CIV II sucks!
Andrei Romanov
I am a CIV fan, so don't get me wrong. I've finished the old one on every
level of difficulty, without cheating. Almost the same goes to Colonization
(DOS-based), which is also one of my favorite games.
Anyway, back to the topic.
First of all, i hate Windows-based games. They are ugly, stupid and veeeeeeeery
slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
playable.
Secondly, they always tend to require lots of memory.
These days 8 mb is only "bare minimum" and you often loose some of the
features, like in CIV II you loose 3D sequences.
And finally, CIV II is, in fact, the old CIV converted to the Windows format.
It doesn't even support multiplayer mode, when the CIV structure is perfect
for E-mail gameplay!
What i was hoping it to be was an improved CIV with better graphics, which
suck in CIV II (i quite liked the Colonization style of graphics, by the way),
multiplayer mode support, which would be the whole new dimention to the game,
new civilization advances straight from the beginning (i don't think the
original CIV advances were perfect, so why do they keep the structure in its
original form?) and, of corse, a DOS version of CIV II.
What a disappointment...
Andrei Romanov
ro...@bnc.nl
Charles P. Scott
Andrei Romanov wrote:
>
> First of all, i hate Windows-based games. They are ugly, stupid and veeeeeeeery
> slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
> playable.
Well, I have to disagree with you hear. Just because a game is Windows based does not make it ugly, stupid and
veeeeeeeery slow. Yoiu are generalizing a whole type of gameplay because you don't like Windows. I find
Civilization II to be a great game. I only have a 5x/133 machine with 16MB op RAM and it runs very quickly.
> Secondly, they always tend to require lots of memory.
> These days 8 mb is only "bare minimum" and you often loose some of the
> features, like in CIV II you loose 3D sequences.
Maybe it is the fact that you only have 8MB that is causing your problem. Memory is cheap now ($30.00 for
4MB), you might want to upgrade. A lot of the new games are requiring more memory as they get more
complicated.
> And finally, CIV II is, in fact, the old CIV converted to the Windows format.
> It doesn't even support multiplayer mode, when the CIV structure is perfect
> for E-mail gameplay!
If you want multiplayer mode, get CIV-Net. An awsome game in itself and it supports network play, modem play
or just hotseat play. There are a lot of new features in Civ II that was never in Civ I. It is NOT just a
converted to windows version of an old Civ game. It is very obvious that you have not ready the manual or
played the game very much.
> What i was hoping it to be was an improved CIV with better graphics, which
> suck in CIV II (i quite liked the Colonization style of graphics, by the way),
> multiplayer mode support, which would be the whole new dimention to the game,
> new civilization advances straight from the beginning (i don't think the
> original CIV advances were perfect, so why do they keep the structure in its
> original form?) and, of corse, a DOS version of CIV II.
Are you nuts. You cannot see the videos that are in the game because you only have 8MB. Get more memory and
look again. I thing the game runs much much smoother and the graphics are much better that Civ I. I think they
did a good job on this one.
> What a disappointment...
It's obvious that you don't even know what you are talking about. I have played Civ I and Colinization and I
enjoyed them both a lot, but the upgrade the Civ-Net and Civ II were awsome. They will soon be releasing an
upgrade on Civ II that will allow for multi-player though. Maybe THAT will make you happy. I doubt it though!!
Charles P. Scott
csc...@pcmvisual.com
Joel Adams
I think you are in a minority.
Civ 2 is excellant. Despite what you say the graphics are much improved.
I don't know whats up with your pentium but civ 2 is perfectly playable
on mine.
The 3d heralds are pointless so 8 meg isn't a problem... anyway they do
work with 8 meg no matter what the game thinks.
The game is much improved...having a scenario designer and map editor is
great (i am always playing on my own maps).
My only complaint about this game is that the BC years pass to quickly.
I think they should have slowed them down a bit and made the technology
take longer to research.
Other than that I love it. I was sick of civilisation after playing it
first on my Atari ST and then on my PC. Now I am playing again.
I do agree though that multi-player should have been included.
Infact I want it so badly I would even pay a bit extra for a multi-
player add on. (here that Spectrum Holobyte?).
--
Joel Adams
Steve Griffin
ro...@bnc.nl (Andrei Romanov) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
> First of all, i hate Windows-based games. They are ugly, stupid and veeeeeeeery
> slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
> playable.
>
> These days 8 mb is only "bare minimum" and you often loose some of the
> features, like in CIV II you loose 3D sequences.
>
> It doesn't even support multiplayer mode, when the CIV structure is perfect
> for E-mail gameplay!
>
> suck in CIV II (i quite liked the Colonization style of graphics, by the way),
> multiplayer mode support, which would be the whole new dimention to the game,
> new civilization advances straight from the beginning (i don't think the
> original CIV advances were perfect, so why do they keep the structure in its
> original form?) and, of corse, a DOS version of CIV II.
>
While I don't agree with your opinion, you're entitled to it. However, I
have a 486 DX2/50 w/8MB of RAM and have no problem running the game. No
significant down time while the computer players make their moves.
Nothing like Conquest of the New World (I'll have to wait for a Pentium
to play that one - it takes 3-6 minutes for computer players on that
one).
Regards,
Steve
cheehui
Charles P. Scott wrote:
> Andrei Romanov wrote:
> > First of all, i hate Windows-based games. They are ugly, stupid and veeeeeeeery
> > slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
> > playable.
> Well, I have to disagree with you hear. Just because
> a game is Windows based does not make it ugly, stupid and
> veeeeeeeery slow. Yoiu are generalizing a whole type of
> gameplay because you don't like Windows. I find
> Civilization II to be a great game. I only have a
> 5x/133 machine with 16MB op RAM and it runs very quickly.
We all know that every DOS game converted to Windows
is SLLLLOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW. If it runs faster, then there
is something very wrong with the game engine itself. <grin>
I would be VERY SURPRISED if a P-133 w/16MB RAM doesn't run quickly.
Charles, do spare a thought for pple stuck with old 486DXs. Not
everyone can afford to upgrade their machine everytime a new
game comes out.
> > Secondly, they always tend to require lots of memory.
> > These days 8 mb is only "bare minimum" and you often loose some of the
> > features, like in CIV II you loose 3D sequences.
> Maybe it is the fact that you only have 8MB that
> is causing your problem. Memory is cheap now ($30.00 for
> 4MB), you might want to upgrade. A lot of the new games
> are requiring more memory as they get more
> complicated.
I think Andrei is highlighting a problem about
system upgrading with each new game. Hey, I was
disappointed when most games move to 386SX minimium
while I'm stilll slugging it out on my 286.
3D sequences aren't important. In fact, my colleague
told me that after viewing 2 or 3 times, you don't want
to see them again. Period.
> > What i was hoping it to be was an improved CIV with better graphics, which
> > suck in CIV II (stuff edited, apologies to author)
> It's obvious that you don't even know what you are
> talking about. I have played Civ I and Colinization and I
> enjoyed them both a lot, but the upgrade the Civ-Net and
> Civ II were awsome. They will soon be releasing an
> upgrade on Civ II that will allow for multi-player
> though. Maybe THAT will make you happy. I doubt it though!!
I thought Civ2 was a major improvement over Civ1 but without
the videos etc. the game is great because of the design and
gameplay. These other accessories do not detract the fact
that the original idea was fantastic. Tha's what make
Civ such a wonderful game.
I don't play games to see their wonderful graphics.
If the graphics are in 320x200 but the gameplay is good
and I replay it continuously, then I say that it is a
great game. You can have superb SVGA graphics but the
game design is terrible. Hmmm, Outpost came to my mind
all of a sudden.
Oh well, to each his own.
Regards
cheehui :-)
e-mail:tedd...@singnet.com.sg
or che...@202.42.226.33
Vitali Korol
cheehui <che...@202.42.226.33> wrote:
>>Charles P. Scott wrote:
>>> Andrei Romanov wrote:
>>> > First of all, i hate Windows-based games. They are ugly, stupid and veeeeeeeery
>>> > slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
>>> > playable.
BTW what about Silent Thunder? It runs perfectly under Win95
and I liked the game. Though it is not strategy game.
IMO Windows/Win95 are perfect for strategy games, much more
then DOS. There are a lot of great windows-based games now
on the market - for example Battle Isle 3, Across the Rhine
etc.
>>I don't play games to see their wonderful graphics.
>>If the graphics are in 320x200 but the gameplay is good
>>and I replay it continuously, then I say that it is a
>>great game. You can have superb SVGA graphics but the
>>game design is terrible. Hmmm, Outpost came to my mind
>>all of a sudden.
Warhammer came to my mind all of a sudden. I like Warhammer,
bacause this game is really hard and interesting, but I was
dissappointed to see logo " Designed for Windows 95" and to
be unable to run it under WinNT - surely Warhammer was first
designed for DOS or Win3.1 and wasn`t optimized for
Win95/32-bit. And it runs rather slow.
-==>VITALI S. KOROL<==-
Steve Gilham
ro...@bnc.nl wrote:
> First of all, i hate Windows-based games. They are ugly, stupid and veeeeeeeery
> slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
> playable.
