Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases Game Advisor For Windows
av_2_0 writes "Microsoft has released a web accessible Game Advisor for Windows. This will check your system's configuration, compare it with a knowledge base of around 360 games and tell you if your system is compatible." Requires the use of IE and the install of an ActiveX thingie. My system is apparently faster than 58% of systems checked.
Well, that was exciting. And no, this wasn't the Slashdot effect as it loaded the ActiveX garbage just fine. It's just once it was here it died a horrible, "browser renders entire surface as white" death.
I guess this is the start of the "Microsoft is serious about PC games" initiative. Frankly, I could give a flying frootloop about the PC games scene these days: for the $500 the top end video cards go for I can pick up *two* console systems and a smattering of games, or one console and go freaking insane with games. Yeah, you can't do RTS or FPS as cleanly on consoles as on PC, but both genre's are in such serious ruts that it doesn't matter. And yes, I am aware how "pretty" PC graphics can be... but I'm there for the game play not the sparklies. I'm perfectly happy to watch the technology trickle down into consoles.
The last straws were the copy protection that demands I stop performing my job as a software developer to play a lousy game (quick hint, the debugger *ins't* so I can hack your freaking game) and the "your DVD isn't a CD, thus you are screwed out of your cash" crap.
Sig under construction since 1998.
Your system is among the top 12% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor. Woohoo Radeon 9600 Hmm it's good to know what a $1000 one year old box can do.
"Your system is among the top 24% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor"
:) Should be interesting to see what happens when I get home.
Wow, thats on my work PC.
"Internet Explorer 6 required Windows XP Game Advisor requires the use of the Windows 98/ME/2000/XP operating system and the Internet Explorer 6 browser. " Well, i didnt see that one coming.
-EL
This thing is at least three months old. I don't know if they changed something since then, but I'm not willing to fire up IE to install the control to find out.
This utility doesn't work with Firefox! Yaaarrgh!
Now why on earth would Microsoft want to make us use IE?
The Slashdot Limerick
I thought my computer was slow and this test proved it. It said that 89% of the computers tested were faster than mine. While im thinking about it i probly got some old parts i could put in a box and get closer to being the slowest
"Drive Fast Kill Slow"
according to M$ my system is in the top 8% and it says "WWOW!!!"
I guess this is the part of the thread where it turns into "mine is bigger than yours".
Internet Explorer 6 required
Windows XP Game Advisor requires the use of the Windows 98/ME/2000/XP operating system and the Internet Explorer 6 browser
This game sucks.
I have found there are just two ways to go.
It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow. -REK, Jr.
What kind of "gamers" test this thing? My crapbox from 2001 gets this:
39% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.
That's sad.
WASTE - The Secure P2P
...do some of the more modern games still go steady below 15 fps if "Your system is among the top 3% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor."? Crap :-P
With things going badly for the Xbox/360 to put it gently, all signs like this one point to an exit from the console market for Microsoft.
What exactly that exit strategy is seems to be very unclear. Or if they do actually have an actual strategy seems to be uncertain. It seems like Microsoft is trying to lure console developers to make more games for home peecees since that market is in a heavy decline outside of MMORPGs.
Trying to turn x86 hardware into a standardized platform like consoles is like trying to get Linux apps to be as consistent Mac apps - it ain't happening.
How does it compare to http://www.srtest.com/referrer/srtest which seems to run on any browser with activex or java (assuming a windows os is required)?
Because it offers a general "speed" value (that seems contrived at best, My system is amongst the top 3%, yet I still experience quite a lot of low frames situations in modern FPSs) instead of evaluating for specific games...
It secretly check whether your copy of windows is legal?
So I tried it , and it said : Internet Explorer 6 required Windows XP Game Advisor requires the use of the Windows 98/ME/2000/XP operating system and the Internet Explorer 6 browser. So I closed firefox, dusted off my IE6 and tried it again ... and whaddayaknow...
