I have always been in favor of huge maps and tons of players. I think Battlefield 1942 has made good strides at keeping large maps with tons of players fun, but quality of gameplay has suffered under every title so. The magic of CS has always been that you can play / operate a server using minimal configurations. Until everyone is on DSL or cable or better :) and running 3Ghz cpus I think we are doomed to smaller maps played on realistic configurations.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Aldrich Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 8:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? If this is true it really could change the face of it. Imagine running huge game, with each server running a portion of the map. You could have a map like Manhattan, or Hollywood with hundreds of players..... I know crazy thought, but so was the light bulb at the time.... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Napier, Kevin Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 9:23 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? LOL.. you are joking right? -----Original Message----- From: James Nine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 9:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? I got a hlds server to work through distributed computing via linux. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Harwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:28 PM Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > No, it will share the work between the virtual CPUs, which in theory > will be slightly slower than using a single CPU but most likely > unnoticeable. You could however have Windows only allow it to use one > of the virtual CPUs by setting the process affinity if that is your > goal (via taskman). > > -- Rob. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fencik > Sent: 24 June 2004 20:07 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > Let me offer a better example. If you have hyperthreading on, hlds > will be restricted to using half of the processor. For large servers > (20+ dod playerslots w/addons), the cpu usage will max out for one > logical cpu while the other remains idle. > > Multithreaded or not, hlds suffers from using hyperthreading. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Napier, Kevin > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:23 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > It doesn't always work out that way was my simple point. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: K. Mike Bradley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > If you have two processors then two threads can simultaneously run ... > One > OS and one APP thread. > It's mo better > Same I think with HT in a P4 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Napier, Kevin > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:36 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > Last I looked there were 5 on both my boxes. > > (that's with a bunch of addons loaded as well which might account for > the other 2, I've never seen the thead count higher then 5 though. But > simply having 5 threads that exist doesn't neceesarrly mean it's going > to take advatage of MP or HT neccessarly.) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: K. Mike Bradley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > Dave, > When your HLDS.exe is running, > > Get a process viewer and you will see more than one thread for the > HLDS.exe process. > > Last time I looked I counted three threads when it was fully up. > > Anyone else know how many threads? > Is my memory old? > > Besides, there are always OS threads (about a hundred or so) and HT > would still help any box. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fencik > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > Hlds is NOT multithreaded and there is NO benefit from running HT with > it. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of K. Mike > Bradley > Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 11:35 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > Someone just posted an Intel link in this very thread, just a couple > of days ago, which stated "Intel recommends HT be turned off in the > bios for w2k machines". > > I am not that familiar with HT but as I understand it, it was supposed > to replace multi processor (which was popular in Pentium 3). > > The Pentium 4 supposedly can not be easily multi processored and a > departure was made from multi P to this HT technique where by a single > P4 can execute multiple threads? > > I think this would help any app with more than one thread (which HLDS > of course has several threads). > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Napier, Kevin > Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:07 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > Yes service pack 4 did address as I recall one tiny issue with HT. > win2k however does not take advantage of HT reguardless. I think > someone mentioned that it didn't 'support' it, what they meant was it > didn't take advantage of it, not that there were problems with in on > win2k. > > Not sure really why we're talking about this as HT doesn't help hlds > much if at all, infact there was some discussion last year on this > list that seemed to indicate it hurt more then helped. (now if your > running hlds and many other items on the box..yeah it might help you.) > > btw intel does not go around telling people to disable HT on win2k > boxes, that's not to say however that in same rare cases it can be > benificial, such as dedicated gaming server systems. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Fencik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 8:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > I thought this was addressed in one of the service packs. Why anyone > would > want to run hyperthreading for gameservers is a mystery to me. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of K. Mike Bradley > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 10:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > Intel says to disable HT if u run w2k. There are know issues. The code > IS > not optimized for HT ... HT did not exist when w2k was written. > I had problems with my new dell server running w2k and Dell told me to > disable. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guido > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 10:27 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > In Greg's post it didn't state if Win2kPro supported HT. Does it? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "[YG]Sharza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 8:36 AM > Subject: SV: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > nope, 2k does not support hyperthreading > > Yes it does, but you would require a version licensed for more > > processors > than would make sense > > comparing cost to performance. > > > > > as for whoever said xp for win servers, i would like u to send me > > > some > of > > > that fine jamacian weed you're smoking, cuz im out at the moment. > > You have no clue what you are talking about, get your knowledge to a > reasonable level, and point out > > the facts on which you build your above statement. If not, quit > > insulting > people by being > > "better-knowing" when in fact you are immensely wrong! > > > > Stick with Greg's post, as he is right, and everybody stating anything > else is wrong! Obviously > > somebody denies the facts in this thread. > > > > For my part, it's closed, he's questions have been answered, and again > this has gone way too far off > > original topic! > > > > L8r, > > Sharza > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.706 / Virus Database: 462 - Release Date: 14-06-2004 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
