[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

For the 256mb laptop that I squeezed it on I had to turn off a lot of processes that were running in the background that weren't needed.

It was a bit slow but perfectly usable. Just don't open to many browser windows.

For 512mbs of ram it ran smooth.

You can run games but they have to be older ones.

My 2005 1 gig laptop has 1 gig of RAM and windows 7;

intel celeron 420m 1.6ghz cpu

1 gig ddr2 667mhz RAM

intel gma 950

And I can't play all the last gen games including the prettier ones like Escape from Butcher Bay and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory.

And they run with a mix of medium and high settings for the higher end ones of last gen and high settings for the others ones.

Max Payne 2 ran maxed out at 1280x800.

I was playing Red Faction 2 earlier just fine at high settings but the lower 1024x762 res.

Although I have modified my computer down to the gpu drivers.

Hakkai007

Oh but i did not say gaming with old games come on dude you PC is a 2005 it would probably run last gen games ok,but something like Uncharted or next gen no way dude.

Older games for sure,i also gamed in my wopping 266MHZ celeron PC with my 128 Fury,you could run games just to old ones.

It was a laptop and it was never meant for gaming.

It uses a freakin intel gma 950 integrated gpu....

That is pretty dam good for those specs. You would never be able to run a lot of those games in the first place if you didn't know how to modify the gpu drivers and create a registry file with the correct script to switch games to render software vertex and T&L

.

My 6800gt was still running new games like modern warfare on high and it used 1 gig of ram, although I later upgraded to 1.5 gigs of RAM.

.

My point was that games can run fine even some new ones, it all depends on how demanding the game is in things like scale, textures and resolution.

UC2 would run fine on 1 gig if we used console settings.

Dude i actually see that you are putting to much things that don't really quite cut it,i know you can run some games with the 950 integrated card but would be on minimal setting all off,and not all games will run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OyUbBm4PTY

Funny this dude has a pentiun 4 3.0GHZ 2GB of ram a 6800GT and you can see easy how all over the place the framerate is,once again getting a game to run and run it like it should are 2 diffrent things,that is not close to Uncharted 2 which is my main point is not even PS3 COD 4 on par,and your system has 1.5 GB of ram,like i say with 512 MB of ram for both system and video you will not get Uncharted 2 graphics or close.

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="Eltormo"]

It doesn't matter the PS3 can be weaker for all i care,that doesn't change the fact that PS3 exclsuives look better period.

sts106mat

First of all i laugh at people who point at graphical difference between PS3 games and 360 ones,because that is really what marginal means,then you see the same people who say the 360 version is leaps and bounds better because on PS3 version there is 3 less flowers and 4 patchest of grass missing,stating that there is no difference between Killzone 2 and the best the 360 has to offer those same ones.

In fatc some go even further and claim games like Halo Reach look better than Killzone 2.

Also why would i be bother i own a 360 if i feel the need to get a game on 360 it doesn't bother me at all.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

I could run windows 7 on 512mbs of ram. The lowest I can get it to run ok was 256mb of ram.

Hakkai007

If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:

• 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.

• 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit).

• 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit).

• DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/system-requirements.aspx

Windows vista could run with 512 i did run it,but it was painfully slow.

I don't know if you can actually make it run with 256 or 512 but MS say other wise.:) Either way it would run to slow for anything let alone gaming.

For the 256mb laptop that I squeezed it on I had to turn off a lot of processes that were running in the background that weren't needed.

It was a bit slow but perfectly usable. Just don't open to many browser windows.

For 512mbs of ram it ran smooth.

You can run games but they have to be older ones.

My 2005 1 gig laptop has 1 gig of RAM and windows 7;

intel celeron 420m 1.6ghz cpu

1 gig ddr2 667mhz RAM

intel gma 950

And I can't play all the last gen games including the prettier ones like Escape from Butcher Bay and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory.

And they run with a mix of medium and high settings for the higher end ones of last gen and high settings for the others ones.

Max Payne 2 ran maxed out at 1280x800.

I was playing Red Faction 2 earlier just fine at high settings but the lower 1024x762 res.

Although I have modified my computer down to the gpu drivers.

Oh but i did not say gaming with old games come on dude you PC is a 2005 it would probably run last gen games ok,but something like Uncharted or next gen no way dude.

Older games for sure,i also gamed in my wopping 266MHZ celeron PC with my 128 Fury,you could run games just to old ones.

