Is Diablo Win95 ONLY???
Tabb
Igor Obraztsov wrote:
>
> I know, I might be the last person in the world to do it, but today I finally
> got on Blizzard's website and looked thru Diablo info/screenshots.
> Among the requirements, I saw a line that filled me with dread - Windows95.
> I've had dealings with win95 before, and that's enough for me. I don't want
> to have anything to do with that bloated creation of pure evil, contaminating
> our poor computers. Is Diablo going to be a Win95-only game???
SNIP
Yep...
Tabb
Igor Obraztsov
____________________________________________< > < >_________
/ ______I_G_O_R____O_B R_A_Z_T_S O_V______ V )_.._( V \
| / ______/ _____/__ // ___/_ // // __ / \\ <____> // |
| \____ \/ /___/ /_/ // // /_/ // // /_/ / ~ <______> ~ > |
| /_____/_____/_____//_// ____//_//_____/ /~\______/~\ // |
| /_/ /~\_____/~\ /_\ |
| ***The Mad Evil Wizard*** /~\____/~\ /_\ |
| iobr...@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu /~\___/\~\ _/_\/ |
\___________________________________________________\___/\__/__\/_______/
\___/__\/
Nothing
In article <4tj7ef$i...@atrium65.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu>, iobr...@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu (Igor Obraztsov) wrote:
>I know, I might be the last person in the world to do it, but today I finally
>got on Blizzard's website and looked thru Diablo info/screenshots.
>Among the requirements, I saw a line that filled me with dread - Windows95.
>I've had dealings with win95 before, and that's enough for me. I don't want
>to have anything to do with that bloated creation of pure evil, contaminating
>our poor computers. Is Diablo going to be a Win95-only game???
Yep. Thats how it'll be played and thats how it'll be used over Winsock TCP/IP
for multiplayer games.. Nows the time to stick to an OS .. Win95/NT, Linux, or
Mac OS .. Take your pick. Dos isn't really an option anymore. Sad but true.
vham...@ti.com
It is WIN95 only, get over it.
John Esh
iobr...@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu (Igor Obraztsov) wrote:
>I know, I might be the last person in the world to do it, but today I finally
>got on Blizzard's website and looked thru Diablo info/screenshots.
>Among the requirements, I saw a line that filled me with dread - Windows95.
>I've had dealings with win95 before, and that's enough for me. I don't want
>to have anything to do with that bloated creation of pure evil, contaminating
>our poor computers. Is Diablo going to be a Win95-only game???
> ____________________________________________< > < >_________
> / ______I_G_O_R____O_B R_A_Z_T_S O_V______ V )_.._( V \
> | / ______/ _____/__ // ___/_ // // __ / \\ <____> // |
> | \____ \/ /___/ /_/ // // /_/ // // /_/ / ~ <______> ~ > |
> | /_____/_____/_____//_// ____//_//_____/ /~\______/~\ // |
> | /_/ /~\_____/~\ /_\ |
> | ***The Mad Evil Wizard*** /~\____/~\ /_\ |
> | iobr...@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu /~\___/\~\ _/_\/ |
> \___________________________________________________\___/\__/__\/_______/
> \___/__\/
Oh for Christ sake. Shut the fuck up already. I am so sick of people
knocking on Windows 95. It's a great operating system, and sorry if I
sound like a neophyte or something but Microsoft turns out so damn
good products and I'll use nothing else.
John
Marcus A. Spears
John Esh wrote:
>
> Oh for Christ sake. Shut the fuck up already. I am so sick of people
> knocking on Windows 95. It's a great operating system, and sorry if I
> sound like a neophyte or something but Microsoft turns out so damn
> good products and I'll use nothing else.
>
> John
<snicker> Windows 95 is mediocre, at best. There ARE better
operating systems out there. The problem is, a lot of people LIKE
Windows despite how mediocre it is. (NOTE: I'm not saying "It sucks".
There are many things I like about it. I'm just saying it's mediocre.)
Let me put it this way: My computer at work is running Windows 95.
It COMPLETELY crashes (Alt-Ctrl-Del won't work; I have to hit the Reset
switch) at least once a day. My friend has Win95 on his computer. It
crashes on an average of every 30 minutes. I have Win95 on my home
computer. It also crashes at least once per day.
Microsoft tech support is totally useless. One time I got an error,
and clicked on the "More Info" button, and did a screen print. I called
Microsoft tech support and gave them the information. They asked me what
software I was using at the time. I told them "Microsoft Word for Win95,
version 7.0". Their response: "We don't know what the problem is." One
of my friends now works for Microsoft tech support, and he admitted to me
that they usually don't know what caused a specific problem; they just have
a list of things that MIGHT work.
But, like it or not, a LOT of games are going to be for Windows 95 only.
Epic Megagames, Origin, Sierra, and a lot of other companies are making the
switch (or have already made the switch) to Win95. Sooner or later, gamers
are going to have to make the switch too.
Rick Albee
It crashes every 30 minutes?? C'mon its not the operating system, its
the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
crashes. Name me one operating system that will run DOS, 16-bit Windows,
and 32-bit Windows apps better than win95 and I'll make it my primary
opsys today.
Rick
Simon L=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E9pine
> Oh for Christ sake. Shut the fuck up already. I am so sick of people
> knocking on Windows 95. It's a great operating system, and sorry if I
> sound like a neophyte or something but Microsoft turns out so damn
> good products and I'll use nothing else.
>
> John
Come one, everybody knows Windows 95 is crap, as well as was Windows 3.1
It's even the worst OS for gamers, sluggish and buggy. Everyone who knows
a little about computer can tell you that Windows 95 is shit. It's only
popular because of the big Marketing made by Microsoft. OS/2 and Windows
NT(the only good thing Microsoft ever made) are superior in every way.
Simon
Bard Lite
Marcus A. Spears wrote:
> Let me put it this way: My computer at work is running Windows 95.
> It COMPLETELY crashes (Alt-Ctrl-Del won't work; I have to hit the Reset
> switch) at least once a day. My friend has Win95 on his computer. It
> crashes on an average of every 30 minutes. I have Win95 on my home
> computer. It also crashes at least once per day.
It sounds more like you have a bunch of poorly set up machines. I have a
"like/hate" relationship with Win95 myself, but I think that in the last 4
months or so that I've been running it, I have never had crashes such as
you describe above. I've had applications lock up on me, but I was, in all
but one case that I can remember, able to close the locked-up application
with no effects on any other applications which were also currently running.
> But, like it or not, a LOT of games are going to be for Windows 95 only.
> Epic Megagames, Origin, Sierra, and a lot of other companies are making the
> switch (or have already made the switch) to Win95. Sooner or later, gamers
> are going to have to make the switch too.
Here, I agree with you.
--
- /| <*> <*> <*> <*> <*> | michael may == mm...@mcd.intel.com
\`O.o' Just Say `NO' to Rugs | Disclaimer: HEY! That's MY disc!
={___}= - the American Hardwood | I speak only for myself and the
` U ' Floor Association | the large Wombat in the corner.
Fred Farzanegan P185
In article <4tj7ef$i...@atrium65.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu>,
|> I've had dealings with win95 before, and that's enough for me. I don't want
|> to have anything to do with that bloated creation of pure evil, contaminating
|> our poor computers. Is Diablo going to be a Win95-only game???
If it is, I'm one sale they won't get.
-fred 'no viruses on my computer' farzanegan
Tim Iverson
In article <31FF71...@cris.com>, Rick Albee <ral...@cris.com> wrote:
[re: Windows-95]
|It crashes every 30 minutes?? C'mon its not the operating system, its
|the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
I think this is the point. W95 is not robust. Most of the well-known
Operatings Systems since the 60's have been robust enough not to crash due
to trivial application blunders. W95 has a *long* way to go.
The advent of the Workstation and the PC has created a demand for
programmers that far outstrips the supply. The result is shoddy programs.
The gaming industry is notorious for poor quality simply because it does
not pay anywhere near enough to hire any of the few competent programmers.
So, games are late, over budget, and full of bugs.
Eventually things will improve -- however, I think that they'll get worse
before they get better.
