Jump to content
brianc1327

SimCity 2000

14 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

The other day (well actually longer than that, I think it was actually several weeks to several months ago), I was faffing about and found a site called "abondonware.com" (or something like that), and one of the programs on it was an online version of SimCity 2000.  For nostalgia's sake, I played it for a little while.  Although I found it kinda interesting, I got the nostalgia out of my system in about 10 or 20 minutes.

Although SC2000 is sort of fun, SC4K is a better game in just about every measurable sense.  It has better graphics, it can be expanded with mods from STEX, SC4devotion, and probably lots of other places, the maps are more "customizable" (I think), etc.

I also found another on-line game that was like SimCity, but I don't remember where.  Except for my 10-20 minute nostalgia fix, I haven't played SC2000 in years, and don't think I ever played the original, so I can't say which one it is more like.

I also think you can play, or at least used to be able to play the original game on EA's (or Maxis, or whoever owns them now) site.

I also used to have a disc for SC3000, and I probably still do, somewhere, but I just can't find it.  I looked on amazon and ebay, and could not find any copies of it for a price that I am willing to pay, so unless I either find it online like SC2000, or find the disc I already own, that is a game I just will not be playing in the near future.

As for the next game in the series, SC5, SC2013, or whatever it is called, I have not played it, so I cannot say from personal experience, but I have heard that it is actually a "worse" game than SC4K.

Brian Christiansen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't find an online version, but SimCity 2000 retail is on abandonware.com as a non-abandonware product linked to gog.com for purchase as a digital download.  SC3K is also on gog.com for digital download.   The game you must have played online is SimCity Classic which has been renamed Micropolis and released as free software under GPL 3. license. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • No, it was SimCity 2000: <Mod Edit - Link removed>.  Thsi may be an "illegal" copy, but that is the problem of the uploader and/or Maxis, not mine.

    Brian Christiansen

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Its a DOS version of the game.   Although 'Abandonware' is not an exact or a legal term, it recognizes the copyright which is identified on the site.   As long as the copyright is identified the DOS version is 'okay' under the general interpretation of 'Abandonware' as DOS is no longer distributed.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • 54 minutes ago, RandyE said:

    Its a DOS version of the game

    Uhh...yes it is, but I never said that I found/played a "Windows version" in the first place.  I didn't think this game had a "Windows version" in the first place.

     

    1 hour ago, RandyE said:

    As long as the copyright is identified the DOS version is 'okay' under the general interpretation of 'Abandonware' as DOS is no longer distributed

    I think this brings up a much more important issue anyway.  In the guidelines for this site, one of them is:

    d) Anything relating to the pirating, or copying, of any software game title.

    What does that even mean?

    If, for example, I make the statement that it is possible to use bittorrent (or some other method) to illegally download games or anime, am I encouraging piracy?  I don't think so.  While many people just aren't gamers and have no interest in downloading games, legal or illegal, they are aware that it can be done, so I am not telling anyone anything they don't alredady know.

    If I give detailed instructions on how to set up your computer for bittorrent, such as installing whatever software, doing this, that, and the other, am I encouraging it.  Again, I don't think so:

    Like I said, there are people just not interested in doing so, either for ethical reasons or they just are not gamers (or anime-watchers) in the first place.

    There are many legitimate uses for bittorrent: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/8-legal-uses-for-bittorrent-youd-be-surprised/, it isn't just for downloading illegal anime and games.

    Even if it were, would merely telling someone how the set up their computer be "encouraging" it.  You might think that it is, and might even be able to make a compelling argument for that, but I do not think it is.

    If I go to a site that has currently copyrighted games and download one via bittorent, I am participating in piracy.  If I run a site(or make available on bittorrent) a game that is currently copyrighted (that I don't hold the copyright to, if I own the copyright, I can distribute it in anyway I see fit, or at least I think I can), I am participating in piracy. 

