Civ3 Platform?

Sabre2th · June 29, 2001, 19:59

I was recently at Amazon.com and I noticed that Civ 3 is supposedly for Win95/98/Me. What about Windows 2000?

If it doesn't work on my computer, I'm gonna cry!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...479698-0962565

Inverse Icarus · June 29, 2001, 20:52

most games arent for 2k / nt.

the different driveres and dlls and modifications that TWEAK them make some major problems, and most people dont spend the time.

Sabre2th · June 29, 2001, 21:05

I know, but I didn't really have a choice of operating system. It would kinda suck if it didn't work.....

ancient · June 29, 2001, 22:00

you should have windows 98 its better.. maybe you could go get 98 from a friend with and older pc.. usually has a disck.. if you think its worth it..

Sabre2th · June 29, 2001, 22:03

I would rather have 98, but it would be easier for me if I didn't have to screw around with it. I'm too lazy to do all that work.

Sabre2th · June 29, 2001, 22:49

also uber: i've done some checking. It appears to me that a lot of new games DO support win2000 (not all, but some). I also notice that there are LOTS of errors on Amazon. (inconsistencies, etc)

Inverse Icarus · June 30, 2001, 08:20

debian is the best. but i'll use ME if i dont have to wait for the ported version.

Inverse Icarus · June 30, 2001, 08:21

and yes, a lot of new games support them, from companies that spend the time writing all the flexible code.

example: tribes 2 works in 2k

play it at work.

Sabre2th · June 30, 2001, 09:18

I would just like to point out that I think WinMe SUCKS.

(I've had some bad experiences)

Nemo · June 30, 2001, 22:58

Quote:

you should have windows 98 its better

what have you been smoking?

Quote:

I would just like to point out that I think WinMe SUCKS

absolutely.

the ONLY thing that win9x series are good for are games. not even stability within the games, but merely that they support the most amount of games. <-- note the period

Quote:

debian is the best

now we are talking

I love my SuSE !!!

KrazyHorse · June 30, 2001, 23:02

Why is it that the period is so important? Sorry if I'm being dense.

Nemo · June 30, 2001, 23:08

i was trying to note that the ONLY thing win9x are good for is to play game, nothing else...and even then it still screws up.

i have 4 pc's 3 with linux and one that used to run win 98 JUST for games...it was more like a big expensive console gaming system to me (i.e. all it was good for was playing games, but even still it had to be rebooted due to a lack of damed "system resources")

if it weren't for the gaming companies making games exclusively for win 9x platforms... win 9x would be a very minor (if any) part of the O/S market.

KrazyHorse · June 30, 2001, 23:15

Argghhh...don't get me started on linux. The network for the labs at school run on linux. I barely know how to use Win9X (and DOS; whatever happened to good old DOS?), and linux broke my brain when I had to attempt its usage. Just because my computer crashes hopelessly every hour and a half doesn't mean I should change my OS, does it?

Asking the average computer user to switch to linux is like asking the average TV viewer to build their own cathode ray tube.

Nemo · July 1, 2001, 00:23

Quote:

Asking the average computer user to switch to linux is like asking the average TV viewer to build their own cathode ray tube.

opps...i definately do NOT want everyone to use linux (i guess i should tone it down a little). i like it how it is - for the advanced user. if everyone starts using linux, then i guess i'll have to start using FreeBSD or Solaris

actually what does get me though, is that microsoft has NT based systems that are much more stable that 9x...i think that the programming co. (like firaxis) should create games for NT systems (esp. win 2000) to help the world rid the market of 9x machines.

