Master of Antares is DOS-based?!? D'oh!
Drew Fudenberg
Drew FudenbergDave O'Brien wrote:
>
> Just surfed over to MicroProse to see the screenshots
> and description of Master of Antares (sequel to
> Master of Orion).
>
> I loved the new features, I loved the SVGA graphics,
> but I won't be buying this game no matter how good
> MoA turns out to be...
>
> Why? Because it's DOS-based! Arrrrrrrrgh!!
>
> How can anyone, nowadays, develop a non-arcade game
> that doesn't use Windows? I don't care how nice
> a library of DOS functions they've built up while
> developing MoO and MoM, I still think they're making
> more work for themselves by not going through the
> standard Windows API.
>
>
Actually I don't think their DOS-based code was all that great
in the first place: MoM wasnt SVGA, required
a special config with an obsolete memory manager, and ran
pretty slowly on my old 486-66 once there were lots of stacks
on the board. OTOH, DOS4GW games run much faster, and
so far every one I've tried (5 of 5) have run fine under Win'95.
email: fude...@fas.harvard.edu
http://fudenber.fas.harvard.edu
-----
Aaron Bilger
> Just surfed over to MicroProse to see the screenshots
> and description of Master of Antares (sequel to
> Master of Orion).
>
> I loved the new features, I loved the SVGA graphics,
> but I won't be buying this game no matter how good
> MoA turns out to be...
>
> Why? Because it's DOS-based! Arrrrrrrrgh!!
I know. I wish they'd make a native Linux or BSD version too. But guess
what -- DOS still has the market share. Almost every PC (especially those
on which games will be played at all) still has DOS, even if that DOS
is in the form of the OS underlying Win95, an OS/2 virtual DOS machine,
or an NT DOS box. I understand their reasoning for making it DOS based.
As long as they use a good DOS extender for 32 bit code, use SVGA, etc.
that will be happy. Such a program should run peacefully even under
OS/2, Win95, possibly NT, and DOSemu.
> How can anyone, nowadays, develop a non-arcade game
> that doesn't use Windows? I don't care how nice
> a library of DOS functions they've built up while
> developing MoO and MoM, I still think they're making
> more work for themselves by not going through the
> standard Windows API.
...or the standard X/Motif API or the standard OS/2 API, etc. Perhaps it
is more work, but now they have compatibility with any DOS variant
machine, not just those with some form of MS Windows.
Besides, when running the first buggy release of MOA under DOSemu, my system
can survive the inevitable fatal bugs that would bring Windows or Win95 to a
grinding halt. :-)
Farewell-
Aaron
Dave O'Brien
>Dave O'Brien <dob...@watcom.com> wrote:
>
>>How can anyone, nowadays, develop a non-arcade game
>>that doesn't use Windows? I don't care how nice
>>a library of DOS functions they've built up while
>>developing MoO and MoM, I still think they're making
>>more work for themselves by not going through the
>>standard Windows API.
>
>In case you hadn't noticed, some *SERIOUS* bugs have surfaced in Win95 and
>an awful lot of people are going to wait until it's stable to use it.
Granted that there are bugs in Win95. So write for Windows 3.1 instead.
The upward compatibility is good (better than the compatibility between
DOS and Win/Win95). I just hate having to reboot and reconfigure
memory and all that crap for a game that doesn't need 50 fps...
>Any firm that insists
>on using Windows is cutting itself out of a very significant share of the market.
By now, I think that the vast majority of PC users have either Windows
or Windows 95 on their machines. For non-action games, the only people left
behind are those running Windows on a 386 (well, "running" is not the right
word ;^).
Consider also that most PC users can't reconfigure memory, don't know
what IRQ to use for their sound card, etc. Windows programs are (usually)
much less of a hassle to install.
>In addition, that "standard Windoze API" you cite is useless if the video driver
>won't work with the games.
Agreed. But the same problem exists for DOS games, doesn't it? Check out
the Wing Commander 3 release notes...
>I have been specifically informed by Sierra On-Line customer support
>that *NONE* of their windoze games will work with my Diamond Stealth 24
>video card because Diamond hasn't bothered to upgrade the drivers for it
>to the latest specs. The latest drivers Diamond *does* supply destroyed
>my windows display, rendering the screen a massive color hash.
>When I attempted to contact Diamond about this, the response was a massive silence.
I've had similar problems with my Diamond card (different version), which
I eventually fixed. I think, though, that this is the exception rather
than the rule for Windows games.
--
| Dave O'Brien - Watcom International - dob...@watcom.com
+----------------------------------------------------------
| "Life is not a dream. Careful! Careful! Careful!"
| - Lorca
Dave O'Brien
>: but I won't be buying this game no matter how good
>: MoA turns out to be...
>
>: Why? Because it's DOS-based! Arrrrrrrrgh!!
>
Same Watcom, so yes, I'm shooting my company in the foot,
I suppose. Then again, we compile to Windows too, so
maybe I won't get fired... ;^)
Ted Wright
>>How can anyone, nowadays, develop a non-arcade game
>>that doesn't use Windows? I don't care how nice
>>a library of DOS functions they've built up while
>>developing MoO and MoM, I still think they're making
>>more work for themselves by not going through the
>>standard Windows API.
>Because most of the world doesn't kiss Microsoft's butt, that's why!
>In case you hadn't noticed, some *SERIOUS* bugs have surfaced in Win95 and
>an awful lot of people are going to wait until it's stable to use it.
Sure... (you're not one of those "Teamers" are you?)
>Any firm that insists on using Windows is cutting itself out of a very
>significant share of the market.
>
>In addition, that "standard Windoze API" you cite is useless if the video driver
>won't work with the games...
So, you would trust an SVGA driver written by Microprose to work
better than the Windows driver written by your card manufacturer?
Standard graphics and sound APIs are the best reason to write Windows
programs instead of DOS. Junking DOS extenders and weird memory
managers is another good reason. I think its still a little too soon to expect
a flood of Windows games, but DOS is clearly going to fade away. Master
of Antares looks good enough that I might put up with boot disks and
the like, but that should be unnecessary.
Dr. Ted Wright
NASA business: wri...@lerc.nasa.gov, remainder: wri...@en.com
(Mr) N Brodt-Savage
: Just surfed over to MicroProse to see the screenshots
: and description of Master of Antares (sequel to
: Master of Orion).
: I loved the new features, I loved the SVGA graphics,
: but I won't be buying this game no matter how good
: MoA turns out to be...
: Why? Because it's DOS-based! Arrrrrrrrgh!!
Thank bloody god, I've a 486dx266 and civ for windows runs far slower than
the dos version does on a 386dx20mhz
: How can anyone, nowadays, develop a non-arcade game
: that doesn't use Windows?
1 - 'cos their smarter
2 - dos is a hell of a lot faster compared to windows
3 - less memory needed
4 - less overall specs of machine needed
4 - windoze is the biggest load of crap ever developed for a computers
and should never be used for games
:I don't care how nice
: a library of DOS functions they've built up while
: developing MoO and MoM, I still think they're making
: more work for themselves by not going through the
: standard Windows API.
: For games that don't require high-speed graphics,
: I want a Windows interface (OK, make the buttons
: and menus look fancy if you want to) so that I
: don't have to worry about configuring graphics
: cards, sound cards, etc.
Configuring DOS isn't taht hard, just read througth the manual, don't
get fustrated and try and keep calm, windows however is a bloody nightmare
when it keeps crashing 'cos of some hardware
: I run Windows at 1280x1024, so I love games that
: let me strrrrrretch out big map windows and/or
: tile a whole bunch of status windows (see Empire
: Deluxe or Stars! for a good example). I doubt that
: will be an option in MoA. I'll just have to settle
: for 640x480 and nice CHUNKY pixels >:^(
Hey! you can have high res in dos you know, you dont have to stick to
640*480 (bloody thankful they do though)
: OK, enough whining. If MoA comes out in a Windows
: version, I'll be first in line (having played MoO
: into the ground). Otherwise, I'll stick to my
: game-buying rule for 1995:
: Only buy DOS-based games if they *really* need
: DOS speed to be playable.
: --
Hans-Thomas Goetz
|> Just surfed over to MicroProse to see the screenshots
|> and description of Master of Antares (sequel to
|> Master of Orion).
|>
|> I loved the new features, I loved the SVGA graphics,
|> but I won't be buying this game no matter how good
|> MoA turns out to be...
|>
|> Why? Because it's DOS-based! Arrrrrrrrgh!!
|>
|> a library of DOS functions they've built up while
|> developing MoO and MoM, I still think they're making
|> more work for themselves by not going through the
|> standard Windows API.
You are a crazy guy!! Windows is much too slow and needs much too much
resources for itself that you can enjoy a real game under Windos.
Pleeeeeeaaaaaassssssee let MoA be DOS-based!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems that you aren't a programer or you would know that Windows is one of
the worst peace of software ever produced!!!!!!
HTG
Drew Fudenberg
>
>They definitely ought to dump their old system that uses expanded (?) EMM386
>memory and go to a DOS extender.
>
YES!
--
Drew Fudenberg
email: fude...@fas.harvard.edu
http://fudenberg.fas.harvard.edu
David desJardins
> I don't think WinDoze programming offers anything to anyone but
> people who like WinDoze. I'm not one of them, and most of the game
> market hasn't switched yet either AFAIK.
I don't particularly like Windows 95 relative to a real windowing system
like X. However, it's clear that it makes less and less sense to
implement turn-based strategy games outside of some kind of windowing
environment. I have a 17" high-resolution monitor and it's silly to be
playing games in only 640x400 resolution just because they have to code
for a single video format. The natural way to use the additional space
is to provide for multiple, overlapping windows, of varying size, and I
can't see how it can possibly be better to implement windows yourself
instead of running in a windowing system.
David desJardins
--
Copyright 1995 David desJardins. Unlimited permission is granted to quote
from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.
Robert Dejournett
>>: I loved the new features, I loved the SVGA graphics,
>>: but I won't be buying this game no matter how good
>>: MoA turns out to be...
>>
>>: Why? Because it's DOS-based! Arrrrrrrrgh!!
>>
>
>Same Watcom, so yes, I'm shooting my company in the foot,
>I suppose. Then again, we compile to Windows too, so
>maybe I won't get fired... ;^)
>
P-133 SMP with 64 megs RAM and 1 gig SCSI 3 HD? Please consider the rest
of the world that is forced to use Windows in a 'typical' hardware setting,
like my P-66 w/ 8 megs RAM and ET4000W32p PCI. Windows simply isn't the
platform for games like this. This will very soon develope into a nasty
advocacy thread, so let me point out that the GUI overhead and the general
poor reliability of Windows (any version) makes games (really any game,
flight sim, arcade, strategy) difficult to run. 1) Windows crashes running
such games (ie Power for Windows, Loderunner, Windoom). 2) The game is
slow, very slow (ie VGA Planets for Win 3.5, Space Empires II, Stars!)
3) the CAE for Windows just isn't practicle for games. You don't really
need OLE or anything of the sort. You do need RAM and CPU power, and
unrestricted access to the hardware, all of which DOS gives you, and
a huge marketshare, which DOS gives you.
When a real game for windows comes out that isn't very slow and very
unstable and I can actually have fun playing, I'll stop bitching. But
until then...make mine DOS!
-Rob
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Robert Dejournett her...@rtd.com http://www.rtd.com/~hermes
"For the greatest good, for the largest number, for the longest time" G Pichot
Brian Hassink
[complaints about game DOS-based deleted]
I'll only buy a game if it _is_ DOS based. Windows will only bog the
game down, and '95 will as well. Just about everything I've tried to
run under '95 has mangled music, and gets jerky if I've got anything
else running (this is a P5-100 box w/ 16M). So, why bother to multi-
task if it's going to hamper gameplay. DOS will do thank-you.
--
.----------. | brian....@nt.com || has...@mp.canuck.com
/ .-. .-. \ |
/ | | | | \ | Any opinions expressed here are not necessarily those
\ `-' `-' _/ | of Northern Telecom or Bell Northern Research.
/\ .--. / | |
\ | / / / / | "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
/ | `--' /\ \ | -D. Quayle
/`-------' \ \ |
Aaron Bilger
C. Engelmann <en...@yacc.central.de> wrote:
>Aaron Bilger (bilg...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>
>: Besides, when running the first buggy release of MOA under DOSemu, my system
>: can survive the inevitable fatal bugs that would bring Windows or Win95 to a
>: grinding halt. :-)
>
>DOSemu comes from. XCOM was able to crash DOSemu including the
>entire Linux (v. 1.2.5 and v. 0.60.4).
