Dump 9x compatibility or dump this coder?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Hello people,
I am the boss of a small software house. A very skilled
programmer offered us a product (we've still to work on
the graphics and music though) which is indeed very, very
cool (the guy really knows how to program!), BUT his code
WILL NOT WORK on Windows 95, 98 & ME, and he totally refuses
to make it compatible, he says there are a lot of technical
reasons why this is not possible (or worth).

With the advent of Windows XP, it's pretty clear that the
9x technology is doomed to extinction. But, is it ALREADY
possible to put a big label like this on the box:

The game is compatible with Windows 2000, XP and 2003.
WARNING!!
The game is *NOT* compatible with Windows 95, 98 and ME.

without affecting sales too much?

While I'd certainly love to get a broader market, this
guy may have good reasons to dump 9x compatibility
because his code is truly impressive. I'm not sure we
can find another coder in town that can impress us as
much.

To sum it all.. what I'm asking you is your advice for
my dilemma: dump 9x compatibility or dump this coder?

Thanks a lot!

Antonio Tambone
CEO of Gaming Delight

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

A.T. wrote:
>
> To sum it all.. what I'm asking you is your advice for
> my dilemma: dump 9x compatibility or dump this coder?

I can't offer you any advice (it's your business after all)
but I will say
that I am still running ME and I've no plans to update my OS
just for
one game. Even though I'm running DX9c with few problems
(my video
card is a generation behind the current crop but still more
than adequate)
I have already passed on two games in 2004, whose demos
would not
run under ME. There were a heck of a lot of games published
in the last
5 years that I have *not* played yet. I view all of them as
a potential source
of entertainment, and I am not at all influenced by the
latest and greatest.
If a new game won't run on my OS, I'll find another one that
will.

Of course, eventually I'll end up running the latest Windows
OS, but that
won't be until I have exhausted every hardware upgrade
possibility with
my present system and am forced into a total system upgrade.
But that
won't be for a good while yet! ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

A.T. wrote:

> The game is compatible with Windows 2000, XP and 2003.
> WARNING!!
> The game is *NOT* compatible with Windows 95, 98 and ME.
> without affecting sales too much?

Personally I still prefer 98SE of all Windows versions. However there
are already some games and quite some programs that only work in 2000 or
XP. Also note that at least Ati does NOT do any 9x based drivers
anymore. Also DirectX 9c is not available for 9x based Windows versions
AFAIK. What I basically want to say is that: As a consumer I'd say
please keep the compatibility with '98. However realistically I'd say
dump it if you have a fairly good reason.

--
If at first you do not succeed, blame your computer.

[Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Karl Frank wrote:
> A.T. wrote:
>
>> The game is compatible with Windows 2000, XP and 2003.
>> WARNING!!
>> The game is *NOT* compatible with Windows 95, 98 and ME.
>> without affecting sales too much?
>
>
> Personally I still prefer 98SE of all Windows versions. However there
> are already some games and quite some programs that only work in 2000 or
> XP. Also note that at least Ati does NOT do any 9x based drivers
> anymore. Also DirectX 9c is not available for 9x based Windows versions
> AFAIK. What I basically want to say is that: As a consumer I'd say
> please keep the compatibility with '98. However realistically I'd say
> dump it if you have a fairly good reason.
>
> --
> If at first you do not succeed, blame your computer.
>
> [Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]

I assume the only reason you prefer 98SE over Xp is that their might be
some issues under XP with very old games?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Walter Mitty wrote:

> I assume the only reason you prefer 98SE over Xp is that their might be
> some issues under XP with very old games?

Not only games, but programs in general. And on the other end XP doesn't
offer any real advantages. Not in speed and not in security. I know it
should in theory be the better system design, but in reality you really
don't notice this.

--
Silly question of the day:
Why does New Jersey have more toxic waste dumps and California have
more lawyers?

New Jersey had first choice.

[Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Karl Frank wrote:
> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>> I assume the only reason you prefer 98SE over Xp is that their might
>> be some issues under XP with very old games?
>
>
> Not only games, but programs in general. And on the other end XP doesn't
> offer any real advantages. Not in speed and not in security. I know it
> should in theory be the better system design, but in reality you really
> don't notice this.
>

Rubbish.

XP is heaps ahead of 98 in security and stability.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Walter Mitty wrote:

>> Not only games, but programs in general. And on the other end XP
>> doesn't offer any real advantages. Not in speed and not in security. I
>> know it should in theory be the better system design, but in reality
>> you really don't notice this.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> XP is heaps ahead of 98 in security and stability.

My XP and my 98 installations are about on par in stability. HOWEVER if
i get a BSOD in 98 I can CONTINUE. In XP I get a auto reboot. If your 98
is less stable learn to configure a proper clean system.

Re security: How many of the recent virii and exploits did also work in
98? 10%? Most likely even less. So don't talk about security and XP. As
I said - in theory it is the better design, not in reality.

An unpatched 98 system will survive months on the web unless you do
something stupid yourself. An unpatched XP will be infected in less then
5 minutes.

--
"Experience is the worst teacher. It gives the test
before presenting the lesson." - Vernon Law

[Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Walter Mitty wrote:

> Ican believe that YOUR systems are on a par - I use my XP very heavily
> though with hardly ever an issue - maybe 1 BSOD in 2 years.

And you are doing WHAT with you system? One BSOD in 2 years is much
better then even Microsoft would try to claim. I have no clue what you
consider as heavy use, but let me come from a different angle - I do not
know ANY type of operating system that I didn't crash so far. Most I
could crash on command. If you define heavy use as 99% processor usage
over a period of days/weeks then I am not overly surprised. If the
software you use doesn't have several memory leaks this isn't especially
exciting. On the other had if you are talking about heavy multi media
work I AM surprised.

>> An unpatched 98 system will survive months on the web unless you do
>> something stupid yourself. An unpatched XP will be infected in less
>> then 5 minutes.
>
> I dont believe you. In addtion, youd have to be a complete idiot not to
> patch - nothing is perfect and this is why autoupdate and patching
> services are there.

That reply shows only your lack of knowledge. XP at this point is so
vulnerable out of the box that you will have a virus BEFORE you are able
to get the patches via auto update (SP1 at least). I can confirm this
statement which was done my about any online security bulletin myself
(Summer 2004, pre SP2). Fresh installation, SP1, no other online
activity besides connecting to microsoft update. Before the update was
anywhere completed I did already get the system shutdown message by what
was that virus again? Sasser? I did not have ANY virus in my almost 20
years of computer experience before(!) Of yourse you can circumvent this
by third party virus scanners and or routers. But that is not the point.

--
The following is a new Windows message that is under consideration for
the planned Windows Longhorn:
* Press any key except... no, No, NO, NOT THAT ONE!

[Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Karl Frank wrote:
> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>> Ican believe that YOUR systems are on a par - I use my XP very heavily
>> though with hardly ever an issue - maybe 1 BSOD in 2 years.
>
>
> And you are doing WHAT with you system? One BSOD in 2 years is much
> better then even Microsoft would try to claim. I have no clue what you
> consider as heavy use, but let me come from a different angle - I do not
> know ANY type of operating system that I didn't crash so far. Most I

Blah blah. Where did I say no OS crashes?

> could crash on command. If you define heavy use as 99% processor usage
> over a period of days/weeks then I am not overly surprised. If the
> software you use doesn't have several memory leaks this isn't especially
> exciting. On the other had if you are talking about heavy multi media
> work I AM surprised.

"multimedia work"? You mean, erm, graphics editing or other "pixel
manipulation". LOL. You bluffer you. But, just to give you some idea :
Tomcat, Apache, SQL Server + gaming, messengers, web cam monitors and more.

