pmistry

Update your chipset drivers for your motherboard.

It doesn't work at all, it needs access to VESA drivers and crap and that stuff is just not NT friendly. The DOS might work, but it too needs VESA, sound will be problematic.

Over at Bjorn3d.com they think UT 2003 was a slight disappointment, which I agree, and they say this because the game feels like Quake 3. Quake 3 is better than UT and UT 2003 because it requires SKILL. I cannot see any relation between UT2003 and Quake 3, if someone can please post comments here. Quake 3 is a great game, good weapon balance, excellent map design, and great map flow and good game speed. It also requires good mouse skills and the such. UT/UT2003 in my opinion don't. http://www.bjorn3d.com/_preview.php?articleID=96&p=194

When do you think the next version of IE will come forth?

Most racing games on PC are meant to be fun, arcade games at best. They give the chance for people of all ages to drive cars they would never get the chance. Sure they aren't realistic, but to realistically depict McLaren F1s, Ferrari F50s and Porsche 911s, etc is pretty tough to do. However if you ever played NFS: Porsche Unleashed, the handling there feels quite "SIM" type. Its different from NFS4 or NFS3, but less fun for me.

NFS Porsche Unleashed should install without any difficulties under Windows XP, running it though may require some extra help. What kind of message do you get when you try to install?

It's too bad you don't have a friend with high speed access and CD-Burner. Then you could download it and burn it. There really is no other way to get SP3.

Yep, right after releasing Catalyst 2.5, ATI has issued 3.0 already. These drivers are DX9 optimized and contains numerous speed improvements for all Radeon users (7000-9700).

Caused problems with my Radeon 8500 so I dropped back to 2.5, but ATI just released a new Catalyst 3.0a if you will that is fully certified for all Radeon cards. I am hesitant to install because the 2.5's are fine right now.

Yeah I understand your frustration, however you can also order Service Pack 3 on CD for a minimal fee. For Final Fantasy 7, have you looked at these tips: http://www.ntcompatible.com/compdet.php?id=5313 You should also search the forums, since alot of users have tried getting this game to work. Report back and tell us what happened. Of all the games for Windows 2000, Final Fantasy 7 ranks up there with Need For Speed: High Stakes as one of the most fussiest to get running.

Try a different detonator. Overclocking video card? Enable V-Sync

ATI Radeon cards have brightness adjustment settings, In display properties go to settings, click advanced and then click the overlay tab. Nvida GeForce cards, I think have the brightness under the color correction tab, where you can adjust digital vibrance and color settings. Someone with an Nvidia card can tell you, its been a long time since I used my Geforce 2 MX.

Enemy Territory looks quite decent. I usually like all games made or co-created by id, so this is probably no different.

GF4 Ti4200, even though I am a Radeon user, I think the 4200 would complement your system better, but that is just my opinion, the 9500 is probably faster, I just don't know how it will scale on a 1.2 GHz PC.

My uncle still has an older system, a Pentium 2 - 400 running Windows NT 4.0 that he uses for some heavy MS Office work, and he's got a Matrox G550 sitting in it, very nice display indeed.

Quote: Primary Slave: Maxtor 52049H4 (20.4Gb, 7200rpm, ATA-100) [D:{FILE STORAGE}, NTFS5.1, Dynamic] This is the exact same model hard disk that I had, the Maxtor 52049H4 20 gigger. It died on me and I had to get a new one for Maxtor. They sent me the same model back but all repaired.

I use NTFS now, I used to use FAT32 under Windows 2000 and XP since I saw no benefits with NTFS. But with my larger hard disk, I like NTFS's ability to keep performance high and cluster size low. Something FAT32 just can't do.

The 9500 PRO has a 128-bit DDR memory interface while the 9700 PRO has a 256-bit DDR memory interface. Also I think the 9500 PRO is clocked lower, not entirely sure on the clock speeds but I am postive on the interface, since I looked it up at ATI's site. Radeon 9700: http://mirror.ati.com/products/pc/radeon9700pro/specs.html Radeon 9500: http://mirror.ati.com/products/pc/radeon9500pro/specs.html Also, the Radeon 8500 is nowhere near dead, it is being reintroduced as the 9100 because it is still a fast processor, and is capable of beating the 9000, since the 2 are nearly identical. If you are really tight on money, the 8500 in my opinion is a great buy until you can afford newer and better things.

Yeah...now we got something. I like that, I think that was the problem, keeping games around in business areas.

This is getting overly complicated. Separate forums for Internet Explorer is pushing it...its an application. While I understand your need to make a DirectX forum, you don't need really need one. DirectX covers games and applications as an API. I know some people post in the wrong forums, but its unavoidable, the DirectX forum will never be used much. Most new people will just dump their DirectX questions into games. Also trying to get rid of "Noobs" is kinda strange and that all these "HOME" OSes shouldn't belong in the same league as the "PRO" OSes. Alot of tech enthusiasts use XP Home, there are hardcore people who still use Windows 98. Some businesses still use 98. Separating from 9x to NT was good. Separating differents NTs like NT4, 2000, XP and .NET is good, separating XP and XP, not so good. In my opinion of course.

Nobody has ripped ATI for its crappy drivers more than I ever did. If you go prowling through the Rageunderground and Rage3D forums, I had a bunch of flames, rants, arguements about the crappy drivers for my old Rage Pro and Rage 128 boards. The drivers sucked, they performed bad, unstable, and the various "performance" enhancements were non-existent. So I switched to the Geforce line of cards, I was happy, these "Detonator" things were quite good, solid, fast, and delivered on some performance promises, though not all of them. I do question back in the day on some unofficial "Detonator" releases like the 8.xx series. Seems like people can modify INFS easily. But yes Nvidia drivers are solid and produced well, and this what ATI is doing now with these "Catalyst" thingies. I have a Radeon 8500LE now, and the Catalyst drivers are really good, they are stable for the most part. A few of them have given me some issues still as it seems like ATI is rushing them out sometimes for sake of having a new driver release. Even on their drivers page it states, "ATI recommends against uneccessary driver updates." The Catalyst 2.4 and 3.0 so far have sucked for me, 2.4 was really bad, it couldn't even run old OpenGL games. It was fixed in 2.5 about 2 weeks later, which makes me wonder if 2.5 is the REAL 2.4 and the real follow up to 2.3 which had no problems either.

If your friend is budget minded, look for an old Matrox G450 or 550.

Ok, glad it works then. At least I know it works on SP2 as well.

With all these new AGP 3.0 motherboards that are AGP 8X, will AGP 4X 2.0 cards work? Most new motherboards state 1.5V AGP cards only, since AGP 4X cards are 1.5V they should work in AGP 8X systems right? Been looking around the web, and all the answers are vague, like its possible to put am AGP 2.0 card into a 3.0 slot since its 1.5V but you couldn't put a 3.0 card into a 2.0 even though its 1.5V. Well I understand that, but why can't motherboard manufacturers just tell us. like this>>>>>>>>> 1xAGP Pro slot (supports AGP 8X/4X only) and not like this>>>> 1xAGP Pro slot/8X (1.5V only)

Just found this site, so I think I answered my own question: http://www.intel.com/technology/agp/agp_3_spec.htm