XP and Games

**GingerNut** · Nov 18th, 2002, 10:38 AM

I managed to get most of my games working in XP but the graphics are all screwey. For example, when I play System Shock 2 I can't see through the windows, and all the walls, which should be dark grey are cream.
It's the same with Elite Force, and I got transparent Borg.

Has anyone else had this trouble?
Were you able to fix it?

**plenderj** · Nov 18th, 2002, 10:56 AM

I've had no troubles with older games on my Windows XP.
Do you have decent drivers for your graphics card ?

And does dxdiag run well ?

**GingerNut** · Nov 18th, 2002, 11:03 AM

The first thing I did was check the drivers, no probs there, all up to date. I then found out about patches, which I downloaded and installed.
My older games like C&C all work fine, and I was able to play Gunman Chronicles, so I'm assuming my Half-Life games will be OK, haven't installed them yet.
It just seems to be StartTrek Elite Force and System Shock 2.

**GingerNut** · Nov 18th, 2002, 11:08 AM

What is dxdiag?

I see it in the system32 folder in windows, but what does it do?

**plenderj** · Nov 18th, 2002, 11:13 AM

DirectX Diagnostics

**GingerNut** · Nov 18th, 2002, 11:25 AM

Ah...

OK, according the dxdiag there are no problems. I did the tests and everything was fine.

**CrazedWombat** · Nov 18th, 2002, 08:31 PM

hey
apprently there are some games that dont work despite what u do, for example, i went out and bought a hotwheels game for some kid and it wouldnt run on xp, the readme itself said no to XP, so *** is wrong with XP? y cant microsoft understand that 2000 was godlike and u cant perfect it, or if u can dont give us shyt like ME or XP...

**plenderj** · Nov 19th, 2002, 03:56 AM

CrazedWombat:
WindowsXP is better than Windows2000 for use in an enterprise environment.
Also, ME was released at around the same time as Windows2000.
It was released as an updated version of Win9x, whereas Windows2000 was the updated version of WinNT.

GingerNut:
You might try using the Program Compatability feature of Windows XP.
If you right click on the executable, and go into the compatability tab, try selecting one of the OSes in there

**GingerNut** · Nov 19th, 2002, 04:41 AM

I already tried the compatibilty. I've tried it at the different settings, but still no joy.

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Nov 19th, 2002, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
CrazedWombat:
WindowsXP is better than Windows2000 for use in an enterprise environment.
Also, ME was released at around the same time as Windows2000.
It was released as an updated version of Win9x, whereas Windows2000 was the updated version of WinNT.

GingerNut:
You might try using the Program Compatability feature of Windows XP.
If you right click on the executable, and go into the compatability tab, try selecting one of the OSes in there

Windows 2000 is not NT.

Ugh.

It's 'built-on' NT technology.

Like Windows 3.1 was 'built-on' DOS.

**plenderj** · Nov 19th, 2002, 04:55 AM

I know Windows2000 is not NT

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Nov 19th, 2002, 04:56 AM

It's not an update of NT.

It's a completely new OS.

**plenderj** · Nov 19th, 2002, 04:56 AM

What I meant is that Windows2000 is the newer NT.
In much the same way that Windows.NET is the newer Windows2000.

And in the exact same way, that WindowsME is the newer Windows98.

I'm talking about from a product range point of view

**plenderj** · Nov 19th, 2002, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
It's not an update of NT.

It's a completely new OS.

Its not a completely new OS.
Microsoft don't rewrite from scratch.

They took the NT kernel, improved it, added some bells and whistles, and put a GUI around it

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Nov 19th, 2002, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
What I meant is that Windows2000 is the newer NT.
In much the same way that Windows.NET is the newer Windows2000.

And in the exact same way, that WindowsME is the newer Windows98.

I'm talking about from a product range point of view

I have Windows .NET RC1.

**plenderj** · Nov 19th, 2002, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
I have Windows .NET RC1.

So ?

**GingerNut** · Nov 19th, 2002, 05:16 AM

Would it be anything to do with DirectX 8?

**GingerNut** · Nov 19th, 2002, 08:00 AM

I was just testing my half-life games, and the graphics were fine. I went into the video configuration to see what way they were set, and they worked with the software, rather than open gl or direct x. When i changed it to the direct x the graphics went screwey, just like the other games. So it must be a direct x problem. But how to fix it?

**CrazedWombat** · Nov 19th, 2002, 09:15 PM

hey
i know that microsoft wants XP to take over 2000 since it is the newer one, i heard that in my Advanced server class for my MCSE, but the user friendliness is beyond screwed up, it reminds me of AOL and it sickens me

. but then again, thats personal opinion... for those of u with XP, how do u stand everything moved around and happy-pretty icons?? i had to take xp off my machine and put in me until i found my 2k os. does XP really stand up to 2k??

**Pc_Madness** · Nov 20th, 2002, 02:39 AM

XP isn't that bad... just turn off that fancy coloured toolbars and stuff it works great.

**plenderj** · Nov 20th, 2002, 04:47 AM

Yeah I much prefer XP to Windows2000.

