Windows '95 Port of Quake Underway
Digital Gamescape
3Dfx announced today that the port of QUAKE for Windows '95 is underway!
Stop by the Digital Gamescape web site and check out this news article and
other features! (URL below)
Thanks,
Frank Eva, Lead Editor
Digital Gamescape-Videogame Yellowpages "HOT" Site Award Winner!
An electronic magazine for the video and computer game consumer!
http://www.execpc.com/~ireplay/
The Bishop of Battle
Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
The Bishop of Battle
bis...@primenet.com
---
Member: The Alpha Dog Alliance,
Creators of Strain: Hard Corps
a Total Conversion for Doom 2.
---
Member: -=UDIC=-
Battle Dragon
---
URL: http://www.primenet.com/~bishop
---
"Thus would I speak to myself of Cathuria,
but ever would the bearded man warn me to
turn back to the happy shores of Sona-Nyl;
for Sona-Nyl is known of men, while none
hath ever beheld Cathuria."
---
Lance Jones
On 30 Sep 1996 18:38:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
>In article <32503da2...@news.execpc.com>, ire...@execpc.com wrote:
>>3Dfx announced today that the port of QUAKE for Windows '95 is underway!
>>Stop by the Digital Gamescape web site and check out this news article and
>>other features! (URL below)
>>Thanks,
>>Frank Eva, Lead Editor
>Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
>performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
>The Bishop of Battle
>bis...@primenet.com
You don't run it "under Windows 95" -- it's a *native 32-bit port*.
Eric T. Busch
Uh, no it's not. They are talking about the Win95 Direct3D version of
Quake which is using the 3Dfx's Voodoo chip as the reference graphics card.
There will not be a native Voodoo version.
This is actually old news, as Carmack has been talking about it for a while
now.
--
Eric T. Busch <ebu...@emory.edu>
Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/
Lance Jones <sw...@islandnet.com> wrote in article
<3250a59b...@news.islandnet.com>...
Ron
:In article <32503da2...@news.execpc.com>, ire...@execpc.com wrote:
:>3Dfx announced today that the port of QUAKE for Windows '95 is underway!
:>Stop by the Digital Gamescape web site and check out this news article and
:>other features! (URL below)
:>Thanks,
:>Frank Eva, Lead Editor
:>Digital Gamescape-Videogame Yellowpages "HOT" Site Award Winner!
:>An electronic magazine for the video and computer game consumer!
:>http://www.execpc.com/~ireplay/
:
:
:Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
:performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
I play regular dos quake in Win95 and it doesnt 'crush' my Quake performance
one bit. Imagine a native Win95 port with 3dfx chip support, and I'm set.
Maybe you need a better computer.
:
:The Bishop of Battle
:bis...@primenet.com
<annoying long sig snipped>
Some sig. Who's in their right mind?
Scott Pedersen
> :
> :Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
> :performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
>
> I play regular dos quake in Win95 and it doesnt 'crush' my Quake performance
> one bit. Imagine a native Win95 port with 3dfx chip support, and I'm set.
> Maybe you need a better computer.
Actually it ain't his computer that would create the problems, its the
Direct3d drivers used to port 3d games to Windows95. The 'regular dos
quake' you play through win95 is just that, 'a regular dos version', it
does not use Win95 as such and certainly is not a indicator of how a
native win95 port will perform. A guy from Criterion software posted a
while ago that under direct3d drivers their game 'scorched planet' took
a dive in performance of about (i think) 40-60% in software and 20-30%
with 3d accelerators. Of course it will be interesting to see just how
good the 3dfx is, maybe it might be able to take this kind of direct3d
loss, with the many features added and still come out with a decent
frame rate... its going to be difficult though....
Anyone want to put some bets on this; (in a non-money kind of way)
In say 640 x 480, do you think that a Pentium 200 or Pentium Pro 200
with a 3dfx card using the Win95 version of Quake with all features on
will outperform a native 3d blaster version with the same computers?
Scott Pedersen
Philip Dobrikin
"Eric T. Busch" <ebu...@emory.edu> wrote:
>Uh, no it's not. They are talking about the Win95 Direct3D version of
>Quake which is using the 3Dfx's Voodoo chip as the reference graphics card.
> There will not be a native Voodoo version.
>This is actually old news, as Carmack has been talking about it for a while
>now.
I don't think Eric was saying it was native to the Voodoo chip, just
that it is not a dos game running in Win95 but a native Win95 game
that useses all of Win95's features. According to RTedwood's site it
should be available for downloadt this week ( although as I remember
info about it from before it won't support direct3d, sigh.)
PD
Phillip Geiger
The Bishop of Battle (bis...@primenet.com) wrote:
: Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
: performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
Because it will support Direct3D, and that will be very nice for people
with 3dfx based accelerators. I wish NT had Direct3D...then I could get
this Win95 junk off my hard disk.
--
Phil Geiger
pgge...@ucdavis.edu
"biological evidence can be formed without life" - Zoner
Eric T. Busch
NT now does. It was just recently released as part of DirectX 3.0.
--
Eric T. Busch <ebu...@emory.edu>
Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/
Phillip Geiger <ez05...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
<52qhun$6...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
Matthew Bradley
On 30 Sep 1996 18:38:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
>In article <32503da2...@news.execpc.com>, ire...@execpc.com wrote:
>>3Dfx announced today that the port of QUAKE for Windows '95 is underway!
>>Stop by the Digital Gamescape web site and check out this news article and
>>other features! (URL below)
>>Thanks,
>>Frank Eva, Lead Editor
>>Digital Gamescape-Videogame Yellowpages "HOT" Site Award Winner!
>>An electronic magazine for the video and computer game consumer!
>>http://www.execpc.com/~ireplay/
>
>
>Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
>performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
>
Hmmm.. lets see. Maybe.. just MAYBE, because it will play a shit load
better?! Nah.. that COULDN'T be the reason!! Can you say DirectX dumb
ass?!! The purpose to port it to Win95 is to directly use Direct3D..
Sheesh!!
Matthew
Cu'Chanu
Scott Pedersen wrote:
>
> Anyone want to put some bets on this; (in a non-money kind of way)
>
> In say 640 x 480, do you think that a Pentium 200 or Pentium Pro 200
> with a 3dfx card using the Win95 version of Quake with all features on
> will outperform a native 3d blaster version with the same computers?
>
> Scott Pedersen
I say it will look a better and have a smooth frame rate, of course on a
computer that many people have (p120-166) the DOS 3D Blaster version
might run better cause w95 system demands are so high, while dos'
aren't. All in all tho, I'd rather have the 3Dfx version anyday. Too
bad Orchid's info@orchid (or whatever) email system is pathetic, I'd
rather have the Right3D but I'll probly get Monster3D because I value
service.
Phillip Geiger
Scott Pedersen (dpe...@tpgi.com.au) wrote:
: In say 640 x 480, do you think that a Pentium 200 or Pentium Pro 200
: with a 3dfx card using the Win95 version of Quake with all features on
: will outperform a native 3d blaster version with the same computers?
Absolutely. I don't even think it would be close.
At the risk of spreading unsupported rumor, I have also heard that a
3Dblaster could actually be a *bottleneck* in Pentium Pro systems...or at
least slower than a PPro alone.
But it will be interesting to find out.
Joseph M. Clemente
I agree with you there, when it comes to most machines... But on my
Pentium Pro 200, it runs just fine under Windows 95 (I use 640 x 480 mode.)
I just wish I didn't have the CRASH key (Windows logo-key on keyboard).
On my Cyrix P166+, however, I exit to DOS... The speed is great on that
machine - as long as I run in lowres and have UniVBE installed.
The Bishop of Battle <bis...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<52pslr$c...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
Nick Sabinske
On 2 Oct 1996 03:58:53 GMT, "Joseph M. Clemente" <clem...@innet.com>
wrote:
> I just wish I didn't have the CRASH key (Windows logo-key on keyboard).
Check out
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/software/krnltoy.htm
New! Windows Logo Key Control for MS-DOS Programs
Take control of the Windows logo key when playing MS-DOS games! See
DOSWINKY.INF for more information.
- tbp
Canadian
t...@mnsinc.com (Nick Sabinske) wrote:
>Check out
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/software/krnltoy.htm
Hell, I opened my keyboard and surgically removed the fscker. I like the
idea of writing "CRASH" on the key though! =)
--
Chris Foley (chr...@iceonline.com) Canucks home opener October 5!
John L. Hardy iv
Direct X v.3.. the day is coming to get to NT completely for games. <g>
Very haphazard at the moment..
--
John IV
JHa...@Adobe.com / Jo...@GTE.net
Adobe Systems Internet/Persuasion SQA Team, Seattle, WA
Phillip Geiger <ez05...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
<52qhun$6...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
: The Bishop of Battle (bis...@primenet.com) wrote:
: : Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
: : performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
:
: Because it will support Direct3D, and that will be very nice for people
: with 3dfx based accelerators. I wish NT had Direct3D...then I could get
: this Win95 junk off my hard disk.
:
:
: --
:
Mark Smith
>>
>>Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
>>performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
>>
>
>Hmmm.. lets see. Maybe.. just MAYBE, because it will play a shit load
>better?! Nah.. that COULDN'T be the reason!! Can you say DirectX dumb
>ass?!! The purpose to port it to Win95 is to directly use Direct3D..
>Sheesh!!
>
>Matthew
They can use Direct3D and any other trick Microsoft has up their ass - fact of
the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has Windows eating up your
basic system horsepower. Windows just doesn't unload itself from memory.
Whatever graphics boost they give it using DirectX will be lost in sheer Windows
overhead. A 95 version is just for the lamers who bought their packard bell
systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their system.
Mark Smith
On Tue, 01 Oct 96 07:31:52 GMT, rla...@slip.net (Ron) wrote:
>In article <52pslr$c...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of Battle) wrote:
>
>:In article <32503da2...@news.execpc.com>, ire...@execpc.com wrote:
>:>3Dfx announced today that the port of QUAKE for Windows '95 is underway!
>:>Stop by the Digital Gamescape web site and check out this news article and
>:>other features! (URL below)
>:>Thanks,
>:>Frank Eva, Lead Editor
>:>Digital Gamescape-Videogame Yellowpages "HOT" Site Award Winner!