    If I merely tell people that such games are located at "www.pirate_these_games_illegally.com" (not a real website, or at least I don't think it is), am I encouraging piracy? If I go to such a site, and they have it set up so I can play this game online, and I do go and play it, am I encouraging piracy?  Again, I don't think so.

    Brian Christiansen

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

     

     

    4 hours ago, brianc1327 said:

    Thsi may be an "illegal" copy, but that is the problem of the uploader and/or Maxis, not mine.

    No, using an illegal version of something is the problem of the person using it as well. The law doesn't care if you thought something was OK or not, laws apply regardless. So if I tell you stealing a car is OK, that doesn't make me responsible for you taking one. Although it may be I could also get into trouble, that wouldn't absolve you of blame either.

    Note: DO NOT steal cars people, unless you are playing GTA or something.

    3 hours ago, RandyE said:

    As long as the copyright is identified the DOS version is 'okay' under the general interpretation of 'Abandonware' as DOS is no longer distributed.

    Abandonware is NOT a legal term, it's a made up one to justify re-distribution of software without proper rights. This does not remove the rights of the copyright owner to seek legal redress for usage, nor does it protect users from such action against them. Just because it's super-unlikely you'll get caught and punished, does not mean it's technically legal.

    The problem with Abandonware is the assumption these games are no longer for sale and therefore free to redistribute. However the DOS version of SC2K is being sold on GoG today, telling me this product is not abandonware at all. EA own it and the rights to it and if they so desired, could sue anyone using it without having obtained a genuine licence to play it.

    1 hour ago, brianc1327 said:

    I didn't think this game had a "Windows version" in the first place.

    I have the CD sitting on my shelf, the Windows version is vastly superior to the DOS one but only works under 16-bit environments natively.

    1 hour ago, brianc1327 said:

    If I merely tell people that such games are located at "www.pirate_these_games_illegally.com" (not a real website, or at least I don't think it is), am I encouraging piracy? If I go to such a site, and they have it set up so I can play this game online, and I do go and play it, am I encouraging piracy?  Again, I don't think so.

    Of all your assumptions, this is probably the least valid. By providing people with links to sites with pirated content you would be in direct violation of ST policy. Sure you aren't telling people to go steal software, but nonetheless our rules on this point should be crystal clear: there is zero tolerance for the discussion of piracy, illegal game hacks and the like. As such if I need to step in again for violations of the following, please expect sanctions to be handed out:

    Quote

    5. Prohibited Actions
    It is strictly and expressly prohibited to post or upload:

    a) Anything referring to CD keys or no CD cracks.
    b) Any content malicious to computer hardware or software, such as viruses.
    c) Any content that violates another person's privacy.
    d) Anything relating to the pirating, or copying, of any software game title.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    gog.com needs to make a correction to the title of the game being sold as a digital Windows version. 

    SimCity™ 2000 Special Edition Windows + Mac English

    People are complaining that its a DOS version that requires DOSBox to run.   The title makes it look like it runs on Windows and Mac as Windows and Mac versions. 

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • 1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

    there is zero tolerance for the discussion of piracy, illegal game hacks and the like.

    So then, let me try to get this straight, a statement such as "software piracy is something that happens, but is not a good thing to do for the following reasons: 1..." is bad?  Mentioning piracy in any context, even if it is a discussion about how to change copyright laws, or enforcement of those laws, to discourage it, is bad? Both of those mention it, but neither one encourages it, says it is "good," something that is justifiable in certain situations, or even mentions any illegal download sites.  I apologize for linking to the site, but would it be illegal to say that this site can be found rather easily with a google search, as I think that is pretty common knowledge that even illegal sites can be found with google searches.  Just trying to make sense of the rules.

    I somewhat understand having rules against having links to sites with illegal software or detailed instructions on how to do it.  On the other hand, having rules against merely mentioning that it exists, that some people do it, or that copyright laws (to presumably prevent it) are inconsistent across the globe and thus need to be "fixed," which the site rules could be interpreted as saying is just, well, basically, in my opinion, silly.

