Would Civ IV run on 98SE?

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2005-12-26 04:10pm

Or do I have to finally purchase XP?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-12-26 05:02pm

You know you could've found out the system requirements on your own by using Amazon, right?

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2005-12-26 05:25pm

I know what it says, but I want to know if I must. I don't know if the differences between XP and 98 are comparable (by that I mean barely any) to those between 98 and 95, for instance.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-12-26 05:44pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:I know what it says, but I want to know if I must. I don't know if the differences between XP and 98 are comparable (by that I mean barely any) to those between 98 and 95, for instance.

Most programs will list if they can run on 95 or 98. If it says 2k or XP only, then you're pretty much fubared. One of the more notable example being iTunes.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-12-26 09:09pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:I know what it says, but I want to know if I must. I don't know if the differences between XP and 98 are comparable (by that I mean barely any) to those between 98 and 95, for instance.

There are major differences between XP and 98.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-12-26 09:12pm

ME/98/95/3.1 are all based in the end on Dos. XP/2000 are based on NT however. If it says it needs XP/2000, then it's unlikely to run on 98.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-12-26 09:19pm

Nephtys wrote:ME/98/95/3.1 are all based in the end on Dos.

No. Windows 3.1 runs on top of MS-DOS, this is true, but adds a considerable number of features. Disk I/O was no longer DOS-based and WfW 3.1 implemented a new file I/O system. It certainly required and work with DOS, but saying it was based on DOS is, IMHO, not well-supported.

Windows 9X had some weird legacy 16-bit code in it but was not DOS-based and really only used DOS as an interactive bootloader. Windows ME finally got rid of said bootloader.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2005-12-26 09:22pm

phongn wrote:
Nephtys wrote:ME/98/95/3.1 are all based in the end on Dos.
No. Windows 3.1 runs on top of MS-DOS, this is true, but adds a considerable number of features. Disk I/O was no longer DOS-based and WfW 3.1 implemented a new file I/O system. It certainly required and work with DOS, but saying it was based on DOS is, IMHO, not well-supported.

Windows 9X had some weird legacy 16-bit code in it but was not DOS-based and really only used DOS as an interactive bootloader. Windows ME finally got rid of said bootloader.

Don't forget that it also used that "bootloader" to run dos programs.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-12-26 09:30pm

darthdavid wrote:[Don't forget that it also used that "bootloader" to run dos programs.

Win9X runs DOS programs inside a virtual machine (MSDN).

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-12-27 12:51am

phongn wrote:
darthdavid wrote:[Don't forget that it also used that "bootloader" to run dos programs.
Win9X runs DOS programs inside a virtual machine (MSDN).

Running 16bit code in a Virtual machine, in kernel mode is the most horrifying idea I've ever heard of.