Windows port of Flurry screensaver

[Samoa]

Installed DX9 today, a little behind I know, but now it looks great. Before is sucked big time. I didn't see improvement at first so I didn't install DX9.

[Guest Ryan]

This is awesome! :D Where can I find other Windows ports of other Apple Mac screensavers? :yes:

[nomis_nehc]

Hey, everyone try this out with vital desktop: http://www.vital-desktop.com/download.php

Runs great as my background and doesn't even touch the processor. Plus, the fade away effect makes it *really* cool :D

I am not sure... but it really lags on my system. And I do have one monster machine, imo.

[cooldude7273]

awesome!!!!!

thanks!!! :yes:

[.KICK]

Sweet (Y) :woot:

[Captain Crunch]

:D nice :D

[andrewdoolittle]

I've spent the last two days searching forums on a solution to this lag/choppy display problem. Indeed, the flurry screensaver works in preview mode, but it does not work in test or after my 15 minute idle time.

I've tried three different types of the screensaver; I have tried several ways of renaming .sCr; and several ways of installing through the /Windows/System 32 folder and right-click>install

I have also tried updating my driver. Nothing has worked and I'm so hopeless on this screen saver.

Here is my system info:

Vista Home Premium SP1

Intel Core 2 Duo 1.83 GHz

3 GB RAM

32-bit OS

x3100 Intel Graphics Media Accelerator

Mobile Intel? GM965 Express Chipset

Thank you.

[Cadium]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

[+Mystic MVC]

I don't know how I didn't find out about this earlier, but this is the sweetest screen saver ever! Thanks so much.

P.S. In my options with the screen saver, I found Psychedelic the best. :D

[redvamp128]

I think I remember this thread... and I think I ran it for the longest time-- Think I have the zip file of it... It ran fine on the video card I had at the time- Radeon 7000 and Ran even better on the Radeon 9000 I had= Though you have to have a good Open GL driver to run it. Or it will crash.

[ANova]

x3100 Intel Graphics Media Accelerator

There's your problem. You need a decent video card to run it, integrated is too slow.

[QuarterSwede]

Wow, this was way back when I was on XP. I solved the problem though ... bought a mac. :D

[magik]

Sweet. I didn't know about this. :D

[+mrbester MVC]

There's your problem. You need a decent video card to run it, integrated is too slow.

Fair enough in 2003, but 5 years later? With all the advances in chipsets there have been in that time? It must have run like a sloth in jam back then unless you had some serious horsepower for it to still run like a sloth in jam in 2008.

andrewdoolittle: What does the Windows Experience Index give you for your graphics?

Edit: my naff integrated graphics Celery runs it fine, apart from erroring if I set anything other than single-buffer in the options...

Edited July 4, 2008 by mrbester

[Dick Montage]

I can verify that this DOES run just fine on integrated graphics. My last laptop's integrated graphics chip was substantially less powerful than an x3100 GMA, and it still ran fine.

[hornett]

There's your problem. You need a decent video card to run it, integrated is too slow.

Several current-model Macs use the X3100 card and are more than capable of running this (in Windows and OSX).

In fact the lesser GMA900 card used in the last generation of Macbooks runs it perfectly as well.

[ViperAFK]

Yeah there is no way x3100 is too weak for a screensaver like that, the problem must lie else ware.

[_dandy_]

i wonder if this thing is legal LOL

"Legal"?

Why?

'cuz now that it's been ported to Windows, it removes the only reason you'd want to use a Mac?

[andrewdoolittle]

Fair enough in 2003, but 5 years later? With all the advances in chipsets there have been in that time? It must have run like a sloth in jam back then unless you had some serious horsepower for it to still run like a sloth in jam in 2008.

andrewdoolittle: What does the Windows Experience Index give you for your graphics?

Edit: my naff integrated graphics Celery runs it fine, apart from erroring if I set anything other than single-buffer in the options...

Graphics: Desktop performance for Windows Aero: 3.4. It's the lowest score of all of the rated components.

[Ferret]

Very nice screensaver - Runs great on my PC.

But i've tried it on my laptop (which I use the most) and i'm getting about 1FPS :(

[tsupersonic]

It ran pretty ****ty on my integrated ATI X200M, but ATI isn't all that great for OpenGL, and to top that, my graphics card is integrated. However, the ATI x200M is a pretty beastly integrated card

[ANova]

Fair enough in 2003, but 5 years later? With all the advances in chipsets there have been in that time? It must have run like a sloth in jam back then unless you had some serious horsepower for it to still run like a sloth in jam in 2008.

andrewdoolittle: What does the Windows Experience Index give you for your graphics?

Edit: my naff integrated graphics Celery runs it fine, apart from erroring if I set anything other than single-buffer in the options...

I have a computer with a 845G that runs flurry like a slideshow and any other integrated chipset that I've seen has done the same though I haven't spent any time with the newer ones. If the 3100 is fast enough than it must be a driver problem.

[iconoclast]

Didn't realize how old this was, but neat. Is it pixelated on anyone elses comp? Maybe 1680*1050 is too big for it.

[kylejn]

Jesus, a five year bump?

Anyway, the only thing I can think of is that a screensaver written so long ago might have compatibility problems with Vista, but who knows? Could be a graphics issue or any number of other problems.

[see-seA]

I'm smiling at how everyone has only just found out about this screensaver. This is probably one of the best screensavers I've ever use, and I've been using it since it came out.