- Tim Iverson
ive...@lionheart.com
John Esh
wi...@fred.ist.flinders.edu.au (Donovan M. Winch) wrote:
>John Esh (m...@primenet.com) wrote:
>: iobr...@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu (Igor Obraztsov) wrote:
>: >I know, I might be the last person in the world to do it, but today I finally
>: >got on Blizzard's website and looked thru Diablo info/screenshots.
>: >Among the requirements, I saw a line that filled me with dread - Windows95.
>: >I've had dealings with win95 before, and that's enough for me. I don't want
>: >to have anything to do with that bloated creation of pure evil, contaminating
>: >our poor computers. Is Diablo going to be a Win95-only game???
>: > ____________________________________________< > < >_________
>: > / ______I_G_O_R____O_B R_A_Z_T_S O_V______ V )_.._( V \
>: > | / ______/ _____/__ // ___/_ // // __ / \\ <____> // |
>: > | \____ \/ /___/ /_/ // // /_/ // // /_/ / ~ <______> ~ > |
>: > | /_____/_____/_____//_// ____//_//_____/ /~\______/~\ // |
>: > | /_/ /~\_____/~\ /_\ |
>: > | ***The Mad Evil Wizard*** /~\____/~\ /_\ |
>: > | iobr...@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu /~\___/\~\ _/_\/ |
>: > \___________________________________________________\___/\__/__\/_______/
>: > \___/__\/
>: Oh for Christ sake. Shut the fuck up already. I am so sick of people
>: knocking on Windows 95. It's a great operating system, and sorry if I
>: sound like a neophyte or something but Microsoft turns out so damn
>: good products and I'll use nothing else.
>: John
>I don't think you answered his question very well there John... If he doesn't like win95,
>it's up to him. If you do like it, it's up to you. Just SHUT UP about it and try answering
>the question posed.
>Okay...now to the answer (at last!)... From what I've heard, and seen a couple of months
>ago on the web site, I don't believe that Blizzard have mentioned anything about Diablo
>being windows 95 only. However, I may just be sadly misled in this, as I certainly hope
>I can play it in dos :-(
>Silk.
I hope you both realize that your both going to have to install WIN95
sooner or later because thats what just about everything is gonna be
made for in the next coupla years. Dontcha just hate the technology
curve?
John
Terrence Yee
Marcus A. Spears wrote:
>
> <snicker> Windows 95 is mediocre, at best. There ARE better
> operating systems out there. The problem is, a lot of people LIKE
> Windows despite how mediocre it is. (NOTE: I'm not saying "It sucks".
> There are many things I like about it. I'm just saying it's mediocre.)
I think it's a definate improvement over Win3.x and perhaps even DOS.
<stuff about mulitple Win95 crashes deleted>
Win95 crashes for me not even once a week and I'm on my system at home, an average of
6 hours a day, Netscape, Word95, WizGold, etc at the same time. More on the weekends.
> Microsoft tech support is totally useless. One time I got an error,
> and clicked on the "More Info" button, and did a screen print. I called
> Microsoft tech support and gave them the information. They asked me what
> software I was using at the time. I told them "Microsoft Word for Win95,
> version 7.0". Their response: "We don't know what the problem is." One
> of my friends now works for Microsoft tech support, and he admitted to me
> that they usually don't know what caused a specific problem; they just have
> a list of things that MIGHT work.
This is probably true of most Tech Support, "Here's a list, take a guess".
> But, like it or not, a LOT of games are going to be for Windows 95 only.
> Epic Megagames, Origin, Sierra, and a lot of other companies are making the
> switch (or have already made the switch) to Win95. Sooner or later, gamers
> are going to have to make the switch too.
Definately.
Torch16
>It crashes every 30 minutes?? C'mon its not the operating system, its
>the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
>crashes. Name me one operating system that will run DOS, 16-bit Windows,
>and 32-bit Windows apps better than win95 and I'll make it my primary
>opsys today.
Windows NT
Really, I have windows95. Its ok, but for my dos games I still use DOS.
But while in Win95 ive had hardly any crashes, even less than Win3.11.
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
| |
\______/
\ /
\ /
TORCH
\ /
\/
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigalance
Play your
Techno....onhceT
in
Surround
Marcus A. Spears
Rick Albee wrote:
> > Marcus Spears wrote:
[snip]
> > Let me put it this way: My computer at work is running Windows 95.
> > It COMPLETELY crashes (Alt-Ctrl-Del won't work; I have to hit the Reset
> > switch) at least once a day. My friend has Win95 on his computer. It
> > crashes on an average of every 30 minutes. I have Win95 on my home
> > computer. It also crashes at least once per day.
>
> It crashes every 30 minutes?? C'mon its not the operating system, its
> the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
> crashes. Name me one operating system that will run DOS, 16-bit Windows,
> and 32-bit Windows apps better than win95 and I'll make it my primary
> opsys today.
Rick, let me tell you the applications I'm running: Explorer and Microsoft Word
for Windows 95, version 7.0. That's IT. I've shut down EVERYTHING else that's
non-essential, and it STILL crashes, on the average, every 30 minutes.
Now, if you can tell me what's wrong, I'd be grateful! :)
Marcus A. Spears
Bard Lite wrote:
>
> Marcus A. Spears wrote:
>
> > Let me put it this way: My computer at work is running Windows 95.
> > It COMPLETELY crashes (Alt-Ctrl-Del won't work; I have to hit the Reset
> > switch) at least once a day. My friend has Win95 on his computer. It
> > crashes on an average of every 30 minutes. I have Win95 on my home
> > computer. It also crashes at least once per day.
>
> "like/hate" relationship with Win95 myself, but I think that in the last 4
> months or so that I've been running it, I have never had crashes such as
> you describe above. I've had applications lock up on me, but I was, in all
> but one case that I can remember, able to close the locked-up application
> with no effects on any other applications which were also currently running.
Well, I think the problem with the computer at work crashes because of
something to do with the network. I've heard rumors that if you have computers
running Windows 95 and computers running Windows for Workgroups on the same
network, the computers with Win95 will sometimes spontaneously crash. I don't
know if that's true or not, but it's definitely something to do with the network;
because 90% of the time, the crash occurs right after I open a network application
or after I close one.
I have no idea what's wrong with my friend's computer. I did help him
download the newest drivers for his hardware from Microsoft's web site, and after
he installed the new drivers, it still crashes, but not nearly as often, which
indicates that out-of-date drivers were at least part of the problem.
My computer at home rarely crashes; usually because I only use Win95 for
sending or receiving faxes, using Microsoft Word, or for playing a Windows-based
game (like Mission Force: Cyberstorm). However, it HAS been known to crash on
occasion.
Brian Rauchfuss - PCD
In article <4tpakp$g...@cronkite.cisco.com>,
Tim Iverson <ive...@cisco.com> wrote:
>In article <31FF71...@cris.com>, Rick Albee <ral...@cris.com> wrote:
>[re: Windows-95]
>|It crashes every 30 minutes?? C'mon its not the operating system, its
>|the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
>
>Operatings Systems since the 60's have been robust enough not to crash due
>to trivial application blunders. W95 has a *long* way to go.
W95 is not robust, it is true. But this is due to compromises made for
DOS compatibility rather than shoddy programming. To get a high degree of
compatibility, W95 makes accessable some key system resources to DOS/Win3.1
programs. OS/2 solves the problem by having a somewhat lower degree of
compatibility, and WinNT does it by creating complete separate virtual DOS
machines for every DOS or Win3.1 program. This is why WinNT is such a
resource hog.
(Information on W95/WinNT is from _The Unauthorized Windows 95_; information on
DOS compatibility is from a PC magazine that did a comparison)
Brian
Torch16
In article <4tpofd$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, m...@primenet.com (John
Esh) writes:
>I hope you both realize that your both going to have to install WIN95
>sooner or later because thats what just about everything is gonna be
>made for in the next coupla years. Dontcha just hate the technology
>curve?
In a couple of years there will be no Win95. We will have winCommand97.
Where you can just talk into the computer to activate things. And Where
you can touch the screen instead of a mouse. (I know that we have some of
these things already) Plus it controls the houses envormental controls.
And acess the outer Web. (the outer web is the internet in space
connecting to other alein races)
Plus some other stuff thats top secret.
Oh and it can launch missles too.
