Halo Reach Thread


Recommended Posts

And as you saw, I also suck, which is why I have everyone on mute except people in my party. :laugh: So no doubt besides the time, sucking is not helping with my overall liking the game or not, but with that said I have no desire to get better. I know just as with every other game I could eventually get decent if I wanted to, I just do not care enough one way or the other.

With that said, I 110% agree it was definitely a lot of fun being in a group like last night. That would be the one and only reason I would ever play it again if I do.

Come on Larry you know that for the majority of the people that you are going to play with myself and friends included winning means nothing! It is the experience of playing together that brings out the real fun so quit yer bitching and lets go do some crazy **** with Warthog and some kind of rocket launcher :p

I was wondering why it put both of us together in that two man team. I figured it would spread out the rankings putting a lower ranked player with a higher ranked one for balance. Also, I thought the needler was more powerful than it turned out to be.

Yeah same here, I guess they do not have any type of balancing in place.

If you joined in a party, wouldn't you be on the same team?

We played the mode where it was 2 people to a team for like 6 or 8 teams, and literally me and Ironman were the lowest ranked out of everyone and thrown on the same team.

Fair enough.. But don't mistaken me, I play BFBC2 as well. :p.

Pffft, I am talking about BF1942 on!!! Level 10 BF Veteran here!! tongue.gif

I think you're misreading some of the comments. No one hates SWAT, it's just extremely annoying to be forced to play it over and over and over ad nauseum. I love the DMR and pistol, but I can only play a gametype with only those weapons for so long. I don't understand why Bungie did that -- why not throw the shotgun in there, the sniper, the assault rifle -- you know, stuff a SWAT team would actually probably have.

I definitely prefer stuff more like Battlefield, but Halo's multiplayer isn't horrible. Just overrated.

Ahh okay, although there is at least one person I did not misread it, see above.

Come on Larry you know that for the majority of the people that you are going to play with myself and friends included winning means nothing! It is the experience of playing together that brings out the real fun so quit yer bitching and lets go do some crazy **** with Warthog and some kind of rocket launcher :p

I do enjoy playing with everyone, I do, just do have other games to play as well. If there was nothing else to play, it would be a much easier decision. But you just may have talked me into it. (Y)

Yeah same here, I guess they do not have any type of balancing in place.

We played the mode where it was 2 people to a team for like 6 or 8 teams, and literally me and Ironman were the lowest ranked out of everyone and thrown on the same team.

Pffft, I am talking about BF1942 on!!! Level 10 BF Veteran here!! tongue.gif

Ahh okay, although there is at least one person I did not misread it, see above.

I do enjoy playing with everyone, I do, just do have other games to play as well. If there was nothing else to play, it would be a much easier decision. But you just may have talked me into it. (Y)

Yeah and believe me Larry I am as much a BF player at heart as you are and believe me it annoys the crap out of me when I have to shoot someone for 20 mins before they die but the fact that so many of us can get together and just have some ape-**** crazy session in the blood gulch remake that makes it all worth it in the end. Forget the end score or the kill/death ratio that don't matter for **** its the fun we have while playing (Y)

I am SICK of the CRAPPY DMR's in this game. I'm finding SWAT on maps such as Heamorrage INFURIATING as people stand on one side of the map and headshot me every time, while I fire a while round at someone stood still and they DON'T DIE. Hitboxes are highly irritating too; I don't know how many times I need to shoot someone in the head before they bloody die.

Man why you always gotta bust my ass? Lol.

Maybe I should save the clip of me pulling you aside wnd sticking my knife in your balls? Idk I don't feel like being as ass.

I remember an overkill with the banhammer, don't remember getting special assassinated by you. Must say though playing with ya was fun missed chripping people after you kill them.