Xbox graphics have improve Halo Reach look way better than Halo 3,and Gears 3 look a little better than Gears 2 as well.

what is keeping the ps3 from having it's version of multiplats as polished as the 360 version if it is so powerful?

last gen, most ps2 ports on the xbox played and looked better if not the same as the ps2 version

wiistation360

Developer that will not spend double the time and much more money to put both version on par when the 360 one will sell the most.?

The fact that you say most port on the xbox looked better say it all,the xbox had double the ram of the PS2 not just a litte more with a more powerful GPU and CPU,yet many ports looked the same with a few less jagies on xbox.

By default all ports on xbox should look way better like SC did when it was build for the xbox,but developers will not care or want to even that the xbox was far easier to get the game to look better,the PS2 version was going to be the lead sellers so they did not care.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

I could run windows 7 on 512mbs of ram. The lowest I can get it to run ok was 256mb of ram.

HuusAsking

If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:

• 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.

• 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit).

• 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit).

• DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/system-requirements.aspx

Windows vista could run with 512 i did run it,but it was painfully slow.

I don't know if you can actually make it run with 256 or 512 but MS say other wise.:) Either way it would run to slow for anything let alone gaming.

That is what i am trying to tell to the dude i quote.

Epic bullshots thread i wait until i have it running on my 360.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="fun-da-mental"]

How many games look better than UC2 on PC?, I can only think of one. Rage is the only game that seems to take the crown of graphics king on both consoles and PC.

Hakkai007

Many do look better but ther is reason to it,the PS3 doesn't get a new GPU and CPU each year,a 360 or PS3 with some of todays tops cards and CPU would smoke not only Rage but anyhting on PC for sure.

The fact is a PC with 512MB of total ram for both video and processing with the bandwight the PS3 has would not even run,vista alone need like 1GB for system,and on video you need minimun 256 to run at least decent.

PC's will always look better after all nor the 360 or PS3 had 4GB of main Ram with a top of the line GPU that also has 1.5GB of memory and the latest six core CPU.

I could run windows 7 on 512mbs of ram. The lowest I can get it to run ok was 256mb of ram.

• 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.

• 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit).

• 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit).

• DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/system-requirements.aspx

Windows vista could run with 512 i did run it,but it was painfully slow.

I don't know if you can actually make it run with 256 or 512 but MS say other wise.:) Either way it would run to slow for anything let alone gaming.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="georgia_bulll"]

What the **** are you talking about? random non-sense and speculation FTL. Your post has absulutley nothing to do with what I replied to.

You talking about smoke and mirrors? My god Crysis uses da smoke n mirrorz u be fooled!! :shock: Please make a real point or don't waste your time replying to me.

You talk about UC2 and KZ2 as if they weren't technically impressive games or if it was just all some TRICK and the graphics are really bad or something, man get out of here.

So what consititues for smoke and mirrors to you, games that are praised for being graphically impressive that are PS3 exclusive?

fun-da-mental

Smoke and mirrors = small corridors, prebaked shadows onto textures, low LOD and draw distance etc. etc.

Plus they are at the abysmal low res of 720P.

For a console game.....sure it can be technically impressive but it's nothing special when adding in PC gaming.

UC2 had a good developers which created an appealing art style to the game but art style and technical graphics are two different things.

How many games look better than UC2 on PC?, I can only think of one. Rage is the only game that seems to take the crown of graphics king on both consoles and PC.

Many do look better but ther is reason to it,the PS3 doesn't get a new GPU and CPU each year,a 360 or PS3 with some of todays tops cards and CPU would smoke not only Rage but anyhting on PC for sure.

The fact is a PC with 512MB of total ram for both video and processing with the bandwight the PS3 has would not even run,vista alone need like 1GB for system,and on video you need minimun 256 to run at least decent.

PC's will always look better after all nor the 360 or PS3 had 4GB of main Ram with a top of the line GPU that also has 1.5GB of memory and the latest six core CPU.

Before Halo, it's hard to think of a shooter with a strict two-weapon limit. It also created a viable way to combine guns and melee attacks (i.e. without being clunky) And with Halo 2, nearly every feature people praise Xbox Live for now, was created in Halo 2. It paved the way for how online console games should play.Skittles_McGee

Rainbow six.?

Halo 2 was the most cheated xbox live game ever,out side of that what matchamaking or something like it.?

Sales or popularity in no way several other FPS were very popular on consoles before the xbox was even launch.