• _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    184
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I actually had more success getting old windows games to run in modern linux with wine than in modern windows.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yea, there’s a lot of (well deserved) shitting on Windows, but it’s backwards compatibility is second to none. Not even Linux can give you a >70% chance that a piece of software or game you need/want from 1995 will still run (provided it’s not 16bit only or needs a proprietary driver lmao) on a modern version of the OS

      Months ago I wanted to run a lot of my old childhood games (mostly between 94 and 2001 release dates) for my own kids and I found most of them still installed and ran right out of the box on fully updated Win10, a lot of the rest required some fiddling with compatibility settings and the rest just didn’t work because they were 16 bit only (You can still get them working natively if you install 32 bit Win10, but subjecting children to <4gb RAM is abuse) or some other weird issue so I fell back to ScummVM/DosBox for those

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 year ago

        The comment you replied to says the opposite. It’s a half-truth, but Linux+WINE does some backwards compatibility better than Windows.

        First, Wine doesn’t have an arbitrary limitation against running 16-bit executables AFAIK

        Second, there is anecdotal evidence of some older games breaking to graphics driver updates on Windows, but running fine (or even faster!) on Linux thanks to a much more straightforward graphical stack (and the fact that DXVK is dark magic). Even something as simple as fullscreen mode support on old games can be a buggy and flickery pain in the ass, whereas on Linux the same binary will work flawlessly with any decent compositor.

      • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like to think of it like a defense mechanism. By ensuring old abandoned software won’t work, you don’t have to worry about it having a major security vulnerability. Any old software that still works probably isn’t abandoned.

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          I see your point, but unfortunately, there’s lots of proprietary old software that has been abandoned by the original company (Either because they went out of business or just moved on) that’s still in active use and the source never released.

          There was just an article on Lemmy a few weeks ago on how multi-million dollar research facilities still have to use ancient software to run critical scientific machines. Although in that particular case they had to maintain old PCs as well because of proprietary drivers

        • Turun@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No offense, but that sounds a lot like apple and Microsoft arguing against freedom of the user.

          “Installing an app from outside the app store could introduce a security vulnerability”

          “We must have edge installed at all times to provide a good user experience. Replacing such a central part of the operating system could weaken the security of the device”

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of those old games have been repackaged for Windows as well on GoG or Steam, not all but a decent amount. Jazz Jackrabbit series I still play occasionally, there’s a claymation point-and-click called The Neverhood (by the Earth Worm Jim guy) that works out of the box, and my personal favorite Battlezone 98 Redux which is a repackage of the game you can get on Steam, best multiplayer first person rts ever.

    • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Just run it in compatibility mode bro, it’s fine bro!!!”

      My computer screen suddenly turns 640x480, flickers 5 times, then crashes because -checks notes- my graphics drivers are too new.

      Yes this has actually happened to me. No I can’t remember with what game (I wanna say Deadly Premonition).

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are more settings to run old software other than just compatibility mode.

        Although compatibility mode works immediately in >90% of the cases

      • Jesus_666@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        DX1 runs fine with an alternative renderer (the Community Update should have everything you need to get going).

        I could run Invisible War with few issues as well – but then I realized it’s Invisible War and played something else instead.

  • rmuk@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    MacOS: “The world came into existence fully formed ten years ago so it would be silly to even try running software older than that.”

    • zerofk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      10 years ago is giving Apple too much credit. They were using Intel processors then, ARM now. For now, you can still run Intel applications, but that won’t last much longer.

      More importantly, a 10 year old application is likely to use Carbon instead of Cocoa. Unless it’s an extremely simple application (i.e. hello world), it is unlikely to run.

      Then there’s the depreciation of resource forks, a new filesystem, tons and tons of extra security restrictions, etc.

      • hersh@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Carbon wasn’t that prevalent 10 years ago. 15, maybe. 20, definitely.

        10 years ago, Carbon was already officially deprecated, and it had clearly been a second-class citizen for years before that. Most apps were already using Cocoa at that point.

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      god forbid you ever want to run any 32 bit programs. you can’t even play the orange box games anymore

      • Octopus1348@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They could’ve easily continue going the Catalina way (you can allow 32-bit programs to run after a warning if upgraded from an older OS), but they didn’t. I don’t understand why they forced 64-bit on Big Sur, it breaks so many old, non-updated apps and they know that.

        • affiliate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          they have a history of Thinking Differently about backwards compatibility. it’s just like the headphone jack all over again

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      My company is currently working through this.

      The entire dev team has Macs. Most have Intels. Many are on M1. Some are on M2.

      Security/IT teams feel the pain, dealing with all sorts of weird things. And their solution lately is saying “fuck it” and giving the dev a M2. Which is a bandaid as what if M3 and onwards continues to break something?

      Fortunately, my team builds software and runs everything through docker.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not like this came out of the blue. The PowerPC to Intel transition was recent enough that it’s still fully documented on the web with forum posts by frustrated users. It’s Apple. Their attitude has always been that users have to deal with it.

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And yet they have a reputation for being easy to use.

            That’s Apple brainwashing. Anyone who ever tried to offer remote support via TeamViewer probably knows how Mac users then fail to grant screen recording and input permissions to TeamViewer. Before they do that on their own, they can get any remote support.

    • MashedTech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or simply just: Too old version not supporting latest macos version.

      THEY BREAK SHIT WHEN THEY RELEASE A NEW MACOS HOLY FUCK.

    • Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are they doing full blown ARM processor’s now? I thought they still had enough devices less than three years old that still used Intel because of the COVID manufacturing delays.

      • ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As far as I know they still support some of their old Intel lineup, but it’s all ARM for new devices now.

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The last Intel device was the MacPro, last year. Otherwise, they basically went 100% Arm within a year or so. A very quick and complete changeover.

