Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Akalabeth Angel on November 14, 2008, 09:54:13 pm
-
What's with this continually pile of crap where you can't play old games on new OSes? I bought the Thief Collection off Ebay and the ****ing game won't even install. Graaaah :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: All the online suggestions/workarounds do **** all to help.
It's like they INTENTIONALLY make it different so that old software is incompatible.
-
Capitalism FTW :yes2::nod::yes:
-
Oh, I did some further digging. And got the game to install! Yay!
Though when I started it up, the movie was sputtery and the game froze during training. One problem down, one more to go! damnit. Damn I'm tired of doing this every time I want to play some old classic.
-
The bigger problem is that compatibility is maintained. Improved stability would be simpler if backwards compatibility were dropped or at least reduced.
-
Spicious, indeed. Any software (and hardware) would work better if they could drop legacy support. Just look at latest x86 processors, they still support most if not all instructions that date back to Intel 386. Talk about legacy bloat.
I think I had Windows 98 (or was is 95?) and Voodoo 2 when Thief came out, my cousin was showing it to me and he had NVIDIA TNT. My god, that was like a lifetime ago. Do you seriously expect games that were released ten years ago to work flawlessly?
If you ask me, legacy support should be dropped where possible and virtualization used for legacy applications instead. As a matter of fact, if you're running business editions of Windows (like XP Pro), you can use VirtualPC for free. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/virtualpc/default.mspx
-
The x86 is just a mess these days (less so than the P4, but still). Thousands of cycles to trap into kernel mode is terrible.
-
They aren't perfect by any means (then again, what is?), but when it comes to efficiency, RISC blows x86 out of the water. But thanks to over 95% of software coded to x86, the switch seems to be impossible. :sigh:
-
This particular engine (which is also used in System Shock 2) is known to have several issues on modern systems, but there are ways to fix all of them. At least for SS2, you have to use a no CD patch, a core affinity patch, compatibility mode and a few changes in one of the config files to get everything working properly. The first two Thief games should be similar. See if you can find anything on the TTLG forums about it.
Do you seriously expect games that were released ten years ago to work flawlessly?
Absolutely. Most such games will in fact work without any issues.
However, in the cases where problems comes up, it's usually not Microsoft that is to blame but the GPU companies. Legacy compatibility can vary quite a bit between Nvidia and ATI cards as well as specific driver versions.
If you ask me, legacy support should be dropped where possible and virtualization used for legacy applications instead.
That would be great if there were actually decent virtualization or emulation programs specifically for Windows games. Virtual PC doesn't support 3D acceleration at all and has dodgy compatibility and performance even in non-3D games.
-
If you ask me, legacy support should be dropped where possible and virtualization used for legacy applications instead.
Would that even solve the problem, or just turn it into another one?
Granted, it is a nice concept, and virtualization SW can be improved as time passes.. but couldn't it also result in even less stability with older apps than there is now? I mean, legacy HW and APIs at least exist and are known to work, but every virtualization is a new creation.
Or am I missing a point here? I admit I've no experience with these whatsoever.
-
I think I had Windows 98 (or was is 95?) and Voodoo 2 when Thief came out, my cousin was showing it to me and he had NVIDIA TNT. My god, that was like a lifetime ago. Do you seriously expect games that were released ten years ago to work flawlessly?
Sure. My computer now is at least as good (and many times better) as my computer was then, therefore it should work.
If not the OS as a whole then I should be able to go easily into some sort of state that allows me to run older programs. Like for example, the command prompt. Why not just make that full fledged DOS or some equivalent? Then all a person has to do is drop to the command prompt to play DOS games, maybe throw on some moslo. I mean, what is the point of the command prompt in windows XP or whatnot? The only time I ever use the thing is when I want to know a files' extension because stupid XP won't show to me in Explorer. Speaking of which, how DOES a person change the extension of a file in explorer. Or does a person have to go into properties or some ****. (Like for example, if I'm in explorer, and I want to backup Freespace2 exe then I do something like copy and rename it to freespace2.bak it's not going to be freespace2.bak it's going to really be freespace2.bak.exe)
-
Have you tried switching off extension hiding?
-
Have you tried switching off extension hiding?
Hmmn, where would I find that toggle? In the control panel somewhere?
-
It's in folder options, in the view tab: "Hide extensions for known file types".
-
It's in folder options, in the view tab: "Hide extensions for known file types".
Ah, sweet thanks. One less frustration.
