Not supporting ME/98?? WHAT??

[Jamsque]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I can believe this. In the specs thread RedLegg, an admin, said:

We considered that gain of potenitally 3% of users did not justify the delay that would result in trying fix the stability that is experienced on Windows 9x systems and came to the conclusion that the benefit did not warrant the contined developement time involved.

I put this question to you: What makes Eidos special? What differentiates Eidos from every single other software house on the planet? Unless I am mistaken, EVERY SINGLE major piece of software that has been released since Windows XP was released has supported 98/ME. That means EVERY SINGLE other major software house thinks that EVERYTHING they have made 'warrants the continued development time involved'. So what makes Eidos special? I really want to know, because I think you have made a bad desicion and quite frankly I am very angry as there is no way I can afford a £100 OS upgrade and I want to play this game VERY badly.

[edit]Sorry, my bad, turns out there has been 1 other program that does this, and it isn't exactly hugely popular: iTunes.

[thegrommit]

There is a demo available. If it runs on your system, you should be fine. If it doesn't, find something else to do. What's the problem?

[Jamsque]

Originally posted by thegrommit
What's the problem? There is a demo available. If it runs on your system, you should be fine. If it doesn't, find something else to do.

I got the demo, and I get the 'corrupt' error. And I won't find something else to do until I find out why Eidos has made a decision that is basically equivelant to deciding not to support computers with an odd number of USB ports.

[flashovr]

Not the question for your answer.

It's not Eidos as much as the game. Thief was a revolutionary idea in a day of first person run-and-gun Doom and Duke Nuke'm.

On a technical note, get XP. It made a world of difference for me. 2 of my favorite games performed better under XP (than Win98SE).

[Destroy]

Nope, seems Thief3 demo will not run on win98/ME at all currently. Kind of a bummer.

This is the very first game ever that I've tried to run that will not due to the OS I run. (win98se)

According to Google, 21% of Google visiters are using win98/ME. That seems to be a decently large number of potential users for Eidos to ignore.

Oh well, here's hoping for a patch or crack or something. If not, I guess I simply will not be supporting this game, since I don't even have the option to.

[thegrommit]

Originally posted by Jamsque
And I won't find something else to do until I find out why Eidos has made a decision that is basically equivelant to deciding not to support computers with an odd number of USB ports.

Awww, baby needs his nappy changed? :rolleyes:

Seriously, less than 10% of gamers (steampowered.com/status/survey.html) are still running Win98 or its derivatives. Supporting that 10% just isn't worth it - especially given how flaky those OS's are.

As for your demo problem, try posting your system specs or DXdiag report (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28948). Perhaps someone will spot WHY you're getting the error.

[Salvage]

Why should Ion/Eidos support a legacy OS while they aren't supporting legacy hardware?

Google isn't very accurate in how many gamers use Windows 98, only how many internet users use Windows 98(in fact, the computer in the next room runs Windows 98, but it isn't used for games, only the internet and the occasional movie).

The Half-Life 2 survey is more accurate, although not as accurate considering many of those computers that use 98 don't meet the minimum requirements for the game for the processor and/or video card(like the computer in the next room).

[Faust]

Originally posted by thegrommit
Seriously, less than 10% of gamers (steampowered.com/status/survey.html) are still running Win98 or its derivatives. Supporting that 10% just isn't worth it - especially given how flaky those OS's are.
Yeah. I've got 98 and its a pretty senile OS now. On the other hand I also have an xbox. :)

[Quillan]

There's even more to it than that. Creative isn't doing drivers for 98 anymore, and neither is Ati. It's only a matter of time before nVidia quits. Windows 98 is 6 years old. Microsoft hasn't supported it for over a year now. Someone had to be the first to make a game that didn't support 98. This happens to be it. Sorry if you got burned by it.

