Quake Compatiblity and Windows 7?

[R00k]

So, I'm downloading "LEGALLY" from Microsoft themselves, Windows 7 RC.

The hardware requirements for this 'release candidate' really shocked me.
1 ghz CPU (check)
1 Gb memory (check)
16gb free hd space (check)

I can remember when the shift to XP, was alot more cumbersome.

Microsoft is offering Windows7 (beta) free for up to ONE YEAR, including updates, before the operating system starts to limit its usage.

As with each new version of Windows, I find it interesting how they try to 'simplify' the GUI for newbs while at the same time make it look gaudy. Yet in 99% of the sci-fi movies the gui on those computers are 2d-decals on glass. Why do we need a GUI to look 3d with silly fake shadows, and highlights etc, when they are perfectly capable of making true 3d icons / deskspace? Sigh maybe someday we will be running around our operating systems like we do in Quake

[side note to self: 3d computer operating systems - game, oh wait that's TRON]

But, I see another challenge ahead, making Quake Windows7 compatible
I'll let you know how it fairs, once i have this installed!

[metchsteekle]

...so after the year ends Microsoft will basically control your computer?

oh and when u getz it goingk, is it diffrent than vista or is it same?

[R00k]

Read this : Windows 7 Release Candidate Customer Preview Program

[R00k]

Okay, I tried TWICE to download a 3gig .iso from M$ website. BOTH times the end result was corrupt. Each download took over 4 hours!!! So, Thanks M$ I wont try out windows7 and instead I guess ill focus on making a Linux Qrack instead. Tada!

1st attempt was over night without me surfing the web etc...
2nd attempt: i was using the machine (just reading the forums) while downloading. C'mon this is Microsoft, I cant download an iso while im surfing?!! *cough bit-torrent!!??

Maybe I'll try Windows 7 later (5 years from now), but i have xp-pro and kubuntu so i dont need to migrate today, thanks anyways.

[spooker]

they're just desperate to pry people away from XP, the best windows system to date. so they'll even give their products away free and hope later on to make you buy something else, hoping that you would rather go forwards than backwards. anyways, this free release is suffused with microsoft's normal creepiness: "The RC will expire on June 1, 2010. Starting on March 1, 2010, your PC will begin shutting down every two hours." It sounds reasonable, but still gives me the creeps. i'm less impressed by this company every day

[R00k]

Moreso :

How do you test the software? You put it on your PC, and then do what you'd normally do. Your PC will automatically and anonymously send our engineers the information they need to verify the fixes and changes they made based on the Windows 7 Beta tests.

At the same time, are they paying their engineers by the collected data from where u surfed on the net????~!
Im just saying I fuckn downloaded a 3 gigabyte file from microsoft's own website TWICE and it failed. Not in the sense of it stopped partially thru but it downloaded the entire file then ran a validity test afterwards, and the iso was corrupt.Therefore, if they cant get the distribution right, then I'll wait until i buy a new machine that comes with the final product already installed.

[MH]

Hmmm - that's odd. I downloaded an earlier beta of it in February and it was perfectly fine. Then again, I do have a 1 Gbit link in work, so maybe that was the reason.

Windows 7, by the way, is pretty damn good! A lot like Vista, admittedly, but with (almost) everything annoying removed or changed (for the better). I ran it on an ancient single core 1.something Ghz/512 MB RAM laptop and it went like a rocket, really fast and smooth. I think the high specs for it may be a slight overreaction to underspeccing the requirements for Vista.

Oh yeah, and if memory serves, Quake ran perfect on it!

[R00k]

Good to hear. The shock I felt about the spec requirements was because it seemed low compared to when I planned upgrading in the past I would basically have to buy a new machine. So, atleast for now, I'm a bit ahead if not even with the Curve. As Microsoft pointed out there is no hurry to upgrade to this RC, as i should really install it on a freshly formatted, "separate" hard drive.

I'll give it a shot again, the download that is. I am trying to get the 64-bit iso.
I've never had any problems with downloading gigs of an iso before. Even after the download and htye say its corrupt i try to just ignore the warning and test the iso myself but the installer completely deletes the file i donwloaded! Grr!

[MH]

I'm on Windows 7 right now.

Of the stock ID engines, WinQuake works perfectly and GLQuake crashes. I haven't bothered to test DOS Quake.

More to come!

[MH]

Test results are in: mhquake: Quake on Windows 7

DOSQuake (straightforward NT command prompt, no DOSBox): Pass ( ), but timings are off and locked the PC on exiting; not benchmarked.
WinQuake: Pass; not benchmarked.
GLQuake (0.95): Passes windowed mode, fails fullscreen mode; poor performance.
ProQuake: Pass; poor performance (checked to ensure vsync was off too).
qRack: Pass, extremely good performance.
DarkPlaces (both SDL and standard): Pass; good performance.
DirectQ ( ): Pass; good performance (needed DirectX update owing to out of date DirectX 9 runtimes shipped with the OS) (64 bit lightmaps enabled).

The test rig was an almost 5 year old machine, with 1 GB RAM, AMD 64 2800+ and GeForce 7300 GT. I used the 32 bit version of Windows 7 on it, did a fresh install, and left all the default gubbins and services on. Some browser windows and folders were left open during testing, and Windows was using about 450 MB in this state. A standard "timedemo demo1" was used for benchmarking. I used default configs for all engines, with the exception of disabling gl_flashblend and vsync where required. qRack went over 200 FPS, DarkPlaces and DirectQ were in the high 170s, and GLQuake and ProQuake gave between 50 and 90.

[Baker]

Test results are in: mhquake: Quake on Windows 7

DOSQuake (straightforward NT command prompt, no DOSBox): Pass ( ), but timings are off and locked the PC on exiting; not benchmarked.
WinQuake: Pass; not benchmarked.
GLQuake (0.95): Passes windowed mode, fails fullscreen mode; poor performance.
ProQuake: Pass; poor performance (checked to ensure vsync was off too).
qRack: Pass, extremely good performance.
DarkPlaces (both SDL and standard): Pass; good performance.
DirectQ ( ): Pass; good performance (needed DirectX update owing to out of date DirectX 9 runtimes shipped with the OS) (64 bit lightmaps enabled).

The test rig was an almost 5 year old machine, with 1 GB RAM, AMD 64 2800+ and GeForce 7300 GT. I used the 32 bit version of Windows 7 on it, did a fresh install, and left all the default gubbins and services on. Some browser windows and folders were left open during testing, and Windows was using about 450 MB in this state. A standard "timedemo demo1" was used for benchmarking. I used default configs for all engines, with the exception of disabling gl_flashblend and vsync where required. qRack went over 200 FPS, DarkPlaces and DirectQ were in the high 170s, and GLQuake and ProQuake gave between 50 and 90.

Interesting.

[powerzord]

want to touch my buns?

[R00k]

EDIT: Byte-Me!

[JPL]

mhquake:

Interesting, however, did you test it with fitzQuake0.85, and/or aguirRe's GLQuake v1.33 ? It may be interesting as well to know whether these engines will pass your tests, or not

Bye

[MH]

FitzQuake: Pass, extremely good performance.
BJP GLQuake: Pass, poor performance.

FitzQuake is comparable to qRack, whereas BJP GL is on the same level as Pro/ID GL Quake. By the author's own admission, BJP isn't meant to be a general purpose "playing Quake" engine, so I won't hold that against it.

Neither of these gave the "publisher could not be identified" warning when I ran them, so only ProQuake and DarkPlaces have that.

Exact same tests under the same conditions as above.