Personally, i think all computer stupid people should use Mac. All computer literate people should use *nix. and NO ONE should use microsoft.

in my ideal world... all games should be made for Mac's (which, by the way, I don't care to use a Mac - too easy for me - ...but they are the best choice for beginners AND are always ahead of M$ & PC's AND are more stable)

SO...I wish (in my idealistic, and completely unrealistic, world) that Civ III is first made for the Mac (which in my ideal world...the majority of the world is using...since most people dont want to learn the workings of a PC just to use it). Then Civ III would be simultaniously released for some form of *nix platform ...making the entire world a very happy Civ III ending

. . . ok, i'll try and shutup now

Swissy · July 1, 2001, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabre2th
I would just like to point out that I think WinMe SUCKS.

(I've had some bad experiences)

I had problems with ME. Then I upgraded my BIOS in both my motherboard and video card, downloaded the most recent version of every device driver I could find and all my problems disappeared.

Adagio · July 1, 2001, 10:09

With Win me I only have half the problems as I had when I used Win 98

korn469 · July 1, 2001, 12:56

i just got Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction and it supports (in this order)

Windows XP, 2000, ME, 98, 95, NT SP5 or greater

all i'm saying is that civ3 had better have good windows XP/2000 support if it wants to stay around as long as civ2 did, once October 25th rolls around and windows XP comes out then M$ will stop supporting all other versions of windows except for some interim business support for w2k and will try to get everyone to migrate to XP...i'm saying that in fall of 2004 that most computers will running a version of windows will be running XP or better, and that ci3 wil need good XP support to last as long as civ2 has

Swissy · July 1, 2001, 13:57

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
..., once October 25th rolls around and windows XP comes out then M$ will stop supporting all other versions of windows ...

Actually they will be supporting 98/ME for a long time. One of the features of XP is that it WILL NOT be backwards compatible with all the devices on the market. MS bent over backwards to make ME compatible with everything out there. That is why people have problems with ME, the OS recognizes the device and tries to apply the correct driver whether it is supported or not. XP will not do that, if your computer is more than a year old, better hope there are upgraded drivers and BIOS available or your out of luck trying to use XP.

Also, XP is based on the 2000 kernel, so if a game plays on 2000 it will play on XP.

Inverse Icarus · July 1, 2001, 14:41

yea. i have a legally acquired, fully paid for and signed for andwhatever other crap you want to say copy of XP, and i installed it on my OLD box to see it before i tried it, (p1 200 w00t). nothing worked. had to get on internet and get drivers.

works now. but this box still uses Debian / ME.

Jarouik · July 2, 2001, 05:43

Regarding the topic of the thread, I think they are bound to support Windows 2000 as well as 95/98/ME... especially with XP coming, it would be stupid of them to restrict Civ 3 to Microsoft's old operating systems only, and most professionals use Windows 2000 instead of 9x already... Considering that, in addition, most Windows games, even old ones that weren't designed with 2000/NT in mind, work in 2000 just fine, at least for me, I doubt they would deliberately design Civ 3 so that it would not work on Windows 2000/XP...

(I still have a 98 installation on my hard disk, but I haven't booted to Windows 98 a single time since I installed 2000 last autumn - most games I have, including Civ 2 and SMAC, work in 2000 perfectly. The only ones that won't function are old favourite DOS games such as X-COM Apocalypse and Transport Tycoon, which is a shame...)

Nemo · July 2, 2001, 12:24

Actually Microsoft has publicly announced that they will stop providing technical support for windows 95 in 2002 and will stop providing technical support for windows 98/98se and NT 4 in 2004.

The down side to XP is the licensing...if all reports i have read are accurate and XP does not change prior to going gold, then if you upgrade too many of your hardware components XP will think its a new computer, and you will have to call M$ to reactivate you licensing. Also, they are releasing XP when there are many programs/drivers that have just become win2k/winME compliant not even a year ago...geez, too much crappy product being pushed in too little time, with little significant upgrades.

The good news is that many companies ARE starting to look to XP and producing software that will be compatible with it. Therefore, if it works on XP it should work on 2000 since M$ is slowly merging the 2 O/S' in order to phase out the home edition (or so was the plan 2 years ago -dont know if that goal has changed since then).

