this is bull****
Developers can make Win9x games compatible with Win2K with ease. It's absolute crap that they don't because appearantly Win2K is a 'business o/s', well guess what it's a business o/s because it doesn't crashed every ****ing hour.
Developers can make Win9x games compatible with Win2K with ease. It's absolute crap that they don't because appearantly Win2K is a 'business o/s', well guess what it's a business o/s because it doesn't crashed every ****ing hour. I'm getting really irritated that I have to use dual boot every time I want to play NHL2001.
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
ok, i'll just forward that to my personnel director
what can we do about it? EA Sports is like that too, they are lazy when it comes to making **** compatible, that's why I have given up on complaining about them, and just waiting for Whistler, because I have already started to see some games run in Whistler on my machine that never ran on Windows 2000 before. But anyways, Creative Labs and EA Sports are both major companies that always do that, it pisses me off too
[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 12 October 2000).]
what can we do about it? EA Sports is like that too, they are lazy when it comes to making **** compatible, that's why I have given up on complaining about them, and just waiting for Whistler, because I have already started to see some games run in Whistler on my machine that never ran on Windows 2000 before. But anyways, Creative Labs and EA Sports are both major companies that always do that, it pisses me off too
[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 12 October 2000).]
The reason they don't do it is:
1. Most of their market is using 9x. Why waste time programming for NT if almost all of their buyers are 9x? (I know I know chicken and egg). I don't like it but that's how they think.
2. Microsoft has stated that it's a "business" OS. Programmers don't run a company. Idiotic bosses do. If Microsoft say's it's a "business" OS. The programms gotta listen to their bosses. The good companies with NT drivers have good management.
3. Heh. If the company offered bad support for 9x & NT4 well I think you've got your answer already.
1. Most of their market is using 9x. Why waste time programming for NT if almost all of their buyers are 9x? (I know I know chicken and egg). I don't like it but that's how they think.
2. Microsoft has stated that it's a "business" OS. Programmers don't run a company. Idiotic bosses do. If Microsoft say's it's a "business" OS. The programms gotta listen to their bosses. The good companies with NT drivers have good management.
3. Heh. If the company offered bad support for 9x & NT4 well I think you've got your answer already.
There was a poll recently on SystemLogic.net, answered by over 3000 people. The question was: Are you running Windows 2000 yet?...The results of which came to %36.7 are in fact using Windows 2000. This is a significant chunk considering %28.8 using any flavor of Windows. Although it probably is false hope considering the type of (advanced) user the page is directed at.
wouldn't you think that most advanced users are the ones who go to those polls to vote?
Think of all the people with a new system on Win9x/ME who just want games and simple fun. It would be unlikely that they would go to tech pages and vote. And if they did vote, I'm not sure if they really understand what the question was.
My point is that those polls may not be the best indication of the Win2k versus Win9x/ME population out there. I use Win2k as well and believe me, I'm really pissed about NHL 2001 having problems with Win2k. Just go to my Games Forum posting here about NHL 2001 and you'll know how steamed I am.
I think the bottom line is, like jdulmage said, to wait for Whistler. It's all a bunch of Microsoft marketing crap about Win2k being "more suited for business applications". Also, like DOSFreak says, it's management's job to do the project planning for games. Obviously if they believe Microsoft's propaganda, then QA for NT platform will certainly not be on their agenda.
I think the best example is DOS. DOS was never a "gaming platform" but people made games on it. Those games were an eye-opener and suddenly DOS was used for something ground-breaking even though the DOS box never mentioned anything about "gaming". However, if a game had problems in DOS, everyone would be screaming left, right and centre! This is the same situation with Win2k. It is an operating system, period. It will run whatever you make for it to run just like DOS games running on DOS.
Here's my two cents.
kearos.
Think of all the people with a new system on Win9x/ME who just want games and simple fun. It would be unlikely that they would go to tech pages and vote. And if they did vote, I'm not sure if they really understand what the question was.
My point is that those polls may not be the best indication of the Win2k versus Win9x/ME population out there. I use Win2k as well and believe me, I'm really pissed about NHL 2001 having problems with Win2k. Just go to my Games Forum posting here about NHL 2001 and you'll know how steamed I am.