Terrence Yee
Simon L=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E9pine ?= wrote:
>
> Come one, everybody knows Windows 95 is crap, as well as was Windows 3.1
> It's even the worst OS for gamers, sluggish and buggy. Everyone who knows
> a little about computer can tell you that Windows 95 is shit. It's only
> popular because of the big Marketing made by Microsoft. OS/2 and Windows
> NT(the only good thing Microsoft ever made) are superior in every way.
I thought it was Microsoft who said themselves that they Win95 is a migatory effort to
WinNT but they obviously needed a bridge to it so as to not strand users (yes, I know
the hardware requirements did this anyhow but certainly to a lesser degree than NT 4.0
would have). As soon as NT can run the games I want, I'm there.
Ty
Donovan M. Winch
Nunya@m.f
Still trying to figure out everyone's problem with
Win95. Been using since Beta and love it. Have
any of you stop to think that maybe it's not the
OS that causes your problems, it's YOU!
Signatures, like....suck or something!
Igor Obraztsov
>
>It crashes every 30 minutes?? C'mon its not the operating system, its
>the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
>and 32-bit Windows apps better than win95 and I'll make it my primary
>opsys today.
>
>Rick
Well, I'd say NT 3.51 Workstation or Server is one. Some people might hate
NT, but I say working with them is a breeze. (provided you got 16+ RAM)
BTW, do you think Diablo might run on NT ?
Oh, btw, thanx for all the replies folks!
Eddy Tanuwidjaja
Marcus A. Spears wrote:
> Let me put it this way: My computer at work is running Windows 95.
> It COMPLETELY crashes (Alt-Ctrl-Del won't work; I have to hit the Reset
> switch) at least once a day. My friend has Win95 on his computer. It
> crashes on an average of every 30 minutes. I have Win95 on my home
> computer. It also crashes at least once per day.
Our company installed Win95 & NT 3.51 in 100+ PC-Clones and connected to
3 netware file server. We use Word7,Excel7,Access7,Publisher95 and we
never had any problem with Win95 unlike the win3.1/win3.11.
So, in my personal opinion, Win95 is a good OS, Certainly better than
DOS or WIN 3.1/3.11.
If you hate Win95, try NT.
David Stephenson
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 08:49:49 -0500, "Marcus A. Spears"
<msp...@boisdarc.etsu.edu> wrote:
>John Esh wrote:
>>
>> Oh for Christ sake. Shut the fuck up already. I am so sick of people
>> knocking on Windows 95. It's a great operating system, and sorry if I
>> sound like a neophyte or something but Microsoft turns out so damn
>> good products and I'll use nothing else.
>>
>> John
>
> <snicker> Windows 95 is mediocre, at best. There ARE better
>operating systems out there. The problem is, a lot of people LIKE
>Windows despite how mediocre it is. (NOTE: I'm not saying "It sucks".
>There are many things I like about it. I'm just saying it's mediocre.)
>
> Let me put it this way: My computer at work is running Windows 95.
>It COMPLETELY crashes (Alt-Ctrl-Del won't work; I have to hit the Reset
>switch) at least once a day. My friend has Win95 on his computer. It
>crashes on an average of every 30 minutes. I have Win95 on my home
>computer. It also crashes at least once per day.
You guys have windows 95 or your computer set up wrong.
Learn more about windows 95 or your computer. Mine never crashes.
Never, not once. I had installed some software and I had a few
crashes, took it out... no more crashes. I might have some app like
netscape crash once in a blue moon, but never windows 95. Your friend
that has it crash once every 30 minutes has a real screwed up system,
he musta bogyed something in there good! I got a bunch a stuff
installed too. I also run a lot of memory intensive stuff, still no
crashes.
>
> Microsoft tech support is totally useless. One time I got an error,
>and clicked on the "More Info" button, and did a screen print. I called
>Microsoft tech support and gave them the information. They asked me what
>software I was using at the time. I told them "Microsoft Word for Win95,
>version 7.0". Their response: "We don't know what the problem is." One
>of my friends now works for Microsoft tech support, and he admitted to me
>that they usually don't know what caused a specific problem; they just have
>a list of things that MIGHT work.
I've never had problems so i've never called tech support. I even had
to reformat my drive once (it had a driver to help my old system bios
recognize a drive that was above 540 meg which you could only get rid
of my reformatting the drive..) I even did it wrong and backed up win
95 in DOS (major mistake, no long file names...etc) I reinstalled win
95 then and used the backup to put as much stuff back the way that it
was before (took me a couple days to set everything up the way it
was..) Then it worked great again!
>
> But, like it or not, a LOT of games are going to be for Windows 95 only.
>Epic Megagames, Origin, Sierra, and a lot of other companies are making the
>switch (or have already made the switch) to Win95. Sooner or later, gamers
>are going to have to make the switch too.
Yeah. Most of those games will work under NT also (or should..)
I will probably upgrade to NT once I get some more ram. I want the
faster all 32 bit Os, while still being able to play games and junk
sometimes.
Dave
Jason Kehler
Rick Albee (ral...@cris.com) wrote:
: I believe any software carrying the win95 logo (certified by Microsoft),
: thus claiming to be a win95 native (32-bit) application has to also run
: on NT. What I'd like to know is how well NT workstation runs DOS games.
: With all the DOS overhead I have heard win95 does a better job. Anyone
: have any experience with this?
Hmm. Doesn't Corel WordPerfect Suite for Windows 95 have that
logo? I heard that Statistics Canada bought a huge amount of them for
Windows NT and it wouldn't allow them to install it. A cute little
windows pops up saying, "You Can't Run this Under NT" Needless to say,
they were all annoyed. I believe they called Microsoft and supposedbly
Microsoft has relaxed the rules for the Win95 logo. However, I do believe
a fair amount of programs for Windows 95 do work on NT.
Jason
--
Jason Kehler Zuk...@UltraTech.Net "Fraser versus an Ancient
CompTech Systems Team OS/2 Ground Sloth with Diefenbaker
My Home Page: <Bleh..> as the Judge!"
IRC Realms where I exist: #Sloth,#DueSouth "May the Sloth's be with you.."
Jason Kehler
John Esh (m...@primenet.com) wrote:
: Oh for Christ sake. Shut the fuck up already. I am so sick of people
: knocking on Windows 95. It's a great operating system, and sorry if I
: sound like a neophyte or something but Microsoft turns out so damn
: good products and I'll use nothing else.
Gee. You must be a BIG fan of Microsoft Bob. Probably have it
running all the time. Oh, and when you forget your password, just type it
in wrong a number of times so that it will allow you to retype the
password in. After all, Bob is the way of the future. Soon, Bob 97 will
be out, and you will be in heaven.
Reality Check.
Jason Kehler
John Esh (m...@primenet.com) wrote:
: I hope you both realize that your both going to have to install WIN95
: sooner or later because thats what just about everything is gonna be
: made for in the next coupla years. Dontcha just hate the technology
: curve?
Really? Wow. I didn't know that. And here I was thinking that I
had a choice. Actually, in a few years, you'll be running Windows NT
anyways...
Os/2, NT, the wave of the future.
Jason
--
Fragg Dragon --<<UDIC>>--
Igor Obraztsov wrote:
>
> In article <31FF71...@cris.com>, Rick Albee <ral...@cris.com> wrote:
> >Marcus A. Spears wrote:
> >
> >It crashes every 30 minutes?? C'mon its not the operating system, its
> >the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
> >crashes. Name me one operating system that will run DOS, 16-bit Windows,
> >and 32-bit Windows apps better than win95 and I'll make it my primary
> >opsys today.
> >
> >Rick
>
> Well, I'd say NT 3.51 Workstation or Server is one. Some people might hate
> NT, but I say working with them is a breeze. (provided you got 16+ RAM)
>
> BTW, do you think Diablo might run on NT ?
I may be mistaken but I've been told that OS/2 warp is by far better
than any of the aforemention OS and will run any 32 bit windows apps. If
I am wrong please lemme know.
Rick Albee
Igor Obraztsov wrote:
>
> In article <31FF71...@cris.com>, Rick Albee <ral...@cris.com> wrote:
> >Marcus A. Spears wrote:
> >
> >It crashes every 30 minutes?? C'mon its not the operating system, its
> >the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
> >crashes. Name me one operating system that will run DOS, 16-bit Windows,
> >and 32-bit Windows apps better than win95 and I'll make it my primary
> >opsys today.
