDITED Because I sound too aggressive, which I am not trying to be. I am just righteous when it comes to how pathetic my computer is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Read my post again. I did not say that Steam doesn't work on computers slower than 1ghz, just that it doesn't run <i>well</i>. By all means, start up Steam, it doesn't disprove anything, but tell us what your framerate is. Not only that, but I know about 12 people in real life who (including myself) get less than 20fps on average with Steam running where they got 60fps before. Never mind the constant bitching on the Steam forums, or the fact that Valve openly admits most of these problems.
I'd like to know what voodoo magic (AMD? I don't know how low the athlon xp series goes, but that would explain it) you were using to get over 30fps (I assume you mean that it's playable) with that computer where thousands of slightly faster/slower ones couldn't, including 3 of my own. Also, I said that it <i>does</i> work on my computer, getting me constant 60fps (I like vsync) in all mods, in fact, so don't play the "You're just bitter because it doesn't work for you" Card.
The main computer I tried it on was a 500mhz celeron with 256mbs of ram running Win98. I know it sounds slow, but it was more than enough for HL. Steam HL stuttered like crazy, and NS 2.0 on steam was unplayable. I also suffered from tons of cache file corruptions and the like. Luckily I kept the installer on my hard drive, because it took me a week to download (I was on 56k at the time). Eventually I put XP (and therefore NTFS) on that comp, and it fixed all of the corruption problems, and gave a huge boost to my fps, but it still wasn't what I would consider "playable"
Admittedly I haven't tried Steam on that comp for a few months, but I don't remember seeing "200% performance increase!" in the changelogs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->700mb files? Wasn't any different on WON to d/l a patch<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, because there's hardly any difference between 100mb and 700mb.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->866 MHz Pentium II 384 MB SD-Ram Geforce II Pro 64Mb ASUS CUSL2 Mobo<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are my specs. And I get a usual of around 48fps on NS 3.0 and somewhere around 32 to 40fps on The Specialists.
No voodoo magic involved... I swear. (Okay perhaps ONE spell, but it was completely unrelated.)
Anyway, I guess on a 500MHz I can see steam failing, but that isn't fair, most games these days require much more than that, just because halflife is an old game and used to work on lesser computers, doesn't mean that you should still have to use those older computers. Hell, I am about to ditch the trash compactor, why is it so important to you to play HL on that machine specifically. (If this has anything to do with budgetary constraints, I rescind my earlier statement, I once knew what that was like, I am more free with my money now since I got a job.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Never mind the constant bitching on the Steam forums, or the fact that Valve openly admits most of these problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bah, the steam forums is full of that because that place attracts some of the HUGEST whiners in the galaxy. Ten minutes there and I was taken quite ill all of a sudden. And go easy on valve, 2 guys serving several thousands? Not an easy job, you have to admit. (Remember the steam team only consists of two people, the rest of valve are working on HL2 we presume.)
PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
edited June 2004
I don't even use that computer anymore, the point is that for many people it's not a choice. And it is fair, because those newer games look their age, while steam HL looks exactly like regular HL, yet performs much worse because of the interface.
My biggest beef with steam is that you can't save the updates to your PC.
For example I have every single DoD version from Alpha 6.7 right up until DoD went on Steam. So I can sit there, play whatever version and say "Hey, I'm playing Beta 3.1 DoD!"
But with DoD on Steam I go "Hey, I'm playing some random patch version DoD!"
Steam has several really good features, but over complicates the very simple process's (sic?) WON and original HL utilised.
Kill WON. The community divide is painful in pretty much every mod. Steam is great as it stands, I've never had any real problems with it barring the annoying client 57 errors that are common (though all you need to do is rejoin, no real big deal there). WON has outlived its usefulness now.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Heh. I just took the time to load up Steam with NS 3.0B4a on my old machine... admittedly faster than the Celeron, an original AMD Athlon 700. Which would equate to around a P3-1.3GHz or so, performancewise. Win98(FE), FAT32, and a Kyro 2 64MB card. Never dropped below 55fps. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Could probably slap together my old K6-2 333, if I could find where all the parts ran and hid. But it'd be pretty cruddy by this point.
The real question is; if you're playing a game that is as technologically demanding as NS, and are barely squeaking by on WON... is it more a requirement to upgrade.. or a hint that you've let yourself fall far, far behind by about three or four years?
Steam is fine, apart from the annoying, random "Bad parse in client command"-bug <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Valve needs to incorporate Cheating-Death to Steam and throw VAC away <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> I would use the Steam server browser if it had an option to autolaunch CD.. and better filters would be welcome. Only under 50 ping etc.. by country..
