3DGS forum thread back ref:
No Win98 for 6.60, WHY?
(in A7 Engine forum category now?)

(code text box seems to be more than 2x width of longest line of code text
-smaller font selection)


requesting more info from 3DGS developers (DX specifics)
positive response not expected

d3x9_30.dll.txt

legacy user base
older station still has Win98 SE
-still used by 6 year old son and I when
--waiting
--other stations are in use
-son plays 3DGS toy applications on

factor in (!?!)
-A7 upgrade refusal
-A6.60 usage delay
-Lite-C usage delay

i think the answer is 42.

seriously, i know i'm no native speaker, but i don't understand what you're talking about.

I considered deleting this thread.
A reply canceled the delete attempt.
This topic is probably (seemingly?) irrelevant to many.
Those that wish to distribute productions made with newer 3DGS versions to individuals using older systems like Win98 SE, WinME, etc. probably won't care either.

The first link is for background purposes?
(No Win98 for 6.60, WHY?)

forum style mentioned:
The instructions were posted using [ code ] [ /code ] tags to preserve formating.
Code area box seems wider than needs to be.
Maybe a smaller font is used on this machine.
The area seems to be about more than 2 times the width needed for the longest string of 'pre' text displayed.
Maybe this is in contrast to other forum style issues mentioned recently.

Quoting Joey.
It is believed, within the 'programming art schools', Joey is an upperclassman.

:Sigh:
Thank you, Joey.
We get that a lot, it seems.
It is a 'fault' here.
We do not communicate well.

I think it is supposed to be my 'first language', but often, I feel I'm 'no native speaker' myself.


(Chemical balances, ripping pain from cures seemingly worse than the ailments they treat, bad medicine combinations, ...oh my.
Noises like an animal as I try to leash and redirect pain and energy.
Some moments are better than others.
Communication was difficult before, but now...)


Humor, intelligence, knowledge, & humility at times...very good.

We have newer & older computers here.
Computers are sometimes referred to as boxes, machines, terminals, stations, systems, units, etc.
One of the older computers, still runs Windows 98 SE.
My son & I still use that old computer, from time to time.
Sometimes, when using the older computer, which runs Windows 98 SE, with (mutilated?) DirectX 9c, my 6 year old son plays with 3DGS toy applications (games or applications made with 3DGS).

3DGS applications 'compiled' with (some) versions after 6.40.5 did not seem to start or start properly on the old machine.
These versions may include: 6.50 (don't use), 6.60 (latest A6?), Lite-C 1.05.5 (free).
(A7 might be included in this list.)
(The appearance of start failures may seem to differ from 6.50 and 6.60.)
It is possible that solutions were offered elsewhere already.
The issues may be faults here (result of bad practices, user error, archaic systems, etc.))

When publishing a project with some post 6.40.5 versions, it seems a file d3x9_30.dll is copied to the project's published folder (.cd?).
The versions above seemed to start on the older system running Win98 SE (mangled?), with DirectX 9c, when that file, d3x9_30.dll, was replaced with a file, d3x9_24.dll, renamed to d3x9_30.dll.

If it seems user licenses were violated during the process, there were no intentions to do so, and if need be, the process did not occur or did not involve any 'known' parties.

Again or not, the relevancy is probably limited to a local scope here, the issues may have been a result of faults here, 'practices' presented may be less than optimal and / or may not be effective elsewhere, etc.

I was asking other parties for information.
parties include:
Conitec staff
users


.dll swap, hm?
Sending computer in the mail, but be a psychic first please.
Why? Why not?
What are the ramifications?
Links please?
DirectX, what's the skinny?
Conitec insight, why not share with this dumb user, please?
Arrogantly slap us with the knowledge / wisdom stick...
The download page is a myth, but myths may contain answers, or maybe not.

Considering the level of physical discomfort (distracting pain), that will have to do.
(Routine of strong internal pain, ulcers, stomach bleeding?...)

It's all probably rather superfluous anyway.

... Did I miss something? (beside evolution, yeah hah hah).

I'm not sure why you lads are not getting the point of testDummy here...
All he is doing is asking why Win98 is not supported by the engine or why no exe compiled with A6.6 and later does run on such a machine.

@testDummy:
I'm no conitec staff, as you know, but as the Acknex engine uses DirectX9 (as you figured) it is probably "Microsoft's fault" because they do not offer DirectX9 for Win98 systems, now do they? (not quite sure here, sorry).

I guess it's me then having a hard time to follow this particular way of posting-format.
My apology.

Win98 is able to run DirectX9 programs, however that depends on the version you're using. The latest couple of DirectX9 releases won't run on Win98, some of the older do.

(According to Microsoft you need DX9.22 or older; http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/detai...&displaylang=en )

@Joozy
I replied to "Did I miss something?", but the reply was removed after a short period of time.
It was deemed unnecessary, I suppose.
Again, depending on perspective, I/We do not communicate well.
Agree, disagree, differ from majority, or use it to 'correct self', feel right, feel wrong, separately, or together, like, dislike, ...(<-) it may be fine here.
Would you like to be added to 'opposition' in the notes?


@Xarthor

Thank you.
Again, depending on perspective, that is a correct interpretation.
"Microsoft's fault" is a safe bet, perhaps.

process used for old system here
Compile / publish project using A6.6 or later (Lite-C was used also).
If file d3x9_30.dll is produced or copied, move it out of compiled / published directory.
Snatch an alternate .dll, (from Win98 SYSTEM directory?) such as d3dx9_24.dll, and place it in the compiled / published directory.
Rename the alternate .dll (d3dx9_24.dll) to d3x9_30.dll, and the compiled .exe may start (or at least it seems to on the old Win98 system here.)

Maybe that information (process above) is useful to others, maybe (probably) not.
There was a standing request for more information.


@PHeMoX; Quoting PHeMoX.
Thank you.
Potentially, your response contains useful information.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/detai...&displaylang=en
I have been to similar pages and have found confusion there, I think.
(The browser remembered a click on the redistributable link for that page.)

I'm not questioning the accuracy of that.
I am somewhat 'dense'.
I don't recall seeing that assertion by Microsoft directly.
(More searching is scheduled.)

-Supported Operating Systems
On the 'web installer' page, Win98 is listed,
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/detai...&displaylang=en
but on the redistributable page,
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/detai...&displaylang=en
with the same version number, I do not see Win98 listed.

I've already answered that in the thread you've linked above, and since then no new discoveries came up.

Win 98 is not able to properly run DirectX9 applications. You need at least Win98 SE.

Win98 SE can theoretically run DirectX 9 apps. This will work when you run a very small 2D app, like the pong demo. Larger apps will soon run into memory limits of such an old system, and thus we don't officially support 98 SE. 90% of all Gamestudio applications will not run on an average 98 SE system even if it's properly configured.

Excellent and thanks.
Early I was just dim, but now, at least I'm starting to feel really lucky.
(I see, no smilies for me.)