rec.autos.simulators

what i understand is that P6 runs no-good in 16 bit application,
so i presume P5 166 would outrun P6 [in GP2], is this right? Or P6 200/150
would still outrun P5 166?

Also GP2 would be Win95 compatible, does this mean
it would also be NT compatible? I am intending to upgrand
to NT 4.0 from Win95 as soon as it comes out.

Anyone know when NT 4.0 is coming out?

Chris

NT will never be as good at running games as 95; because NT scheduling
actually works correctly older games (especially non-DPMI ones) don't
run at all well under it. NT 3.5 renders F1GP almost unplayable - I
guess we won't know about GP2 until it's released (but if it does use
DOS4GW it might be okay). You might also find that NT doesn't give you
any sound.

BTW, NT's resource requirements make '95 look positivevly frugal. Don't
even think about running it in less than 16 meg and even 24 is tight.
32 is okay and of course more is always better. 16 is plenty for '95
and 24 is heavenly (unless you use Photoshop :-) .

My, I have gone on a bit haven't I!
--

     <<Read from Microprose (on Compuserve) that GP2 is NOT Win'95
compatible.  If you want to run it under the hood, fine, but they are
not writing any drivers to support DirectX, etc.>>

     I think this is one of the reasons why it's been delayed so long. I
can't remember where, but I think I saw somewhere that they're trying to
make it Win95 compatible, but didn't have a ready version of Win95 at
the time. Either way, it may still work. I run NFS, NASCAR, ICR and
ICRII directly from Win95 with no loss noticable visual loss.
     Nick

_________________________________________________________________

#6 & #94 in the *real* quest for the Cup!!!
My home away from home... http://users.aol.com/ntotoro/122895.htm
_________________________________________________________________

|> >A P5 will probably run F1GP better than a P6 (assuming the same clock
|> >speed).  GP2 is alledgedly going to be a 32-bit program (using the
|> >Watcom DOS4/GW extender - this doesn't instill confidence in me but
|> >hat's another story...) so the P6 may well run it better than a P5
|> >(again, at the same clock speed).
|>
|> Sorry, although I'm not a programmer I know for sure that using a
|> DOS-Extender doesn't
|> mean a program is truly 32-bit. Think about it: if it were 32-bit then,
|> why can it still run on DOS?
|> Making 32-bit software and using 32-bit memory access or the like is not
|> the same.

Yes, its clear you don't know what you are talking about.

--
Regards.


Mail Station 4313,         On the Information SuperHighway, I'm the guy with a
POBox 64942                hat driving 50 in the fast lane with my blinker on
St Paul, MN 55164-0942     and my seatbelt*** out the door making sparks.

Sorry, although I'm not a programmer I know for sure that using a
DOS-Extender doesn't
mean a program is truly 32-bit. Think about it: if it were 32-bit then,
why can it still run on DOS?
Making 32-bit software and using 32-bit memory access or the like is not
the same.
It's like Win95 and OS/2 (or NT): The latter are true 32-bit systems and
thus exploit a PPro,
Win95 uses some 32-bit techniques and is partially 32-bit, but it's slower
on a PPro 150
than on a P150. This is the same with games using extenders.
If any game should run faster on a PPro I think it wouldn't be written for
plain DOS.
So, don't buy a PPro for games, it will be significantly slower than a
Pentium of the same
speed (a german games mag has tested this with various actual games liek
Wing Commander 4 etc.).
Buy a PPro only if you need it to run a true 32-bit operating system (like
OS/2, NT, Linux, but NOT Win95).

Greetings,

Tjark
P.S.: If you want to reply by PM, please use the address

It will RUN under Win'95, but it's not a Win95 game. It will still run
more quickly under DOS than under Win95 as do all DOS games.

Cheers!
John
                      _________________________________
          __    _____|                                 |_____    __
_________|  |__|    :|          John Wallace           |     |__|  |_________

  \     :|  |::|    :|       Team WW Racing TSW        |     |::|  |      /
    >   :|  |::|    :|_________________________________|     |::|  |    <
  /     :|__|::|____:/         Sim Racing News         \.____|::|__|      \
/_______:/  \::/   http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/pulse/index.htm    \::/  \._______\

Vallevand) schreibt:

All values are Frames per Second (fps):
Duke Nukem 3D Start of first mission
PPro 150: 9
P 150: 19
P 166: 19
Duke Nukem 3D standing still after start
PPro 150: 12
P 150: 23
P 166: 25
Duke Nukem 3D security monitor view in cinema entrance
PPro 150: 9
P 150: 19
P 166: 20
Wing Commander IV flight through station Bluepoint
PPro 150: 7
P 150: 7
P 166: 8

Only differences between the test systems were the mainboards and the CPU
(of course...).
So, if you want to buy a PPro for ***, do it. But not only would you
need real 32-bit games written for the PPro, you would also need an
underlying OS that can actually exploit the features of the PPro, I think.

Greetings,
Tjark

Somebody had written a utility to change some of the PCI chipset settings on the
A1 chipset that more than tripled the video performance; This was on a Gateway
P6.

I should be receiving my Supermicro P6SNF motherboard with PPro 200MHz CPU
this wednesday and will do some testing in ICR2 and NASCAR. This motherboard
has the Natoma chip set which supports Concurrent PCI. This should also provide
some improvement since the video card and sound card are constantly getting
attention from the CPU.

===========================================================
Alex Fernandez
MTS
Lucent Technologies
No. Andover, MA
email:

tel: (508)960-6510
===========================================================

   I have just purchased my Pentium Pro 200.  I have tested to see that the
Orion chip set is a B step.  

   A P6 will do a very good job in ICR2 and EF2000.  How good?  How does it
compare to a P5/166?  I don't know.  I'm very happy with it's performance on
both sims.  

   With the loaner Mach 64 card, I ordered a Matrox 4 Meg, I ran the FPS
test under the following conditions.  All cars visible in front, 2 in back.  
Number of cars that I hear is the default.  Everything but skid marks on.  
Skid marks are auto.  I was getting 20 FPS before the skid marks would
sometimes wink out.  

   I'll report back when I get some laps on my Matrox.  It has improved
the EF2000 frame rates, so ICR2 rates should also improve.  

   Do I need to do anything weird to get the most from my Matrox?  Do I
need to turn off Univbe?  Should I get Univbe 5.2 and use it instead of
my Matrox supplied VESA driver?  

                                                                    Larry

 >   Do I need to do anything weird to get the most from my Matrox?  Do I
 >need to turn off Univbe?  Should I get Univbe 5.2 and use it instead of
 >my Matrox supplied VESA driver?  
 >
 >                                                                    Larry

Congratulations on your P6!  I found that I could get maybe 1 or 2 more fps
by using the UniVBE 5.2 driver with the Matrox 2.0 BIOS upgrade.  If your
a NCR fan, you won't believe the frames you get with the MGA special version
on your CD-ROM.  I run 30fps with all details set to auto except for skidmarks
(ON) and track texture (OFF).

Clark

Mike

P.S.  the machine cost me $3500US from Quantex. 32megs RAM, 2.5gig HD,
8x cd-rom drive, Ensoniq sound card, 2meg Diamond Stealth, 17" MAG 1795
monitor.

Stuart

--
Stuart Booth
Somewhere in Godalming, England, UK