New Launcher Coming

[Algernon]

I can't even upgrade to .NET 3.0 on my XP box

Sure you can. Why wouldn't you be able to do this?

System Requirements

• Supported Operating Systems: Longhorn (Windows Code Name) ; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1; Windows Vista; Windows XP Service Pack 2

Are you playing at work?

Alger.

[Landowyn]

Sure you can. Why wouldn't you be able to do this?

System Requirements

• Supported Operating Systems: Longhorn (Windows Code Name) ; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1; Windows Vista; Windows XP Service Pack 2

Are you playing at work?

Alger.

... because it gives me and error every time I try, and I'm retired. I have a a support ticket in to Microsoft, which is trying to solve the problem.

[Death-knell]

... because it gives me and error every time I try, and I'm retired. I have a a support ticket in to Microsoft, which is trying to solve the problem.

Actually I have the same problem on my laptop and desktop. I tried uninstalling and reinstalling the .NET packages but still get the same error. Even reformatted the laptop HD and still same problem.

[celerono]

In my opinion, anything but java would be good. Personally, I don't mind using a browser to log into the game, and though at first, I thought it a little wierd; but the more I used it the more I kinda fealt that anything more seems like it is just eye candy. The fact of it is no matter how VI codes it, someone somewhere will have problems launching the game with either of the options. The only thing I would like to see is compatibality with Mozilla and the link, as I don't use internet explorer either, and its a "very very minor" inconvenience to have to start up IE to get the game going, but not enough to even begin to deter me from playing istaria. Other than Vista and Mozilla comatibility, I personally don't care as long as I don't have to worry about java.


- for those of you having .net problems, are you using ATI video cards? The reason I ask, is my Istaria was crashing, and I checked the system logs, and it was conflicting with the ATI Catalyst Control center. (specifically the .net portion - cant remember the details though) I uninstalled the catalyst control center, but left the ATI Display drivers installed, and have not had a single problem.

[Algernon]

... because it gives me and error every time I try, and I'm retired. I have a a support ticket in to Microsoft, which is trying to solve the problem.

****, That doesn't sound like fun. Sorry to hear of your trouble.

The article at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/908077/en-us might be of use. It is for troubleshooting .net 2 installs but also says it applies to .net 3.0 and 3.5. Appologies if you've already tried this stuff.

Is there a specific error or have you been through all of this already?

Alger.

[Rustayne]

I'd go with whatever is goign to be easiest to get vista people back in the game. I'm one who suffers from not being able to log in with vista, and I just don't got enough money to spend on getting xp for my rig. If you do have a way to make firefox work with the browser login, that be great too, as it has been stated and beaten down and is quite dead now, IE sucks. Hope this helps.

[Bulgrim StoneCleaver]

I'm for whatever solves the problems with VISTA users.

BTW - <waves> "Heya" to those that remember me and those that don't have a clue as to who I am.

I'm gonna be coming back to the game after a long family illness / leave of absence.

Back on topic: I'd forgotten about the launcher system for this game which is pretty out dated. I think Istaria needs something more "today" if it wants to gather more players in and increase platform compatibility.

My two coppers...

[Zexoin]

Well, having a new launcher will NOT fix the Vista troubles. It will help patching, but no way it will allow the game to be launched with not crashes. Only a client fix can do this.

[Ahael]

...The only thing I would like to see is compatibality with Mozilla...

- for those of you having .net problems, are you using ATI video cards? The reason I ask, is my Istaria was crashing, and I checked the system logs, and it was conflicting with the ATI Catalyst Control center. (specifically the .net portion - cant remember the details though) I uninstalled the catalyst control center, but left the ATI Display drivers installed, and have not had a single problem.

Yeah, I'd like to use Firefox to launch the game too. Most often I'm using the current launcher however. .Net, or "pure" .exe, both will do, even Java, as long as the upcoming launcher has all the same options the web launcher has.

And about ATI CCC, I don't use it, I use a 3rd party tool called ATI Tray Tools. It has all bells and whistles and it's no resource hog like the CCC.

[Steelclaw]

The article at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/908077/en-us might be of use. It is for troubleshooting .net 2 installs but also says it applies to .net 3.0 and 3.5. Appologies if you've already tried this stuff.

Is there a specific error or have you been through all of this already?

Alger.

(No, I'm NOT picking on your Alger.)

This is the problem with requiring the user to install extra stuff. It works fine for some to most people, but when it doesn't, theres all sorts of hoops to go through and the person with the problem ultimately has to go through them.

When I said users aren't sysadmins, I didn't mean that they don't have the privileges on the machine (though it appears that's also an issue), I mean that they don't have the background knowledge, confidence, interest or patience to do system administration tasks. For some, uninstalling and upgrading software isn't a big deal. For others, it's a very stressful experience involving sweaty palms, nail biting, and of course, lots of four-letter words (especially when "All you have to do" doesn't cover the exceptional case that just came up.).

But what about Linux users? Don't worry about them. They expect to have to jump through hoops (and Linux isn't a supported OS anyway).

Forget the "You gotta install ____ to make this work" approach (Forget the "we'll install ____ to make this work" approach too! Stay FAR away from that.). Focus on the "I just want it to work so I can play." approach.

[Algernon]

(No, I'm NOT picking on your Alger.)

