Harder upgrade--3.1 to 95 or 98 to 2000?
This is a discussion about Harder upgrade--3.1 to 95 or 98 to 2000? in the Slack Space category; 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.
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?
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Mar 30
Apr 6
0
1 minute
Responses to this topic
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
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
