|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: I think this should be aded to the Wiki (Read 5960 times)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeebs
Guest
|
Heh, what version of Windows ISN'T unorganized garbage? It's really too bad it's the standard operating system...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeebs
Guest
|
Really? You find... personally I hate all microsoft programs (so I may just have a personal bias) but I never found any version of windows that worked as well for gaming as Win '98 did. All my elder games screw up on XP and it's aggravating enough for me to consider putting '98 on it as a dual-boot, if only to play games. If it wasn't for the fact that Windows is the most widely used OS and everything is made for it pretty much, I would've switched to a different one a long time ago...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jeebs
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 6
|
To tell the truth, I and a handful of friends are currently working on a game of our own, and there was discussion about making an OS of our own in the future. I think just out of spite we'll call it Doors and have as our slogan: "Why crawl through windows when you can just use Doors?" heh... it's just a funny idea right now, but you never know, maybe we'll follow through. Look for it in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
Really? You find... personally I hate all microsoft programs (so I may just have a personal bias) but I never found any version of windows that worked as well for gaming as Win '98 did. All my elder games screw up on XP and it's aggravating enough for me to consider putting '98 on it as a dual-boot, if only to play games. If it wasn't for the fact that Windows is the most widely used OS and everything is made for it pretty much, I would've switched to a different one a long time ago...
Windows 98 has one distinctive advantage over XP: MS-DOS mode. If you have the right hardware and late MS-DOS games that require too much resources to run in DOSBox (which handles almost every game up to 1992 almost perfectly and is pretty decent for 1992-1994, but is simply too slow for some of the last heavyweight DOS games), Win98 DOS mode is the way to go. And for Windows games up to 1998, Windows 98 works very well. However, newer stuff like GTA: San Andreas requires Win2000 or XP. Besides, XP still crashes less for me than Win98 and noticeably less than ME. Of course, stability is probably affected by driver quality, which depends a lot on which OS was dominant at the time the hardware was made.
While I tend to avoid Microsoft products, I don't mind using them if I get them cheap (e.g. bundled with a PC) and they do their job properly. Windows has the distinct advantage (compared to Linux, BSD and other free systems) of providing a homogenous platform for software in binary form. Linux software be much easier to install if all these distributions could just standardise on one single packaging format, a large enough set of standard libraries and a decent way to resolve dependencies.
As long as almost no serious commercial games are ported to Linux (and Wine is still a pain), Windows will be a superior gaming platform.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
if someone were to make a system as stable as Linux but with all the compatibility of Windows, and the user-friendliness, I'm sure Microsoft would swiftly be out of business.
I agree. Microsoft's advantage over Linux is, as far as I can tell, compatibility with existing software, ease of consumer-level administration (installing new hardware/software, basic configuration), simplicity and consistency (e.g. one user interface standard). While the diversity of Linux is a strength in some ways (freedom of choice, ability to do what you need in the way you want to), it's a weakness in others (different Linux distributions can behave in very different ways, meaning that using a program on a different distribution can be non-trivial due to e.g. library and compiler version issues; teaching people how to use Linux can also be hard when different distos have different ways of doing the same thing).
What Linux needs, in my opinion, is a stable and consistent binary distribution mechanism (for both applications and drivers). Installing a program on Windows is "start installer and click OK until done", more or less. Under Linux the process is great as long as your distribution contains the program or driver you want, but maintaining packages for even the major distros is a lot of work. Autopackage looks like a possible solution to the application-level problem. This leaves the driver-level problem; binary drivers seldom survive even the slightest change to the kernel and source code doesn't fare much better. The kernel developers seem to be actively hostile toward any other development model than including the drivers in the kernel (which means that installing new hardware may require a kernel update, and requires driver source release under the GPL) to the point of denouncing closed-source drivers as illegal (see e.g. Greg Kroah-Hartman's blog).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Martin
Core Team
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 387
|
What Linux needs, in my opinion, is a stable and consistent binary distribution mechanism (for both applications and drivers). Installing a program on Windows is "start installer and click OK until done", more or less. Under Linux the process is great as long as your distribution contains the program or driver you want, but maintaining packages for even the major distros is a lot of work.
Fortunately, UQM is handled by most of them. 
The current near-universal magic spell to build from source is "configure; make; make install", and since UQM hasn't actually done this since the barely-running pre-0.1 code, there's been a considerable amount of grousing over the years about it. (It's not really an issue, in the end; Gentoo and Source Mage both completely automate the build process, after all. UQM's just requires a different set of commands to get things going, and defaults to interactive configuration.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Martin
Core Team
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 387
|
The happy comments I've usually gotten have to do with its speed.
As for the original topic, which hasn't been actually answered.
The install process should have created links to Options Configuration and Keys Configuration. Those are both in the same directory, which varies dramatically by operating system (including version of Windows). In that directory is a subdirectory called "save". That's where your saves are.
A user-specific link to that user's data directory, and correction for IE breaking predownloaded packages, are on the list of things that the 0.6 installer should do. (The first is on bugzilla as Bug #866, the latter is on my list of notes for when installer-making time comes around again.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