> >
> >Rick
>
> Well, I'd say NT 3.51 Workstation or Server is one. Some people might hate
> NT, but I say working with them is a breeze. (provided you got 16+ RAM)
>
> BTW, do you think Diablo might run on NT ?
>
>
> ____________________________________________< > < >_________
> / ______I_G_O_R____O_B R_A_Z_T_S O_V______ V )_.._( V \
> | / ______/ _____/__ // ___/_ // // __ / \\ <____> // |
> | \____ \/ /___/ /_/ // // /_/ // // /_/ / ~ <______> ~ > |
> | /_____/_____/_____//_// ____//_//_____/ /~\______/~\ // |
> | /_/ /~\_____/~\ /_\ |
> | ***The Mad Evil Wizard*** /~\____/~\ /_\ |
> | iobr...@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu /~\___/\~\ _/_\/ |
> \___________________________________________________\___/\__/__\/_______/
> \___/__\/
I believe any software carrying the win95 logo (certified by Microsoft),
thus claiming to be a win95 native (32-bit) application has to also run
on NT. What I'd like to know is how well NT workstation runs DOS games.
With all the DOS overhead I have heard win95 does a better job. Anyone
have any experience with this?
Rick
Tempest
In <31FF64...@boisdarc.etsu.edu> "Marcus A. Spears"
<msp...@boisdarc.etsu.edu> wrote:
: <snicker> Windows 95 is mediocre, at best. There ARE better
:operating systems out there. The problem is, a lot of people LIKE
:Windows despite how mediocre it is. (NOTE: I'm not saying "It sucks".
:There are many things I like about it. I'm just saying it's mediocre.)
The majority of people use Windows because it has the largest software
support and it is a good OS.
: Let me put it this way: My computer at work is running Windows 95.
:It COMPLETELY crashes (Alt-Ctrl-Del won't work; I have to hit the Reset
:switch) at least once a day. My friend has Win95 on his computer. It
:crashes on an average of every 30 minutes. I have Win95 on my home
:computer. It also crashes at least once per day.
One crash every 30 mintues? Now either you are lying or your friend had
his computer setup wrong. Even when I was running Windows 3.1, it had
never crashed as frequent as you depicted here. Now with Windows 95, it
crashes about once every week.
Keith Remmes
fr...@bnr.ca (Fred Farzanegan P185) carried on about:
>In article <4tj7ef$i...@atrium65.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu>,
>|> I've had dealings with win95 before, and that's enough for me. I don't want
>|> to have anything to do with that bloated creation of pure evil, contaminating
>|> our poor computers. Is Diablo going to be a Win95-only game???
>If it is, I'm one sale they won't get.
>-fred 'no viruses on my computer' farzanegan
Oh well...one less competitor. hehehe....
gee...I said the same thing about my last install of Warp.
you could always go with the Mac version but hey we'll already have
mastered the game.
Keith
Don Papp
On 1 Aug 1996, Torch16 wrote:
> >the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
> >crashes. Name me one operating system that will run DOS, 16-bit Windows,
> >and 32-bit Windows apps better than win95 and I'll make it my primary
> >opsys today.
>
> Windows NT
>
> Really, I have windows95. Its ok, but for my dos games I still use DOS.
> But while in Win95 ive had hardly any crashes, even less than Win3.11.
I've always thought WinNT sucked for games. It's so anal about
hardware accessing that it doesn't allow most stuff to even *run*.
sucksucksucksucksucksuck... for games, anyway.
NT is way more stable, I'll agree - Win95 is fine for personal
computing, but you see the seams show when it's used for other
applications.
Don Papp
hay...@oanet.com
---
"The truth hurts!" squeals Mulder.
John Esh
zuk...@ionsys.com (Jason Kehler) wrote:
>John Esh (m...@primenet.com) wrote:
>: Oh for Christ sake. Shut the fuck up already. I am so sick of people
>: knocking on Windows 95. It's a great operating system, and sorry if I
>: sound like a neophyte or something but Microsoft turns out so damn
>: good products and I'll use nothing else.
> Gee. You must be a BIG fan of Microsoft Bob. Probably have it
>running all the time. Oh, and when you forget your password, just type it
>in wrong a number of times so that it will allow you to retype the
>password in. After all, Bob is the way of the future. Soon, Bob 97 will
>be out, and you will be in heaven.
>Reality Check.
>Jason
>--
>Jason Kehler Zuk...@UltraTech.Net "Fraser versus an Ancient
>CompTech Systems Team OS/2 Ground Sloth with Diefenbaker
>My Home Page: <Bleh..> as the Judge!"
>IRC Realms where I exist: #Sloth,#DueSouth "May the Sloth's be with you.."
Oh give me a fucking break you piece of shit. I don't need your
condesending attitude. I built my system from the bottom up myself and
I know damn well what I'm doing, I said I may SOUND like a neophyte
but keep shit like this up and your mine,
Nterface
Umm... Buy a Mac if you don't want the head aches, but with every OS,
there are bugs. Just so happens your computer has an incompatibility error
that others don't have. However, I am willing to help... give me your
computer specs.... Type, BRAND, Speed, RAM, CACHE, HD size, etc etc. Also,
did you upgrade to Win95 or did you buy the computer and it had Win95
already installed?
-dan
NCC Computer Tech
In article <320106...@boisdarc.etsu.edu>, msp...@boisdarc.etsu.edu
says...
>
>Rick Albee wrote:
>> > Marcus Spears wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> > Let me put it this way: My computer at work is running Windows
95.
>> > It COMPLETELY crashes (Alt-Ctrl-Del won't work; I have to hit the
Reset
>> > switch) at least once a day. My friend has Win95 on his computer.
It
>> > crashes on an average of every 30 minutes. I have Win95 on my home
>> > computer. It also crashes at least once per day.
>>
>> It crashes every 30 minutes?? C'mon its not the operating system, its
>> the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
>> crashes. Name me one operating system that will run DOS, 16-bit
Windows,
>> and 32-bit Windows apps better than win95 and I'll make it my primary
>> opsys today.
>
James P Jamilkowski
On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Fragg Dragon --<<UDIC>>-- wrote:
<various info about WinNT, Win95, and DOS snipped>
>
> I may be mistaken but I've been told that OS/2 warp is by far better
> than any of the aforemention OS and will run any 32 bit windows apps. If
> I am wrong please lemme know.
>
>
Well, IMHO I would have to disagree with your view of OS/2 Warp. I
have been using it for a little over a year (along with OS/2 2.1) and
have noticed plenty of problems and poor support from IBM at times.
Recently I put together a PC at home with 95 and have been relatively
pleased with its performance. Now I can't say that I performed an
objective test of both OS's since one is my home system, and one is a
more complex (and slower :< ) setup that I use at work...but software
support is a definite issue.
OS/2 comes in two versions...full or half pack (basically Winos/2 or
regular Windows). Don't even mention that you are using OS/2 to run an
application with either version when you call their help line, or they'll
just laugh at you (usually). Even though nearly 100% of the machines
where I work were running OS/2 a year ago, many are already switching
over to win95 and liking it. The most common complaints from those who
have switched are related to using older versions of applications (while
newer versions are available to them).
Don't get me wrong, I do like OS/2 for the most part. Sometimes I
think I like the interface a lot more than 95's...but as far as software
compatibility is concerned, Win95 wins easily. As for Merlin, who knows
(and cares :) )?
