Final-Fan said:
naznatips said:
Final-Fan said:
So you're assuming that 5 years from now everyone will still be running Vista?
W95-1995
W98-1998
W2K-2000
WXP-2001
WV-2006/7
It seems to me that XP's lifespan was the exception, not the rule. Maybe 5/6 year lifespans for OSes is the new rule but then again maybe not.
Now here we get into something that I truly don't know as I haven't closely followed computer hardware for more than a few years. Would a 2002 PC that cost a MODEST amount truly run Bioshock and CoD4 without ANY newer-than-2002 hardware and without looking like week-old dogshit? What graphics card would you recommend, and what did it cost at the time? |
Oh please, Final-Fan, don't sink to that level. You're a compluter tech, you know very well that 95 and 98 were nearly identical, and offered no major changes to graphics or development technology until XP. Please let's not go down that road. Not every new OS is a major OS. Not without looking like week-old dogshit no, but you have to remember that today's week-old-dogshit is yesterday's top-of-the-line tech. PC gaming still has generations... |
Hahah, yeah I'll give you that but what about W2000? |
Well, 2000 was an oditiy. It's half 95/98, and half XP. It's the real exception to the rule, and Microsoft learned their lesson with it.