-
Idea: Have those... uhm, what do you call them, uh.... Emulators! Yeah, emulators. I remember when i was like 7, i would sit on MY laptop for hours and play MAME
-
Crash Windows
**** Linux
Buy A Mac
I was quite cheesed with Microsoft when I found out that ActiveSync was not Vista-compatible. Not that I use either one anyway.
What I don't get is why DOS games no longer work on XP. The OS still runs on what appears to be MS-DOS, so why doesn't it work? :mad:
-
They will generally work. However, you will get no sound and they will often be too fast to be playable.
For DOS games though, we have the excellent Dosbox emulator. At this point in its development, it runs pretty much any game perfectly. There is nothing comparable for Windows games though.
-
Crash Windows
**** Linux
Buy A Mac
I was quite cheesed with Microsoft when I found out that ActiveSync was not Vista-compatible. Not that I use either one anyway.
What I don't get is why DOS games no longer work on XP. The OS still runs on what appears to be MS-DOS, so why doesn't it work? :mad:
There is a MS-DOS console but most of the other DOS related stuff is not present in the Windows NT products... of which both XP and Vista are related. The console is present more for command line related server stuff than anything else...and its just there on XP Home....because its there.
As CP5670 points out....any DOS games you really should run using DosBox. Its a great DOS emulator and it takes care of any DOS game related issues. I still play Aces of the Pacific and Ace Over Europe on occasion (on Vista no less :)) and DOS box is brilliant.
-
What I don't get is why DOS games no longer work on XP. The OS still runs on what appears to be MS-DOS, so why doesn't it work? :mad:
:lol: I'm sorry but this pretty much explains this whole topic.
There is no DOS under any NT-based OS such as XP. What you think is DOS, is nothing more than a command prompt. Which just happens to look like DOS and knows a lot of the old DOS commands. DOS has been dead since 2000, which just happens to coincide with release of Windows 2000 and the last 9x based OS; Windows ME.
Still, you can create a DOS boot disk in XP. But why bother, DOSBox does it better.
-
can't you get Thief 1 and 2 to work somehow? I thought I played them on XP.
Anyway, Thief 3 works for sure, I got a copy here.
-
That's the thing about compatibility, though. It's all well and good to talk about the efficiency gains if one were to drop aspects of legacy support in the OS or x86 architecture, but as soon as you come across an old favorite game or ancient-but-useful application that just refuses to work, I feel like you'll be singing a different tune. It seems to me that it would be a relatively simple matter for Microsoft to develop some sort of environment that would maintain old code compatibilities while simultaneously stripping them out of the main OS codebase, which would let you have your cake and eat it too. As it stands now, until the point when someone manages to develop a fully-functioning emulation of your standard Windows 95 box, if what you're trying to run can't be handled by DOSbox, you're out of luck.
To be honest, though, what irks me more than the OS side of incompatibility is that which is prompted by graphics manufacturers, or even the software developers themselves. As an example, I have an old EA-developed NASCAR game from 2000 lying around that's flat-out incompatible with XP at its core, no matter what sorts of compatibility combinations one applies. No big loss, and perhaps no big surprise considering the publisher, but still completely unnecessary. Far more frustrating than this were my attempts to get one of my brother's favorite games, Medieval Total War, to run on his new laptop...only to find that it's almost completely incompatible with just about any nVidia product released over the past two years. The only solution I've seen is to install a two-year-old driver version...which does him absolutely no good when he has an OS that didn't even exist at that time. And all the while, the developer (which still exists and is fully active, mind you) all but ignores all customer complaints, passing the buck to nVidia. Brilliant.
-
can't you get Thief 1 and 2 to work somehow? I thought I played them on XP.
Anyway, Thief 3 works for sure, I got a copy here.
Yeah I got 'em to work. I had to reboot in safe mode to install it. And then I needed to specify that the game only run on one processor (as dual core systems crash the game apparently). But it's working now. Getting my ass kicked my zombies.
-
Crash Windows
**** Linux
Buy A Mac
The irony of course being that apple completely hosed backwards compatibility with OSX.
-
or even the software developers themselves. As an example, I have an old EA-developed NASCAR game from 2000 lying around that's flat-out incompatible with XP at its core, no matter what sorts of compatibility combinations one applies.
Absolutely, and another good example is Red Alert 95. Because of crappy coding practices it would only work in windows 95, nothing else. Now compare this with a game that is almost as old that uses standardized libraries, and so it works on 95, nt, and even mac (that would be starcraft of course).
