1993-95 - Win3.1 "MPC" era, the loads of cd-rom games, windows not very 'light games in a window' platform anymore
1995-2000 - Win9x era, DirectX required, A3D/EAX/SGL/Glide/Rredline/MSI/CIF/S3DTK proprietary api madness etc
2000-2004 - Y2K boom era, DOS is very dead here, NT5/NT5.1 is viable for gaming, spyware/malware spike up and kill off trust in downloadable desktop accessories, short term businesses, fast mouse poll rates, dude you're getting a dell, ultra low cost supermarket PCs etc. hard to not get a computer
2005-2019 - The destruction of NTVDM with the rise of AMD64. Microsoft finds out how to backstab older Windows via Visual C runtimes era. Sound cards are dead.
2012-202X? - Microsoft prioritizes designers over engineers while they enshittify windows era

> 2012-202X? - Microsoft prioritizes designers over engineers while they enshittify windows era

Steve "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" Ballmer didn't step down until early '14, so that's where I'd start that era.

Edit: OK, 8.1 was earlier than I remembered (2013), so I can't chalk W8's shitty shell up to "maybe he just made a mistake" since they stuck with it even then. 2012 seems right then.

leileilol wrote on 2024-02-05, 01:56:

2005-2019 - The destruction of NTVDM with the rise of AMD64. Microsoft finds out how to backstab older Windows via Visual C runtimes era. Sound cards are dead.
2012-202X? - Microsoft prioritizes designers over engineers while they enshittify windows era

Two comments:
1) I think the Vista debacle deserves mention, because the Vista debacle directly led to the lack of innovation on the Windows platform. Basically, third party software for Windows cannot require a new version of Windows until the previous version is officially end of support by Microsoft. And so all their new APIs, etc basically end up not being adopted.
Think about it: if you bought a C2D/C2Q in 2007 with Vista x64 and 8GB of RAM in 2007, that's still a ... decent computer today, 16 years later. A little sluggish, sure, but you can run the latest version of Word on it on the latest version of Windows (including 11 if you turn off the checks for the stupid hardware requirements). Meanwhile, a 16 year old computer in 2007 was... a 33MHz 486 with 4 megs of RAM and Windows 3.1, maybe 95. Try using that for anything in 1997, let alone 2007.
And, right when they had somewhat righted the ship with Windows 7, came Windows 8. Another 4 years of people getting entrenched on the older OS.
One of the things that Apple/macOS has going for it, unlike Windows, is that the overwhelming, overwhelming majority of their installed base will upgrade to the new OS within ~1-2 months of release.
2) It's more than just sound cards being dead. Everything PC has been dying. You could walk into a store 15 years ago and buy lots of nice, affordable, 2.1 or 5.1 computer sound systems. Other than maybe one 20-year old Klipch 5.1 model and some low-end Logitech 2.1s, there are like... no computer speakers on the market anymore. There used to be lots of innovation in peripherals - in the course of 5 years, for example, Microsoft added the mouse wheel and then the optical sensor - now Microsoft is out of peripherals. Printers haven't improved in 20 years except maybe for their networking abilities. Look at the enthusiast cases being sold now - it's all about the RGB and the cooling and the gaming, no drive bays, motherboards with very few PCIe slots, etc. Really, you get the impression there are three kinds of PC buyers left: gamers with the RGB, businesses buying OptiPlexes and ThinkPads, and enshittified low-end laptops bought by people who can't afford a MacBook, and none of these really drive a vibrant ecosystem like you had 20 years ago.

Oh, and I'd add another big thing:
3) In the 1990s, kids/teens played games on computers parents bought for productivity purposes. The era of 3d graphics, along with Intel's integrated graphics on the other end, basically ended that. For over 20 years, you have been unable to take a random computer and use it to play games - if whoever bought that computer didn't get one with a passable GPU, no games (other than maybe Solitaire) for you. Maybe, just maybe, you can add a GPU, though plenty of systems didn't have AGP/PCI-E slots, power supplies, etc for a decent GPU upgrade. And, over time, I don't think that's been healthy for the platform - it means that the PC gamers are now 35+ year olds who can afford $1000+ GPUs, while younger folks are gaming on smartphones and consoles... and it also means that developers have been hesitant to release new games in PC-centric categories like strategy. Easier to focus on console ports. Although... I think the situation has been improving in the past few years.

