Play-ability... I miss the good-old days of the original World Circut.
I haven't found a racing simulator yet that has the play-ability. All the
software companies are worried about is stunning graphics. Yet, they continue to
write programs that are out of reach of todays top computers and before the
machines are released that can run their current game, a new version of the game
is released. What gives?
I spent alot of dough on a 'big-time' machine (PII 266 w/64 meg SDRAM w/all the
extras) and I still can't run GP2 at full frame-rate with all the graphics
turned on!! I wish that instead of just telling you what the MINIMUM machine
requirements are (on the little sticker on the box) they should also be nice
enough to tell you what the hardware requirements are to run the game at its
MAXIMUM. They leave us guessing when the Pentium 2000 532 will be released in a
machine that the average user can afford.
Case-and-point: I have just bought CART PR. I kinda like it. I am also a long
time owner of GP2 and ICR2. They all are stunning models of racing simulation
but they really suck. It's one thing to be able to run the game, play the game,
and run around the track a few times, but it is quite another to be able to
REALLY race for the championship and know that your next move could cost you
valuable points that could end the chances for a title. World Circut has that!
It also had the support of alot of plug-ins.
Some major improvements were made to things like the AI, but what good is it
when you ride up on a car's gearbox and your $2500 computer gets bogged down in
a graphics overload. Not to mention that you have to completely reset all of
your graphics options just to run the game at tracks like Monaco or Germany.
Trevor wrote some of the best telematry(sp?) patch programs that I ever could
imagine. With no insult intended... all we got from them for GP2 was a bunch of
.jam editors. I would give it all up for a real-time timing and scoring program
for GP2. My friend and I used to spend months and months racing World Circut
every Monday night. We had a laptop that was our timing and scoring computer and
would run the race through his 27" TV and REALLY RACE. Now all we have is a
bunch of really good looking cars running circles around us. (Note: His computer
wasn't the fastest around but still could run the game to it's highest level)
Now the mighty Microsoft has released their attempt at racing. Does anyone even
bother to ask what they like and dislike about the current sims on the market
before they release a new one? It seems not. How the *** are we suppose to
setup a car when we don't even know what the tires are doing!!!! I don't see any
tire temps/wear in the garage screens and they still give us parameters to
adjust like camber and tire pressure. They have given the cars "Cruise Control"
in and out of the pits and don't even give you the ability to sit and prepare
mentally to race before throwing you into first gear and down the ***ing pit
lane. Not knowing how many cars are out and who they would be.
I seem to have a problem getting my T2 to get the car going straight down the
straights. The goddamn thing wants to jump all over the place. I have limited
myself to testing on an empty track for fear of just ramming into someone while
trying to race wheel-to-wheel. This seems to be from the 'non-linear' and 'speed
sensitivity' setting in the Options Menu. I've tried at least twenty different
settings and still the thing drifts. I should be able to point the car straight
and it go straight! (Take my hand off the wheel if I want to.) ICR2 and GP2 does
this. Why not CART PR?
There are alot of thing that I don't like about CART PR. I will not go into
detail about them all, but here are a few that I haven't mentioned: I don't like
being thrown out of the game and into a menu just to pause the damn game if I
need to take a drink. I don't like not being able to turn on and off individual
graphics options like grass and walls etc. Where are all the correct cars and
drivers? Carl Haas? Where is Michael Andretti? Sure you can change the names,
but is Bob V. going to announce them if you change them? Microsoft wanted the
game to be cool by having all the drivers let them put their picture in the game
but didn't get them all so they should have just left them all out. ICR2 and GP2
gave us the ability to change the names and not worry about seeing everyone
pretty mug-shot or hear their name when they cross the finish line. Microsoft is
trying to hard. Make the game play-able and realistic before you make it look
good.
I have lurked around this group for a while but really haven't said much. I felt
it was time. Thank you for your patience (if you made it this far).
GonzoF1-
Plea for playable sims and DOS vs Windows 95 debate
A poster longed for the playability of the original World Circuit, complaining that new sims demand hardware few people own. The thread became a long argument over whether DOS games run faster than Windows 95 ones and whether DirectInput handled joysticks poorly. A developer said their Windows 95 build ran within 1 fps of DOS, and Jim Sokoloff noted NASCAR 1 was fast in VGA at launch while recalling Windows 95 games breaking other software.
With Jim Sokoloff
hardware: PC/graphicscommunity/meta
Automated summary.
Sure fancy graphics are nice, but I find their appeal wears off
quickly. IMO, I find this is especially true in racing sims because
you are running on the same tracksr, after a while you pay less
attention to the graphics because you see them lap after lap. I end up
usually turning off most graphics to get a better frame rate. After
all, I dion't play racing games to sight see, I want to race! I think
gameplay (good AI, etc), out lasts fancy graphics.
Just my view,
John
I thibk this guy hit it right on the head ! What is the point of having
a car with jazzy graphics , just to run a sim that you can only enjoy
if you were using a computer that costs out of the average persons
reach ?
Do I buy your sim , turn off damm near every option just to run it ? What
is the point of having it in the first place, if you can not enjoy it ?
all these wiz bang computer programmers do not keep us in mind when they
write all this shit. Why do they waste the time making it , if the
average Joe can't even run the damm thing ! ! If they spend soooo much
time programmig the damm new sims , then why in the hell to we get all
the bugs & problems when we try to run it. Is that not what beta testing
is for ? work out ALL THE***UPS BEFORE you market the game ?
I never but anything any more when it firsts come out , I sit back and
see how much and if any problems there are going to be BEFORE I spend
my hard earned money.
This is my view on this , it should be right and user friendly , not
complicated & damm near impossible to run.
Dave Reuille
Woof Motorsports
Not to start a flame war or Anything.... but this wouldnt be an issue
if the games were being run in DOS !!!! There wouldnt be as many
framerate problems as there are in Winblowz95 based games.
I was cleaning up our computer room and I came across my old flight sim
Falcon 3.0 Flight Sim of the Year in 1992 !!! 286 min processor, 386
recommended, WILL FLY WITH 486!!! *laugh* 4mb ram minimum, 8
recommended!!!
Scott B. Husted
http://home.ptd.net/~sbhusted
Quoted text (23 lines)
> I thibk this guy hit it right on the head ! What is the point of having > a car with jazzy graphics , just to run a sim that you can only enjoy > if you were using a computer that costs out of the average persons > reach ? > Do I buy your sim , turn off damm near every option just to run it ? What > is the point of having it in the first place, if you can not enjoy it ? > all these wiz bang computer programmers do not keep us in mind when they > write all this shit. Why do they waste the time making it , if the > average Joe can't even run the damm thing ! ! If they spend soooo much > time programmig the damm new sims , then why in the hell to we get all > the bugs & problems when we try to run it. Is that not what beta testing > is for ? work out ALL THE***UPS BEFORE you market the game ? > I never but anything any more when it firsts come out , I sit back and > see how much and if any problems there are going to be BEFORE I spend > my hard earned money. > This is my view on this , it should be right and user friendly , not > complicated & damm near impossible to run. > Dave Reuille > Woof MotorsportsEXACTLY THE POINT!!!!
Tmo
--
Tom Cosgrave
Guinness Grand Prix :-
http://www.rtc-carlow.ie/student/downeys/ggp.html
The F1 Test Site :-
http://www.rtc-carlow.ie/student/downeys/f1test.html
E-mail :-
Support Sarah Kavanagh and the RASF1 car in Formula
Nippon
http://www.sarah.org/sarah/rasf1
Username : rasf1 Password : gogirl
"Ralf's not very happy, Fisichella's been blowing him off
all weekend."
ITV's Martin Brundle :-)
Give me a break. Grand Prix 2 was a DOS game and you seriously don't
remember the shellacking it got online for the fact that maybe 1% of
the machines out there could run it with everything turned on?! Even
ICR2 was ahead of its time. Even a decent P133 couldn't turn
everything on and have a smooth frame rate on it. It wasn't until the
Rendtion version and P200's that people could really turn on a bunch
of cars ahead and behind and turn on all the graphical goodies.
NASCAR? You had people as recently as a few months ago racing Hawaii
with the most of the textures (most importantly the asphalt) off
because it was the only way to get a decent frame rate. So you drove
around on polygonal flat colored gray squares. I'd love to have some
sympathy for your "Winblowz95" based games comment, but if you think
we've just left some romantic era where everything ran at a nice frame
rate in DOS and mid-range computer users were happy, THINK AGAIN.
Lord how quickly people forget.
I spent a LOT of hours on Falcon 3.0, including in online combat. I
also remember that at the time I bought it I was using a 386/33, which
was about midrange at the time -- couldn't NEARLY run with enough
details on. Wasn't until I got a 486/33 that the thing ran decently.
If you think *** nirvana is running Falcon 3.0 on your Pentium, go
right ahead.
Randy
live with it, they are not going to start a game based on DOS. You will be
lucky to be able to run it in DOS
Quoted text (24 lines)
>> Not to start a flame war or Anything.... but this wouldnt be an issue >> if the games were being run in DOS !!!! There wouldnt be as many >> framerate problems as there are in Winblowz95 based games. > EXACTLY THE POINT!!!! >Tmo >-- >Tom Cosgrave >Guinness Grand Prix :- >http://www.rtc-carlow.ie/student/downeys/ggp.html >The F1 Test Site :- >http://www.rtc-carlow.ie/student/downeys/f1test.html >E-mail :- >Support Sarah Kavanagh and the RASF1 car in Formula >Nippon >http://www.sarah.org/sarah/rasf1 >Username : rasf1 Password : gogirl >"Ralf's not very happy, Fisichella's been blowing him off >all weekend." > ITV's Martin Brundle :-)Good God, you're thick. I've spent eons trying to get games like X-Wing and
Tie-fighter to run with all their Himem and EMM requests and when to load
the mouse and soundcard drivers.
Bwahahaha. GP-2 DOS based program runs 10.6 frames per sec on my P-166 with
32 MB of Edoram. And still it stutters when you spin, or start a race from
behind.
Ubisoft F-1 Racing Simulation, a pure Windows 95 DirectX 5 based sim,
installed with no glitch, ran first time I clicked the icon, has a framerate
one can only dream of, doesn't stutter or pause anywhere and beats the ***
out of GP-2's graphics.
Oh good, play DOOM then while the whole world plays GL-Quake. I only play
GL-Quake under Win95 anymore because it runs BETTER than the DOS-only
version.
Whiner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flush The Seatbelt! Ekul in Sraw Rats
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sticks and stones CAN break my bones!
Anonymous Stormtrooper on Endor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/35 Panther Ausf. F under construction
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a Neutralist and proud of it!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[link lost in import]
[link lost in import]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off... Im guessing you dont know how to setup up a DOS environment
to play games. I had a 133 with 32 megs of RAM and could run NASCAR2 in
DOS with ALL graphics on and Full field draw!! Not in rendition mode, I
dont have a rendition card. Some tracks like Martinsville required you
to turn off grass texture or building details... but most did not.
Secondly... My point wasnt that my NIRVANA was playing Falcon 3.0 on a
pentium machine.... My POINT was that I came across the game and was
stating the RECOMMENDED requirements to play the game at the time as
little as 3 or 4 years ago compared with today !!!!!!!!!!!!
I havent played that game in nearly 2 years. It hasnt even been loaded
on my last 2 PCs...
Next time you decide to get in a little "tizzy" about a post which was
based on DOS fact and humor... try re-reading it. OK ?