-
Absolutely, and another good example is Red Alert 95. Because of crappy coding practices it would only work in windows 95, nothing else.
Have you actually played it? It has worked fine on every Windows version since its release. :p
Granted, the engine is somewhat poorly coded, but it was a little unstable even on 95, especially while using mods. That isn't anything new.
-
Oh, DOSBox is great. It's one of the best innovations in information technology in my opinion. :D
After learning how to use it, I went back to playing all those DOS games that were in my old Windows 3.11 (which has been disposed of).
-
Probably a bit late in, but try and find the Windows binary of WINE.
It is *far* more compatible with older proggys than Vista or XP, esp. with '98/'95 and <DirectX7 era stuff; I can actually play things like SShock2, Project Eden, XvT, and MechWarrior 3 without the stupid problems that crop up in Win2k, XP and Vista. (e.g. the random crashes in Project Eden & XvT, the psychadelic texture corruption in SShock and the bouncing APC's/Mechs, disappearing turrets and non-functioning throttle in MW3...)
It ain't so great with newer games, and games with copy protection, but that's what no-CD cracks are for. Or as I like to call them now, compatibility enhancement patches ;)
WINE is like DOSBox for Windows stuff <3
-
What? You can't run OLD software on a NEW operating system? Yea, who'd a thought :rolleyes: People complain windows is slow and bloated.. yet something like 40-60% of that is backward compatibility... and if they eliminated that, people would complain about not being able to run any software not expressly designed for the OS. It's like the people that complain Vista doesn't work when they try and run it on 5 year old hardware.
If you want to run older software, keep an older system around. I know it's bulky and inefficient, but it's also a pretty surefire way of being able to run older programs. I still have my 350Mhz K6-2 around somewhere, probably beside my IBM Aptiva and Windows 95 install discs.
-
As it stands now, until the point when someone manages to develop a fully-functioning emulation of your standard Windows 95 box, if what you're trying to run can't be handled by DOSbox, you're out of luck.
Not really. You just use Virtual PC or the like instead.
-
Probably a bit late in, but try and find the Windows binary of WINE.
This could certainly be worth trying out. I didn't know there was a Windows version available. SS2 actually works fine in XP, at least for me, but there are a few other games I have issues with. In several cases though, I know that the Nvidia or ATI drivers are the culprit rather than the OS. If Wine lets you emulate an older video card, that would solve a lot of issues on its own.
People complain windows is slow and bloated.. yet something like 40-60% of that is backward compatibility.
I highly doubt that. XP and Vista run fairly well anyway as long as you configure them properly.
If you want to run older software, keep an older system around. I know it's bulky and inefficient, but it's also a pretty surefire way of being able to run older programs. I still have my 350Mhz K6-2 around somewhere, probably beside my IBM Aptiva and Windows 95 install discs.
This is the problem. I used to have such a system around, but I wasn't using it that often and after I moved it was just too clunky to take with me.
There is also the fact that some of those old games can actually take advantage of a newer system's performance. Battlezone 2 is one game that I have been getting minor graphical glitches in (most likely an Nvidia driver problem), but it never ran well on the computers of its time and would have been fairly slow on that old rig I had.
Not really. You just use Virtual PC or the like instead.
As I said earlier, Virtual PC is largely useless for games. I've tried four games on it so far that were broken on XP, and only one has worked in it. VMWare is another option and supports Direct3D but the compatibility is not much better.
-
If there was a way to emulate Windows applications in Mac near-perfectly, I might take it if it's free. The Mac version of WINE is known as Darwine, and it only works with simple applications like Notepad. At the most, it can run XMPlay with an error every time a window is opened.
-
I highly doubt that. XP and Vista run fairly well anyway as long as you configure them properly.
I would like to find a stat to back my claim up, but unfortunately I was told by a Microsoft systems engineer, it wasn't something I read. Apparently a very huge chunk of the Vista code is designed for backward compatibility. A while ago there was a rumour MS was going to get rid of backward compat for windows 7, but I think they decided against it. They're going to have to do it eventually though.
This is the problem. I used to have such a system around, but I wasn't using it that often and after I moved it was just too clunky to take with me.
There is also the fact that some of those old games can actually take advantage of a newer system's performance. Battlezone 2 is one game that I have been getting minor graphical glitches in (most likely an Nvidia driver problem), but it never ran well on the computers of its time and would have been fairly slow on that old rig I had.