[KillerZoe]

I think (and this is just me and my meandering thoughts) it isn't about Eidos being different from every other company, it's just they are focusing on (and moving on) what the majority of gamers are using as OS. Like Quillan said some companies have already stopped supporting Win98 like ATI (I can't confirm on that as I am an Nvidia user) and it won't be a surprise if Nvidia follows suit. It's nothing special. The same thing happened to Win95 a few years back and this would happen to WinXP a few years from now. Trust me I know how you feel but Win98 had a good run so maybe it's time to save up for a new OS not just for Thief but for the next batch of games that would be coming out soon as most would be probably be recommended to be ran on XP or would be exclusive to XP.

[Jamsque]

*sigh*

I guess it was inevitable that eventually people would stop supporting the 9x OS's, but it's still annoying when it happens. And XP still costs £80. What makes this even more bizzare is that Thief 3 runs on the DX:IW engine, and DX:IW had no problems at all running on ME/98. :(

[jaycw2309]

Originally posted by Jamsque
*sigh*

I guess it was inevitable that eventually people would stop supporting the 9x OS's, but it's still annoying when it happens. And XP still costs £80. What makes this even more bizzare is that Thief 3 runs on the DX:IW engine, and DX:IW had no problems at all running on ME/98. :(

The engine and things have moved on since DXIW.. optimisations within the game require 2k/XP to work properly.

Sorry..

The big death for 98 will be the next version of DX i believe (its how microsoft killed win95 by making it not install dx8.1)

[BigPimpin]

Wahhhhh, they don't support Unix. :(

[InvisibleMan]

Ubisoft put out a patch for win98 users for LOMAC...............



:)

[mattex]

i read that in the exe of the game there is a protection for win 9x e win me. if someone do a patch for it, we have the solution! (sorry the english!)

[whisky]

From what I read here and around the web generally this game is not worth spending money to upgrade you OS.

The devs attitude is lazy, which shows in the game it's self.

I will go to XP in the near future but not for this game. I may well pick up one of the many cheap second hand copys that will litter the shops when I do.

And ATI, Nvidia, Microsoft and all the major dev houses HAVE commited to supporting 9x for some time to come.

[Destroy]

There is a guy in this thread
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83580

that says he is running the demo in win98se but seems he doesn't know why its working for him.

[Quillan]

You're either not a Radeon owner, or you don't read the release notes:
Note: Windows Millennium Edition users can obtain the
CATALYST™ 4.3 software suite at: http://www.atitech.com/support/driver.html. Windows 98/98SE is supported through the ME driver.

from: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/Catalyst_45_Release_Notes.html

These are the release notes for the Catalyst 4.5 drivers. You'll note that the 4.4 drivers were 2000/XP only also. So, Ati hasn't supported 98 since March. I found Creative XP only drivers last year sometime.

[jaycw2309]

Originally posted by whisky
From what I read here and around the web generally this game is not worth spending money to upgrade you OS.

The devs attitude is lazy, which shows in the game it's self.

I will go to XP in the near future but not for this game. I may well pick up one of the many cheap second hand copys that will litter the shops when I do.

And ATI, Nvidia, Microsoft and all the major dev houses HAVE commited to supporting 9x for some time to come.

If it wasn't for public outcry windows 98 would have been totally dead already.. MS wanted to kill it totally in january, but were made to reconsider its support policy to match it to Win ME, which means come Jan 2005 its dead and buried totally.

Altho theres nothing stopping them releasing DX10 and not having it support 98 (which i believe is the plan btw)

Dev are far from lazy.. If you haven't tried the game for yourself you cannot possible comment (basing it on other peoples comments is just sheep-like mentality)

Yes we dropped 98 support.. it had to happen sometime. Accept it that a 6 year old OS is going to be phased out..

[NoThief]

Originally posted by jaycw2309

Yes we dropped 98 support.. it had to happen sometime. Accept it that a 6 year old OS is going to be phased out..

Mind me that I say it with your own words...

