Ive got a pair of voodoo2 8mb cards I bought for $25, and Ive got a rage128 and geforce2mx agp. thanks though!

jaqie wrote:

make a shortcut to the installer, run the shortcut in win98 compat mode.

That won't work if the installer uses a 16-bit stub, as so many did, even in the early XP era.

No 64-bit flavour of Windows for the desktop contains WoW, the thunker for 16-bit apps on 32-bit Windows.

SquallStrife wrote:

No 64-bit flavour of Windows for the desktop contains WoW, the thunker for 16-bit apps on 32-bit Windows.

xp64 did/does. IIRC, that is.

Nope.

I wonder how it worked as I said then. Ya reckon my installer was magic? 😉

There are plenty of reasons that installers fail.

A common one is because version checks fail, compatibility mode will fix that by changing the responses to the relevant registry, API, WMI, etc queries. Another common one is because the setup uses a 16-bit executable along the way somewhere. Compatibility mode won't fix that, cannot fix that.

If using compatibility mode did the trick, then the cause is the former, not the latter.

It's worth mentioning these things, because VOGONS threads rank highly in Google searches. If all the information is here, we might just help some poor soul get their game running.

So you believe saying jedi knight II's installer won't work on 64 bit windows when it will (thereby posting false information) is helping people who find this thread by googling? 🙄

jaqie wrote:

I wonder how it worked as I said then. Ya reckon my installer was magic? 😉

As that article points out XP x64 intercepts a large number of Win16 installers and essentially converts them to run as 32-bit installers due to the sheer number of Win16 stub installers out there, and the large number of otherwise-compatible apps reliant upon them. I don't know whether Microsoft bothered to keep all, some, or any of that hard work for Vista x64 or Win7 x64, but my experiences with the latter have been spotty at best.

As i said earlier, the big problem with Jedi Knight had to do with the misbehaving return to action from the menu screen. Hopefully by Monday I'll be able to play it without issue on vanilla XP Professional.

jaqie wrote:

So you believe saying jedi knight II's installer won't work on 64 bit windows when it will

No, if you put your glasses on, I said installers that use 16-bit executables won't work.

Whether or not JK2 uses one, is irrelevant, but regardless I later said this:

"If using compatibility mode did the trick, then the cause is the former, not the latter."

jaqie wrote:

(thereby posting false information)

Point out which piece of information is false, exactly.

jaqie wrote:

🙄

*sigh*

We usually try to be pretty civil around here. You don't really need to do this "sassy" thing, or whatever it is, to be respected, or even listened to.

I think you need to put your glasses on, and take a look at exactly what you were responding to, and who and what I was responding to when I said to use 98 compat mode, when you said it would not work.

If you notice, I have no problem being civil to people that are civil to me and also others, but I also believe in giving people back what they give me.

To put it simply, the post you responded to was specifically about JKII and you replied with misleading/false information, again this is in context with JKII and your "people finding this thread through google" idea. I think one of the worst things you can do to someone is to deceive them, and that definitely seems aimed at just that.

Concupiscence wrote:

As that article points out XP x64 intercepts a large number of Win16 installers and essentially converts them to run as 32-bit installers due to the sheer number of Win16 stub installers out there, and the large number of otherwise-compatible apps reliant upon them. I don't know whether Microsoft bothered to keep all, some, or any of that hard work for Vista x64 or Win7 x64, but my experiences with the latter have been spotty at best.

Yeah, it does mention that in the KB article I linked earlier. It would be interesting to learn of the mechanics behind this.

jaqie wrote:

I think you need to put your glasses on, and take a look at exactly what you were responding to, and who and what I was responding to when I said to use 98 compat mode, when you said it would not work.

I said it would not work, quote: "if the installer uses a 16-bit stub"

Then two posts later, "If [this] did the trick....etc"

jaqie wrote:

To put it simply, the post you responded to was specifically about JKII and you replied with misleading/false information, again this is in context with JKII and your "people finding this thread through google" idea. I think one of the worst things you can do to someone is to deceive them, and that definitely seems aimed at just that.

I once again ask you to point out what I have said here that was factually incorrect.

I made a statement, I followed that statement with a condition, and an explanation.

Two posts later, I even said that since it works, the earlier post doesn't apply in this particular instance, despite still being valid.

Jedi Knight II's installer works fine without any compatibility mode on 7 x64 and the game itself also works fine. It uses the same usual 32-bit Activision installshield stuff they always used since 1999. After installing, it even shows up on the Games Explorer.

it's JEDI KNIGHT's installer/frontend that will fail, LucasArts always did a 16-bit stub on everything in 96-97, and 98 Compatibility will not make this work, and it won't work on XP x64 either.

The reason I felt so certain that there must be some way to get Jedi Knight to work is that Steam persists in selling it with only minor caveats.

But mayhap we should attempt to stay on topic.

swaaye wrote:

Voodoo3 is definitely best for anything with Glide support and/or older than 1999. Otherwise Geforce FX.

I have a couple of GeForce 6800 that I haven't got the chance to test. But Malik is using 6800 on his Windows 98 system.

@Malik: what do you think, pal? have you ever experienced any backward compatibility problem with 6800?

Also, which one is more compatible with old games, Radeon or GeForce?

sliderider wrote:

An X850 XT PE might be better. It's a little slower than GF6800U with AA/AF turned off but once you turn them on the X850 pulls ahead because there isn't as much of a performance hit.

(1) does X850 support Win98SE?
(2) is there any way to force SSAA on x850?

When I need an all in one card for 90s to 2005 stuff, I go for a GF3 or 4Ti. Very powerful DX6-8 performance, enough to play NOLF2 at max settings 1280x1024 (you'd be surprised how much horsepower this needs), great Win98 compatiblity etc.

Pity bout your FX, 64 bit is a bleh for anything post 2001.

I think you guys are confusing Jedi Knight : Dark Forces 2 with Jedi Knight 2.
NOLF2 will run great on your Win7 machine (I have also played the game under Win7 x64 and it runs perfectly), but the lack of widescreen support kills it.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

sliderider wrote:

An X850 XT PE might be better. It's a little slower than GF6800U with AA/AF turned off but once you turn them on the X850 pulls ahead because there isn't as much of a performance hit.

(1) does X850 support Win98SE?
(2) is there any way to force SSAA on x850?

(1) The x800 series never got a Win9x driver, to the best of my knowledge.
(2) Dunno about the specifics of the x850's antialiasing implementation, but you can certainly force AA within the control panel and test for yourself.

sgt76 wrote:

When I need an all in one card for 90s to 2005 stuff, I go for a GF3 or 4Ti. Very powerful DX6-8 performance, enough to play NOLF2 at max settings 1280x1024 (you'd be surprised how much horsepower this needs), great Win98 compatiblity etc.

Pity bout your FX, 64 bit is a bleh for anything post 2001.

Yeah, I miss my Geforce3. The Radeon 9000's about on par; maybe I'll try that first.