Holy ****! I thought I was just being a sore loser yesterday when I accused that guy of cheating! :laugh: I encountered one of these *******s yesterday and it was immensely annoying how he wasn't even looking in my direction and boom headshot! Why on earth do you gota cheat you low life inbred nerdlings? Why?! *headbutts wall*

It's a shame. There's a lot of great aspects of the multiplayer, but overall it's just so... bland. And I still think the vehicle implementation is the worst I've ever seen in a multiplayer FPS. It'd be different if there were some sort of balancing aspect to it, but there really isn't.

I'm going to jump on my soap box here yet again and agree with this sentiment whole heartedly.

I played some of Halo 3 multiplayer but due to other obligations never truly involved myself within that community. Halo 2 however was a completely different story. I played the heck out of that game online despite hating what Bungie did to the story and the over all mechanics. If it wasn't for Xbox Live Halo 2 probably could have flopped. But I digress.

After booting up Reach online I found that very old familiar feeling creeping back in: "haven't I played this before?" Sure have, back in 2004. Other than cosmetics and tweaks, nothing has really changed. Sure weapon balances have shifted greatly, vehicles have been added, and yet, aside from the new integration features the 360 Live experience added to the old structure nothing feels "fresh."

Had Bungie worked with MS to create a server environment (if that is even possible with Live?) where you can drop in and out of games, without cause to be penalized as it is now, I would have considered that an actual evolution of the experience. All we received was a way to vote on 3 options or veto them all for yet another three options.

I'm going to jump on my soap box here yet again and agree with this sentiment whole heartedly.

I played some of Halo 3 multiplayer but due to other obligations never truly involved myself within that community. Halo 2 however was a completely different story. I played the heck out of that game online despite hating what Bungie did to the story and the over all mechanics. If it wasn't for Xbox Live Halo 2 probably could have flopped. But I digress.

After booting up Reach online I found that very old familiar feeling creeping back in: "haven't I played this before?" Sure have, back in 2004. Other than cosmetics and tweaks, nothing has really changed. Sure weapon balances have shifted greatly, vehicles have been added, and yet, aside from the new integration features the 360 Live experience added to the old structure nothing feels "fresh."

Had Bungie worked with MS to create a server environment (if that is even possible with Live?) where you can drop in and out of games, without cause to be penalized as it is now, I would have considered that an actual evolution of the experience. All we received was a way to vote on 3 options or veto them all for yet another three options.

IMO, it's not only the multiplayer with that problem. The singleplayer had a strong first half, but the second half just played like a bland, aged game. The areas where Reach excelled were the areas in which it tried something new, in my mind.

Reach is a solid 8/10 for me, and I think it's an improvement over Halo 2 and Halo 3, but I just wanted Bungie to advance the franchise more. I'm one of the few, but I honestly thought ODST was a great stepping point for Bungie. They came up with Firefight, they tried new level design and a new aspect, and the storytelling was so much better than the previous two games. It was a fun diversion, maybe not a full-price product like it was sold, but at least it was an attempt at something new. The first half of Reach was like that (besides the storytelling), but after that it went downhill fast.

Had Bungie worked with MS to create a server environment (if that is even possible with Live?) where you can drop in and out of games, without cause to be penalized as it is now, I would have considered that an actual evolution of the experience. All we received was a way to vote on 3 options or veto them all for yet another three options.

As far as being dropped out/in, that's entirely possible. COD4 (WaW, MW2) had that capability where you were able to join a game that was already in progress. Majority of the time it was a negative experience (often people on losing team will quit so you'll join the losing team...) but Halo could have easily adopted this as well to avoid the whole issue with quitters. If people quit a game there's a reason for that. It's usually when you're on horribly inbalanced teams that are stomping the hell out of you and you don't want to put up with it.

I don't often quit any matchmaking games but I don't see a reason to punish people for it. Especially if you can easily have people join that session then it's not a problem at all and no more 4v1 (w/ 3DNF) or something.

IMO, it's not only the multiplayer with that problem. The singleplayer had a strong first half, but the second half just played like a bland, aged game. The areas where Reach excelled were the areas in which it tried something new, in my mind.

