It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
jonridan: Windows XP is still around? Daaaaaaaaaaaamn... I know some of it's users don't like Vista, or 7, or 8, and 10... But to still keep on using an OS from 2001? I understand if you need for a very specific piece of software, but that only goes so far. Is like running a business with no telephone number or email. If it's not for business' reasons, then there is no excuse to being so obsolete. Get a Windows XP like distro, get a Mac (older models are not that expensive and are more supported than Windows XP), or just get Windows 7 (the lesser evil of the MS OSs of today). Gaming is too related to technology going forward, you can keep your old PC for the specific games that don't run well today, but you can't expect companies to keep supporting Windows XP (yes, even GOG... the idea is to make games work in current OSs, not support old ones).

Just my two cents.
Yea I don't use XP as a daily driver or anything like that. It's purely to play old retro games :)
I think the discussion with the devs and publishers should really be more on why they still have DRM on these old games or even new games really (but that's a lost battle). If they were ignorant enough not to keep a non-steam exe and/or lost the source code then fine, then they can hunt down the crack and remove the DRM. Limiting compatibility on an application because of a client shouldn't be allowed.
https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=64038
Post edited December 13, 2018 by DosFreak
avatar
jonridan: Windows XP is still around? Daaaaaaaaaaaamn... I know some of it's users don't like Vista, or 7, or 8, and 10... But to still keep on using an OS from 2001? I understand if you need for a very specific piece of software, but that only goes so far. Is like running a business with no telephone number or email. If it's not for business' reasons, then there is no excuse to being so obsolete. Get a Windows XP like distro, get a Mac (older models are not that expensive and are more supported than Windows XP), or just get Windows 7 (the lesser evil of the MS OSs of today). Gaming is too related to technology going forward, you can keep your old PC for the specific games that don't run well today, but you can't expect companies to keep supporting Windows XP (yes, even GOG... the idea is to make games work in current OSs, not support old ones).

Just my two cents.
Not suggesting you are wrong, but there is some issue with some of your ideology. You seem to think that "business reasons" is the only reason to be so obsolete. That is very dangerous thinking.

Windows 7 is the final legitimate Windows OS. Why? Because Microsoft in its wisdom has decreed that they have the right to everything and you must abdicate your rights and access to Microsoft to use anything higher than Win 7.

That is wrong.

Microsoft has no business making such demands, regardless of how they rationalize it.

Consumers have an obligation and duty to defend themselves economically. To "vote with your wallet" on practices you support and deny access to your wallet for corporations pushing anti consumer practices you dont.

That is why the philosophy you were suggesting is for lack of a better term, toxic. It is the same philosophy that people use to justify steams anti consumer practices and holding your content hostage to demand voluntary compliance to basically unlawful set of T&C.

It presupposes that these corporations are entitled to do what they want and we have no recourse if we dissent. So we all just have to accept that things are the way they are. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.

That kind of thinking is however what is at the root of what is wrong, not just in gaming, but with all forms of digital distribution of content. The continual willing erosion of consumer power and protection that not only effects the individual consumer proliferating it, but ALL consumers by weakening the ability to resist.

In a capitalist free market a corporation only truly has one obligation. To be profitable. As consumers, however, we have power in and the duty to Caveat emptor. What we see in the current world thanks to Digital distribution is gross dereliction of that duty.

I apologize to be rant-y. Those are just my 2cp. However given this is one of the last bastions of doing what is for the Good Of Gaming theres a strong likelihood that the opinion is understood here better than anywhere else out there.
GOG doesn't support Windows XP either, fullstop. Windows 7 is going to be withdrawing as well.
avatar
MadalinStroe: Hasn't steam stopped working on XP since 2016 or something like that? That's when my old computer, which dualbooted in 7 and XP, finally broke down and I had to buy a new one. And I remember at that time, I had to use an old version of the steam client on XP. And every once in a while, the client would update, and stop working. So I deleted the new version and just extracted the old version from an archive to access my account. The only game I was still playing on STEAM at that time was Pinball FX2.
avatar
DosFreak: That's probably when Steam started requiring SSE2. IIRC it was broken after Aug 2016 and then I think fixed again in 2017....then probably broken again but I haven't verified.
It might just be, :), I don't remember.
I have great nostalgic love for XP but GOG is supposed to, in part, be about old games running on new OSes.
It was extremely insignificant for Steam though you could argue it may have been (based on comments above) that it wasn't worth using Steam on XP anymore. Either way the numbers were tiny.

