Is Windows XP Obselete?

[locoroco]

your wrong my computer runs perfectly with all of the setting cranked up to high.second my computer runs perfectly any game that is dx11 enabled it runs call of duty modern warefare 2 with no lagg what so ever.third who mentioned intel i dont own intel i will never own intel i despise intel my graphics card is an nvidia 7025 read the post i made earlier.fourth She does support dx11 she's win 7 ready i just dont like the high sytem requirements.fifth I've used my friend computer that has exactly the same specs as mine the only thing its that its win7 and it barely runs call of duty modern warefare 2.Sixth i know that no gamer would buy a pre built computer duhhh i made mine from scratch im just saying its a big company that makes great gaming computers.and lastly i like the interface i like the aero i just dont like the os requirements also like i said earlier try running nfsu2 or prostreet in that computer and bfore you say i anything i can run undercover i just need more ram thats it.also my computer is ps 3.0 so i get great looking games.

I'm with you on that. I would like to invite people to try playing Oni (one of the best games by Bungie [now part of Microsoft], the developers of Halo) using a PC with:

- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz
- 1 GB SDRAM
- No independent graphics processing
- Windows 7 64-bit
... And then I would like to invite people to do the same thing, with the same machine, only this time with Windows XP 64-bit. I guarantee, you'll see a Godzilla-sized difference in performance.. ;-)

i know i will see a godzilla sized difference but i never could understang the difference between the 64bit and 32bit i guess its like a high def thing right? the os looks different or something. ill stick with 32bit for now.

 

[twocows]

your wrong my computer runs perfectly with all of the setting cranked up to high.second my computer runs perfectly any game that is dx11 enabled it runs call of duty modern warefare 2 with no lagg what so ever.third who mentioned intel i dont own intel i will never own intel i despise intel my graphics card is an nvidia 7025 read the post i made earlier.fourth She does support dx11 she's win 7 ready i just dont like the high sytem requirements.fifth I've used my friend computer that has exactly the same specs as mine the only thing its that its win7 and it barely runs call of duty modern warefare 2.Sixth i know that no gamer would buy a pre built computer duhhh i made mine from scratch im just saying its a big company that makes great gaming computers.and lastly i like the interface i like the aero i just dont like the os requirements also like i said earlier try running nfsu2 or prostreet in that computer and bfore you say i anything i can run undercover i just need more ram thats it.also my computer is ps 3.0 so i get great looking games.



i know i will see a godzilla sized difference but i never could understang the difference between the 64bit and 32bit i guess its like a high def thing right? the os looks different or something. ill stick with 32bit for now.

I did make a mistake in my post (DX11 is not Windows 7 exclusive, it is also for Vista), but if you are running XP, it will not run because Microsoft has not backported it to XP. There is simply no DX11 on XP, it does not exist and will never exist. The Nvidia 7025 is an integrated GPU, I believe, but you might be right in that it supports DX11. However, that doesn't change the fact that XP does not.

That's not to say you can't run games that use DX11. Most game manufacturers realize a lot of people still use XP so haven't completely switched over to DX10/DX11 and still make their games DX9 compatible with some performance/graphics improvements for machines capable of more.

If your friend's computer barely runs that game, perhaps there is some incompatibility in the game with regards to Windows 7, or something is dragging down his system (Aero can do this, I disable it). My high-end machine can run even the most modern games (Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Metro 2033, Crysis, etc.) at high framerates on Windows 7, no problems whatsoever, and my other machines built in the past three years have no problem with newer games on Win7, though I turn the settings down a bit to keep a high framerate. Not sure what you mean by ps 3.0, by the way.

As for 32-bit vs 64-bit, there's a bit of noticeable performance improvement, but nothing to warrant a switch unless you're making a new system. Definitely not to XP 64-bit, which is absolutely horrible.

 

[Archer]

your wrong my computer runs perfectly with all of the setting cranked up to high.second my computer runs perfectly any game that is dx11 enabled it runs call of duty modern warefare 2 with no lagg what so ever.

No. No it doesn't. Assuming these are your specs:

Spoiler:

AMD sempron 140 3.1ghz overclocked
Nvidia 7025 512mb ps 3.0 dx9
1gb ram 1066mhz
asrock n68-s mother board
win xp home

You're not going to run any new games at anywhere near maximum settings, without watching a very pretty slideshow. What sort of a framerate do you see as acceptable? 6fps?

