Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games)

Microsoft Releases Game Advisor For Windows 108

Posted by Zonk from the helping-you-feel-inadequate dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Releases Game Advisor For Windows More

Microsoft Releases Game Advisor For Windows

Comments Filter:

  • Yawn. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Godeke ( 32895 ) * on Thursday October 27, 2005 @07:00PM (#13893548)

    Analyzing Your PC...

    Unfortunately we were unable to examine
    your PC due to technical difficulties.


    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.

    • This, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason I stopped playing computer games altogether. My computer is not some throwaway toy for me to be entertained with. It's a tool with which I work to feed my family and pay the mortgage. I don't use IE, I don't use ActiveX, and I don't install games. Games screw with the box too much.

      You should try it. You get a lot more productive too.

      Wait... Is /. a game?
      • All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.
        All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.
        All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.
        All work and no play make Jack a *snore*
        • Did I say no play at all... There are *other* games besides computer games, you know?

          Besides, I have like 100 books on my amazon wish list. I'm working my way down.
          • It's a joke. Though, maybe I'm on to something.
          • First, the article was aimed at gamers so why would you feel the need to point out your system doesn't have any games, ok so great you have a production only system. I prefer to leave my work at work and play at home, my home computer has nothing to do with my productivity at work. Second that's great so you have a list of books you are reading, are you insinuating that gamers don't read? I read several books a week during my commute time to university. I honestly can't say a computer game has messed up my
            • read in the post I originally replied to: "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..."

              So, he's using his work box for games. I was addressing that specifically.

            • You know, I would *love* to leave my work and work and play at home, but since I'm self employed (both consulting and part owner of a software company) the two are one and the same. I already have a Windows 2003 server, Windows XP Pro, Fedora Core 4 machine at my desk (all hail X-Windows and Terminal Services for allowing two of those to run headless). Oh, and an old notebook at my side here (for travel). My wife's desktop and notebook just down the way, and my son has his machine in the library.

              All of this

        • Go have a shot of RedRum [redrum.com].

    • 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
    • according to M$ my system is in the top 8% and it says "WWOW!!!"
      • I'm in the top 4%. But we all know that it isn't the specs of your system, it's how you use it. [/brag]

    • Re:Yawn. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by supabeast! ( 84658 )
      So many points stated so well. I'm essentially done with PC gaming for the same reasons as you - overpriced hardware, uninspired design, and not wanting to be bothered with returning a game that I didn't pirate because the latest copy protection tools are incompatible with my "new" DVD drives (Which are one and three years old) so I can't play without using cracks that keep me from playing online.

      What I don't understand is WHY Microsoft is trying to push PC gaming. It's not like Apple is competing in that a
      • Microsoft is pushing PC gaming because it's one of the few things you can't do on a Mac.

      • 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.

      • Because, despite different hardware, Windows has a similar SDK to the 360. By attracting PC gamers, they increase demand for PC games. This increases development. And when those PC game developers look to port to a console, which one is going to be the first?

      • What I don't understand is WHY Microsoft is trying to push PC gaming. It's not like Apple is competing in that arena, and the whole point of the Xbox seems to have been saving us all from the hell that PC gaming had become, so why are they bothering? Is it just to hinder any screwball antitrust suits that might come from pissed of PC game makers that don't want to do Xbox games?

        There's a lot of good reasons for Microsoft to support PC gaming.

        1. PC gaming drives PC hardware sales, and PC hardware sale

      • What I don't understand is WHY Microsoft is trying to push PC gaming. It's not like Apple is competing in that arena

        That's exactly *why* they are pushing it. The only pure, unarguable advantage the Windows-powered PC has over it's Apple and Linux competitors is gaming. Productivity apps? Generally more user-friendly and versatile on the Mac. Control over your system or security? Linux all the way. And don't get me started on professional tasks like film editing. If I didn't play games with my PC,
    • Actually for $500 you can get an XBox 360 and 2-4 games. I built my PC for ~$1,000 and it is going to last me roughly 3-5 years. BTW "Your system is among the top 2% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor."

