Zugg Software :: View topic

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:52 pm

I ran into something horrifying today. If this is the future of Windows programming, we should all run away and hide (or switch to Macintoshes).

So, I was upgrading the drivers for my ATI Radeon 9600 card. I downloaded the full package from their web site and noticed a wierd comment on the download page: "Requires Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1". What? Why does a driver need .NET?

Well, I ignored it and installed anyway. When I rebooted I got a bunch of error messages after logging in, although the driver seemed to be working. OK, I thought, I'll give in and install .NET (on my Poor Game machine!! I really feel sorry for it).

I get .NET installed and reboot again. No errors this time. OK, that's good I think. Then I run the new "Catalyst Control Center" which is the program to let you change various video settings.

I wait...and wait...and wait. Geez, this is taking a while. Then, up comes this horribly ugly application where some GEEK has made cool rounded window borders that makes the window look really extremely annoyingly 3D. And all it does is wrap the normal Video control panel!!! That's it!! They used .NET just to put a pretty wrapper around the default Microsoft control panel.

OK, but this gets worse. After doing a fresh reboot, I happened to check the processes running in the Task Manager. There were 2 processes called CTI.EXE running. The first one was 32,432k and the second one was 34,160k!!!!!! That's 66 MEGABYTES of memory used by this CTI.EXE. And what is CTI.EXE? That's their new control panel that they are installing at boot time! That's why I got errors when I didn't have .NET installed.

THE HORROR? Why do companies do incredibly stupid things like this? Did ATI hire some idiot that is fresh out of school and only knows how to program on .NET? (Not very likely) Did the manager in charge of the project attend some Microsoft workshop on .NET and decide that everything they ever did in the future must use this incredible new technology because Microsoft said it was the best thing ever invented and companies that didn't embrace it fully would fail horribly? (most likely).

This is a VIDEO CARD company. They make hardware. And they are supposed to write drivers that are optimized for speed. And mostly they do...Radeon cards are neck in neck with NVidia and actually are better for home theater PC applications like I have. But somebody in marketing or higher management decided that they needed to "add value" and bundle lots of useless software with their video card to make it look better than the competitor (probably someone who used to market Sound card, which have the same problem). And they want something cool looking to put on the back of the box. So they go and waste time and money creating a silly .NET application that ends up using up so much of your system memory that it probably ends up reducing the performance.

I feel sorry for any normal user that has no clue and installs all of this stuff and then wonders why their frame rate in some game goes down instead of up...cause 66MB of RAM are now wasted. Not only that, but it changed all of my file type settings to point ALL of my video, AVI, MPG, etc to their crappy player. I'm sorry, I paid good money for WinDVD and I don't want some video card company overwriting my system settings without asking first.

If more companies start doing this, we are all going to need new computers and new memory to handle all of the software bloat. Hmm, maybe that's really their evil plan. But I thought .NET applications were supposed to be more efficient than this. If the time it took the application to load (when 66MB was already loaded into RAM!) and the size of the application are indications of the real impact of .NET, then it's going to be a very bad future for Windows.

In any case, whoever made this decision at ATI should be fired. This is a perfect example of someone who has no clue and just follows the hype without really understanding what it is. They obviously have no idea what .NET is really for. They just jumped right onto the Microsoft bandwagon, and then fell off the side and got run over by it. What a complete embarassment for ATI.

Another hour later, I had deleted all of the new control panel crap, and removed the registry entries that it added to run CTI.EXE at startup time, and finally had a clean system again with the new driver. But ATI, you should know that the next time I go to the store shopping for a new graphics card, I'll be looking at the NVidia cards first.

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

OMFG that is so lame.

Heh I've always been a nvidia boy, right back from the good old TNT-2 heh, I'm glad I backed the right horse, .NET eh, what is the world coming to?

And to overwrite your settings for media player too.. that's whack.

You know what Zugg, I think it would be supurb if you wrapped Zeus in .NET because it doesn't look pretty enough ;)

The sad thing is you can do all those curvy window stuff using the normal windows API, you don't need .NET

(and usually you don't get a forum post from me that uses four letter words like 'omfg' and 'lame' but there's always a first for the real incredulosity (is that word) that ATI deserves for such a decision)

SubAdmin Joined: 18 Nov 2001 Posts: 5182

I have been using ATI for a while now. I got the card 2 computers ago, and it was still good enough to migrate when I built this one. I tend to ignore thier driver upgrades for long periods of time. I mean it is simple logic, the system is stable and doing everything I want why muck it up. I seem to recall they used to provide 2 type of download for the drivers, a driver only and a full package. Anyway...