>:>An electronic magazine for the video and computer game consumer!
>:>http://www.execpc.com/~ireplay/
>:
>:
>:Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
>:performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
>
>I play regular dos quake in Win95 and it doesnt 'crush' my Quake performance
>one bit. Imagine a native Win95 port with 3dfx chip support, and I'm set.
>Maybe you need a better computer.
>
Hmmm - on my P5-155 with 64mb ram I get MUCH better performance in DOS than in
Windows. Even during the startup with it shows the available memory for
swapping - in DOS its 59mb while in Windows its 24mb.
The only games worth playing in Windows are the ones written for Windows.
B Morphin
In <3253d712...@news.concentric.net> ds...@concentric.net (Mark
Smith) writes:
>They can use Direct3D and any other trick Microsoft has up their ass -
fact of
>the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has Windows
eating up your
>basic system horsepower. Windows just doesn't unload itself from
memory.
>Whatever graphics boost they give it using DirectX will be lost in
sheer Windows
>overhead. A 95 version is just for the lamers who bought their
packard bell
>systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their system.
REPLY:
This is to generic. I get very good performance under Win '95 on my
P133 with many apps. and one's that are jerky (Quake for ex.) are still
jerky under dos. Simply there's not that much a difference in my eyes.
Plus it's a lot easier and nicer to play through a win '95 icon, JR.
can handle it to.
So a Vodoo based P133 with win '95 should be very serious.
Q.B.M.
B Morphin
In <3253d7eb...@news.concentric.net> ds...@concentric.net (Mark
Smith) writes:
>Hmmm - on my P5-155 with 64mb ram I get MUCH better performance in DOS
than in
>Windows. Even during the startup with it shows the available memory
for
>swapping - in DOS its 59mb while in Windows its 24mb.
>
>The only games worth playing in Windows are the ones written for
Windows.
REPLY:
Your doing a Clinton. Previous post you state that it's not good for
any game to be run under windows because of it's overhead. Then your
last statement stated the opposite of sorts.
Personally I don't have as big of a performance hit as you do between
win '95 and dos. So I guess milage varies.
Q.B.M.
Mark Smith
If a game is written FOR windows then the programmers have to consider that half
the system resources will be eaten by windows.
Example: Windows wants 32mb of RAM just to run - if you don't have it then its
going to make a swap file and use it. I have a machine with 32mb and its fine
until I load any app then it creates and hits the swap. On a similiar machine
with 40mb it will not create a swap file until I load 2 or more apps at once.
I'm assuming it is using the 8mb it has access to over the 32. I also run a BBS
system running Win95 on a machine with 12mb ram. This computer hits the swap
file even when I'm not around - it just access the hard drive continuously while
in call standbye mode.
This all leads one to conclude that you can strip 32mb off the top of whatever
your system has just to maintain the windows environment. Then you can add
whatever requirements the game demands.
B Morphin
>Example: Windows wants 32mb of RAM just to run - if you don't have it
then its
>going to make a swap file and use it. I have a machine with 32mb and
its fine
>until I load any app then it creates and hits the swap. On a similiar
machine
>with 40mb it will not create a swap file until I load 2 or more apps
at once.
>I'm assuming it is using the 8mb it has access to over the 32. I also
run a BBS
>system running Win95 on a machine with 12mb ram. This computer hits
the swap
>file even when I'm not around - it just access the hard drive
continuously while
>in call standbye mode.
>
>This all leads one to conclude that you can strip 32mb off the top of
whatever
>your system has just to maintain the windows environment. Then you
can add
>whatever requirements the game demands.
REPLY:
Mark please for the sake of good information please research the proper
ways win'95 works. For whatever reason you or your system is way out of
synch, seriously. You probably are telling us the way you see it but
believe me what you wrote above is way off base on any system I've
messed with and I'm around 100 installed '95 systems most networked.
Where's your experience coming from? Please answer not a flame, maybe I
can help you out. Your last paragraph is a total lack of how '95 works,
unfactful.
Q.B.M.
Filiep Geeraert
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> They can use Direct3D and any other trick Microsoft has up their ass - fact of
> the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has Windows eating up your
> basic system horsepower. Windows just doesn't unload itself from memory.
> Whatever graphics boost they give it using DirectX will be lost in sheer Windows
> overhead. A 95 version is just for the lamers who bought their packard bell
> systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their system.
I disagree partly with you.
Let 's take three different types of users :
1) Almost anyone with a regular 2D accelerator card : DOS version should
be faster since the card can still be accessed more directly.
There is less overhead in DOS since Quake has the entire PC to
itself.
2) Someone with a Vérité 3D accelerator card : a native Vérité DOS
version is available, so he will have the advantages of 1) + an increase
in quality because his card is supported natively
3) Someone with a Voodoo 3D accelerator card : since the DOS version
does not use the 3D acceleration capabilities of the Voodoo, he WILL get
faster performance under Windows 95 with Direct3D. Many of the
accelerating features of his card will be enabled, and at the same time
he will loose some performance because the hardware is not directly
used. The net effect will still be that Windows '95 + direct3D + 3D
accelerator = faster than unaccelerated + DOS + 3D accelerator.
Of course, if you had a native Voodoo version...
Phillip Geiger
Mark Smith (ds...@concentric.net) wrote:
: They can use Direct3D and any other trick Microsoft has up their ass -
: fact of the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has
: Windows eating up your basic system horsepower. Windows just doesn't
: unload itself from memory.
So by this logic, Quake should run better under DOS 1.0 than 6.22? Um...
I lost about a tenth of a frame moving from DOS 6.22 to Win95. Maybe one
such as you has the perceptual acuity to notice such a drastic drop in
performance, but the rest of us lamers just can't tell the difference.
: Whatever graphics boost they give it using DirectX will be lost in
: sheer Windows overhead.
Spoken with true ignorance.
: A 95 version is just for the lamers who bought
: their packard bell systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their
: system.
Idiot. I built my own system, as I suspect many people on this group
have, and use Windows NT 90% of the time. The only reason I installed
Win95 in the first place was because I couldn't connect to my apartment
complex's intranet through DOS and Quake wouldn't run under NT.
And the Direct3D port of Quake will run a hell of a lot better with my
soon-to-be-installed Orchid R3D than it could in DOS.
Get your facts straight, you lazy ignorant fool.
Jeff Backe
Mark Smith wrote:
> If a game is written FOR windows then the programmers have to consider that half
> the system resources will be eaten by windows.
>
> going to make a swap file and use it. I have a machine with 32mb and its fine
> until I load any app then it creates and hits the swap. On a similiar machine
> with 40mb it will not create a swap file until I load 2 or more apps at once.
> I'm assuming it is using the 8mb it has access to over the 32. I also run a BBS
> system running Win95 on a machine with 12mb ram. This computer hits the swap
> file even when I'm not around - it just access the hard drive continuously while
> in call standbye mode.
>
> This all leads one to conclude that you can strip 32mb off the top of whatever
> your system has just to maintain the windows environment. Then you can add
> whatever requirements the game demands.
Mark, Win95 uses 10-12MB of ram, period.
All remaining will be devoted to Quake if you set up your Win95 Quake
icon correctly.
Set it to "Do Not Let MS-DOS Programs Detect Windows".
I have 64MB and Quake gets 51-52MB for it's use.
Win95 _always_ creates a swap file when it starts up, unless you have
disabled that feature.
12MB Ram is not near enough for a Win95 BBS without using a swap file
continuously.
Jeff
Pete Olson
Phillip Geiger (ez05...@chip.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
:
: The only reason I installed
: Win95 in the first place was because I couldn't connect to my apartment
: complex's intranet through DOS and Quake wouldn't run under NT.
Deviant. Wassup?
Michael Carmack
: performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
I know others have already said this, but I get no detectable performance
loss under Win95. And under Win95 it's much easier to set up a net game.
--
========================================================================
"In sports, it's not who wins or | Mike Carmack
loses; it's how drunk you get." | Vulcan Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
- Homer Simpson | mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Richard Ward
In article <5331g2$o...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Michael Carmack <mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>The Bishop of Battle (bis...@primenet.com) wrote:
>: Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
>: performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
>
>I know others have already said this, but I get no detectable performance
>loss under Win95. And under Win95 it's much easier to set up a net game.
I have to concurr. With your settings adjusted correctly (easier than doing
the same for OS/2 2.10), I get a very slight performance loss. Being that
QUAKEPPP puked on me and started causeing QUAKE to crash after three days (of
QUAKEPPP being installed on my system, not of continous play), I have little
choice if I want to play Inet Quake. Besides, if you remove all of your
DOS-mode drivers from theCONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files mose DOS-mode
programs run faster than if you try to keep all of your DOS-mode drivers.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "The box...you opened it. We came. It's a means to summon us - Cenobites. |
| Explorers in the further regions of experience. Demons to some, angels to |
| others. ... No tears please. It's a waste of good suffering." - Pinhead |
| rrw...@netcom.com Richard R. Ward |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark Green
In article <3253d7eb...@news.concentric.net>
ds...@concentric.net "Mark Smith" writes:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 96 07:31:52 GMT, rla...@slip.net (Ron) wrote:
> >In article <52pslr$c...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bis...@primenet.com (The
> Bishop of Battle) wrote:
> >:In article <32503da2...@news.execpc.com>, ire...@execpc.com wrote:
> >:>3Dfx announced today that the port of QUAKE for Windows '95 is underway!
> >:>Stop by the Digital Gamescape web site and check out this news article and
> >:>other features! (URL below)
> >:>Thanks,
> >:>Frank Eva, Lead Editor
> >:>Digital Gamescape-Videogame Yellowpages "HOT" Site Award Winner!
> >:>An electronic magazine for the video and computer game consumer!
> >:>http://www.execpc.com/~ireplay/
> >:performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
> >one bit. Imagine a native Win95 port with 3dfx chip support, and I'm set.
> >Maybe you need a better computer.
> Windows. Even during the startup with it shows the available memory for
> swapping - in DOS its 59mb while in Windows its 24mb.
> The only games worth playing in Windows are the ones written for Windows.
I'll second this.
Quake doesn't run noticably slower in a maximised DOS box on my machine,
but its available memory is CUT IN HALF!!
