Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Fury on January 02, 2010, 04:27:25 am
-
The question should be pretty self-explanatory. This poll was created to satisfy my curiosity how popular demand there is to keep supporting Win98/ME.
-
What will ceasing support for it get you?
-
Basically, one giant headache less. For some reason, the SCP still supports or aims to support Windows 98 and MS Visual C 6 as target platforms. This is creating unnecessary complications for coders who are used to all the goodness modern (read: standards-compliant) compilers bring to the table.
-
To be honest, I don't see any reason to keep the 98/ME compatibility. As much as I adored those systems only a few years ago, I must admit that XP is far more stable and just plainly better than the old Windows versions. Most PCs with those OS are old machines that prolly can't even run the mediavps and are comparable in power to the current netbooks or so. And seeing how Microsoft plans to phase out WinXP and replace it with the Win7 (which is quite a good OS from what I've heard), more effort should be spent to ensure compatibility with newer OS, not older ones.
Hell, the only reason why I'm still on WinXP is because Mass Effect has lots of compatibility issues and doesn't always work well with the new OS.
-
I've once played FSO on Win ME and I had constant problems with it, plus 3.6.10 nightlies didn't worked at all.
I didn't thought that it's still supported.
Maybe we should drop ME support and redirect people on Win ME to 3.6.10 final as a last stable build on which they can play.
We have a lot of 3.6.10 campaigns today, so I think that it would be enough (no WiH for them though).
Drop ME support, but make sure that there will be always an easy way to get 3.6.10 final and a ME-compatible PP build (provied that PP can work on Win ME).
-
/me has voted.
I don't really care for Windows 98 and Windows ME support. I've never played fs2_open on them, and anyone who knows better should have at least one computer with Windows XP by now.
-
I confess that I'm all for compatibility... in general... but that statement usually goes along for newer computers running older applications.
I think that keeping 3.6.10 final available for the older computers is a fine idea, but if compatibility with newer computers is potentially a problem due to old coding standards or is otherwise an inhibitant in development, then Windows 98 and ME should be dropped like a stone.
I mean, it's Windows 98? ME? Those are friggin' archaic...
-
ME isn't archaic. It's disaster.
-
ME isn't archaic. It's disaster.
That too. :P
I've personally never used it, but that's all anyone has ever said about it...
-
A family member does still have win98 computer (in fact my old original fs2 install... untouched bar multi pilot pics) albeit in a different county.
-
Err.. doesn't windows '98 have a memory cap of like 512MB anyways? So SCP is probably going to outgrow it sooner or later in that regard alone.
-
Doesn't change the fact it's played on the computer. I answered a question...
Err.. doesn't windows '98 have a memory cap of like 512MB anyways? So SCP is probably going to outgrow it sooner or later in that regard alone.
And that won't affect me in the slightest :cool: cough cough 2gig ram.
-
As far as I can tell, the only feature of FSO that 98/ME users can benefit from is the easiness of mod installation (and the fact that some mods outright require FSO), but other than that, I really can't see a reason for continued support.
-
I agree completely. :yes:
-
Err.. doesn't windows '98 have a memory cap of like 512MB anyways? So SCP is probably going to outgrow it sooner or later in that regard alone.
Actually there are ways around that. I had 768meg in my ME machine. FS2_Open quit running on it quite some time ago due to it have a Glide card (yea I built it to play FS2) that doesn't support OpenGL.
So Glide is gone, DirectX is gone yet 98/ME support remains. Seems the compatibility standards are contradictory. If FS2_Open was meant to run with retail system specs then someone needs to get Glide and DirectX back in there.
-
98/me support? REALLY? :wtf:
The question stands: what for? If someone stays on one of those, he isn't bright enough to tell the difference between the FS2 and FSO so drop it dropdropdrop
-
Err.. doesn't windows '98 have a memory cap of like 512MB anyways? So SCP is probably going to outgrow it sooner or later in that regard alone.
Actually there are ways around that. I had 768meg in my ME machine. FS2_Open quit running on it quite some time ago due to it have a Glide card (yea I built it to play FS2) that doesn't support OpenGL.
So Glide is gone, DirectX is gone yet 98/ME support remains. Seems the compatibility standards are contradictory. If FS2_Open was meant to run with retail system specs then someone needs to get Glide and DirectX back in there.
This is probably the more relevant post :<
I'm all for pushing on with client data instead of keeping ancient compatibility if it helps/fixes lots of stuff for people to go on adding content, but if we are keeping backwards compat, it really should be kept proper. >.>
I still have my 98se machine in the garage, it gets used occasionally by people like my grand parents and little cousins (it's, basically setup for that purpose to keep them all off my and my dads box), FS2 stopped working on it a long time ago as far as SCP is concerned because of dropped support.
Sure if I installed 98se on THIS PC it'd work(probably), but why would I do that?
