[SOLVED] You have to go to the "change profile name" category in your account settings, then do the inspect > network > namechange method. I guess that makes sense. I purchased Minecraft on January 29th, 2012.
Every year or so I like to go back and check to see when I first purchased my java account, I often forget what it is. Is there a way to do this with the modern account layout? I've searched a good few places and nothing has seemed to turn up in terms of a modern solution. THANKS
(EDIT) Just for clarification, I am aware of the inspect > network > namechange method. It doesnt seem to work on the modern website.
I didn't know this was a thing, but then again, I never looked into it because I already knew the approximate time based on the release dates of 1.2.5 (when I started playing) and 1.3, and that's always been good enough for me. It was the middle of 2012 or just before.
Apparently June 17th of 2012 was when mine was created. I was sporadically playing the demo for a bit before I decided to get it though. This article is what originally got me try the game (I only had access to a slower PC for a while), although I don't know exactly when I came across the article so narrowing down the exact day/month I first played would be harder. May might have been it, or mayyybe April at the earliest but more likely mid to late May? I don't recall a long time gap between first trying it and getting it.
I'm just glad they kept this embedded somewhere that's (mostly) easily accessible to everyone. I like to go back and play the release version of the game that was out when I purchased the game, which for me was 1.1. A lot of those early-mid lifespan updates blend together in my head because of how foundational they were, so its fun to see what was present/new at the time of when I started playing. 1.1 was a pretty cool update! Apples could drop from leaves, meaning you didn't have to kill Notch to get them, sheep could eat grass and regrow wool, and music discs and spawn eggs were added.
It's strange to think about how quaint of a game minecraft used to be, even in spite of it's popularity
I have the opposite problem. I remember the year and the version when I started playing, and I probably won't ever forget it. What blends together for me is all of the little changes that have happened over time, often the ones I never really noticed. I recently went back and played a couple of old versions (1.6 and 1.8) and I ran into so many issues, yet I didn't notice many of them back then (or if I did notice them back then, they bothered me a whole lot more now after experiencing the later versions where those issues are fixed).
1.1 was just a bit before my time, but I've always seen people describe it as basically being a bug-fixed/better 1.0 since it didn't really change many major things. Glancing on the page for it on the Wiki compared to the other early release versions, that seems to be more or less true as it seems relatively minor compared to other early release era updates like 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 (and perhaps even compared to 1.6, which itself was generally a small update, which is probably because the immediately following update came not too long after it and would become the largest one of the time since release).
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Location:
Florida
Join Date:
11/21/2016
Posts:
43
Member Details
Hey, do you mind providing more details of this method, and how you got your purchase date? I have found namechange in network but am unsure where to go from here:
Hey dude, click the "Response" tab once you select namechange.
In that Response tab, there should be a string that starts with "createdAt: Year-Month-Day".
Apparently it also shows you the exact time you purchased the game! I purchased Minecraft at 10:30pm.
A bit of tangential information about this whole process itself, for those who may see this in the future: You can also filter for just the namechange with the "Filter URLs" search bar at the top. I also learned that you may need to refresh the page before the namechange element shows up on the list. On google based browsers, you'll want to find the "Preview" tab once you select the namechange URL element- this is functionally the same as the "Response" tab on Firefox, at least for the purposes of finding this specific piece of information.
Um... a lot. The issues I faced with both 1.6 and 1.8 were surprisingly numerous (and many of them more severe than I was expecting) since I don't recall having as many issues with those versions back in their time.
The reality is, those issues always existed, but I either didn't take personal issue with them, or didn't notice. Perhaps that was because I didn't do the necessary things needed to exposed them back then, whereas this time around I may have. Or perhaps it was a case of "I haven't experienced better" so I accepted them, but now that I have experienced later versions where those particular things aren't issues for me, they stick out.
I don't remember all of them since there was just too many, nor do I remember if the details of all of them are correct, but the ones I remember...
(Spoiler since it's a lot, and you can just read the bold if you want the issue itself instead of the details.)
Very slow chunk loading/rendering performance (1.6) - Versions prior to 1.8 perform slow in this regard since 1.8 multi-threaded chunk loading rendering and made it much faster. Once I added an OptiFine version which gave this functionality to 1.6, the performance difference was night and day. Vanilla versions prior to 1.8 just do not perform adequately enough due to this alone in my eyes.
Something worth mentioning in regards to this is that this performance aspect is related to your frame rate (I think it still is, but at least it's now many times faster due to being multi-threaded), and also it might be worse with frame rate syncing methods enabled. Therefore, you can speed this up (if you have the hardware headroom) by playing at very high frame rates without some method to sync your frames to your refresh rate, but that's an incredibly poor solution as it opens you up to screen tearing, and has your hardware running far beyond the point of providing any other benefit, other than to just get around this slow performance design behavior or pre-1.8 versions.
Beta 1.7.3 is even worse here. I don't just mean "things are a bit slower than I'd like", but since light levels seem to be per chunk, then when the day to night (and vice versa) transitions occur, I observe multiple "rings" of decreasing (or increasing) light levels around me. This is because the chunk updates, rendering-wise at least, are occurring at such a slow pace that the game doesn't finish visually updating them all before the next change in lighting level begins. If v-sync is disabled, things perform well enough here, but that's a poor solution as mentioned above. OptiFine's "chunk updates per frame" setting helps here, but not as much as the multi-threaded rendering of 1.8+ does.
I believe that, to some extent, the "higher frame rate equals chunk rendering finishes faster" is still a thing to this day, but it's at least no longer anywhere near as slow ever since the rendering changes that were made in 1.8.
Lack of quality of life features (1.6) - Not being unable to unbind controls, not being able to bind the sprint function to a something other than double tapping forward, lack of individual sliders for sound (and why does music keep playing when the game is paused... ?), no mip-map support, and so on. While 1.8 (or 1.7) did address those things I just mentioned, it also lacked some quality of life things too, although I can't recall at the moment what they were.
Perhaps an honorable mention with sound was tilling dirt into farmland being quite loud relative to most other game sounds in 1.6 for some reason. (Anvils still have this issue in current versions.)
Also, when going into the options and then choosing to return to the game, you get a "stacked" amplified (louder) sound effect in 1.8 (I can't remember if 1.6 also did this).