>MOO was playable, though.
Damn... I was not aware of that (I tried XCOM and didn't encounter any
crashing problems even under DOS; didn't care at all for crap like the 80
item limits, etc., though). Do you have any idea what caused the crash?
Any idea if later Kernel or DOSEMU versions handle it the same, worse, or
better? Thanks for any more info on it.
Farewell-
Aaron
KRF9...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
go...@i32fs3.ira.uka.de (Hans-Thomas Goetz) writes:
>You are a crazy guy!! Windows is much too slow and needs much too much
>resources for itself that you can enjoy a real game under Windos.
>
>Pleeeeeeaaaaaassssssee let MoA be DOS-based!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>It seems that you aren't a programer or you would know that Windows is one of
>the worst peace of software ever produced!!!!!!
(and even if they did, most strategy games are not so hungry for
processor time that running under Windows 3.x will make them
unplayable).
All OS/2-Win95 arguments aside, I do not think that anyone will
argue that Win95 is not a better programming environment than
regular DOS. The SDK and the benefits of such goodies as DirectDraw
makes Win95 games easier to program and run than DOS games.
The argument is mostly moot, in any case. I am sure that MOA will
support *both* DOS and Win95, like most other software currently
in developement.
Regards,
Benjamin E. Sones
krf9...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
David Peterschmidt
>Dave O'Brien (dob...@watcom.com) wrote:
>
>I'll only buy a game if it _is_ DOS based. Windows will only bog the
>game down, and '95 will as well. Just about everything I've tried to
>run under '95 has mangled music, and gets jerky if I've got anything
>else running (this is a P5-100 box w/ 16M). So, why bother to multi-
>task if it's going to hamper gameplay. DOS will do thank-you.
You people just don't see the better way, yet, do you? Think a
minute. Under 95, it IS the DOS-based games that get jerky and have
mangled music, if you have the settings messed up. The written-for-95
games play beautifully, and have every bit as much speed as DOS games.
Not to mention all the advantages writing for 95 allows programmers.
Wake up, folks. The old ways, they are a-changin'.
-Dave
Robear
>Dave O'Brien (dob...@watcom.com) wrote:
>
>
>game down, and '95 will as well. Just about everything I've tried to
>run under '95 has mangled music, and gets jerky if I've got anything
>else running (this is a P5-100 box w/ 16M). So, why bother to multi-
>task if it's going to hamper gameplay. DOS will do thank-you.
>
I've got a P100, 16 MB when I put W95 on it, and everything runs smooth
with clear sound under W95. Nothing is bogged down. Either your system
is misconfigured, or you have some hardware that is slowing you down.
From what I've seen, the great weakness of W95 is that it is harder to
tweak than it seems; a lot of folks report the problems you've seen in
the w95.setup group, only to find easy ways to get rid of them. Try there.
David Pipes
Aaron Bilger
David Peterschmidt <d...@cray.com> wrote:
>In article q...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca, hass...@bnr.ca (Brian Hassink) writes:
>>I'll only buy a game if it _is_ DOS based. Windows will only bog the
>>game down, and '95 will as well. Just about everything I've tried to
>>run under '95 has mangled music, and gets jerky if I've got anything
>>else running (this is a P5-100 box w/ 16M). So, why bother to multi-
>>task if it's going to hamper gameplay. DOS will do thank-you.
>
>minute. Under 95, it IS the DOS-based games that get jerky and have
>mangled music, if you have the settings messed up. The written-for-95
>games play beautifully, and have every bit as much speed as DOS games.
>Not to mention all the advantages writing for 95 allows programmers.
>Wake up, folks. The old ways, they are a-changin'.
So since Win95 is relatively incompetent at running native DOS apps, we
need native Win95 apps? I understand now.
Farewell-
Aaron
Jason Townsend
>: and description of Master of Antares (sequel to
>: Master of Orion).
>
>: but I won't be buying this game no matter how good
>: MoA turns out to be...
>
>: Why? Because it's DOS-based! Arrrrrrrrgh!!
games which require speed? What if we don't have enough power to run
bill's system hogging waste of resources? Give me a nice game with a nice
extender for dos ANYDAY over some pastel-colored-windowed-ROW-imitating-
game ANYDAY!! Hooray, MPS!!
-
Jason
Ben Violette
a post about someone having a problem with a DOS made game running in Win95,
because everyone's trying it. If you ask me Win95 is for DOS-Wussies who are
too afraid of being confused when they see "c:\" on their screen. They
probably couldn't make a boot disk if they're life depended on it. I don't
know why they don't just go out and buy a nintendo if that's what they want
out of their machine.
Brian Rosenboom
>Why, why in the world would you _want_ to run stuff under windows???
>
>: Only buy DOS-based games if they *really* need
>: DOS speed to be playable.
>
>Again, why run it under windows when you don't have too?
I really, really don't understand this. W95 has run all my DOS games with (I'm
sure its there but I can't see it) no slow down at all. Plus you can multi
task, meaning that the dos program suspends while you do something else, and to
top it all off, if you happen to like one of these buggy games that crashes all
the time without warning, just close it and restart it under windows instead of
rebooting! No more boot disks. No more tweeking to get more conv. mem. (I
have 604k under w95) I used to dispise windows, using it only for word and
excel, but now I do everything in it.
--
Brian Rosenboom | ////// | Proud alumni and
Project Engineer | // // | rabid fan of
RMT, Inc. | //////// ///////////// | Iowa State University
Sheldon, IA | // \\ // // | Go ISU Cyclones!!
| /\\ \\// /// // |
brosenboom@ | // // \\ //// // | Troy Davis:
netins.net | // // \\// // // | 1324 yds. rushing
| ////////////////////////////// | and counting!!
Nail Rizvanov
: In article <4667c4$q...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>, Brian Hassink <hass...@bnr.ca> wrote:
: >Dave O'Brien (dob...@watcom.com) wrote:
: >
: >[complaints about game DOS-based deleted]
: >
: >I'll only buy a game if it _is_ DOS based. Windows will only bog the
: >game down, and '95 will as well. Just about everything I've tried to
: >run under '95 has mangled music, and gets jerky if I've got anything
: >else running (this is a P5-100 box w/ 16M). So, why bother to multi-
: >task if it's going to hamper gameplay. DOS will do thank-you.
: > .----------. | brian....@nt.com || has...@mp.canuck.com
: I've got a P100, 16 MB when I put W95 on it, and everything runs smooth
^^^^^^^^^^^
Almost anything would run smoothly on that? Was there 1gig scsi HD too?
: with clear sound under W95. Nothing is bogged down. Either your system
: is misconfigured, or you have some hardware that is slowing you down.
Yep my system is _horribly_ misconfigured and i have got some hardware
that slows it down. It's called not being a millionere. I have a 486/100
with 12 ram and 250meg ide HD.. Yep i deffinetly have some hardware
slowing me down, like not having $3k to spend on a pc.
: From what I've seen, the great weakness of W95 is that it is harder to
: tweak than it seems; a lot of folks report the problems you've seen in
: the w95.setup group, only to find easy ways to get rid of them. Try there.
Or maybe cause it needs your system+ to run smoothly?
- /\/\aX -
: David Pipes
Charles Davis
the C:\ prompt is the greatest thing ever, dealing with multiple boot disks
is just wonderful, dealing with an OS that is still closely tied to its
1981 roots is just beautiful. god i love Dos and the 640K limit.
the reason people are turning to win 95 is that it allows them to
catch up to 90's, Its support for games is built in. Of course some people
have problems but most of those problems are due to MS's lack of a
worthwhile manual with win 95, the simple act of cleaning out legacy (16
bit) drivers from your Autoexec/config files and running memmaker from the
dos prompt should give people 604-611k free in dos sessions from the win 95
desktop most games run fine after this has been done with win 95 providing
the cdrom/sound/mouse support. And for the very few games that will not
run that way you can set it up to go back to boot msdos virtually the same
as loading a bootdisk. It does sound more like your the one that has the
need to go out and buy the nintendo since you prefer to stay with Dos which
is like playing on a Mattel intelivision and has about as much future.
--
Charles Davis
David Peterschmidt
>d...@cray.com (David Peterschmidt) writes:
>
>>You people just don't see the better way, yet, do you?
>
What is it you see? I see multithreading, linear memory addressing, a
bunch of developer API's, etc...
>
>>Think a minute. Under 95, it IS the DOS-based games that get jerky and have
>>mangled music, if you have the settings messed up. The written-for-95
>>games play beautifully, and have every bit as much speed as DOS games.
>
> Well, hey, that's great. After we've all got Win95 and its
>associated CD-ROM and mongo megabytes of RAM that'll be really relevent.
Okey-dokey. You stay with your 386 and 4 megs of RAM using DOS while
the rest of the world moves on to bigger and better things.
>
> Right, like a moving target environment and that warm fuzzy feeling that
>only comes from the knowledge that what we do enriches Bill Gates...
Why don't you people just forget about whether or not Bill Gates is
lining his pockets? What's it to you, anyway? You have a personal
vendetta against him or something? The fact is that Windows is the
closest thing there is to a defacto standard in today's desktop world.
DOS is going to go away. You are going to have to choose a new OS at
some point. Those are the facts. Personally, I'd rather be compatible
with 99% of the software being produced than not. It's a productivity
thing. Kinda peculiar, isn't it? I'd rather be able to enjoy the
fruits of all software that will be available for 95 than run some
other OS where I could do little else than run a limited supply of
native software or else use the computer as an ugly-looking plant
stand...
>
>>Wake up, folks. The old ways, they are a-changin'.
>
> "For a recorded cassette of this broadcast send $5 to Microsoft Marketing
>Division, Redmond WA..."
Yeah, right. *SOMEONE* has got to write the OS that we're going to use
after DOS. Looks like Microsoft is the one to me. OS/2 (which I have, by
the way) is not going to be a significant factor, it appears. Let's call
a spade a spade and get on with the brave new world. If you want to stay
behind and dabble in DOS for the next thirty years, be my guest. No skin
off my nose.
-Dave
David Peterschmidt
>In article <1995Oct20.1...@ned.cray.com>,
>David Peterschmidt <d...@cray.com> wrote:
>>minute. Under 95, it IS the DOS-based games that get jerky and have
>>mangled music, if you have the settings messed up. The written-for-95
>>games play beautifully, and have every bit as much speed as DOS games.
>
>need native Win95 apps? I understand now.
See the "if you have the settings messed up" line in my above post.
I personally can run all my DOS apps just fine under 95, albeit with
some tweaking. I would say 95 is far from incompetent at running
native DOS apps. However, if you fail to tweak properly, yeah, you can
have an app that doesn't run well. In any case, native 95 apps would
assuredly be better than running DOS apps.
-Dave
David Peterschmidt
>Or maybe some people want to use a decent word processor, a normal
>spreadsheet and more than one font? I don't hate win 95 cause it's not
>dos, i hate it cause it's microsoft and cause it's too damn big and
>system draining and ms STILL don't care.
Microsoft still doesn't care? About what? About you? What do you
want them to do, hold your hand? Last time I checked hard drive space
was dirt cheap and processor speed is getting faster all the time. If
you don't have the space or speed to run Win95 or OS/2, don't whine
about it, just upgrade.
-Dave
Jim Sun
|> In article 3088...@psythird.psych.indiana.edu, na...@psythird.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
|> >d...@cray.com (David Peterschmidt) writes:
|> >
|> >
|>
|> What is it you see? I see multithreading, linear memory addressing, a
|> bunch of developer API's, etc...
|>
Is this the same Win95 that I'm aware of? FYI, much of the core modules
of Win95 (inluding practically all the GUI display stuff) are serialized
16 bit codes.
|> Okey-dokey. You stay with your 386 and 4 megs of RAM using DOS while
|> the rest of the world moves on to bigger and better things.
Au contrary, my system has 48 megs of RAM, probably several times more than
most systems running Win95. If you have the memory and processing power,
try linux, OS/2 or at least WinNT; if you don't, stick with DOS.
Win95 is really good for nobody except for vendors interested in selling
a re-packaged ancient OS.
