unr3al

Yes, from that era. The Macbook Pro 13's went largely unchanged for years until recently when the retina display came out. Since 2008 they were dual core, 4GB of RAM, mediocre hard drive space and no graphics chip, weighing in at about 5 pounds and approximately 7 hours of battery life at best. And no, you can't really "fix it" so to speak. I stated in my last post that you don't have a graphics card of any kind in there. The CPU does all of the drawing, and the game will be stealing whatever RAM is available to store textures and such since you have no dedicated graphics memory. That's why it's maxed out. You might be able to trick the game using a command line file, but you'll be telling it that you have resources that you really don't. And I'm not sure if you can force the game to use a certain resolution.

Just a quick heads up, the game probably won't run all that well due to your graphics card. Good luck fixing this problem, though.

You must have the monitor the size of a wrist watch if you're claiming that you run BF3 on high settings with a good frame rate. Because 1080p resolution would prevent that from happening on a CPU with that low of a clock frequency and a middle grade graphics card. And you can't figure out the anti-aliasing settings in game because there are none. Rockstar didn't include FSAA in GTA IV when it launched for PC.

It's within your best interest not to use car mods at all as they'll make the frame rate go lower than it already will be. 13" Macbooks from that era do not have graphics cards at all. They use the CPU to do all the rendering, and GTA IV runs notoriously poor on even reasonably good hardware. Just run LCPD:FR stock for best results.

No. Why would you think that something cheaper would do a better job?

Again, it's going to take a while for that OS to be fully developed and ready for use, but the amounts of RAM we gobble up and math equations we shove through the CPU & GPU (when applicable) all the time will call for that extra memory address space. Instruction sets will ultimately be the deciding factor on where computer performance goes from here. Even CPU giants Intel and AMD have admitted that developing multi-core processors is merely delaying the inevitable. We will eventually need to switch to a different type of processor. Our tactics have switched from clock speed, to work per clock cycle, to number of cores, and will eventually switch back to better instruction sets. After that though, it will be back to clock speed again, but only after we use a new material for developing CPU chips, like graphite. IBM was able to get a prototype CPU based on graphite rather than silicon, cloked at 100GHZ on a single core as a proof of concept. The barrier for clock speed right now is heat. And until we overcome that, we have to buy time and milk all the efficiency we can out of our current hardware.

That's good with me, you can think of it what you want, I don't want to come across as though you're not entitled to that. But the original poster is seeking a suggestion about whether Windows 8 should be his new OS or not, and I think that should be based on facts and then he can make the decision for himself. A lot of people are hating on it for the sake of it. I just find it sort of irritating that everyone, you included, leaves out any good points about the OS until probed about it. You're thrilled with the security but you didn't mention it at all, and instead just talked about how you hate the interface. You're an IT major it seems and that's all well and good, and you'd be correct in saying that this OS does not target you. Microsoft is pandering to the mass audience, as everyone is these days in order to make a buck. I'll buy that the interface may not assist you personally, but I think it does a lot of good, and I don't think it would get in your way much. You can bypass the Start screen entirely if need be, and searching for a file or program requires nothing more than spelling out the first few letters of the name. No need to organize or sort as you were saying earlier. And coming back to the facts of its benefits in security, performance and ease of use for the average multimedia consumer (which would include most people who play LCPD:FR as an example), I think it would be a fine OS choice for most folks. I've seen no real complaints from anybody here about anything beyond the start screen which shouldn't be as big of a factor as it is into peoples decisions here. I don't know about you, but I've used the OS and like it. I highly doubt that most people in this thread have used it at all, even some who claim they have. I'm just getting sick of all the baseless garbage people toss at this OS just because the 18 year old interface has been updated. All of that being said, by the way, it's feasible that they could make a separate business OS for specific purposes. They re-designed the Windows 8 architecture for ARM based computers for Windows RT, so if a huge amount of people really share your opinion that it somehow gets in their way, there may be hope for a new OS for the corporate world.

I agree, but development for that kind of change has actually been underway since the Windows 7 release. A Microsoft software developer was quoted as saying that they had already begun work on a 128bit OS to be released further down the road. Windows Vista was a 7 year project, so I'd imagine another major overhaul is in the cards, but only when it's "ready".

