View Full Version : Thief and XP

14th Feb 2004, 02:14
Hi Everyone,

I'm new to this place. I am dying for a Thief fix but am afraid of loading the game on my new computer. I finally got desperate enough to try it and had a VERY bad experience (my whole computer crashed). Can anyone tell me if they have successfully run Thief on XP and, if so, how? I think it has something to do with DirectX...?

I'm having a bit of the DTs... :-D



14th Feb 2004, 04:00
Thief, Thief Gold, Thief 2, and System Shock 2 all work fine under Windows XP.

However there are some issues with some types of hardware and drivers.

So, before we can give you much help we'll need to know your system specs as well as the drivers that you're using.

15th Feb 2004, 05:58

Thanks for your help. Others apparently are also having this problem: http://hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/18805/

Here are my specs:

AMD Athlon 64-bit processor 3200+
512 MB of RAM @ 400 MHz
160 GB Hard Drive
Video: ATI Radeon 9600 w/ 128 MB RAM
DirectX 9

I tried to force the setup (ie: D:\setup.exe -lgntforce) but it crashed my computer.

(FROM ANOTHER SITE:This problem arises because Win2K and WinXP are based on the NT kernel, which had DirectX support which was flaky at best. Thief needs DirectX to run, so, when the installer sees the NT kernel, it assumes that the game isn't going to be able to run and quits the installation. The -lgntforce switch tells the installer to ignore the NT kernel and install anyway.)

At one point, I did get it to install but it looked VERY weird. All the colors were way off.

Anyhow, any ideas would be GREATLY appreciated.

Thanks!! :-)


15th Feb 2004, 06:53
Check out this thread dealing with XP issues:


I started it so we could gather some evidence for what problems people were encountering.and maybe how to fix them.

You could also search for XP here and find lots of stuff.

If all else fails ( :)), go to www.ttlg.com and see if they have any information of use. There is a FAQ there that addresses some XP issues.

Many people have used the -lgntforce flag with XP and had success. Be sure that the first character after "-" is a lower case L, not a one or a capital I (eye).

I see nothing wrong, off the top of my head, with your system specs. However, you are the first person I have encountered who has tried to run Thief with an Athlon 64. I really hope you solve this, not only for your own sake but because I was thinking about an Athlon 64 for my next computer.

If you do solve it, kindly post the problem and the solution in the aforementioned XP thread.

Good luck.

15th Feb 2004, 07:03
PS. I can say that I have been running Thief under Windows 2000 (using -lgntforce to install it) with no problems or compatibility issues. That seems like a safer bet to me.

15th Feb 2004, 15:47
Hi Peter,

Thanks for the info! Last night, I backed up everything on my computer and gave another go at the forced install (-lgntforce). It worked! I don't know if it was a fluke or what, but I played Thief long after I should have been in bed! It was nearly a religious experience ;-D

Thanks for your help. By the way, the Athlon 64 is an awesome machine. It brings profound hapiness and satisfaction to the geek within :-P I'm thinking of replacing my entire network with them so I can take over the world! :-P


15th Feb 2004, 22:08
Why do you have a 9600 if you're running a 3200+ A64?:p

16th Feb 2004, 01:13
Hey Salvage,

Overkill? hehehehe

Taking over the world requires a lot of video memory.....


16th Feb 2004, 01:26
Glad you got it working, and especially with the Athlon 64. Good deal. Now I can do some serious shopping. :)

I think Salvage was hinting that the 9600 was underkill. With a CPU like that, a person would normally want at least a 9700 Pro and probably a 9800. Well, it is a very nice machine anyway, and when Thief 3 comes out you can always upgrade. ;)

What do you have for a motherboard? Have you had any problems with drivers?

16th Feb 2004, 02:28
Yeah, I was talking about underkill.

You have what's been advertised as the "Gamers CPU" but you're running what's considered right now a mid-range video card. Make no mistake it's a great card and will allow you to play games into the next year at least. It just doesn't seem to fit with the A64.

Neither does a single hard drive for that matter.