I think the bottom line is, like jdulmage said, to wait for Whistler. It's all a bunch of Microsoft marketing crap about Win2k being "more suited for business applications". Also, like DOSFreak says, it's management's job to do the project planning for games. Obviously if they believe Microsoft's propaganda, then QA for NT platform will certainly not be on their agenda.
I think the best example is DOS. DOS was never a "gaming platform" but people made games on it. Those games were an eye-opener and suddenly DOS was used for something ground-breaking even though the DOS box never mentioned anything about "gaming". However, if a game had problems in DOS, everyone would be screaming left, right and centre! This is the same situation with Win2k. It is an operating system, period. It will run whatever you make for it to run just like DOS games running on DOS.
Here's my two cents.
kearos.
Well you could try and blame Microsoft, but really it is down to the companies in question.
So Microsoft say 'Windows 2000 is our latest addition to our Business line of OS's'
'We recommend that home users and gamers stick to Windows 98SE or the forthcoming WindowsME'
Now, the company with no drive reads this, takes everything as read and decides not to investigate the possibility of allowing development for their products under Windows 2000.
Now the company with a little more drive decides to do a bit of research.
First they find that within a couple of months of Win2000's official release, Microsoft themselves have released a 'games compatibility update'
They dig a little deeper, '....X-Box will use a cut down version of the Win2000 Kernel'
Next they stumble accross sites like this and suddenly the choice is crystal clear - their games MUST run under Win2000.
How is Microsoft at fault?
Quite an easy one here, they did/do lie.
I'm not going to go into an argument on Microsoft Ethics, but in respect to Windows2000 they lied.
You see when Win2000 was released, WinME was fast approaching the beta phase.
OK there wasn't that much development required with WinME (Insert IE 5.5, Media Player 7, lift the TCP/IP stacks from Win2k) but time had still been spent.
They had their market, if they could make WinME their one and only Win9x product, then there would be a lot of people buying the upgrade.
Now imagine how sales would have fallen if the world knew that Win2k would play most games fine?
OK so people would have bought Win2k instead, but WinME would have been a disaster.
The bottom line is that games are a technical nightmare to give support on.
I used to work for a PC manufacturer here in the UK.
Our policy was 'No technical support on games' but we usually had to try and help.
By minimising the number of platforms your game runs on, you are making technical support a lot easier.
Hence you will see very few games actually say Win2000 compatible on the box, but we all know they are.
SCI were quite happy to tell me some 4 months ago that Carmageddon TDR would run fine under Win2k and was being tested on this platform, but Win2k appears nowhere on the packaging.
I think the true statement here is that we will have to wait for Whistler before we see the software houses developing specifically for a Win2k based system.
Love them or hate them, Microsoft dictate at what speed a home user OS become obsolete and when the users should be encouraged to upgrade.
Once Whistler has been released and Microsoft confirm that WinME is indeed the last product in the now aging Win9x/DOS code, software companies will sit up and listen.
We will have a uniformed OS across the board, from servers to home stand alone PC's.
Microsoft will confirm that Whsitler is the OS of choice, and at last we will have a stable OS with 100% of games working.
I really don't feel that Microsoft can be blamed that much here.
They wrote into Windows 2000 the ability to run games as well as and sometime better than Win9x.
It has a fully functioning DirectX 7 layer, and will be upgradeable to DirectX 8 in the near future.
We have a very tricky 12 months ahead of us.
I for one will continue to use Win2000 as my only OS (No way I'd ever go back to a dual-boot now).
If I purchase a game that wont run under Win2000 then it will go back to the shop and the company in question will loose my £25-£35.
Once Whislter has been released and settled down, then we will have everything that Win2k should offer now.
------------------
PIII 800EB, ASUS CUSL2, 512MB PC100 RAM (Hyundai), Matrox G400MAX, SB Live! Value, Intel 10/100 NIC, Adaptec 2940UW, IBM 7200 ATA100 30GB HD, IBM 7200 ATA66 20GB HD, Pioneer 32x/6x SCSI DVD, Yamaha 4416 SCSI CD-RW, Iomega Zip 100 SCSI Internal, Iiyama Vision Master Pro 410.
