Guest dnoyeB! Posted June 17, 2001 Report Posted June 17, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Kush: (Of course they'll come up with some kind of sub-quark alternate universe computer that measures speed in how many alternate universes the quarks in your processor taps into. By then, hopefully I'll be dead, and my grand children will have to deal with it all! )How about lepton-muon processors How demanding is this game really? 3D has been here for a while and the only thing tough is close quarters dogfights. This open space game cant be that demanding..
Menchise Posted June 17, 2001 Report Posted June 17, 2001 quote: And PS, it ain't just the Quake series, all software, at all times in the history of computing have become bigger, and more demanding. I like to fool myself occasionally by telling myself that a 1 Gig processor is the fastest that I will ever need. Ha. Ha ha ha ha ha! Hooooooo boy, I wish that were true. Then it'll be 2 Gig, then 5, then whatever. I'll just be very happy after they've made the move from processing information with electrons to photons to quarks, and realize that they really can't get any smaller. Moore's law will be dead and I'll be able to stop with this insane upgrade path every freakin year! On that day gentlemen, I will be a happy man. There is a very simple solution to this upgrade creep (brutal but simple ): Abduct all of the game developers and publishers, put them in a massive classroom, tie them to the chairs, and tell them that they will not be allowed to leave until they have learned Assembly language.OK, so Assembly is very hard to debug (it has no compiler), it's not as portable, and takes ten times longer to write (unless you're an expert with at least a decade of practise); however, Assembly experts make the fastest programs, the smallest programs (in terms of disk space), and, once the bugs are worked out, the most reliable programs.By the way, which language did the SC use to write BC3K and BCM?[ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Charles Lindsey Posted June 17, 2001 Report Posted June 17, 2001 quote:Moore's law will be dead and I'll be able to stop with this insane upgrade path every freakin year! Not.Welcome to the consumer treadmill.
Delgard Posted June 17, 2001 Report Posted June 17, 2001 quote:First off, if you care about old DOS games, don't go Win ME! Win ME doesn't support DOS games at ALL.That's not true. I have Win ME and even a game like BC3000AD seems to work better than it did in Win 98SE. I've also tried many other games that need "pure DOS" and came out around 1992 and they too seem to work fine in Win ME. Mostly.But this could just be me.[ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: Delgard ]
Kush Posted June 17, 2001 Report Posted June 17, 2001 All I have ever heard about Win ME is that Dos is gone. I talked with a friend just today who told me that he can't get his DOS games running properly on Win ME. In an article in Computer Games Magazine they talk about how Win XP is better for running DOS games without a hassle. I haven't tried XP yet of course, but it sounds stable and it should be out soon, so personally I'm gonna wait and see, but if Win Me works for you, then fine. Go to town.
Supreme Cmdr Posted June 17, 2001 Report Posted June 17, 2001 Thanks for hijaaking the thread, ladies quote:By the way, which language did the SC use to write BC3K and BCM?BC3K:MASM Watcom C/C++ AILOG (my own language)BCM:MSVC AILOG
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now