this is bull****

[kearos 0]

http://members.nbci.com/mcmcc/nhl2k1fixw2k.zip

 

somebody posted this on the other NHL 2001 thread. I don't remember how it works. There's an info file that comes with it. This is the fix that worked for me.

[INFERNO2000 0]

I'll just throw in my 2 cents for the hell of it.

 

I'm a diehard 2k user..I hate 9x, but I use it when the person's computer has it on..and I'll probably throw it on my briefcase pc that I'm making, simply for space concerns(and it'll be a LAN PC)

 

I think Windows2000 is the way to, since Whistler is only in beta stages(I tend to wait for a few RCs to throw it on my computer...but I'll definitely be going Whistler when it comes out).

 

If a game supports multiplayer, then it is purely idiotic(and I'm talking Davidnewbould idiotic ) to NOT support NT, as it was designed for multi-user, online applications. 2000 is NT...so it should be supported, am I right?

 

I can understand games not being supported in Linux(or any other UNIX), mac, OS2, or any other OS out there, as the programming for it is very different than that of windows. However, the good multiplayer games tend to have that(Quake(series), Halflife/Counterstrike, etc.)

 

If a company is going to support Windows, then I feel it should support every flavor of Windows from 95 on, for any program. OS-specific programs, such as the Norton applications(Utilities) that don't work with 2000 are understandable...and they've since released 2000 and ME compatible versions with the 2001 series, if I'm correct(I don't use them..so I'm guessing).

 

Starting February 17th, 2000, every manufacturer should have had 2000 in their lineup of OS's supported. Failure to do so is poor management decisions, except in special circumstances(which I can't think of at the moment).

 

 

Still....there is always something comforting in looking at a box that says Windows 2000 Professional Compatible...

 

That label was on my Asus CUSL2, but absent from my Asus K7V. I appreciated that label, and it's proven to be accurate.

 

That tag lets you know that the manufacturer didn't sit on their ass doing nothing, but rather sat on it and made sure it worked. Just look for it for new programs and hardware, and yell at the makers for older software...

[DosFreak 2]

I stuck in my Diablo I CD A 4 YEAR OLD GAME. It STILL works in 2000. It STILL passess all of the system tests. Makes ya wonder doesn't it. Stupid POS companies. Blizzard rules.

[kearos 0]

Hi guys

 

I agree with Inferno2000 completely. I think he makes a good point with the Feb 17th date. Also, it is definitely comforting to have "Windows 2000 compatible" on the box, and it certainly should prove that QA has adequately tested the product on Windows 2000. I don't have TOO much of a problem if that label isn't there but at the same time, I would feel better if gaming developers will just flat out say "our product does not work in Win2k" rather than try to weasel around it. I take NHL 2001 out AGAIN because the label isn't there but EA doesn't want to admit two-thirds of NHL 2001 doesn't work in Win2k. Their readme file CLAIMS that they have NOT run into ANY problems in Win2k. (read section 15 of NHL 2001 readme) I wish they hadn't put that in their readme because they just reassured their incompetence.(it means they DID test NHL 2001 on Win2k and *somehow* failed to notice that two-thirds of the game doesn't work) If that statement WASN'T there and I find that two-thirds of the game doesn't work in Win2k, I would feel much better because I would think they didn't do QA on it therefore I'd just go about minding my own business.

 

 

Just a small comment away from this topic about DOSfreak's remarks. I think Blizzard WAS kickass but Diablo 2 was kinda disappointing to me. That's because Diablo 2 has problems with Win2k and NVidia Detonator X drivers in D3D. In that situation, the OS would freeze after exiting Diablo 2. I've confirmed this with Blizzard since their open beta. Even till now, they have not fixed that problem and haven't replied to me again.

 

Cheers,

 

(Go Canucks!)

 

kearos

[NT_Worker 0]

I think some important things were missed with this thread, concerning Microsoft's marketing of WinMe and Win2K.

