doom3 only on win2000 and winxp

[gururu]

Windows 2000/xp only

 

[JBT]

Cause alot of people like OGL better? Supposidly it is faster than D3D though not on ATI cards.

 

[nitromullet]

What about *nix? UT2003/4 don't offically run on Linux either because they don't want to offer tech support, but it works just fine.

Also, why would you even be running Windows Me on hardware worthy of Doom3?

 

[cappsa]

I believe it was reported from id that the boxed version will be Windows only, but a *nix version would be available at some point.

 

[T9D]

If someone is still running on windows 98 or something then they don't deserve to play this game.

It's coming for linux and mac also though.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: cappsa
I believe it was reported from id that the boxed version will be Windows only, but a *nix version would be available at some point.

I thought JC was a big supporter of Linix and open source? Can't imagine he'd not make a *nix version of D3.

 

[nitromullet]

The Linux version of Q3 was put out by Loki Games, which is now defunct. So, I'm not sure who wil publish it. With RTCW, there was a Linux installer that you could download, and then copy the pak files over from a Windows install. UT2003/4 will install on Linux straight off the Windows CD's.

I would be surprised if there was a seperate CD released for Linux....

 

[g3pro]

WTF!

Doom 3 is going to be on XP, 2000, Mac OS X, and Linux (x86). Stop the FUD!

 

[Insomniak]

So what? No one has any business still running windows 98 anyway. Windows 2000 support ends soon, people on 98 should EXPECT to be left in the dust. Computers are not a one time purchase.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
So what? No one has any business still running windows 98 anyway. Windows 2000 support ends soon, people on 98 should EXPECT to be left in the dust. Computers are not a one time purchase.

that's not the point I was thinking about. I was thinking along the lines of....well, if they are targetting it for a particular operating system(s), shouldn't they be coding using an API which is more thoroughly supported by that operating system?

anyway, i hope they have a linux version or mac version too.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: gururu

that's not the point I was thinking about. I was thinking along the lines of....well, if they are targetting it for a particular operating system(s), shouldn't they be coding using an API which is more thoroughly supported by that operating system?

Yay?

 

[oldfart]

The reply we got was that it is confirmed and indeed true that DOOM 3 will only run on Windows machines that have windows 2000 or XP and not lower. So there you have it, looks like some peoples upgrading woes just aren't quite over yet.

I read that as the only MS operating systems supported are Win2K/XP. It doesn't say other operating systems such as Linux and OSX are not supported.

 

[mattsaccount]

>> shouldn't they be coding using an API which is more thoroughly supported by that operating system?

What gives you the impression that OpenGL is not "fully supported" by windows? What would be the point in programming DirectX, only to have to _rewrite_ the entire engine to use openGL so that it would run under Linux?

 

[Pete]

Windows 98 had trouble running above 512MB RAM, didn't it? So--besides the obvious instability issues--why would you support it with a game that requires 512MB as a minimum?

 

[Mareg]

Originally posted by: Pete
Windows 98 had trouble running above 512MB RAM, didn't it? So--besides the obvious instability issues--why would you support it with a game that requires 512MB as a minimum?

Good point. I think some people like win98 for some oldies that only run on that OS. For those people, time to think about a good ol dual boot.

 

[Shad0hawK]

who's going to be running 98 on a 2GhZ+ system anyway? as for the openGL question, it still looks better than d3d (just ask ILM, dreamworks, and a host of graphics professionals)

 

[selfbuilt]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
who's going to be running 98 on a 2GhZ+ system anyway?

Umm, how about my son (Barton 2800+, 512MB PC-333, Radeon 9500Pro) all running on lowly Windows ME. Why? No reason to upgrade to XP. Yes, the 512MB limit is a pain - but for video encoding, his system is actually measurably *faster* than my equivalently-clocked XP system with 1GB low-latency corsairs (presumably due to the more stable, hence slower, NTFS of 2000/XP compared to FAT32 in WinME).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that XP isn't a much better OS all the way around, and I can easily understand why OpenGL Doom3 is 2000/XP only .... but why does everyone have to crap on users who *paid* for every single version of windows on all their computers, and who would naturally rather avoid forking out extra $$ for the latest of OS if it doesn't provide a benefit? Urgent need to appease the Microsoft gods? :roll:

At this point in time, the only compelling reason to upgrade that particular ME system to XP is so that my son can play Doom3. Ok, fair enough, had to happen sooner or later - but what's wrong with people who have held out this long? I'm currently running 2 XPs, 1 Win2K, and 2 WinME systems in my house - all legit, and all serving their purposes well.

If people can do everything they want stably with Win98/ME, then more power to 'em I'd say.