0.23% of Steam users were still using Windows XP 32 bit.

https://images.idgesg.net/images/article/2018/06/steam-hardware-100761216-orig.jpg
Post edited December 13, 2018 by Pheace
avatar
jonridan: Windows XP is still around? Daaaaaaaaaaaamn... I know some of it's users don't like Vista, or 7, or 8, and 10... But to still keep on using an OS from 2001? I understand if you need for a very specific piece of software, but that only goes so far. Is like running a business with no telephone number or email. If it's not for business' reasons, then there is no excuse to being so obsolete. Get a Windows XP like distro, get a Mac (older models are not that expensive and are more supported than Windows XP), or just get Windows 7 (the lesser evil of the MS OSs of today). Gaming is too related to technology going forward, you can keep your old PC for the specific games that don't run well today, but you can't expect companies to keep supporting Windows XP (yes, even GOG... the idea is to make games work in current OSs, not support old ones).

Just my two cents.
avatar
viranimus: Not suggesting you are wrong, but there is some issue with some of your ideology. You seem to think that "business reasons" is the only reason to be so obsolete. That is very dangerous thinking.

Windows 7 is the final legitimate Windows OS. Why? Because Microsoft in its wisdom has decreed that they have the right to everything and you must abdicate your rights and access to Microsoft to use anything higher than Win 7.

That is wrong.

Microsoft has no business making such demands, regardless of how they rationalize it.

Consumers have an obligation and duty to defend themselves economically. To "vote with your wallet" on practices you support and deny access to your wallet for corporations pushing anti consumer practices you dont.

That is why the philosophy you were suggesting is for lack of a better term, toxic. It is the same philosophy that people use to justify steams anti consumer practices and holding your content hostage to demand voluntary compliance to basically unlawful set of T&C.

It presupposes that these corporations are entitled to do what they want and we have no recourse if we dissent. So we all just have to accept that things are the way they are. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.

That kind of thinking is however what is at the root of what is wrong, not just in gaming, but with all forms of digital distribution of content. The continual willing erosion of consumer power and protection that not only effects the individual consumer proliferating it, but ALL consumers by weakening the ability to resist.

In a capitalist free market a corporation only truly has one obligation. To be profitable. As consumers, however, we have power in and the duty to Caveat emptor. What we see in the current world thanks to Digital distribution is gross dereliction of that duty.

I apologize to be rant-y. Those are just my 2cp. However given this is one of the last bastions of doing what is for the Good Of Gaming theres a strong likelihood that the opinion is understood here better than anywhere else out there.
No offense taken. And I agree with you. Regarding the "business reasons" I meant it in a way that to keep on using an old OS is like refusing to have a telephone for your office and everyone must go in person because "protocols". That doesn't mean is better, or even fair, but it is what it is. Today you have pretty much everything through Facebook, even the electric companies can be reached with a complaint through that. If you do not have that option, you're alienating the "new wave" of consumers. The problem is when you leave the "old wave" behind, and that happens with everything. I can't just go to my bank and do X transaction now. I have to go through the telephone or the app for that. Is not THAT bad in this case. Still, 17 years to "translate" your production software from XP to at least 7, or to find a replacement seems pretty good. Otherwise, break free from MS and go with Linux (which for Bussinesses they also offer support for like 5 years, and then you have to switch OS too). Is anyone here still using Android Gingerbread? You could for a tablet only used lightly, but for something as serious as a bussiness I just don't see it.

Now, for preservation, that's a whole different matter. That's what GOG is supposed to be doing, making old games run in NEW OSs, not old ones. GOG dropped support for XP precisely for that reason. Now, if they intentionally go around breaking compatibility of the installers with older versions of Windows then THAT's a reason to complain (and they did actually). Otherwise, you need to keep the old version running, but no longer have support. Have you tried taking a 15 years old car to the dealership for "support"? I know is not fair, and I don't condone those practices, but that's the way it is. You can't realistically change that in a capitalist world. If (actually, more like WHEN) capitalism ever dies, then a new form of economy can change that, but today you can't run a business and provide unlimited support forever for every piece of software, product or service you have. That would imply too many costs, and those costs would be transfered to us the consumers, making us pay even more... There's a reason why somethings are waaaaaay cheaper today than they were 20 years ago (counting inflation, of course), and that's because they cut costs by not keeping old and insecure products in the wild.

