So could the Win-version be added as an extra?

First of all I'd like to say that I understand and respect that decision. I don't want to sound like an "entitled" whining gamer here, I'm a bit to old for that.

However I see here a situation where GOGs mission statements are contradictory, so what I'd like to suggest is an open discussion about the implications of said policy concerning the current situation.

The controversy I've noticed is between two of the GOG aims: to provide a working version of old games for PC owners, and to provide the latest and best versions of the games, including goodies and so on.

The first goal is, as we all know, unachievable in 100% since PCs (Gog bless them) differ in every possible way between each other, unlike consoles. So obviously the implicit meaning of the goal is to provide a stable and working version of the game to as many customers as possible within the reach of profitability (i.e. the costs of making a Linux version for every game would grossly outvalue the acumulated marginal benefits).

However with Colonization the "best" and latest game version seems to be the one that you cannot bring to as many gamers as the DOS one, which requires only the addition of DOSBox. This causes the mission statements to be in opposition, which for me means it is open for internal (among GOG decisionmakers) and community discussion.

As a consumer I totally understand why giving a version that does not work with some systems, and the updating of which does not seem economically feasible, would be out of the question if it were to be the only version provided. However since you already provide a working game, the negative fallout of releasing such a game might be argued to be much lower than the goodwill generated by giving the customer a choice of version and providing him with a newer, better version.

So what I kindly ask of you is to bring this question up with the higher-ups at GOG for discussion and possible reconsideration. To support my voice I would gladly start a petition in the form of a Community wishlist vote to show how much support adding the Win version as a goodie actually has. I might be well proven wrong.

I respect GoG and CDP for their attitude towards the community, and have much faith in the power of a civilized discussion. I sincerely hope this matter will be brought to attention of the decision-makers if it is legally possible for the said version to be provided.

Well, I demand you release the windows version as an extra based on the fact that I am etox. Discussion over, thanks for coming. Going back to my coffee now.

Release them in an unsupported zipfile. I could run Windows 3.1 in DOSBox in order to run the 16-bit version. Some might even have dusty 9x pizza boxes.

Everyone needs to get with the times and have an old Winbook sitting around.

Except it isn't, I daresay. Global availability is a question of licenses and if it's not available, it's the holder of the rights that is responsible, since it was his decision not to allow worldwide sale. Same thing applies to a publisher/developer insisting on DRM. The responsibility to provide a product that works is on GoG's side, so I understand why you're wary to take such a bold step with possible repercussions. However if you provide a working, stable version of the game, and properly warn the consumer of the potential incompatibility of the alternative Win version, it is the consumers decision and ultimately the responsibiliy lies with him/her.

I totally understand and support GoG's strive for high standards and providing a version as stable as possible! And I understand that your department would be hit most heavily due to lost opportunity costs (the time you spend reading/answering to complaints).

Where did you find such data? Steam maybe...? I'm reminding that "monthly survey" is based on volunteers' votes only. I'm sorry but nowadays NEW computers have usually 64-bit Windows 7 system. You just disappeared hundreds of millions not-new PCs with 32-bit OS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

Corporate usage of 64-bit isn't high and private/home computers have double amount of 32-bit systems:
http://www.quora.com/Operating-Systems/What-is-the-market-share-of-32-bit-vs-64-bit-Windows-OS-in-corporate-environments

Maybe you think about "future"? That's good! But tell me how many of GOG games will run under Windows 8? At least 32-bit version let alone 64-bit...

You should offer a choice to users/customers with warning that you have different versions of games (the same games, DOS or Win16/Win32) which will not work on every OS. Especially modern one...

For those of us with ancient computers still running on Windows 95, can the Win95 version be purchased anywhere? Anyone know? Not interested in ebay or some other second hand purchase, only new purchase.

Nevermind, I found it. Amazon had the Windows version on sale. I didn't buy the $59.93 one linked to but instead paid $26.76 for one of the other new ones from other sellers. $26.76 is probably still too much, but I was so discouraged by the graphics of the DOS version I'm just hoping the Windows version is at least a little better. I couldn't make out what was on my screen with the version I purchased here.

I'm not one that believes graphics make the game, as to me the gameplay is way more important. But when the graphics are so bad you can barely make out what you're looking at, or sometimes you can't, then it makes an otherwise great game unplayable IMO.

And I've found several examples of that with games I've purchased here. No, it's not GOG's fault. I think the fault lies with the huge screens and screen resolutions run today that make the older graphics with much less resolutions (and thus much less pixels) appear boxy and sometimes literally unplayable. Betrayal at Krondor is a good example. That game is one of the best games ever made IMO, yet I simply can't play it on my current setup. I literally just see big blogs of green and brown and it's just not fun at all. Back in the day when I played it the graphics didn't look that bad on my machine then I know.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002Z26MS/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00

You can run all DOSBox games in windowed mode, that might help a bit?

Yeah, I've played with that, and it does help. But there's a "but" (lol, isn't there always!)

But it gets more involved than just changing the DOXBOX settings, and ends up being a combination of changing the DOSBOX settings AND my monitor's settings.

Which is doable, and that's what I do when I have to, but it was so much simpler then, lol.

In case I'm not being clear, what I mean is that if I merely change the DOSBOX to an 840X620 resolution (or whatever), THEN the problem is the play area is a tiny box on this huge screen, which is.... uncomfortable. And, when I change the monitor resolution from 1920X1080 to 840X620 (or whatever, I can't remember if that was 820X640 or 840X620 or something else altogether but I think you know the one I'm talking about, as it was the "standard" resolution in the early 90's I suppose) then again each pixel is just so big on the screen it's just fugly.

What I've found works is to change the DOSBOX to the "standard" (8whatever by 6whatever) AND changing my monitor's resolution to 1024X768.

That seems to be a very workable medium, and things are playable then.