doom3 only on win2000 and winxp

[hokahknow]

As it should be. Why waste time coding for outdated software. Once you've run 2000 or XP you will understand why 98 and ME are a joke. The new versions are much more stable. My 2 cents.

Wonder if ID is getting anything from Microsoft for this (Or Dell, Alienware, etc)

Might be forcing many to upgrade the OS and hardware.

 

[Shad0hawK]

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.

it is great your son enjoys windows ME(your one of very few people that i know that likes it...), but to be blunt it is an old OS that the world is passing by...with good reason.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
it is great your son enjoys windows ME(your one of very few people that i know that likes it...), but to be blunt it is an old OS that the world is passing by...with good reason.

Well, there's that plus there's the fact that any machine that cannot meet the minimum specs for Windows 2000/XP doesn't have the slightest chance of running DoomIII.

People should be thanking Carmack for moving things forward.

BTW, I'm pretty sure it will be possible to run the game on Win98/Me provided that it is Win32 and uses OpenGL. It will probably just require some hacking skills.

 

[mikeford]

I use xp pro and 98se, and they each suck in their own way.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: mikeford
I use xp pro and 98se, and they each suck in their own way.

Maybe you would like Windows 2000 better.

 

[BFG10K]

Topic Title: doom3 only on win2000 and winxp
Topic Summary: why even code in opengl?

The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Topic Title: doom3 only on win2000 and winxp
Topic Summary: why even code in opengl?

The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

when I opened the post I was under the impression that coding in direct3d would offer benefits that opengl could not, particularly if the primary user base targetted was a windows-based one. i wasn't sure if there was a need for opengl if mac and linux versions were not going to be available.

i still think d3d should be used, if only because of the performance hit ATI cards take with opengl. I don't think nvidia cards take such a drastic hit with D3d. I'd prefer to NOT leave it up to ATI's driver team...
i also still believe that D3d and windows go hand-in-hand, so it only makes sense to use D3d in windows gaming.

HOWEVER, many posts in this thread have taught me a few things, and I do see now why opengl may be useful on the long run.

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: tk109
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.

Im not trying to bash u, but what u said above i found amusing. No 95/98/98se/Me support for Doom 3, but there is MAC support for the game. Who in their right mind would have THAT os on a GAMING machine (it would have to be, its doom 3!) as opposed to having 98se on a gaming machine!? Now that im on this rant, what about linux? Im sure 98se gaming users far outnumber Linux gaming users also. Im even inclined to say that 98se gaming users > Linux + Mac gaming users (that can run this game of course)

 

[lowinor]

I'd be pretty surprised if D3 didn't run on 95/98; I suspect the 2k/XP only bit is just to avoid handling tech support for older systems.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

It's easy to get around the 512mb issue with 98se, and I know Thugsrook still uses 98se with some near 4ghz P4 systems.

 

[Mareg]

Originally posted by: lowinor
I'd be pretty surprised if D3 didn't run on 95/98; I suspect the 2k/XP only bit is just to avoid handling tech support for older systems.

Mmmmh, there is some case where games designed on Win9x won't work for 2000/Xp because of illegal memory access trick used at the time. But the other way around, I would be surprised.

 

[BFG10K]

when I opened the post I was under the impression that coding in direct3d would offer benefits that opengl could not, particularly if the primary user base targetted was a windows-based one.

Again, not coding for Win9x/ME has nothing at all to do with Direct3D or OpenGL.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

when I opened the post I was under the impression that coding in direct3d would offer benefits that opengl could not, particularly if the primary user base targetted was a windows-based one.

Again, not coding for Win9x/ME has nothing at all to do with Direct3D or OpenGL.

Topic Title: doom3 only on win2000 and winxp
Topic Summary: why even code in opengl?

where did you get the impression that coding for win9x/me was the question at hand?

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

when I opened the post I was under the impression that coding in direct3d would offer benefits that opengl could not, particularly if the primary user base targetted was a windows-based one.

