EPTWindows XP
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
-xpeh-
Ukraine86 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
Starting later this year, we will begin the process of ending support for Windows XP and Windows Vista in World of Warcraft, StarCraft II, Diablo III, Hearthstone, and Heroes of the Storm. Microsoft ceased mainstream support for these versions of Windows in 2009 and 2012, respectively, but since a decent portion of our audience was still using them at the time, we continued supporting them. However, there have been three major Windows releases since Vista, and at this point, the vast majority of our audience has upgraded to one of the newer versions. After these older operating systems are no longer supported, the games will not run on them, so we encourage any players who are still using one of the older OSes to upgrade to a newer version. We’ll be rolling out this change on a staggered schedule, and will post further notices as we get closer to making the change for each game. Ending Support for Windows XP and Vista More regarding Starcraft & Remastered: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20753935869#post-3 | ||
|
-xpeh-
Ukraine86 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On August 25 2017 20:31 -xpeh- wrote: What is the last version which supports XP? Windows 7. Microsoft stopped supporting XP in 2014 and Vista in 2017. Thus why Blizzard isn't supporting them either. | ||
|
-xpeh-
Ukraine86 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On August 25 2017 20:34 -xpeh- wrote: Version of Starcraft, dude. My bad. I don't know the answer for that. | ||
|
danbel1005
United States1319 Posts
On August 25 2017 20:34 -xpeh- wrote: Version of Starcraft, dude. 1.16.1 | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
i never want windows 8 or 10 however | ||
|
-xpeh-
Ukraine86 Posts
ProMeTheus112 some hardware is too old for 7, someone doesn't want to reinstall all the software. | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On August 25 2017 20:49 ProMeTheus112 wrote: imo windows 7 > windows XP no? it works better, more stable, XP must be a bit easier on old hardware though i never want windows 8 or 10 however offtopic: Upgrading should be no-brainer at this point. Using non-supported OS is a huge security risk for starters. But each their own. | ||
|
-xpeh-
Ukraine86 Posts
On August 25 2017 20:55 Grettin wrote: [Using non-supported OS is a huge security risk for starters. Who is a starter? | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
This was the latest version before blizzard started updating BW to 1.18 etc... so afaik, 1.16.1 is the last version of BW that will work in XP. | ||
c3rberUs
Japan11286 Posts
| ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On August 25 2017 20:51 -xpeh- wrote: danbel1005 any proof? ProMeTheus112 some hardware is too old for 7, someone doesn't want to reinstall all the software. ok yeah makes sense no one has to use a OS they don't want too On August 25 2017 20:55 Grettin wrote: offtopic: Upgrading should be no-brainer at this point. Using non-supported OS is a huge security risk for starters. But each their own. non-supported doesn't actually mean a lot to me, you choose your OS, security risk is often associated with most used system too, because security compromisers focus on what ppl use the most me for example I will not be using windows 8 because of its bad interfaces, and I wont use windows 10 because I am opposed to microsoft trying to record what I'm doing on my comp and taking control on my activity on my computer | ||
|
-xpeh-
Ukraine86 Posts
Is there a way to attack windows itself from internet if you are behind a firewall? | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On August 25 2017 22:15 -xpeh- wrote: ProMeTheus112 Is there a way to attack windows itself from internet if you are behind a firewall? I'm not security expert but afaik, 100% security simply doesn't exist so there is always a way but I think for most people, there is not that much reason for you to be a target for an exterior attack like this so you're fine.. I'm not using firewall or antivirus personally | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On August 25 2017 21:49 ProMeTheus112 wrote: ok yeah makes sense no one has to use a OS they don't want too non-supported doesn't actually mean a lot to me, you choose your OS, security risk is often associated with most used system too, because security compromisers focus on what ppl use the most me for example I will not be using windows 8 because of its bad interfaces, and I wont use windows 10 because I am opposed to microsoft trying to record what I'm doing on my comp and taking control on my activity on my computer If you use the internet on an older machine, wouldn't be surprised if your information has been compromised. The difference in security between an OS that isn't supported (like XP) and the risk on windows 10 is this. On XP there are probably a lot of backdoors that will never get patched. So your information could already be stolen and you wouldn't know it. On Windows 10/8/7 this is far less likely due to constant security updates. Also, Microsoft doesn't take control of your computer but I can understand you worrying about them recording what you are doing on your computer I guess. Staying on 7 is fine, but you would want to upgrade when it stops getting supported, or at least don't save anything you value on your computer after that point. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