And Microsoft has every right in deciding how the provide their products and services, just like you have every right not to be their costumer anymore. If you have a game that only runs on Windows XP and Microsoft drops support for that OS, then the problem should be the game developer there. Not Microsoft.If the game developers themselves don't care about providing support for their product (or service, depending on the developer...) why should Microsoft? That's like complaining I need a special kind of tire for my car because the streets are broken... but I complain when the car manufacturer stops providing those tires instead of complaining to the state for not fixing the streets. Microsoft is not "your business partner" giving you an OS for work. They provide you a service (not unlimited btw) which you can use or not, for your business. Same with phone companies offering you a plan, two years later that plan no longer exists, upgrade or get out... Fair? Hell no. Wrong? No, it's their right. I don't like the way Apple does things either. So, even if I want to use Mac OS, I just don't give them money and stay away from their computers. Do I like Android? No. Do I like iOS? Slightly less no. So I've got an old Iphone which is still supported. In 2 years, if any of the apps I use stop working, is the developers problem, not Apple's (unless Apple FORBIDS the support, which Microsoft is not doing). Google decided to leave XP behind for Chrome. Mozilla decided to leave support for Firefox. Not MS. Guilt where guilt goes.

As for Steam, I just hate that thing... I only had it for Valve's games... Again, their games, their product or service, they offer it how they wish. You can accept that, or don't play (or do other practices which I don't condone either). They offered to other developers the option to provide their games on their platform. No one forced them to be ONLY on Steam. And now we have pretty much everyone coming with a new launcher (drm) every month. And here, I can only blame the gamers themselves, for doing whatever bullshit just for a piece of entertainment. Pre-orders, dlcs, pay to win, supper buggy games... I don't blame the developers, I blame US. I vote with my wallet, just like you. But is not enough, apparently.
avatar
viranimus: Not suggesting you are wrong, but there is some issue with some of your ideology. You seem to think that "business reasons" is the only reason to be so obsolete. That is very dangerous thinking.

Windows 7 is the final legitimate Windows OS. Why? Because Microsoft in its wisdom has decreed that they have the right to everything and you must abdicate your rights and access to Microsoft to use anything higher than Win 7.

That is wrong.

Microsoft has no business making such demands, regardless of how they rationalize it.

Consumers have an obligation and duty to defend themselves economically. To "vote with your wallet" on practices you support and deny access to your wallet for corporations pushing anti consumer practices you dont.

That is why the philosophy you were suggesting is for lack of a better term, toxic. It is the same philosophy that people use to justify steams anti consumer practices and holding your content hostage to demand voluntary compliance to basically unlawful set of T&C.

It presupposes that these corporations are entitled to do what they want and we have no recourse if we dissent. So we all just have to accept that things are the way they are. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.

That kind of thinking is however what is at the root of what is wrong, not just in gaming, but with all forms of digital distribution of content. The continual willing erosion of consumer power and protection that not only effects the individual consumer proliferating it, but ALL consumers by weakening the ability to resist.

In a capitalist free market a corporation only truly has one obligation. To be profitable. As consumers, however, we have power in and the duty to Caveat emptor. What we see in the current world thanks to Digital distribution is gross dereliction of that duty.

I apologize to be rant-y. Those are just my 2cp. However given this is one of the last bastions of doing what is for the Good Of Gaming theres a strong likelihood that the opinion is understood here better than anywhere else out there.
avatar
jonridan: No offense taken. And I agree with you. Regarding the "business reasons" I meant it in a way that to keep on using an old OS is like refusing to have a telephone for your office and everyone must go in person because "protocols". That doesn't mean is better, or even fair, but it is what it is. Today you have pretty much everything through Facebook, even the electric companies can be reached with a complaint through that. If you do not have that option, you're alienating the "new wave" of consumers. The problem is when you leave the "old wave" behind, and that happens with everything. I can't just go to my bank and do X transaction now. I have to go through the telephone or the app for that. Is not THAT bad in this case. Still, 17 years to "translate" your production software from XP to at least 7, or to find a replacement seems pretty good. Otherwise, break free from MS and go with Linux (which for Bussinesses they also offer support for like 5 years, and then you have to switch OS too). Is anyone here still using Android Gingerbread? You could for a tablet only used lightly, but for something as serious as a bussiness I just don't see it.