.fourth She does support dx11 she's win 7 ready i just dont like the high sytem requirements.

No, the GPU won't run anything in DX11. Only the ATI 5000s and NVidia 400s are DX11 compatible. And with a Sempron and a Gig of ram, no wonder you see issues trying to game on Win 7. Your board is probably AM2+, so chuck in an extra 2GB stick of DDR2 ram and Athlon X2 250. Give it an ATI 5670 to play with (no extra power required and budget friendly) and call it a day.

You do realise that playing games in DX10/11 is going to give you a performance hit, right? They run in DX10/11 (if supported) by default on Vista. That's why you're going to notice.

i know i will see a godzilla sized difference but i never could understang the difference between the 64bit and 32bit i guess its like a high def thing right? the os looks different or something. ill stick with 32bit for now.

64-bit is a different architecture. It provides a 64 bit bus on the CPU and allows you to use more than 3.25GB ram. It also allows the execution of 64-bit code, allowing a greater throughput on productivity apps. The extra RAM is necessary for a higher-end gaming rig.

Think your machine can run anything? Try Battlefield Bad Company 2 or Crysis Warhead. My machine only runs Crysis happily on "Gamer" (3/4) settings, so there's no way you'll get far.

 

[locoroco]

just in case remember my comp is overclocked.I unlocked the second core yesterday and she is stable and i can run pretty much any game now.also my motherboard is am3. and by ps i mean pixelshader 3.0.and she does support win 7 she is win7 ready dint you read my mother board the asrock n68-s supports dx11 because she did have win7 with dx11 but i downgraded her to xp because it didnt wanna run games like need for speed pro street or carbon or nfs u2 or pretty much any of the game that i wanted to play because of incompatibility issues just so you know.i hate vista its crap and win 7 is to young like i said ill stick with xp until the end and she makes a great gaming computer.Dual core sempron @3.1 ghz try beating that with an athlon my graphics card is also overclocked and lastly ive done the gaming test online (the 1 that scans your computer and compares them to the specs of the game) and she only doesnt make it because of the ram ill chuck and extra 3gigs of ram and call it a day. and then i might think about win7.also i downgraded her because i cant hack pokemon games with it it was just my worst mistake ever putting win7 on my comp i had it for a torturing 1 week i should have told my dad(he was helping me install everything) to put win xp on it since i dont see my dad for a week i had to wait all of that time to acctually downgrade her it was horrible.like i said put your computer in idle and open task manager and tell me if the cpu charge goes down to 0% if it does ill buy your computer for 2000$ no it doesnt go to 0% well thats the problem the cpu that your system is using you cant use it can you.So for once just listen to yourself and accually try the test online and tell me if u pass it if you do tell me how did it go.also i've owned this proccesor and motherboard for bare 3 weeks why would i buy a new prossecor if this 1 is new also for me to run the ati gpu i need a new power supply thats the thing the power supply is also 3 weeks old.why would i change her she just need more ram i have played call of duty and its perfectly playable.

 

[Dawn]

That's how it is for me. I still use XP because some of my games don't even run properly in 7. They're all choppy in Windows 7, yet they run perfectly fine in XP, but I like the way Windows 7 works and looks. So now you see the predicament I'm in. Maybe if I had a larger hard drive, I could dual boot.

Just get a better computer and you won't experience "Choppy" anymore I'm thinkin' =3 You must be too close to the minimum requirements and that's not acceptable for gamers.

I'm with you on that. I would like to invite people to try playing Oni (one of the best games by Bungie [now part of Microsoft], the developers of Halo) using a PC with:

- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz
- 1 GB SDRAM
- No independent graphics processing
- Windows 7 64-bit
... And then I would like to invite people to do the same thing, with the same machine, only this time with Windows XP 64-bit. I guarantee, you'll see a Godzilla-sized difference in performance.


And Locoroco: Your grammar's good enough for me. ;-)

...Actually no I don't think I will see a godzilla sized difference. Both machines are over 9000 times overqualified to play that game and would probably run it at absolute full speed constantly. The thing requires only 64 MEGS of RAM.