if I have stuff valuable I copy it to multiple hard disk or internet cloud, its mostly a matter of not losing it I would switch to a new OS only if it suits me well enough, no 8, no 10, I don't understand the meaning of "unsupported", I don't need support, just compatibility and performance pretty sure I would be using linux if it were not for the compatibility problem, unfortunately kinda windows bound as a massive gamer for now its funny btw, that windows 10 is a built in complete spyware lol. microsoft rly sucks, I pirate their shit like there's no tomorrow | ||
|
olivia987
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Yanokabo
268 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10152 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
5390 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 Kingdom12022 Posts
Oh my god that's amazing. | ||
|
Jealous
10152 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
6985 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
10152 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
France329 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
10152 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
6985 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. | ||
|
chuDr3t4
Russian Federation484 Posts
Supporting DX9/WinXP in 2017 just doesn't make much sense, DX9 and DX11 are quiet different AFAIK. | ||
|
PorkSoda
170 Posts
| ||
|
Lazare1969
United States318 Posts
On November 19 2018 07:24 chuDr3t4 wrote: Noone mentions DirectX but I am pretty sure that's the main reason, right? Supporting DX9/WinXP in 2017 just doesn't make much sense, DX9 and DX11 are quiet different AFAIK. Starcraft Remastered should support OpenGL 2.0 and DirectX 9.0c. It has to according to their supported video cards list because Geforce 6000/7000 and Radeon X1600 are DX9/OGL2 cards. | ||
|
MarcoJ
Germany146 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 @_@ First of all, I have no idea whats going on on your side with SCR. My menus were just slow when network data had to be fetched (login, details on profiles etc). My options menu was never slow or anything noticable. Remember SC:R is using the new battle.net not the old one. Of course XP is less heavy on your system because it was designed to run on way less potent hardware than we have now. Microsofts philosophy to bloat every new version with visual enchancement und unneccesary crap running in background makes newer hardware feel slow. There are probably several guides by trusted techsites for your Windows OS to make it faster and leaner. Additionally I am not sure if you can judge whether your XP-PC is compromised or not, you dont seem to have the education. But a botnet dont wants you to recognize they are having control over your machine, thats the trick. For furhter reading: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/still-use-windows-xp-prepare-worst/ You cant set up your own security if the loopholes are in the OS at parts you have no access to. If you have old hardware try running a beginner-friendly linux distro. All of them offer a live-stick version, so you can try it out without installing it for a while. Thats my best advice for that situation. If you can spend money buy a new pc and run a supported OS of your choice. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 19 2018 16:46 MarcoJ wrote:Additionally I am not sure if you can judge whether your XP-PC is compromised or not, you dont seem to have the education. But a botnet dont wants you to recognize they are having control over your machine, thats the trick. For furhter reading: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/still-use-windows-xp-prepare-worst/ You cant set up your own security if the loopholes are in the OS at parts you have no access to. If you have old hardware try running a beginner-friendly linux distro. All of them offer a live-stick version, so you can try it out without installing it for a while. Thats my best advice for that situation. If you can spend money buy a new pc and run a supported OS of your choice. Nah I'm pretty seasoned aware of this stuff I know how to look at processes and other things, I don't use XP myself. I would use linux if I could play all the games I want on it. I don't care about "supported" OS though. If I want to have a machine with windows 3.1 just for fun, I would do it hahaha | ||
|
charlie164
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
| ||
