harold_king

Twitter (or: Tw@tter) is an epic failure invented to waste as much time as possible. And it's uncool. Approx 70% is voting "No", but maybe we should have a "no" and a separate "please god no!" and a "I don't really give a [insert 4 letter word]"

A Dutch translation would suck terribly, and attract swarms of noobs. I wouldn't go on it even if it were the only server. The regular (not translated) Dutch servers are bad enough as they are (seriously, go check them out, you will be amazed)

I sometimes use Opera. It's very nice, but I prefer FireFox.. But what about Chrome? Why is it not an option?

The old Katosan430 He needs to be cloned since the real one quit..

They care alright, what do you think is the reason they even bother to add restrictions? It's not because they don't give a damn. Obviously they don't care too much about the individuals, it's all for The Greater Good - and only They will decide what this Good is. So they care, but not in the same way you do.

I hope you mean that you don't mind if CC implements useful features from IRC Seeing as useful features are useful by definition, they shouldn't hurt But of course it wouldn't do if it were "exactly the same", they could never allow you to have your own bots because of the security leak that would be so it couldn't even be exactly the same, but it would make sense if things like calculators and price checkers etc. would be build in - not likely to happen, but it would make sense anyhow

Most people would.. Like blosssom2581 said, the NetBurst architecture is a lot slower than the Core architecture at the same (and even lower) clockspeed - partly due to the NetBurst's extremely long pipeline which makes the cost of mispredicted branches very high But I think JaGex chose to be "better safe than sorry" and the minimum requirement might actually be as low as 1GHz even for NetBurst cpu's (to make sure no one will complain that they meet the specs but the game runs slow) In short: just try. It's the only way to be absolutely* sure. *: other ways exist but are less reliable That doesn't mean that it won't be slow if your cpu is that fast though, it is after all the entire computer that determines the actual performance - a 3DMark score would be more reliable

I see an option "I do not meet the system requirements." How the heck can that happen? Those requirements are so darned low it's almost an insult! What about all those gamers with 3GHz quad cores, 4GB ram and 512MB+ video memory? (that would be me, too) But I suppose it will be better than it used to be.. A computer that meets those specs can be made for less than 100, seriously (obviously you'll have to make it yourself) The edge of the water looks a bit "polygony", the grass is still just a texture instead of geometry, the ropes aren't detailed enough and the fog is too nearby It's an improvement, but it still doesn't compare to stand-alone games

And be sure to use PNG, if you save as jpg it will be smaller but at the loss of the quality - it's not worth it.

I've only had 1 incompatibility problem with XP 64bit - drivers for a logitech quickcam. Not a big problem. Besides, they're drivers, so they have to be specifically 64bit, normal programs can be 32bit (they would not be able to address 4GB of (virtual)memory but how many programs do that anyway?) Personally, I've beta tested Vista, and even Vista SP1 (which was a slight improvement) but I don't like it. A lot of my programs didn't work, and that's just unacceptable. The "glass" looks ok but it's pointless. A decent theme like luna element makes XP look alright and without the glass that needs a hardware shader for the blur and increased amounts of buffer space and the slow window animations it's a lot faster and less resource intensive. Going from XP to Vista I did not see any improvements, but only annoyances (like the screen going dark to show something that "could not be shown on the desktop" like AVG updater) and degraded performance (4 minutes longer boot time and lower FPS on all my games) Maybe it will be like XP: SP2 will be good (maybe) With a GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB, 4GB RAM, and a 3.333GHz QX6850 (yes that's overclocked, mult = 10) Vista is noticeably slower than XP, except on the loading time of programs but who cares about those few seconds? So the final conclusion: Vista is alright if you're an average home user. If you're a gamer or a programmer I'd just get XP Pro 64bit, most driver troubles are gone now.

I heard rumors about a "return tab" or something like it, that you could drop somewhere and return to within a couple of minutes, but, I haven't heard about it for a while.. (should check the old 'behind the scenes'..) On this being impossible with Java: Come on now, it would be possible. But RuneScape uses RuneScript (right?) I have no idea what it's limitations and possibilities are (apart from what is already there)

primitive sky would be easy for them, just clear with blue instead of black that would make every pixel of the screen that isn't drawn to blue instead of black, though there would be parts of sky closer than the horizon due to the low draw distance (they could give us a slider to control draw distance.. so as to not annoy the people with slower computers) I can see a tiny little problem coming with fist-person view.. seeing as you can never see ceilings now, they probably aren't there at all, so they'd have to add ceilings (and lamps etc) to every house in runescape! or they could keep them invisible, but that'd look odd..

Is it? Perhaps you made the choice to install NoScript for different reasons, with as side effect that RuneScape's ads are gone, you wouldn't be "deliberately removing RS' ads" but just "trying to make your browser safer" or something like that?

That is the most outstanding reply so far. =D> A positive thinker. So there must be a way to go to Lumbridge from Karajama after fishing in just a click then!!! hmm... d'oh only works with things that have a "make all" of course (and not even all of them), and of course it will only do exactly that, won't teleport you anywhere you may notice that I started the thread :wink: but seriously now, if you don't believe it, just go ahead and try it

I just took a closer look at it, it looks like the area to click is the exact area of the text So it's a feature then, wonder why they didn't say anything about it :?