🚀 go-pugleaf

laur...@ix.netcom.com (Hungs) wrote:

>cor...@chat.carleton.ca writes: 

>>What? I'm a gamer, and I am not going to buy Win95.  If I want to play
>>games, I am going to use DOS. Remember, the game WAS written for DOS,
>>and since I currently have DOS (Not a MS-DOS), I am not going to
>>switch to a technically inferior product so I can run DOS games.  If
>>you want to use DOS games, why not use DOS?  What's the point in
>>upgrading if you aren't going to use any of the "new" technology? 
>>It's pointless!

>Well then you'll miss out on all the Windows '95 games. They run as
>fast or unnoticeably slower than DOS.  Also you will lose multitasking.
> If you want to see a nice Win95 game you should take a look at the
>pre-Alpha game that was ported from the Sega: PitFall Harry. It's a
>really nice game. Anyways MS is designing Win95 a lot around making it
>a better gaming platform.  Win95 is the future of games.

True.  While Win95 may have more resource overhead than DOS, and not as advanced
as OS/2 Warp, it will be a far better gaming platform than either.
Anyone who has seen what the MS SDK for games has would agree.
Once Win95 games start appearing, we'll no longer have headaches getting SVGA games
to work, we'll have video cards supporting 3d acceleration (which will 
make the "resource demands" argument insignifigant) and many more games
supporting h2h play, as all these things will be built in.
I really couldn't care much less about compatibility with older games
anyway, since the nature of computer games is that one gets tired of
them rather quickly anyway.


Timothy P. Kelley             E-mail:...@ix.netcom.com

"The three things were damnably clever constructions of their kind, 
and were furnished with ingenious mettalic clamps to attach them to
organic developments of which I dare not form any conjecture."
                                              -H.P. Lovecraft