It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Windows 9 (Threshold)(113 posts)(113 posts)
(113 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
timppu: I'm really getting nervous again whether it will break backwards compatibility with some (older) games. Just because I am in a process of maybe buying a new PC (as I was thinking of giving/selling my still-powerful 1½ years old PC to someone, instead of buying him a new but weaker PC, and later buying myself even a faster PC), so depending when I decide to buy the new PC, it might come with Windows 9 by default?

My current PC still has both Windows 7 and 8.1 installed side by side, and yes there are a handful of games that seemed to have problems on 8, and work better (or at all) on 7. Damn, decisions, decisions. Maybe I'll keep my current PC after all, and buy that kid some cheapo Acer that breaks in a year.
Really ? I haven't had any problems with 8 running games except for one single game I believe - on the other hand, some games work in Win8 that had trouble in Win Vista and 7 for some reason. All GOG games work just fine that I tried. What are those games by the way? I'd like to try them myself.

Note that Win8 uses less resources and works better with SSD drives + boots faster (important on a laptop). Next to this, despite all the complaints, Metro IS good for young kids because they can't mess up your desktop.
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
Red_Avatar: Windows 95 bad
Windows 98 okay-ish
Windows 98 SE good
avatar
timppu: How was Windows 95 bad? I recall people being disappointed that it wasn't technically as advanced as NT-core Windows releases (NTFS etc.), but IMHO it achieved what it was supposed to do quite well:

1. For PC gamers and home users, it introduced very much needed technologies that finally freed us from hardware dependency with sound cards (= decline of Creative Labs), 3D accelerators (= decline of 3Dfx as NVidia and ATI surpassed it technically, and they didn't have to try to be "3Dfx compatible"), and even joysticks and gamepads became more varied and versatile with DirectInput. And naturally it was the Windows that introduced internet to most homes, I think.

Sure Direct3D wasn't maybe that good in the beginning (for which reason id Software opted for OpenGL etc.), but it matured over time.

2. At the same time with all these new technologies, Win95 also offered very good backwards compatibility with DOS games. Many of them were actually easier to run straight from Win95 desktop than running them in real MS-DOS (e.g. some games which required lots of conventional memory, Win95 seemed to be able to offer e.g. hard drive cache and mouse support without consuming any conventional memory), and even for the most problematic DOS games, it offered a few different ways to boot to genuine MS-DOS mode.

And if some DOS game needed specific config.sys and autoexec.bat, it was easier to set them up, even for each DOS game separately if needed, than messing up with multiboot menus or boot disks in real MS-DOS.

Sure Win98(SE) was even better, matured version of it, but that doesn't IMHO make Win95 bad, and as far as I can tell Win95 was widely accepted by the home users (over staying in MS-DOS and Win3.x). Win9x was overall the much- needed bridge to bring people from DOS to Windows (including gaming), a bit like XP was important in bringing Windows home users to NT-core Windows versions.

Apparently MS felt Windows 8 would be a similar bridge to bring Windows 7 users from desktop/laptop PCs to tablets. :) I hope they fail, as this time they seem to want to kill the whole "legacy" PC market that has given them their position. If I have to go to tablets exclusively, Android it is, thanks. It even has DOSBox, and no forced one store for all apps.
Windows 95 was like Windows Vista but worse because Vista was stable. You mention many things but Vista had many new elements as well - 64 bit support being the biggest (I won't count WinXP 64 which was a disaster and it was really just patched in with poor support). It's very unfair to call Windows 95 good and Windows Vista bad - Vista was inherently solid & stable with updated drivers (= not the fault of Microsoft) and you could actually turn off some elements that were poorly implemented (indexing and self-defragging + superfetch) after which it became a reliable OS.

Windows 95, however, despite introducing many new elements, crashed TONS, was unreliable full stop, and created the BSOD joke. Other than that, Win95 and Vista had so many similarities:

- DirectX wasn't used properly in majority of games until years later for starters (DX10 in Vista)
- both were quite different from their previous version and caused people to panick
- both had bad driver support for the first year which caused all sorts of troubles
- Win95 did 32 bit for the first time, Vista did 64 bit for the first time (again, not counting WinXP 64 - just like I'm not counting Win32 in Win 3.1)
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
SirPrimalform: Hopefully Windows 9 will be in some ways like Windows 8 but not bad? A bit like how Windows 7 is a fixed version of Vista.

In fact, there seems to be a bit of a history of alternation between good and bad Windows versions.
Figures that I always end up with the bad versions in between. I moved from 98 to Vista to 8, skipping XP and 7* ... ;)

I just wish they'd make more use of the update function to improve their products in meaningful ways instead of moving on to the next version shortly after release. Win 8.1 hardly addressed any of the user complaints, just added a few minor features.

