> Microsoft will see fit to release an official XP activation tool for posterity.
Free Idea for Microsoft: Windows XP PCs but like those mini consoles[0] that have been released recently. Could be preloaded with games from the era and intended to be used offline so patches don't matter.
>You can buy and play Windows XP era games on Steam and run them just great on Windows 10/11.
Or older (pre-Steam) games in a virtual machine.
Hyper-V comes with Pro versions of Windows. VMWare has a Player that is also free (plus there's full Workstation). There's also VirtualBox, which sometimes is the packaged solution for very old titles sold on platforms like GOG. Never mind the solutions for Mac OS, Linux and BSD.
Recently my jam is going back to 1994 and playing a game from the Windows 3.1/Windows 95 transition era, rife with 16-bit libraries -- Mordor: The Depths of Dejenol. A game in which it was likely a lot of older folks here played the crap out of the demo, but never bought the game because it involved sending a check in the mail -- and because even the demo could provide hundreds of hours of enjoyment. Though you can legitimately buy it online from its current IP owner for about $10 (more if you want a boxed copy!), and it's just as fun as I remember it 30 years ago.
And setting it up in a virtual machine? Very straightforward, save for digging up some third-party audio library the game wanted. I actually just have a 40GB Windows XP VM I just maintain with all my old games from DOS and Windows 3.1 through 2002 or so. I can move it between hypervisors, between host OSes, etc. Just works. All my old games always ready to go.
N.B.: AFAIK, running 16-/32-bit Windows software under open-source Wine on Mac OS, as seen here, is no longer possible on 10.15+ due to Apple dropping support for 32-bit software; commercial CrossOver[2] supports 32-bit software on newer Mac OS versions (and I assume 16-bit, though I haven't tested it).
Everyone I knew in high school did. As in, DOZENS of people. The reality of your parents being unwilling to send a check to some guy in Colorado.
Game wasn’t a real commercial success because its demo was too good, and it wasn’t on store shelves. IP rights were sold to Decklin’s Domain, who at least seems to be a great steward, even if the website looks straight out of the mid-90s.
Original author is still around doing some startup consulting in the Denver area. Think he made the game damn near straight out of college.
Again, still loads of fun. Completely worth the $10. I’ve been having a blast with it lately, and the help file is exhaustive like an early 90s computer game manual.
What's really sad I have absolutely 100% success rate with playing XP-era games on Linux through PlayOnLinux. At least with my library of games.
I am boggled how Microsoft's back compatibility is so bad
I tried the Blizzard launcher several times with Wine, but almost no success. Qemu with GPU pass-through works much better for me. I use a decommissioned GPU from my son for Diablo 2R. IO is a bit slower, because the IOMMU groups of my Asus board prevent SSD pass-through of the second SSD. The first SSD is in its own IOMMU group, but the second is in the same group as the network, which I need for Debian.
Some would refuse to run even if in "compatibility mode".
You need to download patches, community made fixes and even then you'd be lucky if game if runs past splash screen.
Linux beats it by large in same comparison
Isn't that because game developers reverted to shitty non standard and undocumented solutions to prevent people from using pirated copies?
I remember back in the days refusing to buy games because it was reported they were installing silently some weird software drivers that looked more like malware than real software.
People literally have to use Wine DX libraries in order to make some of these games work on Windows 10 -- so yes, there are some 9x era Windows games which work better under Linux than under Windows.
Also I remember back from my gaming days that some then-old (now older) games required specific hacks or workarounds to run on "real" then-modern Windows, some possibly incompatible.
Whereas Wine could be made to have tailored instances per game (which I think PlayOnLinux, Crossover, Proton... are doing), giving the best experience for each game.
IIRC there are even some games that can now only be run on Windows by running them via Wine on Windows.
Ah, yes, link the example that was considered a failure and had bestbuy and other big block retailers sell them for $15-20 less than 6 months after release. (Maybe 3 months?)
I bought quite a few of them when they were slashed back in 2019. $15, free shipping, quite a value. The scene is largely ran by 2 redditors now.
MAS is awesome. Anyways MS doesn't care about private piracy. They rather have you pirate Windows than leave the platform and use another OS. This is my conspiracy theory about WSL too (which is an actual nice software but still).