-
I used to love Win98, now I've got XP and I'm looking to get a Win8 version, I've voted to stop supporting 98/ME... as far as I can tell there's little need to keep supporting those systems from now on, it's not like they are gonna be able to have good hardware with 98/ME anyway so running FSO in it's full capacity might be a little too much anyway.
-
My family had a machine that ran ME for a few years. The fewer projects support that travesty, the better. :p
-
It appears that voting is a bit one-sided.
Let's drop ME support then, 3.6.10 will do for them.
Maybe we should make a topic with instructions how to make FSO work on ME, it will contain all nessesary links (3.6.10, stable 3.6.11 with PP, etc.).
It should satisfy all of it's users out here.
-
On another topic, why would anyone want to have '98 or ME on a machine that could support FSO? Such a machine would certainly be able to run XP. Especially if you play around with the services... Actually, any version of Windows from 2000 on up can benefit from that kind of tweaking. clicky (http://www.blackviper.com/) << Find your OS under "Popular Content" and tweak away!
-
My vote is to go ahead and kill 98/ME support.
Speaking strictly for myself, the only reason I would build a 98/ME system these days would be to run old DOS games, Descent, and/or FreeSpace on 3Dfx hardware. With DOSBox, Descent source ports, and (of course) the SCP around, I don't see much of a point.
We've got to move on sometime...
-
Why, indeed..
http://www.zeckensack.de/glide/ (zeckensack's glide wrapper)
http://www.warp2search.net/contentteller/news_story/glidos__3dfx_glide_emulator_for_dos.html (glide DOS emulator)
http://forums.emulator-zone.com/showthread.php?t=16384 (nGlide, 3dfx glide wrapper)
http://alpha.emulation64.com/Wrappers.html (a list of glide wrappers)
http://www.glideunderground.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=HTMLArticles&file=index&req=showcontent&id=89 (another list of glide wrappers)
EDIT: the lists have descriptions and pros / cons for different wrappers, check them out.
-
It appears that voting is a bit one-sided.
Let's drop ME support then, 3.6.10 will do for them.
Maybe we should make a topic with instructions how to make FSO work on ME, it will contain all nessesary links (3.6.10, stable 3.6.11 with PP, etc.).
It should satisfy all of it's users out here.
I wouldn't go that far. I'd say either 3.6.12 or 3.6.14 is the last and move on with 3.7.x being the cutoff for backward support. So 3.6.x supports it and 3.6.7 moves on. It's a good cutoff point.
-
Y'all should keep in mind Fury's original post: this is a poll for informational purposes, not a vote. HLP is not a democracy and neither is the SCP.
-
... Is it totalitarian?
-
it's still supported?
-
... Is it totalitarian?
More like a benevolent dictatorship. :p
-
*leaves a peace offering of one hundred thousand Headz, gift wrapped, to appease the gods*
-
Oligarchy.
-
*leaves a peace offering of one hundred thousand Headz, gift wrapped, to appease the gods*
/me has munchies :headz:
-
Err.. doesn't windows '98 have a memory cap of like 512MB anyways? So SCP is probably going to outgrow it sooner or later in that regard alone.
The whole Windows 9x line had that limitation.
I'm amazed people some people here are still using 98/ME.
-
There was a registry hack to get around it. You could have more then 512 on ME but it only made use of it for certain things.
-
There was a registry hack to get around it. You could have more then 512 on ME but it only made use of it for certain things.
then it died
-
The whole Windows 9x line had that limitation.
I'm amazed people some people here are still using 98/ME.
I'm amazed win9x is capable of running on modern hardware.
-
The whole Windows 9x line had that limitation.
I'm amazed people some people here are still using 98/ME.
I'm amazed win9x is capable of running on modern hardware.
Why? MS-DOS 6.22 still does as do several other DOS OSes. Granted you don't have much memory to play with anymore and network drivers are a pain in the butt to find but it will run.
-
There was a registry hack to get around it. You could have more then 512 on ME but it only made use of it for certain things.
Really? Then again ME blew in so many other ways it wasn't worth it, 2k was far superior in every respect except dos support. Even in that area 98 was better.
-
That's because 98 was just a GUI layer on top of DOS...
-
You're thinking of Windows 1.0 - 3.11. Windows 95 was its own OS.
-
Yeah, but it was easily possible to drop down to the command line to get access to a full-blown 16 bit DOS. While Win32 got started with 95, the old DOS API was still fully available in 95 and 98, making compatibility really easy.
-
Yes 95-ME were built on top of MS-DOS-7. You probably won't see it called that (maybe on an old 95 floppy set) but if you do a ver from the command prompt I believe you will see it.
-
Yes 95-ME were built on top of MS-DOS-7. You probably won't see it called that (maybe on an old 95 floppy set) but if you do a ver from the command prompt I believe you will see it.
but many of the higher dos functions are no longer accessable
-
I still play it in Win98 you insensitive clods! ;_;
Is this something on the cards then, or is purely out of curiosity?