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Seph Kimara+Jun 18 2004, 08:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Seph Kimara @ Jun 18 2004, 08:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Kill WON. The community divide is painful in pretty much every mod. Steam is great as it stands, I've never had any real problems with it barring the annoying client 57 errors that are common (though all you need to do is rejoin, no real big deal there). WON has outlived its usefulness now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Then shut down Steam, Won is still as useful as Steam. There's a reaspm some people are still on Won. Admittedly it wont happen but it's not Won fault the community is splitted..
The point is not what is more useful. That point is moot, as Valve is planning on cutting WON support altogether. The point we're discussing is whether Steam is good enough to support all of Half Life.
Has anybody else gotten insanely fast download speeds across Steam? I don't know if it's just me, but across Steam I ended up getting download speeds of close to 1.5MB/s, crazy. Lately I seemed to have been capped at 400KB/s, (I'm estimating that) but it was nice downloading an entire NS map in 20 seconds.
Steam has always worked for me. No troubles at all client side. I understand the fact that they are unreliable patch wise but the program is brilliant.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkDude+Jun 18 2004, 01:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Jun 18 2004, 01:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Has anybody else gotten insanely fast download speeds across Steam? I don't know if it's just me, but across Steam I ended up getting download speeds of close to 1.5MB/s, crazy. Lately I seemed to have been capped at 400KB/s, (I'm estimating that) but it was nice downloading an entire NS map in 20 seconds. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The speed is measured in kbits, not kbytes. What you usually see when you're downloading something is the speed in kbytes. Divide by 8 to see what 1500 Kb is in KB. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (187.5 KBPS)
I have a few issues with Steam, but I haven't used WON for a long long time now. Chief among my Steam-dislikes is that Valve don't seem to announce updates in advance - if they allowed users (especially modemers like me) to plan for the updates they send, and told you how large the download would be, Steam would be pretty much perfect imo, barring the few remaining bugs which I'm sure will be ironed out over time.
I dont see why 56kers **** and moan about the download, me being a 56ker myself. Sure it's slow as hell, but the easiest way to download (unless your patient) is to let it go overnight, or while your at school/etc.
When all the new version of NS come out, I'll go watch a movie or go hang out with my friends while it downloads. It's not that hard to figure out how long it would take too. I connect at 28,000bps (28k modem per say) and I can download 10mb in an hour, on a stable connection. I'm starting to rant....okay i'm done.
I've been on 56k for nearly 6 years now and the only thing 56kers shoudl be whining about is our ping latency, not how long it takes to download. okay im really done now.
Downloading overnight is all well and good, but when you're getting ready for a match some evening, and Steam slaps you with an hour's worth of downloading meaning you can't attend the game, it's rather annoying - if they announced it in advance you could either (a) make a special effort to download it as soon as it's released or (b) make other arrangements for any matches you're meant to be in.
That might be a bit of a specific example, but it shows quite well one area that Steam fails in.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jasp+Jun 18 2004, 10:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jasp @ Jun 18 2004, 10:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am quite pro-Steam. However, Ive recently got the whole unstoppable preload cs:cz thing. Frustrating it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you havent got the game/dont want it preloading simply press delete all game content by going to the monitor clicking CZ, then properties.
I got the bug on 56k and i didnt really fancy downloading 300mb for something im not gonna use. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Jun 18 2004, 03:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Jun 18 2004, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then shut down Steam, Won is still as useful as Steam. There's a reaspm some people are still on Won. Admittedly it wont happen but it's not Won fault the community is splitted.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...
You're kidding, right?
WON is owned by Sierra. Valve no longer wants to use Sierra's services. All WON is doing at this point is holding everything back, because of the thick headed people who refuse to upgrade to steam because of one bad experience when it was in beta or early release. It is ENTIRELY WON's fault that the community is divided at this point in time.
Comments
We and our newer computers don't have many problems with steam, but the rediculous system requirements alienate a lot of players. when the cpu required to make HL playable goes from <i>233mhz to 1ghz (and don't think you'll get a good framerate at 1ghz), something is wrong. If you use FAT32, Steam isn't even worth trying, you will have nothing but problems. </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, what a load of crud. Heck just to spite such \/il3 (vile) and d35pi<4bl3 (despicable) lies, I will run steam right now. Yes, on my 866, and I will get a beautiful framerate.