Windows 2000 Only
So Microsoft say 'Windows 2000 is our latest addition to our Business line of OS's'
'We recommend that home users and gamers stick to Windows 98SE or the forthcoming WindowsME'
Now, the company with no drive reads this, takes everything as read and decides not to investigate the possibility of allowing development for their products under Windows 2000.
Now the company with a little more drive decides to do a bit of research.
First they find that within a couple of months of Win2000's official release, Microsoft themselves have released a 'games compatibility update'
They dig a little deeper, '....X-Box will use a cut down version of the Win2000 Kernel'
Next they stumble accross sites like this and suddenly the choice is crystal clear - their games MUST run under Win2000.
How is Microsoft at fault?
Quite an easy one here, they did/do lie.
I'm not going to go into an argument on Microsoft Ethics, but in respect to Windows2000 they lied.
You see when Win2000 was released, WinME was fast approaching the beta phase.
OK there wasn't that much development required with WinME (Insert IE 5.5, Media Player 7, lift the TCP/IP stacks from Win2k) but time had still been spent.
They had their market, if they could make WinME their one and only Win9x product, then there would be a lot of people buying the upgrade.
Now imagine how sales would have fallen if the world knew that Win2k would play most games fine?
OK so people would have bought Win2k instead, but WinME would have been a disaster.
The bottom line is that games are a technical nightmare to give support on.
I used to work for a PC manufacturer here in the UK.
Our policy was 'No technical support on games' but we usually had to try and help.
By minimising the number of platforms your game runs on, you are making technical support a lot easier.
Hence you will see very few games actually say Win2000 compatible on the box, but we all know they are.
SCI were quite happy to tell me some 4 months ago that Carmageddon TDR would run fine under Win2k and was being tested on this platform, but Win2k appears nowhere on the packaging.
I think the true statement here is that we will have to wait for Whistler before we see the software houses developing specifically for a Win2k based system.
Love them or hate them, Microsoft dictate at what speed a home user OS become obsolete and when the users should be encouraged to upgrade.
Once Whistler has been released and Microsoft confirm that WinME is indeed the last product in the now aging Win9x/DOS code, software companies will sit up and listen.
We will have a uniformed OS across the board, from servers to home stand alone PC's.
Microsoft will confirm that Whsitler is the OS of choice, and at last we will have a stable OS with 100% of games working.
I really don't feel that Microsoft can be blamed that much here.
They wrote into Windows 2000 the ability to run games as well as and sometime better than Win9x.
It has a fully functioning DirectX 7 layer, and will be upgradeable to DirectX 8 in the near future.
We have a very tricky 12 months ahead of us.
I for one will continue to use Win2000 as my only OS (No way I'd ever go back to a dual-boot now).
If I purchase a game that wont run under Win2000 then it will go back to the shop and the company in question will loose my £25-£35.
Once Whislter has been released and settled down, then we will have everything that Win2k should offer now.
------------------
PIII 800EB, ASUS CUSL2, 512MB PC100 RAM (Hyundai), Matrox G400MAX, SB Live! Value, Intel 10/100 NIC, Adaptec 2940UW, IBM 7200 ATA100 30GB HD, IBM 7200 ATA66 20GB HD, Pioneer 32x/6x SCSI DVD, Yamaha 4416 SCSI CD-RW, Iomega Zip 100 SCSI Internal, Iiyama Vision Master Pro 410.
Windows 2000 Only
Hi BladeRunner
I understand what you're saying but your argument seems to be analyzing what Microsoft needs to do in terms of marketing for the better of the company.
However, our argument is that companies didn't do the research needed to find the Win2k gaming population and that Microsoft's propaganda put a "constraint" around each product in the sense they made Win2k "seem" like it was only for business applications and that WinME is far more superior to be used at home. So, in essence, when you comment that Microsoft did what they did in order to "make WinME their one and only Win9x product, (so that) there would be a lot of people buying the upgrade," then I think Microsoft IS at fault to the public because they have the monopolistic control in order to dictate the market, and they chose to market Win2k as a 'business' platform so that their 'Win9x' counterpart would still be alive; they are at fault for disregarding the public interest and intentionally using marketing tactics so that they could profit from an inferior product, WinME.