>
>>> An unpatched 98 system will survive months on the web unless you do
>>> something stupid yourself. An unpatched XP will be infected in less
>>> then 5 minutes.
>>
>>
>> I dont believe you. In addtion, youd have to be a complete idiot not
>> to patch - nothing is perfect and this is why autoupdate and patching
>> services are there.
>
>
> That reply shows only your lack of knowledge. XP at this point is so
> vulnerable out of the box that you will have a virus BEFORE you are able
> to get the patches via auto update (SP1 at least). I can confirm this
> statement which was done my about any online security bulletin myself

Oh rubbish. All SW is vulnerable : but heres a hint - dont read any
email until you're patched ...

> (Summer 2004, pre SP2). Fresh installation, SP1, no other online
> activity besides connecting to microsoft update. Before the update was
> anywhere completed I did already get the system shutdown message by what
> was that virus again? Sasser? I did not have ANY virus in my almost 20
> years of computer experience before(!) Of yourse you can circumvent this
> by third party virus scanners and or routers. But that is not the point.

You're talking in riddles.

You maintained to the world that 98 is more secure and more reliable
than XP. I dispute that. And so would anyone else who isnt into
posturing and bullshitting.

>
> --
> The following is a new Windows message that is under consideration for
> the planned Windows Longhorn:
> * Press any key except... no, No, NO, NOT THAT ONE!
>
> [Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]


--
Walter Mitty
-
Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
" Format wars could 'confuse users'"
http://www.tinyurl.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Walter Mitty wrote:

>> And you are doing WHAT with you system? One BSOD in 2 years is much
>> better then even Microsoft would try to claim. I have no clue what you
>> consider as heavy use, but let me come from a different angle - I do
>> not know ANY type of operating system that I didn't crash so far. Most I
> Blah blah. Where did I say no OS crashes?

So you have crashes that are not BSODs? Now that is one I did not
encounter in any flavour of NT so fat.

> "multimedia work"? You mean, erm, graphics editing or other "pixel
> manipulation". LOL. You bluffer you. But, just to give you some idea :
> Tomcat, Apache, SQL Server + gaming, messengers, web cam monitors and more.

The only thing up there that would concer me is gaming. The remainder is
continually working software. It is usually much worse to start and end
software all over. Like converting/rendering hundreds of movies/3D
animations without regular rebooting. Stuff like that. I can have 98 run
for weeks as webserver or with heavy calculation. I'd bet it breaks down
in 12 hours of interactive movie preparation.

>> That reply shows only your lack of knowledge. XP at this point is so
>> vulnerable out of the box that you will have a virus BEFORE you are
>> able to get the patches via auto update (SP1 at least). I can confirm
>> this statement which was done my about any online security bulletin
>> myself
> Oh rubbish. All SW is vulnerable : but heres a hint - dont read any
> email until you're patched ...

Doh! Read what I wrote. My ONLY activity on the system was to click on
Microsoft update. A backdoor that a worm can enter is just that. You
don't need to click anywhere. Get your facts straight!

> You're talking in riddles.
> You maintained to the world that 98 is more secure and more reliable
> than XP. I dispute that. And so would anyone else who isnt into
> posturing and bullshitting.

At least it doesn't go down in 5 Minutes on the net, yes. And I said
that while XP should be better in reality they are about par. I didn't
say XP is worse.

--
Don't be irreplaceable; if you can't be replaced,
you can't be promoted.

[Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Karl Frank wrote:

> At least it doesn't go down in 5 Minutes on the net, yes. And I said
> that while XP should be better in reality they are about par. I didn't
> say XP is worse.

XP is not "on a par" with 98 in terms of security and stability. It is
vastly improved.

I'm sure MS would be amused to hear your 98 marketing.


enuff already.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Walter Mitty wrote:
> XP is not "on a par" with 98 in terms of security and stability. It is
> vastly improved.
>
> I'm sure MS would be amused to hear your 98 marketing.

Oh, neither is a good system. We are just discussing lesser evils here...

