I just recognized, that System Shock 2, the Thief series and some other games in my catalogue do not list Windows 7 as supported OS anymore. I bought this titles way back before 2020 and this was never an issue back than. Does that mean, I can´t start them on my W7-system any longer?

It's more that technical support is no longer offered for Windows 7. There is a thread on the forum listing games that still run in Win 7, I can't check for a link right now (on my phone) but if the games are listed in that thread you should be fine.

Said link wolfsite mentioned.

Considering the recent Dragon Age: Origins thing it may very well be that there will be some hiccups.

It's because they don't test on Win 7, and can't guarantee compatibility. They don't care if their updates break compatibility with Win 7. They don't support Win 7 any longer, just like they don't support Win XP or MSDos.

GoG's statement is that games sold here can run on modern systems. Win7 is no longer a supported system. By the same metric it would be like saying ''Runs on Windows95''. In Win7 case it is more likely than not that older games will run, but again - it is now, for all intents and purposes - an abandoned system. ;(

I agree! GoG should have left the original requirements on the game page, maybe add a warning about not being tested on older OSs. But most of the old games should still work (unless GoG screws up and breaks them with their "preservation" program).


This are the Thief Gold requirements from steam:

OS: Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor: 1.8 GHz Processor
Memory: 512MB RAM (1 GB recommended)
Hard Disk Space: 2GB HDD
Video Card: 3D graphics card compatible with DirectX 7 (compatible with DirectX 9 recommended)
DirectX®: 7

Yeah, it is silly. Just recognized, that Arcanum and Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines as part of the "preservation program" are now also officialy not "supporting" Windows 7. This is rediculous, I just hope, the offline installers are still ok.

Steam no longer Support Windows 7
NVidia no longer supports Windows 7
AMD no longer supports Windows 7
MICROSOFT no longer Supports Windows 7

When the very company that created the OS no longer supports said OS you can't really call it ridiculous, it's the way computers work, all OS's eventually become old and no longer viable to continue offering support. You might as well ask them to support Win 95, Win 98, and OS/2.

IMO GOG should separate these info:
- new OS versions that they support
- the OS versions the game ran on so far

Otherwise it's a mess and we'll lose info about the original systems.

No-one can realistically expect GOG to continue to support old operating systems. But with Windows 7, and perhaps operating systems even older, they used to test and support games on it. In order to bring old games to newer systems, it stands to reason that inevitably a change is going to break the compatibility it once had. It would be tedious and laborious to do so now, but because GOG offers the download of older patches, it would have been convenient for the customer and prudent from GOG just to put a small note next to a build saying that "Last patch tested on some sytem", if that system was once supported. With newer games never tested or expected to run on Windows 7 though, that one's on us to sort out.

I did write explain so much but browser tab on my phone crased. About differences in Windows. About todays FAKEs updates from GOG. I point it to two users above their statements about outaded Win7 and unsupported updated setup are wrong cause of some facts they miss (no offense just pointing and reminding some details). No real updates happen (only hiccup, double - fake drop of OS support along with fake updates, most of them NOT HAPPEN AT ALL, not a single installscript in Galaxy build not a byte/digital sign of offline setup).

Windows are not Windows. Another missng fact. There is like almot no real native games to Win10 even in them which not start at Win7 (soft coded locks).

Trying to reduce text now. Nope, the same a bit short in Win history. It is like Windows NT in '00s XP especially. There was in fact NO WInNT NATIVE games for NT until some time past WinVista. Its not only Win7 still uptodate latest desktop and WinNT OS. It was first gaming NT OS
Almost all legacy games prior to Win7 was Win1x3x/9x/ME (and ofc PC-DOS/MS-DOS not natively for such olders OS but perfectly compatible by them). And all gaming clients. Dead ones now (dozens of them actually). And Steam itself.
exe are not the same as another exe. Windows are not Windows. Differ platforms - differ formats. NT never was good at compatibility backward as PCGW and Wikipedia says (they are but not very good, very good/perfect was Win98 and WinME).

Windows ME are not Windows. Get the point? Its not ONE the same family.

exe file was or wasnt native. The only matters. Because what date is outdated are discussable argument. No, personal opinion, not an argument. Exe have text explaining which platform are native and additional warnings which OS cannot execute them (at very header information). Most 00s remain Windows (not NT) exes.

