RGB Classic Games Forum

Since the missing game versions thread is becoming quite large, I thought that some of the load could be moved to supplementary threads like game patches and this.

I suggest using this thread for documenting file replacements, if a file of better quality (according to the site's standards) than the version currently featured on the site is found.

Super Street Fighter II Turbo
Reasons for replacement: external FILE_ID.DIZ; file name not authentic.
Replace with: ssf2tdem.zip (original file from GameTek's website). [Replaced]

Prince of Persia
Reasons for replacement: not the original distribution (lacks installer); no readme file indicating this is a demo version; file name not authentic.
Replace with: pop1.zip (original file from Broderbund's website). [Replaced]

Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame
Reasons for replacement: not the original distribution (lacks installer); no readme file indicating this is a demo version; file name not authentic.
Replace with: pop2.zip (original file from Broderbund's website). [Replaced]

The bummer about those Prince of Persia files is that the installers both have a timestamp of 1995-07-05, whereas the zip files that I had for Prince 1, every file was timestamped 1990-03-29, and for Prince 2 every file was timestamped 1993-04-21. When you run the installer, it simply PKUnzips the files that were in prince.zip and pop2demo.zip. All of the files are identical, and there are no new files; there are no text files in the installers. I think the archives that I was using were distributed by floppy disk and someone zipped them, and then in 1995, Broderbund turned them into self-extracting PKZip archives and added a readme to the zip file for the purpose of distributing them by BBS or on their website. The readme files even seem to be an afterthought, since they're timestamped 1995-07-07 in pop1.zip and 1995-07-13 in pop2.zip.

Long story short, there's nothing wrong with prince.zip and pop2demo.zip. They were originally distributed without a text file that explained that it was just a demo; the lack of a text file in the self-extracting PKZip archives proves that. The archives on Broderbund's site were not original, but were re-releases five years after Prince 1 and two years after Prince 2 when they moved from distribution by floppy disk to distribution over the internet. The problem with pop1.zip and pop2.zip is that they don't retain the timestamps of the original distribution method. Even the filenames are a dead giveaway that they aren't the original way that these demos were distributed, since there is no pop1 unless there's a pop2, but the timestamps from prince.zip (if accurate, and I see no reason why they wouldn't be) prove that there was a Prince 1 demo before Prince 2 was made.

I'm in favour of distributing archives that include an installer, if it actually is an installer. To me, a self-extracting PKZip archive is not an installer. I'm not sure if what's gained from these archives is greater than what's lost. I will certainly agree, though, that the filenames are not authentic. It's very likely that pop1.zip and pop2.zip were the original archives that Broderbund created for online distribution of those demos; prince.zip and pop2demo.zip were not created or distributed by Broderbund, but by someone who made zip files out of Broderbund demo disks.

DOSGuy wrote:The problem with pop1.zip and pop2.zip is that they don't retain the timestamps of the original distribution method.

DOSGuy wrote:I'm not sure if what's gained from these archives is greater than what's lost.

Well, the date stamps are still there, and they can be preserved either by using DOSBox SVN Daum to run the self-extracting archives or by opening them with WinRAR or 7zip and manually extracting the files.

Also these versions have the merit of having been distributed electronically (as an Internet download) directly from the publisher, whereas with the earlier versions as you say were made into electronic downloads by some third party. Thus you get not only the original date stamps but also the date of the official Internet release of these demo versions.

DOSGuy wrote:To me, a self-extracting PKZip archive is not an installer.

I'm using the word "installer" to refer to anything that isn't a plain files distribution. On a side note though, "installers" which were actually self-extracting LHA archives were quite widespread back in the 90s, as this archiver is freeware, and also self-extracting LHA archives preserved by default the directory structure when unpacking the files, whereas PKZip uncompresses all files into the same directory unless run with a -d command line parameter.

ON another note, what's your opinion on replacing some MVP Software distributions? Originally all shareware games were distributed in plain ZIP files from the company's website (and the files are preserved by the Wayback Machine), however at some point the shareware games were repackaged into WinZip self-extracting archives, which cannot be run in DOSBox obviously, and are generally less platform-independent.

So far I've noticed that The Infernal Tome and Pickle Wars use WinZip SFX distributions from MVPs current FTP. The respective ZIP files would be 1tome.zip and pickle.zip.

You might probably want to replace the PKZip self-extracting version of Descent shareware v1.4 with a plain files ZIP one (desc14sw.zip). It also contains the LICENSE.TXT file which is not found in the EXE version.

MrFlibble wrote:Well, the date stamps are still there, and they can be preserved either by using DOSBox SVN Daum to run the self-extracting archives or by opening them with WinRAR or 7zip and manually extracting the files.

