Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
This is a spinoff from Overrider720's topic "Level Poll." It discusses how well Ferazel's Wand performs for you on OS X.
On my 450MHz Sage DV+ iMac, it's generally unplayable with Classic 9.2.1. I mean, I can play it, but the movement is so slow and stuttery, it's hardly worth it. Perhaps it's because my 9 System Folder is still as bloated and unkempt as it was before I got OS X?
------------------ Remember: shoving protects you from the terrible secret of space! (1.18.02)
I have a 733Mhz Quicksilver and I have no problems whatsoever. But that says very little, considering the first part of that statement. Do you have 10.1?
------------------ Unlikely, sir. They spell and pronounce their names differently. -- Mr. Smithers Extemporaneous since November 2, 2000 Download (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/vftp/dl-redirect.pl?path=ferazel/addons&file;=Extemporaneous.sit.hqx")Extemporaneous 0.5(/url) for Ferazel's Wand. Visit the (url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/emudevelopers/ferazel.html")Extemporaneous Website(/url).
My OS 9 folder has nothing but what came on the OS 9 CD. But it worked perfectly before, even with lots of junk and extensions.
And I olny have a 350 Mhz iMac! Have 768 MB of RAM, though. But RAM shouldn't matter––classic apps can't take advantage of it.
Hmm...Definultely upgrade to 10.1.2 if you haven't already. Also try to rebuild your OS 9 file by opening System Preferences, choosing Classic, and clicking the "Advanced" tab.
Or you could just pester Ben enough to carbonize FW
------------------ (url="http://"http://www.darkstorm.knkonline.net")Darkstorm Productions: Home of Ferazel's Wand: Orthographic Universe, MacBrickout: Pandemonium, and StarCraft-Battlefield: Sol(/url). (Coming soon) | (url="http://"http://www.PetitionOnline.com/staredit/petition.html")Help Bring StarEdit, StarCraft's editor, to Mac OS X!(/url) "The box said Windows 95 or better, so I bought a mac."
How good is 10.1.2, I am getting pretty sick of upgrading. 10.1 was a major pain to get and 10.1.2 looks like 40 MB, is it worth it?
Quote
Originally posted by Emperor Ent: **How good is 10.1.2, I am getting pretty sick of upgrading. 10.1 was a major pain to get and 10.1.2 looks like 40 MB, is it worth it?
**
I dunno, I have 10.1.1 I didn't feel like getting 40 MB, either. My dad is going to get it from work with his speedy internet connection. I'll let you know how it is. It is just supposed to have bug fixes, I think.
Originally posted by cat99: **Also try to rebuild your OS 9 file by opening System Preferences, choosing Classic, and clicking the "Advanced" tab.
D'oh, forgot about that. I also cleared about 40 items from the Extensions folder, changes the game to line-skipping mode, decreased the graphics detail, and it's still about as slow. It's not as unplayable, but you just have a lot of time to think while playing.
I don't have X (yet), but Ferazel's Wand worked fine with my ~200mhz desktop PowerPC. Now I use a beige desktop G3 ~233mhz and it works even better. Of course, I can't compare it to any of your results, but I've never known anything better and it works fine in my opinion.
Now, on a 1 ghz G4 tower...
------------------ Visit The Search for Lezaref Website at or see (URL=http://homepage.mac.com/pcheese) (url=http://www.geocities.com/rcwooley)Microsoft CeMeNT ----------- BNET: PCheese IRC: PCheese AIM: PCheese87 email: pcheese@mac.com
It looks like people are actually playing Ferazel on OSX. Maybe it would be a good time to bring this back up. Is there any interest in an OSX-version of FerazEdit? I would have to spend some time carbonizing, but I think I could convert it in a few hours if there were sufficient interest.
------------------ David Shaw (a.k.a. Arkham) Author of FerazEdit (url="http://"http://software.theresistance.net/")http://software.theresistance.net/(/url)
Originally posted by Arkham: **It looks like people are actually playing Ferazel on OSX. Maybe it would be a good time to bring this back up. Is there any interest in an OSX-version of FerazEdit? I would have to spend some time carbonizing, but I think I could convert it in a few hours if there were sufficient interest.
Yes, that would be neat. But it wouldn't matter much until Ferazel's Wand is carbonized, and that will never happen.
I have, as none already know :p, a Titanium/500MHz. With ummm, I dunno, 296Mb of RAM or so.
Anyway, Ferazel works perfectly under MacOS 10.1 (very smooth); that being said, that stupid dock gets on my way sometimes. It's not quite perfect. And, as of FerazEdit, I use it, but if I launch Classic it's generally to play Ferazel or to launch a very old app, so don't bother carbonizing it.
Anyone here would be interested to disassemble, examine, and recompile the code for MacOS X?
Answer: no. So...
EDIT: Spamguy, I also have an old G3/233MHz and Ferazel works very well. I have MacOS 10.0 on it, which is noticeably slower than 10.1, so obviously something is wrong with your configuration. Did you try other games (such as Mars Rising), or maybe give Ferazel more memory?
(This message has been edited by Aussie (edited 02-08-2002).)
Originally posted by Aussie: that being said, that stupid dock gets on my way sometimes. It's not quite perfect. (This message has been edited by Aussie (edited 02-08-2002).)
Use the ferazel launcher or ASM. It'll hide the dock.
(quote)Originally posted by Aussie: ** Anyone here would be interested to disassemble, examine, and recompile the code for MacOS X?** (/quote)
Not a legal option, literally.
(quote) EDIT: Spamguy, I also have an old G3/233MHz and Ferazel works very well. I have MacOS 10.0 on it, which is noticeably slower than 10.1, so obviously something is wrong with your configuration. Did you try other games (such as Mars Rising), or maybe give Ferazel more memory?(/quote)
Memory designation doesn't exist in X or Classic. It's supposed to be automatically allocated to the program as it needs it. I haven't tried many other games, but it's noticably slower on Classic than on a 9-only computer.
(This message has been edited by Aussie (edited 02-08-2002).)(/B)(/QUOTE)
Originally posted by spamguy: **Not a legal option, literally. **
Forget the legal matters, I'd like to see someone pull it off (read: it'd be damn near impossible)
------------------ -- Jeff
Originally posted by Merciless: **Forget the legal matters, I'd like to see someone pull it off (read: it'd be damn near impossible)
Fair 'nuff. I'll get to relish the e-mail I send to moki hinting at a breach of copyright, though.
But since we have reverse engineering Ferazel's Wand on the table, why not produce something more practical in society, and reverse engineer Windows XP? Each and every sheet in the 20 stories worth of 8.5x11 paper. What a happy world we'd have if XP could be open source...