Menchise Posted May 12, 2001 Report Posted May 12, 2001 I noticed in the minimum system requirements for Battlecruiser Millenium that Windows 95 is not supported, but Windows 98 is. I thought that both systems were very similar. What does WIN98 have that WIN95 doesn't (apart from USB support)?
Guest Posted May 12, 2001 Report Posted May 12, 2001 Imo, win95 is far more stable than win98.Win98 is win95 with usb support and a few exe files more (which you can copy from a win98 system to a win95 with no trouble... msconfig.exe, sfc.exe ... etc).
Supreme Cmdr Posted May 12, 2001 Report Posted May 12, 2001 Thats pure bollocks, Tac. WIN98 is a much improved and stable kernel than WIN95, USB support aside.
Menchise Posted May 12, 2001 Author Report Posted May 12, 2001 Something else I forgot to mention was that WIN98 provides better support for dual booting with Windows NT.The computer I have at home used to have Windows 95 and Windows NT4 on the same system. Whenever I had to reinstall WIN95, I had to reinstall NT as well. With Windows 98, I didn't have to do that. It seemlessly integrated itself into NT's OS loader menu. I'm just curious about why BCM doesn't work in Windows 95, but works in Windows 98.
Epsilon 5 Posted May 12, 2001 Report Posted May 12, 2001 Yeah, I think win98 is better, but not "different". I consider win98 as a tweaked win95. Why should games that need win98 shouldn't work with win95?I mean, this is a tread about "WHY NO WIN95 in bcm", not a "why WIN98 is better than win95"Don't get off-topic
Menchise Posted May 12, 2001 Author Report Posted May 12, 2001 Exactly. So what is it about BCM that makes it impossible to run in Windows 95?
Parias Posted May 12, 2001 Report Posted May 12, 2001 I wouldn't call it "impossible" to run.. hell, with some luck, one might get it running after all (believe it or not, I actually got one or two Win95 only games to run under Win3.11 a long time ago). What might be overallishly meant is that Win95 wouldn't be supported, so if the game does work under the platform for you, great. If it doesn't, don't come crying.Of course, I could also be talking out of my arse here..
Tyrn Posted May 12, 2001 Report Posted May 12, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Exactly. So what is it about BCM that makes it impossible to run in Windows 95?You asked the wrong question. The real question is "Why is WIN95 unable to run BCM?" Only by finding out what Microsoft really fixed when they created the first commericial release of the Win95 OS (commonly known as Win98) can you really know the answer to that question.I still have a couple of Win95 machines kicking around the plant and lab due to old hardware that can't handle Win98. If I have to write any software for those machines, the first order of business is ALWAYS to upgrade the hardware so I can move them to Win98SE. Why? Win95 simply cannot reliably run software, period.
Kush Posted May 13, 2001 Report Posted May 13, 2001 The real question is "Why the hell would you want to run Win 95 in the first place?!"
Menchise Posted May 13, 2001 Author Report Posted May 13, 2001 quote: The real question is "Why the hell would you want to run Win 95 in the first place?!" For the same reason some people still use MSDOS. They don't need a more advanced system to run the programs they like to use. I had Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 on one computer and between the two systems, every program worked adequately. I didn't use Windows 98 till I received a USB Zip drive.
Supreme Cmdr Posted May 13, 2001 Report Posted May 13, 2001 ....and by the same token, Menchise, putting in support for a buggy, antiquated OS, is not my idea of development heaven.Get it now?BCM is not supported under WIN95 for the same reason its not supported under MSDOS and NT.
Guest Posted May 13, 2001 Report Posted May 13, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: ....and by the same token, Menchise, putting in support for a buggy, antiquated OS, is not my idea of development heaven.Buggy OS??? So, when's the Linux version going to be released???
Menchise Posted May 13, 2001 Author Report Posted May 13, 2001 quote: ....and by the same token, Menchise, putting in support for a buggy, antiquated OS, is not my idea of development heaven.Get it now? Got it. quote: BCM is not supported under WIN95 for the same reason its not supported under MSDOS and NT. Hey! Don't knock NT. It may not be able to run most games but it's a good system and one of the most stable around. In fact, Windows 2000 (which BCM supports) is just a fancy name for NT 5.
Epsilon 5 Posted May 13, 2001 Report Posted May 13, 2001 quote:buggy, antiquated OSWin95 is NOT a buggy OS. It's less buggy than win98.