Internet Explorer 6 required
Windows XP Game Advisor requires the use of the Windows 98/ME/2000/XP operating system and the Internet Explorer 6 browser.
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
82% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.
I guess my tablet PC sucks as a gamebox. Likely due to the intel graphics card.
-bZj
.sig
In the top 3% of computers scaned, i give it 3 hours till the rest of the slashdot crowd runing windows(?!?) heads over and pushes me down to top 60%.
I SHALL RAIN DOWN MISSILES-IN-A-BUN ON YOUR PITIFUL CITY'S!
I'd better be with an X2 and a GTX...
Incidently, this isn't Microsoft per se, it's just the super striped down Sysmark plugin from Futuremark, and we all know how reliable 3DMark is....
First blue screen I've seen on this 3-month old system... some complaint about sbp2port.sys. Two in a row as I thought the first time might have been a freak occurrence.
Oh well, now I'll never know if I pass or fail.
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
"82% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system." The little dial says zzzz.... I've got 2 Ghz and 1 gig of ram, but an integrated graphics card. My Dell pizzabox is worthless.
I want to install an ActiveX control to allow systems stats and other data to be gathered and sent to the mothership too!
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
PIII-S 1.4 512MB Ram GF3Ti200
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Now Im not sure whats goin on here, But this has been out for at least 3 years now. Which explains the crappy machines getting high rankings, most of the scans were done eons ago.
the question should be "Do i really want microsoft getting int omy computer to find out my hardware?" i dont know about you guys, but theres something about that idea that i dont like.
Go have a shot of RedRum.
What I don't understand is WHY Microsoft is trying to push PC gaming.
Because if you're locked into games for Windows instead of games for GameCube or PS2 or the handhelds, then you're less likely to defect to BSD or Linux for everything else.
Just to give you guys an idea of the performance spread:
System 1: (Game Box)
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2549MHz
Display Card NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
Memory 2048MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Free Disk Space 102.48GB
Display Card Memory 256MB
Display Driver Version 7.8.0.3
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card Realtek AC97 Audio
Your system is among the top 2% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor.
System 2: (File Box)
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 1809MHz
Display Card ATI RADEON 9500
Memory 512MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Free Disk Space 219.49GB
Display Card Memory 128MB
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.6505
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card Realtek AC97 Audio
Your system is among the top 14% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor.
System 3: (Bittorrent Box)
Processor Intel Pentium M 1000MHz
Display Card Intel(R) 82845G/GL/GE/PE/GV
Memory 512MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Free Disk Space 94.6GB
Display Card Memory 1MB
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.3762
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card Realtek AC97 Audio
93% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.
Price is still lower but you get less but lets not forget to check the price of the games. I don't know if this is true around the world but in holland games like Kotor and morrowind (released both for console AND pc) typically cost a full 10 euro's more for the console version. Wich is kinda sad since for both games the PC version was clearly better. Kotor because it came with extra content and Morrowind because of the whole user made content bit that is exclusive to the PC. Not to forget that the expansion packs for Morrowind were PC only.
Show me Counterstrike for console please. No not counterstrike itself but usermade modifications for your console. Sure 99% of usermade content probably sucks but the remaining 1% consist of some pure gems wich either are brilliant games in their own right or take an existing game to new levels. That is not including games like MS own flightsimulator wich ofcourse are all about user made content. Or Neverwinter Nights.
Their are of course prices to pay but you paint an extremely one sided picture and fail to completly analyze the costs.
A 1000 dollar gaming machine does not compare to a 300 dollar console. You should compare it to a 300 dollar console + accesories + tv + cheapo internet pc. Wanna bet that all that together comes pretty close to the cost of a full gaming pc? Anyway not everyone is a kid living on his mothers allowance. 500 dollars is all relative. If you think that is a lot never ever look at bills for your gf/wifes clothing.
The games are also different. Good luck finding an EQ2 or WoW on the console. Good luck with usermade games like Flightsim or NWN too. Then again good luck finding pure arcade titles on the PC.