 

One example is this. Let's take some completely inexperienced person, they've never really used a computer, but want to get "Online" and have "E-Mail", because they've seen the exciting AOL commercial on TV about EVERYONE being on AOL and loving it. This is a person who actually has to *think* about how to properly use a mouse. Many members of my family are this way (the older ones anyway, the ones who didn't grow up on Atari, Commodre 64, Apple IIe's and everything that came after.) What would a person buying a machine with that little bit of information do with Windows 2000? NTFS? Administrator accounts? How about the cheap No-Name, not brand-specific, computer they purchased... Even big companies have issues with Windows 2000 (how about Creative?) what about the hundreds of No-Name companies? We all know about AMD, Intel, Creative Labs, nVidia, 3dfx and evryone else... but what does Grandpa Harold know about installing a new driver, or even identifying a piece of hardware (conviently named 16-bit audio)or a driver issue, all he knows is: My computer "crashed".

 

Microsoft separated the 2 OS's because of user knowledge, the thousands of computers sold to Ma & Pa because their kid went off to college and they want to keep in touch. Hardware and software support for Win2K is great for what it is, but not great.

 

Win2k is for "businesses", businesses usually have an IT staff to help out users. Win9x is for people who have a wide variety of software and hardware that may not be of high quality, it may not be top of the line, it may be some win 3.1 app being used in the "new" win98 special... OEM's aren't usually giving away things like a full version of Photoshop with PC's, they give you crap. They throw in words like MULTI-MEDIA and INTERNET READY, They brag about things we would laugh at if weren't included... Hey on sale now a brand new car!! It has a STEERING WHEEL!!! It comes pre configured with... A FREEWAY READY ENGINE!!

 

That's probably much more than 2 cents... but there it is. I don't smell too much conspiracy about Win2k and Win9x if you look at it through the standpoint of user, software, and hardware support.

 

Why a company like EA (my gripe is with Superbike 2000) can't make a win2k compatible game is beyond me. But I have my revenge by not giving them my money. I spend it on companies interested in my business, like id, Epic, Valve/Sierra, and many others. I've let EA know about my dissatisfaction, and now it's up to them to make it right. Petitions are good in this situation. You've got to ask for what you want.

 

Enough from me.

 

 

~NT Worker

[kearos 0]

Hi NT Worker

 

I think you're absolutely right and I failed to point out the benefits of Win9x/ME. I also think I may have misled people to think that there is a 'conspiracy' with Microsoft.

 

The point I wanted to get across is with Microsoft's marketing strategies. I wanted to point out that they 'isolated' uses of their Operating Systems through marketing campaigns. I think they should've played each OS on level ground because I think it is this that made gaming developers back away from Windows 2000.

 

But on hindsight, it seems that Microsoft made the decision FOR everyone and that they tried their best to target as large of a group as possible with each product. It would definitely be better if an inexperienced user used Win9x/ME and that Windows 2000 is intended for people who are experienced or are backed by an IT team. I do not deny this and I want to stress that. I have no intention of making an inexperienced user use Win2k.

 

However, in light of this, we now know there are two 'Microsoft OS communities.' (we'll leave out the communities using Linux, BeOS, etc...or MAC) One community consists of inexperienced/semi-experienced Win9x/ME users. The second consists of experienced/semi-experienced-but-with-IT-support Win2k users. Now back to what I've said earlier, gaming developers have excluded the entire group of people who use Win2k. The Win9x/ME community would be somewhat larger than the Win2k community but why did they leave Win2k community in the dark? It is due to the fact that "Win2k is for businesses." My original argument questions why Microsoft didn't include a little statement that says "Win2k is not only for businesses, you can play games in your spare time at your office too!" (hypothetically speaking...heh). This way, the Win9x/ME people would have their way with a cheap, multi-purpose, easy-to-use OS and experienced users would have our way with a rock-solid, high networking capability, workstation OS. We would STILL have two communities but then now, gaming developers wouldn't tend to exclude the Win2k community.

 

Earlier, I also questioned why Microsoft released WinME. It's not because I don't recognise the group of inexperienced users, but I would rather Microsoft recognise that Windows 2000 kicks a whole bucket of ass and they shouldn't have continued the WinME project. Instead, they could release a Windows 2000 Home along with the Professional. Then I said that they already put funding into WinME so if they cancelled the project, they would lose a lot. *shrugs*

 

I know Whistler was intended for this exact situation but by releasing WinME, this just makes Win2k users wait longer for full game support.

