PDA

View Full Version : Whats this, not supported on Windows ME, well thanks a lot



pheonix763
5th Jun 2004, 13:48
As u can see from the subject i am EXTREMELY ANNOYED AT THIS!!! What is the point in making a game that will only run on the 2 worst operatin systems in the world. I have been waiting for this game to come out for ages, so i download the demo, installs fine and..... " EXE appears to be corrupt". I mean come on, u could hav just said that it wont work. I mean, most people who hav had this error probably thought it was the download and downloaded it again, so theyre there waiting for ages AGAIN and oh look it still doesnt work. AT LEAST PUT SOME EFFORT INTO IT!!!!.

You may be thinking why i run windows ME. Thats because as i mentioned earlier XP IS POO!. I mean come on it isnt exactly a gaming OS because it saps memory like a 200ft sponge and not only that its always coming up with error messages, annoying little things in the sytem tray and worst of all, every time ive tried to intall any graphics card drivers on an XP machine, guess what, it crashes

Well good for you Ion storm, you've succeded in getting even less money because u cant b arsed to get ur act together and fix the problem.

Mawerick
5th Jun 2004, 13:55
Sure sounds exactly like the problems I've had with ME, which totally sucks and is probably the worst Windows yet IMHO.

Besides, the readme file clearly states that the game will only run on 2k/XP.

pheonix763
5th Jun 2004, 13:58
yes ur right the readme does say that, but the only problem is that u can only read that AFTER u have download all 426meg of the demo

Besides, i dont see what the problem is, all the other games out today run fine, probably better, on windows ME and they dont look any different to Deadly Shadows

TheBoss
5th Jun 2004, 14:00
winME is like the worst OS ever made by MS and im quite satisfied with the rock solid preformance of my winXP. Besides win2000/XP, add win2003 server edition to the working list.

Neutrino64
5th Jun 2004, 14:00
First, check the system specification for a game before you try to run it. Then if you don't have the minimum requirements for it and it won't run, don't complain about it.

As for ME being better than XP, give me a break. 2000 and XP are far more stable than ME.

I'll grant you that it would be nice if it did support 98 and ME, but the time had to come at some point when we moved on from these old operating systems. Nothing you can do about it besides either not play or upgrade your OS.

BrokenArts
5th Jun 2004, 14:14
Can't tell you how many system crashes I had with ME. Give me XP, very stable, better than ME.

Sorry you can't play the game.You aren't the only one with this problem. People really should check out their system specs before playing a new game, and see what the new game requires
It's almost a hobby within itself to keep your system up to date now a days to run these new games, or get yourself and Xbox, if you don't want to worry system requirements.

Unbalanced
5th Jun 2004, 14:15
Dont know why people slag off WinME so much, personally I (and a number of friends) found it quicker and more stable than 95/98. The only bugbears with it where some driver issues with older equipment and the fact MS tried to hide DOS (but that was soon remedied).

It not a patch on XP, but it the best non-NT version of windows there is if your system can take the slightly increase memory footprint (compared to 95/98) it makes.

jrsein
5th Jun 2004, 14:20
You're way off on that one buddy. Win ME is THE WORST OS in existence. I hear XP is fairly good and im running 2k pro with no problems. The reason they don't support ME is because most people have gone and done away with it for a better OS. I suggest you look in to upgrading.

bravus
5th Jun 2004, 14:26
By the way, phoenix, please try to avoid starting multiple threads with the same topic - and in this case, the same post. Either here *or* in Technical would be fine, but not both.

Irish_PSU
5th Jun 2004, 16:09
ME is the worst OS to have ever come out. It's an operating system that crashes for the mere fact that it's on. Never was there a more unstable, corrupt, uncompatable system to walk the Earth. I'm not just blowing smoke either, I used ME for a year and it would crash if I looked at it wrong, if the wind blew...etc. After switching to XP I was ripe with joy. I can't say how happy I am with XP and its stability. I will say this, the only problem I have with XP is the fact I leave it on too long due too it's stability. And don't bring the DOS complaint into this for it is irrelevant. If you are still using ME today then you deserve the crashes that accompany it.

The_Neon_Cowboy
5th Jun 2004, 16:21
Originally posted by pheonix763
yes ur right the readme does say that, but the only problem is that u can only read that AFTER u have download all 426meg of the demo

Besides, i dont see what the problem is, all the other games out today run fine, probably better, on windows ME and they dont look any different to Deadly Shadows

Windows 98/me is no longer supported by microsoft nor your graphics card makers such as ati. thats why you should up grade your 5 year old computer!

jrsein
5th Jun 2004, 18:09
I don't know about ME and it's so horrible I wouldn't be suprised if they don't support it already but they DO support 98 still.

Irish_PSU
5th Jun 2004, 18:18
To my knowledge 98 is still more stable an operating system than ME.

Beagle Boy
5th Jun 2004, 18:53
To my knowledge 98 is still more stable an operating system than ME.