Console games are easier to get running. Then again if you got troubles getting games to run on your pc what are you doing on slashdot?
Copy protection is a bitch at times but there is always away around it. Perhaps I have just been lucky.
I wonder what exactly the reason for this "test" is by MS. It is MS so there must be a motive. Could it be that they are trying to figure out exactly what kinda hardware is the norm for gamers? So that future games by them can be better tailored to the hardware available?
Both MS and Sony have a clear interest in making people game on their own propietary systems rather then the far more open PC. MS and Sony get paid when a game gets developed for their respective consoles. They get 0 for a game developed for pc. Yet both got really big titles that are exclusive to the PC, think MMO games wich MS is trying once again. Is Everquest just sony's way of testing the water until a future console is ready to run a MMO like and they will then drop the PC? EQ2 and SWG both like 1gig of memory so unless the new PS3 can perform some kind of miracle it will not be able to run the games as is. It used to be true that consoles needed less ram because they ran at far lower resolutions but with HD-tv this is becoming less true.
At the moment PC vs Console is not a matter of price. Yes a console alone is cheaper but you would still need the costs of a pc to be able to rant on /. on how much cheaper your console is. While I don't need a console to rant on how much bull that is.
It is a matter of different types of gaming. Sure I am tempted to the darkside by reviews of Jade empire and some other titles but am not willing to give up high resultions and user mods. My games also tend to need more buttons then a console has available. Then
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Zonk uses Windows? That explains a lot...
"Your system is among the top 4% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor."
Atleast I can show my wife this when she see's next months credit card bill and there is another $1600 added to it....
Friedmud
I can't use this thing without feeling like I'm just helping Microsoft out with their marketting research...
Oh damn, "85% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system."
Well at least they asked us this time before mining data for commercial purposes.
No one here actually thought this was an aid for gamers did they???
With a 6600GT a 2600+ and a Gig of ram.
That stuff is all about 1-2 years old.
Maybe it's true the hardware pushthrough is slower these days.
I certainly don't feel the need to upgrade, I just got Fear running in 1280 it's sexy.
60% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system. Then again, that's an Inspiron 8200 is sore need of replacement.
What a load of rubbish. It claims my laptop cant play Half Life 2. Thats funny because I've played it through start to finish on it with no problems. Sure I had to use a lower resolution and I didnt get all of the flash special effects but I was still able to play it.
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
The ActiveX applet does not put your system through a battery of Direct3D, DirectDraw, or DirectSound tests to determine its real-world performance. It merely scans your system's specifications, and "guesses" how fast it "should be" based on those specs. Nothing more.
Hell, the now-ancient DXDiag utility is more useful than this for determining system capabilities.
Utterly pointless. Don't waste your time.
"Your system is among the top 3% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor."
I so rule. No wonder the chicks love me.
AMD64 3500+
Radeon x800Pro
1204MB RAM
"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
Your system is among the top 21% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor.
P4 2.6 @ 2.8
MSI 6600 Diamond @ 525/1050
Gig of noname RAM.
It's about 2, maybe 2.5 years old now (except for the gfx card), runs Quake 4 just fine. Didn't have time to play FEAR yet.
P2 350 w/ 384 megs of RAM and an ATI AIW-Rage Pro
Your system is among the top 1% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor
Well... that's what the scan would have said if my current Linux box actually ran Windows!
Is this some market survey by Microsoft in an attempt to determine how much cruft their games can handle? To this day I will never understand the amount of resources PC games require.
I find Games are now taking up over 500MB of RAM regularly. OK Texture resolutions are increasing, but has noone heard of streaming technology? Console games manage to have higher res textures, using a lot less RAM. What's going on here?
CPU usage. Again, console games seem to get much more bang for their buck here. OK PC games run on top of an OS, but so do hardcore number crunching research experiments. I had thought that with all the latest graphics card technology, the heaviest calculations were being offloaded more and more to the GPU. Where are all these cycles going, because wherever they're going, the fun/cycle ration seems to be going down.
