›

What is the matter actually with windows and the good old adventuregames?

rubberchickenwithapulleyrubberchickenwithapulley
edited August 2009 in General Chat
Hi yall

I have spend hours of anger against MS due to their lack of compability with the good old games. Sure there are things like SCUMM (thank you for that indeed) and dosbox, but what the "¤%"#¤ is the problem?

I am paticular sad about toonstruck, which is one of my favorite old adventuregames (besides the obvious ones of course). It seems to take pretty much skill to get it working on dosbox (which is probably why I cannot figure it out).

LA is launching some of the good old ones on Steam - how do they do that? Is it just changing a small file? Or does it have something to do with the whole sourcecode?

Anyway.....does anyone know why it must be so darn complicated?

Kind regards
Peter

Comments

  • City Of DelusionCity Of Delusion
    edited August 2009
    Blame Microsoft. When they release new versions of Windows, they tend to break comparability with old versions of Windows. I think as of XP, anything pre-Windows 95 doesn't run and good luck trying to run any Windows 95 software. Don't be too surprised if Windows 7 winds up breaking comparability with Windows 2000-only software. LA is fiddling with the source code, which is actually the remains from an aborted attempt to re-release large quantities of their adventure games (I think they only got as far as Sam & Max: Hit The Road and one other game). As for the lack of ScummVM compatibility in these LucasArts re-releases, apparently it's more of a case of they moved data to different files, and ScummVM's developers are not immediately patching compatibility to them out of politeness (and the hope that LucasArts will re-release their entire back catalogue of adventure games).

    As for DOSbox, I have no idea.
  • hansschmuckerhansschmucker
    edited August 2009
    Like it or not, adding new features, fixing bugs and undesired behaviours tends to create incompatibilities. You'll get full Windows95 compatibility with Windows95 and nothing else.

    I don't like Microsoft: Many people here know I don't, but this is not their fault. In fact, they are probably putting way too much effort into keeping things compatible and often cut back necessary changes if they threaten to degrade compatibility.

    DOS games were written for direct hardware access. Keeping full support would have meant letting DOS applications bypass any protection, so a crash inside a DOS application would bring down your whole system.
  • City Of DelusionCity Of Delusion
    edited August 2009
    hansschmucker wrote: »
    Like it or not, adding new features, fixing bugs and undesired behaviours tends to create incompatibilities. You'll get full Windows95 compatibility with Windows95 and nothing else.

    I don't like Microsoft: Many people here know I don't, but this is not their fault. In fact, they are probably putting way too much effort into keeping things compatible and often cut back necessary changes if they threaten to degrade compatibility.

    DOS games were written for direct hardware access. Keeping full support would have meant letting DOS applications bypass any protection, so a crash inside a DOS application would bring down your whole system.

    Hmm... true. Well, the point still stands: new operating systems break compatibility with older operating systems, and the answer to the first question.
  • SHODANFreemanSHODANFreeman
    edited August 2009
    A lot of the compatibility issues are because as of XP they switched to the NT kernel.
  • hansschmuckerhansschmucker
    edited August 2009
    And it's a good thing they did. My biggest problem with Microsoft's approach to OS development is that they're having a really hard time making necessary change and the switch to the NT kernel in Windows2000 is the one case I can think of where they (almost) did what had to be done.

    The XP mode in Windows7, even if I don't like some of the details, is much more in line with how I expect a modern operating system to handle backwards compatibility.

    Specifically, I think Microsoft should stop using all those hacks they use to make software at least partially compatible and instead isolate programs which were meant to be run in a different environment. That way they could rework insecure, outdated and sometimes plain ugly interfaces without breaking compatibility. Sure, there's a lot of overhead, but let's be realistic: We rarely need 100% performance for legacy applications and the additional storage required gets cheaper and cheaper by the minute.