Scott B. Husted
http://home.ptd.net/~sbhusted
Quoted text (33 lines)
> >Not to start a flame war or Anything.... but this wouldnt be an issue > >if the games were being run in DOS !!!! There wouldnt be as many > >framerate problems as there are in Winblowz95 based games. > Give me a break. Grand Prix 2 was a DOS game and you seriously don't > remember the shellacking it got online for the fact that maybe 1% of > the machines out there could run it with everything turned on?! Even > ICR2 was ahead of its time. Even a decent P133 couldn't turn > everything on and have a smooth frame rate on it. It wasn't until the > Rendtion version and P200's that people could really turn on a bunch > of cars ahead and behind and turn on all the graphical goodies. > NASCAR? You had people as recently as a few months ago racing Hawaii > with the most of the textures (most importantly the asphalt) off > because it was the only way to get a decent frame rate. So you drove > around on polygonal flat colored gray squares. I'd love to have some > sympathy for your "Winblowz95" based games comment, but if you think > we've just left some romantic era where everything ran at a nice frame > rate in DOS and mid-range computer users were happy, THINK AGAIN. > Lord how quickly people forget. > >I was cleaning up our computer room and I came across my old flight sim > >Falcon 3.0 Flight Sim of the Year in 1992 !!! 286 min processor, 386 > >recommended, WILL FLY WITH 486!!! *laugh* 4mb ram minimum, 8 > >recommended!!! > I spent a LOT of hours on Falcon 3.0, including in online combat. I > also remember that at the time I bought it I was using a 386/33, which > was about midrange at the time -- couldn't NEARLY run with enough > details on. Wasn't until I got a 486/33 that the thing ran decently. > If you think *** nirvana is running Falcon 3.0 on your Pentium, go > right ahead. > RandyWhat... dont people understand Sarcasm about the Falcon 3.0 IM NOT
PLAYING THE GAME... IT WAS MEANT AS A COMPARISON TO REQUIREMENTS FOR A
GAME JUST A FEW YEARS AGO TO TODAY!! 386 with 2megs of ram ?!?!?!
As far as GP2 in DOS.. I cant say. Never owned the game and dont own F1
by ubisoft either. I can say the games for Windows95 i have owned
installed flawlessly... but the framerate was not nearly as strong as in
DOS. SODA framrate was absolutely terrible. NASCAR2 in Windows takes a
very good video card to support it.
DOS is dying a slow painful death. No doubt about it. BUT part of my
point was a simple boot disk for a *** environment worked wonders. I
NEVER had a problem with settings for DOS when it came to X-WING or
Nascar1 etc..
Windows95 GENERALLY takes a more powerful processor, more ram, and a
very good video card. That was my point.
Damn... Im starting to think some of you guys are sleeping with Bill
Gates or something and You say one word about DOS versus Windows95 and
its like I kicked your dog or something.
As far as being thick.... Im not the one who couldnt get a simple DOS
environment to work for X-Wing when the one provided in the manual was
simple enough. Hell... it made a boot disk for you!!!!
Scott B. Husted
http://home.ptd.net/~sbhusted
Quoted text (43 lines)
> >Not to start a flame war or Anything.... but this wouldnt be an issue > >if the games were being run in DOS !!!! > Good God, you're thick. I've spent eons trying to get games like X-Wing and > Tie-fighter to run with all their Himem and EMM requests and when to load > the mouse and soundcard drivers. > > There wouldnt be as many > >framerate problems as there are in Winblowz95 based games. > Bwahahaha. GP-2 DOS based program runs 10.6 frames per sec on my P-166 with > 32 MB of Edoram. And still it stutters when you spin, or start a race from > behind. > Ubisoft F-1 Racing Simulation, a pure Windows 95 DirectX 5 based sim, > installed with no glitch, ran first time I clicked the icon, has a framerate > one can only dream of, doesn't stutter or pause anywhere and beats the *** > out of GP-2's graphics. > >I was cleaning up our computer room and I came across my old flight sim > >Falcon 3.0 Flight Sim of the Year in 1992 !!! 286 min processor, 386 > >recommended, WILL FLY WITH 486!!! *laugh* 4mb ram minimum, 8 > >recommended > Oh good, play DOOM then while the whole world plays GL-Quake. I only play > GL-Quake under Win95 anymore because it runs BETTER than the DOS-only > version. > Whiner. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Flush The Seatbelt! Ekul in Sraw Rats > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sticks and stones CAN break my bones! > Anonymous Stormtrooper on Endor. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1/35 Panther Ausf. F under construction > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I'm a Neutralist and proud of it! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > [link lost in import] > [link lost in import] > -------------------------------------------------------------------------Actually, I doubt DOS would solve the problem. I think the bigger problem
is developers learning the intricacies of Win95/NT, and how to take
advantage of them. We've been able to get Win95 to perform within 1fps from
our DOS builds, so the "gains" are really pretty small, and probably not
enough to justify the end-user nightmares of installation and configuration
(face it, LucasArts had to stuff 4 page inserts into their X-Wing product
just to help users troubleshoot their DOS installation).
Also, remember that most of the titles that ran well under DOS (you
mentioned 286/386) were only 320x200. Today, you take the immediate hit of
blitting over 4 times the data per frame before you even think about texture
mapping. And, it doesn't help that just about every other computer
architecture (read: non-Intel) has been 64-bit or better for at least 2
years -- we're still having to deal with cramming megs of data down a small
32-bit bus.
Maybe the answer is to focus on the scalability of the software, so that
those without heavy duty hardware can scale the product down to their
hardware. Note, this doesn't necessarily mean turning off features, but
maybe choosing flat shaded vs. textured, etc.
Rich
Quoted text (11 lines)
>Not to start a flame war or Anything.... but this wouldnt be an issue >if the games were being run in DOS !!!! There wouldnt be as many >framerate problems as there are in Winblowz95 based games. >I was cleaning up our computer room and I came across my old flight sim >Falcon 3.0 Flight Sim of the Year in 1992 !!! 286 min processor, 386 >recommended, WILL FLY WITH 486!!! *laugh* 4mb ram minimum, 8 >recommended!!! >Scott B. Husted >http://home.ptd.net/~sbhustedI agree. I am not involved in the computer industry other than an end
user who uses his computer for business and obviously racing sims =)
Im sure that there are learning curves for all platform envirnments and
limitations as well because of it. I too hated that there were tons of
setup problems in dos... however, once you became familiar with YOUR own
system... you cold pretty much tweek for each game an optimum
performance for your machine. Such is true im sure for Windows95. Is
there a true 64 bit system on the way ???? (I havent a clue). My
gateway came configured with a MS-DOS window setup for "optimum"
performance for ***. I must say... it works great for N2 !! The
only problem I have is when I do finally get around to joining TEN and
NROS... N2 must be run from a windows95 environment. I cannot enjoy N2
from windows95 as I can in DOS. Performance is much worse with the
delays and hesitations. This would probably be solved with more RAM (64
from my current 32, and a decent video card. (ATI 3D RageII sucks pretty
much). In dos, I can have everything on with full car draw with no
hesitations. On some tracks the texture draws a little slow up ahead,
but barely noticeable. Mostly at Martinsville and the new GN expanions
pack tracks which have great graphics. I guess my point is that current
border line systems seem to run better in DOS (IMHO of course). With
better systems, Im sure it is not as important an issue. (say 266mhz and
above with good ram and accelerator cards.)
My previous posts were taken WAY out of context. I am not a MICROSOFT
hater... I purchase MANY products. I couldnt get by without Office
97!!
However... I do not have any "serious" games that must be run in
Windows95 environment (not including NROS for N2). My experience with
SODA was absolutely frightening. Framerate totally sucked no matter
what I did. Playable with no eye candy... but thats not MY personal
goal. I love playability, but I also love the great graphics and
surrounding environment. The best we can do is try and strike a balance
until the hardware/software worlds start to better cohere to eachother.
I hope someday these arguments over playability in Windows environment,
whether it be NT or 98 or whatever, will become a mute point. I would
love just to argue over a game based on its features and gameplay
without taking into consideration framerate and if it works on one
system and not another. I dont see that happening anytime soon... but,
we can all hope =)
Richard, a request. Could you send me the info on how you got Windows95
to perform within 1fps of a DOS environment ??? I suggested earlier to
Dean from the CART team about a FAQ about how to optimize performance in
Windows95. Im sure there are MANY of us non-technical individuals who
would benefit from such a FAQ greatly!!
Thanks,
Scott B. Husted
http://home.ptd.net/~sbhusted
Quoted text (36 lines)
> Actually, I doubt DOS would solve the problem. I think the bigger problem > is developers learning the intricacies of Win95/NT, and how to take > advantage of them. We've been able to get Win95 to perform within 1fps from > our DOS builds, so the "gains" are really pretty small, and probably not > enough to justify the end-user nightmares of installation and configuration > (face it, LucasArts had to stuff 4 page inserts into their X-Wing product > just to help users troubleshoot their DOS installation). > Also, remember that most of the titles that ran well under DOS (you > mentioned 286/386) were only 320x200. Today, you take the immediate hit of > blitting over 4 times the data per frame before you even think about texture > mapping. And, it doesn't help that just about every other computer > architecture (read: non-Intel) has been 64-bit or better for at least 2 > years -- we're still having to deal with cramming megs of data down a small > 32-bit bus. > Maybe the answer is to focus on the scalability of the software, so that > those without heavy duty hardware can scale the product down to their > hardware. Note, this doesn't necessarily mean turning off features, but > maybe choosing flat shaded vs. textured, etc. > Rich > >Not to start a flame war or Anything.... but this wouldnt be an issue > >if the games were being run in DOS !!!! There wouldnt be as many > >framerate problems as there are in Winblowz95 based games. > >I was cleaning up our computer room and I came across my old flight sim > >Falcon 3.0 Flight Sim of the Year in 1992 !!! 286 min processor, 386 > >recommended, WILL FLY WITH 486!!! *laugh* 4mb ram minimum, 8 > >recommended!!! > >Scott B. Husted > >[link lost in import: /~sbhusted]Checking some system requirements; the original IndyCar Racing required a
386/25 (486dx/33 recommended) and DOOM wanted a 386/33 and recommended 8
megs of RAM when released. The technology had to mature before these games
were fully enjoyable, so today seems no different to me. In a year a P2/450
with AGP should handle any game out today.
I remember trying to free up enough memory on a 486/25 to run DOOM with PC
Speaker support. No sound card or cd-rom drive.
The only thing I've seen change is the OS and games.
Quoted text (8 lines)
>> Not to start a flame war or Anything.... but this wouldnt be an issue >> if the games were being run in DOS !!!! There wouldnt be as many >> framerate problems as there are in Winblowz95 based games. >> I was cleaning up our computer room and I came across my old flight sim >> Falcon 3.0 Flight Sim of the Year in 1992 !!! 286 min processor, 386 >> recommended, WILL FLY WITH 486!!! *laugh* 4mb ram minimum, 8 >> recommended!!!Oh yeah, right. Make a martyr out of yourself. You came on and made
it sound like DOS was *** nirvana. Most of the people in the REAL
world well remember having to fight with memory managers, juggle
drivers, fight with UniVBE and VESA stuff, and configure IRQ's by hand
to get games to work decently, and STILL suffer from horrendous frame
rates. Windows has its problems, no one is denying that. But you
make it sound like poor frame rates and high hardware requirements
magically appeared when Windows was released. What a joke.
Most people think boot disks are a royal pain in the ass. No one
wants to wait all day for a floppy and have to keep separate floppies
for various games. This is lunacy. I can't believe you have the gall
to defend it!
Randy
Here's a hot tip for you. Don't guess. You don't know squat about my
background. And yes, I DO know how to set up a DOS environment to
play games. I did it for years, and I had to talk friends and
relatives through config.sys edits on the phone when they bought the
latest software and were pulling their hair out because it didn't run.
Now my relatives have Playstations and I no longer have to get on the
phone and debug config.sys and autoexec.bat on the phone!
Sure...as long as you don't mind 20 fps or less. I *did* have a
Rendition v1000 board on a similar config as you, and while I could
turn all that stuff on (without Rendition that is) I know longer had a
game that was smooth enough to run bumper to bumper races with.
DOS fact?! good one.
Randy
I sell, configure, support nt environments, many of which use 95 workstations.
I sell and use microsoft products all the time, from office to exchange and
sequel, and have a healthly respect for the programmers who take on such
mammoth tasks.