Yes, we dropped Eidos and Thief game support... it had to happen by so openly shown "arrogance" of developers. Accept that not everybody like to be a "glas customer" neither drives an high end computer or is willing to spend a lot of money year for year in a computer rather then buying a complete new system every 3,4 or 5 years. Our money is going to be phrased out of your statistic this time.

Post Scriptum: We pay you (your success is based on the customers acceptance as it is your failure) and when you dont deliver what a customer can expect (98 SE and upwards is supported by all realesed games, are you grafix card facturer or game developer? save that argument about ATI) from somebody who want to sell something... you see nothing of our money. You may survive that, sure, we may be only around 10% by now, even when I doubt that number strongly. Never thrust a statistic you didn't faked yourself. ;) Well, I return to Unreal 2004 or Söldner then, they have at least support for my current system, maybe next time (Thief 4 plus new computer somewhen in the next two years), if I dont remember me the letdown by Thief 3.

[shoppa]

People gaming on 6-7 year old OS are not the market they are shooting for anyway...

Yes I run 98se still, on a surfing box, but for gaming... xp pro.

[Jamsque]

I guess there is no chance of a patch to make it ME complient now (for nVidia users at least), as it seems Ion Storm has laid off half their staff. How kind of them.

[NoThief]

Originally posted by shoppa
People gaming on 6-7 year old OS are not the market they are shooting for anyway...

Yes I run 98se still, on a surfing box, but for gaming... xp pro.

Yep, they shoot for the teenagers who still have nothing else to spend their money for then a computer they can brag with. We were all teenagers once making that procedure :) Btw, ME is as far as I remember the same year then 2000, if I am correct it was february or march 2000 ME was released, Win2000 in november, that are now 4 years. If the game runs on ME (same age as Win2000) then it will also run on SE 98 because both are relative close. The age argument in invalid this way, only the technology one counts. One thing I think should be considered, not the teenagers are the most powerfull customer group, even when the most industries point towards them. Many of those "older" people run Win98, some ME, call it nostalgic if you like. Heck, i even know people who deleted XP very fast and returned to good ole Win98, especially when playing older games XP decided they should not run (Example Tie Fighter). Well, I cant spend my money this time on Thief, even when I am a big thief fan since the first part and even more a hardcore gamer. *shrugs* If Eidos thinks they have to be first with Thief 3 which abandon Win98 and ME, so it may be, they pay the bill not the customer. It they think they can afford it, so it may be. The bad awakening comes always later the day, never in the begin and many game developers paid already the price for disappointing customers. :( Let's hope that the Eidos team making Thief will not join the death on the battlefield for customers for games. There is no mercy on this battlefield you know.

[BigBears2]

I figured they would pull something but I figured after they made everyone buy a new video this time it would be a new sound card to play it.

Allot of people avoided XP like the plague because of it's Product Activation sceme to force you to buy a new OP when they refuse to activate because of non-support.

[whisky]

jaccw2039

I CANT TRY IT CAN I so I can only go buy other experiances and to discount them is totally arrogant on your part.

People have paid for this, sub par product and are giving their honest opinion.

When a truly great cutting edge game comes along that no longer supports 9x then I will scrape the money togther to but buy it and thats what it comes down to for me...MONEY...

This game clearly does not justify the expence and everything else I buy is still fully supported and works flawlessly.

[flashovr]

I suspect that EIDOS deliberately made commands in the T3.exe file that were not compatable with Win98. Maybe commands that took advantage of WinXP\2k only.

Maybe there might be some kickback from Microsoft to EIDOS.... hmmm. dunno.:confused:

[Guineapiggy]

Erm... guys? Hate to point this out but:

Microsoft themselves officially ended support for these OSes in:

Windows 98: 30-Jun-2002
Windows 98 Second Edition: 30-Jun-2002
(. Paid incident support is now available through 30-Jun-2006. Extended hotfix support for Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition ended on 30-Jun-2003. Extended hotfix support for Windows Millennium ended on 31-Dec-2003. Online self-help support will continue to be available until at least 30-Jun-2007.)