Oh yes, wow, 3dfx chip support. Yeah, great. Not that many people have
3dfx boards, ya know; and who cares when Quake can run fine under DOS without
needing one? And when there's no real reason why a DOS version of Quake
shouldn't support 3d accelerators?
But, no, of course, stating sense doesn't help. Everything will blindly
stumble forth into using Direct3D because Big Brother Bill says it's
wonderful; and then we'll have to all buy 3dfx boards in order to get
the same speed that we could get anyway if W95 wasn't horning in the way.
This benefits the 3dfx manufacturers, and benefits MS; hence the sudden
willingness to sign a monopolistic API non-disclosure agreement to stop
people writing non-Direct3D software that supports accelerator boards.
Mg
--
Steve Parker
Richard Ward <rrw...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<rrwardDy...@netcom.com>...
> In article <5331g2$o...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
> Michael Carmack <mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
> >The Bishop of Battle (bis...@primenet.com) wrote:
> >: Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
> >: performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
> >
> >I know others have already said this, but I get no detectable
performance
> >loss under Win95. And under Win95 it's much easier to set up a net
game.
>
> I have to concurr. With your settings adjusted correctly (easier than
doing
> the same for OS/2 2.10), I get a very slight performance loss. Being
that
> QUAKEPPP puked on me and started causeing QUAKE to crash after three days
(of
> QUAKEPPP being installed on my system, not of continous play), I have
little
> choice if I want to play Inet Quake. Besides, if you remove all of your
> DOS-mode drivers from theCONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files mose DOS-mode
> programs run faster than if you try to keep all of your DOS-mode drivers.
>
Exactly!!!!!!
I think that most people that complain of massive performance loss under
Win95 don't have the properties set up correctly for the shortcut. In
640x400 (which is what I use for single player) I lose 1/2 of a frame per
second. 15.80 for Dos and 15.42 for Win95 (P166 32 meg ram at -winmem 14)
this is at 2 notches below full screen at the startup.
Steve
Jeff Backe
Matthew Bradley wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Oct 1996 15:32:44 GMT, ds...@concentric.net (Mark Smith)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 01 Oct 96 07:31:52 GMT, rla...@slip.net (Ron) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <52pslr$c...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of Battle) wrote:
> >>
> >>:In article <32503da2...@news.execpc.com>, ire...@execpc.com wrote:
> >>:>3Dfx announced today that the port of QUAKE for Windows '95 is underway!
> >>:>Stop by the Digital Gamescape web site and check out this news article and
> >>:>other features! (URL below)
> >>:>Thanks,
> >>:>Frank Eva, Lead Editor
> >>:>Digital Gamescape-Videogame Yellowpages "HOT" Site Award Winner!
> >>:>An electronic magazine for the video and computer game consumer!
> >>:>http://www.execpc.com/~ireplay/
> >>:
> >>:Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
> >>:performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
> >>
> >>one bit. Imagine a native Win95 port with 3dfx chip support, and I'm set.
> >>Maybe you need a better computer.
> >>
> >Hmmm - on my P5-155 with 64mb ram I get MUCH better performance in DOS than in
> >Windows. Even during the startup with it shows the available memory for
> >swapping - in DOS its 59mb while in Windows its 24mb.
>
> its not worth it. Anyway.. I think your missing the point here. This
> is the reason ID is making a PORT for Win95.
>
> >
> >The only games worth playing in Windows are the ones written for Windows.
>
SET UP YOUR WIN95 QUAKE ICON TO: PREVENT MS-DOS-BASED PROGRAMS FROM
DETECTING WINDOWS.
I have 64MB and Quake gets 57 of them under Win95.
Also, you may want to reboot now and then to refresh resources.
Jeff
Jolly Roger
>I agree with you there, when it comes to most machines... But on my
>Pentium Pro 200, it runs just fine under Windows 95 (I use 640 x 480 mode.)
> I just wish I didn't have the CRASH key (Windows logo-key on keyboard).
>
>On my Cyrix P166+, however, I exit to DOS... The speed is great on that
>machine - as long as I run in lowres and have UniVBE installed.
>
I have a friend that runs quake excellently on a Pentium 66, and he's
not even good at configuring computers. I guess your Cyrix just sucks.
mr_maker
that damn windows key pissed me off, so i taught myself not to use it.
see, after crashing about 12 million games of quake, i simply took a car
battery, and attached it to that key. it me about 2 times to learn, but
after that i never touched it again...
mr_maker
fuck art, LETS KILL
Canadian <chr...@iceonline.com> wrote in article
<52unfa$6...@news.iceonline.com>...
> t...@mnsinc.com (Nick Sabinske) wrote:
>
> >On 2 Oct 1996 03:58:53 GMT, "Joseph M. Clemente" <clem...@innet.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> I just wish I didn't have the CRASH key (Windows logo-key on
keyboard).
>
Matthew Bradley
Adam Williamson
In article <3253d712...@news.concentric.net>, Mark Smith
<ds...@concentric.net> writes
>
>>>
>>>Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
>>>performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
>>>
>>
>>better?! Nah.. that COULDN'T be the reason!! Can you say DirectX dumb
>>ass?!! The purpose to port it to Win95 is to directly use Direct3D..
>>Sheesh!!
>>
>>Matthew
>the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has Windows eating up your
>basic system horsepower. Windows just doesn't unload itself from memory.
>systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their system.
1. "Basic DOS" is included with Win95 - F8 on boot up, command prompt
only.
2. If the Windows overhead is so huge, how come Quake under Win95 - and
this is DOS Quake - is a massive 0.7fps slower in Win95 than in DOS, for
me anyway? I think a 15fps gain through a 3D card and DirectX outweighs
a 0.7fps loss through "Win95 overhead" (the 15fps gain is an approx
hguess figure, obviously, but i'm *pretty* sure your average 3D card
will boost the native 95+Direct3D version of Quake more than 0.7fps).
--
----------Editor Extraordinaire----------
|Memento Mori 2 MAP06|Insertion MAP29 |
|www.geocities.com |No web site (yet) |
|/hollywood/2299 |ID4 Doom2 member |
|____________________|____________________|
Philip Epstein
mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) wrote:
>The Bishop of Battle (bis...@primenet.com) wrote:
>: Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
>: performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
>
>I know others have already said this, but I get no detectable performance
>loss under Win95. And under Win95 it's much easier to set up a net game.
Agreed. Yeah I see that under Win95 I'm only using an 8MB swap file
as opposed to a 29MB swap file but I get maybe 2-3 fps more from that
extra 21MB. And like Mike says, it's much easier to set up net games
(both IPX and TCPIP) from Win95.
3 fps is not worth the hassle of shutting down Win95 to play Quake.
Phil Epstein
Colin Barnowe
Steve Parker <wer...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> Exactly!!!!!!
>
> I think that most people that complain of massive performance loss under
> Win95 don't have the properties set up correctly for the shortcut. In
> 640x400 (which is what I use for single player) I lose 1/2 of a frame per
> second. 15.80 for Dos and 15.42 for Win95 (P166 32 meg ram at -winmem 14)
> this is at 2 notches below full screen at the startup.
Amen. Same here. And at the risk of another indignant response from
Phillip Geiger, I'll perpetuate the thread and throw my vote in for win95
over Dos anyday, even for Quake. I'm all too familiar with Dos
idiosyncracies...sure, I know what I'm doing in it, but why stick with that
dinosaur stuff? Fer cryin' out loud, the compatibility and convenience
provided by win95 (re: the 640K barrier and a host of other hardware
issues) makes it preferable right there. I'd use NT if it had a little
more flexibility re: compatibility. Waiting for Cairo, myself. Again, my
Quake performance in win95 is only *very* slightly reduced compared with
Dos (we're talking 1-2 fps max)...and wait until the win95 port comes out.
And with all respect to Carmack, who's one of the world's programming
geniuses in my opinion, it sounds to me like he's something of a dos junkie
himself...hasn't done much win95 stuff in the past I suppose (see his
current windows gripes in his .plan). I will say that Microsoft seems to
be inept at making games. Hopefully the Quake port to win95 will be a
success.
Well, flame away. :)
Espen Blikstad
Go to the Microsoft home page and find the Windows 95 kernel toys.
One of them can disable the CRASH key.
Joseph M. Clemente <clem...@innet.com> wrote in article
<01bbb017$0a79a020$468b53c6@clemente>...
Gregory Seid
Cu'Chanu wrote:
> aren't. All in all tho, I'd rather have the 3Dfx version anyday. Too
> bad Orchid's info@orchid (or whatever) email system is pathetic, I'd
> rather have the Right3D but I'll probly get Monster3D because I value
> service.
Ironic decision, yours. Diamond (uh, they are the ones making the
Monster3D, right?) have -- without a doubt -- the worst tech and service
support in the PC graphics industry. Orchid is probably flooded with
email and calls right now due to yesterday's delivery of a brand new,
v1.0 product (and I agree: it's amazing). Give Orchid the benefit of
the doubt -- and your decision.
-----
Gregory Seid
gm...@lehigh.edu
http://www.lehigh.edu/~gms2/
Phillip Geiger
Colin Barnowe (cbar...@darkwing.uoregon.edu) wrote:
: Steve Parker <wer...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
: >
: > I think that most people that complain of massive performance loss under
: > Win95 don't have the properties set up correctly for the shortcut.
:
: Amen. Same here. And at the risk of another indignant response from
: Phillip Geiger,
Who, me? :-)
: I'll perpetuate the thread and throw my vote in for win95
: over Dos anyday, even for Quake.
I agree. As I said, the only reason I installed Win95 was because I was
having a nightmare of a time getting TCP/IP to work under DOS -- and not
just for Quake. Until I tried that, either DoS 6.22 or NT could do
anything I wanted them to do.
: I'm all too familiar with Dos
: idiosyncracies...sure, I know what I'm doing in it, but why stick with that
: dinosaur stuff? Fer cryin' out loud, the compatibility and convenience
: provided by win95 (re: the 640K barrier and a host of other hardware
: issues) makes it preferable right there.
True.
: I'd use NT if it had a little
: more flexibility re: compatibility.
NT 4.0 has/will fix a lot of those problems.
: Waiting for Cairo, myself. Again, my
: Quake performance in win95 is only *very* slightly reduced compared with
: Dos (we're talking 1-2 fps max)...and wait until the win95 port comes out.
