Notum Wars and win 98 ( not SE)

Well NTrox, I am not trying to convince anyone to go with linux ;)

Just giving an explanation to a previous post as to why upgrading constantly isn't exactly cheap for some people.

Yes, I think their OS is sad. Most people think its fine, if not good.

I think many of their apps are actually good, but thats a whole different ball of wax.

Why sad?
Because of the fact that although it is easy when everything goes flawlessly, when something bad does crop up, it is often impossible to fix without reinstalling the os.

Because I dont appreciate having to reboot every time some config file is changed (better with XP, but still not there).

Because their liscense is evil, and getting more so every version. Pretty soon they will be asking everyone to give them their first born child.

Like I said, I know linux is not there yet (especially for people that expect things to be the same as they are in windows), but some distros are getting pretty close.

If you want 1 text editor, then _use_ only 1 text editor. I prefer to have the right tools for the right jobs and a wealth of choices in what I use. I prefer to have the option to change things that bother me. I prefer to give the cash I would have spent on apps to the people that develop them instead of x tiers of management and y middlemen.

Anywise, I do feel that windows is a sad os that is only still around because most people want to be spoon fed and most people have to use it at work so that is what they know (talking about the US here as that is the only country that I am very familiar with). Oh, and it comes with almost any computer that joe average is likely to purchase...

And...this shouldn't need to be stated, but obviously these are my opinions. Preference can not be truth, only preference.

-Religion

Ok guys calm down, take a deep breath and a step back.

Ok everyone chilled?

I'm an MCSE (for those who dont know Microsoft Certified System Engineer) which means I sold my soul to MS to basically get and keep my job :-)

This however doesnt mean I'm blind.

Linux is, overall, a superior OS that Windows (and I mean Windows in a generic sence here). Its faster, more stable but it is not easier to use or configure. Once its configured however its just as easy for Joe-End-User to do his work.

Now MS could quite easily make Windows as stable and fast (if not better) than Linux but they would have to let go of some of their control. Linux gives control away thus making stuff run more reliably and faster if you know what your doing! (that part is key). The problem is the 'knowing what your doing' part.

Now I like to think I know what im doing with computers generally. I setup a Linux file server (Red hat) for a friend and it ran for 3 years without a hitch (or even a reboot) an upgrade halfway through this time caused some minor issues but the last upgrade I did killed the whole box (apparently). Now it turned out to be something very simple and easily correctible but because there are multiple ways of doing things under Linux, and that its not particularly user friendly, and the documentation tends to assume you know the how the 'nuts and bolts' of the OS works, this problem took ages to resolve (months actually) because I was reliant on other people on Newsgroups and mailing lists.

However Linux is still in its early days (I think of it like Windows 3.1) it will get better over time, ever now games are starting to support it (Quake & NeverWinter nights are 2 that come to mind) but it is different, and yes you need to know what your doing (once could say that alot of the problems with Windows is that its TOO easy to use that any idiot can, and frequently does, use it)

MS users and techs will have to 'throw away the book' if they are to give Linux a fair crack of the whip. I'm lucky in that I worked for years with Novell before using Windows so I'm used to an OS doing things differently, but it is peoples resistance to change that will be the biggest hurdle once the 'ease of use' of Linux finally comes of age.

Hehe, first things first: I am, and was, calm. This is a discussion ;)

"Impossible to fix without reinstalling the OS"
"I dont appreciate having to reboot every time some config file is changed"
Nah. You got that wrong. XP has rollback features, auto web updates, much MUCH reduced rebooting requirement (I can now change IP addresses without reboots, and can install most devices without reboots).

"If you want 1 text editor, then _use_ only 1 text editor"
Hmm.. would be nice if Linux HAD one editor, and it was called "Text Editor". Why the hell do those geekish Linux developers insist on using stupid names that mean nothing?? GNU? WTF is that? VI?? Argh!

"Because their liscense is evil, and getting more so every version"
Absolutely true. And who reads the EULA? Who has read the AO EULA? Not me..