If "the world knew that Win2k would play most games fine," then the DEMAND for WinME would greatly decline however, there would still be people buying WinME as well as OEMs. But this is not what Microsoft wants, right? They want ALL home users to use WinME so once again, they are at fault for "intentionally using marketing tactics so that they could still profit from an inferior product." Isn't this partly what the lawsuit regarding Microsoft's monopoly was about? Imagine Microsoft was in competition with other companies and that their market is now competitive and no longer monopolistic. Consider that other companies are making a rock-solid platform with excellent networking capabilities and provides support for games as well. Wouldn't you think Microsoft would change their marketing strategy so that Win2k would come on stronger in order to match their competition? In a competitive market, with a superior competition, Microsoft might end up scrapping WinME and fully concentrate on Win2k because that's the only platform stable enough and with high quality enough networking standards to meet our imaginary competition.
This is the situation we see with Intel and AMD. Intel had everything going their way until AMD released the Athlon. Immediately, Intel is met with huge competition and their product is suddenly not superior anymore, but rather they are equivalent substitutes. They were developing the Timna processor for the home users and found that they had to scrap that entire project because they needed to concentrate on the P4. They know they're losing because while AMD is releasing a 1.2Ghz Athlon and 1.4Ghz in a month, Intel still can't release their recalled P3 1.13Ghz. Imagine what would happen if AMD weren't there. Then Intel would still release the Timna processor and would achieve economic profits. Now, since they can't release the Timna processor, they've lost all the capital spent on developing the Timna. Do you see my point why I say Microsoft IS at fault and we shouldn't take pity into Microsoft's market position? Just because they HAVE WinME doesn't justify why they would downplay a superior platform so that they can profit from an inferior one.
In regards to games, it's true that they are difficult to support. I always think that games either work or they don't. When a game doesn't work, it's either the developer's problem or your system isn't setup properly. In terms of a PC manufacturer, I don't think they have an obligation to troubleshoot games. I too have worked with the technical department of an OEM in Canada and I admit, there are occasionally calls from customers regarding games but if I remember correctly, almost 65% of those calls were problems with Windows setup (which we're obliged to fix) and 35% were customer negligence. I don't believe that one game wouldn't work and all others would. I think that would be the developer's problem. Either they all work on that system or they all don't. If they all don't, then something is wrong with the system.
I do NOT believe limiting the platform games run on is a solution. I don't even understand how that's a solution unless you are suggesting we go play games on consoles. Now THAT'S a situation when games run on limited platforms and limited hardware combinations too! The fact is that PCs run whatever we want it to run and that cannot be avoided. Even with JUST Win9x/ME, there will be just as much troubleshooting. If you have resources to provide technical support for Win9x/ME, wouldn't it be worthwhile to use the same resources and provide technical support for Win2k users too? It might be slower but at the same time, you meet twice the demand! Also, if we consider our situation right now and disregard how Microsoft marketed their OS, the Win2k users out there right now are likely to be experienced users therefore how much technical support do you expect to give to experienced users?
You gave me an example of a game and I shall give you an example too: EA Sports NHL 2001.
We have a game here that runs perfectly on Windows 2000 except some areas of the game will give an error "Error: hard drive is full". This does not happen in Win9x/ME and it has been confirmed by many people. (please don't comment on the error. It's not the hard drive space and not the partition, etc.)
The game box does not mention anything about Win2k. EA's NHL 2001 support page strictly says that they do not OFFICIALLY support Win2k. However, their NHL 2001 readme under section 15 says the following:
"Although not officially supported, we have tested NHL 2001 on Windows 2000 and have not encountered any major problems." How did the QA team miss ENTIRE SECTIONS of the game NOT running in Win2k??
Here's the best part. There is a fix. But the fix is not from EA. The fix was made by some basement programmer out of Russia who doesn't have the source code. HOW CAN HE FIX THE GAME TO WORK IN WIN2K WHEN EA CLAIMS THEY CANNOT?
There is clearly more to the story than meets the eye and I think we've only scratched the surface.
I'm happy with what I've said here and I'm late for an appointment already.
Cheers.
