rec.autos.simulators

> > It's been tested to death.  It just don't matter any more.  Any
> > perceived small performance loss (if it even exists) in XP is by far
> > made up for in other area's.

> > Toms Hardware tested this themselves.  XP won.  I don't take a web
> > site article for gospel, but my experience has matched theirs.

> > Larry

> >> I'm not going to try and convince an XP user that he's using a slower
> >> OS, for one because I wouldn't want to invest the time required for a
> >> detailed discussion, and more important, it isn't my intention to
> >> frustrate anyone
> > by
> >> talking bad about their system or other stuff they're using.

> >> But I'll stand by my opinion given to Tom.

> >> Achim

> >> ...
> >> > I'd be willing to argue that actually

>   I don't deny XP may have an incremental performance advantage.  BUT.  Is
> it $100 to $200 worth of improved performance?  Is the increased
> performance worth another $150 for the cost of added RAM that should be
> purchased?
>    XP is a good OS, but that is all it is...an OS.  If you are talking
> performance upgrades, even a new motherboard might give better results.
>    XP has networking advantages, stability advantages, etc but non of that
> contributes to faster gameplay.  It does have ONE huge thing in it's
favor,
> and that is continued support.  Little by little new products will no
> longer work with Win9x.  XP will have several more years of operating
life.
>    So for those folks who argue win9x or XP is faster, it's such a small
> difference it is not even worth arguing about.  What is desirable is
> hardware compatiblity, software upgradabilty and shelf life.  I've said
> this too many times to count, but if you want to IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE
of
> your system, get a faster CPU.  Spend your money on something that will
> make a real world difference, not on a product that needs benchmarking
> numbers to see any real performance upgrade.
>     If you are buying a new system that has XP bundled in, great.  If you
> have a real NEED for extra RAM and the networkability of XP, then go for
> it.  But if all you are looking for is MORE SPEED, then skip buying XP
> until you are either forced to from software incompatibilites or job
> imperatives.
>      People make win9x out to be an imminent-crash-any-second type of OS.
> It can be prone to problems...But I've read plenty of XP crashing stories
> here as well.  In my book, a crash is a crash, just because one behaves
> better than the other AFTER the crash does not make it a Godsend.  I had a
> *** ongoing problem with the REAL ONE media player.  but an update to
> that seems to have stopped those crashes.  Windows Media Player version 6
> would never properly shut down either, I'm hoping v9 will fix that.
> Someday the features of XP will make the choice easy, but I keep comming
> back to the cost vs. the gain.  It's too small to be financially feasible
> when you are weighing OVERALL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.
> dave henrie

> > It's been tested to death.  It just don't matter any more.  Any
> > perceived small performance loss (if it even exists) in XP is by far
> > made up for in other area's.

> > Toms Hardware tested this themselves.  XP won.  I don't take a web
> > site article for gospel, but my experience has matched theirs.

> > Larry

> >> I'm not going to try and convince an XP user that he's using a slower
> >> OS, for one because I wouldn't want to invest the time required for a
> >> detailed discussion, and more important, it isn't my intention to
> >> frustrate anyone
> > by
> >> talking bad about their system or other stuff they're using.

> >> But I'll stand by my opinion given to Tom.

> >> Achim

> >> ...
> >> > I'd be willing to argue that actually

>   I don't deny XP may have an incremental performance advantage.  BUT.  Is
> it $100 to $200 worth of improved performance?  Is the increased
> performance worth another $150 for the cost of added RAM that should be
> purchased?
>    XP is a good OS, but that is all it is...an OS.  If you are talking
> performance upgrades, even a new motherboard might give better results.
>    XP has networking advantages, stability advantages, etc but non of that
> contributes to faster gameplay.  It does have ONE huge thing in it's
favor,
> and that is continued support.  Little by little new products will no
> longer work with Win9x.  XP will have several more years of operating
life.
>    So for those folks who argue win9x or XP is faster, it's such a small
> difference it is not even worth arguing about.  What is desirable is
> hardware compatiblity, software upgradabilty and shelf life.  I've said
> this too many times to count, but if you want to IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE
of
> your system, get a faster CPU.  Spend your money on something that will
> make a real world difference, not on a product that needs benchmarking
> numbers to see any real performance upgrade.
>     If you are buying a new system that has XP bundled in, great.  If you
> have a real NEED for extra RAM and the networkability of XP, then go for
> it.  But if all you are looking for is MORE SPEED, then skip buying XP
> until you are either forced to from software incompatibilites or job
> imperatives.
>      People make win9x out to be an imminent-crash-any-second type of OS.
> It can be prone to problems...But I've read plenty of XP crashing stories
> here as well.  In my book, a crash is a crash, just because one behaves
> better than the other AFTER the crash does not make it a Godsend.  I had a
> *** ongoing problem with the REAL ONE media player.  but an update to
> that seems to have stopped those crashes.  Windows Media Player version 6
> would never properly shut down either, I'm hoping v9 will fix that.
> Someday the features of XP will make the choice easy, but I keep comming
> back to the cost vs. the gain.  It's too small to be financially feasible
> when you are weighing OVERALL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.
> dave henrie

> > XP, and XP Home is starting to show it's weak spots with todays
products.
> > Skip it and get Pro.