Except for one problem. XP 64 bit sucks eggs and could very well have errors trying to run the program. Horrible comparison. Windows 7 64 Bit owns XP 64 bit SO hard it's not even funny. It's RIDICULOUS how much better it is.

Furthermore, integrated graphics are a disgusting thing to use in a comparison revolving around gaming. Also, 64 bit Vista / 7 are basically automatically superior to XP in a gaming environment due to the support of 4+ gigs of RAM and the superior handling of data. XP 64 bit is a terrible operating system (See: Compatibility issues that make Vista's initial release look good.)

Furthermore, I think it's kind of ironic you're giving a bare minimum hardware comparison, because we gamers definitely DO NOT look anything but down on those that deliberately try to use the minimum.
Can't do that and game properly. One or the other.

why would i change her she just need more ram i have played call of duty and its perfectly playable.

Quite frankly, that precious game of yours is medium-end at best. Try Crysis.

exacly what i mean try to run nfs u2 on 7 see if it runs i hate dx11 its crap i like dx9 better also for the ppl dont say that game is old if u think that try running pro street with my pc specs see if it run without any lagg

With the specs you have you should quite frankly not be playing video games. See what I said above. Meeting the minimum requirements is not the gamer way. Also, my LAPTOP could probably run that thing. Sorry, but that means it's old in terms of hardware requirements.

your wrong my computer runs perfectly with all of the setting cranked up to high.second my computer runs perfectly any game that is dx11 enabled it runs call of duty modern warefare 2 with no lagg what so ever.

No, he's not wrong. In fact, you're blatantly wrong. =/ DX11, nor DX10 are on XP. Even if a game has DX11 enabled, you aren't using it. XP can't use it, because XP is obsolete. A thousand bucks says that game looks better on my screen because I'm using 7.

fifth I've used my friend computer that has exactly the same specs as mine the only thing its that its win7 and it barely runs call of duty modern warefare 2.

That's because you need to upgrade your computer. You're way behind on hardware, and that's not acceptable in a gaming environment.

also my computer is ps 3.0 so i get great looking games.

https://matthewgill.info/Blue%20Dragons/Movies/Crysis.jpg This is an image comparison of Crysis graphics to a photograph.

Don't tell us about great looking. We've seen far better.

 

[donavannj]

@Locoroco: Your "high-end" games aren't very high-end if you can run them on that terrible system of yours, which is way behind the gaming standard on specs. Hell, even The Sims 2 would lag on your system with XP installed and it running at the highest settings, as would Sim City 4 running these two mods: Network Addon Mod and Colossal Addon mod. And the games I'm talking about are 6 and 7 year old games, not exactly what you would call new.

 

[Archer]

Dual core sempron @3.1 ghz try beating that with an athlon

Athlon II X2 260 @ 3.2 GHz stock. Done :P
Or my Phenom II X4 965 Quad @ 4.1GHz? How's that?

Do you mind telling me what this test is? And try an actual standard, like 3DMark06. I'd get you to run Vantage, but I forgot that XP can't run it.

Oh, and:
"image removed"
That's with things running in the background. Also, the more ram you have, the more it will use.

 

[locoroco]

First i could run sims 1,2,3 on my amd duron with s3 graphics pro savage ddr and 798 megs of ram a lil laggy not much but nothing hard to run.second yeah look at your ram usage that just proves my point vista and 7 are RESOURCES HOGS!!!!.Third yeah that game crysis looks cool not what im used to but yeah. fourth my comp make a great gaming computer but you know what im not going to keep discussing this my point is alredy on a pic so ill stop right here and while you have to keep upgrading i have to do nothing so.....yeah.

 

[twocows]

First i could run sims 1,2,3 on my amd duron with s3 graphics pro savage ddr and 798 megs of ram a lil laggy not much but nothing hard to run.second yeah look at your ram usage that just proves my point vista and 7 are RESOURCES HOGS!!!!.Third yeah that game crysis looks cool not what im used to but yeah. fourth my comp make a great gaming computer but you know what im not going to keep discussing this my point is alredy on a pic so ill stop right here and while you have to keep upgrading i have to do nothing so.....yeah.

That's at load. At load, his computer is using approximately 1/8 of his total RAM. I don't know about his, but mine uses maybe 200MB at idle. Probably less, I'm guessing because that computer is off (I'm using a GNU/Linux machine at the moment).