Well, you've got me there and I'm embarrassed that I didn't try opening the EXE files in 7-Zip. Having now done so, I see that the datestamps inside of pop1demo.exe are 1990-03-29, and for pop2demo.exe are 1993-04-21, so the timestamps are indeed preserved (but lost when you unzip them using regular DOSBox. Man I hate that.). Being first-party distributions, they are indeed more authentic and will replace the third-party distributions.

MrFlibble wrote:ON another note, what's your opinion on replacing some MVP Software distributions? Originally all shareware games were distributed in plain ZIP files from the company's website (and the files are preserved by the Wayback Machine), however at some point the shareware games were repackaged into WinZip self-extracting archives, which cannot be run in DOSBox obviously, and are generally less platform-independent.

Oh gawd, you have no idea how much I've agonized over this. MVP repackaged the last version of all of their ZIP files as self-extracting archives, which was easier for the user but, as you say, are less platform-independent. When the SFX is 16-bit, it (usually) can't be run in 64-bit Windows. When the SFX is 32-bit, it can't be run in DOS or Win16, even if the game is 16-bit. (And, of course, the SFX won't run at all on any non-DOS/Windows operating system.) I seriously considered hosting both the ZIP file and the self-extracting archive and making note of the different release dates since they are technically different releases but, once extracted, they're exactly the same version. The mission of the site is to archive every version of each game, since changes occur between versions that may be noticeable or noteworthy; it chronicles the history and development of the game. Gray Design Associates (Hugo series, etc.) could have a dozen releases per version, based on whether it was distributed by the ASP, by some third-party BBS, or whether it came from GDA's website. All of those releases are identical except for one snippet of text in the readme files that identifies the distribution method. I don't feel that that's a good enough reason to have six copies of each of the ten versions of Hugo's Horrific Adventure! Screw that; I'm taking one release per version. In the case of GDA games, I prefer the release from the author's website because it comes most directly from the author. In the case of the MVP games, I'm going to prefer the ZIP file because it's platform independent, and because it's older -- the original distribution method. I know that a few of the MVP games on this site are still hosting the self-extracting archive release (I'll check if it's more than just The Infernal Tome and Pickle Wars) because that's what I found when I went to MVP's website at the time, and I couldn't decide how to deal with the ZIP vs. EXE situation when I discovered it. Well, I've made my decision now. I think it's unnecessary to host both, and I think it makes more sense to host the original ZIP file. Feel free to make an argument to the contrary if you disagree.

DOSGuy wrote:Gray Design Associates (Hugo series, etc.) could have a dozen releases per version, based on whether it was distributed by the ASP, by some third-party BBS, or whether it came from GDA's website. All of those releases are identical except for one snippet of text in the readme files that identifies the distribution method. I don't feel that that's a good enough reason to have six copies of each of the ten versions of Hugo's Horrific Adventure! Screw that; I'm taking one release per version. In the case of GDA games, I prefer the release from the author's website because it comes most directly from the author.

Yeah, I noticed that there are several different distributions of Nitemare-3D, IIRC they even display the information about the distributor on the title screen.

DOSGuy wrote:In the case of the MVP games, I'm going to prefer the ZIP file because it's platform independent, and because it's older -- the original distribution method. I know that a few of the MVP games on this site are still hosting the self-extracting archive release (I'll check if it's more than just The Infernal Tome and Pickle Wars) because that's what I found when I went to MVP's website at the time, and I couldn't decide how to deal with the ZIP vs. EXE situation when I discovered it. Well, I've made my decision now. I think it's unnecessary to host both, and I think it makes more sense to host the original ZIP file. Feel free to make an argument to the contrary if you disagree.

I totally agree with you on this. Even if some of the core files (like the main game executable) are changed for different distributions (which I assume is the case with GDA games, even though I haven't checked), I suppose that this can be neglected if the game version plays the same.

Actually I have assumed that in case of MVP, the game files themselves were not changed (perhaps except for an updated ordering information section in the readme or somesuch). In cases like this plain ZIP files seem preferable to me, as they allow to easily view the contents of a distributions. Of course, back in the 90s many companies opted for self-extracting EXE archives, which would be simpler for the end-user, as not everyone had archiving software installed on their machines. But today ZIP files are more useful both if you want to view/extract them on a modern OS or inside DOSBox.

Yes, I think the ordering information was updated in MVP's self-extracting archives. The issue of whether or not updated documentation represents a new version is an issue for some of the Epic games. So frustrating.

Not sure if you're aware, but all proper self-extracting .exe files have the correct structures in them for unzip programs to recognise them as the underlying archive formats they are based on. In other words, if you rename an SFX .exe file to .zip, you will be able to extract it with any standard unzip program. Most of the time you don't even have to rename it, you just have to open it manually in your zip program because you can't just double-click on it.