Disk usage. OK WTF. I've bough games that ship on 1 CD and take up 1GB of Hard Disk. Games seem to be taking up GB of space by default nowadays. It's getting to the point that an 80GB hardrive simply won't be able to take 20+ games. Where the hell is are all the bits going? And why am I still running things off the CD?
Anyway, I thought I'd bring up these points given that as the years go by, PC games seem to have accumulated cruft at a much higher rate than console games. In order to stay competative, I hope PC game developers start trimming down their apps a little. It would be nice to have a modern game install, start, play and close without grinding the entire (high performance) system to a halt.
May the Maths Be with you!
Desktop 1: Your system is among the top 21%
Processor Intel Pentium 4 2800MHz
Display Card NVIDIA GeForce 6600 (@ 525/1050)
Display Card Memory 128MB
Memory 1024MB
Sound Card SB Audigy 2 Audio [FF40]
Desktop 2: 94% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher
Processor Intel Pentium II 350MHz
Display Card ATI AIW 3D RAGE PRO TURBO
Memory 384MB
Display Card Memory 1MB
Sound Card N/A (Yamaha onboard audio)
Note: I just replaced the GF2 MX for this AIW, I could play smaller UT2003 DM maps on this box!
Laptop 1(HP Omnibook Xe3) 92% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher
Processor Intel Celeron (M8) 897MHz (WTF? It's a 900MHz PIII)
Display Card S3 Graphics Savage/MX
Memory 256MB
Display Card Memory 8MB
Sound Card ESS Allegro
Laptop 2 (Armada m300): 94% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher
Processor Intel Pentium III 599MHz
Display Card ATI RAGE LT PRO
Memory 256MB
Display Card Memory 4MB
Sound Card ESS Maestro 2E
Too bad I can't test yet another box, it's a P3 1000 with a GF2.
While you've got a very nice rant laced with thinly veiled insults, the point has completely sailed over your head.
PCs do have certain advantages over consoles. They have better graphics, more modding capability, and the keyboard and mouse. Graphics are nice, but they're hardly a deal breaker. Dealing with lower resolutions isn't the horror you make it out to be. Modding capability is a great plus. The keyboard and mouse are great for some genres and horrible for others.
The thing is, while you can deny it until you're blue in the face, consoles also have their own advantages over PCs. Price, ease of use, and a greater selection of games are the big ones. Even buying a brand new $400 XBox 360 console at launch with "accessories + tv + cheapo internet pc" is going to be cheaper than buying a gaming PC. Most people already have the TV and internet PC anyway. I'd rather spend my gaming time playing games instead of messing with drivers and configuration settings.
Which set of advantages you prefer is a matter of personal preference, but don't pretend that PCs are superior in every way.
I'm not sure how my system ranked as high as it did. I've got a lot of RAM (1.2GB) and HDD space (350GB in total), but the rest of my system is pretty mediocre: Athlon XP 2400+ and a Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB. It'll pay most games at decent speed, but it's definitely not a cutting edge gaming machine. Somehow I've managed to be in the 80th percentile of their database. I'm guessing they've either seen a lot of crappy computers, or their algorithms just suck.
I ran this under Virtual PC on my 1.5Ghz G4 powerbook and found that 93% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your system.
Monstar L
Contrast Microsoft's utility with the Aspyr Game Agent, which does approximately the same thing but is a self-contained application that doesn't require a specific browser to work. And it's gone through numerous revisions for new games.
Granted, it only works on certain uncool systems, and only compares the system against the requirements for the one manufacturer/developer house, but it still seems like they have a more elegant solution.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
After scanning my main desktop at work...
"Your system is among the top 9% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor."
Fantastic. Now if only I can get this thing to convince my manager that installing Quake 4 will increase my productivity to be amoong the top 9% of employees...