Broken lighting from world generation (1.6 severely, 1.8 partially) - This is probably what ruined 1.6 the most for me. There were "Black spots" that should be lit but weren't until a chunk update corrected it. It's like the lighting system isn't fully doing its primary job during chunk generation and was deferring doing it it until later (probably not intended, but still), and often times this correction/update to lighting wouldn't occur until you were very near the problematic spot. It seemed especially bad in the nether or in caves with lava, but under trees or overhangs on the surface and in the overworld had plenty of spots like this. I have no idea how far back the issue goes other than that 1.2.5 also has the same issue, and I think (?) beta 1.7.3 doesn't have the issue, so it might go back to beta 1.8 or release 1.0? Release 1.8 had this issue mostly resolved in the overworld, but it was still there, especially in caves (and the nether). Up until at least 1.12, various lighting issues remained but the severity of this particular one was greatly reduced with both 1.7 and 1.8.
There were other lighting oddities that weren't just delayed Black spots occurring during chunk generation, like how 1.6 also had poor lighting under half slabs that were placed in the top half of a block space. So if, for example, you used half slabs on the ceiling, it looked dark/poor.
Broken rendering (1.8) - Occasionally, due to the game thinking you couldn't see terrain that you should, it wouldn't render it, resulting in invisible spots and you would see the sky in these spots. This wasn't entirely random, meaning once you found a spot that showed it from a certain angle, it always would show it (at least as long as terrain remained in a way that caused it).
Awkward animal spawning (1.6, and I think 1.8 too?) - I don't remember the details of this one, but basically, something can occur to cause the passive mobs that should spawn during world generation to all (or at least mostly) be the same type within a certain area. A forest at spawn was full of almost nothing but sheep, whereas a nearby taiga was full of almost nothing but cows, and so on.
I also observed some strange mass of Pink sheep in 1.8, perhaps as a result of the same thing?
Wolves despawning shortly after spawned in during new chunk generation if not tamed right away (1.6 and 1.8) - Self explanatory. I think 1.6 introduced this and 1.10 resolved it.
Mobs breaking out of enclosures (1.6 and 1.8) or mobs visually appearing out of enclosures only to rubberband back in (1.6) - Also self explanatory.
I used the same design for a farm enclosure that I do in current versions and I can have it full of mobs and they never escape, but they did in 1.6 and 1.8. I also had a lot of instances of horses suffocating in walls along chunk borders back in 1.6 (this was actually an issue I had back then and not just recently, and my "fix" for this was to put a line of fences along the wall, offsetting the horses one block and preventing them from getting stuck in the walls and subsequently suffocating on chunk load).
Passive mobs, when hit, staying in a panic and running state until the world is closed and reloaded (1.6) - Again, self explanatory.
Skin not working (1.6) - This is due to the skin servers no longer working right with versions older than some 1.7.x versions, and even in 1.7.x they only partially work (no layers and slim arm model support?). As of 1.8, they work correctly. To get around this, I had to replace the texture of the player in the resource pack with my old skin. I used my older skin because my current one is a slim arm model and has layers and I didn't want to fuss with adapting it for a version I was only temporarily playing, but I really missed my skin while playing in that version.
Trying to use a bow behind fences results in the player just swinging the bow at the fences (1.6 and 1.8) - Apparently this was introduced in 1.6 and was due to poorly implemented leads, which could be "used" on fences, so you would try and "use" the bow on it by right clicking.
Mobs sinking into the ground, or otherwise not being where they displayed they were (1.6) - Spiders would "fall on repeat and climb back up", or sometimes simply be stationary on the ground, but in reality they were stationary at a higher altitude along the top of a cave or corridor (spiders still get stuck in this way to this day, but they will visually be where they show to be, slight sync discrepancies between server and client aside). This was particularly bad with cave spiders, almost always resulting in you being affected by the poison due to no fault of your own. In another example, I was in a dungeon checking a chest and my screen suddenly displayed a creeper right on top of me. There was "movement" so in the moment, I interpreted this as it might be puffing/charging up. I was playing in hardcore, so I panicked. Yet, there's no charge sound, no hit sound (from me hitting it), and it doesn't move away like it was hit either, but it is bobbing a bit up and down, hence the slight movement that I interpreted as charging. Then it registered; the creeper wasn't even there. Instead, it was in a space above the dungeon and directly above where I was standing.
Many of the other "issues" weren't really things like bugs nor anything "wrong" with the versions themselves, but rather things I simply think were worse with them, or things that weren't as well off like with like less performance due to hardware being slower in those years (I had an odd issue where OptiFine's smooth FPS was needed in 1.6, but not 1.8, to not have it stutter endlessly, and this was on hardware that wasn't slow for the time 1.6 was recent), or things like missing blocks/in-game features or behaviors that later versions have. No shift clicking in the inventory to move things to the crafting table. Poorer boat controls (plus they break a lot, plus they visually desync from where they actually are, plus they "run away from you" when you get out, and so on). Worse combat (I'm not a PVP player, and I prefer the 1.9+ combat). No offhand. Poor accommodations for exploring with maps/making map walls. Not being able to walk over beds without jumping. No accessible anti-aliasing methods for 1.6 besides VSR/DSR which has drawbacks. No mip-mapping for 1.6 (without it, the game looks increasingly "noisy" at a distance, and it is worse at lower resolutions, worse at higher render distances, and worse without anti-aliasing) but OptiFine adds that one. Far less building materials. Limited biomes (more so 1.6) and boring world canvases/poorer terrain generation (both 1.6 and 1.8, but more so 1.8, and this was my biggest complaint with it). The textures were also poorer (both 1.6 and 1.8), but I addressed that one by using a resource pack, called "Modernity", which brings the 1.14+ textures to the older versions.
Basically, lots of it is small stuff, but it adds up with each other. Then, all of that small stuff adds up with the big stuff.
I could probably skim my threads where I recently played through both versions and find more issues/things I complained about, but I've probably already mentioned enough to give you an idea.
I don't know how many of these particular issues I'd have in beta versions or 1.1 though, since 1.3+ introduced a lot of changed technical behavior (merging of single-player and multi-player, namely) and thus introduced many multi-player bugs to single-player. Some, but not all, of the things I experienced seemed related to that.
I'm shocked that minecraft was rampant with so many technical problems lol
That's unfortunate either way though. Your comment about the day/night light transitions in b1.7.3 speaks to me. I notice this all the time, and I feel like I remember seeing this happen in beta minecraft youtube videos as well. Surprisingly it doesn't bother me all that much, but given how far we've come I could see why it would be viewed as antiquated or otherwise just silly looking.