Of course I use dos for any game that will allow me too, and hate the games
which demand windows 95. from my experience i get lower frame rates and
annoying pauses which have to be hunted down (95 doing things in the
background) ie turn off network, cd autoplay, whatever. It's annoying (dry
humour) to come into the last bend on a perfect lap and have a pause put you
into the wall, especially if you're well into a race.
I'd like to see it too. I'm sure they'd be many tips i'm not aware of.
This has always been the argument against DOS. And it's well grounded in fact.
However, the problem was the same for every game, and the supplement was
pretty much the same for every game. I think the average win95 user will
suffer heavily from regular pauses and won't have the faintest idea why they
get them. There is very little documentation in games (or any other standard
literature) to help with solving them.
Brian
A martyr... youre so dramatic. =) Do you get yourself so wound up
everytime someone disagrees with you ?? Must make life pretty
difficult.
I would rather put a bootdisk in the drive and turn a computer on...
(it really is pretty simple.. you just flick the switch!) and boot the
computer through that than worry about turning off everything that is
running in the background of windows95 and the dreaded hard drive
swapping that takes place.
IMHO.. I was just stating that I thought it was much simpler to get a
game to run in dos than windows95. I dont have any preference what so
ever to where the damn games are run.. as long as they DO run. DOS,
Windows95, NT, 98.... dont care. I just want to play the game in the
best possible way to get the most enjoyment out of it.
Scott B. Husted
http://home.ptd.net/~sbhusted
Quoted text (23 lines)
> >Damn... Im starting to think some of you guys are sleeping with Bill > >Gates or something and You say one word about DOS versus Windows95 and > >its like I kicked your dog or something. > Oh yeah, right. Make a martyr out of yourself. You came on and made > it sound like DOS was *** nirvana. Most of the people in the REAL > world well remember having to fight with memory managers, juggle > drivers, fight with UniVBE and VESA stuff, and configure IRQ's by hand > to get games to work decently, and STILL suffer from horrendous frame > rates. Windows has its problems, no one is denying that. But you > make it sound like poor frame rates and high hardware requirements > magically appeared when Windows was released. What a joke. > >As far as being thick.... Im not the one who couldnt get a simple DOS > >environment to work for X-Wing when the one provided in the manual was > >simple enough. Hell... it made a boot disk for you!!!! > Most people think boot disks are a royal pain in the ass. No one > wants to wait all day for a floppy and have to keep separate floppies > for various games. This is lunacy. I can't believe you have the gall > to defend it! > RandyQuoted text (12 lines)
> >Damn... Im starting to think some of you guys are sleeping with Bill > >Gates or something and You say one word about DOS versus Windows95 and > >its like I kicked your dog or something. > Oh yeah, right. Make a martyr out of yourself. You came on and made > it sound like DOS was *** nirvana. Most of the people in the REAL > world well remember having to fight with memory managers, juggle > drivers, fight with UniVBE and VESA stuff, and configure IRQ's by hand > to get games to work decently, and STILL suffer from horrendous frame > rates. Windows has its problems, no one is denying that. But you > make it sound like poor frame rates and high hardware requirements > magically appeared when Windows was released. What a joke.Thank you Allen =)
I agree with you obviously.
Scott B. Husted
http://home.ptd.net/~sbhusted
Quoted text (34 lines)
> > >Damn... Im starting to think some of you guys are sleeping with Bill > > >Gates or something and You say one word about DOS versus Windows95 and > > >its like I kicked your dog or something. > > Oh yeah, right. Make a martyr out of yourself. You came on and made > > it sound like DOS was *** nirvana. Most of the people in the REAL > > world well remember having to fight with memory managers, juggle > > drivers, fight with UniVBE and VESA stuff, and configure IRQ's by hand > > to get games to work decently, and STILL suffer from horrendous frame > > rates. Windows has its problems, no one is denying that. But you > > make it sound like poor frame rates and high hardware requirements > > magically appeared when Windows was released. What a joke. > Actually I don't remember all those DOS configurations being that > much of a problem, at least not more than once. I certainly don't > think they were significantly more difficult than the configuring > and driver upgrades Windows seems to constantly require. I guess > it's just what I grew up with. > FWIW, I realize that DOS is going to die due to market pressure > no matter how much I like it, but as long as manufacturers continue > to make games with the option to play in DOS I'll keep on buying > the DOS version. > Oh yeah, my P-166 with 16 meg of RAM plays GP2 with full options > and graphics with no lags or pauses in DOS (I can boot to either > Win95 or pure DOS 6.22). I don't use any memory managers other than > what came with MS-DOS 6.22, don't have any video accelerator cards, > and can't remember the last time I had to reconfigure the OS just > to play a new game. Dream on, Win95. > -- > Allen Johnson PP-ASEL ......... Remove the NOSPAM. to respond > Spook's Law on Software: If you haven't found a bug then you > haven't accessed the right piece of code yet. > Corollary: Working code is simply so many malfunctioning bugs.A myth. Nascar (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it
came out. F1GP2 (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it
came out (the sole reason I didn't buy F1GP2 back then for my
P90/P133).
Ubisoft F1RS (Win95) on the other hand, damn doesn't it run smooth on
my mediocre 233MMX/3Dfx! ;-) And it looks great too, a far cry from
F1GP2.
I wasn't happy with the speed when I played Falcon 3 on my 486-33/8MB
back then, TsengLabs video card (fast). Ran at maybe 10-15 fps mostly
I think, and the graphics are a laugh by today's standards. Lores and
all (puke). Only now, with 3Dfx cards, are the flight simulators
starting to look and run as they should, for example EF2000 2.0,
Jetfighter 3 and F/A-18 Hornet: Korea.
And oh boy, does anyone remember Strike Commander (MS-DOS)? Now wasn't
that TERRIBLY SLOW on any machine back then? I remember the first time
I actually enjoyed that flight "sim" was a year or two after that, when
I bought a new 90Mhz Pentium.
How soon we forget...
Well the recommendations were wrong. It was S-L-O-W even on 486-33/8MB
machines with fast TsengLabs graphics card, especially when you had
several wingmen.
And it was a *** to set up as well. It needed 600kB of conventional
memory MINIMUM, and more for advanced features. I use whole days just
trying to figure out how to get well over 600kB for that one game back
then.
Exactly.
More memory yes, all your other guesses are rubbish.
I know it is fashionable to hate "winblozzzz" and "bili gates", but
next time try to find some more convincing scapegoats, ok?
You just seem so extremely ignorant when you claim all the problems in
the world are due to "winblozzzzz". No, games would not be considerably
faster if they were coded for DOS instead of Win95, that is nothing but
a myth spread by ignorant people trying to find easy scapegoats.
But I must admit you are so witty inventing such word as "winblozzzzz",
he he... It kind of makes a very good point for you, and shows you look at
this all so objectively.
(Oh my)
As much as I would love to take credit for it... Winblowz95 is used
generously all over the net. So I cant take credit for that =)
My 486 33 with 16megs of ram ran Falcon 3.0 with no problems. Took me
less than an hour to get the game to run smoothly.
I agree... the graphics are "laughable" compared to anything in the last
couple of years.
As you said, recommended settings are usually false. YES.. you can PLAY
the game with the minimum requirements... but usually sucks because you
have to turn so much off and many time forced to accept shitty
framerate.
I cant comment on F1 on windows95 (never played it). Also.. as your
point of objectivity. If you had read my post earlier I had said I
really dont give a damn about the operating system (be it DOS, 95, 98,
NT, ps/2, etc) All I really CARE about is being able to play the game
the way it is suppose to be played (all eye candy, etc). Also... I
believe if you had read an earlier post I had said I dont HATE
Microsoft, I own so many of their software packages and could not live
without Office 97 for my financial and business needs.
Scott
Quoted text (20 lines)
> >Windows95 GENERALLY takes a more powerful processor, more ram, and a > >very good video card. That was my point. > More memory yes, all your other guesses are rubbish. > >Damn... Im starting to think some of you guys are sleeping with Bill > >Gates or something and You say one word about DOS versus Windows95 and > >its like I kicked your dog or something. > I know it is fashionable to hate "winblozzzz" and "bili gates", but > next time try to find some more convincing scapegoats, ok? > You just seem so extremely ignorant when you claim all the problems in > the world are due to "winblozzzzz". No, games would not be considerably > faster if they were coded for DOS instead of Win95, that is nothing but > a myth spread by ignorant people trying to find easy scapegoats. > But I must admit you are so witty inventing such word as "winblozzzzz", > he he... It kind of makes a very good point for you, and shows you look at > this all so objectively. > (Oh my)Quoted text (7 lines)
>A myth. Nascar (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it >came out. F1GP2 (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it >came out (the sole reason I didn't buy F1GP2 back then for my >P90/P133). >Ubisoft F1RS (Win95) on the other hand, damn doesn't it run smooth on >my mediocre 233MMX/3Dfx! ;-) And it looks great too, a far cry from >F1GP2.Sorry for the indirect reference; news server replacement...
(nothing that I'm responding to)
> >A myth. Nascar (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it
> >came out. F1GP2 (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it
> >came out (the sole reason I didn't buy F1GP2 back then for my
> >P90/P133).
No, NASCAR1 was very fast in VGA mode (the "standard" of the time)
upon release. Sure, SVGA (was N1 the very first 640x480 texture-mapped
3D game?) was slow on a P66, but that's the price of the leading edge.
---Jim
No, I'm just telling you how you come off. I'm not wound up at all.
Just trying to shine a little light on the subject.
Valid complaint, but lets go back to your bootdisk thing. So you have
a bunch of boot disks and then you upgrade a piece of hardware.
Oops...gotta go through and re-work every one of your boot disks to
load the new hardware drivers and make sure they are aligned correctly
so they fit in high memory or you won't have enough conventional left
to run your game. I remember one of my biggest DOS hassles was a DOS
game that required the CD to be in the drive, but there was no way for
me to get my CD drivers loaded in such a way that the game felt there
was enough memory to run the game. Ahh the memories come flooding
back (that one was a next-day return btw).
Randy
Quoted text (19 lines)
> Sorry for the indirect reference; news server replacement... > (nothing that I'm responding to) > > >A myth. Nascar (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it > > >came out. F1GP2 (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it > > >came out (the sole reason I didn't buy F1GP2 back then for my > > >P90/P133). > No, NASCAR1 was very fast in VGA mode (the "standard" of the time) > upon release. Sure, SVGA (was N1 the very first 640x480 texture-mapped > 3D game?) was slow on a P66, but that's the price of the leading edge. > ---JimQuoted text (11 lines)
>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >Actually I don't remember all those DOS configurations being that >much of a problem, at least not more than once. I certainly don't >think they were significantly more difficult than the configuring >and driver upgrades Windows seems to constantly require. I guess >it's just what I grew up with. > FWIW, I realize that DOS is going to die due to market pressure >no matter how much I like it, but as long as manufacturers continue >to make games with the option to play in DOS I'll keep on buying >the DOS version............................<HTML>
Most definately. Im not sure its true... but isnt 98 (memphis) going
to be the last 95 upgrade ?? Then THE OS will be NT ??
<P>Scott B. Husted
<BR><A HREF="http://home.ptd.net/~sbhusted">http://home.ptd.net/~sbhusted</A>
<BR>
<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<BR>>>
<BR>>Actually I don't remember all those DOS configurations being that
<BR>>much of a problem, at least not more than once. I certainly
don't
<BR>>think they were significantly more difficult than the configuring
<BR>>and driver upgrades Windows seems to constantly require. I guess
<BR>>it's just what I grew up with.
<BR>> FWIW, I realize that DOS is going to die due to market pressure
<BR>>no matter how much I like it, but as long as manufacturers continue
<BR>>to make games with the option to play in DOS I'll keep on buying
<BR>>the DOS version............................
<P>Well i hope people don't get too sentimental for Win_9? either because
it's
<BR>soon gonna die the same ugly death DOS is going through. Bill has seen
your
<BR>future and it is NT.