Also don't forget that almost every non-Apple laptop comes with Windows pre-installed. Those OEM deals are also extremely important for Microsoft. The lost profit from people pirating Windows on self-built home PCs must be a drop in the ocean.
Microsoft doesn’t care if josephcsible pirates Windows. Maybe he has his reasons. Maybe he can’t afford it. It’s not a major issue.
What they really want to stop is businesses selling PCs with pirated copies of windows. And that was quite common back in the Windows 95 days and is still common in some countries.
It was justification for an OS that has the capability to phone home over a network, and now twenty years later we have Windows OSes that log and report everything down to the minute details of what you do in the calculator. Xbox was the same thing: justification for developing code-signature enforcement, hardware attestation, remote key revocation, etc. We would have opposed those things if they came from the world of general-purpose computing, so instead they were developed on an appliance platform where media """needs""" to be protected from the user, then it metastasized over to our computers two generations later once it was battle-tested.
Code-signature enforcement, hardware attestation, and remote key revocation aren’t inherently bad things. Like almost all technologies there are cases where they can be abused, but they can also be used to massively increase security on sensitive systems.
I develop industrial IoT gateways that are deployed to client sites, often in places which aren’t massively well secured from a physical perspective. Often an attacker could get in with a hi-vis vest and a clipboard.
Hardware attestation allows us to store encryption keys for the internal storage in a way that makes that storage useless if you remove it from the device. Signature enforcement prevents an attacker from booting their own OS on the devices and extracting keys that way (this also works alongside hardware attestation, as the TPM isn’t going to return a valid decryption key unless the expected kernel has booted). Remote key revocation allows us to terminate the device’s connection to our backend if it’s stolen.
If general purpose computers were routinely shipping with all those features turned on to ensure you could only boot a properly licensed version of Windows, and you had no access to enrol new keys, then I’d be with you, but that’s not the reality of things. If I buy a computer, either an Intel PC or an Apple desktop/laptop, I can install an OS of my choosing on it. We haven’t really lost anything here beyond the ability for people to trivially compromise computers without being detected.
Because they'd still prefer you purchase it, or maybe a later version.
In Windows 10, if you don't activate, all that happens is that it displays "Unregistered" in the corner and refuses to let you change the desktop wallpaper (and you can even get around that by rearming the "trial").
There's a few other customization items that are locked away as well. I can't recall what they are, and I finally registered by copy after years of running windows 10 and 11 unregistered so I can't even look for it. It might have had to do with graphics settings (flip presentation model?), or HDR. I think there were ways to force those options with registry edits, but that's more trouble than buying a cheap $10 windows key, which is what I finally ended up doing.
I also see lots of reports that updates other than critical/security ones may not be downloaded and applied for unregistered installs, but I'm not sure how true that is (or if it's mostly moot because I know you still get the big spring/fall patches, or at least have historically).
> There's a few other customization items that are locked away as well.
One of them is the "transparency effects" toggle, which needs to be off in VMs with VirtualBox Guest Additions installed for things to work right, and is on by default.
You can buy $10 legit keys. You can also get "free" keys from a student friend (academic license, ...)
> Kinguin's merchants acquire the codes from wholesalers who have surplus copies of Windows they don't need. "It's not a gray market. It would be like buying Adidas or Puma or Nike from a discounter, from TJ Maxx," Jordan said. "There are no legal issues with buying it from us. It's just another marketplace."
These keys may activate just fine, but they are not "legit" in any case. Most turn out to be acquired in illicit ways (MSDN licenses, ...), and a couple years ago here in Germany this led to massive amounts of criminal cases [1].
Microsoft themselves says otherwise -- that this practice is not allowed, and that there is no such thing as a secondary-market product key as large customers are supposed to discard unused product keys. These $10 keys frequently get revoked as Microsoft discovers them used outside of their intended setting.
I don't know why a site that is usually reputable (tomsHardware) has gotten the facts wrong on this.
There's no legal issue, but the possibility of having your Windows license revoked for an EULA violation definitely falls under "not legit". And if you continue using it after it's revoked, that will be a legal issue.
I'm pretty sure the reason for the forever upgrades since Win7 is more because it costs them less to have fewer variations of windows in the wild than to stay closer to evergreen.
It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s well-known that Microsoft’s “M$ <3 Linux” campaign is propaganda. It’s classic anti-competitive Microsoft behavior that started with IE in the 90s.