EDIT: Well, not quite, as I have Win7 Starter on my netbook (but I don't really like that either).
Post edited January 15, 2014 by Leroux
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
Red_Avatar: Really ? I haven't had any problems with 8 running games except for one single game I believe - on the other hand, some games work in Win8 that had trouble in Win Vista and 7 for some reason. All GOG games work just fine that I tried. What are those games by the way? I'd like to try them myself.
I'm able to run almost all games on Win8, too, but I didn't manage to run Sacred (Steam version) and Diablo 2 in a satisfying way. Sacred needs tweaking and both games lag for some reason compared to my Vista installations. I've given up on the idea of playing them on my Win8 rig, no fun. I think Sacred 2 won't even start.

I also had some problems with Giants (because at first I was using an older GOG version not made compatible to Win8 yet) and Tomb Raider 4+5 (this one was hit or miss; I managed to solve the issues thanks to the GOG support, but the solution was a bit random; apparantly they applied a fix to the installation but the fix wasn't always applied correctly for some weird Windows cache reason; then again maybe this is due to my Windows installation as I'm having trouble with the cache not always working anyway).
Post edited January 15, 2014 by Leroux
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
Red_Avatar: Windows 95 was like Windows Vista but worse because Vista was stable. You mention many things but Vista had many new elements as well - 64 bit support being the biggest
From the end-user point of view, I don't think any of the new elements in Vista were so major as the changes that Win95 brought, like standardized APIs for various (esp. gaming related) things, freeing people from being stuck to mainly e.g. Soundblasters and 3Dfx Voodoo,

(Sure there were 3rd party solutions for offering support for e.g. many sound cards, but since they were specific to certain game, it wouldn't support future pieces of hardware (that were not compatible in HW level) because you couldn't inject drivers etc. to the mix afterwards.)

Not to mention that Win95 practically brought internet to homes.

Also, consider that for PC users the other option to Win95 would have meant staying with MS-DOS + Win3.x, while with Vista it just meant staying with XP. I think the acceptance rate of Win95 among end-users was far far higher than that of Vista. Staying with XP was quite a valid option for most PC users (what did Vista offer to these people, besides Halo 2 PC being Vista-only?). but staying with MS-DOS + Win3.x and not going with Win95 would leave you out in the cold quite fast, considering internet, and more and more games actually starting to be created for Win95, even though at first DOS games still persisted.

avatar
Red_Avatar: - DirectX wasn't used properly in majority of games until years later for starters (DX10 in Vista)
9.0c was the latest version of DirectX for e.g. Windows XP, so I hope you are not saying that no XP games used DirectX properly?

In Win95 it is understandable DirectX wasn't fully used from the start, as it was completely new technology that completely overhauled PC gaming. Vista can't really say the same. While it took some time for e.g. proper Direct3D games to appear (maybe the latter half of 1996 or so? And even before that e.g. Virtua Fighter PC opened up people's eyes that apparently you can do great looking action games too in Windows), I remember seeing the benefits of e.g. DirectInput quite soon.

Anyway, I don't recall any similar backlash to Win95 as I did for Vista. Or maybe there were, mainly these two groups:

- Windows NT users who were miffed because Win95 was not based on NT (and I think MS made a good decision there, as explained before)

- OS/2 users who were devastated by MS "betraying" IBM (and OS/2 users) that way. Win95 pulled the rug from under OS/2.

