| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Jealous
10310 Posts
On November 17 2018 16:16 Yanokabo wrote: I use Windows XP’s for playing broodwar and I think it’s bullshit remastered doesn’t have a compatable version for it Asking for remastered to work on XP in 2018 is like asking for original Brood War to be able to run on computers from 1981, more or less. | ||
|
QuadroX
386 Posts
| ||
pheer
5398 Posts
On November 17 2018 18:02 Jealous wrote: Asking for remastered to work on XP in 2018 is like asking for original Brood War to be able to run on computers from 1981, more or less. No, it's not like that at all, because the original starcraft released in 1998 with these OS requirements: Microsoft Windows 95, Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 So it's not illogical to think that the remastered version of this 20-year-old game could at least run on XP, which came out 3 years later than the original game. Of course the real reason remastered doesn't work on XP is because the new-age graphics needs the backbone of a more modern OS. But get out with your crappy analogies! BW forever. | ||
|
zerglingling
131 Posts
On November 17 2018 18:02 Jealous wrote: Asking for remastered to work on XP in 2018 is like asking for original Brood War to be able to run on computers from 1981, more or less. bitch please https://vocaroo.com/i/s1l3Bc1Ifzz3 ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5PRFSwe.png) | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12027 Posts
Oh my god that's amazing. | ||
|
Jealous
10310 Posts
On November 17 2018 22:33 pheer wrote: No, it's not like that at all, because the original starcraft released in 1998 with these OS requirements: Microsoft Windows 95, Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 So it's not illogical to think that the remastered version of this 20-year-old game could at least run on XP, which came out 3 years later than the original game. Of course the real reason remastered doesn't work on XP is because the new-age graphics needs the backbone of a more modern OS. But get out with your crappy analogies! BW forever. Lol? It absolutely is illogical to think that, because of the very reason that you mentioned. Also JFL@BW forever, as if I said anything that aims to kill Brood War. Get out with your crappy arguments! I'm BW4lyfe. | ||
|
Puosu
7012 Posts
| ||
|
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
Win 95 57.4 Win 98 17.2 Win NT 11.0 DOS --- not supported by BW 3.8 Win 3 --- not supported by BW 1.1 Operative system market share 2017: Win 10 51.9 Win 7 36.3 Win 8 8.99 Win XP --- not supported by SCR 2.16 Win Vista --- not supported by SCR 0.55 Seems pretty reasonable to me | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
unethical argument for using whatever os makes zero sense to me, other than a marketing argument for some latest OS (give me your money or you are guilty) | ||
|
Jealous
10310 Posts
On November 18 2018 08:03 ProMeTheus112 wrote: however bw 1.16 works on xp vista and the rest so why not remastered... doesnt matter use 1.16?^^ unethical argument for using whatever os makes zero sense to me, other than a marketing argument for some latest OS (give me your money or you are guilty) This is the same dumb argument framed a different way. If we take any random game from the 90s and give it a graphic rework that demands modern OS and GPU to function, the demands on the system are much greater than the base engine itself by nature of its graphics alone. So, using the compatibility of the base engine to older OS and GPU is a braindead argument. | ||
|
Lazare1969
United States318 Posts
| ||
|
Nematocyst
United States164 Posts
However, a brief check indicates that wine doesn't work on windows anymore (if it ever did). But it's certainly possible. BTW, graphics are only part of the issue. The primary reason XP won't work is because it doesn't support the TLS version SC:RE uses. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
also jealous i'm not braindead you're crazy^^ a lot of modern software is very badly optimized, older machines and OS can do stuff, if you want to make the perfect SCR ofc it'd be nice for it to run on older OS (with the same or similar system requirements as before if you run it on SD for example : optimized), but personally i don't care i'm not even gonna go to SCR when i play bw i think : / | ||
|
zerglingling
131 Posts
BW 1.2+ runs on a new engine. The SD graphics are not displayed with DirectDraw but with the same hardware accelerated renderer powering the HD version, only with the sprites swapped in. (A big tell is that things are no longer paletted, and you can mix doodads from other tilesets without them messing up) The system requirements are thus higher; the game runs in desktop resolution even in SD mode, the graphics must be "unpacked" in memory to display with a non-paletted renderer, fonts are now anti-aliased, etc. Windows 7 is just an incremental upgrade. XP and 7 are both subsequent versions of Windows NT. Besides the GUI and a few extra services, 32 bit 7 should not be much heavier than XP. I have ran 7 comfortably on a Pentium III shitbox with 512 megs of memory, without any trimming. With some effort you could probably go even lower. The range of PCs that are good enough to run BW but not to run a newer system is actually slim. | ||
|
TwiggyWan
France336 Posts
On November 17 2018 18:02 Jealous wrote: Asking for remastered to work on XP in 2018 is like asking for original Brood War to be able to run on computers from 1981, more or less. except computers have changed much more between 1981 and 1998 than between 1998 and 2018. If blizzard didnt lose the code of THEIR product they could have made SC Classic use the same graphics as the old BW and not a masquerade with the new engine. | ||
|
Jealous
10310 Posts
On November 19 2018 01:17 TwiggyWan wrote: except computers have changed much more between 1981 and 1998 than between 1998 and 2018. If blizzard didnt lose the code of THEIR product they could have made SC Classic use the same graphics as the old BW and not a masquerade with the new engine. Lol? Got any source for any of this? | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
