QEMM was better at optimizing memory usage than DOS 6.22. There were several games that needed QEMM to run on my machine, because DOS' MemMaker wouldn't cut it.
Pedro Quaresma wrote: > EA, MacDonalds, and now Windows... you're scaring me, Hugh! ;) > > >I'm not thrilled with everything about Windows; however, as a gamer...I > >don't see how you can't think Windows 95 and later made life MUCH better. > > No, it hasn't. As a gamer, I'd rather have one of the old OSes that > wouldn't crash. > > >Once Win 95 was adopted by game developers, and games were written (well) > >under it, gaming became so much easier. > > a) The percentage of games written well under Windows is way lower than the > ones written well for DOS. b) Sometimes it's not the problem of the games > itself, they crash because of Windows itself. > > >I still remember the bad old days > >of having multiple boot disks, QEMM, and a reconfig program....ugh...that > >was really a crappy way to game (having come from the ST, Amiga, Mac > world). > > Multiple bootdisks?! Qemm?! DOS 6 (and 6.2, and 6.22) made those things > obsolete. I could play any computer game on DOS 6.2 (my favorite), with the > multiple-boot menus, and had no need for 3rd party software. > > >Once 95 became the standard, things for gamers got much > better...peripherals > >(rudder pedals, steering wheels, etc) > > That has nothing to do with Windows 95. If Windows 95 had never existed, > and if we were all using, for example, OS/2, BeOS, Linux, etc, we'd still > have rudders, wheels etc. > > Besides, there have always been different and innovative (I have began to > hate this word) peripherals since the dawn of computers > > >also become much easier to deal with...gotta love Plug and Play. > > Oh, Plug 'n' Play, that thing that works perfectly on Linuxes like Mandrake > 8.0 but seem to crash or wrongly recognize hardware in Windows? 0:) > > >To me, it sounds like another example of the "good old days" not being > that good. Certainly from a gamer's > >perspective. > > Sorry Hugh, I still think that the good old days were much better. At least > our standard OS was stable, and so were games. > > >Hugh > > Pedro R. Quaresma > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "So long, and thanks for all the fish" > > > > > > > > > "Hugh Falk" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 16/11/01 14:13 > > Solicita-se resposta a > swcollect Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > A/C: > Ref: > cc: > Assunto: RE: OT Gates (was: [SWCollect] >Rogue (was Killer Games (was Soccer > Games (was shock)))) > > > I'm not thrilled with everything about Windows; however, as a gamer...I > don't see how you can't think Windows 95 and later made life MUCH better. > Once Win 95 was adopted by game developers, and games were written (well) > under it, gaming became so much easier. I still remember the bad old days > of having multiple boot disks, QEMM, and a reconfig program....ugh...that > was really a crappy way to game (having come from the ST, Amiga, Mac > world). > Once 95 became the standard, things for gamers got much > better...peripherals > (rudder pedals, steering wheels, etc) also become much easier to deal > with...gotta love Plug and Play. To me, it sounds like another example of > the "good old days" not being that good. Certainly from a gamer's > perspective. > > Hugh > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pedro Quaresma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 5:10 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT Gates (was: [SWCollect] Rogue (was Killer Games (was > Soccer Games (was shock)))) > > Jim Leonard wrote: > >Chris Newman wrote: > > > > What's the story? Is MS abusing its relationship with NBC? Where'd you > hear the > > rumors? > > Yes, I'm very interested in that. Gates is part snake oil salesman, part > gangster, > > and all > > opportunist. > > >Rumor has it that Microsoft offered to 1. ignore existing NBC Microsoft > >product license violations (ie pirated copies) *and* cut them a deal on > >existing and future product license purchases if they set up Gates on a > >prime-time show (not necessarily Frasier) to promote XP. > > Oh great. Now you guys can't even calmly watch a TV show without suffering > the risk of receiving a message from, according to Chris, "Lucifer > himself". > > >Gates was paid standard SAG rates, something like $636 for a day's > >work. But this isn't surprising, really -- he doesn't need the money > >;-) > > NBC should've paid him in legal copies of Windows ME instead of writing him > a check. >:) > > >I'm not entirely sure I'd call Gates a gangster or snake-oil salesman -- > >that's Balmer's job and always has been. :-) > > Even before he became CEO? What did he do before? > > >Opportunist is 99% of > >what Gates was/is. He saw some opportunities and he took advantage of > >them, and a couple of his successes -- MS-DOS licensed on multiple > >machines making him rich, Excel, Word for DOS -- were legitimate reasons > >to like Microsoft in the 1980s. Everything past Windows 3.0 was > >downhill though -- as late as 1989 they were telling application > >developers to develop for Windows 3.0 behind IBM's back (they had a > >license to co-develop OS/2 with IBM at the time). It was a total abuse > >of power. > > It sounds like gangster-like behaviour, actually. And praising WinME (the > worst OS ever) makes him sound like a snake-oil salesman. If I head him say > the word "innovation" again, I'll eat my MSDOS 4.01 floppies. > > Anyway, I think, from a technical point of view, that Microsoft really went > downhill after Windows 3.11. Windows 95 is unexcusable: any OS should work > with the least possible features on the Kernel, to minimize crashes. > Windows95 has the whole GUI and much more on the kernel. All MS OSs after > Win95 break several of basic rules of programming and maintaining an OS. > > >My only real lament with the rise of Microsoft is two-fold: > > >1. People have come to expect buggy software, multiple releases/patches, > >and frequent crashing. It has become acceptable. > > Never thought of it that way, but that's the way things go nowadays, and > it's not about OSes only. Games are following the same path. Does anyone > remember a game released after 1998 that had no need for a patch? Me > neither. > > >2. Geoworks Ensemble never got the recognition it deserved. > > >The above is what really, really depresses me, especially Geoworks. > > Geoworks Ensamble? Please explain. I'd like once again to add #3 > > 3. There's a solid, free, open source, nearly bug-free, easy to use, > extremely stable, etc OS out there (Linux of course) and the number of > people using it is still almost irrelevant, because most prefer any > expensive and full of bugs version of Windows. > > >http://www.MobyGames.com/ > >The world's most comprehensive gaming database project. > > Pedro R. Quaresma > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "So long, and thanks for all the fish" > > http://www.salvador-caetano.pt > http://www.globalshop.pt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to > the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' > Archives are available at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to > the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' > Archives are available at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/ > > http://www.salvador-caetano.pt > http://www.globalshop.pt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to > the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' > Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