Regards,
kearos
I understand what you're saying but your argument seems to be analyzing what Microsoft needs to do in terms of marketing for the better of the company.
However, our argument is that companies didn't do the research needed to find the Win2k gaming population and that Microsoft's propaganda put a "constraint" around each product in the sense they made Win2k "seem" like it was only for business applications and that WinME is far more superior to be used at home. So, in essence, when you comment that Microsoft did what they did in order to "make WinME their one and only Win9x product, (so that) there would be a lot of people buying the upgrade," then I think Microsoft IS at fault to the public because they have the monopolistic control in order to dictate the market, and they chose to market Win2k as a 'business' platform so that their 'Win9x' counterpart would still be alive; they are at fault for disregarding the public interest and intentionally using marketing tactics so that they could profit from an inferior product, WinME.
If "the world knew that Win2k would play most games fine," then the DEMAND for WinME would greatly decline however, there would still be people buying WinME as well as OEMs. But this is not what Microsoft wants, right? They want ALL home users to use WinME so once again, they are at fault for "intentionally using marketing tactics so that they could still profit from an inferior product." Isn't this partly what the lawsuit regarding Microsoft's monopoly was about? Imagine Microsoft was in competition with other companies and that their market is now competitive and no longer monopolistic. Consider that other companies are making a rock-solid platform with excellent networking capabilities and provides support for games as well. Wouldn't you think Microsoft would change their marketing strategy so that Win2k would come on stronger in order to match their competition? In a competitive market, with a superior competition, Microsoft might end up scrapping WinME and fully concentrate on Win2k because that's the only platform stable enough and with high quality enough networking standards to meet our imaginary competition.
This is the situation we see with Intel and AMD. Intel had everything going their way until AMD released the Athlon. Immediately, Intel is met with huge competition and their product is suddenly not superior anymore, but rather they are equivalent substitutes. They were developing the Timna processor for the home users and found that they had to scrap that entire project because they needed to concentrate on the P4. They know they're losing because while AMD is releasing a 1.2Ghz Athlon and 1.4Ghz in a month, Intel still can't release their recalled P3 1.13Ghz. Imagine what would happen if AMD weren't there. Then Intel would still release the Timna processor and would achieve economic profits. Now, since they can't release the Timna processor, they've lost all the capital spent on developing the Timna. Do you see my point why I say Microsoft IS at fault and we shouldn't take pity into Microsoft's market position? Just because they HAVE WinME doesn't justify why they would downplay a superior platform so that they can profit from an inferior one.
In regards to games, it's true that they are difficult to support. I always think that games either work or they don't. When a game doesn't work, it's either the developer's problem or your system isn't setup properly. In terms of a PC manufacturer, I don't think they have an obligation to troubleshoot games. I too have worked with the technical department of an OEM in Canada and I admit, there are occasionally calls from customers regarding games but if I remember correctly, almost 65% of those calls were problems with Windows setup (which we're obliged to fix) and 35% were customer negligence. I don't believe that one game wouldn't work and all others would. I think that would be the developer's problem. Either they all work on that system or they all don't. If they all don't, then something is wrong with the system.
I do NOT believe limiting the platform games run on is a solution. I don't even understand how that's a solution unless you are suggesting we go play games on consoles. Now THAT'S a situation when games run on limited platforms and limited hardware combinations too! The fact is that PCs run whatever we want it to run and that cannot be avoided. Even with JUST Win9x/ME, there will be just as much troubleshooting. If you have resources to provide technical support for Win9x/ME, wouldn't it be worthwhile to use the same resources and provide technical support for Win2k users too? It might be slower but at the same time, you meet twice the demand! Also, if we consider our situation right now and disregard how Microsoft marketed their OS, the Win2k users out there right now are likely to be experienced users therefore how much technical support do you expect to give to experienced users?
You gave me an example of a game and I shall give you an example too: EA Sports NHL 2001.
We have a game here that runs perfectly on Windows 2000 except some areas of the game will give an error "Error: hard drive is full". This does not happen in Win9x/ME and it has been confirmed by many people. (please don't comment on the error. It's not the hard drive space and not the partition, etc.)
