Disk images would be cool for sure. But, audio tracks aside, I'd be happier with the files we'd have after installation, plus any patches GOG needs to do to defeat CD checks or such. Problem with CDs is that the files often come packaged in some weird proprietary format and extracting them can be a pain in the ass, especially if copy protection and such aren't defeated. And if it is the original disk images, they sure aren't defeated!

I note that most of the XP fanboys who will just not move beyond XP are also Linux fanatics.

I wonder how those less "tech-savvy" people are buying games if they can't even download Galaxy.
And then how are they going to download those Galaxy-bundled-game-installers if they can't even download Galaxy?

I know, makes sense... right? O_o

Good point. Guess we need a new wishlist.
Some of the "arguments" the GOG shills make make me wonder, tho. ;p

Wrong, I like Linux (And it's offshoots), but I don't use XP.

Hopefully they will allow you to check a checkbox stored in the registry "[x] no I don't want Galaxy [x] please don't ask me this again in future game installations" however.

If not, it can probably either be:

- passed to the installer with a commandline option to innosetup

- binary hacked into the installer files with a script (someone would have to figure it out, probably not hard)

- decompose the innosetup files with innounp/innoextract etc., modify the packaging and repackage via a script

None of those are guaranteed possible with any sort of ease, but they're potentially worth exploring for someone so inclined. I've toyed around with making custom packages of some of my GOG games previously and it wasn't too difficult, so the possibility is there for someone bored enough to do it. The results wouldn't be redistributable, but any scripts/utilities one might make to do it would be.

Just an update on this (I'd forgotten about this until just now): I did play Gothic 1 on my Win7 rig (64 bit) and it worked just fine. In fact, I played all of them on my Win7 rig. So Gothic 1 definitely works on more than just XP and Vista.

Glad to hear that! Probably publisher haven't tested it on Windows 7/8/10. Or there are reasons that we are not aware of.
Nonetheless my question applies to any title, not only Gothic 1. Pretty sure there are games on GOG, which work only on XP/Vista.

Yeah, absolutely, this doesn't invalidate your point at all.Just wanted to let you know Gothic works on Win7.

This will not help at all in the case of Wine as you usually run games in separate prefixes.

Well, you said yourself Origin doesn't support XP anymore, so...

Steam, on the other hand, was developed originally in the XP/2000 era, which explains better why it still might have support for XP.

I am quite sure they will drop XP support in the Steam client at some point. I was there when Steam suddenly dropped support for Windows 2000 (my PC at the time was running Windows 2000, and I had Steam on it), the client simply refused to work on 2000 and gave a note that it doesn't support Windows 2000 anymore.

XP support in Steam may be prolonged due to ten billion Chinese still using it, apparently. But when those finally migrate to something newer, *poof*.

I've also been running Gothic (GOG) on two different Windows 7 PCs fine.

I can understand there is a difference between XP and Vista/7 (e.g. Aero in Vista/7 caused the "rainbow color" glitch in many games, didn't it?)... but I can't understand why some game would run fine on Vista but not on 7? Aren't those two Windows version quite much the same, a bit like Windows98 and Windows98SE? Ie. if there are some compatibility issues in Windows 7, then they will probably happen also on Vista?

Or do you have some examples of games which work just fine in Vista, but if you run the on Windows 7 on that same PC, problems? Let's presume both are using the same "bit-version" of Windows, ie. either the 32 or 64 bit edition.

There definitely are some differences. When I switched I had quite a lot of trouble with a few programs, including games. Don't recall any not working at all, but they worked poorly or oddly. Morrowind's one example I remember (non-GOG version).
And remember it took them quite a while to get Win 7 support listed for the large majority of games. Still, [url=http://www.an-ovel.com/cgi-bin/magog.cgi?ver=803&scp=gdsp&dsp=ipgfsorch&ord=t0&flt=oan~wvi~onn~w07~&opt=nsfr]this handful of remaining titles[/url] may be cases of simply not being tested, or they may not be. Guess somebody'd have to confirm one by one. Those listing support for all versions bar 7 seem to be mistakes though, or at least that seems to be the reasonable assumption.

Steam's already dropped support for XP and XP w/ service pack 1. It's support of XP w/ later service packs is probably bound to end in the near future. Even their hardware survey has XP users in an extreme minority.

(Switching from Vista to 7,) Was it on the exact same PC (hardware), using similar level drivers? And were both the same "bitness", so that you didn't switch from e.g. 32bit Vista to 64bit Windows 7?

If someone knows of exact new features or quirks in 7 specifically which caused compatibility problems (compared to Vista), I'm interested to hear. I've been under the impression that whatever backwards compatibility problems were in Windows 7, they were probably already introduced in Vista. Quite many of those seemed to be related to Aero (which I believe was already in Vista, but booted out in Windows 8).

Of course for many Windows 7 was their first 64bit Windows OS, which caused its own problems probably (like not being able to run 16bit applications (like many old Windows game installers were 16bit, and would fail on the 64bit OS), or having to use a new set of flaky drivers for their hardware).