Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#26 2006-01-11 1:37 am
Re: Quake 4...
Bat wrote:
True, not many of '95s PCs could handle Tribes, but interesting how many folks were playing it then, years before release [12/98].
I wasn't sure about that date, but I thought the original came out before then.
Either way, if you figure 1995 with your standard 10% error, it would then be ±199.5 years, so it would have been between 1795.5 and 2194.5. In that case, end of 1998 would be pretty close to my original guess.

Offline
#27 2006-01-11 10:22 am
- Bat
- Flawless Cowboy
- Royal Wombat

- From: Björk, Björk
- Registered: 2001-05-14
- Posts: 28541
Re: Quake 4...
Fair enough. 
It'd run especially poorly in software on a '95 PC, too, and no 3Dfx cards then. (Of course, with your standard 10% margin of error...
)
If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion - George Bernard Shaw
"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air."
Offline
#28 2006-01-11 1:12 pm
- The Cynic
- Member

- Registered: 2004-01-25
- Posts: 1934
Re: Quake 4...
Bat wrote:
quirky physics
I suggest a healthy dose of HL2 to remedy your situation.
Offline
#29 2006-01-11 1:26 pm
#30 2006-01-11 2:41 pm
Re: Quake 4...
Bat wrote:
Fair enough.
It'd run especially poorly in software on a '95 PC, too, and no 3Dfx cards then. (Of course, with your standard 10% margin of error... http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/max … icgrin.gif )
Well, judging from the fact that my parents didn't even let me get my first console until 1998 (I was 12), and the fact that I haven't been paying any attention to computer graphics hardware until a few years ago, I'd say I probably don't know too much about the hardware capabilities in 1995.
I'd like to think I know quite a bit about modern hardware, though, especially since I'm working on OpenGL programming.
Offline