Not really, man. Good hardware costs $$$. You're best off thinking about real life priorities over video games. Pay your bills first, gaming comes second. You won't find a graphics card in an Apple product unless you go to the iMac's which have AMD Radeon chips or Mac Pro's (full tower desktops) which you can customize to an extent. I believe the 15-inch Macbook Pro's had 256MB or 512MB graphics chips from nVidia a couple of years ago, but they might have got rid of them for today's models. I'm unsure as I in particular don't really care that much about the latest Apple products as the hardware is generally behind the curve by a good amount (you current situation being a perfect case in point). The cheapest MacBook pro is about $1100, 13" in size with a dual core Intel Core i5 CPU clocked around 2.5GHZ, 4GB of RAM, 500GB hard drive and no graphics card. You can find yourself an ASUS G73 17" laptop with a Core i7 quad core CPU, a 1GB nVidia GTX660 graphics card and 8GB of RAM with a 1TB hard drive for $999. The Apple can have some construction quality advantages and definitely has a portability edge, but it obviously loses out on performance big time. But as said above, Apples aren't engineered for gaming in mind.

Not if you crank the details to the highest possible at 1920X1080. Medium should run buttery smooth with no ENB added. Recording the video at half the screen resolution may also boost performance. I thought somebody already did. It's a mid-range gaming computer. Medium with a good frame rate, possibly some sliders high on 1920X1080. The graphics card is mediocre by the "latest" standards and Intel CPU's win over AMD's, but it's good for the money you paid.

Syntax is really what made or broke learning programming languages for me. C#, C++ and Java were really relate-able languages despite the fact that they were for different purposes, which is what you seemed to be saying above. When you learn one, it makes understanding the next one a bit easier. As said before, if you're looking to program a professional application that you're going to mass market, C++ is by far the more powerful and more important language out of the three. I think C# and .NET makes a lot of sense for scripting, however if you're trying to do what G17 is doing with LCPD:FR. I guess the basic question is; What are your intentions with this, Double Doppler?

Please. -Windows XP was horribly received upon its release and wasn't really reliable until Service Pack 2 came out. Only after 12-13 hindsight can we call it a great operating system. If you had told me the same thing back in 2002 I would have told you that you were out of your mind. -Windows Vista was a completely new OS foundation for Microsoft, not being based off of a previous OS, as XP was to Windows ME. It had a lot of good ideas behind it, but wasn't tested as much as it needed to be, and a lot of 3rd party companies who had devices like printers, cameras, graphics cards, etc to develop drivers for just simply didn't do their jobs. And all the blame was directed towards Microsoft. The OS was very good to me during the time I used it, especially after Service Pack 1. -Windows 7 IS Windows Vista with minor cosmetic changes, stability improvements and security holes filled in. It's based off of the same kernel. Again, it's like Windows XP was to Windows ME. -Windows 8, yet again IS Vista/Windows 7. Same Kernel, but with some big cosmetic updates (which may cause problems to novice users and people who don't like change), stability improvements, security enhancements and better performance than the previous OS's. I still haven't had a convincing "this interface isn't usable" argument from anybody who uses their computers for home or recreational purposes. You can make the argument currently for business users due to the fact that there are only 9,000 "Modern UI" apps available as of release, but most business take a minimum of 6 months to adopt a new OS, and Office 2013, and updated versions of QuickBooks, Quicken and other major business software's will be released before then. Businesses will also become more dependent on web services such as Office 365 (something my company jumped to as soon as it was publicly available) for cloud backup, ease of access and prompt support when needed. Things such as my daily employee news alerts will be made easier by just having a live panel tell me everything without having to scroll around or open any windows, stock updates are already provided as a vanilla panel that comes with the OS, and the plugin-less version of IE that sits on the start screen is going to be a major push towards having a seamless browsing experience and reducing the risk of viruses. I'm seeing far too many people ignoring the bigger picture about Windows 8 because they're so focused on the start screen. People are completely ignoring the convenience and security benefits of a built in app, music, movie and game store, integration with other game and recreational platforms, clould computing supplements and ease of use features that are built in to the OS and don't need to be brought in by other 3rd party software. As Microsoft's content delivery system grows in age, PC users may be able to effectively eliminate the need for services like iTunes, Spotify and possibly even STEAM and just simply have one account with one company, which will again translate to ease of use and give you better privacy control.

