test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

windows 8 - does not start

parrelaxparrelax Member Posts: 5 Arc User
edited January 2013 in PC Gameplay Bug Reports
i'm running windows 8 and at the moment AMD are refusing to release drivers for my 4870. i have installed the win7 ccc and its "installed" (all the apps etc) but i'm still stuck with the "Engineering Sample - WDDM v1.1" driver. Am I just kidding myself trying to get this to load or am I doing something wrong. I thought I saw somewhere punkbuster needed to be installed but going through the page I can't find a reference to it anywhere on the download page. I installed sto from the torrent, updated directx etc etc. double click the exe and I immediately get an error force close message.
Post edited by parrelax on
«1

Comments

  • parrelaxparrelax Member Posts: 5 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    actually its after i click login that it says "oops your cryptic application has crashed"
  • voporakvoporak Member Posts: 5,621 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    You're actually using a even numbered Windows operating system? You know those never turn out well. Vista (windows 6, the most recent even numbered windows) was a memory hog, just for one example.
    I ask nothing but that you remember me.
  • awolfe59awolfe59 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    He's made 3 mistakes:

    1. Using an even-numbered Windows release.

    2. Using a Windows release before it's been on the market for at least 6 months, and preferably a year, so that other people get to be guinea pigs. It's usually best to wait until M$ releases the first SP before using a Windows version.

    3. Using a Windows release while it's still a preview or beta.

    Good luck getting support for Windows 8 from Cryptic or AMD prior to Windows 8 being officially on store shelves.
  • parrelaxparrelax Member Posts: 5 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    thank you captains obvious. apart from being completely wrong because vista SP1 and Win7 no service pack were both good OS's, does anybody have anything constructive to say?
  • grouchyotakugrouchyotaku Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Now you do understand that Windows 8 has not been 'Officially' launched, and that only Beta 'Preview' versions have been released...

    Being on the Bleeding Edge of things, can sometimes be painful...
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Never use ANY version of Windows until its at least TWO YEARS obsolete

    EVER
    #
    Live long and Prosper
  • parrelaxparrelax Member Posts: 5 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    so noobs, i got 12-6 ccc installed and working perfectly. played sto for hours this morning, no artifacting. took a lot of driver hacking but its done now. peace.
  • darthstormstrikedarthstormstrike Member Posts: 771 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    awolfe59 wrote: »
    He's made 3 mistakes:

    1. Using an even-numbered Windows release.

    2. Using a Windows release before it's been on the market for at least 6 months, and preferably a year, so that other people get to be guinea pigs. It's usually best to wait until M$ releases the first SP before using a Windows version.

    3. Using a Windows release while it's still a preview or beta.

    Good luck getting support for Windows 8 from Cryptic or AMD prior to Windows 8 being officially on store shelves.

    All of those reasons get squashed if you dual boot ;)

    With the Windows 8 Pro for 40 bucks offer launch through Jan 31, 2013, it will not be replacing Windows 7 on my machine but probably the XP I no longer boot to anymore. Then I'll still have 7 available for all your counter-points. lol
    ___________________

    "There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
  • futurepastnowfuturepastnow Member Posts: 3,660 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    sollvax wrote: »
    Never use ANY version of Windows until its at least TWO YEARS obsolete

    EVER
    #

    I can confidently say that I won't be using Windows 8 even when it's TEN years obsolete. I used the previews of it. It's that bad.
  • awolfe59awolfe59 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Windows 8 has been panned by many reviewers. It's following in the tradition of even-numbered OS stinkers.
  • mewimewi Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    I have not used Windows 8, do not plan on using except for repairing customers computers.

    But have you tried any compatibility modes, running as administrator/etc ?

    This "even numbered Windows OS' suck" is nothing more than mythology and should be left as such. Anyone who has used Windows long enough, knows better.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    | Join Date: January 2009 | Computer | Fleet: Broken Wings |
  • awolfe59awolfe59 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    mewi wrote: »
    This "even numbered Windows OS' suck" is nothing more than mythology and should be left as such. Anyone who has used Windows long enough, knows better.
    Speaking as someone who's been a Windows developer since Windows 2.1, I can tell you with utmost confidence that it's not a myth. Windows 2.x, 4.x (NT), and 6.x (Vista) all have sucked. Microsoft trials new ideas on the even-numbered releases, then they spend 2 years learning how to make it work right, with results seen in the much-more-stable releases of Windows 3.x, 5 (XP), and 7.
  • darthstormstrikedarthstormstrike Member Posts: 771 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    awolfe59 wrote: »
    Speaking as someone who's been a Windows developer since Windows 2.1, I can tell you with utmost confidence that it's not a myth. Windows 2.x, 4.x (NT), and 6.x (Vista) all have sucked. Microsoft trials new ideas on the even-numbered releases, then they spend 2 years learning how to make it work right, with results seen in the much-more-stable releases of Windows 3.x, 5 (XP), and 7.