Honestly, even though I can't recall a specific memory of these things happening to me, a lot of these are sounding extremely familiar the way you describe them. I spent a lot of time playing 1.6 when I was younger. If I think really hard about what it was like playing around that time, I can recall the same jank vibes that all encapsulate what you're describing. I really stopped playing right in the 1.7 to 1.8 update range, until about 2019 when it resurged in popularity.
I'm glad Mojang has and is still trying to improve performance and general functionality in modern versions as far as I know, I keep up just enough to know what's going on with the new content but not all technical aspects.
Also if you don't mind me asking, what inspired you to go back and play those earlier updates? I find it kind of uplifting to know that there are people who are willing to dig into the history of the game and see what it was like. I feel like that's a pretty unpopular thing to do, but what do I know? haha
On one hand, I wasn't too shocked. While people have the idea that a game like Minecraft is overly simple, it's also very complicated in its own ways at the same time. On the other hand, it did catch me off guard because I don't recall as many issues with these things back in their day.
As I mentioned, I figure that's because I simply wasn't expecting as much out of the game back then. Now, I do. Our expectations have grown, and in some ways they may have outgrown the improvements that either Mojang has made to the game, or the improvements in hardware performance. So I went back expecting "okay, there will be less features, and I know some technical things will be worse off... but the experience should be okay if I treat them accordingly", but the amount of critical bugs I encountered were the big thing that surprised me. Ask Master Caver about this one, as he has a modded version of the game using 1.6 as the foundation, and one of the things he had to do was fix so many bugs (probably some that even current versions still have) because of how many issues the older game versions used to have.
The main thing that made me go back and play some older versions was because I've been playing some new worlds in hardcore the last couple of years. Traditionally, I've largely stuck to a single world (I guess people are terming these "forever worlds" these days, and I was basically doing that from the start). After my first hardcore world ended in death, I started another to be its replacement, only with even more restrictions based on what I found made the game too easy the first time around, but these restrictions ended up making me avoid risk entirely, and I instead started exploring a lot while looking for a place to settle. And... that sort of just continued. So that world shifted from its original purpose to a world where I explore 1.18+ terrain indefinitely. After doing that for a while, I took a break from the game in the middle of last year, and when I wanted to play again at the end of the year, I figured I would do some short worlds in older versions (also in hardcore) before returning to my current world.
1.6 was chosen because I wanted to retrace the steps of my very first world, which was in 1.2.5, and I figured 1.6 would be a bit better off on technical/quality of life aspects than 1.2.5, and it has close enough to the same terrain generation.
1.8 was chosen since I never really did too many 1.7 through 1.17 terrain generation era worlds, so I wanted to try and map one and see how its worlds were (the answer was... pretty terrible). I also wanted to give a retrospective look at how the infamous performance measured up today, but on hardware from back then. This was another thing that surprised me, because in its day, I remember 1.8 marked a point where performance dropped for me (I did play at pretty high render distances even back then though). While revisiting it, even on what is now very slow hardware, I found it to outperform 1.6. Not in every single regard (performance isn't a monolith but a combination of factors, after all), but it did.
There's other versions I might want to give a try. 1.2.5 is still one of them, as that's my first version (1.12 and/or 1.16 were two others I considered, but I may skip them after 1.8 drained me on the worlds those versions create)... but having to change to my old PC all the time got old. If you're wondering why I would do that, those old versions didn't age well in some regards with new hardware. In particular, they made some poor design choices and one of them was they wouldn't render spherical fog unless you had a certain video card type, one I don't presently have (which wasn't resolved until as "recently" as 1.17 when the game moved to using a newer OpenGL version), and I find that the game looks much worse off without the spherical fog. Sometimes it just more fun to play on hardware from the time too.
I like that there's a lot to be learned from these older versions, at least from the perspective of someone like me who doesn't bother with the intermediary updates. I wish I had the patience to go back and commit to playing some of these older versions, even just for a little. I imagine going back "through the ages" of Minecraft would make people more appreciative of everything that we've gained as a result of the game being constantly updated and supported with new content.
Like you said, sometimes with the old versions its a bit of a chore to make them work properly, but I could see there being a lot to learn from revisiting "old" Minecraft with a modern perspective, finding little idiosyncrasies and quirks of a version long past the point of relevancy.
I'm glad Mojang has and is still trying to improve performance and general functionality in modern versions as far as I know, I keep up just enough to know what's going on with the new content but not all technical aspects.
Newer versions could run so much better though if properly optimized, e.g. an example given by the "Sodium mod" showing a massive increase from only 35 to 478 FPS on a system comparable to what I currently have (their CPU has a higher overall rating, lower single-core, at least on a synthetic benchmark):
This is what I get when playing on an incredibly optimized version based on 1.6.4, which many people have tried and say outperforms modern versions (at the same settings; the Sodium example appears to be 32 chunks while this is 16 so it clearly blows it away and I wouldn't be surprised given it is using OpenGL 4+ features which even vanilla still doens't use, only a spec from... 2009, still better than what 1.6.4/TMCW uses, from the 1990s and officially obsolete since 2009. Of course, OpenGL itself is generally seen to be obsolete these days, with the final revision in 2017):
This is a "mega forest" biome with unbelievably huge trees:
A rendering of the area, compare the height of the trees to the mountains to the left (themselves higher than in vanilla, basically 1.6.4 Extreme Hills without the limit of y=128):
e.g. somebody tested various versions and vanilla 1.6.4 was one of the worst performing versions but TMCW was the best by far, even compared to an optimization version of 1.20 (note that "12 chunks" is incorrect for vanilla 1.6.4, it is only 10):
I actually want to add; This performs amazingly well, even better than other versions coked up with optimization mods. What did you do!? My refresh rate is 144FPS and despite other versions often reporting that, I feel like the FPS stutters significantly at times. Not with TMCW, it's buttery smooth basically the whole time.