I downloaded pickle.exe from the MVP FTP site to confirm this and the Linux "unzip" program could extract it, as could pkunzip running inside DOSBox. In fact, if you try to run pickle.exe (or any WinZIP SFX .exe apparently) from within DOSBox, you get a nice helpful message: "This is a Windows self-extracting ZIP file. You can run it from Windows or unzip it with a utility like WinZip or PKUNZIP." Funny they chose to include an error message when technically they could have included DOS SFX code, allowing the SFX part to work under both DOS and Windows!

So my vote goes towards the .exe files as the latest release, because they are just as cross-platform as .zip files (providing you know this trick!) I guess if you host any exe files and are worried about it, just put a note saying they can be extracted with any unzip utility.

I'm sure I downloaded Pickle Wars from them once before and it came with an actual Windows installer which was a huge pain to get working under Linux, so if I'm remembering correctly, this is a great step forward!

Malvineous wrote:I downloaded pickle.exe from the MVP FTP site to confirm this and the Linux "unzip" program could extract it, as could pkunzip running inside DOSBox. In fact, if you try to run pickle.exe (or any WinZIP SFX .exe apparently) from within DOSBox, you get a nice helpful message: "This is a Windows self-extracting ZIP file. You can run it from Windows or unzip it with a utility like WinZip or PKUNZIP." Funny they chose to include an error message when technically they could have included DOS SFX code, allowing the SFX part to work under both DOS and Windows!

Perhaps the programme they used to create Windows SFX archives did not support proper DOS SFX modules?

Malvineous wrote:So my vote goes towards the .exe files as the latest release, because they are just as cross-platform as .zip files (providing you know this trick!) I guess if you host any exe files and are worried about it, just put a note saying they can be extracted with any unzip utility.

I have experimented with the Pickle Wars EXE distribution a bit. If you use a DOS file manager like Dos Navigator or The Doszip Commander, it will display ZIP archive contents as "virtual folders". That way, individual files can be extracted from archives (for Dos Navigator, you need to put PKUNZIP.EXE in the Dos Navigator's directory or anywhere the PATH variable points to; The Doszip Commander has an internal ZIP packer/unpacker).

However, if the Pickle Wars SFX distribution is renamed to ZIP, Dos Navigator will not display its contents, but will use PKUNZIP (if available) to extract the entire archive right into the current folder. The Doszip Commander will just do nothing - apparently it cannot view the contents of such SFX ZIP archives.

Interestingly, Dos Navigator can display the contents of DOS SFX ZIP files without renaming them. Conversely, if a DOS SFX ZIP archive is renamed to plain ZIP, Dos Navigator will just extract its contents.

Generally, I would say that anything that is not native to the DOS platform is somewhat less preferable if there is an alternative. It's nice to have the option to unpack ZIP archives right within DOSBox, and with non-DOS SFX installers you have to make extra steps to do that.

As for the repacked shareware games being the latest releases, I think it does not matter much if the game itself is the same (then again, one could say that the ordering or pricing information is outdated, so an earlier distribution is less accurate from the publisher's standpoint).

MrFlibble wrote:

Malvineous wrote:Funny they chose to include an error message when technically they could have included DOS SFX code, allowing the SFX part to work under both DOS and Windows!

Perhaps the programme they used to create Windows SFX archives did not support proper DOS SFX modules?

Sorry I wasn't very clear there - I meant funny how the creators of WinZip didn't include DOS SFX code in the SFX archives that WinZip produces, given they went to the trouble of including a special DOS stub that prints that message.

Interesting finds about the way SFX archives are treated with various programs. It looks like the signatures are indeed different between .zip and .exe files, but most programs recognise both and can pick out the .zip inside the SFX .exe, but not always when the file is renamed! I didn't realise it was that sensitive.

I also agree that if it's only ordering information that's changed then it's not worth storing another version, unless you're Litude and you like preserving every single possible change I guess then the trick is how do you identify each version? I suppose you hope the modified files have accurate last-modified dates and you start having things like v1.2-19940131...

MrFlibble wrote:You might probably want to replace the PKZip self-extracting version of Descent shareware v1.4 with a plain files ZIP one (desc14sw.zip). It also contains the LICENSE.TXT file which is not found in the EXE version.

In addition to this, it seems that there were no single file online distributions of Descent shareware v1.0 to v1.2. Each version was distributed as two floppy-sized ZIP archives, and a readme in plain text format, which also functions as a short license file.

The online distribution readme indicates that the shareware version came in two files:

FILENAMES: DCNT12-1.ZIP Full 1.2 version
DCNT12-2.ZIP (two disks)

This is also supported by the installation instructions in the shareware readme, which says:

To install Descent, use PKUNZIP to unzip the distributed files into a
temporary directory.

The word files being in plural suggests that the two-part shareware distribution is being referred to here.