: And with all respect to Carmack, who's one of the world's programming
: geniuses in my opinion, it sounds to me like he's something of a dos junkie
: himself...hasn't done much win95 stuff in the past I suppose (see his
: current windows gripes in his .plan). I will say that Microsoft seems to
: be inept at making games. Hopefully the Quake port to win95 will be a
: success.
I sure hope so. Direct3D Quake is going to be nice.
: Well, flame away. :)
No thanks. :-)
Again, sorry I jumped on you for contiuning the camper thread.
Gerald Mori
Jeff Backe <ac...@concentric.net> wrote:
>SET UP YOUR WIN95 QUAKE ICON TO: PREVENT MS-DOS-BASED PROGRAMS FROM
>DETECTING WINDOWS.
>I have 64MB and Quake gets 57 of them under Win95.
>Also, you may want to reboot now and then to refresh resources.
>Jeff
Yeah, there's a hallmark of all the great operating systems; "..you
may want to reboot now and then to refresh reources". Gee, I guess
Win95 can't seem to manage system resources properly by itself and
sometimes needs that extra little shove to force it to clue in again.
Win95: the OS with ADD. Or perhaps, Win95: all the bloat and twice
the memory leaks! There's a marketing campaign in there somewhere
I'm sure.
And I'm supposed to trust my data to this?
Jerry
Grant Farrington
ds...@concentric.net (Mark Smith) wrote:
>They can use Direct3D and any other trick Microsoft has up their ass - fact of
>the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has Windows eating up your
>basic system horsepower. Windows just doesn't unload itself from memory.
>Whatever graphics boost they give it using DirectX will be lost in sheer Windows
>overhead. A 95 version is just for the lamers who bought their packard bell
>systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their system.
You're an idiot mate. I have no peformance loss with any game under
win95. And with directx & direct3d you'll get a huge graphics
performance boost . Get a clue.
Grant
---------------------------------------------
Coming To You From Sunny Queensland Australia
---------------------------------------------
Tiitus Tamminen
ds...@concentric.net (Mark Smith) wrote:
>They can use Direct3D and any other trick Microsoft has up their ass -
>fact of the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has
>Windows eating up your basic system horsepower.
Funny, on my P133 machine, I cannot see any speed disparity between
playing games in MS-DOS or through Win95 (take for example Time
Commando, which has both MS-DOS and Win95 version on the same
CD-ROM). Yes, there probably is a speed disparity, but it seems to
be very negligible on normal Pentium machines.
Haven't you Windows-bashers learned already? Less than year ago you were
still claiming there is no way in hell Win95 could run any action games
on any machine, because it would be much too slow even on PPro machines.
Maybe some simple strategy games only, that's all.
You were wrong, and most probably you're wrong again. I'm quite sure
we'll be playing lots of fast Direct3D games on our mediocre Pentiums in
no time.
Steve Krisjanovs
Grant Farrington wrote:
>
> ds...@concentric.net (Mark Smith) wrote:
>
> >They can use Direct3D and any other trick Microsoft has up their ass - fact of
> >the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has Windows eating up your
> >Whatever graphics boost they give it using DirectX will be lost in sheer Windows
> >overhead. A 95 version is just for the lamers who bought their packard bell
> >systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their system.
>
> You're an idiot mate. I have no peformance loss with any game under
> win95. And with directx & direct3d you'll get a huge graphics
> performance boost . Get a clue.
>
> Grant
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Coming To You From Sunny Queensland Australia
> ---------------------------------------------
Noooooh.... you're an idiot :)
I play quake in win95 all the time. Remember though, it's a DOS game I and would rather
play it in a dos session in 95 any day over directX.
Don't bet on the same or better results when the directX version becomes available! Go
out and buy ANY game that supports a DOS version and a directX version - DOS will beat it
every time. Hell, Mech II Mercs is a second generation directX title and it still blows
chunks (I don't have a shit packard bell either). I have YET to see a directX game
that will impress me! Look, next time, before you reek the newsgroups of
ignorance....... do some research!!!!
Albert Ramirez Jr.
Michael Carmack (mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: The Bishop of Battle (bis...@primenet.com) wrote:
: : Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
: : performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
: I know others have already said this, but I get no detectable performance
: loss under Win95. And under Win95 it's much easier to set up a net game.
: --
: ========================================================================
: "In sports, it's not who wins or | Mike Carmack
: loses; it's how drunk you get." | Vulcan Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
: - Homer Simpson | mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
I get a performance loss especially when runing a multiplayer game over
my LAN. Win95 eats 8 megs of ram and the game is jerky. In dos its
smooth as silk.
--
Albert Ramirez, J.D. : Deep Space Nine: To boldly stay where
alb...@cybergate.com : no one has stayed before.
"Trucha con la lucha" :
Michael Carmack
Another small point about the DirectX Quake that I haven't seen brought up
yet is no longer needing a VESA 2.0 driver to play in higher resolutions.
VESA 2.0 is a stillborn, almost completely unsupported standard; there's
what, three or four companies that have provided VESA 2.0 drivers for
their cards? And yes, UniVBE (Display Doctor these days) solves the
problem, but only for an extra $35. That's nuts considering the only game
I know of that REQUIRES VESA 2.0 for 640x480 is Quake. With DirectX, I'll
be able to play Quake in a high-res mode for a change.
Now a question: Has there been any indication as to WHEN the Win95 Quake
will be released? I've been holding off on buying Quake because I wanted
the DirectX version. (I don't suppose it will be a free upgrade for
registered DOS Quake users, will it? Probably not, Win95 DOOM wasn't.)
Steve Parker
Michael Carmack <mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote in article
<snip>
> Now a question: Has there been any indication as to WHEN the Win95 Quake
> will be released? I've been holding off on buying Quake because I wanted
> the DirectX version. (I don't suppose it will be a free upgrade for
> registered DOS Quake users, will it? Probably not, Win95 DOOM wasn't.)
> --
>
Ummmmmm.........Wrong!
I read somewhere that Win95 Quake will be a free download, and as for
Win95 Doom, look on Idsoftware's site in the Doom dir TADA!!!!
Doom95 with the shareware wad file. It will work with Doom2 as well!!
Steve
Nikolaj Najdenov - CVLE/F95
Filiep Geeraert (Filiep....@ping.be) wrote:
: Mark Smith wrote:
: >
: > They can use Direct3D and any other trick Microsoft has up their ass - fact of
: > the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has Windows eating up your
: > basic system horsepower. Windows just doesn't unload itself from memory.
: > Whatever graphics boost they give it using DirectX will be lost in sheer Windows
: > overhead. A 95 version is just for the lamers who bought their packard bell
: > systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their system.
: I disagree partly with you.
: Let 's take three different types of users :
<Lots of stuff cut away>
First I will be surprised if anyone reads this. It happens to be 27th on
the reply list.
I am genuinly surprised with DirectX 2.0. NHL97 runs the same, maybe a
touch faster than in dos. I have a P100, 16 megs and 6X cdrom.
Microsoft actually did someting right for once and only once.
My 2cents worth.
Michael Carmack
Steve Parker (wer...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Michael Carmack <mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote in article
: > Now a question: Has there been any indication as to WHEN the Win95 Quake
: > will be released? I've been holding off on buying Quake because I wanted
: > the DirectX version. (I don't suppose it will be a free upgrade for
: > registered DOS Quake users, will it? Probably not, Win95 DOOM wasn't.)
: I read somewhere that Win95 Quake will be a free download,
Well, that's excellent news.
: and as for
: Win95 Doom, look on Idsoftware's site in the Doom dir TADA!!!!
: Doom95 with the shareware wad file. It will work with Doom2 as well!!
I know where to find it, and I also know that they expect you to register.
Granted that it's only $9, but that's $9 more than I wanted to pay for a
game I already had. (Especially since it didn't offer any real
improvement over the original IMHO.)
--
Richard Keith Patrick
Except for the memory overhead(which is cured by having an obscene amount
of memory, which is very cheap by the way), DirectX should make games
faster than DOS because DX allows games to take advantage of Windows
acceleration features, such as faster bitblts.
Marcus Hast
rla...@slip.net (Ron) wrote:
<Snip>
>I play regular dos quake in Win95 and it doesnt 'crush' my Quake performance
>one bit. Imagine a native Win95 port with 3dfx chip support, and I'm set.
>Maybe you need a better computer.
No for mr Quake is quite the same under Win95 as under DOS. That's
'cause the game don't use up all my memory though. Win95 takes 8 Megs,
you can set it down to ~4 or so.) and Quake can't use it.
Another thing that annoys me is that Win likes to do some "disk
accessing" during Quake sessions. While '95 is making my HD sound like
a stoned Woodchuck my FPS slow down to a crawl. Usually some vital
point of the NetQuake match :-(
Marcus Hast. O-
AKA Unbeliever.
Living long and prosperous in Sweden.
The Driver
In article <3253d712...@news.concentric.net>, ds...@concentric.net
says...
>>>
>>>Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
>>>performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
>They can use Direct3D and any other trick Microsoft has up their ass - fact
of
>the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has Windows eating up
your
>basic system horsepower. Windows just doesn't unload itself from memory.
True, framerates under Windows 95 on Quake are not as good as under DOS. For
single player or LAN play DOS is the best choice.
>overhead. A 95 version is just for the lamers who bought their packard bell
>systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their system.
Actually, a 95 version is also for the (so-called) lamers who want to play via
TCP/IP and don't like the Beame & Whiteside DOS stack. You see, the B & W
stack is the only DOS stack Quake will use for internet play, and it has its
share of problems. Windows 95's TCP/IP stack is the only other socket (to my
knowledge) supported by Quake on this platform, and runs/installs smoothly. So
if you want to play multiplayer Quake on the internet, IMO, Windows 95/NT is
your best choice.
BTW, I haven't tried LUNIX so I can't comment as to it's
connectivity/performance.
--
----------------------------------------------------
Geoff Peagram |e-mail: dri...@rogerswave.ca
a.k.a. The Driver | Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA
----------------------------------------------------
Please note my NEW e-mail address: I am now using a
------> CABLE MODEM running @ 500Kb/sec <------
-- Many thanks to the Rogers Cable guys :-) --
Tiitus Tamminen
Both posted and e-mailed.
ds...@concentric.net (Mark Smith) wrote:
>If a game is written FOR windows then the programmers have to consider
>that half the system resources will be eaten by windows.