Reach is a solid 8/10 for me, and I think it's an improvement over Halo 2 and Halo 3, but I just wanted Bungie to advance the franchise more. I'm one of the few, but I honestly thought ODST was a great stepping point for Bungie. They came up with Firefight, they tried new level design and a new aspect, and the storytelling was so much better than the previous two games. It was a fun diversion, maybe not a full-price product like it was sold, but at least it was an attempt at something new. The first half of Reach was like that (besides the storytelling), but after that it went downhill fast.

See I have to give it 6/10 because of the first half: It didn't sell me on why I should be playing the title.

The most glaring issue is of course the story. For one, Noble Team's existence is never explained, nor is the differentiation made between what your group minus Jorge is, Spartan III's or what those classification of Spartan's are. For that matter it is never really explained why Noble Six was transferred in, aside from a brief comment. To understand however one would have to had watch the live action trailer that was released prior to the game's launch. For those who didn't see it well then though luck.

At this point in the game humanity and the Covenant are at war. Unfortunatley Bungie opted not to introduce any aspect of the conflict other than to assume players simply knew about it already or simply didn't care. Let's just shoot stuff! In short Reach has a sloppy-in-game story telling where players are not drawn in but rather talked over as the game unfolds.

Again I agree with you on ODST. It was a great overpriced expansion of the universe. The way the story unfolded while traversing a living occupied war zone was impressive! Furthermore the side story about the city AI was equally enthralling. I found myself playing the game in order to finish the side story! Though I will give credit to Bungie for expanding Firefight and allowing for more options in setting up these and LAN specific multi-player games.

As far as being dropped out/in, that's entirely possible. COD4 (WaW, MW2) had that capability where you were able to join a game that was already in progress.

Really? Then why not allow for this in Reach? It's 2010, surely Bungie can create a solid online Live experience that actually empowers players to choose what they would like to play!

Really? Then why not allow for this in Reach? It's 2010, surely Bungie can create a solid online Live experience that actually empowers players to choose what they would like to play!

Yeah, the only qualm like I mentioned earlier was searching and getting tossed into a game that's either just ending, over, or you're getting horribly spanked (something like 6400 to ... 1200). Usually occurs more often when you search as a party of 1 than say as a party of 2-4.

That's why I hated going in by myself in COD4 and still hate it on MW2.

Yeah, the only qualm like I mentioned earlier was searching and getting tossed into a game that's either just ending, over, or you're getting horribly spanked (something like 6400 to ... 1200). Usually occurs more often when you search as a party of 1 than say as a party of 2-4.

That's why I hated going in by myself in COD4 and still hate it on MW2.

That's the one and only thing I truly dislike about matchmaking in console games. It's even worse when you're put into a game moments before it ends. It happens to me a lot in MW2. Ugh!

That's the one and only thing I truly dislike about matchmaking in console games. It's even worse when you're put into a game moments before it ends. It happens to me a lot in MW2. Ugh!

Well the only positive is that it doesn't count against your winning streak! I'd be ****ed because I worked HARD AS HELL to get to my 1337 winstreak. I had to restart it like 4 different times >.<.

See I have to give it 6/10 because of the first half: It didn't sell me on why I should be playing the title.

The most glaring issue is of course the story. For one, Noble Team's existence is never explained, nor is the differentiation made between what your group minus Jorge is, Spartan III's or what those classification of Spartan's are. For that matter it is never really explained why Noble Six was transferred in, aside from a brief comment. To understand however one would have to had watch the live action trailer that was released prior to the game's launch. For those who didn't see it well then though luck.

At this point in the game humanity and the Covenant are at war. Unfortunatley Bungie opted not to introduce any aspect of the conflict other than to assume players simply knew about it already or simply didn't care. Let's just shoot stuff! In short Reach has a sloppy-in-game story telling where players are not drawn in but rather talked over as the game unfolds.