I seriously hate it when people claim this and expect that just because it doesn't run on their machine, they ASSUME it applies to everyone. True, <i>perhaps</i> I am being hypocritical about this, and that maybe somehow I am the exception however: The same rules that are applied to turning Scientific Theory into Scientific Law can be applied here. I.E. proving something does not necessarily mean it is fact, however <b>disproving</b> it is a certain way of showing that it is NOT fact. In other words, I can't prove steam to always work, and truly it doesn't, however I can DISPROVE his assertion that it doesn't work on any machine under 1GHz, because well... it is untrue. See: Cold's trash compactor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>700mb files are not easy on 56k modems either.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This I can agree with though. (However I have a cable modem so I suppose I should <b>SU</b>-<b>M</b>y-<b>F</b> on this subject.)
**EDITED Because I sound too aggressive, which I am not trying to be. I am just righteous when it comes to how pathetic my computer is.
We and our newer computers don't have many problems with steam, but the rediculous system requirements alienate a lot of players. when the cpu required to make HL playable goes from <i>233mhz to 1ghz (and don't think you'll get a good framerate at 1ghz), something is wrong. If you use FAT32, Steam isn't even worth trying, you will have nothing but problems. </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, what a load of crud. Heck just to spite such \/il3 (vile) and d35pi<4bl3 (despicable) lies, I will run steam right now. Yes, on my 866, and I will get a beautiful framerate.
I seriously hate it when people claim this and expect that just because it doesn't run on their machine, they ASSUME it applies to everyone. True, <i>perhaps</i> I am being hypocritical about this, and that maybe somehow I am the exception however: The same rules that are applied to turning Scientific Theory into Scientific Law can be applied here. I.E. proving something does not necessarily mean it is fact, however <b>disproving</b> it is a certain way of showing that it is NOT fact. In other words, I can't prove steam to always work, and truly it doesn't, however I can DISPROVE his assertion that it doesn't work on any machine under 1GHz, because well... it is untrue. See: Cold's trash compactor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>700mb files are not easy on 56k modems either.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This I can agree with though. (However I have a cable modem so I suppose I should <b>SU</b>-<b>M</b>y-<b>F</b> on this subject.)
**EDITED Because I sound too aggressive, which I am not trying to be. I am just righteous when it comes to how pathetic my computer is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
700mb files? Wasn't any different on WON to d/l a patch.
I remember making my PC run for 9 hours while I was either asleep or at school just to patch from Fresh-Install Half-Life to patched at the time Half-Life on WON. And WON STILL at the time was terrible- dropping me for no reason, crashing for no reason. I got 10x as many problems on WON as steam. I think people have just forgotten how bad WON was until you got a good modem.
I remember making my PC run for 9 hours while I was either asleep or at school just to patch from Fresh-Install Half-Life to patched at the time Half-Life on WON. And WON STILL at the time was terrible- dropping me for no reason, crashing for no reason. I got 10x as many problems on WON as steam. I think people have just forgotten how bad WON was until you got a good modem. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, although large downloads on a 56k may suck, I guess it is hardly steam's fault that that person has a 56k...
9 hours, you think that one is bad? I had to leave this computer on for four days trying to get a 1.5 GB file over a P2P network where the people I was downloading from would leave and come back over the course of the day... making the download rate extremely unstable. That really sucked.
Games ran about the same as they did on WON: craptacular.
I seriously hate it when people claim this and expect that just because it doesn't run on their machine, they ASSUME it applies to everyone. True, <i>perhaps</i> I am being hypocritical about this, and that maybe somehow I am the exception however: The same rules that are applied to turning Scientific Theory into Scientific Law can be applied here. I.E. proving something does not necessarily mean it is fact, however <b>disproving</b> it is a certain way of showing that it is NOT fact. In other words, I can't prove steam to always work, and truly it doesn't, however I can DISPROVE his assertion that it doesn't work on any machine under 1GHz, because well... it is untrue. See: Cold's trash compactor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>700mb files are not easy on 56k modems either.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This I can agree with though. (However I have a cable modem so I suppose I should <b>SU</b>-<b>M</b>y-<b>F</b> on this subject.)
**EDITED Because I sound too aggressive, which I am not trying to be. I am just righteous when it comes to how pathetic my computer is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read my post again. I did not say that Steam doesn't work on computers slower than 1ghz, just that it doesn't run <i>well</i>. By all means, start up Steam, it doesn't disprove anything, but tell us what your framerate is. Not only that, but I know about 12 people in real life who (including myself) get less than 20fps on average with Steam running where they got 60fps before. Never mind the constant bitching on the Steam forums, or the fact that Valve openly admits most of these problems.
I'd like to know what voodoo magic (AMD? I don't know how low the athlon xp series goes, but that would explain it) you were using to get over 30fps (I assume you mean that it's playable) with that computer where thousands of slightly faster/slower ones couldn't, including 3 of my own. Also, I said that it <i>does</i> work on my computer, getting me constant 60fps (I like vsync) in all mods, in fact, so don't play the "You're just bitter because it doesn't work for you" Card.