Jim
Chris Byler
: In article <46g9g3$9...@rdsunx.crd.ge.com>, pow...@crd.ge.com says...
: >1st. The slowdown is there.... and for anybody who doesn't read
: > books, watch tv, make dinner while using Win95, it is
: > noticeable.
: Barely noticeable, but not enough for me to care. What do you expect from a
: program emulating dos? I was pretty damn amazed that it didn't slow to a
: crawl like win3.11 did.
Must be the P5/133..
: Well, I agree. Dos DOES run dos stuff better than win95. BUT, I am willing
: to overlook the small difference because of what else win95 offers.
So basically, you can run DOS games with no problems, but you are not going to
buy MoA because it is a DOS game. Am I missing something here? I, on the other
hand, will not buy and Win 95 game, because I cannot run any Win 95 game,
because I do not own Win 95. That logic is much more understandable, to me.
Chris
: --
: Brian Rosenboom | ////// | Proud alumni and
[.sig munched]
Hank Lee
>I'll only buy a game if it _is_ DOS based. Windows will only bog the
>game down, and '95 will as well. Just about everything I've tried to
Correction, Windows (3.1 or 95) will slow down the game play for DOS based
games. If you have Windows 95, you should try Pitfall for Win95. It works
like magic under the correct OS.
>run under '95 has mangled music, and gets jerky if I've got anything
>else running (this is a P5-100 box w/ 16M). So, why bother to multi-
>task if it's going to hamper gameplay. DOS will do thank-you.
Then perhaps it could be your CD-ROM drive. If it's anything less than a quad
(these days), sounds do tend to get mangled.
Robear
Jeff Powell <pow...@crd.ge.com> wrote:
>Brian Rosenboom (brose...@netins.net) wrote:
>
>: I really, really don't understand this. W95 has run all my DOS games with (I'm
>: task, meaning that the dos program suspends while you do something else, and to
>: top it all off, if you happen to like one of these buggy games that crashes all
>: the time without warning, just close it and restart it under windows instead of
>: rebooting! No more boot disks. No more tweeking to get more conv. mem. (I
>: have 604k under w95) I used to dispise windows, using it only for word and
>: excel, but now I do everything in it.
>
>
> books, watch tv, make dinner while using Win95, it is
> noticeable.
Not on a P100. And games which use SVGA or cdrom access for
things like video run faster than under DOS or Windows 3.1.
>2nd. If the dos program suspends, then your pc isn't multitasking.
Straw man. Some DOS programs demand access to everything. These *cannot*
multitask, under any circumstances. W95 allows you to be compatible with
these, and tells you clearly that you can't multitask while running them.
This is a compatibility feature, not a problem. If it were not there, many
older DOS programs would not run under W95.
>3rd. Multiple configurations...... I have 2 dos configurations, 1
> with EMS, 1 with XMS. I have successfully run every game
> I've bought with one or the other. Don't tell me you don't
> have to tweek the dos settings for dos games in windows, if
> that were the case, nobody would be requesting said settings
> on these groups.......
I run DOS games which need these settings with *one* configuration.
I cut and paste 4 lines to put it in. Can you create 2 DOS configurations
by using the shipped, default startup files for one, and pasting 4 more
lines for another? Hey, that is one hell of a lot less tweaking than I
had to do under DOS.
But you are right, it *is* tweaking. Just less of it.
>4th. Windows is good for windows applications. For word processing,
> spread sheet, desktop pub, it really can't be beat [uh oh, now
> I'm gonna get flamed by System 7 addicts], but for dos games
> it aint gonna beat good-old dos.
No, (except with the SVGA/cdrom access stuff) but it can certainly
*equal* DOS, which is all that is really required. My W95 system
does that, so I am happy.
David Pipes
Carl Burke
> And in case you weren't aware, most Win3.1 stuff requires as much or more
> configuration than DOS stuff. The multiple configs in DOS files come from
> 640k-limit requirements and memory manager incompatability, which
> protected-mode games (XMS using 32 bit) never seem to have.
Which protected mode games are those? It seems like most games
I've tried within the past year or two have had MAJOR problems
running on my machine. Colonization corrupts its own INSTALL.EXE
(no, I don't have a virus), DOOM flat out won't run; the only
"protected mode" game that seems to run fine is Ascendency
(once I gave it enough expanded memory, since it didn't recognize
extended memory properly). Windows games, on the other hand,
always run. They may be slow, they may occasionally crash (but
never as often as MoM), but they run.
That's what I care about. Games I can play. If I want something
that'll test my reaction time, I can always buy a console.
Spectrum HoloByte-MicroProse On-Line Services
dtr...@crl.com (James Gassaway) wrote:
>I'm glad games are DOS, not Windows (any version). GUIs in general
>require and hog too much hardware. Plus Windows is overpriced <insert
>various anti-Windows rants/arguments> and I really don't think it was
>intended for the home market. It was aimed at the office-PC market.
Actually, if you believe Microsoft's marketing strategy, NT is aimed at the
office market, and Windows 95 is aimed at the home market.
Regards,
Tim
Spectrum HoloByte-MicroProse On-Line Services
http://www.holobyte.com
http://www.microprose.com
sup...@microprose.com
Spectrum HoloByte-MicroProse On-Line Services
>I'll only buy a game if it _is_ DOS based. Windows will only bog the
>game down, and '95 will as well. Just about everything I've tried to
>run under '95 has mangled music, and gets jerky if I've got anything
>else running (this is a P5-100 box w/ 16M). So, why bother to multi-
>task if it's going to hamper gameplay. DOS will do thank-you.
Brian,
I think you will be hard pressed to find games in the next calendar year,
then. Yes, DOS games are a dog under Win95, but Win95 also offers game
developers some new tools which are real cool. At a MS conference this
summer, I saw 70fps using Sprites, and I have heard our guys talking about
the GAMES SDK and remarking how well it interfaces with the hardware.
Tyler Novak
>are technically superior to Win95 now. But those platforms will almost
>certainly suffer the same fate as the Amiga.
Huh? Have you ever been to a University CS lab. Here at the University
of Wisconsin- Madison. Everything above entry level is Unix based. All
of the Engineering acounts and labs are UNIX based. I also work for the
Department of Information Technology here at the Univeristy doing data
proccessing on the mainframe. What are they planning to do in the near
future. Change over to UNIX boxes for data proccessing. UNIX/ULTRIX/LINUX
and such are here to stay for a long while.
Why? One reason is that they are 32 OSs. Win95 is NOT. They left in too
much 16 bit code to make it backward compatible. Also with the new Pentium
Pros coming out you will need a 32 bit OS to gain any speed increase.
Different OSs are good for different things. I have a DOS and a LINUX
partition on my Machine at home. What do I use the DOS partition for?
Games. That's it. No more. What do I use the LINUX partition for?
_Everything_ else. Now that I have X running I have everything that I
needed Windows for (Doing more than one thing at once) Plus I get the
added bonus of being able to network which I didn't with Windows.
Why are things moving to Win95? Because that's what everyone has.
Therefore if you want to sell something you write it for the platform
everyone has. I feel that most computer users don't need the power systems
they have. Hell, I'm an Electrical Engineer major and I don't use my Pent
to its full potential, but I'm getting closer now that I have LINUX and X
fully running.
Well, I'm seeming to ramble but hopefully you got what I was trynig to say.
UNIX is not out.
>
>Learnt my lesson well, I did. This war is not about technical
>superiority. That's what all the Microsoft bashers can't seem to
>comprehend. Not that I have any love for Microsoft, but to buck
>against their momentum now is like trying to hold back the tide with a
>rubber drain stopper. No, this war is not about technical superiority,
>it's about market acceptance. Win95 is indeed a technical advancement
>over DOS and Win3.1. But the only important thing is that it has the
>backing of the great majority of the PC industry.
>
>-Dave
>
--
--Tyler Novak
--ha...@picard.cs.wisc.edu
--http://yar.cs.wisc.edu/~harl
Ted Wright
>>Standard graphics and sound APIs are the best reason to write Windows
>>programs instead of DOS. Junking DOS extenders and weird memory
>>managers is another good reason. I think its still a little too soon to expect
>>a flood of Windows games, but DOS is clearly going to fade away. Master
>>of Antares looks good enough that I might put up with boot disks and
>>the like, but that should be unnecessary.
>...
>Standard graphics routines are not what games are made of. Each game
>is unique its modes of graphical animation, refreshing, etc. It's what
>makes a game unique.
I disagree. Who cares if a game has a "unique mode of graphical animation".
How does that help gameplay? Besides, I write software, and there just aren't
that many "unique modes of graphical animation". How often does something
ground-breaking like DOOM come along?
>Memory managers...Have you heard of LIM EMS? Have you heard of DOS4GW? These
>seem to be more or less standard nowadays...
You've never had a problem configuring your memory for a problematic game?
You've never had to create a boot disk? Have you ever tried to write a program
that uses EMS memory? DOS extenders were invented because EMS (and the
whole 16 bit Intel/DOS segmented architecture) is a pain.
>Look, the facts to me are very plain and straighforward: Windows games are
>pathetic. They are buggy, they crash often and with an attitude, the
>graphics are garbage, the animation is weak, the sound is garbage.
Have you ever heard a GUS sound card? Everything sounds and works great,
as long as its a Windows program. Configuring it for DOS games is painfull at
best, and often impossible. This is because there is no standard for writing
software to talk to a sound card. Windows is the closest thing to a standard.
>Look at...well any real game for windows, Ie Sim City 2K for Win, Sim Tower,
>VGA Planets , Star Empires II, the various 'arcade' packs released by Atari
>and Microsoft, WinDoom...All these have one thing in common: They love to
>crash, on any platform, from Win 3.1 to Win95, any number of sound cards,
>any memory configuration, any video card. Oh of course the MPC type games,
>like MYST, Journeyman project, KQ6...Pain in the butt to get running, and
>once you get them running they are problematic.
And DOS games never crash, and DOS games never have bugs, and there
are no bad DOS games .... right.
>Okay, I admit, the various pinball clones and solitaire do run fine. There
>you go, there are you windows games. But would you like Steel Panzers for
>Windows?
Steel Panthers for Windows would be great. Strategic games in general are
ideal for Windows. Most of them end up writing something similar (but much
more limited) anyway. Harpoon for Windows is much better than DOS Harpoon.
DOS Harpoon always had bugs in its EMS memory routines and crashed when
the action heated up.
DOS Harpoon runs in EGA resolution. Windows Harpoon runs at 1152 by 864
resolution on my computer, and the programmers did not have to take any
special steps to handle better than "super-VGA" resolutions. You've never had
a problem with a game's faulty VESA driver?
>Or Command & Conquer? Or WC3? Or Commanche 2? Or Empire2? or
>Fade to Black? High tech games...And they aren't running on Windows.
But they could, and then we wouldn't have to worry about whether they support
our sound card or our video board, and we wouldn't have games that only run
at 320 by 240 resolution on 17" monitors. Look around - there are advantages
to Windows games, and many are on their way. Turn based strategic games
(like Master of Antares) are ideal candidates. If the Direct Draw API works as
advertised, you will even get your games with "unique modes of graphical
animation" under Windows. High tech games like Falcon 4 are coming to Windows.
I'm looking forward to them.
Ted
Dr. Ted Wright
NASA business: wri...@lerc.nasa.gov, remainder: wri...@en.com
aLEX
>From: bilg...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Aaron Bilger)
>Subject: Re: Master of Antares is DOS-based?!? D'o
>Date: 21 Oct 1995 01:26:03 -0500
>In article <1995Oct20.1...@ned.cray.com>,
>David Peterschmidt <d...@cray.com> wrote:
>>In article q...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca, hass...@bnr.ca (Brian Hassink) writes:
>>>Dave O'Brien (dob...@watcom.com) wrote:
>>>I'll only buy a game if it _is_ DOS based. Windows will only bog the
>>>game down, and '95 will as well. Just about everything I've tried to
>>>run under '95 has mangled music, and gets jerky if I've got anything
>>>else running (this is a P5-100 box w/ 16M). So, why bother to multi-
>>>task if it's going to hamper gameplay. DOS will do thank-you.
>>
>>You people just don't see the better way, yet, do you? Think a
>>minute. Under 95, it IS the DOS-based games that get jerky and have
>>mangled music, if you have the settings messed up. The written-for-95
>>games play beautifully, and have every bit as much speed as DOS games.