    What if a company releases a game, releases it as the freely available, but stipulates that the only way to get it legally is through their site(I am not a copyright lawyer so I am not sure what the legal term would be:"public domain," "creative commons," or what the proper legal term would be.).  If I mention that this can be done, and link to the site where this can be done  but am only, say 99.9% sure of this, with the remaining .1% doubt remaining that it might be a site that is run by some jolly joker that is using the logo of that particular company, am I "encouraging piracy" because I am not 100% certain.  Just trying to make sense of the rules.

    What if I forget the site, but mention that it can easily be found by doing a google search, and somebody decides they want to try this game and does the google search, and gets 2 results.  One of them is the site where it can be dowloaded legally, and another is a site where it and other games can be downloaded, but not so legally.  Is that "encouraging piracy" since it ultimately leads or at least can lead to a site where software can be pirated.  Just trying to make sense of the rules.

    What if a company releases a game into the public domain (which I think means that anyone can make it available on any site they want to), link to a site that has it and a bunch of other games on it, some of which might be legal, and others which might not be, and I explicitly say to make sure any other game on that site is in the public domain(or at least has a license that allows for other people to distribute the game.  Is that "encouraging piracy" since it can at least potentially lead to illegal downloads.  Just trying to make sense of the rules.

    What if I link to a technical article about electronic copyright protection, and it talks about some ways that various methods can be broken(even if just by naming them, and not giving any technical details about how they are done), and which are better and worse ways to implement copy right protection.  Is this a violation since the article could at least potentially lead to someone cracking the protection on a piece of software to illegally distribute it.  Just trying to make sense of what I think are very unclear rules,

    Or what if I put forth the opinion that copyright should be totally done away with, and everything should be publicly and legally available from day 1.  I do not hold that opinion, and am not certain if I could or would even want to make a "good" argument for that, but that is irrelevant.  Is that somehow against the rules? Is Simtropolis now in the business of deciding what opinions are "right" and "wrong?"  Just trying to make sense of what I think are very unclear rules. 

    Nozomi Entertainment has a channel on YouTube that has a lot of good shows on it (or at least shows that I like), and I am 99.9% sure (in fact over 99.9% sure) that it is by a company that has the legal right to do so.  I suppose that that a .01% doubt still remains that it might be a jolly joker just using the Nozomi Entertainment logo, but I am pretty sure that if that were the case, it would have been shut down by the powers that be at Youtube and/or Nozomi Entertainment long ago(or at least long ago in relation to how long YouTube has been around).

    On the other hand, there is, or at least used to be an upload of the dub of "Pretty Cure" (I don't think it still is, at least not by that uploader). I have somewhat opposite feeling about that, that the probability that it was uploaded by someone that does not have the legal right to do so is over 90%, with at most a small chance that it was uploaded by someone who has the legal right to do so.

    Whatever the case is, I don't think I am doing anything wrong by enjoying the dub of "Pretty Cure" until such time as the powers that be at YouTube/Toei Animation(at least that is who I think produced it originally)/the dubbing company either decide to have it taken down or decide that it is fine that it is up and take no action against the original uploader.  I also don't think that my merely telling people that this dub exists (if it still does) is doing anything wrong, since it is relatively easy to find this upload or perhaps another one if this one is not still there.

    I have a Singer Featherweight sewing machine that is probably from the mid to late 40's, and I suppose could be called my inheritance from my late mother.  The Singer company might have been started with some dirty financial deals, or they might have had an illegal monopoly on sewing machines (at least in the 1800's, or early 1900's).  Heck, even the person that originally sold it to my mother might have obtained it by some illegal means. None of those things have any bearing on whether it is "wrong" for me to sew with it today. 

    Even if I personally stole it, that would be both wrong and illegal (I don't think the 2 words are necessarily synonymous, but in this case they are), selling it would be both wrong and illegal.  I don't know about the legality of merely sewing on it, but I do not think it would be "wrong" to do so.  If I made a quilt on this stolen machine, would the quilt be somehow illegal or "wrong" because it was made on a stolen machine.  I don't think it would be either one.