PS Warlock, I am an MCSE as well, though currently working on MCSE 2K :(
As for a stable OS: how the hell am I, as an average Linux user, lets say, supposed to know what version of the libraries are requried to run a particular version of an application, and how am I supposed to know about compatibility with other apps? You can talk about symbolic links or whatever they are, but that means nothing to me, and I would rather spend my spare time chilling in front of AO, the PS2 or the TV than fighting Linux.

I'm willing to bet the sentiments above are accurate for most of us, though I wish they weren't so. One day we will move to Linux, on that day we will rejoice ;)

2K has given me less problems, over time, than XP. That's the only reason I suggested it; well, that and it doesn't have some of the ugly "graphics upgrades" XP added.

As to Linux... well, when the games I want to play are available for Linux, I'll think about it for my main machine. As to my server, it runs BSD. :p

Finally, MS isn't that expensive. Admittedly, I get student discounts and volume discounts through my uni, but the costs of buying Windows are approximately equal to the costs of buying support for a *nix distro and the extra time taken to get it operating properly.

As noted, the choice of operating systems comes down to what you prefer and how you would rather pay...

I prefer to pay in blood/time rather than $$$. Hence my reasons for running Linux rather than windows wherever possible.

For the most part, windows is easier to take care of and maintain than linux for a few major reasons (at least in the area I live in)
-It is a lot easier to find a tech/geek type person that knows windows than it is to find one that knows linux.
-So long as everything runs smoothly, windows is more comfortable to maintain for the average user (most people dont want to have to deal with complicated sounding things like daemons, pipes, shared objects, soft links, boot loaders, etc...even though they really aren't that complicated once you invest the initial time in understanding them).
-Most people dont really lose much if they have to re-install their os.
-Most windows software takes care of all of the installation procedures that go on. Much easier for the average user to deal with.

I can't knock windows for initial ease of use (if everything goes well). I do know about the rollback features of WinXP, but I generally do things to a system on purpose. Having to undo any valid changes I made just to keep it running (with no info about what is really wrong) pisses me off. I _like_ fiddling with config files and tracking down strange problems...of course, most people do not ;)

Never heard anything bad about BSD, just haven't used it (unless you count tinkering with OSX as using it).

One other thing that tweaks me...all of the marketing data noting that there is no market for linux games. It is as bad as the studies on RIAAs losses and the studies on 'piracy' losses. Of course there is going to be little market when you take the following into account:
-Almost everyone I know that runs linux has a partition set aside with some version of windows for gaming. They don't usually appreciate having to boot into it to play games, but they do so anywise.
-Almost all games released for linux are released for windows first...usually at least a month ahead of time. Hrmm...play with friends now or wait a month...most people will choose now.

I know there are not nearly as many linux boxes out there (on the desktop side) currently, but I think the numbers are higher than the marketing drones think.

Anywise, windows can be much more expensive to maintain than linux...and some of us would rather spend the extra time learning it than spending the extra $$$ trying to keep current with windows.

Like I said, their OSes are finally getting decent, but for me it is too little, too late, especially considering their buisness decisions.

-Religion

The thing that would really suck if I moved to Linux, is that I would have to re-purchase the games I want to play, specifically for Linux (provided they are available of course). My local software store (not a crappy little outlet either) does not stock ANY Linux games at all.

As far as I, a windows use, am concerned there are NO games for Linux. I know that is not correct, but my games visibility on the Linux platform is non-existent.

I hear ya Ntrox, the sole reason that I still have a windows partition is for gaming.

There are a lot of good retro games for linux (emulators for most slightly older console systems, spiffy clones of good retro games made by people for fun etc) and a few newer games that have either been ported or had a linux binary released so that one could use the windows cd under linux (though of course, these are all counted as windows sales). Most can be found at tuxgames.com, but as you noted it isn't a long list...Quake, Quake2, Quake3, UT, UT2k3, Rune, Moonbase, Railroad Tycoon, and a few others.

Many people are now promising linux binaries, but it seems that most either don't deliver or push the linux binary release back into the nebulous future.

-Religion

Ah, now thats a start. Gonna have a look today at what is supported.

