Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Zealoth, Sep 27, 2008.
HALP - i can't install it, but i heard it works fine on 32bit-emulation
run in 98/xp compatibility mode (right click properties on the exe, then choose "compatibility" tab, and examine the information on that tab it should be there somewhere)
i use a translated version of xp, so the names could be different, thats why i intentionally vague
ive wrote it wont work D;
i cant install it - vista popups about unproper installer and just closes setup
ooookay, install it in win95 modus, same as described before
it should work!
how large is the installer? i have a vista ultimate 64 with 10 gb ram where i could try it on but i do not want to mess up my bandwith
It is a 16 bit installer. TBH, I don't think XP even supports 16 bit installers. The game is just too old. Try Virtual PC, but performance won't be so great.
it does, and so does vista in most situations as i believe, but its a bit tricky...
installer = 19.5 kb
win95 wont work either halp!!
mail it to me, (please no spam or weird stuff please) ozakidat at hotmail dot com
EDIT: omgwtf "sended"
Because I'm too lazy to look up the KB article on this...from wikipedia:
"Any 16-bit programs will not run (32-bit software with 16-bit installers based on ACME Setup versions 2.6, 3.0, 3.01, and 3.1 and InstallShield versions 5.x will run correctly) "
"Some (typically older) programs have 16-bit installers that will not install on the x64 Edition"
I installed it no problem, but the graphics are borked....the text is unreadable, at any resolution.
I keep thinking of all the games I have that would play so much faster on the same machine if I had XP on it. As soon as I have a few hours to kill, I'm setting my PC back to XP, fuck Vista. It's a piece of shit and I'm sick of it. And fuck Microsoft for forcing it on me.
Yes, it is obviously vista. And to hell with microsoft for not supporting a 10 year old game, DAMMIT! Get your priotities right, I mean, JESUS. Who the fuck cares about security anyway? We want our 10 and 15 year old games to work! But...wait...SS2 works...Thief 2 works...umm...Unreal Tournament works...but clearly, it is Vista.
Ever consider it is the the graphics driver? Hm?
Go post on some forums where people have actually dealt with this, not some mod site that is non-related. And go try dosbox, which may help. Don't post here looking for sympathy.
And how did MS force you on to Vista? Hmmm...Yes, they held a gun to your head. Rightttt.
Are you defending Microsoft? just asking because i have never ever seen anyone do it besides anyone who works for them or is in sub-contract... it feels a bit strange, but it is your choice i guess
on the installer, i got it to work, but honestly i don't think you will be happy with the results (crappy and a hell of an efford to get it installed, had to write my own batcher ), dual boot install an older version of windows if you truly want to play the game, i am truly sorry for this, i gave it my best try : (
Maybe I work for them.
I'm sick of idiots going "OMFG VISTA IS THE PROBLEM"....No, it probably is not. Vista is not perfect, neither is XP....but Vista is at fault far less often then people want to make it seem. Furthermore, 16bit apps just plain won't like 64bit ANYTHING, be it XP or Vista. Its the problem going forward, that older apps will have issues. If you require older apps to still run, I suggest you dual boot XP or Win 98...or something. Maybe actually post something constructive, instead of "FUCK YOU MICROSOFT" because that won't get you anywhere, other than ignored.
Ok, the graphics driviers may be to blame. Well, I apologize for having a 'I hate Vista rant'. How totally unjustified I was.
No, wait a minute: XP worked, ok? I did everything I wanted it to, just fine. Apparently there is better security on Vista. I'll just have to take everyones word on that, because I never had any security problems with XP. In my experience, XP does everything Vista does, except Vista has pretty window boxes(!) and demands twice as much RAM for the same performance.
No, I wasn't forced to take Vista, but they made it as hard as possible to resist. Do you know any major PC retailer that sells a new PC with XP installed? I couldn't find one. My old PC had XP pre-installed, I don't have the install disks so I'll have to track down an copy of XP and shell out stupid $$$ for it. So sure, had I been determined, I could have got a new PC with XP, but I also have a life and I just needed to get a new friggin' PC at the time.