It runs quickly enough under WfW 3.11 on my 486/DX2-66 with 8Mb
(omitting the pointless flash like heralds and movies); perhaps you
need to tune your system somewhat.
> And finally, CIV II is, in fact, the old CIV converted to the Windows format.
Uh, no. That was Civ for Windows, which was out ages ago (which was the DOS
game with just SVGA added).
-- Personal mail to st...@windsong.demon.co.uk (for which PGP is preferred) --
Steve Gilham |GDS Ltd.,Wellington Ho. |My opinions, not those of GDS
Software Specialist|East Road, Cambridge |Corporation or its affiliates.
steveg@ |CB1 1BH, UK |---------------------------------
uk.gdscorp.com |Tel:(44)1223-300111x2904|Check out http://www.lpf.org/
Tuomas Seijavuori
ro...@bnc.nl (Andrei Romanov) writes:
> First of all, i hate Windows-based games. They are ugly, stupid and veeeeeeeery
> slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
> playable.
[snip snip]
Andrei, I'm another Windoze hater myself and I'm not pleased about the
way game industry has taken. I actually installed Win3.11 just to play
CivII. I have a very old 486/33, 8 Mb of RAM and a Trident C8900 video
card and I know what _slow_ means. However, I was able to speed things
up by maximizing windoze disk cache and setting the screen mode to the
lowest possible resolution. It's perfectly playable now.
> And finally, CIV II is, in fact, the old CIV converted to the Windows format.
No it isn't. Take your time and play it. True, they have kept
everything that was good about Civ, but they have also enhanced the
strong aspects. Even more importantly, they have removed a lot of
annoying stuff. We have automated settlers. We have detailed City
Reports and other options which you can use to customize the game. I
use different settings in my early, mid- and late gameplay. Needless
to say we have now more of everything. Wonders, units, diplomacy
options.
I find it hard to believe that an old Civ buff would NOT like Civ II -
have you actually played Civ II?
--
Tuomas Seijavuori, tuo...@hut.fi
Charles P. Scott
cheehui wrote:
> Charles, do spare a thought for pple stuck with old 486DXs. Not
> everyone can afford to upgrade their machine everytime a new
> game comes out.
>
Well, uderstand that I saved my money for a very long time to get the 133 chip for my computer. Second, a 133
is NOT a pentium. It is an enhanced 486. AMD calls is a 5X, but not a pentium. Anyway, I do not upgrade my
machine everytime a new game comes out. This is the first upgrade I have done in 2 years.
Charles P. Scott
csc...@pcmvisual.com
Guido Leister
cheehui wrote:
>
> Charles P. Scott wrote:
> > Andrei Romanov wrote:
>
> > > slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
> > > playable.
>
> > a game is Windows based does not make it ugly, stupid and
> > veeeeeeeery slow. Yoiu are generalizing a whole type of
> > gameplay because you don't like Windows. I find
> > Civilization II to be a great game. I only have a
> > 5x/133 machine with 16MB op RAM and it runs very quickly.
>
> We all know that every DOS game converted to Windows
> is SLLLLOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW. If it runs faster, then there
> is something very wrong with the game engine itself. <grin>
>
> I would be VERY SURPRISED if a P-133 w/16MB RAM doesn't run quickly.
>
> everyone can afford to upgrade their machine everytime a new
> game comes out.
But if he wants better graphics, he has to get more memory. Years ago a played
nice games on my c64, but nower days only the Civ II icons need as much memory as
the whole c64 has to offer. So, because i like nice graphics too, i now have a P133 with
more than 16MB.
>
> > > Secondly, they always tend to require lots of memory.
> > > These days 8 mb is only "bare minimum" and you often loose some of the
> > > features, like in CIV II you loose 3D sequences.
>
Again, better graphics needs more memory.
> > Maybe it is the fact that you only have 8MB that
> > is causing your problem. Memory is cheap now ($30.00 for
> > 4MB), you might want to upgrade. A lot of the new games
> > are requiring more memory as they get more
> > complicated.
>
> I think Andrei is highlighting a problem about
> system upgrading with each new game. Hey, I was
> disappointed when most games move to 386SX minimium
> while I'm stilll slugging it out on my 286.
>
> 3D sequences aren't important. In fact, my colleague
> told me that after viewing 2 or 3 times, you don't want
> to see them again. Period.
>
> > > What i was hoping it to be was an improved CIV with better graphics, which
> > > suck in CIV II (stuff edited, apologies to author)
>
> > It's obvious that you don't even know what you are
> > talking about. I have played Civ I and Colinization and I
> > enjoyed them both a lot, but the upgrade the Civ-Net and
> > Civ II were awsome. They will soon be releasing an
> > upgrade on Civ II that will allow for multi-player
> > though. Maybe THAT will make you happy. I doubt it though!!
>
Civ II is a great games, but multi-player is missing. I hope that they
released the game without it, just to bring it to the market quickly, and
not to make money again with a Civ 2.5 or so. Years ago i upgraded from "Railroad Tycoon"
to "Railroad Tycoon deluxe", this was indeed only a money making update with no
real new features. I hope we'll get multi-player Civ 2 for only a small update fee.
> I thought Civ2 was a major improvement over Civ1 but without
> the videos etc. the game is great because of the design and
> gameplay. These other accessories do not detract the fact
> that the original idea was fantastic. Tha's what make
> Civ such a wonderful game.
>
> I don't play games to see their wonderful graphics.
> If the graphics are in 320x200 but the gameplay is good
> and I replay it continuously, then I say that it is a
> great game. You can have superb SVGA graphics but the
> game design is terrible. Hmmm, Outpost came to my mind
> all of a sudden.
>
> Oh well, to each his own.
>
> Regards
> cheehui :-)
> e-mail:tedd...@singnet.com.sg
> or che...@202.42.226.33
Guido
Andrei Romanov
At 17:40 13-06-96 GMT, you wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jun 1996 14:52:21 GMT, you wrote:
>
>> I am a CIV fan, so don't get me wrong. I've finished the old one on every
>> level of difficulty, without cheating. Almost the same goes to Colonization
>> (DOS-based), which is also one of my favorite games.
>> Anyway, back to the topic.
>
>> First of all, i hate Windows-based games. They are ugly, stupid and veeeeeeeery
>> slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
>> playable.
>
>> Secondly, they always tend to require lots of memory.
>> These days 8 mb is only "bare minimum" and you often loose some of the
>> features, like in CIV II you loose 3D sequences.
>
>> And finally, CIV II is, in fact, the old CIV converted to the Windows format.
>> It doesn't even support multiplayer mode, when the CIV structure is perfect
>> for E-mail gameplay!
>
>> What i was hoping it to be was an improved CIV with better graphics, which
>> suck in CIV II (i quite liked the Colonization style of graphics, by the way),
>> multiplayer mode support, which would be the whole new dimention to the game,
>> new civilization advances straight from the beginning (i don't think the
>> original CIV advances were perfect, so why do they keep the structure in its
>> original form?) and, of corse, a DOS version of CIV II.
>
>> What a disappointment...
>
>Fortunately, you are one of few who feel this way. The overall
>response to this game has been good, and in my opinion, you were given
>exactly what you asked for in regards to improvements. You fail to see
>what is before you. The ONLY thing that I agree with in your entire
>post is the multiplayer option,
And that is the ONLY thing i would buy the game for, even if it was
Windows based.
>The ONLY thing that I agree with in your entire
>post is the multiplayer option, but not by mail method.
Tell me your method.
>I suggest you
>take another look at what you asked for. You seem to have a
>preconcieved opinion about anything that is Windows based,
Wrong.
As i said before, i dislike only GAMES that are Windows
based. Mostly because of their speed.
>therefore I
>doubt ANYTHING would meet your approval.
As i already said a DOS version of the game would be quite
acceptable.
>I suspect that there are
>some other reasons for your opinion that have NOTHING to do with the
>game itself.
All the reasons are outlined aboved. As i see it, those are more
then enough to be dissatisfied with the game.
>Try playing the game for a while and then make an
>EDUCATED opinion instead of a weak poorly done overview of what you
>WANT it to be..............
I DID play the game for a while and only after that made this "weak
poorly overview". But even that "weak poorly overview" has more arguments
then your "EDUCATED opinion", the only argument of which is "you fail
to see what is before you". All i see before me was written above.
Civ II is a conversion of the original to the Windows format which
makes it slower, uglier and requiring more system resources than
this kind of games would ever need! Even that was not enough, they
decided to be especially cruel not implementing the multiplayer
option!!
Andrei Romanov
ro...@bnc.nl
Mike Klarman
Civ2 is not a conversion of the original to Windows. That was
Civilization for Windows (which I also own). Civ2 goes way beyond that
because it actually added things. It may not be perfect, but I think it
is far better than the original. I offers so many more options (like
customizing your rules, etc.).
-Mike
Charles P. Scott
Andrei Romanov wrote:
> Wrong.
> As i said before, i dislike only GAMES that are Windows
> based. Mostly because of their speed.
Well if you have a problem with Windows games because of thier speed, maybe you should consider upgrading you
computer system. After all, the computer gaming world is going to a Windows format and there is nothing
anybody can do about it. You can either adjust or quit.
