🚀 go-pugleaf

In <42bi7c$2...@utaipx02.uta.edu> JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu (Jay B
Biggerstaff) writes: 
>
> ....
>
>THe manual specifically says that the minimum requirement is a
>486SX/25, but it doesn't say in which mode on the box.  When you open
>the box and read the instructions, it specifically says that in order
>to get the best performance in Windows, you must have a 486DX2/66 or
>above.
>....

I saw that too, and I think it stinks. It lists those "minimum 
requirements" on a label that says "WINDOWS 3.1 CD-ROM" in large bold
print. Doesn't mention DOS at all on that label. Naturally one would
suppose the requirements are for playing under Windows. Open the box --
SURPRISE!!!!

I think that fellow "Ken" -- who seems to speak for Sierra -- ought to
apologize for this, and make sure it NEVER happens again. This is one
of those times I wish I were an attorney -- people should have recourse
against that kind of bull. If it were up to me it would sting more than
a little!

Fred
fwat...@ix.netcom.com

Jay B Biggerstaff (JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu) wrote:
> requirement was for the DOS version.  THey say that games will run faster in
> WIn '95 and I think they're just blowing more corporate spew in our faces. 

It depends on HOW you run games under Win95. Descent runs slightly slower 
than DOS with the GUI, but slightly faster than DOS 6 in "DOS mode".

--
#define REAL_NAME "John Williams"
#define E_MAIL    "jo...@jove.acs.unt.edu"
#define HOMEPAGE  "http://www.unt.edu/~johnw"

Machine requirements aren't as simple as you might think. There are a ton of 
different options that can determine whether Phantas runs under Windows on 
slower machines. For instance, we've run it fine on a 486/25sx with local bus 
video and 16 megs of ram -- with a triple speed cd-rom drive. 

-Ken (from Sierra -- actually, the President/founder)


> In <42bi7c$2...@utaipx02.uta.edu> JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu (Jay B
> Biggerstaff) writes: 
> >
> > ....
> >
> >THe manual specifically says that the minimum requirement is a
> >486SX/25, but it doesn't say in which mode on the box.  When you open
> >the box and read the instructions, it specifically says that in order
> >to get the best performance in Windows, you must have a 486DX2/66 or
> >above.
> >....
> 
> I saw that too, and I think it stinks. It lists those "minimum 
> requirements" on a label that says "WINDOWS 3.1 CD-ROM" in large bold
> print. Doesn't mention DOS at all on that label. Naturally one would
> suppose the requirements are for playing under Windows. Open the box --
> SURPRISE!!!!
> 
> I think that fellow "Ken" -- who seems to speak for Sierra -- ought to
> apologize for this, and make sure it NEVER happens again. This is one
> of those times I wish I were an attorney -- people should have recourse
> against that kind of bull. If it were up to me it would sting more than
> a little!
> 
> Fred
> fwat...@ix.netcom.com

In article <42bi7c$2...@utaipx02.uta.edu>, JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu (Jay B Biggerstaff) writes...

<Complaints about poor CD action deleted>

 Under Win95, there are a couple of settings you need to check.
 Look under "File System Properties" and make shure that your system is 
 set up for the correct type ie: Desktop,Laptop,Server and make shure the 
 CD-Rom optimization is set for the correct type (single speed,double speed,
 quad etc).
 Also you can try to adjust the cache size for the CD-Rom as well on this
 screen.

 Hope this helps.
	Ed

Jay B Biggerstaff (JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu) wrote:
: Here's something that all of you might be interested in. Phantasmagoria has an
: Autoplay feature which is specifically designed for Win 95, yet when I ran it
: in Win '95 on my DX4/100, I got all kinds of choppy music and animation. 

Just to set the record straight, here's the deal on autoplay.  There is a 
single "autoplay" file on the CD with two lines of text in it that acts 
kind of like an autoexec.bat file and automatically starts the 
appropriate start up program.  Voila, you now have autoplay.

Past that, Phantasmagoria is simply a Windows 3.1 game.  It is not 32 
bit.  It does not use DirectDraw or any variation on it.

: However, when I ran it in DOS, it ran smooth and with no skipping.  What's the
: deal here?  I thought Win '95 was supposed to be FASTER!!!  It's not with
: Phant.  THe manual specifically says that the minimum requirement is a
: 486SX/25, but it doesn't say in which mode on the box.  When you open the box
: and read the instructions, it specifically says that in order to get the best
: performance in Windows, you must have a 486DX2/66 or above. I had higher than
: that with a 4X CD ROM and 16M of mem and it ran horrible.  The 486SX/25
: requirement was for the DOS version.  THey say that games will run faster in
: WIn '95 and I think they're just blowing more corporate spew in our faces. 
: This game doesn't run any faster in Win '95 than my grandmother can sprint
: hurdles.  What's the explanation?   (I don't run memory managers and I have
: 625K conv and over 14500 extended mem).  

Well, I have a 486DX4/100 with 16 meg and Windows 95 and Phantasmagoria 
runs very nicely on my system.  I don't have any pauses in the video.  I 
don't have any pauses in the game, other than the ones caused by the way 
the game changes "views".  My guess is that you have something else wrong 
with your system.

