vetz wrote on 2024-09-23, 10:47:

Also the game made me realize how superior LCD screens are for such 2D games instead of a cheap 14" CRT and how far we've come on mouses compared to using a serial ball mouse. It's especially noticeable in this game!

Agreed. It's amazing how good it is to use a modern gaming mouse compared to those craptastic ball mice that we had back in the day. I used to live in a dusty area, so those things would clog up on a regular basis, and needed to be cleaned every couple of days.

Nowadays, I happily hook up my Logitech G403 HERO to all of my retro rigs that have functional USB ports. I set up the acceleration parameters and shortcut keys on my modern PC, but the on-board memory of the mouse retains them when I transfer it over to one of my retro rigs. Playing games that require a lot of precision with a high quality mouse feels so much better.

vetz wrote on 2024-09-23, 10:47:

Why did they set so high minimum requirements, especially on the CD version?

Video decoding for WillTV i'd imagine, assuming this is not one of those earlier OEM CD versions. I know FMV would slaughter the 386SX16 I originally SC2K'd on

leileilol wrote on 2024-09-23, 11:22:

vetz wrote on 2024-09-23, 10:47:

Why did they set so high minimum requirements, especially on the CD version?

Video decoding for WillTV i'd imagine, assuming this is not one of those earlier OEM CD versions. I know FMV would slaughter the 386SX16 I originally SC2K'd on

I don't think I have those videos on my CD version. I have the CD collection: https://www.mobygames.com/game/2313/simcity-2 … -cd-collection/

vetz wrote on 2024-09-23, 12:32:

I don't think I have those videos on my CD version. I have the CD collection: https://www.mobygames.com/game/2313/simcity-2 … -cd-collection/

I have that same collection for Windows and it lists two sets of requirements on the box.

For Windows 3.1 it lists a 386 or better. For Windows 95 it lists a 486 or better.

Is your collection specifically for DOS? It does seem odd that it would require a 486 when the Win 3.1 version lists a 386 as minimum. Maybe they just copied the Win 95 requirements when printing the box?

My copy of Special Edition under EA's CD-ROM Classics label. Probably published in 1998, according to the copyright notice.

I also have the licensed version on floppy disks but the box is not with me at this moment.

That's bizarre they changed the system requirements for the same versions for different releases.

I wonder if they did it to absolve themselves of providing tech support for older systems? Or maybe just to keep it simpler from a consumer perspective?

I played the CD non SE dos version alot on my DX2/66. My memories are it being pretty slow however I always played with the largest land size maps.
But yes it was playable and back then that was good enough!

Funny enough That 486 was replaced with a PII 400 with a 16MB TNT card that struggled in SimCity 3000 at times, Simcity and fast gameplay were never hand in hand in my house!

chinny22 wrote on 2024-09-23, 23:52:

Funny enough That 486 was replaced with a PII 400 with a 16MB TNT card that struggled in SimCity 3000 at times, Simcity and fast gameplay were never hand in hand in my house!

SimCity 3000 doesn't use hardware 3D graphics... does it?

No, but it does have the ability to render DirectDraw on a Voodoo/Voodoo2 for whatever reason (not accelerated)

"surprised how well the game behaved" is not exactly a positive review in my eyes. Im sure its less optimized than Transport Tycoon, and TT is already a dog when scrolling the map on anything slower than 486 2-66 with VLB graphics. Maybe win95 version uses DirectDraw and can offer smoother scrolling.

Win95 ver predates DirectX and the only perk it has is double zoom

Found the system requirements of the original DOS version:

At first I played the game on my 80386DX-20 with 4MB RAM and ET4000/W32, with no apparent lag. It was also the first game asking me to choose an appropriate VESA driver.

Every time I've tried SimCity 2000 on a 386 it has run pretty trash for me, even my 386DX/40 with 128k cache & ET4000.

mwdmeyer wrote on 2024-09-24, 06:51:

Every time I've tried SimCity 2000 on a 386 it has run pretty trash for me, even my 386DX/40 with 128k cache & ET4000.

How do you define trash?

I'll install the game on my 386 DX 33 to make a comparison.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-09-23, 13:11:

Is your collection specifically for DOS? It does seem odd that it would require a 486 when the Win 3.1 version lists a 386 as minimum. Maybe they just copied the Win 95 requirements when printing the box?

I have two releases of the CD collection. One looks to be only for DOS and the other includes Mac, Win 3.1 and Win95 versions as well. Only the latter is boxed (the copy I bought back in 1996). I'll find it and check what it says, as I couldn't find any pictures online from this release of the system requirements.

EDIT: My boxed copy actually specifies all the different system requirements in greater detail than any other release I've seen.

