kearos

agreed. Let's all do that. Maybe somebody wouldn't mind putting up a quick webpage with a theme of gaining support and raising awareness for Win2k gaming. Cheers kearos

okay. I'm all out of ideas, I'm afraid. Good luck with Netbeui. Regards, kearos

Hi Dredd I don't understand the errors you get in the events but I DO know that I had problems with BlackICE Defender 2.1.x with TCP/IP file sharing. The FAQ at NetworkICE says that it should be okay if you put security to "Trusting" and enable "Allow Internet File Sharing". However, I haven't been able to get that solution to work. When BlackICE Defender is running and I try to use TCP/IP file sharing, I get exactly "Network path not found". As soon as I stop the service (or go Stop BlackICE Engine) then I can see, connect, do everything with no problems. For me, I decided to use IPX (or Netbeui) to do file sharing because I don't like the idea of getting rid of BlackICE because I was certain it was what was causing my problem. Since then, IPX works great. Will your dorm network setup allow this? I urge you to give BlackICE a quick try. Just stop the service or go to BlackICE and "Stop BlackICE Engine" on both computers. Then try \\the_IP\ again and see what happens. Regards, kearos

Hi guys, I agree with the fact that it's up to the developers to expoit every platform and that they failed to correctly identify the Win2k gaming population. However, on a deeper level, and indirectly, it's Microsoft's fault for putting up propaganda that makes people and management *think* that Win2k isn't a gaming platform. They have abused their monopolistic market position. This indirectly makes game developers remove QA time on their agenda for Win2k testing because based on what Microsoft says, it would be logical to conclude that whoever plays games will not be using Windows 2000. It is this point that makes me say that Microsoft is at fault. But yes, the immediate fault lands on the game developers. I agree fully with that. Also, temo is absolutely correct to say that Windows 2000 has the same API and there should be no major obstacles to get a game to work. I'd like to take NHL 2001 as an example again, if I may. If I choose "quick game," I can play the game with absolutely NO errors. This proves to me that DX7 is working and every gameplay aspect of the game DOES work with Windows 2000. However, the error occurs if I choose Tournament modes. This proves to me that they did NOT sufficiently test the game on Win2k platform because the game itself works. It's just some menu "functions" that do not work. Which means that NHL 2001 SHOULD have NO problems with Windows 2000 because I can play the bloody thing. It's only certain menu sections that failed compatibility. I also stress that there IS a fix available but not through EA. A basement programmer without the source code has written a working fix therefore I see no reason why EA chose to overlook Windows 2000. Obviously getting it to work wasn't difficult if somebody without the source code could do it. I don't think Microsoft didn't know that Win2k was going to kick ass. I think they know very well that Windows 2000 kicks a lot of ass. But why they're doing what they're doing is still a bit of a mystery to me. Are PC game developers REALLY overlooking the Win2k gaming community? Or is there something happening under the table between Microsoft and game developers that we don't know about? Maybe Microsoft has a master plan [censored] back to 1980's that makes its finale through Whistler? (they didn't anticipate on home users being able to afford Windows 2000?...therefore they didn't expect us to find out?) Going to Canucks game. Ciao. kearos.

Isn't it due to the law of supply and demand of a monopoly that they can charge whatever they want and consumers will still buy it? For example, your electric company can charge whatever they want and you still have to pay it. The prices isn't ridiculously high because of government intervention, yes? So in Microsoft's case, it wouldn't matter what they charge. And you're right that if Win2k was the only OS, then everyone would buy it. However, they have already put the capital into developing WinME, wouldn't it be an awful waste if they just scrapped it when they have the market under their thumb? So, sell both, and demand is for *any* Windows OS, steer home users to buy WinME and the quantity bought for a lower price would cover everything. Also, they want to keep the low-income market happy so they must have a cheap OS. You cannot have just Win2k and sell it at a high price and expect a profit. But who's to say Win2k can't be sold for less? I don't know. If you have JUST Win2k, then you have to take a look at the market demand again. But maybe they have and Win2k would command too high of a price if they got rid of WinME. So instead, to justify their financial goals, they promote WinME for less and selling for larger quantity and leave Win2k to large corporations. After all, who better to pay the high price than corporate customers? All in all, Microsoft COULD tout Win2k as good for everything OS but I don't think they would end up selling more because by doing that, Win2k must sell for a lower price according to the monopolistic law of supply and demand. On the contrary, you have a low price for one product and a high price for another product. They both sell for large quantities and you end up achieving economic profit. But still, I think it's Microsoft's fault that they are in a monopolistic situation. Their marketing worked against gaming on Win2k and this is the root of our problems. kearos

are you both using Win2k? do either of you have any firewall like ZoneAlarm or BlackICE Defender?