<P>Bob</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
>You are comparing apples and oranges - unaccelerated software with
>3dfx-accelerated programs. The same software running on Win95 and DOS
>is faster in DOS, because it has 100% of the CPU cycles. This is an
>inescapable fact.
"Inescapable"? Unaccelerated Ignition, WC4 and WinQuake are
faster in Win than DOS. And even when the DOS version of some game is
faster in DOS, with current P133+ machines the difference is like
1 fps, like one game developer just explained here for the title they
were working on. Hardly something to get e***d about, except for
argument's sake.
These "speed adjustable gamecards" are a joke, a thing of the past.
Sticks like Wingman Extreme Digital and Sidewinder 3DPro are the new
generation of how flight sticks should use that single gameport on
your sound card, too bad some of the dinosaurs (CH, Thrustmaster) are
still making those old MS-DOS sticks with their big latency, inaccurate
controls, silly restrictions for how many buttons you can press at the
same time etc.
Yes they are. The way these old MS-DOS sticks use the game port is a
bad joke, ask any games programmer who has programmed DOS games with
joystick support. Fortunately we are getting rid of that poor legacy
hardware with DirectInput.
>to run your game. I remember one of my biggest DOS hassles was a DOS
>game that required the CD to be in the drive, but there was no way for
>me to get my CD drivers loaded in such a way that the game felt there
For me the biggest hassles were with such DOS games as Rex Nebular,
Falcon 3 (these two wanted loads of conventional memory), and the worst
of them all, Ultima 7, which didn't want to hear anything about EMM386
or QEMM, yet demanded a hefty amount of conventional memory. Aaaargh!
I remember I had to make an extra entry in the boot memory config menu
for Ultima 7 alone.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>>>A myth. Nascar (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it >>>came out. F1GP2 (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it >>>came out (the sole reason I didn't buy F1GP2 back then for my >>>P90/P133). >No, NASCAR1 was very fast in VGA mode (the "standard" of the time) >upon release. Sure, SVGA (was N1 the very first 640x480 texture-mapped >3D game?) was slow on a P66, but that's the price of the leading edge.>Well i hope people don't get too sentimental for Win_9? either because
>it's soon gonna die the same ugly death DOS is going through. Bill has
>seen your future and it is NT.
Lots of Win95 games work fine in WinNT already, and this is _before_
NT even has the full DirectX set. So who cares about the "death of
Win9x", they'll play their games on NT5 or whatever it will be called.
If you are trying to imply MS will break the backwards compatibility,
deliberately or not, the history is not on your side. I have installed
DX5, and I can still run practically any previous Win game great on my
system, be it DX3, DX2, DX1 or even WinG (which run even in Win3.x).
And lo and behold, DOS games too, even without exiting Windows like
with previous Windows versions! So it seems MS has in fact improved the
backwards compatibility across different Win-versions.
The only backwards compatibility that eventually might and will suffer
in the distant future is MS-DOS games, so I guess that is another good
reason to not to buy new DOS games anymore. ;^) But I believe even the
Win-version five years from now will offer some kind of option for
MS-DOS, like a separate FAT16 partition and boot like in NT4, but
hardly anyone will want to run DOS games in five years. Maybe the same
people who still believe in Amiga.
Quoted text (13 lines)
> >>>A myth. Nascar (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it > >>>came out. F1GP2 (MS-DOS) was very slow even on top machines when it > >>>came out (the sole reason I didn't buy F1GP2 back then for my > >>>P90/P133). > >No, NASCAR1 was very fast in VGA mode (the "standard" of the time) > >upon release. Sure, SVGA (was N1 the very first 640x480 texture-mapped > >3D game?) was slow on a P66, but that's the price of the leading edge. > You missed something. In this thread people are complaining how Win95 > games run poorly when they enable all the graphics options on their > mediocre P166-P200 systems. So if you want to use Nascar 2 as an > example, naturally you will have to max that out too.>"Inescapable"? Unaccelerated Ignition, WC4 and WinQuake are
>faster in Win than DOS.
No, they are not. You need to understand how a multitasking OS like
Win95 works - it is ALWAYS running some code (i.e., the OS shceduler)
in the background, which necesarily eats up some CPU cycles.
I'm not e***d about it, just pointing out a fact.
The fact is, all those controlers work perfectly under MS-DOS, and are
flaky only under Win95. Probably a timing issue, most likely due to
that scheduler that's running in the background.
Sure it's a joke, it's no news that we need a new joystick-input
standard (e.g., perhaps USB). But the point is DOS software can make
all controllers work correctly despite their limitations, Win95
cannot.
Huh? DirectInput doesn't change your hardware. It just does a poorer
job of reading it than DOS software. Hardly seems "fortunate" that you
have to buy all new peripherals to make them work properly in Win95.
Besides, two-thirds of the analog peripherals I use - steering
wheel/pedals and rudder controls - are not even available in digital
versions, even if I did want to waste $400 replacing them. That means
getting "shake free" wheel/rudder input in Win95 isn't even
*possible*, let alone "fortunate".
Joe
>Lots of Win95 games work fine in WinNT already, and this is _before_
>NT even has the full DirectX set. So who cares about the "death of
>Win9x", they'll play their games on NT5 or whatever it will be called.
NT is an even less-suitable platform for *** than Win95 is. NT does
*real* multitasking, and has all sorts of stuff running in the
background.
Joe
Quoted text (7 lines)
>>Lots of Win95 games work fine in WinNT already, and this is _before_ >>NT even has the full DirectX set. So who cares about the "death of >>Win9x", they'll play their games on NT5 or whatever it will be >>called. >NT is an even less-suitable platform for *** than Win95 is. NT does >*real* multitasking, and has all sorts of stuff running in the >background.Quoted text (9 lines)
>>You missed something. In this thread people are complaining how Win95 >>games run poorly when they enable all the graphics options on their >>mediocre P166-P200 systems. So if you want to use Nascar 2 as an >>example, naturally you will have to max that out too. >I don't think I missed a thing. >Were you referring to N1 or N2? I assumed N1, because N2 absolutely >flies on "top machines" concurrent with its release.>>"Inescapable"? Unaccelerated Ignition, WC4 and WinQuake are
>>faster in Win than DOS.
>No, they are not.
Yes they are. Maybe you should try them out yourself sometime? I have.
The fact that WinQuake is definitely faster than Dos Quake has been
reported all over the net, it is not just me either.
With current machines (P133+) this extra load is insignificant, causing
like 1 fps slowdown. Whoopee! And sometimes the Win95 versions of games
(like Quake, Wing Commander 4, Ignition and UAE Amiga emulator) are
even faster than their MS-DOS counterparts.
Or maybe not, considering controller problems in MS-DOS games are
daily. Screamer Rally is a recent example, it fails to work even with
normal 2 axis analog joysticks, let alone some T2.
DirectInput already does damn good job with a SINGLE joystick port on a
regular sound card. For example: eight buttons, throttle, rudder, eight
way hat, all this without any restrictions at all.
Is that why such MS-DOS game like Screamer Rally forces people to play
it with a keyboard? A driving game? I have seen much more DOS
controller failures so far.
It certainly does change the way that single joystick port on my sound
card can (not "must") be utilized. Much more efficient than the MS-DOS
controllers with their button restrictions (CH Flightstick Pro is
especially so poor in this), big latency, vibration when you are not
even touching the joystick etc.
DirectInput is technically quite superior to any controller support we
have seen in MS-DOS games to date. Show me one MS-DOS game or
controller, where you can use a 2 axis analog joystick, rudder,
throttle, eight buttons and EIGHT way hat, *** all simultaneously
without any restrictions whatsoever, using only _one_ normal SB16 game
port ***. DirectInput has handled that for quite some time already, and
has less latency and better accuracy than any MS-DOS controller in any
MS-DOS game too.
Too bad you have bought peripherals which are not supported by the
hardware manufacturer. I see the mere way these older MS-DOS
controllers work as a hardware defect.
<stuff snipped>
Joe, I am curious, Does NT allow true Multiple-Threads? (unlike Win95
which just makes it *look* like it is multi-threading) If so, NT may
be
actually better for *** than Win95. I use OS/2, it has true multi-
threading and when something is running in the background (print,
download, floppy access, or any combo of the above) there is not
any degrading of system performance, unless I have several (more than
30) applications open and the swapfile is being utilized.
There have been a few games written for OS/2 that use DIVE(direct
video,
similar to Direct Draw for Win95) and there is no slow down of the
system. Also the programmers can use a separate thread for the AI
stuff so it doesn't interfere with the other aspects of game play.
Just wondering, you talk as if you may know or be interested enough
to find out.
Thanks,
Ralph Williams
>With current machines (P133+) this extra load is insignificant, causing
>like 1 fps slowdown.
Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that DOS is faster.
No it doesn't - only if you through away all your old peripherals and
buy new, digital ones. It does not do a good job with ordinary input
devices at all.
That;s Win95 you're talking about - and since the "flaky shakies" are
in the low-level Win95 device code, there's nothing any game developer
can do to fix it.
Sorry, the facts demonstrate that the complete opposite is true.
Fact1: In *some* DOS games, there are device reading problems on some
systems.
Fact2: In *ALL* Win95 games, there are device reading problems on many
systems.
Obviously Microsoft does as well - perhaps that's why they refuse to
fix the horrendous input-device code in Win95, in an attempt to make
everyone buy their own digital joysticks. But no matter how you slice
it, there's no way that can be defined as an advantage for consumers,
however beneficial it might be to Microsoft's bottom line.
Also, why did you ignore the point that there are no digital rudders
or wheels available, that can get rid of the shakes in Win95? What you
describe as a "hardware defect" is still the defacto hardware standard
for 95% or all input devices, a standard that Microsoft has done a
piss-poor job of supporting.
Joe
>Joe, I am curious, Does NT allow true Multiple-Threads?
I believe it does, but what is is NOT is a real-time operating system
- there are no guarentees of how often threads will be serviced, for
example. That makes it unsuitable for anything but maybe arcade ***
- certainly it is not suitable for *** sims, which really needs a
multitasking OS to be a realtime OS as well. Otherwise you're going to
run into timing nightmares trying to get the timing of various threads
working consistently on different people's hardware.
Joe
>Joe, I am curious, Does NT allow true Multiple-Threads? (unlike Win95
>which just makes it *look* like it is multi-threading) If so, NT may
>be actually better for *** than Win95.
I think you are right, at least glQuake is indeed faster in NT4 than
Win95. Considerably.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> >Joe, I am curious, Does NT allow true Multiple-Threads? > I believe it does, but what is is NOT is a real-time operating system > - there are no guarentees of how often threads will be serviced, for > example. That makes it unsuitable for anything but maybe arcade *** > - certainly it is not suitable for *** sims, which really needs a > multitasking OS to be a realtime OS as well. Otherwise you're going to > run into timing nightmares trying to get the timing of various threads > working consistently on different people's hardware.% Well i hope people don't get too sentimental for Win_9? either because it's
% soon gonna die the same ugly death DOS is going through. Bill has seen your
% future and it is NT.
And from all I've seen and heard, NT is in fact a good solid OS. (can't
really be Microsoft, can it? <G>)
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>Joe, I am curious, Does NT allow true Multiple-Threads?
>-certainly it is not suitable for *** sims, which really needs a
>multitasking OS to be a realtime OS as well. Otherwise you're going to
>run into timing nightmares trying to get the timing of various threads
>working consistently on different people's hardware.
Right. When we are playing future flight sims and driving sims in
future revisions of NT (NT5/6?), I will quote this once again.
People like you said in the past that Solitaire is about the best you
can do in Win95 ***, that fast action games will never be playable
on Win95 "because it eats so much resources". And this wasn't five
years ago with 386 machines, but later back when I already had my
P133/24MB system.
>>With current machines (P133+) this extra load is insignificant,
>>causing like 1 fps slowdown.
>Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that DOS is faster.
Not even near always. You still haven't commented on the games
I listed, which were faster in Win95 than MS-DOS.