Just change the Start Menu back to Classic, and the windows theme back too.

**GingerNut** · Nov 20th, 2002, 05:54 AM

I like XP, I just can't get certain games to work.

**JoeyCode** · Nov 20th, 2002, 11:21 AM

Check out this site:

NT Compatible

It'll tell you what works and doesn't with NT, 2000, XP and .NET.

System Shock 2

I use 2000 at home, I'm not interested in XP and its product activation nonsense. If Microsoft and Intel keep on their path of less freedom for the end-users in the bogus name of "security" and "copyright protection", my next machine will have an AMD processor and run Lindows.

**plenderj** · Nov 20th, 2002, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by JoeyCode
If Microsoft and Intel keep on their path of less freedom for the end-users in the bogus name of "security" and "copyright protection", my next machine will have an AMD processor and run Lindows.

Product activation is an entirely Microsoft technology.
Its nothing to do with Intel... or AMD for that matter either.

The corporate edition of both Windows XP and Office XP do not contain product activation.
So when ordering, just ask for a media kit for the product too and you won't need to activate them.

**JoeyCode** · Nov 20th, 2002, 11:53 AM

Paying more for software isn't an adequate solution for product activation. And the fact that the corporate version without activation exists at all makes the activation version totally pointless. What are they trying to "protect" themselves against, Joe Blow installing two copies of XP in his house? You can even call Microsoft and tell them you need to reinstall XP and they'll give you another code anyway. Completely worthless nonsense.

Yeah, I know product activation is Microsoft and not Intel, but have you heard of the Palladium initiative?

Palladium

Intel is right on board with that (AMD might be also to a smaller extent), and their next processor will make the Pentium III's serial number thing look insignificant.

**plenderj** · Nov 20th, 2002, 12:12 PM

I know about palladium but I'm just talking about product activation.

The corporate edition is in fact cheaper than the normal retail boxed product.

And they're trying to protect themselves from people violating their license agreement.
They will allow a few changes of hardware to a system, and give out new activation codes.

But if you keep ringing back looking for codes and very different hardware, they wont give you those codes.
I don't see anything wrong with a company protecting their own intellectual property.

**CrazedWombat** · Nov 20th, 2002, 01:12 PM

hey
yea, i agree with u plenderj, theres too many of us that would rather not pay hundreds of dollars for another system and just download them. but what microsoft needs to understand is that no matter what kind of security they put in, there will always be away around it. take what happened a few weeks ago, someone incredibly brilliant hacked 9 of the 12 worlds server database and shut them down. the entire world would have lost internet it the other 3 were in the US. theres always a way in, so i think they should have enough security to keep honest people honest, and newbie hackers from getting in.

**plenderj** · Nov 21st, 2002, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by CrazedWombat
hey
yea, i agree with u plenderj, theres too many of us that would rather not pay hundreds of dollars for another system and just download them. but what microsoft needs to understand is that no matter what kind of security they put in, there will always be away around it. take what happened a few weeks ago, someone incredibly brilliant hacked 9 of the 12 worlds server database and shut them down. the entire world would have lost internet it the other 3 were in the US. theres always a way in, so i think they should have enough security to keep honest people honest, and newbie hackers from getting in.

On that particular story, I'm afraid I think its a load of rubbish.
The internet is simply networks connected via the routers of large peering companies.

By design, it couldn't be taken down by just knocking out a few routers or servers.

**parksie** · Nov 21st, 2002, 07:01 AM

It was the DNS root servers. People that know what they're doing (i.e. know the IPs of vital services) wouldn't have been affected so badly, since it just removes the ability to use things like www.vbforums.com rather than 209.123.85.27.

**plenderj** · Nov 21st, 2002, 07:39 AM

Well a lot of our DNS queries are cached.
I believe proxies like ISA also cache DNS queries, so that wouldn't have made much difference...

**parksie** · Nov 21st, 2002, 07:41 AM

Yeah. Net effect, minimal damage.

**CrazedWombat** · Nov 21st, 2002, 06:29 PM

hey
yea but even still. those people are brilliant...but can u imagine? if there was a way to shut down the worlds internet in some backdoor way....you could hold the world for ransom....what a freakin kool idea...but of course i will never have that skill....but damn......anyways......

**Pc_Madness** · Nov 22nd, 2002, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
On that particular story, I'm afraid I think its a load of rubbish.
The internet is simply networks connected via the routers of large peering companies.

By design, it couldn't be taken down by just knocking out a few routers or servers.

It couldn't be taken down, but they manage the Global internet traffic... so that would force the traffic onto smaller mediums... which could crash those...

**parksie** · Nov 22nd, 2002, 07:24 AM

You can't crash a router by giving it excess traffic. It'll just go through it in its own sweet time. Obviously this causes a lot of disruption, but it will still work.

**Pc_Madness** · Nov 22nd, 2002, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by parksie
You can't crash a router by giving it excess traffic. It'll just go through it in its own sweet time. Obviously this causes a lot of disruption, but it will still work.

Oh... I thought they worked the same as pc's... still...

Thread: XP and Games

Thread Tools

Display

XP and Games

Posting Permissions