I should note though that vanilla 1.6.4 performs far, far better for me, on a system which could have been used back in the day:
I only get comparably bad performance when doing something completely unrealistic like rendering a 16x16x16 cube of chests, which absolutely destroys performance even in modern versions, and my mod still doubles FPS in this situation (I also included Optifine to show that it doesn't do anything at all in this case. Maybe not so "unrealistic", given that people do build massive storage systems, even I have about 1000 chests and signs at my main base in my first world but spread out enough that they don't all render at once, especially if I ever reached 4000+, I also added frustum culling to tile entities):
In fact, even on a system from the mid-2000s I got decent performance even on a modded world with three times the ground depth (and caves more than scaled up to match):
Note my y-coordinate, the average depth of this world far exceeds even 1.18:
Another screenshot from a less extreme "double height" version of the mod, with various other mods installed, this is also at "Normal" render distance, which I've always played out out of preference (originally more due to performance, and 32 bit system limitations, e.g. "Minecraft has run out of memory" due to the Java process hitting the 32 bit process size limit, back then the developer of Optifine even said to reduce the then-default of 1 GB to 350 MB to avoid issues):
I also think that the complaints of "slow chunk rendering" are grossly overblown and not even accurate, except when Vsync is used (I get 500-1000 chunk updates per second otherwise, enough to fully render in loaded chunks within a second, considering that visible chunks are prioritized), I only ever noticed it when flying around in Creative on my old computer, aside from a bug which causes the game to simply forget to render some chunks, even on modern systems (fixed with a very simple one-line patch; you wouldn't even believe how easy it was to fix most of the bugs, yet some went unfixed for years, even a decade). At the time 1.8 was so much worse, not just at chunk rendering performance but everything else, and many people still say older versions perform better so it is highly dependent on system setups (even back in the day 25% of respondents to a popular poll said 1.8 ran better):
The sun starts rising at 1:15 (I don't know why everybody feels to need to do nighttime screenshots/videos when showing something off but this is the best example of a flythrough that I've seen):
Also, this shows the sort of system that TMCW can run on:
I even prodded Princess_Garnet to try out my "World1 custom client", essentially the base version that TMCW is a mod of (more or less just its optimizations and bugfixes, plus many QoL changes and a handful of clearly modded features which can be entirely optional, e.g. rail blocks, double-sized ender chests). This even includes a nasty graphical rendering bug that affects all versions from Beta 1.9 to 1.7.10 on newer Intel drivers (the second image above, which I included to show the size of the device, shows one of the issues, this is a lot worse in vanilla since I'd already made a patch for it that fully fixed it for most systems, with another tweak that fully fixed it for theirs; and yes, fixing it is also just a single line of code).
Also, I'd certainly not have a good time playing a current version, I'd be complaining just as much about their numerous flaws, whether gameplay or bugs (for example, due to my playstyle I'd notice these glitches, and many related rendering issues, a lot more than most players, and they are all still unresolved, and some even worse than before, except for one that affected blocks underwater).
I imagine going back "through the ages" of Minecraft would make people more appreciative of everything that we've gained as a result of the game being constantly updated and supported with new content.
Like you said, sometimes with the old versions its a bit of a chore to make them work properly, but I could see there being a lot to learn from revisiting "old" Minecraft with a modern perspective, finding little idiosyncrasies and quirks of a version long past the point of relevancy.
Yes, that is exactly what the experience resulted in for me.
It was a lot of fun (keeping in mind I was only doing it short term; I wouldn't be willing to settle with the lacking offerings of the older versions permanently), but despite the fun, it was also frustrating because I was finding that they are very lacking in, well... basically everything. The technical state (quality of life, certain behaviors, and bugs) was pretty rough, and performance is far lower (this shows up mostly with pre-1.8 versions, and mostly in regards to chunk loading, which as far as I'm concerned is one of the most important performance aspects of the game).
A lot of this simply circles back to a few things, those being "the game hitched its wagon to already-ancient-at-the-time OpenGL versions when the world was moving away from OpenGL entirely", "the game required certain brand functions for certain things instead of being more broad in support" (referring to spherical fog), and "some of the choices the game has made resulted in poor performance or behavior" (such as a lower frame rate/v-sync drastically exaggerating the slow chunk rendering, which is a bigger issue prior to 1.8 versions). With later versions, much of these example are all less the case, so they don't ask the user to jump through as many hoops to have it just working well. You may want performance mods if you want to push the render distance, but... it's throwing rocks from glass houses to complain about that when performance/behavior fixing mods are needed even more for older versions. I wish these older versions worked better in their vanilla state in these later years, but they don't always do so due to some choice they made at the time. But that's something that affects a lot of things and not just Minecraft. Keeping things working well into the future often requires effort eventually, but in Minecraft's case, it's unfortunately one of the ones that need it bad. And sometimes, it's far more effort than I'm willing to deal with for versions that offer less and that I'm not going to play permanently.
So yes, it was all an enlightening experience, to say the least. But while it was frustrating, it was fun for the limited time I tried it, and I'm glad I did. I wouldn't recommend it for everyone, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend against it, either.
I also think that the complaints of "slow chunk rendering" are grossly overblown and not even accurate, except when Vsync is used...
Well, the bold is the important part there.
Whether something can run at 100 FPS, 200 FPS or 500 FPS is pretty irrelevant in my mind if I'm going to be running it lower than any of those. Screen tearing is an undesirable thing to some people, and having to have your hardware run unnecessarily higher because of behavior like this also is. Of course, all else being equal, higher potential performance would always be better yes, but that's the problem here; all else isn't equal. Namely, at a lower frame rate (and with v-sync), chunk rendering is drastically slowed, and this is a particular problem with vanilla versions before 1.8. Performance isn't a monolith and it is far more than frame rates alone, even if those are part of it. Looking at things in a vacuum isn't too helpful. The definition I'd give performance is how quickly the game serves the content you request of it. Meaning, if I have a given render distance set, and it takes the game XX seconds instead of X seconds to finish serving that amount of content up, then it is simply performing (in that regard) many times slower. The frame rate remaining at many hundred of FPS in that meantime doesn't change that (in a way, I'd say it could be seen as worse because it comes off to me as "I obviously have a lot of performance to spare so why are you dragging your feet so much on finishing this" feeling).
This factor (chunk rendering speed) might not be an issue to you, with your style of play or where the render distance and your rate of travel is typically lower, but not being important to you personally doesn't erase it as being a factor of performance. When you play at higher render distances and with more/faster traveling (and with v-sync), that is when this comes into importance a lot more.
I even prodded Princess_Garnet to try out my "World1 custom client", essentially the base version that TMCW is a mod of (more or less just its optimizations and bugfixes, plus many QoL changes and a handful of clearly modded features which can be entirely optional, e.g. rail blocks, double-sized ender chests).