>>Not to mention all the advantages writing for 95 allows programmers.
>>Wake up, folks. The old ways, they are a-changin'.
Come on, just because you installed that leech on your computer don't force
the rest of us to. Since we both can play a DOS based games why do you care?
I understand that the DOS based games don't run as well as they do in DOS but
what did you expect? I'm sure that the game companies realize that Win95 is
NOT the savior everyone thought it would be. From what I have seen it causes
WAY more problems that it solves so why should we switch? Pretty pictures?
No thank you. Any Win 95 only games will be selling at least one less copy.
Brian Rosenboom
>Must be the P5/133..
actually its a p5/90 :)
>So basically, you can run DOS games with no problems, but you are not going to
>buy MoA because it is a DOS game. Am I missing something here? I, on the other
>hand, will not buy and Win 95 game, because I cannot run any Win 95 game,
>because I do not own Win 95. That logic is much more understandable, to me.
Wrong poster. I NEVER said that I would not buy MoA b/c it was DOS based that
was someone else (who must be insane not to get MoA :-) ). I am merely someone
ranting about the how well win95 runs DOS software, which seems to me a realy
good reason to buy MoA if it is DOS or win95 based.
--
Brian Rosenboom | ////// | Proud alumni and
Douglas Jacobs
: In article <46g9g3$9...@rdsunx.crd.ge.com>,
: Jeff Powell <pow...@crd.ge.com> wrote:
: >2nd. If the dos program suspends, then your pc isn't multitasking.
: Straw man. Some DOS programs demand access to everything. These *cannot*
: multitask, under any circumstances. W95 allows you to be compatible with
: these, and tells you clearly that you can't multitask while running them.
: This is a compatibility feature, not a problem. If it were not there, many
: older DOS programs would not run under W95.
Er, you can multitask these greedy DOS games by running them in a
virutal DOS machine (VDM), which is how OS/2 treats DOS programs. When
you run the DOS game, it will think its running on a purely DOS system,
meanwhile, OS/2 is busy swapping it, and the other processes you have
running, in and out of the CPU. Granted, this might cause some slow downs,
but when are you going to do something like run 3 or 4 concurrent copies
of DOOM? :)
Surc...@compuserve.com
> aLEX
> cer...@omni.voicenet.com
So quoth the blacksmith to Henry Ford. Own a car yet?
--Surcease
Timothy Barr
>With respect, Tim, but what's the point of 70-fps sprites when the human eye
>maxes out somewhere around 25 fps (or somewhere near that)?
>
It is a part of the 'Gee-Wiz' factor of computers. Gee-Wiz, this computer
program can do 70 fps and this program can only do 40 fps. So the higher fps
program MUST be cooler!<grin>
Robear
>With respect, Tim, but what's the point of 70-fps sprites when the human eye
>maxes out somewhere around 25 fps (or somewhere near that)?
33 point something, I think. Seems to me that going higher will reduce the
possibility of flicker due to the monitor refresh or possibly the
frequency of a florescent light.
>But I agree with you; relegating the difficulties with hardware
>compatibility, memory management, etc. to the operating system and increasing
>productivity with SDK tools are, I imagine, very attractive to developers.
>
>Still--and, yeah, I feel pathetically ineffective saying this, but--I can't
>give SH any business on any of their Windows products. I've got a great
>system running the `Rodney Dangerfield' of operating systems, and I can't
>justify what is essentially a downgrade just to run game software.
I don't understand how my performance and reliability *improves* with W95,
when yours declines, but there it is.
>Here's wishing for poor sales to make the powers-that-be at SH reassess their
>Win95 position...
Doesn't look likely from recent reports. Early this week some of the outside
analysts revised their estimates of sales to around 8 million by the end of
the year. These folks had estimated around what, 3 million or so before?
>
> Noel Ang | Alhambra, CA USA | nd...@primenet.com
David Pipes
Noel Ang
buying. Windows 3.1 was one big memory leak and look how popular that was
(and is).
In message <46mrvg$u...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> - sk...@ix.netcom.com (Ervin
Thompson) writes:
>
> >
> I guess the market place will have the last word in that, huh? And
> guess who that is? Why, it is Joe Blow deciding what to spend his hard
> earned dollars on. It won't be software writers telling ol
> bottom-of-the-food-chain Joe; that "what is good for them, is good for
> him".
Noel Ang | Alhambra, CA USA | nd...@primenet.com
"Water is composed of two gins, Oxygin and Hydrogin.
Oxygin is pure gin. Hydrogin is gin and water."
Unknown
dec...@ucla.edu
>With respect, Tim, but what's the point of 70-fps sprites when the human eye
>maxes out somewhere around 25 fps (or somewhere near that)?
Actually, the human eye never really "maxes out". We need 12 fps
minimum to see motion, but anything higher gets better and better.
For instance, why do we insist on buying 72 hz monitors instead of 60?
The extra twelve is relief to our eyes when sitting down working &
playing for hours at a time.
------------------------
"More human than human is our motto..."
Mr SJ Lamble
: rob...@access5.digex.net (Robear) writes:
: >
: > >But I agree with you; relegating the difficulties with hardware
: > >and increasing productivity with SDK tools are, I imagine, very
: > >attractive to developers.
: > I don't understand how my performance and reliability *improves*
: > with W95, when yours declines, but there it is.
: Productivity from a developer's standpoint. A DOS programmer would
: have to create and debug a lot more code than a programmer who's
: using APIs. Compatibility problems are reduced -- theoretically, if
: your program behaves itself and sticks to documented API usage. The
: OS handles the UI, the video, the sound, the memory management.
But all too often, OS memory management leaves a great deal to be desired.
At the risk of turning this thread into Yet Another OS Flamewar(tm), I
have to say: Windoze's memory management is less than brilliant. The so-
called multitasking isn't. Case in point: Open up an AVI file. Load up a
DOS box. Whilst in the DOS box, hold down any one of these keys: CTRL,
ALT, SHIFT, or CAPS LOCK. Watch what happens to the AVI. Impressive, isn't
it? And they call it multitasking. Pah!
(For those fortunate enough to not be running Windoze '95, what happens is
the AVI file slows down to virtually a complete halt.)
DOS *does* provide a certain amount of uniformity - look at VESA as a case
in point. Most video cards support it to some degree or other...
: It's got nothing to do specifically with W95. You'd benefit from the same
: thing in an OS/2 PM envrionment.
Agreed. From a technical point of view, OS/2 is far, far better than W95...
but if you're going to start comparing operating systems, don't forget that
masterpiece, Linux... :-)
[snip!]
: it? Sure, I can. But what disturbs me is how much of the PC gaming
: industry is _ignoring_ OS/2 users. It's amazing really, though I
: suppose you'd have to be following OS/2 for some time to realize it,
: but... three *years*, and not a *single* OS/2 game from `mainstream'
: publishers. Then comes W95--two months later, press releases aplenty
: for W95-specific products.
[snip!]
It's called marketing. Micro$oft had plenty of dosh to set aside for pushing
W95 as the greatest thing since sliced bread - IMO, that title really should
go to Linux, but anyway. *grin* IBM, on the other hand, didn't do anywhere
near the quantity of marketing that Micro$oft has... as a result, if you say
"OS/2" to a newbie computer user, you'll get a blank look, and they'll say:
"Huh? What the **** is that?"
There are also other factors that need to be considered. If I wanted to
produce a technical masterpiece, I'd use Linux as my base platform. If I
wanted to sell as many copies as I could, I'd use either DOS, Windoze, or
Windoze '95. The fact is: more people are using W95, unfortunately, so
that is where software companies are going. Thus, more people buy W95,
more products come out...it's a vicious circle, with Bill Gates the winner.
This is starting to turn into yet another one of those operating system
advocacy threads...maybe I should redirect followups to those groups. :-)
--
+-------------------------------+ _--_|\ +-----------------------------+
| Stuart Lamble: 2nd yr Sci/Eng | / \ | Monash University, Clayton, |
| lam...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | \_,--.*/ | Melbourne, Australia |
+-------------------------------+ v +-----------------------------+
Robert K. Gresham
writes:
>pow...@crd.ge.com (Jeff Powell) wrote:
>
>>Brian Rosenboom (brose...@netins.net) wrote:
>
>>: I really, really don't understand this. W95 has run all my DOS
games with (I'm
>>: sure its there but I can't see it) no slow down at all. Plus you
can multi
>>: task, meaning that the dos program suspends while you do something
else, and to
>>: top it all off, if you happen to like one of these buggy games that
crashes all
>>: the time without warning, just close it and restart it under
windows instead of
>>: rebooting! No more boot disks. No more tweeking to get more conv.
mem. (I
>>: have 604k under w95) I used to dispise windows, using it only for
word and
>>: excel, but now I do everything in it.
>
>
>>1st. The slowdown is there.... and for anybody who doesn't read
>> books, watch tv, make dinner while using Win95, it is
>> noticeable.
>
>_faster_ under win95, due to improved memory management and whatnot.
Of
>course it's not a heck of a lot faster, but that little increase is
there.
>
>>3rd. Multiple configurations...... I have 2 dos configurations, 1
>> with EMS, 1 with XMS. I have successfully run every game
>> I've bought with one or the other. Don't tell me you don't
>> have to tweek the dos settings for dos games in windows, if
>> that were the case, nobody would be requesting said settings
>> on these groups.......
>
seem
>to report need for tweaking (This from GEnie games RT, where I can
keep
>much better track of numbers than Usenet).
>
>>4th. Windows is good for windows applications. For word processing,
>> spread sheet, desktop pub, it really can't be beat [uh oh, now
>> I'm gonna get flamed by System 7 addicts], but for dos games
>> it aint gonna beat good-old dos.
>
DOS,
>actually. It's just that they aren't out yet- so far Win95 is just
used to
>play old DOS software.
>
>
I may have something to add here. Just last weekend, I installed CIV,
XCOM, XCOM2, MOO, MOM, Machiavelli, DUNE2, Hammer of the Gods, HOMM,
Populous2, all the D&D gold box games, Darksun, Wake of Ravager, Dark
Legions, Stronghold, Dungeon Hack, Fantasy Empires, and MANY others.
The only problem I've had is every now and then after I save in MOM, I
get a message that I can't run it outside of full screen mode. This has
happened three times during dozens of game hours. All these games run
as fast or faster under Windows 95. Some, like Machiavelli, switch to
DOS mode. I have icons set up for each game. Am VERY pleased with
Windows 95 so far, because no one can tell me they can have one or two
configurations that would run all of these games. I know better.
Marcus Spears
: I may have something to add here. Just last weekend, I installed CIV,
: XCOM, XCOM2, MOO, MOM, Machiavelli, DUNE2, Hammer of the Gods, HOMM,
: Populous2, all the D&D gold box games, Darksun, Wake of Ravager, Dark
: Legions, Stronghold, Dungeon Hack, Fantasy Empires, and MANY others.
[snip]
: Am VERY pleased with Windows 95 so far, because no one can tell me they
: can have one or two configurations that would run all of these games.
: I know better.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, you don't! I have *ONE* configuration that would run *ALL* of
those games. I use QEMM, so I don't have to worry about whether or not
the game needs XMS or EMS. Even with all my drivers, I get 623k free,
which is more than enough for any game, even the real memory hogs like
Master of Magic. The result: ONE configuration runs EVERYTHING.
--
Marcus Spears Phone: (903) 886-5149
Data Processing Services Fax: (903) 886-5415
East Texas State University E-Mail: MSP...@ETSUADMN.ETSU.EDU
Commerce, Texas 75429 or: MSP...@ORION.ETSU.EDU
Wilbur S. Peng
Mr SJ Lamble <sjl...@mda012.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Noel Ang (nd...@primenet.com) wrote:
>: rob...@access5.digex.net (Robear) writes:
>[snip!]
>: it? Sure, I can. But what disturbs me is how much of the PC gaming
>: industry is _ignoring_ OS/2 users. It's amazing really, though I
>: suppose you'd have to be following OS/2 for some time to realize it,
>: but... three *years*, and not a *single* OS/2 game from `mainstream'
>: publishers. Then comes W95--two months later, press releases aplenty
>: for W95-specific products.
>[snip!]
