ConQueso

Yup. Did that. Good advice for others reading this.

I don't think I messed up the registry... Being as I reformatted and reinstalled windows, and the error still persists. From what I've read about EnumDisplayMonitors, it's only in Win98 on, so I think it's just the nVidia application asking for something that win95 can't give it, hence the error. Thanks for the feedback, though.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/compatibility/default.asp Look under essential links, to the right.

Yup. Go here and look under "essential links"

Anyone know what the exact differences are between these three models?: (EDIT: Oops. Had to change the 'V's to 'N's) Asus A7N266 Asus A7N266-C Asus A7N266-E

Sure enough, after I give in and post, I finally find some answers shortly after... -C uses the nvidia 415 chipset, not the 420. Which simply means, no onboard graphics card. (to lower mobo price for those who won't use on board video) -E I'm still not sure about. HardOCP's review had this to say: "Asus has decided to go with on-chip LAN, and has mounted the socket on top of the USB ports. That is where we get the '-E' at the end of A7N266-E." But all 3 boards have LAN controllers. Maybe the other two have a different mount for the jack or something. I thought I read somewhere that the -E board had some improvement/option dealing with audio. But maybe that was another board. Can anyone clarify any of this?

Have you tried running it with QFixApp?

Have you tried QFixApp?

Using QFixApp? If so, try changing the current EmulateJoystick setting. If not, try using QFixApp. And as for emailing: change your profile so responses to this will send an email. It's best to post all problems and solutions, rather than emailing them, so that others with similar situations can learn from previous threads. For that same reason, if you do get it working, please post what made it work.

Okay, first of all this thread isn't about the GF4 MX name BS. For that, go here. A friend of mine is thinking building a system based on the Shuttle SV24 (a toaster sized computer) for LAN gaming and other portable applications. The tiny Mobo, however has no AGP slot available. Anyone think that a manufacturer will make a PCI version of the GeForce4 MX 420? It would have the same memory bandwidth as a GeForce2 MX 400, of which there are many PCI versions. And if so, do you think it'll have DVI out?

Quote: I think they will definetely make one for PCI... Well, You're absolutely right. All those with mobos without AGP ports--you now have another graphics option. With a $20 rebate even. Just be aware of the GeForce4 MX's actual features.

My Logitech Force 3D joystick has developed a glitch. Sometimes it'll send a quick signal that the joystick is farther forward than it really is. (The image linked to below is my running the joystick from its bottom right to bottom left on the test page--the black line should be all horizontal) Test screen image. Anyone know how to fix this? Anyone have any guesses? I contacted tech support, but they said to try a clear calibration utility. Oh, and also "As usual, use these tools at your own risks." So, I'd rather not use them.

Ah, so the "gt" must be "greater than". I was wondering if it was some strange modifier for the command line, but had never heard of a double-hyphened modifier/extension. Should've known with the ampersand and the semicolon that Frip was attempting an HTML character. ;( Thanks for the info! (and, ya, I know about QFixApp. A great utility I use often.)

Quote: '76 Gold Use QFixApp --> IgnoreException.dll Anyone know what Frip means by this? I'm assuming to have IgnoreException checked in QFixApp, but what does the "-->" mean?

True. I just read a very informative Tom's Hardware optical mice review. I'd suggest any serious gamer interrested in getting a new mouse read it. To put it simply: Microsoft's 6000 ips (check back of box for 6000 ips before buying) is 3 times that of Logitech's optical mice, making it the mouse that is least likely to get 'lost' during fast movement (on most surfaces). Microsoft software also allows the two extra buttons to be bound to keyboard keystrokes, thus usable in most games. Logitech's 800 cpi is twice that of Microsoft's mice, making it more precise (check back of box). Karna's Razer Boomslang 2000 puts both Microsoft's and Logitech's optical mice to shame when it comes to precision, but only while it's not dirty. (it uses a ball) So, there is no clear universally dominant mouse. It all depends what gamers, individually, hold to be more important for their style of gaming, how much they're willing to pay, and how they like the 'feel' of the mouse's shape.