Unless there's some show-stopping problem with Win98 support then I'd (obviously) prefer if it was kept it in. I can play it on Win2k, but it's slower and I have to limit the RAM to 1GB or my Sidewinder and my SB Live don't work properly due to stupid driver bugs, so it's just easier.
(And no, I can't upgrade my system because nothing new works in Win2k and I'm trying to boycott anything that needs on-line activation. Unfortunately I started that before WinXP came out.)
-
The problem isn't so much Win98 as it is VC6. Newer builds might work on Win98, but there is no guarantee for this. And keeping this "feature" for people like you, who are really only a tiny minority of the userbase, is more trouble than it's worth, from my perspective.
Besides, if you don't want online activation, why not use Linux? FSO will run there as well, and Wine is better at Win98 compatibility than XP is....
-
for my money although SCP is supposed to be maintaining backwards compatibility with retail i think we are at the point now were the original OS support list needs addressing i mean Win98 as "good" an operating system as it is now over 10 years old now and with XP retailing at £20-30 on ebay I cant see why anyone would run 98 as a primary system
-
Yeah, but it was easily possible to drop down to the command line to get access to a full-blown 16 bit DOS. While Win32 got started with 95, the old DOS API was still fully available in 95 and 98, making compatibility really easy.
Win32 started with the NT line. 9x was intended to introduce win32 to the home market while still retaining needed DOS compatibility, with the eventual goal of completely supplanting it with an NT based OS, which ended up being XP Home.
Yes 95-ME were built on top of MS-DOS-7.
It wasn't built on top per say, rather it was a bizzare hybrid 16-32 bit kernal. Given the fundemental incompatibilities between them it is no surprise the 9x line had the problems it did. Still it is impressive in a way they managed to make it work at all.
-
I still play it in Win98 you insensitive clods! ;_;
Me too. :nervous:
Is this something on the cards then, or is purely out of curiosity?
See my post here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=67290.msg1329979#msg1329979).
The problem isn't so much Win98 as it is VC6. Newer builds might work on Win98, but there is no guarantee for this.
What he said. Alternatives to VC6 are being investigated.
And keeping this "feature" for people like you, who are really only a tiny minority of the userbase, is more trouble than it's worth, from my perspective.
"They came for the Win98 users, and I did not speak up because I was not a Win98 user..." :p
-
Well, the major issue that I can see is that when we drop VC6, we'll have to start introducing platform releases.
PDB_DEBUGGING I'm not sure about on Win98, there may be memory issues, any rewrite of graphics code to take advantage of newer APIs will have to be rechecked and most likely written for platform support, debugging support may be non-existant, FRED doesn't currently have issues, but it may in future (and any new application will probably need the unicode framework for Win9x), there will be hacks galore for any problems we do have (just see a recent commit for a weird VC6 error).
How many of the features of 3.6.10 can Win98 users use anyway, and do nightlies actually work for Win98 users?
-
How many of the features of 3.6.10 can Win98 users use anyway
For legacy OS users, I doubt anything else matters except being able to play campaigns that may use features found only in newer fs2_open releases. On the other hand, more often than not, those new campaigns also pack enough eye candy to blow up most Win9x era PCs. I doubt even launcher flags can turn them all off in some cases.
and do nightlies actually work for Win98 users?
That's the question isn't it? I don't know if even .10 works on Win9x, but apparently that's the case as Goober hasn't said otherwise. Little birds have told me that not even Goober has played .11 nightlies on W9x, at least not recent. If that's the case then what's the point if the only remaining W9x developer doesn't bother maintaining the compatibility he so much wants to keep?
And now a personal rage.
This goes for everyone, not just W9x developers. Can you please stpp being stuck-up and not except modern games, or in this case modernized game to work on legacy OS that is 12 years old? Seriously, get a decent Win7 notebook or desktop with ATI or Nvidia GPU and you're set.
And those who voted for "No, but I expect fs2_open to work on Win98/ME", what the **** seriously? You don't even play on W9x and you expect the game to work on it? Who do you expect to maintain the compatibility and what cost on effort and time? Not to mention keeping legacy support often comes at the cost of not being able to use more advanced/modern code/API/libraries.
If 3.6.10 works on W9x but .11 does not, I'd say that's fine. Don't even bother to fix it. It's about time Goober and anyone else gets a rig that can be called a PC and not a toaster. No wait I take that back, it would hurt toasters feelings.
-
And those who voted for "No, but I expect fs2_open to work on Win98/ME", what the **** seriously? You don't even play on W9x and you expect the game to work on it? Who do you expect to maintain the compatibility and what cost on effort and time? Not to mention keeping legacy support often comes at the cost of not being able to use more advanced/modern code/API/libraries.
Considering you gave people the option to vote that, any rights you had to complain when they actually did so are null and void.
-
No it does not.
