Try DOSBox. They are also additional add-on software that you can install to have a nice UI (aka: Frontends) to configure DosBox and have a auto-launch icon (runs DOSBox + configures it + run your game.. all in one shot for you, by double clicking on a icon). I haven't tried the game under DOSBox though.
problem is, its only for 32 bit windows, and this is what I mean that these OS's arnt natively backwards compatible...is it really that hard to do?
@ azrael, you are correct in saying that 32bit systems can address 4gb+ but it involves some pretty tricking memory paging algorithms and major system changes, as well as large performance and memory overheads, there honestly is no real incentive to do so when a 64bit system is simpler to implement, has no overhead and is future proof for the foreseeable future. @kalcifer, you could try run grim fandango in XP mode on win7 or just as easily run dosbox
Huh? DOSBox runs on my Win7 64-bit just fine. I don't have the game to test though. Backward compatible IS hard to do. Let alone support it. Either the game was badly programed, or is or has part made in 16-bit. You can try VirtualBox - install XP on it, as it supports basic 3D support (Win 7 XPMode does not)... so your game should work on it.
Actually my old 32-bit machine had 6GB working to a degree by use of the "36-bit" option made available by use of Physical Address Extension (PAE) which in theory could allow upto 64GB on 32-bit Windows 7
32 or 64bit w7 it depends on your games. first let me put you on the right track. YES THE 4GB LIMIT does still exists on 32bit. if your games will run on a 64bit w7 then i would go for the 64bit version and max out your ram. if they only run on 32 bit w7 then sell 3gb of the ram and stay on 32bit. dont stick 6gb on 32 bit os as it will just go to waste and you will see no difference.
if you have windows 7 professional like me just download "windows xp mode" from microsoft its a free download from there site and its xp professional and you can set it to only run certain apps in xp mode so its dosnt emulate the whole os it would be better to do this then use virtualbox for xp not that im saying it isnt a very good program becasue i use it myself im just saying emulating full os's is very slow unless you have powerful processor and even then its not that quick
you must use 64 bit in order to fully avail power of you pc you are expressing 32 bit it think is not capable of handling such a machine
Exactly, you cannot simply phase the foundations of an OS out that have been used since they started coming out. i find its generally only the people that have good knowledge of pc's that are concerned with 64 bit architecture. Windows XP is probably still the most commonly used OS, and i bet most people wont have the x64 version of that. Its going to take a while....
No it's not..., not in opinion, that is. People are starting to realize that they are limited to 3.x GB of RAM, and they notice that the HDD space are limited to 2TB (can't have bigger per drive because the index address is only 32-bit long under a 32-bit OS). Hence, why we magically stop to halt with 2 TB drives.. companies wonder if they research more onto capacity or speed or SSD's. It's estimated that Windows 7 has 10% market share about 2 months ago, world wide, and it's growing more and more, as businesses switches, and as people get new computers. Windows 8 will be 64-bit only. Already Windows 7 was supposed to be 64-bit only. An exception was done, mostly because of early netbooks that had 32-bit CPU's, they are other factors of course. As of now, all new CPU's are 64-bit, even VIA's, so there is no need to produce the 64-bit version of Windows anymore.
Your last point is a very good one, however with the first 2 points it sounds like you have repeated what i have said in different words?
Sorry, I miss read.. Your points are identical to mine, and I indeed re-word them. Let me rectify my post.
Might want to edit the last sentence of your post to 32 bit mate ;-) unless that what you were meant to write? Ill stop picking on your posts now... lol
That is exactly what I meant, without all the spelling and grammar mistakes. To clarify: - I am talking about CPU's based on the x86 architecture for PC's. Obviously I am not talking about ARM or other processors out there, which Windows doesn't support. - And, I am talking about new CPU release... if a 32-bit CPU still being produced or a computer with only a 32-bit is being sold, that is different story. I am talking about new releases of CPU. For instance, the new Atom's are 64-bit, while the early ones were 32-bit.
Sorry mate, this is what i meant. im completely agree with you - this just doesnt make any sense... the point you make is absolutely correct, its just a typo
Standard now is 64bit, was skeptical 2 years ago but now wouldn't recommend anything other than 64bit.