As I see it, games are more than just pieces of software. There are each unique works of art, and like any art lover, I'd like to see the pieces I enjoy preserved so they can be enjoyed in the future. When a new version of Word or Excel comes out, you change to it when the time is right and don't look back. I get that. But when they create a re-make of, I dunno, Rambo, is everyone supposed to burn their copies of the original and only watch the new version forever? And what if they never converted Rambo 1 to DVD? Are you supposed to spend fifty years maintaining your old VHS player?
No, MS doesn't have an obligation to support every piece of software that has every been, but 99% of my stuff worked with XP, and now I have a whole bunch of problems with a significant number of them. I'm not happy about that. So sue me, clearly I'm an idiot.
Sorry if 'FUCK MICROSOFT' is not as eloquent as my usual posts, but I've bad fucking day, OK?!!?!?
Oh, I agree that old games should work with newer systems, but that isn't MS' problem. Go look at consoles - the XBox is one of the few supporting old games; the PS3 sure as hell doesn't run PS2 games (it did originally, but only because they built a PS2 inside of the PS3. And by that I mean, there was PS2 hardware inside a PS3. They couldn't use a virtual machine or anything...oh wait, this is sony.)
Fact is, MS can't go find every app out there and make them work. Just think how many apps that is. Just think.
Why did XP work and Vista does not? Could be 32bit vs 64bit, at which point not even 64bit XP would work.
tbh, I have roughly 2-3 apps that don't work in Vista that I used to use. I just found replacements for them. But as far as games go, I have yet to find a game I cannot get working in Vista. Hell, even Tachyon: the Fringe works in Vista....
so why the hell implement win95 mode in vista? any 95 apps got better than 32bit installers?
No, they'd have 32bit installers. 16 bit code isn't supported in windows these days, or most any OS for that matter. 16bit means pre-486 even, as the 486 was the first "true" 32bit processor - the 386 was a hacked together 32bit processor...and that was circa 1994. If game studios or software companies were dumb enough to be using 16bit code after 1996 or so, they deserve to have their app broken.
Compat mode is designed to allow programs to make function calls no longer supported in Windows. THe problem with windows goes like this: Windows is released, but has bug Z in it. Some lazy developer comes along and instead of writing his program properly, he uses bug Z to make his program work. MS then either has to fix bug Z, breaking applications written by lazy developers, or they have to from that point forward SUPPORT bug z, and insure it remains in windows so applications will continue to work.
I will try to note my findings of windows vista comparing it to the version i use (ultimate 64)
versus windows Xp service pack 1 professional 32
Vista has some inert configuration problems, preventing it to do some functions that xp did automatically, (like installing certain drivers that it should be able to handle) most of them can be resolved if you just manually install everything but for 90% of the vista users this is too hard
Apparently there is better security on Vista. I'll just have to take everyones word on that, because I never had any security problems with XP.
Vista has more modes of security (mainly anti idiot failsafes, "do you really want to install this unsafe and virus infected exe file? and the likes) but xp has proved technology... basically it evens out due to vista being so new and glitchy
vista does more, but nothing the average computer user is going to miss in XP, i don't even miss direct x10
its not that bad, but it basically sums up the problem... put your graphical user interface to the easiest to render (xp has the same functionality so its really good to compare) and vista will run a lot better, but xp will still be faster... vista has some nasty memory leaks that they just "boxed in" to prevent bad crashes but its still there and still draining your memory like a vampire
Microsoft has business deals (with dell and the likes) forcing vista on the masses, retail pc's come with vista, and if you are lucky you can find a model that comes with a xp cd, but you have to really look for it...
its one of there market strategies that got them sued a while ago in the first place, but they don't really care and just change a line of the contracts
compatibility mode was introduced to support everything of that version, it doesn't so it does not live up to its promises
i think you have been restraining yourself, no angry looks from me...
my conclusion: vista was released to early, and maybe the first service pack fixed up some of the major flaws, but its still one of the worst Microsoft releases they ever did, and they admitted it... (bill gates did in an interview, and he is
still the spiritual leader of Microsoft)
Did the world need a new version of windows at all? Not being sarcastic. seriously, did it? It seemed totally unjustified to me, a total cash-grab, but then I'm only a casual programmer. For those who regularly poke about under the bonnet of Windows it may have been a total mess requiring a fresh start. To me though the iddy-biddy improvements hardly seem to justify the hassle and cost.
Separate names with a comma.