-
Unless there's some show-stopping problem with Win98 support then I'd (obviously) prefer if it was kept it in. I can play it on Win2k, but it's slower and I have to limit the RAM to 1GB or my Sidewinder and my SB Live don't work properly due to stupid driver bugs, so it's just easier.
(And no, I can't upgrade my system because nothing new works in Win2k and I'm trying to boycott anything that needs on-line activation. Unfortunately I started that before WinXP came out.)
Every reason you have given can be worked around.
Regarding the Sidewinder, my Sidewinder works perfectly fine under Windows XP on my ASUS A7N8X motherboard (which possesses an integrated MIDI/joystick port). There are also many drivers available for the SB Live! under Windows XP. Neither of these devices worked well for me under Windows 2000. And I have had no problems with RAM size.
Windows XP's online activation is easily defeated after installation. I have bypassed online activation on all student editions of Windows XP that I've owned, shortly after installing them. Why? Out of principle -- same reason as you. Now I'm on Windows 7, and quite happy with it. I even activated it online. Times change.
-
Is it possible to make compatibility opposite of what the problem is? In other words, the problem is SCP doesn't support '98 / ME.
How about instead of mangling SCP to support 9x, check into a patch for 9x to make it support SCP? i.e., a patch to support the newer APIs and the newer VC7/8/9 / whatever it is you coder gods are using nowadays.
I don't know if it'd be feasible, but it has been done (DX10 support on XP for Halo 2 [a "Vista-only" game]). This way, if you want to / have to use 9x, you patch your system to run SCP.
There may be more to it than that, but the coders would know, so I'm posing the question here.
What do you think?
-
This goes for everyone, not just W9x developers. Can you please stpp being stuck-up and not except modern games, or in this case modernized game to work on legacy OS that is 12 years old? Seriously, get a decent Win7 notebook or desktop with ATI or Nvidia GPU and you're set.
Maybe for some people getting a new computer isn't their highest priority? We did have a major economic meltdown after all......
-
This goes for everyone, not just W9x developers. Can you please stpp being stuck-up and not except modern games, or in this case modernized game to work on legacy OS that is 12 years old? Seriously, get a decent Win7 notebook or desktop with ATI or Nvidia GPU and you're set.
Maybe for some people getting a new computer isn't their highest priority? We did have a major economic meltdown after all......
The 9x series has been obsolete long before the economic problems even began.
-
(And no, I can't upgrade my system because nothing new works in Win2k and I'm trying to boycott anything that needs on-line activation. Unfortunately I started that before WinXP came out.)
There's no issue with online activation unless you've pirated something, then it gets iffy.
Unfortunately, I have a hard time with things like that when they're done on principle (just ask Goober5000). The current FSO compiler used on Win98 (VC6) is giving me no end of trouble with borked template handling.
-
*snip*
Why waste brainpower on backporting features into an OS that old, when upgrading to Linux is a rather painless process?
-
Agreed :D
-
Windows Vista and below use the same memory manager found in Windows 98.
Other than that, there really isn't any reason to continue being concerned about Windows 9x/ME.
-
Windows Vista and below use the same memory manager found in Windows 98.
CITATION ****ING NOW. Where the hell do you people pull this bull**** and trying to pass it off as actual facts?
-
Windows Vista and below use the same memory manager found in Windows 98.
I want some of that **** you're smoking and I'm not even smoker. It ought to be good.
-
Yeah, srsly. Windows got a complete platform overhaul during the transition to XP, with almost nothing from the Win95 codebase remaining in use.
-
Uh, not quite. XP is an upgrade to W2k and not a huge one I might add. W2k however was huge upgrade over NT4.
-
First up, I'm not getting Windows XP - I've objected to this whole wave of on-line activation since it began because I can see where they're trying to go with it, and I refuse to pay a single penny to support such software, or even pirate/crack it if I can help it.
This is not a good long term solution anyway - WinXP is already deprecated, and if you're obsoleting Win98SE, I *know* you that you will be in a similar position obsoleting Win2k-XP within 5-10 years for similar reasons, especially if your main gripe is with newer VS compilers having poor support for older OS. (Esp. if my friend's predictions about MS deprecating native binaries in favour of .NET stuff for 'security' reasons and for their online software management scheme turns out to be true! :nervous:)
The Linux suggestion is a good one, and when I finish sorting out all the other problems I have in Linux so that 3D games actually *work* in a satisfactory way :mad: I will be kissing the Windows platform goodbye anyway. :D Until then I'm stuck with Win2k and Win98 for my old games that I can't stop playing :P
Ironically tho', I've already gotten into a similar problem in the Linux world because the Gentoo folks have obsoleted KDE3.5, and I have a handful of apps which are only available in KDE3.5! The argument has gone the way I expect it to go here, although in their case I forked the portage tree to an overlay on my system that keeps KDE3.5. Sticking with 3.6.x would be a lot easier than forking the portage tree tho', and hopefully most of the good campaigns and missions will still be backward compatible ;)
But this is really up to you coders; I'm not trying to be difficult, just waving my tiny flag to say "Yes, we still exist!". If it really is such a nightmare then fair enough, I just don't want you to drop support lightly... :nervous:
(Regarding the last three posts, Very little of Win9x got to the XP core (As opposed to GUI and other ancillary stuff; Loads of code copying there! :P); XP was built from Win2k, which was built from NT4, which is why lots of Win9x era stuff doesn't work properly in Win2k/XP. In the same way, very little of 2k/XP exists in Vista and Win7, which is why loads of stuff from the 2k/XP era craps out in them (And why they have gobs of app-specific hacks and tweaks!). Win9x era stuff is just a lottery in WinV/7, which is a right bastard if you work in the education sector like me where schools can't afford site licences to update older softs but can only source Vista/7 machines!)