Hi everyone I just want to say that I'm not here to criticize anyone. If anyone feels offended by what I've said, then you have my sincere apologies. I just want to express my remarks and point out the "other" side. I think this is an excellent forum and we have professional and amateur people who can appreciate each other's comments and make exciting replies as well. I had trouble finding a forum where the next reply wouldn't be "haha, you're so stupid." or somebody will say "chill out, man." I think it's constructive to have good discussions and maybe change the way we perceive something. Thanks. kearos

Hi BladeRunner I understand what you're saying but your argument seems to be analyzing what Microsoft needs to do in terms of marketing for the better of the company. However, our argument is that companies didn't do the research needed to find the Win2k gaming population and that Microsoft's propaganda put a "constraint" around each product in the sense they made Win2k "seem" like it was only for business applications and that WinME is far more superior to be used at home. So, in essence, when you comment that Microsoft did what they did in order to "make WinME their one and only Win9x product, (so that) there would be a lot of people buying the upgrade," then I think Microsoft IS at fault to the public because they have the monopolistic control in order to dictate the market, and they chose to market Win2k as a 'business' platform so that their 'Win9x' counterpart would still be alive; they are at fault for disregarding the public interest and intentionally using marketing tactics so that they could profit from an inferior product, WinME. If "the world knew that Win2k would play most games fine," then the DEMAND for WinME would greatly decline however, there would still be people buying WinME as well as OEMs. But this is not what Microsoft wants, right? They want ALL home users to use WinME so once again, they are at fault for "intentionally using marketing tactics so that they could still profit from an inferior product." Isn't this partly what the lawsuit regarding Microsoft's monopoly was about? Imagine Microsoft was in competition with other companies and that their market is now competitive and no longer monopolistic. Consider that other companies are making a rock-solid platform with excellent networking capabilities and provides support for games as well. Wouldn't you think Microsoft would change their marketing strategy so that Win2k would come on stronger in order to match their competition? In a competitive market, with a superior competition, Microsoft might end up scrapping WinME and fully concentrate on Win2k because that's the only platform stable enough and with high quality enough networking standards to meet our imaginary competition. This is the situation we see with Intel and AMD. Intel had everything going their way until AMD released the Athlon. Immediately, Intel is met with huge competition and their product is suddenly not superior anymore, but rather they are equivalent substitutes. They were developing the Timna processor for the home users and found that they had to scrap that entire project because they needed to concentrate on the P4. They know they're losing because while AMD is releasing a 1.2Ghz Athlon and 1.4Ghz in a month, Intel still can't release their recalled P3 1.13Ghz. Imagine what would happen if AMD weren't there. Then Intel would still release the Timna processor and would achieve economic profits. Now, since they can't release the Timna processor, they've lost all the capital spent on developing the Timna. Do you see my point why I say Microsoft IS at fault and we shouldn't take pity into Microsoft's market position? Just because they HAVE WinME doesn't justify why they would downplay a superior platform so that they can profit from an inferior one. In regards to games, it's true that they are difficult to support. I always think that games either work or they don't. When a game doesn't work, it's either the developer's problem or your system isn't setup properly. In terms of a PC manufacturer, I don't think they have an obligation to troubleshoot games. I too have worked with the technical department of an OEM in Canada and I admit, there are occasionally calls from customers regarding games but if I remember correctly, almost 65% of those calls were problems with Windows setup (which we're obliged to fix) and 35% were customer negligence. I don't believe that one game wouldn't work and all others would. I think that would be the developer's problem. Either they all work on that system or they all don't. If they all don't, then something is wrong with the system. I do NOT believe limiting the platform games run on is a solution. I don't even understand how that's a solution unless you are suggesting we go play games on consoles. Now THAT'S a situation when games run on limited platforms and limited hardware combinations too! The fact is that PCs run whatever we want it to run and that cannot be avoided. Even with JUST Win9x/ME, there will be just as much troubleshooting. If you have resources to provide technical support for Win9x/ME, wouldn't it be worthwhile to use the same resources and provide technical support for Win2k users too? It might be slower but at the same time, you meet twice the demand! Also, if we consider our situation right now and disregard how Microsoft marketed their OS, the Win2k users out there right now are likely to be experienced users therefore how much technical support do you expect to give to experienced users? You gave me an example of a game and I shall give you an example too: EA Sports NHL 2001. We have a game here that runs perfectly on Windows 2000 except some areas of the game will give an error "Error: hard drive is full". This does not happen in Win9x/ME and it has been confirmed by many people. (please don't comment on the error. It's not the hard drive space and not the partition, etc.) The game box does not mention anything about Win2k. EA's NHL 2001 support page strictly says that they do not OFFICIALLY support Win2k. However, their NHL 2001 readme under section 15 says the following: "Although not officially supported, we have tested NHL 2001 on Windows 2000 and have not encountered any major problems." How did the QA team miss ENTIRE SECTIONS of the game NOT running in Win2k?? Here's the best part. There is a fix. But the fix is not from EA. The fix was made by some basement programmer out of Russia who doesn't have the source code. HOW CAN HE FIX THE GAME TO WORK IN WIN2K WHEN EA CLAIMS THEY CANNOT? There is clearly more to the story than meets the eye and I think we've only scratched the surface. I'm happy with what I've said here and I'm late for an appointment already. Cheers. Regards, kearos

