Notum Wars and win 98 ( not SE)

[Oliewabie]

Accroding to the specs for The Notum wars it requires Win 98 SE.
Will it also function under Win 98 (Not SE).

Thanks

[Darkbane]

Well, it should do, the differences are not big, and if you have patches and service packs installed more or less non-existant at the API level.

[____________religion]

Could someone at funcom please confirm/deny this?

I run Win98 (fully updated) as my only non-linux partition at home and really need to know in advance if the booster pack will not run on it for some reason.

As noted above, they are pretty much the same if fully updated, but with my lack of faith/trust in MS, I would really like some official word on this or at least a statement that those of use with 98 can ruturn it to funcom for a full refund if it will not work on our systems.

On a side note...any chance of us ever getting that shiny linux client that was mentioned prior to release? I know its time/$$$, but have no idea if you wrote your code with crossplatform compilation in mind or not

or maybe put out the source for the client (unless it controls too much info that could be abused) so us linux geeks could write our own client?

-Thanks!
-Religion
-Edited to fix a bad typo

[Rhynoman]

It would seem that the booster would work on any system that the game itself works on, so if you can play the game you should be able to use the booster. At least that seems to make sense to me, but people don't always do what makes sense.

[_______________Chace]

It's an interesting question, though.

As we all probably read in yesterday's e-mail about the Booster, EVERYONE will be downloading much of the content, whether or not we're paying for the Booster. A Booster upgrade will allow you to use the new stuff, features, etc.

I would think that non SE Win98 will very soon not be supported by Microsoft anymore. And once MS stops supporting it, it will be next to impossible for developers to continue to produce software that's really compatible.

But do people run AO on non-supported operating systems, like Win95? Yes they do. They have problems. (I don't think they get keyboard in game ... ) But it does still run.

So, I would be surprised if you couldn't play the Boosted game on a Win98(nonSE) machine. But I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped officially supporting old operating systems. The game doesn't run on DOS, either.

I hate Microsoft as much as the next person, but I do have to say that I get confused by people who are willing to spend money on hardware and software for their machines, but unwilling to perform simple maintenance like upgrades to their operating system. I'm not saying the posters in this thread are guilty of that, but there are certainly plenty of folks on the boards who are.

[locomdenom]

2K > 98.

That simple.

[_______________chynn]

If you must upgrade OS's, you're probably better off with XP than you would be with 2K.

XP has the same (or better) kernel as 2K, but XP has "game mode" and "run this program in 98SE mode" switches that 2K doesn't have.

You get the same benefits from XP by flipping a switch as you would from 2K by tweaking the heck out of the 2K settings.

Personally, I still play games under 98SE.

Hope this helps ...

[secondkenlon]

Dear sweet jesu christo on a polka-dotted pogo-stick!

Trim the .sig!

[Warlock]

For the record MS no longer support 1st Ed 98 (and havent for a while). This is why the windows update no longer works on 1st Ed 98 boxes.

Theres not actually a lot of difference between to the two anyway, and if you applied all the online updates when you could get them or you got the update CD sent to you then theres even less (if any) difference.

Unless FC have done something very specific with the coding then I see no reason why it wont work on a 98 1st Ed box.

[____________religion]

I am pretty sure that it will continue to run on 98 just fine.

That said, for all you people talking about upgrading OSes:
-I already have a far superior OS that I run. Its called Slackware Linux.
-I purchased this game for Win98, one of its supported operating systems. No, the game did not say DOS, and No, (unfortunately) it did not say linux.

That said, here are some things to think about. Please try to remember that not everyone has a ton of extra cash and not everyone is willing to go get illegal copies of everything to keep up to date.

The answer to why not just upgrade:

Every 1-2 years, a new M$ operating system comes out. This generally runs about $200 if you want the stripped down version, upto $2k if you want the real thing.

With that, you now need a faster CPU, more RAM, and a larger hard drive. So tack on an extra $200-500 depending on exactly what you need.

