Using the latest "Voodoolizer V1.05.00 Win2k/XP" 3dfxOGL.dll as a "live example", here's how to get the Info out of it :

Basic things like the File properties are reached by right-clicking the File, and select "Properties" from the Context Menu. It will show Tabs like this :





For ease of viewing the "Date modified" for an entire Directory, you can display the Files in the Explorer by selecting "View Details" :



(I the Items of interest)

Now let's compare them side-by-side to an "old friend", the 3dfx OpenGL 1.1 ICD V1.0.0.0761 for Win2k :
(left = 3dfx original, right = Voodoolizer)


(here, the Difference in File Properties... nothing unusual so far)


(here, it gets odd, doesn't it? Date is "different" in 2 positions, yet looks all but too similar (and old for something (c)2003 IMHO). File size is 100.0% identical)

------------------------------
I use a nice Freeware Tool for viewing & comparing :
http://www.hhdsoftware.com/hexeditor.html

In there, the actual amount of real difference between 2 Files can be searched for, and displayed side-by-side.
After a mere handful of bytes at the beginning of the File, about 98% passes with 100% match, and beyond that, you'll quickly discover the mentioned, only Area of major difference : It is the File's Properties...
----------------------------------------
Repeat process for glide2x.dll, glide3x.dll, 3dfxvs.dll, 3dfxvsm.sys ...

Example of the contained glide dll's ( (c)2003 x3dfxgamers ) :


(I compared them to Colourless' GlideXP 1016. Looks odd again, right?)


(the glide3x.dll matches by the second of creation & 100% File size... All by accident ?)

If you have time to spare, repeat the entire thing again for the other Releases. And after that, look at the previous Releases (e.g. the v1.04.01 beta6).

You'll find the very same pattern, only slightly older matching original Files (e.g. older GlideXP).
------------------------------------------
Now after doing all this, I really cannot think of any other conclusion but the one I have described.
You'll also see that so far, I have been more than "quite diplomatic" in my statements

------------------------------------------
I had been told that the Voodoolizer was something very new, better than other Drivers, and was repeatedly asked to include it in the 3dfx Archive.

After these findings, I rejected those requests every single time. Although it uses valid and good core files (that likely make for a stable Driver), this is something I cannot accept.
And again, I do not believe in any of those Features (e.g. the advertised DirectX9 compatibility), as the original Files certainly do not possess any such compatibility....
(the DirectX core is dated Nov 2000, of course a relabeled old 3dfx File again, and DirectX9 did not quite exist at that time yet )

The amount of actual changes seen, basically is just the relabeling.

The Files themself (in terms of function) have not seen any significant changes.

(If anything was really changed, why on earth would anyone even think about moving the Date backwards ? And with any real changes made, the File size would practically never be identical. That's a one-in-a-Million chance, and certainly won't appear in several Drivers, over several Versions)

The evidence leaves no doubt about what was done...

If you either compile your own .dll that you have written to have new Features (or contain whatever changes/fixes you made), it will have the current date listed in this Field.

If it doesn't, it means it was not really updated, and still is the old File basically.

Modifying/Editing Code in a compiled Executable or Dynamic Linked Library (.dll) is virtually impossible.
It is like randomly and blind picking around in the dark, with unknown consequences and results.

The only exception being plain ASCII text, that can (of course) be identified and edited (such as the File Property Pages).

Yeah but when that ends, excpect DenisFX v1.10b4 

Yep, Xpentor's Creations were always a source of speculation and doubts.

As inf mods they basically were (just like the -lizer thingy) , the Drivers worked okay for some, but indeed nothing special...

The Hex-Editing to pretend something new unfortunately has a long tradition

Odd that in 2003, some people are still unable to identify fakes. Anyway, not my business, if it makes them feel better

I don't know about Voodoolizer, I myself have noticed the same things falconfly and patience pointed out.

Plus they came outta nowhere with the same domain name the x3dfx group had, they are completely in German and they apparently make English "drivers"? That just sounds funny to me.

Plus on their they plan to modify the BIOS for voodoo 5? And then call it the "Voodoolizer" brand and remove the 3Dfx name, like it was theirs to begin with   . Saying it will provide better stability and performance? Yeah right it already is stable and the BIOS is working great performance wise.

Just like the drivers, they call the drivers theirs, even though they aren't, the just took C+ and modified the version # and date, which is very easy to do.

Forge the technical aspects of all of this, there are red flags all over the place without even getting into the driver issue.

Plus, this won't happen because I think NVIDIA has better things to do with their time + cares less what goes on w/3dfx products, but if they wanted to the could sue the "Voodoolizer" driver team due to the fact the are plagiarizing  the driver by saying the own the rights to copyright the source code.

Unless they are rich, don't have a job and are able to completely write the source from ground up...WOW! They rival the performance of the last source code 3Dfx wrote and same features.... quite a feat!

Some how this all sounds fishy

---

So what are you saying you want? You are a little to vauge, but I'll try to help sort out where I can.

I guess for new features like what you mention, it'd be better off creating a new BIOS revision the makes the current technology in the voodoo 4/5 to make some of the T-buffer effects emulate what Pixel Shading, DOT3, etc. does, or add in the funtion to the bios and support it through the drivers -- and from there you might have a wokring fearture close to what is currently out there

The memory bandwidth is shared between both TMU units and that actually makes it eat up more space when it stores framebuffer data, effectively cutting it in half - so 64MB is approximately 32MB and it is slower, becuase rather than making it shared between the two TMUs all together, it is assigned to each chip and then shared - but if a BIOS reprogram would take care of that (w/driver support) which would get rid of the memory problem. So that causes some kinks in the card too.

If that could be pulled off I don't know anyone who'd spend the time on it, also I doubt you'd get pixel shading (especially 2.0) as we know it, it'd be good, but not quite as good as the new technology out there which not only requires more Mhz but bandwith as well. Most of the Voodoo 4/5 cards support up to AGP 4x BUT most of the AGP sprecifications are not used - 3Dfx wasn't very complaint when it came to AGP.

So in that scenario you'd have to, once again, re-program the BIOS to make the card do that - but re-programming the BIOS depends on how the card is designed, sometimes you can't do things like that becuase of the physical design of the card - if certain things aren't inter-connected, you can only force the funtions so far.

As for the gaming console, give it up dude -- we all miss 3Dfx to no end, but they're not coming back. Nvidia owns all the rights to anything 3Dfx, so if someone did try to create a gaming console with the chips Nvidia would most certainly sue them for infringement. Plus it would cost to much for any individual to take on as well as finanacially. You'd need FAB to do all this as well!

Plus I don't know anyone with that many 3Dfx chips --  and the chipset would need to be re-deigned to work correctly with the game console.

It is nearly impossible to do a lot of this for obvious reasons. And the technology is just too old to keep up with today's games.

3Dfx kicks ass, but all we can look for is compatibility w/DirectX (whatever version), better performance and quality, and quite possibly new features, time will tell.

At is it will remain this way with a lot neat thing that could be done w/3Dfx cards at least untill someone is willing to get a team together to sit down and take on some of these challenges.

A game console, a great thought but - not gonna happen, sorry dude.  

---