-
First up, I'm not getting Windows XP - I've objected to this whole wave of on-line activation since it began because I can see where they're trying to go with it, and I refuse to pay a single penny to support such software, or even pirate/crack it if I can help it.
Care to enlighten us? This online activation thing has been around for close to a decade now, and has only gone wrong in very few cases.
This is not a good long term solution anyway - WinXP is already deprecated, and if you're obsoleting Win98SE, I *know* you that you will be in a similar position obsoleting Win2k-XP within 5-10 years for similar reasons, especially if your main gripe is with newer VS compilers having poor support for older OS. (Esp. if my friend's predictions about MS deprecating native binaries in favour of .NET stuff for 'security' reasons and for their online software management scheme turns out to be true! :nervous:)
It's not Win98 they are obsoleting, it's Visual C 6. Code compiled on newer compilers will still work in Win98 (I think), unless they are utilizing API features (whether that API is Win32 or OpenGL doesn't matter) that are unavailable in 98.
The Linux suggestion is a good one, and when I finish sorting out all the other problems I have in Linux so that 3D games actually *work* in a satisfactory way :mad: I will be kissing the Windows platform goodbye anyway. :D Until then I'm stuck with Win2k and Win98 for my old games that I can't stop playing :P
Ironically tho', I've already gotten into a similar problem in the Linux world because the Gentoo folks have obsoleted KDE3.5, and I have a handful of apps which are only available in KDE3.5! The argument has gone the way I expect it to go here, although in their case I forked the portage tree to an overlay on my system that keeps KDE3.5. Sticking with 3.6.x would be a lot easier than forking the portage tree tho', and hopefully most of the good campaigns and missions will still be backward compatible ;)
You are a glutton for punishment, aren't you ? :D
-
First up, I'm not getting Windows XP - I've objected to this whole wave of on-line activation since it began because I can see where they're trying to go with it, and I refuse to pay a single penny to support such software, or even pirate/crack it if I can help it.
Care to enlighten us? This online activation thing has been around for close to a decade now, and has only gone wrong in very few cases.
Enlighten you to what? Why I object? Okay, but this will turn into a bit of a rant ;)
<rant>
The basic problem I have is that I don't like the idea of me buying something, but not having control over it, or even *owning* it. There's always been this argument with software that it's licensed to you, and the whole on-line thing is just hammering that home; That what you have paid for is a revocable-at-any-time-non-refundable licence to use something which doesn't actually exist except as a pattern of electrons which you aren't allowed to copy.
I'm really scared that at this rate you won't even be able to pay a one-off fee for most software, but it'll turn into a quasi-'rental' thing like MMORPGs and AntiVirus are now.
The worst thing is the idea that they can disable or perform some unauthorized change on the software/your computer after you've bought it!
We've already seen extreme (tho' unintentional) cases of both with the original Steam launch, Windows XP/Vista and Prey to name a few, then there's stupidity of things like BioShock, which were only lessened because of the huge backlash, and even then the restrictions still take the piss IMO. And BioShock was a very popular game; If it had been on a more niche game then there'd be no hope of a reprieve!
An example closer to home involves one of my friends, who is a massive Steam zealot. He's always saying I'm just being a paranoid idiot (Which, to be fair, is at least a bit true :P) because it's perfectly okay and that you didn't need to be on-line all the time because it caches it, but then due to some building works his 'net connection got cut and it took them about 1 and a bit months to fix it.
3 days in and all his Steam games stopped working, because it turned out the off-line mode thing does need to be refreshed occasionally (How occasionally I still don't know :P). I got to feel a bit smug, lending him physmedia versions of stuff he owned but couldn't play due to the lockout. :P
If the kind of restrictions we have today had been on FreeSpace or MechWarrior 3 or games by some company who'd gone bankrupt (like all my Interplay games! Brr... scary!) or decided it wasn't financially viable any more (LucasArts, EA), I wouldn't be able to play them today!
The way I see it, by buying or even using that sort of crap, you are saying it's okay for them to screw you over when they feel like it, which is fine, but I want no part of it thankyouverymuch.