> I DID play the game for a while and only after that made this "weak
> poorly overview". But even that "weak poorly overview" has more arguments
> then your "EDUCATED opinion", the only argument of which is "you fail
> to see what is before you". All i see before me was written above.
> Civ II is a conversion of the original to the Windows format which
> makes it slower, uglier and requiring more system resources than
> this kind of games would ever need! Even that was not enough, they
> decided to be especially cruel not implementing the multiplayer
> option!!
If you did play the game, I do not see how you can still say that it is a conversion of the original
Civilization to a Windows format. There are many many changes in Civ II. Just for one, the population does not
build you a palace, they build a throne room (which looks much nicer).
It is true that Civ II requires more system resources than Civ I, but any Windows game will do the
same. As any game gets more complicated, it will require more to run it. If you want to be stuck playing DOS
games with thier limited graphic ability, then by all means stay in the past and play them. Windows games are
able to move much faster than DOS games.
When I was running on my 486/33 with 8MB or RAM, Civ II was still smoother, faster, and better looking
than Civ I. If your copy is not behaving the same, maybe there is something seriously wrong with you computer.
But don't sit here a complain about Civ II being garbage when it is obvious that you don't know what you are
talking about. When you say things like it is a conversion to a Windows format, it makes me want to ignore you
because of your ignorance.
Charles P. Scott
csc...@pcmvisual.com
Nathan Engle
Charles P. Scott wrote:
> Andrei Romanov wrote:
> > based. Mostly because of their speed.
>
> Well if you have a problem with Windows games because of thier speed,
> maybe you should consider upgrading you computer system.
Yeah, that's what I've been doing. Of course, it makes me feel a
little bit sorry for all these game vendors because after buying the
hardware it takes to run their current games I find that I don't have
any money left over to actually buy them. I sure hope for their sakes
that they have some more affluent customers to tide them over in the
meantime.
> After all, the computer gaming world is going to a Windows format and
> there is nothing anybody can do about it. You can either adjust or quit.
Not just the gaming world either. Myself, I just installed NT on
my home system 2 nights ago. The devil with Win95.
> When I was running on my 486/33 with 8MB or RAM, Civ II was still
> smoother, faster, and better looking than Civ I.
What a contemptible lie. Does your nose get longer when you say
that Civ II ran faster on an 8MB DX-33 than Civ I? I agree that it
looks better, but *faster*? Flamebait, pure and simple.
--
Nathan Engle Electron Juggler
Indiana University Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu http://nickel.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle/home.html
"Some Assembly Required"
Paul Duthie
> based. Mostly because of their speed.
>
> >doubt ANYTHING would meet your approval.
>
> As i already said a DOS version of the game would be quite
> acceptable.
>
> >I suspect that there are
> >some other reasons for your opinion that have NOTHING to do with the
> >game itself.
>
> All the reasons are outlined aboved. As i see it, those are more
> then enough to be dissatisfied with the game.
>
> >Try playing the game for a while and then make an
> >EDUCATED opinion instead of a weak poorly done overview of what you
> >WANT it to be..............
>
> poorly overview". But even that "weak poorly overview" has more arguments
> then your "EDUCATED opinion", the only argument of which is "you fail
> to see what is before you". All i see before me was written above.
> Civ II is a conversion of the original to the Windows format which
> makes it slower, uglier and requiring more system resources than
> this kind of games would ever need! Even that was not enough, they
> decided to be especially cruel not implementing the multiplayer
> option!!
>
> ro...@bnc.nlFor Gods sake, get it right..you are talking about Civilization for Windows, NOT Civilization II. Civ II has -
more units, better 3D graphics, the gameplays a a fine speed on my DX4-100, 16Meg, 2Meg Video, so I would say
there is something wrong with your pentium !!!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Duthie /~~~~~~~~~~~~\ /|
bhu...@netconnect.com.au < I X O Y E >< |
Student Number 94038199 \____________/ \|
"May the road rise to meet you, May the wind be always at your back,
May the sun shine warm upon your face, The rains fall soft upon your fields,
And until we meet again may God hold you in the hollow of his hand"
- Old Irish Blessing
"Just Reach Out and He'll reach in,
take your broken heart and make it whole again
It don't matter who you are or we're you've been,
Just Reach Out and He'll reach in"
"Just Reach Out"
Petra from "Wake Up Call"
"For the want of a compass, we'd be shuffling charts,
For the want of good radar, we'd be glacier parts,
For the want of a lighthouse, can't you see,
we'd be lost at sea, lost at sea"
"It's All Who You Know"
Newsboys from "Take me to your leader"
Gazzoli M Paul
In <31C18B...@pcmvisual.com> "Charles P. Scott"
<csc...@pcmvisual.com> writes:
>Andrei Romanov wrote:
>
>> Wrong.
>> As i said before, i dislike only GAMES that are Windows
>> based. Mostly because of their speed.
>
maybe you should consider upgrading you
Windows format and there is nothing
>anybody can do about it. You can either adjust or quit.
>
>> poorly overview". But even that "weak poorly overview" has more
arguments
>> then your "EDUCATED opinion", the only argument of which is "you
fail
>> to see what is before you". All i see before me was written above.
>> Civ II is a conversion of the original to the Windows format which
>> makes it slower, uglier and requiring more system resources than
>> this kind of games would ever need! Even that was not enough, they
>> decided to be especially cruel not implementing the multiplayer
>> option!!
>
it is a conversion of the original
>Civilization to a Windows format. There are many many changes in Civ
II. Just for one, the population does not
>build you a palace, they build a throne room (which looks much nicer).
>
> It is true that Civ II requires more system resources than Civ I,
but any Windows game will do the
>same. As any game gets more complicated, it will require more to run
it. If you want to be stuck playing DOS
>games with thier limited graphic ability, then by all means stay in
the past and play them. Windows games are
>able to move much faster than DOS games.
>
smoother, faster, and better looking
something seriously wrong with you computer.
>But don't sit here a complain about Civ II being garbage when it is
obvious that you don't know what you are
>talking about. When you say things like it is a conversion to a
Windows format, it makes me want to ignore you
>because of your ignorance.
>
>Charles P. Scott
>csc...@pcmvisual.com
DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
off.
Richard Arnesen
Gazzoli M Paul (elem...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <31C18B...@pcmvisual.com> "Charles P. Scott"
Just a clue guy. The reason Windows 95 and NT and such are superior
is because for once maybe an Intel based mcahine will be able to run
more than ONE thing at a time. That is the test of any "true" OS.
The fact is DOS blows big huge chunks. Sure running windows requires
more memory (as any GUI does) but it is the price you pay for
the chance to have multitasking.
--
//////////////////////////////////+\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
|| Richard Arnesen || Senior Software Technician with PSW Technologies||
\\ rdar...@bnr.ca || The opinions expressed above are yada yada et al||
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\+////////////////////////////////////
\\ What would happen in a battle between an Enterprise security //
\\ team, who always get killed soon after appearing, and a squad//
\\ of Imperial Stormtroopers, who can't hit the broad side of //
\\ planet? -- Tom Galloway |Romans 6:23,1Cor:4-8,John 3:16//
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles P. Scott
Nathan Engle wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's what I've been doing. Of course, it makes me feel a
> little bit sorry for all these game vendors because after buying the
> hardware it takes to run their current games I find that I don't have
> any money left over to actually buy them. I sure hope for their sakes
> that they have some more affluent customers to tide them over in the
> meantime.
Well, I don't believe that they are suffering that much. There are still a substantial amount of customers
that can afford to buy the games.
> Not just the gaming world either. Myself, I just installed NT on
> my home system 2 nights ago. The devil with Win95.
What version of NT did you install. I run 3. on my servers at work and it works fine. I want to upgrade them
to .0 though. It looks and feels exactly like Windows 95 rather than clunky Windows 3.1.
> What a contemptible lie. Does your nose get longer when you say
> that Civ II ran faster on an 8MB DX-33 than Civ I? I agree that it
> looks better, but *faster*? Flamebait, pure and simple.
It is no lie. My Civ II runs just as fast as Civ I did and it looks much much better. I loved Civ I, but I
think Civ II is a much better game.
Charles P. Scott
Charles P. Scott
Gazzoli M Paul wrote:
> DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
> companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
> off.
Well, I really should not justify that display of ignorance with a responce, but I just have too. I do not
like Micrsoft anymore than you do, but unfortunately I have to deal with it. But to say that DOS is superior
to Windows 95 in every way is just idiotic. !st of all, Windows programs offer much much more control and
flecibility than DOS ever did. 2nd, Windows 95 itself controls my computer easier and faster than DOS ever
could.
I challenge you to tell me exactly what DOS can do better than Windows 95. Don't just list one thing, give me
several examples of how one can form this moronic opinion.
Charles P. Scott
Bill Huffman
In article <4q19fj$h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Gazzoli M Paul <elem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
... stuff deleted ...
>
>DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
>companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
>off.
This is total B.S.. Win 95 is far superior in the user interface.