SerapisIV · July 2, 2001, 14:55

I think XP support is vital to Civ3's future as a replayable game. I know that like Civ2, I plan to play the game for a long time. I plan to eventually upgrade my computer which inevitably means XP (face it Mac sucks even more then M$). So I can only hope that there will be few XP bugs relative to the game in general.

Nemo · July 2, 2001, 16:36

Geez, I just remebered

that Civ II runs on windows 2000 without any problems

So, why shouldn't Civ III?

Sabre2th · July 2, 2001, 18:30

Civ3 will be a heck of a lot more complex than civ2 was, Nemo, so you never know.

For anyone that is trying to run old win95 games on Win2000:
There is a compatability mode for win95 and winnt software that wasn't tested with win2000. This seems to work with most games (with some exceptions).

I am also starting to firmly believe that Firaxis would have to be totally stupid and ignorant to not support win2000/xp.

I'm done now

ancient · July 2, 2001, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Nemo

what have you been smoking?

absolutely.

ummm it is i had upgraded to 2000 i hated it and went back to 98 then later i tried me, also hated it and whent back to 98

Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS · July 4, 2001, 21:55

While I can't say what the "official" requirements are for Civ3 (I don't know what they are yet), I can say that I am developing it on a system running Windows 2000 and it definitely runs in 2000.

tniem · July 5, 2001, 00:07

I have been running Windows 2000 for about a year now and would just like to say a few things about the system.

First of all, yes at first it does have some compatibility problems with drivers. They can be fixed if the company that made them has updated drivers. If not you can try to fake it or upgrade. I upgraded, but that is just me.

Second, I have had zero problems with games. No matter how old school I have gone to see if Windows 2k could handle it, it always has. I have played old Dos games like Colonization and Windows games like SpyCraft without a problem. The Windows 2k kernel is good enough to handle older games even if it wasn't totally reversed egineered.

Finally, those talking bad about Windows 2k, it is by far the best system that MS has made. I have been running the computer I am typing on for over a week without a reboot. For you linux guys that is not big deal, but any older Windows system would have crashed by now. Windows ME crashed hourly on me.

So in conclusion I believe Firaxis will build it with Windows XP/2000 in mind, but if it doesn't I do not have any reason to doubt that it will work any way. Just as Mike just pointed out.

Jarouik · July 5, 2001, 04:10

Quote:

Originally posted by tniem
Finally, those talking bad about Windows 2k, it is by far the best system that MS has made. I have been running the computer I am typing on for over a week without a reboot. For you linux guys that is not big deal, but any older Windows system would have crashed by now. Windows ME crashed hourly on me.

I concur - I would never go back to Windows 98/ME. The stability and reliability of Win2K is something you could previously only have dreamed of, provided that you manage to get the system up and running and find the right drivers - older Windows versions admittedly still require less tweaking. Nevertheless, at work I installed Windows 2000 last autumn and it hasn't crashed a single time during the seven months I have been using it eight hours a day, five days a week, for various tasks including playing Civ 2 and posting at Apolyton

(my "military" service, which luckily ends in a few weeks). I'd say that is something, even though at home I have been less fortunate, averaging at one blue screen stop error a month in Win2K.

JellyDonut · July 5, 2001, 04:25

Ah, we have all had the fears of incompatibility. Why, I had a true horror story when I bought Warcraft II. I found out it didn't work on old, broken CD-ROMs. So I bought a new computer with $1200 bucks I had stored away. Was it worth it? Probably not. But this computer is a hell of a lot better than the other one.

Good thing Civ3 will work on Win2000. More scenarios for me in the future. I didn't have to worry; I have Win98.

Adm.Naismith · July 5, 2001, 05:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
I can say that I am developing it on a system running Windows 2000 and it definitely runs in 2000.

Good! Thanks for the info, Mike.

Would you threat for us your collegues there at Firaxis, to give us some more harmless small info like this (not exactly industrial secrets, I suppose)?

Thank you in advance.