Windows demos 'runnability'?
category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
=> ALWAYS update your GPU drivers to the latest version, very important!
I seem to recall specific updates a few years ago broke a whole bunch of stuff.
naaaah, only glitched the shit out of some ASD demos! ;)
on a slightly unrelated note, I had one update cause my driver to crash if I was playing minecraft with any browser open in the background :')
I'm looking for more input from Windows coders. Some demos do indeed provide .dlls inside the .zip, and it's only positive. Is it the case that if the cause for a crash is a missing DLL, Windows will in 99% of the cases tell me which one I need? If not, could a solution be to standardize a snippet of code that reports missing DLLs before starting the demo?
On the topic of shader compilers: This is the only missing DLL that has come up recently. Is it a way to get the filesize down for intros? There's no other way to deliver shaders to the GPU? Is it required in order to modify shaders sent to the GPU?
Should support for AMD+NVidia be expected for all Windows prods? If not, why not? Coders on other platforms test on alternative rigs, or send to friends for testing.
Also looking for input from compo organizers. Is the compo machine a dev machine? If a demo doesn't run, do you install whatever it needs until it runs, or are there dependencies that are "not okay"? Do all compo machines have NVidia cards, i.e. is this the de facto platform?
This is all because I have to report errors and write "awaiting final" on some great Windows demos. There's a chance I won't notice when a final gets posted, and the way commenting works is that the demo will get a piggy from me if I don't. And it doesn't deserve that.
Am I being stubborn and annoying for wanting to see it run, when there's a 1080p Youtube? Well, I'm in this for the demos, not for the captures. And sometimes the captures have flaws, such as sync that is out of sync, or codec artifacts for busy or subtle visuals. I want to enjoy the real thing.
On the topic of shader compilers: This is the only missing DLL that has come up recently. Is it a way to get the filesize down for intros? There's no other way to deliver shaders to the GPU? Is it required in order to modify shaders sent to the GPU?
Should support for AMD+NVidia be expected for all Windows prods? If not, why not? Coders on other platforms test on alternative rigs, or send to friends for testing.
Also looking for input from compo organizers. Is the compo machine a dev machine? If a demo doesn't run, do you install whatever it needs until it runs, or are there dependencies that are "not okay"? Do all compo machines have NVidia cards, i.e. is this the de facto platform?
This is all because I have to report errors and write "awaiting final" on some great Windows demos. There's a chance I won't notice when a final gets posted, and the way commenting works is that the demo will get a piggy from me if I don't. And it doesn't deserve that.
Am I being stubborn and annoying for wanting to see it run, when there's a 1080p Youtube? Well, I'm in this for the demos, not for the captures. And sometimes the captures have flaws, such as sync that is out of sync, or codec artifacts for busy or subtle visuals. I want to enjoy the real thing.
Quote:
Is it the case that if the cause for a crash is a missing DLL, Windows will in 99% of the cases tell me which one I need?
If a DLL is linked directly in the import table, Windows will tell you which one is missing before the program can even start. It's not a "crash". Only if the DLL is delay-loaded or imported manually, an actual crash might happen because the programmer might be too lazy to check for return values. But most people just link the DLL directly so that Windows resolves the dependency.
Quote:
Only if the DLL is delay-loaded or imported manually, an actual crash might happen because the programmer might be too lazy to check for return values.
Or if it's kkrunchy :)
Quote:
i assumed that VS bakes and rebakes most WINDOWS (topic) demos just fine.
"Bake"? Are you referring to linking? You can't relink a different version of the runtime, they're not compatible (that's why they're different in the first place).
Just install the runtimes for all the "recent" versions of Visual Studio, and you'll be fine. IIRC the different components that make up Photoshop for example require runtimes for 2005, 2008, and 2010, so you quickly end up having all of them once you've installed a bunch of software anyway.
As for shader compilers, doesn't the latest DirectX installer include everything? All the d3dx, compilers, etc.
