can you please get 1.9 back

this new version is messing me up i ccant play secondlife with it going on

djlg, if you could please explain more about what exactly you mean, that'd help. Computer specs? What kind of problems exactly? When was the Second Life experience last okay for you?

Please also have a look at the basic info I've posted in places like:

/111/8a/109825/1.html

If you've been crashing, please be sure to send us crash logs.

I would LOVE to have 1.9 back!!!! I feel like we should at least have the option of being able to update the game if we choose. It should not be mandatory. I dont care about better graphics or what not...I just want 1.9 back so I can play. I have not been able to play since 1.10 and I have updated my graphics card and I have done everything that I have been told would help. And NOTHING!!! I have put RL money into this game and it is very upsetting that I cannot play because of a new update. Lindens, PLEASE let those of us who have not been able to play for whatever reason becuase of the new update have 1.9 back, im begging you. I planned on putting more money into the game..but now, I cant.

Rica, your crash logs indicate that you are using a Radeon IGP 340M, which (as it uses the Radeon 7000 chipset) has never met our Minimum System Requirements.

One major reason we post Minimum System Requirements is that Second Life does undergo updates and revisions. If your hardware is not on the list, we are effectively warning you that we make no promise that SL will work now, or in the future.

We'd much rather everyone have access to Second Life, of course, but at the end of the day, we can't test literally every piece of PC hardware, and many computers simply can't run Second Life. We limit our testing and support to the hardware listed by its manufacturers as supporting the graphics libraries we use to draw Second Life.

Lee,

I fully appreciate your comments about supported cards and drivers etc, as well as the minimum system requirements. However many of us have had trouble free play within Sl with precisely these cards (not ideal, but they worked) using 1.9.
why cant some of us, who do not have all the fancy hardware (which meant we are used to not having alll the fancy graphics, and a low fps) to not be able to use a LITE version of SL, which gives us all the functionality we require to enjoy the play in our way ?
if we want to have all the singing and dancing features, we have to invest in the hardware, thats fine, but gameplay was fine for us in 1.9 with our low spec chipsets.
Is it something you can at all consider?
we would love you for it.

my spec is:
Hp nx 9010
2.4ghz celeron
40gb HD
512 mb Ram
ATI Radeon igp 345M (now loaded with omega drivers)

my problem is a crash after about 10 secs, seems to be loading very slowly then stops responding.

The requirements for SL are clearly stated, they havent changed since like 1999, you should of known what you were getting into before you even started. Your videocard is listed as NOT compatible, its never changed. So to complain that you are having issues, makes it completly invalid since you have already been told that it shoudln't have worked in the first place. Just because it worked before doesn't make any difference since it should of never worked to begin with. SL doesn't require an expensive system, my $100 one can play it fine.

The requirements for SL are clearly stated, they havent changed since like 1999, you should of known what you were getting into before you even started. Your videocard is listed as NOT compatible, its never changed. So to complain that you are having issues, makes it completly invalid since you have already been told that it shoudln't have worked in the first place. Just because it worked before doesn't make any difference since it should of never worked to begin with. SL doesn't require an expensive system, my $100 one can play it fine.

As for a "Lite" version, I think thats a pretty good idea.

Striker,
I think you have missed my point.
I am not complaining about issues, i fully understand that my system is "not supported" as are many other peoples system set ups, the point is supported or not, they Worked and those of us using them, put up with what we had, and were grate ful we could.
All i was saying was, that maybe a LITE version could be available (minus all the fancy new graphics) which would allow those of us who enjoy SL the best we can, with what we have, to continue playing, meeting and exploring.
I reiterate, i am not saying i have issues, i am simply asking a question whether this could be a consideration for what seems to be a lot of people.
I was not trying to create a technical issue

lol, the reason I said that was because the title of your post is: "can we roll back ?" Just as the title of your last post was "Not the point" which appears to be the subject you are posting upon, take a look

Unfortunately, "not supported" means exactly that. We will not stop you from attempting to run Second Life on unsupported hardware. If it works, hey, it's good to hear.

But we absolutely do not promise that if SL works on your unsupported hardware now, that it will work in the future. If you ask me, in fact, I'll tell you that a future update most certainly WILL break your ability to use Second Life, and I'll urge you to upgrade.

This is why I've written on the forums, in our documentation, in every place I can, the strongest warning I can give: If you want to use Second Life, PLEASE meet the minimum system requirements!