James Jamilkowski
jpja...@ic.sunysb.edu
Tim Iverson
In article <4tqvhf$a...@news.fm.intel.com>,
Brian Rauchfuss - PCD <brau...@pcocd2.intel.com> wrote:
|W95 is not robust, it is true. But this is due to compromises made for
|DOS compatibility rather than shoddy programming. To get a high degree of
|compatibility, W95 makes accessable some key system resources to DOS/Win3.1
Shoddy programming is why the applications crash. Poor design decisions are
why W95 goes down with the app and why it is so incredibly slow. Some of
the decisions as evinced by the the behavior of W95 make me wonder at the
competence of the engineering staff. However, since the areas where MS
displays gross incompetence (eg. VM/swap) are also areas where a freshman
CS major could easily provide sound solutions, I am left with the thought
that most of W95 major shortcomings must be the result of deliberate
marketing as opposed to fumbled engineering; ie. W95 is *supposed* to be
slow and non-robust. Why? Well, they do sell NT, don't they? ;-)
However, my point in the original post about shoddy programming being on
the rise simply due to a high demand for ANY programmers, still stands. The
markets that will suffer most are those that pay the least. As we all know,
the entertainment market is the cheapest around. This means that we (as
game players) will be stuck with increasingly poor product unless there's
a change in the market or until supply catches up with demand (probably
sometime in the 23rd century ;-).
- Tim Iverson
ive...@lionheart.com
Allen Dickerson
On Friday, August 02, 1996, "Fragg Dragon -->--" <flas...@interramp.com>
wrote...
> Igor Obraztsov wrote:
> >
> > In article <31FF71...@cris.com>, Rick Albee <ral...@cris.com>
wrote:
> > >Marcus A. Spears wrote:
> > >
> > >It crashes every 30 minutes?? C'mon its not the operating system, its
> > >the applications you're running that are crashing. My system rarely
> > >crashes. Name me one operating system that will run DOS, 16-bit
Windows,
> > >and 32-bit Windows apps better than win95 and I'll make it my primary
> > >opsys today.
> > >
> > >Rick
> >
> > Well, I'd say NT 3.51 Workstation or Server is one. Some people might
hate
> > NT, but I say working with them is a breeze. (provided you got 16+
RAM)
> >
> > BTW, do you think Diablo might run on NT ?
>
>
> I may be mistaken but I've been told that OS/2 warp is by far better
> than any of the aforemention OS and will run any 32 bit windows apps. If
> I am wrong please lemme know.
OS/2 is a fine operating system but it doesn't support DirectX, thus it
will
not run any game written specifically for Win95, specifically. So Diablo
will not run on it. IBM decided to write their own game/graphics APIs
called
DART and DIVE, but nobody is using it to write games right now.
- Allen
Steven L. Fusco
> Oh for Christ sake. Shut the fuck up already. I am so sick of people
> knocking on Windows 95. It's a great operating system, and sorry if I
> sound like a neophyte or something but Microsoft turns out so damn
> good products and I'll use nothing else.
>
>
>
> YEEEEEEESSSSS!!!! It's about damn time someone stood up for MS!! I'm so
god damn sick of these fuckers running around saying, "MS sucks, Netscape
rules" or "MS sucks, Corel rules" what the fuck? Show some GOD DAMN
PROOF!! I myself use NOTHING but Microsoft! I'm proud of you John! Just
because Bill Gates makes all that fucking money people hate Microsoft for
some reason. I don't get it!
~ ViCTiM ~
Guy English
Brian Rauchfuss - PCD (brau...@pcocd2.intel.com) wrote:
: W95 is not robust, it is true. But this is due to compromises made for
: DOS compatibility rather than shoddy programming. To get a high degree of
: compatibility, W95 makes accessable some key system resources to DOS/Win3.1
: programs. OS/2 solves the problem by having a somewhat lower degree of
: compatibility, and WinNT does it by creating complete separate virtual DOS
: machines for every DOS or Win3.1 program. This is why WinNT is such a
: resource hog.
No exacatly correct. OS/2 also launchs a VDM (virtual DOS machine) for
each and every DOS program it runs. Win95 does sacrifice lots to remain
compatible with DOS (like not really being a true OS but booting from a
DOS bootstrap). NT is a resource hog for other reasons not because of its
minimal DOS support (which is getting better). It also has a very
aggressive caching scheme which makes its swap file look huge compared to
other OSs running on the same machine.
: (Information on W95/WinNT is from _The Unauthorized Windows 95_;
: information on DOS compatibility is from a PC magazine that did a
: comparison)
This is nice of you. Now I can see that the misunderstanding about
NT and OS/2 is because you read a Win95 book and a magazine article,
neither of which will be very concerned with going into things too
deeply. It makes it so much nicer when you can tell that people aren't
just talking out of thier asses.
(By the way I don't know where I got my info from. :) The NT stuff from
the nt.beta usenet group I think, the OS/2 from being a regular user and
the Win95 also from use and all the talk about Win95 sucking. :) )
: Brian
Take care,
Guy
Rache Bartmoss
exa...@ix.netcom.com meinte am 06.08.96
zum Thema "RE: Is Diablo Win95 ONLY???":
AD> will not run on it. IBM decided to write their own game/graphics APIs
AD> called
AD> DART and DIVE, but nobody is using it to write games right now.
Wrong, Stardock is, and so are a few other. Just not the big established
Win-/Dos companies, obviously. Give them some time... Even DOS needed 9 years
to become a game platform ;)
--
-=(UDIC)=- Dust Dragon Rache Bartmoss / Pandemonium
Visit the N&N Homepage at http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~frstteac/
And the Pandemonium page http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~frstteac/pandemonium/
Will Weathersby
I feel I just have to reply to this one....THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH
WIN95....I am running several games for WIN95 (FIREFIGHT,FPS
BASEBALL,TYRIAN,and WARCRAFT II) as well as FPS
FOOTBALL96,CYBERMAGE,PGA96,FIFA96,DESCENT 1 and 2..any many many other
dos programs all in MS-DOS mode switching on the fly) under a DOS GAMES
folder on my WIN95 DESKTOP. So all the crashes that you say you are
having are totally mystifying to me and I am SICK AND TIRED of hearing
too many losers and/or ignorant people who dont know how to configure
their machines properly dog out WIN95. please heres a tip...run QEMM 7.0
just under DOS to configure your dos side memory and YES use your
config.sys and autoexec.bat just like as if you werent running WIN95 and
see what happens for you to use your dos games under WIN95 EASY....
Alan F. Lucas
Andry <an...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> Well, no, Mr. Victim, y'see, those of us who actually understand our
hardware
> and software can see some serious flaws in Win95 - flaws which should
damn
> well have been corrected prior to release. What irks me is all the
> double-digit no-brainers who run around yelling 'MS RULES, d00d!' because
they
> don't know shit from shinola - believing all the while that they're more
> capable of rendering a judgement on the matter than a guy or gal who
actually
> programs.
>
> As if the ability to find on the 'on' switch on your computer is good
enough
> to make you an expert....
>
> Andry
>
> "A man about to speak the truth should keep
> one foot in the stirrup." - old Mongolian proverb
>
I used to here the same from the desiples of C++ who said,"we don't need no
stinking math coprocessors!" Also from the "programmers" writing Foxpro
macros. Us "sons of Watcom" watch the newbies and howl hysterically!
Alan F. Lucas
"Windows is like a calculator, it removes the need to understand and
replaces it with an answer."
Andry
In article <01bb84ff$cb137ec0$ae00...@victim.pernet.net>,
Well, no, Mr. Victim, y'see, those of us who actually understand our hardware
Will Weathersby
First of all you gotta realize one thing: WIN95 may have some bugs but
one thing is for sure: It DOES RULE because of all the support that it
is building up from the MAJOR game and business/personal program
developers due to the DIRECT X and 3D drivers being made for it and
other special drivers also being made as we speak. This means WIN95 HAS
ENORMOUS POTENTIAL and CAPABILITIES companies haven't even tapped into
yet and all you MICROSOFT "haters" (who probably like some geeky UNIX or
MAC system) are just jealous because you see the handwriting on the
wall. YES I KNOW I AM A PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMMER AND I BUILD,WORK,and
TROUBLESHOOT LAN SYSTEMS..I know UNIX is a powerful OP and the MAC is a
VERY USER FRIENDLY SYSTEM but not everybody has UNIX mainframes at home
or care to learn the STEEP learning curve that UNIX demands to just
browse the web and play the LATEST AND greatest games on their PC.
