Get Starcraft working on Windows 7: Three easy steps

primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' BoopinDetroit, MI
edited October 2011 in Gaming
«134

Comments

  • edited September 2009
    taka says no point in haggling with that junk guys keep an XP partition or machine next to your Windows7 set up so you can run DirectX 9 and down on the XP box and 10 and up and the 7 HELLLOLOOOOO wakeupppp poepleeeee
  • edited September 2009
    Punctuate much?
  • edited September 2009
    or down(up)grade to windows xp....
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited September 2009
    (Down).
  • edited September 2009
    This is a symptom that Microsoft are force obsoleting certain things and artificially requiring things to update to work on windows (as manuf. want them to!)

    Microsoft are bastards
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited September 2009
    Or perhaps its a sign of progress within an OS that's now more secure, faster, and more capable than Windows XP ever was, but with a caveat - that they had to close some loopholes or rework some APIs that were out of date.

    But hey, you can call them bastards if you want, I guess.
  • meh
    edited September 2009
    Snarkasm, I am just posting this to say thank you. Good article, too.
  • edited September 2009
    Starcraft also runs fine in 'wine' on Linux, without any tweak, hack or leaving additional windows open. Just sayin'.
  • edited September 2009
    You guys are right. Microsoft is just dicks for not testing this 11 year old game out on windows 7. Let's all use Wine for our retro gaming! Can Wine do Zork too? I bet it can cause it's awesome.
  • edited September 2009
    Use ChaosLauncher and you can play the game in windowed mode on windows 7.

    http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=65196
  • edited September 2009
    if you can run windows 7 why not just run a virtual xp machine? works for me...
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited September 2009
    Because Starcraft requires 640x480, and XPM cannot change resolutions.
  • edited September 2009
    @Black Jesus:

    Zork runs well in Dosbox, but I guess Wine is fine too.
  • edited September 2009
    @Thrax so use a different VM client instead.
  • edited September 2009
    Another solution, is to launch the game, go back to windows, and open task manager, kill explorer.exe and use ALT+TAB to go to the game, it will fix the color issue, I did this with Age of Empires 2 and it worked, got this from somewhere online, I can't remember from where.
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin
    edited September 2009
    Running Windows xp in a Virtual PC 2007 vm (not XP Mode) allows me to play Diablo 2 in 7/vista. It runs much faster than any of the other hacks I'd tried.
  • edited September 2009
    Try updating your video drivers, noob. SC works great for me under Windows 7, and the reason that you can't run it under Win7's XP VM is because it runs it through remote desktop and 16 bit colors.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited September 2009
    Gatz wrote:
    @Thrax so use a different VM client instead.

    I'm well aware. I was simply answering someone's errant statement.
  • edited September 2009
    shwaip: You should be able to run Diablo2 natively in Windows 7. I haven't had a problem with it.
  • edited September 2009
    "Starcraft also runs fine in 'wine' on Linux, without any tweak, hack or leaving additional windows open. Just sayin'."

    That's a lie. Multiplayer doesn't work under wine.
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin
    edited September 2009
    shwaip: You should be able to run Diablo2 natively in Windows 7. I haven't had a problem with it.

    Yeah, I had it working in vista too, but there are some other advantages - I can run 2 vms and have 2 cd keys for muling. I tend to get (much) better performance this way than running windowed (2d). I can keep the window open in the background and email/gchat/irc, rather than having it minimize when i do that.
  • edited September 2009
    I'd rather pay Bill Gates to kick me in the balls than use that clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caliginous code called Linux.

    But then, I like being able to point the finger at one person when things go wrong instead of guessing which half-awake code monkey screwed up the latest distro.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI
    edited September 2009
    Try updating your video drivers, noob.

    Sigh.. It's nice to have houseguests, but this reminds me of how much I love and appreciate the Icrontic community.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited September 2009
    I was thinking "try having suggestions that aren't obvious." Heh.
  • edited September 2009
    Seems like this may be an issue with his particular setup. I just installed SC and it ran fine for me on Windows 7 64. No need for any of this other stuff. However I should note that I used the version you can download from Battle.net, not the CD. Not sure if that makes a difference.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited September 2009
    It's not an issue with this particular setup. The Reddit comment thread reveals several other SC installs fixed by this methodology.

    And yes, the version you download from BNet makes a huge difference.
  • edited September 2009
    Works fine for me on 64-bit Windows 7, using nvidia 190.62 drivers. This is a cd-install from years ago.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI
    edited September 2009
    For those that cannot get it to work, through whatever combination of hardware, this fix is for them. :)
  • LincLinc Bard Detroit
    edited September 2009
    Further info on the system cited in the article: I'm running 32-bit Win7, installed SC from CD, and patched with the latest available from Blizzard. My video card is a Radeon HD 2900 XT with Catalyst 8.6 installed.

    I don't know what vagaries are involved with why this is necessary for some and not for others, only that I found significant corroboration for this combination working for others as well (though not as concisely articulated elsewhere).
This discussion has been closed.