|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: win95? (Read 4746 times)
|
Mentor
Guest
|
 |
win95?
« on: November 04, 2002, 01:09:54 pm » |
|
I noticed that this wasn't tested for Windows 95. Does that mean that it won't run with Windows 95?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Parker
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 122
|
|
Re: win95?
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2002, 01:36:21 pm » |
|
It hasn't been tested in Windows 95, so we don't know if it runs or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mika
Core Team
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 121
|
|
Re: win95?
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2002, 01:46:11 pm » |
|
Noone of us has got 95 anymore so testing it is a bit problem, but we'll try to aim it works there too, atleast for our stable release, if just possible. Though driver support and such are prolly severely outdated for 95 and it might cause problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Martin
Core Team
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 387
|
|
Re: win95?
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2002, 10:33:58 pm » |
|
Actually, doesn't Windows 95 basically run DOS, and thus run the PC version "fine"?
If necessary, we can weasel that way. (I could never get the PC version to run fully on my Win98se machine, and I'm told 2000 and the rest did even worse)...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
linux-Gg
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1
linux rocks
|
|
Re: win95?
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2002, 04:32:07 am » |
|
I'm pretty shure it"ll run under Win95. At least I never had problems running programs using SDL under Win95.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ConjurerDragon
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 25
|
|
Re: win95?
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2003, 01:10:13 am » |
|
I still run Windows 95 (although version C or OSR 2.5 which is more similar to Windows 98 than the earlier versions of Windows 95).
I can confirm that the original Star Control 1 and 2 run fine if you use the DOS-Mode and the version 0.3 of UQM runs also.
bye
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ConjurerDragon
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 25
|
|
Re: win95?
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2003, 12:02:31 am » |
|
I read somewhere that Microsoft has stopped supporting Win98 this past summer and they stopped supporting Win95 back in 2001. Basically, IMHO, thats reason enough for me to tell folks who are running those OSes and having problems to upgrade to 2000 or XP  May not apply to this project, but when my friends ask, I ask them what OS they are running? Win98? Oh I'm sorry, have you thought about upgrading? 
Never touch a running system unless you have a *really* good reason to do it. My upgrade cycles started with MS DOS 5.0 to MS DOS 6.22 (skipping 6.0, 6.1, 6.2 and avoiding all the hazzle with compress programs that I never use anyway) and then to windows 3.11 (skipping 3.0, 3.1 and only to be able to play Allied General), then to windows 95 C (skipping Windows 95 A and B). And that really only for FAT 32.
I currently actually consider to go up to Windows 98 SE (skipping Windows 98) - maybe a year or so.. ;-)
bye
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Oatworm
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 13
Mmm... bacon!
|
|
Re: win95?
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2003, 05:19:10 am » |
|
Agreed... unless you need an OS upgrade for some specific feature, most of the time it just adds additional overhead to your system, meaning it slows you down without any discernable benefit.
Personally, I went from Apple DOS 3.1 to Prodos 1.0 to get some extra disk utilities, then upgraded my computer to one that could run Mac OS 6.1 (very stable, by the way, for its time). Then, another hardware upgrade led to Mac OS 8.6, which I then upgraded to OS 10.1 (and OS 9.2 on the way) to get a reliable Perl interpreter, among other things. Next year, I'll probably get OS 10.3 to get full UNIX compatibility, which should make it much easier for me to get certain programs for free (i.e. I spend $70 so I can save about $500+ by getting UNIX open source projects instead of name brand software!).
For those of you wondering, 10.1 doesn't have thread-safe functions (or so my understanding goes) so certain UNIX programs simply won't run. 10.2 does have thread-safe functions, but Apple isn't selling it anymore, and is instead selling 10.3, which is a little more UNIX-complete anyways. So there you go.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ace987
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 41
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
|
Re: win95?
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2003, 03:44:52 am » |
|
I'd still be running Windows 95 if it had better USB support. Since USB has hit the mainstream I have and continue to use Windows 98. I have Windows 2000 and XP on some of my computers, but the one I mainly use still has 98.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