You're talking rubbish. I have installed both the MS-DOS version and
Win95 version of Time Commando, and the Win95 version definitely does
NOT run half the speed of the MS-DOS version, and doesn't require twice
the memory to run.
It is obvious you hate Win95 for whatever reason, but try not to post
outright lies anymore, please.
>Example: Windows wants 32mb of RAM just to run - if you don't have it
>then its going to make a swap file and use it. I have a machine with
>...
>This all leads one to conclude that you can strip 32mb off the top of
>whatever your system has just to maintain the windows environment.
>Then you can add whatever requirements the game demands.
Again, you're talking complete rubbish. I have 24 megabytes of memory,
and I cannot see any difference between the Win95 and MS-DOS versions
of Time Commando. According to you, in my case Win95 version should
have -8 (yes, minus eight) megabytes of memory left to run. Apparently
that is not the case, neither is my HD spinning any more than playing
the game in MS-DOS (because of swapping).
Robert M Lowrey
Marcus Hast <marcu...@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote in article
<53e3ok$5...@mn5.swip.net>...
Be sure to use the "-winmem xx" command line parameter when running Quake under
Win95 to give it more than 8MB, assuming you have it. Reference "-winlockunlock"
also.
How much memory do you have? If you have 16MB, the disk access will be a lot less,
with 32MB, almost none and with 64MB, gone. Trying to run Win95 with 8MB is a joke
and the "hammer-the-hard-drive" will NOT go away unless you give it more memory.
With 64MB, DOS sessions fire up with minimal/no disk access (read: no swap file
needed)
and exit instantly with no "hammering" on the HD.
With 32MB or more, most DOS games perform the same under Win95 as under "DOS" or
they are
so close it's not worth the trouble to reboot to DOS to get the tiny benefit.
Robert L.
Grant Farrington
Steve Krisjanovs <kri...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>I play quake in win95 all the time. Remember though, it's a DOS game I and would rather
>play it in a dos session in 95 any day over directX.
>Don't bet on the same or better results when the directX version becomes available! Go
>out and buy ANY game that supports a DOS version and a directX version - DOS will beat it
>every time. Hell, Mech II Mercs is a second generation directX title and it still blows
>chunks (I don't have a shit packard bell either). I have YET to see a directX game
>that will impress me! Look, next time, before you reek the newsgroups of
>ignorance....... do some research!!!!
And I'll bet your video card supports directx & direct3d within the
hardware right ? If your video card doesn't support directx &direct3d
in the hardware then your not going to get any benefit are you ??
The hardware is where it's all at. With the right video card a
direct3d game will kick arse over a standard dos game that doesn't
support hardware 3d acceleration.
Problem is that hardware 3d acceleration is still in it's infancy &
isn't working as good as it could be. How can a dos game where all the
3d graphics have to processed by the cpu possibly compete with a game
where all the 3d video stuff is handled by special card designed
solely to process 3d graphics ?
Marcus
Steve Parker wrote:
> I think that most people that complain of massive performance loss under
> 640x400 (which is what I use for single player) I lose 1/2 of a frame per
> second. 15.80 for Dos and 15.42 for Win95 (P166 32 meg ram at -winmem 14)
> this is at 2 notches below full screen at the startup.
You know you have Win95 setup properly when you delete your config.sys
and your autoexec.bat. I only get a ridiculously low performance
difference as well. Besides, Win95 networking is practically brainless,
insecure yes but easy. I only patched Win 3.x to Win95 for games. If
anyone gets Win95 for serious business is a fool, Win95 is for gaming.
NetMech for Win95 (came with Mech2 for Win95 out of the box) came before
DOS NetMech (netmech DOS is an add-on) because it was eisier to write
for Win95.
--
Later,
[] [] [] [] [] []][] M [[]]
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] A []
[][] [] [] [] [][] R []]
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] C []
[] [] [][][] [[]] []][] U [[]]
adrian e alban
: : Whatever graphics boost they give it using DirectX will be lost in
: : sheer Windows overhead.
: Spoken with true ignorance.
: : A 95 version is just for the lamers who bought
: : their packard bell systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their
: : system.
: Idiot. I built my own system, as I suspect many people on this group
: have, and use Windows NT 90% of the time. The only reason I installed
: Win95 in the first place was because I couldn't connect to my apartment
: complex's intranet through DOS and Quake wouldn't run under NT.
: And the Direct3D port of Quake will run a hell of a lot better with my
: soon-to-be-installed Orchid R3D than it could in DOS.
Yes, but a native 3DFX port of Quake, running in DOS, would crush any
Direct 3d version running in Windows. This was the point of the original
post, I believe.
: Get your facts straight, you lazy ignorant fool.
Touchy, touchy ;) Why the insults?
: --
Frithiof Jensen
mbra...@inetnow.net (Matthew Bradley) writes:
>On 30 Sep 1996 18:38:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
>Battle) wrote:
>Hmmm.. lets see. Maybe.. just MAYBE, because it will play a shit load
>better?! Nah.. that COULDN'T be the reason!! Can you say DirectX dumb
>ass?!! The purpose to port it to Win95 is to directly use Direct3D..
>Sheesh!!
And will the DirectX libraries be stable and available before the interest
in quake has faded - I think not, judging from recent history (CAIRO, D_OLE
etc..)
===============================================================================
The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
rj
In article <325416d2...@news.concentric.net>,
ds...@concentric.net (Mark Smith) wrote:
>Example: Windows wants 32mb of RAM just to run - if you don't have it then its
>until I load any app then it creates and hits the swap. On a similiar machine
>with 40mb it will not create a swap file until I load 2 or more apps at once.
>I'm assuming it is using the 8mb it has access to over the 32. I also run a BBS
>system running Win95 on a machine with 12mb ram. This computer hits the swap
>file even when I'm not around - it just access the hard drive continuously while
>in call standbye mode.
Yes, it is because win95 dynamically allocates swapfile size, removing
and adding as it sees fit. Otherwise known as the Win95 hard drive death
spin syndrome. To disable this rather _annoying_ PROBLEM (because Win95
couldn't allocate a correct size swap file if the world depended on it)
do this:
start/settings/control panel/system/performance/virtual memory
Once there click the "Let me specify my own settings" and put in
the EXACT same number for min and max swap file size. I personally use
a 50 meg swap even though I have 32 megs of ram. You can pick any number
you feel will suffice for you. Then reboot after clicking OK to get
out of there a few times, and no more death spin syndrome... kinda nice.
rj
--
sig? I don't need no stinkin sig
rj
In article <32563e0c....@news.cwru.edu>,
p...@po.cwru.edu (Philip Epstein) wrote:
>Agreed. Yeah I see that under Win95 I'm only using an 8MB swap file
>as opposed to a 29MB swap file but I get maybe 2-3 fps more from that
>extra 21MB. And like Mike says, it's much easier to set up net games
>(both IPX and TCPIP) from Win95.
q95 -winmem 16 -winlock
NOTE: This is recommended only if you have 32 megs of ram, with 16
megs of ram in Win95 you are stuck using the default 8 meg allocation
quake defaults to under windows.
Reading the technotes readme files can actually provide some help into
the game, and the -winmem flag is one little gem you don't wanna pass
upon. ;)
>3 fps is not worth the hassle of shutting down Win95 to play Quake.
Should be more like .5 fps...
Too_Slow
"mr_maker" <owen_m...@eee.org> drooled over the keyboard and
wrote:
>that damn windows key pissed me off, so i taught myself not to use it.
>see, after crashing about 12 million games of quake, i simply took a car
>battery, and attached it to that key. it me about 2 times to learn, but
>after that i never touched it again...
>
>mr_maker
Seeing as how my car battery was heavy and greasy and a pain in the
ass to remove and lug up two flights of stairs, I instead hooked up
120V from a wall socket to that key and now I'm in the hospital with
some 2nd degree burns and my lawyer will be contacting your lawyer.
__
Too_Slow aka Storm_ Bringer
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
I bet if you ever reach total enlightenment while
drinking beer, it would squirt out your nose...
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Michael Oates
Jeff Backe <ac...@concentric.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> >Hmmm - on my P5-155 with 64mb ram I get MUCH better performance in DOS than in
>> >Windows. Even during the startup with it shows the available memory for
>> >swapping - in DOS its 59mb while in Windows its 24mb.
>>
>> Wow!! Why do you have 64megs of ram to begin with? Oh.. never mind..
>> its not worth it. Anyway.. I think your missing the point here. This
>> is the reason ID is making a PORT for Win95.
>>
>> >
>> >The only games worth playing in Windows are the ones written for Windows.
>>
>> Uhhh.. yeah. Hence *Win95 Native Port*.
>
>SET UP YOUR WIN95 QUAKE ICON TO: PREVENT MS-DOS-BASED PROGRAMS FROM
>DETECTING WINDOWS.
>I have 64MB and Quake gets 57 of them under Win95.
>Also, you may want to reboot now and then to refresh resources.
>
>Jeff
The problem if you do this is, you can't play Internet Quake, because you need
the DOS program to see windows to use TCP/IP (unless of course wou have a DOS
stack, and I am not sure you can have a DOS stack running when Win95 is running
anyway)
To get more memory when playing in Win95 put -winmem xx in your shortcut cmd
line (where xx = size in Mb to want to allocate to Quake. My system uses 64Mb so
my command line has -winmem 32 (it uses 32Mb)
Mike,
--
Astronomy in the UK http://www.u-net.com/ph/
Home page http://www.personal.u-net.com/~ph/
Phoenix Electroplating http://www.electroplating.co.uk
Philip Epstein
r...@cet.com (rj) wrote:
>In article <32563e0c....@news.cwru.edu>,
>p...@po.cwru.edu (Philip Epstein) wrote:
>>Agreed. Yeah I see that under Win95 I'm only using an 8MB swap file
>>as opposed to a 29MB swap file but I get maybe 2-3 fps more from that
>>extra 21MB. And like Mike says, it's much easier to set up net games
>>(both IPX and TCPIP) from Win95.
