Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 23:33:47 08/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 2002 at 09:44:30, Stuzzi Kadent wrote: >On August 16, 2002 at 23:29:54, Steve Coladonato wrote: > >>On August 15, 2002 at 14:03:39, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On August 15, 2002 at 11:35:35, Harald Faber wrote: >>> >>>>On August 14, 2002 at 17:21:37, John Merlino wrote: >>>> >>>>>This is not an error. Chessmaster 9000 will not support Windows 95/2000/NT. >>>>> >>>>>jm >>>> >>>>Uh, this is rude. >>>> >>>>ME: The most INSTABLE and BUGGY Windows I have ever seen. >>>>XP: The most official SPYWARE-OS I have ever seen. >>>> >>>>supported. >>>> >>>>NT (V.4 + SP6): Besides 2000prof the most STABLE Windows I have ever seen. >>>>2000 professional: Besides NT 4 + SP6 the most STABLE Windows I have ever seen. >>>> >>>>not supported. >>>> >>>>Is it just because of this DirectX-stuff? If so, are there no alternatives? >>>>I am still kind of shocked. My both PCs have Win2k, so goodbye Chessmaster... or >>>>maybe I am lucky to get CM9000 to work anyway as CM8k indeed works. But not >>>>supported makes it a lottery. >>>>Unbelievable. Such a large company no resources to test under Win2k... even no >>>>idea to ask here for volunteers. OK John, certainly not your choice. >>> >>>You are correct -- not my choice. However, if Chessmaster 8000 worked fine on >>>your machine, then CM9000 should also work fine. >>> >>>jm >> >> >>Sorry to see the cost of a new "operating system" as a required add on in >>addition to the cost of CM9000. >> >>Steve > >I advise you not to waste your time Steve, they pretend not to see my point that >Chessmaster has had three revisions since 6000 and still not proven under >Windows 2000. Such shoddy and cheap treatment for a mass market program is only >self-defeating. But of course it will be somebody else's fault and doesn't >matter anyway. As Windows 2000 users we presumably must be wearing glasses so >thick it takes light 6 years to get through them and we should be compiling our >own chess programs. >Perhaps I am missing something because I don't see what the attention is for >because we cannot see the source code and it is unlikely the engine will be as >strong as Fritz or Shredder. Once we know it gets beat by insert_names_here >where is there to go with it? It is marketed to the masses and in particular >parents buying for their children, so they want pretty pieces and video >tutorials, not to be humiliated by computers playing like world champions. I'm beyond Windows already and even commercial chess programs. I run the Linux, Xboard, Crafty, SCID combination and am totally satisfied. There are a couple, perhaps a few, other chess engines that run under Xboard and are compatible with SCID but Crafty does enough for me. In that environment, I do compile the chess engines I use but the authors have made the "configure" and "make" scripts very user friendly so it is not a big deal. Up until I switched to Linux, I did use WinNT and Win2K. In that environment, the Shredder GUI was the best of any out there and I felt Stefan Meyer-Kahlen was doing something unique with the engine. I'm not saying that just because I use Linux, all software must be free. I would be willing to purchase a commercial chess package if it ran on Linux. I purchase a license for Oracle to run on Linux because it happens to be the best RDBMS available so why not a chess package. WinXP is just not the way to go especially to the exclusion of other operating systems. Steve
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.