New Games

[Jlo555]

I said this in a previous thread, but I think it would be a good discussion. I'm sure that there are people here who run windows 98 on a relatively good computer and want to play the latest computer games. But have people checked recently at the system requirements for games like grand theft auto san andreas or battlefield 2. San Andreas requires windows 2000/XP and Battlefield 2 requires XP. It is only recently that I started noticing the OS requirements on computer games suddenly take a turn from supporting 98SE-XP to only 2000/XP or just XP. Until a couple of years ago (imo anyway) windows 98/ME were the best OS's for games, they supported old games and the newest games. It seems like companies like rockstar etc. have simply stopped caring about older OS's, because I tried san andreas on windows 98, it works, but it just runs horribly, on fairly good hardware. Has anyone else found this as frustrating as I have?

[miko]

well yeah, i raised an eyebrow when SA came out. afaik it's the first big game to go XP only,

i have the other 2 and they run great on 98SE.

there's not much we can do if the manufacturers are going to drop it.

it doesn't really bother me that much as i'm a 'retro gamer' i have loads of games installed i've yet to complete and i'm also into emulation (about 25 different systems and 1000's of games) i could be playing till i'm dead without buying anything new.

it's not all bad, in this months issue of PC Format (UK) Dungeon Keeper 2 is No2 in the 'Management' (God) games recommended top 5, just behind The Sims (as it has been for ages), this is probably my all time favorite game but afaik it just won't run on XP.

i actually class systems by Direct X, my current system with 98SE is my DX9 box, all components are compatable and capable. when DX10 comes out and the specs are outlined i'll probably upgrade (OS included) but i will probably aim to have that system 64bit with a 64bit OS.

so now i won't be buying GTA:SA till then so Rockstar will be getting about a fiver out me then instead of the £35-40 they could have got out me now...

Edited August 5, 2005 by miko

[Jlo555]

I know for a fact that windows 98SE supports directX 9.0c, and because of that, today's games should run just fine with the OS. The hardware manufacturers (at least some) are still writing drivers for windows Me, which for the most part are still comaptible with 98SE. I remember reading just recently from ATI that they would continue making drivers for windows me, which are backwards compatible with 98SE, regardless of them not being WHQL certified. So, the way I figure it is, if the hardware manufacturers are still writing drivers for the OS, why don't the game developers write games that are compatible with the OS?

Edited August 6, 2005 by Jlo555

[MDGx]

With the right hardware [fast video controller + enough video RAM, fast CPU, enough RAM, fast HD controller + HD, modern PCI/USB/external sound card] you can run any game that can be made [or forced] to install on 98/98SE/ME.

Actually, on same PC hardware [in most cases I've seen anyway] 98SE runs the same game faster than XP, because average user [unlike tweakers] will always have more overhead [lots of background services (enabled by default) that slow down gaming performance] if using XP, 2003 or Vista.

As far as I'm aware, DX 9.0c [except for NTx Unicode specific bits of code unavailable on 9x OSEs, which as far as I know doesn't prevent 9x OSes from playing games] can handle any modern game u throw at it, no matter if it's 9x or NTx.

The only Win32 OSes I wouldn't use for gaming are NT4 and 95/OSR1/OSR2, because of obsolete [or lack of] hardware support.

OpenGL games are a little different though, because video controller manufacturers usually develop their own OGL APIs and distribute them with their customized video drivers [NVidia has NVOPENGL.DLL for all 9x OSes]. For example, I run Quake 3 Arena [with current patch] on 98SE in OGL mode + all options maxed out without a hitch.

When Doom 3 was 1st released [August 2004], somebody started circulating a patch [hexed MSI file if I recall correctly] to force it to install on 98, 98SE, ME + 2000. Google it if you want it.

But because MS [and everybody else, of course, followed suit] stopped supporting 9x OSes, nobody makes their games compatible with 9x anymore.

And don't even get me started about old DOS games support in NTx opposite 9x.

[atomizer]

...Has anyone else found this as frustrating as I have?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well sure, it's frustrating for those that want to use old OS's, but look at it from a developers point of view; you want to build the game that blows all others away and takes advantage of the latest technology. do you want to use a "brand new in 1985 OS" as a platform, or the latest and greatest tools available?

i used to be one of the "98 rocks for gaming" guys, until i learned enough about XP. now there's no way i'd run anything older. still, if you think that things are moving just too fast in the computer tech world, i'd have to agree. you can build a kick-@$$ box today and 3 months later it's old news. so yeah, it is frustrating in a way -- at least from a hardware standpoint. as far as OS's though, why even bother to hang on to 95/98/ME when the later flavors of NT do everything better IMO?

BTW, if you want to check out a TOTALLY fun FPS that can run on just about anything (multiplatform), is free and open source, check out CUBE. i have at least as much fun with that as i do with HL2, Quake and any Unreal game.

[Jlo555]

Most of today's hardware will run OK on windows 98SE. So, if the hardware is compatible with the the OS, then why shouldn't the rest of the software be? And I do think that if dx9.0c works on 98, then the newest games should run perfectly with 98.

Oh, and running old DOS games on 2000 or XP has proven to be a frustrating experience. I still to this day play GTA2, which I know rockstar made compatible with 2000/XP, but it plays a lot slower and laggier (imo) on the NT os's. I've also tried the original Sim City on both 2k and XP, and the font is... well scribbles and a bunch of crap. (You'd have to see for yourself.) Game creators should still write games compatible with 98SE anyway that way people can have backwards compatibility with DOS games and be able to run highend games like battlefield 2.

Oh, and XP's compatibility mode is terrible; it hasn't worked with one single DOS game that I've tried with it (just a little fyi.)