 

[TStep]

Originally posted by: selfbuilt

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
who's going to be running 98 on a 2GhZ+ system anyway?

Umm, how about my son (Barton 2800+, 512MB PC-333, Radeon 9500Pro) all running on lowly Windows ME. Why? No reason to upgrade to XP. Yes, the 512MB limit is a pain - but for video encoding, his system is actually measurably *faster* than my equivalently-clocked XP system with 1GB low-latency corsairs (presumably due to the more stable, hence slower, NTFS of 2000/XP compared to FAT32 in WinME).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that XP isn't a much better OS all the way around, and I can easily understand why OpenGL Doom3 is 2000/XP only .... but why does everyone have to crap on users who *paid* for every single version of windows on all their computers, and who would naturally rather avoid forking out extra $$ for the latest of OS if it doesn't provide a benefit? Urgent need to appease the Microsoft gods? :roll:

At this point in time, the only compelling reason to upgrade that particular ME system to XP is so that my son can play Doom3. Ok, fair enough, had to happen sooner or later - but what's wrong with people who have held out this long? I'm currently running 2 XPs, 1 Win2K, and 2 WinME systems in my house - all legit, and all serving their purposes well.

If people can do everything they want stably with Win98/ME, then more power to 'em I'd say.

Agreed. The new cost of the game is $60 plus two versions of XP or 2000 if my two boys want to play. Currently one XP Pro, one XP Home, and two 98SE, all legit.

 

[vetteguy]

Microsoft isn't supporting 9x anymore (or at least not much longer), why should game developers? Let it die. XP>9x...if you're running hardware geared for running Doom3, you owe it to yourself to get a better OS than 9x.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: selfbuilt

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
who's going to be running 98 on a 2GhZ+ system anyway?

Umm, how about my son (Barton 2800+, 512MB PC-333, Radeon 9500Pro) all running on lowly Windows ME. Why? No reason to upgrade to XP. Yes, the 512MB limit is a pain - but for video encoding, his system is actually measurably *faster* than my equivalently-clocked XP system with 1GB low-latency corsairs (presumably due to the more stable, hence slower, NTFS of 2000/XP compared to FAT32 in WinME).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that XP isn't a much better OS all the way around, and I can easily understand why OpenGL Doom3 is 2000/XP only .... but why does everyone have to crap on users who *paid* for every single version of windows on all their computers, and who would naturally rather avoid forking out extra $$ for the latest of OS if it doesn't provide a benefit? Urgent need to appease the Microsoft gods? :roll:

At this point in time, the only compelling reason to upgrade that particular ME system to XP is so that my son can play Doom3. Ok, fair enough, had to happen sooner or later - but what's wrong with people who have held out this long? I'm currently running 2 XPs, 1 Win2K, and 2 WinME systems in my house - all legit, and all serving their purposes well.

If people can do everything they want stably with Win98/ME, then more power to 'em I'd say.

can't you run FAT32 on Win XP???

 

[Gamingphreek]

Yes you can, but only do it if your drive is smaller than like 30gb IIRC. Still i would still pick NTFS over it. Also i obtained a corporate edition of XP from my aunts college. So i can install XP as many times as i want. (YES ITS LEGAL), however cant you buy XP and install it on like 4 computers before it wont let you anymore.

Also it makes no sense to support WIN98, as they cant because microsoft is no longer giving support for it so everything would fall on ID. Not to mention there is only 9.0b for 98/me no 9.0C so some of the future games just wont run period.

Self built why the hell are you running ME. That is the WORST OS ever to be designed. Its unstable eats memory, sh!t if you dont want to upgrade him to XP at least give him 98SE which is way better than ME.

-Kevin

 

[Schadenfroh]

but will it run on NT4.0?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: selfbuilt

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
who's going to be running 98 on a 2GhZ+ system anyway?

Umm, how about my son (Barton 2800+, 512MB PC-333, Radeon 9500Pro) all running on lowly Windows ME. Why? No reason to upgrade to XP. Yes, the 512MB limit is a pain - but for video encoding, his system is actually measurably *faster* than my equivalently-clocked XP system with 1GB low-latency corsairs (presumably due to the more stable, hence slower, NTFS of 2000/XP compared to FAT32 in WinME).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that XP isn't a much better OS all the way around, and I can easily understand why OpenGL Doom3 is 2000/XP only .... but why does everyone have to crap on users who *paid* for every single version of windows on all their computers, and who would naturally rather avoid forking out extra $$ for the latest of OS if it doesn't provide a benefit? Urgent need to appease the Microsoft gods? :roll:

At this point in time, the only compelling reason to upgrade that particular ME system to XP is so that my son can play Doom3. Ok, fair enough, had to happen sooner or later - but what's wrong with people who have held out this long? I'm currently running 2 XPs, 1 Win2K, and 2 WinME systems in my house - all legit, and all serving their purposes well.