The game box does not mention anything about Win2k. EA's NHL 2001 support page strictly says that they do not OFFICIALLY support Win2k. However, their NHL 2001 readme under section 15 says the following:
"Although not officially supported, we have tested NHL 2001 on Windows 2000 and have not encountered any major problems." How did the QA team miss ENTIRE SECTIONS of the game NOT running in Win2k??
Here's the best part. There is a fix. But the fix is not from EA. The fix was made by some basement programmer out of Russia who doesn't have the source code. HOW CAN HE FIX THE GAME TO WORK IN WIN2K WHEN EA CLAIMS THEY CANNOT?
There is clearly more to the story than meets the eye and I think we've only scratched the surface.
I'm happy with what I've said here and I'm late for an appointment already.
Cheers.
Regards,
kearos
Hi everyone
I just want to say that I'm not here to criticize anyone. If anyone feels offended by what I've said, then you have my sincere apologies. I just want to express my remarks and point out the "other" side.
I think this is an excellent forum and we have professional and amateur people who can appreciate each other's comments and make exciting replies as well. I had trouble finding a forum where the next reply wouldn't be "haha, you're so stupid." or somebody will say "chill out, man." I think it's constructive to have good discussions and maybe change the way we perceive something.
Thanks.
kearos
I just want to say that I'm not here to criticize anyone. If anyone feels offended by what I've said, then you have my sincere apologies. I just want to express my remarks and point out the "other" side.
I think this is an excellent forum and we have professional and amateur people who can appreciate each other's comments and make exciting replies as well. I had trouble finding a forum where the next reply wouldn't be "haha, you're so stupid." or somebody will say "chill out, man." I think it's constructive to have good discussions and maybe change the way we perceive something.
Thanks.
kearos
I find it hard to believe that Microsoft would downplay Win2k's gaming ability just so they could sell more copies of WinME. Have you compared prices lately? The full version of Win2k costs about 50% more that the full version of WinME. Why, then, would they rather sell their cheaper product? If they were to tout Win2k as the faster and more stable OS for businesses AND homes, then they would sell more copies of Win2k, which they make more profit on....
Isn't it due to the law of supply and demand of a monopoly that they can charge whatever they want and consumers will still buy it?
For example, your electric company can charge whatever they want and you still have to pay it. The prices isn't ridiculously high because of government intervention, yes?
So in Microsoft's case, it wouldn't matter what they charge. And you're right that if Win2k was the only OS, then everyone would buy it. However, they have already put the capital into developing WinME, wouldn't it be an awful waste if they just scrapped it when they have the market under their thumb? So, sell both, and demand is for *any* Windows OS, steer home users to buy WinME and the quantity bought for a lower price would cover everything. Also, they want to keep the low-income market happy so they must have a cheap OS. You cannot have just Win2k and sell it at a high price and expect a profit. But who's to say Win2k can't be sold for less? I don't know.
If you have JUST Win2k, then you have to take a look at the market demand again. But maybe they have and Win2k would command too high of a price if they got rid of WinME. So instead, to justify their financial goals, they promote WinME for less and selling for larger quantity and leave Win2k to large corporations. After all, who better to pay the high price than corporate customers?
All in all, Microsoft COULD tout Win2k as good for everything OS but I don't think they would end up selling more because by doing that, Win2k must sell for a lower price according to the monopolistic law of supply and demand. On the contrary, you have a low price for one product and a high price for another product. They both sell for large quantities and you end up achieving economic profit.
But still, I think it's Microsoft's fault that they are in a monopolistic situation. Their marketing worked against gaming on Win2k and this is the root of our problems.
kearos
For example, your electric company can charge whatever they want and you still have to pay it. The prices isn't ridiculously high because of government intervention, yes?
So in Microsoft's case, it wouldn't matter what they charge. And you're right that if Win2k was the only OS, then everyone would buy it. However, they have already put the capital into developing WinME, wouldn't it be an awful waste if they just scrapped it when they have the market under their thumb? So, sell both, and demand is for *any* Windows OS, steer home users to buy WinME and the quantity bought for a lower price would cover everything. Also, they want to keep the low-income market happy so they must have a cheap OS. You cannot have just Win2k and sell it at a high price and expect a profit. But who's to say Win2k can't be sold for less? I don't know.