        Not just cpu, but 100% Apple. I think there was a singular, last Intel modem?usb? chip leftover that’s been replaced now.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pretty sure Windows has more legacy components than Linux just because no nerds are updating it in their free time

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Windows has a lot of legacy components, because there’s this Fortune 500 corporation which still depends on it in 2023. Say what you want about Windows, but its backwards compatibility is unmatched. Windows also had 32-bit x86 CPU support until Windows 10, meaning that it could still run some 16-bit Windows 3.0 apps.

      • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Windows is also a clusterfuck of spaghetti code that only the most masochistic person would want to tackle. There’s so much legacy stuff in there it’s ridiculous. For example you can’t name a file com because of the DOS days when a COM file allowed you to access the Serial ports.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      Always jarring when you open a folder dialog, and an unresizeable chunk of Windows 3.1 suddenly appears.

      I know it’s still in the ODBC settings, probably other places too.

    • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, literally. 11 still has some pre-XP dialog boxes. The framework they were written in obviously too (+at least 11 more).

    • Siegfried@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      This bothers me a lot and also applies, to some extent, to MS office software. If you go deep enough you end up in the same old clunky UI that actually did the job.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just because it installed, doesn’t mean it doesn’t run.

      Or doesn’t come with 50x “are you sure” prompts

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Plenty of old apps still run fine. I’ve got VB6 apps I wrote in the mid 2000s that still run. A previous employer has DLLs from 1999 still running in production on Windows Server - VB6 COM components with hundreds of thousands of lines of code in total. I’m reasonably sure than Office 2000 still works, too.

      You do sometimes have to change the compatibility settings and run the apps as administrator (since they were designed for Windows 9x which didn’t have separate admin permissions) but often they work.

      Even some 16-bit apps work fine as long as you use a 32-bit version of Windows (Windows 10 or older; 11 dropped the 32-bit build). The 64-bit versions of Windows don’t have the NTVDM component that’s required to run 16-bit Windows and DOS apps. It’s an optional component on 32-bit Windows and you need to manually install it.

      A lot of effort is put in to backwards compatibility in Windows - Raymond Chen has blogs and books about it.

      • it often was hit or miss with games though. I remember some games from 95/98 to run on 2000, then not on XP, somehow on Vista and 7, but not on 10. And other games ran on XP, but not Vista and 7…

        its all weird with windows

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s usually the apps themselves doing weird things - Using undocumented APIs, expecting the system to be set up in a particular way, relying on bugs in the OS, etc. Windows tries, and actually emulates old bugs for popular apps so they continue to work, but it can’t be bug-compatible forever.

          Apps/games that work on XP should mostly work on newer versions as long as you set them to run with Windows XP compatibility (in the settings of the EXE), but there’s definitely edge cases.

          Windows is still better than MacOS by far

        • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The disc copy of Fallout 3 will not install on new windows due to games for windows no longer working. At least last time I tried to install it that was the case.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Drivers are definitely out. Some games are really iffy. Especially from the Win 9x era, where they’d do stupid things like look for a 9 in the version string of Windows, or get the amount of RAM as a 32 bit signed int, so refuses to install if you have 4GB RAM or more.

      We had a lot of dodgy old DOS programs that were fine under Win98, but XP broke them.

  • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anakin: “I’m going to install this 25 year old game”

    Padme (smiling): “Install and run it, right?”

    Anakin: smirk

    Padme (frowning): “Install and run it, right?”

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unix: the version of the OS that built it is still supported (solaris 10 may have a 22-year support window, and counting).

    • burrito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why would anyone bother running it after March 2010? I quit using it almost immediately when the buyout occurred.

  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can you open this 25 year old document? Windows: Why would I want to do that? Linux: Of course!

  • umbraroze@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Windows: Can you run 25 year old binaries? Yes you can.

    Linux: Can you build 25 year old software from source? Yes you can.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did that as a work project on Unix. My peer had a similar porting project.

      I thought I was screwed: 20-year-old c-based backup tool. His was easy: this perl web app is installing on a new box because its old one is being lifecycled.

      Actual: after 3 weeks of dependency hell he tossed it all and rewrote the thing in c from scratch overnight. My c project was make;make-install with no errors.

      I think it’s been recompiled a few times since then, without any code changes.

    • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes this makes sense. Linux running a 25yr old binary would throw errors for shared libraries, or kernel compatibility or just the fact it’s the wrong arch type.

    • PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In my experience, on Windows a lot of old stuff runs as long as you have whatever registry setting enabled that lets you run non 64 bit programs. This isn’t available on every windows pc but if you’re running it on your home pc, you can probably get it. A lot of old games don’t work but old things that don’t use graphics almost always run.

      In wine, it’s basically the same story. A lot of old stuff runs especially non graphical old stuff. Some old windows games don’t work on wine but just because something old doesn’t work on Windows doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t work on wine and vice versa.

      I would rate wine as slightly more compatible with late 90s and early 2000s games than Windows is but ymmv. Graphics stuff tends to work a little more often on wine. Some mid 2000s games use obscure hacks that are impossible to ever get running on wine.

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        registry setting enabled that lets you run non 64 bit programs

        Do they seriously not support 32bit software out of the box anymore? I know getting 16bit software to run on x64 is close to impossible (look up NTVDM x64) for obvious reasons but there is still lots of x86-only stuff.

        • umbraroze@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          32-bit software is still absolutely supported on amd64. Just go to C:\Program Files (x86) and be amazed.

          • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s what I thought because that was my experience last time I used Windows; that’s why it surprised me that the previous comment suggested otherwise.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          16bit is definitely possible to run on x64.

          You just have to run the same software 4 times simultaneously, duh.

          Checkmate atheists!