I know, I've talked about this before. But after some renewed efforts yesterday to get a few things working, I have to say it again... I really, REALLY miss DOS support.
"But-but-but DOSBox..."
Unfortunately, DOSBox does not run all games, and even many of the ones it does run run substantially slower than they would on a real system. Road & Track Presents: The Need for Speed? Why is it running so jerkily? Duke Nukem 3D is particularly bad: Why does it take so long to load in normal DOSBox 0.72? Why is the sound messed up sometimes (some sfx seem missing?)? Why do the graphics momentarially corrupt when you go in and out of the water? DOSBox can't handle changing color palettes well? Why does the speed seem somewhat inconsistent... TES Adventures: Redguard demo? Why does the Glide emulation in that alternate DOSBox 0.72 CVS build fail and crash the game at the loading screen? Why is its Vista fullscreen implementation broken? Why does that CVS build crash when I push a button on the gamepad... etc.
All of these are games, of course, that run perfectly on my old computer. The "Windows Vista does not support full-screen mode for this game" dialog box is evil... :(
I know that XP has serious problems with many DOS games too (getting Duke 3d to run well on XP is evidently quite hard), but Vista is even worse. At least XP supports a fullscreen mode, for the games that actually work in it or can be made to...
Oh yes, and while Tabworks technically runs in Vista, it doesn't like the new file system -- it cannot see your disc drives or display them on the sidebar and there is no click and drag support anymore -- in ME you only had to click on a file in a Windows Explorer folder and drag it into Tabworks and it'd auto-create a link to that file in Tabworks. Tabworks could also be set to auto-create tabs when things were added to the start menu. This time neither of those features work, so the only way to add new icons is to manually create them -- Tabworks CAN see the folder tree when you're going through the 'where is this icon pointing to' dialogs, at least.
In addition, Vista can't see the icons in some icon files, including all of Tabworks' icon libraries except for the default one and the icons in the exe files of some games, particularly older ones (Windows 3.1 program file icons are pretty much all "not there", as are even some icon files). Annoying.
There are a few games that I have that work better on my new computer than my old one -- Pod being the best example, given that before it didn't run at all but now it runs perfectly -- but that's a Windows 95 game, not DOS.
*tries to play Commander Keen 1 in DOSBox*
*experiences slowdown and graphics corruption* (the PC Speaker audio being routed through the speakers is nice, though... my old computer didn't do that)
I want DOS back... :(
A Black Falcon Wrote:I want DOS back... :(
So I take it you miss 20 year old operating systems with poor memory management and limited harware support. :)
Personaly I gave tears of joy when the Windows 95 installer commented out half the lines in CONFIG.INI, give me plug and play any day of the week!
Vista is Microsoft's attempt to move us forward, it was written to try to do away with outdated technology. If you wan't to play commander keen, then install DOS on your 486, just don't expect more then 2mgs of memmory to work.
I could not possibly disagree with you any more. First, you are factually wrong. Commander Keen does not require a '486 with DOS'. In fact, it'll run fine on anything up to Windows XP... XP can do full-screen DOS programs. Some do have some problems, but the emulator VDMSound was made to try to deal with some of those while maintaining the direct DOS program access that is so great. Keen doesn't even need that, running just fine in XP. With Vista, however, Microsoft removed a crucial driver, so despite the fact that XP's DOS emulation returns pretty much intact in Vista, it is impossible to make DOS windows fullscreen, completely breaking DOS mode. This idiotic decision -- to remove DOS fullscreen emulation -- is what I'm complaining about. Well, I'd complain anyway, because there are plenty of DOS programs that don't work in XP no matter how hard you try, but it'd be a much, much less serious complaint than it is with this OS... it'd still be no replacement for the real DOS you get with every version of Win9X (WinME as I said can run any DOS program without speed problems perfectly), but it'd be something. As it is... real DOS is there, emulated, but it's utterly unavailable. That's so, SO frustrating... :(
I like as BC as I can reasonably get. Personally I don't see Vista as any real step forward at all. What exactly does it DO aside from sit there and look pretty? I've ready the under the hood stuff, about speedy searching (like that's something to write home about, ooh look my searches take 10 seconds less time) and a rewritten kernal, which while nice doesn't really affect me as a user. DirectX 10 is there, but seriously that could have been worked into XP, it just wouldn't be able to do anything with the desktop, but again, that's just an eye candy argument. What does it DO for me?
