Page 1 of 1
Harder upgrade--3.1 to 95 or 98 to 2000?
#1
Posted 30 March 2000 - 11:29 AM
I think that uprgrading from 3.1 to 95 was a lot harder upgrade for everything. Drivers and software and hardware. OH NO. NO DOS! Games suck in Windows
Windows will never run games as good as Dos. Look at Doom 1 and 2. Games will never look this good on Windows
But seriously remember all the headaches going to 95. Just doesn't seem the same with 2000. I am more happy with the move from 98 to 2000 then from 3.1 to 95. What do you all think?
#2
Posted 30 March 2000 - 12:39 PM
You are right man!
A lot of people seem to have less memory than they have in their boxes.
I remember it was a real pain at the beginning to have everything run under Win95.
Just imagine we are next year: dual 1 GHz machines with Quake 4 or Unreal 2 running 200 fps at 1600x1200 in 32-bit with FSAA, T&L, stereo support, anything you are dreaming of...
Those who flame W2K just piss me off. Let them play with gameboyz/girlz
A lot of people seem to have less memory than they have in their boxes.
I remember it was a real pain at the beginning to have everything run under Win95.
Just imagine we are next year: dual 1 GHz machines with Quake 4 or Unreal 2 running 200 fps at 1600x1200 in 32-bit with FSAA, T&L, stereo support, anything you are dreaming of...
Those who flame W2K just piss me off. Let them play with gameboyz/girlz
#3
Posted 06 April 2000 - 03:28 AM
I highly agree the only problem w/ the 2K upgrade was I had to replace my video card, but hey it was old and needed to be replaced any way. Bonus
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1

Help