And if you honestly think you don't need to upgrade your computer to keep up with modern gaming, you're deluding yourself. Even a high-budget gaming computer needs to be upgraded every so often, and yours is mid-range at best (Sempron is a budget processor and integrated graphics are a joke, even Nvidia's line). If you just want to play older games, you won't have a problem, but if you want to play any newer games you're going to have to bottom out the settings or upgrade like anyone else.

 

[Dawn]

fourth my comp make a great gaming.

I'm going to disagree here. You're comparing against computers like ours that could probably outrun several computers of your specs combined. Sad news is I question whether your computer could play Crysis on low.

a lil laggy not much but nothing hard to run.second yeah look at your ram usage that just proves my point vista and 7 are RESOURCES HOGS!!!!

A "lil" laggy is a term many gamers would scoff at. And I think you've overstepped the line in calling them "resource hogs".

...First of all, you're going with the minimalist argument again, which is not okay for anyone that intends to play video games.

...Second of all, the requirements for 7 are LOWER than vista. That blows the accusation of 7 being a resource hog right out of the water. The XP standard of hardware is long dead. Microsoft knew it. There was no removing Vista from the market. All they did with 7 was not increase the minimum requirements any. (They even lowered it slightly)

Furthermore, do you have ANY idea what a RAM hog XP is compared to it's predecessor, Windows 2000/ME? Vista requires 1 gig, two times XP. XP, however, requires 512 Megs, which is an incredible sixteen times what 2000 required. (2000 required 32 megs at minimum)

So I say no, if anything, XP is the biggest "memory hog" in the existance of these cornerstones of technology.

95 = 4 megs
98 = 16 megs
Windows ME = 32 megs
Windows 2000 = 32 megs
Windows XP = 512 megs

 

[donavannj]

So I say no, if anything, XP is the biggest "memory hog" in the existance of these cornerstones of technology.

95 = 4 megs
98 = 16 megs
Windows ME = 32 megs
Windows 2000 = 32 megs
Windows XP = 512 megs

Oh, and let's not forget that it needed 3 GB of HDD space to install, whereas Windows 2000 only needed... 300 MB, I think.

Though you could get XP to run on a bare minimum of 64 MB and running okay at 128 MB, though both would have a fair few features disabled.

@locoroco: You just said a "lil" laggy for The Sims. Which means not very good at all. And I am going off of personal experience of running these games on systems that were just like yours. I had to run it at low settings to get even the base game for The Sims 2 to run without any hitches.

 

[Dawn]

Oh, and let's not forget that it needed 3 GB of HDD space to install, whereas Windows 2000 only needed... 300 MB, I think.

Though you could get XP to run on a bare minimum of 64 MB and running okay at 128 MB, though both would have a fair few features disabled.

@locoroco: You just said a "lil" laggy for The Sims. Which means not very good at all. And I am going off of personal experience of running these games on systems that were just like yours. I had to run it at low settings to get even the base game for The Sims 2 to run without any hitches.

Those are unsupported amounts of RAM though. You could probably get 2000/ME to go lower too. Just pointing that out.

 

[locoroco]

i said a lil laggy on my amd duron 1400+ 997mhz with s3 graphics pro savage also if u setup xp right you could get her runnig with 64mb right and lastly xp does not require a minimum of 512 mb it required a minimum of 128mb and a unsupported minimum of 64mb just so you know vista was the biggest memory hog and 7 followed also try proving that the more ram it has the more it will use i have an xp comp with a celeron 1.2 ghz and she has 128 mb of ram she uses exactly what this 1 does with 1 gig in other words 64mb

 

[Dawn]

Oh hey, you're right. Apparently 128 megs is the minimum. My bad.

That still makes XP the biggest memory hog in existance. (Twice as much as Vista raised the requirement.) I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make sense. Vista is not a memory hog, and Seven is the exact OPPOSITE of a memory hog. Like I said, if anything, XP is worse.

You seem to be insinuating that the amount of RAM doesn't matter, which is a HUGE mistake. You realize that when the system runs out of RAM it uses other slower methods of doing things right? That's the only reason it will use more RAM the more RAM you have, because RAM is more efficient than the alternatives, sometimes very significantly faster. Yes, your computer uses more RAM the more it has, but that doesn't mean it's good to have very little RAM or that RAM does not boost performance.