    Even though a sewing machine from the 40's might not have, at least on the surface anything to do with software, I bring it up to help explain, at least why I think there is a difference between "wrong" and "illegal." Or, as I asked before, is Simtropolis now in the business of deciding whether someone's opinions are "right" or "wrong."

    The show RWBY is available on lots of streaming sites, such as YouTube, Cruchyroll, Rooster Teeth's own site, probably many others.  I have no idea if the license for that show says it can be put up only by people that have explicit permission from Rooster Teeth, or if anyone can put it on any site they want to, which would essentially make it public domain.

    Suppose it is public domain, or at least has a license that allows it to be put on whatever site anyone wants to.  If a viewer goes to a streaming site that has RWBY on it, but the other shows are not legal uploads, but the viewer watches only RWBY, is he doing anything wrong by merely going to this site.  I don't know anything about the legal status of what he is doing, but I don't think he is doing any thing "wrong."

    Second, I just did not know there was a windows version of SC2000, but it depends on what the highest version of windows it can run on (without an emulator, such as DOSBOX, because with an emulator, I could run it on a LINUX machine, to whatever degree of success).  If the highest version is 3.1, then it is definitely a DOS game, as windows 3.1 is a graphical "operating environment" for DOS, and not an OS.  If the highest is windows 95, there seems to be some controversy as to whether Windows 95 is and OS or just a graphical "operating environment" for DOS, but it still has to have an underlying DOS.  Windows 98(or maybe it's windows2000) and higher, I believe, are operating systems unto themselves, and might have a "DOS-like" command line, but there is no actual underlying DOS.

    Brian Christiansen

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    A Windows version in this case would be one which does not require DOSBox but has either been reformatted to run as a Windows program or is the original release for Windows 95/98/ME.  According to Wikipedia: "SimCity 2000 was released by Maxis in 1993 for computers running Apple Macintosh Operating System. It was later released on the Amiga, DOS and Microsoft Windows, followed by a release for OS/2."  

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    5 hours ago, rsc204 said:

    d) Anything relating to the pirating, or copying, of any software game title.

    What this really means is that you can't discuss how to do it, obtain it or link to articles that do likewise. Within reason discussion can be made around the subject, but we reserve the right to remove any postings that we feel violate the sites terms and conditions. I think ultimately we have better things to do than fight with lawyers and deal with DCMA takedown requests, so we'd prefer to be pro-active on this front.

    I'm not going to respond to each and every one of your points in great detail, as I really don't feel that should be necessary. Obviously you've taken me pointing out this rule as some sort of catch all, which it is not. However you did post a link which I removed because it potentially violates the rule.

    52 minutes ago, brianc1327 said:

    What if a company releases a game, releases it as the freely available, but stipulates that the only way to get it legally is through their site...

    ... am I "encouraging piracy" because I am not 100% certain

    If there is a legal method to obtain the software, why would we have a problem with linking to it? Of course if that turned out not to be the case, but we felt you acted in good faith, our actions would probably be no more than to remove said link. You know, much like I did earlier. We are actually reasonable people.

    52 minutes ago, brianc1327 said:

    What if a company releases a game into the public domain (which I think means that anyone can make it available on any site they want to), link to a site that has it and a bunch of other games on it, some of which might be legal, and others which might not be

    Linking to a site with pirated content, even if not all content there is pirated, is verboten.

    52 minutes ago, brianc1327 said:

    Whatever the case is, I don't think I am doing anything wrong by enjoying the dub of "Pretty Cure" until such time as the powers that be at YouTube/Toei Animation(at least that is who I think produced it originally)/the dubbing company either decide to have it taken down or decide that it is fine that it is up and take no action against the original uploader.

