[DarkSkies]

Does anyone know of an emulator for opengl / directx?
I am trying to upgrade to x8 on nt4 but i dont know if it's even possible. I think i have x6.1 so far.

[Uykucu]

I don't think it is possible and never heard of an Dx emulator.
Have you thought about changing to NT5?

[DarkSkies]

I cant yet its a work system

[DarkSkies]

If it was up to me we would be on XP already.....hehehehe

[DarkSkies]

So far I'm able to run RTCW - Jedi Outcast and SOF2
but I'm having some troubles with GTA3.....

[DosFreak]

RCTW/Outcast/SOF2 are OpenGL games that work fine under NT4

The only DX emulator that I am aware of is one from PowerVR but it's only a Directx 8.1 emulator which means that it only emulates those games....and it doesn't work very well (at all) in NT4 for what you want to do.

Your stuck with OGL games and DirectX6 or less games.

[Jerry Atrik]

nt 3+4 are open gl only
and wav only

[Sanchez]

Beat your boss repeatedly until he lets you install win2k.

[DarkSkies]

Been there, done that...... hehehehe

[Admiral LSD]

Quote:

nt 3+4 are open gl only
and wav only

Thats not entirely true. Officially it only support DirectX 3 or lower but I've heard bits and pieces about a hacked version of DirectX 6 thats supposed to work with it. For instance, I was able to get the StarCraft demo (and probably the full version too but by the time I got that I was already using Win2k) working with it. Also, Descent 2 (if you follow the instructions in the Compatibility Database here on how to install it under Win2k, it won't install off the CD. You need XP for that) should work since it only needs DirextX 2 as should Dark Reign since it supports DirectX 3. According to Volitions system requirements, Descent Freespace 1 and 2 are supposed to work with it too although I can for the life of me understand how. FS2 in particular supposedly needs DirextX 5 and although theres the hacked DX6 I hardly see [V] recommending something that M$ don't even support.

[Jerry Atrik]

true nt had dx emulators
sp4 supported dx6. but honetly dx only games ran like crapola
gl games ran pretty nice (quake1 woo hoo)
im glad w2k and xp included full dx support

btw w2k originally wasnt supposed to have directx but many people complained (including me) and they added it.
engineers need playtime too

[NT.gamer]

Quote:

...
engineers need playtime too

[michaeljbrooks]

NT 4.0 only officially supports DirectX 3.
The hack from a beta version of Windows 2000 allows DirectX 5.
The hack detailed at this site when it was ntgamepalace fooled NT 4.0 game checks for DirectX 6.x, but did not really support DirectX 6.

[Admiral LSD]

Quote:

btw w2k originally wasnt supposed to have directx but many people complained (including me) and they added it.
engineers need playtime too

That doesn't sound right to me...

Originally 2k was supposed to be the OS that marked the beginning of the end for Win9x which meant it would have had to have had DX support from the very beginning.

[DosFreak]

IIRC, SP4 included DX6 DirectPlay. Everything else was still DX3 tho.

[Jerry Atrik]

admiral
i was fortunate to be close to the source during this time.
w2k was originally envisioned to be business class software only.
it was going to be even more unfriendly than nt4.0 to the average computer nerd.

then ms entered a marketing research campaign and figured out there were tons of peeps just like us who want a MAN's os at home.

then after w2k was released the home popularity was astounding. ms abandoned 9x based os's (me and that kinda crap) in favor of a home version of xp.

3 cheers for ms

[pmistry]

Have you ever noticed that each MS OS has just 1 thing that is annoying sometimes.

Windows 2000 is in my opinion the best, but 1 annoying this about is the compatibility with some software titles.

Windows XP fixes that compatibility problems, but the whole activation, and bloatware make it less snappy than 2000, in my opinion.

Windows NT lacks that DirectX support people wanted. You could throw in AGP, Plug and Play, FAT32, and USB as well.

Windows ME, this thing lacked some refinement and stability, didn't have some of those changes that Windows 2000 gave us, [ie. Mouse shadow]

[DosFreak]

I like to kid around all the time about a list that M$ keeps on stuff they purposely keep out just for a new version. Stuff that worked in NT4 that doesn't work in 2K but now mysteriously works in XP. Stuff that works in XP but doesn't in 2K because M$ wants to sell XP more.

This is why I maintain MY little list. It's called my "Why I am moving away from M$" list. It's growing..... YEAH!

The way I see it *nix will be on corporate desktops in a couple of years. Easy. The boundary of the network is already *nix. No Microsoft product will EVER replace those. *nix is getting better and better and eventually a *nix distro that companies are comfortable with WILL be deployed.

If Microsoft wished to win me back:

1. Give me control. However much I want. There is no reason why there shouldn't be more customization options during install. YES. Sysprep can do this but not at the level I wish...and it's far better for EVERYONE if the options are already there in the install.
2. Don't make the DEFAULT of your **** Pro OS have every peice of crap pretty thing loaded.
3. Support your older products as well as the older products THAT YOU STILL SELL ******! Implementing new feature in your "SERVICE" packs for your latest OS while releasing another SP for your older OS with no new features does not a happy consumer make. Sticking more supported apps in your App Compat database in your latest OS and updating it more frequently while the EXACT same thing can be done for your OS does not a happy consumer make.
4. Product Activation. It's bad. Get rid of it.
5. Breaking your own rules does not make a happy consumer. A Service Pack is just that. Security fixes and bug fixes. NOTHING ELSE. You want to implement a new change? Release a FEATURE PACK.


Dangit. Gotta find my list. These are just off the top of my head. I'm on leave and I didn't bring my list with me....I think.

[Admiral LSD]

Quote:

3. Support your older products as well as the older products THAT YOU STILL SELL ******! Implementing new feature in your "SERVICE" packs for your latest OS while releasing another SP for your older OS with no new features does not a happy consumer make. Sticking more supported apps in your App Compat database in your latest OS and updating it more frequently while the EXACT same thing can be done for your OS does not a happy consumer make.

Why should a company support luddites? If they don't want to upgrade then thats their problem.

[DosFreak]

Sigh. If a company is still making money off of a product that they sell then I expect the same amount of support to be provided as they do with their latest and greatest product. If they cannot then they may as well officialy drop support for the dang OS because obviously the money spent for buying the OS is not being used properly.