Out of the Blue

Lately I've had some serious glitches with my gaming computer, and as a temporary network troubleshooting effort as much as anything, installed a couple of games on my work computer as a control test. As it turns out, this measure may be more than temporary, as this machine seems to not only clear up the problem I was addressing, and plays everything I've tried so far flawlessly, in spite of this machine's use of Windows 2000 Professional, which Microsoft readily admits is not very well suited for game playing. Go fig.

R.I.P.: Bee Gees singer Maurice Gibb dies. Thanks ZigZang.

Play Time: Inter - Face. Thanks Sharon.
Link of the Day: Rocking horse toilet. Thanks John Coke.
Image of the Day: Frodo's Failure. Thanks Peter Woronko. But we can still see him!?
View : : :
22.
 
No subject
Jan 13, 2003, 01:13
22.
No subject Jan 13, 2003, 01:13
Jan 13, 2003, 01:13
 
Windows 2000 is so named because it was intended to be the version that finally united the consumer level 9x series with the enterprise level NT series. Instead, at the last minute it was determined that consumer machines were not quite ready for Windows 2000 (which is really just NT with DirectX merged more cleanly with it than 4.0) as the average household systems really did not have the processor and memory needed to make 2000 appear adequately speedy.

So Microsoft held back the official merger of the two OSes and the death of the 9x line and hurridly pushed out a new update to the 9x series called Me. Me was not called 2000 because all the marketing and information released to date had the next NT under that moniker. Thus MS totally messed up their own naming convention.

I find that Win 2K runs all games designed for XP with no problems what so ever and is functionally very similar to XP with only some bells, whistles, annoying arse DRM, and an even more annoying copy protection implementation missing. Those missing items (and the outrageous pricing scheme) are the only reason I haven't moved to XP.

This comment was edited on Jan 13, 01:14.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
3.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
2.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
4.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
10.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
23.
Jan 13, 2003Jan 13 2003
5.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
6.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
7.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
8.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
13.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
15.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
17.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
9.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
11.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
12.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
14.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
19.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
20.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
21.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
16.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
18.
Jan 12, 2003Jan 12 2003
 22.
Jan 13, 2003Jan 13 2003
No subject
24.
Jan 13, 2003Jan 13 2003
25.
Jan 13, 2003Jan 13 2003