zdoom is cool

[Anonymous]

HEY i still play doom hexen heretic etc..
hexen is the most scary!

is it possible to support non-waded awesome games like blood, shadow warrior and stuff? i cant play them coz winxp screws up the dos

thanks a lot

doom forever

[Zell]

not sure. But, if you right click those games and set compatibility to lets say 95, it will run fine.

[Doom]

Man, get rid of XP, it's total trash!, specially for games. Nothing like Windows 98 to run those oldies not supported by Zdoom. However, 3DRealms is boar fart compared to ID Software...

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Err...nope. Windows 98 can't run Duke etc. with sound. Windows 95 is the best in that department.

[HotWax]

I don't know why so many people think XP is trash. Probably the anti-activationist lusers spreading misinformation. Oh well.

If you're going to trash talk XP, you'd better be prepared to diss the entire line of Windows OS'es, because while Linux or other OS'es might arguably be better, XP is by far the best version of Windows out there. (Well, some people might prefer NT for security/whatever, but definately not for games)

Windows 98 runs slower than XP, has worse memory handling, and let's not forget doesn't support the NTFS filesystem which is better than FAT16/32. XP is also 20 times more stable than Win95/98/ME. A hung explorer window will take out the OS in 98. The same window in XP would have to be forcefully shut down, but would not otherwise destabilize the system.

Trust me. I have a 98 machine, and I have an XP machine, and the XP machine wins hands down.

[Doom]

I've tried several windows and I'd say that Windows 2000 Professional is by far the greatest windows release. I'd call it a Balanced-yet-functional OS.

It doesn't crash as much as 9x based windows do, it's really fast for internet and the best, you can run true abandongames from it's windows built-in DOS and it does have much more compatibility with the great load of software XP is plain unable to run (XP doesn't crash, just gets slow, which's cool cos it gives you chances of rebooting before everything goes hell). If you want true performance, get linux instead. XP blows and takes a really fast machine to work without bitching.

However, if you're more into gaming than internet surfing and security, try Windows 98 SE.

[Zell]

I don't know why so many people think XP is trash. Probably the anti-activationist lusers spreading misinformation. Oh well.

If you're going to trash talk XP, you'd better be prepared to diss the entire line of Windows OS'es, because while Linux or other OS'es might arguably be better, XP is by far the best version of Windows out there. (Well, some people might prefer NT for security/whatever, but definately not for games)

Windows 98 runs slower than XP, has worse memory handling, and let's not forget doesn't support the NTFS filesystem which is better than FAT16/32. XP is also 20 times more stable than Win95/98/ME. A hung explorer window will take out the OS in 98. The same window in XP would have to be forcefully shut down, but would not otherwise destabilize the system.

Trust me. I have a 98 machine, and I have an XP machine, and the XP machine wins hands down.

Sadly, I am having more problems with XP then i am luck, so Im putting 98 onto my sysytem, and getting rid of XP. PLus, it makes me feel stupid when it gives me all those tips, like I have never had a computer before.

[Hirogen2]

zdoom is cool

Now that is new.

HEY i still play doom hexen heretic etc..

Not only you.

hexen is the most scary!

Try Hexen 2.

XP tries to look good, what's underneath nobody knows (you can't say it's
trash, it has a purpose: making people have a "nice" desktop)
However, it's Microsoft's EULA which makes Windows (all versions) trash.

[Biff]

Err...nope. Windows 98 can't run Duke etc. with sound. Windows 95 is the best in that department.

??? Sure it (Win98) can, I've never had such a problem. ???

[Cyb]

http://www.icculus.org/BUILD/

win98 should be able to run dos games, seeing as it's just the next version of win95

personally I like win2k better than xp (2k is about the only version of windows I really like in fact), xp seems extra bloaty to me, shrug. I also wouldn't say linux is better than windows (nor worse really, they both have strong points), but that's another bag of worms ; )

[Enjay]

Yeah, I've run Duke under Win '98 too. I have (fairly) recently found some reasonable Duke ports too (they are nowhere near the quality of Zdoom mind ). The one I'm using plays Duke as a windows app pretty faithfully to the original exe. Sorry I don't have any links (I'm at work and it's not on this machine) , but I'll look and see if the docs tell me where it came from. I found it after a Google search so it should be easy enough to find.

As far as '98 versus XP goes - I'm not going to get into a great big debate over it, but from my experience XP is far more solid, handles programs "going down" very well, starts up quickly, integrates with my hardware very well and is an all round good performer. My only beef with it is layout. I found '98 far more logically set out with less "special" directories doing fancy things like pointing to locations that appear to be where they are not actually and the moving and renaming of a few features - just enough to make them unclear. The multiple user support on one machine is a real pain in this respect. Even though my machine is only set up to be accessed by "admin" it still runs in a way that would allow multiple user profiles and so I end up with all sorts of cunning directories hidden away, and start menu items from installed programs sometimes end up as "all users" and sometimes "admin". I think the ability to disable that totally would be useful for those of us never going to have multiple user accounts on our machines.

I don't think it is just a familiarity thing either. I've been using XP daily for 10 months or so now and I still think '98 was easier to "get into". As far as XP not supporting some older programs - time to cut the cord I'm afraid. If it is possible for an OS to support older stuff then fine, but it would be silly to hold back the development of a modern OS just so it could support some games that are decades old. The only major issue seems to be sound with old games. Other old programs seem to work just as well, even better than they did under '98.

[cccp_leha]

I've run Duke3d under Win 98 and ME, with no problems.

[bimshwel]

I know quite well that Moraffware continually deals with complaints regarding Windows XP, so much so as to claim it's not supported. However, Moraff is a dope. Ehhh. I've had ME, 95, and 98 on different computers, and some can get sound in some or all dos games and some can't in all or any. It's not the fault of which two characters follow WIN, this is clear.

[Enjay]

Here's the Duke port I was on about

http://www.rancidmeat.com/project.php3?id=1

It was a little odd to set up in as much as some things needed to be set up using the old DOS setup prog, and others were done by the game. I also can't get it to start fullscreen (despite setting the ini) but alt-enter works. Other than that, a pretty good port that has crashed on me, but only once.

[randi]

Man, get rid of XP, it's total trash!

ZDoom is developed with XP. Before I got that, it was developed under NT 4. I tried using Windows 98 to develop a few times, but I got tired of rebooting after every time I stopped the program through the debugger, which messed up DirectDraw under 98. Now with XP, I can play all the games I still play, and I don't have to reboot, either.

Aside from the window styles, the differences between 2000 and XP are mostly incremental. That's why they're also known as Windows NT 5.0 and 5.1 respectively. And if you don't like the new window style that comes with XP, you can set it back to the Windows classic style.

I also have my own Duke port, based on code from ZDoom. It's not released, and I haven't touched it since May. I've thought of putting it up, but it would require a little more work to make it "finished."