Older versions of the Descent FAQ (written before the shareware v1.4 release) also only mention a two-part distribution:

-- [1j] ---------- Where can I get Descent?

You can download the shareware version of Descent from the following
sources: (two files: descent1.zip and descent2.zip)

The single-file ZIP files of v1.1 and v1.2 currently on site do not include the following official files:

• the information/license file in TXT format
• the official FILE_ID.DIZ found in both parts of the distribution

If you don't want to put all three files for each version on the site separately, you can zip them up similar to this v1.0 distribution.

Here are the releases for the shareware versions 1.1 and 1.2:

• v1.1: dcnt11-1.zip, dcnt11-2.zip, dcnt11.txt
• v1.2: dcnt12-1.zip, dcnt12-2.zip, dcnt12.txt

As for v1.3, it seems to be quite rare.

There are shareware patches to update Descent v1.0 to v1.1 and v1.1 to v1.2 (download links in this thread). Both are just zipped plain files that replace their counterparts from the previous versions. There seems to be no patch to either v1.3 or v1.4 for the shareware version.

An interesting side note, the online information/license file for shareware v1.2 (dcnt12.txt) mentions that the shareware v1.2 is equivalent to registered to v1.0 in terms of game code and data:

>> DESCENT SHAREWARE 1.2 <<

This is the anxiously awaited update that will bring your Shareware Descent
up to date! In terms of nailed bugs, etc. this is equivalent to Descent
Registered/Retail 1.0.

What is even more intriguing is that the two-part version of shareware v1.4 (descent1.zip and descent2.zip) contains a license file which gives 1.2 as the version number (the single-file distribution has the proper version number in the license file). I guess this could be explained if the registered version numbering was used: if shareware v1.2 corresponds to registered v1.0, then shareware v1.4 (two updates later) would be registered v1.2 (?).

Corridor 7: Alien Invasion
Reasons for replacement: distribution not authentic; the files have been repacked and the installer does not work.
Replace with: coridor7.zip [Replaced]

NOTE: The installer only works if the destination drive and the source drive are different. If you're installing to the same drive it will report an error.

Also the current description of the game distribution is incorrect: it is not shareware, but "Corridor 7 DEMO Version 2.0D":

Strife: Quest for the Sigil
File to replace: strife10.zip
Replace with: strife10.zip [Replaced]
Reasons for replacement: There is convincing evidence that the demo version 1.0 was originally distributed as a multi-part self-extracting archive, which contained a De-ICE installer (screenshot). The demo v1.0 was available in this form at 3D Action Gamers' Archive. DoomGate also contains links to the multiple-file release, alongside with the link to v1.1 which was already distributed as a single archive with plain files. Additionally, Hallfiry's catalogue includes several instances of these files published on various CDs (link).

The file STRIFE10.TXT contains the following information:

demo version of strife v1.0

get all the files
(strife10.1, strife10.2, strife10.3, strife10.4, and strife10.exe)
and run strife10.exe
then run install.bat

The current file on the site is a packaged pre-installed version, which apparently originates with Frans de Vries who had the installer on floppies:

Strife Demo 1.0

Hey, got your message.

I found the Strife 1.0 demo here: http://gokuma.site.voila.fr/strife/strife10.zip

Apparently, he got v1.0 from Frans de Vries, who had the original demo on floppies. Go figure. :p

(source)

The file linked to in that post is identical to the one here at RGB Classic Games.

Therefore I propose to replace the current file with a single archive which contains all parts of the original distribution (strife10.exe and strife10.1 to strife10.4).

[Edit] Here's the discussion at the Doomworld Forums about how the plain files version of the Strife demo was obtained:
http://www.doomworld.com/vb/doom-genera ... demo-v1-0/

BACKLASH
File to replace: bl120sw.zip
Reason for replacement: Missing PKZIP authenticity verification from Sanctuary Software Studio.
Replace with: bl120sw.zip [Replaced]

Bake Stone: Aliens of Gold
File to replace: 1bs20.zip
Reason for replacement: Missing PKZIP authenticity verification from Apogee Software.
Replace with: 1bs20.zip [Replaced]

File to replace: 1bs21.zip
Reasons for replacement: Missing PKZIP authenticity verification from Apogee Software. The installer is not an "Online & BBS Edition".
Replace with: #1BS21.ZIP (rename to 1bs21.zip) [Replaced]

Cyril Cyberpunk
File to replace: cyberkid.zip
Reason for replacement: The file is not the original distribution of this version.
Replace with: cyberkid.exe (file details) [Replaced]

Descent
File to replace: desc14sw.exe
Reasons for replacement: Missing LICENSE.TXT file. The file is a platform-dependent self-extracting archive.
Replace with: desc14sw.zip [Replaced]

Descent II
Reason for replacement: Missing README.TXT file that contains the software license.
Replace with: d2demo10.zip [Replaced]