🚀 go-pugleaf

Well, hover is a BAD example of a game for win95... Pitfall is a good
example, you should take a look at that.

BTW - do run any SVGA sims on your P133? I was curious how well things
like nascar racing or US nave fighters run in SVGA.  On my P90, they are a
little lacking. Of course, I am a stickler for Frame Rates.

-Craig

In article <4230ac$6...@news.mountain.net>, ge...@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com says...

>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!!!!!!!!!!!)

You must have a slow system and it runs nice on MY system......
What are you, some newbie with a 386SX-16?

Sut beriously, it runs pretty well in a smallish window on my
DX4(100) with some sort of S3 in it running at 1024x768, 256 colours.

Mind you, I think the game is pretty boring.

--
Stephen Oakes                       CSIRO Australia
ste...@mel.dbce.csiro.au          Division of Building,
Tel: +61 3 252 6000            Construction and Engineering.
Fax: +61 3 252 6249          PO Box 56, Highett, Victoria, 3190
======================================================================

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!!!!!!!!!!!)

Try playing Pitfall.  It's one of the best-looking and best-playing
games I've ever seen for the PC.  Of course, I personally can't wait
until the Win95 version of Descent II  ;)
  -John

Gene (ge...@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com) 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!!!!!!!!!!!)

	It should run as smooth as any game in DOS does if it is run
in full screen mode, especially on the systems you've listed.  I have
a 486DX2/66, 16MBs RAM, 2MB VRAM VLB Video Card, and Hover does appear
choppy in a Window but runs smoothly in full screen mode.  Regardless,
Hover's just a bad game to use as an example of Windows 95 games. 
Take a look at Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure.  This plays as well or
better than any DOS game I've seen.  Besides, sticking to DOS would be
stupid since the majority of new games being released are for Windows
95 and although Windows 95 does offer support for DOS, DOS is now
pretty much obsolete.

Just my 2 cents worth,

Calvin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Htut
Member Beta Theta Pi Fraternity
Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
E-MAIL: ch...@chat.carleton.ca
  OR  : cal...@fox.nstn.ca	
 WWW  : http://www.eng.carleton.ca/chat/~chtut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In <DE61E...@cunews.carleton.ca> ch...@chat.carleton.ca (Calvin Htut)
writes: 
>
>Gene (ge...@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com) 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!!!!!!!!!!!)
>
If by "built in routines" you are referring to something other that
WinG, it shows how uneducated and stupid you are.  If you are referring
to something that uses WinG, then either the game was programmed by an
idiot, or..?  My friend is writing a game using WinG, and on his DX2-66
it clears and redraws part of a 320X240 window at 50fps.

In article <423sql$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, dona...@ix.netcom.com (Donald Collins) writes:
> In <DE61E...@cunews.carleton.ca> ch...@chat.carleton.ca (Calvin Htut)
> writes: 
>>
>>Gene (ge...@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com) 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!!!!!!!!!!!)
>>
> If by "built in routines" you are referring to something other that
> WinG, it shows how uneducated and stupid you are.  If you are referring
> to something that uses WinG, then either the game was programmed by an
> idiot, or..?  My friend is writing a game using WinG, and on his DX2-66
> it clears and redraws part of a 320X240 window at 50fps.


I read that microsoft was abandoning WinG in favor of the DDI something or
another that most 3D cards will be using.

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 (and that's not even '95 specific 
coding).  Hover is just a _*_POORLY_*_ coded game.

In article <4231b9$1...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   ch...@skypoint.com (chris) wrote:

>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 (and that's not even '95 specific 
>coding).  Hover is just a _*_POORLY_*_ coded game.

Maybe Hover uses WinG instead of the DirectDraw API as well?

ste...@mel.dbce.csiro.au (Stephen Oakes) wrote:

>You must have a slow system and it runs nice on MY system......
>What are you, some newbie with a 386SX-16?
>
>Sut beriously, it runs pretty well in a smallish window on my
>DX4(100) with some sort of S3 in it running at 1024x768, 256 colours.
>
>Mind you, I think the game is pretty boring.

Agreed.  Hover is not a good representation of how well Win95 
handles the games.  A GOOD representation is Pitfall:  The 
Mayan Adventure.  It runs SUBERBLY on my my p-90 with s3 video 
accelerator.   This is a great example of how well the Win95 
designed games run.