>
>produce a technical masterpiece, I'd use Linux as my base platform. If I
>wanted to sell as many copies as I could, I'd use either DOS, Windoze, or
>Windoze '95. The fact is: more people are using W95, unfortunately, s
Ahem. Well, considering that no one used Win95 until August of this
year (apart from beta testers), far more people used for a number of years
that many people are _going_ to use Win95 for games, since they have
failed in creating the reality that many corporations are going to use
Win95 for productivity purposes.
Myself, I wouldn't let Win95 come near my hard drive. If that's at a
cost of playing a few increasingly mediocre, slow and all too similar
games, so be it.
>that is where software companies are going. Thus, more people buy W95,
>more products come out...it's a vicious circle, with Bill Gates the winner.
>
>
Nigel Tzeng
Robear <rob...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>In article <4783jk$j...@hermes.oc.com>,
>shadowing, and lots of games don't like that. Care to rethink?
>
>David Pipes
Actually it depends on your configuration. My QEMM config worked ducky
for certain periods of my h/w configuration for all games. After a certain
point (one too many required driver of course) it didn't get enough back
without shadowing. His 623k may simply be a happy coincidence of efficient
drivers and few h/w add-ons. I was getting low 600's until I swapped
video cards...
Nigel
Robear
Could be. But my experience is that the low 600's is all you get with
the video driver and the cdrom driver loaded. Without shadowing, anyway.
W95 simply does great with games. No way around it. You don't have to
like it, but it is easily demonstrated. (no, not you *specifcally*, Nigel,
just you out there, the you who don't like W95). :-)
David Pipes
Nathan Engle
>W95 simply does great with games. No way around it. You don't have to
>like it, but it is easily demonstrated. (no, not you *specifcally*, Nigel,
>just you out there, the you who don't like W95). :-)
I'm starting to get the impression that some of you just don't understand
where at least my complaints come from.
Please let me state for the record: I do NOT dislike Windows '95. I've
never even used the freakin' thing so how could I dislike it? Since my PC and
those of my friends don't have the hardware to support it, I'm not even likely
to get the *chance* to dislike it any time soon.
How I *feel* about Win95 has absolutely nothing to do with my problem. I
don't doubt for a minute that it's going to be really neat in a couple of
years when I can finally run it. It's just that until then I am clearly not
going to be a customer for any Win95 software.
If game companies don't have a problem with kissing off my business (and
that of the jillions of others in the same boat as me) then I guess that's
fine. If I'm not buying their games I'll be able to afford better hardware
faster. But I suspect that once I'm upgraded I'll still remember which gaming
companies walked away from me earlier.
If those companies manage to produce an absolutely must-have game then
clearly they don't have to give a damn about how I feel because I'm probably
going to buy it anyway. It's just going to have to be really really good.
I might have been a customer for Caesar II (by most accounts a pretty good
game) if I hadn't have had the negative experience of having paid full sticker
price for a buggy and lame Caesar I. Rightly or wrongly, I walked away from
Caesar I with the impression that Sierra hung me out to dry, and after 2 years
I'm still not buying any of their other games.
If Win95 is so wonderful that it convinces game companies to walk away
from me today then that's their decision. I just hope they aren't surprised
when I walk away from them in the future. No hard feelings guys. I just
prefer to buy games from people who demonstrate concern about what sort of
hardware I have and whether their programs crash when I use them.
--
Nathan Engle Electron Juggler
Indiana University Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu http://nickel.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle/home.html
"Carpe Diem"
Marcus Spears
: > No, you don't! I have *ONE* configuration that would run *ALL* of
: >the game needs XMS or EMS. Even with all my drivers, I get 623k free,
: >which is more than enough for any game, even the real memory hogs like
: >Master of Magic. The result: ONE configuration runs EVERYTHING.
: I used to run QEMM. The only way to get that much free memory is through
: shadowing, and lots of games don't like that. Care to rethink?
Not necessarily. If you have enough High Memory available (I have
one continuous 128k bank, even without shadowing), and your drivers don't
use more than that, with QEMM you can get as much as 633k without shadowing.
The only reason I only get 623k free and not 633k free is that I'm
not using the "DOS-Up" feature. I have Win'95 set up so that whenever I
boot the computer, I get a menu that lets me either run Win95 or load my
original DOS 6.2/WFWG 3.11 setup. The DOS 6.2 option is the default;
until more software for Win95 comes out, I only load Win95 when I need to
use my word processor, scanner, or fax software. Anyway, for some reason,
Dos-Up crashes the computer if you have Win95 installed. Quarterdeck is
working on a Win95 version of QEMM, by the way.
Even with EMM386, which comes with DOS, I can get 620k free, if I
take out some of the unnecessary drivers like ANSI.SYS and DOSKEY.COM.
Care to rethink your claim that "The only way to get that much free
memory is through shadowing?"
But you're right, I do use shadowing. Some games (like Master of
Magic, for example) warn you that you MIGHT have problems with shadowing.
Notice that it says you "MIGHT" have problems. I never have.
You'd be surprised how many games that CLAIM they don't like
shadowing work just fine. In fact, I've only found four games, period,
that absolutely will not work with QEMM. These are: X-Wing, TIE Fighter,
Wing Commander 1, and Wing Commander 2. On WC1 and WC2, the sound is just
screwed up. On X-Wing and TIE Fighter, the sound is screwed up AND the
game will crash within 5 minutes. It has nothing to do with shadowing,
though, because if I set the games to "No sound" (how BORING!) they'll
work just fine.
Bill
: They're whipping up a sound vesa-standard, as well as enhancing the video
: vesa standard. Ver 2.0 supports direct video-mem access, 3.0 should support
: several functions found in graphics accelerators.
But will it happen on time? The Windows'95 SDK is already released.
Microsoft is probably spending big money to get game developers on board.
Have you seen all the hype in the computer magazines?
: Since you can run the dos-game in any resolution desired, it's highly unlikely
: that directdraw could touch accelerated dos games (We should see with quake :)
I think that DirectDraw will use the same exact technology that VESA
does, except directDraw will use a windows device driver and VESA will
use a VESA device driver. Both will draw directly to the frame buffer.
: Win'95 apps are not likely to sell that well for a while, I'd be surprised
: if win'95 games would get 20% of market by the end of next year..
: Of course, if they're half as good as they're hyped to be, that might change.
PC games need device independant technology, and Windows'95 (and OS/2)
has it.
: That's not really too wise - Keep on playing tag with MS and they'll eat up
: your market sooner or later with their own software which is out in day one
: of new version release. That's what happening to perfectoffice and many, many
: others.
But games are different. They have a very short life span. They are
becoming more and more technologically advanced. They move much quicker
than productivity apps. They are using 3D affects, better sound, deeper
game play, etc. A lot of it is similar to making a movie. Microsoft may
get into that market. But the market is SO huge, they won't be able to
dominate it. Besides, the reason why MS Office does so well is that its
a finite number of applications preloaded by many OEMs. Also, people use
MS products so everything works together. What is suppose to work with
a game other than itself?
Unless the DOS game developers band together (or get a champion, yeah
right) and BATTLE microsoft, they are probably going to end up just going
Windows'95, as long as it can deliever. And when the bugs in the game
SDK are fixed, Windows'95 will be better than DOS.
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
| Bill Poitras | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Tel (408)522-0116 |
| bi...@ba.msi.com | Sunnyvale, CA 94087-40237 | FAX (408)522-0199 |
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
|FTP Mail |mail ftp...@decwrl.dec.com | Offers:ftp via email |
| |Subject:<CR>help<CR>quit | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
David Peterschmidt
Where does the misconception come from that Win95 games are going to be
slow? Does it stem from the fact that Win3.1 games are slow? If so,
WAKE UP PEOPLE. Games using Win95's DirectDraw and Render3D libraries
are going to *blaze*. Enough of this "mediocre" and "slow" misinformation.
-Dave
Adrian Vacaliuc
>Fact: An upgrade from a 33/dx (486) to something half decent
>will cost you over one thousand. You're quite welcome to give me half.
>My, so according to you . " Screw em customers, we'll just keep making stuff
>that requires higher and higher hardware to run and hope they got nuff
>loot. " Origin uses that method...that's why most of their games that i see
>are a. on shelves or weeks and weeks or B. on a local pirate BBS.
>Try to understand, _some_ of us want to have some money left after we upgrade
>out pc. And upgrading every 1.5 years at 1.5K gets quite expensive for some.
>Also, if you'd bother reading i never said anything abt OS/2.
This is most definately NOT true. take the 486/33. Too upgrage to a
dx4/120, definately a 'decent' system, faster than pentium 60's and i
think even 66's. lets also assume you have only an ISA board in your
old system. You'll need a new motherboard, CPU, and a new video/disk
subsystem (this last part is optional though.) the amd 120 is 120 bux
+ shipping new (just checked this yesterday, can even give you a
company phone # if interested) the motherboard would be LESS than 80
bux (this is generous) and even though you probably have 30 pin simms,
you can easily find a MB that has 4 30 pin slots and 2 72 pin slot
that support 3.3v CPUs. if you don't have VLB cards now, get a
PCI/ISA board, if you have vlb cards, get a VLB/ISA board (stay away
from PCI/VLB boards, the memory subsystem on these boards are shaky at
best) A VLB hd controller can be had for 30 bux, the "decent" video
card for 100, "excellent" card for 200. If you had 8 megs of 30 pin
simms, buy a simm stacker for 40 bux.
Anyway, so basically, you are looking at:
dx4/120 MB + CPU $200
"excellent" video (Hercules
Power VLB/PCI 2 megs) $200
HD controller $30 VLB or $60 PCI
1 "simm stacker" $40
Thats it. and i guaruntee that it would take 2 years untill this
upgrade will be as outdated as a 486/33 is today. The system pictured
above will run WC3 quite nicely in SVGA! this was the "dog" of 95..
Thats 500 bux for 2 years computing power. if you already have the VLB
cards, only $250.
Yes, its not the p5/133, but like i said, its MORE than enough for the
next 2 years, year and a half if you can't stand waiting.. :)
Besides, Pentium are luxuries now anyway, there are NO games out now
that wont run satisfactorily on the above system. (except maybe NFS..
donno about that) This isnt even CLOSE to the 1.5k you were
mentioning....
All comments/flames welcome
-Adrian
BTW: has anyone had any bad experiences with the simm stackers?
Another alternative would be to convert your old simms to 72 pin
format. I know a company that will convert 4 megs of 30 pin simms to
1 4 meg 72 pin simm for 50 bux...
Carl R. Gilbert
>Fact: An upgrade from a 33/dx (486) to something half decent
>will cost you over one thousand. You're quite welcome to give me half.
WOW! Have I got some swampland to sell you!!!
Three letters... A M D your 'one thousand' quickly
becomes 'one hundred'.
David Peterschmidt
I understand where you're coming from, but that's a pretty selfish
attitude isn't it? I mean, how many game companies can afford to pump
a lot of development resources into games using old technology? And
how many people would buy those games if they did? I think you simply
need an attitude adjustment - bite the bullet for a while if you can't
upgrade, but don't whine about it. Almost all of us end up on that
short end of the technology curve from time to time. Most of us
realize that's just the way things work. The industry moves and we've
all got to move with it or be left behind. You sound almost like a
little kid: "if you don't do it my way now, I'm going to pout and
"punish" you later..." Grow up a little.
-Dave
Planter of magic beans
"operating system." All it is is a ridiculous tack-on to the IBM's REAL
OS. It sucks up memory. It sucks up CPU time. And frankly, I would rather
use those resources on my PROGRAMS!
When a computer only has 8 megs of RAM and windoze requires half of that
or more, how in hell are you going to run something like MA which will require
all 8 megs? Furthermore, if you have a slower machine, why would you want
to sit there for five minutes for every "turn" in a strategy game?
If you want a windows-based operating system GET A MACINTOSH! At least
theirs is better-designed and designed to BE the primary OS. It's also
not a cheap and inferior rip-off of some other company's idea!
And finally: Fuck DOS and windows! I'm tired of the stupid
filesystem and memory limitations. Even McIntoys can use extended file
names. But I guess so long as they're relying on the marketing and
programming "geniuses" at Microsoft, IBM users deserve substandard crap.
It's time to move into the 21st Century people!
Christopher Entwistle
>> I just hope they aren't surprised
>>when I walk away from them in the future. No hard feelings guys. I just
>>prefer to buy games from people who demonstrate concern about what sort of
>>hardware I have and whether their programs crash when I use them.