    Whatever you think, laws still apply in all cases. If you need a licence to watch/listen to something, but don't have one, you can be personally held liable. Just because someone opens the bank's safe and puts a sign out in the street showing you where to find the money, doesn't make it legal for you to take what isn't yours. Similarly, just because YouTube or some other site hosts illegal content, it doesn't protect you because you assumed it was legal to watch it.

    Of course legal theory is one thing, actually finding yourself in trouble is another. You could perhaps use the defence you thought content on a legitimate site was legal, but without testing it in court, it's hard to say which way that would go. Technically though, you have still viewed the content without an appropriate licence to do so, which is in violation of the laws of most countries. In reality, in such cases the site gets a DCMA and the content is removed, rarely do the individuals end up in trouble for having used it. But that's more down to the impracticalities of doing so, than because you were in the right. Don't think for a moment that the copyright holders wouldn't love to start making examples out of everyone doing it.

    52 minutes ago, brianc1327 said:

    is Simtropolis now in the business of deciding whether someone's opinions are "right" or "wrong."

    That's a fairly loaded question that simply misses the point. We are simply looking to protect the site and it's users, by ensuring such content is not linked or otherwise made available from here. Likewise, this isn't a democracy, it's a Dirktatorship, so yes we (the site) can decide what you can and can't get up to here. That said, we judge every case on it's own merits and I like to think we're pretty fair about handling such issues.

    52 minutes ago, brianc1327 said:

    Heck, even the person that originally sold it to my mother might have obtained it by some illegal means. None of those things have any bearing on whether it is "wrong" for me to sew with it today. 

    If the item was stolen, it can not by definition be your property. If you are found in possession of goods that can be proven to be owned by another person/entity, the authorities will confiscate it and you could be prosecuted for having them. As for what you've been using it for or making with it, that's a very complex legal area and would depend on the circumstances.

    52 minutes ago, brianc1327 said:

    Second, I just did not know there was a windows version of SC2000, but it depends on what the highest version of windows it can run on (without an emulator, such as DOSBOX, because with an emulator, I could run it on a LINUX machine, to whatever degree of success).  If the highest version is 3.1, then it is definitely a DOS game, as windows 3.1 is a graphical "operating environment" for DOS, and not an OS.  If the highest is windows 95, there seems to be some controversy as to whether Windows 95 is and OS or just a graphical "operating environment" for DOS, but it still has to have an underlying DOS.  Windows 98(or maybe it's windows2000) and higher, I believe, are operating systems unto themselves, and might have a "DOS-like" command line, but there is no actual underlying DOS.

    There is, I've owned it for about 20 years and as I said, it's sitting on my shelf. It's playable under WinXP without emulation, but newer versions lack 16-bit compatibility so the installer won't work. Although you can use a workaround for that and run the app natively under Win7. However computers are simply so fast today, the game doesn't really work right, personally I wouldn't find myself playing it any time soon. Even without the problems, SC4 is just so far ahead of SC2K.

    Win 95 can not reasonably be called a GUI for DOS, it merely uses DOS to initiate the operating system, although the underlying systems are very similar. That's like me saying your linux system is simply GRUB with a GUI, GRUB is simply there to facilitate loading the OS.

    DOS's legacy is still present in the Command Line in Windows to this day. On the consumer side it was not removed from the boot sequence until Windows XP, Windows 2000 being the last variant of NT and anything but intended for consumers. Windows 95 did use DOS for the boot loader and offered the ability to fully run the system under a DOS or Windows environment. This is true of all 9x variants of Windows, right up to the ME edition. But the main reason for DOS sticking around so long is that users needed legacy compatibility for DOS applications. You'd be shocked at the corporations using DOS today, although they typically have a shell that handles the interface under Windows. Ever tried to move 30 million customer records from a database to a new system? There is often no practical way to do it, some many big organisations simply never did. Instead isolating their servers and processes and sticking with DOS to this day. If MS had removed DOS from Windows in 95, it would have been a sales disaster.