Things like Starforce were bad enough, but this is taking it to the next level as far as I'm concerned.
I'm very pessimistic when it comes to trusting a third party, especially a business, for handling things like this in a way I'd find acceptable.
</rant>
This is not a good long term solution anyway - WinXP is already deprecated, and if you're obsoleting Win98SE, I *know* you that you will be in a similar position obsoleting Win2k-XP within 5-10 years for similar reasons, especially if your main gripe is with newer VS compilers having poor support for older OS. (Esp. if my friend's predictions about MS deprecating native binaries in favour of .NET stuff for 'security' reasons and for their online software management scheme turns out to be true! :nervous:)
It's not Win98 they are obsoleting, it's Visual C 6. Code compiled on newer compilers will still work in Win98 (I think), unless they are utilizing API features (whether that API is Win32 or OpenGL doesn't matter) that are unavailable in 98.
Well I assume newer API functions and external libs (e.g. DX9+) are the main reason why Fury wants to get rid of Win98. (Well, I assume so... I don't think he actually said why he wanted to get rid of 98 support. The general consensus so far seems to be "Because it's old", which is a crap reason IMHO! :P ;))
I was under the impression that newer versions of Visual Studio linked to newer versions of the WinAPI and other SDKs, which didn't necessarily work in older OS unless you disabled or were careful not to use specific functions. IIRC you can specify the target version to compile to or something for the core API, but if you use an external SDK (e.g. DirectX) you have to manage that yourself?
The Linux suggestion is a good one, and when I finish sorting out all the other problems I have in Linux so that 3D games actually *work* in a satisfactory way :mad: I will be kissing the Windows platform goodbye anyway. :D Until then I'm stuck with Win2k and Win98 for my old games that I can't stop playing :P
Ironically tho', I've already gotten into a similar problem in the Linux world because the Gentoo folks have obsoleted KDE3.5, and I have a handful of apps which are only available in KDE3.5! The argument has gone the way I expect it to go here, although in their case I forked the portage tree to an overlay on my system that keeps KDE3.5. Sticking with 3.6.x would be a lot easier than forking the portage tree tho', and hopefully most of the good campaigns and missions will still be backward compatible ;)
You are a glutton for punishment, aren't you ? :D
I am, I so am! *cries*
I keep telling myself it'll be worth it in the end...
If there's one painful thing I've been finding with Gentoo, it's that all the libs seem to update every week so I'm always having to recompile some part of it! :eek:
But the customization scope is sooo addictive... I can't use Ubuntu any more because little things annoy the heck out of me that I can't change! :nervous: :lol:
-
Well I assume newer API functions and external libs (e.g. DX9+) are the main reason why Fury wants to get rid of Win98. (Well, I assume so... I don't think he actually said why he wanted to get rid of 98 support. The general consensus so far seems to be "Because it's old", which is a crap reason IMHO! :P ;))
No, the core reason for this debate comes down to language features that some SCP coders want to use, but can't (or can't directly) due to VC6 not implementing the relevant standards correctly. Finding ways to do this becomes increasingly difficult, and as a result, some features that could speed up the engine as a whole, or simplify further development have been placed on hold for the time being.
I was under the impression that newer versions of Visual Studio linked to newer versions of the WinAPI and other SDKs, which didn't necessarily work in older OS unless you disabled or were careful not to use specific functions. IIRC you can specify the target version to compile to or something for the core API, but if you use an external SDK (e.g. DirectX) you have to manage that yourself?
Win32 is Win32. The various Windows SDKs are supposed to be backwards compatible, that is if your code compiled with the XP SDK, it will compile and act the same with the Vista and 7 SDKs. They are, however, being expanded to add new features or consolidate obsolete ones (Like Direct2D, for example), with the result that something may break. But here's the thing: Given a hypothetical feature that will enhance the experience for the vast majority of users, but will result in breakage for a really tiny minority, which way should the developers go? Sorry to say this, but IMHO, the minority should lose in that situation.
-
Online activations are a little annoying, though I've never experienced a constant-checking service. I thought Steam was that way, and I recall not being able to use an application because of no connection. So yes, I agree with you completely.
I have upgraded software licences on-line, of course. That never bothered me as I had paid for the software, got the activation code, and the licence was mine so-to-say. However, that's no different from ordering a program in, say, the nineties where you had to enter the security code.
Lastly, I grew up using the Mac and often had only an older computer that couldn't run the most up-to-date software, so I was used to not being able to play the newer stuff that had evolved beyond my system capabilities. I was quite happy with what I had, though. Thus, remembering this, I feel pretty fine with ditching the old stuff after 3.6.XX has run its course. However, if someone cared to write an external patch of sorts that would allow users of the older OS's to use FSO 3.7.XX or 4.X.XX, etc., I'd say that would be great, too. This had been suggested earlier, though it seems like it won't be advocated for much.