(Disclaimer: I work at MS, but not on WSL, opinions are my own.)
I don't see how WSL is embrace-extend-extinguish. Embrace, yes. Extend? No. There's basically nothing that only runs on WSL and not real Linux. Only QoL integrations with the Windows shell like X11/Wayland and Explorer integration. The point of WSL is backend dev. If WSL were on an EEE path, you'd expect to see MS adding Windows-only integrations, and encouraging people to run WSL server instances. Instead, MS has never positioned WSL for prod use, and instead cautions against using it for non-dev activities. Even internally, we don't use WSL to host Linux stuff. We use CBL-Mariner instead [1], which is completely FOSS.
The whole point of WSL was that Windows lost to Linux for backend. Unlike Ballmer, Satya didn't want to waste resources fighting a losing battle, so he pivoted the company towards Azure and dev tooling and away from Windows Server. And that succeeded, and it's why we're not irrelevant like IBM - we ditched our mainframes, as it were.
> There's basically nothing that only runs on WSL and not real Linux.
Not going to weigh in on the other aspects of this but I think this is untrue nowadays. Direct3D off-screen rendering and DirectML are supported in WSL2 and while there are several Direct3D implementations that run on Linux, I don't think there has been an attempt at DirectML yet, and neither are ever going to be possible using official drivers and official DirectX like you can on Windows with WSL2.
WSL (carrot) plus UEFI Secure Boot (stick) exist to lure people who were considering switching to Linux away from running it on bare hardware, so that Microsoft can keep foisting spyware and advertising upon them.
> MS has never positioned WSL for prod use, and instead cautions against using it for non-dev activities.
Exactly, WSL is deliberately kept an inferior product so that people are discouraged from developing for Linux.
I do agree that Microsoft won't be able to extinguish Linux, especially through something like WSL, but they are attempting to retain market share for Windows desktop usage with it, and that's actually anti-Linux.
The only reason I even consider Windows as my OS these days is because of WSL, but even then I realize I still run into a lot of nonsense that is absent on Linux. One that comes to mind is how PyCharm has to whitelist project files so that Microsoft Defender doesn't scan them, and that requires a UAC prompt for every project I create. Give me a break.
not WSL, but dotnetcore, sure, crossplatform, all is great, microsoft loves linux.. run .net applications that produces GUI? nonas, this is of course not available, thats reserved for windows.
microsoft is the same old microsoft, and people would do well to remember it
I think a lot of it is the writing on the wall... long term, it's software as a service model that will be their recurring revenue streams. I'm not sure what they're making in terms of just Windows licensing, but can guess that M365 is probably as much or more per year.
In the past 6-7 years most of the applications I've worked on, even those using Visual Studio, C#, etc. Have been tested/deployed on Linux more than Windows.
Microsoft created it to incentivize devs to stay on Windows for their dev machines instead of switching to macOS or Linux. It has no other purpose than that. As a result, that many more people are staying on Windows and Linux popularity/growth/development is somewhat more throttled than it otherwise would have been.
Yeah, I think to me the line between “competing by making our product better” and “competing in a hostile way” was crossed with WSL, because Microsoft is literally taking other people’s work and slapping it into Windows. I mean at this point I consider Windows 11 with WSL to be “Windows and Linux”, not “Windows”. It doesn’t make Windows better. To me, it’s comparable to Walmart driving small businesses out by undercutting them on price. The product isn’t better, in fact there’s plenty of “Great Value” stuff I wouldn’t feed to my dog, but nevertheless the inferior product wins out in the end. What’s good for Windows is bad for Linux, period.
This will be a big win for industrial machines. I work with some that required Win XP to run very old and niche cards that interface with CNC machines.
You can run newer computers but they only just work and cost way more than they're worth.
It's a real shame you end up in a situation where it's cheaper to replace a machine than keep it going just because the software is so hard to get working on a new PC and PC hardware has a limited life. It's effectively bricking a 6 meter CNC machine. That is a lot of machine.
I have similar experience with expensive CNC machine that runs on Windows98... ONLY on Windows 98. That machine costs like $150k or similar and was purchased 99/00 as i remember.
Few years ago PC was destroyed. Don't ask - long story because fan stop working due dust. So company purchased 2 PCs with similar configuration just to be sure that they have backup plans. New CNC machine costs over $250k.