no, I think CUViper meant to say that you should try accessing her machine's file sharing through IP. PC Anywhere would certainly work but we want to get file sharing working here, right? So do what CUViper says and try "\\OTHER_MACHINE's_IP_goes_here\". That way, you'll know if you can access the other machine through TCP/IP file sharing. Cheers kearos

wouldn't you think that most advanced users are the ones who go to those polls to vote? Think of all the people with a new system on Win9x/ME who just want games and simple fun. It would be unlikely that they would go to tech pages and vote. And if they did vote, I'm not sure if they really understand what the question was. My point is that those polls may not be the best indication of the Win2k versus Win9x/ME population out there. I use Win2k as well and believe me, I'm really pissed about NHL 2001 having problems with Win2k. Just go to my Games Forum posting here about NHL 2001 and you'll know how steamed I am. I think the bottom line is, like jdulmage said, to wait for Whistler. It's all a bunch of Microsoft marketing crap about Win2k being "more suited for business applications". Also, like DOSFreak says, it's management's job to do the project planning for games. Obviously if they believe Microsoft's propaganda, then QA for NT platform will certainly not be on their agenda. I think the best example is DOS. DOS was never a "gaming platform" but people made games on it. Those games were an eye-opener and suddenly DOS was used for something ground-breaking even though the DOS box never mentioned anything about "gaming". However, if a game had problems in DOS, everyone would be screaming left, right and centre! This is the same situation with Win2k. It is an operating system, period. It will run whatever you make for it to run just like DOS games running on DOS. Here's my two cents. kearos.

Hi everyone I have two computers setup on a network in my house. They were running Win98 but now I've upgraded them to Win2k. When I had Win98, I used TCP/IP for my ADSL connection and in order to avoid open file sharing on TCP/IP, I decided to use IPX for file sharing between my computers. I didn't run into any problems with that setup. I'm currently attempting the same configuration in Win2k but I seem to be able to only achieve File and printer Sharing through TCP/IP. When I disable Netbios over TCP/IP and try to get File and Printer Sharing to use IPX, I would fail to find the other computer. What would you recommend as a good protocol to use for file and printer sharing? IPX? NetBEUI? And if there are things I should watch out for when setting up either protocols? Thank you in advance. Sincerely, kearos. ------------------ Windows 2000 Professional SP1 Intel Pentium II 450 Abit BE6 384mb PC100 SDRAM WD Expert 418000 on UDMA4 Diamond V550 (5.30 ref drivers) SB Live Value Pioneer DVD-113 Adaptec 2940UW Matsush*ta CDR-7502B 3Com 3c905B (the other computer has similar specs, but I think hardware is irrelevant to my question)

=) ya, it is possible to just use TCP/IP but I already mentioned about my pararnoia about open file sharing so I'd rather use IPX to do file sharing and exclusively use TCP/IP for internet Cheers

Thank you DeadCats I got everything going now. I suppose I just had to sit down and understand what is going on first. I could have used TCP/IP for file sharing but I don't like the idea of open file sharing onto the Internet and I feel that passwording just isn't enough (personal paranoia...heh). A good friend of mine just had his system breached. Luckily, the person only made a new directory in C:\ called "You should disable file sharing over TCP/IP". Thanks again. I understand how to get IPX/SPX and Netbeui working now so I know I'm safe from file sharing on TCP/IP. I just can't make up my mind which to use. heh Cheers kearos

