I just read the suggested system specs for the D&D Insider Apps

[Kzach]

By the way, I heard that Parallels now would offer DirectX support! If that is not the case, what was the thing I heard really? (What did Parallels change in the past ~6 months?)

Umm... might wanna reread what you quoted me saying...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Umm... might wanna reread what you quoted me saying...

True. *cleans glasses*

 

[Mr Jack]

Anyone got a link to these suggested specs?

(And, yes, 2.6Ghz p4, not a high spec, at all)

 

[Shawn_Kehoe]

I agree. My theory is that it was not a real techie that wrote this down. He might have gotten some of the spects from a techie, but the exact words are his own and therefore incorrect.

I wonder if they not actually meant two say one of the following two things:
1) Aside from the DirectX Stuff, you can run the rest of the DDI applications anywhere. (If they are browser-integrated - but I am not sure they are - there is little reason why not.)
2) You can run the whole DDI software stuff on a Dual Boot Mac.

1) would be nice, but is probably not true. 2) is factually given.

By the way, I heard that Parallels now would offer DirectX support! If that is not the case, what was the thing I heard really? (What did Parallels change in the past ~6 months?)

According to Wikipedia, Parallels has reached Direct X 8.1.

 

[Shawn_Kehoe]

GMA 950
The GMA 950 is Intel's second-generation Graphics Media Accelerator graphics core, which was also referred by Intel as 'Gen 3.5 Integrated Graphics Engine' in datasheets. It is used in the Intel 940GML, 945G, 945GU and 945GT system chipsets. The amount of video-decoding hardware has increased; VLD, iDCT, and dual video overlay windows are now handled in hardware. The maximum core clock is up to 400 MHz (on Intel 945G, 945GC, 945GZ), boosting pixel fill-rate to a theoretical 1600 megapixels/s.
The GMA 950 shares the same architectural weakness as the GMA 900: no hardware geometry processing. Neither basic (DX7) hardware transform and lighting,[1] nor more advanced vertex shaders (DX8 and later) are handled in the GMA hardware.

By contrast, the GPU in the latest MacBooks support DirectX 10.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Anyone got a link to these suggested specs?

(And, yes, 2.6Ghz p4, not a high spec, at all)

Our recommended specs for the PC platform includes Windows XP SP2, 512MB RAM, AMD XP 2400 + or Intel P4 2.6Ghz, and a graphic card with 128 MB RAM and support of Shader 2.0. These recommended specs allow you to experience the full range of lighting and Shader effects our 3D engine offers.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071024a

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Consider that a Pentium 4 2.6Ghz processor is circa 2002 technology -- 6 years old! The Core 2 processors are a LOT faster than those things, and you can pick up a Core 2 processor system, even the lower end ones, for 300 to 600 bucks now.

Currently writing from my work laptop, which is about 2 years old, and it's not 2.6Ghz. It's a little over 2Ghz, which I'm sure would be fine, but I highly doubt I have Shader support on this graphics card.

My laptop is a shadow of my desktop, which is also just a couple of years old, but I'd never think to play D&D/DI from my desktop.

Anyhow my point, if I have one, is that a lot of folks "bring their laptop to D&D" and, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that most laptops are at least 1 or 2 generations behind desktops. For what you typically expect a laptop to do, there's just no reason to be on the front edge of CPU and graphics processing.

 

[Toryx]

Anyhow my point, if I have one, is that a lot of folks "bring their laptop to D&D" and, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that most laptops are at least 1 or 2 generations behind desktops. For what you typically expect a laptop to do, there's just no reason to be on the front edge of CPU and graphics processing.

I agree. Given that the whole point (supposedly) of the online table is to open the arena for more players and DMs to get together and play, it seems to be an odd choice on their part to include so many limitations and such a high graphic quality on the system. If the goal is to allow as many people in as many places as possible to play, to put any high requirements on the software is counterproductive. A group of computer gamers who already play WoW together won't have a problem, but a group that used to play together 10 years ago but moved apart and began getting married and raising families are not likely to have the sort of computer resources as a group that WotC is requiring. I've got 6 computers in my household myself and none of them fit those requirements. And I'm far more computer savvy than anyone in my old group.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I agree. Given that the whole point (supposedly) of the online table is to open the arena for more players and DMs to get together and play, it seems to be an odd choice on their part to include so many limitations and such a high graphic quality on the system. If the goal is to allow as many people in as many places as possible to play, to put any high requirements on the software is counterproductive. A group of computer gamers who already play WoW together won't have a problem, but a group that used to play together 10 years ago but moved apart and began getting married and raising families are not likely to have the sort of computer resources as a group that WotC is requiring. I've got 6 computers in my household myself and none of them fit those requirements. And I'm far more computer savvy than anyone in my old group.

The goal is also to give some eye candy. Otherwise, people won't feel motivated to try it out.
Remember how people complained about bad looking character models? Imagine if they tried to show us graphics that look like from a game before the year 2001!

But also keep in mind that these are recommended specifics. I doubt you'll really desperately need Shader 2.0. But don't expect that what you'll see will look like in the screen shots.

Unfortunately, there are always conflicting goals in design (software, game and probably any other "design place", too).

 

[Propheous_D]

Have to agree with the others here. These are recommended specs. This also states this is the specs that allow you the full range of goodies. This reminds me of crysis and people complaining because they can't run it at max. It runs, just not at the advertised eye candy wonderfulness.

Which frankly is fine. I don't need to see my characters swinging their axes in glinty goodness. I need something that looks decent and runs decent. I can use my imagination for everything else. I mean there are people who still play with counters vs miniatures. I love miniatures but I will play with counters just as easily.