 

I suppose I'm just bitter because NHL 2001 didn't work in Win2k. It almost seemed like EA Sports purposedly made it so NHL 2001 wouldn't work. Oh well. I hope everything is clear as mud now. =D

 

Cheers.

 

kearos

[NT_Worker 0]

I think you have very good points, and I agree with you. I think it comes down to a couple of things.

 

When you are a large, well known company, a field leader, you are expected to deliver on your word. Intel and the RAMBUS matter for instance. A small Up & Comer can flub their announcements somewhat and still come out on top. nVidia and the TNT comes to mind. Microsoft *Knew* that Win2K, based on the NT kernel did not support an acceptable range of hardware and software. This is where the idea, if it's good quality and a well-known manufacturer, it'll work with NT 4.0 (and then of course 2000). This , IMHO, is why Microsoft *can't* endorse games with Win2K. They are protecting their backsides from the support they would otherwise have to provide because Uncle Jed wants to play TekWars or some ancient P.O.S. game programmed by Gomer in his parents basement.

 

Is this the best position? Maybe, maybe not.

 

I believe the blame lies squarely on the developers who, through either laziness or ignorance (neither being a good thing) choose not to support a popluar & capable OS. Not to mention, this argument is probably what the Mac users have trying to get thru for some time now.

 

While I might not agree with Microsoft, they are doing this for a reason which makes sense, or at least could be.

 

If it is about right or wrong, I think the developers are wrong in this case. (Microsoft has been wrong about a good number of things themselves... but we're not discussing those things =)

 

Have a good one,

 

 

~NT Worker

[kearos 0]

agreed.

 

damn EA Sports.

I ought to march down to their Burnaby studios (like 10 mins drive from my house) and give them a piece of my mind. Incidently, that's where NHL 2001 was made...among other games cuz that's their newest and largest studio in North America (so I hear).

 

I knew the project lead for NHL 99 and NHL 2000 but he's not working on NHL 2001. *sigh*

Maybe it's not a surprise that NHL 99/2000 works in Win2k but NHL 2001 doesn't.

heh

[NT_Worker 0]

Right ON!! If you go, Make sure you mention Superbike 2000 and 2001 for me!

 

Also, you might wanna reconsider marching there if you're going alone. that might look kinda funny.

 

I don't know where EA is, but if it's in California, (where I live) it's pretty effective to drive by slowly a few times while brandishing an assault rifle. but make sure they know they have to fix those games too...

 

~NT Worker

[NT_Worker 0]

Lame Double post

 

 

-Sorry

 

 

~NT Worker

 

[This message has been edited by NT_Worker (edited 18 October 2000).]

[DosFreak 2]

I don't know where you guys get the 9x is easier for newbies than NT is. It's all about the Windows experience. Sure Windows 2000 doesn't have huge help screen with big letters telling ignorant users what to do in an emergency but it's just as user-friendly as let's say Windows 98. Whistler will have the ME "friendliness" YUK! + More when it comes out. But 9x has been around since 1995...... Also it's not that hard to type in a password and in fact I recommend it for a 1 computer home with multiple people. Geesh, it isn't that hard even for a newbie to figure out Windows 2000. I'm not talking out of my something either. I've dealt with newbies. I build systems every day. I started out on C64's. Heck, if you can't figure out how to move a cursor a click on an icon then I guess people today are just dumber.

[NT_Worker 0]

it's not so much about learning to use something for the first time, Personally I've found Win2K far more helpful with it's help menu's than any other Microsoft OS, (admittedly I haven't delved into WinME very far)

 

It's more about the OS being 'forgiving', Beginners are more likely to install all sorts of Stupid crap from the internet, those silly little things that people send to you through e-mail, weird little tools, and utilities that you can download for FREE from all sorts of strange sites. Experienced users either are more careful about what they load, and/or they are more adept at getting themselves out of what ever mess they got into.

 

I've gotten more than my share of: My taskbar (not that they know what to call it) is on the wrong side of my monitor... what do I do?

