25th January 2011, 12:03 PM
It's weird that 7 would have such massive graphics issues... my Vista 32-bit machine does pretty much none of the things you describe beyond being unable to run DOS programs fullscreen (On that note, text mode DOS programs WILL run fullscreen -- so you can run Zork, Castle Adventure, Kroz, etc., just not anything that actually uses a graphics mode). Beyond the obvious 16-bit installers issue -- and I think that very, very few games aside from the ones you mention have fanmade installer fixes, most games just are not playable because most games in the '90s used 16-bit installers -- that whole massive DirectDraw problem you describe doesn't exist in Vista (32-bit at least). One more reason for me to not want to upgrade, if it's going to be like that...
... Actually, maybe it does exist to some minor degree. I've seen moments where the colors do go wrong. However, it never sticks; in Starcraft for instance perhaps sometimes the menus are messed up, but never the game itself, and most games are not affected. I've never seen most of that stuff you describe. I'm sure there are some minor issues here and there (Baldur's Gate's fog edges don't quite look right for instance), but nothing game-breaking like you've got there... well, apart from the games that do not work in Vista but did work in XP or DOS or 9x or whatever, there are a few of those. (note - I have a DX10 video card and DX10 or maybe 11 installed)
I've never had a computer with an ATI video card, but if it got me 320x240 mode back, it'd almost be worth it I think...
Creative will purchase or destroy them just like they have every other serious competitor. People have tried before, such as Aureal about 10 years ago, but Creative crushes them. And considering that DirectSound is for some monumentally stupid reason gone, as you say, it's not like we have a choice... it's Creative or onboard audio, pretty much, if you want sound, and onboard is obviously much worse for gaming. I agree, MS removing DirectSound was awful.
They just thought that emulating 16-bit mode into the 64-bit OS wouldn't be worth the effort, obviously. There was demand for 32-bit programs, but not enough for 16-bit ones for them to do it, unlike, say, XP, which of course basically was Windows NT (which previously had been 32-bit only) but with 16-bit compatibility mode added. I agree, it's unfortunate and not good, but it's not too hard to understand.
There is another way for some games, of course... you could re-buy games you already own on services like GOG, who make them so they work on modern systems now. I'd rather not, if I have the game on disc already, but it is an option for some titles.
... Actually, maybe it does exist to some minor degree. I've seen moments where the colors do go wrong. However, it never sticks; in Starcraft for instance perhaps sometimes the menus are messed up, but never the game itself, and most games are not affected. I've never seen most of that stuff you describe. I'm sure there are some minor issues here and there (Baldur's Gate's fog edges don't quite look right for instance), but nothing game-breaking like you've got there... well, apart from the games that do not work in Vista but did work in XP or DOS or 9x or whatever, there are a few of those. (note - I have a DX10 video card and DX10 or maybe 11 installed)
Quote:One oddity is Planescape Torment. I blame NVidia here. Their driver isn't handling "sprite mirroring" correctly, meaning my character "moonwalks" in one direction. Turning off hardware accelerated sprite mirroring works though. (Another note, even with this game set up in Creative Alchemy, it still can't use EAX mode.) Actually NVidia is also to blame for not supporting 320x240 (or 320x200) modes correctly, which ATI still does. That shouldn't be a problem. Unlike other legacy support issues, that one wouldn't have hurt them in the least to implement. It's actually something I felt even in XP when Boppin' (Windows version) couldn't set up it's proper resolution in full screen and I was forced to play the game in windowed mode (which, since it's trying to run at 320x240 mode, is pretty dang small).
I've never had a computer with an ATI video card, but if it got me 320x240 mode back, it'd almost be worth it I think...
Quote:What happens when a viable competitor to Creative finally shows up?
Creative will purchase or destroy them just like they have every other serious competitor. People have tried before, such as Aureal about 10 years ago, but Creative crushes them. And considering that DirectSound is for some monumentally stupid reason gone, as you say, it's not like we have a choice... it's Creative or onboard audio, pretty much, if you want sound, and onboard is obviously much worse for gaming. I agree, MS removing DirectSound was awful.
Quote: The removal of 16 bit support really is a purely legacy issue, but one that has some unexpected consequences, like, as I said, 16 bit installers for otherwise 32 bit programs. This one I blame Intel for. I am not sure why a true 16 bit support couldn't have been rigged into 64 bit mode just like it was into 32 bit mode. What confuses me even more is that 16 bit apps CAN run in 64 bit mode under a virtualized environment. Weird...
They just thought that emulating 16-bit mode into the 64-bit OS wouldn't be worth the effort, obviously. There was demand for 32-bit programs, but not enough for 16-bit ones for them to do it, unlike, say, XP, which of course basically was Windows NT (which previously had been 32-bit only) but with 16-bit compatibility mode added. I agree, it's unfortunate and not good, but it's not too hard to understand.
There is another way for some games, of course... you could re-buy games you already own on services like GOG, who make them so they work on modern systems now. I'd rather not, if I have the game on disc already, but it is an option for some titles.
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}