So if the company that made them doesn't do it, why should the game companies have to? The 9X base has offically been declaired a failure and they're only bothering with the NT based OSes now.

(It doesn't list the ME date but ME is simply Windows 98 V4.9)

[NoThief]

Originally posted by flashovr
I suspect that EIDOS deliberately made commands in the T3.exe file that were not compatable with Win98. Maybe commands that took advantage of WinXP\2k only.

Maybe there might be some kickback from Microsoft to EIDOS.... hmmm. dunno.:confused:

I guess you are right, must be this way or the WinME support would be there as WinME even if hated by many is only a few months younger then Win2000 but based on the Win95 technique. Right computer cracks in operating systems? Win2000 was the new innovation though.

Wiskey there is no reason to shout or to make many words. You can hurt them exact so much as they hurted you by not supporting our systems. Keep your money for the game, get another game or make yourself a nice day. That is gonna hurt Eidos maybe even so much they make a patch. (Hope springs eternal). I am optimist yep. :D

[NoThief]

Originally posted by Guineapiggy

So if the company that made them doesn't do it, why should the game companies have to?

Because they are under much higher pressure then the operating system makers, simple as that. There are only a handful companies building an OS (Microsoft, Linux and Unix I think and that's it), but thousands of companies are making games. And as long as those companies are not going the way Eidos did, people dont see any reason to change their long trusted OS. Changing for one game? Big LOL. The old OS are now even considered better in many terms then the new OS, why? For example which is the systems viruses are programmed for, Win98 or WinXP? :) Eidos and its developer teams are under much more competition pressure then Microsoft, believe it or not. And as mentioned before, that market is not forgiving mistakes anymore. It is sometimes even enough when a game has too many bugs and is too much clone of another. I hope for Eidos, they did the right thing but that time will tell and none of our speculations. :D

[LeatherMan]

Originally posted by flashovr
I suspect that EIDOS deliberately made commands in the T3.exe file that were not compatable with Win98. Maybe commands that took advantage of WinXP\2k only.

On the contrary, they simply made it fail.

Under WinME (with DX9.0b), the game errors out saying the EXE is corrupt.

Under WineX (http://www.transgaming.com/), the game gets farther but complains about the graphics card not having Pixel Shader 1.1 (it does, WineX just hasn't implemented it yet).

So, even though it likely would work, the EXE has been hard-coded not to work under Win98/ME.

[Guineapiggy]

Originally posted by NoThief
Because they are under much higher pressure then the operating system makers, simple as that. There are only a handful companies building an OS (Microsoft, Linux and Unix I think and that's it), but thousands of companies are making games. And as long as those companies are not going the way Eidos did, people dont see any reason to change their long trusted OS. Changing for one game? Big LOL. The old OS are now even considered better in many terms then the new OS, why? For example which is the systems viruses are programmed for, Win98 or WinXP? :) Eidos and its developer teams are under much more competition pressure then Microsoft, believe it or not. And as mentioned before, that market is not forgiving mistakes anymore. It is sometimes even enough when a game has too many bugs and is too much clone of another. I hope for Eidos, they did the right thing but that time will tell and none of our speculations. :D
Do you even have the slightest clue what you're going on about? :confused:

[NoThief]

Yep, I do have a clue about what I am speaking. :D

[Guineapiggy]

Glad one of us does...

[whisky]

Anyone tried the No CD Crack?

[flashovr]

Let me argue both sides of my point.
(look up for my first side)

Second side:
Even though I love Win98SE and it has served me well over the years, I can't complain about the performance increase of my computer. I have had this machine since December and it has never run games as well as it does now.

I installed XP last tuesday and I have been completely blown away with the FPS I get from all my games.