Unfortunately, by time you have suggested this to me, I was already partially into my world. If I had known of it beforehand, I may have tried it, but it's also a lot more effort for me to get mods for these older versions set up (and yes, I typically look for mods that don't change the game content as much, but this sounds like it might have changed so little that maybe I would have tried it). As I said earlier in the thread though, I was not expecting to encounter so many issues and bugs with these older versions until after I had done so. They blindsided me.
I would like to consider trying TMCW some day (and I mean the full thing), and I mentioned this to you before but you sort of often ignore me, but due to my unwillingness to put a ton of effort in (including switching entire PCs...) for a version of the game I won't stick with, it's been pretty low on my list of things. Again, the older versions of the game (which TMCW, despite its changes, is based on) don't always age well on some PCs and with some use cases, and that happens to be the case for me unfortunately. Otherwise, I'd probably be doing a whole lot more of playing some older versions, even if I ultimately prefer recent versions.
[SOLVED] You have to go to the "change profile name" category in your account settings, then do the inspect > network > namechange method. I guess that makes sense. I purchased Minecraft on January 29th, 2012.
Every year or so I like to go back and check to see when I first purchased my java account, I often forget what it is. Is there a way to do this with the modern account layout? I've searched a good few places and nothing has seemed to turn up in terms of a modern solution. THANKS
(EDIT) Just for clarification, I am aware of the inspect > network > namechange method. It doesnt seem to work on the modern website.
I didn't know this was a thing, but then again, I never looked into it because I already knew the approximate time based on the release dates of 1.2.5 (when I started playing) and 1.3, and that's always been good enough for me. It was the middle of 2012 or just before.
Apparently June 17th of 2012 was when mine was created. I was sporadically playing the demo for a bit before I decided to get it though. This article is what originally got me try the game (I only had access to a slower PC for a while), although I don't know exactly when I came across the article so narrowing down the exact day/month I first played would be harder. May might have been it, or mayyybe April at the earliest but more likely mid to late May? I don't recall a long time gap between first trying it and getting it.
I'm just glad they kept this embedded somewhere that's (mostly) easily accessible to everyone. I like to go back and play the release version of the game that was out when I purchased the game, which for me was 1.1. A lot of those early-mid lifespan updates blend together in my head because of how foundational they were, so its fun to see what was present/new at the time of when I started playing. 1.1 was a pretty cool update! Apples could drop from leaves, meaning you didn't have to kill Notch to get them, sheep could eat grass and regrow wool, and music discs and spawn eggs were added.
It's strange to think about how quaint of a game minecraft used to be, even in spite of it's popularity
I have the opposite problem. I remember the year and the version when I started playing, and I probably won't ever forget it. What blends together for me is all of the little changes that have happened over time, often the ones I never really noticed. I recently went back and played a couple of old versions (1.6 and 1.8) and I ran into so many issues, yet I didn't notice many of them back then (or if I did notice them back then, they bothered me a whole lot more now after experiencing the later versions where those issues are fixed).
1.1 was just a bit before my time, but I've always seen people describe it as basically being a bug-fixed/better 1.0 since it didn't really change many major things. Glancing on the page for it on the Wiki compared to the other early release versions, that seems to be more or less true as it seems relatively minor compared to other early release era updates like 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 (and perhaps even compared to 1.6, which itself was generally a small update, which is probably because the immediately following update came not too long after it and would become the largest one of the time since release).
Hey, do you mind providing more details of this method, and how you got your purchase date? I have found namechange in network but am unsure where to go from here:
=>>Story of my life<<=
Hey dude, click the "Response" tab once you select namechange.
In that Response tab, there should be a string that starts with "createdAt: Year-Month-Day".
Apparently it also shows you the exact time you purchased the game! I purchased Minecraft at 10:30pm.
A bit of tangential information about this whole process itself, for those who may see this in the future: You can also filter for just the namechange with the "Filter URLs" search bar at the top. I also learned that you may need to refresh the page before the namechange element shows up on the list. On google based browsers, you'll want to find the "Preview" tab once you select the namechange URL element- this is functionally the same as the "Response" tab on Firefox, at least for the purposes of finding this specific piece of information.
out of curiosity, what kind of issues did you face? I haven't had a ton of "modern" experience with the older versions besides 1.1 and beta.
Um... a lot. The issues I faced with both 1.6 and 1.8 were surprisingly numerous (and many of them more severe than I was expecting) since I don't recall having as many issues with those versions back in their time.
The reality is, those issues always existed, but I either didn't take personal issue with them, or didn't notice. Perhaps that was because I didn't do the necessary things needed to exposed them back then, whereas this time around I may have. Or perhaps it was a case of "I haven't experienced better" so I accepted them, but now that I have experienced later versions where those particular things aren't issues for me, they stick out.
I don't remember all of them since there was just too many, nor do I remember if the details of all of them are correct, but the ones I remember...
(Spoiler since it's a lot, and you can just read the bold if you want the issue itself instead of the details.)
Something worth mentioning in regards to this is that this performance aspect is related to your frame rate (I think it still is, but at least it's now many times faster due to being multi-threaded), and also it might be worse with frame rate syncing methods enabled. Therefore, you can speed this up (if you have the hardware headroom) by playing at very high frame rates without some method to sync your frames to your refresh rate, but that's an incredibly poor solution as it opens you up to screen tearing, and has your hardware running far beyond the point of providing any other benefit, other than to just get around this slow performance design behavior or pre-1.8 versions.
Beta 1.7.3 is even worse here. I don't just mean "things are a bit slower than I'd like", but since light levels seem to be per chunk, then when the day to night (and vice versa) transitions occur, I observe multiple "rings" of decreasing (or increasing) light levels around me. This is because the chunk updates, rendering-wise at least, are occurring at such a slow pace that the game doesn't finish visually updating them all before the next change in lighting level begins. If v-sync is disabled, things perform well enough here, but that's a poor solution as mentioned above. OptiFine's "chunk updates per frame" setting helps here, but not as much as the multi-threaded rendering of 1.8+ does.
I believe that, to some extent, the "higher frame rate equals chunk rendering finishes faster" is still a thing to this day, but it's at least no longer anywhere near as slow ever since the rendering changes that were made in 1.8.
Lack of quality of life features (1.6) - Not being unable to unbind controls, not being able to bind the sprint function to a something other than double tapping forward, lack of individual sliders for sound (and why does music keep playing when the game is paused... ?), no mip-map support, and so on. While 1.8 (or 1.7) did address those things I just mentioned, it also lacked some quality of life things too, although I can't recall at the moment what they were.