Win 95 is far superior for new hardware upgrades. Win 95 is far
superior in so many ways, you are either a total fool or you've
never used Win 95 enough to evaluate it. Which would make you
a spreader of false information (sometimes called a liar).
As for your last sentence, it's so ridiculous, you are either a
total fool or a paranoid OS/2 fanatic.
David Peterschmidt
In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
>
>DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
>companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
>off.
Hmm. Care to name the ways DOS is superior?
Dave P
Nathan Engle
> This is total B.S.. Win 95 is far superior in the user interface.
Personally I'm indifferent towards the Win95 interface. It's better
than DOS, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.
> Win 95 is far superior for new hardware upgrades.
"Plug & Pray"? Are we talking about the same OS?
> Win 95 is far superior in so many ways
Yet still short of the mark in one big way; it still allows 16 bit
apps to crash/compromise the OS. I don't mind supporting Win95 for my
users but I'm sort of glad I don't have to run it myself.
David Keaveny
>>DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
>>companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
>>off.
>
>superior in so many ways, you are either a total fool or you've
>never used Win 95 enough to evaluate it. Which would make you
>a spreader of false information (sometimes called a liar).
>
>As for your last sentence, it's so ridiculous, you are either a
>total fool or a paranoid OS/2 fanatic.
I think what most people are forgetting is that the best thing about
Windows 95 is that it hides the hardware from the programmer. MicroProse
didn't have to spend ages programming drivers for the 1000 graphics
cards, 100 sound cards that are out there. Video is built into Windows
95, and later on, DirectX will mean the same for 3d Graphics and
graphics accelerators.
--
David Keaveny - promoting equal opportunities for hedgehogs everywhere
\\\
\\\\\\__o "Life is like a sewer - what you get out of it depends on
\\\\\\'/ what you put into it" - Tom Lehrer
Joseph I. Valenzuela
David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
: In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
: >
: >DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
: >companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
: >off.
: Hmm. Care to name the ways DOS is superior?
Most of the world's PC software is written for it.
--
Joseph I. Valenzuela -- tsao...@empirenet.com
http://www.empirenet.com/~tsaotsao
Oppose the ANTI-JOE. Just say no to the VOODOO GLOW SKULLS
Mark Bennett
> Gazzoli M Paul (elem...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
> : companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
> : off.
>
> Just a clue guy. The reason Windows 95 and NT and such are superior
> is because for once maybe an Intel based mcahine will be able to run
> more than ONE thing at a time. That is the test of any "true" OS.
>
> The fact is DOS blows big huge chunks. Sure running windows requires
> more memory (as any GUI does) but it is the price you pay for
> the chance to have multitasking.
>
> --
>
The other reason people are writing games for Win95 is because they
are fed up having to support so many different sets of hardware,
sound cards, video cards ... With Win95 this is not an issue for the
games developer - Win95 takes care of the interface. OK this will
make the interaction between these elements slower, but DirectX is
looking pretty good, and should help considerably in terms of games.
Most people who are playing games are unlikely to be playing more than
one at a time, so they are not generally bothered by multitasking, but
many people have switched to Win95 as an operating system. Therefore
it makes sense for the developers to at least develop a game that will
run under Win95, and while they're at it they might as well take
advantage of some of the benefits.
Mark Bennett.
tuffy
Joseph I. Valenzuela (tsao...@e2.empirenet.com) wrote:
: David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
: : In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
: : >
: : >companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
: : >off.
: : Hmm. Care to name the ways DOS is superior?
: Most of the world's PC software is written for it.
And it takes a lot less RAM to run the OS.
Richard Arnesen
And i know alot of people who still drive Ford Escort's as well
But i wouldn't call them a good car.
: --
: Joseph I. Valenzuela -- tsao...@empirenet.com
: http://www.empirenet.com/~tsaotsao
: Oppose the ANTI-JOE. Just say no to the VOODOO GLOW SKULLS
--
Richard Arnesen
tuffy (lang...@itlabs.umn.edu) wrote:
: Joseph I. Valenzuela (tsao...@e2.empirenet.com) wrote:
: : David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
: : : In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
: : : >
: : : >DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
: : : >companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
: : : >off.
: : : Hmm. Care to name the ways DOS is superior?
: : Most of the world's PC software is written for it.
: And it takes a lot less RAM to run the OS.
And it also takes more RAM to run Solaris than it does DOS but
whats your point??
David Peterschmidt
In article 2...@e4.empirenet.com, tsao...@e2.empirenet.com (Joseph I. Valenzuela ) writes:
>David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
>: In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
>: >
>: >DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
>: >companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
>: >off.
>
>: Hmm. Care to name the ways DOS is superior?
>
>Most of the world's PC software is written for it.
>
Beg to differ. Most of the worlds PC software is now Win3.x, not DOS.
In any case, how does quantity of software make a particular platform
superior? Win95 will be far superior to DOS as a gaming platform when
the Direct3D API is completed and the 3D graphic cards come out
supporting it. At that point, which should arrive in '97, DOS won't
have a prayer of competing.
Dave P
Hutnik, Richard
In article <4q7nel$2...@e4.empirenet.com> tsao...@e2.empirenet.com (Joseph I. Valenzuela ) writes:
>David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
>: In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
>: >
>: >DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
>: >companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
>: >off.
>
>: Hmm. Care to name the ways DOS is superior?
>
>Most of the world's PC software is written for it.
>http://www.empirenet.com/~tsaotsao
>Oppose the ANTI-JOE. Just say no to the VOODOO GLOW SKULLS
On another note, can anyone tell me what format most business software
for Intel based machines is coming out in? DOS? Windows?
Anyone know any major business applications that are new and
being done in DOS? DOS is basically dead as far as a platform
for business software. Only gaming seems to be lingering there now.
Say hello to Windows NT....
Using Windows 95 against my will, due to Java....
-Richard
Sidath Jayawardena
David Peterschmidt wrote:
>
> In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
> >
> >DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
> >companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
> >off.
>
> Hmm. Care to name the ways DOS is superior?
>
What's really funny is that this poor guy hates Microsoft's guts but
uses DOS! I mean, come on! If you hate MS then put your money where your
mouth is and use Linux or something. Otherwise, give it up and use Win95
in command-line mode :)
Jaliya
Christian Buhl
Vitali Korol (vko...@glasnet.apc.org) wrote:
> cheehui <che...@202.42.226.33> wrote:
> >>> > First of all, i hate Windows-based games. They are ugly, stupid and veeeeeeeery
> >>> > slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
> >>> > playable.
> BTW what about Silent Thunder? It runs perfectly under Win95
> and I liked the game. Though it is not strategy game.
> IMO Windows/Win95 are perfect for strategy games, much more
> then DOS. There are a lot of great windows-based games now
> on the market - for example Battle Isle 3, Across the Rhine
> etc.
Silent Thunder is, of course a Win95 game. Win95 is much much
better than Windows3.11 at handling games, and the reason there are many
wonderful strategy games out for windows is because it is much easier to
write a game for Windows than for DOS, saving unnecessary development
time.
Christian M. Buhl
Christian Buhl
Andrei Romanov (ro...@bnc.nl) wrote:
> Secondly, they always tend to require lots of memory.
> These days 8 mb is only "bare minimum" and you often loose some of the
> features, like in CIV II you loose 3D sequences.
Actually, you don't loose anything, except perhaps the wrath of
those not happy with the minimum requirement. You do however, lose some of
the features.
> And finally, CIV II is, in fact, the old CIV converted to the Windows format.
> It doesn't even support multiplayer mode, when the CIV structure is perfect
> for E-mail gameplay!
Actually, it's the old CIV converted to windows format (blah!)
with many many new advances, units, and features added in (yay!). All in
all, I'd say a fine trade.
> What i was hoping it to be was an improved CIV with better graphics, which
> suck in CIV II (i quite liked the Colonization style of graphics, by the way),
> multiplayer mode support, which would be the whole new dimention to the game,
> new civilization advances straight from the beginning (i don't think the
> original CIV advances were perfect, so why do they keep the structure in its
> original form?) and, of corse, a DOS version of CIV II.
Well, the graphics are a bit better, but since when has anyone
played Civilization for the graphics? I mean, Civ was the classic it was
because of its involved gameplay and great strategic qualities, which
CivII greatly expanded upon. I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with you
on the other points, making CivII multiplayer would have made the game
infinitely better; Doom was a good game, but nothing beat fragging your
friends! The multiplayer element would have added tremendously to the
game, and I'm dissapointed they didn't add it. I also agree with your
gripes about Windows, though I do understand why a programming team would
opt to build for Win instead of DOS, writing for DOS means writing your
own sound drivers, graphics drivers, etc . . ., writing for Win means
using all of Windows' drivers.
BTW, if you really want to play multiplayer, try this (I haven't actually
tried it myself, but it would work), get a friend who has *a lot* of time.
Start a Civ game, don't let him see the screen until you're done. At the
end of each turn, use the cheat mode and set the map to barbarian (or a
civ that doesn't exist). When he enters the room, he sets human player to
a different civ and plays his turn. etc. I think you see the idea, the
only problem would be that playing this way would take an incredibly long
amount of time, and there would be nothing for the other player to do
while you were playing your turn. Oh well, something to try if you're
desperate for multiplayer.