I just did some looking around and read some reviews and came up with some interesting info. Microsoft's latest IntelliMouse Explorer, and IntelliMouse Optical mice have a good thing going for them, gaming wise. The sensor reads at 6000 times per second, which is 3 to 4 times faster than most other optical mice. And from what I've read in reviews, this does a good job to reduce or even eliminate the glitches caused by moving the mouse to fast. (a third mouse, the Wireless Intellimouse Explorer also does 6,000 samples per second, but the fact that it's wireless makes it less suitable for gaming) So it looks like for gaming purposes, the latest IntelliMouse Explorer (corded) or the IntelliMouse Optical are the way to go. Both even have 5 buttons, which can be assigned to common keyboard functions (and thereby be used in games which allow custom keyboard bindings, or those which detect all 5 buttons). To be sure you're getting the high-speed version, check the back of the box for "6,000 times per second"

Oh, and M4Carbine, have you tried Infiltration? It has its advantages and disadvantages, but its aiming interface is just plain cool. First, there is no crosshair, so if you aim from the hip, your shots won't be accurate. To increase accuracy, you right click the mouse to actually use the guns sights to aim (or scope if applicable). It's really smooth. And if you try to run while looking though a scope, it's very shaky, so no more 1km sniping while running. Also, the screen tends to stay more fixed horizontally meaning aiming slightly above or below horizontal doesn't shift the view, but rather your arms/gun orientation, so most of the time things look more realistic on screen. Also, you're most accurate with shots while prone, and less accurate while standing (in between while kneeling). Or if your running, you're much less accurate and if your sprinting, don't expect to hit much at all. This eliminates everyone jumping around to avoid being hit, since you can't really hit anything while doing so. I'd just be sweet if this realism was incorporated into Deus Ex 2, though I highly doubt that to be the case. Realism FPS game makers should consider hiring sentry studios and incorporate these differences into their games. IMHO, this is the biggest jump dealing with the aiming interface in FPS PC games since mouselook was first used (excluding pricey VR aiming devices, of course).

I might actually have bought the game if it used a better engine. For better graphics, and also for better gameplay--seeing as Unreal Tournaments multiplayer code is so solid. Hearing about being "warped" long distances backwards is enough to keep me away. And is the game even playable on a LAN or does it require an online server?

Quote: Woah! thats not what i meant at all, i meant that about the current renegade engine. OK, understood. When I said "It handles indoors and outdoors quite well," you thought "it" was in reference to C&CRs engine, when I meant "it" in reference of the Unreal engine... I guess I could've been less vague. Sorry to go off for no reason, but, uh... er... Hey, pretty screen shots, eh?

Oh, and let me know if ILM uses the C&CR engine to produce 3D worlds for Stephen Spielberg, like it did with the Unreal engine.

Quote: I dont think it does, the outdoors are amazingly angular and the indoors are just plain and dull. It just feels like a really bad arcade game, you just aim the cursor at what you want to die and thats it, no skill involved. Surely you're joking. The Unreal engine is very capable. "...the outdoors are amazingly angular..." *ahem* If your refering to Unreal 1 keep in mind that was made to run on machines as slow as a Pentium 166 with 16MB RAM and 2MB video RAM. C&CR was made to run on a system with a CPU 3 times faster using 4 times more RAM, and a video card 10 times more powerful with 8 times more RAM. Of course outdoors in Unreal 1 look "angular" compared to C&CR, but this isn't a matter of a better engine, but the fact that Unreal 1 was made to run on computers 4 years ago. "...the indoors are just plain and dull..." *ahem* "...you just aim the cursor at what you want to die and thats it, no skill involved..." Ever played the Infiltration mod for UT? Or played Deus Ex? They both use the Unreal engine. Or maybe try de-selecting "auto-aim"? Please. Like a company known for its 2D RTS games could produce a 3D engine rivaling one that's been developing for 5 years. The Unreal engine is easily superior, and is the engine behind the highest-rated FPS out there, Unreal Tournament. Perhaps you should play more Unreal engine based games.

It handles indoors and outdoors quite well.

Quote: ...Westwood should just stick to 2D games as it seems all 3D ones they make are terrible. Why didn't they just get licensed use of the Unreal Engine?!?

Quote: ...If i bought the cheapest G4 which is about 120$, would it have better 2D quality than my Viper? Keep in mind the GeForce4 MX is more accurately an improved GeForce2 MX than it is a slowed-down GeForce4. If you're wanting to play the 3D games that take advantage of graphics cards which run DirectX 8 in hardware, I'd consider getting the GeForce3 Ti200 which runs at about the price you mentioned. If you want a card that will run DX 7 games faster with FSAA, than the GeForce4 MX is probably the way to go. I'd go with the GeForce3 Ti200, though. For more info go to the GeForce4 MX thread, and please reply there if it regards to the GeForce4 MX naming issue.

I'm thinking about getting a DVD-R/RW/RAM drive. I can get a Panasonic LF-D311 for $330, an HP dvd100i for $450 or a Pioneer DVR-AO3 for $420. I don't know the DVD-R/RW/RAM scene well. I'm under the impression the drive must be able to burn on DVD-Rs in order to make DVDs which run on standard DVD players for viewing on TV. I'm not concerned about write speed, its primary use will be to create DVDs to watch on TV. I have Minerva Impression software to create DVDs, I just need the hardware. Is the Panasonic the way to go, or is there a reason it's $100 cheaper? Any help would be appreciated.