Please help

[Tuskerlove]

I need some techincal info.

I bought a new computer and when I went to reinstall my Dominions II game - I received this error on initialization

Installer verification failed.

This could be the result of an incomplete download, a failing disk, or (possible) corruption from a virus.

You can try to force an install using the /NCRC command line switch (but it is not recommended).

Has anyone ever run into this problem? I don't see any scratched on the Dominions II disk so I don't understand why it's not working.

Any help would be very appreciated as this is my favorite game and I can't stand that I can't play it.

I installed the new Direct X
Checked for viruses
No need to resurface the disk as I see nothing wrong with it

Thanks in advance,
Tuskerlove

[Gandalf Parker]

What operating system and Version?
Mac? Solaris? Linux? Windows?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What operating system and Version?
Mac? Solaris? Linux? Windows?

Since he installed DirectX, it must be some flavor of Windows. Perhaps it's related to the new "copy-protection" that IW inflicted on us in a recent patch?

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Since he installed DirectX, it must be some flavor of Windows. Perhaps it's related to the new "copy-protection" that IW inflicted on us in a recent patch?

On install? I dont think anyone has come up with anything to stop an install on a new machine. Even if it was a re-install such blocks on Windows machines tend to be registry blocks

Ive installed my Dom discs many MANY times. On the same machine, different machines, different major operating systems even. I dont think the protection for it kicks in until you try to play it.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
On install? I dont think anyone has come up with anything to stop an install on a new machine. Even if it was a re-install such blocks on Windows machines tend to be registry blocks

If an app/dll that is called by the installer fails to run, the install *will* fail. I have seen this happen. Amongst the many years of software experience I have, 5 years of it is in writing installers for Windows systems. I assure you that installs can and do fail, under the right (wrong?) circumstances.

As a for-instance, suppose the installer were to check for an active net connection via network API calls. If the user does not have a working net connection (say, for a registration code or copy-protect check), the net API call will return false or fail. Depending on how the installer was written, the install could fail. And fail with an error message not dissimilar to what Tuskerlove is reporting.

I suspect that only the folks at IW are going to be able to definitively answer his question. All we can do is guess.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Tuskerlove:
You can try to force an install using the /NCRC command line switch (but it is not recommended).

You've answered your question.

If at first it doesn't work, force it. If it breaks, it needed to be replaced anyway.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Arryn:
If an app/dll that is called by the installer fails to run, the install *will* fail. I have seen this happen. Amongst the many years of software experience I have, 5 years of it is in writing installers for Windows systems. I assure you that installs can and do fail, under the right (wrong?) circumstances.

Pah! In the old days, installing things didn't involve wonky executables just for installing, or DLLs. Installations couldn't "fail", because you simply copied everything into the directory of your choice.

What, may I ask, was wrong with this system? It was foolproof and flawless, yet they had to can install some crazy new-fangled "installer", when something as simple as untar/unzip/copy would have worked fine!

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Pah! In the old days, installing things didn't involve wonky executables just for installing, or DLLs. Installations couldn't "fail", because you simply copied everything into the directory of your choice.

What, may I ask, was wrong with this system? It was foolproof and flawless, yet they had to can install some crazy new-fangled "installer", when something as simple as untar/unzip/copy would have worked fine!

In the "old days", you had crappy, grossly-unstable OSes like DOS/Windows, or Windows 9x (still DOS-based, essentially). OSes that didn't care if you overwrote key system files (that shouldn't be) or installed drivers that are incompatible with other drivers. I could go on and on about the shortcomings of the M$ OSes prior to WinXP, but this isn't the forum for such, and, frankly, I've better things to do.

The short answer as to what the big deal is today with needing a sophisticated installer can be summed up in two words: Windows Registry. The long answer involves *why* this is important, and an entire college-level course on the subject can be taught.