> What a disappointment...
> Andrei Romanov
> ro...@bnc.nl
Lee Yu Tang
cheehui <che...@202.42.226.33> wrote:
>We all know that every DOS game converted to Windows
>is SLLLLOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW. If it runs faster, then there
>is something very wrong with the game engine itself. <grin>
>Charles, do spare a thought for pple stuck with old 486DXs. Not
>everyone can afford to upgrade their machine everytime a new
>game comes out.
>I think Andrei is highlighting a problem about
>system upgrading with each new game. Hey, I was
>disappointed when most games move to 386SX minimium
>while I'm stilll slugging it out on my 286.
So the people with the better machines enjoy the games more. You can't
expect the game developers to come out with games going -
NEW REALEASE CIV 2! Using today's lowest technology!
SUPERB CGA GRAPHICS WITH 4 COLORS!
PC SPEAKER SOUND! *beep* *bloop*
640k of memory needed
RUN IT FROM YOUR FLOPPY DRIVE!
Sad to say, those days are over. Now it's minimum Pentium, 16mb RAM,
etc, etc.
____
Lee Yu Tang, Student
HomePage [http://www.angelfire.com/free/ytcomicmania.html]
Self proclaimed Jedi Knight, occasional hero and overall
nice guy.
Joseph I. Valenzuela
David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
: In article 2...@e4.empirenet.com, tsao...@e2.empirenet.com (Joseph I. Valenzuela ) writes:
: >David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
: >: In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
: >: Hmm. Care to name the ways DOS is superior?
: >
: >Most of the world's PC software is written for it.
: >
: Beg to differ. Most of the worlds PC software is now Win3.x, not DOS.
I've seen different figures then you have, obviously. 50k DOS
apps, about 5,000 Win16 apps. (Commercial, not vertical apps).
Win32 apps were negligible. UNIX and VMS apps tend to be
vertical or niche in nature and so aren't relevant to the
discussion.
New apps tend to be Win16 apps, but then again most new apps
suck.
: In any case, how does quantity of software make a particular platform
: superior? Win95 will be far superior to DOS as a gaming platform when
: the Direct3D API is completed and the 3D graphic cards come out
: supporting it.
Works in theory, not in practice. The gains to be made from a
unified API are great, but the losses in programming for Win16/32
are also great. Even in games which aren;t associated with
computer intensive processing (Civ II), the DOS->Win transition
proves that Windows in a crappy platform for games. While
Civ II isn't programmed with the Direct3D API, it uses the
subset of the CreateDIB functions and one would hope that they
would give at least a resonible fraction of the performance of
their DOS equivilants.
: At that point, which should arrive in '97, DOS won't
: have a prayer of competing.
We'll see. The lack luster sales of Win95, as well as the
poor performance of games on the platform, will certainly be
a factor in my decision to buy into this new nirvana of games.
--
Mr Justin J Watkins
I think we are getting into a slanging match about Microsoft again.
Please can we take this elsewhere.
Perhaps one should consider that, at the time Civ I was written, it
was pretty much all that the current PCs could handle. It was right
on top of the latest technology. And a brilliant game at that too.
Civ 2 comes along, using the latest technology, and hoping to make it
past the inevitable (yes - read the market not my lips) move to NT,
where you won't be able to run any of your old DOS apps.
Some of us have a grudge against Mighty Microsoft. Fair enough. Others
of us have had to live with it rather than fight it. If you're really
anti-Bill-Gates, tehn I suggest you heed Jaliya's advice:
: I mean, come on! If you hate MS then put your money where your
: mouth is and use Linux or something. Otherwise, give it up and use Win95
: in command-line mode :)
Justin
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Watkins, Dept of Physics, 01483 259329
University of Surrey, Guildford j .wat...@surrey.ac.uk
GU2 5XH, UK http://phoenix.bath.ac.uk/~justinw
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN
In <4q9s85$j...@walter.cray.com>, d...@cray.com (David Peterschmidt) writes:
>In article 2...@e4.empirenet.com, tsao...@e2.empirenet.com (Joseph I. Valenzuela ) writes:
>>David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
>>: In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
>>: >
>>: >companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
>>: >off.
>>
>>
>>Most of the world's PC software is written for it.
>>
>
>Beg to differ. Most of the worlds PC software is now Win3.x, not DOS.
>superior? Win95 will be far superior to DOS as a gaming platform when
>the Direct3D API is completed and the 3D graphic cards come out
>have a prayer of competing.
>
>
Kinda neat how the 'Superior' OS still needs a lot of junk to beat DOS
which is basically the same as it was five years ago.
-Adrian Davis
ps. Ever wonder what would've happened if anyone had made a serious
effort to bring DOS into the 90's (probably full screen TrueColor video... Sigh)
Bill Huffman
In article <31C6B8...@indiana.edu>,
Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>Bill Huffman wrote:
>> Gazzoli M Paul <elem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>than DOS, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.
>
>
installation on win 95 is far easier than DOS. That's not to say it
is perfect. But, to install some net cards on a win95 it took me about
1/2 hour. The only information I used for what interrupts were
available was the win95 registry. If I didn't have that information
on a DOS system it would have taken me a day to install the cards.
I didn't use the so called Plug & Play in this case. But, it was
still much easier than it would have been on DOS. All that is really
needed is one example to prove that the statement
"DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way." is B.S..
>
>> Win 95 is far superior in so many ways
>
> Yet still short of the mark in one big way; it still allows 16 bit
>apps to crash/compromise the OS. I don't mind supporting Win95 for my
>users but I'm sort of glad I don't have to run it myself.
>
Again, I'm not a win95 defender. I was just trying to point out that
win 95 is better than DOS. As far as support for 16 bit apps, I
wouldn't be using win95 if it didn't run my old games. It is much
easier and convenient for me to just boot up one OS and not
need to reboot different operating systems for different programs.
When there are young kids in the house using the system the
most important thing is making it as easy to use as possible. Win95
can handle this much better than anything else.
Alex Chou
Hmmm...so the challenge is to find ways in which DOS is better than
Win95, eh? Here are two ways in which DOS beats Windows:
1) Keyboard friendliness. I don't like using the mouse. Of course,
for some applications, such as PageMaker, there's no alternative.
But for my Civ 2 games, and even for Word 6.0, I try to stick to
the keyboard as much as possible. It's just much faster, more
accurate, and more convenient. In DOS, I don't have to deal w/
the stupid mouse.
2) Greater flexibility and versatility. Comparing Win95 to DOS is
kinda like comparing BASIC to C. The former is more much easier
to learn and use, but the latter can do far more. For example,
a couple days ago, I needed to make back-up copies for a bunch
of files before replacing them. In DOS, I just typed:
copy *.* *._??
Easy...no sweat. Now try doing that in Windows. :-)
I guess Windows is far superior for applications. There's good reason
people are all switching from DOS-based word processors, etc. to Window
programs like Word, Excel, and PageMaker. But I would MUCH rather
start up my computer from DOS any day. Rather than double-clicking here,
then double-clicking there, then double clicking again just to run a
program, a few keystrokes is all you need in DOS.
- Alex
David Peterschmidt
In article 8...@e4.empirenet.com, tsao...@e2.empirenet.com (Joseph I. Valenzuela ) writes:
>David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
>: >David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
>: >: In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
>
>: >
>: >Most of the world's PC software is written for it.
>: >
>
>: Beg to differ. Most of the worlds PC software is now Win3.x, not DOS.
>
>apps, about 5,000 Win16 apps. (Commercial, not vertical apps).
>Win32 apps were negligible. UNIX and VMS apps tend to be
>vertical or niche in nature and so aren't relevant to the
>discussion.
>
>New apps tend to be Win16 apps, but then again most new apps
>suck.
Well, I don't dispute that the total number of DOS apps is probably
higher, but nobody runs Visicalc and its ilk any more. The apps which
people actually USE these days are more likely to be Win16 or Win32 apps
than DOS apps.
>
>: In any case, how does quantity of software make a particular platform
>: superior? Win95 will be far superior to DOS as a gaming platform when
>: the Direct3D API is completed and the 3D graphic cards come out
>: supporting it.
>
>Works in theory, not in practice. The gains to be made from a
>unified API are great, but the losses in programming for Win16/32
>are also great. Even in games which aren;t associated with
>computer intensive processing (Civ II), the DOS->Win transition
>proves that Windows in a crappy platform for games. While
Proves? Care to elaborate on that statement? I don't follow the
sparklingly clear logic.
In any case, when you say "Windows" is a crappy platform for games,
you are showing your ignorance. Do you mean Win 3.x, Win95, or Win NT?
Win 3.x *IS* a crappy gaming platform. Win95 is *NOT*, and is getting
better.
>Civ II isn't programmed with the Direct3D API, it uses the
>subset of the CreateDIB functions and one would hope that they
>would give at least a resonible fraction of the performance of
>their DOS equivilants.
CivII is a Win16 game. That's way old technology. It hardly shows
Win95 at its gaming best. Why would you think a Win16 game would match
up with a DOS game, speed-wise? It's very well known that Win16 sucked
for games. That's not what I was referring to when I said Win95 will
be a better gaming platform than DOS.