>
>
>I understand where you're coming from, but that's a pretty selfish
>attitude isn't it? I mean, how many game companies can afford to pump
>a lot of development resources into games using old technology? And
>how many people would buy those games if they did? I think you simply
>need an attitude adjustment - bite the bullet for a while if you can't
>upgrade, but don't whine about it. Almost all of us end up on that
>short end of the technology curve from time to time. Most of us
>realize that's just the way things work. The industry moves and we've
>all got to move with it or be left behind. You sound almost like a
>little kid: "if you don't do it my way now, I'm going to pout and
>"punish" you later..." Grow up a little.
>
>-Dave
>
What's selfish about not appreciating game companies who didn't
appreciate us, and appreciating the companies who did take care of us?
Surely that's a basic part of customer loyalty - if you take good care
of me and my problems now, I'll remember in the future.
I feel I'm quite grown up, thank you, and I agree that I'll probably have a
predisposition towards those companies that provide entertaining products
for me to use on my dinky, behind-the-curve hardware. (It may not be anything
to crow about, but it's what I can afford). I agree that it's unrealistic to
expect all companies to develope software for those of us who can't afford
to upgrade all the time, but ble$$ those who do. We'll remember your names!
Chris Entwistle
================================================================================
I tried to get my management to subscribe to my views, but they just laughed
================================================================================
Nathan Engle
>Look, the simple fact is that windoze is a complete joke.
Yeah, and Bill Gates is laughing all the way to the bank...
>If you want a windows-based operating system GET A MACINTOSH! At least
>theirs is better-designed and designed to BE the primary OS. It's also
>not a cheap and inferior rip-off of some other company's idea!
I bet the folks at Xerox PARC would be interested to hear you say that.
>And finally: Fuck DOS and windows!
Yeah, and that whole stupid comp.sys.ibm.pc hierarchy too! What a waste
of bandwidth...
>I'm tired of the stupid filesystem and memory limitations.
Damn straight! Infinite memory for everyone!
>It's time to move into the 21st Century people!
Not just yet. Give me about four more years and then we'll talk...
Nathan Engle
>na...@psythird.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> If Win95 is so wonderful that it convinces game companies to walk away
>>prefer to buy games from people who demonstrate concern about what sort of
>>hardware I have and whether their programs crash when I use them.
>I understand where you're coming from, but that's a pretty selfish
>attitude isn't it?
Selfish? I'm a customer, dammit. I'm SUPPOSED to be selfish. Are we
talking about what I (and others) want to buy or are we not? When companies
ask me what I want what am I supposed to tell them?
> I mean, how many game companies can afford to pump
>a lot of development resources into games using old technology?
That depends on how many copies they expect to sell, doesn't it? There
are financial reasons why game companies want to save their own dollars on
development, but if they invent a really cheap way to make games that only a
tenth of their current market is able to use then I sure hope that they're
saving a proportional amount on development because their sales sure aren't
going to make up the difference. Not in the short term, anyway, and like it
or not the computer game biz is very short-term-oriented (usually anyway). It
takes deep pockets and a pretty good crystal ball to be long-term-oriented in
any part of the computer industry.
If it takes 9 months or a year for the Win95 market to develope then any
Win95-only games producers today are simply beating the rush to get their
games into next winter's discount bin.
>And how many people would buy those games if they did?
I suspect a lot would. I just bought a copy of Steel Panthers which I
expect to play until it's dribbling out my eyeballs. From the looks of things
a lot of other people around here have similar plans. Care to guess what OS
Steel Panthers runs under?
> I think you simply
>need an attitude adjustment - bite the bullet for a while if you can't
>upgrade, but don't whine about it.
I'm not whining. I'm merely stating a reality. In order for game
companies to pry dollars out of my pocket today they need to have written
games that will run on my hardware today. I don't think that's being
unreasonable. Simple facts and nothing more.
I know about design schedules and lead times and market projections. I
also know that market projections for OS/2 back in '88 were "really awesome,
man". And a lot of companies that plunged resources into OS/2 development
were really happy to have their DOS product revenues to fall back on when OS/2
sales plotzed. I'm not saying that's what will happen to Win95, but I am
saying that if my company's financial health was riding on the line then I
know which OS I'd develope for.
> Almost all of us end up on that
>short end of the technology curve from time to time. Most of us
>realize that's just the way things work. The industry moves and we've
>all got to move with it or be left behind.
No argument. I simply remain to be convinced that "the industry" has
moved to Win95. The business side of the computer biz certainly hasn't. IMO
the only people who have really moved to Win95 at this point are "New
Technology" weenies and trade rag pundits.
Personal prediction: I suspect that the gaming companies will discover
that they're jumping the gun if they produce Win95-only products intended to
hit the market during the next 12 months. If I was managing their product
lines and needed the Windows development advantage I'd have everything
written as a Win3.1app now with the expectation of doing a port once the '95
market fleshes out. That could be soon, maybe even within 6 months or a year,
but it certainly would not happen until the numbers clearly demonstrate that
it's become a majority (meaning it's being installed on older systems as well
as the brand new ones).
I agree there's no question that sooner or later Win95 is going to be
really big, but the important question in my mind is whether it's going to
sooner or... well... later... If it's later then I hope that anybody betting
their product on Bill Gates's $300meg ad campaign has a nest egg to tide them
over. If that sounds like a conservative business strategy then so be it, but
I somehow doubt that SSI is going to lose the farm just because they wrote
their latest hottest seller for that nameless dog of an OS that everybody just
happens to already own.
> You sound almost like a
>little kid: "if you don't do it my way now, I'm going to pout and
>"punish" you later..." Grow up a little.
Thanks very much for the advice.
Nail Rizvanov
: dec...@ucla.edu (dec...@ucla.edu) wrote:
: >nd...@primenet.com (Noel Ang) wrote:
: >>With respect, Tim, but what's the point of 70-fps sprites when the human eye
: >>maxes out somewhere around 25 fps (or somewhere near that)?
: >Actually, the human eye never really "maxes out". We need 12 fps
: >minimum to see motion, but anything higher gets better and better.
: >For instance, why do we insist on buying 72 hz monitors instead of 60?
: >The extra twelve is relief to our eyes when sitting down working &
: >playing for hours at a time.
: The human eye can't tell the difference between 40 fps and 70 fps, but the
: human _mind_ somehow senses the difference. Why? Movies in theatres are
: played around the 30 fps range. There was an experiment where some film was
: recorded at 70 fps and played at that rate for people. Their emotional
: responses and general "you are there" feeling increased by _huge_
: proportions, and some of them forgot for a while that it wasn't real... the
: higher frame rate CAN somehow be distinguished... and 70 fps turned those
: people from moviegoers into people who actually were totally emotionally
: involved in what they were seeing, to the point where their heart rates
: went way up, they were sweating and very excited, and alltogether reaction,
: physically, as if it was _real_ instead of just something they were
: watching.
: So basically, the human eye maxes out at above 70 fps, because that's the
: point at which your physical responses start to forget that it's not
: real...
Can this pointless and idiotic dos VS windoze discussion be moved elsewhere
it has nothing to do with the topic and it gets in the way of me scanning for
something relevant. Please move this to OS discussions...
//\//\ a X
Nail Rizvanov
: >Fact: An upgrade from a 33/dx (486) to something half decent
: >will cost you over one thousand. You're quite welcome to give me half.
: >My, so according to you . " Screw em customers, we'll just keep making stuff
: >that requires higher and higher hardware to run and hope they got nuff
: >loot. " Origin uses that method...that's why most of their games that i see
: >are a. on shelves or weeks and weeks or B. on a local pirate BBS.
: >Try to understand, _some_ of us want to have some money left after we upgrade
: >out pc. And upgrading every 1.5 years at 1.5K gets quite expensive for some.
: >Also, if you'd bother reading i never said anything abt OS/2.
: This is most definately NOT true. take the 486/33. Too upgrage to a
: dx4/120, definately a 'decent' system, faster than pentium 60's and i
: think even 66's. lets also assume you have only an ISA board in your
: old system. You'll need a new motherboard, CPU, and a new video/disk
: subsystem (this last part is optional though.) the amd 120 is 120 bux
: + shipping new (just checked this yesterday, can even give you a
: company phone # if interested) the motherboard would be LESS than 80
: bux (this is generous) and even though you probably have 30 pin simms,
: you can easily find a MB that has 4 30 pin slots and 2 72 pin slot
: that support 3.3v CPUs. if you don't have VLB cards now, get a
: PCI/ISA board, if you have vlb cards, get a VLB/ISA board (stay away
: from PCI/VLB boards, the memory subsystem on these boards are shaky at
: best) A VLB hd controller can be had for 30 bux, the "decent" video
: card for 100, "excellent" card for 200. If you had 8 megs of 30 pin
: simms, buy a simm stacker for 40 bux.
: Anyway, so basically, you are looking at:
: dx4/120 MB + CPU $200
: "excellent" video (Hercules
: Power VLB/PCI 2 megs) $200
: HD controller $30 VLB or $60 PCI
: 1 "simm stacker" $40
: Thats it. and i guaruntee that it would take 2 years untill this
: upgrade will be as outdated as a 486/33 is today. The system pictured
: above will run WC3 quite nicely in SVGA! this was the "dog" of 95..
: Thats 500 bux for 2 years computing power. if you already have the VLB
: cards, only $250.
BS! I'm sorry, i'm not buying non brandnames, i already got a substandard PC
. You forgot ram and a new harddrive (scsi) and a new cd. Please, please
READ what i write and THEN reply.
: Yes, its not the p5/133, but like i said, its MORE than enough for the
: next 2 years, year and a half if you can't stand waiting.. :)
: Besides, Pentium are luxuries now anyway, there are NO games out now
: that wont run satisfactorily on the above system. (except maybe NFS..
: donno about that) This isnt even CLOSE to the 1.5k you were
: mentioning....
Read above. It's close if you use "normal" parts not some unknown company.
: All comments/flames welcome
Hi from snaple
market. Even though they seem to be, or are monopolistic you
have to admit that alot of their apps are great like Word.
One thing that Microsoft will never dominate is games. All
games that Microsoft has released suck.
Olli T T Mannisto
> : They're whipping up a sound vesa-standard, as well as enhancing the video
It is ?
Which one ?
Last I heard something about directdraw, I have utter confidence in MS to
ditch it and make ISV's to adhere yet another silly API.
They've had three or four API's since the (in)famous wing, afaik.
> Microsoft is probably spending big money to get game developers on board.
They're spending big money, period.
It remains to be seen whether MS will subsidisize game companies to the extent
they don't have to actually sell any games.
> Have you seen all the hype in the computer magazines?
Yes. So what ?
They also hyped that win'95 was supposed to be good for something.
> I think that DirectDraw will use the same exact technology that VESA
> does, except directDraw will use a windows device driver and VESA will
Hardly.
VESA does not reside on top of a glorified dos-extender, it resides on
plain-vanilla real-mode dos. Much less overhead, much simpler, much more
likely to work.
> use a VESA device driver. Both will draw directly to the frame buffer.
Nope, with directdraw you invoke API to copy your stuff on-screen, with
vesa, you have linear video memory allocated somewhere that can be accessed.
Point is, however, the accelerator chipset utilization.
Most of us do not have nor will have for quite a while a 3d-accelerator..
> PC games need device independant technology, and Windows'95 (and OS/2)
> has it.
Games need unified hardware platform like Nintendo or somesuch.
The API method is just so inefficient.
> But games are different. They have a very short life span. They are
Insofar.
There is big money in games and sooner or later MS will want to eat that cake,
too.
> be> than productivity apps. They are using 3D affects, better sound, deeper
> game play, etc. A lot of it is similar to making a movie. Microsoft may
Deeper game play ?!
What ? Where ? When ?
I see big-movie like games with almost zero user interaction, linear plot
and no reading or thinking required.
It's more like goodbye to the gameplay.
> get into that market. But the market is SO huge, they won't be able to
> dominate it. Besides, the reason why MS Office does so well is that its
It will be easily achieved, once MS recoups their huge losses from win'95
from application bundles - Just buy the largest game-company and off you go.
> right) and BATTLE microsoft, they are probably going to end up just going
> Windows'95, as long as it can deliever. And when the bugs in the game
Please tell me in simple words, why ?
There are many, many more potential customers with dos-games rather than
win'95.