With every single release, we hear from a very small number of Intel Graphics users, Radeon 7000 users, etc. These residents were the extreme minority that were able to use the previous version of SL on incompatible hardware. Unfortunately, some change we made (which typically improves performance and stability for supported users!) means that their precarious combination of hardware and drivers that happened to work, no longer does. Unfortunately, that puts them in with the overwhelming majority; most people with those graphics cards can't run Second Life at all. That, of course, is why those cards are not supported.

Second Life's system requirements haven't changed in the three years we've been live. The hardware that doesn't meet our System Requirements simply can't handle SL. As I said, there are freak combinations out there that run one or two releases capably. But the research and testing we've done demonstrated that even if we write additional support, the majority of those cards continue to collapse and crash under either insufficient drivers, or from the sheer load of drawing the Second Life world.

Our efforts, at the moment, are focused on improving support, stability, and performance for users who do meet our Minimum System Requirements.

I'm actually curious for residents' opinions... would it be better to continue to allow unsupported cards to attempt to run SL, knowing that most will crash, and the few that don't will likely be unusable in the future? Or would it be better to detect these cards and absolutely refuse to run SL under them?

Fun Fact (and not an attempt to hijack, really ) is that the unsupported Intel Xtreme II (Well, I think that's it... it's an Intel 82865G) I use in my work machine is more stable in SL than my GeForce 6200 pro is at home.

Sometimes I question the validity of the word "unsupported"

Just to back Lee up, card's like the intel chipsets and Radeon 7000's are REALLY old. Whilst SL may have run it in the past, the new updates are really not particularly major and in fact are long overdue as the way SL rendered things was poor, lighting didn't work properly etc. These things NEEDED fixing, frankly annoyed the hell out of me that my system wouldn't run hardware lighting for instance as a decent frame rate. The new updates mean SL can move forward, provide better more atmospheric features etc. which improve the experience for residents.

I'm honestly amazed that it ever ran on such ancient hardware however in order for SL to provide us with more features it has to keep up with the graphics features that are available. Making a lite version really isn't practical either as it would need maintaining, and freezing and trust me as a software developer you just cannot maintain two clients like that.

Not only that but making your system compatable with SL isn't expensive. A X1300, X1600 or X800 Radeon are fairly cheap ( under £100 ) and will not only make your system compatable but allow you to enjoy it a LOT better. (I'm assuming your system supports AGP ).

Ok, well I just wanna know why I had no problem before this new update. I realize that SL needs to run on certain drivers, but I got a message saying that my drivers were out of date and so I updated them and that message went away. So your saying my drivers are still bad? And why isnt 1.9 an option? By looking at these threads there are a lot of people having problems and its a shame to see no progress.

No you may have the latest drivers now BUT if your graphics card is unsupported ( which basically means it doesn't have the features a modern game requires ) the having the latest drivers won't help.

1.9 isn't an option because this is a Client/Server application. To make 1.9 an option means freezing PARTS of 1.10 but not all of it.. then rewriting the bits of 1.9 the must be 1.10 to talk to the server and then developing the two versions in parallel. That is COMPLETELY impractical and will eventually be impossible.

I BEEN HAVING SOME LAG/GRAPHICS ISSUES HERE TOO.

512RAM
P3 740MHZ (I KNOW IT A LOW END COMPUTER BUT i CANNOT EASILY AFFORD A NEW ONE SORRY!)
GEFORCE FX 5500 OC 256MB (LATEST DRIVERS INSTALLED)
15IN LCD

You have got to be kidding me, after Lee just told you about how important it is to meet the requirements you post a problem when you dont meet them, look at your CPU speed and you are complaining about lag?! The minimum to run SL is 800mhz, and thats the bare minimum. If you havent changed your power supply from the orginal one in your computer thats probably the issue with your graphics card.

That's great.

Now... I've been using supported hardware. Well over the minimum requirements. 1.9.1.16 was unusably slow, and the best I got in later 1.9.1 and 1.10.0 preview versions, and 1.10 releases, was less than half the FPS of the early 1.9.1 releases. 1.9.1.13 (if I have the number right) was significantly better than 1.9.0 (I believe it was basically the 1.9.0 renderer with occlusion culling and flexiprim support), and I was feeling quite optimistic about the final release, but after 1.9.1.16 my hopes were dashed.