Microsoft themselves won't be providing any more support or updates by either 2013 or 2014. They've been pushing back the cut-off date for years, but it's 3 generations behind and getting close to 13 years old. I think enough time has passed.

Also please note that most times (if not all times) when you revive a perp who you had to shoot due to them attacking and resisting you, as soon as they're revived their behavior will continue. So I leave downed perps down. I've also seen the EMT's skip over downed pedestrians and go straight to the suspects, then leave quickly right after, ignoring the innocent civilian.

We have a thread for this already: Please use it. Can we get a mod to close this?

Learning new things is always helpful, but the LCPD:FR mod and many others are actually done in C# and use the Microsoft .NET Framework. It more or less revolves around injecting code into active memory more than reverse engineering the game itself, from what I understand. C# and C++ are closely related (hence the names), and although C# is a simpler language, it's still somewhat powerful. C++ is the one to learn though, if you're trying to write a large, complex program like the next Adobe product or a large scale video game. You could convert everything in C# done to C++, but if you ever work with other developers such as the G17 staff to script things for GTA IV, it's going to be a lot harder trying to work together with you writing in one language, and them writing in another. I hate to say "learn what everyone else is using", but that's the easiest way to collaborate.

You don't have the time to a put a DVD in your drawer? lol See you in 2020, then.

Not really, no. The 7850 is a firmware limited version of the 7870, they're essentially the same card, and the CPU is usually the major bottleneck in GTA IV if you have a really good graphics cards. AMD's are a cheaper alternative to Intel, but the performance difference can be visible in newer games. That guy's frame rate is below 30 when driving around with the details he posted, with no flashing police lights or lots of high polygon cars riding around with you. And you'll notice he's recording his video by pointing a video camera at his monitor. That's because FRAPS recording would obliterate his frame rate even further, making the game unplayable. You can "get by" with around 30fps, but you can't record using FRAPS with that frame rate. You need to have a buffer zone. The videos I shot over a year ago were done on a stock install of GTA IV with a couple of modified police cars and ELS V5. I got around 40-45fps while not recording, on mostly high details. I now run an ENB mod with the same detail level, and get between 25-35 depending on what's on screen. Good enough to play with, but not something I can record with.

Use this thread please; Mod, lock please?

If you want a smooth frame rate, stick with your current graphics settings. The Athlon processor is a low power, business class CPU. It's not for gaming, and your graphics card is mediocre so I'd be surprised if you got any place above medium settings with your current desktop.

That happens all the time. I don't think there's much you can do. I just call them and leave the scene. I did my part. lol