Again, not coding for Win9x/ME has nothing at all to do with Direct3D or OpenGL.

and 30fps is unplayable, dasmnit.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: 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

"rant" is an apt description. sorry ti tooks so long to reply back, i missed this post earlier

first off, for every 1 person that has over 512 mb of ram on a win9x machine that have no problems, about 10 do. and it is no "myth" but there is a workaround for it (for some)

i know this because i have built/repaired pc's for almost 15 years, i know that does not mean much to the average know-it-all teenager or 20something that thinks they are a computer god because they can overclock a cpu or video card and set up simple peer to peer or even a small client server network, but oh well...your still better of than most people because they dont even know what "OS" means until you say "windows"

reason #2 is this

as for the speed of xp, the truth is it spanks 9x OS's in multitasking, which is what it was designed to do. i do not disagree many old programs run as good or better on the old OS they were designed to run on than on a newer one for reasons rather obvious...

as far as multitasking and stability goes win 9x OS's can get pretty unstable when more than one(or even one) memory intensive app is running

that brings us to boot speed. i have seen win 98 boot real fast, and yes on the same spec machine it often does boot faster...unless you have a lan card not hooked to anything because win98 keeps looking for the DHCP server that is no longer there, often doubling or even tripling boot time...but just because it boots faster does not mean it actually IS faster because even though xp may boot slower it can still run applications faster due to the better memory management of xp(which also give it the multitasking advantage)

come to think of it, i remember having to reboot alot more with win98 and various memory "leaking" issues, and alot of crashing due to bad memory address calls did not happen with XP(they just crashed for other reasons..but not as often LOL!)

i will be honest with you, i stuck with 98 as long as i could. but like you i still have to use it at work as our POS(that is point of sale, not the other thing!) system still runs on it i even swore i would never install XP on my machine, but a couple of years and almost 2 service packs later i not only use it, but like it better than 98 and ESPECIALLY Multiple Error edition!

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: 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

way too much misinformation here!

WinXP cant make a FAT32 partition larger then 32gb, but it can run on one made with a WinME fdisk.

its not legal for you to own a non-paid for corperate edition XP, especially on 4 machines.

DirectX 9.0c does support Win9x OSes.


Win98se is garbage unless you run with 1gb of ram and the appropriate tweaks for it to run correctly. once youve done that its a completely different OS.
its perfectly stable no matter how much fully loaded multitasking you place on it. not as good as HT, but just as good as Win2k.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I was hoping you would pop in and school them about 9x Thugs

 

[THUGSROOK]

heya DP

i dont blame ppl for bashing Win9x, but its much better with 1024mb of ram.

Win9x can multitask!
the system is perfectly responsive even with all this going on at the same time :Q
(printscreen doesnt capture the videos in the windows)

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: 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

way too much misinformation here!

WinXP cant make a FAT32 partition larger then 32gb, but it can run on one made with a WinME fdisk.

its not legal for you to own a non-paid for corperate edition XP, especially on 4 machines.

DirectX 9.0c does support Win9x OSes.


Win98se is garbage unless you run with 1gb of ram and the appropriate tweaks for it to run correctly. once youve done that its a completely different OS.
its perfectly stable no matter how much fully loaded multitasking you place on it. not as good as HT, but just as good as Win2k.

There is no 9.0C for 9x/ME as it is SP2 XP or higher IIRC.

2nd of all it is legal. This is a paid for Corporate Edition!!! She paid for it by paying the tuition for that college. The college gave it to the students to work on and said it was fine to install it on other machines. (Within reason of course not just posting on internet and handing out copies or anything).

Also i never said Win98 is garbage, but it is out of date. No matter what you might think it is out of date. yeah you mighht see a decent performance increase at 1gb but it still isn't stable. Win98 was rock solid when it came out (well almost ) and its world better than ME, however when comparing it to an OS based on NT that was improved time and again its just gonna lose. Now however it is not perfectly stable but in some way sless vulnerable than XP as most people who do that sh!t have bigger targets. Also it is not stable when multi tasking, its a proven fact that XP multi task much better and more stable due to better memory management.

