Featured Sponsor Listings

Old Gaming Rig is DONE!

Dec 11, 2004 at 8:56 AM Post #31 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake
Eh, I remember when the Commodore 64 came out. Now if you said you had a VIC-20 then we'd be getting a bit closer
tongue.gif


Or how about a PET?

Is a S-100 system dating myself??
tongue.gif


BTW, I'm not "too" old, I just mask it well
biggrin.gif
(I started young). It's so nice being a freak
lambda.gif



My first experience with a computer was with a PET. I was in grade school and used a PET to do something funky on that monochrome screen. was it to...oh yes, make a random number! i was a GENIUS!
 
Dec 11, 2004 at 4:53 PM Post #32 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by Imyourzero
Has anyone here had luck getting System Shock 2 to run with complete stability in Windows XP? It was running at one time for me, but ever since my reinstall of Windows I can't get it to run. I tried setting the .exe to Win98/ME compatibility mode and I read on the net that the proper way to get the game to run under XP is to make sure "Disable Visual Themes" is checked. Did that too; still no dice.

I'm thinking it depends on which graphics card you have, because when I try to run the game it loads the game menu but when I try to start a new game or load a save game, the screen goes black for a few seconds and then I get an error that my graphics card driver or Direct3D is reporting the wrong amount of texture memory, and for me to contact my vendor for updated drivers. I'm running a GeForce 6800 GT with the latest drivers from nVidia's site, and still no dice. The game was running when I had my Radeon 9700 Pro.
frown.gif


I'm just wondering if the error is specific to WinXP. I want to play it again so bad I'm thinking of going back to a dual-boot setup with Win98SE just so I can play this one game!


I take it you properly updated your DirectX system after the WinXP reinstall.

The problem might be the video drivers. You say "I'm running a GeForce 6800 GT with the latest drivers..." and the latest nVidia drivers are the 70.xx series, which are beta. A few bugs have been reported in them. Roll your drivers back to the last Microsoft approved versions, series 6, which for your unit is v.66.93.

If you are using 66.93 then go ahead and try the very newest beta 70.90. It just came out Thursday.
 
Dec 11, 2004 at 8:41 PM Post #35 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by 450
What does this mean to you then?

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/19970406/amdk6-05.html

Is the K6 THAT good?


I don't understand the implication. The link shows exactly what I say about typical AMD performance, that is a touch uneven. Great in some ways, a bit under Intel in others. AMD is generally acknowledged to provide excellent value for the performance dollar and this trend started with the K5, through the K6's and into the current Athlon 64's.

I guess what you mean is "does the K6 233 really compare to the P1 200?" The answer is yes, they are considered just about evenly matched. One might beat the other in one area, just to get "trumped" in another. It was just about considered a statistical tie during the year that they were current, you could go either way. The final judge ended up being cost - which one you could get for the best buy - and compatibility, as each one liked particular chipset / motherboard / graphics card combo for very best performance. So if you wanted a particular motherboard design and graphics card combo you ended up running a particular chip. The Intel was better in that area than the AMD was, the Intel just seems a bit less picky about chipsets than the K6.
 
Dec 11, 2004 at 8:43 PM Post #36 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by chillysalsa
That is quite a rig... let me just say,

[size=xx-large]Welcome to 1994!

[/size]

And I prefer to think 3.5" is as a floppy, and 5.25 as a droopy.
smily_headphones1.gif



8 inchers man. Nothin' like walking around with a huge 8 inch floppy in your hands
tongue.gif
[/double entendre]
 
Dec 11, 2004 at 11:12 PM Post #37 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake
I don't understand the implication. The link shows exactly what I say about typical AMD performance, that is a touch uneven. Great in some ways, a bit under Intel in others. AMD is generally acknowledged to provide excellent value for the performance dollar and this trend started with the K5, through the K6's and into the current Athlon 64's.

I guess what you mean is "does the K6 233 really compare to the P1 200?" The answer is yes, they are considered just about evenly matched. One might beat the other in one area, just to get "trumped" in another. It was just about considered a statistical tie during the year that they were current, you could go either way. The final judge ended up being cost - which one you could get for the best buy - and compatibility, as each one liked particular chipset / motherboard / graphics card combo for very best performance. So if you wanted a particular motherboard design and graphics card combo you ended up running a particular chip. The Intel was better in that area than the AMD was, the Intel just seems a bit less picky about chipsets than the K6.


Oh, all right...Thanks for that clarification.
 
Dec 12, 2004 at 5:50 AM Post #39 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn
My first experience with a computer was with a PET. I was in grade school and used a PET to do something funky on that monochrome screen. was it to...oh yes, make a random number! i was a GENIUS!



Alright, lets go back even further, when I was a youngster my Dad used to bring home boxes and boxes of these.

punchcard(v2).gif
 
Dec 12, 2004 at 8:59 AM Post #40 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake
I take it you properly updated your DirectX system after the WinXP reinstall.

The problem might be the video drivers. You say "I'm running a GeForce 6800 GT with the latest drivers..." and the latest nVidia drivers are the 70.xx series, which are beta. A few bugs have been reported in them. Roll your drivers back to the last Microsoft approved versions, series 6, which for your unit is v.66.93.

If you are using 66.93 then go ahead and try the very newest beta 70.90. It just came out Thursday.


My bad, I'm using the 66.93's. I wasn't aware that they had released 70.xx drivers at the time of my posting. Perhaps I'll try them just to see, but the "fixes" in the release notes seem to deal mainly with newer games and the newer nVidia cards like the PCI-e ones. I'm starting to doubt that a new driver release will fix the SS2 issue for me...I probably either need to try to run it under Win98, or go back to an ATi card. The only ATi card I'd want at this point is the X800XT PE, which is almost $600... <sigh>

I might just install the game on an old Celeron 600 machine I've got sitting around. I'm not sure what kind of 3D capabilities that machine has, though. I know it has onboard video, and I'd hate to have to buy another gfx card for that machine just to be able to play SS2. So tempting though!
 
Dec 12, 2004 at 5:47 PM Post #42 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by AuroraProject
Alright, lets go back even further, when I was a youngster my Dad used to bring home boxes and boxes of these.

punchcard(v2).gif



Hehe, sorry, I created piles of those myself
eek.gif
 
Dec 13, 2004 at 3:31 AM Post #43 of 54
Hmm...Installed Enhancer .17 (on WinAMP 2.95) on my 200mmx. All settings work fine! Secondary audio machine? The second CD-ROM is actually pretty good, somewhat quiet (quieter than my new 16x DVD sometimes). Usb sound card...
 
Dec 13, 2004 at 6:04 AM Post #45 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by aphex944
I love old computers. I have a 233mhz Pentium II OpenBSD box, and a Pentium Pro 200mhz still kicking. Also a 486 80mhz, 233mhz Pentium I, and damn, maybe one more that aren't hooked up.... yet.
evil_smiley.gif



Ooooooh, the Pentium Pro. Now's there's a chip!!

Nothing like holding a piece of ceramic big enough to double as a pot trivet!
tongue.gif
Seriously, though, it's such a cool chip to hold just because it's so freakin' big!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top