Mostly I simply group on what the game best runs on.
GTA VC been an example in my collection. Back when it was new I ran it on Win98 sure but now I consider it a XP game on much newer hardware allowing me to max out all settings.
Likewise WinXP-Win7 crossover. any games that struggle on my XP LGA775 build no longer have EAX support anyway so may as well play on more modern hardware.

Matching windows to console era's is a good quick way to do it, especially more modern titles were games are now simply "ported" rather than rewritten

For me, there is some overlap between the different eras, so it doesn't make sense to do a hard cutoff in every single case. That said, I generally view things like this:

1980s-1996: DOS era
1997-2001: Win9x era
2002-2009: WinXP era
2010-2015: Win7 era
2016 and up: modern Windows era

Of course, there are some demanding games from each era which benefit from newer hardware. So I don't expect a PC built from components that were manufactured in 2001 to be able to max out every single Win9x game. If anything, I like to play on systems that are at least 2-3 years newer than the game that I'm running.

Windows 3.1 era with few games, that did not run in DOS.
Obscure start of 9x games.
First stable Windows 98SE era.
The golden XP era, where all games worked and Windows never crashed.
Modern 7 era. Still there. Moved my interneting and banking to Android/Linux mostly.

For me an OS era is from its commercial release to the end of its mainstream support. This means there are some overlap, but I don't think that's a problem. Where there is a minor issue is versions that did not really have an era. Windows 2000 and ME in all their life time were overlapping with Win9x and XP, Vista overlaps with XP and 7, 8.x overlaps with 7 and 10. None of them were popular enough to really call their service time their era. Also, DOS overlaps with a lot of things.

As for which games belong to which era. When there is an overlap, it's the newer out of the overlapping versions. Except for those that I previously mentioned as not really having an era of their own.

For me Windows 95/Vista/8/8.1 did not exist. 😂
95 era was still 3.1 era with Win32s. I had a 486 SX33 with 250MB hard drive then. So that was just no go. Then came the Windows 98SE era that lasted to golden XP era that lasted to the time they launched Windows 10. And then in that time I migrated my main computer to Windows 7. Still there. 😆 Have not found a thing that I can not do with my 7 computer that needs 8/10/11.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-02-05, 05:36:

For me, there is some overlap between the different eras, so it doesn't make sense to do a hard cutoff in every single case. Tha […]
Show full quote

For me, there is some overlap between the different eras, so it doesn't make sense to do a hard cutoff in every single case. That said, I generally view things like this:

1980s-1996: DOS era
1997-2001: Win9x era
2002-2009: WinXP era
2010-2015: Win7 era
2016 and up: modern Windows era

Of course, there are some demanding games from each era which benefit from newer hardware. So I don't expect a PC built from components that were manufactured in 2001 to be able to max out every single Win9x game. If anything, I like to play on systems that are at least 2-3 years newer than the game that I'm running.

What distinguishes Win7 era from 'modern Windows era'? Is there anything that would run on say a late C2Q or early Core i-something that wouldn't run on today's Ryzen or Core i-something?

Technically most XP stuff would run on modern PCs, but you see enough issues (particularly around aspect ratio of screens and the like, as well as positional audio) that it justifies a separate box. I've never encountered that on later stuff though.

dionb wrote on 2024-02-05, 12:02:

What distinguishes Win7 era from 'modern Windows era'? Is there anything that would run on say a late C2Q or early Core i-something that wouldn't run on today's Ryzen or Core i-something?

Some Remedy games at least aren't very futureproofed for Ryzens.

But yeah, i'd give a break on 7 vs 8/10/11 for not being sentient and condescending (and customizable. rip classic themes, gone for the inconsistent 'dark mode'). Also the CD protection checks give a divide too

What distinguishes Win7 era from 'modern Windows era'? Is there anything that would run on say a late C2Q or early Core i-something that wouldn't run on today's Ryzen or Core i-something?

Old PhysX stuff comes to mind.

dionb wrote on 2024-02-05, 12:02:

What distinguishes Win7 era from 'modern Windows era'? Is there anything that would run on say a late C2Q or early Core i-something that wouldn't run on today's Ryzen or Core i-something?