Well DUH! Only shows that these older input devices are quite pathetic
with their restrictions, big latency etc. But Win95 uses that same SB16
joystick port I already have much more efficiently than MS-DOS games,
if the input devices let it to.
But it still does very good job with these pathetic older input devices
as well. I have no problems whatsoever using CH Flightstick or Phase9
Phantom 2 P.C. from Win95, work the same as from DOS mode. Sure people
have reported problems with some wheels and pedals, but so have
Nascar 2 drivers in MS-DOS.
You apparently don't have the faintest idea what the digital mode for
DirectInput means. MS-DOS games use the old way of utilizing the game
port, which means varying readings from the input devices even when you
are not touching it, the need for "speed compensating game cards" (yes,
in MS-DOS, not Win95) etc.
Fine, so you are happy with the big latency, varying readings, no
multibutton support without silly kludges and direct support in each
game separately etc. with MS-DOS games. Siberia teaches I guess.
In most games and systems.
As if you knew anything about it. You cannot polish a turd, that is
your defective MS-DOS input devices.
I didn't realize Wingman Extreme Digital is made by Microsoft.
Neither is Gravis Gamepad Pro for that matter.
And you are wrong anyway. CH Flightstick works fine in Win95, I just
tried it. No difference whatsoever to using it in MS-DOS mode.
I can understand if you've had some problems with kludgy workaround DOS
flightsticks which are connected to your keyboard, serial port, EIDE
port and game port at the same time, just so that you can use more than
two buttons at the same time. Like I said, these DOS input devices are
very messy, and require _direct_ support from _each_ MS-DOS game
separately. They give lots of people problems even in MS-DOS.
I think I just read about "Digital Edge" steering wheel and pedals, and
it seems they are the best such devices for the PC. I'm not quite sure,
but that "Digital" in the name seems to suggest it is indeed using this
better digital mode of DirectInput. AT LAST someone woke up, while the
old dinosaurs like CH and Thrustmaster still make only DOS input
devices with their inferior accuracy and latency in MS-DOS.
And all the DOS flightsticks I've tried have worked the same in Win95
and MS-DOS mode. Maybe you have configured something wrong in your
system?
>Whilst I have never even tried running games under NT, I have
>plenty of experience with it in a client/server environment
>(yes Joe, can you say Lotus Notes?). At any rate, there is an
>option to maximize your resources to the Foreground Application
>(something we *never* use on servers). Would this not help
>to get those threads serviced on a regular basis?
It helps, but there are still no gaurentees. Gguarenteed-times for
thread-servicing is pretty much the *definition* of "real time OS".
Joe
Im no fan of Win95. But the assertion below is without basis and reveals
that the person truly has no experience with DOS games. Yes DOS has less
overhead....but untrue that games ran faster...they didnt and never
will....WHY>>>>????
Because developers always use every bit of power availible. I have had
plenty of DOS games that ran slow. Plenty of DOS games that Ihad to turn
the graphics down on....matter of FACT...on my P-90 Pentium I had to
turn down most of the graphics on GP2 to achieve satisfactory Framerate.
Now do I *** about that....nah...cause the graphics in GP2 look
***in on my P-166....and Im sure they will look wonderful on my P-II
266.....the point being a developer makes a sim for the highest end
machines....and hopefully gives enough options to play on low end. Now
its accepteble to me to *** about developers who dont give enough
options to play the sim on the average machine at a high
framerate...HIGH meaning above 30fps....thats a very bad thing to do on
the developers side. CPR Demo manages to run slowly on my 166 with
3dfx...and there arent enough options to make it run fast...very
bad...so I wont be buying that....
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Quoted text (34 lines)
>Not to start a flame war or Anything.... but this wouldnt be an issue >if the games were being run in DOS !!!! There wouldnt be as many >framerate problems as there are in Winblowz95 based games. >I was cleaning up our computer room and I came across my old flight sim >Falcon 3.0 Flight Sim of the Year in 1992 !!! 286 min processor, 386 >recommended, WILL FLY WITH 486!!! *laugh* 4mb ram minimum, 8 >recommended!!! >Scott B. Husted >[link lost in import: /~sbhusted] >> I thibk this guy hit it right on the head ! What is the point of having >> a car with jazzy graphics , just to run a sim that you can only enjoy >> if you were using a computer that costs out of the average persons >> reach ? >> Do I buy your sim , turn off damm near every option just to run it ? What >> is the point of having it in the first place, if you can not enjoy it ? >> all these wiz bang computer programmers do not keep us in mind when they >> write all this shit. Why do they waste the time making it , if the >> average Joe can't even run the damm thing ! ! If they spend soooo much >> time programmig the damm new sims , then why in the hell to we get all >> the bugs & problems when we try to run it. Is that not what beta testing >> is for ? work out ALL THE***UPS BEFORE you market the game ? >> I never but anything any more when it firsts come out , I sit back and >> see how much and if any problems there are going to be BEFORE I spend >> my hard earned money. >> This is my view on this , it should be right and user friendly , not >> complicated & damm near impossible to run. >> Dave Reuille >> Woof MotorsportsNot to get in a tizzy there mate...but I probably know a few things
about setting up DOS games...seeing as how I flew on the Damage, Inc.
Falcon Online Head to Head team...(2nd place sucks but hey this was the
entire US)....and your just wrong.
I have had plenty of DOS games that ran slow...a whole bunch.
PAPA DOC
>Well DUH! Only shows that these older input devices are quite pathetic
>with their restrictions, big latency etc.
No, it shows that Win95's device code is pathetic. You keep ignoring
the fact that the devices work perfectly under DOS. There's nothing
wrong with them.
Nope. That's what I get in Win95, in all games. DOS games work fine.
You really need to calm down, take a valium or two, and lay off the
childish insults.
This appears to be the sum total of your argument. I remain
unconvinced.
This may be true for you, but contradicts nothing in my argument.
Joe
>People like you said in the past that Solitaire is about the best you
>can do in Win95 ***, that fast action games will never be playable
>on Win95 "because it eats so much resources".
Perhaps I was remiss in suggesting you take a Valium - you'd better
check with your doctor first, to make sure it's ok to mix it with the
*** you are already on.
Joe
>People like you said in the past that Solitaire is about the best you
>can do in Win95 ***, that fast action games will never be playable
>on Win95 "because it eats so much resources". And this wasn't five
>years ago with 386 machines, but later back when I already had my
>P133/24MB system.
You've grabbed the wrong end of the stick there.
No-one is saying that you can't make a playable game in Win95/NT. The
issue in question is whether or not that product will be as good as it
would have been were it written in DOS - the answer to that is, quite
simply, no.
Think about it. Take a BMW M3 Evo, European spec, and revel in the
performance of it for a few days. Now take delivery of a U.S. spec
version of the same car. Oh dear. Same car, but the addition of auto
transmission, air-conditioning and all the other frills that make it
easy to drive and a pleasure to use have clipped the wings of the
performance.
So too with Win95 and DOS. The Dos4GW extender was already putting
paid to the hassles of memory configuration, and even then DOS was
pretty user friendly and without all of the added extras that make
Win95 such a nightmare. Win95 has since had three years of evolution,
while DOS has had none - how good do you think DOS would be these days
if it was given three further upgrades?
Win95 is an _excellent_ environment for on-line stuff, spreadsheets,
ICQ, anything "non game". As soon as ultimate performance becomes an
issue Win95 is only a burden. Back to the car analogy again. Day to
day it is very nice to drive that M3 with air-con and auto-trans, but
when you arrive at the track you'd better hope the guy with the much
lighter Euro-spec is having an off-day, otherwise you'll never see
him.
Cheers!
John
Quoted text (7 lines)
>>People like you said in the past that Solitaire is about the best you >>can do in Win95 ***, that fast action games will never be playable >>on Win95 "because it eats so much resources". And this wasn't five >>years ago with 386 machines, but later back when I already had my >>P133/24MB system. >You've grabbed the wrong end of the stick there.ttammi....Windows95 does have some problems,my main problem with it is
that for one the Virtual memory does not always work properly. Win95
will swap even if it isnt necessary(affecting game performance cuasing
pauses)thats my main gripe about win95. Pausing due to disk swapping.
secondly win95 gets cluttered with with files and registry entries that
may no longer be needed by programs that are no longer on ones hard
drive. Win95 is perfect for accountants,but for people who are
interested in SIMS NOT ARCADE games it has some bad flaws,mainly the way
it handles memory. If you are playing a sim such as Nascar2 or SODA 1
slight pause due to disk swapping ruins the whole game. DOS was easy to
use for those of us who knew how to read;) Win95 is more complicated
and takes a whole lot more reading to learn.Even if you are an advanced
user there are problems that you will encounter which require you to
deltree win and reinstall to fix,that should never be the case with any
OS IMHO.I like the direction win95 is heading for but currently there
are definately some probs with the OS especially for SIMMERS.The only
reason I ever bought a computer was for sims as *** consoles arent
currently capable of running a true simulation. I would be happy with
win95 if it handled VM better and wouldnt cause games to pause as it
swapped out memory(sometimes uneccesarily)to disk! As far as framerates
go my machine is just as fast in win95 as dos,thank goodness,but pausing
just ruins any game IMO.
>>You've grabbed the wrong end of the stick there.
>We'll see about that.
Argumentative rather than constructive? Well, I guess I expected
that...
What? Eh? DOS controller support has been _much_ less problematic than
Win95, no issues with soundcards - you've got a very short memory
there. As for no 3D API, what exactly did Win95 (actually Win3.1) have
at the time the last update was made to DOS? Nothing. Had development
been continued in DOS then it too would have had a standard API. It's
pretty obvious really.
If you think Quake was the pinnacle of DOS graphics you must have
lived a very sheltered life. ICR2-3D is way nicer, so too LinksLS and
a host of others. The original version of WinQuake was slower than
DOS, and only now has caught up with development of drivers etc. Of
course there's been no work at all to speed up the DOS version and the
playing field is not level, but I didn't expect you to mention that
since it refutes what you are trying to say.
I have no hassle at all in DOS. Open your eyes and look around - see
al these messages with "missing .dll file", DirectX problems, jumpy
controller responses - these are all Win95.
Yes, because the new machine is set up for Win95. No DOS soundcard
drivers, no boot to DOS support, PnP ignores DOS etc etc. Nothing to
do with DOS and everything to do with manufacturers designing systems
purely around Win95.
Oh yes, and Win3.1 was a killer *** system at that time. <chuckle>
It did everything it could with the hardware and architecture of the
time, you can't ask much more than that. It's something Win95 can't
claim.
No, I care that I get 55fps in ICR2-3D and yet the people who wrote
Win95 can only give me 15fps of far inferior graphics. I care that
Monster Truck Madness is jumpy with D3D and Rendition NASCAR2 is
supersmooth. I care that no matter what performance I have in a game,
Win95 is sucking up some CPU cycles in the background. Win95 is a
great product, but to claim that it is empirically faster than DOS is
nonsense. It sits on top of DOS and takes CPU power to run, how can it
possibly do anything other than slow the system down, no matter how
little.
Cheers!
John
:
: >>You've grabbed the wrong end of the stick there.
: >We'll see about that.
:
: Argumentative rather than constructive? Well, I guess I expected
: that...
:
: >>The issue in question is whether or not that product will be as good
: >>as it would have been were it written in DOS - the answer to that is,
: >>quite simply, no.
: >
: >Quite on the contrary. DOS games always had and have flakey sound and
: >multibutton controller support (only supporting some sound cards and
: >controllers, and not using the extra features in them), no cheap/free
: >3D API to support several 3D accelerators like OpenGL or Direct3D, hard
: >for the end-user to play 32 player Internet games etc. etc. etc.
:
: What? Eh? DOS controller support has been _much_ less problematic than
: Win95, no issues with soundcards - you've got a very short memory
: there. As for no 3D API, what exactly did Win95 (actually Win3.1) have
: at the time the last update was made to DOS? Nothing. Had development
: been continued in DOS then it too would have had a standard API. It's
: pretty obvious really.