Perhaps an honorable mention with sound was tilling dirt into farmland being quite loud relative to most other game sounds in 1.6 for some reason. (Anvils still have this issue in current versions.)
Also, when going into the options and then choosing to return to the game, you get a "stacked" amplified (louder) sound effect in 1.8 (I can't remember if 1.6 also did this).
Broken lighting from world generation (1.6 severely, 1.8 partially) - This is probably what ruined 1.6 the most for me. There were "Black spots" that should be lit but weren't until a chunk update corrected it. It's like the lighting system isn't fully doing its primary job during chunk generation and was deferring doing it it until later (probably not intended, but still), and often times this correction/update to lighting wouldn't occur until you were very near the problematic spot. It seemed especially bad in the nether or in caves with lava, but under trees or overhangs on the surface and in the overworld had plenty of spots like this. I have no idea how far back the issue goes other than that 1.2.5 also has the same issue, and I think (?) beta 1.7.3 doesn't have the issue, so it might go back to beta 1.8 or release 1.0? Release 1.8 had this issue mostly resolved in the overworld, but it was still there, especially in caves (and the nether). Up until at least 1.12, various lighting issues remained but the severity of this particular one was greatly reduced with both 1.7 and 1.8.
There were other lighting oddities that weren't just delayed Black spots occurring during chunk generation, like how 1.6 also had poor lighting under half slabs that were placed in the top half of a block space. So if, for example, you used half slabs on the ceiling, it looked dark/poor.
Broken rendering (1.8) - Occasionally, due to the game thinking you couldn't see terrain that you should, it wouldn't render it, resulting in invisible spots and you would see the sky in these spots. This wasn't entirely random, meaning once you found a spot that showed it from a certain angle, it always would show it (at least as long as terrain remained in a way that caused it).
Awkward animal spawning (1.6, and I think 1.8 too?) - I don't remember the details of this one, but basically, something can occur to cause the passive mobs that should spawn during world generation to all (or at least mostly) be the same type within a certain area. A forest at spawn was full of almost nothing but sheep, whereas a nearby taiga was full of almost nothing but cows, and so on.
I also observed some strange mass of Pink sheep in 1.8, perhaps as a result of the same thing?
Wolves despawning shortly after spawned in during new chunk generation if not tamed right away (1.6 and 1.8) - Self explanatory. I think 1.6 introduced this and 1.10 resolved it.
Mobs breaking out of enclosures (1.6 and 1.8) or mobs visually appearing out of enclosures only to rubberband back in (1.6) - Also self explanatory.
I used the same design for a farm enclosure that I do in current versions and I can have it full of mobs and they never escape, but they did in 1.6 and 1.8. I also had a lot of instances of horses suffocating in walls along chunk borders back in 1.6 (this was actually an issue I had back then and not just recently, and my "fix" for this was to put a line of fences along the wall, offsetting the horses one block and preventing them from getting stuck in the walls and subsequently suffocating on chunk load).
Passive mobs, when hit, staying in a panic and running state until the world is closed and reloaded (1.6) - Again, self explanatory.
Skin not working (1.6) - This is due to the skin servers no longer working right with versions older than some 1.7.x versions, and even in 1.7.x they only partially work (no layers and slim arm model support?). As of 1.8, they work correctly. To get around this, I had to replace the texture of the player in the resource pack with my old skin. I used my older skin because my current one is a slim arm model and has layers and I didn't want to fuss with adapting it for a version I was only temporarily playing, but I really missed my skin while playing in that version.
Trying to use a bow behind fences results in the player just swinging the bow at the fences (1.6 and 1.8) - Apparently this was introduced in 1.6 and was due to poorly implemented leads, which could be "used" on fences, so you would try and "use" the bow on it by right clicking.
Mobs sinking into the ground, or otherwise not being where they displayed they were (1.6) - Spiders would "fall on repeat and climb back up", or sometimes simply be stationary on the ground, but in reality they were stationary at a higher altitude along the top of a cave or corridor (spiders still get stuck in this way to this day, but they will visually be where they show to be, slight sync discrepancies between server and client aside). This was particularly bad with cave spiders, almost always resulting in you being affected by the poison due to no fault of your own. In another example, I was in a dungeon checking a chest and my screen suddenly displayed a creeper right on top of me. There was "movement" so in the moment, I interpreted this as it might be puffing/charging up. I was playing in hardcore, so I panicked. Yet, there's no charge sound, no hit sound (from me hitting it), and it doesn't move away like it was hit either, but it is bobbing a bit up and down, hence the slight movement that I interpreted as charging. Then it registered; the creeper wasn't even there. Instead, it was in a space above the dungeon and directly above where I was standing.
Many of the other "issues" weren't really things like bugs nor anything "wrong" with the versions themselves, but rather things I simply think were worse with them, or things that weren't as well off like with like less performance due to hardware being slower in those years (I had an odd issue where OptiFine's smooth FPS was needed in 1.6, but not 1.8, to not have it stutter endlessly, and this was on hardware that wasn't slow for the time 1.6 was recent), or things like missing blocks/in-game features or behaviors that later versions have. No shift clicking in the inventory to move things to the crafting table. Poorer boat controls (plus they break a lot, plus they visually desync from where they actually are, plus they "run away from you" when you get out, and so on). Worse combat (I'm not a PVP player, and I prefer the 1.9+ combat). No offhand. Poor accommodations for exploring with maps/making map walls. Not being able to walk over beds without jumping. No accessible anti-aliasing methods for 1.6 besides VSR/DSR which has drawbacks. No mip-mapping for 1.6 (without it, the game looks increasingly "noisy" at a distance, and it is worse at lower resolutions, worse at higher render distances, and worse without anti-aliasing) but OptiFine adds that one. Far less building materials. Limited biomes (more so 1.6) and boring world canvases/poorer terrain generation (both 1.6 and 1.8, but more so 1.8, and this was my biggest complaint with it). The textures were also poorer (both 1.6 and 1.8), but I addressed that one by using a resource pack, called "Modernity", which brings the 1.14+ textures to the older versions.
Basically, lots of it is small stuff, but it adds up with each other. Then, all of that small stuff adds up with the big stuff.
I could probably skim my threads where I recently played through both versions and find more issues/things I complained about, but I've probably already mentioned enough to give you an idea.
