First I have to say, that I am from Austria and so my english maybe isnt perfect.
I have downloadet the Doom III alpha version w/ emule (filename doom3.e3-demo-alpha-leak, I dont remeber if it as a .zip or a .rar file), but it doesnt work in Win98 or XP. I have DirectX 9.0b installed on both Windows-versions, but i also tried 8.1 on WinXP.
When I try to start Doom III, in both Win-versions the same happens and it also doesnt5 make any difference, if I use Doom.exe, With Intro doom.exe or No Intro doom.exe: first, the Doom III window appears and everything gets very bright, a lot of things, like the taskbar or the gray parts of windows get white, a few other colors get brighter and only black stays black. After a few minutes the brightness of the screen gets normal again and the content of the Doom-window changes its color form white to gray. After that nothing happens.
I tried this Detonator drivers (in WinXP), because people in differnent forums suggested it: 40.41, 40.72, 41.80 (from the graphics-card-cd), 43.45 (which I had installed when I installed Doom III), 53.03 (newest version). In Win98 I only used 43.45. When I tried to use the drivers up to 40.72, they werent even installed, probably because my GPU wasnt out when they were released. When I used the versions 41.80 or higher, the things that I described above happened.
My System (for details see sig.):
AMD Athlon XP 2700+ @ 179x13
Epox 8RDA+
2x512 MB DDR-400 Infineon (2-2-2-7)
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4600 w/ 8xAGP, 128MB
80GB/8MB Western Digital HDD
16x48 Liton DVD-ROM
52x32x52 Liteon burner
I now got Doom III to run by installing detonator 41.09 (someone in a different forum suggested this). It is strange, that the game only runs w/ the oldest driver, that supports my GPU.
@gobeavers: the prescott isnt avialanle yer, at least in Austria, but it will be more expensive than the Athlon 64 and it is also slower nad it doesnt have 64bit, so I would get the A64 instead.
Ya, I know, it is meant to be more of a humorous sig. Feb 2nd..... And it wont be more expensive than the Athlon 64, the 2.8 ghz version will be ~180, bout 20-30 USD less than the Athlon 64. There is also a rumor about a certain 64-bit thing in the prescott which just needs to be turned on by Intel or something. But it wont be turned on for the launch procs.
I didnt know, that there will be a 2.8GHz version of the prescott, I thought, that there will be only 3.2 and 3.4GHz. I compared the 3.2GHz to the A64 3200+ and the 3.4GHz to the 3400+ (which is as fast as the FX51 in games), and in both cases the Athlon64-CPUs are faster and cheaper, althought the difference is only about 20-30$ on the 3400/3.4.
<A HREF="http://www.nethands.de/pys/show.php4?user=MrBurns" target="_new">My System</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by MrBurns on 01/13/04 01:25 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.