The characters are pretty much historical. Haven't found many significant deviations yet in the main characters. Turing is dead on.
lol
Sort:
ivandh wrote:
Running Windows 95 on a 2 GHz processor? That would not exactly be authentic.
Use VMware's VM and you can limit the cpu usage to make it a little more authentic
I don't consider emulation authentic. But that's just me 
.
I can fake sincerity like nobody else!
adamplenty wrote:
I don't consider emulation authentic. But that's just me .
Yeah, I see where you are coming from, but after using a Win95 pc I much prefer a VM :P
Glorfindel_1 wrote:
adamplenty wrote:
I don't consider emulation authentic. But that's just me .
Yeah, I see where you are coming from, but after using a Win95 pc I much prefer a VM :P
I'd prefer a Win95 machine.
adamplenty wrote:
Glorfindel_1 wrote:
adamplenty wrote:
I don't consider emulation authentic. But that's just me .
Yeah, I see where you are coming from, but after using a Win95 pc I much prefer a VM :P
I'd prefer a Win95 machine.
I have two win95 tablets :D
I's been ages since I had a proper" Win95 machine. I do have one machine that multi boots, including Windows 95, though I rarely use it. I also have another machine where I don't multi-boot technically, but I use it to run win 3.1 a lot, as you see in the beginning if this thread . It "multi-boots" to Windows 98, 3.1, 3.0, 2.03, and 1.01. I put multi-boot in quotes because they all run under the same version of MS-DOS.
adamplenty wrote:
I's been ages since I had a proper" Win95 machine. I do have one machine that multi boots, including Windows 95, though I rarely use it. I also have another machine where I don't multi-boot technically, but I use it to run win 3.1 a lot, as you see in the beginning if this thread . It "multi-boots" to Windows 98, 3.1, 3.0, 2.03, and 1.01. I put multi-boot in quotes because they all run under the same version of MS-DOS.
lol it is multi booting just like when I had three differant ubuntu versions on one pc :P
Glorfindel_1 wrote:
adamplenty wrote:
I's been ages since I had a proper" Win95 machine. I do have one machine that multi boots, including Windows 95, though I rarely use it. I also have another machine where I don't multi-boot technically, but I use it to run win 3.1 a lot, as you see in the beginning if this thread . It "multi-boots" to Windows 98, 3.1, 3.0, 2.03, and 1.01. I put multi-boot in quotes because they all run under the same version of MS-DOS.
lol it is multi booting just like when I had three differant ubuntu versions on one pc :P
On one machine, I have 8 versions of Windows! 98SE, 95, 3.2, 3.11, 3.0, 2.1, 2.03, and 1.01.
Why on earth would you have three different installs of Ubuntu on one machine?
null-cipher wrote:
Why on earth would you have three different installs of Ubuntu on one machine?
Proably for the same reason I have 8 versions of Windows on one machine 
.
null-cipher wrote:
Why on earth would you have three different installs of Ubuntu on one machine?
Some are too old to update :P
actually I only have one OS right now and it is Slacko Puppy
the hdd crashed...
adamplenty wrote:
netzach wrote:
Try windows98SE.
Can't try SE right now. I tried the original Windows 98 with IE4, it got about halfway before it froze, and I was unable to take a screenshot .
I finally got a chance to try it in Windows 98 SE, and it seems to load correctly in it (at least in Firefox ). Shall I be a daredevil and try logging on and using it in this environment? 
Cryptotelecomicon?