If people can do everything they want stably with Win98/ME, then more power to 'em I'd say.

Hate to cut in, but 'stable in Windows ME' is an oxymoron . ME is the buggiest piece of crap OS MS has released in the past 10 years.

 

[selfbuilt]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Also it makes no sense to support WIN98, as they cant because microsoft is no longer giving support for it so everything would fall on ID. Not to mention there is only 9.0b for 98/me no 9.0C so some of the future games just wont run period.

Self built why the hell are you running ME. That is the WORST OS ever to be designed. Its unstable eats memory, sh!t if you dont want to upgrade him to XP at least give him 98SE which is way better than ME.

Actually, that particular copy of ME is one I bought when it first came out so I could play with it (it replaced my 98SE which I bought to replace one of my original 98s, which replaced one my 95s, etc ... all original disks sitting in a drawer somewhere). I passed it along when I bought XP for my main rig.

I know everyone craps all over ME, but I found it more stable than 98SE on that particular hardware config, and it still had MS support until recently (plus it had native support for a few extra gizmos, like flash drives, etc.). Of course, now being limited to DirectX9.0b and Cat 4.2, I knew it was only a matter of time before I'd have to upgrade that machine as well. I supposed Doom3 is at good a reason as any.

As I said, the progression is perfectly understandable - I'd do the same in MS or ID's place, and love my XP systems. But I object to the presumptive attitude of some that use of an earlier OS on modern hardware is somehow unworthy. The right tool for the job is what counts, and I see no reason to preemptively upgrade ALL my systems *before* the need arises. My $0.02. worth.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
who's going to be running 98 on a 2GhZ+ system anyway? as for the openGL question, it still looks better than d3d (just ask ILM, dreamworks, and a host of graphics professionals)

Quite a lot of peeps actually (see link below). When MS decided to dump support for 98se, IIRC, a report surfaced by a third party revealing that a large portion of peeps are STILL using 98se. IIRC, that's why support was extended for 98se into 2006.

Myth # 1. MS has discontinued support for 98se Link Announcing MS 98se Support Through 6/30/06

Myth #2. Nobodys still uses 98se Link CNET News Article ON OS Usage

There have been benchies at various sites testing to see what's the best OS for gaming. Take ur pick XP v. ME, 98se v. XP, win2000 v XP. None of these has shown/proven XP supiority in gaming. Some benchies show 98 marginaly ahead of XP and others vise-versa. Link to Gaming Benchies XP v. 98

I ran a dual boot system earlier this year, XP & 98se. It wasn't pretty. XP proved to be annoyingly slow to bootup and shut down. I found ZERO compelling reasons to switch, certainly nothing for gaming purposes. Which was the rig I put it on (see my sig-the gaming rig). I see a lot of peeps writing about how slow 98se is. Well, they don't know what the FUD they're talking about. Put 98se on one of today rigs and it IS faster than XP in my own experience. Perhaps some have actually tried it and had a diff experience.

Stability? I've got 4 pc's networked in my office, all on 98se. I don't have any stability problems. Yeah, and they are all cpu's @ 2ghz or higher. There are no compelling reasons for me to give MS alot of $ so I can enjoy slower bootup times at the office? I scan the posts in the OP Sys part of the forum, looks like there are still plenty of probs with XP to me.

My impression is that win XP is product designed for large corporate environments, and then rebadged and sold to the rest of us. It's not a product designed or built for me or my uses. It seems a bloated encumberd, lumbering POS op sys that does not appeal to me.

Myth #3. XP is *fast* bah

Myth #4. 98se is unstable

I've had 1 gig of ram in my 98se rig. I didn't have any problems. Others here have as much in their rigs as well w/o probs. True, 98se doesn't itself seem to benefit, it doesn't need to, it's already fast. Gaming does seem to benefit. I'm working on quantifying how much. If it benches out like my informal testing, it will be showing benefit from an extra 512MB stick (I'm waiting on Far Cry arrive in the post, it's the first game to really tax my rig).

Myth #5 98se can't use more than 512MB of ram. At the least, the juries still out on this one.


Yeah, it has to happen one day. The apps I use at work can't be run on 98se and we'll have to switch. Oh Yay, lets spend a bunch of money and go thru the hassle of converting so I can make MS a bunch of money and have to live with a slow bloated OS designed for somebody else- NOT. I'll just switch to Linux if my biz apps can run on it. But I will be setting up the dualie sys again for D3, sure do wanna play that game.

Sorry, my rant after hearing so much unfounded garbage against peeps who still run 98.

Fern