Now, getting to DOS games, it's still a good idea not to be 
running windows.  Mech Warrior II didn't run so hot when 
running in 95.

utdsl...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:


>> If by "built in routines" you are referring to something other that
>> WinG, it shows how uneducated and stupid you are.  If you are referring
>> to something that uses WinG, then either the game was programmed by an
>> idiot, or..?  My friend is writing a game using WinG, and on his DX2-66
>> it clears and redraws part of a 320X240 window at 50fps.


>I read that microsoft was abandoning WinG in favor of the DDI something or
>another that most 3D cards will be using.

Alright, to clear this up.

WinG is simply an effective way to draw bitmaps off-screen, then blast
them to the current frame buffer very quickly.

However, this is still not fast enough in most cases.  DirectDraw
replaces this.  DirectDraw is a comprehensive graphics API, which
allows buffering, writing direct to the screen, and hardware support-
so your 2D card can help with moving bitmaps, a huge advantage.

3D DDI however, is simply another Win95 graphics component that
provides a very "thin" software layer that 3D game designers can
"hook" into and provide support for any 3D accelerator card that has a
3D DDI driver.  It is seperate from DirectDraw, and WinG.

dona...@ix.netcom.com (Donald Collins) wrote:
>In <DE61E...@cunews.carleton.ca> ch...@chat.carleton.ca (Calvin Htut)
>writes: 
>>
>>Gene (ge...@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com) 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!!!!!!!!!!!)
>>
>If by "built in routines" you are referring to something other that
>WinG, it shows how uneducated and stupid you are.  If you are referring
>to something that uses WinG, then either the game was programmed by an
>idiot, or..?  My friend is writing a game using WinG, and on his DX2-66
>it clears and redraws part of a 320X240 window at 50fps.


First please clarify who you are flaming. 

Second WinG can't handle a wet dream. It crashes windows more than any 
other program I have. Granted Windows isn't the most stable OS in and of 
itself.


hoop

Gene (ge...@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com) 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!!!!!!!!!!!)

	Hmm, Hover runs great on my system (Pentium 66) perhaps you have 
a problem with your win95 setup. Go to System in control panel, and make 
sure your system is optimized for best 32 bit performance. 

	On the subject of games for win95, i saw Fury Cubed in action 
last night, and it looked great. Yes, it is Terminal Velocity, but the 
graphics are looking better, and are moving about much smoother than the 
old dos version. The music kicks ass to.
	
	John

In article <4230ac$6...@news.mountain.net>, ge...@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com says...
>
>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!!!!!!!!!!!)


I originally thought the same thing.  Even though I was running Win95, I 
was really hoping that gaming wouldn't go that way... I liked my DOS games
the way they were.
 
I think Microsoft made a blunder releasing Hover, especially as one of the
first Win95 games... it really didn't make a good impression. However, after
seeing Pitall, my opinion has made a full 180.  The game plays as smoothly
as any DOS game, with lots of background animation and large sprites.  The
sound is mixed perfectly with no glitches or interuptions.
 
Definately check out Pitfall and THEN determine whether gaming under Win95
has a chance...


-- 
Emilio Galasso
University of Toronto: Computer Science
eg...@msi.net
bo...@torfree.net

jo...@wonderland.apana.org.au wrote:




>	On the subject of games for win95, i saw Fury Cubed in action 
>last night, and it looked great. Yes, it is Terminal Velocity, but the 
>graphics are looking better, and are moving about much smoother than the 
>old dos version. The music kicks ass to.

I find that hard to believe.  Fury 3, and I've seen about 10 machines
running on it from a DX-33 to a P90, is certainly not as smooth as
Terminal Velocity.  Jumpy in every one, and not even in SVGA.  No
thanks.

Hover blows.

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.

In article <42fb4h$1...@utaipx02.uta.edu>,
Jay B Biggerstaff <JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu> wrote:
>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.
>

It was smooth in my system.  I have a P90, 16 Mb.  
-- 

                      pit...@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu

In article <42gcll$h...@masala.cc.uh.edu> pit...@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu (Sergio Pitanga) writes:
>From: pit...@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu (Sergio Pitanga)
>Subject: Re: Games under Win95? HAHAHA!!
>Date: 5 Sep 1995 02:29:09 GMT

>In article <42fb4h$1...@utaipx02.uta.edu>,
>Jay B Biggerstaff <JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu> wrote:
>>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.
>>

>It was smooth in my system.  I have a P90, 16 Mb.  
>-- 

>                      pit...@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu

I use os/2 warp and it works VERY smooth for me with a 486dx2/50! 

Jay B Biggerstaff (JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu) wrote:

: 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.