The main computer I tried it on was a 500mhz celeron with 256mbs of ram running Win98. I know it sounds slow, but it was more than enough for HL. Steam HL stuttered like crazy, and NS 2.0 on steam was unplayable. I also suffered from tons of cache file corruptions and the like. Luckily I kept the installer on my hard drive, because it took me a week to download (I was on 56k at the time). Eventually I put XP (and therefore NTFS) on that comp, and it fixed all of the corruption problems, and gave a huge boost to my fps, but it still wasn't what I would consider "playable"
Admittedly I haven't tried Steam on that comp for a few months, but I don't remember seeing "200% performance increase!" in the changelogs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->700mb files? Wasn't any different on WON to d/l a patch<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, because there's hardly any difference between 100mb and 700mb.
384 MB SD-Ram
Geforce II Pro 64Mb
ASUS CUSL2 Mobo<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are my specs. And I get a usual of around 48fps on NS 3.0 and somewhere around 32 to 40fps on The Specialists.
No voodoo magic involved... I swear. (Okay perhaps ONE spell, but it was completely unrelated.)
Anyway, I guess on a 500MHz I can see steam failing, but that isn't fair, most games these days require much more than that, just because halflife is an old game and used to work on lesser computers, doesn't mean that you should still have to use those older computers. Hell, I am about to ditch the trash compactor, why is it so important to you to play HL on that machine specifically. (If this has anything to do with budgetary constraints, I rescind my earlier statement, I once knew what that was like, I am more free with my money now since I got a job.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Never mind the constant bitching on the Steam forums, or the fact that Valve openly admits most of these problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah, the steam forums is full of that because that place attracts some of the HUGEST whiners in the galaxy. Ten minutes there and I was taken quite ill all of a sudden. And go easy on valve, 2 guys serving several thousands? Not an easy job, you have to admit. (Remember the steam team only consists of two people, the rest of valve are working on HL2 we presume.)
For example I have every single DoD version from Alpha 6.7 right up until DoD went on Steam. So I can sit there, play whatever version and say "Hey, I'm playing Beta 3.1 DoD!"
But with DoD on Steam I go "Hey, I'm playing some random patch version DoD!"
Steam has several really good features, but over complicates the very simple process's (sic?) WON and original HL utilised.
And unfortuately, we don't exactly know <b>when</b> Valve is going to be satisfied with Steam, so I don't expect WON to go down soon.
As Speh said, its dividing the community in almost every single mod..
Steam works fine atm and i haven't had a *big* problem with with for about 3 months...
Never dropped below 55fps. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Could probably slap together my old K6-2 333, if I could find where all the parts ran and hid. But it'd be pretty cruddy by this point.
The real question is; if you're playing a game that is as technologically demanding as NS, and are barely squeaking by on WON... is it more a requirement to upgrade.. or a hint that you've let yourself fall far, far behind by about three or four years?
If you havent got the game/dont want it preloading simply press delete all game content by going to the monitor clicking CZ, then properties.
I got the bug on 56k and i didnt really fancy downloading 300mb for something im not gonna use.
Then shut down Steam, Won is still as useful as Steam. There's a reaspm some people are still on Won. Admittedly it wont happen but it's not Won fault the community is splitted..
/me waits for flame
The speed is measured in kbits, not kbytes. What you usually see when you're downloading something is the speed in kbytes. Divide by 8 to see what 1500 Kb is in KB. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (187.5 KBPS)
When all the new version of NS come out, I'll go watch a movie or go hang out with my friends while it downloads. It's not that hard to figure out how long it would take too. I connect at 28,000bps (28k modem per say) and I can download 10mb in an hour, on a stable connection. I'm starting to rant....okay i'm done.
I've been on 56k for nearly 6 years now and the only thing 56kers shoudl be whining about is our ping latency, not how long it takes to download. okay im really done now.
<!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo-->
That might be a bit of a specific example, but it shows quite well one area that Steam fails in.
If you havent got the game/dont want it preloading simply press delete all game content by going to the monitor clicking CZ, then properties.
I got the bug on 56k and i didnt really fancy downloading 300mb for something im not gonna use. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
edit 3: much <3 to you
...
You're kidding, right?
WON is owned by Sierra. Valve no longer wants to use Sierra's services. All WON is doing at this point is holding everything back, because of the thick headed people who refuse to upgrade to steam because of one bad experience when it was in beta or early release. It is ENTIRELY WON's fault that the community is divided at this point in time.