It does.

The increasing requirement of RAM is a requirement for more advanced operating systems. It's not really something you can magically stop needing to upgrade. You can sometimes improve things to use less RAM, but sooner or later if you want to put newer stuff you need to upgrade.

 

[twocows]

Oh, and let's not forget that it needed 3 GB of HDD space to install, whereas Windows 2000 only needed... 300 MB, I think.

Though you could get XP to run on a bare minimum of 64 MB and running okay at 128 MB, though both would have a fair few features disabled

My nLited XP on my decade-old Aptiva got down to only using about 16 processes at idle, which got its RAM usage down even lower, I believe. Then again, Windows 2000 could be trimmed in almost the same way, allowing it to run on even older systems just fine.

Oh hey, you're right. Apparently 128 megs is the minimum. My bad.

That still makes XP the biggest memory hog in existance. (Twice as much as Vista raised the requirement.) I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make sense. Vista is not a memory hog, and Seven is the exact OPPOSITE of a memory hog. Like I said, if anything, XP is worse.

You seem to be insinuating that the amount of RAM doesn't matter, which is a HUGE mistake. You realize that when the system runs out of RAM it uses other slower methods of doing things right? That's the only reason it will use more RAM the more RAM you have, because RAM is more efficient than the alternatives, sometimes very significantly faster. Yes, your computer uses more RAM the more it has, but that doesn't mean it's good to have very little RAM or that RAM does not boost performance.

It does.

The increasing requirement of RAM is a requirement for more advanced operating systems. It's not really something you can magically stop needing to upgrade. You can sometimes improve things to use less RAM, but sooner or later if you want to put newer stuff you need to upgrade.

Yeah, when the system has resources that aren't being used, it puts them to use. When idle, a Windows system will defragment itself, and when there's extra RAM, it'll load parts of commonly used programs into memory in case you want to start them up.

 

[locoroco]

well all im saying is that my xp is good for my type of gaming if you care about that senseless game crysis is your waste of time. newer games (most of them about war) have lost their touch in originality since 2006 i cant bear to buy i new game most of them are crap i like to buy games that havent lost their touch. also i definately know that ram is an important issue all im saying is that xp is not the biggest memory hog if you count vista and try to run it with 256mb of ram what would happen i think you cant even install it because it doesnt allow you to the same is for 7 if you dont have 512mb of ram it doesnt allow you to install it also i have a 12 year old dell with windows xp on it pentium 2 with 32mb of ram it has ie5 and really old programs bu it hasnt given me any problems about ram. so what im saying is that my current computer (until i can get more ram) for games under 2007 is great any game that i have tried playing in this comp runs smoothly i cant say the same for win 7 thats all i just cant like i said a few post ago i like how win7 looks i just dont like the requirements neither the program compatibility try running gta sa try running sappy try running a map try running nfsu2 or nfsmw try it and then tell me i just gotta say that my computer plays them all like if they where nothing so...... i think ill stick with xp i few more years.i can proudly say that i have owned xp since i was 5 years old im currently 14 and its the best os i have ever had it has never let me down. so you tell me if 7 is better than xp,it has lower ram usage than 7 it has better program compatibility without running any crappy compatibility mode its better on older computers so right now its to early to call 7 better than xp.

 

[Dawn]

well all im saying is that my xp is good for my type of gaming if you care about that senseless game crysis is your waste of time.

I'm... detecting jealousy. Many gamers dream of having a computer than can run Crysis on full high.

newer games (most of them about war) have lost their touch in originality since 2006 i cant bear to buy i new game most of them are crap i like to buy games that havent lost their touch.

Opinion... Not fact. I'd like to point out the Atari crash and use that as evidence otherwise.

also i definately know that ram is an important issue all im saying is that xp is not the biggest memory hog if you count vista and try to run it with 256mb of ram what would happen i think you cant even install it because it doesnt allow you to the same is for 7 if you dont have 512mb of ram it doesnt allow you to install it

You think that's bad? Try being a Win 2000 gamer when XP game out. XP is in fact the biggest memory hog in the sense that it had the LARGEST relative increase in memory. Fact, not opinion.

also i have a 12 year old dell with windows xp on it pentium 2 with 32mb of ram it has ie5 and really old programs bu it hasnt given me any problems about ram. so what im saying is that my current computer (until i can get more ram) for games under 2007 is great any game that i have tried playing in this comp runs smoothly i cant say the same for win 7 thats all i just cant like i said a few post ago i like how win7 looks i just dont like the requirements neither the program compatibility try running gta sa try running sappy try running a map try running nfsu2 or nfsmw try it and then tell me i just gotta say that my computer plays them all like if they where nothing so......