--
The following is a new Windows message that is under consideration for
the planned Windows Longhorn:
* Press any key to continue or any other key to quit.

[Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Karl Frank wrote:
> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>> XP is not "on a par" with 98 in terms of security and stability. It is
>> vastly improved.
>>
>> I'm sure MS would be amused to hear your 98 marketing.
>
>
> Oh, neither is a good system. We are just discussing lesser evils here...
>


XP is a great system : stable, can play games, loads of SW, multimedia
friendly. Can't really fault it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Walter Mitty wrote:

> XP is a great system : stable, can play games, loads of SW, multimedia
> friendly. Can't really fault it.

You ever used ANY system that was not done by Microsoft?

--
New College Degree for the 21st Century:
DhP -- Doctor of Reverse Psychology
[Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Karl Frank wrote:
> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>> XP is a great system : stable, can play games, loads of SW, multimedia
>> friendly. Can't really fault it.
>
>
> You ever used ANY system that was not done by Microsoft?
>
> --
> New College Degree for the 21st Century:
> DhP -- Doctor of Reverse Psychology
> [Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]

VMS, Various Linux brands including Solaris, OS/2 and of course Windows.
As well as having a degree in Electronic Systems and Computer Science,
with 16 years industry experience in the SW world. Well done : you
started a "whose is bigger" thread ...

Where, pray tell, did I say that XP was the best OS? It might be kludgy
in some areas but it does a job : and for the average home user a lot
better than its direct competition IMO.

The usual smoke & mirrors from someone caught bullshitting : trying to
turn this into a MS v Others OS war. No way Jose. Tell you what : see
how much info you can grep up on the web about how much safer/secure &
reliable 98 is over XP and I'll listen some more.

--
Walter Mitty
-
Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
" Format wars could 'confuse users'"
http://www.tinyurl.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Walter Mitty wrote:

So you expect me to be intimidated by your degree or industry
experience? I could respond in kind but this is simply too stupid.

And I agree to your description of Windows - well maybe excluding Mac
OS. Linux is all well and fine, but for the average user it is more
headache to aquire the software for it then the crashes and virii in the
Windwos world are. Or at least they believe so ;-) I'd definitely not
recommend Linux for my computer illiterate friends. As such the question
as if you know other systems isn't to be seen as an insult, rather I
just want to know at what basis we are discussing.

Also despite the anti trust court cases that Microsoft lost or that are
still running obviously the broad mass enjoys all the software that
comes with the system. Good example is Windows ME. It is worse in about
every aspect to 98, BUT it has the actual versions of drivers and
software. So many consumers liked it. A patched/updated 98 however is
better. This is the measurement I apply for my personal use. Its the end
result that matters, not what comes in the box.

We could of course continue to ramble about rings, kernel structure and
much more. It just definitely isn't the right place for it. I am very
much aware that XP for example does a far better multitasking. However
will your average user notice a difference? Not likely. Is the security
concept better? Sure is. However as long as about everybody is logged in
with admin privileges (because many stuff in XP needs it so it is
inconvenient to switch all the time) it again doesn't help. Does the
posix subsystem finally support all commands? Yes it does. Noone cares,
besides all the new security holes that it introduced. I am really
starting to get tired repeating myself. YES, XP DOES HAVE THE BETTER
DESIGN. However practically nothing of it is of any advantage to the
average user. On the other hand XP DOES have more security issues with
regards to worms and virii then 98 has. I'll even agree that this isn't
something for 98 to brag about. A good deal about it's 'security' comes
from the fact that the hackers don't care about it anymore. Another part
comes from the lack of feature. A problem MS always had. Pack too many
features into stuff where it isn't needed and introduce security
problems that way. If Outlook would not display HTML for example we
would not have seen 50% of the mail virii I'd dare say. So older is
often naturally more secure in this case.

--
If idiots could fly, then this would be an airport.

[Delete the karl after the @ to avoid my spam trap]