Again I agree with you on ODST. It was a great overpriced expansion of the universe. The way the story unfolded while traversing a living occupied war zone was impressive! Furthermore the side story about the city AI was equally enthralling. I found myself playing the game in order to finish the side story! Though I will give credit to Bungie for expanding Firefight and allowing for more options in setting up these and LAN specific multi-player games.

Oh, I fully agree that the story was utter crap from the get-go. The first half of the story was atrocious, and it didn't get much better (if any better) the second half. But the big thing for me was the gameplay. The level design and types of the first half of the game really set it apart from other Halo games. The sniper level, for instance, was vastly superior to any sniper level on a previous Halo game.

I give the first half of the game a pass on the story problems (which were major, again, don't get me wrong) because of the strength of the gameplay. The second half of the game was just the same old "throw enemies at you in this order" style of previous Halo games. The final portion of the game is a perfect example of Halo gameplay -- just so bland.

I'm so disappointed that Bungie seemed to finally get the storyline elements right in Halo with ODST, then they revert back to quite possibly the worst storyline they've ever had with Reach. What's even more of a shame is that Reach had the best backstory (and potential for a good storyline) out of all the Halo games. How they failed, I simply do not know. It's like they looked at Modern Warfare 2 for an example of how to do a storyline.

Honestly, I'm glad 343 Studios is taking over. I think they're going to do much better things with the story given how ingrained they've been with story elements (and supplements) of Halo, and they'll have all the resources and talent they need.

I bought this game primarily for the singleplayer story as I have always been a fan, and with little expectations of multiplayer as the past iterations have kind of ruined the whole halo experience for me. While I did enjoy the campaign Im finding it hard to justify likeing this game.

From the cheap enemy AI on heroic or legendary, to a story that needs to be flourished out more, to an eerie feeling that a lot of the level design in some areas feels like a copy paste job from previous games, it just needs work. Some praises I will give the game though are Spaceship battle, while rather short, it was enjoyable and something new and fresh. The zero-g part was also fun and should have lasted longer. Reach also brought Dr. Halsey into the mix for those who know little of her and I wish they would of developed her character just a little more.

Multiplayer is pretty much what I expected out of a game from Bungie given their past history with Halo 2 and Halo 3. While the core gameplay is solid I would suppose, there are so many things that add to the entire package that just infuriate me. Matchmaking yet again, with no user hosted lobbies or user control of keeping questionable people out of your games (cheaters, modders, etc). There is absolutely no reason a server browser should not have been implemented for Custom games. Something that was promised for Halo 3 and then cut, still does not make it into the next game? GTFO. A Betrayal system that is stupid unforgiving and will almost always give the option to boot after one betrayal. A penalty for quitters that has had absolutely no effect on those of us who actually stick it out besides people still quitting and most likely being the host which causes the game to come to a stop while a new host is picked. Vehicle imbalancing out the ass. Why they decided to put a total of 14 ****ing vehicles on Hemmorage I have no clue. I cant not play that map with being constantly accosted by a vehicle. A voting system that has resulted in nothing but having to play a SWAT match 10 times in a row because the Bungie can't seem to make a good playlist ever. I always loved playing team slayer only to be thrown into a team snipers match in H2 and H3 when the stupid gametype had its own seperate playlist to begin with. It still seems that kind of stupidity is still lingering in Reach. Even the control sensitivity feels sluggish this time around, maybe its because I have been off of halo for too long but it just feels too slow even on 10 sensitivity. Saving graces and definite mentions, Invasion good team orientied objective gametype but needed more maps out of the box because I doubt I will be purchasing any DLC for this game (especially with their fiascos in H2 and H3 where they slowly locked out playlists unless you had the DLC instead of keeping it optional ala MW and MW2). Forge world improvements are a great add. Firefight inclusion and improvements are also a steal. Armory unlocks while costly are a nice touch, even though its for aesthetics only. Active roster gets an honorable mention as well, while not really needed it does add a bit of ease to getting together with friends.