>
>: At that point, which should arrive in '97, DOS won't
>: have a prayer of competing.
>
>We'll see. The lack luster sales of Win95, as well as the
>poor performance of games on the platform, will certainly be
>a factor in my decision to buy into this new nirvana of games.
Win95 is shipping on nearly every new PC being sold. Its off-the-shelf
sales may not be roaring, but it's getting into users' hands
nonetheless. I'd also like to hear some specifics of which Win95 games
are performing poorly. I'm talking about true, written-for-Win95
games, not Win 3.x games running on Win95 like CivII, or DOS games
which run in a DOS session under Win95. Which true Win95 games are you
referring to when you in your "poor performance" claim?
Dave P
Charles P. Scott
Alex Chou wrote:
>
> Hmmm...so the challenge is to find ways in which DOS is better than
> Win95, eh? Here are two ways in which DOS beats Windows:
>
> 1) Keyboard friendliness. I don't like using the mouse. Of course,
> for some applications, such as PageMaker, there's no alternative.
> But for my Civ 2 games, and even for Word 6.0, I try to stick to
> the keyboard as much as possible. It's just much faster, more
> accurate, and more convenient. In DOS, I don't have to deal w/
> the stupid mouse.
Well, I tried playing Civ I with the keyboard, but personally, I preferred using the mouse anyway. Try Masters
of Orion (Another DOS game) without a mouse. The keyboard (as much as I would like it) cannot run a lot of DOS
programs, much less Windows programs.
> 2) Greater flexibility and versatility. Comparing Win95 to DOS is
> kinda like comparing BASIC to C. The former is more much easier
> to learn and use, but the latter can do far more. For example,
> a couple days ago, I needed to make back-up copies for a bunch
> of files before replacing them. In DOS, I just typed:
> copy *.* *._??
> Easy...no sweat. Now try doing that in Windows. :-)
In Windows, I just picked up the file with the mouse and dropped it on the A drive icon. Try doing THAT with
DOS. It cannot be done. I can always copy the file the way you do in DOS. At least, in Windows I have a choice.
You do not have that in DOS. Yet another way that Windows is superior to DOS.
> I guess Windows is far superior for applications. There's good reason
> people are all switching from DOS-based word processors, etc. to Window
> programs like Word, Excel, and PageMaker. But I would MUCH rather
> start up my computer from DOS any day. Rather than double-clicking here,
> then double-clicking there, then double clicking again just to run a
> program, a few keystrokes is all you need in DOS.
You know, you can configure Windows 95 to start up in DOS mode. All it takes is to edit the "MSDOS.SYS" file.
Check out a book called "The Windows 95 Resource Kit" and it will tell you how. Then again, if you install
Windows 95 into a directory other than you default Windows directory, you will have the option at bootup to
boot to a previous operating system (hence, DOS 6.22, etc...).
Charles P. Scott
csc...@pcmvisual.com
David Peterschmidt
In article h...@watnews2.watson.ibm.com, ADRIAN@ writes:
>In <4q9s85$j...@walter.cray.com>, d...@cray.com (David Peterschmidt) writes:
>>>David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
>>>: In article h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, elem...@ix.netcom.com(Gazzoli M Paul) writes:
>>>: >
>>>: >companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
>>>: >off.
>>>
>>>
>>>Most of the world's PC software is written for it.
>>>
>>
>>Beg to differ. Most of the worlds PC software is now Win3.x, not DOS.
>>superior? Win95 will be far superior to DOS as a gaming platform when
>>the Direct3D API is completed and the 3D graphic cards come out
>>have a prayer of competing.
>>
>>
>Kinda neat how the 'Superior' OS still needs a lot of junk to beat DOS
>which is basically the same as it was five years ago.
Any sophisticated OS (Linux, OS/2, Win95, Win NT, Solaris, etc) is
going to have more overhead than bare-bones DOS. It's a simple fact.
It therefore will need to use its advantages to run software even at
the same speed as DOS, much less go faster. Among their advantages is
the ability to create common API's in order to better utilize
acceleration hardware. I don't think this "problem" constitutes
grounds for slamming Win95.
>
>-Adrian Davis
>
>ps. Ever wonder what would've happened if anyone had made a serious
>effort to bring DOS into the 90's (probably full screen TrueColor video... Sigh)
My question would be, Why? What is this incredible fascination people
have for an antiquated concept like DOS? DOS was just a piece of software
that got thrown together to provide some system services on early PC's.
The future is not DOS.
Dave P
dwr...@indirect.com
In <31CABE...@pcmvisual.com>, "Charles P. Scott" <csc...@pcmvisual.com> writes:
>Alex Chou wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm...so the challenge is to find ways in which DOS is better than
>> Win95, eh? Here are two ways in which DOS beats Windows:
>Charles P. Scott
>csc...@pcmvisual.com
You IDIOTS! Take your worthless, over argued, boring discussion to a group
where it belongs...It doesn't belong here...and has nothing to do with CIV II!
I'm sure at one time it did, but due to JERKOFFS like yourselves who have
never heard of NETIQUETTE, it no longer does...
WHO CARES! Use whatever operating system you want...
12 year old MORONS!
Grundman
Would you lame whiners change the title of your thread so I don't waste
my time trying to read something about CivII and get this petty, boring,
already been argued a thousand times by better people OS system
BULLSHIT?
Alex Chou
dwr...@indirect.com wrote:
: You IDIOTS! Take your worthless, over argued, boring discussion to a group
: where it belongs...It doesn't belong here...and has nothing to do with CIV II!
: I'm sure at one time it did, but due to JERKOFFS like yourselves who have
: never heard of NETIQUETTE, it no longer does...
: WHO CARES! Use whatever operating system you want...
: 12 year old MORONS!
Hmmm...I'm not so sure this post follows netiquette either. But no,
you're right. I probably should've taken this post over to the
comp.sys.netiquette group or something like that.
- Alex
P.S. Ever heard of Shift-K? You can skip all this boring junk.
You can even use that to skip some of the boring Civ 2 stuff.
A.P.S. Ainslie
Please folks, this stuff belongs in one of the .advocacy groups, and has
pretty well lost all relevance to c.s.i.p.g.s
I'm used to the waste of bandwidth, but with this header it gives the
impression that there are loads of people unhappy with Civilisation 2, which
judging from all the other posts on the group is simply not true.
PLEASE think about whether your post has _anything_ to do with the header;
if not, don't post, change the header, or post to an appropriate newsgroup.
ADRIAN
In <4qevug$6...@walter.cray.com>, d...@cray.com (David Peterschmidt) writes:
>In article h...@watnews2.watson.ibm.com, ADRIAN@ writes:
>>In <4q9s85$j...@walter.cray.com>, d...@cray.com (David Peterschmidt) writes:
>>>
--snip--
>>>Beg to differ. Most of the worlds PC software is now Win3.x, not DOS.
>>>In any case, how does quantity of software make a particular platform
>>>superior? Win95 will be far superior to DOS as a gaming platform when
>>>the Direct3D API is completed and the 3D graphic cards come out
>>>supporting it. At that point, which should arrive in '97, DOS won't
>>>have a prayer of competing.
>>>
>>>Dave P
>>>
>>Kinda neat how the 'Superior' OS still needs a lot of junk to beat DOS
>>which is basically the same as it was five years ago.
>
>Any sophisticated OS (Linux, OS/2, Win95, Win NT, Solaris, etc) is
>going to have more overhead than bare-bones DOS. It's a simple fact.
>It therefore will need to use its advantages to run software even at
>the same speed as DOS, much less go faster. Among their advantages is
>the ability to create common API's in order to better utilize
>acceleration hardware. I don't think this "problem" constitutes
>grounds for slamming Win95.
>
>>
>>-Adrian Davis
>>
>>ps. Ever wonder what would've happened if anyone had made a serious
>>effort to bring DOS into the 90's (probably full screen TrueColor video... Sigh)
>
>My question would be, Why? What is this incredible fascination people
>have for an antiquated concept like DOS? DOS was just a piece of software
>that got thrown together to provide some system services on early PC's.
>The future is not DOS.
>
>Dave P
>
I don't see what is antiquated about the _concept_ of DOS (to provide basic
services to the programmer). The way it was implemented is antiquated, but
the way Windows 2.0 was implemented is antiquated. So, it was updated. Very
Simple.
But back to your question: "Why?" Because as we go forward and get faster
and faster processors, more powerful video cards, more memory, and faster
CD-ROM's games are getting SLOWER. All in the name of 'progress'.
Every operating system has it's strengths and weaknesses. Windows allows for
a high productivity environment (rapid learning, ease of use, multitasking, etc.).
DOS allows access to 100% of the computer. Which is GREAT for games.
- Adrian Davis
Steve Kashishian
In article <4q4446$8...@huffmanpc.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>, Bill.H...@SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM wrote:
>In article <4q19fj$h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,>.... stuff deleted ...
>>
>>DOS is superior to Winblows 95 in every way. The only reason game
>>companies are making games for it is the fact that Micro$hit paid 'em
>>off.