    How does the Win9x's fit in this? They had even numbers.
    ___________________

    "There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
  • beezle23beezle23 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    awolfe59 wrote: »
    He's made 3 mistakes:

    1. Using an even-numbered Windows release.

    2. Using a Windows release before it's been on the market for at least 6 months, and preferably a year, so that other people get to be guinea pigs.

    Waiting also gives time for manufacturers to come up with drivers that actually work. A lot of what made Vista horrible wasn't quite Microsoft's fault as much as it was a lack of decent drivers for anything, though there was the "push it out the door before anyone's ready for it"" aspect.

    And some manufacturers stayed behind the curve and/or expected you to buy new hardware to go with your new version of Windows -- the reason I now just use onboard sound.
    __________________________________________________
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "I weary of the chase. Wait for me. I shall be merciful and quick."
  • beezle23beezle23 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    How does the Win9x's fit in this? They had even numbers.

    TL;DR rambling:

    The "Even Number Rule" is a bit of a simplification, IMHO.

    For example, there were 4 distinct releases of Win95.

    95.0 (Original), 95.a, 95.b, 95.c

    I had "Original" -- I had to reinstall every three months. B and C were reasonable stable, and you needed them anyways for proper USB support.

    98 (which was really just 95 with fewer bugs) had "sort of" three versions not counting betas:

    98 Original Release
    98 Orignal Release + Service Pack
    98 Second Edition

    I preferred the 98 Original + SP because Second Edition had a bug that tended to scramble hard drives (It would power down the computer before it was done writing to them).

    So, Windows 9X had 7 distinct versions. Really fun for tech support because you had to make sure the customer had the matching install media. "Bad Things" happened when you tried to fix windows with the wrong version of the install files.

    Subsequent versions of windows didn't have this problem, they copied themselves over to the hard drive in a predictable way, and while there were a few hiccups with service packs, the versions weren't so distinctive as they were with Windows 9X. Although WinME's "Automated System Restore" was nightmarish for it's ability to put back viruses and broken files.

    ----

    Anyhow:

    Windows 2.0 -- I don't remember, I was using a C128 at the time.
    Windows 3.1 -- Good
    Windows 3.11 -- Good
    Windows 95/98 -- Very rocky start, but mostly got better over time.
    -- 95.0,95.A Bad
    -- 95.B,95.C Better
    -- 98, 98SP Best
    -- 98SE - IMO, a bit worse, introduced some glaring new bugs.
    Windows NT/2k -- NT: meh, esoteric though it fathered 2k, which was good after a couple of service packs.
    Windows ME -- Forced interbreeding of NT and 98. Comic Book Guy: WORST WINDOWS EVER
    Windows XP -- Good
    Windows XP64 -- Drivers were hit-or-miss, but Windows itself was okay.
    Windows Vista -- A lesson in not being an early adopter.
    Windows 7 -- Good, mostly because it's a less-buggy version of Vista (see 95 -> 98 :P )
    and by the time it came out, manufacturers had caught up with drivers.

    I'll likely not bother with Windows 8 -- it's full of fluff I don't need because I run a standard desktop, and I'm perfectly happy with Windows 7.
    __________________________________________________
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "I weary of the chase. Wait for me. I shall be merciful and quick."
  • awolfe59awolfe59 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    beezle23 wrote: »
    A lot of what made Vista horrible wasn't quite Microsoft's fault as much as it was a lack of decent drivers for anything, though there was the "push it out the door before anyone's ready for it"" aspect.
    Even if you disregard the driver issues, Vista was a crappy OS. Why? Because it was a silly resource hog. It required at least 4x as much memory and CPU as XP, ran slower no matter how much RAM and CPU you threw at it, and offered no must-have features in return. In short, it was a bloated pig. Microsoft is known for bloatware, but Vista took it to a whole new level.