I could point out a ton of other things I see wrong with this game, but it would be pointless. Overall the game feels like a solid standard Halo title, but it just doesnt really progress the franchise any and still has little community control of multiplayer games which is a big turn off for me. At most I would give this a game a 6 out of 10. It is probably more because I have just moved away from the Halo franchise over the years. I find it hard to stay attached to this series for anything other than singleplayer storyline.

As others have stated, I am glad Bungie is moving on because I do not think they have anything left to give to help this franchise forward that would make me want to come back to both the SP and MP experiences.

I love Hemorrhage and yet I never set foot in a vehicle... I don't understand the frustration people get with a lot of vehicles on a map.

Its usually because I get the one not so smart person on our team that takes our team's tank and gets in blown up instantly and then our entire team spends half the match getting spawn killed by the other teams tank because for some reason the game doesnt want to spawn us in our own base. There is no cover on the map besides a few rocks and the side caves which are pretty much impossible to get to with a tank round getting shoved down your throat. And the one true anti-tank weapon spawns in the middle of the map.

Its usually because I get the one not so smart person on our team that takes our team's tank and gets in blown up instantly and then our entire team spends half the match getting spawn killed by the other teams tank because for some reason the game doesnt want to spawn us in our own base. There is no cover on the map besides a few rocks and the side caves which are pretty much impossible to get to with a tank round getting shoved down your throat. And the one true anti-tank weapon spawns in the middle of the map.