If you have JUST Win2k, then you have to take a look at the market demand again. But maybe they have and Win2k would command too high of a price if they got rid of WinME. So instead, to justify their financial goals, they promote WinME for less and selling for larger quantity and leave Win2k to large corporations. After all, who better to pay the high price than corporate customers?
All in all, Microsoft COULD tout Win2k as good for everything OS but I don't think they would end up selling more because by doing that, Win2k must sell for a lower price according to the monopolistic law of supply and demand. On the contrary, you have a low price for one product and a high price for another product. They both sell for large quantities and you end up achieving economic profit.
But still, I think it's Microsoft's fault that they are in a monopolistic situation. Their marketing worked against gaming on Win2k and this is the root of our problems.
kearos
I've been pondering this for the last few minutes whether the lack of gaming support for Windows 2000 is their fault or not. Personally I believe it isn't, D3D games should run fine based on the current state of DX7 or DX8. The onus is on the developers to exploit every platform possible. Running a simple poll on their website would help them guage the level of support they need, and I'd bet nickles to dimes that a lot of users would want to fully migrate to win2k. If a friend bought a new computer and asked me to set it up I'd surly recommend win2k, but as it is right now i've loaded up winme more times than i can count.
And here we go, another compatibility update from Microsoft. Anyone else notice that the compatibility updates mostly concern games?
------------------
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" -Adolph Hitler, 1935
------------------
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" -Adolph Hitler, 1935
CUViper:
Kearos hit it right on the head I think
After MS had put so much work into developing WinME they couldn't simply scrap it, the OS had to be released.
Look at it this way:
A user upgrades to WinME.
Next year they upgrade to Whistler, that's two upgrades they have purchased.
Now a Win2000 user 'might' not bother with an upgrade to Whistler.
Why?
Because once Whistler is released and becomes the OS Standard, games manufacturers will make damn sure their games run on it.
In theory if it runs on Whistler it will run on Win2k.
So for every WinME version upgrade sold they will then in turn sell an upgrade to Whistler.
I hope this thread doesn't move onto a discussion about MS in general.
I have very strong feeling about that subject and I know full well that they wont be in line with about 95% of the forum readers.
The only real issue with Win2000's implimentation of DirectX is that althought it is DirectX 7.0a it only reports itself as 7.0.
Game designers can program to use Win2k's HAL.
IMHO - The blame should land firmly at the feet of the software houses, not MS.
Kearos hit it right on the head I think
After MS had put so much work into developing WinME they couldn't simply scrap it, the OS had to be released.
Look at it this way:
A user upgrades to WinME.
Next year they upgrade to Whistler, that's two upgrades they have purchased.
Now a Win2000 user 'might' not bother with an upgrade to Whistler.
Why?
Because once Whistler is released and becomes the OS Standard, games manufacturers will make damn sure their games run on it.
In theory if it runs on Whistler it will run on Win2k.
So for every WinME version upgrade sold they will then in turn sell an upgrade to Whistler.
I hope this thread doesn't move onto a discussion about MS in general.
I have very strong feeling about that subject and I know full well that they wont be in line with about 95% of the forum readers.
The only real issue with Win2000's implimentation of DirectX is that althought it is DirectX 7.0a it only reports itself as 7.0.
Game designers can program to use Win2k's HAL.
IMHO - The blame should land firmly at the feet of the software houses, not MS.
Hi guys,
I agree with the fact that it's up to the developers to expoit every platform and that they failed to correctly identify the Win2k gaming population.
However, on a deeper level, and indirectly, it's Microsoft's fault for putting up propaganda that makes people and management *think* that Win2k isn't a gaming platform. They have abused their monopolistic market position. This indirectly makes game developers remove QA time on their agenda for Win2k testing because based on what Microsoft says, it would be logical to conclude that whoever plays games will not be using Windows 2000. It is this point that makes me say that Microsoft is at fault. But yes, the immediate fault lands on the game developers. I agree fully with that. Also, temo is absolutely correct to say that Windows 2000 has the same API and there should be no major obstacles to get a game to work.