I have basically the same system as you, but I only have 8 megs of RAM.  
I have not had a single audio break in Phantasmagoria.  And yes, I DON'T 
like the fact Sierra didn't put the Win95 requirements on the box.
BTW, I am running my AMD DX4/100 at 50MHz external and 100MHz internal 
and have VLB video and a VLB E-IDE card.  It may make a little 
difference.

Josh

                  ___________________________________________
                 |Josh Willingham |Northern Arizona Univesity|  
                 |Mountain Dragon |    Flagstaff, Arizona    |
                 |   -==UDIC==-   |       History Major      |
                 |      jlw@      |  "Paradise stands in the |
                 |dana.ucc.nau.edu|     shadow of swords"    |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   |"Chief Wigam, that story's not appropriate for children." - Lisa Simpson|
   |"Really?  In this version I keep my pants on..." - Chief Wigam          |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a P 90 and a matrox PCI video board with a quad speed 
Plextor and Phantasmagoria ran just fine.  I thought the 
graphics were awesome. Real smooth.

I have a P90 with a matrox PCI video board and a Plextor quad 
speed and Phantasmagoria ran just fine.  Graphics were awesome.

Presto (joh...@newton.tuns.ns.ca) wrote:
: In article <42gcll$h...@masala.cc.uh.edu> pit...@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu (Sergio Pitanga) writes:
: >From: pit...@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu (Sergio Pitanga)
: >Subject: Re: Games under Win95? HAHAHA!!
: >Date: 5 Sep 1995 02:29:09 GMT

: >In article <42fb4h$1...@utaipx02.uta.edu>,
: >Jay B Biggerstaff <JBB...@utarlg.uta.edu> wrote:
: >>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.
: >>

: >It was smooth in my system.  I have a P90, 16 Mb.  
: >-- 

: >                      pit...@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu

: I use os/2 warp and it works VERY smooth for me with a 486dx2/50! 


Heelllloooooooo?  I'm not talking about running it in OS/2 or DOS.  I'm talking
about Win '95.  All I know is that I'm glad they included a DOS version on the
CD.  When I run it in Win '95, THe video sequences are choppy and the music
stutters.  I've checked all my CD ROM settings and such in WIn 95 and still get
the same results.  I have a Micron 486DX4/100 and 16 M of RAM.  What more deos
it want?  There's a problem somewhere.

In article <424de4$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, clipi...@aol.com says...
>
>Well, hover is a BAD example of a game for win95... Pitfall is a good
>example, you should take a look at that.
>
>BTW - do run any SVGA sims on your P133? I was curious how well things
>like nascar racing or US nave fighters run in SVGA.  On my P90, they are a
>little lacking. Of course, I am a stickler for Frame Rates.
>
>-Craig
Do you run Nascar and Navy Fighters under Win 95? Just curious cause I like 
both those games...

>Take a look at Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure.  This plays as well or
>better than any DOS game I've seen.  Besides, sticking to DOS would be
>stupid since the majority of new games being released are for Windows
>95 and although Windows 95 does offer support for DOS, DOS is now
>pretty much obsolete.
>
>Just my 2 cents worth,
>
>Calvin
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>Calvin Htut
>Member Beta Theta Pi Fraternity
>Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
>E-MAIL: ch...@chat.carleton.ca
>  OR  : cal...@fox.nstn.ca      
> WWW  : http://www.eng.carleton.ca/chat/~chtut
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Uh, excuse me but either you are grossly mis-informed,or you have no sense 
what-so-ever....DOS is VERY FAR from being obsolete...Windows 95 JUST CAME 
OUT!!! How could it already be the leader in operating systems? Also the 
MAJORORITY of games are not coming out for Win95. Here are some fact's as I 
see them.

1) A lot of games ARE coming out for Win95 AND DOS! Not just Win95. Also 
more games are coming out for straight DOS then they are coming out for 
Win95 only. 

2) DOS will be around for quite a while, if for no other reason than Win95 
is STILL NOT 100% compatible/bug-free with EXISTING systems...
	b) I say EXISTING systems because I know a LOT of you are going to 
argue that Win 95 is coming pre-installed on most new machines. But since 
most computer companies have trade deals with Microsoft they take what they 
can get.

3) Now I'll grant you that Win95 MAY replace DOS EVENTUALLY. But nothing is 
for sure yet. I myself haven't tried WIn 95 yet, but I am in the process of 
cleaning my hard drive and backing it up to prepare it for Win 95. I am 
going to give it the benifit of the doubt, even tho people I personnally 
know have had various problems with it. I also know people who have had NO 
problems with it.

Well that's my 3 cents...

>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!!!!!!!!!!!)

So hunt me down.....my P66 runs it smoothly.......