[Mongoose]

That's the thing about compatibility, though.  It's all well and good to talk about the efficiency gains if one were to drop aspects of legacy support in the OS or x86 architecture, but as soon as you come across an old favorite game or ancient-but-useful application that just refuses to work, I feel like you'll be singing a different tune.  It seems to me that it would be a relatively simple matter for Microsoft to develop some sort of environment that would maintain old code compatibilities while simultaneously stripping them out of the main OS codebase, which would let you have your cake and eat it too.  As it stands now, until the point when someone manages to develop a fully-functioning emulation of your standard Windows 95 box, if what you're trying to run can't be handled by DOSbox, you're out of luck.

To be honest, though, what irks me more than the OS side of incompatibility is that which is prompted by graphics manufacturers, or even the software developers themselves.  As an example, I have an old EA-developed NASCAR game from 2000 lying around that's flat-out incompatible with XP at its core, no matter what sorts of compatibility combinations one applies.  No big loss, and perhaps no big surprise considering the publisher, but still completely unnecessary.  Far more frustrating than this were my attempts to get one of my brother's favorite games, Medieval Total War, to run on his new laptop...only to find that it's almost completely incompatible with just about any nVidia product released over the past two years.  The only solution I've seen is to install a two-year-old driver version...which does him absolutely no good when he has an OS that didn't even exist at that time.  And all the while, the developer (which still exists and is fully active, mind you) all but ignores all customer complaints, passing the buck to nVidia.  Brilliant.

[Akalabeth Angel]

can't you get Thief 1 and 2 to work somehow? I thought I played them on XP.
Anyway, Thief 3 works for sure, I got a copy here.

       Yeah I got 'em to work. I had to reboot in safe mode to install it. And then I needed to specify that the game only run on one processor (as dual core systems crash the game apparently). But it's working now. Getting my ass kicked my zombies.

[Spicious]

Crash Windows
**** Linux
Buy A Mac

The irony of course being that apple completely hosed backwards compatibility with OSX.

[Kosh]

or even the software developers themselves.  As an example, I have an old EA-developed NASCAR game from 2000 lying around that's flat-out incompatible with XP at its core, no matter what sorts of compatibility combinations one applies.

Absolutely, and another good example is Red Alert 95. Because of crappy coding practices it would only work in windows 95, nothing else. Now compare this with a game that is almost as old that uses standardized libraries, and so it works on 95, nt, and even mac (that would be starcraft of course).

[CP5670]

Absolutely, and another good example is Red Alert 95. Because of crappy coding practices it would only work in windows 95, nothing else.

Have you actually played it? It has worked fine on every Windows version since its release.

Granted, the engine is somewhat poorly coded, but it was a little unstable even on 95, especially while using mods. That isn't anything new.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Oh, DOSBox is great. It's one of the best innovations in information technology in my opinion.

After learning how to use it, I went back to playing all those DOS games that were in my old Windows 3.11 (which has been disposed of).

[Cyker]

Probably a bit late in, but try and find the Windows binary of WINE.

It is *far* more compatible with older proggys than Vista or XP, esp. with '98/'95 and <DirectX7 era stuff; I can actually play things like SShock2, Project Eden, XvT, and MechWarrior 3 without the stupid problems that crop up in Win2k, XP and Vista. (e.g. the random crashes in Project Eden & XvT, the psychadelic texture corruption in SShock and the bouncing APC's/Mechs, disappearing turrets and non-functioning throttle in MW3...)

It ain't so great with newer games, and games with copy protection, but that's what no-CD cracks are for. Or as I like to call them now, compatibility enhancement patches

WINE is like DOSBox for Windows stuff <3

[kalnaren]

What? You can't run OLD software on a NEW operating system? Yea, who'd a thought People complain windows is slow and bloated.. yet something like 40-60% of that is backward compatibility... and if they eliminated that, people would complain about not being able to run any software not expressly designed for the OS.  It's like the people that complain Vista doesn't work when they try and run it on 5 year old hardware.

If you want to run older software, keep an older system around. I know it's bulky and inefficient, but it's also a pretty surefire way of being able to run older programs. I still have my 350Mhz K6-2 around somewhere, probably beside my IBM Aptiva and Windows 95 install discs.

[karajorma]

As it stands now, until the point when someone manages to develop a fully-functioning emulation of your standard Windows 95 box, if what you're trying to run can't be handled by DOSbox, you're out of luck.

Not really. You just use Virtual PC or the like instead.

[CP5670]

Probably a bit late in, but try and find the Windows binary of WINE.

This could certainly be worth trying out. I didn't know there was a Windows version available. SS2 actually works fine in XP, at least for me, but there are a few other games I have issues with. In several cases though, I know that the Nvidia or ATI drivers are the culprit rather than the OS. If Wine lets you emulate an older video card, that would solve a lot of issues on its own.

