LOL! At first I was thinking you guys were kidding. But now... LOL. I agree, by far the funniest thread since a long time here.
You really hoped to play a ground breaking 2004 game on a 1998 OS that isnt even supported anymore by microsoft and most hardware developers? On ultra low setting (16x16 textures, polycount 10 models) with 320x200 resolution? ROFL!
"ID just lost another customer" LOL! You guys are awesome. you just made my day, thank you!
Or are you just some pissed of ATI fanboys who want to vent?
On the other points, yes win2k and XP are far more stable than 95/98 or *shiver* ME. I still wonder why some people call 95/98/ME operating systems, or even USE those still! But somehow XP is not as good as win2k on my machine. I have had it 8 months on my computer now and it already got extremely slow so that I will have to do a fresh install soon. win2k was on my machine 2 years and at the end of that it was still as fast as on the first day... I wish win2k had a fully working HT support, then I would switch back.
AND YES it is possible to run win98 or 95 and even ME without getting any blue screens, but that would mean you have only 6, maybe 5 year old hardware, nothing more than a graphic card in a slot, no more than 128 mb installed and NO GAMES installed. then it was no problem at all. heck, my father still uses it on some work station. read again, WORK STATIONS. still good enough for that. but for games? lol...Roger, Bravo Delta, this is Sitting Duck. I have Bogie Queen in my sights, and I'm, uh, going to shoot bullets at it now.
- Unkown Soldier
I have given up on waiting for BIS to come back to their senses and do a real ArmA 2 successor.