[somewan]

And don't even get me started about old DOS games support in NTx opposite 9x.

as far as OS's though, why even bother to hang on to 95/98/ME when the later flavors of NT do everything better IMO?

As MDGx and others have noted, the NT-series does not offer the degree of backwards compatibility that 9x does (better than Win3.x and under some conditions better than DOS itself). That goes not only for games, but many other DOS programs as well If I were ready to move on (for reasons of system stability, etc.), the destination would be Linux/BSD/Unix combined with an emulator such as VMware (for running DOS / Win9x / XP, etc in virtual machines).

Admittedly, I'm a bit unusual, in the sense that I know the *nixes better than NT/XP, having had a foot in that world since the mid-90s. I certainly understand that most Win9x users would feel more at home with XP, but for me, it's merely an unfamiliar, incompatible, closed and costly operating system that offers few or no benefits.

[atomizer]

yeah, sometimes i speak before i think. the DOS issue is certinly a valid point. so is the cost.

[Jlo555]

Sorry I took so long to post again, I've been gone for a week.

I think the next project for the 9x/ME fanatics should be to make tweaks and patches to make the newest games more compatible with older windows OS's. (I can't try to do this myself very effectively because I have very little knowledge of the win9x kernel/system files etc.) It's easier said than done, I know.

[Controller Khan]

Time is money and so developers don`t test their games under Windows 98.

Also a lot of API under Windows 98 sucks more than under Windows 2000 & XP,

so developers use the API available under Windows 2000 & XP and don`t

invest time getting things working on Windows 98.

If Developers e.g ID Software & Epic make Multi plattform Games it`s

more likely that this Games run under Windows 98.

Quake 2 now openspource runs even on Beos 5, which is a almost unknown

Operating System.

Unfortunely most Developers don`t care about Multi plattform.

One could maybe wrap some API function like the wine project for Linux.

I think there is windows port of wine but I haven`t tried it

(I`m migrating to GNU/Linux)

for MSI use MSIExtract and you have a cab file,which setup inside.

For maximum compatibility with Win3.1x and Dos I recommend OS/2,

IBM fullfiles promises unlike M$, one promise was that any application will

work no matter how old it is ( Many firms still use Dos Applications as they

work and work )

[RJARRRPCGP]

It sucks that people are compiling apps with code that's for NT only!!!

[miko]

as far as games go 98SE can pretty much do anything XP can (DX9c, OGL & .net etc),

and i suspect it'll stay that way up until DX10 (or what ever they eventually call it) on Vista.

gotta face it though, most development machines now will be running XP and like has been said,

it's mostly the extra testing that they can't seem to be bothered with (time is money etc)

NT only games (sigh) who'd 'a' thunk it...

[Link21]

It sucks that people are compiling apps with code that's for NT only!!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a good thing and should have happened years ago. Windows NT and Windows 9X were made so differently that it is highly likely that applications being developed that are cross compatible with two completely different OS platforms has probably hurt performance and stability the last few years. Windows NT is far superior to anything piece of sh*t Windows 9X based OS.

I mean, do you see software written for the MAC that is still comptaible with MAC OS 9 or below? No. All MAC software written these days are for MAC OS X only. The same should be the case with Windows PCs. All software should be for Windows 2000/XP only. That way, we will obtain superior performance by utilizing the features of a native NT based OS.

Let Windows 9X die. It should have died years ago. It's only purpose should be for running legacy games and applications that flat out won't run on an NT based OS. Dual boot if you have a need to run legacy applications that flat out won't run on an NT based OS. In NO way should one be using POS Windows 98/ME for running today's software on today's hardware!! Forcing that kind of compatible only hinders the superior performance we could be having in today's computing world which is sad.

[Jlo555]

What's sad is how closed minded you are about software. A lot of people still have the philosphy that win9x plays games a lot better than NT ever did. Actually I still have that philosphy about all games created up until 2003. Frankly, I see no performance difference (with the same hardware) on applications that have switched to 2000/XP compatibility only (such as all Adobe products.) San Andreas was meant for only 2000/XP, but when properly configured, it runs exactly the same on 98SE as it does on XP Pro. MS programs meant for only 2000/XP or just XP (imo) suck, such as office 2003. The only thing that changed was the GUI and they integrated DRM into office. The same is true for WMP10.

[Link21]

It's the superiority in the kernel and memory management that make Windows 2000/XP so much better than POS Windows 98/ME. I mean lets face it. Windows 98/ME aren't even native 32-bit operating systems. Should we still be running resource intensive applications on an OS that isn't even natively 32-bit. Of course not.

Linux is a quality OS. If DirectX games and other applications were all ported natively for Linux the last 10 years as they are for Windows, performance would have probably been a lot better than it ever would have been on any MS Windows whether 9X or NT based. but if we have to cling to the MS OS world, at least use an OS that doesn't suck like Windows 9X. Windows 9X is actually what gave Microsoft a bad name for having an inferior OS compared to what others had to offer. That is why I say trash it.

Why in the heck didn't MS design a real 32-bit OS 10 years ago. The fact that Windows 95 was originally native 16-bit with 32-bit extensions has thus reduced performance and stability for all 32-bit applications and multi tasking the last 10 years.

Read what this thread and article below to find out why POS Windows 9X/ME should have died a long time ago when it comes to 32-bit computing. But the sad thing is, if it weren't for Micro$oft's control freak manipulative practices, the whole PC industry would have been using a real native 32-bit OS the last 10 years. Other compnaies had an OS based on real 32-bit architecture which was ready for universal compatibility for the home consumer market. But it never stood a chance because of MS's vindictive business practices, even though their were far superior technologies.

Read what it says at these two links below to see why Windows 9X should have died for good long ago:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=34259&st=0

http://www.skrause.org/computers/dos.shtml