But wait, theres more! You will also be wanting the latest compilers, latest office suite, and latest server apps if you actually use your computer as more than a fancy console system. Tack on an extra $1k + $400 + $1-4k.

So, if you go with the M$ upgrade train and actually use your computer for more than playing games, you end up with a nice _small_ total upgrade cost of: $2800 to $7900. every 1-2 years

However, if you decide that you would rather pay for your childrens education, keep a roof over your families head, or maybe take a trip somewhere now and again, you could instead do the following:
-Run a free OS (linux in my case)
-Run free compilers
-Run free office software
-Run free server software
-Spend the little extra time to get any updates for them (again, free)
-Upgrade your hardware every 2-3 years when it is actually needed. (cpu, ram, hard drive, mainboard, etc)
-Total cost: $200-500 every 2-3 years

Lets make this painfully obvious:
Windows Upgrade Train:
-Min: $1400/year
-Max: $7900/year

Linux Upgrade as you feel the need:
-Min: $66/year
-Max: $250/year

What does this mean? It means that even in the worst case scenario, I have an extra $1150 a year to spend on random software, hobbies, food, etc than someone using M$ software (legally) that does all of the things I do with a computer.

Best case? I may well have $7800 extra a year to spend on whatever suits my fancy.

I would gladly pay $25/mo for a linux client for AO simply because maintenance on my systems is _sooo_ much cheaper for the linux side.

Even if I donate $$$ each year to projects that I really like (say, ximian office, slackware linux, Blender 3D modelling, etc) I am still paying less than I would be if I tied myself to the world of M$.

Now, please tell me again how maintaining my M$ operating system is cheap?

Thanks,
-Religion

[______________Lirona]

Religion, I'm not an M$ worshipper, but get your facts straight.

Every 1-2 years, a new M$ operating system comes out. This generally runs about $200 if you want the stripped down version, upto $2k if you want the real thing.

Erm....no.

Windows XP Home and Pro are close to the same OS (Pro has a few more features, but under the hood they are nearly identical.) For the extra features, you pay $300 instead of $200.

If you want to run XP Server at home, forget AO. In fact, forget just about anything the average home user might want to do. Office takes huge performance hits, and just about everything else simply doesn't work. Server is a VERY different animal from Pro/Home, and is highly ill-suited to being a primary computer. What it is good at is being a server for a mid-size to large network. If you're not doing this, you would be completely insane to spend money on the Server versions.

Yes, I know Linux can handle either role admirably without separate versions.

With that, you now need a faster CPU, more RAM, and a larger hard drive. So tack on an extra $200-500 depending on exactly what you need.

Little argument here, but if you're playing games even on Linux you need to do this anyway. No net gain using Linux here.

But wait, theres more! You will also be wanting the latest compilers, latest office suite, and latest server apps if you actually use your computer as more than a fancy console system. Tack on an extra $1k + $400 + $1-4k.

Are you even serious here? Let's take a look point-by-point.

Latest compilers: Huh? Last time I checked, most of the population wouldn't know C++ from Javascript from FORTRAN from cuneiform. MS Operating Systems take care of the mundane tasks you need these tools for in Linux, so only programmers need a compiler. This doesn't fly at all.

Latest Office Suite: The older one still works. If you're desperate for some new feature or just want the latest doo-dad you can upgrade, but it's hardly necessary.

Latest server apps: See my comments about WinXP Server. Most people aren't using their PCs to run mid-sized companies.

So, if you go with the M$ upgrade train and actually use your computer for more than playing games, you end up with a nice _small_ total upgrade cost of: $2800 to $7900. every 1-2 years

Nope. Closer to $500-1200, +120 to 300 for an Office suite if your old one doesn't do everything you need. You may be a serious power user, but most of the world isn't. For them, most of what you're talking about is just ridiculous.

