Well, since the original thread has sort of been closed down we'll try again here, hopefully not violating any rules (hopefully). Again remember I have both the Windows and Linux versions of "Undertale," both legit. If piracy was my goal that would be stupid- why bother when anyone can already download pirated versions easily from so many places? In any case to avoid clutter moderators should just delete that thread and let this one take over. I have it downloaded. For anyone unfamiliar with the original thread: I am trying to get the full version of "Undertale" running on an old laptop. The idea here is part of an overall effort to push old harware beyond what seem to be normal limits. This effort has been very successful with online efforts and a number of apps and games. The laptop in question is a 2001 Sony VAIO. Its basic specifications are as follows: *2001 Sony VAIO Pentium 3 Intel Integrated chip laptop. *Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition SP3/Puppy Linux 5.2.5 Lucid. *256MB RAM (this is maximum). *800MHz processor. *Plenty of room to stash the game itself. *1024h x 768v resolution with 16 or 24 Bit color. *DXDIAG indicates DirectX 9 installed but this is questionable, hence the use of SwiftShader or 3D-Analyze. *DXDIAG indicates 4MB video RAM, but this has not been a problem with numerous games, like "Farm Frenzy" (64MB VRAM) or "Plants Vs. Zombies: GOTY." SwiftShader seems to greatly help with this as well when it works. *It is a "Dual Operating System" device, hence the two Operating Systems. This is NOT emulation, it runs as one or the other. The Linux version of "Undertale" fails to run in Puppy Linux mode even though GLIBC 2.20 is installed; the game will not even install- after the EULA screen the computer screen goes black and even after eleven hours nothing changes. There are three "primary" games I am trying to get running: "Foxtail" (now running), "Mystery of Mortlake Mansion" (almost), and "Undertale." I am NOT trying to get games for Vista or higher running, and with Linux it's just hit or miss. Since this will come up again this is SwiftShader: it is a software based rendering solution, in the case of 2.1 three files: 'd3d8.dll,' 'd3d9.dll,' and 'SwiftShader.dll' for testing and fine-tuning. It intercepts a game's rendering calls to do the tasks itself, often filling in missing gaps. This is how it gets games (and maybe an app or two) running on computers that they ordinarily wouldn't work on. 3.0 is overall superior to 2.1 but cannot help with DirectX 8 and needs SSE2 so it's useless for pre-Pentium 4 devices. SwiftShader 2.1 has been a blessing for that old Sony, especially when it got "Foxtail" running! 3D-Analyze is an application from the early 2000s. You run a game through it; what it does is fool the game into thinking what it wants is there (e.g. a particular GeForce card). You can cancel things like all rendering, texturing, lighting, and other aspects. It does grant certain real abilities, such as boosting a computer's DirectX up one step (so DirectX 8 to DirectX 8.1). It was meant mainly for computers that were just a little short on requirements or for fussy games on otherwise powerful enough devices. This application was useful for determining that "Land of Runes" uses OpenGL instead of DirectX in spite of what the specs say. It has absolutely no effect on "Undertale" which is very, VERY strange. Interesting Facts: 1) "Undertale Demo:" 3D-Analyze has full effect. SwiftShader 2.1 causes it to slow and freeze. Being a DirectX 8 game SwiftShader 3.0 has no effect. Works fine on the Sony. 2) "Undertale Full:" 3D-Analyze has no effect. SwiftShader 2.1 causes it to never even start; SwiftShader 3.0 works perfectly. Does not work on the Sony. 3) "Undertale: Yellow:" Absolutely identical to "Undertale Full" in how it behaves. 4) "Underfell:" Neither 3D-Analyze nor either SwiftShader has any effect at all. Works fine on the Sony. The obvious reason for trying to get a full as in ALL details comparison list between GM8 and GMS games is because "Undertale: Demo" made with GM8 works while the Full version made with GMS does not. Therefore the problem is almost certainly there. How are the Demo and Full versions different? What do they need? A comparison between the two games themselves would still be best though. rlKmAN: You made a good, logical enough suggestion, but...believe it or not I was directed right back here! Thanks anyway though, maybe Reddit can help as suggested elsewhere. Who knows, maybe Toby Fox himself can help, but he must be flooded with e-mails. As for you nacho_chicken, perhaps YOU missed the part about "it would be different?" Someone could program an NES, Commodore-64, or heck even a ColecoVision (with today's technology) cartridge version of "Undertale;" they would suffer from obvious limitations but overall the gameplay would be intact. "Undertale" on the NES would be similar in ways to "Earthbound;" yes the music and visuals would be weaker (again "different") but assume it is created and it is the only version my old laptop can run via an emulator- here's a logical test: Which is better? 