 

Most of the people I'm talking about don't use the computer but for a few basic, minor things, They surf the web, They E-mail, They type letters and/or write, some play games, or have kids or grandkids that play games. Some eventually buy a scanner and make family trees or something. They are not "hardcore" users, they spend a few hours a week on the machine. They don't worry about networking, proxy servers, game patches, latest drivers, benchmarks, the latest video card.

 

This is where Win9x and Win2k diverge, Win2K isn't going to do them anymore good than 9x, all of the goodies that I think are essential are, lost on many "basic" home users.

 

Then you have the CAD users, the digital photographers, digital video, digital audio recorders, graphic arts, and such, for which Win2K is a godsend.

 

That's all really,

 

~NT Worker

[kearos 0]

Hi Dosfreak

 

no, we're not saying Win9x/ME is easier to 'use' but rather we're saying it is easier to maintain and troubleshoot. Also, as NT_Worker put it: "Win9x is for people who have a wide variety of software and hardware that may not be of high quality."

 

In terms of user-interface, it's very similar and Win2k gives the added stability as well. However, in terms of maintenance, Win2k gets a little bit more complicated. Especially with software. For an inexperienced user, it's frustrating to not be able to install something. After all, they wouldn't understand why it wouldn't work.

 

Even for me, I just got some banking software I just picked up and it wouldn't work in Win2k. I figured out how to get around it but imagine somebody installing the same banking software and it turns out to be incompatible. The bank doesn't really give much technical support and the sheet they gave me just gives installation instructions. There's no FAQ about compatibility.

 

Yes, Win2k is great and I don't deny that, but Win9x/ME is more beneficial to somebody who is just starting out on a new PC. NT is just as easy as Win9x/ME only up to the point where nothing changes. I don't believe that a family won't get to the point where they try to start troubleshooting their PC on their own. And yes, it is not "that hard even for a newbie to figure out Windows 2000" BUT is IS hard to figure out how to do things PROPERLY.

 

Not only did I build systems everyday, I provided OEM technical support. Some sales colleagues of mine insist that Win2k would be better for newbies but in the end, I just spend the better part of my day answering questions about Win2k that would be avoided in Win98. The reason is that people *think* computers are not complex machines and they dive into it right away because their friends and neighbour tell them "there's nothing to it." This is their mentality. But in contrast, computers ARE complex machines except everyone has been trying to make it seem easy.

[DosFreak 2]

Wow...Look at this thread. Referencing Whistler has improving Game/Application Compatibility for the home user. Things haven't really changed as much as some people thought however. 2000/XP about the same. We were pretty right about 2000 users not really needing to upgrade to XP but 9x users really do need to wipe that junk off of their systems.

 

Anyone have any new thoughts on the home os situation.

 

[Uykucu 0]

I say anything that carries, developed for Home users by MS sucks!!!

Look at it,

W98, W ME, Win XP Home... they all suck.

 

I think MS should just give up trying to screw home users. They are making enough money from us anyway.

 

(Currently, i am the bad guy leading Anti-MS front on this forum. It will pass in couple of weeks i guess.)

[BladeRunner 0]

You not the "bad boy leading the anti MS front" you are simply jumping onto the bandwagon that so many have lept onto - You're leading nothing.

 

W98, W ME, Win XP Home... they all suck

 

WinXP Home is the same bloody OS as WinXP Professional with some of the not needed at home features removed and the price dropped accoringly.

SO by saying this you are also saying WinXP Professional sucks.

As WinXP shares some 90% of the same code as Win2k you are also saying Win2k sucks.

So that just about covers the whole MS product line, with the exception of NT4, maybe you'd like to edit your message to include that too?

"MS Sucks" where have I heard that before.....

[Uykucu 0]

Well just because a stone is also gray, it ain't a donkey.

 

Winxp contains maybe %90 of W2k code only in kernel! The reality is, xp needs 2 service packs. In my opinion 2k was alot more usable when it was first released. At least they were not preparing SP-1 B4 they released it (Oh it is true. A week b4 xp official launch, xp sp-1 was shaped roughly.)

 

I would say so far Win 2K line (except security), is the best OS MS ever made. Why r u pissed at me Bladerunner? Did i do something to offend you or such? we just sound our opinions. It might be good, bad correct or wrong. What does it matter.