    The distinction between it and Win 3.x is that you needed to install DOS in order to get Win 3.x onto your system in the first place. Windows 95 did not have such a requirement, even if the DOS compatibility layer was somehow intertwined with installing/booting Windows. So no, Win95 was not a GUI for DOS, although you could say Win 3.x was, but even that isn't technically correct in many ways. Anyone who thinks Win95 was simply a GUI for DOS, clearly doesn't understand the inner workings of Windows well enough to distinguish the two.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • 3 hours ago, rsc204 said:

    However you did post a link which I removed because it potentially violates the rule.

    If you're talking about the link to the article for the legitimate uses of bittorrent, it dedicates at most one sentence to the fact that many people associate it with piracy, but the rest of it was about legitimate uses for it.  I don't think it even had links or instructions on how to actually use bittorrent, legitimately or illegitimately. 

    I am still massively confused about what I think are massively unclear rules, but I don't think a case could even be made for this site even potentially violating the rules, at least as they have been explained to me.

     

    3 hours ago, rsc204 said:

    We are actually reasonable people.

    I have yet to see any thing that really leads me to that conclusion.

    3 hours ago, rsc204 said:

    Just because someone opens the bank's safe and puts a sign out in the street showing you where to find the money, doesn't make it legal for you to take what isn't yours

    That is kind of a ridiculous analogy because if I took the money, I would be physically taking some thing, if I actually installed some kind of software to download a video, I would be physically taking something (or more technically making an illegal copy of something, and for at least some YouTube videos making copies is perfectly legal), but if I merely watch it, I have done neither of those things, and saying that it is illegal because a temporary copy is made, would make the entire internet illegal.

    Just because I have good reason to believe that the Nozomi Entertainment shows are put up by a company that has the legal right to do so, and that the dub of Pretty Cure is not (or was not, I am pretty certain that particular upload is not there), does not make either one so, and the only reasonable conclusion, at least to me, is that stuff that is on YouTube is legal to watch (I still think that is a different matter from if it is "wrong") until such time as the powers that be at YouTube can show that it is not legal for it to be there or a court rules on what exactly is and is not legal content on YouTube, and whether it is or is not legal for someone to merely watch it.

    There are links to many tutorials on YouTube on how to make fancy interchanges using NAM, how to basically play SC4, how to make a money making city, etc.  The links don't go to just the video, but the general "YouTube" interface where other YouTube videos, whether legally uploaded or not can be viewed, or a gaming channel might play a pirated game, and give a link to where the YouTuber illegally downloaded it from.  Also the description of most videos have links, most have several, and at least some might have or lead to sites with illegal software, and I quote the following: "Linking to a site with pirated content, even if not all content there is pirated, is verboten," thus I contend that several of the posts on this site, at least some of which, that as far as I can tell, are put up by site administrators, violate the rules of the site, at least as how they have been explained to me so far.

    I again quote the following: "Linking to a site with pirated content, even if not all content there is pirated, is verboten."  I think that any link that the user sees, could potentially meet that definition.  A link to Youtube might lead to pirated videos.  A link to flickr might have pirated pictures, even if the pictures from that specific user are not. An online radio station might have pirated music.  There is just no way to tell, and any site might have pirated content.

    I have heard of legitimate software companies having worked with web developers and cancelling the contract, but using some of the material that the web developer developed without paying for is so even a link to a "legitimate" company site might have "pirated" or at least "stolen" content, though the company might claim that it is legitimately theirs.  There is simply no way to have an internet at all without pirated content somewhere, even if "by accident," or if there is "controversy" as to whether the content is pirated or stolen.

    Some companies may not like the fact that their content might be pirated, but I think they would like it even less if there were no internet, even though it means that their content might be pirated.

    Suppose I put up a link to a site that has games (or at least says it has games) that are either creative commons or public domain.  Is the burden of proof on me to prove they are not lying about this?  What if they make a mistake and accidentally put up a game that is not under either license, and don't catch it and presumably do remove it when they discover the error until several people have downloaded it.  Am I responsible for such accidents at least potentially happening.