Well, honestly that is the way it always played. Still, the map will be updated to the way it was in Halo 2. The Scorpions will be replaced with Wraiths in the October update.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft brings Claude to its own Azure infrastructure, powered by Nvidia GB300 Blackwell by Karthik Mudaliar Anthropic's Claude models are now generally available in Microsoft Foundry on Azure and are running on Nvidia's GB300 Blackwell Ultra systems. Nvidia wrote in its announcement that the models are hosted on Microsoft Azure and accelerated by GB300 Blackwell Ultra GPUs, with Quantum-X800 InfiniBand networking used to support larger agentic systems and specialized sub-agents that can operate across business domains. This is great for customers and enterprises that want to build autonomous and domain-specific AI agents using Claude without moving outside Microsoft’s cloud platform. Microsoft currently offers Claude models in Foundry in two forms: “Hosted on Azure,” which runs end-to-end on Azure infrastructure and is generally available, and “Hosted on Anthropic infrastructure,” which remains in preview. This separation is quite important for organizations that have procurement, compliance, data processing, or internal governance requirements tied to Azure. Anthropic currently has 11 Claude models listed in Microsoft Foundry, including Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6, and even the unavailable Mythos and Fable models. Billing is handled through Claude Consumption Units (CCUs). Microsoft says CCU is an invoicing unit for Claude models in Foundry, with token usage converted using Anthropic’s published per-model token rates. The usage is billed through Azure Marketplace just like models from other distributors and appears on the customer's Azure invoice, while eligible spend can count against a Microsoft Azure Consumption Commitment. For starters, GB300 NVL72 is a rack-scale, fully liquid-cooled system that combines 72 Blackwell Ultra GPUs and 36 Grace CPUs. Nvidia has listed 37TB of fast memory, 130TB/s of NVLink bandwidth, and FP4 Tensor Core performance of up to 1,440 petaflops with sparsity. The deal is also part of a three-way partnership between Microsoft, Nvidia, and Anthropic. Under the deal, Anthropic has committed to buying $30 billion in Azure compute capacity and contracting additional capacity up to one gigawatt. Nvidia and Microsoft also said they would invest up to $10 billion and $5 billion in Anthropic, respectively.
    • WhatsApp is getting usernames, and you can reserve your preferred one now by Fiza Ali Sharing your phone number isn't always something you want to do, especially with people you've just met. Whether it's someone from a class, a local community group, or a sports team chat, handing over your number can feel like giving away more personal information than necessary. That's exactly the problem WhatsApp is trying to solve with its upcoming usernames feature. The company has announced that users can now reserve a unique WhatsApp username ahead of the feature's wider rollout later this year. Once usernames become available, they'll let people connect without revealing their phone numbers. It's a change that makes a lot of sense for group chats. Right now, everyone in the group can see your phone number. With usernames enabled, that won't necessarily be the case when someone contacts you for the first time. WhatsApp says it's opening username reservations early because more than three billion people use the app, meaning plenty of people are likely to want the same usernames. Reserving one now gives users a better chance of securing the name they actually want before the feature launches more broadly. If your preferred username is already taken, WhatsApp will also offer a built-in username generator to suggest available alternatives. The feature isn't only aimed at individual users. Creators, businesses, and organisations will be able to claim the same username they already use on Instagram or Facebook, making it easier to keep a consistent identity across Meta's apps. Furthermore, privacy is a big part of how WhatsApp is introducing usernames. There won't be a public directory where people can browse or search for usernames. Instead, people will need to know your exact username before they can start a conversation with you. Additionally, users can also choose to enable a username key, which adds another layer of control by requiring people to enter that key before sending a message. Once the feature rolls out, people who choose to use a username will no longer have their phone number shown when messaging a person or business for the first time. If you want to reserve a username, make sure you're running the latest version of WhatsApp, then head to Settings > Account > Username. The tech giant says usernames will roll out gradually over the coming months, and users will receive an in-app notification when the feature becomes available in their country.
    • When I think about a network, there are really two aspects, the hardware and the wiring. So here is what I would do for both. Wiring: Use Cat6A for the patch panel, outlets, and all structured cables (cables installed in walls). Run plenty of Wireless Access Point (WAP) cables, as a general rule, assume a signal can only pass through 2-3 walls and can't pass through a floor (that is conservative, but trust me on this if you want strong WiFi)  Cat6 patch cables are fine for now if you don't plan to run 10gig, those are easy to replace later if needed. Run OS2 single-mode fiber to anywhere you think you may have a server or sub-switch. (yes, single-mode for everything on a small network, don't mess with multimode unless you are at a scale where that minor cost and power savings will matter). If you really want to future proof, also run fiber to any high density WAP locations, it is likely that WiFi 8 and beyond WAPs will push the limits of 10g. Run 6-12 pairs of single-mode fiber between your MDF and the building's MDF, even if you only need 1 or 2 pairs now, those extra pairs will pay off down the road. Hardware: (its easy to say "get all the features incase you need them", so instead of futureproofing, I am going to take approach of suggesting areas worth investing in, and areas you can save money). Don't overspend thinking you need every feature on every port. You don't need 10g on every port, you don't need PoE on every port. Don't overspend on redundancy either, unless you are ready to buy two of everything, don't waste money buying two of some things and not others. Dual power supplies are worthwhile, but probably not HA or multi-path redundancy.  