Go Back   Star Trek Online > Support > Gameplay Bug Reports
Login

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 763
# 21
08-16-2012, 08:06 PM
All that from a small question. I asked that because Win95-WinME all were version 4.x. So the even number myth means none of those in there were good for their time. (Outdated today of course).

There's more truth to the Star Trek movies sucking the odd numbers than the Windows even number myth. lol
___________________

"There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 138
# 22
08-16-2012, 11:19 PM
Windows 95 was "4.0", and so was Windows NT, which was released before Windows 95. So, by order of release, Windows NT has prior claim to the 4.0 number. Windows 98 was "4.1", and Windows ME was "4.9". Windows 2k was "5.0" and "5.1" and so was Windows XP. Make any sense? No.

It gets better: Windows Vista is "6.0" and Windows 7 is "6.1". Are you confused yet?

Last edited by awolfe59; 08-16-2012 at 11:30 PM.
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5
# 23
08-17-2012, 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awolfe59 View Post
Windows 7 actually requires fewer resources than Vista, runs faster than Vista (or even XP), and is the most stable Windows release I have ever used (even more stable than NT and 2k). I very much doubt anyone will ever say that about Windows 8.
I would, so I guess you don't have to wait long to be wrong there.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 138
# 24
08-17-2012, 03:33 AM
When you can say that you've been using Windows 8 for 6 months without a single crash and that everything you run on it works flawlessly, then come back and say so. Until then, it, and your use of it, lacks a track record to make any claims at being a stable OS, much less a more stable one than Windows 7.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 763
# 25
08-17-2012, 05:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awolfe59 View Post
Windows 95 was "4.0", and so was Windows NT, which was released before Windows 95. So, by order of release, Windows NT has prior claim to the 4.0 number. Windows 98 was "4.1", and Windows ME was "4.9". Windows 2k was "5.0" and "5.1" and so was Windows XP. Make any sense? No.

It gets better: Windows Vista is "6.0" and Windows 7 is "6.1". Are you confused yet?

So the even number myth is proven wrong since so many were under the 4.x number.

As for Win 3, it was very bad at multitasking. So much to the point that I ran OS/2 back then. It ran Windows programs better than Windows did. I had to stop using OS/2 because the world was starting to leave me by since IBM didn't upgrade it to run Win9x programs.

I ran a BBS and started it on Win 3 and the users told me time and time again "We know when you're working on a something because it would go to a snail pace." Then one girl told me "Try OS/2." My ex-bro-in-law worked for IBM so got a free copy from him that was pre-Warp even though Warp just hit the market to test drive it. And people were shocked when they found out I was using the machine while the BBS was running and they saw zero slow-down. And OS/2 Warp killed the evaluation copy I had.

But to get the thread back on track, it's not helping the OP nor Cryptic to dismiss the OP's issues. He's actually doing a service by informing Cryptic of issues 2 months before Windows 8 hits so they can find out what's going on. And fix it whether they need to inform Microsoft, graphic drivers devs, or work it out themselves. Telling him basically he shouldn't bring it up is doing nobody any good.
___________________

"There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 138
# 26
08-17-2012, 03:33 PM
Well, the OP was asking for support for an OS that Cryptic does not list as being supported. You have a valid point in that he's doing Cryptic a favor by giving them a heads up, but he was also asking for help with something that he's not entitled to receive any help for, since the OS is not supported. At least not yet.

As for the OT convo, I also ran a BBS, starting back in 93-94 or thereabouts. IIRC, it was Wildcat-based and I first ran it under DOS 6.22, then DR DOS 6, and all sorts of different memory managers. On two dedicated computers. Huge headache. Then I installed OS/2 Warp. Headaches went away. Was able to expand the number of running instances of the BBS to 4 while not adding any more hardware. It ran smoother and faster than under MS OSes. Months would pass without a reboot. DOS OSes required reboots several times a day. I upgraded to Warp 4 shortly before I shut the BBS down and went to listserves and eventually Web-based boards.

Warp was able to run Excel and Word faster (and much more stably) than Win95 could. Which annoyed Microsoft no end. Microsoft soon embedded OS-detection code into their Office apps so that they would execute extra useless overhead (and degrade performance) if a non-MS OS was detected just so they could game the benchmark tests and claim to run better on Windows. MS continued these shenanigans until IBM killed OS/2 and effectively left MS without any competition in the PC market.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,448
# 27
08-17-2012, 03:38 PM
I'd assume Cryptic has already started work on tracing compatibility issues with Windows 8. It would probably fall into, our old EP, Stephen D'Angelo's duties. I've yet to really sink my teeth into researching it. I'm not overly motivated to upgrade from what I've seen, and am growing weary when I see companies like Valve practically denounce it.
nynik | Join Date: Dec 2009
<Dev> Oaks@dstahl: *checks for CBS listening devices in the office*
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 745
# 28
08-17-2012, 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nynik View Post
I'd assume Cryptic has already started work on tracing compatibility issues with Windows 8.
I would hope so. The final release is out for a free 90day trial and it goes retail in October.
__________________________________________________
"I weary of the chase. Wait for me. I shall be merciful and quick."
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,983
# 29
08-17-2012, 10:52 PM
Unless you are a Windows black-belt, never ever get the new Windows version till the first few million guinea pigs find all the bugs, booby-traps, and landmines! Not to mention letting the programers of STO and other games get a handle on how the new Windows is gonna screw up their programs!

My rule of thumb is to wait at least a year after the release before getting it. Thankfully my Windows XP PC lived long enough that Windows 7 was out for 2 yrs before I had to get a new computer.
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have stuff to rant about on the forums!

Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 138
# 30
08-18-2012, 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dracounguis View Post
Thankfully my Windows XP PC lived long enough that Windows 7 was out for 2 yrs before I had to get a new computer.
Similar story here. I went directly from XP to 7 (six months ago for me). I used XP for over a decade. I hadn't even realized it had been that long until just now. Shows how stable XP was and that its replacements weren't really needed. I only went to Windows 7 when I built a new system and had no choice but to use 7. Though I'm glad I was forced to, as 7 is even more stable than XP was.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:13 PM.