Usually these machines come with obscure hardware interface cards (ISA card if you are lucky) and software which talks directly to those cards. Even though you can find a modern PC with ISA slot, passing through ISA devices to a VM/emu is the hard part.
Is it even possible to passthrough ISA to a VM? Legacy PCI is (well-ish) supported with its own quirks but I've never heard of ISA passthrough even mentioned before.
Unlike PCI, ISA has no concept of mandatory configuration space, apart from optional Legacy Plug and Play. Worst case scenario is that ISA card responds on some arbitrary I/O port known only to manufacturer and hardcoded in driver. Since all installed cards share the bus, you can't really pass through a single card without exactly knowing its resources.
In principle your VM/emulator could intercept guest reads/writes to those selected addresses and pass them (using host-side kernel driver) directly to the card. If the card uses no IRQ nor DMA, that could work. Routing IRQs would be tricky (again: determining which card raises which interrupt without global configuration registers requires a lot of manual work and/or guessing), but I guess it's doable.
DMA won't work. As far as I can tell, you can't use IOMMU to isolate ISA bus memory requests, let alone isolate a single device from the bus. Without knowing how card receives DMA parameters from the driver and no hardware support to translate device-generated addresses, your card would corrupt host memory on first DMA request.
The main problem with SW emulation is that the emulator is just another program running on your computer which is at the mercy of its OS scheduler. If you need microsecond timing, forget it.
I Remoted/Teamviewered into a Windows XP laptop a few years ago form my Windows 10 work PC. And WOW the XP machine was so fast. They installed XP on a new-ish Intel i3 and 4GB RAM for some reason, probably old software. And the UI just flew, so smooth, even over Teamviewer.
They wanted it on corp wifi however... that was a no-go
For a use case of a new XP install, I have clients with DVR systems, with a webui that only works in IE.
However, IE mode in Edge comes with 1) an unremovable banner warning you to stop using IE mode and 2) an automatic 6 month expiration of sites you put in the IE Mode whitelist (supposedly overrulable by a GPO - but it's commonly broken).
It turned out to be less trouble to spin up an XP VM and make IE available to network users as a Remote App.
There are still ways to use the IE engine on current Windows, aside from Edge's IE mode. Namely, there's the WebBrowser ActiveX control, which uses the IE engine on all Windows versions.
You could drop a reverse proxy infront which rewrites the user agent, this will probably fox many of the issues.
I’d be cautious about using a DVR for any sensitive situation if it’s unmaintained if the Dvr is used in sensitive scenarios. There would be a significant amount of reputational damage if it’s ever hacked, particularly if ugly workarounds are used to bypass software being totally EOL’d.
> You could drop a reverse proxy infront which rewrites the user agent, this will probably fox many of the issues.
The user agent thing makes me think you're trying to fool the DVR. The DVR requires a browser that is running it's ActiveX plugin. IE is the only browser that runs them.
> I’d be cautious about using a DVR for any sensitive situation if it’s unmaintained if the Dvr is used in sensitive scenarios.
External access to the DVR is limited (by the firewall) to 1 external IP address. If it were hacked, someone would have breached the firewall and the DVR would be the least of our issues.
I've been using Windows XP VMs without activation, or even a prompt to activate. I didn't know they even needed activation. Does anyone know what activation is needed for?
If you ever worked in IT during the XP era, you got your hands on a private Volume License Key. XP VLKs bypassed activation, and they were the piracy tool of choice until Microsoft started blacklisting them[1].
I still have a windows 98 first edition key memorized. And 26 digits of Pi. But recently I forgot the 4 digit PIN for my debit card and required a reset.
Normally Windows XP would lock you out completely after a while if you don't activate. But there are a lot of exceptions, like volume license keys, certain OEM install discs, certain VM images released by MS, and ahem unofficial ISOs with things like AntiWPA slipstreamed into the install.
I actually just ran into this the other weekend. After a certain amount of time (30 days?), Windows will prompt you to activate, and if you don't, it kicks you to the login screen.
> I've been using Windows XP VMs without activation, or even a prompt to activate.
If you go into properties, does it show XP isn't activated? IIRC, early XP releases didn't nag from the tray. I've also seen some Dell installs that auto activated after pulling the key from BIOS.