:
: >Ok, I'll think about it real hard. Ummmmm... Quake was the pinnacle of
: >3D graphics in DOS games even utilizing VESA2.0, yet WinQuake is
: >faster. Ignition is faster in Win95 too. So is Wing Commander 4.
: >So is UAE (Amiga emulator).
:
: If you think Quake was the pinnacle of DOS graphics you must have
: lived a very sheltered life. ICR2-3D is way nicer, so too LinksLS and
: a host of others. The original version of WinQuake was slower than
: DOS, and only now has caught up with development of drivers etc. Of
: course there's been no work at all to speed up the DOS version and the
: playing field is not level, but I didn't expect you to mention that
: since it refutes what you are trying to say.
:
: >Now I'm thinking of those games that are indeed faster in MS-DOS:
: >1 fps faster in DOS on a P133+, and with all the extra hassle with
: >sound cards, net *** and multibutton controller support. Is 1 fps
: >really that meaningful to you? You won't even see it with your bare
: >eyes.
:
: I have no hassle at all in DOS. Open your eyes and look around - see
: al these messages with "missing .dll file", DirectX problems, jumpy
: controller responses - these are all Win95.
:
: >For a "nightmare" it works damn well for most people. My relatives had
: >a real nightmare trying to install some MS-DOS games on their machine
: >a couple of weeks ago.
:
: Yes, because the new machine is set up for Win95. No DOS soundcard
: drivers, no boot to DOS support, PnP ignores DOS etc etc. Nothing to
: do with DOS and everything to do with manufacturers designing systems
: purely around Win95.
:
: >DOS had more years of evolution before Win95, didn't improve that much
: >anymore during that time, though.
:
: Oh yes, and Win3.1 was a killer *** system at that time. <chuckle>
: It did everything it could with the hardware and architecture of the
: time, you can't ask much more than that. It's something Win95 can't
: claim.
:
: >Then why are those games I listed faster as Win95/DX versions than DOS
: >versions? And do you really care about 1 fps that much?
:
: No, I care that I get 55fps in ICR2-3D and yet the people who wrote
: Win95 can only give me 15fps of far inferior graphics. I care that
: Monster Truck Madness is jumpy with D3D and Rendition NASCAR2 is
: supersmooth. I care that no matter what performance I have in a game,
: Win95 is sucking up some CPU cycles in the background. Win95 is a
: great product, but to claim that it is empirically faster than DOS is
: nonsense. It sits on top of DOS and takes CPU power to run, how can it
: possibly do anything other than slow the system down, no matter how
: little.
:
: Cheers!
: John
JOHN (RANTING ON DOS BEING BEST EVER!!!)
R:
I know you believe what you say and all. But somebody has to tell you
straight up. Your wrong. Win '95 understood is much better than DOS. You
make it sound like a game is completely different if programmed for DOS or
Win '95. There very similar a properly setup unit will result in equal
enough to be called equal performance between a dos program in dos, a dos
program running in under w95 and a w95 game. When you see good or bad
performance on any platform one needs to look at the program not the O/S. It
really is that simple. Sorry.
This assumes a P90+ with 16 meg ram +. I will agree without the proper
resources win'95 will become a hazard. But if you stay at or above these
requirements the results will be equal enough to be a waste of time arguing.
For every dll missing you can give me I can give you a reason why you have
to edit config.sys and autoexec.bat for DOS plus throw in two user friendly
functions win '95 gives you over DOS. :)
Peace.
Q.B.M.
My Gateway came with a MS-DOS shortcut that restarts my computer in
MS-DOS with all the settings and drivers already configured. I must say
it works great!! (surprised the hell out of me). =) Ive NEVER had a
problem so far with reconfiguring it to run flawlessly. I am NOT saying
this is better or worse than Windows95 environment. My point is I just
havent had problems needing to reconfig things for different games and I
dont feel DOS is that hard to get setup.
Scott B. Husted
http://home.ptd.net/~sbhusted
Quoted text (33 lines)
> JOHN (RANTING ON DOS BEING BEST EVER!!!) > >No, I care that I get 55fps in ICR2-3D and yet the people who wrote > >Win95 can only give me 15fps of far inferior graphics. I care that > >Monster Truck Madness is jumpy with D3D and Rendition NASCAR2 is > >supersmooth. I care that no matter what performance I have in a game, > >Win95 is sucking up some CPU cycles in the background. Win95 is a > >great product, but to claim that it is empirically faster than DOS is > >nonsense. It sits on top of DOS and takes CPU power to run, how can it > >possibly do anything other than slow the system down, no matter how > >little. > R: > I know you believe what you say and all. But somebody has to tell you > straight up. Your wrong. Win '95 understood is much better than DOS. You > make it sound like a game is completely different if programmed for DOS or > Win '95. There very similar a properly setup unit will result in equal > enough to be called equal performance between a dos program in dos, a dos > program running in under w95 and a w95 game. When you see good or bad > performance on any platform one needs to look at the program not the O/S. It > really is that simple. Sorry. > This assumes a P90+ with 16 meg ram +. I will agree without the proper > resources win'95 will become a hazard. But if you stay at or above these > requirements the results will be equal enough to be a waste of time arguing. > For every dll missing you can give me I can give you a reason why you have > to edit config.sys and autoexec.bat for DOS plus throw in two user friendly > functions win '95 gives you over DOS. :) > Peace. > Q.B.M.On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:47:24 -0500, "Qaz B Morphin"
>I know you believe what you say and all. But somebody has to tell you
>straight up. Your wrong.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me....<cough> :)
Clarify this for me if you will. You have hardware. On top of that you
have the BIOS, and on top of that you have the O/S (DOS) which allows
you to run the software. Okay? Software talks to DOS which talks to
the hardware, with the occasional reference to the BIOS (more than
likely cached).
With Win95 you have hardware --> BIOS --> DOS --> Win95 --> software,
PLUS any other system apps that will be running in 95, desktop,
networking, a host of behind the scenes tasks. How can it _possibly_
be faster when all you have done is add tasks, all of which take CPU
cycles?
It's _THAT_ simple.
Win95 is far more user-friendly and I much prefer it as a ***
environment over DOS now that developers are getting to grips with it
(end of 97 right enough, but there you are!), but as an argument of
the *** power that each platform could theoretically deliver, Win95
loses every time. Just look at how your system gets so much faster
when you do a fresh install of Win95 - that is a graphic example of
the resources that are being eaten.
Cheers!
John
% I know you believe what you say and all. But somebody has to tell you
% straight up. Your wrong. Win '95 understood is much better than DOS. You
% make it sound like a game is completely different if programmed for DOS or
% Win '95. There very similar a properly setup unit will result in equal
% enough to be called equal performance between a dos program in dos, a dos
% program running in under w95 and a w95 game. When you see good or bad
% performance on any platform one needs to look at the program not the O/S. It
% really is that simple. Sorry.
No it's not that simple. I have coded in machine code level and I can
tell you that an O/S can cripple the performance of an excellent coded
program that must use the O/S. That's why DOS has it's GOOD side. The
approach to programming in Win95 is to take away the ability to
side-step the O/S. Win95 is just a gui (gooey/icky) layer of flab
between the program and the machine. And this layer is what gets in
the way of the peformance. But, then the O/S is just a program, so in a
weird sense it is that simple. It just so happens that for some types
of games, Win95 still ain't the platform of choice for performance since
the underlying software (O/S) is not up to the chore.
I still believe that there were better games programmed for the
Sinclair Spectrum than many I see today. And why is that so, because
most of the good ones chucked the O/S and were coded directly to the
hardware. Try doing that in Win95.
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>I know you believe what you say and all. But somebody has to tell you
>>straight up. Your wrong.
>Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me....<cough> :)
Don't ya just love those graduates of Monty Python's School of
Argument? ;-)
Joe
>Yes they are. Maybe you should try them out yourself sometime? I have.
>The fact that WinQuake is definitely faster than Dos Quake has been
>reported all over the net, it is not just me either.
I always kind of attributed that to the fact that a lot of the
machines it was being tested on were department store computers with
video cards that were rotten DOS performers.
For every computer with Tseng ET4000 or later video card, there are
probably 10 with a miserable Trident or ATI Windows "accelerator".
This is a good thread. I came in late, and I'm sorry it's kind of
turning into an argument, but I suppose emotions run high on this
topic. Just a couple thoughts...
I actually wanted Win95 to be the *** platform it was billed to be.
It is not. It hasn't made things easier... Quite possibly, it has made
them more difficult.
Here we are on the virge of Windows98, and DirectX is still
half-baked. Will it ever be right? I'm doubting it, now.
These problems were supposed to be over by early 96.
With the advent of DOS4GW and the Miles utilities for managing memory
and detecting hardware, problems were actually pretty rare.
That also took the burden of writing drivers for all hardware away
from game makers -one of the reasons Win95 was so appealing to them in
the first place.
I recently bought Jetfighter3 Platinum. I must say it was a
refreshing experience to install and play a game under DOS.
The frame rate absolutely screams on a P133/3DFX, never dropping below
mid-20's (guesstimate) regardless of how much is going on.
Not having to deal with the miserable DirectX 5 joystick applet is a
blessing...
JF3 joystick implementation works great, and I can recalibrate from
right inside the game (gasp!) if anything causes it to get goofy.
Mission Studios made me a fan for life by doing this. I wish other
companies would do the same.
--
Tim - remove REMOVE to e-mail
hmmm...Why did Microsoft or anyone else want to do away with DOS? I
dont get it? The only thing I could possibly think of is that gamers
wouldnt have to upgrade to win95 ect. If they were only playing games.
Im not really sure that thats it though cause I would have rather had
Microsoft create a new version of DOS, I think its great if a company
can dominate the market but Microsoft just doesnt seem to be very
concerned with people like me who own a computer for no other real
reason but to play SIMS. If N64,Playstation,ect. could play Nascar2
ect.,properly and over the net Id trash my computer!
> Just look at how your system gets so much faster
>when you do a fresh install of Win95 - that is a graphic example of
>the resources that are being eaten.
It's because windows95 allows your swapfile to become extremely
fragmented. Place your swapfile on a separate partition from the OS
(preferably it's own), and set the minimum and maximum sizes the same
so it won't fragment. Makes a huge difference.
Just FYI.
>>Quite on the contrary. DOS games always had and have flakey sound and
>>multibutton controller support (only supporting some sound cards and
>>controllers, and not using the extra features in them), no cheap/free
>What? Eh? DOS controller support has been _much_ less problematic than
>Win95
Give me a break. Your multibutton flightstick/whatever has to be
_directly_ supported by _each_ DOS game. Usually CH Flightstick Pro and
Thrustmaster, all the others pretty much had to be hardware compatible
with these two to get multibutton support.
In Win95, as long as a game says it supports rudder, throttle, hat and
eight buttons, I know I'm getting support for them for my stick even if
it isn't hardware compatible with any older flightstick.
No issues? How come I couldn't get my Gravis Ultrasound to work in
Tomb Raider and Descent 2, even thought those games even claimed to
support that sound card? Why did I have to change the IRQ from 11
(default) to 5 for my sound card just for Apogee DOS games and Doom,
which for some reason required the sound card IRQ may not be over 9 or
something like that? How come my friend's "SB Pro compatible" sound
card didn't work properly in "Alone in the Dark" and lots of
other games?
In Win95, once you get your sound card working once, it pretty much
works always after that without having to reconfigure it for each game,
like when you install DOS games.
Last update to DOS was DOS 7.0 or 7.1, actually. Not DOS 6.22.
Sorry but it isn't just so. Here's the basic difference with Windows
and DOS: DOS doesn't have any "universal" APIs whatsoever, like for
sound cards, *** controllers, 3D cards etc., simply because it
doesn't use shared libraries. The support (API) for all those stuff has
to come in EACH DOS game separately, and unfortunately different DOS
games use various different APIs, so you never know beforehand whether
your hardware is supported in the DOS game you are going to buy.
And practically never can you get advanced support for your NEWER
hardware in your older DOS games, like you can with Win95 games.