I don't know how many of these particular issues I'd have in beta versions or 1.1 though, since 1.3+ introduced a lot of changed technical behavior (merging of single-player and multi-player, namely) and thus introduced many multi-player bugs to single-player. Some, but not all, of the things I experienced seemed related to that.
I'm shocked that minecraft was rampant with so many technical problems lol
That's unfortunate either way though. Your comment about the day/night light transitions in b1.7.3 speaks to me. I notice this all the time, and I feel like I remember seeing this happen in beta minecraft youtube videos as well. Surprisingly it doesn't bother me all that much, but given how far we've come I could see why it would be viewed as antiquated or otherwise just silly looking.
Honestly, even though I can't recall a specific memory of these things happening to me, a lot of these are sounding extremely familiar the way you describe them. I spent a lot of time playing 1.6 when I was younger. If I think really hard about what it was like playing around that time, I can recall the same jank vibes that all encapsulate what you're describing. I really stopped playing right in the 1.7 to 1.8 update range, until about 2019 when it resurged in popularity.
I'm glad Mojang has and is still trying to improve performance and general functionality in modern versions as far as I know, I keep up just enough to know what's going on with the new content but not all technical aspects.
Also if you don't mind me asking, what inspired you to go back and play those earlier updates? I find it kind of uplifting to know that there are people who are willing to dig into the history of the game and see what it was like. I feel like that's a pretty unpopular thing to do, but what do I know? haha
On one hand, I wasn't too shocked. While people have the idea that a game like Minecraft is overly simple, it's also very complicated in its own ways at the same time. On the other hand, it did catch me off guard because I don't recall as many issues with these things back in their day.
As I mentioned, I figure that's because I simply wasn't expecting as much out of the game back then. Now, I do. Our expectations have grown, and in some ways they may have outgrown the improvements that either Mojang has made to the game, or the improvements in hardware performance. So I went back expecting "okay, there will be less features, and I know some technical things will be worse off... but the experience should be okay if I treat them accordingly", but the amount of critical bugs I encountered were the big thing that surprised me. Ask Master Caver about this one, as he has a modded version of the game using 1.6 as the foundation, and one of the things he had to do was fix so many bugs (probably some that even current versions still have) because of how many issues the older game versions used to have.
The main thing that made me go back and play some older versions was because I've been playing some new worlds in hardcore the last couple of years. Traditionally, I've largely stuck to a single world (I guess people are terming these "forever worlds" these days, and I was basically doing that from the start). After my first hardcore world ended in death, I started another to be its replacement, only with even more restrictions based on what I found made the game too easy the first time around, but these restrictions ended up making me avoid risk entirely, and I instead started exploring a lot while looking for a place to settle. And... that sort of just continued. So that world shifted from its original purpose to a world where I explore 1.18+ terrain indefinitely. After doing that for a while, I took a break from the game in the middle of last year, and when I wanted to play again at the end of the year, I figured I would do some short worlds in older versions (also in hardcore) before returning to my current world.
1.6 was chosen because I wanted to retrace the steps of my very first world, which was in 1.2.5, and I figured 1.6 would be a bit better off on technical/quality of life aspects than 1.2.5, and it has close enough to the same terrain generation.
1.8 was chosen since I never really did too many 1.7 through 1.17 terrain generation era worlds, so I wanted to try and map one and see how its worlds were (the answer was... pretty terrible). I also wanted to give a retrospective look at how the infamous performance measured up today, but on hardware from back then. This was another thing that surprised me, because in its day, I remember 1.8 marked a point where performance dropped for me (I did play at pretty high render distances even back then though). While revisiting it, even on what is now very slow hardware, I found it to outperform 1.6. Not in every single regard (performance isn't a monolith but a combination of factors, after all), but it did.
There's other versions I might want to give a try. 1.2.5 is still one of them, as that's my first version (1.12 and/or 1.16 were two others I considered, but I may skip them after 1.8 drained me on the worlds those versions create)... but having to change to my old PC all the time got old. If you're wondering why I would do that, those old versions didn't age well in some regards with new hardware. In particular, they made some poor design choices and one of them was they wouldn't render spherical fog unless you had a certain video card type, one I don't presently have (which wasn't resolved until as "recently" as 1.17 when the game moved to using a newer OpenGL version), and I find that the game looks much worse off without the spherical fog. Sometimes it just more fun to play on hardware from the time too.
I like that there's a lot to be learned from these older versions, at least from the perspective of someone like me who doesn't bother with the intermediary updates. I wish I had the patience to go back and commit to playing some of these older versions, even just for a little. I imagine going back "through the ages" of Minecraft would make people more appreciative of everything that we've gained as a result of the game being constantly updated and supported with new content.
Like you said, sometimes with the old versions its a bit of a chore to make them work properly, but I could see there being a lot to learn from revisiting "old" Minecraft with a modern perspective, finding little idiosyncrasies and quirks of a version long past the point of relevancy.