It says it's activated. I think this is because I was using one of those Windows XP compatibility isos that Microsoft made available for download a long time ago (as far as I remember).
There was an update, Windows Genuine Advantage, that was not part of the original XP installers that did the nagging about you using a shady key IIRC. The trick was to not install it, which was easy enough since you had total control of updates back then.
FCKGW was blacklisted VERY early on with Windows Genuine Advantage updates and later service-pack-integrated media would block that key in the installer, even.
I would bet $50 that it is easier to install Windows XP with an activation 'hack' than it would be to install most Linux distros from 2001. We are talking RedHat Linux 7 (not RHEL) running a Linux 2.2 kernel.
Most Linux 'reviews' back then were basically a review on how easy (or more likely, hard) it is to install. Most distros installers faired pretty poorly back then. I succeeded in getting RedHat 7 installed, but could never get Slackware or SUSE to successfully install.
If you're comparing RedHat Linux 7 against Windows XP, you're thinking in terms of the release date of XP. Windows XP was not very good when it came out, and it wasn't until it got the service packs.
So if you're going to start with something like Windows XP service pack 3, meaning that you were someone who didn't jump straight to Vista (I'll be a Vista apologist, but people were being reasonable when they didn't jump from XP), at that point, you're comparing it to Linux distros of 2008. That would be something like Fedora 8, Ubuntu 8, or Debian 4. This was the GNOME 2 era and it was a pretty damn smooth experience.
If you're thinking a bit deeper in terms of user experience for the early, early 2000s, then you would probably put FreeBSD high up on your list rather than treating Linux as an assumption.
My first Linux was Caldera OpenLinux 2.3[0] in 1999 that i got from a magazine and even at that time the installer was literally a "wizard" where you typed a few things like username, password, etc, selected which graphics card and monitor you have, what you wanted to install (full install ~1GB) in a series of Next, Next, Next, Done.
It even had a tetris game you could play while waiting for the packages to be copied in the background.
As a kid at the time i installed it on pretty much any PC i could get my hands on - my own, relatives, friends, etc, nobody was safe :-P though they found it interesting anyway since it was chock full of applications and games to play around - and i don't remember ever having issues. I tried it recently in 86box (which emulates old PCs) and it worked as good as i remember.
Though in a way it was probably an exceptional case, IMO that CD was basically the best well-put together distro (especially when you consider that KDE was basically beta software at the time).
Never had problems installing any major Linux dist, but 15 years ago I still remember the boring and time consuming on patching the kernel with custom patches so that my wi-fi card or gfx card could work.
I stopped trying to use Linux as a desktop OS since then. But recently I tried for fun installing Ubuntu and everything just worked out of the box.
I still feel Linux is too fragmented, too many package managers, too many UI managers etc...but that's part of the beauty of it I guess.
I remember circa 2004 I set up my non technical brother with one of the earliest versions of Ubuntu, after he kept getting malware on XP, and he didn't have difficulty with it. I was kind of surprised how easy it was. I was a debian and OpenBSD user at the time.
I vaguely remember trying to install Gentoo back in the early 2000s. It took more than 24 hours and eventually failed with an inscrutable C compilation failure in some random package. That was quite the eye opening experience. Certainly gave me an appreciation for the relative polish of Red Hat and other packaged distros, despite their warts.
For people unfamiliar with that era, here's a 1999 installation procedure for Red Hat 6 for a specific site (university lab), including configuring for their particular infrastructure setup (directory service, network filesystem including automounting, email, printing, clock-syncing):
FYI: XP installed on my 700mhz Athlon, clock chipped to 950. Redhat was hard, Slackware was an absolute nightmare. Gentoo took weeks. We recompiled everything and discovered that Intel does not create good amd binaries. Never went back to Linux on the back burner for 8 years on an Intel.
Microsoft wants your money and your loyalty.
I have yet to discover what Linux geeks want except for you to join them in some weird reality distortion field.
Two iMacs. One with Mint and one with Ubuntoo. Both just literally crawl. Alpine is so much faster, and we are gaining speed by hook and crook.