MAC..well just simply is not being supported widely by the major game
developers and THESE LIKE IT OR NOT IS VERY BIG right now. I for one
love playing computer games (i have played just about the RPG's from
commodore64,atari st,amiga, and now IBM-PC comp.) and I know about
going into COMPUTER CITY and not seeing what I wish was for my
computer. People get over your blind hatred or stupid misguided feelings
about Microsoft they are making pcs mainstream for you and me and on my
WIN95 I can EVERY DOS GAME I have and use netscape and other programs
WITHOUT CRASHING so I dont know about your "BUGS" that many people
mention they have. PEACE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Allan Hartigan
Will Weathersby <weat...@lava.net> wrote in article
<3214E3...@lava.net>...
I do not like Microsoft... I still use Windows 95.. Simply because it's
the most supported OS. In fact, the only reason I own an IBM is the fact
that it's the most supported PC. I'd very much prefer to play all the
latest games on my Amiga but that will never happen. So for all the people
who seem to NEED to support this boycott of Microsoft products, I say, 'Get
Real!'
Andry
In article <3214E3...@lava.net>,
Will Weathersby <weat...@lava.net> wrote:
>First of all you gotta realize one thing: WIN95 may have some bugs but
>one thing is for sure: It DOES RULE because of all the support that it
>is building up from the MAJOR game and business/personal program
>developers due to the DIRECT X and 3D drivers being made for it and
>other special drivers also being made as we speak.
What bullshit. Win95 fell far short on projected sales than MS or anyone else
expected, and the return rate on the product has been estimated at nearly 30%
- the highest ever in the history of the industry. Most major companies do
*not* run Win95 because of the cost involved (despite what MS says, the
majority of Windows programs won't run properly on Win95) and because WinNT
for the PC is coming out next year. Why waste all that money on Win95 when
it'll be deader than a doornail in 5 years? When WinNT can do the job so much
better?
Far more PCs use Windows 3.x than Win95 - that's a simple fact. Do some
homework.
This means WIN95 HAS
>ENORMOUS POTENTIAL and CAPABILITIES companies haven't even tapped into
>yet
Right. Tell me what they are. Tell me why MS should waste time on a product
slated to be replaced in a year.
and all you MICROSOFT "haters" (who probably like some geeky UNIX or
>MAC system)
"Geeky" here probably means any system which you lack the brain power to
figure out.
are just jealous because you see the handwriting on the
>wall. YES I KNOW I AM A PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMMER AND I BUILD,WORK,and
>TROUBLESHOOT LAN SYSTEMS..
Oh, bullshit again. You're some twerpy little brat who hasn't learned the
proper use of the English language and can barely find the 'on' switch on his
computer. Some zit-faced little twit who wants to *be* Bill Gates.
I know UNIX is a powerful OP and the MAC is a
>VERY USER FRIENDLY SYSTEM but not everybody has UNIX mainframes at home
>or care to learn the STEEP learning curve that UNIX demands to just
>browse the web and play the LATEST AND greatest games on their PC.
There is no steep learning curve, you dolt. You flaunt your ignorance like it
was a virtue. And I see you've never heard of Linux.
>MAC..well just simply is not being supported widely by the major game
>developers and THESE LIKE IT OR NOT IS VERY BIG right now. I for one
>love playing computer games (i have played just about the RPG's from
>commodore64,atari st,amiga, and now IBM-PC comp.) and I know about
>going into COMPUTER CITY and not seeing what I wish was for my
>computer. People get over your blind hatred or stupid misguided feelings
>about Microsoft they are making pcs mainstream for you and me and on my
>WIN95 I can EVERY DOS GAME I have and use netscape and other programs
>WITHOUT CRASHING so I dont know about your "BUGS" that many people
>mention they have. PEACE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buzz off, junior. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. But
then, I suppose anyone who prefers Netscape to a less bloated and buggy
browser can't be *that* bright.
Dwayne Carnachan
an...@ix.netcom.com (Andry) wrote:
>In article <01bb84ff$cb137ec0$ae00...@victim.pernet.net>,
>Well, no, Mr. Victim, y'see, those of us who actually understand our hardware
>and software can see some serious flaws in Win95 - flaws which should damn
>well have been corrected prior to release. What irks me is all the
>double-digit no-brainers who run around yelling 'MS RULES, d00d!' because they
>don't know shit from shinola - believing all the while that they're more
>capable of rendering a judgement on the matter than a guy or gal who actually
>programs.
>As if the ability to find on the 'on' switch on your computer is good enough
>to make you an expert....
Actually, since I work for Computer Support for a University in new
Zealand, I have found that those staff members who have switched to
Win95 - the rate of support calls for those staff members dramatically
drops off....
Win95 seems to be inherently more stable, faster, and if something
does crash you can close it down - and I find it much easier to
support than windows 3.11 (or god forbid 3.1 *erk*)
For those that complain that workgroups is better than 95 - well
microsoft actually does own BOTH products - so either way they win...
Personally I find nothing wrong with 95, am looking forward to playing
with NT 4. I also don't mind looking at other operating systems,
considering its all part of the job....
You state that you hate people that run around going microsoft rulez
when they have no idea - well sort of like those that run around going
Microsoft Sucks i imagine....
the operating system is more often dependent on the hardware in your
computer - faulty hardware often leads to so called "continuous
problems" no matter what operating system....
My personal preference is with Win95, but then if someone asks me
about say the Mac O/S, I say there is nothing wrong with it, and if
they ask me about an "unusual operating system" i say that i don't
know as i dont have enough experience with it...
ranters bore me to tears...
"MAD!!! You dare call me MAD!! The greatest mind that ever lived!!!"
Nothing
In article <4v8kp3$fu8...@ix.netcom.com>, an...@ix.netcom.com (Andry) wrote:
>In article <3214E3...@lava.net>,
>Far more PCs use Windows 3.x than Win95 - that's a simple fact. Do some
>homework.
Weird .. I work at an ISP and every time we get a new user we ask Win95 or Win
3.1 and the *VAST* majority is Win95. The business's we support all use Win
3.1, but the employees all use Win95 at home. Win 3.1 is only alive in the
business place because the companies can't pay big bucks to get their programs
converted to Win95 AND get everyone else trained for Win95.
This year has been the largest year for computer sales so far, and guess what?
They all have Win95 installed.
What do you have to back up your statement with?
>Right. Tell me what they are. Tell me why MS should waste time on a product
>slated to be replaced in a year.
Have you any idea how much NT costs compared to Win95? MS keeps it high so the
business's will just buy into it. Win95 isn't going ANYWHERE for another
decade at least. Think what you want, but it has been stated over and over by
MS that they tend to keep 95 around for years and years and years.
>Oh, bullshit again. You're some twerpy little brat who hasn't learned the
>proper use of the English language and can barely find the 'on' switch on his
>computer. Some zit-faced little twit who wants to *be* Bill Gates.
I would say *I'D* rather be Bill Gates than an English Major with an ego that
never ends.. <Cough> Lighten up.
[Stuff about UNIX deleted]
>There is no steep learning curve, you dolt. You flaunt your ignorance like it
>was a virtue. And I see you've never heard of Linux.
Right. Half the world doesn't know how to even use Dos, and Unix has no
learning curve .. What planet are you from? You need to turn your blinders
off. Linux is fine and dandy but it sure isn't the end-all to OS's.
>Andry
>
>"A man about to speak the truth should keep
> one foot in the stirrup." - old Mongolian proverb
Philth
Ed Wahl
So it is Win95 only or not?
(GEEZ.. Arguing MSrulez/sucks/etc.. Who the (*&^%$#* cares... Games WILL
go the way of the new OS _no matter what_ They stopped SELLING dos, remember?
new computers=new os... HELLO! Yeah lets run out and write some games that
only run on 286's! )
E
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Distrust and caution are the|(formerly AT&T Bell Labs) Lucent Tech
parents of Security." | ew...@lucent.com
-Benjamin Franklin | '89 Jetta GLI 16v '85 Scirocco
Spalls Hurgenson
wrote:
>On Monday, July 29, 1996 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Tabb wrote:
>> Igor Obraztsov wrote:
>> > I know, I might be the last person in the world to do it, but today I finally
>> > got on Blizzard's website and looked thru Diablo info/screenshots.
>> > Among the requirements, I saw a line that filled me with dread - Windows95.
>> > to have anything to do with that bloated creation of pure evil, contaminating
>> > our poor computers. Is Diablo going to be a Win95-only game???
>> Yep...