A "Lite" version with the "classic" renderer (before the 'crazy new shader' code) and OC, like the early 1.9.1 previews, would have saved me buying a new card to replace my existing (and supported) card. And it wouldn't need more than the rendering code that had <i>already been modified</i> to work with the new features of what became 1.10.

System specs:

P4 2.4 GHz
1 GB RAM
nVidia GeForce 5600 FX (upgraded to 6600)

Oh ok, I kept hearing about a graphics driver so I took my laptop to Best Buy and had them update my drivers...but if my graphic card isnt updated then I can see where there is a problem. So the graphics driver and card are 2 diffrent things then? If so..can anybody give me some advice? Ive heard that replacing a graphics card is just the same (cost wise) as buying a new computer, and I cant do that im a poor college student, lol. If anybody can give me ANY help I would owe you so much!!! Ive been going crazy for a week now without SL

It could well be the same as replacing the whole laptop as fairly often (although not always) the graphics card is part of the laptop's integrated mainboard. That means you'll never be able to replace it without buying a new laptop! Sucks doesn't it?

The graphics driver is the software that tells the graphics card how to behave and what the Operating System (Windows in your case) wants it to do. Newer drivers contain general fixes, but also lots of optimisations to make things run smoother and occasionally to add new features too.

ATI and NVidia have a history of not releasing graphics drivers for laptop-type graphics cards, they generally let let the laptop manufacturers release them themselves - this means that the choice of drivers you have is limited because the manufacturers are usually slow to release drivers for older laptops (this is the problem Kayleigh has been having incidentally Rica - ask her about the "fun" we've had trying to get different drivers on her laptop!).

As the previous poster said, Laptops don't tend to be upgradeable. So in that situation yes you'd need to buy a complete system. However a system capable of running SL doesn't have to be one of those multi thousand pound systems.

I appreciate your on low money, been there myself, but if you can scrape together as little as £400-450 you should be able to put together a desktop capable of running SL reasonably.

Worth it? If you want to enjoy SL then definatly, sadly Laptops are often incompatable. Unless the purchaser knows what they're looking for.

Ugh, well that sucks!! And can we convert pounds to US dollars somehow?? lol

I crash like a test dummy, Striker, and my videocard is the same as yours, i have 2 gig ram and an uber cable conncection, my requirements are more then SL, i play Everquest 2 with no lag (and that means something! )

Yet, crash crash crash... since the patch, never had a problem before.
I installed my old videocard from my other pc, 5800, same! Crash, crash, crash...
But like any other game forum we get answers like: what are your specs? To ensure i try what all i already did over and over again
And then a new patch arrives that solves the problem, proving it's not my pc!

Sadly, a new patch also brings new bugs, but i think possitive, it's the first time in almost two years any bugs or patches are affecting me, so prolly this patch will solve me and affect another bunch of helpless addicts!

Then a new patch would help you. Let me ask you this. Why do they make a requirement to play SL? Of course you and some others who actually meet it are having issues, I am not saying its not SL, because its most likely is in your case. Are all crashes caused by the same problem? You sure make it sound like they are. Anyways what is your answer, why do they make a requirement for SL. Why do they list specific cards and say that they will not work with SL. Are the people who don’t meet the requirements justified in complaining that they are crashing when Linden Labs straight out tells them it shouldn't work to begin with?

Then a new patch would help you. Let me ask you this. Why do they make a requirement to play SL? Of course you and some others who actually meet it are having issues, I am not saying its not SL, because its most likely is in your case. Are all crashes caused by the same problem? You sure make it sound like they are. Anyways what is your answer, why do they make a requirement for SL. Why do they list specific cards and say that they will not work with SL. Are the people who don’t meet the requirements justified in complaining that they are crashing when Linden Labs straight out tells them it shouldn't work to begin with?

Lee I would like to say that why not let those that want to try it actually try it and see if it works? There is a warning box that pops up every time you start SL if a card is not supported...isn't that enough? There are quite a few people that I have met (including myself) that would probably have not come to SL if they couldn't get it working at all in the first place. Yes probably not the "majority" but still a significant number. I know you can't support everyone but why lock them out when they are already warned that this may not work.

Also keep in mind that I see quite a few posts from people WITH supported hardware that have problems to the point that it won't run at all. Or people with unsupported cards run SL better than those WITH supported cards.

-DB