Well, I'm not going to argue with that. I've had some older games (Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe in particular) run better on my modern machine in DosBox than they do on my older hardware.
Though my point was that trying to run what by IT standards is ancient software on a modern computer and expecting it to work perfectly is wishful thinking at best. I brought up the complaint bit because I have actually had that argument with people. They want X features in an OS, but complain that said features bog it down more than they think it should.
-
They're going to have to do it eventually though.
Google up (or whatever search engine you use) Microsoft Midori.
Yes, even Microsoft has realized that they cannot keep reusing old Windows codebases forever. Oh, I'd love to hear the outcries of people who expect to use old software on "Midori". But alas, I'm sure Microsoft will have legacy Windows virtualization engine in Midori. Oh well, can't have it all I suppose. :D
-
I would like to find a stat to back my claim up, but unfortunately I was told by a Microsoft systems engineer, it wasn't something I read. Apparently a very huge chunk of the Vista code is designed for backward compatibility. A while ago there was a rumour MS was going to get rid of backward compat for windows 7, but I think they decided against it. They're going to have to do it eventually though.
What exactly does "backward compatibility" mean in this context? They obviously have to maintain some level of it. Who would buy a new OS if didn't run any of their existing programs? :p
Though my point was that trying to run what by IT standards is ancient software on a modern computer and expecting it to work perfectly is wishful thinking at best.
The fact is that most older Windows games do work fine though. There are only a handful of titles that have issues, and as I said a couple of times earlier, it's usually the GPU drivers rather than the OS that cause trouble.
-
What? You can't run OLD software on a NEW operating system? Yea, who'd a thought :rolleyes: People complain windows is slow and bloated.. yet something like 40-60% of that is backward compatibility... and if they eliminated that, people would complain about not being able to run any software not expressly designed for the OS. It's like the people that complain Vista doesn't work when they try and run it on 5 year old hardware.
While nearly everyone I've talked to complains about Vista I don't recall any of them complaining about it being slow. The thing people complain about is the idiotic security safeguards.
"Do you want to run this program?"
"Yes, that is why I just double-clicked on it you stupid piece of ****"
-
It would help if people weren't bunch of idiots and actually knew what they were doing. Alas, the prompt is justified as it triggers a few more neurons of activity in their brains should they realize they didn't actually want to run it. Moreover, it would help if general windows environment wouldn't be so heavily dependent on admin privileges. People shouldn't need admin privileges in day-to-day tasks. In the light of that, the prompt is justified.
I'm glad it is annoying, it is supposed to be annoying. Annoyances triggers positive changes more actively than not.
-
It would help if people weren't bunch of idiots and actually knew what they were doing. Alas, the prompt is justified as it triggers a few more neurons of activity in their brains should they realize they didn't actually want to run it. Moreover, it would help if general windows environment wouldn't be so heavily dependent on admin privileges. People shouldn't need admin privileges in day-to-day tasks. In the light of that, the prompt is justified.
I'm glad it is annoying, it is supposed to be annoying. Annoyances triggers positive changes more actively than not.
Yeah, positive changes like switching back to XP.
Funny thing I found playing on my mom's computer (which has Vista), it prompts you for all of these silly things. But when you go to the menu and hit "shutdown" it doesn't prompt you on that ("Are you sure you want to shutdown?"). It just shuts down. Whereas if you hit shutdown on XP it has the whole "shutdown, restart, sleep" options (or cancel).
The only friend I know who has Vista turned off the security system all together.
-
XP, the haven of security illiterate people whose computer is sole property of yet another botnet or spamnet.
But hey, everyone have the constitutional right to be security illiterate. Its not their fault that XP is in itself a security risk. MS does what it necessary to change deep rooted habits of those security illiterate peope, even if it means to annoy them with prompts. It is all they probably could do because the Windows environment just can't work without admin privileges, except in tightly controlled corporate environments where users don't have rights to do jack **** except use the programs they are meant to use. Or in homes of experienced Windows users. If you're one of those experienced users, you can turn the prompts off and call it a day.
It is Microsoft's fault for not making Windows 2000/XP more secure by default and now they are paying for their mistakes. While it is debatable whether current security features in Vista are the best Microsoft could have done, it is definitely a move to the right direction. Somehow I don't think Windows 7 will bring significant changes though, I believe we'll see significant changes when "Midori" comes about. But sure, Microsoft could have decided not to have those security features in Vista and increase the number of computers in botnets and spamnets by a humble few million. :doubt:
As for myself, I'm already using linux in all but two computers. I run Vista on my gaming PC, my notebook is a mac. Once the next generation consoles arrive in around 2012, I have either quit gaming alltogether or I will get myself one of those new consoles and replace my last bastion of Windows with linux.
