🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:58:40 -0000, EvilBill wrote:

> Dan C wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:15:23 +0000, EvilBill wrote:
>>
>>>> In case you've forgotten (and you snipped it from the previous
>>>> posts), we are talking about ID games here, D3 and Q4.  They were
>>>> specifically programmed to NOT work on W95/98/ME.  What other
>>>> explanation could there be?
>>
>>> That Win95/98/ME blow big fat donkey dongs and always have?
>>> Quite apart from the fact those OSs are older than the Brontosaurus.
>>
>> That's a dumb answer, and is not related to the point, anyway.
>>
>>> No-one accused id of being in bed with M$ when they stopped coding
>>> for DOS and made Quake II Win95-only, did they?
>>
>> Perhaps because M$ made DOS too...?  Gee, you're not the brightest
>> bulb in the pack, are ya?
>>
> 
> M$ also made 95/98/ME, so id stopped coding for one set of Microsoft OSes in
> 2004 just like they did in 1997. It's easier to code something to support
> one or two platforms than to support 4 or 5 especially considering the flaws
> and instabilities in the Win9x series.

Why not make it even easier and code for just one platform, Win32.  If
D3 was coded with Win32 in mind then (excluding driver support) it would
run on Win95.  Windows95 thru XP are Win32 platforms.  The underlying
differences between 9x and NT are far fewer than the differences between
DOS and 9x and hence the wise desicion to develop Quake 2 for Win32.

> Hell, if memory serves, they're not even fully 32-bit. They're stuffed full
> of old legacy 16-bit code. The NT/2000/XP codebase junked all of that.

So 9x has some 16 bit stuff inside it, big deal.  Didnt stop 32 bit
stuff from running did it?  As for NT, when they took the 16 bit stuff
out it caused some people more greif than 9x did.  Try getting Doom in
it's original form or Doom95 working properly under XP without the aid
of extra software. 

>>>> Nor am I, but the 2 games in question are pretty close to "today".
>>>> Again, they were designed to NOT work on W95/98/ME.
>>
>>> Cause those OSs suck ass, are less stable than a politician's
>>> 'truths' and id probably stopped using them 6 or 7 years ago.
>>
>> Another great explanation.  You're pretty smart.
>> The fact remains that 98 is a better gaming platform than XP in many
>> cases.
> 
> I've used every Microsoft OS since DOS 3.1 except WinME. I found it hard
> enough to keep 95/98 working at all without reinstalling every month, let
> alone run games on them well. Personally I've always found Windows 2000 to
> be the most stable gaming platform, but XP comes a close second.

I have also been using MS's OSs since DOS yadayadayada, including ME.
Quite frankly I have wondered how some people have had so bad a
exeereence with 9x while me and presumebly the majoritory of other MS OS
users have had little or vitually no problem with 9x.  Personnaly I have
had no problem running 9x.  I have had problems with 3rd party software
and drivers running on 9x... just like I do on XP.  In my experience if
a game don't want to run, it won't pretty much whatever OS you run it
on.

> I might note here that I could never get sound or Internet to work on
> Windows 95... but it works right out of the box on 2000 and XP. I think one
> of the issues is not that id themselves code specifically for 2000/XP, but
> that drivers for the older OSs are lacking or nonexistent for a lot of
> modern hardware. Can you even get DirectX 9 for Windows 95?

Functional drivers are available for the major bits of hardware for 9x,
however Dx9 support for 9x is limited to WinME, probably because ME
supports WDM drivers.

At the end of it all IMO getting stuff to work with PCs is down mainly
to luck.  My PC has a AMD X2 cpu, you here lots of people complaining
about compatibility with that, in XP.  Not me.  Latest Geforce drivers
are BSODing many people, in XP.  Not me.  Some people tear their hair
out over Win9x.  Not me. ^_^

Going back to the bit about choosing to support for 1 or 2 OSs rather
than 4 or 5.  IMHO I recon the reason was to save money of tech support.
Why try to make it look like your helping 9x users when you can just
exclude them completely.  MS tried that with 98, and then changed their
mind when they realised the risk of all those companies switching to
another brand of OS rather than shell out hundreds, thousands in
upgrading perfectly good Win98 PCs.  Maybe id think they don't need the
money of the many 9x users still out there.  


-- 
"Our dichotomy opens the combat"
Please change 'no.spam' to 'jcomcp.plus' to reply.
----- http://jcom.shorturl.com ----