Newer versions could run so much better though if properly optimized, e.g. an example given by the "Sodium mod" showing a massive increase from only 35 to 478 FPS on a system comparable to what I currently have (their CPU has a higher overall rating, lower single-core, at least on a synthetic benchmark):
This is what I get when playing on an incredibly optimized version based on 1.6.4, which many people have tried and say outperforms modern versions (at the same settings; the Sodium example appears to be 32 chunks while this is 16 so it clearly blows it away and I wouldn't be surprised given it is using OpenGL 4+ features which even vanilla still doens't use, only a spec from... 2009, still better than what 1.6.4/TMCW uses, from the 1990s and officially obsolete since 2009. Of course, OpenGL itself is generally seen to be obsolete these days, with the final revision in 2017):
This is a "mega forest" biome with unbelievably huge trees:
A rendering of the area, compare the height of the trees to the mountains to the left (themselves higher than in vanilla, basically 1.6.4 Extreme Hills without the limit of y=128):
e.g. somebody tested various versions and vanilla 1.6.4 was one of the worst performing versions but TMCW was the best by far, even compared to an optimization version of 1.20 (note that "12 chunks" is incorrect for vanilla 1.6.4, it is only 10):
A common statement regarding its performance:
I should note though that vanilla 1.6.4 performs far, far better for me, on a system which could have been used back in the day:
I only get comparably bad performance when doing something completely unrealistic like rendering a 16x16x16 cube of chests, which absolutely destroys performance even in modern versions, and my mod still doubles FPS in this situation (I also included Optifine to show that it doesn't do anything at all in this case. Maybe not so "unrealistic", given that people do build massive storage systems, even I have about 1000 chests and signs at my main base in my first world but spread out enough that they don't all render at once, especially if I ever reached 4000+, I also added frustum culling to tile entities):
In fact, even on a system from the mid-2000s I got decent performance even on a modded world with three times the ground depth (and caves more than scaled up to match):
Another screenshot from a less extreme "double height" version of the mod, with various other mods installed, this is also at "Normal" render distance, which I've always played out out of preference (originally more due to performance, and 32 bit system limitations, e.g. "Minecraft has run out of memory" due to the Java process hitting the 32 bit process size limit, back then the developer of Optifine even said to reduce the then-default of 1 GB to 350 MB to avoid issues):
I also think that the complaints of "slow chunk rendering" are grossly overblown and not even accurate, except when Vsync is used (I get 500-1000 chunk updates per second otherwise, enough to fully render in loaded chunks within a second, considering that visible chunks are prioritized), I only ever noticed it when flying around in Creative on my old computer, aside from a bug which causes the game to simply forget to render some chunks, even on modern systems (fixed with a very simple one-line patch; you wouldn't even believe how easy it was to fix most of the bugs, yet some went unfixed for years, even a decade). At the time 1.8 was so much worse, not just at chunk rendering performance but everything else, and many people still say older versions perform better so it is highly dependent on system setups (even back in the day 25% of respondents to a popular poll said 1.8 ran better):
Also, this shows the sort of system that TMCW can run on:
I even prodded Princess_Garnet to try out my "World1 custom client", essentially the base version that TMCW is a mod of (more or less just its optimizations and bugfixes, plus many QoL changes and a handful of clearly modded features which can be entirely optional, e.g. rail blocks, double-sized ender chests). This even includes a nasty graphical rendering bug that affects all versions from Beta 1.9 to 1.7.10 on newer Intel drivers (the second image above, which I included to show the size of the device, shows one of the issues, this is a lot worse in vanilla since I'd already made a patch for it that fully fixed it for most systems, with another tweak that fully fixed it for theirs; and yes, fixing it is also just a single line of code).
Also, I'd certainly not have a good time playing a current version, I'd be complaining just as much about their numerous flaws, whether gameplay or bugs (for example, due to my playstyle I'd notice these glitches, and many related rendering issues, a lot more than most players, and they are all still unresolved, and some even worse than before, except for one that affected blocks underwater).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Yes, that is exactly what the experience resulted in for me.
It was a lot of fun (keeping in mind I was only doing it short term; I wouldn't be willing to settle with the lacking offerings of the older versions permanently), but despite the fun, it was also frustrating because I was finding that they are very lacking in, well... basically everything. The technical state (quality of life, certain behaviors, and bugs) was pretty rough, and performance is far lower (this shows up mostly with pre-1.8 versions, and mostly in regards to chunk loading, which as far as I'm concerned is one of the most important performance aspects of the game).
A lot of this simply circles back to a few things, those being "the game hitched its wagon to already-ancient-at-the-time OpenGL versions when the world was moving away from OpenGL entirely", "the game required certain brand functions for certain things instead of being more broad in support" (referring to spherical fog), and "some of the choices the game has made resulted in poor performance or behavior" (such as a lower frame rate/v-sync drastically exaggerating the slow chunk rendering, which is a bigger issue prior to 1.8 versions). With later versions, much of these example are all less the case, so they don't ask the user to jump through as many hoops to have it just working well. You may want performance mods if you want to push the render distance, but... it's throwing rocks from glass houses to complain about that when performance/behavior fixing mods are needed even more for older versions. I wish these older versions worked better in their vanilla state in these later years, but they don't always do so due to some choice they made at the time. But that's something that affects a lot of things and not just Minecraft. Keeping things working well into the future often requires effort eventually, but in Minecraft's case, it's unfortunately one of the ones that need it bad. And sometimes, it's far more effort than I'm willing to deal with for versions that offer less and that I'm not going to play permanently.
So yes, it was all an enlightening experience, to say the least. But while it was frustrating, it was fun for the limited time I tried it, and I'm glad I did. I wouldn't recommend it for everyone, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend against it, either.
Well, the bold is the important part there.
Whether something can run at 100 FPS, 200 FPS or 500 FPS is pretty irrelevant in my mind if I'm going to be running it lower than any of those. Screen tearing is an undesirable thing to some people, and having to have your hardware run unnecessarily higher because of behavior like this also is. Of course, all else being equal, higher potential performance would always be better yes, but that's the problem here; all else isn't equal. Namely, at a lower frame rate (and with v-sync), chunk rendering is drastically slowed, and this is a particular problem with vanilla versions before 1.8. Performance isn't a monolith and it is far more than frame rates alone, even if those are part of it. Looking at things in a vacuum isn't too helpful. The definition I'd give performance is how quickly the game serves the content you request of it. Meaning, if I have a given render distance set, and it takes the game XX seconds instead of X seconds to finish serving that amount of content up, then it is simply performing (in that regard) many times slower. The frame rate remaining at many hundred of FPS in that meantime doesn't change that (in a way, I'd say it could be seen as worse because it comes off to me as "I obviously have a lot of performance to spare so why are you dragging your feet so much on finishing this" feeling).
This factor (chunk rendering speed) might not be an issue to you, with your style of play or where the render distance and your rate of travel is typically lower, but not being important to you personally doesn't erase it as being a factor of performance. When you play at higher render distances and with more/faster traveling (and with v-sync), that is when this comes into importance a lot more.
Unfortunately, by time you have suggested this to me, I was already partially into my world. If I had known of it beforehand, I may have tried it, but it's also a lot more effort for me to get mods for these older versions set up (and yes, I typically look for mods that don't change the game content as much, but this sounds like it might have changed so little that maybe I would have tried it). As I said earlier in the thread though, I was not expecting to encounter so many issues and bugs with these older versions until after I had done so. They blindsided me.
I would like to consider trying TMCW some day (and I mean the full thing), and I mentioned this to you before but you sort of often ignore me, but due to my unwillingness to put a ton of effort in (including switching entire PCs...) for a version of the game I won't stick with, it's been pretty low on my list of things. Again, the older versions of the game (which TMCW, despite its changes, is based on) don't always age well on some PCs and with some use cases, and that happens to be the case for me unfortunately. Otherwise, I'd probably be doing a whole lot more of playing some older versions, even if I ultimately prefer recent versions.