-
Well, security for Windows is a bit of a double edge sword. Next to Linux it's the most secure of the mainstream desktop OS's (yes, Windows is even more secure than Mac OS X). As Fury said, the biggest issue with it is that it has really bad security defaults and people don't know any better to fix them. Anytime someone wants to see just how much control you have over windows security, open up the local policy editor and take a look.
Windows isn't dependent on admin privileges. The problem is that XP, by default, only gives you two options: Admin account or user. The user account is so useless (because all the important permissions are disabled, and thus it's highly restrictive) that 99% of people go with an admin account. It would be a lot better if it ran normally as a limited user account and prompted for privilege escalation as necessary like Linux or Mac does, but even then, you still have to have users that are knowledgeable enough to know when and when not to escalate their privileges. That's a bit where the double-edged sword comes in. People want a secure operating system, but they want it easy to use. Ask anyone that works in computer security and they'll tell you that those two things are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and it's a balance software companies try to maintain. Microsoft doesn't want to make Windows any more restrictive, which clamping down on the default security will do. A knowledgeable user can really make XP a very secure operating system without restricting its usability much, but most users are not willing to go through that effort. They'd rather blame Microsoft for making an "insecure" product.
What exactly does "backward compatibility" mean in this context? They obviously have to maintain some level of it. Who would buy a new OS if didn't run any of their existing programs? :p
In this context for example, Vista/XP/W2K should all be relatively compatable with eachother as they all have similar bases. They're all based on the NT Kernel, the OS layout is similar, etc. I wouldn't expect XP to be compatable with W95/98 games, since XP and 9x are completely different operating systems.
The fact is that most older Windows games do work fine though. There are only a handful of titles that have issues, and as I said a couple of times earlier, it's usually the GPU drivers rather than the OS that cause trouble.
Sometimes. Most Windows 9x games can be made to work eventually. I've had issues with 16-bit games running in XP, and DOS games are usually a nightmare to get working properly (a lot of times it's a speed issue). I've also had problems where older games don't detect modern RAM or SATA hard drives.
-
I wouldn't expect XP to be compatable with W95/98 games, since XP and 9x are completely different operating systems.
Sometimes. Most Windows 9x games can be made to work eventually.
This makes no sense. You don't expect them to work, even though most of them do work? :p
There are no major inherent differences between the 32-bit programs and XP can run those fine without using NTVDM or anything like that. In fact, I have never seen a "native" XP program.
I've also had problems where older games don't detect modern RAM or SATA hard drives.
There are some old games that don't see the full amount of memory, but it's usually irrelevant since they would never use all of it anyway. They are still detecting more than they actually need. As for the SATA drives, what game does that occur in? That shouldn't really be an issue in Windows games, since they see the drives only through the OS.
-
I wouldn't expect XP to be compatable with W95/98 games, since XP and 9x are completely different operating systems.
Sometimes. Most Windows 9x games can be made to work eventually.
This makes no sense. You don't expect them to work, even though most of them do work? :p
How does it not make sense? I don't expect older Win95 games to work in XP. Just because, more often than not, they can be made to work doesn't mean I expect them to.
Take Total Annihilation for example. It's an older game that, off install, will not work in an XP environment. An updated patch is required. This is a game that 'can be made to work' relatively easily, thankfully. But I would not expect a game of its age to, by default, natively run in XP.
Go back even further. Look at pre-win95 games. A lot of those older DOS games were designed to run as fast as possible instead of keep a constant tic rate, and thus run far to quickly in Windows. They can be made to work properly -but I don't install a 15 year old game and expect it to work 100%.
There are no major inherent differences between the 32-bit programs and XP can run those fine without using NTVDM or anything like that. In fact, I have never seen a "native" XP program.
I believe I stated something about 16-bit and 8-bit programs earlier.
I've also had problems where older games don't detect modern RAM or SATA hard drives.
There are some old games that don't see the full amount of memory, but it's usually irrelevant since they would never use all of it anyway. They are still detecting more than they actually need. As for the SATA drives, what game does that occur in? That shouldn't really be an issue in Windows games, since they see the drives only through the OS.
TIE Fighter always gives me a stack overflow error, which is the error that program kicks out when it doesn't have enough memory.