I also found this image on Mobygames from an EA Classics re-release specifying 486 DX2 66 as the minimum requirement (SE version). https://www.mobygames.com/game/2313/simcity-2 … 3/cover-604716/

dormcat wrote on 2024-09-24, 04:53:

At first I played the game on my 80386DX-20 with 4MB RAM and ET4000/W32, with no apparent lag. It was also the first game asking me to choose an appropriate VESA driver.

To me word "lag" implies implicit delay. In literature its widely believed 100ms to be a threshold where users starts getting annoyed, thats less than 6 fps. Open big city and starts scrolling, do you get more than 6 fps? From memory it was more like 1-2 fps on 386/ISA system 🙁

For a long time minimum reqs was defined as setup able to boot game without crashing instantly 😀

vetz wrote on 2024-09-24, 08:19:

I also found this image on Mobygames from an EA Classics re-release specifying 486 DX2 66 as the minimum requirement (SE version).

Release from 2000, at this time 386 were mostly recycled so they could be a little bit more honest 😀

Frankly this rerelease isn't much different than rereleases today. If you look at the system requirements for a DOS game on steam for example, it will say something like 1ghz and 256mb of ram and directx compatible hardware. That's because that's what they expect you to run now, because you are running under windows on this thing called dosbox 😉 You know how accurate these system requirements can be, but it's kind of true even then for sc2000. It actually did end up more demanding than some expected, but primarily in the VESA compliance part of it. I don't remember the FMV feature myself, but if they upped the reqs for that then I guess? I don't remember much about what I did with my 386s in '95 other than wanting to upgrade them, and I suppose Maxis thought much the same. But I suppose a 386DX 40mhz might have been ok in DOS for this game.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2024-09-24, 19:33:

Frankly this rerelease isn't much different than rereleases today. If you look at the system requirements for a DOS game on steam for example, it will say something like 1ghz and 256mb of ram and directx compatible hardware. That's because that's what they expect you to run now, because you are running under windows on this thing called dosbox 😉 You know how accurate these system requirements can be, but it's kind of true even then for sc2000. It actually did end up more demanding than some expected, but primarily in the VESA compliance part of it. I don't remember the FMV feature myself, but if they upped the reqs for that then I guess? I don't remember much about what I did with my 386s in '95 other than wanting to upgrade them, and I suppose Maxis thought much the same. But I suppose a 386DX 40mhz might have been ok in DOS for this game.

This isn't quite the same as a modern re-release requiring emulation like DOSBox. They printed different system requirements for the same OS.

Windows 3.1 went from 386 & 4MB of RAM to requiring a 486 & 8MB. Windows 95 went from a 486 with 4MB of RAM to a 486 DX2-66 and 8MB.

That's why I wonder if they did it just to remove having to support it on older systems, or just to consolidate system requirements across different platforms?

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-09-24, 19:40:

This isn't quite the same as a modern re-release requiring emulation like DOSBox. They printed different system requirements for […]
Show full quote

the3dfxdude wrote on 2024-09-24, 19:33:

Frankly this rerelease isn't much different than rereleases today. If you look at the system requirements for a DOS game on steam for example, it will say something like 1ghz and 256mb of ram and directx compatible hardware. That's because that's what they expect you to run now, because you are running under windows on this thing called dosbox 😉 You know how accurate these system requirements can be, but it's kind of true even then for sc2000. It actually did end up more demanding than some expected, but primarily in the VESA compliance part of it. I don't remember the FMV feature myself, but if they upped the reqs for that then I guess? I don't remember much about what I did with my 386s in '95 other than wanting to upgrade them, and I suppose Maxis thought much the same. But I suppose a 386DX 40mhz might have been ok in DOS for this game.

This isn't quite the same as a modern re-release requiring emulation like DOSBox. They printed different system requirements for the same OS.

Windows 3.1 went from 386 & 4MB of RAM to requiring a 486 & 8MB. Windows 95 went from a 486 with 4MB of RAM to a 486 DX2-66 and 8MB.

That's why I wonder if they did it just to remove having to support it on older systems, or just to consolidate system requirements across different platforms?

It's a rerelease. Anything can change. Patches have been known to bump system requirements too, so why not rereleases? But in this case, I agree that it should run ok on a 386 given very little seems to have changed in the game core. So my point about current digital store fronts advertising the inflated system requirements is just that. You take the dos game advertised as needing 1ghz, and run on actual dos, you'll find it actually still runs the same under the original reqs. It's the same likely with sc2000. The box can be printed with anything. It's not the first time that the distributor/publisher of the day slaps whatever they think you'll need to be running on a box, which contradicts the manual, or what the game designers said originally. The same just happens in digital form. So there doesn't have to be much logic in it. It might not have been much intention other than maybe someone didn't see anyone wanting to run it on a 386 anymore.