People complain windows is slow and bloated.. yet something like 40-60% of that is backward compatibility.

I highly doubt that. XP and Vista run fairly well anyway as long as you configure them properly.

If you want to run older software, keep an older system around. I know it's bulky and inefficient, but it's also a pretty surefire way of being able to run older programs. I still have my 350Mhz K6-2 around somewhere, probably beside my IBM Aptiva and Windows 95 install discs.

This is the problem. I used to have such a system around, but I wasn't using it that often and after I moved it was just too clunky to take with me.

There is also the fact that some of those old games can actually take advantage of a newer system's performance. Battlezone 2 is one game that I have been getting minor graphical glitches in (most likely an Nvidia driver problem), but it never ran well on the computers of its time and would have been fairly slow on that old rig I had.

Not really. You just use Virtual PC or the like instead.

As I said earlier, Virtual PC is largely useless for games. I've tried four games on it so far that were broken on XP, and only one has worked in it. VMWare is another option and supports Direct3D but the compatibility is not much better.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

If there was a way to emulate Windows applications in Mac near-perfectly, I might take it if it's free. The Mac version of WINE is known as Darwine, and it only works with simple applications like Notepad. At the most, it can run XMPlay with an error every time a window is opened.

[kalnaren]

I highly doubt that. XP and Vista run fairly well anyway as long as you configure them properly.

I would like to find a stat to back my claim up, but unfortunately I was told by a Microsoft systems engineer, it wasn't something I read. Apparently a very huge chunk of the Vista code is designed for backward compatibility. A while ago there was a rumour MS was going to get rid of backward compat for windows 7, but I think they decided against it. They're going to have to do it eventually though.

This is the problem. I used to have such a system around, but I wasn't using it that often and after I moved it was just too clunky to take with me.

There is also the fact that some of those old games can actually take advantage of a newer system's performance. Battlezone 2 is one game that I have been getting minor graphical glitches in (most likely an Nvidia driver problem), but it never ran well on the computers of its time and would have been fairly slow on that old rig I had.

Well, I'm not going to argue with that. I've had some older games (Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe in particular) run better on my modern machine in DosBox than they do on my older hardware.

Though my point was that trying to run what by IT standards is ancient software on a modern computer and expecting it to work perfectly is wishful thinking at best. I brought up the complaint bit because I have actually had that argument with people. They want X features in an OS, but complain that said features bog it down more than they think it should.

[Fury]

They're going to have to do it eventually though.

Google up (or whatever search engine you use) Microsoft Midori.

Yes, even Microsoft has realized that they cannot keep reusing old Windows codebases forever. Oh, I'd love to hear the outcries of people who expect to use old software on "Midori". But alas, I'm sure Microsoft will have legacy Windows virtualization engine in Midori. Oh well, can't have it all I suppose.

[CP5670]

I would like to find a stat to back my claim up, but unfortunately I was told by a Microsoft systems engineer, it wasn't something I read. Apparently a very huge chunk of the Vista code is designed for backward compatibility. A while ago there was a rumour MS was going to get rid of backward compat for windows 7, but I think they decided against it. They're going to have to do it eventually though.

What exactly does "backward compatibility" mean in this context? They obviously have to maintain some level of it. Who would buy a new OS if didn't run any of their existing programs?

Though my point was that trying to run what by IT standards is ancient software on a modern computer and expecting it to work perfectly is wishful thinking at best.

The fact is that most older Windows games do work fine though. There are only a handful of titles that have issues, and as I said a couple of times earlier, it's usually the GPU drivers rather than the OS that cause trouble.

[Akalabeth Angel]

What? You can't run OLD software on a NEW operating system? Yea, who'd a thought People complain windows is slow and bloated.. yet something like 40-60% of that is backward compatibility... and if they eliminated that, people would complain about not being able to run any software not expressly designed for the OS.  It's like the people that complain Vista doesn't work when they try and run it on 5 year old hardware.

        While nearly everyone I've talked to complains about Vista I don't recall any of them complaining about it being slow. The thing people complain about is the idiotic security safeguards.
        "Do you want to run this program?"
        "Yes, that is why I just double-clicked on it you stupid piece of ****"

[Fury]

It would help if people weren't bunch of idiots and actually knew what they were doing. Alas, the prompt is justified as it triggers a few more neurons of activity in their brains should they realize they didn't actually want to run it. Moreover, it would help if general windows environment wouldn't be so heavily dependent on admin privileges. People shouldn't need admin privileges in day-to-day tasks. In the light of that, the prompt is justified.

I'm glad it is annoying, it is supposed to be annoying. Annoyances triggers positive changes more actively than not.

