rec.autos.simulators

> Well-known professional racer Burton kf4jrg gurgled:

> <<Nascar 2 works just fine on my machine.  Maybe you need to take up
> something else.  You're definitely not a racer.

> Burton kf4jrg>>

> Burton (can't quite pronounce your last name) --

> This is the best one yet. Do you actually think you're a "racer" because
> you sit in front of a computer monitor and make vroom-vroom noises?
> Sorry, pal -- you're so far into the outer limits I'm not at all
> surprised you missed the point entirely.

> I'm delighted NASCAR2 works fine on your machine. It patently does NOT
> on MANY others. Now, unless Sierra/Papyrus is in business solely for
> your benefit, the people for whom N1, N2, ICR, and/or ICRII has not and
> does not work fine on THEIR machines have a legitimate gripe, and
> Sierra/Pap has been demonstrably unresponsive to these paying customers.
> Want to take a poll?

> If someone has configured their computer incorrectly, obviously they
> have to take responsibility for the consequences. Are you saying that
> everyone who can't get one, any, or all of these sims to work on their
> platform has ***ed up their system? Please say "yes" so I can sit
> back and watch the fireworks.

> Bart

> it works fine on my machine so why dont you get a grip and stop your
> F'ing crying.Thats all you seem to do.Maybe if you fixed your system
> maybe it would work right.I get tired of you bicthing you sure your name
> isn't Barb!!

> > Well Bart ,

> > it works fine on my machine so why dont you get a grip and stop your
> > F'ing crying.Thats all you seem to do.Maybe if you fixed your system
> > maybe it would work right.I get tired of you bicthing you sure your
name
> > isn't Barb!!

> I know what my name is, but apparently you don't know yours. Or is it
> just a total lack of balls?

> Bart

> [The problem] turned out to be a combination of the fact that I
> needed a VBE driver for my ATI video card and the toggler that I use to
> disguise my Cyrix 6x86 chip as an Intel Pentium needed to be disabled.
> IMHO Papy should have done more testing on their product in order to make
> it more hardware compatible, but we are just coming out of the PC ***
> darkages.

> [The problem] turned out to be a combination of the fact that I
> needed a VBE driver for my ATI video card and the toggler that I use to
> disguise my Cyrix 6x86 chip as an Intel Pentium needed to be disabled.
> IMHO Papy should have done more testing on their product in order to
make
> it more hardware compatible, but we are just coming out of the PC ***
> darkages.
>>But the real question is:
>>So, you're running a non-Pentium chip, but you've got software loaded
>>that causes a querying program to believe that you've got a genuine
>>Pentium. Then when software checks the CPUID, and finds that you've
>>"got" a Pentium and subsequently crashes on a Pentium instruction
>>(because you don't have a Pentium), that is somehow Papyrus' fault?
>>Just making sure that I understand the problem...
>>---Jim

<snip-a-dip>
> Of course not - the message is not that Papyrus should have somehow
> predicted and allowed for this eventuality, but that they should have
> created their software such that it runs on something other than Intel
> products.
> <snip-o-rama>
> --
> Cheers!
> John (SRN-Europe)

><snip-a-dip>
>> Of course not - the message is not that Papyrus should have somehow
>> predicted and allowed for this eventuality, but that they should have
>> created their software such that it runs on something other than Intel
>> products.
>> <snip-o-rama>
>> --
>> Cheers!
>> John (SRN-Europe)

>John -- Praise de lawd! That's what *I* was trying to say -- I guess I
>used too many words.

>If it says on the box that the game will run on an IBM PC or COMPATIBLE,
>then it should be tested on COMMON (Cyrix, AMD, etc.) COMPATIBLE SYSTEMS
>with COMMON (Intense,Screamin' 3D, Matrox, Creative, Hercules, ATI,
>Orchid, etc.) GRAPHICS CARDS. What, in the name of good commerce, is the
>big difficulty with that? Is Sierra too cheap to buy their adopted child
>some different systems to test their products on? I would think it a
>false economy to give short-shrift to product testing when the result is
>a large number of users who are frustrated with each release and patch
>of a game they paid good money for, thinking IT WOULD WORK AS
>ADVERTISED.

>No one in the business software field (except Microsoft) expects their
>paying customers to also act as beta testers -- businesses don't have
>the time or resources to nurse software through infancy. Time is money,
>and, generally speaking, if business software doesn't work as advertised
>out of the box, it's history.

>Many "entertainment" software companies, however, know their
>impulse-driven customers will buy just about anything on the strength of
>a cool screenshot and some ad hype. When Johnny Dude gets his copy of
>"Zoomin' 3D Turds" and it's screwed, he weeps and wails and waits for
>patches that may or may not solve the problem. But as soon as the Next
>Big Thing is released, with AWESOME! fold-out spreads in Game Droolers'
>World, he blades on down to the mall and lays his lunch money on the
>counter, just to repeat the scenario.

>All I've been asking for is a little responsibility from the
>"entertainment" software companies -- treat your customers like they
>were customers, not just disembodied bottomless wallets.

>'nough said?

>Bart Brown

>><snip-a-dip>
>>> Of course not - the message is not that Papyrus should have somehow
>>> predicted and allowed for this eventuality, but that they should have
>>> created their software such that it runs on something other than Intel
>>> products.
>>> <snip-o-rama>
>>> --
>>> Cheers!
>>> John (SRN-Europe)

>>John -- Praise de lawd! That's what *I* was trying to say -- I guess I
>>used too many words.

>>If it says on the box that the game will run on an IBM PC or COMPATIBLE,
>>then it should be tested on COMMON (Cyrix, AMD, etc.) COMPATIBLE SYSTEMS
>>with COMMON (Intense,Screamin' 3D, Matrox, Creative, Hercules, ATI,
>>Orchid, etc.) GRAPHICS CARDS. What, in the name of good commerce, is the
>>big difficulty with that? Is Sierra too cheap to buy their adopted child
>>some different systems to test their products on? I would think it a
>>false economy to give short-shrift to product testing when the result is
>>a large number of users who are frustrated with each release and patch
>>of a game they paid good money for, thinking IT WOULD WORK AS
>>ADVERTISED.

>>No one in the business software field (except Microsoft) expects their
>>paying customers to also act as beta testers -- businesses don't have
>>the time or resources to nurse software through infancy. Time is money,
>>and, generally speaking, if business software doesn't work as advertised
>>out of the box, it's history.

>>Many "entertainment" software companies, however, know their
>>impulse-driven customers will buy just about anything on the strength of
>>a cool screenshot and some ad hype. When Johnny Dude gets his copy of
>>"Zoomin' 3D Turds" and it's screwed, he weeps and wails and waits for
>>patches that may or may not solve the problem. But as soon as the Next
>>Big Thing is released, with AWESOME! fold-out spreads in Game Droolers'
>>World, he blades on down to the mall and lays his lunch money on the
>>counter, just to repeat the scenario.

>>All I've been asking for is a little responsibility from the
>>"entertainment" software companies -- treat your customers like they
>>were customers, not just disembodied bottomless wallets.

>>'nough said?

>>Bart Brown

> You only pay 50 dollars for the game. What do you expect

>  More like yours.  I have enough money to let me buy a game for 50 dollars without whining<

>  More like yours.  I have enough money to let me buy a game for 50 dollars
> without whining