XP + New hardware = Framerate = :D

[Lord_Revenant]

I know gamers, myself included, who prefer 98 for games...I had a friend who owns a copy of 2000 put it on my computer a while back, and the only difference that I noticed while trying it out on different games was that my desktop had changed to "stupid vision" (tm). That, and it took more RAM to run the damn OS. I purchased TDS, and didn't even THINK to look at the system requirements to see if 98 wasn't supported - I never even considered the possibility.

So yes, there certainly are gamers running super computers (like mine) who simply like 98. I've run games like EQ and CoH at full settings with no chop - what would stop me from running this game?

Serious compatibility issues? The game is hard coded to NOT work on 98. That isn't a compatibility issue. If there was really such a compatibility problem, fine - but let me find it out for myself. Let me play the game and see what happens to make it not work based on my OS...sorry, but I have trouble buying this when the programmers are actually trying to make sure I can't even find out whether the game will work or not.

I would LIKE to say that I'm not going to play the game just based on principle, but it would be a lie. I like Thief, and my sense of ethics just isn't strong enough for me to abstain from playing a game I'll enjoy. I'll probably find some way to get ahold of a 2000 disk for long enough to install it, play the game, and reinstall 98 when I'm done. But I won't like it. Not that Eidos cares, as they already have my $40, but this will certainly reduce the amount that I enjoy this game.

What it WILL do is make me very wary of Eidos in the future...next time I see an Eidos game getting mediocre ratings, I'm not going to say, "Hey, it's a great concept and I liked the other games, so I'll try it out"...I'm going to forget about it, because I just shouldn't take chances on these guys anymore.

[Guineapiggy]

Super computers? Windows 9X base doesn't even support anything over 512mb ram... and you can disable the "Stupid version", and get OS ram occupancy below 100mb if you work on services. That really shouldn't be a problem for anyone with a 'super computer'...

[flashovr]

Arguing online is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, your still retarded.

Anyway.

Just a random thought from a Fan.

[Jamsque]

Originally posted by flashovr
Arguing online is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, your still retarded.

Anyway.

Just a random thought from a Fan.

Thanks for that rational and well thought out contribution to the discussion. I'm sure you havn't deeply offended ANY minority groups at all with that post.


So you really think it was hardcoded not to run on 9x OS's? I had just assumed the reason I was getting the corrupt error was because it was looking for something that is in XP and it couldn't find it. But the hardcoding thing is a possibility. It's bizzare, though.

[Astalder]

It's nearing on the middle of 2004 and you're angry they're not wasting time or resources on supporting an outdated OS (98)? Every moment they waste accomodating that relic is a moment not spent doing useful things, like developing a level editor, etc.

Windows ME, ok I can see a complaint about that.

You have to constantly upgrade technology for gaming, I don't see why you'd be surprised you have to upgrade your OS after 6 years.

[Lord_Revenant]

It isn't just about the fact that it's "outdated". Who cares if it's old? There isn't a reason for the OS not to be able to run the game...it's just an OS! It's like saying that an old graphics card can't run the game just because it's OLD, even if the performance is at or near industry standards. An OS is a piece of software, not hardware, and choices can often come down to personal preference. One was made at a later date than another, and looks fancy. The bottom line is that Microsoft made a new version of a piece of software because they wanted to sell it for hundreds of dollars to people that assume newer is equivalent to better. And it may well be somewhat better - that isn't a valid reason to implement a code that doesn't allow the program to even start.

Super computers? Windows 9X base doesn't even support anything over 512mb ram...

Yes it does. I had 512 DDR on my computer and had issues running an MMO, doubled the RAM, and the game runs ten times better. Maybe there's some piece of paper out there that says 512 is a magic number, but my RAM is certainly working out fine for me.

and you can disable the "Stupid version", and get OS ram occupancy below 100mb if you work on services. That really shouldn't be a problem for anyone with a 'super computer'...