Since, AFAIK, you (Norfleet) aren't a sofware engineer, much less have extensive knowledge of Windows OS internals (there are many books on this subject alone), nor ever actually wrote an installer for a modern Windows application, you really have no business judging that which you know zilch about. Of course, knowing you to be the cantankerous old curmudgeon that we're so fond of, that most assuredly would never stop you from doing so.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Arryn:
In the "old days", you had crappy, grossly-unstable OSes like DOS/Windows, or Windows 9x (still DOS-based, essentially). OSes that didn't care if you overwrote key system files (that shouldn't be) or installed drivers that are incompatible with other drivers. I could go on and on about the shortcomings of the M$ OSes prior to WinXP, but this isn't the forum for such, and, frankly, I've better things to do.

Pah, so? It's my computer. If I want to install incompatible drivers and arbitrarily delete things at whim, I can do that. Certainly this won't happen when installing a program this way, since everything goes in the program's own directory. That means the only way a system file or driver that's "incompatible", and I use this word in quotes for a reason, gets overwritten, is when *I* choose to overwrite it!

Just as an example, in the *OLD* days, and it's still true on Linux, when you wanted to delete something, you deleted it, and it went away. Now, Windows tries to pretend it's smarter than you are, and tells you that you CAN'T delete it, blah, blah, blah, because it's in use, blah, blah, blah. Like I'm supposed to care. So what if a program malfunctions as a result? Clearly, if I'm ordering the deletion of the file, I'm aware of the consequences of doing so, and simply am not concerned that some program, which I undoubtedly didn't like anyway, or I wouldn't be deleting its files, will break. In fact, that's the entire point!

And grossly unstable my ***. DOS NEVER CRASHES! Never! Ever! Programs crash. DOS doesn't. Same cannot be said for Windoze!

The short answer as to what the big deal is today with needing a sophisticated installer can be summed up in two words: Windows Registry. The long answer involves *why* this is important, and an entire college-level course on the subject can be taught.

Pah. The Windows Registry is a pile of crap. Linux doesn't have a registry that programs arbitrarily write crap into, and programs in Linux instead use something called a "configuration file"! What a novel concept, that items pertinent to the program are written in a file in the program's own directory, instead of all other the place! Amazing how such a simple concept works so well.

Since, AFAIK, you (Norfleet) aren't a sofware engineer, much less have extensive knowledge of Windows OS internals (there are many books on this subject alone), nor ever actually wrote an installer for a modern Windows application, you really have no business judging that which you know zilch about.

Pah. You think I've never programmed anything? I program lots of stuff....and it installs by UNZIPPING OUT OF A FILE! Amazing how such a simple and ancient concept works so effectively, even in the day and age where people needlessly add points of failure to what is otherwise a simple operation.

Case and point: I've installed Dom2 perfectly fine by simply unzipping it out of a zip file, from when I packaged my previous directory and shuffled it off to another computer. Amazingly, it works. So why do we need an wonky installer? Pah! If it really had that many files, there was an ancient method called "INSTALL.BAT". Once again, no wonky executables, and if you wanted, you could open it up and do it manually!

Of course, knowing you to be the cantankerous old curmudgeon that we're so fond of, that most assuredly would never stop you from doing so.

Us cantankerous old curmudgeons have this annoying habit of remembering that in the old days, these problems didn't exist, and why they didn't occur.

[ July 19, 2004, 00:17: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
And grossly unstable my ***. DOS NEVER CRASHES! Never! Ever! Programs crash. DOS doesn't.

If an app crashes and takes the OS with it, that's also an OS crash. A properly-written OS won't allow an app to corrupt the OS. Your wonky memory may not permit you to recall it, but DOS apps could very easily crash DOS. I remember games like X-COM and Panzer General doing it, just to name two. If you think differently, then you're deluding yourself (or worse).

BTW, DOS, even running no apps, could crash too. Hard to do, but it was possible. All depended on the stability of what was loaded using the config.sys file. Then there's infamous DOSes like DOS 5.0 (fixed in 5.1 IIRC), 6.0 (fixed, sort of, in 6.01), and 6.2 (fixed in 6.22).