[quote]However, if you decide that you would rather pay for your childrens education, keep a roof over your families head, or maybe take a trip somewhere now and again, you could instead do the following:
-Run a free OS (linux in my case)
-Run free compilers
-Run free office software
-Run free server software
-Spend the little extra time to get any updates for them (again, free)
-Upgrade your hardware every 2-3 years when it is actually needed. (cpu, ram, hard drive, mainboard, etc)
-Total cost: $200-500 every 2-3 years [quote]

Even discounting your ludicrous assertion that world+dog wants the ability to make their computer into an all-in-one, I-am-invincible tool, a lot of this is probably beyond the abilities of your target audience to do currently. Linux, despite your assertions, is HARD. The average user does not want to have a small slip-up render their computer inoperable, and lacks any compelling need for all the tools you seem to feel are required for modern life to continue.

*Snip*Now, please tell me again how maintaining my M$ operating system is cheap?

It's cheap in that you don't spend upwards of ten hours per week trying to figure out how this thing a bunch of geeks have put together in their spare time works. I use both Linux and Windows. Generally, if I have a mainstream task I want to get done, I use Windows because the solution is close at hand and easy to do. If the task is strange or obscure, I use Linux because often that's my only option.

Linux has its place. The desktop of the average user, currently, is not it. Although it is getting better, right now the difference is, just barely, in Microsoft's favor. You pay about twice as much, but then they take care of most of the details. The OS stays out of the way much of the time. And that's what most people on these boards want.

[engelstein]

The only essential cost of a windows computer is an os upgrade every so often, and you can pretty safely skip a generation. So that's $200 every 3 years or so. And for that you get the peace of knowing that the computer will take care of itself.

[ntrox1]

Whilst I like the idea of Linux (used it, dumped it, not user friendly enough), I think you will find that Lirona is quite correct, plus when did Linux ever support all your hardware out of the box?

Personally I found Linux a doddle to install, impossible to get working properly, and a right pain in the nether regions to configure the way I like it. Oh, and which GUI to use? I want a standar, with ONE Notepad, ONE control panel and ONE browser. Instead I get menus full of crap with about 10 text editors alone. Wanting an easy life, I went straight back to my free (legal) copy of Windows. Its free cos I use it at work, and can use it at home. (I won't bore you with the details!)

[______________Lirona]

I think I was a little harsh last night. I'm not saying that Linux isn't a solid choice these days if you really want an alternative to Microsoft products. Things have improved tremendously. It's just that they're still not good enough to be solid competition. In two or three years, if we come back and address this again, I'll probably say Linux is a decent choice for an average user. Of course, once it's a decent choice, the average user will probably start using it because it will be cheaper.

[ntrox1]

I look forward to the day Linux is usable by non-Linux tecchies. I am an MS tecchy myself, my job is to design client builds for a large company in the UK, but Linux frankly scares the crapola outta me. Its too removed from what I know.

I would love to have a free OS that is extremely stable, supported (especially for games) that I can handle technically. I'll keep dreaming

[______________Lirona]

I hear the WINE people have gotten DirectX 5 working at about %90 effectively now. So they ARE catching up. It is just a matter of time, technical know-how, and a little (or a lot) of luck.

[____________religion]

Nah, you weren't harsh Lirona

All I was mainly getting at is the fact that keeping up on the latest/greatest MS os and applications is a lot more expensive than many people seem to think.

Yes, you (currently...they are trying to change this) can skip upgrades.

Yes, most people would not have need to upgrade nearly as much to keep using their systems as they do (in fact, most people could get by with a p100 for email/web browsing and a console system for games).

However, I get tired of hearing that it doesnt take much cash to keep up with M$ apps/Oses. It does...if you do more than web browsing/email/games.

I also get sick of hearing such things, because most people that I know using windows for more than the average joe does are using illegal copies of everything. If they actually had to fork out the cash for retail copies, they would be singing a different tune.

The main reasons for me not to give M$ any more cash than absolutely needed are moral reasons. The fact that they cant/wont compete on open standards, the fact that at every turn, they are trying to screw the competition, the fact that they are getting into bed with RIAA/MPAA and the future of computer use is looking more bleak by the year, etc.

