Hmm, then it is something else. I don't recall if I applied any patches for it (if it had any, then yes).

EDIT: There seems to be a patch 2.02 for the WC2 Battle.net Edition, so I probably used that. Not sure what difference does it make.

Expect the unexpected, like a Diablo 1 HD engine remake in 2013/2014:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4PfLbMJCoA
http://mod.diablo1.eu.org/

Thanks everyone, +1's for all.

So I guess I was right (for once) and getting DOS games to run really is easier than getting games from that period to run.

I've tried the compatibility mode, with every possible combination of those boxes underneath checked/unchecked on so many games I've lost count. I stupidly purchased Win 7 Professional for the SOLE reason that I thought it's built in XP compatibility thing (not just right clicking an icon but somehow it's supposed to be able to run as an XP machine) would make old games run but it wasn't until after that decision I read that this XP thing was not intended for games and because of graphics issues in games many wouldn't run, or run properly.

A stupid decision because all I do is game anymore since I don't work anymore. I have never, ever, even once, bothered with using that capability then, so it feels like a waste since the only other possible benefit of Professional over Home was the ability to handle 32 GB of RAM instead of 16. And I just really, really believe there is not yet any condition where 32GB is any real advantage over 16GB in terms of gaming only. I would bet 8GB is enough memory for gaming.

No way I could ever figure out that VM stuff, so, shelves full of unplayable games. This is the number reason why I hate Microsoft. I know damn well they could've made all of their OS's backward compatible in some way. People argue with me over that, yet look at GoG, getting things to run on today's machines. If gog can do it, I'd bet all I own Microsoft could have done it, if they had wanted to.

But they didn't want to, and as usual, consumers didn't demand them to.

No, afraid I disagree. There comes a point when you are hamstrung by having to retain backwards compatibility and have to abandon it in order to truly move forwards. Otherwise, well, how far back do you go? I've got a lot of stuff on 5.25" disks that I know I'll never use again. Are there people out there still bitching that they can't read their punch-cards?

It's not an "either or" situation, that's a strawman.

They can both move forward and retain backwards compatibility. It would just require more effort. If it were impossible, gog and/or anyone else wouldn't be able to do it.

It would raise the price of the OS, but then why couldn't they offer one with and without and let consumers decide? And if, as it turns out, consumers decide it's not worth the extra price/effort, then so be it. We as consumers were never given the choice.

ADDED IN EDIT: And no, I don't hear anyone bitching about using 5 1/4 drives or punch cards, but if you read and/or listen, LOTS of people complain about not being able to play their old games on newer systems. That's what's called "an opportunity" in the market.

The problem is that maintaining backwards compatibility is MUCH harder than you think it is. It's much harder than I thought it was until last year when I got to sit in on an App Compatibility shiproom meeting where they went over whether or not some particular AppCompat bugs were worth fixing. The one that sticks out the most in my mind was something like this:

1. When user upgrades to the latest Windows and they are running version 2.5 of the SoundCardSuite software, the SoundCardSuite will crash.
2. The source of the crash is that version referred to a piece of uninitialized memory that just so happened to be a sane value in previous versions of Windows, but in the latest that memory ends up being something different and causes the crash when it is referred to.
3. The latest version of SoundCardSuite is 2.7, and is available on the manufacturer's website.
4. SoundCardSuite itself is deprecated by the manufacturer; instead users should be running SuperSoundCardSuite

The decision on that one was a won't fix. There are thousands of examples of that kind of thing happening in old software. So that already becomes a major challenge for app compatibility. Then add in the fundamental change in the kernel between the Win 9x-ME series and WinXP, when it went from a DOS-based kernel to an NT-based kernel. Then add in the 16 bit software which fundamentally cannot be run on a modern processor without a full emulation layer. DOSBox does that kind of thing but it also has a lot of work done on it for specific game compatibility; a general purpose emulation layer is much more difficult.

I'm amazed that the compatibility is as good as it is.

False. x86-64 CPUs have full compatibility with 16-bit x86 instructions, x86-64 version of Windows, however, don't.

Integrating backwards compatibility is a pain in the ass if there is one or even two generations in between the current und the old system.
Emulation with virtual systems or highly advanced compatibility layers is the way to go.

We need a stable and fast kind of DosBox with Win98-SE on top of it or an even better WINE.

Currently I know of four games in my collection that do not run on my WinXP-System for which I could use these:
- Vikings - The Strategy of Ultimate Conquest (excellent Pirates!-clone)
- Half-Life: Gunman Chronicles
- Die Total Verrückte Rallye (by Bluebyte)
- G-Police

This is an interesting read - Microsoft actually take a lot more pains to ensure backwards compatibility than 'the other lot'...

http://ianmurdock.com/platforms/on-the-importance-of-backward-compatibility/

The SimCity example mentioned is particularly worth bearing in mind. Sometimes software is just written badly!