>
>q95 -winmem 16 -winlock
>
>NOTE: This is recommended only if you have 32 megs of ram, with 16
>megs of ram in Win95 you are stuck using the default 8 meg allocation
>quake defaults to under windows.
I tried this out and it did report that it was using 16MB and it was
locked. BUT, I only saw an increase of about .7 fps (doing a
timerefresh on map start at 320x200).
>Reading the technotes readme files can actually provide some help into
>the game, and the -winmem flag is one little gem you don't wanna pass
>upon. ;)
>
>>3 fps is not worth the hassle of shutting down Win95 to play Quake.
>
>Should be more like .5 fps...
You're right, it is only about .6-1 fps. I was wrong when I said 2-3
fps, I must have been thinking of a friend's computer.
Conclusion: There's no point in shutting down to DOS to play Quake
unless perhaps you're low on RAM.
Phil Epstein
murpes
Richard Keith Patrick <kpat...@basil.stthom.edu> wrote in article
<01bbb537$ea6a89e0$81c1...@ix.netcom.com>...
I understad the argument, but experience speaks otherwise. After playing a
few games with DirectX 2.0 and them comapring them to their DOS
counterparts, I've found that DX isn't all that. Need For Speed comes with
two installs, DOS & 95 (using DirectX) and the DOS version is *MUCH* faster
than the '95 version (P133, 16 Meg). I've also found that DOOM for 95
isn't as smooth as the DOS version (on a 486. On a Pentium I can't see the
difference).
Yeah, DirectX is a step in the right direction, but for now it doesn't seem
to be able to overcome the GUI resource load. Granted, it's better than
not using it at all, but not up to plain old DOS speed.
murpes
DaveF
adrian e alban <aalb...@serss1.fiu.edu> wrote in article
<53g9t8$i...@isis.fiu.edu>...
>
> : And the Direct3D port of Quake will run a hell of a lot better with my
> : soon-to-be-installed Orchid R3D than it could in DOS.
> Yes, but a native 3DFX port of Quake, running in DOS, would crush any
> Direct 3d version running in Windows. This was the point of the original
> post, I believe.
> : Get your facts straight, you lazy ignorant fool.
> Touchy, touchy ;) Why the insults?
> : --
> : Phil Geiger
> : pgge...@ucdavis.edu
>
Yeah, it would, but then they'd have to write a native port for every 3D
card out there. With Direct 3D you get a performance boost with every card
that supports Direct 3d. Besides, if you're going to argue using native
ports, you'd have to compare with a 3Dfx native port, not just a Direct3D
port.
--
-davef
http://rrnet.com/~davef
Mel
Albert Ramirez Jr. wrote:
>
> Michael Carmack (mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
> : : Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally
> : : crush their Quake performance by trying to play it Under Windows > : : 95? Sheesh!
I wouldn't call a .4 loss of fpses a crush. The human eye or mind
notices such a difference none at all (that's the sole difference I get
between DOS exclusive and Win95 running Quake -- 640x480 = 13.6 Win95,
14.00 DOS exclusive using qbench, e-mail me for authentication codes).
> : I know others have already said this, but I get no detectable
> : performance loss under Win95. And under Win95 it's much easier to
> : set up a net game.
There is a performance loss, but you are correct in saying that it is
not detectable, at least not to your eye. It is detectable by qbench at
a fraction of fpses. Set d_mipscale 0 and you'll see some performance
drop in either Win95 or DOS.
> mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
>
> I get a performance loss especially when runing a multiplayer game
> over my LAN. Win95 eats 8 megs of ram and the game is jerky. In dos
> its smooth as silk.
You need 32 megs to get Quake comfy in Win95. Then use the -winmem 16
and perhaps -winlockunlock as well (it does seem to make Quake more
Win95 friendly to me as far as switching in and out of Windows). If you
have 16 or less megs then I do see problems in Win95. At least, I
wouldn't want to run Quake with that little and feel that it would
behave. DOS exclusive would then be my recommendation.
P.S.
Later,
Mel
--
"You are a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I am very fond of you;
but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!"
- Gandalf, The Hobbit, J. R. R. Tolkien
Grant Farrington
dri...@rogerswave.ca (The Driver) wrote:
>True, framerates under Windows 95 on Quake are not as good as under DOS. For
>single player or LAN play DOS is the best choice.
Sorry buddy but my framerates are exactly the same under win95 as they
are under dos.
J.T.J. Midgley
In article <325DDB...@wingnet.net>, Mel <mana...@wingnet.net> wrote:
>
>You need 32 megs to get Quake comfy in Win95. Then use the -winmem 16
>and perhaps -winlockunlock as well (it does seem to make Quake more
>Win95 friendly to me as far as switching in and out of Windows). If you
>have 16 or less megs then I do see problems in Win95. At least, I
>wouldn't want to run Quake with that little and feel that it would
>behave. DOS exclusive would then be my recommendation.
>
Haven't had any problems at all with Win 95, Quake and 16MB of RAM so
far, except occassionally hitting the flip back to windows key
(irritating when you do it as you walk into a room full of baddies), and
since I've switched to playing with the mouse I haven't been doing that
either.
Haven't yet tried it over the internet on that machine though (may be
connecting it up this afternoon), if that's where 16 Megs starts to feel
tight.
--
Julian T J Midgley. 95j...@eng.cam.ac.uk
Trinity Hall, Cambridge University.
Mel
It sounds to me that you have a 486 with 16megs of RAM. If that's the
case
then I couldn't imagine running Quake under Windows95. With a 133, 32
megs
of RAM and 4 meg Millennium I see virtually no difference between DOS
exclusive and Windows 95 when it comes to running Quake.
Marcus A. Spears
rj wrote:
>
> Yes, it is because win95 dynamically allocates swapfile size, removing
> and adding as it sees fit. Otherwise known as the Win95 hard drive death
> spin syndrome. To disable this rather _annoying_ PROBLEM (because Win95
> couldn't allocate a correct size swap file if the world depended on it)
> do this:
>
> start/settings/control panel/system/performance/virtual memory
>
> Once there click the "Let me specify my own settings" and put in
> the EXACT same number for min and max swap file size. I personally use
> a 50 meg swap even though I have 32 megs of ram. You can pick any number
> you feel will suffice for you. Then reboot after clicking OK to get
> out of there a few times, and no more death spin syndrome... kinda nice.
Of course, the phrase "hard drive death spin" is inappropriate.
You may not have noticed it, but your hard drive is ALWAYS spinning
(unless your computer powers down the hard drive after a few minutes
like some laptop computers do to save battery power), whether it's
actually being accessed or not. Simply reading or writing from the hard
drive is much less likely to damage it than, say, turning your computer
on two or three times a day. It takes more effort to make the platters
start turning than it is to keep them turning; over time, the drive
motor becomes weaker, and the day may come when it is not powerful
enough to start spinning the drive when you turn on the computer.
But I do agree with you about the Win95 swap file: the dynamic
resizing is fine for some people with smaller hard drives (like the old
420 meg drive I used to have) but if you have enough space for a
permanent swap file, the permanent swap file is faster (because Win95
isn't continually resizing it, for one thing). I've heard that a good
figure to use is 2.5 times your actual RAM; for example, my machine has
16 megs of RAM, so 16*2.5 = a 40 meg swap file.
Tiitus Tamminen
"murpes" <mur...@rica.net> wrote:
>I understad the argument, but experience speaks otherwise. After
>playing a few games with DirectX 2.0 and them comapring them to their
>DOS counterparts, I've found that DX isn't all that. Need For Speed
>comes with two installs, DOS & 95 (using DirectX) and the DOS version
>is *MUCH* faster than the '95 version (P133, 16 Meg).
Must be your setup. On the 133 machine where I tested both the MS-DOS
and Win95 versions of Need for Speed SE, the MS-DOS version was only
slightly faster. Definitely not much.
Another example: I don't see any speed disparity on the Win95 and
MS-DOS versions of Time Commando on my P133/24MB machine.
Matthew Bradley
On Fri, 04 Oct 96 14:52:06 GMT, Ma...@antelope.demon.co.uk (Mark Green)
wrote:
>In article <3253d7eb...@news.concentric.net>
> ds...@concentric.net "Mark Smith" writes:
>> On Tue, 01 Oct 96 07:31:52 GMT, rla...@slip.net (Ron) wrote:
>> >In article <52pslr$c...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bis...@primenet.com (The
>> Bishop of Battle) wrote:
>> >:In article <32503da2...@news.execpc.com>, ire...@execpc.com wrote:
>> >:>3Dfx announced today that the port of QUAKE for Windows '95 is underway!
>> >:>Stop by the Digital Gamescape web site and check out this news article and
>> >:>other features! (URL below)
>> >:>Thanks,
>> >:>Frank Eva, Lead Editor
>> >:>Digital Gamescape-Videogame Yellowpages "HOT" Site Award Winner!
>> >:>An electronic magazine for the video and computer game consumer!
>> >:>http://www.execpc.com/~ireplay/
>> >:Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
>> >:performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
>> >I play regular dos quake in Win95 and it doesnt 'crush' my Quake performance
>> >one bit. Imagine a native Win95 port with 3dfx chip support, and I'm set.
>> >Maybe you need a better computer.
>> Hmmm - on my P5-155 with 64mb ram I get MUCH better performance in DOS than in
>> Windows. Even during the startup with it shows the available memory for
>> swapping - in DOS its 59mb while in Windows its 24mb.
>> The only games worth playing in Windows are the ones written for Windows.
>
> I'll second this.
> Quake doesn't run noticably slower in a maximised DOS box on my machine,
>but its available memory is CUT IN HALF!!
> Oh yes, wow, 3dfx chip support. Yeah, great. Not that many people have
>3dfx boards, ya know; and who cares when Quake can run fine under DOS without
>needing one? And when there's no real reason why a DOS version of Quake
>shouldn't support 3d accelerators?
> But, no, of course, stating sense doesn't help. Everything will blindly
>stumble forth into using Direct3D because Big Brother Bill says it's
>wonderful; and then we'll have to all buy 3dfx boards in order to get
>the same speed that we could get anyway if W95 wasn't horning in the way.
>This benefits the 3dfx manufacturers, and benefits MS; hence the sudden
>willingness to sign a monopolistic API non-disclosure agreement to stop
>people writing non-Direct3D software that supports accelerator boards.