I don't think you'll find a lot of examples where a game from the 2010s runs fine on Win7, but not on modern Windows versions. There may be some, but they are likely in the minority.

Despite that, I still feel like Win7 deserves its own place, since it's the last Microsoft operating system that was almost universally well liked. Everything that came after it had at least a few issues which turned off some people. Personally, I switched to Linux when Win7 official support ended, and never bothered with Win8/10/11 on my home PC.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-02-05, 12:23:

I don't think you'll find a lot of examples where a game from the 2010s runs fine on Win7, but not on modern Windows versions. There may be some, but they are likely in the minority.

Indeed, and it's a testimony to Microsoft finally stopping dicking around, and stabilizing the kernel APIs in NT6.x, and also game developers stopping dicking around and using proper documented APIs.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-02-05, 12:23:

Despite that, I still feel like Win7 deserves its own place, since it's the last Microsoft operating system that was almost universally well liked.

Vista and Win7 are the pinnacle of Microsoft's desktop OS design. And Win7 fixed all of Vista's early deficiencies, which guaranteed it a place in the pantheon.

Windows 7 should had been the last Windows. Not Windows 10. Then they blatantly lied. Now we have Windows 11. Sure we gonna have Windows 12. Maybe not Windows 13 for obvious reasons. 🙃

Cyberdyne wrote on 2024-02-05, 07:40:

For me Windows 95/Vista/8/8.1 did not exist. 😂
95 era was still 3.1 era with Win32s. I had a 486 SX33 with 250MB hard drive then. So that was just no go. Then came the Windows 98SE era that lasted to golden XP era that lasted to the time they launched Windows 10. And then in that time I migrated my main computer to Windows 7. Still there. 😆 Have not found a thing that I can not do with my 7 computer that needs 8/10/11.

Same here, still using win7 on my personal PC.

My first os was 98 (with lots of divings into dos), then mighty 7 till today.

Totally skipped XP. Although more or less used all of them on other PCs. (work, relatives, internet cafe, etc..)

ultra wrote on 2024-02-05, 01:27:

Can we include Windows 95 games to 98 era, so Windows 98: 1995 to 2001? 2002 is the beginning of XP era and transition year from 98 era?

It depends. If we're talking about commercial 32-Bit 3D shelf titles that everyones usually thinks of, then yes, likely.
DirectX titles were same on either Windows.

But to me, and a few others, there also was an era of 16-Bit 2D games, which ended with Windows 98. Windows 95 was their last hold-out.

Because, throughout the Windows 95 days, many programmers had continued using their Windows 3.x era programming tools.
It wasn't something to be ashamed of, these tools were still rather recent at the time.

It was an era in which some newlywritten 16-Bit applications were made Windows 95 aware, even.
Windows 95 did report a "3.95" version number that was available via ordinary Win16 API.
Some of the new Windows 95 features were available via Win16 API, too.

The Windows 95 days were also the last days of early 90s multimedia fads, like Kodak Photo CD, CD-i and Video CD. Or wavetable soundcards.
Edit: 'Movie CD' films from the US, too. Their player software isn't fully Windows 98 compatible.

Or games with lots of FMVs and VR environment done in QuickTime.
Or those 3D shutter glasses for serial port (DOS and Windows 3.1).
Or cyber gloves/suits for, um, errr, oh well, human interaction via internet. The latter fell into cyberdildonics category. Ahem.

In the Windows 98 days, these experimental things were already considered obscure.
Just like Bulletin-Board-Systems (BBS aka mailbox) were at the time.

Here's a time line that starts with the appearance of 256c Windows games.
There were earlier Windows games prior this, of course.

Timeline
1991/92: Battle Chess
1993: The Beginning; The first 256-color Windows games came out in 1993. It was an abrupt and vehement start.
1994: Ports from the Mac; While the games from 1993 were nearly all Windows originals and Windows only, 1994 saw a deluge of ports from the Mac.
1995: Multi-Platform; This year saw the height of the Live Actor/Full Motion Video craze.
1996/97: Gone out of Fashion; As of 1996, 16-bit Windows was obsolete.
Since 1998: Needs Hi-Color to Display Correctly; By 1998 16-bit Windows programs felt like fossiles.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110920233907/ht … mes/win16_3.htm

I'm not related/affiliated with this source, though it resembles my own experience, too.
That's how I did remember the 90s through shareware CDs.

