Here's 1 I bet you can't answer
 

OK, remember a little while ago there were quite a few ppl complaining about the fact that Doom 3 was Xp only :eek: - and within a day or so there were cracks and patches floating all over the place that allowed you to play it on W9X/Me.

Well, I was wondering if anyone knew of, or heard of anything similar happening with the game Chron of rid****.

Is it even possible?

and if not,

then why was it possible with D3? :confused:

I figged somebody here might know, so I might as well ask. So if ya know, kindly step up to the mic

...and if ya don't know, ahh, don't feel bad. I don't know either. That's why I'm askin in the 1st place! :D

Doom 3 could be installed on 98se and you had to get the fixed game.exe and use a hex editor on it to alter the GlobalMemoryStatusXXXX (the x's were something like 8548) to GlobalMemoryStatus0000. It ran beautifully in 98se but the game manufacturer didn't want the hassle of supporting that OS.

NO, COR will not even install on 98se because it's looking for the XP version of dll's (bummer), therefore I upgraded to XP Pro. The upgrade was NOT painless because any problems in 98se was carried over to XP. Fortunately they are tolerable.

Hi guys,

George_K is right. Apparently, in DOOM 3's case, the game _developer_ created a game that runs fine under Windows 98; however, the game _publisher_ asked them to make it NOT work so the developers did a little check. And, fortunately, it was really a little check, something that can easily be gotten rid of.

But this is only DOOM 3 and iD Software. Others don't give a damn about good old Windows 98 anymore so even the game _developer_ takes no steps for Windows 98 support... :(

Joe

Yeah, I kinda figged it was something like that.

I wonder if there's any way to trick the game into seeing the xp dll's that it's looking for, without actually having xp running.

I think the time is quickly approaching when the true w98 gaming enthusiast community is going to have to find a way to mod *or something* W98 so it can run stuff that's ment for xp only. It's gotta be possible - so the real question I guess then becomes, is it worth the hassle to do it in the 1st place.

The obvious path of least resistance is to just be a sheep and switch to xp like the rest of the numbskulls with no backbone that just follow the herd and deal with the devildealing-soul stealing horror that is microshi-ah-soft, but who's interested in taking the easy way out? The day M$ tells me I CAN'T play game X unless I do what they tell me and put the OS THEY say on my rig, that's the day I toss the rig and go to a playstation!


**** additional kinda off topic comment *****

And b4 you go and say m$ couldn't care less about forcing ppl to switch by making sure games are xp only, and that it's the game developer that makes that call - do a little digging into how M$ gives "incentives" to game developers and to parent companies of developers to make games that are xp (and soon W64 bit) only. And I'm not talking small incentives either - I'm talking about the kind of incentive that can make or break the decision that a game even gets developed in the 1st place. As with anything else, it always boils down to money and m$ is willing to throw LOTS and LOTS of it at game development BY OTHER COMPANIES - that's gotta tell ya something.

What it tells me is that anytime anyone or anything is willing to put that kind of money into something and NOT want as much publicity as humanly possible -due to their- "amazingly overwhelming humanatarianism and generosity" then there's something wrong with WHY they're doing it, and they'd rather not have to answer questions about it.

The best OS for gamers
 

I have 3 system partitions on my HD: 98SE, Me, XP SP1. The system that runs all my games, without any exception, is XP SP1 :) . It even runs some Win95 games that doesn't run with 98. The worst system of the 3 is Me.

To play the games, I need to change my ATI driver each month - but only for XP, because there is no more certified drivers for 98 and the uncertified drivers from ATI are very buggy.

Note I said XP SP1. SP2 is another story ;) . But I will soon make a 4th partition for SP2...

Bonjour chez vous,

Ma Pomme

@MaPomme
Just curious as to why you even bother with ME? The other 2 i can understand. ;)

Answer to a curious
 

I agree that ME is the worst of the three :( . On my HD, it's a very small partition, which I can restore very fast (one minute ! ;) ). I use it only to avoid the traps of the installers : I install the software under Me, but put the software in another partition. I see and note what has been installed (registry and so on) and... I restore immediately the ME Partition as it was before the installation. Then I use the new software (but without the traps of the installers) on 98 and/or XP.

Bonjour chez vous,

Ma Pomme

Thanks Mapomme, thats sounds like a mighty fine idea! Not that I am going to do it but it does sound very logical indeed. ;)

Hey fixr,

Windows XP is based on Windows NT technology which is _completely different_ from the Windows 9X series, even if, starting Windows NT 3.51 I think, the operating system looks like the Windows 9X series and has a remarkably similar API (programming interface for applications)! So, making native Windows NT softwares to run under the Windows 9X series is completely out of question!

Just for the record, I have MS-DOS 5.0 (!!! :D ), Windows 98 (Gold Edition) and Windows XP Professional SP1, all on different partitions. ;)

Joe

I'm also curious
 

But making native Windows 9x softwares to run under the Windows NT series was very well done by MS with Windows XP. Amazing, a programming tour de force.

I'm also curious : why MS-DOS if you have 98 ? You can go from 98 to DOS at boot time (98 is booting under DOS).

Bonjour chez vous,

Ma Pomme

Hey Ma Pomme,

Whenever something really goes wrong, nothing else than plain DOS will help you. (Sometimes, even Linux might not boot. And I don't know where its disk editor is and how to use it anyway. ;) ) Also, I was raised on DOS (having had a PC now for a decade) and I code DOS softwares (small and large ones, as well), so I sometimes need real DOS to test them. E.g. how could you code a long file name emulator for DOS when you don't run DOS? :D

Ahhh, anyway, off topic! Drop me an E-mail if you wanna chat. Also, have a look at my software collection on my homepage. Bye,

Joe

George, why not format the hdd and make a clean installation of xp? yes it might be a hastle but you would get rid of loads of probs, when i first got xp it was an update from 98, the nxt time i did a clean install of xp, you could really tell the difference.

Yes and No...
 

No! Yes for the clean install, but No to reformat the hard drive! Just do a clean install of XP in another partition. XP installs a boot selector in C, put itself in D, and, when booting, you choose to run either your old Windows or your new clean XP ! :)

Bonjour chez vous,

Ma Pomme

partioning a hard drive just makes it slower or at least thats what i have suffered with several during my expierence, i am one for a single partition hdd

Philosophical issue
 

I will not discuss this "philosophical" issue here. If you don't like partitioning, then put your clean XP... on a second hard drive ;) ! You will keep, at boot time, the choice between your old windows and the new clean XP.

Bonjour chez vous,

Ma Pomme