Now I know you're just making stuff up. I run some of these games and they have absolutely no problem with Windows 7. Just because you choose to use inferior programs doesn't mean you don't have "problems with RAM". That just means you're compensating for problems.

i think ill stick with xp i few more years.i can proudly say that i have owned xp since i was 5 years old im currently 14 and its the best os i have ever had it has never let me down. so you tell me if 7 is better than xp,it has lower ram usage than 7 it has better program compatibility without running any crappy compatibility mode its better on older computers so right now its to early to call 7 better than xp.

Now I have a problem. It's one thing to question whether XP is obsolete. To call XP better than Windows 7? That is absolutely r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s. You're either a troll or you're making things up to support your argument. I can name 10 reasons Windows 7 is blatantly superior to XP right on the spot, while hundreds probably exist. Allow me to demonstrate.

1. 64 bit that doesn't suffer from additional compatibility issues.

2. More secure from malicious attacks.

3. More stable from accidents

4. It's very easy to reinstall Windows 7 without reformatting.

5. Windows 7 supports Direct X 10/11

6. Windows 7 supports Internet Explorer 9

7. Windows 7 supports several new APIs used in the building of programs such as IE9 that will inevitably cause OTHER programs to abandon XP too.

8. Windows 7 will be supported longer.

9. Windows 7 has UAC

10. Windows 7 has ASLR (MAJOR advancement in security XP will never have)

 

[locoroco]

o pls ie8 and ie9 and the biggest pieces of sh*** that could ever exist. second i never get viruses. third i dont care about 64 bit. your telling me windows 7 is more stable than xp hahahahahaha you make me laugh. fourth you probably took more than 5 hours to name all of those things and i never said win xp was better than seven i said that xp is not out of the race yet thats all ill consider it ut of the race once i see that microsoft and all of the os hacking fans including me stop making things for xp dont worry all of us os hacking fans will make win xp better than 7 and lastly why the heck did we even start talking about older computers. also i hate war games i just like call of duty bcause is the first 1 i had.

 

[Archer]

If you'd been around here for longer, you would have seen that I had Windows 7 running usably on a P3-850MHz with 256 MB ram. I got it to idle on 130MB ram, with a bit of tweaking. I also said that my screenshot had stuff running in the background. Namely 12 Firefox tabs and Halo 1. You don't seem to understand that any version of Windows will use extra ram if it has more. I can take out a 2GB stick and the idle will drop to ~700MB. If you have 12 GB of ram, it may well use 3GB, loading common programs into ram so that you don't have to pull them off slow hard drives.

Not caring about new games does not make your computer better, it just proves that you are ignorant.

Give me a screen shot of your idle ram usage, btw.

 

[donavannj]

Hey, locoroco, just save your face and stop acting like a computer know-it-all, since you're obviously not. Do your research before coming in here and declaring that XP is more stable than 7 or Vista. On exactly identical (save for the operating system) machines at work, I've had an XP install become unresponsive 4 times since I installed them in January, compared to zero times for the Windows 7 machine, and the Windows 7 machine is used far more often. Try telling me that XP is more stable than 7 now after having heard my personal experience. And, also, each machine has 1 GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 processors. Same would go for a Vista PC, though it wouldn't run as quickly as 7 or XP because it has so many more background tasks than either. I would not game on such a weak PC, though, because even the older games I like are ridiculously process heavy and will lag on even the lowest of settings.

And, also, IE 8 is quite functional if you actually use Windows 7, and the same will go for IE 9, which isn't even out yet. Your poor experience with IE 8 is likely due to the fact that it wasn't even designed for XP. It was designed for Windows 7.

Also, if you save up $450 and know where to look for parts (I've found Micro Center stores have some pretty good deals pretty often, just not always on what you're looking for), you can get a very capable PC to game on.