Thank you. I downloaded the VMPlayer (I hope that was the right one, it reads like it's the right one.) I'm going to give this a go later this week. I've got a two old Sierra FPS titles that I've wanted to play on my new rigs for years but they just will not run on them (Sierra FPS Baseball 98 and Sierra FPS Football 98). Plus there are other Win95 games that I own that I can't get to run on my new systems without problems (like sound or recognizing a gamepad).

LOL, for that matter, I can't get my GOG version of Redneck Rampage to work with a gamepad, and I played that game with a gamepad when it first came out on my Win95 machine.

Redneck Rampage is a Build Engine game, right? Those are DOS games and there should be a config program that lets you set the control method. Many DOS games had a separate application for settings, you should ask in the Redneck Rampage forums for advice. In any case, running the game in Windows 95 won't make any difference since it's not a Windows game.

I do kind of miss constantly tinkering with config.sys and autoexec.bat... And why do I NEVER have enough conventional memory??? Fuck it, I'm using QEMM.

Then again, consumers are ignorant concerning the stuff MS already does to retain backwards compatibility - older applications that actually do run on Windows 7 and 8 don't normally just do it because by some freak accident new versions of Windows fulfill the requirements, new versions of Windows are loaded with stuff (like legacy libraries no modern program uses anymore) that's only there for no other reason than backwards compatibility, that includes lots of stuff that makes Windows unnecessarily big in size and supposedly even slows the system down (just look at how gigantic the SysWOW64 folder is which only contains stuff for running 32 bit applications - whoopin' 1.5 GB!). In fact there's people (particularly programmers) who are almost offended by the amount of unnecessary stuff still included with Windows just so some angry consumers get to use/play certain old programs/games, possibly holding back some serious progress in the process.

In fact people should rather encourage developers and publishers to update their older products so they run natively on modern versions of Windows.

Have others had much success with VMWare Player with Windows 9x and/or XP? I've tried both, and while some of the findings were promising, they didn't yet feel quite ripe for serious gaming, at least with old Direct3D games (which are usually the most problematic, hence where a virtualized 9x or XP system would help the most).

1. Windows 98SE on VMWare Player

I tried this in order to see how well Wheel of Time (an Unreal engine game) runs on it, because on Windows 7 and I think even Windows XP, there are issues with the Quicktime video parts (the game itself seems to run fine on Windows 7).

On the virtualized Windows 98SE, I think WoT ran pretty smoothly, but the negatives were:

- The graphics don't look completely 3D accelerated, even though Win9x Tools have been installed, and 3D acceleration is enabled in VMWare Player. I think it looks better than with software rendering (suggesting that it is kinda 3D accelerated), but e.g. the trees are for some reason with pixellated textures?

- There is some weird issue with mouse support. Either the mouse doesn't work at all, or it goes to different direction when you move it, or you somehow end up staring straight up to the sky. Other controls work fine.

- I'm unsure if the Quicktime videos worked there either. They play fine when I install and run the game on a real Windows 98SE PC.

2. Windows XP on VMWare Player

GOG Gorky 17 gave a DirectX initialization error if trying to run it with 3D acceleration (Windows itself passes DirectX and Direct3D tests). In software rendering mode, Gorky 17 ran fine, e.g. no sound stuttering, like when playing it in SW mode in Windows 7. So it works slightly better (in SW mode).

GOG Gothic didn't display any FMV. The game itself eventually started after minutes of waiting, and seemed to display the Direct3D graphics fine. But it ran very slowly, like ½ frames per second or so, and this was on a pretty beefy machine.

I don't recall if I tried any other games.

Also a generic problem in both cases was that apparently VMWare is unable to change the host PC screen resolution for fullscreen modes, so if the game is e.g. 640x480 or 800x600 resolution, you end up playing it in a small window in the middle, with black bars on all sides. I recall the only way I found to overcome this was to change the desktop resolution of the host PC (Windows 7) to e.g. 800x600 before running VMWare Player or the game.

And yet threads like these appear all over the internets of people trying to get things originally programmed to run on Win9X to run on their newer OS.

I suppose most consumer only look at the issue as to how it directly affects them. Gamers, like me, and casual users, merely want things that used to work on our computers to continue to do so. That probably means we're ignorant of all the steps Microsoft goes through to make sure older database management or spreadsheet applications continue to run properly and all those whose applications who do continue to work alright are just as ignorant of the problems we're having because they're not.

And it should be developers of changing operating systems to ensure backward compatibility, since they're one and the same company whereas expecting individual game/software developers to do the work, and unpaid work at that, of keeping their games/software working on new OS's is pretty incredible, and hardly fair, given Microsoft will get new revenue to keep their OS backward compatible, while gaming programmers would have to update their games with every new generation of OS out of the goodness of their hearts.

Consumers should demand that all new OS include the ability to be 100% backward compatible. If they did, then I assure you new OS's would indeed be 100% backward compatible. They currently aren't because it does take a little bit of time, effort and expense to make them so. And why do that when consumers can be pressured into buying the new OS without it (by ONLY offering the new OS on new systems built).

Thank you for this. Perhaps I won't try after all, because I don't even know where to start and if I ran across any of these problems once I did I would have no hope of figuring them out either.