    Windows 7 actually requires fewer resources than Vista, runs faster than Vista (or even XP), and is the most stable Windows release I have ever used (even more stable than NT and 2k). I very much doubt anyone will ever say that about Windows 8.
  • awolfe59awolfe59 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    *NT and 2k don't quite fit in the succession of Windows.
    NT and 2k are Windows 4.x (look at the internal version number). NT was the first 32-bit OS from Microsoft. All versions of Windows prior to NT were built over DOS and suffered from the DOS limits on memory usage. Yes, even Win9x. NT removed those limits and paved the way for today's much more powerful desktops. Before NT, desktops were hamstrung, with the OS unable to properly utilize the memory and CPU capabilities of the then-current hardware.

    XP, aka Windows 5.x, basically added the drivers (and game-playing compatibility) that NT lacked, plus a more user-friendly UI than NT had.

    WinME was an attempt to create a more stable DOS-based Win9x platform, since Microsoft acknowledged that NT wasn't a good fit (IOW, ready) for home and small office use. It failed to deliver. Spectacularly. At the time I had an IBM Thinkpad that came with ME. It was constantly crashing. After months of fruitlessly trying to fix it I finally decided what the heck, let's try XP, since it can't possibly be worse than ME. I was right. The stability problems instantly disappeared. I promptly upgraded all my desktops from 98SE to XP and led a much happier life afterwards.
  • muftytuftymuftytufty Member Posts: 7 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    I've been using Windows 8 for a few months and playing various mmo including sto, i had a few problems getting hardware to work, but used compatibilty mode to get them going. The Windows 8 is ok but microsoft installing it's version of the apple store and doing away with the start button going to kill it.
  • beezle23beezle23 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    NT and 2k are Windows 4.x (look at the internal version number). NT was the first 32-bit OS from Microsoft. All versions of Windows prior to NT were built over DOS and suffered from the DOS limits on memory usage. Yes, even Win9x.

    Ah, the heady joys of config.sys

    And yes, 2k = improved NT. Ninja-edited my mini-review accordingly. :D
    awolfe59 wrote: »
    WinME was an attempt to create a more stable DOS-based Win9x platform, since Microsoft acknowledged that NT wasn't a good fit (IOW, ready) for home and small office use. It failed to deliver. Spectacularly. At the time I had an IBM Thinkpad that came with ME. It was constantly crashing. After months of fruitlessly trying to fix it I finally decided what the heck, let's try XP, since it can't possibly be worse than ME. I was right. The stability problems instantly disappeared. I promptly upgraded all my desktops from 98SE to XP and led a much happier life afterwards.

    With WinME, I went back to my copy of 98 w/ sp until I got my mitts on a copy of Win2k that served me well until I got a dual core machine (so I used XP64 because it wasn't Vista).

    I moved to Win7 because
    -- It didn't have the issues of Vista (Bloat, instability, driver woe)
    -- Having what other people are using is helpful when doing informal tech support
    -- Native SSD support
    __________________________________________________
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "I weary of the chase. Wait for me. I shall be merciful and quick."
  • darthstormstrikedarthstormstrike Member Posts: 771 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    All that from a small question. I asked that because Win95-WinME all were version 4.x. So the even number myth means none of those in there were good for their time. (Outdated today of course).

    There's more truth to the Star Trek movies sucking the odd numbers than the Windows even number myth. lol
    ___________________

    "There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
  • awolfe59awolfe59 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Windows 95 was "4.0", and so was Windows NT, which was released before Windows 95. So, by order of release, Windows NT has prior claim to the 4.0 number. Windows 98 was "4.1", and Windows ME was "4.9". Windows 2k was "5.0" and "5.1" and so was Windows XP. Make any sense? No.

    It gets better: Windows Vista is "6.0" and Windows 7 is "6.1". Are you confused yet? :P
  • parrelaxparrelax Member Posts: 5 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    awolfe59 wrote: »
    Windows 7 actually requires fewer resources than Vista, runs faster than Vista (or even XP), and is the most stable Windows release I have ever used (even more stable than NT and 2k). I very much doubt anyone will ever say that about Windows 8.

    I would, so I guess you don't have to wait long to be wrong there.
  • awolfe59awolfe59 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    When you can say that you've been using Windows 8 for 6 months without a single crash and that everything you run on it works flawlessly, then come back and say so. Until then, it, and your use of it, lacks a track record to make any claims at being a stable OS, much less a more stable one than Windows 7.
  • darthstormstrikedarthstormstrike Member Posts: 771 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    awolfe59 wrote: »
    Windows 95 was "4.0", and so was Windows NT, which was released before Windows 95. So, by order of release, Windows NT has prior claim to the 4.0 number. Windows 98 was "4.1", and Windows ME was "4.9". Windows 2k was "5.0" and "5.1" and so was Windows XP. Make any sense? No.