But I feel people who moved from MS-DOS+Win3x to Win95 were generally delighted, considering Win95 also brough proper (not co-operative as in Win3.x) multitasking etc. Even to me it felt like a win-win situation, Win95 brought so much new to the table and felt consirably better than the previous Windows versions (or using mere MS-DOS), and it was very well compatible with my old MS-DOS games too, especially as it offered the full MS-DOS mode as well.
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
jamyskis: It all depends on how Microsoft approaches the Metro problem. Metro is itself an attractive interface, but it is also highly impractical outside of a tablet environment. Hopefully MS will see sense and enable users to choose from a streamlined Start Menu à la Win7 and the Metro interface (a feature that would be especially useful for convertible hybrid tablet/laptops like the Surface Pro), but given how aggressively they're pushing Metro, I wouldn't bet on it.
avatar
Wishbone: You know what's worse than Metro on a desktop? Metro on a server! The stupid bastards actually put Metro in Windows Server 2012 (which I guess is basically the server version of Windows 8). It is not pleasant to work with, let me tell you.
Powershell, you speak it? Not usually a fan of going all "command line uber alles" but when it comes to server administration, the less of the GUI I see the better.
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
Red_Avatar: Really ? I haven't had any problems with 8 running games except for one single game I believe - on the other hand, some games work in Win8 that had trouble in Win Vista and 7 for some reason. All GOG games work just fine that I tried. What are those games by the way? I'd like to try them myself.
avatar
Leroux: I'm able to run almost all games on Win8, too, but I didn't manage to run Sacred (Steam version) and Diablo 2 in a satisfying way. Sacred needs tweaking and both games lag for some reason compared to my Vista installations. I've given up on the idea of playing them on my Win8 rig, no fun. I think Sacred 2 won't even start.
Diablo 2 plays just fine here - I'll try Sacred 1 & 2 myself. Steam versions not running doesn't surprise me since Steam doesn't give one iota about compatibility with newer systems and often doesn't install the games properly anyway.
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
Leroux: I'm able to run almost all games on Win8, too, but I didn't manage to run Sacred (Steam version) and Diablo 2 in a satisfying way. Sacred needs tweaking and both games lag for some reason compared to my Vista installations. I've given up on the idea of playing them on my Win8 rig, no fun. I think Sacred 2 won't even start.
avatar
Red_Avatar: Diablo 2 plays just fine here - I'll try Sacred 1 & 2 myself. Steam versions not running doesn't surprise me since Steam doesn't give one iota about compatibility with newer systems and often doesn't install the games properly anyway.
If the GOG version of Sacred Gold has better Win8 compatibility, that could be an incentive for me to buy it in the next sale, provided I can transfer my savegames from the Steam version. Anyway, like I said, I'm able to run both Diablo 2 and Sacred, but not quite as smoothly as on Vista. No idea why (can't be related to GPU and CPU as they are vastly superior now to my old duo core with onboard graphic card).
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
timppu: From the end-user point of view, I don't think any of the new elements in Vista were so major as the changes that Win95 brought, like standardized APIs for various (esp. gaming related) things, freeing people from being stuck to mainly e.g. Soundblasters and 3Dfx Voodoo,

(Sure there were 3rd party solutions for offering support for e.g. many sound cards, but since they were specific to certain game, it wouldn't support future pieces of hardware (that were not compatible in HW level) because you couldn't inject drivers etc. to the mix afterwards.)

Not to mention that Win95 practically brought internet to homes.

Also, consider that for PC users the other option to Win95 would have meant staying with MS-DOS + Win3.x, while with Vista it just meant staying with XP. I think the acceptance rate of Win95 among end-users was far far higher than that of Vista. Staying with XP was quite a valid option for most PC users (what did Vista offer to these people, besides Halo 2 PC being Vista-only?). but staying with MS-DOS + Win3.x and not going with Win95 would leave you out in the cold quite fast, considering internet, and more and more games actually starting to be created for Win95, even though at first DOS games still persisted.
Win95 was always going to the biggest step, but Vista had quite a lot of new stuff under the hood which we take for granted now it seems - a LOT of stuff became automatic needing no manual input anymore (diskchecking, defragging, indexing, etc.) and while the implementation was shaky at first, it was solid later on. You're right that people had to make the move to Win95 and that's partly why Vista was in a bad situation - hardware manufacturers screwed everyone over by failing to provide decent drivers for Vista even when it was clearly possible to do so. Do I need to point out the Audigy 2 which got a guy sued for daring to release Vista drivers while Creative claimed no such thing was possible?

avatar
Red_Avatar: - DirectX wasn't used properly in majority of games until years later for starters (DX10 in Vista)
avatar
timppu: 9.0c was the latest version of DirectX for e.g. Windows XP, so I hope you are not saying that no XP games used DirectX properly?
I meant that DX1 & 2 didn't get used much - DX10 took years before games started using it hence the comparison.

avatar
timppu: In Win95 it is understandable DirectX wasn't fully used from the start, as it was completely new technology that completely overhauled PC gaming. Vista can't really say the same. While it took some time for e.g. proper Direct3D games to appear (maybe the latter half of 1996 or so? And even before that e.g. Virtua Fighter PC opened up people's eyes that apparently you can do great looking action games too in Windows), I remember seeing the benefits of e.g. DirectInput quite soon.
DX10 was very different as well, I've been told, hence why it took so long to implement (besides so many people sticking with DX9).

avatar
timppu: Anyway, I don't recall any similar backlash to Win95 as I did for Vista. Or maybe there were, mainly these two groups:

- Windows NT users who were miffed because Win95 was not based on NT (and I think MS made a good decision there, as explained before)

- OS/2 users who were devastated by MS "betraying" IBM (and OS/2 users) that way. Win95 pulled the rug from under OS/2.

