[Fury]

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.

[The E]

Yeah, srsly. Windows got a complete platform overhaul during the transition to XP, with almost nothing from the Win95 codebase remaining in use.

[Fury]

Uh, not quite. XP is an upgrade to W2k and not a huge one I might add. W2k however was huge upgrade over NT4.

[Cyker]

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!  )

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 I will be kissing the Windows platform goodbye anyway. Until then I'm stuck with Win2k and Win98 for my old games that I can't stop playing
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...  

(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! ); 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!)

[The E]

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!  )

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 I will be kissing the Windows platform goodbye anyway. Until then I'm stuck with Win2k and Win98 for my old games that I can't stop playing
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 ? 

[Cyker]

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 ) 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 ). I got to feel a bit smug, lending him physmedia versions of stuff he owned but couldn't play due to the lockout.

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!  )

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! )

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 I will be kissing the Windows platform goodbye anyway. Until then I'm stuck with Win2k and Win98 for my old games that I can't stop playing
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 ? 

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! 
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!

[The E]

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! )

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.

[Thaeris]

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...

[The E]

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, which is only supported by Microsoft from VS2008 onwards.

[Kosh]

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.

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.

[sigtau]

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.

[portej05]

Seems that things were fairly shaken up in Vista, and that the memory manager has changed every release:

Windows Memory Management

[jr2]

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?    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..

[Fury]

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.

[portej05]

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
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.

[Mongoose]

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. 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.

[Kosh]

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.

[jr2]

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

[NGTM-1R]

No it does not.

Oh the hell it's not. If you didn't want people voting that, don't give them option. Noob.

[portej05]

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