*Edit:
E, is VC6 one of the factors that inhibit multi-core operation? I thought I had heard that FSO can only use one processor at this time...
-
E, is VC6 one of the factors that inhibit multi-core operation? I thought I had heard that FSO can only use one processor at this time...
Not directly. The problem is that FSOs core architecture wasn't changed very much from the original :V: release, and as a result, it assumes that the program will always run on a computer with only one CPU core. Which was a reasonable assumption to make, back in 2000.
As a result, FSO is written in such a way that turning it into a multithreaded application is extraordinarily difficult.
Getting FSO to use more than one core takes a greater redesign of the engine; doing that is separate from the IDE or compiler being used.
Having said that, one of the easier ways to enable multithreading is by using OpenMP (http://openmp.org/wp/about-openmp/), which is only supported by Microsoft from VS2008 onwards.
-
There's no issue with online activation unless you've pirated something, then it gets iffy.
The issue is more out of principle. Some of us don't appreciate being treated like criminals. :p
The 9x series has been obsolete long before the economic problems even began.
For more than a few people the economic problems started with the dot com bust and they never really recovered from that.
-
Windows Vista and below use the same memory manager found in Windows 98.
CITATION ****ING NOW. Where the hell do you people pull this bull**** and trying to pass it off as actual facts?
Jeez, calm down. I have citations.
http://www.intellectualheaven.com/Articles/WinMM.pdf
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366525%28VS.85%29.aspx
It's not bull****. Correcting myself, all 32 bit versions of Windows prior to Windows 7 have been using the same memory manager found in Windows 98--one main consistency being that they can all support up to 4GB of physical memory. However, it isn't the exact same memory manager each iteration--there are tweaks and fixes as the OS evolved.
-
Seems that things were fairly shaken up in Vista, and that the memory manager has changed every release:
Windows Memory Management (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/kernel/wmm.mspx)
-
Windows Vista and below use the same memory manager found in Windows 98.
Other than that, there really isn't any reason to continue being concerned about Windows 9x/ME.
Which is why all Windows OSes Vista and below have a max of 512MB RAM, right? :wtf: How do you explain the memory manager being able to handle 512MB in '98 and 4096MB in Vista?
EDIT: Was on end of p.3 and didn't see p.4, sorry..
-
Jeez, calm down. I have citations.
http://www.intellectualheaven.com/Articles/WinMM.pdf
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366525%28VS.85%29.aspx
It's not bull****. Correcting myself, all 32 bit versions of Windows prior to Windows 7 have been using the same memory manager found in Windows 98--one main consistency being that they can all support up to 4GB of physical memory. However, it isn't the exact same memory manager each iteration--there are tweaks and fixes as the OS evolved.
Your citations are faulty, there's nothing that says for a fact that W2k or newer uses same memory manager as Win98. A claim that is bogus anyway.
-
Well I assume newer API functions and external libs (e.g. DX9+) are the main reason why Fury wants to get rid of Win98.
Fury is just sick of hearing me ***** about VC6.
The issue is that we're not 100% sure exactly what Win98 supports and none of us have a working Win98 installation nearby to test changes (well, Goober has one somewhere, but we can't be bugging him 24/7 to test every change we make).
Windows has come along way since Win98.
Cyker:
If you'd invested > $1B in developing a piece of software, you'd take steps to protect it too :P
If you're going to have principles like that, you need to accept that not everybody else has them too, and sometimes you'll lose out on things.
-
Online activations are a little annoying, though I've never experienced a constant-checking service. I thought Steam was that way, and I recall not being able to use an application because of no connection. So yes, I agree with you completely.
The thing is...how long is your average technically-minded user ever going to be without Internet access at home? Cyker mentioned his friend being without service for more than a month, but I can safely say that I would be running around someone's office committing mass murder if any issue I was experiencing took even half as long to resolve. :p Even if you're staying in some hotel somewhere, I'd expect the very vast majority to have at least wired Ethernet access in every room, if not flat-out wi-fi coverage. The three continuous days offline that Steam provides is more than enough for most temporary day-to-day outages. Considering that my desktop is connected to the Internet every single second of the day that it's turned on, I've yet to hear a compelling reason why games which require said active connection present me with any unnecessary hardship.
-
If you're going to have principles like that, you need to accept that not everybody else has them too, and sometimes you'll lose out on things
He could just get the OEM version which didn't have the absurd online activation crap.
Which is why all Windows OSes Vista and below have a max of 512MB RAM, right?
The NT line never had that limitation.
-
If you're going to have principles like that, you need to accept that not everybody else has them too, and sometimes you'll lose out on things
He could just get the OEM version which didn't have the absurd online activation crap.
Actually, you do have that online activation crap. Since Feb 28 2005 (http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-Closes-Activation-Loophole/1109293194)
-
No it does not.
Oh the hell it's not. If you didn't want people voting that, don't give them option. :P Noob.