> Lol. Funny going back to see chats in the past. I don't know what the issue all of you
> people were having. As a 5-year-old at the time, I did not have any issues. I would
> build P90 machines from parts of broken machines my dad would bring home from
> work and hook them up to play Diablo, Starcraft, Doom, Quake, Warcraft II, etc.
> with very little problems. If there were, I learned how to fix them fairly easily.
> Win95 was obviously not perfect and had issues, but I think more of this talk has to
> do with hearsay and bullsh$t, than real issues.
There were a number of legitimate concerns and criticisms about
Windows95, especially in its early years and especially for gamers.
Here are a few I remember off the top of my head.
Firstly, there were significant performance issues. Machines at the
time usually only had 8 or 16MB of RAM, and Windows95 used a
significant chunk of that just for itself. CPUs were likewise limited
(I think I was still running a 486/33 when Windows95 was released).
For all its other problems, DOS allowed games an exclusive lock on all
the hardware and could maximize performance. The overhead of Windows95
meant a Win95-game running on the same hardware as the DOS version was
always slower. DirectX (and faster CPUs and more memory) would later
mitigate this issue but in the early days of Win9x, this was a
significant problem with the new OS
Secondly, Microsoft was battling against its own reputation. While
Win95 was an improvement, gamers could not help but compare it with
Windows 3, which was just /awful/ for games. Windows 3.x was slow, it
was crash-prone, and its pitiful HAL meant most games could not
utilize the more esoteric features of the hardware to their fullest
potential. Win3 didn't really offer /any/ advantages over playing a
game in DOS. Game selection was also an issue: in DOS, we had games
like Need for Speed and TIE Fighter; meanwhile, the best Win3x had to
offer was Myst and Outpost. Given this background, gamers expected
the same from Win95 (and in the early days of the new OS, those
worries were justified). Any benefits Win9x brought to the table just
weren't enough to counter balance the disadvantages.
Thirdly, DOS gamers - and especially those who posted to Usenet - were
familiar with the eccentricities of DOS. Tweaking config.sys and
maximizing lower RAM were arts we had long mastered; playing games on
Win9x would require an entirely new skill-set (and in these early days
of the internet, this sort of information was much harder to get). It
seemed a lot of extra effort for no real advantage
Fourth, many of us had extensive DOS game collections (I still do!),
many games of which ran poorly or not at all in Win9x. Yes, newer
Win9x-native games might run fine, but the whole dual-booting to DOS
thing was really annoying. So if I was going to have dual boot anyway,
why bother with Windows95?
So there were a number of good reasons why people looked askance at
Windows95 and wondered why we couldn't just stay with DOS. After all,
DOS had worked well enough to get us classics like Warcraft, Wing
Commander III, so its not like DOS wasn't a capable gaming platform.
Meanwhile, Win95 was unproven, top-heavy and the only real point of
comparison people had was Windows 3.1. It is no surprise that there
was such an outcry.
(Myself, I was fairly slow to upgrade to Win9x, moving over only in
late '96 or early '97. All the games I was interested in were
DOS-based, and I had customized Win3x to be quite usable. I was less
concerned with the performance issue than I was with the new learning
curve and saw no advantage to the new OS. Even afterwards, I still
maintained a dual-boot, often switching back to DOS and Win3x. While
not overtly hostile to Win95 - I knew eventually I would have to
upgrade - I understood some of the anger espoused by other users. DOS
worked, so why mess around with that?)
Ultimately, Windows would prove itself the better platform but it took
several years and it really wasn't until Windows98 that its victory
was assured. Oddly enough, Windows' biggest advantage to gaming was
one that was almost invisible to the player. It wasn't any performance
gains, or the UI, or the Add/Remove Programs installers: it was
drivers. Although we take Windows drivers for granted now, they were a
radical new idea in 1995.
In DOS, if a game wanted to support the Soundblaster AWE, or 3DFX, or
a Thrustmaster joystick, or a Zoom modem, the game developer would
have to write drivers for each piece of hardware. Especially given the
proliferation of new hardware in the mid to late 90s, this was a
daunting task. Win9x simplified this by offering a decent hardware
abstraction layer. Now the hardware manufacturers provided the driver
which alerted the OS - and any game running on Win9x - as to that
hardwares capabilities. It greatly simplified the developer's job,
allowed better scaling of game to computers capabilities and allowed
developers to better make use of more esoteric features of hardware.
Meanwhile, on the end-user side, the gamer could just plug in a game
without worrying if it would work with his joystick or sound-card.
Without this significant advantage, Win9x probably would not have made
the quick inroads to PC gaming as it did.
Anyway, its easy to look back and think "oh, those silly gamers of
1995!" but their concerns were valid and justified at the time.
Windows 95 was unproven, Microsoft had a bad track record when it came
to its operating systems, there were no real indications that things
would improve, and the performance hits were significant. It is no
wonder people were clamoring for DOS versions of new games.
Ross Ridge
>Firstly, there were significant performance issues. Machines at the
>time usually only had 8 or 16MB of RAM, and Windows95 used a
>significant chunk of that just for itself.
older version of Windows used significantly less memory, Windows 95 had
a much more advanced disk caching. On Windows 3.1 (and plain MS-DOS)
you were stuck with a fixed size disk cache, but Windows 95 (like modern
operating systems) used all of free memory as a disk cache. The size
of disk cache would automatically shrink or grow depending on the memory
demands of the programs you were using.
On a 8MB machine running Windows 3.1, you'd set the disk cache to 1MB so
you'd have plenty of free memory for applications. However, not a lot of
applications needed that much memory, so a lot of the time a large chunk
of RAM was sitting unused. Because Windows 95 could use that unused RAM
as cache it would often peform better than Windows 3.1 on 8MB machines.
That's one of the reason why I played X-COM Apocalypse under Windows
98 rather than plain MS-DOS. With MS-DOS I was limited to whatever the
maximum SMARTDRV cache was (32MB?) but under Windows 98 it could easly
fit the entire game (~200MB) in its disk cache.
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
Spalls Hurgenson
(Ross Ridge) wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Firstly, there were significant performance issues. Machines at the
>>time usually only had 8 or 16MB of RAM, and Windows95 used a
>>significant chunk of that just for itself.
>I found that 8MB was actually sweet spot for Windows 95. While the
>older version of Windows used significantly less memory, Windows 95 had
>a much more advanced disk caching. On Windows 3.1 (and plain MS-DOS)
>you were stuck with a fixed size disk cache, but Windows 95 (like modern
>operating systems) used all of free memory as a disk cache. The size
>of disk cache would automatically shrink or grow depending on the memory
>demands of the programs you were using.
argue. Besides, memory prices were dropping so rapidly during that era
that the sweet spot probably moved about quite a bit ;-)
Technically it required only 4MB but that was /really/ painful. It
booted, but the OS itself was slow (lots of paging) and things dragged
to a crawl if you had the temerity to actually open an app. I vaguely
recall somebody even hacked the OS - patched out win.com's memory
check and then pared down the rest of the OS - so it ran on 2MB but I
can't imagine that was a very useful build.
32MB was my "sweet spot" for Windows98, with 64MB being outrageous
(and 128MB just excessive).
>
>On a 8MB machine running Windows 3.1, you'd set the disk cache to 1MB so
>you'd have plenty of free memory for applications. However, not a lot of
>applications needed that much memory, so a lot of the time a large chunk
>of RAM was sitting unused. Because Windows 95 could use that unused RAM
>as cache it would often peform better than Windows 3.1 on 8MB machines.
DOS/Win3 days, unless I was running big apps that needed more RAM
(like most gamers I of course had a boot menu for every possible
occassion). Win9x, as you mentioned, handled disk caching pretty well
on its own and the only memory I have of fiddling with disk-caching in
later years was to get around some addressing bug that occured if you
had 512+ MB of memory. In fact, this ease-of-use was always something
I sort of regretted, as a I enjoyed tinkering with the disk cache
(yes, you could still modify the vCache settings manually, but doing
so always resulted in inferior performance.. not like SMARTDRV where
you could see immediate and tangible benefits ;-)
>That's one of the reason why I played X-COM Apocalypse under Windows
>98 rather than plain MS-DOS. With MS-DOS I was limited to whatever the
>maximum SMARTDRV cache was (32MB?) but under Windows 98 it could easly
>fit the entire game (~200MB) in its disk cache.
rolled around, the Windows9x line had proven itself as a viable gaming
platform. Not only was the OS improving - even before Win98 and
Win98SE, Microsoft added significant functionality with DirectX 3 and
5, and various OSR packs - but the app and game developers were
becoming more conversant in creating Win9x executables. Plus, hardware
drivers were becoming optimized, and most new hardware didn't have
drivers for DOS anyway. Hardware in general was becoming faster - the
486 was being phased out, RAM was dropping dramatically in price and
3D accellerators were the new rage - which also dramatically improved
things as well. Except for some oddballs, nobody was asking if Half
Life had a DOS version!