>
Hmm...
ToM SeNDeR
alex...@scunix4.harvard.edu (Alex Chou) wrote:
>I guess Windows is far superior for applications. There's good reason
>people are all switching from DOS-based word processors, etc. to Window
>programs like Word, Excel, and PageMaker. But I would MUCH rather
>start up my computer from DOS any day. Rather than double-clicking here,
>then double-clicking there, then double clicking again just to run a
>program, a few keystrokes is all you need in DOS.
>- Alex
I agree i would rather startup from dos for a few reasons:
first: it was the first os i had and i've grown accustomed to it
i control dos much better than i conrol windows
second: we cant turn on the speed differrences although windows95
is very fast ...its fast for WINDOWS but still kinda lame
compared to dos
but we cant over look the advantages of windows such as drag and
drop actions instead of typing and typing and it is much easier
for a new comer to the computerized world that is why windows95
is such a great success.
in the end i think dos will be removed from the face of the earth
as windows is getting better every year eventually will come a
version which will demolish the dos power and will be best suited
for the new comer and the experienced PC user in the meantime i
work with them both and use each one for what it does best.
ToM SeNDeR
e-mail: sen...@netvision.net.il
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"THE CHANCES OF ANYTHING COMING
FROM MARS ARE A MILLION TO ONE...
BUT STILL....THEY COME!!!!"
h.g.wells-the war of the worlds
Mr Justin J Watkins
(off topic like the rest of this thread)
If you don't like Windows but *have* to use it for your FAVE
game, then why not use a bootmenu or something like that. There
is nothing stopping you having the following bootup system:
Linux Loader (LiLo) - allows booting off any hard disk.
followed by Win NT boot menu
followed by Win95 boot menu
followed by DOS 6 boot menu.
I know it can be done - a friend of mine has done it.
This lets you have the best of all worlds. You can create a
boot sector on any disk, and get LiLo to cause the correct
disk to boot. In this way you are not limited to which OS
you can use.
An alternative solution (as I have implemented for software
test purposes) is to use a removeble hard-disk caddy for
your boot disk, and have all your data on a fixed disk.
You want a different OS? You power down, swap disks and power
up again.
And if that is too much hassle for you then buy another machine!
David Peterschmidt
>
>Every operating system has it's strengths and weaknesses. Windows allows for
>a high productivity environment (rapid learning, ease of use, multitasking, etc.).
>DOS allows access to 100% of the computer. Which is GREAT for games.
But it also requires game designers to write for any and all hardware
their users might possibly have - which sucks for games. Case in point
- 3D will probably never take off if game designers have to write to
every different 3D card on the market. But with a common API as
Direct3D will provide, 3D very likely will take off.
And all this doesn't even mention the programmer productivity benefits in
writing for Win95 as opposed to DOS, and the installation hassles of installing
DOS software.
Dave P
Patrick Libuda
In article <31C201...@netconnect.com.au>, Paul Duthie <bhu...@netconnect.com.au> says:
>
>Andrei Romanov wrote:
>>
>> At 17:40 13-06-96 GMT, you wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 10 Jun 1996 14:52:21 GMT, you wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am a CIV fan, so don't get me wrong. I've finished the old one on every
>> >> level of difficulty, without cheating. Almost the same goes to Colonization
>> >> (DOS-based), which is also one of my favorite games.
>> >> Anyway, back to the topic.
>> >
>> >> First of all, i hate Windows-based games. They are ugly, stupid and veeeeeeeery
>> >> slow, copared to DOS-based ones. Even on my Pentium, CIV II is simply not
>> >> playable.
>> >
>> >> These days 8 mb is only "bare minimum" and you often loose some of the
>> >> features, like in CIV II you loose 3D sequences.
>> >
>> >> It doesn't even support multiplayer mode, when the CIV structure is perfect
>> >> for E-mail gameplay!
>> >
>> >> suck in CIV II (i quite liked the Colonization style of graphics, by the way),
>> >> multiplayer mode support, which would be the whole new dimention to the game,
>> >> new civilization advances straight from the beginning (i don't think the
>> >> original CIV advances were perfect, so why do they keep the structure in its
>> >> original form?) and, of corse, a DOS version of CIV II.
>> >
>> >
>> >Fortunately, you are one of few who feel this way. The overall
>> >response to this game has been good, and in my opinion, you were given
>> >exactly what you asked for in regards to improvements. You fail to see
>> >what is before you. The ONLY thing that I agree with in your entire
>> >post is the multiplayer option,
>>
>> And that is the ONLY thing i would buy the game for, even if it was
>> Windows based.
>>
>> >The ONLY thing that I agree with in your entire
>> >post is the multiplayer option, but not by mail method.
>>
>> Tell me your method.
>>
>> >I suggest you
>> >take another look at what you asked for. You seem to have a
>> >preconcieved opinion about anything that is Windows based,
>>
>> Wrong.
>> As i said before, i dislike only GAMES that are Windows
>> based. Mostly because of their speed.
>>
>> >therefore I
>> >doubt ANYTHING would meet your approval.
>>
>> As i already said a DOS version of the game would be quite
>> acceptable.
>>
>> >I suspect that there are
>> >some other reasons for your opinion that have NOTHING to do with the
>> >game itself.
>>
>> All the reasons are outlined aboved. As i see it, those are more
>> then enough to be dissatisfied with the game.
>>
>> >Try playing the game for a while and then make an
>> >EDUCATED opinion instead of a weak poorly done overview of what you
>> >WANT it to be..............
>>
>> I DID play the game for a while and only after that made this "weak
>> poorly overview". But even that "weak poorly overview" has more arguments
>> then your "EDUCATED opinion", the only argument of which is "you fail
>> to see what is before you". All i see before me was written above.
>> Civ II is a conversion of the original to the Windows format which
>> makes it slower, uglier and requiring more system resources than
>> this kind of games would ever need! Even that was not enough, they
>> decided to be especially cruel not implementing the multiplayer
>> option!!
>>
>> Andrei Romanov
>> ro...@bnc.nlFor Gods sake, get it right..you are talking about Civilization for Windows, NOT Civilization II. Civ II has -
>more units, better 3D graphics, the gameplays a a fine speed on my DX4-100, 16Meg, 2Meg Video, so I would say
>there is something wrong with your pentium !!!
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Duthie /~~~~~~~~~~~~\ /|
>bhu...@netconnect.com.au < I X O Y E >< |
>Student Number 94038199 \____________/ \|
>
>"May the road rise to meet you, May the wind be always at your back,
>May the sun shine warm upon your face, The rains fall soft upon your fields,
>And until we meet again may God hold you in the hollow of his hand"
> - Old Irish Blessing
>
>"Just Reach Out and He'll reach in,
>take your broken heart and make it whole again
>It don't matter who you are or we're you've been,
>Just Reach Out and He'll reach in"
> "Just Reach Out"
> Petra from "Wake Up Call"
>
>"For the want of a compass, we'd be shuffling charts,
>For the want of good radar, we'd be glacier parts,
>For the want of a lighthouse, can't you see,
>we'd be lost at sea, lost at sea"
> "It's All Who You Know"
> Newsboys from "Take me to your leader"
I personally love Civ2 (o.k. I have a decent P133 and a VERY fast
graphics card. The problem in Civ2 is that it is still hypertext-based
(you know, like a web page). I showed it to a mate who loved Civ1DOS
and he loathed it due to the the new perspective - or rather the typical
3D shit as he usually refers to it. As I said, I like it but I would
have preferred the 2D perspective as a kind of 'bridge'. the only thing
where the new perspective really can be a nuisance is with planes - you
know the sad fact that a plane has to return to a city square. In opinion
they could have kicked ou the video nonsense abut these days you have to
have or the hing does not sell. The down-side of things is that you
cannot add stuff - like they did with Civ1DOS: a few more wonders, a few
rule alterations etc. I would have preferred it had MPS used a few
scanned (or preferable well-drawn) hi-res pictures of the wonders. They
might also have been able to add things on a more flexible basis.
ADRIAN
In <4quc03$u...@walter.cray.com>, d...@cray.com (David Peterschmidt) writes:
>In article i...@watnews2.watson.ibm.com, ADRIAN@ writes:
I really don't want to get into an irrational argument about this. So having
said that I hope this is taken in the way it is intended (meaningful discussion)
>>
>>Every operating system has it's strengths and weaknesses. Windows allows for
>>a high productivity environment (rapid learning, ease of use, multitasking, etc.).
>>DOS allows access to 100% of the computer. Which is GREAT for games.
>
>But it also requires game designers to write for any and all hardware
>their users might possibly have - which sucks for games. Case in point
>- 3D will probably never take off if game designers have to write to
>every different 3D card on the market. But with a common API as
>Direct3D will provide, 3D very likely will take off.
>
There are numerous third party products that take care of the difficulties
of graphics programming. If 3D ever takes off and DOS is still around I'm
sure they will come out with packages for 3D programming.
>And all this doesn't even mention the programmer productivity benefits in
>writing for Win95 as opposed to DOS, and the installation hassles of installing
>DOS software.
>
1) do consumers really care how productive programmers are if the games are
slow and poorly done?