Other than break DOS compatibility and not work with a few random (Win9X/XP) games (most work, but not ALL)? Hmm... Sit there and look pretty? :D
I do like the look of Aero, really, and with very few exceptions the whole Windows interface redesign is great. The only things I miss are the ability to directly link Display Properties in an icon in the row next to the clock on the taskbar (so handy for doing things like changing color depth for Moto Racer or Pod... :)) and ... hmm, can't think of anything else offhand... maybe 'make Shut Down the default large icon and Suspend in the menu list, instead of the other way around as it is'? That's minor, though. The new Start Menu is pretty cool... I really like the limited-size scrolling list. It's a nice improvement over the Win9x/XP Start Menu Programs section which I never liked at all...
Why DOES MS waste so much time on utterly "worthless features"... I could list a lot of things...the first two points apply to XP too, not just Vista.
-the impenetrable maze of folders they bury things in, making it incredibly hard to actually find files on your hard drive -- XP really started this trend, and Vista is even worse... I like being able to actually find things, and MS REALLY doesn't want you to do that with any files connected to Windows. Blah.
-I want things to save all of their data files IN THEIR DIRECTORY! Why the HECK do some games create their save-game folders in the Documents directory, or their screenshots in the Pictures directory... that's so stupid, and makes finding those files hard (so you can move those screenshots to your folder for that game in your screenshot folder, for instance)... there's really no reasonable explanation for this. How is separating and hiding both the data and user files helpful in any way?
-The sidebar in the Start Menu. First it's got links to your personal folders -- AccountName (bbf), Documents, Pictures, Music, Games. I use none of these folders for anything. The Pictures and Music folders are completely empty; Games is just Games Explorer, a totally worthless application that attempts to list all games you own. It would only be of any use whatsoever if you only own full-version games that were released in the last year or two -- I checked it just now, and it's got six rows of seven icons. Including all the games that come built in to Windows. It combines demos and full versions without telling you which ones are demos. When you have a substantial number of demos installed, as I do, this is a huge problem. It puts them all in one list instead of categorizing in folders. It only lists things that IT detects... so while it will find some older games (it does recognize that I have Baldur's Gate I and Starcraft installed, for instance) plenty more go unnoticed. Really, why the heck does this thing even exist...
I know, it's weird. They apparently did this to make it more "user friendly", but it really isn't. Also, the Program Files directory is a pretty big waste of time isn't it? Well of COURSE they are program files! What ELSE would I put in a ROOT DIRECTORY FOLDER? Just get rid of the redundant thing and stick it on the root. If they do anything, they should just catagorize based on what sort of program it is. What ever happened to installing things to \GAMES\ ?
As for that "side bar", aside from ripping off a useless "feature" from the Mac OS, it really adds to MS's overabundance of "ways to click on shortcuts". They had the desktop and folders on the desktop. Really, that's all I needed. They added the "Programs" menu under Start which was pretty redundant already, and to THAT they added the "toolbars" for the taskbar. After the aborted attempt that was "active desktop" (the worthless thing that opened the majority of IE's security vulnerabilities), MS moved onto this "side bar" nonsense. Yeesh, how immediate do you need your shortcuts anyway?
I say they should really just start cutting back on this thing. The 360 interface is the sort of simplistic "toning down" I'm talking about. Make it mouse driven, full keyboard support, slap a Console in there, and you have what I'd call an ideal, simplistic, user friendly, and just as powerful user interface.