That is just wrong. I let MSupdate shove .NET in this system just in case anything wanted to use it. So far I think nothing I have in my system does. I have things that use Java and are slow enough. I don't really want to use anything based on .NET because I can imagine how slow that will be about interpretting code. So far from what I know of it MS is suggesting everyone go back to the days of BASIC when code would be converted to tokens to "speed" processing. Back in those days 1000 lines of assembly was still faster, although that might have accomplishable in 10 lines of BASIC. Compiled programs simply take advantage of that by converting the 10 lines of language X into 1000 lines of assembly and the program runs faster. I am not really that surprised that MS wants to go back to the dark ages of computing.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:01 pm

Yeah, I normally don't touch stuff that's working either. But I needed the new driver to play (don't hit me)...Everquest 2. Yeah, I know, it's not a MUD. But I try to stay up-to-date with the MMORPGs even though I don't have enough time to really get into them. I also helped beta test World of Warcraft, so I try them all. But EQ2 needs 1 GB of RAM (I'm serious...it really does), and the more up-to-date drivers. It uses the new DirectX 9.0c and really uses all of those obscure functions in your video card that hardly any other software uses. So it's a real stress test for flaky drivers.

Sometime I'll post my impressions on EQ2. As much as I dislike Sony sometimes, they really did something good this time. And to their credit, so did Blizzard on WoW. It's amazing to see such improvements in MMORPGs these days.

Of course, I'm also sorry about it because I'm sure the latest decrease in zMUD sales is directly related to the release of these two new games. Which just makes me more anxious to get zApp shipping.

But back to the topic, it's sad to see something like .NET that is a good idea in theory get used so improperly in the industry. And it's sad to see Microsoft going away from their compatibility history. Rorso, I think we mentioned this before, but there is a great article on the Joel on Software site about How Microsoft Lost the API War that explains why Microsoft no longer cares about compatability with C++ or Visual Basic.

Some people say that Microsoft became so dominant because they were one of the few early companies to not make a major huge mistake (again, ref Joel). I wonder how big of a mistake they can make now that they are so big. It's certainly not looking good for .NET and the next version of Windows from the consumer point of view. And it's a shame to mess up a decent idea (yes, I actually think .NET is a good idea these days, but it being poorly implemented or over hyped (again ref Joel)).

(P.S. Yeah, what can I say, I really like Joel's articles. I agree with a lot of what he has to say and have a similar background, but Joel is more articulate than I am ;)

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Man, EQ2 is the coolest thing since sliced bread. :D

I'm on the Najena server w/ a bunch o' IRL friends, man it is so good (although very full on this server atm).

Hehe, I got screenshots of my characters from www.seltha.net/eq2 if you're interested.

I wish I had a PC capable of running EQ2 properly, but nobody does... I have a 3.0ghz P4, 1gig ram, Nvidia 5900 ... and the gorgeous graphics that I get on that setup are only about 1/2 way up the scale of what you can put on :)

I also noticed a drop on patronage of my MUD ... heck, my level 4 thief (teyla from the screenshots) was more fun to play than my level 84 thief on my MUD so I guess that's why.

Hrm, topic hijack ;)

Oh well. I hate .NET and that's about all I got to say on that topic ;)

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 5:25 am

I'm on Lavastorm :)

And yeah, my system is an Althon 2000+ (so about like a 2Ghz Pentium) with 1 GB ram, and Radeon 9600. I also can only turn on about half the stuff.

Upgrading from 512 MB to 1 GB made a HUGE difference. It was almost unplayable with 512 MB. I suppose since it actually ran, it passes their "minimum" requirements statement, but I was still amazed how much difference it made. Zone loading went from about 1 minute to 5 seconds, and no jerky movement. With 512 MB it thrashes to the disk horribly.

World of Warcraft gets a lot of credit for doing equally beautiful graphics (more art than real graphics) and still running on a normal system. But EQ2 did the right thing...5 years from now the EQ2 graphics will still be pushing the cutting edge of graphics card whereas the graphics in WoW will start to look dated.