We goes through that on Win XP and WinVista/7 not because it was something new come after outdated old. It was differ OS at some point. XP basically was paid update of Win2k - with only modern desktop theme are real difference (i mean highly affect backward compatibility).
WinVista was even same XP. Same newer AERO. Everything else just paid minor updates. Issue is not all games after it was really Vista compatibility despite stating (remain Win9x executables as exe file report in the code). AT THIS point only Vista was newer. Games and software did a short trip/jumped from Win9x/ME to Vista7 x64 NT applications.

WinNT 1.x+ - NT2k - XP. Technically and in fact the same was .../-> Vista-7. Windows ME was separate product and yet perfectly(?) compatible with PC(MS-)-DOS/Win1x3x/Win9x (as i understand only Win3x has native apps-games so can be shorten to Win3x)(and Win9x was almost the same just come with fully accessible build-in DOS still remain AddOn on-DOS, ME wasnt, so maybe Win1.0-to-98 can be shorten as Win9x or just Windows, right?).

Look at consoles to see similarities for Win10. Esp (and esp PS5 Pro with no PRO games). GOG joined (long ago) Ms propagandic (and paid most likly) constant fight against Win7 (and that itself is an big argument! from Ms itself). Consoles in constant fight against gaming legacy.

And to see opposite situation - look at Linux. There is Win10 equivalent. For ARM architecture. But they not make PC-LIN/32(/x64) "outdated". Even no latest builds/upates are good to use. And that with fact it is still same HARDWARE which also now fight against legacy PC Desktop. They all try to make PC a backport of mobiles and users become "subscribers" not an owners. And yet Linux have less issues. Less legacy fighting.

That because software and even OS are about stability. Not about actualisation uptodate "security upates" become standard by mobile platforms. Same for programming coding. Lame lamers who think they are programists. Whatever ages. No idea of what roadmap and goals means. Updates for upates. Monthly services.

Windows 7 are last desktop (real PC Desktop), uptodate NT, native, real OS. Basically support almost everything - if you caution with updates from Ms, install from 3rd party source (nowadays reality), tweak it.

Windows 10+ UWP reality - caution with updates, fake security monthly service of fake and often DANGER updates (especially for Tablets). Issues happen. And no answer can be given - revert upates or instal newer ones. Just like on smartphones (esp in web b)rowsers). New updates are much unsecure than old stable builds of EVERY product this days.

Windows 10 partially intentionally partially not - are killing PC platform. Linux are saving it. True fact (and sad for someone?). Issues with new or old games cause modern PC-Win platform bad at handle games esp in fullscreen (all.games)? Lamo NV coders and Win10 broke D3D10 legacy Win7 game on your PC (along with unclear involvementof Steam Overlay)? Go to Linux. As an Windows adept - this is only troubleshooting workaround that is safe to suggest. I have no idea what to suggest else. Alternate is fiddling with backports of WineD3D(-for-Win) and DXVK(-for-Win).

Or go to consoles.

Modern not mean better or safe to suggest. Never was. Forget about Win7 (in favor of Win UWP 10+) is just not safe to suggest and only lamers/newbies(?)(never knew stable software?) said opposite.

UPD: I have Warcraft 1. Which state it got not just Verified* update, but real DosBox tweaks. And yet i dont see such tweaks in Galaxy, while setup basically the identical (no, EXACT same file to digisign and CRC matching).
Moreover, it was initially some outdated/broken GOGDOSBOXLauncher.exe and Mac build got fix it shortly, Windows STILL remain the same - missing options in launcher for somethings present in all else DosBox releases. ofc you must tweak them in conf. Point is - Warcraft 1 win build remain outdated of Mac build despite its Changelog.

Guess what?
http://www.gog.com/en/game/warcraft_orcs_and_humans

It's times like this where if I were a developer, I'd spitefully include a library specifically to exclude people still running prod Win 7 systems.

Not in most cases! They've discontinued a lot of patches.

As #10 said, it'd be about the same as asking for BeOS support. Or BESYS, for that matter.

Right. That's a little lazy on my part. Perhaps it would have been better to say that many games have patches which are around nine years old, at this point, still available, though older patches than this may still have been discontinued - which is "good enough" as those patches seem likely have been tested and functional on the Windows XP-8 era of machines, judging by the 2013 Theme Hospital page, at least. I haven't been actively using GOG that long to remember if this is the case across most of the library available at that time.
Or do you mean to say that the offline installers aren't easily accessible, having been removed for download from the browser, and only available through patching within Galaxy? I won't bemoan and belabour that point, it's been argued about a million times already, suffice to say I find its unfortunate for those without extensive backups.

I don't ask for ongoing support of something antiquated and obselete, just that "it would have been nice" if, having already spent the effort to ensure a patch worked on an older system, that such a thing were not removed.