Greatest disappointement ever - Page 3

Kautilya · August 12, 2001, 01:26

I tried the 1024*768 on my 15 inch monitor and it's definetly not very friendly.

The general requirements for Civ 3 are very modest so it's a pity they can't support 800*600 resolutions.

Oh well. I am probably not going to buy a monitor just for Civ3. If Civ3 doesn't look good on my monitor I will have to make do with EU2.

August 12, 2001, 03:17

Hey Urban Ranger:

Mercury you ask? Solder, the stuff that holds components to PCBs, is a lead/mercury alloy. And you don't want your drinking water to come from an area near a computer landfill. And sure, many older computers get donated, but its all going to the landfill (or to be recycled hopefully) eventually.

Optimized code cuts down on the use of system resources.

Planned obscelcence is the sadly real truth of the computer industry. And hey, if you're dumb enough hand your money over to whatshisname Moore and smile for the privilege, you have the right to do so. Me? I prefer to upgrade my equipment. It's environmentally sound, and it puts my money in the hands of those willing to help extend the life of my machine instead of in the hands of those who want to sell me a new one every month.

Finally, my complaint is with those who purchase new computers regularly because they've bought into this consumerist nonsense. Yes, no one has a right to play Civ3. BUT - if people kept their machines longer then designers would design down. This would help those who cannot afford to constantly purchase cutting edge equipment be able to enjoy current software.

Frankly, I don't think Firaxis did too bad of a job. Their specs are quite reasonable for a game. A little extra memory (cheap these days) and a processor upgrade (this can also be fairly cheap and if Civ3 runs on a Pentium2 300Mhz - this means the old 66Mhz bus is sufficient) will allow many people to inexpensively upgrade. Still buying a new 17" monitor ($200+ for a decent one) to play a $44 game is a little steep.

Solver · August 12, 2001, 06:48

If I get a new monitor, I'll call it a degrade instead of upgrade.
But you guys make me think about it. But I am sure to keep the old one, too! Anyway, noone would pay more than 20$ for it.

Urban Ranger · August 12, 2001, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
Mercury you ask? Solder, the stuff that holds components to PCBs, is a lead/mercury alloy.

Eh, no. AFAIK it contains no mercury. Older types of solder contains lead but there are indeed lead-free types of solder available.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
And sure, many older computers get donated, but its all going to the landfill (or to be recycled hopefully) eventually.

Sure, but squeezing out more life from old computers reduces waste.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
Optimized code cuts down on the use of system resources.

May or may not.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
Planned obscelcence is the sadly real truth of the computer industry. And hey, if you're dumb enough hand your money over to whatshisname Moore and smile for the privilege, you have the right to do so. Me? I prefer to upgrade my equipment.

Upgrading involves throwing away old parts. Also upgrading is limited. Planned obscelcence affects you only if you go after new software. A lot of people do perfectly fine with DOS-based WordPerfect.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
It's environmentally sound, and it puts my money in the hands of those willing to help extend the life of my machine instead of in the hands of those who want to sell me a new one every month.

As I pointed out it's not always possible to upgrade, e.g. no upgrade path between Slot 1 CPU and prior ones, or Slot A and Socket A, etc. You can't upgrade to an AGP graphics card if your motherboard doesn't have a slot, and there might not be a mobo for you to upgrade.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
Finally, my complaint is with those who purchase new computers regularly because they've bought into this consumerist nonsense. Yes, no one has a right to play Civ3. BUT - if people kept their machines longer then designers would design down. This would help those who cannot afford to constantly purchase cutting edge equipment be able to enjoy current software.

Well the 60MB SCSI HDD on my 7 year old DOS box had finally caved in, so I needed to buy a second hand Pentium-200 computer since the old machine couldn't be upgraded. No PCI slots for starters. Computer is a tool, and depending on what you do you may not need to upgrade. My wintel box is 3 years old and wouldn't need an upgrade for a couple of years.

Now surely there are all sorts of games and not many demand bleeding edge technology. As I pointed out somewhere the hardware requirements for Civ 3 are at least 4 generations old, meaning you can find them in a 5 year old machine, more or less.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
Still buying a new 17" monitor ($200+ for a decent one) to play a $44 game is a little steep.

It's steep if you just buy it for the game, but not if you get to use it for a solid 4 or 5 years. A good monitor is always something a computer hobbyist should get.

SITS · August 12, 2001, 11:37

I think there is a big danger of going OT. Can we just stick to giving Solver a hard time? Please?