WinLinux 2000 (the first distro I ever installed) was a pretty painless experience. It installed as a Windows "app" which rebooted into Linux, and used UMSDOS to share a single filesystem.
if you have been installing linux since the early floppy days, sure, by 2000 it was easy. i was there too and i don't remember any problems either. but those new to linux at the time were likely having more difficulties than us grumpy old geeks.
windows XP wasn't easier to install, especially if you had some hardware (scsi hard drives) that required providing a floppy for the drivers. On linux it is and has always been about choosing hardware that is supported out of the box. Slackware wasn't particularly difficult to install, it was regular step by step based and the defaults were sane. What made it difficult to people was trying to setup a dual boot without deleting their precious data.
people want to use windows XP in order to run old software that doesn't run on newer systems. (or because they are nostalgic, but those are not helped with linux, so we can ignore them)
a modern linux distribution is way more likely to run old linux and windows software than a modern windows version.
hence that's why the world needs linux, because it doesn't have the problems that windows upgrades have.
you may argue that new linux distributions don't have old libraries either, which is true, but getting older libraries to install and run is way easier than on windows. and it's possible to put an old linux binary (even one for which there is no source) into an environment and make it workable on a modern linux distribution, and with things like flatpak it is also possible to make such an environment easily installable for a non-technical end user.
getting old windows binaries to run is even easier because that's exactly how wine works.
My daily driver now is a Windows 11 Alder Lake desktop that I assembled last year, but I still keep my prior machines in working order because neither virtualization nor emulation can hold a candle to execution on real, physical hardware.
Specifically said prior machines are:
* A Windows 7 Sandy Bridge desktop.
* A Windows XP Pentium 4 Northwood desktop.
* A Windows 98SE Pentium 2 laptop, with a Yamaha XG MIDI sound card.
Microsoft and Windows are downright legendary with their commitment to backwards compatibility, but that becomes even better with access to many versions of Windows and the hardware of their times.
Linux would not satisfy my needs and desires in any of my machines, let alone my daily driver. I don't have the time nor desire to faff around with dependency hell and terminal voodoo and maybe get something that half-works (which will immediately bork to a stiff breeze) when Windows instead will Just Always Work(tm) and get me going.
you are right of course. if it works, it works, and most times it does. i am specifically talking about those that still use XP because it doesn't work. those cases are few, mostly badly written games i guess. i am curious what kind of programs you still run on those old machines.
linux may not satisfy your needs, but not everyone can afford to keep old machines around like you do. and those stories of dependency hell and terminal voodoo are corner cases on linux just as much as they are on windows. especially if someone is going to set up a linux machine specifically to run old windows programs in wine then they most certainly will not run into any such issues.
most cases of dependency hell on linux are likely caused by inexperienced users who follow bad advice to install software from the wrong version or a different distribution. don't do that if you don't know how to do it without causing problems.
Can't blame you for this. I'd scoff at this a few years back, but alas...
I prefer linux in theory for my personal machines but I can hardly get a week without some issue (on ostensibly stable Ubuntu) either causing it to randomly fail when waking from sleep, gnome-desktop having catastrophic bugs like leaking memory to the point where none is left, or pegging the CPU, or stuttering, or....
and even without extensive packages installed I have things breaking there constantly, where I have to fight with apt and etc.
MS backwards compatibility too is really an incredible feat.
Mandrake was pretty easy, and even SCO UNIX (not GNU/Linux) had an release - grub worked, fat32/fat16 partitioning was possible and there was previous NTFS windows releases, NT 3.5/4 and 2000 that facilitated it.
They all had GUI interactive installers, and had floppy boot disks to boot (too!)
SCO Unix[1] didn’t have a GUI installer. Interactive it was, but only TUI, and generally more challenging than the classic TUI Debian installer - especially if you want to dual boot!
Mandrake (9.2 is the version I used the most) was very nice, the GUI installer looked very polished, had nice explanations and package selection was done by answering “what are you going to use this computer for?”. A TUI installer was available as a safe option too.
[1] At that time you are in SCO OpenServer territory, SCO UNIX is OLD, but the same applies to OpenServer 5 and 6. It might have been UnixWare (which I only installed once, no memories of it) or maybe SCO Linux (oh, the irony!)
I love Linux as much as the next nerd...but Linux was notorious in the early 2000s.
Also this is about using Windows XP for the sake of using Windows XP.
Free Idea for Microsoft: Windows XP PCs but like those mini consoles[0] that have been released recently. Could be preloaded with games from the era and intended to be used offline so patches don't matter.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Classic