> SDK are fixed, Windows'95 will be better than DOS.
If they are fixed. If.
When did technical merit count for anything in this business ?
We'd be all using linux otherwise.
--
/ World Wide Web is cancer eating at the heart of internet. \
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
\ oll...@evitech.fi | PGP-key: Finger! /
Ian Montgomerie
Brian Trosko
: human _mind_ somehow senses the difference. Why? Movies in theatres are
: played around the 30 fps range. There was an experiment where some film was
: recorded at 70 fps and played at that rate for people. Their emotional
: responses and general "you are there" feeling increased by _huge_
: proportions, and some of them forgot for a while that it wasn't real
Interesting. You don't happen to have a citation for this, do you?
Ian Montgomerie
>Ian Montgomerie (nstn...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
>: dec...@ucla.edu (dec...@ucla.edu) wrote:
>: >nd...@primenet.com (Noel Ang) wrote:
>: >>With respect, Tim, but what's the point of 70-fps sprites when the human eye
>: >>maxes out somewhere around 25 fps (or somewhere near that)?
>: >Actually, the human eye never really "maxes out". We need 12 fps
>: >minimum to see motion, but anything higher gets better and better.
>: >For instance, why do we insist on buying 72 hz monitors instead of 60?
>: >The extra twelve is relief to our eyes when sitting down working &
>: >playing for hours at a time.
>: The human eye can't tell the difference between 40 fps and 70 fps, but the
>: human _mind_ somehow senses the difference. Why? Movies in theatres are
>: played around the 30 fps range. There was an experiment where some film was
>: recorded at 70 fps and played at that rate for people. Their emotional
>: responses and general "you are there" feeling increased by _huge_
>: proportions, and some of them forgot for a while that it wasn't real... the
>: higher frame rate CAN somehow be distinguished... and 70 fps turned those
>: people from moviegoers into people who actually were totally emotionally
>: involved in what they were seeing, to the point where their heart rates
>: went way up, they were sweating and very excited, and alltogether reaction,
>: physically, as if it was _real_ instead of just something they were
>: watching.
>: So basically, the human eye maxes out at above 70 fps, because that's the
>: point at which your physical responses start to forget that it's not
>: real...
>Can this pointless and idiotic dos VS windoze discussion be moved elsewhere
>it has nothing to do with the topic and it gets in the way of me scanning for
>something relevant. Please move this to OS discussions...
I couldn't care less about os2/Windows95, I don't have either of them. I
was just pointing out that the human mind can tell framerate differences up
to 70fps.
GUY ENGLISH
: hass...@bnr.ca (Brian Hassink) wrote:
: Brian,
: I think you will be hard pressed to find games in the next calendar year,
: then. Yes, DOS games are a dog under Win95, but Win95 also offers game
: developers some new tools which are real cool. At a MS conference this
: summer, I saw 70fps using Sprites, and I have heard our guys talking about
: the GAMES SDK and remarking how well it interfaces with the hardware.
Er... 70fps really isn't anything special unless your speaking about high
resolution or something. I'm not a programming god but I can get my
sprites to whiz around at 100+ fps with a system thats probably simillar
to the demo systems they use. The SDK is good because it can control the
graphics cards better but this SDK could have been implemented as part of
any operating system, theres nothing inherently Windows about it, except
that Microsoft have the clout to make video manufactures support their SDKs.
: Regards,
: Tim
: Spectrum HoloByte-MicroProse On-Line Services
: http://www.holobyte.com
: http://www.microprose.com
: sup...@microprose.com
Take care,
Guy.
GUY ENGLISH
: Dave O'Brien <dob...@watcom.com> wrote:
: >Granted that there are bugs in Win95. So write for Windows 3.1 instead.
: >The upward compatibility is good (better than the compatibility between
: >DOS and Win/Win95). I just hate having to reboot and reconfigure
: >memory and all that crap for a game that doesn't need 50 fps...
Sorry big guy. Ever try saving something from Corel Draw 3.0 in Win95?
It's definatly a good way to get a laugh after spending about an hour
working on something. It doesn't work. Strangely enough it workds great
in OS/2...
: >By now, I think that the vast majority of PC users have either Windows
: >or Windows 95 on their machines. For non-action games, the only people left
: >behind are those running Windows on a 386 (well, "running" is not the right
: >word ;^).
Most computers also have DEBUG and EDLIN. MPS should distribute MOA as a
Debug script...
: >Consider also that most PC users can't reconfigure memory, don't know
: >what IRQ to use for their sound card, etc. Windows programs are (usually)
: >much less of a hassle to install.
This is an excude that I'm really tired of hearing. Not knowing how your
computer works is easy to fix: learn. Windows doesn't do away with any of
those things it just hides them and we get lamers who think they know
that they're talking about 'cause they mess with win.ini files.
: >| Dave O'Brien - Watcom International - dob...@watcom.com
: >+----------------------------------------------------------
Don't suppose you'll send me a copy of Watcom C, eh? :)
: And in case you weren't aware, most Win3.1 stuff requires as much or more
: configuration than DOS stuff. The multiple configs in DOS files come from
: 640k-limit requirements and memory manager incompatability, which
: protected-mode games (XMS using 32 bit) never seem to have.
Protected mode DOS programs are the easiest things to set up. I also use
QEMM which gives my programs whatever they want so I only ever need one
set up.
Later,
Guy.
GUY ENGLISH
: >: I may have something to add here. Just last weekend, I installed CIV,
: >: XCOM, XCOM2, MOO, MOM, Machiavelli, DUNE2, Hammer of the Gods, HOMM,
: >: Populous2, all the D&D gold box games, Darksun, Wake of Ravager, Dark
: >: Legions, Stronghold, Dungeon Hack, Fantasy Empires, and MANY others.
: >
: >[snip]
: >
: >: Am VERY pleased with Windows 95 so far, because no one can tell me they
: >: can have one or two configurations that would run all of these games.
: >: I know better.
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >
: > No, you don't! I have *ONE* configuration that would run *ALL* of
: >those games. I use QEMM, so I don't have to worry about whether or not
: >the game needs XMS or EMS. Even with all my drivers, I get 623k free,
: >which is more than enough for any game, even the real memory hogs like
: >Master of Magic. The result: ONE configuration runs EVERYTHING.
: >--
: >Marcus Spears Phone: (903) 886-5149
: I used to run QEMM. The only way to get that much free memory is through
: shadowing, and lots of games don't like that. Care to rethink?
: David Pipes
Hi. I do run QEMM and get basically the same. (I can't check now I'm in
OS/2) But I don't use QEMMs shadowing just for that reason. QEMM gets
lots of memory of any type you want. With or without shadowing and
Stealth mode (which is what I think you mean). My QEMM config has yet to
fail me. Care to rethink?
Later,
Guy.
GUY ENGLISH
: In article q...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca, hass...@bnr.ca (Brian Hassink) writes:
: >Dave O'Brien (dob...@watcom.com) wrote:
: >
: You people just don't see the better way, yet, do you? Think a
: minute. Under 95, it IS the DOS-based games that get jerky and have
: mangled music, if you have the settings messed up. The written-for-95
: games play beautifully, and have every bit as much speed as DOS games.
: Not to mention all the advantages writing for 95 allows programmers.
: Wake up, folks. The old ways, they are a-changin'.
: -Dave
You're not a programmer are you? Also consider this: Windows 95 makes
everything the same; the interface the graphics systems the sound
systems, everything. under DOS game programmers come up with some really cool
interfaces and methods of doing things that Windows 95 doesn't think are
very nice. Easy of use makes flexibility limited.
Guy.
GUY ENGLISH
: Microsoft still doesn't care? About what? About you? What do you
: want them to do, hold your hand? Last time I checked hard drive space
: was dirt cheap and processor speed is getting faster all the time. If
: you don't have the space or speed to run Win95 or OS/2, don't whine
: about it, just upgrade.
Hi,
I live in a world where, for some really nutty reason, not every body
can spend all their cash on a hot-rod machine so that "-Dave" doesn't
yell at them. I don't know how long you've been around computers but I
started with an Apple ][+ with 64K. You can go around trying to tell
people that a 386 with 4 megs of RAM is pathetic but it's just not true a
386 processor is a perfectly good computer that is more than capable of
doing many usefull tasks. You, right now, have more power sitting on your
desk than most people would have dreamed of 10 years ago. Just because a
486 looks slow running windows doesn't mean it is slow, a lot of it is
the over head that people have come to expect from todays soft ware.
Carefully written code could speed up these older machines an incredible
amount. And just so you don't think I'm still running my Apple ][+ I'm
using OS/2 on a P100 with 16megs.
: -Dave
GUY
L. Drew Davis
>You're not a programmer are you?
I am. DOS, Windows, Unix.
>Also consider this: Windows 95 makes
>everything the same; the interface the graphics systems the sound
>systems, everything. under DOS game programmers come up with some really cool
>interfaces and methods of doing things that Windows 95 doesn't think are
>very nice.
Nonsense. The "interface" that Windows makes the same is the
really important one -- the interface to the hardware. With Windows,
drivers for fancy accelerated graphics cards and sound cards are taken
care of for you. Thus, with next to no effort, you can utilize the
entire range of hardware that works with Windows, rather than the
limited set that the game publisher happens to support. You're also
going to have a central reference for fixing bugs, rather than seeing
the same tired card mis-identification routines and sound bugs I see in
multiple games from certain publishers here unspecified.
Just because Windows provides a common interface for "draw a pixel"
and "blit a block" hardly limits what programmers can do.
And which is sillier: 360 writing an entire windowing system that
looks and acts just like Windows for Harpoon 2, and running it under
a protected-mode 32-bit "DOS" that's not, or just using Windows, which
already took care of all that? Any smart programmer will leverage the
libraries that already exist -- including those built into Windows
itself -- and spend the rest of his time doing important things, like
creating quality game concepts and getting releases out on time without
bugs.
Sure, there's a couple of low-level hardware hackers that'll be
disgruntled because someone already implemented the "way cool"
VGA hack that they thought they just invented. Who cares?
Anything but an action game will benefit from Win95, and even
the action games will be easier to write with the Game SDK.
(Then again, maybe you like being stuck with a vintage 1989
level of graphics hardware access for the lowest common denominator
(VGA), despite the money you plunked down for a graphics coprocessor.)
>Easy of use makes flexibility limited.
Crap. The limit is only in your imagination. You want buttons
across the top like in MoM? You got 'em. Across the bottom like
MoO? You got 'em. Menu interface like Railroad Tycoon and a bazillion
other games. You got 'em, already. You can make any interface you
like. You just have to write the code. You can write code, can't
you?
--
L. Drew Davis Internet: dr...@cc.gatech.edu
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
David Peterschmidt
>In article <1995Nov3.1...@ned.cray.com> d...@cray.com writes:
>>a lot of development resources into games using old technology? And
>>how many people would buy those games if they did? I think you simply
>>need an attitude adjustment - bite the bullet for a while if you can't
>>short end of the technology curve from time to time. Most of us
>>realize that's just the way things work. The industry moves and we've
>>little kid: "if you don't do it my way now, I'm going to pout and
>>"punish" you later..." Grow up a little.
>>
>>
>
>What's selfish about not appreciating game companies who didn't
>appreciate us, and appreciating the companies who did take care of us?
>Surely that's a basic part of customer loyalty - if you take good care
>of me and my problems now, I'll remember in the future.
>
>I feel I'm quite grown up, thank you, and I agree that I'll probably have a
>predisposition towards those companies that provide entertaining products
>for me to use on my dinky, behind-the-curve hardware. (It may not be anything
>to crow about, but it's what I can afford). I agree that it's unrealistic to
>expect all companies to develope software for those of us who can't afford
>to upgrade all the time, but ble$$ those who do. We'll remember your names!
>
Well, you may need to remember them, because if all they make is software
for machines behind the tech curve, they probably won't exist very long... :-)
I sympathize with not being able to afford the latest and greatest
computers all the time. Not many people can afford to buy on the
bleeding edge every two years. But, you know, you don't have to have
companies developing new software for old machines - just buy the
software out of the bargin bins - and get a great price to boot!
