Compatible Support Forums: Harder upgrade--3.1 to 95 or 98 to 2000?

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Harder upgrade--3.1 to 95 or 98 to 2000?

#1 User is offline   rbarbier 

  • member
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 11-March 00

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 smile Windows will never run games as good as Dos. Look at Doom 1 and 2. Games will never look this good on Windows smile 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?
0

#2 User is offline   FrogMaster 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 08-March 00

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 smile smile smile
0

#3 User is offline   Spastic Computer Guru 

  • journeyman
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 06-April 00

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
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users