98 SE. True. They could have atleast supported 98 SE.

styphon
5th Jun 2004, 20:55
ME is horrible. xp is like ME second edition and we all know how bad 98 first edition was. :p

I'm sorry you can't play the game with your current OS but you should really do yourself a favor and pick up 2000. It doesn't have the bells and whistles but it's so much cleaner and more stable.

MrWynd
5th Jun 2004, 21:02
I myself am a computer repair tech and I'll tell you right now, windows ME is the worst windows since 95. I would rather have 98SE, 2000 or XP anyday over ME. Of course XP is by far the most stable and the first windows I've been proud of having on my PC.

Mawerick
5th Jun 2004, 21:41
Originally posted by styphon
xp is like ME second edition and we all know how bad 98 first edition was.

Not true. ME was based on the old 9X kernel, but XP (as well as 2K) is based on the Windows NT kernel...

Guineapiggy
5th Jun 2004, 21:55
Originally posted by styphon
ME is horrible. xp is like ME second edition and we all know how bad 98 first edition was. :p
I'm sorry but you really should learn what you're on about before you talk. 95, 98 and ME (AKA 98 V4.9) are 9X based OSes. The 9X was declaired a failure a long time ago by MS and abandoned, because they were just not working out. (A 32bit extension shell to a 16bit patch for an 8bit OS (MSDOS) that was originally designed for a 4bit microprocessor.)

2K and XP are based on Windows NT, 2K being NT5 and XP being NT6 IIRC, and are geniune 32bit OSes unlike the 9X based operating systems.

styphon
5th Jun 2004, 22:37
Originally posted by Guineapiggy
I'm sorry but you really should learn what you're on about before you talk. 95, 98 and ME (AKA 98 V4.9) are 9X based OSes. The 9X was declaired a failure a long time ago by MS and abandoned, because they were just not working out. (A 32bit extension shell to a 16bit patch for an 8bit OS (MSDOS) that was originally designed for a 4bit microprocessor.)

2K and XP are based on Windows NT, 2K being NT5 and XP being NT6 IIRC, and are geniune 32bit OSes unlike the 9X based operating systems.

Thank you for that facinating history of microsoft's operating systems history. I was joking. The look and feel of ME is much like XP only XP is a far more functional OS. Also, 98SE was in my experience, the best of the 9x series. That is why I jokingly made the analogy.

I was making my point from an end-user perspective; I'm not a programmer, I don't care about the coding: I care about functionality.

chris20202
5th Jun 2004, 22:52
This guy does have a valid complaint. Thief 3 is the >only< game I have ever heard of which doesn't work on windows ME. I'm sure it didn't even occur to him to check the required specs to see if it would run on ME.

hellbilly
6th Jun 2004, 00:22
I was formatted a friend's computer and she had ME to put on it. I got it all installed..and the first time it went to the desktop, it started flashing error messages and crashed. ME is crapola.

bluestorm
6th Jun 2004, 00:45
I would agree, this is the first time ive seen this too,,, a game that only plays on a certian OS,, i guess the new GEN-X games are coming out of hiding,, id like to see whats next to be on the market..

Mawerick
6th Jun 2004, 00:53
You have to remember that WinXP is about 3 years old already... I don't think it's unfair that the game requires it. Which it actually doesn't, since W2K will do just fine, despite being even older. If you have hardware capable of running the game, then you really oughta be running 2K or XP...

SPYingEyes
6th Jun 2004, 01:16
I think most of you have based your opinions on a few bad experiences and are quick to blame the OS instead of any other problems it might be. I work for a game company and we have to switch between 98, 98SE, ME, 2K, XPH, XPpro on hundreds of computer systems with different hardware setups. From my experience, 98SE, ME, and XPH & Pro are all very stable ONLY if they are installed fresh, all updated, and correct drivers installed.

If you encountered a lot of problems, I would think it was because of a compatibility issue with some of your hardware or driver problems rather than it being an OS problem.

In the very near future games will ONLY support 2K and XP. It is just the way it is going to be. Microsoft won't even support the 9X kernel anymore so why should game companies. I was running ME and was upset when I saw this games system requirements but I knew I was going to have to switchover eventually so I bought a whole new machine with XPpro and all is well.

tolknaz
6th Jun 2004, 04:38
Why should anything support Windows More Errors (TM)?

Aranarth
6th Jun 2004, 07:00
It's pretty easy to check the system requirements before you download the game. If your complaint is based on the fact that you had no warning until you downloaded the game, that is just plain silly. Others have already covered the OS debate well enough.

forumuser
16th Jun 2004, 22:37
is it only demo or full game not compatible with win me/98?

Stile451
16th Jun 2004, 22:54
Neither will run on Win9x.

NoneOFYourBusiness
17th Jun 2004, 04:09
I think most of you have based your opinions on a few bad experiences and are quick to blame the OS instead of any other problems it might be. I work for a game company and we have to switch between 98, 98SE, ME, 2K, XPH, XPpro on hundreds of computer systems with different hardware setups. From my experience, 98SE, ME, and XPH & Pro are all very stable ONLY if they are installed fresh, all updated, and correct drivers installed.