Now, for preservation, that's a whole different matter. That's what GOG is supposed to be doing, making old games run in NEW OSs, not old ones. GOG dropped support for XP precisely for that reason. Now, if they intentionally go around breaking compatibility of the installers with older versions of Windows then THAT's a reason to complain (and they did actually). Otherwise, you need to keep the old version running, but no longer have support. Have you tried taking a 15 years old car to the dealership for "support"? I know is not fair, and I don't condone those practices, but that's the way it is. You can't realistically change that in a capitalist world. If (actually, more like WHEN) capitalism ever dies, then a new form of economy can change that, but today you can't run a business and provide unlimited support forever for every piece of software, product or service you have. That would imply too many costs, and those costs would be transferred to us the consumers, making us pay even more... There's a reason why somethings are waaaaaay cheaper today than they were 20 years ago (counting inflation, of course), and that's because they cut costs by not keeping old and insecure products in the wild.

And Microsoft has every right in deciding how the provide their products and services, just like you have every right not to be their costumer anymore. If you have a game that only runs on Windows XP and Microsoft drops support for that OS, then the problem should be the game developer there. Not Microsoft.If the game developers themselves don't care about providing support for their product (or service, depending on the developer...) why should Microsoft? That's like complaining I need a special kind of tire for my car because the streets are broken... but I complain when the car manufacturer stops providing those tires instead of complaining to the state for not fixing the streets. Microsoft is not "your business partner" giving you an OS for work. They provide you a service (not unlimited btw) which you can use or not, for your business. Same with phone companies offering you a plan, two years later that plan no longer exists, upgrade or get out... Fair? Hell no. Wrong? No, it's their right. I don't like the way Apple does things either. So, even if I want to use Mac OS, I just don't give them money and stay away from their computers. Do I like Android? No. Do I like iOS? Slightly less no. So I've got an old Iphone which is still supported. In 2 years, if any of the apps I use stop working, is the developers problem, not Apple's (unless Apple FORBIDS the support, which Microsoft is not doing). Google decided to leave XP behind for Chrome. Mozilla decided to leave support for Firefox. Not MS. Guilt where guilt goes.

As for Steam, I just hate that thing... I only had it for Valve's games... Again, their games, their product or service, they offer it how they wish. You can accept that, or don't play (or do other practices which I don't condone either). They offered to other developers the option to provide their games on their platform. No one forced them to be ONLY on Steam. And now we have pretty much everyone coming with a new launcher (drm) every month. And here, I can only blame the gamers themselves, for doing whatever bullshit just for a piece of entertainment. Pre-orders, dlcs, pay to win, supper buggy games... I don't blame the developers, I blame US. I vote with my wallet, just like you. But is not enough, apparently.
I definitely appreciate your views and discussion involved with it. It seems we are mostly on the same page.

As for MS, my problem is not inherently with expecting developers to support the old OSes but rather the unavoidable state that win 7 IS the last legitimate Windows OS. When GoG no longer supports WIndows OS, unless GOG decides to launch its own Linux distro, much like Steam did, and the games in question support the distro, My support for GOG will have to end because I cannot, will not, and should not even be asked to comply with what Windows demands just to access my GOG content and like it or not that is not Microsoft's choice to drop support, that falls on GOG and/or the developers. Exactly as you put it, They have the right to conduct their business the way they want and I have the right to spend my money how I want. I will not spend it on any OS that makes unlawful demands.

That however is not rightbecause we as consumers have that duty to defend ourselves from these practices. Just accepting that its not fair "but what are you going to do" is giving up. Just because a corporation tries to do their capitalistic duty and exploit what they can get away with does not mean we are somehow required to roll over and take it. Just like how just because a game company pushes an anti consumer practice with one of their games does not mean we have to buy it.

They know that no man is an island and they exploit that because to defend against this it takes unity. This is also why so many corporations have adopted the "Arbitration act" misinterpretation of the SCOTUS decision into their terms of service denying you your rights to engage in class action lawsuit. They know it is easier to dispense with a few wingnuts than to combat a unified force and that the public is VERY apathetic towards having to do anything that inconveniences them individually. Its simple divide and conquer tactics.