-Dave
David Peterschmidt
>David Peterschmidt (d...@cray.com) wrote:
>: In article q...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca, hass...@bnr.ca (Brian Hassink) writes:
>: >Dave O'Brien (dob...@watcom.com) wrote:
>: >
>: You people just don't see the better way, yet, do you? Think a
>: minute. Under 95, it IS the DOS-based games that get jerky and have
>: mangled music, if you have the settings messed up. The written-for-95
>: games play beautifully, and have every bit as much speed as DOS games.
>: Not to mention all the advantages writing for 95 allows programmers.
>: Wake up, folks. The old ways, they are a-changin'.
>
>: -Dave
>systems, everything. under DOS game programmers come up with some really cool
>interfaces and methods of doing things that Windows 95 doesn't think are
In fact, Mr. Guy, I am a programmer. I do mine on Unix machines, not
DOS machines, though. Care to fill us in on what neato types of
interfaces and methods you can do with DOS that you can't do with
Win95? Ever hear of the DirectDraw and Render3D graphics libraries
that Win95 has available? You can go right to the video card with
DirectDraw, same as DOS. So, you were saying?
-Dave
Matt McLeod
max...@netcom.com (Nail Rizvanov) wrote:
>Fact: An upgrade from a 33/dx (486) to something half decent
>will cost you over one thousand. You're quite welcome to give me half.
>My, so according to you . " Screw em customers, we'll just keep making stuff
>that requires higher and higher hardware to run and hope they got nuff
>loot. " Origin uses that method...that's why most of their games that i see
>are a. on shelves or weeks and weeks or B. on a local pirate BBS.
>Try to understand, _some_ of us want to have some money left after we upgrade
>out pc. And upgrading every 1.5 years at 1.5K gets quite expensive for some.
>Also, if you'd bother reading i never said anything abt OS/2.
You're shopping at the wrong place.
Hardware and software prices here in Australia are usually a lot
higher than in the US, but I can go buy a DX4/100 motherboard
for about AU$400. 1G EIDE disk for less than AU$400. The only
thing that is still excessively expensive is RAM - around AU$250
for 4 megs.
Given that the exchange rate is approx. AU$1 = US$0.72, your
figure of over $1000 seems more than a little high.
Douglas Goodridge
UY ENGLISH ) writes:
:>
::>yell at them. I don't know how long you've been around computers but I
:>people that a 386 with 4 megs of RAM is pathetic but it's just not true a
:>386 processor is a perfectly good computer that is more than capable of
:>doing many usefull tasks. You, right now, have more power sitting on your
:>desk than most people would have dreamed of 10 years ago. Just because a
:>486 looks slow running windows doesn't mean it is slow, a lot of it is
:>the over head that people have come to expect from todays soft ware.
:>Carefully written code could speed up these older machines an incredible
:>amount. And just so you don't think I'm still running my Apple ][+ I'm
:>using OS/2 on a P100 with 16megs.
And isn't that really what it all boils down to? It seems to me that they
never seem to get any better at writing games for any generation. Its like
with game consoles. The first batch of games produced is generally less
impressive than the games written a couple of years later. This is because
the programmers become better aquainted with the hardware and the OS and find
inventive ways to getter better performance from the same equipment.
They tend to do fairly well.
With computer game programmers, they take the lazy way out. Simply write the
software and make the computer live up to the software's requirements.
Yes, I know that eventually, there is a limit to what can be done with any
particular generation of hardware, but the programmers never approach that
limit, they simply write it for the next generation up.
Its lazy and its shortsighted. I would be more than willing to fork out a
the outrageous 60 bucks (how can a CD cost more to manufacture than SNES
cartridge?) for the lastest and greatest game, but unfortunately I spending
my money on a few more megs of memory (From 4 meg to eight ran me over $300).
Of course, I should also have a quad-speed cd rom, a decent video card, a
great sound card, 16 megs of ram if I really want to see performance of OS/2
warp or Win95, and of course, a much, much larger hard drive.
Now as near as I can figure, thats several hundred dollars I could have spent
on games. By the time I catch up to this latest "standard", it'll be
changing again because the lazy programmers at certain software houses will
be releasing Wing Commander 6 and it will likely run like crap on anything
other than a Pentium 5000 on a 32X CD ROM with and 64 megs of memory.
Of course, at that point, the software company will have made nothing from me
because I will be buying the WC4 from the discount bin.
Seems to me as though the software companies aren't really all that good at
marketing or salesmanship.
dougg
Jim Sun
|> In article <47hucr$d...@newsflash.concordia.ca>, g_e...@alcor.concordia.ca
|> says...
|>
|> > I live in a world where, for some really nutty reason, not every body
|> >can spend all their cash on a hot-rod machine so that "-Dave" doesn't
|> >started with an Apple ][+ with 64K. You can go around trying to tell
|> Me too! Those were the days! [snicker, snicker] Keyboard built in, no hard
|> drive, monitor in a beautiful 16 shades of green. It didn't take me long to
|> upgrade to 128K (you could do so much more, and you could NEVER use all that
|> memory :) ) And even less to get a lightning chip upgrade to run at 8MHZ! Boy
|> did those games zip.
|>
An Apple II+ with 48K was my _second_ computer! My first was a TI99/4A with
_16K_! It did not even have a floppy drive!
On the Apple II+, I was doing memory swapping using one of the two floppy drives
for my "big" project; I called the process "memory time sharing" without even
realize that I had invented virtual memory system on my own.
|> [snip]
|>
|> >amount. And just so you don't think I'm still running my Apple ][+ I'm
|> >using OS/2 on a P100 with 16megs.
|>
|> Luckily, you are not one of those can't afford a "hot-rod" machine. Yours is
|> a-blazin' :) (Mine's a P90 w/16 megs running Win95 that I've had since last
|> December. Looks like I'm already late for my upgrade. :)
Amazingly, if I only look at the starting point and ending point, over the
past 12yrs or so, I have pretty much kept up with doubling memory every
year up to last year; but I don't see myself able to afford a 96 meg system
by this coming chrismas. No more swapping to floppy for sure :^)
Jim
Marcus Spears
: An Apple II+ with 48K was my _second_ computer! My first was a
: II+, I was doing memory swapping using one of the two floppy drives
: for my "big" project; I called the process "memory time sharing"
: on my own.
Well, if we want to get into a "My first computer sucked worse than
yours" argument (grin), MY first computer was a Vic-20 with 5k of RAM and
a tape drive! (And after you subtracted the 1012 bytes needed for the
screen, you had about 3.5k left.) After that, I got the 16k expander.
I've owned, at various times in my life, a 16k TI99-4/A, a 4k Tandy
Color Computer, a 16k Timex-Sinclair 1000, a Commodore 64, and finally,
the 486 Dx2-66 that I now use at home. The Timex-Sinclair 1000 I won in
a contest many years ago, and the Commodore 64 I bought and used for 10
years. (That's right... I didn't buy an IBM compatible until December
1993.) The rest I bought in garage sales for a few dollars each...
--
Marcus Spears Phone: (903) 886-5149
Data Processing Services Fax: (903) 886-5415
East Texas State University E-Mail: MSP...@ETSUADMN.ETSU.EDU
Commerce, Texas 75429 or: MSP...@ORION.ETSU.EDU
This worker drone does not express the opinions of the hive. Buzz off.
David Peterschmidt
>d...@cray.com (David Peterschmidt) writes:
>>chr...@admii.arl.mil (Christopher Entwistle ) writes:
>>>I agree that it's unrealistic to expect all companies to develope
>>>software for those of us who can't afford to upgrade all the time,
>>>but ble$$ those who do. We'll remember your names!
>
>>Well, you may need to remember them, because if all they make is software
>>for machines behind the tech curve, they probably won't exist very long... :-)
>
>SSI producing games like Steel Panthers are just a flash in the pan.
>Clearly the burden of producing that game was so devastating to their
>company that they'll be in the obits before long. Who cares about the
>breadth of their sales? That DOS-app stench is bound to just hound the
>company to its early grave...
>
>>I sympathize with not being able to afford the latest and greatest
>>computers all the time.
>
>latest .0 version of every OS produced by Microsoft. Contrary to what
>you might think, my PC isn't particularly slow. I'm just not going to
>waste my time installing their OS until Bill Gates and his buddies
>have had a chance to fix a few more bugs. Once that happens I'll
>probably still hold off until a totally compelling application comes
>along that convinces me the trouble will be worth the effort. But not
>being a fortune-teller I'm not about to make the jump until it's worth
>it.
>
>> Not many people can afford to buy on the
>>bleeding edge every two years. But, you know, you don't have to have
>>companies developing new software for old machines
>
>old OS? For the record my home PC is a 486DX2-66. That's plenty of
>horsepower to run Win95 *when* *the* *time* *comes*. If you're so hip
>on convincing me to upgrade to Win95 then don't waste your time telling
>me about it. Just write the killer app. You show me the compelling
>reason to change and I'll change without any further argument.
Mr. Entwistle was, I believe, referring to upgrading his hardware in
this thread. But in any case, yes, I am clear on the difference
between an old machine and an old OS. I have no problem with anyone
staying with DOS if they so choose. That's each person's decision to
make. But those who stick with DOS better accept that they can't
run some particular software package that was only written for Win95,
or only for OS/2, or some other OS until they "upgrade" to that OS.
>
> Unfortunately I haven't seen that app yet because fortunately for
>me there are still companies interested enough in my dollars to write
>games that are convenient for me to run today without plunging into Bill
>Gates's latest flight of fancy.
Well, the market will ultimately decide whether or not Win95 turns out
to be a "flight of fancy". If that's the attitude you choose to take,
that's fine. Stay with DOS or whatever OS you now run. That's your
business, and that's a solid decision for the moment. Call for
companies to write software for that OS - that's your right. But don't
whine if some companies choose to forge ahead and write Win95 software
that you can't run due to your decision.
Dave
David Peterschmidt
>In article <1995Nov6.1...@ned.cray.com>,
>David Peterschmidt <d...@cray.com> wrote:
>>
>>In fact, Mr. Guy, I am a programmer. I do mine on Unix machines, not
>>DOS machines, though. Care to fill us in on what neato types of
>>interfaces and methods you can do with DOS that you can't do with
>>Win95? Ever hear of the DirectDraw and Render3D graphics libraries
>>that Win95 has available? You can go right to the video card with
>>DirectDraw, same as DOS. So, you were saying?
>
>he's obviously not a Human Factors or GUI person :). With games you
>should have more leeway but I've seen some of the dumber UI choices in
>games as well as some brilliantly elegant solutions.
My point was that since you can go directly to the video card, any cool
interface or graphics technique you can do in DOS you can do in Win95,
and it will run just as fast.
>
>Over use of slider/scroll widgets come to mind for setting values.
>Wouldn't you kill sometimes to be able to just enter the number of
>gizmos you want rather than fiddle around with some slider?
Yeah, but then you have to let go of the mouse... :)
-Dave
Douglas Goodridge
idt) writes:
:>Well, you may need to remember them, because if all they make is software
:>for machines behind the tech curve, they probably won't exist very long... :-)
:>I sympathize with not being able to afford the latest and greatest
:>computers all the time. Not many people can afford to buy on the
:>bleeding edge every two years. But, you know, you don't have to have
:>software out of the bargin bins - and get a great price to boot!
Keep in mind that there are millions of potential customers for a title. Of
these, maybe 25 percent have are on the cutting edge of that tech curve.
It is reasonably safe to say that the majority of the users of MS-Dos based
systems do not own a Pentium. I am one of these people. Many of us have
just made it to 8 megs of Ram in the last year.
On the subject of strategy games in particular, graphics are not the most
important aspect of the game. Adding a bunch of bells and whistles and
cut-scenes can enhance game play, but they are not the esscence of gaming.
So explain to me how it is in the best interest of a software company to
produce software for the lowest percentage of the market. This is not a way
to make money. It is smarter to code new software for the largest customer
base. If a company really needs to be on the cutting edge, let them show us
how good they can code on the average system. Any idiot with a little
programming experience can make a flashy game when they write it for a system
with a lot of resources. The game may look good, it may be outstanding, it
may even have good gameplay...but a good programmer can do exactly the same
thing on the middle of the road system in a lot of cases with no discernable
difference in speed or graphics.
The point being that programmers tend to take the easy way out and force the
consumer to upgrade their system if they want to use their software.
This wouldn't be so bad except that the software companies do not even
approach the limits of a current standard system before going to the next.
It would be nice to see a few sequels to popular games out there that do not
require a person to upgrade to get decent playability.
dougg