Yea, ME is very stable as long as every time you go to use it you reformat and reinstall ME and all your software from scratch... ;) Okay, so that is a bit of an exaggeration but you know what I'm getting at...

When I first bought ME soon after it came out I ran it for a couple weeks, then uninstalled it and put 98SE back on.

I've run every version of windows on multiple computers since version 2.0. (yea I know 2.0 sucked - for those few who tried it back then). Windows XP is by far the best version of the O/S yet. I'm running it on quite a few computers. Certainly, not perfect, but I haven't had a windows crash on any of them in a long time. The only windows version more stable than XP is 2003 Server but don't try and run games on that one...

One Punch Mickey
17th Jun 2004, 15:50
Originally posted by pheonix763
As u can see from the subject i am EXTREMELY ANNOYED AT THIS!!! What is the point in making a game that will only run on the 2 worst operatin systems in the world.

Who says they're the 2 worst operating systems in the world? Compared to what? Can you back that statement up with hard facts? Do you seriously think that Windows ME, a hastily-released hack of Windows 98 is better than a proper, pre-emptive secure(ish) operating system like XP?

Freth
17th Jun 2004, 23:50
Windows 9x/ME are based around MS-DOS, which has been around since the 80's. We're talking about 20 year old technology if you really think about it. The code of Windows 9x/ME has been surpassed by technology. Computers are faster and more powerful. The newer hardware is based on higher bit requirements, which means the OS code has to change with the technology. A 16-bit code base isn't going to cut it anymore for today's hardware. Writing drivers for a new graphics card to work with an old OS is going to cause a software bottleneck that most companies just don't want any part of. And who can blame them when these old OS's have been around for almost a decade--all the way up to 4 years ago (ME)? It's just not feasible to write code for dead OS's based on old technology that's not in use anymore.

I've been using PC's since the early days of MS-DOS's (and other incarnations before that in the early-to-mid 80's). Many changes have come since those days, but one thing has stayed the same... technology always moves forward. You have to keep up with the technology or you will find yourself in a losing battle. If you're going to be a PC gamer you have to be proactive and spend money regularly to keep up. If not you'll be left behind. Back in the early days of Windows I swore I'd never convert. I was a hardcore MS-DOS user. It wasn't until Windows 95 came out and technology moved forward that I realized I had to keep up. The same happened with Windows 98SE and Windows 2000. I loved those as gaming OS's, but in the end XP was the way to go for me.

It amazes me that people come on here and complain about obsolete OS's when computer hardware increases in power by the month. How can you expect a 4 year old OS to even be able to keep up with technology? It can't. Windows ME is a gussied up version of Windows 98SE. Plain and simple, it's built on old MS-DOS code and has seen its day. When you know of its origins and how old the technology is, it really does make sense to move on.

Ion Storm used a graphics engine which requires a DirectX 9 compliant graphics card. Graphics companies aren't writing drivers for the 9x series of OS, therefore Thief will not work on a 9x OS. It's not Ion Storm's fault at all. It's changing technology. Also, Thief is not the only game that won't run on the 9x OS's. As far as I know Far Cry will not run on these old OS's either. The problem will get worse with all future PC game releases, because the technology demands an OS that can provide what's required to do the job.

PC gaming is a unique hobby. You have to be willing to pay to play and you have to be willing to keep up with the technology. This means taking the time to learn about the latest and greatest and knowing when is the right time to upgrade. It's a requirement if you want to be a PC gamer. There is no room for complaint when you don't take the time to understand what it's all about. Some people should hang up their PC for a console.

Dash
18th Jun 2004, 11:41
Actually, not to get too technical, but win2k and therefore WinXP are also based on DOS... Such is the tragedy of life...

cyanide3
18th Jun 2004, 14:50
Actually, 2000, and XP are not totally based on DOS anymore. Its slowly veering away from DOS.

I know this cause I just finished my A+ classes.

You know when a OS system is bad when at a Microsoft seminar a Microsoft Rep. starts off by apologizing for putting out ME. (True story!)

I guess it all boils down to personal preference. I have a friend who likes ME. Just recently he rebuilt his computer he had to install/reinstall ME 5 times before it finally worked properly.

Personally, I would not recommend ME if someone would ask.

There is a newer game that also requires 2000 and XP only......I can't remember which game.........Maybe it was Hitman contracts or the new Splinter Cell MAYBE.

thegrommit
18th Jun 2004, 21:56
Originally posted by Dash
Actually, not to get too technical, but win2k and therefore WinXP are also based on DOS... Such is the tragedy of life...

What's truly tragic is that you are wrong.

Win2K is based on NT, and WinXP is based on Win2K. All three are multi-user operating systems whose native file system is NTFS (though they can use FAT if necessary).