Get 1 "distribution layer" switch that your router/firewall will connect to as well as all your access layer switches below. This should be a fully managed 10g+ switch with a combination of copper and SPF ports, a few 25g uplink ports are nice for this switch. Given that you said it is a small network, I suggest also using that distribution layer switch for servers and WAPs, meaning it will need PoE. Speaking of wireless, get good professional tri-band WAPs, and either turn on the band stirring options, or limit 2.4 to an IoT only SSID. This will provide a solid WiFi capable nearly everything but the highest of bandwidth clients...you could even consider skipping wiring workstations depending on usage. Access layer switch for workstations and printers can be cheaper switches, 2.5g is a good sweet spot between price and future proofing, but even 1g is fine for most individual clients (the kind that could probably be fine on WiFi). You can consider saving a little on access layer switches by only getting 1 PoE switch for whatever needs it (remember your WAPs are connecting to the distribution switch, not here), and non-PoE for your workstations, because desk phones are falling out of favor. You can also save money here by not buying managed switches if you don't need them--but really do some soul searching there, if you go this route, then anything that isn't on your workstation VLAN would either need to be connected to the distribution switch, or its own access layer switch. Also, don't feel like you need a fancy fabric stacking switches for your access layer, that is the point of the higher-end distribution layer, to remove the need for things like that at this level. Home Hardware: I'm realizing the above assumed an office setting, if this if for your house and home lab then the above still applies, but you'll probably want everything managed and PoE, just because, but you probably also don't need multiple access layer switches. If your total port count is below 24, just skip separating distribution layer and access layer and just get one nice switch with the features you want. If you are at the point of considering a 48-port switch, I would instead get a nice high-end distribution switch for things that need it, and cheaper access layer switches with specs based on the needs of connected devices. For home use, don't worry about home running every device to the main switch, there is nothing wrong with running sub-switches for your media areas and office, those essentially become your access layer, just look for sub-switches with a 10g uplink so sharing bandwidth isn't an issue. Just make sure you always connect them to your distribution/main switch, don't daisy chain, the path should never have more steps than Client>Access>Distribution>Firewall>Internet or Client>Access>Distribution>Server if it is local.
    • Google Meet brings Gemini note-taking to AI Pro and Ultra subscribers by Karthik Mudaliar Google's Gemini-powered "Take notes for me" feature inside Google Meet is now available to Google AI Pro and Ultra subscribers. The features work on Google Meet for web as well as on mobile, and Google says that subscribers can use it for meetings they host in many supported languages. As the name suggests, "Take notes for me" allows Gemini to listen to a meeting, generate a summary, identify action items, and save the notes as a Google Doc in the user’s Drive. After the meeting, the organizer receives an email recap with the summary and action items, while the notes can also be attached to the related Calendar event depending on the meeting setup and sharing settings. The feature isn't automatically turned on for everyone, though. Google says that all meeting participants are notified when note-taking is turned on, and users can start it from the pencil icon in Meet or enable it for future calls through Meet’s meeting records settings. For work or school accounts, administrators can also control whether the feature is available and may require explicit participant consent for note-taking, recording, or transcription features. The feature first launched back in 2024, when it was available just for selected Workspace users. Over the years, Google added refinements and more options, including the ability to enable it when scheduling meetings via Google Calendar. Google's support docs say that the feature currently supports English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish, but only one language at a time. Meetings with multiple spoken languages are not currently supported, and Google recommends using the tool for meetings between 15 minutes and eight hours. The new feature makes Google Meet closer to its rivals that have AI tools already built in. Microsoft Teams has recently started offering Copilot and intelligent recap features that summarize meetings, surface highlights, and help with follow-ups, while Zoom’s AI Companion can also generate meeting summaries from desktop and mobile meetings.