However, like with all MMORPGs, they are more popular at the beginning. I expect the MUD population to recover just like it has always done when new graphical games come out. While the new ones are the best yet, there is still something fun about roleplaying on a text MUD that even EQ2 doesn't capture. But it really depends upon what MUD you were playing. At level 84, you might have already mostly maxed out the enjoyment of that particular MUD.

And hey, this is my blog...topic hijacking is allowed :)

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Well, permission has been given to hijack >:)

My missus is playing EQ2 with me and she's got the hand-me-down computer, which comprises of a geforce fx 4200, amd 1.4ghz, and 1gb ram (we took the beta users advice and upgraded her RAM)... and it still runs on hers pretty well, though she has to turn her graphics way down :)

I will probably upgrade to a FX6800 GT after christmas (assuming the issues with 6800's I've heard in the forums have been sorted out) and give her my old FX 5900 and a new processor so she can enjoy the game with better settings, because it really is amazing even with it on 1/2 detail :)

I haven't played WoW mostly becasue I never got into the Warcraft games.

We were looking at the memory usage of EQ2 and it was in the vacinity of 800 megs so that would be why 512 meg users get a lotta thrashing... both from the swap file and from loading textures/etc from the EQ2 data files.

I think MUDs won't die out fully (and I fully plan on borrowing some EQ2 concepts for implimenting on my MUD) mostly because you can get away with playing MUD at university / work, where as its much harder to get away with playing something graphical (though somehow my workmate was doing it today *peer*).

Playing as Zugg? Or some low-profile name? ;)

How's the population of Lavastorm? If they start doing character transfers I may look at moving because it's a bit rough in the city zones on Najena at the moment with the massive player load. North and South Qeynos were crashing on the weekend.

Its true, level 84 is the final 'drag' levels of the MUD (it maxxes at 90) but yeah... if I could get the EQ2 engine, I'd remake the entire MUD world on it in a flash ;)

Well, time to go home and play EQ2 ;)

/wave

Magician Joined: 09 Oct 2003 Posts: 459 Location: USA

I've been playing FFXI as of late (and I'm going to completely avoid the .NET convo) and it is more fun at times playing my lvl 22 Thief than my lvl 19 Smuggler on my mud... other times, I have more fun playing the mud.

I think it comes down to the differences rather than the simularities... I do a lot more general chatting on the mud, because I tend to run into a larger group of intelligent people than I do on MMORPG's. I'm not saying there aren't intelligent people on MMORPG's, but there are a lot of what I like to call... AOLers (aka: 1337 OMG WTF!!1!!!111!!!!). Not that those people might be interesting to talk to in real life, but they have no idea how to have an interesting conversation via the internet and have no manners on the internet either.

Some days I really enjoy wandering around the mud killing things and chatting all in text... and others a nice gui helps my playing mood.

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:24 pm

Yeah, especially because the Open beta of WoW was free, I've had to turn off the chat channels because of all the annoying messages. It's just too depressing to read some of the stuff that people spam the chat channels with these days. I've always found MUD players to be more interested in role playing.

Perhaps one of the differences is that in a MUD you have to type everything, so your hands are always on the keyboard in typing position. When playing the graphical games, my hands are usually either on the mouse, or in WADS mode for movement, and it takes more effort to actually type chat text.

Even when you get into a group the focus seems to be more on raids and killing. I've found very few people that I'm interested in chatting with during combat downtimes. Perhaps I'm just getting old Wink

Oh, and I never play as Zugg. I often check to see if the name is already taken, just to reserve it. Most of the time it is already taken which either means that the developers have reserved it (maybe there is a Zugg NPC somewhere??), or, more likely, some kid has taken it thinking that it is fun to pretend to me me. But in general, if you ever see a Zugg running around on some game, it's not me, so give em hell.

I used to play Zugg on a couple MUDs, but haven't done that in quite a while now. And no, I'm not posting my character name to an open board, but you can email me if you want to know.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

People say MUDs are decreasing in popularity. In MUDs I play this is evident but in other MUDs there's a lot of players.

A year ago or so an Everquest player joined the MUD I help to run, and after him came more. These people left later but it opened some ponderings that still confuses me. Perhaps MUDs aren't really decreasing in popularity? Perhaps they are being forgotten Shocked

.