Take my system for example:

Motherboard: Gigabyte 8KNXP rev. 2(has very nice onboard sound)
Processor: P4 2.8 GHz C 800MHz fsb
RAM: 2 512MB PC3200 400MHz Corsair in dual channel
Graphics: ATI Radeon 9800XT(256 RAM)
Hard Drives: 2 36GB WD Raptors in Raid 0
Speakers: Logitech Z680 5.1 surround
Monitor: 19" Viewsonic G90fb

See, overkill. It handles Deus Ex 2 respectably and walks all over every other game out there.

16th Feb 2004, 12:09
Hey Salvage,

I have been drooling over your video card for some time now but I haven't gotten my hands on it for two reasons:

cash - every time I look at that card, my wallet cries out in pain:D

time- I'm taking 12 credit hours and working a full-time job. I don't get to play my games as much as I need -er- want to.
;) It seems silly to spend that kind of cash until summer when I can really put the machine to good use.

I guess I'm thinking of it in terms of what I use it for. When you're not running games like DX2 on it, what's the point?? I get beautiful picture and the games I do have on it, like NWN, run like a dream with 128 MB.

Why would I want more than one hard drive when I have six computers?? :confused:

But yes, Salvage, yours *is* bigger than mine ;) :D

16th Feb 2004, 18:15
The second hard drive would be to put it in a RAID 0 array for super quick loading.

When I bought this machine I decided that I wanted the best for once. I skimped on the CPU because I don't need anything better(anything higher would have broke the bank at the time I bought it). I regret that I didn't wait a few months longer before buying this machine though, as I could have saved 25% to 50% on what I paid for it.:(

16th Feb 2004, 22:27
I totally understand what you mean. Every time I turn around, some new toy or upgrade has come out and I'm left behind yet again. It's one of those situations where my wallet can't keep up with my geek needs. :(

Necessity has forced me to be realistic about what to get. I actually looked at that card when I got the A64 but then I thought "Books....tuition...fees" and I decided to wait and save my pennies. I can't wait to graduate!

On a lighter note, though, since you seem to know so much about this stuff, can I pick your experienced brain? I don't know that much about these toys-just that I want them :D

Here's my question: What exactly *would* be the difference between the 9600 and the 9800XT? I mean, considering that I am not running anything SUPER graphics-heavy, would I really notice that much of a difference?? Will I be peeling myself off the ceiling when I see it?

Also, at the risk of sounding like a total ass, what the heck is a RAID 0?? :D

16th Feb 2004, 23:49
Radeon has a couple of super Vid cards (ATI). The newer ones are adding bells and whistles all the time. Look here for inf

RAID is a system of using your HDDs as one single HDD. You link the drives and instead of two single drives you have one (as far as the system is concerned) etc. You have one massive bank of HDD. The OPSYS then writes and reads faster.

But if one of your drives dies, the whole smear goes bye bye. But if you want speed then one of the two RAID systems (0 or 1) is the setup to use.

Mr. Perfect
17th Feb 2004, 00:56
RAID 0 uses two drives, and puts half on each. That way instead of waiting for one drive to load the whole thing, the two drives can load the two halves at the same time. Only thing is, if one Drive fails you're left with one half of each file on the good drive. RAID 1 uses two drives, but they both hold 100% of the data. If one drive fails, you've still got one perfectly good one to boot off of.

I had a RAID 0 array, and I honestly wasn't impressed by it. Granted, they where 7200RPM 4MB cache drives and not your fancy new 10k RPM 8MB cache drives, but it didn't really provide a tremendous performance boost when loading games. Perhapse the games where to old.... That and it only used the new read power when loading the level, and since most game time is spent in the game and not loading it wasn't used much(although I guess DX2 could be an exception :P ). The only things I did notice was the extra noise, heat, and boot time added by the RAID card. ;) I just split the array up into single drives again.

As far as the 9800 over the 9600, you probably will see a major diffrence when it comes to Thief 3 and other games requireing pixel shaders. The 9800 cores have 8 pixel pipes and 256bit memory, while the 9600 has 4 pipes with 128bit memory. The extra memory bandwidth makes it's biggest impact on the shaders, since you've got to keep them fed. If the game doesn't need shaders, it won't be to dramatic a diffrence.