>
>Mg
>
>--
Huh? What brand corn cob is up your ass? Are you this ignorant? Having
a 3-d board makes Quake look a HELL of a lot better. It boots twice
the res, at 16bit high color, and all at 30fps. I'd take that ANY day
over playing it in its vanilla DOS mode.
Matthew
Tiitus Tamminen
Steve Krisjanovs <kri...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>Don't bet on the same or better results when the directX version
>becomes available! Go out and buy ANY game that supports a DOS version
>and a directX version - DOS will beat it every time.
But the question is, is the difference so big that it matters? I don't
see any speed disparity between the Win95 and MS-DOS versions of Time
Commando on my P133. And the speed disparity is not that great in NFS
SE either.
>chunks (I don't have a shit packard bell either). I have YET to see a
>directX game that will impress me!
Virtua Fighter PC. Much better than any other 3D beat'em up on the PC.
Tiitus Tamminen
Mel <mana...@wingnet.net> wrote:
>>I get a performance loss especially when runing a multiplayer game
>>over my LAN. Win95 eats 8 megs of ram and the game is jerky. In dos
>You need 32 megs to get Quake comfy in Win95. Then use the -winmem 16
I'm playing Quake in Win95 (P133 with 24MB memory), and have no
problems with the performance. Seems to me the same as in DOS.
Jeffrey Hayes
nnaj...@acs.ryerson.ca (Nikolaj Najdenov - CVLE/F95) wrote:
>Filiep Geeraert (Filiep....@ping.be) wrote:
>: Mark Smith wrote:
>: >
>: > They can use Direct3D and any other trick Microsoft has up their ass - fact of
>: > the matter is - ANYTHING you play under Windows still has Windows eating up your
>: > basic system horsepower. Windows just doesn't unload itself from memory.
>: > Whatever graphics boost they give it using DirectX will be lost in sheer Windows
>: > overhead. A 95 version is just for the lamers who bought their packard bell
>: > systems at Sears and don't have basic DOS on their system.
Actually, from a technical point of view, Direct/3D is the best thing
that has ever happened to PC gaming. The reason is simple. 3D
hardware accelleration never caught on in PC's because nobody was
making any games to support each individual chipset. Since nobody was
making the games, nobody made the cards. Since nobody made the cards,
nobody made the games. This is a classic catch-22 in computing. With
the advent of Direct/3D, however, the logjam is cleared. Now, a games
manufacturer does not need to make a special version of their game for
each 3d accellerator card out there. Instead, they just code to the
Direct/3D API and their software works -- with or without the hardware
accellerator. Of course, if you don't have hardware accelleration,
then it is true that the games will run slower than under DOS. As any
computer person knows, however, there's no substitute for hardware.
Particularly as the next generation of 3d accellerators hit the
market, we're going to see whole new possibilites for games. Once
cards with geometry accellerators become common, it'll never be the
same. Only lamers will still be using the old DOS stuff. It is
likely that 30+fps in 1024x768 in 32bit color will be reasonably
inexpensive by year-end '97. But, most of the games will only work
under Win95 because the manufacturers won't want to code for each
video card. I, for one, have been waiting for this moment for a long
time.
Jeffrey Hayes
>And I'll bet your video card supports directx & direct3d within the
>hardware right ? If your video card doesn't support directx &direct3d
>in the hardware then your not going to get any benefit are you ??
>The hardware is where it's all at. With the right video card a
>direct3d game will kick arse over a standard dos game that doesn't
>support hardware 3d acceleration.
>Problem is that hardware 3d acceleration is still in it's infancy &
>isn't working as good as it could be. How can a dos game where all the
>3d graphics have to processed by the cpu possibly compete with a game
>where all the 3d video stuff is handled by special card designed
>solely to process 3d graphics ?
Thank you thank you thank you.
Direct/3D will not show it's true colors until you have 3D hardware
accelleration -- preferably with a geometry accellerator.
Tony
In article <53q7pi$5...@falcon.ns.net>, jha...@ns.net (Jeffrey Hayes) wrote:
>Actually, from a technical point of view, Direct/3D is the best thing
>that has ever happened to PC gaming. The reason is simple. 3D
>hardware accelleration never caught on in PC's because nobody was
>making any games to support each individual chipset. Since nobody was
>making the games, nobody made the cards. Since nobody made the cards,
>nobody made the games. This is a classic catch-22 in computing. With
>the advent of Direct/3D, however, the logjam is cleared. Now, a games
>manufacturer does not need to make a special version of their game for
>each 3d accellerator card out there. Instead, they just code to the
>Direct/3D API and their software works -- with or without the hardware
>accellerator. Of course, if you don't have hardware accelleration,
>then it is true that the games will run slower than under DOS. As any
>computer person knows, however, there's no substitute for hardware.
>Particularly as the next generation of 3d accellerators hit the
>market, we're going to see whole new possibilites for games. Once
>cards with geometry accellerators become common, it'll never be the
>same. Only lamers will still be using the old DOS stuff. It is
>likely that 30+fps in 1024x768 in 32bit color will be reasonably
>inexpensive by year-end '97. But, most of the games will only work
>under Win95 because the manufacturers won't want to code for each
>video card. I, for one, have been waiting for this moment for a long
>time.
What's the word on the Quake/Direct3D combo working under NT 4.0?
Bruce Williams
On Sun, 13 Oct 96 18:44:47 GMT, adis...@ace.cs.ohiou.edu (Tony)
wrote:
>What's the word on the Quake/Direct3D combo working under NT 4.0?
There is no Direct3D on NT. (yet.)
-Bruce
Gary Conroy
Sorry to play devils advocate here, but Direct 3D can never be quite as
fast as an app coded specifically for a 3D accelerator under DOS.
Example. Game X coded for Chip Y will be faster than Game X coded for
Direct 3D using Chip Y's D3D drivers.
X --> Y vs. X --> D3D --> Y
id...@imap2.asu.edu
Philip Epstein (p...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
: mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) wrote:
: >The Bishop of Battle (bis...@primenet.com) wrote:
: >: Why would anyone in their right mind want to totally crush their Quake
: >: performance by trying to play it Under Windows 95? Sheesh!
: >
: >I know others have already said this, but I get no detectable performance
: >loss under Win95. And under Win95 it's much easier to set up a net game.
: Agreed. Yeah I see that under Win95 I'm only using an 8MB swap file
: as opposed to a 29MB swap file but I get maybe 2-3 fps more from that
: extra 21MB. And like Mike says, it's much easier to set up net games
: (both IPX and TCPIP) from Win95.
actually you can use those extra mem by using -winmem xx (number of mem)
in you command line.
: 3 fps is not worth the hassle of shutting down Win95 to play Quake.
: Phil Epstein
Tiitus Tamminen
aalb...@serss1.fiu.edu (adrian e alban) wrote:
>Yes, but a native 3DFX port of Quake, running in DOS, would crush any
>Direct 3d version running in Windows. This was the point of the
Probably, but when you bought another 3D accelerator in the future to
replace your old Righteous3D/whatever, you wouldn't be able to run
Quake or your other 3D games on it, unless it was 100% compatible with
your older card.
That means you'd have to choose hardware based on how compatible
they're with your old hardware, not based on how powerful they are.
Tiitus Tamminen
p...@po.cwru.edu (Philip Epstein) wrote:
>Conclusion: There's no point in shutting down to DOS to play Quake
>unless perhaps you're low on RAM.
There is. I recall you couldn't activate UniVBE 5.1a from Win95.
-= Macman =-
One beautiful day, obr...@tfn.com (Hellspawn) decided that |15 Oct 1996
02:24:24 GMT| was the right time to write about "Re: For those of you with
Windows-logo keys... (re: Quake Win95 port)":
>My boss at work simply pulled the WINDOWS key off his keyboard! No more
>minimized QUAKE games!
Hahaha. Would've been a lot easier for him to check out Microsoft's homepage,
and download a little thing called DOSWINKY. It's part of the Kernel Toys (stuph
just like PowerToys). It allows DOS sessions running in a window not to be
bothered with the Windows logo key.
Ah what the hell, I'll just attach it to this message :].
E-mail: mac...@online.ee
WWW: http://www.online.ee/~macman1
Fidonet: 2:490/14.11
-= Macman =-
begin 644 Doswinky.exe - Removes the Windows logo key problem
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
/``,``P"L````O!<`````
`
end
Benjamin Black (WilyKit)
Tiitus Tamminen <tta...@spider.compart.fi> wrote:
: >Conclusion: There's no point in shutting down to DOS to play Quake
: >unless perhaps you're low on RAM.
: There is. I recall you couldn't activate UniVBE 5.1a from Win95.
The latest version is 5.3...and it works. So what's the point? Just
get the update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
\_\_ D \_\_ \_\_ E\_\_ \_\_ A \_\_ \_\_\_\_ T \_\_ \_\_\_\_\_ H
\_\_ \_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_\_ \_\_ \_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_ \_\_ T \_\_\_\_ \_\_\_ O \_\_ \_\_
\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_\_\_ \_\_ \_\_
\_\_ \_\_ T\_\_ Y\_\_\_\_ R\_\_ A \_\_ N\_\_ \_\_ T \_\_ S
\_ \_ \_\_ \_\_\_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mel
Hellspawn wrote:
>
> In article <325c3c1c...@news.erols.com>, tur...@fast.com says...
> minimized QUAKE games!
>
I have a programmable keyboard. Simply remapped it (I mean them, both
of them) to left field -- somewhere on the number keypad. Now, which
ones did I make them? I now have 4 alt keys.
Mel
Daryl Mark Krzewinski
Good grief! Why do you guys make it so damn difficult? I just
right-click on the shortcut, go to "properties", then on the last tab
at the bottom de-select all the hotkey commands Win95 will allow for
this application.
I can't believe I see people pulling the key off, and otherwise trying
to "train" themselves not to hit the Win key. The rather simple step
outlined above takes about seven or eight seconds to do, and works
great. I've never crashed any DOS app run from within Windows.
Daryl
===============================================================================
Rockwell Automation
Allen-Bradley Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl M. Krzewinski Distributed I/O Engineering
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control and Information Group E-mail: Daryl.Kr...@AB.com
Mayfield Heights, Ohio Phone: 216.646.3960
===============================================================================
Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of A-B, myself, or anyone else
for that matter.