I'll just have to hope that old machine keeps firing up when I want to play those games. The last time I tried was about 2010 or maybe 2011, and it still worked fine, but I know it's not going to keep going. I also have an old 2002 XP machine that I use still pretty often, as there are some games that run on that but don't on my new rigs.

I love my new rigs, but it would sure be nice if one didn't have to upgrade to a new, non backward compatible OS every time one upgraded their hardware.

And I haven't even touched on the issue of really getting deep into and understanding an OS. I really got pretty darn good with Win95. Problem is, by the time I got that good with it, we had gone from Win 95 to Win 98, to Win 2000, to Win ME, and to Win XP.

And I never did get to that point with XP before the next thing you know Vista is out and then Windows 7.

And I am still completely a babe in the woods with Windows 7, and now there's Windows 8...

Windows 9x too (unsupported).

I have to disagree on this one, Windows 95 is now almost two decades old. You can't keep old technology around forever, an operating system is a living environment and if you keep old stuff around forever it will keep bloating the whole thing (and Windows is already a bloated mess). The right thing to do would be to release the source code or specifications of old and discontinued APIs, then people who really need those libraries can implement and maintain them on their own. Wine for Windows would be the solution for quite a lot of compatibility problems, and if Microsoft would release their old specs the project could advance much more rapidly (it would also take the burden of maintaining legacy compatibility off Microsoft).

Please do, trying it isn't necessarily that hard. If you have Win9x on CD or ISO image, just install VMWare Player on your PC, run it, tell it to create a new virtual machine, and point it to the installation CD or ISO image to start the installation. If VMWare recognizes the OS you are trying to install, it installs it even easier.

And if you don't like it or something goes wrong, getting rid of the virtual machine is even simpler, as it exists only inside VMWare Player. It is not as if it changes your PC/Windows configuration in any way or anything.

One thing to remember is that when VMWare offers to install VMWare Tools (for Win9x, or Win2000/XP, depending which Windows you are trying to install), say yes. I think it install the extra stuff making e.g. 3D acceleration possible in the virtualized machine, and other useful stuff.

Here's one instruction for creating Windows XP virtual machine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9AxP92t9Nk

It may be that I was missing something with my Windows XP experiment, because I've seen some Youtube video of someone running e.g. older Futuremark 3D benchmark on a virtualized (VMWare Player) Windows XP installation, and it was speedy there. Not sure why I had so bad experience when trying to run a couple of Direct3D games.

Anyway, virtualized machines or emulators are the only way to keep playing the originals in the future. I just don't know which comes first (useful) for old Win9x era games, is it Win9x running in VMWare Player, or inside DOSBox. Someone has tried the latter too semi-successfully (running Windows 9x in DOSBox).

It's not necessarily unpaid work, you know, GOG and developers/publishers re-releasing classics, sometimes "in HD", aren't just working "out of the goodness of their hearts" either and in fact show that serious money can be made by putting effort into updating a game to make it run in modern environments. It would *really* make more sense to follow this trend and have third parties work on software specifically meant for making old games run on modern operating systems (or just updating the games themselves) rather than have MS worry that a potentially very beneficial change to their operating system may keep some piece of software they aren't even aware of from running. Just look at the amazing work the DOSBox team, the ScummVM guys and all the modders of specific games have done despite their limited resources. It's the right way that allows for actual technological progress in operating systems while allowing people to enjoy their favourite classics.

Nope, you'd get to hear public statements from MS explaining why it's not technically possible and in fact after explaining the stuff publicly they might feel more confident about further abandoning backwards compatibility just like they (and Sony) already did with their consoles. Note that the outcry about Sony actually removing backwards compatibility from the PS3 in an update didn't have any effect either - also note that in future revisions of the PS3 they even removed the hardware components that originally allowed running PS2 games and this contributed to the console becoming cheaper for both Sony to produce and (probably) the end-consumer to buy. Abandoning backwards compatibility does have benefits, people just tend not to be aware of that.

And don't get me wrong, I myself don't see all the improvements MS has been doing to Windows over the years. The thing that I see first and that angers me is also that a game I love doesn't run anymore - and the other thing I see is shiny tiles and visual effects and my first thought is naturally something like "oh, they removed backward compatibility for worthless eye candy". I trust the guys, though, who have a deep understanding of these things and are amazed by all the improvements happening in the background and who wish MS would just kill off all the legacy stuff holding Windows back. I wish, though, MS (and also rightsholders of other software) would give other parties interested in making old software run on modern systems more insight into the tech and more legal freedom.

Not technically possible.

Right. Microsoft, with all the access in the world can't do it, but independent entities with no legal access like GOG and others are doing it everyday. And others are developing separate code (like VMPlayer) to do it.

You go right on believing it's not technically possible and I'll go right on believing it is and let's just let it go. Not worth it. Especially when consumers aren't ever willing to take advantage of their power anyway. If they were, and there were some point to it, I might engage in this further, but there's just not given the attitudes of most consumers today. If you and/or they wish to believe it's just impossible for MS to make their products backward compatible, that's you're right.

Dude, I didn't say that. But whatever, I'm also getting tired of this.

Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. I guess I misunderstood. Sorry. Not the first time, and unfortunately won't be the last.