🚀 go-pugleaf

chris (ch...@skypoint.com) wrote:
: In article <4230ac$6...@news.mountain.net>,
:    ge...@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com (Gene) wrote:
: >If that cheesy 'Hover' game is ANY indication of how, 'smooth', games
: >can run under Win95 using the built in routines offered by Win95......
: >I'll stick with DOS!! I mean, the game updated at like 1 frame every
: >20 seconds.
: > And if ONE person says I have a slow system and it runs nice on THEIR
: >system...... I'll personally hunt you down and beat you up for being so
: >stupid! I'm not some newbie with a 386SX-16.
: > The game is slow on every system I've seen it on. That ranges from
: >DX4-100s to P90s to my P133 with a Stingray PCI video card. (Pumping
: >out 132fps in 3DBench!!!!!!!!!!!)
: >

: No, you're right.Hover sucks bad..even on 100+s.Play a few more games and 
: you'll see the perf is just as good as DOS (& that's not even '95 specific 
: coding).  Hover is just a _*_POORLY_*_ coded game.

If you think Hover runs slow on Win95 then you should see Phantasmagoria which
even has an autoplay feature.  I have a 486DX4/100, 16M of mem, and a Plextor
4X CD ROM (625K conv., 14500K extended) and it ran VERY choppy in Win 95.  The
box states that it will run on a 486/25, but it doesn't tell you that's in DOS
mode.  The manual in the box states that Phant requires a 486/66 or above for
smooth operation in WIn 95. I have a faster system than that and the audio and
video was chopped up, especially during the intro.  Yet, when I reboot to DOS
mode and run it, it works fine and is smooth.  Anyone have an explanation for
this?  It's funny how Sierra always seems to hide the disclaimers inside the
box.  If we all had X RAY vision, we'd all be better off in purchasing these
products.  As for Microsoft,they're not any better for pushing this operating
system as being efficient to play games.  People should have to upgrade to a
Pentium 90+ just to use this operating system efficiently.  It's a 32 bit
operating system and should run great on a 32 bit system.