But I feel people who moved from MS-DOS+Win3x to Win95 were generally delighted, considering Win95 also brough proper (not co-operative as in Win3.x) multitasking etc. Even to me it felt like a win-win situation, Win95 brought so much new to the table and felt consirably better than the previous Windows versions (or using mere MS-DOS), and it was very well compatible with my old MS-DOS games too, especially as it offered the full MS-DOS mode as well.
I do recall a LOT of complaints and I mean a LOT. Don't forget that Windows 95 wouldn't run on most PCs back then - even a Pentium 75 would struggle to run it. My own Pentium 166 just managed to run it fluently but anything below that was right on edge. All the elements you name are exactly why it was so buggy and slow - because it tried a lot of new stuff. People may not have been given a choice but they sure complained. Magazines I have from back then are filled with reader sections complaining about it.
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
Red_Avatar: Really ? I haven't had any problems with 8 running games except for one single game I believe - on the other hand, some games work in Win8 that had trouble in Win Vista and 7 for some reason. All GOG games work just fine that I tried. What are those games by the way? I'd like to try them myself.
At least the last time I tried it, I think Haegemonia Gold Edition refused to run on Windows 8 (and runs fine on Windows 7 on the very same PC, using same driver versions). I think the intro etc. run fine, but either when you enter the menu, or try to start the game, the game crashed. And other users seemed to confirm that, I didn't hear anyone running it successfully in Windows 8. I haven't checked the subforum if someone has found a solution, but that still means that it doesn't work the same both in Windows 7 and 8.

EDIT: Reading the subforum, I am unsure if this is a working (rather dirty) fix for the Win8 compatibility:

http://www.gog.com/forum/haegemonia_gold_edition/solution_widescreen_on_windows_8

http://www.gog.com/forum/haegemonia_gold_edition/will_not_run_on_windows_8

Heck, I hope this works too, it would be the most straightforward solution: http://www.gog.com/forum/haegemonia_gold_edition/crash_on_launch


Also, Gothic and apparently a bunch of other games have visual glitch (window borders showing in full screen mode), but there are some manual instructions how to overcome that.

I recall also reading some other game here which refuses to run on Windows 8 (while running fine on Win 7), but I don't recall which it is and I never confirmed it myself.

I think the games that benefit from Win8 are those oldies that had problems with Vista/7 Aero (the rainbow color problem?), but that was so widely known already with various different workarounds that seem to work for all such problematic games. But it is certainly nice if those workarounds are not needed anymore in 8.
Post edited January 15, 2014 by timppu
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
Red_Avatar: Diablo 2 plays just fine here - I'll try Sacred 1 & 2 myself. Steam versions not running doesn't surprise me since Steam doesn't give one iota about compatibility with newer systems and often doesn't install the games properly anyway.
avatar
Leroux: If the GOG version of Sacred Gold has better Win8 compatibility, that could be an incentive for me to buy it in the next sale, provided I can transfer my savegames from the Steam version. Anyway, like I said, I'm able to run both Diablo 2 and Sacred, but not quite as smoothly as on Vista. No idea why (can't be related to GPU and CPU as they are vastly superior now to my old duo core with onboard graphic card).
Have you tried running Diablo 2 in a glide wrapper? It supported 3dfx, so that might improve your performance.
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
Leroux: If the GOG version of Sacred Gold has better Win8 compatibility, that could be an incentive for me to buy it in the next sale, provided I can transfer my savegames from the Steam version. Anyway, like I said, I'm able to run both Diablo 2 and Sacred, but not quite as smoothly as on Vista. No idea why (can't be related to GPU and CPU as they are vastly superior now to my old duo core with onboard graphic card).
avatar
pds41: Have you tried running Diablo 2 in a glide wrapper? It supported 3dfx, so that might improve your performance.
I might try that tonight, thanks!
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
pds41: Have you tried running Diablo 2 in a glide wrapper? It supported 3dfx, so that might improve your performance.
avatar
Leroux: I might try that tonight, thanks!
I normally try nGlide (http://www.zeus-software.com/downloads/nglide); it works quite well on my 64bit Windows 7 rig.
Posted January 15, 2014
avatar
SirPrimalform: 8 bad, 7 good, Vista bad, XP good, 2000/ME bad, 98SE good, 98 bad, 95 good.
Don't lump 2000 with Me or any of the other broken OS. I still prefer it to XP. I still service many computers with it and would rather mess wirh it than any other OS except for Windows 7.
Posted January 15, 2014
someone must have already said it by now but if not: Threshold
Post edited January 15, 2014 by chezybezy
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Windows 9 (Threshold)(113 posts)(113 posts)
(113 posts)