From zakk at timedoctor.org  Sun Jan 30 16:51:30 2005
From: zakk at timedoctor.org (Zachary J. Slater)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:51:30 -0800
Subject: 3dfx
Message-ID: <20050130215129.GA28729@timedoctor.org>

Assuming anyone still reads this, I was debating removing any 3dfx stuff
from the lgfaq. I know it seems silly to ask, but I figure I ought to
try. Does anyone still use one, or know somebody that does?

Ryan do you get support requests from users with them?

I suppose even if I remove it now, it'll still be there via revisions.
-- 
-Zachary J. Slater
zakk at timedoctor.org
zacharyslater at gmail.com


From dserban at gmail.com  Sun Jan 30 21:09:49 2005
From: dserban at gmail.com (Dan Serban)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:09:49 -0800
Subject: [lgfaq] 3dfx
In-Reply-To: <20050130215129.GA28729@timedoctor.org>
References: <20050130215129.GA28729@timedoctor.org>
Message-ID: <cb29bb440501301809aae3ef3@mail.gmail.com>

Don't laugh but I still have one 3dfx banshee 3d'in it up on one of my
boxes.  Though the technology is so old and setup's such a bitch... I
don't know if I vote to keep it or not.


On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:51:30 -0800, Zachary J. Slater
<zakk at timedoctor.org> wrote:
> Assuming anyone still reads this, I was debating removing any 3dfx stuff
> from the lgfaq. I know it seems silly to ask, but I figure I ought to
> try. Does anyone still use one, or know somebody that does?
> 
> Ryan do you get support requests from users with them?
> 
> I suppose even if I remove it now, it'll still be there via revisions.
> --
> -Zachary J. Slater
> zakk at timedoctor.org
> zacharyslater at gmail.com
>


From icculus at clutteredmind.org  Mon Jan 31 09:27:54 2005
From: icculus at clutteredmind.org (Ryan C. Gordon)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:27:54 -0500
Subject: [lgfaq] 3dfx
In-Reply-To: <20050130215129.GA28729@timedoctor.org>
References: <20050130215129.GA28729@timedoctor.org>
Message-ID: <41FE406A.70700@clutteredmind.org>


> Ryan do you get support requests from users with them?

I don't, but it's unlikely anyone's playing ut2004 with one. :)

Are voodoos even supported by x.org at this point?

--ryan.




From icculus at clutteredmind.org  Mon Jan 31 09:30:28 2005
From: icculus at clutteredmind.org (Ryan C. Gordon)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:30:28 -0500
Subject: [lgfaq] 3dfx
In-Reply-To: <cb29bb440501301809aae3ef3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050130215129.GA28729@timedoctor.org> <cb29bb440501301809aae3ef3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <41FE4104.4080107@clutteredmind.org>


>I suppose even if I remove it now, it'll still be there via revisions.

Actually, a link into http://svn.icculus.org/ with a note saying "this 
may be out of date" might be nice, since it removes the clutter from the 
FAQ without stranding people that don't know even know there's revision 
control.

--ryan.



From zakk at timedoctor.org  Mon Jan 31 14:44:10 2005
From: zakk at timedoctor.org (Zachary J. Slater)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:44:10 -0800
Subject: [lgfaq] 3dfx
In-Reply-To: <41FE406A.70700@clutteredmind.org>
References: <20050130215129.GA28729@timedoctor.org> <41FE406A.70700@clutteredmind.org>
Message-ID: <20050131194410.GA7012@timedoctor.org>


> I don't, but it's unlikely anyone's playing ut2004 with one. :)
> 
> Are voodoos even supported by x.org at this point?
> 
I thought people might be trying to play things with them,
despite the obvious inability to do so.

I believe that x.org/DRI/xf86 support voodoo 3 and 4's (the single
chip ones) better than windows ever did.
-- 
-Zachary J. Slater
zakk at timedoctor.org
zacharyslater at gmail.com


From zakk at timedoctor.org  Mon Jan 31 14:47:34 2005
From: zakk at timedoctor.org (Zachary J. Slater)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:47:34 -0800
Subject: [lgfaq] 3dfx
In-Reply-To: <41FE4104.4080107@clutteredmind.org>
References: <20050130215129.GA28729@timedoctor.org> <cb29bb440501301809aae3ef3@mail.gmail.com> <41FE4104.4080107@clutteredmind.org>
Message-ID: <20050131194734.GB7012@timedoctor.org>

There's a link at the bottom of the page, and it is mentioned
in the about.

Or do you mean I should add a new question/answer after removing
3dfx things, something that says What happened to that bit that was
here?


On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:30:28AM -0500, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
> 
> >I suppose even if I remove it now, it'll still be there via revisions.
> 
> Actually, a link into http://svn.icculus.org/ with a note saying "this 
> may be out of date" might be nice, since it removes the clutter from the 
> FAQ without stranding people that don't know even know there's revision 
> control.
> 
> --ryan.
> 

-- 
-Zachary J. Slater
zakk at timedoctor.org
zacharyslater at gmail.com


From blakejoh at yahoo.com  Mon Jan 31 20:33:54 2005
From: blakejoh at yahoo.com (John H. Blake)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:33:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [lgfaq] 3dfx
In-Reply-To: <20050130215129.GA28729@timedoctor.org>
Message-ID: <20050201013354.33036.qmail@web80602.mail.yahoo.com>

If anybody is looking for one, I have a 3dfx Voodoo
Banshee (Creative) available.  I don't use it, but I
couldn't bear to throw it away.

Sorry I'm slightly off-topic, but this is the first
time I've seen anybody mention a Voodoo card in years.

Regards,
John Blake

--- "Zachary J. Slater" <zakk at timedoctor.org> wrote:

> Assuming anyone still reads this, I was debating
> removing any 3dfx stuff
> from the lgfaq. I know it seems silly to ask, but I
> figure I ought to
> try. Does anyone still use one, or know somebody
> that does?
> 
> Ryan do you get support requests from users with
> them?
> 
> I suppose even if I remove it now, it'll still be
> there via revisions.
> -- 
> -Zachary J. Slater
> zakk at timedoctor.org
> zacharyslater at gmail.com
>