1) An NES version with all the NES limitations or 2) Nothing at all. I am well aware that an NES version isn't going to be a perfect clone. Quite frankly an MS-DOS version or a GM8 version would be great but how likely is that? I've been tinkering around with computers since the days of the Vic-20 and cassette drives so I'm well aware of different versions and limitations. That's the whole point of this thread: differences. Incidently I saw a video of someone who managed to get "Undertale" Full running on a Windows 98 computer. Something called "Kernelex" was involved, but however it was done it was still done. Since apparently any effort to create a GameMaker 8 version of "Undertale," even strictly for personal use on an antique, cannot be discussed here we'll try the direct approach. First, I found this about GMS itself: <i>"GameMaker: Studio requires a reasonably modern PC running Windows XP, Vista, 7, or later. A DirectX 9 (or later) compatible graphics card with at least 32MB of memory is required for most created games. It requires a screen resolution of at least 1024x768 and 65536 (16-bit) colours (but preferably 32-bit true colour). Also a DirectX 9 compatible sound card, or integrated sound chip, is required. It is always recommended that you make sure you have the most recent drivers installed for your system. GameMaker: Studio requires DirectX version 9.0 or later to be installed on your computer. When designing and testing games, the memory requirements can be pretty high (at least 128 MB* and preferably more, but this depends on the operating system). <b>When just running games, the memory requirements are less severe and depend a lot on the type of game as well as the resources being used.</b> NOTE: Although most modern PCs ship with DirectX 10 and higher, this does not mean that DirectX 9 is present on your machine, and you should still install it from the link given above!"</i> * As in RAM? Seems rather low, too low to be "pretty high." Now here's the thing, as "Monk" would say: "Windows XP, Vista, 7, or later. A DirectX 9 (or later) compatible graphics card with at least 32MB of memory. Screen resolution of at least 1024x768 and 65536 (16-bit) colours (but preferably 32-bit true colour). Also a DirectX 9 compatible sound card, or integrated sound chip." Especially with SwiftShader 2.1 these bases should all be covered! Games such as "Inherit the Earth: Quest for the Orb," "Plants Vs. Zombies: GOTY Edition" and "Elementals: The Magic Key," which have too-heavy-for-the-Sony requirements, do work- although going by Sony vs. game specs they shouldn't. SwiftShader apparently covers extra RAM requirements, extra testing does imply this. Now for this new thread here is a partial list of games and such that SwiftShader 2.1 has gotten running: "Foxtail," "Inherit the Earth," "Farm Frenzy," "Elementals: The Magic Key," "Deepica," "Plumeboom: The First Chapter," "The Golden Path of Plumeboom," "Ancient Wonderland," "Mythic Pearls (90%)," "Wizard's Curse: Deadly Spell," "Fiber Twig Midnight Puzzle," the SCUMMVM application so "LOOM" and "MYST: Masterpiece Edition," "Sid Meier's Pirates! 2K (but with serious problems)." The application 3D-Analyze has gotten "Running Sheep Tiny Worlds," "Running Sheep (Aliens)," and "Sid Meier's Pirates! 2K (80%)" running. The truly weird part is how 3D-Analyze simply has no effect on "Undertale." If running "Undertale" through 3D-Analyze you should be able to make various adjustments, including the ability to stop any rendering but nothing, absolutely nothing, affects "Undertale." This is the only game I've seen that does this. The problem here could be as simple as a missing or wrong DLL file somewhere. With "Foxtail" the biggest problem was a v3.17 version of a DLL file; replacing it with a v3.15 or the superior v3.18 made everything work nicely. The game does work on XP computers according to other sites and comments. To my knowledge all drivers have been updated as much as possible for XP Home Edition. The game does not seem to need SSE2. Note however that this was a used laptop and there is a chance the Operating System may have been a bit "messed up," so maybe a particular file the game needs was damaged or removed. The error code given is "c000001d." This is usually not a good sign but it can mean too many things to zero in on. It should be noted that "Foxtail" by all rights should have run on the Sony from the get-go, but the "FreeImage.dll" file needed replacing (v3.15 instead of v3.17), and it had to be directed to "direct3d," so SwiftShader 2.1 could affect it. Obviously the Sony's OpenGL, which "Foxtail" uses by default, was not good enough. The error message was usually "c0000005" but in one situation was "c000001d." This is the only time something that gave that message did finally work- but it proved that it can be done. A real concern is trying SwiftShader 3.0, which does play nice with "Undertale." Since it requires SSE2 it cannot work on a Pentium 3 laptop and you get an error message telling you this. With "Undertale" all you get is that "sorry for the inconvenience" (yeah, sure) error window. This means the game is not even getting far enough to try to use SwiftShader. It seems pretty certain that if "Undertale" can be made to run then "Undertale: Yellow" will run too, and no doubt other GMS games. The grim version "Underfell" works. So what are the differences between Demo and Full versions? Why does "Undertale" bypass 3D-Analyze? That would be a legit start. Bits and pieces of info are welcome. I just can't shake the feeling that the answer to running the game is a simple one. And again: all efforts here are going to be legit, if any future GameMaker 8 efforts are tried it'll be with the help or consent of Toby Fox himself. So don't worry. I have the process monitor readouts for "Undertale" if that will help.