Then I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish.

Well I guess all those 1998 budget PCs sold with G100As are also "fake news" then 😐 3dfx is underrated, everyone uses cirruses, pentium pro was overlooked, DEC never made home PCs, Amiga is the best, RAM was cheap, no one ever had 387s, etc.

What about the matrox g1000, available in 98: https://books.google.com/books?id=YfInAQAAIAA … &q=matrox+g1000

gdjacobs wrote:

Then I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish.

I asked the exact same thing at least 5 times, not even an attempt at answering has been made.
Dude is either trolling, or backpedaling... or both.

You've literally defined trolling on the previous page by saying you don't want the discussion to go anywhere and that you just want to criticize what I say. There isn't a better way to put it really.

vvbee wrote:

You've literally defined trolling on the previous page by saying you don't want the discussion to go anywhere and that you just want to criticize what I say. There isn't a better way to put it really.

And there you go trolling again, by pulling things out of context.
I said I don't 'need or want this pursuit to go anywhere', as in: it was never my conversation to begin with, I have no goal to achieve, I merely tried to answer someone else's question, which as far as I know has been done to their satisfaction, so the conversation has run its course: it does not need to go anywhere else (but you keep pulling me into it).
I don't just 'want' to criticize what you say either. I *am* being critical, because the argumentations you bring forth leave a lot to be desired, which I think it's my duty to point out. Present solid data and argumentation, and you won't hear a thing from me.

But here we are again...
And once again you have not stated what it is you want.

I really think you both are very opinionated people who won't back down from their arguments for long enough to rethink their points; one of you is less right but ultimately it stopped being important a long time ago. I would kindly ask that you agree to disagree and stop trying to disprove each other..

appiah4 wrote:

I would kindly ask that you agree to disagree and stop trying to disprove each other..

I'm not trying to disprove anyone. I respond to attacks and accusations made towards me.

Scali wrote:

appiah4 wrote:

I would kindly ask that you agree to disagree and stop trying to disprove each other..

I'm not trying to disprove anyone. I respond to attacks and accusations made towards me.

Not responding and therefore rendering them pointless and moot could be an alternative but more effective course of action (or inaction? 🤣) in my humble opinion.

appiah4 wrote:

I really think you both are very opinionated people who won't back down from their arguments for long enough to rethink their points; one of you is less right but ultimately it stopped being important a long time ago. I would kindly ask that you agree to disagree and stop trying to disprove each other..

Yeh, I think the thing to take away from this, um, discussion is that if you're concerned about period correct, don't use the millennium with a p 60, unless you're making an office build.

vvbee wrote:

appiah4 wrote:

I really think you both are very opinionated people who won't back down from their arguments for long enough to rethink their points; one of you is less right but ultimately it stopped being important a long time ago. I would kindly ask that you agree to disagree and stop trying to disprove each other..

Yeh, I think the thing to take away from this, um, discussion is that if you're concerned about period correct, don't use the millennium with a p 60, unless you're making an office build.

This is not a definition of period correct I've ever heard of. Was it possible for this combination to exist together circa 1995? As the answer has been demonstrated to be 'yes', I submit that the combination is certainly period correct.

It's probably less what would be considered a gaming system. That's evident based on performance capabilities and DOS compatibility. That doesn't make it any more or less period correct.

As with the term retro, there's a shared scaffolding of understanding of what period correct refers to but there isn't a one set of criteria that solidifies the details. You can say it's whatever at all that existed then, you can say it's as was experienced by a subset of users, you can define it for some components while not for others, etc., but you can't say that debates on these terms don't end up being lists of the different criteria people subscribe to. You'll decide on yours and you look at what's known so you can operate within that domain.

I'm going to just go ahead and build myself a P60 with a nice old Matrox Millennium and print the link to this thread to a decal to slap on the side of it :evil:

Holy cow, this poor thread. OP seems to have abandoned ship during the storm and I was hoping to see how it came along. People don't often want to build around the old P5 chips.

Build the most freakish combination of 1995 hardware you can find. That or the most boring, vanilla machine you can think of.

Easy to forget people actually started out from page 1 saying the millennium was non-period, and now it's like a 180 into period-normal. Much of that is just a byproduct of hating on some guy obviously, so I think the opinions on page 1 will be reverted to pretty quick generally speaking.

As a fan of matrox I don't mind to see them proliferate though. Build away and showcase it.

Yeah dude. You won. Good job.

Thanks, I did ok.

I still think you should stuff a PCIe GTX 1080 Ti but waev

oeuvre wrote:

I still think you should stuff a PCIe GTX 1080 Ti but waev

But it wouldn't have been period correct now, would it?

🤣

Slightly off.