Atleast one of those players also began to roleplay. We have had players that started playing the MUD that seemed not to really enjoy roleplaying. Eventually they would roleplay. Odd isn't it? Sometimes I feel that roleplayers tend to see non roleplayers as hopeless cases. This shows that that might not be the case.

If you run a MUD you might want to ponder on how many new players are really new to MUDs and how many have played a MUD before. I suspect that most of the newbies have played MUDs earlier, or has a friend who play them. That way they know what they are and have an interest in exploring them.

According to Richard Bartle in his article "The Future of Virtual Reality" located at http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/vrfuture.htm his conclusion is:

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:14 pm

I actually completely agree with you! I find the graphical games to be a different experience from MUDs also. Then again, I love to read, so reading text from a MUD appeals to me. Marketing people tend to stereotype and generalize and claim that new game players don't read as much and are used to console games and therefore won't play games as "low tech" as MUDs. But I don't think that really true and it's more of a case, like you said, that there aren't many ways for a new gamer to learn about MUDs.

I think the numbers of players *are* decreasing, but as you said, it might be because of lack of knowledge rather than lack of interest.

On one of the other posts, someone said that MUDs and MMORPGS were really just the same game: "kill monster, loot, kill more, level up, etc". Well, that person hasn't played some of the advanced MUDs that I have seen. The larger and more successful MUDs have a lot more than just monster killing and looting. There are some great quest systems, and there are still MUDs that run live GM-driven quests at various times. All of the MMORPGs have given up on that kind of deep role playing experience.

I just wish I knew how to attract these new people to MUDs and help them learn about it. It's always been a "word of mouth" market and you can't get any exposure in any magazines (I've tried).

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:49 pm

MMOPRGs use that same "leveling treadmill" even *more* than MUDs do. That's actually one of the big problems, in my opinion, with the new graphical games. They all try to add some sort of crafting system, but 80-90% of the game is still "kill monster, get loot, level". The Quest systems in EQ2 and WoW hide this a bit so at least you don't tend to just camp in one spot and kill the same monster all day long.

I haven't played enough "modern" MUDs recently to really give a list of MUDs that go beyond this trend. It might be a good thread to start in the main forum somewhere to see if we can get a list of MUDs going that are not so dependant upon this formula for success.

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Hey every RPG - final fantasy, muds, diablo, gauntlet, dungeons & dragons - you name it... they're all based around that solid "levelling treadmill" with varying levels of storyline involved... I don't see it as a bad thing to go around killing stuff ;)

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:38 pm

True, but the *better* games (MUDs) have more to them that encourage more actual "role playing". For example, well-done Guild systems lend themselves towards improved roleplaying. The most fun I had was when I was in a guild and in charge of the fighters and arranging the weekly "arena" battles and awarding various ranks to our members. We even had our own area that we could design for our guild-hall where we wrote our own descriptions of the items and rooms. That really pulled us into the game.

MUDs with a good variety of skills and ways to allow you to customize your avatar to select how they "levelup" are also important to improving the role playing aspects of the game.

I mean, in first-person shooters you go around killing stuff and gathering "powerups". So, what's the difference between a FPS and an RPG?

Sorry, but in D&D there is a *lot* more than just killing stuff. We've spent the last 6 months in our weekly campaign in a town dealing with political intrigue and a huge overall world-effecting plot line (no, I'm not the GM). We probably have one combat in each 10 hour session, and that's just usually a fun sort of duel or brawl just to keep us in practice. Our Bard (Chiara) is loving it since she like more of the "talking" and less of the "killing".

Which is why *no* computer game has replaced D&D yet for many of us.

It's not necessarily "bad" to just go around killing stuff, but MUDs in particular I think can be so much more. I think the graphical games are stuck with this for the most part, which makes them more limited in role playing from my point of view.

In WoW I am playing on a "role playing" server. This means that people try to stay in character. There is less D00D speek on the general channel (although still some, and then you get the whole repeat discussion on how this violates the EULA for the roleplaying servers and how that person will get banned). But what it really means is that people try to act as their character should. I play a Paladin, so when I see someone in distress, I go help them. WoW makes this really easy since even when you help in battle, the original person who started the combat still gets all the EXP and Loot. So, I'm not getting any EXP or loot when I help, but I'm *acting* like my character. I try to speak in character, act in character, etc. It's not just about killing stuff. Unfortunately, WoW, like all of the graphical games, isn't really set up to reward or encourage role playing.