[Akalabeth Angel]

It would help if people weren't bunch of idiots and actually knew what they were doing. Alas, the prompt is justified as it triggers a few more neurons of activity in their brains should they realize they didn't actually want to run it. Moreover, it would help if general windows environment wouldn't be so heavily dependent on admin privileges. People shouldn't need admin privileges in day-to-day tasks. In the light of that, the prompt is justified.

I'm glad it is annoying, it is supposed to be annoying. Annoyances triggers positive changes more actively than not.

       Yeah, positive changes like switching back to XP.
       Funny thing I found playing on my mom's computer (which has Vista), it prompts you for all of these silly things. But when you go to the menu and hit "shutdown" it doesn't prompt you on that ("Are you sure you want to shutdown?"). It just shuts down. Whereas if you hit shutdown on XP it has the whole "shutdown, restart, sleep" options (or cancel).

       The only friend I know who has Vista turned off the security system all together.

[Fury]

XP, the haven of security illiterate people whose computer is sole property of yet another botnet or spamnet.

But hey, everyone have the constitutional right to be security illiterate. Its not their fault that XP is in itself a security risk. MS does what it necessary to change deep rooted habits of those security illiterate peope, even if it means to annoy them with prompts. It is all they probably could do because the Windows environment just can't work without admin privileges, except in tightly controlled corporate environments where users don't have rights to do jack **** except use the programs they are meant to use. Or in homes of experienced Windows users. If you're one of those experienced users, you can turn the prompts off and call it a day.

It is Microsoft's fault for not making Windows 2000/XP more secure by default and now they are paying for their mistakes. While it is debatable whether current security features in Vista are the best Microsoft could have done, it is definitely a move to the right direction. Somehow I don't think Windows 7 will bring significant changes though, I believe we'll see significant changes when "Midori" comes about. But sure, Microsoft could have decided not to have those security features in Vista and increase the number of computers in botnets and spamnets by a humble few million.

As for myself, I'm already using linux in all but two computers. I run Vista on my gaming PC, my notebook is a mac. Once the next generation consoles arrive in around 2012, I have either quit gaming alltogether or I will get myself one of those new consoles and replace my last bastion of Windows with linux.

[kalnaren]

Well, security for Windows is a bit of a double edge sword. Next to Linux it's the most secure of the mainstream desktop OS's (yes, Windows is even more secure than Mac OS X). As Fury said, the biggest issue with it is that it has really bad security defaults and people don't know any better to fix them. Anytime someone wants to see just how much control you have over windows security, open up the local policy editor and take a look.

Windows isn't dependent on admin privileges. The problem is that XP, by default, only gives you two options: Admin account or user. The user account is so useless (because all the important permissions are disabled, and thus it's highly restrictive) that 99% of people go with an admin account. It would be a lot better if it ran normally as a limited user account and prompted for privilege escalation as necessary like Linux or Mac does, but even then, you still have to have users that are knowledgeable enough to know when and when not to escalate their privileges. That's a bit where the double-edged sword comes in. People want a secure operating system, but they want it easy to use. Ask anyone that works in computer security and they'll tell you that those two things are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and it's a balance software companies try to maintain. Microsoft doesn't want to make Windows any more restrictive, which clamping down on the default security will do. A knowledgeable user can really make XP a very secure operating system without restricting its usability much, but most users are not willing to go through that effort. They'd rather blame Microsoft for making an "insecure" product.

What exactly does "backward compatibility" mean in this context? They obviously have to maintain some level of it. Who would buy a new OS if didn't run any of their existing programs?

In this context for example, Vista/XP/W2K should all be relatively compatable with eachother as they all have similar bases. They're all based on the NT Kernel, the OS layout is similar, etc. I wouldn't expect XP to be compatable with W95/98 games, since XP and 9x are completely different operating systems.

The fact is that most older Windows games do work fine though. There are only a handful of titles that have issues, and as I said a couple of times earlier, it's usually the GPU drivers rather than the OS that cause trouble.

Sometimes. Most Windows 9x games can be made to work eventually. I've had issues with 16-bit games running in XP, and DOS games are usually a nightmare to get working properly (a lot of times it's a speed issue). I've also had problems where older games don't detect modern RAM or SATA hard drives.

[CP5670]

I wouldn't expect XP to be compatable with W95/98 games, since XP and 9x are completely different operating systems.

Sometimes. Most Windows 9x games can be made to work eventually.

This makes no sense. You don't expect them to work, even though most of them do work?

There are no major inherent differences between the 32-bit programs and XP can run those fine without using NTVDM or anything like that. In fact, I have never seen a "native" XP program.

I've also had problems where older games don't detect modern RAM or SATA hard drives.

There are some old games that don't see the full amount of memory, but it's usually irrelevant since they would never use all of it anyway. They are still detecting more than they actually need. As for the SATA drives, what game does that occur in? That shouldn't really be an issue in Windows games, since they see the drives only through the OS.