Should I Kill Myself?

[Illuminati]

Here's the system requirements printed on the back of my copy

• Pentium 300 (Min), Pentium 450 (Rec)
• Windows 95/98/ME/XP (Home Edition)
• 4x CD-ROM Drive
• 64Mb RAM (Min), 128Mb RAM (Rec)
• DirectX 7.0a compatible 3D graphics card with 8Mb RAM (Min)#
• Direct 7.0a compatible sound card
• Mouse & Keyboard
• 150Mb Hard Drive space (Min)

[callum]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@21 December 2003 - 21:45
not to further the spam, but will i have to run it in windows 98 compatibility mode? cuz i didn't see xp listed under "platform"s on the amazon link.

It will be fine, I got it with my comp and my OS is XP.
No need to run in windows 98 compatibility mode.

[MediaSlayer]

ok maybe i misread the amazon link or they forgot to put xp on there, but i got more than enough system requirements to run it.

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@21 December 2003 - 23:51
ok maybe i misread the amazon link or they forgot to put xp on there, but i got more than enough system requirements to run it.

More likely their fault

Amazon have a habit of botching up completing info on games - I've bought a few from them where I've had to search elsewhere for the complete info

EDIT: Ah - Now I see what you mean by Compatibility Mode. Looks like it's me that's misreading

Eidos has declared that it wouldn't provide support for pre-XP games concerning WinXP. They're right bastards for it, but DX works great on it anyway.

[balamm]

Originally posted by Lamsey@21 December 2003 - 06:50

At the time of writing, your forum has 64 members and 18,255 posts.

This one has 62,485 members and 602,346 posts.

You can't compare script execution times between the two.

I'd be very surprised if this forum actually has more than 500 members.

It might look real impressive having that number down there but how many have ever logged in more than once or twice?

Look at the online stats, average 100 users online. Best we ever saw was 400 and I think that was due to darker redirecting traffic here.

Even if you used an extremely conservative estimate of 2% of members online at any one time, you're looking at a total real membership of 5000.

The server load excuse just doesn't fly the same now does it?

[Snee]

Hey Media', I almost feel like I'm the one OT, for posting this. But I don't care whether you get a new account or keep the old one as long as you tell me who you are. It isn't the name or the post-count that matters, and there isn't much more to it than that either, so in short, it doesn't matter, as long as I know who is who.

For what it's worth there ya have it.

[hobbes]

I think "Mediaslayer" is one of the coolest names on this forum. Sorry you don't like it, but I think it is modern vicious.

[MediaSlayer]

thanks sonny. i was gonna change it entirely, and ditch mediaslayer, but in light of things the feedback i got from members, i think i will keep mediaslayer. if i ever changed it, i would probably change it to <icingdeath> which is my name on rikk&#39;s forum and rapfan&#39;s forum. but i don&#39;t think i will now, so as to keep the confusion to a minumum.

edit:thx hobbes&#33; it&#39;s always hard to choose one, and plus when i first joined it was only for the purpose of asking one question about kazaa, and look what happened&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Nimdock]

Originally posted by balamm@21 December 2003 - 18:57
I&#39;d be very surprised if this forum actually has more than 500 members.

It might look real impressive having that number down there but how many have ever logged in more than once or twice?&nbsp;

Look at the online stats, average 100 users online. Best we ever saw was 400 and I think that was due to darker redirecting traffic here.

Even if you used an extremely&nbsp; conservative estimate of 2% of members online at any one time, you&#39;re looking at a total real membership of 5000.

The server load excuse just doesn&#39;t fly the same now does it?

I have to agree with balamm on this one.

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by Nimdock+21 December 2003 - 22:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nimdock @ 21 December 2003 - 22:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-balamm@21 December 2003 - 18:57
I&#39;d be very surprised if this forum actually has more than 500 members.

It might look real impressive having that number down there but how many have ever logged in more than once or twice?

Look at the online stats, average 100 users online. Best we ever saw was 400 and I think that was due to darker redirecting traffic here.

Even if you used an extremely conservative estimate of 2% of members online at any one time, you&#39;re looking at a total real membership of 5000.

The server load excuse just doesn&#39;t fly the same now does it?

I have to agree with balamm on this one. [/b][/quote]
The number of members has nothing to do with the server load when (for instance) changing usernames. It is the number of posts that causes the excess load - and we have a lot of posts.

I&#39;m surprised that someone so 1337 as Balamm didn&#39;t know that.