> The difference in Home and PRO version lies mainly in areas most home
> users would never use, however there are some administrative tools in
> PRO which is not present in the Home version, I've forgot which ones
> though

> But for the average user there's no difference end the extra money would
> be a waste, AFAIK, I'd be happy to read up on the subject if you have
> some hard facts to the contrary though :-), my personal experience with
> XP lies almost exclusively with the PRO version

> Beers and cheers
> (uncle) Goy

> http://www.theuspits.com

> "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
> --Groucho Marx--

> Yeah, like networking.  The most comon complaint about home is Networking.
> Some people have a hell of a time getting it to work.

> And don't forget that the difficiencies in Home are is one of the reasons
> every smart display sold has a bundled copy of XP Pro in the box, whether
> you want it or want to pay for it or not.

> Again, I recommend Home to NO ONE.  I'll never be convinced otherwise.  I
> own and have used both.  I find Home to be a pain in the ass.

>> Yeah, like networking.  The most comon complaint about home is
>> Networking. Some people have a hell of a time getting it to work.

>> And don't forget that the difficiencies in Home are is one of the reasons
>> every smart display sold has a bundled copy of XP Pro in the box, whether
>> you want it or want to pay for it or not.

>> Again, I recommend Home to NO ONE.  I'll never be convinced otherwise.  I
>> own and have used both.  I find Home to be a pain in the ass.

> Ok......

> I'm trying really hard to understand your complaints against XP Home and
> I'm not getting it, not looking for an argument, just not getting it

> Today I installed XP home on 3 computers for customers and XP Pro on one
> of my shop computers (long boring story about being too cheap to buy a
> UPS omitted)

> That's from the ground up, with drivers and service packs and what not,
> and aside from not being able to connect to my NT Domain with the Home
> based computers, I didn't see any differences, as soon as the drivers
> for the NIC was installed, it grabbed an IP from my DHCP server and I
> could get working, didn't even need a reboot

> Since I know about the NT Domain problem I have a W98 computer***
> about which I can share the files I need to and let the XP Home machines
> grab their drivers from there, transfer rates are just as fast as in PRO

> None of this would ever matter to your average Home user so why shell
> out an extra 100 dollars for some admin tools and some advanced
> networking stuff that they'd "never" use ?

> Beers and cheers
> (uncle) Goy

> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
> --Groucho Marx--

>> I have to agree with Goy here, I have delved pretty deeply into both Home
>> and Pro, and have run both. I find peformance on both to be the same, as
>> well as stablity. With Pro you get more security features,
>> multi-processor support, more advanced permission settings, and the
>> ability to join a domain.
>> The core however is identical, and both operate pretty much identical
>> when it comes to performance, ie running apps, games, benchmarks, etc.
>> When I upgraded Home to Pro, I benchmarked both before and after, and got
>> virtually identical benchmarks.
>> Why did I choose to spend the extra money on upgrading to Pro after
>> having Home already? I wanted the file encryption capabilities, and
>> because I could :). If I had not upgraded to Pro, I still would be quite
>> content with home. Just peruse the MS XP newsgroups, the general
>> consensus is the same.

>> Don Burnette

> Here's a link that explains it:

> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> To be honest with you I have not made any attempt at measuring whether the
> net performance has improved or not.  Perhaps it's not necessary.  My
> primary reason for doing it is that I do not want Windows interrupting a
> game because it thinks it's time to go check Windows Update or some such
> thing.  So I chopped its bandwidth allowance back to 5%.  I didn't want to
> shut it off entirely because I really don't know for sure what it would use
> it for, and I didn't want to risk shutting off some possibly important
> service.  But I also don't like anything interrupting my online ***, and
> with Home (or Pro as installed) the OS can arbitrarily consume up to 20% of
> your bandwidth.  So chopping it back to 5% seemed like a safe compromise.

> > I have to agree with Goy here, I have delved pretty deeply into both
Home
> > and Pro, and have run both. I find peformance on both to be the same, as
> > well as stablity. With Pro you get more security features,
multi-processor
> > support, more advanced permission settings, and the ability to join a
> > domain.
> > The core however is identical, and both operate pretty much identical
when
> > it comes to performance, ie running apps, games, benchmarks, etc.
> > When I upgraded Home to Pro, I benchmarked both before and after, and
got
> > virtually identical benchmarks.
> > Why did I choose to spend the extra money on upgrading to Pro after
having
> > Home already? I wanted the file encryption capabilities, and because I
> could
> > :). If I had not upgraded to Pro, I still would be quite content with
> home.
> > Just peruse the MS XP newsgroups, the general consensus is the same.

> > Don Burnette