This is the problem with requiring the user to install extra stuff. It works fine for some to most people, but when it doesn't, theres all sorts of hoops to go through and the person with the problem ultimately has to go through them.

When I said users aren't sysadmins, I didn't mean that they don't have the privileges on the machine (though it appears that's also an issue), I mean that they don't have the background knowledge, confidence, interest or patience to do system administration tasks. For some, uninstalling and upgrading software isn't a big deal. For others, it's a very stressful experience involving sweaty palms, nail biting, and of course, lots of four-letter words (especially when "All you have to do" doesn't cover the exceptional case that just came up.).

But what about Linux users? Don't worry about them. They expect to have to jump through hoops (and Linux isn't a supported OS anyway).

Forget the "You gotta install ____ to make this work" approach (Forget the "we'll install ____ to make this work" approach too! Stay FAR away from that.). Focus on the "I just want it to work so I can play." approach.

Point taken though I'm still in favour of getting the thing working at all in Vista (even I don't fancy the user contributed workaround) before investing in the standalone c++ (or whatever).

Altger

[Garfonso]

No matter what... do it fast

[Malachite]

I have no clue about any of this launcher stuff, i just need to know what buttons to push to make it work. Steelclaw hit it right on with his focus point "Just make it work so I can play."
That way I dont have to drag my husband out of his lair and listen to him swear when I make him figure these things out.
Mal

[Theolaerynn]

Here are some comments on the options, and why I chose the .net launcher option even though as a Software Architect currently using .net I am less than happy with it:


.Net:
First, I request that the patcher be made with 2.0 rather than later versions, because 3.0 and 3.5 are not completely stable platforms. 3.0 does run well on most machines, but definitely not all of them. No sense in risking it, and 2.0 is proven, in as much as the .net framework itself is.

Pros: Rapid conversion and roll-out, considering it is the currently used technology for the launcher. Also, .net itself is designed for rapid development and roll-out.

Cons: .Net is platform-limited, and requires a third party platform be present on client computers.

Java:
Pros: Platform-Agnostic.

Cons: Slow and only moderately stable, and requires a third party platform be present on client computers. Also will take a fair amount of time to redesign and develop the launcher.

Custom executable with minimal dependencies:
Pros: Full access to all code because it is in-house. Requires little to no third party utilities or platforms be present on the client computers, which simplifies installation and reduces or eliminates the risk that the launcher is broken due to changes by third parties. Can be as fast and lean as desired, and is not limited by design decisions of third parties.

Cons: Design and development for ground-up solutions is often an order of magnitude higher in developmental costs and time.


My personal conclusion is that given the staffing and resources currently available to the developers, and given that the launcher would be a minor win comparatively, the unquestionable benefits of a fully custom launcher are outweighed by the time and resource differential versus the .net option.

Java is a good tool for what it was designed for, but I am not fond of the slower response incurred by Just In Time Compilers, or the hit and miss client installation (much like .net 3 and above). When it works it works well enough, but when it flakes out it can be an absolute nightmare for anyone who isn't fairly familiar with the platform. In short, I feel there are too many potential headaches for the average user. If the developers are going to go to the trouble of redesigning the launcher for Java then they might as well go the rest of the way and do a custom executable. Do it in Delphi and they can compile it for Windows and then promptly recompile it for *nix. It is a win/win at that point.

Remember, the highest distribution will be to users who have no real interest in making it work, they just want to play the game.

[Vahrokh]

After playing for years in this game, I am totally positive that WAY WAY too many users won't be able to use / install / find out why is not woking about Java.

"Unhandled exception XX in YYY <follows 1 page of numbers>".

"But my PC always ran Horizons, it's a Pentium 2 with 500M RAM and now it shows a black prompt with an error"

*2 weeks of unsolved tickets*

*farewell thread post*

[Greenclaw1]

Did the pole before reading. If I could do the poll again I'd pick the Java solution.

[Landowyn]

I finally got .NET 3.0 installed. I don't trust Microsoft as far as I can throw them, and I can't even lift an 800-pound gorilla. I spent three weeks getting my second computer to work because it kept telling me I had "limited or no connectivity." I finally found a non-Microsoft solution to the problem on another forum which involved blasting away the old IP and Winsock addresses in my registry.

I'm still voting No. 3

[Dragoniade]

For having coded my own Java patcher when the game was first released, and using a .bat launcher, my personal vote goes for Java. And anyway, newer release of Java already compile the class in native at runtime, so performance is not that much of an issue as it was back then.

I never used, and ever will, use the .NET, nor do I have it installed.

My second vote goes for a C/C++ patcher.

[Theolaerynn]

My second vote goes for a C/C++ patcher.

Just a professional curiosity, why specifically C/C++ as opposed to any other language of similar capabilities?

[Dragoniade]

Just a professional curiosity, why specifically C/C++ as opposed to any other language of similar capabilities?

The third option was "Full executable with minimal dependencies". To me, that's the native language which Windows is coded and which the native DLL can be loaded: C or C++.

Otherwise, what are the other language option? Most require some 3rd party libraries to be installed, which sort of put them to the same level as Java or .NET in term of dependencies. Visual Basic for instance. as for other language, I don't know as many that would run 'natively' or close to. And Assembly would be WAY overkill for that