As for having to upgrade to a newer OS because the older ones aren't being
supported, shouldn't the game developers use the tools of the trade that
their customers can use? If you decide to create software that the newer
systems can run but older systems cannot, and your customers are still using
the older OS, aren't you shooting yourself in the foot? I don't follow the
logic that dictates that users must upgrade to a less user friendly OS that
won't run the software you have been accumulating because it is not being
supported by the developers. It makes more sense to me that the developers
should not be the determining factors as to what is produced for the end
user. The end user should be the one to determine what is produced.
If the majority of blind people cannot afford to upgrade their machines
every few years, and the upgrades won't be easily accessible without major
modifications and headaches, we should not have to be forced to make that
upgrade, and developers should offer what the end user can use.
--
If guns kill people, writing implements cause grammatical and spelling
errors!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Ward" <thomasward1...@gmail.com>
To: "Gamers Discussion list" <gamers@audyssey.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Audyssey] challenge for developers, post xp windows
Hi Dark,
Like so many things in life there are two sides to every argument, and
I certainly can't dispute that the issues you raised are valid, but
there is another side to the debate as well.
It is true that on 64-bit versions of Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8
it is not possible to play older 16-bit Dos games without a
third-party emulator like Dosbox which is unfortunately not
accessible. However, the real problem is not Windows, but the newer
64-bit processors themselves as they can not execute 16-bit
applications natively which is why Microsoft dropped 16-bit support in
newer versions of Windows. The problem for developers like Microsoft
is why should they spend time and money trying to support old 16-bit
applications that is no longer supported by the hardware of today when
there are free applications like Dosbox available?
However, the problem with making Dosbox accessible is easier said than
done. From what I know of Dosbox in order to make it accessible a
developer would be better off rewriting the emulator completely from
scratch. That is no minor undertaking, and are you and the rest of the
V.I. community willing to pay for this to be done?
The second issue you raised is that of Visual Basic 6 support. I
frankly don't know what you expect us developers to do about that
situation. In my opinion there is frankly nothing we can do about that
situation directly. The only thing we can do as end users and
developers is encourage those using Visual Basic to upgrade to
something more modern as quickly as they can to avoid any more
needless compatibility issues. Otherwise we are going to experience
more issues like those with the BSC games and Windows 8 as newer
versions of Windows become available.
What I am about to say will sound harsh to many, but I think it needs
to be said. As early as 2006 I remember Microsoft actively encouraging
Visual Basic 6 developers to upgrade to VB .NET and to move away from
DirectX 8 as time was running out. Most of the mainstream developers
listened and chose to begin upgrading their software to VB .NET 2005.
Here we are nearly 7 years later and the majority of audio game
developers are still using it even though Visual Basic 6 was
discontinued as far back as 2008. So any compatibility issues we have
with games and Windows 8 are the fault of those audio game developers
who have chosen for one reason or another not to adopt newer
programming languages and tools. It is the audio game developers who
are making it difficult to upgrade to say Windows 8 without worrying
if game x will or won't be compatible not Microsoft. Its not like
Microsoft didn't repeatedly warn VB developers what would happen years
in advance. So let's begin by placing the blame where blame is due.
Regarding the user interface it is definitely different in Windows 7
and in Windows 8 but there are workarounds for what you want. The
Classic Shell application restores many of the Windows XP U.I.
elements you are talking about including the classic Start Menu etc.
So saying it is not possible to have listed menus and coherent folder
structures, is absolutely false. If you were to install the Classic
Shell add-on for Windows you would restore a semblance of the Windows
XP look and feel to modern versions of Windows.
Finally, while it is certainly your right to choose to upgrade or not
upgrade let me say that it puts us game developers in an untenable
situation. What I mean by that is sometimes it is not possible to
support both older versions of Windows and newer versions of Windows
at the same time. The way technology changes a developer has to make
decisions weather to create games for a legacy operating system like
XP or stick with whatever is current. There are technical
considerations that you, the end user, do not have to make but we do.
For example, consider virtual 3d audio. While DirectSound has virtual
3d support the fact of the matter is it isn't very good and it doesn't
work properly on Windows 7 and Windows 8. The solution or fix for the
problem is to switch to Microsoft's new DirectX audio API XAudio2
which works fine on Windows 7 and Windows 8. However, next year
Microsoft will no longer be providing updates for Windows XP,
including XAudio2 for XP, so as a game developer my options are
limited. Either I build against an older version of XAudio2 which may
be buggy to maintain XP support or I tell XP users they are simply out
of luck. Either way I am between a rock and a hard place because next
year it won't be possible to build against new versions of DirectX and
support Windows XP at the same time.
There is a similar situation going on with the .NET Framework. I
believe Windows XP will support up to .NET 4 but no later. Since XP is
about to be officially dropped that means the new applications written
in Visual Studio 2012 using .NET 5 won't run on Windows XP, but are
Windows 8 ready. Once again the developer is force to sacrifice newer
APIs, libraries and tools to support XP or tell the XP users to just
upgrade. Neither situation is ideal, but is the reason developers get
so frustrated with people who refuse to update for whatever reason.
It is like this. If we choose to go with Windows Vista, Windows 7, and
Windows 8 people using XP will doubtless bombard the developer for
requests to support XP. If the developer chooses to support XP and
ignore upcoming changes in Windows 8 the developer will get bombarded
by requests from new Windows 8 customers to fix compatibility issues
or to support this or that. Either way can lead to a loss of sales
which isn't good. Its a classic case of damned if you do and damned if
you don't.
Cheers!
---
Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the
list,
please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
---
Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