    Basically software for earlier versions of Windows would run in a Wine-like environment, which remaps old API behaviour to the reworked interfaces.
  • MegalomanMegaloman
    edited August 2009
    Reasonable posts above, but I can't help to think that Microsoft just doesn't care about it since "the fans solve it themselves sooner or later" or something like that. Besides, the number of Windows users who actually want to relive old Lucasarts adventures on their new(er) computers probably isn't very high.
  • natlinxznatlinxz
    edited August 2009
    If a small team could make DOSbox, I don't see why Microsoft couldn't pull it off. On the other hand, Apple is doing everything they can to make 32 bit applications run in their upcoming 64 bit "Snow Leopard". It seems like Microsoft just doesn't give a crap. If it works, great. If it doesn't...not our problem.
  • SHODANFreemanSHODANFreeman
    edited August 2009
    natlinxz wrote: »
    If a small team could make DOSbox, I don't see why Microsoft couldn't pull it off. On the other hand, Apple is doing everything they can to make 32 bit applications run in their upcoming 64 bit "Snow Leopard". It seems like Microsoft just doesn't give a crap. If it works, great. If it doesn't...not our problem.

    Speaking of 64 bit, does anyone know if the 64 bit Windows 7 is going to handle 32 bit applications better than Vista 64 does?
  • hansschmuckerhansschmucker
    edited August 2009
    There are a few issues here and there if an application is actually a bundle of different executables, but I've been running it for a while now and I can count the number of problematic applications using a two digit binary number. However, I've never run Vista64, so I can't compare.
  • ArmakuniArmakuni
    edited August 2009
    You can play most old games, even on modern computers.

    Dosbox for DOS games (or you can use ScummVM for the adventure games supported by that), and VMWare or Microsoft Virtual PC for old Windows games.

    The most troublesome games are older 3D accelerated games that won't work in new versions of Windows, but VMWare has some limited support for that.
  • MusicallyInspiredMusicallyInspired
    edited August 2009
    VMWare or Virtual PC don't support slowing down an emulated CPU speed, though, which can result in games running way to fast. That's the only reason I don't use them. I do have Win 3.11 running in DOSBox, though, which works for older Win 3.1x games.
  • ArmakuniArmakuni
    edited August 2009
    Yes, you're right about that. But some games leave me no option... they require Windows 95 or 98, and I can't think of any other way than to use VMWare or VPC for that.
    I downloaded something called CPUKiller3 which I run in VMWare if games run too fast... it's not perfect, though.
  • patterspatters
    edited August 2009
    rubberchickenwithapulley wrote: »
    Hi yall

    I have spend hours of anger against MS due to their lack of compability with the good old games. Sure there are things like SCUMM (thank you for that indeed) and dosbox, but what the "¤%"#¤ is the problem?

    I am paticular sad about toonstruck, which is one of my favorite old adventuregames (besides the obvious ones of course). It seems to take pretty much skill to get it working on dosbox (which is probably why I cannot figure it out).

    LA is launching some of the good old ones on Steam - how do they do that? Is it just changing a small file? Or does it have something to do with the whole sourcecode?

    Anyway.....does anyone know why it must be so darn complicated?

    Kind regards
    Peter

    pretty much why you can't play games from old consoles on new consoles without a port or emulation.
  • ArmakuniArmakuni
    edited August 2009
    It's not exactly the same, though... many old games can be played without any kind of emulation, you just need the right OS.
  • GaryCXJkGaryCXJk
    edited August 2009
    hansschmucker wrote: »
    There are a few issues here and there if an application is actually a bundle of different executables, but I've been running it for a while now and I can count the number of problematic applications using a two digit binary number.

    Hmmm, 11 problems don't really sound all that bad.
  • SHODANFreemanSHODANFreeman
    edited August 2009
    There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.
  • purple_monkfishpurple_monkfish
    edited August 2009
    Hey if anyone knows how to get Amber: Journey's beyond running on xp....


    but yeah... ANNOYING. I have a ton of games I can't even get to run through emulation. At some point maybe i'll just have to bite the bullet and either dual boot this pc or better yet (and probably more certain to work) build an ancient hulk lol. Dunno where i'd get mid 90's obsolete computer parts though... mmm ooold graphics cards.

    It actually surprises me which games RUN and which don't. Really old games run ok in a dos emulation mode, but the mid 90's fmv stuff? Oddly, Gabriel Knight will run, but 11th hour wont. Faust runs with sound issues and several others run with massive graphics glitches.

    It's interesting what will run in xp that wouldn't run in 2k and vice versa though.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.