Oh please. No offense, but, the installers are not working as they should on post XP systems, and you want GOG to make the installers compatible with even older OS. Its just never going to happen. ;p

Plus, GOG seem to be in a lalaland right now, giving away free games with the GOG Heroes whatever stuff, and still ignoring the current problems.

Yeah, and DOSbased games don't install on my DOS 6.22.

To answer Your question: Because they are DEAD systems.;)

Anyhow, if You're techy, it's not a problem to install the game on a xp, and then move it over to 98, with the registry entries.

If you're going to run in 9x then just buy original discs. GOG fixes games to run on newer systems to avoid the hassle of installing dead operating systems and quite frankly I can't see any reason why you would have to use any thing later than XP.

I wish gog included unmodified (except maybe for DRM removal) images of gog games as a bonus. But, French monk said, that's not going to happen.
As Arteveld said - it's not that difficult to install game under XP and than transfer it on 98 - gog rarely do so significant modifications that you will not be able to run game that way.

While we're at it, I demand support for Windows 3.x native gaming, why should we cut it off with that sucktastic Win 95?

From what I've seen, the only modifications that an exe gets, is the removal of the DRM. All enhancements and stuff go into a different, newly created exe (as with Still Life / Syberia / Syberia 2, for example.

Win 9X and older OS's are pretty much dead, just as Win XP will be officially dead just as soon Microsoft pulls the plug officially out from the support, which will happen sometime 2014 or so.

At this moment, there still is a lot of XP users thanks to 32 bit systems, but during 4 to 5 years 64 bit machines will be even more common and just because of that it will be smart to use an OS that supports 64 bit computing.

Probably because there's no Win31Box available.

Sure, you can install Windows 3.1 on DOSBox (I have) but to actually get the rights to redistribute that... nope.

LOL wow.

If you won't accept any other reason then how about this: supply and demand. Nobody who can afford an internet connection is going to be using an OS that antiquated as their one and only OS. Maybe some use it for the sole purposes of playing old games. But nobody is going to be reliant on it in this day and age and have an internet connection. So what's the point?

The installer isn't crappy. it's a limitation set by gog. Calling it crappy is a disservice to those that created it.

OS limitations in installers are a big no no. IIRC MS actually put in their guidelines to developers to remove OS restrictions in installers but even today not many follow that rule.


GOG is probably just trying to reduce tech support calls. You can always unpack the files yourself using innounp.

Its a fact that it is crappy. ;)

I doubt screwing up Games Explorer, not detecting DosBox 0.74 properly, not removing saved games properly, and adding wrong keys into the registry is a "limitation set by GOG".

:laugh:

Hey, thanx for that info :-)

cheers

Actually it is. GOG didn't create the installer.

All the issues that you listed are the piss poor scripting/testing of GOG packaging the application\game NOT the installer.

So no need to defend GOG.

I wish GOG would modify the installers so it would support my PharaohTech Abacus running the Ra-1000-BC operating system.