Personally, I don't buy top-of-the-line. Instead, I buy one under. For example, I picked up a 9800 Non-Pro back in Septeber(to replace me 8500LE). It was about 2/3 the cost of a 9800 Pro, and it's only about 10% slower. By the time that 10% is a big enough diffrence to apreciate, they'll both be so slow that they'll need replacing anyhow. Right now the XT is selling for just under $500, while the Pro can be had for about $200. I'd definetly go for the Pro here again. Only reason you would want the 256MB of ram over 128MB is if you where using 6xAA with some AF on high resolutions, such as 1200x1600. Even then it's only a small performance boost, so I won't be shelling out any money for one. :)

17th Feb 2004, 01:00
The difference between the 9600 Pro and the 9800XT is this: the 9800 is faster and has a thermal diode to check the temperature of the graphics chip which allows for dynamic overclocking(ATI calls this Overdrive). Both support Direct X 9 cards, so basically the 9800XT is faster.

As for RAID....

From here (http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid5_gci214332,00.html):

RAID (redundant array of independent disks; originally redundant array of inexpensive disks) is a way of storing the same data in different places (thus, redundantly) on multiple hard disks. By placing data on multiple disks, I/O operations can overlap in a balanced way, improving performance. Since multiple disks increases the mean time between failure (MTBF), storing data redundantly also increases fault-tolerance.

A RAID appears to the operating system to be a single logical hard disk. RAID employs the technique of striping, which involves partitioning each drive's storage space into units ranging from a sector (512 bytes) up to several megabytes. The stripes of all the disks are interleaved and addressed in order.

In a single-user system where large records, such as medical or other scientific images, are stored, the stripes are typically set up to be small (perhaps 512 bytes) so that a single record spans all disks and can be accessed quickly by reading all disks at the same time.

In a multi-user system, better performance requires establishing a stripe wide enough to hold the typical or maximum size record. This allows overlapped disk I/O across drives.

There are at least nine types of RAID plus a non-redundant array (RAID-0):
RAID-0. This technique has striping but no redundancy of data. It offers the best performance but no fault-tolerance.
RAID-1. This type is also known as disk mirroring and consists of at least two drives that duplicate the storage of data. There is no striping. Read performance is improved since either disk can be read at the same time. Write performance is the same as for single disk storage. RAID-1 provides the best performance and the best fault-tolerance in a multi-user system.
RAID-2. This type uses striping across disks with some disks storing error checking and correcting (ECC) information. It has no advantage over RAID-3.
RAID-3. This type uses striping and dedicates one drive to storing parity information. The embedded error checking (ECC) information is used to detect errors. Data recovery is accomplished by calculating the exclusive OR (XOR) of the information recorded on the other drives. Since an I/O operation addresses all drives at the same time, RAID-3 cannot overlap I/O. For this reason, RAID-3 is best for single-user systems with long record applications.
RAID-4. This type uses large stripes, which means you can read records from any single drive. This allows you to take advantage of overlapped I/O for read operations. Since all write operations have to update the parity drive, no I/O overlapping is possible. RAID-4 offers no advantage over RAID-5.
RAID-5. This type includes a rotating parity array, thus addressing the write limitation in RAID-4. Thus, all read and write operations can be overlapped. RAID-5 stores parity information but not redundant data (but parity information can be used to reconstruct data). RAID-5 requires at least three and usually five disks for the array. It's best for multi-user systems in which performance is not critical or which do few write operations.
RAID-6. This type is similar to RAID-5 but includes a second parity scheme that is distributed across different drives and thus offers extremely high fault- and drive-failure tolerance. There are few or no commercial examples currently.
RAID-7. This type includes a real-time embedded operating system as a controller, caching via a high-speed bus, and other characteristics of a stand-alone computer. One vendor offers this system.
RAID-10. This type offers an array of stripes in which each stripe is a RAID-1 array of drives. This offers higher performance than RAID-1 but at much higher cost.
RAID-53. This type offers an array of stripes in which each stripe is a RAID-3 array of disks. This offers higher performance than RAID-3 but at much higher cost.

RAID-10 is also known as RAID (0+1).

I run RAID-0 for the speed but need to make regular backups and defragmentation.

17th Feb 2004, 01:41

I shall dubbeth this thread: "Everything you ever wanted to know about RAID but were afraid to ask." :D