(i get pretty slow menus on my comp which I think is crazy^^ profile taking 10sec to load? my comp works well and is 3+GHz, i know this software is very badly optimized - contrary to 1.16) | ||
|
MarcoJ
Germany146 Posts
On November 19 2018 01:17 TwiggyWan wrote: except computers have changed much more between 1981 and 1998 than between 1998 and 2018. If blizzard didnt lose the code of THEIR product they could have made SC Classic use the same graphics as the old BW and not a masquerade with the new engine. 1. eh well lets take 1981 to 2001 and 1998 to 2018 (20 years each). Youre wrong. ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Moore%27s_Law_Transistor_Count_1971-2016.png/1280px-Moore%27s_Law_Transistor_Count_1971-2016.png) 2. SC classic as of SC:R? Its the same codebase. Blizzard didn't make a new engine for Remaster. I really dont the heck know what you are even talking about, you have zero clue whatsoever. On November 19 2018 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: well its true CPU haven't gotten that much faster in a long time and GPU.. how can it not handle something like SCR at some non 4K resolution? and it running in SD? no problem. So why not older OS. (i get pretty slow menus on my comp which I think is crazy^^ profile taking 10sec to load? my comp works well and is 3+GHz, i know this software is very badly optimized - contrary to 1.16) because older OS have certain limitation. Be it older libraries etc. Be it hardware limitations (try plugging in 16GB RAM in XP. just very specific vresion can handle that). additionally driver support form GPU manufacturers etc etc etc. There are a lot of reason to not support an OS which gets ZERO support from its maintainer. Not maintained software is dead software for a reason. SC:R is also not badly optimized, and your lag on profiles is probably mostly bc of latencies to fetch the needed data. And keep in mind, new features are implemented into the OLD codebase, which to modern standards is most likely in not very good shape. Plus it was most certainly not intended to run for 20 years. So in 1998 nobody could know about the reality of PC hardware we are living right now. Everyone who is using XP as of right now is completely insane. I give you max 5 days before your pc is being part of a bot network and all sorts of malicious software is distributed through your machine are used for running attacks straigh away. If you dont like windows there a plenty of other options. either you switch to mac/apple or you try one of the linux distros which are FREE and maintained. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 19 2018 06:14 MarcoJ wrote:SC:R is also not badly optimized, and your lag on profiles is probably mostly bc of latencies to fetch the needed data. And keep in mind, new features are implemented into the OLD codebase, which to modern standards is most likely in not very good shape. Plus it was most certainly not intended to run for 20 years. So in 1998 nobody could know about the reality of PC hardware we are living right now. That was my guess at first but it doesn't add up. Options menu also take 10sec to load, as well as a few other menus sometimes. This isn't a problem with 1.16. A friend of mine said he gets profiles loading in 3 secs which is still 5-10 times slower than 1.16 but suggests a newer comp can display these menus faster? These are just simple menus. It's really slow :/ i guess both battle.net is slower and the interface code itself. I don't feel like the optimization is there, cause it really is slow all around, though the extreme 10+ sec loading only occur at some specific menus (options, login and profile). Anyway I don't like it lol^^ it's not so good, 1.16 feels much better :/ and is lot less buggy. I think maybe XP feels better on an older comp, because it's probably less heavy on the system than vista or 7? So if you have a old comp 1-3Ghz or something that still works, maybe XP is better. Did you actually try running XP and you get hacked immediately? :/ it was never that bad for me. Usually I have heard, that most used systems are the ones which are usually targetted by potential hacks. I think if one is really worried about being a target, you can just set up your own security then @_@ | ||
|
Puosu
7012 Posts
On November 19 2018 06:21 ProMeTheus112 wrote: That was my guess at first but it doesn't add up. Options menu also take 10sec to load, as well as a few other menus sometimes. This isn't a problem with 1.16. A friend of mine said he gets profiles loading in 3 secs which is still 5-10 times slower than 1.16 but suggests a newer comp can display these menus faster? These are just simple menus. It's really slow :/ i guess both battle.net is slower and the interface code itself. I don't feel like the optimization is there, cause it really is slow all around, though the extreme 10+ sec loading only occur at some specific menus (options, login and profile). Anyway I don't like it lol^^ it's not so good, 1.16 feels much better :/ and is lot less buggy. I think maybe XP feels better on an older comp, because it's probably less heavy on the system than vista or 7? So if you have a old comp 1-3Ghz or something that still works, maybe XP is better. Did you actually try running XP and you get hacked immediately? :/ it was never that bad for me. Usually I have heard, that most used systems are the ones which are usually targetted by potential hacks. I think if one is really worried about being a target, you can just set up your own security then @_@ XP is both a popular and a relatively easy target. You can't "set up your own security" unless you mean unplugging from the internet. You're hurting both yourself and those who fall victim to the botnet you're part of by running an _abandoned_ operating system. Install linux. Its free. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