-
It's not Win98 they are obsoleting, it's Visual C 6. Code compiled on newer compilers will still work in Win98 (I think), unless they are utilizing API features (whether that API is Win32 or OpenGL doesn't matter) that are unavailable in 98.
OpenGL drivers for Win98 might be the issue if we start using newer OpenGL APIs
-
I voted for getting rid of win1/2/3.11/95/98/ME support. There's two reasons why you'd still be running any version of windows that's based off of dos. One is because you're an idiot running it on modern day hardware. Two is the other scenario where you actually need the older version of windows to run on old slow hardware.
In the number two scenario, there is the possibility that there's some old, but not too old of hardware that can play fso with the mediavp's (albeit it doesn't sound like speedy game play, but playable is playable and that's good enough for many people...those on tight budgets or still find their old computer just fine for normal operations and average computer use).
I hope support for any dos based windows gets dropped completely so the coders have a much easier time.
For those who do play fso on a dos based windows installation...don't forget that the scp supports linux also. If support for dos based windows gets dropped and people are two greedy for the windows tax or don't have speedy hardware for anything nt5 on up, then you'll have to take the linux route.
Benefits of the linux route with an scp focus are:
Linux is modern day software
Linux is modern day software that can run on some pretty darn old hardware (check out distributions centered on running on old hardware)
The scp supports linux
I'm mentioning linux not because i think it's better than windows, but because of those not able to get newer hardware able to run nt5 on up, and for those who can't afford, or just don't want to upgrade their dos based windows. In this situation, the only route to go and still be able to play the scp enhanced stuff would be linux.
-
I'm sorry, did your argument for removing Win98 support just boil down to you accusing us of being tight-fisted idiots?
Have you not read the rest of the thread?
Even your second argument doesn't apply; Both my old 6600GT and my X850Pro, both of which support Win98, are more than capable of running FS2 SCP with everything on (Well, the X850 doesn't support normal maps, which sucks, so I'm sorely tempted to go back to the GT, which is supposed to be an older slower card! :lol: Darn you ATI!!)
Now stop throwing out fallacious arguments (I especially liked the DOS-based Windows dig, and grouping Win 1.0 with Win9x! How very cunning of you!).
There is currently NO technical argument why FS2 SCP will not run in Win98 - It is just as capable of running it a a modern system.
The ONLY good reasons to drop support given so far have been due to insurmountable compiler problems and difficulty in testing.
OpenGL is not an issue as the library is totally dependant on the graphics card drivers, and using any new API's would still need to have a fallbacks anyway since not everybody has a GTX295 or HD5970 ;)
Obviously there is no support for DirectX 9 in Win98, but since FS2SCP doesn't use D3D or DirectSound, and DirectInput has basically not changed (In fact they've removed bits of it and DirectSound in DX10!), that is really a non-issue.
Now, as I said, this is really up to the devs and if they feel the compiler and testing problems are painful enough that they really can't get around them then fair enough. (It's not like they get paid to do this after all!). That's fine, I can understand that, but I don't want support being dropped for stupid non-reasons like "FS2 can't possibly run well on a Win98-spec machine" or "All Win98 users are idiots or poor people!" :mad:.
-
OK, let me put it this way.
One day someone will use an API that doesn't work with Win98.
You'll wake up and FSO will not work.
-
If people still want to use Win98 these days and browse the internet with 56k modems then they are free to do so. Just don't expect the rest of the world to stand still in time as well. :p
-
That's fine, I can understand that, but I don't want support being dropped for stupid non-reasons like "FS2 can't possibly run well on a Win98-spec machine" or "All Win98 users are idiots or poor people!" :mad:.
You forgot my 3rd argument which was mentioning those few who just don't want to pay to upgrade to newer windows. I lump you in with this third group. Read my post better and you'll also see i mentioned old computers that can run the scp, as well as people who run 98 on not too old of hardware. Thanks for actively ignoring the third argument, truly your specialty is in trying to one up people.
WhyTF ARE YOU STILL RUNNING 98 FOR? It's not impossible to go find a friend who upgraded to win7 and get their newly unused copy of xp for free (you get the idea, go find a win2k or xp install disc and cd code that's not currently in use for free...or maybe not, you did try to put a fast one on me :lol:). Either use linux if you really don't want to pay money for a new os (or even try to look for a free xp or win2k) and still have support for the scp, or get ready to be left in the dust. My arguments apply.
-
Oh, for God's sake, leave Cyker alone.
I can't believe you'd be so rude as to treat him like this over the issue of what operating system he uses.
His arguments are fine, he's willing to accept dropped 98 support over reasonable issues, it's not like he's doing anything to hurt you. All he's done is respond to some rather nasty generalizations about his personage. Relax.
-
I tend to get a little touchy after it was pretty obvious he was trying to warp the points and arguments i presented. I'm done touching the nerve of finding out that some people still run 98 for no good reason.