    3 hours ago, rsc204 said:

    Anyone who thinks Win95 was simply a GUI for DOS

    I didn't say that I was the one that thought that, but that there are those that do. I quote the following from the superuser site:

    "Around 2000 when I was starting my Computer science degree, a subject was Operating systems. The teacher asked us to list a few OS. I said Windows 95.

    I was immediately shot down. Windows 95 wasn't on OS, as it used DOS to boot up. The actual OS was DOS, Win 95 was just a graphical wrapper around it.(and this was from a computer science professor, not the opinion of the waitress a Denny's, parenthetical statement mine)

    I pointed that all trade magazines called Win95 an OS, but was told that they were run by laymen, and as a professional, I should know better. DOS was the only OS from Microsoft, at least till Win2K came out later that year."

    My opinion is that Win95 and perhaps Win98 and perhaps ME (that is a win 9x operating system as well) were sort of "transitions" between DOS being Microsoft's flagsip operating system and various versions of Windows being their flagship operating system.

    Some backwards compatiblility had to be maintained between windows XP and older 16 bit systems, but the backwards compatibility was far from "perfect," and created a lot of problems.  I say this because I did technical support for XP for I think about 2 years when it came out, and did indeed know that this attempted backward compatibility did indeed, create a lot of problems.

    I was at best OK, but I can say with a high degree of certainty and confidence that maintaining this backward compatibility created several problems and simply was not possible in some cases, and that the only way that 100% backward compatibility could be maintained is to to make no changes whatsoever to the OS leaving them forever stuck at DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.1 or whatever they happened to be at.

    As for 16-bit programs running on later versions of windows I quote the following, which is from the actual Microsoft support site:

    Question: I am running on Windows 7. Windows 7 will not run16 bit programs, e.g. Dbase III. Windows XP will run 16 bit programs. How can I incorporate windows XP which will run 16 bit programs?

    Asnswer: Yes you can, run Windows 7 and Windows XP like Dual-boot. 
    (Does not say anything about making the program actually run on windows 7)

    Question: Is Windows 7 able to run 16 bit installers under XP mode?

    Answer: Assuming you can run the program on Windows XP, you might be able to run it. If you meet the hardware requirements you can go ahead and try it out.

    Question (or issue, in this case): How to run 16 bit DOS *.EXE files? (It worked on XP in a DOS window. Doesn't on Win 7) Also, *.EXE files created in XP creates a message asking for 32 bit or 64 bit. How to run these as well?

    Answer1: "64-bit versions of Windows do not support 16-bit components, 16-bit processes, or 16-bit applications, https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/896458/64-bit-versions-of-windows-do-not-support-16-bit-components-16-bit-pro," whic goes on further to say: "In order to run a 16-bit program or a 32-bit program that uses 16-bit processes or 16-bit components, you must install the program on a 32-bit version of Windows. In order to run such a program, you can install a 32-bit version of Windows in a dual-boot configuration with the 64-bit version of Windows. Then, you can restart your computer to the 32-bit version of Windows and install the 16-bit program or 32-bit program that uses 16-bit processes or 16-bit components. " Says nothing about there being some work around to make the 16 bit program work on 64 bit versions.  There might have been one found since this article was posted, but I don't think it is either officially endorsed or supported.

    For running 16 bit programs on windows 8, Microsoft says the following:

    "It's true of Windows 8 64-bit as well - 16 bit programs just aren't supported, because they're so old. Microsoft can't maintain support for everything forever. You have a couple of options:

    You could dual-boot with a 32-bit OS - This would let you run Windows 8 or switch to XP to run the map program. Do you still have your copy of XP?

    You could downgrade Win8 to 32 bit which might let you run the program, but that's an extreme solution for one program. There's also still no guarantee the program would work.

    You could make a "virtual machine" in Virtualbox, which would let you run Windows XP inside Windows 8, and you could run the map program on that. That's actually what I would suggest.

