Rise of Legends vs Microsoft

Quaestor wrote:
> Reece wrote:
>
>> Microsoft software comes now comes mainly in three main flavors,
>> Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Rise of Legends it seems
>> is only supported by Windows XP. Microsoft isn't capable of writing
>> a PC game that can run on different versions of it's own operating
>> system like other developers can?
>
>
> Doesn't want to. billgates will always do anything he can get away with
> to force you to give him more money.
>
> I run win2k. If it won't run on that I won't buy it. I have already
> foregone several games that "require" xp.
>
> And those that "require" xp have been shown to be hackable to run on 2k,
> so obviously xp does not actually do anything for them than w2k doesn't
> - this is purely a matter of billgates paying or bullying game
> developers to put in code to require xp. And when the next OS comes out
> he will force everyone who cannot get a hack to buy that, too.
>
> Don't believe me. Some don't. Wait and see.
>
Your absolutely right! Also the minimum specifications of some of the
high end demos are hyped up too. With a fast video card you don't need
a 3.4 gig. processor to get decent performance.
 >> Stay informed about: Rise of Legends vs Microsoft 

Quaestor <no-spam DeleteThis @my.place> wrote:
> - this is purely a matter of billgates paying or bullying game
> developers to put in code to require xp.

Or, y'know, developers deciding that supporting an OS that
was released a hell of a long time ago is no longer worth
their time.

Not everything in this world is a conspiracy.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Rise of Legends vs Microsoft 

Reece <rbhasson.DeleteThis@highstream.net> wrote:

>
> Microsoft software comes now comes mainly in three main flavors,
> Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Rise of Legends it seems
> is only supported by Windows XP. Microsoft isn't capable of
> writing a PC game that can run on different versions of it's own
> operating system like other developers can?

You might have a good reason to avoid Windows XP, but for the vast
majority of users it is a major step up from Windows 98. Sooner or
later, you must pay your personal computer user dues. Windows XP
allows me to almost get back to the point where I can push the
interface without worry about crashing. Windows 9x was the pits.
 >> Stay informed about: Rise of Legends vs Microsoft 

John Doe wrote:
> Reece <rbhasson RemoveThis @highstream.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Microsoft software comes now comes mainly in three main flavors,
>> Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Rise of Legends it seems
>> is only supported by Windows XP. Microsoft isn't capable of
>> writing a PC game that can run on different versions of it's own
>> operating system like other developers can?
>
> You might have a good reason to avoid Windows XP, but for the vast
> majority of users it is a major step up from Windows 98. Sooner or
> later, you must pay your personal computer user dues. Windows XP
> allows me to almost get back to the point where I can push the
> interface without worry about crashing. Windows 9x was the pits.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
My one good reason to avoid Windows XP? Windows 2000! In the future I
will probably move to Vista but not immediately like I did with Windows
XP. In my opinion Windows 2000 is as close to a perfect operating system
as Microsoft has ever achieved. Tasks may stop responding but Windows
2000 never crashes. Right now Windows 2000 is Microsoft's gold standard
for dependability which has been a long time coming! I'm still waiting
for the release of three other strategy games which I'm certain will run
in Windows 2000 if I decide to buy them plus demanding a 3.5 gig
processor seems rather extravagant for a current title.
 >> Stay informed about: Rise of Legends vs Microsoft 

Quaestor <no-spam.TakeThisOut@my.place> wrote:
> Matt McLeod wrote:
>
>>Quaestor <no-spam.TakeThisOut@my.place> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>- this is purely a matter of billgates paying or bullying game
>>>developers to put in code to require xp.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Or, y'know, developers deciding that supporting an OS that
>>was released a hell of a long time ago is no longer worth
>>their time.
>
> There is no question of supporting. The games run fine on win2k if
> hacked to remove the "requirement." Nice dodge, but you didn't manage
> to change the subject.

"Support" doesn't mean "will it run", it means "do we want to
support bozos running this platform".

I can probably get Oracle to run on a Debian system, but if I
go to Oracle with a problem they'll laugh at me because it's
not a supported system. As a software publisher or support
provider you have to set boundaries.

Now, if that boundary were "the latest release of Windows,
which was only released last month" then that'd be a pretty
ridiculous choice. But "the latest version of Windows, which
was released years ago" is not so much.

You are not the centre of the universe.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Rise of Legends vs Microsoft 

On Mon, 1 May 2006 13:53:11 +1000, Matt McLeod wrote:

> Quaestor <no-spam.TakeThisOut@my.place> wrote:
>> Matt McLeod wrote:
>>
>>>Quaestor <no-spam.TakeThisOut@my.place> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>- this is purely a matter of billgates paying or bullying game
>>>>developers to put in code to require xp.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Or, y'know, developers deciding that supporting an OS that
>>>was released a hell of a long time ago is no longer worth
>>>their time.
>>
>> There is no question of supporting. The games run fine on win2k if
>> hacked to remove the "requirement." Nice dodge, but you didn't manage
>> to change the subject.
>
> "Support" doesn't mean "will it run", it means "do we want to
> support bozos running this platform".
>
> I can probably get Oracle to run on a Debian system, but if I
> go to Oracle with a problem they'll laugh at me because it's
> not a supported system. As a software publisher or support
> provider you have to set boundaries.
>
> Now, if that boundary were "the latest release of Windows,
> which was only released last month" then that'd be a pretty
> ridiculous choice. But "the latest version of Windows, which
> was released years ago" is not so much.
>
> You are not the centre of the universe.
>
> Matt

I can agree with that. However, why would they make the program unable
to run in older operating system?