    It gets better: Windows Vista is "6.0" and Windows 7 is "6.1". Are you confused yet? :P


    So the even number myth is proven wrong since so many were under the 4.x number.

    As for Win 3, it was very bad at multitasking. So much to the point that I ran OS/2 back then. It ran Windows programs better than Windows did. I had to stop using OS/2 because the world was starting to leave me by since IBM didn't upgrade it to run Win9x programs.

    I ran a BBS and started it on Win 3 and the users told me time and time again "We know when you're working on a something because it would go to a snail pace." Then one girl told me "Try OS/2." My ex-bro-in-law worked for IBM so got a free copy from him that was pre-Warp even though Warp just hit the market to test drive it. And people were shocked when they found out I was using the machine while the BBS was running and they saw zero slow-down. And OS/2 Warp killed the evaluation copy I had.

    But to get the thread back on track, it's not helping the OP nor Cryptic to dismiss the OP's issues. He's actually doing a service by informing Cryptic of issues 2 months before Windows 8 hits so they can find out what's going on. And fix it whether they need to inform Microsoft, graphic drivers devs, or work it out themselves. Telling him basically he shouldn't bring it up is doing nobody any good.
    ___________________

    "There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
  • awolfe59awolfe59 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Well, the OP was asking for support for an OS that Cryptic does not list as being supported. You have a valid point in that he's doing Cryptic a favor by giving them a heads up, but he was also asking for help with something that he's not entitled to receive any help for, since the OS is not supported. At least not yet.

    As for the OT convo, I also ran a BBS, starting back in 93-94 or thereabouts. IIRC, it was Wildcat-based and I first ran it under DOS 6.22, then DR DOS 6, and all sorts of different memory managers. On two dedicated computers. Huge headache. Then I installed OS/2 Warp. Headaches went away. Was able to expand the number of running instances of the BBS to 4 while not adding any more hardware. It ran smoother and faster than under MS OSes. Months would pass without a reboot. DOS OSes required reboots several times a day. I upgraded to Warp 4 shortly before I shut the BBS down and went to listserves and eventually Web-based boards.

    Warp was able to run Excel and Word faster (and much more stably) than Win95 could. Which annoyed Microsoft no end. Microsoft soon embedded OS-detection code into their Office apps so that they would execute extra useless overhead (and degrade performance) if a non-MS OS was detected just so they could game the benchmark tests and claim to run better on Windows. MS continued these shenanigans until IBM killed OS/2 and effectively left MS without any competition in the PC market.
  • nyniknynik Member Posts: 1,626 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    I'd assume Cryptic has already started work on tracing compatibility issues with Windows 8. It would probably fall into, our old EP, Stephen D'Angelo's duties. I've yet to really sink my teeth into researching it. I'm not overly motivated to upgrade from what I've seen, and am growing weary when I see companies like Valve practically denounce it.
  • beezle23beezle23 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    nynik wrote: »
    I'd assume Cryptic has already started work on tracing compatibility issues with Windows 8.

    I would hope so. The final release is out for a free 90day trial and it goes retail in October.
    __________________________________________________
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "I weary of the chase. Wait for me. I shall be merciful and quick."
  • dracounguisdracounguis Member Posts: 5,358 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Unless you are a Windows black-belt, never ever get the new Windows version till the first few million guinea pigs find all the bugs, booby-traps, and landmines! :D Not to mention letting the programers of STO and other games get a handle on how the new Windows is gonna TRIBBLE up their programs!

    My rule of thumb is to wait at least a year after the release before getting it. Thankfully my Windows XP PC lived long enough that Windows 7 was out for 2 yrs before I had to get a new computer.
  • awolfe59awolfe59 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Thankfully my Windows XP PC lived long enough that Windows 7 was out for 2 yrs before I had to get a new computer.
    Similar story here. I went directly from XP to 7 (six months ago for me). I used XP for over a decade. I hadn't even realized it had been that long until just now. Shows how stable XP was and that its replacements weren't really needed. I only went to Windows 7 when I built a new system and had no choice but to use 7. Though I'm glad I was forced to, as 7 is even more stable than XP was.
  • sinsofanempiresinsofanempire Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Go get the drivers for Windows 7 from your GPU's website. Right-click and set compatibility mode to Windows 7. Install. Its actually really simple and works fine.

    I run Windows 8 on my 4 year old laptop, 100% stable, no issues at all with it. I understand its a pre-release software, but it works a treat for me. 20 second boot-ups are real good.

    President of Alpha Solaris, a Federation fleet.

    I used to be Sinsofasolarempire
Sign In or Register to comment.