Mark Hachman
In article <548d7i$9...@news1.cle.ab.com>, Daryl.Kr...@AB.com (Daryl
Mark Krzewinski) wrote:
> Good grief! Why do you guys make it so damn difficult? I just
> right-click on the shortcut, go to "properties", then on the last tab
> at the bottom de-select all the hotkey commands Win95 will allow for
> this application.
>
> I can't believe I see people pulling the key off, and otherwise trying
> to "train" themselves not to hit the Win key. The rather simple step
> outlined above takes about seven or eight seconds to do, and works
> great. I've never crashed any DOS app run from within Windows.
>
Heck, why don't you just keep your old keyboard? They keyboard that
shipped with my Dell PC is just gathering dust...
Loyd Case
DirectDraw and DirectSound are already in NT4 (that's how the Pinball game
that ships on the CD works--what, you didn't install games because all you
thought you'd get was Solitair :)).
There will be ports of the other pieces of DirectX, and they'll be
available as they're completed.
Best regards,
Loyd Case
Jeffrey Hayes <jha...@ns.net> wrote in article
<548sg0$d...@falcon.ns.net>...
>
> >What's the word on the Quake/Direct3D combo working under NT 4.0?
>
> >Tony
> >adis...@ace.cs.ohiou.edu
>
> I've heard no plans to port direct/x to NT, but I'm sure that
> microsoft will sooner or later since NT is really the future of
> windows. Maybe in versin 5?
>
>
>
Doug McCreary
Jeffrey Hayes wrote:
>
> >What's the word on the Quake/Direct3D combo working under NT 4.0?
>
> >Tony
> >adis...@ace.cs.ohiou.edu
>
> I've heard no plans to port direct/x to NT, but I'm sure that
> microsoft will sooner or later since NT is really the future of
> windows. Maybe in versin 5?
Actually portions of directx 3 (possibly even most of directx 3)
now work on Win NT. This is about as much as I can tell you
so far, I haven't gotten too far into the directx 3 sdk
yet.
So, it may well be that quake for windows will work on NT
very soon.
-- Doug McCreary --
office:(408)364-9285 fax:(408)364-9300 home:(408)374-7961
mailto:do...@ictv.com
http://www.ictv.com/users/dougm/index.html
Jeffrey Hayes
Mike Farnsworth
Jeffrey Hayes <jha...@ns.net> wrote in article
<548sg0$d...@falcon.ns.net>...
>
That's too bad, since DirectX 2 is included in NT 4.
Mike Farnsworth
mfa...@accessone.com
Bellevue, Washington
Mel
Daryl Mark Krzewinski wrote:
>
> Good grief! Why do you guys make it so damn difficult? I just
> right-click on the shortcut, go to "properties", then on the last tab
> at the bottom de-select all the hotkey commands Win95 will allow for
> this application.
>
> I can't believe I see people pulling the key off, and otherwise trying
> to "train" themselves not to hit the Win key. The rather simple step
> outlined above takes about seven or eight seconds to do, and works
> great. I've never crashed any DOS app run from within Windows.
>
Well, I don't know what kind of "properties, misc" menu you have in
Win95, but when I first read this I thought, "hmmm, I don't think so,"
because most of us have tried this early on. There is no option in that
selection to turn off the Win logo hot key. Those keys listed there are
for the common Windows combination keys and prntscrn key that goes back
to Win3x.
You might not have the type keyboard that most people got pushing the
new Win Logo hot key. It is terrible and you cannot turn it off the way
you suggest. I know because I just unchecked all the boxes for those 7
selections, loaded Doom, hit the Win logo hot key, and guess what? Shot
me back to Windows and screwed my sound up like it always has done (of
course, I always remap it when ready to play a DOS game).
Do check your sources and know what you're talking about before being so
pompous, bombastic, and condescending.
Later,
System Administrator
On Fri, 18 Oct 1996 17:20:07 -0700, Doug McCreary <do...@ictv.com>
wrote:
>Jeffrey Hayes wrote:
>>
>> >What's the word on the Quake/Direct3D combo working under NT 4.0?
>>
>> >Tony
>> >adis...@ace.cs.ohiou.edu
>>
>> I've heard no plans to port direct/x to NT, but I'm sure that
>> microsoft will sooner or later since NT is really the future of
>> windows. Maybe in versin 5?
>
>Actually portions of directx 3 (possibly even most of directx 3)
>now work on Win NT. This is about as much as I can tell you
>so far, I haven't gotten too far into the directx 3 sdk
>yet.
>
>So, it may well be that quake for windows will work on NT
>very soon.
The directX 3.0, seems to all work, except the 3D portions of the SDK.
Sound and the "standard" video drivers run fine, now worries.
I'm not concerned about Quake running under NT, ok a little bit, but
I'm a bit tired of booting Win95 just to edit using Worldcraft, which
is great.
Smoke Crack and Worship Satan
In article <01bbbd5f$7902ccb0$4643d5ce@orca>, "Mike Farnsworth"
<mfa...@accessone.com> wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Hayes <jha...@ns.net> wrote in article
> <548sg0$d...@falcon.ns.net>...
> >
> >
> > >Tony
> > >adis...@ace.cs.ohiou.edu
> >
> > I've heard no plans to port direct/x to NT, but I'm sure that
> > microsoft will sooner or later since NT is really the future of
> > windows. Maybe in versin 5?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Only a rudimentary version. Most games won't install under NT correctly.
I think MS has plans for a service pack to address some DirectX/NT
issues.
For example, try installing DirectX 3.0 on NT 4. Doesn't work.
Lunde
In article <326134...@home.com>, ga...@home.com says...
Yeah, that is true but lets say this. I have a 3D accelerator with chip
X. It supports direct3D. I have a choice of two games, one that
supports the Y chip directly and one that supports direct3D. Which game
will I buy? The game that supports direct3D. So actually the direct3D
version was faster (for me) than the native Y version because I have a X
chip on my 3D accelerator. Make any since?
--
Yeah, I have a GUS... what are you going to do about it?!?
-= Macman =-
One beautiful day, Mel <mana...@wingnet.net> decided that |Sat, 19 Oct 1996
06:56:17 -0400| was the right time to write about "Re: For those of you with
Windows-logo keys... (re: Quake Win95 port)":
>Well, I don't know what kind of "properties, misc" menu you have in
>Win95, but when I first read this I thought, "hmmm, I don't think so,"
>because most of us have tried this early on. There is no option in that
>selection to turn off the Win logo hot key. Those keys listed there are
Umm, I don't know if you saw my message that I recently posted, but there are a
few things, called the Microsoft Kernel Toys. Apparently, the kernel team got
jealous of the Power Toys and decided to program some crap too, DOSWINKY is one
thing that lets you disable the Windows-logo-key in DOS sessions by disabling
alt-esc (I think it was alt-esc) in the properties.
And once again, it's www.microsoft.com and the search button.
Mel
Well, I hope your understanding of how spastic local ISPs are, and how
poorly some (like mine) keep up with the news messages; mine comes and
goes. Some days I only get 50 posts from this group, and somedays none
at all, so, no, I didn't see your former message, didn't know about the
added Win95 tinkering toy you mentioned (like there's tons of stuff out
there, and who can keep up? ZiffDavis?), but I'm glad to know now and
will probably check it out. Do forgive me for not having the time to
have EVERYTHING out there for Win95, and for thinking primarily along
the lines of the basic Win95 setup as most people, you'll find, only
use. Also, the person I responded to made no mention of having anything
outside of the default menu selection, so that being the starting point
(as far as I knew) I wasn't that far off base.
Pat Pierce
Mel wrote:
]>
]> >
]> > Good grief! Why do you guys make it so damn difficult? I just
]> > right-click on the shortcut, go to "properties", then on the last
tab
]> > at the bottom de-select all the hotkey commands Win95 will allow
for
]> > this application.
]> >
]> > I can't believe I see people pulling the key off, and otherwise
trying
]> > to "train" themselves not to hit the Win key. The rather simple
step
]> > outlined above takes about seven or eight seconds to do, and works
]> > great. I've never crashed any DOS app run from within Windows.
]> >
]> > Daryl
]> Well, I don't know what kind of "properties, misc" menu you have in
]> Win95, but when I first read this I thought, "hmmm, I don't think
so,"
]> because most of us have tried this early on. There is no option in
that
]> selection to turn off the Win logo hot key. Those keys listed there
are
]> Do check your sources and know what you're talking about before being
so
]> pompous, bombastic, and condescending.
Maybe he was a little rude about it, but the CTRL-ESC key combo is the
exact same thing as the win-logo key, so he might be correct. I didn't
actually try that method, though, I just went to www.windows95.com and
downloaded a file called winkey.something-or-other. It disables the
win-logo key as well as the CTRL-ESC combo.
RAKER
Daryl Mark Krzewinski
Mel <mana...@wingnet.net> recently wrote this:
>Well, I don't know what kind of "properties, misc" menu you have in
>Win95, but when I first read this I thought, "hmmm, I don't think so,"
>because most of us have tried this early on. There is no option in that
>selection to turn off the Win logo hot key. Those keys listed there are
>for the common Windows combination keys and prntscrn key that goes back
>to Win3x.
>You might not have the type keyboard that most people got pushing the
>new Win Logo hot key. It is terrible and you cannot turn it off the way
>you suggest. I know because I just unchecked all the boxes for those 7
>selections, loaded Doom, hit the Win logo hot key, and guess what? Shot
>me back to Windows and screwed my sound up like it always has done (of
>course, I always remap it when ready to play a DOS game).
[snip]
The Win logo key is a one-key equivalent to Ctrl-Esc. That is all. I
too kept hitting it and kicking myself back to Windows once. Then I
went to the properties page for any particular shortcut, deselected
the 'Ctrl-Esc' hotkey (and all the rest while I was at it), and guess
what? I can pound on the Win key all day long, and no drop out to
Windows. Some games, like Doom, don't mind being temporarily
suspended, so I allow 'Alt-Tab' for it, but nothing else. Duke and
Quake hate being suspended, so I de-selected all of them and nothing
short of quitting the game will get me back to Windows.
It's there. Many have done it. It works.