My opinion of Windows 8 has increased since this thread opened, as I've used Windows 8 more. Consequently, my opinion of Windows 10, functionality-wise, has also improved somewhat. But Windows 10's privacy settings have canceled much if not all of that out for me. So for now, I'm going to let others try Windows 10 first. I'll be buying 7 or 8 (still unsure on which one) for my new laptop, and if I do go to 10, it'll be months down the line.
Other than the privacy concerns, the other reason I'm not in a rush to get 10 is that I don't see a whole lot that it really offers over 8. The command line, yes. But I like the Start Screen well enough having used it that the hybrid menu isn't a big plus, and 8 already has the niftier Task Manager. DX12, the GPU in my laptop couldn't use anyway. Virtual desktops, cool in theory but I've rarely used them in practice, even on Linux. The ability to save the last 30 seconds of gameplay is nifty, but I could easily get software to do that on 7. And Cortana I'm really not that interested in. Even aside from privacy concerns, I don't want the latest MSN news and whatnot whenever I search. My browser search bar works just fine when I want to search the Internet, and various other tools do for local searches.
So it doesn't really have a killer feature for me. DX12 might be one in a few years, but for now, I'm happy to wait.
Zelig said:
How much software do you wish to run by devs who wouldn't be able to put their apps in the store?
Probably nearly all of it as of 8.1. With 10, since Win32 applications can be in the store, it's less. I'm not sure exactly how much, since I'm less familiar with the restrictions on the Windows Store than the Mac OS X store. I've pretty much ignored the Windows Store since it's been Metro-only. But thinking about what I use a lot, I don't know why the vendors would see it as beneficial to distribute via the Windows store. Non-Microsoft browsers, development tools, Steam and programs from Steam. What would they gain by distributing via the Windows store?
I could see things like PDF X-Change potentially benefiting from increased exposure, and I do have one game that you can buy via the Windows store (but also via its own website, Steam, and so forth).
Then there's the hobbyist stuff, like CivAssist II and the software I use to overclock my laptop. Some is still actively developed, but some isn't, though it still can be useful. Could it be put in the store? Possibly. But would it? Probably not likely in a lot of cases.
I'm also pretty big on the whole open environment aspect. Anyone can start distributing or selling Windows software on their own, without having to get approval from Apple or giving a 30% cut to Google. The low barrier to entry is, IMO, one of Windows' strengths and reasons why it has so many developers. I wouldn't be interested in a desktop operating system that had only one distribution channel - and am not really interested in phone operating systems with that restriction either.
How long do you expect a game written in 2003 to still work?
Besides, it it on the compatibility list so it may very well be a bug they are currently addressing.
Really, the backwards-compatibility of Windows is one of the best aspects of it IMO. It's much better than consoles where being able to play a previous generation's titles is a rarity (first run of PS3 being a notable exception; X360 with Xbox 1.0 was only partial and not always as good of performance). And Microsoft has done a much better job with backwards compatibility than Apple, as well. You could take software written for Windows 1.0 in 1985 and have a halfway decent chance of running it on Windows 10 32-bit, which is impressive. I've actually run Windows 1.0 software on my 2007 laptop (with XP 32-bit) without issues.
But as for how long? I'd say I expect most games from about 1996 onwards to run without issues today on 64-bit Windows, and around 1994 or so onwards for 32-bit Windows. Sure, there are exceptions, and there are some games that will require a 3dfx Glide wrapper, and some where you might have to downclock your CPU since their simulation loop runs as fast as the CPU can run. But Microsoft has done so well with backwards compatibility so far, that I generally expect I can get about 20 years of it from most software.
And the general trend has been towards fewer compatibility-breaking changes over time (the security model changes with Vista being the last big one I can think of), so for a 2003 game? I'd say until sometime in the ballpark of 2025-2030.
With SC4 in particular, I do recall that they did some unusual stuff with the graphics that turned out to be different from what most games did, and consequently newer graphics cards are poorly optimized for the game (though often still do well due to brute force). They also had some GPU whitelisting going on, which could cause lower performance on newer (non-whitelisted) GPUs. So they aren't an ideal case for forwards-compatibility. Still, it's, if not the most popular, at least the most well-liked game in the series, so it'd certainly be nice to have still playing in a decade.
(Yes, Microsoft has spoiled me for backwards compatibility)
I'm older and still play games from 20 years ago, some my favorites. I still have CD drives and disks in them.
Best solution I've found is Good Old Games, as they provide drm free older games.
But this is an easy fix for MS, would love to know the back story of why it was removed.
edit - and, btw, the STEAM versions of Civ4 do not always play well with the Hall of Fame Mod required for competition.
Yeah, I've tried the Steam version of Civ4 with the Hall of Fame mod, primarily so I could play GOTMs. It's been a headache every time and I'm not sure if I've ever succeeded, so I've quit trying to play Civ4 GOTMs, although some do look interesting. Would be nice if that could be sorted out, but there's always the Civ3 GOTM that works likes a charm.