2) See above comments productivity... (why not program under win95 and compile
for the DOS platform thereby getting the benefits of 'multitasking', GUI, etc. while
developing and still getting the speed of DOS while executing)
My biggest complaint is that alot of people look at win95 with something
approaching religious fervor and refuse to look at the pros and cons of the
OS. And instead, take a "My OS is holier than yours" approach.
Don't get me wrong I agree DOS will almost definately die, and I don't really
care. It just bothers me to see it killed for the wrong reasons.
- Adrian Davis
Chris Nguyen
write the game codes short!!! Like old days, people could write a program
with 10k run perfectly. Now, people didn't care about coding so the wrote
the program longer. The total of the space for Civ II was almost 550
MEGS!! If they had good programmers, this game would be about 100 megs
and the game with run faster.
Doug McCreary
The thing that made Civilization II sucks is that the programmers did
not
> write the game codes short!!!
This is ridiculous. The quality of a game is unrelated to the
length of the code. In fact, I would venture that if there is
any relation, the better games have more code. (particularly
strategy games like civ2).
Like old days, people could write a program
> with 10k run perfectly.
Well, most 10k games were very simple arcade games, not
strategy. And in my opinion there were no really interesting
strategy games on computers before the 64k models.
Now, people didn't care about coding so the wrote
> the program longer.
Actually, a lot of us do care about programming, so we write
the programs longer. That way they have more interesting
features.
The total of the space for Civ II was almost 550
> MEGS!!
And you think how much of this is code? I would venture
a guess that the code portion of civ2 is significantly less
than 100 megs.
If they had good programmers, this game would be about 100 megs
> and the game with run faster.
Most of the 550 megs is graphics. The problem you are experiencing
with the growth in game size is due to a few factors.
1) multimedia. those 10k games didn't have FMV. The data files
(not the program files) for FMV are huge.
2) graphics resolution. Those 10k games ran at (maybe) 200x100.
Many of them ran at much lower resolutions (60x40, sometimes
even less). An 800x600 game requires 200 times the graphics
display of a 60x40 game.
3) sound/music quality. higher levels of quality for these
chew up a lot of megabytes.
Could civII have been made to run faster? Probably. It _could_
have been written in assembly language by a team of a thousand
programmers. And it might only have cost $399 in the stores!
But that is probably the only way you might get it to run, say,
twice as fast. Short of that, they might have managed a much
smaller improvement by spending a few more weeks optimizing
the code, but who outside the development team can really say?
Oh well, just had to get that off my chest, just bothers me to
see obviously good programmers nocked by someone who hasn't
much experience in the field.
--
Doug McCreary
mailto:do...@ictv.com
RICHARD KENAN
Doug McCreary (do...@ictv.com) wrote:
: The thing that made Civilization II sucks is that the programmers did
: not
: > write the game codes short!!!
: This is ridiculous. The quality of a game is unrelated to the
: length of the code. In fact, I would venture that if there is
: any relation, the better games have more code. (particularly
: strategy games like civ2).
Well, these days, games seem much longer to do essentially the same
thing. I suspect that a lot of this is the fact that they have to
support so much different hardware, with all the conditional code
and compiled-in libraries that don't get used on every computer.
When the only soundcards were original Soundblasters and the best
graphic cards were EGA, there was small enough variety that the code
to do something that involved sound or graphics could be much smaller.
The rest is probably what you mention later.
: Like old days, people could write a program
: > with 10k run perfectly.
: Well, most 10k games were very simple arcade games, not
: strategy. And in my opinion there were no really interesting
: strategy games on computers before the 64k models.
And as for running perfectly, it's obviously easier to debug a
10k program than a 40 meg program. Less code to look at. And
you can write a program that simple in assembly, so it will do
more than 10k of modern code in compiled languages, because the
modern programs are so large you cannot use assembly on it. If
I have to write a program that's 30 megs no matter what I do
with it, I'm going to blow the extra 10 megs to use a compiled
language, so that I can actually finish it before I die of old
age.
: Now, people didn't care about coding so the wrote
: > the program longer.
: Actually, a lot of us do care about programming, so we write
: the programs longer. That way they have more interesting
: features.
: The total of the space for Civ II was almost 550
: > MEGS!!
: And you think how much of this is code? I would venture
: a guess that the code portion of civ2 is significantly less
: than 100 megs.
The game runs fine with 40 megs on the hard disk and no CD in
the drive. You lose the FMV and the heralds and town councils,
but the gameplay is fine. And 20 megs are the Civilopedia and
the sound .wav files. I'd venture that much of the rest is just
data files used by the game only. Call it 15 megs of game code,
for a high resolution engine running under bloated windows code
libraries that have to be bloated for compatibility. Not that
bad, even compared to the original Civ, which was a pretty tight
program.
: If they had good programmers, this game would be about 100 megs
: > and the game with run faster.
Speed loss was caused by the Windows interface and the higher res
graphics. And the speed isn't that bad, really. Objectively, the
game runs on a 486/33 about as well as Master of Magic runs on a
386/25, which is quite playable. That's strictly gameplay, mind
you, with no movies or whatever, but gameplay is what we're talking
about. Movie players are mature technology that won't ever get
very much smaller or faster on a given machine.
: Most of the 550 megs is graphics. The problem you are experiencing
: with the growth in game size is due to a few factors.
: 1) multimedia. those 10k games didn't have FMV. The data files
: (not the program files) for FMV are huge.
I think I pretty much nailed the 450 megs that don't load on the
hard drive as FMV and CD music. At least, that's the only thing that
isn't running on my copy of Civ2, with no CD in the drive.
: 2) graphics resolution. Those 10k games ran at (maybe) 200x100.
: Many of them ran at much lower resolutions (60x40, sometimes
: even less). An 800x600 game requires 200 times the graphics
: display of a 60x40 game.
This is also a huge speed hit. high-res graphics will nuke any
attempt at high speed on a marginal computer.
: 3) sound/music quality. higher levels of quality for these
: chew up a lot of megabytes.
: Could civII have been made to run faster? Probably. It _could_
: have been written in assembly language by a team of a thousand
: programmers. And it might only have cost $399 in the stores!
: But that is probably the only way you might get it to run, say,
: twice as fast. Short of that, they might have managed a much
: smaller improvement by spending a few more weeks optimizing
: the code, but who outside the development team can really say?
: Oh well, just had to get that off my chest, just bothers me to
: see obviously good programmers nocked by someone who hasn't
: much experience in the field.
I'll agree with you there. Given the complexity of modern programs,
there's no way to optimize them much more short of designing better
compilers, and that's what most companies are trying to do anywya,
so complaining about it won't accomplish much.
Just me.
--
Richard Kenan
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk
Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu
Richard Mercer
In <31D96B...@ictv.com> Doug McCreary wrote:
> The total of the space for Civ II was almost 550
> > MEGS!!
>
> And you think how much of this is code? I would venture
> a guess that the code portion of civ2 is significantly less
> than 100 megs.
>
The amount of actual "code" is an infinitesimal part of what's on the CD. The
amount of code specific to Civ 2 is probably just a couple MB. It is
certainly far, far less than 100MB.
For comparision, the complete works of Shakespeare take up less than 10 MB.
--
Richard Mercer
ric...@seuss.math.wright.edu
"I meant what I said and I said what I meant,
An elephant's faithful, one hundred per cent."
Alison Scott
Doug McCreary <do...@ictv.com> wrote:
> Well, most 10k games were very simple arcade games, not
>strategy. And in my opinion there were no really interesting
>strategy games on computers before the 64k models.
I would suggest that both M.U.L.E. and Seven Cities of Gold were fine
strategy games (though admittedly would not hold up terribly well
now), and both ran on computers with less than 64k.
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk
This .sig supports Attitude for Best Fanzine Hugo.
Poltak Hotradero
In article <4rdtjd$n...@mercury.wright.edu>, ric...@seuss.math.wright.edu
says...
>
>In <31D96B...@ictv.com> Doug McCreary wrote:
>> The total of the space for Civ II was almost 550
>> > MEGS!!
>>
>> And you think how much of this is code? I would venture
>> a guess that the code portion of civ2 is significantly less
>> than 100 megs.
>>
>
>The amount of actual "code" is an infinitesimal part of what's on the CD. The
>amount of code specific to Civ 2 is probably just a couple MB. It is
>certainly far, far less than 100MB.
>For comparision, the complete works of Shakespeare take up less than 10 MB.
As far as I know, most of the space used in Civ II, is for the Music CD file,
and the film.
Test it by playing Civ II w/o the CD. It only takes about 30 Meg, and even
less without the Civclopedia (?) and the German + French edition.
BTW, the civ2.exe itself only a little more than 1.6 Mb...!
Sidath Jayawardena
Doug McCreary wrote:
> The total of the space for Civ II was almost 550
> > MEGS!!
>
> And you think how much of this is code? I would venture
> a guess that the code portion of civ2 is significantly less
> than 100 megs.
You may not believe this but 7 megs! Yes, that's right! 7! Of course,
that's minus the civilopedia and the enhanced graphics, but the game
runs fine!
Jaliya