I'll never understand why so many people who have never used the operating system at all comment on it, not just on this website but all over the internet. Let me just pick apart this post I have underneath me here and offer a rebuttal real quick before I give my opinion. It has a start screen instead of a start bar. The theory behind the design is quite simple, actually and it serves two purposes. 1.) From a user perspective, most people don't actually use the start menu anymore to navigate to programs they use. They generally have an icon on the desktop, or something pinned on the quick launch bar for that. And personally when I use the start button, it's to shut down my PC, or if I want to immediately use the search bar, which requires no clicking and negates the purpose of the start menu. The start screen is a way of having all the things you generally use already on your desktop in an easy to read and easy to visualize format for novices. It also allows for real time updates via the live tile system that was used in Windows Phone 7, which is a way of making it so you don't have to open up Internet Explorer (or whatever other browser), type in the Facebook URL or look up your bookmark, log in, and then check all of your updates. It's just streamed live in a tile so all you have to do is look at it with your eyes and read it if something important was updated. 2.) From a business perspective, Apple has been quite the innovator over the last 10 or so years. Not only have they come out with a few revolutionary products, but they also have worked at making all of those products work with each other seamlessly, and ensuring that there is some level of continuity between everything so a total novice who only has one apple product will be likely to buy another based on their previous experience. Microsoft products have been extremely segmented. Their game console, their phone and their PCs looked absolutely nothing like each other, and gave zero incentive for a customer to buy other Microsoft products because it might reduce learning curve. Microsoft (finally) realizes this, and they can take two courses of action: a.) Do what Apple did, and slowly integrate changes almost imperceptibly so your products work somewhat similarly, and stay 10 years behind your biggest rival. or b.) Leap over Apple by literally making all of your products identical so new users will be more likely to buy from you, understanding the risk of alienating some of your old user base. Microsoft was not ignorant of any consequences of removing the start bar and booting you to the start screen instead of the desktop. It's a calculated risk, and 3 weeks into the OS's existence we can't tell right now whether it will pay off or not. No, the start screen is the "start". Hence the name. I think around 18 years of using the same interface is enough. People said the same thing about moving away from a command prompt to an interface you can look at and click on to make things happen, and look where we are today. They haven't placed every single app on the start screen. There's a select few you get by default with a new PC, and there are only a select number of programs you can buy or download that have a live tile that will show on the start screen. Any program you own older than three weeks ago will have no tile unless it's been updated to have one. You'll be using your traditional desktop quite regularly. You can add, re-size, move or even delete as many tiles as you want. Or, you can just not use it, and go to the traditional desktop instead, by clicking the big tile that says desktop at the bottom-right of your screen. Lastly, there is no task bar on the start screen. There's a search, settings & share bar on the right that's set to be invisible unless moused over, or bought up by a key command. I can only see that being troublesome if you have both of your arms amputated. That's the same thing as suggesting that clicking your beloved start button is hard. It's the same action. So delete them. New PC's come with bloat software when bought off the shelf. The only exception is for someone who builds their own PC with a virgin copy of Windows. Are you referring to the map app? Get rid of it if you don't want it. That's like complaining that you don't need a volume control on your task bar because there's already one on your headset. The software was coded with all devices in mind, which is why Windows 8 doesn't do exceptionally well in any one area, which I think it it's biggest weakness and why people won't see it stand out. That's because it doesn't stand out. It's designed to be a jack-of-all trades OS that works on multiple devices. I've played with a Windows RT tablet, and it looks exactly like Windows 8, and even has a desktop mode and a free copy of Office 2013 on it. The desktop that we've had for the last 18 years still exists. They didn't take it away because it's not time to let it go completely. But this is something we will inevitably move away from. I think by nature people are reluctant to let go of something they know. I definitely was a little put off by Windows 8 when I first laid eyes on it, but after using it for a bit and understanding why the changes were made, I have a different outlook on the UI. Anyway, all of that being said, the actual OS is largely the same as Windows 7, barring the start screen change. They've added plenty of security and convenience changes though such as the Windows store for movies, music, apps and even XBOX LIVE integration. You'll see a new optional method of logging into a PC called "Picture Password" which takes Google Android's gesture unlock and puts a whole new spin on it by being able to draw on certain details of an image such as a street light, followed by a building, followed up by the horizon to log into your PC. Only your combination of doodles on the right area in the right order will unlock your device. You'll receive anywhere between a 2-15% performance increase in games, even without a graphics card. All the language packs are built into the OS so you don't have to buy any extra crap if you want it in a different language. It has a more secure firewall system and more than 50% of common current day viruses don't launch on it at all. The Windows logo key now acts as a handy, quick version of ALT & TAB, being able to switch you back and forth between two applications (or even the traditional desktop and start screen). The OS is very responsive, even on poorly specced computers. Flying through Windows is the same experience on a $300 laptop as it is with a $1000 one. Only in demanding applications will that show. Boot time is wonderful, especially on a solid state drive, which takes about 7 seconds flat. You can now search for any program by simply typing, you don't even have to click anything. Doesn't get much lazier than that. It will be ready for a new version of Direct X (11.1), it's customize-able as always, and for all of those complainers whining about the start bar being gone: http://www.stardock....roducts/start8/ There, problem solved. For a new computer, would I recommend getting one with Windows 8 on it? Yes. As an upgrade if you have to shell out money? Maybe. As said earlier, it improves overall performance of your PC, even in games, and will support newer versions of Direct X that will enhance graphical capabilities. For someone who just bought a $2,000 gaming desktop and has the latest hardware, you're safe on Windows 7 for now. But as soon as the Direct X update rolls out, and the new graphics cards come along with it, I wouldn't plan on being a Windows 7 user anymore if I were you.

Should be just fine. Medium with possibly a couple of sliders on high at 1080p.

Won't happen, sorry. Not in RC3.