You seem to be assuming I'm 100% talking about windows native games. Some of us still have games around from the DOS days ;). DOS programs sometimes used the BIOS instead of the operating system for hardware identification. Anyone who has tried to get sound in an old DOS game running a soundcard with an IRQ higher than 7 has probably encountered some difficulty with it. This is because the BIOS (or at least older BIOS's) didn't assign sound devices with IRQ's greater than 7. When Windows boots, it reassigns the address to something higher that most DOS programs (or even some Windows 95 programs -the original Dark Forces comes to mind) can't recognise.
I've had issues with some older BIOS chips and SATA detection. Since some DOS programs look for the BIOS address ranges, they won't see the SATA drives. Haven't had this issue with newer BIOS chips, but then again I don't try and run DOS programs natively either. I had this issue a couple of years ago, but I can't remember what game it was.
-
How does it not make sense? I don't expect older Win95 games to work in XP. Just because, more often than not, they can be made to work doesn't mean I expect them to.
Then your expectations are too low and are contrary to your own experiences. :p If it is actually a native Windows game and not just a wrapper for a DOS exe, as some of the earliest Windows games were, there is no fundamental, OS-related reason why it should not work. The only exceptions to this are 16-bit Windows games, which won't work at all on Vista 64 (not 32), but such games were quite rare. Almost all game developers went directly from DOS programs to 32-bit Windows ones.
Take Total Annihilation for example. It's an older game that, off install, will not work in an XP environment. An updated patch is required. This is a game that 'can be made to work' relatively easily, thankfully. But I would not expect a game of its age to, by default, natively run in XP.
If you are referring to the usual 3.1c patch, I wouldn't call that "not working" at all, as it was a general purpose patch that was released long before XP and did many other things. There have been games that wouldn't work unpatched even on the OS and hardware they were designed for, so this isn't saying much. I played TA a lot last summer and know it does not need anything beyond the official patch.
Now the DOS games you mentioned do indeed have a host of problems, but those are not that relevant since we have a very good DOS emulator available that will run all of them properly. There is unfortunately no such thing for Windows games, but there are also far fewer Windows games that would benefit from it.
-
AFAIK, it's easier to make old software work with new hardware than to make new hardware work with old software.
-
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/1193469099394.jpg)
-
Most DOS games don't work very well on OSes beyond ME...and even on ME, they start encountering problems.
-
Any program running on ME will encounter problems. :p
-
Any program running on ME will encounter problems. :p
+1 to that.
ME is the masochist's operating system.
-
kernel32.dll always messes up. :rolleyes:
-
Damn you kernel32.dll :mad:
-
i find the worst games for modern operating systems are the ones built on directx 5-7, and sometimes dx8 (points at red faction). games based on opel gl for exaple never seem to produce problems. infact glide games are more likely to run with a wrapper than a dx<8 game is to run at all.
-
Glide was an awesome technology. Is it even still used?
-
No, it was proprietary API only used in Voodoo's. It died with them when 3dfx was bought by Nvidia.
-
i find the worst games for modern operating systems are the ones built on directx 5-7, and sometimes dx8 (points at red faction). games based on opel gl for exaple never seem to produce problems.
I've seen many cases of it. Try Quake 4 on a recent Nvidia card for example. There was also a problem in Jedi Academy's bloom for a long time, but I think they eventually fixed that.
In almost every case I know of though, it's the GPU companies' fault, and you can usually get a troublesome game to work by changing video card brands. They both have different games with issues, although ATI has been better than Nvidia with this in recent years. One good solution is to have a laptop with a different company's GPU than your desktop, so you can cover all of your games that way.
Glide was an awesome technology. Is it even still used?
You can only use it through wrappers these days, as no modern card supports it natively. The last games to use it exclusively were in 1998 or so, and by 2001 it had pretty much dropped out of games completely.
-
red faction has a fix for xp
do a search for
PFBeta3FullInternational
-
No, it was proprietary API only used in Voodoo's. It died with them when 3dfx was bought by Nvidia.
So wonder Nvidia is the leader in graphics card technology now... :wtf:
-
/Davros hugs his voodoo cards + and his powervr pcx2(hail its mightyness)
and yes its a 3d card that doesnt have a monitor connector
(http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/6343/m3dmqg4.th.jpg) (http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m3dmqg4.jpg)(http://img234.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif) (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)
-
Use /me in future, Davros, unless the use of /Davros was deliberate. :p
-
/me would just like to remind hardlight readers that he would never refer to himself in the third person....