    • What a load of crap (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @10:29PM (#13894453) Journal
      First off yes consoles are "cheaper" then pc's. Fucking duh. Of course they are, they are invariably inferior to pc's. Yeah even the new 360 and PS3. Remember everyone being excited about the multiple cpu's when PC's were still only equipped with one? But that was a long time ago and now top end gaming PC's have got multiple cpu's and PC's games that support them. At the same time reports are hitting that the new consoles aren't really all that powerfull and still horribly crippled by low memory and the lack of a HD.

      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

      • Re:What a load of crap (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Godeke ( 32895 ) *
        Dude... Valium may be in your future.

        Of course PC games are "safe"... as I said, FPS and RTS live and die by the PC. MMORPG is a stronghold as well. Mods are a great thing too. My point is why bother when for a fraction of the price and *none* of the hassle I can have a lot more fun. I own a library of PC games, but I fish them out of bargin bins... if the $10 "Medievil Total War Battle Collection" had not booted, I can just dump in on a buddy.

        Normally it isn't worth the hassle when I can plunk down in my c
      • 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

    • Re:Yawn. (Score:3, Informative)

      by storem ( 117912 )
      This must be one of the worst tools ever experienced. First it's kind of a CPU whore; goes on being nothing more then a white page, finally crashes IE... Maybe I should try from within Firefox :-)

      To remove the ActiveX: delete the "Measurement Services Client v3.7" file from "C:\WINDOWS\Downloaded Program Files".
    • "for the $500 the top end video cards go for" ... "I'm there for the game play not the sparklies." I can't reconcile these two statements. It seems to me your problems (except for the shitty copy protection issues prevalent in pc games.. on the other hand, try and run that debugger on the xbox without resorting to dealing with copy protection =P) might be solved if you just buy a reasonably priced video card.
      • That's not an option with newer games.

        Try running Day of Defeat: Source and keeping the framerate above 60 FPS with a standard video card and a decent processor.

        You can't. You can turn off HDR, dynamic lighting, bumpmapping. You can turn your resolution down to 800x600 and shut texture quality down to minimum. It doesn't matter what you do. With an average setup the framerate will constantly drop to 30 FPS, maybe even hitting 25.

        The same goes for most newer games. Quake 4 is a good example.
  • 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"

    Wow, thats on my work PC. :) Should be interesting to see what happens when I get home.

  • FYI (Score:3, Informative)

    by theantipop ( 803016 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @07:14PM (#13893635)
    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?

  • I was DQ'ed right off the bat (Score:5, Funny)

    by g1zmo ( 315166 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @07:39PM (#13893770) Homepage
    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.
  • 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.

    • What kind of "gamers" test this thing?

      Given that the Advisor ranks your system, it's apparent that it doesn't really test compatibility, it tests adequacy. If you've got an SLI system, are you really going to be worried whether your system will be fast enough once you've got DirectX 9.whatever installed? Unlikely.

      The kind of gamer who will try this out is the one that's wondering whether Microsoft thinks that his PentiumII can run DoomIII.

      -Tez

  • ...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
  • How does it compare to http://www.srtest.com/referrer/srtest [srtest.com] 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...
    • That sites hilarious! Just tried it from my work pc and failed on the video card spec... and at the bottom it says "Want to make this game really fly? Check out the products below" - it recommends I buy a Logitech® Cordless Rumblepad(TM) 2... that'll help!
  • 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.
    • MMh... I guess I have to use
      for newline ... anyhoo ... after the third try it worked... and apparently 85% of the systems out there are faster then my top-notch gaming rig.

      damn ... its still as good as new ... only 5 years old :S
  • 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.


  • My System Specifications
    Processor AMD Athlon(tm) XP/MP/4 1830MHz
    Display Card ATI RADEON 9600 Series
    Memory 512MB
    Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
    Free Disk Space 35.85GB
    Display Card Memory 128MB
    Display Driver Version 6.14.10.6571
    DirectX Version 9.0c
    Optical Drive CD/DVD
    Sound Card NVIDIA(R) nForce(TM) Audio

    To save your system specifications for later visits, create a free
    Game Advisor Account

    My System Performance
    36% of the systems scanned by the Game Advisor rank higher in performance than your syst

    • Looks familiar there Down8.