    There are ways to run your program, but none of them are simple, quick and easy solutions, I'm afraid."

    I think MS has clearly moved away from 16-bit support, though somebody somewhere may have found a workaround, and there are perhaps companies that provide backward compatibility for 16 bit systems, and virtualbox at least claims to be able to run operating systems as "low" as Windows 3.1, though getting actual installation disks are another problem entirely because at least my computer does not have a 3.5 inch floppy disk drive.

    I also think that within 10 years, if not sooner, they will be moving away from 32-bit support.  There will no doubt be workarounds such as dual-booting, virtual machines, etc., but I think that Microsoft will move away from the operating system directly supporting it because it pretty much has to to keep moving forward.

    Brian Christiansen

     

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Although the EA and Origin data systems are often unstable, as a customer, I have an account, so I am now in process of attempting to actually download and install:

    SimCity 2000™ SPECIAL EDITION © 1995 ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.

    Which according to EA/Origin I already do own as it was offered as free with purchase of other major games, Battlefield 3 and SimCity 2013 and all DLCs.

    Which pirate is which?   The data system is failing to function correctly as usual, so, it looks like about 2 to 4 hrs of my time will be 'stolen' attempting to actually download what I am told I actually do own by actual honest purchase of actual products.

    At about $40 an hour for technical skilled work that means EA/Origin will owe me from $80 to $160 for services regardless of whether I successfully download and install a game worth $5 that I already own for free.

    Okay, here goes...  I'll report the results...

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • 1 hour ago, RandyE said:

    SimCity 2000™ SPECIAL EDITION © 1995 ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.

    Did you not get it at all, did you get a corrupted copy, or will a 22-year simply not install on what I am pretty certain is a newer system, even if it has been ported to the slightly newer operating systems XP(17 years old, I believe) and Vista (11 years old).  I do not think they have any obligation to do that.  If it is ported or recompiled for say a newer operating system such as windows 8 or 10, then they might have such an obligation, but even then they simply cannot guarantee that there is not something running on the system that interferes with their game.

    Brian Christiansen

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    This is what I mean, before we can even get to the issue of exactly what specs were talking about and how and if it will install on my Windows 8.1, so far I have verified the account only to waste nearly 1 hour only to be told 'sign in is currently unavailable'.   So that's 1hr. @$40  for technical services billed to EA/Origin.   I'm up $35 against the $5 value of the game which according to them I own for free anyway.   I think I like doing business with EA/Origin.  *:thumb: 

    EDIT:

    1 more hour spent to successfully navigate through the errors in the EA/Origin data system to get to the actual download.   More unknown errors in download and install inciting user to spend/waste further effort and time for no good reason.   So that's now 2hrs. @40 for tech. services.   I'm up $75, but if I want to proceed I'll have to offer my technical services to EA/Origin for another 2 hrs. diagnosing their lack of technical skill    Total Cost to EA/Origin: $155 for giving me a free game worth $5.  I think I'll just offer my services to EA/Origin as the new CEO of the company.      

     


      Edited by RandyE  

    Highly Profitable Technical Difficulties

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an Account  

    Sign up to join our friendly community. It's easy!  

    Register a New Account

    Sign In  

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now


    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×

    Help Keep Simtropolis Online, Open & Free!

    stexcollection-header.png

    Would you be able to help us catch up after a bit of a shortfall?

    We had a small shortfall last month. Your donation today would help us catch up for this month.

    Make a Donation, Get a Gift!

    We need to continue to raise enough money each month to pay for expenses which includes hardware, bandwidth, software licenses, support licenses and other necessary 3rd party costs.

    By way of a "Thank You" gift, we'd like to send you our STEX Collector's DVD. It's some of the best buildings, lots, maps and mods collected for you over the years. Check out the STEX Collections for more info.

    Each donation helps keep Simtropolis online, open and free!

    Thank you for reading and enjoy the site!

    More About STEX Collections