    • GnuCash 5.16 by Razvan Serea GnuCash is a personal and small business finance application, freely licensed under the GNU GPL and available for GNU/Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows. It’s designed to be easy to use, yet powerful and flexible. GnuCash allows you to track your income and expenses, reconcile bank accounts, monitor stock portfolios and manage your small business finances. It is based on professional accounting principles to ensure balanced books and accurate reports. GnuCash can keep track of your personal finances in as much detail as you prefer. If you are just starting out, use GnuCash to keep track of your checkbook. You may then decide to track cash as well as credit card purchases to better determine where your money is being spent. When you start investing, you can use GnuCash to help monitor your portfolio. Buying a vehicle or a home? GnuCash will help you plan the investment and track loan payments. If your financial records span the globe, GnuCash provides all the multiple-currency support you need. Between 5.15 and 5.16, the following bugfixes were accomplished: Bug 421610 - RFE: Include logical dates for View->Filter by "date range"The Select Range section of the Date tab of the register's Filter By dialog box is changed to provide relative, specific date, or days ago options for the start and end of the filter range. The Show number of days item label is changed to Show from days ago to better reflect what it does. Bug 436105 - esc key not working as expected in register: Enable the escape key to cancel a field edit. Bug 797384 - Gnucash doesn't handle commodity prices with big numerator/denominator properly. Bug 798004 - Next gen UI for stock transactions Bug 799314 - Add "enter now" option in scheduled transaction editor. tab to allow users to select the scheduled transactions to be included in a “Since Last Run…” window. If there are no instances of a selected transaction triggered by today’s date, the next instance is triggered. Bug 799751 - autocomplete crash Bug 799759 - Users can't Enable entries via Checkboxes on Scheduled Transactions PageAllow the Enabled box in the list of scheduled transactions to be operated instead of having to open the transaction editor dialog and change the Enabled checkbox. Also added use of the Name column as the secondary column sort for all the other columns. Bug 799762 - Poor handling of cases where hidden/placeholder accounts are used in the account register Bug 799766 - Double line preference not respected in search register Bug 799767 - POST /accounts in bindings/python/example_scripts/rest-api is broken Bug 799777 - `xaccSplitSetParent`: reparenting a committed split silently drops its KVP slots (online_id, cap-gains links) Other changes & improvements: Numeric values may now be selected to copy in the Accounts page. Add new Finance::Quote source Finnhub.io: Free API key (personal/non-professional use) available at https://finnhub.io. Set FINNHUB_API_KEY environment variable to API key to use this source. As of June 2026, free tier API limit is 60 API calls/minute. The Investment Lots report has new optional columns for Computed Annual Growth Rate. Python Bindings: Improved translation of primary object (Account, Transaction, Split, etc.) so that they can be treated as normal Python objects. This is accomplished with SWIG magic so no existing code is obsoleted. Python Bindings: Better conversion of GLists to Python lists. Python Bindings: Destroy the QofSession in the Python Session dtor to prevent leaving the database locked. [engine] Add first-class online_id accessors for Split and Account and make them available to Python bindings, removing the unused Transaction online_id property. Improve C++ implementation of QofBook. Correct the Doxygen doc for qof_instance_get/set_kvp. [gnc-log-replay.cpp] fix incorrect guid dump Add some Boost library requirements needed by libgnucash-guile to CMakeLists.txt so that missing feature will fail at configure time. Use Compile-time Regular Expressions instead of std::regex in gnc-filepath-utils.cpp and instead of boost::regex in the CSV importer, with the CTRE v3.11.1 header added to borrowed [gnc-filepath-utils.cpp] null check char* arguments Add ChartJS licenses. Removed AEX from list of commodities. euronext.com is now using JS based anti-webscraping. [report-core] always offer options summary in reports. This is useful to debug reports. The Add options summary option is removed because it's no longer optional. Remove remaining obsolete IMContext from sheet Fix blurry text in HiDPI offscreen-rendered widgets Add port field to database connection dialog: The convention of appending the port number after the host isn't obvious. When editing a split in the register treat the account as being changed only if it isn't the one selected before editing instead of if the user performed an edit Return immediately from qof_book_destroy if hash_of_collections is null. If qof_book_destroy is called on a QofBook* freshly created with qof_book_new (usually because it was used to create a session that now must be destroyed) it would try to empty the non-existent hash tables, crashing. Clean up Flathub metadata to solve warnings at flatpak build time. Be consistent in naming GncPluginPage and GncPluginPageRegister HTML: Remove unimplemented function declarations. [gnc-html.cpp] remove unused buggy string conversion functions Convert libgnc-html to C++ Apply -Wall -Werr -Wmissing-prototypes to C++ compilation on Windows and fix the resulting errors. New and Updated Translations: Arabic, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, German, Finnish, Hungarian, Korean, Norwegian-Bokmal, Spanish Download: GnuCash 5.16 | 176.0 MB (Open Source) Links: GnuCash Home page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      536
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      269
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      150
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      98
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!