It isn't a problem - it's just a waste, and one more reason for gamers in particular to not care for the OS. And yeah, someone told me you could change it from "Silly-Vision", but that doesn't really detract from the point. It really isn't something to argue about, anyway - it's a preference issue, and it's crappy that they chose to exclude a population of players. Whether it's the 3% stated by Eidos or the 30% speculated by others - I would imagine that the number lies somewhere in between...but excluding any group of people is a shame anyway, and the way that it's being done is very suspicious.

[Drake51]

Super computers? Windows 9X base doesn't even support anything over 512mb ram
I have a gig of ram, wME, and obviously a super computer (my games run the same as people w/ almost twice the hardware- including the new Far Cry).
Oh, and i haven't seen a blue screen in months. I have wXP- collecting dust in its box. It doesn't play half my games, and not all of them are old i.e. max payne 2, soul reaver 2, black & white, baldur's gate 2, well you get the picture. Coming down from my rant, w9x/ME, are not outdated or just for the "surfing" computer;)

[Astalder]

If you can't make Max Payne 2, Black & White, or Baldur's Gate 2 work on Win XP, then it's a system or user problem, not an OS problem (I own all 3, and with the exception of MP2 they're not exactly system hogs). Despite my annoyance with Microsoft, XP is an incredibly stable system. It has never crashed (and since my comp is custom built that's saying something) on me and I haven't had a problem with incompatability since I got it.

It's overpriced, that's for sure, but there's nothing wrong with it as an OS.

And yea, a OS may just be software, but it still interacts with the game design. You can't accomodate everyone as a game designer, and if they were looking to do so they'd probably start with Linux users first.

[thegrommit]

Originally posted by Lord_Revenant
It isn't just about the fact that it's "outdated". Who cares if it's old? There isn't a reason for the OS not to be able to run the game...it's just an OS!


You really don't have a clue do you? The underlying architecture of 9x/ME and 2K/XP are very very different. The former is just a pretty shell on top of DOS. The latter were developed as stable multi-user operating systems. Memory management, device drivers, user management are all different.

As for Drake, I've run Max Payne (both versions) and Black & White on a 2K and XP box without a problem. Sounds like the issue is between the chair and the computer. :p

[Bandelero]

Look, if you've got a computer good enough to play Thief 3 you certainly have a computer good enough for Win 2000/XP - just get it or don't play, stop complaining at the company who made the game, that's just retarded.

[Cruze]

I have been playing RTCW on my 600mhz coppermine overclocked to 800 with no problems.I have windows 98 and a Nvidia TI 4200 VIDEO CARD.

There is only a 1 to 2 percent difference in performance between Windows 98 and the rest of the OS.

So I have yet to find any good reason to upgrade any further including just to play this game.
So I went to Blockbuster rented the game for $6 and it plays fairly good on XBOX.

I'M SURE IF YOU GAMERS STRIP OUT ALL THE BLOATWARE OUT OF YOUR OS YOU WON'T NEED TO THROW MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN CONSTANTLY UPGRADING YOUR HARDWARE.

Get a fast video card, reduce the quality ,and look for the fastest hacks you can find for the game and you will get your high frags and fast frame rates.
If a team or someone else is beating you in multiplayer online gameing it's always 90% hacks and 10% skill.

[Drake51]

nope, max payne 2 is wXP. --You are running a Windows XP platform, and have a dual-CPU machine or some high-performance processors To solve this issue, emulate the Windows 98 operating system
from their site. black & white don't support wNT, which XP is based off of. Hah!

[Astalder]

You say ha yet as I write this I can see the game's icon on the side of my screen.

HA! :P

[thegrommit]

Originally posted by Drake51
nope, max payne 2 is wXP.
from their site. black & white don't support wNT, which XP is based off of. Hah!

*sheesh* The reason NT wasn't supported is because of the lack of DirectX above DX5. That is not an issue for 2K or XP.

[Skanky Burns]

One would think nobody has heard of dual-boot.

[RedLegg]

At that the final word has been revealed.