I'd like to take NHL 2001 as an example again, if I may. If I choose "quick game," I can play the game with absolutely NO errors. This proves to me that DX7 is working and every gameplay aspect of the game DOES work with Windows 2000. However, the error occurs if I choose Tournament modes. This proves to me that they did NOT sufficiently test the game on Win2k platform because the game itself works. It's just some menu "functions" that do not work. Which means that NHL 2001 SHOULD have NO problems with Windows 2000 because I can play the bloody thing. It's only certain menu sections that failed compatibility. I also stress that there IS a fix available but not through EA. A basement programmer without the source code has written a working fix therefore I see no reason why EA chose to overlook Windows 2000. Obviously getting it to work wasn't difficult if somebody without the source code could do it.
I don't think Microsoft didn't know that Win2k was going to kick ass. I think they know very well that Windows 2000 kicks a lot of ass. But why they're doing what they're doing is still a bit of a mystery to me. Are PC game developers REALLY overlooking the Win2k gaming community? Or is there something happening under the table between Microsoft and game developers that we don't know about? Maybe Microsoft has a master plan [censored] back to 1980's that makes its finale through Whistler? (they didn't anticipate on home users being able to afford Windows 2000?...therefore they didn't expect us to find out?)
Going to Canucks game. Ciao.
kearos.
I agree with the fact that it's up to the developers to expoit every platform and that they failed to correctly identify the Win2k gaming population.
However, on a deeper level, and indirectly, it's Microsoft's fault for putting up propaganda that makes people and management *think* that Win2k isn't a gaming platform. They have abused their monopolistic market position. This indirectly makes game developers remove QA time on their agenda for Win2k testing because based on what Microsoft says, it would be logical to conclude that whoever plays games will not be using Windows 2000. It is this point that makes me say that Microsoft is at fault. But yes, the immediate fault lands on the game developers. I agree fully with that. Also, temo is absolutely correct to say that Windows 2000 has the same API and there should be no major obstacles to get a game to work.
I'd like to take NHL 2001 as an example again, if I may. If I choose "quick game," I can play the game with absolutely NO errors. This proves to me that DX7 is working and every gameplay aspect of the game DOES work with Windows 2000. However, the error occurs if I choose Tournament modes. This proves to me that they did NOT sufficiently test the game on Win2k platform because the game itself works. It's just some menu "functions" that do not work. Which means that NHL 2001 SHOULD have NO problems with Windows 2000 because I can play the bloody thing. It's only certain menu sections that failed compatibility. I also stress that there IS a fix available but not through EA. A basement programmer without the source code has written a working fix therefore I see no reason why EA chose to overlook Windows 2000. Obviously getting it to work wasn't difficult if somebody without the source code could do it.
I don't think Microsoft didn't know that Win2k was going to kick ass. I think they know very well that Windows 2000 kicks a lot of ass. But why they're doing what they're doing is still a bit of a mystery to me. Are PC game developers REALLY overlooking the Win2k gaming community? Or is there something happening under the table between Microsoft and game developers that we don't know about? Maybe Microsoft has a master plan [censored] back to 1980's that makes its finale through Whistler? (they didn't anticipate on home users being able to afford Windows 2000?...therefore they didn't expect us to find out?)
Going to Canucks game. Ciao.
kearos.
well, NHL 2001 runs on Windows 2000, because I went to http://www.win2kgames.com and put in NHL 2001 and most of the users say that it runs, so it defintely ain't MS or the software makers. So that only leaves one thing....the computer and it's compatibility with win2k.
Hi jdulmage,
there are THREE comments about NHL 2001 at http://www.win2kgames.com compatibility search and TWO of those comments say that they cannot create a season/tournament. THIS is the problem I'm talking about. The game itself runs great if I go to Quick Game ONLY. Even the readers here at ntcompatible.com confirm that it runs perfectly BUT cannot create season/tournament modes. Therefore it IS MS and the software makers, no?
kearos
there are THREE comments about NHL 2001 at http://www.win2kgames.com compatibility search and TWO of those comments say that they cannot create a season/tournament. THIS is the problem I'm talking about. The game itself runs great if I go to Quick Game ONLY. Even the readers here at ntcompatible.com confirm that it runs perfectly BUT cannot create season/tournament modes. Therefore it IS MS and the software makers, no?
kearos