No where near as good as 2000 which is rock solid, XP is getting much bettter but still not solid.

-Kevin

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
There is no 9.0C for 9x/ME as it is SP2 XP or higher IIRC.

i have DX9.0c installed in w98se...



"Supported Operating Systems:
Windows 2000, Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Professional Edition , Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Service Pack 2, Windows 2000 Service Pack 3, Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows ME, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, Windows XP Home Edition , Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Professional Edition , Windows XP Service Pack 1"

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Myth #4. 98se is unstable
Myth #5 98se can't use more than 512MB of ram. At the least, the juries still out on this one.

Fern,

With Windows ME and 1 gig of ram as well as a 256mb 5900u the OS would only see 128 mb of video ram. Switching to xp == no problem.

:/

 

[Templ]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: 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

way too much misinformation here!

WinXP cant make a FAT32 partition larger then 32gb, but it can run on one made with a WinME fdisk.

its not legal for you to own a non-paid for corperate edition XP, especially on 4 machines.

DirectX 9.0c does support Win9x OSes.


Win98se is garbage unless you run with 1gb of ram and the appropriate tweaks for it to run correctly. once youve done that its a completely different OS.
its perfectly stable no matter how much fully loaded multitasking you place on it. not as good as HT, but just as good as Win2k.

I'm on FAT32 winXP for over 2 years already (120GB disk) and i do all kinds of stuff. It's very stable.
what's the benefit of having a NTFS file system anyways?

 

[Jeff7181]

doom3 only on win2000 and winxp

Ok... and? Using any version of Windows other than these is stupid. Win98 is no longer supported by microsoft... WinME just plain sucks... and I don't think we even need to discuss Win95 or NT4.

why even code in opengl?

There's obviously something about it that Carmack likes better than DirectX. Otherwise he would have used DirectX. From HardOCP's extensive review of it, apprently OpenGL was a very effective solution for Doom 3.

what's the benefit of having a NTFS file system anyways?

Native file compression and encryption... the ability to set permissions in the file system, not a Windows setting or 3rd party software setting. I've also read that fragmentation doesn't occurr nearly as bad as with FAT32, but I don't know enough bout it to decide if I believe that or not. NTFS also has more fault protection... doesn't it keep two Master File Tables where as FAT only has one File Allocation Table. So if part of the physical disk where one of the MFT's is stored gets corrupted, it'll till work fine cause the other one will still be in tact.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I dont know the particulars but this thread was thoroughly discussed in the General Hardware forum. Here was a suggestion by i blieve mechbgon.

take like 4gb of files and tell winzip to compress them with maximum compression on a FAT32 file system. Then do the same on an NTFS fiile system, then tell me which one is better. (I BELIEVE that was what was said). Might have been something different.

Also for larger drives NTFS is much better, as there is a speed increase because of less fragmenting, and all that crap. if you have a OS that supports it use it, FAT32 is dead or dying. With a few obvious exceptions.

Also what is NTFS's file encryption. Isn't it 128bit?

-Kevin

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I dont know the particulars but this thread was thoroughly discussed in the General Hardware forum. Here was a suggestion by i blieve mechbgon.

take like 4gb of files and tell winzip to compress them with maximum compression on a FAT32 file system. Then do the same on an NTFS fiile system, then tell me which one is better. (I BELIEVE that was what was said). Might have been something different.

Also for larger drives NTFS is much better, as there is a speed increase because of less fragmenting, and all that crap. if you have a OS that supports it use it, FAT32 is dead or dying. With a few obvious exceptions.

Also what is NTFS's file encryption. Isn't it 128bit?

-Kevin

Yes I believe so... I think the current DC project is working on cracking 112-bit encryption.