I installed Mandrake 9 on my 2nd machine over the weekend, looks good, nice installer, not much different from Mandrake 8.2.

The menus are now cleaner. There aren't millions of duplicated applications (good move!) and the control panel (singular!) is easier to use.

However, I couldn't find out where my Apache web pages were stored. Bah!

Apache web pages...

Usually /usr/local/apache/htdocs is the root directory of the webserver.

You can also configure it so that all users have a public_html directory under their home directory that can be viewed via
http://<your server name>/~<username>

so if my server was wheat and my username was religion it would be:
http://wheat/~religion to get to my web pages.

Hope that helps.

Oh, and come on Funcom...is a fully patched 98 (non-se) fine for the expansion/booster?

-Religion

my guess is the best you are going to get is "it should work, but we make no promises", Since if they say yes, and then something happens and it doesnt work, they have left themselves open to all sorts of lawsuits, in todays world of people who cant take responsibility for themselves, and feel the need to sue someone everytime something happens they dont like.

hugs

lilnymph

Yeah, but what I'm afraid of is that the booster pack will use some MS program (next versions of DirectX or IE) that for some reason wont work/install on regular Win98.

I would be very peeved if I couldn't use the booster pack beacuse the launcher would require some nifty feature that microsoft don't want to port to Win98.

Since I don't want to buy a new OS every year I'd be forced to plunk down $100 to $200 for for a $20 dollar expansion.
I don't see that happening in the near future.

Could we for the love of god(s) get some unofficial word on this, or at least what component is required from 98SE.

An even worse possibility . . . . .

FunCom might be doing this intentionally. As near as I have been able to determine, there aren't any features that should be necessary that Win98SE supports but Win98 doesn't. And of those that are, third-party programs are available, for free, to provide the functionality anyway.

Win98SE is a TOUCH more stable than its prior counterpart, but programs can tell the difference between them. It's possible, though I seriously doubt even FunCom will shoot themselves in the foot like this, to make a program that will simply refuse to run, no matter what you do, on Win98 but will on Win98SE.

If they do, it sounds like the programmers have taken over Marketing, or Marketing has delusions of being able to program.

If this is the case, I'll probably quit even though I'm running WinXP.

I don't see a reason for FC to intentionally phase out Win98, but keeping Win98SE.

Microsoft have every reason to do that, and have repeatedly done so in the past.
That's why I wanted to have an inkling of why it clearly states Win98SE instead of Win98.

And as most functionallity in the booster pack is included in the regular client I would hate it if that same dependancy spilled over to the un-boosted AO.
If 14.7 would require Win98SE or better I'd be quite a bit peeved.

They would be on sticky legal ground if they started messing around with the minimum reqs for playing at this stage, as it could be argued it would be a breach of contract, so I dont really think they are going to start.

hugs

lilnymph

Anyone at funcome care to update us on this?

Confirm? Deny? Anything?

Ah well, it may not matter so much to me anymore anywise. Between new arbitrary restrictions ingame, the new apparent vision, and seemingly random moderation on the boards I am thinking that I really won't be playing this game much longer anywise.

-Religion
-"Looking for a skill based game..."

Another post made without enough thought. :D

I don't really think it's likely that FC is quite that. . . . stupid. Then again, if it's that it requires, say, a new version of DirectX not supported by Windows 98 but is supported by SE (and I'll need to check on DX9) then it's not really FCs fault. But if they have a flag that says

If OS equals Win98 then exit

Then that's just stupidity. What I meant about the marketing is that marketers strike me as the type of people to look at, say, complaint reports, and say "Well, we get the most complaints from people using Win98 and earlier, not including SE. Obviously, Win98 isn't suited for playing AO, so let's get those people to upgrade so they can enjoy it more. Stop them from logging in." Although only the dumbest would do that without checking how many players in total use Win98 (probably a good 60 percent, I'll guess, with most of the rest being 2000 and XP users.) Still, not sure if I'd put it past some of them, like the bozo responsible for putting the kami-kaze bot into the patch notes at one point.