But in the first couple of years of Windows95, it was definitely a
concern, as many DOS games did have better performance than their
Win95 equivalents.
Ross Ridge
>My memory says 16MB for Win95 but it's been 23 years so I'll defer to
>argue. Besides, memory prices were dropping so rapidly during that era
>that the sweet spot probably moved about quite a bit ;-)
would work under Windows 3.1 that was an outrageous if not excessive
amount of memory, so you could alllocate a large chunk of memory for the
disk cache. On the other hand this was pretty much the bare minimum if
you wanted to run Windows NT 3.1, but then why would you?
>Technically it required only 4MB but that was /really/ painful. It
>booted, but the OS itself was slow (lots of paging) and things dragged
>to a crawl if you had the temerity to actually open an app. I vaguely
>recall somebody even hacked the OS - patched out win.com's memory
>check and then pared down the rest of the OS - so it ran on 2MB but I
>can't imagine that was a very useful build.
wanted to stick with Windows 3.1. I think I experiemented with a 6MB
configuration, but I can't remember what the results were.
Speaking of installing stuff on a 2MB machine, I once tried to install
Linux on a 2MB 16MHz 386SX PC. It was probably as low powered of a PC
as (non-embedded) Linux has ever been used on. We wanted to use it as
dumb terminal, so didn't really need anything better. I booted from an
install floppy that let me do a network install, but the install was going
painfully slow. There wasn't enough memory and it was thrashing badly.
Really badly, because it turned out that it was paging the cpio command
(sorta like the Unix version of pkzip but without compression) off of
the floppy. When paging code, Linux (and other operating systems)
won't use the swap file, instead it will just discard the code page
from memory if it needs to page it out and reload it from the executable
when it needs to page it back in. Since cpio command was on the floppy,
the floppy effectively became the swap file.
We managed to find an other 1MB of memory to install and that solved
the problem. I think we actually took the extra memory out once we got
it instaled, but it's been a while.
>But in the first couple of years of Windows95, it was definitely a
>concern, as many DOS games did have better performance than their
>Win95 equivalents.
when I started gaming under Windows 95, which was actually when it was in
beta before it was released, I would play MS-DOS games under Windows 95
if could. The ability to ALT-TAB to do something was just too invaluable.
I remember building a Windows 95 machine out of spare parts at work, and
then having a Master of Orion running on for days. During the day I'd
use it to browse the web, and during the evening I'd ALT-TAB to the game.
The real problem for me was games that wouldn't work under Windows 95,
like Ultima 7 and Wing Commander: Privateer because their bizarre (and
stupid) memory managers. Even a game like Master of Magic was a pain
to get working under Windows 95 because of the amount of conventional
memory it needed.
Spalls Hurgenson
(Ross Ridge) wrote:
> Honestly, this was more a theoretical problem for me. For the most part
> when I started gaming under Windows 95, which was actually when it was in
> beta before it was released, I would play MS-DOS games under Windows 95
> if could. The ability to ALT-TAB to do something was just too invaluable.
found it far more problematic than it was worth. Even with DOS games
nominally running in their own virtual machine, too often an alt-tab
would end up with either the game or the computer becoming
unresponsive. So generally, I just didn't use it, which greatly
negated one of the advantages of the new OS.
That said, I have very fond memories of switching between Civilization
for Windows and Word 2.0 back in the Win3 days ;-)
>The real problem for me was games that wouldn't work under Windows 95,
>like Ultima 7 and Wing Commander: Privateer because their bizarre (and
>stupid) memory managers.
was created in an era before other extenders were readily available.
It was actually fairly effective at what it did - it just happened to
be incompatible with all later memory management.
>Even a game like Master of Magic was a pain
>to get working under Windows 95 because of the amount of conventional
>memory it needed.
management, at least not after 1991. Why 1991? Because that's the year
that Falcon 3.0 came out, and /that/ was the game that was the most
aggressive when it came to its memory demands, both low and expanded*.
Once I got a boot configuration working for Falcon 3.0, all other
games were a snap.
There really was an art to memory management that I almost miss. You
had to figure exactly where where to cram programs in upper memory**,
which often took numerous attempts to maximize the results. I remember
the pride I felt when QEMM and DOS Memmaker started automating the
process and were unable to improve my configurations ;-)
The only time I really had any problems was during the brief interlude
when I played around with STACKER disk compression; its resident
driver was a hog. I eventually got around the issue by putting stuff
like Windows*** and work applications on the Stacker volume. That
freed up enough space for all my games on the uncompressed part of the
hard-drive, and whenever I gamed I just booted to a configuration that
didn't initialize Stacker.
But try telling kids these days. Even DOSBox immediately starts you
off with 632KB low memory... bah!
;-)
--------
* IIRC, for full capabilties, Falcon 3.0 wanted 624 low memory and 2MB
expanded. That left only 16kb for DOS and drivers. Microprose games
always were really hard on low memory.
** You could specify exactly which blocks of upper memory to use for
each driver, which often was a trial-n-error process because a)
different computers often used different parts of the upper memory for
their own hardware and disliked (read: crashed) it if you stuck random
programs up there, and b) said programs often had a larger initial
memory footprint than showed up after they finished loading, so you
couldn't assume that just because it took 15KB once you got to the DOS
prompt that you only needed 15KB upper memory.
*** Windows - thanks to all the bitmap resources embedded in its
libraries and executables - compressed really well as I recall
Bozo User
DirectX gave more performance
on gaming than with the pure and raw DOS system calls.
Spalls Hurgenson
<an...@disroot.org> wrote:
>Well, that was true up to Quake I. Later, with Quake II,
>DirectX gave more performance
>on gaming than with the pure and raw DOS system calls.
There weren't really any DOS system calls for most hardware; DOS was
extremely bare-boned after all and beyond support for very basic video
routines, there wasn't much it could do for games. That's why almost
every game developer who wrote DOS games made their own video routines
to access the video hardware directly, bypassing DOS. And with full
access to the hardware, performance could (and in some cases did)
easily surpass that of even the best DirectX access, just because
there were fewer hoops to jump through.
The downside, though, was that the developer had to code directly to
the hardware, which essentially meant writing their own drivers for
each and every piece of hardware. This was a monumental task that
required a huge amount of effort (so much so that most DOS game
developers just outsourced it), potentially led to bugs or poor
performance, and heaven help the poor gamer who didn't have hardware
on the pre-approved list of compatible video-cards. The big advantage
to DirectX was not so much that it could out-perform bare-metal
programming, but that it was much more convenient, much easier, and
less expensive and time-consuming for the developers. It's performance
was close enough to bare-metal too, that that any discrepancies
between the two were far outweighed by the advantages to consumer and
developer.
But you could have get better performance if you coded directly to the
hardware... which meant DOS (or a variation of Linux, or a home-coded
OS) and not Windows.
But ultimately, it's all moot. With a huge proliferation in the
variety of hardware, there was no way game developers could keep up
with coding directly to the thousands of different sound and video
chipsets, so they would never have been able to take advantage of that
potentially superior performance. Even in 1995, DOS gamers were lucky
if a developer offered a patch that let them take full advantage of
their 3DFX or Virge video card so it could run in accelerated mode. As
CPUs became more powerful, the hit from the hardware abstraction layer
became less and less significant too. And the other advantages of
Windows95 - networking, multi-tasking, etc. - proved too popular
amongst users for DOS to ever win out.
But in 1995 - when most people thought "Windows 3.1" when thinking of
Windows, and 486s remained the most-used CPU - there were real
concerns about the viability of Windows95.