They make a sad os (its finally getting semi-decent)
They make some good apps (aside from a few inane/stupid features).
They make some good games.

Anywise, all of my statements were made concerning what my costs would be, not my mothers, brothers, or the rest of the general computer using populace out there. For some of us, it _is_ way cheaper to go with something else (and no, I dont use macs as Apple is just as evil as M$...just too small to be nearly as much of a pain in the big picture).

For the general populace, what you said is fully true. It isn't that expensive to update on the M$ side...unless you feel that freedom to use your system as you want to is actually worth something.

Of course, the ease of use argument is also one reason that I dont use M$ operating systems unless I have to...the easier it gets for joe average to do things (at least in the M$ world), the harder it gets to actually fix something when trouble arises.

Now that I am familiar/comfortable with Linux, I can do most things faster with linux (including installation and setup of all hardware) than I can in windows.

The last time I installed Windows98, it took me about 5 hours to get configured properly.

The last time I installed Slackware, it took me about 4 hours to do the same.

-Religion

[_______________Rifta]

M$?

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-07-22

Bye bye

[____________religion]

One of the main reasons that linux is such a pain for many people is that most people are used to windows.

Linux is very different.

My mom has no more trouble using my linux box than she does using my windows box. Why? Because she has never used either one previously so she has no preconceptions about how to do things.

Obviously, windows is easier to use than linux if everything happens to work flawlessly for you. However, I find it much easier to figure out what is wrong with something under Linux.

Things I use linux for:
-3D modelling
-Web browsing
-Document compilation
-Scripting
-Programming
-FTP Server
-Firewalling
-Web Server
-Watching DVDs
-Playing music
-Gaming (Q3/Q2/Tribes/UO?UT)
-Database Server
-Email
-IRC
-Newsgroup browsing

Sure, I can do all of these under windows, but it is _way_ more expensive if I want to use decent software legally on the windows side.

Yes, linux has a steep learning curve (especially if you come from windows and dont have a linux geek friend to help you out), but after using it for a while it is really no harder than using windows. Almost everything is available for it, you just need to learn a few simple things to put it to good use:
-How/Where to find documentation
-How to install/compile things
-How your init scripts work to start up everything
-How shared objects (like windows dlls) are found via paths
-How to add items to your window manager of choice

If you dont have outside help, many of these can take a lot of time and be quite painful...I remember taking 25 hours to get everything I wanted setup properly during my first install of Linux. Now that I know how most things work, it only takes a few hours...the same amount of time it generally takes to get everything setup and tuned in windows.

And for people new to linux, Mandrake is a good place to start. My first Mandrake install consisted of:
-Insert disc while in windows.
-Click yes, I want to install Mandrake
-Click basic/newbie install
-Go to store and get some coffee/smokes
-Come back and enter basic networking information
-Start using Linux.
(30 minutes total)

I can not say that my first encounter with windows was this painless...

-Religion

[ntrox1]

Riligion, you are digging a pretty little hole for yourself there. You call Windows "sad". Well, the vast majority of people on these boards prefer Windows to Linux for obvious reasons: usability. We all want to boot Windows for a reason, mostly its to play AO. Sometimes its to browse the web. Sure, if I didn't play any games I could use Linux to browse the web, but why should I? I can't be bothered with all the hassle of moving my mail over, figuring out how to move my favourites, setting up an MP3 player, an office suite that is MS compatible, ADSL connectivity, oh, and USB? OMG since when did USB ever work correctly? I bet my Fuji 6800z won't work under Linux either.

Windows is easier to install, configure and maintain for the mojority of us, and I can't see Linux being a valid replacement for a LONG time. Read my previous posts in this thread, particularly with reference to applications. If I want to edit a text file, I want ONE text editor that is easy to use and familiar. I don't want VI (who the hell thought up the commands in VI??) and I don't want multiple applications that supposedly do the same thing.

BTW I can install and configure XP within 1 hour, fully set up with all my favourites and apps I need. And thats not using GHOST or unattended installs.

I am sold on Microsoft OS, you will find me hard to convince.