In fact unless your new hardware is backwards compatible in hardware
level with the older "standard", you won't get any support in your
older DOS games.
In Win95, as long as you know you have working DirectSound drivers for
your sound card, working DirectInput drivers for your *** controller
etc., you are all set for all games.
That is what most gamers and *** programmers thought.
How do you know? DOS Quake did get several updates after its release.
"But I didn't expect you to mention that since it refutes what you are
trying to say.". And WinQuake was faster than DOS Quake from the start.
Ever saw these "why is my sound card not supported by this game?",
"why doesn't my joystick calibrate correctly in Nascar?", "what kind of
memory does this game require?", "why do these two two button joysticks
behave so weirdly if I try to use them at the same time for
Speedball 2?", "why do I have to change my sound card IRQ for Doom?".
These are all DOS.
BEEEEEP! WRONG! The machine is two years old P120 with MS-DOS 6.22 and
Win3.1. No Win95 whatsoever. Sound card drivers (MAD16, "SBPro
compatible") were installed per instructions, and generally worked.
It has EVERYTHING to do with DOS and its games. Installing them on that
machine was a true nightmare, maybe half of them worked. That's the
problem with DOS games: you never have even the faintest idea
beforehand if they will work on your system.
And before you claim "if they knew anything about DOS they would
have had no problems", I was there helping them in the end, and
I've been *** with PCs since at least 1989 or so, I definitely
know my way around with DOS and DOS games. But even I had to admit
to them that we shouldn't have to go through all these problems we
had (I even had to edit some the installation batch files so that
they worked properly (incredible!) for some of the games, some
needed some extra attention for the sound card etc.).
Oh sheesh. Now there's a skewed "comparison" if I ever saw one.
Here, let me try this: I compare Ubisoft F1RS (Win95) to
Wacky Wheels (DOS). Damn those DOS games suck big time! ;^)
Worth one 1 fps, and sometimes the Win95 versions are actually faster.
So have you tried any of those games I mentioned? Too bad if it
destroyed your world.
>ttammi....Windows95 does have some problems,my main problem with it is
>that for one the Virtual memory does not always work properly. Win95
>will swap even if it isnt necessary(affecting game performance cuasing
>pauses)thats my main gripe about win95. Pausing due to disk swapping.
Ok, this might help: Control Panel|System|Performance|Virtual Memory,
set the minimum and maximum settings to the same, like 150 for example
(less may be quite enough, but I've set it to 150 MB because glQuake
used to be such a memory hog because of OpenGL).
Another thing you could do to improve a bit is to set your VCache in
SYSTEM.INI, adding these lines under [vcache]
[vcache]
MinFileCache=2048
MaxFileCache=2048
That is two megabytes, you may want to use more, but I'm quite happy
with that in a 32MB machine.
Usually the uninstallation scripts take care of that, but just in case
you want to know yourself what a game changes in your system, I suggest
you get InCtrl3 utility, which tells you exactly what happened during
the installation (what files were added or delete or replaced, what
modifications were made to system.ini, win.ini or registery etc.).
It's free, and it works both in Win95 and NT, and InCtrl2 works also in
Win3.x.
I agree, this was better handled in MS-DOS, because in it usually
deleting the game directory and maybe another files/directories from C:
root was enough. It takes more effort to keep your system tidy in
Win95/NT, but it can be done with e.g. InCtrl3, without having to
"reinstall every now and then" what is what some people say they are
doing to keep their system tidy.
Most of those automatic uninstallation scripts seem to work right, but
there are some which leave some entries or files in the system
(Activision's MW2:Mercs for example, leaves a few registery entries in
there). Too bad some game developers do such shoddy job, but then there
were some MS-DOS games with similar problems, like Wing Commander 3-4,
Magic Carpet 1-2 and some Sierra games (they added extra .bat files,
configuration files and directories in C: root without telling you).
Ubisoft F1RS works great for me without hiccups, as do Flying Corps and
F/A-18 Hornet Korea.
Never has happened to me during these years.
I agree with that, and fortunately that hasn't happened to me
with Win95 either.
ttami,hey! Ive set all my options ect. in win95 thats beginners stuff:)
there is a bug in win95 that causes the system to swap memory to disk
before it is nesecary if you set the VM setting to the same! I have mine
set with a difference of 1 meg to. VCACHE on my system is at 1024 min
max usually. Im just upset that win95 has not lived up to the hype for
gamers! Im going to buy a Quantum HD soon so maybe that will help with
the speed of the swap file.heh...the hard drive I have now really sucks
so maybe Ill be a believer once I get a faster hard drive. GOD I SURE
HOPE SO:) But even if it does work to resolve hiccups..it will take me
meesing with win95 configuration settings in system.ini ect. SO..whats
the difference really? God I hate pauses!!! LOL LOL LOL Ive seen some
really bad ass systems pause too,but they werent mine so I didnt get to
try to tweak them out. tweaking is tweaking in win95 or dos!
I think it probably had more to do with original thinking <g> Can you
recall a single *simulation* for the Spectrum? Would you like to see Papy
trying to code a CART sim for it? <gg>
Bakc in those 'good old days' programmers had to work out how to exploit
every last item offered by the machine, whether that be an advertised or
unadvertised feature, because the base machine offerred very little.
These days there is both no need to do that and it wouldn't work in any
case - undocumented features are *not* going to work in a clone market.
Cheers,
Richard
>doesn't use shared libraries. The support (API) for all those stuff has
>to come in EACH DOS game separately, and unfortunately different DOS
>games use various different APIs, so you never know beforehand whether
>your hardware is supported in the DOS game you are going to buy.
Fortunately, this system made it at least *possible* for device input
to work reliably, as opposed to Win95 where device input is
permanently screwed up on large numbers of systems.
Joe
Quoted text (8 lines)
>>No, I care that I get 55fps in ICR2-3D and yet the people who wrote >>Win95 can only give me 15fps of far inferior graphics. I care that >>Monster Truck Madness is jumpy with D3D and Rendition NASCAR2 is >>supersmooth. >Oh sheesh. Now there's a skewed "comparison" if I ever saw one. >Here, let me try this: I compare Ubisoft F1RS (Win95) to >Wacky Wheels (DOS). Damn those DOS games suck big time! ;^)>It's because windows95 allows your swapfile to become extremely
>fragmented. Place your swapfile on a separate partition from the OS
>(preferably it's own), and set the minimum and maximum sizes the same
>so it won't fragment. Makes a huge difference.
It's actually because of a number of things - your registry becoming
cluttered, too many things running in the background, fat from ond
installs, fragged hard disk, fragged swap file, blah, blah, blah. Even
with a totally unfragmented swap file this happens, and with 64Mb,
swap file fragmentation should have minimal effect in any case.
FYI my swap file _is_ on a separate partition, and Win95 still gets a
turbo boost whenever a reinstall is performed.
Cheers!
John
> Give me a break. Grand Prix 2 was a DOS game and you seriously don't
> remember the shellacking it got online for the fact that maybe 1% of
> the machines out there could run it with everything turned on?!
People haven't gotten any smarter and don't show any signs of turning
in that direction. People have a mystical fascination with turning
"everything on" and then complaining when their middle-of-the-road
machine doesn't kick ass. As a result, sim manufacturers either
deprive the high-end consumer of goodies, or suffer the wrath of P90
owners. If people would just learn to "live within their means", and
accept that they can't run "everything" a sim offers, no one really
loses. I know that there is serious talk at game companies of how do
we convince users that half of the graphical features is "everything"
and that anything beyond that is "more than everything". Greed is an
ugly thing.
But, you only have to look to how people manage their finances to know
that the average American is as likely to walk on water as live
completely within their means.
And your point is? If you're not getting 30 fps in Papy sims to date,
turn off graphics until you do. IMO, it makes for a better ***
experience. Personally, I don't like the asphalt or grass textures, and those
stay off for me anyway...
---Jim
>It's actually because of a number of things - your registry becoming
>cluttered, too many things running in the background, fat from ond
>installs, fragged hard disk, fragged swap file, blah, blah, blah. Even
>with a totally unfragmented swap file this happens, and with 64Mb,
>swap file fragmentation should have minimal effect in any case.
Hey John, I've even got corrupt entries in my registry but you don't hear me
complaining :-)
Mike.
>I still believe that there were better games programmed for the
>Sinclair Spectrum than many I see today. And why is that so, because
>most of the good ones chucked the O/S and were coded directly to the
>hardware. Try doing that in Win95.
Hey Michael, what about those Amiga days? Did you have one? Programmers
could really hit the hardware on that old platform - all those hackers
releasing their flashy 3d demos - don't see much of that nowadays. Still
didn't see many playable racing games though. :-) Let me think... hmmm,
Ferrari Formula One by EA, and of course Papyrus' Indy 500 for which I
purchased a 68020 accelerator board! Damn, I spent way too many hours
playing that game. Good though, wasn't it?!
Mike.
>ttami,hey! Ive set all my options ect. in win95 thats beginners
>stuff:) there is a bug in win95 that causes the system to swap memory
>to disk before it is nesecary if you set the VM setting to the same!
Hasn't happened on either of my systems, P133/24MB and my current
P233MMX/32MB. It must be something else in your system, some virus
scanner, QEMM9 or "Diamond InControl Tools" in the background or
something.
In the past, I used to get one pause in each DirectX(2/3) game after
loading the game (for instance in Virtua Fighter PC, Sega Rally and
such), but even that has vanished now. And it really didn't matter that
much back then either, because it always happened only once after
loading the game.
For many people it has. At last I can buy some other sound card besides
just Soundblaster 16. At last I can connect four 10-button joypads to
the system, and games even support it. At last I don't have to bend
over just to play net games. And so on and so on.
I know it must be very hard for some of you to admit, but Win95 has
overall enhanced PC *** a lot, even with its problems.
I must break you then to hear that I have awfully slow hard drives in
my system. Some VERY old Seagate or Conner (the cheapest one I could
get back then), and the newest hard drive is Quantum Bigfoot 4.3GB.
You know, the cheapest and slowest one around? And still no pause
problems with swapping in games, mainly because there is no swapping
during the games (I have 32MB of RAM). After them yes, when I exit the
game, but that hardly affects the gameplay.
Except that in DOS you tweak with every game (trying to get your sound
card to work and calibrate your joystick for each game, for example).
>hmmm...Why did Microsoft or anyone else want to do away with DOS? I
>dont get it?
Several game developers have said DOS was a *** to program for
compared to EVEN Win95 (and especially WinNT). ID's John Carmack said
this in one of his .plans (the one where he said "DOS is dead!" or
something along those lines), and some LucasArts programmers said the
same in some *** newsgroup several months ago.
It is the very same reason why John Carmack chose OpenGL instead of
Direct3D 3.0 IM for Quake and Quake 2. Ease of use.
>>Yes they are. Maybe you should try them out yourself sometime? I
>>have. The fact that WinQuake is definitely faster than Dos Quake has
>>been reported all over the net, it is not just me either.
>I always kind of attributed that to the fact that a lot of the
>machines it was being tested on were department store computers with
>video cards that were rotten DOS performers.
No, this can be seen across all machines, even with ET6000 cards. I've
personally tested this using a Trio64 card with 2MB. This isn't among
the fastest chipsets in either DOS or Win95, but I use UniVBE with DOS
games, and according to benchmarks Trio64 chipset achieves near ET6000
speeds in DOS VESA modes when using UniVBE.
I could say the same as you: those who complain about Win95 games being
slower than DOS games probably have graphics cards that are very fast
in DOS but very slow in Win95.
"It is not"? Ummm... It is! Gee, I like this pre-school argumentation.
;^)
Ummm... no, on the contrary, it has made things much easier. It is so
easy to argue like you. ;^)
The problem is there were LOTS of other sound card APIs for DOS games.
LucasArts had its own, Sierra had its own, there was HMI etc. etc. etc.
And even if the game said it supported your sound card, it may be it
didn't work regardless, even if it worked fine with other DOS games.
