The Heroes Round Table

ThunderTitan wrote:Yeah, because just throwing out an OS out there and waiting for everyone else to make their stuff work with it is everyone else's fault...

A lot of companies had a year to prepare. Apple for example only had 2 pieces of software for Windows (iTunes and Quicktime) but they were both borked (I should know). And of course, companies that are too lazy to update their software are always quick to blame somebody else. Corporations are just like politicians. Nobody wants to take personal responsibility for their own actions. I think Microsoft of being pretty smart with its publicity and open betas this time around. This time so few companies will be able to simply throw out the excuse that the new os suddenly appeared. =D

To be fair, HP had huge printer driver issues with OSX Leopard too, so they just drop the ball on both sides.

Angelspit wrote:

Borsuc wrote:Can Windows run Linux apps?

Can my car toast bread? No. Do I care? Nope.

That's not a point.
Linux users may not care about Windows apps either, so it cancels out. This subjectivity.

But if they want, they CAN. On the other hand, on Windows...

(I'm not using Linux mind you, so don't get the wrong impression).

@Shyranis: Companies aren't "lazy" by not kissing Microsoft's butt everytime they decide to "upgrade" their OSes architecture. Why can't they just let previous drivers work? It's Microsoft's fault, not the companies. They aren't lazy just because they don't make drivers when Microsoft wants to change their OS. It's Microsoft who are annoying to them.

Borsuc wrote:@Shyranis: Companies aren't "lazy" by not kissing Microsoft's butt everytime they decide to "upgrade" their OSes architecture. Why can't they just let previous drivers work? It's Microsoft's fault, not the companies. They aren't lazy just because they don't make drivers when Microsoft wants to change their OS. It's Microsoft who are annoying to them.

Everytime Microsoft changes the way its drivers work it's because of updated security. As I pointed out, Apple does the same thing. For 7 years of XP Microsoft though stupidly chose to sit around and not change its OS very much, which got people into a sedentary state. People fear change if its not every other year. My husband, Mr unemployed computer tech says how he remembers all of the pushback when Windows changed from 95 to 98, or ME to XP, but that would disappear because the next version would come along for people to complain about while still being compatible with 90% of the old software. When XP finally came out, the constant bantering of the people afraid of upgrading died down, because it was the last one they would have to make in years. Once Vista came out, I think some people had their negativity bottled up the entire time because it's a very stable OS. It just had a lot of bad PR. Companies got used to resting on their laurels instead of actually using the developer info Microsoft puts out whenever it's prepping its latest OS. I can still play the games that matter to me, and for me that's all that is important. Heroes 1-5 work great for me, so does the entire Civilization series... well, just about any hotseat type game I can think of =D

I may have wandered off from my point.

The point is, back around 1999 companies were grumbling and whining about their drivers and having to make new ones all the time, but at least they did it. These days printers take a few months to get new drivers and crash their computers when a new OS comes out. It just doesn't make sense. How can companies keep up when Microsoft was releasing an OS every other year but they couldn't when they had 7 years (about a year with a release candidate and probably more time if they actually contacted MS). They also can't keep up with Apple. But apple doesn't care about backwards compatibility. PowerPC computers can't even run the latest version of their OS and Intel based ones can't run software for OS 9 and before (without third party emulators at least, and any computer can do that).

In general, companies these days are a joke. (Microsoft included)

Yeah, it's incredible how simpler code is easier to make...


But MS being more opened with Win 7 tells me that maybe last time they kept thw new OS too tight under wraps, which is why the drivers weren't out in time... unless the others didn't care enough...

Angelspit wrote:

Borsuc wrote:Can Windows run Linux apps?

Can my car toast bread?

Sure it can... it's just that motor oil tastes vile...

Good news!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-95EPwjC8

This guy tested some compatibility on new and old games that work on Windows 7, and check the video on 3:03

Gljivko a.k.a Vortex wrote:Good news!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-95EPwjC8

This guy tested some compatibility on new and old games that work on Windows 7, and check the video on 3:03

Heroes of MOM? (DAMN. I made a (fixed)typo, Heroes is Herpes if your finger slips over the O...)

I just ran the Windows Upgrade Advisor (mentioned in the above video), and it tells me my current graphics adapter won't support something called the Windows Aero user interface. My graphics card is really not that old (Nvidia Geforce 9600 GT), and with all that "It runs well on older systems, too" talk it makes me wonder...

Shyranis wrote:Heroes is Herpes if your finger slips over the O...

[img]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3158/6 ... xzralq.jpg[/img]

Metathron wrote:I just ran the Windows Upgrade Advisor (mentioned in the above video), and it tells me my current graphics adapter won't support something called the Windows Aero user interface. My graphics card is really not that old (Nvidia Geforce 9600 GT), and with all that "It runs well on older systems, too" talk it makes me wonder...

That card is fairly recent, in the terms that it's still sold and solid. Successor is supposed to be Nvidia GT220 which will not pass completely as well. The whole reason behind this is simple, both cards supports only old version of DirectX, namely 10 (I think) and 10.1 whereas new Aero would like to taste directly dx 11. And for that your only bet would be ATI HD5xxx line.

& from the other end I'm not sure if this new line would fully support older games/directx enviroments, any reports?

Can Windows run Linux apps?

Not natively. Often a path can found though.

My husband, Mr unemployed computer tech

Oi, oi, oi!
(~from one employed computer tech.)

So does people have more experience with this now? I'm thinking of buying a new laptop, and of course it has win 7 installed. Will most old games work as well as on XP? Also, win 7 pro has an XP-mode, would that work? Can't get pro on the laptop I want though, at least not without buying it separately.

I have it now, but nothing bad/wrong happens with any of my games, unless I count Warcraft II, which I couldn't make it work properly since XP.

Otherwise, all my programs are ok, specially CS5.

What I do have some strange issue to solve is with my PC screen. The login screen only appears if my monitor enters the "saving energy" status, as if it blocks windows opening normaly. Strange stuff...

I've been using windows 7 for a while now and I did not find any problems

Good, good. From what I've read on the net in general it seems win7 isn't too hostile towards older games. But I often play games 15+ old... anyone tried that?

XP mode needs hardware virtualization. so inexpensive intel based laptops pobably can't run it. Also you need 7 Pro or higher.

all non-sempron AMD laptops have hardware virtualization however.

64bits version loads like smurf on only 2GB of RAM.... anyone know if getting more will help?!

It should. You can never get too muchRAM.

you know, except when you have a 32bit OS...

I thought you had 64bit?

he's talking about the limit on RAM in a 32-bit OS, which is probably why he has 64 bit =D

Anyway, more RAM = gogo juice =p

Go for it!

Also you can try using msconfig to trim extra junk out of your startup items if it's loading a little slow. Windows 7 loads faster than XP for me despite the higher system requirements.