XtremeMaC Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 |-offtopic-|Posting in a Half-Life 2 forum, Valve's Gabe Newell has confirmed that the troubled Half-Life sequel will go gold in August, suggesting that an end of summer release may be in the works. To the best of our admittedly weak planning abilities, we are looking at August, said Newell, adding that the game will also appear in a less violent version, specially created for the German market. The game will also be localised into English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Korean, Simplified and Traditional Chinese, Japanese, and Thai. Since VU Games has not yet confirmed a release date for the game, it is possible to assume that the publisher may sit on the title for a late September release in order to avoid the summer holiday sales lull. Mr. Newell also mentioned what the installed size of Half-Life 2 will be. The total size of the game, on disk, will be 2GB while installed it will take-up 3 GBs of hard-disk space, not including the extras such as CS:Source, HL:Source and DOD:Source. This suggests that a DVD version of the game will be the most widely available, with a CD version also very likely.I just wonder if my laptop's gonna explode if i try to play those games back on topic (slightly) I also heard that its gonna be released in the week of july 19th.. at least that's what the turkish version's gonna be..)
^_^ Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 it would be nice if they would just make the OS so it didn't need patched
XtremeMaC Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 well I don't agree with uthey need to patch it because as time passes new things appear and therefore the os has to support those new things. and since they can't possiblly know what's gonna happen in the future, they'll need to update....to make the os flexible..
MCT Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 well I don't agree with uthey need to patch it because as time passes new things appear and therefore the os has to support those new things. and since they can't possiblly know what's gonna happen in the future, they'll need to update....to make the os flexible..I agree! a non patched OS is a HUGE secutity risk, like u said, new things come available, thus new problems arise, thus patching regards
my2001 Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 it would be nice if they would just make the OS so it didn't need patched well I don't agree with uthey need to patch it because as time passes new things appear and therefore the os has to support those new things. and since they can't possiblly know what's gonna happen in the future, they'll need to update....to make the os flexible..I agree! a non patched OS is a HUGE secutity risk, like u said, new things come available, thus new problems arise, thus patching regardsI partly disagree. ^_^ is right, there just wouldn't be any security holes and security risks if the OS and the apps were build without errors. In this case a patch would never be needed, no matter what future might bring.But, of course, I'm aware that this is absolutely theoretical. There'll always be certain "deficiencies", it's just impossible to build such a big OS without errors. So: patches are needed, and patches for the patches, etc.
^_^ Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Very true, all of the above!Then again, I suppose if people would stop trying to exploit all the vulnerablilities, it would be much nicer too But why so many patches and fixes?Most people in dialup don't have the bandwith for these huge patches, and they are also the dummies that can't even run a simple software firewall
Denney Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Hmm... everyone always bags out Microsoft because of the bugs in it's operating systems but no one ever bags out all the little companies that release new versions of their software every other day.I know so people will say "yes, but they're little programs" but you have to think that Windows is a BIG PROGRAM, VERY big infact. I actually like the fact that there are so many bugs because it means that people are actually finding the bugs... another program could have just as many bugs but no one to find them... therefore, Windows is less buggy than some other programs...*end rant*
dcromwell Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 I partly disagree. ^_^ is right, there just wouldn't be any security holes and security risks if the OS and the apps were build without errors. In this case a patch would never be needed, no matter what future might bring.But, of course, I'm aware that this is absolutely theoretical. There'll always be certain "deficiencies", it's just impossible to build such a big OS without errors. So: patches are needed, and patches for the patches, etc. Even if someone were to manage to code a perfect OS with NO security holes, there still WOULD be a NEED for patches. New technology comes available all the time. If I build an OS based on today's standards, what do you do when PCI-X comes out and you don't support it? You have to write an update (ie, PATCH) to be able to support the new hardware... And security holes aren't always based on errors in the OS. Many exploits exploit features of the OS that ARE coded correctly.Regardless the size of the OS or how many errors may be in it at the beginning, patches will always be required.Mac OS X was built from the ground up. Support for older software programs is done by emulating another version of Mac OS instead of basing the OS on that and recoding (ie, Windows XP and it's notorius Legacy support). It is a VERY well written OS and it still requires patches....
SiMoNsAyS Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 back to original theme; anyone knows an official final date for sp2??
XtremeMaC Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 pls keep in mind that xp is a flexiable os unlike unix/linux/macosms has to make the os compatible with all kinds of hardware and thats not easy to do. everyday a new hardware comes up. as much as the manufacturers try to make more compatible hardware sequentially ms tries to get the most out of the hardware.in the week of july 19
^_^ Posted July 2, 2004 Posted July 2, 2004 I partly disagree. ^_^ is right, there just wouldn't be any security holes and security risks if the OS and the apps were build without errors. In this case a patch would never be needed, no matter what future might bring.But, of course, I'm aware that this is absolutely theoretical. There'll always be certain "deficiencies", it's just impossible to build such a big OS without errors. So: patches are needed, and patches for the patches, etc. Even if someone were to manage to code a perfect OS with NO security holes, there still WOULD be a NEED for patches. New technology comes available all the time. If I build an OS based on today's standards, what do you do when PCI-X comes out and you don't support it? You have to write an update (ie, PATCH) to be able to support the new hardware... And security holes aren't always based on errors in the OS. Many exploits exploit features of the OS that ARE coded correctly.Regardless the size of the OS or how many errors may be in it at the beginning, patches will always be required.Mac OS X was built from the ground up. Support for older software programs is done by emulating another version of Mac OS instead of basing the OS on that and recoding (ie, Windows XP and it's notorius Legacy support). It is a VERY well written OS and it still requires patches.... OK, I agree patches are necessary, what I'm not happy about is the sheer quantity and the seriousness of the vunerablilities that are being patched.In any other industry, this would be considered neglect
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now