To name two, I had this problem with e.g. Descent 2 and Tomb Raider.
Also, if you bought a new (non-compatible) sound card, you usually could
not get it to work with your older games, even if it had drivers for
all those sound card APIs. In Win95, as long as your new sound card has
working DirectSound drivers, you are all set.
Ask game developers like John Carmack from ID and LucasArts
programmers. They have all stated that DOS was/is a *** to program
for, and that was/is the main reason they are not making DOS games
anymore.
As does about any 3Dfx flight sim with as simple graphics.
Can you say "F/A-18 Hornet: Korea"?
Yeah, the difference is that in JF3 you have to calibrate (and
recalibrate, and recalibrate, and recalibrate...) your flightstick,
while with F/A-18 you just told the game that you want to use a
joystick for the controls, and that's it.
Yeah, it is very common in DOS games that the calibration gets goofy.
I remember how I always had to make sure that I don't move my CH
Flightstick too fast in Wing Commander 1&2 in the early 90s, because
that would mean I had to recalibrate the stick or sometimes even exit
and reload the game before I got the calibration back.
>Fortunately, this system made it at least *possible* for device input
>to work reliably, as opposed to Win95 where device input is
>permanently screwed up on large numbers of systems.
Only with screwed up controllers. The MS-DOS sticks and wheels you use
are truly a nightmare to program, in MS-DOS too. They are broken,
causing jitter (yes, in MS-DOS too), big latency, restrictions etc.
>>Oh sheesh. Now there's a skewed "comparison" if I ever saw one.
>>Here, let me try this: I compare Ubisoft F1RS (Win95) to
>>Wacky Wheels (DOS). Damn those DOS games suck big time! ;^)
>OK then, ICR2 vs. CPR would be a very valid comparison.
Wrong again. CPR supports several 3D cards, ICR2 supports only one
meaning it can use a faster 3D API specific to only one 3D card.
Much more valid comparison would be something like F1RS (on a 3Dfx
card) compared to ICR2 (on Verite V2100/V2200 card). True, ICR2 CPU
requirements are lower, but it also has MUCH simpler graphics as well,
like much less polygons on the screen at any time etc.
What is supposed to be your point? You can support 3D cards directly in
Win95/NT too, for example F1RS uses WinGlide for native 3Dfx support.
Sorry to see how ignorant you are. If you didn't know, the pauses in
Flying Corps are due to texture swapping. That is a hardware "defect"
(too little local texture memory on the 3D card), nothing to do with
Win95 in itself.
As for Mercs D3D, I wonder how you Win95 bashers always seem to think
this single worst example of a D3D/Win95 game is the only game out
there?
Hey, let's compare X-Car (which is a MS-DOS game with native 3Dfx
support) to F1RS (which is a Win95 game with native 3Dfx support).
X-Car has terrible slowdowns and pauses every now and then compared to
F1RS, even though X-Car has much simpler, crappy looking graphics.
So I guess using your flawed logic we can conclude DOS slows the system
down and causes lots of pauses for driving games.
Or let's compare Win95 POD to MS-DOS Whiplash, both with 3Dfx support.
Once again, Whiplash (MS-DOS) is both slower and has simpler graphics
(less polygons on the screen etc.).
>Only with screwed up controllers.
You are ignoring the facts again - the controllers work *perfectly* in
DOS. There's nothing wrong with them. It's the Win95 DiretInput code
that is screwed up.
Used to be true, not really anymore - almost no one programs these
things from scratch, they buy 3rd-party programming libraries to
interface to game devices. Same for soundcards.
Sorry, the facts beg to differ. No jitter in DOS, no latency, no
problems whatsoever.
Joe
Sorry bout all the posts my server is acting flakey!
>>I actually wanted Win95 to be the *** platform it was billed to be.
>>It is not.
>"It is not"? Ummm... It is! Gee, I like this pre-school argumentation.
>;^)
Oh, please!
You'd actually be a good debater if you weren't so personally offended
by other's opinions.
Forget it.
--
Tim - remove REMOVE to e-mail
WIn95 has some problems when it gomes to *** and its too hard to
troubleshoot. Anytime you install or delete an application,game or even
a demo you run the risk of corrupting files or screwing up the registry.
There are times when it is preferable to delete and reisntall Win95 as
opposed to spending sometimes days tracking down and resolving a
problem. That to me is sad. As a matter of fact ttami if you dont
believe me I challenge you to help me resolve an issue I currently have
with my computer! I think win95 is cool but either it needs to handle
memory better for ***,or the game programmers really have some
homework to do! As there are several new games on the market that have
pausing on anyones machine!
>You are ignoring the facts again - the controllers work *perfectly* in
>DOS.
You may think so if you are used to their jitter, big latency etc.
Yes there is. If you knew anything about how they work and how the
joystick support is programmed for MS-DOS games, you wouldn't say
that.
But for those who are programming those libraries, it is a living
nightmare. And it is a true nightmare for the end users too, having to
buy "speed compensating game cards", not getting support for their
multibutton joysticks in DOS games, having to recalibrate their sticks
all the time in DOS etc. etc.
I suggest you learn more about it before spewing complete BS like that.
The problem is in the hardware, the way your crappy DOS controllers
utilize the game port. That's why there are those stupid restrictions
(two buttons 2-axis and all that stuff), that's why there is so big
latency with them (if you are used to it you may not see it), that's
why it drifts in DOS, that's why people have to buy "speed compensating
game cards" for those crappy DOS controllers etc.
>You may think so if you are used to their jitter, big latency etc.
Nope, you are just denying the facts again. I can examine the joystick
values DIRECTLY with the testing program (TMS) that came with the
Thrustmaster gamecard (or with any DOS calibration program for that
matter). The FACT is that under DOS there is NO joystick stuttering,
jitters, or latency at all. None whatsoever.
Why is it that every discussion with you seems to lead to you
petulantly declaring that your opponent doesn't know anything? I guess
it's inevitable when a) you can never admit being wrong and b) the
facts simply do not support your argument.
Nonsense. It's no harder than those programming the DirectInput code
for Win95 - apparently a lot easier, since many DOS programs work fine
with these devices, and Win95 does not.
Actually my joystick support worked perfectly in DOS with a normal
soundcard port. I bought the TM card in hopes of fixing WIN95 jitter
problems - but unfortunately their hardware cannot fix the
funcamentally broken WIN95 DirectInput code.
And once again, ttammi throws rational debate to the wind and the
personal attacks and insults start. Have fun. Get back to me when
you're out of pre-school.
There is none of this.
They do not drift in DOS.
I bought the card in hopes of fixing Win95 - the card wasn't needed in
DOS at all.
Joe
>WIn95 has some problems when it gomes to *** and its too hard to
>troubleshoot. Anytime you install or delete an application,game or
>even a demo you run the risk of corrupting files or screwing up the
>registry.
Sorry, that has never happened to me, and I've installed and
uninstalled lots of Win95 games and demos. For a Win95 game to "corrupt
files or screwing up registery" is about as probable as a MS-DOS game
deleting your DOS directory, all sys-files and autoexec.bat.
I'm sure lots of people have felt the same about DOS games.
Sure, just bring your computer here. When my relatives had terrible
problems with installing and running their DOS games in DOS6.22,
I had to visit them to be able to partially fix it.
"Anyone's machine"? Don't be silly. Name one such game that has "pauses
on anyone's machine" because of Win95. Have you seen that game running
on everyone's machine to make such a silly statement?
BTW, Flying Corps and iF-22 are not such games, there the pausing is
due to texture swapping, which in itself has nothing to do with Win95
itself.
>Nope, you are just denying the facts again. I can examine the joystick
>values DIRECTLY with the testing program (TMS) that came with the
>Thrustmaster gamecard (or with any DOS calibration program for that
>matter). The FACT is that under DOS there is NO joystick stuttering,
>jitters, or latency at all. None whatsoever.
Tell me, how does your "test program" test LATENCY? Seems to me you are
just trying to make a point without any facts backing you up.
Please, ask ANYONE who has done low-level joystick coding for MS-DOS,
how it really is. The way your "advanced DOS flightsticks" work is
plain pathetic and brain dead.
Funny, I could say exactly the same about you, for instance how you
modify Andy Hollis' messages to fit your own arguments better. But the
fact is you don't know what you are talking about (in this case
either). I ask you again to ask someone who has really done low level
joystick coding for DOS. The way it works is simply braindead.
Have you coded both to make such a statement?
Only if you are used to jitter and big latency.
So why have they been selling these "speed compensating game cards" for
years already, before DirectInput even existed? Because the way DOS
joysticks work is simply broken.
Actually, the extra hardware cannot help your broken joysticks.
Yeah, your magic "test program" told you that, right?
Just saying "do not" repeatedly won't deny the facts. I just read
another "DOS forever" guy in this same thread praise Jetfighter 3
because it is so easy to recalibrate the controller while in flight
"when the calibration gets goofy". That just underscores how broken
the joystick support in DOS really is.
There is also a reason why these speed compensating game cards have
always sold so well for DOS games.
These cards sold so well even before Win95 existed. Ever wondered
why?
1 game huh...Front Page sports fottball pro 98!
>Just saying "do not" repeatedly won't deny the facts. I just read
>another "DOS forever" guy in this same thread praise Jetfighter 3
>because it is so easy to recalibrate the controller while in flight
>"when the calibration gets goofy". That just underscores how broken
>the joystick support in DOS really is.
That was me... I have never had to re-calibrate while playing.
Maybe I mis-stated something, or you mis-interpreted.
I thought I said "if" it gets goofy, but my original post has expired.
What I liked was that you COULD do it from in the game if something
went wrong... As in, recalibrate mid-mission without dropping back to
the control panel or affecting the game.
Maybe I'm lucky, but I've never needed a speed compensating game card
from my original DX2/50 up. I use quite a few controllers, too.
Thrustmaster T2, Wingman Extreme, Gravis Gamepad, and a Saitek X35/36.
Since you know, what does Win95 do differently from DOS as far as
joystick support?
Having never had controller problems until DirectX 5, I'm curious.
--
Tim - remove REMOVE to e-mail
>Funny, I could say exactly the same about you,
Nonsense, I've provided nothing but simple facts and logic. I don't
resort to the "You don't know anything!" name-calling argumentative
style that is your forte.
Has nothing to do with it. I've seen the results of the programming,
and DOS joystick code works one hell of a lot better than the
DirectInput mess in Win95.
Another example of how desperate you are - your continued nonsensical
claim that my joystick is "broken" when in fact it works perfectly
under DOS. Only in Win95 are there problems. This is undeniable
evidence that the joystick is not broken.
In other words, your "argument" is that I'm either incompentent or a
liar. Welcome to Ttammi's School of Ad-Hominin Debating folks!
Joe
Quoted text (9 lines)
> >WIn95 has some problems when it gomes to *** and its too hard to > >troubleshoot. Anytime you install or delete an application,game or > >even a demo you run the risk of corrupting files or screwing up the > >registry. > Sorry, that has never happened to me, and I've installed and > uninstalled lots of Win95 games and demos. For a Win95 game to "corrupt > files or screwing up registery" is about as probable as a MS-DOS game > deleting your DOS directory, all sys-files and autoexec.bat.: DirectInput mess in Win95.
: >Actually, the extra hardware cannot help your broken joysticks.
: Another example of how desperate you are - your continued nonsensical
: claim that my joystick is "broken" when in fact it works perfectly
: under DOS. Only in Win95 are there problems. This is undeniable
: evidence that the joystick is not broken.
: >Just saying "do not" repeatedly won't deny the facts.
: In other words, your "argument" is that I'm either incompentent or a
: liar. Welcome to Ttammi's School of Ad-Hominin Debating folks!
: Joe
I can relate to that; I need to calibrate Nas1 and Indy2 every time in
DOS, and still can't find a way to get the joystick working under Win95
Why? Because of the Lots.Of.Shit. Microsoft gave us in Win95
--
WEB : www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~elgaucho
-------------------------------
"Inventor of Absolutly Nothing.."
