Author: Roy Brunjes
Date: 16:32:38 09/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 11:37:53, Harald Faber wrote: >On September 18, 2001 at 09:29:03, Roy Brunjes wrote: > >>On September 18, 2001 at 01:30:35, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>On September 17, 2001 at 18:21:04, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >>> >>>>In a german Computer Chess Forum I read "now", that Century 4 will be only a >>>>MS-DOS program! >>>> >>>>Who would have today a Dos-program (I not, I'm sorry) ? >>>> >>>>Eduard >>> >>>Me too. DOS is dead. Since years I have just left Win95/98 on my PCs because of >>>MCPro and Century but soon will switch to NT/2000/XP, s.th. like that. I am fed >>>up with several system crashes and several re-boots. And all that just for >>>Century, ONE program. No, no more. NT runs fine at work, only 2 or 3 bluescreens >>>within 2 years. So I will throw out Century and MCPro with Win95/98. But as >>>MCPro is old now and far behind the nowadays top programs it leaves Century. It >>>is a pity, but sorry, for that one prog I won't stick to this instable OS >>>anymore. And I doubt that Century runs in NT/2000/XP. At least Century 3 does >>>not run under NT so I don't expect it to run in 2000/XP. >>>Do I hear you say s.th. about "bootdisk"? Forget it. Not acceptable. >>>BTW all you DOS fans, did you ever realize the resolution restrictions in DOS? >> >>Century 3.2 runs great on Windows 2000 - no need to drop Century because you >>want to run Windows 2000. NT ... that is another matter as Century does NOT run >>under NT. > >Century does not even run fine here under Win95/98. Unmotivated crashes and >strange autoplayer behaviour (working only on one of the two comps) don't make >me trust Century running without problems under another Windows OS. >Currently NT plus SP6 is my favourite or are there any significant >changes/advantages Win2000 has over NT4+SP6? I'd like to have a most stable >system with least resource requirements. NT4 needs 45MB RAM at start, XP takes >75MB, 2000 is certainly between them. NT crashed 2 or 3 times within 2 years of >use here at work, not bad. Your experience with NT is unusually good based on my experience and that of my co-workers. NT crashed approximately once per week for me personally. Windows 2000 has not crashed on me in 4 months. I agree that Rebel Century 3.0 did sometimes crash under Windows 98 (and 95). I have not had it crash even once on Windows 2000. Not sure if Windows 2000 is to credit or Century 3.2 -- either way though it seems extraordinarily stable. Even when the screen saver activates itself, Century just goes into "frozen" state and reactivates when you click on its window stored on the taskbar. I much prefer Windows 2000 myself.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.