GnatsUK, Thanks for contributing your solution. I believe we've discussed that option already. And we've also discussed that be it NTFS or FAT32, the game is flawed in Win2k. Regarding the 'pre-made' season method, it's up to personal opinion and whether the 3rd-party fix will work for you or not. For me, the fix works and I like it more just because it eliminates the hassle of using a pre-made season and keeping NHL 2001 installed on my Win9x/ME hard drive. However, this is a good idea for the people who cannot use the 3rd-party fix. Cheers.

Hi Deadcats, A 2-PC peer-to-peer network is what I have now as well. So I should enable guest access, install NetBEUI and File and Printer Sharing, share my directories and I should be ready to go, yes? Thanks. Cheers, kearos

Hi DeadCats, Enabled guest account now. Just curious, what does enabling guest account do?

Mark W, I know that just by up[censored] the game, the season/tournament modes will still give the hard-drive write error. For me, I applied the fix after I updated the game. Good luck. Kearos.

I'm sorry to hear that the fix posted by mello_j doesn't work for some of you. I still think EA should be releasing a fix, for the sake of thousands of loyal fans out there and most definitely for ALL the Win2k users out there. Now that I know a fix works for some people, then I know some fix *can* be applied to rectify this problem. Therefore I think EA should release a good fix because some guy without the source code can cook up something, then it should be even easier for EA programmers. Cheers!

hi mlbargas The fix that mello_j posted actually lets you create a season. It works for me and I've already played 8 games, 5 min/period and made several transactions to test it out. That fix seems to work perfectly. I recommend you give that a try. A 'pre-made' season isn't the best option, in my opinion. Cheers!

Thank you mello_j. I really appreciate your help. That patch works for me too. I still think it's ridiculous to have to patch anything. And to think, that fix was intended for a pirated version of NHL 2001. *sigh*

Hi mello_j, I have FAT32 setup but I know others are having the same problem with NTFS so I don't think it's the partition problem. Hi Mr. Music, I have just updated NHL 2001 using their EA.com auto-update but unfortunately, the error remains. However, I'd like to get some more input regarding the update. I have already spent far too much time diagnosing the problem over the weekend and I'm not about to do that again with their first patch. As far as I know, even with the patch (without restalling the game) the problem remains. Thanks everyone! Cheers.

Dear iam4u2nv, Thanks for your input but I have already tried reinstalling in Win2k as well as trying on Win9x/ME. I have both Win98se and WinME on other hard drives and I can install NHL 2001 with absolutely no errors whatsoever. I know OF some complaints regarding the same error ("Error: hard drive is full") when using Win9x/ME but I honestly question their authenticity because I have not run into problems with Win9x/ME. Anyway, thanks for your support. Cheers! Kearos.

peejay, I agree with you completely for the fact that EA is not *obliged* to do anything as they have covered their a$$ rather well over this matter. But as I said earlier, I can't BELIEVE they left out the entire Windows 2000 community here. Also, there's really no reason for the tournament modes to be faulty because other functions can read the hard drive space perfectly, such as user database and save game. Therefore I conclude that if they don't fix this 'bug' already blown to large proportions on forums and message boards around the net, then they've really shot themselves in the foot because I swear I will NOT support another EA Sports game if they don't rectify their mistake. Also, I wish they never included section 15 on NHL 2001 readme. They clearly stated that the game is "not officially supported", but they DID state that they "did not encounter any major problems." Having two-thirds of the game non-functional in a major Operating System is a pretty major problem on my list. They've pretty much proved to all of us how incompetent they are by including that statement in the readme. Anyway, enough ranting for tonight. I'm going to sleep. Thanks for the support everyone.

agreed, In2Deep. Thanks for the support.

actually, one more remark. READ THIS!! under section 15 of the NHL 2001 readme, this is what it states: "Although not officially supported, we have tested NHL 2001 on Windows 2000 and have not encountered any major problems. Occassionally, NHL 2001 will start up minimized. Click on the NHL 2001 taskbar item to maximize it. To install and run NHL 2001, you must have administrative rights." This statement in the readme makes me furious!! What kind of QA would miss entire SECTIONS of a game not running in Win2k?