Urban Ranger · August 12, 2001, 11:47

Sure we can give Solver a hard time

, though discussing the merits of upgrading isn't all the off topic. Some of us need it.

Nemo · August 12, 2001, 12:06

I have no sympathy. Why? because I have a 17" monitor that runs at 1280x960 with built in speaker, a TNT 16mb card, an A3D sound card, 2 nics, a floppy drive, a power supply, a case, a motherboard and a 300Mhz processor all for FREE. (i had to buy a cd-rom though, but $8 + s&h is very cheap for 32x found on e-bay). So, either get off of your lazy butt and work for maybe 2 days at minimium wage, then spend some time surfing the internet and look for some deals, or shutup. Stop wining like a 4 year old baby, and fix *your* situation.

P.S. my brother IS epileptic (from a car accident

) and he has no problems playing games on the above said computer!
P.P.S. i am a student that has never gotten money from my parents since i was 14 years old (10 years ago) and i own 5 computers - 3 of which are capable of running civ3. If i can do it...so can you!

Draco aka Se7eN · August 12, 2001, 12:48

Nemo, you seem like your getting kinda disgruntled there. Your not gonna do anything irrational are you?

SandMonkey · August 12, 2001, 14:21

I have a 17" monitor, and right now i'm in 1152 x 864 res., and everything is crystal clear. I usually keep it in 1024x768, but just for a goof i switched to the "better" (i use that term with caution) resolution to see what it would look like. The font is a tad small... but other than that I can probly fit 8 IM's on my screen with no overlapping

I would keep it at this resolution, except for the fact that none of my games take advantage of it, and there are VERY few web sites that require anything larger than 800 x 600 (i view apolyton in its entirety with room on the sides for instant messages and whatnot).

So Civ3, bring it on! SandMonkey is ready.

kittenOFchaos · August 12, 2001, 14:26

So ram-raiding Dixons is paying off big-time Nemo?

I am a student that gets money from parents

August 12, 2001, 14:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
Mark: The price of a 17" monitor has not drastically changed since 1998. This leads me to believe that many people just don't bother to buy one.

A ViewSonic 17" monitor was selling for $145.00 at the Vallejo computer show last weekend 8-4-01

Nemo · August 12, 2001, 16:44

Quote:

Nemo, you seem like your getting kinda disgruntled there. Your not gonna do anything irrational are you?

seeming that this is the third thread solver has made on the same old subject and does nothing but b_tch in them, i thought that i should start doing the same

Moral Hazard · August 12, 2001, 19:42

Wow! I have a 15" monitor and have always run 1028*768. Of course I do seat rather close to my monitor. I don't know but I alway thought of 800 x 600 has horrifically ugly.

Steve Clark · August 12, 2001, 19:51

You get the idea now, Solver? Live up to your handle and stop coming here whining about your easily solvable 'problem'. What's with those folks the past several days that feel they have to LOUDLY gripe about insignificant issues?

dennis580 · August 12, 2001, 20:31

One of the reasons I hate PC gaming. I'm barely above the requirements. K6-2 400, 128 MB and a Voodoo card and 17 inch monitor. After the taxes this computer cost about $1,660.

This is one of the reason I hope the X-Box becomes a success so we can have games like Civ III ported to consoles. I have great hatred for the PC as a platform.

BeBro · August 12, 2001, 21:14

Since this has turned into an "I have that-and-that system" thread I will just say that I have an Athlon1000/256MB RAM plus 17´monitor running at 1152x864...

Not that I believe it does interest anyone of you...

Dale · August 12, 2001, 21:32

Just some info for you Yanks:

1. I have a 15" monitor that looks CRAP in 1048. I run at 800.

2. The price of a stock-standard el-cheapo 17" monitor in Australia is no less than $400. (That's $200US after the conversion). BUT, that's only off the internet. From a store, they start from $500 (that's $250US if you're crap at maths).

3. I ain't upgrading my monitor just for a game. Not for THAT price anyways! Besides, my current monitor is not even 12 months old, and EVERY other program works perfectly. Why SHOULD I upgrade?

4. That resolution requirement is looking a lot more hostile than before eh? Especially for the NON-US players.

SOLVER:
There's a program you can download (Virtual Desktop I believe it's called) that simulates a larger desktop. All you need to do is move the mouse to the edge of the screen and it scrolls the virtual desktop. At least this way you can play Civ3 in it's 1048 environment on a 800 desktop.