Just because people have largely given up does not mean that it is OK to give up. Ever. If people will not stand up against injustice, however slight it might seem, then they will fall for anything. Ultimately a sentiment that your words suggest you do appreciate.
avatar
InkPanther: I'm pretty sure Galaxy is not supported on Windows XP either.
avatar
PhilsComputerLab: True, but the offline installers all work on XP, which is great.
This post is titled 'Should help GoG get more games'. There is absolutely no way this helps GoG if GoG's own client doesn't support XP (which they market very aggressively FYI). At this point they are not going to put any games in the store that do not work with Galaxy.
Post edited December 13, 2018 by synfresh
avatar
viranimus: As for MS, my problem is not inherently with expecting developers to support the old OSes but rather the unavoidable state that win 7 IS the last legitimate Windows OS. When GoG no longer supports WIndows OS, unless GOG decides to launch its own Linux distro, much like Steam did, and the games in question support the distro, My support for GOG will have to end because I cannot, will not, and should not even be asked to comply with what Windows demands just to access my GOG content and like it or not that is not Microsoft's choice to drop support, that falls on GOG and/or the developers. Exactly as you put it, They have the right to conduct their business the way they want and I have the right to spend my money how I want. I will not spend it on any OS that makes unlawful demands.

That however is not rightbecause we as consumers have that duty to defend ourselves from these practices. Just accepting that its not fair "but what are you going to do" is giving up. Just because a corporation tries to do their capitalistic duty and exploit what they can get away with does not mean we are somehow required to roll over and take it. Just like how just because a game company pushes an anti consumer practice with one of their games does not mean we have to buy it.
Exactly. You can go to any other OS that is not MS, but you would lose your games library... unless the providers of said library provide an alternative. Sucks. We can only request GOG (keep requesting actually) that the Linux support for the games increases (there are games with Linux versions not provided here), and jump ship from MS to Linux. No, we should not take it, and we have alternatives. The problem lies within the products bought. GOG sold Windows licences for games and they have the "right" (not "duty") to provide a Linux alternative. That's the problem with collections, wether physical or digital, you get a licence of a game for a OS, not the game specifically.

This was a good discussion :)
avatar
PhilsComputerLab: True, but the offline installers all work on XP, which is great.
avatar
synfresh: This post is titled 'Should help GoG get more games'. There is absolutely no way this helps GoG if GoG's own client doesn't support XP (which they market very aggressively FYI). At this point they are not going to put any games in the store that do not work with Galaxy.
Yea, we (Retro PC Gaming Community) don't need any support! But thanks to the Games being DRM free, pretty much all DOS games run on old DOS PCs. Many Windows 98 games run on Windows 98, although this era of early 3D accelerators is the most challenging one. And so far all XP era games run just fine on XP.

This is the reason I buy pretty much exclusively from GOG what old games are concerned.
Any way to tell which games on a Steam library cannot be played on Win 7+? (I.e. must be installed on XP?)
Pretty sure Steam nor GOG work on DOS. Why do people treat moving on from obsolete software like it's some crime. Sadly if you're using XP, you're hindering yourself.
avatar
paladin181: Pretty sure Steam nor GOG work on DOS. Why do people treat moving on from obsolete software like it's some crime. Sadly if you're using XP, you're hindering yourself.
I'll clarify that we build authentic Retro Gaming PCs and GOG lets us legally obtain digital copies of games. If course Galaxy doesn't run on DOS, windows 98 or XP. DOS Games are usually running with DOSBox or ScummVM and GOG supplies the files that lets us play them on a real DOS PC.

With Windows 98 games, we can unpack the installer, remove nGlide and various other methods to make those games work on a Windows 98 PC.

XP era games just work, the installers are 100% compatible. Sometimes installing a framework is needed, but nothing more complicated than that.

We totally understand that GOG is about playing old games on modern systems, but because the games are DRM free, the Retro Community appreciates GOG as a great source for acquiring these games, while supporting them, and the rights holders which hopefully will lead to more games being added to GOG's catalogue.

Personally I own over 500 GOG games and buy pretty much any game from the DOS, Windows 98 and XP era to support the cause of DRM free games.
Post edited December 14, 2018 by PhilsComputerLab