I find there’s a dos era then the pre xp and post xp era because everything after xp has been a bag of shit to work with with Microsoft being more and more demanding.
Other than hardcore gamers most people have consoles rather than pc for gaming

Quite difficult question to answer... But an interesting one!

A software (and it is especially true for a game) is targeted to a given platform with min and recommended specs in mind. A lot of Windows 9x games until Windows 98 SE were badly programmed with no respect for the API documentation and little to no consideration for good practices (as @dr_st stated) leading to games having difficulties to work on faster computers, on newer drivers or on newer operating systems. Windows 98 SE broke WinG, Windows ME broke access to true MS-DOS, NT 5.x broke a lot of things that MS tried to patch using compatibility options and tools. NT 6.x broke direct access to the hardware, etc etc etc
Hardware manufacturers abandon support for old tech and newer tech requiring newer Windows versions. GPU manufacturers that didn't maintain specific game hack in their newer driver breaking compatibilities too.

Considering that:
* Windows 3.x is a requirement for software made for it that can do strange thing when working on Windows 95 mainly because of the new UI.
* Windows XP is special because of Microsoft people having hard time to get a new OS to replace it. So it last quite long. It is also special because MS abandoned the two parallel versions for consumers and enterprises to only make one (it's a little more complicated than that especially considering NT5.2, but it's the idea). So before XP, Windows 3.1/95 and Windows NT 3.1/3.5x are from the same era, Windows 95OSR1.5/98/98SE and Windows NT 4.0 are from the same era. Windows ME and Windows 2000 are from the same era.
* A lot of people hate Windows ME or Windows Vista and all seems to have forgotten Windows 8 & 8.1. But in my opinion they are quite good OS. For one who is not interested in using DOS and wants to mainly play games for Windows 9x, Windows ME is a fast and stable system (providing the good drivers). Late DOS games are build with Windows support in mind, some being able to detect it with code optimization to work with it, they works really great in DOS boxes and so they will with ME.
For Windows Vista, SP2 is a requirement, it is still using a too much memory for the window manager, but it is really stable and quite good to use for games. Sure, Windows 7 should however be preferred because it is more reactive and more optimized. But Vista is not bad, and have a special touch that I like. The main problem with Vista was most PCs at the time were not powerful enough for it as it require quite a powerful CPU and a lot of memory to work properly. Windows 7 was not really different, but was sold on more powerful hardware. I'm using Windows ME on a P3 computer for years now and I never had any problem at all.
*Windows 8.x. Well I'm using 8.1 on a Core2Duo gaming system. Very fast and responsive. The start menu in my opinion is perfect as a game launcher and I still miss it today.
* One other thing are the Service Packs, that adds huge change to an OS, and can be release long after the next OS was released. That is linked to the end of support of the OS. So there is technically an overlapping of the eras.
* There are exception too, as some games were too demanding and were not able to work well on the hardware of their time. Even with the said hardware being in the recommended specs.

What I try to explain here is that each Windows version is anchored in its time and contributed to make its time.
Additionally, the programs were designed to use the software and hardware technologies those operating systems supported.
About gaming, computers with Windows are different from the console world because of the close nature of it. To stay in the MS world, taking the Xbox, when the Xbox 360 was release their was no backward compatibility. That was added latter through emulation. In Windows, MS always tried to keep native backward compatibility. Only removing it when it was not possible to do otherwise.
Finally, someone will prefer a Windows version over an other, it's up to everyone to decide what to choose.
If looking to use a given software, you can choose to go full period correct (if that means something) or try to use it on newer system with newer OS to see if it works and be happy with it. What is important is to be satisfied with the pleasure and nostalgia induced 😀

So my personal opinion is, Windows eras are from one's history with it on one side and its exploitation life from the MS side.

It depends, was a active NES clone gamer. Never got on that Playstation bandwagon. But if I got my first computer, never looked back.

All my computers after DOS 6.22 Win 3.11 era were multiboot. So had no problems with badly behaving games or software. Just choose my operating system partition.