>> The games run fine on win2k if hacked to remove the "requirement."
>> Nice dodge, but you didn't manage to change the subject.

Why should that be added? Shouldn't it be enough to put "XP only" to the
box, and let the users test if it works on Win2000? The makers lose
nothing. I doubt there is a conspiracy, but I don't know why they would
do it if not to make more people willing to change into a new operating
system.

Janne )'( Joensuu,
Endoperez
 >> Stay informed about: Rise of Legends vs Microsoft 

J.M. Joensuu <janne.joensuu RemoveThis @oppivat.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 13:53:11 +1000, Matt McLeod wrote:
>> "Support" doesn't mean "will it run", it means "do we want to
>> support bozos running this platform".
>>
>> I can probably get Oracle to run on a Debian system, but if I
>> go to Oracle with a problem they'll laugh at me because it's
>> not a supported system. As a software publisher or support
>> provider you have to set boundaries.
>>
>> Now, if that boundary were "the latest release of Windows,
>> which was only released last month" then that'd be a pretty
>> ridiculous choice. But "the latest version of Windows, which
>> was released years ago" is not so much.
>>
>> You are not the centre of the universe.
>>
>> Matt
>
> I can agree with that. However, why would they make the program unable
> to run in older operating system?

Because they don't want to deal with the support load involved.
It may still *work*, but they make a commercial decision that the
sales lost are not worth the additional expense of supporting that
platform, even where "support" merely means "provide technical
support for" rather than "explicitly modify the code to make it work".

>>> The games run fine on win2k if hacked to remove the "requirement."
>>> Nice dodge, but you didn't manage to change the subject.
>
> Why should that be added? Shouldn't it be enough to put "XP only" to the
> box, and let the users test if it works on Win2000? The makers lose
> nothing. I doubt there is a conspiracy, but I don't know why they would
> do it if not to make more people willing to change into a new operating
> system.

There's probably some concern about litigation, if not in the US
then maybe elsewhere where consumer-rights laws have a bit more
bite. If it simply won't run/install at all, then they remove
the risk that someone says "the warning on the box wasn't big
enough, make it work or pay me lots of money for pain and suffering!".

This is merely an educated guess based on having worked in the
(non-gaming) software industry in the past. Who knows, maybe
all the heads of publishing firms are hanging out at Bill's house
cackling about poor ol' Questor and his entitlement complex.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Rise of Legends vs Microsoft 

"Quaestor" <no-spam.RemoveThis@my.place> wrote in message
news:125b64jnn3vj877@news.supernews.com...
> Matt McLeod wrote:
>
>>Quaestor <no-spam.RemoveThis@my.place> wrote:
>>
>>>Matt McLeod wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Quaestor <no-spam.RemoveThis@my.place> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>- this is purely a matter of billgates paying or bullying game
>>>>>developers to put in code to require xp.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Or, y'know, developers deciding that supporting an OS that
>>>>was released a hell of a long time ago is no longer worth
>>>>their time.
>>>>
>>>There is no question of supporting. The games run fine on win2k if
>>>hacked to remove the "requirement." Nice dodge, but you didn't manage to
>>>change the subject.
>>>
>>
>>"Support" doesn't mean "will it run", it means "do we want to
>>support bozos running this platform".
>>
>>I can probably get Oracle to run on a Debian system,
>>
>
> Clearly all you want to do is change the subject. This has nothing to do
> with what I was talking about. But to you I guess this is some sort of
> big victory.
>
> *plonk*
>
>
No, he's got a point. I write software for a living, specifically bespoke
solutions. We have one particular product that we've gone on to sell to
quite a few customers in the relevant industry. Originally we supported
windows 98 upwards (since it was actually current and common at the time we
wrote the software). Nowadays we only support win2k and winXP. If I state
that we support win98 then I'd also have to test it under win98, which isn't
worth the effort involved nowadays. I've not bothered to do anything to stop
it working under win98, and I suspect it will work without problem, however
giving the relative number of users I have compared to a game like this,
it's not really that big a hardship for me to handle any support calls from
win98 users with a reminder we never said it would run on it. In Microsoft's
position I'd have to analyze whether there was sufficient return to justify
extra coding for win98 (since for games that may be needed), extra testing,
and extra support. I'd be within my rights to decide it wasn't worth it, and
to not support it. Perhaps a hack to get around the restriction might work,
but most of the people who'd try such a hack probably realise that they're
on their own where support is concerned.

Kev
 >> Stay informed about: Rise of Legends vs Microsoft