My name is... (do...@hotlne.enet.dec.com) wrote:

: In article <42bi7c$2...@utaipx02.uta.edu>, JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu (Jay B Biggerstaff) writes...

: <Complaints about poor CD action deleted>

:  Under Win95, there are a couple of settings you need to check.
:  Look under "File System Properties" and make shure that your system is 
:  set up for the correct type ie: Desktop,Laptop,Server and make shure the 
:  CD-Rom optimization is set for the correct type (single speed,double speed,
:  quad etc).
:  Also you can try to adjust the cache size for the CD-Rom as well on this
:  screen.

:  Hope this helps.
: 	Ed

Those were all checked and double checked and they were all set correctly.
It still ran horrible.  I even tried adjusting the CD cache to no avail.
SOmething's wrong.

Patrick Deupree (pdeu...@metronet.com) wrote:
: Jay B Biggerstaff (JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu) wrote:
: : Here's something that all of you might be interested in. Phantasmagoria has an
: : Autoplay feature which is specifically designed for Win 95, yet when I ran it
: : in Win '95 on my DX4/100, I got all kinds of choppy music and animation. 

: Just to set the record straight, here's the deal on autoplay.  There is a 
: single "autoplay" file on the CD with two lines of text in it that acts 
: kind of like an autoexec.bat file and automatically starts the 
: appropriate start up program.  Voila, you now have autoplay.

: Past that, Phantasmagoria is simply a Windows 3.1 game.  It is not 32 
: bit.  It does not use DirectDraw or any variation on it.

: : However, when I ran it in DOS, it ran smooth and with no skipping.  What's the
: : deal here?  I thought Win '95 was supposed to be FASTER!!!  It's not with
: : Phant.  THe manual specifically says that the minimum requirement is a
: : 486SX/25, but it doesn't say in which mode on the box.  When you open the box
: : and read the instructions, it specifically says that in order to get the best
: : performance in Windows, you must have a 486DX2/66 or above. I had higher than
: : that with a 4X CD ROM and 16M of mem and it ran horrible.  The 486SX/25
: : requirement was for the DOS version.  THey say that games will run faster in
: : WIn '95 and I think they're just blowing more corporate spew in our faces. 
: : This game doesn't run any faster in Win '95 than my grandmother can sprint
: : hurdles.  What's the explanation?   (I don't run memory managers and I have
: : 625K conv and over 14500 extended mem).  

: Well, I have a 486DX4/100 with 16 meg and Windows 95 and Phantasmagoria 
: runs very nicely on my system.  I don't have any pauses in the video.  I 
: don't have any pauses in the game, other than the ones caused by the way 
: the game changes "views".  My guess is that you have something else wrong 
: with your system.



Hardly.  It's a new Micron.  It's probably the crappy 16 bit CD ROM drivers.
I have a PAS16 and a GUS ACE and my Plextor 4X is SCSI.  I hook it up to my
PAS16 and use the Trantor drivers to run it. Could that be the problem?  If it
is, where can I find drivers for Win '95?  I ran a speed check and it only got
up to 440K/sec transfer rate and was recognized as a "triple spin".  I know
that's not right. 

JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu (Jay B Biggerstaff) writes:

>Hardly.  It's a new Micron.  It's probably the crappy 16 bit CD ROM drivers.
>I have a PAS16 and a GUS ACE and my Plextor 4X is SCSI.  I hook it up to my
>PAS16 and use the Trantor drivers to run it. Could that be the problem?  If it
>is, where can I find drivers for Win '95?  I ran a speed check and it only got
>up to 440K/sec transfer rate and was recognized as a "triple spin".  I know
>that's not right. 

Yep, you've got a problem there.  The PAS16 SCSI is only rated for 
something like 500K/sec, so by attaching a 600K/sec CD ROM you are trying 
to force more through the PAS16 interface than it can take.  That is why 
your CD shows as a triple spin and it is probably causing your 
choppiness.  Solution: get a different sound or scsi card, or you could 
always find someone with a 3X speed CD ROM and trade your 4X speed CD ROM 
for it.


-- 
Skip Ledford 			"Reality is that which, when you
				 stop believing in it, does not 
skip...@america.net		 cease to exist"

The PAS16 is rated at 690k/sec.


In article <skiplfrd.810666669@atl1>, skip...@atl1.america.net says...
>
>
>
>Yep, you've got a problem there.  The PAS16 SCSI is only rated for 
>something like 500K/sec, so by attaching a 600K/sec CD ROM you are trying 
>to force more through the PAS16 interface than it can take.  That is why 
>your CD shows as a triple spin and it is probably causing your 
>choppiness.  Solution: get a different sound or scsi card, or you could 
>always find someone with a 3X speed CD ROM and trade your 4X speed CD ROM 
>for it.
>
>
>-- 
>Skip Ledford                    "Reality is that which, when you
>                                 stop believing in it, does not 
>skip...@america.net             cease to exist"