      And mine (after only grudgingly loading up IE):

      My System Specifications
      Processor AMD Athlon(tm) XP/MP/4 2107MHz
      Display Card ATI RADEON 9600 Series
      Memory 512MB
      Operating System Microsoft Windows 2000
      Free Disk Space 23.71GB
      Display Card Memory 256MB
      Display Driver Version 6.14.10.6561
      DirectX Version 9.0c
      Optical Drive CD/DVD
      Sound Card SB PCI

      To save your system specifications for later visits, create a free
      Game Advisor Account

      My System Performance
      34% of the systems scanned by the
      • Looks like your video card is the culprit there. Maybe your system ram too, probably to a lesser extent.

        I've got a xp2800+, 1024MB ram and a 6600gt 128mb. 22% rank higher than mine.
  • 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%.
    • Just in case you were wondering. Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2413MHz, Display Card NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX, Memory 2048MB, Operating System Microsoft Windows XP, Free Disk Space 265.58GB, Display Card Memory 256MB, Display Driver Version 8.1.8.5, DirectX Version 9.0c, Optical Drive CD/DVD, Sound Card SB X-Fi Audio [A000]
  • 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....

  • Blue screen here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PunchMonkey ( 261983 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @08:48PM (#13894074) Homepage
    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.
    • Sounds like a faulty driver for something you normally never use.
    • Same here. Something about an IRQ when searching for a driver. Two times in a row.
    • PunchMonkey, sounds like you either had a file corrupted upon installation (happens frighteningly often in XP), or the file was corrupted post-installation, such as an older pre-XP application over-writing it. Go here [microsoft.com] for more info, it'll tell you how to proceed depending on your Windows version.

      sheared, you clearly have an IRQ conflict, ie. multiple devices using the same interrupt request. Reboot, go into your BIOS, and double-check all device IRQs, especially check video and sound IRQs. Most BIOSes all
    • Oh well, now I'll never know if I pass or fail.

      Sure you will. Unfortunately, you failed.
  • "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!
  • PIII-S 1.4 512MB Ram GF3Ti200

  • this is pretty old (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.

    • I agree, it seems all too convenient.

      "How can we get people to voluntarily give us detailed information on their personal computers for our marketing department to use?"

      "Hey, just call it a 'benchmarking utility' and tell them that their computer is the most godly gaming rig to ever grace the Earth, and they'll never suspect a thing!"

  • Performance spread (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Daniel Wood ( 531906 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @10:27PM (#13894444) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • As a comment, read below....

      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.

      Well, why arent you using something with a smaller profile on that machine other than Windows? I
      • The thing is, that's exactly how I have it setup. WindowsXP, running headless, only power and ethernet. I use VNC to control the box. Could I use linux? Yep. Do I care to when this box does its intended purpose perfectly well? Nope. I should note that this machine doubles as a FreeDSB router when at LAN parties(load balances 4 cable modems).
    • 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
    • My Dell 9300 laptop. I was surprised to find it ranked so high. Later on I'm going to free some disk space, I wonder if that will impact my ranking.

      Processor Intel Pentium M 1862MHz
      Display Card NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Go
      Memory 1024MB
      Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
      Free Disk Space 5.46GB
      Display Card Memory 256MB
      Display Driver Version 6.7.7.1
      DirectX Version 9.0c
      Optical Drive CD/DVD
      Sound Card SigmaTel C-Major Audio

      My System Performance
      Your system is among the top 13% of all systems scanned by the Game Advis

  • Good to know.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by friedmud ( 512466 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @10:57PM (#13894527)
    "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
  • 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.
    • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.

  • Contrast Microsoft's utility with the Aspyr Game Agent [aspyr.com], 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 [apple.com] 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.

  • 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...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close