Emmett.hendrick Posted May 14, 2001 Report Posted May 14, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Rm: Buggy OS??? So, when's the Linux version going to be released??? Now you don't want to stir up that hornets nest of trouble.... quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Hey! Don't knock NT. It may not be able to run most games but it's a good system and one of the most stable around. In fact, Windows 2000 (which BCM supports) is just a fancy name for NT 5. Windows 2000 is a lot more than just NT5 for a start it includes direct X support, Plug and Play and other features that NT wouldn't touch, don't get me wrong I like NT (I have all the MCP's to prove it) but 2000 is a much more capable and more general purpose OS.
Supreme Cmdr Posted May 14, 2001 Report Posted May 14, 2001 quote:Hey! Don't knock NT. It may not be able to run most games but it's a good system and one of the most stable around.Its not a gaming OS. I don't care about it. We're talking about a gaming OS. Do try to keep up. quote:In fact, Windows 2000 (which BCM supports) is just a fancy name for NT 5.You're kidding. Right? WIN2K was supposed to be NT5. Its not just an upgrade to NT4, regardless. Even if it was called NT5, it would still have been a gaming OS (for all the reasons, and then some, that Emmett mentions). NT is not and never was, a gaming OS. DOS and WIN95 were both gaming OSes
Menchise Posted May 14, 2001 Author Report Posted May 14, 2001 OK. I'm completely satisfied except for one issue. If Windows 2000 is a combination of the capabilities of NT and WIN95/98, then what was the point of making Windows ME (apart from wanting more money )? Isn't that just an upgrade of Windows 98?[ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Emmett.hendrick Posted May 14, 2001 Report Posted May 14, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: OK. I'm completely satisfied except for one issue. If Windows 2000 is a combination of the capabilities of NT and WIN95/98, then what was the point of making Windows ME (apart from wanting more money )? Isn't that just an upgrade of Windows 98?Security, flexible as 2000 is. it is basically geared towards the business end user so it has the NT security Kernel built in which I suppose MS believed would be to much of a hasstle for Joe user so ME is basically an update to win 98(and not a very good one either) ME has the interface and stuff of Whistler(or XP if you prefer) but it is really 98 underneath....
Emmett.hendrick Posted May 14, 2001 Report Posted May 14, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: You're kidding. Right? WIN2K was supposed to be NT5. Its not just an upgrade to NT4, regardless. Even if it was called NT5, it would still have been a gaming OS (for all the reasons, and then some, that Emmett mentions). NT is not and never was, a gaming OS. DOS and WIN95 were both gaming OSesSorry bout the double post on this missed this post.Admittedly NT is not a gaming OS, but 2000 is and a damn good one too, in about a year 95/98 and ME will be dead and XP(whistler) will be out and It is based on the NT kernel so it will be NT but also a gaming OS(as far as I know it will be 2000 with a few more bells and whistles)
Epsilon 5 Posted May 14, 2001 Report Posted May 14, 2001 quote:in about a year 95/98 and ME will be deadThey say that everywhere. I know a lot of people who still uses win95, and I and much more people still uses win98. Everyone I know has problems with winME (crashes, instability and all MS-type stuff), and I don't know anyone using win2k.
Parias Posted May 14, 2001 Report Posted May 14, 2001 quote:Everyone I know has problems with winMEWell Epsilon, now you can say "almost everyone I know" WinMe works great for me.
Soback Posted May 15, 2001 Report Posted May 15, 2001 I am running windows98 SE, the best windows I ever tried. Dont want the w2k, I heard it eats up a lot of system resources, so I will upgrade my pc to the max first, and maybe then, someday, get w2k.
Guest Scorpion Posted May 15, 2001 Report Posted May 15, 2001 Windows XP is on the way. It's supposed to be the most stable os avaible. Microsoft is spending a bundle promoting it. It'll be like the win95 launch all over again. Remeber those commercials on every station? It's comming. I've heard good stuff about it. It's suppoed to deliver on it's mojor promises. Time will tell.
Emmett.hendrick Posted May 15, 2001 Report Posted May 15, 2001 MS have announced a release date for Windows XP I quote from PC Zone"Microsoft has announced a date for its long-awaited, next-gen OS which could finally put the boot in to the current crop of ever-crashing operating systems, plaguing PC gamers. October 25th is the date for your diary, but what exactly does it mean for us?"find more info at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/ enjoy
Epsilon 5 Posted May 15, 2001 Report Posted May 15, 2001 quote:Windows XP is on the way. It's supposed to be the most stable os avaible.Noooo? They always say that. Always. Microsoft is the best. Resistance is futile, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED!
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now