I forgot to talk about the rest of the sidebar... below the worthless "personal links" folders are two groups of somewhat more useful things, first Search, Computer, Network, and Connect To (the first two of those are of course useful, though I use a shortcut-bar link for Computer usually, not the Start Menu link), then Control Panel, Default Programs, Help, and Run (the first and last of those are useful; Default Programs is more the kind of thing you run once and then don't need again). It's not all as worthless as the top part, and most of that sidebar stuff is just stuff that was relocated from where they used to be on the Start Menu below the Programs folder. I actually like this system better, overall -- as I said, the compact collapsing-tree Programs folder is a vast improvement over the old system, and the row of full-size icons for programs that you have used recently that greets you when you open the Start Menu is really, really nice.
I also use the hotlinks bar, as I said. I've got it to the right of the start menu and keep a few things I use a lot there -- Personalize (for changing screen resolution), Computer, Mozilla, and Winamp, to have four of my most-used programs. Some of my other most-used programs are in that Start Menu recently-used list most of the time...
I do agree about the "active desktop" thing, though. I keep my desktop as clear as possible -- the only things there are Computer, Mozilla, the Recycle Bin, and the Sidebar. Yes, I kept the Sidebar. The three Sidebar gadgets I've got there are the Picture Viewer (set to slideshow through my anime wallpapers folder), clock (analog clock, though, so it doesn't really help me tell the time, but I like the look I guess), and the system resource monitor to show how much CPU and RAM power are being used, which is nice to know sometimes. I definitely don't like lots of icons on my desktop, though, and don't allow any beyond those three. The less on the desktop the better...
Oh yes, if you haven't seen Vista, the Start Menu is in two parts, a left side part with the program links (redesigned in a nice way -- the first page has full-size icons (10 max), first a few you can set to be permanant and then below that the rest as 'things you've used recently'. 'All Programs' is at the bottom, right above the Start Menu icon on the bar; press it and it goes to the full programs folder view, which now stays within that window in collapsing folders, which is much nicer than the old spreads-all-over-the-screen style.)
Oh, I also like how the running-programs icons in the left side get hidden when there are too many of them... I seem to recall ME never doing that so when you had a bunch of things running it took up a lot of taskbar space...
Program Files... it's not all that bad. When you ignore it, that is. :D I mean, I use it as a place to put all the programs which I don't care where they go -- random non-game stuff I'm installing and stuff. That is, it's for stuff I won't need to use except via program-files links and stuff and don't care about organizing more clearly. :) Everything else gets installed or put onto the hard drive in one of my partitions... I of course attempt to keep everything organized and clear (this kind of thing goes here, this kind of thing goes here, etc) but usually fail miserably, at least to me (too many things overlap... how should I categorize this... etc... :)).
That is, as I implied with saying 'I don't use the Documents/Pictures/Games Explorer/Personal Folder system', I use my own system and totally ignore theirs. Mine's a lot better anyway. It makes so much more sense... :D
... am I really that odd for paying attention to where things are on my harddrive and basing my computer organization system on, primarily, where things are on the harddrive folder system? Because that's what I do... Okay, someone looking at my harddrives and trying to figure out my organization would probably get confused. Attempts to make things better organized and clearer sometimes just make things worse. Oh well...
(for instance, when getting the new computer I made an abortive effort to put full-version games into X:\Games\ folders. I only kept with it on drive C, so now full-version games on drive C are in C:\Games, while on D and E they're installed into the root directory like I did on my old computer... and I've got a bunch of large folders full of game installs from my old computer I copied over and meant to deal with sometime, but since that'd require checking each one to see if it works or needs to be reinstalled, I haven't bothered and I just have "To Reinstall Then Paste These Files Into" folders on drives C, D, and E... :D For some reason I just care about this stuff.)
Bah! I can't get SimTower's sound to work... it uses the driver wavemix16.dll (configured by wavemix.ini), but while the game runs (and thus recognizes the dll file; without the files it just crashes), there's no sound, no matter what settings I try. Does Vista (or XP and Vista?) break that type of sound access or something? :(